I Got Another Part

Auditions for directing projects were held last Friday. I tried out, but the whole experience was much different than last semester’s directing projects.

First, the directing class teacher paired everyone up this time. Last time, everyone paired themselves up.

Second, last time, there were nine directors in three separate rooms. This time, all nine were in a the Spinks theatre.

Third, last time, we were given some generic, one-dimensional scripts. This time, we were given the ever-popular scene eight from Angels in America.

Fourth, last time, the directors had has perform our piece several times in different ways to get a better idea of our range. This time, we simply did our piece once.

Lastly, within 24 hours I had received three requests for callback. This time I received none.

Kevin Reid—who was with me in Impromptu last semester—was one of the directors and he encouraged me on Thursday to try out. At that time, I was still unsure whether I should try out. I have a semi-busy schedule with my calling, work and family, so I was not sure if I wanted to add to that. I ended up deciding to go for it and see how it turned out.

I spoke with Kevin yesterday and he said he was greatly disappointed that he couldn’t have me. When we audition, we have to fill out an audition sheet. One of the things on the sheet is what times we are not available. All of Kevin’s rehearsals were during times I could not make it. He said I was by far his first choice, and he was a bit agitated when he couldn’t have me.

Nevertheless, I received an email last night from Andrew Torry telling me that I have been chose to be in his play. He was the playwright for Go!—the first show for this season’s University of Lethbridge theatre schedule. My co-actors are Corinne Hepher and Courtney Montgomery.

The play we are doing is Allan Stratton’s Papers. Apparently, it is about a professor “lecturing about a new novel by colleague Martin Edwards. [The professor’s] hilarious version of the love affair that inspired the novel comes to life in a compassionate comedy about two lonely and would-be lovers and their terrible inability to communicate.”

I am excited to work with Andrew, but we will see how it goes on Thursday when we get to see our rehearsal schedule.

Remembrance Day - Nov.11th

For 20 years (from ages 22 to 42) I had the privilege of visiting with my grandfather and listening to him tell me the stories of his experiences in WWI with the Fort Garry Horse. There never was a time when he shared his experiences that I didn't feel a welling up of tears in gratitude for his sacrifice, and probably more amazing to me, his attitude. The stories never got bigger or better with each retelling. He felt compassion his enemy just as much as he loved his family.

Shortly after he passed away in 1989 my relationship with my father developed. My father served in WWII with the 2nd Brigade in Italy and with other units of the Allies at various times.

I never knew my dad when I was growing up and had no real appreciation for him as a person. Soon after grandpa died my dad and I began talking and invariably the conversations would veer to his experiences in the war(usually at my insistence).

What amazed me was the similarity of attitudes these men shared, in spite of seeing some of the most gory and horrific sights that anyone can be forced to view. Neither of them was bitter. Neither of them hated the enemy. Yet one can't help but speculate on how the experiences of those wars forever altered their lives, for better or for worse. My emotions run high every time I listen to my dad tell of his experiences, just as they did with my grandfather. I honour these men and am so grateful to call them dad and grandpa and to forever have their stories to pass on to my posterity.

Just one bullet, or one piece of shrapnel in the right spot would have prevented this story from ever being told by me. It is with great honour that I share with you one of the stories that my father has recorded. I trust that you will forgive the length and find value in it.

Robert O.Bates
AS I REMEMBER ORTONA -
December 1943

(As I saw it in the OP with Captain Don Watson M.C. 77 Bty. 3rd Fid. Reg't R.C.A.)
The 2nd Brigade was designated to make the attack with the Eddies leading up the gully with Pats covering the left flank and the Seaforths on the right flank under a creeping artillery barrage. Captain Watson, Gunner Masding, and myself accompanied the officer leading the Seaforths. I was carrying an "18 set" for communications with the guns.

We received little or no counter fire as we walked up the slope, under the shells as they laddered up, but suddenly, we found we were advancing too quickly, and we were caught in our own shells and two or three of the infantry went down. Captain Watson yelled, "STOP", and I passed the order to the guns. Everything came to a halt.

Medical aid seemed to appear out of nowhere for the injured, and no further rounds were forthcoming. The officers quickly decided that "Up 200, Fire" would correct the situation. I passed the order, and everything resumed as before with little time being lost. I might add that with all the firing that had transpired from our previous barrage, we could practically step from one shallow hole to the next, made by our twenty-five pounders, all the way up the draw.

As the infantry were securing the south and west edge of town, we were told to follow the trail back along the outskirts of town and go to the Church of Santa Maria de Constantinople where "C" Company's headquarters was being established. We were unable to give covering fire to the infantry due to the density of the stone buildings. We knew they were in very close and changing proximity to the enemy, sometimes occupying different rooms and floors in the same building, but we were kept well informed by means of sitreps.

Things started to liven up as Gerry obviously knew where HQ was located and he started raining down mortars and Moaning Minnies (nebblewerfers) on the area. By this time it had become dark, and Capt. Watson asked if Masding and I would go back to the outskirts of town and locate our Bren gun carrier which Obie was bringing forward with our equipment, and guide it to the church. After finally locating the carrier, Obie said that he could not see the trail and it would not be safe to try to move it as he might drive over the bank. I finally took two sheets of white paper, one in each hand and held them over my head, and he said he could see them if I stayed about ten feet in front of the Carrier while I backed up, making sure of not running over me. About one hundred yards along the trail, we were bracketed by several rounds of shellfire, really putting the wind upon us.

We felt somewhat secure knowing that we could not be observed. I knelt down in front of the Carrier for about five minutes. No more rounds fell. We decided that it was "a shot in the dark", and we proceeded to the church and parked near the big iron gates of the surrounding stonewall.

The next day the courtyard was coming under considerably accurate mortar and Moaning Minnie fire, and also the vehicle parking area was taking quite a beating. After observing the area in the daytime, I could see the top section of a small tower about a block and a half northeast of our location. After informing my Captain, he decided we would go down the street, take a peek around the comer and see what it was all about. There stood a small tower uninhibited by any other buildings - a perfect OP for the Gerries. We quickly returned to the church where the Captain contacted the infantry and obtained an infantry Captain, a six-pounder anti-tank gun, and a crew who manhandled the gun over considerable debris and parked just short of the corner.

