Pennies from heaven

I had a bit of a disagreement with a friend of mine recently. It seems he wants to do away with the penny. Personally, I'm all for the penny. It's the basis of our monetary system. What would happen if you could no longer break a dollar into all of it's constituent parts? I'll tell you what would happen; our society would collapse! We live in a base ten world. If we did away with the penny, we might as well do away with the centimeter, or the centiliter, or the centipede. Our entire society revolves around tenths, except for computers that are base two or eight depending on your perspective; oh and the whole old English weights and measure system really isn't base anything, well maybe base King George's foot, or something like that; but everything else is base ten. So my concern of course is for the children because let's face it, they'll be the ones that will really suffer if we do away with the penny. I can see it now. Poor little Jimmy is sitting in kindergarten/first grade (whenever they start learning about coinage) and he learns about the dollar. He learns that the dollar can be cut in half, it can be cut into tenths, it can be cut into twentieths, but then when he goes to break it into hundredths; BAM, sorry Jimmy, that's illegal. The poor kid will be devastated. Another example. Poor little Susie just learned to count to ten. Now she wants to show her mom by counting out the change, but can she do it? No, she'll have two nickles, but somehow two equals ten. What's that going to teach anyone? Two equals ten? What kind of crazy mixed up world is that? Not the kind of crazy mixed up world I want to live in.

However, the anti-penny establishment makes a very strong argument when it points out that it costs the government more money to produce a penny then the penny is actually worth. Of course we all know that this lose is made up over the life of the penny because of inflation in other countries (except recently, this has sort of backfired on us). Also it assumes a fifty year life span in which the penny remains in circulation and not in a jar on top of someones dresser, or in a wishing well (do they even take pennies any more?), or being scuffed up and burned, or flicked at people by teenage boys. So it is possible that the government is losing money by manufacturing money which the Argentinians have proved is not a winning business model on numerous occasions.

To every ones relief, I believe I've devised a solution. I'll wait for the applause to die down........... The solution is as simple as it is brilliant. The government needs to begin manufacturing pennies from recycled cardboard! Currently both programs are money losers, but together they can be money winners! Think about it. Used cardboard is nearly worthless. Pennies are nearly worthless. Therefore used cardboard equals pennies. It's a classic use of the transitive property! Besides, using used cardboard could really cut down on production expenses. People could manufacture there own pennies. The government could supply a template on the Treasury Departments website and presto a cottage industry is born! We won't have to worry about being swamped with pennies either because cardboard doesn't hold up as long as zinc or whatever it is we're using now. Also, this could help mitigate the homeless population and reduce poverty as it would be the poor and small children (let's not forget the children) that would be manufacturing the largest number of new coins. Bums wouldn't have to spend another day sober. Jimmy would be able to break a dollar. Susie would be able to count to ten with ten coins instead of two. The best part of all, however, is that it's environmentally friendly. In one fell swoop we would reduce the amount of cardboard going into our landfills while simultaneously reducing mining cost for more metal. With all the savings, the government would be able to pay down the national debt, or more likely declare war on yet another small nation, preferably one that is rich in cardboard reserves.

"Jumper" on this!

There's something I need to get off my chest. Don't worry it's not excessive hair or day old pizza, at least, not this time. No it's a pet peeve of mine (which I'll admit is shedding, which would take us back to hair removal, but that's another story). Anyone who has watched television in the last two months has undoubtedly seen an advertisement for the upcoming Hollywood movie, "Jumper", which I believe is a documentary about a double dutch jump roping squad from Texas. However, regardless of what the movie is about, there's a scene in the trailer where Samuel L. Jackson says something to the effect of, "Only God should have the power to be in all places at all times!" That's the line that irks me. This character is seemingly a religious zealot of some sort. He's justifing his actions by assuming that God wants him to do it. Now, I'm not opposed to religious zealotry. The Lord knows that they've added comic relief for ages. It's true, just ask Him, or if not Him, than anyone caught up in the Spanish Inquisition, hilarious. My problem is that Hollywood seems to portray all religious people as extremists that, as soon as something goes wrong like a power outage, or an earthquake, or a river's water turning into blood; they feel the need to light a bunch of candles, condemn scientist as heretics and offer human sacrifices to the God of Love.

What bothers me is this portrayal of religious people as all being self-righteous, intolerant zealots who feel they have to take everything into their own hands and who assume that God wants them to punish the perceived "sinners" for Him. I once heard a religious zealot defined as something along the following lines (those of you who know me, know that I have a problem with direct quotes), a zealot is someone who does what he thinks God should do if God were there (which is interesting since God, by "definition" is everywhere, but where is that?). In other words, a zealot is one who ascribes his own thoughts and beliefs to God. This is opposed to a disciple who could be defined as someone who seeks to discover what God would have him do, and then does it or at least attempts to do it. In other words disciples try to ascribe God's thoughts and beliefs to themselves.

