LDS Aggression

I don't agree with many policies of the LDS Church, but I support the leadership of the LDS Church regardless. The reason for this is the LDS Church is Jesus Christ's Church, and it is a mostly volunteer organization with less than 1 paid minister per 1,000,000 members. Most prophets and apostles in scriptures have flaws, and I doubt I could do a better job leading The Church better than our current leadership; I would do things differently, but I would make mistakes of my own. I have zero interested in committing my life completely to volunteer work of any kind, no do I like every day of my life to be consumed with Church all day long. I DON'T WANT LEADERSHIP'S JOB, SO I SUPPORT LEADERSHIP! I will give you an example of a policy I do not agree with: 2 year missions. Why don't I like them?

1. I didn't go on my mission until I was 24. That was a very uncomfortable 6 years from age 18 to age 24. I greatly benefited to going on a mission and am very grateful that I went, but to say that the experience isn't for everyone is an extraordinary understatement. I believe that the missionary program of the church chases away more members between ages of 18 and 24 than it manages to convert.
2. The LDS missionary program uproots emerging adults from their hometowns for two years, making them less likely to stay in their home towns and build up their communities. Instead of guiding not-LDS fellow emerging adults into the fold just as they need direction in their life, LDS emerging adults go off on Church directed adventures far away from their hometown. This might make sense in Utah, where growing the Church has already been maximized in your hometown, but it doesn't make sense for building up the Church outside of Utah. 
3. As LDS know it is not fun when Jehova's Witnesses knock on your door to proselyte you. I talked to numerous people in my mission who described running and hiding when they realized LDS missionaries were knocking on their door. I don't think door-to-door proselyting is the way to go, I think we are mostly just instigating resentment by doing this practice.

We LDS are annoyed when protesters gather outside our temples and conference centers to object to our religious observances. But what are those protesters a reaction to? If you ask them they will tell you they are witnessing to LDS. In other words in their hometowns, usually not in Utah, missionaries have knocked on every door 10 times in the last five years, and these Christians couldn't help but notice something: LDS's primary target for converts are OTHER CHRISTIANS. By definition, how can LDS be Christian when our primary audience for conversion are other Christians, and we are so aggressive with door knocking to convert other Christians that we have become a significant annoyance to their day to day lives?

The Christian community is getting the idea that LDS are not Christian by LDS aggressively trying to convert other Christians to LDS. Simple logic here.

In 2013 the The Church attempted to reign in aggressive door-to-door proselyting. I sat through the entire broadcast, and by the end was satisfied I had seen my last pair of missionaries knocking on doors. Unfortunately the broadcast changed basically NOTHING AT ALL, I never once have met a pair of missionaries who don't knock door to door as a result of that broadcast. I believe the broadcast represented God's will, and it was presented as such at the time. I haven't been able to find the broadcast online, but The Church's first World Report after the broadcast mentioned it and you can see some details pointing to a recent de-emphasis on door knocking:

Pro-Tip: the practice of door-to-door knocking has actually been discouraged for a long time. In 1998 when I started my mission there was a missionary handbook that listed how effective each type of "finding" converts was. Door to door was one of the last items on the list, recognized to be very ineffective for finding people interested in The Church. Being 24 years old at the time I wasn't about to spend all day long terrorizing neighborhoods going door to door, and I participated in this activity 5% or less of the days I was on my mission. I ended up being involved in twice as many conversions as most other missionaries in that mission at that time. It turns out that just eating in a restaurant in your missionary uniform, or just hanging out talking to people in a park, or volunteering in the community, is MUCH more effective than going door to door. It also stokes less resentment, because it is less hostile and aggressive.

Calvinists vs LDS

LDS (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) and most other Christians find themselves totally opposed to Calvinism, more so than non-Christian religions like Buddhism or Islam. Consider this quote by John Wesley:

An LDS vs Calvinist theological war has erupted starting in around 2020. LDS who are typically too busy having lives to get involved in arguments on religion on the internet, finally had time during the pandemic lock-down to start defending their faith online. This was a huge problem for the least prepared of the LDS critics, Calvinists, who stand to lose a lot of money by losing congregation members from their paid ministry, to LDS congregations who do not have a paid ministry. The epicenter of this battle is Gilbert Arizona where the numbers of both anti-LDS Calvinists and mainstream LDS are in sufficient numbers to have a sustained conflict.

Calvinism and LDS are natural enemies because they are polar opposites of Religion in general. Though both can be considered forms of Christianity, they are so different that both religions have more in common with almost any other religion on earth than they do with each other. They interpret the Bible in radically different ways. Ultimately LDS believe that humanity is literally the same species as God, and that God is trying to make as many humans like Him as possible. Calvinists believe the perfect opposite: God sees us not as children but as creations, and the vast majority of humans were created specifically to burn in hell for all eternity.

