The Five Temptations of a CEO

Patrick Lencioni is a fantastic author. I don't know whether to classify him as relatively unknown or simply that he writes for a very specific target audience that not everyone is a part of. The main medium that he writes in are small business fables that are quick reads - this particular book is about 100 pages long. What I love is that they aren't so wordy and they smoothly walk you through from a character's point of view a business model and then at the end of the book he lays it all out in a very obvious manner. When he is playing author and not consultant, he does have a very good sense of humor. The first book I read by him was about power of vulnerability and authenticity. It was entitled, "Getting Naked." My parents could only guess what the true topic was for the short novel.

I don't want to ruin this book, "The Five Temptations of a CEO," so I will simply share the business model. It applies to all leaders in an organization, not just the one at the top. Companies are definitely like a tribe where it would be difficult if there were too many chiefs and not enough Indians. The major blessing or difference however is if there is a shared mission or purpose then having coworkers, employees or people that have enough passion about what they do will step up and lead without having to be asked. This is why companies look to hire leaders into all levels of their organization. More importantly is being the right kind of leader and knowing what that means.

I take no credit for the following as they come straight from the book but here is the model and the self-assessment that make up the five temptations of a CEO:

Temptation #1 - Choosing status over results

The most important principle that an executive must embrace is a desire to produce results. Most CEOs were results maniacs before reaching their ultimate jobs. Once they "arrive," though, many of them focus primarily on preserving their status. This occurs because their real purpose in life has always been personal gain. With nowhere to go but down, it almost makes sense that once they have achieved their ultimate status, they will do whatever they can to protect it.

This causes CEOs to make decisions that protect their ego or reputation or, worse yet, to avoid making decisions that might damage them. They reward people who contribute to their ego, instead of those who contribute to the results of the company. By focusing on results, they will ultimately achieve greater status and ego satisfaction but this requires a lot of work over a long period of time. It allows for too many risky episodes of status-loss along the way.

Advice: Make results the most important measure of personal success, or step down from the job. The future of the company you lead is too important for customers, employees, and stockholders to hold it hostage to your ego.

• Do you personally consider it a professional failure when your organization fails to meet its objectives?
• Do you often wonder, What's next? What will I do to top this in my career?
• Would it bother you greatly if your company exceeded its objectives but you remained somewhat anonymous relative to your peers in the industry?

Rationale

On a professional level, organizational success and personal-professional success are one and the same. Although it is healthy for any human being to separate his or her sense of self-esteem from success on the job, in the context of professional success these should not be divided. Too often, CEOs justify their own performance even when the organizations they lead are failing around them. CEOs must ultimately judge their personal-professional success by the results on the bottom line; only the CEO is ultimately responsible for the results of the company, and this must be his or her final measure.

Additionally, a pronounced concern for the "next step" in a person's career is a good sign of susceptibility to Temptation Number One because it is a possible indication that success is gauged in terms of career advancement rather than current performance. The most successful CEOs focus almost exclusively on their current jobs. Although human nature dictates that we hope for a just share of acknowledgement, it is a dangerous part of human nature to entertain. Those who eventually get that recognition are the CEOs who aren't distracted by the occasional slighting that an unscientific press is sure to give. Interestingly enough, they experience a low degree of satisfaction from such press. After all, they take larger personal satisfaction from achieving results.

Temptation #2 - Choosing popularity over accountability

Wanting to be well liked by peers is understandable, but dangerous, problem for CEOs. Being at the top of an organization is lonely. There are very few people in a company with whom CEOs spend considerable time, aside from their direct reports. Most CEOs become friends with their reports and commiserate about the constant needs and shortfalls of employees. They develop a sense of camaraderie around their overwhelming responsibilities. It is no surprise, the, that when it comes time for a CEO to tell these same people that they are not meeting expectations, they balk.

Empirical evidence of this phenomenon is that CEOs conduct performance reviews for their direct reports far less diligently then do managers at other levels. Why? It isn't because they are too busy or lazy, but because they don't want to deal with the prospect of upsetting one of their peers. Ironically, those same CEOs will not hesitate to ultimately fire a direct report when his or her performance problem becomes too costly, thereby severing the relationship completely. But they often fail to provide constructive or negative feedback along the way.

Advice: Work for the long-term respect of your direct reports, not for their affection. Don't view them as a support group, but as key employees who must deliver on their commitments if the company is to produce predictable results. And remember, your people aren't going to like you anyway if they ultimately fail.

• Do you consider yourself to be a close friend of your direct reports?
• Does it bother you to the point of distraction if they are unhappy with you?
• Do you often find yourself reluctant to give negative feedback to your direct reports? Do you water down negative feedback to make it more palatable?
• Do you often vent to them about issues in the organization? For example, do you refer to your staff as "we" and other employees as "they"?

Rationale

It is wonderful for CEOs to care about direct reports as people, so long as they can separate the success of those relationships from their sense of self-esteem and personal happiness. This is difficult because most of us try to avoid major disagreements with close friends, and it is impossible not to be concerned about a deep rift with one of them. If those close friends are your direct reports, the accountability within the organization can be threatened. The slightest reluctance to hold someone accountable for their behaviors and results can cause an avalanche of negative reaction from others who perceive even the slightest hint of unfairness or favoritism.

Those CEOs who are able to make close friendships with direct reports and still avoid a sense of favoritism often find it easy to use those reports as their personal "venting boards." All executives need people they can vent to about challenges they face in the organization, but CEOs must resist the desire to use direct reports for this service. It can lead to politics among the executive team, and more importantly, it can undermine the team's objective understanding of their own actions by creating an atmosphere of self-victimizing groupthink. Often this manifests itself during executive staff meetings in comments such as "When will these people stop questioning us and start understanding what we are trying to do?"

Temptation #3 - Choosing certainty over clarity

CEOs are sometimes unwilling to hold their direct reports accountable because they don't think it's fair. This is because they haven't made it clear what those direct reports are accountable for doing. Why don't they make these things clear? Because they give in to yet another temptation: the need to make "correct" decisions, to achieve certainty.

Many CEOs, especially highly analytical ones, want to ensure that their decisions are correct, which is impossible in a world of imperfect information and uncertainty. Still, executives with a need for precision and correctness often postpone decisions and fail to make their people's deliverables clear. They provide vague and hesitant direction to their direct reports and hope that they figure out the right answers along the way. The chances that they will produce the results CEOs eventually decide they want are slim.

Advice: Make clarity more important than accuracy. Remember that your people will learn more if you take decisive action than if you always wait for more information. And if the decisions you make in the spirit of creating clarity turn out to be wrong when more information becomes available, change plans and explain why. It is your job to risk being wrong. The only real cost to you of being wrong is loss of pride. The cost of your company of not taking the risk of being wrong is paralysis.

