The Gum Tree for 2007 October

This inspiring Story showcases Clarence Thomas. It is a pretty good story, and interesting to see one of the more conservative members of the Supreme Court. My favorite quote: "It is always worth it when you stand on Principle."

For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. D&C 84: 33

Today the AP has released an interesting study on one's conscientiousness and the risk of developing dementia or other mental diseases as one ages. For those who are interested, abstract of the study by Robert S. Wilson can be found HERE, and those with university access may download it. Conscientiousness here refers to "a person's tendancy to control impulses and be goal directed." Interestingly, the AP, which often looks through these kinds of things through a secular lense, described conscienciousness as a quality of being a "goal-driven achiever" while the paper is clear to point out that conscientiousness is more a result of one's scrupulous and responsible personality in suppressing one's impulses (re: desires) for future personal and community good. These goods are specific; hence the behaviour is goal-directed, but I think the AP goes a little far in by categorizing people as "goal-driven Achievers" which instead almost borders on neuroticism, and denies the free will of the person who chose to have a principle or purpose-centered life. The study comprised a cohort of Catholic nuns and priests; another suprise for me since I had not characterized such people as "goal-driven achievers." The AP also used the word "dutiful" four times even though that word is absent in the study and other, more meaningful words, like scrupulous, altruistic, dependable, self-diciplined, purposeful, extraverted, sociable, optimistic, intellectually curious, and agreable are used. From the AP study you get the impression that these people are a bunch of self-absorbed anal-retentive workaholics who do things out of duty--almost void of will; which is pretty much the opposite of what I think of when the word 'conscientiousness' or 'catholic nun' comes to mind. Continuing on a theme I have picked up recently is that those people who have a solid purpose or meaning to life will have a healthier, and more enjoyable life. The present study suggests that people who are focused more on future goods as well as the well-being of one's community over self are going to be able to weather the storms of life much more gracefully. Another interesting point from the paper is that, upon death, the brains of these conscientious people were no different in their pathological presentation of Alzheimers disease (e.g. neurofibrillary tangles, oxidative damage, etc.) suggesting another compensation in the brain (or the spirit) of the person to avoid development of Alzheimer's. Very interesting study, and it reminds me of a certain Prophet who continues to work hard into his late 90s. This reinforces the need for me to do creative (or re-creative) and constructive (purposeful) things throughout my life. Perhaps that TV can gather a little more dust while I read more and spend more time at school and with family.

This is a comment I made on the blog Classical Values I couldn't help but comment on this thread since 1) I received that same email, 2) I happen to belong to the same church as both Justin Hart and Mitt Romney (as well as the Marriott’s)—which church is very outspoken on such issues. So, admittedly, I am an Activist. I also haven’t read your blog long enough, or deeply enough to fully appreciate your philosophical premises (except for your affinity to some brand of libertarianism) so forgive me if I don’t fully understand from where you are coming. I agree that victimhood is overused, and I agree with Tammy Bruice when she said: "When victimhood is the source of one’s power, then the cure becomes the disease," but who is gaining from these labor intensive battles against pornography? What power is derived from this effort-intensive battle? There are plenty of people, like yourself, who look at our efforts to minimize pornography (which we believe results in substantial socio-personal harms) and gaze in incredulity. And granted, some of the harms of pornography are matters of faith and are therefore subject to doubt. Unlike Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, or the asbestos manufacturers, those who fight against pornography won’t get a big paycheck, or even hope for substantial power since so many are indifferent or active participators on the part of pornography. You are right that the battle against pornography is ideologically driven, much like the efforts of the ACLU, the Neocon nation-building Iraq War, or what was once the Cold War, the French and American Revolutions, etc; so it doesn’t depend on science (even though science is a useful blunt instrument for crafting social policy). I suppose the American People will just need to make the decision whether they want to affirm policies that are family-centered or those which tend toward cultural libertarian’s political servitude and social license. As for me and my house, I am not interested in doing the bidding of sexual revolution’s Che Guevaras, and that is why I stand on principles which I have reasonable, but uncertain grounds to stand on (just like Reagan did when he gave his Tear Down This Wall speech). I agree that I don’t know exactly what would happen if we cut the anchor to our nation’s sexual mores; liberating them to be tossed by the winds of individual desire, but every time I try to go down that road the prospects become too frightening.

