New Years Restitution: Positivity and Consistency

This last year I've published upwards of 20 articles and thoughts on difficult subjects, and really hit my friends' Facebook pages hard with a philosophical, but overall negative undertone behind it all. The other day I saw an old friend that is now married (it's been three years since we last met) and the first thing he said was "man, your posts on Facebook are obnoxious." I didn't ask him to clarify what he meant, whether it was that my posts themselves are bringing negativity into his news feed, or if it was just that I tend to post a lot and get comments, but I get the message: something has to change. Not for the sake of my blog, but for the sake of my friends.

So, granted that I am going to continue to blog this year, and hopefully have many more views than the 1,200 or so views I got this year (which was awesome), I am going to change my attitude and tone in this blog for the year. I want to compliment cases in which there has been good communication and analyze why it was good.

This change will present its challenges if I want to reach my goals; much of the online community feeds on nasty occurrences and criticism. I feel that most of my viewers have looked for that reason, and I have admittedly cooked up a smorgasbord of it with some vindication for dessert.

Now, every once in a while there may be a topic that I feel is good to report my thoughts on, and not ALL of my posts will fit this criteria, but the vast majority will go along these lines.

So, if anyone wishes to help me find material to write about, I would be much obliged. The idea is to find articles that discuss:

• Disagreements that ended well
• Tough topics discussed civilly
• Arguments avoided through good communication
• Encouraging positive reinforcement as opposed to punishment
• Personal reflection on self improvement via communication
• News articles that praise similar actions 
• You get the idea

Feel free to contact me via Facebook at Facebook.com/ListenFirstThenSpeak or via email at c.kent.lp@gmail.com.

Thank you for having read my blog, I hope that in some way it has had a positive effect on your life and a desire to communicate more effectively and openly.

Happy 2015!!

Gay Marriage According to Kant

Utah’s recent ban on gay marriage has been repealed by Federal Courts. The claim is made that marriage can be redefined based on the sexual orientation of the couple in order to not oppress those who are homosexual. It is obvious that the courts do not follow the ideology of Immanuel Kant in making its decisions because when one analyzes what a categorical imperative entails and screens the maxims used to support the legalization of gay marriage through the qualifications, one will discover that it cannot be legalized morally according to Kant.

Kant explains the beginnings of morality as well as how to achieve it. He purports that nothing in and of itself can be inherently good minus goodwill itself; all things can be used for good and evil with that one exception. He affirms that the purpose of reason is to help mankind achieve and discover that goodwill because all of our needs as humans have attached to them instincts to spur us on to meet them, while goodwill is not a need per say. Reason helps us to understand goodwill and to find happiness by making moral decisions that adhere to our goodwill. Kant defines the highest sense of morality as a categorical imperative which has three formulations.

The first formulation is that a moral act must be universally achievable without instigating any sort of contradiction. Killing oneself out of self pity, for example, defeats the purpose of self pity in the first place and therefore contradicts the very meaning of itself. Therefore suicide is not moral according to Kant. Also, Kant does not allow exceptions to a rule, therefore killing oneself for some noble cause still would not qualify for him as moral. He would assert that not only under his first formulation, but also under the second, which is that a moral act cannot use other people as means only, as opposed to being an end in and of his or herself. The suicidist uses his own self as a means, and thus disqualifies his action for fitting the categorical imperative. The third formulation is that anyone who declares an act moral must be willing to abide by the same, thus creating what he calls a kingdom of ends. Each and every member of the kingdom must follow the moral code as logic calls for. This also shows that suicide could not be considered moral, because anyone who thinks it moral must abide by the rule and kill himself in order to be moral. Some actions will qualify partially as a categorical imperative by satisfying one or two of the requirements, but in truth all three requirements must be met in order for Kant to assert that the action is moral. That is why he included all three formulations in his definition of categorical imperatives.

To discuss the morality of legalizing homosexual marriage, one must remember the definition of the word to be able to seek contradictions in any maxim given to support or refute the notion. Marriage has been defined in different ways throughout the course of its existence, but has been understood as the unit in which families are created and raised and entails having multiple parents/spouses present. Some cultures have declared it to being between only one man and one woman, whereas other cultures have deemed it just for one man to marry multiple women. The idea of polygamy, if the kingdom of ends wants to find itself achieved, must allow for a woman to marry multiple men as well. For polygamy to satisfy the first formulation it must exclude the option of someone marrying someone else that is already married, or a situation could arise in which a man married to three women married to three men individually who in turn have married three wives apiece etc. Marriage would therefore be a formality and nothing more, and basically it would cease to exist, especially if we were to make polygamy universal. On the other hand, marriage between one man and one woman would be moral seeing that everyone can do so and no contradictions present themselves.

Now there are people that intend to call a homosexual relationship “marriage”. Essentially, they want to redefine marriage to fit their own purposes, while affirming to allow others the same option, and therefore passing the formulation of the kingdom of ends. However, they have opened up a new can of worms here: if one person can redefine marriage to satisfy their fancy, that means that everyone must be able to in order to fulfill the first formulation. If this is true, a man who desire to marry his dog could argue that marriage should not be limited to humans because animals have rights and he longs for his companionship to be legally recognized. Since the formulations cannot be conditional, regardless of how many people agree or disagree with him he must be given that right to choose. Going back to our previous example of polygamy, a polygamist could also argue that she is bisexual and desires to have multiple partners in her marriage of both genders; all seven of them love each other and wish to engage in a four man and three woman marriage. Marriage would then mean that anyone can group living things together regardless of number and the state must recognize it as a marriage. This creates a question as to why we have marriage in the first place if the definition is subject to drastic change to fit contemporary views or personal opinion. However, the idea of civil union, which differs from marriage and is designed for those who wish to live together but whose relationship does not qualify for the term “marriage” allows for such people to have that union without inciting contradictions in logic.

Taking the last maxim one step further, if one can redefine marriage, the maxim must be universal to qualify as a categorical imperative. Therefore, if a person can redefine marriage, they must also allow for the redefinition of other words as well. This maxim would disseminate the very utility of language. Granted, connotations have changed over time, such as the word “gay”, which used to mean “happy” and now suggests male homosexuality. The word was used in a different context as a euphemism and now the euphemism has overridden the initial definition as understood by society. That is very different from changing the word “borrow” to include stealing by calling theft “borrowing without asking”. If marriage can be redefined as including the option of homosexuality, then theft could become simply borrowing because it is close enough that we can begin to use the words interchangeably. Therefore, the concepts of stealing and borrowing become one, as would marriage and civil union. Mixing definitions creates contradiction.

Moving on from the legal semantics of marriage, let us discuss the universal implications of homosexual marriage. Seeing as those following Kant’s theory aspire to live in a kingdom of ends, they must live in a manner that everyone else can adopt as well. Therefore, a person who chooses to only live in a homosexual lifestyle cannot be a member of said kingdom because if the whole human race were to do the same we would have no following generations unless we were to force certain individuals to have children, thus making them a means and not ends. Remember that allowances cannot be made based on circumstances according to Kant, even if those circumstances are emotional and physiological differences or sexual preference. However, if everyone were to submit to the idea that marriage is heterosexual regardless of sexual orientation, no contradictions are present. The human race would continue on as normal despite the discomfort of some as moral decisions are known to cause anyway.

