Israel Should Negotiate with Hamas

via Joshua Doubek

I don’t care who’s supposed to live in the Levant. It’s a stupid historical argument no matter what your position is. It doesn’t matter because no one cares where they were supposed to be born.

Millions of Israelis were born in Israel, and their parents were born in Israel. Israel is their birthplace. It’s where they are, regardless of whether you like or not. 
 

And there are millions of Palestinians that were born as refugees in Israel to parents who were born as refugees in Israel. Whether you like it or not, Israel is the birthplace of the Palestinians. And yes, you can be a multi-generational refugee.

But regardless of being born in Israel, Palestinians aren’t Israeli citizens.  Israel doesn’t have a 14th Amendment. You can be a 4th generation resident of Bethlehem, and not be a citizen of Israel.

This Romanesque definition of citizenship only makes sense because Israel is first and foremost a place where Jews won’t be ghetto-ized, ostracized, or legally killed (which is an unfortunately rare distinction in the history of Jews). And the way Israel ensures this is by not trusting other groups to protect Jews. They won’t have to rely on the vacillations of public opinion to keep them safe. Jews are the majority.

Understandable, given the long and bloody history of Jews.  Just, Jews don’t have a lot of babies and this creates a population problem.

Yes, Israel is smaller than Lake Michigan
via Jewish Virtual Library

If Jews are necessarily the majority but Palestinians have more kids, Palestinians don’t get to count in Israel.This is why Two-Tinier-States is somehow preferable to One-Tiny-State (The entire area of Israel/Palestine is about the size of Connecticut, which would almost make the conflict ridiculous if it wasn't so heart-wrenchingly tragic). 

The crux of the entire Israel/Palestine conflict is mathematical not biblical. The land-grant to Moses, like communism, is just a red herring. 41% of Israeli Jews aren't even religious, so honestly, just put your Book of Exodus down.

The Palestinian population has twice the birth rate of Israelis. Now, the number of Palestianians seeking the "Right of Return" is already more than 4 million. And if they were immediately absorbed into Israel, Jews would only make 50% of Israel's population-- and that's not even half of the total Palestinian population. I’m not kidding, Israel’s current solution to the population problem has been to build a wall ever so high and ever so thick, and ignore the number of people living on the other side. (The Wall has some pretty terrible baggage in general, but I won't go into that.) 

So being stuck behind a wall creates a couple of major problems. But the most immediately relevant one is that having stagnant economic opportunities, with a growing population and no land to expand onto was actually one of the majors reasons there were 50+ revolutions in 1848.

So….

The fact that Hamas exists is not surprising. And waiting for Hamas or the PLO or all other armed resistance groups to not exist in Palestine as a condition for discussing a solution, means that that discussion will never happen. I think every reason for any armed revolution that has ever happened currently exists in Palestine: no voice in government, no hope that time will improve circumstances, little economic opportunity, harsh group reprisals, religious discrimination.

One these is a picture of the United States Penitentiary in Arizona,
the other is Israel's West Bank wall.

Is Hamas justified in firing rockets into Israel? Was Robespierre justified in sinking entire barges full of people?

I’m not saying Israel is responsible for the actions of their own terrorists. Palestinians, like Israelis and everyone else,  have a moral compass they are beholden to.  Israel however, has the power to control the movement and destiny of Palestinians (There are over 520 Israeli controlled roadblocks in "the territories" --remember that's a half-a-Connecticut area), and this is not a reciprocal arrangement.

Israel doesn't have to take anyone's crap. We got it. The tactic needs to change from  “asserting our dominance” to insuring the future. As it stands, Israel is going to be surrounded by an ever more populous and more hopeless-angry group of Palestinians with every passing year. It’s not tenable. Segregation breeds animosity.

If you find beauty in Jewish culture and want to insure that it has a sanctuary in Israel, you should want Israel to negotiate with Hamas. It's not that Hamas is right, they're not. It's just you should want Jews to be surrounded by an ever-growing group of non-Jewish allies, and the biggest obstacle to that is Israel refusing to talk to that non-Jewish group, whatever its reasons, no matter how justified. 

