hello everyone. just a quick update: hannah and i are living it up in the nyc. nothing could be better. we go to work together (are both slightly miserable because of the work), come home and nap, and then go out for glorious nights on the town. last nite we saw tarzan. the fact that i slightly, secretly, semi-enjoyed myself is a tribute to how enjoyable hannah's company is (not to the quality of the show).
in fact, its a wonder we still get along. on the way home from washington d.c. (where we saw jonny and mom and judy) i slept on her shoulder nearly the entire way. we've practically spent all out time together. the only times we disagree are when she invades my cookie dough and my cellular telephone device.
last nite we came home and i became infatuated with this fire hydrant. you know how i am with fire hydrants. here is a sneak peak at the goodness i encountered.
100 comments:
stephen,
the beard ain't half bad, ain't half bad at all (the more of your face covered, the better, that's what i say).
skinny.
like always, i couldn't agree more!
why does petey keep kissing up to skinny?
maybe after all these days, maybe we'll come to find out that skinny is actually a girl and lives so close to her own name. maybe that's why i'm deeply in love with skinny...
skinny: you know i care deeply about what you think. why don't you grace us with more of your genius opinions?
jonny: $20 each.
petey: i'm just a mirror...
dd: as always, apt analysis of pt.
stephen,
i like your pics! ... and beard face. ;)
paul: are you even alive anymore? you are the keeper of this web log.
stevey.
you are the only mirror i know that can project its own image irrespective of what beam of visible light (480-760 nm) is blaring down upon you.
stephen,
pig dog
p.s. i didn't even like x men three.
skinny: you do not like x men three only because you are not a scientist.
peter, on the other hand, is a master scientist. a scientific wizard, even.
maybe even a chemical swordsman wizard, if you can feel that one...
my apologies, i'll try not to comment w/o giving prior thought, i should know better than the verbo-mentally buliem on everybody like that.
sorry.
whoops. did it again. my bad.
is peter talking to himself again?
am i struggling to find time to get on the internet? does that mean my life is getting better or worse?
why doesn't skinny love x-men? (one of the better comic series going)
why didn't hillary clinton vote for the gay marriage amendment--did you mo-mo's write her? should she have voted for it?
why is it so pretty in park city and at westwater canyon (colorado river) these days?
why didn't i make these paragraphs seperate posts like petey?
why is petey such a cool scientist?
why is baseball so boring to watch (skinny, i'd rather you kick me in the head than suffer through nine innings) on tv?
why isn't the dance idol show as cool as american idol?
i guess these questions just aren't as good the questions skinny has set forth for his prospective wife, but hopefully they will amuse and bemuse.
goodnight and goodluck
why am i so hot (ie. pot bellied, farmer tanned and flat chested is so hot right now)
see: Wednesday, May 03, 2006. persuasive carnivals of wide tarantulas
it's late.
pablo (keeper of the web log): you have returned
paul,
some thoughtful questions. some unthoughtful answers
the reason i didn't like x-men three was because i didn't quite expect what was going to happen to my three favorite characters (xavier, jean gray, and magneto) so it kind of took me by surprise. i have a feeling that if i watched it again i would like it more.
concerning baseball, the trick to enjoying baseball is to have favorite players and/or teams. baseball is boring to me too if i don't know any of the players involved. that probably doesn't make any sense, but then, i never do.
to close i would just like to say i have two dates this weekend ending my five month drought.
skinny__
good hustle and good luck this weekend.
paul__
i was nearing the brink of devastation just prior to your glorious return to the dominion. how's cali? anything like the old ventura days?
thank you skinny
petey: cali starts next week and we're hoping it's all it's cracked up to be.
Philly in June?
skinny: strong work on the dates. sounds like fun.
you set forth some of the better arguments i heard in recent history for why baseball could be considered interesting. at least you didn't bite at my baiting you regarding the lack of athleticism amongst baseball players (or maybe i hadn't said that yet and i'm now just getting around to it).
i guess gay marriage is still safe in MA for the time being.
where have all the flowers gone?
didn't anyone get hillary on the phone?
skinny: i like x-men a little less than you did. maybe because they gave more lines to halle berry (who received an oscar because she was exploited by a director in monster's ball). maybe because they overused teh biatch term in very corny and unfunny ways.
maybe there was still lots to really like about the movie.
maybe i am the delirious exhibitionsist as i continue to carry on this conversation with myself...
paul: don't worry, we're all still listening (except maybe stephen).
hillary didn't return my calls (that biatch). did you call your senator?
skinny: how were your dates? i hate dating.
baseball sucks on tv, but in the ballpark is a different story. i think i'm turning into a yankees fan.
