The most peculiar thing that I heard this morning while at church was that someone actually made a graph illustrating the difference between God's love for him and his own attempt to do what's right and follow God's word and the promptings of the Holy Spirit. And the interesting that he concluded was that God's love for us is constant and unchanging. It's unconditional no matter what we've done, what we're doing, and what we will do in the future. Whereas our love for God, our obedience, well that's a different story, there's definite ebs and flows and most of the time, we only do what's right and what he desires of us when it's most convenient for us. And I know that perhaps it's only human nature, perhaps we can never be perfect in this lifetime. But I also believe that we have the potential to be like God. I know it might sound blasphemous, but I believe in our divine nature, that as we are children of God, we have inherent in us the ability to become someone better, someone extraordinary, someone downright divine and magnificent.

I know, it's seemingly a simple fact, but somewhere along the lines, I seem to have forgotten not only how much God loves me, but also how much He is enacted miracles in my life and helped me learn and grow as I struggle through my trials and afflictions. Lately, I have dwell on the many injustices of the world. Lately, I have felt the days drift me by as I'm so consumed by my worldly affairs--school, 2 jobs, mundane errands, gym, etc--that I haven't felt any spark of life, any divine revelations or intervention, I haven't felt connected. I haven't even prayed nor fasted this past week. And I realized that this comment and many other said in church this morning was exactly what I needed. I need to remember how Christ suffered for not only our sins, but also our inadequacies, our every hurt and sorrow. I need to remember how the Lord has been there for me throughout all my trials and tribulations and he has never forsaken me. I need to remember to humble myself and turn to him, to seek for his help, to fast and pray for righteous desires. I need to remember that He loves me, that he is aware of my every need and want and that He's the master choreographer who would mold and transform me into a masterpiece if I allow him. I need to remember to take the time to reflect, to pray, and to read my scriptures. I need to remember to do what's right and to do what He wants me to do, and to have faith and hope and trust that the outcomes--whatever it may be, be it what I desired/expected or not--that it will all turn out in our best interests. I need to remember.

Only if I could be with my love ones forever. I personally believe that all of us are entittled and given immortality, and that we'll live on forever after death. But I also personally believe that not everyone is granted eternal life. Eternal life meaning, that they'll get to live with God and their families till the end of time, forever and ever. And this is contingent on their actions on earth.

I've once told Peter--the Boy--that despite some of my contradictory actions or words, epsecially regarding my past, my religion and church is a very important part of my life. It's not something that I simply do on Sundays or Christian holidays, it's part of who I am. It's a choice and a lifestyle. And growing up, we had engrained in us the goal that we should marry in the temple. And a temple marriage is basically a marriage that is by the proper authority--one recognized and ordained by God. It's a marriage that is not "till death do us part," but it is "for time and all eternity." We believe that a temple marriage means that in the after life, if you and your spouse have lead worth lives, than you'll be able to share forever together. And forever is a long time to go on not being able to be with the ones you love or knowing that with your earth history, you and your spouse don't actually belong to one another. I guess my point is, a temple marriage is ideal if it's to the right person, than you could have the possibility of having that happily-ever-after.

That's the one thing that I've been worried about since the first mention of the future and spending a lifetime together with the Boy. Not everyone can enter into the temple. Not everyone can entire into the temple. You have to be a member of the church and a worthy member. I personally can't even enter the temple at this time due to my past transgression. I must first repend and become clean before I'm worthy to enter. Anyways, a non-member--the Boy--would not be able to enter the temple. And I would never expect him to convert just for me. If he does, I would want it to be because he truly belives. And even though I would really want to spend the rest of my life with him and and be married at least civilly to him, I don't know if I am willing or if I'm strong enough to last the eternities without him by my side.  So would I want to live forever, only if I could be with my Dork Lord--yet another name for the Boy--till infinity and beyond.

I've forgotten what it feels like to know that I'm on the right path spiritually, to grow from one of life's trials. Lately, I've forgotten what it feels to have that inner peace and quiet confidence from doing what's right, from doing the Lord's will. I found myself lacking in direction, in the feeling of divine love and warmth and hope for the future. Lately, I've deluded myself into thinking that perhaps if I wasn't as righteous, I wouldn't receive as much trials, I wouldn't have as much heartache, I wouldn't have to face that idea that I'm not supposed to be with Peter, that Peter or his dad, or my best friend, Janee and her mom all might either be already terminally ill or be in danger of some catastrophic physical harm. So I haven't been doing the things I'm supposed to do, I haven't seek to draw closer to the Lord. I've simply been going about my days running from one errand, one class, one job to another. And I find myself exhausted, hungry, cold, and most of all empty. I've forgotten my goals, I've lost hope and motivation because of the fear and doubt that I've let enter into my mind. I've forgotten my promise. I've neglected an integral part of myself. I've lost my inner light, I've lost the countenance of God shining through myself. I've lost it all.

