Martin's Cove settlement

The ACLU continues to harass the church in cases with very little basis for preserving "civil liberties".

This week in an out-of-court settlement the church basically agreed to demands from the ACLU to cease any form of acknowledgement that the historic Martin handcart company was actually a group of faithful Mormon pioneers, and in the future they will be referred to as habitationally-challenged communal seekers of a higher metaphysical plane, seeking refuge from traditional patriarchal tyranny".

ACLU lawyers demanded that all signs and artifacts related in any way to Mormon faith be removed at least a mile from the site, which will be designated a "religion-free zone". Visitors to the area will be subject to random interrogation to ensure that harmful religious ideation is not being wantonly encouraged or promoted. All persons or vehicles entering or leaving the monument site will be subject to security checks, and any religious contraband will be confiscated. Those criminals apprehended in the act of speaking about the Mormon religion will be subject to fines and imprisonment. First-time offenders will be permitted to attend an ACLU sponsored anti-religion sensitivity training course in exchange for shorter jail sentences.

ACLU lawyers praised the agreement, saying that it was a significant victory for first-amendment rights, marking a new era of progress in the fight for freedom from religion.

Martin's Cove settlement

Firefighting

We had a forest fire in our back yard yesterday.

I mean, it was a fire. And it was in the forest. That makes it a forest fire -- right?

Okay, it was really little, for a forest fire. But it was all ours. :-)

Dad and I were working in his garden about 3 p.m. when a huge clap of thunder nearly knocked us out of our boots. (Fortunately I was wearing Tevas.) We saw the flash of lightning on the mountain. After a moment of stunned silence we looked at each other and both said, "Wow, that one was CLOSE!"

Shortly thereafter, dad noticed a smoke plume tendrilling up from the trees on the mountainside north of us.

We called the local fire chief of our just-getting-started volunteer fire department, and notified him that a wildland fire was in progress within our jurisdiction. I hurried and got my boots on. Then my dad and brother-in-law and I loaded our firefighting gear and shovels and chainsaw into the SUV and went wheeling up the mountainside trying to spot the fire.

We found access to the area that was burning, from a rocky road high up on the mountainside, then hiked down through the pinyon pines and junipers searching for the fire. It smelled smoky all around us, but the fire was actually several hundred yards from the road, so we scrambled down the hill covering the area in a search pattern.

As we located the fire and arrived at the spot, there were flames smoldering in the light debris on the ground, and one single old juniper, trunk about 18" in diameter, was actively burning along the trunk and several major limbs. It was clear that lightning had struck the old tree near the top, some 15 feet up. A big stripe of bark was peeled away and blown to oblivion, and a deep scar marked the burning trail running down the trunk. One of the large limbs on the side of the tree had been nearly detached by the blow, and as it burned it was spreading burning twigs into the ground fuel. The ground fire involved a circle at the base of the tree about ten feet across.

We scattered the burning fuels on the ground with our shovels, and smothered the flames with dirt. But much of the fire involved the burning tree, higher than we could reach. So we fetched down the chainsaw and proceeded to fell the tree.

The saw had been pretty well used for last years firewood season, so the chain wasn't in very good shape. Juniper wood is very dense and hard, so we made a long job of it.

I discovered that the chainsaw exhaust port very thoughtfully directs the exhaust stream away from the operator. Which in our case, by coincidence, also happened to be in the general direction of a big tree trunk that was currently on fire. We'd smother the flames down and saw a bit, then the exhaust stream would fan up the flames again. Made it pretty interesting for a while.

While we were gnawing away at the tree, one of the neighbors showed up on his 4-wheeler. He had a better chain on his saw, so we turned it over to him, and finally got the tree tipped over. Naturally it hung up six different ways, so it still took a bit more work to finally put the trunk onto the ground, but we eventually prevailed.

In the mean time, our local fire department team had started up the big tanker truck and were lumbering up the hill. Two local firefighters brought backpack sprayers down to mop up the fuels that were still hot and smoking.

It looks to be a lively fire season shaping up in the area.

Write it down

In the opening chapter of Mosiah, one of the striking ideas raised is that even Lehi would have forgotten to instruct his people about many important truths, if they had not been written down.

Book of Mormon, Mosiah 1:1-5

Last spring I had some time to wander through several areas of Utah's remote deserts. Several times I stopped to look at petroglyphs and rock paintings left by some unknown people ages ago. Some of the figures are suggestive of the familiar, but most of them are only vaguely recognizable at best. It takes a bit of imagination to try to project meaning into these images. Who can guess what the artist was trying to communicate?

