The Marathon at the 1.5-mile Mark

OK, we’ve had exactly two primaries, and a mere handful of delegates have been allocated. Mitt Romney, the delegate leader, has just 14 of 1144 needed for nomination. (For delegate info, try here.) As I see it, we’re at the 1.5-mile marker of a 26.2-mile race.

So where are we?

Three candidates – Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann and Jon Huntsman – have dropped out. As one Twitter Wag said in last night’s GOP debate, “Seems like the introductions of the candidates took 5/8 as long as previous debates…”

Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Ron Paul are still in it. Romney may or may not have won Iowa (official votes are now being counted, and some reports I saw had Santorum up by 80 votes in the official recount, so that primary (or “caucus” as you might say) is possibly still up in the air. Romney won New Hampshire. South Carolina is this coming Saturday. By all accounts, last night’s debate had Mitt Romney taking some hits, and Newt and Rick Perry doing exceptionally well. There are the better parts of four days’ worth of campaigning to go, and really anything can happen. There is still plenty of time for someone to stick his foot in his mouth.

I’ve seen some, to me, disturbing trends, which bear examination:

  • Class Warfare – There have been some “class warfare” attacks by some candidates on others. I *HATE* class warfare, because it uses one of the basest of human emotions – envy – to attack. Envy’s cousin – covetousness – also rears its ugly visage, and THAT one has a specific Commandment addressing it! It is NOT becoming of any GOP candidate to attack another’s apparent wealth or success. The GOP’s goal should be to enable the opportunity for *ANYONE* to achieve similar success, not to tear down success.

    Closely related to Class Warfare is the cry for one candidate (Mitt Romney) to produce his tax records to prove or disprove his success or failure as the CEO of Bain Capital. Couple of points need to be made here:

    • Used to be what a person made was between him and his employer, and NO ONE ELSE. It was once considered crass to inquire of another what his salary was. “None of your business,” should be the standard reply. In a similar vein, a candidate’s tax returns should not be a matter of public debate, in a civil, mannered society. It is a black mark on our society that the class warfare attack of demanding tax returns is “acceptable.”
    • On Bain Capital specifically, is the CEO’s tax return the BEST yardstick of business success or performance? I would argue that there are much better yardsticks – such as financial statements, stock performance, balance sheets, etc. – that are more readily available and more morally available with which to judge a company’s performance. If Bain is a publicly traded company, either the financial statements or stock performance would be the better indicator of success. If privately held, then one may have to look at public records, historical facts, news accounts, etc. to judge.
    • A question I asked on Twitter last night: Would *YOU* be comfortable if *I* demanded to see *YOUR* tax returns? I asked specifically of those “civilians” (non-candidates themselves, like staffers, or even just enthusiasts or advocates for a candidate) who were demanding to see Mitt Romney’s tax returns. My guess is: They would not. That, to me, is pretty telling.
  • Anti-Capitalism – Closely related to the Class Warfare attacks have been attacks based on the candidates supposed exploitation of the capitalist system. In this, as many people have said, the attacker allies himself with the Occupy Wall Street mob. Capitalism, far from being the boogeyman, should be instead the yardstick by which we go about our legal, moral, ethical business. Not only is capitalism the best engine of success and prosperity, but we should be highlighting the ideal way capitalism should be practised with the distorted, corrupt system of “crony capitalism” we seem to accept as “normal” in America today. Capitalism works best with as little Gub’mint interference as possible in the markets, with as little D.C. distortions introduced through laws and regulations and petty bureaucracies. And most assuredly, capitalism is best practised when Gub’mint is not allowed to “partner” and pick winners and losers.
  • Petulant Partisanship – I have seen, at this early stage, several people on Twitter state categorically that if such and such was the GOP nominee, they would sit out the general election. I find that extremely troubling! At the early part of the campaign, most people agreed that any one of the candidates would be acceptable and a definite improvement over the Marxist Emperor we have infesting the Oval Office at present. That would seem to lead to the assumption that, once the nomination process had shaken itself out, that all would enthusiastically rally around whomever gained the top spot. That it might not happen – at least in a few minds, but who knows how far Twitter and other communications modes allow influence to spread! – is troubling. I ask: Would you honestly give four more years to the Meddling Marxist over any of the GOP candidates? Would you sentence America to the horrors of pure Socialism – or Marxism, or Communism, depending on how far Chairman Zero wants to push it – over the chance to turn it all around, to steer clear of the cliff we’re hurtling toward? Would you really do that just because your guy didn’t get in? I find even having to ask that question fills me with sadness, and a sort of rage. Those who say they will stay away on Election Day are, to me, the “fairest” of “Fair Weather Friends and Sunshine Patriots.” It is raining out, and if you guys won’t show up to fight, I’m questioning your commitment to the cause.