This is not the first time Israel has been asked to forgive for their own benefit. In 1953, Israel was asked to accept $13.6 billion in exchange for the lost property and lives of the Holocaust's victims (adjusted to today's value).  Many violently disagreed within Israel, calling it blood money. Ultimately, Israel accepted Germany's apology, ensuring the economic future for the state. Reparations funded the Port of Haifa, established Israel's merchant fleet, and bought much of Israel's initial mining and agricultural machinery. 

This is what David Ben-Gurion said of the reparations debate:

Ben-Gurion announcing independence of Israel

There are two approaches. One is the ghetto Jew's approach and the other is of an independent people. I don't want to run after a German and spit in his face. I don't want to run after anybody.... A country spends its energy on ensuring its health, existence, and security. It does not spend time on spitting on somebody. There is a useless verse in the Bible: 'Wipe out the memory of Amalek'. If the Amalekites lived today and had universities, Jews would be studying in them. A state has national honor. It's a matter of national honor that we brought 50,000 Yeminites out of a dark and awful exile. The honor of shouting, shooting and demonstrating – I despise.... I'm happy to give up this national honor.

Amen, Ben-Gurion.

Controversially yours,

Stephanie

13 Book-to-Vlog Adaptions: The Comprehensive Review of Youtube Book Adaptations

Legend:

5 stars- is Lizzie Bennet Diaries
4 stars- Fantastic.
3 stars- Good, has some problems. I wouldn't endorse it, but who am I kidding, I'll still probably follow.
1 star -don't bother.

(No 2 stars. 2 stars is shrugging while saying 1 star.)

C-completed run, I-In progress

The New Adventures of Peter + Wendy (Peter Pan): 4/3 stars, I (but finished two seasons)

Acting and production are awesome. They did some quirky things with the adaption which personally I find awesome, but might be a little polarizing. For instance, Tink is an actual fairy (who you never see) who communicates in bell sounds just like the disney movie. Tink serves as Peter's camera, and the rest of the world just takes her existence in stride. Tiger Lily is still an Indian Princess, but in the form of a Punjabi business exec (I love a good visual pun).

This is very much a case of an adaption of an adaption. John always has an umbrella and Michael usually has a bear backpack, a nice wink to the animated version. (If you have a great love for Mycroft Holmes, than you're going to love John. He's one of my favorite characters.) They reference J. M. Barrie, but this obviously isn't Barrie's Peter Pan, it's Walt's. But with adults.

There's a mild content warning for this one since the way to keep adults from growing up is irresponsibility. So there's some binge drinking, pot, and a few innuendos. But it's on the PG side of all of that--if such a thing exists....

I dunno. I really like this series, but I feel a little weird fully endorsing--so my vague rating is based on your personal threshold for the above.

TL;DR: Great series, but YMMV.

Best acting in the series, Wendy.

Lizzie Bennet Diaries (Pride and Prejudice):  5 stars, C

The Many Faces of Darcy

The grand dame of all Vlog adaptions. LBD, is the the metric by which all other book-to-vlog's are measured. Ironically, I think LBD is pretty weak as an actual adaptation. But as its own story,  it is fantastic and wonderful.

We lose a great deal of the identity of Pride and Prejudice in LBD since there's no Mr. Bennet and no banter over gender politics. But, it's meh-ness as an adaption is made up for by the complete reinvention of Lydia Bennet's storyline. Instead of satirizing the wacko marriage economy of Edwardian England, LBD digs into relational abuse and depression with straight earnestness. LBD's depth is in completely different areas than the original, but that depth is certainly present.

The best actor award for this series definitely goes to Lydia

The Autobiography of Jane Eyre (Jane Eyre):  3 (but should've been 4) stars, C

Parts of this are genius.  If you've ever read the book, "the gypsy scene" is actually handled super well, a distinction I don't think I can give to any film based on the book. Overall, this is probably the truest adaption of its book of all the series on this list. The character arcs are the same. The point of the story is the same.

