In Answer to WK

WK asked after a previous blog:

What do you think of the Time article entitled The Storm Over the Mormons? I'm interested to know where you stand about the prophet. If Mormons believe a prophet told them to do something, shouldn't they do it, no questions asked?

Let me first say that I read the article. In fact, if you go to the Letters to the Editor section of this week's Time, you'll find my reaction to it. But let me answer in more detail. I completely understand how a member who believes that God speaks through a prophet might feel an absolute obligation to obey his directives. In my mind, however, even if that's what you believe, there are at least two reasons to justify disobedience:

1. You believe the prophet is in error
2. You believe living in a manner consistent with the directive is more distasteful than the consequences of disobedience

In my case, I have never been able to accept the Mormon claim that the church is led by a prophet, and since I believe prohibiting gay men and women from experiencing the most love-inspiring of human relationships to be distasteful and contrary to Christ's higher law, the decision to vote against Proposition 8 was easy for me.

Proof of Uncertainty

Kurt Godel proved that in any axiomatic mathematical system there are propositions that cannot be proved or disproved within the axioms of the system.

You’ve heard me say that logic invariably leads to faith, but don’t take my word for it. There’s considerable evidence to support the idea and people who love the hard sciences will especially appreciate it, because the confirmation comes from logic itself.

As an introduction, consider the 19th Century worldview and how it changed going into our modern age. Throughout the 1800s, there was great enthusiasm and optimism in the power of logic. Earlier scientific and mathematical discoveries—Newton’s classical physics, for example—had uncovered what seemed to be an elegant symmetry in nature, which gave intellectuals a view that all things could be understood in terms of scientific laws. In fact, people (the great Emmanuel Kant, included) believed the logic inherent in science would eventually lead to an understanding of the mind of God.

But cracks began to appear in this deterministic construct. One of the first was the development of non-Euclidean geometries that rejected a postulate used in the plane geometry we study in high school. The possibility that other postulates might be incorrect or of limited value ushered in an age of uncertainty that additional scientific and mathematical discovery only amplified.

The study of physics, for example, added to the disquiet. As physicists delved more deeply into the interactions of subatomic particles, they discovered that such relationships were based upon probabilities rather than strict rules as had been previously supposed. To make matters worse, one implication of the discovery was that the result of any subatomic interaction didn’t finalize until a sentient being observed it. To understand what this means, consider that old philosophical conundrum: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Well, according to one interpretation of quantum mechanics—the Copenhagen version first posited by the Nobel Laureate, Niels Bohr—the tree doesn’t even fall! Its subatomic particles remain in what is referred to as a probability wave until a sentient observer comes along. Thereupon the particles “choose” one of the infinite range of possibilities available to them. (My son, who is working on a physics PhD, tells me no one really believes that’s what happens, although it is consistent with the inexplicable results of various experiments. For more on this, see the book Schrodinger’s Kittens and the Search for Reality, by John Gribbin, which in my opinion is the best book about quantum mechanics written for lay people).

Perhaps one of the most significant discoveries that increased the uncertain worldview of our time was made by Bertrand Russell, a man who had once been a proponent of mathematical determinism. Russell discovered a logical inconsistency in set theory that is evident in the following question:

A man of Seville is shaved by the barber of Seville, if and only if, the man doesn’t shave himself. Does the barber shave himself?

The paradox can be described in a rigorous mathematical way, but consider the following simplification: Obviously, the barber of Seville either shaves himself or he doesn’t. Regardless, however, the result is illogical. If he shaves himself, he cannot be shaved by the barber of Seville, but since he is the barber of Seville and he shaves himself...well, you get the point. The problem, as Russell was able to distinguish, can occur anytime a set is an element of itself. For example, the set of men shaved by the barber of Seville (let’s call this A) is not an element of itself, because A is not a man shaved by the barber of Seville. However, let’s create another set (which we’ll call R) and include in it everything that is not in set A. Since set R is also not a man who is shaved by the barber of Seville, it is an element of itself, a characteristic often called self-referencing. This may seem like a trivial matter, but self-referencing can lead to serious logical problems and points to the limitations of logic.

Finally, let me describe a theorem that is simplistically sneaky, but has implications that have essentially put an end to strict mathematical determinism. I’m talking about Kurt Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, which like Russell’s Paradox, has a rigorous mathematical rendering, but can be described in simplified terms.

Let’s say you create a computer that you call the Universal Truth Machine (or UTM for short) which you’ve programmed to tell the truth. Before approaching it, you write the following words on a sheet of paper:

The UTM will never say this sentence is true.

Now, you turn the UTM on, show it the paper and ask if the statement is true. What happens? First, the UTM can’t say the statement is true. Can you see why? If it does, the statement will be rendered false, which is contrary to the UTM’s programming. In a paradoxical way, the fact that the computer will not say the statement is true is your greatest evidence that the statement is, in fact, true. On the other hand, the UTM can’t say the statement is false, either, since as we’ve already demonstrated, that would be untrue. (Another way to look at it is if the UTM said the statement was false, it would render the statement true).
Again, the result seems contrived and trivial, but the math is sophisticated and full of implications. In short, Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem suggests that rational thought can never penetrate to the ultimate truth, or said another way: There are truths that cannot be discerned, or proved, strictly through the use of logic.

Meeting My Granddaughter for the First Time

This is the star I orbit. I'm trapped in her gravity. There is no escape.

The Rap on Religion

Religion gets a bad rap. We blame it for every awful event in our history, from the Inquisition to 9-11, with slavery and the holocaust as examples that occurred in between. It’s not difficult to find fault in faith-based devotion, since it appears to be an element of much of the revolution and organized violence that occurs in the world. Yet while religion is certainly a part of the cultural tableau that permeates such sad historical events, can we really say it’s the underlying cause?

Sam Harris, the author of The End of Faith and an ardent critic of religion, says we should recognize organized faiths—particularly, Islam, Judaism and Christianity—as institutions that threaten to undermine civilization due to their taboos against any questioning of their beliefs. The upshot of his message is that we should, in turn, question the ideal of religious tolerance. In fact, he encourages what he calls conversational intolerance, which demands that faith be put on the same plane as the study of physics or history in terms of our willingness to question its theories and conclusions. Anyone who has read from my blog knows that I embrace this idea completely. However, Harris goes too far (for my taste) by fostering a degree of intolerance that is as dangerous as the religious fanaticism he opposes. More importantly, he sees religion as the cause of the world’s problems, rather than a tool that corruption employs.

Let me be clear on this topic: I like the idea of conversational intolerance. Spirituality, in my opinion, should advance just like science and there’s no way to do so without changing the norms of the past. The religious codes by which we live, after all, were first proffered thousands of years ago to people living in circumstances little resembling our own. We should be willing, therefore, to measure our religious beliefs in the same way we probe our mathematical assumptions, by asking: Does this have value and how do I know it does? To do so, however, requires our ideal of faithfulness to eschew blind acceptance and be open to the kind of inquiry that may result in an occasional adjustment to core beliefs. If we can grow in this way, we accomplish what Harris wants without undermining the need for faith.

In contrast, a strict intolerance for faith that leads to its knee-jerk rejection (which I sense is what Harris is chomping at the bit to recommend) will only result in the creation of other gods. As I’ve argued before, a leap of faith is inevitable. We can only change the direction of that leap. The reason I believe this has its basis in the following two premises:

1. Bad people—not bad religions—cause the world’s atrocities
2. If faith can’t be used as a tool, bad people will create other “gods” to get what they want

I can’t think of any religion that demands its followers to live the law of the jungle. In fact, they all aspire, in some way, to raise people from a primal condition into some state of enlightenment. A religion may condone episodes of bloodshed to accomplish its objective, but in the end it hopes for social order. In this context, a recent article in Time Magazine, entitled Decoding God’s Changing Moods, points out that the God of scripture often vacillates between periods of belligerence and tolerance. The common theme behind the back-and-forth is this: When the scriptural worldview posits a non-zero-sum game, God tends to be more tolerant as a way to encourage a win-win. On the other hand, when a projected outcome sums to zero (such as a gain to the Palestinians is deemed a loss to Israel) watch out.

For that reason people can find scriptural rationale to act out their religious zeal as either angels or assholes. Some choose the former. Some choose the latter before discovering a moderating discipline in faith. Still others start out as assholes and adopt justification for their base desires in tortured interpretations of scripture. It wasn’t, therefore, religion that demanded the Inquisition. It was the same greedy and self-indulgent men who could overlook murder through the sale of indulgences that built the racks and established the tribunals. Their intent was to gain power and control over the masses, conditions for which there is no scriptural imperative. God didn’t want coerced professions of faith. To assume otherwise is to think He’s not very bright. Yet, to those men of the cloth who hungered for authority to the exclusion of Christ’s mercy, faith was simply a tool. If it hadn’t been available, they would have found another one like it.

Eliminating religion, therefore, only causes evil to recruit other gods. There are many from which to choose. Let me suggest a few:

• Cultural or Ethnic Superiority
• The Law
• Economic Systems
• Military or Technological Prowess
• Hatred

Let me give you an example of how an alternative god can be held hostage and forced to participate in an atrocity. Some people blame the Catholic Church for turning a blind eye to the holocaust, but there was far more going on than Christianity taking a dim view of the descendants of those who were said to have crucified its Savior. As Hannah Arendt is quick to point out in her treatise, Eichmann in Jerusalem, the holocaust was authorized by a carefully crafted mountain of secular laws and legal interpretations. One such law permitted euthanasia for the physically and mentally handicapped. It apparently didn’t take much consideration to put Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals in that category. Yet, we don’t say the German legal system caused the holocaust. We understand that people determine and enforce laws.

In short, let’s not blame religion for the world’s ills. We might as easily say the devil made us do it. In the end, we have only ourselves to blame.

Touched by the Spirit

In response to one of my earlier blogs, Jack said the following:

I think you've overlooked the fact that when the spirit testifies of something (like, for example, that God lives) then you have your proof. That's more proof than anything a mathematician can show on paper.

To Jack and anyone else who cares to listen, let me relate a personal experience.

After Lori and I were married, we attended church at a Mormon ward that was comprised of young married students. I was asked, at the time, to organize regular events during which the ward members could gather and listen to speakers address issues of secular interest. Soon after accepting the responsibility, I heard of a man who’d uncovered numerous historical documents from the church's early days. I gave him a call and asked if he would speak to my congregation. He agreed without reservation.

On the evening of the event, the man came at the appointed time and brought several examples of documents he had uncovered. They included a fragment that contained Queen Isabella’s signature and another that came from an original Declaration of Independence. However, the document he showcased was a letter written by Lucy Mack Smith, the mother of the Mormon Church’s first prophet, Joseph Smith. He handed out copies of the letter printed on expensive parchment paper. I wish I still had my copy, but alas, I’ve lost it.

