One Thing That We Can All Agree On...

is that music is rad. So what albums or songs are on you "iPod"? Now here's the catch. It can only be stuff released since 2000. Remember how you hated it when some dirtbag hippie exercising his cultural hegemony would say something like: "There's been no good music released since 1969, man!" and other dirtbag hippies would nod their heads in agreement.

Here are mine: Metric - Old World Underground, Throwing Muses - Self Titled, Beck - Guero, Pixies - Live in Saskatoon, Sleater-Kinney - In The Woods, White Stripes - Get Behind Me Satan, Kristin Hersh - The Grotto, Interpol - Turn On The Bright Lights, Dead Kennedys - Fresh Fruit For Rotting Vegetables

Yeah, I threw that last one in. And yes, I'm doing this to look cooler than you. So here's you chance to show me up. To quote George "Dubya" Bush: "Bring it on!" (Unless, of course, it's actual military service during the Vietnam war).

Monti

Canada is a good country for the ladies.

Some people did a study of the inequality between women and men in countries, and Canada is better than both the USA and Great Britain at reducing societal biases based on sex.

Take that you the-woman-should-stay-in-the-home types!

Here is a link to an article

Here is a link to the study itself

Mozart Rules!

Might I commend Rick, for he is a worthy and formidable opponent as well as gifted in prose. I have learned much about how I could rethink my strategies. I hope I have not been offensive to anyone as this was purely for the sport of debate. If anyone wishes to bring up religous concerns in the future I am game, and I will make better efforts to be more concise and brief in my responses.

And for Rick.....

1. Indeed, ignoring reliable scholarly knowledge, in lieu of nebulous feelings can be foolish. But you may recall that in my original statement I proposed that spiritual feelings could be earnestly sought "where mortal methods fall short".
2. In a world where we encounter many partial truths, it would be desireable to determine which truths will remain true, even in light of absolute truth. Right?

And now to attempt to wrap things up on the subject of feelings. Having encountered much evidence both discrediting and supporting the LDS religion, it seems there is an ongoing debate amongst intelligent scholarly researchers, who are more learned than I. However, like many other issues in this world, it seems the intellectual means are coming up short in both directions in the area of Mormonism, and religion in general. In otherwords, niether perspective can absolutely prove truthfulness or falseness of the doctrine through intellectual methods.

In more trivial aspects of life we can usually be satisfied with information that comes up a little short, and just make intellectual conclusions that have the "best bet" of being accurate. However in areas that we could consider most critical for our welfare are the areas where efforts in spiritual guidance are considered by some to be useful, in conjunction with open minded consideration for the evidences around us.

As for how we enterpret our feelings, it has been evident that feelings can be even more persuasive than witnessing indisputable and inexplicable miracles (which amazingly people will deny anti-Galileo style). So I will shift our focus to the relevance of feelings rather than any further miraculous accounts.

I shall present an analogy which I think we can more easily relate to. Some of us have been profoundly moved at times while listening to Mozart. (Rick, remember 25th symphony on vinyl?). This emotional experience would cause us to conclude that what we are listening to is something good. This happens for no explainable reason, since most of us have not been heavily indoctrinated to appreciate Mozart. We are not being mindlessly obedient just because we desire to continue to listen to Mozart. We have no social pressure or psychological need to believe that Mozart is good. It just plain feels that way. Why?

We would categorize the goosebumps and sweep of emotion we get from Mozart quite differently from other pyschic pleasures, such as say...warm fuzzies, or adrenaline rushes. Likewise we can have profoundly uspetting and disturbing feelings when reacting to such things as extreme violence (shell-shock) or when bad things happen to little children. We would categorize these visceral feelings differently than just having a hunch or opinion that something is wrong.

So go put on Mozart's 25th in G minor, turn it up, and just think about it for a minute.

The question remains; how do we properly categorize our own emotional experiences? I guess when we encounter an emotion, it's our individual responsibility to recognize what those feelings mean and where they are coming from. Then spiritual believers just have to come to terms with what they feel, and not be ashamed for occasionaly succumbing to intense sensations of divine enlightenment, even in the face of logical improbabilities and the philosophies of men.

Meanwhile, some people respond to Mozart and some don't, and that's the way it is.

