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.

Weekly Challenge: Go out and have a Rogerian Argument.

Whatever Happened to Rogerian Argument? » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names



This is a very good article that discusses the idea of my blog. I didn't know that the new style of communication that I had stumbled upon had a name. I guess that I have unknowingly become a fan of the Rogerian argument. I like it. The conventional Aristotelian argument, I win or you win, sets us up in a false dichotomy and polarized thinking, that either one is right or the other. Black or white. Democrat or Republican. Right or wrong. Good or bad. Too many in the list or not enough. Funny or not.



We teach in the LDS church that the truth is circumscribed into one whole, which can be interpreted that we can't pull one truth out and observe life from only that perspective. Truth must be acknowledged from every angle. Thus by following the Rogerian Argument, or in my words, being willing to be wrong and to acknowledge things as they really are, we can learn the truth through crucial conversations.



David, my younger brother, and I are pretty good at holding these kinds of discussions. Last night, as we waited for the moon to turn red, we talked for hours on controversial subjects such as welfare and the abolition of bi-partisan systems. We viewed the pros and the cons together. We had differing opinions, but we asked questions and proposed "what-ifs" to help us understand each others point of view. I found it rather enjoyable.



So today, I offer a challenge. A commitment, if you will. Go out and have a Rogerian argument sometime this week. It doesn't have to be over something huge like abortion, but it could be if you are that brave to start there. My prediction and experience is that you will find that the emotions will not be as high and that the subjects will not be quite as controversial as we build them up to be. However, both sides have to participate in this style of thinking, or it will not work.



Remember. Restate the other person's point of view until they are satisfied that you understand them. Then, and only then, bring up new evidences or logic trains to help them see what you see. If emotions get high, pause and discuss which comments raised the emotions and what each person wants and doesn't want from the conversation. Then re-engage.



Will you do it? Are you scared? Take a step outside of your comfort zone and see if it changes your life for the better.

Consequences: How the cause and effect laws apply to both conversation and modesty.

So, I posted a controversial post on Facebook, and as we all would have guessed, it exploded into a heated argument.

 "Girls, tight skirts are a no go at Conference, no matter how long, or short, they may be. They are most definitely not modest, and I care enough about yall to let yall know."

 We can see that I tried to make it sound at least a little nice by stating my purpose and motives behind the comment.

"I care enough about yall to let yall know"

I also posted things from the "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet published by the Church that supported my claim.

However, the biting attitude in the first half very ineffectively portrayed my complex and deep beliefs on the issue. It showed very little understanding. It raised people's defenses by lowering safety levels to zero.

Naturally, people got very offended and began to attack me with all of the mentioned things that "Crucial Conversations" predicts will happen when we are on what the authors call "our worst behavior". I was labeled as judgmental, accused of defining modesty for them, accused of going beyond what the prophets have written on the subject, and even was told by one person that they never wanted to ever talk to me again. My Christianity and charity was insulted deeply, and what others wrote hurt my soul to read.

Initially, I felt like a failure as I watched myself respond with highly emotional comments, and even descended to saying some things that were flat out rude. I slowly pulled myself together as I realized what I was doing, and did my best to back up and look at the whole situation. Did the others fully intend to insult me? Did I intend to insult them? Did I go too far? What could I have done better? What can I do now to show my understanding and open up the safety again so that we can discuss this at a mature, healthy level?

So, I apologized for what I did wrong. I didn't say that my point of view was necessarily incorrect, but I truly regretted the way that I had worded it. I asked for people to tell me what things that I did caused them offense, but asked them to refrain from trying to convince me that I was wrong in my manner of thinking and to stick to relaying information on the way that I had discussed the topic.

Again, naturally, people told  me what I had done wrong. I had used absolutes ("tight skirts are a NO GO"). However doctrinally founded I believe that my claim was, to others I had defined what can and can't be worn to maintain modesty, and they didn't like someone else defining their standards, or rather in my mind (according to them) holding them to standards that they don't agree with. They affirm that I have staked out the right to choose which people I decide are modest and which people I decide aren't and to hold them mentally accountable for their choice of dress.

I have in no wise changed my standard for modesty, and I know that each person has the right to choose what they will and will not wear. They do not have the ability to choose the effects of wearing what they will.

I feel like this is an issue at stake; choices and consequences are eternally bound together. Choices affect how our life goes. Consequences naturally follow our choices, and once we have acted we have no ability to decide which consequences we want.

I did not have the ability to choose how people reacted to my post, and I had to deal with all consequences of my choice. I chose to do so with my shoulders as square as I could muster, and asked for ways that I could improve. I owned up to my mistakes, and have adjusted my thinking respectively.