Slayer is the scapegoat of heavy metal bands, because of their imagery and lyrical content with songs like "Hell Awaits" and "Raining Blood." However upon close examination of the lyrics, it appears they were simply describing the horror of the Calvinist God... what could be scarier than God creating most people just to have them burn in hell for all eternity? Like John Wesley said, this defames God, encouraging Atheism, by declaring God worse than the Devil.

On one hand, the Calvinist argument is The Bible declares that this is the situation, weather or not humanity agrees. On the other hand, here are the Bible verses backing up the LDS view:

1. The entire Book of James explains that what we choose to do with our lives has everything to do with our eternal destinations.

2. John 17 expounds on how Jesus is "one" with the Father, and it's the same way we are to be "one" with Jesus.

3. 2nd Peter 1:4 "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ..."

4. 1 John 3:2: "Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is."

5. John 10:34-36 'Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?'

We are children of God with divine potential, we have free will. The LDS view is far more Biblical than the Calvinist view, even though LDS do not have a closed cannon of scripture like the Calvinists.

This the first big debate I can remember between an LDS and a Calvinist on YouTube, and it's from around 2020: 

This is the latest big debate, which was basically a total victory for LDS:

What is going on here is Calvinists are very hostile towards other types of Christians, having no love of Seventh Day Adventists, Catholics, etc. where as LDS are very friendly to most other types of religion generally, Christian or otherwise. Between LDS outreach and Calvinist hostility, the two groups would inevitably clash. Fortunately for LDS, the Calvinist position is nonsense and easily disputed, and not even slightly compatible with the Jesus presented in the New Testament.

Proximity Theory

At Antioch University Seattle in 2005 & 2006 I and other graduate assistants came up with a hypothesis about human relationships which we called "Proximity Theory." Proximity means how physically close an object is to another object. We theorized that how physically close two people were to each other was the most important factor in weather or not those two people would develop a relationship of any kind, in any given amount of time.

When pushing agendas for upcoming meetings, we realized we needed to have "meetings before the meeting," which were smaller group discussions before the time official official meeting. Objections to any given proposal at a meeting needed to be determined and if possible settled before any official meeting actually began. The easiest way for the meetings-before-the-meeting to happen was for people to be working near by each other.

But we soon realized this applied to other relationships as well. When it was all said and done, if you have two attractive and likable heterosexual 17-year-olds who are members of the opposite sex in a room together for a long enough period of time, you will have a teen pregnancy on your hands. That relationship will not form in that time with anyone outside of that room. Proximity.

This needs to be taken into much more careful consideration with today's dating services, singles communities and dating apps. Long-distance is undesirable. It's wasting time, and we only have so much time to give.

Side Piece

My hero Michelle Stone recently took down her YouTube channel 132 Problems. The channel was a solid argument against God having anywhere actually commanded polygamy and against Joseph Smith ever having done polygamy. Many have suggested she took down her channel because of pressure from local Church leadership, but it's also worth noting she recently returned to University studies, presumably in history. 

HOWEVER, in one of her last episodes she interviews Mads Larsen, a famous anthropologist from Northern Europe. What he has identified is 1/3 of the men reproduce in that area, relative to most of the women reproducing, meaning that by way of divorce, the men who are reproducing are reproducing with multiple women. THIS implies that polygamy in the early LDS church was more so driven by women than by men. We know that the earliest polygamy practiced by LDS leadership was by the Apostles on their mission to the UK, where they were converting Christian women who were already trying to practice polygamy.

I have gotten to know more than a few single ladies over the last year. I often hear shockingly unrealistic expectations from women in their late 30's and 40's essentially expecting to find sugar daddies. The obvious logical problem here is that sugar daddies date women in their 20's. I personally value maturity and character in a relationship, but that's not the resource men are looking for when they buy their way into a relationship. Unfortunately disconnection with reality in general, and specifically expecting a sugar daddy to come sweep you off your feet as a fully grown and adult woman, is not a sign of maturity or character.

YouTube suggests over half of women will only date about one in a thousand men (6 feet tall, less than 10% body fat, making $200,000 per year, single, educated, heterosexual, monogamous.) Now they ARE dating, which tells me something very important: they are believing lies told to them by opportunistic men who are misrepresenting their income and other aspects of their life. So these women are finding a one-in-twenty man who has the physical traits they are looking for, but who is also willing to lie about all sorts of things in order to get laid.

Women, please understand the reason why the guy you slept with moved on right away is he knew that your interest in him was based on the illusion he provided: there never was any possibility of a long term relationship because you never wanted who he really was.

