Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

I have a hard time with social media for a few reasons.  Since I have had a pretty big paradigm swing in worldview structure in my life, I find myself with a wide array of friends and acquaintances.  Within that spectrum, though, I find I am on a scale that is largely unbalanced.  My wife and I talked about some of my social media content and how she/others think I display a wrong attitude while posting.  Frankly, I found that to be hilarious.  A person can easily take it for granted if they mostly see posts/content they agree with.  When they see something they don't agree with, they feel threatened. I feel the same way, only the majority of my contact list has an inherently opposite baseline opinion than mine.  Being a minority in social media can be tricky.

Alas, I cannot stay quiet on many issues, yet, at the same time, I don't like sharing/posting too many things on social media.  I have come here to vent (again).

1: Don't read into the Proclamation on the Family anything that isn't there.  Satan/The Devil/Evil/Hell is NOT there.  When you imply a faith-based gay couple will go to hell, you are being irresponsible.  I won't condemn that reactionary piece here, but a person doesn't have to add to it to believe in it.  The LGBT community has a hard enough time trying to be faithful to their belief system.  Speaking of LGBTs, another fallacy is thinking that there are steps in the future that can be easily taken because SCOTUS ruled for LGBT equality, i.e., churches MUST marry people they disagree marrying.  That is a giant leap with no correlation.

2: Try and be just a little responsible in the content you post on social media.  If someone can devote under 5 minutes on Snopes.com or google to debunk a claim or rip an argument to shreds, then maybe you should think twice before posting it.  A conservative opinion or a liberal opinion can hold legitimate value without making truth claims.  A conservative or liberal post can also state facts, but I'll let you in on a little secret: it probably will not come from Fox news, MSNBC, or any of their affiliates.  I am guilty of this one as well, but I am trying.  It may make social media a little more worthwhile.

3: Don't default to one side of an issue or the other.  I am also guilty of this one.  When it comes to racism and police brutality, I default to assume the cops could have done better.  I see others who will defend cops to the point where they are willing to serve the sentence if the cop is found guilty.  Simply admitting we have a problem allows a conversation to happen.  This topic is a little more difficult, as the circumstances surrounding each occurrence is unique and cops could/should follow a certain protocol, and sometimes even the protocol is hard to understand if one isn't a cop or isn't familiar with their protocol.

4: Atheism or Agnosticism is not inherently arrogant or stubborn compared to religious beliefs.  There are plenty of people on both sides who display arrogance and stubbornness, and plenty who display openness and humility.  A post or a link to an article or blog that speaks to certain ideas that are embraced more commonly with atheism or agnosticism isn't necessarily "attacking" a belief system.  On the other hand, if a post or a link speaks to aspects of a belief system, but is criticizing it with valid points, dismissing it out of hand may be your right, but is not responsible.  Freedom of speech comes with the understanding that not all opinions are valid.

5: I hate to say it, but having a centrist President that is black makes it hard to not call people racist for thinking he is "destroying America."  You are racist.  If you cannot come up with any legitimate reasons for arguing your point (Destroy: put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it), then you do not have an argument.  Never has a President endured so much hate with so little to back it up.  Also, he is centrist.  He has demonstrated that for the last 7+ years.  When it comes to the political spectrum and getting things accomplished for the majority of Americans, it is hard to argue for anything that would have been better over the last 7 years from any Administration.

6: Criticising a personal faith journey is inherently wrong.  I recently read an article from a wife who struggled with her husband (both Mormon) who decided to be Atheist.  Her blog post led us briefly from his decision to her figuring things out as to what was best for her.  There was a popular "response" to her article in which the author had nothing good to say about a person he never met and knew nothing about except from her brief words on an internet blog.  Anyone with an 8th grade education could tell she was summarizing and keeping it brief.  It wasn't a blogpost about leaving the Mormon church to end all other blog posts.  Yet, this happens all the time.  We judge, in part, because belief systems integrated religious exclusivity into their core beliefs from the outset.  It is a natural phenomenon.  Questions directed toward me about my decision to leave religion are centered around the assumption that they are right, I will regret it, and we will all find out in the end.