I do not believe that personal wardrobe selection is any different. I believe that women are free to make that selection as they desire, but they cannot choose how they are perceived any more than I could. They can rationalize as much as they want their rights and explain what I should do in response, which is good for me to know. However, they can't wear something immodest and expect to have no negative effects on the spirits, bodies and minds of men any more than I can expect to post the posts with a similar attitude and to have different results. That expectation is not realistic, nor is it fair. It is not founded on any science that I have heard of, but if anyone has information otherwise I am most willing to study it out.

I am grateful to those who have been willing to push past the naive me and help me to understand things better, and sorry to anyone whom I have offended by my tactics, though not by my argument. For this soldier, modest IS hottest, because I love a virtuous woman to no end. Virtuous women are my heroes, and the last Chapter of Proverbs is my favorite by far.

Thanks for reading, I hope to have more things to write soon, but I hope that next time I will have offended less people in my efforts to speak up!

Women Wanting the Priesthood From a Man's Perspective

This is an article on a VERY controversial subject. Not exactly a smooth way to break in the blog, but an important and relevant one for this upcoming weekend that I believe the First Presidency of the LDS Church will likely address. Please read, and comment on the author's conversational abilities. Here are some prompts just to help the process:

1. What does the writer do to understand the other side's point of view?
2. What assumptions does the writer make?
3. Where, if at all, does the writer label the opposition's views (dumb, unfounded, irrational, selfish, etc.) and how might he word it better?
4.  Is this an effective way to cope with the petition and the implications that it carries with it?

I would like to thank the New York Times for breaking a story yesterday that highlights one of the biggest problems in the LDS Church; i.e., gender inequality. The article talks about a group of about 1,300 women who signed a manifesto for female ordination. 1,300 signatures. That sounds like a lot. In fact, if I write the number out with all caps and bold it, then it sounds like even more signatures: THIRTEEN HUNDRED. Wow.

But what does 1,300 signatures really represent? For ease of math, let’s round the number up to 1,500. According to mormonnewsroom.org, there are 15,000,000 LDS members in the world. Some simple math (on a simple calculator) tells me that the 1500 signatures represent 0.01 percent of the Church. But, you might say, men shouldn’t be included in that calculation because they aren’t the ones who are being oppressed (at least not in terms of receiving the Priesthood). So, for arguments sake, let’s cut the number of members in half to represent the split between men and women. Crunch the numbers and we see that the number now becomes 0.02 percent.

In the spirit of fairness, I decided to look and see how a comparable petition would fair with the US Government. And it’s not terrible. There are 313.9 million people in the United States. According to petitions.whitehouse.gov, in order to cross the threshold and be reviewed, a petition must receive 100,000 signatures in the span of 30 days. Unfortunately 0.02 percent of the United States population only equates to 62,780 signatures. In other words, it was a valiant effort but this petition gets rejected. I’m not saying the petition system is perfect, but it doesn’t seem to miss the important ones; e.g., the petition to deport Justin Bieber that reached the threshold in January of this year.
Other than the fact that Obama wouldn’t care (see what I did there?), we now know that these women only represent a small (dare I say teeny) portion of Latter-Day Saints. Loud? Yes. But small just the same. Doesn’t this make you wonder why the New York Times cares about a petition that doesn’t have enough signatures to make it to paper in the US Government? Let’s save that topic for another day. (Believe me, I have lots to say about the media targeting Latter Day Saints. Like, why is every other episode of DateLine about a Mormon who murdered his spouse or defrauded his entire congregation? Does that really only happen in Utah?)
So I propose that instead of focusing on such a bitty group of loud individuals, we should really start to consider the needs of the quiet majority. I’m talking about men. I believe that there is some gender inequality in the Church. But I don’t think it’s a one-way street. So I’m starting a list of requests that we, men, have all noticed, but until now, have been quiet about. (If you have any to add, then put them in the comment section)

• How come there’s a mother’s lounge but not a father’s lounge? Women get to nurse and feed their baby in a dark, quiet room while fathers have to walk around the Church looking for an empty classroom or use the “stand-and-sway” method to put babies to sleep. Even if we find an unused classroom, we don’t have the rocking chair.
• We want padded seats in our meeting room too. Do you know what men have? We have cold, hard, metal chairs. Are not all bottoms created equal?!
• Male enrichment night. After we graduate from scouting, we get one, maybe two, activities a year for men. (Typically a shooting guns activity with BBQ.) But we want monthly activities like the women. Let’s even up those budgets a little huh.
• Nursery for Elder’s quorum events. Women get the youth to babysit when they have an activity, but it’s expected that men should go to an activity without help. Do you just assume that our wives are always available to watch the kids when we have an activity? On the flipside, are you saying that men are incapable of watching the kids when the women are away to their activities? Either way, it sounds oppressive.
• We want a nice table and podium in our room. Sure, we’re not known for our table decor when it comes to Sunday lessons, but we couldn’t even if we wanted to. We only have a small table with skinny legs. How am I supposed to display my tackle box and Singing Bass wall mount in style when I give my “fishers of men” lesson?
• Finally, I want to propose an every-other-move ordinance where the Elders Quorum and the RS split all of the new move-ins and move-outs in the Ward. Your argument: men are stronger and can lift more. My counter-argument: women are more likely to show up and “many hands make light work.”

