Overloaded

So, I didn't get a lot of sleep last night. I should be in bed. Instead I'm watching game 3 of the Suns/Spurs series and suddenly, out of nowhere, Katie Couric runs the most masterful pick and roll I've ever seen. I know I'm a little delirious, but you gotta admit...





...there's an oddly striking resemblance. Shout out to the College Sports Pro Blog who noticed two years ago.

Homefront

I just read some old news in this month's Ensign. One of the Church's PSA commercials was awarded "the best television PSA campaign in the National Media Survey of Television Community Service Directors" by U.S. Media Directors back in October. Read the press release here. Sounds like a pretty obscure institution, and the award might not seem like a big deal. But you'll agree with the U.S. Media Directors after watching it!



Isn't that great? This is a production by Homefront, a division of Bonneville Communications and owned by the Church. I spent a few minutes trying to get some history on Homefront, but wasn't successful. I wonder if anybody knows about its beginnings. Please share.

And don't you love the word Homefront?

My Church, Sacrifice and a Love Affair

I love my Church for many reasons. One reason is well stated by Elder Russell M. Nelson: "Teachings of the [Restored Gospel] are beautifully simple and simply beautiful. They are understood by the humble, yet they can excite the intellect of the brightest minds."

While preparing to teach a lesson for Sunday School, I started reading about Abraham's legendary willingness to sacrifice his own son, Isaac (Genesis 22). The story at the surface is strange at best. Not unlike many stories in the Old Testament, I'm finding. A prophet-father is promised a posterity greater in number than the stars in the sky. In his old age, his wife, Sarah, bears him one son, the "child of promise." They are overjoyed. In fact, they name their son, Isaac, meaning "he laughs," referring to their astonishment and joy upon finding that Sarah was miraculously pregnant. Some years later, the Lord commands Abraham to take Isaac to a hilltop, build an altar and sacrifice him in the same worshipful fashion as he was accustomed to do with animals.

What? Slaughter his only son, like an animal? What happens to "posterity without number"? What about the whole not killing people thing? And killing your own son? It seems a very strange request from the Lord.

But that's not the point, is it? The whole point of the account is completely lost without emphasizing Abraham's response to the commandment from a Lord that he loves and trusts. And this relationship between Abraham and God is not nearly as richly accounted for in the King James Bible as it is in the Pearl of Great Price.

In Abraham 1, we learn that at a young age, Abraham desired to know God, to be close to Him, and to attain the "blessings of the fathers." Through personal righteousness, he in time became worthy of being ordained a priest, firmly establishing the beginnings of his relationship with the Lord. The men in his family were caught up in idolatry, including his own father. They too had been ordained priests--of multiple heathen gods. In response to his attempts to teach them truth, Abraham was "chosen" to be one of the human/child sacrifices to the god of Elkenah. While on the altar, Abraham is saved by an angel of God. I have to wonder if the priest performing the sacrifice was his own father. On the one hand, how devastating and traumatic for a young man, for any child. On the other, how empowering to so tangibly experience the deliverance of God.

Wow! How's that for adding richness to the Genesis account? Have you ever thought how deeply personal this trial was for Abraham? That it was uniquely engineered for him. Not only was Isaac his only son, who he loved; not only had the Lord promised him posterity without number; not only was the sacrifice of a human being a strange request from a God of miracles and love; in this instance, the Lord commanded Abraham to do to young Isaac what his own idolatrous father had done to him! Imagine the sadness and fear that the Lord's commandment stirred up in his heart. Then think about his obedience and trust in the face of all of those very good excuses not to obey the commandment. (How could he even trust himself that it was a commandment from the Lord?) And then, can you imagine the relief, the raw emotion, when with knife in hand, an angel of the Lord speaks from heaven and says, "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." Wouldn't you like to believe that this was the same angel that saved him in his youth? Frankly, the story moves me. Deeply.

I love my Church. Sometimes I feel like I enjoy a "love affair" with the scriptures of the Restoration. My Church teaches me right from wrong, good from evil, and my place in this universe, e.g. Abraham 3:24-25. I love it!

Miss Me Yet?

