Starlink!
14,000 Feet
Tidbits from my journey: professional, religious, political
Wednesday, October 01, 2025
Thursday, January 18, 2024
We are eternal creatures having a time-bound experience. Often we wish that we could slow time or make it go faster. This reflects the difficulty we have with time – it’s not what we’re used to.
Some time ago, or maybe it was yesterday, someone shared with me difficulties she was having with her mother. Her mother said some insensitive words. Truly. Someone was hurt.
I was thinking of something I might say. I was worried that she might say or do something in response to her mom that might further harm the relationship. Didn’t want that to happen.
I thought that maybe she could use “time” to her advantage.
Some time, in the future, maybe when time isn’t such a big deal any longer, she’s going to meet her mom. Her mom will have worked through all her pain and her mom will feel nothing but love for her daughter. They will embrace. Reconcile. Walk hand in hand thanking each other for their time together.
I said, “Maybe you can pull that event forward to today. It’s going to happen. Why not have that experience now? Imagine reconciling with your mom. Behave toward her now how you will feel toward her in the future. Cheat time.”
I was trying to help someone, that idea is helping me.
Reflecting on what I said, this, by C.S. Lewis came to mind:
“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree helping each other to one or the other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all of our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.”
Her mom is an “everlasting splendor.” In time, that embrace will happen.
Yes. Cheat time. Treat it like the imposter it is.
Sunday, July 30, 2023
Goodbye Unc
![]() |
South rim - Grand Canyon - 2003 - 1/2 way through a 50-mile hike - rim-to-rim-to-rim |
Friday, September 21, 2018
Zero-based Likert
As my brilliant idea catches on, it may necessitate that, when reporting results, you also provide the translation between the words and the scale. Or, at a minimum, report that the scale is 0-based.
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Early morning thoughts on leadership
In the US corporate world, people in management positions refer to themselves as leaders (or refer to their colleagues as leaders and figure that since their colleagues refer to their colleagues as leaders, they are one through association). Are they? What makes them a leader?
By definition, isn't a "leader" one who has followers? I thought it was that simple, but when I looked up the definition of a leader, I couldn't find one that said, "a leader is someone whom other people follow." So, I get I'm working off a non-standard definition.
I knew a guy in church once who referred to himself as a leader. I thought that was ironic as his scriptural canon has a phrase attributed to the god he worshipped saying, "Come, follow me." I wondered how he (the church guy) figured he'd inserted himself between the divine and his fellow worshippers. That brought up the question: can you follow two people at once?
Once, a long time ago, I saw a video taken of some troops advancing through some forested terrain. I think it was during WW II. The video showed the "leader", with pistol in hand, urging his troops forward. I don't think they were under fire at the time, but were probably about to be. It wasn't until recently that I realized that the "leader" had the pistol in his hand not to shoot the enemy, but to shoot his "followers" (they were all carrying rifles - which is what you use to shoot the enemy) should they not do what he told them. "Leadership" must have a range. The guy with the pistol at one end of the scale and the other end occupied by someone who politely says, "Come, follow me."
I think, for most people in corporate environments, if they weren't getting paid, they'd not follow the people on the stage. Anywhere.
If you think you're a leader in business, ask yourself this question. "Would the people you "lead" follow you if they weren't getting paid?" If the answer is no, you're not a leader. You're a manager.
But, don't feel badly about that. As a manager, you have two important things you do: get results and alleviate suffering. I learned about the "get results" stuff from the guys at Manager Tools (manager-tools.com) [you should watch this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_WxUgIskk]. I learned about "alleviate suffering" from my experience in the corporate world. There's so much needless suffering out there caused by poor management. Good managers are a rare. Rare indeed. If you can manage in a way that you do no harm, you're in the top 15% of all managers and should be proud of what you do!
BTW, the guys at Manager Tools have the best actionable advice on being a manager that I've ever come across. You should visit their site: manager-tools.com (not a paid advertisement). In the above linked video, Mark says a manager's responsibility is to "Get results and retain your people." He's right. My "alleviate suffering" is perhaps more of an observation on the general state of management. He's being aspirational. Go Mark.
The early morning has gone. So it must be time to submit this post.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Faith and Death
A couple of years ago, a good friend of mine died of Lou Gehrig's disease. Same thing, "I think I'm going pull through this," he told me. His twin brother had died of the same condition a year previously. He died a few months later. He was a great guy. Great guy.
I believe God heals people. I hope God heals people. I know doctors and drugs heal people. I use "believe," "hope," and "know" purposefully.
One time, I'd been hiking all day with a group of about 10 other people. Around dinner time, we said a prayer and asked for strength. While the prayer was happening, I felt something in my legs. I kept going for another 5 hours and had energy that really surprised me. I've hiked a lot. I know what it feels like to be tired. I know I had energy on a level different from other hikes. I believe God had something to do with that. I share this story because I have personal experience leading me to believe God can make adjustments to my body. I assume he can to other people as well. : )
Anyway, my relative is going to die, of this cancer, in the next few months. He's not going to be healed. I believe God could, if He wanted, heal him. He's not going to. Maybe it's comforting for my relative to believe this. OK. I guess he's allowed it. And, if it helps; who hasn't found comfort in a bit of irrationality at one point or another.
