Anonymity is Lame

This is not a substantive post; just a little rant about my beef with those who love to be anonymous.

In general, I don’t get it. Why are people so affraid to reveal who they are on the internet? This is especially perplexing to me when it concerns topics they think are important enough to discuss and give their opinions about. For me, it undermines their credibility and for some reason I can’t take anything they say very seriously. It seems� they are afraid of their own views, or perhaps they’re afraid someone who knows them will find them out–and they will be embarrassed? Or perhaps they really don’t hold the views/opinions they spew forth and just like to play “devil’s advocate” with impunity? Whatever it is, it’s dumb (in almost a literal sense).

In particular, there are several people who submit posts and websites on Sustain’d who for some reason refuse to reveal their identity. This is frustrating to me because I have wanted to visit their websites or find out more about them. But their anonymity makes this impossible; they are mere names in the blogosphere.

Why do people insist on being anonymous? Any thoughts? And how do we start a campaign to promote identity?

Moroni's Preemptive, Imperialist War for Peace

You know the story. It’s about a man who sought glory and power through bloodshed, intrigue, and treachery. His name: Amalickiah, the Nephite dissenter. Amalickiah was an evil man who would do anything to obtain the throne. During his illegitimate rise to power, he used flattery, deceit, and murder to persuade both the Nephites and Lamanites. (Alma 46:5) Once in power, he “appoint[ed] men to speak from their towers, against the Nephites.” (Alma 48:1)

But it is the other side of the story that has recently impressed me. It is the story of Captain Moroni, the hero and champion of freedom. Amalickiah’s actions made Moroni angry. (Alma 46:11) Moroni gathered the freedom loving people and prepared them to “stand against Amalickiah” and the dissenters. (Verse 28) But that’s not all he did, i.e., “stand against” them. Far from it; Moroni took affirmative action.

Moroni sought to kill Amalickiah. (Verse 30). But interestingly, Moroni was not seeking the death of Amalickiah and the dissenters because of any Amalickiahite attack or physical disruption. No, in fact, Amalickiah and his people were running from Moroni at the time.

Amalickiah saw that the people of Moroni were more numerous than the Amlickiahites . . . therefore, fearing that he should not gain the point, he took those of his people who would and departed into the land of Nephi. (Verse 29).

Instead of a mere preparation for defensive struggle, Moroni “thought to cut off the people of Amlickiah . . . and put Amalickiah to death . . . .” (Verse 30) Therefore, while Amalickiah was fleeing in retreat, Moroni gathered his armies together and “marched out with his tents into the wilderness, to cut off the course of Amalickiah in the wilderness.” (Verse 31, emphasis added). And just in case you didn’t get the point, Mormon throws in some commentary here:

And it came to pass that he did according to his desires, and marched forth into the wilderness, and headed the armies of Amalickiah. (Verse 32, emphasis added)

Not only was Moroni setting out to fight an unprovoked (absence of physical attack) war, he was marching out of his homelands to do it. And Mormon makes sure we know the war took place out in the “wilderness”. What did Amalickiah do? He ran away. He “fled”. (Verse 33)

This didn’t stop Moroni. He continued with his designs to kill anyone who did not want to adhere to what he defined as “the cause of freedom”. (Verse 35). After killing those who refused to support the cause, he raised the national flag “upon every tower which was in all the land. . . .” Instead of waiting around for the Amalickiahites to attack his people, Moroni went out beyond the borders of the Nephites and fought a war; a war to kill anyone who opposed his brand of freedom. When he was done, he planted his foot in every Nephite state by raising the flag there. He made sure his brand of freedom would prevail in all the lands. But why did Moroni set out in this preemptive, imperialistic manner? It’s simple: he did it for peace. Imagine that, a preemptive, aggressive war for the purpose of establishing peace in the homelands!

And they began to have peace again in the land; and thus they did maintain peace in the land . . . . (Verse 37).

But whatever happened to Amalickiah (the coward who ran from Moroni when he sought to oppose him)? We know he “fled” or escaped into the wilderness, but what eventually happened? Amalickiah was able to evade the people of liberty for six years until “Teancum stole privily into the tent of [Amalickiah] and put a javelin to his heart; and he did cause the death of the king immediately that he did not awake his servants.” (Alma 51:34). Sounds like Teancum would make for an awesome CIA covert operative!

Matthew 13:9

1 Nephi 19:23

Another Diversity Dithering Disaster

Warning: those of you in the PC crowd will not appreciate this post.

After recently declaring “jihad” on the automarket, a car dealership in Columbus Ohio has been at the center of another censorship campaign run by the diversity elites.

Keith Dennis, the owner of Dennis Mitsubishi, sought to release an ad campaign with a tongue-in-cheek spoof on terrorists. I think it’s flat-out funny! The radio commercials begin by announcing war on the sales competition by offering irresistable prices. Plus, one of the featured vehicles comfortably seats up to 12 jihadists in the back. Dennis is heard in the commercial to say: “Our prices are lower than the evildoers’ every day. Just ask the Pope! Friday is fatwa Friday, with free rubber swords for the kiddies.”

Unfortunately, many radio stations refuse to air the ad because it does not “promote the values of diversity.” I think this is quite an ironic and telling statement about those in the hippie PC crowd. They have hijacked the word diversity and recast it to mean promotion of only those views they like. If they were honest about their love for diversity, they wouldn’t detest the diverse approach of making a parody of terrorism.

Also, the Columbus president of CAIR has spoken out against the ads because the “tone and imargery [are] mocking and disrespectful to many different areas.” What is he saying? As far as I can tell, the ads only mock terrorists. Is this wrong? If it is, why? What ever happened to real humor?� This ad is only a spoof! Was it so wrong for Mel Brooks to write Springtime for Hitler? I don’t think so. But hey, I’m not overly sensitive to murderers.

The so-called “diversity” crowd won the dispute. Dennis pulled the commercials. Two cheers for another diversity victory.� Aren’t you so glad the diversity elites are protecting our rights to say what we want.
Read about the issue here, here (this one calling the ads “racist”), and here.

Steven Jones: Pandering to Paranoia for Popularity

It’s true, those who buy into the 9/11 conspiracy theories are gullible and paranoid. And those who continually espouse and propagate the theories are merely pandering to these poor souls in attempt to obtain their own proverbial fifteen minutes of fame. Unfortunately, it’s working.

Even more disconcerting, a professor at BYU is the main proponent of a leading 9/11 conspiracy theory. His name is Steven Jones.

Unfortunately, Jones has been running his mouth about how he thinks the trajedy of September 11, 2001, was perpetrated by Neo-Cons (an absurd term used by academics to polarize and foster paranoia about right-wing political philosophy) in the current government.* He alleges the atrocity was planned and carried out by the government in an attempt to bolster support for U.S. domination of oil-rich Arab countries.*

At first blush, I was interested in his theory (and other variations). And I’ll have to admit, one or two of the issues brought to light could be compelling without a holistic and sober view. Fortunately, I have seen through the dribble. I’ll explain briefly.

In recent news reports and speeches, Jones has conveyed the following:

It is impossible for the towers to have collapsed from the collision of two aeroplanes, as jet fuel doesn’t burn at temperatures hot enough to melt steel beams. The horizontal puffs of smoke - squibs - emitted during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled implosions on lower floors. (See Article: “Who Really Blew up the Twin Towers”).

Also, yesterday Jones was reported to have said, “We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we’re going to get to the bottom of this.” Thus, he of course believes his theory is the truth and claims the “official” story is the conspiracy.

I have three principle beefs with Jones:

1) He claims the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions and the use of thermite; this is because he believes the burning jet fuel could not have “melted” the steel. I find it odd that a professor (of physics no less) can not understand that steel can be weakened before it “melts”. My five-year old can understand that hard metal can be weakened by the impact of a jumbo jet combined with lesser heat. Indeed, I suppose Mr. Jones has no interest in listening to what experts have said about the weakening of steel. His theory has long been debunked! Does anyone else besides me think it is extremely odd that a professor of physics doesn’t understand this? How does he maintain his job? Oh yeah, I almost forgot about that tenure thing.

2) Jones claims it was an “inside job” by the White House. Earth to Professor Jones: by your own admissions, the “job” you propose would take a thousand pounds of thermite in approximately 100 locations in each building! Doesn’t this set off any paranoia alarms in his head? How is it that all this work was accomplished by the White House without one single individual breaking confidence? I suppose Jones believes Paul Wolfowitz planted all the thermite in his spare time away from the World Bank. Sure, it’s plausible; if you’re a nut-case.

