Monday, January 21, 2019

Is Jesus Competent?

So, in my last post, I mentioned that my personal commitment to serve Jesus was viewed as a deal with the devil by my past LDS Bishop.

I think the idea basically was that if I was going to be making agreements with God, that I had to do it through "proper priesthood conduits" rather than on my own in my personal relationship with the Lord ----- because if I'm not doing it through official church channels, then to the church that's just "a deal with the devil" in their eyes.

Here's the thing though: If Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are God, and God is sovereign, then why on earth is it so requisite for GOD to make agreements with his children through certain representatives rather than in his own personal dealings?



The question I'm discussing here is a topic discussed in The Sealed Portion by Christopher Nemelka.


I know I previously said I'd just ignore this book, and I still will mostly ignore it ----- but I have read the first chapter of Lehi ------ and the book makes a valid point.



You see, the church teaches personal prayer, and personal revelation, heck ----- the church may not teach this but it should be obvious that anyone can just do the same thing that Joseph Smith did and ask God due to their lack of personal wisdom. There's nothing in that Bible scripture that limited such prayers to God solely to Joseph Smith ---- anyone can do it. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to ALL MENT LIBERALLY" ----- isn't that what the scripture said?


There's nothing about that scripture that limits the use of that scripture just to Joseph Smith.


Anyway ---------


Seeing as how GOD is at the top of the church, and God is sovereign, I just think it's so strange how the LDS try to say that all the covenants or whatever must be established through their channels ---- for some reason they consider any one-on-one with God to be invalid.


The simple truth is, GOD should be able to give His priesthood to WHOMEVER HE WANTS regardless of what LDS Church authorities say -------


The LDS Church seems to think God is incompetent and is not allowed to make decisions as such or do things in his own behalf --- that all must be done through the LDS Prophet or LDS Church leadership.


The simple truth is that The Sealed Portion by Christopher Nemelka makes a valid point --- I'm not really a proponent of this work, but the first chapter of Lehi simply explains a very big flaw with the church organization.


If there is personal prayer, and there is personal revelation, and God giveth to ALL MEN liberally, then why on earth do all covenants and ordinations have to be done through official LDS Channels?


Why can't individuals have their own personal relationships with Deity ----- and why isn't God allowed to act in his own behalf?


Simply, GOD can do things on his own of his own will ---- he does not NEED the LDS Church to be his personal representative in all matters.


Basically, if the LDS Church is God's representative and God is not allowed to act on his own behalf, then they are basically treating God like He is legally INCOMPETENT.


GOD can do whatever He wants. He doesn't need approval from LDS Church leadership.


That means he can ordain anyone he chooses to His priesthood and does not require the LDS Prophet's approval.


He can teach and make covenants with whomever he chooses ------ telling God that he's only allowed to have a representative act in such ways is like saying GOD is incompetent and cannot make decisions for Himself.



Anyway ----- I will still continue to ignore mostly what The Sealed Portion says ----but the first Chapter of the Book of Lehi makes a good point.



Unfortunately, in my own family, I still have people in my family who are very LDS and do not realize some of the things I've mentioned here.


Basically::: it's only reasonable to understand that if personal prayer and personal revelation are a thing, then GOD can do whatever He wants with whomever He wants ---- he does not need the approval of the LDS Prophet or your LDS Bishop.


Telling GOD that his representatives must act in His behalf at all times is like telling God he's legally incompetent. Do you think the sovereign Lord of creation can't handle his own doings?


Anyway -------- yeah. The LDS Church just completely plays down any idea that God would ever do anything on his own without them. They seem to believe that they act on his behalf and that God isn't even allowed to make his own decisions.


It's kind of disrespectful.

Friday, January 18, 2019

Being a Good Person

A couple side notes:

My 1.4ghz Mac Mini seems to have gotten "faster" in the past couple of days. It's definitely still not as fast as my 2012 mac mini, but I remember using the 1.4 and finding it to be more functional than it previously had been just shortly before. Interesting.

I was looking through a place where we keep some of my stuff in the house when I found something. No one had ever told me I had this. In fact, this is a product I didn't even know existed. No one told me about it --- I didn't know it even existed --- and surprisingly I found it in a bin of my stuff. The really good thing is that this is another one of those things which I have pretty much needed all my life. Well, I didn't necessarily absolutely NEED it, but it's pretty close to being a need, and well, I've needed it for years --- I didn't even know it existed, and somehow it just showed up in a bin of my stuff. So weird.



So this blog post I'd like to write a bit about morality.


