Unofficial Manifesto

Easier than packing up all the books

2006-04-04T21:28:00.000-05:00

Hey! We've moved to an actual, honest-to-goodness Wordpress blog:

unofficialmanifesto.com

Update your links, your feeds, or whatever you cool kids use.

B for Bitchmove

2006-03-30T13:08:00.000-06:00

I finally saw V for Vendetta last week. I was going to put some thoughts up, but decided to wait until D-Train had a chance to see it as well. We went Monday night- so now there are no excuses not to blog about it. There are plenty of reviews already, so this isn’t a review; it’s just some thoughts that include spoilers. So if you do want to see it and haven’t yet don’t read further.

I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. Was it heavy handed? No question. Does that ruin the movie? I certainly didn’t think so.

Despite liking V and having no problem seeing him as a hero rather than just a terrorist, despite buying in to the transformation of Evey as central to the story- I’ve got some problems with the whole conceptual framework and the philosophy therein. More than any other aspect of the movie, the transformation of Evey leaves me conflicted.

Evey, shortly after being taken captive by V in order to save her from Creedy’s interrogation and torture, tells V “My father once told me that artists use lies to show the truth, while politicians use lies to cover it.” V agrees, and to some extent so do I. But, the problem then becomes, everyone thinks that they are the artists.

We all need a scary story, a compelling narrative to pull people around to our point of view. And the issues are so important that we feel justified in doing things we may not like as long as all works out in the end. Soon, we all become like Creedy, who V describes as a vicious man for whom the ends always justify the means. They lie to ensure stability and we lie to disrupt it. But either way it’s a lie. When we allow the ends to justify the means what happens when we win? We succeed and then suddenly we take the place of the oppressors- simply telling different lies for different policy outcomes, but nonetheless lying in order to stay in power and keep others out of it.

V claimed that what they did to him was monstrous. And as Evey said- when they did it they created a monster. Do we need some monsters on the right side of things to fight against the monsters opposing us? What V did to Evey was horrible, but Evey’s transformation was positive. Can we lie for the greater good? Scripture seems to claim we can. So if we accept a construct of moral relativism based upon competing moral goods how do we make that judgment call without ourselves becoming monsters?

Final Four Bloggernacle Bracketology

2006-03-29T23:40:00.000-06:00

First, a word about the men's tournament. I have never seen worse brackets winning a contest. This is not a knock on the participants (indeed, about half beat the snot out of me), but a recognition that college basketball is now more competitive than ever top to bottom. This year is not an aberration, but a demonstration of the great numbers of athletes around the country. Look forward to some great hoops in coming years!

Mens: Very, very simple. Only J. Crawford and Pris can even score points anymore. Here's the scoop:

IF UCLA and Florida win and Florida wins the title - J. Crawford takes the prize.

IF LSU and Florida win and Florida wins the title - Pris and J. Crawford tie for the win.

IF Florida does not win the title and LSU wins in the semifinal - Pris wins.

IF Florida does not win the title and LSU loses to UCLA - Matt Evans wins.

Easiest math I ever did. I'll do a complete bracket breakdown after both tournaments are over for EVERY entrant!

Womens: A more competitive tournament than some, but still an ACC tournament semifinal with LSU in the mix. Three #1s and a #2. Pretty predictable, but many of us slipped.

Watt Mahoun has friends in low places.

D-Train is eliminated by virtue of only being able to score if Mike scores exactly as much (UNC winning).

Here's the easy part: Chad has a 110 point lead on Mike. Mike can only score from UNC wins. Chad can only score from Duke wins. Semifinal games are worth 120. Mike picked a good margin to lose by in the early rounds.

If Duke goes farther than UNC, then Chad wins. If UNC goes farther, Mike wins. Easy money. Not that my third place bracket means much, but my money is on Carolina. They're the only team in the women's tournament that has consistently established itself (LSU has had first half struggles, Maryland has looked occasionally inconsistent, especially defending, and Duke was absolutely shackled by UConn and should have lost). My money is on Ivory Latta to grin her way to a national title for Carolina blue, 82-72 over the Tigers from Baton Rouge.

Men's pick: who the heck knows? UCLA, 'cause nobody seems to buy in. That would have worked so far.......

The Status of Vice

2006-03-28T12:15:00.000-06:00

California Town, to smokers: "We don't take kindly to your kind..."

Texas law-enforcement, to drinkers: "Put the glass down and slowly back away."

My head, to the wall: BANG BANG BANG

About nine months ago, I wrote here about my city's impending smoking ban. My thoughts haven't changed: smoking bans are still incredibly misguided. [Since the ban started in July, there was a movement to repeal it, failing in the city council by a two votes; caused bars to lose about 30% of their business; and a vote that passed to allow smoking in "cigar bars."]

Now Calabasas, California has said that not only can't you smoke in public buildings, restaurants, bars, etc.--you can't even smoke outside, in some cases even if you own the property:

Smoking is prohibited in all public places in the City of Calabasas where other persons can be exposed to second-hand smoke. These places include indoor and outdoor businesses, hotels, parks, apartment common areas, restaurants and bars where people can be reasonably expected to congregate or meet. (site)

The FAQ is full of other goodies like: "...select an area at least 20 feet away from any path of travel, doorway, or place where people congregate. Remember that if someone complains, you will need to select a new location, or refrain from smoking."

I can understand--at least I think I can understand--why some believe this is the right thing to do. It's still stupid. But not as stupid as this: "Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk..." And to continue:

The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.

"We feel that the only way we're going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this," she said.

"There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they're intoxicated, other than get behind the wheel of a car," Beck said. "People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss."

Drunk driving is stupid. Jumping off of balconies is stupid sober or drunk. Walking out into traffic? Stupid. Should they be punishable? Yes. In the case of drunk driving: Hell Yes.

If I'm sitting at a bar, drinking, intoxicated, but not fighting anyone, not driving, just sitting there, maybe watching the game...uh, why am I being arrested? Drinking should be done responsibly. Irresponsible drinking should be punished accordingly.

I can understand having a dry county (but, like smoking bans: stupid) but going into a bar, which, by definition serves alcohol, and arresting people guilty only of drinking...

Which is why I'm posting this here. I am a drinker and I enjoy going to the bars occasionally. I recognize that I might just be clouded on this issue and can't really understand that this is truly a brilliant idea. I think I gotta assume that there is someone out there that thinks this is a good thing, so I'm asking for some help explaining it to me. But I might be kinda slow, 'cause of all the brain cells I've killed drinking and banging my head against the wall.

But, one more thing: You know, I really hate children. They're loud, obnoxious, annoying and they stink. They bother me. They negatively affect my health both physically (children are disease carriers plus) and mentally (must... lower... blood... pressure). Children may be the future, but they are not the present. I am not the only one that feels this way. So, if you must have children, can you please select an area at least 20 feet away from any path of travel, doorway, or place where people congregate. And remember that if someone complains, you will need to take your children to a new location, or refrain from having them with you.

A quick word on the Jeppson case

2006-03-26T23:52:00.000-06:00

A few thoughts here. If you haven't listened to the podcast at LDSLF, please do. It's a time commitment, but it's very interesting.

1) I don't really see the point in kicking Jeppson out of the Church. He's obviously not living the commandments as I understand them or as the Church does, but he's willing to acknowledge that. He's not demanding a temple recommend or a calling. In essence, he's willing to be a disfellowshipped member that wants to retain his cultural connection and worship as he believes. I don't see how having Jeppson around hurts anything and the Church certainly can't be harmed by letting him stay.

2) It's unfortunate that Jeppson is becoming a "test case". John Dehlin talked about this in the podcast and I just can't emphasize enough how much of a shame it is that a man's connection to the Church is being defined in terms of a watershed political event in Mormonism. I fault nobody (Jeppson, Dehlin, the Church, the stake president, or Barbara Turner) for this, but it should be emphasized that Jeppson seems like quite a nice man and doesn't deserve to have his life and Church membership defined in this way.

3) My initial impression was that Jeppson was kind of out there for being surprised by this. However, assuming Jeppson is telling the truth in the podcast, it does seem that his local leaders offered him assurances in the past which are being violated now. I'm not saying that the new stake president doesn't have the right to move on this, but that Jeppson is right to feel that a bait and switch happened here.

4) If one is willing to look outside of the homosexuality issue here, the real question is whether this is a "big tent" or "little tent" church. A big tent Church would acknowledge varying degrees of agreement with doctrine and tolerate more "sin". A little tent Church would insist on more conformity and move quickly on these disciplinary issues. I'm not sure which is better or which we are. I do think, though, that our primary purpose as an organization should be to bring people closer to Christ. I don't personally believe that Jeppson's same sex marriage will accomplish that. However, I do know that we can have no good impact on him (or he on us) if we kick him out. He's not a child molester, thief, or Korihor trying to hurt anyone or lead anyone astray. He's just a guy that sees things differently than us. Unless he starts trying to convince anyone else to start participating in homosexual activity, I see no reason to give him the boot.

5) As the discussion at Exponent II noted, we really do cherry pick sins for disciplinary councils. There are lots of sins that are pretty big deals. Admittedly, it is generally sexual sin, apostasy, or serious criminal activity that tends to provoke these things, and so it's consistent in that sense. But we don't convene these councils over the Word of Wisdom, tithing, or an appalling lack of charity. I guess I just don't see that excommunication can really help anyone grow. I know that people come back after the ex. I know that it might be a wakeup call for some people. But why not just fellowship and show real concern if we want to change somebody?

I might post something more detailed, but I'm too tired right now. Good night.

On the Elite Eight (And Eliminations!)

2006-03-25T09:15:00.000-06:00

Oh, wow, what a round. Duke...Gonzaga...West Virginia...Boston College...Washington...Georgetown...y'all played a heckuva game, and a call here or an inch there would have done it.

How big was the Duke lose? There is only one person who can profit from the LSU/Texas match-up. In addition, only three players still have their final two in contention.

It's late enough that we can start mathematically eliminating players that cannot when the pool. Looking at the remaining picks and teams, only seven of the nineteen entrants can win. So, on with the show:

1st -- Matt Evans (630). Evans had the highest third round, correctly picking five of eight. Clearly in the drivers seat, it would take a big surprise team to unseat him. If Memphis loses, he'll be sitting really pretty. In fact, if my math is correct, if Memphis, Nova, and LSU all lose, Evans will have the thing locked up. [Edit -- Well, almost.]

T-2nd -- Pris (590). The key has been and still is LSU. If LSU loses, Pris loses. The longer LSU wins, the longer Pris wins. Simple as that.

T-2nd -- E. Russell / E. Nielson (590). Despite being tied for second and only forty points back, both Russell and Nielson are mathematically eliminated from winning. The best they can do is T-2nd, since they both have the same remaining picks.

T-5th -- Kage (580). A good run, but mathematically eliminated.

T-5th -- Brett (580). Get this: Brett can still win despite having only one team left. If Memphis beats UCLA,, UConn loses to GM, LSU loses to Texas, Florida beats Nova, AND THEN George Mason beats Florida, AND Texas beats Memphis, Brett will win it all. Stranger things have happened.

7th -- Mike (570). The key is Memphis. If Memphis loses, Mike loses. The longer Memphis wins, the longer Mike wins. Simple as that.

8th -- the D-Train (560). To win, D-Train needs Nova to win it all and Memphis to lose to LSU/Texas.

T-9th -- Marian / Mohr / M. Smith (530). All have been mathematically eliminated.

12th -- B. Atkinson (500). To win, Bill needs Nova to win it all and Memphis to beat LSU/Texas.

13th through 17th Katie, Rusty, Chad Too, M. Elggren, JNS/RT...You have been eliminated.

T-Last -- John C. (430). Can still pull it off if and only if Florida beats Texas or UCLA in the finals. [Edit -- if UConn beats GM, then John C. and Evans would tie for first.]

T-Last - Kaimi (430). Eliminated.

Bracket Update and Preview

2006-03-23T15:55:00.000-06:00

Here's your Bloggernacle bracket update through the round of 32 and preview of tonight's games.

T-1st - E. Nielson (470). Riding high after the best 1st round and second best second round scores, the bracket is Nielson's to lose. Or, more accurately, Minneapolis' to win. Picking the Buckeyes to take that quarter, he's in the unenviable position of getting shanked since nearly everyone else has one of the remaining four in the Final Four. He's guaranteed to lose two of this round's games, but doesn't have any glaring weakness except Ohio State.

T-1st - Pris (470). Pris had the best second round, but question marks surround nearly ever pick remaining. Even though Pris and Nielson have the lead by a whopping 40 points, Pris is already out two final four teams. Additionally, he picks the upset in every one of tonight's games. The key pick is LSU over Duke. A huge stretch, but an excellent value pick--if LSU tops, expect Pris to stay in contention until the finals. If not, then his place will fall faster than the President's approval ratings.

T-3rd - Matt Evans (430). Evans has the highest possible score remaining with 7 of his final 8 still in the hunt. (The other being UNC, which everyone lost on.) The key to his winning will be Minneapolis, as he successfully picked G'Town to prevail against Ohio State. If they can upset Florida tomorrow, watch out.

T-3rd - E. Russell (430). Ditto nearly everything in last paragraph. He's also in excellent position, with Minneapolis being key. If Florida wins and Boston College can upset Nova, don't be surprised if Russell is the new leader.

And the Bottom Three: K. Wenger (350), John C. (350), JNS/RT (300). Just goes to show you academics don't translate into real world endeavors. Or at least Bracket Prediction. After being a front runner in the previous rounds, John C. got utterly decimated, having only four teams in the ~~Sweet~~ Not-So-Sweet Sixteen (including none in Oakland and Washington). He'll move way up, though, if Florida can somehow win the championship. Kaimi's bracket looks better, but has less future, because the remaining picks are conventional. And JNS/RT...well, let's just be happy that no money is on this.

Tonight's Match-Ups

7:10e -- Duke vs. LSU. Is JJ going to collapse in the tournament like the last three years? Can SEC player of the year "Big Baby" Davis be as Michael and slay the Big Blue Demon? Will Billy Packer and the other commentators breakdown on air if Duke loses? I don't know about you, but I really want to find out.

7:27e -- Memphis vs. Bradley. Memphis was widely considered the weakest #1 but has looked brilliant the last two games. Bradley is the strongest Cinderella left after easily dispatching Kansas and Pitt. Can they pull the upset tonight? Unlikely, but I'm rooting for it.

9:40e -- Texas vs. West Virginia. Why you should root for WV: Pittsnogle is the greatest name, ever. You know he's married, right? See--family values. His wife has been known to wear a t-shirt that says, "I Got Pittsnogled" with a downward arrow. That's kinda cool. Just sayin'.

9:57e -- UCLA vs. Gonzaga. Can we take a vote here: is the return of the pornstache to the mainstream a good or a bad thing? Morrison doesn't pull it off, but Jake Plummer does, so it seems a wash.

Mormonism fails

2006-03-20T19:55:00.000-06:00

Sooners are red
Cougars are blue
BYU sucks
and Mormons do too

No word on whether BYU has accused the Sooners of running the score.

Bloggernacle Bracket Showdown: Day Three Analysis and Punditry (Now with Women)

2006-03-19T02:28:00.000-06:00

Alrighty then folks, you've got questions and I've got answers.

1st - E Nielson (390). Actually, Nielson has answers on a day where he went 7-1. Unbelievable. He is guaranteed to lose twice tomorrow, as two of his Sunday picks are already out. Then again, lots of people are in that spot, as Iowa and Kansas have returned to the fruited plain. It should be said that Nielson may have peaked, as he's still out two Sweet Sixteens and an Elite Eight for tomorrow. Nevertheless, winners are winners until they're losers, and Nielson is a winner on this bandwagon.

2nd - Pris (370). Pris is a mover and a shaker, and it's not just the ladies that know it now. He missed out only on the Illini today, leaving the Big Ten in even worse shape with the Indiana loss. Oh well. A Badger is just a smarter Buckeye, but these Buckeyes can ball. Pris may yet regret his inclusion of KU in the Final Four, but he's sitting pretty for today.

3rd (tied) - K. Kage only lost Illinois today, but she did have a number of failures in the earlier rounds of the tourney that cost her a chance to earn points today. She's in decent shape for the stretch run, but she'll need to win all six of her chances tomorrow to make a move up the board.

3rd (tied) - W. Atkinson (340). Atkinson is in decent shape now, but he's lost two Final Four squads, making the stretch run nearly impossible. Atkinson is no doubt regretting the pick of GW over Duke, which has made it nearly impossible for him to get any points at all out of the Atlanta region, given his pick of Iowa to win the region. Third place now, but I'm betting Atkinson is done real soon.

10th - D-Train (320). D-Train continues to suck it up, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel. He's got a clean shot at the Elite Eight still, but he'll need a good day tomorrow to take advantage. I doubt anything good can come out of this bracket. Underachieving and hoops meet their logical climax in Norman, Oklahoma (for men, anyway).

Third worst - Katie McKay (270). Another rough day sends Katie into the relegation zone. She can reel off seven wins tomorrow, but I'm guessing she's luckier in love than basketball. Might it be too early to suggest a drinking problem? Probably, as a good day tomorrow could have her in the mix. She could always drink seventy of Brett's non-alcoholic beers in order to get a mild buzz (which is more than Bill Self got against Bradley).

Second worst - Chad Too (240). Chad has lost too much. He's already out seven Sweet Sixteen entrants and two Elite Eight ponies. I'm not sure that he can possibly climb into this, as his Duke, Memphis, UNC, and Villanova Final Four might be too conventional to make it happen for Chad, but a perfect Final Four could always fix a lot of problems.

Worst - J. Nelson-Seawright at 220. He's still got six alive for tomorrow, so he could feasibly get out of the cellar. He's got the same Final Four as Chad, so maybe they could leave Katie all by her lonesome down here. My guess is that a too-good UConn will roll UNC in the Elite Eight, mathematically eliminating our brethren from down under. But what do I know? I'm a tenth place Mormon that can't blog my way out of a PEC meeting (or into one, with my caffeine consumption).

Now, on to the women's story. Everyone gets play here for supporting the fine game of women's basketball.

1st (150) - Mike Anderson. The debate over who has the biggest ass is settled: Mike's had to be gigantic to find all of these picks in there. He only missed the NM/Florida matchup, correctly picking the Golden Hurricane over the NC State ladies to boot. To my knowledge, the last women's basketball game Mike attended was the one right before my baptism. I think he went to the game to make sure that I went to the baptism. Nevertheless, he had to be doing something at work, so I can only guess that he's been spending more time at Rebkell's than me. Good work, tubby!

2nd (140) - D-Train. Good picks, but he did miss the Tulsa upset and incorrectly picked Louisiana Tech over Florida State. He was absolutely certain that New Mexico would down an inconsistent Florida team close to home, but did not remember the blue and gold portion of his heart. It must have been locked somewhere in his hollow tin chest.

3rd (tied) - Watt Mahoun (130). For the worst bracket so far, Watt was impressive, missing out only on Louisville, Florida, and LaTech. Never underestimate homecourt advantage in the women's tourney, as Vandy rode a home crowd over a decent Louisville side. Watt's lack of faith in Baylor (well, ok, Sophia Young) cost him, as he had Florida in the Sweet Sixteen. Good day, though, for the strapping young man from Seattle.

3rd (tied) - Chad Too (130). Chad missed Florida, Louisville, and Minnesota. Chad didn't benefit from Minnesota's late slide, but did score big on Tulsa. This bracket contest is wide open and Chad certainly does not deserve to be near the floor in both contests.

Bloggernacle Bracket Showdown: Day Two Analysis and Punditry

2006-03-18T01:53:00.000-06:00

By popular demand, I'm taking up more of your bandwidth and time. Day Two of the tournament proved to be a bracket buster for some (mostly just D-Train), while other movers and shakers were emboldened by the conclusion of the finest opening round in ten years.

1st (tied) - E. Nielson with 250/320 points. Nielson finished a generally strong open round by missing out only on Northern Iowa, Michigan State, Kansas, and Iowa. A tough day for the Hawkeye State manifested itself in Nielson's bracket, as Georgetown and Northwestern State (!) proved to be too much. Nevertheless, Nielson remains in first place in the Bloggernacle and can look forward to a potentially profitable weekend.

1st (tied) - J. Crawford with 250/320 points. Crawford was solid on Day Two, missing out on UAB, Iowa, Kansas, and Michigan State (all understandable losses. Nevertheless, Crawford also lost an Elite Eight team today, as he had UAB making a Cinderella run to the regional final. Repeat after me: no hyphenated schools past the Sweet Sixteen. A potential disaster awaits, however, as Crawford had Kansas in the Elite Eight. Phog Allen and Crawford are crying into their beer, but Final Four picks Duke, Bucknell, UNC, and Florida can make it all better. Actually, Phog, order up another cold one. He's gonna need it. However, if these upsets materialize, we can all pretty much pack it up by next weekend.

2nd (tied) - B. McKay with 240/320 points. McKay struggled today, missing out on California, KU, Iowa, Southern Illinois, and Michigan State. McKay's Elite Eight remains intact, but he is missing three Sweet Sixteen schools. The prognosis is good, but it will likely take a Boston College run to keep Brett's hair shining as a beacon of hope to metrosexuals everywhere.

2nd (tied) - K. Kage (240/320). Kage had a tough outing, as Northern Iowa, Wisconsin, KU, Southern Illinois, and Kansas all let her down. 11-5 on a very difficult day with a lot of upsets is really no shame, but Kage lost a Sweet Sixteen Cinderella in SIU and a Final Four participant in the Baby Jayhawks. J. Crawford and K. Kage, remember who you are. It's just the beer and Phog talking.

10th (tied) - D-Train at 220. It's not my fault. My mom did a LOT of crack. The Train went 8-8 on the day, with SIU, Wisconsin, Iowa, Arkansas, Kansas, UNI, MSU, and UAB letting him down. Amazingly, the Train had all of these teams losing in the second round, meaning that his Sweet Sixteen still is only missing three and the Elite Eight is unblemished. The Train is moving downward now, but there is a lot of upside in this bracket. Whether D-Train's foolishness will hurt him is yet to be seen, but it is clear that he doesn't even deserve to be at OU, much less a real school. Utter nonsense.

Next to last (tied) - M. Anderson at 190. It's a shame his bracket can't come up as big as his ass at a feeding trough. UAB, MSU, Northern Iowa, Wisconsin, Kent State, Arkansas, Iowa, and KU all let Mike down today. The Kent State pick is the only real noodle scratcher, but Mike is also decently positioned for the future, with only three Sweet Sixteen picks gone and a clean Elite Eight.

Next to last (tied) - M. Marian at 190. A tough day for Marian, as two Elite Eight picks (Iowa and Michigan State) bite the dust. The Big Ten proved to be the Big Zero for Marian, as the overachieving Iowa and underachieving Spartans burn her big. With five Sweet Sixteen picks out of the picture, Marian will be desperately hoping that her Final Four of Connecticut, Duke, Florida, and Gonzaga materializes. This combination would be One Shining Moment for this cellar-dweller, but the picture is grim.

Next to last (tied) - Kaimi Wenger at 190. Wenger's day was, well, difficult. Being a Sooner, I've long loved Kaimi, as he's the only T&S permablogger who I can actually understand. Spelling is tough enough without stupid "names" like "Heidegger", "Kierkegaard", and "Paul". What I cannot understand, however, is Kaimi's inclusion of California and Kansas in the Elite Eight. These picks have cost him heavily and he may be left unable to pick up the slack. SIU, Iowa, Arkansas, Kent State, and Wisconsin also bit the dust, leaving Kaimi with eleven Sweet Sixteen entries. While a Duke, UCLA, Connecticut, and Ohio State Final Four would not be that outlandish, nobody else seems to be on board, indicating that there is room for Wenger to move up the table in the remaining games.

Dead last - J. Nelson-Seawright at 180. JNS/RT improved today, missing out on only MSU, KU, Arkansas, Cal, Iowa, and SIU. His Sweet Sixteen is already missing six teams, while Iowa's inclusion in the Elite Eight may prove fatal. Duke, Memphis, UNC, and Villanova is still looking like a viable Final Four, so JNS may be heard from yet. However, I wouldn't bank on much unless his second round can improve dramatically on his first.

Bloggernacle Bracket Showdown - Day One Results and Punditry

2006-03-17T01:41:00.000-06:00

Following Day One of March Madness, I challenge the Bloggernacle to quit their jobs and spend today as I spent it: watching one game on the TV and two others on the computer(s) for twelve and a half hours, pausing only to get New York Pizza and Pasta and Long John Silver's to go. As promised, the top three and bottom three brackets, with associated analysis:

1st - D-Train with 140/160 points. D-Train's last bit of faith in O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A was not validated, as the Sooners slump to yet another loss to a team with inferior talent at all five positions. Ray Charles could have seen this upset a mile away, but D-Train stupidly picked the Sooners to go to the Sweet Sixteen, largely based on utter disrespect for Florida and the assumption that OU's big men would get out of bed. Neither assumption was validated on day 1 and Train should be shot for his incompetence. D-Train also picked Nevada for the Sweet Sixteen, meaning that Montana's upset could hurt him more than other competitors. On the upside, D-Train correctly picked a minor upset for Alabama and kept the faith with George Washington. Perhaps the Train's biggest score of the night came in Jacksonville, where Brother Train correctly argued that Texas A&M's disciplined play would overcome a dog-tired Syracuse team with an injured star.

