More Clothes Woes

Don't you just hate it when people say, "Ugh, I look so terrible," when they are really saying, "Tell me how beautiful I am?"

This is not that, I swear.

The good news:

• I'm losing weight pretty fast and steadily without effort. I still have a very, very long way to go to return to normal size, but I dropped two pants sizes in about a month and a half. Now I'm a size 10. I'm normally between a size 6-8. That means I am pretty close to my regular pants size.  
• Goodwill carries extremely cheap (<$4), new-ish jeans in all sizes.
• mid/high-rise jeans are currently in style. Anything else does not work for me, period.

The irritating news:

• Not even one single pair of the pants I bought a month and a half ago fit me anymore. They are just way, wayyy too big. Danny started calling me "the Saggy-Bottom Girl" (O Brother, Where Art Thou). My mother in law gently hinted that it was time to buy some new pants. Yeah, yeah. It is. I just can think of a thousand other things I'd rather do. 
• Not even one single pair of my normal pre-pregnancy pants fit, so I had to go to the store to buy something in between. Shopping in general isn't that fun. It's funner with other people. Clothes shopping when you still don't look the way you wish you did/are used to looking is literally never fun. It's an exercise in negative body image.  
• And I'm still nowhere near my regular shirt size.

And that is the main comment that you  could easily construe as some kind of humblebrag/compliment fishing. "Ugh, my boobs are just so big," sure does sound like, "Look at my hot and sexy curvy body and feel super jealous (if you're a girl) or attracted to me (if you're a guy)." 'Cuz you know, all men like big breasts, out of my sample size of 1.   

I really, really do not.

I am breastfeeding. I'm really busty. As soon as this baby weans, it will be like balloons deflating or something. I'll be able to sleep on my stomach without arching my back in something like chaturanga. I'll be able to run without pain. I'll fit in my dresses again. I'll fit in my bras again. I'll fit in lingerie again. 

But more basic than any of those things, I'll be able to find shirts that fit again. 

Right now I can either choose between looking like I'm wearing a sack or like I'm an annoying instagram model. There is no size for me at all. They don't make shirts my size. If it's size XL, it's wayyyyy too wide, but finally long enough. If it's size L it's the right width but always riding up my back. If it's size M, my normal size, I feel incredibly self-conscious. We aren't even talking about anything special here, just like, t-shirts!

I'm not a fan of wearing clothes that are uncomfortable. How stupid. I don't want to wear a super tight sports bra that makes me feel completely bruised and achy on my back, even if it is the only way to fit in my shirts! I don't want to be constantly adjusting the top of my shirt so that it isn't revealing cleavage or crawling up my back! A slightly less urgent problem is the fact that none of my garment tops are long enough, either. These are just undershirts, so they matter a lot less, but...just...grrr!

I guess this post will cause the curious reader to want to flip through recent photos of me or something to verify that yeah, I'm really out of proportion. I have always tried so hard to avoid calling attention to my chest (you know, except in this blog post. Sigh), so good luck with that. But here, on this blog, it's all the aboutness layer of things, which is and should be almost totally free range. And I am #(*@($(&%&$#&(ing irritated about this. No resolution until it is written, I guess. 

In summary:

• I'm happy I've been able to breastfeed my babies. That should not be taken for granted.
• I'll be happy when it's over, too.
• But Danny will be less happy. 

I guess look for another similar post in 2 months or so, if this trend holds. 

Why I believe

My sister called me a skeptic.

My first reaction was to try to define what "skeptic" means - it's one of those seemingly innumerable groups of Greek men sitting around in togas philosophizing all day. There's hypocrites, hedonists, sophists, gnostics (?) - and a whole host of other ists and ics. I obviously know what "skeptical" means in the vernacular, but I am pretty sure there's a nuance to its etymology that I forgot somewhere along the line between eighth grade history class and bearing my fifth child last year.

Who are we kidding. I'm a woman so I wouldn't belong to any of those ists and ics. I'd be an oppressed, childbearing, food-cooking, floor-scrubbing, brainless object of sexual desire, at least according to some sources.

"I don't think I'm a skeptic!" [hahahahaha]

"You're a skeptic except when it comes to things that have to do with the church. Then you just accept what they say."

"Huh?"

Mmmkay. Sounds like you're saying I'm an oppressed, childbearing, food-cooking, floor-scrubbing, brainless object of sexual desire who is also a lemming.