OK. That’s about it for now. In the race, I still see the five remaining candidates pretty much bunched up, and we’re only about 1.5 miles into it. Any one of them can make a break, and no one is out as of this point. There is a LOT of race to be run yet. Take heart!

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Propaganda by Percentages

I am really jiving on Twitter lately, but one thing I see with distressing frequency is a barrage of poll-driven Tweets from all across the GOP spectrum, from the far left looniness of Ron Paul to the hyperty-hype-hype right of Mitt Romney. This morning, addressing the onslaught, I coined a phrase: “Propaganda by Percentages.”

See, I basically see two uses for polls, neither one of which really does anyone any good.

First is to provide a snapshot in time of information that may or may not be germane to the reader of said information. If the past few years have taught us anything, it’s that things change, and I find people who send poll-driven information – and who are honestly trying to relay a snapshot in time – are really just wasting their time. Maybe not always, but for sure in the volatile GOP primaries, especially when so much polling is done by such diverse systems and/or groups and/or organizations. Yeah, you have captured a slice o’ time but by the time you’ve formatted it into Twitter-ese (140 characters) the utility is all but gone. Almost guarantee ya!

The second type of poll-driven Twitterer is far more sinister in nature: He (or she) who is trying to sway someone to zig (or zag) based on the perceived influence of the polling data. Mostly, I see it from two camps: Mitt Romney’s bunch – and I suddenly like the term “Mitt-wits!” – and Ron Paul’s denizens – whom I less than affectionately call “Ronulans.” When I see something like, “Romeny up 117%, Perry 3%, Santorum 2.7%…” – then I know something’s afoot. Like I said, it’s pretty volatile out there, and I absolutely doubt anyone has any idea how it’s gonna unfold on Primary Day, (this coming Saturday.) Polls are notoriously fickle anyway, and you throw in partisanship, and all bets are out the door.

See, these folks are trying – via “poll data” to convince you it’s all over, and you should just vote for their guy. Fully two – count ‘em! TWO! – primaries have been held, and less than 40 delegates – out of 1,100-odd needed for nomination! – have been awarded. It is still VERY MUCH a wide open race. The poll-driven crowd, though, wants you to abandon your own stances and principles, and jump, however reluctantly, onto their bandwagon(s).

No, thanks. I want to hold onto my vote as long as I can, and I will try to convince others to see it my way, in a decidedly poll-free approach I like to call “reason and logic.” I have no idea even when Kentucky’s primary is, but still, I’m saving my vote until then. When ever it is. (Rick Perry – you listenin’?!?!?)

So, I have a recommendation: Just close your ears and shout “LALALALALALALALALALALALA” until the poll goes away, at least for the next few days. Listen to the candidates, listen to their words, listen to their advocates’ speeches and Tweets and Facebook meanderings. But for Heaven’s sake – and I almost mean that literally! – don’t just listen to the poll-bots and decide based on a perceived zig or zag trend in the polls cited. Lemming-like voters are why we’re in the current mess with Chairman Zero, and counter-lemmingness (I should trade mark that!) isn’t going to help us.

IGNORE THE POLLS!!!!!

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Dissatisfying, Distressing, Dishonest…

Last week, I stumbled across other Rick Perry supporters on Twitter, and began following. However, after a very short while, one lady began to rail against Mitt Romney’s religion, publishing many things that were just simply not true about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a. “Mormons.”)

