Interstitial Ruminations

The Pinnacle of Evolution

2005-09-28T20:16:00.000-07:00

I am the pinnacle of human evolution. Yes, you heard me correctly. I rest atop a pedestal formed of Ding-dong wrappers, Ruffles bags, and a myriad of soft drink cans, as the ultimate evolutionary product of the human race. (That thud you just heard was my wife falling off her chair, laughing.) But really, it's true. How have I come to this great epiphany that seems to have eluded the health nut, veggie-eating, treadmill-running, wheat-grass-drinking, vocal minority? Well, to fully appreciate my hypothesis, you have to look back to the dawn of human history (or at least read peoples' theories about it).

The Theory (a “Theory” is merely a pretentious “theory” created by someone with tenure) goes that there were two different species of pre-human type people. One of them was called A. robustus. (I threw that in so I could sound learned and intelligent--some might say it would be in my better interest to try instead for witty and mildly amusing, but a guy can only do so much.) As you might guess from the name, these were the people who lived on fruits and nuts and wheat grass and soy milk (okay, probably not soy milk--I seriously doubt that they'd figured out how to milk soys yet). The men lifted rocks and strutted around in their faux sabre tooth leopard loin cloths while the women tapped their toes to drum beats (aerobics wasn't invented until Jane Fonda thought she'd look good in a leotard).

The others were H. habilis. Well, they were really Homo habilis, but they hadn't come out of the closet yet. These people hoovered up (I actually grew up with a Kirby vacuum, but “kirbied” sounds stupid) just about anything that they could find to eat: vegetables, tubers (whatever those are), small rodents, dessert pastries, moths. And they found that by eating whatever happened to be nearby, thereby not having to spend all day searching for food, they had a lot of time to do things, like discover fire and make cave paintings and write haikus.

A. robustus, on the other hand, spent all of their time picking walnuts off trees and trying to break them open with rocks without completely smashing them, and then picking out the nut without using one of those little metal pickers that seem to come into existence around the holidays (of course they didn't have any of those available to them--holidays hadn't been invented yet). So, they didn't have any spare time to invent things that might be useful to them, like rear-view mirrors, which is why they became extinct. They kept getting trampled from behind because they didn't have rear-view mirrors to see the woolly mammoths that were trying to pass them.

Actually, the scientific explanation is that because their diets were limited, they didn't have all the chemicals that helped them survive, or something like that. I kind of skimmed that part because it wasn't nearly as interesting as the woolly mammoth “theory” (I don’t have tenure yet). Anyway, the ones who survived were the Guys Who Would Eat Anything (it's capitalized because this was an actual title given to me by my college roommates, so I figured I might as well use it or it'll just go to waste). And, so the Theory goes, we are their descendants. So, that gumdrop I picked up off the road and ate when I was ten represents not the crude, uncultured, animal tendencies so clearly gleaned from the family down the street that my parents would have me believe, but the very survival of my species. So the next time you get hungry and start your search for food between the sofa cushions, remember: you're not being a lazy couch potato; you're ensuring that your descendants will continue to have the instincts and skills to survive when the health nuts run out of tofu.

Sometimes dreams only make sense when you're asleep

2005-09-27T22:51:00.000-07:00

I was looking through some old files tonight. On my computer directory, I have a folder with stories I have written, stories I have started but not yet finished, and ideas for stories I may try to write in the future. (The last two categories are much more numerous than the first.)

I ran across an idea I wrote down one night after waking up in the middle of the night from what I remember thinking as the coolest dream I'd had in a while, and one that I thought might be a great basis for a story.

I sat down at the computer and started writing, stream-of-consciousness style, and typed in what I thought was the gist of the dream. This is what resulted:

"This is a dream I had 1/2/2000, 4 a.m--Liam Neeson was the main character, and it ended up with him and thee others in a nursing home thing--they had changed the name-plates, and had been in the home all the time, arranging things. There were people who had magic powers but were captured somehow by an evil witch/magician/etc, and she held them captive, and they were unable to do their thing--some were having mental and other problems, and they switched places. It started out as a softball dream, and they wouldn’t let me pitch, but I had a special ability where there were dead people and other spirits, and I was able to help them or get their help, and they sat there with their live counterparts, and he didn’t believe me, and everyone else did and Liam was able to infiltrate the place, and because he used the first name only, and the magic was tied to the first name, and she didn’t bother to check and he grabbed her and she tried to transport them, but they were already there and there was something with the dead people or spirits being able to take the place of the living, and I don’t know why it was significant that Liam and the others were already there, but I could see the birds and their spirit people and I knew how to use them to the best advantage but couldn’t do what the bad guy wanted, because I had to practice and had great ability but needed to warm up, and I used the spirits to help."