Let us say that Kant were to concede one violation of his rule of not making exceptions based on circumstance, and that violation is to allow morals to change based on sexual preference.  Homosexuals claim the right to “marry” each other because they say that homosexuality is a natural inclination that they have. It is difficult for them to overcome it, and anyone who says that they must do so is an oppressor. Their claim written as a universal maxim would read: a person may do as he or she feels and be justified by morality. We have already discussed why homosexual unions cannot be universal, and this maxim follows suit. If human beings redefine morality to mean “how one feels”, serial killers can hold that they feel great pleasure in killing others. They can claim that it is difficult for them to overcome the urge, and therefore laws that prohibit murder are oppressive. As we can see, if we allow one group of people to decide that their struggle to accept one of Kant’s formulations for a categorical imperative and still call it moral, and we allow all others to do so, the purpose of the three formulations would fail. Therefore, there can be no exception made for homosexuals based on their emotions.

To conclude, in order to homosexual marriage to reach the status of a categorical imperative, the redefinition of marriage must be allowed in all instances based on how the person seeking to change the concept of marriage sees fit, and everyone must be able to act based on their emotions and physical desires without legal consequences. These maxims are self contradictory, and therefore homosexual marriage cannot exist morally as a categorical imperative.

Superman Complex: My Struggle With Adoption

With my name I've never been able to avoid being compared to Superman. I'm tall, dark and handsome, wear suits on a regular basis and I, too am adopted by earthly parents. I don't have superhuman strength or x-ray vision. My glasses are much needed, in fact. I don't believe myself better than anyone else, nor do I relate my sense of moral judgement to be supposedly perfect as his is. I can, however, relate to his difficulty in discovering that he was adopted.

Clark Kent and I have similar relationships with our parents. I love my family  to no end. They have done everything in their power to show that they truly love me, and I will always consider them as my mom and dad. This does not change the fact that whenever I fill out medical paperwork asking for family history, I can't answer any of the questions and have to put "no" for my lack of knowledge. It doesn't change the reality of my dilemma when asked what my race is: I'm adopted, and my birth mother claimed to be Cherokee, but due to her circumstances I was not listed as a tribal member according to their paperwork. Outside of two names I know nothing else of my origins just like Clark Kent.

Superman eventually got to meet his father through a miraculous turn off Sci Fi events. It's possible that one day that might happen to me, just slightly more realistically via hard work and legal processes that would take strenuous efforts and months of dedication. It may well be worth it someday when I'm no longer a poor college student.

So how do I deal with the load in the meantime? There is another Father that I've never met, but I've gotten to know very well. My Heavenly Father, who has throughout my life down me that He loves me as an individual. This came to mind again for me today watching the scene in Man of Steel where Superman relates to his mother that he found his father from another planet, and that he learned who he is and what his purpose is in life. It became so much easier for Clark Kent to know what to do with his life based on the advicefrom both sets of parents

Now for all of you skeptics out there that might relate God to a fictional comic book character, you may choose to believe what you will. You can say that I'm just seeking a father figure to hide my inner confusion and that I've imagined that all of this is true. Go ahead and believe so. That does not change what I myself know to be true: that I have felt a greater peace than what I have experienced from any other source in my life when I get on my knees and speak with that "fictional" God. Though not always when I want it, He answers my prayers, whether it be through scripture studies, words or actions of those around me, or random thoughts and feelings that I believe come from Him. 

If you're adopted or orphaned, or just feeling lousy in life with no purpose, I'd like to invite you to try and work with your Heavenly Father to discover who you are and where you come from before the womb. Seek the cold, hard truth as to whether or not God answers your prayers. Don't rely on others telling you that it does or doesn't work for them. Do it yourself. I've learned why I'm here on earth and know that there is  more to this temporary pass through mortality filled with both pleasure and pain.

I hope you can find all the answers that you need, and some that you just want. I still have questions, but I know who can help me resolve them. And like Superman, you can be an even greater force for good in this world.

The Christmas Spirit

Let me talk to you about a very famous man associated with this time of the year.  His story is very well known throughout most of the world. His main goal in life is to bring others joy, and often as children we grow up believing in him, but as life goes on we either forget or he must only be a fairytale because it's too fantastic to be true. He has a beard, kind eyes and always dotes a genuine smile. He is very wise and gives great advice. He knows what is going on in the lives of every human on the planet and loves to reward us for doing good. Especially around December, everyone tries to be a little more like him and feels great peace as they do so, regardless of religious inclination. He loves everyone, and those who believe in him usually have never seen him and go their whole lives without ever accomplishing it. Who am I talking about? Jesus or Santa? 

Some people hate on Christmas because they feel it forces Jesus on everyone. As a Christian, I still understand that you may not want to believe in God for various reasons, and I have no issue with that. To be honest I feel your pain when I see so much of a push for extreme feminism and gay rights. It kind of goes against what I have believed my whole life to an extent (feel free to contact me for clarification because it would take too long to explain in one post.) Given that we all know how it feels to have ideas forced upon us, I'd like to show how a good natured  secular Christmas doesn't differ that much from a good natured Christian one. 

Jesus and Santa are the key; they both personify the attributes that constitute what people see as good. I don't care which one you pick as a role model if you end up doing good things and feeling the peace that I do when I follow the teachings of Jesus. Christmas is about peace on earth and goodwill to men. You don't have to believe in Jesus to want that, and that is what we as Christians are trying to portray when we put up a nativity scene in our lawn or say "Merry Christmas" to you. We aren't trying to say "you have to believe in Jesus because we do". 

So if you're not Christian but you approve of Santa's idealized attitude towards life, you will agree somewhat with the teachings of Jesus. You don't have to worship him like I do, but you can take the time to benefit from the holiday that erupted from the desire to celebrate his birth in your own way. Spend some time with your family and love everyone a little more. 

Merry Christmas, all. Let's all get along. 

Ferguson Misunderstandings

This article has nothing to do with the innocence or guilt of officer Wilson, nor of the demeanor or actions of the late Mr Brown. Those have already been scrutinized and over analyzed again and again for too long. This has to do with what is going through everyone's heads that has made the discussion of the subject so volatile.

I tried to sum up on Facebook in one concise post the thought processes of both sides of the debate; the idea was that those siding with Wilson felt that accusers jumped the gun when they called him racist and violent, while those against him were using emotion from past racist events similar to this were automatically assuming that those accusations were correct. In part, I was right, but I quickly learned that there was a while new dimension to the argument.

I began to comment back and forth with a young man on the post believing my assumptions accurate. He posted an article on the frequency of police indictments, indicating that the court system was rigged in Wilson's favor. I claimed that the frequency of indictments had nothing to do with the innocence or guilt of Wilson and that it was a completely separate issue. He then contested that the prosecutor failed to proceed in an objective and consistent manner with the witnesses, citing sources and they were all pretty legitimate articles. I respond with other newspaper entries and statements made by police officers and whatnot.

The conversion got slightly more heated than calm, but stayed much more civil than my escapade in April about modest clothing. We ended up agreeing that neither one of us had the answer to whether out not be should be indicted or punished for his actions, but we did agree that there are issues with the court system that need to get fixed. We never once even brought up anything about race in our banter, which surprised me a little at first.

I'm glad for the time that I took to slug it out and try to stand my ground on the issue some listening to my opponent by rephrasing what I thought he was trying to say. When I did, he was able to clarify why what I had asserted initially was uninformed and I learned a whole lot. I'm excited to see what my next controversial conversation had to offer for my non formal education about life.

Click here to read the full conversation

I would like to link two events together to pose a moral question

Event #1
A few months ago I had a telemarketing company repeatedly call me asking for some lady that must have had a similar number previous to me having the phone. Having worked in a call center, I was very respectful to each agent add they asked me if I was interested in their products for a disease that I do not have. I understand that they are just doing their job as directed by their employers, and felt no need to attack the agent personally. Mulitple times I requested that they remove me from their calling list, and it finally seems to have worked. Upon researching the small claims court system, I learned that I can receive hundreds of dollars for harassment.