UPDATE: She’s been on Twitter, and like I said further down in this post, she’s claiming I WOULDN’T answer her questions. Absolutely untrue, as you’ll see. Screenshot (I use Twimbow.com for Twittering) for your edification:

Bothered me on two levels, at least. First, the info being spouted was right out of the Anti-Mormon playbook, (and believe me, there *IS* one!), and I couldn’t let it go unchallenged. Second, as a member of the LDS Church, I was concerned that such ignorance might be tempered by a (hopefully) “voice of reason.”

Here’s the link to the article I posted: Link to Mormon article.

Last evening, the person who was publishing the false info got the chance to read it, and a Twitter conversation ensued (Format, spelling, punctuation and chronology preserved; also, her Tweets are in yellow to distinguish from mine in white):

Her: hey Dan I tried to read your blog on Mormon/twitter said not available?canyou post it again? would like to read it

Me: http://www.sassafrassin.com/2012/01/05/addressing-the-mormon-question/

Her: thankUDan4info/forst let me just say I dont have a religion I have a relationship with JESUS CHRIST MY SAVIOUR/Dan answer these questionspls

Her: Is your jesus the brother of Lucifer? is ur Jesus GODin the flesh IS HE GOD? did God have sex witha Goddess&hve 2 children Jesus&Lucifer

Her: can you recieve Salvation thru Joe Smith? pls answer these truthfully as u know it to be tru

Me: do you have an email address. 140 chars cannot do the subject justice. Glad to answer, just not in this format, OK?

Her: danI am so sorry but I just have been on here 4 weeks really dont want to give email out until iget to know person I am talking to/hope u understand an will answer the questions if not I understand

Me: Caution: Don’t build from the roof down. All who’ve ever lived are children of Our Heavenly Father.

Her: I know God created each an every one of us/then he gave us a free will to choose/& many believe in false Gods/u dont want to answer the ?

Me: Jesus Christ was the First Born of Heavenly Father. Lucifer, too, is a child of God, but after war in heaven, 1/3 of heavenly host fell, too.

Her: I understand why/I dont mean to disrespect you but your God is not the same as the God of the Bible tht 80% of americans know/just isnt nBible

Me: If there is a Heavenly Father, doesn’t it make sense there’s a Heavenly Mother, too?

Her: its all U know u were raised with it iam sure an when you build that house you start with a strong foundation U hve your layout URplanBIBLE

Me: Joseph Smith was just a man, a prophet like any other prophet. Not a “god”, not an instrument of salvation.

Her: no there is no heavenly mother there is only GOD he sent himself in the flesh JESUS CHRIST the Son to DIE 4 us so WE have a choice to choose

Her:: butin the book of Mormon in order for Salvation u must believe In Joe smith just yes or no very simple?

Me: Mormons use the Bible, too. King James Version. But we believe that in the 1800 years between Christ’s time on eart and Joseph Smith, many parts of the original scriptures were lost or changed. “Mormonism” is a restoration of the church as it was originally established by Jesus Christ.

Her: see Dan Mormons dontwant to answer the questions they want to skirt around it because it is not the same GOD JESUS CHRIST of the BIBLE

Me: See, this format is totally inadequate. I wish I could communicate in a longer format. My email is

Me: hi – If you set up a temp yahoo our hotmail account, I could do a better job of presenting info.

Her: if you were in court an asked a ? u would have 2 answer yes that true not its not/thats what Iam asking you to do yet I cannot get tht fromU

Her: not really bad format simple questions yes or no answers dont want explain just yes or no please

Her: an Dan know this I have many friends who R Mormon best ppl in the world great family ppl workers so please dont think I am against Mormons

Her: just dont want one as my POTUS they can do anything else but not president

Me: I’m glad to answer them, but these are not questions framed for a simple yes or no. And you seem to not be interested in gaining knowledge of LDS theology, but wish to limit my ability to answer your improperly framed questions.

Her: do not want a JEW which I am by the way but I am a JEW who knows who the TRUE MESSIAH IS JESUS CHRIST/dont want a Muslim either

Me: hi – My answers, I suspect, would not satisfy you, unless they confirmed your preconceived notions.