Morning Stiffness

Well, Magrath days were a bit more special than ones in recnt memory. Once again our family sat near Rick's secret spot and cashed in on sugary confections. I even sat in the shade and had a good conversation with Rick and my BIL, Ryan. Later in the day we had a skateboard demo at the park. The guys from Boarderline in Leth. came out and put on a great show. Last year I was too intimidated to skate with those guys but this year I did even though I was super nervous. I pulled the four tricks I know, but still had a lot of fun. Skating with people better than you really motivates you to push it. I also felt like Dave and I skating in the demo kind of added to the legitimacy of our past time since it took such a bad rap when we were younger. Take that Magrathians! It was way cool to see Chris Jensen with a board in his hand and his kid skating. We talked to Todd B., Nathan and Morgan. Blake had also come over for a while a couple of days earlier.

I especially enjoyed watching Roger Bruinsma and Dave skate the halfpipe. I really admire their ability and wish that I had stuck to it instead of giving up. One thing that I can't stop thinking about is this: about ten years ago I met this young ripper and kind of connected with him. Whenever I'd see him he'd invite me to come a skate with his friends, but I always found reasons to do something else. Anyway, flash forward a few years and he comes over to the ramp yesterday and is stoked about it. I told him he should come out and skate and he proceeds to give me a bunch of reasons that skating is now a risky business for him. But *then* he proceeds to come to the pipe that night and rip it and *then* comes to the demo the following day and rips it there. One more skater back to the fold. I don't know why stuff like that stokes me so much, but it does.

Stats and Facts

OK, this posting is all about the sharing of information. No debating over religious doctrine or philisophical thinking required here.

First, good news Dave. In my research I found a news release regarding the church's mall renovation project which you refered to. It stated "tithing funds of the church will not be used for this commercial investment." Rather it was stated that this venture is supported by "business-generated dollars." I imagine these business-generated dollars would include the church's gains from commercial stock ownerships, and income generated from the sales of Church publications through Deseret Book, even sales of the BOM, which interestingly enough, now includes the eye-brow raising agreement with Doubleday publishing to sell the Book of Mormon on Amazon.com.

So why would they spend so much of this money on a mall renovation when they could have spent it on helping third world slums? Because it's a business investment....investment being the key word here. That means this money will likely generate much more money, and with their commercial properties and investments the church states they "contribute funds to a number of community arts, education and charitable groups".

Thus this investment could produce even more potential to give back to the local and global community, including third-world slums. This actually sounds like quite a financially sensible move.....and perhaps you can feel better that in actuality, you have not been ripped off. I can understand why you would regret having donated tithing to a cause you no longer believe in, however the tithing fund has gone towards the same old things the church has always claimed it would go towards, namely temples, church buildings, furniture, and supplies. Likewise, all fast offerings and other offerings, including humanitarian aid donations, have been passed on directly, and in full, to those for whom it is intended.

And speaking of humanitarian aid, I tracked information stating that "humanitarian assistance rendered has reached 154 countries and is valued at tens of millions of dollars annually" (and remember to add to this the indeterminable value of the time that is donated as well)

Anyhow, I did get this information off of www.lds.org mind you (in the newsroom quickfacts and browse by topic links).......so you could respond by questioning whether this is biased or accurate information. Well, OK that's only reasonable. If you find contradicting statistics or evidence from another reliable source, I'm willing to listen.

In reference to an erroneous statement in a the Doubleday press release of the BOM, concerning whether the church is one of the "largest religions in America"........Well I can't see what the point would be for church leaders to promote a statement that could easily be refuted by anyone in a simple internet search. That's just asking for an avalanche of rigorous mormon denouncing criticism. How would this obvious consequence serve as means to promote the BOM? In otherwords, even if there were hypothetically a real intent to decieve, I think anyone would be smart enough not to try to pull off something like that.

Seems more probable that there has been some sort of miscommunication or misunderstanding here. Especially in light of some additional research I pursued, which used different control groups than the study Rick relied on.

For one thing, varying control groups in polls result in varying information. Some control group selections are likely to be be dispersed evenly throughout the United States, not taking into account much higher concentrations of members in Utah and Idaho, who are not being accounted for. Therefore, I would be more inclined to trust straight comparitive numerical head counts of the population of specific church memberships, rather than percentages based on limited control groups.

In that case, according to the "Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches" the LDS church ranks at #4 in the top 10 Religious bodies in the US. Sure, 5, 503, 192 people may compare much less impressively against those churches which rank higher........but it IS still ranking as #4 in the top ten here. I suggest an examination of this website www.adherents.com. which is where I obtained this information. This website, not affiliated with the LDS church, also presents back up research (done by non-LDS researchers) which confirms the head count of the LDS church to be considered accurate.

Perhaps this Rapkin lady, motivated for her own reasons to promote sales of the Doubleday BOM, obtained her info from this website, for all we know.

