Speaking of Les Deplorables

Though my impression is that the Liberal-minded (TM) are supposed to be pretending that actual gender is now totally irrelevant, one of the wildly popular gripe sessions currently running on the Bloggernacle purports to complain about BYU and their abysmally disproportionate and execrable "balance" of male/female professors.  It occurred to me that at least optimally, the survey should be listing the more imaginative "gender identity", rather than actual genotypical and phenotypical sex, since that kind of thing is so passe, but apparently data of more contemporary oeuvre was not in hand.

Of course, the moderators of that forum, in a shining example of the virtue of tolerance for diversity, peremptorily banned my obstreperous crude comments years ago, so I expect my observations went unheeded. Without exception, other comments seemed to be participating in the popular hate-fest of condemnations and disaffected gripes for BYU, Provo, Utah, and the Church in general.

Helpful suggestion for those who hate a particular place:  Why not go somewhere else to seek happiness?  There ARE actually several people who do love being here.  Are you so anxious to tear things down?

BTW:   While attending University of California for my Bachelor's Degree, I never encountered any female professors.  I had no idea that it made such difference in the quality of my education.  Never realized how much I was deprived.  As I can recall, I did have at least one female professor at Ricks College when I attended there, so it would appear that Church schools are 100% better than University of California.

PS:  Article appearing in the Salt Lake Tribune follows the Bloggernacle article.  In typical SLTrib fashion, the comments following are mostly either hilarious or quite unintelligible.

FairMormon Blog: Some Mistaken Claims

A nicely written article at FairMormon Blog discusses mistaken claims made by those critical about Handbook 1 revisions.


The author's conclusion...

It is understandable that good and faithful people may have questions about how this new policy will be administered. We encourage any with questions to study the scriptures, reflect  upon what apostles and prophets have to say on the matter,  ponder and pray, exercise patience, and look deeper than the slogans, memes, and sound-bites.

Throughout the so-called "Bloggernacle" are very few examples of discussion defending the Church of Church leaders.  The comments tend to be decidedly negative and critical.

Of all the blogs participating there, the FairMormon Blog is one of the best to follow.  I also am usually uplifted by posts at the Millenial Star blog.  Most of the others are simply not worth reading any more.  I occasionally waste my time searching for anything lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy.  I seldom find anything that qualifies any more.

It is interesting to note that Bloggernacle coverage of addresses given at the recent General Conference garnered little interest and few comments.  Few threads lasted much beyond the closing prayer.  By comparison, gripes about the Handbook 1 revisions have reverberated through the "Bloggernacle" unabated since the instant the administrative revisons were leaked for public criticism weeks ago.  In spite of the fact that administrative policy is not properly the concern of the general body of the Church, the continuing stress and criticism shows no sign of easing.

I am surprised every time to learn how faithless and fickle public opinion can be.

Loving and Inclusive (Patents Pending)

I am laughing about the more-than-usual degree of posturing hand-wringing currently going on amongst "liberal Mormons" who now seem to be faced with the decision of whether or not to jump ship and join the other apostates as formal "ex-mo", who leave the Church, but can't leave the Church alone.  This question has been cause célèbre in the so-called "Bloggernacle" for quite some time.  John Dehlin was apparently their heroic advocate since around 2010, until he was recently excommunicated. I wasn't giving the incident a lot of notice, but since it was aired in public to all the news media, it would have been hard to miss.  The "Bloggernacle" also doted on Kate Kelly and several others who continue a pitched public and legal battle against the Church, but no longer as members.  Dehlin proudly claims credit for disclosing the intended updates to Handbook 1, purportedly passed under the table by some confederate mole inside the Church Office Building. (The do-gooders who wear their bleeding hearts on their sleeve generally seem to easily overlook this kind of duplicity.)  They insist that the Church should be more loving and inclusive.  (By some ironic twist of random fate, I seem to be excommunicated from commenting in such "loving and inclusive" forums.  Saves me a lot of time.)

There is no question that my take on this popular phenomenon is twisted and wrong. I should be properly sympathetic and tearful, and put my arms around the simpering and snivelling displayed by many who take offense about those nasty mean Church rules.  As far as I can tell, most of these are useful idiots being manipulated to serve the agenda of those whose interest is to tear down the Church.  I have been informed by any number of people that I am all at once "pathetic" and "compassionless", or that I am just too critical and intolerant of the views of others.  I'm sure they all have good cause for their disparaging, though I seldom see anything specifically iterated beyond reference to my general creepiness.  I guess that will serve as sufficient basis for the "loving and inclusive" to transform rather quickly into spiteful and exclusive.

One particularly entertaining and trite example...

