Aug

28

According to LDSMediaTalk,

Crowdsourcing is an innovative business trend that takes collaborative work to a whole new level. Around the world, individuals are using online communities to identify people with similar experiences or interests who can share ideas, offer their expertise, and collectively accomplish work.

Examples of crowdsourcing are provided by people editing a Wikipedia article, or uploading a video to YouTube, and so on.

Crowdsourcing is the act of taking a job traditionally performed by an employee or a third-party provider and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call. Using the technique, an organization can tap into the collective intelligence and expertise of the public at large to complete the task. Crowdsourcing can include anything from gathering feedback on a new idea, asking for help to solve a problem, or actually accomplishing the task at hand.

It is important to realize that crowdsourcing is not a magic tool for solving all problems, but it can be used to speed up many processes and test new ideas or attract volunteers to participate in projects that would require an amount of resources unavailable to an organization.

However, there are also criticisms of this idea. According to Wikipedia

Some reports have focused on the negative effects of crowdsourcing on business owners, particularly in regard to how a crowdsourced project can sometimes end up costing a business more than a traditionally outsourced project.

Some of the pitfalls of crowdsourcing include:

  • Added costs to bring a project to an acceptable conclusion.
  • Increased likelihood that a crowdsourced project will fail due to lack of monetary motivation, too few participants, lower quality of work, lack of personal interest in the project, global language barriers, or difficulty managing a large-scale, crowdsourced project.
  • Below-market wages, or no wages at all. 
  • Difficulties maintaining a working relationship with crowdsourced workers throughout the duration of a project.

In my experience I have noticed that some of these criticism are true. For example, to overstress the use of volunteers in an organization to save money may be a mistake since volunteers are not really free. They need to be trained and organized, and most of the time they are looking for something in return. Therefore, unless the organization is able to find alternative forms of “compensation” for volunteers, the turnover may become extremely expensive.  In short, lack of monetary motivation, too few participants, lower quality of work, lack of personal interest in the projects may end up costing the organization more than simply paying people to do it.

Thinking about the use of crowdsourcing in the Mormon Church I cannot avoid thinking that it has been used many times very well (see the recent example of the Family History Record Extraction program).

However, in some cases I believe that the most important result and benefit is not that of saving money to the organization, but that of allowing members to learn and to participate more fully in fostering the mission of the Church. This added benefit alone may be enough to promote more “crowdsourcing programs” in the Church.

Aug

21

I know that this is a very difficult topic.  Mormons by principle should love all men, but loving does not mean to give up correct principles. God loves the world but it does not give us all that we ask for.

Presidente Gordon B. Hinckley said:

“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gay and lesbians…We love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be very difficult to control…If they do not act on these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.” (See Ensign, November 1998: 70).

I learn several things from this statement.

1) There are people who consider themselves gays or lesbians but it is not correct to say that “they are gays and lesbians” as if their situation was immutable or if they were something different from other people.

2) They are worthy of love and help like any other son or daughter of God.

3) The Church recognizes that they may be struggling.

4) Their inclinations do not determine their actions, and therefore they are responsible as any other person (who may have other inclinations that are not in harmony with Church standards).

I was reading yesterday a book by A. Dean Bird, Mormons & Homosexuality and it is clear from his book that an important point is to decide if homosexuality is inborn or not, because when people think that homosexuals are that way, they are more likely to support gay rights.

He says,

Though there is no science to support the notion that homosexuality is inborn, the gay activists in the mental health organizations as well as in the media still continue to trumpet the “born that way” notion.

Dr. Bird explains how gay activists in 1973 were able to pressure the American Psychiatric Association to the point that

By a vote of 5,854 to 3,810, homosexuality was eliminated as a diagnostic category from the psychiatric manual, making it the first time in the history of the healthcare that a diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than by scientific evidence.

Very interesting! The consequence is that

American Psychiatric Association had established precedents that medical and psycological diagnoses are subject to political fiat.

Similarly, many proclamations by national organizations

are simply activism masquerading as science (p.22-23).