Me: Tell you what. I have to sleep for work tonight, and work until 3 pm, but if you’d like to call me and see/hear answers, my cell is . Call me on Sunday afternoon if you’d like.

Me: hi – I actually wasn’t raised in the Church, and only ready started studying/praying at age 30 our so. I’m 51 now. Just Fyi.

Me: hi – Just a frame of reference.

Me: hi -Also have some Biblical references for you, to illustrate or support my argument, if you’d be interested.

Her: Dan the factyou refuse to answer thos simple questions tells me all I need 2 know/I already know the answer I have read I have discussed

Her: all I want you to know is that is NOT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE JESUS was not the brother of LUCIFER/Jesus Christ is GOD in the flesh

Me: I don’t refuse to answer you, in fact have made two avenues available for better communication. But, yes or no is wholly inadequate. 140 characters is wholly inadequate.

Her: and the ONLY unforgivable SIN is2 deny who HE IS/the only way2 ETERNITY is thru the SON/u wont be a GOD u wont have ur own planet&goddesses

Me: Choice is yours, but TRUTHFULLY, if you had to swear before a judge, could you honestly say you allowed me to answer? THAT is a yes or no question…

Me: You come to the “discussion” with preconceived notions, and any answer I give only serves to reinforce those. If we were to have a true discussion, you might be interested in hearing exactly what the point of view is.

Me: This, I’m afraid, is not a great result for intellectual understanding, but that poossibly wasn’t the goal. If you’d like to truly discuss it, email or call. I won’t bite, I promise!

Me: And if nothing else, if you truly seek to understand, by all means ask your Mormon friends. They won’t bite either. James 5 is also a resource, as I said in my post.

Constraints, and Proffered Remedies

I knew Twitter wasn’t going to work, but tried it anyway, thinking, “Any discussion better than no discussion!” One hundred forty characters isn’t a good format.

Second, the lady wanted only “yes” or “no” answers, and that wasn’t good. It was a pure dilemma: The ill-formed questions meant I was damned if I did, damned if I didn’t. There was simply no good way to answer. If I said, “Yes,” then I’d be technically correct, but also confirmed her erroneous, preconceived notions. If I said, “No,” then I would not have been correct, but that’s not what was expected according to her preconceived notions, so my answer was rejected as not legitimate. Theological or philosophical answer just cannot be boiled down into one-word answers. I was stupid for trying! ;)

Also gives her the opportunity to say, “Well he wouldn’t answer me!” Not true. (See the UPDATE at the top of the page!)

And I did offer two avenues for expanded conversation, (email and phone.) These were rejected, as you can see. Can’t hold a decent discussion on things when one side insists on simplistic answers and refuses to engage in expanded dialogue.

Lessons learned? As above, won’t be using Twitter for deep discussions. The medium is simply not up to the task.

I will also “call” her on her wild errors from here on out, and offer a path to further, expanded discussion, if she’ll take it. (Doubtful.) I’ll also make it perfectly clear that others can engage me in conversation as well, if any have questions. I will provide in-depth answers to any/all who are sincerely interested in expanding their knowledge. (And I, too, look forward to learning things in any conversations! Good ol’ Give n’ Take!)

I will also probably feel a little sad that someone continues in ignorance when truth is laid out as a banquet to be had for free. As I’ve heard it said, “Ignorance isn’t stupidity, but choosing to remain ignorant is.”

Finally, because this stuff is cool to think about, I’ll just ask an Armchair Philosopher-type question:

When you have a held truth, and new information comes along that may supplant it, what is your obligation to the truth that you hold, and the truth that may supplant it?

Posted in Religion | Leave a comment

Left vs. Right: An Illustration

Much has been made about two Liberal/Leftist “personalities” mocking GOP candidate Rick Santorum’s handling of the death of their infant boy, Gabriel, who was born prematurely and died just two hours after entering the world. The “personalities” referred to are the execrable Alan Colmes and the odious Eugene Robinson.