That Minnesota billboard has received a lot of press. For some reason it reminded me of someone else I miss.



I'm sure our dear Prophet, President Monson, misses him too. For more inspiring clips, see Mormon Messages on YouTube.

Snow, Ice, Global Warming, Energy Independence and the Stupid Americans

How about all this snow! It's crazy.

I watched a documentary on PBS last night called Extreme Ice. It was very cool (hah! I kill myself). You can watch it on the PBS website. Basically, it is a persuasive piece on what appears to be a rapid global ice melt. I have no reliable resources to turn to when it comes to scientific facts on global warming. Do you? The documentary was well done and fun to watch--countless scenes of massive chunks of glaciers "calving" into the deep blue, beautifully deep-carved turquoise canyons in the ice caps of Greenland, and time-lapsed filming of the rapid recession of enormous mountain glaciers. The message I got: this world is breathtakingly beautiful. The message intended (I think): we better stop burning fossil fuels or else!

Why is all this global warming talk such a big deal? I'll tell you why it's a big deal to me. Isn't it strange that a career politician, Al Gore, was the one to ultimately bring the discussion of global warming to the fore? Shouldn't that have been some suave PhD from Harvard (a Robert Langdon type) that has spent his life work on understanding the complicated patterns of global climate? If there's one thing I have come to believe about career politicians, it's that they don't spend much time on things that do not promote their own career. "An Inconvenient Truth" was a political move. From what I have observed, the Left generally likes to use global warming (now called "climate change" for reasons discussed below) as evidence that the government needs to coerce us (by legislation) into being more responsible sons and daughters of mother earth. And the Right tends to point out that there is no evidence that global warming is human caused, "so keep your big government ideas out of our private lives!" You must already know to which side I lean.

On Sunday, I was watching Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. The discussion they had on global warming was a classic back and forth by the Left and Right. Here's one place to read the transcript. The discussion starts with "WALLACE: Senator James Inhofe, a leading opponent of climate change legislation..." You'll find it about halfway down the transcript. If you use the "ctrl f" hot key and type in "senator james", you'll find it right away.

I just read it again. Ooooh it just gets my blood boiling! Connoly and Williams provide the classic liberal arguments that we should go green. It's so slimy how the rhetoric of the debate slowly changes with them. This was the first time I ever heard or read anyone say something like "human-exacerbated climate change." It kind of softens the blow from just flat out saying "human-caused" or "man-made." Maybe a half-truth? With all the debacle going on in the UN panel on climate change, the Left has to admit that global warming has been overstated without sufficient evidence.

How about the part on energy independence? Duh! Just drill! We've got enough oil, shale and natural gas under our feet to last a couple millenia! We can do it without ruining our beautiful planet. I love how Kristol points out that it is much more morally defensible that fossil fuels be used to empower the impoverished nations toward the improvement of the lives of their people than to cut them off from such resources in the name of environmentalism.

And the kicker... "Connoly: And it's difficult for the human mind to deal with counterintuitive notions." (Referring to all the snow we've gotten in the face of global warming). My translation of Connoly: I'm so much smarter than all you dumb conservatives out there. Can you "wrap your head around it." Oh please! You know, there's nothing quite so distasteful about the Left than their outright arrogance. It's a communal superiority complex. For the whole two minutes I could stand watching Bill Maher on Larry King live the other night he managed to belittle everyone watching the show with this blanket statement: "what the Democrats never understand is that Americans don't really care what position you take, just stick with one. Just be strong. They're not bright enough to really understand the issues. But like an animal, they can sort of sense strength or weakness. They can smell it on you." Apparently he is "bright enough."

Seriously?

This is all I have to say: I will never drive a Pious, eh-hem, I mean, Prius. Not as long as I have a choice in the matter.

Easily Beset

Nephi wrote, "I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me" (2 Nephi 4:18, see also Alma 7:15). Interesting word, beset. Merriam-Webster online gives the following definitions: (1) to set or stud with or as if with ornaments; (2) trouble, harass ; (3a)to set upon, assail ; (3b) to hem in, surround. I think Nephi and Alma's use of the word is best in line with the last definitions: surround, assail, etc. And I kind of think that what frustrated Nephi so much was not that certain sins beset him, but that they easily beset him.

