Peace In the Middle East--Cliche, but has a beautiful ring to it.

I wrote this as sort of a capstone paper to my 200-level Geography class about the Middle East. As always, I'd love to hear where I went wrong.

The feeling of desperation and devastation that came when I saw body parts lodged up in the rafters of a freeway overpass as a result of a Palestinian suicide bomber will not soon leave me. This was an especially grizzly and poignant scene from Thomas Friedman’s Straddling the Fence report. The scene in the video showed Friedman running to see what had happened. The chaos was thick in the air. The police were yelling to control the crowd. The crowd was yelling anti-Palestine epithets. Of course, only a select few people could get through to the bomb site to see what, exactly, the damage was. The camera man was not one of those few people. Friedman certainly was, though. And while he was doing his reporter work, the camera continued to roll, scanning the scene for anything that could be of interest: people crying in despair at the latest in a long line of violent acts between the two nations; young men yelling in frustration and rage at what the conflict continued to be, “unresolved” being the current status; the devastation that one suicide bomber to inflict on a partially enclosed freeway. And then the camera found the person most directly responsible for the act, or what was left of him, and I had to turn away. Friedman came back a few moments later after questioning one of the policemen nearby the point of attack. He looked as if the bomb had exploded any hope he had for resolving what had, for decades, been called the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

This video would not be very meaningful without the context behind the conflict that I have learned about in this class. At the beginning of the semester, in my pre-paper, I wrote how I am a novice when it comes to policy problems and international relations within the area of the Middle East and North Africa. Despite my ignorance, I must be a genius in the “take the right classes at the right time” area. I took a Macroeconomics class during the winter of 2008, the same time that insurance firm Bear Stearns filed bankruptcy, igniting the most dynamic time to study Macroeconomics because of what would become the biggest financial meltdown of the past 80 years. And now, at a time when a dozen different countries in the Middle East and North Africa are experiencing a recent spike in tumult and unrest, making the last few months the most dynamic the region has experienced since the creation of the state of Israel, I am taking a class on the Geography of the Middle East and North Africa. I am pleased at my own fortune to be taking the most important and helpful class, from a global perspective, on campus right now. But the knowledge I am gaining from the class has made me more aware, and saddened, by what is going on in this region of the world. On a personal note, I find my prayers for peace for foreign strangers to be more meaningful because I am more familiar with their struggles. (Please don’t grade me on that. I simply wish to convey how the things that I have learned during this class have affected me.)

Specifically to this assignment, those struggles include the conflict between two passionate, stubborn peoples to occupy two relatively small pieces of land, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. This conflict that has been the most severe since Israel was created following World War 2. Hitler and the Nazis were finally defeated, but not after doing tremendous damage to the Jewish population in Europe. Some kind of reparation needed to be made to made up for the loss of 6 million Jews. So the United Nations, with the zealous support of President Harry S Truman, created the State of Israel for the remaining Jews to have a place to live. The problem is that the United Nations commission in charge of selecting a location chose one that was not already vacant of people. Rather, they chose a place at the heart of what global experts refer to as the “shatterbelt.” An ominous name for any tract of land, the shatterbelt is that area in the Middle East that has been conquered over and over again by different empires and nations, the state of Israel being one of the most popular locations for invading hordes. While foreign nations parceling out land that is not theirs to give will make for an interesting case study in sequent occupance in tomorrow’s history and political science classes, the location and issues occurring therein make for a tumultuous and complicated current events seminar.

As interesting as the history of the region is and which people have what kind of rights to the land in the past, experts involved in commentating on possible solutions to the conflict do not focus on property or land rights. They generally see this as a sunk cost as far as the debate goes. They are more interested in how to rectify the most recent of wrongs and what Israel and Palestine can do now in order to find a mutually beneficial, or at least acceptable, solution.

Both sides have a lot of room to improve their relations with the other. They are, after all, in a defunct, unofficial state of war. The suicide bombing that Friedman reported on is one of many attacks made by the Palestinians on strategic Israeli points, such as freeway overpasses or the fatal bus bombing in Jerusalem on March 23. On the other hand, Israel commits its own share of attacks against the Palestinians, such as the action against the supply boat loaded with humanitarian supplies bound for Gaza in May of last year. Because the default position of either side of the conflict is violence, then we know there is something fundamentally with the dialogue, or lack thereof, regarding this intra-regional, inter-cultural relationship.

The international community is heavily involved in the conflict between these two nations. (Here I use the word “nation” to describe a cohesive group of people who share a culture and history; not a political state entity recognized by other states inasmuch as Palestine is not yet internationally recognized a state, despite its government and organized bureaucracy.) It was the United Nations that created the conditions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They allocated land for the Jews in part because of guilt for allowing the Holocaust to happen. Now they feel guilty for the debacle stemming from giving away the land that the Palestinians lived on. On top of that, the world’s thirst for the resources in abundance in the area, specifically oil and natural gas, bring further incentive for foreign countries to facilitate peace in an historically war-torn area.