The letter was addressed to one of Lucy Mack Smith’s relations and told of the work Joseph was accomplishing to bring forth the Book of Mormon. He had, according to the letter, translated over 100 pages that Lucy referred to as the Book of Lehi. Two aspects of the letter’s contents are noteworthy. First, the over 100 pages (actually 116) were subsequently lost and never recovered. According to Mormon theology, God instructed Joseph to, rather than retranslate the work, replace it with a translation of another source document. Therefore, the contents of the original manuscript are the subject of much speculation. Nowhere that I know of, aside from the letter ascribed to Lucy Mack Smith, are there any claims that the lost pages were known as the Book of Lehi.

Second, the letter gives insight into Book of Mormon events that aren’t recorded in the current version. For example, the Book of Mormon talks of a prophet Lehi, who after prophesying of the destruction of Jerusalem, took his family into the desert to await further instruction from God. There, God ordered Lehi to send his sons back to Jerusalem to convince a man named Ishmael to accompany them into the wilderness. This was necessary, according to the account, so that Lehi’s sons would have Ishmael’s daughters to marry. As part of the letter’s commentary on the event, Lucy Mack Smith told her relation that Ishmael was Lehi’s brother and therefore knew of Lehi’s standing with God. That information is not included in the Book of Mormon today.

The reason this remains so clear in my memory is because the man who shared the document with us, became quite emotional as he referenced this section of the letter. He told us that he’d always wondered what would cause Ishmael to walk into the desert (after all, the invitation of a few young men who were hungry for his daughters seemed insufficient) but the letter answered his nagging question. When I say the man became emotional, what I mean is he shed tears of what appeared to be joy and gratitude, and with a wavering voice he shared a powerful testimony that the Book of Mormon was what it claimed to be: God’s word. I have to say that I was moved by what the man said, and judging from the sniffles and smiles from others who’d come to listen, I wasn’t alone. By the end of the evening, I was being congratulated for organizing a wonderful faith-promoting experiencing.

Why am I telling you this story?

If you’re familiar with events that shook the Salt Lake Valley in 1985, you’ll know that the Lucy Mack Smith letter is a forgery created by the very man who came to speak at the gathering I'd arranged. That man, Mark Hoffman, was the creator of dozens of similar forged documents, including one that is now known as the Salamander Letter, which supposedly quotes Joseph Smith and is an account of a white salamander that gave Joseph directions to where the source record for the Book of Mormon could be found. Yet, that’s not Mark Hoffman at his worst. In an effort to protect the secret of his forgeries, the man murdered two people and is now behind bars for the rest of his life.

My question is: Why would I—and others, too—have felt the spirit, if it confirmed what amounted to a lie? Perhaps it wasn’t the spirit, after all, but an emotional response based upon William James’ will to believe. The fact is, as I’ve asserted elsewhere, we can’t know if God is speaking to us, although it would be nice to think He does.

What I’ve written here isn’t an isolated case, as I could give other examples. For instance, my first spiritual experience was in the Vatican, while I sang with a choir in Saint Peters Basilica. Most Mormons would object if I were to say that the spirit had come to testify of Catholicism. Then, a year later, I decided to go on a mission after hearing a church leader, Paul H. Dunn, speak. Dunn was an extraordinary orator, who had tremendous influence over the youth of the church. During his address he spoke of once being a pitcher for the Saint Louis Cardinals and of his exploits as a decorated soldier in the Korean War. Though I was filled with what I presumed then to be the spirit, subsequent developments have cast a shadow on that special moment in my life. You see, a journalist began looking into Dunn’s background and discovered that he’d never played professional baseball, neither had he fought in a war. When this information came to light, Dunn was quickly put on emeritus status by the church.

In a future blog, I’d like to use Mormon scripture to show how difficult it is to “hear” God’s instructions, but for now, let’s acknowledge the difficulty and the underlying uncertainty involved. At the very least, we might admit that such an experience is not proof at all, but a jumping off place for our leap of faith.

Happy Fathers Day

My father first took me fishing before I could grasp a rod, and for more than a decade of summers thereafter, he made it an almost daily practice. Until this year I'd come to think our excursions were a thing of the past. Yet when I needed it most, Dad found a way back to tranquil water.

I grew up in Southcentral Alaska, where salmon filled the rivers and gave themselves up to a hungry food chain. My father and I caught more than a few fish together, but that was never our primary interest. Spending time outdoors in a place shaped by mammoth tides and glacier-fed streams was at least as important. For Dad, it was also an opportunity to put theory into action. He worried about me--knowing the problems kids face--but he figured: Boys who are busy fishing won't get into trouble.

Today I understand his reasoning, because I recognize fishing as a remedy for a host of ills. I planned my life on the banks of turquoise rivers, a fly rod in hand, casting flesh and egg patterns to monster rainbow trout and char. Dad would point to interesting water and muse aloud at how he might fish it. Being a serious angler, he didn't say much otherwise, just smiled in my direction when he hooked something big.

I learned life's lessons while with Dad. One summer we pulled two grown men from a river after their conoe had capsized. Safe on the bank, they watched their camping gear float away and the first words either of them could muster was: "Hell, there goes my cigarettes." I laughed until I recognized a melancholy side to wanting.

But that didn't stop me from doing the same thing: want things that seemed to drift beyond my grasp. I left Alaska in search of fortunes elsewhere and saw my parents only during the handful of vacation days I could scrape up. The regularity of our fishing trips became further constrained by Dad's age and diminished health. Then a few years ago, my folks moved to the small town in Idaho where my father grew up.

I thought the relocation would mark an end to our time on water, but Dad saw opportunity in it. He reminded me that a day's drive was all that separated us now and that Alaska didn't hold a monopoly on fish. He spoke of trout streams near his new home--places he'd frequented as a boy--and invited me to spend a week with him to try our luck there.

I jumped at the chance, in part, because I'd come through a rough patch. After two decades searching for wealth (and finding only money and position instead) I was disillusioned and unhappy. I'd just quit my job and begun to think of myself as a "recovering" investment banker. I swore to do something nobler than mind the figures in a trading ledger, but I needed time to clear my head and make plans. A week with Dad on a trout stream sounded therapeutic, if not magical.

There were unexpected bonuses to our reunion. Dad showed me the home where he was born, the camp he'd visited as a Boy Scout and the grove where he'd picked chokecherries. We went to a diner and ordered the special--chicken noodle soup on mashed potatoes--and I listened to Dad's recollections of a time long ago.

Early the first full day, he drove us along a dirt road through hay and barley fields until we arrived at a train trestle spanning a deep chasm. The rails had been stripped, but Dad remembered when trains still ran the line. The year 1882 was cast into one of the concrete butresses, but the girders were as clean as if they'd been set in place a month before.

We walked across the span over swirling water a hundred fee below us. Boulders and fallen timber littered the streambed. Cottonwoods and scrub willows covered each slope. Upstream the water curved and left a promising pool along one bank. In the opposite direction swift wter disappeared behind thick foliage. The creek had everything we wanted: deep pockets, riffles, cutbanks and rocks. In a manner approaching reverence, my father spoke its name: Bitch Creek.

When I wondered about its appellation, Dad shrugged. "She's a bitch to get down to," is all he said.

Undaunted, we clambered down the slope through a cloud of dust, hoping we'd eventually find an easier way back. From the bank we threw stone-fly nymphs and hopper patterns into the swirling water behind boulders. Native cutthroats, some as long as our forearms, took with a vengeance and fought like berserkers.

By the end of the day, my therapy had taken hold and I stopped worrying about life's vagaries. Being with Dad reminded me that the riches of a lifetime aren't found in the baubles we collect, but in human relationships. And as long as there are babbling streams and a father's devotion, I figure this boy won't get into too much trouble.

Happy Fathers Day, Dad.

Good Answer

In reference to my last blog, Matt said the following:

I think the distinction between religion-based faith and science-based faith is that when I believe in a scientific theory, I do so with full knowledge that it may (and probably will) be supplanted by a more complete theory in the future. This doesn't mean that it was wrong to believe in the theory in the first place. It can be viewed more as a stepping-stone on the way towards the real truth.

Maybe this is the point that you've been getting at the whole time in regards to religious faith. I think what Christ ultimately wants is for us to search for truth throughout our lives. We may not learn everything there is to know about this world, but the mere act of searching (within his guidelines) is what makes us better people. I believe that doing so will bring us farther ahead than those who thought they knew the whole truth from the beginning.

I love this idea and concur with it completely. It raises, however, an interesting view of religious faith. When Einstein delivered his General Theory of Relativity, did people of science throw up their hands and say, "Newton was an idiot. He deceived us."? Of course not. We still revere Sir Isaac for the classical physics he developed (which is still a pretty-darn good description of the world) but we understand that it misses a few ingredients.

Someday, we'll probably learn that there's another physical law--that elusive Theory of Everything--that will combine General Relativity with quantum mechanics. Will we then say, "Einstein was a bonehead. He led us down the wrong path"? No, we will still see him as a brilliant man, whose shoulders we've climbed upon to gain a view to higher ground.

Why can't people of religious faith do the same? Why can't we assume that there is more to learn regarding spiritual matters than what's written in the Bible? To believe it should serve the same purpose for me as it did for a people steeped in superstition who were living a hand-to-mouth existence, defies reason. I don't own an ox that might get stuck in the mud on the Sabbath. Though the Bible is a wonderful guide, we must use it as one of many guides that puts us on higher ground in order to deal with issues the Children of Israel must have thought highly improbable.

The Leap of Faith

Someone recently asked me to clarify what I mean about a leap of faith and why I claim that all people experience it. Let me begin by saying that I take a more inclusive view on the nature of faith. To me, it’s any unproven, or un-provable, premise upon which we base our decisions. I realize that most people see faith as a religious construct. However, I recognize little difference in the effect of 1) believing God wills the sun to rise in the morning, versus 2) believing the interaction of gravitational fields causes the phenomenon. Eventually, one has to put trust in a concept that is unseen.

I know what you’re thinking. One might object by saying gravity is a proven physical property, whereby God’s existence is not. To this I say: Proof, at a personal level, is something that occurs in the intellect and heart. For instance, going back to the concept of gravity, I’ve spent a considerable amount of time trying to fathom Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, which is sometimes described as a theory of gravity. While Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is quite easy to conceptualize (first-year physics students are required to understand it) the General Theory is dense and requires a background in complex mathematics, including non-Euclidean geometry, to master. To fully comprehend it, one must go beyond the conceptual breakthrough Einstein achieved in equating gravity with acceleration. Though I believe in his theories, I’m relegated to only professing faith in them. Despite much effort otherwise, I don’t understand his work in any degree that I can call knowledge. Furthermore, I can’t see gravity. All I can see of it is what I presume to be gravity’s effects, including the earth’s orbit around the sun.

