He said: “Suppose you’re a voter, and you’ve got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don’t think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?….

This has nothing to do with what’s going on now.”

With supporters like that, who needs opponents?

I think that Biden was not a good choice for VP. Not that it matters; I’m not the intended market. Even so, Biden deflates Obama. Biden mires Obama in the “old Washington” frow which people want Obama to rescue us. It mires Obama at the moment when Obama’s campaign is experiencing some awkwardness in its transition from the primary to the general election. And it saturates the Democratic presidential ticket with overly-general rhetoric that won’t stir general election voters the way that it stirred the true believers who vote in primaries (and it’s worth noting that Biden’s overly-general rhetoric didn’t even stir voters in primaries).

Michelle Obama did a nice job. Just one nitpick: I was surprised that she didn’t talk more about Democratic values. I don’t think that listeners came away understanding why she believes in the Democratic party. This isn’t a big deal by any measure, because her main goal was to introduce herself. Nevertheless, I do think that the first convention night would have had a bigger impact if people who turned away came away with an afterglow about how great the Democratic is — how they look out for the little guy, how they work against the special interests that want to take short cuts at the workers’ expense, how they value creating a sustainable future by protecting the environment. That kind of stuff. She’s not running for office, so she can afford to speak in grand generalities.

And who paid Paul Begala to describe her speech in such glowing hyperbole? Seriously, it was a fine speech and a good delivery. But it wasn’t all that.

Teddy Kennedy is a titanic figure. The Alexander Hamilton of our own day. Controversial and often mired in scandal, he has had a bigger impact on American politics than anybody who hasn’t been president, and perhaps a few who have. He’s been a constant and powerful presence in American politics for decades. There was something heroic about his appearance and his strength on Monday night. I understand why so many people found it moving.

The pundits in the mainstream media are way off on Hillary Clinton’s speech. She won half the delegates, for crying out loud. She’s entitled to have her speech be about herself. She was compelling and on-message, and it was arguably the finest speech in her career. Makes me glad the Democrats didn’t nominate her.

And then there’s the Greek temple thing from which Obama is going to deliver his speech tomorrow night — reminds me of the Stonehenge set in Spinal Tap. Again, I’m not the target market for this spectacle, but I can’t help but feel that it’s going to strike undecided voters as ridiculous. I feel the same way about Obama’s attempt to use his own presidential seal that even says “Yes, we can” in Latin. Or Obama’s epiphany comments that McCain uses in his “The One” ads: “A light will shine down from somewhere. It will light upon you. You will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’” (I have a feeling that some who try this will get a stupor of thought.) Or like this more-than-slightly-disturbing, celebrity-studded American Prayer video. My goodness.

I’ll write more as the convention wears on.

And then there are the anti-Mormon protestors. Why do they even bother? Picketing these things really makes me question their grasp on reality. First of all, who would want to sit through a Mormon pageant if they’re not even Mormon (seriously, don’t be martyrs). But more importantly, why would they want to distract people’s attention from the main event? If they’re trying to spread confusion, a pageant is definitely more effective than a few pamphlets.

If they really insist on showing up, though, they should just come at the end. As people file out they could say things along these lines: “You have just experienced a taste of Hell, let us help you avoid an eternity of it.” Such an approach would generate a lot more honest interest, if you ask me.

So why do we stand in line (or reserve blanket space) for so many hours just to have the privilege of falling asleep in an uncomfortable position while a bunch of people on a distant hill lip-synch to a track that sounds like it was recorded fifty years ago by the same people that produced the narration for that campy, papier-mâché Salem Witch Trial Museum?

Of course, some pageants are worse than others. The Martin Harris Pageant gets good marks for letting the main characters do their own talking / singing. The “new” Hill Cumorah Pageant is fairly watchable by pageant standards: short (75 minutes), no singing, and a few pyrotechnics thrown in for good measure. I have heard a rumor that the Nauvoo and Manti pageants were / are receiving similar face-lifts, which I sincerely hope turns out to be true, since the old Manti Pageant really outdid itself in terms of length, incoherence, spectator discomfort, and Salem Witch-like audio.

