Categories
culture politics thoughts

What is Marriage?

I read What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense and came to the realization that we need more public discussion of the fundamental question in our “marriage equality” debate. The fundamental question is, What is marriage?

I’m not going to offer any potential definition here. Instead, I would like to offer a comparison to illustrate why that question needs to be discussed openly and on its own terms. Hopefully in the process I also offer a framework for having that discussion in an objective, non-threatening way. The comparison is to ask the question: what is Pi?

Theoretically we know what Pi is (which is possibly more than we can say about marriage). It’s the ratio between the radius of a circle and its circumference. Functionally it is a number that we’ve never found the end of – 3.1415926535…

Categories
technology thoughts

Collision of Worlds

While reading an article on Google Glass in Wired I was struck by one idea:

I wore the future across my brow… The future is coming to your face too. And your wrist. (emphasis added)

The “brow” is obviously a reference to Google Glass. The wrist is easily a reference to the iWatch. Both of these products are expected to be available this year. What struck me though was remembering the words in Revelation 13 about the mark of the beast:

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads. (emphasis added)

Google Glass and iWatch
The forehead and the right hand…

I thought of being more blatant by adding “666” to the image on or above the respective devices but my intent isn’t to disparage either of these companies or even to honestly suggest that such devices constitute the mark of the beast. (For one thing, the passage in Revelation 13 seems to imply a mark that isn’t removable.) My intent was to share the connection my mind forged while reading the Wired article.

Categories
culture politics thoughts

A Cat Is Not A Dog

I know this seems like a painfully obvious and completely unnecessary statement to make but imagine with me for a moment what would happen if a society decided to remove the distinction between two things that are fundamentally different by nature.

If the government said that a cat and a dog were the same thing it could punish people who wanted to distinguish between the two types of animals but doing so wouldn’t make them the same thing. If they declared that the words “cat” and “dog” were just  synonyms for the same things or outlawed the use of the word “cat” and if for two or three generations nobody was allowed to say, or teach, or publicly acknowledge that cats and dogs were different, few people in the society would be able to consistently identify what defines a cat as distinct from a dog, but if you put any cat next to any dog virtually everyone in that society would still be able to recognize that those animals are distinctly different. (And even if they couldn’t distinguish them, a cat would still not be a dog.)

If a government decided to grant privileges to dog owners or to enact some kind of requirements for dog owners and then someone (whether a cat owner, a dog owner, or someone who owned neither) decided that those privileges or requirements should also apply to cat owners the proper approach would be for them to get the laws changed either by making equivalent laws for cat owners, or to change the wording of the existing laws to apply to pet owners (or “cat owners and dog owners” if they need to be more specific). The wrong approach would be to declare legally that cats and dogs are the same and consequently anyone who kept a domesticated feline was as much a dog owner as anyone who kept a domesticated canine.

Categories
life thoughts

Secondary Service

A man I’ve never met feels more support today at his wife’s funeral because I came to work today. As I realized this morning that that would be the case today it got me thinking about what I call secondary service – that is, service which makes possible a more direct or primary act of service. In my case today my service of staying at work and taking over the on-call duties allowed all my coworkers to support the man who retired from this team before I was hired on. If I were unwilling or unable to do that then one of the team members would have been required to skip the funeral in order to perform on-call duties during that time.

I don’t mention this to pat myself on the back, but rather to recognize how ordinary actions that we don’t even think of as significant can be very significant to others. Sometimes the person being served doesn’t even know of the service being rendered. It reminds me of something that Spencer W. Kimball taught years ago that I have heard repeated in recent General Conference addresses:

God does notice us, and he watches over us. But it is usually through another person that he meets our needs. Therefore, it is vital that we serve each other. (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Abundant Life,” Ensign, July 1978, 4)

Categories
culture thoughts

Perspectives on Promoting Marriage

Tyler Smith asked a great question on Google+ about whether people were concerned about the waning influence of the traditional family in American Society. I answered with a resounding “yes” but I think the topic deserves more attention. I’d like to address this in two parts. First, the conversation cycled around the issues of how and when we do or should make the decision to get married in modern western culture. In a separate post I will directly address my perspective on the question that sparked the original discussion.