But I've yet to lose hope. I know I need to change and as long as I have that ounce of desire, I know that it's possible, and I know I can foster and amplify that desire if I change my actions with baby steps. I know I haven't been the best example to Peter in regard to my religion. And I know that I need to be honest and gather up my courage and integrity. I know that I need to sacrifice some things in life and perhaps if it needs be, I'll need to sacrifice my future with him. But I honestly have faith and believe that if we go about doing it the right way, if I keep my commandments and not shy away from missionary oportunities, I know that if we're good and do it right and keep ourselves clean, I know that God would not deny me the chance to be with Peter. I know this. And now I need to firmly believe in it, in so much that my actions would correspond with my words, my desires, and my goals.

Loving someone. I would and could never regret loving someone. And the only boy that I've ever love taught me that. He might not be perfect on paper, in fact, many people from my faith would discourage me from dating a non-member, much less seriously considering marrying one. But loving someone means taking that piece of paper--how's he's perceived by society, his skills and flaws, his accomplishments and failure--and throwing it out of the window. Loving someone is never a mistake even if it does result in unrequited love. Being love is a gift, a precious gift of unconditional acceptance by another. And it might not be always be easy to love someone, to see the good in them. But I have faith and hope that there is inherent good in each one of us, even though as a collective whole the evils of human nature are broadcast more often, but each individual is still capable to love and to be a hero to another.

Within myself than later to the closest starbucks ;) First,  underneath my covers on the bed I go, just silently reflecting my goals and persepctive, mulling over the dilemmas and the difficulties that life has thrust my way. And then once I am able to put my worries, my fears, my hopes and dreams into coherent words making logical sense, I'll confess them to the Lord in fervent prayer and also to the Boy. Both of them are my sanctuary, my calm and steady anchor in the tempestuous toss of the waves of life. And then I take a deep breathe and go to Starbucks, where I lose myself in the rich aroma of coffee, the whirring of the frapuccino machine, the people-watching of the eclectic bunch of Starbuckers while sitting on my favorite leather couch sipping my Raspberry Green Tea Frapuccino, gathering my courage and my hope to do what's right.

Sometimes I find myself really sick of the natural man within myself. The natural tendency to gravitate towards to common vices that plague human kind, vices such as lust, greed, overwhelming unhealthy passions, apathy, sloth, pride, etc. Sometimes I wonder why is it that it always take a trial to bring me down to my knees in prayer. Sometimes I wonder why don't I ever change, the trials may be different--though a good portion of my trials might or might not be teaching me the same lessons--but my approach to life and my day to day behavior doesn't seem to vary. Yet with each time I kneel to pray and fast, I always promise to forsake certain sins, to do better, to be better. And yet, slowly but surely, I seem to revert back to my old ways especially once my trials have passed me by.

Sometimes I wonder how does God do it? How does HE (God) possess that unconditional love, that never-flailing hope, that never-ending mercy? How is it that HE could love, trust, and have hope in a sinner such as I. Sometimes I wish I could see a glimpse of what God sees. Sometimes I wish I could peek into the future, or at least know of my worth and comprehend an ounce of the potential that I could become and I could develop. Sometimes I wish I could actually conduct and exhibit real change. Sometimes I wish that my one baby step forward in the right direction wouldn't leave me also falling ten step backwards the next day. Sometimes I wish not only have but also retain a change of heart. Sometimes I really just disappoint myself.

Switching Sides from Offense to Defense: Changing our Perspective to Limit Wars

                Woodrow Wilson, the 28^th president of the United States of America—the world’s first contender for world hegemony—once claim that he entered World War I to fight “the war to end all wars”. However, even after the conclusion of World War I, there was not only a second World War but also countless of other wars ranging from proxy wars during the Cold War era, to Korean War, to the Gulf War, to the Vietnam War, and now to the War on Terror ranging most prominently in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The increasing frequency wars in addition to that the growing occurrence and acceptance rationalizing of preventive wars—such as Vietnam and Iraq—can be credited to what realists call the anarchic system. The structure—or lack of authority—in world government, that leaves states clamoring for survival and power. The anarchic system in an offense dominated world permits and creates the right breeding ground for fear, uncertainty, and the ever bothersome Prisoner’s Dilemma, increasingly the likelihood for states to enter into wars. Robert Jervis and Stephen Van Evera acknowledge and highlight the realities of our offense-defense world, further offering optimistic policy prescriptions of changing and widening perspectives through education, establishing clearer communication, and reforming our actions to become more distinguishable, ultimately switching gears from a offense dominant society to a defense dominant world. We might never be able to eliminate wars, but through policy changes, we might be able to mitigate aggression, reduce paranoia, and limit the security dilemma.