Clearly, Jones is nothing but a professor of paranoia!

3) Finally, I am disheartened by the way Jones subtly infuses religion into his argument. He says, “by God” he will get to the bottom of “this”. Well, everyone knows he’s a member of the Church. It’s just not good form! You poor BYU grads.

(In case you didn’t link to the articles I cite, you should check out the Popular Mechanics piece–particularly the part about weakening of steel).

Scalia, Billy Brennan's Mistakes, & Mormon Bigamy

On Monday I had the extrememly rare privilege of sitting in the same room as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was in San Diego this week to pay a visit to the University of San Diego School of Law. Fortunately, a professor from Thomas Jefferson was able to pull some strings and get him to speak to a couple hundred of our students too. He was speaking to second-year Con-Law students. I was lucky enough to get in even though I’m in my third year because the law review was given a few seats. In fact, you can see the back of my ugly head in this picture taken while I was seated waiting for the lecture to begin (blue shirt, bottom right). You can also read comments about his visit on Thomas Jefferson’s web site.

It was a great experience! Not only did we get to hear from a Supreme Court Justice, but it just so happened to be one of my heroes! Ever since my undergraduate course in constitutional law, I have deeply admired Scalia’s judicial philosophy and theory of interpretation.

Indeed, I agree with him that the only legitimate way of understanding what the Constitution means today is to “look at what it meant to the founders, otherwise, you have no standard.” Those who believe in an elastic or evolving Constitution actually don’t believe in any Constitution; they believe in the tyranny of 5–whether they know it or not! It’s true. If there is no original standard, then the Constitution means whatever the majority of the Court says it means (and this changes with the composition of the Court–hence the fierce battles over nominations even in District and Circuit courts now). Incidentally, it’s not just what the Constitution means, it’s what any law means; this is because one of the greatest axioms in the law, enunciated by Chief Justice John Marshall, is the following:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. (Marbury v. Madison)

Simply put, we are either governed by laws or men. The only way to be a government of laws is to have a standard for what those laws mean; without a standard, it is men who govern. When men govern, tyranny is virtually always the result.

Needless to say, I highly enjoyed the Justice’s lecture. I found it quite interesting how humorous he is–I would never have guessed he was so funny. He wouldn’t go a full stream of thought without making everyone laugh.

But what I found most interesting is he opened his lecture up to questions. He typically doesn’t do this because of the disrespectful ways he is treated by many of those who disagree with him. Previously, I posted on this total lack of civility. Yet, he was gracious enough to give TJSL students a shot.

All of the questions were appropriate, and most of them were quite good. One in particular was great; it caught the Justice completely off guard: “Out of all the opinions you’ve written, which are you most proud of?” He thought about it for quite a while, and then said, “Oregon v. Smith“. After giving the brief facts of the case, he began discussing the “free-exercise clause” of the 1st Amendment, and religious freedom in general (he was speaking primarily to new con-law students). Then he started talking about Mormons in the 19th century who practiced bigamy. Next, he berated a former Justice for his erroneous prior oppinions in the context of the free-exercise clause: Justice William Brennan (Scalia calls him “Billy” Brennan). He then brought it full circle and said why he is so proud of Oregon V. Smith.

In Smith, two Native Americans were fired from their jobs at a drug rehab center after it was revealed they were injesting peyote as part of their religious ceremonies (peyote is a hallucinogen). The two men then filed for unemployment benefits from the state. Their requests were denied because the reason for their termination was considered “misconduct”–peyote was a controlled substance in Oregon. They sued claiming a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. They claimed it was unconstitutional for the state to punish them under the law because peyote use was part of their religion; and the 1st Amendment protects free exercise of religion. Their argument relied wholly upon a rule (or what is more accurately known as a test) that Justice Scalia says was “made up by Billy Brennan”.

In 1963, Justice Brennan departed from nearly 100 years of precedent to make up the rule. In short, Brennan said states can only infringe on religiously motivated conduct if the state proves it has a “compelling interest” in doing so. (See Sherbert v. Verner). Compelling Interest is a term of art meaning the state will almost always fail (a high burden of proof).

The precedent Brennan departed from involved Mormon polygamy: Reynolds v. United States. In the late 1870s, George Reynolds was convicted under an anti-bigamy statute. In his defense, he claimed his religion required him to practice polygamy and that the law infringed on the free exercise of his religion. The argument failed; and properly so. The Court drew a distinction between religious belief or opinion, and religious action or conduct. The Court drew an analogy to religion requiring human sacrifice and said:

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

Thus, the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs and opinions, and not action. Indeed, the Clause only protects religious action or conduct if the statute is specifically targeting the religious practice. Billy Brennan errouneously disregarded this precedent.
However, Scalia restored the true meaning of “Free Exercise” in Smith. The case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court after the state appellate and supreme courts held in favor of the two men. But the High Court ruled against them and reversed the Oregon courts. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia said the following:

To make an individual’s obligation to obey. . .a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is “compelling” - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, “to become a law unto himself,” - contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.

So there you have it, when Justices decide they know better than the original meaning of the Constitution, mistakes are made. Justice Brennan was the polar opposite of Justice Scalia. The main difference is Scalia understands that there must be a standard or we become laws unto ourselves (the Justices particularly). Originalism is the proper standard!

Pro Bono Publico

It means “for the public good” in Latin. There is a very long-standing tradition in the law that obligates every lawyer to render free legal services to indigent defendants (criminal and civil). This tradition dates back to the 15th century.

In terms of criminal cases, lawyers are required to represent defendants if appointed by the court. In 1965, one lawyer tried to get out of an appointment by filing suit against the government claiming his appointment was a violation of the takings clause of the 5th Amendment (a rather crafty argument I think–some other interesting arguments have been made based on the takings clause, see this law review Article written by Kaimi Wenger; he argues slavery was a violation of the Takings Clause). The attorney claimed that his services as an attorney should be considered a taking for public use. He lost. His appeal was denied. The 9th Circuit Court said the follwoing to the attorney:

An applicant for admission to practice law may justly be deemed to be aware of the traditions of the profession which he is joining, and to know that one of these traditions is that a lawyer is an officer of the court obligated to represent indigents for little or no compensation upon court order. Thus, the lawyer has consented to, and assumed, this obligation and when he is called upon to fulfill it, he cannot contend that it is a ‘taking of his services.’ U.S. v. Dillon, 346 F.2d 633, 635 (1965).

In civil cases the law is only a little different. In the late 80s a Federal Court in Iowa required a newly admitted bankruptcy attorney to represent several indigents in a civil rights case. He refused. The fight went all the way to the Supreme Court and the attorney argued his own case and won a narrow 5-4 victory. Mallard v. U.S. District Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).

Nevertheless, the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility obligate attorneys to render 50 hours of unpaid services to indigents every year. California Business and Professions Code Section 6068(h) specifically states the following:

It is the duty of every attorney to never. . .reject, for any consideration personal to himself or herself, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.

My question is simply this: why is it that no other professional occupation is required to provide free services? Why can’t I go into my doctor’s office and get a free check-up once a year? After all, I’m poor as dirt! It all just seems so weird to me. Attorneys are constantly bashed and thought of as unethical thugs (and I don’t necessarily disagree with this generalization). But it seems a bit ironic to me that it’s the only profession giving so much of its time and services to indigents, free of charge!

Astrology: Psuedoscience or Ancient, Hidden Truth?

� � � In the scriptures there are numerous references to stars, planets, and astronomical phenomenon. A simple search of the scriptures for the word “star” catches several interesting passages.
Generally, Alma pointed to the existence and regular motion of the planets as evidence that God exists. Surely Alma must have believed the motion had meaning and purpose and was part of God’s design.

Also, there are several places in which the children of God are likened unto “morning stars“. Indeed, Satan fell from his position as a son of the morning.

Specifically, the constellation of Orion is mentioned four times in the Bible. But the most interesting to me is an explanation found in DC 88:42-43, 47:

And again, verily I say unto you, he hath given a law unto all things, by which they move in their times and their seasons; And their courses are fixed, even the courses of the heavens and the earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets. Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.