Now this activism is pushing to a point that is illustrated by this email I received today,

The California Supreme Court, which recently legalized same-sex marriage, has ruled by a 7-0 vote that homosexual rights trump religious freedom. The ruling barred doctors, because of their Christian beliefs, from withholding unnecessary medical care to gays and lesbians. The ruling says that under state law sexual orientation rights trump religious freedom.

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state’s law, which “imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations.”

Doctors at the Christian clinic referred the lesbian to another clinic, but the lesbian refused their referral - demanding that the Christian clinic perform the procedure. When the Christian doctors refused to violate their religious convictions, the lesbian sued and the Supreme Court gave her the victory.

Why do they have to force those doctors to perform a procedure that they do not approve? Are there not enough other doctors who could do it?  It seems to me that gay activists are eager to defend their rights but they easily dismiss or trump other people rights.

There would be a lot more to say, but this is enough. Mormons try to love every son or daughter of God, including those who have homosexual tendencies. However, Mormons believe that to act on those tendency is wrong. Finally, since we live in a democratic society, Mormons believe that if gays has the right to promote their cause, everybody else also has the same right.

Jul

31

This video has been around for some time, but it still inspiring to see how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) is growing in spite of all opposition and ignorance. We know that it will eventually fill the entire earth and that it growth can’t be stopped by human hands.

However, this growth will always happen by pacific means so that nobody really need to worry.

Jul

14

A new official website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the only true Mormon Church) website offers a very direct and clear message to those who want to know the truth about Mormons and Poligamy.

The new website Mormons and Polygamy is amazingly clear.

The Mormon Church or the LDS Church iS NOT the FLDS Church.

As explained in the website:

  1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn’t allow anyone practicing polygamy to be a member.
  2. Polygamy was part of our past, for about 50 years in the 19th century. But it is not part of our present. Polygamy was officially discontinued in 1890  —  118 years ago.
  3. When practiced by Mormons in the 19th century, polygamy was quite unlike the depictions of polygamous groups now seen on TV. For instance, a woman had freedom of choice as to whom she would marry. She made her own decisions about life, education and personal pursuits and did not isolate herself from the world.

I think that this last point is particularly important. Beyond the fact that Mormons do NOT practice polygamy now and they have not for more than 110 years, they way the practiced it was very different from what we see on TV.

Finally, and this is my personal view, not necessarily the Church’s, even what we see in TV about the FLDS Church is often exaggerated and distorted.

In short:

  1. True Mormons do not practice polygamy
  2. When they used to practice polygamy they did it in a different way
  3. Not all the bad things shown about the FLDS are true

A good video from our beloved true prophet, the late President Gordon B. Hinckley (very different from Warren Jeffs, self proclaimed prophet of the FLDS Church), explains a little more about the standing of the Mormon Church about Polygamy:

“This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy.” The late Gordon B. Hinckley, speaking about the clear distinction between the Church and polygamous sects.

Jul

10

As I mentioned in a previous blog, my son Luca Martinengo received his mission call for February 6, 2008. However, since he received the mission call around November 10, I thought that it would be a waste to wait for three full months. He had already finished school (he got his associate degree from UVSC a few months before) and even his institute (religion) class would end in the beginning of December.

So, I could not see any benefit in having him stay at home for another 3 months. Moreover, to leave on February 6 means to come back also on February 6 or 5 (Mormon missions for males last 2 years), right in the middle of a school term. In short, that would be another waste of time.

Based on this reasoning, I decided to call the missionary department and ask if it was possible to anticipate his call to serve. I was told that they could anticipate his mission to December 26, but that the Stake president should call the missionary department and authorize the change. We all thought that December 26 was a great day to leave, right after Christmas.

However, when the Stake president called the missionary department he was told that they did not have any groups leaving on December 26 and that the only option would be December 19.

Well…we found another good reason to accept the new date. To leave on December 19 means that he will come home right before Christmas…a great timing!

