Perspective on Education

Background

This is a paper I wrote for my organizational behavior class. The assignment was to apply the principles of motivational psychology to a situation in my life. I post it here to argue for change in our educational paradigm.

Introduction

I consider myself a highly motivated and ambitious individual. One of my greatest aspirations is to continually learn, achieve and realize my potential in every possible aspect of my life. However, few things douse the fire of ambitious zeal and induce a feeling of hopeless despair like the looming assignment of a multiple choice test. All my current classes employ them, but some are more bearable than others. 

The class (organization) under examination for this paper is BUS M 341 (Marketing), as the recent test for this particular class has caused me significant grief. I am reluctant to apply myself in preparation for the exams because multiple choice tests inherently possess a number of debilitating, de-motivating weaknesses.  

First, the exams provide no real-life application whatsoever; second, the wording of questions has a tremendous impact on a student’s ability to answer correctly; third, these tests do not provide an accurate measurement of students’ abilities; and lastly, students who want to be creative, original or step outside the norm are restricted.

Examining the Problem

Brigham Young University’s “Aims of Education” states that a complete perspective of education “ends with knowledge applied to the practical tasks of living and serving.” As an educational tool, multiple-choice tests do not provide students with applicable knowledge. Memorizing definitions, equations and concepts has little to do with solving actual problems in the real world.

This dissonance between the task at hand and the ultimate objective of education creates very low task identity and task significance. With such a mundane assignment, how can students feel like their efforts constitute a “whole and identifiable piece of work,” or that their endeavors have had a “substantial impact on the lives or work of other people?” Maybe a good GPA provides some level of satisfaction in the end, but the world is no different because I got an A, nor does it result in “knowledge applied to the practical tasks of living and serving.”

From the professor’s perspective, the objective is to evaluate students’ abilities; but what abilities? Aptitude? Memorization? Achievement? Do professors thoroughly evaluate the objectives of their tests and design effective assessment tools around those objectives? Do professors take care to use clear wording and sentence structure? The wording and structure of tests can significantly alter their effectiveness, and logic implies that poorly written tests will induce poor responses from students.

When this happens, students are likely to feel a sense of unfairness or inequity. From my experience, I have started to feel that most professors put little thought into the design of their tests, let alone think about alternative methods of student evaluation. If any effort is expended, the intention seems to be aimed at tricking students and making their lives difficult. Why would I want to study if I don’t feel the professor has put much thought into the test, or when I know that my outcome can easily be affected by how the test is written?

Furthermore, students have a wide range of learning styles. However, most professors never think twice about their teaching styles and testing methods; they presume that all students understand the material as they teach it. This is not always the case. In addition to the many learning styles, students also possess different abilities and have unique methods of solving problems. I have little incentive to develop my own approach to problems if I know the test is nothing but memorization and regurgitation.

Instead of embracing a variety of talents and abilities, multiple choice tests stifle students’ unique abilities and incorporate limited forms of learning. They induce mediocrity, conformity, and blind acceptance–all of which are enemies to creativity, innovation, and true greatness. How are students to explore new possibilities and find new answers to problems if their choices are restricted to options A through F?

What Can the Organization Do?

What can my professor do to help alleviate the motivational disconnect of student evaluation? Using a low-level approach, she can be careful in writing the questions, give clear direction for studying the material, and try to be very explicit about the format and expectations of the tests. However, I feel that a new way of thinking about education and evaluation is long overdue. As a starting point, the job characteristics model provides a good framework for tackling the problem. Using the five core dimensions, the following ideas might be considered:

1. Skill Variety – Expand the skills and talents tested when evaluating students. Instead of focusing on merely memorizing facts and concepts, the professor could develop a curriculum that challenges students to use a variety of skills and ways of approaching problems.
2. Task Identity – Design assignments and assessments that help students feel like they’ve completed a worthwhile task rather than just filling in the bubbles and checking the boxes.
3. Task Significance – Help students find meaningful application of the course material. For example, I feel much more motivated to complete my service learning project because I’m confident that it will have a meaningful impact in the real world.
4.  Autonomy – Give students flexibility and control over their learning experience. If someone wants to apply the material in a creative way, help them design the structure and goals of the assignment.
5. Feedback – Professors are generally available to meet one-on-one with students to discuss their work, but I would appreciate more in-class discussion and review of completed assignments.

Course curriculums designed with these principles in mind have drastically increased my motivation to perform, and increased my perception of equity from performance evaluations.

What Can I Do?

I undoubtedly have a significant responsibility to make the most of my education experience, so I need to evaluate what I might change in order to improve motivation. I feel an appropriate framework of analysis lies in the equity theory approach. I feel that my inputs (study, intellect, creativity) at the University are not adequately rewarded, so I am faced with a set of alternatives to change my perception of equity:

1. Change my Inputs – Reduce my intellectual and creative expenditure 
2. Change my Outcomes – Focus only on obtaining the grades I want 
3. Distort Perceptions of Myself – I’m just smarter than everyone else, so I’m unique 
4. Distort Perceptions of Others – Others aren’t getting as much out of school as me 
5. Choose a Different Referent – I’m getting a better education than my dad did
6. Quit School – Just drop out because my efforts will be better rewarded elsewhere

I think I’ve considered all the above mentioned alternatives, except dropping out, but none of them really resolves my situation. Since I feel like many of the causes of inequity are beyond my control, I have just focused on obtaining the grades I need in order to get a job after graduation where my efforts will be rewarded.

