Author: tohatchi

Posted on

Better late than never when it comes to doing the will of the Father

The little set of verses in Matthew 21:28-32 reminds me of how patient God is with those who truly seek Him. Even those who make big mistakes will be accepted into the kingdom if they choose to repent and do the will of the Father.

In my growing up years I knew a few people who weren’t interested in the church at all as teenagers. Living their lives contrary to gospel principles seemed to be their goal. They were the last people I would have expected to see at church when they were younger, but things can change. I’ve heard through my network of friends that some of those people are now very active members. At first they said, “I will not”, but afterward they repented and went.

I know of others who were regulars at church, but now have fallen away. I have no idea whether they had attended because they wanted to, or because they were trying to please other people. At some point they had said, “I go, sir”, but later they went not.

The moral of the story to me is that there is still time to say “yes” if we haven’t been willing to do so in the past. There is also time for those who have fallen away to return. And, it’s more important what you actually do than what you say you will do.

Matthew 21:28-32

28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.

29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.

30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.

31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

Posted on

Facebook makes us angry with each other

Ok, I’m not sure that Facebook is the root cause of the problem, but it seems that before Facebook became popular it was easier to maintain friendships with people who held differing views. These days the world seems more polarized when it comes to opinions. As people broadcast their thoughts and prejudices on Facebook, relationships can be strained and tested. For example, how long do we tolerate political messages from good friends who happen to be on the other side of a political fence? What about the people who constantly post about causes they feel deeply about, but we don’t? Since Facebook doesn’t really allow us to pick and choose the type of posts we see from friends, sometimes we make choices to terminate the relationship, on Facebook anyway. Once some people know you believe a certain way, they don’t want to be your friend anymore. I’m pretty sure I’ve been “unfriended” by people because of my Christian and conservative posts.

I’ve unfriended a few people myself. In the past I considered some of these people very good friends, but time and geographical distance changed the relationship for them. They started making rude, condescending comments about things I was posting. Instead of treating me like a friend, they treated me like someone they might argue with on a public forum. Perhaps that’s where they learned to behave that way. I chose not to tolerate it. My friends don’t have to agree with everything I say, but I expect a certain degree of respect. The Facebook environment seems to encourage people to say things online to their friends that they wouldn’t dare say to your faces.

Strangely, even friends who share very similar political and religious beliefs seem primed to want to fight. Instead of insulting me, they insult my friends, even if those friends are agreeing with me. On some of my posts I have deleted posts of friends who chose not to behave with respect. People are forgetting how to be nice.

Posted on

Why must we always be choosing the lesser of two evils?

Four days ago someone posted an image on Facebook where a presidential poll shows the leading candidates in North Carolina as follows:

Hillary Clinton (D) 38%
Donald Trump (R) 40%
Deez Nuts (I) 9%

The joke is supposed to be “Deez Nuts”, the 3rd-place candidate with 9% who turns out to be a 15-year-old from Iowa. It isn’t his real name and he doesn’t have the prerequisites to run for president, so he isn’t a serious candidate. Presumably, the other two are serious candidates, but I don’t think they have the prerequisites either. The first thing that came to mind was a TV game show from decades ago called The Joker’s Wild. I imagined and image something like this:

jokers-election-2016-1

On further reflection I thought three jokers wasn’t quite accurate. There is another character in the game show, and this image would reflect my feelings better:

two-evils-election-2016

In past presidential races I have heard people speak often of choosing “the lesser of two evils”. They don’t actually want the candidate their party endorses, but they see the opposition candidate as worse. Rather than vote for their preferred independent candidate, who “can’t win” They feel they must choose the lesser of two evils. From the Republican point of view, it would look something like this:

evil-vs-less-evil

But, the lesser of two evils is still evil. Why isn’t it ever a question of the better of two goods? I think the “lesser of two evils” isn’t accidental; it’s by design. The “favored to win” candidates are usually handed down to us, with their stamp of approval coming from the top. Anyone coming up from the bottom is seen as a lost cause that can’t win, regardless of what good things they might be saying. Everyone knows that splitting the vote is the worst thing you could ever do, so they choose Evil Lite to avoid EVIL Inc.

Trump is a little different. He doesn’t have the stamp of approval from above, but he isn’t coming from the bottom either. He has name recognition, and he has money. He isn’t politically correct and he makes no apologies for it. The poll numbers show that Republicans appreciate that about him. But, would he make a good president? Does he care about the values Republicans claim to hold dear? Does he care about the Constitution? Once he is in the driver’s seat, will he look out for the interests of the citizens of the United States? He is a certainly a man of business and he is used to positions of leadership. But, this country has had plenty of trouble from businesses favored by government. Is he a patriot? Does he care about U.S. sovereignty? Does he care about protecting the liberty of the citizens? Would he send us to war on a whim? How does he feel about the union of big business and big government? I think Republicans are willing to accept almost anyone after two terms of Obama, but they need to be more careful. They need to look at the whole package. I hope he keeps talking because it will give voters a better idea of what he is about. I just wish we could more clearly hear the voices of some of those “can’t win” people who would make better leaders.

Posted on

Sidebar ads in poor taste, and from bad to worse

The pornographic cancer that once lurked in darker parts of the Internet is now coming out of the shadows. It used to be that if you stayed on safe sites you wouldn’t be bothered with offensive content. That has changed. These days, offensive and pornographic ads are showing up on “safe” sites with increasing frequency. I am constantly seeing sidebar ads that are in poor taste, and as time goes by, the ads don’t just border on pornographic; they are pornographic. The strange thing to me is how little it is talked about. People share images and videos on Facebook, and when I follow the links, the articles themselves might be benign, but the sites have offensive sidebar advertising. The people sharing these articles would consider themselves very religious and church-going people, and yet they seem unaware of the environment that accompanies the video or image they are sharing.

