Semantics

A few years ago I was having a theological discussion with a friend of mine. He was really impressed that the English word son and sun were homophones. It really appealed to him that Christ, the son, brought light into the world and Sol, the sun, also brought light to the world. Now I realize that this wasn’t the format for textual criticism so I just bit my tongue. I was tempted to point out that the significance of his revelation only applied to English. I didn’t know for sure but I was pretty sure that son and sun were not homophones in the original Greek or Hebrew. If this doctrine were so profound why would it be left for only those who spoke English to understand? But it wasn’t my job to take the air out of his sails. So, I just listened patiently and encouraged him to continue his studies.

Yesterday at church I had a similar tongue-biting experience. In Sunday School we were discussing the New Testament and somehow we started talking about the words thee, thou and thine. For quite a while we talked about the importance of using these words when we are talking about deity. Begin tongue biting. Personally I think this type of language says more about England at the time King James version was translated than it does about anything contemporary to Jesus. But I continued to listen.

Then the discussion centered on the fact that thee, thou and thine were more familiar and casual forms of the more formal pronouns for you and your. More tongue biting. One member of the audience even challenged that claim, saying that the instructor had it backwards. Thee was the more formal not you. But he stood his ground and correctly stuck to his point that thee was the familiar form and you the formal.

Then two other members of the class shared personal experiences about the formal and familiar tenses in different languages. And how when they learned the different language they were trained to use the familiar forms when referencing deity, in Spanish and Portuguese just like King James’s contemporaries did with English.

One good thing about have a wife that is so understanding of my condition is that I can quietly vent a little bit to her rather that completely sever my tongue. So I asked her, “Does anybody here know if the original Greek or Hebrew had rank distinctions like Old English, Spanish or Portuguese?” My point was the same as my point to my friend a few years ago. If we were to be having this lesson in the language the original text was written in would there be a distinction at all? It was my suspicion that we were spending valuable lesson time discussion the particulars of doctrine on a subject that quite possibly was just an artifact of translation. Until somebody could verify that Greek and Hebrew had rank distinctions in their pronouns we were just wasting time.

So once I got home I turned to the interwebs and the Google helped me answer my questions in only a few minutes. The instructor was correct. Thou, thee and thine are the familiar form and not the causal form.

“Following a process found in other Indo-European languages, thou was later used to express intimacy, familiarity, or even disrespect, while another pronoun, you, the oblique/objective form of ye, was used for formal circumstances.”

And, as I suspected, Greek and Hebrew do not even have rank distinctions in their pronouns.

“Emphasis in biblical languages was on the noun, subject, or name, whether referring to God, man, a spiritual being, or an inanimate object. There were not two or three sets of pronouns used: for example, one to convey the significance of God's name and another when referring to Abraham. Hebrew and Greek do have pronouns that distinguish between singular and plural and between subject pronouns (referring to the one performing the action of the verb); and object pronouns (the one receiving the action of the verb or joined with a preposition); but they are used without any reference to rank. In Biblical Hebrew and Greek pronouns were a matter of precision not piety.”

I guess what concerns me about issues like this is that it distracts from time that we could be using to discuss truly important things. Rather than talking about how we can help other in the congregation we were nit-picking over our choice of pronouns.

As soon as church was over we loaded up the truck and headed up to visit my new nephew and his parents. He’s still in the NICU since he was born rather small. It was inspiring to see this tiny little soul struggling to survive and seeing his parents do everything they can to help him get started right in this world in spite of his bumpy landing. I really enjoyed the time spent with him, his parents, and the nurses showing him so much love in his first week of life. The drive home gave me pause and really got me thinking about what it means to be spiritual.

Sibling Solidarity

(This is another personal post that will likely upset some readers.)

I love my kids. Sure they can frustrate the hell out of me sometimes but I still love them. I didn’t enjoy being a teenager and I can tell that my two teenagers aren’t exactly digging it either. It seems that most of their troubles come from peer pressure; so-called friends attacking them, frequently physically, for their opinions and beliefs and trying to get them to just go along with the crowd. What’s really upsetting to them is that most of this criticism comes from people whom they think should know better, members of our church. As a parent few thing make me more proud than when one kid stands up for the other, especially in a situation where they really don’t have anything to gain my doing it. We had just such a situation last night. And although it was very traumatic for her, I couldn’t have been more proud of my oldest daughter.
A little back history: Aaron hasn’t been attending church at our ward for the better part of a year now. He has been arranging, on his own, to get rides back and forth from the Brocket Ward. He gets along with the kids in that ward better, they accept him and genuinely love him. In stark contrast, the kids in our ward tease him, call him a Satanist and frequently physically assault him. In his own words it is rather ironic that the least spiritual hours of his week are spent at church. He doesn’t participate in the Varsity scout program on Wednesday night. We’ve moved him to another troop that is a real community troop where sharing the same religious upbringing is not a requirement to hold positions. He gets along much better with these guys. On Wednesday he even arranges for rides over to Brockett to hang out with the kids from that ward that he gets along with so well. In the entire time that he has been attending that Ward only one person from our ward has asked about Aaron. He was genuinely concerned and I thanked him for caring and not forgetting about him. Not a single other person has given us the slightest clue that they’ve even noticed his absence. In stark contrast, the leaders from Brockett comment to us about how they enjoy having him there and miss him when he’s gone.
Well last night I dropped Rachel off at the church for her Young Women’s activity. She typically doesn’t have the same issues as Aaron so I was a little surprised when Victoria brought her home and she was in tears. I asked her what was wrong. Rachel then proceeded to ask if she too could attend Brockett Ward rather than our ward. Apparently even in his absence Aaron is still a topic of conversation. A few of the kids were making fun of him and it really upset Rachel. I found a bit odd that their primary criticism of Aaron is that he “believes in evolution”. Rachel has never been one to gossip and hence she refused to tell me which kids were involved. But she did say that it really surprised her because she had though that these kids were above that. Apparently she had spent half of the meeting outside crying and just waiting for us to come pick her up.
Rachel didn’t openly defy these kids, that’s just not her style, but she did refuse to be a part of what they were doing. They still fight like, well brothers and sisters, but when the chips are down it’s really nice to see them standing up for what they know is right. Rachel didn’t want to tell anybody, especially Aaron, about what happened. I thought that he needed to hear it. After he was dropped off from his activity at Brockett we talked about it and he gave his little sister a nice big hug.

I chose to post this in order to add my name to Rachel’s. I stand behind my family. You criticize one of us you criticize us all. And we won’t tolerate it.