The United States is pouring in support for peace. Arabic and Middle East experts are in high demand in the military. A conversation with an acquaintance of mine enrolled at West Point illustrates the anti-terrorism efforts our country engages in. To defeat an enemy, one must first understand the enemy. He reports how popular the Arabic Studies major is at West Point. He is also involved in counter-terrorism training. The concept behind his training is that in order to fight terror, we must know how to be terrorists ourselves. Based on this thinking, the cadets design simulations of terrorist attacks. They even go so far as to covertly contact arms dealers to get prices and discover ease of accessibility to materials they may need. This acquaintance had a man ready to sell him a few dozen pounds of C4 explosive over the phone, no questions asked. His simulation happened to be the most “successful” in his class –an attack on the Wailing Wall at Passover, costing somewhere between $4 ,000 and $6,000, with an estimated casualty count of 20,000 to 30,000 people.

These efforts beg the question: are we fighting against violence or advocating for peace? The main problem is that both sides feel that violence is their only outlet. It is their only access to having their point be heard; to have a voice. Here in the United States, we have plenty of impassioned dissenters who seem to be just as incensed in their respective causes as any of the Palestinians or Israelis. The difference between the violent conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians and the conflict in Western countries is that in our form of democracy, these impassioned people are not forced to resort to violence in order to be heard or taken seriously. Except, of course, in gang cultures, but they do not enjoy a democratic method of communication.

The answer to this conflict can only come through peaceful, somewhat private dialogue. Both sides are already very well organized. The Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have the support of their respective governments to come to some kind of peace agreement. The real problem is when the general public gets involved—people who are not as well-informed as their leaders and who do not have a big picture mentality. Therefore, to keep public support, leaders of both sides must make impassioned speeches that speak of non-compromise. However, behind closed doors, I have no doubt that both sides are willing to make concessions to the other in order to stop the bloodshed.

Unfortunately, Palestine is not yet formally recognized as a state, and therefore can’t really officially enter into peace agreements. Whoever the Palestinian official is who enters such peace talks cannot yet speak for the entire nation. Hamas, the violent organization encouraging violence against Israel, is not controlled by the Palestinian National Authority. Palestine must be more unified in order to make any peace agreement stick. In February, “The Jerusalem Post” reported that a declaration of statehood made by the Palestinian Authorities could come as early as September of this year.

Of course, Hamas will not come crashing down if the Palestinian National Authority decided to declare itself the central government of Palestine. The PNA will have to employ some internal diplomacy with its own people. Leaders within Hamas will need a position in the PNA to keep their own voices heard, and their gunfire quiet; so the PNA needs to prepare itself to provide such a position. On the other hand, in order for Hamas to secure such an official place in the new government, they will have to surrender some of their demands. Until all parties involved are willing to make compromises and ready to lose some face in the process, the un-informed boots on the ground will continue to strap bombs to their chests and use them in, well, deadly ways.

Besides diplomacy, land rights is a big problem inter-twined with the diplomacy debate. Israelis encroaching on land what used to be Palestinian dwellings needs to stop immediately and be reversed. Perhaps the Israeli Government and the PNA could create a grandfather clause to let Jews go back and visit the settlements they built, but the cultural affront to simply taking land without regard to the lands current residents is deplorable. It will be hard now to not have Jews living in Palestine, but will become the norm within a generation.

Jerusalem is also a big question mark. Both sides want the city and have historical claim to it. So, let them both live there. Washington D.C. is not part of any state; neither should Jerusalem. The city will have both Jews and Arabs living there. If their respective governing bodies and countries are diplomatic but still live together, this will trickle down to the general public and they will be able to live separately, but together, also.

It’s a complex, violent issue. But the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict can disappear when private diplomacy with compromise and benefits for the other side will be the main goal. I look forward to seeing if the PNA can unify the Palestinians this coming Fall and pull the proverbial trigger on statehood declaration. This is where it all starts.

My Gay Thoughts

The following is a response I sent to Joel Burns, the city council member speaking in the video. You don't have to watch the video to read my comments, but it is a very touching video I think you should watch. I wrote this response a while ago, and was reminded of it recently when I re-read this talk by President Hinckley.



Mr. Burns,

I'm sure this is one of hundreds, maybe thousands, of responses to your brave message posted on Youtube. Might I say that we live in an opportune time, that such a touching and personal message given in a local city council meeting can reach the entire world. Thank you for your tasteful and personal message.

By way of introduction, I am a 25-year old student at Brigham Young University studying Sociology and Education and an active, faithful member of the LDS Church. I also work as a social worker at a group home for at-risk youth, some of whom are struggling with the consequences of same-sex attraction.

When I first started college, I stood staunchly against gay marriage and gay relationships. Thanks to my sociology classes and the statistics-heavy papers I've read, I've found that gay marriage is not something to be afraid of. (Weak marriage IS a problem, but that is unfortunately not being talked about.) As I'm sure you're aware, social science shows that parents' sexual orientation alone is not an indicator of successful OR detrimental child-rearing. This information opened my mind, and my heart, to other possibilities of accepting gays into society more openly.

Your comments, however, didn't focus on the marriage debate, which is refreshing. Tolerance and brotherly love is something I would hope everyone, regardless of personal beliefs, can accept. And based on my new-found charity towards other people, homosexuals being at the front of that list right now, I can agree with your comments almost whole-heartedly.

