I have a Mustache

"I will never grow a mustache."
-Me, just about every time I've seen a mustache on somebody my age.

Yet I am here now, writing a post about how I have a mustache. Does this make me a liar, or is this quote lacking context? I'm not a great fiction writer, so I'm hoping you don't think I've just been writing lies or have an inconsistent character, especially considering how heartfelt and sincere most of my posts are. Give me a chance to explain what I meant when I said the quote I opened with.

The full context of my quote up there goes something like "I will never grow a mustache. They look terrible for at least weeks while the attempt is happening, and all too often the result looks like a teenager proud of his first peach fuzz on his lip. If I wanted a mustache, I would have to simply not shave at all for a month and then shave down to a mustache." With all of the context, would I be a self-contradicting liar, or somebody that doesn't mind a facial-hair growing experience (with certain constraints)?

All too often the process of quoting somebody isn't done with pure intent. If I wanted to malign somebody that made a complex statement, I could take a portion of a statement that in context is a complete and rational thought and use it exclusively. If I then add some incorrect context, I could make the quote seem anywhere from foolish to downright evil. I am a mild mannered man, but I have to admit that this is a possibility in society and that I should be cautious of quotes or descriptions of somebody/something that comes from a potentially biased source.

So what is the point of this post? First, to announce a change of appearance to the people I haven't seen in a while that follow me here; my mustache has been around for months and isn't going anywhere fast. Second, to ask cynical naysayers to give things a chance. Something dear to my heart, which I've talked about extensively in previous posts and is the entire reason for this blog, is my religion. It sometimes gets flak for being what it is, but too often it is also criticized for untrue and unsubstantiated claims. If you have been turned away because of what you have heard from non-Mormon sources, don't be that person that believes the first bad thing said about somebody else. Ask a Mormon a question with the intent to learn.

Canon and Zombies and Scripture

Another zombie, with a different
requirement for destruction

A little while ago, another online missionary (which means he also has a blog and a Facebook) wrote a post about zombies that I highly recommend reading, especially if you are a well cultured and interesting person. After reading that (or before) I'd invite you to go about halfway down the post and read something he said: "There's two ways to kill a zombie: Crush the body or remove the head. It's as simple as that." The purpose of today is to expound on this statement, and perhaps why it's not quite as simple as that.

The simple reason it's not so simple can be summed up with the word "canon." In fiction, the canon is the official rules, occurrences, people, and facts of the related works. So, when Elder Whitlock referred to the two ways to kill a zombie, he was drawing from a certain canon wherein the rules were as such. On the other hand, I normally draw my zombie canon from the works of Max Brooks, which includes the Zombie Survival Guide. This work of fiction (we hope) has extensive details into the hows and whys of zombies, and I personally think it is a great read. However, the canon for this book is that the only way to kill a zombie is to destroy the brain (if the head is simply removed, it can still bite). This is a clear and obvious difference of opinion, which can easily be resolved by saying the canon is different and going our different ways. That is perfectly fine in the world of fiction. This is not quite as easy to say in the world of religion.

Canon is classically used to describe what is official in a church (be it Catholic, Ecclesiastic, and sometimes Mormon). This extends to the holy scriptures; what is canon is accepted as truth, while what is not canon just doesn't carry the same weight. What do Mormons consider canon? The simple answer can be found in the Articles of Faith numbers 8 and 9, which I'll summarize here: the Book of Mormon, the Bible (correctly translated), and the continuous revelation given by God's prophets are canon. We believe in an open canon, not confined to the pages of books written in the past, just as the Apostles of old and the original Christians did (if they didn't, where did the New Testament come from?). I testify to you, humble reader, that this canon, and the Church it supports, has blessed my life and will bless yours. As I've suggested before, give it a read and try it out yourself.

Faith and Knowledge

I consider myself relatively well educated. I enjoyed learning, be it from books or from experiments. One of my early goals in life was to read every book in the non-fiction section of the library. I did not accomplish this goal, but I did learn much including the fact that most books on the same subject hold the same information (there's only so many ways you can say that sharks are endangered or what the boiling point of water is). Almost all the things I learned, however, I had to take in faith. I have never touched the sun, but I can read that the surface temperature is around 5500°C. How can I learn this if I've never seen the test done? By trusting that the scientists who have done it wouldn't lie to the world. Furthering this dilemma, how can those scientists know that the test was successful? It's not as if they can verify it completely without a bit of doubt. They can only repeat the test enough times that the law of large numbers comes into effect. This is the way science works, because otherwise it would only be guessing perpetually without any facts to build and work on.

