Dominion of Ignorance – July 18, 2010

I decided that today was the day I would break my vow of silence in Sunday School, and attempt to make sense of the teacher’s lesson. Today marked the first Sunday in a while that I have attended Gospel Doctrine, as I have been in the teacher preparation class, and have missed church due to work. That all being said, today’s lesson was supposed to be on unrighteous leaders and how they affect those around them. That’s what the teacher said her class was to be on. Instead, it was about a king who made bad choices that isolated groups of people from his rule. It was a history lesson, mostly, but I decided to draw a comparison between the lesson and our time.

Rehoboam was the son of Solomon. When approached by a certain group of people who felt oppressed under Solomon’s rule, and asked if he would lighten their oppression, he sought the advise of two groups: the guys who had counseled his father, and a new group of advisers who had grown up with him. His father’s advisers told him to serve the people, treat them kindly, and that they would, in return, serve him unendingly. His group of friends told him to be more oppressive and exert his authority over them even more strongly than Solomon did. Rehoboam listened to his friends and made it worse for the poeple. Thus, after receiving such treatment, the people packed up and separated themselves from the remaining tribes.

The comparison I drew from this is that Rehoboam was most likely raised in a king’s court. He most likely knew little of hardship, and did not fully understand the struggles of the people. He most likely had heard his father denounce the people, and had given audience to Solomon’s prejudices and biased opinions. The people, feeling slighted, did not want to stand for it any more and left. Taking Rehoboam’s possible upbringing and comparing it to the church sent quiet discomfort around the room. I told everybody that this same spectacle existed in the church today. That we have members and leaders who come from areas saturated with member and their ideals, saturated with the church so much that every part of their life is permeated with gospel and church lore. Then, those members move to areas, or they are called on missions to areas that are less saturated with church lore. They experience, usually for the first time, the reality that the remainder of the world experiences. They see the openness of sexuality. They see the drinking, the smoking, the swearing, and the difference of dress. They are appalled, and in their disgust they openly denounce the congregation, call everyone to repentance, become overbearing, and create a cycle of unrighteous dominion. They call upon their family, friends, and even other ecclesiastic leaders from back home and are given counsel in ignorance. They are told how horrible the circumstances are, they are told that things need to change, they are reinforced in their opinion of community decadence, and solidified in their idea of the necessity of cleansing. They, like Rehoboam, feel the desire to exert their authority, the need to be the beacon of light to these poor souls and appear as powerful, righteous, and spiritual. However, they usually only appear as overbearing, dominating, and rude. It is no wonder, I said, that people leave these congregations and do not desire further fellowship with the church. What was once a happy and eager congregation with liberal ideals and open understanding and tolerance, is now forced into closed-minded views too full of reservations and false doctrine. Those too simple to see the difference accept it blindly. Some of those who recognize it, shake their heads, accept it as failures of new leadership and continue onward. Others sensitive to the misunderstanding and intolerant of the ridiculousness of the changes leave. A select few, whose testimonies rely on the gospel and not on leaders or the church itself, express their dismay, continually question the closed-mindedness of the leadership and general membership, and try and effect change. Usually they are branded as usurpers, deviants, and at most treated with pity for their misguided lack of closeness with the spirit.

So I shared this with the class, reiterating that certain topics in society such as homosexuality, methods of dress, drinking coffee, tea, or smoking are more accepted and common than in other areas, and that we, as a church, are supposed to be Christlike in all our actions and decisions. There is very little that is Christlike in Rehoboam’s treatment of the Israelites, nor is there a lot of Christlike attitude and behavior in the above mentioned members and leadership. The class was silent. Only a couple were even looking at me. The teacher paused, looked at the class, then continued by stating that it was true that Rehoboam was an unrighteous king. She continued with her history lesson; completely disregarding my point. Instead of being upset, I inwardly laughed.

Too often our attempts to help others understand what is happening around us end in failure. I have tried this many times, but have usually been met with the same responses (or no response at tall). Is it that people don’t want to look at the entirety of the situation and understand what is really happening, or are they too scared that what they now accept as the “one true way” is in fact merely a device created by man to maintain the status quo? I think of the latest topics I have read in blogs and the conversations I have recently had with coworkers and family and really wonder why such blindness exists. I know I have been victim to it along my pathway towards enlightenment, and am still fighting with certain ideas that are eroding the barrier walls I erected to keep out those ideas. But I want to understand, and I am learning. Why can’t other people seem to care about the same thing? Why are they so prone to be as the leaders and members who treat people like Rehoboam did?

