Presiding in the Priesthood

Like most Latter-Day Saints I spent this last weekend listening to selected speaking from the presiding officers and general authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. As has become one of my own personal traditions I took notes and tweeted those ideas and quotes that I considered the most important and generally applicable. One of those statements in particular seemed to strike a chord.

"I am your husband and I hold the priesthood" is always the wrong answer.

 This is clearly something that people feel passionately about. It was rewteeted 14 times by people I don't even know, it was favorited several times and one lady went so far as to tell this specifically is the reason that her ex-husband is her ex-husband. It pains me that this could be an issue in the church and that anyone could so completely misunderstand the doctrine of the priesthood.

Jesus is supposed to be our leader and exemplar so maybe we should listen to what He has to say, "...he that is greatest among you shall be your servant." The priesthood may be the power of God, but only to ask in His name by his will. God's work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children. If we truly represent God then our work should be blessing His children as well. God has all power, but He uses all of that power to lift others and bless others and that is the reason that He shared His power, so that those who bare His priesthood can do the same. Failure to do that is to fail in your priesthood responsibility. To try and claim authority to do other then that is to make a mockery of God and His power.

Scouting

Since I was 12 years old I have wondered why it is that the LDS Church puts so much focus into scouting. You have to understand I was an active participant in scouting, I earned my eagle scout award and enjoy the activity part of scouting. I enjoy camping, hiking, backpacking, etc... That said, I've never liked scouting. It's not the activities, but the organization that I don't care for. A large portion of that I realize likely has a lot to do with the professional scouters in my own scout district and LDS stake. I saw them as petty tan shirted bureaucrats vying for power and recognition in meaningless little fiefdoms. More often then not, boys found themselves suffering because of the power struggles of these professional scouters as the positioned for recognition.

I grew up a little bit and recognized the reason that The Church used the scouting program because it was a program designed to create trust worthy, confident and competent men. The failures that I saw in the scouting bureaucracy were, for the most part, local problems that didn't reflect on the organization as a whole. However it bothered me that The Church didn't have their own program for this. It had made one of the young women at all. There was the Duty to God program, but it was a joke. I wondered why The Church didn't have their own quality program for the young men and had to use the scouting program instead.

Then when I was about to turn 16 it happened. The Church redid the entire Duty to God program. It was every bit as full featured as the Young Women in Excellence program. I though that finally the scouting program would be deprecated and the Duty to God program would take over as the to primary youth program for young men in The Church. Only, that didn't happen. In fact almost nobody even paid attention to this new program. I got my Duty to God award because this was the program that I had been waiting for, one that focus on goal setting and character development, like scouting, but in a focus designed to cultivate faith as well as character.

Eventually it was a subject that sort of left my mind. I graduated from high school. I moved out on my own, got a job and grew up. However this is an issue that has recently come to mind once again. The reason is this, in the ward I grew up, a place where activity among the young men is 100%, there are a number of men that don't plan on serving missions. These are eagle scouts, some with more then one palm. The focus in the ward is still seriously slanted towards scouting with Duty to God getting little or no attention, not withstanding the fact that the program is now even better then when I was a young man. It's a problem that I'm afraid may exist in many of the part of The Church in general. I'm afraid that as long as the scouting program continues to be an officially support Church program this will continue. We have taught the young men to earn merit badges, but not faith and in so doing have done them a great disservice.

Marriage

As a single nearly 26 year old Latter-Day Saint it should not be surprising that marriage is a topic that is regularly on my mind. This is mostly because people of the older generation will regularly ask me, "How are you doing," which is mormon for, "Why are you 26 and still single?" or possibly, "How are your dating relationships progressing towards marriage?" This is the sort of thing that has the potential to getting tedious almost instantaneously. It is for this reason that I was surprised how much I enjoyed the conversation I had recently on the subject with my mother.