However, I can try to start focusing on the overall learning outcomes resulting from my university experience – hard work, discipline, time management, social skills, networking skills, teamwork, etc. – rather than just rewards from evaluation. This may help me better appreciate my time at BYU. Because I’m a better person for going to college, maybe I can deal with the feeling of not being rewarded for creativity and uniqueness and cope with the frustration of being unable to express myself through schoolwork. This seems like a good place to start cultivating a more positive attitude. 

Wedsend - My first business venture

While I was in college, I had a lot of friends who got married. Along with their announcements, I would frequently get a Facebook invite to an event instructing me to put my name and address on their wall so they could send me an announcement. I never gave this much thought until my brother got married. He directed people to a Google form where they could submit their info that way. This made a lot of sense to me, and I got an idea for a business.

That's why I created Wedsend. Wedsend is a free, simple tool that helps couples gather contact info efficiently and securely. At it's very simplest, it's a glorified Google form. You can create a custom wedding website with your colors, picture, and story with a place for guests to submit their address. But it's also much more.

Wedsend allows you to create your wedding events and provide info to your guests about the when, where, and other important details. You can also use Wedsend to specify all the people who are invited to each event and track their RSVPs. Even better, you can send your friends a Facebook invite and allow them to visit your site to RSVP themselves and read all about the couple.

Overall, Wedsend is designed to make wedding planning a little easier. No more copying and pasting addresses from a Facebook event wall. Wedsend stores them all in one place and allows you to export them to a spreadsheet. I've got more features and services in the works, so there's more to come.

Contrast

Introduction
This is an illustration I created for my History of Creativity class. The assignment was to do something creative that is connected with some historical theme of the class. Here I've provided an explanation of the work and my feelings on the subject matter. As you'll find, I'm pretty opinionated, but hopefully this is valuable to everyone by at least sparking interest and inviting discussion.

Historical Backdrop
Philosophical thinking and debate between the mid 1600’s and the late 1700’s focused primarily on the issue of determining the best form of government. Thereafter, people’s attention turned to the problem of social and economic justice. However, variations on the forms of government and the extent of the government’s role in accomplishing society’s goals have remained critical topics of debate to the present day. This issue of government power and involvement is the subject matter of my project.

On March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into legislation a landmark bill that drastically overhauls healthcare in the United States. Some hail it as an unprecedented triumph for social justice and equality, but the bill unquestionably ranks as one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in our nation’s history. Not only is the bill’s premise potentially unconstitutional, but its passage was fraught with bold political maneuvering and bitter debate. In my opinion, passage of this legislation has violated two fundamental American values: governance by consent and limited government.

John Locke, the great Enlightenment thinker, helped develop the foundation of our governmental system. Of his contributions, one of the most profound and closely guarded principles upon which our constitution is built is the notion that a government’s only valid source of legitimacy is the consent of the governed  – “government for the people, by the people”. President Obama’s health care reform does not represent the will of the people, as partially evidenced by his falling approval rating leading up to, and since the bill’s passage. Approval rating aside, proponents of the legislation were zealously determined to push their agenda at all costs:

If we go through the gate and the gate's closed, we'll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in. If that doesn't work we'll parachute in. We're going to get health care reform passed for the American people. – Nancy Pelosi

But the “American people” have not spoken in the affirmative for this bill. Americans are wary of government expansion, especially after the controversy surrounding the financial crisis. This seems more like a victory for special interest groups and politicians hoping to leave some sort of legacy rather than a victory for the American people.

James Madison, an ardent proponent of Enlightenment thinking, once outlined one of the major problems of government: “In forming a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”  The passage of this (nearly) trillion dollar government health care scheme represents an epic failure of obliging the government to control itself.

Firstly, by forcing people to buy health insurance, the government violates our natural rights by ascribing a tax to our natural right to live. With car insurance, if I don't want to pay it, I (theoretically) can stop driving (practically speaking, this is easier said than done, but it's the principle we're addressing). With health insurance, the same principle should apply. But under Obama’s plan you don't have a choice. Essentially, I think, therefore I pay health insurance.

Secondly, the federal deficit is already out of control after the “Bailout.” The last thing the economy needs is more inefficient, value sucking bureaucracies.The government's unprecedented,  astronomical spending puts our currency at risk. If inflation skyrockets, everything becomes more expensive, and everyone's standard of living goes down.

Explanation
After experimenting with a few ideas, I decided to vector art to convey my message. Vector graphics use geometrical primitives such as points, lines, curves, and shapes or polygons, which are all based on mathematical equations, to represent images in computer graphics.  I chose vector art because it generally draws heavily on the use of forms, shapes, colors, lighting effects and perceptions of reality to convey images or ideas, much like impressionism. In essence, rather than trying to recreate a mirror image of the real world, I wanted to use symbols and representations that interacted in a way that would convey my message.

For example, I used a city skyline on the horizon backed by brightly beaming rays of light and bubbling circles to represent the creativity and bright possibilities available when people are allowed to govern themselves. In contrast, I cast Uncle Sam and his devouring influence in a vivid black and white representation of evil. While it may be a little extreme (I don’t’ think the government is evil), I wanted it to be shocking and clear to the viewer. The man in the business suit represents me defiantly mocking the onslaught of feigned “social justice [that] makes no demands on [people's] personal lives and behavior.”

