Secret memo

What is a cult?

2011-10-17T14:16:00.000-07:00

There has been lots of fascinating discussion recently of whether Mormons are Christians and whether religion has any place in politics. Not much of that discussion has really gotten into the definition of a "cult." (All of this results from a claim from Southern Baptism minister named Jeffress that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons are not Christians.)

One writer who has tackled the definition of the word "cult" is my son, Robert Young. His piece, posted on Facebook (see http://www.facebook.com/RobTenken), is thought provoking, and much of it is well stated and well thought out. But it's certainly not immune from question or correction. I offer some of both in my analysis, which follows (his text in regular type face, with my comments in bold and in square brackets):

I [this is my son Robert speaking at this point] feel like chiming in on one ongoing debate: The Mormon church was recently called a "cult."
There have been many definitions of the word "cult" throughout history, including:
1) "A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister." [My comment: This is more or less the common, current, popular meaning of the word–in other words, when people use or hear the word nowadays, this is usually pretty much what they understand it to mean. By the way, this definition is from the OED and was added to that admirable source in 2004.]
2) "A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure, person, or object." [This is the original meaning, but is no longer current except in some technical, usually academic settings. In this sense, “cult” is essentially synonymous with “religion” or “system or act of worship.” I like the OED versions of this definition: "Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings" (obsolete); "A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies" (often in reference to primitive religions).]
3) "A religious or spiritual organization that requires financial dues in exchange for religious truth." [Where’s this from? I don’t think this is a standard definition, though I’m sure some people have chosen to define the word this way for whatever purposes and with whatever justification they’ve given themselves. It’s not, however, a widespread or historically supported use of the word.]
[Another important definition: In the 1930s, a sociologist tried to classify religions as “churches,” “denominations,” “sects,” and “cults,” with the last of these being “small religious groups lacking in organization and emphasizing the private nature of personal beliefs” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult). Note that this is similar to definition #1 above, but without the negative connotations.]
[There’s one other definition that the Southern Baptism minister who recently used the word apparently had in mind: what he himself called a "theological" definition, a definition that has been created by evangelical or conservative Christians to identify a certain kind of “false” religion, a definition they use in their theology schools, their literature, and sometimes in their sermons or in-house discussions. The minister himself identified two elements of "cults": they have human founders rather than a divine one (so in the case of Mormonism, Joseph Smith rather than Jesus Christ--not of course how Latter-day Saints view the matter since they believe Jesus is himself the founder of their church), and they use other scriptures besides or in addition to the Bible. This view of "cults" includes the connotation of “sinister”—or even worse, of “diabolic” and “evil”—and “heretical” or “false.” Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult ) indicates that this view goes back to the 1940s when, among conservative Christians, “all new religious groups deemed outside of Christian orthodoxy were considered ‘cults.’”]
In all of these cases, there is an argument to call the LDS church a cult. [The arguments are stronger in some cases than in others, as some of the following indicates.] It is true that they require tithes and offerings for temple worthiness, and thus temple ceremonies. Those ceremonies contain keys to the gospel and eternal salvation, so yes, this is "cult-ish." [But this is not quite the same as exchanging religious truth for financial dues, for the following reasons: the religious truth conveyed in the temple is conveyed in a special and powerful way, but there is no specific doctrinal content that is not also available for free to anyone. Also, strictly speaking, you don’t have to pay anything to go to the temple: if you have no tithable income, you can still attend, assuming that you would pay tithing if you could, showing that the principles involved are faith and obedience, not money.]
In early phases of the Mormon church, and in some present functions of it, Joseph Smith is worshipped and adored as a separate figure. [Joseph Smith has never been worshipped in the LDS Church; “adored” is an ambiguous term, but if it is defined strictly as “worshipped,” then it’s not accurate either. “Praised,” “admired,” “revered”: yes. The claim of Joseph Smith worshipping as ever being an official practice or doctrine of the Church is false. Note that "cult" is used in a derivative sense in connection with politicians, movie stars, musicians, and even writers: "Devotion or homage to a particular person or thing, now esp. as paid by a body of professed adherents or admirers" (OED def. 3). This could perhaps apply to Joseph Smith--as well as to Barack Obama and the Beatles, among many others.] The song "Praise to the Man" serves as one example. Additionally, the concept of a living prophet who members should obey (essentially without question) taps the same vein. [Very arguable: “in the same vein” stretches faith that a human being can speak for God into the idea of worshipping the human intermediary. And though a lot of people have promoted the idea of “without question,” that’s not an accurate reflection of the real-life experience of many Latter-day Saints—and I can give an essay full of quotations indicating that it is the teaching of the Church, whether or not people understand it very clearly, that “questioning” in the sense of “thinking” and “testing” is an appropriate part of listening to a prophet, and that prophets themselves have taught that prophets are humans who are not constantly and perfectly conveying the divine will but must be listened to with spiritual discernment because they sometimes speak non-prophetically.] While not really sufficient to call the faith a cult (the religion does focus on Christ for the most part), this is – sorry – "cultish." [In any case, “mode of worship” as a definition of “cult” is a mostly archaic definition that applies to all religions since religion involves worship.]
Additionally, the idea of a "relatively small group" that has strange spiritual beliefs, is quite well founded. As a small presence in the U.S. and abroad the believes in non-traditionals like abstaining from tobacco and alcohol, proxy baptisms, and eternal families, the Mormons are bizarre. Again, this qualifies as "cultish." [“Relatively” is obviously a relative term. But it’s not very helpful here. Yes, Latter-day Saints probably constitute less than 2% of the US population, but that still amounts to millions of people. And most standard sources place the Church as the 4th, 6th, or 8th largest Christian church in the US (depending mostly on whether various Lutheran and Presbyterian churches are grouped together or considered separately). That means that the LDS Church in the US is larger than the Episcopalian Church (which I’ve never heard called a “cult”) and larger than the major separate bodies of Lutherans or Presbyterians in the country. With roughly 14 million Latter-day Saints in the world, the Church is a major global player and has been called by one non-LDS scholar “an emerging world religion.” Academic students of religion (apart from conservative evangelicals and a few others) normally classify Mormons as a “church” or even a “people” (sort of like the Jews), but not as a “cult.”
As for strange practices, I guess that’s in the eyes of the beholder: abstention from tobacco and alcohol doesn’t seem to me bizarre and is recommended or expected in other religious traditions. “Eternal families”: unusual, yes, but I don’t think it’s an idea that strikes most outsiders as “bizarre.” Proxy baptisms seem strange to some, especially if they think corpses are involved (note that many pagans thought early Christianity involved cannibalism and incest), but the practice of baptism for the dead is Biblical (1 Corinthians 15:29). There are other things you don’t mention, though, that might some as more strange than any you have mentioned. I’ll save those for another day. But there’s nothing stranger than what you can find in virtually any religion—Catholicism is full of odd practices, and some find the general Christian practice of symbolically partaking of Christ’s body and blood to be strange. Emerson kind of lost his belief in orthodox Christianity in part over his revulsion at the idea.]
So, is the LDS church a cult? Maybe. There's certainly an argument to calling them one. But we must note that many other groups qualify by these same standard. As a few examples:
1) Scientologists. (Small, non-standard, religious, require payment for scans.)
2) Ron Paul supporters. (Small, definitely non-standard, pseud-religious, requests campaign contributions.)
3) Early Christians. (Small, very radical, requested complete communal living)
4) All early protestants. (Small, counter-political, required funding and voice to operate.)
5) Martin Luther King Jr. (Minority support, very vocal and against the grain, much of the reverence focused toward a single man and his beliefs.)
[Yes, there’s a good deal of truth in your list, though there are obviously lots of distinctions among these. Oh, by the way, all religions pretty much require some kind of funding to operate.] The list goes on. So while we can argue that Mormonism is a cult, we should really be asking the following: Is it really a bad thing to be a cult? Are there are substantial ways a "cult" religion differs from the beliefs of "standard" faiths that would apply to the political arena? And why do we always preoccupy ourselves with name-calling instead of asking the real and practical questions?
[Good questions.]

A letter to Jon McNaughton

2011-05-18T12:54:00.000-07:00

I sent the letter copied below to artist Jon McNaughton to share my thoughts about his reaction to the BYU Bookstore deciding not to sell his political paintings. (He pulled all of his paintings from the store and suggested that BYU has become "infected" with liberalism.) I sent the letter via the comment form on McNaughton's website. I haven't heard back from him, so I don't know whether he's read what I had to say.

My comments are rooted in frustration I've felt for many years at some Latter-day Saints who take what I believe with all my heart to be the glorious gospel of salvation--a message of peace and joy offered to all humankind and expressing God's love for all his children--to be an extension of their narrow conservative ideology. Sometimes their theological positions are closer to fundamentalist or conservative evangelical ones than to authoritative or mainstream Latter-day Saint thought. Politically, their view that one party or one political ideology is true and in harmony with the gospel contradicts official statements of the Church and views expressed by its leaders. Their emphasis on protecting America is sometimes joined with hostility toward other nations, cultures, and religions and as a result seems to me out of harmony with the expansive international emphasis of the Church. And sometimes they engage in dangerous doomsday or conspiracy-theory discourse.

I believe many of their political views amount to distortions of true gospel principles. Many argue that the gospel principle of agency necessarily entails pure capitalist economics and virtually no role for government in relieving of human suffering or ensuring of the public welfare. They are sometimes what I would call selectively strict Constitutionalists--meaning that they don't have much problem with limiting civil liberties if national security is the rationale and don't put much emphasis on freedom of speech, assembly, or the press. What they emphasize are the limits set on the federal government, especially on economic matters, and sometimes states' rights. In their positive principles, I see some merit. But their emphasis is selective--and is connected with their claim to be the only true protectors and upholders of the Constitution.

What bothers me most are not the ideas of many of these folks as it is the spirit and tone with which they present their views. Latter-day Saints are rightly troubled by the ugly spirit of most anti-Mormon discourse. But right-wing Latter-day Saints often treat their "enemies" with the same kind of irrational hostility, unfair stereotyping, and self-righteous judgmentalism. I favor open discussion and am happy to hear various view expressed with civility and goodwill. But it seems to me that human beings ought to express their views not only civilly and respectfully but humbly. Even in our deepest convictions about the things that matter most, none of us has attained a perfect understanding. When it comes to politics--to the sorts of issues on which political passions make it hard to be unbiased, issues on which (in addition) divine revelation and official Church teachings have not defined a position--we ought to be even more careful to exercise humility and to consider respectually the views of those who disagree with us.

In my letter (reproduced below), I have not been as insightful or eloquent as I would like to have been. But I have shared my thoughts and feelings in something I hope approaching a good spirit. For a better written and more incisive discussion of McNaughton's paintings, see the following piece by Ben Park: "Arts, Politics, and Religion" < http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Art-Politics-and-Religion-McNaughtons-Agenda-Benjamin-Park-05-17-2011.html >

Now for my letter to Jon McNaughton:

I’m aware of the recent controversy concerning on of your paintings--though of course you’ve created other paintings with even more controversial political messages. You’re right in pointing out that the BYU Bookstore sells books from various political viewpoints, while having a policy of not selling politically oriented paintings. I don’t have direct knowledge of their reasons but suspect it has something to do with the powerful “in your face” character of visual propaganda. There are statements of all sorts in books sold in the Bookstore that would be extremely offensive if they were portrayed and displayed in a visual format. You’ve argued that the criticism of your Constitution painting comes from “liberals.” My own criticism, I believe, has a deeper basis.

I believe some of your judgments and attitudes are contrary to important aspects of the spirit of Christ, differ from some attitudes expressed by the current First Presidency, make harsh judgments on some humble followers of Christ, and convey attitudes that impede rather than aid the progress of the Lord’s work. I would need a good deal of space to explain my views. But I can give a few thoughts here and link you to longer expressions.

Some quick thoughts: Church leaders have repeatedly warned against certain kinds of conspiracy theories about “threats to America.” They have also sought to separate the Church and the gospel from partisan politics, not (I am confident) as a concession to some “weaker brethren,” but because the gospel transcends partisan politics. Elder Dallin H. Oaks once said: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (“Criticism,” Ensign, Feb 1987, 68ff.).

On conspiracy-theory and end-of-the world activism, note these words of Elder Boyd K. Packer (“To Be Learned Is Good If . . ." Oct. 1992 General Conference): "There are some among us now who have not been regularly ordained by the heads of the Church and who tell of impending political and economic chaos, the end of the world--something of the 'sky is falling, chicken licken' of the fables. They are misleading members to gather to colonies or cults. Those deceivers say that the Brethren do not know what is going on in the world or that the Brethren approve of their teaching but do not wish to speak of it over the pulpit. Neither is true." (See more at http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/08/conspiracy-theory-mentality.html .)

About the need for harmony and political tolerance within the Church, consider this warning from George Albert Smith: “Whenever your politics cause you to speak unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you are upon dangerous ground.” President Hinckley reminded us that “political differences never justify hatred or ill will,” adding, “ I hope that the Lord’s people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties” (see “Instruments of the Lord’s Peace,” Ensign May 2006).

For more thoughts from Church leaders, see http://lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/instruments-of-the-lords-peace?lang=eng & http://www.kevinashworth.com/ldr/268/gop-dominance-troubles-church .

My own thoughts on the relation of the gospel and politics may be found at various spots, including http://english.byu.edu/faculty/peace.htm , http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2011/01/two-speeches.html , http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2010/09/thoughts-on-september-11.html , http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2010/08/change-in-status.html , http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/09/respecting-president-political-bullying.html & http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/05/politics-where-do-i-fit-on-spectrum.html

Thanks for your patience.

Best wishes,

Bruce Young

Politics?

2010-12-18T10:28:00.000-08:00

On Facebook I describe my political views as "Moderately liberal, mildly progressive, and somewhat conservative." But I wouldn't want even that eclectic mix to box me in.

I agree with Elder Dallin H. Oaks, who once said: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (“Criticism,” Ensign, Feb 1987, 68ff.).

I discuss my "Political views" status on Facebook more at length at http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2010/08/change-in-status.html

Making phone calls for Mark Peterson

2010-11-01T08:05:00.000-07:00

I've spent some time over the past few days making phone calls for Mark Peterson, a friend who is running for Utah State House of Representatives, District 62.

Of the 100 or so names I've worked with so far, 28 don't have phone numbers listed, 25 are listed with numbers that are no longer working, a few who answered no longer live in the district, one hung up on me, and about 15 didn't pick up (I left messages when I could). That means I probably talked with about 30 directly, and I appear to have persuaded a few. I was surprised at how many actually wanted to listen to my brief case for why they should vote for Mark Peterson.

The time to vote approaches--tomorrow, November 2, 2010. Is there any chance Mark will win? I suppose so. But whether or not he wins, he is, in my opinion, clearly the better qualified of the candidates--a good two or three or four times better than his opponent.

Here's why I think so. (This is a copy of what I sent to family and friends living in District 62.)

Mark Peterson is an excellent candidate, smart, mature, and experienced. I’ve known him for many years as a colleague at BYU, where he teaches Korean, and am confident he will make a great state legislator. Besides his many years of experience as an educator, he also has experience in economic development, having helped set up an office in Korea to facilitate Korean investment in Utah and Utah exports to Korea.

Mark has sensible, pragmatic, moderate positions on various issues, including education, economic development, immigration, and air pollution. To help improve air quality in Utah and Salt Lake valleys (which have some of the worst air pollution in the country), Mark proposes specific ways of limiting range fires, among other things. He proposes humane and compassionate immigration reform, including going after exploitive employers, refining NAFTA so as to improve economic conditions in Mexico, and finding ways to help undocumented residents come out of the shadows without destroying their families. His main focus will be on education—an area of deep concern, since the scores of Utah students have been declining in recent years despite all the money Utah spends on education. Mark will seek to make education the legislature’s top priority so that the required time and effort can be put into finding a solution to Utah’s complex education problems. Improving education is the best thing we can do for economic development.