As far as the chief complaint lobbied again Aaron goes, Evolution is a fact. Get used to it. It used to be a theory but it has long ago graduated to a fact as far as I am concerned. I would even go so far as to say that evolution is more of a fact than gravity. Gravity is still lacking a clear definition of how it works. Like evolution gravity has been tested and tested and tested thousands of times but gravity is still lacking a carrier. We don’t quite know how it works. We have hypothesized the existence of the graviton, but haven’t actually seen one. In contrast we have found DNA and natural selection, the elements that make evolution work. So in a very real sense there is more evidence supporting evolution than gravity. In the past when people have asked me if I “believe” evolution I’ve had to rephrase their question in my answer. Because belief requires faith I don’t think it applies to evolution. Faith is a belief without evidence or even in spite of the evidence. You just aren’t looking if you don’t see evidence of evolution. So I respond something like this, “I accept the overwhelming evidence that life evolved via natural selection.”

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality." The Dalai Lama
Wise words. It's a shame more people don't apply this same idea to thier own beliefs. I'm glad my kids are.

Jesus Interupted

Whenever my dad used to catch me reading as a kid he would tell me, sarcastically, to “Stop doing that. It’ll corrupt your mind.” At first it was typically a comic book or a Mad Magazine that provoked his response but later on I realized that he was referring to any book. I’m sure most, if not all, of the books that I’ve reviewed on this blog would fit Rog’s definition of corruptible reading material.
The latest book that I’ve been using to corrupting my mind is Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) by Bart D. Ehrman. I’ve reviewed several of Ehrman’s books in the past and except for one found them all to be very enjoyable. I’m only half way finished, but this one too has not disappointed.
Ehrman examines the countless contradictions in the Bible and he is uniquely qualified to write a book on this topic. He starts with a few relatively simple contradictions that really don’t amount to much but then build up to some serious differences that have some pretty serious theological implications. He reminds his reader that the Bible was written by several different people with different perspectives, opinions and ideas. The original authors never imagined that their writings would be complied into one volume. And I’m sure they would be quite surprised to find out that millions of people refer to this volume by saying, “The Bible is the inerrant word of God.”
Ehrman goes a step further than just pointing out the problems and contradictions. He also details a brilliant way to change your perspective as you read the Bible. He calls it horizontal reading. This is where you take a certain event in the Bible and then read what each author has to say about it. If you just read the Bible as you would a novel, vertically, then you might not notice the many inconsistencies and contradictions. However if you read a little background information on the author and then reread his letter or gospel you can also make a little more sense as to why he would emphasis certain events over others or even change certain details. If an author was addressing his letter to a group who wanted to know if Jesus’ life fulfilled any prophecies then its would surprise you that he would quote the Old Testament and possibly even tweak some of the details to make it fit reality a little better than it actually did.
I’ve always been rather critical of people who try to use scripture for things that it was not meant to do. I know people who try to use the Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc. as science or history books. Not only does that give you incorrect history and science it also completely misses the point. Had the authors known they were writing history books or science books they would have taken and entirely different route and included different details all together. The analogy I use is the difference between a phone book and a map. There’s nothing inherently wrong with either one as long as they are used in the proper context. You wouldn’t look for the number to Domino’s on a map and the driver probably wouldn’t be able to find your house with just a phonebook. But if you switch that around everything works out just fine.

An Unlikely Disciple: a review

I guess one of the silver linings in having a nasty head cold is that I get to catch up a little bit on my reading. I’ve been reading The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner’s Semester at America’s Holist University by Kevin Roose. Roose got the idea to enroll for a semester at Liberty Univerty while he was interning for A.J. Jacobs during his “year of living Biblically".
Lately I’ve been running into a common theme in my reading, discussions with friends and online discussions. Nothing is really black and white. In spite of parties on every side of an issue trying to over simplify the world the world just keeps refusing to cooperate. More than any other theme, this book seemed to reinforce this. Perhaps it’s just the state of mind that I’ve been in lately, but that’s what I took from this reading.
Roose, a very liberal Quaker, attending Brown University went into the situation fully prepared to be exposed to the stereotypical extreme right-wing, evangelical students that his liberal family had warned him about. And he did meet a few of them. However, the overwhelming majority of the students that he lived with and learned to love did not fall into the extremes of the stereotype. In fact the one student who did meet the stereotype was ostracized by the rest of the guys in his dorm because his views were so extreme. Most of the students at Liberty had much more nuanced views on religion, morality and politics than he expected.
Roose’s outside perspective gives an interesting view of a lot of evangelical doctrines and behavior. Roose is a white, heterosexual, protestant male and hence has the benefit of being the ideal demographic for a Liberty student. Aware of this Roose decided to seek out what it would be like to not fit so neatly into this special demographic. He talks at length with a black friend about the school’s and Rev. Falwell’s history of opposing civil rights. When he tries to meet some closeted homosexuals on campus to discuss their views on the school he gets accidentally roped into the school’s homosexual reform counseling. Rather than push the issue that he isn’t really gay he rides it out for a while to see how it must feel for those at Liberty who are.
As part of his General Education curriculum Roose has to take a course called GNED 102. In that course they learn about the inerrancy of the Bible, that the world is literally only 6000 years old, they learn about the evils of the homosexual agenda and the proper place of women in the home. Roose points out that in many ways this is the stereotypical class that most non-Liberty students envision when they speculate about the curriculum at Liberty. It’s the counter-point to how most Liberty students feel about secular education. As if they are required to attend a class that teaches you how to smoke pot, have gay sex and become an atheist. No such class actually exists at Brown University and the sad reality is that GNED 102 does exist at Liberty.
Roose also stumbled across a fundamental irony at Liberty University. You see most evangelical Christians are anti-intellectual. They actually think that gaining too much worldly knowledge can drive one away from God. So why does the University exist in the first place? A very good question and one that isn’t completely resolved in this book. Roose finds that in spite of the school’s criticism of doubt and the trumpeting of religious certainty that, in practice, there actually is a health amount of doubt and open-minded questioning of belief among the students and the faculty.
By some odd twist of fate Jerry Falwell ends up granting his final print interview before his death to Roose. Despite the fact that he disagreed with him on most major issues Roose grew to understand even like Dr. Falwell. Not wanting to blow his undercover status Roose primarily asked softball questions but those questions ended up putting a very human and likable face on Falwell. Despite the political differences of opinion, I thought the interview was a charitable eulogy for one of America’s most controversial religious figures.
After his semester at Liberty Roose comes back to come clean about the fact that the was essentially a mole. All of his friends accept him and look forward to reading the book. However, many have issues with the fact that he isn’t saved. Being so indoctrinated into a black or white, heaven or hell, saved or damned culture they have a hard time with the fact that here is a good person that they have prayer with and for and yet he doesn’t fit into the neat little boxes that the culture has told them that all people have to fit into.
I really identified with this book on many levels. I too feel that much of religion is anti-intellectual. I too feel that churches need to act move like churches and less like political action campaigns. And I too have a hard time fitting into a religious culture that looks upon doubt as a weakness and stresses certainty and “knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt”.
I’m putting this book down as one more piece of evidence that the world is rarely, if ever, as black and white as some try to paint it.

