Saturday, April 19, 2014
It seems to me that my life's perspective offers three approaches to problem-solving. In problem-solving situations, I am often called upon to make judgements based on my personal views. I have identified a number of possible options, characterized in a most general way.
First, I can be complacent about my current outlook. No need to seek any different ways of seeing things. No need to shift my position attempting to gain new insights. Seeing something from a different angle would require me to leave my comfortable couch-potato station.
Second, I can attempt to view my situation from afar. I can move back to take in the long distance picture, from a broader perspective. The 1000-mile overview. This approach sacrifices fine detail in the interest of establishing a more holistic understanding.
Third, I can try the reductionist approach. I can take things apart into discrete components, zooming in on smaller and smaller pieces, attempting to analyze each of them individually, assuming that the sum of all the parts can effectively characterize the whole system.
Reductionism has been my propensity from the beginning, and it got me into a lot of trouble. I would determinedly disassemble complex things, to find out how they work. I repeatedly discovered that holding the discrete parts in my hand did not always contribute to a more holistic understanding, and would generally then be faced with the dilemma of how to put the watch back together - most optimally, it might even work again.
After inflicting major trauma on a series of Chatty Cathy dolls, I did uncover the secret of the talking dolls. But my sister has never forgiven me.
The trouble with deconstruction is that it tends to be destructive. It might generally fit the wry observation that the operation was a success, but the patient died. Such reductionist exercises tend to render the inquiry moot.
I have also rediscovered a number of times that the complacency approach has drawbacks. One of the most memorable illustrations of this idea was presented during a tour of Mammoth Cave, in Kentucky. The tour guide was delivering his spiel during our tour. He mentioned that at one time, the region was dotted with private caves, fostering a competitive spirit between the cave venues to attract tourism. One of the inventive methods for promoting a particular cave was to assign various different names for the same cave feature. Then as the flocks of tourists were led on their ooh and ahh tours, the guide would bring them around on a circuitous route to view the same feature from a new angle, introducing it with a different name. Apparently few tourists ever caught on to the trick.
But we seldom give credit to the fact that considering something from a different aspect sometimes gives a very different perspective. No particular point of view tends to me more "true" than another.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
The Thomas Jefferson Profile has been moved to a blog of its own. To visit please click here. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
The Bundy Ranch showdown reminds me of my own BLM association. I have my own stories about tyranny and injustice.
From 2001 to 2008 my work was mostly independent contracting for the government. Including Forest Service and BLM jobs. Several years I won a bid for herbicide spraying on public lands to control invasive species like this one, Onopordum acanthium, the Scotch thistle.
In 2008 something changed. Introduced in the bid process was a provision they called "SBA 8(a)". After that was implemented I never won another contract.
The last big job we won involved weed spraying at the site of the Milford Flats fire, with other fire-damaged areas around Beaver County in southeast Utah. It covered about 90,000 acres of BLM land.
We started work in May and worked through the summer and into September. My partner and I worked really hard, and the BLM supervisor from Beaver indicated that he was pleased with our efforts. Based on our performance, he promised to help get us the contract again the next year.
When the next spring arrived we were expecting to have the contract renewed. Instead, we learned that it had been given to another company that was 8(a) qualified. The other company did not participate in bidding. They had no performance history. But they were placed at the head of applicants because of the 8(a) status. The local supervisor had no say in the matter. Apparently this company filed SBA documents that certified that the business was owned by a woman. They were hired on that basis alone.
We never won another contract bid.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Truth will prevail? Not in this instance, it seems. Perhaps political correctness is what serves now in the Times and Seasons blog, just as it seems to dominate in so many other forums.
Well, once again I failed to restrain myself from arguing in a more public forum. The context was regarding the "Ordain Women" issue, which strikes a touchy nerve for me in the first place. I am prompted to recall from my most basic biology instruction in college, where we learned that irritability is one of the primary factors that characterize life. I know that irritability is certainly one of the primary characteristics of my life.