What I’ve just described is also akin—I might say, nearly identical—to my faith in God. Though in many ways God remains a mystery to me, logic has led me to believe in His existence and the value of the gospel of love and kindness He espouses. The logical pathway that has led me to a subsequent leap of faith is perhaps the topic of another discussion, but for now let me say this: I’ve come to believe in God, not through any willy-nilly process, but through study and contemplation of life’s experiences. Yet, I’m quick to admit that my concept of Him might be wrong or incomplete, which notion keeps me learning and allows my faith to rest comfortably beside Einstein’s (and Darwin’s, as well as other people’s) theories. In fact, I’m convinced that God wants us—above all else—to never end our search for knowledge and to accept what is true no matter where truth is found. That idea is contained in the following poem I penned many years ago:

Drawing its timelessness incapsulated,
As from an apothecary’s jar,
The word stretched me beyond horizons
To give me a sense of God.

For what of Godliness,
Unless it be unfettered, unchained,
Free of horizons constraining mortal men?

Its good news changed this mortal’s course,
Having swallowed
(But being swallowed in return)
And hearing Him, who was more than philosopher say:
“Know the truth,”
I’ve searched.

But the search continues,
For somewhere unbound and never-resting,
The father of my soul urges onward,
To walk the path free of mortal constraints,
To be like him:
Unfettered and unchained.

A belief that the sun will rise tomorrow—whether it’s derived from religious faith, logic, or a combination of the two—results in behavior that plans and prepares for the eventuality. In the same way, if we were confident the sun would never rise again, would we go to work tomorrow? Most of us, I’m sure, would huddle with family and other loved ones in an expression of love and devotion until the end came or we were proved wrong. This result would be the same, whether rooted in scriptural or scientific revelation. To that extent, the effects of our assumptions are similar, no matter how they’re derived.

Here, I must be allowed a digression: Would the holocaust—or the inquisition, or slavery, for that matter—have occurred without religion? In my opinion, immoral and selfish people would have justified such abhorrent acts on the basis of some other philosophy or pseudo science. In each case, it was political gain and wealth that people were after and tortured logic made God a convenient scapegoat. (I’d like to discuss this in more detail in some future blog).

But back to my point: Another way to express a leap of faith is to say thinking people, over the course of their lifetimes, acquire sets of values based upon personal inquiries that little differ whether approached from a religious or secular perspective. These personal inquiries include the following:

• Is there a God who loves me and can intercede on my behalf?
• Is there a purpose for me in life? If so, how can I actualize it?
• What is the nature of human beings? Are they good, evil, or neither?
• What is proper behavior and what is its calculus?

Notice two things about these questions. First, they have been—and will continue to be—asked by spiritual and secular thinkers alike, and are as important to reason-loving Plato as to the deeply pious Kant. They are the purview of both religion and social science, and are topics central to what Mortimer Adler calls, “The Great Conversation,” which every generation must consider for itself. Second, none of these questions can be answered by pointing to indisputable physical proof, but must be concluded on a deeply personal basis. The process of answering these questions is the universal leap of faith of which I speak.

The resulting faith—the set of assumptions we each acquire—gives birth to core values and becomes the basis for every decision made. However, as I’ve said many times before, these decisions are rooted in beliefs rather than knowledge and we should be open to the possibility that better choices are available.

Lyra Xie Bahr--Born June 9, 2009

It's official. I'm a grandpa! Lyra (as in lyrical) Xie Bahr was born on June 9th. Both mother and daughter are well. The father is as proud as a peacock.

(As my son was quick to point out, we're in June now. My earlier reference to Lyra's birthday as being in May was incorrect).

Update: She's two-years old now and here's a video of the star I orbit. 

The Nature of God

Remember the father who had a bunch of kids, some of whom he called his favorites, the others he ignored? Do you recall how he permitted his favorite children to steal from the others and sometimes do worse? Remember the rules he established for them (the two most important that they never speak ill of him and always hold him in the highest esteem)? You might also recall how he tested his children with a variety of torments in order to prove their worthiness. Once he even did it on a bet. While he demanded unquestioning loyalty, the father’s answer to disobedience was utter destruction of his children, a consequence he exacted more than once.

Who was this awful father?

He was the God of the Old Testament, of course, who gave his chosen people—Abraham’s posterity—a Promised Land for which they were required to kill and displace others to obtain. It was the same God who commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a test of faith—the same God who, just to make a point, went into cahoots with the devil to torment Job. It was the same father who flooded the earth and leveled Sodom and Gomorrah as responses to disobedience—the same father who relished the fear and trembling of his children as they approached him in prayer.

Why would anyone worship such a being, much less call him perfect? I would burn in hell rather than do so (not that I believe in any such consequence). In fact, I would first honor the mythological Zeus or Apollo, whom the Greeks acknowledged as imperfect and therefore not the best of role models. That amount of insight allowed them to recognize capricious behavior when they saw it. But to call moral any being who would demand the violence and destruction recorded in the Old Testament, is to embrace a worldview that chooses war over peace, punishment over forgiveness, and levitical nitpicking over love and compassion.

Fortunately there’s an option to believing in such a being. The alternative is to see God the way Christ described Him. How is that, you ask? Christ’s description of the Father is clear from the very treatise that establishes His higher law, the Sermon on the Mount. If I were banished to a proverbial desert island and only allowed to take a few hundred words of literature with me, it would be chapters 5 through 7 in Matthew. They describe, in my opinion, the most important ideas ever articulated. Not only is it a summary of what God wants from us, but it is a description of His very nature.

Christ’s guidelines for the higher law are, as I’ve mentioned in earlier blogs, the following:

• Don’t just refrain from murder, bridle your anger
• Go beyond abstaining from adultery, control your lust
• Don’t stop at honoring contracts, let your word be your bond
• Do more than seek justice, forgive
• Love more than those close to you, love everyone

You might ask what this has to do with the nature of God. Jesus closes His comments about the higher law by saying, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” In this way, Christ implies that His gospel circumscribes the kind of perfection God honors and practices. I can’t imagine our Heavenly Father so angry that He would flood the earth and kill all, but eight, of His children. Furthermore, to believe the account—and to concurrently assume that God is a perfect moral being—is to think such acts are acceptable. It isn’t too far a leap from that viewpoint to believe God wanted us to invade Iraq because of the boorish behavior of its leader. In that way, a Judeo-Christian ethic that is premised upon a vengeful and jealous version of godliness is dangerous and can lead to thug-like acts of its believers.

But is that what Christ would have wanted? Let me know what you think.

Logic Leads to Faith

In an earlier blog, I reiterated a statement that I’ve made numerous times. In short, I believe that behind each momentous decision we make, we can trace a logical line of justification that eventually leads to a leap of faith. At various times I’ve described that process as a leap into a canyon of uncertainty or wonder. In response, DC said the following:

True, logic—and evidence—take us only so far in knowing and understanding, but “canyons of wonder” can thrive happily in “faithless” uncertainty. Wonder does not lead inevitably to faith…

Let me try to articulate why I think otherwise by first saying that my idea of faith includes any reliance on an unproven premise as a guide to correct behavior. For example, I don’t know for a fact that the phenomenon we call global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, yet there seems to be evidence of a causal link between the two and so I’ve taken steps to reduce my consumption of the earth’s resources. In the final analysis, I believe we all have a responsibility to the earth. To me, that is as much a leap of faith as refraining to murder only because the Bible says it’s a sin.

To further demonstrate what I mean, let’s say three men (Alex, Bob and Corey) at different times come across the same parked car at the side of a road. They notice that the vehicle is unlocked with the key still in the ignition and the identical idea occurs to each of them—I could easily take this car—but, based upon vastly different premises, they resist the temptation. The grounds by which they make their decisions are as follows:

• Alex thinks he would get caught in the act, the consequence of which would exceed his desire for the car
• Bob decides to act in accordance with the law, which he believes is the key to social harmony and stability
• Corey considers the needs of the car owner and reconfirms his commitment to do no harm to others

In terms of the construct I introduced in my very first blog, Alex is following the Law of the Jungle, which encourages him to insure his own survival and seek personal gain to the exclusion of any and all other objectives. Presumably, if he’d thought he could avoid the possible consequences, Alex would have stolen the car. Bob, on the other hand, is following the Mosaic Law, which instructs him to avoid certain acts, including theft. This heuristic set of rules has become his reference guide to life. Finally, Corey is following Christ’s gospel, which encourages him to let love and conscience direct his behavior. The gospel’s requirements are less formalized and often require some amount of improvisation. How do we love our neighbor? There is no gospel equivalent to Leviticus.

In the end, all three men take what is arguably the correct course of action by not stealing the vehicle, but their motivations put them on differing planes. Of the three, who do you consider to be the most trustworthy? As William James was famous for asserting, knowing a person’s “philosophy” is quite possibly the most important thing we can understand about him, since it is the best predictor of how he will act in the future. Now, for purposes of my argument, it’s important to point out that, despite their contrasting motivations, each man could have reached his conclusion by first asking, “Why shouldn’t I steal the car?” and validating the answer by asking, “How do I know my conclusion is correct?”

For inquiring minds, the second question often leads to a string of logical inquiries, until the questioner eventually arrives at one of the canyons of uncertainty of which I spoke. For instance, returning to the example above, Bob, upon seeing the unlocked car, might have processed the following logic in his head.

Question: Why shouldn’t I steal the car?
Answer: Because God commanded me to do otherwise
Question: How do I know that?
Answer: Because the Bible says so and it’s God’s word
Question: How do I know that?
Answer: Because the spirit testifies that it is so
Question: How do I know that?
Answer: Because I’ve felt the spirit
Question: How do I know that?

