Current Event 2

When I came across this article, I immediately reflected on the video we watched today. My mind was drawn to the idea of new technologies that could go viral, similar to the way the personal computer industry did. I don't know whether VR will be that next explosion of hardware and software. Certainly, more of the infrastructure is there, in the sense the the public is definitely used to this type of sensational device. Certainly VR has a chance to captivate the minds and hearts of consumers. But it also has a chance to fail dramatically. The reason for my uncertainty is due to the history of new super-devices that have come out in the time since the Apple II. Certainly, Apple has continued to be a leader, with the iPod and iPhone. These were both new leaps forward in the consumerist 'must have' mindset. However, other devices have seen almost no popularity despite their hype. I hold as examples the segway, and google glass. I give these examples because each of the items I have listed have represented not only a new device but a new field. Before the iPod there was no concept of the ".mp3 player." That has since become a staple of our culture and society. Before the segway there was no concept of effortless personal transportation. However, that never erupted as a common device. For this reason I cannot forecast the success of VR, but I eagerly await its release.

Study Journal 1

9/8/2015

*I’m reminded of a talk Elder Oaks gave in the october conference of 2000 about the process of being converted. He emphasize the importance of learning to do, and doing to become. Relating this to Aristotle’s ideas on (practical) ethics, it’s amazing to see how interrelated the two thoughts are.

*The note about the distinction between ethics and morality strikes me. It seems that today’s culture is even further gone, as we have delved into the realm of relative morality. I see a general trend to disestablish the validity of morality, so as to even further invalidate the hold of ethical standards on society.

*I feel like there’s another way you can distinguish between ethics and morality than those discussed in class. Ethics is something that can be taught or instructed in a very straightforward manner. Morality, however, is more usually rooted in someone’s core self perception, and not something that can be taught directly. The way to teach morality is to instruct by principle and guide the student to ponder on application. Which, I guess, takes us back to Aristotle and application.
*Conceptually, the implementation of Situational Ethics is not dissimilar to the way a faithful Latter Day Saint may live their day. The difference is that the LDSaint has a standard of principle that his actions are decided upon, consistent from one situation to the next. The Situational Ethicist’s standard is variable. Though the process of deciding to act goes through the same hoops, it is the standard that process is based on that makes the difference. Over the course of 500 situations, we will see consistent behavior from the LD Saint, but varying behavior from the Situational Ethicist.

9/10/2015

*Given that there is a “great difference between ethics and religion,” how much does it matter that there is lots of gray area? Obviously, we as latter day saints believe in consistent behavior no matter the situation. But can we really fault someone without that knowledge who believes it is okay to behave a certain way in one situation, and a different way in another situation?

*Ethics (at least insofar as Traditional Ethics and Situational Ethics) has an implied component which is that there is always a 3rd party to judge the actions and determine them right or wrong (“an action someone makes should be judged”). That’s what gets me about all these man-made ethical systems, is that they are subconsciously approaching a gospel standard but being man-made they never quite get there. But we can see those elements of truth there.

9/15/2015

*In reading about the observation of the fish, I’m reminded of times when I’ve kind of slowed down and really just looked at something. Because of the level of abstraction going on in our brains, I don’t often stop to really observe something for its unique qualities. But because of the times I have done this, I can appreciate the great amount of insight able to be gleaned from such a process.

*I’m very intrigued by Armour’s description of people’s processes, with their manuals and their complex methodologies. I’ve seen examples of these, but it never occurred to me that there was a classification that could encompass all those strategies. This Orders of Ignorance really calls to me; I like the areas of classification that it allows for, in software development as well as in other areas.

*I also really like Armour’s perspective of software development being a container of knowledge, and the idea of cleaning up code as an extension of that final goal. I’m definitely going to try and apply that perspective into my own coding forays.

9/17/2015

*As someone who has made a clear decision to never dramatically exceed the speed limit (I am always less than 5 mph over the posted limit), I find it very interesting that so many members of the class have immediate rebuttals to the idea that their going over the speed limit is unethical. It astounds me that people who claim to follow the 12th article of faith are so comfortable breaking these (perceived as ‘lesser’) laws, such as breaking the speed limit. I also see a lot of illegal downloading and contributing to pirating. The ethical system is in place, but even within our own (LDS) society, there are many who operate after their own set of morals.