The conversation revolved around the reason that some relationships last while others fail to do so. The topic was on both of our minds due in no small part to the recent marital disappointment that a friend of mine has suffered that we had both been made aware of by my rumor mongering brother and his wife (both of whom are people that I love to death). She is a smart, fun, considerate, ambitious, spiritual and gorgeous woman who had married a man who for all accounts appeared the be equally attractive, ambitious and spiritual. This is why when he suddenly dissolved their recent marriage it came as such a surprise.

That occurrence was something that caused a paradigm shift for me. Previous to that point I had never considered the possibility of marrying someone that had previously been married. I had met girls that been divorced, but there's a sort of mormon stigma that's attached to divorcees and it never even crossed my mind that I could consider them as marriageable. I think the problem is that I had never known someone well before a marriage that didn't work out. Anyone who knows my friend knows that her ex failed at life the day he walked out that door. She's certainly not perfect, no one is, but the sum of everyone of her shortcomings is so insignificant when compared to the benefit that one would gain from being married to such a intelligent, attractive, strong and righteous woman as to be entirely irrelevant. If someone could leave a woman like that, then there are no doubt several previously married women that are more than deserving of my attention.

The example of this friend's marriage stood in stark contrast to a couple that we had met only the previous evening while hosting a small Christmas Eve party in our home. The wife was very nice, but not actually attractive in any physical sense. The husband was attractive, but socially deficient in a number areas due to a fairly severe case of Aspergers syndrome. It's not the sort of marriage where you would generally put a lot of confidence in its longevity. Except that it has lasted, and has every appearance of continuing to do so. Not withstanding issues that for many couple would be insurmountable they are entirely devoted to each other.

The secret is humility. Others may call it selflessness, consideration or thoughtfulness, but the idea is the same; a lack of pride and selfishness. It's something that both of the members of that couple at our party had in abundance and something my friend's ex sadly was found greatly lacking. A marriage is something that can whether all the storms of life except the poisoning influence of pride. It's like Russel M Nelson taught, in a succesful marriage we need "to appreciate, to communicate, and to contemplate."

99%

Sometimes you read or hear something and it just gets you ire up. You fill with righteous indignation, go to grab the proper data to throw back in retaliation only to find that it isn't there. That is a sobering moment of reflection and paradigm shifting. I had just such a moment this evening after reading Chris Espinosa's article 99%.

What I thought at first was simply cleaver manipulation of data turned out really to be a fair portrayal of the financial situation of the different wealth classes in our country. That isn't to say that his article isn't without space for criticism (Chris, a flat rate tax would be a variable expenses, not a fixed one), but he does paint an accurate picture of the growing wealth divide. 

When I first saw this graph I immediately smelled misrepresentation of data. I looked at it and thought to myself, sure the rich grew in adjusted revenue from half a million to almost 2 million in average pre-tax income, but the other groups are so small comparatively that they could easily have have proportional increases that are just hard to see because of the scale and absolute nature of the numbers. 

In such a situation I did the only reasonable thing, I called Chris out and called him a pinko com...I mean, I went to the actual Congressional Budget Office numbers and did a graph of the proportional growth in income per group by year since 1979. What I found is summarized in the graph below.

The results surprised me. The inflation adjusted income of the top 1% increased 200% from 1979 to 2005. In comparison, the change in income of the lowest 20% increase by only 1.27% in that same time period. Sure the effective individual income tax rate for the bottom 20% dropped from 0.0% to -6.5%, while the top 1% rate stayed pretty close to the same (21.8% to 19.4%), but the results were still suprising to me.

However, beyond the fact that there is a growing wealth gap in the US and that gap is growing at an increasing rate my agreement with Chris ends. The gap is growing, between each group it turns out, but the fact is that not a single is group is worse off then they were 30 years ago. Yes, the income of any group is proportionally less then any of the groups above them, but their own buying power hasn't been diminished in any way. The fact is the second quintile (the second lowest 20%) could buy 10% more in 2005 then they could in 1979, and even the very bottom 20% are slightly better off then they used to be.