Jeffrey Goldberg, writing on Atlantic web site, included an update that, to me, perfectly illustrates the moral chasm separating the Left from the right:

UPDATE: People write in with the strangest observations and questions. The following e-mail is representative of a few that I have just received:

Answer this question honestly, Mr. Goldberg, are you freakish enough to bring a dead body home to house to sit with it and show it to your children? That’s what Santorum did. I just don’t believe you would do this. I think you’re just too sympathetic to the anti-abortionists.

See, to the Left the baby is just an “IT” or a “DEAD BODY.” Nothing more. In their culture of death, they have to dehumanize it, or they run the risk of shedding light on the true nature of their abortion practices.

But on the Right, the baby was “Gabriel,” a loved and cherished member of the family, a son and a brother who never had the chance to know his family here on Earth.

Stark difference, and one worth noting.

HT: Jim Treacher, via Twitter (@jtLOL)

Posted in Philosophy | Leave a comment

“Fairness” at the Trough

I generally part ways with Ayn Rand over her insistence that religion and religious thinking have no place in lives and livelihoods. The 60+-page diatribe of John Galt in Atlas Shrugged lashes out at religious thinking pretty heavily, and my eyes usually glaze over about that time. (Read Atlas seven times, and it’s the same every time, except the first, when I didn’t know any better.)

But I do like the A = A concept, which, to be sure, Ayn Rand didn’t come up with, but Aristotle. That Objective standard should be the basis for government decision-making.

But it’s not. We get “Fairness,” which is why we have “Gub’mint.” (Please pronounce “Gub’mint” as you’d imagine Foghorn Leghorn would, with all the conniving connotation of a carpetbagger.)

What is objective about “fairness?” NOTHING! One man’s “enough” is a second man’s “too little,” and a third’s “too much.”

Ever notice how Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid never will explain just how much is “fair” when asked to objectify/quantify their demands for it?

This leads us to the situation where we’re ripe for class warfare, and demagoguery by any silver-tongued devil. (Ring a bell with anyone?) It also leads to, as Ms. Rand described it, a situation where a man “hates anyone with a dollar more than him, and fears anyone with a dollar less.”

Call upon our leaders in the White House and Congress to ditch “fairness” at the earliest possible time, and start using objective measurements!

Posted in Philosophy, Politics | Leave a comment

Before You Get Too Giddy…

The December Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Unemployment Numbers were released today. Everybody – especially Obamunists and the MSM (but I repeat myself!) – are giddy that it shows unemployment at 8.5 percent, which is apparently down from the level of 8.9 percent in November.

So, for the next month or so – until “adjustments” are made, as they always are! – we get to hear what a great job Obama is doing.

Not so fast, kiddies!

Keep in mind that the 8.5 percent is based on the size of the labor force, which has been shrinking as more and more people “give up” looking for work.” Yep, Boys n’ Girls, some people who have not been able to find a job after 99 weeks of unemployment sometimes simply give up looking, and “drop out” of the labor force. At that point, they are no longer counted.

Another factor which I’ve been pointing out all morning is we have this little occurrence every year, a little thing we like to call “The Holidays.” That – unlike the current gobbledygook of Federal Gub’mint uncertainty, is something we can actually count on, so businesses like retailers and shippers and warehousers feel somewhat secure in hiring extra help during that time. Probably won’t be keeping them on past January 1st or so, because who knows what kind of new dumbassery and nincompoopery will emanate from Washington in the next few months. (Payroll Tax Cut Adjustments ring a bell, anyone? How ’bout ObamaCare mandates that may or may not be repealed?)

Businesses are unsure of what Washington will do, so they’re hunkering down and protecting what they have, and not venturing out much entrepreneurially. (Spell Check says that’s not a word, but you know what I mean!)

But they CAN count on Christmas and New Year, so we see a down-trend in unemployment.

Prediction: Look for the unemployment numbers to rise again for January, as seasonal types take a hike from gainful employment, unless Obama makes some decisions to ease regulations (fat chance!) or Republicans in Congress take extraordinary measures (even fatter chance, with the Senate in Democrat Dingy Harry’s hands.)

