Friday, August 5, 2016
Thursday, August 4, 2016
One nation under God?
What an outrageous claim!
What is the requirement of unity? The statement that speaks most to my heart on this topic comes from the story of Enoch. It was said of his people, "They were of one heart and one mind — they dwelled in righteousness and there was no poor among them."
One heart?
One mind?
Righteousness?
No poor?
Look across the street (or hallway, or room). Can you say you are of one heart with the person living there? Is your mind unified? Is your life governed by righteousness? Is there material distinction between you?
Again, do you value the same things as your neighbour? Do you see your life as intertwined with theirs? Do you analyze your actions and potential actions through the lens of their benefit to him? Are you working toward the same goal? Espousing the same standards? The same virtues? Are you living in a consensual state of harmony with the laws that lead to light, strength, power, and love? Do you view your possessions as rightly theirs as much as yours? Can you even see how your resources might be used in such a way that you both could be edified by them?
"Consider how different our relationships with [people] would be if we were as concerned with increasing [the power of God in us] as we are with increasing our personal power at work, or the balance of our bank account."
Next post:
Did Goliath and the Philistines know the God they were mocking? Could they have spoken so scornfully against Him had they known His power and character?
What is the requirement of unity? The statement that speaks most to my heart on this topic comes from the story of Enoch. It was said of his people, "They were of one heart and one mind — they dwelled in righteousness and there was no poor among them."
One heart?
One mind?
Righteousness?
No poor?
Look across the street (or hallway, or room). Can you say you are of one heart with the person living there? Is your mind unified? Is your life governed by righteousness? Is there material distinction between you?
Again, do you value the same things as your neighbour? Do you see your life as intertwined with theirs? Do you analyze your actions and potential actions through the lens of their benefit to him? Are you working toward the same goal? Espousing the same standards? The same virtues? Are you living in a consensual state of harmony with the laws that lead to light, strength, power, and love? Do you view your possessions as rightly theirs as much as yours? Can you even see how your resources might be used in such a way that you both could be edified by them?
"Consider how different our relationships with [people] would be if we were as concerned with increasing [the power of God in us] as we are with increasing our personal power at work, or the balance of our bank account."
Next post:
Did Goliath and the Philistines know the God they were mocking? Could they have spoken so scornfully against Him had they known His power and character?
Make us one!
"That's not what we are in America."
Sorry, but if it happens in America, then that is what we are in America.
There is no across-the-board agreement on what it means to "be an American." There isn't. And when we act or assume that we have this unity of thought, we are mightily deceiving ourselves and setting ourselves up for violent conflict with other members of our community.
Why violent? Because outright assertions or presumptive implications that you are what you know you are not is an attack on the most intimate part of your person of the most violent kind.
What is it to be America? To be Mormon? To be male? Black? White? Gay? Straight? Muslim? Christian?
One man says this Mormon isn't Christian, but what he means is, "This man is in defiance of absolute right!"
This politician says that one isn't exhibiting traits of an American, but what she means is, "That woman behaves or believes contrary to the ideals of America, which is absolute right!"
You've heard the phrase, "Cool is as cool does," right? You know what that means? It means that if someone self-identifies as a ________, then what they do is what a ________ does.
Period.
That is exactly what I am talking about.
Seems simple enough, right? Call yourself whatever you want and whatever you do is part of whatever name you give yourself.
And it's true absolutely without exception.
The implications can be a bit challenging, though, to our current sense of sensibility.
Define "American" as somebody who satisfies the requirements for legal citizenship, then whatever those people DO is part of America.
Is it American to murder? Well, do some Americans murder? Then murder is a part of America.
Do American women have their unborn babies killed? Then that is a part of America. Do some American men marry other men? Then that is part of America. Do some white kids hate some black kids?
You get the idea.
If you are a biological female are sexually attracted to biological males, then that phenomenon is part of the biological female picture. If it happens in America, then it is American. If it happens in Mormondom, then it is part of Mormondom. If the practitioner says she is a Mormon, then it is a Mormon behavior. If it happens in your family, then it is a part of your family. If you are a biological female and your are sexually attracted to other biological females, the that phenomenon is part of the biological female picture. If it happens in America, then it is American. If it happens in Mormondom, then it is part of Mormondom. If the practitioner says she is Mormon, then it is a Mormon behavior. If it happens in your family, then that is part of what it means to be in your family.