Capt. Watson was in seventh heaven. He informed the gun crew that they were to load the gun, push it around the comer, fire using open sights, pull the gun back, reload and carry out the same procedure until he told them to stop. I believe they carried out this operation about five or six times, thereafter the tower was no longer habitable. It was a rather exhilarating experience. However, since the enemy had already registered the coordinates for our location at the church, we continued to come under considerable fire at various time, although apparently unobserved, and movement became a little more secure.

Christmas day, Major Woolliams (Battery Commander) came forward to the church to familiarize himself with the situation. He parked his scout car outside near our carrier and, if I recall correctly, his operator was Howie Love, however I may be mistaken. Anyway, we had eaten some cold rations for breakfast and had been informed that a Christmas dinner would be served later on but we were unsure as to the time.

The Major asked me if I would go out to his scout car and get him something he could eat as he had not had any breakfast. The rations were in a 4.2 mortar box that was mounted on the front of the vehicle. I had no sooner gone through the gate than a barrage of mortar and Moaning Minnie fire landed throughout the area and I was temporarily incapacitated by the blast from a Minnie. The Minnies were designed to damage by blast more than with shrapnel and I can testify to that. After lying there for what seemed like two or three minutes and gathering my thoughts, I realized that the mortaring had stopped. I proceeded to the scout car and opened the punctured mortar box and found that nearly everything in the box had been damaged by shrapnel except for a can of tomatoes that I quickly rescued and took to the Major. He immediately opened the can and consumed the contents.

The Seaforth supply officer and his staff created a table in the shape of a large square and covered it with white sheets for a tablecloth. They then set the table for about forty to fifty men who would be seated around the perimeter of the table. We sat in the “first sitting” about noon with "C" company and it was a fabulous affair.

There was a pump organ, and someone would pump it while the Padre led the service. Carols were sung, wine and beer were served, and a delicious meal of roast pork with all the trimmings was placed before each man, served by the Officers to the men, in regular military tradition. It was almost as if there wasn't a war going on, except for the occasional explosive sound of mortars and shellfire... which reminded us.

Everyone seemed to really relax and enjoy themselves for two hours and then it was their turn to relieve their comrades in the firing line so that they could also come to the church for their Christmas treat and a two-hour respite. All this was taking place with some fighting, mostly mouse-holing, going on within about three hundred yards of the church. The meal was repeated four times and then it was night and back to the business of war as usual.

On the afternoon of December 26th, our OP crew was ordered to go forward to the main town square and occupy a floor of the hotel located on the north side of the square from which we would be able to observe the large tombstones in the cemetery behind which the enemy was reported to be digging in. Capt. Watson, having gone ahead with the infantry to reconnoiter the situation requested our presence but we were told not to bring the Carrier due to heavy debris blocking the narrow streets. We were warned that heavy sniper fire might be encountered so we should move quickly using whatever cover we could find. I carried the "18 set" on my back as we ran, zigzagging from doorway to doorway down the narrow street. Suddenly, a man carrying a movie camera stepped out from a doorway just in front of us and asked "if we would mind" going back a ways and rerun the street so that he could get it on film. He said he was a reporter from Western Canada and would like to send the pictures home with our names. I guarantee you the term "rude" would hardly cover our quick response, and we rapidly resumed our journey.

As we approached the edge of the square we passed one of our destroyed Sherman tanks that had been brought to a stand still by a large mound of stone rubble and knocked out by antitank fire. We could see the hotel and its large glass doors (still intact) across the street and decided that our best bet was to dash quickly across the square and get out of sight. It was apparent that this area could be a sniper's delight When we opened the doors we found the body of an elderly white haired lady who had been shot between the eyes, obviously by a sniper.

A flight of stairs led to the main area on the second floor and we continued on up to the third floor where we met Capt Watson. We then proceeded up to the fourth floor to a room on the north side from which we could observe the cemetery, a considerable distance away. We studied the area with our field glasses but were unable to detect any sign or movement of the enemy. Later in the afternoon our Capt. was informed that the street we had traveled down was now cleared enough that we could bring the carrier to the hotel (thanks to our remarkable Engineers). Masding and I were asked to return to the church and bring Obie and the carrier forward. As we went down stairs to the doorway, we met an obviously young Lieutenant standing there, looking out the doors. He looked kind of dumbfounded and gave us the impression that he was not sure of what was going on. We informed him that we were in a possible sniper area and standing there might be a bit dangerous, however he nodded and proceeded on the run. Our return trip to the hotel was uneventful and we parked the carrier next to the open hotel doors and about three feet from the wall in order to give us cover whenever we unloaded it. We again entered the hotel and there on the floor near the old lady, was the lieutenant with a hole in his forehead. (Some days were definitely worse than others!) Early on the 28th we were informed that Gerry had withdrawn and Ortona was ours... It was a terrible price to pay, but victory was ours.

And Ours.

Originally posted by Larry Bates.

Mortality of Modern Day Heroes

Today’s Globe and Mail offered an article regarding the recognition of Canadian troops in liberating Ortona, Italy, from the grip of Nazi forces in 1943. Hitler has fortified Ortona to be their last stronghold in Italy.

However, it wasn’t the celebration that was of interest to me. Nor was it contemplating what happened over 60 years ago. What interested me was the photo on the front page and its caption.

It was a photo of Canadian veteran Smoky Smith getting a peck on the cheek from an Italian school girl. The caption stated that Smoky Smith is the last surviving Victoria Cross winner.

On 21 October 1944, Private Ernest "Smoky" Smith single-handedly defeated a German counter-attack on the Savio River bridgehead in Italy, including two tanks and roughly 60 German soldiers. Seven weeks later, Smoky was awarded the Victoria Cross. The medal normally is awarded for most conspicuous bravery or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy.