I don't think it's faith though. I think maybe it's hope. Faith, as I define it, has some condition of being in alignment with God's will. If God's will isn't there, it might fall under an expansive definition of "hope." You can hope for things that aren't true. I wonder if Christians sometimes do their faith a disservice by conflating this "hope" with "faith." Non-Christians might think "faith" is silly because it's so often in things that aren't true. If you, instead say, "I have hope God will heal me," maybe that's more accurate.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
The view from just ahead...
This went on for at least a kilometer. After that, people stopped asking. Enough people were turning around (and maybe they moved one of the cars) that there was enough forward motion, that they didn't feel a need to ask.
This experience got me thinking about a few things.
First, my words (for those closest the the wreck, the ones not moving at all) helped them make a decision. Some chose to stay and wait, others chose to turn around. The additional information was sufficient for some to execute on that decision.
Next, for those making some progress (around 1 km from the accident and further), there were none interested in asking my perspective. Nothing was different except that they were making some progress. Since they were't stopped, it wasn't worth the effort for them to ask me.
Next, no one, not even those completely stopped, just 100 yards from the accident, made any sort of effort to gather any additional information. Now, for cars where there was just one driver, that'd be difficult - you don't know when the traffic will move again and it's not a good idea to abandon your car. However, for those cars where there was more than one person, it would have been easy to send them on ahead to get more information. No one did.
I started to think about this in more of a religious context.
For a few hundred meters, I was Moses coming down from the mountain. No one was willing to come up, but they were all interested in talking to me on my way down. Just the limited, but very important information I had, helped people make decisions. I suppose, the analogy to Moses had some traction. It also helps explain a couple of things about my religious tradition: the LDS faith. Joseph Smith claimed to have gone to the mountain (figuratively). He claimed to have talked with God. I understand, just a bit better today, what that means.
Unfortunately, my experience also helps me understand part of what's wrong with the LDS faith today. The leaders aren't going to the mountain. They are no different from the people sitting in the cars. They have no idea what's ahead. Sure, they say nice things, some are pretty good speakers, but they haven't been to the mountain. I understand better why LDS Church members are interested in people like Denver Snuffer. Denver claims to have been to the mountain. The current LDS leadership talk in vague generalities.
BTW, the view from the top is incredible.
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Lehi
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Offended
I think the plea to the "offended" is troubling. First, it places the blame on the people who left. They're the one with the problem, they chose to be offended. If they had simply let the offense roll off their back, there'd be no problem.
What this plea doesn't recognize is that the people no longer attending may be staying away simply because the cost of attending outweighs the benefit. This has nothing to do with being offended. It is simply a cost/benefit analysis.
A second problem with the plea to the offended is that it doesn't address the potential problem: a caustic environment caused by the people in positions of power (not necessarily authority). People who have stayed away who might listen to the appeal, will only return to find the same awful environment.
"Why this post?" you ask. I attend a congregation where members are doing some amazingly mean things to each other. Some, unfortunately, are directed at my family.
This post may be the first of several. I'm not ranting. Nor am I trying to extract some sort of anonymous revenge (pretty sure no one in my congregation cares anything about my blog anyway). I'm simply exploring some of the dynamics of church congregational bad behavior.
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Infants on Thrones: an open letter. Share your new name.
For the past several months, I've listened to several dozen Infants of Thrones podcasts. The "Infants" podcasts are mostly related to the LDS Church. The podcast participants are all individuals dissatisfied with the LDS Church (I hope that's an accurate representation). Their podcasts are often critical of the LDS Church, its leaders, and its members. The Infants often talk about how they've moved on past all the LDS silliness. One is agnostic/atheist and the others, at a minimum, don't fellowship with the Church.
I have a suggestion for a future podcast. But first, I need to give a bit of a background.
In the LDS religion, there are temples. In the temple, LDS members go through an "Endowment" ceremony. In that ceremony, LDS members are given a new name. They're charged to never reveal that name. (you can read more about any of this online) Church members keep this charge pretty serious. You'd NEVER hear an active Church member say what their name is.
So, here's my suggestion to the Infants.
Dear Infants,
You've left the LDS faith behind you. You've abandoned all the silliness. You've recognized the Book of Mormon is just one big fraud (there were no real Nephites or Lamanites). The Book of Abraham... give me a break, right? The entire thing is just a big load of hogwash.
I have a suggestion for your most popular podcast ever. Here, I'll write the abstract for you:
In this episode, each infant shares his temple name and the temple name of his spouse. They talk about what this means and how they felt while sharing their name with the world. They'll talk about the irrational power the LDS Church has over them and the freedom they feel as they sever this final link to that oppressive influence. You'll not want to miss this episode where the Infants shatter this long-standing LDS taboo.
Regards,
Andrew
Note: I sent a version of this in an email to the Infants with no response.