My latest post…but it’s at Mormon Matters. Discuss either here or there.

It seems the crowd at Mormon Matters has very reasonable beliefs on things. But I’m wondering…if I polled all members (not just people who are likely to surf the online Mormon blogs, say), would I get similar answers? Do Mormons truly believe in such an inclusive afterlife? Will Hell (or Outer Darkness) truly be so sparsely populated?

In response to the LDS church’s seemingly monumental support of certain gay rights (“common sense” anti-discrimination measures — they haven’t said anything about civil unions and they are sticking to their guns against gay marriage), which others commented on elsewhere, there was a terrific post on Mormon Matters from a guest writer, John Gustav-Wrathall, about the Gay Rights Paradox.

In the Mormon Matters discussion, I saw the sharks swarm around John…see, I don’t have anything against the commenter Jared as a person, but he does seem to telegraph his strategies in advance. Now, his current hypothesis he is espousing is that he feels when people take “radical” positions, it is because they failed to consult the scriptures. If one consulted the scriptures, then they would have no problem following the Prophet and believing in the church’s position.

I wanted to warn John about this tactic…but John didn’t fall for the bait. He took the discussion offline (where, I guess the two may be emailing back and forth now.)

Well, I went to John’s short post linking to the Mormon Matters discussion from his blog. Despite the short post with no additional information added, there was a bit of a discussion going on here. And here I saw that Christopher Bigelow had commented.

Again, nothing against Chris as a person either, but his position is telegraphed. He takes a conservative, orthodox stance against gay marriage. So, when he presented his scenario, I kinda knew what to expect.

Here’s a question about gay marriage: Say gay marriage is accepted by society…Say you have a 14-year-old Mormon boy who feels a mixture of attractions to both males and females, at different times. Or maybe he feels more attracted to other boys, overall, but also feels at least SOME attraction for females. (Kinsey taught that, for many, sexual orientation is fluid and can be quite different at 40 than it was at 20, depending on a person’s influences, circumstances, behavior, etc.)

If society says that a gay marriage is equally valid to a hetero one, what’s to stop such a boy from choosing to go the gay route, when he also could have chosen the hetero route? There may even be other subconscious reasons affecting his decision to go with the gay thing: not wanting to rear children, not wanting a woman to control him or boss him around, not wanting a traditional Mormon suburban family lifestyle, etc.

In other words, equalizing gay marriage will really confuse forthcoming generations, in my opinion. It won’t hurt existing marriages, but it will decimate future marriages.

OK, so I just take this to say, “Why would a bisexual person marry a woman?”

My answer has to be harsh…given the scenario, I have to ask: why would ANYONE want this person to marry a woman?

The answer is that a bisexual person would marry a woman because he wants to. If he doesn’t want to, he should not.

The hypothetical individual does not want to rear children. He does not want “a woman to control him” (and the fact that he sees things like this is particularly telling). He does not want the “traditional Mormon suburban family lifestyle.” Let me be clear here: gay marriage didn’t cause ANY of this. This is the milieu. This is the setting, ante-bellum. This is the backdrop.

So, with this backdrop, why should this person marry a woman? He doesn’t want to, and his doing so will be disingenuous for all parties involved. (What damage would be caused to the woman who married this person, who must come to realize that he believes he is being controlled by her…that he resents her for it?) Again, this has nothing to do with gay marriage.

However, what gay marriage would allow is for this person to be in a committed, loving relationship, without the pretenses and expectations.

I mean, the implications here are kinda frightening. I should hope that people only marry because they want to. They marry because they don’t think the “woman will control him.” They marry because they may want a family (even if it’s down the road). They marry because they have aspirations.

I should most certainly hope that people aren’t marrying just because of pressures. Because of some ill-begotten duty. But Christopher’s example makes it seem like he does want people to marry because of these pressures. That, without gay marriage to ruin everything, the bisexual man in this situation would marry anyway — despite his many worries and dislikes — because that’s the way things should be.