My point in spending the last 20 minutes writing and revising this message to a stranger: there is a pocket of us who are caught up in the semantics game and want gays to have the same privileges and responsibilities as married people, but just not call it marriage. Because of my religious beliefs, I don't want LDS clergy legally obligated to perform marriages between two men or two women. But changing the legal definition would take the pressure off those of us who have a religious conviction against the structure of gay marriage. My faith does not actively oppose baptism in other churches. In a similar vein, I don't see why we would oppose a formal recognition of love and dedication between two gay people.

This doesn't solve all problems, of course. Gay people still wouldn't be "married," and being "civilly unionized" sounds like something from an Orwell novel. But my point is that there are people on the other side of the issue who are looking for some sort of compromise. We are also trying to figure it out, whatever that will turn out to mean.

Thank you for your service. The best to you and yours.

Derrick Kellis

Conflict and Resolution Over GAP

The Agency—The Arab League

As a member of the Arab League, I have been assigned to prepare this white paper on behalf of an exploratory committee regarding the intricacies and nuance of what has become of GAP-the Southeastern Anatolia Project-since its inception over 45 years ago. This multi-national project is of the utmost importance to the region in terms of providing hydro-electric power and potable water, bringing unity to the area, and showing Europe and the West of the Middle East’s ability to bring about progress in a peaceful, responsible manner. Many peoples and nations (Turkey, the Kurdish people, Syria, Iraq) have a vested interest in the successful completion of the project. The Arab League, therefore, holds an important role in maintaining open dialogue and fair outcomes to all parties involved.

The River Basin—The Origin of the Fertile Crescent

Southeastern Anatolia is a hotspot of politico-cultural conflict. The current conflict is best understood in the context of the region’s history—specifically Turk-Kurd relations and actions taken by both sides to achieve their respective goals. The two nations have been fighting each other since the 1920s, most of the effort coming from Turkey trying to assimilate the Kurds into their country. It has picked up especially severely since the late 1970s, when the Kurdistan Workers Party started committing violent acts in retaliation to Turkey’s actions.

Unfortunately for the Kurds, 4.3 million of them live in area (Harris). The flood zone of the largest dam included in GAP is home to 170,000 Kurds (Soffer 91). Hence, in context of a violent history of conflict with the government, the Kurds see the project as simply another attempt to clear them out of their own land (Ayboga).

Turkey is interested in the Southeastern Anatolia basin for its irrigation and hydroelectric power potential (Izady). The proposed agricultural benefits of GAP are substantial; with an estimated 2 million ha increase in irrigation land, quadrupling the current agricultural output. This is not only crucial in handling the rising population and the food requirements that come with it; but it also comes into play when considering trade potential with other countries in the region (Harris).

However, the Kurds are suspicious of the Turks; and rightly so based on past violence.

Therefore, there is trepidation on the part of the Kurds that they will not see much of the economic benefit from this state-run project. The fact that international support from the World Bank has been waning because of shortcomings on Turkey’s part for not “consulting with downstream states on water allocation” (Soffer 91) has further strengthened the Kurds argument that Turkey will divert the power from the hydroelectric dams away from the area, and use the agriculture from the irrigation to feed or pay those people not native to the area (Ayboga).

Turkey also claims to bring important advancements to the area in terms of health education, potable drinking water, and family planning to help curb the swelling population (Harris). From a developmental and sustainability standpoint, these are useful and important tasks to undertake as the country moves into the 21st century. A rapidly growing, yet poor lower class has huge potential to drain the state entitlement programs; becoming an unnecessary burden if the state is able to first foresee and stem it off. However, put in context of past conflict between the Kurdish nation and the Turkish state, attempts to improve health and family life are seen as a new strategy to undermine the Kurds from more control of the area (Ayboga).

Problematic Eminent Domain

Another problematic area is that of compensation for the more than 200,000 Kurds who have already moved out of the region (Soffer 91). Many of them are being relocated under precedent of eminent domain. Eminent domain states that when public works are planned, the government executing those plans has the right to offer the residents whom that project would displace current market value for their land would the public works not take place, but require them off of the property. For instance, in the United States, this precedent is often invoked for the building of a new freeway or the expansion of a city street. Houses and property privately held before the road is built would consequently be destroyed in the road-building process.

Eminent domain is challenging to the Anatolian Kurds for two main reasons. The first is that many Kurds do not have official paperwork proving their ownership of the land they are on—a sort of common law property right. They therefore are not eligible to receive compensation for land that is not theirs, which they have been living on and off of for hundreds of years. Turkey could potentially give them nothing in terms of compensation. Current practice dictates a “land-for-land” compensation model—simply giving the common law property owners different land than what they currently “own.” However, Turkey is offering old farms elsewhere in the country in return for the rich soils of the various dams’ flood areas. And whatever land outside of GAP that is suitable for productive use is already occupied (Ayboga).