our dear senator hatch was flooded and with correspondence and nobody wonders where he stands (not an excuse), but no, i didn't call.
good hillary observation.
baseball is a whole new ball game in the stadium.
the yankees? what about the poor mets?
dd.
that's the best thing you've said yet. i mean about the yankees of course. hillary didn't return my calls, emails, or faxes either. unbelievable.
paul.
thank you for 14 consecutive comments. in time of need, i now know where i can go for someone to perform in crush time. read everyone of them tho. great hustle.
stevey.
come home to the dominion, i feel like you're becoming more and more like skinny every week that passes. (no offense to you skinny)
deeds.
you going to the mets game next monday?
the delirious dominion...so nice to come home to...stephen?
pablo: when you call your orrin g. what would you tell him? which side of it do you support?
dd: i think i'm a mets fan. is that a bad thing? its taken a little bit to push me over.
pablo: i understand about the unfunny/slightly offensive use of certain words in x-men. but you have to overlook some faults of something you love so much.
skinny: why are you alive?
pt: you don't offend skinny when you say i'm becoming like him--you offend me. and he would agree with you.
stevie: i still enjoyed x-men. i was sitting next to amy which heightens the expectations.
an amendment huh? my beloved economist thinks it is silly to worry about whether gays marry. traditional marriage has declined without the gay influence. an argument would be that society would be better off if gays had incentive to stick to one partner that to enjoy the company of many--thus spreading love and disease.
On the other hand, the symbolic gesture of calling a gay union 'marriage' strikes me as wrong. I don't support discrimination of an individual in terms of day to day acceptance, love and empathy. Our society depends on as many mother and father pairs that are both influencing their children for good. If calling a gay union 'marriage' will cause a disintigration of the sanctity of marriage (which is debatable) then I support disallowing 'gay marriage' under that name. An amendment may not be the best political way to prevent 'gay marriage', but if the brethren (as their statment seems to imply) support the amendment then I will follow.
There are members that feel the brethtren's statement does leave room for personal opinion and interpretation. I haven't fully worked out my feelings and decisions on the subject (as you can tell from my rambling).
where do the rest of you stand on the amendment after that mini dissertation?
i meant 'than to enjoy the company of many'
petey,
was that a shot at my commenting infrequency or at my incredible personality? either way i'm not offended.
dd,
my dates were slightly below average and average respectively. meaning they were enjoyable, but definitely no seconds.
stevie,
i'm not really sure, but it's a miracle i'm alive at all considering i had to live with you for eight months. it's been about eight for months for petey now too, you might to start having a suicide watch for him.
paul,
whether rambling or not, your thoughts on the subject are very similar to yours. meaning that, for the same reasons as you mentioned, i'm still working it all out.
p.s. how can anybody like the yankees? ridiculous.
petey: i wasn't planning to.
skinny: i'm impressed at your ability to enjoy below average dates.
paul: i actually didn’t run off to call hillary. i think it was a mistake for the church to come out so strongly in this case---what they gave up in goodwill and neutrality was unlikely to payoff in actual influence (and indeed it failed). if the intent was to make a statement about the importance of the family i think it was unnecessary, since our beliefs about marriage and family are fairly widely known. my family has been discussing this issue over email and i thought my dad said it well. he said:
"I also did not immediately contact congressional representatives regarding the legislation. In fact, the Church taking the stand on this made me uncomfortable, not because I disagree that marriage should be between a man and a woman (which speaks strongly against plural marriage), rather because I think that the legislation could lead to erosion and/or prevention of legal rights, and even perhaps trying to overly influence eternal rights of agency.
I believe that the Church is better served by emphasizing covenant marriage, which by definition in the Church is between a man and a woman, and which is more long term oriented than any form of purely legal relationship. Those who may wish to enter into various forms of legal relationships ought to have the legal right to do so, as well as God given agency to choose to do so."
skinny: i almost like the yankees against my will. how can you not like jeter, a-rod, and especially johnny damon....i even love to hate randy johnson. and i love yankee stadium.
paul: who's rambling now?
dd: you are most definitely not rambling--your dad is. what is your your view?
paul: i believe the statement as issued by the first presidency gives members room to be open to interpretation and personal opinion.
i have a student who, as we were walking on a field trip at a park in the bronx, told me that he had something to tell me that he thought i might think was weird. i prodded him. he told me this park was where his mom and her girlfriend come to play tennis. "um...mr. frandsen, do you think that's weird? my mom is a lesbian," he questioned.
automatically i answered no. i didn't think it was weird. i told him there was nothing wrong with it. i told him there was nothing wrong with him because of it. i told him i thought it was great that his mom was happy with her girlfriend. i told him that i was glad he told me. and i was. and i believed everything i said.
