Discussions of Mormons and Mormon life, Book of Mormon issues and evidences, and other Latter-day Saint topics.
Monday, November 17, 2008
A New 3-Column Chinese Book of Mormon
Just got an exciting email from my son learning Mandarin the MTC. He's part of the first batch of missionaries to have the Church's new 3-column Book of Mormon with Chinese characters, pinyin (a phonetic representation of Mandarin characters), and English. This is a tremendous boon for missionaries and others comfortable with one of the two languages wishing to understand the other. It will also allow Chinese learners to read the Chinese out loud. Very nice tool!
Chemical Engineers in Philly: Christian Fellowship Breakfast
Over 5,000 chemical engineers are gathered in Philadelphia this week for the big annual meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Some early risers will be joining a Christian fellowship breakfast tomorrow Wednesday morning, Nov. 18 (6:30 a.m., room 301 of the downtown Marriott) where we'll hear a message from Professor Harry Ploehn of the University of South Carolina (he's Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies, College of Engineering and Computing). I've been to these events in the past and have found them to be inspiring and thought-provoking. In spite of some fundamental differences in some theological areas, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, and other Christians who take Christ seriously have some remarkably similar experiences to share and often benefit in seeing just how broad the common ground is. I hope to share some interesting insights as I did last year.
If, as I fear, society gradually becomes increasingly intolerant of devout Christians, I think the common ground may become even broader and perhaps more firm. Nothing builds fellowship between Christians like a sold-out Coliseum and fresh pack of hungry lions.
Speaking of meals, there will be some great food at this breakfast - though a freewill donation of some kind (the $20 kind) is hoped for.
Stepping aside from the controversies with our critics in California for a moment (may there be reduced anger and increased understanding on both sides), I'd like to address the "difficult" nature of living the Gospel. The world and some Christians looks at the sacrifices required by the Gospel and sees a boatload of difficulty. Fidelity, tithing and other financial sacrifices, kindness toward enemies, hours of service, going to Church instead of partying, and other expectations counter to the desires of the "natural man" may seem difficult and unreasonable to some. In the Mormon flavor of Christianity, some of the additional "opportunities" like giving up alcohol and tobacco and holding Church callings can make things seem even harder.
On top of that, the growing gap between Christian faith - particularly the LDS Christian faith -- and the rest of the world can give us a sense of isolation and risk, especially when ancestral memories of angry mobs are triggered by scenes of hostility today.
When one considers the call of Jesus Christ to follow Him completely - as in Matthew 5:48 where He asks Christians to "be perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect," well, it seems to be an impossibly difficult and overwhelming standard.
But is living the Gospel really difficult? There are painful moments, yes, as there are in every human life, including the ultimate loss of death. Difficult - compared to what? Compared to not knowing our purpose in life and who we are, to know knowing and feeling the love of God, to not having the companionship of the Holy Spirit, to not knowing that we and our loved ones will be resurrected and reunited? The difficulties of this journey seem well worth the great joy and blessings we receive in the Gospel. These are great blessings, but still, is living the Gospel difficult?
"My Yoke Is Easy, and My Burden Is Light" One of the most popular and attractive philosophies of men is to live life your own way, do your own thing, be yourself, don't let others tell you what to do. But the Lord said, "I am the way" (John 14:6). He said, "Follow me" (Mark 8:34). He said, "What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am" (3 Nephi 27:27).
Don't think you can't. We might think we can't really follow Him because the standard of His life is so astonishingly high as to seem unreachable. We might think it is too hard, too high, too much, beyond our capacity, at least for now. Don't ever believe that. While the standard of the Lord is the highest, don't ever think it is only reachable by a select few who are most able.
In this singular instance life's experience misleads us. In life we learn that the highest achievements in any human endeavor are always the most difficult and, therefore, achievable only by a select few who are most able. The higher the standard, the fewer can reach it.
But that is not the case here because, unlike every other experience in this life, this is not a human endeavor. It is, rather, the work of God. It is God's work and it is His "glory ... to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). There is nothing else like it. Not anywhere. Not ever.
No institution, plan, program, or system ever conceived by men has access to the redeeming and transforming power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, while the Lord's invitation to follow Him is the highest of all, it is also achievable by everyone, not because we are able, but because He is, and because He can make us able too. "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind [everyone, living and dead] may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel" (Articles of Faith 1:3).