Disclaimer
Admittedly this post is one sided. I'm sure there are good things in the health care bill, and it is well meaning for the most part, but I simply cannot support the political and governmental ideology behind it. I do feel we need health care reform, but this is just bad legislation. Health care reform should address the real problem: rising health care costs. We need to change the incentives that govern health care spending patterns and enact tort reform to reduce protective medical practices.

The Controversial New Testament

Here is another paper I wrote for school. This one focuses on the issues surrounding the written tradition of the New Testament.

Introduction

The New Testament of Christianity is arguably the most important historical book in western civilization; perhaps even in the entire world. Its influence can be felt, either directly or indirectly, in almost every culture and society. It has been studied, disputed, debated, and translated for centuries in many countries and many languages. The book is held by some as the holy, divine, inerrant word of God which contains the only true knowledge and path that leads to salvation in the world hereafter. Others consider it no more than a collection of ancient writings containing a few good principles and valuable life lessons. Christians have referred to it for hundreds of years and it has converted millions to believe in the works and teachings of Jesus and His disciples. Of course some people have no interest in it all, but regardless of religious belief, or geographic location, the shaping effects of New Testament writings on society can be felt around the world.

Unique to religions of the day, Christianity regarded the writings of their prophet leaders as sacred and divinely authoritative. Few other faiths during Christ’s time, with the exception of Judaism, were in any way strictly governed by a written tradition. The scriptures are believed to be God’s word to man and as such provide the standard “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, KJB). Anyone who wishes to follow God must consult the scriptures to learn the correct way. In much of mainstream Christianity today, the Bible has been put up on a pedestal. Many denominations, mostly Protestant, assert that in order to even be a Christian one must believe the Bible to be the complete and inerrant word of God (Olsen, 2003). They hold the written tradition of Christianity in very high esteem and derive almost all their authority from it. But even though they all claim the New Testament as the source of their doctrine, there exist many differences and arguments among faiths.

The teachings of Christ were debated before the writings of the New Testament were even composed and compiled. The New Testament is not explicit or specific in many ways with regard to church organization, the nature of God, the performance of rites and ordinances, or the continued operation of the church to name a few points of contention. Disputes over doctrine and liturgy have raged from the very beginning of Christianity as a religion and have caused confusion and division throughout Christendom, evident by the thousands of creeds and denominations that exist in the present day. Scholars and skeptics have also challenged the historical credibility of the New Testament. Scientific research has revealed thousands of textual variances among the ancient manuscript copies from which the New Testament is derived, calling into question its legitimacy as an inerrant, divinely inspired book and subsequently the very foundation of certain doctrines. The controversy over doctrine and legitimacy has been a platform of debate for centuries and continues to be a point of division among many in modern society.

The reader should be aware that the purpose of this paper is not to undermine the divinity or credibility of the New Testament, but simply to point out some of the pertinent issues, and to induce inquiry into the important factors surrounding one’s belief in the New Testament as the word of God.

Transcription and Translation Throughout the Ages

Jesus, born a Jew near Jerusalem, began his ministry around the year 30 A.D. Our knowledge of him is limited almost entirely to the accounts preserved in the New Testament. His teachings were centered primarily on moral conduct and salvation in the fulfillment of ancient prophecies concerning his role as the promised Messiah who would come to redeem mankind. Jesus' followers regarded him as their Savior and Redeemer who could cleanse them from sin and reconcile them to God through the power of his Atonement – his great act of love in offering himself as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, which he accomplished through the shedding of his blood in the Garden of Gethsemane and his crucifixion on the cross. They looked to him as their greatest example and the only means by which they could return to God's presence. Thus, the importance of his teachings and the traditions he established were indispensable to believers.

Though his public ministry lasted only about three years, his influence was far reaching. During his life he organized many believers into a body led by his twelve most trusted followers, the Apostles, as well as other various ecclesiastical officers to govern the Church (Eph 4, KJB). After his death and resurrection, he commanded the Twelve to go “into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15, KJB). The early missionary efforts carried Christ's gospel north and east all the way to Rome before the end of the first century. Consequently, the spread of Christianity in its early stages was accomplished primarily through oral transmission (Pelikan, 2005).

As part of their preaching, the Apostles often quoted the Jewish scriptures to prove Christ's mission, but Christianity originally had no unique scripture of its own. As the Church progressed, the Apostles wrote letters to the various congregations established throughout the Mediterranean to encourage and exhort members, resolve contention, and expound doctrine. It was the oral tradition and the subsequent letters to the Church which formed the basis of the authoritative writings that eventually became the canonized scripture of the New Testament. Although these writings were not organized into the Bible as we know it today until many centuries after their authorship, they nevertheless provided the basis of the Christian religion. They were read in the congregations to teach doctrine and were quoted by the early Church leaders to establish correct theology and denounce heresy (Ehrman, 2005).

In the first century of Christianity, however, copies of these writings were not exactly easy to come by; nor were they always 100 percent reliable. In the first place, many of the early converts to the church were of the poorer classes and generally illiterate. There were no professional scribes at this point in Church history, so the few members who were able and willing to copy texts did so at their own expense and without any supervision. A well known third century Christian author expressed his frustration:

The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please (Origen, Commentary on Matthew).