But my question is a sincere one. I know I am an incurable pageant cynic, but I am genuinely curious to know why others appreciate them (assuming that anyone does): Why do you enjoy pageants? Is it the tradition of it? Is it just something wholesome to do together as a family (either as a participant or observer)? Do they attract that many non-members? Does anyone have any actual missionary experiences to share that involve pageants in any way?

Maybe it’s just one of those things I’ll have to wait until the next life to comprehend.

He pointed out that ‘amateur’ has become a dirty word to many people, to their discredit. Boorstin writes,

The true leader is an amateur in the proper, original sense of the word. The amateur (from Latin amator, “lover”; from amare, “to love”) does something for the love of it. He pursues his enterprise not for money, not to please the crowd, not for professional prestige [JSB-I highly recommend people explore the etymology of that word as well; prestige may not seem so, well, prestigious anymore] or for assured promotion and retirement at the end–but because he loves it. If he can’t help doing it, it’s not because of the forces pushing from behind but because of his fresh, amateur’s vision of what lies ahead.

He points out that democracy is uniquely dependent on amateurs to govern and lead it, and this, too, is a good thing. He writes, “The progress–perhaps even the survival–of our society depends on the vitality of the amateur spirit in the United States today and tomorrow.”

I was thinking about this as I was attending the FAIR Conference, which was organized, staffed, and even largely presented by passionate amateurs. People made presentations almost solely out of love of the topic (though many wouldn’t have minded if you bought whatever book or DVD they had for sale. But even there, I know something of LDS publishing, and there is very little margin for much pecuniary motive in LDS publishing.) We could probably say this about other conferences as well, but it was particularly in evidence there, and I found it both impressive and touching.

In the Church as a whole we have a need for a similar amateur spirit, because we have a largely lay clergy.

Boorstin points out, however, that the American spirit, and democracy itself, is threatened by two forces that Boorstin identifies as the professionals and the bureaucrats. “Both are by-products of American wealth, American progress. But they can stifle the amateur spirit on which the special quality and vision of our American leaders must depend.”

We might wonder if the Church could be threatened by these same forces. Of professionals, Boorstin writes,

Professions, as we know them, are a modern phenomenon… [Originally] professions included, besides the clergy, only law and medicine–and gradually too, the military… By 1820 an outspoken Englishman could complain, “Of the professions it may be said that the soldiers are becoming too popular, parsons too lazy, physicians too mercenary and lawyers too powerful.”

…American colleges, universities and training programs… have spawned professions without precedent [so that] today the list of our professions is endless… The result is the professionalization of almost everybody…

The spread of the professions brings with it the professional fallacy. George Bernard Shaw may have gone too far when he called every profession “a conspiracy against the laity.” But latent in the organization of every profession, unspoken in every professional creed is an article of faith: The profession really exists for the sake of the professionals. Specifically this means that the law exists for the sake of lawyers, medicine for… doctors, universities for the sake of professors, etc. The professional temptation goes everywhere… [and beneath it] lies the confident axiom that the customer is not competent to judge.

He is puzzled by the professionalization of business, which he fears marks the fall of a significant bastion of the amateur spirit. “Who can be trained to be a seeker of opportunity, an unspecialized man of enterprise? What professional curriculum can teach a man to be self-made?”

An equal threat is posed by the bureaucrats:

The bureaucrat’s aim is to keep things on track, to keep themselves on the ladder of promotion, on the clear road to a fully pensioned retirement. Bureaucrats who rule us are themselves ruled by the bureaucratic fallacy. This was never better announced than on a sign over the desk of a French civil servant: “Never Do Anything for the First Time.”

Boorstin concludes,

Can we continue to breed leaders who draw on the expertise of professionals without suffering the contagion of the professional fallacy, who enlist the loyalty and industry of bureaucrats without being paralyzed by their caution? Only leaders informed by this amateur spirit can prepare us for the one certainty in history–which is the unexpected.

I suppose we bloggers (the electron-stained wretches of the new century), along with the obsessive amateurs who designed and built the world wide web (more for love than profit, as true now as ever), are carriers of that amateur spirit. But we amateurs can fall prey to our own lesser angels; as degenerated amateurs we become the troll, the crank, and in the Bloggernacle, the gospel hobbyists and the DAMU grinding their endlessly dull axes.

P.S. Two places on the internet which discuss Boorstin’s ideas of the amateur spirit are here and here.