*(This is something of a continuation of my previous thought) Given that the modern philosophical definition of morality is “religious and immutable,” I find it interesting that people within our class seem to have derived their own moral standards, somewhat departing from what is taught within our religious society. I also see this same ‘personal morality’ present in my peers from high school, which makes me think that the ‘modern philosophy’ definition of morality, as being something immutable, is somewhat out of date.

*Even though there are many relative moralistic ideals, there are still some things that people generally recognize as being moral, and respect such people who observe those standards. One such example is this idea of not allowing ourselves to be offended. Generally, people who are able to brush off offense are respected amongst their peers. This was especially shown in the story Prof. Dougal shared.

Current Event 1

Microsoft is going to court with the Federal Government. Our current area of focus in class, this being the beginning of the semester, is the foundation of ethics. Thus, it is appropriate to analyze this event within the context of basic ethics; where are the lines of right and wrong in this situation? Certainly, each party has their own right to hold their position. The government has long had a history of prioritizing national safety and information over the privacy of individuals. However, there is a valid question raised now as to how those old practices might apply to the digital, and indeed the cloud, age. True, Microsoft is a company based in the United States, but they serve a worldwide consumer base. Does their ultimate allegiance lie with their customers, or with the US law? What is ultimately the most right thing to do in this situation? The most intriguing aspect of this court case is that Microsoft is arguing over the correct process of obtaining information that is stored in other countries. However, the decision will affect much more than just that issue. It's going to set a precedent for the right of data to be protected for any number of reasons, only one of which has to do with physical location. The decision made will be a decision on the subsequent morality of requesting and/or denying requests for information.

久しぶり - It's been too long

So I still have this blog! For some reason, I haven't really touched it since I finished my stint as an RA. I guess having real friends (and not being in charge of 38 immature freshman) really diminishes my need to vent on the world about whatever is on my mind.

To make a long story short, I did a lot more ballroom dance and in doing so met the woman of my dreams and who is now my wife. See more details about that here: http://mcquivey2015.blogspot.com/

But this blog is called Ha-college matata, and I'm still in college so it's still (theoretically) valid. I figured I'd write a little note here because I'm actually enlivening my blog specifically for a class. Now, it's not some creative writing or journalism class that wants me to utilize various media of communication. No, this is actually a core major class about ethics within the world of computing. And most of our assignments are going to be part of this blog.

Why is this important? Well, if you happen to be one of the people who follow my blog (I think I have 8?), don't be surprised when I start posting short random blurbs. I figured that the things I would be posting were of similar enough quality to my previous posts, so why not just keep using it. And who knows? Maybe it will help me to pick back up writing in my blog!

Anyways, that's just my little update. Stay tuned for my thoughts on current events, class lectures, and more! So exciting :)

じゃね

Happy Mother's day!

So, in true lazy blogger style, I'm posting 2nd-hand material again. By 2nd-hand material, of course, I mean something that I prepared for another purpose that I am now posting here because I want people to be able to see it. This was a talk that I prepared for church today, so understand that when you're reading it. I added citations for the talks and scriptures in the text here. Other than that, happy mother's day!

This past general conference Elder Zwick told the story of a trip he and his wife were taking in a semitruck with their infant son. He mentions that there were no seat-belt restrictions or infant car seats at that time, but that his wife carried their son in her arms. During one part of the trip, going down the steep slope of Donner Pass, the cab of the semi suddenly filled with smoke. Elder Zwick attempted to stop by gearing down until the truck was going slow enough for the brakes to be effective. However, before reaching a full stop, he says: “my wife opened the door of the cab and jumped out with our baby in her arms. I watched helplessly as they tumbled in the dirt.” Elder Zwick rushed to them as soon as he had stopped the truck. He continues: “As my heartbeat normalized and I caught my breath, I blurted out, “What in the world were you thinking? Do you know how dangerous that was? You could have been killed!”

“She looked back at me, with tears running down her smoke-smudged cheeks, and said something that pierced my heart and still rings in my ears: “I was just trying to save our son.”