Each copy had to be made by hand, one quill stroke at a time, which was obviously an arduous task. As a result, many errors crept into the manuscripts, which are evidenced by the countless differences in the copies that have survived to the present day. Some of these were merely grammatical or punctuation mistakes; but others were of much greater significance, sometimes changing the doctrinal implications of the writing. For example, in I Corinthians 5:8, Paul warns the members not to eat the “old leaven, the leaven of wickedness and evil.” But due to similarities in the Greek spelling for the word meaning evil and the word meaning sexual immorality, some surviving texts quote Paul as warning specifically against sexual sin. Many such discrepancies exist throughout the texts. To put a perspective on the difficulty, there are more differences among the ancient manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament. (Ehrman, 2005).

Adding to the changes resulting from difficulties in transcription were the intentional changes made by the copyists. Discovering the underlying reasons for these changes is largely speculative; however, historical writings of Church leaders attest that purposeful manipulation of New Testament manuscripts did occur, most prominently in the first and early second centuries. Even in the apostolic times, the apostles warned the members against corruption: “there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1, KJB). Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon at the end of the second century, accused the Valentinians of changing the scriptures “by transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another” (Irenaeus). Celsus, an opponent of Christianity, accused the copyists of changing their texts in order to counter their critics:

Certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodeled it, so that they might be able to answer objections (Origen, Contra Celsus).

Examples can be found throughout literature of the first two centuries where one group accuses another of changing texts to fit their own ideas. Indeed, examination has revealed that the texts regarded today as scriptural canon changed significantly from the first to the end of the second century (Reynolds, 2005).

Christianity remained one among many beliefs, with a modest number of followers, until the fourth century when Constantine, the emperor of Rome, sanctioned it as the state religion. Christianity suddenly had political and social prominence throughout the entire Roman Empire (Callister, 2006). Demand for copies of the sacred writings increased dramatically from that time on, bringing about the widespread circulation of apostolic writings throughout the Empire. Professional scribes, along with the emergence of institutionalized monasticism, supplied the growing need for scripture. These manuscripts, however, were copied from the previous generation of texts and subsequently inherited the errors and alterations which had crept in, while adding yet more mistakes in the process (Ehrman, 2005). As a result, these differences eventually became embedded in the scriptural tradition of the church. Hence, these altered traditions became the standard, and any variation from them was considered heresy.

The texts which became the official canon were translated into Latin, the emerging language of the western Empire, by Jerome at the end of the fourth century. Over time the Vulgate, as the Latin Bible is called, became the only available version of the Bible in the West. These Latin manuscripts also had to be copied by hand which resulted in even more errors. Even worse, the monks had a bad habit of throwing out the old copies once they had finished the new ones, leaving modern scholars even more empty handed with regard to discovering the original content of the texts (Pelikan, 2005). As learning and literacy declined, copies of the Latin New Testament, which were produced mainly in monasteries, were held by an isolated few and the Greek tradition was virtually lost to the Western world. The Western Church developed its own unique traditions, which were increasingly influenced by politics and pagan ritual rather than scriptural precepts (Talmage, 1909). During the Dark Ages the written tradition of the scriptures played a much smaller role since the majority of the lay people were illiterate and relied heavily on clergy and ritual to guide their religious worship. But surprisingly, the sacred and holy nature of the scriptures was preserved and they continued to be revered as inspired literature. In general though, the study of the scriptures was reserved for a privileged few while the majority was obliged to follow the direction of Church leaders.

With the Renaissance and the Reformation, however, a new interest arose in the study of scripture. As literacy and availability of the Bible increased among laity, people became aware of the discrepancies between the written word and the practices of the Church. Access to the writings in the New Testament facilitated a revolution in thought as people turned to them for guidance and gained new insights about the teachings of Christ and his Apostles. Scholars and reformers used the scriptures as the basis for their revolt, citing numerous inconsistencies between the written word and the common practices of the Church (Roberts, 1979).

Eventually scholars of the 1600-1700’s began to study the ancient texts more closely. With increased scrutiny and access to the ancient Greek manuscripts, they started to become aware of the many errors and discrepancies that had developed over time; not only among the Latin manuscripts, but between the Latin manuscripts and the older Greek ones as well. One of the first and most controversial publications of the Greek New Testament was John Mill’s version in which he cited over 30,000 instances where divergent readings can be found among copies of the text. His study was based on about a hundred different Greek manuscripts as well as scriptural quotations of the early Church fathers. Many Christians were outraged, especially Protestants, because it gave the Catholic Church more authority in preserving the original Christian tradition since the written one was apparently unreliable (Ehrman, 2005).  The schism between faiths has never been resolved and the argument persists to this day. Divisions continued even among Protestant Christians, resulting in the evolution of many new denominations.