Unfortunately it has one catastrophic problem and a minor but incredibly distracting flaw. The catastrophe is that the actor playing Rochester backed out of the project before it was finished shooting, which triggered a face-palm of an ending in an otherwise very well-done series. Tragic really.

The flaw is that they over-acknowledge the camera. Just let the audience suspend disbelief---somehow the characters just  forget that the camera is rolling and they don't edit the action out before posting. Instead, AoJE draws attention to the camera every time something awkward or unplanned happens.  So the characters deliberately choose to leave the camera on. This makes the characters look incredibly short-sighted/narcissitic/idiotic depending on the situation, but it never makes them look good.

That said, I hope this producer makes another series. I think they did a brilliant job with the story.

Best Actor goes to Simon, who's neuroscience "sermon" was amazing.

Nothing Much to Do (Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing): 4 stars, C

The acting in this is fantastic.  And if Much Ado About Nothing happens to be your favorite play by the Bard and you have large swatches of the dialogue memorized, you'll appreciate that they somehow manage to weave in word for word snippets of the original text without getting weird.

I think they use the vlog format to great advantage, creating different channels to switch perspectives, and ...just go watch it.

***UPDATE***

So Nothing Much to Do was a lovely endeavor that I'm still glad to have watched, but was ultimately disappointed with. There's a tricky line to be followed in any adaptation, between the soul of the original and the vision of the new writer. Somewhere in the midpoint of this series, the balance collapsed. I became too invested in Hero and suddenly the famous banter between Beatrice and Benedict no longer made up for Hero's tragedy. And this created a multitude of problems. I was dissatisfied with the ending because it felt unresolved.  Hero had become my protagonist, but nothing had changed in her outlook or circumstances.

And then I was confused about how I felt about Beatrice and Ben. Did I want them together? I mean they're adorable side characters, but what does that mean for Hero? It's strange how just a few plot changes made the axis of this story shift so dramatically.

Some language including a few f-bombs.

Best actor award goes to Benedick. Who somehow walks the line between charming and obnoxious in the most perfect way possible for the character.

Nick Carraway Chronicles (The Great Gatsby): 1 star, C

Meh acting.

Emma, Approved (Jane Austen's Emma): 3 stars, C

Emma Woodhouse is like my Jane Austen avatar, so I'm personally affronted by this adaptation. (But I watched every episode).

Book  Emma is a know-it-all meddler because she has a good heart and just doesn't know how to help her friends. She's likeable despite her flaws. Vlog Emma is a manipulator who uses her relationships to control people. Vlog Emma's redeeming qualities include things like she's not as shallow as Mrs. Elton. It's a bit of an informed ability that lets her have friends like Annie and Alex.

Also replacing a marriage proposal with being asked on a date really waters down the drama.

Emma looks like a major over-reactor when she responds to "Let's go on a date, I think we'd be good together" with "Gross. I was just trying to set you up with my friend."  Something's definitely lost in translation to the 21st century. I appreciate trying to keep the content family friendly (so not going the sex route as with Clueless), but I feel like something else would've worked better. Like Elton trying to get Emma to join his campaign team and leave her business. Something with higher stakes.

Best actor award goes to Maddie Bates and maybe Martin, IT Guy.... for the cranes.

Jules and Monty (Romeo and Juliet): 1.5 stars, C

So all I know about Greek Life comes from movies, which I can only hope are inaccurate. But the plot of this vlog hinges on stereotypical tropes of cultish frat loyalty, alcohol poisoning, and casual sex, so... there's that.

There are prolific  swatches of the original dialogue throughout...including the Queen Mab monologue of all things. I don't know how I feel about this. Sometimes it's cool. But since it's really inconsistent when they use the actual Shakespeare and when they don't, it is often jarring.

