In all sincerity, and after doing all due diligence on my own before writing this post (which should translate into: With all the sarcasm I posses and at the pinnacle of my frustration...), I ask any and all, What good ever came from whining? What grand thing has anyone ever accomplished in life due to your "piss and moan" fest? When reading history books, where was the chapter that explained "Abraham Lincoln owes most of his success to the global response to his whining."
Dear one and all,
I apologize for the fact that your life sucks. But I am more sorry I have to hear about it. I feel bad that nothing seems to go your way, I have been there. In fact, I have done my fair share of whining myself...so let me give you some advice from experience: Unless you are writing a Dashboard Confessional song, nobody wants to hear about it.
Man up, dig your heels in and fix the aspects of your life that you don't like. Friends got you down? Get new friends. Marriage sucks? Counseling. Work sucks? Quit. And for the love of all that is good in this world - shut up! Unless you are actually trying to work through your problems, talking about them will only bring everyone else down.
That being said. If you need a sounding board to help you determine a course of action to better the situation your in, find a wise friend who is blunt and impartial and ask for advise. If you don't have one, I am more than happy to help.
Sincerely,
MR (On behalf of everyone who is tired of having to sit through your rants)
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Leader of the Band
Writing has got to be one of the most frustrating tasks to ever be given, and I am the moron that gives it to myself on a daily basis. To attempt to express emotion, wit, poetry and intelligence all at once by stringing the right combination of words together is absolutely asinine. But I do it because every now and then I get it right, and its awesome (not in the sense of "Becky is so totally awesome," but in the true sense of the word - leaving someone totally speechless). Nine times out of ten, however, it is the most frustrating part of my day. Most people don't understand what I mean when I try to explain that frustration, but my father does. He'll understand when I tell him I have spent the last two hours attempting to write a tribute to him and his legacy, and I have gone absolutely nowhere. He'll understand that this is not anything against who he is - but that I simply cannot put into words my respect for this man. I cannot write about his legacy...simply because I do not know what to say.
Much of who I am today is a driven from what I saw in my father. My father is the writer in me, he is the voice. My passion, power and poetic prose all come from him (although he was never as alliteration happy as I was). When my father and I get fired up, the same thing happens. We pace. We rant. We pontificate. And we will repeat until every last room is converted or crying (the latter sometimes has adverse affects). When my father wants to, he can blow roofs off houses, or as I used to say, "blow fish right out of the lake like cruise missiles!"
My father is a determined man - I believe the term my mother uses is "stubborn." He genuinely wishes to care for my family and provide for them without the assistance of anyone (thanks for passing that one along, Dad.). He works hard at what he does; at everything he does. I don't think I have ever seen him settle for less than what he is capable of, and I am sure that is because when he does it eats at him constantly. Personal success is important to him, but only as far as providing for the people around him. In short, my father cannot let people down; it is not in his nature.
Now I am a father. Providing for a family of my own, trying to make sure my family is taken care of. I now realize what immense pressure my father put on himself to ensure that my childhood was a happy one. The debt he incurred to make sure we had cars to drive and new clothes at school, the hours he put in at work to pay the bills, vacations, broken windows (I still consider that the best bow and arrow shot of my life) and boken bones (Nichelle...not me - I am invincible), and the overtime he put in at scouts, baseball, band concerts, choir festivals, basketball and the one on one time that seemed ample to me. I am fairly certain all have that would have been re-paid with a sincere thank you. I am certain I did not say it enough.
So again, here I sit - now three hours into this process still trying to figure out how to put my thoughts into a non-schizophrenic expression of gratitude for the man who has given me his life so that I may live mine. For that, I say thank you, Dad. I get it now. Thank You. I have had moderate success in life, and I owe much of it to the attributes he gave me. I am the living legacy of Brad Russon.
"...I thank you for the music and your stories of the road. I thank you for my freedom when it came my time to go. I thank you for the kindness and the times when you got tough. But papa, I don't think I said 'I love you' near enough."
Much of who I am today is a driven from what I saw in my father. My father is the writer in me, he is the voice. My passion, power and poetic prose all come from him (although he was never as alliteration happy as I was). When my father and I get fired up, the same thing happens. We pace. We rant. We pontificate. And we will repeat until every last room is converted or crying (the latter sometimes has adverse affects). When my father wants to, he can blow roofs off houses, or as I used to say, "blow fish right out of the lake like cruise missiles!"
