Category Archives: Opinion Pieces

TBM Guide: Definitions and concepts

Groups/types of Mormons:

Belief classifications:

  • Traditionally Believing
    • The TBM.  Generally believes this group to be the only real Mormons, with other groups not really being Mormon.
  • Literally believing
    • Refers to literally accepting every spiritual claim of the Church and any of its leaders, and of scriptures.  This means a very literal six day creation, a young (6,000 year old Earth), literal global flood, etc.  Generally describes the TBM.  “The scriptures say it.  I believe it.  That settles it.”
  • Nuanced Believing
    • Believes in God, Restoration, Priesthood, etc., but with understandings that are less than literal.  Generally make literalistic TBMs uncomfortable
    • less literally believing
      • Looks at the same events that a literal believer takes at face value for their symbolic meaning.  Not usually associated with the TBM,  but some TBMs are open to less literal readings.  Sometimes “Mystical believers.”
    • Non Believing
      • Cultural (only) Mormons
        • Raised in a Mormon setting.  Generally model themselves around Cultural Jews — identifying themselves with the people and identity, but not necessarily as devout or believing the tenets of the religion.
    • not literally believing
    • Agnostic
      • Literally means “I don’t know.”
    • Atheist
      • Don’t believe in God.
      • Believe there is no God.
  • Some categories of less/not literally believing Mormons:

    • Sunstone Mormons
      • People involved in the Sunstone Foundation, whether through subscribing to Sunstone Magazine, or attending any of the Sunstone Symposia.
    • Dialogue Mormons
    • Bloggernacle Mormons
    • Prefix-Mos
      • A term I use to describe a number of categories of Mormons that are outside the box.  Such as:
      • Ex-Mormons
        • People no longer affiliated with the Church.  Stereotyped as “angry,” and more likely to attack the Church and become anti-Mormon from the perspective of the TBM
      • Post-Mormons
        • People no longer affiliated with the Church, who accept that their time with the Church is over, but without the assumption that they are angry about it.
    • NOMs
      • New Order Mormons, who are trying to make a space for themselves, and a less-literal understanding of Church matters.  May or may not have retained a belief in Church truth claims, but what belief and testimony they have will be much more nuanced than what it was at an earlier date.

Trump

I am no fan of Trump.  Those who know me know I’ve consistently referred to him as a buffoon.  I have not supported his candidacy in any way, and never will.  I want to still be able to make fun of Bill Clinton for being a philanderer and sexual predator without being a hypocrite.  Among other things.  But I see people consistently getting things wrong about him, so this is to address several of those things.  I would like to see people understand the Trump phenomenon better than they do. Continue reading Trump

Silenced again.

This is a comment I was unable to post to a FB conversation because, apparently, I have been blocked from any kind of conversation with the “friend” that was hosting the conversation.  This was the comment that would have explained what I was doing in the conversation, but, having been blocked from doing so, my participation is being forced into a form that will leave me looking more than a little incoherent.  Which is more than a little uncool with me.  Cowardly and intellectually dishonest, in fact.  I’m neither going to include the full name of the person involved, nor hide the mentions of her first name that I wrote in the comment.  If you know who this is, you can know that I’m calling her out for conversational cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.  If not, don’t worry about it.  

The reason I brought this point up here is that a week or two ago, Amy and I had a long and unpleasant conversation about her assertion of a “fact” that racism is only found in systemic oppression, and not in individual acts of hatred and cruelty motivated by race. I disagreed with that usage of the word, because it’s not the way ordinary people use it. They also use it to describe indiidual acts of hatred and cruelty motivated by race, and belief in racial superiority. As the CBC did in this article (although, honestly, they didn’t quote any of the graffiti that used terms that indicated a racial aspect to this, as I pointed out above). The hatred (which I neither share, nor condone, nor excuse in even the smallest degree) was focused on people based on their religion and their nationality/ethnicity.

Again, I am not a fan of hatred toward Muslims. The only Syrians I have contempt toward are named Assad. I’m not opposed to helping refugees from Syria. Nobody can provide evidence to the contrary because none exists. I’m not trying to distract any attention from this act. I think it’s deplorable, and that those who carried it out should be made to account for it.

For those who disagree with the idea that racism is only an institutional phenomenon, welcome to my side of the disagreement.

If you chance to meet a frown, respect it.

If you chance to meet a frown,
Do not let it stay.
Quickly turn it upside down
And smile that frown away.
No one likes a frowning face.
Change it for a smile.
Make the world a better place
By smiling all the while.
I probably learned this song when I was three-years old.  I disagree with it.  Negative feelings are legitimate and valuable and doctrinally solid.  They aren’t necessarily a sign that anything is wrong.  They are a sign that life isn’t always fun and games.  As mentioned in a podcast episode I was listening to earlier today, Jesus in the Garden wasn’t (probably) smiling while begging God to release him from what he was there to do, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t okay for him to do it.

Continue reading If you chance to meet a frown, respect it.

Feelings, wo wo wo….

Feelings are tricky things.  It’s not that they’re bad, or weird, or unusual.  We all have feelings all the time.  And that’s a good thing — it has to do with why we exist, I think.  Everybody has a right to all of their feelings, and those feelings are valid.