Overall the production values and the acting are excellent. Unfortunately, the content is just generally cringeworthy, I found it difficult to watch the same number of episodes I've been giving the others. If they had scaled back on the F-bombs and objectifying terms this could easily have earned 4 stars. This isn't Schindler's List though, so the virtues of the story just don't justify its vices.

 At least to me. My prudish two cents. *very strong language, some violence*

Best acting, Jules

Kate the Cursed (Taming of the Shrew): 1 star, I

The script writing is actually very good, but it's in great want of an editor. Major pacing issues.

It's probably more accurate to call this an adaptation of 10 Things I Hate About You, since Shrew itself is essentially unsalvageable in its original form.

Sorry Shakespeare, it's the truth.

Green Gables Fables (Anne of Green Gables):  3 stars, I

It does a really good job  of capturing the personality of Anne Shirley. I find Anne a little annoying, but I find the character in the book annoying as well. So it could just be a personal preference. Also, making Anne 17 instead of 11 creates some weirdness, but you learn to roll with it.

Although neither Amanda or I are big fans of this series, I still think it's worth giving a shot. It could very well be someone else's cup of tea, even if it isn't ours. Skip to episode 3 or 4 for a trial run.

Welcome to Sanditon (Jane Austen's Sanditon): 3 stars, C

I had a hard time getting into this one. I thought the "beta-testing" premise was interesting, but ultimately I stopped following this one around episode 11. There just wasn't enough plot to keep me
invested. Going back for this review though, I have to say the ending is pretty cute.

Best acting, Clara

Classic Alice (Crime and Punishment...I know, right?) -- 4 stars, C

It's only 8 episodes long, so it's easy to recommend this one. Excellent acting, great pacing. It's sort of a meta-adaptation. Major props for picking Dostoyevsky, and I can only hope this comes back for a "season 2."

Best acting, Andrew.

A Tell Tale Vlog/ Socially Awkward Edgar Allen Poe (The Raven... very loosely): 3? stars, C

I'm not in love with this as an entire series. But there's 2 really stand-out episodes  which are hilarious. "Times were different then, don't judge."

The other episodes have some strong language. You've been warned.

Best actor, Poe.

(Pssst, you should also go watch Kissing in the Rain by the same company. Not an adaptation, just adorable and clever.)

The March Family Letters (Little Women): n/a

I have serious doubts about this series' ability to finish its run. That being said, if they get some momentum going, I could see this being really fun and entertaining. It could even change my mind about Little Women.

**Update**
This series was adopted by Pemberley Digital (the producers behind LBD and Emma).  I haven't watched it since they re-launched, but I have complete trust that Pemberley Digital will take it to conclusion.

We can only hope they change the ending.

Good luck to your self-control,

Stephanie

P.S. If you liked this, thought it was helpful, funny, or just surprisingly long-- please share! Facebook, Twitter, G+. Pinteresters, I even made a pretty pinnable picture just for you.

P.P.S. Did I miss a series you love? Do you radically disagree? Comment below!

The $8 Ombre: DIY Summer Hair

Hey Amanda,

It's summer. A season of change and adventure. And I find myself once again in that perennial problem of high-stakes gambling---wanting to change my hair.

I don't trust hair dressers easily. In fact, I haven't lived in my hometown in six years, yet I've somehow managed to have my hair cut by the same woman who cut it when I was 15.

When I decided to go ombre. I only had two choices. Fly home, or do it myself.

 I know that's illogical. I know you actually have to go to school and pass tests to be a hairdresser. But they don't have a deep and emotional attachment to my hair like I do. Oh my heck....I sound like a homeschooler.

 I know it's just hair. But it's my hair.

Alas, I trust box-dyes even less than hairdressers. So after watching one billion youtube tutorials and reading a bunch of blogs by people with pink hair. I ended up piecing together my own ombre technique.

For all the control-freak hair people like me, here's how to get a well-blended ombre by your own hand. And it costs less than 8 bucks.