My father is a determined man - I believe the term my mother uses is "stubborn." He genuinely wishes to care for my family and provide for them without the assistance of anyone (thanks for passing that one along, Dad.). He works hard at what he does; at everything he does. I don't think I have ever seen him settle for less than what he is capable of, and I am sure that is because when he does it eats at him constantly. Personal success is important to him, but only as far as providing for the people around him. In short, my father cannot let people down; it is not in his nature.
Now I am a father. Providing for a family of my own, trying to make sure my family is taken care of. I now realize what immense pressure my father put on himself to ensure that my childhood was a happy one. The debt he incurred to make sure we had cars to drive and new clothes at school, the hours he put in at work to pay the bills, vacations, broken windows (I still consider that the best bow and arrow shot of my life) and boken bones (Nichelle...not me - I am invincible), and the overtime he put in at scouts, baseball, band concerts, choir festivals, basketball and the one on one time that seemed ample to me. I am fairly certain all have that would have been re-paid with a sincere thank you. I am certain I did not say it enough.
So again, here I sit - now three hours into this process still trying to figure out how to put my thoughts into a non-schizophrenic expression of gratitude for the man who has given me his life so that I may live mine. For that, I say thank you, Dad. I get it now. Thank You. I have had moderate success in life, and I owe much of it to the attributes he gave me. I am the living legacy of Brad Russon.
"...I thank you for the music and your stories of the road. I thank you for my freedom when it came my time to go. I thank you for the kindness and the times when you got tough. But papa, I don't think I said 'I love you' near enough."
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Things I wish I wrote.
Regardless of religious, political, or personal opinons - this article by Mike Otterson makes sense. I wish I wrote this:
This was taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/evangelicals-mormons-and-the-beliefs-of-the-president/2011/06/07/AGnGX8KH_blog.html
Many thanks to Ashley for pointing it out @Ashmolita
Evangelicals, Mormons and the beliefs of the president
A week or so ago I read an essay by evangelical journalist and author Warren Cole Smith, suggesting that voting for a Mormon – any Mormon – was a less than responsible thing to do. I found its logic profoundly disturbing.
Some very good conversations between evangelicals and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been going on for years. I hope there will be more, and that they’ll be instructive and mutually respectful. Conversation is the beginning of understanding. But too often we see reactions to old stereotypes, like this one. So here is my open letter to Warren Cole Smith in response to his assertions.
Dear Warren:
We’ve never met. I hope we might have a chance to do so.
I read your symposium essay and it got me thinking. I hope you won’t mind if I avoid discussing particular political candidates. My church is serious about its neutrality in party politics, and as a church spokesman I am always careful not to tip my hat in the direction of either an incumbent president or any of his opponents.
In fact, this letter is emphatically not about the candidates at all, but about how differently you and I understand what it is to be an American.
I hope I can fairly summarize the salient points of your essay. It seems to boil down to this:
1. Any Mormon, regardless of qualifications for office, is unfit to serve because his or her religion is somehow “demonstrably false.” By false, I assume you mean different from yours, or from how you define “biblical Christianity.”
2. Because Mormons believe in continuing revelation, they could “believe one thing today and another thing tomorrow.”
3. The election of a Mormon president would give the religion a boost because it would seem like an endorsement. And that would be a bad thing.
To be honest, Warren, I don’t really know how good or bad any of the likely candidates – Latter-day Saint or otherwise - might be as president of the United States. I’ll try to figure that out for myself before I enter the voting booth in 2012. But whoever might be elected, I expect the judgment that this nation and history will eventually render about him, or her, will have little to do with where they worshipped on the Sabbath. It will have much to do with their grasp of economics, of foreign policy, of education and health care, of their skills as commander in chief. It will likely reflect how they responded to crises, their core values and ability to unite and rally the American people.
I admit, I’m struggling just a tad with your logic that the very fact of being a Mormon disqualifies a person from high public office. That would be news to Senator Orrin Hatch, who has served his country and constituents for 34 years. And to Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader - one of the most powerful positions in government.
It would also be news to former Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, who as a member of President George W. Bush’s cabinet ran a department that accounts for almost a quarter of all federal outlays. Or to Larry Echo Hawk, who heads the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, in the present administration. And, of course, to the dozen-or-so other currently serving senators and congressmen who are also Latter-day Saints, as well as the thousands of non-Mormon voters who recognized their merits and helped elect them to office. If there is anything “demonstrable” it’s that Mormons have been serving most capably in national government for over a century.