2nd (tied) - Eric Nielson with 130/160 points. A generally strong showing, but Brother Nielson's inability to predict Big 12 basketball stopped him from pulling away from a weak field. Nielson's pick of Oklahoma proved to be a failure, as was his conventional wisdom pick of Syracuse over Texas A&M. With all due respect, Nielson can claim to have picked the Montana upset (certificate coming in the mail), but a questionable pick of San Diego State over Indiana stopped Nielson from outright ownership of first place after the first day of competition. It must be said that Nielson is the early favorite, since all three of his failed picks were not picked to make it out of the second round.

2nd (tied) - J. Crawford with 130/160. Crawford understandably missed the Nevada/Montana shocker, but picked UNC-Wilmington and Utah State with deleterious results. While Wilmington was understandable so near home, Utah State is a noodle-scratcher, especially given Crawford's conviction that they would see the Sweet Sixteen. It may be that the Homer Syndrome that cost D-Train could also cost Crawford. Presumably, he is a MoMo.

2nd (tied) - Brett McKay with 130/160. A fellow Normanite, McKay retained enough sanity to at least remove OU at the second round stage. He also fell victim to Montana and suffered significantly with the elimination of Syracuse, a Sweet Sixteen pick in McKay's bracket. While the married life may agree with Brett's hair, a lack of Big XII pride could harm McKay in later rounds.

2nd (tied) - K. Kage with 130/160. If you just cover up the bottom two inches of the page, Kage looks like a genius. However, San Diego State, Marquette, and Nevada all cost Kage big, as Kage loses two Sweet Sixteen entries. Nevada is understandable, but Kage will no doubt regret her faith in SDSU as a Sweet Sixteen entrant. The Mountain West has been summarily eliminated, but Kage will not stop feeling the pain until the Elite Eight. On the positive side, Kage wasn't fooled by the rocks (AKA NC-Wilmington) and has demonstrated great faith in the Valley. Will this faith be sufficient unto bracket salvation? It seems unlikely, as Kage has picked the Shockers to reach the Elite Eight. While they may be that good, the D-Train mojo says they put up a brilliant fight, but succumb to a Tarheel squad that got the perfect draw in the round of sixteen.

And the good folks staring at the gigantic butts possessed by Pris and I......

Next to last place (tied) - M. Marian with 90/160. Despite seven first round losses, Marian only lost one Sweet Sixteen team (the 'Cuse). Particularly egregious errors were San Diego State and Iona. Iona's guard play might entrance stat geeks, but Marian is wishing that she had fallen in love with a Grizzly. Marian's failure to recognize the fine play of the Valley is costing her, as her faith in a Big East bubble-dweller took ten points off the board. Marian could well be in the right part of these posts in a week, but she's sharing space with

Next to last place (tied) - Watt Mahoun (90/160) now. Watt has always been something of a freethinker and it showed in this bracket. While his political and doctrinal views generally play well at the Manifesto (and at the new politics and religion group blog), his bracket left something to be desired. Mahoun lost three Sweet Sixteen entries in the form of OU, Syracuse, and Nevada. Mahoun was also the first to see an Elite Eight pick go by the wayside, as he displayed way too much Sooner Spirit (I can't help but think I'm somehow responsible). Mahoun was also disappointed by SDSU, Marquette, NC-Wilmington, and Seton Hall. Serves him right for not recognizing the Valley. Bruce Pearl will recognize the Valley on Saturday as his sweat-stained suits won't be pressed for another six months (OK, that would have happened anyway).

Last place (all alone) - J. Nelson-Seawright (80/160). Nelson-Seawright got his tomatoes roasted in fine fashion today. His faith in NC-Wilmington, Syracuse, San Diego State, Xavier (a decent pick, actually), Marquette, Oklahoma, and Seton Hall cost him big. Can JNS pull off a Latter-Day Liberation from the cellar? Or will he be doomed to failure by common consent? Only times and seasons will tell.

This took half an hour. I am a productive member of society.

[Edited to fix gendered pronoun. -- Pris]

2006-03-16T13:43:00.000-06:00

At least I don't have to watch them anymore.

The Book of Lights -- Take I*

2006-03-15T23:47:00.000-06:00

I like Russian literature.

When most of my friends read that sentence, it doesn't mean "Arwyn likes literature written by Russians;" it means "Arwyn likes dark, depressing literature riddled with philosophical (and sometimes pedantic -- see Turgenev; Tolstoy) meanderings."

As far as Russian lit goes, that's not really far off. Which leads to the question: "Why?"

I recently finished a book by a favorite author -- not Russian, but equally...depressing? But, not. In the same way that Russian literature isn't. To me.

The book is Chaim Potok's The Book of Lights. I first read his The Chosen and The Promise in high school, though I haven't yet gotten around to his more famous My Name is Asher Lev.

The Book of Lights is the story of a young Jewish man without any real direction in his life, who doesn't know precisely what he wants to do, or why he would want to do it, and allows other forces -- his professors, his family, his girlfriend, his roommate -- to drive him toward disparate goals. He studies at a Jewish seminary in New York, and focuses on kabbalah because he connects with the subject and the professor -- but he doesn't know why. He accepts a scholarship for a year of graduate study that allows him to put off entering the Army because the fund was established by his roommate's family in honor of his roommate's brother, who died during World War II -- but he doesn't know why. He serves two years in post-war Korea, most of the time as the only Jewish chaplain in the country, and does a bang-up job of being the best chaplain ever -- but even when he's recognized by his commanders for his excellence, he still doesn't know why.

It's the story of this young man -- and of another, his roommate, whose father helped invent the atomic bomb and who knows the why of everything he does: atonement. He played no part in the development of that weapon or in its use, but he feels compelled with the strongest compulsion to atone for unleashing that tool of destruction on the world.

I finished the book nearly two weeks ago and, like a good Dostoevsky novel, I'm still digesting it. I haven't been able to read anything since. Why?

It's not a happy book. It's a story of two separate dimensions: the man who doesn't know the why of all he does, but who loses himself in doing it -- and, in the losing, becomes a real leader, a real scholar, a real person. And the man who knows the why, is hounded by the why, is tortured by the why, and is so caught up, so obsessed by it, he can't live a real life, can't live a normal life, can't really live. But who, though driven to drink, to debauchery, to extremes to suppress his pain, also has the compassion to say prayers for the dead at the tomb of the enemies his parents strove to put down.

More often than not, I feel like the first fellow -- I rarely know the why. I can give reasons for my actions, or at least, I can come up with reasons. But I feel like there's a deeper driving force that I don't have the capacity to recognize that drives the major milestones of my life. Am I, in the end, better off for not knowing, not having the depth of pain or passion that drives those like the second?

Or...not?

* I call this Take I as this is the first of a few thoughts inspired by this book -- the next may or may not be less naval-gazing and more interesting.

Hot diggety dog!

2006-03-15T05:32:00.000-06:00

Well, looks like we finally made it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but LJ's post on the not so evil world appears to be the first snarked UoM post. The guy just gets here, and already he's getting snarked. (Though I suppose in one day he posted more real content than I have in total) Not only that, but he inspired a post that had a picture of a the whore of all the earth riding a triceratops. How freakin cool is that?

So, thanks LJ, and thanks rat-dog for taking the time to make fun of us.

Bloggernacle Bracket Reminder and the Best Commercial Ever

2006-03-14T12:18:00.000-06:00

First, many have signed up for the Bloggernacle Bracket contest. Many others have not. Please follow this link to see my directions on how to sign up. ESPN registration is required, but that's about a two minute process and shouldn't be a big deal. It'll be fun! I'll post updates on the winners (and worst losers) here on the page. If everyone that isn't using their real name/Bloggernacle handle in their bracket name could post their 'Nacle name on the ESPN group bulletin board (at our bracket group homepage), that would be great. Also, if you're a fan of easy wins, only two brave Bloggernaclers have dared to pick a women's bracket. Directions for that are in the above link as well.

Second, ESPN's women's basketball tournament commercial is great. It's a pretty standard montage of highlights and coaches done in a pretty snazzy way. However, the last clip is absolutely amazing.

OU coach Sherri Coale is up at a dry erase board pointing at some Xs and Os. Then she just looks at her team and says:

"Or we could just kick the door down."

If you haven't tried women's hoops, this tournament is a great place to start. Tune in for the Sweet Sixteen and watch teams like LSU, Oklahoma, Maryland, Duke, and North Carolina for a best exposure to the women's game.

Basketball rant over.

The Glory of the World

2006-03-12T00:30:00.000-06:00

Recently I've heard a lot of horrible things about this placed called The World. Now let me tell ya, I've been to pretty crappy places. Driving around Oklahoma you see a lot of things, but this world that local church leaders talk about seems to be far and away the most miserable place I've ever heard of.

Sigh..... I really don't understand all the anti-world rhetoric. The way the bible uses the term the world isnt really the way we throw it around, which is unfortunate because it would lead to less judging if we were on the same page. As it is, we hear speech after speech about how the world is getting more and more corrupt and permissive of immorality. Some extrapolate this to mean that Satan is corrupting us and that we are entering a downward spiral of sin which will polarize the peoples of the Earth into the camps of righteousness or wickedness.

Let's not split hairs here. When people say that the world is getting more sinful or more immoral or whatever, what they mean is that American and European society are becoming more permissive of sexual behavior. That's it. Every major crime index has been on the decline. There have been less murders, less thefts, less everything. But.... we don't really care about that. These sins, you know, the ones that actually hurt people, arent the one's that we discuss. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd much rather have more people having premarital sex than have more people killing one another. That's not to say that having less of both would not be better than having less of one or the other. But having less serious crimes, to me anyway, is a better indicator of the state of the world than of whether people are having sex outside of marriage or heterosexual relations. And by that measure, the world is really a pretty good place.

As promised.....Bloggernacle Bracket contest!

2006-03-11T21:11:00.000-06:00

I'm going to do the contest on ESPN since it's easiest that way. Our group name is "Bloggernacle" and the password is "momo". Join the group ASAP!!!

Registration on ESPN is required. Here's how to do it:

Go to ESPN.com and at the top of the page, there will be a link to log into or register for MyESPN. Do so and then follow this link:

Once there, click on "create entry" and then "create or join a group". You'll be able to search there for "Bloggernacle" and then you can enter the password and get it done. Obviously, you can't fill out your bracket until Sunday night, but you can join now so that all you have to do is login and fill it out later.

I don't know when the deadline to have it done is, but you should do it before Wednesday.

I'm posting a women's competition as well. The directions are the same, just follow this link and follow the same directions. Same group name and password.

Please bounce on in and join! Bloggernacle glory awaits!

P.S. If you have any technical trouble, feel free to either post a comment or mail me at crazytrain a t ou dot edu.

On "Male Reproductive Freedom"

2006-03-11T19:43:00.000-06:00

Um.....no.
I agree that it is not necessarily equal or fair for women to be able to "choose" after conception if men are just forced to live with their decision. But I would argue that, no matter what, there will be lots of unfair outcomes in these sort of circumstances. Here are the possible outcomes now, presuming abortion is legal in the situation:

1) Man and woman want the kid. The kid gets born and there is no disagreement.
2) Man and woman don't want the kid. An abortion is arranged and there is no disagreement. Alternatively, an adoption is arranged.
3) Woman wants the kid and the man doesn't. The man has to support a child that he did not want.
4) Woman does not want the kid and man does. Abortion happens and man is disappointed, but didn't do anything that he considers immoral.

In a world where men can "opt-out" of supporting a child during pregnancy, you only replace situation #3 with a world where a woman must choose to have an abortion, give a child up for adoption, or raise a child with no legal claim whatsoever to a father's support. I think that's much more unfair than #3.

I don't want to argue that men should be "punished" for sex by raising a child. I do want to argue that the world is better off enforcing a male obligation to support a child than forcing a woman to make a very difficult choice.

This is a very messy situation and there aren't any fair answers. All that I can say about this is the following:

1) It is best to be responsible about sex so that crap like this doesn't come up. No moralizing necessary: all situations above except #1 are not good at all.

2) This is not an argument for or against the morality of abortion. Pro-choice and pro-life people alike can agree that abortion is not ever an ideal circumstance. Given the reality that women carry children within them, it's not acceptable for a man to be able to make that choice. It's not equal, but circumstances aren't either. No matter what happens, there can't be equality, so we may as well concede the fact and try to do what's best.

3) Even where people aren't morally concerned with abortion, there is a lot of social and internal guilt surrounding the practice. It's best that nobody has to feel that, so let's all be responsible, OK?

I sympathize with men that want the same choice that women have, but it's intrinsically impossible for them to make that choice without forcing an abortion on a woman. Assuming nobody favors that, I have to stand against "male reproductive freedom".

Goodbye, Kirby

2006-03-07T00:35:00.000-06:00

[Author's note]: Please edit as you wish, Pris. I know you're a Twinkie man.

Kirby Puckett has passed away at the age of 45.

I am, of course, a St. Louis Cardinal fan. As such, I have no love for the Metrodome in any shape or form. But I just can't find it in myself to resent Kirby Puckett.

Kirby played baseball with a joy that I could understand. Kirby never let the business get in the way of the game. Even as he was an imperfect person, he played the game I love the way I love to see it played. Never any regret at all.

From Game Six to his graceful retirement, Kirby made baseball better. We'll miss him.

The hypocrisy of rape and incest exceptions

2006-03-02T19:47:00.000-06:00

The South Dakota anti-abortion legislation seems destined to create a national rehashing of the abortion debate. Specifically, if the initiative should become law, it will certainly pose a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. This sort of law might make it much more difficult for the Supreme Court to punt or “play it safe”, as it has done in prior cases that posed less direct challenges to Roe.

I don’t really want to talk about that. Today. I’d rather address an argument that the pro-life crowd has been making for some time that has troubled me as long as I’ve heard it.

A majority (although not necessarily a decisive majority) of the American people have supported Roe and its implications for abortion law since the decision. Even those that oppose Roe generally support some provision for the abortion option in cases where the life or health of the mother is at stake. Most also support an exception for cases of rape and incest.

I’ve never understood the rape and incest exception. Well, that’s not precisely right. I do understand. I just think this argument can’t possibly jive with the other arguments being made by pro-lifers. Essentially, the pro-life crowd must win three arguments in order to win the abortion debate.

1) The fetus is, whether a full-fledged person or not, a being with some significant level of natural rights.
2) The fetus’ right to life is more important than the libertarian or practical concerns of the mother.
3) This right is significant enough that it deserves state protection in the form of anti-abortion laws.

If these arguments are true, I can’t think that the horrible injustice of rape justifies an abortion. No matter what is done with the fetus, the rape still happened. Nothing can make it go away. Would the abortion help bring the victim closer to closure? Perhaps. But if we accept that the fetus has a right to life, I cannot think that this interest is compelling enough to justify overriding that right. We certainly don’t think it is compelling enough to make rape a capital crime, at least in most places. Additionally, if we accept that the effects of rape are traumatic enough to make this a concern on a level sufficient to override a life claim, we must also likely accept that the abortion isn’t going to fix the problem. The fact that a fetus is conceived by rape does not change that fetus’ standing in the realm of natural rights. Not one bit. It seems to me that once we accept that a fetus has a right to life, nearly nothing except a competing life claim can possibly override that.

The incest exception is even more troubling. Certainly, many pregnancies that come about as a result of incest occur as a result of abuse of some kind. Nevertheless, this isn’t really any different an issue than the rape issue that I raise above. If there is no abuse involved, our only argument in favor of aborting the incest fetus when we wouldn’t abort another is that we don’t want to deplete the gene pool. Again, this argument fails in light of argument #1 above. If we grant the pro-life position that the fetus has a right to life, we would not support aborting that fetus in order to improve our genetic stock. If we would make that argument, we’d be able to justify aborting retarded babies, the handicapped, and possibly euthanizing members of our society that are a drain upon us. Quite simply put: the argument on the basis of a right to life is so powerful precisely because it does not allow for these kinds of exceptions. A right to life that is dependent on the quality that the life will have, the benefit that the life will provide to society, or a “limited” right to life is no right to life at all: it is but a buzzword to describe some other value that is actually being defended under the auspices of a more socially acceptable discursive construct that is less vulnerable to criticism. Some people would call it a lie, but I’m a nice guy. Let’s call it dishonest strategic framing. To say that a fetus has a right to life only in circumstances where the societal good is best realized is to admit that sweeping anti-abortion legislation is unjustified. Additionally, it raises the question of whether government is best qualified to make that determination and calls into question the supreme value of life, thus negating the “culture of life” that these people want.

To clarify my position: I have no idea when life (in the philosophical sense of a being with natural rights) begins. I do know that reasonable and good people disagree about this. I generally don’t support abortions and would never advocate one in my family unless there were a compelling health reason to do so. However, I see less governmental regulation of abortion as the best compromise absent a societal consensus about when life begins. The point of this post is not to decry the pro-life position or to advocate abortion, but simply to point out a glaring inconsistency in the pro-life argument.

The bitter complaints of a cranky young man

2006-03-02T09:56:00.000-06:00

It's personal anecdote time here at UoM, inspired by a comment made on T&S's "Utah(ish) Non-Mormons" thread.

I was born in Utah, but grew up in Idaho (or, "Little Utah"). I hated it. I still hate it. Every time I go back there, for Christmases and whatnot, I am reminded just how much I dislike Boise--and Boise is the best Southern Idaho can offer. I can unequivocally say that the best decision I ever made was to go to a college 1600 miles away. When I find other people who are/were from Idaho, my response is, "I'm sorry." And I mean it.

I could go on, but I think my contempt is clear.

Idaho itself--the land--is gorgeous. The climate is quite good, with low humidity and semi-desert; by comparison, spring in the midwest is oppressively green and damn near unbearable without a fan. (Though, after five years, I'm finally getting used to the humidity.) Cour d'Laine is quite possible the most perfect place on the planet.

I know some great people in Idaho: my immediate family still lives there, a few high school friends, family friends. I've had some good nacle interaction with a few from there: persons like Laura and fmhLisa seem to be stand-up people.

But the people! The culture! My god, the culture! Nate Oman says this in his original post: "...all conversations about religion or Mormonism were tainted by the siege mentality of the Utah non-Mormons and Mormon defensiveness at the implicit accusation of oppression."

I've never heard a better way of describing my high school years.

On of the big problems I have with the culture of Utah/Idaho is the lack of a "center." The Church--especially when it is politically powerful--is such a polarizing force that it (more or less) forces everyone into two camps. This is why everyone at a bar in Boise smokes.

This effected me a fair bit because: (1) my "formative years" were spent dealing it, and (2) I was trying to maintain a center position. I wasn't good enough (that is, Mormon) to be with the good kids [though I did take seminary and most my friends were LDS] and wasn't "bad" enough to be with the "bad kids." (That is, I didn't care about partying, drinking, etc.)

So, yeah, I'm fairly bitter about it, but it is what made me who I am, so who am I to complain? I can say, though, that it would take something drastic (family emergency, lucrative job offer) for me to move back there. It would take something even more drastic for me to raise children there. (Idaho: Not Good for Children or Other Living Things)

Anyway, this is all to say that I agree with a comment made by Seth R. (comment 13):

However, I think it’s important to remind everyone that it’s only those who are familiar with Mormonism that fear it. Those who aren’t familiar with it either dismiss it as “some fringe religion” or are unaware of it entirely. It’s those who have gotten to know us who are threatened by us.

So true! And might I add, that we--the non-mormons--should be. I'm not sure what the implications for future Church actions are, but I don't think it's particularly rosy.

Sometimes, you just have to storm the court

2006-02-27T22:57:00.000-06:00

Even when your opponent sucks as much as Oklahoma State.

How will I ever live without being at these games?

GOOOOOAAAALLLL!

2006-02-21T14:49:00.000-06:00

ARSENAL SCORE IN MADRID!!!!!

My three posts

2006-02-21T13:14:00.000-06:00

As you may have noticed, I've posted three things here. If you scroll just south of this post, you'll see a guest post from Watt Mahoun. Many thanks to him for submitting that. Below that is my response to that post. So, if you're reading this on RSS or an aggregator, you will actually want to read from most recent to further back. You probably do that anyway, but Blogger was being stupid and my response to Watt was actually up before his post by several minutes. So, if you just read my response, you should read what Watt actually had to say ;)

Guest Post: Watt Mahoun

2006-02-21T13:12:00.000-06:00

On Casting Out Melancholy Reflections

Or the hazards of sincere belief and shelved doubts.

It seems that each of us has a shelf where we place unanswered doubt. Recently, I perceive an increasing number of disclosures as to what some of those shelves may or may not contain. The reason for this disclosure is a topic for another post, but here we'll discuss the hazards of the ever increasing load that many of us have seemingly been compelled to place on those shelves.

My personal awareness of the overburdened shelf among many Mormons became acute when I read John Dehlin's "Where I stand regarding the Church" with its semi-comprehensive library of "shelf" items. I do not speak for John, but for myself and perhaps others when I say: these are not the same items that one would naturally shelf; things of little immediate consequence or fanciful imagination.

No, this list is desperately shrill in its call for immediate answers. These items weigh heavily upon the shelf where they are placed, not for future pursuits of trivia, but to stave the unbearable pain that they cause us when openly contemplated. We are compelled to put them there to preserve our social networks, our families, and our personal sanity. But they do not go away. The weight multiplies as they sit upon the shelf. These shelved doubts are not just some rough edges of the known and verifiable world. They are the bastard children of a family of cherished beliefs. They are born of ideas that we hold in common but are the things we dare not speak openly of in polite company. They are the unexplained by-product of a sincere but equally unexplained belief system. And it seems that the more firmly we embrace those beliefs in the face of prevailing evidence, the more numerous and unruly these little bastards become. It is no wonder that we put them on the shelf, or in the attic in hopes that they will wilt and wither away with time, or that we so readily pretend that they do not exist. Such is the end of our desire to escape the melancholy reflections that the mere existence of these children brings to us. I draw this imagery partly from a parable I once came upon while reading Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World. This parable has permeated my mind and haunts my assumptions about the virtue of sincere belief:

A SHIPOWNER was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not over-well built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him to great expense.

Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales. What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.

Let us alter the case a little, and suppose that the ship was not unsound after all; that she made her voyage safely, and many others after it. Will that diminish the guilt of her owner? Not one jot. When an action is once done, it is right or wrong for ever; no accidental failure of its good or evil fruits can possibly alter that. The man would not have been innocent, he would only have been not found out. The question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of his belief, not the matter of it; not what it was, but how he got it; not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether he had a right to believe on such evidence as was before him.

William K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief (1874)I'll leave you with this as it requires no further explanation. It is something to think about...something to consider as each of us struggles with the question of what we have the right to believe, what the consequences of those beliefs may be, and how we deal with the doubts, melancholy reflections, and temptations that arise from the maintenance of those beliefs. Perhaps in the process we will succeed at clearing a few shelves and living more peacefully. I wish that for all of us.

My Response to Watt

2006-02-21T12:55:00.000-06:00

Before I begin my response, I'd like to thank Watt for giving us a lot to think about. I'm grateful for his willingness to post here and thank him for his insightful comments, wit, and sincere engagement of difficult topics.

I'll begin with where we agree. I believe that the essential task of morality is to try as hard as you can to be as good as you can. My own belief is that God cares less about what your answer is than how hard you tried to engage the question. In this sense, the quotation offered by Watt is quite illustrative. As the obligation of the shipowner is to take all care to ensure that the ship is safe, the obligation of the believer is to be sure that his or her faith is well founded in reasons that make sense. I would argue that this realization helps us to avoid undue judgment of others by recognizing that effort and good intentions matter absent outcomes. If a well-constructed ship is wrecked in a hurricane, nobody blames the owner. If a well-constructed ship takes much longer to reach a safe port due to unfavorable winds, the owner is not blamed. Likewise, if a good person that works hard to be good has trouble finding the port that you want him to find, you can recognize that he's still working hard. If crisis destroys faith, there is no reason to presume that the architect of that faith is a failure. This is why my blood boils when I mention a good person that does good works who is not a member of the Church and someone says "sounds like a good terrestrial person". I swear, that line will get someone's jaw broken some day. Thanks to Watt for expressing this point in a more civilized way.

With that said, I do disagree with a few of the basic assumptions and arguments implicit in the post. Initially, I would challenge the idea of a "right to believe". The essential point of liberty is that one may chart one's own path to the extent that it does not infringe upon anyone else's liberty. For me, personal religious beliefs fall firmly within this domain. You can think whatever you want without being accountable to anyone else except possibly God. Now, this calculation changes dramatically when you try to convince someone else. Once that happens, your reasons for belief are a legitimate target for anyone to attack/defend/criticize at will. This is not to say that we cannot have persuasive discourse or that we cannot attempt to engage the values of others. I do think that it means that we can say that "your reasons are good enough/not good enough for me" but not "your reasons are not good enough for you". While we can criticize the reasons, I don't believe that we can make a judgment about what is or should be persuasive to another. This is not because we cannot know what is right, but because it is a hegemonic discourse to be the definer of the terms of debate and a participant in it. Of course, it would be perfectly legitimate for individuals to agree upon terms, were they so inclined. Beyond this problem, I simply think that it's more effective in creating meaning to engage reasons than conclusions.