7: The end... Just a note on "the end."  Maybe we should focus on the parts of the Christian higher commandments that we can do something about? Love god: express that love here and now through what you believe he/she/it wants us to do for the sake of humanity.  Love your neighbor: primarily the means through which one loves god; seek out those capabilities which do the most good in the world and for humankind here and now.  I argue one cannot love these two things reasonably in any other way.  If the author of those words really meant that everything else hangs off of those two, then they fall naturally into place.  If you truly love your neighbor, then you as an individual or organization that promotes belief in that author wouldn't prove otherwise by your actions.  One may argue here that certain actions are ultimately concerned with the souls not only of the individuals they are judging, but the souls that are being given to "righteous," "proper" families who are susceptible to worldviews that are contrary to that organization.  Somehow a breakdown of families will occur for conceding the fact that everyone deserves happiness, and that everyone (speaking of children who are in need of being adopted) deserves a chance at a better life.  

8: Try to understand Planned Parenthood and their legal rights regarding the women that go and see them.  Truly evil people are out there trying to undermine good work that goes on in that organization.  When it comes to abortion, try and remember that pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.  Very few people from history have embraced abortion itself.  Women who experience it usually don't refer to it as a highlight in their life and I doubt would want to experience it again.

Paradigm Shift

I have probably written down some thoughts on this before, but the whole, trying to get a stagnant church to grow and evolve thing has me thinking again. Every single time God as issued a change for humanity, he/she has done it through a person. Let's keep it simple and take a couple major personalities for examples. Jesus claimed he came representing the "Father." Everything he said he did, we were watching the Father (also, for simplicity we will assume these were Jesus' actual words). So the changes came from him, even though we took his word that he was aligned with "Father," who we will assume to be the God of this world. Moses was a prophet who was called reluctantly. Everything we got in his time from God came through him. He somehow set up a very detailed, lower law after he received the higher law from God. That law probably had more lasting effect on Judaism than anything else. Now comes Joseph Smith, Jr. Plates or no plates, coming up with a story that is, at its minimum, inspirational (if you can stop thinking about the literal for 2 minutes). It is a representation of free-flowing inspiration. Authors are familiar with this, same as many artists trying to start or continue something they are working on. That "mantle" died with Joseph. If you don't agree, one could hopefully at least see where I am coming from. Something changed when Joseph died and left the untested process to sort itself out. I am also assuming here that some sort of organized religion was supposed to happen. In many ways I disagree with that idea, but again, for the sake of argument... So everything is hunky-dory until an external, unstoppable force meets an immovable object: Polygamy vs. the U.S. Government. At first, the church took a page from Joseph's book: magic, or in their case pretended magic or illusion. They tried convincing the government for a few years that they had stopped while having no intention of stopping. They were finally forced to come up with something. They thought Joseph's inspiration would carry them through. Inspiration had to come again...or at least a solution so they wouldn't all have to move again, this time probably to Mexico. They had been in "Deseret" for over 50 years. It wouldn't be that easy this time. This forcing of the issue lays it out very simply: the church came up with something after meeting an external force. Many will not agree, but that is the way it has been ever since. Blacks received Priesthood eligibility in 1978 after years of the prophet "prepping" all the apostles. He didn't want to present it and not have everyone agree to it. So he may have been inspired by MLK and the whole movement in the early 60's, but he didn't think he could throw that at the church without some sort of unanimity with leadership. If you notice, the general membership didn't shift drastically at either of this moments. There wasn't a massive uprising or leaving as thousands saw this as a moment where the mantle had left the man. On the contrary, membership will keep believing the prophet talks to god. Depending on who you ask, the prophet may have a weekly or monthly meeting with god/Jesus in the temple. So even though inspiration can come from external sources (as it has done), we can choose to view it in any way we wish (and we will continue to do so, even if it is explicitly explained to us). With this in mind, let us consider for just a moment the concept I mentioned earlier with Jesus: god residing within us. Jesus implied no special requirements to be aligned with god (like having a prophet after he left). He merely told us to watch and believe. His big things were loving each other and following the spirit of the law rather than the letter. If love was what we would "hang" everything else off of (his word), followed by the concept of following the spirit rather than the letter, we may have a lasting church to be proud of. The crux of what I wanted to convey here though was our concept of talking to god and getting something in return. I think this has largely been a concept that has grown out of proportion over time. If you just look at people's stories as stories, you could see that inspiration came from within. Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., inventors, scientists that were jailed or killed for proposing crazy-new ideas...If a church isn't careful, they get caught trying to lead from behind, then using 20/20 hindsight to explain how all this inspiration is somehow connected to a church that has nothing to do with it. The same will happen in the future. Whether it is human rights, or inventions, or a global event either for good or for bad, a religious organization that touts spiritual welfare of not only individuals but of the whole world ought to be leading from the front, trying to anticipate things to prepare the members, and trying to make this world as good a place as possible for humanity. This is not happening. "Zion" hasn't been properly attempted since Joseph, even though he wasn't fully prepared to attempt it either. Something else that affects this lackluster movement toward "prosperity for all," is the concept that Jesus is returning any day now. "Any day now," has been the phrase since he left 1982 some-odd years ago. How about we try making a "second coming" type environment on our own, what is he going to do, get mad at us for trying to improve humanity? This isn't like the tower of babel where we were going to knock the pearly gates down by force and storm the castle.