Eventually, a truly honest Bob will admit that he doesn’t know if he has felt God’s spirit testify of the Bible’s truthfulness. He may have been moved by the Bible’s words, but that isn’t evidence of a Godly communion. People of other faiths, after all, seem similarly motivated by texts they deem sacred and are willing to die as proof of their confidence. So the way we’re sometimes touched by Biblical teachings could be an emotional response (though admittedly a powerful, life-changing and often good response) rather than a spiritual communion, whatever that entails.
Yet, even if we were in contact with God’s spirit, how can we know we've interpreted it correctly? As I’ve said before, if God is as great as we believe, His thoughts must be beyond human understanding. (Think of Einstein squared, or cubed). Is it possible, for example, that the nightmare of the inquisition was God’s will? Or could it have been a terrible misinterpretation of God’s intent. What I’m trying to say is that at some point in the process of logically defining who and what we are, we must admit that we’re making value judgments that we cannot know as fact.
Furthermore, one need not be a Christian to go through the same exercise. Let's say Bob is a scientist, who has no religious bias, whatsoever. Perhaps his thinking would follow more along these lines:
Question: Why shouldn't I steal the car?
Answer: Because that would be wrong
Question: How do I know that?
Answer: Because society has decided, through long experience, that stealing leads to chaos, which would be intolerable for everyone
Question: How do I know that?
Answer: Because I can imagine the consequences of a world in which all people steal, but I guess that is a supposition on my part and I really don't know that for a fact
That doesn’t mean, however, that we live life in a corner, shaking from the possibility—no, the certainty—that we will occasionally be wrong. On the contrary, once we know where we stand, we act with assurance that we’ve done our best to define the lines that make us who we are. However, we are equally willing to redefine those lines, when contrary evidence demands it, and we respect the actions of others to define themselves, as long as such actions do no harm.

Social Responsibility and the Profit Motive

My favorite teacher was Mr. Napoli, whose class I attended in the fourth grade. He was a stocky, dark-headed man, who loved baseball, singing, and all things Italian. There was much to admire about him, but perhaps the thing we loved most was this: For half an hour each day he would read to us from wonderful books that instilled in us a love of stories. But that’s not all. Once finished with some delightful yarn, he would lead a discussion about the issues it had raised. After listening to a Jackie Robinson biography, for instance, we talked about racism in a manner that was wonderfully adult-like and life-changing. In that way, we considered topics as important and varied as personal responsibility and the 60’s counter culture.

One day, Mr. Napoli finished a story set in war-torn Germany and began to question us on a subject of curiosity to me—the idea that we lived in a free country. After hearing our teacher and several students make that assertion, I raised my hand and expressed as best I could a question that had bothered me for quite some time.

“If we live in a free country,” I asked, “why can’t I go outside and pull down my pants?”

To my fourth grade classmates, that was an incredibly bold and hilarious question that caused a minor disturbance as my friends guffawed and nearly fell out of their seats. After quieting us down, however, Mr. Napoli smiled and said something I’m sure I didn’t understand at the time. As best as I can recollect, he spoke of how freedom comes at a cost and that a free people, of necessity, will choose to restrict their actions and agree upon laws that restrict the actions of others.

That idea finally fell into place in 1991 when I read a Wall Street Journal editorial written by Peter Drucker. In it, Drucker talked about visiting Russia, which at the time was struggling with the meaning of open markets. He was asked to speak to a classroom of management students, where he quickly discovered a misconception shared among the young people. The students there, it seemed, thought capitalism required prices to be set artificially high so that all businesses were able to survive. It was difficult for them to believe a free economy could survive otherwise.

In response to this notion, Drucker said the following:

There is no such thing as ‘profit.’ There are only ‘costs’: costs of doing business and costs of staying in business, costs of labor and raw materials, and costs of capital; costs of today’s jobs and costs of tomorrow’s jobs and tomorrow’s pensions. There is no conflict between ‘profit’ and ‘social responsibility.’ To earn enough to cover the genuine costs which only the so-called ‘profit’ can cover, is economic and social responsibility— indeed, it is the specific social and economic responsibility of business. It is not the business that earns a profit adequate to its genuine costs of capital, to the risks of tomorrow and to the needs of tomorrow’s worker and pensioner that ‘rips off’ society. It is the business that fails to do so.

By including the costs of social responsibility in the ideal profit motive, Drucker teaches something insightful and powerful. Free enterprise—and by extension, life in a “free country”—must reward socially responsible choices. In short, freedom is a balancing act that is not possible without personal restraint and acceptance of responsibilities. Perhaps the irony in this statement is obvious, but let me try to articulate it: For freedom to work, no one may exercise it to its fullest extent, since that will invariably impinge on the freedom of others.

I believe that God’s greatest wish for us is that we be truly free—free of all varieties of bondage: physical, spiritual, and even economic. In this sense, Christ said in John 8:32 the following about His gospel:

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

At the time of the Savior’s earthly sojourn, the Jewish people were waiting for a Messiah who they mistakenly believed would free them from the political bondage of life under Roman rule. Yet, by Christ’s own admission, His freedom was a very different animal, which—based upon knowledge of the truth—held the power to free men and women in a way Emily Dickenson must have understood when she wrote her poem, Emancipation.

No rack can torture me,
My soul’s at liberty.
Beneath this mortal bone,
There knits a bolder one
You cannot prick with saw,
Nor rend with scimitar.
Two bodies therefore be,
Bind one and one will flee.
The eagle, of his nest,
No easier divest
And gain the sky,
Than mayest thou,
Except thyself be thine enemy.
Captivity is consciousness,
So is liberty.

What is the truth Christ mentioned? It was, of course, His higher law that leads to a liberty greater than freedom from theft and murder, but emancipates the spirit from the bondage of unquenchable appetite and desire. It’s a variety of liberty based upon self-interest tempered by neighborly love and compassion. Do we experience this freedom today? Of course not. As Christ once said: By their fruits ye shall know them. And by the fruits—or the results—of our freedom, it’s clear we live lesser laws. These are standards more concerned with protecting what is ours (thou shalt not covet) than in service to those who truly need our succor (love thy neighbor). Until we fully incorporate the costs of social responsibility into the profit motive, we will fall short of Christ’s hope for us. As I’ve mentioned in earlier blogs, we can do this, in part, by encouraging corporations and other public enterprises to make their employees—as well as other insiders—shareholders.

Wishing Mom a Happy Day!

My mom is one of the funniest people I know, but her humor isn’t always intentional. Sometimes she says the wrong thing at the wrong time, and though she’s lived in the states for the last 50 years, she speaks with a Japanese accent that makes her sound like one of the computer-generated characters out of a Star Wars movie. When I was a kid, my friends loved her and would drop by the house just to say, “Hey, Mrs. Bahr,” because they knew she didn’t like to be greeted with a “hey” and would always reply, “Hay? Hay da fo hos!” (which, in her Jar Jar Binks manner of speaking meant: Hay is for horses).

I could go on and on about her various misadventures using the English language, but perhaps I can give you an example. This happened one evening when my brothers and I were home for the holidays, shooting the breeze. Suddenly the phone rang and mom stood to answer it. We heard her say hello, after which confusion clouded her expression. The caller, apparently, had misdialed and was asking for Bill or Tom or someone else who wasn’t a member of our family. So mom replied in a way that she must have considered direct, but helpful.

“No,” she said. “Dis a bar.”

Now, we all knew what she was trying to say—that the caller had mistakenly reached the Bahr residence—but her execution was lacking. My brothers and I started to laugh, imagining what the person on the other end of the line was thinking. Did I just call Bob’s House of Ale and reach someone who’d had more than her share to drink? My mom heard us snickering and started to laugh, too, but she quickly composed herself and said, “Solly bout dat,” before hanging up the phone.

It wasn’t until I relearned Japanese that I got to know my mom in a way that her second language had kept hidden. When speaking in her childhood tongue, she conveys a kind of authority and grace that is surprising and causes me to wonder how difficult it must have been for her to grope for words most of her adult life. Then I realize she doesn’t think that way. She isn’t bothered by a misplaced article, or an improperly conjugated verb. You might say that, to her, perfection is overrated—especially when quirky is an option.

And guess what? I believe that, too.

My mom used to be passionate about football. When the 49ers played, she’d be super-glued to the TV and shame on you if you tried to pry her away. Then, a few years ago she was suddenly bemoaning the fact that she didn’t like the sport anymore. The reason? She didn’t have a team to root for! You see, her favorite player, Steve Young, had retired and because my brothers and I were out of school, there were no college teams that interested her, either. Hearing that, I reminded her that she had a grandson (my boy, Matt) who was attending UC Berkley and I suggested she could root for the Golden Bears of Cal.

Mom replied matter-of-factly, “That’s not good. I can’t say Cal.”

And she was right. The way she pronounced “Cal” sounded more like “Cow.” That’s when a picture entered my head. It was of my mom at a college game flinging tortillas and yelling, “Go cow. Go cow,” while those around her wondered what pasture she was minding.

So I offered an alternative. “Just refer to the team as Berkley.”

Mom thought for a moment and replied, “Bukwee? I can’t say that either.”

The point I’m trying to make is that mom had to find something endearing about the game to make it interesting to her, which certainly serves as a lesson to me. When I’m bored by life, the first thing I have to do is find something about it to like. Everything falls into place after that. (By the way, since mom and I had that chat, the Seattle Mariners drafted Ichiro Suzuki—the man I consider to be the finest lead-off hitter since Ricky Henderson—and now baseball is her great fascination).



Happy Mothers' Day, Mom.

In Memoriam—Evan Allan Larsen, 1934-2009

My father-in-law, Evan Allan Larsen, passed away yesterday after a short battle with cancer. I miss him terribly.

My first contact with Evan was a phone conversation we had the winter of 1980, when I called him to announce my intention to marry his daughter. That conversation remains clear in my mind, mostly for the disconcerting quiet that followed my announcement. I let a few seconds tick away, hoping he would offer me his blessing, but he said nothing. Meanwhile, a dozen thoughts tumbled in my head, among them:

Maybe he doesn’t even know who I am.

Maybe he does know me and thinks I’m an idiot.

Desperate to make a good impression, I commenced to prattle about my plans for the future—how I intended to go to business school and work diligently to provide a good life for his daughter. I waxed on and on. Still he said nothing and the silence was like a fart in an elevator: suffocating and uncomfortable. Expecting the worst, I finally asked him outright: “How do you feel about all this?”

That’s when I heard the sniffles and jagged breathing that must have been there all along. With a pinched voice that couldn’t hide the emotion behind it, he answered: “I always hoped my girls would marry good guys.” Hallelujah, I thought, but in the next instant Evan gathered his composure and drew a line in the sand in a way we would laugh about in the years to come: “But if you ever hurt my girl,” he said, “I will hunt you down and beat the hell out of you.”

Despite that inauspicious start, I would learn to think of Evan as the second-best reason I married Lori. In fact, on more than one occasion I was so moved by his fierce loyalty to family and everything decent that I would tell him: I married your daughter so I could be your son-in-law. There were so many reasons to feel that way.