so how can i feel comfortable actively supporting legislation that directly contradicts what i told him? "no bernard, there is nothing wrong with your family, and you shouldn't feel ashamed because of it. however, i am going to try and ammend the constitution of the united states of america because i think its unnatural and it offends me. and i'm actively working to stop your mom from obtaining what she wants (although i have no idea if his mom wants that--but if she did, wouldn't it provide a little more stability in his already unstable life?)"
p.t.: sorry about the long comment.
now we're getting some pith on this blog.
stephen: you're such a rebel. very well articulated.
sorry if my opinion was unclear. i've never been opposed to gay marriage...and i still don't understand what the big deal is. not only do i not support an amendment banning gay marriage, i honestly don't really believe that changing the legal definition of marriage to include homosexual couples would lead to the further disintegration of the family.
p.s. are you really a mets fan?
paul: good word.
paul: can you get some tracy mackay in on this action?
dd.
never said i was a mets fan. i hated the yankees vehemently until i went to a game and saw all my baseball heroes on one pitch. i've been yankees ever since. and i understand the contradiction of supporting the yankees and hating walmart for the same reasons. but it's acceptable to break the rules if you know the reasons that you are breaking. similar to e.e. cummings, you know?
i do however have a few extra tickets if you still wanna come...
paul.
i'm surprised you haven't quoted osc yet? cause without him, we haven't heard your opinions.
So what if it's the day of your birth?
....No big deal.
Your face crinkles? you add some girth?
Does it matter? is it REAL?
And so... you crank open your eyes
and into your mind float
Whens? and Hows? and Whys?
A gulp will denote.
time unladen
rushes quietly by
my dad calls to report
his observation:
24 years ago, i was 24 times your age
today, only a little more than twice.
in another 25 years,
he will be 3 quarters a century
i, one half.
i am bad at math.
stevey, for your birthday, i want a new weblog entry.
stevie et al,
before you changes the weblog, i would just like to say that i'm opposed to both gay marriage.
not only that, but i'm also opposed to almost (with emphasis on the almost) everything you told your student (bernard was his name i think). i do think there is something "wrong" with breaking the law of chastity.
now you and i both know i have nothing against gays/lesbians (at least i hope you know that). however, for religous reasons i do not approve of their chosen lifestyle (as i do not approve of the lifestyle of an alcoholic or druggy), and for me, supporting gay marriage is supporting their lifestyle.
so there you have it. i suppose you might consider me quite out of touch or quite prejudiced/close-minded/judgmental etc. that's fine. or maybe you think i missed the argument completely, but i don't think so.
remember those debates we used to have freshmen year (which i always won), this could be another if only you weren't over there.
p.s. happy birthday, i'm just getting off work, so for me it's still thursdee.
petey: i wasn't trying to accuse you of being a mets fan...my incredulous question was directed towards stephen, who had just confessed that he was. i have tickets to the mets game on tuesday so i think i'll pass on monday's game, but thanks anyway. by the way, your walmart logic stinks.
skinny: so i guess you probably don't think we should legalize marijuana either, right?
does anyone have an opinion on the jeffrey nielsen thing?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060614/ap_on_re_us/mormons_gay_marriage_3
dd: i couldn't get your link to work, but i think the jeffrey nielsen thing was the professor at BYU who was let go due to a statement similar to yours and the one i brought up from the economist that legalizing gay marriage wouldn't lead to the disintigration of traditional marriage and might actually motivate gay couples to stay in committed, stable relationships.
It seems that there were two main issues. It is against BYU policy for a professor to officially oppose the first presidency. In his letter to the tribue he announced his status as BYU professor and then openly opposed the FP. It is unfortunate what happened. However, he knew what he was getting into. This was not an internal academic debate that he started or a discussion amongst colleagues. This was an open letter in the salt lake trib (traditionally has an anti-mormon bent--although less now than at its inception).
This letter just confirms the opinions of those in Utah that already dislike the church, doesn't even phase many of the members of the church who (many of whom, in this state, didn't bat an eye at supporting the amendment). It is unfortunate for BYU (academic freedom etc) and unfortunate for Jeffrey Nielsen (breaking school policy in a very open and ultimately futile way--in terms of the effect he has had for making change in a area he obviously believes very strongly). Sad for all concerned.
stevie: about your student. i believe i would have said the same thing you did to your student. bernard is a second grader and in his likely concrete thinking the intricacies of the argument and the ability to love and support someone but disagree politically with them would not make sense to him. It would just feel like you disapproving of him if you expressed any concern about his two moms' relationship.
here is the first presidency statement:
"We are informed that the United States Senate will on June 6, 2006, vote on an amendment to the Federal constitution designed to protect the traditional institution of marriage.