Smoky is just over 90 years old. Only God knows how much time he has left. But his efforts and his presence in this world gives us a real tie to the Second World War. Once he is gone, his entire life and the sacrifices he made will be but memories, easily forgotten.

My great-great-grandfather’s brother, John Loskot, fought in World War One. He died in battle as a Private in the Fifth Battalion of the Canadian Infantry (Saskatchewan Regiment). Two hundred forty soldiers and officers from the Fifth Battalion died that day (28 April 1917) under heavy German shelling that lasted nearly 24 hours, north of Arleux, France.

Maybe it’s this familial tie to World War One that made Smoky’s by-line pop out. Either way, I suppose death is inevitable and real life heroes like Smoky (He received the Order of Canada in 1995) eventually pass on into the history books.

Maybe this year, I will actually participate in the Remembrance Day programmes.

Blacks and the Priesthood

University of Illinois Press sent me a copy of their new book Black and Mormon, edited by Newell G. Bringhurst and Darron T. Smith. I am supposed to review it. I am only three-quarters of the way through it, so I cannot do a proper review yet, but it is such a good book, I thought I would post my thoughts so far.


Black and Mormon consists of various essays written by different scholars on the issue of Blacks and the priesthood within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Naturally, I was somewhat weary of reading the book, but I kept an open mind and dived right in. I am sure glad I did. It is such a fascinating book—the dry parts aside of course.

What I thought I would post about were some things I found interesting.

First, anyone who is at all comfortably familiar with the history of the Blacks in the Church is also familiar with the name of Elijah Abel. Of course, there are many who are not. Brother Abel was a member of the Church in its infancy. He was ordained a Seventy in 1836. However, what you may not know is that Brother Abel went on to serve three full-time missions, the third one in 1883. In addition, his son Enoch was ordained an elder in 1900 and his grandson Elijah was ordained a priest in 1934 and an elder the following year.

Why were so many blacks denied the priesthood while these three were not?

Second, Joseph Smith never instituted the Black Ban. He never taught that blacks should be denied the priesthood. In fact, the denial was not implemented until the year the saints arrived in the Salt Lake Valley. The closest the Prophet ever came to issuing such a ban was to state that slaves were not allowed to be ordained without permission from their slave-owners. He also said such slaves could not be baptised without permission.

Third, I came across two awesome quotes; one by Joseph Smith and one by Joseph Fielding Smith.

But there has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodge for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle [maul]. Even the Saints are slow to understand.

I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions; they cannot stand the fire at all.

Joseph Fielding Smith, comp. and ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1976), 331.

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only so far as the accord with the reveal word in the standard works.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954), 3:203.

There are many anecdotes in the essays that offer a different perspective on the entire issue. I am looking forward to finishing the remainder of the book. It has been a great read and I have learned quite a bit from it. Had I known it was going to be this good of a resource, I would have bought it myself.

And I am not even a reader.

Homeschooling and Socialization

When people find out that we homeschool our children, they almost always predictably comment, “Well, I could never homeschool my children. They need the socialization”.

First, why do people do this? Why do people tell us what they wouldn’t do? Did someone tell them they have to homeschool? Quite frankly, I don’t give a crap whether you use the public school system or not. I am not preaching to you; don’t preach to me.

Second, is there a class all homeschool opponents take? Does the first lesson in Opposing Homeschool 101 tell you that homeschooled children get no socialization? If no such class and lesson is offered, can someone please reveal to me why this is virtually the only comment we receive from people regarding homeschool? You would think we would at least get a “You’re evil” or “You're going to hell” once in a while, but all we get is “your children will be social misfits”.

Third, since when did the public school system become a social laboratory? Maybe the seven schools I attended in two provinces did things differently, but outside of two 30-minute recess periods, we were discouraged from having social interaction. Chatting in class would result in a smack of the ruler on our desk or having to write lines. In all honesty, the bulk of my social experience came from interaction with friends in the evenings and on the weekends.

Fourth, why do people assume that homeschooled children have no social skills and/or get no social interaction? Are people really so ignorant that they think homeschooled children sit at home all day locked in the house until they emerge with their homework done? How ridiculous.

For your information, our daughter—our son is not officially being homeschooled yet since he is only three—receives plenty of opportunity for socialization. She is in her third year of weekly ballet classes. Every week she either goes to another family’s house that participates in our local babysitting co-op or the children of one of the families comes to our house. Next week she starts art classes. Next month she starts swimming classes. That’s not even counting all the times we go to friends’ houses and she plays with their children, nor is it counting all the times her friends' parents phone up asking if she wants to come over and play.

Of course, there is the remote possibility that maybe we are just radicals when it comes to homeschooling, and the majority of homeschoolers do lock their children in closets under the stairs.

Either way, please stop telling us our children will not be socialized.

Male Justice and Female Mercy

For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

I came across this scripture in Alma 42:24 today while searching for something else, and it caught my attention.

The scriptures often use a feminine singular possessive pronoun (her) when referring to cities, objects (such as boats and fig trees) and even abstract concepts (such as charity and wisdom). That is not so strange since I hear people implement that usage all the time (“Wow. That is a fast boat. Look at her go.”).

What did catch my attention, however, in this case was the usage of a masculine singular possessive pronoun. In particular, its usage alongside the female singular possessive pronoun made me very intrigued.

Why would Alma the Younger in speaking to Corianton assign a masculine gender to justice and a feminine gender to mercy? Is justice viewed as a masculine trait, while mercy is a female trait? What does this say about God whom is both just and merciful?

Public Showers

Men shower together in public.

When I was in high school, our shower room was a three walled enclosure with two rows of showers along the opposite walls. I have no idea how the girls’ shower room was set up. Obviously, I had never been inside and I had never asked any of my female friends.

In the MTC, the showers for the elders consisted of a room with two poles running from the floor to the ceiling. At the top of each pole were six showerheads. The elders would choose one of the twelve showerheads to use. It is my understanding that the showers for the sisters consisted of individual stalls.