Event #2
In my philosophy class we talked about the McDonald's lawsuit in which the plaintiff initially received multi-million dollar settlements from the company for having 180° coffee burn her severely and costing her $20,000 in surgery from the burns. This was used as a case to lead a cause against tort reform, which limits when and how one can file a class action lawsuit. That can prevent truly innocent people from receiving justice while, it is true, putting a stop to frivolous lawsuits.


My thought process is as follows:

1. Technically I could make some decent money by reporting the company and showing record of the phone calls. By all means I have been harassed by the company
2. I definitely could use some money for college but...
3. I didn't lose $500 worth of time, so receiving that much moolah for my discomfort seems a little steep of a charge. 

So my question is: though I am completely in the confines of the law in pursuing that money, is it moral for me to collect that money? Why or why not? I want to know if my case would be a "frivolous lawsuit" or if it is a valid way to tell companies not to harass people in direct violation of the law. Tell me what you think. 

A Negated Affirmative: Political Duct Tape

The following video is an excerpt from an interview with Thomas Sowell, a Havard graduate who has, throughout the decades, studied and commented on the effects of different actions taken by the government, especially those of feminism, affirmative action and racialism.

The rest of this post is a paper that I wrote in my freshman English class at Southern Virginia University. I don't remember what grade I got on it, but I do feel that it brings up some excellent points. Sowell discusses several of these points in the video, though he talks mostly about how affirmative actions affects the workplace. The focus of my paper was that of college admission and scholarships. 

 http://youtu.be/JENCxjbARFM  

  

A Negated Affirmative 

by Clark Lindsey

Duct tape offers a temporary, superficial and sometimes damaging solution for holding things together. Likewise, affirmative action as applied in the college application process not only sidesteps the underlying issue of equal opportunity, it injures society on a deeper level through a cruel irony; this attempt to defend the rights of minorities has in a twisted, yet predictable way become the driving force of reverse discrimination by diminishing the value of hard work through unwarranted handouts.
  
Affirmative action is defined as action taken to prevent discrimination (be it against race, gender, religion, etc). At the time of the issue of Executive Order 10925, in which affirmative action is first defined and introduced, the circumstances were rather dire for the minority population, with Jim Crow laws and prejudice saturating the system. This order promised minorities better job security, better prospects of being admitted to state-funded colleges, and more superior career possibilities than previously available. But a hidden, then subtle issue arose: how far should we assist the minorities before it has become too much?

Garret Hardin sheds a little light on the subject in his “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor”. He submits a dilemma in which there are fifty people in a lifeboat with room for sixty total and one hundred more people tread the water around the boat. His query follows as thus: “[W]hich 10 do we let in?” (359) Naturally [according to current attitudes towards affirmative action], the minorities deserve our attention and undying devotion, above love of self and the good of society. As today’s connotation of affirmative action asserts, the part-black, part-Native American woman should be among the first admitted, the others being the Atheist homosexual and the illegal immigrant, regardless of the collective importance of their well being. Furthermore, the children of any Congressmen, former or present should be high in consideration because of the status of their parent. Basically, whether or not they have a family, a job, or prior demonstration of academic and/or societal propensities merits little to no significance in comparison to their other, uncontrollable factors like parental status in society, race or gender. Faulty logic clearly grounds that conclusion.

Admission to higher education deserves no more interchangeability between rights and privileges as the lifeboat quandary. Why should minority students be given a leg up over the stereotypical white male unless they have exhibited a finer proclivity in scholastic abilities? Now, before I delve further into this subject, the reader should understand that I represent what I imagine to be one of the smallest minority groups in existence: Cherokee blood runs through my veins, the Mormon religion characterizes my morals, and my parents adopted me from birth. Yet no monies from schools or random institutions, let alone the government pay for my college education based on any of these aspects because I don’t find it ethically correct to accept such funds. I worked long hours at Wal-mart and the local pool to pay for my college, and I find such subsidies non-compliant with affirmative action, seeing as they discriminate recipients based on the very facets that affirmative action forbids. I mention this because hypocrisy doesn’t bode well in academia, and hard work compensates for shortcomings in faculty.
   
The fact that we have the works of Frederick Douglass proves the latter statement. He worked diligently to achieve his goals, and despite dismal circumstances, he succeeded. He was enslaved and sold as live wares for ill-earned gain, yet he reads and writes. Listen to the heartlessness demonstrated by his master and eventually his mistress:
I lived in Master Hugh’s family about seven years. During this time, I succeeded in learning to read and write. In accomplishing this, I was compelled to resort to various stratagems. I had no regular teacher. My mistress, who had kindly commenced to instruct me, had, in compliance with the advice and direction of her husband, not only ceased to instruct, but had set her face against my being instructed by anyone else. It is due, however, to my mistress to say of her, that she did not adopt this course of action immediately. She at first lacked the depravity indispensable to shutting me up in mental darkness. It was at least necessary for her to have some training in the exercise of irresponsible power, to make her equal to the task of treating me as though I were a brute. (Douglass)

Now, I do not contend that slavery rests among even the remotest of viable methods for teaching the value of being proactive, but it induced his “various stratagems” which exemplify hard work and resolve. He worked in a “ship-yard”, utilizing the other boys to learn how to read by challenging their knowledge, contesting that he knew how to read and write better than they, understanding full well that the four letters he had picked up from the labeled boards he worked with didn’t even hold a candle to the skills possessed by those he confronted. This effort epitomizes how people should move up in society; networking logically yields positive results, and humans have a tendency to work harder in adversity.
   
For example, my peoples, the Mormons and the Cherokee, by this nation alone were murdered and driven from their homes because they were different and in the way. Both established new homes, built new lives and moved on, making their plight a part of their tale and vigor—like Douglass, except on a grander scale. Myself, I am adopted, and I jokingly say that my parents picked me off of the clearance rack, and got a handful to deal with, but I still endeavored to become self-sustaining. On a much more serious note, let us not forget the bombings of Hiroshima and the legitimately hellish environment that ensued. Counter-intuitively, “[e]ven while the smoke still rose from the wasteland of total destruction, human goodwill began to go into action as people made their first moves toward recovery and restoration” (289). People push through and become stronger individuals after tribulation, and many different cultures have developed through hardship; therefore, by eliminating financial hardship because of culture you risk redefining the culture as well as encouraging slothfulness. Affirmative actors, as I call those who hypocritically purport to uphold Executive Order 10925, may not realize that giving true handouts to members of minority groups supports laziness—it removes obstacles, and therefore determination and perseverance. The anecdote about giving a man a fish rather than teaching how to fish illustrates my point nicely because of the implication that if we simply give someone in need money to get to college, they have missed the lesson of how to provide for themselves. They will not only expect more in the future, they will become dependent on their supply of fish, and complain loudly and obnoxiously upon its eradication.
   
To conclude, I have always been bamboozled by the legality of questions on college applications that ask for race, nationality, and religion. It makes sense to gather information on gender for housing and social reasons under the names of dating and marriage, but if the others are denied permission to exist in selective policies, why can admissions officials ask these statistics prior to admission? This information should be gathered ad hoc only.
Construe with me an experiment, undertaken by colleges across the nation, in which the same applicants as years previous are reevaluated, minus the controversial information aforementioned. Should one demographic dominate the acceptance rates, the others can then be offered extra help before admittance to college, meaning that they are denied initially, so that the elite of the academic field can compete with the other top scholars and advance society at a faster rate. “It’s ludicrous to say that a student who has not been given the advanced preparation… should expect to be on a ‘level playing field’ and to expect them to do as well as someone who has had the training and support” (qtd. in Dennis).

