Leading music in Primary is the greatest

For the past few weeks, I have been thinking about how much I love my calling at church. I have been leading the music in Primary (my church's Sunday School for children) for nearly a year and a half. It has brought a lot of happiness into my life.

I was called to be chorister after I had been serving as a ward clerk for about four and a half years. I can honestly say I loved being a clerk---It was my favorite calling at the time. Although the outward appearance makes it look like a calling that centers on paperwork and budget tracking, I had discovered that clerkship has a deeply spiritual component. But eventually, I found myself longing for something different. I wanted to spend more time interacting with others and less time compiling reports.

I was kind of nervous when I learned that the new opportunity would involve teaching songs to a group of about 30 kids. I knew that most primary songs were not written with my bass voice in mind. I knew that teaching the music would usually require  singing the songs by myself in front of the kids and their primary teachers; although I have a decent amount of musical talent, I have always felt very self-conscious about my voice as a solo instrument. But I was excited to try this new calling.

And I LOVED it. I honestly believe I have the best calling in the church, and I kind of hope I get to be primary chorister for a good 10 years or so.

Here are 10 reasons why I love being Primary Chorister:

1. Every week, at least one or two kids will say something wildly hilarious. It brightens my week and gives me something to look forward to. Every week after church, I spend a while telling Becky the fun stories.

2. It has expanded my artistic abilities. I'm not a big fan of downloadable cookie cutter song helps, partly because I balk at the price of printer ink, so I draw most of the posters I use to help the children learn the songs. It's fun and effective, I think.

3. I love seeing the children learn the gospel. When I teach them songs, I strive to take at least some time to define the words in the song and testify of the gospel principles taught in the songs. It's great to see the music help the gospel come to life for them. Also, I get to observe the way they live the gospel, and hear them give talks. It gives me hope for the rising generation. These are good kids!

4. I love interacting with the children. Partly because I have several younger siblings and lots of younger cousins, I've always been comfortable to talking to kids. When I served a mission, I taught many more children than adults. Their innocence and faith is inspiring. This calling is a nice continuation that keeps me young. I think it also helps prepare me for raising my own children.

5. This calling has expanded my musical abilities. I am much more comfortable singing in front of people.

6. I feel like I can (and should strive to be) a role model for the children I teach. I want to set a positive example for them and therefore help reinforce what their parents teach them.

7. The children help me realize more about what Christ meant when he commanded us to be like children. Many of them exemplify unconditional love for each other and for other people. I remember one time that an elderly woman from a different ward, whom no one in the room knew, came and just sat in the back of the primary room. When one of the primary leaders acknowledged her and said hello, a 3-year-old girl on the front row jumped up, ran to the back, and hugged the woman. Shouldn't we all be more like her?

8. My teaching abilities have increased. If I am ever called to teach a group of adults, I think I will be much better for them than if I had not been called to teach children.

9. In what other calling do you get to dance the robot, pretend to be a snowman, make children laugh, pretend to make popcorn balls, and sing "Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes" backwards at lightning speed?

10. Every now and then, there's food. One of the primary teachers makes some great cookies and cake pops for her class, and occasionally I get some leftovers. MMMMMmmm good.

In defense of daylight savings time

The thing I like least about Daylight Savings Time is that I always worry about what time I will get up the morning that the time changes. Since the only alarm clock I have is my cell phone, I wonder: Will the phone actually change time automatically at the appointed hour? What if there is some glitch that keeps it from changing, and then I sleep in an extra hour?

But very close to this worry, my biggest pet peeve about Daylight Savings Time is this:

Lots of people love to hate on Daylight Savings Time.

You may have seen this brilliant meme:

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="500" caption="Count Rugan, fictional inventor of Daylight Savings Time"][/caption]

Facebook has facilitated the process of hating on DST by allowing memes like this to spread quickly. A year or two ago, I saw one with a picture of a Native American proclaiming that only the government would cut a foot off of one end of a rope, attach it to the other end, and think that the rope is longer.

It seems like lots of people look for, find, and take opportunities to make Daylight Savings time sound like a stupid waste of time.

I am writing today to defend Daylight Savings Time. Sure, hating it is pretty popular, and it is not perfect, but I have come to the conclusion that it actually makes sense.

Here is why: throughout the year, the earth's tilt, revolution on its axis, and orbit around the sun combine to make pretty big changes in the moments the sun rises and sets in different parts of the year, and the amount of time your particular corner of the earth is bathed in sunlight. But, being creatures of habit who have semi-regular work schedules, it is hard to take advantage of the extra sunlight in the summer. Unless we decided to suddenly start getting up earlier during the summer, we'd waste a lot of daylight before we even get up in the morning.