Self-Destruct-shun

I am not even average when it comes to dealing with my weaknesses.  I fall well below that line.  I am slowly coming to terms with that which I think will help me get more along the average mark.  One weakness that I feel eats away at me internally and subconsciously is the one I saw my dad have the hardest time with when he looked at me.  It can be called by multiple names.  He had a name for it and I tend to articulate it in a similar fashion.
One frustrating factor to this weakness is the fact that I married someone who has the same weakness - a double-whammy.  When I presented Sarah to my parents officially with our intentions to marry, my dad sat us down and spewed off a list of things that worried him about us.  This is when he articulated this weakness to me.  I resented it at the time.  Over the past 13 years though, I have come to realize his anxiety was legitimate. I don't remember ever talking to him or my mom about it before then or since then.  I also have come to find out it is tied very closely to my social inhibitions.  I hate trying to listen to someone telling me something, especially when it is critical I hear and understand what they are saying, i.e., instructions or directions.  I easily mishear, misunderstand or both.  When it comes to written instructions I fare only average, depending on my level of knowledge on the subject.
What else is frustrating about this weakness is the fact it only rears its ugly head on rare occasions.  Because of this, I don't get a lot of practice in subduing it or learning from the mistakes it brings me.  Often too, this weakness tends to open the door to bigger than average mistakes.  I also keep this known weakness in the back of my head when interacting with others, even on the most trivial of circumstances.  Second-guessing happens to many if not most, but sometimes it can get out of hand.

Keep the Faith

       "Keep the Faith" were some of the last words my dad ever spoke to me.  He had become lucid enough and my family knew he was close to the end, so they got me on the phone.  I was in South Dakota, at my first base as a member of the Air Force's Enlisted cadre who loads bombs on the B-1 bomber.  It was early November, 2008.  He was in Lakeview hospital with a blood clot, water in the lungs and numerous other problems that couldn't easily be fixed.  I had already arranged vacation time with my bosses and they obliged after hearing my situation.  I remember having just renewed my government driver's license so I could drive a "bread truck," a tow truck, and a de-icing truck on  the flightline.

       I'll never emotionally forget that conversation.  I knew what was happening and so did he.  He was tired and he hurt but he was mine for 60 seconds.  He didn't ever seem to fully accept me joining the military and I have never resolved that internally.  I will also never forget the day I told him I joined.  He used comedy as a defense.  It threw me off and I never got back on track as far as he was concerned.  As one of my heroes that has been a persistent dagger pierced well beneath the skin.

       Over the years, I have morphed and molded away from someone you might consider "keeping the faith."  One aspect I DO consider to keep the faith in, is humanity.  I don't pretend to be staying true to a father's dying words, but I do intend to claim hold on an aspect of faith, just as every other human on earth.  Even the Atheist says, "I have faith (or, I know) that there is no God."  Not that I'm an Atheist.  I find them to be arrogant, just as those who say, "I have faith (or, I know) there is a God."

        What is important? Let's fast-forward a billion years from now.  What is important? What stands the test of time? What will never change as far as how we define decency, love, compassion and mercy?  Being human to each other.  Life is tender, fleeting, delicate and quick.  Why is it so important to stress anything to a child other than love? Jesus didn't show us love for one another so we could go around preaching Jesus.  He showed us love so we could go around preaching love.  We have idolized Jesus when he wanted no such thing.  What he wanted has been missed by many many Christians worldwide.  Similarly, many Jews and Muslims have leveraged their prophets and gods for bad in the world.