The Lord's way is not hard. Life is hard, not the gospel. "There is an opposition in all things" (2 Nephi 2:11), everywhere, for everyone. Life is hard for all of us, but life is also simple. We have only two choices. We can either follow the Lord and be endowed with His power and have peace, light, strength, knowledge, confidence, love, and joy, or we can go some other way, any other way, whatever other way, and go it alone -- without His support, without His power, without guidance, in darkness, turmoil, doubt, grief, and despair. And I ask, which way is easier?
He said, "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; ... and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
"For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:28-30).
Life is hard, but life is simple. Get on the path and never, ever give up. You never give up. You just keep on going. You don't quit, and you will make it.
There is only one way to happiness and fulfillment. Jesus Christ is the Way. Every other way, any other way, whatever other way is foolishness.
I bear record of Him, even Jesus Christ, that He is the Son of the living God, He is the Bread of Life, He is the Truth, He is the Resurrection and the Life, He is the Savior and the Light of the World. He is the Way, the only Way.
May we have the good sense to follow Him. In His holy name, even Jesus Christ, amen.
Responding to Those Who Are "Not Quite Friends" (NQF)?
There is an ingrained Mormon reflex to angry mobs that poses a serious problem that I hadn't recognized until tonight. The thoughtless, easy, almost automatic response of "love your enemies" -- typified by my latest post -- reveals my old-school, politically incorrect upbringing. This response, I should say, is most easily coughed up while sitting in a soft arm chair at a safe distance from the action, like the 2,000 miles between me and California. That quirky response reveals clunky cultural blinders on top of obsidian lenses three inches thick on top of a Kevlar blindfold with a layer of duct tape over the eyes for good measure -- that's how blind I was. Because by regurgitating the old saying, "love your enemies," I was implicitly labeling people as enemies. Some of you are bothered by this - and I actually see some point to what you've said.
This term was not meant to apply to anyone who opposed Prop. 8. It is not meant to apply to gays or any other group, except those who I think would be comfortable with that label because they really don't mind saying they hate us - which they have a right to feel and say, but civilly, please. A tiny group of people were meant.
I think some of you felt I was being judgmental, divisive, and insulting in using the term "enemy" to describe others, as if I was applying that to gays in general, or as if I were missing the fact that the "enemies" were actually brothers and sisters we need to love.
I'm all for loving people who come after us with what I interpret as visible hostility and hate. That's kind of the intent of my previous post, and this one. They are our brothers and sisters and we should love them, even if they lose control and do things that seem wrong to us. But can't we love people, recognizing them as brothers and sisters, while also recognizing them as "enemies" that meet the dictionary requirements for that word, i.e., having hostility or hate toward us, opposing our interests, and in a few rare cases, even intending harm? The intentions may be honorable, as they are in most "anti-Mormons" who want to save people from hell by telling others that we don't believe in Christ and abuse children or whatever else they say. There are some great people, like Saul of Tarsus before his conversion, who take the stance of "enemies" to Christianity or the Mormon flavor thereof. "Enemy" is not necessarily an insult. In fact, if we're half as bad and deluded as some folks say we are, some of our most dangerous "enemies" may be heroes and saints in God's eyes. So recognize that "enemy" is not necessarily a put down.
When someone in an angry mob curses you while holding a sign saying "Mormon scum" and says it's time for retribution, calling Mormons the enemy, it seems like "enemy" status might even be one of the few things we could mutually agree upon. But to avoid adding any fuel to a potential fire, I am looking for softer, more politically correct language. So how about this: "Not Quite Friends." NQF. "Love Thy NQFs." Hmm, it's just not working. Suggestions? I'm at least somewhat serious. Is there better language to describe our NQFs?
(Note: Originally I used "Not Quite Friends Anymore" - NQFA.)
Our Faith in Christ on the Line: How Do We Respond to Our Enemies in California or Anywhere?
Paul Bishop, a police office in Los Angeles, shares his experiences and perspectives around the Proposition 8 backlash in a Meridian Magazine story, "In the Face of Hatred." (That's Part 1. Don't miss Part 2.) This article is essential reading. In addition to thoughtful discussion of the controversy and some great photos, it reports some aspects not known to many, including the beating of some apparently non-LDS girls who tried to remove hateful signs from the Temple walls (quickly stopped by police, fortunately - God bless those courageous women). To the angry folks who refuse to understand the difference, removing unwanted offensive messages from private property, messages that deface sacred religious grounds, is hardly the same as stripping away legally carried signs from the hands of law-abiding protesters. I am shocked that one commenter dares to equate the mob's hateful actions against a Christian woman with the brave service rendered by those girls trying to remove offensive litter defacing the Temple walls.