Sad. That’s why we need to elect a conservative President and back him up with a Conservative House and Senate, so we can restore confidence in our economy. Lower taxes, deregulate, and get the economy running again! Give businesses something beside the Holidays to count on!

Posted in Business, Politics | Leave a comment

Addressing the Mormon Question

I love the passion of Twitter, and the people I follow in the short month or so I’ve been on have some of the highest passion levels I’ve ever seen. However, one Tweeper raised some questions about Mitt Romney’s – and by extension, Jon Huntsman’s and, by further extension, my – religion. Things have been said which are not at all true, in an attempt to steer people toward one thing or away from others.

I wanted to chime in with a couple of observations that I have come across in my years of study, to help, if I can, temper the debate on Mormonism in the public spotlight.

The Usual Caveats

As I’ve stated before, I won’t ARGUE religion with anyone. I WILL discuss it, but I am old enough and (possibly) wise enough to realize that there is a good likelihood that your view and mine may never meet. BUT, that said, if I can contribute to an understanding of the perspective that each of us brings to the discussion, that is important to me. I think of it as the “metaphysics” of the discussion, which to me is an interesting – and often overlooked – aspect of the discussion. Let’s find out if we come to the discussion from a common perspective, and then the ensuing discussion may be much more fruitful in terms of understanding each other.

As always, I don’t hold myself up as any paragon of virtue, and I don’t pretend to speak for the Church as a whole. That said, let’s get started.

Building a House From the Roof Down

You’d laugh at me if I climbed up on a ladder, held a roof shingle up as high as I could in the air, declared loudly that I am about to build a house, then let go. We would all watch in amusement as the shingle unceremoniously fell to the ground.

That’s what happens when you try to build a house from the roof down.

Some people approach Mormonism the same way. They throw out what to them is a grandiose claim of Mormonism, and because it’s so (to them) apparently outrageous, they watch it thud to the ground, and they satisfy themselves that they’ve disproved the religion, based on trying to build it from the roof down.

I’ve studied the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – the “Mormons” – for a whole lotta years. Like I said, I don’t hold myself up as any paragon of virtue, and I don’t pretend to speak for the Church as a whole, but I do have my own experiences and convictions, honestly arrived at, that are not so easily dismissed. I have built the ediface of my faith from the ground up, line upon line, precept upon precept, and I have arrived at a point where, to me, it makes sense and I live by it.

I would challenge you to try the same. As it says in James 1:5-8:

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Uncle Joe’s Journals

A lot of people say that the God of the Bible and the God of the Mormons is different, and therefore Mormonism is wrong.

First, a statement: The God of the Old and New Testaments is the same God that we members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worship.

Many think that because Mormons use the Book of Mormon that the same God claim cannot possibly be made. Why is that?

In broad brush strokes, here is the story of the Book of Mormon: About 600 years before Christ’s appearance, Israel was in chaos. Jeremiah and other prophets wandered the land, agonizing over the fallen state of the nation. God spoke to one man, Lehi was his name, and told him to take his family away from Jerusalem, and flee. God led them ultimately to a new land – America – and the Book of Mormon is their record of their faith. The record contains testament that Jesus Christ – the same who was crucified in Jerusalem and rose again – visited the descendants of Lehi in the New World. On the cover of the Book of Mormon is inscribed “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” (Some whose intents are not so pure often intentionally misquote this as “A Testament of Another Jesus Christ” – and help fuel the fire of ignorance.) The Book of Mormon spans the time period from approximately 600 B.C. to 400 A.D.

Is such a thing possible? Would God lead people away from danger, and would they keep a record of their journeys, their faith and the historical happenings?

The Bible itself tells us in Isaiah 29: 4, 11-18:

4 And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.

[...]

11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:

12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

15 Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?

16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

17 Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest?

18 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.

Mormons see that as a prophesy of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

One last quote, for those who are tempted to say that God would never do that, from Isaiah 55: 8-9:

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

And another, from Matthew 19: 26:

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

One more, from Mark 10: 27:

27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

Now, a parable, and a question.