"If you want to know about what I believe, I write about it all the time on my blog, you know."

"I don't read blogs."

"Well...too bad, then."

"I guess...I guess you've always been a little bit more interested in scientific, rational explanations for things."

The conversation shifted and suddenly we were talking about other things.

It is true that I really like to analyze things - or rather, more precisely, I have to analyze them. There's not really an alternative way for me to be. If I am awake, I'm thinking. If I'm actively thinking, I'm analyzing.

Maybe I should just listen to music all the time to give my brain a break from thinking?

Deep down inside, my most core value is knowledge. I really want to know everything that is both knowable and worth knowing. My reserves of curiosity run deep, and basically extend to every single piece of my brain and body. It's important that what I spend time and energy learning is worth knowing, though. It is important to me that the knowledge I seek is not a waste of my time. I want to be a good person. I want to do good things. I want to know everything knowable that could be used to both become and do better. In my opinion, there's so much good in the world that I need to discover and learn, it doesn't even make a tiny bit of sense for me to spend a second on discovering and learning evil.

I think that it's likely that most "good" things in the world that are knowable are not (at least on a superficial level - though definitely not on a deeper level) spiritual in nature. It seems like there are a lot more books out there in the libraries of the world that are just longing to be read that are not explicitly about religion, is what I am saying. Actually, I think that it would be decidedly bad for me to spend all my discretionary time immersed in just one single category of learning. "The world is so full of a number of things, I'm sure we should all be as busy as kings," to misquote Robert Louis Stevenson. Also, I somewhat ascribe to the philosophy of, "all extremes are bad - except this one." This means that I see the world as a massive, expansive Sahara-desert sandbox that's all for me to just play in! I love it!

Maybe on some level I am actually more of a hedonist than a skeptic. I really love having fun. It's just that to me, there's nothing more fun than learning about the world and the people in it. I guess it's lucky (or providential?) that my definition of fun is intrinsically linked to such a good, virtuous activity, otherwise I'd probably not be as happy. I just don't think the well-trodden roads in Funville lead anywhere, or at least anywhere worth going. I haven't spent a lot of time trying out typical Funville activities like sleeping around, drinking, doing drugs, etc. so I guess my personal epistemology necessarily includes a deep, implicit trust in words and ideas of other people who have already warned me against such acts. Those "fun" things are dead end roads, and acknowledged as such in plentiful trustworthy sources both religious and secular. It's a total waste of my time to even try to see if I'm the exception that makes the rule. I value my time.

When, not if, my church leaders tell me something that doesn't immediately feel right to me my first reaction is to question it. My second reaction is to question my questions. "What do I really want?" "Why do I feel this way?" "What are reasons why x might be this way?" "Why is it important to me to know x?" "What if I don't get an answer? What then?" "Why do I think x means y?" "Is it possible that I am wrong?" "Is my problem with x or is it with how we are talking about x?" "If people make mistakes, how should I react?" "How am I supposed to deal with x?"

I strongly believe that I should doubt my doubts before I doubt my faith. I also feel like I am in a constant state of doubt. Having faith does not at all mean that I have all (or even most) answers, it just means that I believe I have the best answers available to me now.

Religious belief is like any other opinion in that, by definition, you believe it to be true. I think it is very human to want others to try to believe similarly to you because it is a way of affirming that you are right. Everybody wants to be right. It feels good!

Am I loved for who I am or for who I can become? I have a deep desire to become a good person, with become being a key word. I know from experience that I am in a constant state of change. I am never fixed in one place on some fictional "goodness" scale. If I do nothing, I immediately plummet into laziness and hedonism, which I think is bad. If I work with all my might to always try to be better, I can attain a kind of state where I am almost, but never quite, satisfied with who I am. I can still see so many of my flaws, even if you can't (though you probably can, and you may even see ones I don't).

One of my most deeply held core beliefs is that redemption is real. I don't know exactly where this belief comes from. It was certainly taught to me as a young person at church, but I think it might also just be something inherent about myself that I can trust that redemption exists. Redemption means healing of the soul.

Here is a story from the Book of Mormon that seems relevant here. (See Alma 15).

5 And it came to pass that they went immediately, obeying the message which he had sent unto them; and they went in unto the house unto Zeezrom; and they found him upon his bed, sick, being very low with a burning fever; and his mind also was exceedingly sore because of his iniquities; and when he saw them he stretched forth his hand, and besought them that they would heal him.