One reason I support Mark is that his opponent—Chris Herrod—is, in my opinion, one of the least capable legislators in recent memory. Herrod has taken extreme positions and supported off-the-wall bills. For instance, he has proposed doing away with the booster seat requirement for small children. There’s no question that booster seats improve safety for small children; I believe the requirement should stay. Herrod has also proposed spending $3 million for Utah to sue the federal government, in ways that legal experts say would have no standing and probably wouldn’t even get off the ground.

Herrod’s main qualification, for many, is that he is running as a Republican. But the past few years have made it clear that the extreme domination of Republicans in Utah state government has been bad for the state and bad for the Republican Party, as the party has run weak candidates who have not had to face real election challenges and as it has come to be dominated by its more extreme elements. Among the signs that more balance is needed is that wacky bills are regularly proposed and taken seriously—for instance, a bill proposing doing away with 12th grade, something that simply by being proposed brought Utah negative publicity (with economic consequences) that undid much of what our economic development efforts have tried to accomplish.

Mark Peterson is supported by both Democrats and Republicans, including Karl Snow, a Republican and former Utah Senate Majority leader. Among others who support him are Susan Easton Black, Reese and Kathryn Hansen, Richard L. and Carma de Jong Anderson, Ned Hill, Thomas Alexander, Scott and Chris Cameron, Randy and Janet Jones, Jim Toronto, and of course many, many others.

Mark will help restore sanity to the Utah legislature. He will be a voice of reason and moderation.

For more details on his positions, go to http://www.electmarkpeterson.org/

And be sure to vote on Tuesday.

Best wishes,
Bruce Young

P.S.: This is a P.S. to the blog post, not something I put in the e-mail I sent to friends and family. Though I live in District 62, all the people on my phone list live in a different part of the district, away from my neighborhood. Because of my local church responsibilities, I feel I need to avoid getting associated with political labels. So I have no bumper stickers or yard signs and have held no neighborhood meetings with candidates. Nor have I knocked on doors or made phone calls in my neighborhood (for political purposes).

One of my neighbors asked me who I'd recommend voting for--but asked me while we were in the church building. I told him I'd feel more comfortable talking to him in another location and at another time--and maybe (it occurs to me now) after I took off my white shirt and tie. Maybe I'm going overboard, but I really do feel I need to separate the roles very clearly. Still, I feel torn at times--I'd love to tell everybody what I think about ballot issues. But there are far more important things I need to do as well. And I need to not get the two confused, or weaken the more important things by focusing too much on the less important ones.

MTC Reunion (French-speaking branches)

2010-09-24T08:14:00.000-07:00

For more information see http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=152149834808962

I still haven't been able to contact the following:

Adam Michael Ross
Alexander Williams
Benjamin John Spence
Brady Nicholas Rust
Brett Jackson Riley
Brian Douglas Nelson
Brittany Call
Brock Dennis Rose
Catherine Luz Cerdhe
Christopher Joseph Perry
Christopher Allen Carlsen
Clifton Todd Crosland
Daniel Ray Porter
Daniel Jaymes Skeen
Daniel James Lee
Daniel Guillermo Antivilo
David Cahrles Phillips
David Wesley Olsen
Eric Wesley Wilcox
Geoffrey Tucker Lang
Gregory Alan Garrett
Gyson Delmar Gray
James Matthew Ritchie
James Aarl Sykes
Jason Stuart Walke
Jaysen Varselle Williams
John Aaron Sones
Jonathan Wesley Hales
Jordan Dale Harding
Joseph Brandt Jorgensen
Joshua Michael Barney
Kade Brett Hansen
Kevin Mtthew Dennis
Kyle McKay Poulsen
Laurence James Wynder
Luke Thomas Sherry
Marco Antonio De Leon Jr.
Mark Ryan Wight
Matthew Jay Stokes
Matthew Frank Maylett
Michael Recio
Michael Ray Christensen
Michael Pierce Johnson
Michael Alexander De La Torre
Michael Crosby Long
Miguel Moreira Da Mota
Nathan Samuel Gill
Ninoska Altamirano
Omar Doctolero Ramil
Paul Benjamin McConnell
Richard McKay Childs
Robert Isaac Andersen
Robert Scott Runyon
Ryan Scott Sorensen
Scott Robert McIntosh
Seth Neal Ellsworth
Stephanie Ann Smith
Stephen David Hunter
Stephen R. Crooks
Thomas Cameron Waller
Tonya Michelle Olsen
Tyler Kimble Jestet
Tyler David Kelley
William Thomas Garner
Zachary Mark Bowman

If you know any of those listed, please invite them.

My view of Mitt Romney

2010-08-20T08:12:00.000-07:00

My view of Mitt Romney is not unique, but it is a bit unusual by virtue of my having been acquainted with Mitt for over 30 years and chatted with him on a few occasions.

On the positive side, he strikes me as charismatic, intelligent, and capable. I was very impressed by his handling of the Salt Lake City Olympics. He did well as governor of Massachusetts. I liked him personally when I knew him back in the late 70s and early 80s.

On the negative side, I have a few concerns. Though I'd like to think that he has sincerely held the various positions he's taken over the years, I find it suspicious that those positions have changed to make him politically attractive to those whose support he has needed in different situations. And listening to him speak during the 2008 primaries, I often found it difficult to sense genuine conviction in his words. I worry about what seems to me a lack of integrity or at least genuineness. I don't feel like I really know his heart. I guess that's true of any other human being, but it seems even more so with Mitt Romney. He's a mystery to me, and it's hard for me to get a sense of what he truly, deeply believes--as distinguished from what he feels he needs to say to garner support.

A second concern: I liked his generally moderate approach as Massachusetts governor. In fact, on some issues, he was just a bit more liberal than I felt comfortable with. During the 2007-2008 political season, by contrast, he seemed to shift so far to the right that I found many of his positions unpalatable--some of them out of harmony with my moral convictions. And in addition to the positions themselves, his way of expressing himself sometimes seemed calculated to position him as the meanest, toughest SOB among the Republican candidates. There was a lot of jockeying for that "honor" at the time.

Finally, I've been thrown by his odd comments on occasion about his faith. I know he's walking a difficult line--being true to his LDS convictions but trying to appeal to voters who are suspicious of or downright hostile toward the LDS Church. I believe he's genuinely religious. But some of his comments have seemed odd for a believing Latter-day Saint--on one occasion, for instance, expressing uncertainty as to whether there had been any real revelation from heaven since Mount Sinai. (This was to deflect, I think, the worry some have that his positions as US President, should he attain that office, would be dictated by LDS Church leaders.)

I guess I haven't been surprised at how many Latter-day Saints, including many of my friends, have become fans of Romney. He's attractive (in many senses) and claims to represent "conservative values." And there's not much of anybody else in the Republican field who seems to be much of a credible possibility as a 2012 presidential candidate. Plus Mitt is Mormon!

Of course, so is Harry Reid--and I'll offer as my view, despite the incredulity many may greet it with, that Reid represents LDS values more truly than Romney does (see http://humanities.byu.edu/english/faculty/youngb/reid.pdf , for instance). And I find another LDS political figure, Jon Huntsman, to be much more appealing than Romney. It would be great to have an LDS president (though it would at the same time expose the Church to a lot of hostility from all sorts of directions--including of course the Evangelical Right), but I think it would be a shame if the first LDS POTUS had views that, for me, are so far out of harmony with LDS values as I believe some of Romney's to be.

Speaking of "conservative values," I believe America has been built on a combination of liberal AND conservative values, as well as on values that transcend or bridge political differences. (So much, of course, depends on your definition of the terms.) And "conservative values" are emphatically NOT equivalent to Latter-day Saint values. Some "conservative values" are--for instance, if you want to call self-discipline, self-reliance, integrity, and fidelity "conservative." But what intelligent "liberal" would really reject those values? And you could with equal justice call values like faith, hope, charity, compassion, generosity, tolerance, goodwill, respect, and fairness "liberal." And on which side would you place knowledge, wisdom, patience, and humility? For that matter, does any contemporary political approach leave much room for humility?

In any case, it seems to me to demean religious faith and eternal principles to try to align them exclusively with a political party or ideology. For Latter-day Saints who know their history, it should be obvious that Joseph Smith was NOT a typical conservative in either the nineteenth- or twenty-first century sense. (See http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/05/politics-where-do-i-fit-on-spectrum.html for more thoughts on this.)

I myself don't feel comfortable aligning myself with any one spot on the political spectrum (as I explain here). I've been pleased recently to find a statement by Dallin H. Oaks that expresses a similar feeling: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (for the source, click here).

So where does that leave me with Mitt. Not especially interested, unless he comes across a lot differently than he did in 2008.

My view of Mitt Romney

2010-08-02T10:26:00.000-07:00

test

2009-12-24T07:19:00.000-08:00

Respecting the President / Political Bullying

2009-09-12T09:05:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine has blogged about the Nebo School District decision--and then reversal of that decision--NOT to let students hear the President of the United States speak. You can read his post via the link below; my comment follows.

https://webmail.byu.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=16732fb329df463f8739ab1b89d63018&URL=http%3a%2f%2fgideonburton.typepad.com%2fgideon_burtons_blog%2f2009%2f09%2fpublic-schools-and-political-bullying-a-report-card-from-utah.html

Thanks, Gideon. As a couple of the comments have suggested, liberals and Democrats can be intolerant too, when given the chance. But the fact is that in Utah, especially Utah Valley, one party and one political persuasion heavily dominate. That means that here and now, they are the ones doing the bullying. They are the ones who can, and because many of them feel so certain they are right and see themselves so close to having complete domination, it is easy for many of the dominant persuasion to demonize, demean, and intimidate those with different views.
It’s not unlike racism. Of course, people of various races are capable of all that is good or bad in human nature. But typically it is racial minorities that face persecution, because the majority has the power to persecute and, measuring everyone against itself, easily transforms racial difference into inferiority.

With race too, Utah Valley has far to go. I had no idea it had SO far to go until I became friends with lots of the valley’s blacks and hispanics and learned some of what they, including their school children, face. Some of the incidents--I’m referring to incidents right here in Utah Valley--were so bad that when they were reported to President Hinckley, he wept. In response, he gave a stirring address in the priesthood session of General Conference, April 2006, in which he denounced racism and intolerance and mean-spiritedness in general, asking, “Why do any of us have to be so mean and unkind to others? Why can't all of us reach out in friendship to everyone about us? Why is there so much bitterness and animosity? It is not a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” No one indulging in such behavior, he said, “can consider himself a true disciple of Christ, nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the Church of Christ.” He called for efforts to “accommodate diversity” and called for any who were guilty of “racial hatred,” including “racial slurs and denigrating remarks,” to “ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.”

I wonder if we need such an address again, this time focusing specifically on political ridicule and bullying, especially directed against children. LDS Church leaders have long tried to persuade members that it’s OK to be a Democrat, that “various political parties,” including “all major” ones, have “principles compatible with the gospel.” Church leaders have deliberately, though quietly, encouraged political diversity in Utah. Just as previous Church presidents have met with presidents of the country, President Monson recently met with President Obama. President Uchtdorf and Elder Ballad attended the inauguration, and both felt encouraged by the spirit of unity they felt there. Pres. Uchtdorf said it was great “to see a unity there that I hope will last on and continue throughout the years of this administration.” He also said, “We pray for President Barack Obama’s success in these challenging times and join in his expressions of hope and optimism.” According to Elder Ballard, “We need to exercise our prayers and help him accomplish the great objectives that he has set.” All of this is vastly different in tone and spirit from much of what is heard in Utah Valley, where the great majority claim to be Latter-day Saints.

Simply being a citizen of the United States should impel you to listen to your president with respect, whether or not you agree with him. I don’t understand why so many in Utah Valley fail to meet even this minimal standard.

Posted by: Bruce Young September 11, 2009 at 04:38 PM

The conspiracy theory mentality

2009-08-18T09:55:00.000-07:00

Today I ran into a fun post, accompanied by a video, at http://zpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/08/of-conspiracies.html.

Having lived through the "Paul is dead" hoax, the "moon landing is fake" theory, and lots of other strangeness, I find conspiracy theories in general to be often laughable but sometimes pernicious.

I occasionally need to use snopes.com and other sources to explain to my friends why I'm not going to pass on their frantic e-mails about the latest terrible thing "THEY" are doing. (E.g., http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/07/false-claim-about-aclu.html.)

I've also posted on the Obama birth certificate craziness--http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/02/president-obamas-birth-certificate.html. The amazing thing with that conspiracy is that "they" even managed to put an announcement of Obama's birth in a Honolulu paper shortly after his "birth," in anticipation of his run for the presidency--unless all the old Honolulu newspaper archives have been falsified!

What's wrong with the conspiracy theory mentality? Yes, paranoia, fear, distrust. I've even seen conspiracy-prone friends on the verge of psychosis, seeing "signs" everywhere: in license plates, on billboards, on ceilings in the Salt Lake Temple. The conspiracy theory mentality also breeds contention, lack of civility and charity, egomania, violent fantasies, and the breakdown of such mental faculties as insight, wisdom, intelligence, understanding, and rational inquiry and analysis. I believe it shows a lack of genuine trust in God. And it diminishes and destroys such gifts of the Spirit as love, joy, peace, faith, hope, meekness, patience, and brotherly kindness. Come to think of it, it basically takes a wrecking ball to all of the Christlike attributes.

I suspect these are among the reasons LDS Church leaders have warned against this kind of mentality, a mentality to which Church members are sometimes prone. I remember several instances of such warnings, and I read recently in The Mormon Quest for the Presidency (Newell Bringhurst and Craig Foster) of Church efforts during the 1990s to dissuade members who were following the likes of Bo Gritz into various troubling activities: refusing to pay taxes, forming armed militias, accusing Church leaders of "muzzling" President Benson, etc. Bo Gritz, a white supremacist and conspiracy theorist who had joined the Church and who ran for the US presidency, ended up asking to have his name removed from Church records, feeling the Church had gone astray, and went on to take part in the "Fellowship of Eternal Warriors" and other survivalist groups and to warn that America was in "the cusp of Global Corporate Fascism." Another Church member who was excommunicated (and later started his own sect in Manti, Utah) accused the Church of supporting the "New World Order," a favorite target of conspiracy theorists (including Bo Gritz, who believes the United Nations is a front for the New World Order).

In response to some of these conspiracy theorists and other right wing activists of the early 1990s, Elder Boyd K. Packer said the following in his October 1992 General Conference address ("To Be Learned Is Good If . . ."): "There are some among us now who have not been regularly ordained by the heads of the Church and who tell of impending political and economic chaos, the end of the world--something of the 'sky is falling, chicken licken' of the fables. They are misleading members to gather to colonies or cults. Those deceivers say that the Brethren do not know what is going on in the world or that the Brethren approve of their teaching but do not wish to speak of it over the pulpit. Neither is true."

The truth is that, despite involvement by some Latter-day Saints in right-wing movements and conspiracy theorizing, the membership of the Church as a whole--and especially the leadership as a group--have been reasonably mainstream, preferring a rational approach to national and world problems and participation in the normal workings of civil society. The First Presidency has sought a good relationship with ALL recent US Presidents, of both political parties. And for any who may be saying, "But doesn't the Book of Mormon teach conspiracy theories?" I would give as my considered opinion the following: The teachings of that book--about violent bands of robbers, about political corruption, and about spiritual darkness in general--are not only true but are vastly different (especially in tone and spirit) from the typical conspiracy theory mentality. One of the biggest differences is that the Book of Mormon calls on people to repent of their own sins, NOT to become obsessed with other people's sins, especially sins that are supposedly hidden somewhere in the recesses of a bizarre and incredibly complicated conspiratorial design but that, it turns out, are mainly a fantasy projected from the dark chambers of one's own soul.