A related concern is best exemplified in Clifford's quotation. As he states that the shipowner "had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him", he implies that there can be such a thing as a dispassionate analysis of "evidence". The problems with this assumption abound. First, we can't agree on what constitutes evidence. How many "evidence points" does my belief in a specific personal revelation from the Spirit count for? How many points get docked for an argument's reification through socialization? Second, we can never separate ourselves from our position in evaluating evidence. We can and should try. But that doesn't change the fact that Clifford's shipowner is, in fact, a shipowner. There are very powerful incentives for him to think that his boat is safe. There are lots of incentives for D-Train, Mormon, Esquire to be right about Mormonism. Same for the Baptists, same for the communists, same for the neo-cons. This doesn't imply that people consciously exclude or include evidence based on their world view (although many do), but that people actually see the evidence differently. We can create intersubjective meaning in these cases, but we're limited to doing so with the understanding that individuals still will disagree and that evaluating "evidence" is not a perfect process.

I agree that we Mormons have a lot on the shelf. But so does everyone else. I can't think of anyone that has reached a transcendental harmony between all of their views, all of their actions, and their social relationships. These issues are often profound doubts about our faith. Sometimes these can be the cause of great discomfort. However, this discomfort only comes about as a result of the process of sincere inquiry that Watt and I agree to be essential to real, living faith. While there may be issues unique to Mormons on the table, the phenomenon of doubt and "shelf issues" is experienced by all. Indeed, it may be that the process of inquiry places items on the shelf intentionally in order to place effort elsewhere. I know I've done that. I've written about it here. I have some serious doubts about Mormonism, Christianity, theism, etc. Despite these, I perceive that my questions can be answered more effectively by doing other things than by worrying about those directly (at least some of the time).

So, at the end of the day, I can say that effort is the most important thing. I must also say that our ability to evaluate the evidence before us is highly subjective and depends on our roles, ascribed, earned, and imagined. Above all, I must assert our right as thinking beings to determine the evidentiary standards that will determine our own actions.

Protecting Who?

2006-02-19T19:53:00.000-06:00

I was at a family gathering today. A cousin I'm pretty close to got back from a mission, so we attended her ward and spent the afternoon at her family's house chatting and generally being social.

Her oldest brother is a bishop in his Utah ward, and at one point the conversation turned to who could be called to what sort of position -- according to "the Handbook," he said, either a man or a woman could be called to be Sunday School Pres (though I've never seen a woman as a SSP), only a man can be Elder's Quorum Pres (surprise, surprise), and only a woman can be Primary President. And, apparently, in his stake, only women can be Primary teachers -- a man can only be called to that position if he's team-teaching with his wife.

Why? Naturally, to protect the children from possible abuse. Oh, of course, and to protect the men from false abuse accusations. Ironically, much more time was spent discussing the latter point than the former.

This led to the question: what about the bishop? What steps do we take to make sure the bishop isn't falsely accused of doing things when he has one-on-one interviews behind closed doors with the young women and other women in the ward.

Does this sound strange to anyone? That this was the discussion, rather than asking what steps ought to be taken to make sure there's no real accusations?

Or, even better, discussing what got us to the state where concerns over liability issues are more important than preserving the confidentiality of the ecclesiastical confession?

The main suggestion was that there should be a second person in the room to bear witness to what happens: to make sure there are no false accusations (and, I assume, though it went unspoken at the time, to make sure there are no grounds for real ones). Who should that be? A second bishop, with keys to hear such confessions but no authority in the ward? The executive secretary, sitting just outside? If we only trust our Primary children with women, then how about a female bishop?

Needless to say, the final suggestion was only met with laughter.

As a woman, I'm offended at the idea that we mainly need someone to oversee these interviews to make sure there's no false accusations. As a woman already disinterested in discussing my eating and sexual habits with a strange man, I'm frankly displeased at being asked to do so with two strange men instead.

As an intellectual, I'm a little worried that we play into this game without considering the overall state of society that requires us to worry about liability over letting the kids have the best teachers they can.

As an intellectual Mormon woman, I'm a little worried if (note the if; my family is hardly ever representative of mainstream anything) our greatest concern is protecting the men from accusation rather than protecting the children/women from abuse.

And I'm curious what the rest of you think.

------------

*The grammar nazi inside of me is realizing that the title really should be "Protecting Whom?" but for the sake of not being anal, I refuse to change it. ;)

the Betterment of Souls

2006-02-16T10:40:00.000-06:00

Rusty left this comment on Flanders' VSOM "Ned's Wager" post:

"I'm not aware of any other set of teachings/beliefs that teach a person how to become a better person that is better than ours. The kind of person that I want to someday be is the kind of person that living the principles of the gospel will make me. "

This is a pretty common sentiment among believers, is it not? At very least it should be, because what good is it to hold "beliefs" that you don't "believe" in? Considering that the Gospel should/will change you, shouldn't that change be into something you desire? It seems obvious to me.

Yet, the above doesn't do me any good as a non-Mormon. It's more or less an empty phrase. (Rusty seems like a generally nice and decent person, so if any of this seems critical of him, it is only a reflection on my poor skills as a writer. Please don't let me be misunderstood!)

I can see two ways of interpreting Rusty's comment:

First Argument:

The teachings/beliefs of the LDS church can make me the best person I can be.
No other teachings/beliefs can do this.
I [should] want to be the best person I can be.
So, I should accept the teachings/beliefs of the LDS Church.

Second Argument:

There are many sets of teachings/beliefs that will make you a better person.
The teachings/beliefs of the LDS church are the best of these.
I [should] want to be the best person I can be.
So, I should accept the teachings/beliefs of the LDS Church.

I don't know which one Rusty intended or which one the majority of Church members agree with. I'm not even sure it entirely matters--the conclusion is the same--though I think the differences are important. Arg I claims that there is some sort of achievable limit to how "good" I can be and that the only way to reach it is to accept the t/b of the Church. Arg II doesn't necessarily claim a "limit," but implies that the t/b is the best, methodologically, of achieving the "goal."

I haven't thought through a lot of this (having been inspired by Rusty's comment just an hour ago) so I don't know what to make of it. I'll post later about why I think these are bad arguments from a non-member's perspective (though it should be semi-obvious why). But, for now, some questions. So pair off in groups of four and put your turn your desks so you're facing each other (just like elementary school!):

What are the important differences between the two arguments? Do the differences mean anything? Do/should the different approaches affect your outlook on the t/b of the Church? Do/should they affect how missionary work (primarily informal) is done? Are they good arguments? Is one gooder than the other?

Callin' Myself Up

2006-02-14T18:04:00.000-06:00

Well, you know, Valentine's Day. When you're alone, it lacks a certain gravitas. So, in honor of the day, I'm dedicating this song to all my single brothers and sisters out there. Courtesy of Mr. Tom Waits, "Better Off Without a Wife," including his introduction. Cheers.

"For all the bachelors out there tonight. Yeah, for anybody who’s ever whistled this song (plays the wedding march). Or maybe you’ve whistled it but you’ve lost the sheet music. Well, actually, I don’t mind going to weddings or anything. As long as it’s not my own, I show up.

But, eh... I’ve always kind of been partial to calling myself up on the phone and asking myself out. You know... (whoops from the audience). Oh yeah, you call yourself up too, huh? Yeah... Well, one thing about it, you’re always around! Yeah, I know.

Yeah, you ask yourself out, you know. Some class joint somewhere. The Burrito King or something. Well, I ain’t cheap, you know. Take yourself out for a couple of drinks maybe, you know. Then you’ll be... some provocative conversation on the way home. And park in front of the house, you know, and you... Oh yeah, you´re smooth with it... you know, you put a little nice music on. Maybe you put on like... you know... like shopping music, something that’s not too interruptive. And then, ... slide over real nice, you know, say, ’Oh, I think you have something in your eye’.

Well, maybe it’s not that romantic with you, but Christ, you know!

Take myself up to the porch, and take myself inside. Oh, maybe... I make a little something, a brandy snifter or something. 'Would you like to listen to some of my back records? I got something here...'

Well, usually about 2.30 in the morning you’ve ended up taking advantage of yourself and... there ain’t no way around that, you know. Yeah, making the scene with a magazine, there ain’t no way around... I’ll confess, you know, I’m no different, you know. I’m not weird about it or anything, I don’t tie myself up first! I just... you know. I just kind of... spend a little time with myself."

So this is kind of a little anthem here:

All my friends are married
Every Tom and Dick and Harry
You must be strong if you’re to go it alone
Here’s to the bachelors and the Bowery bums
Those who feel that they’re the ones
That are better off without a wife

Cause I like to sleep until the crack of noon
Midnight howlin’ at the moon
Goin’ out when I want to,
And I’m comin’ home when I please
Don’t have to ask permission
If I wanna go out fishin’
Never have to ask for the keys

I’ve never been no Valentino
But I had a girl who lived in Reno
Left me for a trumpet player
Well, it didn’t get me down
He was wanted for assault
And though he said it weren’t his fault
You know the coppers rode him right out of town

I’ll be sleeping until the crack of noon
Midnight howlin’ at the moon
And i’ll be goin’ out when I want to
Comin’ home when I please
Don’t have to ask permission
If I wanna go out fishin’
Never have to ask for the keys

Yeah, you see I’m kinda selfish about my privacy
Now as long as I can be with me
We get along so well I can’t even believe it
I love to chew the fat with folks
I’ll be listening to all your dirty jokes
I’m so thankful for these friends I do receive

I’ll be sleeping until the crack of noon
Midnight howlin’ at the moon
And I’ll be goin’ out when I want to
Comin’ home when I please
Don’t have to ask permission
If I wanna go out fishin’
Never have to ask for the keys, no

Hey, I got this girl I know, man, and I just... She’s been married several times and... I don’t wanna end up like her. I mean, she’s been married so many times she’s got rice-marks all over her face. Yeah, you know the kind...

The Manifesto Challenge

2006-02-14T00:06:00.000-06:00

Well, it's getting back around to the best time of the year: March.

Spring Training, soccer in the home stretch, and March Madness.

I'm thinking the Bloggernacle should have a Madness bracket contest. I'm thinking I'm willing to run it.

Post a quick comment here if you're interested in playing. I'll score the brackets, post results, all that jazz. I'd also love to do a women's contest if anyone is interested.

So, let me know.......

LDSelect

2006-02-08T23:29:00.000-06:00

Kaimi brings our attention to LDSelect, a Bloggernacle aggregator akin to Mormon Archipelago, but customizable.

Amusingly, UoM (our abbreviation of choice) has been shortened to UMan.

Which begs the question: is that like "You da man!", or more like Man U?

Inquiring minds really want to know...

Evil, or the Appearance Thereof

2006-02-08T00:05:00.000-06:00

Ronan has a fun post on Non-alcoholic beer over at BCC, and a comments thread that turns toward evil vs. the appearance of evil.

We're told to avoid the appearance of evil. I think it's even scriptoral.

A couple of commenters have shared stories about others being embarrassed or uptight about not drinking even non-alcoholic versions of beverages that usually contain alcohol -- because of the trace amounts, yes, but more importantly, because the appearance is evil.

Ronan suggests that the WoW is such a "very powerful, even defining symbol of our membership," and that's why we fret over maintaining it and appearing to maintain it so much.

And yet, I have to wonder: is drinking alcohol the most evil thing that we could be doing, that we're so circumspect in trying to avoid looking like we're doing it?

If it is, then I'm guilty of breaking that rule -- I refuse to drink any sort of root beer or ginger ale out of a can. I require a glass bottle. It tastes better that way. My Henry Weinhardt's or Capt'n Eli's root beer comes in brown; my Reed's ginger beer comes in a green that more-than-vaguely reminds one of a Heineken. And those drinks are strictly non-alcoholic.

When I went to parties in college, I'd carry along a bottle or two of my favorite appearance-of-evil drink so that I didn't look like a complete tool, avoiding drinking when everyone else was getting drunk. When we went to bars, I'd order a virgin something-or-other, and inevitably finish long before everyone else. I only bemoaned the fact that the only non-alcoholic thing you can order in a bar is beer or girly drinks; what I wouldn't have given for the appearance of hard liquor!

More seriously: it amuses (confuses?) me when people get so worked up over what we imbibe. Or worse, about what it looks like we're imbibing when we're actually in the clear.

Which leads to the question: why is it anyone else's business? The stories related in the comments of Ronan's post are not of the doer being embarrassed, but of someone else being embarrassed for them. It's another tool for judgment, is what it is. Another guilt factor to lay on the shoulders of those already trying to do their best as they strive, impossibly, to become even more perfect.

Within the social network of the Church, avoiding giving the appearance of evil can damage your reputation. Rumors such as "Oh, she spent a few hours alone at her boyfriend's apartment!" can perpetuate a rumor that both impinges on your reputation and contributes to the ward busy-bodies worrying about your salvation and situation instead of their own. Even if all you did was sit in separate chairs and watch the animated Book of Mormon movies. If that's all you did, then why worry about the appearance? How does it harm you if the busy-bodies think crazy things? Unless...unless!...the bishop will be more inclined to believe them than you when you answer "Yes, I keep the law of chastity" during that interview.

But that'd just be messed up.

So, help me out here: what's a more compelling circumstance for "avoiding the appearance of evil"? Is it avoiding holding a gun to someone's head without intending to shoot? Avoiding being in a car alone with a man who's not your husband? Avoiding spending the night at your boyfriend's house -- even if you sleep on the couch? Or is avoiding drinking beverages that look/smell/taste like beer but have no alcoholic content the be-all end-all?

Paul tells us we should do it. Is strengthening the faith of others in us, or serving as a pristine example, the best reason we have to do it? If so, I have to ask: what's in it for me?

What do you say?

2006-02-07T01:39:00.000-06:00

My somewhat nontraditional view of the Church and the gospel makes some things easier. I don't have to try to find tortured doctrinal justifications for rather large mistakes in our past. I don't have to worry that I'm going to hell if I disagree with Gordon B. Hinckley's view of appropriate media. And, I can justify myself in some degree of sin.

There is one thing that's a lot harder because of that view.

I'm always touched by stories such as this. It's tough to see people urgently trying to embrace the Church that I believe to be true and just being hurt by it. I can't understand this. Yeah, yeah, divine tests, time of probation, I know the standard answers. That doesn't make it easy to see or understand.

Now, if I were the standard Peter Priesthood, I'd have a nice, easy answer for people like Kiskilili. I could say "just keep coming to church and everything will be fine. It's all for your own good and as long as you never deviate from the path your leaders chart, you'll surely be saved in the celestial kingdom." Or, alternatively, I could say nothing and simply take satisfaction in towing the line, lamenting the souls that weren't tough enough. Most Peter and Molly types that I know would choose the first one while sincerely trying to understand the person in question.

The problem is, I don't think the Church is perfect. I think we have more truth than anyone else, but I also think we've got our share of "philosophies of men", cultural baggage, and human incompetence. Throw in my beliefs in progression between kingdoms and a more forgiving God than we generally assume and, well, it's tough for me to give the easy advice.

For me, the central point of the gospel is Jesus Christ and serving other people. If the Church is getting in the way of a meaningful relationship with Jesus Christ and is not helping one to serve, I'm not sure that I can ask anyone to stay.

Indeed, I can say with relative certainty that I would have no qualms with telling a good person that is experiencing a tortured time in the Church to step back for a while. I wouldn't necessarily see any irreversible spiritual consequences for someone that chooses to leave (the God that I know isn't going to pronounce a never-ending curse on someone that picked the wrong church). I think there are lots of Baptists, Methodists, Muslims, Catholics, Buddhists, et cetera that would be better off Mormon. I also can conceive of Mormons that would be better off temporally and, yes, spiritually, were they to choose one of those other options.

But I still wouldn't be satisfied. At the end of the day, I stay because I think it's right. If I ever think the Church isn't God's organization, rest assured, I'm out. And, most fundamentally, I would have a difficult time advising anyone to move further from the things that have helped me so much in my life. None of those other religions helped me to understand Christ or his atonement. While all may be well-intentioned, Mormonism provided me with what I needed and with a good bit of truth that I'd never had before.

So, you know, I couldn't ever tell a person to just up and leave. I also can't tell a person to just stay like nothing happened. All I can do is say that I've found a way (or pieces of a way) to allow the gospel to change my life. If it's possible for me, it's possible for you too.

At the end of the day, that still sounds too empty for me.

Young Single Adults...and Me

2006-02-05T00:01:00.000-06:00

I'm a bit of a hermit. I make no bones about it. My favorite way to spend a weekday is to go to work in the morning (well, if I could avoid it, I wouldn't, but that's neither here nor there), spend all day there, come home in the evening, hop online, and spend until the late hours of the night typing away on various chats/blogs/IMs and so forth.

On a weekend, I'll usually drive home to my parents' house for Sunday afternoon dinner, and stay until the late evening enjoying the company of my parents and my many siblings.

This is how people generally define "having no social life."

And you know what? I'm really quite okay with that. But it always startles me a little to realize that some people...well, they aren't. Folks have different ways of interacting (can you see it's been on my mind of late?), and for most young, single, Mormon people that involves spending weekend nights at each others' apartments or at various Singles Ward functions talking and laughing and getting to know each other and generally having fun.

Today, I went to the movies alone. I saw Nanny McPhee, which had Colin Firth (swoon!) and Emma Thompson (who I adore) and some delightful young child actors. And when I got out of the movie, I had a voicemail -- "Hey Arwyn," it was my Visiting Teaching companion's voice, "We've got a couple people coming over to watch a movie and have some ice cream -- come around seven, if you're interested."

Aside from having dinner a couple times with some old friends from high school (who are now married and/or have children), this is the first time I've been invited to something informal like this since I moved into the ward seven months ago. I was a little shocked, and not a little pleased -- I like the VT companion a good deal, and have thought that we might even become friends.

I arrived, stepped into the living room, and met VT companion's boyfriend, her roommate, and another friend. We made odd and slightly awkward conversation, then some other people showed up -- "This is Joe, and his sister Sarah. They're not dating. They're siblings," the roommate informed me. Apparently this was essential information.

"If they're siblings," I replied, "I sure hope they're not dating."

Well, at least I thought it was funny. The looks I received were odd, but...as they liked. Movie started. We watched Millions, a slightly odd, slightly sappy, very funny movie about a kid who sees saints and ends up with over two hundred thousand pounds (that English currency, not weight) of stolen money, which he is determined to give to the poor (including a trio of Mormon missionaries who, woe, have no microwave), and which his older brother is determined to invest in the housing market, or maybe stocks.

Well. Movie was cute. We laughed. We predicted. We mocked. Good show. And when the movie was over, apparently the night was just beginning -- there was more popcorn, there was ice cream, there were a number of other people who'd shown up in the middle of the show and were debating which games we should play now.

I got there at seven; it was now nine-thirty. All I could do was sit on the couch and think, "Why do I feel like if I stay here another minute, I'm going to puke?" These were nice people! They were having fun! They were people for crying out loud!

And then it hit me.

The only thing I had in common with these people is that we are all young, single, and Mormon. And as a young, single, Mormon, I'd been drawn into one of those settings where people -- often entirely unconsciously -- weigh each other and size each other up. Girls size up girls as some sort of competition; girls size up guys as potential mates. They were discussing cookie-attacking, or making dinner for the apartment of guys next door -- things that I know happen at BYU, but having never lived in that area -- having attended school where, if there was cooking for anyone, it was the guys cooking for the girls not to get them as dates or to marry, but because the guys really liked watching Emeril and wanted to practice their mad cooking skillz. Yes, we're nerds. But you know -- I'm okay with that.

I believe it wasn't conscious or intentional, but I was suddenly sitting in an environment not unlike that in high school when you're sitting in the same room as the "cool kids" but you know you're not a "cool kid" and don't really want to be a "cool kid" and you realize that you're trying you're hardest to make them like you, but...why?

So I muttered something about needing to get up early in the morning, and I left.

Actually, I ran. This may sound even more nerdy than Emeril, but I ran to my car, I sped home, I ran into my apartment, I shut the door, and I proceeded to call people who could assure me that I wasn't just being weird, but that it's okay to be a hermit and to be myself and to not want to sit around at that sort of a party.

And then my mother called, and when I told her about my evening's adventures, she only laughed. I said, "Mom, I'm so weird!" and she said, "No, I'm so proud! I didn't raise you to be programmed with the young single Mormon programming that requires you to be so focused on getting a husband that you forget to be yourself."

That's what had struck me wrong about the party -- not the event itself, and not even the people, who were very nice and kind, even if I felt like a three-headed monster sitting in the same room with normal human beings because I found their conversation completely uninteresting and their current life priorities had nothing to do with my own.

What struck me wrong was that I couldn't be myself there. Not and fit in. Not without leaving awkward pauses after jokes that they didn't quite get, or didn't think were funny. And this, because we had nothing in common, except that we were young, single, and Mormon.

And for me these days -- that's just not enough. That's not a game I'm wanting to play. So I'll sit at home with my computer, my boy on the other end of the line, my various online peeps. I'll go home and enjoy the company of my family on Sundays, or whatever other day of the week.

And the Singles Ward...I'll keep going to church itself, because I believe in the Gospel. But it won't ever, I think, be the basis of my social network. Or, really, much of a part of it. It's fine for other folks -- it does a lot of good -- but it's really just not for me.

The Easily Offended

2006-02-03T00:37:00.000-06:00

I interact in a number of online communities (and that number may actually be "3" or "4", but "a number" sounds cooler than "some"), and have since the tender young age of 14. My experience is, I think, growing more and more common" my primary interaction with people for two, three, four, up to ten hours of any given day during my formative teenage and young adult years was through the internet. Teenagers this day and age are spending more and more time online. As the internet grows, I can only imagine that this phenomenon -- in which we participate right now, fellow bloggers and blog-readers -- will continue to grow.

I attended a conference recently -- one of those "Let's grow our employees!" conferences full of motivating speakers -- and in a couple of the seminars I attended, the speakers emphasized that 80% of human communication takes place not through words, but body language. And that of the 20% left, something like 15% of that was communicated through tone of voice. This left approximately 5% of communication to pass through the words themselves.

I think this does not please me.

Why? Ultimately, because I communicate best through words. Ether complained of being mighty in speech but not mighty at all in writing; I've got the opposite affliction. Writing is my strong suite, and vocal communication...I can do it, mind, but not as well as I write. I think this may be a reflection on my many years of preference for online communication -- or perhaps the preference is a reflection of the strength.

Either way, when you communicate strictly through words, much of the emotion, the inflection, the humor, and the other non-verbal signs that help you communicate what exactly you're trying to get across are missing.

This opens the floodgate for miscommunication.

I was recently taken to task by a forum moderator for offending folks when I hadn't...okay. Maybe I did intend offense. But not much. Just a little. And maybe I intended it because the person with whom I was speaking was...well, she's easily offended. One of those folks who will happily take everything you say as meant in the most disparaging and mean-spirited way possible -- even if all you're saying is, "Gee, how 'bout them Mets?"

I struggle to deal with those people in real life. I'm not easily offended at all -- perhaps because I generally keep my nose in my own business -- and I find the notion of being offended by every little thing somewhat...silly.

In fact, for that matter, I find the notion of offense rather silly. What are people usually offended by? In Mormon culture, swearing should offend me. Does it? I don't find it pleasant -- I prefer if folks don't let off strings of "offensive" words at me -- but neither does it in any way harm me. What about insults? My pride may take a hit if someone insults my intelligence/looks/feelings/ideas, true -- but am I offended? Not as long as I've got the gusto to give back as good as I get.

No, I don't really see much of a purposes for offense. And in this day and age of completely written communication, in this time when it's all the easier to offend, I find the idea of being ready to take offense rather than tackle a problem or dismiss an insult to be entirely counter-productive.

In fact, I can only think of one thing that really, truly offends me: people who are easily offended.

Signs of the times

2006-02-01T22:51:00.000-06:00

In the book of Revelation, John sees a book with seven seals. In the fifth seal, he sees the Christian martyrs. In the sixth, he sees the restoration of the gospel, the sealing of the 144,000, and the hosts of the exalted from all nations.

And when Christ opens the seventh seal, he sees fire and desolation poured out to precede the Second Coming.

Our readers have witnessed some of that fire and desolation, and we have heard the wailing and the gnashing of teeth, and in response, are tweaking our style a little bit. Please use this thread to let us know if the design is even a little easier on the eyes as we try to improve things line upon line, precept upon...well...you know the drill.

There's a sign on the wall but she wants to be sure

2006-01-31T16:30:00.000-06:00

It is quite obvious to me that, if I am wrong about spiritual matters, then I am not going to be in Heaven. And since I doubt that there even is an afterlife (more or less), even if I am right, then I'm not going to be in Heaven anyway.

Obviously I'm okay with this and willing to take my chances. I didn't always feel this way. It wasn't ever a Big Issue for me, just one that sort of stayed in the background as a persistent "what if."

I'm glad I don't have to believe in an afterlife that separates the good from the evil. I'm highly sympathetic to those that find the proposition of Everlasting Punishment abhorrent. Especially if we're supposed to believe that God is Merciful. ["Mercy can't rob justice." Yeah...why exactly? Never understood this. Why is/should justice be the ultimate divine virtue?]