Having unrealistic expectations is how you become a side piece. If your sights are too high, you will only be aiming for men who are dishonest or who already have enough mates, and you will be just one more extra.  Promiscuity is it's own punishment with it's own built in karma. It makes you vulnerable to opportunistic men. It makes you mostly sad and alone. You think the most eligible guy you have slept with in your 20's is the same type of guy you can expect to marry in your 40's, the problem being is that guy was fake in the first place.

Short Stick

My first martial art style was Tae Sho Arnis. I understand that an Arnis stick is a sparring place holder for a machete. I also understand the value of an Arnis stick for disarming someone with a knife. What has caught my attention more recently is a more common stick variation: the billy club.

I saw my first billy club in the late 90's in Pittsburgh, and was immediately impressed by the practicality of this weapon:

It is much shorter than an Arnis stick making it easier to conceal, deploy, swing and thrust at close range. It's round edges make for a finer striking surface than a human fist, and it's hardwood construction makes it far less likely to break. The Billy Club's shorter length can afford more mass and still be swung at the same speed as an Arnis stick or knife. From a self defense perspective this weapon is much more like an improvised weapon you are likely to find to defend yourself with such as a heavy flashlight or a butcher knife than a longer Arnis stick, and it is also more similar to the length of weapon you would be likely to be attacked by.

This weapon has been brought to my attention by people practicing Korean martial arts. Apparently almost all Korean martial arts have some kind of "Dan Bong" techniques:

I would like to see this weapon explored more in free sparring.

Attention Seeking Behavior

I have been going out dancing several times per month for several months this year. I have noticed a strange behavior among women:

1. If you ignore them, they want you.
2. If you give them attention, they flee.

It's a sad thing because I am only at clubs to dance, not too hook up. I then have a lot of female attention at the clubs. But in my personal life if I bring a friend to the club with me, and tell her that I am into her, then the next day she is saying something like "I am not ready for a relationship." If I say nothing, she continues to be into me, as long as I am as emotionally neglectful towards her as I can manage.

The worst part about all of this is making women I like jealous in order to get them to pay attention to me. If someone who has given me the "I am not ready for a relationship" line sees me dancing with other women, then they usually warm back up to me right away. However if feels awful to manipulate people like that, and I suppose it's the man's fantasy to have a woman who genuinely likes him for who he is, not as a trophy for a woman in a status competition with other women.

I get it, it's evolutionary behavior: women are better at using their intuition to make decisions, and part of that intuition is looking at other women's opinions, especially with mate selection. However, this then creates huge moral dilemmas for any man involved: men are forced to be emotionally distant and manipulative because that is what women crave. The alternative is to be a good person, and apparently that means being a bachelor.

Notice the overt sin this requires on the part of the Woman:

1. 10 commandment violation: Covetousness
2. Golden Rule violations: A. going after other women's men. B. Abandoning men who are more than good enough for someone like you, but you would rather die alone with your bones licked clean by your cat than have a husband night quite as amazing as you had dreamed up for yourself. The problem here is they have to die alone also, because of your pride.
3. The relevant deadly sins are: pride, lust, and envy.

It would serve our society well to have women as a whole consider their behavior in these regards and conduct themselves better. The only real solution on the table is good old fashioned morals and monogamy. It also has me concerned that various sexual problems in society once thought to be caused by men, may in fact be more caused by women, such as polygamy for example:

Primitive Christianity

In the New Testament, when they refer to the "mysteries," they are often referring to the Greek word "mysterion", which applies to religious orders in ancient Roman Empire having secret ceremonies. Jesus makes such references in Mark 4:11, Matthew 13:11, and Luke 8:10 to let his inner circle know that the parable will have extra meaning to those already initiated into his new religious order's specific ceremonies. Jesus's new order was fundamentally Jewish at first, and so it follows that 1st Century Christianity's secret ceremonies would likely be based on the ceremonies of the Temple of Soloman.

(The counter argument to this is that Mysterion refers to the obscurity of the Trinity. However the 1st Century Christians had no concept of the Trinity as it is a post-biblical development, and Jesus was referring to Mysterion before his crucifixion and resurrection, so that his followers were not yet aware that he was God-in-the-flesh, so that there was no questions to be had leading to any concerns about a Trinity or Godhead.)

Free Masonry mythology suggests it originates with the original Temple of Soloman. Considering the historical impact Free Masonry has had on our modern world, we should consider the competency of the Free Mason community over time, and take their claims seriously.

Joseph Smith Jr using elements of Freemason ceremonies for LDS Temple rituals shouldn't be considered a criticism of his work so much as another piece of evidence demonstrating the divinity of his work. Of course first-century Christians has free-mason like rituals that would have had to be restored.