Again, here tied to the existence and movements of planets and stars is the importance of knowing the meaning of it all; the general meaning is that God’s majesty is revealed in it. I have mentioned before that scripture is replete with statements that all things testify of Christ. One such scripture specifically states that “things in the heavens above” exist to testify of Christ.

So, the question is whether astrology, as it exists today, has any particle of truth in it? I have adopted Brigham Young’s approach of treasuring truth where ever it may be found. And I’m beginning to think there is some truth in astrology in general (I’ve never been a fan of horoscope reading etc.).

There is a very interesting article that just was published by John Pratt in Meridian Magazine. The article is compelling because Pratt, an expert astronomer, gives evidence that the 48 constellations were first revealed to Enoch. Pratt then gives possible meaning for each constellation and how they point to Christ and the gospel.

Also, there is the fact that Jospeh Smith was likely influenced by gnosticism and probably understood the real meaning of astrology. I don’t see the harm in believing that he did–if freemasonry was perverted truth, why couldn’t astrology and gnosticism have truth as well? But apparently orthodox appologists feel threatened by the thought.

Moreover, it has been debated whether Joseph owned a Jupiter Talisman. You can read about this debate here (this is another orthodox appologist’s view that Joseph never owned the talisman). Emma’s second husband fathered an illegitimate son named Charles. Charles was raised by Emma until she died when Charles was only 15. When Charles was old, he sold a Jupiter Talisman to a Mr. Wilford Wood. Charles swore an affidavit that Emma told him numerous times that the talisman was Joseph’s and that he was carrying it in his pocket the day he was murdered. The veracity of this story is debated. However, Reed C. Durham Phd. (director of the LDS institute at the University of Utah) believed it was Joseph’s; he refered to the talisman as a “masonic jewel”.

This jewel was inscribed with the sign of Jupiter, or the sign of sagittarius–the most powerful in the zodiac.

Aside from all of this, Brother Todd B. Parker has pointed out something very interesting. He has pointed to the fact that Joseph was born on Winter Solstice in December 1805; the winter solstice is when light begins again to come into the world (the sun begins its way north again). Joseph was murdered on Summer Solstice in June 1844; the summer solstice is when light begins to go out of the world (the sun begins its way south). Interesting coincidence eh? I don’t think so. Perhaps an astrological sign?

Stange Ships & Shining Stones

Historically, The Book of Mormon has been attacked from every angle. Since the beginning, critics have sought to prove the book is not what Joseph and its witnesses claim it to be. The account of the Brother of Jared was heavily cited by the first anti-mormons in their attempt to debunk the sacred text. According to J.C. Bennett (one such attacker), the story of the Jaredites with their ships and shining stones was the book’s biggest mistake. Bennet said this story showed that Joseph “used his utmost endeavors to see how far he could impose on the gullibility of mankind. It [would] be useless to make any further comments to prove the absurdities of this extraordinary book.” (J. C. Bennett, History of the Saint, Boston: Leland & Whiting, 1842, p. 126; for several other references to the Jaredite story used as evidence of the Book of Mormon’s falsity, see Hugh W. Nibley, Approach to the Book of Mormon, p. 340). Extraordinary indeed!

Of course, Bennett and the others have since been proven sorely wrong because the story of the Jaredites and their journey now serves as one of the greatest evidences of the book’s veracity. The symbolism set forth in the story, together with recently discovered historical evidence, again show that Joseph in no way could have written the story himself–nor could the smartest man alive in his day.

First, take a brief look at the symbolism. As a general matter, the story of the Jaredites serves as a type of every person’s life. Thomas R. Valletta has written that “[t]he Book of Mormon chronicle of Jared and his brother is the story of us all in our quest for the eternal land of promise.” (Monte S. Nyman, Charles D. Tate, eds., Fourth Nephi through Moroni: From Zion to Destruction, p.303).

The Lord taught Moses that “all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual.” There are many ways in which things testify of Christ. Specifically, the Jaredite journey through the waters is clearly a symbol of baptism. Orson F. Whitney stated: “Paul discovered, by symbolical reasoning, or had it revealed to him more directly, that the children of Israel, ‘our fathers,’ were all baptized in passing through the Red Sea, on their way to Canaan (1 Cor. 1:2): an idea which suggests that the Brother of Jared and his colony may have been baptized in like manner, for they underwent a similar experience in passing through ocean deeps on the way to their promised land (Ether 6:6).” (Orson F. Whitney, Gospel Themes, p.59). Also, one could argue that the figure 8 takes on a symbolic meaning in the story. There were 8 barges. In the story of Noah, there were 8 people aboard the ark. In fact, Peter made special mention of this in reference to baptism. Said he: “once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us. . . .” (Emphasis added).

I think it’s is pretty clear that Peter was refering to the number 8, and not water. It’s clear because he uses the word figure and not simply “whereby” or similar wording like that. Even if not, it’s still curious he even uses the number 8. Either way, the number probably is significant; why else would Peter mention it? There are other symbols you will find as you read through the story.

Now for a brief look at the historical evidence. First, Hugh Nibley points to an interesting clue found in Ether 6:7: the barges were built after the manner of Noah’s ark. In particular, the aspect like unto Noah’s ark was that the barges were “tight like unto a dish”. The barges probably didn’t look a lot like what is depicted in the artwork at the foot of this blog. Or maybe they did, and the depictions of Noah’s ark are way off. This is what Nibley suggests. Or perhaps, the barges and the ark are a hybrid of both concepts? The Hebrew word for ark is tevah, which means “a closed receptacle”. An interesting depiction of what the barges may have looked like is below (larger image here):

The most interesting evidence surrounds ancient Jewish traditions which held that Noah had with him on the ark a zohar, i.e. a shiner or illuminator. This Jewish/Hebrew tradition is well established and recognized. (See, Midrash Rabbah, Trsl. H. Freedman (London: Soncino Press, 1939), I, 244; and Talmud Jerushalmi, Pesahim, I, 1, Schwab Trsl., Paris, 1882, cited by E. Mangenot, in F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible (Paris, 1894), I, 923).

Nibley cites some Rabbis who believe the zohar was a precious stone that gave actual physical light to the ark (much like the BoJ’s 16 stones); and he cites other Rabbis who believe the zohar was a transparent stone that provided Noah with a means of distinguishing night from day. Rabbi Akiba ben Kahmana describes the zohar as “a polished gem which [Noah] hung up: when it was dim he knew that it was day, and when it shone he knew it was night.” (Nibley, Approach to the Book of Mormon, p. 141). Furthermore, the Jerusalem Talmud expressly states that “Noah was able to distinguish day from night by certain precious stones he possessed, which became dim by day and shone forth by night.” (Id. at 142). However, the Jersalem Talmud was non-existent in the United States until 1860; and even after that, it is extremely rare that Hebrew scholars can even understand it.

So, did Joseph coincidentally make up a story about light-giving stones in tightly sealed boats that exactly matches the historical traditions and evidence for the ark of Noah? I don’t think so. Rather, Mahonri Moriancumer most likely got his idea to illuminate the barges from this ancient tradition stemming from the ark. Just as Ether 6:7 explains: “their vessels. . .were like unto the ark of Noah”.

Strange Ships and Shining Stones have brought forth that which will lead us to Christ, and have once again vindicated Brother Joseph!

Do Christians Know Their History?

I’ve always found it interesting to visit Christian* book stores. It’s interesting to me because I am invariably led to the aisles dedicated to anti-mormon literature. Indeed, anti-mormon literature has always been interesting to me; in fact, I can honestly say I’ve learned quite a lot from reading it (one book in particular strengthened my conviction ten-fold). Lately however, I have not been too interested because I find there is nothing new — it’s all the same recycled stuff. Some is interesting, most is not.

I was first introduced to this bigotry while serving a good chunck of my mission in what is dubbed the “Christian capital of the world” (a.k.a. Colorado Springs, Colorado). Since that time, I have come to understand why so much of this literature is produced — I have even come to appreciate the motive: cognitive dissonance.

A main theme running through much of the literature is of course rooted in an attempt to discredit Joseph Smith. You know the old saying: “Cut off the head and the body dies”. These propogandists percieve themselves succeeding in discrediting Joseph, and thus think the rest of LDS theology and Mormonism dies as a result. Their approach seems logical. But it’s the approach taken by the Carthage Grays, who obviously failed in their attempt to kill the body through decapitation. Hatred dies a slow death I suppose; especially when aimed at the wrong head (the modern bigots have failed, just like their Carthage brethren, to realize that a group in Palestine already succeeded in killing the head of Mormonism — He rose from the dead three days later as the victor).