6 And it came to pass that Alma said unto him, taking him by the hand: Believest thou in the power of Christ unto salvation?

7 And he answered and said: Yea, I believe all the words that thou hast taught.

8 And Alma said: If thou believest in the redemption of Christ thou canst be healed.

9 And he said: Yea, I believe according to thy words.

10 And then Alma cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord our God, have mercy on this man, and heal him according to his faith which is in Christ.

If I were Zeezrom, would I be a skeptic in this situation? Would I doubt my ability to have enough faith to be healed?

I don't know.

Would I trust that Jesus, who I'd never seen with my own eyes, is real?

Yes.

I really don't know exactly where my faith in Jesus Christ comes from. I simply trust that he is real because it feels right and it makes sense to me that humankind would need a means by which redemption would be possible. Anything other than the sacrifice of an all-knowing, all-powerful God would not be good enough. I am not good enough, but I am worth saving. This feels right and it makes sense. What would be the point of any of this otherwise?

I guess what I'm trying to say to my sister is that I am a person who really longs for true answers to my questions, so in that way I could be a skeptic. I try to seek answers in a huge range of quality secular and spiritual sources, and I almost never feel satisfied that I have a perfect understanding, so in that way I am also like a skeptic. It's a long, protracted struggle, this journey of trying to decide which questions to ask, where to seek truth, and what to do with it when I find it.

Walking by faith is not the act of seeking and finding answers, though. That's just the nature of humanity in general - everybody in this human experience is struggling to make sense of it in the way they best know how. Walking by faith is the act of moving forward in action in spite of doubts. It means putting aside the restless craving for answers and instead turning outward to try to be a positive influence on the world. It means paying attention to deep personal feelings that you previously had in your most sincere moments of spiritual searching, and holding on to them even when they are distant. You walk by faith when you keep your covenants, when you are honest with yourself, when you choose the right even when you don't know why. You walk by faith by believing and trusting that redemption is real.

Both my doubts and my faith in redemption come from my humanity, as does my potential and desire to become better. Walk with me on this road! I would love that.

HOW boring can you get? aka This Is Why Danny Is In Charge Of All The Thoughts Having To Do With Lightbulbs Chez Challis. AWA Essay #2, page 830

The city council of town X proposes that since LED lights burn brighter and cost no more to purchase, switching to them gradually over time will help town X save money on electrical costs in the future. On its face this seems like a good plan, however additional questions could help evaluate the efficacy of the council's prediction.

The most prescient question to ask is whether or not LED lightbulbs actually use less electricity. If LED bulbs do use less energy, and their total cost of use, including the purchase and disposal price, is indeed less, than the total cost of use of incandescent bulbs, the council's prediction will be strengthened. The city council could consult scientific studies measuring LED bulb electrical use as compared to that of incandescent bulbs fairly easily.

However, there are other cogent logicistical questions to address as well, including about the specifics of which lightbulbs will be replaced with LED bulbs. Will the light fixtures in city X be compatible with LED lightbulbs, or will they need to be replaced as well? What are the specific wattage requirements of the new bulbs, and will they even fit inside of the old fixtures designed for incandescent bulbs? Are there LED bulbs designed for every fixture? If not, will the lack of uniformity in the lighting of public buildings be a concern to those that need to use those buildings? How many LED incompatible light fixtures would make it better for incandescent bulbs to be used? If some of the fixtures are incompatible, the council's prediction would be weakened because there would be less potential for savings in electrical costs.

The city council of town X should also consider how expensive electrical costs are to begin with. Are there significant savings to be had from reducing electrical costs, or are the costs already so low that any savings will end up producing a relatively minimal effect? The council should also consider the rate of change of electrical costs. If electrical costs are decreasing over time, the potential for savings will be less and the council's prediction will be weakened. If electrical costs are increasing exponentially over time and LED lights cost less to operate, the council's prediction that they will save money will be strenghtened.

The city council of town X should consider what the broader effects of switching to LED bulbs might have, and whether they will incur unforeseen costs in productivity, reducing the potential savings overall. For example, how will the quality of light of LED bulbs be different from that of incandescent bulbs? Is brightness the only factor at play, or do LED lights transmit a different quality (temperature, warmth) of light? Do the LED lights in question take longer to light up and off? If so, how will these qualities effect the efficiency and productivity of the people who will be working around them? Will they be able to see what they need to see in order to effectively complete their work? The council's prediction about saving money overall through this switch could be weakened if LED lights will have serious negative effects on the people who need to use them.