Apart from the moral reasons for equality, the issue of fairness surfaces as well. Equality is not a direct synonym of fairness or logic, though they often coincide. The government should not make blanket statements concerning fairness because they can only be judged on a case-by-case basis. The title of this essay refers to how the government has nullified its own law by allowing affirmative action to transform into the mishmash it is today. In context, equality means that students should be admitted on both academic and personal merit alone, not on any factor out of their control.

                                                                      

Works Cited:
Dennis, Raoul. “Supreme Court Decision Turning Down Affirmative Action Case Only a Small Victory.” New York Amsterdam News 92.23(2001): 42. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 12 Oct. 2011.
Doulgass, Frederick. “Learning to Read.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. 2nd Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2010. 46-50. Print
Hardin, Garret. “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. 2nd Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2010. 357-67. Print
Oe, Kenzaburo. “The Unsurrendered People.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. 2nd Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2010. 288-91. Print"

Facebook Haters

Having read of the predicament of the English in the 18th century concerning the amount of poor children running through the streets stealing and begging for food, I have come to appreciate greatly the wisdom of Jonathan Swift in addressing the issue. His "Modest Proposal" in 1729 was to eat the offspring of those who are less fortunate as a delicacy, granting the dregs of society money and cleaning up the public walks for those who are more fortunate.

I wish to follow his example in purporting a solution to hate crimes on the Internet. There are some people out there who post ridiculous comments on their Facebook walls that are just outdated and bigoted. These posts include assertions of genuine beliefs that simply offend the general public because they are not politically correct.

We cannot have people posting thoughts and declarations that go against popular notions and common practices. The emotionally sensitive might have hurt feelings.

In fact, I would l like to thank those who on the Internet have placed themselves on a higher plane than those haters who speak their minds on touchy subjects, or make religious creeds known to everyone. These thought police help to make a non-contentious environment for all others on the Internet. It is likely that if they work hard enough they might be able to achieve that which George Orwell predicted in his book 1984 where even one's own children will turn in their parents for breathing out unintentional blasphemies against the government and currently upheld values in their sleep.

I myself have helped in this great cause at times but found that I do not have the time to constantly patrol the pinboards and Twitter feeds for comments that don't aline with my own. After long internal assessment I have found within myself a lack of courage to continue to attack others for what they believe and have only resorted to recounting what I myself believe.

My proposal is thus: if you ever see post with which you disagree,  please respond in the most inflammatory way conceivable without thinking through the long term consequences. Do not keep in mind the feelings or sentiments of the Facebook haters because they are no longer people. Obviously they always intend only harm and never base any of their perspectives on some sort of truth that they may have picked up through their life experience.

Please refrain from using good communicative skills, or doing any research or deep analysis before replying on your news feed. That would require effort and thought,  sometimes even a reflection of your worldview and might cause an annurism in your brain. Kind anecdotes, or rephrasing what you assume the person might be trying to portray (but has failed to do so) surely couldn't do even the slightest bit of good for internet communities. How outlandish!

These hateful people should also be shunned in public for the spiteful actions of speaking their mind that they think that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, or that abortion is wrong except in very critical circumstances, or that welfare should only be given to those who show work ethic and desires to amount to something in life instead of being a free handout for those who dont want to work. They who scourge the earth with such audacity to say what they think is right should be permanently silenced by none other than imprisonment and the removal of their fingers to never bear false witness about their sickly perceived evils of our culture again. I mean, look at the rude and intolerant nature of this next picture! How can people even say something so arrogant?!

Please join with me by sharing this blog post on your Facebook walls, pinboards and other social networking sites to inform the general population in the fastest means possible so that we can rid ourselves of free speech Nazis that aggravate us by refusing to conform to our wishes. Then maybe we can go back to posting about frivolous things like fashion, professional sports games and comedic performances on American Idol while ignoring important debates and denying the reality of pressing problems that plague our pages with pilfering profanity like traditional values. Cuss words, violence, and pushing pornographic images are much more suitable to our purpose of raising the next generation in peace and understanding. Try to promete those, too. I see that some of us have already caught on to that movement. Keep up the good work!

With an extreme attitude of sarcasm and a prayer that if you have read this you understand what is implied here,

Clark Lindsey, a recovering Facebook Police Expert

Disclaimer: there really are people out there who hate on others using social media. Those people are still human beings, but their actions should not be tolerated. Help put a stop to cyber bullying, but in a nice way. Though three lefts do, two wrongs do not make a right. Often those who harass others are insecure themselves, and as I have discussed in this post, it is possible to go too far on the offensive in the name of justice.

(Scroll down and read my other posts to learn more about my personal escapades and the mistakes of myself and others. Nobody is perfect, but we can all progress if we try! I am amenable to constructive criticism, so feel free to contact me with ideas. If they're messed up I simply won't respond and delete your comments, so please don't waste our mutual time with real hateful remarks. Sarcasm is appreciated to an extent.)

Moral Relativism: Evidence That God Exists

Having studied different moral theories of Kant, Aristotle, John Stuart Mill, and others in my philosophy class, it has astounded me that these incredibly intelligent men differ by such large margins in defining right and wrong. Deontologists like Kant claim that exceptions can't be made on moral laws based on circumstances; if something is not moral in some circumstances it isn't ever moral. Consequentialists like Mill assert that the ends justify the means; sometimes actions that are immoral in some circumstances are moral if they bring about greater happiness when all is said and done.

Most compelling movies and TV shows will present these competing moral claims to make the viewer try to discern for his or her own self good from evil. Often the villain will purport that his actions are only to bring world peace or to grant the people freedom, but his method is to kill millions of innocents in the process. Other times it is the hero that decides to forego killing the villain because they believe that killing is always wrong,  but their mistake also costs the lives of many bystanders or friends as a consequence.

These moral dilemmas,  and the widely variant responses concerning what should be done, often create societal discord about politics and religion or the lack thereof. Our differences as human beings sometimes lead to war or governmental coups, family feuds or neighborhoods and church congregations shunning some members. Obviously humanity is divided over issues such as abortion, gay marriage, guns, animal rights, religion, stem cell research and myriad other topics, and that is only taking into account current national views on the matters,  let alone global views that have changed over time and vary by location. Just think about how chaotic it would be if every human being ever to exist were to sit in a council to decide right and wrong by unanimous vote.  It would never happen.

Despite this idea,  each person generally tries to do what is good, with many exceptions,  but even wicked people tend to justify their actions in side way shape or form. This notion of doing what is right comes from what in the LDS church is labeled as the "light of Christ", or the inner feelings that one has to follow God and be a good person, also known as a conscience to the secular world. Everyone has a conscience even if they chose not to listen to its advice. Even amongst all the arguing and bickering over right and wrong there are some pretty universal constants in the moral world. Lying for the sake of lying is not moral, nor is killing innocent people. Taking that which belongs to someone else is also immoral. However because there are exceptions of people not caring about others and placing personal survival as the number one priority, relying on humanity by itself to truly define right and wrong is not possible. This is partiality due to the fact that when other people place their moral emphasis in a different way it is a man's nature to claim that the other people have used flawed or corrupted logic to reach their conclusions.

Now,  part of God's nature is that He understands everything perfectly and makes no logical errors ever. Let's out it this way: God understands the workings of the entire universe of which mankind through its "science" hasn't even been able to indisputably outline the parameters. He knows a lot more than all of mankind put together and has an eternity of experience using that knowledge and dealing with humans via creation and seeing world's come and go. Granted that His knowledge is without fault, He had the right and ability to discern good from evil perfectly and completely. Man does not have that right,  never had had the right and honestly never will have the right. Therfore, God can instruct man on moral issues and by following His directions man can live a moral life.