(And if "God" really is assigning people to Everlasting Punishment, I'm not sure that "God" deserves worship. He/It definitely doesn't need it.)

One of the things I like about the Church's doctrine is its de-emphasis on this harsh dichotomy. Instead of having "good / evil," the Church uses the three tiered "good / better / best." I like this, it makes more sense--but I'm not entirely sure it isn't just a trick of rhetoric. (I think it's clear that Traditional Christian Hell =/ Telestial Kingdom, but I don't think there's enough revealed evidence to say much more than that. Plenty of speculation, though.)

But still, at best, I'm getting into the terrestrial kingdom after doing some repentance in Hell (or Spirit Prison). Hopefully all your righteous people out there will be kickin' it in the Celestial Kingdom. I wish you the best.

I'm not trying to be tongue-in-cheek here (it might sound that way from above). So here's my question: why don't you (singular and/or plural) believe in an egalitarian afterlife? Or: why (hypothetically) shouldn't there be an egalitarian afterlife?

Major Scoop!

2006-01-30T12:22:00.000-06:00

We here at UoM are willing to spare no effort to please the Bloggernacle. In order to get a partial agenda for April's General Conference, we roughed up a doorman, impersonated the corpse of Leonard Arrington, and distracted the Strengthening the Members Committee with a delicious slice of heresy.

Without further ado, your prophetic counsel for the New Year!

Jeffrey R. Holland: "Just Lose The Weight"

Thomas Monson: "Books Were Written. Knowledge Was Shared. Intellectuals Were Excommunicated."

Bonnie Parkin: "No Man Knows My Family History"

Dieter Uchtdorf: "Obedience: The First Law of the Reich of Heaven"

Henry B. Eyring: "Science and Religion Reconciled: A Literal Interpretation of the Book of Genesis"

Boyd K. Packer: "For Young Men Only: Nocturnal Emissions and Salvation"

James Faust: "Did I Ever Tell You About My Last Name?"

Richard Scott: "I Cut So That I Can Feel"

M. Russell Ballard: "Really, I Meant It. No More Travelogues."

Gordon B. Hinckley: "Even I've Given Up On This War"

Guest Post: A Prayer Answered

2006-01-23T21:23:00.000-06:00

(Guest post by Susan M)

You know how when you want something really badly, your prayers about it can turn into a desperate sort of pleading? Please, please, please, just let this one thing happen, because then maybe everything else will fall into place, and everything will be alright. Please.

For me it was, Please, please, please just let my husband come to church this Sunday. Because then maybe everything else will fall into place, and everything will be alright. Please. I don't expect a miracle, just let him come this week.

When I started dating my husband, I was a non-member, and he was preparing to go on a mission. Because I'd known him as a teenager in high school, and how wild he was, it made a big impact on me when he started talking about religion and God and how he'd changed. He ended up baptizing me about six weeks before we got married. He didn't go on a mission.

We were really young (18/19) and didn't know what we were doing, but we've never regretted it. We had kids right away. We both struggled with going to church regularly--we were working long hours, we moved around a lot, neither of us were good at establishing a routine of going. But we eventually settled in an inner-city ghetto neighborhood, and started going to church regularly. We were sealed in the temple about two years after being married civilly.

It was Daniel's experience in the temple that made him go inactive. I'm not sure why, but he got a very bad feeling in the temple. I can say that he was taking some medication at the time for ADHD that completely changed his personality and created some big emotional problems for him. It took us a long time to figure out it was the medication that was causing that, but that's a whole other post. Suffice it to say he had a bad experience in the temple, and he figured that if the church was true, then it must mean that Christ was rejecting him. And he stopped going to church. For six or seven years.

I kept going, on my own, with one, then two, and later three, small children. It was during that time that my testimony grew by leaps and bounds. Having to rely only on myself and my own testimony really strengthened it in a big way. I had all kinds of spiritual experiences, including the one I'm about to relate.

As I said, I used to pray that Daniel would come to church...just once. I guess I couldn't really see beyond that. Maybe I figured if he just came once, he'd start coming again and again. And I probably thought it wasn't too much ask for, so maybe it'd be granted.

At the time, I was running an email list for Latter-Day Saints with inactive or non-member loved ones called Sanctify. I took the name for the email list from 1 Cor 7:14, which says:

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife,
and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband:
else were your children unclean;
but now are they holy.

Someone on the email list posted a quote one day, I can't remember who it was by, but I'm pretty sure it was either a General Authority or a member of the General Relief Society presidency. Whoever it was by, the quote said if you had a righteous desire, you should pray for it, and give the Lord a deadline.

I'd never considered such a thing before. But I knew if anything, my desire for my husband to return to church was a righteous one. And I was feeling the pressure of time--our oldest was six months away from being eight years old, and I wanted him to be able to have his dad baptize him, if that's what he wanted.

I realized that the way I'd been praying about it before had not been exercising faith. My nightly nagging and pleading had actually been a demonstration of LACK of faith. So I decided to try it. I laid the situation all out for Heavenly Father, but I kept it simple. After telling Him all that was going on, I just said that if it was His will, I wanted Daniel to be able to baptize our son when he turned eight. I knew that that would entail a whole lot of different things happening--not just Daniel coming to church the next Sunday. Daniel would have to give up cigarettes and coffee, among other things. I told Him I wasn't going to pray about it again--it was in His hands. I wasn't going to worry about it anymore. And if it didn't happen, I'd live with that. I truly accepted that if it was at all possible, it'd happen, and if not, that was ok.

Every night as I was going to sleep, when I'd be praying silently in my head, I'd have to catch myself from falling back into the habit of asking for Daniel to come to church that Sunday. It was that deeply ingrained. Instead I'd find myself saying to Heavenly Father, "My habit is to ask for that, but I said I wouldn't, and I'm not going to, it's in Your hands." And I moved on.

I didn't say anything to Daniel about my prayer, not even when he came home from work a couple weeks later and told me he wanted to start going to church again. He also told me that he'd stopped smoking--a couple weeks prior. It took him longer to give up coffee--probably a couple months.

When it came time for our son to be baptized, he was able to do it. (Our son ended up asking his uncle to dunk him, and his dad to confirm him.)

I've experienced some miracles, some direct revelation from God. I've had many prayers answered. But I can't think of any experience I've had that was so obviously an answer to prayer--that couldn't be written off by a skeptic as just my imagination.

I know now what it means to pray with faith. It requires full purpose of heart. It requires being willing to accept whatever happens. That old phrase "Let go, and let God" is dead on.

Recently my husband's father asked him about when he quit smoking. Daniel replied that he used to enjoy it--having a cigarette was pleasurable to him. It felt good. Then one day, he lit one up, and it tasted bad. It didn't feel good. He never smoked again.

And he's been actively living the gospel ever since.

An old woman agrees with me

2006-01-22T23:18:00.000-06:00

Molly Ivins makes some interesting points on CNN.

Actual posts tomorrow, but these are interesting thoughts. I've always wanted to play hardball with the Red Army, and now a reasonable old lady thinks so too. Tomorrow, the world......

Not a man's world

2006-01-22T00:36:00.000-06:00

These Sooners were made for walking......

And they're gonna walk all over you.

I heart Hellmut

2006-01-18T15:22:00.000-06:00

I hate to define an argument in terms of a single guy (except, of course, for the "Pete Morelli Memorial 'Act Common to the Game of Football" Explanation For Why I Can't Handle an Indy Loss"). But I see Hellmut Lotz making this argument around the bloggernacle a lot lately and I just thought I'd offer my view on it. I actually think his point is something that we have to consider. Too often, we see the family as the be-all, end-all of society, which is a bit misleading.

Quoting Hellmut from a recent BCC thread:

"Confusing self-interest for altruism it is not surprising that the Proclamation would lead to these problems. Parenting is selfless in a metabolic sense. We have less when we take care of our children. In a genetic sense, however, parenting is a self-interested activity.

By contrast, in the Sermon of the Mount the savior teaches that we are no better than the heathens if we only love our own. The standard for the Lord’s people is to love their enemies (Matthew 7, Leviticus 3).

If we had stuck to the words of the Savior then we would have been spared the entanglement in hateful and vain struggles against vulnerable minorities under the banner of family values.

The familiy values agenda is a selfish agenda. Its fruits reflect that. "

I both agree and disagree with his position. First, the reasons/areas in which I agree:

1) I don't like the "we like the family, so the Church is true" or "we are the only ones defending the traditional family" claims. There are tons of people, especially in the religious world, that defend the family as staunchly as does the Church.

2) A corollary of number one, the family is important to most people. While I cannot speak in an informed way about non-Western contexts, the family is hugely important in the West almost regardless of denomination/religious preference. There might be more divorces and other negative developments in Western societies, but most people still love their kids. Hellmut is right to argue that loving our children is not a specific reason to single the Church out for praise.

3) In a political sense, the "family values" and "individual responsibility" arguments tend to undercut a need for social conscience. This does not have to be true, but the rhetoric has been blended in ways that are uncomfortable to me.

However, there are lots of compelling reasons that I stop well short of where Hellmut ends up:

1) It is theoretically possible for family values and social responsibility to trade off. However, I don't think it can be demonstrated that this is a necessary relationship. For example, Church members both support their families and pay tithing and fast offerings. While these funds mostly stay within the Church, they do demonstrate loyalty to a unit outside of the family.

2) Rephrasing number one, it is not clear that less emphasis on the family would immediately lead to a greater social conscience. It might, but it also might lead to a society in which we don't even love those that ought to love us.

3) I think this argument conflates the "family values agenda" (which I reject above) and emphasis on the family. The family values agenda doesn't have to be supported by those that take a broad view of their responsibilities to their families. You can still vote Democrat and take care of your kids.

4) Self-interest is not necessarily a bad thing if it leads to good ends. I promise, I'm not having an affair with Ayn Rand. What I am saying, though, is similar to what another commenter noted on the BCC thread: if taking care of your kids is selfish, then the term "selfish" loses all meaning. Even if it is selfish to take care of your family, kids are still being fed, sent to college, loved, etc.

5) As a pretty liberal guy, I agree that the family values agenda is harmful in tons of ways. But what's the alternative? If I want to fashion an alternative, I've got to work within the confines of possibility. Right or wrong (and I think right), Americans are at least conceptually wedded to the idea of "family values" and, more generally, on the importance of some sort of family relationship. I believe it better to dial down Hellmut's rhetoric a bit and say "hey, I support the family too. But we need to look beyond the family to see that there are some societal needs that the family, no matter how perfect, simply cannot meet." This is especially true in circumstances where someone does not have a family at all.

Hellmut, I hope I don't come across as picking on you (especially given the fact that I agree with a lot of what you're saying). What I do wonder is whether the family rhetoric in the Church is actually causing tradeoffs in our interests that might be harmful, especially where women are concerned.

Backbroken Mormons

2006-01-11T12:40:00.000-06:00

Whoa...slow down there, hoss. I'm a bit confused about something you said back there a little ways. No, no...I get that--I understand the words that you're saying. And When you put them together that way, well, I think I understand what yer tryin to say. But, ya see, that's where you lose me. So lemme get this straight: comparing Mormons to West Virginia racists is wrong.

Okay, yeah. I agree with ya. Denigrating an entire, relatively diverse group--be they "Mormons" or "West Virginians" or even "Hollywood"--based solely on the actions of a few is wrong and a project for the simple-minded.

But now--and correct me if I'm wrong here--I think we agree for different reasons. Let me explain my objection here by going back to what amounts to: "Mormons are no better than West Virginia Racists."

Now this won't take that long, and it's actually pretty easy to follow along with: On the right side of the equation we have "West Virginia Racists"--a subgroup ("racists") of a larger group ("West Virginians"). On the left side, we don't have the subgroup, leaving only the larger group ("Mormons"). It's an unequal equation and a poor analogy. A better one would be "Homophobic Mormons are no better than West Virginian racists."

See, that's my objection. Now this is where I'm confused: what's your objection? 'Cause it appear to me that you just hate gay people.

But that can't be right, can it? It just makes no sense. Why would anybody hate another human for being gay? I mean, that's about as intolerant, ignorant, abhorrent and just plain stupid as hating someone just because they're from a different race.

Homophobes--Mormon or otherwise--are no better than racists from anywhere.

"Jesus, help me find my proper place."

2006-01-09T22:39:00.000-06:00

Some questions I've been thinking a lot about recently that I think tie in with D-Train last post and Ned's LDSLF piece. I don't know what to say about them, except that for me, personally, my relationship with the Church (and its teachings) depend a lot on the answers. I don't know the answers, though, but I have feelings that lean in certain directions. Perhaps I'll expand on these later. At very least, it is something to think about.

1) Is the perfect implementation of Jesus' teachings beneficial to the individual?

1b) Is the perfect implementation of Jesus' teaching possible? Probable?

2) Does the non-perfect implementation of Jesus' teachings bring more benefits than disadvantages to the individual?

3) Is the perfect implementation of Jesus' teachings beneficial to society?

4) Does the non-perfect implementation of Jesus' teachings bring more benefits than disadvantages to society?

[The above assumes that Jesus' teachings are what the Church teaches.]

My leanings, in order: yes, possible but rare, sometimes, probably, no.

It's the last one that kills me.

You don't have to roll like that

2006-01-07T02:54:00.000-06:00

At times, I'm far more critical of the Church than I should be. Part of this lies in the fact that it's harder to agree insightfully and still add something than to disagree insightfully, since disagreement with the party line provides easier access to questions.

So let's put a few things on the table. I have serious questions about scriptural historicity. I believe the Book of Genesis and much of the Old Testament to be Jewish mythology. Given that, the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham, in my mind, are at least largely allegorical or ahistorical in nature, whether provided by revelation or not. I am open to the possibility that the Book of Mormon is not a historical document, although I see no compelling evidence one way or the other and don't have any of my testimony riding on it. I also don't think the Church can provide one tenth of one percent of what we need to know about salvation and the next life.

That said, I'm troubled by a lot of the negativity that I and others often show. I was prompted to consider this by this excellent post at LDSLF by Ned Flanders. As usual, Ned is open about his feelings and gives everyone that engages him fairly a good hearing. I must, however, disagree about the "baggage" that Ned and many others on that thread see in the contemporary Church and in Christianity as a whole.

It's true that there were probably some sexual shenanigans in the early Church that shouldn't have been going on. It's true that people of faith have been remiss in treating others with the respect that Christ demands. It's true that we make historical claims that can't often be substantiated.

It's also true that we offer things as a Church that enhance anything good that a member or investigator can bring to the table. We emphasize personal revelation in a way unsurpassed by any. Indeed, RT and Serenity Valley's podcast on the First Vision notes the most important aspect of Joseph's vision: he had a question and God gave him an honest to goodness answer. We don't get visions or even answers all the time, but I do believe that anyone that urgently seeks God can find his hand, whether in the scriptures or in the warm feeling that you get when you do right and know you've done so. The message of the gospel is a message of forgiveness, love, and hope. For me, the most important thing I've learned in the Church is this: that no matter what you do, God is a good guy that cares and he wants you to succeed. I've had tons of trouble lately finding that hope, but I know that it's there and I wouldn't trade it for anything. I also know that God wants you to work out your salvation with fear and trembling with him. I know that you only need the institutional church insofar as it helps you do that and that regardless of the imperfections of the Church, there is a role to be played there. The prophets and apostles are there to help you get the guidance you need in your own life, not to be pointlessly obeyed. They teach us as best as they can with the help of God and it's up to us to get further/different answers for ourselves if we feel we need them.

God doesn't hate you for asking questions or screwing up. He knows you as you are and as you can be. Don't let anybody that teaches you different get you down.

You do not have to insist on unquestioning obedience to leaders to be a faithful Mormon. You can have different views about Book of Mormon historicity. You can define Sabbath observance in different ways according to your circumstances and conscience. You can even insist that PEC meeting is not a conference call with the Lord.

Are there people that disagree and judge anything that moves without a tie on? Of course there are, but the judgmentalism, closed-mindedness, and intolerance of the stereotypical Church member are found in all walks of life. Basically, these things can come along with any firm convictions. It's up to individuals to try and resist them. Don't let them define your view of a faith.

Jesus is the Christ and his life and teachings can serve as an example to any who choose to follow. He honors the best efforts of all of his children to live according to their conscience and best inclinations. Joseph Smith did serve as an instrument in his hands to move his work forward. While our understanding of his role is not complete, the faith that he founded can serve as a foundation for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The authority of the priesthood has been restored and can serve as vital assistance in our journey.

I just wanted to put something positive, honest, and relevant up today (in contrast to the usual fare provided by yours truly). I hope it doesn't come across as a sermon, since it's mostly directed at the mirror.

The King Is Dead, Long Live the King!

2006-01-06T12:43:00.000-06:00

Yay, (possible) infighting and politics! Who's up for another scandal!

I, for one, am fascinated by group dynamics: how things shift and change, how power is gained and lost, bought and sold, how influences are traded and passed on, how the leaders govern and the followers follow, how dissent is coddled or squashed, by the overt actions and the secret moves...

Utterly fascinating. (One of the reasons I like reading about the Church.)

But really, w/r/t the above link, I'm suprised it took so long. During the bannergate fall-out, Geoff J and Adam Greenwood had an "exchange" about this very topic. Alas, I cannot find the post (it might be this one, but I don't see it--if you know what I'm talking about, leave comment with the link, please). It was one of the only times I've complete disagreed with Geoff J. Good political stuff, involving questions of "social responsibility" and things like that. At the time I was going to post on it, but I was (am) lazy.

And again, about a month ago, when the MA switched around the boxes and some blogs got "promoted" and some got "demoted" and yadda yadda yadda...the social responsibility/group dynamics are interesting. I mean: as bloggers, what is our social responsibility to culture at large, and the bloggernacle in specific? Is there any? The MA seems to think there is.

The reason I'm posting this here is so I can add my comment, which would have to be edited to be posted elsewhere:

The Mormon Archipelago founding committee has come to the decision, over a period of months, that to have top-box status at ldsblogs.org a blog ought to display the MA logo above the fold. This seemed to us to be a fair reciprocation of the exposure that ldsblogs.org provides to the Bloggernacle. We understand that Times and Seasons are currently unwilling to do that.

Personally, I think this is a lame excuse (or "bullshit" in the Elwood Blues sense). I mean, if the MA truly believed the above, right or wrong, they should have the balls to complete remove T&S from the MA, instead of being demoted. It's like leaving a 10% tip. (And it's a pretty weak attempt at blackmail, as Jim F. pointed out.) It makes the "MA committee" look kinda foolish. Just sayin'.

Wow

2006-01-04T23:26:00.000-06:00

my word that was a fun game to watch.

Never take back the red and yellow

2006-01-04T15:59:00.000-06:00

My apologies for some Blogger-related downtime. More content soon.

Does Ariel Sharon's stroke remind anyone of the greatest wrestling plot ever? Sharon is basically Hollywood Hogan forever and as soon as he puts on the red and yellow, he goes and has a stroke.

Seriously, I don't fully buy the fact or extent of Sharon's conversion to the peace process, but I do see the upcoming elections as a decent chance for a real change in Israeli politics. Here's hoping for a recovery for Sharon or at least for some kind of outcome that preserves a workable Kadima to contest the elections.

In other news, get yourself on over to Latter-Day Liberation Front and listen to the inagural podcast from RoastedTomatoes and Serenity Valley. I haven't listened to the other bloggernacle podcasts at all, but this one is fantastic and well worth your while. If Sunday School could only be so good.......

Seriously, I can't recommend it strongly enough. I can only hope that the project will move forward effectively and produce frequent edification and enjoyment.

Guest post - Agency vs. Choice

2006-01-03T11:26:00.000-06:00

The following was submitted by LagerJager, occasional commenter and proud owner of De Rerum Natura. He decided to start this little blog just before the holidays. Now that he's returned from his travels, I expect him to begin posting in earnest. He's a bright lad with an interest in classics and a major to prove it. Another of my gaggle of former roommates, expect insightful and occasionally insulting thoughts from him. We've linked him on the sidebar, so just run on over there from time to time.

The Greek philosopher Epictetus wrotethat we are in control of only three things: Our mind, the thoughts that spring forth from our mind, and the actions we take as a result of those thoughts. This basic understanding of agency was impressive for the time. We speak a lot about agency in the church, but I was always bothered by one statement. The idea that by giving up our will to God that we gain agency seems counterintuitive and silly. The thought of it always reminded me of a conversation I had with Mike. We were in the grocerystore and Mike saw a box of veggie burgers which discussed how once you give up meat you will realize that you have even more food choices than before.

A few months ago I got to thinking about this. Agency is not just free will, but enlightened free will. More knowledge means more agency, all other things being equal. But all other things aren't equal, because my choices become fewer. It is important to recognize that the meaningful choices we make in life are those that relate to our obedience to God's will. I think that that includes nearly all choices. With the knowledge that I have now, it is often difficult to tell whether my actions coincide with God's will. As I gain in knowledge, the decisions will become easier because my understanding of morality and the increased presence of the Spirit give me aid. At the point where someone gained a perfect knowledge they would onlyhave two choices. Perfect obedience to the will of God, or anything less. So it is true. We do gain agency because we gain knowledge of the consequences of our actions.However, we do lose choice. Both in the sense of losing some of the gray areas between what is and is not the will of God, and also in the purely sociological sense of free will. We have just as much "choice" as we always had, but our understanding of the consequences, be they social, spiritual, or something else, cause us to be less likelyto transgress, thereby eliminating most real choice.

There's only one......

2005-12-30T10:45:00.000-06:00

There's only one Rufus Alexander.

There's only one Dusty Dvoracek.

There's only one Adrian Peterson.

There's only one Rhett Bomar.

There's only one J.D. Runnels.

There's only one Davin Joseph.

There's only one Bob Stoops.

There's only one.....

There's only one.....

There's only one.....

Oklahoma.

But do we worship him?

2005-12-23T19:10:00.000-06:00

I suppose it is my turn to post?

I came home to change so I could go to the Joseph Smith broadcast at the Stake center. It was just late enough that I thought I might be late getting there. That sealed the deal for watching it via the internet- which I am doing right now. I don't have to change- that's a plus. I don't have to talk to or see other people- both a plus and minus. (I should be more social.)

One additional benefit is that I can do other things while watching the broadcast. Cleaning my room, (probably won't happen) blogging, (clearly has) and eating some food.

While driving home I thought "I need to hurry and change to get to the Christmas broadcast thing" then remembered we already had the Christmas broadcast and thought it kind of strange that we had the Christmas broadcast as kind of a regular Sunday fireside- but Joseph gets a special devotional on his actual birthday.

So, to somewhat link to D-Train's post, is there some truth to claims of people like Decker? Certainly I believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet. But, do we revere him to a point that it interferes with a focus on Christ? Do we focus more on the fact that we have the true messenger than on what the message is?

President Packer offered the opening prayer. It seemed almost a history lesson/sermon on Joseph Smith as much as a prayer. But, it started with thanks that we could be gathered on this sacred occasion. I thought "sacred?" It kind of made me wonder where we fall, and why we are surprised when people think we worship the prophet Joseph.

Buddhists of most stripes reverence towards the Buddha certainly seems to be definable as worship. Many people mistakenly believe that Muslims worship Mohammed - but I suppose depending on the definition of worship many/all of them do. When we hear something along the lines of "There is one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." many of us define that as worshipful.

Because really, what is worship? Do we revere the prophet? Certainly. But where is the line?
So, in some measure, do we worship the prophet Joseph Smith? I don't know that we can define it as worship- but should we really be so prickly in being defensive or offended when people assume that we do?

Even the anti-Christians love Joseph Smith

2005-12-22T01:31:00.000-06:00

Yeah, see, I don't know what to make of this.

Probably the roughest refutation of Ed Decker's "work" that I've ever seen. Made me want to stand and applaud......kind of......

Much of this page is laughably slanderous and takes even more out of context than Ed Decker ("Reverend Ed" according to the site) himself. Still, I couldn't help but be amazed at this.

Human Chess

2005-12-21T23:06:00.000-06:00

This is a serious subject that is handled in a somewhat flippant way. That's how I roll.

I don't really have much spiritual motivation anymore. Not that I'm fornicating or considering going anti, but I'm just not that interested in becoming a better person. I'm pretty content where I am. Since I'm probably not the best person I know, this is a problem. So I'm not really moving forward, not moving back much, but just staying where I am.

The problem with this is that I can't think of a decent tool to use to get back to the spiritual progression that I used to find for myself. So, I'm rating the power of the tools at my disposal as chess pieces. A pawn can do little, while a queen is the King.

CHURCH - I'm not excited by church anymore. I really used to be. Going to church was really great for me for a year and a half or so. There hasn't been a talk in, say, my last ten visits that I haven't heard three times. There have only been a couple of testimonies that touched me, but these were buried under an avalanche of debacles, travelogues, and denunciations of past boyfriends. I haven't been to Sunday School in an impressively long time. Priesthood is just awful and I don't go to that a lot either. I did a very good thing as a home teacher about four months ago, but that incident left me so burned out on home teaching that I just don't do it any more (I would mention that experience, but since we do have a few readers and who knows how many lurkers, I don't want to say anything about it. It was a bad, bad deal.) Even that didn't make me think "man, home teaching is important". It made me think "we really suck as a people to need these sorts of services from home teachers". Maybe not a noble opinion, but it's where I am. Church gets a pawn for now.