Gay marriage will not confuse oncoming generations and it will not decimate future marriages. It will revalue (and appreciate) marriage. People will marry who they want to, because they want to. Instead of marrying out of duty to who society thinks they should marry.

~And of course, all of this is taken on an assumption of bisexuality. Would a heterosexual male ever have to debate, “Ooh, I dunno…man or woman?” When people say that “future generations would be confused,” I wonder if they think about themselves. Were they confused about who they liked? Did they need society to train them?

UPDATE: This is a comment from the Mormon Matters discussion. It may well be the worst comment I have read on the blogging internet.

I think you people need to read your scriptures. The Lord is very specific about what he says concerning “sexual sin” and politically correct or not, homosexuality is sexual sin. You can’t support the law that prevents a person from discriminating against homosexual’s without destroying the law that gives a property owner the right to use his property however he pleases. True every person should be able to support themselves and earn a living for their families, however, homosexuals don’t have families unless they indulge in heterosexual behavior, either themselves or a heterosexual who provides the service. I find it very interesting that homosexuals have been around since time immemorial and it has only been since they have sought to legitimize their behavior that any question of discrimination has been brought up. If you study history, which unfortunately most American’s avoid out of fear of being called intolerant, or uncultured, you will find that any nation which has “tolerated” homosexul behavior as a lifestyle has bit the dust. I also find it interesting that man is the only creation that practices this vice and I think its because he is the only creation with the power of “thought”. I have always found it curious that homosexuals and lesbians are never 2 women or 2 men, they are always one partner who adopts the role of the female and the other the role of the male. Doesn’t that say something to anyone with a brain. If Heavenly Father, as Johngw states, smiles on her union, and I take it from her blog that she is the female componet of the relationship, why would He not direct his leaders to sanction the relationship? Satan is having a field day, especially with Latter-day Saints. We have become so desirous of being accepted we are no longer a peculiar people. How I long for a Latter-day Saint leader like an Abinadi, a Moroni, a Teancum, or Samuel the Lamanite who has the cohona’s to stand up and be a man instead of the whimps that fill our pulpits, congressional seats, and homes.

I was reading a great article from Mormon Matters about some of the old Mormon pioneers and the handcart companies. Honestly, I’ll be the first to admit that that period of history doesn’t really interest me…so the constant emphasis on the pioneers in the church doesn’t do much for me.

So I guess I haven’t really dived deeply into what the pioneer stood for before. The post at Mormon Matters was a good opportunity for me to get a glimpse. One part that was interesting…

I admire Levi Savage for following his leaders even when he knew they were wrong because he wanted to serve the other Saints when they would need it.  He did not leave those people who he loved because he could not agree with others who had openly chastised him.  This sets up a model for me of how I feel that I can respond to the challenges of this kind.  I am not advocating a blind obedience because I think it is important to challenge incorrect thinking; but when that is done, I sense that it is important to maintain fellowship in order to help those who may be hurt in the future by incorrect or mis-informed decisions.  I should note that this is how I feel and that others rightful [sic] do not feel the same.

Others offered a different interpretation…Commenter Ulysseus wrote:

I don’t see this so much as an issue of redemption, but an issue of community and commitment to a social organization — which is exactly what England was probably going for in the original essay. Levi Savage knew he was right based on experience. You might say he had actual knowledge. He went knowing full well what was in store. It wasn’t blind faith, it was a choice. He could have easily made a different choice to stay. His commitment to the society is what required him to stay. The same could be said of William Kimball. He knew he was running directly into a frozen hell but he went anyway.

Ulysseus later wrote that such heroism in the face of physical challenge wasn’t uncommon, and most certainly wasn’t reserved to Mormons. But then another commenter, MrQandA, expounded:

I do agree that actions despite the emotional harm, is [sic] extremely courageous and the majority of time it goes unnoticed. But I would see Savage displaying this type of courage, he knew that the saint’s would suffer and wanted to help them, this is not only the physical burdens but the emotional burdens. Many times we shy away from helping the sick, poor, afflicted not because we don’t have the finances but we lack the emotional affluence to really effectively help someone. Helping less actives, or single sisters or widows is draining emotionally.

