thoughts

Here are a few random thoughts I've been thinking.

Books:

Of course, I have been reading a ton lately. I always have a book or two that is being read. So let's start off there.

One of my favorites that I've been reading and rereading for several years now is The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ. I normally read at least a page a day, sometimes more. I was reading in the book of Ether last night, and read in Chapter 3, verse 19:

And because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting.

This a part where a man, named the Brother of Jared, sees Jesus Christ. This happens around the time where God confounds the languages of the people at the Tower of Babel. So several centuries before Jesus gains a physical body. In the previous verses, Jesus explains that because of the faith of the Brother of Jared, he showed himself to the Brother of Jared.

I love how it says how he no longer had faith, but that he knew. Faith is believing in something or someone without physical evidence to support your belief. So here, after this experience, the Brother of Jared knew that Christ would come, that he existed, and many other truths.

I thought about it, and wasn't sure if I could honestly say that I knew. I do believe in Jesus, God and the Church. But honestly, do I know? Can't answer that right now, not yet anyways. Hopefully I can soon.

A lot of people, when bearing their testimonies at church say they know that Jesus is real, that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I believe this too. But I have not had a very severe test yet. I have been on a mission and taught people eternal truths. but I'm still wondering if I know on the same level as the Brother of Jared.

A few other books I've been reading: 21 irrefutable laws of leadership by John C. Maxwell. It is an interesting book. It's about how being a leader means you influence people to do things. That is the basic premise of the book. it's interesting. I can't say I've thought of leadership that way before.

Another books I read was October Sky. There was a popular movie made after the book came out. The movie is pretty cool, but doesn't do the story justice, just like other movies based on books. The story goes in depth about how Sunny, or Homer, struggled to get his rockets to be accepted, especially his own father. His father is against rocket building and wants his son to be a miner, like everyone else in the town.

Sunny struggles for acceptance, and once he gains it he begins to take off. He and his friends teach themselves advanced trigonometry, calculus, and chemistry. They gradually build a rocket design that flies 30,000 feet in the air. Sunny eventually becomes a rocket scientist in NASA, and decided to write his memoir.

While I was reading this, I was also reading Do Hard Things by Alex and Brett Harris. They are twins who have noticed to society at large doesn't expect teenagers to do much. They think everyone else just sits around and plays video games and maybe does a few chores. ''

Why has society started to view the teenage years as one to lazy around, mess up and enjoy? Before the 1940's teenagers were either adults or children. They had to work to help feed their families. They struggled, made plenty of mistakes along the way. George Washington was 17 when he started making money as a surveyor. Why aren't 17 year old's now professionals?

This is the reason the Harris twins wrote their book, calling on teenagers to try hard, to succeed, and overcome how society views them. I know as a teenager I could have tried a lot harder in school, at home or work. I worked during the summer during high school, but not during the school year. Now I wish I would have.

But such. You never have experience or wisdom until after you no longer need it. It's pretty frustrating. but I guess all we can do is learn from them and use the experience later.

Alright, I'm done with books. Now I want to cover the subject of friendship.

Friendship:

So my best friend, Taylor Hansen has been back in Utah after living in South Carolina for 7 months. He is leaving on Wednesday for the Provo MTC. It's been awesome to see him again. Today he gave his farewell talk in church. He has grown up now. I still think of him as a 15-16 year old that I had awesome experiences with.

He and I met in the summer of summer of 2007. We had moved to Wellsville a year earlier. His family had moved from California. I was part of a teen group, VIP, that was comprised of home schooled teens. His family home schooled as well, so we went over to help them move their stuff in their house.

When I met him I had no idea how he would impact my life. He started coming to VIP that summer. But I really met him when we attended the same school that fall, Cincinnatus Academy. We were the only boys, surrounded by 4 girls. We had such a fun time together. Brother Francum, our teacher, taught us sign language. One day we asked him how we would say drop dead gorgeous in sign language. He showed us, and all we could do for days after that was make the signs and laugh.

Taylor and I did many things together through the years. We would play Tiger Woods at his house, then make McDonald's runs late at night. We would go to dances and other activities together. It made me sad when I left on my mission, because I didn't supposed it would be possible to do things after I got back, as he would be on his mission.

But low and behold, I come back after 10 months, only to discover that he was moving to South Carolina. We had about a month together before he moved.