But having strong feelings about something doesn’t make you right or wrong about it.  It’s just another thing — perhaps relevant to mention, but more likely something good to think about when it comes to the issue to see where the feeling might come from and if it’s worth reconsidering.  Dialectic Behavioral Therapy teaches the idea of Emotional Mind and Rational Mind (derived from Eastern Philosophies, iirc), and of balancing those together to form what is called Wise Mind.  Jonathan Haidt talks of these as Emotional Mind being an elephant, and Rational Mind being the driver of that elephant — Rational mind may be able to direct the elephantine Emotional Mind in most given moments, but Emotional Mind is big and strong and can go where it wants to go, whether the driver likes it or not.  Anybody who has made a really stupid decision because it felt good or right will understand why Emotional Mind is the elephant.

I tend to discount the value of what Emotional Mind wants when talking to others, in favor of pushing them toward Rational Mind, trying to find a Wise Mind balance when it comes to whatever ideas are being discussed, especially when it comes to making choices.  I’ve just seen too many really bad results from Emotional Mind-based decisions to be really comfortable letting that be the guide.

Caitlyn Jenner

I’ve been in places where I felt out of place and very uncomfortable. I would hate it if that place was in my own skin. I would hate it worse if everybody and their dog thought their opinion about what I did about it mattered. And worse yet if they were jerks about it.

Why this sustainer isn’t opposed to “any opposed.”

I sustain the leaders of the Church as prophets, seers and revelators.  Recently, a group of people who do not openly voted against them at General Conference, setting off a small firestorm of angry and uncharitable comments about them throughout the TBM community.  Although I disagree with their opinion on this matter, I don’t see what they’ve done as terrible or wrong.  I see it as a desperate act of those who are trying to have their concerns heard, if not addressed, and I see it as a failed effort, as the leaders of the Church, in the voice of Pres. Uchtdorf, once again refused to listen to them, and referred them to local leaders who will not pass the details of those concerns along, and will likely threaten their membership.   Continue reading Why this sustainer isn’t opposed to “any opposed.”

We Never Walk Alone — Sacrament Meeting Talk

We Never Walk Alone

12 Jan 2014

Arlington Third Ward.

There is nothing in this world quite like a simple, clear, obvious, undeniably true statement with which no reasonable person can disagree. I have become convinced that there is absolutely nothing like it – there is no such thing. Through my life, I have come to see that there is much truth to be found in challenging what seems to be obviously true. One of the first times I remember noticing that phenomenon was the first time I read the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus taught that we should reward those who take from us by giving more, those who strike us by giving them a chance to strike us again, and that we should actually love our enemies. It seems obviously true that we should punish those who take from us, defend ourselves from those who hit is, and hate our enemies. Left to ourselves, we do such things, in point of fact. But the Savior challenges us to return good for evil. To do something that, at first blush, seems to contradict reason.

There is a term for a situation where two things seem to be mutually exclusive, but are both true, and that is a dialectic. Where simple logic seems to dictate black and white, either/or thinking, dialectic describes shades of gray and yes/and thinking. Rather than good people on one side and bad people on the other, dialectic shows us just people, children of God, our brothers and sisters who are and do both good and bad on all sides of a question – and there are usually more than two sides to any story. Where simple logic seems to dictate that good people receive good things that make them happy, and bad people receive bad things that make them unhappy, dialectic, life and the gospel show us that people can receive bad things in their lives despite making good choices, and can receive pleasant things in their lives despite making bad choices. I believe that dialectics exist due to reality being more complex than our language and minds can totally comprehend. Continue reading We Never Walk Alone — Sacrament Meeting Talk

Some More Thoughts on Gun Control and Mass Shootings

Another excerpt of comments from a conversation.

I’ve got no particular problem with the kinds of things Will was talking about (background checks, mental health requirements, and license requirements), but I return to my previous point, and will add another — they aren’t going to work until their enforcement is funded, and they’re not going to really stop horrible things from happening. There are enough guns in circulation that nothing is going to stop someone who really wants a gun from getting it. If we can’t keep weapons and drugs out of prisons, we’re not going to be able to keep them from people outside prisons.

But passing laws to attempt to change the behavior of people who won’t obey laws is ridiculous on its face. It’s like trying to stop people from speeding by reducing the speed limit.

To the notion of strengthening regulation, and reducing the number of guns:

Reduce the numbers how? There are about 300 million guns in the country. If you got rid of 90% of them, there’d still be 30 million — enough to have a reenactment of WWII. And there’s no way you’ll get more than 10% of that in real terms in an environment where you can’t pass a ban on assault-styled hunting rifles.

And how are you going to strengthen those regulations without *funding their enforcement?* That’s the Achilles’ Heel of nearly every gun control scheme floating around — no one has made any serious effort to fund the existing laws. Without that, regulations have no strength at all — they are virtually meaningless.

I think the best idea is to pay attention to the realities of the situation. School and other mass shootings scare the hell out of us and piss us off, but they’re exceptionally rare events, and reducing their frequency by any kind of government effort is extremely unlikely — they tend to happen in gun-free zones, for one thing. Accidental shootings are more dangerous and quite preventable with gun safety education. The NRA has Eddie Eagle curriculum for gun safety classes for pre-schoolers that they make available for free to anybody who wants to use it. That doesn’t take any change in law — just people willing to stand up and do it. Why every school in the country isn’t doing this is beyond me. Well, except the part about how folks hate the NRA, and assume the curriculum would be brainwashing kids about how cool guns are. Which it doesn’t: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIEBrb_wRYc. That’s not sexy, but it could really be effective.