• Do you pride yourself on being intellectually precise?
• Do you prefer to wait for more information rather than make a decision without all of the facts?
• Do you enjoy debating details with your direct reports during meetings?

Rationale

Intellectual precision alone is not the problem but when it manifests itself during staff meetings in terms of unnecessary debates over minutiae, it is a sign of real trouble. It is no surprise that many CEOs take a great deal of pride in their analytical and intellectual acumen. Unable to realize that their success as an executive usually has less to do with intellectual skills than it does with personal and behavioral discipline, they spend too much time debating the finer points of decision making.

Those debates are problematic for two reasons. First, they eat up valuable time that can be spent discussing larger issues, which often receive just a few minutes at the end of the staff meeting agenda. Second, and more important, they create a climate of excessive analysis and overintellectualization of tactical issues. If there is one person in an organization who cannot afford to be overly precise, it is the CEO.

Temptation #4 - Choosing harmony over productive conflict

CEOs fail to feel comfortable with the decisions they make because they don't benefit from the best sources of information that are available to them: their direct reports. Most people, including CEOs, believe that it is better for people to agree and get along than disagree and conflict with one another. That is how they were raised. However, harmony sometimes restricts "productive ideological conflict," the passionate interchange of opinions around an issue.

Without this kind of conflict, decisions are often suboptimal. The best decisions are made only after all knowledge and perspectives are out on the table. Not every person's perspective and opinion can be agreed with, but they can be considered. When all available knowledge is considered, the chances of optimal decisions are greater - not to mention the likelihood of confidence in those decisions, which is just as important.

Advice: Tolerate discord. Encourage your direct reports to air their ideological differences, and with passion. Tumultuous meetings are often signs of progress. Tame ones are often signs of leaving important issues off the table. Guard against personal attacks, but not to the point of stifling important interchanges of ideas.

• Do you prefer your meetings to be pleasant and enjoyable?
• Are your meetings often boring?
• Do you get uncomfortable at meetings if your direct reports argue?
• Do you often make peace or try to reconcile direct reports who are at odds with one another?

Rationale

Lots of people complain about meetings taking up time that is needed for "real work." This is a sign that those meetings are not as difficult (or productive) as they should be. Executive staff meetings should be exhausting inasmuch as they are passionate, critical discussions. Pleasant or boring meetings are indications that there is not a proper level of overt, constructive, ideological conflict taking place.

Every meeting has conflict so don't be deceived. Some people sweep that conflict under the table and let employees deeper in the organization sort it out. This doesn't happen by accident. The tone of meetings is set by the leader that is conducting it and after a CEO squelches any potential passion for peace, this sends a message. Boredom and agreeable meetings set in and executives start lamenting the real work that they could be doing instead.

Temptation #5 - Choosing invulnerability over trust

Asking for productive conflict does not always achieve it because people may not feel like their input is important or valuable. CEOs are relatively powerful people. Being vulnerable with their peers and reports is not a comfortable prospect. They mistakenly believe that they lose credibility if their people feel too comfortable challenging their ideas.

People are unwilling to enter the fray of productive conflict if it doesn't feel safe. As a result, those reports position themselves around the inferred opinion of the CEO and conflict with one another only when it is politically expedient. Instead of creating a culture of creativity, trust and open dialogue for sharing important information, it is an atmosphere of "yes men."

Advice: Actively encourage your people to challenge your ideas. Trust them with your reputation and your ego. As a CEO, this is the greatest level of trust that you can give. They will return it with respect and honesty, and with a desire to be vulnerable among their peers.

• Do you have a hard time admitting when you're wrong?
• Do you fear that your direct reports want your job?
• Do you try to keep your greatest weaknesses secret from your direct reports?

Rationale

No one loves to admit being wrong, but some people hate it. Great CEOs don't lose face in the slightest when they are wrong, because they know who they are, they know why they are the CEO, and they realize that the organization's results, not the appearance of being smart, are their ultimate measure of success. They know that the best way to get results is to put their weaknesses on the table and invite people to help them minimize those weaknesses. CEOs who understand this concept intellectually but cannot behavioralize it sometimes make the mistake of finding symbolic moments to admit mistakes and weaknesses. This only serves to reinforce the notion that the CEO is unwilling to put real weaknesses on the table. Overcoming this temptation requires a degree of fear and pain that many CEOs are unwilling to tolerate.

Summary

Instilling trust gives executives the confidence to have productive conflict. Fostering conflict gives executives confidence to create clarity. Clarity gives executives the confidence to hold people accountable. Accountability gives executives confidence in expected results. And results are a CEO's ultimate measure of long-term success.

CEOs who follow this model still fail but mostly if they are thwarted by competitive and market pressures that are largely out of their control. Leadership and management are not the same thing. We can manage people and manage problems. Leaders need to expect to make mistakes and be able to change at a moment's notice. They need to rely on others and accept and acknowledge that they aren't the one with all the answers in the room. They have to take risks. Leaders need to act and can't settle for the same but require constant improvement. Good managers produce quantity but good leaders produce quality.

Great leaders find a way to produce both.

The God Who Weeps

The God Who Weeps is a novel about how Mormonism makes sense of life written by a couple of Mormons, Terryl and Fiona Givens. Even as an active member of the LDS faith, I still felt like I learned a lot and it made me think about life differently. I liked how it was about the journey of faith from a different perspective and it made me think about some of the tenants of my belief differently. Still, the fundamental question that it asked with every new principle was the same. What does this mean to me in my life? What's the point? What is the real value of a religion or a set of beliefs if it doesn't cause you to change? I feel like anyone, Mormon or not, could see their lives and their relationships after reading this book in a way that could improve them.

This novel is so powerful because it simply provides a series of evidences that you as the reader can choose to use as you will. Whether or not there is a benevolent deity is based not on the evidence that is presented but what you personally conclude from that evidence. Theology, philosophy, and belief are all perspective. The following chapters were picked to help discuss who we believe our God is and what our relationship is with Him, His plan for us, and if we choose to follow that calling what the outcome will be. In essence, it is what we call within our faith, "The Plan of Salvation."

1. God is a personal entity, having a heart that beats in sympathy with human hearts, feeling our joy and sorrowing over our pain.
2. We lived as spirit beings in the presence of God before we were born into this mortal life.
3. Mortality is an ascent, not a fall, and we carry infinite potential into a world of sin and sorrow.
4. God has the desire and the power to unite and elevate the entire human family in a kingdom in heaven, and, except for the most stubbornly unwilling, that will be our destiny.
5. Heaven will consist of those relationships that matter most to us now.

