There is a radio personality based in Atlanta, Georgia who calls himself the ”High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth.“

While this title is fanciful and meant to be entertaining, this self-selected moniker touches on some underlying truths.

Name Calling

When I was younger, name calling hurt my feelings when I thought [or more accurately, KNEW] the labels applied to me were true.  It also hurt because even when not true, I knew they were trying to be mean to me and it bothered me.

A similar phenomenon occurs today with people who run from their religion or people who they disagree with.   This is of course not true in all cases, but is a common enough occurrence to warrant notice.

Pain Resulting From Truth

The pain resulting from a truthful statement is based on our reaction to it.

If I am told I need to lose weight or I will die prematurely [true], it only hurts if I feel powerless to do anything about it or if I am unwilling to accept that as a true statement.  If I feel empowered or inspired to action because of this reminder of my own mortality and my role in prolonging my life, then it serves as a wise reminder to make better choices.  If I instead believe the statement is a lie and fight against this statement with a full litany of justifications and explanations why I should not change my behavior, reminders that I am on a collision course with an early death will be painful.

This kind of pain also resonates with religious truth.  If the truth is that I need to change my life because I have sinful ideas or choices that I have embraced [true], it only hurts if I continue to justify my wrongly held beliefs or bad actions.  If I embrace my need to repent and further follow God in my mind and heart, then these reminders of my own failings are inspiring to better action instead of being painful.

Mistakenly Believing Statements  “I once thought I was wrong, but later realized I was mistaken.”

Some statements are painful because we believe they are true when they are not.  Anyone who has heard a devastating rumor later proven to be a lie knows what this is about.  Sometimes we are taken in with a lie that is very persuasive and damaging.  The only thing that makes these lies powerful is that people believed them.

Knowing the Difference

It can be very difficult to know if the pain we feel is because something is true or if it is because we only believe it is true.  There is a reliable truth detector outside of our own thoughts and feelings.

As Latter-Day-Saints, we can seek personal revelation on many things.  We are empowered to receive revelation and receive answers.

How do I know when I have received a truthful answer and have not just been tricked?  When revelation often happens through emotions, thoughts, and feelings, it can be easy to fool yourself into believing the wrong things.  It can be easy to do.

It is also possible to receive revelation about future changes in policy as has been reported by many people prior to a certain revelation announced in 1978.

Here is the method I use to measure personal revelation against, which I seem to remember was also recommended by Elder Dallin H. Oaks.  It helps me choose which ideas to act on.

I compare my personal thoughts and feelings to scripture and measure it to see if it is compatible with scripture.  I also compare it to current teachings.  If my personal revelation is harmonious with gospel principles [not in some tortured reading] then the revelation is from God.  If the comparison shows my personal revelation is not in harmony with scripture and current teachings, then I need to re-consider.

It might be possible that I have received a revelation regarding a future change in policy.  If the personal revelation is correct, it is not my place to proselyte for that possible truth or advocate for it.  I should have the spiritual maturity to simply SHUT UP ABOUT IT.  It is my role to patiently bide my time living according to the truths currently taught in the church because no matter how carefully I live, I might still be mistaken.  Because of the risk involved, I certainly shouldn’t act on these ideas that are contrary to the current revealed word of God.  That is part of the purpose of Prophets and scripture, to help protect us against skillful deception.

Avoiding Painful Truth

The best way to avoid painful truth is to do some soul-searching [and scripture searching] to determine the truth and then to embrace it.

Comments Welcome

It seems that people study and learn new things then become impressed with these new ideas and think that their religion is either wrong or should be improved in some way.

That type of thinking is exactly backwards.  Theological Truths should be used to refine philosophical thinking.  Many current philosophies have a some truth to them mixed with damaging and false teachings.  Religious study will help people to better know the difference.

Here are a few examples.

