Sunday, April 29, 2007

NSFE - not safe for ericsons

i purchased a nice slab of london broil steak yesterday, but while it sat on the barbeque i found myself stuck in front of the television, watching discovery channel's survivorman brave a week amidst artic glaciers. i overcooked the steak. it was no longer the slightly browned slab of bloody flesh i was hoping for. instead, it was well done. a bit dry, but good nonetheless.

this post has nothing to do with that steak.

i originally saw myself beginning this post with a slew of vulgarities, poop jokes, and other things that i knew my parents and grandparents would find offensive. instead i decided to begin with a tale of a steak. a steak i cooked too long. a steak that was supposed to be rare with a shell of medium rare. a steak that was supposed to moo when i cut into it. this steak was supposed to be like biting into a cow's butt covered with steak sauce. unfortunately survivorman was building an igloo, eating a raw seal liver, and teaching me how to survive just in case i found myself stranded in the artic circle. you never know, it may come in handy. my steak ended up dry. it was cooked all the way through. derek and i ate the steak with beans and rolls. it really wasn't that bad, just not what i was expecting.

i promise. this post has nothing to do with steak.

it's about a phone call i received friday night while out on a date at cafe rio. a phone call i received just before 10 o'clock. that's almost midnight in the east coast where the call originated.

i promise. this post has to do with the phone call.

let me step back a little bit. those of you reading this on myspace may need a little more background information.

three and a half years ago i found myself bored and started a blog. nobody was really blogging back then. it made me feel hip and nerdy. nobody read it. it was just random thoughts mixed in with other random thoughts. eventually my thoughts became a little more organized and i became a slightly better writer (emphasis on slightly). suddenly people started reading it. friends were avidly reading it. strangers were commenting it. i began getting several thousand hits a week. i liked that strangers were reading it. i'd get e-mails from people all over the place sharing their same stories and struggles with me. it was nice and touching. kind of like a hallmark card, but without the profiting off of others' emotions. my family also started reading it. normally i didn't mind, but i often wondered what they thought of me. you see, my family is very conservative, and i'm somewhat of a liberal black sheep among them. besides an aunt, a couple cousins, and a brother who i've been trying to indoctrinate, the rest of the ericsons are quite ultra-conservative. kind of like the presidential candidate mitt romney (not to be confused with the moderate governor mitt romney, or the liberal senate candidate mitt romney).

when i cut into my steak, i didn't see bloody juices seeping out. so unfortunate.

back to the story. a couple years ago, my older brother and i started a website for our family. it was nothing big. just a place for uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents, and friends to post messages and keep eachother up to date. along the side of the site were links to indivual sites and blogs.

cut to last week. after reminiscing with a friend about childhood poop jokes, i decided to write up a short post about the stupid 'dirty' jokes i found funny as a child. it was composed mostly of punchlines from the golden age when diarrhea, farting, and other things dealing with butts were hilarious (okay, they still are). there was nothing graphic. the language was clean. i didn't find the post offensive at all.

back again to last week. i didn't know this, but apparently my grandma reads my blog. kinda weird, but kinda cool. how many of your grandma's know how to navigate the internet. i didn't even knew she knew enough to get to my site. but she did, and on the family website, she left this grandmotherly message for all to read. basically, she let everyone know how dissapointed she was that i would use my talent for writing for such evil purposes. she didn't like the punchlines about a farting indian and a monkey trying to shove a cork up an elephant's butt. i guess poop jokes skipped her generation.

i just ignored it and pretended it didn't happen. grandmas can be old and silly. - i must note thought that my 'liberal' aunt, cousins, and indoctrinated brother did come to my defense.

ok. back to friday night, a couple days before my dry steak. in case you had forgotten, i was at cafe rio on a date. incidently, i was eating a grilled steak burrito. it was much better than my steak today.

my dad calls. normally i wouldn't answer my cell on a date. i've been told it's rude. but it was almost midnight on the east coast. virginia is on the east coast. my folks live in virginia. maybe someone was dead. (the last time my dad called me this late while i was on a date, he thought i was dead).

nobody was dead.