What I'm talking about is our propensity to start with words instead of people when dealing with other humans.
You are (usually) not my definition of American. You are (usually) not my definition of Mormon. You are (usually) not my definition of Muslim. Or my definition of black or white or Russian or whatever. You exist on a plane entirely above and outside of my conception of these words. Your existence — the limit of your experience — is not constrained by the limit of my vocabulary.
You are YOU.
Before any terms or definitions, you are YOU.
Though, in general, it is a matter of outstanding existential debate whether we are more than our names, it is entirely appropriate here to say that we are. So when we self-identify with a term or definition, then we bring ourselves to that the meaning of that word, and not the other way around.
And really, when the end of the statement is simply, "This is me! This is what I am," we don't have too much problem with it.
However, what we are really saying in all the examples at the beginning of this is, "I'm right and you are wrong." "My life is in harmony with the mysterious laws of rightness and yours is not."
God is on my side — not on yours.
We all would get a great deal further toward where we wanted to go if we would recognize what we are really saying: that I am right, and you are wrong. That we really don't have as much in common with each other as we have been pretending.
Next article: Whether socially healthy people involve themselves in the "I'm right" debate at all.
Sorry, but if it happens in America, then that is what we are in America.
There is no across-the-board agreement on what it means to "be an American." There isn't. And when we act or assume that we have this unity of thought, we are mightily deceiving ourselves and setting ourselves up for violent conflict with other members of our community.
Why violent? Because outright assertions or presumptive implications that you are what you know you are not is an attack on the most intimate part of your person of the most violent kind.
What is it to be America? To be Mormon? To be male? Black? White? Gay? Straight? Muslim? Christian?
One man says this Mormon isn't Christian, but what he means is, "This man is in defiance of absolute right!"
This politician says that one isn't exhibiting traits of an American, but what she means is, "That woman behaves or believes contrary to the ideals of America, which is absolute right!"
You've heard the phrase, "Cool is as cool does," right? You know what that means? It means that if someone self-identifies as a ________, then what they do is what a ________ does.
Period.
That is exactly what I am talking about.
Seems simple enough, right? Call yourself whatever you want and whatever you do is part of whatever name you give yourself.
And it's true absolutely without exception.
The implications can be a bit challenging, though, to our current sense of sensibility.
Define "American" as somebody who satisfies the requirements for legal citizenship, then whatever those people DO is part of America.
Is it American to murder? Well, do some Americans murder? Then murder is a part of America.
Do American women have their unborn babies killed? Then that is a part of America. Do some American men marry other men? Then that is part of America. Do some white kids hate some black kids?
You get the idea.
If you are a biological female are sexually attracted to biological males, then that phenomenon is part of the biological female picture. If it happens in America, then it is American. If it happens in Mormondom, then it is part of Mormondom. If the practitioner says she is a Mormon, then it is a Mormon behavior. If it happens in your family, then it is a part of your family. If you are a biological female and your are sexually attracted to other biological females, the that phenomenon is part of the biological female picture. If it happens in America, then it is American. If it happens in Mormondom, then it is part of Mormondom. If the practitioner says she is Mormon, then it is a Mormon behavior. If it happens in your family, then that is part of what it means to be in your family.
What I'm talking about is our propensity to start with words instead of people when dealing with other humans.
You are (usually) not my definition of American. You are (usually) not my definition of Mormon. You are (usually) not my definition of Muslim. Or my definition of black or white or Russian or whatever. You exist on a plane entirely above and outside of my conception of these words. Your existence — the limit of your experience — is not constrained by the limit of my vocabulary.
You are YOU.
Before any terms or definitions, you are YOU.
Though, in general, it is a matter of outstanding existential debate whether we are more than our names, it is entirely appropriate here to say that we are. So when we self-identify with a term or definition, then we bring ourselves to that the meaning of that word, and not the other way around.
And really, when the end of the statement is simply, "This is me! This is what I am," we don't have too much problem with it.