Smothered Sexuality – July 5, 2010

Last month, as declared by President Obama, was the month we as a nation are to celebrate the existence and accomplishments of the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgendered crowd. I, being unaware, walked into work and found this nonsense shoved down my throat, and was told to be happy for them. Ok…but I guess I miss the point. If someone is Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, or Transgendered, what does that have to do with their accomplishments? What does it matter if they are heterosexual or homosexual? They are accomplished and I will applaud that, but I don’t understand the necessity of celebrating their sexuality. We don’t celebrate heterosexual accomplishments, and in fact it has been declared against EEO practices to even bring up heterosexual activities. If someone talks too much about their heterosexualness, they are reprimanded, disciplined, and often fired. It’s ridiculous.

I love my LGBT counterparts. I think they are wonderful people, but I don’t define them by their sexuality, nor do I see their accomplishments in life as being due to their sexuality. When I have to arrive at work and have someone’s sexuality crammed down my throat just because they are considered a minority group, I find it inconsiderate, counterproductive to their cause, and overall inappropriate.

I know that there are many people who advocate for the case of equality for all those of the LGBT crowd. I applaud such efforts, and hope they continue. I hope that equality is granted to everyone, and that people are judged for what they do and do not do. But the problem with this month is we are not celebrating those who advocate the equality of LGBTs and heterosexuals, but instead we are celebrating the lifetime accomplishments of those who have publicly announced and embraced their homosexuality. We are not celebrating their fight for the “cause” but instead are pinning up their lifetime accomplishments as though they are in some way accomplished because they are in fact homosexuals. This is absurd.

Ever-Present Love – July 4, 2010

So today, while attending priesthood class, we had one of those rare exchanges of ideas that seldomly occur in Elder’s quorum. The instructor asked whether God’s love was different for one person or another. This question caused some in the class to stammer and clam up, while two of began a little in-class debate.  Ultimately this is what we decided: God’s love is ever-present. It exists throughout the universe in its entirety. There is no variation to it, and it is available to everyone. That being said, we then discussed why it is that some have more than others. We decided that it is due to circumstance and choice. Our circumstances dictate which of the environmental blessings we can enjoy: places of birth, gene pools, educational possibilities, etc. These are things we cannot always control. But the most far reaching difference between each of us is our ability to tap into the love that God has for us. It is our choices that limit our capability to receive and enjoy the fullness of His love. He does not hold himself back…we keep Him out. He has a set of laws, and along with those laws he has promised certain blessings for our obedience to them. Thus, when we obey Him, we lessen the restraints that keep us isolated from the greater experience of His love.

I began thinking, on my own, how this relates to our love, and determined that love is limited in 2 ways. To start, let me declare that love is love. If we love, we love. There is no variation in our love, but all love is conditional. And here are the 2 ways love is conditioned: by our own ability to love and by another’s ability to receive it. If we are so self-absorbed and uncaring that we cannot function at the greater levels of love, we will not be able to demonstrate them. Is our love still existent? Of course, but it may never extend beyond Tolerance or Appreciation. Certainly we will Respect some things, but if we do not open ourselves to the greater powers of love, we cannot demonstrate them. And what about another’s inabiliity to receive our love? Just like God’s love, all love exists, but is conditioned upon there being something to love. God’s love is available to all because he loves all His creations and wants what is best for them. Our love, in a similar way, is available to all those things that we find attractive and beneficial. If we do not like something (such as it not exhibiting the qualities we admire or respect) it will not warrant our love. It can clamor, it can struggle, it can attempt to force our love, but until and unless it displays those things we choose to love, it will not be worthy or able to receive our love.

I don’t know if anybody else can possibly understand what this all means, but I find it phenomenal.

Void of emotion 1 – June 20, 2010

It has been a while since I continued my explanation about love.  More and more I am understanding that people just don’t know what love is. I find this sad, but at the same time I understand it. Most of my life I have been taught that love is love. Then I was told love is emotion. Then I was told love is a power. Then I was told that love in undefinable. Then I was told that love will save us all. Okay. Which is it?

I am developing a headache. It is late, but I cannot sleep for another hour or so, so I must do something. I find it hard to believe that we confuse so easily the emotions that love conjures and love itself. We know that emotion is fickle, unreliable, and shifty. We know that emotion does not last, but we still seek to define love as emotion. Absurd. Yes, it gives us wonderful emotions, but sometimes it gives us horrible emotions. Usually we aren’t kidding when we say that love stinks. Sometimes it really does. But love is not emotion…it is an edifying force. It is the force that builds everything from buildings, to people, to wind, to relationships, and on and on and on. Everything that is constructed is done through love. And is this odd? It shouldn’t be. Think of any situation that you truly can define as loving. What is happening? Someone is trying to build something else up; trying to support something; trying to make something better; trying to increase the possibility of someone being in their life. In all these situation someone is attempting to edify something, and that force we use to accomplish our desires is love. I don’t know about other people, but when I am loving my car by washing it, or having its oil changed, there is not a whole lot of emotion involved. When I am teaching my girl how to read, there is not a whole lot of emotion involved in the teaching (but there certainly is a lot of frustration involved about the process). What I want people to understand is that love is much more than we allow it to be.

