"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!