The post was basically soliciting information about Gospel Doctrine teachers in the Church, in the context of some sort of panel discussion about the "Ordain Women" group. The author maintained that women get short shrift in "more important" teaching jobs in the ward, and more men tend to fill these sorts of "more important" jobs.
The author asked,
Why are so many Gospel Doctrine teachers men, when it appears that they should, in a random universe, be almost all women?
Of course, the correct answer would have to be that no part of this assumption is accurate. No other numbers were offered to support the broad assertions inferred in the question. The premise appears derivative from class-envy arguments that are so integral to Marxist/Socialist philosophy and assumptions.
There was no clear consensus in the responses. Some were as apt to say that their Gospel Doctrine teacher was a woman as a man. Many responded that it is a "team teaching" arrangement, some with husband/wife teams trading off for different weeks. I did not notice any that appeared to assert that they had never seen women teaching Gospel Doctrine.
The premise seems to be that women always get the lesser jobs, like Primary teachers and Nursery helpers, that tend to be associated with lesser status. This as apparent justification for jealousy and envy over who gets what calling.
I bristled at the suggestion, because I for one have never been particularly inclined to track specific numbers for such callings. And I quoted from Dallin Oaks in the recent Conference.
At this conference we have seen the release of some faithful brothers, and we have sustained the callings of others. In this rotation—so familiar in the Church—we do not “step down” when we are released, and we do not “step up” when we are called. There is no “up or down” in the service of the Lord. There is only “forward or backward,” and that difference depends on how we accept and act upon our releases and our callings. I once presided at the release of a young stake president who had given fine service for nine years and was now rejoicing in his release and in the new calling he and his wife had just received. They were called to be the nursery leaders in their ward. Only in this Church would that be seen as equally honorable! (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood)
From my perspective the idea that Church callings represent a level of importance or status in the Church community is a shallow and superficial premise that effectively serves to denigrate some types of service while elevating others. While it may be true that such misplaced ideals can be found in LDS groups, it clearly violates the teachings of Church leaders, as the Oaks quote indicates.
Another misperception that was voiced was regarding the role of inspiration in the callings extended to ward members. The inference was made that bishops tend to approve callings subject to some degree of their own personal bias, and not are not particularly moved by inspiration from God. In response, and in the context of this discussion, I wondered if the author of the post could estimate a performance rating that measures the relative level of inspiration a typical bishop might be receiving.
My concern at that point was that I regard inspired acts to be the sine qua non of Church leadership, and it is not possible to grade any particular performance level. Nobody in Church service has ever been regarded as functioning perfectly. I quoted from Elder Holland on this issue.
Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work. (Elder Jeffery R. Holland, "Lord, I Believe")Exactly how those who complain that bishops do not always receive a full measure of divine inspiration would propose to measure such things was not explained. Nor is it readily apparent how such issues are related to whether it happens to be a man or a woman. Does the imperfection of Church members limit the power of God to fulfill His purposes? If it does, there is no need for further discussion, since the Church amounts to little more than a social club anyway.
One other point that raised my eyebrows was in reference to the ideal of love and compassion. In the words of one commenter,
Ideally, when someone says “I hurt,” the response would be along the lines of “how can I help?” rather than “oh, it’s not that bad…”
Not at all.
Many times, with my own children, "Oh, it's not that bad" was exactly the comfort we offered. When a child falls and skins his knees and elbows, what he needs is assurance that such hurting is limited, and that they are not permanently injured. Offering a temporary distraction from the hurt is prudent. Asking a fretting child, "How can I help" in such an instance would be inappropriate to the point of ludicrous. And of course, in the instance where a compound fracture has been sustained, the "How can I help" response would be equally ludicrous.
In my opinion and experience any such tentative approach tends to be superficial and hypocritical, and generally issues from those who are mostly fulfilling their own need to satisfy doubt about regard for themselves.
Most often in my own case, the expression of compassion is reflected when people just pitched in and helped. I have been in such circumstances many times, of late. In my experience, those in great need seldom understand fully why they are hurting or how they need help.
