From Behind the Zion Curtain

One Horseman Down- So Long Hitch

2011-12-16T13:29:00.000-08:00

As I was preparing for bed last night, I got wind that Christopher Hitchens had succumbed to complications from the cancer that had afflicted him. I knew his remaining time alive was limited, but even so, it affected me more than I had anticipated. The Four Horesmen of the new atheism have all brought a unique but powerful perspective to those of us seeking a secular alternative to this irrational religious world we live in. Dawkins with his knowledge of biology, Harris with his knowledge about the human brain and how humans think, Dennett with a philosophical understanding of how human behavior and thinking evolves cover the scientific and philosophical basis for atheism.

What Hitchens brought was a deep-seeded knowledge of the negative impacts of religion on culture in our society. Religion's last refuge seemed to be, "people need religion in order to act well." Hitchens with his knowledge of history and his exposure to various cultures was able to blow this view out of the atmosphere. His book, "God is Not Great How Religion Poisons Everything" took that argument and shredded it in the most eloquent manner imaginable. Never afraid to take icons of religion and hold them up to the kind of scrutiny that exposes, his book was like pouring out the contents of a pretty package, so the world can see the maggots squirm. No better case was his evisceration of Mother Theresa, Jerry Falwell and the British Royal Family.

Hitchens showed how religion is a weighted vest on a drowning humanity, and even in the depths of his illness Hitch was throwing out life vests to all those who would listen. Hitchens, this horseman of the New Atheism will be sorely missed. Collectively, those of us left to fight for a rational and sane humanity, have a lot more work to do today for there is a lot of slack to be taken up. Thank goodness, we still have his writings and videos of him anihilating religious apologists of all stripes available to inspire us on. Thanks Hitch.

The Certainty of Myth

2011-10-28T14:29:00.000-07:00

One of the challenges of being a non-believer, or an atheist if you will, is living among those who are so certain of things for which no certainty is warranted. Growing up Mormon, every first Sunday is a tradition known as fast and testimony meeting. Members of the congregation, deprived from caloric content, stand with great earnestness and proclaim the depth of their knowledge and conviction regarding the truth of the Mormon faith. Certain Mormon catch phrases are used and reused as the faithful assure each other of the truth claims of their religion. A typical testimony goes like this.

“I would be ungrateful if I didn’t stand before you today and bear my solemn testimony to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I know without a shadow of a doubt that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, who restored the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth. I know with every fiber of my being, that Thomas S. Monson is a true prophet, here to lead us in these latter days. To be just a small part of this great mission, is deeply humbling. I am grateful for the family the lord has seen fit to bless me with. I am grateful that through the gospel of Jesus Christ, and by obedience to the covenants we make in the lord’s house, that we may live together forever……….” Add to this gratitude to local church leaders, living in your community, and country, etc. And the typical Mormon testimony ends just as a prayer does, by saying “and I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.”

The purpose of the testimony is to reaffirm to each other the certainty that you are on the right path. As a member, it is reassuring to hear people you’ve come to respect and love say with great conviction of the certainty for which you are in the right so long as you continue to follow the prophet and other church leaders. For those who may be straying from the faith, the testimony is meant to stiffen their resolve, to subtly remind them of solemn covenants they have made.

Expressing gratitude can be something very beneficial for people, as it directs their focus on the positive. In the Mormon case, or often in religious cases in general, this gratitude is directed at God and therefore the church. All the good things that happen to someone is credited to one’s religion, binding in the mind of the believer, the idea that God has singled them out for favor because of their affiliation. This in subtle, but perceptible ways, binds the believer to the religion, strengthening their loyalty to the group and ensures their continual participation.

The testimony meeting is one of the rituals that reinforces and comforts the believer. In an uncertain world, here is something certain. Here is conviction and purpose. The words “I know” replace more measured words such as “I think it highly likely.” The reality is however, that certainty for things that are not testable or falsifiable are merely delusions. From the Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders,
“Delusions are irrational beliefs, held with a high level of conviction, that are highly resistant to change even when the delusional person is exposed to forms of proof that contradict the belief.”

When taught from the cradle on up that certain unsupported beliefs are certainly true, it inoculates them from disconfirmation. The believer thinks “certainly that doesn’t apply to my beliefs.” If sufficiently indoctrinated, any belief will seem rational and impervious to disconfirmation. The fact that someone would even question that belief and provide evidence to the contrary only shows the believer that you are not to be trusted, otherwise, you would not provide contrary evidence to the cherished belief. The comfort of certainty is akin to a delusion that you are beautifully kept and well attired, when in reality you are naked and wearing a silly hat. Sometimes, that is how we atheists see the world. Surrounded by naked people with funny hats, these same people scoff at you and diminish you for not sharing in their delusion. Many atheists decide it is better to go along and let believers believe they are well dressed while at the same time do their best to personally stay well-dressed and only wear the silly hat on holidays (to get along).

One thing about the new atheism that I like, is they not only make fun of the silly hat, they point out the nakedness of the believer and cause them to feel a certain discomfort. It is a step in the right direction, for it lets people know, that the myth of certainty is often certainly a delusion. A big thanks to the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, Stenger, etal. Empowered to not just see, but to point out, the silliness and nakedness of religious belief, more and more non-believers are following their example.

Viral Infection and Understanding.

2011-09-29T14:53:00.000-07:00

Reading “The God Virus” by Darrell Ray has been helpful in many ways with understanding my family’s reaction to my lack of participation in their religion. Mormonism is a religion which defines a person as much as their surname or profession. When someone is no longer part of that fold, they often struggle with their own identity, and given this, it is expected that others will struggle with how to deal with the straying relative or friend.

Recently, I attended the homecoming of a very dear nephew who served a Mormon mission. Members of my family know in varying degrees my antipathy for the religion of my upbringing. Even so, they also know that family is very important to me. Only extraordinary circumstances would lead me to not attend religious functions important to them. Even so, an aunt of mine seemed quite surprised that I would show up. This aunt is one whose viral infection is so deep, that she seems to believe that anyone who would reject her religion must suffer a great spiritual malady. The idea that someone could still have the same genuine thoughts and feelings of the believer seems outside the realm of her understanding.

When I first deciphered the fallaciousness of Mormonism, such attitudes would have infuriated me, or hurt me deeply. Time and perspective have allowed me to understand how such dualistic thinking inhibits relationships in our society and within our family structures. Though I understand that viewing religious people as victims of a disease is not far off from their perspective that believes I have succumbed to the disease of pride (or some other character flaw). I also try to use this metaphor more for understanding than for judging. Several times, as I’ve discussed my opinions with my Aunt, she gets this look of deep pathos on her face. That pathos comes from fear, of not only the thoughts that she might be wrong, but most of all, what will happen to her nephew in this life or the next one.

Understanding their perspective has helped me bridge some gaps where I used to widen them. As I look back on what I used to write, I sense a certain angst that I don’t feel at present. I find it helpful to break bread with those whose infection is mild or even not so mild. I find just living a good life, honest and forthright, being a good neighbor and even being willing to take a few playful jabs here and there is a much better way of advancing reason than carrying a sign and getting in people’s face.

Book Review- "The Real Thomas Jefferson"

2011-02-28T11:31:00.000-08:00

Roaming the Barnes and Noble in Bountiful Utah, I ran into a book on my day off and read it with much bemusement, but a certain amount of alarm. This book which rightly should have been in the LDS Religious segment of the store was in History. Here is my review as I published it at Amazon.

The Real Thomas Jefferson

This book is one in a series of books which seeks to create history for religious purposes. Thomas Jefferson is a complicated enigma. A man of incredible intelligence, yet a man plagued with internal contradictions. Jefferson provides polemicists of all stripes a wealth of great quotes that can be mined and used to provide credibility to many philosophies or dogmas. Real attempts to write about Jefferson understand this, and there are many biographies of Jefferson that are appropriately objective. This book is not among them. This book is historical fable-making in order to strengthen both a particular religious, as well as a well coupled political agenda.

This book's objective is clearly to show Jefferson as someone who believed in strict construction of the constitution, who had an innate sense of the divine nature of that document. Told from a Mormon perspective, it seeks to interpret Jefferson's concerns about Christian dogmas and practices in the context of the Mormon belief that the founders of the nation were merely laying the foundation for a return of "true Christianity" as revealed by God to Joseph Smith. By quote-mining Jefferson, the author seeks to create a picture of Jefferson, unhappy with Christianity of his day, but hopeful for a return of the real McCoy at a later date.

If you are a politically conservative Mormon looking to strengthen your faith in this particular worldview, I highly recommend this book. However, if you are a serious student of U.S. history, there are a vast number of biographies of Jefferson which aren't burdened with a political/religious agenda.

Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas/Serene Solstice

2010-12-22T10:20:00.000-08:00

People who are willing to flame people for not adequately giving people their own Christ-centered holiday aside, I would like to wish everyone a good Christmas or whatever celebration floats your boat. Some of us atheists like to celebrate, and to quote from somewhere, "when in Rome....".

Christmas is a holiday that was adopted in the ancient world as the birthday of Jesus Christ, though there is no record of the date of birth of one Jesus of Nazareth. Most of the ancient God-men in the ancient world were born on the winter solstice, when a new year was being reborn in the northern hemisphere. Dionysus, Addonis, Osiris, Mithrais, etal., had their birthday on the solstice and about 2,000 years ago, the solstice was on about December 25. The early Christians adopted the birthday of Mithrais as the date to celebrate the birth of Jesus.

Many of our traditions have pagan origins, particularly related to the virgin birth, of lowly means, in a pastoral setting. The lighting of trees in order to provide light during the darkest part of the year speaks to this ancient setting. Understanding these roots, roots not steeped as much in religion, as in tradition, atheists should on the whole relax and enjoy the season. I know I will. And like those professing the deepest faith in their particular brand of God-man, I am willing to wish people everywhere peace and good will.

And as we all take inventory of ourselves and our society, it is a time to reflect on ways in which we can make a positive difference in the lives of those we know and love, and those who are but strangers, but fellow hominids on their own journey. And hope that the God's that some people need to believe in, will be loving or atleast benign. And that we atheists will focus on fighting for the good as much as resisting the bad we see in the world.

And with that, I wish everyone a wonderful holiday season.

Obi wan kolobi

Conservatism and Mormonism

2010-12-02T15:36:00.001-08:00

Some political observers wonder why Mormons tend to be extremely conservative in their voting patterns. The reasons aren't too hard to figure out when you understand Mormonism at it's core. Conservatism by it's nature is traditional and looks to the past for guidance to future problems. Mormonism by it's nature is "restorationist", meaning that the current religion is restoring principles that were taught previously, but were lost due to the corruption of men.

Mormons believe in "dispensations", periods when God through divine intervention calls upon worthy men to restore the principles that were previously taught. Mormons believe that there was an early Christian Church that taught basically what Mormons now believe to be the core of their gospel. The book, "The Great Apostasy" by James E. Talmadge discusses this in some detail, where pagan beliefs were infused into the Christian religions of the day and that the original church ceased to exist as established by it's founder, Jesus Christ.

Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith jr. was called upon in the eyes of Mormons to restore that church. Mormons also view America as a "special land", due to the unique nature of their scripture, "The Book of Mormon" which purports to be an actual history of people of Israelite descent also introducing Christiantiy during ancient times in America.

Any student of history will obviously look to the past for wisdom. Where Mormonism morphs into a sort of authoritarian set of dogmas, is the belief that certain individuals were divinely inspired, and so their teachings, or even opinions, become gospel. Most objective readers can read and debate the views of Aristotle and Plato and still learn a great deal, even recognizing that they taught differing views of reality. However, for someone to accept something just because it was uttered by Plato, then you have drifted into authoritarianism.

Mormons believe that the founding of the American Republic known as the United States of America was a divinely inspired act, the purpose of which was to create an environment where the one true Christian religion (Mormonism) could be restored to the earth. Because of this, the writings and beliefs of founding fathers of the country take on something akin to scripture. Strict interpretation of a "divinely inspired U.S. Constitution" isn't uniquely Mormon, but Mormons through the teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, a Mormon prophet, imbue conservative views of government great weight with true believers of the religion.

Mormons also believe in a dualist reality. There is very little middle ground for Mormons, as the purpose of life is to choose between good and evil. And the primary good for Mormons is to "follow the prophet" or "follow the bretheren". Obedience and conformity of the masses, creates an environment for what psychologists refer to as "authoritarian followers". So long as an authority figure remains legitimate in their eyes, a Mormon tends to be loyal and supportive, and is often willing to put principle on the backburner when it competes with loyalty to the church, or whatever organization they've become devoted to.

The traits that Mormonism promotes have real market value in the corporate world. Mormons are very often hard-working, loyal, and ambitious. As a result, Mormons tend to have more influence than their numbers will often dictate. Mormons are a forced to be reckoned with in our Republic, and they will continue to be influential in moving the U.S. to the right politically.

Glenn Beck and White Horse Fever

2010-10-07T07:18:00.000-07:00

Outside the Zion Curtain, people who think they know Glenn Beck, only know part of what makes him tick. Admittedly, it is hard to gauge whether Glenn Beck actually believes his drivel or not. Sometimes his passion seems forced and contrived. Whether or not he actually believes his stuff, he has a willing audience in his fellow Mormons and it is translating into a feverish pitch in the paranoia and histrionics going on in the beehive state regarding the Constitution being in danger, from broadly defined “socialism” representing the oarks attacking the white city. And of course, Glenn Beck represents the white wizard, on his white horse, battling the innumerable foe. This represents a synthesis of myths, one told by Tolkien, the other by Joseph Smith jr., founder of Glenn Beck’s religion.

The “white horse prophecy” is one where the elders of the church will step in when the Constitution is “hanging by a thread”, and save the country. With the country being led by “one of them”, a black man who surely isn’t what he appears to be (see my previous post on secret combinations, etc), in the minds of many Mormons, Obama and his allies are hell bent on destroying the last vestiges of the country founded by divinely inspired men, who set up the divinely inspired Constitution as a means of achieving limited government.

I’m guessing that this mythical white horse may have many Mormons trying to jump on it, ready to carry the next Captain Moroni to victory and to eternal glory. True believers are beginning to sound more and more strident, and Glenn Beck’s following behind the Zion Curtain is as strong as ever.

White horse fever has gripped the state, so that even just plain conservatives aren’t conservative enough to ride this fictional horse. A test is on to see who is pure enough to ride this white horse, and whether Mike Lee, Glenn Beck, Jason Chaffetz or some other mythically challenged Mormon is the chosen one to save the day, we’ll have to wait to see who the people empower. In the Mormon mind, what I am writing about is real. This is no laughing matter. Many who believe this are business leaders, prominent politicians and people with money and means.

And to add to the “white horse prophecy”, let me add the “Obi Wan” prophecy. Those who seek to save the Constitution are likely to do more damage to it, than to save it. Like crusaders turning on Constantinople, their crusade is dangerous unless rational people of all stripes step up and add a little light and some cool heads to this situation. Now where did I put my spurs?

Man of Faith

2010-04-15T09:32:00.000-07:00

How many times have I heard this phrase? Too many to count. What about Brother Simmons? You can trust him, he’s a man of faith. He was first counselor in the 3rd Ward Bishopric and my home teacher told me he is a wonderful fellow. We have been programmed to believe that a “man of faith” is a good thing. Years of programming die hard. Man of Faith>Not a Man of Faith (all else being equal). The natural consequence of faith, is virtue and trustworthiness. Non-faith can be overcome. I’ve had several people tell me that for an atheist, you are a really good person (almost as if they are surprised). I am not a man of faith, in the way people usually use that term. I don’t believe in God, in an afterlife, or anything that doesn’t have a natural explanation. If there is no supportable explanation for something, I try to reserve judgment, limiting myself to mere speculations, and clearly indicating the nature of them.

Faith is the process of believing in things that are unsupported by evidence. In the biblical story of Jesus, it is Thomas, who rightly doubts that a man who died could return to the living. After feeling the wounds of Jesus, he is then satisfied that Jesus has risen. The lesson from this is that Thomas’s lack of faith is a sign not of virtue, but of weakness in character. In Mormonism, the prophet Moroni in his parting words indicates that it is only necessary that you desire to believe in order for you to come to a testimony of the truth of his account of his people.

If people desire to believe something, it doesn’t take much to convince them of it. Desire to believe immediately places one with what is referred to as a state of confirmation bias. Critical thinking is replaced with a search for confirmation of that which you desire to be true. Such a perspective is completely antithetical to the scientific method and to scientific thinking in general. In science, you believe in that which you have tried to disprove and couldn’t. If evidence surfaces that disproves the proposition you previously believed to be true, you don’t discard the evidence, you discard the proposition. If you “know” a proposition to be true, than any evidence that might call that in to question is discarded because you already know the answer.

As a recovering Mormon, I’ve had to reprogram my mind. When someone is referred to as a “man of faith”, I no longer give them a certain level of credibility that I wouldn’t otherwise give them. I reserve judgment on all people until I understand who they are and where they are coming from. Many men of faith are good and honorable men, and I am proud to associate with them. But it isn’t their faith that makes them honorable. It is more universal characteristics of integrity and concern for others that I ultimately judge people on as do most people when the delusion of faith is removed. And though I try to reserve judgment on people, I also find it best to give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove me wrong. But even so, we should all limit our exposure to those with whom we are unsure.

Gratitude to Whom?

2010-03-18T09:18:00.000-07:00

In my life, those who seem the most well-adjusted and happy, are those who have a sense of gratitude about them. People who say thank you and mean it for whatever reason, seem to be those who are the most resilient to disappointment and loss. They also seem to find that paying that gratitude forwards by serving others brings a sense of fulfillment and dare I say, serenity.

Many whom I hear express gratitude do so to God. To understand this, you have to understand a person’s world view. Since all good is attributed to God, what good there is to be grateful for can also be attributed to this supernatural being. I have also encountered a fair share of grateful atheists. One theistic individual e-mailed me a while back asking “whom do atheists say thanks to”?

As a recovering Mormon, I grew up hearing a thousand times, usually on the first Sunday of the month, “I would be ungrateful if I didn’t stand today and bear my testimony…..” In this instance, I realize the gratitude wasn’t just to God, but to the organization that the testimony bearer belonged to. Profound emotional experiences within Mormonism are encapsulated as coming from “the spirit” which is God’s own personal inspirational confirmation of one’s path within the Mormon Church and way of life.

As a grateful atheist, I also have profound emotional experiences that are not in any way different than the experiences I had as a practicing Mormon. A particularly moving experience can come through a variety of means, such as helping someone in need, enjoying a particularly beautiful sunset, reading a story to my three year old, or marveling at some compelling fact or thought that comes to me. I am grateful to that I’ve had these experiences, though I understand that these experiences are not evidence of the divine, but things the human brain has evolved for reasons that have somehow perpetuated the species. And grateful I am to be one of the few in terms of actual organisms in the history of our planet, and potentially in our universe, to have the capacity to experience them.

All humans, if made fully aware of their uniqueness and the amazing gift they have of consciousness, should be grateful. If one wants to attribute it to God, that is their luxury. But healthy atheism to me is a lifestyle free of fear of offending God, free of a life of indebtedness to those who claim to speak for God. Free of fear and indebtedness, I am free to love myself and others. Free to provide service to those in need, not out of devotion to God, but out of genuine concern as a human being. Gratitude, unimpeded by devotion to a supernatural agent allows as Victor Stenger puts it, “a life driven purpose “ rather than a “purpose driven life.” And for this freedom, I can honestly say, I’m eternally grateful.

Happy Birthday Little Boo

2010-03-03T15:01:00.000-08:00

Has it really been three years. My little baby turns three tomorrow. My littlest wasn’t supposed to arrive, but arrive she did, and what a wonderful surprise she has been. A cute curly-haired blonde with bright eyes and an infectious smile, whenever I think of her, I smile and my blood pressure drops atleast 5 points.

On a personal note, the last five years have been the most stressful of my life, and many times I’ve wondered whether I would survive the stress. I’ve had to recalibrate my life in many ways and change what I was doing in order to get this far. I have lost 50 pounds and have changed my diet and my habits. I have tried meditation as a means of keeping my mind from running aimless files like a computer stuck in a feedback loop. Issues at home and work have caused me to move away from the things that used to bring me sanity in my life. I’ve decided that I have to get back to those things if I am going to be there for my girls. And nowhere has there been a better reminder than my little one.

No matter how bad my day has gone, I know I have this little bundle of excitement to come home to. Even when I’ve concluded I haven’t a friend in the world, this little girl has been glad to see me and given me a big much-needed hug, right on cue. After my second daughter was diagnosed with autism, I couldn’t imagine trying to raise an additional child. Now, I can’t imagine not having this curly-haired character as my pal.

So happy birthday my little one. Daddy will always love his little curly-haired pal.

Book Review- Jerry Coyne's Excellent Defense of Darwin's Theory

2010-01-29T14:20:00.001-08:00

With the 150 year anniversary of the Origin of Species, we have been deeply rewarded with a couple of first class books in defense of the biological sciences which has Darwin's elegant theory as the base of those sciences. It is unfortunate that books of these types are needed, but to those of us who find biology interesting at a novice's level, we get to be rewarded as excellent writing scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne grace us with an interesting and passionate exposition of the evidence for evolution and the profound power it has in explaining so much of the natural world in which we live.

Jerry Coyne in his book, "Why Evolution is True", does an excellent job of looking at what Darwin proposed and when he proposed it. He points out persuasively that at the time, there was still much that was speculation on Darwin's part, and it is indeed remarkable just how much he got right. The author discusses the difference between a scientific theory and a theory in the popular language. Likening the theory of evolution to the "Germ Theory of Disease" or the "the Atomic Theory" provides a reasonable comparison for Darwin's "Theory of Evolution." A scientific theory goes far beyond the theory I had this year that the Vikings would win the Super Bowl.

Coyne does a really good job of outlining some interesting cases where the "Theory of Evolution" provided predictions that make sense only in the light of evolution, as well as retrodictions that can only be explained by evolution. He also provides examples from the fossil record which show consistent patterns of evolution and intermediation from one species to another. Coyne addresses common creationist arguments and persuasively shows that the underpinning for creationism and it's dressed up off-spring "intelligent design" is religious and unscientific because it is trying to prove an already accepted outcome.

One of the best parts of the book is when Coyne gets into vestigial features of animals that an intelligent designer would never create. The bodies of all animals only make sense when you retrofit previous features into the current life patterns of current species. Coyne uses interesting examples such as the human appendix, the location of the prostate gland, and the odd development of animals as embryos clearly belaying their past evolution.

Not as strident and caustic and Dawkin's book, it has great power by just how matter-of-fact Coyne is in showing the evidence and putting that evidence in context. He also shows why there is a need for his book, with the United States in particular, facing an intellectual onslaught from those who cling to bronze-age myths in the face of overwhelming reality.

Thanks to Professor Coyne for writing this book in the tradition of others who have preceded him in making the case such as Futuyma and Pennock. Coyne's and Dawkin's excellent books make a great set of overlapping, mutually supporting, but slightly different approaches for making the case for Darwin's elegant theory.

The Greatest Show on Earth- Book Review

2010-01-04T15:28:00.000-08:00

With the 150 year anniversary of the Origin of Species, we have been deeply rewarded with a couple of first class books in defense of the biological sciences which has Darwin’s elegant theory as the base of those sciences. It is unfortunate that books of these types are needed, but to those of us who find biology interesting at a novice’s level, we get to be rewarded as excellent writing scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne grace us with an interesting and passionate exposition of the evidence for evolution and the profound power it has in explaining so much of the natural world in which we live.

Dawkins starts off comparing deniers of evolution to hypothetical deniers of ancient roman society or to the less hypothetical deniers of the holocaust. Dawkins points out that those who deny evidence do so for ideological reasons and are unlikely to be swayed by his book. It is the author’s intent to give enough ammunition to those not snared by superstitious or nonsensical ideologies that they can confidently oppose such ideas in the public contest for the hearts and minds of the public as a whole.

Like Darwin, Dawkins starts with a lot of evidence from the world of artificial selection to show what can be done through different selection pressures and does a good job of connecting artificial selection to natural selection and explaining what selective pressures occur in the natural world from both “natural selection” and its subset “sexual selection.”

Likening it to uncovering a crime, Dawkins goes through the evidence bit by bit and shows that the evidence is overwhelming except to those who have been blinded by dogma or disinterest. Dawkins gives some great examples to show how Darwin’s theory has been used to direct new findings in the study of genetics, paleontology, etc. Such examples as bipedal African apes, or four limbed “Titkaalik” fish, show the power of understanding Darwin’s theory, and how you can look for evidence and find exactly what you hypothesized you would find.