Secondly, according to some accounts, those Kurds who are compensated for their land are not being paid enough for the new living arrangements that are provided by the Turkish government, (Ayboga). Two of the more popular relocation sites include Diyarbakir and Batman. Both are urbanized cities and do not reward the agrarian skills that the displaced Kurds have developed. Not only are they not paid fairly for their land, they are moved into an alien way of living without necessary skills to succeed (Ayboga). And so, through not making adequate compensation for those most seriously affected, Turkey and GAP do not bode well with international observers, effectively lowering their influence as evidenced by the World Bank’s withdrawal of support (Soffer).

Conflict with Downstream States

Unlike the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates, the challenges associated with GAP are not halted at the border. This massive, $21 billion undertaking is causing problems with the downstream states of Syria and Iraq. While never threatening full stoppage and containment of the waters within her borders, Turkey has dammed up the flow without first asking permission. In early 1990, Turkey stopped the flow of the Euphrates behind the flagship dam of the 22, the Ataturk. For one month, the reservoir grew by 1.5 billion cubic meters of water. They did increase the water flow in the months leading up to the stoppage and warned Syria and Iraq that they wouldn’t have any water for a month. This allotment was not enough and the economies of both states suffered greatly because of it. Even after pleas from the Syrian and Iraqi governments, Turkey refused to open the spillways before their plans dictated and threatened a longer stoppage time. Luckily, the few years following the water halt brought heavier rains and snows than normal, mitigating some of the international anxiety. Actions such as these have violated the funding agreement that Turkey had with the World Bank and forced the state to cover more of the cost of the project than they had previously planned, delaying the operational status of many of the dams. (Soffer 91-3).

Solutions

Any widespread project that involves land, damming of rivers, and relocation of hundreds of thousands of native residents will naturally invite criticism and conflict. Unfortunately for Turkey and the Arab League, the economic benefits to Turkey do not completely off-set the injustices done to the Kurds and downstream states. Such a large project requires a cooperative effort for which Turkey, by herself, cannot compensate.

There is much room for out-reach on Turkey’s part. The country has done well to not further threaten cutting off water to Syria and Iraq. However, with such a lucrative project at stake, further efforts at sharing the resultant water and power with other groups and nations to ensure GAP’s success should be high among Turkey’s priorities. This would improve trade relationships with oil- and resource-rich Syria and Iraq. It would also allow support from the World Bank to be reinstated and get the various dams and power plants back on track.

In addition to economic advantages, Turkey should stay well aware of the recent changes in power in many of the countries of the Middle-East. With a violent population within her own border, the time is relatively right for such an uprising to take place. Providing better compensation and extending confirmed property rights to the Kurds would greatly decrease the chance of similar conflict to other countries happening inside Turkey’s borders.

With such a controversial and complicated series of events which have stemmed from GAP, the Arab League would do well to take this opportunity to resolve whatever problems exist. While there have been shortcomings in the execution of GAP, the overall outcome can still be salvaged for the good of all parties involved.

Works Cited
Ayboga, Ercan. "Turkey’s GAP and Its Impact in the Region." Kurdish Herald - The Independent Gateway to Kurdish News and Analyses. Web. 14 Feb. 2011. .
Harris, Leila M. "Water and Conflict Geographies of the Southeastern Anatolia Project." Society and Natural Resources 15 (2002): 743-59. Web.
Izady, Mehrdad R. The Kurds: a Concise Handbook. Washington: Crane Russak, 1992. Print. As summarized on kurdistanica.com.
Soffer, Arnon. Rivers of Fire: the Conflict over Water in the Middle East. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. Print.


I read 100% of the book.

Why do we make it hard for ourselves?

The following is a response to an op-ed in the Times written by Mormon poet Nicole Hardy. It may be helpful to read the article that she posted. Thanks to Kaneischa Johnson for posting the article on her blog.

There are a lot of weird, confusing things going on with us single people. We're all pretty amazing people. K, maybe not ALL, but many of... you guys are. You have grand ambitions and are loyal, trustworthy friends. You are faithful members of the Church who want the right things. You take care of yourselves and are very pretty or handsome, whatever the case may be. How is it that more of you aren't together? Because all women are independent feminists and all dudes are closet gays or porn addicts? Are we THAT judgmental and short-sighted of each other?

Does anyone else feel that the opposite sex has too high of expectations for a particular personal relationship? I hear of some girls who don't accept a first date, but with no reason given. I hear of some guys who don't ask for a first date because they don't want the girl to think that it's anything more than one person trying to get to know another person more. I hear bishops and their respective wives telling stories of getting engaged on their first date. That's not even dating! Do they want us to feel an hopelessly high expectation? Or be so ridiculously selective in whom we ask out that all the hard work, cooperation and discovery of having a successful dating life has already magically happened by the time we go to lunch for the first time?

Answers

I don't have any answers, hence this post. If I did, then I would be married and make all you single people figure it for yourselves. (Suckas!) But I AM a sucka. If a missing link even exists, I don't know what it is. "Just being oneself" is making for a lot of people who really should be what someone ELSE wants them to be--a process that comes naturally to some, and painfully to others. After all, I don't WANT to be who I am for my future wife. I want to be a gazillion times better than who I am now--for her!