The city council should also consider the entire operation cost of LED bulbs rather than merely their cost to purchase. Is the cost of installation and disposal of LED lightbulbs different from incandescent bulbs? If these operational costs are greater than that of the status quo, the council's prediction will be weakened.

The council might also choose to consider the greater operational costs that extend beyond the community of town X; what are the production costs of LED bulbs and how do they differ between that of incandescent bulbs? Are there difficult to measure costs such environmental pollution/impact that might occur during both the production and disposal processes of LED bulbs? If these are real costs, though they might reduct the city's electrical expenses, perhaps the greater cost might be a factor in the council's final decision.

In conclusion, the assessment of the cost of LED bulbs being the same purchase price as incandescent bulbs is not a solid enough basis for the city council of town X to make the decision to make this switch because a variety of factors are at play that could effect the overall electrical costs. If the council wants to prove that LED lights would decrease costs, they should further investigate the electrical costs themselves, the overall cost and effects on workers to operate LED bulbs, as well as the basic scientific facts behind the electrical use of the bulbs.

Typos: logicistical, strenghtened, reduct

The CDC makes some biased conclusions: Argument Topic #1, page 830

I probably am not allowed to share the argument topics word for word, although ETS literally shares all of their essay argument topics freely. But this book I am using is not made by ETS, and I do not really want to type it out anyway, so here is the TLDR version:

The CDC found that workers who experience work-related accidents are those with unpaid sick leave, therefore they must be coming to work while sick. The directions were to, “write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to determine whether the researchers' hypothesis is reasonable. Be sure to explain what effects the answers to these questions would have on the validity of the hypothesis.

Although on its face, it might be tempting for the CDC to assume that it is reasonable that employees with unpaid sick leave feel pressured to work during time of illness for fear of lack of pay, a deeper exploration of the issue would lead researchers to base conclusions on data rather than merely relying on correlation to prove causation.

The CDC found that the highest-risk occupations, such as construction, showed that paid and unpaid leave was correlated between the highest discrepancy in work-related incidents. Researchers should investigate whether this correlation is due to an underlying cause having to do with the the workers' perception of their paid leave, or if it is merely a based on other factors which may even include random chance. Is there a difference between the paygrade of workers in the highest-risk occupations who had paid vs. unpaid leave? Are there demographic factors such as education, socio-economic background, age, gender, ability to speak/read English etc. at play which motivate the kinds of people who work for the highest-risk occupations for no paid leave? If so, researchers would certainly want to try to design an experiment that eliminates these additional factors which could potentially significantly interfere with the reasonability of their hypothesis. If all the people who tend to work in the highest-risk occupations tend to be novice-level L2 English speakers, is it not reasonable to believe that some of their work-related accidents have to do with a failure to understand basic safety directions rather than a pressure to come to work sick? These same kind of demographic questions should be extended across the various spheres of the US work environment, and not just in the highest-risk occupations.

Researchers should also examine more information about the kinds of work-related accidents that occur and their underying circumstances. Not all work-related accidents are the same or carry the same amount of gravity for employees. For example, it might simply be the case that some jobs, such as those that involve sitting at a desk, do not carry a high degree of risk. Do options exist in these jobs for unpaid leave? If they don't, then perhaps the data suggesting that jobs lacking paid leave are wraught with danger is simply data conflation, making the hypothesis invalid. Researchers should also try to determine whether the workers really were sick, lacked sleep, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or otherwise mentally impaired at the time when the accident occurred. The mental state of the workers at the time of the accident would effect whether or not the original hypothesis is true; if it turns out that it is determined, either by reports directly from employees or through health reports/administrative documentation, that the employees did not report a significant difference in mental state, this hypothesis would be basing its evidence off of correlation rather than causation, making it invalid and in need of additional testing.

What my essay lacks:

• typos: underlying, wrought, apparently reasonability is not a word?!, pay-grade is not a compound word – needs a hyphen, socioeconomic does NOT need a hyphen
• What are the ulterior motivations of the CDC (to prevent and control disease) and might they be a factor at play?
• Was the study large enough, was there a representative sample, is there enough detail in the data?
• I should have said “x would strengthen/weaken the hypothesis.”
• Argument did not have alternative explanations
• I did not necessarily to the greatest job strictly following the directions. Must practice this.
• I did not have a concluding paragraph because I ran out of time.
• I should have had shorter paragraphs. They are probably looking for a 5 paragraph essay, with a topic sentence, concluding sentence, and supporting sentences in between.

