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.

Goodbye Unc

Hey there.

My uncle is dying. Visited with him last week; so polite and gracious.

He was the one who introduced me to rock climbing, mountain climbing, and hiking down large canyons. I owe two of my top 10 life days to him: climbing the Grand Teton and hiking rim-to-rim-to-rim in the Grand Canyon.

I asked him who he's most interested in seeing when he moves to the other side: his parents and his son who died of cancer back in the mid-80s (all three died within the span of 6 months). It will be a great reunion.

He did a lot of good things in his life: great husband and father, helped the fatherless (me), and a lot of other things. You'd probably have a difficulty determining all the "other things" as he wouldn't have talked much about it.

On one of our trips, we were playing some popular rock music. I was impressed that he liked it (or at least feigned interest). He didn't like Pink Floyd's, "The Wall" - so he wasn't perfect. :)

I asked him to say "hi" to my grandparents for me. He agreed.

His body is shutting down. Systems failing. He's suffered through it with courage.

Back in the day, we made an attempt on Mt. Sneffels. Somewhere maybe we got off route. It got kind of dangerous so we turned around - not far from the summit. So, it's on my list of unfinished hikes.

About 5 years ago, he called me. He and some of his kids/grandkids were climbing Mt. Timpanogos. I had something else happening and didn't join him. Turns out, that was his last hike. I don't remember what I thought was more important.

He maintained an "Adventure Log" of all the adventures he did. There are hundreds. I have a copy if you'd like to see it sometime. I was on some with him. So thankful for that...

I'm not a writer. I wish this tribute was more eloquent. For my audience - I think you get it and see this expression of love and gratitude.

See ya Unc. Thank you. You helped more than you know.

South rim - Grand Canyon - 2003 - 1/2 way through a 50-mile hike - rim-to-rim-to-rim

Update (8/3/23). Frank died last night. He's enjoying a new adventure, I'm sure. 

Zero-based Likert

When I look at reviews on Amazon, for example, I often see people lamenting that they cannot give a product "zero stars." I was recently reflecting on Likert-scale questions. I think, when translating the options (often Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree) to a numerical scale, the scale should be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 rather than 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. This way a "Strongly Disagree" becomes zero points.

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.

Early morning thoughts on leadership

Yesterday I attended a town hall. Throughout the presentation, the people on the stage referred to the other people on the stage as "leaders." I've been thinking about leaders.

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.

Faith and Death

A close relative of mine is dying of cancer: sent home from the hospital on hospice. I was talking with him the other day and he tells me he thinks God is healing him. "I've felt better the past few days," he says. "And, I've cut out tortilla chips and some other bad things from my diet." God and diet are doing the trick.

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.

The view from just ahead...

Hiked to the top of Victoria Peak in Hong Kong today. Love that hike. On the way down, not too far from the top, I was walking down a windy two-way road. I came across a traffic accident within a couple of minutes after it happened. It was serious enough that the airbags deployed in both cars, one car was certainly disabled, the other maybe could be moved, but not driven. I snapped a photo and continued on my way. Within 80 yards of passing the accident, I was passing cars queued - the drivers had no idea what the problem was ahead ( couldn't see the accident - curves with lots of trees). As I passed cars, about 2 of 3 would roll down their window and ask what was the problem. "Head-on crash, cars not drivable, note how many yards ahead." Many drivers, immediately executed a 5 - 7 point turn (narrow road remember) and headed down the road.

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.

Lehi

This year, in the LDS curriculum, we "study" the Book of Mormon. (Of the eight opportunities we have in a four-year cycle (4 in Sunday school and 4 in Priesthood) we dedicate one to the Book of Mormon.) This past week, we read the first few chapters of 1 Nephi.

If Lehi were to show up amongst the LDS Church today, the Church would treat him just the same way the Jews treated Lehi. Allow me to elaborate.