Another trying night – June 14, 2010

Tonight there was another accident.  One man, determined not to lose his opportunity to light a cigarette, unbuckled his seatbelt and proceeded to rummage around on the floor of his truck while travelling along at a high rate of speed.  Unfortunately for him and two other individuals, there were two trucks in front of him. Now, I saw unfortunately, but it was actually rather fortunate that he unbuckled his seatbelt, because if he had not, he would most likely have been sheered in half as the trailer of the truck in front of him sliced through the cab of his truck. As it was, he was knocked between the two front seats and pinned there. He may lose his legs and certainly lost a lot of blood, but he is alive. But his legs, millions of dollars of cargo later, thousands of dollars of medical expense, and multiple people in anguish all over a dropped cigarette lighter and the need for another nicotine fix.

I feel physically drained and emotionally tried. I don’t feel all that much emotion about the actual accident, but I do reflect upon how much distraction we allow in our lives and how often we seem to crash into others as we continue on our way without seeing what is in front of us. Had this driver known what was in front of him, perhaps he would have obeyed the speed limits, slowed down like everyone else was doing, and would have saved his legs and truck. There is a morale here, but I don’t want to pinpoint it so simply. Draw from it what you will. I am just tired, and I have seen enough blood today to want to think about it any more.

Jipped? – June 10, 2010

Last night I had a nice argument with the wife concerning a comment one of her friends used on her facebook page. I thought the comment was inappropriate since it utilized cultural slur. The word was jipped. Now, part of my wife’s argument is that it wasn’t spelled like “gypped”, but I killed that excuse very quickly. The wife then reiterated that she was sure no offense was meant, but when I asked her that if the friend had instead said that she felt, “jiewd” would it make it any better, she said it was different. But it isn’t different. Gypped refers the interactions with the Gypsy crowd and the sense of being cheated or of having received less than a fair trade. It is somewhat similar to the “jewed” comment others use to signify that they have received less than they desired from a transaction, or that someone has been overly frugal or cheap.

Just because we don’t understand the intentions or full meaning of what we say, does not excuse us when using the phrase. It is a phrase stereotyped for a specific cultural group, and as such is highly inappropriate. So I wondered, how many more of these phrases do we use without realizing it?

Unconditional Love – June 9, 2010

Unconditional Love

Like bandits without a clue, we hold love hostage.  First we attempt to blindfold its holder, and then bind the holder’s hands and mouth so as to restrain any negative or conflicting behavior.  Then we subtly whisper deceits into their ear with all the vile putrid we can spew about how much they will lose if they do not comply.  Then we sit back and expect things to pan out in our best interest.   And perhaps they do. . . . just not like we want them to.

I heard one person say that if some second person really cared for him that she would grant him a special favor.  It was nothing sinister or relatively inappropriate, but it was a little absurd. Perhaps it was in jest, but with the look on his face I highly doubted it was a joke.  So I waited for the response, and as it crept across the face of the second individual, I laughed.  I could see the indecision reflecting upon the face of the second, even as the elation of success overcame the face of the first.  I could see the second weighing the choices before her, even while watching the first display his undoubted assurance that this truly was a necessary display of affection and love.  Then I watched the dismay overshadow the elation as the second responded with a no.  Oh, the betrayal that filled the room and the first responded with an adolescent “fine”, and left. The second remained with a guilty conscience and fallen countenance. I found it sort of funny.

I wonder just how often we hold love hostage like this.  Whether in the work place, at home, at school, the store, with our children, church, or wherever we are we constantly hold others hostage by their supposed love for us, and threaten them with the withdraw of our love.  And we speak correctly:  we will stop edifying them if they do not comply, just as their denial to edify us in our desired fashion will leave us unfulfilled, and in part destroyed.  Thus the guilt and frustration of denial.  But the ultimate question we should be asking is whether or not it is unjust or inappropriate for us to deny?