Another non-answer: maybe there IS value in hanging-out? To lighten the pressure of getting to know someone in a private, one-on-one setting? To offer some kind of filter or buffer for our first impressions? If we're supposed to marry our best friend, maybe we should be dating our best friends; rather than the cute girl in church we asked out simply because she looks nice or the strange boy whom we were obligated to say "yes" to because Young Women class told us we have to.

Blink

I've been listening to the audiobook Blink by the Malcolm Gladwell. In it, he makes an argument against long, methodical reasoning sessions that some revert to every time a decision must be made. He says that while there are some situations when this drawn-out process is useful, there are many circumstances that are resolved better when left to snap judgments--made in the blink of an eye. Is a first date just such a case? Should a first date never last longer than 20 or 30 minutes? Just long enough to go for a drive or have a hot chocolate and find out if this person is compatible? What do guys need to do differently? What do girls need to do differently?

Questions and Non-Answers

I usually find questions more interesting than answers. It's exciting to think of a possible answer and just be proven wrong. I love trying a new technique in racquetball, only to realize that it was wrong. Exploration and discovery is fascinating to me. But this preference I have toward questions usually does not involve personal, intimate, eternal decisions. Of the many areas of my life, dating/marriage may be the only one that I would like an answer that works. At least every once in a while. Of course, if you have 20-30 minutes to give me some answers during, say, a drive or over some hot chocolate, I'll probably say yes. Cuz that's what I learned from Young Womens.

Come Unto Christ through Repentance

My topic today is “Come unto Christ through repentance.” I feel like the world’s leading authority on the subject. However, I feel this way because of how the Lord has blessed my life when I repent. I would hope that we all feel that we are each experts on the topic of repentance.
I want to repent so that I can enjoy the companionship of the Spirit, and therefore be close to God. Sometimes, I am asked the question: “Oh, you went to Taiwan on you mission! How was that?” I don’t know how it was. I’ve never been anywhere else on a mission. “How is being a member of the Church?” I don’t know. I’ve never not been a member. But, I can ask “Oh, you have the Spirit with you! How’s that?” Well, let me tell you... I’ve been without the Spirit before, and it is not pleasant. When I don’t have the Spirit, I feel lost and empty. I feel without purpose and apathetic. I feel disconcertingly content. I feel like I’ve done enough and now the universe owes me.
But when the Spirit is with me, I feel comfortable, as Enos did when testified of the following: “Whatsoever thing ye shall ask in faith, believing that ye shall receive in the name of Christ, ye shall receive it. And I [Enos] had faith... And I knew [the preservation and coming forth of the scriptures] would be according to the covenant which [God] had made; wherefore my soul did rest.” When I have the Spirit, I am clear about what the Lord wants me to do. I remember my covenants and the protection and peace they bring, like Enos did. I realize my responsibility to other people. That responsibility, though, is filtered through my relationship with my Savior: my foremost responsibility is to the Savior. When I have the Spirit, I am close to God.
President Packer shares with us his testimony of repentance: “I would find no peace, neither happiness, nor safety, in a world without repentance. I do not know what I should do if there were no way for me to erase my mistakes. The agony would be more than I could bear.” I invite you to ask yourself: Should I feel this way? If yes, (and, by the way, you should feel this way.) then do I feel this way? How can you appreciate and respect your sins as much as President Packer does? Are you afraid to not repent? Does the thought of unforgiveable sin bring thoughts of unbearable agony? Would you feel lost and hopeless without repentance? Do you currently find peace, happiness, and safety when you haven’t repented? What if you took your own sins that seriously? How would you be changed?
I want to emphasize the passiveness of that change; I emphasize that it is not us who changes ourselves. We can change only through the grace and gift of the Atonement. We change only when we completely, 100% rely on the Lord to carry us through. And He will do just that, as long as we allow Him through our obedience. He won’t lose. Doctrine and Covenants 3:3 states: “Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men.” Remember, also, that God cannot excuse my sin, but He knows I am willing to follow him, so He will forgive my sin.
Sometimes we try to take back control of our lives; of our sins; which ironically, yet not surprisingly, leads us to lose control. We may say “Oh, I can handle it. It’s not that big of a deal. I can be rude to others or cheat or flirt with the edge of morality because I already have a strong testimony. After all, I go to church and read scriptures and pray. I’m entitled to a little fun and excitement.” If you have ever felt this way, Elder Maxwell gave you the following guidance: “Our reluctance to give away all our sins, thinking, instead, that a down payment will do keeps us from knowing and love God more. (Fall Conf. 2002)”
Can you see how we may let our temptations get out of hand, literally the most capable of hands—Christ’s hands? The poetic irony is that the holes in those hands are exactly what make them so capable to hold our pains and temptations at bay. Those holes make it possible for Christ to ‘bear our griefs and carry our sorrows.’ But, do we see those holes as something else—signs of him being stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted (Isaiah 53:4)? I hope, Hope, brothers and sisters, that we don’t see His majestic state as our Savior in the garden and on the cross and therefore pity Him, nor pity ourselves. I testify that Christ is the conqueror, and in no measure the coward. If He truly suffered and bled the way that the scriptures say he did, then we have the opportunity to say “yes” to the question: “Will we trust the Lord amid a perplexing trial for which we have no easy explanation? Do we understand—really comprehend—that Jesus knows and understands when we are stressed and perplexed? (Maxwell, Fall ’95)”
II.
Christ means “Savior.” His most important trait is the Atonement, itself. When we think of Christ, our thoughts and hearts should immediately turn toward those last few precious hours of His life: in the garden, and on the cross.
What does it mean to truly know a person? Are you defined and encapsulated by your preferences? If I know your major in school or your favorite color, your favorite food or movie or sports team or defensive scheme; or even your favorite passage of scripture, will I know who you are? What about shared experiences? Will that give me a clear insight to your individualized human nature? How many of us have not just walked one mile in the pioneers shoes, but 10 or 15 or 25 miles on handcart treks, yet we still seem to learn more about our ancestors through genealogy and reading their journals and the journals of their loved ones?
I have believed for a long time that our selves, our individual beings, the fabric of who we are, are comprised of that which the Lord deems the most important: our relationship with other people. Is that not the central focus of the Plan of Salvation, our family relationships? Preach My Gospel states that “Because families are ordained of God, they are the most important social unit in time and eternity.” The Savior invites the rich ruler, someone who has kept all the commandments and desires to have eternal life, to leave his possessions and follow Jesus Christ, his elder brother and Redeemer. Here, the Savior is de-emphasizing the man’s relationship with his riches and possessions, and emphasizing the man’s relationship with Christ. Eternal life is to know Christ and to follow Christ.
Following Christ is relatively simple and straight forward. From each of our home teaching visits this month, we know that obedience is the way that we follow Christ. I have been blessed with a strong testimony of obedience, in large part because of the home teaching my companion and I have done and the home teaching that I have received this month.
However, compared to following Him, knowing Christ can be a bit more elusive. We have a classic first impression model of getting to know someone for the first time by asking the person’s name, preferences, major in school, perhaps and plans for the future. What if we asked God these questions?
We don’t know what His favorite food is. We don’t know his favorite color, or what his major in school was. But do we care? The questions that we typically ask of each other when we first meet would have a different connotation all together with the Savior. What if we asked the Lord his name? After all, he has many, and each name is descriptive of His relationship with us: Prince of Peace, our peace; The Life, the Light, and the Way, our life, our light, our way; even ‘Savior’ is reflexive of our own salvation. Where are you from? (pause) How many brothers and sister do you have? (pause) What’s new in your life? (pause) How did your weekend go? (Could you imagine Mary Magdalene asking that question the morning after the Resurrection?)
Everything Jesus Christ has done is for us. We are his number-one priority. Therefore, to know Him is to do the same as he did: make our fellow brothers and sisters our number-one priority. Serve others with unbound charity. Help them find the peace that you have through honest introspection of their lives; which, if done with real intent, will undoubtedly lead them to repent.