At the gym at the University of Lethbridge, the set up is similar to the MTC. Again, I haven’t asked any of the women I know at the U of L how it set up. At Mary’s gym, however, the showers for the women are separate stalls.

Why is this? Why are men’s showers communal while women’s showers are separate? I could understand why women’s showers would be separate if they were co-ed showers. Have women always demanded separate showers, or was this something that has always been?

Sure, it would be nice to have my own separate stall, but I have no qualms about sharing a communal shower either. I am comfortable sitting in the steam room or in the shower or even towelling off with other guys around. Mary tells me that women never talk to each other in the shower. I talk to guys all the time—while showering, drying off or even getting dressed.

What is the difference?

Bad Educators, Evolution and God's Hurricanes

We attended a branch today for the baby blessings of some of our friends. It was nice having a bit of a break from our ward and being somewhere new. Things are always different to some degree in a branch given the very fundamental differences between a branch and a ward.

Sacrament meeting was quite normal. It was a fast and testimony meeting, which can always be fodder for good blog material. Only one thing caught my attention though. In one person’s “testimony”, he made mention that God’ hand is evident in the recent barrage of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. He made particular reference to Hurricane Jeanne and God’s hand guiding it wherever it goes.

Naturally, I have a problem with this thought. I have a problem believing that God directed a hurricane to the poorest countries in the western hemisphere in order that one and a half thousand people would be killed. What horrendous sins could these 1,500 men, women and children committed that would warrant God sending a relentless hurricane to a country already reeling from thousands killed this spring in massive floods and February in civil war.

Sunday School was quite uneventful. Then along came priesthood.

It is a joint elders and high priests meeting. I am not sure what the lesson was about since it seemed a mishmash of this and that. Supposedly, it was loosely based on a Meridian Magazine article of which I did not catch the name. Two points came up with which I took issue.

The first issue started when the instructor started discussing the deplorable moral condition in the public school system. Naturally, many in the meeting agreed with him and were quick to offer their support in similar veins of detesting the poor jobs of today’s educators.

After about fifteen minutes, I grew tired of it and spoke up. I reminded everyone that it is not the responsibility of our educators to teach our children about morality. It is not the responsibility of our educators to teach our children right and wrong. Actually, when it comes down to it, that responsibility doesn’t even lie with Primary and Sunday School teachers. It lies with the parents. Parents have the God-given responsibility to teach children morality; to teach them what is right and wrong and why we need to “choose the right”. If today’s generation is derelict, delinquent and disregardful, we should not look to the teacher to lay blame. We should take ownership of our failure to fulfill the responsibility that is given to us.

The second issue started when the instructor showed that in 1830 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organised and subsequently taught that six years later Charles Darwin introduced his theory of natural selection. The instructor then used this chronological comparison to point out that evolution is the work of Satan.

To be sure I understood the instructor’s message, I restated, “Are you saying that evolution is satanic”.

“Yes”.

“I completely disagree”.

That’s when the rest of the lesson was shot. From there, it didn’t take long for someone to say that evolution opposed Jesus Christ; that we didn’t come from apes; that evolution is a false doctrine; that the temple teaches that evolution was not how God created Adam.

Expectedly, I addressed those issues. Actually, I didn’t address how evolution opposed the Saviour. Rather I asked how it opposed the Saviour. There was no answer given.

I reiterated the ignorant argument that we didn’t come from apes. I clarified to this brother unfamiliar with the theory of evolution that apes and humans shared a common ancestor, not that humans came from apes.

I asked the individual who stated evolution was a false doctrine why he thought that. He said “the prophet” said it is. In all the years I have been studying statements of general authorities on evolution, I have yet to come across a single statement that said it was a false doctrine. The closest I have ever seen is when Joseph F. Smith claimed evolution was a theory of man. Of course, the theory of gravity, the theory of wave-particle duality of light and the theory of relativity are all theories of men. Being a theory of man does not make it false.

Finally, I corrected that the temple offers no clarification whatsoever regarding the process God used to create the earth and Adam.

I felt alone in that class. I felt alone among many brethren in the priesthood who hold fast to traditions because they do not want to take the time to research information for themselves. I felt alone since no one came up to me after and commented either way on my contribution to the discussion. I should point out that one other brother did mention that Brigham Young stated that we do not know what method God used in the creation.

You know, if the subject of evolution being taught in the schools had only been mentioned in brief passing, I likely would not have said anything. What made me respond was the statement based in ignorance and assumption that stated evolution was absolutely of Satan.

Maybe if the instructor had stuck to the lesson materials suggested by the correlation department, we wouldn’t have had this mess.

Globe and Mail and Racism

Jane Armstrong wrote an article for today’s issue of The Globe and Mail reporting on Adrienne Clarkson’s recent trip to Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, the most impoverished neighbourhood in all of Canada. It is an informative article for the most part, but one paragraph caught my attention.

Her foray into Vancouver's skid row is not her first up-close brush with deeply entrenched social problems. In Toronto, she toured the downtown neighbourhood of Regent Park, and in Saskatoon, she visited an urban first nations reserve.

What I find interesting in this excerpt is the choice of words Ms. Armstrong uses to reference two apparently similar locations. On the one hand, she refers to a very specific neighbourhood in Toronto. On the other hand, she vaguely but generically makes reference to one of seven First Nations reserves in the Saskatoon area.

Why did this catch my attention?

Ms. Armstrong, in reference to Regent Park did not say, “She toured a neighbourhood in Toronto”. Rather, she made reference to not only a specific area of the city (downtown) but a specific neighbourhood within that area (Regent Park).

When it comes to the First Nations reserve, Ms. Armstrong, for whatever reason, gives no similar treatment to the location. Rather she simply makes a passing reference that it was a First Nations reserve. This usage does two things.

First, it assumes the public perceives every First Nations reserve as being “deeply entrenched [with] social problems”. At the very least, it assumes all seven of the Saskatoon reserves are “deeply entrenched [with] social problems”.