His Heart Is Set upon Us
Faith is not the end all in all. Doubt and faith are both required in life so there isn't necessarily progression for the new doubter or the new believer. The improbable nature of the universe or the chemical reaction that is human life or life in general, the way that the human mind works such that we contemplate more than simply our own survival but what is life or why do we exist... How we hunger for more in our lives than what this world can provide are all evidence of something more. The beauty of this paradox is we cannot prove that God exists. So if there is a god, who is He? What is He like?

There are many different ideas of God from all around the world. There are two main points that are expressed in our discussion that are guided by both faith and logic: (1) Not all conceivable gods have claim over us... Or in other words, we can reject some gods not because it is unreasonable to believe in them but because it is unreasonable to worship them. If your deity requires human sacrifice, how long would it take until there is no longer anyone left to worship? (2) If we are inclined to believe a powerful deity does preside over the universe, the assumption that he would be a more perfect embodiment of the morally good that we recognize and seek to emulate is not a fanciful hope or wishful thinking. It is a logical and reasonable inference that God is more rather than less generous and forgiving, who will extend the maximum mercy that He can, and impose the minimum justice He must.

We are never so vulnerable or defenseless against suffering as when we love. The pain felt by a parent when a child wanders away into addiction or the loss felt after the death of a loved one are but two common examples. Try to imagine then what God, Our Father in Heaven, feels being that He is the very embodiment of love. From the words of the prophet Enoch, he describes a vision from when he was taken into heaven and sees Satan's dominion over the earth and God's unanticipated response to a world veiled in darkness:

"The God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and He wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rains upon the mountains? And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that you canst weep?"

Enoch goes on to ask this question three times and he isn't asking why do you weep but how are your tears even possible. The answer was the same as we concluded above, which is that God is not exempt from emotion but His pain is as infinite as His love.

"Unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood... and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?"

It is not their wickedness, but their "misery," not their disobedience, but their "suffering," that elicits the God of Heaven's tears.

Whether it was the example of Christ, Ruth, David or Mary, vulnerability is their end objective. Each individual was asked in their own way to place themselves in a situation where they were opening themselves up to the possibility of paramount harm (dishonor, public humiliation, and even death), in order to serve as vehicles of His grace. Vulnerability is both the price of the power to save, and that which saves. When Christ was pressed by the crowds and a woman touches his garments and is healed, He asks who it was. This person did more than touch. She drew from Him healing power as He felt it flow out of Him. What does this mean? Christ's power to heal comes at a cost to Him. Take this the extra mile and begin to ponder the cost of the crucifixion and taking the weight of the sins of the world upon Him in the Garden of Gethsemane.

If vulnerability and pain are the price of love, then joy is its reward. All that exists in our world of meaning must exist in paired opposition. As much as God shares in our suffering, He delights in human happiness. With the mass of senses we have after "being created in His image," we can find ways to appreciate and find joy in the world around us. Some may see food as nourishment for survival but then what is the purpose behind all the flavors we are able to taste? Peacocks with their tail feathers and the changing colors in leaves that allow for the peacock to reproduce and the tree to keep the chlorophyll necessary to survive, these were never meant to please the eye? The fragrance of the rose or the lily which attracts the bees to help them pollinate, was it not designed to appeal to our sense of smell? The scriptures say,

"Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart; Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul. And it pleaseth God that He hath given all these things unto man."

For He has set His heart upon us. He loves us because we are His children. We are children of God.

Man Was in the Beginning with God
The idea in this chapter are there are two innate desires in all of us (at least to some degree). These are to understand who we are and where we belong. We don't feel like we belong or that we are looking for our home. Some think of this as we looking for something or somewhere but the idea that is presented in this novel is that we are simply trying to remember. The best explanation is that we are trying to figure out who are.

What are we made up of on a molecular level? What is life? When does life begin or when does life end? These are fundamental questions that have no clear answers. There are theories though. The same carbon, iron and oxygen that are the building blocks for our bodies came from nebulas and stars however, this is not the essence of the soul. We may have forgotten for whatever reason any life before this one (if it exists), it may have been on purpose because a life with opposition is about choice and one where it is best if we do not have all the answers because then there would be no choice at all. Also if we truly are children of God, we would be inexpressibly more miserable, if we had retained the memory of our former Glory, and past Actions.

The concept of what kind of children we are is still up for debate. If our souls are part of God's creation, then He could have prevented all sin by creating us with better natures and in more favorable surroundings. The problem is that in our own moral awareness, we sense we are responsible for our own choices because when we do something wrong, we feel guilt. If there was a good analogy to describe guilt, it would be a twisted ankle. The function of guilt is to prevent more pain, not expand it. Its purpose is to hurt enough to stop you from crippling yourself further. If God did not create us then we weren't born or created inherently good or evil. We were born free.

Even if we remove God, we can't remove our past and present circumstances. In our current state, we are the product of forces outside our control that influence our personality, inform our character, and shape our wants and desires. And yet, we know we are free. If we are not shaped by our environment, our inherited form from our parents, or even God, we have always been and always will be in the principle of free will. So if this concept is further extrapolated, we have free will which means we weren't created by God so then if we weren't created, we have always been. If we have an eternal past, it is only reasonable that we will have an eternal future.

Modern day scripture recorded in the Pearl of Great Price describes how before this life our spirits were present in councils where we choose this world and life. We knew that if we choose righteously, this life would be a test if we would choose God again. If they did well, then they would continue to progress and "have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever." There are two keys from this revelation: (1) It suggests that birth into this world represents a step forward in an eternal process of development and growth in an educative and not reparative way. Life is pain and it is not punishment. (2) We choose this world. If we face pain or loss, we chose this life that we are living. It also means that God chose us. We were unembodied eternal intelligences. He looked upon us and in His love chose us, counseled with us, and created this world for us.