          Yet, if we drop the entire act and have a conversation that talks about what is important today and today only, most of us can agree on the priorities.  Treat each other with dignity, respect, love, compassion and mercy.  No person deserves to sleep on a park bench.  No person deserves to eat with the pigeons or the rats.  Those we turn away, had it been 2000 years ago, would have found Jesus to listen to, to eat with and to have heal them, AFTER WE turned them away.

          I have experienced subtle inklings of distaste over my religious decisions as of late.  Overall, I appreciate them.  They give me perspective and I know where people stand and how they think, not only of me, but how they think in general.  In a way, they are showing their intellectual hand.  Now socially, I am quite inhibited, so one may easily say the same about me.  I like to hide behind emails.  face-to-face is the worst, phone conversations is next, texting comes third, and an arena like commenting in facebook or Google+ would come fourth.  Email is detached from anything realtime. One can mull over a response, write, rewrite, edit and show any and every emotion before hitting the send button.  I rarely have that luxury.  Coming back to the inklings.  I find them refreshing mostly because it seems I come from a culture that chooses not to talk about conflict.  Thus, when someone addresses "conflict" it is nice they feel that they know me well enough at least to address it.  When we ignore, avoid or otherwise skirt a topic of discomfort among loved ones, it tells them you really don't care enough about them.

        Don't get me wrong, I do it too.  Remember, I am the social retard.  I come from a solid family of socially retarded people.  In the acknowledgment of my religious differences, it has become apparent that the distaste often comes saturated in superiority.  Now I know that is the wrong word.  Yet, religious people nine out of ten times look at irreligious people as lost.  Most of us are definitely NOT lost.  On the contrary, we feel we have stumbled or studiously enlightened ourselves away from religious lifestyles and we often bite our tongue upon looking back, rather than say something that implies your ignorance or blatant lack of enlightenment.  Another reason we bite our tongues is the fact that we have already been ridiculed for our decisions.  Opening our mouths often invites more ridicule.

       Don't get me wrong here, either.  Not everyone leaves religious faith for the same reasons.  Not everyone agrees on this side, just like not everyone agrees on your side.  That is partly my argument.  What enlightened religious people over the years have taught over and over again is to be loving and compassionate toward each other.  We are never going to come to religious agreement, therefore it is fruitless to lose sleep, or, more importantly, lose relationships and loves over it.  Treating each other like humans is the message.  Our time is fleeting.  Our attitude in our daily lives is often broken.  We seek everything but human connections, myself included.  Religion, along with capitalism and the whole work-yourself-till-you-die attitude we have come to accept are all causes to our disconnect from each other.

John Dehlin

John Dehlin is getting a lot of flack for a battle he chose over a small article in a recent Ensign.  I hadn't read the article in full until tonight.  I copied it into a Word document and decided to make notes as a professor or instructor might make notes on a paper or essay you turn in for a class.  I will say this; John Dehlin was much more succinct that I was, even though I was going line by line and stopping to make notes.  I highlighted words or phrases that stood out to me, and some of those I had thoughts on, some I did not.  All in all, I agree with Dehlin that, although not explicit, the article means to imply gods authority is the same as the LDS Priesthood authority.  I feel the notes I make throughout point to and support that overall judgment by Dehlin.  I am only trying to express my feelings of frustration and exasperation that the church I grew up loving and learning from isn't willing to be forthright, upfront and honest.  Instead choosing to treat all its members as immature and incapable of college-level critical thinking, let alone open-mindedness or a number of other graceful and forgiving qualities.

Note: once you click on the google drive linke below, you need to click "Open" (Open with google docs) at the top to see my notes that I made in Microsoft Office Word.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-wjni33sDpARjFCaDVpQnpybzA&authuser=0

Doesn't seem like it works unless you request access to the google drive document.  Any ideas on how to upload a word doc with the review notes?

Light BuLb..

The capital L in the title was an attempt to sound like Gronk in Despicable Me.  He gets a great idea in a specific moment where he witnesses something that shows him that great idea.  It isn't so much a great idea moment for me as it is a realization after two or three experiences that lead me to believe this family is extremely non-confrontational.  As I think back, it is more than two or three, it is six or ten.  My family is unwilling to confront specific confrontations and I am not sure how to pinpoint what it is.  It ranges from Andy to Marne' to our mother Cheryl, although, to her credit she did attempt to confront me head on, even though it didn't end productively, as she was reduced to an emotional appeal, and, at the time, that wasn't necessarily an appeal for me.