Second, it perpetuates the above stereotype by allowing the reader to continue in his/her assumption that all reserves are “deeply entrenched [with] social problems”.

I am not naïve enough to think that no reserve has social problems. However, until reserves are given better attention and treatment similar to that given to off-reserve areas (such as Downtown Eastside and Regent Park), the problems present there will continue.

Ms. Armstrong’s biased and prejudiced treatment of the situation is deplorable and does nothing to bring due attention to the plight of First Nations people in Canada.

I suppose I should give her credit for specifying a Saskatoon urban first nations reserve and not saying, "an Indian reserve somewhere in Canada".

Book of Mormon Not the Word of God

So many people think the Bible is the word of God. For that matter, many people consider the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price to be the word of God. Are they really?

First, we need to ask what the phrase “word of God” means. Does it mean that the book was written by God? Does it mean the things within are spoken by God? Does it mean the things within are statements by prophets saying what God would say if He were there? Is “word” more figurative, referring—as John did in the first chapter of his gospel—to Jesus?

Second, if we are to assume that “word of God” refers to the words in the scriptures to be words spoken of God or His prophets, then I think a semantics problem arises.

Take for example, Nephi’s words in 1 Ne 2:15.

And my father dwelt in a tent.

If we were to take the common claim that “the Book of Mormon is the word of God” to be true, then how do we classify such a statement? Was it God saying Nephi’s father dwelt in a tent? Is it a prophetic statement spoken by Nephi?

Frankly, the Book of Mormon and other scriptures are filled with language that does nothing more than provide historical or situational information. Various passages contain no literal doctrinal exposition. Granted many passages taken as a whole—like the last dozen chapters in Alma for example—could be representative of spiritual advice. The point is though, that to say the Book of Mormon or any other scripture is the word of God is a literary fallacy.

Certainly, the Book of Mormon and other scriptures contain the word of God. I do not argue that point at all.

My Dad The Hero

We do a weekly newsletter that we send out by email to all my family. In her contribution to the newsletter, my mum made mention about my dad and his work.

My dad works in construction and when he started with a new company earlier this spring, he was made project supervisor. In his new position, he oversees an entire project from start to finish. It is a lot less physical work for him, and as he gets older, the less physical work, the better.

Their current project is completely redoing a lecture hall on the campus of BCIT. The project includes everything from cement to walls to carpet.

The project deadline is in roughly a week and my dad has never missed a deadline. Unfortunately, some of the workers aren’t producing the work my dad expects, so he has been spending many nights lately putting in overtime to tidy up the work. Last week, he put in 74 hours—that’s more than double my regular workweek.

My dad’s an amazing guy. Not only has he taught me to work hard, but he’s also taught me to do a job right.

Here’s hoping they meet the deadline.

Tal Bachman Leaves Mormon Church

As Jeremy reported (as did Mark and William), world-renowned musician Tal Bachman left the church. Apparently, it has taken the former Sunday School teacher two years to come to this decision. Technically, he still is a member because he has yet to formally request name removal through a letter to his bishop.

Nevertheless, one thing in the article really caught my attention.

I came to understand that, much to my shock, many of the foundational claims of the church were not based in reality. I struggled so much with that, and kept trying to un-know what I kept uncovering, that at the end of two years I felt so burdened and so confused and puzzled. I kept going to these church defenders that I'd always trusted and trying to find out what the explanations were for what appeared to be smoking guns. And there weren't any.

Why is it historical accuracy is such a big issue for so many people who left the Church? Why do they put so much weight in the accuracy of events happening exactly as described?

These same people, for example, often have no problem accepting that the creation of the world did not happen in six 24-hour periods. However, when they’re faced with the fact that Joseph Smith allegedly wrote a couple dozen versions of the First Vision, all of a sudden it’s too much and the whole Church is a sham.

Sigh.

In all honesty, who cares? Who cares if the First Vision was with God and Jesus Christ or if it was three angels? The point is that the heavens that were closed for millennia were now open. The point is that the Lord opened the way for a church run by revelation. Who cares if the world was created in six days, six thousand years, or 4.5 billion years? The point is that it was created.

Some naysayers may read this post and say, “Who are you to question his decision? Who are you to be an expert on questioning doctrines when you’ve lived the sheltered life of Mormonism?” To such things, I respond by saying that my life has been far from sheltered. I have had my share of worldly indulgences. I have had my share of questions.

In fact, I came to the point where my faith was seriously shaken as well. You want to know the difference between my experience and others like Tal’s? When my faith wavered, it wasn’t because I read that Joseph Smith was a boozer or that Brigham Young was racist. It wasn’t because I found what appeared to be inconsistencies between the Book of Mormon and the Bible. It wasn’t because my bishop couldn’t answer my questions.

It was because I doubted God’s existence.

That’s right. It wasn’t my faith in a single book. It wasn’t faith in the character of a prophet. It wasn’t faith in the sociability of my home teachers. It was faith in God.

The point is when you question your faith, think about what you’re questioning. If you are offended by someone and decide to never come back to church, think about where your faith must lie. If you come across some abhorrent thing Joseph Smith did and decide to leave the Church, think about where your faith lies.

Think about where your faith lies.

It was a very hard and depressing experience I went through. However, I am very grateful for it. The experience has really solidified my faith and I have become stronger as a result. Because of this, odd events and doctrines that would normally offend or shake someone's faith do not phase me. I am now able to question things freely.

Think about where your faith lies.

I am LDS After All

I took a survey yesterday that asked questions regarding religious beliefs. The idea is that after you’ve taken the quiz, it will analyse your answers and tell you which religious movement your beliefs more closely resemble.

Not surprising to anyone—well except maybe those who think I question too much or who consider me a heretic—the quiz said my 100 percent of my beliefs corresponded with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Here are the remaining findings.

