Monday, September 28, 2015

The Sweet Scientist



First, keep my distance.
Use arm length to my advantage.
Bob and weave until my
opponent sputters and wheezes
for air, now too tired to taunt,
a diesel engine running on fumes.

Next, wait for them to make the first
move and justify my actions with a
“didn’t start, but finished” mantra,   
then strike with the ferocity of a
151 pound muscle machine bent
on nothing less than the enemy kneeling
at my feet, acknowledging my
place at the head of this kingdom.

Make sure to connect with a
well placed left hook to the
temple and watch with
satisfaction as she falls to the
ground like a stringed puppet
being loosed from the master,
slowly sinking into a silent
shroud of unconsciousness.

Last, make some off hand
remark about her hapless appearance,
my final jab, then leave her lying
on the floor and continue
to train for a fight that I’ll
actually be compensated for.
Rinse and repeat until buried

Die one of the richest men on the
planet despised and forgotten.
“Once I’m in the Square circle,
I’m in my home,” until my
home becomes my grave. 

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets”: My Response to Albert Carrington’s, “Dear Elder Ballard, Thanks for Further Damaging my Family”



               Have you ever read something late at night right before you douse the lights in preparation for an adventure into slumber town that caused your mind to accelerate past the point of no return?  You are getting ready for a much needed sojourn into sleep when—WHAM—you are caught off guard by a subject that demands your immediate attention.  You fight with the nagging thoughts: “Go away, it is time for bed.”  You grapple with them: “Come on brain…is what you have to say really that important?” And you negotiate with them: “Just let me sleep, and I will give you free reign of expression in the morning,” but for all your hard work, all that has passed is an hour of you staring at the ceiling naively waiting for Mr. Sandman to emerge victorious. 

               Well, that is where I find myself right now.  I am exhausted from a long day of overthinking, but in a tragically ironic turn, I cannot pass out until I express this last bit of overthinking for the day.  Here’s the headline that prompted this mania:

“Dear Elder Ballard, Thanks For Further Damaging My Family” (http://zelphontheshelf.com/dear-elder-ballard-thanks-for-further-damaging-my-family/)

Now admittedly, whenever you scroll down your Facebook news feed at bedtime you run the risk of encountering some strange things that are bound to engage your mind in the same way disgruntled millennials occupy Wall Street.  In my journey down the social media rabbit hole this evening, I saw a video of a dog using a baby as a pillow, seven tips to improve my memory, and a list of amazing foods I need to gorge on in order to live a long life.  Shockingly, I turned down clicking on each of those gems to read what I was sure would be an inflammatory post.  I was not disappointed. 

As a devout member of the LDS Church, I have noticed a rise in anti-Mormon rhetoric from past members of the church permeating my newsfeed.  I don’t know if this is a sign of a drastic rise in many members of the church having a crisis of faith, or simply an example of the vocal minority becoming increasingly adept at using a wildfire-like platform to share their views.  What I do know is that, often, these posts strike a nerve that I have had a hard time pinpointing. 

For a while, I assumed that I was naturally adverse to anything that challenged foundational beliefs that I hold to be sacred.  In reality, though, I have come to realize that my faith is not so flimsy that challenges topple it like a house of cards, and that if what I have come to believe holds any weight, it will only be strengthened through sincere inquiry and investigation of differing perspectives.  My problem with the above article is not that its author attacks points of doctrine, including that the leaders of the church are divinely inspired.  If it was, I would focus on denouncing his statement that members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles “insist that [they] have been completely, 100% without fault,” as erroneous because they, just like the church’s founder Joseph Smith, have always admitted to being flawed—as all of us are.  Instead, I hope to turn from the off tread path argumentative banter that focuses on individual beliefs—which each of us are entitled to—and rather focus on the problematic way the author expresses said beliefs. 

I would like to consider myself I fairly open-minded and empathetic person.  My field of study encourages me to look at subjects from different perspectives, and to attempt to understand where people are coming from even if I choose not to embrace their viewpoints myself.  In short, I have tried to follow the council of Atticus Finch—whom I consider one of the wisest characters in literature—who advises his children and audience that, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view…until you climb around in his skin and walk around in it.” 