Abnermal

Facts verses feelings (revised version 7/26)

You may have noticed I have edited this post as it was just too freaking loooooong and I have re-thought sand re-clarified some of my comments. As before, it is an extention of the naysayers posting.

Rick, I respect your criteria for choosing which sources of information to place your trust in. This makes sense to me enough to understand and respect your point of view. Note that I have not tried to persuade anyone to accept any sort of mystic belief. Even though you understandably choose not to accept this belief, based on it's improbability, I only suggest that one explore the possibility, however remote, that things of a spiritual nature could be a reality (and thus maybe, just maybe, religous types are not all irrational).

Yes, the definition of what is "good" can vary. However, Rick, you proceeded to offer your own definition of good, which is to "see how your beliefs are affecting your environment, socially and physically". But, basing your actions according to the definition you have offered, is nothing more than acting on "good intentions", yet you claim you "don't think that good intentions are reason enough to be the primary motivating factor behind one's actions." If not, then what is? I guess I just need you to elaborate a little more on this. And who determines the real and true definition of what is good?

As for tithing, if someone feels they can only afford to pay on the net amount, that's fine too. The idea that paying on the gross is required in order to consider oneself an honest tithe payer is a propagated myth. It's not anyone else's business to make generalized speculations on who deserves more or less "blessings".

Also, this billion dollar organization has a major welfare system and will never expect or allow you to go without food or money to pay the bills. The church needing money is secondary to the individual showing of one's faith through a willingness to sacrifice. Furthermore, the church "as a society" does not ask for us to give up 10%. Rather it is believed that GOD is doing the asking. What it comes down to is either you believe in the prophets, and therefore God......or you don't. If you DO, then you can accept that by paying tithing you will be "blessed". If you don't, well then you wouldn't, and shouldn't be obligated to pay tithing. Fair enough?

You state...I would say that given the infinitesimally small chance that these feelings are correct, we'd be just as well off not relying solely on anyone's feelings in any decision making procedure.

Agreed. We should never rely solely on anyone else's feelings. I guess I haven't done a very good job of expressing that point. Nobody has to believe in the prophet. That is where the idea of receiving our own personal revelations, pertaining to whether our not we are hearing a prophet, comes into play. If one does NOT personally feel they have received any legitimate, divinely originated feelings in regards to the prophet, then by all means it would seem silly to rely on the prophet for any decision making procedure.

As for "voting" on leaders, I think I covered the technicalities in the factual explanation of "stats and facts" posting. Certianly it is understood that leaders who are choosing other leaders may have factors in their life that will occasionally cloud their ability to receive the right answer, so if there is a serious concern over their decision, let it be known. The point of this system is to aspire to do the best that they can to receive a revelation in making that decision, for the betterment of everyone.

The reason this can still make sense is that, aside from the prophet, we are only relying on people to perform a specific church duty, not to pronounce doctrine itself. They may not be any more deserving than anyone else (or even want the calling), but they may benefit others somehow or may benefit themselves through the learning experience.

But the bottom line is that we only "sustain" or give our support to leaders. And as long as these leaders are fulfilling their church duties according to doctrine (and without commiting serious infractions to the doctrine themselves) we can continue to support them. But we do not actually rely on any leaders to determine the actual church doctrine, aside from the prophet himself, whom doctrine states God will remove from his position through death should a mistake have been made in selecting him. Thus while the prophet himself is fallible in his personal life and thinking, it is believed that anything he says in the capacity and context of a prophet CAN be considered infallible, since it can be considered that the infallible God himself is in control of the prophet's leadership position.

Sure, doctrine is subject to interpretation, that is why we are ALL encouraged to be well-studied on the scriptures ourselves, and can decide for ourselves what the scriptures and the prophet are saying. Usually it's pretty obvious, except perhaps in the case of difficult biblical passages that don't make much sense We may receive personal revelations or have opinions as to what the less obvious things mean, but only the acting prophet is entitled to make any official churchwide interpretation.

Nice logic excercise concerning known truths by the way. Don't you love this stuff? In response, I should clarify that when I refer to "truth" here, I mean complete truth, or at least known truths which remain true in the context of complete truth. I guess the problem here is defining what God is. Let's decide here that the definition of what constitutes a "God" is not only the ability to be our creator, but also one who possesses a knowledge of complete truth in all things. Based on this definition, it is assumed that confirmations from God are an indicator of a partial truth that remains true in the context of complete truth.