We Are That We Might Have Joy
This same idea that life is a blessing and that all things are created for our good is further expanded in this chapter. Many Christian faiths believe that soon after the Creation that there was the Fall and Original Sin. However the logic behind this thought process does not make true sense for then why would God descend to earth only to be punished or take up a fallen state? Would he be still be counted perfect and sinless if he was to inherit the sins of Adam and Eve, the first parents of all mankind? Why would perfection don imperfection? We in the Mormon faith don't believe in Original Sin nor do we look at Fall as a fall but more as an ascent. Pain is not punishment - it is growth. In Revelations it speaks of the councils of heaven and how many of those spirits chose to come down to earth to learn from their experience. We chose a life of pain because we want to grow and become more like God and our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Our physical bodies are carnal in nature but that doesn't necessarily mean sinful. It means that our bodies strive to do as nature would intend, to survive and reproduce and live on. Our carnal desires represent those same feelings when we feel hunger or other physical appetites, including physical intimacy. Those feelings are present when we show distrust or question motivation or instruction because again our bodies are designed to fight for their own survival. But if we look to the example again of the Savior, at the end of His life he gains a perfected body. In his mortality He had to struggle with the same appetites or feelings as you and I but he overcame them. He learned and gained knowledge from physical experience. He progressed and grew and his love and charity deepened through hardships that he faced. Pain is again not a sign of punishment as it is progress.

So returning back to the Garden of Eden, many look at Adam and Eve's decision to chose the apple as a sin. They did in fact disobey God's commandments. Still, let us look deeper at the decision itself because it may not have been as simple as right or wrong choices. Is every choice we make in life black and white or is there some grey? The first choice was to stay in Paradise in God's presence forever. The second choice was to eat the fruit that delicious to the taste, beautiful in appearance, and would give them knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve had some level of moral judgment. They were not without some sense of right and wrong but the knowledge this fruit would provide is physical experience. This makes God's final injunction about death more making them aware that the cost of experience can be pain. So why is this important? The decision to partake of the fruit was made out a good place, a desire to become more like God, to progress. This wasn't a mistake in God's planning! Sending Christ as the Savior wasn't a backup plan but part of the choice in helping meet the price of both justice and mercy. We could learn from our mistakes through repentance and the grace that belongs to Christ's sacrifice. This was a choice between two Good decisions, not one right and one wrong. So do we still call this a Fall? Man was cast out of God's presence but it was to experience and grow to become like Him. It was to progress. It was to experience pain and joy.

The purpose of mortality is not to survive. It is to learn and grow. It is learn from our experiences and to master our bodies to control our appetites. We too often believe there is an association between sin and guilt. The pain of guilty is a feeling that we are wrong or inherently unworthy. Those wide generalizations are not true. There is a major difference if we change our perspective to that were we don't feel our pain as guilt but as weakness. We are imperfect creatures. Christ saves us regardless of how far we fall short. Guilt comes from the belief that we owe Him because He is exchanging grace and salvation for our obedience. They do not equate. Salvation is a gift of love. Our obedience if it is to equate needs to also be out of love. It is through gratitude and love and obedience that we are able to accept the place in heaven that Christ provides us through His mercy and grace. Our obedience and righteousness is not to earn our place but to help us grow and develop so that we will find joy there.

None of Them Is Lost
We need to understand that God is on our side. Obedience to Him and His laws bring joy and happiness. He being perfect also designed a perfect plan but this plan was for our benefit, His imperfect children. What does this mean? It means that through the ages when men debated the ratio or amount of people that God would save and bring to heaven in their understand of heaven and hell, they didn't make the connection that God doesn't want to save a chosen few, the naturally gifted, but He desires to save all His children. His plan allows for that to happen but it respects a fundamental law, our agency. We have reasoned that the universe is governed by laws, some that we understand currently and others that will take time but for every action there is a reaction or a natural consequence as it were. John Stuart Mill describes human liberty as the freedom "of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow." From our perspective of an all powerful deity, we may think those consequences look like punishments and rewards, but they were chosen. What we become is built upon a lifetime of small decisions and we can decide to change at any time as well.

When we think about our fundamental natures, who we are becoming, it is our own choices that shape our identities. The consequences of our choices will most often affect others. The part that people feel is unfair is the pain that we suffer regardless of our personal decisions but that is part of life. Again, this kind of pain is growth. Guilt is real too. Guilt comes from choosing to position ourselves in opposition to God - to sin knowingly. Misjudgments or simple errors have the ability to cause pain but that is not the same nor does it have the intensity of guilt. We are choosing to put ourselves in opposition to God or joy and love which by the laws of nature will cause misery. If we look at Dante's Inferno, he describes the different levels of hell as being places that people would go to on their own accord. The damned crossed the river Styx into their torments "eager for their river crossing." A lifetime of choices or the culmination of their true desires is what awaited them. What we worship is what we become.

An example from this chapter recorded the experience of an inmate of a concentration camp that heard a commotion and when he went to investigate found a prison guard mercilessly beating a female prisoner. He whispered, "What can we do for these people?" Another inmate replied, "Show them that love is greater."  In that moment, he realized the other person was focused on the guard, not the victim. They considered the actions of greatest moral gravity to be the ones we originate, not the ones we suffer.

To see our mortality as a test is generally a great analogy but we have to be careful how far we take it. The part we go astray is when we lose sight that again that life is a test to measure progression and advancement. It measures again what we are becoming. When we begin to talk about earning our salvation we begin to think that this life was meant to be a spiritual evaluation instead of a spiritual formation. The only person that we are competing against is ourselves. There is no level of spiritualism where if you pass 50% you make it into in heaven, while others had only scored a 49% so they earned eternal damnation. God offers salvation and His grace to all men to choose for themselves freely. Heaven is a state of being - a blessed and sanctified nature. It is not a place we enter but a culmination of choices that allow us to become celestial beings.

This sanctification and perfecting process is only made possible through the Atonement. It is the willful suffering of someone completely innocent to choose to take upon Himself the price of all mankind's transgressions, sins, sufferings, pain and afflictions of every kind. He was completely alone during the culmination on the cross of Calvary. Although we cannot comprehend how that was done, it still begs the question of why it is accepted as the price paid for those that choose to accept that gift of repentance and forgiveness for themselves? Why does grace work? It is because we do not have a perfect knowledge. We are never given perfect instruction so our accountability is only partial and incomplete. Christ breaks that cycle and we are allowed to move forward and progress. But He broke the cycle in more than one way.

When we consider the fleeting time we are given in mortality and remember the eternal nature of the soul, Christ broke the chains of sin and of death. The time in which mankind can experience this perfecting process is not constrained to mortality but extends beyond death into the life after. We will continue to perfect ourselves and many people will learn of Christ and choose Him not in life but in death however, repenting and choosing a new life in his image will be increasingly more difficult without having the physical experiences to build upon. Again, this perfect plan by our perfect God is made so none will be lost - including the unbaptized infants and non-Christians. It is not that God is excusing them of sin but allowing them to learn, progress, and grow. He loves all men so His perfect plan is not going to default those who have not had the opportunity or the ability or capacity to choose His plan to damnation. This is what is meant in Peter's claim that "the gospel was preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." The gospel of Jesus Christ - faith, repentance, baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost - and its ministry and blessings are extended to both the living and the dead.