Feminism.  Feminists have the truth that women have been poorly treated and oppressed in the past.  That is true.  Women should not be held back and should be free to pursue their righteous desires.  Where this philosophy departs from truthful principles is where it over-emphasizes the importance of women.  Ideas are evaluated solely on how they will impact women without due consideration of how these same ideas will impact men.  Christianity advocates for unity of people and a focus on the welfare of all people regardless of gender.  Where feminism ignores these equally valid considerations, it deviates from Christianity.

Scientific Pursuits.  Science is extremely useful and provides benefits not easily obtained via other means.  Some people have accepted the mistaken idea that all truth must be scientifically verifiable.  Science is all about what can be tested and observed via the five senses, whether experimentation will verify any given hypothesis.  There are many truths not encompassed in the scientific method.   Remembering there is a Creator who made the Universe is important in scientific discourse.

Social Liberal Policies.  It is true that we should help our fellow man or woman.  We are supposed to serve and help even our enemies.  Where social liberal policies go off course is using the power of government to take tax money and spend it for other individuals.  This is a different form of armed robbery.  Charity is no longer charity when it is forced.

Abortion.  There is a time and place where birth control and abortion may be appropriate.  Each case is highly circumstantial.  The current laws are an abomination to common sense.  My wife of 14 years could get pregnant and have an abortion and I could do nothing about it.  There is exactly zero consideration to a father’s natural rights or interest in an unborn child.  A teenager in Texas was sentenced two two life sentences for murder because his girlfriend hectored him into standing on her stomach until she miscarried with twins.  He went to prison, she went free.  The status quo is reprehensible.

There are a few other guiding principles in political discourse that should be noted as well.

• Advocating for good or righteous behavior is not the same as wanting to compel good behavior.
• Freedom without righteous principles is anarchy and will devalue, dehumanize, demoralize, and detach humanity from itself.
• Freedom with righteous principles is liberty.
• Freedom as envisioned by the God is the freedom to pursue righteous goals and desires in spite of our past sins and current imperfections.
• Freedom to do whatever you want without regard to righteous principles is freedom as envisioned by Satan.  It is dressed up hedonism and will lead to bondage.

It is much better to listen to and follow Godly principles.  These principles will lead to peace and happiness.

Comments Welcome

Some messages are clear, other messages are  not so clear.

We often have mis-communication, anger, frustration, and sadness when the message received was not the message intended.

The best kind of misunderstanding is where the parties quickly discover the dis-junct and laugh about it.  Communications and misunderstandings can happen in an continuing cycle where the parties communicating have an ongoing relationship and can further refine the ability to correctly understand the messages sent in an open and honest two way communication.

There is a second and worse kind of misunderstanding where where the misunderstanding is potentially never discovered.

The person may be completely convinced that they have properly understood the message and then continue to act based on a misunderstanding.

For example, a person might listen to a gospel message such as “God loves you.”  Or maybe even after praying feel very reassured that God loves them.

That is a perfectly true statement that God Loves You.  It is.  No matter who you are or what you may have done, God loves you.

The misunderstanding later comes when this same person takes the “God loves me” message and takes it to mean that there is no need to improve behaviors or seek to further align your thoughts with God’s thoughts.  Love does not mean and complete agreement with your behavior or philosophies.

Another message might be about the importance of being humble and taking this to mean that you should hate yourself and have poor self-esteem.

Please take some time to re-think the messages you are listening to, what they mean, and how you might be mistaken about what they mean.  It could be a very enlightening experience.

Comments Welcome

We tend to label ourselves so that we can make sense of the vast array of thoughts floating around in our own minds.  Labels help us to make sense of ourselves.

We also tend to label others in ways that make sense to our own worldview.  It makes sense to put certain people in categories or definitions.

When introductions are made, we ask about who a person is and use that information to try and place people in categories.

At a work party, people will often identify themselves by what part of the company they work in.

In other settings like a wedding or other family based event, people will identify themselves by how they are related to the bride or groom or where they fall in the family tree.

