A Parallel

I belong to a church that teaches complete abstinence before marriage, and complete fidelity after marriage.  This same church teaches that marriage is between man and woman (or women depending on the timeframe in question).  I belong to a church that teaches homosexual practices are a sin.  That being said, I am a proud member of this church.

However, I belong to a church that also teaches understanding, loving your fellow man with the same love Christ would.  I am a proud member of this church.

Let me demonstrate two very real situations and demonstrate some parallels.

The church that I belong to has not always received mainstream acceptance.   When it was first founded it was immediately the object of much persecution.  It was persecuted so much that its followers had to move to Kirtland, Ohio.  Through several years, and several moves it finally ended up in Missouri, and then Nauvoo, Illinois.  Their largest crime?  They were Mormon.

There are currently a group of people in our nation that are treated as second class.  They are not permitted to marry and have the rights that go along with that.  In some areas they can be denied employment and housing.  Their crime?  They are attracted to people of the same gender.

The Mormons petitioned the government for a redress of grievances.  The President’s reply “Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you”  People were claiming it was their religious right to persecute the Mormons, while all the Mormons were doing was asking for tolerance, and understanding.

LGBT are asking for the same rights everyone else in society enjoys.  States are coming together in droves to pass constitutional amendments to prohibit their marriage.  In my own State there was a debate over whether or not it should be illegal to use their sexual preference as reason to deny them housing.  All they are asking for is tolerance and understanding.

Interesting notion, when a minority is asking for tolerance and understanding the majority is quick to ask for the same back.  I understand you Mormons want tolerance and understanding, but you have to understand, I have my religious rights persecute you.  I understand you want the same rights I enjoy to marry the one you love, but you have to understand my right to persecute you.  The group enjoying the rights the other desperately seeks has a hard time morally claiming their point of view needs acceptance as well.

Recently there was a debate over whether or not Mormons are Christians.  Mormons are exclaiming we believe in Jesus, of course we are!  Other Christians are saying that we just too different, and while we may believe in the same being, are not Christian.

Many people don’t mind civil unions, or domestic partnerships or whatever the term of the day happens to be; but cannot accept the fact they want to call it a marriage.  If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…it’s a duck.  If it looks like a marriage, and acts like a marriage…it’s a marriage, no matter what you call it.

When Utah was applying for statehood, the idea of polygamy was the reason it kept on being denied.  The Mormons were claiming it was their protected first amendment rights to practice polygamy, and took the issue to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court came down and said that laws prohibiting polygamy were indeed lawful.

The LGBT is petitioning courts asking for their rights to marry.  I hope this is where the parallel ends.

I am not saying that understanding and tolerance is a full embracement.  Reasonable people are allowed to disagree, but to deny someone a right that you enjoy, be it to religion, marry or to even vote is not something reasonable people can do.

I am grateful to live in a country where places like Chick-fil-A can make a statement on marriage, and not be legally punished; where citizens are allowed to march in a Gay Pride parade and not be legally punished; where citizens are allowed to disagree on what they think is right and wrong.  However, I firmly believe that disagreeing with someone is not a basis to deny them a right.

A skill everyone needs

We live in world that is becoming more dependent on computers and technology.  Even jobs that were once done without their aid, have become reliant on computers. PC World writes “...IT skills are lurking outside the lab and server room, within administrative, finance, and human-resources departments. Taking that into account, IT workers have grown from 2 percent of the workforce 17 years ago to 15 percent today..”

This number will only continue to rise. It has become increasingly important that professions, that at one point had very little to do with computers, learn some basic coding skills to stay competitive in their fields, it will also enable them to be better problem solvers in today's ever changing environment.

Let me give you an example I ran into last week; I was sitting in my HTML class, and a fellow student, John, shared his difficulty in finding a job as an artist. He is very, very talented at what he does, and his prospective employers agreed. The reason John continues to get passed over is simple, he does not know how to code websites. Hiring managers would rather get a less qualified artist that can design their website, then a very gifted artist that cannot code.

On a more personal note, my wife, Camila, runs several online clothing shops for little girls. She has had to pay someone to create and maintain her website because she is unable to to write her own code. This forces Camila to pay out of her profits each month for website maintenance.

 

Douglas Rushkoff argues why everyone needs to learn how to code

Douglas Rushkoff argues in the video above about the necessity to learn to program solely on the basis of keeping our right to self expression.  If we do not learn how to understand what is going on in the background, we will simply be taken advantage of by those who do.  I agree with him.  Sites such as Facebook have given us an outlet to express ourselves, on the surface, but as pointed it out, it solely exists as a way to monetize our friendships.