While thinking about the goal and approach of anti-mormon literature, I have formulated a question: have the mainstream christian apologists (who invest enormous amounts of time and money propogating bigotry against Catholics, Jehova’s Witnesses, and Mormons) failed to see and understand the problems with their own roots because they are so caught up in attempting to undermine others? I think so. Moreover, I think this is the case because their majority position allows them to constantly be on the offensive; they are apathetic about their own beliefs because there is no need to discuss the serious problems of authority, practice, doctrine, and scripture. There is no need because they are never seriously brought into question.

Do Christians understand the purpose of the Council of Nicea (held in A.D. 325)? Do they know how it was brought about? Do they acknowledge that Emperor Constantine was a pagan until just before his death-bed baptism by a Bishop who was a follower of Arius (one who believed the Son of God was a created being)? Do Christians even know why these questions are important to their belief system?

The nature of Christ was “decided” (not determined, His nature already existed) at this Council. Constantine called the council, not because he was worried about the truth; no, because he was worried about losing his power! Pope Sylvester didn’t call the Council — he acknowledged he had not the authority to do so. However, he attended the Council; as did numerous Bishops, none of which claimed Church-wide authority.

Much of the fundamental doctrine of mainstream Christianity today has sprung from this debate about the nature of God. The Bishops were compelled by Constantine to come to a consensus; this forced out ALL OTHER BELIEFS as heretical. Similar Councils of men, who claimed no legitimate authority, would later define God as a concept to unify the people politically.

Today the debate rages. Only now the debate is between “Christians” and those whom the Christians dub as “cults” (cults because we are heretics for believing in truth revealed instead of fabrications from Rome).

Do Christians know their history?

*I use this word loosely because there is certainly a lot of debate about what makes a person Christian. (E.g., virtually all mainstream born-again christians preach, and actually believe in a rather bigoted manner, that Catholics are not Christian).

What is Evil: A Response to J. Stapley

I was recently accused of exaggeration. The statement I made was this: “Diversity as an end (i.e. loving diversity and promoting it for its own sake) is evil because unity in truth can never be achieved.” I was referring to diversity of mind or opinion; and I later qualified the concept further. However, this post is not about diversity. The diversity post can be found below. Rather, this post is directed at defining evil (or defining good as an approach to defining evil).

My point is, I believe I was wrongly accused of being hyperbolic. This isn’t a personal attack on J. Stapley’s accusation, but it is my attempt at showing why I think many people, including J., are too quick to dismiss something because it may appear harsh to their sentiments.

I should probably state from the outset that I acknowledge some of my actions, thoughts, and oppinions are evil. In other words, I’m not trying to pin anyone down as evil because I lump the whole of humanity together as being in desperate need of salvation from the evil that surrounds us, and indeed is part of us.

Simply stated, it is my belief that something is evil if it detracts from, or in any way thwarts the purpose of another thing’s existence. I come to this conclusion based on the scriptural definition of “good”. If we know what good is, we can discern evil as its opposite.

From the very beginning, God teaches us how to discern what is good. He said: I, God, ended my work, and all things which I had made; and I rested on the seventh day from all my work, and all things which I had made were finished, and I, God, saw that they were good. What made God’s creations good? It was because they were filling the measure of their creation. In other words, God’s creations were good because they were in harmony with their purpose for existing. They were in harmony with their purpose as a result of their obedience.

If something is good as a result of being in harmony with it purpose, it is evil (or bad) if it is not in harmony with the same. A simple analogy illustrates the point. In music, there are keys which are composed of various notes in a scale. A note is considered “bad” if it is played out of key (the wrong note in the scale). The note is not in harmony with its natural position or purpose for existing (i.e. another key). So too, if anything is not in harmony with its purpose for existence, it may be considered evil by definition. Also, if a thing tends to detract or thwart another thing from its purpose, it is evil.

The purpose of human existence is happiness. (See TPJS p. 255). Ultimate happiness is only obtained by becoming like God. (Id.) God is God because he is unified with all truth or reality. (See DC 93:26). One cannot become like God without being unified in like manner. (Id. at verse 27).

Thus, a person is not all good until he is like God — or at least in harmony with God through Christ. Being in harmony with our purpose is goodness. Diversity of opinion as an end in itself and in regard to truth (at least for some) is evil because those without truth are not in harmony with their purpose.

All Things are the Typifying of Him

My first real introduction to symbolism came while I was serving my mission. It was in my last area (Aurora Colorado), and I was with my last companion. I was lucky to have a dedicated companion during my final months.

This companion happened to bring along an audio tape that would end up changing my general perspective about God and the Gospel of Christ. It was an obscure recording of a CES instructor, Todd B. Parker. I have tried to find a copy of the tape; my efforts have been in vain. However, the lecture impressed me so much that I took notes. Moreover, I have been able to find parts of this lecture on-line (in a FARMS publication).

This post will serve as part one in a series of posts in which I plan to share insights from the lecture.

I was reminded again of these insights when I visited Tyler’s blog earlier today. In the thread to one of his posts, an anti-mormon attempted to argue that Joseph Smith “fabricated [the Book of Mormon] out of thin air.” My first thought in response to this was: if he fabricated it out of thin air, he must have been a genius inspired by either God or the devil himself. Indeed, the lecture by Brother Parker reveals that Joseph would have to be a genius on many levels!

To begin, Joseph brought forth two verses of scripture that reveal this basic truth: all things are created to bear record of, and to symbolize/typify Christ. (See 2 Nephi 11:4; Moses 6:63).

Of course everyone knows the Book of Mormon testifies of Christ — its subtitle declares it “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”. But the coming forth of the book typifies Christ in a different manner, or from a different perspective. The manner in which it does this, you will see, is not coincidental. A simple list of the physical characteristics of the Book’s coming forth will show what I mean:

• The coming forth of the Book was declared by an angel (Moroni)
• Christ’s coming forth was declared by an angel (Gabriel)

• The Book came forth in a time of apostasy to restore truth
• Christ came in the meridian of time to restore truth

• The plates were laid away in a stone receptacle
• Christ was laid away in a stone receptacle (the tomb)

• It was taken from the receptacle by a man named Joseph
• Christ was put into the receptacle by a man named Joseph (of Arimathaea)

• The plates came forth from the receptacle after the stone was moved away
• Christ came forth after the stone was moved away

• An angel was there to see the coming forth of the plates (Moroni)
• An angel was there to see the coming forth of Christ from the tomb

• The first to see the plates (Joseph) was forbidden to touch them
• The first to see Christ (Mary Magdalene) was forbidden to touch him

• The book was attested to by 12 special witnesses (the 8, the 3, and Joseph himself)
• Christ had 12 special witnesses

• The Book of Mormon is the Word of God
• Christ is referred to as the Word of God

• The Book of Mormon teaches the fulness of the gospel
• Christ taught the fulness

• The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion
• Christ is the cornerstone of our religion

So, if Joseph did fabricate the book out of “thin air”, he was a genius like the world had never seen, nor seen since. He would of had to consider all of these intricate types and shadows, on top of writing the book without extensive resources. And on top of it all, for some reason he decided not to expound upon his masterpiece; for I’ve never read of Joseph discussing these types.

Truly Joseph was the servant of God and brought forth this ancient record under the direction of the Almighty. This record, known as the Book of Mormon, testifies of Christ in more ways than one.

Blogging is My Journal

There are a lot of perks about blogging! The Blogger of Jared was initiated as a means whereby a few friends could continue our philosophical and doctrinal musings even though we have since moved apart.

Furthermore, I feel as though I have gained at least a couple new friends (even though I don’t even know what they look like). Specifically, I thoroughly enjoy hearing what Eric has to say every Monday evening or Tuesday morning. And I always enjoy reading Tyler’s remarkable writing.

But there are other perks too — this blog serves as an automatic compilation of my thoughts, or in other words, as my journal.

There have been a few times in my life in which I was pretty good about keeping a journal. While on my mission, I was fairly consistent: I filled about 150 pages or so during my two years. After my mission I wasn’t as consistent. And during the past few years, I’ve been terrible. But a few months ago a thought came to me: why can’t my blog posts be considered my journal?

Well, I’ve since thought that they can be; and indeed, in today’s Elders Quorum lesson (on journal writing) some of the brethren in my quorum agreed with me.