Why do I claim that moral relativism evinces the existence of God? Because man does indeed affirm that good and evil exist, but cannot agree upon the line between the two. In order for morality to exist,  there must be a method to define it universally otherwise morality becomes nothing more than opinion, and if that's the case nothing is immoral because someone will always have a different opinion. Since morality and opinion do not equal each other, a party outside of humanity must dictate morality and immorality, and the party must comprehend every situation fully to make the judgement call. The only being ever conceived that can do so is God Himself.

I then approached my professor with this hypothesis and inquired to hear what rebuttals philosophers might give to this question.  His response is that atheists will claim that God doesn't exist, but that only means that atheists do not believe in morality, rather in opinion alone. If that is the case than those that believe in no God could potentially assert that they can do no wrong in their own eyes, which means that laws exist purely as social contracts and not to prevent evil from prevailing in society.

I believe in God for more than rationalizations, but sometimes it is nice to hear logic that supports my convictions. If all of this was worded strangely and hard to understand I will try to sum it up in one sentence. People believe in good and evil but can't agree on the parameters, making morality a matter of opinion. In order for pure morality to exist it would have to be universal and not change based on social acceptability as it tends to do with mankind. God can see all things clearly enough to be able to outline the distinct between right and wrong. Therfore if you believe in morality you believe in God or in the least a supreme being.

Standing Up While Sitting Down

I hold hope for the communicative skills of the rising generation after yesterday's Life and Ethics class discussion about abortion. This topic is heavily debated upon,  and I specifically have not yet posted on it for good reason. The only reason I have chosen to talk about it today is because I was able to see my very culturally diverse class go head to head without being at each other's throats. Opinions clearly differed even amongst those of the same religion, and, as usual, my opinion presented a lonely outlier for the group that certainly sparked people's interest and got some individuals who normally don't speak in class to repeatedly raise their hands to respond to my viewpoint. In fact,  the whole class turned from asking the professor questions to asking yours truly what I believed,  and, to their credit, even why I held my beliefs.

Normally when you hear about this kind of occurrence in a church magazine the writer will portray the discussion as a crucial missionary experience, which in a sense I guess it was, but the church has no official stance on abortion that I am aware of, so I kind of was on my own and representing me myself and I. So was everyone else,  and the battle was indeed for truth's sake. As students presented their individual arguments, other students would call them out for using logical fallacies  such as over generalizations or assumptions on what a person might believe if they belong to a particular faction of beliefs. Then the original student would respond to the refutation with a defense for their argument and the truth of the matter slowly sifted itself out. My standpoint in particular was attacked brutally, but not in an insulting manner. As was I, my questioners only sought to know what was right and what was wrong.

We had ask read three articles on the subject and they all failed to mention abstinence from sex as a preventative measure for abortion. Each in turn laid out why or why not the woman has a moral right to decide to end a potential human life because her financial circumstances are difficult or her mental health isn't where it should be in order to make it through the nine month pregnancy let alone motherhood. This mindset is bright about by the labeling of the two sides of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: either you believe in preserving life or maintaining free agency. This is not the case. Many people fall somewhere generally in the middle of the spectrum on this topic.

For instance, in my case I believe the woman does have a choice concerning how to treat her own body; different in my opinion however is that I believe that choice comes before having a child as opposed to after becoming pregnant. This view was partially accepted but everyone's concern was that people in general enjoy having sex, so they wondered if I thought sex was a bad thing. I appreciated this question because it gave room to eliminate misunderstanding. Very important in clear communication.

I don't believe that it is bad. I believe that it is something to take into consideration that the biological reason we can procreate is to have children. If the only motive for having sex is to have fun and experience enjoyment one must weigh out the risks, just as one must determine if skydiving or riding a roller coaster is worth the risk. Though safety precautions may be in place,  accidentes happen. I love roller coasters, but each time I get on one I have to accept the possible consequences of my decision.

Nobody liked the answer, but no one could refute it either. Morality comes down to the idea of setting priorities: which ideals must be upheld above all others? if physical pleasure is number one and avoiding having a baby is farther down the list, then go ahead and do what you will. If your priority is to have a career and never have children, then to play it safe you may be celibate your whole life. Seeing the question of abortion as such a matter of deciding whether or not to have unprotected sex and dealing with the results makes the debate rest only on cases of rape and severe health threats for the woman. A person always maybe free to choose whether or not to sacrifice his or her life for that of another.

Anyway that was my standpoint and when the class ended five or six students approached me to explain that they disagreed with me but that we had had a very good conversation concerning the matter and today heard things they had not considered before. They expressed to me their wishes not to offend me in anyway shape or form and that I was not a monster in their eyes for holding my ground. This exhibits a rather different human characteristic than what I have seen before when making a stand as my previous posts show. During the whole conversation it was blatant that emotions were high for everyone,  but no one insulted each other or set up strawman arguments. People admitted any flaws that they had in their argument, and I feel that the class grew wonderfully from having the conversation. We were all able to set one priority straight: respecting those around us and establishing healthy relationships (not a dominant and submissive relationship nor a constant battle for it to become such) heavily outweighs being right all the time.

Dealing With Disagreement Like Christ Would

Today I wish to discuss a topic which pains me very much: religious and political disagreement. It is such a touchy thing to talk about, and everyone seems to have their own explanation for our own beliefs. When someone questions our beliefs we become defensive and often don't listen to what the other person has to say. Likewise, when we attack someone the beliefs of someone we know, consciously or not, it can damage the relationship. We often have a greater love for truth than we do for our own friends. That, I believe, is the issue at hand, not necessarily the truths over which the world constantly bickers and squabbles.

Discussion is good, and I encourage it. It will always come to a point where we will have differing opinions on even the tiniest issue, and we can and should seek to enlighten those around us so that we can agree if we choose.

I am a verbally political person in that I am not afraid to state my beliefs loud and clear. I served a mission for the LDS church for two years and endured many extraordinarily difficult things for my beliefs. I was accused of everything under the sun, from being a Satan worshiper, to being a liar, and even to being a spy. These were all people that I had dedicated my time to help have a happier life, but they refused to see it that way. I shared the exact same knowledge with everyone. But many desired that I not so much as converse with them because of my religious affiliation.

Other people really didn't want to listen to my message either, but they did want to feel loved. They would rough it out through my myriad attempts to help them understand the universe in a light more similar to my own and feed my companions and I delicious lunches and snacks in the process, frequently sacrificing their skimpy funds in order to do so. They overcame their prejudices against "los mormones" chasing people down in the streets and found within themselves the great love that we all have deep down one for another, and they acted on it. In return, we would wake up early in the morning and put on grubby clothes to get on their unfinished roofs and help them to lay a cement ceiling for their home. We would go to their shops, give them of our business day in and day out, help them receive shipments and meet new people as we sat on bags of dog food eating sandwiches. They invited us to meet their families, and to this day I hold very precious and sacred those times and people. They are part of my family, now. I learned that by giving of my might, mind, strength and soul to those who affirm that they never will accept my teachings, I can forge lasting friendships with those people, and I wouldn't exchange those relationships for any money or gift possible to receive in this world or the next.

I believe in Jesus Christ, and that the LDS church is His religious organization. I will stand to that belief until I meet Him face to face. It is not a perfect knowledge that this is true, but a firm and steadfast belief indeed (double entendre intended). You don't have to. There is a lot of good in a lot of different organizations that agree to disagree with us. I do expect you to come to grips with one irrefutable truth, however. Brotherly and neighborly love is the most fulfilling of all qualities, especially when it is mutual.