As a starting point, here was my initial response (early in the discussion but not the first response):

Based on my observation – “haven’t met the right person yet” is usually a cover for “it really isn’t a high priority for me yet.”

I spent a few years “not meeting the right person yet” and then I realized that it was time for me to be really serious about it. I “met the right person” within 2 months and was married within a year.

In hindsight (based on the experience of more than a decade of marriage) I realize that some of those I had spent my time with during those years of “not meeting the right person” would have been pretty good for me (no better for me than my wife, but no reason not to get married). The difference was that I wasn’t prepared in those earlier years and the difference in my preparation was almost entirely an outgrowth of my recognition that it was time to get serious about moving forward with marriage.

I’m not trying to put pressure on +Tyler Smith or +Ryan Bickmore‘s brother but I do hope that those who are still looking for the right person will stop and consider if they are really not finding mr/ms right or if it is simply not yet their priority.

As to Tyler’s original question: Yes, I am concerned that the influence of the traditional family is waning in our society. The alternative lifestyles (meaning all the lifestyles that take the place of traditional families) are not conducive to the long term stability of society when practiced on a wide scale for a sustained period of time.

The discussion that followed his post had participants representing a number of fairly typical perspectives. I apologize in advance if any of them feels that I misrepresent them or oversimplify their perspective. I have no intention of doing either of those things. I will be presenting their perspectives in boxes that I find to be fairly consistent but I understand that their personal perspectives are almost certainly more nuanced than I make them out to be and hope others assume that as well. Also, I will not be including myself or my perspective in the list of characters & perspectives not because I think I have some more grand, overarching perspective to offer, but because as the author of this article I expect to display my perspective writ large. (Besides, I fully expect that readers will find at least one character in the list that they associate with my perspective.)

Categories
life thoughts

Exploring Concepts for Mutual Improvement

I was intrigued by a recent article on the Art of Manliness about the male desire for true brotherhood. It discussed what I have chosen to refer to as intentional brotherhood (that is the most succinct of a variety of terms that seemed to be applied to the idea being presented). The article discussed the origins of that natural desire and also ideas for how to find or foster bonds of intentional brotherhood. To put that in context, when speaking of finding those bonds of brotherhood the author and commentors  frequently pointed to church groups and fraternal organizations (e.g. Elks, Moose, Rotarians, Freemasons, Knights of Columbus, or college fraternities).

The whole concept was interesting but it also reminded me of the idea of Master Mind groups (sometimes called mutual improvement societies) that the Art of Manliness wrote about a few years ago. I’d like to explore how those two concepts relate to each other, how they differ, and whether there is any connection between either of them and the theological concept of priesthood quorums. I would also like to have others share their perspectives on the relationships between the three concepts.

Categories
culture life thoughts

Selling Yourself

I’m probably a decade late in actually reading the Cluetrain Manifesto for all I had heard about it for most of that decade that I have been not reading it. In the process I certainly picked up on the message that markets and business are driven by conversation and that those institutions who strive to manage or manipulate the conversation would find themselves on the losing end of the internet revolution.

In some ways I’m glad that I read it 13 years after it was written because I have the opportunity to look at how things have changed over the last 13 years in the way of internet, business, and technology and compare that to what Cluetrain was saying about the changes being wrought by the spread of the internet. The first impression I had was that the increasing levels of communication discussed by Cluetrain have continued to grow and show no signs of decreasing. On the other hand, the prediction that organizations would have to open up their communication to outsiders or be left behind has yet to take hold. Certainly many organizations are getting better at opening up channels and communicating in a more human way but there is still no lack of examples of the Fort Business mindset.

The real idea that I took away from the book was that in the age of hyper-communication all aspects of business are at least partly a matter of selling yourself by building relationships. This is true for products as well as individuals.