For those of us who already accept the reality of evolution, the book provides additional interesting insights that Dawkins’ previous books such as “The Selfish Gene” and “The Ancestor’s Tale” got our minds salivating for. Though it is unfortunate that a defense of Darwin’s elegant theory is necessary in a world where tribal bronze-age dogmas die hard, for those of us enamored by the incredible wonder and beauty of the natural world, such a defense is deeply rewarding and awe-inspiring.

When Evidence Doesn't Matter

2009-11-25T15:00:00.000-08:00

I have a very dear friend of mine who is a devoutly religious Southern Baptist. She believes what to me are alot of goofy, unsupported things, such as a worldwide flood, an earth just over 6,000 years old, and that the human species, like all species was specially created by God, with man created in God's image and all other organisms put in place by God for God's divine purposes relating to his special creation, mankind. To me this is goofy, but in the real world I live in, I am perhaps the goofy one, asserting foolishly that based upon the best available evidence, the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, all animals and plants evolved through natural processes from a common ancestor, including humans. I base my thinking upon evidence that to me seems convincing. Evidence, catalogued by the best minds, in a systematic way, with an ability to falsify things that don't hold up to scrutiny. Everything I conclude is based upon evidence as I see it, recognizing that evidence is fallable as is my interpretation of the evidence. Because of that fallibility, I am willing to entertain other ideas if additional evidence can make me rethink what I had concluded previously.

The other day, this friend of mine approached me with some piece of evidence for what she described as "intelligent design." It was a pretty lame piece of evidence relating to the complexity of the eye, and I had a simple explanation for what she had read was a serious flaw in evolution. But I asked her, what level of evidence would I have to present to convince her that man evolved from common ancestors of other primates, mammals, etc. My dear friend told me, "that no amount of evidence could sway me from the truth that I know deep in my heart to be true."

I then said, "but you approached me with what you believed was evidence that evolution was false." "I could be convinced that evolution didn't happen." "Cambrian trilobyte fossils partially digested inside a icthyosaur would make me rethink some of what I currently think about the evolution of species. A homo erectus fossil amidst brachiosaur remains would do the same thing." I said in as nice a way as I could, that "why should I even consider any evidence you present to defend your case, when no degree of evidence would convince you to reconsider yours?"

Recently, two excellent books were published outlining some of the best arguments for evolution since Douglas Futuyma tackled the issue in the 1980's with his book "Science on Trial, the Case for Evolution." Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" and Richard Dawkin's (arguably my favorite author) "The Greatest Show on Earth" in slightly different manners tackle the issue with great eloquence, passion and insight. I'm currently drafting my book reviews of both of these excellent books. These books aren't written for my dear friend and her associates. Evidence doesn't matter to these individuals because it isn't the basis for which decisions are made in their personal paradigm for evaluating truth. But to those for whom evidence does matter, even in some aspect of your life, I recommend reading both of these books. Not only will you understand how convincing the evidence is for evolution, you come away with a new appreciation for just how awe-inspiring life is on this pale blue dot, in one of the far corners of our insignificant galaxy.

Mormonism and Glenn Beck

2009-09-09T09:39:00.000-07:00

The phenomena of Glenn Beck’s popularity among Mormons is an interesting and fascinating thing to watch as someone who was raised Mormon. On MSNBC, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and other liberal venues, people don’t know what to think of him. Is he a cheap demagogue, or does he really believe the zany things he says, and are the emotional tirades from the heart or there purely for effect? Understanding Glenn Beck is a lot easier when you understand Mormonism as a culture and as a paradigm for examining the world and coming to conclusions.

The first thing I would like to address is Glenn’s apparent seeing of demons everywhere and seeming to view the world in strict black/white or good/evil terms. In Mormon dogma, humanity serves as an on-going drama between the forces of good and evil. Man’s very existence is a test of whether he will follow good or evil and his future is unlimited if he follows good, to even to become divine. Another aspect of Mormonism that helps to explain Glenn Beck is the depiction of evil as cunning and deceptive. Much of this evolved out of the puritan beliefs the religion’s founder Joseph Smith culturally brought with him into his new religion. In the superstitious world of witches, evil spirits, and angels from former dispensations (a good book on this is Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magical World View"), much happens in the privacy of each individual’s own consciousness and subconscious. Secret combinations abound everywhere, where men who appear good, are in fact agents of evil, and only through the careful guidance of the spirit can one discern truth from error. The difference between imagination and revelation is blurred and depends upon the feelings one gets from the thoughts evoked or imagined.

Truth in such a framework has less to do with the preponderance of the evidence, but upon the feelings engendered by the idea, feelings in the Mormon view that can only come from the spirit. When Glenn Beck says apparently crazy things with emotion, he does what so many Mormons do; they say that which they want to believe, and subconsciously try to engender enough emotional feeling to vindicate the idea as having a spiritual foundation. This quality often makes Mormons gullible to persuasion, but often effective in selling ideas. They can convince themselves of the inherent worth of whatever product they’re peddling. Through self-deception, They can appear totally believable as a sincere believer in whatever widget they’ve conjured up as beneficial. The Mormon frame of mind allows a Mormon to actually believe their own con. This isn't a trait for which Mormons hold a patent, but it is one they use very effectively on themselves and others.

The next topic in relation to Glenn Beck is sensitive and I hesitate to bring it up. Glenn Beck is a convert and perhaps was not subject to some of the same indoctrination I was subjected to as a child. Mormons of my generation were raised with the belief that God curses the wicked and their offspring with skin pigmentation. People of African descent had been treated as the descendents of Cain and not worthy of holding the LDS priesthood until the late 1970’s. Native Americans also were a cursed race, with their skin darkened because they rejected Christ and ultimately destroyed the Christian civilization of their white and delightsome Nephite cousins. Former Prophet Spencer W. Kimball even indicated that one of the goals of the Indian Placement Program was to bring Native Americans to the true Christianity that Mormonism believes itself to be, which would in turn, turn their skin white.

Who knows what subconscious demons (so to speak) Glenn Beck brings to the table with regards to his religious convictions. It is possible that when he accuses Barack Obama, a man who is 50% Caucasian of being racist against his mother’s race, perhaps there is some projection going on. Battling racism is ultimately a personal thing that each of us must face. Accepting people who are different from us will always be a challenge, but when you add a history of racial religious dogma on top of it, I think all Mormons and ex-Mormons such as myself should constantly be on guard to whether we attribute inherent motives upon someone based upon their appearance and their level of skin pigmentation.

One more thing regarding Glenn Beck and Mormonism. Mormonism like most religions has a very tribal component to it. Glenn Beck’s dogma resonates with many of the social mores of Mormonism, and as such, I would expect him to be popular with his fellow Mormons and I suspect that is true. I have found even some of my relatives quite enamored with him. To them, he is one of US. Certainly more so than Harry Reid, who is a MINO (Mormon in name only) to many members of the church. Glenn Beck will continue to have a following, no matter how zany he appears. To people who believe in magic underwear, evil spirits, and secret combinations, there is nothing zany about Glenn Beck. Finally, there is someone telling it the way it is.

Why Darwinism is Threatening to Evangelicals

2009-03-29T14:29:00.000-07:00

My fellow Americans who acknowledge the reality of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, sometimes console themselves when evangelicans and fundies of various stripes with arguments that 'it is just a theory" and seek to supplant science education with one form of myth-based teaching or another, that they are a small minority and that there are large numbers of main-stream religionists who are willing to accept Darwin's theory and seek to try reconcile their faith with observed reality.

However, the stark reality is that evolution and other aspects of science, and many of the basic tenets of Christianity are at odds. The existence of a God or higher power is not necessarily falsifiable in the way that specific myths are. The Noah story from Genesis is a falsifiable myth. No worldwide flood, the Bible is fallible. If species evolve by natural selection, the creation story in Genesis is likewise problematic. No Adam no fall, no fall no original sin and no need for redemption.

The reality is, that any religion that treats it's founding works as infafllible, is incompatible with science. Science arrives at truth through weight of evidence, not on the authority of the author. Any religious idea that is falsifiable places that religion in potential conflict with science. Darwin's theory is but one example. There are myths, both within, and outside of Christianity that can be challenged using science in addition to the Genesis creation story.

For example:

Noah's flood has already been mentioned. Any worldwide flood creates several problems. First, where did all the water come from? Where did it go after the flood? What evidence is there for a flood? How did different types of animals end up on different continents? Evolution and plate tectonics explain marsupials in Australia, Genesis does not. It also doesn't explain on-going human civilizations and distribution of the human species. It was problems with how to explain humans in the Americas that led to theories regarding their origins that include the Mormon myths regarding aborriginal Americans being descended from Israel.

The Tower of Babel- For some reason, linguists haven't suffered the same fate as biologists. However, the study of the evolution of languages is just as threatening to the Tower of Babel story as Darwinism is to the creation story. That mankind all spoke one language prior to the building of the Tower is contradictory to excellent examples of ancient language evolution in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas as well.

Moses and the Exodus- It is amazing how much we know about the history of Egypt. It's amazing how absent from that history is the Moses story. We know that Egyptian culture influenced Hebrew culture. Alot of the same polytheistic aspects of Egyptian culture permeated what the early Hebrews taught. The "Elohim" is actually a plural word, as is "Israel", representing Isis, the God of the moon, the sun God Ra, and"El" the God of the firmament. The problems with the Moses story are many, but historians and anthropologists should be able to detect such an important person, a problem for the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth as well.

Speaking of which, how about this Jesus fellow? Would the existence of fellows like him from different cultures and religious traditions suggest the borrowing of myths? What is the probability that a Jewish God-man should have the same stories associated with himself as Osiris, Mithra, Dionysus and others? And what about virgin birth? What would a man look like without a y chromosome? Did Jesus have his father's DNA? If so, wouldn't his father have to have a father in order for him to have a y chromosome?

These are but a taste of the problems a Biblical world view has relative to science. Even as evangelicals smugly promote their myths as "the truth", their truths do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Science is at odds with the very paradigm through which they view reality. The conflict is inevitable so long as evangelicals look to past ancient writings as the basis of truth, rather than evidence.

Biology gets special attention from evangelicals, because evolution hits at the very heart of Christian theology, the need for a savior. No creation, and no original sin, and the mission of Jesus to redeem man from his fall is left in tatters. That is why biologists take heat for Darwin's theory when linguists who could just as easily annihilate the Tower of Babel myth.

Ultimately, we as a society have to choose which paradigm to follow. Do we base our lives on evidence, or authority. Do we accept the uncertainty that comes with assessing probabilities based upon the evidence, or put our faith in a false certainty.

Happy Birthday to My Little One

2009-03-05T20:55:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, my little girl turned 2. It is hard to believe how the time has flown. It is amazing how fast these little ones go from a helpless little newborn, to a highly mobile and inquisitive toddler. My little one was not expected, as I recently turned 47 and was pretty sure I was done changing diapers when my youngest came along. But I have to admit how wonderful it has been to see all the stages again, this time enjoying them even more, because I really do know this is our last baby.

And how wonderful is it to have a curly-haired toddler excited to see me at the end of a bad day? It has been amazing therapy to sing "itsy bitsy spider" and "twinkle twinkle little star" with her and to kiss her chubby little cheeks. How incredible it is to have her curly little head on my shoulder and to feel her embrace.

Do I sound smitten? Yep, I am. Just as I still am with my two older daughters. During the last couple of years, I have been under an enormous amount of stress. I cannot imagine getting through it all without this little baby turned toddler.

So happy birthday, my little curly-haired beauty. And may you have many more.

So Long to a Friend

2009-02-22T20:30:00.000-08:00

A good friend of mine is moving to Oklahoma. One of the challenges we atheists face every day is a lack of fellowship among atheists. It is hard to rally around a lack of belief in a certain dogma. Atheists can disagree on almost everything, and still find the probability that there is a supernatural entity rounded to a zero. So it was a breath of fresh air when I met this friend of mine, who has hung out with me for the past year. My friend isn't typical and is hard to categorize in any way. He just thinks the way he does and is comfortable in his own skin.

My friend drinks more than he should, but who am I to judge. I've been known to get a little foggy-eyed myself on occasion. He certainly rubs some people the wrong way, but hey, who doesn't. I do know, he treats bartenders, waiters, and his friends well, usually above his means. His efforts to get me hooked on single malt scotch didn't work, given it collided with my own desire to abstain from alcohol for health reasons this year. So far I've lost fifteen pounds and saved a bundle of dinero. I think he has missed hanging out and downing scotch, but I've got little ones to take care of and I've got to mind my health.

But even so, I wish my friend well. I hope the books I've loaned him and the websites I've referred him to make a difference in his life. But more than anything, I hope he knows, he's got a friend in Utah. So long good buddy. And may the farce be with you.

Charles Darwin- My Tribute

2009-02-10T07:25:00.001-08:00

February 12, 2009 is the bi-centennial of the birth of Charles Darwin. It is hard to understate the importance of the life and career of Charles Darwin. The theory regarding evolution through natural selection created a stark and distinct break from the predominant paradigm of western thought for just short of two millennia. The idea that we humans are not specially created, but members of a broader family of cousins which includes all living things, is such as a dramatic philosophical shift, that the impacts are still being digested, often with convulsive vomiting along the way by those with “weak stomachs” or a delusional attachment to the old paradigm.

It is interesting to note that though Darwin used sound logic and good evidence to justify his theory, most of the evidence that further strengthened and validated that theory has been discovered long since his death. Advances in fields such as genetics, anthropology, geology, and several other ologies have sustained and supported Darwinism, even as insights from Darwin’s theory has fed back to science new avenues to discover the secrets of life on earth.

The power of Darwin’s theory is that it is so all-encompassing. Our relationship to the cosmos, and our standing as mankind in the natural world is defined by this theory. For those who still subscribe to ancient scriptural text to gain that standing, Darwinism has proved to be a villain which upsets the applecart, not by intent, but by the very winds of truth contained in that theory.

Little by little, scientific understanding has humbled humanity by the awe and power of the natural world. Mankind is no longer the center of the universe, just as the earth is no longer the center of our solar system. Our galaxy is but one of millions. The universe has grown as our understanding has, and our seemingly immortal power of consciousness has been left with two choices. We may either live in denial of the reality around us, and focus on our small existence and give it eternal meaning. Or we can embrace the vastness of the cosmos with wonder and awe. We can either choose to be part of something big, wonderful and amazing, or we can pretend to be the big fish in the little pond, and pretend our pond is the only pond in the marsh.

Darwin and his discoveries opened up the possibility of connecting human kind, not to the divine, but to something bigger and grander. We bi-pedal hominids, made of stardust, are connected to all living things. From the co-worker who pisses us off, to the bacteria that infects our wounds, we are all connected by our common ancestry. Such is the power of Darwin’s discovery, to reconnect us to the natural world, and disconnect us from a deity of our own creation.

Happy Birthday Chuck! Those of us who have found wonder and awe in the implications of your theory, give you our sincere thanks.

Christian Nonsense v. Mormon Nonsense

2009-01-10T21:30:00.000-08:00

A dear friend of mine gave me a CD outlining just how outlandist Mormon claims were relative to Mormon beliefs. My friend did so as a fellow atheist. And that puzzles me somewhat.

I write about Mormonism often in my blog because I was raised Mormon, taught gospel doctrine, and gave numerous speaches in favor of the faith over many years. Like many well-read Mormons, I came to challenge the faith of my upbringing and ultimately discard it, but not without appreciations for the culture that I left and felt so much social sustenance.

As for Christianity? I harbor some of my fiercest critics upon those who rejected Mormonism and became Christians. The basis of Christianity is dependence and guilt. One is born in guilt by a predecessor, and are deamed unworthy of deified company except than one accepts a savior who is God manifested in the flesh.

Let us get real. First of all, why would someone be accountable for the sins of their ancestor? What kind of nonsense is this? It is nonsense to reasonable people, but for those who would wish to gain psychological control over others, this is a priceless ploy.

Oh, let's talk about Christ's suffering for our sins. Again, it seems like a ploy for religious leaders to sheer us of our human failings for religious domination and economic expoitation. Let's get real. Are we to be held accountable for "sin" by an other-worldly force? On what basis does this force gain authority over us? Is dying on a cross, a fate also suffered by numerous criminals who deserved such a fate the basis of our surrendering of personal spiritual sovereignty? Step back for a moment and ask yourself that question outside the bounds of accepted orthodoxy.

Mormonism is a branch of Christian thought, though it is not mainstream Christianity in that it rejects the Nicene Creed. But Nicene Christians have a weighty burden of proof to prove the validity of their faith. The four gospels were clearly written over a generation from the time of the purported events that they claim to have witnessed.

As for the Apostle Paul, when seen outside of the Book of Acts (an obvious forgery (from either Eusebius of Hyppolytus), his works seem to be gnostic in tenor, and never once reference the actual life of Jesus as articulated in the accepted gospel regarding Jesus's life.

Mainstream Christianity has as many holes in it, as the more recently created Mormon dogma. I discount both faiths as superstitions and mythologies, notwithstanding the sincere belief most of my ancestors held iun those belief.s

Is Mormonism stupid? Yeah, I'd say it is.

Is Christiantiy stupid? I agree with Thosas Jefferson on that pointed issue.

So what are we to believe? We believe in nothing. We look at the world and the best available evidence, and live our lives based upon the best available evidence. We don't believe, we make decisions. We make decisions based upon the evidence.

It may sound confusing to those who say "I believe with every fiber in my being (the following)" We have to,because the real world doesn't often coalesce with the mythical one. And yet we search for humor in it, or some common ground. But let me say unequivocably, that the challenge isn't between what is believed and not, but between those who base their beliefs upon the wisdom of accepted authority and those who would say NO.
t

Chicken-hawk Nation- BYU's Legacy

2009-01-01T22:21:00.000-08:00

Recently, I watched a Youtube video regarding the BYU/Utah football game where the song associated with that video, rather crass for my sake, shouted "where the fuck are you, where the fuck are you, etc." I thought it interesting that one of the few friendly confines Vice President Cheney could find to address Americans came at that campus. Even so, he drew protests, as I hoped he would.

But Cheney's visit also found him surrounded by a wave of support. Warfare against a nation that didn't attack us still is popular in this state, particularly in the county surrounding that "venerable" institution of higher learning.

Ok, let me make some confessions. I have supported for years KBYU radio, the only really substantial supporter of classical music in Utah. I also have frequented performances of the Utah Baroque Ensemble that is based out of BYU. I also hold dear Lehi Hintze's Gteology of Utah as Lehi was a BYU professor. There are things I like about BYU. But I have to admit, there are things about Utah County in general, and the environment of BYU I find abhorrent.

First of all, let's look at a little history. Gordon B. Hinckley, the much revered former prophet of the LDS Church got his start within the LDS hierarchy trying to keep Mormons from fighting against the same communism that another Mormon, Ezra Taft Benson, vehemently wrote and lobbied against. When Americans faced the communist overthrow of South Korea by a communist North Korea, it was Gordon B. Hinckley who was charged with keeping Mormon men immune from the draft in that war.

During the Vietnam war, Mormons were resolute in their support for the war, but also equally resolute in protecting their youth from the draft through religious deferment, i.e. missions. My uncle, a prime candidate for the infantry found safety behind this deferment as did many other Mormons.

But here we stand, with an unpopular war (outside of Utah) fought in Iraq and a still supported war in Afganistan against the supporters of those who attacked us on 9/11/2001. So where is the support from Mormon church leaders for these conflicts? During World War II, the missionary program was suspended and Mormons were encouraged to support the war against our sovereignty. What about now? Mormons, from Utah, Idaho, Arizona, and Nevada seem to be the last full-hearted warriors in support of the ill-founded war on terror initiated by Bush. That is why Cheney found you as the ones he could address. But has the church encouraged their member's support in that conflict? I welcome information that suggests they did.

BYU is representative of the "chicken hawk" tradition. There were few if any protests of an ill-founded war in southeast asia on that campus. Why? Because, they had an out. Mitt Romney could have served in Quangtri, but he served in France. And now he is the brave warrior against tyranny, safe behind his trust fund and favored status.

BYU is Chicken Hawk Nation ground zero. And when someone asks "where the fuck are You?" when it comes to defending our nation in the "war on terror", they can safely say, "I was peddling religion door to door in Bolivia and it was the greatest two years of my life."

And I say, "your resolute courage against tyranny speaks volumes". "Volumes of paper devoid of ink."

My Christmas Gifts and What They Say

2008-12-30T12:47:00.000-08:00

Damn I'm a nerd.

It is true: I read, read and read. And my gifts for Christmas reflect that. $60 in giftcards from Barnes and Noble, as well as several books. Music? Let's see, Haydn's symphonies 99-104 and "The Essential Maynard Ferguson". Pfffft! Why didn't I ask for some AC/DC? I like AC/DC. Shit, what was I thinking? Hey I just swore. Maybe there is hope for me. Naw, I suck.

Remember I do when my Christmas gifts centered around having fun. Scuba equipment, ski equipment, fishing tackle, new golf clubs, a new wet suit, etc. What has happened to me? Marriage and it's responsibilities, raising children, often working two jobs, etc., seem to have taken some of the youthful starch out of my frame and my outlook. I used to inspire fear in the paint when playing ball. Now I can't even get my doctor to clear me to suit up. Son of a Republican!! This bites.

Back when I graduated from college, I was on the leading edge of technology. I took MacWorld magazine and I was well on my way to being a a techno-star. WTF, I have yet learned how to text message. I don't have a Wii, no less a PS2 or Nintendo DS. I have become the techno fossil my father became at my age. I feel like I'm about to start referring to youngsters as "whippersnappers." Ugh!

Even at my watering hole, I'm known for bringing in a book to read while I down ice tea. I look at our incoming President, a guy about my age, and how much more hip and with it he his compared to this broken down old cyber-jedi. A backward facing baseball hat I saw on him. I wouldn't get caught dead. He probably listens to R & B! And I listen to a guy who wore a wig. (gasp)

As an old appraiser, I understand the phrases chronologicial age and effective age. I fear my effective age may be ten years past my chronological age. So what to do? Tattoo? No thanks. Go into mid-life crisis mode (leave wife and kids, dye hair, buy a sports car, hang out with Unitarians, you get the picture)- No- ain't happening.

So how do I recharge my jets? How do I get my life back during tough economic times? I'm not sure I can. I need to find one or two of my old passions and pick them up again. If I don't, I'll be metaphorically in a walker in no time. So I vow to get back some that youthful vigor in 2009, even if it kills me (no don't say that). You know what I mean.

So if you see a heavily tattooed, slightly paunchy, middle-aged dufus rushing to board meeting adjusting the stud in his nose, with a backward facing baseball cap, you'll know I've gone too far.

Dawkins v. Scott- A Serious Dilemna

2008-12-26T22:34:00.000-08:00

Those who have read my posts understand that I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins. I found him through reading his remarkable book, "The Ancestor's Tale", and later found him expounding in "The God Delusion" the same ideas I espoused, but in a much more articulate manner.

But the issue I wish to address deals with how do we Americans manage to continue to battle Christian fundamentalists (young earth creationists) and market savvy Christians (Intelligent Design proponents) when they wish to suppress the teaching of the scientifically valid and validated theory of Charles Darwin regarding evolution and natural selection.

There have been biologists such as Eugenie Scott who have very capably and admirably defended evolution as a concept that is true, and not threatening to religious veiwpoints outside of the most radical literalist. Her efforts are laudable in providing a defense in the U.S.A., a very religious nation, of the teaching of evolution in the classroom.

Enter my hero Richard Dawkins. The Dawkinsian world view, is that a scientific viewpoint is incompatible with a religious viewpoint. At a foundational level, I agree with Richard Dawkins 100%. I view all religious viewpoints as hopelessly authoritarian in nature. How can you debate a scientific theory when someone answers, "but in 2nd Corinthians it says"...... you get the point.

However, I am also a pragmatist. Will people just discard their religious traditions in favor of reason and evidence? I hope so. I do everything I can to make it so, but I wonder whether it will ever happen in such a religious nation such as mine.

So let me say, I am torn. I have read enough to understand just how powerful and well-substantiated evolution by natural selection is. But I also understand just how powerful a hold traditional religions hold upon people, who may be inclined to accept evolution. Chief among these are my old compatriates in the Mormon faith. Their willingness to grant biblical interpretations to allegories or interpretation has led BYU, a Mormon University, to have a robust Biology and Geology department, and to have several world class Mormon scientists. Do I take Dawkins as gospel and alienate these religious scientists?

