New trailer for The Road

This one seems to capture the feel of the book better than the first trailer.

November 25th. I'm excited.

"I believe you're born thinking gays don't have the right to get married"

This is for you Carson.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Don't Ask Don't Tell
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

Being pushed to the edge.

As many of you who either know me personally or have followed this blog know, the whole Prop 8 fiasco was a trying moment for me and a challenge to my faith that I had once lost and had worked hard to regain. Last November I thought it was all over, but time after time I found the Church bringing it back into the foray with their disingenuous complaints of victimhood and mythological claims of persecution. When most everyone else is ready to move on, Elder Oaks, the LDS Newsroom and the marching sheep who unquestioningly buy into their every word drudge up their nonsensical persecution complex and dream themselves up in the their pretended guises of false heroes. In their view they are compared to the civil rights movements of the past who were violently persecuted for enabling rights for others. In reality they are the barely slighted persecutors who fought and disabled the rights of the minorities.

After Oaks took his much deserved beating, I thought and hoped things would die away...

...But no, the LDS Newsroom blog decides today to post a link to an article from the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation in attempt to support the Church's latest pathetic cries of persecution. I'm not going to go into the post, which I'm sure others will do more fully. I just wanted to give one sentence from the opening paragraph which exemplifies the utter stupidity, naivete, and falsity of their claims... and the utter stupidity and naivete and disingenuity of the LDS Newsroom and anyone who wants to take them seriously now.

Quote:

"Arguments for same-sex marriage are based fundamentally on the idea that limiting marriage to the union of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons."

 Seriously???

Here is the real fundamental basis behind arguments for same-sex marriage: Homosexuals are persons and deserve the rights of their heterosexual counterparts.

That is it. It's a positive argument.

Now I'm sure that some people may feel the way that it was phrased by the Heritage Foundation, but to say that is what the arguments is based on is utterly stupid. I, like many people, realize that the denial of SSM by many is not done out of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and hatred, but is rather done for religious reasons that don't harbor the negative connotations of hate (though I agree that hate does play a role for some as well).To claim that supporters of SSM are basing their argument against a negative role of hate are simply making a rhetorical play to avoid the real positive argument of equality and civil rights that actual proponents of SSM have been making. They of course don't want to recognize that this is the actual argument because they don't want to recognize the SSM argument for what it truly is: a positive push for equality.

Now I know that the LDS Newroom Blog is not an official voice of the Church (and they explicitly state that they aren't), but the LDS Newsroom IS the official voice of the Church and by extension their blog reflects the opinions of the Church--and by extension, the opinions of the Church leaders.

I am sick and tired of Prop 8. I am sick and tired of the Church drumming up false cries of persecution based on Prop 8.

For some reason, this last straw pushed me to the edge and I'm not sure how I want to react. I haven't felt my faith in the Church threatened like this in a while.

Ugh.

Glenn Beck slams Mormon Prophet for asking us to serve and volunteer

Two weeks ago at the semi-annual LDS General Conference, Mormon Prophet, Thomas S. Monson, asked Latter-day Saints to volunteer their time and efforts to serve others.

While this may seem to be a gracious and prophetic call for all of us serve those around us, Glenn Beck, in all his brilliance, sees past this and shows us what it really is: President Monson is merely a pawn supporting Obama's plan for a communist takeover.

The logic is fairly clear and simple. Obama took office just 9 months ago and immediately set off his plan to turn the United States into a communist dictatorship. Part of this plan is by encouraging people to serve and volunteer to help out others--obviously an evil form of Maoist communism. President Monson just happened to give a talk encouraging Mormons to do the same thing nine months after Obama became president!. Coincidence? We think not.

Don't believe me? Watch for yourself:

Recent mountain biking photos.

Quote of the week

adam: "The Nobel Peace Prize has lost all credibility!! Seriously, Obama winning shows that it is no longer a prestigious award!!!!"

me: "To all the Nobel naysayers I ask: When did you ever care about the Nobel Peace Prize? Who, besides Mandela, the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresea, and MLK Jr do you even know who have been awarded it? What do you even know about Mandela and the Dalai Lama? Can you name any accomplishments they made to 'deserve' the award?"

adam's friend: "...The Dalai Lama got Britain to give India back to the Indian people without having to start a war. Pretty impressive considering what the US had to do to get rid of the British...."

LOL.

My thoughts on the Obama Nobel Prize

(Like my last few posts, this is a response I had written for comments on Facebook)

I agree that Obama hasn't done anything in particular to garner the award. I think the Norwegians gave him the award to show that they encourage and praise the steps forward he has made toward preventing nuclear proliferation, finally giving those in Guantanamo the legal rights they deserve, enacting more peaceful policies in Iraq, and enormously repairing the US foreign relations that were nearly destroyed by the previous administration.