“I realized in that moment she thought the engine was on fire, fearing the truck would explode and we would die...I looked at my precious wife, softly rubbing the head of our infant son, and wondered what kind of woman would do something so courageous.”1

While Elder Zwick surely meant to praise his wife for her bravery, my scope today is a little broader. Sister Zwick was indeed the kind of woman that would do something so courageous. But in answer to Elder Zwick’s wondering question, the type of woman that would do something so courageous is the type of woman who gives of her body, her life, to care for others: a mother.

Howard W. Hunter conveyed this thought from the first presidency:  “Motherhood is near to divinity. It is the highest, holiest service to be assumed by mankind.”2 My object in this talk is to help us better understand the role of motherhood, and its relation to the role of our Heavenly Father.

First, let us revisit the plan of salvation. God organized our spirits in the preexistence. He helped us grow and prepared us for the time when we would leave His presence and pass through our own mortal experiences. Because He created us, taught us, and nurtured us, He loves us. Furthermore, because of this love, His work and His glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39). In short, He wants us to reach our greatest potential.

How does this compare with the role of our mothers? It is identical. Mothers form a deep bond with their children since before their birth. They give of their own body and strength in order to create a new body for their child. From birth until adulthood, mothers help their children learn, and grow, preparing them for the time when they must leave mother’s home and apply what she has taught them.

Throughout this entire process, mothers have their eyes set on the goal of real happiness for their children. They comprehend the eternal perspective, and know that this life is: “a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God” (Alma 12:24). WIth Amulek, mothers exhort their children to “not procrastinate the day of [their] repentance until the end.” All of their teachings and admonitions, rules and rewards, worries and preparations, are based on what they perceive to be the best for their child’s life, not just in the moment, but for the entirety of their life. A mother’s joy comes in knowing that her children are striving to better themselves, to reach their fullest potential.

By the same token, as children we reserve a special spot in our heart for our mothers. For any of you who have engaged in any kind of missionary work, you will have come across people who, without even having an established religion, hold a surety of God’s existence. This is because there is some part within our soul that recognizes the reality of God. In much the same way, we understand the role of our mothers. We comprehend, in a way that transcends mere intellect, that our mothers are the reason and means of our existence. As such we listen to them, and their teachings stay with us throughout our lives, carefully guarded in a special vault in our hearts. Understanding this, then, we recognize the wisdom in Elder Perry’s reminder: “a parent’s teaching must never be devalued...This is especially true when we consider the teaching of values, moral and ethical standards, and faith.” 3 It is within the family that we receive the best preparation for eternal life.

I would share with you one of these teachings that I have received from my mother. I share it because my mother has always been quick to incorporate the gospel into our lives. I remember when I had lost a toy in my room (I wasn’t the cleanest of 9-yr olds). I asked my mom for help. Now, there was a variety of ways in which she might have responded. She might have come to help me look for it. She might have brushed me aside and told me it wasn’t important. However, what she did has stayed with me for the last 12 years. She suggested that I pray to ask for God’s help in finding my toy. Well, I did, and I found it. While I recognize God’s hand in helping a child find his toy, what sticks more in my mind is my mother’s faith and her focus on making God an integral part of our family.

I quote President Monson: “One cannot forget mother and remember God. One cannot remember mother and forget God. Why? Because these two sacred persons, God and mother, partners in creation, in love, in sacrifice, in service, are as one.” 4

I laud all women who take upon themselves the trials of motherhood, my own mother especially so (for obvious reasons). However, I would direct our attention away from simply being grateful for our mothers. A mother is a prime example of a disciple of Jesus Christ. The traits of selflessness and self-sacrifice, of patience and love, of long-suffering and understanding, are Christ-like attributes that we have all been commanded to develop. We would be grossly lacking in our duty to Heavenly Father if the only thing we did on Mother’s day was give more thought than usual to our mothers. Rather, we should emulate them. What better gift can there be, to both our Father in Heaven and to our mothers on earth, than to apply what they’ve taught us, and become more like them? I submit that there is no greater gift that we can give on this day.