HOPE FOR EXALTATION - On and off. As my "Shame" post indicated, I'm not sure I even want the Church to be true. I know it is, but I don't really want it to be. I'd be cool with seventy years of PlayStation, sports, and enough work to make a living and then an eternal residence in the dirt. Sometimes, I really do want to be like Christ, but the desire just isn't enough. Ironically, when I'm most hopeful, I'm most convinced that the celestial standard is a few inches higher than I can jump. This one still has some appeal for me, so we'll go with a knight.

FAITH IN TRUTH: Same concerns as exaltation. The gospel is true, but it may not be true in a way that does anything for me. Just a pawn.

PRAYER: I just don't want to any more. From time to time, I have really good prayers. Mostly, I just don't want to talk to God. I don't feel that I have anything to say. Even worse, I don't think he has a lot to say to me. Sometimes, this is a somewhat reassuring "what more can he say than to you he hath said" feeling. Other times, it's just "well, do as you wish". For some reason, this seems like more work than it's worth a lot. I haven't stopped praying in my heart, but I don't do it for real as much as I should. Still a bishop, but should be a lot more.

SCRIPTURE STUDY: Indifferent. This can be good on occasion, but mostly I just do it for the sake of doing it. When I do it, it's out of a sense of obligation and being done is a relief. Not the best atmosphere for spiritual growth, I don't think. Pawn.

That's about it. Except for the one thing I have that's worth thinking about.....

PRIDE: Well, I have no shortage of this. I react negatively to potential infringements upon my pride. Actual infringements meet the sharpest rebuke. Pride makes me a better athlete, a better scholar, a better PlayStation performer, a better everything. It also makes me bitter, mean, and unwilling to accept anything that isn't made by mine own hands. I can't really think of how to mobilize my pride on my behalf. Mostly, my pride is presently good only for taking care of itself. The worst of that is that I can think of no way to get rid of it and have no desire to do so. But, this one's the queen. It's the one thing I have that I think is powerful enough to make a real impact.

So, I guess all I have in the way of solicitation of advice is on the pride front. How can I mobilize my pride and make it work for me? As it is, I mostly work for my pride and accept the crumbs (well, small meals) that it throws me.

Spies among us

2005-12-17T21:54:00.000-06:00

Even if you want to believe in the president, I simply can't see that he cares one little bit about civil liberties.

The latest issue is, of course, the president's admission that he has authorized domestic spying without a warrant. Do we really live in a world where the Patriot Act just isn't enough? This is even more astonishing given the following:

1) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court hearings are classified events;

2) If the government deems a matter an emergency, it can spy for seventy two hours without any warrant at all as long as it notifies a FISA court at the end of the seventy two hours;

3) You can already act without a warrant if you have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed or is imminent; and

4) Any terrorist worth his salt assumes he's being watched anyway.

In fine G-Dub style, the president accuses the New York Times of jeopardizing American security. This despite the Times' failure to reveal details of any ongoing investigation or operation. Again, this administration has taken the public position that a debate of administration actions in the war on terror is unpatriotic and damages the war. The president promises to keep doing this as long as we face a threat from "al-Qaeda or related groups".

I've never been a big fan of G-Dub's "foreign policy" or his crusade against evil. That said, this is just the last straw for me. I've always wanted to believe that he's just a guy making honest mistakes, that his mistakes come from flawed assumptions and not from ill intent, and that he's a good man that's trying to work within the system to deal with an issue that he just does not understand.

Well, no. In this instance, the president has chosen to ignore civil liberties indefinitely, to go beyond the Act that he defends as essential to our liberty, and to spit on anyone who chooses to ask him what he's doing or why he's doing it. Not only that, he's continuing to lie about it by telling us that all of these acts were done within the law.

I declare my complete loss of respect for anyone that honestly thinks this man cares two figs for civil liberties, due process, or any constitutional right other than his own position as Commander in Chief. It may well be that he's right that these actions are necessary to our protection. I emphatically deny this, but recognize that it is a legitimate argument to make.

But don't lie so boldly and so openly. Don't tell me that you care about civil liberties when you're willing to authorize these actions with absolutely no regard for the law, especially after you've shoehorned a law through Congress that gives you unprecedented power to act legally. At least admit the obvious: there is no case in which you, George W. Bush, will choose civil liberties when they conflict with your agenda in the war on terrorism.

That might even be a defensible position. Bush's claim that he's interested in protecting the Constitution is not.

Adlai Stevenson once said of Richard Nixon that he's the sort of man that would cut down a tree, mount the stump, and give a speech for conservation.

I only have one thing to say about that: at least Nixon did a thing or two right.

It's dangerous to let the people think

2005-12-16T17:45:00.000-06:00

Real post tomorrow. Angry disbelief today.

Courtesy of ESPN.com, the reason why I hate sports fans:

"I would like to see JOHAN SANTANA TRADED TO THE CARDINALS FOR ALBERT PUJOLS. I think Pujols is the most overrated player in the history of baseball. I live in St. Louis and I watch Pujols choke more in clutch situations than any other player on the team. I want the Cardinals to get rid of his salary and start to play some other bum in his position! What are the chances of this trade going through???"

Hmmm. What are the chances, huh? What's zero times 1 billion equal?

That would be the chances.

"You might want to ask Brad Lidge whether Pujols ever comes through in the clutch," suggested one of our trained professionals, helpfully.

We're not going to identify the reader who sent us this deal, in order to allow him to lead a healthy and happy life for many more years. But when one ESPN.com employee noticed this e-mail address ended in "midwestbankcentre.com," his observation was: "Albert Pujols must have taken all his money out of that bank, don't you think?"

The Blame Game

2005-12-13T19:06:00.001-06:00

Or, why Mormons and other obsessive people demand perfection from themselves.

In this shameful post, my distinguished (and far more prolific) co-blogger D-Train brings up as a Mormon belief that troubles him the idea that we can never be responsible for our own salvation. Ultimately, in the end, we're not capable. We need Christ. We need to admit to ourselves that we need Christ.

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls," says the Master himself in the eleventh chapter of Matthew. "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

These scriptures are emphasized in Mormon theology, right up there with 2 Nephi 25:23, in which Nephi explains, "for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."

After all we can do.

I'm a perfectionist. I don't exclude myself from the species of individual who feels that she must do everything right and perfectly, and somewhere deep inside is scared that she'll somehow miss something, will skip a step or let down her guard one time too many, and will not actually do all she can do. And it's a downward spiral: someone with this outlook will see that she's faltering and then blame herself for not doing all she can do, and will try harder, but by expending more energy in futile pursuits of perfection, will only make more mistakes.

Is it that we feel that we can't take up Christ's lighter burden until we've done all we can do? If so, we'll never get there. Just when you walk halfway across the bridge, then walk halfway across the remaining distance, then half of that remaining distance, and so on, you'll never reach the other side...the same way, we'll never achieve perfection in this life, despite our best efforts. It's just not human.

Now, some of us have a hard time buying that. We're the ones who like to think we can do everything and anything, that nothing is impossible, and that no matter what someone demands or asks of us, we've got the strength/energy/ability to do it -- or, if not, then to learn how to do it, or to figure it out. Sometimes this belief is all that gets us out of bed in the mornings, but it's also what sends us crashing past midnight and getting up before the sun.

The reality of this is brought home as I try to write the perfect law school admissions essay. My goal? The "Celestial Kingdom" of law schools. My struggle? To write a perfect essay that conveys exactly what I want it to say and exactly what it needs to say for me to gain admission. I've spent a couple weeks hammering perfection of prose into one -- and now I can only look at it, disgusted, as it doesn't say half of what it needs to.

Unfortunately, there's no savior who I can give everything over to after I've done my best and be assured of entrance.

This post should end with something like a statement of testimony wherein I say how grateful I am for the atoning sacrifice that allows me to be imperfect and yet still return to live with my Heavenly Father someday.

And I am. Don't get me wrong.

But the reality of that has yet to really sink in for me, and in the end, I'm still trying to cross that never-ending bridge into perfection. And I wish I could be more laid back, and accept Christ's lighter burden, and stop worrying about how close I am or how far away or how much better I need to be.

Maybe someday.

As if CU sports needed another problem

2005-12-12T16:06:00.000-06:00

Right. So this girl from the cross country team emails this guy from the cross country team calling him horribly racist names and...well, read for yourself:

In the e-mail, the author threatened to "come find you and drag you behind my (expletive) car," a supposed reference to a 1998 incident in which a black man was dragged to his death by three white men in Jasper, Texas. (Rocky Mountain News, follow the link for more)

Girl leaves cross country team "for personal reasons" before she can be kicked off.

Girl is from South Jordan, Utah.

I ain't sayin', I'm just sayin'.

(via Deadspin, my favorite sports site)

Shame

2005-12-10T01:54:00.000-06:00

Nothing inspires blogging like a too-close win on NCAA Football.

I was speaking with a few friends the other day and I happened to ask if they were ever ashamed to admit to being Mormon. We discussed issues for the most part and admitted to being variously ashamed of the black priesthood ban, negative stereotypes of members, and other items. I am ashamed of those things, but I'm mostly ashamed of the Atonement.

Not what others are usually ashamed of, but I guess I should try and explain.

The toughest thing about the gospel for me to accept is that we're never done. The game isn't ever over. Death doesn't finish it. There's never going to be an end. It's really eternal. There's no point at which we've done enough. So, we keep working forever and we'll always have to go to work. In short, the Mormon retirement plan sucks.

I suppose that wouldn't be bad if I could pay my bills and have some left over for TiVo and Taco Bell after I put in my ten hours at the steel mill. But we'll always be indebted to Jesus Christ. I mean, forever.

In theory, this should still be pretty great. Lots of people (myself sometimes included) find great solace in this. Despite the supposed advantages of "salvation" (whatever that ends up being in your case or mine), I'll always have obligations. Obligations to act a certain way, do a certain thing, be with a certain person, be in a certain place, et cetera. I don't want any part of those obligations.

Is that selfish, prideful, ignorant of the gospel? Yes. Quite clearly. But I want what I want. I hate being obligated to others, especially when the obligation is indeterminate. Some obligations can be very rewarding: I'll be at the desk in the jock dorms for ten hours if you'll give me my room and some food. I'll strike out ten guys if you'll score four runs for me. I'll play my hardest for three hours if you do the same. I just see the less determinate obligations as shackles that can't be cut. A long term relationship with a woman? All that means to me is that too much is never enough. A long term relationship with Jesus Christ? Unfortunately, much the same. However, it seems that the alternative might be a great deal worse.

And then there's the inadequacy. Being a believing Mormon involves a number of things:

1) Admitting that the Spirit had to tell you what's true. You couldn't figure it out on your own, at least not without a hint. Rationality is just more comforting. This is much less annoying than

2) Admitting that God is just better than you. Smarter, better, bigger, stronger, and probably knows who'll win the World Cup. You can't beat him or even draw. You lose by admitting to being religious. Hey, I think I read somewhere that the essence of pride is competitive! Can't imagine how that might apply.....

3) Never being able to be fully responsible for your own salvation. Being "beaten with a few stripes" would at least punish you to the extent that you deserve and then there would be no more claim. Anything over that would just be oppression due to power differential. That I can handle.

Sometimes I actually think that I'd rather be beaten and banished than exalted and indebted. I know this isn't too sensible, but it still holds some sway with me.

Is it just me that worries about this stuff? Maybe I just don't get it......of that I'm certain.

(Note to potentially offended readers: I'm still onboard. I still think the Church is true. I still believe in Jesus Christ and the Atonement. I just wish it were "easier" or involved some system whereby I can get what I deserve and then be left to do as I will.)

Why I Don’t Comment

2005-12-08T21:08:00.000-06:00

I don’t comment very often on other blogs. Here’s why:

1. I have nothing to add. The general principle: one should always have something to add to the conversation, to enrich it somehow.

2. I’m stupid – I simply don’t have the information base in which to comment intelligently (i.e. temple experiences).

3. You’re stupid -- You don’t have the information base in which to comment/post intelligently, yet you do anyway, and I see no reason to affirm your behavior.

4. I’m an ass -- I try only to be an ass to those that deserve it. Luckily, relatively few people fall into that category. The ones that do—see below (#5, #9).

5. You’re an ass -- Towards the end of Back to the Future III, Mad Dog Tannen calls Marty out to make good on the pistol fight. Marty looks around the bar and the patrons tell him “don’t let me down.” Marty stands up and says, “He’s an ass! I don’t care what Tannen says. And I don’t care what anybody else says either.” Because, yes, the best thing to do with asses is to leave them alone to their own assholery.

6. Somebody has already said what I wanted to say. This happens a lot. It’s usually Flanders, too. Stupid Flanders.

7. It’s not my place to say anything, part I. The nacle, like any other community, has it’s own social makeup and cliques.

8. It’s not my place to say anything, part II. I’m not a Mormon. This is a Mormon community—and the expectation is one of either belief or some kind of cultural connection. For instance, a recent thread on M* asked, “How many kids would you be willing to have before you'd rather have none?” While it’s an interesting question, but one of the reasons I didn’t comment is that my comment wouldn’t add anything to the understanding of the Mormon experience. And, besides, it’d give ammunition for those that believe people like me to be degenerate heathens. (My answer, by the way, is: 2,1,0,3,4…) The way I see it, my value to the nacle is offering an informed outside perspective (see #1)—but that need doesn’t come up all that often.

9. It won’t do any good. The nature of online communication isn’t all that conducive to good discussion. The noise to quality ration is too high. It’s a series of monologues instead of a dialogue. But more importantly, everyone seems so stuck in their ways of action and thinking—myself included. There is no possible way that you can convince me that gay marriage should be banned. There’s no way I can convince D-Train that Cardinals are the most immoral team in MLB. There is no way I can convince Geoff B to let his children watch TV. Not going to happen—so why try? For sure, there might be some benefit for posterity, where perhaps something I say could possibly convince someone somewhere…but I’m highly skeptical.

10. I’m lazy. This wouldn’t matter that much if it wasn’t for the above nine reasons. But given the above--

Those Crazy Germans

2005-12-06T07:40:00.000-06:00

Brilliant!

I'm sure that others will have a different reaction.

BYU Quickie

2005-12-06T00:47:00.000-06:00

This in no way involves a marriage on the Strip.

[pause while Mollies and Peters flee this den of iniquity]

This article discusses a BYU prof's view of dieting.

I quote from the article: "You definitely lose weight on a diet, but resisting biological pressures is ultimately doomed."

Now, I know full well that BYU professors are not arbiters of doctrine. But, I have to ask: how can this relate to chastity issues? Seems worth a thought or two. Plus, it's an excuse to talk about that dirty m-word.

I've got dreams to remember

2005-12-05T15:59:00.000-06:00

If you haven't heard Otis Redding's "I've Got Dreams to Remember", do so immediately.

A few days ago, I had a horrid nightmare about nuclear war. Every month or so, I have a terrible nuclear war nightmare. Some are worse than others and I'm rarely able to remember the details. This time, I could. I'll be brief about them.

The first segment occurred somewhere between 4 and 6:30 AM. It consisted entirely of me going up and down a frozen slide in Alaska as H-Hour got closer and closer. The alarms were going off, they were coming down from the sky, and all that I could do is go up and down this slide.

I woke up in terror, got some water, and hoped that sleep wouldn't bring any more. This wish was not to be granted. As it happened, I was in a house in suburban Kansas (actually, my grandparents' house) with a friend. I kept begging him to go out with me and get some supplies as international tensions rose. He refused to go or give me the car keys. I finally got him to go, but as we headed for the front door, the air raid sirens went off. I just looked at him and said "Well, we can't go out there any more." A few minutes later, they started coming down.

I always wonder about what these dreams mean. Not specifically the nuclear war dreams (the above messages are crystal clear to me), but dreams in general. I feel that these dreams speak to me not as revelation or divine manifestation of truth, but as my subconscious expression of strongly held beliefs. I wonder what our beloved readers think. Do you ever have dreams that communicate to you? Are they ever spiritual? How do you take them?

Poor Adam Greenwood

2005-12-02T13:22:00.000-06:00

The kid can't catch a break. A post on immigration is sure to bring the fires of blog hell upon anyone and it seems that Adam is the latest victim.

I disagree with Adam on nearly every issue of any import at all (at least issues that are blogged about). Despite that, he really got an unfair shake on the latest T&S mammoth thread. After all, he did specifically say that he's not turning in any Church members that happen to be illegals. He does acknowledge that there are problems with the way deportation is conducted and knows that there are significant issues. In view of this, I'm surprised that Mosiah 4:27 ("see that these things are done in wisdom and in order") didn't surface at any point. I'm about as supportive of immigration as anyone and even I acknowledge that there should be limits and regulations in these fields.

I happen to think that American policy toward Latin America is so poorly conceived that current regulations are not just and that turning in illegals is not required. But another question is raised: Should we, as individuals, enforce unjust applications of a generally just law? Had this question been raised in the T&S debate, things might have been illuminated. As it is, it basically descended into an ideological food fight.

The doctrinal emphasis on sustaining governments is just plain bogus, in my view. This has a lot more to do with worshipping authority than any sound doctrinal or moral reasoning. On several occasions on that thread, commenters attempted to relate this doctrine to potential Church violations of immigration law in the missionary program and to the possibility of going after businesses that employ illegals more fully. As expected, no response whatsoever. We didn't sustain laws against polygamy. We sure didn't submit meekly to the Missouri extermination order. The point is not that we're any worse than anyone else in this regard, but simply that the status of a command as law is dwarfed by a consideration of the inherent morality of the command itself.

I'll post my thoughts on immigration more fully in the future, but for the present, I'll summarize: Adam grasped a nettle and got a real rough deal. His position is a lot more nuanced than the folks over there were willing to admit. Of course, that's the problem with these blogs: I've never heard a civilized and nuanced discussion that included more than maybe a dozen people. Such are the wages of bloggernacle domination :)

"You know they're just trying to convert you, right?"

2005-11-28T16:14:00.000-06:00

When I headed off to my first meeting with the missionaries, my good friend (who comments here on occasion as Lager Jager) warned me:

"You know they're just trying to convert you, right?"

My response: "They're MISSIONARIES, Lager Jager. THAT'S THEIR JOB."

Fast forward three years: We're both Mormon. Well, shoot.

This discussion at M* makes me wonder why in the heck I bothered. Obviously, that's an exaggeration. A big one. But I think the discussion exemplifies a larger unwillingness to consider missionary work as a dialogue rather than a lecture. And I know that if the tone present in this discussion had been directed at me, I never would have come anywhere near the baptismal font.

(I'd like to add at this point that I probably read M* more than the other big blogs, with the exception of FMH. Their reputation for conservative craziness has a lot more to do with a few nut job commenters than their permabloggers and I mean no disrespect to their blog.)

Think about what we ask people to do: we ask them to invite missionaries in suits into their homes, come to ward activities with a hundred Mormons and one nonmember, accept a life-changing set of values and beliefs, and all this with little other than a faith in the goodwill of the members/missionaries to treat one properly and with respect.

Then, people offer up a movie deal that's designed by an evangelical group to get Mormons to come to a movie with them, and the response is "AMBUSH!" Why is it an ambush?

Why, because they're trying to convert us.

Sound familiar?

I'd love to write it off as a few idiots on a blog. Seriously, I would. But I can't.

For example, I was teaching FHE a few months ago (lesson on prayer) and I mentioned a class assignment that required me to visit a place of worship of a different faith. The class was a qualitative methods class in which I would be doing an ethnography of the meeting. So, I went to a jumah meeting at a local mosque. A couple of the gentlemen there discussed Islam with me for an hour afterward, showed tremendous respect for my beliefs, and taught me some things that I found very helpful in the application for my own faith. I mentioned the sincere prayer that had brought this gentleman such a great faith in God.

Let me tell you, the temperature dropped faster there than I've ever experienced. And I live in Oklahoma.

This attitude is way too pervasive in our community: do missionary work, invite people to come out to stuff, and never, ever regard any other invitation as anything other than a trap. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you've got to engage their beliefs. You don't have to be looking for a new religion. You just have to give people the respect of listening to their views if you expect to be able to present your own.

I'll be blunt: I was not looking for a religion when I took those discussions. I was half curious and half being polite to my friend (Mike, our esteemed co-blogger). Instead, I found a great influence in my life, complaining aside. I felt like the missionaries and Mike respected my views, such as they were, and never felt dismissed or removed from the conversation. Because of this, the Spirit and their influence led me to believe that baptism unto repentance was the only path for me.

I'll be even more blunt: Folks like the Mormons can't get folks like me to taste of the most white and delicious fruit of the gospel unless they respect the deeply held beliefs that are held by nonmembers. These differ dramatically between atheists, evangelicals, Muslims, Catholics, and others. But these beliefs are held as deeply and as strongly as those of the Mormons.

Bluntest: If you expect your friend to go to sacrament meeting, he can expect you to go to jumah, mass, or revival. If you won't do that, you're either a lousy missionary or simply not ready to minister unto that friend.

Bad, bad D-Train

2005-11-27T00:21:00.000-06:00

I hesitate to even share what I did today.

In fact, What I Did probably deserves to be capitalized.

I made fun of a Special Olympian.

I totally didn't mean to and it wasn't heard by anyone except one other guy that was also making fun of the Special Olympians. So here's what happened.

I was at the OU-Belmont basketball game (just two hours after I attended the 42-14 Bedlam football victory over Oklahoma State) and standing in the CrimZone courtside student area. At halftime, the Durant Bulls and the Riverside (somethings) took the floor. I and another fellow thought that these were high school teams. Thus the heckling started.

"I count one, no two mullets! And that guy with a mullet is really fat! These are the crappiest high school teams in history!"

Then the PA announcer says: "Please give a Sooner welcome to the Durant Bulls and the Riverside (somethings). Durant and Riverside are part of Special Olympic competit.....

Awkward looks are exchanged. Glances are directed outward to make sure that nobody observed our idiocy. Upon seeing that none had done so, we vowed to never mention it again.

In good news, I dropped my best heckle of the game in the closing seconds:

"Hey, ref, if you call fouls like that, the terrorists win!"

I doubt that it canceled out What I Did.

Everyone's just workin for the weekend

2005-11-20T02:45:00.000-06:00

I have told one person about this so far (a roommate and fellow blogger over at the council.) So, I guess this will be the official announcement.

No, I'm not coming out of the closet. (because despite any possible indicators; I am not, in fact, homosexual.)

I'm not announcing a bid for political office,

I'm not leaving the Church,

I'm not getting married,

and I'm not dying.

I am, however, seriously considering quitting my job.
This may come as a shock and cause you to exclaim something along the lines of:
"But why?"
"I thought you loved your job"
"How will you feed yourself?"
or even "Does this mean you'll actually blog again?"

I probably still won't blog because I'm a lazy SOB, though having the option of blogging once in a while would be nice.

I'm getting a bit burnt out- but that isn't the real reason I think I might leave. I can handle continuing to work lots of hours, making less than the time I invest warrants, trying to climb the corporate latter, and so on.
What I can't handle is still not knowing what I'm doing with my life. I can't handle having one or two classes hanging over my head. I can't handle limiting my options because of classes I should have gotten A's in being on my transcript with a D or a C.

I think that I would like to head back to school full time to take the one class I actually need and to retake some classes I already took (not really classes I took, more along the lines of classes I was enrolled in) so that I have a slightly better GPA when that degree gets handed over so that if I decide to go on to law school or grad school I've got a little bit better footing to do so. And yes, I have pretty much eliminated top tier schools already. Even if I can replace a grade by re-taking a class, potential schools still see my transcript and see the original grade there. But that is water under the bridge. I probably would have been ok had I just failed to take portions of my education seriously. I pretty much failed to take portions of my education at all.
I would like to at least finish off well. I probably won't head off to law school or grad school right after finishing- but I want to be in a bit better shape if/when I eventually do.

Working full time while doing this may very well be possible. However, working my current job would not. It is too far away and it is way more hours than full time.
I really am torn here.
On one hand I actually am doing OK and there is advancement opportunity.
On the other hand I don't know if I really want to do any of the things I would advance to.

I think it would be easier to step away if there were something definite I wanted to do in grad school and beyond. I would have a goal, have it validated, and have needed steps to reach it.
As is, it feels kind of like I may just be doing this because I'm sick of working. And maybe I am.

Leaving seems hard because I really did just kind of fall into a pretty good job- while tons of other potential employers wanted nothing to do with me. So, I'm worried that if I go back to school full time and leave my job I will be giving up my chance at solid employment. Also, that by taking a "real" or "grown up" type job and then leaving after six months won't look good to other potential employers.

So I'm stuck wondering what I should do. Am I shooting myself in the foot by leaving? Am I crippling my potential by staying?
I will certainly be thinking and praying about this for the next couple weeks, including thinking and praying about how to talk to my parents about this. I certainly want their input (and if I quit working, may need their assistance.) but I don't know how to talk to them about it, and somehow feel that by leaving I would somehow be letting them down. I also feel like I’d be letting myself down. I don’t want to just quit because something is unpleasant or seems difficult. I have far to often given up on things, and much more often than that just kind of given up by never letting myself care in the first place and just half ass-ing it. But this time I have put a bit more in, I have been somewhat successful. Now that all of that is just starting I don’t want to just bail because I’m burnt out, or not good enough, or even just because I’m afraid of not being good enough. I hope that isn’t what is motivating me here, but it may be.