"loyd, you have some really good writing skills, but i really don't like what you've been writing on the family website."

"umm. dad. i haven't written anything on the family website. nothing. i write things on my own site. there just happens to be a link with my name on it on the family website. if people want to read what i write, they click the link. they don't have to."

"i really just don't like the direction you've taken your writing lately"

thinking to myself - childhood poop jokes and a video of me flipping off the vice president? seriously dad, i've written much worse. remember the mary kaye huntsman incident? remember my uber-depressing short story that made you think i was terminally ill? remember my spouts during my experimentation with atheism? and now you don't like the way i write. maybe my grandma complained.

"dad. i'm out with a friend right now. i'm just going to keep writing whatever i feel like. i'll have chris take my name of the family site. bye."

a year or so ago, someone in the family complained about my writing, so my brother set it up so that when you clicked the link to my site, a warning came up declaring that the content of my site may not be suitable for children. it made me feel dirty, like i was some pornographer or something, so i had the link removed. others complained that they didn't have a quick link to my blog, so it went back on (without the warning).

now it's off again.

and now, i'm rather bored with writing this tale, as you (who have read this far) are probably bored with reading it. i was hoping to figure out how to tie the steak into all of this, but as i said. this post has nothing to do with the steak.

let me end with a reference to poop. as i was writing this, i couldn't quite figure out how to spell 'diarrhea' correctly, so i turned to dictionary.com for help.

di·ar·rhe·a -noun
an intestinal disorder characterized by abnormal frequency and fluidity of fecal evacuations.

for some reason i chuckled while reading this.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

dick on the parkway - NSFG (not safe for grandmas)

while walking home from school today, i was held up on university parkway as a caravan carrying our beloved vice-president and lover of civil rights, dick cheney, sped through the street.

luckily, i had my nifty cell phone with me and was able to get a video of him.


Wednesday, April 25, 2007

"blessed are the peacemakers"

lately i've been working on a paper that was due a year ago for my independant study on mormonism and war. i'm writing a comparision of reactions and responses by the lds church and the community of christ (formerly rlds) to 9/11 and the war in iraq. the following section was rather bothering me as i was writing it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the October 2002 Semi-Annual General Conference of the LDS Church, as the war in Iraq was becoming an imminent possibility, LDS Apostle Russell M. Nelson gave a talk entitled “Blessed are the Peacemakers.” In what would quickly be called (and later disavowed as) an anti-war message, Nelson begins by addressing the sorrow, pains, and evils of war, arguing that the only cure to avoid and end war is “when that natural inclination to fight is superceded by self-determination to live on a loftier level.”[1] After citing numerous teachings of Jesus to be peacemakers, loving neighbors and enemies, turning the other cheek, forgiveness, and the Golden Rule, Nelson says,

Wherever it is found and however it is expressed, the Golden Rule encompasses the moral code of the kingdom of God. . . . It is equally binding upon nations, associations, and individuals. With compassion and forbearance, it replaces the retaliatory reactions of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” If we were to stay on that old and unproductive path, we would be but blind and toothless.

This concept of treating others as one would like to be treated is easy to understand. And it acknowledges the precious nature of each of God’s sons and daughters. Scripture asks parents to teach children not to “fight and quarrel one with another, and serve the devil, who is the master of sin.” Instead, we “teach them to love one another, and to serve one another.”[2]

Though Nelson briefly mentions that at times war may seem necessary to defend families and freedoms, he still affirms that “Peace is possible.” Because of the common goal for peace ultimately held by the human family, he believes we “can learn to love our fellow human beings throughout the world.” However it is not easy. “Resolution of present political problems will require much patience and negotiation.”

Looking forward to the prophesied days of peace, Nelson sees the true patriots as those who use Christian love to avoid aggression and create peace.