I'm trying to be a good person. The LDS Church did something really wonderful for me::: when I turned 8 years old:::: they baptized me. I took it seriously. The whole idea, in its basic form, was to do the right thing, choose the right, be perfect. Every time. Another way this can be looked at is to just do your best and forgive the rest.

Instilling a sense of morality in me and my family seems like a really good thing to do. If my parents made a good choice, I think it has done me a lot of good just to go through that baptismal experience and commit myself to making the right choices and doing good things.

What I found was that committing yourself to the right choices early in life is VERY IMPORTANT ---- Why? Because not too long after getting baptized I found that there were all kinds of influences in my life ---- including in my own family ------- who were not trying to bring the best out of me.

It was a painful, mournful life for a very long time, but things ended up well enough, and I believe this may even be due to how I committed to make the best choices I could and do the best I can.

And to be honest:::: When you have a zillion influences in your life, and they are trying to bring out the worst in you, and your own family isn't very helpful ------- yeah ---- it's really hard -------- but things may have turned out so much worse if I hadn't seriously committed myself to do doing good.



In fact, the morality problems I saw in the people around me were so bad, that's why I tried to commit myself to Jesus' service.



Unfortunately, things started to really fall apart when my Bishop decided my commitment to serving Jesus was actually just a deal with the devil ----- but at least I can say I tried. But yeah ----- something is really wrong, even disturbing when you pray to God and commit to serve Him, and all your bishop does is accuse you of making a deal with the devil.



Well, seeing as how my commitment to serve God was regarded as a deal with the Devil by the Bishop ----- that should clearly illustrate how messed up the church became in my life. Though the church seemed so good in the beginning, it just went so, so wrong.


On a side note, here's a short list of 4 things the church did in my life which didn't make any sense:

1) They constantly told me to forgive EVERYTHING ----- but they never forgave me for anything.

2) They would always teach me to get married ----- but then they'd take away my girlfriend repeatedly.

3) They told me I would witness and perform miracles ------- but shortly afterward they forced me on psychiatric drugs and treated me like a lunatic because I believe in miracles.

4) They tell you all through your childhood to be like Jesus ------ but when it comes down to the brass tax of the fine nitty gritty of the rules ------ you aren't actually allowed to actually be like Jesus.



Anyway ------- So, from a young age, I really wanted to be a good person, I even wanted to seek work in life that involved encouraging morality and ethics.


But things just went so, so wrong.


I do try to be a good person, although this post has some disturbing enough things in my life anything might be found questionable ---------



But yeah, I try to be a good person -------- but trying to determine a proper morality or objective morality can get so mixed up ------ especially when there are so many different people out there with their own personal subjective moralities.



What exactly is objective morality?



In my mind, there are so many different versions of morality and variations on rules that objective morality can perhaps be summed up best this way::::


DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.



You do good to others so they do good to you.


You forgive others so you yourself can be forgiven.


This is the very basics of it, I guess.




As for the Latter Day Saint Church -------- though what I just mentioned is basically taught at the youngest level of primary, they seem to forget about it later as their morality teachings take a zillion different twists and turns later in life and it becomes very confusing.


All I can say about the Latter Day Saints is that they very well know that Joseph Smith himself prophecied that his name would be known for both good and evil.

That might sum it up best. There are two sides of it, it's a mixed bag of good and bad, sometimes it seems so very good, but in other ways, it seems so very wrong. It's really a mixed bag ---- And the founder of the church realized that this would be true of himself at some point in his own life.



So:::: I try to be a good person.


Following rules of morality can be difficult to navigate, especially when so many different people have their own subjective values of what is right and wrong,


the most objective morality I can think of is this golden rule::::


Just treat others as you want them to treat you, or, the famous "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".


That seems like the very basic form of objective morality.




and the LDS church is really a mixed bag.

Monday, January 14, 2019

The Detail of an Unmentioned Prediction

My breakup with my ballerina girl was a very hurtful affair for me.

But she justified it: she said: "You'll totally find someone else totally better than me!"

I did not mention this in my book. But it's a memory, I believe she said it.

She was justifying her ending her relationship with me by saying someone way better would come along.

Of course, me being totally in love with ballerinagirl ----- I thought the world of her --------- I couldn't accept that I'd actually find someone better than her later in life. I didn't believe her.



Anyway ------- so all the stuff happens, and boom :::::::: I have a belief that God told me to be with Avril Lavigne, who sang about what had just happened in my life.


The ballerinagirl herself said someone better WOULD come along.


So::: Avril came along, basically claiming to be in love with me.