I appreciate your patience reading this (or scrolling through it.) This is really more of a post for my personal blog- but, for some reason, I just felt like I should post it here. Thanks for putting up with the rambling nature of the post.

Another sports post - but at least it's a feel-good story

2005-11-19T22:17:00.000-06:00

I thought I'd at least alert you in case you're just not interested in the sporting angle. But it really is a nice story.

Today was a tale of three sports in Sooner Nation. First up was OU football at Texas Tech on TV. I won't dwell on the terrible officiating that cost us a trip to the Cotton Bowl. The point I want to focus on is that several thousand Sooner fans made the trip out to Lubbock and should have had a victory to celebrate. The game had big bowl implications and many people were watching.

Immediately after the game, I went down to the Lloyd Noble Center for the hoops season opener. Samford never stood a ghost of a chance and OU won by 27 despite playing somewhat poorly. There was a lot to celebrate: 600 new student seats right on the floor, a "CrimZone" where students stand immediately behind the scorer's table, and the first victory in a season where OU could make serious national waves. Not a sellout, but still thousands of Sooner faithful.

Having had no food prior to this, I gobbled some Taco Mayo and went over to McCasland Fieldhouse for OU volleyball against Baylor. Now, the crowd was larger than usual tonight, meaning there were about 400 Sooner fans and a dozen or so that made the trip up from Waco. The Sooners were 6-20 overall and 1-16 in the Big 12 coming in and stand no chance of leaving last place before the end of the season. There were 250 team photographs available as you came in the door. There were still some left when I left the arena well after the end of the match.

Two things that make this a feel-good story:

WE WON! 3-1, with the score 30-14 (!), 22-30, 30-17, and 30-19. These ladies just played so well and the crowd was actually a little behind them tonight.

The players all stayed for autographs afterward, so those that claimed a team photo could get it signed by the team. I felt a little weird being down on the court with a swarm of ten year old girls, but hey. They're Sooners.

They weren't grudging, tired, or upset that they had to wait another hour for dinner. Every single fan that asked for an autograph was greeted warmly. They were all excited to see people interested and thanked everyone profusely for coming. I not only wanted to get the picture signed by the team, but also wanted to thank them for all the trips to Ames, Iowa, College Station, Texas, and Bloomington, Indiana. It's a shame that they work so hard to represent OU and hardly anyone knows.

So, when I asked each of them for an autograph, I thanked them for the dives on the floor, the road trips, and the willingness to wear the crimson and cream. In every case, they were flattered and seemed to have their day made by it. It was so endearing and wonderful to hear some of the players thank me for being there and saying things like "we could hear you after that kill/block/other play" and "thanks for always being here".

I'll never care about volleyball the way I care about Sooner football. I wish we could import the noise and passion of a Saturday at Owen Field into one of our volleyball matches. I also wish we could take the kind, loving spirit of the volleyball players and spread it around all of our sporting events. (And, I must say, spreading some of that prettiness around wouldn't hurt either). ;)

So, I've decided that one time next year, I'll go to a road game and cheer them on. The way I see it, if they have to play in front of a couple hundred people in Norman, they should have someone else make the trip when they travel ten hours for our school.

The Visitors

2005-11-15T01:13:00.000-06:00

Sorry for our recent silence. We promise more content soon.

I absolutely detest visits to inactives. I hate it. I had an experience a couple weeks ago where I skipped church (not for the first time, I’ll admit) and found the Elder’s Quorum Presidency at my door, waking me up from a nap. I wrote a post about this, but didn’t put it up on the basis that it was too bitter and just made me madder and madder. But, I would ask you to consider the following:

I had worked until 5 AM the previous night.

I live in the athletic dorms here at OU. You have to be a resident with a valid ID to even get in the door. So, they waited for someone, snuck in, and then knocked my door.

They tried to call first, but got no answer (you know, since I turn my phone off when I sleep after working ALL THE LIVE-LONG NIGHT!). Either I’m not available or I’m specifically avoiding you. Which one justifies bothering me?

But I’m not bitter.

I don’t really resent the EQP for caring. I do resent him doing something that he knows I won’t respond well to. So, last Sunday I talked to him about it and let him know that spiritual nagging isn’t appreciated on my end. I was quite charitable and I feel the conversation went well. The guy’s still trying to be my best friend, but I don’t think he’ll be doing any pop-ins in the future.

All of this makes me think…..I can’t be the only one with a problem with this. I used to be EQ secretary. I’m currently one of the ward executive secretaries. Point is, I’ve made these visits. I’M MAKING THESE VISITS. Mike, our esteemed co-blogger from whom we never hear (passive aggression meter: 4.5/10), likened this scene unto “Singles Ward”, where the guy “knows all their tactics”. And I certainly do. I’ve done and am doing the same things they are. Aside from the hassle that it was, it’s an insult to my intelligence. I know what’s going on. It’s just a little transparent when the EQ presidency shows up in suit and tie an hour after church. They didn’t just come by to chat. They came to interview.

Webster’s dictionary defines interview as: “1. A conversation between an inquirer and an inquiree in which the dialogue takes the primary form of questions and answers. 2. Any conversation in which a Mormon that thinks him/herself to have a stewardship judges you. 3. Any conversation in which a Mormon judges you. 4. Any conversation with a Mormon at church. 5. Any conversation with a Mormon.”

I do personally resent the EQ president for reasons external to this. He’s a good person that does things in ways that just make me simmer. We’re very different people and I’ll leave it at that. His counselors, as near as I can tell, are good kids that are trying to do their job and just don’t know any better.

So, you say, why is D-Train making visits like this when he hates them with a purple passion? The answer is that I’m a hypocrite. Pure and simple. I hate it and I do it to other people. I think it’s wrong for other people to do it to me and I do it to other people.

But there is a silver lining: I’m really conflicted over it. If it were just up to me, I’d talk to these people and say: “Look, you know why I’m here. You know that I’m here to ask you to come to church. I do honestly want you there and think you should come. But I also know that you didn’t just forget to come to church for six months. I know that you know that I’m here because your name is on a list and not because I’m in any position to offer you advice. Please come back, but I’ll understand if you don’t. I don’t like it all the time either. I believe the Book of Mormon and the Bible to be the word of God. Please read something from one or the other every day and pray about what the Lord would have you do in your own life. Here’s my number and please call me if you ever need or want anything. I’ll probably be back in a few months, but I won’t get mad if you don’t answer the door.”

And I’d go in a T-shirt and jeans. I know that you probably think that’s pretty callous or cold or whatever. And it might well be. But here’s the point that I want to get across: these visits really are pretty transparent. Even when you sincerely mean it (and I have, on a couple of occasions), the people that you’re trying to help know why you’re there, even if what they know isn’t really what’s going on. Above all, I just hate nagging people. For the most part, people can make their own decisions.

I’m sure these visits help some people. As I said, I’ve made a few visits that I felt really good about. The Spirit was there and they did help. But I’ve made a lot more where it’s obvious that even when we really cared about doing it and doing it to serve our brother or sister, they just did not want us there. When people don’t want you in their lives, you only make them more bitter by pushing your way in.

I don’t have an easy answer. I’ll probably just keep making the visits even though I don’t want to, seeing as the alternative is to give up my calling entirely (I have to go with a bishopric member, which means I can’t even introduce a hint of the above on my own initiative). I totally understand if any of you think I’m just a jerk or an apostate. But, I can’t help but think of how I felt when I opened that door and saw the EQP, knowing full well what he wanted. I have to believe that for people that are actually inactive, that feeling can be a million times worse. If nothing else, let’s leave the ties at home. Let’s at least pretend that we’re just regular guys coming by to check on a friend. Because, at the end of the day, that’s what we actually are. We just need to work on putting on a decent show of it.

Say anything.....but that

2005-11-07T23:19:00.000-06:00

CNN is reporting that All Saints Episcopal Church of Pasadena, CA is in danger of losing its tax-exempt status due to an antiwar sermon. Apparently, the church in question provided this sermon to its congregation on the eve of the election last November.

Given that there was no specific candidate advocacy, it seems odd to me that this comes up. I know that the timing and content of the message seem to clearly indicate a political preference, but it seems to go too far to indict the content of a sermon for tax purposes when there's no explicit advocacy. After all, Kerry voted for the war too, right? Which is it? Is he a flip-flopper or can this church keep its tax-exempt status?

Just kidding. Sort of.

Seriously, I have to think that this church is being singled out. For example, the Church has been quite vocal on SSM, lotteries, and other social issues. Many contend that these issues being on state ballots may have given us four more years of G-Dub. I know that the lottery issue was pretty significant here in Oklahoma. I'm equally certain that it was on the mind of most, if not all, Mormons at the polls. I don't see how an anti-war sermon on one Sunday is qualitatively worse than a stated Church position on lotteries, especially when the First Presidency is sending standardized letters to be read in sacrament meeting. If the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena thinks the war stands against their vision of God's doctrine, they should be able to say so. I do favor drawing the line at specific advocacy of a candidate, if only because this would represent a specific inclusion in the political sphere. Lines do need to be drawn somewhere. Nevertheless, I'm quite uncomfortable with this, both because of its implications for the Church and because of its potential to intrude into legitimate religious discourse.

I'm also troubled by the framing of Iraq as a strictly political issue. I don't like the attempt to remove this from the moral sphere one little bit. Many good people (some would say all good people, but I'll be open-minded for the moment) would contend that killing people has as many, if not more, moral implications than gay sex. Not that war is necessarily wrong, but the choice to use lethal force seems to me to be something that should be affected by considerations of morality and ethics. If it is the right of a church to speak of a moral issue with political ramifications such as SSM, what then could POSSIBLY justify differential treatment of discourse related to a war?

Paul Toscano and you

2005-11-04T05:01:00.000-06:00

Sometimes, I just don't get apostates.

Tonight, I watched a video of Paul Toscano addressing the Sunstone Symposium (in SLC) in 2003. Essentially, Toscano is addressing his excommunication as part of the September Six in 1993 and some other doctrinal issues. The video can be found somewhere on the Sunstone site for free, although I forget where I originally got it. I'll be happy to email the file on request. I watched it with two of my more conservative member friends, who were visibly uncomfortable. Presumably, this is because of Toscano's obviously unorthodox views. I think the video is pretty funny, including a joke about how Toscano sees his future that ranks in my top ten funny moments. After the video's over, one buddy (let's call him AP) says:

"Man, if your life has gotten so bad because of all of this stuff, isn't it time to change something?"

I don't typically buy into this kind of reasoning. I especially hate it when people respond to a complaint about someone/something with "you just need to have more charity". Obviously, that's a solution to anything, but it doesn't really address the issue of what one who doesn't meet the charity standard of Sister Molly or Brother Peter should actually do. But I think AP had a point here, especially considering Toscano's poorly framed argument.

Toscano repeatedly expresses regret that his excommunication did not make more of a difference in the LDS community. It is his belief that the Church has turned into a machine that grinds out dissent and is less about spirituality than running up the numbers. Fair enough. A man's entitled to an opinion. But here's what I really don't understand. If Toscano is so worried about his "legacy" in the LDS community, why can't he frame an argument decently? What he throws out there in this presentation makes him absolutely unable to get in the cognitive door of your average Latter-Day Saint. Consider the following arguments that he makes in the twenty minute presentation:

1) Jesus Christ, while an exemplary human being, may not have actually been the Son of God.

2) The Book of Mormon is not really history, but an epic with some revealing truths.

3) Joseph Smith meant well, but likely wasn't inspired of God. Toscano, in his words, no longer considers Joseph a hero to him.

4) Sins that he considers to be "gnats" include: premarital sex, pornography, assorted fornication, homosexuality, the Word of Wisdom, etc.

The list goes on. One is left to wonder whether Toscano ever believed any of it. My point is not to dismiss the above claims out of hand: lots of really bright, really religious people agree with Toscano. More agree with him than don't on 2 and 3, and possibly 1 and 4. However, given the above claims, I can't accept Toscano as someone that has really tried to live the gospel and was stopped from doing so by a restrictive Church hierarchy.

Toscano's main beef with the Church (that was emphasized here) was its hierarchical nature and its inability to tolerate dissent, as well as a condemnation of the judging, homophobia, etc. that came with the Church in modern times. He locates the worst of this as beginning with Harold B. Lee and the correlation effort. His criticism extends to local leadership and GAs that actively sought to crush dissenters, with special attention given to Boyd K. Packer.

Look, I can dig all that. I'm no Packer fan, at least when he starts speculating. I don't think drinking coffee is a mortal sin, I don't like the judging, I don't think the Church handles intellectual issues that well, et cetera, et cetera. I could even buy that individual members that feel this way can make a positive difference if they're able to separate the gospel from the institutional Church and make changes at the local level, although I'm not optimistic that this would ever happen on even the smallest scale.

But I can't listen to people like Toscano. Because, in denying the basic principles of the faith, his arguments about organizational structure are nothing more than deck chairs on the Titanic. I simply cannot assume that the institutional Church is Toscano's problem when it seems clear that he had (or, at any rate, has) no testimony of the basics. If you can't tell me that Jesus is the Christ, if you can't tell me that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, if you can't tell me that the Book of Mormon is inspired scripture, then you can't tell me that it was Boyd K. Packer that made you a non-Mormon.

Which leads me to wonder: who is Toscano talking to? Who does he want to persuade?

The answer there is complex. Part of it is probably the standard explanation that a lot of members would give you: he's in bed with the antis, he hates the Church because of "what they did", and so he's going to say anything bad he can think of that he can justify by hook or by crook. But I don't think that explains all of it. After all, this is the same Paul Toscano that wrote "Music and the Broken Word", an LDS parody hymnbook (featuring humdingers such as "'Ere you left this morning, did you think to shave?"). This wasn't targeted at nonmembers. They wouldn't get the jokes. Toscano is trying to talk to members and persuade them of the error of their ways.

The problem is pretty clear, however. Even if he's really sincere, even if he really thinks all of these bad things about the Church, he's already talked himself out of the head of any Latter-Day Saint that's active enough and faithful enough for his words to make a difference.

In the end, I have to largely concur with AP. This is a situation where, in my view, Toscano has got a lot of bitterness, a few legitimate beefs, and a lack of spiritual insight that have combined to produce a man that opposes the LDS Church on principle.

To summarize: if Toscano is/wants to be/will become a wolf disguised as a sheep, he's going to have to find a lot of wool.

P.S. I do understand that most members won't have even heard of Toscano, much less this talk at the Sunstone Symposium. My point is simply addressed at the rhetoric that he's using: it's just plain less effective.

Hangin with the Mormons

2005-10-31T14:53:00.000-06:00

Whew. New post. With original content. And hopefully it's good.

I try not to delude myself into thinking that more than a dozen people read this little blog. And I know that if more people read it, it's because they like sports or want Arwyn's brilliant insights.

But, in case you came for me--any new readers who may have followed from discussion of BoH's "Greg": yes, I am not Mormon and I write about it. Sometimes. My thoughts are complicated/convoluted, so don't ask me why. Okay, you can ask, but I'm going to give you a flippant answer. (Answer #1: Mormon girls are HOT!)

Anymore, online is the only place where I hang out with the Mormons. It's been over a year since I last went to Church. (I might make a post on 'why' later.) When I was going to Church, I made a few friends, but they either moved or got ~~a ball and chain~~ married.

I like hanging out with my Mormon friends, but the difference in our lifestyles make it difficult sometimes. If I'm involved in throwing a party, for example, it'll probably involve lots of drinking. (Almost all my friends are grad students--what do you expect?) While it is possible to find Mormons that are willing to attend these type of parties, it tends to be kinda rare.

Besides, there's an extra problem: me. Without getting into any detail, there's the side of me that leans toward the Church--which is what I show members, and the side that is in "The World." So, mixed-group gettogethers are tricky. Especially because I don't know how well my non-Mormon and Mormon friends would get along.

It's not too bad, though. I mostly hang out with all Mormons or all non-Mormons.

Hangin' out with the Mormons poses it's own problems:

1) I have what may be described as a "dirty, dirty mouth." I admit it, I love swearing. I think it's great. Unfortunately, most Mormons don't like it. So I try to stop. I've gotten better at it, but there's still some times where I can't get around it--it just doesn't sound right. And using pseudo-swears like "freakin'" just makes you sound like a goshdarn fool.

2) I lack shared experiences. I have an okay idea what it's like to be a Mormon, but there are many many areas that I have no clue about. Conversion stories, for instance. Or the general "growing up Mormon". (Dude, I did take seminary, so I at least got that!)

2b) And if I don't know everyone, it will occasionally get out that I am, in fact, an evil no-good gentile.

2c) Seriously, though, there seems to be some uncomfortableness. Much of it is my own uneasiness (feeling I don't belong, feeling that I shouldn't pollute their righteousness). Occasionally it's because some Mormons don't know how to deal with what I stand for. There aren't many of us in the middle, between the Church and Secular life.

3) Not only that, but my experiences are quite different. For instance, my favorite story from college is what we call "The Porn Story". You can see why this might pose a problem. Also, Mormons don't seem that impressed when I brag about how I put down 24 beers in 4 1/2 hours. (Uh, that's true, in case anyone actually is impressed by that not-so-little feat.)

4) Speaking of, have you ever been to a Mormon party? I have. That was the first time I had ever played any parlor game in life. Wow. Not that it was bad, just that I was so totally out of my element. It's like I didn't understand English: "You want me to... c'mon, you gotta be kidding me."

Nah; Mormons are, by and large, pretty great people and I like hanging out and talking with them. (Of course, it could simply be that the Mormons that'll put up with me are great people.) This means you, of course.

love

2005-10-28T13:08:00.000-05:00

I want to go back and take down -- or at least edit -- my previous post. But that seems disingenuous at best and cowardly at worst. Had I done so, I would have left this in its place:

Raskolnikov felt sick
But he couldn't say why
When he saw his face reflected in his victim's twinkling eye
Some things you do for money
Some things you do for fun
But the things you do for love are going to come back to you one by one

("Love Love Love" from the Mountain Goats' the Sunset Tree)

2005-10-27T11:52:00.000-05:00

My sister has been having some issues with a friend. This friend has been in a relationship for the last few months and has been lying a lot about the amount of time she spends with her boyfriend. It wouldn't surprise me that Friend believes she is 'protecting' my sister when she claims to be going to sleep when, in fact, she is going over to Boyfriend's house.

Now, maybe it's just me and my sister and the way we were raised, but we can't stand liars. It's fine if Friend spends a lot of time with Boyfriend--my sister can totally understand that--but just tell her the truth.

Because the problem with deliberately deceiving people isn't the lie itself. It's not even the damage it does to the friendship (or "community", if you will), even though that's a big part. No, the damage is that I can no longer trust the liar. I must now constantly question whether or not I am hearing the truth from them. My sister's Friend may actually be going to sleep when she says that she is, but because of her history, my sister can't know for sure.

-----

So I say "whatever" to those that deliberately deceive. It's not morally wrong, I don't think. But it is a bitchmove. A major bitchmove. And I know I'm not a big fish, I know that no one really cares about or needs my affirmation, but I now think less of all those involved. Like I said: whatever.

One good thing that has come out of all this, though, is that it has greatly increased my respect for certain members of the community, namely Flanders and Rusty. Fight the Good Fight.

The best game ever

2005-10-23T01:42:00.000-05:00

Oh, I can exaggerate a little bit. This wasn't the best game ever. But it was an amazing night in Soonerland.

OU Homecoming against Baylor. Honestly, it's a bit of a cliche. But, this year, nothing's been easy. Our 37-30 double OT victory was probably more remarkable for the "holy crap, that went into overtime?!?" factor than any remarkable Sooner triumph.

Nevertheless, this was an amazing night at Owen Field. I probably had the best time tonight that I've ever had at a Sooner game in my illustrious history as a Sooner Born, Sooner Bred, Sooner Dead OU fan. This for two main reasons.....

1) It's really coming together. Tonight, we shot ourselves in the foot in every way you can imagine, and this on a night when our three most proven offensive performers (Adrian Peterson, Kejuan Jones, and Travis Wilson) were out with injuries and suspensions. Geez. A kickoff return for a TD, an interception return to the OU seven, four or five fumbles, and truly terrible officiating, even with the help of instant replay, and the Sooners survive. That's good enough.

But what was really encouraging is how thoroughly the Sooners dominated an underrated Baylor team. Total yardage favored the Sooners by 200. Only OU's inexperience made this game a game. But Bomar's growing in confidence every day, the young receivers and backs are starting to step up, and the defense is growing as well. Look out, 2006!

2) That's important, but that's not why the game was a special experience. This was the first night in Norman in, well, six years that the game didn't have MAJOR conference or national title implications. With a conference loss to Texas, the Big Twelve South race is over. The national title hunt was over a long time ago. Tonight was about football in Norman, Oklahoma on a Saturday night. Nothing else. And there's something really liberating about that.

In the past, wins were not only expected, but potentially insufficient. Even victories over reasonably highly ranked foes in Norman were just a matter of course. Every week was about whether this would be the week that the dream ended. Man, that's stressful.

Don't get me wrong. I'd give up my membership in the Church to turn those three losses into wins. I'd probably even give it up for just the Texas game. There's just nothing in the world like the title chase. This state was so proud of the 2000 Sooners, who vindicated a decade of struggle with perhaps the only national title ever won by a sole unbeaten squad that was nevertheless a two touchdown underdog in the deciding bowl game. A 13-2 victory later, the impenetrable Sooner defense, a gritty, yet explosive offense, and innumerable chants of "Boomer Sooner" echoed across the fruited plain, serving notice that the Snake Pit in Norman, Sooner Magic, and Oklahoma pride had returned in full force.

But tonight wasn't about any of that. It was just a bunch of freshmen and sophomores playing for pride and 83,000 close friends. Most amazingly, the crowd didn't react like a crowd that was ticked off about having to be nervous about the Baylor game. As the game went on and the Sooner mistakes piled up, the crowd just got louder and louder and louder. When Baylor's fourth down pass in overtime fell incomplete, the stadium erupted into more joy than I've ever seen in Norman. People hugging each other, falling on the stands, and just generally absorbing an emotional victory that meant less than any game in Norman in this millenium. But, here in Sooner Nation, that's still a heck of a lot.

I have little doubt in my mind that Rhett Bomar, our freshman quarterback, will win multiple conference titles and, perhaps, a national title before he's done here. Those games will bring more joy than this one did. Our next victory over Texas will be indescribably delicious unto me, as will our next trip to the Orange Bowl, our next Heisman Trophy Winner, and a lot of other things that come with winning.

For right now, hearing "BOOMER!" at one in the morning and yelling "SOONER!" across an empty parking lot is good enough for me.

Responses to the "Social Science Consensus" about marriage

2005-10-21T17:08:00.000-05:00

Sometimes, I hate the Ensign.

Now it's even claiming that social science is behind marriage. Not that far off. After all, social science is behind marriage. But not for the reasons they state.

Here's my egocentric point by point refutation of the 21 points that they cite.

Summary from Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social SciencesFamily

1. Marriage increases the likelihood that fathers have good relationships with their children.

Fathers are around more often when families are wealthy, as are marriages.

2. Cohabitation is not the functional equivalent of marriage.

Why? This is purely a cultural statement and proves nothing about what would happen in a culture absent marriage.

3. Growing up outside an intact marriage increases the likelihood that children will themselves divorce or become unwed parents.

I'll buy this one, but poor people are also more likely to do both of these things and (surprise) grow up outside an intact marriage.

4. Marriage is a virtually universal human institution.

So is racism. Universal and good aren't the same thing.

Economics
5. Divorce and unmarried childbearing increase poverty for both children and mothers.

I agree with this effect, but it's much more due to economic circumstances to begin with than these factors.

6. Married couples seem to build more wealth than singles or cohabiting couples.

They're richer. Not terribly shocking.

7. Married men earn more money than do single men with similar education and job histories.

I'll buy this. Single men have less incentive to make money, although you could call that good as well. Score one for the Ensign!

8. Parental divorce (or failure to marry) appears to increase children’s risk of school failure.

Economics explains this one too: especially given the lousy quality of schools in poor neighborhoods, where the above is much more rampant. I will say that parental involvement in education is key.

9. Parental divorce reduces the likelihood that children will graduate from college and achieve high-status jobs.

Economics clearly explains this as well.

Physical Health and Longevity
10. Children who live with their own two married parents enjoy better physical health, on average, than do children in other family forms.

Economics again. Rich people are MUCH healthier than the poor.

11. Parental marriage is associated with a sharply lower risk of infant mortality.

Better prenatal care for the wealthy.

12. Marriage is associated with reduced rates of alcohol and substance abuse for both adults and teenage children.

I agree with this one, but economics play a role here. I also think there are substantial issues with reporting of D&A abuse. I'll still give the Ensign a point.

13. Married people, especially married men, have longer life expectancies than do otherwise similar singles.

Wealth. Health. Life.