We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.
In 1995 we issued a Proclamation to the World on this matter, and have repeatedly reaffirmed that position.
In that proclamation we said: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”
We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate."
They mention the amendment, they mention their stand in the proclamation and they mention a call to a senator. It is very clear they oppose marriage between two men or women. It is unclear what what they support as a means of acheiving that end.
The church and society as a whole takes moral stands. Killing is considered a universal moral wrong. Pedophilia is a moral wrong. The church is taking the stance that gay sexual relations are morally wrong. (I'm not equating gay sexual relations as the same as killing or pedophilia, but as more universallly accepted examples of moral wrongs--you would be hard pressed to find those who support members of society who kill in cold blood and who molest the young)
If God's chosen servants state that gay sexual relations are morally wrong then that seems pretty concrete. There have been times when GA's have reversed their position in church history (blacks, polygamy), but it is sketchy ground to choose what issues on which to follow the prophet based on that logic.
I don't think that a proclamation that names gay sexual relations as morally wrong equals a blanket support for any and all propositions put forth in the legislature that are anti-gay...
sorry about the mistakes in the post. we are heading to california this morning and the girls are crying for me to get off the computer.
happy un-birthday to stevie.
just like that the pithy well runs dry...anyone? bueller?
how's this for politically correct? i bought macdonald's dollar menu to save money and took it to the starbucks porch to eat it for the atmosphere...
were the pc trendy starbucks junkies judging me? are you? do i think less of myself...
maybe
the
length
of my
posts scared
you all off...
paul: i'm not scared.
stephen: are you dead?
petey: how was the game?
skinny: more dates planned?
jill: the move was VERY taxing. We don't envy you making a second move so few months after your last move. maybe celebration homes can pay for movers...
seat belt laws. i'm trying to decide if there is a parallel in your question to the gay marriage amendment.
anyway. i'm for the laws. the problem with not requiring the law is the cost on society. as the government takes a greater and greater burden in health care expenses (which i happen to believe most things should be left to private industry as the goverment usually bungles whatever they get their hands on--although i think something needs to be done for the 44 million uninsured) it is a significant cost on society to pay the medical expenses for someone without a seatbelt and who ends up treated in the ICU for weeks to years. Even with treatment that person may end up with long term brain damage and deficits that hurt their quality of life for the duration
so while i agree that agency is important. it can be wielded to a point. the point at which the stupidity of the person's action leads them to exact costs that are unbearable on society--that would be could time for society to curb their actions.
Every day you spend in the ICU is NOT cheap. That cost is passed onto the taxpayer. Especially if the driver is on medicaid or medicare.
deltar? are these last days of school too taxing? do you wish you came to disneyland with us? maybe you can when you come out...
jill: how was stephen's experience? are things closer to being solidified? do you have a company logo?
dd: i was not insinuating that you were scared. although your being a yankee fan casts a pale over your comments.
pt: yankees and walmart cannot be seperated. your are either trendy, not trendy or anti-trendy (ie. trendy in your own mind).
paul.
dear paul.
neither walmart nor yankees have any thing to do with trendy. capris...? maybe. but loathing the effect of corporations corroding home-town america by supporting the wal-mart gazzillionaires in their quest for more bazillions of dollars may or may not be trendy. not apropos. i hate walmart, period. walmart is to america what constantine is to early christianity.
paul,
you continually astound me with your wisdom, although sometimes i wonder how you can handle typing in that stupid word verification so many times.
dd,
none as of yet. the problem with dating here in the spanish fork is that all the attractive girls around here are either a little young (18-19) or married. for some reason, attractive unmarrieds don't stay around these parts long. once they hit 20, they take off for other parts of the world, like nyc for example. i can't quite bring myself to asking a teenager on a date (although my resolve is just about broken down) and going on dates with married people just isn't all it's cracked up to be.
so, i wait.
petey,
i have never heard a better description of walmart. i hope you don't mind if i use that little quote from time to time as i try to convince people to avoid that great and spacious building. don't worry, i'll give you due credit.
petey: I agree wholeheartedly. I loathe the effect of the New York Yankee corporation corroding home-town america by supporting the New York Yankee owner/gazzillionaires in their quest for more bazillions of dollars despite it's negative effect on teams in the league that cannot match their financial output in the quest for better players, tv coverage, fan base and talent.
i don't hate the yankees, although i've made a good case why i should. as for your walmart obsession. what you've said about walmart could just as easily be said about most of corporate america. i guess it could be said about many in america that are driven by the pursuit of money...but then again, why did i go to medical school and you to dental school? hopefully not just to earn money but that certainly played a part in the decision. in fact, i would say that it is often okay to use money to attract people in the community to perform the tasks that society needs. (this is why we should pay teachers more--the system isn't perfect, but it works in more ways than not).