Many people partially apply principles of science to religion. They want some sort of proof, be it a sign or evidence in the world that there is a god, just like scientists are required to cite their reproducible experiments. A common response is that "all things denote there is a God" (Alma 30:44) but this is not good enough for them. They want a proof that these things denote God, or some thing they can test themselves. This is where they tend to stop applying science, giving up on understanding instead of finding a test they can do. They then hide behind the idea of science, when they haven't even followed through! This frustrates me to no end.

Gravity in action.

For example, do you know exactly why gravity works? You can research and learn from experts and get a good idea, but you can't do the same experiments unless you have the same equipment laying about (one test included 4 atomic clocks on 2 plane rides. Another measured Mercury's apparent shift in orbit by a few inches). You can do simple tests, such as dropping a tennis ball and a bowling ball, and find the results are consistent with the experts' opinions, but rarely will you be able to do the same tests. Since you are being a scientist, you accept this limitation and use the experts' published facts.

The same should be done with religion. You can research from the experts by reading scriptures and modern-day revelation, understanding what it is about and how you can apply it to your life, but you won't have the same experiences since you probably don't have the full measure of faith or responsibility they have. You can, however, try out the simple tests that are available to you and decide based on your personal results what to believe. Just as you wouldn't say gravity is a lie because you don't know the full truth, the same should be true of religion. And just as you can know for yourself if gravity affects your daily life, the same happens to be true of religion. So, are you going to be a scientist to the end and base your opinions on your results, or hide behind somebody's opinion instead of forming your own?

Opinions and Truths

How many buttons? More than an Xbox.

One of the first things you should know about me is that I love computer games. I also enjoy other video games, but they never give the same amount of control as a computer. Two joysticks are simply not as good as a mouse and wasd, and a keyboard has so many more inputs than any controller I've ever seen; just look at it! I'm not here to step on anybody's preferences, since opinions are diverse and we are all free to have them. I know some love the two joysticks and the finesse they give, and there are many other ways to play. I can't say I've tried every game and every way to play it, but I do know what I like and you'll have a hard time convincing me to change just by listing the merits of one way or another. I will admit that I could be convinced if I was given the chance to learn and try out a different method for long enough. It's just an opinion, I can change all the time.

On the other hand, I find it hard to choose a favorite movie or a favorite game. I see a movie or play a game, and I can enjoy it quite thoroughly. However, I have learned how to analyze my entertainment with a different eye and I can find flaws in almost everything I enjoy. As such, I hesitate to call a certain movie or game my favorite because I can see its flaws and I don't want somebody to associate the flaws with what I like. I have decided certain movies are high quality, such as Toy Story (1-3) and Serenity, but these choices are conscious decisions based partly on nostalgia and a love of the genre. This means they might have less weight on you, but I have the right to base my opinion on whatever I want. Of course, if you don't like sci-fi you probably won't even give Serenity a chance, but that's okay. It's just an opinion, and it doesn't have to be based on anything.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, however, is not an opinion to me. It is a matter of truth, even of absolute truth. Unlike how to play a game, it is true for all people of all situations, times and circumstances. Unlike a favorite movie, it doesn't matter if you like the genre or if you've studied out every little flaw and defect. I did not come to this knowledge because of lengthy testing to see if I like it more than others. I did not choose based on studying it and reasoning that it is the best. I know of this truth because I followed a simple test and found the result to be positive. Trying out a different one will not change my mind. Reasoning against me will only frustrate one of us. Likewise, ignoring me will only harm one of us. Indeed, part of knowing this truth is that you need it as well. You need the truth that can only be found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You have your agency to choose, but I know that the result of your choice is simple: "liberty and eternal life... or... captivity and death" (2 Nephi 2:27). Please, choose liberty and start by giving the Book of Mormon a chance.