Now that his final days are appoaching, I'm saddened. But also very happy for him. One lesson I learned being his friend is that to be a true friend you must allow the other person to grow. I am not one who makes friends very easily. But when I do, they are very strong friendships. I tend to want to always be around them, never let them do their own thing. I also hate not controlling a situation.

Taylor is a golfer, which I don't particularly enjoy. It's fun, but not for long. He loves it, and would do it for hours. I would sometimes call him, and he would answer because his phone was in his golf bag, or he was golfing. I used to get to upset over that.

But it's ok now. i'm more mature now. I'll miss Taylor, but I won't forget him. I hope he will have as much fun as I did on my mission. I know he will do awesome. I want to be here when he comes home in 2 years. If not, I will see him in heaven. :)

Thoughts

Here are some thoughts that have been going through my head lately.

Doing hard things

Recently I have been on a reading streak.  I read a book entitled 'Do Hard Things' by Alex and Brett Harris.  I would recommend this book to any parent or teenager.  Or anyone at all for that matter.  The book is about how society is attempting to get youth to accept mediocrity.  About how teenagers used to WANT to work, how they were needed in society.

They explain how teenagers are not expected to do much of anything.  They are supposed goof off, date, drink, and have fun for a few years before the reality of adulthood takes it all away.  But what are the teenage years for?  To prepare to be an adult.

I wish I had understood this a little better a few years ago.  I feel like I wasted many my teen years.  I had jobs, but didn't use them effectively.  I also didn't try that hard in school.  There were so many lost opportunities.

But, nobody is perfect.  Alex and Brett make that clear.  But they do inspire their readers to try new things, try harder at some things, and to face the future with faith.  That is all anyone can do.  They challenge teens to learn and grow.

I have never understood how as teens we are supposed to "grow up."  I was 6 feet tall and 200 pounds in 7th grade.  I might have grown 2 inches since then, and put on maybe 40 pounds.  So I haven't grown much since I was a teenager.  But others don't stop growing until they reach their later teen years.  Do adults and other mean physically, or our ability to mentally, emotionally, and spiritually to better adapt to our surroundings?

Books

I know I read a lot, but I've been reading a lot lately.  I have been reading the first 4 books of 5 book series by David G. Woolley about Nephi and Lehi leaving Jerusalem.  It's fascinating.  It's filled with fiction, but based on as much fact as possible.  Each book is at least 400 pages, and I read all 4 in June.

I also read October Sky this week.  It's an amazing story about how a teen, who wanted to build rockets, overcame seemingly impossible odds.  There are some parts that should not be discussed in there, but overall the story was amazing.  It's also a very popular movie.

Executive Orders

I've been thinking alot about how a President of the United States can issue an executive order.  I always thought that the President's job was to make sure all the laws of the land are followed.  He has no legislative authority under our country's governing document, the Constitution.  

I decided to Google executive orders, and this is the best article I can find on the subject.  It's from Wikipedia; though it may not be entirely accurate.  But, I get the main point of the article.  I attached the article below my comments.

I think I understand how executive orders work now.  The President issues an order to a branch, or agency of the government.  This is how the agency or department is to be run.  Occasionally the order expands the powers of a duly passed law by Congress.  Sometimes the Congress can take a while to get things passed.  I get this.  I still don't agree with it.

But how does that authority to direct an agency or department suddenly allow a President to mandate something for the American people?  Recently our President issued an executive order mandating that employers who provide health insurance to employees cover birth control.  I am not arguing for or against birth control.  My argument here is that under the Constitution, the President does not have that authority.  His mandating anything that has to do something to do with my personal life should not be allowed.  

Here is a copy of Article Two, Section Two of the Constitution. 

Section 2: Presidential powers

[edit]Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Clause 2: Advice and Consent Clause

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 Clause 3: Recess appointments

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Under these powers, executive orders are not allowed.  Period.  I don't understand how anyone in the right mind can find any sort of argument that allows a President to mandate anything I am legally bound to follow. 

Anyways, these are my thought.  If you have an argument for or against executive orders, please feel free to comment.  I love seeing someone else's perspective on important issues.

In the United States, an executive order is an order or directive issued by the head of the executive branch at some level of government. The termexecutive order is most commonly applied to orders issued by the President, who is the head of the executive branch of the federal government. Executive orders may also be issued at the state level by a state's governor or at the local level by the city's mayor.