Perhaps this shows the dichotomy between Savage and Kimball one physical & the other emotional. Christ spoke of mourning with those who mourn. is one act greater than the other, perhaps depends on the person and the act.

Other commenters highlighted again the role of sticking by our communities.

This made me ask a question…what responsibilities do we have to our communities?

Maybe this is blasphemous, but I tend to think communities were made for us. We were not made for communities. So, when we are giving so much and receiving only grief, pain, calls of inadequacy, I don’t think we have any responsibility to the community.

I mean, I can understand that for a community that has supported us for so long, then naturally, we should feel more supportive of the community, because in that case, it has sustained us.

But…what if a community has sustained us in an abusive way? Obviously, everyone’s mileage will vary (especially for each community — some people are completely satisfied and sustained in the Mormon community. Others must tend to the scars…)

But if we are emotionally scarred, and we distance ourselves from the community, then does that suggest we are “emotionally poor” for doing so?  I certainly agree with MrQandA about mourning with those that mourn…but sometimes, I need to mourn for myself, because it’s unlikely that anyone else will. This isn’t because I’m weak. This is because I want to be sane.

There’s this quotation that I’ve seen twice now…first from a USAToday article, and then from the New York Times. Samir Selmanovic, who I have previously never heard of, writes that:

Atheism at its best grabs us by the collar and throws us to the ground, demanding to see lives well lived, forcing us to dig deeper and live up to the best of our own religions…Atheists are God’s whistleblowers.

What a job, what a job.

But again, let’s take it in context…it’s not really for God. At least, not for God as any externally existing thing. Rather, it is for God as an idea propagated by people who have the chance to get things rather counterintuitive if left to their own devices. I have seen a similar sentiment yet again (so I guess the third time truly is the charm and this is why I’m making this post), at the blog Young Stranger.

John writes:

I love and feel affinity with atheists and agnostics. In fact, in many ways I feel as though my faith is much closer to the disbelief of atheists than it is to the lazy, hypocritical, legalistic, intolerant religious culture in which today’s America is saturated. American “belief” is too much like Nebuchadnezzar’s golden statute. America’s self-appointed spokespeople for God are too much like Nebuchadnezzar’s priests, demanding obedience, and threatening lion’s dens and fiery furnaces for those who don’t bow down. To the extent that God is identified with American nationalism and American wars and the American dollar, that god I want no part of. That kind of theism is nothing but filth and idolatry. And when the predominant culture is idolatrous, atheism is the beginning of faith.

In the faith that I embrace, God speaks to us not in the storm and whirlwind, but in the still, small voice. The voice that is so quiet it can only be heard in the silence. God does not compel, God persuades. God loved us into being, and loves us into motion. In the Mormon theology that I embrace, God purposely created a universe for us to live in that appears to be godless. God deliberately sent us into this dimension with no recollection of him. We live in an apparently godless universe, with no overt memory of God, in order to be tested, to see if we will live lives of compassion, justice and mercy even when we are free to live lives of greed, injustice and hate. No compulsion, no force should be used to require faith. That’s the way of Satan. That is the way, incidentally, of the culture we live in.

The “believer” who is intolerant and mean-spirited is like the son in Jesus’ parable, who promised his father he would come and labor in the vineyard but then reneges. The “unbeliever” who is kind to the stranger and merciful to the widow and the orphan is like the son in Jesus’ parable, who told his father he would not come work in the vineyard, but then showed up anyway. I’d much rather have the latter kind of faith than the former. So, apparently, would Jesus (Matthew 21: 28-32).