Language Difficulties

Latin eventually lost its status as the primary language of learning and scriptural tradition and so the difficulty arose of translating an already inconsistent text into many new languages. Language, in of itself, has problems communicating exactly what is meant. For instance, John warns in his apocalypse, the last book found in the New Testament, that “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,” (Revelation 22:18-19, KJB). Is he referring to the entire Bible or just the book of Revelation? To further illustrate the problem of expression, one only needs to look at the many English translations of the Bible that are available. One particular passage, Romans 10:9-10, clearly displays the difficulty for one who wishes to believe in Christ and obtain salvation:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:9-10, KJB)

Say the welcoming word to God – “Jesus is my Master” – embracing, body and soul, God’s work of doing in us what he did in raising Jesus from the dead. That’s it. You’re not “doing” anything; you’re simply calling out to God, trusting him to do it for you. That’s salvation. (Romans 10:9-10, Peterson, 2003)

If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. (Romans 10:9-10, NIV)

Which translation is right? There are significant differences in meaning between each version. What did the author really mean? To the average reader, and even to the learned scholar, it may never be fully known.

When translating from one language to another, a whole new set of problems arises. For example, Christ says in the English Bible that He and the Father are “one” (John 17: 22). But what was the meaning of the Greek word that was translated into English as “one?” Did it mean one in the same person, one in unity, or some other concept of “oneness?” Another important factor of translation is the context in which the original text was written. For translators to accurately rewrite in another language what the author wanted to convey, it is sometimes essential to know the framework in which it was composed. For readers, taking passages of scripture out of context can also drastically affect their meaning. A good example of this can be found in one of Paul’s epistles: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Galations 2:16, KJB). Many Christians use this, and similar passages, to assert that there is nothing required of man to obtain salvation except to believe in Christ; as opposed to the belief of others in a need for baptism, obedience to the commandments, etc. But one must ask: what did Paul mean by the “works of the law?” Was he explaining there is no longer a need to keep the Law of Moses for it had been fulfilled in Christ? Or was there another meaning? These are just a few of the many examples in the New Testament where meaning and translation can make a big difference in theology. Yet thousands of denominations claim to have the “correct” doctrine based on what the scriptures supposedly say. But how can it be known what the scriptures really say?

Since Mill’s time, experts have been attempting to reconstruct the New Testament using methods to discover the most accurate and original version of the texts. But perhaps the most challenging aspect of reconstructing the texts of the New Testament is the fact that the original manuscripts no longer exist. Nor are there any copies in close proximity to the originals; the oldest available texts are copies of copies of copies that were made, in most cases, centuries later. As has been shown, many changes were introduced into the manuscripts from one generation to another. From a scientific perspective, there is no way to know what the authors really said. This poses a major question to the faith: How can correct Christian doctrine be extracted from the New Testament if the original words of the authors have been lost (Ehrman, 2005)? Did God preserve the essential meaning despite the many man-made errors? Or has there been a perversion of scripture and doctrine that can never be recovered, no matter how much experts try? Additionally, what does this mean for Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible? Honest and scholarly examination of the New Testament raises many questions.

The Restoration and the New Testament

Now having presented a number of challenges, I have to post what I believe to be the solution. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that there was indeed a falling away from the original teachings of Christ – although not necessarily with specific regard to the written tradition, but to the Christian tradition in general – and that it was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith. This restoration has repudiated many of the claims of the evolved Christian tradition such as original sin, infant baptism, and a number of other popular creeds, on the basis that certain aspects of Christ’s Church have been changed or lost. The official stance of the LDS Church states, with regard to ancient scripture, that “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly” (Smith, 1981). Thus, the Church acknowledges that there have been errors in its translation, but still esteems it as the word of God. Those things that were lost are believed to have been restored by Joseph Smith.

This stance, however, has brought much criticism upon the Church, especially by Protestants who claim that the Bible is the perfect, inerrant word of God. For one thing, it entirely undermines their ability to authoritatively preach from the Bible. But there are also doctrinal differences that the Latter-day Saints believe have resulted from mistranslation or misinterpretation. One of the most prevalent accusations against the LDS Church arising out of the interpretation of the New Testament concerns the doctrine of the Trinity – the idea that God is three persons – the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – all in one person. Latter-day Saints believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct persons and that the doctrine of the Trinity is not scripturally founded. To the average Christian, this is heresy. Such a belief is a fundamental requirement to be a Christian in their eyes. The Saints have been accused of being a cult, idolaters, polytheists, and even worse things, because of this belief (Christian Research Institute). How is it that writings intended to bring peace and harmony to the world are the source of such belligerent allegations? Certainly Christ could not have meant for His teachings to be used as instruments of social schism.

In response to these attacks, the LDS people simply point to some of the examples in this paper where interpretation may be debatable, or in which it is entirely possible that important doctrinal passages in the scriptures were changed or lost. If this truly is the case, and evidence supports this idea, then the early Christians may very well have held a different view of God. Elder Jeffery R. Holland, an Apostle of the LDS Church, asks the question, “If one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?” (Holland, 2007). Ultimately the LDS Church will counsel a person to seek God’s guidance on the issue, for if He is the author of the word, He certainly can guide believers in the right direction.

Conclusion

So what is to be made of all this controversy? The world of a Christian seems to be clouded with confusion and contention. Mankind may never devise a feasible solution. But a person of faith must at least know and understand the facts in order to make intelligent decisions about their belief. The New Testament of today is based on ancient manuscripts with thousands of variations in them. It has been shown that numerous changes have crept into the text over time and the originals are not available for comparison. The context and the meaning which the authors were trying to convey are not always clear either. Additionally, translation from one language to another poses significant difficulties, not to mention the interpretation of one’s own language. What do all these things ultimately mean? That is for each reader to decide. Perhaps only God has the solution. The fact of the matter is that there are challenges to be overcome and questions to be answered for all believers.