In short, Luca left on December 19, almost 2 months before the date he was originally called. Many friends were surprised that the missionary department had accepted to make the change. Probably many members of the Church think that even the date of a mission call is 100% inspiration. In reality, most of the time, it is simply the first date available, after the date the missionary indicate he will be ready to go on a mission. So, once we told them that we could anticipate our date, they were happy to anticipate theirs.

Follow a few pictures of Luca when he went to the MTC.

Jul

9

Why did the Mormon Church before 1978 denied priesthood ordination to male members with Black African ancestry? There is an interesting small book by Marcus H. Martins, a Brazilian Mormon, who was the first full-time Mormon missionary (after the revelation that extended the priesthood to worthy men with Black African ancestry) and among the first to be ordained a bishop in 1987. He was also the first of his race to work as a religion professor in the Church’s universities - Brigham Young University - in Provo, Idaho and Hawaii.

In his book he mentions that as a researcher he probably read almost every official or semiofficial statement available to the public about the priesthood ban.

One of the main points of his book is that the priesthood ban is not part of the restored and eternal gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but it was only a temporary law.

The problem is not with the ban, but with the explanations that many tried to give for this ban. However, in 1969, under the presidency of David O. McKay the Church made an official statement declaring that the priesthood ban was established for,

“reasons which we believe are known to God, but which he has not made fully known to man.”

In other words, we do not know and the theories that have been used to explain it are men’s theories and may be wrong.

One interesting point, that should be remembered when critics attack the Mormon Church on this topic, is that contrary to the national trend of that era, early Mormons leaders did not establish segregated congregations, as did many other denominations that sometimes accuse Mormons of being racists. The only limitation was about the priesthood, but all other blessings were available from the beginning and no segregation was imposed in the Mormon Church.

However, why there was a priesthood ban until 1978? Marcus Martins has his own theory that looks very compelling and logical to me. Again, we need to remember that this is just a theory, the only certainty is that the Lord timetable is often a mystery.

Dr. Martins suggests that perhaps for a long time the priesthood ban was not an urgent enough matter, since leaders of the Mormon Church had more urgent priorities, such as defending against a hostile U.S. government, dealing with political adaptations to obtain statehood in Utah, avoiding financial banckrupcy, dealing with the turmoil of two world wars and the depression, and so on. Those were issues that involved the survival of all members of the Church, and not just a small group.

Only during President Spencer W. Kimball’s administration (1973-85) did the priesthood ban moved up in the scale of priorities and became an issue that affected the very identity of the Church.

I have two examples of situations very similar to this one that may help to put the priesthood ban in context.

First, in Act 10:15 we read that even Peter, the old apostle, needed a revelation from God to understand that the gospel had to be preached to the Gentiles and not only to those of Israel. Moreover, it was the same Jesus who had told previously to his apostles not to preach to the Gentiles. Was Jesus racist, or was he simply following His timetable?

Second, I can use the example of my country, Italy. Until 1963 Mormon missionaries were not sent to that country and only Italians living in other places of the world could become members. There wasn’t an official ban, but in practice, Italians living in Italy had even less opportunities than black American to enjoy the blessings of the gospel.

Black Americans at least were able to become members of the Church; but Italians, in practice, had a very little chance to become members. Why this racism against Italians? Was this because they lost the war against the U.S.? Was that because Italians were not prepared?

I think that again, it is just the Lord timetable, and we need to learn to accept it. We may try to explain, and we may create theories, but in many cases those theories will be wrong and will generate more prejudices and confusion.

Follow a great video about Priesthood to Mormon men of all races. This video is not directly related to Dr. Martins’ books but it is another great resource to understand better this topic.

Jun

26

I have recently read a very inspiring book by Dr. Belnap, A Brain Gone Wrong - help for troubled teen.

I have noticed that on Meridian Magazine there is a series of articles about this book and I will refer to them for more information at the end of this blog post.

But this is the starting point of the book:

The twenty-first century faces a war with no name and no marked battleground. The casualties are our youth. They come from every address and ability and they are being squandered in what was once considered the lifestyle of only a degraded few.