Paul is LDS and speaks to LDS members wondering how to respond. He begins by quoting one of our Apostles, Elder Robert D. Hales, and then offers simple, inspired advice:
"To respond in a Christlike way cannot be scripted or based on a formula. The Savior responded differently in every situation. When He was confronted by wicked King Herod, He remained silent. When He stood before Pilate, He bore a simple and powerful testimony of His divinity and purpose. Facing the moneychangers who were defiling the temple, He exercised His divine responsibility to preserve and protect that which was sacred. Lifted up upon a cross, He uttered the incomparable Christian response: 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do' (Luke 23:34)."
We have often been instructed to love our enemies, and despite the current horror of our trials, this is no time to do differently.
The temptation to push back and get aggressive may be strong, but we must remember Whom we follow. I would suggest that we not try to argue with inflamed mobs, that we do not provoke or invite hostility, that we avoid getting in the face of those who are angry, but always seek to have charity informing our actions.
Our example must be one of peaceful endurance, of courage but kindness in the face of hate, of seeking to bless rather than to curse. Remember, many of the outraged souls mocking your beliefs or even harming property believe they are victims of outrageous crimes against their most basic rights. They may be misguided, but they are our brothers and sisters who may yet be touched by the Spirit and see things differently. There are also many on the fence, not sure what to think, who may be touched by a Christlike response in this time of contention and hate. Pray for our enemies, pray for their welfare, and pray for guidance in how to deal with them when conflict becomes unavoidable. (Hint: I'm not sure Mormon ninjas are the answer.)
The rage against diversity of thought is reaching warlike proportions in some parts of California. Witness the frightening way "democracy" (as in mob rule) worked when a Christian woman dared to show up at a Prop. 8 protest in Palm Springs. Be sure to watch the very end where they show how the incident began. Tolerance? Love? Freedom of speech and thought? This is one of the more frightening things I've seen. Hat tip to Connor Boyack.
This video should become part of the standard training to help people recognize genuine hate crimes.
The commentator said something about seeing "a lot of hate on both sides." Where was the hate of the Christian woman? Was it in her smile as she was assailed and threatened? Was it in trying to pick up the cross that protesters tore from her hands and stomped on? Was it in refusing to shout and curse the angry mob around her? Or was it in having a differing view and daring to express it with a visible symbol (the cross)? Help me spot the hate here.
Update, Nov. 12: Some people have had a hard time imagining that any kind of crime was being committed here. I suggest you imagine what it must have been like for the elderly old woman who showed up at City Hall to stand up for her beliefs, however misguided you think they are. Can you imagine being a short, elderly woman showing up to "stand up for Jesus" by carrying a large cross that you had made? (If that's beyond your abilities, think of an elderly lesbian carrying a rainbow flag at a protest led by angry Mormon missionaries.) As you walk across an open area with your cross raised, you are suddenly surrounded by much bigger people, including large and burly men who begin shouting at you. Some grab the cross away from you and hurl this sacred symbol of your faith toward the ground. A possession of yours has just been stolen by force. The crowd presses in more tightly and begins stomping violently on the cross. They are doing more than simply destroying your possession, which most people ought to be able to recognize as a crime. They are angrily, deliberately, and, yes, hatefully, destroying what they know to be a symbol of your religious belief. Then they continue yelling at you, cursing you, and demanding that you leave, with arms flailing inches from your face. Do you think this might have appeared to be physical and emotional intimidation? Do you think emotions of hate were deliberately and persuasively conveyed? Or is this what you call civil discourse?
This is public property we are talking about, City Hall, not a private club where the woman slipped past the bouncers. She has as much right as they did to be there. Might it be possible that some of her rights were threatened by that group? Will they apologize for the theft, the destruction of property, the intimidation, the verbal and emotional abuse? Of course not.
I am surprised that some of you cannot imagine this being an example of a crime. How much further would it have had to go to qualify? Does the victim have to be maimed, her home burned to the ground, and her Starbucks gift card mangled, before the words "crime" and perhaps even "hate" might begin to apply?