I just want to know why I - this - is a growing obstacle for everyone.  Why is everyone so...only deal with this as a deflection sort of way?  I suppose I am amazed that it is such a concerted effort, unless it was conspired to be that way, then I suppose I am equally amazed that 4 siblings could conspire in such a way.


I have had such paranoid thoughts for some time but have dismissed them under more rational logic where a concerted effort was not prevailing in evidence.  Over the years, it has shown to be a puzzle in the making, where all the pieces have molded together to create a coherent picture.  This may not all hold true, but to a person living outside of Utah for the last 11 years, it definitely feels true.  This is especially logical given the last dozen or so serious conversations I have had with siblings who have shown their hand and deflected, more or less, to a sense of loyalty to faith before family and chosen not to confront the disconnect that exists between family and faith.  Oh well. Such is life.  You love, you live, you realize your faith and loves don't equate.  You weed out those that aren't up to the task and you move on.  Such is life, such is love.

The state of some things as I see them.

I don't have a systematic way of recording my thoughts, even more so recording my thoughts on this blog for "public" viewing. I think things come to a head inside me and, depending on my emotional state, something gives and I am drawn to blabber away. If my emotional state isn't just right, I put it off, hence the big gaps between rants. First thought: Obama isn't progressive. I have enjoyed him being president, and I have been a general fan since he ran in 2008. Over time I have noticed, in my small, novice, non-political head, that Obama isn't progressive. He is moderate at best and often on the right of center. Don't get me wrong, he was the much better choice in my mind over McCain and Romney. What seems to be wrong is the overall shift in American politics since before Reagan. We have slowly lost truly left politicians in favor of "Democrats" that have adopted a party line down the middle. The few who are left become unpopular and painted as extremists, even though the opposite extreme is living the high life of popularity and infecting everyone else because they are granted a share of the limelight. Obama is a professional politician. There seems to be clear lines between professional politicians and progressives who got voted in to be a politician. Follow-on: Obama gets most push-back because he isn't white. Many get offended by this. I get saddened. Not only do I realize racism is in full-force in this world, but I also realize I am part of it. I grew up with a father that loved and respected black friends and acquaintances while sitting around a campfire with his father laughing at extremely racist jokes they would tell each other. I grew up conservative, in a conservative community, in a conservative state - Utah. I realize not every state is like this, nor every community inside conservative states. Yet, as I reflect on my Mormon bubble that shielded us from not only culture, liberalism and 98% of all the other ethnicities in the world, it also seemed to fair comparatively well to the states that were considered more melting-pot regarding race and ethnicity. It seems that anywhere you go, one may find extreme racism. So, while Barack Obama has adopted a political ideology that 9/10 politicians could agree with, we have a stand-still GOP that curses under their breath ridiculous notions of the White House not their job because heaven forbid they take responsibility for one damn thing. As for conservative ideologies: Both conservatives and progressives or liberals are capable of love. We all love our families and we all love our friends. We all have a degree of faith and we all have dreams of what this world could become. Surprisingly enough, the Utopia, in the end, for both sides looks quite similar and is run in essentially the same way. One key difference that I see in my limited view is the strong after-life notion that drives conservatives. This can negatively affect the here and now. If we have the mentality that all will be fixed after Jesus comes, then we could potentially regard the here and now as second priority. "God will fix this mess, there's not point in trying to tackle something that is out of our hands." Furthermore, we integrate the false idea of destiny. Somehow we back-date everyone's ultimate choices to some concept of foreordination or predestination. This further embeds this idea that the here and now cannot be helped, so we put it in the hands of a superior being, along with any responsibility. This mentality drives almost everything else: We don't need to reverse negative effects on the planet. We don't need to give so-called handouts to the desolate, hungry and needy. We don't need to wean ourselves off of oil for the multiple reasons cited such as war, destroying the planet, the economy, etc. Furthermore, our founding fathers overcame extreme adversity, and as God-believing white men, set the foundations for the greatest political system on earth, never to be destroyed again, inspired only by God to be the last standing system to ultimately rule the whole universe. Because of that, manifest destiny charges to shove our form of democracy down everyone else's throat, because, well, us, and furthermore, well they are inferior to us. That is all for now.