14. Marriage is associated with better health and lower rates of injury, illness, and disability for both men and women.

Same as above. Three of these four are basically making the same point.

Mental Health and Emotional Well-Being
15. Children whose parents divorce have higher rates of psychological distress and mental illness.

Divorce is certainly very stressful. I'll give a third point.

16. Divorce appears significantly to increase the risk of suicide among both adults and their adolescent children.

Another point. Divorce is bad.

17. Married mothers have lower rates of depression than do single or cohabiting mothers.

Another point. The wealthy tend to have similar rates of depression to the poor, although this may be due to underreporting among those with less access to mental health professionals.

Crime and Domestic Violence
18. Boys raised in single-parent families are more likely to engage in delinquent and criminal behavior.

Poor people are much more likely to be criminals.

19. Marriage appears to reduce the risk that adults will be either perpetrators or victims of crime.

Adults that make it to a culture of marriage or that aren't in jail during prime marrying years are certainly less likely to be criminals. Also, they're less likely to be victims because they don't live in Hell quite so often.

20. Married women appear to have a lower risk of experiencing domestic violence than do cohabiting or dating women.

Wealth explains that too. Rich people don't beat each other up as much.

21. A child who is not living with his or her own two married parents is at greater risk of child abuse.

Ditto number 20.

I've wasted a lot of space to tell you that economic factors alone are a better explanatory factor in sixteen of these twenty one cases. Three of the five that did score have to do with the dissolution of marriage and the mental health impact of Daddy being in one day and gone, never to return in the next. And, I believe that in those five cases, other factors can offer competing interpretations.

Bottom line: STOP DESECRATING SOCIAL SCIENCE, CHURCH. AT LEAST QUOTE THE GOOD STUFF.

A thought on forgiveness, or: Man, I'm glad I'm not a Cardinals Fan

2005-10-20T12:49:00.000-05:00

So the Cardinals lose in six, sending the Astros the their first World Series in their existence. There, the Astros will meet the White Sox, who last appeared in the Series in 1959. The last time before that was 1919, and we all know what happened. So, we're all happy about this match-up, right? Right?

Well, probably not. Although D-Train may disagree with me, the White Sox and the Astros are probably the best teams (in their respective conferences) in the playoffs. This year's series won't be a shoot-out, but has (arguably) the best pitching line-up in the modern era.

So, the 'Stros and the ChiSox. It may not have turned out this way: a few calls going the other way, and we could've seen Angels/Cardinals. Yes, it was a horrible week for the umpires and referees in professional sports.

Let us not talk about the end of the Falcons/Saints game. Or the end of the USC/ND game. Even those games were big, they aren't playoff games.

So, we have "The Call" in Game 2 of the ALCS. The umpire completely messed up. "The catcher shoulda...," yeah, but fault the Ump. That call goes the other way, the Angels may have had a 2-0 lead going back to Anaheim. I still think the Sox would have one--they were the better team--but it coulda been different.

The game last night had a phantom tag that...well...coulda...

Or NLCS game 3, where LaRussa gets thrown out. Then Edmonds. Yeah, they probably deserve being thrown out, but they were also (probably) right. That ump's strike zone was so big it should be the punchline to a "Yo Momma" joke.

Who knows, man, it coulda been different.

So, perhaps, like me, this makes you want to think of forgiveness.

Personally, I subscribe to the whole "forgive but don't forget/fool me once..." school of thought. But, of course, some forgiveness is easier than other. (I find it relatively easy to forgive someone who shows remorse.)

Is there something different in trying to forgive those who's sole job is to make sure things are fair? What to do with the judge who sentences an innocent man?

Also, it seems that I am equating forgiveness with being fair; that the function of forgiveness is in order to make things "right" or making it a return to a natural order or something. I'm not sure that this is a valid way of thinking about forgiveness. If forgiveness is not somehow related to being fair, then I am unsure of why we should forgive.

Raising 'Cane

2005-10-16T22:11:00.000-05:00

I'll take this opportunity to confess one of my weaknesses: I'm a huge weather buff. I mean, really huge. I read the NWS forecast discussions, I look at the raw model data, I do it all. Of course, I do live in the greatest place in the world to be a weather guy. Norman, Oklahoma is the center of the severe weather universe and the OU meteorology department is the best in the world. My weather knowledge doesn't compare to really serious meteorology people, but I could probably hang with the second tier of kids over there, especially when it comes to tracking and forecasting severe weather.

Over the last couple of years, I've become more interested in tropical weather, since severe weather season slows down in June and July. Hurricanes are fun to track and terrifically interesting to watch develop. This tropical depression, for example, will become a major hurricane and will make landfall in the United States in eight to ten days. I offer the guess of a low category three for intensity upon American landfall and Pensacola, FL as the point of landfall. I only post that so that you all can mock me when I'm wrong.

So why do I bring this up? Other than casting the line out for other Mormon weather people, I'm a little concerned about the implications of my tropical weather fetish.

From the time Katrina developed in the Bahamas, crossed Florida, and made her fateful trip through the Gulf of Mexico, I was absolutely enthralled by her. I could scarcely keep my eyes off of this storm. I even skipped church to watch New Orleans TV on the internet the Sunday before landfall. (And I'd never, ever skip church for baseball or anything like that. Never.) And, what's more, it was fun. Lots of it.

I know, I know. Nobody could imagine things being as bad as they were, even people like me that know exactly what a category 4 hurricane can do to a city that stands utterly unprepared. Even if the effects were known, they weren't understood until things really went downhill. And, obviously, I didn't want anyone to die or be flooded or anything like that.

But, I'm still a little unsettled by the fact that I was disappointed when Subtropical Depression 21 didn't amount to a tropical storm or hurricane. I'm always disappointed when a potential big severe weather day in the southern Plains doesn't materialize. I actually want bad weather to occur. I've seen what tornadoes can do, firsthand. I've never been in a hurricane, but anyone with eyes can see what they can do. I know, nearly better than anyone else, exactly why it's a bad thing for this weather to occur. But I still want it.

Why this fascination with the morbid? I don't know, but I am occasionally concerned that it isn't compatible with real charity, mourning with those that mourn, or anything other than intellectual curiosity.

That said.....there's nothing in the world like being able to beat the National Hurricane Center's official track forecasts. We'll see how I do this time.

What'd I Say

2005-10-14T16:52:00.000-05:00

Since joining the Church, I've tried to change my language somewhat. Part of this is adopting a significantly different peer group that doesn't appreciate constant F-bombs. Part of it is a feeling that language that coarse isn't useful in inviting the Spirit or communicating in an articulate manner. And part of it is simple enculturation.

I've been swearing more over the last six months or so than before that, but still significantly less than before I joined the Church. So, progress, incrementalism......oh, whatever. I still swear.

Now, you typically can't find a Mormon that isn't telling you how much worse the world is getting in every single way possible. One would think that there's no point in even doing any good, as any good act will immediately be followed by six bad ones. But, in the case of profanity, there is a case to be made.

I'm not offended by most profanity (with one exception, and not the F-bomb), but it really is becoming a lot more acceptable to curse in the media. Any profanity at all was unacceptable in the 1990s for sports announcers, while anything short of the seven dirty words or "bitch" (when referring to a woman or an annoying man) is generally ok now. Network TV is somewhat more accepting of profanity, while cable is a lot more open to it. Music is also a little more accepting of it, although I think this has a lot more to do with the genres that are being played on top 40 radio than any real shift in how much profanity is actually being used.

When reading the Newsweek article about the Church on msnbc.com, I saw a banner ad at the bottom of the page for Critical Acclaim, a progressive site that seems to largely link to other progressive sites (I don't actually know, as I didn't visit). The ad featured a famous antiwar sign that read "Bombing for peace is like f***ing for virginity".

Now, this is a famous sign that is a representation of what was probably the best synopsis of why Vietnam was a bad idea that the left came up with. But one wonders: is this language generally acceptable now? Previously, flipping someone off was referenced in print news as simply "an obscene gesture". Interesting that MSNBC and GoogleAds would incorporate this ad into a random selection of ads to appear on a given page, especially given that the story was a religious piece.

So, you'd think that I'm in agreement with the idea that the world is going to heck in a handbasket on the profanity issue? Well, kind of. It actually seems less acceptable to swear in some environments than before. For example, our department here at OU has received occasional complaints about professors and GAs swearing in lectures. Not a huge deal, but unheard of a few short years ago. I wonder if a lesser taboo surrounding language really has made swearing a little less "cool".

It would be interesting to see if there actually does emerge a meaningful counter-trend on profanity. I sure hope not. I love me some Ludacris.

the Church and the Onion--in agreement!

2005-10-13T12:07:00.000-05:00

Who Knew?

On gods

2005-10-09T17:00:00.000-05:00

That's 'gods' with a little 'g', mind.

While pondering my own relationship with God (mind the capital 'G') of late, I've been pondering the question of how the LDS church views others' gods. I recall taking a comparative religions class at Institute once and being somewhat put off by the dismissive way in which the instructor treated the beliefs of said other religions (and I blogged about it here). As part of that particular class, the instructor was rather dismissive of the beliefs of other religions. Perhaps that is only natural and inherent in one who believes so strongly that his is the only true church.

This brings up the sidetracking question of what a "true church" is and what defines "true" in the sense of "church" rather than "religion," but I won't touch that one right now.

We know that God of the Old Testament is referred to as the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (1 Chronicles 29:18). He is the Israelite god, and it is His Son who suffered in Gesthemane and died on Calvary.

This is the god of my own fathers, and with whom I, personally, have made covenants, and I'm not in the market for a new one. Generally, I'm of the opinion that if one has promised something to a god, one should really follow up on that, lest one suddenly become crispy. Also, and more seriously, having witnessed the blessings and all the help and comfort that He has given me, it wouldn't be right.

Okay, so we Mormon and Christian and Jewish types believe in this god. But there's plenty of religions out there who don't. Muslims worship and pray to Allah; Hindus have a wide variety of gods; Buddhism teaches that one can be reincarnated as a god if one is particularly good and develops lots of good karma over the course of many lives.

What does LDS doctrine have to say about these? How about my fellow bloggers? I haven't done any research on this topic, but I can think of a few possible scenarios:

1. We deny their existence and send young men out into these cultures to explain that their gods (or their conception of gods) don't exist, and that they need to worship the one who died for their sins if they want to be saved.

2. We deny that they really exist, explaining their existence away in one of a number of ways, including:

a) That these 'gods' are merely cultural constructions based on human need and desire to worship something in a vacuum where truth has not existed or been restored -- ie, we dismiss the God of Thunder because people were just picking something to believe in because they needed it.

b) That these 'gods' are somehow a transmogrification of God, but that the truth was distorted in some way to make these gods unrecognizable as such -- ie, Odin was crucified on an ash tree (the tree of life) = Christ was crucified on the cross that we might live.

c) That these 'gods' are merely representative of a single aspect of God, and that if you put them all together, you'd have, well, God.

3. We admit that at least some of them are beings that actually exist, but ignore them in favor of worshiping our own God.

I think all three options have their persuasive elements. For example, if the Gospel of Christ is the only way to achieve salvation, then we must assume that no other god can offer the same result. Also, it's possible that the truth, as it has been revealed in every dispensation, has spread and become corrupted through the passing of time.

At the same time, Mormon doctrine seems to support the third option. One of the attacks brought against Mormons in the "Are Mormons Christian?" conflict is the idea that Mormons can't be Christians because they are, themselves (we are, ourselves), polytheistic. We have a God; we have his Son; and there's another Spirit, too. Furthermore, we believe (not unlike the Buddhists) that if we do well in this life, we can become gods ourselves in the next.

So, what's the word? And what's the impact of of this doctrine as we increasingly spread our missionary efforts into non-Christian countries? Above all, is it possible to believe what we believe -- that there is one living God, and salvation is only possible through his Son -- without alienating those who believe differently, or are we destined to be in constant conflict?

Why I'm a bad person

2005-10-07T22:22:00.000-05:00

Amazingly, the only thing holding me back from this is my own incompetence.

Abortion, pt 2: the attack of compassion

2005-10-07T09:23:00.000-05:00

A comment made on my previous abortion post has been making me think. Actually, there are two comments that are doing this, but I'm only going to deal with one today.

The comment was made that fornication has consequences and that pregnancy is a punishment of premarital (unprotected) sex.

I don't like this line of thinking for the reasons I wrote on that thread. However, I have another response. Frankly, I don't know how good it is, but I think it might be worth pursuing:

Of course, we should be compassionate and care for our fellow people. It seems to me that the Gospel is unequivocal on this point. It seems reasonable that, if someone is suffering, we should do what we can (within reason) to help that alleviate that suffering.

An unwated pregnancy is suffering, both physical and mental.

Given that abortion is a question with no easy moral answers, shouldn't abortion be an option--a solution--for the easement of suffering? And, if it is, I think we should be okay with it.

They don't like that ACLU

2005-10-06T15:58:00.000-05:00

They're on Kaimi like Mormons on fudge over at T&S. I can't tell you how much I appreciate Kaimi's "rebroadcasting" of a truly fine post, but it's just all too stereotypical. Lots and lots of evidence from the liberals, accusations of "affiliating with organizations that oppose the teachings of the Church" from the Mormon right.

I'm just kidding, guys. I just enjoy saying things like that. But, still, you can't help but wonder sometimes. The basic argument against the ACLU that's on offer over there is its generally anti-religious, anti-majoritarian sentiment. To the credit of that discussion, it's happened with a minimum of judgment, with only casual discussion of taking temple recommends from ACLU members and nobody (yet) advocating universal stripping of the recommend.

You guys probably know from my sarcastic remarks above how I feel about the ACLU. I value the ACLU not for its specific policy positions, but for its policy of generally making life hell for regressive governments and organizations. I think there's a heck of a lot to be said for an organization that makes life hard for people that mess with intellectual or demographic minorities. I don't agree with everything they do as an organization, but I don't agree with a lot of what our bishop says, either, and I've yet to resign my membership. I don't really want to talk that specifically about the ACLU here, unless anyone desperately wants to, so I'll limit my specific remarks to that.

What I really want to say will surprise nearly everyone that visits here often. There was a comment on T&S that actually suggested that the Church maintain a list and use that to determine the temple worthiness question. I agree wholeheartedly. I think this for two reasons.

Look, we've got to find the sympathizers. We all know what apostates are. If you have two wives, if you have no wives, if your wife is a man, if your wife used to be a man, you're an apostate. If you drink coffee, eat coffee cake, or refuse to support regressive regimes that supply us with coffee, you're an apostate. If you gamble with your money, your chastity, your food storage, or support those that do, you're an apostate. But this isn't really what we're worried about. These are wolves in wolf suits. What I'm concerned about are the wolves in sheep's clothing. These are those that unwittingly support Satan by giving money to free speech advocates. Did you know that what those people were saying on Temple Square WASN'T CORRELATION APPROVED? These are those that joined the Democratic Party on a Mountain Dew bender at Arizona State. These are those that joined local interfaith organizations in an effort to spread their gospel, not knowing that while you can repent of unchastity, you can't repent your ideological virginity back. It's the apostate sympathizers that will destroy this Church if left unchecked, especially given that the Church can't be destroyed in these the latter days.

Second, well, they, you know, actually, that's it. They're everywhere and must be rooted out.

All fun and games, but this is actually a serious matter. How much apostasy should the Church tolerate in this area? I obviously don't see it as a concern. But if the institutional Church takes the "Alternate Voices" stuff seriously, if we're going to get in bed with Pat Robertson on SSM, if we're going to consistently talk the right wing talk, I think we need to walk the walk. Either supporting SSM is about worthiness or it isn't. Either the ACLU or whatever other group is apostate or it isn't.

I don't actually think we need to walk the walk. Jaw, jaw, is better than war, war. But how long before this reasoning becomes dominant?

Now, I certainly recognize (and, in fact, agree with) the position that even if these groups are harmful, they're not harmful to a temple worthiness degree. Very well.

But then, you have to ask, why so much emphasis on alternate voices? Why the political proclamations? Surely they mean something, right?

Right?

Actually, I sure hope not.

Since abortion will be a big topic soon enough.

2005-10-03T22:12:00.000-05:00

Sigh. The abortion debate bores me. Reasons:

1) It seems to me that, unlike many moral arguments, the debate isn't really about the Premises of the argument, but about how the argument is constructed. That is, you and I may agree on the same base assumptions but have widely divergent end thoughts.

2) People are so damn sure that they're right.

3) The only "good" arguments against abortion have to reference religion. I've argued before that religion isn't a valid basis for social law. (Of course, better men and women than I have made that point in a much more coherent way than I did.)

Clearly, I am pro-choice. The reason for this is so utterly simple that it's going to take me a whole blog post to explain it. Ready? Here goes:

I don't give a flying widget about biological life.

For sure, my misanthropism plays a role here. Oh, and the fact I don't like children. But that's not what I mean. Following in the footsteps of James Rachels, I believe that "life" should be split into two components-- "biological" and "biographical." From Created From Animals: the Moral Implications of Darwinism (p. 199):

Why, exactly, is the loss of life harmful? To understand, we need to distinguish two notions that are often conflated: we need to separate being alive from having a life [original emphasis]. The former is a notion of biology: to be alive is to be a functioning biological organism; it is the opposite of being dead, or of being the kind of thing that is neither alive nor dead, such as a rock. The latter is a notion not of biology but of biography. Consider, for example, the life of John Dalton Hooker. Hooker was born in 1817, the son of a distinguished botanist. After completing his medical studies, he sailed to Antarctica on HMS Erebus. He was introduced to Darwin in 1839 and became his close friend. The first of his two wives was Frances Henslow, the professor’s daughter. For twenty years he was director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, having succeeded his own father in that post. For his work as a naturalist he was awarded the Royal Medal of the Royal Society, the Copley Medal, and the 1892 the Darwin Medal. He was a pallbearer at Darwin’s funeral, and finally retired to Berkshire where he died in 1911. These are some of the facts of Hooker’s life. They are not biological facts, although some of them might involve biology. Primarily they are facts about his history, character, actions, interests, and relationships.

Once this distinction is made clear, we can see that there is a deep ambiguity in the notion of the value of life. Which is important too us—life in the biological sense, or life in the biographical sense. Plainly, the latter seems more important. Our lives are the sum of all we hold dear: our projects, our activities, our loves and friendships, and all the rest. Being alive, by contrast, is valuable to us only in so far as it enables us to carry on our lives. [my emphasis]

It seems to me--and perhaps I'm wrong here--but fetuses don't have biographical life. Thus, "killing" it (ending its biological life) has no moral weight.

"BUT!"--you might say--"some could argue that infants don't have biographical life, so should we be allowed to kill them too?!"

"A valid point," I would respond, "but--"

But here's the rub: we just don't know when biographical life begins. Especially if we admit--and we most definitely should admit--that it varies by the person. So it seems that we have two options:

1) Create some arbitrary standard for the start of biographical life. (IE, first trimester, second trimester, four years old, legal adulthood, etc.)

2) Look at the obvious "big changes" in the development at life--that is, conception and birth.

I don't know about you, but I don't like option one. It's just too, well, arbitrary. So, I go with #2.

Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time thinking of a mass of undifferentiated cells, or a just-fertilized egg, as a biographical entity. Maybe you don't, and that's okay. I can respect that. Personally, I think it devalues our own, legit, biography.

So, it seems to me, birth is the most obvious place to draw the distinction.

Now, before you fire off that angry comment, let me just say that I realize that there are tons of assumptions and leaps of logic here. Aye, that's the nature of the abortion debate beast. Like I said, no easy answers and everyone's so damn sure they're right. I don't expect this line of argument to convince anyone, but I offer it up as another thought to think. Although I do believe that the biological/biographical distinction is a good one that we as a society should adopt, I realize that you're mileage may vary.

Yea, verily, what a great weekend.

2005-10-02T22:15:00.000-05:00

D-Train’s Sooners won big, my adopted-hometown Badgers are still undefeated, and it’s the final weekend of regular season baseball. True, this is very sad, but what a way to go out: on Friday, we had 3 AL teams trying for two spots and now, because the Tribe utterly chocked, it’s all over and we know who are in the playoffs. Plus, Green Bay is playing on Monday night, so they weren’t embarrassing (yet).

Oh, and apparently General Conference was this weekend.

Not being, you know, Mormon, I have no guilt about not listening to three and a half sessions. Heck, it’s probably a good thing that I listened to as much as I did. Of course, I was listening on my computer while watching the gamecasts of the Chicago-Cleveland and Boston-New York games, so it’s debatable how much I actually got from it. Also, I’m a visual person, so I’ll be waiting until they post the transcripts to really get into it.

I mean, I kinda like conference. Hated it growing up; when my devout grandmother would be visiting and would have to watch it so my sister and I couldn’t watch what we wanted to watch. But now—eh. It’s mostly good. I have a great deal of respect for almost all the men and women that speak at conference. In the top fifteen, there are only two towards which I have an aversion. But, man, I like hearing Pres. Hinckley talk. I think Steve said it best.

But—and there’s always a ‘but,’ isn’t there?—there was one part that made me sad. I don’t know who said it (but I’ve heard it many times), but one speaker spoke about how the gospel is open for all that desire it. Now, and I don’t mean to be all that bitter, this isn’t true. On my personal blog, back in the day, I wrote about my history with the church. The short of it is: I finally got to a place where I could accept the church as The Church, prayed about it—which everyone says to do—but didn’t receive any sort of confirmation or burning in the bosom or anything like that. I don’t want to actually discuss why or anything like that—no, I’ve contemplated that far too much as it is—but can I just relate how simply frustrating and disheartening the experience was?

It was very frustrating and very disheartening. Nay—it is.

I stick around, participate in the nacle, think about this stuff—all because I got this feeling that there’s something too it. And perhaps I’m wrong (though I’m sure you’d disagree with that), but at very least it’s worth pursuing. I have before, and it didn’t turn out like I expected. But maybe it’s worth trying again. I don’t know: it’s late, I’m sick, and the OTC drugs are messing with my head. For now though, at least until I wake up tomorrow, I’m going to try again, for GC and GBH have inspired me. For a week, at least. After that, who knows? A man can only take so much rejection.

2005-10-01T21:44:00.000-05:00

BOOMER!

Good to have Owen Field back. Good to feel like those days of yore (oh, 2000!). Good to get a win over a decent team.

A lot of the comments on my LSU post (mostly between me and one guy) focused on why people identify with a sports team to which they are connected in no reasonable way. I happen to think that it deals with identity in a way that reveals a great deal about the world and the people in it. I'll do a post on that soon, but I'll comment on tonight's game as a related discussion.

I'm a part of the University of Oklahoma. I did my undergrad here and will finish some graduate work before serving a mission (honorably? Only time will tell.) Its football team represents the University, and thus me, making a lot of the identity issues that come with it a lot less difficult to explain.

Nevertheless, I can't help but note that the team and I aren't connected in many meaningful ways. The team and I are part of the same university in some ways, but we're different in so many more. I'm a graduate student in political science, they're all undergrads. I work in the athletic dorms, but I don't really live in the same world as they do. They have their interests, I've got mine. We're not the same people. With the exception of gigantic lecture classes, I've never taken a class with an OU football player. Long story short: we all go to school in Norman, but we attend different universities.

But man. The crowd at the game was great today. Which actually isn't normal, in my eyes. The students are so critical of every imperfection that I just want to hit them. They don't get how good we've got it. We used to lose and lose and lose and lose, and not just to UCLA and TCU. We used to lose to Tulsa, and San Diego State, and (insert punching bag here).

(Now, am I the critical student with regard to the gospel? Discuss. Parenthetical statement count: 5)

The Big XII opener was tonight and it was amazing. The crowd was louder than the band by a country mile, the Sooner defense was suffocating, and Owen Field was shaking with delight. Just like the OU I know.

So, the point of this post. I've been feeling lately like OU is just pointless. The work is too easy and I'll never be motivated here. It's a means to an end of a mission and a better grad program with better faculty. I'm just killing time in Norman.

But, about five minutes before kickoff, the student section completes my favorite part of pregame pageantry. The national anthem is played, with the last line:"and the home.....of the.....SOONERS!" The team comes out onto the field to Boomer Sooner, the crowd is rocking, and Gary Glitter's "Rock and Roll Part Two" serves as a backdrop to a chant of "O", "U", "SOONERS!", "We're gonna beat the hell out of you".

My pulse is racing, I'm jumping up and down, yelling with my comrades in arms, and the nasty little thought creeps into my head:

"Man, why did I ever want to leave?"

Because of a football game.

See, that's the thing about identities. I may hate the mediocre department here, I may hate the provincial attitudes of the folks at the ward, I may hate the stupid football fans that don't appreciate a winner, I may hate the beer cans that people leave on campus every game day, and I may hate the fact that life success here is defined in terms that I simply could not care less about (primarily, money and its acquisition). But, hate it or not, I'm still a Sooner.

Being a Sooner is like being Mormon: if you want the Big XII openers, you get the beer cans with no beer left in them.

Like eating? Like helping people?

2005-09-30T14:55:00.000-05:00

On October 5th, many restaurants will be donating some or all of their daily sales for Hurricane relief. So go eat out that night at one of the participating restaurants. Hey--it's like a fast offering, but you actually eat!

Good bloggin'

2005-09-29T20:45:00.000-05:00

Sometimes, I see how petty I can really be.