I particularly like his final paragraph, with scriptural backing. But still…I don’t know if it’s enough. For example, John’s post ultimately is to raise up faith, and he goes into what he finds to be a spectacular example of faith through Contact (relating to SETI). But what if we aren’t seeking extraterrestrial intelligence in the same way we aren’t seeking God? (Because unlike John, it’s not the case that I’m seeking a God that is separate from the idolatry, separate from the storm and whirlwind…no, what I’m seeking, I don’t feel I should call “God” at all, or else I will twist language beyond utility.) Is it enough to show up to the vineyard even though we said we would not? Even though we call the vineyard something else? John raised Matthew 21, but I also wonder about Matthew 25…

³⁴“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

³⁷“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

⁴⁰“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

What, then, does it mean, to bend a knee? That every tongue will confess? Which concepts from the scriptures are more representative of the idea? Socially oriented religion sounds good, but I am always aware of the body of believers who are strongly opposed to the idea of religion just being about being a more compassionate person. I think I have to agree with them that religion — or if not religion, then especially theism — requires a bit more than that.

One year ago today, I got this crazy idea…what if I could start a blog about my thoughts of being a Mormon, but of not being a Mormon…my lack of understanding of my culture and heritage, but my forced and ingrained living of my culture and heritage. I wondered if I could meet a different kind of believer than the ones in my ward (no offense to them), and I wondered if I could meet a different kind of nonbelievers than the ones in the…well, I don’t know what non-believer wards are (but I mean no offense to them either.)

And so, I started Irresistible (Dis)Grace. I didn’t really know what I was doing, how far I’d get, or how long I’d even last (after all, this blog had a specific niche, and I thought I would run out of “topics”).

Well, apparently, if nothing else, at least I reached the 1 year mark!

What has one year even gotten me? Well, for one, 38,051 page views. 318 posts. 2,569 comments. Connection with a wide range of Mormons (of all stripes), ex-Mormons (of all stripes), and never-Mormons (of all stripes). More confidence and nuance to some aspects of my personality philosophy, but also more humility for other aspects.

How have I been doing? It’s always tough to tell…What have been your favorite parts or articles, least favorite parts, and so on? How should I improve for year 2? What things would you like to see? Be creative…I can’t guarantee anything, but who knows?

I must admit that I worry…I think I have a good niche…but it’s definitely a niche. Sometimes, I think, “Isn’t expansion the goal?” But then I realize that I’m not really in this for expansion, per se. I just don’t want to face the possible reality that there’s a wall three inches in front of me that I’ll hit and won’t be able to scale…

This is a snippet from Dale McGowan’s recent article, “The Unconditional Love of Reality.”

I was unconditionally smitten with reality and began at some point working on the Big Question: Does God exist?If I had any predisposition, it was the usual human one: a desire that it all be true. How could I have stood at that casket and wished for anything but the existence of God, since that might continue the existence of my father? But my love of reality naturally came with a serious distaste for self-deception. The truth itself is more beautiful than an illusion, even when that truth is uncomfortable. I would be thrilled if there was a God; I would be thrilled if there wasn’t. I just wanted to know.

In short, I took the question seriously.

Three obstacles presented themselves immediately. The first was the claim that the question simply can’t be asked. “It’s not that kind of question,” I remember a Sunday school teacher telling our class, without explaining what that could possibly mean. For the sake of the inquiry, I had to assume that was untrue and see what would happen if I asked it.

The second obstacle was the wrath of God. Doubt is a sin, probing questions an offense to the divine. After some thought, I decided that God was unlikely to be so insecure or frankly egotistical as to punish me eternally just because I was honestly wrong about him.

The third hurdle was the notion that even if it were a question like any other, there was simply no way to answer it. You can neither prove nor disprove God.

I was in high school before I surmounted that one. I realized I didn’t have to answer the question “Does God exist?” Must we believe all assertions that can’t be disproven? Russell’s Teapot says no. So a perfectly askable and appropriate question was “Why do other people believe in God, and are those reasons convincing?”

This is really the deal. Many people confuse the question at hand. It’s not whether something exist…but whether we are persuaded to believe something exists.