Reading this morning Robert Novak's column about the great challenge that Mitt Romney's religion poses, I was struck by this quote:

Mormonism is the only minority category where bias in America has deepened.

Reading this article, I am reminded of the street preachers who will undoubtably flock to Temple square this weekend to denounce a whole people as children of the evil one, as well as otherwise intelligent colleagues of mine who because of my rejection of the "catholic" creeds of christianity, refuse to acknowledge my personal christian faith. Even after being characatured and mischaracterized I try in a spirit good-will to explain deeply held beliefs which intimately guide my life, and as a reward: rank prejudice and rejection of everything I have said because somehow "we know more about your deeply held religious beliefs and your standing with Jesus Christ than you." I hope someday those biased Americans (as well as the Islamic radicals who have frozen the middle east in the middle ages) will try understanding rather than attacking others based on slight differences in matters of faith. But, as I have stated in my last post, one thing all people of faith can (and should) unite against is the spirit of cultural libertarianism mixed with the subjugation of individual political will. I am much more worried about ubiquitous pornography's effect on my children than on the suppression of my childrens right to pray in public or the imposition of OBL's brand of Sharia law. I only wish the Religious Right would see it that way, nevertheless hope may be on the horizon.

24 ¶ Another aparable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to cburn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. Matt. 13: 24-30

Both inside and outside of the Church, there are many ideas that are floating around concerning the proper role of men and women in families, what is the true nature of families, and what is the nature of God and his relationship with us. Reading this week in the New Testament, I came upon this passage which ostensibly refers to the corruption which exists inside and outside of the Lord's people. Then conference weekend came and I realize that there is so much work left to be done; notwithstanding the angels' pleading to reap the earth. It seemed that conferece was directed more towards people who are not familiar with the Church or for those who are very young in their conversion to it (see e.g. Elders Holland's Talk on the Godhead vs. Trinity, Nelson's talk on the Book of Mormon, Hales's talk on personal revelation, and Scott's talk on acquiring truth). Of course I also loved all of these talks and found many good applications for myself: a somewhat 'seasoned' member of the church, but it seemed that the fundamentals were the focus this conference. Some of that may be the increasing attention the Church has had recently and the it's much more active role in defining it's own doctrine to the media. I am also interested in the reaction that many in the church have had in response to Julie Beck's talk on motherhood and womanhood. Can I just say that I love the frankness and honesty of Sis. Beck. Of course there were those who wern't too pleased about the talk (see here, here and here), but there were others who were more charitable in their reaction to President Beck's talks (see here and here). Two points: 1) Some seem more comfortable criticizing the women leaders of the church (President Hinkley has made similar statements with nary a word about what we might "wish he would have said." We will be held accountable for rejecting truth; whether it's source be the Relief Society President, the Prophet, or a young missionary). 2) I know I need to be sensitive, especially to women, but we all need to straighten our shoulders and take on life's burdens without whining and murmering. Life is tough and if women are going to whine about their alotment in life, they should consider the condition of other, much stronger women; and the source of their strength. What a wonderful time we live in today. We are so blessed, and yet many wish to dwell on the negatives, or on what they wish the Prophet and our other fellow-servants might have done to aleviate their burden (or guilt, perhaps). Regardless of what seem to me the tares within the church, I am very hopeful for the future, and I am excited to see what will become of the Church, and the World; in the next few decades.