I hope my esteemed co-bloggers won't mind this shameless plug for another blog.

Lately, I've been reading "Struggling", a blog written by a homosexual Mormon male that is working to reconcile his sexual attraction with his religious beliefs. He has a testimony of the restored gospel and believes the Church is true, but faces a profound struggle to build faith and progress in his personal life. With all the gay-judging that occurs in the Church (and, sadly, in the online community as well), I think it appropriate that any of you that come here regularly take a look at this. I'm glad I don't have it as hard as this gentleman. Please take a look at his page sometime soon.

I bring this up for two reasons. First, I like that blog a lot. It's everything a blog ought to be --- personalized accounts of life that are both independently interesting and more broadly applicable to our own experiences. Very well done.

Second, it helps to put some of the things that I'm outraged by into some perspective. My last five posts here at UoM have concerned LSU football, a soccer game and the fans that simply refused to miss it, the German election, crushes by home teachees, and an article about an online religion survey. I think these things are important (or at least entertaining). Otherwise, I wouldn't write anything about it. However, it serves as a reminder to me that the real conflicts of life in the Church have nothing to do with stuff like imperfections in the home teaching program. The conflict that we all face is a reconciliation of who we are with who we want to be and why we want that. Everybody has a conflict or inconsistency that has to do with the gospel. These conflicts tend to be much more personal than institutional in the sense that the institutional Church is very rarely the source of conflict between who we are and who we want to become. Rather, the Church is a mediating institution, an administrator in the plan.

Don't expect me to stop griping about the institutional Church or sniping from the sidelines. But I did feel like pointing out that the primary source of cognitive dissonance or confusion stems from ourselves and not from someone else. "Struggling" exemplifies the difficulty that we, as imperfect beings born in an imperfect world, can face in trying to build ourselves in the image of Christ. It also teaches me that the fact that this process is necessary isn't our fault. Indeed, it's essential to the plan of salvation.

Gay Mormon, thanks for a great blog. Thanks for being a great example of how we're all brothers and sisters in Christ, moving forward toward a common objective.

No justice

2005-09-27T05:07:00.000-05:00

There is no justice. None at all. At least not in sports.

If there were any justice, the Cardinals would have won it all in 2002 after the deaths of the voice of the team and their best starting pitcher.

If there were any justice, Scott Norwood would be able to do something other than sell insurance after missing wide right, Mitch Williams would be the Wild Thing and not just another World Series goat, and Lenny Bias could have been the best Celtic this side of Larry Bird.

But most of all, if there were any justice, LSU would have never been able to lose last night.

Sometimes it seems like a cruel joke. Anybody that could keep dry eyes as the Tigers took the field in Baton Rouge can't know what it's like to be human. For fifty minutes, it was all as planned. Then it all fell apart.

Three cancelled home openers and a game moved to enemy turf. A campus in mourning and the athletic department food given to perfect strangers. A basketball arena turned homeless shelter. A state that lost everything but its pride. Signs that read "I lost my home, but I still have my Tigers".

For fifty minutes, it didn't even matter. The emotional roller-coaster that is an SEC football game multiplied by a national tragedy almost ended perfectly. Instead, it could never have been worse, not even if you planned it.

I shouldn't be so darn bitter. It's a football game. But man, I feel like somebody owes Louisiana State something. Instead, it's just another loss, just another failure, just another time that those poor people get screwed.

I just hope that seeing a darn good football team play three and a half quarters of inspired imperfection did something to help people, even just a little. I know it inspired the heck out of me.

But I'd be lying if I didn't tell you that this is the first time that I actually feel like God should have stuck his hand in a football game.

He let me down.

Johnny doesn't cut it

2005-09-24T14:31:00.000-05:00

I've spent a number of evenings over the last three weeks in rehearsals for a musical. That corporate entity to which I sold my soul in June sometimes bears a striking resemblance to college: there's sports tournaments, social forums, a campus full of intense, interesting, and intelligent people, and a lax dress code. There's also a theater troupe, and I've gotten involved in their 10th Anniversary Musical Review, which is, in short, a number of songs from musicals they've performed over the past 10 years strung together and called a show.

From what I've seen at rehearsals so far, it promises to be pretty good. More than that, it's a great deal of fun, and I've begun making friends among my fellow cast members.

A couple of the songs we're doing come from the musical Man of La Mancha, which itself is based on the novel Don Quixote by Cervantes. It's the story of a man who, losing his grip on reality, takes it upon himself to become a knight errant, to "roam the world in search of adventure, to right all wrong, to mount a crusade to raise up the weak and those in need," and so forth. He finds a squire in his neighbor, Sancho, and ventures forth to fight giants (windmills) and be knighted by the lord of a neighboring castle (the proprietor of a nearby inn).

As a child, I loved the funny parts of the songs -- when Don Quixote demands a barber's shaving basin, calling it the "Golden Helmet of Mambrino," or when he's knighted as "the Knight of the Woeful Countenance" by an innkeeper.

As an adult, I've grown fond of another aspect: the love subplot. Don Quixote encounters a prostitute at this inn -- name of Aldonza -- and proclaims her his lady, Dulcinea -- a name that means "sweet." She balks, she mocks, she points out all the reasons that she could not be a lady, but Don Quixote persists.

At the end, in the final sequence, after he has been thwarted by the Knight of the Mirrors and no longer remembers his knightly adventures, she sits by his bedside and gently reminds him of his impossible dream. For a moment -- for the length of a reprise of the stirring, "I am I, DOn Quixote, the Lord of La Mancha!" -- he comes back to himself.

And then he dies.

And after his death, Aldonza says: "A man died. Seemed a good man, but I did not know him. Don Quixote is not dead. He lives. He lives." And when Sancho replies, "But Aldonza--", she cuts him off:

"My name is Dulcinea."

Listening to this over, and over, and over again, it reminds me to a certain extent of that Mormon legend, Johnny Lingo.

In similar fashion, Johnny Lingo comes across a somewhat disparaged and unappreciated girl, and after he treats her like she's pretty where everyone else had called her ugly. The moral of the story? If we treat people like they're beautiful, they become beautiful.

I've always been troubled by Johnny Lingo, for a number of reasons. First, the first indication that he appreciates Mohana's beauty is that he buys her. Sure, he pays eight cows when most sane people would only pay one, but that's beside the point. She becomes an eight-cow wife when she's bought.

That's not as troubling as the second reason, which is that the focus is on her physical beauty. "Mohana, you ugly!" her father shouts at her; and by treating her as beautiful, Johnny Lingo -- her savior! -- makes her beautiful.

I think the story of Aldonza is a better example of the principle that Johnny Lingo should be teaching: that if we treat people with high esteem, they will come to believe that they are people to be esteemed. It's deeper than skin and beauty; it's believing that you're a Princess or a Prince rather than a normal, everyday, unspecial person. And more, it teaches a far more Christlike message that even sinners are still Princesses. Johnny Lingo and his cows forget that.

Brussel Sprouts

2005-09-23T11:34:00.000-05:00

I never had brussel sprouts growing up. I don't know why. I figure that my parents never liked them, so I never had to eat them.

I felt I needed to rectify this lack of experience, so I bought a stalk of brussel sprouts from the farmer's market. Everything I had read said to be very careful about overcooking the sprouts, for they are (apparently) really bad when they are mushy. Makes sense. So I boiled about ten of the sprouts for about 6-7 minutes and took them off. I think I was a bit over-cautious and they could have used a few more minutes, but it wasn't much of a problem. I poured a little melted butter over the top, seasoned with a bit of salt and pepper.

And, wouldn't you know it, brussel sprouts are actually pretty good. But I can totally understand why they have their reputation--they are possibly the most "vegetable-y" of any vegetable I've had. Which, if you, like me, like that sort of thing, is good.

It makes me realize, once again, how much we have all been lied too. By older generations, the government, religion, society, TV (have you turned on me too?), "common sense."

So many lies. I guess there's just no substitute for personal experience. Go out and try some brussel sprouts.

(I just noticed that the above quote was from the same episode of two of my favorite Simpsons quotes, ones that I actually use in real-life conversation. So, for your pleasure, even though they have nothing to do with the above, I reprint them here:

"It's funny 'cause I don't know him." -- Homer, watching footage of car crash victims.

Marge: Homey, do you ever drink alone?
Homer: Does the Lord count as a person?
Marge: No.
Homer: Then yes.)

We love to see you smile

2005-09-21T17:16:00.000-05:00

Good to know that someone still has his priorities straight.

Associating with Wackos

2005-09-20T13:42:00.000-05:00

The underlying point of my last post was that, assuming the posters to that T&S thread were representative of "Mormon," I do not wish to be "Mormon." Obviously, you and I both know that the comments there are not indicative of all Mormondom; however, I think we can safely assume that some "Momondom" was represented.

Ah, group membership.

I don't know about y'all, but I hate it when I am on the same side as wackos. I hate it when I argue for a position that I believe is eminently reasonable, but the guy next to me arguing for the same thing using bad reason. Or worse yet, his methodology is wacked. I'm as liberal as whatever, but I had a hard time getting through Michael Moore's latest work, even though I think he is, in the end, right. You know, whatever, but I think Moore ends up doing more harm than good for those of us on the left.

But since I am a "liberal" I have to 'deal' with Michael Moore being on my side. Luckily, there are so many of us liberals (and let us praise Heaven for that!...although we could use more...) that the effect Moore has on the perception of the term "liberal" is relatively small.

But what if it wasn't?

Examples are easy to offer: notice how the descriptor "Muslim" was interpreted post-9/11. Since then, it seems, Muslims (especially those in America) have to make "excuses" for the stupid and malicious actions of a few other "Muslims."

Of course, this is nothing new with "Mormon."

And it's relatively easy to dismiss those of the extreme fringes. Do Mormon's really have to make that many "excuses" for, say, Tom Green? Or that guy in the Krakauer book? Usually (it seems to me) the good example of one Mormon can outweigh the stereotypes of the fringe.

But what to do about those the aren't the fringe, but still give your descriptor a bad name? These are the insidious; the Maxim-like just-off-center position compared to the Hustler-esque outliers. What do about those Mormons who say things like, "All Homos are pedophiles" or "Homos recruit straight teens" (which only has the mere semblance of validity if a very broad definition of "recruit" is allowed)?

I don't know what to do. Luckily, I self-identify with groups that are small enough that there aren't a lot of wackos or groups large enough that the wackos are diffused. As much as it annoys me, if the only thing I get accused of being is a raging sex-hound (because I'm a non-Mormon male), life is pretty good.

But there is a problem here, especially when talking about the Mormon wackos. Yes, I don't have to deal with them, because I don't self-identify as "Mormon." But, if I (or anyone else) looks at converting, it is an issue. The question is, I guess, Do I want to be part of a group with these wackos?

The great escape?

2005-09-18T17:59:00.000-05:00

I don't know if he'll quite make it, but it looks like Gerhard Schroeder (or at least his Red-Green coalition) made it about 90% out of a political grave.

The BBC is indicating that the CDU-CSU has a very small lead in the German election and that they're running about seven points behind the projections prior to the election. All in all, it seems most likely to me that there will be a Red-Green minority government with the Left Party not joining, but voting for the cabinet. In any event, this is the second time in three years that Gerhard Schroeder has escaped certain political death.

The government with the most potential for genuine action in Germany (given the current results) would likely be a Grand Coalition of CSU-CSU/SDP, but that could also blow up with little accomplished. My prediction is a Red-Green minority government with Schroeder as the chancellor, with new elections in under three years with a new leader for the Social Democrats.

I now know why I am not Mormon...

2005-09-16T09:59:00.000-05:00

...and all it took was reading a thread at T&S.

It's because I don't care about other people.

And I don't mean in a "charity" sort of way. No, I think we should help out people when we can.

I mean that I don't care what people do.

I'll watch out for my own, you watch out for yours. As for "yours", well, frankly, I don't give a goshdarn. I'd appreciate it if you felt the same way about "my own".

'Cause, you know, I don't really care if you want to go get blitzed. Just don't drink and drive.

I don't care if you go to Church on Sunday or if you worship at the church of football.

I don't care if you find your own gender attractive. Heck, if you want, go ahead and 'experiment'. I'm not going to stop you or call you evil.

Likewise, I don't care if the only naked human you ever see is your spouse. I'm not going to stop you or call you evil.

I don't think it's a good thing to cheat on your spouse, but if you two have an 'understanding', then whatever. Even if you don't, hey, not my problem.

It's not even a question of having a mote or a log in our eyes.

It's knowing where your place is.

My place is one that doesn't allow me to make many judgments about your behavior.

I have the sneaking suspicion that your position might be the same.

Am I my brother's keeper?

I don't have a brother.

And that's why I'm not Mormon.

(Standard Disclaimer: no, not every Mormon is this way. There are some very very good Mormons out there who I have lots of love for, and this includes the bloggernacle. Oh, and props to Flanders on the above linked thread for telling it like it is.)

Public Policy Blog #1: Visit, Bless, Crush

2005-09-14T14:58:00.000-05:00

No, these entries will not be about public policy. Rather, my public policy class is not interesting enough to sustain my attention. Therefore, I will post an entry every Wednesday that was composed entirely in class (for the record, I also played a game of Oregon Trail, two games of hearts, and took outstanding notes).

Is there a worse fate than this? I, a marginal member of the Church, decided to serve my home teachees. I not only made a home teaching visit, but mediated a dispute between two of my home teachees, one of whom is dating a third home teachee, the other of whom initially intended to date the third home teachee. Basically, their relationship hit the skids, one of them moved out, and they couldn't decide how to handle the last nine months of their lease. I'm still working on this, but it seems to be close to solved.

But, wouldn't you know it, the home teachee that originally came to me with the problem has a crush. Of course, it's not directed at the Elder's Quorum President, or a member of the activities committee, or even the bishop. No. It's her home teacher. Me. Megaprops to our RS President for giving me the inside dish, although I already suspected that this was going on. If you're nice to and pay attention to a girl that isn't swarmed by suitors, even if that attention is strictly in a priesthood role, you can expect this sort of thing.

And, wouldn't you know it, we just got our home teaching redone, so I can't even use that as an excuse to get out of it. I'm basically just hoping she never brings it up. The worst thing is that, in my judgment, she's about one bad thing away from a complete breakdown. So, I figure that if she tries anything, I'll just use the "I'm going on a mission and so I can't date anyone" line. The mission is in a pretty distant future (likely a couple years), but it's the most humane thing I can think of.

But that's just an unfortunate story. My concern is with the whole idea of home teaching in a singles ward. I know that it's essential to have a go-to guy or guys for the priesthood and service in YSA homes, especially for the women. I think home teaching is a great program in general. But, you know, sending well dressed men to the homes of single women to be the knight in shining armor might not be the best way to keep the "professional" aspect of the priesthood separate from the "personal" nature of dating. Maybe that's intentional. Maybe we're trying to present men at their best to save women from a lack of the priesthood and a life of spinsterhood. More likely, I think it's a case of a program that isn't designed for YSAs that's just being implemented anyway.

This is more than just an inconvenience, at least for me. I'll be honest. The likelihood of less-than-attractive women becoming attracted to me makes me a lot less excited about home teaching. Presuming Mike ever blogs here again, he's got a great story from when we were companions. Before anyone gets mad, this isn't about who's pretty and who isn't. It's about the fact that, in a singles ward, home teaching is the equivalent of forced flirtation. I don't mind that as much with people that I'm attracted to, but it's even weirder then and is not only inappropriate, but could potentially lead to a strange relationship between people.

My point is simply this: use of the priesthood is a powerful emotional tool. It's not something to be taken lightly in any case. It certainly can't be dismissed as a procedural act, no different than filling out a form. Lonely, (potentially) horny people are susceptible to misintepreting these emotions as something else. Even if it's just a crush unrelated to the priesthood or a priesthood role, the calling of a home teacher requires responsiveness. We're encouraged to develop friendships with our home teachees, to really get to know them. Is that how you'd treat someone with a crush on you that you don't want to date? Of course not.

Yes, you can go to the EQP or the bishop and get the assignment changed, presuming that reasonable people occupy those positions. But somebody's got to home teach them. And, with some girls, it doesn't really matter who that somebody is.

What then, brothers and sisters, must we do?

P.S. I focus on women being attracted to men since that's happened to me a couple times. It's also possible that men might be attracted to the people that they teach, which is every bit as significant a problem for many of the reasons described above.

A question about BYU

2005-09-08T09:21:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I'll read something about BYU that seems to reference the fact that parents wrote the school and that that helped make a change. Or something like that. Since I attended a small, mostly-secular, midwest private school, the idea that parents would write to their child's university in protest doesn't make much sense. In my four years, I never once heard of anything like that happening at my school. So, my questions are:

1) Do parents of BYU students often (at least relative to other schools) write the school over school policy?

2) Are BYU alumni more likely to write to BYU about the 'direction' of the school than alumni to other schools?

3) Does BYU take parents' letters more seriously than other schools?

Of course, I am asking for generalizations. I really have no agenda here, just trying to understand part of BYU's relationship with the outside community. I'm particularly interested in the answer to #3. Anecdotes, feelings or hard data welcome.

Thoughts on Peterson's FAIR talk and atheism

2005-09-02T11:15:00.000-05:00

I've been debating whether or not to write about Daniel C. Peterson's FAIR conference transcript Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism, which was posted at M* and at Dave's Mormon Inquiry. I want to respond because I find his article, well, wrong on multiple accounts, but recognize that nothing I say will (probably) convince anyone or do any good. Alas.

But what is it we're told to do? Endure to the end.

Allow me to make a few general comments about the Peterson article. First, it's not really about "secular anti-Mormonism"--instead, it's mostly a rehashing of traditional religious arguments against atheism. At one point I considered myself an atheist--still do, depending on definitions--so I've heard all this before and it's ridiculous from a non-religious standpoint. That is, atheism and theism have different assumptions that cloud each side. Interestingly, Peterson does talk about this, trying to make it an argument against atheism, but he doesn't seem to see that it cuts both ways:

To an agnostic or an atheist, someone who assigns a very low probability (or even none at all) to the existence of God, the existence of massive human and natural evils in this world constitutes a serious and perhaps fatal, if not merely redundant, blow against theistic belief. To someone, however, who regards the existence of a benevolent and powerful God as probable, even highly probable or certain, on other grounds, the existence of such massive evils represents merely a problem to be worked out in the light of her theistic presuppositions. Her proposed solutions will seem gratuitously ad hoc to atheistic critics, but, from within her paradigm, function much the same way as refinements to broad scientific theories function under the stimulus of new data and problems.

In fact, he says, "I confess that I find those who rejoice in atheism baffling." Which is fine, but not understanding something doesn't necessarily make it wrong or ridiculous. Likewise, wishing for a God to exist doesn't make it necessarily so.

He gives two "arguments" that deserve consideration for why atheism is "baffling." First, he finds it sad that, essentially, we live our life and then we die and it's over and that's it. Admittedly, it isn't the happiest of thoughts--but it does mirror my own. (My views aren't quite so bleak; generally, since I don't know if there is an afterlife and, if so, I don't know what it's like, then, from my frame of reference, there's no reason for it to influence my decisions.) Again, though, just because this is unappealing doesn't make it untrue--which is what Peterson seems to imply. (Of course, considering his intended audience, perhaps I should cut him some slack.)

His second argument concerns morality and atheism. These concerns, unlike the previous ones, are important. There are two sub-arguments he makes here, one that is important and one that is not. The latter concerns a view of eternal justice. Basically, he says that an afterlife is needed to right the wrongs of the world.

A neighbor and friend was stricken with multiple sclerosis in her mid-twenties and now, in her thirties, lies bedridden in a rest home. Barring some incredible medical breakthrough, this is her life. Absent hope for a life to come, this is all she will ever have to look forward to.

Sad, yes, but: meh. If I remember correctly, Kant made essentially the same argument. Although I don't recall the argument, I do remember thinking that Kant may be on to something, but not because of the appeal-to-emotions type argument that Peterson uses here. Besides, if Kant did actually make the argument, then I'm sure that there are rebuttals out there written by better men than I. But here's where he makes the important argument, quoting Dostoevsky:

Perhaps, on second thought, though, I can understand those who might see it as a liberation. "If there is no God," says Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov, "that means everything is permitted." Why? Because nothing matters at all; everything is meaningless.

Now, he is actually kinda right. He goes on to talk of "objective" morality and "objective" meaning. In so far as we accept his definition. Generally, objective morality' implies some sort of universal, unchangeable ethical system that does not depend on us for its existence. One concern with this kind of morality is where it comes from. Most favor a Divine Command Theory of morality, which essentially says that God makes the rules and because he's God, those are the rules and there's nothing we can do about it.

What Peterson doesn't give us is a reason to inherently support an objective moral system over a more subjective moral system. Considering his audience again, I don't think he necessarily needed to, but it's hard to take his point seriously from a non-religious standpoint without it. In fact, there are quite a few subjective moral systems that have some good points, i.e. Utilitarianism, Kantianism, etc. (Not that I agree with either one of those, but they should be taken seriously as alternatives.)

It seems to me that one of the main difference (at least in Peterson's case) between objective and subjective morality is a shift in who we are accountable to. In Peterson's objective morality, we are all held accountable for our actions before God. In (some) subjective morality, though, we must answer to 'society'. If we all do our part--which we all should--this is just as effective.

I think Peterson's talk is interesting, yes, but wrong. So very wrong. The overall tone that I'm picking up is something like "amused disbelief" that, if used in a talk by a so-called "anti-Mormon" would be roundly mocked. He doesn't treat atheism on it's own terms, which is fine, I guess, but then he shouldn't expect the non-religious to treat Mormonism on its own terms. I assure you, in fact, that I find much of Mormon thought as ridiculous as Peterson finds atheism. However, I try (sometimes I fail, sure) to discuss and interact with the Church on its own ground. And, frankly, I don't think that that's too much to ask.

So, on a more personal note: I've talked about this before. It upsets me when people call me immoral just because I'm not religious. It happens more than you might think. Call me cynical, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens here before too long.

What did the 19th amendment ever do for you? Huh?

2005-09-01T08:49:00.000-05:00

Holy Crap.

Dude, honestly: how can you read that and not be a feminist?

Priority and Perspective

2005-08-23T23:39:00.000-05:00

Like Pris, I've recently moved from one house to another. That is to say, I've moved my boxes from one house to another. I haven't had enough spare time yet to unpack most of them.

I've also moved from one state of mind to another, and like the temporal move, I still haven't had enough time to unpack the many thoughts that accompany the various mental shifts I've been undergoing for the past three months.

Where have I been? And where am I going now?

I've spent the last sixteen years in school, both dreading the end of August and the inaugural ringing of the school bell to signal freedom's end and welcoming it. I'm a nerd. I loved school. I loved September and the smell of new books and ideas just waiting to be discovered. And now it's approaching...and me? No change. I'm at work, and I'm working, and when September starts, I'll be working still. I'll be continuing projects I started this summer, working on new ones, and sitting in the same office day after day after day.

This has been a shift of perspective, and it's taken a lot of adjusting as I develop knots in my stomach at the idea of not attending class on September 5th. And I haven't come to terms with it yet.

The second shift I've undergone: somewhere in the last three months, I acquired a boyfriend. I haven't had one since high school. I haven't had time. I don't know if I have time now, but that doesn't seem to change things. So, the roller-coaster ride of relationships has thrown be back against my seat and I'm holding on for dear life, trying to balance mundane "reality" -- work, apartment, making dinner at night -- with weekend dreams and trips and travel to see my other-state-dwelling beau.

These are, to my view, changes that indicate I'm growing up. I can't live in the fantasy world of College anymore, where the harsh reality of Work does not exist. Bowdoin, my dear alma mater, was a small school; the dateable population was limited; and now? I spend nights on the phone and I contemplate the possibilities and consequences of the future.

But there's a third shift in "growing up" that hasn't happened, and I wonder if it bespeaks my priorities -- and whether they're in the right place. I've always thought as I hit adulthood that I'd come to have a deeper knowledge and understanding of the Gospel. I thought they gave it to you in Relief Society and Gospel Doctrine. But that? No. It hasn't happened yet. I still feel I'm in Young Women almost, learning the basic lessons over and over and over again, and never delving any deeper.

Slowly, I'm coming to discover that if I want to go deeper -- if I want to have the "adult" understanding that my mother does (and from which I developed this assumption), or that my brother has...

...I'm going to have to make it happen myself.

And where should that lie on the spectrum of priority? The scriptures and the prophets say it should be high. How high? Is spiritual development the most important thing I can do in this life? If so, then why shouldn't I go off and become a monk -- er, nun -- devoted to deeper understanding?

Barring giving up all worldly experience, what do I have to sacrifice?

And how much more of a sacrifice does that become when one's personal life isn't completely focused around the Church? I attend a YSA ward -- sometimes. When I'm in town. But I don't have friends there -- all my dearest are non-members. My family is LDS, but I don't spend so much time with them now that I'm living on my own, either.

So how does one make spiritual development a priority, how does one develop that shift in perspective, when one is -- for lack of a better term -- living in the world, and enjoying the shift in perspective it brings to one who was brought up in an LDS environment?

I don't think I have an answer to that. But I'm sure looking. When I can find the time.