Personal Essay For My Juv. Delinquency Class

TJ was the one that all the leaders were worried about. Well, I had good leaders. Hopefully they were worried about all of us. But TJ, apparently, was ‘on the margin,’ whatever that means. He would come to church, fairly regularly. He would even wear a white shirt and tie—with the sagging blue jeans and skater shoes to round out the ensemble. His hair, not to be out done, made its own statement in a way not completely dissimilar to the statement being made just below it. It was long, but not too long. It was brushed over to one side in a way that could not have been styled passively, yet didn’t scream “I obsess about how I look.” TJ made me think that he cared enough to give the impression that he doesn’t care. But I knew better. I knew enough that I didn’t worry about him very much. Chalk it up to naiveté or sophomoric apathy on my part if you want; but looking back on my interactions with TJ, he was one who did not make me feel like I was being judged or that certain expectations were not being met. I saw that he was an OK kid wanting to be trusted with his own life. I saw that through how he treated me. It was almost a case of one social misfit sympathizing with another social misfit.
To describe my high-school self as a social misfit may be the most irresponsible and ridiculous way to use the word—from an outsider’s point of view, anyway. In retrospect, I was just fine and lacked a real reason to be disappointed in my high school experience. But I felt on the bubble. I felt like a misfit. I bring my own experience up in order to set a kind of perspective on what kind of guy I saw TJ to be. He may have been marginalized, but he wore it well. I fit in that ever-broadening, ever-redefined margin along with TJ, but I didn’t like it like he did. I didn’t embrace it like he did. I was friends, acquaintances really, with the popular, rich, funny kids during school. But Friday afternoon hit, and there was only one, very residential place to find me until Sunday morning when church beckoned, and then Monday morning, when early-morning seminary summoned. What’s more? My high school had release time, but I still went to the early-morning section! Why? Because choir and orchestra met at specific times of the day; not leaving my English, Math, and Social Studies classes much wiggle room. Yeah, I could have worked it out so that I did not force myself into a bleak situation that left me with but one option. But early-morning seminary kids build a connection unlike other early-morning classes could. I wanted to fit in somewhere, and nothing secures you a niche like have a sob story about early seminary to whine about; drawing attention to yourself in the process, of course.
Really, TJ and I were not all that different, we just had different interests. He had drugs. I had the cello. You may or may not see immediately the similarity between the two. His drugs were fulfilling the same social need that my cello was. (‘K, they were just cigarettes. But I was going for the shock value. Did it work?) We were both acting out, just in a little different of ways. He most likely never did any of the hard stuff. Sure, a pack of cigs and a forty of beer were completely outside my realm of acceptable behavior. But even though he had plenty of opportunities to go farther, (the people he hung around certainly did go farther) his delinquency seemed to hold steady at the cigarettes and beer culture. He would step outside of that every once in a while to come to church and play teachers basketball. He still came on our Young Men’s lake trips; even the occasional Wednesday night activity. He was never that bad.
On the other, yet similar hand, I played the cello. I associated with the upper-echelons of high school-aged musicians in Arizona. I can’t say high school musicians because some of them were so good, they didn’t have time for high school. They were too busy with music. Even though I was around them a lot, I never was truly one of them. I was the worst of the best; while TJ was the best of the worst. We both wanted to be extreme, but we just could not commit ourselves to our respective extremity. Ours was a kind of reluctant delinquency. “I’ll show you,” we both seemed to say to the moderate middle. “I’ll show you that I can be hard core if I wanted to, but I choose to not be.” Hard core? Really? Sure. But hardcore in name, and just barely enough effort to secure that name, only.
My group looked down on his group, and his group resented my group. Yet when we were around each other and had reason to talk to each other, we could connect. Here I was, the preppy kid without a cause; and there he was, the rebel without a cause. Why did I get dressed up for church and go to mutual every week and participate in a lot of different activities like sports and music without ever really sinking my teeth into them? I don’t know. Maybe I will just revert to the cliché answer that I was looking for acceptance, and convenient acceptance, nonetheless. I was trying to do just the bare minimum to gain the title “preppy.” On the other hand, why did TJ come to church often and wear a shirt and tie and stay involved with school, but only among the punk, skater group; all the while putting out the impression that he could fall off the cliff any time, but never quite going all the way? Further establishing the cliché, he may have also been looking for acceptance, among a myriad of other possible reasons. Funny how, even about yourself, you never know 100% why someone did something.
II. Background