You'll need a packet of lightener for $3.44 and a bottle of 20 volume developer for $4.25 (ish). They'll have both at Sally's Beauty. If you're the kind of person who has twice as much hair as all of your friends, you're going to need two packets, so it's $12 for you. The price for having gorgeous, thick hair.

The Lightener comes in blue or violet. I picked violet because every time my awesome hairdresser gave me highlights, the stuff in the bowl was purple. I know super scientific. I have no idea what the difference is. But I got the impression from the internet that it doesn't matter which you choose.

The developer can be creme or liquid or whatever kind you want, but don't you dare pick up something stronger than 20 volume.  Seriously. We're doing our own hair here, let's not invite tragedy into our bathroom.

You'll also need some of those cheap latex-y gloves if you don't keep those around. (But you really should, I mean those things have a million and one uses. You never know when you'll need a turkey-shaped water balloon.)

Full supply list:
bleach packet, developer, foil, comb, plastic bowl, timer, gloves, shampoo and conditioner

Part One: With dry, day-old hair and wearing a sacrificial t-shirt, mix up your lightener in a *NON-metal* bowl according to the directions on your packet.

Decide how much length you want lightened in total, then divide that number by 2. So I wanted the bottom foot-ish of my hair lighter, so for this step I focused on the bottom 5-6 inches.

Picking up  small sections, apply the bleach with your fingers squeezing the bleach down whatever length you just decided on between your thumb and index finger.

like this, but wearing gloves

When in doubt, apply more bleach. You want the strands well coated. Before you move on to the next section, pinch the section at the top of the bleached length, and rub your fingers up and down to blur the border.

Repeat all over the bottom of your hair, alternating sections from the left and right of your head. I move the hair over my shoulders as I finish each section to keep it separate from the yet-to-be bleached hair down my back.

When you finish, wrap the bottom of your hair in foil or saran wrap and set your timer for 12 minutes. I'm assuming it took you 15ish minutes to put the bleach in. If you finish significantly faster than that, add a few more minutes to your timer.

Part Two: Remove the foil and rinse the bleach out well, preferably under the faucet to keep the rest of your hair as dry as possible.

You should still have half of your bleach left in the bowl. If not, you'll need to mix up that second packet I warned you about. While you're waiting for your hair to dry a bit, mix in some shampoo directly into the bleach bowl. About the same amount of shampoo as you would use to wash your hair. Stir to combine.

When your hair is a little more than towel-dry, start to rake in the shampoo/bleach in the remaining inches yet to be lightened and bringing the mixture well down towards the ends.

 This needn't be exact, grab a clump of shampoo and pass your fingers through your hair. When you've spread the rest of the bleach mixture through the mid-length and ends, start to backcomb your fingers against the grain of your hair to blend the top border of your ombre. Pseudo-teasing your hair all the way around your head. If you have plenty of shampoo-bleach left and you want the ends even lighter than you achieved in the previous step, feel free to use any leftovers to thoroughly recoat the bottom as well.

Rake. Backcomb. Repeat.
(Ignore the foil. That's something else.)
(Also ignore the mess. )

Wrap your hair in foil or saran wrap. Set the timer for 10 minutes.

When it beeps, shampoo out and apply a deep-conditioner. Bleach is a little demanding on your hair, so you're going to want to give it some love for the next few days.

Yes, they are prescription. Yes, I love them. 

A Word of Caution: Now I know you're thinking "I'll just put in the  bleach and immediately follow with the shampoo/bleach. Set one timer, rinse out once. Save some steps."

You'd think.

See that ombre? Yeah, me neither.

That's what happens when you try to do both steps at once. The shampoo dilutes the bleach through the whole length of hair. So, instead of getting 3 shades lighter on the bottom and 1-2 shades lighter on top. You get 1 shade lighter throughout.

The ends did actually get lighter.
Just not by much

So no cheating. Straight bleach, rinse. Bleach-shampoo. Rinse again.