Suppose we have a relative in common, Uncle Joe. We know of Uncle Joe through stories and tales passed to us from relatives at every family gathering.

Suppose in an attic I find an old journal by a contemporary of Uncle Joe’s. In it, he describes many of the historical facts and thoughts and feelings and experiences Uncle Joe had, and from it, I get a better picture of Uncle Joe.

Question: Is the Uncle Joe of story and family myth the same Uncle Joe of the journal? In the same light, I would say that the God of the Old and New Testaments is the same God of the Book of Mormon. Jesus Christ – same. As a Mormon, I just have more to work with.

To End, an Old Joke as an Illustration

There is a thought that all Christian churches are united in the “body of Christ,” and all Christians have a monolithic belief. Mormons are generally excluded from this by people who conveniently overlook the many schisms and fissures in the realm of “Christianity.

In refutation, I would first point to just a handful of the the disagreements extant in “Christianity” today: Pope or No Pope? Baptism by sprinkling or immersion? Baptism for infants, or not? Revelation possible today, or Heavens are sealed?

Based on the many doctrinal discords, which church is right? They can’t all be right, right? Matthew 7: 14 points us in the right direction:

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

The many doctrinal differences do matter. To illustrate, an old joke for ya:

A man was standing on a bridge, clutching the truss, obviously preparing to end it all by jumping into the icy, black water below.

Another man approached, and shouted, “Wait! Don’t jump! There is always hope!”

“Yeah, what do you know about it?” the would-be jumper asked.

“I know God lives!” said the second man.

“Oh? You’re a Christian? Me, too.”

“Thank, God, brother!” said the helpful man. “I’m a Baptist.”

“Me, too!” said the suddenly unsure jumper.

“Northern or Southern Convention?”

“Northern” said the man up on the bridge.

“Me, too! Evangelical or Pentecostal?’

“Evangelical,” said the more hopeful jumper.

“King James or New International?”

“King James, of course!” said the man up on the bridge.

“Church of God or Body of Christ?”

“Body of Christ.”

“First or Second Synod?”

“Second,” said the jumper.

“HERETIC!” screamed the man on the ground, and pushed the other guy off.

I hope you had a chuckle there, and – throughout this essay – I hope you gained some insights as to Mormonism, or at least how you might go about finding out the truth, for yourself. There are always those pairs of guys in white shirts and suits with nametags riding bikes or walking through neighborhoods (a.k.a. Missionaries) and web sites, and, at the very least, I would hope that you would first of all ask a Mormon if you have questions, (my email is dan at sassafrassin dot com, if you feel so inclined.)

Keep the passion, but proceed with truth!

Posted in Religion | Leave a comment

Why I Hate Obamunism

For the record, here’s an alphabetical list of the “isms” that I despise:

  • Authoritarianism
  • Collectivism
  • Communism
  • Fascism
  • Marxism (Marxism/Leninism)
  • Maoism
  • Obamunism – That this fits so nicely into the cavalcade of isms is remarkable.
  • Oligarchism
  • Socialism
  • Stalinism
  • Statism
  • Totalitarianism

My dislike stems from a number of sources, two of which I’ll detail here. The intent is not to “convert” you or start any huge theosophical arguments, but to let you know where I’m coming from.

Two caveats: I will NOT engage in any arguments over religion. I have mine, you have yours, and possibly, nary the twain shall meet. I will DISCUSS religion at any time with anyone, but I won’t ARGUE it.

Second, I caution you to not “build a house from the roof down.” I’ve heard it said that most religions contain tenets that sound way-out wacky when they’re just thrown out there, and my religion is no different. BUT, I have built the House of My Personal Faith from the foundation up, not the roof down. I have reached my present religious views after years of study, prayer and earnest discussions with others, and I’m metaphysically “here” because of that investment in time, line upon line, precept upon precept. If you start constructing a house from the roof down, instead of the foundation up, it’ll never stand. So, what I’ll say may appear outlandish and absurd, but I realize I’m approaching it from a perspective quite likely vastly different from that of any readers out there.