However, what we are really saying in all the examples at the beginning of this is, "I'm right and you are wrong." "My life is in harmony with the mysterious laws of rightness and yours is not."
God is on my side — not on yours.
We all would get a great deal further toward where we wanted to go if we would recognize what we are really saying: that I am right, and you are wrong. That we really don't have as much in common with each other as we have been pretending.
Next article: Whether socially healthy people involve themselves in the "I'm right" debate at all.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
de labore sub tyrranis, pars secunda
At this one again.
The fundamental struggle of my existence (no exaggeration) right now is how to reconcile the urge to live for God and the apparent necessities of a (forgive me) godless culture.
"What?! Godless culture? Here in the heart of Mormondom? Counties numero uno for religiosity? Are you attacking my bishop? My Relief Society sisters? My grandma?!"
Of course not.
I'm not saying the waking, rational minds and hearts of you, your neighbours, or your grandma are anti-god. I'm not saying they are in knowing rebellion against God. I'm not saying that Mormon culture specifically is anti-god. This is a problem much, much bigger than Mormondom.
I'm not. What I am saying
I love conspiracy theories as much as (maybe more than) the next man, but that isn't what this is about either. On the one hand, I guess I am talking about the mother of all conspiracies — it gives birth to all others — but it isn't master-minded by any elite class or closet hitlerian. In fact, I don't know if it is masterminded at all. But it is perpetuated. It is buoyed up. It is supported.
By whom?
By you.
By me.
By almost all of us.
"Let's assume I accept, having not even heard yet, the allegation that we are all complicit in some abominable injustice. I don't need to know what the evil is, just tell me what I am doing to support it."
Deal: You go to work.
"I knew it. You're a socialist. You think making money is bad and that those that have have some moral obligation to give it to the lazy, undeserving poor."
Nope. Not that either.
"Then you don't believe that work is necessary to sustain life."
Wrong again. THIS IS NOT A TIRADE AGAINST LABOR, BUT LABOR UNDER AN INVISIBLE TYRANY.
Of course work is necessary. All the essays ever written on the virtue of work — I believe them. All the motivational speeches that list WORK, day in and day out, as the primary factor for success and achievement — I agree with them. Every sermon given from every pulpit that ever hounded or hinted at the idea that "In the beginning," God worked — I know they are true. I support it.
The law of the harvest. Karma. Reap what you sow. Ants and crickets. Noah and the ark — guys, I believe!
But there is a sinisterity that underlies nearly all our interactions as they pertain to the sustaining and development and enriching of human life on this planet. Something tied to our motivation. Something about our basic view of why we do productive things and how we consume the fruits of them.
"To see the captive hears released —
The sick, the hurt, the poor at peace.
We lay down our lives for Heaven's cause."
Is that why you work?
That is why Jesus worked. That is what Jesus worked. I cannot believe that it is impossible for us to do it to.
Enoch succeeded. Joseph didn't.
Don't you get the feeling that it is possible?
The fundamental struggle of my existence (no exaggeration) right now is how to reconcile the urge to live for God and the apparent necessities of a (forgive me) godless culture.
"What?! Godless culture? Here in the heart of Mormondom? Counties numero uno for religiosity? Are you attacking my bishop? My Relief Society sisters? My grandma?!"
Of course not.
I'm not saying the waking, rational minds and hearts of you, your neighbours, or your grandma are anti-god. I'm not saying they are in knowing rebellion against God. I'm not saying that Mormon culture specifically is anti-god. This is a problem much, much bigger than Mormondom.
I'm not. What I am saying
I love conspiracy theories as much as (maybe more than) the next man, but that isn't what this is about either. On the one hand, I guess I am talking about the mother of all conspiracies — it gives birth to all others — but it isn't master-minded by any elite class or closet hitlerian. In fact, I don't know if it is masterminded at all. But it is perpetuated. It is buoyed up. It is supported.
By whom?
By you.
By me.
By almost all of us.
"Let's assume I accept, having not even heard yet, the allegation that we are all complicit in some abominable injustice. I don't need to know what the evil is, just tell me what I am doing to support it."
Deal: You go to work.