Good luck with your Summer hair,

Stephanie

Why I Don't Like "Extrovert" and "Introvert"

Hey Steph,

There's all kinds of mean things you can call someone, ranging in insults of physical appearance, personality traits, and intellect. But there is one word that makes me cringe whenever I hear someone describe me this way. The word is shy.

See, you could call me dumb or rude or unsightly, and I don't think I would think much of it because though I'm no genius nor am I always pleasant nor am I model-esque, I don't doubt that I'm averagely smart, kind, and cute. But the word shy cuts me deeply because I know to some extent it is true. I guess after so many years of practicing being outgoing I hope that the overall sense of me wouldn't be shy.

Remember that one time I wrote about Aristotelian Categories? I've got some more thoughts on that topic. So several months ago I attended a book club meeting where we discussed the book Quiet by Susan Cain. The book discusses the strengths and characteristics of introverts. At the time I was reading this book, I felt like every blog post I saw was about the awesomeness of extroverts or on how to befriend an introvert, etc. It seemed everyone was excited about these two labels. As we began discussing the book at the meeting, it quickly became evident that the book had been a big release for a lot of people in the room. They said phrases like "I feel like this book allows me to be me" or "I always thought I was weird and didn't know what was wrong with me, but now I know it is because our society generally values extrovertism over introvertism." To begin the meeting, we had all gone around the room and said what we are. The extroverts quickly spoke up, and everyone else nodded that they were introverts.

I didn't say anything at all.

I felt like an outsider. As I read the book, I deeply identified with some of the attributes that Cain described: I prefer having conversations with smaller groups of people and enjoy deep conversations more than small talk. But I also found kinship with extrovert qualities like getting energy from meeting new people and enjoying having a group's focus, like performing. I didn't and don't feel allegiance to either type of "vert." There is such a thing as an ambivert, but usually you tend to lean one way or the other. I didn't feel like I leaned much of any direction.

A few weeks ago I was feeling kind of down after I had been at a social gathering. I had talked to a lot of people and joked around. I felt a bit of the post-dance depression, the phrase we coined back in our teenage days.

I'm the girly shimmying on the side—having a good time now, but ready to hold
her head in embarrassment when she gets home. (Center for Jewish History)

post-dance depression: a low feeling of regret and embarrassment that follows animated and excited behavior at a social gathering

As I pondered why I felt that way when I usually feel more alive after chatting with people, I had the thought come to mind that I was a complex person. Sometimes I'm rowdy and animated and loud. Other times I'm quiet, pensive, and listening. I am not one or the other, and—the revelation—that's a good thing. I am both, and both sides have their strengths.

I think that is why the labels bugged me. I am a fluid creature. I am changeable and to identify with one type of personality makes me feel confined to be one type, or that behaving like one type is not behaving like the true me. If the labels help you accept yourself, use them. But I'm wondering if I should just come to terms with the fact that I am shy—oph, that was hard to type. But I'm somehow outgoing also.

Cheers,

Amanda Kae

3 Smile-Worthy Things You've never Heard of

Amanda---

All the smiles! In no particular order

via Aikawa Ke

1) "Catherine the Waitress" by Teitur

I find myself humming the opening of this song all the time, but never in that Yellow Submarine, how-do-I-excise-this-melody-from-my-head kind of way. This song sounds like 5pm on a Friday.

So yeah. First up is Teitur  and more broadly Scandanavian Pop in general, although Scandanavian Pop is hardly a secret. (If you've never heard of it I know that last sentence sounds like a joke. Honestly, those Danes and Finns really know how to write clever lyrics.... in English. Go figure)

Here's a primer: Hello Saferide (the entire experience of being a dating female in a two minute song), Sondre Lerche (Fell in love listening to the  Dan in Real Life soundtrack), and Röyksopp (if you're into electronica )


2) Spaceteam- it's FREE and it's for  Apple or Android

Basically you have a control panel in front of you, but your instructions get sent to your teammates--so you have to yell "Engage Faraday Thrusters" and "Set Worpal Blade to 7" to each other while managing a screen of switches, buttons, and dials.