I’m trying hard to figure out how and why belief in “continuing revelation” has or could compromise the performance of any of these legislators and public servants, since that is what your essay implies. “Continuing revelation” means two things to Mormons. First, it means we look for answers to personal prayers – a practice that you and I probably share. Second, it means church leaders receive inspiration and guidance to lead the church worldwide. It doesn’t mean, as you assert, that we “believe one thing today and another thing tomorrow.” As evidence for that, you offer a theological caricature and cite two changes in church policy, which occurred over 120 years. Something of a stretch, don’t you think?
To your third point, there’s your assertion that the election of Mormons to high office would be a tacit endorsement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This argument, while not new, is frightening in its implications. Substitute the word “Jew” for “Mormon” and see how comfortable that feels. We may reasonably hope that most people vote on the basis of policy positions and not of denomination. I never thought of the election of John Kennedy as an endorsement for Catholicism, or that Richard Nixon’s election “legitimized” Quakers (as if these groups needed legitimation). I think most Americans saw their religious affiliations as incidental to their policies and platforms.
In reality, the church that I belong to embraces a membership with views across the political spectrum, and maintains its independence and neutrality from party politics. If I know anything about my church, it’s how carefully it distances itself from the actions of party politicians and government, and respects the autonomy of any political office holder.
So let’s move beyond these questionable assertions to the premise in your post that really disturbed me, stated by you this way:
“I believe a candidate who either by intent or effect promotes a false and dangerous religion is unfit to serve.”
Who decides, Warren, that one religion is acceptable and another “false and dangerous”? Do you? Does the church that you attend? Since you aren’t calling for Mormons to be legally barred from the highest office in the land, is your idea just to effectively marginalize Mormons and make it impossible for them to run for office? Do you feel the same way about other faiths that are different from yours? Catholics, perhaps? Isn’t there something called Article VI, a constitutional provision that forbids a religious test for political office? “…No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” What does that mean – what has it ever meant – if it doesn’t apply in a case like this?
What it seems you would like me and six million other Mormons in the U.S. to do is concede a fundamental right granted to all Americans because we don’t fit within your definition of what is theologically acceptable. Fortunately, that’s not what the Constitution says, and it’s not what America teaches. I should hope that I can sit one of my grandchildren on my knee and tell them that in our religiously diverse society they are as good as anyone else, and that they will be judged by the fruits of their lives and not by discriminatory interpretations of their faith.
With the greatest respect, Warren, your position is unreasonable, un-Christian and untrue to American ideals. Neither is it typical of the Christians I know, or of those writing at your venue. Mormons across the country live side by side with evangelicals as neighbors, work associates and friends. There is much that they share. And by the way, despite my clear disagreement with some of your theology, I would have absolutely no problem voting for an evangelical who was in every way qualified to be president of the United States.
It’s time to overcome unfounded fears, to stop propounding them, and to start trying to understand each other better. If you want to talk theology, then let’s get beyond the laundry list of trivia that typically crops up in the news media, and get to the substantial issues – interpretation of the Bible, additional scripture, the purpose of life. Hopefully our next interaction can be a personal one. If you ever come to Salt Lake City, please drop in. I’d welcome a meaningful discussion.
Respectfully,
Mike Otterson
This was taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/evangelicals-mormons-and-the-beliefs-of-the-president/2011/06/07/AGnGX8KH_blog.html
Many thanks to Ashley for pointing it out @Ashmolita
Evangelicals, Mormons and the beliefs of the president
A week or so ago I read an essay by evangelical journalist and author Warren Cole Smith, suggesting that voting for a Mormon – any Mormon – was a less than responsible thing to do. I found its logic profoundly disturbing.
Some very good conversations between evangelicals and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been going on for years. I hope there will be more, and that they’ll be instructive and mutually respectful. Conversation is the beginning of understanding. But too often we see reactions to old stereotypes, like this one. So here is my open letter to Warren Cole Smith in response to his assertions.
Dear Warren:
We’ve never met. I hope we might have a chance to do so.
I read your symposium essay and it got me thinking. I hope you won’t mind if I avoid discussing particular political candidates. My church is serious about its neutrality in party politics, and as a church spokesman I am always careful not to tip my hat in the direction of either an incumbent president or any of his opponents.
In fact, this letter is emphatically not about the candidates at all, but about how differently you and I understand what it is to be an American.
I hope I can fairly summarize the salient points of your essay. It seems to boil down to this:
1. Any Mormon, regardless of qualifications for office, is unfit to serve because his or her religion is somehow “demonstrably false.” By false, I assume you mean different from yours, or from how you define “biblical Christianity.”