I honestly struggle with this. The first professor I ever had, was the Chemist Dr. Henry Eyring, for which the Chemistry building at the University of Utah is currently named. He wrote a rather interesting book, "The Faith of a Scientist" that I read many years ago.

Like many religious scientists, he struggled between the rational methods of science and in the idea of revealed truth. He was the brother-in-law of the Mormon "prophet" Spencer W. Kimball. He was a highly intelligent man, and he was a very effective teacher. To this day, having only had one Chemistry class, I remember details from the class I had from him in 1980.

So ultimately, I struggle between my convictions and my sense of pragmatism. Is it better to have 40% of Christians believing in the efficacy of evolution, or to have a whopping 25% accepting the Dawkinsian world view that science and religion are incompatible? The percentages may be different. I only put them in for rhetorical purposes. But I struggle with where to place my own energy.

Surprising Gift to Friends

2008-12-24T19:51:00.000-08:00

Over at Richard Dawkin's website, there is posted an interview from a reporter for the BBC with Richard Dawkins, Britain's most famous and outspoken atheist about whether he celebrates Christmas. His interview really resonated with my own personal experience. Dawkins said in so many words, "I very much enjoy Christmas and have no trouble telling everyone I meet, Merry Christmas." I'm sure that threw many people off, thinking he would out of some principled animosity refuse to go along with others wishing to celebrate.

I sort of do the same thing. Holidays are what you make of them. The basic premise behind Christmas, a new birth, hope, joy, brother/sisterhood, etc., are certainly things I'm willing to celebrate. My wife, a devout Lutheran, gives the holiday her own sense of meaning, while I give it mine, but I enjoy Christmas as much as anyone.

We atheists are sometimes criticized unfairly when we criticize religion. The ideas themselves we view as open to debate and ridicule if they hold no merit. However, no atheist I know would like to tear down beautiful cathedrals, or wish to ban the playing of religious music. In fact, I am a great fan of religious music, particularly the classics.

So it must have been a little disarming, when I delivered my Christmas present to my friends at the local watering hole, who know I am an outspoken atheist. It was a cd I recorded from my playlist of some of my favorite religious music from 1500-1785. Josquin des prez, to Carl Philip Emmanuel Bach, with Bach's father Johann Sebastian, Handel, Gabrieli, Schutz, Charpentier, and others thrown in. I wonder what they thought about getting religious music from an atheist. For all I know, they may not even like the music, and that would be ok, but I took music that I found very moving from my rather rare collection of albums, most of which are no longer in print, and decided to share them with my beer and wine swilling friends.

Who knows, I may have given them a shock, or I may have given them something that will give them the same sense of awe that I have. One chorus on the cd is one mentioned by Richard Dawkins as one he finds especially inspiring from Bach's cantata BWV 147. If Dawkins, an even more outspoken atheist than me could find inspiration in Bach's religious cantatas, I certainly don't feel any alarm that I should also feel equal inspiration.

Happy Holidays from This Atheist

2008-12-16T16:47:00.000-08:00

Especially, I send season's greetings to Utah's prominent wingnut Sen. Chris Buttars, Bill O'Reilly and others who are seeking an exclusive celebration of the season for their own mythologies, namely Christmas. Good ole Christmas, December 25 specifically originally was the birthdate of the Zoroastrian god-man Mithrais. Many of the ancient God-men were born on the winter solstice, representing re-birth, and common theme among the ancient "pagan" religions.

Even to an atheist such as myself, the idea of celebrating "rebirth" has a certain allure. The idea that the darkest of the long dark nights has ended, and the amount of daylight will progressively increase until the peak of the summer solstice. It is a time of reflection, regarding what was accomplished this year, and what was left undone. It is a time to reflect upon those things that provided meaning and joy during the past year. Belief in deity is not necessary to celebrate the season. Uniting in celebration with others for a season that represents giving, brotherhood, and rebirth should be something that unites not divides. When someone like Senator Buttars comes along and devalues the experience of others wanting an exclusive franchise upon the season, it highlights his own myopic exclusivism and a disregard for others who may think differently.

During this season, as in all seasons, I seek to find the best in people and to promote peaceful coexistence. Because of this, I am giving Sen. Buttars a free pass. He is a victim of childhood indoctrination and most likely intolerant and harsh parents. So I hope Sen. Buttars has a very enjoyable holiday season. When he convenes in January as a Senator and seeks to use the apparatus of the state to impose his beliefs on others, I will speak out against him in the most strongest terms I can. But in the meantime, to everyone, I wish you all an enjoyable holiday season, even Sen. Buttars. And if telling Sen. Buttars, Merry Christmas, will soften his grinchy heart and bring him into the fold of sane humanity, I say to Sen. Buttars, Merry Christmas.

AWE!!!!

2008-12-09T20:00:00.000-08:00

That feeling of awe, that all of us experience is an incredible aspect of being human. Many interpret that experience as spiritual, otherworldly and a manifest piece of evidence that there is a God watching over us.

I've experienced awe on many occasions. I remember the first time I saw waves crash upon the beach at my grandmother's beach house on the coast of Oregon. The thought that the water before me was part of such a great and magnificient ocean, extending from where I was to Asia, gave me a sense of awe. My grandmother used to collect glass buoys from Japan. What a sense of awe to see buoys that floated clandestinely from Japan to the shores of Oregon.

I also remember the first time I heard Bach's Tocatta and Fugue in D minor. At that time, it wasn't associated to me with some evil genius or some dark mansion. But as a little boy, I was enthralled by the power of that music and I had recurring dreams incorporating that wonderful piece of organ music.

I also experienced a sense of awe attending religious services where the music was especially inspiring. I can understand all these years later looking back at my religious experiences how awe was used to market human emotions within the framework of religious belief. Though I found religious beliefs implausible, the awe of the religious experience easily trumped the reason behind my inherent skepticism.

However, I also found that entirely non-religious experiences also gave me a sense of awe. Looking into the amazing erosional chasm of the Grand Canyon or the Canyonlands of Utah and Arizona, I found a power in nature to inspire this sense of awe. I found awe in geological and biological knowledge, particularly in Darwin's wonderful theory regarding evolution through natural selection. I found awe-inspiring the realization that I am not God's chosen organism for whom this world was created, but in the knowledge that I am cousins, not only with the neighbors I share a barbecue, but the tree upon which my yard draws shade.

I still stand in awe of the amazing beauty and diversity of the world upon which I live. I gain personal sustenance from simple things like seeing a hummingbird feeding from a flower, or from a robin feeding upon the grasshoppers that prey upon my pepper plants. I still feel a sense of awe when I remember the first time I heard Bach's Dona Nobis from his Mass in b minor, or in Gabrieli's In ecclesias. I remember the awe I felt when I held each of my beloved daughters in my arms for the first time, and I stand in awe that I still stand in awe with their embrace to this day.

I have been an atheist for many years. But I have never lost that human sense of awe for those things that give me meaning. I've never lost that sense of awe when I learn something new that is interesting. And I have never lost that sense of awe at how rewarding it is to provide service to others.

Yes. Awe is awesome. Just saying.

The New Atheists- Some Thoughts

2008-11-25T16:16:00.000-08:00

A great sign of optimism for those of us who think the existence of God is highly improbable, has been the release of a series of books challenging the existence of God as well as challenging the existing paradigm that criticizing unsubstantiated religious belief is taboo and intolerant. Certainly the most effective of these books is “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins. Prior to reading “The God Delusion”, my main understanding of Professor Dawkins came from his amazing book, “The Ancestor’s Tale”, a fascinating travel guide back to the beginnings of life on earth, with humans meeting up with their cousins along the way. Dawkins writes in a way that draws you in and provides fascinating insights into elements of natural selection and how we all have evolved over time.

As for “The God Delusion”, Dawkins makes some fascinating arguments that when I first read the book provided many “aha” moments as Dawkins eloquently put into words, what I have been thinking for many years but was powerless to articulate. One of his finest arguments is against the notion promoted by Stephen Jay Gould of “non-overlapping magisteria” or NOMA if you will. Dawkins makes a convincing proposition, that the existence of God is a scientific question, because a universe with a God would look and act much differently than a universe without one. Dawkins also addresses the common arguments for the existence of God and shoots them down like clay pidgeons at a gun range. “The God Delusion” is one of my favorite books and I’ve borrowed it out to several individuals who have read it and found inspiration from it.

Also among these new atheists is a young PHD student named Sam Harris who has written two fine and provocative books, “The End of Faith” and “Letter To A Christian Nation.” Going after faith with a sort of “shock and awe” approach, Harris points out the degree to which religion, superstition and faith undermine our species and our nation in the U.S. He points quite convincingly to the inherent danger we face where people who believe in a God whose return is imminent also possess in their military the arsenal capable of ending the existence of our species. Like Dawkins, he bristles at the idea that someone’s religious belief should somehow gain an exemption from critical scrutiny anymore than ideas regarding economics, politics or history should face such an exemption. All in all, Harris does a good job in layman’s terms to show the reader the degree of danger faith-based thinking threatens our civilization.

Daniel Dennett, in “Breaking The Spell”, takes a more subtle approach to engaging people of a religious bent. He tries to say, “let’s sit down and reason together and talk this through and you’ll see I’m right and you’re wrong.” There is much to commend about this book, but at times I kept thinking, “if reason isn’t the prism through which you view reality, what is the point of reasoning with these people.” Perhaps it is my pessimistic nature and because I understand just how firmly religion holds one’s intellect away from the light of rationality.

The other major player among the “new atheists” is the journalist Christopher Hitchens. I have not read his book “God is Not Great” though it is certainly on my list. In his public appearances, sometimes Hitchens sounds a little too sure of himself, something all people of a scientific disposition tend to look at with a certain skepticism. However, he does make a lot of good points. Not as soft-spoken IRL as Dawkins, Harris or Dennett, Hitchens speaks his mind with a touch of sarcastic wit that is fun to watch. However, Hitchens sometimes talks when he should listen. But he does have a lot to say and it is generally quite entertaining.

At the links below, I recommend these two videos. The first is a discussion among “The Four Horsemen” of the new atheism that takes about two hours. The second is a very fine lecture by Richard Dawkins at UC Berkeley talking about his book, “The God Delusion”.

http://newatheists.org
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2989,Richard-Dawkins-Lecture-at-UC-Berkeley,Richard-Dawkins

Prop 8 in California- My Thoughts

2008-11-24T22:18:00.000-08:00

Admittedly, I keep asking myself in what way did gay marriage threaten the LDS Church and their interpretation of marriage within the religious realm of their covenants made between men and women within the religious realms of their temple.

In my former life, I have attended numerous temple marriages, including the marriage of my sister to my brother in law, administered by then apostle Thomas S. Monson. Admittedly, that is the first and last time I have shaken the hand of this "prophet in waiting" who is notorious for his faith promoting stories of "the widow who sold her first borne and her life savings for the one and only true gospel of Jesus Christ."

Like a Paul H. Dunn on steroids, who knows whether his stories are true, the important thing is that they are inspiring and faith attesting (their are few/zero auditors verifying his stories).

Now let me say something about gay people. For the record, I prefer to a great degree females. I find guys to be icky. But I can only assume that the same attraction that puberty gave me for the curves and biochemistry of women must also be prevalent among my fellow gays towards the gender I am a member of. How a guy could forgo attraction to women escapes me from personal experience, but personal exp;erience also tells me that all humans are disparate, and I do my best to put myself into their shoes as best I can given the limitations of my own experience.

Frankly, I find that society provides few positive benefits to being homosexual, and a barrage of negative effects. I can only assume that homosexuality has evolved within our species for a reason, and that punishing those born this way is irrational, counterproductive, and ultimately cruel and averse to my basic instincts for fairness and equal treatment under the law. The only basis I have found for harming gays comes from the irrational ramblings of the Jewish God Yawheh, whom I admittedly agree with Richard Dawkins in his conlusion that this God is not worthy of our worhip, but should be jailed for crimes against humanity(ok, I took liberties but read his start to his second chapter of his "God Delusion")

Gays are people with rights. They are people who only want to be treated equally under our law. The LDS Church told them loudly and clearly that they don't believe them to be equal, but inferior. The LDS Church in their vain attempt at aligning themselves with evangelical Christians showed themselves to be nothing more than an evil manifestation of our nation's worst instincts, not a leader in the direction of tolerance and understanding. Prop 8 in California exposed the LDS Church for what it is, a tax exempt right-wing and extremist element within our body politic. The anger of so many against the church may be classified as hate crimes, but I would classify the church's actions as worthy of eliminating their tax exemption.

The LDS Church not only took a moral statement, they made a statement of intent, to deprive American citizens who happen to be gay of equal treatment under our laws. Among the axis of evil, the LDS Church showed themselves to be deeply imbedded within that superstructure. They showed unequivocably, that they intend to use the apparatus of the state to impose their own religious values upon the rest of our Republic. I find that deeply reprehensible. I get really angry when people who contribute to this maliscious organization can reduce their tax liabilities through their donations to this member of the axis of evil.

We as citizens have treated religious entities as "charitable" when in reality, they are blatantly political, and inherently immoral in their views of liberty and equal treatment under our laws. For our nation to continue to treat such organizations such as the LDS Church as exempt under tax structure, we endorse the worse kinds of bigotry that devalued other homo sapiens under the realms of slavery and under the yoke of "separate but equal". The LDS CHurch has consistently, despite their claims to divine inspiration, to be on the darker side of liberty and equality. They should not be under any circumstances be exempt from federal income taxes, nor should they be exempt from state property taxes. The LDS Church which should have hid behind their illusion of charitableness have twice reared their ugly heads of sexism (opposition to the ERA) and bigotry (funding of Prop 8) and have showed them worthy of the deepest scorn among those of use who truly value liberty and equal protection under the law.

The Mormon Temple Ceremony- Observations

2008-08-25T08:52:00.001-07:00

Don't worry, I'm not going to give a step by step replay or divulge all the faux sacred details that Mormons get uncomfortable with when they are divulged. There are plenty of places on the internet to get details like that so I won't cover those. What this post seeks to explain, is what the role of the temple ceremony, the "endowment" in particular, plays within the overall Mormon theology and culture.

First of all, when someone goes through the endowment ceremony for the first time, their usual reaction is utter shock. Perhaps there are those who are not, but my guess is that if put to a lie-detector test, they would fail if they said they weren't. There is a significant disconnect between what goes on in the temple, and what goes on in the ward or stake house.

In the Mormon temple ceremony, one does not wear the clothes they normally do, and their apparel alters from room to room. The ceremony is a progression from the pre-existence, to the foundational developments of earthly existence, and to a allegorical progression to exaltation and what steps are required to meet that lofty goal. The temple ceremony ties one ever more securely within the LDS Church, as the church through the ceremony strengthens the notion, that only through adherence and devotion to the church organization, does one receive the highest celestial awards eternity has to offer.

The way this is conveyed is that the temple ceremony provides an education on exactly what knowledge one must have to enter into celestial bliss. There are special handshakes, tokens and vows/oaths/covenants that are taken and the temple ceremony gives you the sort of bus pass to get to your prescribed destination. The vows you make in the temple are the most cementing aspect of the ceremony. You devote all you have to the church and to the building of the kindgom. Vows/oaths are powerful things. Most humans, even if recognizing the invalidity of a vow, feel compelled to them because they made them. I often wonder how many closet doubters still remain active due to the vows they made in a temple ceremony.

The culmination of the ceremony is going into what is called "the Celestial Room." Mormons go through a veil, whereby the reveal their knowledge that they learned in the ceremony, which allows them to enter this room, which is elegently attired with white and crystaline colors and fixtures.

The ceremony has changed somewhat over the years. The early temple ceremony included an oath to avenge the blood of the prophet Joseph Smith. Up until around 1990, the program included ceremonial oaths to either slit one's throat or disembowel themselves should they reveal to someone the information they received to cross the veil. I don't know if they still have a prayer group that says "pay lay ale" or not. I haven't been in the temple since 1989.

The disconnect between the normally reserved and formal regular church meetings and the temple ceremonies seems almost creepy at first. I think many Mormons manage to put it aside and try to focus on the things the church means to them. In a future post, I will discuss the role getting people "worthy" of attending the temple plays within the Mormon religion.

My Fatigue of Late

2008-08-06T13:04:00.000-07:00

On July 24, I found myself in a hospital bed with a gnarly case of cellulitis. I have since recovered, but have felt really fatigued ever since. I've been tired and have had a difficult time concentrating. Though I've been able to post over at my political blog http://www.theutahhornetsnest.blogspot.com , I've mostly neglected my social/religious/cultural blog here behind the zion curtain.

Part of my trouble at this blog, is that to some extent, this blog has served it's purpose, which was for me to talk through the issues I have with Mormonism so I can move on. I've also wanted to provide through this blog information for those who may have questions of an exmormon and why I left the faith.

There was a time, when I felt betrayed by a church that I believed had been deceitful and misrepresented it's past, and ruthlessly used it's power over it's members. I felt I had been played for much of my life, and perhaps wanted to take a chunk out of the church hierarchy they'd never forget. But in the end, I have a difficult time disliking people, and I've always held most Mormons to be my closest friends and associates.

So, I'm struggling with where to go next. I have recovered from Mormonism for the most part. I have other areas to work on, other interests to explore, other discoveries to make in fields unrelated to religion, Mormonism or even Utah's culture. So if I should post on some wierd stuff that seems out there and atypical of my examinations of Mormonism posts, just know my mind is wandering into new, healthier and less charted territories for this blog.

The Role of Status in Mormonism

2008-07-28T13:57:00.000-07:00

Looking at Mormonism from the outside, certain elements of Mormon culture become more clear and recognizable and begin to explain other observations I may have made. Culturally, Mormonism is part of the “Puritan diaspora.” Looking at Mormon Church founder’s genealogy, you see that Joseph Smith Sr.’s family came from Massachusetts, Topsfield and Rowley specifically. Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph’s mother’s family came from the area around New London, Connecticut. As for other early prominent church members who remained with the church through it’s early formative years:

Brigham Young- Massachusetts and New Hampshire
Heber C. Kimball- Massachusetts and Connecticut
Wilford Woodruff- Connecticut
Franklin D. Richards- Massachusetts and Connecticut
John Taylor- England
Lorenzo Snow- Connecticut and Massachusetts
Orson Pratt- Connecticut, Massachusetts & upstate NY

Part of this puritan tradition is the idea of pre-destination. Mormons have a slightly altered version of this called foreordination. This idea is that the elect of God is predetermined to some extent prior to human earthly existence. I was told growing up, that because I was born during the “fullness of the gospel” to a good latter day saint family, I was of a special heritage and had a great responsibility to build the kingdom.

Part of this cross-over between pre-mortal existence and mortal standing, is that righteousness, both pre-mortal and mortal reap benefits. Success will follow those who follow the prophets. The trappings of success, living in the nicest neighborhoods, living in the nicest houses and driving the nicest cars are within Mormon culture a sign that the Lord as blessed you. Such admittals are often heard during "Fast and Testimony Meeting" of how blessed they are. Living in one of the “celestial wards” (you can guess where they are) is a sign that you have followed the path you should have.

Add on top of financial standing is the role of dynastic relationships. Mormonism as a culture is influenced strongly by who your ancestors are and whether you have prospered (or atleast appeared to have). This culture makes Mormons some of the most ambitious individuals you will ever meet. It is no wonder that Mormons accomplish more than their numbers sometimes warrant.

The dark side to this is that it also explains what sometimes appears among Mormons to have an almost pathological lack of empathy and a tendency to blame the victim of misfortune. You see that lack of empathy on full display on message boards for local news outlets such as KSL.com and Desnews.com. If good fortune is the result of righteousness, you can guess the corollary.

Note, that Mormon theology in many ways is different than prominent cultural elements within Mormonism. An ongoing theme of the Book of Mormon is people becoming prideful because of their wealth and prosperity, only to be brought down to earth by God and his prophets. The church organization itself does much to help the poor, both in this country and in other countries.

However, the ideal promulgated by the church leadership, is sometimes in disharmony with Mormon scripture. The picture of an ideal Mormon to the faithful, is not a Mother Theresa like figure, but of an immaculately dressed business-man with a navy blue or charcoal gray suit, with a power tie, and spotless black dress shoes. I don't picture many Mormon apostles doling out food at soup kitchens. They see their role as financing the soup kitchen.

Mormonism is about getting ahead in whatever organization a guy belongs to because that fight to the top represents the greater battle to become, not just a CEO, but a God. In a world of such hubris, it is easier to understand Mormon culture and recognize why Mormonism is potent as a force as far as motivating it’s members to achievement.

Why the gloves have to come off

2008-06-20T22:12:00.001-07:00

Today, the House of Representatives passed a bill that legalized illegal behavior. Democrats and Republicans both supported this bill. Our executive branch, if this measure passses the Senate, will be legislatively cleared of all wrong-doing, not because they didn't violate the law, but because lock-step Republicans and weak-willed Democrats wouldn't hold them accountable.

The very constitutional framework that Madison and Jefferson and others toiled over has now been abrogated by political cowardice. We are not a nation of laws. We are a nation of fears. Fear does not inspire, it paralyzes. We have rendered our U.S. Constitution null and void over fear of a bunch of long-bearded religious nutjobs who just managed to successully bitch-slap us.

I can't recall a time when I've felt such anger and repulsion. Our Constitution is being decimated by a corrupt, malignant and fear-mongering executive and all I hear are the chirps of crickets. Even from Utah bloggers whom I respect.

Somewhere, somehow, we have lost what we are as a nation. Utahns, who hold to the myth of some Mormon leader saving our Constitution when it was holding by a thread, seem to be the people holding the scissors ready to cut. It's like a parody and a tragedy all combined in a drama of both deceit and apathy. Americans got the government they deserved. On this day, I am embarrassed to be an American.

What do right-wing bloggers think? What is their justification for this act, that all but one of their representatives supported. Can you justify it. Fire away. I welcome your response. Tell me why this is a good thing. But the cricket chirps suggest that you are all just mindless followers of tyranny. Chirp away.

Posting from Niagara

2008-06-04T06:46:00.001-07:00

What a culture shock. I keep looking at all the water falling over the falls and asking, "how many Colorado Rivers could fit in there." Living in the desert makes on appreciate water. The smallest sliver of the Niagra River would double Utah's agricultural output. Like my desert trapped ancestors, I've always been fascinated by rivers, particularly the big ones. The Mississippi, the Ohio, the Missouri, the Columbia, Snake, you name them. Rivers carry water and sentiment large distances and transform the land. Rivers are indeed fascinating to me on many levels.

Luckily, I am able to share this experience with my oldest daughter who is out of school and able to attend the conference with me here in Niagara. What a great opportunity to spend some quality Daddy/Daughter time and let her see an area she has never seen before. It also gives her an opportunity to meet people from other states. I hope this is an experience she will always carry with her.

I'll post more when I get back.

Cheese Steaks and Bobby Flay

2008-05-18T22:31:00.000-07:00

My name is Obi, and I am a cookaholic.

Ok, let me explain. I love to cook. My day job generally is about meetings, objectives and performance measures. There is little tangible to this existence. One of Karl Marx's criticisms of capitalism was that it alienated mankind from the final product. Man became a machine in the process, not someone who placed their stamp upon a procuct from beginning to end. And as a result, man became more machine than man under capitalism and essentially lost his/her soul.

There is some truth to that when you are managing large numbers of people as I am. So when I seek to overcome the alienation that Marx insightfully claimed would reduce my spirituality and my connection to actual procuction, I on my off-time focus on the tangible. To me the tangible is baking bread, gardening, and cooking stuff not based upon recipes, but upon a reckless willingness to improvise.

Last week, I had marinated t-bones in worstershire sauce in anticipation of providing my DW with a Mother's Day meal of steaks hot off the grill. However, my wife found herself hunched over with gall bladder issues and I had to rush her off to the hospital. Three days later, I still hadn't cooked those well-marinated steaks, so I decided to offer my gall bladder-less wife a philly-cheese steak sandwich plush with butter sauteed orange peppers and yellow onions. Hesitant to eat much, my wife asked me to cut the sandwich in half. I complied. However, when I checked on her, she had devoured both halves. She has now recovered from her gall bladder removal and wants me to cook her philly cheese steaks later this week. I'm honored that she wants me to cook for her something she found so palable earlier.