One of the many swimmers in the "sea of sameness" of "Bloggernacle" bloggers, for some unfathomable reason, at one time "befriended" me on Facebook.  After a recent disagreeable exchange of comments on her blog, she now asserts that she later "unfriended" me because I tend to be rude and disagreeable.  I vaguely recall that the actual occasion of "unfriendliness" had something more to do with her condescending rejection of my absurd assertion that an LDS Chapel is an acceptable venue for a wedding reception post-Temple sealing.  Apparently not so for any of her precious daughters, who needed a more appropriate and less tawdry social setting.  Anyway, now she testifies assiduously (in her most loving and inclusive manner) what an evil and unpleasant person I am.  Ejected from the choice inner circle of this blogger, among so many others, I am almost beside myself in despair.  Feeling particularly despondent and unloved.  But alas, I was born this way.  It would be foolish and vain for me to try to deny my propensities.

BTW, no word yet on the proposed firing of the Church legal department.

I am happy to concur with the few outspoken Church leaders who have commented on similar occasions.  One of my favorties...

The Church is like a great caravan—organized, prepared, following an appointed course, with its captains of tens and captains of hundreds all in place.
What does it matter if a few barking dogs snap at the heels of the weary travelers? Or that predators claim those few who fall by the way? The caravan moves on.  (The Caravan Moves On)

What can I say?  I'm obviously just a really bad person.  But of course, I have no choice in the matter - I was born this way!

Another note appropriate for mentioning to all those "faithful Mormons" who insist on sniping about Church policy.  Sustaining the Brethren.  I don't expect any of these dissidents to share such ideas, or to bother with even a cursory review of the Interpreter article, but it is some small comfort to me to learn that I am not the only Church member who feels this way.

I am not offering to condemn any of these dissident voices so critical of the Church.  I am fully satisfied to let God be the judge between us.  Ultimately, I have little doubt that your own words will bring condemnation.

PS:  I can see from Google Tracking that at least someone from the "Mormon Murmurer" has been checking my blog posts.  Not sure whether that means they are planning to sue me, or if they are actually reading.  

PS: Is the Church Legal Department fired yet?

The hand-wringing exercises continue.  Here's a more current and up-to-date example.  Women in the "Bloggernacle" seem to believe they are particularly gifted with special insight.  Thus they tend to be collectively holding a vast pool of wisdom that if possible, surpasses any occasional commandment from Heaven.

Another example of the agonized frenzy "liberal Mormons" have worked themselves into.  This particular forum is generally pretty bland, but occasionally the owner betrays her true sentiments.  Now the blog owner complains about suggestions purportedly being offered by intolerant and unloving, "Why don't you just get out?", referring to those who are threatening to abandon their faith in favor of worldly philosophy.  This is a particularly specious complaint in light of the media attention being so craved by those who ARE "getting out" with accompaniment of brass bands and drunken self-congratulatory celebrations.  And particularly ironic to me personally, since this is another forum characterized by "progressive" and "inclusive" ideas that ceased to love me when I presumed to upset their delicate sensibilities, and summarily excommunicated me long ago.

Also most ironic to observe that if you're agonizing about whether to abandon your faith - you obviously already have.

Conclusive evidence that indicates that the "Why don't you just get out?" approach is hardly unique to the Mormon community.  

Yet another post from the "Bloggernacle" from a "faithful Mormon" who now  feels compelled to publicly air his own testimony that HE now knows the Church is going astray from the true and righteous leadership of popular social trends.  Turns out that the Church has always been wrong, about this and a whole lot of things, but is sadly still in denial.  He presumes to speak for us, "...Our vision of social issues reflects the conservatism and provincialism of our Great Basin leaders." I note the use of inclusive pronouns.  Presumably either the royal "we", or he believes he can speak in behalf of the general audience.

He comments further,  "I have long felt that were I not born into the faith that I simply cannot imagine joining it as a convert."  And my persuasion has long been that with no exception, EVERYONE who joins the Church should consider themselves to be a "convert".  Nobody can rightfully claim to be "born into the faith".  I believe this false assertion represents a common misunderstanding slur intended to denigrate less enlightened disciples who fall into this categorization simply by virtue of having been "born into the faith".

For any who are seriously of the mistaken impression that such diatribes are anything particularly new, please check out Boyd Petersens's ten-year-old review of Martha Beck and her melodramatic fiction "Leaving the Saints".   Interesting parallels.

This has the flavor of a bad SciFi flick.  Freely adapted from "Total Recall"...

The walls of reality will come crashing down.  One minute, you'll be the savior of the rebel cause, and the next thing you know you'll find yourself marching lock-step with the John Dehlin and Kate Kelly fan club.   You'll also have fantasies about your heroic battles against the perfidy of the "Mormon Patriarchy", as you ordered.  But in the end back on Earth, you'll be lobotomized. So get a grip on yourself and put down that pen.