False claim about ACLU

2009-07-16T14:58:00.001-07:00

I received an e-mail from a friend today passing on a message, variants of which have apparently been circulating for years, claiming the ACLU wants to remove cross-shaped grave markers and end prayer in the military. I replied as follows (plus I've added here some biblical references I used in responding to some websites publishing the same "information"--such websites mainly belong to conservative Christians but also include one run by KKK sympathisers):

Thank you for thinking of me when you sent this. I do pray for those in military service, many of whom put themselves unselfishly in harm’s way and are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, as some of them, unfortunately, are called on to do.

Happily, the ACLU has NOT filed suit to have military cross-shaped headstones removed. As far as I know the other suit (to end prayer completely) is also a complete fiction. For information on this false rumor, see http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp (Snopes tracks down and evaluates all sorts of rumors, including, for instance, the rumor that the LDS Church owns the Coca-Cola company: http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/mormon.asp ).

I’m sure there are many other ways to verify the falsity of these rumors. (For instance, see http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/aclu-markers.htm , http://hubpages.com/hub/Everything-Under-the-Sun , and http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/02/chain-email/no-aclu-lawsuit-over-cross-shaped-headstones/ --this last one including information from the ACLU itself, from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and from the American Battle Monuments Commission.)

I will not be passing the e-mail message on to others for two reasons. First, I believe it’s wrong to knowingly present false information as if it were true—and I am confident in this case that the information is false.

Secondly, the reference to “the retched [wretched] ACLU and our new administration” does not seem to me to express a Christlike attitude (see http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/07/instruments-of-lords-peace.html ). The reference to our president and to an entire branch of our national government seems to me inappropriate given the 12th Article of Faith and especially Doctrine and Covenants section 134, verses 5 and 6 (“We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside. . . . We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such. . . ."). [See also 1 Peter 2:13-14 & 17, & Romans 13:1-7. Also Exodus 22:28, Eccl. 10:20, Acts 23:5, 1 Tim. 2:1-3, etc.]

It also seems to me to contradict the attitude President Monson and other Church leaders have invited us to take (see http://www.mormontimes.com/around_church/general_authority/?id=5918 , http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-leaders-attend-president-obama-s-inauguration , and
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/latter-day-saint-leaders-attend-national-prayer-service ).

Thank you, though, for the reminder of the need for and the power of prayer.

Instruments of the Lord's Peace

2009-07-16T14:11:00.000-07:00

I've referred people to this General Conference address so often that I've decided to include it in its entirety as a blog post. The original can be found inThe Ensign May 2006 or online at http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=182ae2270ed6c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1.

Instruments of the Lord’s Peace

Elder Robert S. Wood
Of the Seventy

Robert S. Wood, “Instruments of the Lord’s Peace,” Ensign, May 2006, 93–95

Have we who have taken upon us the name of Christ slipped unknowingly into patterns of slander, evil speaking, and bitter stereotyping?

I have a friend who is a member of a political panel that is seen each week on national television. Explaining her role, she said, “We are encouraged to speak before thinking!” We appear to be living in an era in which many are speaking without thinking, encouraging emotional reactions rather than thoughtful responses. Whether it be on the national or international stage, in personal relations or in politics, at home or in the public forum, voices grow ever more strident, and giving and taking offense appear to be chosen rather than inadvertent.

The Lord has warned that from the beginning and throughout history, Satan would stir up people’s hearts to anger. 1 In the Book of Mormon, Laman set a pattern of so murmuring as to stir anger, to stoke rage, and to incite murder. 2 Time and again in the Book of Mormon, we find deluded and wicked men inciting rage and provoking conflict. In the days of Captain Moroni, the apostate Amalickiah inspired “the hearts of the Lamanites against the people of Nephi.” 3 Amulon and the wicked priests of Noah; Nehor; Korihor; and Zoram the apostate (the dishonor roll goes on throughout the Book of Mormon) were agitators who inspired distrust, fueled controversy, and deepened hatreds.

In speaking to Enoch, the Lord indicated that both the time of His birth and the time preceding His Second Coming would be “days of wickedness and vengeance.” 4 And the Lord has said that in the last days, wrath shall be poured out upon the earth without mixture. 5Wrath is defined both as the righteous indignation of God and as the very human instances of impetuous ardor and deep or violent anger. The former arises from the concern of a loving Father whose children are often “without affection, and they hate their own blood,” 6 whereas the latter wrath arises from a people “without order and without mercy, … strong in their perversion.” 7 I fear the earth is experiencing both wraths, and I suspect the divine wrath is very much provoked by those who are stirring up the hearts of men to wickedness, slander, and violent hatreds.

The first casualties of human wrath are truth and understanding. James counseled that we be “swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.” 8 As Enoch observed, God’s throne is one of peace, justice, and truth. 9 Whether they be false friends or unrighteous teachers, artists or entertainers, commentators or letter writers to local newspapers, seekers of power or wealth, beware of those who stir us up to such anger that calm reflection and charitable feelings are suppressed.

Alma at the waters of Mormon invited those who would enter into a covenant relationship with God to stand as witnesses of God and to bear one another’s burdens. 10 As those who have indeed entered into a sacred covenant, we must remain true to the way, the truth, and the life, who is Jesus Christ.

Have we who have taken upon us the name of Christ slipped unknowingly into patterns of slander, evil speaking, and bitter stereotyping? Have personal or partisan or business or religious differences been translated into a kind of demonizing of those of different views? Do we pause to understand the seemingly different positions of others and seek, where possible, common ground?

I recall that as a graduate student I wrote a critique of an important political philosopher. It was clear that I disagreed with him. My professor told me that my paper was good, but not good enough. Before you launch into your criticism, she said, you must first present the strongest case for the position you are opposing, one that the philosopher himself could accept. I redid the paper. I still had important differences with the philosopher, but I understood him better, and I saw the strengths and virtues, as well as limitations, of his belief. I learned a lesson that I’ve applied across the spectrum of my life.

General Andrew Jackson, as he walked along the line at the Battle of New Orleans, said to his men, “Gentlemen, elevate your guns a little lower!” I think many of us need to elevate our “guns” a little lower. On the other hand, we need to raise the level of private and public discourse. We should avoid caricaturing the positions of others, constructing “straw men,” if you will, and casting unwarranted aspersions on their motivations and character. We need, as the Lord counseled, to uphold honest, wise, and good men and women wherever they are found and to recognize that there are “among all sects, parties, and denominations” those who are “kept from the truth [of the gospel] because they know not where to find it.” 11 Would we hide that light because we have entered into the culture of slander, of stereotyping, of giving and seeking offense?

It is far too easy sometimes to fall into a spirit of mockery and cynicism in dealing with those of contrary views. We demoralize or demean so as to bring others or their ideas in contempt. It is a primary tool of those who occupy the large and spacious building that Father Lehi saw in vision. 12 Jude, the brother of Christ, warned that “there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.” 13

Closely related to mockery is a spirit of cynicism. Cynics are disposed to find and to catch at fault. Implicitly or explicitly, they display a sneering disbelief in sincerity and rectitude. Isaiah spoke of those who “watch for iniquity” and “make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.” 14 In this regard, the Lord has counseled in latter days that we “cease to find fault one with another” and “above all things, clothe [ourselves] with the bond of charity, as with a mantle, which is the bond of perfectness and peace.” 15

President George Albert Smith observed, “There is nothing in the world more deleterious or harmful to the human family than hatred, prejudice, suspicion, and the attitude that some people have toward their fellows, of unkindness.” 16 In matters of politics, he warned, “Whenever your politics cause you to speak unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you are upon dangerous ground.” 17 Speaking of the great mission of the latter-day kingdom, he counseled: “This is not a militant church to which we belong. This is a church that holds out peace to the world. It is not our duty to go into the world and find fault with others, neither to criticize men because they do not understand. But it is our privilege, in kindness and love, to go among them and divide with them the truth that the Lord has revealed in this latter day.” 18

The Lord has constituted us as a people for a special mission. As He told Enoch in ancient times, the day in which we live would be one of darkness, but it would also be a time when righteousness would come down from heaven, and truth would be sent forth out of the earth to bear, once more, testimony of Christ and His atoning mission. As with a flood, that message would sweep the world, and the Lord’s elect would be gathered out from the four quarters of the earth. 19 Wherever we live in the world, we have been molded as a people to be the instruments of the Lord’s peace. In the words of Peter, we have been claimed by God for His own, to proclaim the triumph of Him “who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God.” 20 We cannot afford to be caught up in a world prone to give and to take offense. Rather, as the Lord revealed to both Paul and Mormon, we must neither envy nor be puffed up in pride. We are not easily provoked, nor do we behave unseemly. We rejoice not in iniquity but in the truth. Surely this is the pure love of Christ which we represent. 21

In a world beset by wrath, the prophet of our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley, has counseled: “Now, there is much that we can and must do in these perilous times. We can give our opinions on the merit of the situation as we see it, but never let us become a party to words or works of evil concerning our brothers and sisters in various nations on one side or the other. Political differences never justify hatred or ill will. I hope that the Lord’s people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties.” 22

As true witnesses of Christ in the latter days, let us not fall into the darkness so that, in the words of Peter, we “cannot see afar off,” but let us be fruitful in the testimony of Christ and His restored gospel, in thought, in speech, in deed. 23 God lives. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. Joseph Smith, the great prophet of the Restoration, was the instrument by which we have been constituted as a people, led even today by a prophet of God, President Gordon B. Hinckley. Let us daily renew in our hearts the pure love of Christ and overcome with our Master the darkness of the world.

In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Notes

1. See 2 Ne. 28:20; D&C 10:24.

2. See 1 Ne. 16:37–38.

3. Alma 48:1.

4. Moses 7:46, 60.

5. See D&C 115:6.

6. Moses 7:33.

7. Moro. 9:18–19.

8. James 1:19–20.

9. See Moses 7:31.

10. See Mosiah 18:8–10.

11. D&C 123:12; see also D&C 98:10.

12. See 1 Ne. 8:26–33; 1 Ne. 11:36.

13. Jude 1:18–19.

14. Isa. 29:20–21.

15. D&C 88:124–25.

16. Sayings of a Saint, sel. Alice K. Chase (1952), 30.

17. In Conference Report, Apr. 1914, 12.

18. In Conference Report, Apr. 1935, 44.

19. See Moses 7:62.

20. 1 Pet. 2:9–10.

21. 1 Cor. 13:4–6; Moro. 7:45–47.

22. “War and Peace,” Liahona and Ensign, May 2003, 80.

23. 2 Pet. 1:8–9.

Heaven and hell

2009-07-09T14:28:00.000-07:00

[This is my comment on a post found on Times and Seasons: http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/07/what-death-can-teach-us-about-heaven-and-hell/.]

C. S. Lewis has many intriguing things to say about this topic--or rather this cluster of interrelated topics: why there's a hell, whether it's eternal, whether redemption from hell is possible, what essentially life in heaven and hell might mean, whether heaven includes or allows for association with friends and family, how different heaven might be from life as we know it here, etc. My comment can only scratch the surface of what he has to say (which of course I look at with the coloring and emphasis provided by my Latter-day Saint point of view). I'll give here just a few tidbits.

On family in the afterlife: Besides questioning and deflecting hope of family reunions in the afterlife, Lewis also apparently longed for such a possibility. He wrote in The Four Loves: “We may hope that the resurrection of the body means also the resurrection of what may be called our ‘greater body’; the general fabric of our earthly life with its affections and relationships. But only on a condition . . . : nothing can enter there which cannot become heavenly.” (In LDS terms, a truly celestial marriage could only be a marriage that had become truly celestial.)

On our “small-minded expectations”: “We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us. . . . We are far too easily pleased” (“The Weight of Glory”).

How different heaven might be from life as we know it here: By what Lewis calls “transposition,” all (perhaps) that is familiar to us might continue but be transformed and lifted to transcendence. We may “be hardly more surprised by hitherto unimagined differences than by hitherto unsuspected similarities. . . . When I know as I am known I . . . shall see how the transcendent reality either excludes and repels [the categories/concepts/realities I’m familiar with], or how unimaginably it assimilates and loads [them] with significance. Had we not better wait?”--i.e., wait and see. (All this is from “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”; see also “Transposition” and much of Miracles.)

On the same question from LDS sources, I just read a verse the other day that blew me away, though I’ve read it many times before: “For since the beginning of the world have not men heard nor perceived by the ear, neither hath any eye seen, O God, besides thee, how great things thou hast prepared for him that waiteth for thee” (D&C 133:45). So we hope for something far beyond our present capacity to imagine. Yet Joseph Smith also noted the similarities: “that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy” (D&C 130:2).

On “second chances” with implications for friends and family (this is me now, though Lewis has things to say on this as well): If God is love and if that love is essentially and supremely an absolutely unqualified concern for the welfare of others, then desiring the salvation of all (“not willing that any should perish” [2 Peter 3:9]) is part of what it means to be godly. (By the way, one of my favorite definitions of hell is from The Brothers Karamazov: “the torment of no longer being able to love.”)

Given God’s power and love, I believe that all will eventually have as many blessings as they can possibly (which among other things means “willingly”) receive. Any sort of permanent hell would thus require a person’s firm, knowing, and irrevocable choice (I believe this view is supported both by the scriptures and, as it happens, by Lewis). Or perhaps a permanent hell might also result as a person, through a series of choices, undergoes such a change of nature as to be unable any longer (ever) to choose to allow God's redeeming and transforming power to operate. (This last sentence is packed with all sorts of assumptions and speculations--but it does for me hint at what it might mean to be unredeemable.)

Short of these terrible possibilities, both the scriptures and the Spirit suggest to me that there's ALWAYS hope. John H. Groberg gave a talk on that theme that repeats the phrase "there's always hope" 40 times (http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6901). I endorse that view and would add, the story’s not over yet and won’t be for quite a while.

A comment on biblical criticism

2009-07-08T12:46:00.000-07:00

[Comment on something found here: http://www.clobberblog.com/?page_id=190.]

I truly enjoyed this paper--it's well written, well thought out, and wonderfully informative--and would have given it an A myself. (I teach English at BYU but have dabbled in biblical studies on the side--see the following for some of my efforts: http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2007/04/text-of-new-testament.html and http://english2.byu.edu/faculty/youngb/gospels-ehrman.pdf.)

By the way, I agree with you that the status of the Johannine comma has little relevance theologically. I also agree with those who suggest that the Book of Mormon's authenticity is not seriously threatened by its use of textually questionable language from the KJV. That "problem" can be quite easily accounted for. In fact, yesterday I ran into an at least marginally parallel problem in the New Testament (see http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/07/a-possible-error-in-the-bible/).

One other thing: There's a chance you may know of my wife Margaret, a major blogger at By Common Consent and formerly at Times and Seasons.

Politics--where do I fit on the spectrum?

2009-05-11T15:17:00.000-07:00

I had an interesting exchange today with a relative. (I won't name him because I don't have his permission to do so.) It went like this:

ME: I hesitate to say I'm "left-of-center"--it depends on the issue. I range all over the spectrum, probably because the spectrum itself is all messed up. (I like to think Joseph Smith would have been similarly hard to categorize politically.) But I like the saying: "The heart is a little to the left of center."

HIM: Nice quote. I wish sometimes that right of center were not painted as heartless. It really is unfair in my opinion because the most compassionate people I know are right of center. I've always pictured Joseph smith as being right of center in a world where gay "marriage", outrageous taxation and record deficits, and unfettered access to abortion for convenience is the primary foundation of the party currently in power.