My comment to a post over at Times and Seasons. I like how you use the foundation of Joy--very C.S. Lewis-ish. That foundation of Joy, which defies reason and even works against evidence, helps us cling to the hope of the uncertain future that we may inherit if we remain faithful. I do, however, take issue with the phrase "muddle in the middle" which to me seems too much like the Aristotelian "middle way," or may allude to a kind of epicurean life of settling into comfortable acceptance of difficult answers; which, I acknowledge you have rejected:

”and it never settles into one tidy spot from which I can buy a rocking chair, kick back, relax and - perhaps - sleep.”

But, the comfort that there is no easy answer when there very well may be (many have fallen into forbidden paths because of the EASINESS of the way) can lull the patient intellectual into his/her own false sense of security in muddled sophistry (or philosophy and commandments of men, mingled with scripture—having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof). The restored gospel, however, paints a somewhat different picture of the path that the disciple takes. The ideas found in the Sermon on the Mount, e.g., were NOT the Aristotelian middle-way; rather, they are truly radical in their nature, at least to any passive observer. The Lord’s extreme commandments require a life of total devotion to the ideas and truths which have brought that foundation of joy, i.e. joy cannot exist in absence of hard adherence to certain gospel truths to the exclusion of all others—a very extreme intellectualism indeed. Latter-day Saints are the ultimate thought police, but not in the way the world sees it, since they are blind to the joy and faith we hold. It shouldn’t be any wonder, then, when the world labels the Church as an anti-intellectual body; they see not, therefore they dismiss hard gospel truths as visions and dreams. That is what really annoyed the Savior; people who claim to know truth and who claim to live by that truth which their actions and even reasoning denies a priori (e.g. Atheist, Elitists, Sophists, and other forms of hypocrisy, including trial lawyers--just kidding;-). The smart disciple will pick up some truths along the way which were exposed via the world outside the structure of the Church, but these are like grains of sand on the beach of our understanding, and often they don’t add to the foundation of joy. Thus they are qualitatively and quantitatively different than the radical gospel which we live. I know an elderly woman named Rosa who lives next to an LDS church in Masatepe, Nicaragua. She is a radical, who has so little, but yet gives so much in service with her arthritic hands. As I left her home, last time I visited, she enjoined me to “be good, keep the faith.” She knew the truth of the gospel, and lived it as an extremist in this world where self-interest, even enlightened self-interest, is the prevailing moral philosophy.

My Writer's Room/Study Central The inspiration for this post was an article in The Guardian which posted a bunch of photos of writers rooms.

Here is a very interesting take on the possible movement of evangelicals toward electing Hillary. The MSM (Mainstream Media) frequently portrays the Evangelical movement as a monolithic herd, but, as the article above points out, about 1/3rd of evangelicals voted for Clinton in 1996. I know that a Hillary presidency is anathema to many conservatives, but the republicans are where they are right now because they started doing thing to win elections in stead of doing things that helped the country. I like Giuliani, and about 3 years ago, I was really excited about the prospect of him running for president. The more I look at his positions on the issues I care about, however, as well as the character of the man; the more I am convinced that I might stay home on election day if the choice is between Giuliani and Clinton.

Thanks for the honest and discriminating dialogue. It is refreshing when people actually read the words I write instead of their own projections of bias on my words.

# 22 I guess my question, then, is if you think there is anything in other religions or philosophies or perspectives that is worth studying in order to understand.