So yeah ----- it's just maybe a little too bad that my own prediction came true too and such was not actually going to happen.



Even though the ballerina girl herself justified her breakup with me by saying that someone totally better would come along --------



When someone totally better did come along, NOBODY --- not the bishop, not the fanclub, not the doctors ------- NOBODY would actually let me have this better person who came along.



People decided they didn't want me to have my replacement.


Ballerinagirl herself basically predicted the coming of Avril Lavigne ------- but everybody else had a complete problem and difficulty with actually letting me actually be with Avril.





I just think it's strange you know.



All my life growing up in the church, we were taught of temple marriage, eternal families, celestial exaltation and becoming a God.


My Patriarchal Blessing told me I'd be sealed to a companion of my choice. This probably, in the 99% likelihood meant that I was supposed to get married ----- especially as that statement was followed by something about me having sons and daughters.


Anyway ----- The church made it VERY CLEAR they wanted me to get married.




But the weird thing is:::::: like, they wanted me to get married -------- BUT WHY ON EARTH DID THEY INSIST ON REPEATEDLY TAKING AWAY MY GIRLFRIEND??????


Ballerinagirl was not allowed. Ballerinagirl predicted a better girl would come along.


A better girl did come along, Avril Lavigne ------ but she wasn't allowed either.


How is it that the church raises me to believe in temple marriage and all that ---- and then won't even let me have a girlfriend?  That is just a really strange issue ---- it's mind-boggling.





Was there any possibility of "propheticness" going on here?


Well, Ballerina girl predicted someone better would come along --- she was right

I predicted such could not actually happen ----- I was more or less right too.




And yeah --- the church seems really confusing when they raise me telling me to get married ---- and then they just repeatedly take away my girlfriend. That's really confusing.



BUT ---- there might be a small little bit of propheticness in the church I'll try to admit::::


Years after these things happened, the prevailing attitude among men, as far as I am aware, is that marriage wasn't worthwhile ------- Guys go MGTOW ----- no more women, no more marriage.



Though the church's decision making was confusing, it was inconsistent, it matched up with a prevailing attitude years later that men should just say away from women.


Of course ----- if it is true that men should stay away from women --------- Then why did my patriarchal blessing even say I would get married?


yeah who knows ----- it's a little confusing.





But anyway ----- fact is::::: The ballerina girl herself predicted that Avril would come along to be with me --------- and God even verified this to me --------------- so it's just very interesting how nobody, not the bishop, not the fanclub, not the doctors, not my own family -------- nobody would actually let me have the person who came along afterward.  Very strange isn't it?


Ballerina girl tried to justify the end of the friendship for me by saying I'd find someone way better ---- she was right, but nobody actually let that happen.



Yeah. Just strange.

Sunday, January 13, 2019

I deleted a post

This post is to say I deleted a recent post because the information contained within might be the kind that would 'blow your mind'.


I often think of something Jesus said "Don't hide your light under a bushel" -------- I've always understood this to mean to share your information and knowledge with others.


But another thing Jesus said is "Don't cast your pearls before swine" -------- and thinking I was following the former scripture I've ended up breaking the latter scripture at least once in a very bad way in my life.



So yeah ---- I still need to figure out how to balance the exposing of light with keeping my pearls safe.




In other news:


This morning I wrote and played and recorded a simple piece of music.

I called it "Mellow Music 1".


After recording it and listening to it a few times ---- yes ----- I felt very mellow.


But I end the music with "sad" chords.


And yeah --- somehow when I was feeling mellow afterward I started feeling sad too. It was so interesting how playing the music played with my emotions.


This is the 3rd piece of music I've recorded since 2013.


The first was the Pfhonge Theme played on keyboard. It was happy music.

The second was "What I Want" played with my guitar and vocals. It was happy and magical music.

The third is "Mellow Music 1" played solely on guitar. It was very mellow --- and even a bit sad.



To tell the truth, unless you like really mellow music, this music isn't for everybody. It was fun to make, and it's good practice for switching between chords, but it's very boring. But it's short. It's just not the greatest song ever ----- but it DOES mellow you out.

Saturday, January 12, 2019

An Update on my Game Dev Status

So a little while back I backed up my old macOS on another hard drive and updated the main drive to Mojave.

I'm glad I did.

Mojave doesn't like Unity 4 very much.

So I updated Unity on my Mojave drive.

And everything is great, except for the fact that the Unity 4 First Person Controller has been deprecated and at first glance, to get an easy First Person Controller I'd have to spend $95 on the Unity Asset Store.

