May 3, 2012
Where does one start their blogging after a decade of work? All that vast knowledge is begging to be distilled out onto a single page, each thought wanting to be the one that is shared with the world.
Today's thought will be on spending money on behalf of the subcontractors.
For whatever reason, our artist was unable to get scaffolding for himself. In an effort to keep the work moving, my company rented the equipment directly and are now fighting with the subcontractor about who should pay for it. The actual problem is not who should pay for materials, but rather, when are we going to do out job as managers and settle disputes and conflicts?
When the subcontractor is fussing about money, whether legitimate or not, the time to settle it is right then and their. There will always be awkward conversations and difficult decisions. We can either make the decisions as they come along or kick the can further down the road.
Man up, make decisions, and move forward. Do not wait till everyone is filling liens and then wonder how to make them all go away before the VP shows up.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Friday, July 24, 2009
Friendship
So the questions comes to me, what is the value of friends? Is it really worth the effort and time and expense?
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Songs in the LDS church
Latter-day Saints are perhaps the only people I can imagine who would willingly, and sober, sing aroudn a piano. Sadly, being born as I was, cursed with musical taste of a family that sings, yet crippled. Everytime I see other people singing around the piano, I can only be happy for them and hope they are as happy as they seem. There is nothing I can do to be a part of that world, but I suppose I can be happy for them and know they are doing something they enjoy.
Perhaps my idea of Amazing Grace in ASL would not be a bad idea?
Perhaps my idea of Amazing Grace in ASL would not be a bad idea?
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Satan and Own Personal Devils
This began as a question. Both Christ and Satan (then Lucifer) seem to have understood salavation and exaltation. Both seem to have complete knowledge. Both were in positions to be the savior. Yet one was exalted and the other exiled, and unlike Napoleon cannot return. It now seems there are many parts to this question, and I intend to explore them. This near stream of consciousness needs lots of editing, but these ideas are worth pursuing.
What is the distinguishing characteristic between Lucifer and Christ?
Notice that Lucifer has an actual name, whereas the Savior is really only known through titles. The only name He is ever given is the very personal Jesus, and that is only given (according to classical Christianity) after His birth. Even His name, Jesus, is in itself a statement of a Jewish belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus), specifically "the Lord Rescues." Why this name was chosen instead of Daniel (a godly judge), Samuel (God has heard), Ahron (exaulted), or any of thousands of other names is not clear.
Perhaps because there was really no other reason for Him to come. If we were not rescued from ourselves and our mistakes, if there was only Justice and no Mercy, then nothing else would have mattered.
But I digress, back to the original topic - Lucifer and Christ. Consider that Lucifer has no gaps in his memory. He is not out tempting souls because he cannot quite remember what the plan of salvation is. He knows full well what happens to souls that choose one or the other (and choose they do, for no man can be forced to follow either mammon or God). When speaking to Jacob, Lehi says Satan strives to make all people miserable like himself (2Ne 2:18) (this may be the origin of the phrase - misery loves company). But that does not make sense. There is not enough reason in that.
Sadly I know there is someone somewhere saying "Satan does not need a reason, he's Satan." Everything happens for a reason; there are no truly senseless or reasonless actions. Everyone wants something and we (including God, Christ, and Lucifer) will only act in ways that bring us what we want. Rather, it is more accurate to say we want somethings, and that plural is what causes us to act "irrationally", that interaction of the somethings. I want to lose weight, I want to eat, I want to exercise, I want to sit on my duff. All these schizophrenic desires lead me to the final decision of: eat too much.
So what is it that Satan wants? From scripture and modern revelation it is clear that he wants all men to be miserable. But why? What does that accomplish? What does he gain? He cannot gain more power, for how can anyone gain power over God? Part of what defines God is the power He wields.
He cannot buy his way back into good grace, he cannot deliver our souls to God, for they are not his to deliver. Even after the chains are wrapped around our heads, they are wrapped and unwrapped by our own choices.