To that end, I challenge each of you to reflect on at least one way that your mother, or a mothering figure, has impacted your life, and then set a goal to impact someone else’s life in that same way. Was your mother caring? Then care for others. Did she notice small things and compliment you on them? Then do the same. Was she a beacon of the light of Christ, illuminating the world around her? Focus on how to increase your own light. Did she help you work through your problems, or care for you when sick? Look for opportunities to respond with that motherly, or Christ-like, love.

My favorite example of this comes from the Book of Alma, from the account of the 2000 stripling Lamanite warriors who had been taught so well by their mothers. However, it is not their bravery in battle that inspires me, in spite of of the fact that “they had been taught by their mothers, that if they did not doubt, God would deliver them.” No, what truly impresses me is that they emulated their mothers through their attitudes and actions. We read: “Now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death; and they did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their own lives” (Alma 56:47). Where did this attitude come from? Why this willingness to forego personal comfort and safety, and potentially die for their families? It is because they emulated their mothers. They learned all their mothers taught them, in word and example, and were diligent in applying those lessons.

Sheri Dew, then in the Relief Society general presidency, taught the following: “Motherhood is not what was left over after our Father blessed His sons with priesthood ordination. It was the most ennobling endowment He could give His daughters, a sacred trust that gave women an unparalleled role in helping His children keep their second estate.” 5 To better illustrate the impact that mothers have on their childrens’ lives, I relate the following story:

“A famed officer from the Civil War period, Colonel Higginson, when asked to name the incident of the Civil War that he considered the most remarkable for bravery, said that there was in his regiment a man whom everybody liked, a man who was brave and noble, who was pure in his daily life, absolutely free from dissipations in which most of the other men indulged.

“One night at a champagne supper, when many were becoming intoxicated, someone in jest called for a toast from this young man. Colonel Higginson said that he arose, pale but with perfect self-control, and declared: “Gentlemen, I will give you a toast which you may drink as you will, but which I will drink in water. The toast that I have to give is, ‘Our mothers.’”

“Instantly a strange spell seemed to come over all the tipsy men. They drank the toast in silence. There was no more laughter, no more song, and one by one they left the room. The lamp of memory had begun to burn, and the name of Mother touched every man’s heart." 6

Well spoken indeed is the proverb “A foolish man despiseth his mother” (Proverbs 15:20). Just as foolish as we would be to despise God. I close with this thought from President Monson: “Who can comprehend in its entirety the lofty role of a mother? With perfect trust in God, she walks, her hand in His, into the valley of the shadow of death, that you and I might come forth into light.” 7 Let us remember our mothers. Let us be in awe of them, even. However, let us also remember that, as they have risen to be better disciples of Jesus Christ, so too can we rise to those heights. May we honor our mothers by emulating them, by caring and nurturing others, and keeping alive the bright flame of faith in our own hearts.