God's Problem

Bart Ehrman is a biblical textural researcher. He makes a living researching the original texts that we have used to compile the Bible in its current form. I’ve read many of his books. Perhaps his best is Misquoting Jesus, which I reviewed on this blog a few years ago. Ehrman quite convincingly showed that many of the doctrines that some Christian’s cling to are mistranslations and sometimes not even in the original texts. The book reads not as a direct criticism of faith in general but as a caution not to get too hung up on the wording of a certain passage that may have been drastically different or even non-existent in the original texts. I really enjoyed this book. Ehrman was in his element and speaking from his wealth of experience studying the original texts of the Bible, particularly the New Testament.

In the last few years, thanks to Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code and the discovery and preservation of the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, Ehrman has written other popular books that focused again on the original texts of the New Testament. I also enjoyed both of these books. They were right up Ehrman alley. In his book about the DaVinci Code he was able to shed light on what the texts actually claimed and not just how Dan Brown distorted them to tell his story. Other rebuttals of The DaVinci Code fell flat in comparison to Ehrman’s book. The others just came across as angry Christian apologetics rather than well thought out logical responses.

Ehrman was also one of the best choices to write a book about the Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot since he was active on the team that studied and translated the recently recovered codex. I found his detailed personal account of what it took to translate and preserve this codex absolutely fascinating.

So with his history of very enjoyable books I was somewhat disappointed with God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer. Here Ehrman strays from strictly examining the texts and reporting what they say or don’t say. The book reads as a scholar who used to have faith but lost it. The cathartic story of his loss of faith is moving, but it’s a vastly different theme than his previous books. And in the long run I just didn’t care. It doesn’t matter to me if you are a man of faith or an atheist. You’re personal response to the information you convey should be irrelevant to the facts. Although I sympathize, his continual personal stories grew more than a little tiring. I felt that most of the book was an explanation to his family about why he no longer considers himself a Christian.

The rest of the book goes into graphic detail about how nasty, selfish and down right mean the God of the Old Testament appears in the texts. Although I agree with most of the analyses and statements he made I just didn’t feel like he was saying much, if anything, new. There are plenty of recent books that handle just this topic. Perhaps if I had read God’s Problem before I’d read The God Delusion or The End of Faith I would have a different opinion. Ehrman is better qualified to criticize than either Dawkins or Harris. Besides these two that I have read there are several others including the very mean spirited God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens.

In this flood of what can fairly be called evangelical atheist books God’s Problem just seems to be needless repetition. I look forward to reading future Ehrman books as long as he focuses on what he does best and doesn’t get to preachy.

Goals

Growing up when I did, a teenager in the early '80s, I was exposed to a lot of video games. I even have a job testing video games for a few years before I went on my mission. I kind of kicked the habit while on my mission and ever since I've found most video games interesting from an outside observe stand point rather than from a participant. I just don't find them as interesting as I used to. There is a common theme among most games that I find a little depressing. The goal of most games seems to be simply avoiding death. In fact nearly every game ends by showing your character explode, melt or other symbol of death. Even the best player of the coolest game out there just manages to evade death longer than an average player. On top of that the theme that prolonging your own life requires you to kill most everything else that moves on the screen and I just haven't found most video games too enjoyable.
I was listening to a podcast today on my lunch walk. Krista Tippets was interviewing a chaplain and game warden for the state of Maine. Her job called for her minister to people who had just had a family member get lost or was missing in the Maine wilderness. She was dealing with people who were at the "end of the game". I encourage you to listen to the podcast. I found her perspective very insightful.
One of the most profound insights she had had to do with postponing death. She said that our lives have to mean more than simply postponing death. If our goal is just postponing death then any victory is only temporary. Eventually death will win. Back to my video game analog: if the only goal of the game is to stay alive longer the only victory you could claim is a little more mileage on your quarter. Surely our lives are worth more than that.
For her the victory comes in learning to love each other. In her situation it is frequently all about the hundreds of people who get together to help look for the missing child in the woods. That outpouring of love is the goal. If you have that as the goal then no matter what the outcome of the search there is a victory and in her eyes, that is where the miracle is. Everyone will have tragic event in their lives. What makes us divine is that we refuse to let each other go through them alone.
She ends her interview by describing an event around ten years ago. An elderly woman with Alzheimer’s had wandered into the woods. Thousands of people from the local community gathered together to help in the search. The lady's son was deeply moved by the outpouring of love for his mother and expressed that "surely this was the real miracle." She stopped her story there and did not even say if the woman was found or not. When pressed she said, "well this was ten years ago and she was already old and sick." The insinuation here was that she is dead now, but did not elaborate on the outcome of the search. Did she die then or not? Her point was to identify the miracle and not take away the focus onto looking at what happened after the miracle. We all die. It's what we do in the mean time that matters. Did we learn to love each other like we're supposed to, or not?