"I knew it. You're a socialist. You think making money is bad and that those that have have some moral obligation to give it to the lazy, undeserving poor."
Nope. Not that either.
"Then you don't believe that work is necessary to sustain life."
Wrong again. THIS IS NOT A TIRADE AGAINST LABOR, BUT LABOR UNDER AN INVISIBLE TYRANY.
Of course work is necessary. All the essays ever written on the virtue of work — I believe them. All the motivational speeches that list WORK, day in and day out, as the primary factor for success and achievement — I agree with them. Every sermon given from every pulpit that ever hounded or hinted at the idea that "In the beginning," God worked — I know they are true. I support it.
The law of the harvest. Karma. Reap what you sow. Ants and crickets. Noah and the ark — guys, I believe!
But there is a sinisterity that underlies nearly all our interactions as they pertain to the sustaining and development and enriching of human life on this planet. Something tied to our motivation. Something about our basic view of why we do productive things and how we consume the fruits of them.
"To see the captive hears released —
The sick, the hurt, the poor at peace.
We lay down our lives for Heaven's cause."
Is that why you work?
That is why Jesus worked. That is what Jesus worked. I cannot believe that it is impossible for us to do it to.
Enoch succeeded. Joseph didn't.
Don't you get the feeling that it is possible?
Monday, August 1, 2016
The whole man
"It is a puzzling development, as yet poorly understood, that the “caring” in networks is in some important way feigned. Not maliciously, but in spite of any genuine emotional attractions that might be there, human behavior in network situations often resembles a dramatic act - - matching a script produced to meet the demands of a story. And, as such, the intimate moments in networks lack the sustaining value of their counterparts in community."
— That genius again
The issue here as I see it is one of fundamental human integrity: where and under what circumstances is it permissible to be all that you are? Or is the whole human story one drawn-out condemnation to an existence of fractionalized, part-experiences?
Do we ever get to be whole?
The abomination of our current work-system is that we claim ownership of (i.e. we "purchase") specifically delineated parts of another's life with little to no concern, interest, or respect for the rest of it. As a way of life it is WRONG. It undermines our every effort to preach love, liberty, and virtue. It says, "Those parts of you that I find useful can be commandeered for my own purposes, but my involvement with you stops at that — beyond what I desire in you, you have no rights of existence."
Our very notions of freedom stem from this warped ideology: I am at liberty when I can experience the world and its people only in filtered mono-chrome — inasmuch as I pay for it.
Or them.
"You've no right to behave that way toward me — I paid only for certain parts of you. Leave the rest at the door. You're no whole person on my clock."
It is an abhorrent way to live.
It is fundamentally immoral and completely incongruous with the merciful aims of deity that would turn us into beings of such deep and abiding glory that we would warrant WORSHIP.
Who are we to shatter the human spirit? How have we taken it upon ourselves to dissect our neighbor into so many cuts of meat? To steal from him the harmony of divinity and reduce him to brick and mortar to build up our own fortresses of isolation?
Lord, have mercy!
— That genius again
The issue here as I see it is one of fundamental human integrity: where and under what circumstances is it permissible to be all that you are? Or is the whole human story one drawn-out condemnation to an existence of fractionalized, part-experiences?
Do we ever get to be whole?
The abomination of our current work-system is that we claim ownership of (i.e. we "purchase") specifically delineated parts of another's life with little to no concern, interest, or respect for the rest of it. As a way of life it is WRONG. It undermines our every effort to preach love, liberty, and virtue. It says, "Those parts of you that I find useful can be commandeered for my own purposes, but my involvement with you stops at that — beyond what I desire in you, you have no rights of existence."
Our very notions of freedom stem from this warped ideology: I am at liberty when I can experience the world and its people only in filtered mono-chrome — inasmuch as I pay for it.
Or them.
"You've no right to behave that way toward me — I paid only for certain parts of you. Leave the rest at the door. You're no whole person on my clock."
It is an abhorrent way to live.
It is fundamentally immoral and completely incongruous with the merciful aims of deity that would turn us into beings of such deep and abiding glory that we would warrant WORSHIP.