Why why

Hello again, desolate blogosphere. If you were a tamagotchi you'd probably be dead. But you're not, so I have no digital guilt to deal with :)
Here's the usual disclaimer about this probably not making sense to anyone but myself, and about how I don't really care. This as as much a forum for me to try to express what is on my mind as it is to let other people know about it. Nothing I say here is externally sourced, unless explicitly stated, so understand that going forth. Without further ado, here goes:
The title has reference to the topic at hand: the word, and question, 'why.' (Anyone know the correct placement of a period with respect to a single quote?) Before I get to that, though, some context about our brains:
Everything we do, everything we are, everything we experience, is determined by choices. Our own choices as well as the choices of others. So let's dissect those choices a bit: we make choices because we desire certain outcomes. No accounting for taste, because everyone desires different (and sometimes even polar opposite) things. The guiding principle to look at right now is the fact that we make choices based on what outcomes we desire to occur. What ends up happening in our brains is a mapping of choice X to outcomes Y. In data structure words, Map<Choice, Outcome[]>. In other words, for every choice we perceive, our brain attaches consequences, or outcomes, to that choice. I'll give some examples and then talk a little bit more about this.
Example 1: for the choice "eating breakfast," some of the consequences my brain has attached to this are: "get energy for the day," "fill my stomach," "enjoy good food," "get less sleep," "have less money," and more. Clearly, the outcomes are not all bad, nor are they all good. However, they correspond with outcomes that I desire, such as "enjoy good food" and "get energy for the day." What clinches the making of the choice is not just that it fulfills some of my desires, but that the positive outcomes of the choice outweigh the negative outcomes thereof.
Example 2: for the choice of "robbing a bank," some of the consequences my brain has attached to this are: "get more money," "do something exciting and risky," "live with fear and guilt," "be arrested," "live in jail for the rest of my life," and so forth. While this choice has the potential to fulfill one of my desires, that of "get more money," the negative outcomes of this choice far outweigh the positive ones. Thus it is not a choice I am likely to make.
Hopefully this helps us understand the associations we create in our minds between choice and outcome, and how those associations, those mappings, guide our decision making process. However, it is important to recognize that those mappings of outcomes are not uniform in the weight they each pull. In other words, there are some choices whose outcomes we are very certain of, and other choices whose outcomes are not as certain. Even for a given choice, there can be outcomes that very between very certain and not very certain. This is because the act of mapping, or attaching an outcome to a choice, is creating a belief about that choice. No matter what the choice, our perceived outcomes are not anything that can be called "perfect knowledge." Even for something as mundane as "eating breakfast," my beliefs in the outcomes thereof are formed by my past experience. I don't actually have a perfect knowledge that eating breakfast tomorrow is going to give me energy for the day; rather, I have the strong belief that such will be the case. The strength of our belief of each outcome determines the weight that outcome plays in our consideration of the choice overall.
For example, going with the illegal-activity route again, it becomes very easy for someone who has stolen a lot to steal again. Partly because through experience they know how to do it better, but in their evaluation of the outcomes, the outcome "I will be caught" is very, very weak. Their experience has showed them so many times that they can steal without being caught, so that weakens that belief. Whereas it strengthens their belief that they can profit using very little work. Thus the choice is weighted heavily with positive outcomes, and lightly with negative outcomes. We can also experiencing a weakening in belief by lack of experience, or lack of recent experience, with a certain 'choice->outcome' mapping.

Okay, hopefully that all made sense. This was necessary background in order to understand the word, and question, 'why.' What is it we are asking when we ask 'why?' Well, there are many different circumstances where this can be asked, but I'll focus on one to start off. Someone tells me I should participate in a particular club. The question I ask is: "Why should I participate in X club?" or "Why this club?" Using what we've looked at above, we can see that what we're asking is really: "What outcomes should I attach to the choice of participating in X club?" or "What beliefs might I create about this club?"
The reason I have been pondering this is because on my mission I learned the importance of not asking "why." Something one of my companions would tell people all the time was to not ask "por qué," rather, "para qué." In English, it's best translated as not asking "why," rather, "for what purpose." And so it was that I was pondering what the question "why" really is asking. And it doesn't hurt that I was in the temple, either, while I was pondering this (I swear, it's like a window opens up in my brain when I go to the temple). But let's stay on track for a moment: the question, or word, 'why,' is only inquiring as to those beliefs we have assigned to the choices we make.
In this case we have been able to see 'why' used as a query for more information as to joining a particular club. Let's expand our horizons a bit: this act of mapping consequences, of creating beliefs, to different choices, is not limited to conscious choices. This applies to choices we make consciously as well as unconsciously. This applies to our actions, our behaviors, and our reactions. Thus we can apply the spread of the question 'why' a little further. We've seen it applied to a query for how to populate our own beliefs. However, let's think of other ways we use the word 'why.'
I might ask someone "why are you sad?" What I'm really asking is two-fold -- 1st of all, what happened in your life, and 2nd, what are the beliefs you have created about those events that are effecting this response in you right now? In this case, it's not likely that the person took conscious action to be sad. No, it was more likely a reaction. However, it is still based on the same principles. They have defined the event in their mind, whatever happened to them, and assigned to it beliefs of "I am sad."
Again, there are more 'why's. Like I said, in my mission we would tell people to ask "para qué" instead of "por qué." This is because many people would ask 'why' of God -- why did this thing happen, why did that thing not happen? What they are searching for there is similar -- a way to assign consequences to the events they observed. This happens often when we don't have enough experience with something to have created beliefs about it. We try, subconsciously, to populate that mapping, give that choice, that event, some sort of response so we know how to deal with it.
Of course, there are other, impersonal, 'why's, such as "why is the sky blue," "why is the Statue of Liberty green," "why do we only see stars at night," and many others. While these do not fit explicitly into our model, they do have similarities. These kind of questions are brought on by unpaired phenomena. More often than not, we observe something, and ask "what was the cause of this?" In other words, what were the circumstances (the 'choice') that brought about this occurrence I'm witnessing now (the 'outcome')?
The question 'why' strives to match cause and effect. Very often what is going on subconsciously is a desire to understand what happened in the past to bring about the future circumstances; this understanding will then allow us to make predictions about what will happen in the future. Because ultimately we want to achieve our desires in the future, and if we understand what are the events/actions that most effectively bring those about, then we will do those more.