U.S. Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, usually to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law, since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution. However, these perceived justifications cited by Presidents when authoring Executive Orders have come under criticism for exceeding Executive authority; at various times throughout U.S. history, challenges to the legal validity or justification for an order have resulted in legal proceedings.

In other countries, similar edicts may be known as decrees, or orders in council.

Basis in US Constitution

US presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. Although there is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. Most Executive Orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties, the intent being to help direct officers of the US Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.

Other types of orders issued by 'the Executive' are generally classified simply as administrative orders rather than Executive Orders. These are typically the following:
Presidential determination
Presidential memorandum
Presidential notice

Presidential directives are considered a form of executive order issued by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of a major agency or department found within the Executive branch of government. Some types of Directives are the following:
National Security Directives
Homeland Security Presidential Directives (presidential decision directives)

History and use

Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. However, the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme for executive orders in 1907, starting retroactively with an order issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. The documents that later came to be known as "Executive Orders" probably gained their name from this document, captioned "Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana."

Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.

Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton's second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues, although all presidents since its passage have complied with the terms of the Resolution while maintaining that they are not constitutionally required to do so.

Criticisms

Critics have accused presidents of abusing executive orders, of using them to make laws without Congressional approval, and of moving existing laws away from their original mandates. Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been effected through executive order, including the integration of the armed forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower.

One extreme example of an executive order is Executive Order 9066, where Franklin D. Roosevelt delegated military authority to remove any or all people (used to target specifically Japanese Americans and German Americans) in a military zone. The authority delegated to General John L. DeWitt subsequently paved the way for all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II.

Executive Order 13233, which restricted public access to the papers of former presidents, was more recently criticized by the Society of American Archivists and other groups, stating that it "violates both the spirit and letter of existing US law on access to presidential papers as clearly laid down in 44 USC. 2201–07," and adding that the order "potentially threatens to undermine one of the very foundations of our nation." President Obama later revoked Executive Order 13233 in January 2009.

It is quite common for presidents to issue executive orders that instruct federal agencies to enact administrative regulations in order to circumvent the legislative process altogether, though, as alluded to above, this can violate the constitution in a number of ways. Presidents are quite aware that congressional politics can defeat or otherwise prevent the passage of legislation presidents deem politically important. In this regard, US Presidents have issued executive orders calling upon federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE), to amend administrative regulations where the political process of adopting new congressional legislation necessary to implement multilateral environmental regulatory treaty obligations a president wishes for the US to assume would prevent US ratification of/accession to that treaty.

Legal conflicts

To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1995 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll. Congress was able to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it during the period of 1939 to 1983 until the Supreme Court ruled in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha that the "legislative veto" represented "the exercise of legislative power" without "bicameral passage followed by presentment to the President." The loss of the legislative veto has caused Congress to look for alternative measures to override executive orders such as refusing to approve funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to thesupermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.

State governors' executive orders

Executive orders as issued by the governors of the states are not laws, but do have the same binding nature. Executive orders are usually based on existing constitutional or statutory powers of the Governor and do not require any action by the state legislature to take effect.

Executive orders may, for example, demand budget cuts from state government when the state legislature is not in session, and economic conditions take a downturn, thereby decreasing tax revenue below what was forecast when the budget was approved. Depending on the state constitution, a governor may specify by what percentage each government agency must reduce by, and may exempt those that are already particularly underfunded, or cannot put long-term expenses (such as capital expenditures) off until a later fiscal year. The governor may also call the legislature into special session.

There are also other uses for gubernatorial executive orders. In 2007 for example, the Governor of Georgia made an executive order for all of its state agencies to reduce water use during a major drought. This was also demanded of its counties' water systems, however it is unclear whether this would have the force of law.

Presidential proclamation

A presidential proclamation "states a condition, declares a law and requires obedience, recognizes an event or triggers the implementation of a law (by recognizing that the circumstances in law have been realized)." Presidents “define” situations or conditions on situations that become legal or economic truth. These orders carry the same force of law as executive orders – the difference between the two is that executive orders are aimed at those inside government while proclamations are aimed at those outside government. The administrative weight of these proclamations is upheld because they are often specifically authorized by congressional statute, making them “delegated unilateral powers.” Presidential proclamations are often dismissed as a practical presidential tool for policy making because of the perception of proclamations as largely ceremonial or symbolic in nature. However, the legal weight of presidential proclamations suggests their importance to presidential governance.