Responding to a complaint from Ardis Parshall that my comments constitute "trolling", and that I ought to just shut up and go lurk under a bridge somewhere, I commented,
The emphasis in this discussion seems to be on numbers and percentages. I’m wondering how that translates into questioning the bias of my bishop, and ultimately, the power of God. The tone of rhetoric does not appear to reconcile with Elder Holland’s admonition to Church members. That’s all.
Am I trolling, because I am so impertinent to presume to ask such questions?
I realized during the 2012 political campaign that Ardis would prefer not to hear from people like me. Nor is she alone. I have not ventured to comment on her space since then.
Yes, I am just another imperfect being. But I can still talk somewhere, can’t I? Should I just withdraw from public presence, because my backward foolish and unpopular ideals are such an embarrassment? I do write things on my blog, but intend this more as a personal journal. Does this forum not more represent the public square?
FWIW, perhaps it would be instructive to review the etymology of “trolling”. I think perhaps it does not mean what you think it means. :-)
Monday, April 14, 2014
Elder Carlos H. Amado gave testimony regarding the sacrifice and atonement of Jesus Christ.
Jesus never received honors from the people of his day. Even though he performed miracles and gave his disciples power, he was not recognized in his time.
He held authority and power over life and death, as seen in the incident with Mary and Martha, and Lazarus. Jesus promised, "...I am the resurrection and the life, he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." His works bore irrefutable evidence of his power.
In Gethsemane, Jesus took upon him our infirmities, then was raised up on the cross, in the crucifixion.
He was resurrected as witness to his power.
Elder Ronald A. Rasband spoke on Saturday morning about his involvement in Church relief efforts. Quoting from President Monson,
He talked of sharing the burdens of others. We are the Lord's hands here on the Earth.We are surrounded by those in need of our attention, our encouragement, our support, our comfort, our kindness—be they family members, friends, acquaintances, or strangers. We are the Lord’s hands here upon the earth, with the mandate to serve and to lift His children. He is dependent upon each of us. …“‘… Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these … , ye have done it unto me’ [Matthew 25:40].
Each of us faces the challenge of balancing earthly possessions against spiritual treasures. Our treasures on earth can be destroyed in an instant.
Elder Rasband recounted an Oklahoma tornado survivors story.
They were protected by angels.
Often we are given the opportunity to help others in need.
If we resolve to bear one another's burdens, we are rewarded with
the joy that comes from sacred service.
Is this how we assert our rights? Is this how we protect freedom? There just has to be a better way. In the Bundy Ranch conflict, everyone seems to see their own favorite cause represented.
What I saw depicted in the popular media was a confrontation provoked by acting out, anger, and threats of violence from both sides. It would have been difficult to tell, judging by which side was doing more screaming and threats, which represents traditional values of justice and freedom and which was just a screaming mob.
Why must the proponents of "freedom" engage in a violent shouting and shoving match? Some of the scenes bore uncanny resemblance to two playground bullies striving against each other to assert their dominance. The frenzy of uncontrolled rage was the most obvious characteristic of the "militia", who in many photos and videos of the incident appeared to be bristling with fierce looking weapons, many with the substantial bulges of personal body armor.
In the scenes I witnessed, there were no black helicopters from embattled government forces hovering overhead. No sharpshooting snipers appeared to be zeroing in on their assassination targets. Many of the BLM guys appeared to be intimidated and unprepared to confront the screaming mob, their six-shooters holstered against the threat of facing many wielding semiautomatics and high-power hunting rifles. I heard one member of the Bundy family promise that they had a shotgun, and knew how to use it. It looks like the BLM "thugs" were outnumbered by the screaming protesters, and were most anxious to get the heck out of dodge.
Witnessing the prudent retreat, many of the protesters were apparently emboldened, screaming dire imprecations and making derisive and rude gestures at the government "thugs" as they sped away.
If that is the appearance of freedom vanquishing tyranny, I'm pretty sure I'm not favorably impressed. I'm trying to grasp how all this reconciles with counsel from General LDS Church leaders.