Thus, when I encounter a stance that is in direct contrast to mine, I first try to discern rather than evaluate and make judgements.  There are many points of understanding that I share with the author of this article.  I recognize how hard it must be to depart from a belief system that he adhered to during important years of identity formation, and how much courage it must take to choose not to believe what the majority of his friends and family do.  In fact, I can respect the fact that a person would question and challenge what they believe rather than accept belief second hand.  Although in my personal experience my religious convictions have grown stronger when they have been opposed, I recognize that this may not be the case for everybody, and that in some instances, it is important for a person to recalibrate their lives to a position they are comfortable with.  Those are the points I can identify with. 

However, when attempting the emotional out of body experience that is empathy, it is important to recognize points of commonality and points of departure.  Where I depart wholeheartedly in terms of comprehension when reading this article, and many others that are designed to attack people of faith, is why the attack must be made in the first place? I can absolutely understand that a person believes differently than I do, and I can even sympathize with the pain that difference of opinion can produce when those views place them in the minority.  What I can’t understand is why a person would seek to impart that pain on someone else.

What is it about the human condition that encourages us to seek retribution when abandoning a cause we had previously championed?  Do we, as individuals, think that upon experiencing a crucible we have now cornered the knowledge market and should therefore impart our newfound wisdom on others?  Do we seek a kind of emotional catharsis in seeing others follow our same path? Or are our attentions completely benign in that we hope to show our own discoveries to others in hopes that they find similar illumination?  I ask these questions because I don’t have the answer to them.  What I do know is that none of these aims will be satisfied by attempting to tear down someone else’s faith. 

If the author of this article believes that an epiphany entitles them to a lion’s share of the world’s wisdom and that it is their duty to disseminate information to prevent others from continuing down the path of religious belief, than how does that make them any less bigoted than the church they are criticizing.  Essentially he is saying, “It is not okay for you to say what you believe and share your opinions, but it is alright for me too.”  For example, Albert Carrington[1] vehemently attacks Elder Ballard’s recent statement that “When someone stops doing these simple but essential things, they cut themselves from the ‘well of living water’ and allow Satan to muddle their thinking,” but makes a similar blanket statement when stating that, “everyone else would call” the blogger’s position “following your conscience and standing up for morality.”  What makes Elder Ballard’s general statement of belief abhorrent, while the author’s stance is self-labeled as moral? 

Judging by the acrimonious tone and content of the article, I would predict that Carrington would argue that Elder Ballard’s statement is evil because it causes heightened tension between him and those who continue to hold to their religious convictions.  I find this faulty logic for two reasons.  First, is Elder Ballard’s encouragement of members of the church to stand firm and not cut themselves off from what he conceives as truth really increasing discord in his life, or are is the blogger possibly projecting his own feelings of anger and betrayal onto his peers and family members?  As someone who returned early from a mission, I am aware that there are unfair stigmas attached to people in the church—as will always be the case when it is made up of imperfect members—but I also recognize that sometimes the negative views people harbored towards me were imperfect machinations of my mind and faulty attempts at telepathy.  Could it possibly be that the antagonism the author feels Elder Ballard’s rhetoric if fueling is instead a manifestation of inner turmoil?

If the answer to that question is an honest and heartfelt no, my second qualm is how will publishing a polarizing article improve the situation any?  Rather than ask sincere questions and seek meaningful responses—or in other words, rather than employ the same empathy Zelph thinks should be offered to him—it seems that he instead decided to entrench each side further in their corners by  accusing church leadership of transferring “blame onto the members of the Church who you are refusing to teach, refusing to be transparent with, and who you are failing to nourish,” a statement that becomes hypocritical at the article’s end when he hyperbolically blames Elder Ballard for “ruining his eternal family.”  Being eager to unfairly condemn someone in the same manner you feel you have been unfairly condemned is akin to a motorist breaking the speed limit to force another vehicle off the road for running a stop sign. 