You know what "besets" me, easily, and drives me nuts? Petty obsessions with my own imperfections. I'm 30-freaking-2 years old. I've been doing this for as long as I can remember. When am I going to get a grip and quit wasting time on self-absorbed, self-help projects (diet, exercise, achievement x, y, or z, blah, blah, blah)? Case-in-point: I ran a half-marathon in November, first time. Why? Because I love the exalted feeling of finishing a race? No. The heart of it is I just wanted to lose weight. Guess how much weight I have kept off? Zippo. You know how much time I spent training for that dang thing? I wouldn't be nearly as bothered if all that time away from family and study was spent doing something I really enjoy.

In all this self-centered worrying, I allow myself to be deceived into believing that there is value in this supposed pursuit of excellence. But when it comes right down to it, it is all just a major distraction. Distraction from the hard and rewarding work of putting family first, neighbors first, and the Kingdom first.

Elder Richard G. Scott: "Are there so many fascinating, exciting things to do or so many challenges pressing down upon you that it is hard to keep focused on that which is essential? When things of the world crowd in, all too often the wrong things take highest priority. Then it is easy to forget the fundamental purpose of life. Satan has a powerful tool to use against good people. It is distraction. He would have good people fill life with 'good things' so there is no room for the essential ones. Have you unconsciously been caught in that trap?"

First things first.

What drives you nuts? What things keep you from spending time on things that are actually meaningful?

On the Wings of Love

My wife thinks that deep down inside I love the Bachelor. My wife is wrong. Dead wrong. But how can you not stare with it playing on your living room TV? It's like the huge car wreck on the side of the road. I've heard that in marriage, men inevitably become more feminine, and women... don't change one bit! Is that true? The other day, I was on vacation with family. My dad, brother and I were in the car. I said something like, "man, my face is so dry. I totally forgot to put on my face lotion this morning." Awkward silence.

Ah the things you do for love. I'm not feeling self-confident enough to start listing all the things I do now that are unacceptable to admit in guy circles. I can say though, that I drew the line a couple months ago. Lili told me I should go with her to her step class. "No!" I said. "Why can't you just let me be a man?"

I hate the Bachelor. But I can't change the channel.

And just so you know, in light of the last post, I also refuse to wear a bra--despite the growing need.

Double-Wide Seats

Obesity is a certifiable epidemic in America. I have obsessed about my weight since I was a kid. Life for me has essentially been chubby interspersed with short stints of being lean and very proud of it. Now I'm just plain large. Definitely in the "obese" category by medical standards. As you can image, advising patients on weight loss in my clinic is not one of my strong points. "Physician, heal thyself."

Why is it that being fat is such a stigma? Where did that come from? In elementary school I hated being chubby because of the ridicule. At home I wanted to be skinny 'cause it seemed like the right way to be. (Important note: nobody every made me feel bad about my self image at home).

This really is a cultural phenomenon. A Western phenom. In Central America, where I spent two years on a mission for my church, nobody obsessed about their weight. It was a simple matter of fact. If you were overweight, you were likely affectionately nick-named, "gordo." Just the same if you were particularly skinny, "flaco." I knew several loving husbands that referred to their wives as "gordita." I mean, come on! Imagine what would happen to marriages in our culture if husbands routinely called their wives "my little fatso."

Imagine my shock, in the first months of my mission when people would say, "Elder, por que le salen tantos granos? Y ya se hizo muy gordo, no?" After a delayed moment of translation in my green missionary mind, to my horror I figured out what they were saying. "Elder, why do you have so many zits? And you've really put on a lot of weight, eh?" There was no pussy-footing around cosmetic topics while small-talking in Honduras. I'm frankly grateful for the exposure (culture shock), because it helped put my own self-image in better perspective. They just didn't care much about what you looked like.

Here's the real bothersome issue for me. Some where along the way, I decided that being over weight detracts from my spiritual life, that some how I am violating a basic moral law. So, it was meaningful to make the following observation. I was in a beautiful church building today. Guess what was recently installed? Double-wide seats! Believe it. Maybe you have noticed them too. "What a relief", I thought to myself. While appetites and passions need to be bridled, at least I have a little more evidence today that I'll never have to weigh-in during a priesthood interview.

