Daily Word Limit

Imagine that there was a plan that would allow major companies to somehow limit our ability to speak. Perhaps by limiting the volume at which a person could speak, or the number of words they could say in a day. Some people might not notice these restrictions, and could get by just fine. Others however would soon bump against these limits and be unable to effectively communicate what they wanted to say, no matter how important it might be. "But it's okay!" the proponents of this plan say, "Because they can just pay for a premium package that will allow them to speak as much and as loudly as they want... for a fee. After all, if they're willing and able to pay for it, why not let them? This plan will spur all kinds of new innovative business models and products!"

Even if anyone had this hypothetical ability to directly limit how much we can speak, such a plan would never come close to being accepted. (At least I certainly hope not...) It would obviously restrict our freedom of speech. It would make communication a "pay to win" game, in which the ideas that gained the most traction wouldn't necessarily be the best ideas, but the ones coming from those already wealthy enough to pay for enough words to spread them.

And yet that's what's happening right now with Net Neutrality.

As a conservative-leaning man myself, I understand to some degree the "free market" arguments against Net Neutrality. However, the Internet has become much more than a product. It is how we communicate and organize in our modern age, so much so that this is not just an issue of having access to the level of entertainment we want. Rather, it is an issue of free speech!

If ISP's are allowed to treat differently the data they deliver from different organizations, could they not then discriminate against organizations that don't serve their interests? And even if they didn't do that and only set up "fast lanes" that one could pay extra for, would that not in fact make communicating on the Internet "pay to win?" How effectively an idea spreads should be based on the merit of the idea, not how much the one who conceived it is willing or able to pay.

If you haven't done so, please contact your lawmakers and talk to them about Net Neutrality. Hearing from real constituents has a huge impact on the decisions they make! You can find more info at https://www.battleforthenet.com/.

I also invite you to critique my own interpretation of the situation. Have I given a good comparison? Do you see any major flaws with my argument? If you are in favor of repealing Net Neutrality, I sincerely want to hear your point of view. Would things be as bad as I've made it seem? If repealed, what would prevent communication on the Internet from becoming "pay to win" as I've described?

I have temporarily lifted comment moderation in order to allow easier communication about this important topic. Please be respectful and civil. Thanks!

The Gift of Grace

A gift for my sister-in-law. 💗

As important as it is to remember that we show our faith by our works, it is at least as important to remember that our works do not save us. It is only the Grace of our Savior that has the power to unlock the chains of death and sin. And He has given that Grace freely to all. There is nothing we need to do to earn it or deserve it. All we need to do is accept the gift, use it, and keep the commandments our Savior has given us so that we can live comfortably and joyfully in His presence.

Without works

The relationship between faith and works is an oft debated topic in Christendom. My own understanding is that our good works do not save us. Strictly speaking, our faith doesn't save us either. But if we have faith in the Savior, we will be saved. However, if we do not good works (by keeping His commandments) we cannot truly say we have faith. James' words mean, in essence, that "faith without works is not faith," or "there is no such thing as faith without works."
One useful parable to illustrate this point is to think of two men lost at sea, far from any land. They pray to be rescued from drowning, and a ship happens to pass by and sees them. Those on board throw life preservers to the men. One of them grabs the preserver and is pulled to safety. The other however continues to pray rather than grabbing the preserver, claiming that he will be saved because he believes that those on the ship can save him.
It is, admittedly, not a perfect analogy, but I think it illustrates the important points. While the first man couldn't truthfully say to have saved himself, grabbing the preserver was required for him to be rescued. The second man could have been saved as well, but merely believing in the ability of the rescuers to save him wasn't sufficient.
We do not save ourselves by performing good works. To claim otherwise would be even more ridiculous than the first man claiming to have saved his own life. But we must do more than profess belief. Our Savior's grace is available to all; we have only to reach out.