The Portrayal of Women in the Media

Bear with me here. This is an essay I wrote for school. I share it here because I gained some interesting insights from my research, and it has affected how I view things. Also, I'd be curious to see what girls think. I tried to write it from an objective point of view, but my approach is undoubtedly biased since I am not a girl. The writing style is pretty straightforward, so I apologize if it's not necessarily a fun read, but hopefully the content will keep your attention. Comments and feedback are welcome from either sex to broaden the perspective.

Introduction
When speaking of the “media,” one often refers to the many forms of communication that saturate today’s society. The public is bombarded with messages from countless sources: television, movies, radio, the internet, magazines, etc. Underneath the core content of these messages are images and subliminal portrayals of societal stereotypes. Whether or not these stereotypes are a true reflection of society, they instill conscious and subconscious perceptions of what people should look like, act like, and expect from each other (Morris, 2006, p. 13). These images raise significant questions with regard to the portrayal of gender identity, with particularly unfair representations of women. Does the average woman in today’s media reflect “every woman,” or is she merely the product of superficial male perceptions? Many would say that women are unfairly and inaccurately represented. The misrepresentation of women in the media leads many women to develop unhealthy views of themselves, and it implants unfair and unrealistic expectations in the minds of men with regard to women. People seem to accept the prevailing standards as normal, but perhaps a closer examination of individual and public perception is in order.

Portrayals of Women in the Media

Movies
Motion pictures have been a beloved form of entertainment since their inception in the early nineteen hundreds. Today they permeate American culture in theaters, in homes, and on the internet. As such, movies significantly affect the construction of gender stereotypes in society. One of the most prominent female images is the “princess,” which is famously portrayed in many of the timeless Disney classics. The princess often finds herself in some predicament that requires the heroic effort of prince charming to free her, which seems to be a poor ideal. As one feminist puts it, “a multitude of sexist messages are present in Disney movies teaching young girls that they are expected to fill a submissive role in society. The fairy tales are symbolic of women’s lives being shaped by male influences.” (Wachutka, 2006, p. 1). The embodiment of the princess ideal can be seen in today’s culture where the woman often waits for the man (her prince charming), who is expected to woo and impress her. Thus, a woman’s role in the dating world seems to be defined in terms of the man.

Another movie phenomenon is the “chick flick” genre. These films, which also commonly portray a princess-like ideal, specifically target female viewers. They typically contain heavily romantic themes with fateful match-ups, relationship drama, and the eventual triumph of love. However, the genre seemingly attempts to combine all the stereotypical interests of an entire gender into one movie structured around traditional gender roles and sexist courting practices (Thompson, 2007, p. 43). Chick flicks are often looked down upon as “mindless, sappy, and overly-commercialized fluff” (Hinders, n.d.). Nevertheless, these movies are extremely popular among women and are a typical feature at young girls’ slumber parties. Examples abound of stereotypes in movies across various genres, and further primary research is needed to objectively evaluate such portrayals. But generally speaking, women are often portrayed in terms of men–as wives, girlfriends, mothers, objects of male desire, etc.

Television
In addition to the power of motion picture films, television exerts a dominant influence in the lives of Americans. Many studies have been conducted to determine the nature of television content. In almost all cases, the studies conclusively revealed that there are fewer women than men on television in general, and that fewer women play lead roles. The studies also showed that women were most commonly portrayed as submissive, passive, and more inclined to compromise rather than to compete (Lauzen, Dozier, & Cleveland, 2006, pp. 449, 451). In political campaigns, female politicians have been shown to receive less press coverage than men, and they are often trivialized and scrutinized for how they look and what they wear (Jost, 2008, p. 278). Statistical data clearly shows an unequal quantitative and qualitative representation of women on television.

Without even conducting a study, one can think about the content of commercials and quickly realize that women are frequently portrayed as homemakers and mothers, or as fashionably conscious and appearance-oriented. The same is true with women’s lead roles. Few women occupy lead roles in television programming who are not somehow attached or associated with a strong male figure. Soap operas, which are notorious for this depiction, also frequently associate the “possession of goods with possession of women … [and imply that] a woman’s identity is rooted in a relationship with a man who can provide her with ‘a materially satisfying style of life’” (Stern, C. Russell, & D. Russell, 2005, p. 223). In almost all cases, women are dependent on men or equated in male terms.

Magazines
Magazines are notorious for objectifying women and portraying young girls as sex objects. A quick glance at women’s magazine covers like Cosmopolitan and Seventeen divulges headlines such as “Make Him Want to be Your Boyfriend,” “Learn What He Loves,” and “Real Guys Tell You What They Want in Bed.” Are these the type of things that all girls are interested in, or should be interested in? The National Organization for Women asserts that “these messages charge women to mold their bodies and behavior – to suit men. Page after page, photographs and columns strip women of their individuality… [and] women are encouraged to perceive themselves, and in turn their self-worth, through a male lens.” (Kane & Satiani, 2006, p. 19). With regard to men’s magazines, one need only mention names such as Playboy and FHM to capture the essence of female representation in these publications.