I have found that the Gospel is a lens which is able to refract and focus the light of others and bring more clarity into the topics. That is the great efficacy of the Gospel (and the Gift of the Holy Ghost in particular). ‘The Good’ can be found everywhere, not simply inside of the church. Nature, Science, the Arts (rarely), and so on, all have intrinsic Good. It is always well to understand the Good in other religions, worldviews, etc. Shakespeare lived during a time of Apostasy, e.g., but that doesn’t disqualify his body of works for study, nor does it annul the Good found therein. But, all worldly knowledge and understanding is trivial compared to the knowledge of the Gospel. It is one thing to know how to temporally and spatially excise specific genes in the creation of Knockout mice (as 2007 Nobelist Mario Cappechi did), but it is quite another to understand the saving principles and ordinances of the Gospel. The former without the latter is trivial, and I think there will be a lot of disappointed people in the next life who will find that their life’s work will not amount to much. As Elder Maxwell has explained, a Mortician does good work here—especially if he does it with Charity. Also, how are we going to interact with people of other faiths, perspectives, etc. if we don’t first try to understand? It isn’t possible, but members of the church shouldn’t be at the feet of other religions to be taught because we already have the ‘fullness of the Gospel.’ These two are different, we already have the big picture, but we also need to understand how to best help others find the gospel through dialogue; reinforcing the Good, and helping to reject error and incorrect traditions. We cannot accomplish that goal if we are unfamiliar with either the wheat or the tares. #23:

#21: Joseph, I guess I would need to know what you put into your definition of ” What is found in the Gospel “to understand #21. Me..I like music and nature, but do not put them in my definition of”Gospel”. I think Joseph Smith had “meaning in his life before 1830. I feel many people have “meaning ‘ and “joy” in their life outside or without the Church.

I think my previous statements are necessary and sufficient on that point. Also, Moroni 7 was quoted in the original post, and a discussion of the Light of Christ vs. the Gift of the Holy Ghost would further clarify this point.

I did read ( maybe mistakenly ) shots at Atheist or those using “clever aesthetics and logical gymnastics, as having meaningless lives.

My statement was:

if I were an Atheist, I would say that my life is infinitely and absolutely meaningless notwithstanding all the clever aesthetics and logical gymnastics.

This is a hypothetical (note the use of “I” referring to myself) in which I was referring to the rank hypocrisy of atheists. They profess a doctrine, which if they lived by (or supposing it was true), would produce despair and suicide. Obviously the atheist of the world DO feel their life has loads of meaning; writing all kinds of books about that subject, but the fact remains that they have a portion of the Light of Christ sustaining their lives and intellectual pursuits; which they deny a priori, and with great hypocrisy. They do not practice what they preach, nor do they preach what they practice. They do not acknowledge the Light of Christ which DOES sustain their lives—giving them some modicum of meaning. This is rank hypocrisy.

While we are making up awards, why not award Al Gore the Nobel prize in Medicine or Chemistry, since he is obviously the most qualified scientist around, or since the 'catastrophe' of so-called Global Warming will kill off our children if we don't start eating organic food from our own 'green' garden; fertilized by our own feces (to reduce water pollution, of course). I know I am not a member of the Swedish Nobility, but perhaps somebody can show me some evidence how the .71 degree increase in the worlds temperature in the last 30 years has caused widespread war and what Al Gore has done to actually decrease war and poverty in the world. Perhaps next time they will award a Nobel Prize to all the babies who were aborted because they saved the earth from a massive population bomb, or to Prince Harry, because he is expected to carry out his mother's humanitarian efforts. . . in the future. The fact that the results of his actions are questionable right now need not bother us; since we are Royalist all, and we're oh so sure that he will be a good prince in his old age. No, don't argue; the matter is settled--Prince Harry is a humanitarian genius who will have done more to serve the poor and underprivilaged than we may ever know. Especially since the more he serve humankind, the less opportunity there is for him to serve humankind--so we'll just award his Peace prize right now and save ourselves the waiting. We can also overlook the 'inconvenient truth' that the policies that Gore is advocating will possibly lead to increased poverty in places like China, India or South America--and perhaps more war. This is the 'we have ours, and we are going to make sure that you don't get yours, because you'll pollute the earth too much' attitude. I suppose Al gore is a step up, though, compared to other Nobelist like Le Duc Tho who later turned out to have been partially responsible for the mass murder of millions of people. I guess this isn't the first time the Nobel Committee has shown poor judgement in awarding the Peace Prize (the U.N. recieved the award 3 times, America: 0). Maybe next year the Nobel Prize committee will cut-to-the-chase and award the Nobel Peace Prize to. . . themselves; they deserve it!