Of course, this is all very subject to human perspective, which is FAR from perfect. This is also why it is so much harder for us to consistently make choices that are for our spiritual good, than it is for us to make choices that are for our physical/temporal good. With physical things, such as eating breakfast, we often have very frequent, and very immediate, reminders of the consequences of our choices. When I don't eat, I very soon am brought to understand that that choice does not help me. When I do eat, again, very quickly I am brought to understand that that choice helps me out. And we come across one of those events multiple times a day.
However, if I go a few days without reading my scriptures, it can take that long or longer to be reminded of what the true consequences of that choice are ("lack of the spirit," or "ingratitude," as some examples). Thus the strength of the beliefs attached to that choice are not as strong as are those of eating breakfast.
It is important to understand that our beliefs are not strengthened or weakened through experience alone. Indeed, we can look at the example above, of asking someone 'why,' asking them to populate that list for us. Our beliefs can be created, strengthened, or weakened by hearing the beliefs of others  expressed (of course the effect of that also varies from person to person, depending on the beliefs they have about trusting other people's opinions and beliefs. If that's too meta for you, just ignore it).
Thus we understand part of the importance of church and religious instruction: strengthening those spiritual beliefs. And indeed in things not strictly religious this is also present. There are countless instances of youth education doing exactly that: strengthening their beliefs about the effects of drugs, alcohol, and risky sexual behavior, among other things.

There are two takeaways that I've come up with through all of this. The first is perhaps a little trite, but I've realized that the word 'why' is somewhat of a weak word. It's an, albeit useful, placeholder for something a lot more complex that we don't realize. I personally am going to try to avoid its use, though I think it can still be somewhat useful in rhetoric (Look at that, correct use of "it's" and "its" in two consecutive sentences!).
The other takeaway I've gotten from this is a better understanding of how to affect one's choices. Something I've been struggling with lately is staying firm in the goals I've set since Christmas. It's lately become much harder for me to keep faithful to those goals. When I set those goals, I thought that I would just have to keep at them until such time as they became habits. Unfortunately, that didn't really happen. I realize now in retrospect that going through the motions of the goals did not allow me to see as much about the outcomes. As a result, my beliefs regarding those actions have weakened. So what I can do, I've realized since coming to these conclusions, is reinforce those beliefs. Just as one can listen to other people speak and thus have their beliefs reinforced, I can speak to myself in support of my beliefs, and strengthen them that way. There is true power in self-affirmation, especially when it is out loud.

Well I think that's all I wanted to express. Maybe this will interest you. Maybe not. どちらでも大丈夫です (Whichever one it is, that's fine). I do thank you, though, for taking the time to read through this.
As a reward, enjoy this thing I found on the internet.


And now it's....

That post when a school paper doubles as a postable thing

So I'm in the middle of the semester (not even), and life is CRAZY. Which means I haven't really had time to devote to writing in my blog. So I had this assignment for my Doctrine and Covenants class to write a paper about a "doctrinal dilemma." I thought I would ReduceReuseRecycle and use it here. The object was to base ourselves out of the D&C, but as you will see, my knowledge of the Book of Mormon is most readily available. Paper as follows:

Question: If the Holy Ghost speaks subtly to the mind and heart through thoughts and feelings, how can I more clearly distinguish between my own daily thoughts and feelings and inspired ones from the Spirit? When is it God, and when is it just me?