Many magazines targeted to female audiences attempt to capture “feminine” interests, such as homemaking, decorating, etc. Despite these stereotypical portrayals, however, women’s magazines do offer specialized advice and information on women’s health. A study of articles that focus on women’s health revealed that such articles generally tend to empower women as stewards of their own bodies and imply that women are smart enough to make their own decisions. But these articles also reinforced the traditional notion of women as the caregivers and nurturers of society. The prevailing notion was that the family’s health and well being is “women’s work” (Barnett, 2006, p. 8). Overall, magazines reinforce the stereotyped roles of women in society and the sexualization of women’s bodies.

The Effects on Women

Role Models
As mentioned earlier, the number of women on television is proportionally less than the number of men; the discrepancy is even greater with regard to women in lead roles. As also previously discussed, the portrayal of women in numerous forms of media, in terms of societal roles and expectations, is strikingly stereotypical. This leaves female consumers with a narrow set of role models in the mass media. Although girls can look elsewhere for role models, the media has a powerful influence on the minds and attitudes of people in society.

Scholars have researched the effects of stereotypical portrayals on the beliefs, attitudes, and actions of viewers. The general hypothesis, “that if the media present female characters with only a limited range of attributes, skills, and abilities, viewers will develop equally limited assumptions about the sexes,” has been confirmed with relatively high confidence (APA, 2005, p. 5). Following this hypothesis, and given the previous discussion on women in media, girls who imitate what they see in the media will tend to be more passive, less ambitious, and view themselves primarily as homemakers, nurturers, and objects of men’s sexual desire. Many people would like to see a wider variety of female role models in the media, which would give girls a broader perspective of femininity.

Objectification Theory
Social scientists claim that society’s emphasis on beauty causes girls to define their femininity largely in terms of physical appearance. This has led to the development of objectification theory, which “argues that learned cultural practices of sexual objectification lead girls and women to self-objectify or, in other words, to adopt a view of themselves as objects whose value is based on appearance” (Grabe, Hyde, & Lindberg, 2007, p. 164). The media fuel this objectifying atmosphere by constantly bombarding the public with sexually charged messages and depictions of women. Within such an atmosphere, researchers believe that “women’s worry about their appearance is not out of conceit or free choice; rather, constant self-surveillance is an adaptive strategy to avoid negative judgment” (Grabe, Hyde, & Lindberg, 2007, p. 165).

This unwavering pressure has a number of negative effects on women. First and foremost, the socially established standards of beauty depicted by the media are almost impossible for most women to achieve. Studies suggest that “the inevitable failure to meet these sociocultural standards is likely to generate shame and anxiety that are recurrent and difficult to alleviate” (Aubrey, 2006, p. 160). Numerous studies have also revealed a direct link between self-objectification and depression in women (Grabe, Hyde, & Lindberg, 2007, p. 170). Thus, women seem to develop a sense of shame and worthlessness as they internalize the messages and standards portrayed by the media, which negatively affects their emotional health and self-esteem. This mental state perhaps contributes to the stereotypical woman who feels weak, inadequate, and who needs a man to make her feel important.

The Effects on Men

Women as Objects
Media images not only influence women, but men also. (Note: the objective of this section is to evaluate how men perceive women as a result of media exposure; the objective is not to evaluate how men perceive themselves.) If women are led to view themselves as objects of sexual desire, it follows that the media can similarly influence men to view women as sex objects as well. This objectification can be defined as “the reduction of women to their sexual appeal in terms of their outer appearance and a focus on their body (parts). It also entails a strong concern with women’s sexual activities as the main criterion of their attractiveness and the depiction of women as sexual playthings waiting to please men’s sexual desires” (Peter, 2007, p. 383).

Exposure to objectifying messages can lead men to believe (either consciously or subconsciously) that a woman’s primary function is his sexual gratification, decreasing the importance of the woman’s wants and needs as an individual human being. These messages can also imbed unfair standards and expectations of women into men’s minds, adding to the pressure women feel to look and act a certain way. Aside from sexual objectification, the stereotyped portrayal of women in the media influences men to perceive women as emotionally intense beings in their traditional roles as homemakers, nurturers, decorators, etc. If a woman steps outside of these norms, men usually do not take her seriously.

Pornography
People debate whether pornography is good or bad for society, but this section will focus simply on how women are portrayed in pornographic material and how it affects men. One particular study that evaluated depictions of women in pornography described the following recurring themes: (1) women were sexually available to any man at any time, (2) women were reduced to objects, (3) women were dominated by men, (4) women had a lower social status than men, and (5) the women’s satisfaction was not as important as the men’s (Cowan & Dunn, 1994, p. 13). According to one feminist, the porn industry objectifies and degrades women as much as possible to satisfy men’s desires of domination over women (Cohen, 2007, p. 36).

While the previous statement may be somewhat charged, pornography certainly does affect men’s behavior and attitudes. A recent study shows that adolescents’ exposure to sexually explicit material is associated with a belief that women are sex objects. The study also found that the degree to which viewers have this perception is related to the explicitness of the material (Peter, 2007, p. 393). This is not surprising, given the effect that the regular media has on the perception of women. Also of note is a study by a social scientist that found that almost half of rapists viewed pornography before they committed the crime (Deffner, 2007, p. 13). Clearly pornography affects the way men view and treat women and the problem is made worse by pornography’s addictive nature. In essence, pornography has an amplified effect on men’s perception of women as sex objects, sometimes driving them to criminal behavior.