Look, I don't like the whole concept of "hate crimes" since very few crimes qualify as loving in the first place. I prefer criminalizing actions rather than thought. But if "hate crime" is to be a legal concept, why not include this as an example. It's a mild example since the courageous woman wasn't bloodied or killed, and I will certainly admit that some gays have suffered bigotry far more devastating than this. By discussing this case, in no way do I wish to ignore the reality of assaults and other crimes against gays. Crime and hate must stop. But advocating the traditional legal definition of marriage is not an act of hate, however angry it makes some people.
The video is chilling - but you're probably not going to see this played endlessly on every major TV network for the next six months. You're probably not going to hear about this incident at all except on a few fringe blocks. But if the reverse situation had occurred - imagine angry Christians shouting down a peaceful lesbian protester calmly and courageously waving a rainbow banner, then grabbing her banner and stomping it into the earth, then swarming around her with curses and hate, demanding that she leave, and blocking cameras to keep the world from seeing her - can you imagine anything but massive national attention, even international attention, with all sorts of efforts from angry politicians to deal with the "Christian menace"? Can you imagine how such things would play out if the roles were reversed?
Definition: A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.
In response to mounting national concern over crimes motivated by bias, Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The law directed the Attorney General to collect data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity." . . .
As a result, the law enforcement agencies that participate in the national hate crime program collect details about an offender's bias motivation associated with the following offense types: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and destruction/damage/vandalism of property.
So if people charge at a woman because she's carrying a cross, yell at her, curse at her, grab her cross and destroy it, surround her and shout at her, could that possibly count as intimidation or destruction of property with some twist of bias based on the religion of the victim? Could it possibly be a hate crime? I'm just wondering out loud here. I'm not a lawyer and not even a very good judge of things like love and hate. I had the hardest time spotting the hate of that woman, and I had an even tougher time seeing the love in the actions of the mob with who had "love" all over their protest signs. I guess I'm emotionally dyslexic.
History recalls 1838 as the year of the Mormon War in Missouri. Will 2008 be the year of the Mormon War in California?
To gain some added insight into the mess in California right now, I called a person I really respect and admire who also happens to be gay and a former Mormon. I trust and value his opinion on many matters, though we differ strongly on matters of faith. He's an independent thinker who doesn't simply accept what any community or group says, but nevertheless is fairly conservative politically and is remarkably tolerant and sometimes even supportive of Latter-day Saints, in spite of having left the Church.
His thoughts surprised me. "I'm very upset with the Mormons. The Church is waging war in California." War? That caught me off guard. He felt that the Church - I guess that's "we" - have stepped over the line in pushing for the Proposition. He felt we have put our tax-exempt status at risk.
He explained that he does not believe in marriage - but feels that if people want to be married, let them. He doesn't care too much about the issues of Prop. 8 per se, but is upset at the Church playing such a significant role. And the word he choose to describe the situation was "war." While I disagree with his interpretation of the actions and aims of the Church, I respect the pain and agitation he feels. It gave me pause.
In the 1838 War, there was blame on both sides, and both sides could say the other side started it (though religious bigotry and hate against the Mormons clearly played a critical role). As the minority in the State, of course, the Mormons lost and were driven out of Missouri, with an insane extermination order nipping at their heels. War in California? Some speak of a culture war being waged across the United States. Will this be the first of additional battles where the Mormons take incredible heat for their stand on moral issues? Will there be dramatic consequences, far more dramatic than a few buildings vandalized? Stay tuned. Even when the judges in California contrive a way to strike down Proposition 8, it may not bring "peace in our time."
Of course, the Prop. 8 case is hardly analogous to the 1838 War. For one thing, I don't expect Mormons to be forcibly driven out of California or anyplace else in the US. Conflict with the Federal government could one day be much more worrisome. Our stance on moral issues today may end up being more like a repeat of the 1870s, where the Church's former pro-polygamy position (so shocking to the serial adulterers in Congress of that era) was used as justification to disenfranchise it and seize its assets. Our position and efforts to preserve the sanctity of marriage in this day puts us at odds with some important social currents (same-sex marriage, abortion, pre-marital sex and cohabitation, gender roles, etc.). Though many share our views on these matters, our proactive and well-organized efforts, coupled with our "oddball" minority status, make us an ideal target for blame. Marching against Hispanics, blacks, Catholics, Baptists, and even the American Plumbers Union won't play well, but there's little risk in going after the Mormons.