P.P.S. The best live blog notes of the conference can be found at Life On Gold Plates and Bryce Haymond (who has had some notoriety at Mormon Mentality recently) at Temple Study here and here.

I was offered the job of cremating the cadavers at the end of the school year - I was offered something like $400 to cremate 10 cadavers. Essentially, I would take a hack saw and saw up the cadavers into pieces that would fit into the furnace, then place them into the furnace and turn it on. The next morning I would open the furnace and sweep up the ashes and put them into a box removing any medical equipment (e.g., artificial hips, etc.). So for 10 consecutive evenings I would prep the cadavers, then take them to the basement of the life sciences building and incinerate them. It was a strangely spiritual experience. I was cremating the mortal remains of individuals whom I did not know (we did not even know their names or where they were from), yet I felt a peaceful spirit while prepping the cadavers (one of the few times in my life where I felt a connection to a deceased person whom I did not know). I think I had developed a tremendous respect for these people’s bodies (and for the souls who had thought it worthwhile to donate their bodies to science) given I had poked and prodded them for a year with my students. It was also an experience which made me realize how fragile our bodies and lives are. I think it was a wonderful experience (note: I realize not everyone would find this a spiritual or interesting experience) and certainly one of those odd jobs that few people ever have. Anyone else have odd jobs that turned into spiritual experiences?

These are some lines from the blog (http://mormonhomeevening.blogspot.com/)

Friday, August 15, 2008

MORMON MURDERERS ~ THE MASS MURDER BY A PROPHET

“Brigham Young led a church cover-up. . .”

2 comments:

Anonymous said…

You need to know that the cult is being allowed to speak at Mariners Church, this coming Sunday (August 24, 2008) and is featuring a “mormon/evangelical dialogue” between Robert Millet (from BYU who teaches their missionaries to lie) and Greg Johnson, from the “Standing Together Ministries.” This is nothing more than a love fest to make the Mormons look like a “Christian” church.

August 21, 2008 11:18 PM

Rocky Hulse said…

anonymous…Where is Mariners Church? We would like to get right on this one.

“Standing Together Ministries” should be exposed for the damage they have and are doing to the body of Jesus Christ, true believers, in the real Jesus!

Joseph Smith married numerous women and young girls, as young as fifteen, right here in Nauvoo, IL.

The FLDS are in fact just following the teaching of Joesph Smith today. Smith is their founding prophet, and he taught polygamy, as did every prophet up until 1890 when it all went underground.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today carry their Scripture Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 with them to church each Sunday. It says unless you practice plural marriage, you will be damned. The only reason it isn’t practiced today are the laws of the land says, they cannot. When the Brethren of Mormonism today state they don’t teach this, they are not telling the whole truth only part of it. Case in point, if a temple Mormon has a wife and she dies, then he can be married again in a Mormon temple and sealed to the second one. In the next life both are his wives. If this same temple Mormon man has numberous wives who die and he gets sealed to number three, four, five etc….they will all be wives in the next life. That is the weasel clause for the Brethren to statements ” We don’t practice polygamy”. Yes, they do and the FLDS are Mormons, sad as it is, they are just following the founder Joseph Smith of the Mormon Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Rocky comes from an active Mormon family who rejected Helen because she was a non-Mormon. If they did half what Helen claims they did, surely God will hold them accountable for their un-loving behavior. I’ve often said that many people are turned away from the church, or leave the church because of unkindness. Helen has grounds to be bitter. However, her claims that she’s turning souls to Christ are negated in the facts. I asked her why they’d chosen to “turn souls to Christ” (my quote) by attacking Mormonism. Why didn’t they go to Africa and teach people about the Savior? She replied that they were going to go to Africa to warn people there about Mormonism.

I’ve never respected those who choose to celebrate their purported claims of love for Jesus Christ by attacking other’s religions. I pointed out to Helen how Billy Graham seemed to convert souls to Christ without attacking others. She had no response.

Because I felt that Helen had some legitimate claim to her feelings due to the treatment she received from her in-laws, I chose not to do a blog about her at the time we spoke. Her decision to return to our blog and once again, sow contention, makes it impossible for me to remain silent.

I wonder how many Mormons have blogs attracting those of other faiths only to attack those faiths? I think Jesus would spread love and tolerance, not vitriole and hate. I don’t respect those who, rather than teaching FOR something, teach AGAINST others.