If he cannot gain power over God, can he gain power over us? Scriptures say he cannot put himself over us, but we can put ourselves under him. But how does this help him? The only way to make sense of this is to understand the next life. The Celestial Kingdom is filled with the righteous who live with God and His Lamb forever, but only a portion of them get to do anything, or rather we are not told what the rest of humanity gets on the other side. There are gaps in our understanding of the next life, and even what we do know is fragmented and difficult to piece together.
When I get miserable, I do not seek to make others miserable too; I hide in a corner and drown out my misery the only way I can (given that I am not supposed to drink, gamble, womanize, and can not afford to go to Disneyland each weekend) I eat, and play computer games. And even those I should not do, but I suppose if I have to choose a guilty pleasure, there are worse ones to pick.
Back to the original point, the difference between Christ and Satan. Can the difference be seen in the names? Satan comes from Hebrew "accuser" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan). This would fit with LDS theology. Moses 4 gives an account of how Lucifer became Satan.
*moment of epiphany*
Pride is the greatest of all sins. Lucifer "Son of the Morning" was proud of his position as a son of the morning, and demanded to be revered by those beneath him. This can only make sense in LDS theology.
Modern revelation (and some cryptic ancient scriptures) teach that all humanity existed previous to this life. In fact not even God can create life, He can only help advance it. Our existence is independent of any action on God's part, our advancement to bodies (both spiritual and temporal) are tied to God, but our existence is ours. That is why neither God nor Lucifer can take our choices, our choices are part of our existence.
The title "Lucifer" must have significance. As a son of the morning (or perhaps THE son of the morning?) he seems to have been one of the first to recognize and follow God (whatever that means for the pre-earth life). Understanding that the end game of creation is the ability to become a creator (or, as many foolishly chose to phrase it - become a god, technically accurate, but only in the same way that Clinton did not have sex with that woman. It is obfuscation used by people who have not thought it out completely).
The end game of creation is the ability to create. [Writer's block here. I'm having trouble making this next leap. Intrisically I know this is the correct thought pattern, but cannot seem to make the logic work. Perhaps there is an error.]
How did pride lead to the fall of Lucifer? Lucifer suggests his plan (I will be thy son . . . will redeem all . . . yada yada yada . . . give me Thine honor) as though it could work. And many Latter-day Saints like to dismiss this as a plan that could not succeed, hence why it was rejected. However, this is not supported by Moses 4 (the creation of Satan). Lucifer's plan was not rejected because "it won't work" rather that it destroys agency (Moses 4:3). Lucifer was not cast out for suggesting a bad plan (good thing too, because I hate to wonder about the plan I suggested. Details are sketchy, but I remember something about pickles and ice cream) but for "[seeking] to destroy ageny. In other words, he was cast out not for the idea but for the attempt to follow through on the idea; Lucifer was seditious and was cast out (as a person must sometimes amputate to save the body, so God "amputated" Lucifer to protect the rest). Remember, we (including Lucifer) exist independant of God, and so cannot be destroyed. The worst thing that can happen to us is be cast out (or perhaps to be stripped of our bodies and left merely to exist, remember, the body belongs to God, the existance belongs to us).
End game being creation. Somehow the power /glory /honor of God allows Him to create. Lucifer wanted the power of God (Moses 4:3). Lucifer wanted to create. Did he equate creation with additional power? Does the act of creation yield additional power? Why did he seek the power of God? He must have known that through God's plan, he would not succeed. Obviously patience was not a concern. What is time to immortal beings? He wanted power, but knew he could not succeed through the Father's plan and so sought another way.
But what was gained by being cast out? Satan is not shown to be a foolish imp, blowing in the winds of fancy and fads. Rather he is depicted as cool, methodical, and patient. If power is what he desired, why follow a course that leads to exile? Surely he did not think a mutiny against God would succeed. Something is missing from revelation. Either a mutiny against God is possible, or there are other avenues to power. Knowing God (not to say that I know much) it does not seem likely that Lucifer was surprised at exile. Lucifer knew his actions would lead to exile, and so either mutiny in heaven is possible or exile can lead to power. Or Lucifer did not fully understand the consequences of his actions.