"1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

 4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

 8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

--1 Corinthians 13

Here, Paul teaches us the same, that charity is even more important than knowledge and the ability to prophesy, more than giving all that we have to the poor without truly caring for them. Charity rejoices in truth, so when a charitable person discovers truth he/she embraces it, and learns to cope with the consequences. Even so, when someone who might be less charitable rejects a truth, he/she will continue to love and cherish that unbeliever because "charity never faileth" and "seeketh not her own".

This is very difficult to do when emotions are high, something that it extremely normal for religious/political discussions because if one is proven wrong it creates cognitive dissonance and large amounts of stress in his/her psyche. It's not fun or easy to deal with, and I am still learning to remember that I love those with whom I disagree. As I do good for them, agree or disagree, we both come closer to Christ because we avoid the spirit of contention, which is not of the Lord.

So today, when you go on to your Facebook or Twitter feed, and you see a post that defiles what you think is true (whether it be political or religious or otherwise,) instead of reacting in the common way of retaliation and spite or arguing, try to find within yourself charity. "Pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love..." (Moroni 7:48). Ask them how they are doing. Spend time wishing them well, and if you live close by, go out and get some ice cream with them and catch up on old times. If they are vegan and don't like to eat ice cream, go out and eat something that they would despite your affection for bacon. Remember that you do love them, and act accordingly. Remember that you love truth as well, and that your mind and body will fight you along the way as you treat with kindness and respect what they will label as an idiot. Their mind and body will do the same. It's a natural defense mechanism.

Though I am totally imperfect in this regard, the times that I have done it I have noticed that it was worth my time and effort. It takes practice. Are you willing to make the necessary change?

How to Fight Negative Perceptions With Tree Nuts And a Stick

Watch this;  I can cause you to feel completely different about the exact same idea simply by mentioning positive or negative statements about it.

Example 1: This product has killed millions of children throughout the existence of mankind. It has sparked wars, land disputes and feuds for generations. It is no good! Why would anyone want a product that is used for torture in such a widespread and well known way?

Example 2: This product can save your life every day. It can help you to lose weight, balance your system and assists in anaerobic exercise. Your children need this product in order to survive. Thank goodness that it is so abundant! What would we ever do as the human race without our beloved WATER!!!!

Yes. All the statements that I have made are true. I didn't lie (except for the "no good" part, but since opinions are subjective it doesn't really matter). What happened? It is the very same substance seen in two extremely contradictory lights. Anything and everything has upsides and downsides as stated by Charles Dickens in A Tale of Two Cities:

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way"

It all boils down to labeling. Advertisers are brilliant as using this technique to influence you to buy a product. Critics use it to tell you whether or not to see a certain movie. Literary geniuses employ this savvy method to shape your view on characters in their books and the morality of their actions. When abused, this tactic can cause job loss, divorce, lawsuits and it can drive people to suicide.

Have you ever felt labeled unfairly? I know that in my life I have felt bullied and attacked personally because of the words of others. It has affected how I view myself. Are the people that label others unjustly evil? Nope. Just misguided. So instead of returning the favor and labeling them back, how about we adopt a different perspective. 

Take Link, for instance. Link is a young Hyrulian kid with the vertical challenges of a leprechaun and the fighting style of a first-grader. All he has is a puny dagger and a wooden shield to begin with. His friends label him as worthless and incapable. The gods beg to differ and send him on an epic quest with awesome music. To commence this intense journey through space and time he kills a GARGANTUAN spider with tree nuts launched from a y-shaped stick.

To all of you who have felt as I have because of the verbal violence of others' mental flatulence, I ask a question: Who do you believe: the gods, or Link's friends? Why? What would have happened if the gamer, upon hearing the negativity of Link's friends, decided that the game wasn't worth his time because his character was worthless? What if we were to adopt the mentality, but not the violence, of course, of video games concerning our self esteem? We have weaknesses, but our strengths are what matter.

While we really do have negative attributes that others are most willing to point out, never fail to remember all the good that you have done in the world. If someone says that you are rude, think of all the nice things that you have said in the past. Maybe what you said or did in that moment was over the top and uncalled for. Instead of assuming that it means that your ARE a BAD person, think of things that aren't evil that you can do and decide to act on them to the best of your ability. Compliment that person on their astuteness and awareness and move on. If they want to label you, it's their issue, not yours. They can learn to treat people differently while you go on to prove them wrong.

Take your stick and tree nuts and use it to be a successful... whatever you are going to be. Don't let negativity bring you down!

"Judge not that ye be not judged"

I had a great lesson from a guy that I met last night at my work where I sell plants in a roadside tent. Right as I needed to go home, a man pulled up in a truck and I immediately went a little tense. At 8 o'clock at night in an empty parking lot, I don't exactly trust a lot of the people that come by. This guy was looking a little rough around the edges. He had obviously been in some sort of a minor accident in the past few days from the cuts and bruises on him, and he didn't speak very proper English, though he was a white guy. I wasn't exactly excited for him to be there, and I sure as heck double checked that everything was locked up.

Though I smelled fish, I decided to listen to him and didn't show this original suspicion based on my prejudice toward him. He began by explaining why he was looking for flowers that night. A friend of his had died a year ago, and he had gone to visit the friend's grave for the week of memorial day. They had grown up together, and it upset him that the family did absolutely nothing for their daughter for memorial day. He wanted to spruce up the overgrown grave site and even was willing to pay for a headstone so that she could rest with dignity.

We talked for a good chunk of time. I offered what little help I could in finding work. I knew of a few job openings and told him where he could apply. He discussed his past work experience and he turned out to be a very amiable person.

Now, I do not believe that I was wrong in pulling up my defenses internally towards a sketchy figure at night. Had something happened, those defenses could have saved my life and a lot of money for the company. My point is, I listened first, and then I spoke, or acted, accordingly. Had I gone off of my initial gut feeling alone, which wasn't good, I might have treated him differently and remained closed to a very noble person. Instead, I received a sweet lesson in humanity, and even could have taken the opportunity to share the Gospel with this good man.

I am very grateful for the progress that I am making in coping with new ideas and people that appear different. It brings me peace to know that I am moving towards a better understanding of people, and my love for God's children increases each time that I make the effort. My love for my own self also increases, and I have a better self-image as I learn that imperfections do not define us, rather goodness.

I close with a quote from the movie that I watched last night with a few friends: Secondhand Lions. Robert Duval says

Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things that a man needs to believe in the most: that people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love, true love, never dies... No matter if they're true or not, a man should believe in those things because those are the things worth believing in.

Amen to that. The challenge that I leave for this week is probably very obvious. Try to listen to someone that you normally would never talk to, and get to know them before metaphorically throwing the first stone at them. You never know when you will find a true friend in someone that appears very different from you.

In My Imperfection, I Believe Christ: Phrasing My Beliefs In a More Meek Way

My mission really helped me to understand that I needed to change a certain  ideology that I have developed over the years, however I would not say that I am even near that ideal yet. Others in the Church seem to struggle with this concept as well. How can we preach what we believe without coming across as thinking that we are farther along the path to perfection than our audience? What kinds of attitudes can we avoid to help others feel welcome and genuinely interested in what we have to say about Christ instead of making them feel like we are crazy or fanatical? Why should we care about how our message is received, and how can we be more considerate of other people's circumstances while sharing it?

I theorize that in portraying an "in my imperfection, I believe Christ" mindset we can overcome the appearance of self-righteousness. I worded this very carefully. This phrase acknowledges that I struggle to keep all of the Lord's commandments in their fulness, but that I am willing to trust Christ enough to decide that His way is probably better than mine so I will do my best to follow His counsels. I recognize that though I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints receives all truth from God Himself, I do not aspire to having obtained all of that truth yet. Paul demonstrates such a demeanor in the New Testament:

 "12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

 13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

 14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

 15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

 16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

 17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample."