Revisiting: Reflections on Fatherhood

Revisiting long-ago posts from the Bloggernacle, some reflections on fatherhood...

The Divine decree has always been informed by a certain special relationship that the Sons of God share with their Father in Heaven.  Fathers and sons in Zion are a typical reflection of this relationship.

June 13, 2006 at 2:01 pm

What a perfect provocation for a personal tirade!

 …how having children has changed them...

Indications of how children changed fathers are always there, and are usually just as obvious as the signs of the motherhood dynamic. Women generally cannot see them, or do not care to acknowledge them.

I speak as a divorced, former father. Because of my own cynicism I find it doubtful that women are really interested in fatherhood stories at all. I suspect that they really just want fathers to tell motherhood stories.

In my experience, men have far less of a proprietary sense with regard to children. To a mother, her children are status objects very much like property. Our social and legal system ratify this proprietary interest. Even among church members we hear of divorced familes, “The children follow the mother”. (Whatever they think that means.)

…how they juggle the demands of working...

(Laughing…)  Amazingly, this is one the mothers seldom comprehend, not even “single” mothers working full time. For fathers, children and families are the demands of working. As a former father and single man I don’t feel the same obligation to perform and compete at work or anywhere else. The family is the strongest motivating force for fathers.

Working is not a juggling act. It is a crushing, overpowering everpresent insatiable demand that we impose upon ourselves, through endless reinforcements and social conditioning.

…nurturing their family...

Nurturing doesn’t really belong on the fatherhood list, does it? Since the term is basically synoymous with motherhood, it doesn’t apply.

I’m not just cynical about this observation. Motherhood has its own set of expectations that constitute a holistic definition. Why should the terms of fatherhood be forced into the same definition?

…and maintaining their sanity...

Again, this is a motherhood cliche. Too many mothers resort to this kind of gratuitous self-aggrandizing hyperbole — “Oh, you should congratulate me, I survived another day with the kids (and my Prozac)!

When they were part of my stewardship I never asked for or wanted a medal for providing for the children. Even after our relationship was legally terminated I continued to to my best to support them, though they ceased to acknowledge me as a father. Fathers don’t require special recognition just for doing their routinely accepted duties. That seems to be a singular distinguishing factor.

June 13, 2006 at 10:14 pm

Imagine me writing a suggestion that to celebrate mothers’s day, women should try to relate to their children more like a man.

• Take your children into the forest for a day, teaching them to run a chainsaw and heft a double-bit axe, and bring home five cords of firewood.
•  Train your children to understand and respect automobiles by rebuilding an engine, with the stipulation that they must walk or find rides everywhere until the job is finished.
• Help your kids understand the meaning and value of life by teaching them how to slaughter a domestic animal that they have raised, and preparing it for food for the family.
• Provide opportunities for temporary employment for your children that involve high hazards and routine risk of serious personal injury. Educate them in how to deal safely with such risk. Teach them to endure temporary physical discomfort and pain without complaining. Help them understand that preparing meals and doing laundry are not comparable burdens.

Do these qualify as “nurturing”? They would for me. These are some of the kinds of things I could have taught my former children, things that they will likely never learn from their mother.

June 14, 2006 at 9:52 am

...that is exactly the kind of nurturing my dad gave me. I love him for it...

Mine too. It was always dad’s job to go camping with us, to take us to work with him, to bring us home dirty and tired and a little bit bruised and bloody from time to time.

My dad served in the bishopric in our ward during most of the time I was growing up. He was always busy. But I don’t think he shortchanged us on time spent.

This is what I mourn the most for my lost children. They have a “nurturing” mother who decided that by her standard their father was not making a positive contribution. So she decided to change the arrangement. And she had every resource of the law and the church to support her. As well as my continuing mandatory financial “obligations”.

It has been more than ten years, and I have seen or heard nothing from my children since then. But I suppose they are “nurtured”.

June 15, 2006 at 2:47 pm

 

Memorable moments of early fatherhood.

Mental image of firstborn son Jim. (He used to share my name. I don’t know what he calls himself today.)

At the instant of birthing, he emerged with skin colored bright blue. Shocked, unexpected, wondering what went wrong. The first breath, feeble cries, and quickly turning healthy pink. The most incredibly full and dark mane of thick black baby hair running halfway down his back.

Weeping with joy, filled with the most intensely overwhelming emotional flood.

A photo of son Jim, just a toddler. In an unsupervised moment, him standing in the unfinished basement room, the current family project. Beaming brightly, his little hands and arms raised high, coated an inch thick up to the elbows with heavy yellow sheet rock mud.

Hustles off to the shower.

A handful of boys at play in the sandbox. Son Robert, five or six years old. Shouting, “By the Power of Greyskull!!!”. Unsheathes a long butcher knife from hiding down the back of his t-shirt, and strikes a pose emulating the tv hero He-Man, brandishing the knife as his invincible weapon, threatening his foes in the sandbox.