Participants in the Divine Nature
The reason that we see that God's love is not limited in any capacity - living, dead, young, old, saint, sinner, etc. - is because we are not limited in our capacity. We were not created in the sense of God making our spirits, otherwise our spirits would not have the ability to do evil but would be inherently good. If we were not created then we must have always been and we always will be. This life or mortality is simply part of our existence that we pass through as part of our progression. But in what way are we to progress? To use a crude analogy from the book, Ender's Game, a leader tells a commander at the end of a battle, "We won! That's all that matters." To which the commander replies, "No. The way we win matters." God loves all His children. He wants us to have what He has and to do so has given us the tools and the example of how to become like Him. It is not His power or His glory that He wants to bestow as much as it is the understanding, knowledge, and attributes that He has obtained through learning and experience. Our mortality is the framework built to allow for that. This is why exaltation could not be given as Lucifer suggested in the pre-mortal council but it had to be experienced through mortality as was God's plan. The lie that is spread is that we can obtain this through "spirituality" and "religion" is unnecessary.

When Mormons describe through scripture heaven or heaven on earth, it is called Zion. It is a utopian-type community where "God is with us." It is not a solitary Zen. It isn't a private enlightenment. It is a place where there are families and groups of people coexisting and working together. This is why God again refers to himself as a Father. Families aren't a creation of society but a divine institution tied with the very fabric of nature. The reason for this is because the type of Christ-like characteristics that we are attempting to foster and nurture and develop are things like mercy, generosity, and self-control. "Kindness only exists when there is someone to whom we show kindness. Patience is only manifest when another calls it forth.... What we may have thought was our private pathway to salvation, was intended all along as a collaborative enterprise, though we often miss the point." We become perfected through lovingly learning to coexist because we have all experienced that many times working together can feel like a fiery furnace - this is intentional.

I myself struggle with this. I find that I hate working with whom I consider to be stupid people. I hate judgmental people. Sounds hypocritical but what I mean is that people fail to see the perfection that lies inside someone's desire or natures regardless of their own shortcomings and imperfections. When Enoch described what he saw and shared in regards to God's love, he was overcome with emotion. He wept over our disobedience and pain and shared in God's joy through our redemption that is only made possible through the Atonement. For a long time, I thought that my Sabbath day worship was only about partaking in the sacrament. It was becoming clean through the renewal of my covenants that I made at baptism and in the temple. The social aspects of the Sabbath were not important - however that is wholly untrue. Exaltation again is done through unity. We repent on an individual basis but we become exalted as a people and as families. We need each other.

In this last chapter, the authors use a particularly vivid metaphor. They describe a young boy who jumping around the yard, pretending to fly around, proclaims that he will eventually live among the stars and walk on the moon. They then contrast that to the rocket scientist that works and studies and learns the necessary laws of physics that will create a rocket ship and ask, who is more likely to achieve the goal? The one that through obedience and action learns and gains the necessary knowledge or the other? Obedience grants one knowledge and so both the knowledge and obedience frees them. It allows the scientist to grow and develop as an individual. People mistake this type of obedience as that of a blind sheep following a shepherd. And yet it is with that same analogy that the Savior describes us and those that drift away. He preached of searching for the One. The analogy of the prodigal son could be used not just to describe each of us but to illustrate what our union may be like once we leave mortality and return to our heavenly home.

The knowledge we gain in this life carries with us into the next. The study of science is a study of the laws of nature and the universe. The refining of Zion is in communities and creates in us the ability to gain the attributes of Christ. A study of Christ and Zion is a process of learning how to love as God does.

"The divine nature of man, and the divine nature of God, are shown to be the same - they are rooted in the will to love, at the price of pain, but in the certainty of joy. Heaven holds out the promise of a belonging that is destined to extend and surpass any that we have ever known in this wounded world."

 The other aspect of this sanctification process, learning to love and become more like God, is that it is a lifetime commitment. It will continue into the eternities. We don't believe or have a relationship with a static God or an unchanging being. It is in that eternal perspective that we are taught to focus. It is like beginning a hike and knowing where you are going and focusing so much on the peak that you forget to enjoy the views along the way.

"What if the possibilities of Zion were already here, and its scattered elements all about us? A child's embrace, a companion's caress, a friend's laughter are its materials. Our capacity to mourn another's pain, like God's tears for his children; our desire to lift us from our sin and sorrow - these are not to pass away when the elements shall melt with fervent heat. They are the stuff and substance of any Zion we build, any heaven we inherit. God is not radically Other, and neither is His heaven."

The problem though is if we always think or focus on the future we can forget to find joy in the journey. God is love and so we must learn what God's love is. We learn through repentance and accepting the Atonement. We learn through obedience. And eventually we learn through seeing others as God sees us. We learn more about God through our interactions with others and ourselves. It is through learning to control our passions and to mourn with those that mourn that we can also find joy in life and find God's love in all our relationships.

Looking Back to Look Ahead

It has been months. It feels wrong to say that. I haven't written and I don't know why. I feel like routine has run my life and I have become what I hate - people that live to work and not the other way around. What I do is not something I love either. It has a purpose and I do my best to help the best way I can. I want to make a difference but in the end, the work I do can feel mundane, rote, and that I am no longer challenged any more. These feelings are what have prompted me to make a move to a new role where I can share what I learned and again learn something new with a chance to reinvent myself. I am moving to California and with that process I was able to learn something.

In my life I have found value in remembering. It is powerful to take time to meditate and reflect and learn from what you have done and experienced. I often do it days or weeks after events that have passed while they are still fresh in my mind. This is a sharp contrast from time I have spent recently going through old papers and notes that I found scattered among my belongings. Purging can have the effect of finding lost memories which was definitely the case in this situation.

As I was sorting through my things, I found notes and pictures from past relationships. I found a small envelope of pictures of my ex-fiancé and handwritten notes that she had sent me. As I looked on those pictures, I saw the face of someone I loved so much yet felt nothing as the years had passed. And all it took was reading her words to have those walls I had built to come crashing down. I had told myself many different things over those years...

"She simply fell out of love with you. Distance killed your relationship. There was nothing you could have done."

"She never really loved you the same way that you loved her. You simply were someone God put in her path to help her overcome what she was going through."

"Forgive her. Forgive yourself. Forgive and forget them all. You will heal and the scars that are left will be filled with new and happier memories."

"Each relationship is different. You won't feel that way again and that isn't a bad thing. It will simply be a different kind of love."