These prophecies of hope could materialize if leaders and citizens of nations would apply the teachings of Jesus Christ. Ours could then be an age of unparalleled peace and progress. Barbarism of the past would be buried. War with its horrors would be relegated to the realm of maudlin memory. Aims of nations would be mutually supportive. Peacemakers could lead in the art of arbitration, give relief to the needy, and bring hope to those who fear. Of such patriots, future generations would shout praises, and our Eternal God would pass judgments of glory.[3]

Nelson finishes with what appeared to be an official pacifist stance for the church, “Now, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what does the Lord expect of us? As a Church, we must ‘renounce war and proclaim peace.’”[4]

That evening several news outlets reported on Nelson’s talk, referring to it as an anti-war statement. For example CNN reported that “The Mormon church issued a strong anti-war message at its semiannual General Conference, clearly referring to current hostilities in the Middle East, advocating patience and negotiation, and urging the faithful to be peacemakers.” As evidence for this, CNN refers to Nelson’s reference to the Middle East, present political problems, and the need for the descendants of Abraham to be the peacemakers.[5]

In response to this and other reports, the LDS Church released an official statement declaring that Nelson’s talk had been misinterpreted, implying that it was not an anti-war message. The statement encourages reporters “to consider the full text of Elder Nelson’s remarks which is available on our Web site,” and then proceeds to cite the only two paragraphs (1/17th of the thirty-four paragraph talk) which refer to the obligations to defend families and freedom, and the obligation of military personnel to fulfill the duties to which they have been entrusted.[6]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
if you read the full context of the talk, it seems pretty clear to me that nelson was advocating a strong anti-war statement concerning the war in iraq. that is what cnn and other news outllets reported. from beginning to end, his talk advocated for peace and alternative measures to war. over and over and over again he argues for peace. and as cnn reported, it was abundantly clear that he was advocating for peace and denouncing war for the imminent conflict in iraq. the only two paragraphs that could be read contrarily only briefly mention the scriptural accounts of defensive wars and the unaccountability of military persons thrown into an immoral war.

my questions then are:

1. why does the lds church feel the need to seperate itself from the notion that one of its leaders gave an anti-war message? i know the church pretends to keep politcal neutrality on certain issues, but isn't war with it's accompanying sorrow and suffering a sufficient moral issue that should be addressed? shouldn't the church of JESUS CHRIST be the first and foremost to stand up against war and proclaim peace as our scriptures urge? instead of shying away from being perceived as being against the war, shouldn't the church be standing up and saying, "damn right we are anti-war" (except for maybe the 'damn')?

2. how dare the church tell the news outlets that they misinterpreted nelson's talk and that they should read the context of the whole talk to properly understand it? THE WHOLE CONTEXT OF THE TALK IS AN ANTI-WAR MESSAGE. it is the church that took two paragraphs out of their context and are pretending they say something they don't. in context, those two paragraphs seem to be clearly directed at military personnel who happen to find themselves duty-bound to a war in which they have no control over. now i don't know nelson's feelings concerning the matter. perhaps he did not mean for his talk to say what he said. if that's the case, then he should have definitely worded his talk better. perhaps by not using the word 'peace' so many times and not claiming that "as a church we must denounce war and proclaim peace."

if anything, this seems like another attempt for the church to let it's public relations firm control its actions instead of the gospel of christ.

ugggh. frustrating.



[1] Russell M. Nelson, “Blessed are the Peacemakers,” Ensign, Oct 2002, 39.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] CNN.com, “Mormon church makes anti-war statement,” retrieved from the CNN.com website at http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/06/mormon.conference.ap/ on April 25, 2007.

[6] “Message of Peace Misinterpreted,” retrieved from the official LDS website at http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/06/mormon.conference.ap/ on April 25, 2007.

krispy kreme finals

as i walked into the classroom today, i made the announcement.

"i decided that we weren't going to have any final exam today. instead we're just going to eat some donuts and chill for a while."

i watched their stress disappear and a gleam of excitement shine from their eyes. their straight mouths curled up into smiles. cheers and raised hands filled the room.

"just kidding. haha!"

the stress returned, their eyes turned gray, and their smiles flattened.

it felt great.

POWER!!!!

Monday, April 16, 2007

chocolate covered baby jesus

while at walmart last night and trying to find a cure to my late night munchies, i came across an interesting sight. chocolate crosses.