Philippians 3:12-17

I would like to show what I believe in a way that to me seems to show this attitude. Missionaries should know this before hitting the field.
I really do believe in Christ. He is my Friend, my Savior and King. I love Him with all of my heart and daily battle from where I am to become like Him. I believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is His true and living Church, and that therein lies the Holy Priesthood, the authority of God to provide saving ordinances. I believe that through His merits all mankind may be saved through obedience to the ordinances and principles of His Sacred Gospel.

I have tried to live my life in a way that reflects that belief, but it is not as easy as I thought it would be when I was a child. It was so clear and simple to understand for me that I never could understand how others couldn't believe it or see it from my perspective. I never knew how to say that in a way that wasn't offensive or condescending to others and that didn't radiate self-righteousness. The whole "Holier-than-thou" attitude came a little as an instinct for me as I learned to cope with others' beliefs, not because I really am holier than anyone else, but because on certain subjects I believe that God has defined His commandments very strictly and I would rather err on the side of keeping them than on the side of rebelling against the most powerful being in the Universe.

Part of my personal striving within has been my confrontation with depression. I grew up perceiving depression as fault of the sufferer and that those who suffered from it were somehow less than other people. When I cracked under the stress of the mission and fell into depression myself for a time, I began to assume that it was because I was weak and could not handle the pressures of life as a "normal" person. I was very hard on myself for my imperfections.

At this point I learned how others felt when I told them to just be better and not to worry about it, because I was doing it to myself every living moment. It was in a little fourth-floor apartment in Rio Cuarto, Córdoba, Argentina that I felt the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ begin to act in my life.

I began to follow Him because I wanted to get rid of sin in my life, not just because I was supposed to or expected to. I told others to get off of my back and exercised more mercy in my views of others.  Instead of telling them that they HAD TO GO TO CHURCH IN ORDER TO BE FOLLOWING GOD, or YOU MUST GET BAPTIZED OR ELSE YOU WILL GO TO HELL, WHY HAVEN'T YOU EVEN READ THE BOOK?, I explained that I had received greater light and knowledge in doing so and I promised them that they would see the same results if they followed the example of Jesus Christ by seeking His truth. This would involve reading the Book of Mormon to see if the promises that we gave as missionaries and that the Prophets gave in the Book of Mormon really would come to pass. Instead of judging them for electing not to go, I decided to think of their shortcomings as in similitude of my own. 

"I know that it is difficult to change habits, and I am sad for you that you have missed this great experience, but I love you too much to get upset at you. I will keep coming by and showing you that love and the importance that I give this message. You really don't want to lose the blessings that you will get. I love this gospel so much, and I hope that you can find out for yourself why I do."

So, if you currently tend to portray your standards as self-righteous statements, like how I tend to do, I would invite you to begin to learn what you can do to overcome that attitude. I have been trying to cease my Pharisaical spews and I would like to know how to better my healthy predication of Christ to the individual more than to the empty air. In so doing, I have found deep friendships with people that before I would never have maintained contact with, and I have seen Christ enter their countenance through my willingness to understand. As my earlier posts attest, it is an upward battle, but I promise to keep up the fight.

To All Y'all Singles Out There Confused With Me In The Dating Process

Easter Sunday I had a conversation with my cousins about the expectations of men for women and women for men. Dating is the classic scene of poor communication. The guys have no idea what the girl wants, and the girls give little hints that the guy is supposedly able to pick up on to know whether or not she is interested. Knowing this, it makes it only more confusing for the guy because he does not think in this way. Consider my title and imagine the pressure on us as we are generally expected to make the decisive moves in a manner that isn't creepy or overkill, but that demonstrates how we feel. The women are expected to show interest, but, as many that I know are going through, when they want a guy to ask them out they can't force him to do so. This puts them between a rock and a hard place. Do they go ahead and ask them out, or do they just have to stick it out and hope that he catches their hints?

So I began to wonder how I could apply crucial conversations to this topic, and to be honest I still have no idea what exactly to do. I was grateful for the long list of advice that I received from my cousins and friends, enjoyed giving my advice as well despite my lack of expertise in the field.

In those conversations, I concluded that honesty is a two-edged sword; if you frame it poorly it can be very offensive or disconcerting. Also, if you hide it, I have learned from personal dating experience that it also causes grief. These are the two extremes of silence and violence discussed in the book.

Let's think about this following situation. How could we tell the truth without harming the relationship? What might change were we to clarify what we want to accomplish in the chat and what we don't want to come off as. How could asking questions concerning the other person's purpose help to make things clearer and less awkward?
Bill has started to get to know Jill. Over time he finds her attractive and inside of him emotions develop due in part to hormones and in part to him recognizing good qualities in the girl. He is nervous, and doesn't know well how to express these emotions, so he suddenly professes his emotions that he truly has towards Jill to her with little tact. Jill gets scared off pretty fast. She had been a little interested, but now she assumes that Bill will go crazy trying to convince her to marry him even though this is only the first time that he has asked her out.  Trying to protect herself, she bluntly tells him that she never wants to be with him and you list a long list of qualities that were unattractive to her. Bill goes away feeling like she is a jerk and that it is better that he finds someone else anyway. Her purpose might be achieved in getting him to leave, but Bill now has very negative emotions towards her that could have been avoided.

This relationship could have been salvaged if the two had learned to effectively communicate. This common setting of an interaction has not always ended poorly. Though it might end in a simple friendship, it can be an important bonding experience that will help both parties to learn to truly love through understanding.

Let's edit how Bill and Jill go about the scenario and include crucial conversation skills. This time i'll include dialogue so that we can see how it plays out.

Bill: Hey, Jill I want to talk to you for a sec.
Jill: Sure, Bill. What's up
Bill: Well, this topic makes me a little nervous, and I may not express myself well, so please bear with me and have patience. I think that you are a fun girl and that you would make a great mother someday, and I have begun to have feelings towards you.

 BAD MOVE BY BILL. RED FLAG FOR JILL. I AM RHYMING STILL, NOW GO ON WE SHALL! WATCH HOW STATING THE PURPOSE OF BOTH SIDES CHANGES THE CONVERSATION HERE.

Jill: Um. Ok. I am not ready to take this relationship quite that far yet. We haven't even been on a date yet, Bill. I would be interested in trying out a date or two, but I wouldn't want to start something if you are expecting to get married with me from the get go.
Bill: I agree with you one hundred percent. I must have I portrayed an expectation of marriage without really intending to. What I really wanted to say is that I would like to see if we mesh well. I like what I have seen in you and would like to take it to the next step.
Jill: Why don't we go with some friends to get some ice-cream or something like that, and if we find that we aren't the best match for each other we can always leave it at that.
Bill: What if it goes well?
Jill: I don't know, yet, Bill. We will have to see.

Both sides understand where the other wants to go, and they are comfortable with the situation even though they don't know where it will lead them. Jill let Bill know that she doesn't want to go forward too fast, but that she is at least mildly interested in him. Bill admits that he did not say what he truly intended for the outcome of the relationship. This situation does not mean that they have to end up as a forever family, but at least they have understood what the other person was feeling.

Jill's first reaction is something that scares guys away from asking girls out. Another is when the figurative Bill asks Jill out with the same sentence "I think you'd make a good mother" and has the healthy mindset shown in the dialogue, and Jill becomes very excited and after the first date wants to marry him. Both sides need to understand that the first date, or even subsequent dates, are not a proposal even if portrayed on accident as such.