After rereading what she had written, I realized that I simply had told myself what I needed to hear in order to survive as time passed. I could see that she truly had loved me for a time and the experiences that we shared when we were together were real. They simply were fleeting. I then found other notes that I had gotten in the ward I had moved to shortly after going through the ordeal of breaking off my engagement. Our congregation had a habit of coming together for a group prayer each Sunday and following that, socialize for a bit and write each other "nice notes." These were short little notes you could put onto a scrap of paper that were in turn hand delivered to each apartment. Immediately after this incredibly painful experience, I had turned to God and I had thrived through filling my time with service...

"Thank you for always striving to be a happy person who makes others happy too! I love that about you! Good luck with finals and know that you are welcome anytime!"

"I will never not think you are wonderful."

"Remember when we went to Macy's that one night and I had a laugh attack in your car? Let's do that again one day. Love you SO MUCH."

Remember. When did I become a cynic? When did I lose myself along the way? Remembering does a few different things: helps you count your blessings and see the things that you have overcome and faced along the way but it also helps you see what you wanted to become and re-center yourself. I used to be a REALLY good home teacher. I was more than that - I tried to become someone's friend. I found happiness in helping people and I felt like I genuinely was helping. What happened? I had passions and discovered shortly after what I wanted to do for a career. Now I am simply doing a 8-5 in a completely different and unrelated field. Again begs the question, what happened?

And what can I do differently? Rome wasn't built in a day and there are lots of great things happening in my life but if I really want to change things, what steps can I take to begin the process without tipping the boat too much. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few months, if not in the next year! Dating? Living situation? Career? God knows but I will certainly be surprised.

Introverts - Not Shy, Simply Dialed-In

People are everywhere. We move together, around each other, through crowds and masses of people, and over time we see where our choices have brought us. If we aren't careful, we will see that our feet will have brought us to places not of our own design. Our present state is the summation of decisions that have brought us here and if we simply follow the flow of our lives, we will find the smooth edges and the paths that open below our feet.

When I walk into a room, I have the feeling to look around and survey my surroundings, to listen to the sounds, to feel the rhythm or pace, and to look at the people as they move around and interact. It takes a few moments for me to feel the underlying current before I take the full dive into the space. Some of these people feel like obstacles and others there is an immediate connection. Still, those connections are real and have an energy to them.

When we look for connection, we have to be willing to be open to all responses. We are feeling. It doesn't matter if it is pain, belonging, or anything in between. Extroverts thrive off the energy of a room itself or through creating that energy. It is the mass, size and quantity that fuels them rather than introverts, like myself, who thrive off listening, feeling out that energy, and having intimate and personal conversations. Crowds are sensory overloads for introverts - candles trying to stay lit in a storm of noise. And because I am an introvert doesn't mean that I am necessarily shy but simply dialed-in.

I feel like this is why I thrive off of personal connections - one-on-one conversations, small groups of people, and hearing what drives people's motivations, their passions, and their dreams. These are the types of things that bring meaning to life. It replaces bland routine with spice and with flavor. It is like our personal callings that fill our lives with a light that cannot be hid.

All you have to do is look and listen. There is beauty in every soul trying to express itself and escape the reality in which we cage ourselves. So what can an introvert do in a world that demands that they make a stand and speak loudly? We pick our battles. I demand brutal honesty. I ask for genuine vulnerability. I ask for personal expression. I want to know what you feel and why. In the meantime, I will be willing to say what others don't have the courage to say when they don't have a voice.

Other people can be afraid of what people might think when they will never know because they fail or forget to ask. Life is unbelievably short. It is fragile and fleeting at times. This is what makes our experiences so special and memorable. This is why it is hard to describe what our passions are or what love is. Those feelings are intimate in their very nature but that is the very reason they need to be expressed. Without realizing and knowing that you are loved or that someone has accepted you and your love, life can feel relatively meaningless.

When we think about our lives, we relive the past. We look through the lens of our memories and remember the things we saw, the people we met, but mostly how we felt. Why not live in that? Why not see our lives, see our selves and see everyone else as we might be? Why not look for that potential? Why did we stop dreaming to start living instead of the other way around? It gives a new perspective to the idea that we might all be giants.

What would happen if you started to believe in yourself and stopped measuring yourself? If you would stop holding yourself short and simply took the step, what is the worst that could happen - failure? No - failure happens when we quit. When we stop trying and believing, this is when we fail.

So how can we change the world? How can we push to make it better? It starts with belief. It grows with love. It burns brightly with passion. And it is made by individuals. Take joy in the journey because when you are willing to be authentic, the destination will take care of itself.

What is a prophet?

Today was another interesting day at the congregation I go to in Boston. I showed up a little late and ended up arriving half way through Priesthood. The lesson was from the Teachings of the Prophets and when I arrived the discussion had drifted to how the prophets are just men and that they err just like we do and how they need to catch up with society. Whatever the prophetic teaching, I was sure the original lesson wasn't that.

Let me back up...

My ward is made up of Harvard and other Ivy League graduate students. These men and women are intellectual superpowers. They go to universities that sell that message and they themselves believe in it. They believe that they are better and smarter than anyone else. I saw it before at different conferences with my MBA program. I have seen it again in quorum at church. There is a perspective that there are different levels of individuals who are considered peers and those that do not understand. The reason for a separation between the different groups was the differing levels of understanding.

The sad thing is that no one really understands everything. It always feels like one big intellectual contest. In previous congregations I had gone to before, the contest was a physical one. Men would compete with other single men and they might as well as lived in caves and carried clubs. I don't care for either of these types of confrontations, especially since the reason I am going is to strengthen my faith in Christ.

It is a paradox because as much as these people claimed to know and understand in terms of their faith, they really only could define doctrine. Once they felt like they understood that they would want to dive into something deeper but they weren't prepared. We don't understand the basic principles of the gospel well enough, like faith, or even have any faith to be more honest. They only had fear. They were afraid that people may understand there were things that they did not know. They were afraid of their own doubts. In all reality, they understood very little.

"Faith is a house with many rooms."

"But no room for doubt?"

"Oh plenty, on every floor. Doubt is useful. It keeps faith a living thing. After all, you cannot know the strength of your faith until it is tested (Life of Pi)."

They simply did not understand that having questions is good thing... Wonderful in fact. The issue with the questions they had were that they were questioning God. Their pride had put them in a place were they not only felt that they were above their fellow man but above God himself. They shouldn't confuse themselves into believing that they knew more or better about how the world works than the being that created it. Society can believe whatever they want but for those of us that know better, for those of us that know there is a God and know that He lives... for us, I know that God sent His Son, Jesus Christ to not only fulfill the law of sacrifice and atone for the sins of the world, but as a loving Father in Heaven, He has given us prophets to guide us in our modern day.