Evan was once asked to be a regional representative for his church, a role that made him responsible for the spiritual welfare of many thousands of people. In that role he was asked to speak on the topic of leadership at BYU Hawaii. Standing before a roomful of students, he began his address by asking a question: “What’s the most important prerequisite to being a leader?”

Immediately hands went up and several young people offered opinions. One of them said humility was the most important attribute for a leader. Another said it was spirituality. Someone else said it was wisdom. After each reply Evan nodded, but he said there was another—more obvious—answer. In the end, he responded to his own question by saying the following: “The most important prerequisite to being a leader is BEING IN THE LEAD!”

And that’s Evan in a nutshell: He was first to begin a group task and the last to put a broom away once the work was done. Yet, it’s what put in the lead that makes his life so compelling. After Lori and I were married, we received numerous congratulatory cards from friends in Hawaii. Evan sat with us as we opened the envelopes and offered details about the life of each sender. He spoke of people’s aspirations and achievements and it surprised me how much he knew about them. So much pride was in his voice, a casual listener might have assumed he was talking about his own accomplishments. Suddenly, from one of the cards, a five dollar bill slipped out and Dad got misty-eyed. The money, he said, had come from a widow who lived on a fixed income and couldn’t afford the gift without cutting something important out of her budget. He wiped away a tear and said in a resolute way, “I’ll make it up to her.” Now, I don’t know what he did—whether it was to buy her a sack of groceries, or perform some chore she would have to pay a handyman for—but I have no doubt that in some quiet way he did make it up to her.

I also have little doubt that we will see him again. Noble men like Evan are bigger than death. In a way, he’s only graduated to something far grander. I look forward to walking good dogs along oak-lined trails with him once more. I look forward to hearing more of his stories and laughing with him again. I look forward to speaking the words of thanks I didn’t express in time: Thank you, Evan, for the example of love and loyalty you exemplified with your every deed and spoken thought.

And I love you tons.

Examining Our Assumptions

When I was just a kid, my mom drove me nuts with a sort of inquisition she conducted on a near-daily basis. As soon as I would walk through the door—before I could even think about getting a snack or turning on the television—she would say: “Did you ask any good questions at school today?”

That would mark the start of a drawn-out conversation. If my answer was no, she would want to know why (and if I intended to do anything with my life). On the other hand, if I answered yes, she would want to hear the question and understand its context. She would ask how the teacher and the other students had reacted, all of which subjected the event to considerable scrutiny. There was an upside, however, because on the occasions when I could report an especially clever question, it was enough to make my mom’s day. I could count on a favorite entrée at dinner that evening. I might even be allowed to stay up a little past my bedtime.

Back then I figured all mothers were like that, so it didn’t seem peculiar to me. Today, however, I find it interesting that she never once asked if I’d answered any questions. To her, the best indication of an active mind was the ability to probe and prod. Knowing a bunch of answers didn’t impress her, at all.

It wasn’t until I was an adult that I met someone else who loved good questions the way my mom did. His name was John Meriweather and he was, at the time, the president of Salomon Brothers. I received a call from him one day not long after joining the firm’s Tokyo office. He’d heard that I was working on a new deal and he wanted to know more about it. When I started to summarize the transaction, he stopped me and said it was best to have the conversation face-to-face. The following week, I traveled to New York to meet him.

Little did I know that two other people—Larry Hilibrand, who’d earned a $15 million bonus for his trading performance the year before, and Myron Scholes, who would later earn a Nobel Prize for his work in developing an option pricing model—would be in the meeting with us. We sat down and John promptly asked me to explain the structure of the deal I’d developed. It was, quite simply, based upon a quirk in the Japanese tax code, which could be used to minimize the tax liability of certain investors. It took me five minutes to offer a summary, after which I soon lost track of the conversation. Scholes, Hilibrand and especially Meriweather took the implications of the deal to a place I’d not foreseen and put it in a bigger picture that included its affect on other capital flows. For me, it was a fascinating glimpse into the way extraordinary minds worked. In particular, I noticed two things: one, their interaction was effective, in part, because they were willing to challenge each other’s assumptions and two, they were far more concerned with articulating the right questions than in reaching correct conclusions. As I heard Meriweather say: “Ask the right questions and the answers follow.”

To say Meriweather is a smart man is like saying Richard Petty can drive a car. To this day, I’ve never met anyone who compares with him in intellectual terms. I didn’t get to know him well—after all, I was just a grunt back then—but I knew enough about him to understand the source of his mental prowess: He had a boundless curiosity and a deep love for the question, “Why?” In fact, it soon became apparent to me that before asking him a favor, it was best to prepare answers to two questions: Why does it matter? Why should I believe it?

And therein is a powerful code for life that both my mom and John Meriweather would doubtless appreciate: Be curious and never stop asking questions. This, unfortunately, is the antithesis of what many Christian organizations teach. Their notions of faith often require unquestioning reliance upon church decrees and literal interpretations of scripture. Ask, “Why?” and brows furrow. It’s because God says so, is one inevitable reply. It’s a mystery not to be tinkered with, is another. Then to side with logic and evidence against any faith-based assertion is deemed sinful.

Isn’t it apparent that accusations of faithlessness are bludgeons no less harmful than the racks of the inquisition? After all, as I’ve said on multiple occasions in past blogs: Faith has far more to do with uncertainty than perfected knowledge. There is nothing inappropriate with accepting certain premises on faith—in fact, we must do so since logic takes us only so far—but we should also acknowledge the possibility of being wrong and be willing to change our views should evidence dictate the need. In short, we should from time to time, question our assumptions, because that will lead us to better places.

In this context, we must see certain Old Testament stories for what they are: morality tales meant for another time and place. Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac is a good case in point and a story I’ve written about in other blogs. But consider also the account of Job, in which God and Satan go into cahoots to tempt and test a good man. We are meant to take from the narrative the value of unquestioning faith and we’re encouraged to follow Job’s example by never questioning why. Mindless doing, it seems to imply, trumps understanding. Yet, should we also accept God’s apparently capricious behavior? I think it's best to question the account altogether.

The Wait for the Higher Law

In reply to my last blog regarding Christ and the Ten Commandments, Joe Huster said the following:

The law served its purpose, and this was not to provide moral guidance. The law showed us that we couldn't live up to even the most minimal moral standards. It, thus, convicted us as subjects in need of redemption.

Those who see the Ten Commandments as the complete expression of God's moral concern miss the boat entirely. Sam Harris pointed out that he, a devout atheist, could think of obvious improvements to the set of rules. "Do not allow children to be abused or exploited" is a perfect example of a rule that would have to be included in any comprehensive list of God's commandments.

That such a rule is lacking in the Ten Commandments is not an indictment of God’s failure to provide moral guidance. It is an indication that the Ten Commandments are simply lowball standards that reveal our fallen natures. The Sermon on the Mount makes that clear.

I like what he has to say, but the notion begs the very question I used to end the blog: Why didn’t God communicate the requirements of the gospel to Moses? Why, in other words, did He wait until Christ’s ministry to disclose the higher law?

I’ve touched upon a possible answer in an earlier blog, but let me reiterate it here. Recall the history of the Jews before the time Moses received the Ten Commandments. Prior to being led through the wilderness as vagabonds, they were slaves to the Egyptians and considered chattel. They lived what I can only assume to be a brutal hand-to-mouth existence. Their only laws were based upon the vicious and capricious whips of bondage. Under such circumstances, few (if any) rise above the law of the jungle—a law that rewards the fittest rather than the moral.

It might be said then that, for the children of Israel, their long trek through the wilderness was God’s way of exacting a new discipline that required His people to live in cooperation and faith. What’s more, it prepared them for what came next, because near the end of that long sojourn—prior to leading His people into the Promised Land—God granted the Ten Commandments to Moses. Yet, as Joe says above, it was not a complete rendering of God’s morality. The people weren’t ready for that. They had only recently learned to consider the needs of the greater community.

Here, an interesting point can be made: If God waited before bestowing the Mosaic Law and waited again before offering Christ’s gospel, what does that say about the standards by which we measure ourselves? To me, it suggests that as we rise to new standards, the standards are likely to rise again. Unfortunately, if Christ were here today, He would have to re-teach His entire gospel, since it never really supplanted the law it was meant to fulfill and remains a revolutionary ideal today. Do we insist upon forgiveness in all circumstances? No, our culture loves vengeance, as is evident in every cop show and legal thriller on television. Do we insist upon bridling all lust and anger? Not at all, rather unmitigated appetite and ambition are considered marks of a charmed life. Do we insist upon honesty? Every business I know possesses file cabinets full of legal opinions that serve as evidence against the notion and yet are considered smart thinking.

Assuming, however, that we could live Christ’s gospel more fully, I’m sure we would discover even higher laws. We might, for example, learn that God wants us to take better care of the earth and live with the kind of restraint that conserves it. Of course, it’s just a suggestion today.

Christ and the Ten Commandments

I friend of mine recently acknowledged that he’d read parts of my blog and considered some of the content objectionable. Specifically, he thought my assertion that there were higher and lesser laws to be incorrect, because in his words, “Christ didn’t do away with the Ten Commandments.”

We agreed that he was referring to Christ’s statement found in Matthew 5:17.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

As I’ve stated in a previous blog, Christ made the declaration just before introducing His gospel as a requirement of higher standing than the prevailing Mosaic Law. That should be obvious from reading the remainder of the chapter, but what’s not as clear is that Jesus established the Ten Commandments as a necessary, but insufficient, standard of moral behavior. I say that, because obedience to the gospel—as the higher standard—results in obedience to the Ten Commandments, too. (In case the rationale isn’t obvious: If my personal standard of safety is to never drive over 45 MPH, then I will naturally obey the highway speed limit of 65 MPH, as well). In this way the Law of Moses was never destroyed, but that’s not to say it represents a sufficient standard in defining Christian living.

So what does Christ’s declaration that he’d come to fulfill the law and prophets mean? To my way of thinking, He was: 1) pointing to Himself as the culmination of Old Testament prophecy and 2) establishing His gospel as the logical progression for those who'd mastered the Mosaic Law. The latter I can say with confidence based upon another instance in which Jesus uses the same words “law” and “prophets” in the same sentence. The statement I’m thinking of is found in Matthew 22:37-40, which is Christ’s reply to the question: Which is the great commandment?

His answer, as you will likely recall, is:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The implication of this statement is that the Mosaic Law (the law and the prophets) was always designed to point people toward the gospel—a gospel that is (and this is going to sound schmaltzy, but I’ll say it anyway) all about love. Conversely, by adhering to the requirements of loving God and neighbor, we fulfill what the lesser law could only aspire to achieve. For this reason, we should be more preoccupied with how we practice the two great laws, rather than the ten.