ME: The most compassionate people: I know plenty on both sides of the spectrum. The least compassionate tend toward the extreme on either end.

In response . . . (while partly agreeing and simultaneously strongly challenging the "primary foundation" phrase) I'd add: On the other hand, Joseph's championing of moderate abolitionism, economic egalitarianism (D&C 78:6), racial and religious tolerance, civil rights (with federal protection) for minority groups, and compassionate prison reform would have been considered "liberal" in his own time and would generally be so considered even now.

Attempting a fair assessment (& considering economic issues, foreign affairs, & civil rights, along with hot-button "social issues"), I would put Joseph Smith where I've placed "JS" in the following spectra:

His own time: LLJSLLLRRRRRRR
Our time: LLLLLJSRRRRRRR

But a linear spectrum is far too simplistic to capture anyone's political views.

HIM: Bruce, I agree, the linear spectrum is far too simplistic. The best model is not really a "spectrum" at all, but a 3D or even 4D (includes time) representation of some kind.

As for the primary foundation phrase, I have to stand by it. Until I see the "left" reform itself on those issues as much as they seem to require of the "right" on our alleged inadequate treatment of our fellow man, they will remain, in my mind, very far removed from any sort of monopoly on compassion. It is not compassion to condone or promote physical abuse of a child in the world nor in the womb. There is simply no way to justify it. None at all. I feel very strongly about this, as you can tell. It's a very personal issue for me, but then all issues are personal to the ones who hold strong opinions about them. Otherwise, they wouldn't care enough to vote about them. All voters are single-issue voters because in the end, you have to stand your ground on one major thing to check "yes" or "no" on a ballot."

[end of exchange]

************************************

Joseph Smith (for those who don't know) was the first president and prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He ran for president in 1844, and though some think he did so with no serious thought of winning, but rather to help protect the rights of Latter-day Saints and to help promote the Church's religious views, he had a platform that dealt seriously with the issues of the day, for instance, proposing a plan to end slavery.

I stand by my view that his "championing of moderate abolitionism, economic egalitarianism (D&C 78:6), racial and religious tolerance, civil rights (with federal protection) for minority groups, and compassionate prison reform would have been considered 'liberal' in his own time and would generally be so considered even now." But I acknowledge that the whole matter is far from simple. At some point, I'll post something on where I think Joseph Smith, the Church (historically and at present), and the gospel might fit on the political spectrum on various issues. And of course, I'll give my reasons and evidence.

To expand a bit on the views I expressed above, I'll take two issues in order:

1. Most compassionate, least compassionate: I haven't found, in real life situations, that compassion correlates particularly well with political views. I know some exceptionally good, compassionate people on both sides of the political spectrum. Sometimes, views on a particular issue have something to do with practical acts of compassion. Some conservatives care deeply about preventing the destruction of unborn children (aka abortion), about caring for the aged and disabled, and about promoting non-governmental--and sometimes governmental--efforts to help those in need. (Orrin Hatch, for instance, has worked with Teddy Kennedy and others in promoting some government initiatives he feels are effective and needed.)

Some liberals, on the other hand, are prompted by their ideals to promote efforts to help the needy and underprivileged, often through government programs but also in personal and private ways. Some I would call "liberal" (including at least one Church General Authority I happen to know) fit that label partly because of their concern about extending tolerance, sensitivity, and concern to those who are different, who don't "fit in." And "liberals" tend to be more compassionate on foreign policy and immigration issues.

On the other hand, some of these issues are the very ones that make it hard to categorize people. Orrin Hatch is considered very conservative but is selectively liberal, depending on the issue. Harry Reid is considered liberal but is anti-abortion. Governor John Huntsman is a moderate conservative who has taken moderately liberal views on some issues. Two "conservative" leaders in Utah (one a former congressman, the other a former head of the state Republic party) take a moderate, compassionate view on immigration and the treatment of illegal aliens--a view they consider endorsed by LDS Church leaders (I'd agree, having been in meetings where such views have been expressed). These same leaders I've called "conservative" have expressed frustration at what they consider the uncompassionate and unreasonable views of some of their fellow "conservatives" and have been vilified by these same fellow "conservatives" for being too "liberal" on the issue.

I've often noticed how intolerant and mean-spirited some "liberals" can be, especially in their view of people they consider narrow and intolerant. (This is one of the great ironies--but it makes sense in a way if you think about it. It's sort of how some sibling or conjugal arguments go--both sides accuse the other of the same thing, and the accusations themselves are a big part of the evidence.)

I've also known "conservatives" whose have views on some issues that I find horrifying but who have been wonderfully loving in face-to-face relationships. Their "lack of compassion" is largely imaginary--that is, it's directed toward people they don't know, such as the people of different faiths, nationalities, or political views they despise or look down on. But even though such antagonism is in a way imaginary, it does have real-life consequences. People who mentally dehumanize and demonize groups of "enemies" can provide practical toleration or support for treatment of other human beings that has traditionally(by the great religious traditions and by American constitutional traditions) been considered horribly evil, such as torture and indefinite imprisonment without charges or legal representation.

Sometimes political views affect face-to-face relationships as well. Maybe because there are more intense "right wingers" where I live than intense "left wingers," I've found some of the least compassionate people I've know to be extreme conservatives. I'm not at liberty to say all I know, but I have seen the passion that fuels political enthusiasm fueling at the same time intense hatred toward neighbors.

It seems to me the moral virtues should come first: kindness, sensitivity, tolerance, compassion, fairness, integrity, civility, humility. Once those are there, one may find one's place just about anywhere on the political spectrum. But in practice, I think it's likely that in general, and on most issues, one's position will not tend to be either extremely conservative or extremely liberal. There's probably a reason that's so, even given the fact that what counts as "conservative" and "liberal" changes somewhat from generation to generation.

2. Are "gay 'marriage,' outrageous taxation and record deficits, and unfettered access to abortion for convenience" the "primary foundation" of the present-day Democratic party? I don't believe they are.

(a) Gay marriage: A complicated issue--but I believe I can make a strong case that it makes sense to define "marriage" as it has been traditionally understood (which, among other things, means that it is a bond between a man and a woman). I also accept the LDS Church's position on the issue, which is multifaceted but which includes a similar understanding of marriage.

On the other hand, I accept some of the arguments in favor of giving legal status to "civil unions."

The present question, though, is whether support of "gay marriage" is part of the "primary foundation" of the Democratic party. It's probably true that self-identified Democrats are more likely to support gay marriage than self-identified Republicans. But the national platform of the Democratic party does not favor gay marriage; neither President Obama nor Vice President Biden supported it during the presidential campaign (in fact, all four major party candidates said more or less the same thing on the issue); and gay marriage is not favored by Harry Reid and many other Democratic leaders. I know that there are some within the party that are pushing strongly for a pro-"gay marriage" view--and that makes me nervous for a variety of reasons, including the effect it could have on the party as well as the country. But there's no way it makes any sense to call "gay marriage" part of the "primary foundation" of the Democratic party. The answer to that question is simple--fairness, honesty, and intellectual acuity all require "no, it isn't" as the basic answer to this one.

(b) "Outrageous taxation and record deficits": Hmmm. The Democratic party has long been accused of being the party of "spending and taxing." But the facts have been more complicated. Nowadays especially, fairness would require noting a few things: (1) George W. Bush has so far--in the entire history of the United States-- presided over the greatest record spending and deficits; the spending is in part the result of the Iraq invasion; the deficits are partly the result of tax cuts that were supposed to help the economy (reviews are mixed on that) but that many consider to be unfair. (2) Obama has been in office a few months and has proposed minor adjustments in tax rates for the wealthiest Americans (the changes are small enough some would consider them nominal; they are certainly not "outrageous"); deficits continue to climb, partly because of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, a crisis that did not happen under Obama's watch. (3) Obama has declared his intention and has proposed specific plans to decrease the deficit and to move toward getting the massive discrepancy between government income and spending under control; in my opinion, his plans and efforts in this direction are entirely sincere. (For some idea of what he's up to, see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29868186/ .)

I believe it's entirely legitimate to disagree with Obama's approach. I'm not sure anyone really knows enough or has been granted the ability to foresee the economic future in such detail that they would know exactly how best to tackle the current crisis. But I trust Obama's efforts as ones based at least on some solid principles I believe in and on the wisest advice he's been able to gather. He certainly has no desire to create a system in which what most people would consider "outrageous taxation and record deficits" are the norm.

(c) "Unfettered access to abortion for convenience": The position that many in the Democratic party have had on abortion has been one of the saddest and most challenging features of political life for me over the past 20 or 30 years. The party has, however, become more open on the issue, accommodating those with "pro-life" as well as "pro-choice" views. ("Pro-lifers" include, for instance, Harry Reid and Bob Casey.)

My own views--and the LDS Church's, for that matter--are not, however, on what is usually considered the extreme conservative side on this issue. For years, in fact, some of the anti-Mormon protesters who carry banners outside of the LDS General Conference meetings have criticized the Church for not being anti-abortion enough. The reality is that the Church's position includes elements of "pro-life" and "pro-choice"--the "choice" part being that, even in cases where the Church permits members to retain good standing for participating in abortions, encouragement is given to make the choice carefully and prayerfully.

I would like to see, as a beginning step, the removal of public funding for elective abortions. (That's Joe Biden's position.) I'd like to greatly limit what are called "partial birth" (i.e., late term) abortions--but I think it's appropriate for the law in these cases to allow exceptions for serious threats to a mother's life and health. Beyond those two things, I would focus more on education and persuasion--helping people feel, see, and live differently no matter what the law says they can and can't do--and dealing with adoption, the plight of single mothers, problems of sexual exploitation, etc., etc., which (I'm told by people who work with these issues) are often at the root of the choice to abort a child.

For more on the abortion issue as I view it, see http://bruceyoung-whyobama.blogspot.com/2008/10/abortion-my-views-candidates-views.html .

A quick summary of President Obama's view: He believes abortion is a "tragic situation" but calls himself "pro-choice" and believes that "ultimately . . . women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision." He opposes late-term abortions as long as exceptions are made for threats to the mother's life or health. He favors various measure to discourage abortion including encouraging sexual responsibility ("sexuality is sacred") and adoption and making it more economically feasible for women to choose to give birth rather than have an abortion. (For more on his views, see the link noted above and also http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/10/15/transcript-third-and-final-presidential-debate-barack-obama-%E2%80%93-john-mccain-hofstra-university-october-15-2008/--the source of the quotations.)

At some point, I'd also like to write a blog post titled "Why Mormons should support Obama," explaining that that doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with or even voting for him. It will be a good one, once I get around to it . . .

TWILIGHT: The short version

2009-05-11T07:06:00.000-07:00

My wife Margaret got this from a friend who got it from a friend; I'm told it was created by Eric Snider (see http://www.ericdsnider.com/snide/my-rejected-twilight-screenplay/ ):

Scene 1

BELLA: I'm sad to leave the horrible, uninhabitable wasteland of Phoenix to live in a rain-soaked town full of country people that do not understand my city ways. I wish everything about my comfortable and privileged life were completely different!
DAD: Hi, Bella! Welcome to Forks, Washington. I'm glad you've stopped playing mother to your own flighty, irresponsible mom and come here to be my mother instead.
BELLA: It will be my pleasure to cook and clean for you.
DAD: I bought you an old truck from an Indian in a wheelchair!
BELLA: I ... have no response for that.

* * * * *

Scene 2

BELLA: It's tough being the new kid in school! Especially when everyone is so friendly and helpful and interested in me. Why can't they just leave me alone so I can sit in the corner and be left alone to pout?
CLASSMATE: You're awesome, Bella!
BELLA: See what I have to put up with? Hey -- who are those hot people over there?
CLASSMATE: Those are the Cullens. They avoid direct sunlight, they don't eat food, they sleep in coffins in a graveyard, and holy water burns them. I think they're Canadians.
BELLA: They sure are spectacularly gorgeous.
CLASSMATE: Yes, they are.
BELLA: I mean seriously, those people are BEAUTIFUL. Especially the one who keeps looking at me. Man alive, that guy is stunning. I mean, wow. He is hot buttered seduction on a stick. I mean, LOOK AT HIM! If you don't mind, I'd like to spend the next 75 pages talking exclusively about how attractive he is, and then bring it up again every paragraph or so for the remaining 400 pages.
CLASSMATE: Knock yourself out.

* * * * *

Scene 3

EDWARD: Hi, I'm Edward. I'm every girl's fantasy boyfriend: moody, humorless, violent, capable of snapping your spine with my bare hands, liable to do creepy things like watch you while you're sleeping, but also really cute.
BELLA: There is something strange about you.
EDWARD: (recoils at her garlic breathe) I don't know what you mean.
BELLA: I just can't put my finger on what it is.
EDWARD: (lifts automobile with one hand) You're imagining things.
BELLA: I feel like you're hiding something from me.
EDWARD: (grabs passing rabbit with lightning speed; drinks rabbit's blood) Don't be silly!
BELLA: It's like you're different somehow.
EDWARD: (turns into bat; flies away)
BELLA: Hmm. I bet he's foreign.

* * * * *

Scene 4

JACOB: You should be careful with those Cullens. Many moons ago, our tribe's elders, who were werewolves, made a pact with the Cullens, who were vampires. They're not allowed on our land, not even at our casinos.
BELLA: What, still? Even after all this time has passed?
JACOB: Nope.
BELLA: Since when do white people honor treaties with Indians?
JACOB: I know, right?
BELLA: Let me guess -- you're a character whose only job is to provide exposition, and you won't be useful until the next book.
JACOB: Yes. At the earliest.

* * * * *

Scene 5

BELLA: Thanks for saving me from that mob of guys who attacked me in the street! It's a good thing you obsessively stalk me while simultaneously insisting you want nothing to do with me.
EDWARD: No problem. If anyone's going to tear you limb from limb and gorge them selves on your sweet, delicious, life-giving blood, it's going to be me.
BELLA: Aw, you say the nicest things! I'm pretty sure you're a vampire, that I'm in love with you, and that part of you wants to kill me.
EDWARD: Don't be silly. It's not just part of me.
BELLA: HA HA HA!!! You're so funny!

* * * * *

Scene 6

EDWARD: You know what vampires love? Baseball!
BELLA: Really?
EDWARD: Sure! Haven't you ever heard of vampire bats?

>Crickets<

EDWARD: Anyhoo, these are the vampire friends I live with, the Cullens. They've been very eager to eat you.
BELLA: You mean meet me?
EDWARD: Meet you. What did I say?
ALICE: I'm Alice! I can see the future, but only when it's useful to the plot. For example, right now: Look out for those mean vampires barging in from the forest!
MEAN VAMPIRE JAMES: Fe-Fi-Fo-Fum! I smell the blood of a human!
EDWARD: Stay away from her! Bella, you'd better go. I don't want you to have to see me fight this guy for your honor, our muscles straining as we grapple, the air thick with testosterone and the sounds of our throaty snarling.
BELLA: Right! I wouldn't want to see that! Especially not if your shirts got torn off!

* * * * *

Scene 7

MEAN VAMPIRE JAMES: You puny humans are so predictable and weak. Now I've got you alone, free to toy with you and torture you and deliver lengthy explanatory monologues to you! I just hope I don't waste so much time that when I finally do decide to kill you it's too late because Edward and the Cullens have arrived to save you!
BELLA: That would certainly be an unusual twist!
MEAN VAMPIRE JAMES: Never mind! At last it is time for me to--
EDWARD: Not so fast, Count Jerkula!
MEAN VAMPIRE JAMES: Edward! And the Cullens! Who could have foreseen your perfectly timed arrival?!
ALICE: I could have! Didn't, but could have!