Therefore, we have Daylight Savings Time. (It inconveniences us two days a year---actually the inconvenience isn't that terrible since our electronics change our clocks for us!) Therefore, without having to change our sleep and work schedules, the hours that the sun is in the sky coincide better with the hours that we are awake, and we have more sunlight after we get off work in the evening.

Example: Let's say you get up at 6 a.m. and go to bed at 11 p.m. If the sun rises at 5 a.m. and sets at 8 p.m., then an hour of sunlight is gone by the time you woke. And then you get home from work at 6 p.m., and two hours later, there is no more sun. That gives you only two hours to work in the garden, take your kids to the park, ride a bike, or test the latest solar-powered invention you're working on.

But let's say we take one hour from one night when clocks spring forward. Suddenly, you and the sun both get up at the same time---you can enjoy every single moment of sunshine (except for those eight hours you are trapped in the office...). When you get home at 6 p.m.,  you have three hours to experience the sunshine before it sets.

I don't know whether the hours I cited above bear any resemblance to real life, but they illustrate the principle.

The next time you feel the urge to cry out against Daylight Savings Time sucking away an hour of your life, please remember two things:

1. My argument above, and

2. That hour will be given back to you later this year, when everything falls back into place.

Taxes, charity, and religious freedom

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a leader in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, recently testified before a Congressional committee about the importance of the charitable deduction on taxes.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22XHmK2bvkM&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

His message focuses on the important contributions made by churches and other nonprofit agencies, which are funded by donations that are at least partially prompted or facilitated by the tax deduction.

However, he hits on a really important point around 4:30 into the video, when he talks about how some people believe the charitable deduction is effectually a tax expenditure, "because tax revenues are reduced by the benefit granted. in other words, because the gov't could have denied the charitable deduction, there is a government expenditure in its granting the deduction and foregoing the revenue."

He puts that idea into context this way:

By that reasoning, the personal income we think is ours is really the government's because of its choice not to take it away by taxation. that is certianly an attitude not shared by most Americans.

That hit home with me because I have long believed that taxation is a subtle way of impending on religious freedom.

When people talk about the erosion of religious freedoms, they usually talk about Christmas trees being banned from city hall and a lack of teacher-led prayer in public schools. But neither of those things prevents me from living my religion.

But what if taxes sometime became so high that they impended my ability to participate in religious activity?

For example, some churches (including mine) teach the principle of tithing, which states that you should give one tenth of your income for God's purposes. A friend of mine who served a mission in a European country a few decades ago told me that people would ask him whether they should pay their tithing on their income before or after taxes---because after taxes, they did not have 10 percent of their pre-tax income left over.

What if taxes became so high that people could not afford mission trips? What if people could not afford to build churches, or even to travel to a church that is more than a few blocks from their home?

Of course, this is not the case now in America. But if taxes continue to rise, and if tax deductions for charitable donations are lowered or stricken, that would significantly change people's ability to participate in faithful religious activity.

Why I'm not buying an iPad (yet)

As much as I would love to hold an iPad in my arms and gaze at its awe-inspiring coolness, I just cannot justify it.

I don't mean to judge people who do own iPads, and I don't pretend to preach that other people should make this same choice. But it's a decision I want to share for anyone who is debating the purchase.

The first Apple product I owned was an iPhone 3Gs to which I upgraded in 2010. It was my second smartphone.



An iPhone is fairly expensive, and the cost of the monthly data plan does add up. But it's an amazing piece of technology that has really made my life easier. It's easy to use, it rarely malfunctions, and it's just plain likeable.

When the really big iPhone called the iPad was released, I knew I would want one. Every time I have held a friend's iPad or used one in the store or read a review, I've only wanted it more.

Then why have I not gone out and bought one?

At first, it was a question of money. I'm a pretty frugal guy, and I couldn't justify spending $500 on a gadget while I still had student loans and a car payment. So when I got my tax return this year, I pushed aside every particle of my being that said "buy an iPad" and paid off debt instead.

By the time I paid off my debt this summer, I had reached a few other conclusions.

1. I can't name one significant thing that I could do with an iPad that I could not do with the digital devices I already have. Between my laptop and my phone, I can type, send e-mails, text messages, browse the Internet, play games, and participate in online video chats. Yes, it would be nice to have the large touchscreen interface, and the convenience of the tablet design, but that's not enough to justify the $500+ expense.


2. You can do a lot with $500. You can invest it and watch it become tens of thousands of dollars over the years. You can buy food for a lot of hungry people. You can pay your rent, or at least a significant portion of it. You can send it to me.


3. Eventually, today's iPad will be obsolete. There will be something better, whether it's a future iPad (or another device) made by Apple, or another Tablet computer that performs flawlessly.