To me, cooking is about service. You try to please people and tittilate their taste buds. During the day, I'm a stodgy number cruncher and overseer. But I'm amazed how gratifying it is to have people swoon over a culinary creation of mine. On the
"Food Network", one of my favorite shows is "Showdown with Bobby Flay". A great chef, Bobby Flay seeks out those who are very good at what they do and challenges them to a throwdown. He tries to outdo what these masters of their domain do. But what is apparent, is that he genuinely admires the individuals he challenges. As an accomplished chef, he gives these co-horts a serious challenge, but amazingly, he seems to lose more often than he wins. But that seems to him as nothing more than a platform to praise the wonderful cooks he faces.

Ya know, I respect Bobby Flay, because he uses his celebrity status to recognize and appreciate the quality of those who serve us with incredible culinary deights. And frankly, I like good food. And we in this great country often don't appreciate the degree to which we all benefit from people who have figured out how to make food taste good. And to those who cook great food out there, I say thank you.

Mormonism and Homosexuality

2008-05-16T21:43:00.000-07:00

When puberty hit, I was amazed at the degree to which I was attracted to females. There seemed to be something chemical and deeply internal to that attraction. A similar attraction was absent for individuals of the same gender. I had friends who were male whom I had a deep and significant relationship with, whom I had zero sexual attraction to. It wasn't a striking looking guy who made me virtually drive off the road, but females with even modest features.

Because of this, I can only assume that people attracted to the same sex most likely did not choose that attraction, but were born with it. As I've got to know people who are attracted to people of the same gender, I've developed an empathy for them and their plight. And as I've thrown off of the yoke of prejudice that came from my shared beliefs of bronze-age tribesmen who demonized homosexuals in the Old Testament, I've become a rather outspoken advocate for gay rights. And by the way, the last fist fight I got into had to do with this issue, and I cleaned the clock of a couple of homophobes at the gymn who thought calling people fags was AOK.

And, this admittedly pits me against those who would like to use religious dogma to demonize homosexuality. When the LDS Church, given their tax exempt status, decided to implicity support Amendment 3 to the Utah Constitution regarding gay marriage, there was a part of me that wanted to take the gloves off. When an organization wants to use their influence to affect the lives of people who mean no harm to them, I get a bit irritated. And when conservatives use a hatred of gays as a means of securing political power, I feel like I have to speak out. It was a hatred of jews that helped Hitler gain power. Authoritarians by nature need a "them" to rally around in their self-righteous opposition. One of my missions is to oppose authoritarian hatred and demonization of those different from the norm. And also it is to oppose those who would wish to glorify with some sort of deified mandate a willingness to use the apparatus of the state to harm gays and lesbians or anyone else whom their dogma singles out as somehow "unworthy".

I'm not wearing a nametag nor do I carry a quad and a flipchart, as I did in a former life. But I do carry a genuine concern for all humans whether they are like me, or are wired differently. For the record, let me say, that the Mormon Church's opinion on homosexuality is deplorable and unfortunate. Their influence is pervasive and widespread and it bodes the question, can I support gay rights, without tearing into those who contribute to an organization that enables, and using tax exempted funds, to deprive American citizens of their right to equal treatment under the law?

This has been a hard question for me. Most of the people I hold dear are Mormons. Yet the organization they support seems intent on using their tax exempt status to use the apparatus of the state and to even add constitutional provisions to deprive fellow citizens of their civil rights. And that makes me angry on many levels. Lincoln in his debates against Douglas argued that depriving the rights of one individual is to deprive the rights of all. I agree with Lincoln on this point.

If the Mormon Church continues to use their influence to deprive gays of equal rights under our laws, I believe they should no longer be exempt from the taxes that they are exempt from. That includes federal and state income taxes, property taxes under Utah's Constitution Section XIII, and sales tax they are granted under title 59of Utah's state statutes. It won't happen because our legislature nor our courts would base their interpretations or statutes on the basis of the rule of law, when it comes to an institution that they have all sworn fealty to in the temple (an oath I also gave).

But whenever the LDS Church does decide to violate the basis for their tax exemptions under federal and state law, by seeking to deprive American citizens who happen to be homosexuals of equal treatment under the law, they can count on this blogger to call them on it. And I hope this isn't seen as disrespectful to true believing Mormons, only a challenge to the institutional opinions of a corporation that seems to have a great deal of influence in the state in which I reside and pay taxes. For my devotion is to liberty and justice for all, not liberty and justice for whomever the prophet and the quorum of the twelve decide are worthy of that honor.

Evolution and Mormonism- My Take

2008-05-02T15:16:00.000-07:00

Notwithstanding the animosity there has been at times between BYU’s Biology Dept. and Religion Dept., Mormons are generally more open to the idea of Darwinian evolution than many other devout faiths. Even so, many church leaders considered evolution to be anathema to gospel principles. Perhaps the most outspoken against evolution were Joseph Fielding Smith and his son-in-law Bruce R. McConkie. However, other church leaders took a less dogmatic position. James E. Talmadge and John A. Widtsoe for example thought Darwin’s theory to be quite sound and compelling. They didn’t see anything wrong with believing in Mormon doctrines and accepting evolution as a plausible and likely reality.

As a Mormon missionary however, I often found myself in the minority (I know this is a shocking revelation) that I found evolution to be quite an interesting and sound explanation for the origin of the various species found on the planet, including humans. One companion told me that such a belief was not supported by the scriptures and he made a good point. In 1st Corinthians 15:21 Paul wrote “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.” This clearly links man’s fall with the beginning of death. If death was man’s doing, than how can evolution occur without mankind’s creation? How can Hominids have evolved into their various species, including humans, if death had yet to occur?

However, Mormons have always had certain caveats in their interpretive abilities as far as their scriptures. Under the Articles of Faith, Joseph Smith claimed for his church that “We believe the bible to be the word of God so long as it is translated correctly.” Mormons have also treated their scriptures as slightly fluid, having altered the Book of Mormon on more than one occasion. Many Mormons flexibly take scriptures with far less literalism than many Nicene Christians. A problem for Christians has always been that their scriptures are often contradictory. Many Mormons have been able to accept this with the idea, that additional information, whether from science, or from modern revelation, may provide clarity at some time in the future. If science may contradict a strict interpretation of scripture, than perhaps the scripture must be able to be interpreted in another, less concrete way.

As mentioned in my previous post, Mormons also don’t find their theology tied as concretely to the Genesis story, in terms of original sin that strictly interpreting Nicene Christians find themselves. Though the Mormon temple play deals in allegorical terms with the creation, it doesn’t take much for Mormons to see that the objective of the play is to bind the participant through a series of oaths to devotion to the church and it’s hierarchy, rather than seeking to clarify the nature and means by which creation actually occurred.

In this regard, Mormonism is an interesting faith. That a faith that was built upon the idea of modern revelation and strict obedience to authority, would also leave room for multiple interpretations and for unsettled ambiguity is truly fascinating. The result of which is an open-ness to the idea that all knowledge has not been revealed, and may in fact be found in sources outside of scripture or revelation. This trump card allows Mormons to use and accept certain elements of the scientific paradigm, while also believing in a God who speaks through his representatives on earth. Though I would argue that there is an inherent disconnect between these paradigms, Mormons have been able to bridge (or you might argue overlook) that disconnect in creative ways.

What it does do, however, is create a certain amount of discord and disagreement within the ranks of Mormons depending upon their tendency to strictly interpret scripture. And anyone who has observed a priesthood lesson gone awry discussing these two perspectives will recognize that Mormons are not in agreement on the principle of evolution. And the door is open for strict constructionists such as Sen. Chris Buttars and Eagle Forum head Gayle Ruzika to claim evolution as unsound and in contradiction to the word of God. And equally true it is, that someone who openly indicates that Darwin was right, will not be denied a temple recommend nor will be kept from holding significant callings within the LDS Church.

BTW, BYU has a fine Biology Department which teaches evolution. I'm pretty sure that Bob Jones University does not. From Bob Jones U's website "While most secular biologists are committed to evolution as the basic principle of biology, Bob Jones University trains Christian biologists who see the living world indelibly marked with the fingerprints of God...." Say no more.

Evolution's Challenge to Nicene Christianity

2008-05-01T12:19:00.001-07:00

In this country, it amazes me the number of individuals who still regard evolution as "just a theory." It's also interesting that there is a perception that scientists are really split on whether evolution as outlined by Charles Darwin is a reality. The evidence for evolution is compelling on many levels. When Darwin came up with his theory, many scientific disciplines were in their infancy, such as geology, biology, genetics, etc. Since Darwin released his theory, the evidence has mounted from the growing volume of data from multiple disciplines that have corroborated the theory. It is interesting, that using Darwin's theory as a foundation, great advances in other disciplines have been made possible.

It is important to note that Darwin based little of his theory upon the fossil record which at that time was extremely rare and inaccessible. Since Darwin's theory, mounds of fossil evidence have found the intermediary species linking numerous species with most likely common ancestors. DNA evidence has also been a critical component showing how close or distant different species are from each other.

The source of the resistance to the realities of evolution in my opinion come from the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the United States. Those Christians who take the Bible and it's inherent theology literally see evolution for what it is, a serious threat to their core beliefs. Nicene Christianity gives great importance to events within the Garden of Eden. All men (humans) are sinners, born that way, due to Adam's fall from grace. The importance of these events means that a rejection of this doctrine unravels the very core of Nicene Christianity. Man being born into debt immediately needs someone to redeem them, the role played by Jesus Christ. Interestingly, Mormons who believe that men are responsible for their own sins, "not for Adam's transgression" tend to have less difficulty with evolution but that is a story for another post.

The result of this has been a great effort on the part of Christian fundamentalists to try to discount evolution or to find ways of using our schools to introduce "competing theories" that could create doubt in the minds of the uninformed regarding the validity of evolution. Normally, these theories have little to no evidence to support them, but seek to find something critical of Darwinism, with the caveat, that if Darwinism isn't true, the Genesis story by default must be (an illogical fallacy).

A good book I recommend on this is "The Tower of Babel".

Time for a little celebration

2008-04-23T22:43:00.001-07:00

I noticed the other day that this blog received over 1,000 profile views. Hey, I'm relatively new to blogging. Admittedly I'm very opinionated and passionate about the things important to me. But I have to admit that I feel honored that so many have observed my blog and commented on it. Even receiving so much feedback from those whom I disagree with, I am encouraged that the free flow of ideas and dissent that John Stuart Mill eloquently advocated is a reality out here in cyber-space.

Let me offer my thanks to those who have observed this blog and have commented. I continue to learn from the comments of people I respect, even when I disagree with them on many levels. I deeply value the insights of Urban Koda, Frank Staheli, David Miller, Just Commenting, Danny, and others who have contributed to the discussions on this blog. I have learned more than I have given. Thanks for using this medium to help me understand your positions and why you believe the way you do. I feel a great sense of optimism in the fact that such discussions are not only possible, but happening.

Thanks for all those who have entered the discussion, even if you sought to demonize me. All discussion is useful and provides me with insights.

Take care, and may the farce be with you.

FLDS, LDS and the Texas Situation

2008-04-17T20:09:00.000-07:00

First of all, this is a disastor for the LDS Church. Though they may disavow these people, the FLDS church is a branch stemming from the same trunk and root system of 19th Century Mormonism. They aren't second cousins of mormons, but first cousins from two directions. The FLDS church refocuses Mormonism upon it's roots to the general U.S. public. Most of the actions of FLDS members are consistent with the actions of 19th Century Mormons and even early 20th Century Mormons. And not surprisingly, it shines a flashlight upon just how little mainstream Mormons understand about the history of their own religion.

Even after the Woodruff Manifesto, Wilford Woodruff took a plural wife. When Woodruff died, Lorenzo Snow tried to reign in polgamy and illegal cohabitation. His efforts came to naught because his own counselors, George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith undermined his efforts by continuing to authorize plural marriages, primarily in Colonia Juarez Mexico under the guidance of Anthony W. Ivins, future apostle and counselor, and apostles Mathias F. Cowley and John W. Taylor in Alberta Canada and in the underground in the U.S. When these activities came to light, Mathias Cowley and John W. Taylor took the fall for the actions of George Q. Cannon (who was now deceased) and Joseph F. Smith who perjured himself before the Smoot hearings in the United States Senate.

The things I have just articulated, most Mormons have no clue that they actually happened. That two apostles would go into hiding and resign from the quorum of the twelve in order to protect their "prophet" is quite telling of the insular power of Mormon roots. Is it any less surprising that others when confronted with Mormonism's ultimately giving in to civil authority and banishing the formerly sacred practice of polygamy, would harken back to the words of John Taylor, that to refute polygamy, is to refute Joseph Smith and his most significant teachings?

In the study of Mormon history, I never found much emphasis among seminary and institute teachers to examine what transpired during the periods from the late Taylor adminstration to that of the late Joseph F. Smith administration. I would conclude that there is a reason for that. Post manifesto polygamy, and it's promotion by Joseph F. Smith and George Q. Cannon in opposition to their prophet, Lorenzo Snow, is a compelling, yet disturbing period in Mormon history. The public lies, by those who claimed to speak for God, is breath-taking to say the least. To some degree that is Mormonism's heritage. The vision of John Taylor as a missionary in England piously extolling anyone who would accuse Mormons of such a maliscious practice as polygamy, all the while practicing it in the shadows in Nauvoo, is disturbing to say the least. The disconnect between what is on "http:familysearch.com" and what John Taylor claimed as a missionary in England is telling about the value 19th Century Mormons held for "the truth."

And as things develop in Texas, is it any wonder that law enforcement is concerned about duplicitous testimony of FLDS members? They in many ways are the "true Mormons" and are those who didn't reject the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Joseph's nephew Joseph F. Smith before he was caught in his duplicity.

I feel bad for the young women who are abused sexually and spiritually. Their salvation is dependent upon them sexually complying with church authority. They are 19th Century Mormons living in the 21st Century and cause an embarrassment to the current LDS Church because it focuses on their past rather than their present. The other challenge to the LDS Church, is that when you claim a divine restoration, when that restoration includes deviant and misleading behavior, you have to question the moral authority passed on to the current crop of leaders.

Thomas S. Monson was appointed an apostle by David O. McKay, who was appointed an apostle by the perjurious Joseph F. Smith (to replace Mathias F. Cowley) who undermined Lorenzo Snow and facilitated post-manifesto polygamy. Joseph F. Smith, while encouraging underground polygamous marriages, allowed two popular apostles to take the fall for his duplicitous behavior, one of which was replaced by David O. McKay. On what basis does Thomas S Monson claim authority from God when his direct predecessors were of such low caliber?

Ultimately, there was no restoration, because there probably was no Jesus to begin with. In this light, FLDS members are seriously messed up, myopic and delusional folks. But I would contend, that they are probably no less delusional than those who believe in magic underwear, jewish indians, and current revelational authority passed on by perjurious polygamasts. Atleast, that is my take.

Golf, Dress Codes, and Is this a Sport?

2008-04-08T20:29:00.000-07:00

During the last couple of days, I was down in St. George representing a financial institution I have an affilation with. I got up in the morning and put on some shorts, looking forward to a charity golf tournament I would participate in behalf of that financial institution. However, the temperature in the morning was a bit colder than I had anticipated, and I decided to put on some jeans. Showing up at the Entrada golf course, I was instructed that my presence was not welcome, unless I went back to my hotel and put on something that wasn't, denim related. Wow! My financial institution is working in tandem with this golf course and donating mucho dinero to a worthy cause, and I am instructed to go back to my hotel room and get some dockers, ironically made of the same fiber, cotton, that is contained in denim.

I did so, but I came to wonder, what is behind this nonsense? Is golf a sport, or just a game. If you are worried about dress code, I would suggest that if golf is a sport, it is a wussy sport. I was irritated, but frankly, because the event benefited native americans, and hey, the young ladies who were native americans melted my heart (they were cute, sincere and man they had amazing apparel on them)I rolled with the punches and played the game. It was a wonderful event. I got a free golf clinic from Johny Miller and I met some wonderful people. But I still am irritated that cotton colored in a certain color and texture is somehow considered unworthy by the log cabin association of St. George, because frankly, that is both gay and Republican, to be so worried about apparel and appearances.

Gasp, I played poorly, given this was my first golf outing of the year. But I had fun and felt good participating in a good cause, and relished playing a beautiful course. But then the next morning I played with some associates at Coral Canyon. Another incredible Utah golf course, which has some really tough holes. I showed up with my previously unused jeans, as well as a U.S. teeshirt with the flag prominently showing on it. And, guess what? On our fifth hole, my threesome was approached by the marshall, whom I graciously acknowledged, and was told that my flag centered teeshirt was not up to code and that only collared shirts were allowed on the prestigious Coral Canyon golf course.

O for two. I must not be much of a dresser. My flag dressed teeshirt means I am not a "gentleman" but riffraff worthy of expulsion. Well, they didn't go that far because I committed that at the turn, I'd put on a collared shirt. So after nine holes on this prestigious and fashion conscious golf course, I went into the gift shop and bought a shirt. Luckily, the V.P. I was playing with thought that such an expenditure was "business related" and put it on the company credit card. So I now have a new shirt, that I am actually wearing as I write this.

I love golf. There is nothing more therapeutic that smacking the hell out of a little white ball. My co-workers and subordinates will thank my financial institution for giving me this opportunity to smack that cursed ball. But my lord guys. If you want golf to be a sport, it ought to act and smell like one. "Gentle" men aren't men, they are fashion conscious, status seeking, girly men who mistake status for manhood. Manhood is about being! Status is about perceiving! There is too little manhood in Utah, and as I found out the hard way, there is too little manhood in St. George.

Get real girly men.

The Porch

2008-03-24T21:31:00.000-07:00

I live in a wonderful place. From my backyard, I see close up the majestic Oquirrh Mountains. From my porch, I see Deseret Peak and the Stansbury Mountains. My porch to a great degree is my sanctuary. I am an avid reader. The porch is where I do a great deal of my reading. Sitting on my bench, I read, birdwatch, human-watch, and read some more. I think about concepts and how they relate to each other. I think about multiple ironies that surround me. I think about the people close to me and how I can do something to somehow make their lives better. Simply, the porch is where I am who I am, not posturing, not playing any role asked of me, but being who I am, trying to think through and make sense of the world around me.

I love my porch. But I do have a funny story to share. I was reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and was really into the book. However, I was disturbed midstream by my wife that she wanted me to barbecue some steaks. I did so, loving steaks, and the smell of barbecued meat. But I forgot that I left "The God Delusion" on the porch. I went to bed, with the insights of Richard Dawkins banging around within the synapsis that make my brain, oblivious to the fate of my book.

When I got up the next day, there was two inches of snow on my porch, including "the God Delusion." Some of a religious bent might suggest that there was a supernatural influence that soggied my book. But believe me, it was sheer absent-mindedness. And when it was all said and done, the book was still legible, though not very attractive.

But still, I love my porch. It faces southwest, and the sun warms it early and often. It is a refuge from the noise of televisions, radios and stereos. It is where I go to think, read, discover and contemplate the world. I don't know where I'd be without my porch. Long live "the porch."

The God Delusion- A Book Review

2008-03-17T15:57:00.000-07:00

If there is an atheist trinity, I would put Richard Dawkins as the patri, Sam Harris staring as filio, and Holy (Christopher) Hitchens is cast as spiritu sancti. They through their various books formulate the most cogent and compelling arguments against a belief in the supernatural, which includes, a belief in God. And Dawkins poses the tough question, of why do we give such respect for religious ideas? Few serious scientists would take seriously the myths of Greek Gods, Zeus and Appollo, but because people actually believe in the just as improbable myths, why do we by default give respect to "men of faith?" A fair question.

Dawkins goes through all the reasons why people have articulated why there must be a God, and he pretty much shot down all those reasons, atleast within the paradigm of scientific reasoning. He spends alot of time talking about the Abrahamic religions and their God, Allah and Jehovah in great detail, and I think, soundly diagnoses the angry tribal God of the Old Testament as someone who shouldn't be worshipped, but thrown into solitary confinement. He also takes on the New Testament and the Quoran, showing that the deities presented in these holy books is not that much better than the Old Testament lunatic.

Particularly, he mentions that scholars of Islam, just like Christians do, have the problem of contradicting scriptures. In Islam, they solve the problem by putting greater weight on the later scriptures and less on the earlier ones. The result is, that those who teach Islam today give only passing attention to Mohammad's early career, when he talked of peace and unity, and focus on his later writings which were more dogmatic and militaristic.

Dawkins also does a good job of explaining the fundamental differences there are between a scientific intellectual paradigm, and one based upon faith. Unlike some scholars (Stephen Jay Gould comes to mind), Dawkins argues convincingly, that a truly rational person, can't think rationally in one context, and then think superstitiously in a different one. Notwithstanding the large number of great scientists who were men of faith, Dawkins paints a picture that these scientists succeed despite their faith, not because of it.

Dawkins in discussing the two paradigms, also points out the different roles criticism plays in science and faith. In faith, criticism of religious authority is considered a vile act and should be resisted. In science, criticism is the very mechanism by which new discoveries are made.

Dawkins is appropriately worried about a nation that has the most powerful military, should also possess a growing evangelical and fundamentalist religious trend. To what extent is our species in trouble when people who are prone to believe in the implausible, have the ability to destroy humanity? It's a tough and alarming question that is on the minds of many people.

Even if you are a religious person, I recommend this book. If for no other reason, I have the hope that all ideas are open to discourse, and should be challenged as forcefully, yet as civilly as possible. Whether we as a society are ready for that, I have my doubts.

Is it Worth It?

2008-03-10T20:53:00.000-07:00

There are days that I wonder whether it is worth it to speak out on the things I find profound and important. Don't think that this is some pity party. I would like to think that this is some realistic assessment of what I have tried to accomplish and where I have failed.

I do my best to challenge ideas and I try hard to try to make that challenge a rational challenge to just the ideas, not to those who believe in those ideas. But a post today on KSL.com made me step back and wonder whether I have failed in that attempt. The accusation was that I not only attacked ideas, but those who believed in those ideas. For the record, I love and care for alot of people who believe in alot of nonsense. I always have and I always will. But I wonder whether my challenging ideas is perceived as attacks on things that are so important to people that they internalize those attacks and consider them attacks on them.

When my opinions were challenged today at KSL.com, my responses were not allowed by the KSL moderators. If I am not allowed to address negative attacks on my posts, what is the point of posting in the first place? I'm hopeful that it was just a cyber-based technological failure. I'm still holding out that this is the case. But I will observe future posts and how they are treated.

At some point, I wonder whether it is worth it. I sense that the illegal immigration issue is driven by a xenophobic rascism, and I get battered and trolled when I address it as such. I take issue with Bush's foreign policy and people just don't want to disagree, they think I'm offensive or a troll or "un-american". What has happened in my native state that opposition is considered not a difference of opinion, but a treason to our Republic?

Sorry for the ramblings. But I am deeply concerned for the health of our Republic. And my experience at KSL.com has made me more concerned than I was before. I'm glad that I can post anonymously under the name "Obi wan liberali" because unfortunately, I wonder whether if I posted what I write IRL, I'd have to arm myself to the teeth.

Mormonism and Humanism

2008-02-29T20:32:00.000-08:00

One of the interesting aspects of Mormonism is the idea that humans can become Gods. Though many Mormon leaders seem to be ambivalent to this notion and back away from this historical belief, the Mormonism I grew up in made it clear, that we should seek perfection, because we were Gods in embryo.

This reality creates a double edge sword. On the one hand, it can create an inspiration to seek greatness. On the other hand, it magnifies failures and calls into question whether you as an individual are worthy of deification. Most Mormons I know are highly motivated. However, I've also sensed widespread depression and a feeling of inadequacy in people who are quite remarkable.

In some ways, Mormonism is quite humanistic, having a theological belief in human potential. The problem exists when otherwise normal and successful humans see their inadequacies and magnify them. To some extent, I'm surprised that Mormon leaders don't address this issue more.

I had a mother who was one of the most remarkable people I have ever met. However, for some reason, she was plagued with the notion that she wasn't quite meeting the Mormon standard. In addition to my mother, I watched close friends of mine who outperformed me academically, and in other areas, feel a great sense of inadequacy. For the benefit of it's members, I believe Mormon leaders must address this issue. However, I also recognize that keeping people in psychological debt to the one true church is profitable and essential for devotion to the Corporation of the President.