Best line from last nights Republican Debate; John McCain explaining why he wasn't able to attend Woodstock.

We watched a children's movie "The Last Mimzy" last saturday. Overall, the movie was interesting; especially the part when Brian Greene made his cameo as an Intel Computer Scientist. Brian Greene, as many of you may know, consulted on the movie Deja Vu. There is one part in the movie Deja Vu when they start talking about the 'river of time,' etc. and I knew at that point that Greene's fingerprints were on that film, and sure enough, he was on the credit roll as an advisor. I also recommend to anybody who hasn't watched the NOVA series The Elegant Universe should go to the website and watch it. It is about 3 hours long, and I really enjoyed it. Back to "The Last Mimzy," it was obvious from the start that the movie contained subtle anti-religious assumptions. For Example: 1) The movie starts out in some kind of 'state of nature' in which children fly down using their minds to have a lesson from a woman in a flower patch. They learn that pollution has caused their ancestors' DNA to switch off certain 'humanist' genes (Humanism often being used as a euphemism for Atheism). 2) The religions which are explored are some obscure Nepalese and other far-eastern religions. All those religions are later explained in the movie to have a basis in Science. Likewise, the children perform miracle-like acts which are explained by the end of the movie as having a basis in science. 3) The movie references 'Junk DNA' as being a byproduct of Evolution and pollution. As it turns out, the more we learn, the more we are comming to understand that 'Junk DNA' is not the byproduct of evolution but that it has real and essential functions as regulators of the genetic software program. 4) Throughout the movie there is a creation-like narrative about a creation, paradise, a fall, and redemption through science. The imagery of the first and last scene could just as well have been taken from a Jehova's Witness Booklet. There seem to be a lot of Anti-Christian movies comming out lately (e.g. Da Vinci Code, The Golden Compass, etc.).

Two comments that can be found in their context here. Christopher; it isn't secrecy or ambivalence towards truth. We simply prefer to not cast our pearls before swine. And I am simply incredulous at the claims you insinuate as to the integrity of the Church's leadership (which is made up of, by-in-large, lay ministers except at the very top). Now the Mormons are not ones to criticize other religions, but a word of caution: perhaps you should first make sure your Catholic and Protestant houses are in order before criticizing the Mormons; who as the fifth largest religious body in the U.S. have had relatively few scandals or moral crises notwithstanding your claims of widespread corruption at the top of the Church's hierarchy. Having said that, I have tremendous respect for many of my Catholic and Protestant friends and hope my words aren’t interpreted otherwise. I would expect such total disregard for the faith of millions of people to come from somebody who is amoral or atheist. I already know they have totally disregarded moral truth, but such venomous attacks on one's personal faith coming from those who profess Christian Charity always seems to sting much more because of it's duplicity. So, for the record; Mormon's only seek the approval of one Man--Christ, and even though we don't recognize the truthfulness of attacks against our personal faith in a personal Savior, we sure would hope the rest of the Christian world would get past excluding people from salvation in the next world and start working together on the important social/temporal problems that affect us all in this world. #2 Stuart and Christopher: Just like all forms of bigotry, I cannot convince you of your error any more than I can convince a white supremacist of his error in racism. You are not experts of my religion. I have served in leadership positions myself, and I have studied this religion for the better part of 25 years. Your baseless claims that I have perpetuated lies to my congregations have support in neither reason nor evidence. Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that I know much more about the tenants, history and customs of my religion than do you. Perhaps you should take a long look in the mirror and see who is really perpetuating lies and libel. Almost 2000 years ago a wise Jew gave this advice:

Take heed of yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves; he was slain, and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered and brought to nought. After this rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him; he also perished, and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, refrain from these men, and let them alone, for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. (Acts 5:34)

I commend that advice to you in the conduct of your lives, and hope that someday we can get past your bigotry of our religion to do substantive work towards helping our neighbors live better lives, regardless of their religion; through humanitarian service and political action.