No, I do not use drugs, and I was not using drugs that night.

New Cougar Website: CougarGuard.com

2005-08-31T22:50:00.000-07:00

New website for BYU Cougar fans, particularly those from Cougarboard.

Started by regular Cougarboard poster Mike Waters, CougarGuard is an alternative to Cougarboard, designed to promote more thoughtful and deeper discussions, with less monitoring ("moderator-lite") and fewer restrictions.

The Downing Street Memo

2005-06-20T20:56:00.000-07:00

It's pathetic that this revelation has not received more than a fraction of the attention given to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Or that Congress, who flew to Washington overnight to pass unconstitutional legislation in the Terry Schiavo matter, has shown no interest whatsoever in the information brought to light by the publishing of the Downing Street Memo in the Sunday Times Britain.

Our esteemed President Bush has (as I suspected when the Iraq invasion began) used his power to lie and deceive his own nation, as well as the world, to justify an illegal invasion of a sovereign country (no matter how evil the regime) in violation of international law, in an action which has resulted in thousands of deaths.

If you murder a drug dealer, it's still murder. Saddam Hussein is evil. I don't dispute that. And the world may well be better off without him in power. The world is better off without the drug dealer, too. But the ends do not justify the means. Deception, defiance of the law, and death are still evil. But our twisted political world is calling them good. Is there not a scriptural warning of a time when people would call evil good?

Perhaps the most infuriating part of this whole mess to me is that Bush repeatedly invoked the name of God in justifying his invasion. And people ate it up.

I am sure that many people dismissing the Downing Street memo haven't even read it. So here it is, from the Sunday Times - Britain website (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html):

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

Bush may have started a war that has killed thousands, but at least he didn't diddle an intern. Right?

Facts I Know Which are Better Left Unknown

2005-03-20T17:57:00.000-08:00

1. After the third day of sitting on the counter, the jelly filling in a lemon-filled donut starts tasting a bit tangy.

2. I was probably conceived at the Little America Hotel in Salt Lake City.

3. My wife's uterus is purplish.

4. Our newspaper is delivered between 4:30 and 5:00 a.m.

5. Telling the congregation at testimony meeting that maybe by getting up, it will "shut up" your fiancee is detrimental to your relationship, no matter how good-natured it was intended.

6. The pain from road rash on your face will overwhelm the pain of a broken finger for as long as three days.

7. You should never, never, ever mow over a patch of poison ivy.

8. Any car-to-car contact on your driving test will result in an automatic failure.

9. Running a red light on your driving test will result in an automatic failure.

10. Alligator lizard bites hurt, but not as much as jellyfish stings.

11. Airplane traffic cops' speed estimates are pretty darn accurate.

Virgin River

2005-01-28T06:51:00.000-08:00

My cousin has a joke he tells every time he crosses the Virgin River, which is on the way from Southern California to Utah. "Why do they call it the Virgin River?" "Because nobody's ever seen its bottom!"

I think he's wrong. The real reason it's called the Virgin River is because it has a website and charges everyone $3.95 to see its bottom.

Post-mortal Life

2005-01-25T23:42:00.000-08:00

Everybody worries about death, and what is going to happen after we leave this life. LDS church members are no different. In fact, we believe this life is a preparatory period for us, to learn vital things that will help us to continue to progress in the next life.

Mormons have views of our post-mortal life that are a little different than those of other religions, including other Christian religions. But that's not what I'm talking about here. Not completely.

Last night, I watched a new television show, Medium. The main character is a psychic who starts working with a prosecutor in Arizona to solve crimes. It's based on a book by a real-life psychic, Allison Dubois.