As men, prophets are people. They form a quorum of disciples of differing opinions and beliefs. They even disagree from time to time on how to lead and guide the Church. The part that many people forget is that in all reality, they are not the ones to decide where the Church goes. They are simply the mouthpieces and the tools God uses because as His children, we simply don't have faith enough to walk with Him and be taught from Him directly. And even if we were able, He would still use prophets to direct His church as a whole because that is how He has always done things during our mortal experience.

Once prophets have completed meditating and pondering as we do in order to receive inspiration, they pray together after debating and deliberating what the Church should do in regards to any given subject. Once a prophet speaks in the office in which he is called to, they speak in unanimity as a quorum and they speak in behalf of God.

People always seem to become afraid because they are unwillingly to accept there are things that they do not understand. They rely on science as fact when in all reality true science continues to question itself all the time. Science is evolving and changing throughout time. What is an atom? What is it made of? Science has changed its mind on this time and time again as its perspective deepens and expands. Science is more like faith and religion than what most people are willing to admit. There are facts that have always been true. This is why faith is a form of courage. It is a form of strength.

When people question the prophets, they forget that they are questioning God, the one perfected being that knows all things in the universe. They forget the parables and the prophesies. They forget that it is because the Jews looked beyond the mark and lost their testimonies, forgot their covenants, and went the way of the world that they crucified their own Messiah. It is our pride that moves us in the Parable of the Ten Virgins from one of the prepared to one of the preoccupied. Remember who you are and remember that God has not forgotten you. He has prepared you and given you everything you need to become who you need to become. A prophet of God is one of those things that you need in order to reach your divine potential.

What is Greed?

I was driving into work today and there was an interesting question that had been posed on a local radio station. They were talking about the large pay differential between CEOs and common laborers. One side was crying outrage! There should be more transparency in wages and more equality. The viewpoint was equally loud in saying that CEOs are indispensable. They provide direction, strategy, create the culture, etc. Without a solid leader the whole thing falls apart into anarchy. There is no "thing" without the workers to give it life. Both sides are correct but that doesn't end the conversation on what is right and what is wrong. How much can or should a CEO be paid?

Then a CEO called in from a small iron working corporation. He made a six-figure salary and the next highest paid individual only made 62.5% as much as he did. His strategy was to employ profit sharing. Everyone does get a base salary but profit sharing allows everyone to get paid more when the company performs better and the opposite is also true. It gives everyone skin in the game so to speak. It is a good way to approach the problem head on but then another caller voiced a question that readdressed what the real problem was entirely: "Wages aren't the real problem but a lack of accountability and mismanagement of funds by our government. Where do my taxes really go? Even if I get a better paying job, does that money really help anyone when it goes to taxes?"

Are our roads getting fixed? Why does my money go to welfare when welfare is being currently treated as a regular source of income when it was designed to be a transitional supplement that helps individuals to get by until they get back into the workforce? How much of the issue is the "1%"-ers versus our public representatives and public servants? Is the issue the system or is it human nature? And if it is human nature, how does one really define greed? Is it a bad thing or a good thing?

Morally, greed is a bad thing. Greed isn't necessarily all about money. It isn't defined as people who make x amount of money. There is no specific benchmark. So if it isn't inherently the money that is the issue, what is the issue? I believe that greed is bad because it is the inherently selfish motivation to accumulate resources of any kind. It is sole desire to need more. We need resources so we can have additional options or to increase our ability to choose. More resources allow for more freedoms. These resources include money, time, skills, etc. So are all CEOs greedy people? No. Is an inherent competitive desire to be better necessary to be a good CEO? Probably. Better than whom? Other people? Ourselves? Our past? Everyone? I feel like someone who is trying to provide for others, whether that is their family or their country or their employees, is someone who is the very opposite of greedy. Charity is about giving. Someone who honestly wants to help and serve people, regardless of their wealth, is not greedy.

Mathematically, greed can be defined in a way... Greed is exponential. It is about pursuing a maximum limit. It is about having more than anyone else. Greed is about gaining x without choosing to give away y. Charity is about choosing to give away y regardless of the value of x. Greed is selfish and charity is selfless. So what is the nature of our government? What is your nature? Who are you? What are you? It is something to think about because our desires are what guide our growth and our natures.

The Science of Faith

I haven't been blogging for a while which has been unfortunate. I like writing but I have been distracted lately. I have been trying to focus on work. I have been starting and finishing a new blog about a hobby of mine. I have been trying to create some resemblance to a social life and hopefully dating life (unsuccessfully I might add). In short, I have been making myself busy. Even when these periods of my life tend to happen, I can always make time to appreciate things that are a priority to me, like my faith. The most recent conversation about it surprisingly wasn't at work but on social media and so I hoped to share it.

One of my friends recently had been going through similar struggles as myself in terms of dating. She had been really connecting with someone and then when they discussed her faith and her standards, that special someone disappeared. Frustrating - I know. So her friends responded to her post by asking two distinct questions:

• Would you date people outside of your religion? If so, under what (if any) circumstances?
• Don't you have to marry someone who shares your faith?

Great questions. So my friend responded to the first question of course and I decided to help her out and respond to the second question. I said:

"The keyword is 'should' simply because in marriage if you decide to have a family, it's easier to raise kids with a single standard or belief system instead of multiple. Also, you can get married in a LDS temple which is cool."

This is where my conversation started. One of her other friends (we all have that one friend that can't leave well enough alone...) continued to go back and forth about this subject with me and for simplicity sake I am simply going to copy and paste the dialogue, as follows:

"What about raising children who decide what it is they believe on their own? The stigma is more of Christianity in general, and even greater for the LDS church."

I respond...

"My parents did that and that's actually what our faith promotes us to do... We believe in personal revelation and fostering an individual relationship with both God and Christ. 

"My comment was more directed at the idea that beforehand it is helpful to have some kind of foundation or starting point. Socially, psychologically and religiously, I'd think that it's beneficial for anyone, but especially children, to start with some sort of foundation instead of simply pushing them into the deep end of the pool and saying figure it out by yourself because mommy and daddy don't know either - we disagree.

"I feel personally that doesn't inspire either faith or hope when I think there is an opportunity for a lot of both in this world."

 He rebuttles...

"But right there you mention Christ, and as a Jew, it is important for me that my children don't grow up with my input or parental input about Christ, or any other proclaimed deity, as a deity. I grew up in this way and have come to disagree. It took years to shake. All because I accepted it as truth because my mother told me it as the truth, when it is actually just a belief. It cannot be proven or disproven. Teaching a child that he should believe a certain way, and that Christ is most certainly God, is inherently wrong and destructive.