Now, perhaps I'm overreacting a bit. Perhaps, I'm seeing all of these perceived slights at religion because I'm ultra-sensitive to it. Maybe we see so many zealots in the movies and on television because they make for better characters than "normal" religious folk. However, I wonder if all of this portrayal of zealots is having an effect on the real world. We often associate things based on our perceptions and not necessarily upon reality. If we believe that people can become desensitized to violence because of movies, then what might the constant association of zealotry as mainstream religion be doing? I wonder if people turn away from religion because they don't want to be seen in the same light as these irrational characters. What kind of an effect are these misrepresentations having? It's human nature to stereotype. I've often had people question my beliefs based not upon my beliefs, but upon the perceptions they have of my beliefs. Often a simple explanation is all it takes to set them straight, but how many people never voice their doubts or feelings? I think it's important that "normal" religious folk need to be a good example to help balance out these portrayals of extremism. We can't allow someones only example of religion be that which is seen in movies and on television. Stories by their very nature are skewed and rarely as complex and intricate as real life, yet society seems to except them has portrayals of reality. This seems to add weight to Christ's admonition to be, "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" (see Matthew 5:13-14). In this world with so many perceived zealots, let us all strive to be better disciples and examples to everyone with whom come in contact in the hope that we'll help people see past the intrensic shallowness of stories.

Knock, knock...

So, I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a.k.a. Mormons, in honor of the great prophet-historian, Mormon, who compiled the aptly named Book of Mormon; though I have to admit that those who originally branded us "Mormons" did so disparagingly and not with the intention to honor Mormon or his scriptural compendium. However, I digress. The purpose for my declaration of religious affiliation is to help explain why I was attending a Stake Conference meeting. A Stake Conference is a large meeting attended by the members of several congregations within the Church of Jesus Christ. By tradition there is a Saturday evening session held for adults, of which, sadly, I am one. This is sad in the sense that I'm an adult and not in the sense that I had to attend the meeting because I'm an adult; this being one of the benefits of the sad reality of being an adult.

I found this Saturday's session, on the whole, to be quite delightful. I admit that there have been occasions when they haven't been delightful, but this is because I haven't properly prepared myself beforehand, so instead of being spiritually nourished, I find myself doodling aimlessly on my notepad for the duration of the meeting. However, this time I was somewhat prepared and the meeting was a delight. Perhaps I was more prepared for this particular meeting because one of my good friends was asked to speak on the topic of testimony. I'd like to report that she did a fantastic job. I took a copious amount of notes (copious being here defined as a page and a half of a steno pad), and may in the future devote a post to her discussion. However, at the moment, there's something else that has struck me. Our local mission president (a mission president is one who presides over a mission in case you couldn't figure that out) was also asked to speak. He spoke briefly about a scripture that he has been discussing with the missionaries that serve under him. The scripture is from the book, "The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", hereafter referred to as D&C (for the obvious reason that I don't want to keep typing that title out), section 88, verses 63 and 64. They read:

Draw near unto me and I will draw near unto you; seek me diligently and ye shall find me; ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Whatsoever ye ask the Father in my name it shall be given unto you, that is expedient for you;

There are similar scriptures in the New Testament (Matthew 7:7 and Luke 11:19) as well as in other locations throughout the the Book of Mormon and D&C. He was using these verses in a discussion on drawing closer to the Lord with an emphasis on prayer. He made a distinction between "asking" and "knocking", which I hadn't really considered before, but when you think about it makes a lot of sense. The Lord distinguishes between the two. He states them as two separate things with two separate outcomes. Asking causes you to receive, but knocking opens things. I think we all understand, or at least it's accepted that asking refers to prayer, a verbal communication with the Lord, whether aloud or in the silence of our hearts. So as he was speaking I began to wonder, "What then is knocking?" The mission president made the point that he felt knocking refers to a persistence in drawing closer to the Lord, a persistence in asking. However, I'm not so sure. At least, if he's correct, I don't think he's captured the entire idea. I began to look at what makes up the two acts. Asking as I stated earlier is something you say (whether in thought or aloud). Knocking is something that you physically do. It's a physical action of striking an object with the usual intent of summoning someone. So how does this apply to the Gospel of Christ? I feel that "knocking" might refer to a physical act or actions, but what? Perhaps it deals with ordinances such as: being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, etc. Maybe it refers to keeping the commandment upon which, the blessing we seek, is predicated (sorry for the crazy sentence structure there, but if you read D&C 130:20-21 it will make some sense). I'm really not certain at the moment. This has opened a new realm of thought for me and I feel it is something that is beneficial for us to ponder.