So here is a list of all the books I've read this year.  It's a lot of books.  Some of them I haven't finished yet, but the majority I've read the whole book.  78 books.  It represents over 11,000 pages so far.  And the year has 6 months yet to go.  Wow!


Books for 2012:

*in progress/not finished

*The Biggest Brother by Larry Alexander
Pegasus Bridge by Stephan Ambrose
Hanging by the Thread by Donald Anderson
Abraham Lincoln: God’s Humble Instrument by Ron L. Anderson
Traveler’s Gift by Andy Andrews
Leadership and Self Deception by Arbinger Institute
*Archimedes
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
*Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen
All the President’s Men by Bernstein
Angels and Demons by Dan Brown
The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown
Deception Point by Dan Brown
Digital Fortress by Dan Brown
*How to win friends and influence people by the Carnegie Institute
Our Sacred Honor by Paul Carter
The Robe by Lloyd Douglas
*As a Man Thinketh by John Dewey
Magnificent Obsession by Lloyd Douglas
*Cesaer and Christ by Will Durant
*Mindset by Carol Dweck
First  Family by Joseph Ellis
*Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis
Hank the Cow dog: Case of the Fiddling Fox by John Erickson
Hank the Cow dog: Case of the Bone Monster
*The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson
*Civilization by Niall Ferguson
Papa Married a Mormon by John D. Fitzgerlard
10 Days That Unexpectedly Changed America by Steven M. Gillon
*The Swerve: How the World Became Modern by Stephen Greenblatt
Do Hard Things by Alex and Brett Harris
The Jack Rabbit Factor by Leslie Householder
The Great Conversation by Robert Hutchins
Profiles in Courage for our time by Caroline Kennedy
Bendigo Shafter by Louis L’Amour
The Education of a Wandering Man by Louis L’Amour
*The Walking Drum by Louis L’Amour
Mathematicians Lament by Paul Lockhart
And There Was Light by Jacques Lusseyran
The Greatest Miracle in the World by Og Mandino
The Greatest Salesman in the World by Og Mandino
Are you Liberal, Conservative, or Confused?  An Uncle Eric Book by Richard Maybury
1776 by David McCullough
*History of the World in 100 Objects by Neil McGregor
The Big Scrum: How Teddy Roosevelt saved Football by John J. Miller
*With Malice towards None by Stephen Oates
Plato’s Apology
Plato’s Crito
12 Pillars of Success by Jim Rohn and Chris Widener
*On the Wealth of Nations by P.J. O’Rourke
A Treasury of Philosophy by Dragobert Runes
*The Price of Civilization by Jeffrey Sachs
German Boy by Wolfgang Samuel
Rise to Rebellion by Jeff Shaara
The Rising Tide by Jeff Shaara
The Steel Wave by Jeff Shaara
No Less Than Victory by Jeff Shaara
*The Final Storm by Jeff Shaara
*Killer Angels by Michael Shaara
*The Making of America by W. Cleon Skousan
*The Naked Communist by W. Cleon Skousan
*Decade of Hope by Dennis Smith
7 Tipping Points That Saved The World by Christ Stewart
The Great Apostasy by James E. Talmadge
Jesus the Christ by James E. Talmadge
The Last Patriot by Brad Thor
*The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien
Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc by Mark Twain
The Dream Giver by Bruce Wilkenson
All the President’s Men by Bob Woodward
*The Brethren by Bob Woodward
The Secret Man by Bob Woodward
Shadow: 5 Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate by Bob Woodward
Pillar of Fire by David G. Woodley
Power of Deliverance by David G. Woodley
Place of Refuge by David G. Woodley


Anyways,  I think the reason I read so much is that I love to learn.  Some of these books are novels, which my grandpa doesn't think we should read because they don't teach us anything.  I do not agree with that.  The book "The Dream Giver" and "Jack Rabbit Factor" are two fiction novels, but have taught me some very important lessons.  All the books by Jeff and Michael Shaara listed above are historical novels, which make a point in history seem real and personal.  Of course, I shouldn't believe everything they say in the novels. 

But Many of the books are about history, which I love.  Why do we study history?  I finally have an answer to that question.  We need study history because in doing so we can see how human nature has played a role in the past, and how it will continue to affect the future.  All humans have basic tendencies.  Whether they are good or bad, moral or immoral, they share similarities with others.  We see that Hitler was evil, yet George Washington was not.  Why were they the way there were? 