(Fighting ensues. MEAN VAMPIRE JAMES is vanquished.)

EDWARD: Bella! Are you OK? He bit you! I've got to suck out the vampire poison!
BELLA: Edward, you don't have to make up excuses to suck my blood. I mean honestly, who ever heard of "vampire poison"?
EDWARD: I'm serious! It's coursing through your veins as we speak!
BELLA: Uh-huh, Whatever you say.

* * * * *

Scene 8

BELLA: Why did you bring me to the prom, Edward? You know I can't dance, and that I hate it when people tell me I'm beautiful, which happens all the time.
EDWARD: I don't want your dangerous psychological infatuation with a vampire to interfere with your regular life.
BELLA: But I want to BE a vampire! I want you to do it to me.
EDWARD: You're sure you want to be a vampire?
BELLA: Yes.
EDWARD: Well, how about if I press my lips against your throat in an ambiguous way, just enough to ensure that readers come back for the sequel?
BELLA: It's a deal.

(Fade to black; roll credits; send in ushers to mop up audience's tears and drool.)

Lynda Young Tuckett: on the first anniversary of her death

2009-04-07T07:40:00.000-07:00

My sister Lynda Young Tuckett died a year ago today. In her memory, I copy here the tenderly, beautifully expressed feelings of her husband, Joe Tuckett, as found in the obituary he wrote at the time of her death:

On Monday, April 7, 2008, our loving wife, mother, daughter, sister, and dear friend lost her ten year battle with breast cancer, the past two years being painful bone cancer. She is now free from her pain and the cares of the world. For this we are grateful.

Lynda was born September 28, 1962 in Payson, Utah. She was born to goodly parents, Daren C. and Ruth W. Young, and was blessed to have been born into a wonderful, loving family with five siblings. She resided most of her life in Spanish Fork. Lynda met her sweetheart at a Single Adult dance and knew that they would be eternal companions after this first chance meeting. She was married on June 26, 1981 in the Salt Lake Temple to Joseph Steven Tuckett. After living one year in Spanish Fork, they purchased a home in Payson and resided there until her death. Together they raised three beautiful children. The oldest is Steven, then Angeline, then her baby, Aubriana.

Lynda graduated from Spanish Fork High School and attended UVSC for a short time until her marriage. She was a very intelligent person although, in her modesty, she didn't feel that she was.

Lynda served the Lord diligently, always going the extra mile, in every calling that she received. She served in the Primary, Cub Scouts, Young Women, and the Relief Society. She also served the Lord well by being a good neighbor and friend to those around her. Often, she would send notes to someone after they had given a touching talk or lesson in church...or to a stranger who she felt needed a little encouragement or to be lifted up in some small way.

Lynda worked for many years as a Title One Technician for Nebo School District. She worked until two weeks before her death. She touched the lives of many children, co-workers, and teachers alike. This is evident by her former students who would run to her and wrap their loving arms around her when they would see her years later. It is also evident from the comments of many of her co-workers who have expressed their deepest love and regards at her passing. Our family is very grateful for your wonderful gifts of love that you have given to us over the years. We thank you.

Our sincere thanks go to those health care providers who have blessed Lynda and made her ordeal as comfortable as possible. You truly showed to her the pure love of Christ. We thank Dr. J. Cordell Bott and Dr. T. J. Blair. We also thank Amber, Shirley, Natalie, and countless other practitioners, nurses, and aides from the Central Utah Cancer Clinic who blessed Lynda through these trying times.

Our thanks goes to our many LDS Ward and Stake leaders, members, neighbors, and friends who have given us food, gifts, and, most importantly, their love and support. We thank our families and friends who joined with us in countless prayers, fasts, and blessings in Lynda's behalf.

Lynda is survived by her husband Joe; her children Steven, Angeline, and Aubriana; her parents; and her siblings Bruce, Annette, Lawrence (Larry) and Daren K. Lynda is also survived by many nephews, nieces, and cousins who she dearly loved. She was preceded in death by her sister, Nancy, and her grandparents, Alfred and Emma Jane Wilson, and Lawrence Alfred and Leila Young.

There is a quote that typifies Lynda: "People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel."

From her cheery, loving disposition, to her beautiful smile and infectious laugh, she was, through and through, one of God's sweetest angels sent from heaven. We are all blessed to have known her and loved her. To have known Lynda was to have loved her. We know there are many beyond the veil that are grateful to have her return home. Sweetheart, you will be sorely missed but, never forgotten.

We will have a viewing Friday, April 11, 2008 from 6:00-8:00 p.m. at the Payson West Stake Center. The address is 500 South 800 West. The funeral is on Saturday, April 12th at the Payson 11th Ward Building at 400 North 900 West in Payson. There will be a viewing from 9:00-9:45 a.m. The funeral will begin at 10:00 a.m. Interment will be at the Spanish Fork Cemetery at 400 South 400 East.

President Obama's birth certificate

2009-02-24T07:53:00.000-08:00

Though for well-informed folks the issue has long been put to rest, some have persisted in questioning President Obama's eligibility for the presidency on the grounds that he may not have U.S. citizenship. Fact: He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, August 4, 1961--that would definitely mean he was born on U.S. soil. His mother was a U.S. citizen. That means that by any reasonable definition, he is a "natural born citizen" of the United States.

The question of eligiblity for the presidency has come up before. John McCain was not born in the United States (as that is generally understood) but was born at a U.S. military installation, in Panama (and to U.S. parents). So he was generally accounted eligible. Questions have also arisen about George Romney, Chester Arthur, and others, who were--or may have been--born outside of the United States, though born as citizens because their parents were U.S. citizens. (George Romney was born in Mexico.) Questions were even raised about Barry Goldwater because he was born in Arizona before it became a state. Wikipedia has an article on the issue, noting among other things that the precise meaning of "natural born citizen" (the constitutional requirement) has never been determined (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen).

Recently, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama was reported as saying that, though people claim Obama was born in Hawaii, "I haven't seen any birth certificate," and "You have to be born in America to be president."

Well, here's Senator Shelby's chance. What follow are photos of a certified copy of Obama's birth certificate, taken by researchers for FactCheck.org. Their full report can be found at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.

They also include photos of a birth announcement that appeared in a Honolulu newspaper on August 12, 1961, again confirming the August 4 birth of the boy who would become President Obama. I've also reproduced that announcement below.

Some still ask, "Why can't we see the original complete form filled out at the hospital in 1961?" Apparently, Hawaii law provides only for requesting a certified copy, not for getting a photograph of the original form. I believe that's typical of many states. For those who don't want to believe the evidence, even a photograph of the original paperwork might not be sufficient. They might want to go to Honolulu, see if they can get the authorities to let them see the paperwork, maybe even get permission to do tests on the paper to determine its age, etc., etc. But for most of us, a legally certified copy, along with a birth announcement appearing a few day's after Barack's birth, should be persuasive enough. I think that's also called "sanity."

(Click on any of the photos below to see larger versions.)

The birth announcement:

The column in which the birth announcement appears (it's hard to see, but it's the fourth announcement from the bottom):

Evolution and the LDS Church

2009-02-20T17:20:00.001-08:00

Here's my standard explanation (with links):

BYU's Board of Trustees (which includes members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve) has stated, “there has never been a formal declaration from the First Presidency addressing the general matter of organic evolution as a process for development of biological species” (see the cover letter to the 1992 BYU Evolution Packet). Of humans, this letter states, “The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how.”

For details about official LDS positions on evolution, including material approved to be presented at BYU, plus some additional and very interesting items, see the following:
> http://whitinglab.byu.edu/
PDF/Evolution%20Packet.pdf
> http://cs.gmu.edu/~sean/stuff/
Evolution.html
> http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/
58046
> http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/
57999

> http://www.byui.edu/perspective/
contents4_2.htm
(an entire issue of a journal at BYU-Idaho on the subject; see especially http://www.byui.edu/perspective/
v4n2pdf/v4n2_ott_s.pdf )

Oxford, England (info from 1996)

2009-02-18T15:19:00.001-08:00

Though this is from 1996, some of it is still valid. My main question is on the bus routes and the prices. I've added some more recent information (or clarification or correction) in square brackets.

Planning your visit to Oxford
As usual there’s more to do than you’ll have time for. You may want to make an extra visit to Oxford on your own (it’s easy and relatively cheap--take the "Oxford Tube," a bus that will pick you up on Bayswater Road practically across the street from Palace Court [--also various other spots in London]). I especially recommend that fans of C. S. Lewis make a special trip to see sites associated with him.

General sites to see (number of asterisks indicates how interesting or important I think a site is):

Carfax Tower (corner of High St. and Cornmarket St.--gives a nice view of the city)

*The Painted Room (#3 Cornmarket, associated with Shakespeare; I’ll see if I can get those who are interested in [it's one floor up, I think; a social services organization uses the space; they might show you if you just drop by, but they prefer having you arrange a visit])

**The Ashmolean Museum (there are a number of other museums in the city as well)

**Bodleian Library: one of the great libraries of the world; in the part known as the Divinity School (architecturally splendid) you may be able to see some of the library’s treasures, including Tottel’s Miscellany, Shakespeare’s Venus and Adonis, and original manuscripts by Donne, Shelley, Kenneth Grahame, T. E. Lawrence, and Joyce Cary.

**Radcliffe Camera, Sheldonian Theatre (architecturally important)

*St. Mary the Virgin Church (John Henry Newman preached hear before becoming a Catholic; he was part of the Oxford or Tractarian movement trying to make the Church of England more "Catholic"--i.e., more emphasis on tradition and authority; lots of other history)

*Martyr’s Memorial (memorial to Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, Protestant clergy who were interrogated in St. Mary’s and burned in Oxford, near the spot marked by the memorial [the actual spot of the burning is marked with an X in the pavement on Broad St., I believe; same street Blackwell's is on, but opposite end--i.e., to the west], during the reign of the Catholic queen Mary I; the memorial was erected partly in reaction to the Tractarian movement)

**Blackwell's [an amazing bookstore]

Saxon Tower of St. Michael (at Northgate; one of Oxford’s most ancient buildings)

**The various colleges (especially Christ Church [see more below], University [statue of Shelley], Magdalen [see under C. S. Lewis sites]; also noted historically, artistically, or architecturally are New College, All Souls, St. John’s, and Keble [has Holman Hunt’s painting The Light of the World in its chapel])

**Christ Church College (an outstanding college associated with various figures including Charles Dodgson, the author of the Alice books; see the chapel, which is also Oxford’s cathedral; the Great Hall, which has a window devoted to Alice; and other sites at the college; also see Alice’s Shop, with Alice in Wonderland memorabilia, across the street from the college) [this is also the college where parts of Harry Potter were filmed]

"The Oxford Story," 6 Broad St., open 10am-4pm (a multimedia creation from the same people who brought you the Jorvik Center; I haven’t seen the Oxford Story, but I might try it out)

Golden Cross Inn on Cornmarket St. (One of Oxford’s oldest; plays by Shakespeare are said to have been performed in the yard)

Merton St.: 13th century cobbled street

The site of William Morris’s original workshop (corner of Holywell and Longwall St.)

A bit of the city wall (corner of Longwall and High St.)

Note that walking tours of the city are given by official guides (for £4) and by students (varies: about £2), usually starting either from Carfax or from the Oxford Information Centre, Gloucester Green. The guides gives lots of interesting information as they take you to various colleges.

[note also that there are several walking tours that start from Blackwell's, including an "Inklings" tour around 11 or so on Wednesdays]

C. S. Lewis sites:
The Lewis sites come mainly in 3 groups--
(1) Pubs on St. Giles St.: The Eagle and the Child (familiarly known as the "Bird and the Baby"), where Lewis met regularly with his friends, including J. R. R. Tolkien, to talk, etc. (the group was known as "the Inklings"); during certain periods they also met at the Lamb and the Flag, a pub across the street. In the Eagle and the Child (which is now a bit grungy) you can see the room where the group met; there are pictures and plaques on the wall.
(2) Colleges associated with Lewis: University College, where he was an undergraduate; and especially Magdalen College, where he taught for many years. Magdalen College is interesting in its own right. You can see the quadrangles, cloisters, and chapel. Lewis had rooms where he taught students and met with his friends in what are called the New Buildings ("new" means 1733). From the New Buildings you can go through a blue iron gate to "Addison’s Walk," a nice walk that is important for Lewis because it was while walking here late at night with J. R. R. Tolkien and another friend that Lewis came to more fully accept Christianity and understand its importance.
(3) About 3 miles from the center of Oxford (in an area called "Headington Quarry") is Lewis’s home ("the Kilns" on a street now called Lewis Close), a nature preserve behind his home (once part of his property; it’s a magic place--I think of it as a part of Narnia, or maybe the Wood between the Worlds), and Holy Trinity Church (Lewis attended church there; if you can get the vicar to open the church you can sit in Lewis’s pew and see the Narnia window next to it; you can also see Lewis’s grave in the churchyard).
You can pretty easily see the sites listed under (1) and (2) during our group daytrip to Oxford. To see the sites under (3) you’ll probably have to come another time. For those who are interested (either for this trip or later), I can provide a map and some suggested itineraries, including bus #’s and other information for getting to the Lewis sites.

Literary figures associated with the Colleges
Some of these are mentioned on Rachel and Rebecca’s handout. This is a supplementary listing that will help you to know which literary figures were students at (or were otherwise associated with) particular Oxford colleges. (But note that this is only a very small selection.)
All Soul’s: William Camden, Jeremy Taylor, Edward Young, T. E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia").
Balliol: John Wycliffe, Adam Smith, Robert Southey (visited by Coleridge), Matthew Arnold, Algernon Swinburne, Andrew Lang, Gerard Manley Hopkins, A. C. Bradley, Hilaire Belloc, Aldous Huxley, Arnold Toynbee.
Brasenose: Robert Burton, Thomas Traherne, Walter Pater.
Christ Church: Thomas More, Philip Sidney, Robert Burton, John Locke, John Ruskin, Oscar Wilde, Charles Dodgson ("Lewis Carroll"), W. H. Auden.
Corpus Christi: Robert Bridges.
Exeter: John Ford, William Morris (there’s a Morris tapestry in the chapel), J. R. R. Tolkien.
Hertford: Samuel Daniel, John Donne, Evelyn Waugh.
Jesus: Henry Vaughan.
Lincoln: William D’Avenant.
Magdalen (pronounced "Mawdlin"): John Foxe, John Lyly, Joseph Addison, Edward Gibbon, Oscar Wilde, C. S. Lewis (as teacher).
Magdalen Hall: Thomas Hobbes; John Keats visited.
Merton: Philip Massinger, Thomas Carew, Richard Steele, Andrew Lang, Max Beerbohm, J. R. R. Tolkien (as teacher).
New College: John Galsworthy.
Oriel: Walter Ralegh, Gilbert White, John Henry Newman, Arthur Hugh Clough, Matthew Arnold (as teacher).
Pembroke: Francis Beaumont, Thomas Browne, Samuel Johnson (started but didn’t finish).
Queen’s: John Davies, Thomas Middleton, William Wycherley, Walter Pater (as student), T. H. White (author of The Once and Future King).
St. John’s: James Shirley, Abraham Cowley, A. E. Housman.
Somerville: Dorothy Sayers (devoted Christian and writer of detective stories, described in her student days as an "exuberant young female" who always seemed to be preparing for parties).
Trinity: Thomas Lodge, John Denham, John Henry Newman, Joyce Cary; Johnson and Boswell visited when Johnson received an honorary degree.
University: Percy Bysshe Shelley (see other handout on his being kicked out and now having a monument), C. S. Lewis (as student).
Worcester: Richard Lovelace, Thomas de Quincey.