wal-mart performs a valuable service--providing goods for the cheapest price. this is definitely something that benefits a large part of the society, in fact it benefits the poorest part of society the most. it is easy for you not to shop at wal-mart because you wouldn't buy their clothes anyway (not cool) and you can pay higher prices due to your personal assets (whether student or not your personal and family resources outstrip at least 80% of the american public).
walmart is to america what stalin was to communism. a battle cry and a reaffirmation. petey, are you a closet socialist?
skinny: i am not astounding. it's just that no one apparently has the time right (or desire) right now to point out why i am wrong.
typing in word verification letters is like a fun game.
paul: i agree about the seat belt laws (and tangentially the state of healthcare in our country). the one i can't quite decide is assisted suicide. what do you think?
skinny: there is only one answer for you: move to new york.
petey: i don't want to get all ayn rand on you, but please stop all the "corporate america is the devil" crap. have you ever heard of the concept of a free market economy? corporations have one main purpose and fiduciary responsibility to their investors, and that is to make money. it is our responsibility as a society to decide how far we allow them to go. walmart delivers value and convenience and we as consumers buy it---if that comes at the expense of hometown values, creativity, or even negative changes to our physical environment and lifestyle, we have only ourselves to blame. we set the rules. and unlike the constantine/christianity example, we are a true democracy and as such we can all take some of the blame for propagating the demise of small town america and increasing our dependence on the automobile.
what an interesting thread. maybe it's because deltar isn't coming around anymore...
just kidding delt.
to my dearest jill and dd.
yes i do hate walmart. and dd, don't try to place blame on me for supporting corporate america. the fact that all of you know of my deteste and abhorrence of walmart manifests my unwillingness to support the corrosive erosion of classic america. and dd, the free-hand of the market has no morals, thus it is reliant upon vocal individuals to otically assult their friends and family to guard and insert morality into the market.
dearest paul.
yes, but not a closet socialist. just a normal one. but not a communist, freakin commies.
and walmart does not help the lower class by allowing cheaper prices because that money is shipped away to off shore accounts and international mansions. so while the prices might be slightly higher with local business owners, the money stays in the local community diminishing the rich-poor divide.
to my dearest jill and dd.
yes i do hate walmart. and dd, don't try to place blame on me for supporting corporate america. the fact that all of you know of my deteste and abhorrence of walmart manifests my unwillingness to support the corrosive erosion of classic america. and dd, the free-hand of the market has no morals, thus it is reliant upon vocal individuals to otically assult their friends and family to guard and insert morality into the market.
dearest paul.
yes, but not a closet socialist. just a normal one. but not a communist, freakin commies.
and walmart does not help the lower class by allowing cheaper prices because that money is shipped away to off shore accounts and international mansions. so while the prices might be slightly higher with local business owners, the money stays in the local community diminishing the rich-poor divide.
paul.
one more thing. good analogies don't need post script explanations...
who the heck is this isaac character anyway and who invited him or her (you're all probably wondering the same about me and to that i say that i don't need an invitation).
first off ike, i'll only believe you've liked the mets since '86 if you can tell me at least three people on that team and or/how many from that team are in the hall of fame (without looking it up cheater).
second, i say there's no need to worry about all this "blind obedience versus faithful obedience" business. just do what the prophet says and you'll be a-okay (how's that for some good ole' salem anti-intellectualism)
third, peter, i'm with you on the walmart issue. haven't been there in years.
fourth, dd, i'm not sure that moving to new york would do any good. look at stephen for example.
fifth, although i agree that laws should offer moral protection, how can they when so many people have so different morals?
sixth, petey, did stephen die?
isaac: i know nothing about business. and is that your official stance? 'no to polygamy'...?
i can try my hand at business on this blog and in turn try learn a thing or two. i still shop at wal-mart and i'll tell you why...when i get more time.
we're heading to the beach or i'd love to talk more about seatbelts, suicide, sinners and skinny/stephen. hi stephen.
skinny et al,
the more you open your mouth, the more people know how much you don't know. this is the principle i have followed through this pervasive pith.
skinny is a good illustration of this: he said "i would just like to say that i'm opposed to both gay marriage." I would like to respond to skinny's ideas, but its just too hard to get past his poor grammar. but let me try.