We know that “the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world” (D&C 84:46). That light, or the guidance of the spirit, can be and has been termed many different things, such as: impression, feeling, thought, impulse, etc. For the purposes of this paper, anytime I refer to any of these, I will simply use the word ‘impression,’ be it from the Spirit or of our own genesis. That said, it can be quite difficult to tell when an impression comes from the Holy Ghost, or whether it is a product of our own thoughts and feelings. Over the course of this paper I will first take a look at some of the characteristics of the Spirit, in an effort to help the reader be able to more readily identify those spiritual impressions. Then I will transition over to talking about why it is important that we can identify the Spirit’s voice, and how we can use that knowledge to be more secure in our decisions.

The Spirit impresses feelings upon us.
One of the sure indicators of the Holy Ghost speaking to us is by the way we feel. The scriptures are replete with examples of how the Spirit can make one feel: to Oliver Cowdery, for example, the Lord told him that in an affirmative response to a prayer, He would “cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right” (D&C 9:8). Other places in the scriptures identify different feelings, as well: in D&C 11:13, the Lord promises that the Spirit will “enlighten your mind [and] fill your soul with joy.” In D&C 85:6, the ‘still small voice’ “whispereth through and pierceth all things, and often times it maketh my bones to quake.”  We are reminded that the Holy Ghost, upon testifying to the Nephites, “did pierce them to the very soul, and did cause their hearts to burn” (3 Nephi 11:3). One of my favorite instances of the Lord’s instruction regarding the spirit was another communication to Oliver Cowdery, in which the Lord told him that divine communication would come “in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost” (D&C 8:2). As we have impressions, and are trying to decide whether they are spiritually or internally sourced, we can remember this key, that the spiritual impression will have both a mental and emotional aspect to it.
Ours is the task of learning to recognize the voice of the Spirit as He talks to us. In that regard, it is much like learning another language. It is a process of attuning our spiritual ears to pick up on the nuances of communication that we are not used to hearing in our day to day life. As a note of caution, though, let us not be misled into limiting our range of hearing to what is explicitly described in the scriptures. As unique children of our Heavenly Father, we also communicate in unique ways, of which the Holy Ghost will be very aware. He will not communicate to me the same way He communicates to my brother.

The Spirit leads us to do good.
The way we feel is not the only recourse we have when trying to determine whether impressions come from God or from ourselves. Another thing we can remember is that the Holy Ghost “leadeth to do good— yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously” (D&C 11:12). If we are having a hard time discerning our feelings, then another tactic we can try is to look at the results of the impression we are considering. Mormon teaches us that “that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every [such] thing is inspired of God” (Moroni 7:13). If we can think about the results and consequences of acting on our impression, then we can more surely determine if it is of God or of ourselves. For example, an impression to look at our patriarchal blessing definitely inviteth to do good continually, and may well be from the Spirit. However, an impression to read our patriarchal blessing instead of home teaching is more likely just a distraction thought up by our own mind. It is important to look not only at the content of the impression, but the reach and effects thereof.

The Spirit knoweth all things
Just as we can tell that an impression comes from God based on the effects of its completion, we can also discern the true nature of an impression by looking at the genesis of the impression. In other words, did we know enough to come up with the impression? D&C 35:19 teaches us that “the Holy Ghost…knoweth all things,” which includes things about other people as well as things about education. An impression to make cookies for someone else might be a personal impression, if you know they’re going through a hard time. On the other hand, if you receive an impression to make cookies for someone you hardly know, and have probably talked to 2 or 3 times, it’s probably because the Spirit knows more than you about what that person is going through. Furthermore, we are taught that a person can receive certain gifts of the spirit; “to others it is given to prophesy” (D&C 46:22). Again, if our impression doesn’t seem to make sense in our current context, it may very well be that it is preparing us for something that is yet to come.

We are assured the presence of the spirit when we are obedient.
Another helpful tool in our arsenal of Spirit identifiers is conducting a quick examination of our own obedience. President James E. Faust taught this about the Holy Ghost: “The gift of the Holy Ghost comes after one repents and becomes worthy.” Conversely, if we are not striving to repent and be obedient, there is a very low likelihood that we are being led by the Spirit. The Lord explicitly stated that “he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her…shall not have the Spirit” (D&C 42:23). Many other sins, or staying in sin, will have the same effect. However, if we keep ourselves clean, and “let virture garnish [our] thoughts unceasingly, then…The Holy Ghost shall be [our] constant companion” (D&C 121:45-46).