Our translations of the scriptures are testimony of King Benjamin's prophetic wisdom. I think it is no coincidence that the publication of scriptures corresponds exactly with the advent of the greatest epochs of expanding human knowledge over the course of history. If it isn't written down and available for study, it will all too soon be forgotten.

Answers to prayers

Why are we sometimes frustrated or doubtful about praying to God?

I cannot speak for others, but can add some personal reflections.

My suspicion would be that there are people who are honest enough about themselves to understand why God would not respond to their personal prayers, though these may be uncommon. This is where I usually count myself. If my prayers don't work it certainly isn't God's fault. I generally apply Mark Twain's model as presented in Huckleberry Finn to help understand why my prayers fail -- "You can't pray a lie." Twain's wisdom, illustrated through Huck Finn's experience, is an insightful glimpse into many attributes of human nature.

Huckleberry Finn on prayer -- recommended. You Can't Pray a Lie

I will also acknowledge that I am not expecting to change the order of the universe simply by taking the thought to ask. It would seem that one of the prerequisites for granting prayers is that my request has to be in accordance with the mind and will of God. The essence of successful prayer seems to be in asking for the right things. I believe Elder Eyring touched on this point in his conference address.

Heavenly Father, it doesn’t matter what I want. I don’t care anymore what I want. I only want that Thy will be done. That is all that I want. Please tell me what to do.  (Henry B. Eyring, As a Child, Ensign, May 2006)

For those of us who have on occasion dedicated our most fervent pleas, as in the case of asking for God to heal the sick, the nature of answering seems very different from the case where someone found their glasses through divine guidance. Where I prayed and people died anyway, I found assurance that the passing of loved ones was will of God, and that in the sight of Heavenly Father, the death was neither an unforeseen tragedy nor an untimely event. While my prayers did not save the life I prayed for, they did return a greater understanding that helped me through the sense of loss and mourning. In this I suppose I trust Heavenly Father to bless me with what I need, not necessarily what I ask for.

If that is not an answer to prayers, I don't know what is.

The deceivers who tangle the web...

Interesting SLTrib article today, from outspoken church critic RB Scott.

Mixing religion and politics: Oh, what a tangled web . . .

Ron starts off on the wrong foot with his blatantly inappropriate and offensive poetic title, and just naturally flows down hill from there.

He flatly -- and mistakenly -- insinuates that church leaders are practicing deceptive tactics in order to play a political game. Stirring up controversy, sowing the seeds of confusion and discord -- these are exactly the kind of reaction Ron always seems wont to provoke.

President Hinckley is not a liar by any definition. He needs no defense from people like Ron, who always manage to twist things to serve their own point of view.

I personally am certain that Ron will find, sometime in the future, that editorializing against the church carries a far greater cost than he can afford.

I have been following the reaction of various church members toward the First Presidency statement. It makes a fascinating study.

For the most part, in the general body of the church I think there is little controversy or question in our minds. When Church leaders counsel us to act, we act. Since we already support and sustain members of the first councils of the church as prophets, seers, and revelators, when they speak with authority, critical analysis can wait.

There are many, however, for whom some deliberation is apparently warranted. They demand to test inspired counsel against the philosophies of men, to satisfy their own intellect, or simply to show their own politically-correct approval or disapproval.

Whatever the reason, this small but vocal minority can always be noticed in such matters. They take the forefront in media coverage. They seem to love to "be seen of men". And, I believe, because they hear their own voices echoing in the silence, they presume to represent the rest of us.

I have no objection to others voicing their opinions, but I take exception when they presume to issue moral or intellectual judgments against the church or in opposition to Church authority. Those of us in the silent but faithful minority need to participate in the public forum, so as to avoid leaving the impression that dissenters and dissidents represent any significant segment of the faithful disciples. While it goes against my natural inclination to be outspoken, I have learned through sad experience that if we fail to protest when we are misrepresented, many of those who view things from without will assume that we have no opposing views and nothing to say in such matters. Apparently, from the legalistic perspective, it is true that "Silence gives assent".

In case any are mislead by the attempts so sow doubts about the legitimacy of religious groups engaging in political activism, at this link some of the guidelines are nicely illustrated.

It is a specious red-herring to insinuate that the tax-exempt status of the church is in jeopardy, or to suggest that the church would fail to take imperative action or unequivocally express an official position on issues with clear moral implications. This misinformation has often been perpetuated by the doubters and naysayers as justification for advocating non-involvement or avoidance of politically sensitive issues, but it is clearly contradicted by the facts. Those asserting that the church is putting tax-exempt status in jeopardy are apparently more interested in sowing the seeds of doubt than any loss of tax status.