Skinny said: "but i'm also opposed to almost everything you told your student. I do think there is something 'wrong' with breaking the law of chastity."
is your interpretation of the gospel/law of chastity so strict as to condemn those to whom the word has not yet been preached (see Mosiah 3:11; 15:24; Jacob 4:11)? surely God is merciful and graceful and loving and kind. and this will extend to his love for even his homosexual children.
skinny: i always won those debates freshman year.
oh and skinny: "do what the prophet says and you'll be a-okay"? will you please enlighten us as to what the language of the prophet exactly means so you can direct us what we should do?
you are a pigdog (when my other arguments don't work, i always resort to ad hominem).
paul: you are the true master of the dominion. i agree with your assessment that the church's opposition to homosexuality in general is not a blanket statement to all members to support all legislation against gay marriage. do you think skinny will ever actually think about this?
dd: i'm not sure you are getting all ayn rand on us when all you do is support walmart as a part of a capitalistic society. ayn rand was a capitalist, no doubt, but only because capitalism provided a social system where people could be individuals. so the question is whethet walmart is destroying individualism. i think this is the best argument to be made against walmart: they are destroying the individual fabric of rural america. don't attack walmart on economic grounds (peter). and don't use ayn rand to defend them, because i think she might be against that.
issac: i love you. you are a good roomate.
to the great returning stephen:
Legitimate Nonsense Loves Not Lame Numbing Lyrical Nothings Leading Nowhere Like Nickelcreek.
Laziness Never Loses Nor Latency Noticed.
LN Lately Nonattendant Letting Notations Lacking Notions?
do tell, stevey...
stevie,
wow, such vindication. from now on i promise to keep my mouth shut and my notations lacking notions to myself.
apologies
Paul: I was just kidding about the B-school comment. My own business knowledge is probably a 2 on a scale of 1-7. I'm just intimidated by the future MD that will soon be attached to your name.
No...my official stance isn't "no to polygamy," it's "yes to the prophet and modern revelation." The blind obedience comment was in reference to the gay-marriage dialogue. My official stance on that is No to intolerance, No to discrimination, No to bigotry, and No to the condemnation of others. That said, I've been thinking about the blog comments on whether it was right or wrong for the church to issue the statement. I don't think we should scrutinze it as a "strategic" move in an attempt to maximize power and influence over society; I think the Prophet and the apostles of God were moved upon by the spirit to act, for reasons that cannot be entirely known to us.
Will not drinking alcohol socially really make me that much healthier?
Will FHE really help build stronger families?
Will obeying mission rules really help missionaries have the companionship of the Spirit?
Will taking a stand against Gay-marriage really help stop the erosion of the family?
I believe that their decisions regarding major church policy are based on the Spirit just as much, if not more, than logic and strategy--maybe that's naive of me.
Although plural marriage would have been hard to accept back in the day (and it was extremely hard for Joseph himself), I think the right decision then was to accept it--humbly submitting to the Lord's will and his enlightened knowledge. And that is what I mean by faithful obedience. Likewise, I don't think it is blind obedience to accept the First Presidency's recent statement (which I believe is directed by God Himself), even if I'm not entirely clear as to its timing and potental political influence.
Stephen: In President Hinckley's comments about the gay-marriage issue, he continually says that we should love, embrace, and support homosexuals as children of God. You're absolutely right that the Lord will judge them according to their own circumstances. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't share our beliefs. Otherwise, why missionary work at all? Who are we to go throughout the world by the tens of thousands and tell people they are drinking, fornicating, and otherwise living in a way that we believe is in contradiction to the will of the Lord?
In short (too late), I fully support the First Presidency's statement (although I hypocritically didn't call my senator), but the hard part is knowing how to best approach the subject with our loved-ones who are struggling with homosexuality.
(another disclaimer: I'm more just thinking out loud; I'm not trying to be "preachy")
have i mentioned lately how much i love this blog?
stephen: good to have you back. just for the record, i do not personally support walmart. i prefer to shop at target (pronounced tar-jay) which is much classier. i definitely agree that the walmart model has negative effects on our culture, but i would also argue that the central issue is not just the loss of individuality---it is a decision about how we as americans want to live. the reason i brought ayn into it is that she thinks people ought to take responsibility and be proactive---which i agree with. sitting around complaining about evil walmart execs and expecting them to act in our best interest out of the kindness of their hearts isn't going to change anything---and it makes us sound like victims...it is within our power to change the rules and put walmart out of business if we so choose. but i can't fault walmart execs for making a lot of money...that's their job.
isaac: i think you are one of the best things that has happened to this blog in a while. good comments. even though i tend to be slightly more cynical than you are, i respect what you have to say.
paul: you live by the beach? that's awesome.
skinny: stephen can be a little abusive, can't he?
skinny: i like your style. don't think for a moment that stephen is vindicated in his attacks. the saracasm is palpable but not justifiable. keep commenting, and it had needs to be nown that attacking arguments based on grammer is vindictive--not vindication.