Who are we to shatter the human spirit? How have we taken it upon ourselves to dissect our neighbor into so many cuts of meat? To steal from him the harmony of divinity and reduce him to brick and mortar to build up our own fortresses of isolation?
Lord, have mercy!
Drawing near with our lips but keeping our hearts in stark reserve
We have gotten to the point where we the people generally bend our theoretical acquiescence to the idea that love actually is the answer.
But where are we learning to love? How are we doing at it? At whole-hearted loving?
But where are we learning to love? How are we doing at it? At whole-hearted loving?
"The proclivity to hide or deny unflattering facts..."
This is an attempt to put words to a feeling that has been growing stronger for some time and pertains directly to the very touchy subject of presumptive virtue.
Generally speaking, I believe that no one (read that NO ONE) ever does anything but what they think is right (read that RIGHT — aka, utterly acceptable and often duty-driven by one's
I read the phrase that became the title of this post in an op-ed piece about Mormon polygamy and other, apparently, "unflattering facts" of Mormon history. Something about the line bothered me so much that I immediately had to stop reading and make some sense of the assumption. It is especially close right now because it rings of an air that is embedded deep in the current political discourse of today as well as the "-ism" rants flying around the media and internet.
I think part of what bugs me about this is that I've heard the same logic used to condemn another's opinion while simultaneously propping up the virtue of one's own.
exempli gratia. LGBT: "I can do and say what I want in public and if you complain then you are homophobic." Religionists: "I can do and say what I want in public and if you complain then you are impeding on my 1st Amendment rights."
I've reaching, but haven't gotten to the heart of what's bugging me yet...
Here's this: If we all really believed as similarly as we pretend to, we would all get along better. That we struggle so much to get along is a clear indicator that we do NOT have the same base value set.
The laws of a country do not indicate unanimity of opinion, but division.
Is there any law that says we eat? Relieve our bowels? Breathe?
Why not? Because there
We are assuming too much about the rightness of fairness. Fairness neither is nor has any inherent virtue. It disn't. Fairness is a tool, just as reason, faith, logic, law, physical force, restraint, or even "facts," for that matter, are TOOLS. They don't exist as objective standards of virtue. They don't exist for their own sakes. They exist to give us access to God. Period. And whatever and however we gain access to God, the Only True God, and the Perfect Son He sent, is fair game: full disclosure, partial disclosure, hearing both sides, or hearing one — to God, the point is not and has never has been fairness. It has been salvation and exaltation.
Generally speaking, I believe that no one (read that NO ONE) ever does anything but what they think is right (read that RIGHT — aka, utterly acceptable and often duty-driven by one's
I read the phrase that became the title of this post in an op-ed piece about Mormon polygamy and other, apparently, "unflattering facts" of Mormon history. Something about the line bothered me so much that I immediately had to stop reading and make some sense of the assumption. It is especially close right now because it rings of an air that is embedded deep in the current political discourse of today as well as the "-ism" rants flying around the media and internet.
I think part of what bugs me about this is that I've heard the same logic used to condemn another's opinion while simultaneously propping up the virtue of one's own.
exempli gratia. LGBT: "I can do and say what I want in public and if you complain then you are homophobic." Religionists: "I can do and say what I want in public and if you complain then you are impeding on my 1st Amendment rights."
I've reaching, but haven't gotten to the heart of what's bugging me yet...
Here's this: If we all really believed as similarly as we pretend to, we would all get along better. That we struggle so much to get along is a clear indicator that we do NOT have the same base value set.
The laws of a country do not indicate unanimity of opinion, but division.
Is there any law that says we eat? Relieve our bowels? Breathe?
Why not? Because there
We are assuming too much about the rightness of fairness. Fairness neither is nor has any inherent virtue. It disn't. Fairness is a tool, just as reason, faith, logic, law, physical force, restraint, or even "facts," for that matter, are TOOLS. They don't exist as objective standards of virtue. They don't exist for their own sakes. They exist to give us access to God. Period. And whatever and however we gain access to God, the Only True God, and the Perfect Son He sent, is fair game: full disclosure, partial disclosure, hearing both sides, or hearing one — to God, the point is not and has never has been fairness. It has been salvation and exaltation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)