If the goals of the Norwegian Peace Committee were to promote peace and award "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses," then it seems they have every right to give it to Obama. Who else has a more powerful voice for the potential engendering of peace today.

While he may not have deserved it yet, shouldn't we as American's be proud to be seen as making progressive steps in promoting peace?

Though, I think Bill Clinton should have gotten it this year.

**UPDATE**

Obama said that he didn't deserve the award and sees it as a call to action for him and other governments to push for peace and nuclear non-proliferation. Can we just move on now.

Another extended comment

(This was written in response to my friend Cody, here. I post it here as I think it provides some background to my last blog post and ensuing comments.)

Perhaps I'm just disenchanted by the many professed Mormons and Christians who spend their days affirming over and over again how strongly they believe in the BofM, how much they know so-and-so is a prophet, how they know 'the Church is true," how much they know that Jesus is the Christ, etc, etc, etc... and they continue to live in self-righteousness, ignore those in need, and live a life concerned only for their own supposed spiritual salvation.

I'm disenchanted by Mormons who think the best way to help the hungry and homeless is to give them a BofM and share their testimony.

Furthermore, I was not intending to condemn Holland's talk. I was only intending to say that it wasn't anything to get excited over. I've heard dozens of pastors share their testimonies of Jesus, the Bible, homophobia, anti-Mormonism with the same gusto and triumph as Holland.

If I thought that Holland's talk would make a better world and make Mormons act like actual Christians (and not like our self-righteous evangelical counter-parts), I'd be all over it. But my own experience says that won't be the case.

All the BofM testimony sharing on the first Sunday each month just doesn't do near the amount of what Christ asked of us as does one person reaching out to another in need.

Furthermore Cody, you really ought to avoid accusing me of things I have not said. You claim I said that "the only useful talk would be one urging us to "feed starving children." That simply isn't true. You asked, "Ummmm, what better way than to bear testimony of Christs very words and teachings?" I said a testimony shared by feeding starving children would be better, not only. Big difference there.

Here are some more responses to your claims:

"I really think it's sad when members of the church try to secularize the gospel of Jesus Christ, water it down..."

I agree with the watering down part. And I believe that the watering down occurs when we ignore Jesus' commands to build communities and take care of those in need, and replace it with a conservative individualistic soteriology.

Not quite sure what you mean by the secularizing of it though. If you want to call Joseph' communitarianism 'secularization', then have fun. If you want to call Brigham's cooperative economic system 'secularization,' then have go at it. If you want to call Jesus' radical criticisms of Jewish legalism, Roman oppression, and economic disparity 'secularization,' then I guess we just have a different Gospel.

"If all we did as a church was teach service and kindness to neighbors (yes its the second great law of the gospel and we need to apply it more) we would fail to return to our Father in Heaven and would be no different than any of the hundreds of other religions in the world today."

Jesus taught that we love God by loving our neighbor. He taught we serve God, by serving those in need. Jesus himself said that those who return to the Father are those who care for the sick, feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, clothe the naked, and take in the immigrants. Those were his criteria. If you want to water down his teachings and impose the very Pharisaical legality on him, then have a great day. Throughout the scriptures, baptism is not used as a simple ritual which magically removes metaphysical sin-stains, but is an initiation into a community of believers (aka, the body of Christ, the Kingdom of God, etc) who covenant to take care of those in need. I choose to believe in a loving God who places the needs of others above his own pride and desire to be praised. If I die and discover that God was more concerned with his own praise than the alleviation of his children's suffering, I'd gladly go to hell.

"We need the saving ordinances of baptism and the temple by way of the proper priesthood in order to obtain salvation."

Well we obviously have a different conception of what sin is, and thus a very different conception of what salvation is. While you seem to see sin as a metaphysical stain on your soul that requires the metaphysical powers of a prescribed ritual, I see sin as the breaking of relationship--with others and with God. With this view, baptism (and the temple ordinances) isn't about literally washing away sin-stains, but is about creating community symbolically washing away the individualism and self-interest that caused divisions in our relationships. While I am admittedly more of a pluraist and universalist, I nonetheless see baptism (if done in the manner seen in the scriptures) as the best means for this. As my experience as a missionary, it was obvious that for the converts I taught the most valuable part of their baptism was their inclusion into a new community and family. Unfortunately most of the members didn't realize this and didn't embrace them as they should have and allowed them to slip back into their past of severed relationships with others.