This, however, raises a question: Why didn’t God just give the requirements of the gospel to Moses? Anyone care to answer?

Gifts to Be Appreciated

I don't like the word diversity, at least not the way we typically use it, because it has become a bit hackneyed. I do admire, however, that people are blessed with a wide range of what I can only call spiritual gifts. One of the gifts I appreciate most is the ability to see the world for its elegant mathematical symmetry and beauty. For example, my father-in-law, who worked most of his life as a carpenter, can look at a blueprint of a house and walk through it in his mind. To him, not only are the walls there to touch and see, but so are all the endless possibilities.

My son, Matthew, the physics PhD candidate, has a similar gift that causes me no small amount of envy. He was once invited to represent San Francisco in a math bowl. The invitation was based primarily upon his performance in a written test. After he'd taken it, I asked about the test and he recalled a few of the problems. One apparently gave the various dimensions to a cone and a cylinder and asked what the volume of their intersection would be at a certain location. I asked Matt if he'd been able to answer the question. His reply: That's one I did in my head. I wanted to cry--why wasn't I given that ability?

Another way in which some people see geometry where others don't is music. My youngest boy, Aaron, is studying at the Berklee College of music, where he is the most recent Jimmy Lyon scholar. I hate going to concerts with him, because he will invariably turn to me when I'm thinking the performance is most interesting or inspiring and he'll say something like: "Did you notice the use of the tri-tone substitution over the dominant seventh?" I shake my head, because I don't even understand the question. My point here is that he sees the music in a very computational way that enhances, rather than diminishes, its artistic value. As a jazz trumpet player, he can look at a sheet of chord changes--no notes, just the chords--and understand the endless possibilities that can be drawn out of them. And what he and I appreciate most about jazz is that the best improvisers don't always follow prescribed rules (e.g., only the set of X notes are to be played over Y chord) but will violate them occasionally in ways that are ingenious and add color and character to the music.

Select the following link to hear a performance of Toshiko Akiyoshi's Long Yellow Road. My son solos three minutes into the piece--he's the trumpet player second from the left in back. The performance occurred a year ago when Aaron was still in high school, but I think it holds up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4zliqFOKgc

Happy listening. Try to pick out all the tri-tone substitutions.

William James

In an earlier blog, I wrote of my sincere desire that members of religious persuasions—mine included—refrain from using a phrase I find arrogant and damning: I know the church is true. (Let’s call this "The Phrase"). In response, a good friend of mine, a man whom I respect and admire, made the following comment.

Regarding your wish—it has already been granted! We testify of Christ's impact on our life. I think what the kids are saying is—somehow, I like church, it makes me feel good.

I take as the meaning of my friend’s comment that what people are really saying by The Phrase is: The church makes me “feel good” and this serves as proof that I’m being led along a path of righteousness that will make me happy.

I don't disagree with him. In fact, his response reminds me of ideas formulated by one of my personal heroes, William James. In his collection of essays, The Will to Believe, James crafted eloquent arguments on the intellectual and emotional risks of religious belief that form the underpinnings of his philosophy of pragmatism. To me, the most compelling piece in the collection is his title essay, which serves as a defense of faith. I understand that at one point James considered calling the essay, “The Duty to Believe,” but rejected the title, realizing it implied an obligation he hadn’t intended. Next, he thought to call it, “The Right to Believe,” but noted that such a heading called for a grantor of the right, which wasn’t consistent with his view.

In the end, he selected the eventual title, because it best described an attendant assumption that all human beings want to believe in a universe where goodness exists and truth can be apprehended. Without that possibility, he claimed, moral decisions are futile exercises. However, such a universe can't be defended by reason or logic alone. It exists for us only if we have faith—only if we show, in James’ words, “a passionate affirmation of desire” for both truth and goodness. To that extent, we will to believe that those qualities exist.

This isn’t a bad thing. In fact, James tried to temper the empiricism of his time by investing individuals with the authority to determine what is and isn’t true. He did so by arguing that ideas must be functional and, in his own words, that: “Truth happens to an idea (when) we can assimilate, validate, corroborate, and verify (it).” At the root of his pragmatism, he asks practitioners to consider the value of an idea in terms of its personal utility:

Grant an idea or belief to be true,…what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would be obtained if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth’s cash-value in experiential terms?

I admire this idea, which I find to be in complete harmony with my friend’s comment. Where I part ways with him, however, is how the idea is put into practice in most religious settings. Let me explain my point.

• James, as I’ve indicated in other blogs, defined truth in roughly the following way: If it works for you, it’s true. Implicit in this statement is that truth is highly individualized, since what works for me doesn’t necessarily work for you. In practice, however, the faithful generally believe all people come to the same conclusion about spiritual matters, if only they follow an established protocol, usually requiring study and prayer. There’s a Book of Mormon scripture, commonly referred to as Moroni’s Promise, that people of my faith point to as a kind of guarantee of this. Similar passages, I’m sure, are found in other sacred texts. The upshot is that most followers of religious tradition assume that anyone who comes to a conclusion contrary to their beliefs has either: 1) sinned beyond spiritual repair, or 2) not tried hard enough to receive enlightenment. However, if by uttering the phrase, “I know the church is true,” people are actually only saying, “The church has been good to me,” we have to concur that an individual can reach a different opinion and still be correct. Not all people, after all, will think the church makes them “feel good.”

• I have an acquaintance, who was once a high-ranking official of an organization that attracted members with promises of spiritual and financial remuneration in exchange for physical property and other assets. He tells fascinating stories of how this was accomplished and apparently no device was more effective than the repeating of affirmations at group assemblies. Shouting in unison, “God loves me. He wants to bless me. He will give me love and riches,” would put potential members in a euphoric and highly-receptive state. (The FBI, by the way, shut the organization down when my acquaintance became disillusioned and turned State’s witness). The point here is that, in a subtle way, the repeating of aphorisms can be used as a control mechanism and The Phrase, which is often supported by an emotional response, is a case in point. For example, when missionaries teach people who feel an obvious connection to the message, they will often say something like the following: “You’re feeling the spirit and it’s telling you that the church is true.” But is that what’s really happening and is it honest to say so? Instead, could the emotional response really mean: I like these clean-cut young men and their unbridled enthusiasm?

• I don’t think members process The Phrase as, “I like the church. It makes me feel good.” Rather, they are made to believe that the church is infallible and, by extension, that all debate ends in the scriptures or authoritative pronouncements. I have, in other blogs, spoke of the danger of apologetic thinking. Once a person decides that the church is “true” in every respect, all experience and new learning must conform to the notion or be rejected, no matter the supporting evidence. Otherwise, the alternative is to experience a kind of cognitive dissonance that must be ignored or conflicts of conscience and faith will result.

Like William James, I’m a great believer in the value (even the necessity) of faith. After all, logic only takes us so far until we must take occasional leaps into canyons of wonder. What I hope for, however, is that the faithful acknowledge their beliefs to have more to do with uncertainty than an unambiguous knowledge of the truth. If we could admit that, there would be far fewer roadblocks to learning and less sanctimony.

Worldview

If you've read many of these blogs, you'll know that I have a fascination with physics, especially as it pertains to Einstein's theories and quantum mechanics. As a result of that fascination, I sat down a few years ago and wrote this short story, which was subsequently published in The Banyan Review. It's a bit longer than most of my postings. Nevertheless, I hope you enjoy it.

Shortly before his eleventh birthday, Mitch learned that his parents didn’t love each other anymore. Sixteen months later he was living in a tiny apartment, the only good change in his life a beagle puppy given to him as compensation for all the upheaval. Then on a rare evening when his mother and stepfather were both at home, he was on the kitchen linoleum playing tug-of-war with the dog. Suddenly Dill released the dishrag stretched taut between them and fell to her side.

“Get up, little girl,” Mitch said.

He stroked the puppy’s muzzle and looked at his mother. Candace was still dressed in one of the tight skirts and revealing blouses she wore selling mutual funds to old geezers. She set out plates and cartons of Chinese food, letting the dishes clatter as they hit the table.

“Stop playing with that dog and come eat,” she said.

“But Mom, look.”

Her gaze fell upon the trembling puppy and she whispered, “Oh, my.”

Mitch saw the alarm in his mother’s face and sprinted across the kitchen. He grabbed his stepfather’s shoulder and turned him from the pile of medical journals that seemed always to reside on their dinner table. In view of Dill’s torment, Mitch would do anything to help her, even speak to the new man in his mom’s life.

“You got to do something,” he said.

Frank didn’t rise or even push himself away from the table. He rubbed his overworked eyes and said, “She’s having a seizure.”

“What should we do?”

The man yawned. “She hasn’t eaten anything unusual, has she?”

“No, I make sure of that.”

“Has she been off her food?”

“She eats everything I set out.”

Frank dismissed the problem with a shrug. “As seizures go, it’s not a bad one. Let her ride it out. We’ll take her back to the breeder next chance we get.”

“Take her back?”

Mitch felt dizzy with the prospect of losing Dill. He adored everything about the dog, from her floppy ears to her happy feet. Now that they’d moved to Oregon, she was his constant and only companion.

“I think what Frank means,” his mother said, “is we might exchange her for another puppy—one that’s healthy. Isn’t that right?”

Frank raised his shoulders again.

“No,” Mitch said, wondering if his mom was voicing the adult solution to all problems. “We’re not trading her in. That’s what you do to an old truck—not to things you love.”

During the silence that followed, the puppy rolled to her chest and her eyes gained awareness. Mitch gathered Dill into his arms, saying she was fine—that maybe she’d only been joking—but his stepfather countered with cold logic and medical talk. A seizure, Frank told him, might be caused by a dozen different ailments, including liver disease and meningitis, brain tumors and encephalitis.

“The treatment will cost money and you have to ask yourself if the dog is worth it.”

Mitch clenched his fists. “I’ll call my dad, then,” he said. “He’ll pay for a doctor—a good one, too.”
“There’s no need for that.” Candace turned to Frank and her voice quieted. “We just dragged Mitch from the only home he’s ever known. Don’t make him give up the dog, too.”

###

Several days and another seizure later, Mitch and his mother visited an animal clinic where a lady veterinarian examined the dog. She said Dill’s spells were likely caused by epilepsy, then she drew blood to rule out other illnesses. While the doctor poked and prodded, looking for an enlarged liver or other symptom of disease, she told Mitch he could help the dog.

“Does she need one of my kidneys?” he asked.

The woman laughed. “Nothing that dramatic. Just keep track of her episodes and write down what you see.”

“Like how much she shakes—that kind of stuff?”