It never ceases to amaze me that we condition our love and that of others on the most ridiculous things.  We tell people that they do not love us because they do not cater to a particular whim, but deny that they could possibly love us more than they love our pleasure.  We deny the idea that their behavior is a reflection of their greatness, and instead seek to make it a display of the greatness we wish to experience regardless of what it costs them.  And we see this with parents and their children, lovers and their beloved, teachers and students, bosses and employees, waitresses and patrons, etc.  Is it appropriate for us to put conditions on our love?

We talk about unconditional love between parents and children.  We seek the same sort of love with spouses and best friends.  We just don’t always expect it from ourselves. With an unconditional love, we will consistently seek the edification of our beloved despite any action or decision they make. We will try and help them be the best they can be, but we are not always to altruistic as we hope to be. It isn’t rarely that I hear someone complain that they have loved someone for so long and have received no fruit from the tree. I see parents depressed because they lack reciprocity from the child they supposedly love unconditionally. I am not saying the love no longer exists. What I am trying to demonstrate is that the love is no longer unconditional when the first party is actually seeking some sort of reciprocity for their love. How could it be? Anytime there is an expectation for return, the attempt is not unconditional. Unless we are careful, such a thing easily turns into distress, and we slack the intensity of our love so much that is almost ceases to exist.

Unromantic Love – June 8, 2010

Yesterday, while travelling, I began wondering how likely it would be that people accept my philosophy of love and hate rather than reject it. How much mental strain it would take to change their mode of thought, and how difficult would it be to release them from the unstable emotional standard usually accepted as the definition of Love. While in this thought, it occurred to me that much of the problem lies in our idea that Romance and Love are somehow equal.  I am not merely talking about the sensational and erotic form of Romance that gives us the sexually elating experiences we all crave, but more I am speaking about the Romantic idea in general. From flowers, to poetry, to language, to the lively pixy-like dance people do when beginning to date, to the idealistic and adventurous experiences surrounding the idea we accept as Romance. This all began during one of the rare occasions I turned on the radio. Mostly the songs bore me, and fill me with a dread of confusion. But this song made me think. It stated that Love is unstoppable.  Now I wondered what in the world the singer was trying to state, and realized that the song was about Romance and true Love’s ability to uphold a desire by persevering through the stormy trials seeking to detour it. What I began wondering is how confusing such a statement is.

Love is eternal. That is easily accepted. It will persevere through anything, but it will not always remain directed in the same direction. As we live emotionally, when the sensation weakens or we become accustomed to it, we begin to wander or seek something more extreme. We want to feel something greater, and often complain that the joy and exhilaration of love has waned. But we are mistaken. Love has not waned, disappeared, or changed at all. Love is unchangeable. It just exists. The intensity by which we utilize it, however, will change.  Our boredom, frustration, and feelings of offense will distract the direction in which we utilize our love. And thus, to say that Love is unstoppable in the context of the song is somewhat misleading. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that we, being consistent with our love, are unstoppable. It is we who persevere through the storms of life to maintain our loving objective. Love gives us the tools and erupts the sensationally emotional and mental criteria that keep us on tract, but we ourselves are the culprit behind our endurance. Love is merely a tool that keeps us moving forward.

So I thought about Romance and Love, and concluded that most of us confuse the two. Love edifies, and as simple as that seems, many will reject it. Romance is the idealistic sentiment, the fantastic imagination, the fascination and attachment we develop for someone or something else.  And though we use Love to edify that Romance and keep it thriving, the two concepts are not equal or similar. I have stated before that there is no passion in Love, and that remains correct. Love is a force that edifies, just as Hate is a force that destroys. They have no other direction, but we do, and the various parts of the soul of man will direct each force to accomplish its desires. If our desires prove to be everlasting, our love will appear unstoppable simply because we will not cease to edify our beloved. Love will increase the Romance. Love will keep us ahead. Love will push us to endure the trials, and Hate will keep away deterrents. Ultimately, Love and Hate together will make US unstoppable, not the other way around.