A few weeks ago Sandy, UT had a hot air balloon festival and I took my son to watch the balloons land.  Senator Bramble was piloting one of the balloons.  My son wanted to look up inside it so I walked over to the balloon with him.  I recognized the guy in the basket as Senator Bramble, though he was handing out business cards just in case anybody didn’t know how important he is.  I also noticed Sandy Mayor Tom Dolan standing nearby, he was much more low key.  From his perch (rameumptom?) he was ranting about how he has much more leadership experience than Senator Obama and that Senator Obama voted “present” too often as a state senator.  He then went on and on about how he never votes present.  He failed to mentiond that’s because legislators in Utah are encouraged (perhaps required?) to vote yes or no on every bill even if they are conflicted.  And believe me, they’re a conflicted bunch.  In fact it seems to me that many bills in our legislature are even sponsored by legislators that are conflicted, which is turning into government of the developers, by the developers, and for the developers.  In any case it seemed clear to me that Senator Bramble believes himself to more than qualified to be President of the USA.  Good for him.  I have no doubt that he sincerely believes that Obama is completely unfit to be President, which is fine.  I feel the same way about McCain.

I should note that I have no idea why Obama voted “present” so often.  I doubt he was conflicted on all those votes.

Then things got interesting.  His son was helping take down the balloon and Senator Bramble starts screaming at him in a way that I thought was very inappropriate given the facts that he’s surrounded by people and he’s just told us how great of a leader he is.  And what was it that his son needed to do so urgently?  He needed to be chased by the dog.  Now Senator Bramble has someone produce his dog for him.  It is a pretty large dog, very muscular, perhaps a boxer.  At this point I’m a bit nervous about him egging the dog on so I pick up my son and put him on my shoulders.  He then commands the dog to “get ‘em” and takes the leash off.  The dog races across the park and begins chasing his dutiful son.

What’s wrong with this, aside from the screaming?  Well, I’m sure that the dog is a gentle giant, but the park is clearly labeled as only allowing dogs on leash.  Here’s the highest ranking lawmaker in the state blatantly ignoring the law because it suits him in front of the mayor and several police officers.  He’s just finished a discourse on what a great leader he is.

You may not think this is a big deal, but both my wife and I have been attacked by “friendly” dogs.  I don’t want my children to be in an environment in which there are unfamiliar dogs that weigh several times more than they do being told to chase after people.

I was left wondering if what sort of sense of entitlement this guy is experiencing, and wishing I had said something.  I wasn’t going to post this, but after reading about the way he treated the pizza girl I have no problems with piling on.

Tell me what you think:

I proudly cast my first vote for George McGovern in 1972. I’ve pretty much voted for the loser in every election since. Perhaps the only time “my” candidate won was in 1960, when Kennedy was running and I, at the age of eight, thought he was much cuter than the other guy.
Most elections, however, I’m able to make some kind of sense of the candidates. Not this year. John McCain is the best the Republicans have to offer?? What I’ve heard is that even the Republicans don’t want him to be president, but they don’t feel they can win this time, so they’re giving him his chance in the sun. They’re saving their “real” candidates for a more winning year.
I’ve been ready for a minority candidate for president since I was a girl, so I’m thrilled that the Democratic Party has chosen to make history in this way. But I’m concerned that Obama’s skin color may be the only reason he’s the nominee.

Both candidates bother me.
These things bother me about McCain:
1. He can’t make up his mind what he wants to be when he grows up. He’s somewhere between a Republican and a Democrat and he tries too hard to walk a middle ground.
2. His wife stole prescription drugs and she got a slap on the wrist. This hasn’t been questioned enough. It goes to integrity on the part of the candidate. Which laws does he choose to uphold and enforce and who does he hold accountable?
3. He’s stiff, and uncomfortable in public.
He’s basically a good person, and of course who doesn’t applaud his heroism during his captivity as a POW? Maybe it’s time we had another vet in the White House. Maybe he’ll handle Iraq better because of it.