Underlying Causes

Media Control
Feminists would argue that the prevailing representation of women in the media is largely due to predominately male occupation of powerful positions within the industry. Indeed, one study in particular examined the relationship between the presence of powerful women behind the scene and the portrayal of women in television shows. The experiment revealed a more egalitarian representation of women on the screen when there was a female writer or executive behind the scenes (Lauzen, Dozier, & Cleveland, 2006, p. 451). In film, 7 percent of directors in 2005 were women; 19 percent of films released in 2005 employed no women directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers or editors; and zero women have ever won an Academy Award for best director (Ruby, 2007, p. 15). The number of female executives and writers in the media industry is simply far less than the number of men.

Claiming that men purposefully portray women through a male lens to perpetuate female stereotypes in society might be a stretch. But the argument could probably be made that men, who might not understand femininity in its entirety, generally control media content. Therefore, depictions of women are created from a man’s perspective and are not representative of how women perceive themselves. If the men in power who dictate media portrayals of women hold stereotypical and sexually objective views, this likely adds to the proliferation of these images in today’s media.

Market Forces
An equally powerful argument that explains the media’s depiction of women is the simple principles of supply and demand. Suppliers will produce that which consumers want most. Logic follows that Hollywood will keep producing chick flicks as long as the movies continue to generate ticket sales; advertisers will continue to market homemaking supplies to women if they keep buying the products; and the pornography industry will continue to sell women as sex objects if it generates $57 billion a year (Deffner, 2007, p. 13). The economic factor is a major driving force in the construction of social behavior and media images.

In fact, adherence to stereotypes benefits producers by creating a perceived need for conformity to cultural norms and societal expectations. A major component of marketing is to present an ideal that consumers will aspire to. If advertisers can convince girls that beauty is essential to their feminine identity, then more girls will be inclined to buy beautification products. The princess ideal, for example, creates a desire in the minds of young girls to act like, look like, and be treated like a princess. The Disney company “profits off of and relies on young girls’ false illusions through their various marketing strategies including the sales of princess classes given in the New York Disney Store” (Wachutka, 2006, p. 1). No doubt, capitalism strongly influences the formation and promulgation of stereotyped and sexually objectified images of women.

Discussion
The issues with female portraits in the media can be separated into two main categories: (1) the stereotypical portrayal of women’s attitudes, interests, roles, etc., and (2) the objectification of women as sex objects.

Stereotypes
Stereotyped media representation is contested because it limits the roles of women in a social context. But the question arises, are stereotypes wrong? No one would argue that men and women are not different. In fact, science proves that men and women’s brains function and develop differently, though scientists debate whether the gender differences in society are the product of environmental factors or a result of biological differences between the sexes (Haier, 2007, p. 114). Either way, the fact remains that although men and women may be “created equal,” they are not the same. So maybe the media should not be criticized so much for portraying men and women in different roles.

Perhaps this is not the argument, however. Some might simply complain that the diversity of portrayals is too narrow and does not capture the ideals of all women (Thompson, 2007, p. 45). Do stereotypical depictions in the media put pressure on women to fulfill a limited set of roles and aspire to a certain status quo? The answer seems to be yes. A more diverse representation of women in the media would give girls more role models to emulate, but ultimately each girl must choose her own role in life based on her individual experiences. If people are unhappy with portrayals of women in the media, a solution might be to give them good parents as role models–both a mother and a father in the home who play an active role in teaching and providing their children with opportunities to learn and grow. If parents act as equal partners, this would give girls equal representation of both sexes, allowing girls to make educated decisions about their own lives – their roles, preferences, attitudes, and sexuality.

Sexual Objectification
To most, the issue of sexual objectification is unquestionably wrong. But some women argue that sexual freedom and expression is an essential feminine right, saying that “being proud of one's female body is being a feminist … and wearing a tight shirt isn't being slutty but is the modern equivalent of giving up bras … My philosophy of feminism is more about the freedom to do things — not protecting girls from pop culture.” (Glazer, 2006, p. 324). Some would even argue that it is a woman’s prerogative to express her sexuality and find fulfillment as a sex object by being a model or a porn star; girls may want to submit themselves to a certain extent (Taormino, 2006, p. 113).

Although every woman has the right to act as she will, women cannot ignore the social and moral implications of their actions; with freedom comes responsibility and accountability. In the end, however, women who set themselves up as objects of sexual gratification, prizes to be won, or trophies to be had, give up their power and submit to the carnal desires of men. If these pursuits bring women satisfaction, so be it; but women must realize that sexual objectification alters both men’s and women’s perspectives and has been shown to induce unhealthy behaviors in both sexes. Stricter media standards should be enacted, and stronger protection from sexualized images should be implemented to guard those who do not want their own perceptions, or those of their loved ones, to be skewed.

Conclusion
The market forces that drive female media portraits are beyond the control of any one group or individual. The challenge is for people to shelter themselves and their loved ones from undesired media influences. A sensible solution seems to lie in individual restraint and the support of the family unit. Men and women are biologically different on many levels, and these differences can express themselves in a variety of ways. The differences cannot be ignored or explained away. The best way for boys and girls to make proper evaluations about themselves and each other is to give them a home where they are exposed to healthy relationships and equal representation of both sexes. Any false notions gained from the media can be contrasted and defeated by correct principles learned through real life associations.