It's so hard to decide what to do with money and budgeting sometimes.

Before doing the above,

I had just budgeted that maybe I could not spend any more money on food for a month and a half (living off of my food storage) and then be able to buy a low-end model mac mini to replace my 1.4ghz mini.

I'd pretty much be in a constant state of being broke if I did that. I cut up my credit card the other day, so I'm not going to be having access to debt anymore.

If only I had actually been paid for my books. Then this wouldn't be a dilemma.



On one hand, I've got food storage to live off of, be broke, but finally get a new mac mini,

while on the other hand, I like good food and maybe it would help to spend $95 on a First Person Controller Unity Asset. And I could save more money.



Upon reflecting, it makes more sense just to buy real food ------ I don't necessarily need a new mac mini now that I've got a system backup of High Sierra and the new version of Unity on my new Mojave.


if I continue developing, I'm going to want that $95 for a Unity Asset.


yeah, I guess I'll be holding off on a new Mac Mini again for now. Made that decision just now on the fly.



<><><><><><><>


In other news,


Yes ----- I won another $2 prize on the Lottery last night.


But you know something?


Gambling is actually an incredible waste of time and money.


Sure gambling can be a bit fun, but if you get sucked in you could end up losing all your cash! all your stuff!


God has started being really quite good to me, but to me, it makes more sense that people spend their money on actual goods and services rather than wasting it on the lottery or gambling.


I heard a statistic that said Americans spent a whole lot more one year on the lottery than they did on books.


I think reality would make a lot more sense if people actually paid me for my books rather than ripping them off, rather than wasting that money on the Lottery.



Gambling is a waste of time.


The odds of breaking even aren't very good. So::: yeah::: it's a waste of time and money!




But yeah ----- these games can suck you in ----- and that's dangerous!!!



So::: rather than spending any more money on the lottery, why not do the honest thing and actually pay me for my books? :)



<><><><><><><>



So:::: if I were to buy a new mac mini, I still wouldn't be able to continue development fun without having extra money ----- so considering how I don't like going hungry, I'll probably just hold off on a new Mac Mini some more.

Tuesday, January 8, 2019

Thoughts on Economic Inequality

In Canada, as well as who knows where else ---- we sometimes hear a lot about the "wage gap" or "economic inequality".

Being on a provincial disability payment gives me a certain perspective.

I am paid more or less the same amount of money as anyone else on my same disability program. But our disability program pays us "typically less" than most people who live in our province would "typically" make.


so:::: I heard somewhere that 7/10 Americans are supposedly "broke", while only 3/10 actually have some cash.


In Latter-Day Saint or Ex-Latter-Day Saint circles, there's this viewpoint that might go around that it's a great sin not to take care of the poor.



So:: I was thinking::: does this mean that 30% of the USA population should somehow try to "take care" of 70% of the population?


Like, how would that work?



I then took the example or idea or anecdotal thought of two people who receive the same income every month, much like my disability program:::


They have an equal beginning I'll say. Say they both make $1000 a month.

The first might pay for his essentials, and lives with his parents. Saves the rest.

The second might pay for essentials lives with his parents but spends the rest on cigarettes and alcohol.



Now::: There's obviously going to be a difference of outcome for these two people.

The first will have a big pile of savings, and better health.

The second will have no savings, maybe some debt, and not as good health.



Heck, I could add in a third person on the same payment system::

Pays for essentials lives in a rental home, and buys lots of junk.



So:::

One has no stuff, good health, and lots of savings.

One has no stuff, bad health, and no savings.

One has lots of stuff, good health, and no savings.




The point I'm trying to illustrate here is this::::: The people might have the same income all their lives -------- but their economic outcomes are vastly different based on WHAT THEY CHOOSE TO DO WITH THEIR MONEY.


It's about the habits they develop and the choices they make.



So:::: Let's say the one with all the savings is "the rich one" ------ and the other two think they need his help because they don't have as much money.



How exactly would equalizing these people economically work anyway?


Like::: why should I give my savings to a person who has lots of stuff? I have no stuff, so how would this be considered somehow equal?


If I have no stuff but lots of saved money, and that saved money earns interest ---- I might have and make a tonne of money, but I have no stuff. And I'm supposed to give my money to a person who has lots of stuff? Why what for? Why would that be equality? All of the sudden I have less money and no stuff, while he has my money and has all his stuff.



In the end, the search or quest to somehow economically equalize the human race might be entirely in vain.