Ask, and ye shall receive
One of the things that often happens is that we forget that revelation is really a two-way communication. Many times we expect the Lord to just give us what we need. While He does know our needs, he has instructed us time and time again to “Ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (D&C 4:7, emphasis added). In D&C 6:14, He tells us “as often as thou hast inquired thou hast received instruction of my Spirit. If it had not been so, thou wouldst not have come to the place where thou art at this time” (emphasis added). So when we have an impression, we should think about whether it’s something that we’ve thought to bring before the Lord, or whether we’ve only been mulling it over in our own heads (and if the latter is the case, we should think very strongly about bringing it before the Lord before acting on it).

We should do many things of our own free will to bring to pass righteousness
We’ve seen many different tools associated with the receipt of impressions that we can use to determine whether they are of God or from within. However, it is also important to recognize for what purposes God gives us the guidance of the Holy Ghost. It certainly isn’t so that we may be “compelled in all things;” on the contrary, God wants us to be “anxiously engaged in a good cause…and bring to pass much righteousness,” because ultimately, we are “agents unto [our]selves” (D&C 58:26-28). So why have the Spirit? Lehi gives us a glimpse at the answer in 2 Nephi 2:5: “Men are instructed sufficiently they know good from evil.” Where does that instruction come from? The Holy Ghost. This is further clarified by Mormon: “the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil” (Moroni 7:16, emphasis added).  Thus we can see that the Holy Ghost isn’t going to tell us every little thing we should do though it does play a fundamental role in our understanding of right and wrong. The point I’m trying to make here is that just because an impression comes from within instead of from God, doesn’t mean it’s bad. Quite the contrary. “Sometimes the Lord hopefully waits on his children to act on their own, and when they do not, they lose the greater prize” (Ezra Taft Benson). The Lord hopes to bring us to the point where we can make good decisions because of how much we’ve changed through repentance.

When we ask in the Spirit, we ask according to the will of God
This is the most important principle out of all the ones I will be introducing today. D&C 46:30 reads: “He that asketh in the Spirit asketh according to the will of God, therefore it is done even as he says.” There is a difference between asking, or acting, because of a spiritual impression, and acting in the Spirit. The people of King Benjamin clarify this for us: “The Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which as wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually” (Mosiah 5:2). There is a point in our conversion process (or perhaps better described, a series of flags along our road to conversion) where we have learned so much about the will of God, and have obeyed it, that the Spirit is able to change our heart, effectively aligning our desires with those of God. Another perfect example of this is Nephi, son of Helaman, to whom the Lord promised: “all things shall be done unto thee according to thy word, for thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will.” (Helaman 10:5). This may seem unrelated to the dilemma at hand; however, I submit that our goal in life should not be to always be able to recognize the Spirit, but to always be able to work righteousness. When we reach the point in our conversion that was experienced by the people of King Benjamin, or by Nephi, we can start applying some of the aforementioned tools to our impressions, and find that they always indicate an inspired action. We will reach the point where our own desires will be to come closer to God, for “every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father” (D&C 84:47).

In closing, I would like to emphasize that we should be aware of the Spirit’s impressions. I don’t want to give the impression that they’re not important. After all, “by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:5). What I am trying to get at is that at some point, knowing whether we’re acting because of a direct impression from the Spirit, or because of our own righteous desires, isn’t important. For me, the key to it all is the following passage from D&C 6:36: “Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.” Because if confusion about whether an impression is from God or from ourselves causes us to not act on an inspired impression, that is the real tragedy. Let us, then, not doubt. The reason why I decided to make use of the term ‘impression’ throughout this paper was because that’s ultimately what we need to be seeking. The source of the impression isn’t so important as long as we are looking unto God in every thought, and steadily making our way along the path back home to Him.

James E. Faust, “The Gift of the Holy Ghost—a Sure Compass,” Ensign, Apr. 1996, 4
Ezra Taft Benson, “Not Commanded in All Things,” General Conference, Apr. 1965