This was a hard essay to write because:

1. It was kind of boring.
2. It was hard for me to quickly find the flaw in the argument.
3. It was stressful to write this with a clock running!

But I did well because:

• I had very few grammar/spelling errors
• I found all the arguments suggested by the model essay
• I did follow the directions, though I could have done better
• My essay was logical

Solid B+, I think. Could do so much better than that. Very, very disappointing. Grrr.

Why did the priests ask about the meaning of this specific verse? Mosiah 12:21

Why did the priests ask about the meaning of this specific verse? Mosiah 12:21

Abinadi is taken before the wicked priests. He starts delivering them his prophetic message, which is essentially the broken record of the scriptures: repent, or be destroyed.

The priests aren't much pleased with this message. They tell King Noah, "Look, here's a blasphemic blasphemer blaspheming blasphemy. What'd you ever do that was evil? You're a great guy. Whatcha gonna do with him?"

King Noah puts him in jail and thinks about it for a while. But apparently he couldn't - or wouldn't - make a decision, because the priests say, "Bring him here, and we'll question him."

And then, of all the things they could have asked him, they bring up a prophesy of Isaiah (see Isaiah 52:7) and say, "What does this mean?"

Why?

Here are the reasons my daughter and husband came up with:

1. They thought it was an easy question and they knew the answer, so if he said something different than what they thought was the answer, they could trick him into saying the wrong thing and then they would have a justifiable cause to put him to death.

2. They thought it was an impossible to answer question. They didn't know the answer - they didn't even necessarily believe there was an answer, so whatever Abinadi said was bound to trap him and be justifiable as a cause to put him to death.

3. It was an authentic question, perhaps even posed by Alma.

So what does the prophesy talk about?

Isaiah 52:7 and a bit onward is one of those dual (triple? quadro?) prophesies that are Isaiah's specialty. It is about both the restoration of the gospel in the latter days and the second coming of Jesus Christ to the earth. The wicked priests of King Noah didn't understand these prophesies because they were myopically cherry-picking from the Mosaic Law. They clearly didn't understand the point of the Law of Moses, which is to be a preparatory law that witnesses of Jesus Christ.

Abinadi totally sounds like he is mocking them.

"You mean to say that you guys call yourselves priests, and you're asking me what these scriptures mean!? What the heck are you teaching the people?"

"We teach the Law of Moses."

"Then why don't you keep it yourselves?! The Law of Moses can be summed up in the Ten Commandments. Let me repeat them for you, since apparently you've forgotten what they are."

He repeats the Ten Commandments.

By the way, these commandments are definitely still in force today, and a general good model for civilized secular societies to live by, especially such shockers as "Thou shalt not kill." "Thou shalt not steal." "Thou shalt not bear false witness (aka lie)."

"Have you taught the people to keep these commandments? No. Do you keep them yourselves?

...No!"

"Take this man away...and KILL him!"

Answer:
The priests were trying to trick Abinadi into making some verbal misstep that would give them an excuse to kill him.

Does this kind of so-called trial bring any other similar examples from the scriptures to mind? Jesus Christ himself was falsely accused in a similar "trial" before the Sanhedrin. He was accused of blasphemy. He was beaten, made to wear a crown of thorns, had his side dashed by a spear, forced to carry his own cross, then nailed to the cross. The cross was on a public thoroughfare, between the crosses of two common thieves. His cross had mocking words tacked to the top of it, "This is Jesus, King of the Jews."

He allowed this to happen. The sacrifice of God himself was the only price sufficient enough to pay for the sin and pain of the world. Through this sacrifice he obtained the power to understand and individually save every human who ever has and ever will live. It is mind-blowing to think about.

When Abinadi was martyred for bearing his testimony of Jesus Christ, he joined the ranks of many other previous righteous men and women who stood by their faith and took upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ, though it meant certain death. It is critically important to me that I always be willing to do the same.

What does "a great evil" mean here? Mosiah 12:29

What does "a great evil" mean here? Mosiah 12:29

Remember that guy, Zeniff, who went to the land of Lehi-Nephi? He was fairly righteous-ish, but his son Noah was totally wicked. Noah and his wicked priests caused the people to commit some severe sin, including some perverse sexual sin.