After the show, I went to her website. Her website led me to another website, for a Victor Zammit, who is an Australian lawyer who has written a book purportedly providing evidentiary proof of an afterlife.

The book is online, and divided into chapters. The last chapter was entitled, "What happens when we die?" I started reading, and then started getting chills as I read, over and over, things that have striking parallels to the little we have learned of the afterlife through LDS teachings. In fact, there are things that are not just similar to what we believe, but which are rather different from what "traditional" Christianity believes.

The link above goes straight to the chapter. However, I have pulled some of the most interesting parallels and commented on them below:

"At the point of death we take our mind with all its experiences, our character and our etheric (spirit) body — which is a duplicate of the earth body."

How often have we learned over and over, even in Primary, that our spirit bodies look like our physical bodies? This has been confirmed in the publicized angelic visitations, and can probably be considered a fundamental belief of LDS church members.

". . . in the afterlife the etheric body and our surroundings will be just as solid as our world seems to us now."

Didn't Joseph Smith teach that spirit is "refined matter" and therefore would interact with substances on the spiritual plane much like we do on earth?

"There is no such thing as heaven 'up in the sky' or hell 'down below': the location of the afterlife does not change from the earth plane — different spheres interpenetrate — from the highest vibrations to the lowest."

We are taught that the Spirit World is located here on the earth, but on a different plane. This is exactly consistent with LDS beliefs.

"Atheists, agnostics and others may not be encumbered from passing on to the higher spheres — what they did in their lifetime and the motivation for what they did will be important not what they believed in."

Are we not virtually alone in the Christian world in thinking in a manner consistent with this - that the type of person you are and the kind of life you live, are more important than believing the correct doctrine - that people can learn of the plan of salvation even after this life, if they have not had the opportunity before death?

"Love, unconditional love, is the most powerful force known in the universe."

This is the first and great commandment - Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart; and the second is like unto it - Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Sorry for what is probably an inexact quote). The love of God and of the Savior is the single most important teaching throughout all of the scriptures.

"Unconditional love is the irretrievable link with our loved ones in the afterlife."

This brings clearly to mind the scripture about the hearts of the fathers turning to the children, and the hearts of the children turning to their fathers.

"Decent folk are met by their loved ones — soul-mates are reunited. Higher Intelligences inform us that in the afterlife our appearance can regress to our best age —for most people from the early- mid twenties."

I think we all think and talk of our departed loved ones being met by their already-departed loved ones at death. More than a few anecdotes and "faith-promoting" stories have this as an element. I also recall learning that we appear in the Spirit World at our best age.

"Loved ones from the afterlife, recently arrived and others, do have the power to visit loved ones still living on earth."

I know of two separate stories within my own family of my Grandmother appearing to one or more persons after her death - I recall specifically one instance where we were at a family reunion soon afterward, and there was an empty chair by my grandfather during a program. Afterward, one of the younger children who never really knew Grammy asked her mother, "Who was that lady in the chair next to Grandpa?" It had been vacant the entire time.

"Recently arrived loved ones, usually within three months of transition, are permitted to transmit visually — by way of dreams or by apparition and other means — evidence that they are still alive."

This is consistent with the former point - and Mormondom is replete with stories of recently-departed loved ones returning in visions or dreams and giving comfort to a grieving or troubled family member.

"The kind of life to be lived in the afterlife — beauty, peace, light and love which awaits decent folk is unimaginable."

I remember a sunday school teacher saying that if people knew what the Telestial Kingdom, the lowest of the three degrees of glory, were like, many would kill themselves just to get there.

"One can still learn spiritual lessons in the afterlife and progress to higher even more beautiful spheres."

I know of no other Christian (or other) denomination that teaches this principle as openly as we do about the Spirit World.

"Any physical disabilities people had on earth will disappear — for decent folk there will be no such thing as deformity, sickness, blindness or any other thing which adversely affected them on earth."

Although I don't think this one is particularly Mormon, it is still very consistent with our belief regarding the Spirit World.

"The mind has enormous power in the afterlife. It can create matter there and can cause the body to travel at the speed of thought eg. you imagine you are at any place in the world and you are there instantly."