Blogger Jeff Atwood argues a compelling counterpoint "To those who argue programming is an essential skill we should be teaching our children, right up there with reading, writing, and arithmetic: can you explain to me how Michael Bloomberg would be better at his day to day job of leading the largest city in the USA if he woke up one morning as a crack Java coder? It is obvious to me how being a skilled reader, a skilled writer, and at least high school level math are fundamental to performing the job of a politician. Or at any job, for that matter. But understanding variables and functions, pointers and recursion? I can't see it...[The everyone should learn to code movement is wrong because] it puts the method before the problem. Before you go rushing out to learn to code, figure out what your problem actually is. Do you even have a problem? Can you explain it to others in a way they can understand? Have you researched the problem, and its possible solutions, deeply? Does coding solve that problem? Are you sure?"

Mr. Atwood is right in that learning to code, merely for the sake of coding, adds no quality to life, and would certainly not add anything of value to Mayor Bloomberg's ability to run New York City on it's own merit. However, I believe he is too extreme in his opinion. On a personal level, it would enable him, as it would anyone else, to better understand the workings of his computer, and how to better realize its full potential to his benefit. Blogger, Nat Garun, adds "Learning to code contains the same logic skills you apply in daily life: What is the problem? How can I solve the problem as efficiently as possible? Can my solution be helpful to others who are experiencing similar issues? If you can figure out the same steps from a programming perspective, it can help develop your logic and decision making skills to streamline the best solution to your problems. It’s not just about creating something out of a weird language, it’s learning to think like a programmer."

We have examined both practical reasons why people should learn to program, in their professions, and to further their self expression, and simple problem solving skills.  As computers become more and more a way of life, understanding how the work and how to use them is paramount.  As Douglas Rushkoff argues, those that do not learn how to program, will be the victims of those that do.

From Games to Programs

From Games to Programs

A Memoir to Geekiness

I remember as if it were yesterday. I was 5 years old and going to play at my neighbor Joe's house. This wasn't anything unusual, but what happened changed my life forever. His family had just gotten a Nintendo Entertainment System, and they were playing Super Mario Brothers. I was fascinated with the idea of being able to control a character on the TV. I played, and simply could not get enough. I remember holding the controller just like my friend did, the wrong way. I would hold the controller vertically, rather than horizontally; a habit that would remain until I was a teenager.

The next details are somewhat of a blur, but I guess I bugged my parents enough, or convinced them some other way, but I remember my family getting a system from Santa Claus that same Christmas. I no longer had to go to Joe's house to play. I remember watching my parents play and having fun. Coming home from work and surprising me and my siblings with a new game. My life at that moment was complete, and full.

A few years later, I remember my cousin, Matt, giving me his old Atari system, because he had gotten a new one. He was showing me his game collection, including one that he said he made. I was blown away that someone could actually make games. Up until then, that idea was something I had never considered. The next day I went to my school's library and found every book I could for programming for the Atari. I was able to make the screen say whatever I wanted. I had learned the fundamentals of BASIC, Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code, a very simple programming language. I never did anything anyone could be serious on any level, but I didn't care, it was fun. It was a natural step I went from making a character on the screen do something I wanted to teaching a machine to do whatever I wanted.

When I entered junior high I was required to bring my own calculator to class. The teacher would showcase  the spiffy TI-82 from Texas Instruments. A few kids I knew had them, and much to my surprise, they could be programmed to play games, and do their homework!  The idea of making a program, one that could be useful, or just plain entertaining was paradise. For the next year and a half I continuously and unrelentingly pleaded with my parents to buy me one. Finally, my wish came true, and Christmas 1996, a secret Santa had given me a TI-83, a suped up and newer version of the TI-82! I immediately ran to my friends house to get whatever games from him I could, and devoured the 200 page manual that came with the calculator to learn how to program my own stuff on it. I was soon designing my own games, and my own programs to do my homework. 

Sadly, as I grew up, my dreams were delayed.  Finances, deployment in the Army, and work all contributed to slow me down.  It would be nearly ten years until I was able to realize my dream.  I attended SLCC and started working towards a degree in Computer Information Systems.  I will graduate in December!  I have learned more about how computers work, and how to make them do whatever I want.  I have gone from seeing Mario on the screen and making him jump, learning how Nintendo made him jump on my command!

 While not directly related to programming, video games have always been my motivation in this field.  This video is from my favorite creator,

Christ Metzen.  The speech was given in 2010 and is titled what means to be a geek.

God Vs Family Vs Country.

So, according to Blogspot, my last entry was May 15th.  I think it is lying, but I have no proof otherwise.