Perhaps I have gotten this all wrong and Carrington’s purpose in writing this article was to apply a healing balm to a conflicted soul.  I can understand how it could seem strengthening if others join in celebrating a new found ideology while also tearing down the previous one.  I would warn, however, that this panacea for inner turmoil is a poison, and the discord that he seeks to absolve will instead become a pandemic of disharmony.  There are many instances to point to of the corrosiveness of vengeance in history or in the realm of literature, but I will quote my favorite exploration of the pitfalls of reprisal: Alexander Dumas’s The Count of Monte Cristo, in which the author remarks, “Moral wounds have this peculiarity - they may be hidden, but they never close; always painful, always ready to bleed when touched, they remain fresh and open in the heart.”  By seeking a scorched earth and vengeful attitude towards the Church, it is my fear that the author of this article—and those similarly inclined—will continue to irritate this “fresh and open wound” until nothing remains of their soul but bitterness and hatred.  I can commend a person for establishing their own belief system, but I would caution them about spending their valuable time trying to destroy others religious’ convictions. 

Alright, I would be the first to admit I am probably full of it.  In attempting to walk in the author’s shoes, I may have unfairly attached his intentions to negative motivations.  If that is the case, I apologize.  It could very well be that he sincerely hopes to help others make important personal progress through introspection.  Even with the nobility of that goal, I wonder why it is necessary to cast any party in a negative light.  Could this not have easily been accomplished by making statements of belief and defending them without using personal attacks?  The fallaciousness in his tone is most evident to me when he questions Elder Ballard’s story of telling someone who had doubts about the church to read the Book of Mormon.  He repudiates Elder Ballard by harshly by directly addressing him and saying that if, “You [Elder Ballard] have the answers, you just don’t think it is important to share them. If you actually do have answers (and I doubt you do) and are not providing them to the people who need them most, then the eternal damnation of these formerly faithful Saints is on your hands. If you honestly had the ability to bring divine counsel and apostolic clarity to this mess and did not, you have failed in your calling and failed in saving souls you could have saved,” but rather than attempt to answer these questions, you do not ever sincerely imagine why he offered that counsel  and instead utilize antagonizing discourse.    It is possible that Elder Ballard recognized that when a person establishes their own beliefs and investigates an issue for themselves rather than have it prescribed to them, their foundation is infinitely stronger than it could have been.  In short, the author pejoratively condemns Elder Ballard as a failure without either answers or the best interest of the Saint’s at heart, and also takes issue with the apostle unfairly labeling him, but by not even attempting to understand his perspective, Carrington becomes guilty of the myopia he was eager to condemn.

While my response has questioned a specific instance of someone trying to bring down a system of worship they have already unsubscribed to, I think it is applicable across religions and ideologies.  Rather than create a productive dialogue that brings two sides closer together, we often decide to disparage an opposing viewpoint, and in so doing take on the same sanctimonious tone that we find disgusting and disgraceful in those who disagree with our side of the story.  In attempting to understand Mr. Carrington’s viewpoints in a way that refrained from personal attacks and vitriol—even if the attempt was not perfect—I have gained more compassion for him and those in a similar situation.  At the same time, my beliefs that were challenged have been strengthened by the fact that I was able to think through a different perspective and still emerge with my beliefs intact. 

Still, I feel like there is a paradigm chasm that exists between Carrington’s approach and mine because rather than call for a sincere discussion, the article instead relies repeatedly an overly dramatic denigration.  In the end, the aforementioned nerve this article struck seems to be that it undermines the seminal belief of the free-minded that two individuals be entitled to believe what they desire so far as it does not place the other person in harm.  We live in a day and age where the constitutional pillar of “religious freedom” has been turned on its head to mean that religious institutions allow those of different faiths or the secular world to believe what they want without that same privilege being afforded to them.  Channel your inner John Lennon and imagine a world where we spent more time listening and less time blaming; less time tearing down and more time building up.  Seriously.  Close your eyes and imagine it for a good minute.  What do you see?  To me it looks a lot like heaven on earth—and one that is accessible to both atheist and theist, African and Caucasian, Republican and Democrat, homosexual and heterosexual, Russian and American, Muslim and Christian, former members of the LDS church and continuing practitioners.

With that sublime image in mind, I can finally sleep in peace. 