With these three reasons in mind, I finally decided to completely ignore the idea of buying an iPad until it's time to replace my laptop. That will probably be a few years from now.

By then, who knows where technology will have taken the world of mobile and tablet computing?

It wouldn't surprise me if there is a version of a tablet computer that is thin, lightweight, touchscreen, and can function just like an iPad, but can also functions just like a laptop when you connect it to a keyboard, mouse, printer, and second monitor. And it might have other awesome features, like teleportation. (I'm not holding my breath on that last one, though.)

So I'm saving the $500, letting it earn interest, until it makes absolute sense and I need another mobile computing solution.

Again, I do not judge or look down on those who have chosen to go ahead and buy an iPad. But I hope these thoughts are helpful for people who are thinking about buying one---or people who are thinking about buying any expensive item that they might not actually need.

Debunk the Junk: eliminating junk food in public schools

[Intro: I wrote this a couple of days ago during a practice test for the Virginia teachers literacy assessment under a time crunch. It is supposed to address the issue of sodas and junk food at snack machines in schools. The original assignment is on page 38 of www.va.nesinc.com/PDFs/VCLA_Writing_PracticeTest.pdf]

When was the last time you had a headache from eating too much junk food? The fourth of July? The Superbowl? Christmas? It is a common thing when we know we should not eat certain things at holidays, but we see those things on the table, want them, eat them, and then may regret the choice. How would the hours following such events be different if those unhealthy foods were replaced with healthy options?

This is much like the situation facing many of the public schools in our country. When a student gets hungry between classes, there are usually plenty of highly processed foods available, but very few healthy options. Replacing traditional snack machines with healthier options can give students longer attention spans, better habits, and healthier futures.

As an educator, I noticed a significant difference in my students’ behavior when sodas in the school’s drink machines were replaced by flavored waters. There was an overnight change in attention, respect, and involvement. Several hyper students were able to concentrate for longer periods of time. I was surprised to see such a dramatic difference from something that seemed insignificant to me.

Food selection habits, whether good or bad, will follow students throughout the rest of their lives. I have been disheartened to learn that many students nationwide to not have healthy food options at home. This makes the need for offering less-processed foods in school more important. Students learn things best when taught by example. A school that offers soda, chips, and sugar-covered donuts in its vending machines sets a much worse example than a school with flavored water, juices, peanut-butter crackers and fruit. Those students must become more used to healthier selections.

Each student who becomes used to healthier food selections will be more likely to lead a healthy and brighter future. The years that a child is in elementary and secondary schools are crucial years in brain development. This time is also critical in limiting processed sugars and starches to lower the risk of diabetes, obesity, and other complications associated with unhealthy snack choices.

Each school that replaces soda and highly processed foods with healthier drinks and snacks will improve academic performance, instill lasting food-selection habits in students, and offer each child a healthier and brighter future. This should be of critical importance to educators, parents, and taxpayers as we work together for a better world. In doing so, students can avoid that “post-Christmas dinner sugar crash” each day during fourth period.

[Please share your thoughts about snack foods in schools' snack machines below]

A Latter-day Saint by any other name...

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

"I can't stop reading definitions---I think I have an addictionary!" I once quipped. And while I don't quite have an addictionary, today I spent some time perusing definitions.

The words I was looking up? Cult and Christian.

Ordinarily, it wouldn't have been news that an evangelical pastor like Robert Jeffress stated that Mormons are a cult, or are not Christian. Evangelicals have said that about us for years. But this time it made bigger headlines because he stated it about  a Mormon who happens to be a front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.

But his statement revives a concern I have always had about those words. Often, we use one meaning of the words to justify labeling a group with such terms, even though the application of the label has a different connotation. It's like labeling spaghetti as cheesy when someone has only heard that phrase in connection with cheesy jokes. It conveys an untrue idea.

So what exactly is a cult? Here's what you see when you type "define:cult" into Google:

1. A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

2. A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

Here is what Dictionary.com has to offer:

1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3. the object of such devotion.

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols

With the exception of the phrase "regarded by others as strange or sinister," none of these sound half bad. A system of religious worship with rites and ceremonies? Religious veneration towards a person, object, ideal? Sounds every religion, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jeffress' church, could meet that definition.

But what does cult mean when you hear it? It has a negative connotation. It invokes images of weirdos claiming to be Christ and forcing people to drink Kool-Aid in their underwear. Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, find the cult label offensive because they know this is how their neighbors interpret the word.

To give Jeffress credit, in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, he tries explaining that he means Mormons are a cult in the theological sense, not in the sociological sense. He could have explained that better by saying "I'm not saying your Mormon neighbor worships the devil and wants to summon alien spaceships to abduct your children. I'm saying they believe differently than I do."