sorry for the long post.
isaac: great comments regarding strategizing and the like. i generally agree with you. i would like to throw a wrinkle in the equation. a wrinkle which i haven't fully worked through but remains a fairly valid avenue for dissent. the prophets edicts have been reversed on mulitiple occasions in church history (jfs's comments about the evils of birth control, blacks and the priesthood, polygamy and many other less visible ideas). Now one answer to these changes--to which i ascribe wholeheartedly--is continuing revelation and the ability for God to guide his people in each age. So while it is a spiritually dangerous and slippery slope, it is to be assumed and almost guaranteed that there will be changes in church stances over the next 10, 20, 30, 40 years and beyond. So my question is--what is the role of the lay membership in shaping the church's understanding and stance regarding the changing issues of society...what role did the lay membership play in previous changes?
walmart:
now i'll admit that the economist tends to prefer free market strategies. however, they are not political and are pretty evenhanded. but i knew there was an article i read a few months back that led me to believe that although there was some substance to the 'anti-walmart' movement, their arguments are often one sided, dogmatic and occasionally blown out of proportion.
here is the article i read (i wish i knew how to create a hyperlink):
http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5545888#footnote1
A few excerpts, "Wal-Mart may shave payrolls, but it slashes shopping bills—even for people who never shop there. Ms Basker estimates that the prices of goods such as toothpaste, shampoo, aspirin and laundry detergent fall by 7-13% five years after Wal-Mart's arrival in a city."
"Messrs Hausman and Leibtag reckon the existence of big-box retailers, such as Wal-Mart, is a substantial boon to shoppers—equivalent to offering households 25 cents back for every dollar they spend on groceries, or about $450 a year on average. Were the calculation repeated for other merchandise, the figure would be bigger still."
i don't agree with cutting corners on the poorest wage earners and poor health care. in arizona wal-marts employees are the largest block of workers from an employer to get health care from the states medicaid program.
i don't agree with peter's assessment that higher stores prices in small community benefit the community. wal-mart lowers prices and (to the extent shown in the article above--which is not insignificant) most the community benefits. the five or six business owners that can't price gouge anymore can't add a new wing to their homes. poor workers do not own small businesses.
jill: very interesting questions. religion and laws. at first blush it seems wrong for society to indirectly allow immoral behavior by not outlawing that behavior. on second look, are laws equivalent to allowing society their agency? neither answer works. God allows people to kill. after the killing he does not place them in jail or strike them down. society does not allow killing. and well it shouldn't. society is then deciding what it will and won't allow. separation of church and state allowed a break from the VERY dogmatic religions of that era. however, laws then were not without moral judgments. so are we slowly slipping into a more enlightened or an increasing amoral sociey?
assisted suicide: everyone dies. requiring someone to die in agony because of your moral compunctions regardless of your inability to fully empathize and understand the depths of their horror seems unfair. where do you stop? i'm good with removing feeding tubes, breathing tubes and other 'artificial' means. it would be illegal in most states to prescribe medication for the purpose of stopping someone's breathing. i'm all for lots of pain meds to allow someone the decency of bearing their final days in dignity.
mississippi: bitter-sweet huh? nice to be in utah around family a bit longer but frustrating to just get started and dig your heels in with this new undertaking. i am excited for you to try this. is there a date set for the release of moneys? is it tied up in the legislature?
the beach was heaven until we commuted home for 3 hours through LA.
dd: we just moved to california. the golden state. with lots of summer smog.
nothing like a long post to dry up the well...sorry about that.
i say this despite not really being sorry.
assisted suicide:
sorry i didn't chime in before. i'm for it. even in case where it is an active move (as opposed to removing artificial mechanism). under the following conditions: first and foremost, conclusive terminal illness diagnoses from multiple independent doctors and secondly, there must not be any consent issues (meaning patient is in full mental health)
Final Walmart thoughts: Paul, I actually love the Economist, and economically speaking, Walmart is a huge contributor—which is why it is even more disappointing that they haven’t fully embraced the idea of corporate social responsibility. Comparing the GDP of the world’s countries with Walmart’s ’04 revenues of nearly 300 billion dollars, Walmart would have ranked #22, right before Indonesia, and right behind Australia. Their potential for good is huge. But like dd said, we can’t expect them to throw their money back into society...that’s for Bill Gates to do.