It boils down to the choices they made.  From history we can see some of those choices.  If we want to be good, we need to make similar choices to Washington.  If we seek power and domination, we should follow Hitler. 

Of all the 78 books I've read these past months, my favorite author would have to be Jeff Shaara.  It's a close call between him and Bob Woodward.  They are both wonderful authors, ones I wish to be like when I'm older.  Shaara wins because I've read more of his books, (Logan Library doesn't have very many of Woodward's books) and also the books are more entertaining.

My favorite book from this year has got to be Education of a Wandering Man by Louis L'Amour.  That book has influenced me the most.  It deals with L'Amour's education, and how he constantly read, discussed, and thought of great ideas.  He was a ver prolific author, and added things he had learned to his novels. 

Thoughts

Here are some of the random things floating around in my head.  I've been thinking alot about philosophy.  I am currently reading Will Durants book about Caesar and Christ, in a section that is telling about how Christianity has evolved over the last 1,900 years; especially in the first 300. 

I can't figure out if Durant is a Christian; from the way he writes it's hard to tell.  He starts off a section on Christ describing how others have viewed Christ and his life and ministry.  That's all fine and good, but the more I read the more I believe that Durant was not a Christian.  I am basing this totally off of what I have read of him so far.

Why does this bother me?  At first I wasn't sure; but now I know.  If I want to know about Christ, or anything, the first place I will look is at a primary source, such as the Bible.  There are four differing accounts of His life and ministry found in the King James Version.  This tells me quite a bit about Jesus. 

If I want to find out something bad about Jesus, or anything else, I probably won't go to someone who favors him.  I would go to an anti-Christian.  I'm not saying Durant is anti-Christian or anything like that, but I still think his view of Christ is a bit slanted.  I believe he tried his best to make all of his books an unbiased view of historical events, but that is not possible.  But there is still worth in reading books like these.  They expose us to differing opinions. 

Last week I was given a book called the Archetype of Philosophy, but Douglas J. Soccio.  It appears to me to be a college textbook.  I love it though.  I've read about 20 pages, but have learned lots.  Here are a few excerpts, and my opinions on them.

"The word philosoph comes from the Greek roots meaning 'the love of wisdom.'"

"Perhaps the chief difference between just talking about philosophical ideas and actual philosophizing about them involves the degree of rigor and discipine you apply to your reflections."

I don't like this much.  It limits what is philosophy, and what is not.  I love to sit still and think.  Maybe I don't think of traditional philosophical questions; but if I am pondering different topics, whether in the gospel or not, I believe I am philosophizing.  If I am just thinking of a girl or something, then I am not.  But if I am reflecting on an idea, I think I am philosophizing.

"Why do we go through the struggle to be educated? Is it merely in order to pass some examinations and get a job? Or is it the function of education to prepare us while we are young to understand the whole process of life? Having a job and earning one's livelihood is neccessary - but is that all? Are we being educated only for that? Surely, life is not merely a job, an occupation; life is wid...e and profound, it is a great mystery, a vast realm in which we function as human beings. If we merely prepare ourselves to earn a livelihood, we shall miss the whole point of life; and to understand life is much more important than merely to prepare for examinations and become very proficient in mathematics, physics, or what you will."

Heck Yes!!!!!  I love this because to most people, life is a chore; a job.  I believe there is a lot more to life than working, coming home, being with family, repeat 5 days a week.  No!  There is so much to learn, so much to do, I am suprised how many people can find no other intereing thing to do than stare at a screen for hours on end! (OK, maybe I do it sometimes too)  I have read 70 books in the last 8 months.  I haven't even made a dent in the lsit I want to read.

The book discusses relativism quite a bit.  Relativism is "the belief that knowledge is determined by specific qualitites of the observer."  The discussion goes through how we each are different, and have different people and events shape us in different ways.  That is why there are so many conflicting beliefs today is becaus everyone views their opinion and the absolute truth. 

Relativism has become widespread in this day and age.  This theory of truth has destroyed common values.  Before relativism became widespread, most people were honest, trustworthy people.  They obeyed the law, and were good, upright citizens.  Now, I wouldn't trust kids to my neighbor.  Why is this?

I think this has happened due to our lack of common values.  It would seem, if we pay attention to the media, that most people are gay, they are racist, or sexist.  I don't believe the majority of people are those.  I think it is a small minority.  They get people to feel sorry for them through the media, then their numbers grow.  But I still believe most people are good, moral people. 