I think this principle underlies the basic belief in the appearance and abilities of angels and resurrected beings who have visited people on earth from time to time. I think the principle of the mind creating matter in the afterlife is consistent with our belief in the spiritual creation of the earth. Also, I had a religion professor at BYU who told a story of a woman who was visited by her dead son in a vision, and the son described some of these things, almost exactly, such as imagining you are at any place in the world and being there instantly.

"Those who were consistently evil are either left alone or are met by those others of the same very low vibrations, with the same very low spirituality to be attracted to the darker lower spheres."

I think this is another of our fundamental beliefs, that the Spirit World is divided not by actual barriers, but by the fact that the good will associate with the good, and the evil will be attracted to and associate with the like-minded.

"Some people on earth have a much better transition to the afterlife than others — the more knowledge we have about the afterlife, the easier the transition."

Perhaps this is why it is such an important part of our beliefs to know some of the nature of the afterlife.

"Those who on earth were deeply caught in habits and vices — tobacco, alcohol, gambling, drugs or overindulgence in sex can get caught on the astral level and will not progress until they are prepared to give up these habits."

Again, I have heard almost this exact explanation for why we avoid some of these vices as LDS church members. I have also been taught that it is more difficult to turn away from these things in the Spirit World, which is why we strive to do so here.

"You will reap what you sow' is the recognized universal spiritual law. Karma means you will not get away with it. All negative deeds against others have to be experienced for the purpose of 'continuous spiritual refinement.'"

Was it not part of the Savior's atonement that he experienced these things so that we will not if we accept his atonement and repent?

"Every thought, every word and deed is recorded ... you will be held accountable ..."

This sounds like it was taken almost verbatim from the Book of Mormon.

"In the higher spheres you will be able to recall and see any event in any period of your existence three dimensionally."

Is this related to the "perfect knowledge" of our transgressions that (I believe) Alma taught?

"Abuse of power and systematic harassment of others are two of the most karmic actions. Horrific karma awaits those whose task it was to protect society but themselves willfully abused their power, indulged in willful transgressions and caused harm and injury to others."

This is a very Mormon principle, which brings to mind the oath and covenant of the Priesthood found in the Doctrine & Covenants.

"You will NOT be excused for your evil behavior by claiming that you were just obeying orders."

I have heard this very principle taught from the pulpit many times.

"It is guaranteed that those who consistently abuse and harass others will have to face their victims, in the afterlife before severest retribution."

No specific teachings come to mind, but I like this principle.

"After the severest retribution of those who intentionally harassed and deliberately violated other peoples' rights, the transgressors will have to apologize and seek forgiveness by the victims before they are allowed to make any progress."

This is an integral part of the process of repentance which we have learned many times over in Sunday School.

"Hell for eternity and eternal damnation were invented by men to manipulate the hearts and the minds of the unaware — they do NOT exist. Whilst there ARE lower spheres in the afterlife which are particularly dark, unpleasant and even horrific — some call them 'hell'— ending up there is NOT for eternity. The universal Law of Progress ensures that at some time in the future those with lower vibrations will eventually, even if it takes aeons of time — centuries even thousands of years — obtain higher vibrations and graduate to the higher spheres."

This is another principle where we are virtually alone in the Christian world in viewing "Hell" not as a place of fire and brimstone, but more as a state of mind brought on by one's wickedness. Also, the reference to the "universal Law of Progress" is very familiar to LDS members who have learned many times of the law of Eternal Progression.

"No one judges you or condemns you to the lower spheres. You condemn yourself to the lower horrific spheres ('hell') by the low vibrations (low spirituality) you acquired during life on earth."

If you keep in mind that this is likely the view of the Spirit World, pre-judgment, it is again very consistent with LDS teachings, and not necessarily with the rest of Christianity.

"Deathbed conversion? We have been and we are repeatedly being informed by Higher Sources that immediately after we die our vibrations do not change — not even if one repents shortly before death. We take with us the accumulated vibrations (spirituality) we gained or lost during our whole lifetime on earth. Baptism, repentance are absolutely meaningless as a way of getting ' a better deal ' immediately after death."

Again, with the understanding that this is a picture of the Spirit World, it is extremely consistent with LDS teachings.