Paul: You raise an interesting question about the Church’s position changing in the past, and the inevitability of it changing in the future. So what is the role of the lay membership? Good question. I’m not sure. I guess that is what each of us is incrementally trying to figure out as we walk through life. Here are two random and somewhat unrelated thoughts to chew on regarding all of the previous discussion:
(1) According to Bushman’s new Joseph Smith Bio, Joseph reached a “startling conclusion” about seemingly contradictory or changing commandments. In Joseph’s words, “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is right under another…whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.” Hence Nephi killing Laban, Plural Marriage practiced and then not, Blacks and the priesthood. I think there will probably be practical explanations for Polygamy and Blacks and the priesthood, but maybe the Abraham-like test of obedience applies to issues like these?
(2) Two scriptures:
Mosiah 29:26-27 - "...do your business by the voice of the people. And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgements of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land."
Helaman 5:2 – “For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.”
you drive a direct bargain petey. i don't disagree with you...directly. there is this hesitation as i think about phrases in scripture of adversity strengthening us, weaknesses becoming strength. what can be learned about ourselves, God, our family etc by enduring hardship at the end of life. what if we cop out too early and aren't eligible for a higher degree of glory because we hadn't reach the level of obedience and faith that God had in store for us.
so the person in a coma for years and years but kept alive without evidence of brain activity strikes me as silly. the yuppie that comes to me and says i'll die in a year anyway (can docs ever really predict when and how you will die--yes and no) will you give me a lethal dose of morphine and potassium. i would say no to that yuppie.
paul.
i try not to project my personal decision making processes on those of others, especially when it comes to public policy like dying with dignity. but since you sort of hinted at that, if you wanna talking religiously and not socio-morally, then i say this. when it comes to birth control and other psuedo-controversial topics in the church, the guidance is to include prayer, fasting, priesthood leaders etc before moving forward with major decisions. i would give the same counsel/take the same course of direction if it were directly related to me.
however, in the general public arena, i reiterate and expand a little. multiple consulations (6mos-1yr) for a terminal illness as deemed by independent doctors. i'm not in support of suicide of some yuppie risk-taker with x or y going on in his mind. i talking about serious terminal conditions, as outlined in the present day oregon law.
isaac: i love the bushman and i love the book of mormon.
really though. the book by bushman has been thoroughly fascinating. it has liberating in many instances to read verbatim joseph's comments about other religions and commandments and all sorts of other stuff.
i agree that 'what God commands is right'. i agree that it is disturbing. i don't believe that everything a prophet says is direct from God. even when it comes over the pulpit. there are so many nuances and shades of grey in life and it seems that prophet may often be left to personal life experiences and encounters to sift through and use the spirit in guiding to an answer. therefore, possibly, the prophet's lifetime experiences and even ongoing encounters with lay members will shape his opinions. (ie. the woman who wrote about her deadbeat husband, the racist members he condemed etc.)
so while what God commands is right. there is also this element of personal study and group discussion (the quorum of the 12 on thursdays) that moves the brethren forward.
so, as with birth control or evolution the 'softer' 'cultural' issues there have been scientific advances or cultural changes where these issues become more widely accepted as new information and ways of thinking come to light.
very interesting. the thing i like about bushman's book is he reinforces over and over that Joseph was interested in truth--whatever the source. it is comforting to live belong to a religion with a guiding principle to seek out truth wherever it may be and to embrace it.
petey: the reason i gave my personal opinion on the suicide decision is that if i pass all these licensing exams i have left and when i start prescribing medications this will be an issue where i have the ethical obligation to act according to my conscience and that may include telling someone that they need to find another provider. i haven't made my decision yet.
i find it very interesting your take on public policy regarding socio-moral issues. you are taking a very liberal stance (one that my beloved economist takes more often then not) the term they use is fiscally conservative, socially liberal.
the governments in the book of mormon did not fully separate church and state and therefore the comments about setting laws is a bit different because laws were often synonymous with church policy. therefore the two scriptures from isaac would not translate directly to legislating moral issues where our own government is concerned. although that issue does not go away.
i'm not sure where i stand on that spectrum my cousin. when i read the rationale behind legalizing all drugs, regulating their distribution through government owned stores and eliminating a HUGE cash cow for gangs--the 'big drug enforcement problem' with all its crime and death would go away. Drug use would probably go up overall, but those using the drugs would get them at fair prices and would stop killing ohters to get them--i tend to say legalize them. (that was a strange sentence)
paul.
altho we are discussing drugs distribution in both arenas, i completely withdraw any innuendoic connection. terminal illness dignity medication and legally distributed recreational drugs have no correlate in my opinion. so while i won't sound off presently on legalizing all drugs, i will continue to support death with dignity.
fair enough.
paul.
oh one more thing, if it were a deal to trade legallizing marijuana and illegalizing alcohol, i would probably make that trade, strictly on grounds of domestic violence and other related offenses.
i think we should probably legalize marijuana.
Post a Comment