While this whole thing may blow over, at least this time, it is possible that we will face increasing trouble in the future - not so much from angry mobs as from Federal agents from the IRS or maybe even the Justice Department using RICO statutes or other tools. If so, the consequences could be serious if good people of other faiths don't stand up for us. Will there be pressure for a Third Manifesto that addresses same-sex marriage? Will the only safe route be to exercise our First Amendment right to simply shut up on social and moral issues? May our religious freedom be preserved here and in other lands where, sadly, it is increasingly at risk.
Personally, I believe that the Church and its members have every right to take stands on moral issues and when they are the subject of legal action or proposed legal changes, to exert influence. Our opponents have the same right. If they had won in California, Latter-day Saints would not be holding angry protect marches gay rights organizations or holding angry protect marches in front of churches on the other side. Those who demand tolerance should also afford it to those who disagree. That said, I think we need to understand how painful this issue is for some of our brothers and sisters, and how personally this affects them. These are very difficult times.
By the way, those Temple gates don't look strong enough to keep out a mob if they wanted to get it. Reinforcements needed for future controversies? Update: For a report on vandalism against the Church by the forces of love, see BeetleBabee.
To those who are confused by the signs littering the Temple fence and wondering if spending money to support Proposition 8 really is the same as "buying hate," here's a useful video explaining what Proposition 8 was about. Hat tip to the Findelmeyer Proposition.
The Real Religious Fairness Doctrine: All Evidence for Religious Belief Must Be Balanced such that Faith Is Still Required
I ranted earlier about the Fairness Doctrine while speculating tongue-in-cheek about a Religious Fairness Doctrine. On further reflection, it appears that a Religious Fairness Doctrine is already in place. Its goal is to generally leave with the freedom to believe and with the need to exercise faith.
The tomb is empty and witnesses claim Christ is resurrected? No trouble - we've got paid witnesses who say the tomb was robbed. That's only fair.
We should expect every evidence for the Divine to have seemingly plausible natural explanations. Call that a cop-out, if you're one who demands absolute proof - that's totally fair of you.
For Latter-day saints, we should expect every tidbit of Book of Mormon evidence to still leave people with plenty of unanswered questions and seemingly plausible objections or counter-explanations. We should not expect "slam dunk" evidence to be uncovered that would leave people with no wiggle room for doubt. Don't expect the gold plates to be returned anytime soon and sent to the Smithsonian for authentication (actually, they would be melted down and sold as part of some emergency bailout for needy tycoons). Don't expect a fully authenticated Mesoamerican engraving saying "Welcome to Zarahemla, Chief Nephite Capital" to be dug up in southern Mexico or Guatemala. Don't expect scholars to find an ancient altar in the Arabian Peninsula verifying the use of the ancient name Nahom/NHM in 600 B.C. in the place that the Book of Mormon calls Nahom. (Oops - my bad on that last one. Well, I mean don't expect non-LDS critics to find all that Arabian Peninsula evidence to be the least bit interesting. As long as they don't feel a need to make any concessions, the need for faith is still there. Thanks, guys!)
Oops - got to run. Time to get in line again. Here in Wisconsin, we're not leaving this election to chance.
Update on an Important Limitation: A seemingly unfair aspect of the Real Religious Fairness Doctrine is that it is only required when dealing with actual religious truth and evidence relating to the True and Living God. It does not necessarily apply to completely man-made religions and insane cultic delusions. When dealing with a false Messiah, for example, the evidence can be entirely lop-sided in favor of his divinity - at least as reported by the major media.
Lessons from Ancient Relics: Alma's Counsel in Alma 37
In the majestic words of Alma the younger to his righteous son Helaman in Alma 36 and 37, he begins with a carefully composed, elaborate, even majestic example of chiasmus, a type of parallelism now known to be characteristic of ancient Semitic poetry. His words in the following chapter are highly literary as well, structured around three references to specific, miraculous "small means" that the Lord uses to bring us to Him: (1) the metal plates of the Nephites (including the ancient plates of brass) with scriptural writings (verses 1-20), (2) the Jaredite relics of the 24 gold plates and the "interpreters," the ancient revelatory tools that we might call the Urim and Thummim or seerstones (verses 21-37), and (3) the Liahona, the divine compass of sorts that guided Lehi's group on their journey to the New World, a device that can point the way when faith is exercised (verses 38-47).
In treating these relics (in the chiastic order of Nephite, Jaredite, Nephite again), there is a steady theme of gaining eternal life through revealed guidance and grace from the Lord. There is a course we must navigate in this life, and these small revelatory means can help. We must constantly seek revelation and exercise faith in Christ to stay on course. Here is some beautiful counsel from Alma 37:
[33] Preach unto them repentance, and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ; teach them to humble themselves and to be meek and lowly in heart; teach them to withstand every temptation of the devil, with their faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.