*******************
[be skeptical of the accuracy of prices and bus route numbers]

Bruce Young: Possible ways to spend a day in Oxford (including C. S. Lewis sites)
Since you won’t have time to see everything, I’m presenting two itineraries based on seeing only the C. S. Lewis sites near the center of Oxford and two itineraries that include Lewis sites both near the center and on the outskirst of Oxford.

Itinerary #1: Pay an official city guide (Oxford Information Centre, Gloucester Green) or a student guide (Carfax--corner of High St. and Cornmarket St.) to take you on a walking tour. Some tours will differ from others, but most guides will take you to a variety of colleges, giving you interesting information about them. Some guides will know about C. S. Lewis; others will not. Your tour may or may not take you to significant Lewis sites.

Itinerary #2 (self-guided tour including a few Lewis sites):
(a) Go from the coach park (on Oxpens Road) to St. Aldates Street. (About 15 minutes)
(b) Stop at Christ Church College on St. Aldates: see the chapel (some pre-Raphaelite stained glass windows, etc.), the quad, the great hall (a window is devoted to Alice of Alice in Wonderland). (About 30 minutes)
(c) Go across the street to the Alice Shop. (About 15 minutes)
(d) Go north on St. Aldates to Carfax (the intersection with High Street) (About 10 minutes)
(e) If you’d like, pay to go to the top of Carfax Tower (nice view of the city) and/or go to “the Painted Room” (Shakespearean site) on the 2nd floor of #3 Cornmarket St. (About 15 minutes)
(f) Continue north on Cornmarket St., maybe look at the Golden Cross Inn, the Saxon Tower of St. Michael’s Church. (10-20 minutes)
(g) Continue north as Cornmarket St. becomes Magdalen St. and take a look at the “Martyr’s Memorial” (5-10 minutes)
(Note: The Ashmolean Museum is nearby, on Beaumont St., but this itinerary doesn’t allow time for it.)
(h) Continue north as Magdalen St. becomes St. Giles until you spot the Eagle and the Child pub (west side of St. Giles); go in and see the room where C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and their friends hung out; also look across the street at the Lamb and the Flag pub (10-15 minutes)
(i) Go back south down St. Giles/Magdalen St. and turn left on Broad St., continuing until you see the Sheldonian Theatre; look at it, go south past it to the Bodleian Library (go into the Divinity School, look at the ceiling and at any displays they have); continue south and look at the Radcliffe Camera; continue south and take a look at St. Mary’s Church (where John Henry Newman preached), maybe go in (About 20-30 minutes)
(j) Just to the south of St. Mary’s Church is High St.; go east on High St.; take a peek in University College if you’d like, see the statue of Shelley (About 10 minutes)
(k) Continue east on High St. to the intersection with Longwall St. (you’ll see bits of the old city wall); continue on a bit until you come (on the left) to the entrance to Magdalen College; pay to go in; see what you have time to see, including the New Buildings (where Lewis taught and met with friends) and Addison’s Walk (About 40-50 minutes)
(l) Leave Magdalen College the way you came in; go west on High St.; if you’d like take a left onto cobblestoned Merton St. when you get there and wind your way back to St. Aldates; head back to the coach park (About 20-30 minutes)

Itinerary #3 (self-guided tour including more Lewis sites--and fewer other sites):
(a) Go from the coach park (on Oxpens) past Carfax (intersection of Cornmarket and High St.); continue north a little ways on Cornmarket St. to the #7 bus stop in front of Boots (on the east side of Cornmarket St.); pay a small amount (I believe 70p) to take the bus. (About 20 minutes from Oxpens to the bus stop)
(b) Take the #7 bus (it will go up St. Clement’s, Headington Rd., and London Rd.) to the intersection of London Rd. And Gladstone Rd. (shortly before the bus reaches Green Road) (About 15 minutes)
(c) Walk to Trinity Road (see map) and find Holy Trinity Church; look at Lewis’s grave in the churchyard; if the church isn’t open and you’d like to see the inside, find the vicar (in a house you can reach down a lane from the west side of the churchyard); you can sit in the pew where Lewis sat and see the Narnia window (All this should take about 30-45 minutes)
(d) Walk from Trinity Church to Lewis Close (see map) and look at the Kilns (the house Lewis lived in--it probably won’t be open); at the end of Lewis Close look for a trail into a nature preserve that used to be part of Lewis’s property; maybe have a picnic? fantasize about Narnia? (About 30-60 minutes)
(e) Walk back to London Road and catch a bus (#7 or #2A) back to the center of Oxford (again about 70p); get off when it gets to High Street, near Magdalen College (About 15 minutes)
(f) Enter Magdalen College (you’ll probably have to pay); see what you have time to see, including the New Buildings (where Lewis taught and met with friends) and Addison’s Walk (About 40-50 minutes)
(g) Go out Magdalen College the way you came in; walk west on High St. (notice the old city wall); pop in University College if you have time (Lewis was an undergraduate here; there’s an intersting statue of Shelley); see other sites if you have time as you head toward St. Giles St. (see map); on the west side of St. Giles a couple of blocks north of the Ashmolean Museum, you’ll find the Eagle and the Child pub, where Lewis, Tolkien, and friends hung out (go in and see the room they used; also look across the street at the Lamb and the Flag, where they also sometimes met) (All of this: about 30-45 minutes)
(h) Walk south down St. Giles/Magdalen St./Cornmarket St., past Carfax as the street becomes St. Aldates, and find your way back to the coach park on Oxpens (About 20-30 minutes)

Itinerary #4 (similar to #3 but going on your own to Oxford another day):
(a) Catch the “Oxford Tube” (a bus) going to Oxford. You get the Oxford Tube on the other side (south side) of Bayswater Road across the street from the junction of Palace Court and Bayswater Road (and a little to the right). The cost is £6 return for students; buses come about every 10 minutes through most of the day and take about 1 ½ hours to Oxford.
(b) You can get off the bus in Oxford either (1) at the Green Road Roundabout, (2) at Queens Lane (the junction of High St. and Queens Lane), or (3) at Gloucester Green. If you get off at #2 or #3 you’ll be in the heart of Oxford and can proceed according to one of the itineraries above. If you get off at the Green Road Roundabout, you’ll be close the the C. S. Lewis sites in Headington Quarry: Trinity Church, the Kilns, and the nature preserve.
(c) After seeing the sites in Oxford (see the itineraries above) you can catch the Oxford Tube to get back to London (you’ll need to save your return ticket to show when you get on). You can catch it either at Gloucester Green, Queens Lane (on High St.), the Headington Post Office, or the Green Road Roundabout.

**********************
[[from a fellow named Will Vaus:]
Date sent: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 09:37:03 -0400
From: William J Vaus
Subject: Re: Places to visit in Oxford
To Oxford travelers,
Here are some places you may wish to visit in and around Oxford, directly
related to Lewis:
Bodleian Library - the Duke Humphries Library where Lewis often studied
as an undergraduate. This is one of two main repositories of Lewis'
letters and manuscripts. The other being Wheaton College in Illinois.
Lewis' original map of Narnia is on display in the Divinity School here.
Eagle & Child Pub where Lewis met every Tuesday with the Inklings. They
moved to the Lamb and Flag, across the street, in 1962.
The University Church of St. Mary the Virgin is where Lewis preached
"The Weight of Glory" in June 1941.
University College on the High Street where Lewis was an undergraduate
student
Merton College where Tolkien was a professor. See Tolkien's grave in the
cemetary at Wolvercote, to the northwest of Oxford, best approached on
foot across Port Meadow.
Charles Williams' grave may be seen in the cemetary behind the church of
St. Cross, Holywell.
Magdalen College. See New Buildings where Lewis had his rooms during his
30 years at Oxford as a fellow and tutor. Lewis' rooms overlooked the
Deer Park & Addison's Walk, which you will want to take a stroll around.
This is where Lewis walked with Tolkien and Hugo Dyson and discussed
Christianity on that very important night in 1931. He became a Christian
a few days later on a trip to Whipsnade Zoo outside of London. Be sure
to see the College Chapel where Lewis attended Matins during term.
Examination Schools where Lewis and Tolkien frequently lectured.
Eastgate Hotel where Lewis often met guests, like Sheldon Vanauken, for
lunch
Joy Davidman's former home at 10 Old High Street in Headington
The Kilns in Headington Quarry. Be sure to walk in the woods and view
the lake in which Shelley sailed paper boats, and more recently Lewis,
Davidman, Tolkien, Lancelyn-Green and George Sayer would stroll, deep in
thought or alive with conversation.
Holy Trinity Church and Lewis' grave -- Headington Quarry. Be sure to
see the Narnia Window inside.
Six Bells Pub in Headington -- frequented by the Lewises it now has some
Lewis memorabilia on one wall.
Oxford Crematorium where Joy Davidman's ashes are interred
Trout Inn in Godstow - a favorite pub of the Lewises
Studley Priory Hotel - where Jack and Joy often went for Sunday lunch.
Studley Priory was built in the 16th century as a Nunnery. During Lewis'
lifetime it was run as a sort of country club where Jack and many of his
friends were members. Subsequently the place was sold and made into a
hotel. Jack and Joy would go there often for lunch, afternoon tea, and
sometimes for dinner. The "Mary Tudor Parlour" has been used as a dining
room for about 400 years!
Under the Mercy,
Will Vaus]

England, July 22-August 2, 2008

2009-02-04T07:12:00.000-08:00

The following are excerpts from e-mails I wrote--and sent to my wife, Margaret--while in England last summer (for a very brief summary, see http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2009/02/didnt-i-go-to-england-last-summer.html):

7/22/08
(Tues.)

For now, I'm just trying to keep my eyes open. It's not even 6pm, but considering that I only got a couple of hours of sleep and that we arrived in London at about 1:30am our time, I'm struggling a bit.

Everything on the trip went smoothly. Having done it a year ago, I didn't get obsessive about planning out every detail, and I didn't worry when some things didn't work initially, like having the right kind of adapter to plug in my laptop. I ended up going to four or five different stores today until I found the right kind.

On the plane from Salt Lake to Dallas I sat next to Elder Howell. Yes, there were six missionaries headed for Paris on the plane, all from the other French-speaking branch. Elder Howell had been one of the zone leaders. He recognized me from the halls in the classroom building. The missionaries also went to London (on their way to Paris), but not on the same flight I was on, so I didn't seem them again after Dallas.

I saw lots of movies & TV shows on the flight from Dallas to London: the movie "21" (not as good as I hoped it would be--well acted and interesting at points, but a bit fuzzy in its moral orientation, and a bit too dazzled by Las Vegas); most of "Flawless" (pretty good); three episodes of "The Office" (REALLY funny--especially two of them), and episode of "Monk" (which of course I was already familiar with). And I put on another episode of it to help me fall asleep (I guess I'm hooked on that method). They no longer show a single movie during a flight, but have several movies and TV shows available at each person's individual console. It shouldn't be surprising that the TV comedy category was represented by episodes of Monk and The Office (along with another series I'm not familiar with).

I took a coach from the airport to Oxford and then walked (with luggage) 3/4 of a mile from the bus station to the B&B. Kathryn Park is lovely and friendly. I cleaned up a bit and then headed off to do errands, see things, and generally keep myself awake. I visted the Brompton Oratory (associated with John Henry Newman ("Lead Kindly Light") and Gerard Manley Hopkins), went to several stores to find an adapter (as noted above), got some gifts for the Lifferths (including for Oliver), went to Blackwell's (an amazing bookstore--almost like a little city), looked around in St. Mary the Virgin church (where Lewis gave the sermon "The Weight of Glory" that includes the lines "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses . . ."; others who have given sermons there include John Wesley and John Henry Newman, and the church has other famous associations--with the Protestant martyrs burnt under Queen Mary, with Oxfam, and with lots of other things), went up the church tower to take a view of the city, visited "the Painted Room" (where Shakespeare stayed during his trips between London and Stratford), visited a couple of free to the public parts of the Bodleian Library, called you, and got a bite to eat.

Obviously I'm now back in my room, reading and writing e-mails.

**************

7/23/08
(Wed.)

I did Shakespeare stuff today, NOT Lewis stuff (or not much). Today has been good but with some frustrations (to be described). Because Hamlet in Stratford is basically sold out, I can't get tickets online; the site says to call. So I called twice today (paying 40 or 50 pence each time); the first time they didn't have a person to talk to me because they were "in training"; the second time it was after 5 (nobody, including the web site or the previous call, had said anything about having to call by 5). So I'll try tomorrow--but by the time they're open for calling, the train I would prefer taking to Stratford will already be gone. Anyway, it will all work out.

I didn't watch the time while at the train station today (I was just getting information and making one of those calls) and was ten minutes late for a walking tour I had wanted to do. So I missed it, and it won't happen again till next week--and with the C. S. Lewis conference, I may or may not be able to do it. It's an INKLINGS tour, meaning Lewis, Tolkien, and friends, and I would LOVE to do it. If I don't manage this trip, there's always next time I'm in Oxford--as long as it's on a Wednesday and I have 90 minutes to spare.

Because I missed that walking tour, I visited the Ashmolean Museum instead--amazing Minoan, Egyptian, Roman, Renaissance, etc., etc., stuff. And I saw TWO Shakespeare plays, both open-air productions here in Oxford: Twelfth Night in the afternoon and As You Like It in the evening. For both performances, especially the afternoon one, I had a major heck of a time keeping my eyes open and my mind focused. Adjusting to the sleeping schedule plus doing lots of walking means that when I sit down my body and mind want to sort of shut down. Nevertheless, even with my lack of focus, I could tell that the Twelfth Night production was sort of dumb. It was OK, but I've seen lots better. As You Like It was much better (and I was actually able to focus most of the time during this one). It was a fun, energetic production which took the play seriously enough I could identify with the characters and what they were going through. It was sort of vaguely set in the 60s, with some miniskirts (and tights), a few hippy outfits, and some fun 60s-ish versions of some of the songs. Also, even though they pushed the Touchstone-Audrey relationship a little further than the text authorizes, there was not the sort of stupid, gratuitous vulgarity that the Twelfth Night production had thrown in at a few points.

**************

7/24/08
(Thurs.)

My day: I called you from London and mentioned that I saw Chris Clark. [There was a double line at the Globe box office; I was in one of them. I overheard someone in the other line say "Utah Valley" and thought, "Is there a chance there are students from Utah here?" Then someone said, "Bruce Young!" It was Chris Clark, a friend who now teaches at Utah Valley University--formerly UVSC--with a group of UVU students he was leading on a trip to England.] Since the Globe didn't have a matinee and were sold out for tonight, I spent my time in London seeing a few places of interest: I took the Globe exhibition and theatre tour (saw the rehearsal going on for Timon of Athens), dropped in on Choral Evensong at St. Paul's Cathedral (some lovely singing, organ playing, and scripture reading), and dropped by the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey and the British Library (but they were all closed by then). Of course, the main thing was just soaking in London a bit--the tube, the Thames, the tourists and townspeople (that's all I can think of starting with "t").

I'm now back in my room in Oxford getting ready to go down for the night--maybe I'll watch some Monk (I brought one of the disks). By the way, the Danish lady who's here saw my disk cover and asked if I like Monk--she's a big fan too. Apparently they have Monk on TV in Denmark.

***************

7/25/08
(Fri.)

Saw Patrick Stewart and Paul Scofield but didn't have a chance to talk with them. [Didn't actually see Paul Scofield--but more on that later.] It's late--10 to 1am. I'll tell you more later.

*****************

7/27/08
(Sun.)

Four things I wanted to reflect about to start with:

1. I'm enjoying my time here and trying to do my usual thing of cramming lots of stuff in. I'm finding, though, that I get tired, and my feet and knees really start hurting from the walking. I'm afraid I may not be quite up to what I used to do, and I'm feeling more empathy with people who have protested against my style of traveling.