The prophet Abinadi was sent to preach to King Noah. The first time, he was kicked out. The second time he came back in a disguise and was brought before King Noah and his priests. It brings to mind this famous Arnold Friberg painting.

This is exactly how I imagine it in my mind.

Probably because this painting was clearly the inspiration behind this childhood video that I grew up watching (here is just a small clip of it).

Abinadi was sent by God to tell King Noah and his wicked priests to repent, or else a "great evil" would befall them. The specific prophesy is from Mosiah 12:2 and onward.

Thus saith the Lord, it shall come to pass that this generation, because of their iniquities, shall be brought into bondage, and shall be smitten on the cheek; yea, and shall be driven by men, and shall be slain; and the vultures of the air, and the dogs, yea, and the wild beasts, shall devour their flesh.
3 And it shall come to pass that the life of king Noah shall be valued even as a garment in a hot furnace; for he shall know that I am the Lord.
4 And it shall come to pass that I will smite this my people with sore afflictions, yea, with famine and with pestilence; and I will cause that they shall howl all the day long.
5 Yea, and I will cause that they shall have burdens lashed upon their backs; and they shall be driven before like a dumb ass.
6 And it shall come to pass that I will send forth hail among them, and it shall smite them; and they shall also be smitten with the east wind; and insects shall pester their land also, and devour their grain.
7 And they shall be smitten with a great pestilence—and all this will I do because of their iniquities and abominations.
8 And it shall come to pass that except they repent I will utterly destroy them from off the face of the earth; yet they shall leave a record behind them, and I will preserve them for other nations which shall possess the land; yea, even this will I do that I may discover the abominations of this people to other nations.

Guess what. His prophesy totally came true and is a big part of the story of the book of Alma.

All the real prophesies in the Old Testament - even the really weird head-scratching ones involving red heifers - will come true someday. The Messiah, which is Jesus Christ, will someday come to earth again. Repeatedly in the scriptures the prophesies from the Old Testament are fulfilled in the New Testament, many hundreds of years later. For example, in Zechariah it is explicitly stated that the Messiah would be sold for 30 pieces of silver. That was the exact price that Matthew tells us Judas Iscariot was paid for his betrayal.

The scriptures are true.

Don't take my word for it; find out for yourself by studying them and asking God directly. He promised he would answer over and over and over and over and over and over, and he doesn't lie. The promise is that he will answer you in a way that you will understand and recognize if you ask sincerely. Why wouldn't it be worth a try?

What is the "fierce anger" of the Lord? How does this fit with God as a merciful being? Mosiah 12:1

What is the "fierce anger" of the Lord? How does this fit with God as a merciful being? Mosiah 12:1

I actually found a really interesting quote from Brigham Young which nicely answers this question. I will include it here with some additional commentary. Also, DBY stands for "Discourses of Brigham Young." I had to look that up.

In this probation, we have evil to contend with, and we must overcome it in ourselves, or we never shall overcome it anywhere else (DBY, 265).

 Evil is a part of life. You have to deal with inner evil if you ever aspire to deal with outer evil.

A righteous person will never be discouraged, but will constantly contend against his evil passions, and against evil in his family and neighborhood (DBY, 267).

The definition of a "good person" is someone who constantly tries to fight against evil, both without and within. Totally agree. 

Many men will say they have a violent temper, and try to excuse themselves for actions of which they are ashamed. I will say, there is not a man in this house who has a more indomitable and unyielding temper than myself.

Yeah, I bet Emma Smith would wholeheartedly have agreed with that (she did not get along very well with Brigham Young). 

But there is not a man in the world who cannot overcome his passion, if he will struggle earnestly to do so. If you find passion coming on you, go off to some place where you cannot be heard; let none of your family see you or hear you, while it is upon you, but struggle till it leaves you; and pray for strength to overcome.

Good, sound advice. I will try to follow it. I sometimes find myself really struggling with anger, and that's a practical piece of advice for how to deal with it. I appreciate that.

As I have said many times to the Elders, pray in your families; and if, when the time for prayer comes, you have not the spirit of prayer upon you, and your knees are unwilling to bow, say to them, “Knees, get down there”; make them bend, and remain there until you obtain the Spirit of the Lord. If the spirit yields to the body, it becomes corrupt; but if the body yields to the spirit it becomes pure and holy (DBY, 267).