[34] Teach them to never be weary of good works, but to be meek and lowly in heart; for such shall find rest to their souls.
[35] O, remember, my son, and learn wisdom in thy youth; yea, learn in thy youth to keep the commandments of God.
[36] Yea, and cry unto God for all thy support; yea, let all thy doings be unto the Lord, and whithersoever thou goest let it be in the Lord; yea, let all thy thoughts be directed unto the Lord; yea, let the affections of thy heart be placed upon the Lord forever.
[37] Counsel with the Lord in all thy doings, and he will direct thee for good; yea, when thou liest down at night lie down unto the Lord, that he may watch over you in your sleep; and when thou risest in the morning let thy heart be full of thanks unto God; and if ye do these things, ye shall be lifted up at the last day.
Alma 37 is a chapter well worth reading and pondering in detail, as is my favorite chapter in the Book of Mormon, Alma 36.
The Book of Mormon is becoming so relevant in this era. How marvelously the prophetic historian Mormon has edited the 1000+ years of Nephite history to emphasize a few short years that offer uncanny parallels to our time. Even the whirlwind tour of much lengthier Jaredite history in the Book of Ether emphasizes episodes and trends that are relevant for our time - including the desire of the Jaredites to have kings (like the ancient Israelites). Mosiah learned much from the Jaredite experiment and wisely ended the rule of kings with a form of government offering more freedom, if the people could keep it.
Over the next 90 years, the Nephite nation faced constant threats from forces who wanted all-powerful chief executives and their cronies to be in charge. Amlici and Amalickiah sought to be kings and collaborated with the enemy in their quest for power. Kingmen rose up in the thousands to support further efforts to overthrow freedom and bring back kings. Murder, bribery, corruption of basic laws, and even secret tribunals rose up, coupled with secret combinations inside and outside Nephite society, all seeking to overthrow freedom and make the people servants (perhaps with the threat of the "grievous" 20% tax exacted by King Noah - about half what this nation takes from its people already). Politicians seeking power offered others money to gain support, both in Nephite and Jaredite society -- one of the most dreaded signs of a decaying government, when leaders gain support by offering the lucre of government-aided plunder.
America seems to want kings to lead it. The rise of solitary executive power, blind to the intended constraints of the Constitution, has been going on for many years. The current Executive has kingly powers on many fronts, and those vying for our votes tomorrow differ mainly in what ways they will further expand the throne. This is the day of Kingmen.
Liberty, if it is going to be preserved, will not depend on which of the two money parties gains power in the White House. Rather, it depends on America shunning the temptations and terrors of a kingdom and returning to personal values of integrity, honesty, and morality. Without that personal strength in its citizens, they will never have the wisdom to govern themselves or to find representatives who can protect their freedoms. Moral and spiritual weakness is the prelude to liberty lost. That's one of the great messages of the Book of Mormon, more vital than ever for our time.
Oh, and don't forget food storage.
Vote wisely tomorrow. The lines will probably be long, so you may only have time to vote once.
In my earlier years, I used to get a kick from "found poetry" - prose from mundane sources like instruction manuals not meant to be particularly literary which sometimes accidentally conveys poetic content. Here is one candidate I just ran into. It comes from the abstract of Korean patent (KR20050079263A) that I found today using a professional patent search tool for my day job. This is the abstract they provided, which was translated with the help of a machine. I've reformatted it slightly, added italics in two places and left out a few parts, including four words that could not be translated.
Read this out loud, softly, in candle light. It's hard to find poetry more moving than this - and it was created by accident.
"Chinese medicine herb medicine remanufactures (the ginseng, the sugar ear and the calamus, the territory, the ramie)"
The invention which it sees as regarding the hair cosmetics composition to the place where it recovers the hair which is damaged the plow and tree, the distant, the various branch compounding effect of Fiji control, the clause germ and the clause sal back the hair cosmetics of necessary one existing most like this . . .
it cannot be satisfied it could not on a large scale the place where it improves two blood.
The invention which it sees the extract to the back which is a pin, a propylene writing call and a vegetability pro reel and the reel Oh the mountain cetane will come. . . .