                Robert Jervis in his article “Offense, Defense, and the Security Dilemma,” talks about how in the anarchic world that we live in, one state effort to improve its security winds up being ineffective, sometimes even to the point of counter-productive because it triggers strong efforts by opposing or neighboring states to beef up their security. However, Jervis theorizes that the security dilemma isn’t always prevalent in every situation.  Jervis hypothesize that security dilemma tends to thrive in an offense dominated world—where it’s easier to attack than defend—especially one in which states’ actions are indistinguishable. Jervis is optimistic that we live in a defense dominated society—where it’s easier to defend than to attack. He believes that this is evident in the fact that geography and logistics appeal to a state’s defensive course of action and deter them from attacking others. Despite whether one believes we live in a defense dominant world, one thing is clear, and that is that in a defense dominant society, the security dilemma can be limited and aggression mitigated.

The international structure might always be anarchic but if a defense dominant society, aggression is unlikely because it is in everyone’s favor to act more defensively utilizing deterrence and containment instead of preventive attacks; this is precisely the reason why Mearsheimer reminisce often about the Cold War era. In a defense dominated society, states as rational actors would seek to cooperate instead of defecting; because we have turn the tables from playing the prisoners’ dilemma game to one of chicken. Whereas in an offense dominated society, all military acts are viewed through the lenses of skepticism and paranoia. Even in the best situation where other states actions are distinguishable, aggression is possible and likely and fuels the security dilemma, perhaps to the point where actions begun to blur and become indistinguishable, and that’s where preventive wars—such as Iraq—starts to occurs, wars thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy with no hope of a miraculous resolution for either parties.

Van Evera continues in his article, “Offense, Defense, and the Cause of War,” to hearken those sentiments that Jervis brought out. But he further emphasis on the idea that ultimately it is the world’s perception of states’ actions that determines where they stand and subsequently their actions. Van Evera credits the increasing rates of war to the fact that wars are likely to occur when conquest is easy. Van Evera elaborates that conquest is easier in an offense dominated world because states would seize chances for opportunistic or defensive expansions,  adopting offense oriented internal policies—to allocate more of their military budget, adopt military training and doctrines, even to the extend that preventive wars are deemed legitimate and moral part of their foreign policy. However, Van Evera is optimistic that if we adopt different social and political structures, if the leaders of the great powers would focus inter-state relations, strengthening our diplomatic factors world wide, cooperation among states will be more profitable than defections, and wars are less likely to occur as frequently.

The first step towards a defense dominant society is to change our perspective. When we change our perspective, we can change our actions subsequently changing other’s actions. According to Van Evera’s research, states’ military actions doesn’t have a direct correlation with the likelihood of war, instead it is the perception of the military actions that has a stronger correlation with the outcome of war or lack thereof. The constructivist, Alexander Wendt in his article entitled “Anarchy Is What States Make of It,” advocates that reality is based solely on perception. We may still live in a world crippled by the self-help system of anarchy, states actions towards each other is not a result of anarchy but of collective identity and state interaction. Great powers’ perception of themselves and others are the biggest threat to global security. And if we perceive the world not through the lenses of skepticisms and paranoia that is inherent in an offense dominated world, but with a clearer vision, with a clearer understanding of our relations and actions, we will be able to mitigate aggression, reduce paranoia, and limit the security dilemma and ultimately decrease the likelihood of war.

Wendt believes that states act and react based on meaning. States like individuals assign meaning to each act—military, political, and economical—that influence them. And by compiling these impressions and meanings, they form a social construction, deeming others as friend or foe. Realists like Mearsheimer might believe that a friend today is an enemy tomorrow, but Wendt believes that relations all depend on how you perceive others and vice versa.  Wendt further advocates that we can change our own identity—our role-specific understand and expectations of self—and simultaneously the perception of others when we change our behavior.  Van Evera believes that we can change our perspectives by acquiring better intelligence, by adopting military defensive force posture instead of offensives ones. States should seek to discourage attempts at global hegemony and preventing multipolar rivalries by having benevolent multipolar regional hegemonies. In order to discourage another world war with the regional hegemons, the regional hegemons should concentrate on deriving a plan for international security that would assist in developing a cooperative and healthy world economy and decrease worldwide military offensive budget and keeping an adequate proportion of domestic and regional defenses based on population and economic resources.  In addition to those military stratagems, we could also further push in the direction of a defense dominant society by educating ourselves about the world, about their cultures, about their political structure, about their current identity and perspective of the world. Another suggestion by Van Evera is for states to craft arms control agreements to limit offensive force. There may not be a central international force to enforce the agreement, there may always be countries like Iran or North Korea who seeks more nuclear power, but if we reduce the level of desperation that is rampant in an anarchic offensive system, those countries that do choose the less optimal and less profitable choice of defection would more likely lean towards deterrence than to attacks. Van Evera propose that if states would strengthen their defensive alliances world wide, the low cost and high rates of benefits of cooperation would greatly outweigh defection that no rational actors would defect. Ultimately the only way to shed the uncertainty and paranoia of the offense dominated world, is through education and communication. The abstract policy prescriptions from Wendt coupled with the applicable changes supported by Van Evera could be the just the mix of ideology and practices that would lead us down an extensive route that would ultimately lead to peace.