Once that point was made I don't know why Chris even bothered to keep writing.

Of course it’s a myth that the CEO who makes 185 times the average worker’s pay earns it by working 185 times as hard

 Well clearly, I'm fairly certain that it's impossible to work 1480 hour days.

—it takes almost no work at all.

Really? You're going to stand by that? I have to ask, "Chris, have you ever managed anything or anybody in your entire life?" The board of directors isn't paying the CEO 185 times the normal worker because they like throwing money at people. They do that because that's the going rate of a good CEO and a good CEO make the company more money and everyone in the company more money. A bad CEO leads the company to failure and bankruptcy.

The increasing wealth of the 1% comes largely from the 99%: the mortgage, credit card, and auto loan interest, the gap between corporate profit growth and wage growth, the arbitrage on the ups and downs of the 401(k) accounts of the majority of Americans is the almost effortless source of wealth for the 1%.

First of course the investments of the 1% make money largely off the 99%. If whatever they were doing with their money was targeted perfectly across society they would still be make 99% of their money for 99% of the population. Secondly, aren't you glad that somebody is giving money to banks so that you can then borrow it to buy a house? Here's a little tidbit FYI, if you don't want rich people "exploiting" you with interest payments don't borrow money from them. You'll hang onto more of your money and those "terrible" people making money off of our insatiable need to buy more then we can afford will make less.

...make companies responsible for their own losses and end Too Big To Fail.

That however, I agree with.

Why DRM?

Digital rights management, or DRM, has become a technology buzzword for the modern age. Users frame large organizations like the MPAA and IRAA as totalitarian monsters while these same organizations simultaneously frame the users as hardened criminals. However in all the hubbub the real importance of the debate is lost. The point of different digital right management technologies should be two parts

1. Give proper credit to content creators
2. Assure appropriate compensation to content creators

Maybe with big name movies and music giving proper credit isn't as big an issue since everyone can clearly see that Brad Pitt and George Clooney star in the Ocean's movies, but blockbuster movies and pop music are not the only place digital rights management is important. Independent music and film and well as online publishing of commentaries and literature need credit given where credit is deserved. Funnily enough these groups that are mostly likely to be hurt are also the groups that are the least likely to be protected since the large organization that lead the charge against piracy aren't the least bit interested in the independent little guys. The big problem with digital rights managements is that it's being implemented by organization like the MPAA and IRAA who's interest is not the right of content creators, but rather content providers. What the future needs is a technology that the content creators can use to manage their own content and make sure they get their fair share and credit.

Tech and the Gospel

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Saints is a church that is very plugged in and aware of the impact and reach that technology can have. Currently the Church is active on facebook and twitter. Members are encouraged to share the gospel through blogs and other online social outlets. These are powerful tools that can be used for great good, but come with a word of caution I think that Elder Ardern said it well in his address this last conference,

There is much that is good with our easy access to communication and information. I have found it helpful to access research articles, conference talks, and ancestral records, and to receive e-mails, Facebook reminders, tweets, and texts. As good as these things are, we cannot allow them to push to one side those things of greatest importance.

That's good solid advice for all aspects of our lives. Use the tools that have been given us, but make sure they're used appropriately and in moderation.

Stallman

So after recently watching revolution OS, a film about the rise of Linux and the open source movement, I was struck by something; Richard Stallman is completely nuts. Now, you have to respect the commitment that Stallman has to his principles. Stallman's belief in the importance of building community is inspiring. However, the lengths that he will go to avoid using software that is not free is pathological. His belief that all software should be free is itself crazy. Clearly there are some business models where free software works and can be profitable. However that doesn't mean it's the only reasonable model and that others are wrong. Like many zealots Stallman is dedicated to his cause to a point of unreasonableness. I mean, should everybody refuse to use MP3s just because the MP3 algorithm isn't GPL licensed?