Unfortunately, this should answer some of his own questions. He speaks rather uncharitably when he asks:

How do we go on, century after century, skating on the thin ice of a system so self-evidently false and self-contradictory? We do so by believing what we hear from those we love, from those who wish us nothing but the best: that religious faith is inherently and unquestionably good, and that all good people are people of faith.

But I can say this is really too dim, too cynical. Obviously, there is something more that people get from religions that give them no reason to question (and thus, no reason to question if their religious faith is unquestionably good or not). The idea of “self-evident” falseness really masks something that McGowan unfortunately takes for granted…that self-evident concepts are only indicative of an individual’s subjective perspective. So what is self-evidently false and self-contradictory to McGowan very naturally might not appear so to anyone who has different (and positive) experiences with the religion or faith community.

This is a quotation from a commenter and guest podcaster, Brian, at the Mormon Expression podcast on Fowler’s Stages of Faith (speaking of which, I need to listen to this when I have the chance!).

The transition from 4 to 5 is often prompted by being tired of the flatness of the color and flavor of faith caused by hyper rationalism, from deconstructing everything into pieces, and from constantly pointing out that the great and powerful Oz is “just” a man behind the curtain.

I think one of the best examples is the Christmas holiday. Why would a grown adult participate in the Christmas holiday when they know that Christ wasn’t actually born on December 25th, and there really isn’t a man named Santa Claus that flies around delivering presents? It’s either true or it’s false, right? It’s false. But then we might find out that participating in all the holiday fun actually brings us “peace on earth, goodwill towards man.” (whatever that means). We end up experiencing the “Spirit of Christmas.” We loop right back around to Christmas being true still, even though we know that Santa Claus isn’t real.

This quote’s interesting to think about (true =/= useful…and false =/= useless). I’d simply disagree is on the applicability and usefulness of untrue things.

This semester, I have been part of a religious discussion group as part of one of my scholarships. In this group, our mentor has given us the challenge of trying to come up with an answer to the question: How can we promote universal harmony among the major religions? We base our discussion on sections of Robert Wright’s The Evolution of God.

We aren’t anywhere near finished (we’ve just finished the sections relating to Judaism and we will be moving to Christianity and Islam in future discussion groups), yet I already seem to be drawing some things from the book.

I can understand why my professor appreciates this book…he has shared with us parts of his personal philosophy that just make sense why he enjoys it. However…this also provides my contention with the book.

Wright’s arguments rely on several interpretations and assumptions…Wright often sets up novel re-interpretations of the stories surrounding religions (although I guess I shouldn’t say novel…these re-interpretations represent some of the research in the various fields, but often times, they don’t necessarily represent what the main stream believer would believe.) Without the interpretations (sometimes which are “what ifs”, Wright’s argument ceases to leave the ground.

Examples of this are in Wright’s acceptance of the documentary hypothesis for the Hebrew Bible or his acceptance of a Q document for the New Testament to tease out the historical Jesus vs. an elaborated Jesus.

I don’t mean to say these are wild assertions…after all, I don’t think the documentary hypothesis is all that bad. However, I do recognize that many people simply don’t believe these kinds of things, many researchers and theologians have pointed out deficiencies with then, and so to create an account of religion — and more spectacularly of God — based on several of these tenuous hypotheses is asking for trouble.

But these aren’t the places where I have problems…I don’t think I can quite put my finger on it…but Wright seems to express a particular idea frequently (and this is an idea that my sponsoring professor also likes very much). Wright seems to speak in terms of God evolving through humans evolving (socially, that is.) Already, most believers would say, “But God doesn’t change.” Even I would say — though I don’t believe in any gods — that Wright is possibly being verbally lazy — all he is showing is how human ideas about God are changing and evolving.

But Wright has a further troublesome idea…that human “progress” is indicative of a higher purpose and an ultimate point. On page 214, he writes:

What might qualify as evidence of a larger purpose at work in the world? For one thing, a moral direction in history. If history naturally carries human consciousness toward moral enlightenment, however slowly and fitfully, that would be evidence that there’s some point to it all. At least, it would be more evidence than the alternative — if history showed no discernible direction, or if history showed a downward direction: humanity as a whole getting more morally obtuse, more vengeful and bigoted.