The truth is, I continue to blog primarily because I have a desire to keep a record of my thoughts. Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy writing and having an ongoing discussion about various topics with really smart people like you guys and gals. But honestly, the concept of having a continuous record of my thoughts is what keeps me posting. In fact, I had a dry-spell in May and June wherein I didn’t post anything because I was really busy with trying to find a job etc. I seriously considered giving up blogging for good. But the thought of refining my writing skills and preserving my thoughts made me decide against giving it up.

So yes, I consider my contributions to this blog as my journal (just think of that, you guys get to read my diary whenever you want). Another perk: I have learned I can have this blog bound/published for only a few dollars. There is a web-site called blog-binders that can publish blogs run off of blogger (and many other programs). I plan on getting this blog bound every year in October; and I’m sure some day I’ll be glad I never quit blogging.

Gather Round The Carcass

In modern times, the Lord has declared that we “are called to bring to pass the gathering of [his] elect; for [his] elect hear [his] voice and harden not their hearts.”

Of course, this passage and command refers to missionary work; those who hear the gospel and are baptized are considered the Lord’s elect, and rightly so. But for those of us who are active members of the Church, there is a test to determine whether we currently fit into the category of the Lord’s elect.

It’s a rather obvious test to employ and interpret, yet only obvious on a personal level and not discernable by others. Plainly stated, one is an elect of God if he or she gathers to the carcass.

I know, sounds morbid. But these aren’t my words; indeed, these are the words of the Lord himself. Said He: “For wheresoever the carcase is, there shall the eagles be gathered together.” This phrase is placed at the end of a sermon by the Savior to his Disciples as he sat upon the Mount of Olives. The statement is rather odd and does not seem to really fit in with what he is teaching about the end times. But Joseph shed some light on it for us.

In Joseph Smith Matthew 1:27, the verse is described as a parable. The eagles are a symbol of God’s elect, and the carcass is a symbol of a covenant with the Father through Christ (the Law of Moses is the type here: the carcass of the bullock, ram, or lamb being the symbol of Christ and the covenant through sacrifice). Thus, one is an elect of God if one gathers to the covenant, i.e. wherever the covenant/sacrifice is offered.

Of course, in our day, this would be the altar of the Sacrament table — or anywhere else covenants are made or renewed (e.g. altars of the temples). But the key is not only to be gathered to these places, rather to actually take meaningful part in the process of covenant making. In this manner, one is an elect of God if he/she is truely gathered around the carcass.

Revelation & Ethics

Writing to his nephew about moral philosophy, Thomas Jefferson said the following: “He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules.”

I like this quote, mostly because I agree with it. What I like most about it is Jefferson’s belief that morality, or what is right and wrong, is discoverable within one’s spiritual self and not necessarily through study or reason. I like that Jefferson believed a ploughman could understand morality better than a professor (as a general rule) because the ploughman has likely not been tainted by “artificial rules”. In a sense, I think it is fair to say Jefferson believed morality is given to us innately by God. That is, morality can be understood through self-reflection–because man’s spiritual nature will discern it. Furthermore, an understanding of morality will increase in depth if its self-evident principles are adhered to by the individual.

To me, Jefferson seems to have believed personal revelation is essential to an understanding of right and wrong. For purposes of this post, I would like to emphasize a critical factor of Jefferson’s belief: what is right and what is wrong depends on context. He spoke of “artificial rules”. I’m assuming these are rules espoused by men who believe in universality. Briefly, universality (the opposing philosophy to relativism) ascribes to the idea that what is right or wrong is universally right or wrong, i.e. if it’s wrong to kill, it is always wrong no matter the context etc. I don’t think Jefferson believed in either universality or relativism. Neither do I.

I believe in situational ethics. In other words, like Jefferson, I believe morality should be determined by context. To illustrate, everyone knows lying is “wrong” (see Lev. 19:11). But if I were a non-Jewish German hiding Jews in my home during WWII and Nazis came knocking on my door and asked if there were any Jews in my house, I would lie. In this context, my lie would not be wrong, it would be right. I could use many other examples, but I’m sure you get my point.

The most important thing for determining morality is revelation. Because what is right or wrong is determined by context, there is a necessity for revelation. We must be in-tune with what God would have us do in order to know what is right. The revelation I speak of is not earth-shattering theophony, rather the “still small voice”. And the more one listens to it, the greater one’s ability to see and understand right and wrong.

Joseph taught it thusly: “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted–by revelation adapted to the cicumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed” (TPJS, p. 256, emphasis added).

Liberty v. Equality; i.e., God v. Satan

Egalitarianism: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.

Social egalitarianism is a popular philosophy espoused by secularists who are, in my opinion, influenced by evil ideas. Egalitarianism is in direct conflict with the concept of liberty. As such, it is evil; an evil that continues to grow in popularity.

Dictionaries generally define liberty as “the power to do as one pleases”. With liberty, we are free to make our own choices. In the Restored Gospel this same concept is refered to as “free agencey”, or just “agency“. The Gospel also teaches us that those who seek to deprive individuals of the freedom to choose are evil. Indeed, this is Satan’s central mission, it has been from the beginning.

This is why I believe egalitarianism is evil: the coerced removal of social inequalities (in terms of outcomes, not opportunity) among people strangles liberty. If all people are equal no matter what their choices produce, liberty is robbed–agency is destroyed.

Everyone has intrinsic liberty–or fundamental agency. When they exercise their liberty there is an unavoidable outcome or consequence to their choice. In other words, eternal law exists, and based upon how we choose to deal with the law, the outcome is different, i.e. resulting consequences. Governments form laws to govern their people. Hopefully their laws reflect natural law–or eternal truth. If a person decides to steal, she is sent to jail (hopefully) for a period of time depending on the level of theft. Her fundamental liberty has not been infringed, rather the use of her liberty has determined the quality of her life (the outcome or consequence). Conversly, if a person decides not to steal, but rather to work really hard for an extended period of time, she will obtain wealth (at least in most “free” countries). Again, the choice determines the outcome. Thus, social inequality (for the most part–assuming basic equal opportunity) is the fundamental and unavoidable result of liberty.

God explains the reality of inequality based on liberty thusly: “These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.” (See Abr. 3:18-19)

But in an egalitarian society things are different: consequences, or social inequalities are non-existent. This at least is the idea. And it is born of evil–or what James E. Faust and Elder Maxwell call Secularism.

President Faust recentaly had this to say about the chief characteristic of secularism: “Secularism is expanding in much of the world today. Secularism is defined as ‘indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations.’ Secularism does not accept many things as absolutes. Its principal objectives are pleasure and self-interest.” (See Ensign, Nov. 2005, p.21, bold mine). There are no absolutes. Because nothing is absolute, there can be no right or wrong–everything is relative. Therefore, to discriminate between right and wrong is seen as “evil”. Secularists call good evil and evil good. When this occurs, the next step secularists take is into egalitarianism. Because there is no right or wrong, people should no longer be held accountable for their choices. Indeed, all consequences should be the same. It’s only “fair” that way. Thus, egalitarians are not tough on crime. Those who commit crime should be equal with those who obey the law. This is what Elder Maxwell, quoting Senator Moynihan, called “defining deviancy down“. But egalitarians are hard on many who have made good choices. Those who have worked to sustain themselves should be coerced to provide for those who have not. It’s all backwards.

Egalitarianism is a growing belief among Americans. It is soon to overtake all three National mottos: “In God We Trust”, “Liberty”, and “E Pluribus Unum”. And unfortunately, it is a concern for leaders of the Church because it seems to be creeping in among our members. Speaking of homosexuals, feminists, and scholars, Elder Packer has said: “Only when they have some knowledge of the plan of redemption will they understand the supposed inequities of life. Only then will they understand the commandments God has given us. If we do not teach the plan of redemption, whatever else we do by way of programs and activities and instructions will not be enough.” (Bold mine)

Anti-Immigrationists & Rejecting Christ

Father Lehi prophesied. He said, “If the day shall come that [the people of this land] will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them. Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them (the other nations spoken of) power, and he will take away from them (the people of this nation) the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.” (2 Nephi 1:10-11)

There seems to be quite a flurry these days about illegal immigration. The debate is quite heated on both sides. Honestly, I have to admit if I had to choose which side I would come down on, it would be for greater enforcement of the borders. It just seems the safest option. Yet, the above passage has struck me as a possible sign that it just might not matter what any of us think.