"If you helped just one person to attain the true knowledge you would have justified your existence on earth"

This brings to mind the scriptures talking of "saviors on Mount Zion."

"No one on earth or elsewhere can hurt you spiritually."

This is in line with our beliefs in free agency and accountability.

"People on earth are not all born spiritually equal."

When this is viewed in context of our belief in a pre-mortal life, and the many prophecies of the "noble and great ones" being held back for the last days, this is another principle that seems very Mormon.

"Selfishness is one of the greatest transgressions against spirituality and is highly karmic."

To a religion that teaches so much of selfless service, this is a very true principle.

"You do not come into this world to have a dream run — without pain, suffering, without problems. The more varied your experience, the more learning from many mistakes, the more valuable your lifetime."

Yet another fundamental principle that we hold as LDS church members - that opposition is necessary to our spiritual development, and that we cannot know happiness and joy without also having experienced pain and suffering.

"Many of you will be cheated, maligned, unfairly harassed ... but justice will be done ... not in your world maybe but certainly in the world to come."

This may be more universal a belief to those who believe in an afterlife, but it is another principle very consistent with LDS thought.

"The universal laws operate whether or not you are aware of them."

Truth is truth, whether or not you believe in it. Hence, our search for truths that are not yet known.

"Being religious does not necessarily mean being spiritual."

We also belive that spirituality is personal, and is something that we develop on our own, in our own hearts.

"Not participating in religious rituals eg. baptism, confessions and non-belief in creeds and dogmas does NOT encumber anyone from attaining higher spiritually and the higher afterlife spheres."

In the context of the Spirit World, we certainly do hold this belief.

"In the afterlife communicating is done by telepathy."

Would not prayer have to be by telepathy? How does the Lord know our hearts?

"There are inherent dangers communicating with entities from the afterlife."

I find it strange that this came from someone who has performed scientific studies with psychics and mediums. But it is consistent with our staying away from the occult and practices like that.

"Those from the afterlife can read our minds and can put thoughts and ideas into our minds. Lower, mischievous entities can put negative thoughts and ideas and the positive more enlightened entities assist us with positive thoughts and ideas. A great deal is left to the exercise of free will."

Is there a more clear description of our beliefs in the source of temptation and our ability to appeal to Heavenly Father for the strength of the Spirit?

"We are at liberty to call the powerful protectors from the afterlife to assist us in coping with our everyday problems but they will not make decisions for us."

A virtually precise definition of the LDS view of the gift of the Holy Ghost.

"Materialists and others spend too much time worrying about their last ten or twenty years on earth and do not spend a tiny fraction of their time thinking what's going to happen to them in the next ten, twenty thousand years, fifty thousand years ... and much, very much longer."

We call it having an eternal perspective.

"There are different levels of spheres in the afterlife — from the lowest vibrations to the highest. On physical death we go to the sphere which can accommodate the vibrations we accumulated throughout our life on earth. Simplistically put, most decent folk are likely to go to the 'third' sphere — some people call the summerland. The higher the vibrations, the better the conditions — which will take us to the higher spheres. We are informed that the higher spheres are too beautiful to even imagine. For those with very, very low vibrations, very serious problems do exist."

Another very Mormon believe in the various levels of salvation and exaltation. I find especially interesting the reference to a "third" sphere.

"Like attracts like in the afterlife. Unlike on the earth plane, those with lower vibrations cannot mix freely with those in the higher spheres."

We are taught that no unclean thing can bear to be in the presence of God.

There truly is a war between the Forces of the Light and the Forces of Darkness. Those who continuously disseminate darkness: ignorance, false and pernicious propaganda, hatred, harassment of others, abuse of power, lying, cheating, dominance to exploit and other negative energy will attract — and are very likely to become part of the Forces of Darkness. Those others spreading and working towards greater understanding, knowledge, peace, love, light, harmony and other positive energy will attract and become part of the Forces of the Light.