Intellectual Honesty

It has been pointed out to me by others that sometimes I just think about things too deeply. I would counter by asking something like "How deep is too deep?" And completely make their point for them. Anyway I've been giving a lot of thought to what it means to be honest.
A few weeks ago I was put into a position that would have been really easy to tell a little white lie and as long as nobody called me on it everyone would have walked away with no hard feelings. Instead I opted to do the intellectually honest thing and tell the truth. The result was some hard feelings and I left feeling like I could have avoided the bad feelings if I'd have made up something rather than tell the truth. I don't regret my decision, but in spite of what well meaning people tell you in Sunday School, sometimes it's a lot harder to be honest.
A month or so ago I started a facebook.com page. I don't remember why I did it. I think I needed one to respond to somebody else's website or something like that. Anyway, one of the options that they give you when you're filling out your profile is political views. Although libertarian fits many of my views it doesn't quite get them all. And in Atlanta if you say you're libertarian many will assume that you agree with everything that Neal Boortz spouts out. I don't. In fact, I tend to vote issue by issue and not along any party lines. So I typed in free-thinker. It just felt like a more honest way to define my political views than any of the labels in the drop down menu.
Another slot asks about religious views. Many of my LDS friends answer this slot with "Christian- Latter Day Saint". Initially I wanted to select that too. However, I have a real issue with any kind of label that paints too broadly. The majority of my religious views do fall in line with LDS theology. However, I have made peace with some of the conflicting LDS doctrines in ways that many LDS friends and family find far too uncomfortable to even talk about. So I again avoided the drop down menu and did what felt intellectually more honest and typed "Seeker of wisdom". The easier and more comfortable path would have been to simply accept the label given to me and move on. It just didn't feel right.
As a result I had one friend ask sincerely if I was ashamed of the church. That was not my intent. I fear that once again my attempt a honesty may have made others uncomfortable. Everybody I know is aware that I am LDS. I've had very deep doctrinal discussions with most of them. In fact I believe that because I am not the cookie-cutter Mormon that they are able to feel more relaxed in discussing their own questions about religion with me.
In the past few months I have had detailed discussions with Liberal Baptists about their interpretation of James; Methodists about how they can improve attendance at their meetings; a Catholic friend about the impact of the new pope; an online discussion with a bunch of skeptics about how I justify my skepticism and my LDS beliefs; and countless conversations with people explaining the difference between official LDS doctrine and that pedophilia taught by Warren Jeffs. I don't believe that any of these conversations would have happened in the same way that they did if I had portrayed myself as the stereotypical Mormon. It's not who I really am and I believe that by honestly calling myself a "seeker of wisdom" I am a better positioned for encouraging others to keep looking for truth where ever they find it.
Incidentally, I don't see "Christian- Latter Day Saint" and "Seeker of Wisdom" as mutually exclusive. Isn't seeking wisdom exactly what Joseph Smith was doing? And isn't that wisdom exactly what James encouraged us to seek?

Turning off your brain

Suppose somebody were to ask you an interesting thought provoking question. If you were willing to have an open minded discussion about the issue both sides might learns something and at the very least you could have a stimulating discussion. I enjoy these types of discussions even if we never come to anything that resembles an answer. It's just fun to ponder the things that we don't quite understand.
Now suppose that every time an interesting question was asked you simply redefined the subject as something that does not require and answer. Well there goes any kind of discussion.
Q: What color is that book?
A: That book does not require a color.
Q: How fast is that car?
A: It is, by definition, speedless.
Q: What time is it?
A: Time is irrelevant.
You see what I mean? Granted these are just silly examples, but all to frequently people apply this same linguistically hopscotch to avoid interesting questions. Over the weekend I was mass CC'ed on an email that answered the question, "Who created God?" The answer given: "God does not require a creator." Huh? What kind of an answer is that? It isn't an answer at all. It's simply defining your subject as something that does not require and answer. This isn't a new concept. This is Aristotle's Cosmological argument just put into simpler English and distributed by email rather than toga clad sages.
What bothers me about this type of an argument is the finality of it. There's nothing left to think about. It's over. The discussion has stopped. Just when we get close to an interesting discussion they simply define the argument as out of bounds. Technically this is a form of the special pleading logical fallacy. If you have to make special exceptions to your subject that you wouldn't allow for other subjects, in this case the well establish concept of cause and effect, then your argument is fallacious. I guess I don't fault them too much. Some people are just more comfortable with concrete truths. I'd just rather have an open-minded discussion.

Christian?

I've been giving a lot of thought to what it means to be a Christian. There are several different ways to define it. I think that most folks tend to go strictly on doctrinal issues. If their doctrine isn't the same as mine then they can't be Christian. It's with this logic that Mormons are accused of not being Christian and are doomed to Hell while Baptist televangelists who have gay affairs are deserving of our forgiveness.
I tend to go with a behavioral definition. In the story of the Good Samaritan it wasn't the pious that reached out and showed Christ like compassion. It was the profane Samaritan. Likewise in our world today I don't think it matters what label you have that makes you Christian. Baptist, Mormon, Muslim or Atheist it's irrelevant. Friend or foe, family or stranger, it's how we treat our fellow man that defines his "Christianity".
As a result of my comments about the movie Expelled I've received several personal emails from self professed Christians. Some of them were vulgar and were deleted before I even read the whole thing. A few were not as bad but were still very mean spirited. Not one of them wanted to discuss the actual claims that I had made, they just wanted to attack me personally. From a behavioral perspective, I've never been treated more unChristlike in email exchanges. You'd have thought I was proposing reinstating polygamy from the rabid responses I received.
In sharp contrast to these emails I've had very open and civil discussions about my Mormonism on discussion boards where the majority are atheist.
A few months ago Aaron and I went downtown to hear the Dalai Lama speak. For over an hour he talked about our responsibility to eliminate the suffering of others. He talked about the power of love curing all of the ailments of humanity. It was one of the most spiritual experiences I'd ever had. On the way out a couple of self professed Christians were passing out cards with a picture of a mutilated body in a wrecked car. The caption carried the message, “If you die on the way home from this event you will go to Hell". How nice and Christian or them to so graphically speak out against peace, love and understanding.
As I've stated before I think Christians get too hung up on the bureaucracy of what it means to be Christian and forget the message that Christ really spoke. A shining example of someone who gets it right came in our concluding speaker of Sacrament Meeting yesterday. An Elder had just returned from his mission to New York City. He told a very personal story about how he just wanted to go home because he felt the people, the city and everything about New York was just filthy. He didn't want to even unpack his bags because he didn't think he would be able to handle it. It wasn't until he reflected on times in his own life that he had felt loved that he turned himself around. Slowly but surely he began to see the people of New York not as a separate group but as part of the same group. He was able to eliminate the “us and them” mentality and learned to love them as his fellow brothers and sisters. He then shared that he even grew to love the smell and the garbage on the streets of New York. This is the best modern example of Christ like love that I have heard from the pulpit in quite some time. Considering the events of this weekend this is the example that I am trying hardest to emulate. He gets them both right, the doctrine and the behavior.