Indeed, I think there may be certain events in store for this nation that not many of us have contemplated. There is no doubt we as a nation are beginning to become more secular, i.e. reject the Holy One of Israel. Could the illegal immigration debate be the spark that lights the fire giving light to the reality that if we don’t shape up soon, this really won’t be our Country much longer?

I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall NONE come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord. (2 Nephi 1:6)

Evil Honored in Academia

What is wrong with institutions of so-called higher learning in America?

Well, this is a broad question with many answers. The main answer: a lot. But more specifically, there seems to be a problem with the moral compass, or lack thereof, of many academics and their accompanying places of employment. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am fully aware of numerous academics who have their compasses correctly magnetized, and this is by no means an attempt to attack all academics. But I read something this morning that is quite alarming. It is telling.

Numerous institutions of higher learning support and give praise to evil.

To name only a few, I’ll start with Antioch College, Evergreen State University, Occidental University and the University of California-Santa Cruz. Each one of these schools has honored convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal as a commencement speaker (via audio-tape).

Harvard accepted Warren Kimbo in as a student. Kimbo has confessed to shooting a fellow Black Panther in the back of the head. Moreover, Kimbo has served as a dean at Eastern Connecticut State University.

Phillips Exeter Academy, a very prestigious prep school, gives an annual Edmund E. Perry Award for “diversity and cultural awareness.” Perry was a student at Phillips Exeter who was shot to death in Harlem while trying to mug a plainclothes cop.

Hamilton College in upstate New York has hired Susan Rosenberg as a writing instructor. Rosenberg who is an advocate of “collective violence” against the U.S. government, was caught with nearly 700 pounds of explosives in 1984, and went to prison to begin serving a 58-year term. After she was pardoned by Bill Clinton, Hamilton College hired her.

As I said, this is only a representative sample; there are many more. To read about Stanford’s support of Islamic terror, and Villanova’s attempt to pay tribute to a professor who murdered her Down syndrome baby, you can access the article here.

Note: I’ll be away from the blog for a few weeks. Finals are coming up and it’s time to kick into high gear. (By the way, I’m proud to announce that as far as I know, my school is not a general supporter of evil). I’m confident our new guest bloggers and Ryan and Eric will do just fine without me!

Women: Orsonian Types of Christ

In a previous post, I discussed an idea suggested by Orson Pratt: physical bodies are the veil. In this post, I wish to continue discussing what I call Orsonian principles. But this publication focuses on a Messianic type. Pratt taught the following:

“As the embryo is immersed in the fluid element in the womb, and by this means derives from its mother the blood so essential to the natural life, so a man must be immersed in the fluid element of water, in order to derive the benefit of Christ’s blood so essential to spiritual life. As the embryo must first be immersed in water before it can receive the quickening of the human spirit, so a man must first be immersed in water before he has the promise of the quickening or life-giving power of the Holy Spirit.” (Orson Pratt’s Works, p.53, 1945 publication)

This quotation comes from a lengthy paragraph in Pratt’s work called The Kingdom of God. The primary focus of the essay is to lay out the case for authority and ordinances. Here, he was clearly emphasizing the need for baptism by immersion. However, there is more to be learned from the paragraph than the necessity of immersion. In my view, the symbolism is clear.

Several prophets have taught that all things given from God are in some way symbols or testaments of Christ. Speaking of Christ, Jacob said, “All things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him.” (2 Nephi 11:4) In the same vein, the Lord himself taught, “All things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual….” (Moses 6:63)

Is it not safe to assume human beings are part of the “all things” spoken of? I think it is. Then clearly men and women are, in their own way, types of Christ. Indeed, we must become like him to receive Celestial salvation. But more specifically, there is deep meaning in the process. The concept of birth is central to the process. Being immersed in water is the prerequisite; the water of the womb, and the water of the metaphorical grave. Life is perpetuated by blood; immersion is necessary to obtain the blood of mortality (from our mothers) and immortality (Christ’s blood). “For the life of the flesh is in the blood…it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” (Leviticus 17:11)

In this way, Women are types of Christ. Are they not?

Posner Predicts Publication War

(Judge Richard Posner)

My time in Chicago ended on Sunday. But before it was over, we were privileged to hear from the Honorable Judge Richard Posner. Some reading this may wonder: Why would Judge Posner speak to a bunch of law review lackeys? Those wondering this are likely familiar with Posner’s highly critical opinion of law reviews. Indeed, Posner has even written a piece entitled: Against The Law Reviews. Regardless of his reasons for agreeing to speak, I’m glad he did.

Posner is critical of law reviews for one main reason: the vast majority of reviews are under the complete control of student editors. This means all articles and scholarly work submitted for publication by legal academics and experts are edited and prepared for publication by students. In his view, student control is fundamentally flawed. Students are not experts in any area of law. Moreover, the current trend in legal scholarship is a focus on what are called “Law And” articles. Many legal experts are now combining complex fields of study with the law. Not only are student editors required to analyze and edit pieces submitted by legal academics, these academics are adding another level of complexity by discussing economic theory, race theory, anthropology, and other fields of study to their submissions. Simply put, student editors are not qualified to review this level of scholarship for publication.

In addition, Posner is critical of student editors because they, as he said, “torment” authors. Instead of reviewing pieces for clarity, correct annotations and theoretical soundness, editors force authors into conformity with onerous writing styles and rules.

Despite Posner’s criticisms, these problems will never change. The system of publication for legal scholarship is too entrenched. Besides, Posner’s objections are not new.

However, Posner did contribute to the age-old criticisms by making a new argument for law review reform. He claims the world of legal print publications will eventually meet with competition: Blogging! That’s right. He said, “anyone who is anyone has a blog.” This includes high profile legal scholars such as Eugene Voloch and of course Judge Posner himself. And there are hundreds of others. Posner believes blogging will eventually become the norm for exchanging legal argumentation. His belief is that professors and other scholars may forego the “torment” of style conformity and corrections of law review lackeys. Unless, of course, law review editors whip into shape and start respecting authors.

So, what is your view? Will blogging take over print publications? Will it make publication outfits like law reviews more obsolete and competitive? While I’m skeptical of this view, I really appreciated the opportunity to hear Posner’s approach. As a result, I think I may be a more deferential editor.

Experience Is A Problem

I’m in Chicago attending the NCLR (National Conference of Law Reviews). The purpose of the conference is to bring outgoing editors together with incoming editors in an attempt to provide some type of orientation. The four-day conference is a series of panel discussions in addition to a daily key-note address.

Yesterday, a panelist was presented with a question. During the answer, the panelist made an interesting statement; the statement sums up the problem. The panelist said, “every law review is different, you’ll learn as you go. You’ll find that you are just starting to be effective and be familiar with how to ‘run the show’ just before you graduate”.

In short, it seems just when we feel we understand how things work, it’s time to turn to something else and let someone new step in. I ran into this problem on my mission.

The MTC got me excited about going out and teaching the Gospel. But I soon learned, when I arrived in Colorado, I didn’t know what I was doing. After about 18 months, I felt as though I was starting to understand. I was at the top of my “game” when I left. Why didn’t the MTC prepare me? Why didn’t my mission-prep class prepare me? Why wasn’t my trainer (a very good missionary (zone leader and all)) able to convey what I had when I left?

Isn’t this analogous to life? Those who have lived a long time typically have great insight. But these insights can’t be channeled. Wisdom seems only to come through experience. Wisdom can be shared, but it is only received in the form of abstract ideas. The person receiving the ideas cannot completely acquire them until the same experiences giving rise to the wisdom are experienced.

It is impossible to transmit the understanding necessary to be successful. We struggle until we understand on our own. When we understand, our time in that sphere is over. So, even if understanding from experience could be channeled, there is no time to transmit it anyway.

Random Disasters, Or Warnings?

After the devastating tsunami hit South-East Asia at the end of 2004, I remember hearing a lot of discussion about whether there is a God. Most of the commentary focussed on why, if there is a God, He/it would allow such destruction.

The discussions often came to rest in the idea that there is no God; and if there is, He/it is not involved in the daily lives of humans and has no absolute control over the earth.

Furthermore, I hear people have similar discussions in the devastating wake of hurricane Katrina: “It was just a random act of nature”.