A war between the forces of Light and the forces of Darkness is a very interesting description from a Mormon perspective. The last sentence brings to mind the thirteenth article of faith, that "if there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

The impression I get is that the things this Victor Zammit has concluded seem very consistent with the LDS view of the afterlife. I think of it as perhaps similar to the view that a kindergartener has of our world. Probably simplistic and not nearly complete. But our own perspective is not complete, either. However, we have a little different lens than other religions and denominations, and I find it very interesting how eerily similar Zammit's findings are to our specific beliefs.

Izapa Stela 5 "Tree of Life" carving

2004-11-26T11:51:00.000-08:00

When in Mexico in the summer of 2003, in Puerto Vallarta, we went to one of the small, tourist shops along the beach. There was one in particular that had large models of some of the ancient archaeological sites. At the shop we purchased a small, colorful depiction drawn on leather of the Izapa Stela 5 "Tree of Life" carving.

This is the one that Professor Jakeman at BYU interpreted a number of years ago as depicting Lehi, Nephi and their family, and the tree of life as shown to Lehi in vision. His conclusions and interpretations were attacked and have since been rather discredited as being colored by what he wanted them to to be. Even the LDS scholars now seem to believe that it isn't a direct interpretation of Lehi's dream. However, it may have been influenced by Olmec carving traditions, which is the civilization that the Jaredites may have merged into.

A great book to start reading about the correlation of the Book of Mormon archaeology is An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, by John L. Sorenson.

Best Mixed Metaphor Ever

2004-09-23T19:52:00.000-07:00

I was listening to the Loose Cannons on XTRA 690/1150 today, and they had an interview with Tommy Lasorda, discussing the Dodgers, who are in a sort of tailspin, having lost six games of a 6 1/2 game lead in the division in the last month or so. When asked about the state of the Dodgers right now, Tommy responded, "Right now, the snowball's going downhill, and they've got to derail it. They've got to put the ship in calm waters again."

What Went Wrong in Iraq

2004-09-17T22:23:00.000-07:00

It never ceases to amaze me how closed-minded some of the more polarized members of both political parties can be. I am affiliated with neither party, by choice. I used to be a staunch Republican, until I started looking into some of the positions that the party takes. I think there's a bit of irony that my distaste for the Republican party came during my education at BYU.

The turning point for me, I believe, was a paper I did in law school about the proposed anti-flag-burning constitutional amendment. I decided after reviewing numerous articles about it that it was a stupid idea and went completely against the spirit of the constitution. One of the major supporters of the amendment was Utah's Orrin Hatch, the darling of the Utah politicos. I started looking at other positions taken by the Republican party and found that I really didn't agree with many of them.

What really turned me off of the Republicans was Rush Limbaugh. His legacy is a generation of dittoheads who see "liberal" as a curse word and spout pure rhetoric without substance. Every statement seems to turn into an ad hominem argument against liberals. And if the "liberals" like it, it must be bad. I think that's an extremely destructive way of thinking.

So, what has brought on this rant is what's going on in Iraq. It's basically falling apart. I was against it from the beginning. I thought it was ill-conceived, immoral and rash, and I was concerned that we didn't really know the true motivation behind it. I told my wife several times that I thought it would turn into another Vietnam. And it looks like it's headed in that direction.

I found an article [link no longer works] on Cougarboard.com, the BYU Sports discussion board on which I waste most of my free time. The funny thing to me is that this article was posted, and immediately the poster, the writer, and the site were blasted as liberals. The thing is, I thought it was pretty objective, and written by someone who really knows about the situation, rather than some right-wing radio host regurgitating propaganda and anti-liberal hate speech.

After reading the article, it is very apparent that the powers-that-be who developed and implemented the Iraq occupation strategy have been cut off at the knees by political bravado and hidden motives. A key statement to me is this: "Throughout the occupation, the coalition lacked the linguistic and area expertise necessary to understand Iraqi politics and society, and the few long-time experts present were excluded from the inner circle of decision-making in the CPA." (Page 3.)

The whole Iraq thing was ill-conceived and badly performed. However, now that we've done it, we'd better stick with it. It's going to take a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of money, and a lot of American lives to complete the job. Meanwhile, Bin Laden and al Qaeda are still out there.

I just created a Blog

2004-06-17T06:39:00.000-07:00

Once I figure out what I'm doing, I'll put some interesting stuff here.