Month: January 2006

What about the children?

One of the most distressing things about being a parent is the realization that you cannot control your children’s world forever. Inevitably, the institutions in which you allow or encourage them to participate will introduce ideas with which you do not agree, and which, in some instances, are contrary to the gospel of Christ. This is especially unnerving when the institution in question is the Church.

The right to believe

An Italian atheist, Luigi Cascioli, has started a lawsuit against a Catholic priest, claiming that the priest violates Italian law, which does not allow the abuse of popular belief. Such as when people are fraudulently deceived in believing falsehoods, namely, according to Cascioli, the historical existence of Jesus Christ. The lawsuit is drawing international attention.

On not Being a Rock Garden

Like many Mormons, I have a long and varied history with cognitive dissonance. We have a wonderfully boisterous, co-dependent, passive-aggressive kind of relationship, cognitive dissonance and I. My religious side wants to believe things based on faith, to see spiritual experiences, to feel connected to God. My analytical side wants to see proof, to analyze experiences dispassionately, and to call BS on things that just don’t add up. That’s pretty much the standard recipe for cognitive dissonance (double the almonds for some extra crunch, and don’t overcook).

Where The Boys Are

There’s been a lot of talk lately about how boys are in trouble–falling behind in school, terrible discipline problems, etc.–and I take it all quite seriously; I’m concerned that boys receive the guidance and education they need to flourish in a changing world. I have to admit, though, that my concern is not entirely motivated by a purely charitable concern for future generations and the happiness of fellow children of our Heavenly Father. Rather, a major portion of my interest arises from the fact that I am worried about my daughters. I mean, who am I going to line them up to marry if all the boys out there tank?

Dear Jane

Dear Jane, I don’t know you—at least I don’t think I do—but I have been struck by your willingness to speak openly and honestly about your situation. My Sikh friends speak of “seekers.” You are genuinely a seeker and, so, a person deserving of respect, including the respect of response. However, I haven’t had anything to say in response until now when you ask, “Does the gospel make sense (comment 23)?”

Creation and Filicide

William Faulkner told writers to “kill your darlings” — that is, they should learn to excise lines of prose or turns of phrase that they had come to love like their own child.* A good creator is a willing filicide, always ready to kill her darlings. And who better illustrates this principle than God himself? The world’s great Creator is also its great Filicide.

The Mormon Problem

That is what they called it. The Mormon Problem. We no longer hear the reproach, though faint echoes still reflect from the rigid walls of religion and secularism. We can no longer see ourselves as we once were, but we paid a price before accommodating and it is that price that ransoms, in me, empathy and fear.

Around the Blogs: I Can’t, She Said

At some other blog, Elisabeth gives a thought-proving meditation on Wilfried’s recent post “I Can’t, He Said.” Her brilliant-glimpse-of-the-obvious post — how is it that no one had yet mentioned this, in 48 T&S comments!? — gives a vital lens through which Wilfried’s hospital story becomes even more relevant. Check out “I Can’t, She Said”; you won’t read Wilfried’s story the same.

Around the Blogs: DMI on Happiness

Bloggernacle old-timer DMI has a great discussion going on right now about a complicated set of themes: Should we be seeking happiness, or seeking knowledge? What can we do when our brain contradicts our heart? Is it really possible to find happiness or consistency (or both) in the church, and/or through the sometimes maddeningly inconsistent connect-the-dots of spiritual experiences? Current discussants include Dave himself and Jane Doe, whose recent comments at T&S highlighted some of these issues. Are you intrigued yet? (Or should I give up blogging and go work for Starbucks?) Go check out “Happiness” at DMI. UPDATE a few hours later (since my co-bloggers will kill me if I put up a third ATB post tonight): FMH-Lisa has a really good post on the same topic. A sample: “What kind of freak is happy all the time? . . . Wipe that smile off your face right now. Life sucks.” . . . “Rather than taking these moments of unhappiness as just a fact of life, because life sucks, we take them very personally. As a sign of our unrighteousness, our lack of faith, our personal weakness.” (Really good stuff, Lisa!) Anyway, what are you still doing reading…

Thanks to Geoff J.

Before J. Stapley can get busy wowing us all, let’s take a moment and thank Geoff Johnston for a terrific couple of weeks. As the all-seeing Snarkernacle noted, Geoff’s posts laid waste to the competition here at T&S, such as it is. In five relatively short posts, Geoff generated 684 comments and counting. It’s been a long while since we had such a run of thoughtful, imaginative, doctrinally heavy discussions, and we owe it all to Brother Johnston. Our thanks, Geoff; we wish you could stay, but we know they missed you over at the Thang….

Restitution for Michael Lane

When Michael Lane confessed to his bishop that he had killed a two-year-old, PJ Watts, in 1990, his bishop told him the repentence process requires that he confess to civil authorities and accept the consequences of his actions. However, because Lane also sinned by lying about killing PJ when he was prosecuted for the homicide at the time, civil authorities are now unable to prosecute him, despite his confession, under the Constitution’s “double jeopardy” doctrine. Given that it’s wrong to receive less punishment for two sins than for one, how must Michael Lane pay restitution for his egregious sins — murder and lying to avoid responsibility? News stories are here, here, here, and here.

Deny Not the Gifts of God

I think Terryl Givens was right. I think a primary purpose of the Book of Mormon is to drive each of us toward real dialogue with the living God. And I think Moroni is right – that if we as Mormons are not experiencing some kind of regular dialogue with God we are denying the gifts of God.

I can’t, he said

I have on my desk a primitive pen holder in ceramic, about four inches high. The figurine, crudely shaped, shiny in its warm terra cotta coat, represents a little man holding a tiny bucket in which a few pens and pencils can be stacked. Many years ago, an eleven-year-old girl kneaded and baked the clay in the children’s activity room of a hospital, during her long convalescence. She made the figurine for me.

Infertility

Infertility is a huge topic, as large in its own way as the topic of birth control. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to do it justice. I fully recognize that this can be an extremely sensitive issue for couples for many reasons. I absolutely do not judge any patients for making choices in dealing with infertility that I would not recommend professionally. I also fully celebrate the life of all children of God, regardless of how they were conceived. With this background in place, I wish simply to make three points.