Conference Report

Twice a year rather than our normal LDS services we attend a General Conference. I use the term attend rather loosely. The conference is broadcast via satellite to each stake center. We also can attend via the internet or if you have access to KBYU you can watch it on TV. Each conference we usually watch each session with the in-laws and then I will download the mp3s from www.lds.org and listen to them again throughout the the next week or so.
A few month ago Gordon B. Hinkley died and Thomas S. Monson took the reins as the new Prophet and President of the Church. Since the church has grown so much in the last ten years and this was the first time it had happened for so long, I fully expected speakers to explain and support the process that brought Monson to the head of the church. As I lifetime member I kinda felt that they took it a little too far. It felt like every speak started out by explaining the process. Perhaps this was more useful to other who hadn't seen it before. I've always liked Monson and had always accepted that he'd be Prophet one day.
I've always felt that religion was best when it dealt with specific ways that we can apply love into our lives. In this aspect conference did not disappoint. I specifically liked M. Russell Ballard's advice about how to treat your family members. Rather than just tell us to love and respect them he detailed specific ways that parents can support children, children support parents and parents support each other. There were other talks that dealt with ways of applying this love into our lives too. Ballard's was just the one that I remember most.
To end it all off Monson gave a very touching story about when his wife was in the hospital. As if to put the exclamation point on Ballard's talk, he shared a personal story that showed how he was applying this Christlike love in his own life.
As you read other posts on my blog you may be tempted to think that I am bitter toward religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. At it's best I believe that religion can add meaning and provide guidance and hope. My criticism of religion is when it looses sight of these goals and ventures into unfamiliar territory. This weekend I believe I saw examples of the best in what religion can be. When I get home tonight I'm planning on downloading the mp3s of all the talks. I look forward to listening to them again to glean what advice I can to learn to apply love in my life. For starters I plan on easing Victoria's load a little by taking care of some chores around the house.

"The Year of Living Biblically" a review

There is an interesting genre' of book on the market right now. For lack of a better term I will call them "premeditated memoirs". Most memoirs are written retrospectively. The author lives through an amazing event or lives an amazing life. Then afterward they decide to right up the events as a memoir. Now if you reverse the process you come up with a "premeditated memoir".
You first decide to write a book and then you start to live your life in an interesting way. I haven't really been impressed with the genre' until now.
A few years ago I read a book of this type. The writer decided that we needed a book about him hiking the entire Appalachian Trail. So he started off on the trail and began taking notes. His hiking trip was a miserable failure and he ended up hiking less than a third of the trail. The only redeeming grace of the book was that he filled the book with loads of history about the trail and the land and people that the trail crosses through. All of this information was likely compiled after his return since he had to fill the pages that would have otherwise been filled with his personal stories.
Well I put aside my presumptions about the genre' when I started to read The Year of Living Biblically by A. J. Jacobs. In many ways he followed what I was expecting from the genre' but Jacobs' writing style and the subject matter made the book very enjoyable. With the A. T. book I expected the guy to succeed and he didn't but with Jacobs' book I was expecting him to fail and he did a remarkable job of completing his task.
As I said on a previous post I expected the book to be filled with his attempt to follow, to the letter, the bizarre rituals that are contained in the Bible. To this end it did not disappoint. He stoned a few adulterers, kept kosher, did not mix his fibers, animal sacrifices, tithing, stayed away from "unclean" women, grew a beard and even tried his hand at shepherding and snake handling. All of these provided for highly entertaining stories.
Jacobs also takes great detail to show how certain sects "literally" interpret specific scriptures. I'm probably going to check this out again just to cross reference my scriptures with his research. I'll put notes in the margin like, "this is why Jehovah's witnesses don't accept blood transfusions", "this is why some sects handle snakes" etc. etc. If for Jacobs' research alone I would have enjoyed this book.
The real soul of this book came out when Jacobs wrestled with the simpler yet ultimately the more important details and commandments in the Bible. He struggled with whether he was violating any commandments in his and his wife's efforts to conceive using a fertility clinic. He pointed out the complete harshness of the Old Testament when I came to raising his son and ultimately decided that he could not literally obey certain commandments without violating other big details like forgiving those who trespass against him. His efforts to eliminate carnal thoughts, like censorship, proved to be counter-productive because the caused him to put even more focus on them. Most enlightening was Jacobs' struggle to be completely honest. In retrospect he might say that this was one of the areas at which he failed. His journey really illustrated how pervasive the little white lie is ingrained in out culture.
Ultimately Jacobs' adventure pointed out the absurdity of a literal interpretation of most scripture. The Bible is a guidebook written by and compiled by imperfect men. The subject matter may be divine but the words are full of human interpretation, metaphor and perspectives. Focus on the literal takes meaning from the metaphor and belittles the deeper, yet more important doctrines. I thoroughly enjoyed this book.

“It’s not the parts of the Bible I don’t understand that bother me; it’s the parts I do understand.”
Mark Twain

More Cheezits

This morning Aaron and I went to church a little early as usual so we could help set up the gym area of the building for sacrament meeting. Our chapel is so small and out congregation is so large that we always fill the gym as well. If you get in late you end up looking past a basketball goal to see the speaker.
Today was open mike day, Fast and testimony meeting. As I've pointed out before this meeting is either a spiritual meeting or an agonizing ordeal. Today was a little of each. We had the typical precession of kids come to the mike and say almost exactly the same thing. Victoria pointed out to me that when there are that many of them and the all say the same thing it just kinda looks like they've been brainwashed. I agreed. Perhaps this is one of the reasons we have been counseled to avoid vain repeatitions.
The real agonizing part of the service was when member stood up and proceeded to tell us all of her ailments including all of the prescriptions she was on and the dosages. Close to 20 minutes later she sat down without really ever making a point or saying anything uplifting for the rest of the congregation. A friend of mine had the rescue the meeting by telling a cool story about a chance he had to share the gospel with a friend at work while on a business trip.
During Deacon's quorum meeting the Bishop can in and we re-organized the presidency. Aaron is the new president. He picked some good counselors as well. It kind of surprised me who he picked since he doesn't get along with them very well. Perhaps I need to follow his example and learn to forgive those who have trespassed against me. After class we had a presidency meeting. I was very impressed with the way Aaron conducted himself and I the genuine concern that he displayed for the other members of the group. I think he'll do well.
After church decided that I could use a little more churching up so I went down to a Methodist church where a friend of mine plays on their house band and give a lot of service. It was an entirely different experience than I had this morning. First of all the building was very simple but very pretty. I didn't even have to look past a basketball goal to see the speaker. The stage had a full band set up. They started playing right on schedule. The songs were drastically different than anything you'd hear at an LDS service but in many ways I felt were more reverent and sincere than the hymns I've grown used to hearing every Sunday. After a couple songs the pastor encouraged everybody to stand up and get to know the folks around you, so I got up and shook a few hands and talked to people while the band got ready for their next song.
After a few more songs from the band the pastor gave a great sermon on how to pray. She showed a little video that was a parody of the Gieco commercial that had a guy trying to pray and a "celebrity" minister doing it right for him. It was really funny and illustrated the point that sometimes the simple prayers that are from the heart are the most effective. All in all I have more to take away and actually apply in my life than I brought home from our fast and testimony meeting.
Last week I was explaining to Dave the LDS process of assigning talks to members to present a few weeks in advance. Dave passed me a note during this Methodist service, "We need you to prepare a 15 talk on the subject of 'manna from heaven' for next week's service". I'm tempted to have it ready and attend ready to present it.
At church they've been really stressing the fact that we need to tell our friends about the gospel. I've never had a problem telling anybody anything they'd like to know about the church. I've just had a problem when it comes to handing a name and an address over to the missionaries. I can't explain this feeling. I'm not ashamed of the church at all. Perhaps my own spiritual struggles of the last few years have left me more open-minded about exposing myself to other faiths. The first person I felt comfortable to discuss my feeling about being challenged by missionaries was Dave, my Methodist friend. I find it more than a little ironic that my reaction to being asked to bring a friend to church was to accept a friend's invitation to attend his church.
As I was leaving they gave me a first time visitor gift, a coffee cup, an NIV New Testament and a couple chocolates. The kids ate the chocolates. The New Testament is just small enough to be a good size for backpacking. And the coffee cup will probably make it to the office for my daily herb teas.
I've never had a problem accepting truth no matter what the source. It was refreshing today to get some truth from another source.