Sexual Identity? – June 6, 2010

I’m tired of the whole sexuality battle. I think it’s great that people are so comfortable with their sexual preference that they don’t feel the need to hide it, but why in the world should I care about it? How ridiculous to label yourself by a sexual preference. Does that really make up who you really are? Are you worth something special simply because you are the best practicing hetero or homosexual person around? Does it really up your self-worth to know that you are either causing others discomfort, going against the mainstream, settling into a crowd, or simply to know you are not alone? It seems to me that it is better to be defined by our industriousness and our accomplishments. Sure, we can be accomplished in achieving the civil liberties and equal rights for a certain sexually oriented crowd, but we don’t have to be a participant in that crowd to receive the accolades. Or perhaps they are as ostracizing and bias as other crowds towards those not of their same persuasion. Really, I don’t care who the latest person some celebrity is going to sleep with. What does it matter? Sexual orientation doesn’t make someone a better actor, better athlete, better news caster, better singer, better parent, better anything. Well, maybe it will make you a better lover of your beloved, but really . . . why do people care so much.
I know the arguments that heterosexuals do not understand the plight of the homosexual because their practices are acceptable to the common public, and therefore not as what? Important? Or just not as inflammatory? I still see it as a steamy load of prime steer manure. There are plenty of heterosexual couples that feel that they must hide their relationship for fear of public ridicule. We are still a society obsessed with skinniness, and some people feel ashamed to be attracted to anyone less than the “ideal” person. There are those turned on by s/m, bondage, nerds, and other groups not usually part of the “in” crowd who remain hidden. But though they may want to be in the open, are they? Some may be, but sexual practice has generally been accepted as something between the couple, and not something that needs to be shared with the perverted and voyeuristic crowd. Our personal pleasures are our personal pleasures. Why must we attempt to push them on other people or receive acceptance for them? Really, who should care? None of us should care.
I agree that there are certain moral implications for certain behaviors as defined by church and state. As a whole, a lot of our ideas are still deep grained in traditional Christianity. But the more people deviate from the foundation of Christianity, the more accepted these practices come into society. Whether the sexual practice is morally reprehensible is not the issue. The public display and announcement of the practice is deplorable. When it comes down to it, who cares? Nobody. Only those seeking a pornographic style fix from the lifestyle of another. Only those who cannot find a personal identity outside the identities given by others. Only those who want the fame, the enjoyment of the shock factor, and who are not satisfied with individual glory. I understand the desire to be part of a cause, but just as I heard one person once say to me that they would vote for a woman or black man for president simply because they were a woman or black regardless of their politics or whatever harm they would do the country, and they would vote for them to be able to tell their children that they were part of the movement that elected the first woman or black man to the U.S. presidency, the sexual arguments and declarations are just as foolish.

Self-Confidence – June 4, 2010

Tonight I had a discussion about why my heart is so closed, and why I don’t seem to want to let others into it. Well, it was more like an argument than a discussion, but same principle. The truth of the matter is that I want to let others into my heart . . . but I can’t: my heart won’t allow it. But not for the reasons most would think. It is possible to penetrate stone cold barriers that surround me, but it take a very special key to do that; a key that most of the people around me do not possess. That key is self-confidence.

I am not speaking about someone who is an arrogant turd, or who thinks that others are less than they are simply because they cannot produce the same thing. What I am referring to is the person who knows who they are, knows what they can do, knows the best and worst about themselves, and who is confident enough to stand tall and declare it without the necessity of comparison to others. It doesn’t matter that one person is a better carpenter than another. It doesn’t matter that one person can sing louder and more sweetly than another. It doesn’t matter if one person appears to have a more commonly pleasing physique than another. What matters is what we think, what we know, and what we truly accept as truth.

I am sick of hearing the false and deceiving humility many of us spew. We depreciate our achievements to others in hopes that they will refute our declaration and tell us how wonderful of a job we did. I don’t mean this to say that we cannot see the flaws in our work, and as such we should almost expect others to see them as well, but we shouldn’t announce them with the false intention of having someone refute us. In essence this is setting someone up to call us a liar, and we are the ones who produced the object. How pathetic of us.

Why can’t we accept that we are good? Why can’t we acknowledge that we can be really great at whatever we do, even if we are not perfect at it yet? Why don’t more people spend time trying to know themselves instead of comparing everything to everything else? If you ask someone if their work is any good, most will respond with something that says: “well I’m not as good as that guy, but. . .” or “I don’t think I’m all that good, but what do you think?” It makes me sick. Frankly, it shouldn’t matter what others think as far as us knowing whether or not we are good. It should matter what they think as far as popularity or marketability goes, but ultimately so what? We are good, and if what we produce is the best we can produce, it shouldn’t matter if others don’t like it. Find a new audience if you need one, but don’t let someone else depreciate the best you can do simply because they compare it to something else that someone with more experience, more possible talent, or someone more conventional is able to do.

I don’t understand all the self-deprecation that is going on. If you tell me you think your work is crap, then despite what I think of it, I will agree that it is crap. Do not insult me by giving me something that you think is less than the best you could produce under the circumstances that existed when you produced it. You endorse a produce with your name, it better be a reflection of your own personal worth; and if your worth is what causes you do stand before me and declare that you think your work is not your best or not good enough for you, then why in this world would I care to have it, see it, or much less comment on it?