48 cents for a chunk of chocolate. how could i pass it up?



they even had chocolate crosses for klan members.





i was just about to buy myself a yummy cross, but then the thought came to me... is it sacrilegious or blasphemous to eat a chocolate cross? afterall, this is the thing that jesus was crucified on. should we be making sacred objects with chocolate... and then eat them? christians all over the world revere the cross as THE sacred object of all objects. and here they are, molded in delicious milk chocolate, ready to be chewed up, eaten, and eventually pooped.

while as a latter-day saint, crosses don't have the sacred status that they do for other christians, it still bothered me. even worse, it bothered me that these were most likely made for christians who would not buy the standard chocolate easter bunnies because bunnies are pagan symbols. so instead of biting the head off of a chocolate pagan rabbit, they choose to chew on the cross that jesus, their lord and savior, was crucified on.

what about other sacred objects or symbols. would i want to eat a chocolate baby jesus from a chocolate nativity scene? the virgin mary appears on someone's grilled cheese sandwhich and the thing gets frozen for all the world to see and share. a cross is made of chocolate, and we eat it? is that what it means to internalize christ's sacrifice? who can you picture more eating a cross? jesus or the anti-christ?

but hey, 48 cents for a chunk of chocolate?

i bought 5.


getting home, i opened up a box and got ready to take a bite.




mmmmm. it was delicious.



but as i bit into it, something was wrong.




i was overcome with some evil power. it surged through me, giving my inhumane strength.



POWER!!!!!


Sunday, April 08, 2007

punchlines

mama mia papa pia
what's for dinner? diarhea
mother said it wouldn't hurt
so daddy ate it for desert


the lyrics went something like that. i had learned them in third grad, and then taught them to my brother, who was four years younger than me. bobby thought it was hilarious and decided to recite it at the dinner table. dad didn't find it as funny. my attempt to shush bobby as he delivered the poem quickly gave away the source. somehow i ended up grounded in my room.

looking back, i'm not sure why i found the poem so funny. i guess anything dealing with poop was funny back then.

ok... anything dealing with poop is still funny.

along with this poem, there were several jokes i found hilarious when i was little. however, i can only recall the punchlines. here they are. if you know the rest of the joke, i'd love to know.

* big fart no chief.

* all i could see was this huge cloud and some poor monkey trying to shove a cork back up an elephant's butt.

* the next day the headlines of the paper read "ching chong's chinese balls hanging on the prison walls."

there is also a funny poem whose punchline i've forgotten, perhaps you can finish it.

me chinese, me no dumb
me climb up, daddy's bum...

Thursday, April 05, 2007

"cast not away therefore your confidence"

i don't do this often...

a friend sent me this talk by elder holland, and well... i liked it a lot. i'm tired so i don't have much to say that is witty or intuitive. you can read the whole thing here.

here are a few quotes i liked...

"But Moses’ message to you today is: Don’t let your guard down. Don’t assume that a great revelation, some marvelous, illuminating moment, the opening of an inspired path, is the end of it. Remember, it isn’t over until it’s over."

"With any major decision there are cautions and considerations to make, but once there has been illumination, beware the temptation to retreat from a good thing. If it was right when you prayed about it and trusted it and lived for it, it is right now. Don’t give up when the pressure mounts. Certainly don’t give in to that being who is bent on the destruction of your happiness. Face your doubts. Master your fears. “Cast not away therefore your confidence.” Stay the course and see the beauty of life unfold for you."

"How soon we forget. It would not have been better to stay and serve the Egyptians, and it is not better to remain outside the Church, nor to put off marriage, nor to reject a mission call or other Church service, and so on and so on forever. Of course our faith will be tested as we fight through these self-doubts and second thoughts. Some days we will be miraculously led out of Egypt—seemingly free, seemingly on our way—only to come to yet another confrontation, like all that water lying before us. At those times we must resist the temptation to panic and give up. At those times fear will be the strongest of the adversary’s weapons against us."

I haven't got much else to say.

Sunday, April 01, 2007

80 dreams

eighty dreams
all in one night
variations
of the same theme
different tellings
of the same story

eighty times waking up
eighty disappointments
dreams and hopes
turn to waking nightmares
reality can be harsh

i close my eyes
to dream some more.