More than anything else, this issue is why I have a certain degree of animosity towards leaders of the LDS faith. The church willingly claims credit for the goodness of it's members, but when members fail, they are on their own. Just some random thoughts, but I worry about my siblings, nephews and neices and their mental health within the paradigm of Mormonism.

Sub-Standard Optical

2008-02-16T20:06:00.000-08:00

A warning to others. For two straight years, I have taken the bait of enlisting in program where I have money taken out of my paycheck and given to Standard Optical. This gives me reductions in the cost of the optical examination and reductions in the cost of the frames and lenses. However, what I've got in return has been, shall I say, "sub-standard". Both years I've enrolled in this program, the costs above the payroll subsribed benefit has been well beyond any benefit I've received. And beyond that, I've been told that my glasses would be produced in 7-10 days (far inferior to what most lens produders promise) but the reaility has been that they have delivered less than the 7-10 day promise. I am now waiting on day 25. And I am disgusted. Only a Utah borne corporation would dare give such shitty service and think they can get away with it. I am done with Sub-standard Optical. Two straight years they have been unsuccessful in meeting even marginal standards.

My warning to all Utahns is this. DO NOT GIVE ANY BUSINESS TO STANDARD OPTICAL. They are incompetent and can not be trusted to give you the service they promise. They should be run out of business.

Book Review- Conservatives Without Conscience

2008-01-25T09:34:00.000-08:00

Former Watergate figure, John Dean wrote a compelling critique of the conservative movement in the United States in his book "Conservatives Without Conscience". The author starts out explaining why the book was necessary and how it had been his hope to refrain from serious political commentary. He then discussed events where conservative hacks made attacks against him and his wife that were unfounded, and that he became the victim of slanders from former Nixon henchmen, G. Gordon Libby and Charles Colson. These events led him back into the public spotlight and convinced him that there had been a fundamental, and authoritarian change in conservatism from the Goldwater conservatism that had initially inspired John Dean. Dean also mentions that this book was inspired by Barry Goldwater and was intended to be a collaboration with him, had he lived.

In the book, John Dean looks at various efforts to define conservatism within the United States and the disparate ideologies that have somehow been embraced and coalesced into modern conservatism. Dean analysis the modern conservative movement and very pointedly takes aim at the authoritarian evolution of that movement and psychological efforts to understand both "authoritarian followers" and "social dominators" within conservative authoritarianism. He also defines different factions within the conservative movement and outlines their differences and their commonalities.

Dean pulls no punches in his examination of "social dominant authoritarians." Guys like Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, and particularly, Dick Cheney are hammered with a searing white hot examination of their careers and characteristics. Cheney, as our nation's most dominant Vice President to a weak-minded and shallow President, is seen in the book as deliberately fundamentally changing the United States towards more central control within the Executive Branch.

Though Dean's book is a couple of years old, what he wrote makes sense of alot of what has happened since he first published it, and in this regard, Dean's analysis is helpful in predicting future administration actions and why they will engage in their behavior. The constant cries of "executive privilege" to hide aministration misdeeds will not go away in an era dominated by "conservatives without conscience." Authoritarians, driven by power, rather than principle, will do anything they can get away with to keep that power. Democrats and libertarian leaning Republicans should take heed and warning, that these authoritarians will not be going away any time soon. Even if they receive temporary setbacks, they see their role as permanent and fore-ordained.

If you could criticize Dean's book, it would be the harshness and anger that seethes under the surface in his analyses. However, Dean seems to have a real sense of just how dangerous, "conservatives without conscience" are to our Republic and seems to through a bit of "shock and awe" trying to awaken us from our slumber, to let us know exactly what is at stake.

Would you vote for an Atheist?

2007-12-30T21:49:00.000-08:00

One of my Christmas gifts was the book, "The God Delusion", by one of my favorite authors Richard Dawkins. His book, "The Ancestors Tale" is admittedly one of my favorite books. A theme in his book(The God Delusion)is the degree to which people give respect for religious belief and make it unaccountable to evidence and the degree to which atheism is disregarded by Americans.

We as Americans have elected someone who has professed strong beliefs in God. Those beliefs have led him to engage in actions that have been counterproductive to our Republic on many levels. The fit some have over Romney's candidacy as a Mormon is interesting on many levels. I've tried unsuccessfully to tie down Mormons who cry persecution at every corner, whether they would vote for an atheist. Is it we atheists who should cry discrimination? Are we the ones who should worry about others judging us unfairly? Admittedly, a rhetorical question. Even so, how do you perceive an openly atheist candidate would fare, even if his platform conformed to yours?

Christmas for Atheists

2007-12-11T13:44:00.000-08:00

Since concluding that there is no God, people who know me have asked me about what I do for Christmas and the holiday season. There are practical considerations as well as personal philosophical considerations to take into account. First of all, I am married to a Christian Sunday School teacher who puts up with me despite my atheism and various other “faults” and we have three daughters who go to church with her. I attend church with the family when there is a special program for which my family members are involved to show support. As for Christmas, you can guess that my little ones would not want to eschew Christmas just because Daddy doesn’t believe in God anymore than Daddy believes in Santa Claus.

Forgetting these practical considerations, let me indicate that I view Christmas within a wider and important western and human tradition regarding the changing seasons and their implications. Christmas and other like celebrations grew out of the winter solstice in the Northern Hemisphere. They represent a re-birth of the sun as the days begin to lengthen and bring us into a new set of seasons. It is a time of reflection for vast numbers of various cultures, who reflect upon the years past, and the hope that springs from the arrival of a new year. Birth as a metaphor has tremendous appeal and I’m reminded of a song from Handel’s Messiah quoting from Isaiah, “for unto us a child is born, for unto us a son is given”, and the celebration that intonation brings.

In my reading of history, I find it unlikely that there ever was a historical Jesus of Nazareth who did the various miraculous things articulated in the gospels. All of the gospels were written by individuals who most likely never met the Messiah they wrote about. The earliest gospel, that of Mark was most likely written by a jew living in Alexandria who most likely was under the influence of the influential mystery religions, particularly as taught by the great Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagorus. Jesus is not alone in the ancient world among God-men who were born to a virgin, who performed miracles, who were initiated by immersion in water, who made water into wine at a wedding, who died for the sins of the world and ultimately overcame death. Osiris, Dyonisus, Mithrais, Addonis, and others were purported to have done similar things. Incidently, December 25 was the day celebrated as the birthday of the Zoroastrian God-man Mithrais which at the time the celebration was first implemented was the winter solstice.

Notwithstanding the fact that Jesus probably didn’t exist, the metaphors remain and I celebrate these metaphors and what they mean to humanity and the meaning they can provide to me. To unite with my fellow humans in celebrating a new and hopefully better set of seasons. To step back and rejoice at the good things that happened during the year and the progress made by those close to me. To look back at where I may have done things differently and learn from those experiences. To revive my spirit with hopes of a year full of love, prosperity and wonder. This represents the re-birth I as well as many atheists seek during the solstice celebrations in all their forms that occur this time of year.

Happy Solstice everyone. Whatever form your celebration takes, I hope it is one of love, harmony and fulfillment.

The Fallacy of the Curse of Cain

2007-12-05T10:22:00.000-08:00

A Mormon doctrine that prevailed for much of the church’s history and some would argue is still part of the church’s teachings is the idea that God curses the children and descendents of evil-doers and unbelievers with additional skin pigmentation. Native Americans, having rejected the Christian teachings of their white and delightsome Nephite bretheren were cursed with dark skin as were the descendents of Cain, Adam’s boy and fratricidal brother of Abel. The curse on the descendents of Cain was sufficiently onerous that under Mormon Doctrine, Cain’s descendents would be deprived of the blessings of the priesthood and would therefore be limited in their opportunities for eternal progression. The interpretation of who descended from Cain and who had the curse came down as those of African descent.

Outside of the fact that all humans eventually descend from Africa where hominid species such as humans evolved, this doctrine never took into account the degree of intermarrying that took place in the ancient world. As a result, I can say with all the fiber in my bean, that I, Obi wan kolobi, having been descended from Cain, was never the less confirmed a deacon, teacher, priest, elder and high priest in the Mormon Church. And I, Obi wan kolobi am not alone. Most Mormons have English ancestors. I am among them. Most genealogists would logically conclude that 95% or so of all people of English descent could if given adequate information be able to track their genealogy back to the English King Edward I (longshanks) the misrepresented evil man from the movie Braveheart. The basis for this assumption regards what we know about the large number of known descendents and the large number of unknown. You also can calculate how many ancestors you as an Englishman had going back to the time of Edward I.

I Obi wan kolobi can actually trace my ancestry back to Edward I. My Great Great Great Grandfather Josiah Guile Hardy has the following direct ancestors (according to http://www.familysearch.com.

Sylvanus Hardy (64), Rebecca Hardy(128), Ebenezer Hardy(512), Mary Burbank(1,024), Martha Smith(2,048), Hugh Smith(4,096), Hugh Smith(8,192), Elizabeth Gorge(16,384), Winifred Budockshide(32,768), Frances Champernon(65,536), Catherine Carew(131,072), Catherine Huddesfield(262,144), Catherine Courtenay(524,288), Philip Courtenay(1,048,576), John Courtenay(2,097,152), Philip Courtney(4,194,304), Margaret de Bohun(8,388,608), Elizabeth Princess of England(16,777,216), Edward I(33,554,432).

This is one of several genealogies that I can trace back. But my purpose here is to show how many generations back you go and it’s implications. My Great Great Great Grandfather Josiah Guile Hardy was one of 32 GGG Grandparents that I can claim as ancestors. Each generation back, each of these ancestors have two parents who I also descend from. So each generation back, you double by two and see the numbers in parentheses by each ancestor. From England, little old Obi has potentially 33.5 million ancestors from a country that had scarcely over a million, the probability of not descending from Edward I is not good. (Interestingly, the probability of not descending from Charlemagne is pretty much non-existent for the entire western world) But let’s look for a moment at Edward I’s ancestry and a little bit of historic context behind it.

Edward I’s Great Grandfather Henry II married Eleanor, Duchess of Aquitaine and by so doing, created a situation where the Kings of England then also inherited this important Duchy in the south of France. This Duchy bordered with what is now northern Spain and the Kingdoms of Aragon, Leon, and Castille. In order to cement relations with these neighbors, much intermarrying went on between the English nobility and the Spanish nobility. Southern Spain at this time was controlled by the Moors, Muslims of African descent. The northern Spaniards intermarried quite liberally with the Moors and with them, carried African DNA to England. Follow this Moorish ancestor of mine, Urraca of Alvar:

Urraca of Alvar, born in 1017 begat Ramiro King of Aragon, who begat Sancho V King of Aragon who begat Ramiro II King of Aragon who begat Petronila Queen of Aragon who begat Alphonso II King of Aragon who begat Alphonso III King of Aragon who begat Raymond Bberinger Count of Provence who begat Elbeonore Countess of Provence who begat Edward I, (longshanks) King of England. Edward I descends from Africans! I and virtually all Englishmen descend from Edward I. Urraca is one of many ancestors of Edward I and other English nobility that descend from African Moors.

On another note, Brigham Young, the prophet who most firmly cemented Mormon racist doctrines descends from all Englishmen. I have traced his genealogy through http://www.familysearch.com and have been unable to locate any non-Englishmen. Oh the irony, that brother Brigham, was a “brother” after all.

Gratitude, Thanksgiving and Atheism

2007-11-23T13:57:00.000-08:00

As I examine human behavior, I’ve always found gratitude to be one of the greatest signs of emotional and intellectual maturity a human may experience. The ability to attribute to someone other than ourselves gratitude for our good fortune shows an ability to understand our inter-dependencies with others, whether human, our fellow animals, or other life forms. My secretary, a wonderful and totally devout Southern Baptist asked me once, “to who do you give thanks?” Her point in so many words, was to ask how do I not give thanks to God (as she defines him) for all the good things I have going on in my life and does a failure to do so make me ungrateful?

I thought this to be a fair question and had to measure my words carefully in my response as I always have to in dealing with matters of faith. To gain an understanding, I asked my secretary “on what basis do you attribute those things important to you for which you are grateful to God?” She then sincerely lectured me on the fact that God created everything, and since all we have is included in everything, then she feels it is important to thank God for what she has. I suppose I can accept that from her paradigm, which has this link between everything good and God, that from her perspective, gratitude to God is internally important.

As an atheist, I don’t see a need to believe in God. Within this paradigm, if God does not exist, the good things that I am grateful for could not be attributed to God any more than my checking account balance could be the result of an employer I haven’t worked for. I am thankful for many things that some would call blessings. I was born to wonderful parents, I have wonderful siblings whom I get along with, I love wonderful beautiful children, I have a good job, and in most respects, a very good life. I am grateful for all those things. The people and things I am grateful for could fill several pages. The older I get the more significant I see the contributions of others in making me who I am and what positive things have happened to me.

Can an atheist be grateful? Is Thanksgiving an appropriate holiday for an atheist? In the beginning words of so many Mormon testimonies, “I would be ungrateful” if I said No.

The Mormon Satan

2007-11-15T10:46:00.001-08:00

On a previous post, I outlined some differences between Mormonism and Nicene (mainstream) Christianity. To further that discussion, many people are unaware of the unique role that Satan plays in Mormon theology. In Mormonism, Satan is a key actor in the underpinning of the “Plan of Salvation.” The plan of salvation in Mormonism defines the purpose in life for Mormons.

Mormons believe that all people lived in a spirit world called the “pre-existence” together with their spiritual father, Elohim. Created in the basic image of their parents, like all children, there was an expectation that the children would grow up to be like their parents. Obtaining Godhood like father Elohim is the purpose of human life and development in Mormonism. This goal as stated here, is what I taught in Gospel Doctrine classes and was taught from the pulpit for much of Mormonism’s history, though a statement by Gordon B. Hinckley suggests that “it isn’t emphasized anymore.”

The means by which Godhood can be obtained in Mormonism was defined by a conflict in the pre-existence. Jehovah (Jesus), Elohim’s first born produced a plan that would give Elohim’s offspring free agency and would be able to be tested to see if they were worthy of Godhood. Mortal life would be a test to see if they could follow the path Elohim laid out to become Gods. Satan, Jesus’s brother and the brother of all mankind offered a different plan, where mankind would not be given free agency and would be forcefully led down the path to Godhood. An ensuing war in heaven took place and two thirds of the spirit children of Elohim sided with Jehovah and one third sided with Satan. Satan and the third who sided with him were cast out and would never receive physical bodies and lost their chance to become Gods.

In this theological drama, Satan plays a vital role in this plan of salvation. He and his followers dwell among mankind, tempting them and seeking to direct them away from the path to Godhood. Without Satan, the plan of salvation would fail, because without the temptations and trials mankind faces during mortal life, the growth necessary to become Gods would be unattainable. The fallacy of this doctrine is that Satan, aware of Jehovah’s plan having fought it in the pre-existence, becomes a party to its success. To foil the plan he opposed, all that is required is inaction.

One thing about Mormonism that I view as a positive, is an optimistic view of human potential. For Nicene Christians, life is a form of punishment for being a sinner and only through faith in Jesus’s sacrifice for sins, can man be redeemed . For Mormonism, life is an opportunity to not only worship God, but to become one yourself. I’ve always contended that men tend to create God in their own image. How ironic is that contention when you confront Mormon theology?

Point of Personal Priviledge

2007-11-04T21:03:00.001-08:00

Today, my mother, if alive would have turned 70 years old. Unfortunately, she succumbed to alzheimer's disease at age 65, much too young for someone as vigorous and formidable as my mother was. Without giving out too much information, my mother was well-respected and was totally devoted to her family. When I look at my siblings, I see her influence and her love and though I sense a great deal of loss, even five years after her passing, I also recognize the pervasiveness of her legacy.

My mother was a devoted Mormon, but she had an independent streak. When Spencer W. Kimball came out against the Equal Rights Amendment, she told me, "he may be a prophet, but he's wrong on this one", even while serving faithfully as Relief Society President in the local ward.

One thing I remember about my mother, was her propensity to invite widows in the ward to Sunday dinner at our house. She always worried that these ladies were alone and needed company. The other thing I remember, was how she tried not to judge people. She once told me, that we should all try to view someone from the perspective of their mother, who held them in their arms as a child and saw no malice, only hope and potential. Few people she met weren't worthy of redemption, in fact those who were, were usually those who were the most judgmental who sought to tear people down, rather than try to build them up.

When writing about my mother, I admit a certain bias, given the relationship I had with her. But I would be in denial if I didn't admit a great deal of influence from her example and her love. And though I hope this doesn't sound like an obituary, I hope to express in this cyber-world the deep respect I have for the woman who brought me into this world and taught me the value of my fellow humans.

The Last Tomatoes

2007-11-04T20:44:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I went out into my yard and gathered the last tomatoes of the season. Relatively warm weather has made it possible this year to harvest as late as November both some hot peppers which I use in my omelets as well as tomatoes that I use for just about everything I could conceivably use tomatoes for. It is a time for reflection as I step back and realize I have only so many seasons left in this short life-span. I always hope to remember the tastes and smells of each year's harvests and appreciate that every year is different. This year, my hot peppers were especially hot. My salsas this year are lethal to most mortals so I use them sparingly in the various dishes I prepare. But the combination of home grown tomatoes and peppers in salsa is incredibly tasteful, even when it causes my tongue to glow. And the ending of the season makes me yearn for the spring, when hopes of fresh veggies are just months away.

So now I will enjoy every bite of a home grown tomato, recognizing that when they are gone, I'm stuck with the tasteless, underipe store-bought type. But with that submission to tastelessness, it makes me anticipate the tomatoes of 2008 even more. I marvel at the ability of U.S. agricultural producers to supply our grocery stores with everything we could possibly want to eat. However, they still haven't mastered the home-grown tomato and hot pepper. I say to springtime, come quickly.

Mormonism and Conspiracy Theories

2007-10-11T08:58:00.000-07:00

For the record, let me tell you that I am a firm believer that conspiracies are almost always very local and very limited. The reason for this is basic logistics and the human tendency to talk. Groups that want to operate behind closed doors without any exposure seem to always find themselves struggling to suppress leaks. An important side note, is the “the plumbers” who broke into the Watergate Hotel were put in place to find the leaks that the ever secretive Nixon Administration was being infuriated by.

Of an on, conspiracies are promoted in the popular culture and are widely believed by the general public. The assassination of John F. Kennedy is a prime example, of an unwillingness of Americans to take an obvious single gunman murder, and make the whole thing into something it is not.

In evaluating Mormons regarding their susceptibility to believing in conspiracies, you have to look at the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith Jr. Joseph was a big believer in the idea that everything isn’t what it appears to be. The otherworldly, magical, world of the young Joseph Smith jr. was one in which his father would search for water using divining rods, and other magical implements. Joseph Smith jr. was well known as a treasure seeker, staying up late into the night, looking for secret treasures that were left by ancient people. His primary means of looking for that treasure was through the use of “peep stone’ buried in a hat.

The magical world of Joseph Smith jr. reveals itself in his defining work, the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon creates a world full of villains and heroes, the heroes being men of God, and the villains, those who have rejected God and his prophets. And also in this book, the works and methods of Satan are conspicuously deceitful and secret. The Book of Mormon talks about “secret combinations” and a group known as “the "Gadianton Robbers”, where individuals who may look on the surface to be men of God, but who are secretly undermining God’s people and prophets.

Clearly, this worldview is one brought down to Joseph Smith jr. from his Massachusetts born ancestors, who also saw witches and their evil secretive ways and other magical heresies just under the surface of Puritanical New England life. A book that looks at these magical traditions of supernatural spiritual gifts and deep suspicions of the secret evil is D. Michael Quinn’s important work, “Early Mormonism and the Magical World View.”

The influence of Joseph Smith upon future generations of Mormons should never be underestimated, even as many of his practices have long since found the Stake House dumpster. I was born a Mormon in 1962 and never saw a peep stone, nor did we regularly go out looking for secret treasure. However, we were taught that Satan was deceitful and tricky and that there were still “secret combinations” doing his bidding. The first of these Mormon embraced conspiracies was communism and the residue of Joseph McCarthy’s legacy.

I had many devout friends who truly believed that Joseph McCarthy was right and that there were communists and communist sympathizers who were working in concert to undermine our government. The church leader who did most to fuel this view was apostle Ezra Taft Benson. He saw various changes in society as the works of Satan and of this communist plot to undermine the United States. One of those changes, the civil rights movement, was particularly looked upon with suspicion by Benson due to the fact that from his perspective, people of African descent were a cursed people who had been fence-sitters in the pre-existence and would be easy targets for Satan and his plans. Given Benson’s view on race as well as this fear of communist conspiracies, Benson, as a former secretary of Agriculture, was sought out by George Wallace, the segregationalist candidate for President as a possible running mate. Other leaders of the LDS Church put a stop to this and summarily sent Benson on a mission to Europe to get him out of the politically charged world of the 1960’s. Ezra Taft Benson believed in his heart, that creeping socialism, or the growth in the size and scope of government, would ultimately end in a communist take-over of our Republic, whether from without, or from within.

When the Soviet Union disbanded and formally rejected the Stalinist apparatus of communism, it was only natural that those with this worldview would see new conspiracies. Many of the far-right Mormons I talked to in the early 1990’s believed the Soviet break-up was carefully concocted sham, and that efforts for a world-wide domination by communism would be repositioned and re-marketed. President George H. W. Bush unwittingly set off the conspiracy folks when he coined the phrase “New World Order” and immediately, this phrase gained a life of it’s own among those on the right fringe.

The newest organizations to gain the suspicions of those who believed in conspiracies were the “Trilateral Commission” and the “Council on Foreign Relations.” Mormons who feared these organizations were not alone as they followed those from other fundamentalist Christian groups, also fearful of these satanic forces working in secret. To this day, there are many Mormons who believe sincerely that these organizations are fronts for an overall conspiracy to end national sovereignty and gain one-world government, dominated this aristocratic cadre of Jewish bankers, industrialists and Ivy League intellectuals.

Let me acknowledge that Mormons aren’t the only ones who fall for these conspiracies. But I would contend, that the numbers of Mormons who believe in them are disproportionate to other faiths. This is a hypothesis I have not tested, and is clearly based upon anecdotal evidence. But based upon the number of people I’ve observed, and their ability to back their suspicions with divine scripture, I would be surprised if this hypothesis isn’t correct.

The War, by Ken Burns

2007-09-26T20:56:00.000-07:00

With music reminiscent of Ormandy's transcription of Bach's passacaglia and fugue in C minor, this documentary, with it's limited, but compelling scope, speaks with amazing power about the impacts of World War II on Americans. There is a part of me that hates Ken Burns. He makes me feel deeply for casualties that are demanded of my own "real politik" vision of proper use of force. However, it speaks volumes on the value of human life, and what is expended in the callous use of humans in geopolitical gamesmanship.

World War II was a remarkable war. The more I've read about it, the more I've come to appreciate the horror, and the sacrifice of so many. Despite the power of Burn's rather parochial documentary, I still look with awe at the amazing courage and fortitude of the red army, which experienced incomparable losses, yet rebounded with amazing courage and daring, not only repelling German advances upon Moscow, but repelling a German advance in the south upon Stalingrad. Ultimately, the counter-attack and surrounding of the formidable 6th Army as well as half of the 4th panzer army and remnants of their Romanian allies turned the tide in the east.

This documentary acknowledges that American sacrifice is dwarfed by the sacrifice by others, including those who were duped into Hitler's warped view of mankind. What a tragedy this war is. So much suffering. So many lives lost that should have tarried with us till perhaps a decade ago. What a tragedy our species suffered due to ignorance and intolerance. Yet Burns documentary puts a silver lining upon this conflict, and how it brought together a country.

After watching this documentary, I'm reminded of the degree to which FDR deserves our praise and admiration. Leadership is far more valuable than ideology in many ways, and FDR is an amazing President. The power of his discourse to Americans is so compelling when it is contrasted to that of the current white house occupant, that I marvel that our Republic can survive this current usurper. We have been blessed with some great leaders. We need to focus on what made great leaders in the past, if we are to elect them in the future. The presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 have left me doubtful about the intellectual strength and resiliency of our republic. However, I still have hope.

Good Bye Little Tyrannosaurs

2007-09-20T12:58:00.000-07:00

I have been blessed this year with an abundance of hummingbirds in my yard. I only saw black-chins and broad-tails, but the number was encouraging. After getting back from Cabo, I've yet to see one, which means, the ones that frequented my yard have gone south for the winter. I'll keep my feeders up and I still have an abundance of hummer friendly flowers available to any migrating hummers so I'll keep an eye out for these creatures as they head to Mexico.