"In the serious pursuit of knowledge - and wisdom - no area is off-limits, no important question unasked. Comtemporary philosophers Daniel Kolak and Raymod Martin capture this feature of philosophy especially well.
'There is a frozen sea within us. Philosophy is an axe. Everything you believe is questionable. How deeply have you questioned it? The uncritial acceptance of beliefs handed down b...y parents, teachers, politicians, and religious leaders is dangerous. Many of these beliefs are simply false. Some of them are lies designed to control you. Even when what has been handed down is true, it is not your truth. To merely accept anything without questioning it is to be somebody else's puppet, a second-hand person.
Beliefs can be handed down. Knowledge can perhaps be handed down. Wisdom can never be handed down. The goal of philosophy is wisdom. Trying to hand down philosophy is unphilosophical. Widsom requires questioning what is questionable. Since everything is questionable, wisdom requires questioning everything. That is what philosophy is: the art of questioning everything.' "

I liked this at first, but as I thought more about it, the more it has bothered me.  i think most things can and should be questioned.  Is God there?  I have asked this.  What is real?  Why are we here?  What is the point of life?  Why get an education?  Is family important?  Why can't I do what I want?  We have asked some, and many more questions like these.

"I see many people die because they judge that life is not worthy living.  I see others paradoxically getting killed for the ideas and illusions that give them a reason for living (What is called a reason of living is also an excellent reason for dying), I therefore concluded that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions."

We need to find answers to them.  Fortunately, the Gospel of Jesus Christ answers many of these.  We need to find for ourselves if it is true or not.  But some things, like why the Lord commanded polygamy at one time, are things we may not know or understand in this lifetime.  Some things we just have to take on faith. 

"The word philosophy comes from Greek roots meaning 'the love of wisdom.'  Philosophy.... is an activity as well as a fixed body of knowledge.... Areas of philosophy includes metaphysics, epsitemology, axiology, aesthetics, political philosophy, social philosophy, and logic."

here is a talk we discussed in Priesthood meeting yesterday during church.  The discussion shifted my attitude towards work and others.  I was totally being very judgemental of everyone and everything.  Just another example why we go to church, and how it is still possible to teach an old dog new tricks.  It was also a slap on the hands; a wake up call that I need fix my attitude.  I hope you enjoy it as much as me.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-merciful-obtain-mercy?lang=eng

These are some quotes from a book given to me by Heather Hansen yesterday.  I really, really like this book so far.  It is called Archetypes of wisdom: an introduction to philosophy.  It is explaining what philosophy is.  Here are some exerpts.

"In the serious pursuit of knowledge - and wisdom - no area is off-limits, no important question unasked. Comtemporary philosophers Daniel Kolak and Raymod Martin capture this feature of philosophy especially well.
'There is a frozen sea within us. Philosophy is an axe. Everything you believe is questionable. How deeply have you questioned it? The uncritial acceptance of beliefs handed down ...by parents, teachers, politicians, and religious leaders is dangerous. Many of these beliefs are simply false. Some of them are lies designed to control you. Even when what has been handed down is true, it is not your truth. To merely accept anything without questioning it is to be somebody else's puppet, a second-hand person.
Beliefs can be handed down. Knowledge can perhaps be handed down. Wisdom can never be handed down. The goal of philosophy is wisdom. Trying to hand down philosophy is unphilosophical. Widsom requires questioning what is questionable. Since everything is questionable, wisdom requires questioning everything. That is what philosophy is: the art of questioning everything.' "  Page 13

"Why do we go through the struggle to be educated? Is it merely in order to pass some examinations and get a job? Or is it the function of education to prepare us while we are young to understand the whole process of life? Having a job and earning one's livelihood is neccessary - but is that all? Are we being educated only for that? Surely, life is not merely a job, an occupation; life is wid...e and profound, it is a great mystery, a vast realm in which we function as human beings. If we merely prepare ourselves to earn a livelihood, we shall miss the whole point of life; and to understand life is much more important than merely to prepare for examinations and become very proficient in mathematics, physics, or what you will."   Page 3