Oh ---- I'm sure circumstance might play some role in a person's economic situation ------ but in the end, at some point, what it really comes down to is making choices and making habits. Make good chioces and habits and you'll prosper, make bad choices or habits and you won't.


It doesn't matter how you cut it:::: how you end up, in the end, is up to you and your choices and your behavior ---- you can't really rely on someone else to take care of you necessarily, nor would this reliance necessarily be moral either.



These are just my thoughts after pondering the question of how the rich are supposed to take care of the poor.


How are the rich supposed to actually take care of the poor anyway? Why does 30% of the population somehow have to take care of or pander to 70%?


Sure, democracy might be a thing ------ but what about personal habits and choices? Wouldn't 70% of the population demanding help or assistance from 30% over a lifetime somehow be considered immoral? Like slavery maybe?



It's really just up to personal choices and habits in the end. If I'm wrong please show me how.



Trying to economically equalize the world might be a really hard thing to do and here are some reasons why:::: not everybody wants the same thing. If everyone all had the same stuff, there would be no variety. No choices being made.

You could give everyone equal opportunity, but it wouldn't translate into an equal outcome.

Equal outcome would basically mean that everyone got the same stuff regardless of choices. In an equal outcome world:::: it doesn't matter what you choose to do ----- it doesn't matter what you really want ----- you'll just get the same as everyone else.


So Yeah. Maybe what I believe in is equality of opportunity.


But equality of outcome is different.


Somehow making equality of opportunity a thing might be OK --- that might make sense --- or maybe not ever necessarily pure equality but just trying to equalize opportunity ---- that might be OK.



But everybody is different, and even right from the day, you are born different children are not all the same as each other. It really depends on their choices, habits, health, and circumstances at that young age.


But eventually, assuming they aren't disabled, and even if they are disabled, it might really come down just to habits and choices.



It just doesn't completely make sense that rich people have to somehow pander to or take care of poor people.


Developing good habits, making good choices ---- personal development is what matters.

Sunday, January 6, 2019

Musical Fun!

I've got two books of guitar music.

The first is Christmas Songs because it was relevant last month.

The second is a wide assortment of Rock and Pop.

I've now tried parts from two songs in the Rock and Pop book.


Am really quite having fun with my guitar.


Today I tried the 2nd song for the first time ----- and a little while ago I was playing, and when I was done I came upstairs and asked my Mom what she thought of my playing.


She said that I'm getting better at the art. Though, she didn't recognize the song I was playing. But it still must've sounded musical!


Yes --- I felt like I was really "rocking out" as I played this song today.

A good guitar composer will choose chords and place them in a sequence that is sensible and easy to switch the fingers on the fretboard between the chords. This song I was playing mostly did that.


The song is 4 pages long. Two problems::: I manage to get halfway through the second page before my left-hand starts feeling really screwy or bent out of shape. Then I have to stop. And that means I don't even reach the second problem:::: flipping the page when I'm done the first two pages. The second problem looks like quite a big difficulty to overcome.

I might just have to memorize the music and the chords, which will not be easy, even as I still might not have the best memory --- especially for this.


But all in all ----- learning guitar as much as I have has been a very rewarding experience even just learning and playing some music. It's fun. I'm sure it'd be a lot more fun if I had an electric guitar, but that's still out of reach due to the following budget constraints, partly::::





So::::: I'm looking at my money, and I might be able to buy a pretty decent new mac mini in about 3 months minimum, maybe 4 months if I want an extra feature. This, of course, means I will only buy buying food, my regular bills, and very little more.


I am quite enticed to buy a new Mac Mini ----- it looks like a great machine, if a bit expensive.



Of course, part of my "paranoid" self recently realized that if the power went out --- if there was no electricity ----- that normal banking as we know it today wouldn't turn out very well. I was kind of planning to concentrate more on cash, but now I'm deciding more on savings.


But yeah ------ Bitcoin is actually the most useless form of currency in the event of a power failure----- there's a good reason why CASH exists, we may not always be able to rely on electricity, depending on any number of potential disaster factors. But that's my paranoia. However, it is only practical to have a physical trading medium rather than just electronic ------ and I recently bought a book about business that said something about how the paranoid survive the best.




But yeah ---- the big point of this blog post is just to express my joy at being able to play through 40 percent of a rock song and getting complimented by my mother.



a secondary note is how hard it'll be to buy the new mac mini ----- but I would want one after using this 1.4ghz model ------ the 1.4ghz model is kind of annoyingly slow. It's usable, it's functional for what I need it for ------- but simply opening a web browser can take quite a long time it seems like. Yeah.