2. I'm seeing a fair number of Brits, but there are lots and lots of tourists--it appears mainly Italians, Spaniards, Germans, along with (in London, at least) people from Africa and the Middle East. And Americans, of course. When I say "Brits," you have to remember that the Brits are increasingly multicultural--lots of people from India, Pakistan, etc., etc., some from Africa, too. You remember the elder we had a while back who was part Nigerian/part Irish, but lived in Australia? He seemed very British--very cultured, a nice British accent, etc. That's the sort of thing you'd notice now, as well as people who retain more of their ethnic identity.

3. There's far too much smoking here in England. I know there have been moves to curtail it, and there are places where it's prohibited. But you still see it (and smell it) lots, and unfortunately a lot of the smokers are young. It's hard to tell the tourists from the natives sometimes, but I think a lot of the smoking is by natives. Sad, unpleasant, unhealthy of course. I should say, though, that the bed & breakfast is entirely smoke free, which is nice. As for things it's nice to see: It's nice to see lots of young couples with prams (baby strollers), husband and wife sharing the duties. And I remember seeing a very pregnant woman crossing the street the other day and saying to myself, spontaneously, "Bless you."

4. I have not done lots of thinking about my mom or Lynda. But in high priests today the subject came up of whether it was selfish to grieve and I said, I think it's natural, and though it can conceivably be excessive or too negative, in general the Lord seems to approve. I quoted the Doctrine and Covenants: "Thou shalt live together in love insomuch that thou shalt weep for the loss of those who die"--something like that. Also, I was reading in Dreams from My Father the other day (I brought it with me), and I reread the new preface, where Obama talks about his mother's death, and it hit me MUCH more strongly than it had the first time I read it. And then that night (this was in Stratford), I saw Hamlet, and was again hit in an unusual way by the scene where Ophelia is buried. Laertes's reaction, his jumping into the grave and taking her into his arms, struck a chord. I've had a similar loss.

I guess there's lots to catch up on. This is my attempt at a short version, but I'm afraid it's a bit long.

THURSDAY, July 24: I was in London; I think I already told you about that--seeing Chris Clark, touring the Globe, going into St. Paul's, etc.

FRIDAY, July 25:
Stratford: Hamlet is completely sold out, but I got in the returns line (was 3rd out of 3) shortly before noon. Those who had lined up before dawn had already got their tickets. Amazingly some tickets became available shortly after noon, and I got one. There's such an interest because Hamlet is played by David Tennant, the current Dr. Who and very popular in England. But I was even more impressed by Patrick Stewart (Claudius) and the actor who played Polonius (can't remember his name at the moment).

After getting the ticket, I went to Holy Trinity Church (Shakespeare's grave), then later in the afternoon got together with Helen Hargest (the Shakespeare Centre librarian who has worked with me on images I've used, etc.). We had a nice talk.

I really enjoyed Hamlet, partly because I actually remained awake the entire time. (It probably helped that I had dozed off a bit while lying down in a park along the river doing some reading.) I was concerned, though, about making the train back to Oxford (it leaves at 11pm, with the play going to about 10:50). So I arranged to change my seat during the interval, gave mine to the wife of the guy who was sitting next to me (they'd gotten returns and had to sit in separate parts of the theatre). The new seat I was in was very good, though: still a nice view, but more than that, the aisle next to me was used as an entrance/exit. So David Tennant and Patrick Stewart walked past me several times and I could easily have stuck out my arm and hit them.
(I didn't. But I savored the breeze as they walked past.) I could swear also that I saw Paul Scofield sitting in the front row--but when I mentioned that to someone, they said, "He's dead." And indeed he is: died just last March. So maybe it was his brother?

I left the theatre at 10:45 and took a cab to the train station. As it turned out, though, I could have stayed in the theatre another 5 minutes and still made it to the train station 5 minutes before the train left. Anyway, I left just after both Hamlet and Laertes were mortally wounded. Gertrude was dying but Claudius had yet to be stabbed or have the poisoned drink forced down his throat. In other words, I missed the end of the play.

Anyway, I made the train, returned to Oxford, and got back to the B&B about 12:30am.

SATURDAY, July 26:
I went to London (it's a bus called "the Oxford Tube"--takes about 1 1/2 to 2 hrs. each way). I visited Westminster Abbey, which really is a pretty amazing place. They had a refreshment area in the cloisters and I had some "Victorian lemonade." After I'd drunk about half of it, I decided to look more carefully at the ingredients to see why it had a bit of a fizz to it.
It said, in very small print on the label, "No more than 0.5% alcohol." Oh well. I think that's about how some of the orange juice has been that's been left out for a while. Anyway, I'll have to be more careful in the future.

Still with some time on my hands, I went to Leicester Square and got a bit disoriented (very hard to figure out directions there, plus it looked like the place was clogged with maybe thousands of tourists). Anyway, I ended up at the National Portrait Gallery, and just looked at a few rooms with Tudor, Elizabethan, etc., portraits, many of them very famous and very familiar to me--famous ones of Shakespeare, John Donne, Ben Jonson, Queen Elizabeth, Jane Gray, Mary Tudor, Henry VIII, Richard III, Sir Thomas More and family, and lots of others. Also, a nice big portrait of Lady Anne Pope and her children--one of the images I use in my book. It was fun seeing the real thing.

Then I went through the Covent Garden area trying to find an African restaurant that, unfortunately, had moved; then found the Indian restaurant I called you from. It's called Masala Zone ( http://www.masalazone.com ) and is really very good. I'm planning to take you there when we're in London.

Unfortunately, I lost track of time. It was 6:55 when I left the restaurant and the play at the Globe started at 7:30. With some running and luck I found the Oxford Circus tube stop, took the tube to St. Paul's, found the Millennium Bridge, crossed the Thames, and made it in the theater about 7:25, very sweaty I'm afraid. I was a genuine groundling. I stood the entire performance, unfortunately in a bit of physical agony. The play was Timon of Athens, a powerful performance but not (I've decided) Shakespeare's best play by a long shot. A lot of it is speeches, intellectually, satirically, and very bitterly analyzing the foibles of mankind. The story itself is powerful, at a fairly simple level, with some affinities with Lear and Coriolanus but without the richness and personal interest. The acting was very good, but some of the directorial choices were disturbingly gross (or grossly disturbing), like have Timon appear to actually unload himself in a hole on stage and then smear the feces on other characters. I'll have to check and see if that's in the text.

After the play, I found a tube stop, made it back to Victoria Station, and caught the Oxford Tube, returning to Oxford about 1am and making it to the B&B by 1:15. (The lady who runs it gives her lodgers keys, so I'm able to come and go whenever I want.)

SUNDAY, July 27:
No trips today! I was able to sleep in until a little after 8am, had breakfast a little after 9, and then headed off to Church. I saw Paul and Sandy Thomas there, as well as some people from Southern Virginia University (Randall Cluff, I think is his name, remembered your visit there; plus a daughter of his took the class I taught with Bob Nelson; Randall said they'd like to maybe have me come out).

Church was good, especially some good talks and testimonies in Sacrament meeting. I did feel the Spirit, felt renewed--and I needed it, not only because of the rigors of travel but because, as I've learned, I tend to have a hard time being IN the world without being OF the world. In other words, I'm a bit passive, a bit of a chameleon, and tend to take on the coloration of my surroundings. I'm afraid I tend to get rather spiritually dull. So it was nice to feel revived. I would really like to become stronger, more truly radiant. I know I get that way in the right settings, but I'd like to be that way more fully, independent of circumstances or surroundings.

The Thomases gave me a ride to the B&B. I was on my own for the rest of the day, though, so I bought some food to get me through the day and spent most of the day in my room, e-mailing, listening to Obama's speech in Berlin and to Al Gore on becoming carbon-free within 10 years. Very persuasive, by the way--though I dozed off part way through his speech and had to go back to hear much of it; but I needed the rest, so that was good, too.

Also, I did more work on my paper for the C. S. Lewis conference.

And when BYU's server stopped working, I took a walk and made some phone calls (you, a 1 minute call to my dad, and leaving a message on Julie's phone--the e-mail address I have for her isn't working, so I want to know what the right one is).

*******

7/28/08
(Mon.)

Have you heard that an Orrin Hatch song may get played at the Democratic convention? See this for details: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/07/16/across_the_aisle_a_ballad_to_kennedy/?s_campaign=8315

(It's a tribute to Teddy Kennedy. Some of the words are a bit embarrassing, but the story really is sweet.)

Also, I haven't heard: have you won the $5 prize from yesterday's e-mail? If not, check it again. I should maybe have made it in the form of a quiz:
(a) "I see dead people." Who in particular?
(b) What alcoholic beverage did I drink and where?
(c) What should Timon be sent to time out for doing?

OK, here's today. It's been a good day. There were some disappointments: Merton College (where Tolkien taught and where a beautiful library is located) is closed all summer to visitors. Museums (including the Ashmolean) were closed today because it's Monday. (But not Christ Church picture gallery, which I did visit.) And I didn't get to take a tour of the Bodleian Library because all the tickets had been sold by the time I got there.

On the other hand, I checked in with the C. S. Lewis conference, which begins in earnest tomorrow. I got my paper printed and copied at the local Staples (yes they have a branch here). I did some good reflecting and writing in my journal. And I saw a MARVELOUS performance of Much Ado tonight. It really is a great play, and it was greatly performed, by a theatre group right here in Oxford--outdoors, in the courtyard of the Oxford Castle (which had also served as a prison until 1996 but is now a tourist stop). The play was set in Spain (Sevilla), which worked really well. And it was done with enthusiasm, clarity, and feeling. Shakespeare really was quite good at times. Of the plays I've seen so far in England, this was close to being the best, right up there with Hamlet (which is also a brilliant play and which had a couple of superb actors--so maybe it's number 1 so far this summer).

Anyway, seeing the play helped me feel I'm not wasting my time here, which I occasionally feel since I've pretty much had my fill of seeing the sights. But now the Lewis conference begins, and so I should feel a bit more useful again.

******************

7/29/08
(Tues.)

I met Francis Collins today. You're supposed to be impressed. He's the head of the human genome project, and we did his book, The Language of God, in book group. Nice man. I've also had some good chats with several other people, even though I'm kind of shy and EVEN THOUGH I'M A MORMON, which some people have a hard time dealing with. It's like trying to talk to an alien or someone with a gigantic spot on their face or something. Anyway, that's how I feel (others may feel) occasionally, but for the most part, everyone has been lovely. Did I tell you about the French people also here at the bed & breakfast? From Tours, one of the cities I served in in France. We've had some nice conversations in French! I love it.

Something to do with the conference also had an effect on my Book of Mormon reading today: 2 Nephi 31. Amazing! Maybe it was because I'd been talking with a Calvinist (and a very nice man--Tom Havel--actually distantly related to the Pres. of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel). Anyway, I felt the power of the Spirit verse after verse as I read. The doctrine of Christ--that's what the chapter is about.

*******************

7/30/08 (#1)
(Wed.)

[Margaret's attempt at the quiz:]

(a) "I see dead people." Who in particular?
Paul Schofield. Btw, when you said you had seen Patrick Stewart and Paul Schofield, I thought you had perhaps seen them at a wax museum, because I knew Schofield had died. I remember it vividly. I remember thinking, "Oh dear. Nobody will ever replace him. The bottom eyelids are exclusively his."

(b) What alcoholic beverage did I drink and where?
Victorian Tea--was it at the art gallery?

(c) What should Timon be sent to time out for doing?
Using someone's face for toilet paper.

[My response:]

Excellent on the quiz! Except it was Victorian lemonade, not tea. I've been passing up many opportunities to take tea here in England, though the lady at the B&B has kindly provided me with herbal infusions so I can have something like a pot of tea in the morning.

Patrick Stewart was very much alive, and I could have sworn it was Paul Scofield--though apparently not, since he died in March I think--unless I really do see people no one else does, people maybe with a pass from the spirit world to see a play. I think he might have come if he was allowed.

*****************

7/30/08 (#2)

A good day, so far. It's early evening now. I'm the sole lodger here for a day or two. The main difference that makes is at breakfast--whether the conversation is just between Kathryn and me or others are involved.

Very good morning sessions at the C. S. Lewis conference. I actually enjoy singing hymns with the other folks there. If they're hymns I don't know, I pick up pretty fast and even can sing harmony by the second verse. I felt I should change the words a bit on "Holy, Holy, Holy" so I could praise the Trinity in terms I believe (what some people, including Richard Bushman, call "social trinitarianism" as opposed to ontological trinitarianism). There were a couple of really good talks, including one by a woman who talked about Lewis's friendships--and how we should treat each other. ("It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses" and sentences that follow have been quoted more than once at the conference. And the conference chaplain, I think they're calling him--a young, charismatic Baptist--said, this morning I think, "Jesus, you took upon us all that we are that we might become all that you are." I thought of telling him: "Hey, you know when we Mormons talk about becoming gods and goddesses, THAT'S what we mean--we don't aspire to anything other than becoming all that Christ is.")

I had a nice chat with a dentist from Dubuque, Iowa, during the refreshment break--he knows some of the people who developed the toothpaste my dentist is having me use, and he explained to me the science behind it. After the break, I was able to stay as Francis Collins played the guitar and led us in more hymn singing. He's the scientist whose book we read in our book group, the head of the human genome project. But I had to skip his talk that followed (I'll get it on CD) because I had a ticket to go on the Inklings walk, the one I missed last week. I'm glad I went. A lovely older gentleman named Peter took about a dozen people on a pleasant, informative tour, including some spots I already knew but some I didn't (like the registry office where Jack and Joy's civil marriage took place). And I was finally able to go in the Randolph Hotel (where the meeting of Jack and Joy was filmed for Shadowlands, though the actually meeting was in the Eastgate Hotel). We also went in the Bird and the Baby (officially, the Eagle and the Child pub)--which I think I did once upon a time, but I've generally not had the nerve to step in and just ask to look at the place.

After lunch etc. it was back to the conference. I went to a session that was somewhat interesting and followed by more interesting discussion. One of the paper presenters was Christine Chou, the woman from Taiwan I mentioned. I then presented at 4pm--and she was one of the auditors. I'd say my paper was reasonably well received, though the discussion afterward was somewhat halting. I've given copies to some who were not able to come to the session, and they may actually appreciate it more than some who were there. And then the younger guy who was criticizing Lewis did his thing. He raised some really interesting philosophical questions that I won't go into here. Maybe when I'm home.

I met Christine Chou's kids before the paper presentations (they attended but played electronic games or practiced their Chinese characters during the paper reading--they're a bit nervous about returning to Taiwan after having been away for 3 years). As I told you on the phone, I felt I needed to give Christine passalong cards but couldn't find any. So I'll give her some when I see her again, which I hope I will. In any case, we exchanged e-mail addresses. Really a lovely, genuine, good person.

I then called you, bought another phone card, called you again, and came here to the B&B.

By the way, I'll want to make a dermatologist appointment when I get back. A couple of days after I got here, I got little red spots at a few points on my arms--just rash-like and the sort of thing I've gotten before. But I also got some bumps on my head. I don't know exactly how to describe them except to say that there were maybe six or so of them, each about a quarter of an inch in diameter, most of them forming kind of a circle right on top of my head, the bald area. They were quite itchy for several days, and then became sort of hard, raised bumps, almost like the stumps of horns (weird); the last day or so they've gone down and may disappear soon. I don't know whether they are reactions to drinking a lot of juice (I drank a quart of orange juice within about a day of their appearance), or to sun or heat or stress, or whether they might be bug bites (the window of my room is partly open to keep things cool, but some bugs have flown in). Anyway, I may as well get everything checked . . .