While these conversations go on, I can’t help but think about whether these disasters are part of a grander plan to force people off the proverbial “fence”. Often it takes drastic measures for people to be introspective and humble. And only in this condition do people really seek after, and find, God. In other words, is it possible these disasters are “allowed” by God for the purpose of compelling people into humilty, or to foresake God? Is this plausible?

Elder Eyring specifically linked the Tsunami to a prophecy made by the Prophet in 1832. Section 88 gives a warning. The warning is the “voice of testimony” in the form of waves of the sea “heaving themselves beyond their bounds”.

Could there be any specific reason why God might have chosen to “warn” Malaysia and/or the Gulf Coast?

Justice & Gender

This post is not an attempt to answer the larger question, i.e. what is justice. Rather than delve into a fascinating discussion concerning the broad topic of justice, this publication seeks to pose a smaller question. This may turn out to be futile, indeed impossible to answer. However, it is something worth exploring. I reserve the larger issue for another day.

First, I am of the opinion, or belief, that word usage in the Book of Mormon is deliberate, purposeful and meaningful. In my view, this belief is justified from the fact that after Joseph’s translation, he said the following: “[T]he Book of Mormon [is] the most correct of any book on earth….” That is bold. From this statement, and my general understanding of the book, I derive my approach.

With that said, for the purpose of this post I would like to focus on the word usage in one specific verse: Alma 42:24. It reads, “For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own….” (Emphasis mine). Plainly stated, the Book of Mormon seems to suggest a connection between the attributes (or natural laws) of justice and gender. Justice equates with masculinity, while mercy equates with the feminine.

Assuming the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth, this word usage cannot possibly be a mistake on the part of Joseph. I could offer other arguments for why the usage is not mistaken, but you get the point. The question remains though: what are we to learn about the connection? Is it important? Your thoughts?

Disrespect & Social Decline

C. S. Lewis said: “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”

This quote is vindicated all the time! It’s something I think law students in particular struggle with because law school doesn’t teach what is “right”, only what is “legal”. Sudents are taught to make legal arguments, not ethical arguments.

But I think the problem is getting worse, i.e. not only are students being deprived of values education, they don’t seem to be getting an education at all! Indeed, some recent students exposed their incredible ignorance by not even knowing what a question is and is not. A handful of leftist hacks attempted to heckle Justice Antonin Scalia this week during a speech he gave at the American Enterprise Institute. You can watch and hear the speech and the absolute lack of self-respect these people have by going here.

One punk, Aaron Yule, exposes his ignorance and lack of tact starting at 30:35 (for those of you who don’t have the time or interest in listening to the whole speech). Then at 38:10, more irrelevant attacks began to really annoy Justice Scalia. At 38:28, you can even hear a sorry attempt at a joke about V.P. Cheney and his recent hunting accident (again, totally irrelevant to a speech about use of foreign law in U.S. Federal Courts). At 39:40, more irrelevant attacks are made. Then, finally at 43:00, Aaron Yule is escorted out of the conference because of his total inability to keep his yapper shut. The whole thing is actually quite disheartening!

So, while education without values makes man a clever devil, now attending school seems only to make students ignorant devils. It is a symptom of our current social decline.

Snarky Thumbs Without A Nail

By now, those who frequent the bloggernacle are familiar with Mr. Snarky (A.K.A. the snarkernacle): He who spoofs the spoofable among us. I am proud to announce that I have finally achieved bloggernacle excellence. Yes, my last post was spoofed, and it feels great - now I’m really something! Of course, everyone recognizes only the best get spoofed (right?). So, the snarkernacle is kind of like the best of the best blogroll. And I started thinking: Who needs MA or LDS Select when we’ve got SNARKY???

Only there’s one main problem: Mr. Snarky insists on thumbing his nose without a thumbnail. That’s right, the site fails to provide a nifty little thumbnail to use as a direct link to the snarkernacle. I’m disappointed! So, until Mr. Snarky gets his act together I’m pulling the plug on him on the Blogger of Jared, er Wade. Yup, I’m removing our link until snarkernacle gets some respect for itself. After all, it’s the best of the best, (isn’t it?).

(And yes, for those of you ignorant of the truth, the mastermind behind Mr. Snarky is really Karl Rove…Sorry snarkmeister, couldn’t resist outing you.)

To Those Who Lurk

I’ve noticed that The Blogger of Jared is increasingly drawing more readers - we average about 25 site visits from different I.P. addresses every day (this is a very small readership compared to the main blogs). However, a very small number of them comment. This has led me to formulate a question for those who lurk in the shadows: Why? I’m cognizant of the fact that this question will go unanswered because those who have standing to answer are those who consistently reserve their right to remain silent. Yet, I thought I would ask anyway.

Thus far, I have come up with a few working answers of my own: 1) You refuse to engage us in conversation because our posts are not intellectually stimulating and responding would be a waste of time (but you still visit the site hoping for something good); 2) You are affraid of being challenged and therefore never posit a theory of your own; 3) It takes too much effort to comment; 4) Or, it’s all just a big waste of time. Are there any other answers to the question?

There was a recent post over at BCC about lurking and how Blogging is similar to Relief Society lessons (posted by a woman), i.e. must be done according to accepted norms. Some comments in the thread noted that blogging is just a way to seek praise and recognition. I suppose the main reason we lurk (yes, I lurk at other sites) is that we don’t like the wasted time trying to conform to norms, and all the praise seeking.

Good or Evil?

The question sometimes arises: Are we, by nature, good or evil?

King Benjamin taught: …I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures, and humble yourselves even in the depths of humility… (Mosiah ch. 4)

Moreover, the Brother of Jared said …our natures have become evil continually… (Ether 3:2)

Also, God himself taught Adam thusly: And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts… (Moses 6:55)

But, despite these referrences, we often hear about our divine nature. Therefore, the question I pose for this thread is how to reconcile these teachings. Is mankind’s essential nature good or evil?

Denunciation of Democracy

I think pure democracy is one of the worst forms of government. However, the main problem with my opinion is that scripture seems to disagree. Or, perhaps it doesn’t?

Any thoughts?

More Learning Than Sense

While reading Rough Stone Rolling, I came across an episode in Church history that I was unaware of: apparently just before the Book of Commandments (the first DC) was published, a rather large group of what I am going to call intellectuals, for lack of a better word, heavily criticized the Prophet’s vocabulary, grammer, and style that he used in recording the revelations. The prophet’s rather “rough” language bothered these highly educated men/leaders in the Church (they were primarily William McLellin, Sydney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdry) and they proposed to make corrections before publication. The prophet was perturbed by this, so he challenged any one of them to offer a revelation of their own to see if they could even replicate his - let alone best him as the prophet. Well, McLellin made an attempt but soon gave up and then the group of worldy intellectuals voted for final publication. Referring to this episode in his history, the Prophet said that McLellin’s problem was that he had “more learning than sense”.

I believe that this problem, having more learning than sense, is still quite an issue in the Church and especially the world. It is the reason, I think, why so many pseudo intellectual members of the Church end up leaving it - thinking they know better than Church leaders because they (the intellectuals) are smarter (which in fact they probably are). It is why the “conflicted testimony” is so common and so popular. And, after spending close to 7 years in so-called “higher education”, I have come to the conclusion that worldly learning for the most part is utter trash! I tire of listening to self-important people spout off their latest theory/opinion about the world. Why? Because virtually none of them are grounded in eternal verity. They begin with the premise that learning comes from researching the works of other pseudo intellectuals and then pain-stakingly spinning a different slant to these works and producing more trash. Also, what’s worse, they claim to be scholars seeking understanding and open to ideas, but it is quite the opposite: Most are closed to anything referring to natural right, traditional values, and ancient texts. In sum, they have more learning than sense and thus they know nothing of importance.

Alma put it well when he said:

“It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word…until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell” (Alma 12:9-11).

So, how do we avoid obtaining more learning than sense and what does it mean to harden our hearts?

Self Conscious Religion

It wasn’t until my mission that I discovered how much time and money other Christian religions spend on attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I served seven months in Colorado Springs (home of Focus on the Family and dubbed the “Christian capital of the world”) and learned a lot about myself and a lot about religion in general. Even though this picture was created by me (a friend sent me a funny e-mail with something else written on the sign - you can go here to make your own), I can honestly say that I have been in numerous churchs in which the whole of the sermon that Sunday was devoted not to expounding the truths of the New Testament, rather it was devoted to expounding the falsity of the Mormon Church. You see, my companion and I would visit a different church in our area every Sunday. On one occassion the pastor saw us in the congregation and immediately shifted his sermon toward the evils of the Mormons.