Situation #2
Jane likes Bill, but he won't make the next move on her. She is frustrated with him, and wants to know why guys don't just man up and ask the girl out sometimes. In the past she feels that he has shown interest in her, but he seems to expect her to plan all of the events. From Bill's perspective,  he has just recently been out with Jill and isn't sure that she is what he is looking for, but he doesn't want to burn that bridge. Jane throws hints at him that she wants him to ask her out, but he is completely oblivious. Midway, Bill helps her to get what she wants to not say out on the table.
Jane: Bill, why don't guys ever plan out their dates? I get tired of having to do all the work.
Bill: Well, Jane, it is a work in progress for most guys. Planning never was our forte, and I admit that sometimes we really do drop the ball. Money is tight, too. That doesn't help.
Jane: Just do something cheap, then. A picnic, a hike or something like that.
Bill: I sense a lot of pent up emotions here. This must be an important subject for you.
Jane: It is.
Bill: Then I don't want to start an argument and say something that neither one wants to say, but I would like to know why it is so important to you. Is there someone that you wish would ask you out?

Personally this part would be very awkward for me to explain were I Jane. I had to think the response through for a good while.

(long pause)
Bill: Ah, a deeper sensitive subject I see.
Jane: Well, I don't want it to be awkward, but now that it is up for discussion I'd like for you to ask me out.
(longer pause)
Bill: Sensitive subject would be an understatement. Um... Well... I'd love to take you out for something cheap sometime, I am just not really looking to start a relationship yet.
Jane: What do you say we go on a date and decide from there? No strings attached.
Bill: Frisbee golf on Saturday?
Jane: And cookies at my apartment afterwards.
Bill: We're on the same page that it's just a date, right?
Jane: Yes.
Bill: Ok! Can't wait til this weekend!

I had a conversation similar to these one when I broke up with my girlfriend my senior year of high school in preparation for my mission. We stated our purposes of not wanting to confuse each other, but that we had interest in the other person, so we would wait until after my mission to see if it would work. We understood that there existed no contract between the two and that it was not out of the question that we remain friends for life and that we go separate ways. These understanding moments really work, though they are difficult to pass through. Anyway, we still did stuff together for the following year until my mission, we dated other people, and she got married a year into my mission. I was grateful that we had communicated effectively in at least some cases, and learned some good lessons in the process.

Challenge of the week, singles: have a crucial conversation with a member of the opposite gender, whether it be concerning feelings that you have for them, or just how you expect them to act in a dating situation. I will try to do so again this week, too to not be a hypocrite. It doesn't mean that I will have a new girlfriend in a week, and that is not the intention, though it may be a welcomed result:P

But I Don't Feel Like It!!! That Is Difficult!!!!!

As human beings, we have the tendency to form something called "society". This phenomenon has lasted through millennia after millennia, and it has defined how we act. There are laws that we call morals that have been followed even from before they were formally written. There is seemingly no "law enforcement" (unless you believe in God like I do) concerning some of these fundamentals of "society", yet people have followed these rules, generally speaking, that is. Those who have followed them, such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr. have received praise and respect for centuries afterwards, and those who have broken them (Hitler, Mao, Emperor Palpatine) have been rejected or outcast figuratively if not literally, even by their own. I have found four "moral laws" that have persisted through the ages in societies worldwide. They go as follows:


1. Thou Shalt Not Lie
2. Thou Shalt Not Kill For No Reason
3. Thou Shalt Not Take That Which Someone Else Has In His Possession

And last, but not least, and my topic for today,

4. Marriage Calls for One Male and One Female (In Most Cases, the Muslims the Romans, the Babylonians, the Hebrews, Kings, etc. Have Made Many Exceptions), Disregarding Relations Outside of Those Bounds Which Are Simply Called Relations.


Though society has differed in its differed in its views of how to treat animals, in how to run a government and even in its definition of marriage, one thing prevailed; if nothing but for facilitating genealogy and decreasing confusion in doing so, marriage has existed between man and woman with man as the head of the family. Don't ask me why, ask yourself why. Ask history why. I didn't create society, nor have I forced my ideas upon the millions of millions who have lived before me.

Today, marriage is being called into question. We see that due to a lack of this "police" force for society's fundamental four rules, we have marriage in question, which is causing confusion and a lack of understanding. Now we have to reflect on the"whys" of these rules.

DISCLAIMER!!!!!, I do not imply that those who support gay marriage think the next lines of thought that I will give. Being gay in the LDS church must be extraordinarily difficult, but the Savior makes it possible for one to live His Commandments. I respect and love many gay people with whom I work and treat them no differently than I would any other person. However, knowing human nature (and Satan's nature) in the past concerning pushing limits and driving for personal "rights" that "society won't respect", and that "I feel this way so I should be able to redefine society", I felt it enlightening to put this up for some perspective.

By using emotional reasoning ( a cognitive distortion characterized by "I don't feel like", or "I don't like to" attitudes), one could justify anything, should the courts begin to use that as a valid reason to change society. What happens if we begin to question the other three fundamentals? What happens if someone begins a movement saying:

"It is a dog eat dog world, and I see no problem in killing people. I feel like killing them because I was born a violent person, and it is very hard if not impossible for me to change. Others could kill me, and have the right to do so. Why can I not have the right to kill them?" 

Or,

"The truth is only necessary when it benefits me. Why is the truth important, anyway? If i can get away with something in a court room it must be okay. I am a compulsive liar, so it isn't my fault. I will just lie and get away with whatever I want. Everyone else can, too." (this  one has already set in YEARS ago).

 And then comes the same for stealing.

At times, mankind has passed through phases of this. The time period in which Jesus Christ lived is an example of this. He did no wrong and was killed by the government who had a religious political agenda. Similarly Copernicus discovered astronomical wonders and was put to death for it because it meant that the Catholic church made a mistake in the past about science. Many human races have been set on conquering the world for power, killing and pillaging wherever they went just because they could. We call these types of time periods "The Dark Ages", implying that we believe that that time was terrible on our rap sheet.

Why have these attitudes not yet taken a permanent hold on society? Why have we always pulled out eventually? Because the individual is the "police" on this issue. Speaking out against such things has maintained the human race up until this day. Hence the original Martin Luther, John Calvin and William Tyndale in the Middle Ages, the French Revolution (though poorly executed, pun intended) and the many other revolutions and rebellions against  a very interesting topic: CRIMES AGAINST HUMAN NATURE.

Yes, I am implying, now stating, that I believe, due to historical evidence and religious beliefs that gay marriage is against human nature, and in a sense, a crime. Please, let me know why you feel otherwise.

Now, on the positive note, let's day dream a bit. What would happen if the members of terrorist functions decided that killing people is not okay and they took down their leaders? What would happen if the American people took it to heart to stand up and put lying politicians, judges and lawyers out of office just because they know that it isn't right to make money off of twisting the truth? What would happen if drug lords decided to cease their activity for the good of mankind and not just for themselves, or if they won't do it, if the neighborhoods were to literally kick them out and exterminate all traces of drugs from their streets?

Let's speak up in public places to keep the simple basics of human morals in place so that we can be happy and safe. If you believe that there is dishonesty in your workplace, YOU FIX IT. Don't make the courts do it or your boss do it. You fix it. Do you not believe that your representative is honest? YOU FIX IT. Do you believe that marriage being under attack follows in supported by mere emotional reasoning? Be the individual force that maintains society, and don't fall for the folly of diffusion of responsibility. You are responsible to be responsible for your actions and to help others to understand the same. So be it. Make moral stands using as much tact as you know how, and don't waiver to violence (verbal or physical), lies, half truths, hidden meanings or emotional reasoning.