But every year, I can't help but feel a little melancholy when the hummers leave. It is a sure sign that the days will shorten and the nights will lengthen. It means that soon, the beautiful flowers in my yard will die back to the ground, and the leaves will turn to mush. The seasons are symbolic of our lives, as we hope for another spring, or that our lives still have some summer left. Every year is a good year, for we have a finite number of them to experience. And hope remains every year for me, that I will hear and see my first hummer of the season and welcome back my little tiny tyrannosaurs for another season in my yard.

Cynognathus Sports Blog Intro

2007-09-08T09:50:00.000-07:00

I, Obi wan kolobi, having been born of goodly parents, was taught early on to test my meddle in the arena of sports. As a result, I have a love and passion for sports and find meaningful and interesting corollaries between the sports world and the lives we lead. Even so, this is a bit of a "devolution" from the things I discuss on my other blogs. To discuss the War in Iraq or the meaning of life, in the grand scheme of things, is of a higher order than sports. The Colts winning last year's Super Bowl did not do anything for the Aids epidemic in Africa. That being said, the return of the Saints to New Orleans did do something for those displaced by Katrina.

Even so, my new sports blog will deal in the insignificant for the most part. But it is hoped that it will be fun to put in writing what I see on the football field or in the execution I see on the basketball court. Because this is a devolution from my other blogs, I have named this blog "Cynognathus" after a ferocious Triassic predator that just so happens to be sort of a cross between a mammal and a reptile. Cynognathus is classified by biologists as a "cynodont", part of a group of therapsids, or mammal-like reptiles, that dominated terrestial life in the early to mid Triassic periods. Ultimately diplaced and marginalized by their diapsid cousins the dinosaurs, some cynodonts survived scurrying in the undergrowth and ultimately would evolve into what biologists classify as mammals.

So I willingly devolve from other high-minded pursuits, to discuss sports. The future of the free world may not ride on the outcome of football games, but unfortunately, my morale sometimes does. So, let's play ball. Oh, and GO UTES!

A Tribute to My Dear Friend J.D. Williams

2007-09-04T21:18:00.000-07:00

J.D. Williams was never elected to public office. However, the number of people whom he mentored, on both sides of the aisle to enter public service is inestimable. J.D. was a political science professor at the University of Utah. J.D. had a passion for our Republic and the ideals that were at the core of this remarkeable nation. For the record, J.D. gave me a C+, yet gave my term paper an A- (because it was submitted late). J.D. took my term paper and gave it to the press in hopes that it would get some press. It didn't take.

J.D. had a passion for his work, and a passion for his opinions. During class, he called me out because of a vote of my father, who served in the Utah Legislature. I actually agreed with J.D., but loyal to my father, tried to articulate his justifications for a position I disagreed with. He seemed to respect the fact that I stood firm, both in my position, as well as the position of my father. He may have given me a C+, but treated both me and my wife (whom also studied under him) as A+ students from that time to the last day we saw him. I still remember our wedding reception, where he said, "here are two of my favorite people, married together." Words like that from a man I respected meant a great deal.

Hearing of J.D.'s loss is hard, but given his age, I knew we couldn't hold on to him forever. Those of us who were blessed and challenged by this amazing human, can only hope that the next generation will provide men of the caliber of J.D. and fight for the better parts of our Republic. The lesson I learned from J.D., is that you should be honored by those who challenge you, and J.D., I honor you with all of my heart.

Are Mormons Christians? An Exmo Atheist’s View

2007-08-21T14:33:00.000-07:00

The question of whether Mormons are Christians assumes that there is some copyright of the term Christian or atleast some litmus test on what a religion must teach in order to be a Christian. In general, mainstream Christians believe that in order to be a Christian, you must accept the definition of deity inherent in the Nicene creed. I’ll give a little background concerning the Nicene creed.

During the 4th Century A.D., the Roman Empire was suffering many setbacks both within and without. Dissent within the Roman Empire was building as competing religious systems combated each other and looked for allies within the Roman hierarchy. Mithraism, and other “pagan” cults still had a wide range of followers and Christianity was divided into many different groups, the two largest centered around two competing teachers, Athanasius, later Bishop of Alexandria, and Arius, a popular Christian ascetic who had a wide following. The Council of Nice was an effort made by Athanasius and his supporters to put a Roman stamp upon his brand of Christianity and label Arianism a heresy.

Constantine, pretty much didn’t care about the outcome and most likely had no strong opinions on the matter. His goal as Emperor was to end the schismatic divide that was destabilizing his empire. The Nicene creed was adopted and sided with Athanasius, and made heretics out of the followers of Arius. The schism didn’t end there, but that is for another post.

The main dispute between these two philosophies regarded the divinity of Jesus and whether he was a separate being from God. The convoluted and inconsistent and completely illogical definition of the trinity is ultimately what Christianity adopted with the blessing of the Roman empire. Curiouisly, the Bishop of Rome (whom Catholics call the Pope) wasn’t in attendance at the Council of Nice, but again, that is another story.

Mainstream Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant still accepts the Nicene creed as defining the nature of the Christian God. As a non-believer, I view Arians as Christian as much as Athanasians but view them as different Christian religions. Now, let me discuss the Mormon “Godhead.”

Mormons are considered by mainstream Christians as “polytheists.” In this regard, I would tend to agree. Growing up, I was taught that God was once a man, and we too may become Gods if we show sufficient faithfulness during our mortal trials on earth. Under this philosophy, there is no reason why other galaxies or solar systems or whatever, would have their own God. Our own relevant universe has a God the father, his son Jesus Christ and the holy ghost, three separate individuals but one in purpose.

Mormon teachings revolve around the trial to become Gods. Even in the pre-existence, a great war was fought over the method by which men may become Gods. Jesus, the firstborn of God proposed a plan whereby men would be given freedom of choice and judged based upon their faithfulness and the choices they make whether they would achieve “exaltation.”

Jesus had a brother, Satan, who wished that all men become Gods and that by enforcing their obedience, all could be exalted. A war ensumed and ultimately, Jesus and 2/3 of the spirits sided with his method for exaltation, whereas the 1/3 who sided with Satan were cast out.

Jesus in this drama plays an important role to Mormons. Jesus becomes the “God” of the Old Testament, the "I am" of Exodus, the creator of the world and ultimately, the Savior to those who would accept his sacrifice for their sins. The purpose of Christ’s redemption is different for Mormons than it is for mainstream Christians. For Christians, all men are sinners and are even subject to eternal punishment for the sins of their progenitor Adam. Mormons view Adam’s fall as a necessary event that would force the spirit children of God to achieve mortality and ultimately the opportunity of proving themselves worthy of Godhood. The salvation Jesus offers the sinners of mainstream Christianity is something that with faith can save them from eternal punishment. Mormon salvation equates to not only rising above death and sin, but rising above the Christian view of humanity to become the divine.

In each religion, Jesus Christ plays an important role in their respective faiths. Mormonism is certainly not mainstream Christianity by any stretch of the imagination because the world views are different and the purpose of Christ’s death is different. Mormons also differ in the role played by Jesus’s suffering by putting the emphasis upon the bleeding from every pore in the Garden of Gethsemane as the seminal event that cleanses the sins of the world and makes salvation possible. The crucifixion, so central to mainstream Christianity, is essentially a final chapter but not a central one in Mormonism. In this regard, the Mormons distinguish Jesus from the thousands of others who likewise suffered the cruel fate of crucifixion, an obviously difficult death, but by no means a horror exclusive to the mainstream Christianity’s Jesus.

Are Mormons Christians? Both believe in Jesus Christ, though the Jesus they believe in serve different functions and are essentially different people. To Christians, Jesus is a mortal manifestation of a Triune God. To Mormons, Jesus, a God like his father, is part of a Godhead (sort of a divine first Presidency) but is a separate being. I view Mormons as a unique branch or off-shoot of Christianity. Various religions during the past two centuries have successfully broken through the enforcement of the Nicene creed into new territory. Mormons are one of the most successful to put a new spin on the Athanasian/Arian debate of the 4th Century.

To an atheist like me, these schisms are like debating whether Santa lives on the North Pole or the South Pole. But I think it is important to recognize both the similarities, as well as the differences between these religions. Because in the overall scheme of things, I have to live among those who believe both.

Bach, Baths and Books

2007-08-03T15:49:00.001-07:00

These are three of the B's that I enjoy in life. I mention these three because they are intertwined subtley in the regular rythms of my life. I love to read. I don't really read fiction, though I do read alot of non-fiction, some of which I would consider fiction (point for another post). I also love hot baths. To sit back with a good book in a nice hot bath is that time that is all to myself. I add Bach to this cycle because Bach is great reading music (atleast his concertos). The regular rythmns and deep harmonies of a Bach concerto seem almost to be a catalyst for taking what's on the page and firmly implanting it in my mind.

This may sound strange to those who know my opinions on religion, but I love religious music. Bach is my favorite, but I also have an affinity for Handel, Josquin des prez, G. Gabrieli, Schutz, Carrissimi, Mozart, Verdi and C.P.E. Bach. Religious music seeks to convey the deepest feelings of the composer and seeks to inspire the congregation to those feelings. It is amazing the skill and craftmanship used by these composers. With this incredible repoirtoire available to religionists, it's amazing that some people are able to see through religion for what it is. It is also amazing to me that religionists don't use the emotional power of music to better affect. Admittedly, the Mormon faith uses music as well as anyone and though MOTAB uses a limited repertoire (they generally stay away from anything that sounds too catholic or is in latin. But I do acknowledge their skill and the tactical success have used using this vehicle.

May the Yeast Be With You

2007-07-24T15:55:00.000-07:00

It's interesting just how few generations I have to go back to farm life. My mother's father died on her eighth birthday and she went to live with her grandparents on a farm. No indoor plumbing, no electric lights, wood-burning stove. Other ancestors were significantly rural. One thing they all seemed to have in common, was they baked bread. My Great-Great Grandmother arrived in a rural Utah town in 1862, with a loom and a harth. With her husband, they made clothes and they made bread. Ultimately, they ended up in the grocery business and did fairly well.

One thing about my G-G-Grandmother, was her bread making was one of those things that identified her in the community. When someone was sick, laid up, or just falling on hard times, they'd wake up and find a nice hot loaf on their doorstep. It has been passed down through generations that she smelled like yeast.

My mother baked bread. She ground her own whole wheat flour and I still have fond memories of hearing her pound away at her dough. Her losing her father early in life taught her frugality on an epic scale. Bread bags were re-used until holes in them left them useless. On both sides of my family, I have a heritage of bread-making. I'm grateful for that heritage.

Generation(s) later, I love baking bread. Am I just weird, or what? I love the smell of yeast multiplying and feeding on the starch present in grains. I love the feel of dough on my fingers, and the sensation of pounding risen dough for a second rising. I love the smell of bread baking in the oven, and I love the taste of warm newly baked bread with butter on it. I'm getting better and better at baking bread, especially the whole grain variety.

And with all due respect to my dear piemaker, my wife makes the best pies on the planet. So between the two of us, we have delectable pies, and wholesome bread that reminds me of the smells I grew up with. We humans are impressive omnivores with the ability of digesting a wide variety of foods. However, at the most fundamental level, we're consumers of grass seed.

May the yeast be with you all.

The End of Faith- Sam Harris

2007-07-19T15:16:00.000-07:00

One of the books I read recently was "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. The book starts out as sort of a "shock and awe" attack on religion and other faith-based/magical intellectual paradigms. The author focuses alot of his venom on Islam and it's intolerance of diverse opinions and it's focus on unity of the Islamic community. I found interesting how apostates are treated within Islamic Law (Sharia). To apostatize from Islam is to forfeit your life and the life of anyone who might have influenced that apostasy. That certainly explains the animosity between Sunnis and Shiites and puts into perspective the fundamental challenge facing any effective coalition government in Iraq.

The author certainly takes his share of hits against Christianity (no mention of Mormonism) and points out that fundamentalist Christians will always prevail when it comes to scriptural discourse, because the scriptures back up fundamentalism. I thought that was an interesting point, because as I reflect upon my own scripture studies over the years, there was always an impression of "I'm glad we don't teach that any more." What makes fundamentalist tick is this idea that other religions have abandoned the core beliefs of the religion, whether it be polygamy for Mormon fundamentalists, women staying silent in the churches for several fundamentalist Christian churches, or maintaining eating restrictions for "orthodox" jews.

The author's basic thesis statement is that ultimately, all religions provide more damage than help for humans. I haven't come to that conclusion yet. I think for many people, religion works well and gives them both peace of mind and a sense of purpose that assists them be better people. Though an atheist, I am not a missionary for the atheist cause. However, for those who come to that conclusion, I willingly put myself out there to help them realize that their perspective is sound, rational, and can be the foundation for a life with greater love and morality.

However, I'm still learning and sifting through the data. I always reserve the right to change my mind in case future evidence and insights force me to rethink my position. Though I enjoy reading books by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, I have no desire to be the blunt force weapon to convince others that I am right, and they are wrong.

Is This Blog an Anti-Mormon Website?

2007-07-14T22:09:00.000-07:00

In a post on KSL.com, a young liberal fellow named Will A. praised my blog. However, in response, a regular poster on KSL.com named Pootananga took exception to that praise and proceeded to lambast me as an anti-mormon intent on destroying my former religion. I've looked back at my various posts on this site, and I really struggle with the label given to me by my "friend" Poot.

It is true, that upon the request from Piemaker1, I detailed to some degree the reasons why I left the Mormon faith. I also challenged what I consider to be "authoritarian thinking" and the challenges faced by those who take on that challenge. But for the life of me, I'm really curious whether this blog is considered an anti-mormon site. It certainly wasn't my intent. Perhaps the name of the blog gives that impression. The fact that I list my blog over on http://www.exmormon.org and list links to sites by Deconstructor, Bob McCue and Recovery from Mormonism might lead one to conclude that. But ultimately, my goal is to promote enlightenment and understanding. There are elements of Mormonism that I believe deter those goals and I am not averse to pointing that out. But I would hate to think that I am considered anti anything, other than ignorance and prejudice.

Most of the people I love are Mormons. I am not against them, but their biggest fans. I have disagreements with Mormon doctrines and with Mormon politicians who would impose their religious views on others. But I hope that my posts have dealt with issues in a respectful manner with the goal of providing enlightenment, not a hatred for Mormons.

Ultimately, this is a personal blog where I discuss issues important to me. Some of my posts may mean nothing to most people. My love of anthropology and geology is not likely to be shared by many people. However, I post insights and even poetry on those topics because they mean something to me. Issues I have with "the bretheren" is minor component of what I am about and what I think about on a daily basis.

Is this blog an anti-mormon site? I hope not.

The Utah Hornet's Nest

2007-07-12T07:26:00.000-07:00

I have decided to create a new blog. This blog (From Behind the Zion Curtain) I have intended to talk about a wide variety of issues and perspectives, from religion, biology, science, and everything in between. Much of the writing on this blog is personal in nature, observations I have made and my interpretations of them. I have touched from time to time on political topics, but I feel like I have not given enough topical discussion to the important political issues of the day, especially as they relate to the State of Utah.

My posts on KSL.com generally delve into political topics, and in examining many of my posts here, there seems to be a disconnect between the Obi wan liberali who posts on KSL.com and the Obi wan kolobi who posts here. Perhaps I have multiple personality disorder, but I think it would help make my posts more relevant if I split up my posts between two blogs. It is also my goal to write more and write better. I'm new to this blog thing, but I love to write and I love to learn from others and their observations. So we'll see how it goes.

Tiny Tyrannosaurs and the Joys of Haydn

2007-07-08T14:45:00.000-07:00

There is a widespread belief among those who find the realities of organic evolution troubling, that believing humans as just another species de-humanizes humans. The comfort of being created in the image of deity may make some humans feel good about themselves, but I suspect it may make them devalue other species and separate themselves from a true appreciation of the diversity of life.

Evolution and it’s implications to me makes life truly interesting. All life, whether it’s me and my family, my fellow humans, chimpanzees, other mammals, reptiles, amphibians and other vertebrates have much in common with each other. We also share ancestry with invertebrates as well as our fellow parasites, the fungi. We may not consider ourselves parasites, but we should note that as plants evolved and began to take off in our waters and on land, animals and our cousins the fungi evolved to act as parasites upon plants. In fact the dna of fungus and the dna of all animals is closer to each other than it is to the dna of plants. Ultimately, all life on earth are cousins of each other, more distant or close to each other based upon when their most recent common ancestor diverged.

If you are wondering where I’m going with this, I love hummingbirds. These amazing little birds are a unique group of species that only exist in North and South America. Like many birds, they have unique but significant visual acuity and see the color red very well. Interestingly, they have virtually no sense of smell. In our region here in the great basin, a group of plants known as penstemons evolved and filled different niches. A group of penstemons evolved with the hummingbird, and produce red tubular flowers with virtually no scent. I plant these penstemons in my yard and enjoy immensely hummers and their acrobatics and feisty and territorial nature. For such small creatures to migrate from Mexico to the U.S. on a regular cycle is truly amazing.

Getting back to evolution, one of the interesting things you learn in the relationships between animals during this course of evolution, is that hummingbirds and all birds are basically a type of dinosaur that managed to survive the cretaceous extinction 65 million years ago. Most likely, their mobility and the protection afforded by feathers facilitated that survival. What is interesting is that hummingbirds, these little tiny creatures are actually closer related to Tyrannosaurus Rex than Tyrannosaurus Rex is to say a Brachiosaurus and the other Sauropods. So as I was watching these tiny Tyrannosaurs zoom across my yard, I turned on a little Haydn on my IPOD and got myself a cold iced tea.

This led my thoughts into another direction as far as looking at the amazing beauty and diversity of evolution and it’s implications. Humans have tremendous range of hearing as do most mammals. It is a trait that happened through an evolutionary accident that is interesting, atleast to someone with a wharped mind like mine.

Mammals evolved from reptiles. Most people who have taken even a cursory look at biology will acknowledge that. What a lot of people don’t know, is that the reptiles mammals evolved from split from other reptiles very early in their evolution. The earliest mammal-like reptiles, the pelycosaurs evolved in the late carboniferous and early Permian periods. The most well-known pelycosaur, Dimetrodon, looked like a big lizard with a sail on it’s back, but Dimetrodon, like all pelycosaurs had a single opening in the back of it’s head near it’s jaw. This opening allowed all pelycosaurs to have a more flexible jaw than other reptiles and pelycosaurs were quite dominant until the great extinctions that occurred at the end of the Permian period. Their die-off allowed their smaller diapsid cousins to take over and our planet soon was filled with diapsids which had two openings at the back of the jaw: yep the dinosaurs.

Not all pelycosaurs died off, some evolved into a group of reptiles known as therapsids. Therapsids had evolved from pelycosaurs and though most of them were fairly small, some were pretty significant predators in their own right in the early Triassic before being supplanted by the diapsids. Cynodonts, a type of therapsid did manage to survive into the Jurassic, however some type of cynodont ultimately evolved into the little scurrying furry creatures known as mammals. All throughout this evolution there was a gradual change in the jaws of these mammal-like reptiles. The early reptilian jaw which contained three major bones was quickly being simplified into a single bone known as the dentary. The other two bones drifted towards the ear and actually became the three components of the middle ear, anvil hammer and stirrup, which gives mammals their great hearing. It is interesting that all mammal embryos follow this evolution, which begins with this reptilian jaw and ends up with a mammalian dentary and the important structure of the middle ear.

So as I listened to Haydn’s symphonies, enjoying the interplay of various instruments, I owe that appreication to an evolutionary adaptation of the reptilian jaw which allowed for a greater bite and more efficient chewing motion. Chew on that.

Humor Gone Awry

2007-06-26T09:10:00.000-07:00

As my wife would say, "that’s the story of your life." As mentioned before, I enjoy responding to news stories over on KSL.com. Some days, I try to keep things light and try to use humor and satire. It certainly beats banging your cyber-head against the wall as one of the token liberals who post there. Well a very vague news story surfaced regarding the LDS Church making some announcement later in the day. One poster joked that Rocky Anderson would be the new President of the MTC. Following that lead, I indicated that I was about to be called to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostates. This joke was obviously (I thought) aimed at myself, and my apostate status relative to the LDS Church.

Enter “James the Just”, “Winnis the Moderator” and “Kelly”. As I finished up what I was doing and went back to the story, holy cow, the KSL moderator had thrown 10 troll votes on my little joke (to cause the comment to collapse), and James the Just is calling me a bigot. Winnis is likening me to the Simpson’s character “comic book guy” and calling me a “lamoid fat (obscenity deleted) unemployed bitter loser” or something to that effect. When a poster came to my rescue, Kelly proceedsed to berate me as well and can’t believe that people aren’t more incensed. I honestly sat in my chair puzzled, wondering what I could have said that would have caused people to be so angry.

All of a sudden, a light came on. These individuals thought I was calling the twelve apostles “apostates.” Whoa, that was not my intent, but I guess I could see how someone could plausibly read it that way. So I logged back in and tried to explain what my intentions were with my original post and apologize for inadvertently offending these individuals. Now admittedly, I’ve used double meanings in words and phrases to try to clandestinely make points or to inject humor into posts, but this was truly a cyber faux-paux.

I will have to say that I was surprised, and a bit flattered, at all the posters who came to my defense who read the joke as I had intended. Thankfully, I have a wife to keep my ego in check (sometimes she has to work overtime). Responses to this non-story at this point must have taken up a huge amount of bandwidth at KSL.com. All over a post that was collapsed by moderators and was intended by me as a harmless slap at myself. It certainly wasn’t my intent to create a firestorm, but I learned an important lesson in how people can read and perceive intentions. I think some people when they saw a story about the LDS Church were just waiting for someone to say something negative and inflammatory. I think the KSL moderator did as well. One lesson I learned is that people often see what they are expecting to see. It is also a lesson in how difficult it is to discuss religion in a way that expresses dissent, but does so respectfully.

As for James, Winnis and Kelly, I harbor no ill feelings and feel kind of bad that they took a lot of hits for defending their faith when such a defense was really over a misinterpretation. As for the names and characterization heaped upon me by Winnis, particularly his reference to me as a “fat ass”, I’ll take it as a subtle reminder that I have not yet shed the weight I gained cruising in Alaska a couple of weeks ago. Back to the treadmill you Jedi slacker.

Illegal Immigrants- The New Great Enemy

2007-06-13T16:26:00.001-07:00

From a certain perspective, I descend from illegal immigrants. For whatever reason, the King of England, James I, felt that his country had a certain claim to whatever part of the American continent they could seize from the aboriginal residents. Strangely enough, many of the natives weren’t hostile to the newcomers though some were. Some decided to engage in trade with them. All of them, if they could have foreseen the future with have fought them to the death, because ultimately, disease and expulsion would ultimately doom them.

My first illegal immigrant ancestors arrived in New England. They set up shop, multiplied and ultimately came west. Several of them, unhappy with their treatment by the United States Government, without permission from Mexico decided to move to Mexican territory in the Great Basin. While in transit, events in Mexico would change the ownership of the land to the United States, and my Mormon ancestors were therefore stuck again with dealing with the United States.

I guess it all depends on your perspective. From the typical white Anglo-Saxon protestant/Mormon perspective, the United States is their birthright. With the remnants of manifest destiny ingrained in their mindsets, “this land was made for you and me”, so long as you fit our profile of what we want our nation to look like. More so in North American than in central and south America, immigration was a driving force that shaped the growth and development of the United States of America. In Spanish and French dominated regions, immigration from the home country never amounted to more than a cursory addition to the population. French and Spanish culture was more deep and profound, than French and Spanish immigration.

So now we are faced with Spanish speaking Native Americans from Mexico re-populating a land that was their ancestors and cousins for over 10,000 years. The chorus of chest thumping from those angered over illegal immigrants is deafening and troubling as well. In 1986, the Congress and President Reagan agreed to an amnesty for illegal immigrants at that time. This legislation has encouraged illegal immigration ever since. Now we have millions of people here illegally, most of them hard-working people trying to eek out a better life for their families. Some are opportunists and criminals, involved in illegal drug distribution, identity theft and other serious crimes. There are social costs from their presence and a strain on public services. There is also cheaper food and costs from construction and other goods and services due to illegal immigrants.

The question is what to do. Most of my fellow posters over at KSL.com want to deport everyone without documentation and build a huge wall separating us from Mexico. Looking at the cost, feasibility and humanity of displacing so many people at once, I am willing to look for better options.