Our feel-good culture, eroded by bad behavior, bad choices, and for many teens a succession of very bad days has drugs, alcohol, suicide, eating disorders, violence and the occult just a quick step from the corner lemonade stand. Some youth survive the onslaught; many do not.

Today’s youth face a society with blurred lines of right and wrong and in many cases, no wrong at all. Teens are raised amid decay in families, schools and the streets on which they live or roam. Gangs have stepped in to fill the void of family; media, fashion, peer pressure and popularity now dictate what were once decisions made at the kitchen table. The scenes are ugly, scarred and riddled with pain. Youth are forced to live beyond their years and to make decisions not even contemplated by their parents: Do I drink? Take meth? Smoke? Use birth control? Join a gang? Bring a gun to school or even stay in school? Do I distinguish myself by the way I dress, tattoos, the color of my hair? Or my sexual preferences? Should I consider suicide because my life is sad and hopeless?

It is hard to be a teenagers in our current society, and it is not easy to be the parent of teenagers, but still the family is where they can find the best opportunities to survive the war.

A Brain Gone Wrong - on Meridian Magazine

Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Part Six
Part Seven

Part Eight

Jun

24

I am receiving comments from protestants friends about my previous blog on the Mormon Miracle Pageants.

One of them says,

Jesus died on the Cross for you and Bleed for you. That is it, we do not work for salvation, it is a GIFT! Stop trying to make it so hard for yourselves.

I have no time right now to engage in a deep doctrinal discussion, but I can’t avoid thinking…

good luck my friend, good luck my protestant friend! I hope you will follow the commandments, because even if you think it is not important, and that you are already saved, it will matter a lot, and not only at the end of your life, but soon, sooner that you think. Even in this life we start reaping the consequences of our actions. Really it would be very easy if all it was required was to profess with our mouth that we accept Jesus. But I suppose you follow the commandments at your best, even if your doctrine practically teaches you that they are not important.

But did you ever read James?

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? (James 2:17-20).

Unfortunately I know that by quoting scriptures it is hard to convince people, so my best suggestion is to go read the Book of Mormon, and pray about it, and trust that the Lord will let you know the truth of all things.

In any case, good luck!

Jun

16

I have found a relatively new and interesting blog, LDS Media Talk whose authors are Larry Richman (LDS.org Product Manager), Joel Dehlin (LDS Church CIO), David Nielson (Managing Director, Audiovisual Dept, LDS Church), and David Frischknecht (Managing Director, Curriculum Dept, LDS Church).

The purpose of the blog is to “share ideas with LDS parents and youth who are interested in learning how to use technology to strengthen families and build The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes referred to as the “Mormons,” the “Mormon Church,” or “Mormonism” ).

The blog is not an official official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the information and opinions expressed are the responsibility of the authors, but I am happy to see that the use of technology at Church headquarters is gaining momentum.

Jun

12

I have found something really interesting, called “The Baptist Version of The Book of Mormon - Protestant Doctrines within the Book of Mormon” by Lynn Ridenhour, a Southern Baptist Minister.

It is an amazing article. I am copying it here because I do not want to see it disappear in the future from the internet, but I recognize his authorship and commend it for what he did and his sincerity.

This is his article that currently can be found at http://www.centerplace.org/library/bofm/baptistversionofbofm.htm

“I’m a licensed Southern Baptist minister and I embrace the Book of Mormon.

That is, I believe the truths recorded in it. No, I’m not a convert to the Mormon faith, nor am I a member of any particular “spin-off” restoration group such as the RLDS (Reorganized Latter-day Saints), Hedrikites, or Strangites. I’m still a Baptist minister. To be exact, I’m “charismatic Baptist.” That is, I still embrace the “born again” experience. I still believe you’re saved by grace. By the shed blood of Christ. Salvation is by faith alone in His finished work on Calvary. I still believe in the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit. I believe and embrace those cardinal doctrines of Protestantism.

And you know what?…

I still believe the Book of Mormon too! Read more

keep looking »

Blogroll

WP Themes