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?
September 28, 2004
September 26, 2004
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.
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.
September 22, 2004
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.
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".
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".
September 14, 2004
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.
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.
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.
August 16, 2004
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.
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.
August 13, 2004
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.
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.
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.
August 07, 2004
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.
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.
- Jehovah's Witness (97%)
- Bahá'í Faith (94%)
- Orthodox Judaism (83%)
- Sikhism (77%)
- Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (72%)
- Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (71%)
- Islam (70%)
- Jainism (69%)
- Liberal Quakers (62%)
- Hinduism (60%)
- Eastern Orthodox (58%)
- Roman Catholic (58%)
- Reform Judaism (57%)
- Seventh Day Adventist (57%)
- Orthodox Quaker (56%)
- Unitarian Universalism (55%)
- Mahayana Buddhism (52%)
- Theravada Buddhism (51%)
- Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (39%)
- Neo-Pagan (36%)
- New Age (33%)
- New Thought (25%)
- Taoism (25%)
- Secular Humanism (23%)
- Scientology (21%)
- Non-theist (19%)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)