Just last Saturday night, I was visiting a member of my ward with the missionaries. This member has just started to come back to church after a long time of inactivity after his conversion when he was in his twenties. While visiting I asked him about his conversion. He told me he has always had questions about God and religion. One day he went to a Christian book store to look around. While there, he discovered that one whole wall of the store was dedicated to books and materials about the evils of the Mormon religion, i.e. anti-mormon literature. He said he then had the distinct question come to his mind: “what are they so affraid of?” After this, he investigated for himself and was converted.

I like that question - what are they so affraid of. I think if any religion has to expend so much energy focused not on how or why it is good, but on how or why other religions are bad, it’s a fairly good sign that religion is extremely self-concious about its lack of substance and foundational truths. I’ve always appreciated the fact that we don’t have hundreds of pamphlets at the back of our chapels attempting to refute Catholicism, New Age Christianity/Non-Denominationalism, Presbyterianism, etc. In other words, I love the fact that my religion isn’t self-concious!

The Marketplace of AN Idea

Two recent occurrences at my school have opened my eyes to an interesting phenomenon taking place in the halls of academia. The phenomenon regards the stranglehold administrators have on the speech, or lack thereof, taking place on campuses throughout the country. The incidences at my school, which have received national attention, can be read about here and here.

Basically, lefitst professors and administrators, who seriously outnumber conservatives on virtually any given campus, have severely repressed speech at universities around the Nation. They do this by adopting speech codes restricting what they call “hate speech”, and then enforcing the codes by expelling any students who violate them.

I find this interesting and quite hypocritical for one main reason: The liberal battle cry is “protect our civil liberties”, yet they are the first to limit speech in their little enclave called the university.

And, apparently they really don’t buy into the seemingly liberal legal doctrine surrounding free speech. Supreme Court jurists for the past several decades have staunchly espoused a doctrine called “the market-place of ideas” (See, Justice Holmes’ dissent here). The standard is simple: They claim (and I actually agree with it for the most part) that speech should almost never be regulated by government because the cure for disagreeable speech (or what we would call any expression of a message) is more speech. Basically, a market-place of all ideas should exist in which people are able to hear all sides of every argument in order to choose what to believe - the result is that only the best ideas survive.

But, to limit the market-place prevents a legitimate opportunity to choose the best ideas. However, this is precisely what leftist administrators and professors at my school, and others, have done! Thus, when it comes down to it, they really don’t believe in the market-place of ideas after all - rather the market-place of AN idea.

Why do you think this is?

Polygamy & The Rejection of Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy is the quality of conforming to established doctrine or dogma. Unfortunately, that which is orthodox is not necessarily truth. However, we as mortals tend to accept things as truth if they are deeply engrained in social norms and traditions. Thus, quite often we associate orthodoxy with truth without questioning it; and when something comes along to challenge our world view or what we accept as truth, we often automatically dismiss it as false.

To me, this seems to be the main stumbling block to other religions accepting modern revelation: they just can’t get over the established dogma (established for nearly two thousand years now) that the Bible is the only word God has or will ever leave his children. Of course, anyone who has even the smallest desire to learn the history of the Bible soon discovers the absurdity of this orthodoxy (religious councils compiled the Bible, not God).

And so it is with polygamy - a key stumbling block to those intoxicated by orthodoxy. Antagonists of the Church and those seeking an excuse to leave it, commonly cite the early Church’s practice of polygamy as a sign of its alleged falsity. However, the more I study and mature, the more I believe that challenges to orthodoxy are sometimes sure-fire signs of authenticity.

How does any Bible reading Christian, or Jew for that matter, reconcile their repugnance for polygamy with the myriad of scriptures in which God, in times past, has prescribed it for his people? Indeed, the whole house of Israel was brought forth through the four wives of Jacob (Rachel, Leah, Zilpah, & Bilhah) (See Genesis 29-30). How is it that the chosen people of God could be rooted in such an erroneous practice? Furthermore, why would Christ on multiple occasions refer to himself in parables as a polygamist (i.e. parable of ten virgins, as bridegroom of the elect, etc.)? Why doesn’t this offend more people, and how do they reconcile it with their orthodoxy?

But, perhaps they are in good company. After all, when Brigham first heard of the command, he said he would rather go to his grave than have to submit to the practice. Parly P. Pratt and John Taylor also had similar initial reactions.

So, here you have it, the next installment in our effort to discuss the “classics”. The ground rules for this thread will be very open: please feel free to respond by discussing any aspect of the polygamy question/issue.

In Defense of Elder McConkie

Our friend and co-blogger Ryan recently raised some questions concerning the veracity of two points of doctrine allegedly taught by Elder Bruce R. McConkie in his book Mormon Doctrine. Both doctrines were ascribed to Elder McConkie by a gospel doctrine teacher in Southern California - who apparently takes the liberty of referring to Mormon Doctrine for substantive class material. The two points are: 1.) In the millennium, Satan will be bound, but the binding will not necessarily be due to the righteousness of the people, rather it will be a physical binding place upon him; and 2.) “All things” will be revealed at the beginning of the millennium. I would like to respond to these points and come to the defense of Elder McConkie because after actually looking into these issues I think there has been some general mischaracterization and misunderstanding.

First, it is common knowledge in the Church that Satan will indeed be bound during the millennium, but the manner and mode of this binding is not so clear. After reading the Millennium entry in Mormon Doctrine myself, I have to say I agree with McConkie’s view. He states, “The plan does not call for men to turn voluntarily to righteousness thereby causing the thousand year era of peace to commence. Rather, the millennium will be brought about by power; the wicked will be destroyed; and those only will remain on earth who are sufficiently righteous to abide the day of the Lord’s coming….” Referring to Nephi’s statement about the righteousness of the people as the binding force, McConkie says Nephi’s proclamation refers to “the period after the commencement of the millennium.” This makes perfect sense to me. It’s only logical that the binding of Satan can only initially occur as the result of a force other than the righteousness of the people on earth - it is also common knowledge that the world will only get more wicked as we near the millennium, not vice versa. However, after the wicked have been destroyed and Satan has been bound through this power of God, then I think the righteousness of those who remain will prevent him from having “power over the hearts of the people, for they dwell in righteousness” (1 Ne. 22:26). Therefore, I think it is correct to say that the power of God and the righteousness of the people will bind Satan.

Second, upon first hearing that someone claimed “all things” will be revealed at the beginning of the millennium, it was hard for me not to laugh. Furthermore, after thinking about it I became even more sure that this claim cannot be true - in fact, the allegation that this was taught by Elder McConkie is what actually got me to crack open Mormon Doctrine for myself. And, for the record, Elder McConkie did NOT teach that! He distinguishes between a fullness of the gospel and a fullness of the truth. We have the fullness of the gospel because we have all the saving truths and power to obtain the Celestial Kingdom; but we obviously don’t have a fullness of the truth because, as he puts it, “many glorious gospel doctrines have been known and taught in previous despensations which have not as yet been restored to us.” He then quotes Acts 3:21, and uses this language: “But with the dawning of the millennium, the restoration of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began,’ shall be completed.” Thus, it is true that “all” things will be revealed at the beginning of the millennium, but the word all refers to everything that has previously been revealed in past dispensations to men on earth - NOT all truth, rather all previously revealed “gospel truth”.

Personally, I think McConkie all too often gets a “bad rap” from a lot of “intellectual” members. This is so because either they don’t read him right, or because the majority of average members typically refer to McConkie as their source for authority and spout off their own understanding of what McConkie has written (gospel doctrine teacher example sited above) and then the intellectuals simply dismiss McConkie as a General Authority who opined too much. As a result, there is an unfortunate disconnect between some Mormon thinkers and the excellent scholarship McConkie has left behind (it’s unfortunate because I don’t know of any “doctrine” he got wrong other than the infamous blacks and the priesthood claim). So, I’ve decided to become a McConkie defender.

As for the length of the millennium being a thousand years, could this be a symbolic number? I know numbers are quite symbolic. I’ve always wondered about the “coincidence” of the whole 40 days and 40 nights thing: Moses in the mount, Christ in the wilderness, Noah in the ark, etc… Any thoughts on this?