TJ lived down the street from me. We both lived in the same neighborhood for a while; maybe five or six years. It’s not like he got transplanted into a foster family to stay for a while, or that he was an outsider; our neighborhoods were literally the same. So you can’t say that we were coming from completely separate worlds or something. This leads me to wonder why we did act so differently. It may have been partly because Heritage Street couldn’t hold us. If we revisit the “extreme” theme, we see that the neighborhood actually did not have a huge impact on either of us. Heritage Street didn’t need to hold me. I was content being a good kid at home. My parents moved our family to that neighborhood to cut out any distraction to their parenting; actually quite a good move on their part. But I probably would not have been much different in any other neighborhood. As for TJ, Heritage Street had no interest in keeping him around. We on Heritage Street prided ourselves on being so tight-knit despite our lack of gated-communityness. (Again I include as a resident of the neighborhood rather than a part of the neighborhood.) Because TJ was not an asset to the tight-knit nature of the neighborhood, he couldn’t strengthen it. Therefore, the neighborhood didn’t need him, so it didn’t do anything for him. Or so he felt. I don’t really believe that Heritage Street residents were so stratifying. But I believe that’s how it was perceived, especially by TJ.
Because we really did have leaders who were not overly judgmental, and in an effort to not be too extreme, TJ was not a stranger. We had one leader, Richard, who was especially welcoming and forgiving, but not in a Young-Women kind of way. No cookies changed hands, but heart-felt talks about what was going on certainly took place. Of course Richard’s experience with Anasazi only helped us. Anasazi is a high-adventure survival camp for troubled youth, and Richard had been a counselor. He didn’t coddle us, but he didn’t just let us go, either. Although he told us from the beginning, “When Bishop gave me this calling, he just wanted me to keep you guys the same. I don’t need to save any of you;” he still cared about us. The fact that I’m talking about Richard now is something of a tribute to his very positive influence on all of us; from the kid that everyone else worried (TJ), to the preppy kid who never got into trouble (me).
I remember Richard saying things about TJ like “I really like that kid,” or “TJ is so cool.” TJ was a huge fan of the band Metallica, and Richard had been to a bunch of Metallica concerts and knew all about the band. Richard, apparently, had something of a delinquent past, same as TJ. But he had turned around. They even had similar body-types. They had a lot in common. One sight that will stay with me for a long time is that of Richard and TJ sitting on folding chairs in the sand bank on Lake Powell during a Young Men’s boating trip. TJ had blown up at one of the other boys and stormed off after an f-word or two. Having built a strong relationship with him already, Richard went immediately over and spoke with him for a while. I don’t know what was said, of course. But I do remember their demeanor. I hadn’t seen TJ quite so calm and open as when I saw him and Richard talk it out. That scene is among a very few that I feel has really influenced my attitude toward other people. I don’t freak out about a member whom I home-teach not coming to church; and I didn’t take it personally when an investigator didn’t come to a meeting. These are silly things to be upset about, I feel. There are other problems that are more of an issue when someone doesn’t come to Family Home Evening than simply not coming to Family Home Evening. In TJ’s case, the “problem” or “issue” or “challenge” or whatever was something other than his long hair or skater shoes at church. And Richard realized that.
III. Recommendations
I can’t say much about TJ’s home life. His parents were active in the church and they provided a safe living environment. TJ’s father was in the piano business. He restored and tuned pianos, and TJ helped out with that. I never saw them fight with each other. From what I saw, there wasn’t much more for TJ’s parents to do. However, I saw how my leaders treated him, and I do not feel regretful about it. I think they did a fantastic job. We had a few boys in my Young Men’s group who were not model church members. They kept their hair long or wore their pants sagging a bit, but that did not make them bad people. I have seen, however, undue pressure put on similar boys in other wards. Their leaders guilted them into fitting the stereotypical bill of an LDS adolescent. Thankfully, my leaders never expected one of us to show up on the latest “For the Strength of Youth” pamphlet. That relieved them of undue, unfitting expectations. We had pressure enough, TJ included, to do better. Richard and the other leaders were truly on our side and gave us whatever support we needed.
TJ moved into the ward when he was about 13 or 14 from a much more delinquent-prone neighborhood. I’m sure that’s how his behavior got started. But it really didn’t get worse once he moved. He just hovered around the same level of disobedience. Perhaps, though, the single greatest part of the LDS Church’s organization is the positive male presence. TJ had a dad who was fulfilling his divine appointment as father. He had a caring bishop, an understanding Young Men’s leader, two home teachers at his disposal, a faithful Sunday School teachers, and a handful of friends’ fathers. TJ’s weekly involvement in the church networked him to half a dozen grown male mentors.
This masculine resource can be made available through other means besides just church programs. Male public school teachers should have training and helped to realize their role as model examples of responsibility. Boys PE in junior high comes with benefits far surpassing physical fitness. It is a perfect opportunity for coaches to teach skills and principles beyond push-ups and dodge ball to boys who are just coming to realize the emotional differences between men and women. I would hope that all male teachers realize similar opportunities, no matter the prescribed curriculum of their discipline. I would hope they realize that “learning across the curriculum” does not simply mean writing essays for math class. While it wasn’t public school teachers who helped TJ, the principle of example can be extended to anyone with prolonged exposure with juveniles.