A lot has happened since then.  I found I was moving to California, then found out I wasn't moving to California and had to rediscover a lot of things about myself.  Through the ups and downs, I really didn't feel like writing...or much of anything else.

Enough feeling sorry for myself, let's do some writing.

God vs Family vs Country.

I don't see a conflict.

God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and to multiply and replenish the earth.  Essentially he commanded them to form a family.  At the core of LDS beliefs is the fact that the family is the most important of societal units, and God has strict commandments on how this family is to be formed.  Parents have a sacred obligation to teach their children the commandments of God and His principles.   I believe that no other success can compensate for failure in the home.  To serve God, I believe it begins in the family.

God vs Country.  One of my favorite heroes in scripture is Captain Moroni, from the Book of Mormon.  He was a soldier of whom it was said Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.  During his life, while serving as Chief Captain of the Army, a wicked man sought to be king, and had acquired a strong following.  In response to this he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.  This became known as the Title of Liberty.  Serving his country, he was defending his right, and that of his people to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience. Serving his country, he was also protecting his family.

If one places God in His proper place in their lives, they will fulfill their obligations to family and country.  Being in the service of your fellow man places you in the service of God.

Faith, a principle of action

But without faith it is impossible to pleas him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the first principle of the Gospel.  For, without faith, why would I seek Him or seek to emulate Him, or keep His commandments?

Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.


Faith in Christ is not a perfect knowledge of Him.  Why would I require faith if I had an absolute knowledge?  Faith in Christ is a hope that He not can, but will save me.  Faith implies that if I keep his commandments, His grace is sufficient to save me.  Faith is that spark that motivates me to righteousness. 

How does one obtain Faith?  Paul answers by asking How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?  and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?  And how shall they preach, except they be sent?  He starts out with the ultimate goal and works his way back.  Faith is ultimately a gift from God.  He must send messengers to preach the name of Jesus.  There is then a seed that will begin to grow that will eventually lead us to prayer.  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Another prophet, Alma, wrote if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
We are invited to experiment on his words.  Jesus taught My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.  If any many will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.  The true test of any doctrine is to apply it. 

Alma continues, Now, we will compare the word unto a seed.  Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves-It must needs be that this is a good seed, or  that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.  Now behold, would not this increase your faith?  I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown to a perfect knowledge.

After having endured the test of time, and having had to time to work itself in you, the seed, he explains, continues to grow.  It grows into a tree, and as it grows, your faith increases, and eventually will bear fruit, and progress to a perfect knowledge. 

However, like all real trees, this one requires constant nourishment and care otherwise it will die.  And we cannot blame the seed, for we have already proven it was a good seed.

Faith implies more than simply believing.  But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.  James then continues What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?  Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.  Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.  Our faith is shown by our actions.  The devil believes in God, and look where he is.

Sermon on the Mount Part 1 of 3

In the beginning part of His mortal ministry, Jesus gave one of the most beautiful and moving sermons of all time.  Only that of the Last Supper, in my opinion, can even compare.  It is my desire to share some of my insights that I have gained and learned through my study of it.  This is in no way comprehensive, and should be seen as anyone's opinion but myself.  And allow me to throw in my standard hypocrite clause.  I am not perfect, do not pretend to be perfect, so please feel free to brand me as a hypocrite if you feel I preach something that I could follow better.  If perfection were the standard we held all preachers of righteousness to, only one Man would have ever taught.  Sometimes you just have to make do with what you have.
Today, I simply wish to discuss Matthew 5.  It can be broken into 4 logical parts. 

1.      The Beatitudes

2.      "Ye are the salt/light of the world"

3.      Jesus and his relation to the Law of Moses

4.      A comparison of His higher law to that of Moses

Jesus begins the Sermon with what is now known as the Beatitudes.  He begins by saying "Blessed are the..." and names a group of people that are generally not thought of as blessed, and names a reward in contrast to their current state.

1.      Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven

2.      Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted

3.      Blessed are they that which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled

4.      Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy

5.      Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God

6.      Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

7.      Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

8.      Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.  Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven.