1. Jehovah's Witness (97%)


2. Bahá'í Faith (94%)


3. Orthodox Judaism (83%)


4. Sikhism (77%)


5. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (72%)


6. Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (71%)


7. Islam (70%)


8. Jainism (69%)


9. Liberal Quakers (62%)


10. Hinduism (60%)


11. Eastern Orthodox (58%)


12. Roman Catholic (58%)


13. Reform Judaism (57%)


14. Seventh Day Adventist (57%)


15. Orthodox Quaker (56%)


16. Unitarian Universalism (55%)


17. Mahayana Buddhism (52%)


18. Theravada Buddhism (51%)


19. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (39%)


20. Neo-Pagan (36%)


21. New Age (33%)


22. New Thought (25%)


23. Taoism (25%)


24. Secular Humanism (23%)


25. Scientology (21%)


26. Non-theist (19%)

Some interesting results. For example, I find it interesting that my answers put me closer to Baha’I, Judaism and Sikhism than it does to mainline Christian Protestants. I also found it interesting that my answers put me closer to Islam, Jainim, Quakers and Hinduism than it did to Catholicisim.

DNA, Lamanites and Book of Mormon

Simon Southerton, geneticist and author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church, has taken up a crusade to "[examine] church teachings that American Indians and Polynesians have a historic bond with ancient Israelites." He does so by using DNA research and applying it to current popular opinion of members of the Church and writings of some scholars with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.

This seems to be a thorny issue for Southerton. He left the Church because there seemed to be no conclusive evidence that supported the widely held notion among Latter-day Saints that Pacific Islanders and indigenous people of the Americas were descended from the Lamanites.

First, I find it unbelievable—actually, I can believe it, but it still is dumbfounding—that someone's conviction to the Church can be swayed by scientific evidence. The Book of Mormon is not a scientific journal. It does not establish scientific fact and does not even heavily support scientific theories. It is nothing more than a spiritual record—interspersed with select historical information—of a distinct, isolated group of people.

Second, there is no indication whatsoever in the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites and Nephites were completely alone in the Americas. To say otherwise is nothing more than speculation. It is entirely plausible and even likely that the Lamanites and Nephites encountered—and even mingled with—other peoples already present in the Americas. This alone would reduce any existence of Israelite DNA. As well, it is entirely plausible that the Lamanite population died off or were exterminated; after all, the record of their history is incomplete.

Third, popular belief among Latter-day Saints does not equal doctrine. Just because many Latter-day Saints hold on to the archaic notion that all people indigenous to the Americas are descended solely from Lehi, does not make it church doctrine. I wish more people would understand this one principle. Tradition is not doctrine.

The Book of Mormon is primarily a religious book containing teachings and doctrine about God and Jesus Christ. To treat it primarily as anything else is to treat it as a very shaky foundation.

That being said, it only take a smidgen of logic to see that DNA research does not disprove the Book of Mormon. One would think a scientist like Southerton would understand that.

Mormons Can't Have Beards

I have a beard.

Well, ok. It is a goatee. However, this past winter, I let all my facial hair free to grow, as it desired. With all the talk in the Bloggernacle about beard growing, I thought I'd chime in with an experience.

In my stake, there is an unwritten, vague, widely interpreted rule regarding beards. Some bishops have interpreted it to mean a man cannot hold a calling if he has a beard. Some has have interpreted into to mean a man cannot hold a priesthood leadership position (e.g. elders quorum president, high priest group leader) if he has a beard.

Nevertheless, at the beginning of the year, the ward clerk in one of the wards asked about my beard in the context of this non-specific rule. I told him no one has asked me to shave it, so I see no reason to. He then asked me if I would shave upon being requested to do so.

I sit here thinking now about the whole issue. I can understand how drinking coffee, having casual extra-marital sex, stealing a car or promoting the pleasantries of plural marriage might bring to mind disobedience to God’s laws. However, how does not shaving a beard when a local policy suggests to amounts to the same thing?

One might suggest that not doing so is not being obedient to the words of the leaders. Supposedly, this is the same thing as God’s laws since that is how church members interpret D&C 1:38. I have to wonder then if the brethren asked me to pick my nose regularly and I did not, if I would be considered a heretic. If the brethren asked me to exchange my black, wingtip oxfords for a pair of oxblood, cap-toes and I did not—yeah, right, of course I would—would I be considered disobedient?

Honestly, what is the big deal? How did having a beard come to be so controversial as to be outlawed in the temple and the cause of dismissal from callings?

Pre-Existence is False

There is a post over at T&S discussing a newly found tablet. I have no problems with that, but I do have a question regarding the use of the term "pre-existence" in the post title. Since I don't want to detract from the nature of the conversation over there, I thought I'd post here.

I don't want to come across as a nitpicker, but doesn't "pre-existence" imply "before existence". Since we existed as spirits before coming to earth and as intelligences before being created as spirits, to what does the term "pre-existence" refer?

Are Mormons Christian?

Many Christians outside of Mormonism claim we, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not Christian. It is a convenient way for them to dismiss what we believe and to avoid having to admit the possibility of any truth in our message or beliefs.

Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Despite the fact that we proscribe to the logical definition of “Christian”, they insist that we follow a different Christ and thus are not Christian.

The Jesus I follow was born to Mary in Bethlehem. He is the Son of God. He performed countless miracles during his ministry. He taught that we should avoid acts of retribution and replace them with acts of generosity and forgiveness. He died on the cross at Calvary. He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane. He rose from the dead on the third day.

Do other Christians believe something different from this? Does that mentioned above not suggest to the sane, intelligent reader that one who believes in such is indeed Christian? Even is s/he is a Mormon?

Dangerous Infant Car Seats

It seems carrying babies in infant car seats interferes with their ability to breathe. Now the car seat (outside of travel in the car) is more than a barrier between vital baby-parent bonding. I’ve always found it a little disheartening to see helpless, little babies been toted around like luggage, but now there is even more of a cause for concern.