Mostly, posts regarding illegal immigrants come down to calling them law-breakers. I have my doubts that this is what it is all about. Too often, I’ve seen posters slip and articulate what they really think, which is that more Mexicans in our country threatens the primacy of European culture in the United States. It is an assault on manifest destiny, this idea that this land was created by God to further European, Christian culture. Perhaps Pat Buchanan was right, that ultimately, the battle that is going on in our Republic is a cultural one. I believe we strengthen our country by taking the best out of each culture, and mitigating the negatives. We’ve had significant growing pains doing this with Mediterranean cultures such as Italians, Greeks, and others, yet enjoy what their culture has added to ours. Is it any stretch that Mexican culture adds to ours as well? I think not.

I’m still sifting through this debate and I welcome insights from others.

Alaska Bound

2007-06-01T21:16:00.000-07:00

This is my last post at my blog for about 10 days. I am going to a conference aboard a cruise ship along the Alaskan coast with stops at Sitka, Ketchikan and Juneau. I am really looking forward to the trip and hope to eat lots of good seafood. I also, with my high-powered binoculars sincerely hope to see as many whales as possible.

I do have meetings to attend and I hope to learn from them. I work with a large financial institution in the State of Utah and that relationship sometimes scores me a trip to an interesting place. I look forward to both the information and the sight-seeing.

But I won't be focusing on posting here at my blog or responding to stories at KSL.com. Hopefully, someone else will articulate the liberal point of view in my absense. If not, oh well, I don't seem to be getting anywhere anyway.

See you when I get back.

A shoutout to the competition, re. KSL.com

2007-05-30T21:26:00.000-07:00

One of the things I appreciate in the cyber-world is that ordinary people who may not have a voice or influence can speak to a wider audience through this marvelous forum. I have my own opinions and seek to inject them into this cyber-world in a manner that is hopefully insightful, witty and perhaps provocative.

One of the things I have been appreciative of, is the quality of the opposition. Admittedly, I carry views that are in the minority. I try as best as I can to articulate those views. But even so, I recognize that many are not appreciative or accepting of an alternative point of view. There have been times when I wondered whether my voice was worthwhile and wondered whether I should just disappear from the scene. But ultimately, I made the decision to stand for something and do my best to articulate points of view that I held deeply, but understood that they may face significant opposition.

But the purpose of this post is to praise the opposition. I have found that there are some really talented conservative voices in Utah. When I started this process, I thought all conservatives were mindless, sheepish followers of whatever authority they might have clinged to. But I have come to appreciate and respect their perspective through the fires of discussion and for that reason I want to praise those whom I have battled.

My first praise goes to Purochapin. I don't know what "Purochapin" means. But I will admit that Purochapin does his homework and is an able and articulate representative of the conservative position. I disagree with Purochapin on almost every issue because I believe we come from different paradigms. But even so, I respect Purochapin for his ability to present his case in a persuasive way. Purochapin doesn't resort to name-calling like many other conservatives. I would buy Purochapin a soda and enjoy a friendly debate with someone this insightful, though I believe he is somewhat deluded and confined by the limits of the authoritarian thinking that used to confine me. But for some reason, I like Purochapin and more than that, I respect him.

Perhaps the second most influential conservative cyber-poster at KSL.com is Legal Eagle. I've often wondered whether he works for the "lord's firm/Kirton McConkie" and has been hired by KSL to articulate the church's position. If that is the case, the church chose well. I enjoy LE's posts even though I think he sometimes picks fights with some of the weaker liberal posters such as Will A. in order to make himself look good. Hey, I like Will A., but I get the impression that he is awfully young and inexperienced. I love his passion. I just hope he'll have that passion when he has some experience and wisdom behind him. But Legal Eagle is a competent and articulate foe in this cyber-debate for the soul of our country. I may disagree with L.E., but I respect him never the less.

Ok, I'm going to hate myself in the morning, but I'm going to mention "Pootananga." Poot has many bad habits. First of all is this guilt by association tactic he likes to use. He also likes to demonize people who disagree with him and call them names. Even so, Poot has his moments of clarity and insight. You have to look for them, but even so, I don't know why, but I like Poot. I'm like Luke Skywalker looking into his father's warped and evil soul and believing that somehow, Poot can be turned away from the dark side. It probably won't happen, but I haven't given up on Poot.

George H., hey I love ya man. You take criticism of your positions with a certain elan that I admire. I disagree with George H. on almost every issue, but I would willingly welcome him to my house for a barbecue. George H. is more complicated than he lets on, and I appreciate him in many ways.

Piemaker, where do I start. First of all, I desire strawberry rhubarb. I love the tartness of rhubarb with the sweetness of strawberry. Tell me you can make it happen for me. Piemaker is a true believer. She accepts those whom she perceives are good people. Though I pride myself as a critical thinking atheist, there is something likeable about Piemaker. She somehow sees the best in people rather than the worst. That is a trait I respect and appreciate. I can learn from piemaker in that regard and I deeply appreciate her perspective.

There are many others who post on KSL.com whom I respect and appreciate. I know I will leave off many whom I should mention. But the purpose of this post was to praise the opposition. The people I mentioned and many others challenge me to be a better thinker and poster. They raise the bar and make me think harder and better. I appreciate what they bring to the table. To some extent I feel outnumbered, but even so I'll give it my best shot against such worthy foes.

Memorial Day Musings

2007-05-28T08:09:00.000-07:00

Memorial Day is alot of things for alot of people. For outdoor enthusiasts, it is the first holiday of the year where they have a fighting chance of good weather. In the foothills and in the deserts, ATV's will roar with abundance and families will gather in their RV's and head to their favorite places. Some people, myself included, typically use the three day weekend to catch up on yard work, and put in parts of my vegetable garden.

However, I must say, the older I get, the more I contemplate those who have passed on. Perhaps it is because the graves I visit are no longer those important to my parents, but people important to me. Admittedly, visiting my mother's grave is more meaningful than that of my great-aunt or ancestors I've never met. Even so, as I've aged, I've also gained a greater appreciation for my ancestors and the trials they went through, and the hope, and sense of community that drove them.

As I've aged, it has also become apparent to me how fortunate I am in many respects. I have a good family, I live in a generally prosperous country, and though my life has risks, it is inherently less risky than most places in the world. I would love to say that all I have is because of my own creativity and determination, but when I examine the situation more closely, I realize I have been given much in my life. Having been raised by good parents, who instilled in my a desire for learning and for adventure, I have a great quality of life. I live in a land that is free that allows me to express my opinions, no matter how unpopular they are, without fear of retribution (atleast I hope) from the government. Given that it is Memorial Day, I feel I should acknowledge those who preserved that freedom.

As I sit with my new baby typing this post, I remind myself that there were young men who gave up the opportunities for what I have to defend our country. For all the soldiers whose life-blood drained from them on the battlefield, or died of diseases, or perished in so many unthinkable ways, the least I can do is acknowledge the debt I owe them.

I've often thought about the ending of the movie "Saving Private Ryan." Here in a cemetary in Normandy, an aged Private Ryan looks down on the grave of his C.O. and asks himself whether his sacrifice was worth it. His look into that mirror is a microcosm for all of us. Do we live our lives, worthy of the sacrifice of so many brave men and women? That is the question I go through every Memorial Day. Though I have so much less to lose than soldiers do, will I have the courage to do and say what I think is right and best for this country? Am I a good father, husband, son and friend? These are the types of things I muse about on Memorial day. For though I can never repay the debt I owe our soldiers present and past, I can atleast try to live my life in a way worthy of their sacrifice.

Best regards everyone.

Salon Article I Found Insightful

2007-05-25T09:06:00.000-07:00

In Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass," Alice tells the White Queen that she cannot believe in impossible things. But the Queen says Alice simply hasn't had enough practice. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." That human penchant for belief -- or perhaps gullibility -- is what inspired biologist Lewis Wolpert to write a book about the evolutionary origins of belief called "Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast."

Wolpert is an eminent developmental biologist at University College London. Like fellow British scientist Richard Dawkins, he's an outspoken atheist with a knack for saying outrageous things. Unlike Dawkins, Wolpert has no desire to abolish religion. In fact, he thinks religious belief can provide great comfort and points to medical studies showing that the faithful tend to suffer less stress and anxiety than nonbelievers. In Wolpert's view, religion has given believers an evolutionary advantage, even though it's based on a grand illusion.

He has a theory for why first took root. He thinks human brains evolved to become "belief engines." Once our ancient ancestors understood cause and effect, they figured out how to manipulate the natural world. In essence, toolmaking made us human. Similarly, early hominids felt compelled to find causes for life's great mysteries, including illness and death. They came to believe in unseen gods and spirits.

Wolpert sees human credulity all around him -- not just religious faith but all sorts of modern superstitions. His book targets astrology, psychics, homeopathy and acupuncture. Wolpert has participated in public debates with maverick scientist Rupert Sheldrake about telepathy and other paranormal experiences. He dismisses Sheldrake's theory -- that "morphic fields" can transmit thoughts through space and time -- as nonsense.

There's no doubt that Wolpert is a provocateur, but unlike some other prominent atheists, he doesn't come across as a bitter enemy of religion. In conversation, his pronouncements are often punctuated by laughter and mock horror. I spoke with Wolpert by phone about the origins of religion, his doubts about telepathy and acupuncture, and why the debate over religion is so personal for him.

Can you explain the "belief engine" in the human brain?

What makes us different from all other animals is that we have causal beliefs about the physical world. I know that if I throw this glass at the window, it's probably going to break. Children have this understanding at a very early age. Animals, on the other hand, have a very poor understanding of cause and effect in the physical world. My argument is that causal understanding gave rise to toolmaking; that was the evolutionary advantage. It's toolmaking that's really driven human evolution. This is not widely accepted, I'm afraid, but there's no question about it. It's tools that really made us human. They may even have given rise to language.

But there is evidence that some animals have a very primitive form of toolmaking.

There's no question that certain apes are at the edge of causal understanding and they do make some very simple tools. Chimpanzees can break a nut with a stone. They can also take a stick and peel it to get ants out of a tree. But it's still very primitive. Curiously, some crows show remarkable toolmaking, using sticks to get things out of bottles. But on the whole, it's primitive compared to us.

And I suppose the radically new thing our ancestors did was to put two objects together -- for instance, a piece of stone on a wooden handle.

Precisely. You can't do that without having a concept of cause and effect. And once you had that concept, you wanted to understand the causes of other things that mattered in your life, like illness. That's the origin of religion. The most obvious causes were those things caused by humans, so people imagined there was some sort of god with human characteristics. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different gods in different societies.

So once you have an understanding of cause and effect, then ignorance is no longer tolerable? You want to explain everything.

Exactly. You know, we cannot tolerate not knowing the causes of things that affect our lives. If you go to the doctor when you're ill, the one thing you can't stand is the doctor saying he or she has no idea what's wrong with you. And when they do diagnose you, I'm prepared to bet that on your way home, you'll tell yourself a story as to why you got ill.

But which came first: understanding cause and effect or learning to make tools?

They went together, but you cannot make complex tools without a concept of cause and effect. You must remember that no animal has a basket. If they go away from water, they can't take any water with them. They can't carry things. However, we're driven by interacting with our environment and looking for causes that affect our lives.

Are you saying our brains are hard-wired for belief?

Our brains are absolutely hard-wired for causal belief. And I think they're a bit soft-wired for religious and mystical belief. Those people who had religious beliefs did better than those who did not, and they were selected for.

Why did they do better?

They were less anxious. They also had someone to pray to. In general, religious people are somewhat healthier than people who don't have religious beliefs.

Haven't studies shown that religious believers tend to be more optimistic, and that they're less prone to strokes and high blood pressure?

Yes, exactly. Therefore, evolution will select them.

So religion gives us a sense of purpose and meaning, even though in your view it's totally an illusion.

Yes, many people would find it very hard to live without religion. But there is no meaning, I regret to tell you. [Laughs] We don't understand where the universe came from. But to say God made it, well, you want to say, who made God?

To say there's no meaning is a pretty depressing assessment, isn't it?

No, why should there be a meaning? I mean, we want a cause as to why we're here, but I'm afraid there isn't one. I don't find it depressing at all. I think it's remarkable that evolution has brought us into being. We're only here for one purpose, from an evolutionary point of view, and that's to reproduce.

You write that you were once quite a religious child yourself. When did you turn away from religion?

I came from quite a conventional Jewish family -- not Orthodox, but conventional -- in South Africa. I had to say my prayers every night. And I used to pray to God to help me in various things but found it didn't help. So I stopped being religious.

Your son became a fundamentalist Christian after a difficult late adolescence. Is he still an evangelical Christian?

No, he's not. The church he was in broke up. He's still a believer, but he doesn't go to church.

Does his faith bother you?

No. I found that religion was helping him a great deal. It gave him someone to pray to. He became a member of a church where they could discuss their problems. And I think the idea that he would eventually go to heaven gave him a great deal of encouragement.

Has your son read the chapter on religion in your book? It's rather dismissive of religion.

He knows I'm dismissive of it. In fact, I just spoke to him last night on the telephone and asked him, "Did I ever try to dissuade you from being religious?" He said, "No, you never did." I wouldn't agree with him, but I never tried to dissuade him not to be.

Do you find yourself wondering about ultimate meaning? Does that matter in your life?

Never. Ultimate meaning has no meaning in my life. I sound a bit shallow, but I think it's actually quite deep not to be bothered by that sort of thing.

You call David Hume your "hero philosopher." Why do you like him so much?

First of all, I don't like any other philosopher. I think philosophers are terribly clever but have absolutely nothing useful to say whatsoever. I avoid philosophy like mad. But David Hume does say such interesting and important things. He's very good on religion, for example. I like him for that.

Well, he didn't like religion.

No, it's not that he didn't like religion. If you take miracles, for example, there's a lovely quote from David Hume that you shouldn't believe in any miracle unless the evidence is so strong that it would be miraculous not to believe in it.

There are various competing theories about the origins of religion. One is the idea that religion evolved because it helped bind people together in social groups. Essentially, it acted like social glue. Why don't you think that's right?

I don't think it's wrong. There is some evidence that religion does lead to a community with shared views. But you have to ask, Why does religion deal so much with cause and effect? That comes from causal beliefs.

What about the idea that religion is a kind of "meme" -- an idea that has infected human cultures and keeps on spreading?

If you could tell me what a meme is, and how useful it is, I'd be very grateful. [Laughs] Please don't misunderstand, I'm a great admirer of Richard Dawkins [who developed the concept of memes]. But what are memes? How do you decide whether something is a meme or not? And what you really want to understand is, how is it passed on and why does it persist? This is never discussed. So for Daniel Dennett -- who's a philosopher, after all -- to get involved with memes, the moment he does that, I just stop reading him.

Virtually all these theories draw on evolutionary psychology. But I wonder if we're losing the flavor of religious experience, the willingness to live in mystery, embrace imagination and intuition.

Sometimes I've thought it must be quite nice to believe in religion. I'm getting quite old. The idea that I might go to heaven -- of course, there's also the possibility, in my case, that I would go to hell -- is quite an attractive one. Unfortunately, I don't believe that for a single second. I mean, the evidence for God is simply nonexistent.

Isn't there more to religion than belief in supernatural beings?

Certainly not.

But many theologians and scholars, such as historian Karen Armstrong say religion at its root is not really about a set of beliefs. It's more about how to live your life and being compassionate in the world.

Well, many people who are atheists can behave quite well. That doesn't make us religious. No, it doesn't work like that at all.

I grant that. But do you really think religion comes down to belief in the supernatural?

When I talk about religion, I'm talking about belief in the supernatural. In Western society, we're talking about God. I don't believe you can be religious without having some concept of a god.

What about William James? He talked about religion as experience more than belief.

I think "The Varieties of Religious Experience" is one of the best books written about belief. Nothing has really changed since he wrote it a hundred years ago. He did point out that many people become religious because they had a religious experience. And that fits with my idea that we're partly wired to have religious beliefs. If you take the active component of a magic mushroom and give it to a group of people, quite a few of them will have mystical, almost religious, beliefs. It must mean the circuits are there which are turned on by the drug.

So it all comes down to the chemicals that are firing in the brain?

I'm afraid so. Your neural circuits, yes.

(Obi wan's notes)

I only included part of the interview, but even so, I thought Lewis Wolperts thoughts were quite interesting. For the most strident of us atheists, it is good to keep in mind that belief in the supernatural, though not entirely rational, isn't entirely irrational either when looking at it from a Darwinian perspective. Religion may act like a placebo. Because you believe in what you believe is good medicine, it can have a positive effect upon many of those who take the placebo. However, if you figure out that it is a placebo, you benefit in not having to take the pill, but you also do so at a cost.

Where I have the most difficulties with religion, is when the doctrines impose unnecessary guilt upon people or when religionists seek to impose through the apparatus of the state, their own religious beliefs on others. The most significant example in today's world is the hurt and alienation faced by gays and lesbians living in a world where the majority views them as degenerate or evil. When people use the "family values" moniker to deprive gays and lesbians of the rights to marry or form legal equivalents, that is the point where I start taking off the gloves.

Religion can be a help to many people. It can also cause substantial harm to individuals and can be an active oppressor. The challenge for atheists is find a way of being respectful of people's beliefs, beliefs that seem to give them peace, while at the same time, fight those who would use religion to demonize and oppress those different from themselves.

On a lighter note- A Geologic Poem

2007-05-18T09:43:00.000-07:00

Tooele: Miocene to Present

Twas twenty million years ago the early Miocene,
The place we call Tooele was so quiet and serene,
Eroded little ridges and some hills that softly rolled,
Was all that there remained of mountains very very old,

But then a mighty earthquake caused a parting of the ground,
The crevice then grew wider in a manner most profound,
And rain and wind came pounding filled the trench from either side,
But each succeeding earthquake made the crevice grow more wide,

And soon there was a valley from the crevice once so small,
And on each side were hills growing oh so very tall,
And pretty soon these mountains rose between the valley fell,
When the Miocene had ended things had started rather well,

The Pliocene did much the same the valley grew and grew
The mountains rose majestically contorted through and through,
For in its rock were anticlines and synclines from the past,
Of old cretaceous mountains and volcano’s fiery blasts,

And then the world got colder and the ice would often form,
A massive glacial sheet on down the continent would swarm,
And cut up many mountains causing cirques and wide moraines,
And giant glacial lakes would often fill the valley’s plains,

And then it was the Pleistocene the climate was extreme,
The snow now caused a river where there used to be a stream,
A lake that we call Bonneville filled grabens full of silt,
And carved up many terraces on the mounts the earthquakes built,

And on these island mountains grew some creatures big and tall,
Like massive woolly mammoths and ground sloths eight feet in all,
And in the lake came salmon from the ocean far away,
I fish for their descendents on the weekend when I play,

And as the weather warmed again the lake did much recede,
And left a salty lake that dwindling streams could barely feed,
But now there was an animal that dwelled upon its shores,
These animals were humans much like mine as well as yours,

And as the Holocene progressed this period which we dwell,
The mountains kept on rising while the valley fell and fell,
For deep inside the earth are forces working to create,
This wondrous little valley in this pretty little state,

And looking from my porch I see the peak called Deseret,
And working in my yard I see the Oquirrhs green and wet,
These mountains catch the water and it flows on down the hill,
The water carries sand and silt the soil I love to till,

And up upon the mountains there are herds of elk and deer,
That forage on the grass and shrubs that flourish ever year,
And eagles soar and view the scene up high above the peaks,
And luscious grass and flowers line the mountain’s little creeks,

How wondrous is the place that came from nature’s many courses,
From Darwin’s evolution and from geologic forces,
I marvel and appreciate this place that I call home,
And honor my Tooele with this geologic poem.

Journey out of Mormonism- Reader's Digest Version

2007-05-06T09:39:00.000-07:00

On the KSL message boards, I have been asked the following by Piemaker 1:

Were you born into the church?
How long since you left the church?
Why do you claim to be an atheist rather than join another faith?

You have a great understanding of Church History and there are times you say things that a testimony comes through. I am sure you are a great person. But it is sad when anyone leaves the church.

Out of respect for Piemaker 1, I thought I’d answer her questions as honestly as I can, within the constraints of time and space available to me.

First of all, I was born in the covenant to parents who were atleast fourth generation Mormons. I descend from some prominent church leaders and polygamists whom left me with an impressive number of third and fourth cousins. I have served in various leadership capacities in the church and served an LDS mission.

As for the second question, I stopped going regularly in 1996 though made a couple of light-hearted efforts at re-activation, most recently in 1998. I have not attended the LDS church since that time. The reasons for becoming inactive and ultimately leaving the church were numerous but I’ll articulate a few of them in this post.

The most disturbing doctrines of the LDS church to me regarded the treatment of race. Even as a young man, the idea that God would punish people with dark skin for the unfaithfulness of their parents or for the lack of valiance in a war in heaven prior to this life, seemed to have disturbing implications. When people look in the mirror, to suggest that their appearance is a curse to me is reprehensible. To think that God idealized only fair-skinned individuals in the world from a little corner in Northern Europe just didn’t feel right to me. It wasn’t just that blacks couldn’t hold the priesthood, it was the teachings I learned growing up regarding Book of Mormon people. Lamanites and their descendents, the American Indians, had rejected Christian teachings by the prophets in ancient America and were cursed and became a “dark and loathsome” people. Racist teachings of the church certainly caused doubts even as I tried to feel the role of an active and up and coming young man aiming for mission service and leadership in the LDS Church.

There were other issues that would surface. I had my doubts regarding the Book of Mormon. I loved history, still do, and despite the grandiose claims of Mormons regarding the origins of Native Americans coming from Israel, non-Mormon scholars without exception seemed to indicate that Native Americans came from Asia via Siberia. Like many Mormons, I was hopeful that evidence would come forward to show the world that Mormons teachings were right. However, that has not been the case, and as time has gone on, it became apparent to me that the likelihood that the Book of Mormon was what it claimed to be was very remote. The use of DNA has only confirmed what archeological, linguistic and other evidence had suggested regarding native origins.

While on my mission, LDS Church apostle Boyd K. Packer gave a speech that greatly disturbed me. When reading the text of that speech, “The Mantle is Far Greater”, I felt that the message was an implied threat to anyone who searched out embarrassing historical information regarding past church leaders. As a history student at the time, I recognized that historians must seek to be objective and evaluate evidence without pre-conceived notions regarding historical figures. Even those historical figures whom you admire, should also be understood to be human and mistake prone. To make a long story short, Boyd K. Packer made me wonder, “what was it that he was trying to hide?” So I dug out information. First at the Institute of Religion at the University of Utah library where I read conference addresses from early period of the 20th Century. Though none of my research was very deep, what I read fascinated me.

I think it was in the mid-1990’s that I read the text to a lecture given by D. Michael Quinn from 1991 that brought me back to some of my tentative readings of church history from 1983. The issue was post-manifesto polygamy. As most Mormons believed, I also believed that the Woodruff Manifesto of 1890 brought an end to the practice of polygamy in the LDS church. Some things I had read back in 1983 talked about two apostles resigning and being out of harmony or something to that effect. These apostles were John W. Taylor, and my Great Great Uncle (through marriage) Mathias F. Cowley. Quinn’s speech filled in massive details that I had been curious about. As it turns out, LDS Church leaders from Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F.Smith, George Q. Cannon and others continued to authorize polygamous marriages, especially in the Mormon Mexican colony of Juarez. Mathias F. Cowley appears to have been one who had been encouraged to perform those marriages as were Anthony W. Ivins and others. My own Great Great Uncle, a Stake President from southern Idaho took a plural wife in 1902 and never suffered any church discipline for it. As I read more, it occurred to me that my church had not been entirely accurate in their portrayal of their history. I then wondered, what else did they leave out?

To make a long story short, the LDS Church has a lot of details about their history that they have not been forthright about. My study of Mormon history removed what cloak I had regarding the church. The LDS Church has many positive things about it. Being the one true church is not it.

The last question Piemaker 1 asked me was why did I become an atheist? Well, once Mormonism had pretty much been dis-proven in my mind, I also researched Christian origins and found Christianity no more compelling and believable than the fantastic claims made by Joseph Smith. So I choose to call myself an atheist. All religions to me are mythologies used to enforce social norms and provide comfort and direction for people. I am not against religion per se, but when religious leaders or followers decide to use their religious beliefs as the basis for enforcing their social norms on others, especially using the apparatus of the state to do it, I have felt compelled to speak out.