More on Podcasts

My mother-in-law gave me a cool little MP3 player for Christmas. Thank you, Sue. Since I've given up talk radio I've been listening to a lot of books on tape and podcasts for the past year. Without an MP3 player I've just been setting up my laptop at work and listening that way. With my new player however, I can listen much more than I used to. I can take it on my walks on my lunch hour; I can listen in the car; and I don't have to pause it while I walk back and forth to the printer and the break room. You get the idea.
I've found that there are a bunch of books that I can download directly from the library in MP3. That's been a great resource. I recently listened to Thoreau’s Walden. The irony of listening to Walden on an MP3 player while I stare at a drafting program while designing a fiber optic based high speed data circuit for American Express was not lost. It actually helped me stay sane during the process.
There are several weekly podcast that I eagerly await the next episode so I can download and learn more. Lately my new favorite is Astronomy Cast. Each episode is remarkably simple yet very intriguing. It's just the host, Fraser Cain, the publisher of Universe Today talking with an astronomy professor, Dr. Pamela Gay. Fraser typically steers the conversation by asking tough questions and then just let's Pamela give a very thorough answer. I'm sure Fraser actually has much more knowledge on the subject than he let's on to. But he plays the role of an amateur very well. His questions and responses are right in line with what an average college student might ask on each subject. Listening to Astronomy Cast is very much like sitting in an ASTR 101 class and just listening to that one guy who likes to ask all the questions that you'd have asked. I'd recommend it to anyone as a companion to an astronomy class or just if you think astronomy is cool and would like to know a little more. Fraser lives in Canada so it's kinda funny to hear the way he pronounces "about". Being from the South, I'm sure he'd get a kick out of how I pronounce some words too.
SETI has a very interesting podcast that I also enjoy. It's very professionally mixed and edited and has the feel of an PBS documentary. They explore much more than the typical astronomy topics. Many of their episodes detail the scientific method and how we've learned what we know about the universe.
My old standby is The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. Dr. Steven Novella hosts a well informed group of "skeptical rouges" on discussions of current events. Whether it's UFOs over Texas, ghosts in gas stations or the latest panic about Autism, I've really grow to trust the fact based, logical advice given on this podcast.
Recently I've also been downloading podcasts that have been reference on NPR. Electrons to Enlightenment explores the intersection of science and theology. It's only a four part series but I'd love to see it expanded into a weekly podcast.
Speaking of Faith is a program that my mother-in-law recommended because of a program they did on Mormonism. I downloaded that episode and several others. I'll review them more in detail after I've listened to a few more episodes.
I'd like to find more podcast out there that explore religion, science and politics as well as the complex interplay of the three. With all of this very intriguing material now filling my MP3 player I don't see how I could ever find the time to listen to the monotony of talk radio again even if I wanted to. Given the choice between learning something new about our universe like how we're finding extra-solar planets or just hearing some pundit recycle Clinton jokes, I don't have to think very long to figure out which would be a better use of my time.

The Year of Living Biblically

I must confess that when I checked this book out I thought it was going to be a sac religious stick in the eye to religious fundamentalist and biblical literalists. I was expecting it to be filled with examples of how absurd and even self-contradictory many if the rules in the Bible actually are. I was expecting him to have to figure out how to stone people, tie tassels on all the corners of his clothes, grow a beard and keep kosher. So far he has obeyed all of these weird Biblical laws and a few other odd ones to boot.

What I didn't expect is the humble admission that so far the hardest commandments for him to keep are the simplest ones to explain and ultimately the ones that will do us and those around us the most good. He's having the hardest time with telling the truth, not coveting and loving his fellow man. How often do we loose sight of the details and the minutia of our beliefs and forget the really important stuff?
So far I'm only three months into the experiment and I had to turn the book in. I'm really looking forward to reading the rest of it.

The Moral Law

I’ve been giving this post an awful lot of thought lately. It was when my socially conscious 13-year old brought it up that I finally decided it was time to write it down.

For millennia philosophers and theologians have debated that nature of good and evil. Some argue that good is simply that which god desires. Basically because God likes it, it is good and because God dislikes it, it is evil. This is called the divine command theory.
Others ask questions like “Why does God like it?” and “Is there something about this that makes God like it?” the answers to these questions imply that there is something more than just the divine command. I tend to agree with this philosophy. Whether something is good or evil stands on its own. God’s opinion is not necessary to define good or evil. I believe that the converse is true. Good and evil are necessary in order to define God.

Along these lines Aaron was very concerned about some of the news reports he had seen the last couple of weeks. It seems that many people try to require belief in god as a necessity to being a good person-that somehow morality itself cannot exist without a belief in God. It’s easy to see how believing in a direct correlation between moral behavior and a belief in God can cause more than a little consternation. This is the dilemma that Aaron was having. The federal government has just cracked down on several “Christian” ministers around the country for their misuse of funds that we supposed to go to charities and to help the poor. All too often these ministers were using the cash to buy more elaborate homes, cars and planes. If morality and belief are codependant then why does this happen?
On the other hand why do so many atheists have such good hearts and behave so morally and “Christian” to their neighbors? I don’t think Angelina Jolie is very good actress, but I can’t help but admire how she spends her money. When others would just focus on themselves she is making a difference in the lives of children. Yesterday I read that she and Brad have committed to build 150 homes in the lower ninth ward of New Orleans to help rebuild the city. Now I put the question to you in the words of James.

"If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?"