2. Because Mormons believe in continuing revelation, they could “believe one thing today and another thing tomorrow.”
3. The election of a Mormon president would give the religion a boost because it would seem like an endorsement. And that would be a bad thing.
To be honest, Warren, I don’t really know how good or bad any of the likely candidates – Latter-day Saint or otherwise - might be as president of the United States. I’ll try to figure that out for myself before I enter the voting booth in 2012. But whoever might be elected, I expect the judgment that this nation and history will eventually render about him, or her, will have little to do with where they worshipped on the Sabbath. It will have much to do with their grasp of economics, of foreign policy, of education and health care, of their skills as commander in chief. It will likely reflect how they responded to crises, their core values and ability to unite and rally the American people.
I admit, I’m struggling just a tad with your logic that the very fact of being a Mormon disqualifies a person from high public office. That would be news to Senator Orrin Hatch, who has served his country and constituents for 34 years. And to Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader - one of the most powerful positions in government.
It would also be news to former Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, who as a member of President George W. Bush’s cabinet ran a department that accounts for almost a quarter of all federal outlays. Or to Larry Echo Hawk, who heads the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, in the present administration. And, of course, to the dozen-or-so other currently serving senators and congressmen who are also Latter-day Saints, as well as the thousands of non-Mormon voters who recognized their merits and helped elect them to office. If there is anything “demonstrable” it’s that Mormons have been serving most capably in national government for over a century.
I’m trying hard to figure out how and why belief in “continuing revelation” has or could compromise the performance of any of these legislators and public servants, since that is what your essay implies. “Continuing revelation” means two things to Mormons. First, it means we look for answers to personal prayers – a practice that you and I probably share. Second, it means church leaders receive inspiration and guidance to lead the church worldwide. It doesn’t mean, as you assert, that we “believe one thing today and another thing tomorrow.” As evidence for that, you offer a theological caricature and cite two changes in church policy, which occurred over 120 years. Something of a stretch, don’t you think?
To your third point, there’s your assertion that the election of Mormons to high office would be a tacit endorsement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This argument, while not new, is frightening in its implications. Substitute the word “Jew” for “Mormon” and see how comfortable that feels. We may reasonably hope that most people vote on the basis of policy positions and not of denomination. I never thought of the election of John Kennedy as an endorsement for Catholicism, or that Richard Nixon’s election “legitimized” Quakers (as if these groups needed legitimation). I think most Americans saw their religious affiliations as incidental to their policies and platforms.
In reality, the church that I belong to embraces a membership with views across the political spectrum, and maintains its independence and neutrality from party politics. If I know anything about my church, it’s how carefully it distances itself from the actions of party politicians and government, and respects the autonomy of any political office holder.
So let’s move beyond these questionable assertions to the premise in your post that really disturbed me, stated by you this way:
“I believe a candidate who either by intent or effect promotes a false and dangerous religion is unfit to serve.”
Who decides, Warren, that one religion is acceptable and another “false and dangerous”? Do you? Does the church that you attend? Since you aren’t calling for Mormons to be legally barred from the highest office in the land, is your idea just to effectively marginalize Mormons and make it impossible for them to run for office? Do you feel the same way about other faiths that are different from yours? Catholics, perhaps? Isn’t there something called Article VI, a constitutional provision that forbids a religious test for political office? “…No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” What does that mean – what has it ever meant – if it doesn’t apply in a case like this?
What it seems you would like me and six million other Mormons in the U.S. to do is concede a fundamental right granted to all Americans because we don’t fit within your definition of what is theologically acceptable. Fortunately, that’s not what the Constitution says, and it’s not what America teaches. I should hope that I can sit one of my grandchildren on my knee and tell them that in our religiously diverse society they are as good as anyone else, and that they will be judged by the fruits of their lives and not by discriminatory interpretations of their faith.
With the greatest respect, Warren, your position is unreasonable, un-Christian and untrue to American ideals. Neither is it typical of the Christians I know, or of those writing at your venue. Mormons across the country live side by side with evangelicals as neighbors, work associates and friends. There is much that they share. And by the way, despite my clear disagreement with some of your theology, I would have absolutely no problem voting for an evangelical who was in every way qualified to be president of the United States.
It’s time to overcome unfounded fears, to stop propounding them, and to start trying to understand each other better. If you want to talk theology, then let’s get beyond the laundry list of trivia that typically crops up in the news media, and get to the substantial issues – interpretation of the Bible, additional scripture, the purpose of life. Hopefully our next interaction can be a personal one. If you ever come to Salt Lake City, please drop in. I’d welcome a meaningful discussion.
Respectfully,
Mike Otterson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)