Sweet analogy with the computer too. Good one! But, if the computer were to become "self aware" (as is often proposed in sci-fi) would it not also still see the benefit from learning more from the human creater? As for me, since I cannot fathom how to create a universe with all matter and living things, I would consider the creator as a pretty good source of intelligence. Especially if you have established through a personal revelation that God is the possessor of complete truth.

And it's true there is no obvious conduit for communications between this entitiy and ourselves, but I do not agree that this neatly disproves a creator's capabilities to communicate. Why should the capability of a god to communicate with us automatically mean that there would be a "much higher rate of actual irrefutable communiques than we have now". What if we also consider the purpose and intentions of this being. Why do you assume that this being desires to be obvious?

Anyhow, this could lead us to a discussion of the nature of God as well as the purpose of life, however the mutual establishment of the existance of God in the first place would be a prerequisite for that discussion.

You say...at most, we have a few highly improbable anecdotal evidences of such a communication which are sketchy at best.

I assume you deem these as sketchy because feelings can be unreliable. But what if these evidences are not just based on feelings. I don't bring this up to minimize the legitimacy of feelings, but just to inject this aspect of revelation into the argument. Supposing somebody heard an audible voice, or a physical vision that could not be easily explained by our usual grip on reality? What if this happened to you? Would you assume you are a hallucinating or would you know what you saw or heard.

What if you were drowning, with nobody else around, in a lake, then woke up alive on the shore, kept it a secret (because the reason you were drowning was due to your own foolishness of going boating alone) only to have a preisthood holder, who could have known nothing of the event, refer to at a later time, in a patriarchial blessing?

What if you were relaxing upstairs, and then heard an audible voice that directed you to go downstairs and rescue your child from suffocating in a locked trunk, which you had absolutely no idea he was in? What is the likelihood that this is coincidence? In the case of both of these actual accouts, it seems slim. Slim enough to at least take these accounts as worth contemplating, I would think.

Indeed these accounts have not happened to you, Rick Beres, first hand, but out of curiosity, how would you approach disproving that these events occured, as compared to your arguments regarding nebulous feelings. How much weight would you put in these accounts if hypothetically it was your wife, or mother or someone whose credibility were considered as sound as any one or anything else. And finally, what would you conclude if such an event happened to you? I'm not saying these stories prove anything to anybody else, just suggesting that you ponder how you would process such an experience.

I agree that the open exchange of ideas is important (and interesting). I take no offense at questions, or challenging statements. I didn't bring up the mud-slinging issue to hinder anyone from freely expressing their opinions, (even if those opinions should happen to be in the form of angry rhetoric). I just wanted to point out that I feel it's more conductive to conversation and ultimatley more persuasive when people make efforts to evaluate if their critical comments are presented as fairly and objectively as possible. I think Rick has been doing a fine job of this. Thankyou Rick.

hear ye all church-bashers and nay-sayers

It seems that a number of blogs on this website have made attacks on the LDS church, which I have avoided the temptation this far to comment on, but I think I know now what I would like to say on the subject. I have no intention of convincing anyone to believe anything, but I'd like to get a little philisophical if you all don't mind.

If you think about it, every bit of information that our ears hear or that our eyes read has been written or spoken by other human beings, either in the English language or another language that has been translated into English by yet another human being. Some things are universally accepted as fact. I know Mount Everest exists, even though I have never been there in person. I know the holocaust happened, even though the events transpired before I was born and I was not in Europe to see these events with my own eyes. I believe what the biology textbooks tell me about the human body, without having to dissect an actual body. Why? Because these things are accepted by the masses as truth, and really there is no other reason.

Yet, when it comes to religion, there is too much debate. How reliable are the sources of both anti-mormon and pro-mormon accounts of church history? And how complete is this information? We are depending on the accounts of others, which allows for deception, omission of pertinant pieces of information, or just plain misunderstanding. For this very same reason, I would not expect someone just to accept the Book of Mormon as truth, or the doctrine of the church.

Some time ago Rick posted a quote from Albert Einstein which I wholeheartedly agree with. Moral behaviour does not require religion and ideally should not be motivated solely by guilt or fear of punishment. This is a sign of an underdeveloped personality. But what I am addressing in this particular posting is the pursuit of truth and wisdom (by which our behaviour is likewise affected). I am sure that whatever one's beliefs are concerning metaphysics, the pursuit of that which is good and true can be considered a worthy motivation to accept, or reject, a religion.