1 Samuel 16:7.

Thoughts?

Holland on Words and a Word on Optimism

In April, 2007, Elder J. R. Holland, a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles of the LDS church, delivered an excellent sermon called The Tongue of Angels. In it, he teaches about the spiritual importance of the words we speak. Here are a couple exerpts:

The Prophet Joseph Smith deepened our understanding of the power of speech when he taught, "It is by words . . . [that] every being works when he works by faith. God said, 'Let there be light: and there was light.' Joshua spake, and the great lights which God had created stood still. Elijah commanded, and the heavens were stayed for the space of three years and six months, so that it did not rain. . . . All this was done by faith. . . . Faith, then, works by words; and with [words] its mightiest works have been, and will be, performed."

...

I love what Elder Orson F. Whitney once said: "The spirit of the gospel is optimistic; it trusts in God and looks on the bright side of things. The opposite or pessimistic spirit drags men down and away from God, looks on the dark side, murmurs, complains, and is slow to yield obedience." We should honor the Savior's declaration to "be of good cheer." (Indeed, it seems to me we may be more guilty of breaking that commandment than almost any other!) Speak hopefully. Speak encouragingly, including about yourself. Try not to complain and moan incessantly. As someone once said, "Even in the golden age of civilization someone undoubtedly grumbled that everything looked too yellow."

My take: If all I have are words to decide whether to trust a man (or woman) enough to vote for him, then his words have to engender good faith (hope in things that are true but not seen). Did Obama say things that were true? Probably some. Did his words align with my understanding of truth regarding good government (constitutional principles of personal liberty and accountability)? No. Was his speech optimistic? I thought so. Truth is optimistic, according to Holland. All would agree that faith is essentially a principle of optimism. No?

When it comes down to it, I didn't vote for Obama, because I couldn't trust him. And I didn't trust him because what I believe to be good government for America is essentially different than his ideas(maybe more on this later: progressivism vs. constitutionalism). So, while I think the hint of optimism in his speech lured me in, it doesn't change the fact that in my view his words and plans are based on incorrect principles of good governement. Truth alone infers optimism, but optimism alone does not infer truth.

Any thoughts how you decide you can trust someone that you've only seen speaking on television?

Obama, Rhetoric and Alma 32

The Mormon Missionaries assigned to our area taught a neighbor tonight about faith. The Book of Mormon teaches that "if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true."

TAO commented about rhetoric. My question is, how do you decide if a public figure is being truthful or not? Fact checking is one thing. But how about sincerity, their heart? How do you know if you can trust them or not? That's what we really want to know, right? Can I trust this guy to do a good job? Can I have faith in him?

If you have a couple minutes, here's the YouTube/CBS SOTU link. Drag the playhead to 50:20 and watch until about 52:54. Should I, can I, have faith in this POTUS?

SOTU: I stand corrected...

While my wife and mother-in-law entertained two welcomed guests in our home tonight, I rudely hid in the bedroom to watch the SOTU address. I was curious to know how the POTUS would address the nation after a huge blow to his health care agenda (the MA senatorial race). After the speech ended, they asked, "how bad was it?"

"I thought it was pretty good," surprising myself. "Of the state of the union addresses I have watched, that was probably the best."

"What?" my wife jeered with a smile. "Have you become an Obama-lover?"

I was anxious to know how my opinion faired in comparison to the Fox News pundits. Fox is, of course, my go to source of thinkers who create opinions for me about topics that I care about but don't want to read about. Sadly, I can't think of anything I particularly like to read about unless it is a link from the Drudge Report.

About two seconds into Mr. Krauthammer's critique, I was disappointed to find that I was way off. It was obviously a really poor speech! I guess I stand corrected.

I'd love to hear what friends, family and acquaintances have to say about the speech tonight. Anyone? Was it right on key for all the independent voters out there? Was it liberal rhetoric as usual? Was it a lean to the Right?

Maybe more interesting is how you think televised pundits affect your opinion on matters of national debate.