Or, to put the point back into the context at hand: To the extent that “god” grows, that is evidence — maybe not massive evidence, but some evidence — of higher purpose.

At first, I couldn’t put my finger on what I felt was wrong in such reasoning…but then I realized it. It’s because he is comparing this to evolution that we can find the flaw.

Evolution does not have a “higher purpose.” So while yes, history does show life moving somewhere, however slowly and fitfully, it isn’t necessarily show that things are moving “forward” or “to a higher purpose.” At best, we can say that life forms are selected based on adaptation to their environment…but this doesn’t suggest an absolute best form. Rather, the environment can have the most impact on adaptation propagation. Humans aren’t “better” than cockroaches, for example…obviously, cockroaches are very successful evolutionarily (perhaps even more than humans, if they can survive nuclear holocaust as the jokes go)…they just point out a difference.

So, in the same way that biological evolution does not suggest a final, perfect form, social and moral evolution does not either.

But Wright has actually shied away from using god in a conventional sense. For example, if we take Wright’s use of god to mean ideas about god…and then ambiguate even further to ideas about progress, then he makes a lot more sense. We need not assume that ideas imply the objective existence of something outside (another blogger points this out halfway down in his article). In fact, even though Wright uses loaded language, we don’t even need to have this conversation from a theistic bent.

My professor, enamored as he is with the book, seems to accept some assumptions that make sense with the book but don’t necessarily show us how to achieve religious harmony with conventional believers. My professor, for example, emphasizes the god in our minds. I’ve met others who’ve focused on God as mental, but I can’t help but feel that people with these kinds of beliefs are implicitly atheist (which is actually interesting, because from some of the comments my professor makes, I don’t think he quite understands that atheists aren’t terrible non-thinkers — or that many theists would view his beliefs as atheistic). Because my professor buys into an idea of god being in our minds, he can buy claims that God can change, and that as humans become better, that directly relates to God becoming better.

…but most believers simply don’t believe this way. They don’t want to simply assert a God in the mind. No, they want to assert a god that exists independent of any human mind. So, some of the conclusions Wright wants to make are dangerous.

Nearly all of the trendy career, networking, interviewing, and job seeking websites will talk about the need to establish a personal brand. It is essential for a candidate to put his or her best foot forward.

Some of the ways to improve or establish a personal brand are intuitive, but at some point…I have to ask, what is the point?

When I was preparing to network and interview for internships with my school’s professional program last spring, my professors taught all of us the basic “rules.” These rules aren’t rocket science; I think everyone knows some of the basic rules for what to put vs. what to leave off on the resume. What to discuss vs. what to avoid. And so on. For example, religion is off limits. It’s a liability; it exposes you to possible discrimination or, at the very least, some kind of change in perception. Why expose yourself to that? The simple answer is don’t. In most cases, it is not important to your brand, so don’t bring it up and they won’t ask about it. Something like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…

The basic concept was no problem for me. I had no problem leaving stuff like that off and not discussing it. Heck, I have little problem leaving stuff out of my daily life, with the people I deal with every day (which will soon include coworkers who once were the interviewers). Because I do realize I have to put my best foot forward.

Yet, I come to realize something. It seems my best foot isn’t even my foot. My best foot is my foot obscured by and covered in a dress sock, covered again with a dress shoe, and covered again with parade gloss that makes that shoe blinding in sheen. Personal branding isn’t about me or you or anyone else…It isn’t about people. It is about a shell of a shell of a shell with a person somewhere inside.

And I wonder…

Another aspect that most career-y people will emphasize is the online brand. The basic pieces of advice are truly simple and intuitive: don’t even put up any evidence of yourself in compromising situations — such as being at some wild bacchanalia, completely drunk. Obviously, illegal situations are worse to put up.