[1]The author of this article uses a pseudonym that alludes to a former member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that was excommunicated for sexual misconduct.  This perhaps gives illustrates the frame of mind the author is approaching this topic from, but it interesting to note that Carrington was eventually rebaptized.    

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Poetry!

Small Talk

A radiant ballerina gracefully
floats past my gaze, and I am
arrested with ice melting
thoughts.

Perhaps I mention the
whirlwind, a strong current of thoughts
flowing through my hard, sponge brain.
Like the Great Glass Elevator I may break
through that fragile mirror ceiling, but will
then travel up, across,
                                             down,
                               backwards, forwards, and
sideways, never actually moving anywhere.

Or maybe I discuss the calamity of parking,
trying to find a narrow stall
discovering fading, yellow lines
that may not count at all.
Isn’t that existing though?
we search and search
for that perfect fit
only to find we make the best
out of what we have.

Something more substantial is in order,
like a Titanic anchor forcing us to stay
And chat together.  In that case,
how bout the state of my stagnant soul,
that sorrow has pervaded me of late
because of the fact I have to say goodbye
but simply can’t.  I don’t know how.
Like fixing a typewriter
or writing in old lady cursive,
it is a lost art.  At least for me.
 
This is much too weighty,
the Titanic did sink sonorously after all.
Maybe that’s the key?
it doesn’t matter so much what I say
but how what I say sounds?
Life meanders on at a miraculous and mighty pace,
every minute is both miniscule and monumental,
and chance can take you to a tropical oasis
or frozen wasteland indiscriminantly.

Now that is just pretentious,
and this thought pause has
turned into a catacomb of
awkwardness; the deeper I go,
the more dead this all becomes.
What was supposed to be a quick,
elegant swan floating in a luxurious lake
has now turned into a gargantuan gaggle of hippopotami
trying to emerge from water without wetness,
all the while still springing more splashes

This Hippo must speak though.
I must let something escape my
mouth before she leaves.  I look
up confidently and hope to melt
in those chocolate chip eyes, but
she has escaped to the solace of
land while I meander in this
maelstrom of my mind.


Identity Crisis

The caramel sun beats down
on the decidedly dank forest floor
and a shrouding mist rises from
the ground like steam from a kettle.
Air is intoxicatingly alive;
each odor becoming a blend
of flora, condensation, and
draff, while leaves extend down
as living curtains. This is

my laboratory, and I act
as scientist and test-subject
morphing to every color
bright or dim, gaudy or plain,
citrus orange or oasis blue,
mudslide brown or tornado grey.

I may seem invincible,
invisibly impervious to danger.  But
what about the traps that move
unseen, the serpents slithering
 within inauspicious skin?
For it is the predator
who smiles slyly or slinks silently
that must be feared most in the end.
And if the predator and experimenter
are one, what then? I must lose

myself to the blend
to escape the friendly foes
and the foe like friends,
until each falling drop becomes
a reflection of oblivion,
like some forlorn apparition seeing through
itself in a mirror, completely reliant on
my surroundings as a prompt for
transformation.  I am at once

everything and nothing
dangerous and vulnerable;
protected from all
but myself.
Existing is impossible
when life is a perpetual act
of fitting in.


The Danger of Listening

It spoke to me.
Reinforcing that I
stand supreme and
can rule and abuse
with blunt instruments
or blind words in order
to make myself into
a God that stands above
but never high enough. 
Did I listen?

It spoke to her.
Affirming that she
is subservient to
something sinister
and subjugated to
the gaze of men
whose intentions
are ignoble
and whose tools are
dangerous.
Did she listen?

It spoke to us.
Declaring that sex
is a mystery, and
blind love its
Agatha Chrstie:
The man in the brown suit
 a perverted hero,
stalking its self-sabotaging
prey that remains
caught, in its own traps,
set in a world of depravity
and iceless attachment. 
Did we listen? 


A Tinder Feminist

Being “together” would mean
protection to think freely
and reason deeply;
devoid of pigeon holes
and prescribed expectations.

We would pursue each
other as a mollusk seeks
its shell, while still
existing interchangeably
as heart and shield.