But God's purpose would have been ruined if Lucifer was exiled while not knowing the consequences of his actions. We can reasonably surmise that Lucifer fully understood his actions and the consequences.
And this brings us back to the original question. Satan's purpose is to gain power (Moses 4:3). We do not know why he wanted power, only that he wanted it. Christ's motivation is less understood. "Thy will be done" (Moses 4:2) and His will is to "bring . . . immortality and eternal life to man." I do not know why God wants this. I can only surmise that it brings Him happiness to advance the state of lower beings. Why this brings happiness I do not know. And if happiness is the end goal of existance, then perhaps we understand Satan. Somehow, his happiness is tied to our misery (but not necessarily Lucifer's happiness).
Somehow the act of creation brings happiness. Or rather the end result of creation is happiness (creation itself appears to be a rather messy affair involving lots of pain and inconvenience on the woman's part and lots of pointless anxiety on the man's part).
What is the distinguishing characteristic between Lucifer and Christ?
Notice that Lucifer has an actual name, whereas the Savior is really only known through titles. The only name He is ever given is the very personal Jesus, and that is only given (according to classical Christianity) after His birth. Even His name, Jesus, is in itself a statement of a Jewish belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus), specifically "the Lord Rescues." Why this name was chosen instead of Daniel (a godly judge), Samuel (God has heard), Ahron (exaulted), or any of thousands of other names is not clear.
Perhaps because there was really no other reason for Him to come. If we were not rescued from ourselves and our mistakes, if there was only Justice and no Mercy, then nothing else would have mattered.
But I digress, back to the original topic - Lucifer and Christ. Consider that Lucifer has no gaps in his memory. He is not out tempting souls because he cannot quite remember what the plan of salvation is. He knows full well what happens to souls that choose one or the other (and choose they do, for no man can be forced to follow either mammon or God). When speaking to Jacob, Lehi says Satan strives to make all people miserable like himself (2Ne 2:18) (this may be the origin of the phrase - misery loves company). But that does not make sense. There is not enough reason in that.
Sadly I know there is someone somewhere saying "Satan does not need a reason, he's Satan." Everything happens for a reason; there are no truly senseless or reasonless actions. Everyone wants something and we (including God, Christ, and Lucifer) will only act in ways that bring us what we want. Rather, it is more accurate to say we want somethings, and that plural is what causes us to act "irrationally", that interaction of the somethings. I want to lose weight, I want to eat, I want to exercise, I want to sit on my duff. All these schizophrenic desires lead me to the final decision of: eat too much.
So what is it that Satan wants? From scripture and modern revelation it is clear that he wants all men to be miserable. But why? What does that accomplish? What does he gain? He cannot gain more power, for how can anyone gain power over God? Part of what defines God is the power He wields.
He cannot buy his way back into good grace, he cannot deliver our souls to God, for they are not his to deliver. Even after the chains are wrapped around our heads, they are wrapped and unwrapped by our own choices.
If he cannot gain power over God, can he gain power over us? Scriptures say he cannot put himself over us, but we can put ourselves under him. But how does this help him? The only way to make sense of this is to understand the next life. The Celestial Kingdom is filled with the righteous who live with God and His Lamb forever, but only a portion of them get to do anything, or rather we are not told what the rest of humanity gets on the other side. There are gaps in our understanding of the next life, and even what we do know is fragmented and difficult to piece together.
When I get miserable, I do not seek to make others miserable too; I hide in a corner and drown out my misery the only way I can (given that I am not supposed to drink, gamble, womanize, and can not afford to go to Disneyland each weekend) I eat, and play computer games. And even those I should not do, but I suppose if I have to choose a guilty pleasure, there are worse ones to pick.
Back to the original point, the difference between Christ and Satan. Can the difference be seen in the names? Satan comes from Hebrew "accuser" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan). This would fit with LDS theology. Moses 4 gives an account of how Lucifer became Satan.
*moment of epiphany*
Pride is the greatest of all sins. Lucifer "Son of the Morning" was proud of his position as a son of the morning, and demanded to be revered by those beneath him. This can only make sense in LDS theology.