You don't have many people called Lehi today. So imagine our protagonist is named, say, Brian. One day, Brian has a vision. In that vision, he learns that if the people don't repent, they will be destroyed. In Sunday school the following week, he says so. "If you don't repent, you're going to be destroyed," he says. The following Sunday in Fast and Testimony meeting, he says the same thing. And, for good measure, he posts a like message in Facebook and on his blog. After all, in his vision, he was told to warn the people.

Next thing he knows, he's called into the bishop's office. The bishop reminds him that he can't receive revelation for the ward, the Church, or really anyone but himself and his family. The bishop lovingly tells him to stop with his repentance message. Brian tells the bishop he's been charged to preach repentance by a higher authority than him, and vows to continue.

The bishop reports this to the Stake President. The SP calls Brian in for a meeting. In the intervening Sunday, Brian preaches repentance again in Sunday school. This time, the member who had been whispering things under their breath, now are a bit more vocal with some "sit down and shut ups" heard. The Relief Society gossip network has kicked into high gear with damaging stories about Brian. The stories are full of sorrow toward Brian's wife and how much she must be suffering because of Brian's actions.

The meeting between Brian and the SP goes much the same way as the meeting with the bishop. Only this time, Brian is told that he is committing apostasy. Brian, amazed, asks how this is so? The SP tells him that by continuing to tell people (and their leaders) to repent, now that he's been counseled not to, he's "committing" apostasy. Brian tells the SP he will continue to fulfill the responsibility given to him in his vision.

The following Thursday (4 days later - these happen very quickly), Brian is excommunicated from the LDS Church for apostasy. Brian, however, is not deterred. He continues to show up on Sunday and preach repentance. By now, the calls to "sit down and shut up" are vocal. Jeff's kids are having troubles with their peers in Sunday school and the Relief Society gossip network has gone from being sorrowful for Brian's wife to pointing out some of Brian's wife's flaws and maybe she is somewhat responsible for this - wasn't she always just a little bit strange. One sister observes that this Brian and his family were always a bit unstable and, doesn't he own a gun.

Later this week, Brian get's a letter from the LDS Church law firm. The letter tells Brian if he steps foot on LDS property anywhere in the world, he'll be charged with trespassing.

I'll stop the story there. I'll leave it to you to ponder what would happen if Brian continued to preach repentance to his local congregation. What if Brian lived in an area with a high concentration of LDS people? How would Brian's kids do in school?

Yeah, it shouldn't be too hard to relate to Lehi's experience. Want to amp it up a bit. What if Lehi had been specific in his calls to repentance? What if he named names. If he noted that the Sunday School teacher lived and immodest lifestyle. What if he called out Andrew's exceeding pride? Oh, how we'd get rid of Lehi.

Offended

You will, on occasion, here religious leaders make a plea to the disaffected in their congregations/churches to come back. They'll often include some words something like, "Even if you've been offended, please come back."

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.

Infants on Thrones: an open letter. Share your new name.

Infants on Thrones - an open letter

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.

Twenty-some-odd years ago I spent two years in Ohio as an LDS missionary. They were a great two years. I met so many wonderful people.

In December, my son will be doing the same thing, in a different place: the Philippines.

Over the past two decades, I've thought a lot about my experience and what I could have done better. Here's what I told my son a couple of weeks ago... (knowing that he was going on his mission, but not knowing where the assignment would be)

The next two years will be an opportunity for you to _learn_ how to serve and help other people. Probably, at no other time in your life, will you have such an opportunity to focus on something quite this completely. Use the time well. Your job is NOT to convert people to the LDS Church. Your job is to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, to love people, serve them, and help them. Don't ever get caught up in how many people join the Church or how many discussions you give, or anything like that. Those things are easy to measure, but they don't mean anything.

If you want to measure something, keep track of the number of times you get a sincere "Thank you" from someone.

I've spent time in the Philippines. There will be no end to the good he can do. What a great learning experience this will be.