"The idea that devoting time to philosopy distracts us from 'practical' concerns is an old one.  And, of course, the very suggestion that philosophy is not as 'useful' or 'practical' as other subjects or activities is itself a philosophical idea that requires justification.  In the folllowing passage, the prolific philosophical historian Will Durant challenges the notion that being 'useful' is supremely important:
'The busy reader will ask, is all this philosophy useful?  It is a shameful question: We do not ask it of poetry, which is also an imaginative construction of a world incompletely known.  If poetry reveals us to the beauty our untaught eyes have missed, and philosophy gives us teh wisdom to understand and forgive, it is enough, and more than the world's wealth.  Philosophy will not fatten our purses, nor lift us to dizzy dignities in a democratic state; it may even make us a little careless of these things.  For what if we should fatten our purses, or rise to high office, and yet all the while remain ignorantly naive, coarsely unfurnished in the mind, brutal in behavior, unstable in character, chaotic in desire, and blindly miserable?
...Perhaps philosophy will give us, if we are faithful to it, a healing unity of soul.  We are so slovenly and self-contradictory in our thinking; it may be that we shall clarify ourselves, and pull ourselves together into consistency, and be ashamed to harbor contradictory desires or beliefs.  And through unity of mind may come that unity of purpose and character which makes a personality, and lends some order and dignity to our existence."

Leaders must connect before they can direct

H.L Mencken said, "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong."

I'll try not to overreach with my point, but I do believe organizations largely rise or fall on the ability of leaders to connect with employees before they direct them.

I was in San Francisco this week, working with a software company and a crackerjack team of software engineers. These particular engineers develop some of the worlds leading applications.

In my discussions with them, I learned that other Bay Area technology companies are constantly trying to poach talent from their team. All the big players, such as Google, Apple, Facebook, HP, eBay, Symantec, come calling with attractive offers and generous compensation packages.

And yet this team, with the exception of a couple defections, has managed to stay intact.

When I asked why, I learned that it came down to a strong culture and leaders who connect with their employees. That is something you can’t buy.

I also learned that these software developers work extremely hard. They have short product-development cycles, and there’s a lot of pressure to produce and meet market expectations. And yet for the most part, I didn’t encounter the rebellion, resistance and resentment that builds up under these conditions. I saw the opposite: The employees weren’t curling up like potato buys; they were rising to meet the challenge.

Connecting is first a motive before it is a skill

Robert Greenleaf introduced the concept of “servant leadership” into the lexicon of leadership. He wrote: “A new moral principle is emerging in which followers will ‘respond only to individuals who are chosen as leaders because they are proven and trusted as servants.’”

I agree with the principle, but it is an ancient principle, not a new one. There was another leader long ago who said, “And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.”

That is the defining statement of servant leadership, and there have been leaders who have adopted the principle since, including George Washington, who would sign his letters, “Your most humble and obedient servant.”

Moving from motive to skill, there is also confusion about how to do this. How does a leader create that deep and meaningful connection that draws out the trust, loyalty and discretionary effort of people?

Some mistakenly believe you have to be an extrovert to do this well. Not so.

More than half of being connected is listening. For some people, words tumble out easily, but it’s not necessarily an advantage - if you know what I mean.

Another misconception is that leadership is about impartiality, stern, humorless judgment and rock-bottom neutrality. This is hokum.

Leadership is about relationships and performance - in that order. It is about human connection before it is about raw brainpower or intellectual brilliance.

Interpersonal skills are critical. If you talk too much, monitor your dialogue and pull in on the reins. If you don’t talk enough, the best place to start is to do two things: Smile and ask questions.

People love to talk about themselves, and if you show genuine interest in who they are and what they care about, you will quickly form personal bonds of affection.

I’ve heard many leaders say they wish they had better interpersonal skills.

My response is that you can develop them. Remember Frank Tyger’s statement: “Wishes cost nothing unless you want them to come true.”

So here’s my call to action: Identify one thing you can do to make more meaningful connections with those around you. Connect before you direct. Show more empathy, ask more questions, listen, smile, stop talking, put your smart-phone away and give someone your undivided attention. Drill through the rock of your own patterns of inertia and make one small change.

A lot of people still believe that leadership is about looking and sounding brave. I think leadership is more about connecting with people and then motivating them to achieve unusual things. How do you do this? It has nothing to do with fear or intimidation. In fact, history is not kind to leaders who are not kind to their followers. It may be hard to change, to improve the way you connect, but you can do it. Just remember Edward R. Murrow’s statement, “Difficulty is the once excuse history never accepts.”

This was written by Timothy R. Clark, appearing in the Deseret News on May 22, 2012