Modern revelation (and some cryptic ancient scriptures) teach that all humanity existed previous to this life. In fact not even God can create life, He can only help advance it. Our existence is independent of any action on God's part, our advancement to bodies (both spiritual and temporal) are tied to God, but our existence is ours. That is why neither God nor Lucifer can take our choices, our choices are part of our existence.
The title "Lucifer" must have significance. As a son of the morning (or perhaps THE son of the morning?) he seems to have been one of the first to recognize and follow God (whatever that means for the pre-earth life). Understanding that the end game of creation is the ability to become a creator (or, as many foolishly chose to phrase it - become a god, technically accurate, but only in the same way that Clinton did not have sex with that woman. It is obfuscation used by people who have not thought it out completely).
The end game of creation is the ability to create. [Writer's block here. I'm having trouble making this next leap. Intrisically I know this is the correct thought pattern, but cannot seem to make the logic work. Perhaps there is an error.]
How did pride lead to the fall of Lucifer? Lucifer suggests his plan (I will be thy son . . . will redeem all . . . yada yada yada . . . give me Thine honor) as though it could work. And many Latter-day Saints like to dismiss this as a plan that could not succeed, hence why it was rejected. However, this is not supported by Moses 4 (the creation of Satan). Lucifer's plan was not rejected because "it won't work" rather that it destroys agency (Moses 4:3). Lucifer was not cast out for suggesting a bad plan (good thing too, because I hate to wonder about the plan I suggested. Details are sketchy, but I remember something about pickles and ice cream) but for "[seeking] to destroy ageny. In other words, he was cast out not for the idea but for the attempt to follow through on the idea; Lucifer was seditious and was cast out (as a person must sometimes amputate to save the body, so God "amputated" Lucifer to protect the rest). Remember, we (including Lucifer) exist independant of God, and so cannot be destroyed. The worst thing that can happen to us is be cast out (or perhaps to be stripped of our bodies and left merely to exist, remember, the body belongs to God, the existance belongs to us).
End game being creation. Somehow the power /glory /honor of God allows Him to create. Lucifer wanted the power of God (Moses 4:3). Lucifer wanted to create. Did he equate creation with additional power? Does the act of creation yield additional power? Why did he seek the power of God? He must have known that through God's plan, he would not succeed. Obviously patience was not a concern. What is time to immortal beings? He wanted power, but knew he could not succeed through the Father's plan and so sought another way.
But what was gained by being cast out? Satan is not shown to be a foolish imp, blowing in the winds of fancy and fads. Rather he is depicted as cool, methodical, and patient. If power is what he desired, why follow a course that leads to exile? Surely he did not think a mutiny against God would succeed. Something is missing from revelation. Either a mutiny against God is possible, or there are other avenues to power. Knowing God (not to say that I know much) it does not seem likely that Lucifer was surprised at exile. Lucifer knew his actions would lead to exile, and so either mutiny in heaven is possible or exile can lead to power. Or Lucifer did not fully understand the consequences of his actions.
But God's purpose would have been ruined if Lucifer was exiled while not knowing the consequences of his actions. We can reasonably surmise that Lucifer fully understood his actions and the consequences.
And this brings us back to the original question. Satan's purpose is to gain power (Moses 4:3). We do not know why he wanted power, only that he wanted it. Christ's motivation is less understood. "Thy will be done" (Moses 4:2) and His will is to "bring . . . immortality and eternal life to man." I do not know why God wants this. I can only surmise that it brings Him happiness to advance the state of lower beings. Why this brings happiness I do not know. And if happiness is the end goal of existance, then perhaps we understand Satan. Somehow, his happiness is tied to our misery (but not necessarily Lucifer's happiness).
Somehow the act of creation brings happiness. Or rather the end result of creation is happiness (creation itself appears to be a rather messy affair involving lots of pain and inconvenience on the woman's part and lots of pointless anxiety on the man's part).