It makes you feel like Sally Ride and Maverick at the same moment.

Start the video at 1:00...there's a lot of talking.

Playing this game is truly the most joyfully stressed out I have ever been. The best part is both Halo sharpshooters and my mother like it, which is a feat in itself, and they happily played on the same team (which prior to this game, I thought was an impossibility.)

Seriously, go try it.

3) Science Says: Your Brain is a Mama Bear

Your brain reacts to threats to friends and family as if you yourself were the one being threatened. It's not just general empathy to human suffering. When a stranger was threatened, the opposite occurred--there was little overlap in brain activity to when the subject themselves was the one being threatened.

Neurologically, your relationships are a part of you. And I think that's lovely. I'm glad the brain agrees with the heart on this one.

Happy 4th y'all,
Stephanie

"O Me of Little Faith"

Hey Steph,

So we started this blog over a year ago because we have awesome conversations together on the phone, and we thought that it'd be nice to open these conversations up to our close friend The Internet. As you know through a plethora of conversations with me, one of my favorite discussion points is faith.

Much of our education is taught in terms of absolutes:

Christopher Columbus was the first European to step foot in the Americas. 

Pluto is a planet. 

Message is only a noun. 

In reality, there's strong evidence in historical writings that the Vikings actually stepped foot in the Americas first; scientists decided that Pluto is too small to warrant the title "planet": and message is now also a verb. Part of upper education and adulthood is coming to terms with all the grayness of reality and truth. And this grayness can be disconcerting when it comes to religious truth.

Growing up, my Sunday school teachers said with the same surety of my history teacher speakig about Columbus that God exists. They professed it as knowledge, as absolute truth. And unlike Columbus, the validity of this statement on God's existence matters quite a bit more than America's discovery.

In all of our epistemological exploration of truth, it's easy to be left feeling nihilistic about obtaining any sort of knowledge.

epistemology: the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity (m-w.com)

But maybe we're thinking about Gospel truth the wrong way. A core reason that Latter-day Saints believe they come to earth is to be tested, and that test is all about faith. Now let me be clear about what I mean by faith. Faith is not knowledge. Faith is belief in the unseen, the unknown. Faith, for me, is a choice. So, when we read in the scriptures that we are sent here to have trials of faith (1 Peter 1:7) and to walk by faith (2 Cor. 5:7), we are being asked to choose belief in God even when His existence and presence in our lives seems unlikely. If His very existence wasn't brought into question as a sincere option for belief than we wouldn't really be tried in our faith. A trial of faith requires that there be two legitimate options: God lives or He doesn't.

Even though these two options are absolute in nature, our faith in them is far from absolute. Again, our faith is not knowledge. God does not require us to choose Him with absolute knowledge. He just asks us to choose Him, even if that is with a granule of belief. This is where one of God's most beautiful gifts comes into play--agency. Steph, I've been fascinated by the idea of agency recently. Faith in God is a choice we make with this agency. And though I believe that God does interact with His children on the earth, these interactions are rarely so undeniable that they don't require the action of faith.

Photo Credit: Nationaal Archief

What I've learned over the past five years is that this choice of faith again and again can be, and maybe always is--I don't like to talk in absolutes ;)--extremely testing. At times I feel as if God made it as close to impossible as He could to believe in Him. And in some kind of masochistic way (and only when I feel some confidence in my faith), I love that it is that hard. I love that it takes so much of my energy and emotions to keep believing in Him throughout my life because I know I'm stronger for it.

Steph, what's so beautiful about this relationship between faith and agency is how they run parallel in the grand plan of God. Simply put, faith is us trusting in God, and agency is God trusting in us.

So, here I am, knowing absolutely nothing, reframing God again and again in a similar way that I am rethinking the characteristics of Pluto, and holding on to these few granules of faith that I carry with me in hopes that at some distant date, I'll know.

Cheers,

Amanda

P.S. I'd truly love to have a conversation, Internet friends, so please join in.