The interface activator and the floating green onion Chinese medicine herb medicine remanufacture (the ginseng, the sugar ear and the calamus, the territory, the ramie) it contains it manufactures with in two blood and the hair line promotion, dandruff removal, the plow and tree to bring the distant effective back, when specially applying in two blood which feel a hair cosmetics use hour stimulus, the maximum it relaxes the magnetic pole. . . .
The dry hair which splits well, and shampoo hour the keratin happens easily and only Chinese medicine herb medicine remanufacture being unique in the hair where the dandruff gets, the nutrition which is abundant about under giving in order it is moist healthy and to give with one head wave splashing over splashing over, it is one thing.
A reminder that poetry can happen by accident, as can, for example, chiasmus (a topic of interest to Book of Mormon fans). But the link between meaning and poetical devices in random poetry often leaves much to be desired, in contrast to what has been crafted deliberately, by the hand of an artist. Given that, I still really like this Korean machine-assisted poem, especially the closing lines and the part about the floating green onion. What dreams I will have tonight!
With one head wave splashing over splashing over, it is one thing.
"A Bit of Harlem at BYU" by Sally Atkinson is a BYU Magazine story about Lakia Holmes, a girl from Harlem who ran into the LDS missionaries there. She ended up being part of an LDS group in Harlem with apartments in a building they called "Harleman Halls" - the Harlem answer to Helaman Halls housing at BYU. (Articles on both topics are at the same link, with the "Bit of Harlem" story being near the end of the page.)
What impressed me about Lakia's story is how she overcame her challenging start to life.
Growing up in Harlem hadn't been an easy life for Holmes. Her mother was addicted to crack, sometimes disappearing for weeks at a time, and her father left soon after Holmes was born. She bounced around foster homes and struggled in school. "I spent more time on the street than I did at school," she says. But by the time she met the missionaries, Holmes had finished her GED and was taking college courses in the Bronx.
I was also impressed with how the other LDS folks reached out to Lakia:
Soon after joining the Church, Holmes moved from her grandmother's apartment to Harleman Halls--only a few blocks away but a foreign environment nonetheless. Since seven of the building's apartments were then home to Latter-day Saints, Holmes had an immediate support network. Her Relief Society president lived two flights up. Her home teachers were just steps away.
Still, Holmes worried she might not have much in common with her white Mormon neighbors. Her attitude changed after she and a roommate cooked up a Southern feast, showcasing Holmes' roots, and invited people from the stake. "We had all the fixin's--pigs' feet, collard greens," she says. People were hesitant about the pigs' feet until a friend who had loved them on his mission devoured a plate full. "I'd never seen someone who wasn't black be so happy to have pigs' feet," Holmes says. "It was cool to see people trying something they'd never even seen before and getting to know a part of my life and culture."
Being surrounded by so many returned missionaries and BYU grads, Holmes soon began to desire those same experiences for herself. Six months after moving into the building, she was on her very first airplane flight, headed to BYU for school. A year later she was serving a mission in Atlanta.
Wow, this woman impresses me. I love seeing this kind of drive, overcoming a lot of barriers to move forward with her education, then having the faith to not only join the Church but also to go on a mission.
I'd like some tips on eating pigs feet. I'm an experienced collard greens eater, but pigs feet I've shied away from so far. But it's cool that the willingness of others to try that made a difference. Prospective missionaries, take this advice: learn now to eat and enjoy foods way outside your comfort zone.
Thanks to Sally Atkinson for a great article about a great Latter-day Saint. Lakia is now at BYU and is Relief Society President in her singles ward. Way to go!
A Religious Fairness Doctrine: Why Not Prepare Now?
With the "Fairness Doctrine" facing a vigorous resurrection, it's time to prepare for phase two: the Religious Fairness Doctrine. No need waiting - why don't we prepare now for "religious fairness" to meet tough new standards that we could see one day? For example, does your ward currently have one-sided sermons and prayers, all focused on your own narrow moral and religious views? It would be wise to offer equal time to non-believers and dissenters. Scriptures might need to be edited to present more balanced viewpoints, perhaps alternating pages from ancient prophets with columns from the New York Times or at least Harry Potter. Primary kids would get CTW rings for one hand to balance CTR rings on the other. And of course, we would have to have a number of ward disservice projects each year.