I don’t think I have a problem with those “obvious” things. I don’t have any photos of myself at wild bacchanalias because I don’t go to any wild bacchanalias.

But how far does this policy of expunging or obscuring information go? Is religion — the thing that we already know is toxic for resumes — also off limits from an online brand?

If so, I think I have a problem. Because I know better than to talk about these issues offline (quite simply, I know that most of the people I deal with on a day-to-day basis would not care, would not understand, or would not agree…so no need to rabble-rouse), that is precisely why I blog. I don’t want to “expunge” and “obscure” my culture, my heritage from everyone and everything, so even though I  concede that it has no place with my offline family, friends, associates, co-workers, and so forth, I am loathe to concede that I cannot discuss with like-minded individuals because of the abilitity for the former group to connect this information back to me. And I am loathe to “ambiguate” all the things I talk about here by resorting to a code name.

Who owns who?

Think about a conventional brand. Sometimes, companies want to maintain brand image so much that, even though they want to expand to another market segment, they know it would weaken the brand. So, they actually spin-off or split-off with the hopes that the ‘new’ brand will not taint the old. I mean, look at the automotive family tree!

In the end, I feel that life highlights the utter disconnect. Because in fact, it actually is not true that religion is always off-limits. For example, in an area where, say, Baptists…or say, Catholics, are well-respected…then these are less likely to be liabilities. And this is obvious, right? Any of us can recall people talking about church with each other.

The issue is that this isn’t universal. Things change based on the religion in question and the perception of that religion. For example, it’s publicly riskier to be a Mormon. And it’s even more risky to be ex-Mormon. Because while the Mormons have each other (which, in areas with large concentrations of Mormons, turns out to be a strength after all), the ex-Mormon must add many of the Mormons in the category of people who either don’t care, don’t understand, or don’t agree.

In fact, this is what it means to be a minority. As such, I’ve just focused on religion, but this post could’ve been written in many other different aspects: race, sexuality, politics, and so on. (So, actually, I think it is surprising when we forget our own struggles as minorities when relating to other minorities.)

…In fact, that I talk from one vantage point (religion) and avoid other vantage points (for example, race) highlights my point. I know that my audience is more likely to care, to understand me, and to be sympathetic to me if I write from a religious framework, but I can’t guarantee the same for the other vantage points. So instead of talking about myself — a whole person composed of an aggregate of all of these smaller points and perspectives — my “brand” is always rather lopsided and isolated.

I guess this is a “sequel” to the post: Value cultivation in a world without magic.

I was thinking about how to improve…how to get better…how to do more…

Wouldn’t it be cool if we could just pray? We could just spend twenty minutes…or an hour…or three hours…meditating and praying…secluded from the rest of the day…and that would be it to “center” and “focus” and we’d be able to take on the rest of the day?

It would be cool. That would be magical.

But what I’ve realized is that things don’t work like this. This is a shortcut. This is an unrealistic expectation.

When do we improve? When do we get better? When do we do more?

Life is when we do it. Every day. In public. On the spot. We have 3 seconds — or even less — from the time someone angers us to decide whether we will escalate in anger or whether we will count to three and walk away. We can’t meditate at the beginning of the day and then be “buffered” from what comes up on the spot. We have to be vigilant at the moment of impact.Heh. I have remarked that I’ve been messing up pretty badly recently. Just not treating people properly. But I don’t think all is lost…for example, always, I feel I must somehow right things. Heck, I even feel bad after practical jokes. I have to ruin it and tell the person before they freak out.

But even with this, I feel I have to work on. Because I do not apologize.

I will rectify a situation. I will try to make things up. I will give back what was taken, fix what was broken…but “I’m sorry”…those are some tough words to say. I always would just rather wait it out…let everyone forget it…pretend it never happened.

But I know we cannot pretend it never happened. Things aren’t forgotten, even when people say they’ve forgotten.

Well…that was a real sidestep from the topic at hand…

I guess this will just be a short one.