Self-imposed labels are often context specific.

If a woman in a neutral setting introduces herself as a Doctor, Mother, and a Catholic it is a fair supposition (even if inaccurate) to think that her priorities will also fall in that order.

In other words, she sees herself as a Doctor first, a Mother second, and a Catholic third.

Regardless of accuracy, that is the message being sent.

Take some time to think about how you think about yourself and the message you send every time someone asks you who you are.

Who are you really?  What is most important to you?  Are your priorities in line with how you introduce yourself?

Comments Welcome

While that idea is laughable and turns common sense on its head, the rule was actually declaring tomato paste as a vegetable much like ketchup is a vegetable.

The whole Pizza is a Vegetable chorus was making fun of congress for voting to keep Pizza on the list of acceptable foods for school lunches.

Why isn’t there a similar outcry for trying to redefine marriage as being between two men, or two women?

Words mean things and simply trying to change the definition of a word when it defies common sense and experience is ridiculous.

Comments Welcome

Greg Hawkins is the Salt Lake County Auditor, and as a public official is subject to scrutiny and criticism of his public acts.

Salt Lake County is changing their procedures in the budgetary process and cutting the Auditor’s office out of some the its’ prior duties.

The Auditor decided to file suit to stop this.

The problem is that Greg Hawkins decided the best person to represent his office in court also happened to be his former law partner who would be charging $450/hr. without going through the normal budgetary channels for approving this type of expense.

It is possible that this is in fact the best person to represent the Auditor’s office.  It also seems rather fishy to hire a former law partner to do the work at $450/hr. while going outside of the normal channels approving the expenditure when you are the Auditor.

Whether this expenditure was sought as the spoils of office or mere oversight, of all people who should know better, it would be the County Auditor.

Hopefully Greg Hawkins will issue a public apology and explanation for his actions.

Comments Welcome

Not that long ago, she took a test in the testing center, went to a meeting with her Ecclesiastical leader and then went to the testing center for another test.

Upon arrival for her second test, she was turned away by the dude who is in charge of admitting students for taking tests because he thought she was wearing clothes that were too tight fitting.

She was dressed for the second test just like she was for the first test although I suspect there was a shift change at the testing center.

Here is a picture of Rachel Vermillion in her oh-so-offensive attire:

As you can see, she appears to be healthy, happy, and probably fun to hang out with.

While I do not know for certain about the motivations of the student who turned her away from the testing center, it appears that perhaps he was too-enamored with Rachel’s looks and did not know how to handle the situation.

BYUIdaho has said that skinny jeans are in fact OK, even though Rachel was not wearing skinny jeans.

Perhaps this could be seen as an awkward compliment that the test administrator was uncomfortable or otherwise unable to tolerate her good looks and presence in the testing center.

Comments Welcome.

Congress and the White House have been bought and paid for by big business and financial interests.  Neither party will do the right thing when the gravy train is threatened.

Both parties continue to follow policies, enact laws, create regulations, and other official acts of government power that directly benefit large corporations and financial interests.

The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit reduced the pension and insurance costs of many large corporations by shifting their contractual obligations to retirees to the government.  Thanks Republicans!

95% of the TARP bailout went to 30 companies who happen to regularly donate to both parties, but the TARP bailout happened under Bush 43.  Thanks Republicans!

The Bailouts under President Obama have largely benefited Unions and their fellow travelers which is also very big business.  Thanks Democrats!

Many of the current fiscal and financial policies and bailouts have benefited Goldman Sachs where Tim Geitner used to work who is currently the Secretary of the Treasury.  Thanks Democrats!

The current Health Care legislation has created rules, regulations, and other barriers to competition that will keep private health insurance out of the hands of the little people (the 99%) and make the rest dependent on the grace of government for health care.  Thanks Democrats!

Both parties are making bad decisions for the people they are supposed to be representing but are great for the people paying their campaign funds.