Berger and Bauman's Gardener

I see the Gardener model of Modernity and the Game Keeper model of Pre-Modernity as similar to Berger’s idea of construction. That is, we seek to create a patterned consistency out of a life that we do not control. Yet we cannot know that such a pattern or routine is our own construct. Such a realization would allow us to change the pattern since we made it to begin with. Changing it would demean and undermine it. If we really did come up with the rules, then we came up with the meanings, also. We would have shaped and formed the rules to align with the meaning; to align with what we think is right or true or good or moral.
The difference between the Gardener Model and Berger’s model is the element of our own state of meaning and knowing. That is, the Gardener Model assumes individuals’ and groups’ autonomy and freedom to create a reality of their own design and preference; and Berger states that we are to accept what is given, and explain and classify it ways that are in harmony with what is good or moral. Berger claims that we cannot know that we create our own worlds and realities. But as far as we have discussed so far in class, Bauman makes no such claim in his Gardener Model. According to Bauman, we do not need to fool ourselves into thinking that we have no control over our respective realities. In fact, this is counter to the argument behind the design and planned nature to the Garden. We are supposed to come up with a plan. Designing our own societies and cultures is not only expected, but it is the responsible thing to do. Without a plan or a design, we would not be able to differentiate between what is acceptable and helpful to our goals and preferences, and what is detrimental and harmful to our goals and preferences. Such plans and designs give us direction and guidance. They give us freedom to accept or reject new variables that arise during our experience while interacting with others’ “gardens.” Moreover, they force us to make decisions when we do come across something new. We much choose whether that new thing should be a part of our design.
For example, it is very hard to be ambivalent or dismissive of the war in the Middle East. Not necessarily because everyone is forced to decide on the issue of war and violence and its legitimacy in a cultured, refined society. Nor is everyone forced to decide on the merits of this war in particular and the complicated and intricate elements of the war, such as the assumed legitimacy of the Sunnis or Shiites in the region, or the control over oil in the region, or even the conspiracy theories that include the United States long-standing desire to take over the area. The reason that we are forced to choose whether or not the war fits our design may include these. But does someone like Paris Hilton need to make such a decision. With as self-centered a plan as she has, what interest does she have in the war? Perhaps the media is the lowest-common denominator in this case. The war is constantly talked about and reflected on among the media conglomerate. Hilton is also a central figure among the same cohort. If she wants to keep her status and popularity, she should probably know to some extent what her competition is.
The difference is that the Garden has a Game Keeper with which it may contrast itself, while Bauman makes no mention of such a change or dichotomy. I don’t remember studying Berger as a modernist who made the distinction between current and pre-modern societies. Therefore, I don’t know for sure that he would really accept that people can realize their own roles in creating their own realities. However, fooling ourselves into believing that we are more made than makers is explained in the Game Keeper Model, which Berger would be able to accept.