*******************

7/30/08 (#3)

I'm sending this to you and myself partly so I'll have a record of it. It's a hymn that Francis Collins led us in this morning in preparation for his talk on religion and science (that I didn't go to). The hymn is very thought provoking, and the last verse especially I think is profound--with the metaphor of contending currents that form one river.

Praise the Source of Faith and Learning
Sung to the tune “Hyfrydol” [We know it as "In Humility, Our Savior"]

Praise the source of faith and learning
that has sparked and stoked the mind
with a passion for discerning
how the world has been designed.
Let the sense of wonder flowing
from the wonders we survey
keep our faith forever growing
and renew our need to pray.

God of wisdom, we acknowledge
that our science and our art
and the breadth of human knowledge
only partial truth impart.
Far beyond our calculation
lies a depth we cannot sound
where your purpose for creation
and the pulse of life are found.

As two currents in a river
fight each other’s undertow
till converging they deliver
one coherent steady flow,
blend, O God, our faith and learning
till they carve a single course,
till they join as one, returning
praise and thanks to you,
their Source.

Words by Thomas Troeger
From Borrowed Light
© 1994 Oxford University Press, Inc

***************************

7/31/08
(Thurs.)

That just reminded me of something I saw on the back of a bus YESTERDAY: "This bus is red," but "red" was crossed out and "green" was substituted. Then it said: "This bus has a sexy little thing called a particulate matter trap that makes the exhaust cleaner than a vicar's sermon." Something like that.

***************************

8/1/08
(Fri.)

I don't remember if I told you anything about yesterday: mainly just good (or at least decent) presentations at the Lewis conference, some rather philosophical sessions in the afternoon, and a concert/poetry reading in the evening. Midday I saw some more in the Ashmolean museum including some very nice pre-Raphaelite paintings (do you know the pre-Raphaelite movement? it includes Waterhouse, though I don't think he has any here at the Ashmolean; it also includes Holman Hunt, who has paintings in the Ashmolean and a very famous one, "The Light of the World," aka Christ knocking at the door, at Keble College). And I ran into Randall Cluff again (also his wife and a student), and he told me that King Lear at the Globe in London is probably the BEST Shakespeare he's ever seen. I'm envious, of course, since I won't be able to see it. But I have seen lots of other good things.

I attended the first part of the Lewis meetings today (included an Eastern Orthodox bishop--Kallistos Ware--saying some good things; he then had to run off to meet with the Archbishop of Canterbury--really). I had to leave about 10:30 to catch a coach to London, where I saw The Merry Wives of Windsor. As I told you over the phone, it was wonderful--or as they put it here, BRILLIANT! It was entertaining throughout and had me feeling absolutely exhilarated and moved at the end. Shakespeare really has a way--and the company/director/etc. did a great job--combining joy, fun, triumph, love, good will, epiphany. I really can't think of anybody who does quite what Shakespeare does quite as well.

I've also been reading Richard Bushman's Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction. It's part of a series published by Oxford University Press, and I got copies for about 2/3 price using some certificates I got, etc. A fine little book. It's not actually something I'd give most people as a beginning intro, but for the right people it might work. It's certainly informative and thought provoking for a long-time member like me. I think maybe Rob might like to read it.

And now I'm at the B&B starting to mourn the end of my time in England and getting ready for a joyous return to all of you.

***************************

Stumbling on the oath of office

2009-01-21T08:18:00.001-08:00

There has been some controversy as to what happened when Obama took the oath of office. My view (as I noted on facebook) was that "The Chief Justice went without notes and stumbled. If I ever get to administer the oath of office, I think I'll use notes."

For a detailed analysis (with a few smart aleck remarks), it's worth looking at the following from http://www.electoral-vote.com/:

Obama Inaugurated Despite Big Screwup

At 1205 (five minutes late), Barack Obama took the oath of office. The five minutes don't actually matter. By law Barack Obama became President at noon, oath or no oath. A similar situation occurred after President Kennedy's assassination, when Lyndon Johnson didn't take the oath until he got to Air Force One at Love Field. But he was President from the moment Kennedy was pronounced dead.

Much worse was that the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, botched the oath as he gave it. Here is the dialog:

Roberts: "Are you prepared to take the oath, senator?"

Obama: "I am"

Roberts: "I Barack Hussein Obama"

Obama: "I Barack"

Roberts: "do Solemnly swear"

Obama: "I Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear"

Roberts: "that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully [sic]"

Obama: "that I will execute"

Roberts: "the off...faithfully the Pres the office of President of the United States"

Obama: "the office of President of the United States faithfully"

Roberts: "and will to the best of my ability"

Obama: "and will to the best of my ability"

Roberts: "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States"

Obama: "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States"

Roberts: "So help you God"

Obama: "So help me God"

Roberts: "Congratulations, Mr. President"

What a mess. Here is the actual oath required by Article II, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Mistake 1: Obama thought Roberts was going to pause for a response after "I Barack Hussein Obama" and started to repeat that, but Roberts kept going and added "do solemnly swear" while Obama was talking. Obama immediately stopped. When Roberts stopped, he then said "I Barack Hussein Obama" from the beginning.

Mistake 2: Roberts then said: "that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully." That's wrong. It has two gross errors in it. First, it is "President of the United States" not "President to the United States" (wrong preposition). Even worse, he put the adverb "faithfully" in the wrong place, at the end of the clause. Not only is in wrong there, but is also grammatically incorrect there. Obama knew his oath a lot better than Roberts and was flustered at that moment. He was probably thinking: "What a moron. He's Chief Justice of the United States and he can't memorize one sentence correctly? How did he ever pass the bar exam? But what do I do now? Do I recite the correct oath and make a fool of him in public? Or do I just repeat what he bungled? Geez, I have to make a decision in under 200 milliseconds. Tell you what, I'll just start and maybe he'll correct himself." So Obama said: "that I will execute..." and then stopped.

Mistake 3: At this point Roberts realized he messed up and tried to recover but he didn't know what to say, so he stuttered all over the place, emitting words from the sentence in a more or less random order, ending with "President of the United States" at least. Obama then recovered and said: "the office of President of the United States faithfully" which got the preposition right ("of," not "to") but put "faithfully" in the wrong place, just as Roberts did. So he chose not to embarrass the Chief Justice--by parroting him rather than reciting the correct
oath.

Mistake 4: They both got the "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States" part OK, but then Roberts said: "So help you God." First, this is not in the constitution, but at this point the oath is actually finished so Obama could add it if he liked to as many Presidents have done, but Roberts said "So help ***you*** God" not "So help me God" as he should have. Obama is supposed to repeat his words, not translate them to first person singular on the fly. If Roberts actually believed his translation theory, he should have started by saying: "You Barack Hussein Obama" not "I Barack Hussein Obama." Roberts should have used "I" both times or maybe (arguably) "you" both times, but not one of each. So the Chief Justice of the United States is not capable of uttering a fairly straightforward sentence without four mistakes? One hopes he is better at his day job.

A video of the oath can be found here.

A few minutes earlier, Joe Biden took the Vice Presidential oath (which is not in the constitution) but it that went off without a hitch, probably because Associate Justice John Paul Stevens got it right. Here is the video.

. . .

Lynda Young Tuckett: A retrospective in photos

2009-01-19T11:03:00.000-08:00

(See descriptions below)
1

1: Baby photo & blessing certificate; 2: Brother Daren with Lynda; 3: 1966 (abt. 4); 4: (ditto); 5: 1968; 6: ca. 1969 (abt. 6-7); 7: ca. 1969;
8: with dad (Daren C. Young) at baptism (1970, age 8);
9: 1971 (ca. 9); 10: 1972 (9-10); 11: 1970s (teenager); 12: (same in color);
13: later 1970s; 14: ca. 1980?; 15: ca. 1980 (with brother Daren);
16: with Joe Tuckett (husband-to-be); 17: wedding day (with Joe Tuckett).

Obama's Speech on November 4, 2008

2008-11-19T15:07:00.001-08:00

First a short snippet from Obama's victory speech on election night:

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek – it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers – in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, "We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection." And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world – our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down – we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security – we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright – tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For the complete speech, see the following links: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7710038.stm

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gGx3Kc (includes a link to a video version)

The video can also be found at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gGxLhV

Election party photos

2008-11-10T14:38:00.000-08:00

See "Our election night party" for the story.

Thoughts on local politics

2008-11-05T13:26:00.000-08:00

For reasons I've expressed elsewhere, I've long felt that there needs to be more political diversity--at least more willingness to vote for a qualified Democrat--in Utah.

Though we've made progress, a lot more needs to be done, especially in Utah Valley. The Utah County Democratic Party has worked very hard over the past few years to develop a moderate platform and to encourage the best people they could find to run. I've been told (and I'll phrase it carefully since I have it second hand and I don't believe it's supposed to be public knowledge) that Church leaders at the general level, meeting with potential candidates, not only encouraged them to run as Democrats but encouraged them to be open about their Church service and to emphasize the Church's political neutrality.

This year, the Utah County party fielded an exceptional group of candidates, including former mission presidents and other highly qualified people with unquestionable Church credentials. Several of them were clearly superior to their opponents. I'm afraid none of them won.

I worked very hard for one of the candidates--Claralyn Hill--who I would say is clearly 3 or 4, maybe 5 or 6, times as qualified as her Republican opponent. She was endorsed by Stephen R. Covey, Truman Madsen, Susan Easton Black, and other well known residents. But it appears she's lost.

I'm not sure what combination of bias and lack of awareness is at work. But it's frustrating to feel like nothing could get a Democrat elected--that even Joseph Smith would lose in Utah County if he ran as a Democrat. (Read his presidential platform, and I think you'll find he might just lean in that direction.)

I don't know what more could be done--apart from either having the Church assign people to be Democrats or having somebody with enormous wealth provide the resources for an educational effort to change people's attitudes.

Anyway, that's my one feeling of frustration on a morning that I am otherwise very, very happy about.

Here are the results from some of the races I've been interested in:

State Senate District 16
Bramble, Curt (REP)
60.95% Votes: 10,207
Hatfield, Radene (DEM)
39.05% Votes: 6,539

State House of Rep. District 59
Fowlke, Lorie D. (REP)
63.75% Votes: 5,162
Thompson, Paul (DEM)
36.25% Votes: 2,935

State House of Rep. District 60
Daw, Bradley M. (REP)
66.42% Votes: 6,215
Mcaffee, Boyd (DEM)
27.49% Votes: 2,572
Swain, Scott P. (CON)
6.09% Votes: 570

State House of Rep. District 61
Grover, Keith (REP)
64.25% Votes: 6,421
Turley, Deon S. (DEM)
35.75% Votes: 3,573

State House of Rep. District 62
Herrod, Christopher (REP)
58.3% Votes: 4,594
Hill, Claralyn (DEM)
41.7% Votes: 3,286

State House of Rep. District 63
Clark, Steve (REP)
63.31% Votes: 2,788
Jarvis, Donald K. (DEM)
36.69% Votes: 1,616

State House of Rep. District 64
Lockhart, Becky (REP)
65.71% Votes: 5,180
Petersen, Boyd Jay (DEM)
30.41% Votes: 2,397
Ashby, Nathanial (LIB)
3.88% Votes: 306

I know several of the candidates personally. In my judgment several of the losing Democrats--for instance, Radene Hatfield, Claralyn Hill, and maybe a couple of others--are clearly better than their opponents. Later I'll add further thoughts on some of them and on my involvement.

Republicans for Obama

2008-11-01T10:51:00.001-07:00

In addition to Colin Powell, other prominent Republicans have chosen to endorse Obama. (Of course, a prominent Democrat--Joe Liebermann--has endorsed McCain. But the movement has been much more in Obama's direction.)

Good sources on this phenomenon include http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/3341, "The Moderate Voice," and "The Jed Report" (though this one adds Republicans who still endorse McCain but have been critical of some of his decisions).

Here's a partial list of those who have actually endorsed Obama:

Colin Powell, former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Jim Leach, Former Congressman from Iowa
Lincoln Chafee, Former United States Senator from Rhode Island
William Weld, Former Governor of Massachusetts
Arne Carlson, Former Governor of Minnesota
Wayne Gilchrest, Congressman from Maryland
Charles Mathias, Former United States Senator and Congressman from Maryland
Larry Pressler, Former Senator from South Dakota
Richard Riordan, Former Mayor of Los Angeles
Lowell Weicker, Former Governor and Senator from Connecticut
Claudine Schneider, Former Congressman from Rhode Island
Harris Fawell, Former Congressman from Illinois
Jim Whitaker, Fairbanks, Alaska Mayor
William Milliken, Former Governor of Michigan
Phil Arthurhultz, Former Michigan State Senate Majority Leader
Linwood Holton, Former Governor of Virginia
Ken Duberstein, White House Chief of Staff under Reagan
Douglas Kmiec, Head of the Office of Legal Counsel under Reagan & Bush (the 1st one)
Charles Fried, Solicitor General of the United States under Reagan and a conservative economist
Susan Eisenhower, Granddaughter of President Eisenhower
Francis Fukuyama, Advisor to President Reagan
Larry Hunter, Former President Reagan Policy Advisor
Scott McClellan, Former Press Secretary to President George W. Bush
Ken Adelman, Served in the Ford administration
Lilibet Hagel, Wife of Republican Senator Chuck Hagel
George C. Lodge, Assistant Secretary of Labor under President Eisenhower
William B. Ewald, Jr., Special Assistant under President Eisenhower
Richard S. Seline, Finance Director, Republican Party of Texas
David Caprara, Faith-Based Initiatives Director, Federal Volunteer Service Agency under Bush (the 2nd one)
John Perry Barlow, Former Dick Cheney Campaign Manager
David Friedman, Economist and son of Milton and Rose Friedman
Christopher Buckley, Son of National Review founder William F. Buckley and former National Review columnist
C C Goldwater, Granddaughter of Barry Goldwater

Another prominent Republican to go at least part way is Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He and Obama have worked together on legislation to keep loose nuclear weapons out of the wrong hands.

Secret memo

2008-10-31T06:58:00.000-07:00

My original intention was to write something before the election took place but to be read only after. I didn't end up getting around to it. More relevant now are my "Reflections on election day," "Our election night party," and "Thoughts on local politics."

I will, though, share here a couple of things I wrote early on election day morning. One is from an e-mail I wrote to a sister-in-law:

Despite the polls, I truly don't know whether Obama will be elected. If he's not, I will respect McCain as my president; I'll wish him well; and I will seek to express any disagreements I have in an appropriate way. If Obama is elected, I hope the violent antagonism some people feel toward him will subside and that he'll be able to inspire and unite. And I hope the various proposals he's made will work as well as I'm sure he intends them to--and if not, I hope adjustments can be made pragmatically and with some degree of consensus.

The other is part of a comment I made in response to a friend who favors McCain but who had indicated his respect for Obama. I wrote:

If Senator McCain becomes president--which I believe is still a possibility--I will wish him well. As you said about Obama, McCain (if he becomes president) would be my president as well. Whether he succeeds or not--and despite my reservations about him--I have great respect for him. I believe that, at core, he is much better than he has sometimes come across as a campaigner. There is much I like about him personally. He has given great service, and he still has much to offer.

Even though I try to avoid the polarized attitudes that politics too often inspires, I'm sure I've overemphasized the negatives in my assessment of McCain. I think the nation can do well with either man as president--especially if all of us seek to cultivate an attitude of respect and goodwill.

Whoever is president, we will face great challenges, challenges I believe we will deal with successfully only if we can exercise sufficient faith, hope, and charity, in our political as well as our personal lives.

As you've suggested, we are witnessing history in the making.