When it comes to products we have moved into an age where traditional advertising is less and less trusted in comparison to personal opinion – especially when it is the opinions of people known to the person making the choice in question. I think it’s always been true that the opinions and experience of acquaintances tend to have more weight in influencing a person’s purchasing decisions than professional advertising. The difference today is that personal opinions are so much easier to share and find than they used to be.

As for people, the adage that it’s who you know, not what you know that counts holds true. If you are looking for a job either as an employee or a contractor you have to do more than list your skills, you increasingly need to demonstrate that you have the personality to positively represent those you would work for or with. With the increasingly open lines of communication everyone associated with an organization is part of the public relations team to one degree or another.

My conclusion is that to get ahead professionally it is necessary to get better at communicating with others consistently and across more channels both so that I can be better practiced at communicating my ideas and also so that I will be more well known by others so that they can be comfortable working with me when I can help them or when they can help me.

Categories
culture politics thoughts

The Liberty Line

In response to my question from yesterday I was surprised to discover that I got an answer and that the answer was an emphatic if ever-tenuous “yes.” We do have reason to celebrate our independence as a nation presently. More important than what the answer was was realizing what line in the sand would determine, at least for me, when the time had come that we no longer had reason to celebrate.

During the course of the festivities yesterday we stopped to pray over our afternoon meal (I’m sure people will not be surprised to learn that we were doing some grilling in the back yard for our meal) and while my brother in law was praying I realized that as long as we enjoyed religious liberty in this country, the freedom to pursue worship as we individually see fit (the only reasonable limitation being that one person cannot compel another to do something based on the first persons religious beliefs and practices), we would have reason to celebrate Independence Day. I don’t recall if there was something said in the prayer that prompted the realization or if it was simply the act of praying itself but the realization was powerful.

There are many other types of liberty in our nation that make our independence worthwhile but for myself I consider that if I had freedom of speech and association, the right to bear arms, protections against unreasonable search and seizure, respect for personal property, and all the other freedoms enshrined in our constitution but had the freedom to practice my religion taken away I would find no cause to celebrate what was left of our independence. On the other hand, if my freedom to live according to my religious belief were adequately protected but all other liberties were unprotected (insofar as they could be without infringing that one right) I would do whatever I could to promote those other natural rights but I would still consider myself blessed to live in a time and place where my religious freedom was recognized.

Categories
culture State technology thoughts

GRAMA Answers – A First Pass

I really appreciated the 36 questions that came out of the first meeting of the GRAMA working group and wanted to offer one perspective on a first pass at answering those questions. I will say upfront that the answers provided here are subject to modification or revision based upon more detailed information. Consider this the legislative intent or deliberative process version of any final answers. Before answering the questions I wanted to make one related comment.

When I saw that Common Cause was running a full page ad in the Salt Lake Tribune today calling for the repeal of HB 477 I worried that they were positioning themselves to take some credit after it gets repealed tomorrow (and it will). As citizens we need to be careful in our consumption of information. We need to make sure that we are not fooled by the claims of any interest group. Common Cause appears to be using this situation to help them jump start the reopening of their Utah chapter. I don’t know whether that will be a good thing in the long run or not – I don’t know much about the group – but we should not confuse their core advocacy for open government with any significant work to get this repealed. It was the uproar by the citizens of Utah that brought about this legislative reversal, not the political astuteness of some interest group.

Now, on to the questions:

Categories
life thoughts

My Wealth Target


photo credit: Dvorscak

When defining how much wealth you want it is important to first define what wealth is. It can’t simply be income because I think most people would agree that the person who earns $100,000 a year and spends $60,000 is better off (wealthier) than the person who earns $1,000,000 and spends $1,060,000. (Amazingly Congress does not believe this.) A few years ago I stated it this way:

Wealth is not about cash, it is about cash flow – to be wealthy all you really need to do is flow less cash out than in.

While I still believe that statement to be true, I consider it to be an incomplete definition of what it means to be wealthy. If you have more cash flowing in than flowing out then I think it is safe to say that you appear to be heading toward being wealthy as opposed to heading towards poverty but there must be a reason for keeping that extra cash flowing in which gets to the heart of what it means to be wealthy.