One thing I want to make clear in this post, is that I have not been mistreated or offended by members of the LDS Church. Most of the people who matter most to me remain faithful members of that faith and I love them and hope for their happiness and contentment. However, I also am a critic of the church for those things that I feel harm or hold back their members. I may address some of those things in future posts. I will try to do so in a way that is respectful, but recognize the magnitude of that challenge.

Challenging Authoritarian Thinking

2007-04-19T10:25:00.001-07:00

From time to time, I comment on the news at a website at http://www.ksl.com. I’ve found posting over there quite interesting and at times a bit disturbing. However, what draws me back is the fact that there are some reasonably well informed individuals who post over there. I also find it valuable to see what the other side has to say and see if it has any merit, because if I can’t defend my position under the scrutiny of others, then maybe I should rethink my position.

The internet is an amazing vehicle whereby points of view can be discussed in a way that was pretty much impossible only twenty years ago. I for one embrace this change. This is basically freedom of speech on hyper-drive. Ideas can compete with one another in a manner that 19th Century liberal John Stuart Mill would be most pleased by. This interesting but somewhat messy process has predecessors in ancient Greece, and I think most prominently during the Scottish enlightenment, where great minds such as Hume, Adam Smith and others would hang out at pubs and debate important issues.

However, I’ve learned a few things along the way, some of the them the hard way. I see the world through the paradigm that all positions should be subject to debate in a Darwinistic model of “survival of the fittest.” The idea that all ideas are subject to scrutiny and open to challenge in this internet eco-system often runs into the fact that people often hold certain ideas with such feelings and emotion, that to challenge them is to attack a person at their very core.

The basic challenge in Utah is that people use the words and ideas of LDS Church authorities and scripture as justification for their position on world events, and other topics. Mormonism is an authoritarian belief system, in that you base your perception of truth based upon the authority of the writings or opinions of leaders. Once the leader has stated what “the truth” is, the faithful then see only the evidence that confirms their “truth” and disregard evidence that challenges that “truth.”

As a result, in any message board format, the only good argument against authoritarian thinking is to call into question the authority. And in Mormonism or in any religion, devotion to that authority is part of the dogma which holds together the group. As a result, I often find myself in the uncomfortable position of challenging someone whom the majority here in Utah hold dear. And to do so seems to many of these folks to be offensive and disrespectful.

So anyway, off I go battling authoritarian thinking but sort of doing so as carefully and respectfully as I can. However, like everyone else, I have bad days when my frame of mind isn’t the best, and I’ve been known to push my case too hard and in a way that is blatantly offensive to some. But despite my many strikeouts in this regard, I won’t be shy about stepping up to bat and see if I can knock authoritarian thinking out of the ball park.

Cyber-Jedi Ten Commandments

2007-04-18T14:17:00.000-07:00

With the debate raging about whether the Ten Commandments can be posted on public property, I've decided to enter my own Ten Commandments for public consideration.

The Cyber-Jedi Ten Commandments

1- Thou shalt not use your particular belief in God to justify ideas. They must be able to stand on their own.

2- Thou shalt not promote or denigrate ideas on the basis of who promotes or supports those ideas.

3- Thou shalt not use name calling or guilt by association tactics to denigrate an idea or the person proposing the idea.

4- Thou shalt empathize with victims of crime and seek appropriate punishment of all perpetrators regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation or immigration status of the victim or the perpetrator.

5- Thou shalt praise cyber-posters who make sound arguments, even if the opinion expressed is different from the position held by the cyber-Jedi.

6- Thou shalt use humor and wit whenever possible but never use it to hurt someone. Thou shalt take great care to poke fun at the Jedi in the mirror more than the Siths in the cyber-world.

7- Thou shalt have no sacred cows for all ideas are open to challenge. Great care must be used to see that the challenge is done respectfully with the intent of enlightening, rather than insulting.

8- Thou shalt assume the best out of fellow posters but should not allow any past ill or good feelings to influence your cyber-post.

9- Thou shalt not refrain from calling on the carpet posters for tactics that are disrespectful and uncivil.

10- Thou shalt not take thyself nor votes on your posts seriously. Even so, all troll votes on posts that also get ditto and insightful votes shall be considered a badge of honor for you have created a disturbance in the farce.

A New Little Jedi

2007-03-07T13:57:00.000-08:00

Last weekend, my DW and I were blessed with a little baby girl. Daddy has been pretty much twitterpated ever since. It is truly amazing just how small they make these little people. This little girl will grow up with opportunities and challenges. She will ultimately have to make choices for herself regarding how to live her life and it will be her parents responsibility to help her grow in wisdom and self-confidence.

Holding my prescious little girl is to me the most rewarding thing I can do with my time. Unfortunately for me, my DW is more interesting to her than I am due to my inability to lactate. But seeing my baby is only a click away as her picture is now my desktop. Anyway, life is good most days, but my days have been especially good.

Obi wan kolobi- What's in a name?

2007-03-01T12:33:00.000-08:00

So what’s in a name? This name came to me as I thought about putting a Star Wars spin on my ex-mormon expressions of angst towards the Mormon Church. Since it was Yoda W. Kimball who sent me on my mission, I figured I could just say "I, Obi wan kolobi, having been born of good Mormon parents, have been sent on a mission from Kolob to restore truth, justice, and two party rule to the People’s Republic of Deseret." Hey, that works for me.

There are many angles towards the use of humor with a star wars character here in the online world. There’s the inevitable use of jedi mind tricks, (waving hand) “you will vote democratic”, etc. Then there’s “may the farce be with you” reference to both tongue and cheek humor and Utah’s own unique pronunciations. Really, the possibilities are endless.

On a side note, I originally tried to use “Obi wan kolobi” for the purposes of posting on the KSL message boards. For some reason, the moderators would not allow such a name so I go by the pseudonym “Obi wan liberali”. Some posters on the KSL message board have brought out that the picture I post is of Quai gon gin, Obi wan kenobi’s mentor jedi. I decided to go with that picture because frankly, I’m not Obi wan kenobi, I’m his distant kolobian cousin who just happens to look like Quai gon gin.

There are some interesting elements to the Jedi theme. First is the notion that you should trust your feelings rather than your senses. “Your eyes can deceive you, don’t trust them.” In general, I disagree with this element of the Jedi mindset. Detachment and objectivity are ultimately what I seek, not allowing myself to be manipulated by others through their appeal to my feelings. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen, it just means my intent is to prevent it. Growing up Mormon, I learned first hand how emotions can be manipulated and how the use of those feelings can then be attributed to a Mormon God. Moroni’s challenge is a classic case of manipulation. If you are to learn the truth, “desiring” to know the church is true is critical. Many people believe based upon their desire to believe. The challenge for the online Jedi warrior is to keep an open mind and be receptive to new information. A Jedi should also take seriously Obi wan kenobi’s point given to Anniken Skywalker, “only a sith deals in absolutes”.

And may the farce be with you all.

Musings on the Iraq War III

2007-02-15T10:49:00.001-08:00

Now comes the most worrisome part of the Iraqi war. What will the Middle East look like when we leave, which we must do eventually. To discuss this issue, the most important consideration is what will become of Iraq? Can the people within the borders of current day Iraq co-exist in a democracy? If they can, will this democracy be friendly to U.S. interests or antagonistic?

Based upon what I’ve read, I have grave doubts that Iraq can survive as a democratic country. For this to happen, Sunni Moslems will be required to give up power to a Shiite majority government. Kurds up north will likewise have to satisfy themselves as a minority and subject to the will of the majority Shiites. Inherent within any successful democracy, there must be a mindset that places certain rules of law in place at an intellectual level. The most important of these is protecting minorities from what some framers of our Constitution referred to as the “tyranny of the majority.” The bill of rights, those most important first amendments to our Constitution, protect the rights of everyone from the government. Can such a mindset work in Iraq. I have serious doubts that protecting rights is foremost among the considerations of Shiite Iraqis.

Even so, let’s assume that a successful democracy is working in Iraq. Will the people of Iraq view our occupation favorably or will the majority of them hold serious animosity to our country for violating their sovereignty? I find it unlikely that a Democratic Iraq will be much of an ally. The strategic goal of the Bush Administration was for a stable democratic Iraq to be the stabilizing center of gravity in the Middle East. The reality is that unless there is some miracle, this strategic goal is not going to happen.

So what are likely scenarios coming out of the Iraq War that we should anticipate or work to stop. The first most likely scenario revolves around alliances between Shiite areas of Iraq and Iran. More than anything, the Iraqi war has furthered the national interests of Iran. Though surrounded by American forces, Iranian leaders are confident that the United States will not escalate a war we are already losing in Iraq. For the United States to take on Iran at this point, we would need to re-institute the draft, raise taxes and greatly expand our military. Even the most die-hard conservatives would shy away from such a course for political reasons. I do not believe that the American people would support an escalation of the conflict.

So what are the implications if a greater Islamic Shiite state is created in the Middle East? First of all, Sunnis of all stripes will be greatly alarmed. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and many other primarily Sunni nations would not stand for further aggression by a creeping Shiite revolution. Under this scenario, I anticipate extremely destructive warfare being fought both conventionally and unconventionally for decades in the Middle East. In such an environment, regimes will likely change often, and do so violently. The impacts on oil production could be catastrophic to American and worldwide economic interests.

I think the scenario I just described is not only the most feared scenario, but one that has a significant probability of occurring.

If this scenario or a variant of it happens, the question regarding Israel’s security will need to be addressed. Clearly, the Iraqi War did not benefit Israel. By strengthening Iran’s position in the region, Hizbollah’s position has been strengthened considerably. Shiites located around Lebanon will be critical to Iran’s success in the conflicts likely to occur in the Middle East as this century progresses. In the conflagration that is likely to sweep the Middle East, opportunities for peace with Israel will be untenable.

The scenario I just described is most likely the worst case scenario. It is possible that Iraq could partition itself with minimal violence and out of economic necessity, some agreements are worked out between Sunnis and Shiites. Clearly, America will likely have no or little presence in such peace negotiations. In otherwords, America may find itself powerless of the future of a region that is critical to American interests.

Things may play out differently than any of the scenarios that could be anticipated. The point of this essay in the end, is that the United States through the actions of the Bush Administration has destabilized a region that is essential to America’s economic interests. Despite a vast expenditure of money, men and political capital, the United States will likely find itself more and more powerless to control events in the Middle East.

Musings on the Iraq War II

2007-02-05T14:38:00.001-08:00

To a degree, I feel a certain level of guilt regarding Iraq. After 9/11, I saw the wisdom of going into Afghanistan and trying to get Osama bin Ladin. I thought it imperative to send a message to nations that if they harbor terrorists such as Osama bin Ladin, you risk being attacked by the United States military. Military force, if used correctly, can have the kind of results you want and I believed the war in Afghanistan was appropriate. I was concerned that we didn’t go in there with adequate force the cut off the borders and prevent Osama and his chief deputies from escaping into Pakistan. Even so, I wasn’t going to get too much heartburn over some apparent failings in this enterprise. Though Osama lived, I believe he was to a great degree, contained.

The War in Iraq bothered me for many reasons. First, I didn’t trust Bush’s reasons for going in there. Iraq had not been a real issue for the United States in a long time, and most of the experts in the field said they were for the most part contained. Limited, but successful actions had declawed other nations that had supported terrorists and harmed U.S. interests before. Strong dictators are interesting phenomenoms. They talk tough and can be ruthless against their own people, but in the end, they fear losing power more than anything. I likened Saddam Hussein to someone like Moamaar Qadafi. To save face among his peers and among his people, he still needed to talk tough, but in the end, they had no intention of picking a fight with the U.S. These were for all intents and purposes, declawed tigers lacking most of their teeth. Their roar was a cover, not a real threat to the United States.

Enter 9/11 and the fear, hurt and anger that affected all Americans after this attack. We’d been to war with Saddam before, and despite kicking the snot out of him, he remained defiant publicly, even going so far as to claim victory. Everyone knew better, but still, there is this anger and hurt pride coming from Saddam’s vocal belligerence that seems to have set off something in the American psyche after 9/11. Bush, given carte blanche support from an emotionally reeling country, had little trouble rousing them towards war with Iraq. Bush asked for the intelligence necessary to justify war. The intelligence itself didn’t just jump out at Bush and say attack. This unnatural progression is the major reason why I blame Bush for the fiasco we are in in Iraq. Most of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia. None had ties to Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction had been an issue since George Sr. was in office, but U.N. inspectors hadn’t viewed Iraq as much of a threat. Saddam had a country to run, Al Qaeda didn’t.

Even so, we went to war in Iraq. Because I disagreed with the decision to go to war, I shamefully admit a certain gnawing guilt. The guilt derives from washing my hands of holding our elected officials accountable for their actions and that of our military commanders. As an American, I hoped for the best in this enterprise. What I hoped we could accomplish was:

1- Quick and almost bloodless overthrow of Saddam Hussein
2- Quick establishment of a provisional government, allowing Iraq’s military and infrastructure to remain mostly intact
3- American forces out of Iraq within a year or two of Saddam’s overthrow.
4- Government atleast marginally friendly to the United States in Iraq
5- Increased oil production due to Iraq using their oil as an impetus for economic growth and infrastructure rebuilding to help reconstruct their country

As it turns out, none of these goals occurred. Even so, objective 1 seemed to happen better than I thought it would. I worried a great deal about how effective the Republican Guard might be against our forces. As it turned out, our conventional forces showed a great deal of proficiency in meeting most of the objectives assigned them. Even so, Iraqi forces put up good fights in places like Najaf, Basra, Tikrit and in areas around Bagdad. Assessing the first objective after the fact, it is apparent that we brought too few forces into Iraq initially to maintain order, seize and destroy the large weapons caches, and secure the borders with Syria and Iran.

Objectives 2-5 are mine, and not necessarily Bush’s so admittedly it is hard to blame them for the failures to reach them. However, I would contend that the failure of the Bush administration to think strategically and have a unified strategic vision of what they wanted to accomplish is a major reason why we are mired in the fiasco we are in in Iraq.

As we progress through 2007, it is apparent that things have gone wrong. Iraq is mired in civil unrest and various factions battle each other and us. We are powerless to maintain order, but widely perceived as occupiers rather than liberators. Is there a clear pro-American faction in Iraq that desires our support? I haven’t seen one. This to me is a sign that our presence is rapidly becoming more of a hindrance than a help to the Iraqi people.

Even so, I haven’t made up my mind. Because I opposed the war, I did a poor job initially of observing how it was fought, how leadership responded to challenges in Iraq, and what mistakes were made in our attempt to reconstruct the country. This failure on my part has led me to start reading everything I can about the conflict and to be better informed. I want to read what is going on from all points of view. What I have read so far shows George W. Bush to be the worst war-time President in our nation’s history. Only marginally educated and weak-minded, he has failed to ask the hard questions of his subordinates that a good President must ask. People like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others have clearly led him down paths that have been destructive to our country and to his administration. He has fought a poorly justified and conceived war, poorly. The closest English example would of such incompetence would be Henry VI. Ideology is no substitute for wisdom and judgment, just as doomed the forlorn Henry of the 1400’s.

I will post more about my concerns about Iraq.

Musings on the Iraq war

2007-01-17T09:06:00.000-08:00

First of all, let me state emphatically, that I disagreed with the idea of going to war in Iraq. Going after the Taliban in Afganistan was risky and had the potential to mire us in a long-term conflict as invading Afghanistan had mired the Soviet military. Even so, I supported the war in Afghanistan. Osama bin Ladin had attacked Americans on American soil and was using the protection of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. The United States could not allow such an attack as had happened on 9/11/2001 to occur without some major use of force aimed directly at Osama and his supporters.

Now enter the war in Iraq. Never before had the United States invaded a country on the basis of what a country “might” conceivably do to them. To invade a country on this basis, I believe there should be really strong evidence not only of the intent, but of the ability to carry out attacks against the United States that would be of a crippling nature. No evidence of this kind was available. The evidence that was used by the Bush Administration was weak and unreliable. Even so, most Americans stood behind the decision. I think the reason for this is the natural tendency for people after being attacked as we were attacked on 9-11 to support their leaders, regardless of their misgivings. To oppose the War in Iraq would require great courage in an age where fear reigned supreme and solidarity seemed to be our most viable option. Basically, the Bush Administration was given a blank check due to the 9-11 attacks. What Bush did with this blank check ultimately destroyed his legacy by weakening our military, alienating our allies, squandering the good-will of other nations, and most importantly, costing us the lives of thousands of American service men and women.

Now as we enter 2007, the question is, what do we do now? We have been in Iraq now for nearly five years. We are being perceived less and less as liberators, and more and more as occupiers. The number of allies we have in Iraq is shrinking daily. The Bush Administration, trying to stem the tide of sectarian violence has decided to escalate our commitment by increasing the number of troops in Iraq. For many military analysts, this move makes sense given the fact that the country seems to be descending into an uncontrollable state. Recognizing the cost of failure in this conflict, some would argue that finally, Bush is making the appropriate decisions. For a balanced look at the War in Iraq, I suggest to everyone that they read “Fiasco” by Thomas Ricks. This book lays out the missteps taken by Bush, Rumsfeld, Franks, etal. One of those missteps was a failure to realize that you needed more men to occupy and rebuild, then you needed to conquer. Also apparent in Rick’s analysis is that the Bush Administration had no clear long-term goals for how to end this conflict and create a stable, Democratic Iraq.

Here is where I come down on this issue. Bush should have done this long ago, but it is time that a more concrete set of objectives be articulated, or a basic tangible and reachable strategy be put in place for what we hope to accomplish in Iraq. If the military commanders in the field say they need more men, we need to send them. However, if progress is not made, we need to have some contingencies. The failure of the Bush Administration to think in these terms in the past has led us to where we are today. As President, Bush needs to ask the hard questions of commanders, not just tell them to follow the company line. As much as the war in Iraq is a failure ideologically in the neocon drive to send a message to the middle east, it has also been a failure in terms of Bush’s management of the conflict. If we are to risk the lives of more troops, we must be assured that they will be handled by competent leaders. At this point, I doubt that is what we have.

Zarahemla Hillbillies

2006-12-07T18:58:00.000-08:00

Note- this is just a silly little song I wrote as a therapeutic way of recovering from Mormonism. Enjoy

Zarahemla Hillbillies

Now a listen to a story from a guy named Joe,
About an ancient people that we'll never really know,
The story is a figment of an immature mind,
Believing Jewish Indians is sure to leave you blind,

To the truth that is...

Now it tells a little story bout as prophesying koot,
Who had a muderin son who killed poor Laban for his loot,
He fled into the desert and he built himself a boat,
And with his liahona he would know which way to float,

To the promised land that is. Milk, honey and cureloms.

Well they landed on the land and then they had a little tiff,
Ol Nephi told his brothers to the Lord their necks were stiff,
So Laman and his brother and their kin were cursed with skin,
That got a heapin helping of a thing called melanin,

Dark and loathsome that is, full of all manner of iniquity.

Now the Nephites and the Lamanites they covered all the land,
From north at Hudson Bay down to the straights of Magellan,
The Nephites were a waiting for a Jesus Christ to come,
The Lamanites just laughed and said "you Nephites sure are dumb,"

Eat, drink and smoke funky weed, dudes.

Now a Jesus came but he was pissed from hanging on a cross,
He said "I've had enough of this, I'll show them whose the boss,"
He killed a bunch with lightning, and showers and quakes,
"I'll make these guys believe in me no matter what it takes,"

Take that non-believers!!

So the Nephites and the Lamanites they buried all their swords,
For out of fear of Jesus they did sign some peace accords,
But generations passed away and they began to fight,
And Nephites under Mormons like the French began a flight,

Up north that is, to a hill called Cumorah.

Now ol Mormon had a son who was a Moron with an I,
He gave his son some plates before he knew that he would die,
Now Moroni took the plates and then he made himself some coins,
He darkened up his skin and then he girded up his loins,

Alternative ending but just as believable.

So now it's time to say goodbye to Lehi and his kin,
Those dark and loathsome indians with cursed and darkened sin,
Now don't be fooled believing it because you kneel and pray,
These native people lack a drop of hebrew DNA,

Siberians that is. Read Southerton's book. End of story.

Constancy Amidst Change

2006-12-02T12:43:00.000-08:00

In a galaxy far, far, away.... I was a Mormon missionary. Knocking on doors trying to look for those who were seeking something new in the religion department was my job. Not an easy job in the religiously saturated and mature market of New England. We had a few angles that we were told to use to get people to hear our discussions. The first one dealt with "apostasy." We told the Jesus story with a Mormon spin. That Jesus not only lived and died in Judea, but he established a church with an organization of apostles and other callings. The death of Jesus and the persecution of the apostles resulted in a falling away from the one true church from the true teachings of Jesus. The Christianity that survived used some of Jesus's teachings but also adopted many pagan practices. Only with the "restoration" of not only those teachings, but ohat organization, would the truth be restored to the earth. At this point we introduced people to a New England farm boy, Joseph Smith who would restore that truth through visions, revelations, and the re-establishment of Jesus's true church organization. Most people were way to smart to fall for this little story, but every once in a while we'd get a taker.

This brings me to the issue of constancy. What appeal the church's message has for people, is that there is a constant truth out there that is unchanging and can give us security in an insecure world. A pamphlet we handed out as missionaries was written by Mormon apostle Mark E. Peterson and was called "Constancy Amidst Change." The information age creates a challenge for all of us. We can be rendered obsolete with the next invention. We can be quickly displaced by economic downturn and disruption. Family members may die or move away. We may have falling out with friends. Change can be quite uncomfortable and the winds of change can pull us off our foundation. The need for something constant amidst these winds of change is what religion seeks to provide. That there is a God who is unchanging, just but merciful, powerful yet restrained, loving yet demanding, but always constant in his direction to us on how we should live our lives is important to alot of people. We want answers and we want the comfort of knowing those answers.

However, "knowing" things may in the end be a delusion. Belief may be the word that is more appropriate. We believe things based upon how we perceive the world. The sure and safe world of religion appeals to people just as the confidence of a leader who sounds sure of him/herself appeals to us. We must always remember however, that confidence can be born of ignorance. The more we know, the more we understand how much larger the universe is for knowledge. I've heard it referred to as "the circumference of ignorance." This is why intelligent people may sound unsure or indecisive while some people who may be four cans short of a six pack may look not only confident, but decisive.

In an ever changing world, the question is, shall we adapt, or will we expect the world to adapt to what we already have convinced ourselves is the truth? Religion has shown itself to be adaptable in the right hands. Galileo, now proven right, is no longer considered a heretic. Mainstream Mormons, realizing how off-putting and divisive the doctrine of polygamy is, have for the most part changed. The challenge for religion is to be able to change without admitting fault. For the religious mindset is bent away from such ideas. For if a religion's leaders in the past have been wrong, why should we listen to the knewest crop of divinely inspired leaders?

For Mormonism, this is a great challenge. Many of the Mormon prophets were outspoken and very sure of themselves. This engendered confidence in the membership, but it was a confidence that was misplaced. The most prominent example involves one of the most revered Mormon prophets, Brigham Young. Where was Brigham Young when one of the greatest crises of American history was being played out over slavery. This man, with (from the Mormon perspective) direct communication from Jesus, not only defended slavery but put a divine spin on it. Brigham Young said,

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.
The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.
This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed."

What reprehensible nonsense! Until that curse is removed, "they SHOULD be the servants of servants." Do Mormons believe this now? No they don't. In fact, most have no idea that Brigham Young said such things. If they did, would it affect there opinion of prophets and modern day revelation? Is this "constancy" all that valuable, or should organizations learn from and admit mistakes and move on?

My First Post

2006-12-02T12:05:00.000-08:00

What I hope to accomplish on this blog is to communicate with myself my own thoughts about the world around me. I will address political issues, scientific debates, religion, philosophy and history and anything else I find interesting. I welcome feedback on any of my posts, both negative and positive. My goal in life is to learn and discover both things in the world and things about myself. To learn is to write. Writing forces your mind to organize your thoughts and it helps cement ideas, information and perceptions. My goal is not to convince others, only to open their minds to the possibility that I might have something to offer. I don't "know" what the truth is, but daily I try to increase my knowledge so I know what is the most likely correct hypothesis is. That is the mental disclipline I expect from myself, and seek to influence in others. Let me also note one important goal in life, art and understanding: wonder. What a marvelous world we live in with amazing beauty and diversity. Wonder is what an atheist such as myself uses to fulfill that most important human need for spirituality. So let's enjoy the journey and see what we can find out.

Best regards.