Housewifery would not be
your sole realm, nor
would we divide home rule
in half based solely
on reserves of hormones.

Each calamity hurled at
us would be welcomed,
as a pebble seeks to be
smoothed by the rush
of a river’s breath. 

My gaze would not
chain you prisoner, but
would catalyze your desires
and drive you toward
dinosaur sized dreams

Indeed dear, our love
would prompt odes both
Eternal and effulgent.
But your profile pic was
 reminiscent of grimy golem,
and I swiped left. 


 Social Media Anxiety

Blazing pixels
of acceptance
seek entrance to
my frothing cauldron of a mind;
a processor guarded
by bugeyed witches,
dabblers of creation
that seek substance, but
are instead pillagers
of meaning as they
allow mix together
rat tail status updates,
moth wing profile pics,
and pig eared selfies
while preventing
confidence and solace
from gaining substance.

Does the electricity
 of life seep inside,
or am I thrall to
this stinging toil and trouble
of an artificial existence
where the vainglory of a
plodding mind is
morphed into
a tattered screen that
inhibits life giving light
from shimmering
into a sense
of belonging.     


West Bound

“My greatest pain in life is that I will never get to see myself perform,”
says the supposed “beatmaster” who wants people to agree
that his is the voice of the day, a light amidst a darkening storm,
which illuminates truths.  His obviously omnipotent decrees
on absolving societal sins—mostly which artists are sublime,
cause a chasm of hearty applause and palm in face motions
as fans laude his courage and voice, his expertise prime,
while detractors wonder why he has such strong devotion.
Do we Swiftly listen his rants, and follow his Beck and call?
The question and obsession with a self-absorbed “artist” is tragic;
in the midst of rhythmically flowing poverty and war beaten nations
we infuse his Kardashian sized ego and increase his treasure haul.
Is real benevolence trending or just a kind of phantasmal magic?
Becomes the true query as we placidly surf through gossiping stations. 


The Gettysburg Redress

The July sun hung high overhead,
rays partially blocked from reaching
forlorn men below, sitting at attention
at sycamores whose branches reached out
like fingers hoping to hold a rocky
frame upright amidst a steep expanse
that seemed to extend into eternity.

Loose rock and fallen timbers
were allies not impediments
as soldiers shrouded in navy
awaited the grey storm cloud ascending
to overtake a fish-hook line, a cataclysm
that would leave a crumbling Union
collapsed in a heap; noble bodies and
and ideas enslaved to the call of the reaper.

The defenders of this “bottomless tub”,
Maine men that marked the end of the line,
sat ammo-less like Cowboy and Indian children
and a mustached, professor Commander
astonished with an order to assemble
sewing needles atop rifles—
     “Charge!”

The soldiers descend into history,
and seven score an twelve years later,
their sacrifice is caricatured into partisan
prattle to propel careers into the future
without a sense of the past. 
Heroism buried in posturing and blocked
by politicians whose own filibuster infused
charges resonate against the battle cries
once heard atop a little, rocky hill.


On Dying Slowly

Neil says, “it’s better to burn out than it is to rust,” and the words penetrate
my mind with the force of an unharnessed racehorse galloping gallantly towards
a distant horizon that is invisible to the outside world.  But was he right?
Or is this poet prophet a false one whose pretenses mask the danger behind
partaking poison to placate pain when a gradual healing would suffice.

And yet, time may really not be the salve for all hurt, and existing within it
is remaining a willing hostage to its dastardly machinations, a Stockholm Syndrome
situation that connects captive to captor like a sticky sap from a tree encases
its unwitting victim in a callous shell that prevents it both from every truly dying
and ever really living.  Maybe our Young prophet was right after all?

Still, ticks on the clock may not be a universal solvent, but existing within its
confines remains better than a lemming-like escape.  Better to “step back
from that ledge” and fight on towards a light that may not ever arrive, but
is still worth looking for.  Hoping, even futilely, is more rewarding than eternal
sleep, in the way a child learns to crawl across hard, slick tile, not because his
mother waits open armed across the expanse, but because he glimpses the world beyond.