Please note, that these blessings in their fullness will not be realized in this life.  They will be given their full meaning in the Life to come.  Those that are poor will inherit heaven; those that mourn, comfort; those that hunger, will be fed.  God will recompense us many fold.
            Ye are the salt of the earth; but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?  It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
James E Talmage, in his book, Jesus the Christ, (a great read by the way, if anyone is interested in a 900 page book on the life and mission of Jesus Christ) states this about being the salt of the world. 
            Salt is the great preservative; as such it has had practical use since very ancient times.  Salt was prescribed as an essential addition to every meat offering under the Mosaic law.  Long before the time of Christ, the use of salt had been accorded a symbolism of fidelity, hospitality, and covenant.  To be of use salt must be pure to be of any saving virtue as salt, it must be salt indeed, and not the product of chemical alteration or of earthly admixture, whereby is saltiness or “savor” would be lost; and, as worthless stuff, it would be fit only to be thrown away.  Against such change of faith, against such admixture with the sophistries, so-called philosophies, and heresies of the times, the disciples were especially warned.
            He then calls his disciples the light of the world, and commands that they allow others to see this light that others may want to follow their example and possess this light.  What more effective tool is there than living the values Christ taught in such a way that others want to follow your example?  I truly believe we will be held accountable for the souls we could have helped save if we had but lived righteously.   
            Jesus then explains his role in relation to the Law of Moses.  This is an interesting back drop; the Giver of the Law himself explaining His role to the people that had been living it for the past 1200 years.  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 
            He then contrasts His law to that of Moses (which He also gave).  His law was superior in every way.  Under the Law of Moses, it was unlawful to kill; under his Law, to even be mad at ones brother was to be in danger of jeopardy.  We are to do everything in our power to be reconciled with our fellow man.  He even explains if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remeberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.  To be at peace with God, we must be free of any offense against our brethren. 
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.  Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
Under the old law, adultery was forbidden.  Under the law of Christ, to look upon a person with lust has committed adultery in their heart.  And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.  He is not advocating self mutilation, in another, similar address he says this instead For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross than that ye should be cast into hell.  What he is really referencing is removing the things from our lives that cause us to sin.
The Law of Moses required those that made oaths to follow through.  Under the law of Christ, one’s man word was to be considered his bond.  Why would we swear by the heavens, when we did not control them, God did?  Our word alone should be our bond.
The law of Moses dictated an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.  Jesus taught “whatsoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also”  He was not advocating that we do not defend ourselves, but I think that vengeance should not be the guiding force in our lives.  We are to forgive and move on.
The heart of the Message, Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy.  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.  For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?  Do not even the publicans the same?
If you only love those that love you, how are you any different than those that are wicked?  They do the same. 
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
I have written on this before.  To be perfect as the Father is something that simply will not happen in this life.  To be perfect in this sense is to be complete, whole, fully developed.  This life is a stage of learning.  We need to exercise our faith in Christ, and be perfected in Him.
       

      

My Political Soapbox

I the Great State of Utah, I am very much in the political minority.  I will read comments in forums in the local newspapers, and I just want to facepalm myself every time I read these.  I don't mind if people disagree with me politically, please just be informed in your opinion.

Today, my vexes are "Anchor babies" and the 17th Amendment.

First of all, why are dehumanizing an innocent child by calling them "Anchor baby"?  The child has done nothing wrong, and will ultimately suffer because of us.  Currently, the 14th amendment states that anyone born on US soil (with the exception of children of Ambassadors) is a United States Citizen.  No ifs, ands or buts.  That is fantastic.  Currently, there is a movement to repeal the 14th amendment.  Why?  I enjoy my citizenship because I was born here.

About a year ago, I read an article about a state senator in California that stated "It takes more than walking across the border to be a citizen, it takes soul"?  Really?  What part of being born here is "soul"  because that is exactly how he got his citizenship, and I got mine.  Heart and soul had no part in where I was born.  I was lucky, and so was he.

Requiring that a parent be a citizen or a legal resident to pass citizenship on the child is punishing the child for the "sins of the fathers".  Think about it, to prove your citizenship, you then have to prove your parents were citizens.  So when my grandchild goes to register to vote, they would need to prove that my daughter was here legally when he was born. 

The Scriptures claim this to be a land of promise, why are seeking to deny others the blessings of this land?  We are a nation built on immigration and strengthened through our differences.  Why are seeking to change what we know has worked in the past? 

Now the 17th amendment.  This has to be a Utah thing!  There are people, I read them everyday, that are pushing to take away my right to vote for senator (not that it does me any good since everyone here votes Republican).    They claim that the Founders intended the States to be represented, and this takes away their representation.  What a load of....lies.  Under James Madison, the States would have been done away with, and only the people represented!  Look at the Preamble..."We the People" not "We the States".  In this nation, the People are Sovereign, not the States. 

The whole point of senators being chosen by their States in the first place was because the Founding Fathers did not trust the uninformed farmer to make a wise decision when voting.  With today's technology, there is no excuse to be uninformed.  More direct representation is a good thing, even if I disagree with the nutcakes my states seems to keep electing.

I mean really?