Again, I would like to thank the New York Times for pointing out the gender inequality in our Church. We have a long way to go, but I believe we can get there. One padded seat at a time.

http://buzz.io/4219/some-lds-women-want-the-priesthood-well-lds-men-have-some-requests-too/

"Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath"- James 1:19

My name is Clark Lindsey, and I have recently finished a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Argentina. I was away from the country for two whole years with limited information on what was going on whilst I was experiencing real life conversational difficulties with people in a language that I was learning on the fly. I came back and was astounded to hear the close-mindedness of many Americans, especially adults, though I had already seen it in the Argentine people as well when touching upon sensitive subjects such as doctrines and morality.

Seeing this, I decided to investigate how to communicate effectively, and I read the book "Crucial Conversations" by Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan and Al Switzler. Great book, by the way, and I give full credit to the authors for the initiation of this blog. I simply will put into practice speech models demonstrated in the book and wish to cause great amounts of HEALTHY discussion. Hence the title of my blog. Listen first, then speak. Understand the question and ask people if you understand what they are trying to express. Just imagine what would happen in each of these instances if people would apply simple conversational tools! Imagine how politics would be! Imagine how the news would be! Imagine how your family reunions would be, or how Facebook would be, or how courts of law would be! I learned that when we communicate effectively we can overcome even difficult subjects such as high level corporate spending habits, criminal or simply offensive behavior in the workplace, or even politics, religion, morals, etc.

Hahahaha.

Why do I laugh? Effective communication seems to never go hand in hand with any of the these! Talk show hosts like Glenn Beck tend to sensationalize their point of view and give little emphasis on understanding other people's points of view. They get paid lots of money, and get great reviews for ending up "right" by the end of the show. Theologists spend a lifetime studying and learning to interpret the Bible in 1,000,000,000 different ways, and when someone tries to help them understand that God might see it differently than they do they whip out the Bible and read off 20 verses that prove their point without even being willing to ask God whether or not they are right (not all theologists do so, just most, hence the thousands of different religious in today's world). When you ask someone if why it isn't moral for a company like Hobby Lobby to religiously refuse abortions in their healthcare plans for employees people say that it's because the woman has a right to choose, completely avoiding the issue of whether or not a man can make a decision for his company based on his religious beliefs, which is the issue at stake here. I see people on Facebook labeling other people as irrational instead of recognizing that scientifically speaking they are indeed rational and have yet drawn different conclusions than the guy who posted something.

Am I innocent? NO WAY, JOSE!! I tend to post things on my personal Facebook account from Conservative points of view, and often am vehement in my opinion. Now, I do not endorse all activity by conservative parties, nor do I condemn all activity by liberal parties. I am making a renewed effort look at each topic in its own sphere and element to be judged, not by partisan or religious fidelity, but by true moral, sociological, communicative and logical revision.

I invite all to do the same, stating and emphasizing that God is not a God of confusion and that there IN FACT exists universal truth that cannot be changed. Our job is to find that truth.

I testify as a witness to the world that God lives, and that He loves each and every one of us, His children, or in other words, mankind. He wants us to be unified, for thus the Bible teaches us in John chapter 17. Jesus prayed to God a very important phrase as follows "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, THAT THEY MAY BE ONE, as we are."

The purpose of this blog is to have an argument, that I will admit, but not to contradict people because I am right, rather to open understanding and augment unity amongst those that will listen.

 House Rules 

1. No sexual remarks (even implicit ones). All will be removed and the offender will not be allowed access to the conversations again. That is uncalled for 

2. No attacks on people instead of the idea at hand (such as name-calling, potshots, labeling of ideas as invalid without having evidence to do so but simply calling it that, etc.) 

3. No violent words or enforcing one's ideas by repeating the same point loudly without presenting new evidence. 

4. No swearing will be tolerated. 

Please, comment on controversial subjects. The worse the better. I will do my best to bring them up, listen to what evidences are on both sides, determine what people are trying to say, and draw my own conclusions based on the discussion, and I expect everyone to do the same. I will probably start with something light to test the waters before we get slugging it out peacefully over some of the issues that I have already brought up. Stay tuned for the first discussion!