He also says that Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists are cults. Why? Because they are not Christians.

Which brings me to another question. What is a Christian? Here is Google's answer:

A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Here are Dictionary.com's thoughts on Christian as an adjective:

1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.

2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ

3. of or pertaining to Christians

4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike

5. decent; respectable

and as a noun:

7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ

9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.

Most of these definitions focus on an affinity to Jesus Christ and His teachings.

The only definition here that Mormons do not meet is number nine, which narrowly limits Christianity to Protestantism. But when you use this definition to classify Mormons as non-Christians, anyone who hears you say that will hear you say that Mormons have nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

Many people point out that Mormons differ from traditional or historic Christianity. This phrase might also be correct, but "Mormons differ from historic Christianity" doesn't do nearly as much to convince your congregation (and therefore paycheck providers) that they shouldn't investigate this other church.

But what exactly is "historic Christianity?" At one time, Catholicism was "historic Christianity," and then Protestant Churches broke off of that church, and more Protestant churches broke off of them. And they all trace most of their beliefs not only to the Bible, but to creeds that were written hundreds of years after Jesus died on the cross.

Meanwhile, Mormons claim their religion is a restoration of historic Christianity---Christianity the way Jesus taught it himself in Jerusalem before his crucifixion and resurrection, and in other parts of the world after those events.

Jeffress pointed out that many people claim to be Christians but are not. And he is right. So who judges the difference? How do we know whether someone really is a Christian?

Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." So it seems to me that we should look at someone's fruits.

I'm not suggesting you go look in someone's orchard to decide whether they are Christians, but for Mormons, that might be a good place to start. The church owns orchards and farms that it uses to supply food for people who are poor. Jesus often talked about the importance of helping the poor. Mormons take that to heart.

Another thing to consider is the centrality of Christ to Mormon doctrine. This word cloud shows that the most common words in a recent worldwide conference of the church were things like "Jesus," "God," "Church," "Holy," "Father," and "Lord."

Then there are quotes from The Book of Mormon, like these:

And now, my beloved brethren, I would that ye should come unto Christ, who is the Holy One of Israel, and partake of his salvation, and the power of his redemption. Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him, and continue in fasting and praying, and endure to the end; and as the Lord liveth ye will be saved.Omni 1:26

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning...Mosiah 3:8

I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell.2 Nephi 33:6

I have named just a few fruits of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are many more good, Christian things that have come about because of this church, The Book of Mormon, and its teachings. We look to Jesus as the head of our church. We pray in his name. We hope to live the kind of life he wants to live.

Some Christians object to our belief that we have a modern prophet, but consider the things that prophet asks us to do: stay away from pornography, treat women with respect, pray to God, read the scriptures, walk out of filthy movies, volunteer time and money to help other people, raise good children, and be good citizens. But he doesn't tell us which candidates deserve our votes. (That would be rather cult-like.)

We probably always will have people who call us a cult, and they will always be incorrect except in the way that all religions can be called cults. But even then, we will go on doing good works, testifying of Christ, and trying to make the world a better place.

To paraphrase Juliet,

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
 By any other name would smell as sweet;
 So Mormons would, were they not Christians call'd,
 Retain that dear Christianity which they have
 Without that title.

Correction: In the original version of this post, I wrote that Jeffres called Catholicism a cult. My wife pointed out that I was incorrect. In the interview, he actually said that Catholicism's basic teachings run counter to the New Testament.

Facebook moved my cheese

I'm going to study Facebook's new features and see if there is a way to filter out any and every status update expressing fury about the latest Facebook changes. My news feed would be rather sparse.


Not that I like all the changes Facebook made. I liked the old layout that let you choose whether to view the most recent updates or the most popular updates. The new layout requires you to click "Update Status" just to access the box in which you can type your status, adding a step that should not be necessary. There are other improvements that can be made, and probably will be made in time.

But every time I read complaints about new Facebook layouts and features, I can't help but think about:

• people who don't have much food to eat or clean water to drink


• people who just live with the pain of migraine headaches and abscess teeth because they don't have access to medical care or even basic medicines


• people who have never had a refrigerator, or a microwave, or an air conditioner


• people who are suffering from incurable diseases.

Isn't it great that so many things are going well in our lives that we find it worthwhile to complain about new layouts on a website that isn't even essential to life?

Life is change. Sure, sometimes someone moves our cheese. Sometimes, Facebook moves our cheese. Those who shrug off the changes and go along with the day will accomplish more than those who constantly complain about Facebook.

And if Facebook's changes lived up to their potential and caused us, in droves, to spend less time with the social network, and more time with our families, with our neighbors, or in exercise, we all would end up happier people, too.