I realize that there are millions of believes who behave morally and unfortunately millions of non-believers who behave immorally or amorally. I only focused on the above examples because they tend to disprove the rule that God is a requirement for moral behavior.
I enjoy the works of C. S. Lewis, but I take issue with Lewis’s constant insistence that the existence of morality proves a higher power that created that morality. Some scientist have even taken the quantum leap and claimed that the existence of morality is all the scientific proof needed to prove that God exists. I believe that morality exists separate from a belief in God. The examples that I’ve given illustrate that one does not necessitate the other.
Perhaps this belief is why I am so comfortable with learning the doctrines of other religions and philosophies. Lately I’ve read several books with serious atheistic themes. I’m much more concerned that I teach my family to live morally than religiously. As long as I can make the two go hand in hand I will continue to do so. I’ve never been in a position where I’ve never had to choose one over the other and I hope I never have to. However, from the real life examples that I have seen, I’d much rather keep company with moral people no matter what their religious beliefs.

Why Darwin Matters

Why Darwin Matters is the latest book by Michael Shermer. I've read and reviewed many of Dr. Shermer's books before on this blog. The main focus of this book is to explain and detail the current attacks on science that originate from the Intelligent Design community. Shermer does an excellent job of explaining the history of both evolution theory and the intelligent design/ creationism movement.

Unfortunately I feel that the people who could benefit the most from this book, the ID proponents, are the least likely to actually read it. If anyone were to read this with an open mind I think they could see that Shermer successfully defuses the false dichotomy that an acceptance of evolution necessitates an atheist theology. I've never quite able to see how observations in the natural world could have any implications at all about things that are, by definition, outside the natural world. Personally I've always felt that trusting a theologian over a scientist to answer scientific questions is roughly akin to taking your social studies teacher's advice over you Science teacher when it comes to physics questions. Why do so many people have such a hard time making this distinction?
One minor frustration with the book is that Shermer seems to have written it as if this was the first time his target reader had even picked up any book on the issue. As such it is very well detailed and he does a good job of detailing evolution v intelligent design 101. As someone who has read all of Shermer's previous books and follows this debate pretty thoroughly, much of the material came across as a little bit remedial. However, if you are interested in getting a handle on this issue I think this book is very well done.
The most damning quote from the entire book came not from Dr. Shermer but from the judge in the Dover school board intelligent design case from 2005.

"Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

John E. Jones III

Now before you try to dismiss this guy as another "activist judge", keep in mind that he is a self-confessed evangelical Christian, a Republican and was appointed to the bench in 2002 by George W. Bush.

If you have any doubt at all as to the illegitimacy of intelligent design as science please read this book.

The Natural Man

For about the last six years I've had a hard time concentrating in Sunday School. I pretty sure most of this started right about the time I really began to delve into the history of the church and the obvious whitewashing of many facts and events. I think that up until that time I was very guilty of falling victim to the argument from authority. Basically, I went about things incorrectly. Rather than examine the facts and then make my own conclusions I accepted what I was told as facts and then looked for evidence that supported those facts. Once I started looking at theology and life in the correct order I began to question most if not all of the assumptions that I previously had held to.
Yesterday in Sunday School was no exception. We were studying Ephesians and somehow we got on the subject of putting off the natural man. Most of the other students just accepted this premise and moved on, but for some reason I got stuck on it and couldn't concentrate on the rest of the lesson. What bothered me was the premise that man is naturally evil. I don't recall that as a tenant of LDS doctrine. In fact we take it further than most and even reject the idea of original sin. Philosophers have debated the idea for millennia. Is man naturally good but easily tempted to do evil? Or is man naturally evil and needs the fear of punishment to turn him good? I don't know what the answer is. And it is likely different for each person. However, I think that since the instructor didn't elaborate any more on this scripture that she believes that we are naturally evil. Personally I don't take this pessimistic approach to humanity. I believe that if left to their own devices they will choose good over evil more often than the opposite. Ironically, after reading the Lucifer Effect I am even more convinced of the inherent goodness of humanity. It is only when we surrender our choices to a perceived authority and act as a mob that we become evil.
Years ago in a business setting a supervisor told me that you could separate all employees into two groups: those that are motivated towards a good result, and those that are motivated away from a bad result. Although it may sound the same, since they are both going the same direction, in practice they are very different. One is a pessimistic approach and the other is optimistic. The first group will respond to a statement like, "Good job, this is top quality work." But the second wouldn't but be just as motivated by "be careful. You don't what this think to blow up."
Although I can see elements of both in myself, in my heart I just cannot accept that humanity is naturally evil. If we are actually the offspring of deity I find it much harder to believe that we are naturally evil. It's much easier for me to accept that we are naturally good but just stuck in a tough situation to see how we will choose.
It saddens me to think that so many people have such a dim and pessimistic view of humanity in general and themselves in particular.
I avoid expressing these points in class simply because I have my own doubts about how relevant they are to the topic at hand and in many cases I admit that they are at best a tangent to the main lesson. But it does provide me with something to ponder about and post to my blog. :)

A Simple Monk

I left work a little early because I was expecting it to be a little bit of a frenzy downtown. As it turned out we didn’t need to be quite so fast but I’m glad we did. Aaron reviewed the history that he’d learned today in school. So I got to hear all about Egyptian history and theology on my train ride downtown.
We got to the park so early that we were able to get front row seats. I mean that literally. If we’d have sat any closer we’d have had to stand up to look over the barricade. The weather started out looking a bit gloomy but I think it helped to keep the crowds small and we could sure use the rain in Georgia so I didn’t complain.
Apparently the Dalai Lama likes jazz music. Along with some traditional Tibetan groups, he asked a really nice jazz trio to play before his speech, The Gary Motley trio.
During his speech I took a few notes on my blackberry. I was most struck with how universal most of the concepts he spoke about were. They seemed to apply to almost any religion. He even stated that these concepts where essential human concepts and they were more important than any specific theology. Here are a few of the notes I took:

We should all strive to see each other as brothers and sisters
I am nothing special. I am just a simple monk.
Identify destructive emotions and reduce them.
We are born with the seeds of compassion. We get it from our mothers. At birth we are entirely dependent upon the care of others. We need to remember this and help care for others. He learned more from his mother than he did from Buddhism.
World peace must come first from inner peace. It will then flow from us to those around us and eventually the world.
Give your children maximum affection. Of course I'm a monk so I'll leave that up to you to do.
Modern education alone is not adequate to develop warm-heartedness. I want to educate entire humanity the importance of love and compassion.
It is a mistake to try to relegate love and compassion to religion alone. We need to apply it in all aspects of our lives.
As much as you love God you must also love your fellow beings.
Compassion is the foundation of self-confidence. Self confidence reducers fear. Reduced fear brings peace of mind and health.
If you do this there's not much else for me to talk about.
First we need Inner disarmament. That will lead to outer disarmament. The concept of war is outdated. Destruction of enemy is destruction of yourself. Let's leave bloodshed in the last century. Make this, the 21st century, a century of dialog. Commit to a non-violent way. Work for the middle way even in world events. Not a compromise but a true win-win situation for all.