“Exactly. Include the time each spell occurs and any special circumstances. That’ll help me decide what medicine to give her.”

“Medicine? You can make her better?”

“I’ll have to check today’s test results, but there’s a good chance you two can be friends for a long time to come.”

Candace agreed to return early the following month and Mitch left the clinic as if on wings. He wanted to soar home and tell Frank about the visit, in part to say, “I told you so,” but also to hear the man’s reply. His stepfather was, after all, an intern at a Portland hospital and his opinion meant something.

But Frank offered no medical advice or support of the vet’s diagnosis. All he said was: “I don’t understand why you’d want a sick dog.”
There was no point in replying. For all his stepfather’s intelligence, the man didn’t see what it meant to be a boy—that once in a while you loved something weak, something that really needed your help.

###

Mitch felt a kinship to the weak things of the world, which explained his fondness for the comic book Quantum Master. The evening after his visit to the veterinarian’s office he retired to bed early, his nose in the newest issue. Before his gaze fell upon the final scene he was yearning to discuss the story’s hidden message and to speculate about its connection to the larger world, but that seemed impossible. All his buddies were back in Arizona.

He turned to Dill, who was lying beside him, and let her sniff the pages. “See this?” he asked, pointing to a drawing of Tommy Trifle, the comic’s young hero.

Mitch summarized the story’s genesis: Tommy Trifle, a research assistant at a secret NASA laboratory, was peering through a telescope one day, when he received a blast of radiation from a dwarf star. As a result he began to shrink, even as the star collapsed. After a few days no one could see him anymore. A week later even the lab equipment couldn’t detect his presence.
Mitch pointed to another Quantum Master panel that was full of strange objects floating in a dark void. “And just like that,” he said, “Tommy was in a world with extra dimensions—a world where time flowed back and forth. It was a strange place and a dangerous one, too.”

Dill sneezed, causing her whole body to shudder. She looked at Mitch and put a paw on his arm as if to ask for clarification.

“It was dangerous for a reason,” he said, and pointing to a caption, he read: “If chaos went by another name, it would be Dr. Discord.”

The doctor, Mitch explained, was once the world’s foremost particle physicist, but disillusioned with the military’s use of his work, he tried to end his life through exposure to the same cosmic radiation that had miniaturized Tommy Trifle. Failing in the attempt—but now small enough to influence the world on a subatomic level—Dr. Discord sought to end all existence.

Mitch closed the comic book and patted Dill on the head. “Do you see what’s going on?” he asked. “These two guys are battling it out and the world’s survival is at stake. Tommy’s doing his best to keep us safe, but no one even notices. He’s a hero, but his greatest wish is just to get back home.”

###

Frank was working a double shift at the hospital and Candace was entertaining a new client, when Dill had another spell. Mitch held the dog and sat on the living room couch. He buried his nose in her fur and took her scent into his lungs.

“You’re okay, little girl,” he said.

Suddenly the inexplicable happened. Mitch wasn’t in the room anymore, but in a strange world, like out of a Quantum Master comic. It was a dark place without distance in any direction. He couldn’t see, much less use, his arms or legs. In fact he didn’t seem to have a body at all. Frightened, he willed himself to move, but only managed to spin.

Mitch picked up speed trying to escape the blackness and lack of dimension, when he heard Dill bark. He couldn’t see her but knew she was with him, maybe even a part of him. Her presence gave him confidence and he sought new angles of rotation, looking for a passageway out of the world. Together they did summersaults and Dill howled as if chasing a squirrel.

Suddenly the dog barked a warning and Mitch sensed the presence of others. He stopped spinning and felt a new sensation, like hot breath on his skin. Though he still couldn’t hear or see, Mitch perceived the intruders’ thoughts.

“What are you doing here?” they asked.

Mitch didn’t have lips to speak, but he concentrated on the words: I don’t know.

“There is no redemption here,” they said, as if in reply.

In the next moment the world grew brilliant with orange light and Mitch woke with a chorus of voices still echoing among his thoughts. Dill licked his face and, as sensibility returned to him, he considered the last curious words he’d heard: “Behold, the worlds meet.”

###

A week later there was a knock at the door and Mitch’s father stood in the open courtyard. Randall was tall and tanned, all smiling eyes and swagger. He wore khaki pants and a button-down shirt that looked neatly pressed despite his long flight from Phoenix.

“I thought it would be pouring rain here,” he said.

Mitch wrapped his arms around his dad and said, “It usually is. But not now.”

Randall pointed to a cherry-red convertible parked in the street and suggested they take a ride. Mitch didn’t need a second invitation. He leaped into the rented Mustang and lifted Dill into his lap. They left with the top down and the dog raised her nose to the passing draft.

An hour later they were heading south along the coast, when a stretch of seashore beckoned to them. Randall pulled into a rest stop and grabbed a football out of the back seat. From the parking lot they walked down a steep trail to where curtains of sand raced and whirled at the foot of the bluff. Only a few people were on the beach and Mitch rejoiced at having his dad all to himself.

Randall kicked off his loafers and slapped the football twice. “Go long, Champ,” he said.

Mitch ran toward the water with Dill following. Where the sand grew damp and packed, he curled back and said, “Throw it, Dad.”

Randall waved him on. “Keep going.”

The boy turned again and Dill barked and nipped at his heels, her floppy ears trailing. Mitch was still running at an easy lope, when he looked over his shoulder and saw his father reach back and throw. The football came in a perfect spiral with hardly an arc in its path. Mitch accelerated forward, but the ball landed a dozen feet beyond him. It bounced several times before coming to rest and Dill leaped ahead to paw at it.

“I told you to go long,” Randall said, laughing.

The football was too big for Mitch to palm. He wrestled it away from Dill and tried to throw it back to his father, but it wobbled like an injured bird and landed less than half the distance between them. His dad laughed again and Mitch tried to smile. He retrieved the ball and ran it back, wondering if he would ever be as tall or strong as the man who’d given him life.

“This time run a post pattern,” Randall said.

Mitch nodded and ran all-out. Every wish of his life seemed small beside his desire to catch the ball. He counted ten steps forward, faked right and veered left. The ball was already in the air when he first glanced over his shoulder. He pleaded silently: Don’t let me drop it. Let me dance with my arms in the air and celebrate with my dad. But the ball came too fast. It stung his outstretched hands and careened away.

Mitch ran the ball back a second time and said he wasn’t feeling well. They found a place to sit and rested their backs against a driftwood log. Near the water a pair of gulls landed and Dill growled at them.

“I’ve got something to tell you,” Randall said. “It’s good news.”

The words felt as warm as a favorite blanket and Mitch wondered if he would be going back to Arizona. Sometimes he dreamed of a perfect world, one with both parents under his roof, but if that wasn’t possible, he would choose to live in his hometown, not sharing an apartment with a stepfather.

“What news?” he asked.

“Do you remember Patti Ann from church? Well, we’re thinking about tying the knot—even talking about going to Vegas in a couple of weeks to seal the deal. I would take you, too, but you wouldn’t be much fun on the honeymoon.” Randall elbowed his son playfully.

“Patti Ann? Isn’t she the one with the boy?”

“That’s right. Landon plays shortstop on his little league team. He’s quite a fielder. Anyway, I thought you ought to know. You’re okay with that, right Champ?”

Mitch swallowed away a lump in his throat. “I guess.”

“Good.” He patted his boy on the leg and pointed to the parking lot. “I’m going to visit that restroom up there. We can play catch again when I get back.”

Mitch watched his father disappear up the slope and Dill began to shake in a way that was familiar to him now. He gathered the dog into his lap and kissed her head. In that instant he was in another world, one that was tunnel-like, but without height or width. Except for a dim glow at one end of the passageway, darkness surrounded him.

This time he wasn’t frightened. He quickly located Dill, who resembled a tiny spark of light. Together they advanced through the tunnel, gaining speed and rotation as they moved. He was like Tommy Trifle, ready to combat the forces of chaos. Mitch laughed from the thrill of it, until he sensed the presence of others and heard his dog growl.

“Why are you here?” said a chorus of beings. “There’s no redemption in this place.”
I don’t understand, Mitch thought. Suddenly he felt himself being whisked out of the world, but before he awoke, orange light filled one end of the tunnel and he heard the phrase: “Behold, the worlds meet.”

###

The morning his father was getting remarried, Mitch and his mother returned to the animal clinic with a record of Dill’s seizures. In a side room that smelled of cat fur and disinfectant, the veterinarian studied the handwritten notes and counted aloud the number of episodes that had occurred since their last visit.

“They seem to come every three or four days,” she said, looking at Mitch.

He nodded.

“And they usually happen when you two are alone.”

Candace put a hand on her boy’s shoulder. “Mitch is home by himself a lot. But he takes good care of the dog. There’s no doubt about that.”

“Oh, I know. I can tell from his notes. But look at this. Here’s a strange entry—and there’s another one just like it.”

The boy knew without looking what the doctor was talking about. He’d kept two of the entries sketchy, doubting anyone would believe his recollection of events: Me and Dill was just sitting there and it happened. It didn’t hurt us though.

“What did you mean by that?” the doctor asked.

“I don’t remember. Is that a problem?”

“No, we’ve got enough information here.” She jotted down a few notes on a clipboard and added, “I’m going to dispense phenobarbitone. It might make Dill sleepy, but I’ve had good success with it in cases like this.”

Mitch winced at the mention of side effects. “Does she really need it?”

“I think it’s best. You don’t want her to get sick again, do you?”

“But the spells don’t hurt her.”

“We don’t know that for sure. Besides, she has a bigger problem than discomfort or pain. Dill loses control when her episodes occur and that makes her vulnerable. Do you understand that?”
Mitch nodded, but his mind was far away. He was remembering the strange places he’d visited while Dill was having her seizures. Hadn’t they enjoyed their travels? Hadn’t they kept each other safe?

###

The phenobarbitone did make Dill sleepy and it saddened Mitch to see her listless. So after four days of counting pills, wrapping them in scraps of lunch meat and slipping them to his dog, he began to flush each morning’s dose of medicine down the toilet. He felt bad about the deception, but excited for reasons still unfolding in his head. Mitch wasn’t sure what he looked forward to more: Dill’s return to activity, or the seizures that would likely occur again.

Two spells came in as many days. The first took Mitch to a world with length and width, one he likened to the space between tightly rolled sheets of plastic wrap. Dill was there, too, looking like a glowing piece of thread. Together they traveled a zigzag course, spinning and shouting as they went. Prior to regaining consciousness, Mitch noticed sparks of orange light in the distance. The light spread across the horizon and a host of beings spoke the same words he’d heard before.