Monday, June 11, 2007
Women in the workforce
http://www.topbuildingjobs.com/news.php/466da7468e75d/?articleID=17
It is true, as the article points out, that women do not make a large percentage of leaders in the top 100 construction companies.
But I do ask, how many of these companies have had substantial leadership changes in the last 20 years? If we take out all of the family companies, where leadership is kept in the family, then lets eliminate all the companies that have not changed top level leaders in 20 years, how many are left? I think then we will have a more accurate picture of women leading large companies.
Every company I have worked for was ultimately a family company. And the next generation of leaders at those companies is already picked.
It is true, as the article points out, that women do not make a large percentage of leaders in the top 100 construction companies.
But I do ask, how many of these companies have had substantial leadership changes in the last 20 years? If we take out all of the family companies, where leadership is kept in the family, then lets eliminate all the companies that have not changed top level leaders in 20 years, how many are left? I think then we will have a more accurate picture of women leading large companies.
Every company I have worked for was ultimately a family company. And the next generation of leaders at those companies is already picked.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Incentive Programs
I have always felt incentive programs are an essential part of business. People want to be rewarded for going above and beyond. George Lucas, when Empire Strikes Back was released and was an absolute block buster, gave more than $5 million in rewards to his staff, and apparently that went to everyone, even that kid who scrubs the toilets on Hoth.
George Lucas provided the vision, and most of the direct financial costs, bot don't you think the cast also took risks? What if the movie had been a flop? What would have happened to their careers? George took a lot of direct risk, but everyone involved had some risk.
Incentive programs in construction can be very simple, because the goals are so measurable. Incentives need to be tied directly to the work.
George Lucas provided the vision, and most of the direct financial costs, bot don't you think the cast also took risks? What if the movie had been a flop? What would have happened to their careers? George took a lot of direct risk, but everyone involved had some risk.
Incentive programs in construction can be very simple, because the goals are so measurable. Incentives need to be tied directly to the work.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Bonus programs
Good managers like to reward their employees. Bad managers like to reward themselves. Good managers also like to reward themselves. So there is a fine line between good and bad.
Most construction companies have some kind of reward program, designed to help their builders stay focused on the 4 goals of any construction project.
Build a QUALITY product, ON TIME, SAFELY, and ON BUDGET.
My very first job, outside of the home was a newspaper boy. The bonus program there was real simple. Most people chose to pay the Gazette directly, but some preferred to have me come by and collect their monthly payment.
I choose now to see my salary as a bonus. The Gazette was under no obligation to pay me for delivering 36 papers, only for the surplus they had received in the office (I paid for the papers I delivered, but more people paid the office directly than I had to collect from, so the office sent me a check for the excess). And if I did not go collecting, I did not get money.
I will admit, I was not very diligent. I got all my money, but if I missed people one month, I would get them the next month. They must have hated that.
The bonus program should provide and incentive to ALL employees to do their part. If your program does not drive ALL to excel, then something is missing.
Construction employees tend to bonus so much because it is so easy to measure the products being produced. But how do you reward people that have harder to measure goals, while keeping them as team builders?
Most construction companies have some kind of reward program, designed to help their builders stay focused on the 4 goals of any construction project.
Build a QUALITY product, ON TIME, SAFELY, and ON BUDGET.
My very first job, outside of the home was a newspaper boy. The bonus program there was real simple. Most people chose to pay the Gazette directly, but some preferred to have me come by and collect their monthly payment.
I choose now to see my salary as a bonus. The Gazette was under no obligation to pay me for delivering 36 papers, only for the surplus they had received in the office (I paid for the papers I delivered, but more people paid the office directly than I had to collect from, so the office sent me a check for the excess). And if I did not go collecting, I did not get money.
I will admit, I was not very diligent. I got all my money, but if I missed people one month, I would get them the next month. They must have hated that.
The bonus program should provide and incentive to ALL employees to do their part. If your program does not drive ALL to excel, then something is missing.
Construction employees tend to bonus so much because it is so easy to measure the products being produced. But how do you reward people that have harder to measure goals, while keeping them as team builders?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