When there is an issue upon which the voice of the Lord has been heard, the church will let it be known, in clear and unmistakable terms. Those with ears to hear, let them hear.

Advocating righteousness: No Apologies Necessary

I have seen a surprising picture developing out of recent controversy regarding LDS Church leaders supporting the proposed constitutional marriage amendment. It would seem that there are a number of people associated with the church, who feel guilty to promote unequivocal opposition to homosexual behavior.

In fact, a whole lot of them seem downright apologetic.

And, in fact, there are a significant number who presume to criticize the church for its continuing opposition to anything resembling approval for or sanction of homosexual "lifestyle".

It is a confusing position to advocate, because many of the proponents feel justified by their understanding of principles of "compassion" or "tolerance". They seem unable to discern how temporary concessions under that "compassion" rationale ultimately compromise the quality of life for everyone involved. Every experience through the history of human existence testifies that it is never compassionate to compromise with evil.

To me this ambivalence is difficult to reconcile. In my experience the church has never offered the slightest concession to those entangled in sexual deviance. Such sinful misconduct has always been unacceptable and condemned in the strongest terms. It is my understanding that church membership is automatically severed for individuals engaged in homosexual behavior. To me, this policy seems unremarkable and consistent.

I don't expect anything to ever change in this respect. But it would seem that quite a number of church members are even hopeful that it will.

Who thinks we owe the sinners an apology for advocating repentance and righteousness?

Health care is sick

Why do we spend so much on health care?

According to Henry J. Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, in his editorial "A Healthcare Prescription That's Hard to Swallow"  the US currently spends 16% of GNP, more than $2 trillion, on health care costs. Some projections predict that costs will exceed 30% over the next 25 years. The article does not answer the question, but it does present some of the unpalatable diagnosis.

In many other countries with less expensive health-care systems, costs are controlled through various means that are also available here, and "the result typically is dramatically less surgery, less high-technology medicine and much lower healthcare spending — but not poorer overall health outcomes. The British, for example, live slightly longer than Americans yet spend 40% less per capita on healthcare than we do."

On the other hand, I have heard that many of the wealthy natives of countries that economize in health care costs come to the US to get their doctoring, whenever they want something expensive.

Is it too troubling for such a wealthy society to admit that we assign a dollar value to human life and the quality of life? The Terri Schiavo case certainly raised public awareness and sensitivity to end-of-life issues, but it seemed to quiet down soon after she died. Doubtless there are many other similar cases that never get such public scrutiny.

Intolerance? What intolerance?

Think your culture is repressive and intolerant?

News article this weekend relates the murder of several tennis players in Iraq. Reportedly, they were killed for wearing shorts.

ABC News story

Extremists had distributed leaflets warning people in the mostly Sunni neighborhoods of Saidiyah and Ghazaliyah warning people not to wear shorts, police said.

Wearing shorts by youth are prohibited because it violates the principals of Islamic religion when showing forbidden parts of the body. Also women should wear the veil.

No one claimed responsibility for the slayings, which come amid worries that Islamic extremism is spreading in the war-torn country.

Sunni cleric Eid al-Zoubayi denounced the attack.

Islamic religion is an easy religion and it allows wearing sport shorts as long as they don't show the forbidden parts of the body, so the acts that are targeting the sport are criminal.

Illegal immigrants

The US Senate has passed an immigration policy bill that includes
provision for widespread naturalization of currently illegal residents.

Immigration legislation

I tend to agree with Utah Senator Orrin Hatch in opposing the measure --

In clear language, granting amnesty rewards the lawbreaker, pure and simple.

Something must be done to deal with this problem, but giving it all away is patently unfair to those who have respected the law and attempted to immigrate legally. I do not understand the rationale for granting an easy path to citizenship to those who violated the law to gain entry to this country. It seems a strikingly bad start for new citizens.

My nephew's wife is a native of Korea. Even though she is married to a US citizen and has children who were born in this country, it took her many years to become a naturalized US citizen. Apparently she could have saved herself much trouble if she had only found a way to circumvent the laws and sneak in illegally.

Some commentators note that the current House proposals differ dramatically from the Senate bill, and will require extensive reworking to arrive at a compatible solution. It seems there are several House bills addressing immigration concerns, none of which contain the "amnesty" clause for current illegal residents.

Who's on first?

I am always interested and curious about what attracts people to certain internet spots. Like watching what the tide brings in. My blog seems rather innocuous to me. Who else will ever read it?

Who knows?