"But I respect that you believe that Jesus is Christ. Like I disagree but respect its you disagree with my helix but that's cool. But we have to respect each other's beliefs as beliefs and not as facts. Christian churches as have not developed a reputation of doing so."

 Back pedaling to avoid filling my friend's wall with a personal conversation... 

"Please don't misunderstand me. I didn't say that parents aught to tell their children they should believe or worship in a specific way and only that way is correct. I said that they aught to promote faith, hope, and that there is a higher power.

"I believe in God. I believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. My parents pointed me in a direction but they didn't force or push. They simply invited and then allowed me to explore. I feel that everyone has that right and in so doing has the right to disagree as well. For a family and in terms of dating with the hopes of marriage, shared beliefs simply make the process more smooth."

He responds...

"I agree with that. It makes it easier if parents share faith, but to me it's equal if parents agree on how to raise a child." 

I wasn't a huge fan of his "facts" comment so I responded...

"And what is a 'fact' really? Science is made up of 'facts' but facts change. Reality hasn't changed just the amount of information we now have or in the way our perspective or viewpoints have altered.

"For you, your perspective defines the 'facts' that make up your VIEW of reality... As do mine. Hence the reason, why political and religious conversations are so much fun.

"It's nighttime and that's a fact... Where I'm at. But somewhere else it is daytime. In either place, the sun still exists and burns as brightly but our perspectives alter our view of it."

He tries to come back at me one last time...

"Well a fact is true whether you believe it or not. It can be shown and observed through experience or record. Jesus simply lacks science. I have my own Personal view on the Bible, God, Jesus etc. Your helix is just as personal.

"Ya that's not really the same thing."

And I finish it up by simply bearing testimony...

"Facts and truth are not the same -science is a clear example of it actually.

"Through observation and experience, scientific facts pointed to a variety of different models for the structure of an atom or the nature of our solar system. It continues to change even today with new technology that is invented all the time that continue to expand our perspective and ability to see new things. So all those 'facts' and 'science' are actually theories or models of how we can rationalize or explain things until our vision can be further expanded.

"Interesting though that in that practical definition of science - a series of theories or models of how we can rationalize or explain things until our vision can be further expanded - sounds a lot more like religion than most people are willing to admit. Both allow greater insight as an individual continues to study it and question it. Blind belief does no one any good.

"I am a big believer in science. I have a background in mechanical and biomedical engineering. The human body and many other aspects of science do nothing more than deepen and strengthen my faith in my God, the more I study it and learn about how it works and functions. Divine design is all around you. The probability alone of all these interconnected parts that sustain life is miraculous in its very nature."

The point I am trying to make is that God is not new. God is truth. Whether you call Him by the name of Jehovah, Elohim, Allah, The All, or any other conception of a Supreme Being, there is a higher power. We have the opportunity to come to know Him. In fact, we have the ability to become like Him. He is our Father in Heaven so as we learn more about Him, we are also learning more about ourselves. Science is a little slow but it will eventually catch up to the truth.

Think about what an atheist is describing when they refer to the Big Bang Theory... All matter and all "creation" came from a single explosion or expansion of matter. It is simply another perspective on the same event we are describing during the Creation. All matter was organized during an event (or series of events) caused by a single force (or entity - which is God). We all use different lingo and fight over vernacular but in all reality, we are all talking about the same thing.

Faith and science are truly the same as they are the search for the ultimate truth.

Make Me Feel Okay

When we think of people, we can think of them as either aggregate groups or lots of individuals. I feel like we tend to identify a little of both. The personalities that stand out clearly become the individuals and everyone else fades to the background. Those groups are created around various titles or classifications. It is only natural because there is only so much data or information we can process at one time however, what are the implications of that choice?

I have been on both sides of this coin. I have been both hidden in the background as well as the individual. There is a specific role that straddles those at the same time and it is the validator. So who exactly is the validator? When people begin to question themselves, the way people view them, the classifications that are assigned to us, many times we want to be seen in a specific way and that doesn't always come across or isn't communicated effectively so the validator is the friend or person who helps you clearly identify who you are in the crowd time and time again.

I am friends with a girl who I have known for years. Throughout our relationship, she has dated many different men/boys. When things get rough, she knows she can count on me to validate who she is. Regardless of whatever her question is... How illogical or emotionally selfish or selfless she is acting... I am able to clearly provide a path that will help her with her problems and she will consistently choose to ignore it or even more commonly do the exact opposite. She clearly isn't listening and doesn't care about my advice so why talk with me at all?

It is because of how I make her feel.

Even when the men she dates treat her like scum, she can rely on me to pick her back up and brush her off and make her feel shiny and new. Why? Because she is relying on other people to make her feel wanted and to value her which influences her own sense of self-worth.

Is it healthy?

No.

Am I constant?

Yes.

So if I was to create a visual to personify the role of a validator it would be a warm blanket. The world has turned cold and you seem to have forgotten who you are. You pull the warm blanket out of the closet and wrap yourself up in it until you start to feel warm and then you put it aside. The validator makes the cold feel okay.

"It's okay... Don't worry. You are stronger than you know."

The problem is that if someone doesn't realize that they are the validator, this back and forth happens again and again. Eventually it stops. The person doesn't need the validator any more because they found the warmth they were seeking from someone else and the validator is forgotten. It is discarded. In simplest terms, it is no longer needed or necessary. Even if the validator surprises everyone and leaves, it only ever becomes necessary but never desired or wanted.

Someone wrote a description of this animation that fits perfectly. She said, "I think he's so in love with her but she's not his to have. That's why she's a sketch. When she finally loves him back to the extent he loves her, she becomes more than a sketch but he leaves because she's too late to realize how much he cared." Love, like all emotions, is a choice. People don't want to fall in love because there is no way to know if the other person is going to try. We don't want to get lost in our passion and emotions to find out it was only in our minds. True love is only given, never earned or bought. It is quite literally a gift.

The irony is that you simply can't choose who gives it to you or when.

It is sad how many people find themselves in this struggle because both feel the need to be loved and to love. There is only one place where we can always turn to find it but we have to learn how to feel it. It is through the Holy Spirit. It is God's perfect love. It validates who you are. It helps you feel that you are not alone or abandoned. It is constant. It is eternal. It is ours to find and only we can find it. No one can give it to us. You are perfect in God's eyes because He can see the perfection in the imperfection. He sees us not as we are but as who we can become. We simply need to pray for His sight and His strength.