I must say that I really felt what Paul Ekman was speaking about. This man honestly felt every emotion and his countenance showed it. At one point during his introduction Dr. Martin Luther King’s name was mentioned. The Dalai Lama reached next to him and grabbed the arm of John Lewis. The look on his face was so honest and caring that you could see the true compassion that he had for both Dr. King and Mr. Lewis. It wasn’t some photo-op. It was real. I need to work much harder to develop this kind of love and compassion for those around me.
I found it more than a little ironic that as I listened to this man of peace I was sitting only a few feet from an act of violence. In 1996 Eric Rudolf set off a bomb at this park during the first night of the Atlanta Olympics.
The only real damper on the event was as we were leaving. A couple women were handing Christian witness cards. (I use the term Christian only to indicate their confessed belief and not their behavior, which was anything but.) I took the card and started to read it. It had a gory image of a mangled body and car after a traffic accident. The text said that if I got into a car accident and died on the way home that I would go to hell. Then there was a paragraph written in much smaller type that I didn’t bother to read. I simply crumbled the card and placed it in the garbage can near the two women. It really saddens me that these two could listen to this man speak the same truths that the Bible teaches and still think the way they do. I could find Biblical support for nearly every sentence that he said yet since they seem to feel that since he is a Buddhist that he is from the devil.
I had heard that security was going to be very strict. They advertised no backpack or even umbrellas. I was worried that they would confiscate it so I left the camera at home. Ultimately his words will mean more to me than his image. Still, It would have been nice to have the images too.
I continue to admire and look up to this humble man, who refers to himself as just a monk. His example and loving nature are best described as Christ-like.

The best part of the event was just hanging out with my social conscious 13-year-old for half a day. Thanks for going with me Aaron.

The Dalai Lama

Buddhism has always been close to my heart. Even as a young boy I cherished the Buddhist values of living simply, reducing suffering in other beings and looking inward to find peace and harmony. On my mission in Japan I had a problem with asking devout Buddhists to reject their faith when so much of what they believed was good and true. Friends of mine have even called me the first Buddhist Mormon they’ve ever met. I take that as a compliment. I’ve always felt that the truth was completely independent of theology. Or to quote the bumper sticker, “God is too big to fit into just one religion”. Now there are a few times when I think that one religion or another may be a little off base, but rather than criticize those aspects I’ve found it more satisfying to celebrate when they get it right.
A few years ago while reading the Dalai Lama’s book, The Wisdom of Forgiveness, about halfway through they mentioned a meeting between His Holiness and Paul Ekman. Ekman is considered the world’s foremost expert on emotions and the human face. He's like a body language expert who focuses solely on the muscles of the face. He recently made the news for interpreting some of the Al Qaeda videos. Ekman commented that when the Dalai Lama felt any emotion that he felt it 100% and that based on his expressions he was the most honest and genuine person he had ever met. I have felt this same sense of humility and honesty in all of his books and when I read his lectures.
Friends and family members have quizzed me on whether or not I believe that he is really the reincarnation of Buddha and other such detailed questions. Personally I find those of secondary importance. Here is a man who has learned to love his fellow man. And I believe is doing everything in his power to foster and promote that love. I would be doing myself and those around me a disservice if I chose to ignore his teachings simply because they didn't come from Salt Lake.
Last week I mentioned that he was going to be in town and my oldest son asked if we could go see him. I was a little taken aback. I hadn’t realized that he had been paying so much attention when I shared my views with Victoria. Aaron’s wisdom and maturity on ethical an moral issues greatly out paces his years. I shouldn't have been surprised.
Monday I will be taking a day off to go downtown with Aaron to hear the Dalai Lama speak. He has been in town for a few days and I tried to get tickets to see some of his other, less festival-like, appearances. Sue actually got a few tickets for me only to find out that they were only valid with an Emory university ID. Thanks for the attempt. I really appreciate it. I realize that the pop culture aspect of the Dalai Lama will bring out large groups who don’t fully appreciate the lessons that this man can teach. Ideally, I would like this experience to turn out very similar to attending General Conference on the lawn at Temple Square. Realistically though, I’m expecting the atmosphere to be somewhere between that and a “Dead” show.

"If you want others to be happy, practice compassion.
If you want to be happy, practice compassion."
-The Dalai Lama-

Libertarian Dilema

As a libertarian I typical take the side of an argument that allows more freedom and liberty to those involved. Suppose somebody wants to restrict another person’s ability to, let's say, play soccer because they feel it is unsafe. They may have a valid point and can show loads of reports on broken ankles, head injuries and mangled fingers. Some would be tempted to allow legal restrictions to be put on playing soccer. But what if the activity is only harmful to those who are participating in it, as is the case with soccer? Do I as a non-soccer player have the right to tell others what they should or should not think is safe? I would say no. Whether I choose to play it or not I don't have a right to restrict other's freedom to participate.
The dilemma I have with taking this pro-liberty, pro-freedom stance is that all too frequently a libertarian may appear to be defending the decision of another rather than just their right to have that decision. If I think that kids should have the right to play soccer that does not mean that I would have chosen the same way.
Granted this soccer analogy is not quite to the point. Few have serious concerns about whether or not people should be allowed to play soccer. However, please keep this analogy in mind as I attempt to make my next point.
What if the choice goes against my personal morality? Should I be allowed to restrict someone else’s freedom in that case? Let's take smoking for instance. I can provide reams of evidence that shows how dangerous it is. But should I be allowed to restrict another’s right to hurt themselves? How about harder stuff like narcotics? If somebody wants to toke it up in their home and they don't drive while high why should I have the right to force my moral decisions on them? I don't believe that I do have that right.
I fear that because I take this position I end up alienating people on both sides of the issue. I don't condone the use of narcotics but I believe that the choice should be left up to the user. I don't condone accessing internet porn but I also don't think it's my job to force my morality on others and suggest censoring.
I have given a lot of consideration to the morality of this issue. And I have made peace with my decision. In LDS theology we have a story about the War in Heaven. Lucifer proposed a plan that would force everybody to be obedient and Christ proposed a plan that allowed us to choose whether or not we would obey. The Father then chose Christ's plan. This story always comes to mind when I hear attempts to limit the freedom of others. All too frequently I get little pangs inside me that say, "This sounds similar to Satan's plan".
So in those situations where I chose to allow others to potentially choose differently than I would prefer I am comforted by the fact that I believe restricting their right to chose would be even more immoral.