A recent example of this was the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform act.  One part of this act relates to debit card transaction fees.  Banks used to make a fair amount of money on these transactions leading to banks offering free checking for their customers.  With vigorous lobbying efforts by large retailers like WalMart these fees were reduced by government power (instead of the ‘free market’ we are supposed to have) and the banks are now collecting less fees.  This has caused many financial institutions to do away with free checking and adding fees to these previously free accounts.

The system is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful.  The mountain of laws, regulations, and government programs are making it impossible for small businesses to grow and compete with the large businesses.

If a mom and pop retailer wanted to open up in a small town, they would be met with a large list of regulations to follow and licenses to qualify for in addition to the property and sales taxes to pay.  If Wal-Mart wants to open a new store, they are often met with tax holidays, business and building permits pre-approved and the site of their choice.  It is not a fair competition.  Big business is given preferential treatment, not fair treatment.  Governments at the local, state, and federal level have chosen sides in this competitive environment.

The profits of these large companies are private while the losses are public.  We are compelled by government to bail out these large companies who were not content with simple, safe, and predictable profits and instead sought to chase larger and larger returns.  When the illusion collapsed, they were bailed out and left the taxpayers (and China) holding the increasingly worthless bag.

Capitalism is not the problem.  Corruption is the problem.  Politicians are paid via their campaign funds and other more creative ways to buy favor and votes to benefit these large businesses.

Getting the money out of politics is one place to start.  Abolishing corporations is another.

Comments Welcome.

Official statements about teachings and doctrinal matters come from the top to the rest of the organization.  These two faiths are unique among religious denominations in this practice.

Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and all of the major Protestant Faiths voice their opinions and will have differing doctrinal interpretations based on consensus, understanding, and voting.  There is no human vessel that is the recognized final voice on doctrinal disputes.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints follows a Prophet who is the final word on doctrinal matters.

The  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints also vigorously encourages people to seek and receive their own personal revelation.

How do these things fit together?  If the people can receive revelation, then why have a Prophet?

The solution is quite simple, elegant, and makes perfect sense.

The missing elements in the revelation vs. prophet debate is stewardship and harmony.

First: Stewardship.

Each person on this earth is given a stewardship they are responsible for.

According to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, you can only receive revelation in relation to your stewardship.

As an individual, I am responsible for receiving revelation in how to live my life, as a method of determining truth and error, and otherwise enriching my life.

My personal revelations could be about who to date, marry, what career to pursue, whether a particular decision is a good one, etc…

As a father, I am also responsible for receiving revelation about how to lead my family.

In my church calling, I can receive revelation about how to better serve in my calling and fulfill my stewardship.

So, a Bishop can receive revelation for a ward or specifically how to counsel an individual member who may be having problems.

This principle applies to any church callings.

Second: Harmony.

For this revelation to be considered valid, it must also be harmonious with Church Doctrine.

For example, I could not receive a revelation telling me to become a killer for hire.

It would not be recognized as coming from God if the question was put to a priesthood authority.

The most likely explanation is that I was deceived by Satan into thinking I had received that revelation no matter how I felt about the matter.

Personal Revelation needs to be Put To The Test:

If you have decided the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the true church, then it follows that President Monson is the current mouthpiece for God today.

If you receive a revelation and wonder if it came from God, it is subject to some scrutiny.

Does the revelation harmonize with current Church doctrine and teachings?  If not, it is most likely not from God.

Does the revelation directly relate to your stewardship?  If not, it is most likely not from God.

See, if you are not the Prophet, you are not the person authorized to receive and teach new doctrines or ideas.

Some people fall into the trap of thinking they are somehow ahead of the revelatory curve and that the Church will one day catch up.

I used to worry about this myself.  I would look at prior revelations about polygamy, the priesthood, and other matters and wonder what else might be changing in the future?

I have also heard stories about people who said they knew a major change was coming when the revelation about the priesthood was announced in 1978 which did not help with this concern.