If you've been hanging out in a cave recently - something I've found to be the best way to deal with this election - you might not have been paying much attention to the threat of the Fairness Doctrine in political speech. The Fairness Doctrine is a nice-sounding name for government control of broadcast speech through the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC). It began in 1949 but really become a factor in the 1960s when it was used routinely for political aims. It put radio stations at risk when they addressed political issues. Many resorted to watering down their content or going through the motions of having "equal time" for opposing views. In general, there was a chilling effect on speech. Only after 1985, when it was repealed under the Reagan Administration, did radio broadcasters dare to regularly broadcast politically-oriented talk-shows, and in that free market, conservative talk-shows have dominated. Some folks would like to fix all this unbalanced free speech by getting us back to the Fairness Doctrine. The risk, I'm afraid, is not only bringing a one-sided "fairness" to talk radio (i.e., to shut up annoying or dangerous voices), but perhaps to extend control to the Internet as well (via "network neutrality" or other tools). Talk radio is certainly the target, if you've listened to the politicians calling for the Fairness Doctrine. They aren't complaining about lack of fairness in newspapers or on TV, from what I've heard.
A little history might be helpful here. Thomas W. Hazlett and David W. Sosa of the CATO Institute have a 1997 paper, "Chilling the Internet: Lessons from FCC Regulation of Radio Broadcast." They review the effect of the Fairness Doctrine to shut down conservative opposition. Here's an excerpt:
In 1962 President Kennedy's policies were under sustained attack from conservative broadcasters across the country. Of particular concern to the president were vocal right-wing opponents of the nuclear test ban treaty being considered by the Senate at the time. The administration and the DNC seized upon the Fairness Doctrine as a way to "counter the radical right" in their battle to pass the treaty. The Citizens Committee for a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was established and funded by the Democrats, orchestrated a very effective protest campaign against hostile radio editorials, demanding free reply time under the Fairness Doctrine whenever a conservative broadcaster denounced the treaty. Ultimately, the Senate ratified the treaty by far more than the necessary two-thirds majority.
Flush with success, the DNC and the Kennedy-Johnson administration decided to extend use of the doctrine to other high-priority legislation and the impending 1964 elections. Democratic Party funding sources were used to establish a professional listening post to monitor right-wing radio. The DNC also prepared a kit explaining "how to demand time under the Fairness Doctrine," which was handed out at conferences. As Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under President Kennedy, noted, "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
By November 1964, when Johnson beat Goldwater in a landslide, the Democrats' "fairness" campaign was considered a stunning success. The effort had produced 1,035 letters to stations, resulting in 1,678 hours of free airtime. Critical to the campaign was the fact that much of the partisan commentary came from small, rural stations. In a confidential report to the DNC, Martin Firestone, a Washington attorney and former FCC staffer, explained,
"The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule."
Brace yourself for fairness, and order your CTW rings today! (Now in two flavors for added balance: "Choose the Wrong" and "Choose the Wicked.")
Update - clarifying material from my response to some comments: Are concerns about the Fairness Doctrine unfounded paranoia? I hope so, but there's been fresh talk in Washington by Pelosi et al. about the need to bring it back. Shouldn't that at least raise an eyebrow?
That slurping sound in Washington is not just coming from Paulson's 700 billion slush fund sloshing in a few pockets - it's also coming from the salivation of politicians looking forward to further expanding their power. Does it take a delusional imagination to think that what already happened in the past couldn't happen again when the Fairness Doctrine is revived?
These kind of concerns aren't just tied to Obama, who actually said he opposes reinstating the doctrine (well, for now anyway). McCain, on the other hand, has done much more to threaten the future of free speech, in my opinion, through McCain-Feingold, which could be used much more actively in the future than it is today. Don't think I'm looking to him to save the eroding Constitution. This is not about Democrats vs. Republicans (or, more properly, Money Party A vs. Money Party B).
Net Neutrality is another nice-sounding concept, but it carries the sting of expansive regulation. Anyone who hasn't noticed how regulations expand in scope in the hands of those with an agenda hasn't been watching Washington for the past few decades.
The idea that Net Neutrality could join with Fairness to create a monster of Internet content regulation is controversial, but when an FCC Commissioner raises this as a possibility, it's not necessarily completely groundless. For those of you who have missed the news, here's a summary from a note in Wikipedia's article on the Fairness Doctrine:
On August 12, 2008, FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell stated that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the debate over network neutrality (a proposal to classify network operators as common carriers required to admit all Internet services, applications and devices on equal terms), presenting a potential danger that net neutrality and Fairness Doctrine advocates could try to expand content controls to the Internet. It could also include "government dictating content policy".
Hope he's wrong! Hope I'm wrong, too! Now that's the kind of hope this country needs.