Frantic parental intervention.

Another vignette of Robert, several years older. Unaware that he is being observed, standing on the sidewalk contemplating as neighbors drive by. He finds a big rock and launches it at Randy Jones passing in his truck. Strikes a bullseye. Randy stops abruptly with a squeal of tires. Looking at me...

Better do somethin’ ’bout that, slick.
Oh yeah, I will. 

Randy continues on. Robert takes to his heels, dad following into the house at a slightly more leisurely pace.

Intensive father/son discussion on why we don’t throw rocks at cars.

A landscape moment. Striving to make the desert blossom. Mother and children huddled around the front porch, watching in shock as dad wrestles with the ditch-witch that won’t. Frustrated and enraged beyond control, temper long-lost, cursing and swearing a blue streak.

At a later sandbox session, father overhears the interplay where one of the children announces that his name is “Dammit”.

Sincere father/son discussion about how we sometimes say things that we know we shouldn’t.

Son Thomas, eleven, suffers a serious leg fracture at the roller-skating party. Shocked at such an unexpected turn, the father secretly weeps tears of fear and anguish. 

Father in Heaven, please, let the pain and suffering come to me — please spare my children! 

 Thomas spends miserable months in wheelchair and full cast...

What a fragile thing our lives really are.

Son Joseph, the most sensitive of the boys. He is so enthralled with Nintendo and Super Mario Brothers that he has a prolonged tantrum when his games are interrupted.

Some soul-searching for an answer. The game is retired.

Dad goes to summer camp with the older boys. Along the hiking trail, son Robert is separated from the party for a brief time. Searching, praying, franticly looking for some clue that he might have passed this way, through the thousands of acres of wilderness surrounding. Shortly thereafter, as he is found...

I couldn’t find you guys anywhere!

 Trying not to show the tears of relief and gratitude.

Dad and son wrap their arms around each other, for a brief instant understanding and acknowledging everything that it means to be dad and son.

Discussions about what to do when we are lost.

June 15, 2006 at 7:03 pm

Another short picture of the integral father/child bond of long ago…
Son Joseph, retired to his bed early, suffering from flu, feverish. The rest of the family is eating dinner together.

Some strange signal from the children’s room alerts that something is wrong.

Distress!  Help!

Urgent message, unuttered, yet clearly received.

Hastening into the room. The child’s body is distended and racked with convulsions. His skin is dusky, ashen gray — impossible. No living person can turn that color. Shock condensed into one horrified frozen moment.

Suddenly comprehending the need to act, a frantic summons issues for ambulance and paramedics. Confusion over what to do, not knowing what might be wrong.

Then, a few quiet seconds, like the eye of the hurricane passing over.

Father gently takes the infant son in his arms. He quietly pronounces a priesthood blessing.

Moments later, the paramedics arrive and the calm is broken. Amid noise and haste, the child was carried away to the hospital.

Tense hours followed. Doctors performed diagnostics and made recommendations.

But everything turned out okay. And the father knew, assured from the moment of the blessing, that it would be so.

And I believe that somehow, though he was unconscious, the son knew it as well.

Surviving the Internet

One of the great disappointments I have come to realize over time is that faithful church members have, for the most part, lost a presence on the Internet, betrayed by disaffected and abandoned to the control of the devil's minions.

Long ago this point was driven home when the original "Mormon-L" experiment veered off the tracks and established a permanent camp in the parking lot of the "great and spacious building". In spite of every erstwhile effort to drive a silver stake through the heart of the evil beast, it refuses to die, and even flourishes in its own unique niche of darkness and corruption.

More recently, I came to see this particularly in light of a whole infrastructure of LDS-related blogs that sprang up literally overnight, and with breathtaking evolution, were subsumed into an impressive collective referred to informally as the "Bloggernacle", or perhaps more pretentiously, the "Mormon Archipelago".

Sadly, the Bloggernacle has just as soon evolved into a haven for the same folks that gutted and spitted the original Mormon-L forum. I fear most of the participants there are beyond saving. The downward slide has been all the more ironic, because so many of the prominent players seem to think they are in charge of "saving" the church from its mistakes -- unfortunately, most of this is just ark-steadying or some other flavor of outright apostasy.

However...

More recently, as the morning breaks and the shadows flee, I see some hope on the horizon. The appearance of a new web site encouraging development of consecrated Internet resources -- More Good Foundation.org.

Dramatic growth and development of resources at FamilySearch.org.

Continued expansion of the Church's online web presence at LDS.org and related sites.

The collection of valuable resources at BYU also continues to grow and impress. Particularly the transcripts of speeches and devotionals, and the growing library of streaming media resources.

If you haven't been watching, take a look at these sites and see how they've continued to evolve.