These things bother me about Obama:
1. He has some Muslim ties. I know I’ll hear accusations of ignorance about this and I’ve heard the explanations. Still bothers me, his middle name’s Hussein, for heaven’s sake! I find the ambiguity troubling and wonder if his real religion is practicality.
2. He’s the opposite of McCain in public, he’s smooth and natural in his manner of speaking. My bias here is personal in that I fell hook, line, and sinker for Bill Clinton’s manner and look where that got me.
3. I don’t know enough about what drives him, what’s important to him. He has used the afore-mentioned prowess in public speaking to reach the individual, but that’s not the same thing as a deeply held belief. There’s no track record with this guy. I see him making a lot of vague and grandiose promises (much like Jimmy Carter, who I didn’t vote for because I felt he was foolish)but there’s something flimsy about him that I can’t put my finger on.

I don’t care if he forgot to put his hand on his heart when he saluted the flag. I saw plenty of those people at the July 24 parade. It happens and he’s human. I don’t care if his wife wasn’t proud of this country till now. If I were a black woman, I’d have some residual resentment as well. I’m impressed with Michelle Obama’s strength and consider it a plus that he was smart enough to marry her.
I suppose in the long run, my concerns are irrelevant. And I’ll probably be voting for the loser once again. No matter. I will vote.

At the top a date stamp reads “DEC 31 1941.”

It is interesting to see this document for a number of reasons. It is a form to be filled out.  First there is an area where the applicant fills out name, demographic information, names of parents, and other lines that provide information about what ordinances are to be performed.

Midway through the form there is a line that reads: “STATEMENT TO BE FILLED IN BY THE APPLICANT.”  Below this line is a list of the temple recommend questions that need to be answered with the potential answers (usually “Yes” or “No”) already there for the applicant to indicate which answer applies.  Here are the questions:

1. Are you morally clean and fit to enter the temple?     Yes     No

2.  Will and do you sustain the General Authorities of the Church and will you live in accordance with the accepted rules and doctrines of the Church?     Yes     No

3.  Are you a full tithe payer?     Yes     No

3a. Are you a part tithe payer? Yes No

3b. Are you exempt from paying tithes? Yes No

4.  Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?     Yes     No

5.  Do you wear the regulation garments?     Yes     No

6.  Will you earnestly strive to do your duty in the Church, to attend your sacrament, priesthood and other meetings, and to obey the rules, laws and commandments of the Gospel?     Yes     No

7.  Have you ever been denied a recommend to any temple?     Yes     No

If so, please indicate: (name of Bishop, Ward, Stake and Date)

(Signed) ………………………………..

Because this temple recommend is formatted as a form to be filled out, I wonder if there was a temple recommend interview or not. Or did the applicant fill it out and merely hand it in to the bishop?

The tithing questions, particularly the question that asks if the applicant is “exempt” from paying tithes, surprised me. What did this mean? Who was exempt? Why?

There is also the matter of the applicant indicating whether he/she has ever been denied a recommend. That doesn’t seem to be a question that is asked anymore.

Looking at this temple recommend makes me wonder what the history of the temple recommend might be and how the questions and approach to providing a temple recommend to a member of the church has developed/changed over the years.

He said that he has been thinking a lot about the “familes can be together forever” concept and he is not sure how much he likes it when it is applied broadly. He thinks it is wonderful for his wife and kids and himself if they can be together forever, but not sure he wants to be with certain parts of his extended family forever (e.g., siblings and/or parents). He also mentioned that he has some friends with whom he and his wife and kids are very close and he would rather be linked to those friends eternally than to parts of his family (since these friends feel more like family to him). I have felt like this at times when my wife and I have met friends with who we know will be lifelong friends with and with whom we have much stronger bonds than with some members of our own families. It gets back to the old adage “you can pick your friends but not your family”. So can I pick whom I am sealed to beyond my spouse and children (assuming that everyone makes it to the appropriate kingdom)? It also makes one wonder how “fixed” sealings are and what “being together forever” means. Do I really have to spend time with my ancestors from the 1500s if I don’t like them (perhaps more correct, if they don’t like me)?

I think the fascinating question is how many of that 57% have actually witnessed one of these miracles? I am guessing very few, yet the hope and belief is still there. I have hope and faith that God can cause a miracle, but, the reality is that such things are rare. I have personally not witnessed any miracles like this (but have witnessed others) but have heard plenty of anecdotal stories (none of which I have verified). It makes me wonder why God intervenes so infrequently in matters of life and death. Perhaps He is bound by some law(s) that prevent Him from doing so?