Some sites use good things as bait for bad things. Recently I was researching pottery designs for an art project. In a Google search I found a nice design. A click on the image took me to a seemingly ordinary site, with an article on pottery designs. It was strange that the site was for a mattress company, but the content of the article was informative, so I kept on reading. As I moved down the page, to the right I saw an advertisement with a photo of a woman pulling her pants down enough to reveal that which most women would choose to keep private. There was no reason to have that kind of advertising on the site, but it was there. The pottery article was the bait for the pornographic ad. These advertisers aren’t satisfied with pitching their message to people looking for porn. They want to assault the eyes of those who aren’t looking for it.

Will we allow it to continue? Why aren’t more people complaining? Does it mean they have become accustomed to the filth, and truly don’t notice? Are they afraid to talk about it? I notice it, and it bothers me. I choose not to share articles for sites that promote that kind of advertising, regardless of who they are.

Posted on

The Little Red Hen is so relevant, or, what is greed?

I love the illustrations in Richard Scarry’s “The Little Red Hen”, a surprisingly hard-to-find little book. When I read it to my daughter, I think I’m the one who enjoys it the most. The characters are cute. The message is strong.

The little red hen finds some grains of wheat and tries multiple time to get the other animals involved in the process of making bread. Each time she asks for volunteers, the other animals opt out. When the task is finally done and the bread is baked, she asks who is willing to eat the bread. The other animals are now eager to participate. Too late. The little red hen says she did all the work so she will eat all the bread.

Is the hen greedy? Should she be required to share with those who have no bread? If the animals could put it to a vote, would they vote to take her bread and keep it for themselves? She saw an opportunity. She put in the work to make it happen. She didn’t cheat anyone or steal anything. Nobody else was willing to help until the bread was ready to eat.

It’s interesting how the hen might be seen as selfish and unkind by some people. They feel she should be willing to give to the others because she has bread and they don’t. Those who criticize the inequality of the outcome, don’t consider the inequality of the input.

Somehow the greed of the non-participants is not considered greed. They covet something they could have helped create. They want her to share, but they were unwilling to share their labor.

Posted on

Dogs and neighborly friction

We used to get along really well with our next door neighbor. Then she got a dog. Our apartments share a wall, and we also share a back deck. There is a wooden lattice wall separating her side and ours. The deck is very pleasant and shady, except when the neighbor’s dog is out. It puts its head under the lattice wall and barks at us. Unless she brings her dog inside, our only option is to leave.  Our daughter is terrified of the dog, though we have tried to explain that the dog isn’t mean, just crazy.

We can tell that the neighbor is embarrassed, and that has strained communication between us. Whenever the dog sees us, or anyone else, it nearly always barks. If she has the dog out front, and it starts barking, our daughter starts to cry, and dog and neighbor go quickly inside.

The ironic thing is, this neighbor has a strained relationship with the people who live on the other side of her. Their dog is the cause of it. It is mean, barks at everyone, and tries to bite when it gets an opportunity. It has bit her twice (not severely), and she used to complain to us about the distress it caused. She felt the conflict of wanting to maintain a good relationship with the neighbors while wanting to have animal control remove the dog. She doesn’t talk about the neighbor’s dog anymore, as I’m sure the irony is not lost on her.

We have no plans to contribute to the dog/neighbor friction. We remain pet free.

Posted on

Tolerance and bigotry

Wikipedia: “Bigotry is the state of mind or attitude of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”.[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, economic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, personal habits, personal feelings, political alignment, race, region, culture, religious or spiritual belief, sex, species, or sexual orientation”.

In my experience, the people who constantly use “bigot” to describe others, easily qualify for the label themselves.

Posted on

The epidemic of shallow sharing on Facebook

For weeks, one of my Facebook friends shared only images that had quotes with minions in the background. He would share them in batches of 10 or 15 at a time. I tried blocking the sources of the things he was sharing, but each day more would appear. I eventually just “unfollowed” him since he wasn’t saying anything about himself anyway. Other Facebook friends seem to take every poll they can possibly find, like “What is your IQ?”, “What is your mental age?”, “Which Disney princess are you?”, “What is your Star Wars name?”, and on, and on, and on. Some do the same with loads of grumpy cat quotes. Others share streams of political “click-bait” posts.

The common thing in all this sharing is the lack of input or explanation by the friend. It’s just the item itself. I consider it shallow sharing when friends share like robots and give none of their own input. If they are going to share something, I want to know why they think it is worth sharing.

Posted on

The armor of the adversary

We had a really nice Stake Conference meeting tonight. Elder Parker talked about his daughter and how, when she was younger, she started to question her beliefs. He and his wife had done all they could to help her. They decided they had to give her over to God. Only He had the power to reach her and heal her. She eventually came around and is doing well. She is an adult with kids of her own. Her kids are struggling just like she did. Elder Parker said sometimes we have to let the Lord do the work when we have tried all we can. He said, “We always talk about the armor of God. Satan has armor also, and we need the help of the Lord to penetrate it.”

Posted on

It’s easy to laugh at a caricature

For members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the idea that we are not considered Christians by so many outside our church is difficult to comprehend. Though our focus is, and always has been, Jesus Christ and His gospel, we somehow don’t fit the rules they have established. When they explain their reasons for not allowing us to be Christians, they often rely on caricature to make our beliefs seem ridiculous. With caricature you take something ordinary and distort its features to the extreme. That ordinary thing then becomes easier to laugh at.