The next episode took them to a world similar to Mitch’s own. He saw Dill as she was, a small beagle pup. They came across a flowered meadow and ran through it, leaping and twirling. From the summit of a small hill Mitch cuddled his dog and rolled down the slope. Dill licked his face, then she looked up and barked. An orange sphere rose from a distant place. It was surrounded by glowing angels, who lifted their voices, saying, “There is no redemption here,” and, “Behold, the worlds meet.”

###

While Mitch read from the newest Quantum Master comic, he wondered if it would be the last issue he would ever share with Dill. Dr. Discord, according to the story, was seeding the world with tiny black holes that threatened to collapse the entire universe. The idea made Mitch shiver and he snuggled further into his bed. Surely, nothing could prevent disaster.

But Tommy Trifle didn’t accept defeat so lightly. He was like the little Dutch boy working frantically to plug a leaky dike. No sooner did he repair one corner of spacetime, when another black hole threatened to swallow everything in its reach. He was on the verge of losing hope, when he discovered a reservoir of anti-gravitons and unleashed them to neutralize gravity’s imbalance. Once more the world was safe, but Tommy felt no desire to celebrate. He’d only won another battle in what promised to be a long war.

Mitch put the comic book away and sighed, believing he knew how his hero longed for home.

“Dill,” he said. “If Tommy could return to normal size, do you think he would?”

The dog yawned in a way that ended with a soft whine.

“I think you’re right. He’s stuck, isn’t he? Tommy has to stay in the quantum world to uphold the laws of physics. If you think about it, he’s a hero and a prisoner at the same time.”
Dill wagged her tail and it beat a steady rhythm on the bed.

###

The phone rang late one evening, just as Mitch finished his homework and stood to get ready for bed. Candace picked up the receiver, saying it was probably Frank calling, but the chill in her voice suggested otherwise.

“Oh, hi,” she said.

Mitch could tell she wasn’t talking to Frank, or a client either. He guessed it was his father on the line and he hung around to listen.

“Business?” his mother said. “What business? Here in Portland?”

Mitch tugged on her sleeve. “Is it Dad?”

She nodded and put a finger to her lips. “No, I guess dinner would be okay, but what do you mean by everybody?”

There was so much Mitch wanted to tell his father. School had started a week ago and he still hadn’t made any friends. He would sit alone during lunch, wishing he was home with Dill or in Arizona with his buddies. Mitch had never felt so lonely. He needed to hear his father say that the world was good and events would work out for the best.

“Can I talk to him?” he asked.

Candace frowned and shook her head. “I don’t know, Randall. I’ll have to check with Frank, first.”

She hung up the phone and Mitch pouted. “Why didn’t you let me talk to him?”

“Your father had to go. Anyway, he’ll be in town on business and wants to meet us for dinner Friday.” She smiled and added, “He’s bringing his new bride—like any of us need that.”

“Patti Ann’s coming?”

Mitch wished he could spend the time alone with his dad. With the others tagging along, the conversation would turn to grownup topics and he knew what that meant. They would smile through clenched teeth and talk about the weather, but their real feelings wouldn’t emerge until later.

When did your mom start wearing that? Why can’t your dad just grow up?

###

On Friday the same thoughts were taking a lap in his head as Mitch opened the restaurant’s double doors. He spotted his father sitting at a table near the bar and yelled, “Dad!” but three pairs of eyes turned to him in reply. Not only was Patti Ann there, but Landon was, too. They were sipping drinks and swapping stories like characters in a Brady Bunch rerun. Mitch looked away and hoped his legs wouldn’t collapse.

His father came to him with open arms and Mitch allowed himself to be hugged. He stared at his new stepbrother and whispered, “You brought him?”

“Didn’t your mom tell you? I’m trying to mix business with a little pleasure here. You understand, right?”

Mitch didn’t have time to answer. Patti Ann was leaning toward him, planting a moist kiss on his forehead. Her eyes were the color of smoke and her breasts were pushed up to expose the deep hollow in between. “You’ve become a handsome young man,” she said. “How are you getting along here in Portland?”

Like a load of crap, he wanted to say. I’m hundreds of miles from home. My parents are divorced. I don’t have any friends. And you’ve taken my dad from me. But Mitch had been taught better than that. He wouldn’t raise his voice, or speak of the ugly feelings in his chest. Look at the bright side, he told himself. If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.

“I’ve got a dog named Dill,” he said. “She’s my best friend.”

“That’s sweet.”

Mitch might have cried then, but for the distracting events that followed. He tried to make sense of them, but each scene progressed to the next, like a cartoon played at high speed. Randall waved to the maitre d’, who ushered them to a window-side table overlooking the ocean. Waves pounded the rocks on shore. The sun bled into the sky. Mitch looked outside and thought: Behold, the worlds meet.

“I’m glad you could make it,” Randall said.

Candace waited as Frank drew a chair for her. “Wouldn’t have missed it,” she said.

No sooner had everyone been seated, when the waiter appeared with menus. Mitch asked for ginger ale and Landon grinned, saying he would prefer scotch on the rocks. Randall reached around his new wife and tousled the boy’s hair.

“Little chance of that, Champ,” he said.

Patti Ann giggled and turned to her son. “Behave yourself. Be more like Mitch over there.”
Everyone laughed—everyone except Mitch. He was too busy thinking: I’m Champ. That’s what my dad calls me.

“Well,” Patti Ann said. “Isn’t this nice?”

“Uh huh.” Frank studied the menu as if it were a body prepared for surgery. “They’ve got quite a wine list here.”

“That’s not what I meant, Silly. I was talking about us. Look at how we’re all getting along. Aren’t we just one big happy family?”

###

That night Mitch was lying in bed, trying to forget dinner, when he felt Dill shaking near his feet. He pulled her to his chin, and waited for the seizure to take them away. A moment later he was on the bank of a sparkling river, Dill by his side. The world was like his own, but it had a depth he couldn’t explain. His surroundings seemed to shimmer like the reflection on a lake.

They found shade under a cottonwood tree and Mitch lay back to be dazzled by its branches. The shimmering increased, until the whole tree seemed to flap like a tarp in the wind. Mitch wanted to see what was behind it and suddenly the surface peeled away as if it were an onion’s skin.

The tree continued to stand over him, but it had changed somehow. He willed more layers to be stripped away and realized that he was looking—no, traveling—into the past. The further he went, the smaller the tree became. It was a sapling, then a seedling, a fluffy seed, then it was nothing at all. He reversed the process and saw the tree’s future. It grew in size, until a great wind toppled it.

Mitch leaped up, eager to explore further. With Dill bounding ahead, he ran along the river, up hills, and across valleys. Everywhere they went the view twitched and shimmied and welcomed them into both past and future. After a while they came upon a large field, where winged angels hovered in the air.

“What are you doing here?” the beings asked.

“Please,” Mitch said. “Don’t send us home. We want to stay.”

The angels gestured toward the sky. “Behold, the worlds meet.”

A variety of orange objects descended. There were long strands of light and figures like out of a geometry book. As the objects touched down, people emerged. “There is redemption here,” the angels said.

The world had become a giant mural, and the visitors were peeling back its surface to step into the past. Where a man had once walked out of a bar and stumbled into his van, he remained sober and relived the scene. From there a chain of events glowed as if on fire and was suddenly transformed. A traffic accident was avoided. Lives were saved. Before long the world was throbbing with strings of light, adjustments to the tangled web of time.

Mitch was beginning to wonder if he could change his own past, when the living room of his boyhood home appeared. It was night and his parents were talking softly. Their voices seemed sad and empty.

“So, is this it?” his father asked. “Is being a wife so awful that you’ll give up on our dreams?”
Candace sighed. “They were your dreams, not mine. And no, being a wife wasn’t awful. It just never was enough.”

Mitch shut out their voices and thought of ways to end their talk of divorce. That’s when an idea occurred to him. He would walk into the past, pretending to be sick and in terrible pain. A week of that, he concluded, and his parents would forget their other problems. If that didn’t work, some other trick would. Here, it seemed, he had all the time in the world to put things right.

“I need to go with them, Dill,” he said. “You stay here, okay? Dill?”

Mitch turned and saw that his dog was a new-born puppy again, wet and blind, small enough to fit in his palm. He picked her up, knowing she was delicate and that he might injure her without proper care. The power to alter Dill’s future, he saw, was in his hands. Time moved forward and he watched her grow. She was wrestling with her littermates one second and playing tug-of-war with Mitch the next. They romped on the beach with Randall, and visited the animal clinic with Candace.

The next scene was unfamiliar to him. Morning had come and he let Dill outside. She bounded into the parking lot, sniffing oil spots and car tires in search of a place to relieve herself. Two boys stood at the open door with Mitch. They were sleepy eyed as if they’d spent the night there. A truck pulled into the parking lot, but Mitch wasn’t alarmed. Dill always came when called. “Come back, little girl,” he said.

But she didn’t hear. The dog had fallen to her side, quivering, and the boys’ screams came too late.

###

Sunlight trickled through Mitch’s window and he woke with Dill in his arms. He pulled the dog to him and said, “Are you okay?”

She stretched and yawned, before wriggling out of his grip and springing out of the room. Mitch wrapped himself in a bathrobe and followed. At the mouth of the hallway he saw Dill sitting in front of the door, wagging her tail as he drew near. He stopped and recalled the words he’d heard earlier: There is redemption here.

“No, Dill, not without me,” he said.

In the coat closet he found a leash and clipped it to Dill’s collar. They stepped outside and the dog tugged against the restraint. Mitch led her across the courtyard, thinking of the bad turns in his life, when he remembered Dill’s most recent seizure. It suggested he would make new friends and raised the possibility of mending his broken family, but what of its startling end? Was there a way to avoid that? He let various plans form in his head, but each scenario led him to an unsettling conclusion. After several minutes of reflection he thought: I would give up almost anything to have my family back, but not that.

Mitch cleaned up after his dog and led her back inside. He went to the kitchen, got the container of phenobarbitone and extracted two pills. From the refrigerator he found an old slice of bologna and wrapped it around the medicine. He called Dill to him and she came. The house was quiet. No one else was up.

“You got to eat this,” Mitch said, holding out the meat.

She sniffed it and sat. Her eyes were full of questions.

“Listen,” Mitch said. “Even if we could go back and put things right, you need to keep in mind what we saw—especially the last part. We don’t know when that’ll happen, do we?”

Dill barked.

“And if I lost you, how would I ever get to where we were last night? How would I ever bring you back? That’s why you got to take the medicine. You got to.”

He offered the pills again and Dill wagged her tail. As she took the medicine, these words sounded in Mitch’s head once more: Behold, the worlds meet.