"As hard as we try and as much as we might want, even the perfect lifestyle full of service is not going to unite humanity."

The perfect lifestyle full of service is the uniting of humanity. By serving others we create the Kingdom of God. We build the relationships that continue into the next life. Joseph Smith was quite clear that heaven wasn't a place we go, but a place we create. Heaven isn't the gathering of strangers, but the continuation of the relationships and community we develop here.

"Christ himself didn't even come to unite the entire earth during his mortal ministry. He created some extremely large divisions in society by declaring with boldness of the truthfulness of his gospel."

Jesus came down as a person to try to affect change in the same we that we are to try... as humans. He wasn't just going about preaching about a book and a bunch of individual rituals. The Jews already had their devotion to books and rituals. That was their game, they would have loved Jesus if he were playing their game. The Romans would have been just as fine with that as well. Some guy preaching about a book and rituals was no threat. Jesus created divisions because he spoke out against the oppressive systems of his day. He didn't create divisions, but rather pointed out the divisions that already existed from these oppressive powers. He pointed out the divisions created by the Jewish focus on individual piety and ritual observance. He pointed out the division caused by Roman oppression--which got him killed. He pointed out the division caused by the ever-expanding disparity between the rich and the poor. Jesus recognized that peace and true community could not be achieved when oppressive powers existed severed God's children.

"By testifying with power and boldness of the Book of Mormon, Elder Holland is essentially inviting people to Christ. There is no other book in existence that can teach you more about Christ and being a good neighbor than the Book of Mormon."

I agree with the latter sentence, but unfortunately that is not how most Mormons I know read the text. Holland's talk focused on the truthfulness of the BofM's ancient origins. From my experience, most Mormons find the testimony of the Book's historicity more important than the Book's content. As I mentioned earlier, most Mormon would think that the better way to help the starving poor is to give them a testimony of a book than to give them some food. A testimony of the book is worthless unless it turns into change in the world. Similarly, a testimony of Christ is empty if it isn't shared with Christian living. I think Jesus said it best:

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-----
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.

Why I didn't care for Elder Holland's general conference talk, and why neither should you

(This is essentially a comment I posted on my friend Blair's blog, Life on Gold Plates.)


Much ado has been made about Elder Holland's talk this last general conference. He certainly spoke with force. He definitely stated things clearly and powerfully. It was easily the most fiery sermon I have ever heard in general conference.

. . . . But really. . . . Who cares?

What value are those things if the world essentially remains the same as it is. Sure... because of Holland we might have more people getting up on the first Sunday of every month, and they might bear their testimonies with even more force... but so what?

Earlier that morning, President Monson's talk demanded action and change. It demanded that we start to actually be Christian rather than saying over and over again that we are Christian. Why care so much about the historicity of the BofM, when it's the message of the BofM that is important.

It doesn't matter how strong your testimony is in a book, a prophet, a church, a Christ, or a God... If we aren't loving our neighbours, if we are neglecting the poor, if we aren't caring for the needy and fighting for the oppressed, it is all for naught.

Based on Jesus' teachings in Matthew 25, an atheist who volunteers at the homeless shelter and prison will have a far better chance being in the Kingdom of God than the strongest of BofM believers who converts a hundred to sharing her testimony of the book, while neglecting the sick and immigrants.

Monson's talk was, IMHO, the greatest talk I've ever heard in General Conference. While not given with the rhetorical gusto of Holland, Monson plead for us to meet the fundamental requirement of our faith--to love our neighbour. This is one reason why I love him so much. He isn't caught up in the Pharisaical world of self-righteousness, obedience for obedience's sake, legality, and conformity. His talks have almost consistently dealt with the simple Christian duty of service....just like that Jesus guy we Mormons try to go out of our way to say follow.

The most successful missionary in recorded scriptural history didn't go out with Holland's force. He didn't share a powerful testimony of a book, leaders, or a church. He didn't try to win hearts with his rhetorical strength or power of words. In fact, he didn't even begin with a testimony of that sort. His mission began with "I desire to dwell among this people for a time; yea, and perhaps until the day I die. . . . I will be thy servant" (Alma 17 23-25). Through his love and service, not with his words, Ammon converted thousands. And he didn't convert them to a book, a leader, or a church; but rather he converted them to Christian love, caring, and service.

Simply the greatest destructo-p0rn ever.

After destroying some of the world in Independence Day and most of the world in The Day after Tomorrow (which is Sunday BTW), Roland Emmerich has apparently decided to just flip off the whole world and destroy it all.

Wow. Looks like another @#$%-ty movie from this ever-@#$%-ty director.