Sweaty Garments

Since I am going to be riding to work every day starting in two weeks, I decided to exchange my swim schedule for a stationary bike workout this morning. I will be gone to Vancouver all next week, so I am going to try fitting in a bike workout each day this week. I am also pushing myself hard to make sure my legs are in somewhat good enough shape for the commute.

Anyhow, while I was getting ready for the shower and taking off my sweaty garments, I was reminded of something. Some people say that garments are too sacred to wear while doing a sweaty workout. Others say that they are too sacred to leave them off for the hour you are working out.

What does everyone else think?

Jesus Can't Be School Head

A private school in Norway has listed Jesus as the executive manager on the school’s organisational chart.

I understand their reasoning, but at the same time, how is the government supposed to approach Jesus if they have a problem with how the mostly state-funded school is run? After all, he does not have an office downtown.

Grandma and Grandpa Siever Baptised

Mary and I went to the Cardston Alberta Temple this morning to do some work for Grandma and Grandpa Siever. In March, we did their baptismal and initiatory work along with that of around 50 others of my relatives. Walter Siever and Lydia Abel were the first ancestors for whom we’ve done endowment work.

It’s been over nine years since Pepère’s baptism and endowment work was done, so now all of my deceased biological grandparents have had their work done.

How exciting!

Regan and Kim Shaved Heads

Regan and I shaved our heads again, in what is coming to be our annual summer tradition. I've been doing nearly every year since the last year of my mission (I missed 1995, the summer we got married), but Regan only started last year. Mary's addicted to his curls, so I've had to convince her both last year and this year to let me do it.

Grey Hair

Mary has been telling me for the last few years that I have grey hair. I could never seem to find them. Conveniently, she would tell me they were in the back of my head, so naturally I could not see them in a mirror.

Anyhow, I saw one on the top of my head Wednesday night. It appears she was telling the truth the whole time.

I do not mind growing older; I am embracing it. It sure puts things into perspective though, particularly since I was home teaching with someone last night who has been home from his mission for seven months and married for “two months and one week”.

Legacy the Movie Sucks

We saw Legacy last night for a joint activity.

What a boring movie.

Just as Lord of the Rings used swordfights and special effects to make up for the bad acting, Legacy used epic music to make up for bad acting.

I didn’t like it the first time I watched it, and now as a drama major, I certainly didn’t like it last night.

Sigh.

Mormon Cops Don't Shoot

Speaking of Latter-day Saints not being able to have certain careers, apparently, Mormon cops in Salt Lake City have a hard time firing guns.

Financial Clerk Steals From Church

A ward financial clerk in Idaho has been sentenced to five years probations and one year of house arrest for writing numerous bad cheques from the Church to himself numbering to 69,000$.

Not sure there’s much to say on that note.

Elaborate Missionary Farewells

I've heard of the Church saying we shouldn't have missionary farewell open houses. Do you think renting a room at a local hotel to hold the reception is the reason why?

Off-Limit Careers for Mormons

Julie M. Smith posted a question over at T&S asking if there are any profession members of the Church just can’t do. It has garnered a number of responses thus far, most of which I disagree with. For example, the ones I disagree with include:

• Brewer
• Tobacconist
• Evolutionary scientist
• Gay-wedding planner

I'm not so sure that members of the Church can't work in industries that promote breaking of the Word of Wisdom. So long as the individual is not drinking beer, why can s/he not work in a brewery? So long as the individual does not smoke the tobacco, why couldn't s/he harvest it for the tobacco company. For that matter, what of the trucker who ships the products, the grocer who sells them or the manufacturer who creates their packaging?

So long as the person does not violate the Word of Wisdom, I see no reason for them not being able to hold jobs with such companies.

I, too, see no reason for a member of the Church not to be an evolutionary scientist since evolution is not against church teachings.

Nor do I see why a member of the Church cannot plan gay weddings.

More Lethbridge Transit Changes

LA Transit is making some changes over the next year. Most of them are route/structural changes, but there are some fare increases as well. Some of the route changes include:

• Smaller, community buses on smaller routes with lower ridership
• An express route to the Lethbridge Community College
• More cross-town routes replacing all downtown routes
• Only one bus to the Westside starting in the fall
• Change to 30-minute service from 20-minute service during daytime

Some of these changes I have been supporting and advocating for years. Lethbridge Transit had been stuck in the archaic form of thinking that every route needed to come downtown despite the fact that the vast majority of riders ended up transferring to another bus instead of staying downtown. Until this past fall, there was no cross-town service. In addition, too many routes were coming downtown from West Lethbridge. This was far too inefficient of transit resources. Finally, there was no direct link between the University of Lethbridge and Lethbridge Community College. The proposed changes will address all of these concerns.

I do not automatically support a reduction in service times, but considering the size of Lethbridge’s population base, a 20-minute service is not realistically feasible. Much larger urban centres do not have a base service time of less than 30-minute services. Anything less than 30-minutes is usually on very high-traffic routes.

Regarding the fare increase, one of the most popular arguments against it has been the reported 200,000$+ surplus of LA Transit. Opponents of the fare increases have stated that if there is a surplus, it is evidence that riders are being charged too much. I’m not a proponent of absolutely increasing fares for increasing fares’ sake. However, I also did not hear these same opponents claiming riders were not being charged enough when Lethbridge Transit was running a deficit.

Adam and Eve's Transgression

In a message board I frequent, some discussion came up about Adam and Eve and their transgression. After some study, I came upon the following thoughts:

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat" (Gen 3:6)

What is interesting here is that it doesn't say that she partook of the fruit because she wanted to disobey God. Rather she saw that the fruit would make her wise—or as the footnote suggests—give her insight.

Naturally, gaining further insight or wisdom is not inherently bad; our church encourages us to gain further knowledge.

I wonder then if the transgression Eve committed was less the partaking of the fruit. I wonder if her transgression was more relying on her own faculties to gain further light and knowledge rather than waiting for God to give them to her.