There have been times when I have knelt in prayer on my kitchen floor because it was where I was, and I just really needed some help with whatever problem I was dealing with. Almost certainly it was some struggle dealing with childcare.

Do not get so angry that you cannot pray; do not allow yourselves to become so angry that you cannot feed an enemy—even your worst enemy, if an opportunity should present itself. 

That is really saying something, from Brigham Young, who literally was forced to leave home after home. A man who literally saw people tarred and feathered, raped and murdered, for practicing their religion. The worst "enemy" I've ever had in my life was a really lousy school administrator who halved my pay while doubling my course load. It isn't that apt of a comparison.

There is a wicked anger, and there is a righteous anger. The Lord does not suffer wicked anger to be in his heart; but there is anger in his bosom, and he will hold a controversy with the nations, and will sift them, and no power can stay his hand (DBY, 269).

This^. This is the description of God's "fierce anger" that I needed.

When my feelings are aroused to anger by the ill-doings of others, I hold them as I would hold a wild horse, and I gain the victory. Some think and say that it makes them feel better when they are mad, as they call it, to give vent to their madness in abusive and unbecoming language.

Like on social media? ;-) 

This, however, is a mistake. Instead of its making you feel better, it is making bad worse. When you think and say it makes you better you give credit to a falsehood. When the wrath and bitterness of the human heart are moulded into words and hurled with violence at one another, without any check or hindrance, the fire has no sooner expended itself than it is again re-kindled through some trifling course, until the course of nature is set on fire (DBY, 266).

Now I charge you again, and I charge myself not to get angry. Never let anger arise in your hearts. No, Brigham, never let anger arise in your heart, never, never! Although you may be called upon to chastise and to speak to the people sharply, do not let anger arise in you, no, never! (DBY, 265).

Great advice, and it feels so heartfelt and personal the way he has written it here.

Cease your anger, and sullenness of temper, and serve the Lord with cheerfulness, and singleness of heart. You need not expect salvation, except you can administer the same salvation to others, both in precept and example. If you expect compassion from me, administer the same to me. If you wish kind words and kind treatment from me, give me the same blessing you desire yourself; and that is the way you will be saved (DBY, 268–69).

A little bit of a 19th-century-ish way to say, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." 

If you give way to your angry feelings, it sets on fire the whole course of nature, … and you are then apt to set those on fire who are contending with you.

Here's a secret. Sometimes I feel really proud of how fiercely nasty my words and arguments can get when I'm angry. I'm always ashamed of it later. But in the moment, the power is very...alluring? I often have felt as though my "angry voice" is powerful, compelling, loud, and fierce. I guess part of me admires it. But the better part of me is disgusted by it, and wants to divest myself of it.

When you feel as though you would burst, tell the old boiler to burst, and just laugh at the temptation to speak evil. If you will continue to do that, you will soon be so masters of yourselves as to be able, if not to tame, to control your tongues—able to speak when you ought, and to be silent when you ought (DBY, 269).

Being "silent when you ought" is definitely challenging for me. But I've discovered that it is at least as powerful as a fiercely angry voice. At some point in my motherhood journey, I just got really tired of yelling at little children and realized that they listen a whole lot better if I am firm but quiet. They also are totally like mirrors and so if I want them to speak quietly, I had better model it.

Being silent on social media is a big challenge for me, personally.

We want the spirit, knowledge, power and principle within us to govern and control our tempers; there is no danger of having too much [anger] if we will only control [it] by the Spirit of the Almighty. Every intelligent being on the earth is tempered for glory, beauty, excellency and knowledge here, and for immortality and eternal lives in the worlds to come. But every being who attains to this must be sanctified before God and be completely under the control of his Spirit. If I am thus controlled by the Spirit of the Most High, I am a king. I am supreme so far as the control of self is concerned (DBY, 264–65).

I think that any of my friends, including those who don't believe in God, would likely agree that the principle of self mastery is an attainable, desirable quality for anybody to strive to have. It's not a particularly popular message in today's media, but logical people around the world understand that hedonism is not a path to success.

Self mastery is a learned skill. It takes a lot of practice. But it is learnable.

In my opinion, self mastery is desirable because it is a divine attribute. God has all knowledge and power, and he controls that power perfectly. When we control our emotions, bodies, and actions, we, like my little children who I mentioned above, become reflections of God.