So what happens if one day I think I have been clued in about a potential future change in Church doctrine or policy?  What should I do?

The mature and correct answer is that I should shut up about it.  I should remain silent about it because it is not my place to say anything.

Perhaps I may be correct about the idea, but I am not to advocate or teach those ideas to anyone else because I am supposed to teach Church Doctrine and policy as it is presently constituted.

The changes need to be announced from the top-down.  No matter how sure I may feel about this idea or revelation, it is possible I have been deceived.  The only way to be certain I have not been duped is for the revelation to be confirmed through a proclamation from the President of the Church.

I wouldn’t want to be personally responsible for leading people astray and teaching potentially damaging false doctrine if I was mistaken about the idea.

The Solution:

Follow the Prophet, receive the revelation that you are entitled to in harmony with Church Doctrine, and be quiet about the rest.

You’ll be just fine.

Comments Welcome

You see, Mr. Valcarce is paid to prepare political mailings for candidates and elected officials alike.

Mr. Valcarce has demanded that $75,000 be removed from a scholarship fund for college students after he made an anonymous donation to fund scholarships at the University of Utah.

But there is more to the story, which I have left out from the beginning of this story much like the 95% of political mailings I receive.

Keep reading for more of the story.  I really am fair in my writing.

Rob Bishop should do the right thing and tell Peter Valcarce to take a chill pill and support Kirk Jowers and the students.

If you have not been following this tempest in a teapot, I don’t blame you.

The Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune have both reported on this matter.

Based on these two stories, Mr. Valcarce formed a private charitable foundation which had sizable assets and no donations for several years.

The IRS had a problem with that and Mr. Valcarce made a donation to the University of Utah and BYU under pressure of his foundation being broken up by the IRS.

About two weeks after this $200,000 donation to the U of U was made, Mr. Valcare was sent a thank you note indicating that the money was split two ways.  $125,000 to a Rob Bishop scholarship at the Hinckley Institute of Politics, and $75,000 to the “Kirk and Kristen Jowers International Scholarship Fund”.

There may have been a demand for all of the money to be put in the Rob Bishop Scholarship Fund, but the sources conflict on the timing.

Last fall, Eric Wright was in Washington, D.C. working as an intern from the Hinckley Institute of Politics and died in an accident there.  Eric Wright is the son of Doug Wright who is a popular local radio show host in Salt Lake City.  Kirk Jowers offered to match $25,000 from the International Scholarship Fund to help fund the Eric Wright Memorial Scholarship.

Mr. Valcarce decided to find out if the money he donated was in the Jowers Fund or not.  The money was still in the Jowers fund and Valcarce renewed his demand that the money be moved out immediately.  Mr. Jowers agreed to move $40,000 out of the fund a year ago and then move the remaining $35,000 when additional donations and funding arrived to replace it.

Now Mr. Valcarce has decided to send out an attack mailing against Mr. Jowers and to discourage donations to the University of Utah calling this decision to hold off on removing the remaining $35,000 “theft”.

It is completely reasonable to keep the Jowers fund at a level that will allow for current scholarships and future promised scholarships to be paid.  The corpus of the endowment is not supposed to be invaded, but the earnings from the fund pay for the scholarships.  If there are students already benefiting from these scholarships, it would be stupid and immoral to just remove the money because Mr. Valcarce is throwing a fit about the disposition of his formerly anonymously donated funds.

It is not without irony that Mr. Valcarce decided to act after he heard about a matching donation of $25,000 for an Eric Wright Memorial Scholarship when Eric was interning for Rob Bishop when he died and wanted the full $200,000 to be for a Rob Bishop Scholarship fund.

Perhaps Rob Bishop could be the statesman to resolve this dispute and tell the public he is okay if some money was put in a memorial scholarship for one of his interns.  That would be nice.  Also if he stated that it is also a good idea to continue to fund existing scholarships no matter what name is on the scholarship.

Comments Welcome