I wonder of the parallel with her son Cain. We all know Cain gave a sacrifice to the Lord. I do not think the Lord rejected the sacrifice because it was a sacrifice. After all, his brother Abel offered a sacrifice often that was always accepted. I wonder if what the Lord rejected was the fact that Cain offered a sacrifice only because Satan commanded him too (Moses 5:18).

Missionary Open House

I have heard of open house, but this tops the lot.

Joshua and Kimberly Colton of Amesbury, Massachusetts, organised a number of speakers in the summer of 2002 to speak on various gospel topics in their home. They provided an open invitation to the public through newspaper and television ads.

Their website does not say how successful it is, but the local paper—Merrimack River Current—specifies that they are holding the lectures every Thursday.

When I was a ward mission leader—and when I later served in the stake mission presidency—I helped convince the stake mission president and the stake president that we needed to hold an open house. The first year saw over 100 people attend in three meetinghouses. Every year since then, it has been dramatically more successful.

Sex, Pornography and Reverence

John Hesch posted about a substitute teacher who viewed porn in class that some students inadvertently saw after coming to his desk.

The students apparently went to the principal’s office and reported that the teacher “"was looking at bad things on the computer”.

I’m not saying the children did anything wrong in reporting the teacher, but I have to wonder about the use of the term “bad things”. It seems in religious society, sex and the naked body are viewed as “bad”. I’m not so sure they are absolutely. In certain contexts, the naked body is very beautiful and even minimalistic. In certain contexts, the act of sex is an intimate and sacred event.

I have met a number of people who teach their children about chastity with blanket statements like “sex is bad. I think that is wrong. I think parents have a responsibility to teach their children that it isn’t the act of sex or nudity itself that are wrong; it is their existence outside of certain contexts that is wrong.

Believe or not, I have met a few people who felt a pang of uneasiness, shame or even guilt when they encountered sex for the first time, after marriage.

That being said, I also know some people who looked so forward to having sex after they were married for sex's sake that their reverence for the event was almost nonexistent.

So on one hand there’s so much innocence, shame and naivety, yet on the other had there is so much baseness, carnality and irreverence. How do we come to the middle?

Blacks and the Priesthood

Twenty-four years ago yesterday, the priesthood was provided to all male members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “without regard to race or [colour]”.

It was this decision that has made Brazil and many parts of Africa such hotspots for Church growth. Without this revelation, the temples in Accra and Aba would ever be a dream.

Scriptures on Church-State Separation

I came across this scripture today and—given my recent posts on the separation of church and state—thought it would be applicable here.

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied. (D&C 134:9)

The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands

So, Dr. Laura has a new book. Just reading the title raises an eyebrow. Reading the summary is like travelling in a time machine back 50 years.

In her newest book, Schlessinger…unabashedly [asserts] that man is a "very simple creature," who needs only "direct communication, respect, appreciation, food, and good loving'" to respond with devotion, compassion and love, this controversial marriage and family therapist claims that every woman can achieve a deeply satisfying marriage if she adheres to certain fundamentals men require. Preparing dinner, caring for the children without complaint, greeting her husband with a kiss and engaging in sexual intimacy instead of "tearing down a husband's necessary sense of strength and importance" can result in the harmonious marriage women crave.

Is she serious?

An Angel and Alma the Younger

We were all taught in Seminary and Sunday School about the teenaged antics of the sons of Mosiah and Alma, Jr. We learned about their efforts to sway people from the Church. We also learned about the visit they received from an angel that called them to repentance with a thunderous voice that shook the earth.

I wonder though why the angel specifically addressed his words to Alma. Why was Alma the one who went into the trance/coma? Do we have any indication that Alma was more “evil” than his four partners were? It certainly is not because Alma, Jr, had any more of an important work to do than the sons of Mosiah.

Separation of Church and State

I was reading in Mosiah 26 last week, and I came across something I had read many times before, but which I found interesting nonetheless. Alma and his people along with Limhi and his people have all be joined together with Mosiah and his people in Zarahemla. In the previous chapter, Mosiah had given Alma the authority to organise the church throughout the land of Zarahemla.

There were a number of people in Zarahemla who would to join the Church and who made it difficult for members of the Church to remain committed to the religious convictions. Naturally, Alma, as a spiritual leader, was disturbed by this growing phenomenon. Not knowing how to handle it, he approached King Mosiah.

King Mosiah’s response was fundamentally that he had given Alma authority of the Church and this was a spiritual matter. King Mosiah dealt with political and secular matters. He thus told Alma to find a way to deal with it. Certainly, these people were doing something that was hard on the believers, but they broke no laws, so why should Mosiah do anything?

There seems to be parallel to our day. Sometimes, we are quick to want to prosecute people if they do something that is against the teachings of church, even if that which they do is legal. Why is it that some members of the Church are so apt to want Church ad State not to be separate?

Hockey and Immodest Dress

My children sat with me at the start of the game tonight between the Calgary Flames and the Tampa Bay Lightning. Before the game began, they had a bunch of pre-game footage. Part of the footage included two young women in skimpy red clothing jumping up and down singing some sort of chant.

My five-year-old daughter turns to me and asks, “They’re not dressed very modest, are they”?

“No, they’re not”.

“We dress modestly, don’t we”?

Yes, we do.

Cleaning With Garments

When I went through the temple to receive my endowment a number of years ago, I met in a small room with my mum, my two ushers and received some guidance and instruction before the ordinance. The person who gave me instruction and council told me that I should not let my garments lay around on the floor.

I saw a person I know use the bottom of his garment top to clean his glasses, as someone would do with his/her t-shirt.

Is one right and the other wrong? Is there somewhere in the middle we should be?

Purpose of Marriage

In yesterday’s issue of AskMen.com Newsletter, the weekly question was, “In your opinion, what is the main purpose of marriage?”

The first responder was quoted as saying the following:

There is absolutely no purpose of marriage other than to raise a family...Other than children, I don't think marriage is that important.

Do people really believe this? Do they truly feel that there is no other purpose to being married than to raising children? What about the trust and commitment a marriage develops in the partners?

What does everyone else think? What is the purpose of marriage?