But the decision to accept or reject a religion depends simply on what devices one chooses to use as a measuring tool, with which to ascertain truth. Science is a good choice, yet science can have it's limitations, and has proven to be wrong many times as new discoveries have been made. Thus we can be reasonably sure about what science tells us....... but not 100% sure. History books can be a good resource, but again, accounts made by other people from a long time ago. Again not a 100% foolproof resource. Aside from witnessing an event in person, can we really be sure of anything (and didn't Aristotle propose that perhaps nothing else even exists but our own self, and that every experience and perception is a product of our own mind?). And so much information is subject to individual interpretation. My point is that most of what we believe or don't believe depends solely on what we deem as the most plausible information, or information that comes from what we consider the most trustworthy sources.

This is the best we can do right? Is that good enough for you?

OR.......can we consider the possibility of receiving spiritual communication from God? And can we trust these feelings, or do people just get themselves psyched up and start imagining things? Perhaps. But.... can we absolutely rule out the possibility that sometimes these feelings are legitimate. Can we really rule out the possibility that someone who tells you that they KNOW what they felt, may indeed have an absolute sure knowledge of something real? And if, hypothetically speaking, God exists and it were possible to experience this type of spiritual communication first hand, (and assuming God is smarter than we are by virtue of the fact that he is our creator), would this not be a more reliable source of truth and knowledge than any other known source?

And I do not assume that only Mormons are eligible for this experience, nor should any other Mormon, for this would be a false assumption. I believe the only requirement is a degree of spiritual receptiveness. Indeed, it is likely that many of these feelings of intuition, inspiration, love, peace, or actual words that people claim to have heard either with their ears or minds, are merely based on superstitions, hopes, or strong desires. Perhaps the accuracy, (and ability to determine that accuracy), would depend on one's state of mind, openess, faith, receptiveness and preparedness. That is why we can only trust in ourselves to discern whether or not what we feel is real. But if we doubt in ourselves too much, then I suppose this method in the pursuit of truth would not be helpful.

So who do you trust more? Yourself? God? Scientists? News reporters? Historians? Literature? Teachers? Friends?

I do not profess to be a spiritual master, who receives regular revelation and who is always sure of what I feel or believe. As a matter of fact, I too, have experienced my share of confusion, frustration and anger with the church, and with God. I have experienced times when I have felt prepared to leave the church, curse the church, curse God or denounce the very existance of God. But.............. there have been the very rare times in my life when I have witnessed, firsthand, the power of the preisthood, and the power of God, with my own eyes and ears. If I were to deny these events, or try to explain them away it would make me a liar.

So, for the sake of integrity, I feel it is my moral obligation to at least try to utilize this method, wherever mortal methods fall short, in the pursuit of truth, knowledge and wisdom. For this reason, I feel no need to address all the disconcerting anti-mormon historical accounts, or concern myself with how the church spends tithing money. The debate will only go in circles, because although I may not always trust all my feelings, there have been some experiences I cannot discount, lest I betray my own self.

It would be arrogant to assume that we can understand everything we need to understand, even by the time we die of old age. I say this because as I get older, I can look back and realize that there were things that I really didn't understand when I was younger. Based on this pattern, it's reasonable to assume that as I continue to get older, my understanding of many things in this world will continue to increase. Things that I am sure of now may turn out to be miguided ideas. Things that don't make sense now, might make perfect sense later. I could go into detail, but I think we can all relate on this. Thus I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with having faith in a religion that we may never fully understand in this lifetime. And along this same line of logic I could argue that completely rejecting something before you can fully understand the big picture could seem just as unreasonable.

We all choose our own truth-measuring devices, and we all do the best we can. Just don't assume that all people who trust in their personal feelings and experiences are all frail-minded, deceived and exploited. If you think about it, one could argue quite the contrary, and around and around the argument would go.

Anyhow, I feel it is possible to address concerns and differing opinions while maintaining an understanding and respectful attitude towards your friends. I have tried my best to do so, and simply ask on behalf of myself and all other blogger lurkers who relate to my comments, to have the same courtesy extended in return.

P.S. Rick, I meant to comment on something you said a long time ago about the Book of Mormon being sold on amazon. My understanding is that the church is NOT selling the Book of Mormon on Amazon, rather a publishing company not affiliated with the church is the actual marketer. Apparently this company approached the church for permission to do so. And don't forget that copies of the Book of Mormon are available for free to anyone and their dog (funded by....tithing). It's just if you want a nice leather cover or hard-cover edition that purchasing is required.

Way too big

Check out this series of pix.

Danny Way jumps the great wall.
That's sick.

This is kind of interesting...oh check that, I meant creepy.

Check out This Site
I don't even want to know if some of you have already posted there.

Help fight AIDS and poverty

Sign The One Declaration and maybe we can convince George to give a bit more to stop world AIDS and poverty. www.one.org