Our whole society really rests on the capacity of its citizens to give 'obedience to the unenforceable.' (Elder Neal A. Maxwell)
Citizens are not free to choose which laws they consider themselves not subject to, and which they opt to obey. This rationale to justify disobedience to the laws of the land is not far removed from justification for disobeying the laws of God. (Elder Dallin H. Oaks)
I don't really care to argue further about "liberty" and "freedom". Those who have appropriated this event as some sort of symbolic cause, fine for them. Believe whatever you please. But I think I am pretty clear on the relation between land and money.
Like most western cattle ranchers, I understand that the Bundy Ranch has title to holdings of just over 100 acres. This is what traces back to family tradition. All of the rest of the more than 7000 acres being claimed for grazing land has always been owned by the state.
Bundy has no title or deed of ownership for this extensive area. But like many others, the Bundy Ranch happens to be a strategic location that controls most of the available water in the area. With range cattle, this is the primary difference that controls whether the land can support the big herd of cattle, or is just more burning sands.
Snopes comments about the Chinese conspiracy theory and other such misinformation. Both sides of this controversy have tossed in so much irrelevant information now, it is impossible to separate. It makes me uncomfortable to see so little difference in methods used by either side. I think they're both losing.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all of us will face adversity and challenge for attempting to defend our faith, says Elder Jeffrey R. Holland. We want to meet these challenges with courage and courtesy. We have good examples of those who have experienced this kind of reviling and adversity with all due restraint. The scriptures witness that ultimate example was set by Jesus.
And the world, because of their iniquity, shall judge him to be a thing of naught; wherefore they scourge him, and he suffereth it; and they smite him, and he suffereth it. Yea, they spit upon him, and he suffereth it, because of his loving kindness and his long-suffering towards the children of men. (1 Nephi 19:9)
For all who follow that example, there has been a long history of rejection and a painfully high price paid by prophets and apostles, missionaries and members in every generation. We may question if it is worth the cost. Yes, it is worth it, Elder Holland suggests, because the alternative is to have our “houses” left unto us “desolate” — desolate individuals, desolate families, desolate neighborhoods, and desolate nations.
Elder Holland observed a characteristic of our age that
"If people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds."
He assures us,
"...Folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of “comfortable” God. Really? He who said not only should we not break commandments, but we should not even think about breaking them. And if we do think about breaking them, we have already broken them in our heart. Does that sound like “comfortable” doctrine, easy on the ear and popular down at the village love-in?"We are called upon to worry, to warn, and to weep.
The promise of Jesus was not to bring peace to the world, but the sword. The bumper sticker slogan "What would Jesus Do?" does not always bring comfortable answers. The requrement from Jesus is characterized in "If you love me, keep my commandments".
We must forsake transgression and any advocacy for it in others. We are confident that the keys to saving ordinances are restored and represent the path to Christian discipleship. The path is without a great deal of latitude at some points, but traversing successully brings great rewards, “...with...steadfastness in Christ....a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men.
President Monson made the welcoming remarks at the Sunday morning session. He attended the dedication of the Gilbert Arizona Temple, the 142nd operating temple in the Church.
Monson indicated that other temple projects are scheduled for completion and dedication, and when all are dedication there will be 170 operating temples. Church leaders continue assessing needs for additional temples, and finding potential locations. He characterized our temple-related efforts.
We are a temple-building and a temple-attending people.
Monday, April 07, 2014
I would suppose that the story of the foolish virgins might also be appropriately adapted to this instance.
The foolish virgins sally forth, assuring each other that it will be okay to temporarily abandon their allegiance to the bridegroom, to carry out their own purposes. They dally at the local shopping mall, admiring their own reflection in the mirror, picking up some really rad bling for their own adornment. They ask each other, "Do you think this purple dress make me look fat?" They shoot some great selfies on their smart phones.
At some point, they casually saunter back to the marriage feast, fully expecting to be admitted, but are shocked to find that the doors of opportunity have already closed.
Then they stand out in the night, breast-beating and vociferously bewailing their self-rightous victimhood, referring back to their awesome selfies for confidence, and complaining loudly into the darkness, as they threaten to make that blankety-blank bridegroom really sorry for ever shutting them out.