OK, time to get started.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or if you prefer, a “Mormon.” What I will say is not any official Church-authorized pronouncement, and I do not speak for the Church as a whole. Still, what I have to say is doctrinally sound.

Mormons believe that we all lived in Heaven before we came to Earth, in a state called the Pre-existence. There, we were presented with two plans for our lives. One, presented by Jesus Christ, that all would be given freedom to choose, and life would be a test, with the successful participants returning to Heaven, and all glory would go to Heavenly Father. The second, presented by Lucifer (a.k.a. Satan), to have each and every person be forced to return to Heaven, under Lucifer’s guidance and coersion, so that not one soul would be lost, but all glory would go to Lucifer.

A war was fought, with the two-thirds who supported Jesus Christ’s plan winning over the one-third who supported Lucifer’s plan. The followers of Jesus Christ were all given the opportunity to come to Earth, to gain physical bodies and live lives according to faith, and hopefully to return to Heaven at the end. The one-third who followed Lucifer were not allowed to come to Earth. But Lucifer is allowed to influence men, so that they may exercise their Free Agency, and show that they can make the good and correct choices.

More to it than that, but through these broad brush strokes, I have attempted to paint for you the major reason behind my aversion to force and coersion, especially as applied in the last two centuries. (Side note: It’s also why I have an aversion to “The Borg” and other sci-fi manifestations of the same metaphysical concept of “group-think” or mindless obedience. I value my mind, so I value the ability to, inasmuch as I am able, choose for myself.)

Enough theology at this point. Let’s go temporal for a while. In a long-ago time, I was in love with this girl, and wanting to please her I read some of the books she recommended. One book was by Madeline L’Engle, A Wrinkle In Time. (More info from Wikipedia here)

From the Wikipedia article:

“The children travel to Camazotz to rescue Meg’s father. They find that all the inhabitants behave in a mechanistic way and seem to be all under the control of a single mind.”

I believe there was a description of one of the characters observing the inhabitants going to work. The observer watches a street, and at exactly the same time, the doors open, the men march out in lock-step formation, open their car doors in unison, and drive off in a nice, neat orderly procession. The description, as I remember it, was eerie, and foreign, and alien. I disliked it immensely.

I’ve also read a good deal of Russian authors, like Solzhenitsyn, and know quite a bit about life in the Soviet Union. I was a Russian and Polish linguist in the U.S. Air Force, and I studied the history and culture of “the enemy.” I know the horrors people describe, and I know the dangers of “cult of personality” and “group think” and “the collective.” I’ve read and studied enough to know how it unfolded in Russia, and when I see the same things start to occur here, I feel I must speak out. When I see groups of school kids mindlessly chanting the praises of Obama, I get concerned. When I see anarchists and the Communist Party of the USA stake out claims in the Occupy Wall Street camps, I get a little concerned. When I see our Dear Leader ignore the Constitution, and start to issue “edicts” to bypass Congress, and set up extra-governmental agencies and unelected “czars,” I get a LOT concerned.

So there you have it: A little essay on why the current state of affairs in the United States drives me crazy. I don’t dislike Obama because of his skin color, I dislike him because of the ideas he espouses. Hope you learned something, and if nothing else, will understand a little more of where I’m coming from.

Posted in History, Philosophy, Politics, Religion | Leave a comment

Battle Plan

Getting To The Romney vs. Perry Battle Conservatives Need

Yes! This is how it will eventually shake out, I believe, so we must prep now for the long haul ahead.

Or as Dan Riehl put it:

And that leaves Perry. There is about a two month lag between Iowa and Super Tuesday. Perry has managed to regain his footing, put in acceptable performances in the last few debates and has slowly begun to rise, again. He is also the only viable competitor to Romney with enough money in the bank to hang around. If you believe, as I do, that Mitt Romney is not at all instinctually conservative and will only play ball, giving us Republican politics as usual if he makes it to the White House, then Perry must become conservatives last best hope to hold off a Romney nomination.

Think of the primary in terms of three parts. After the early states, the GOP establishment will be doing everything it can to sell the notion that Romney has the thing locked up. That won’t be true and will only become true if conservatives accept it. We must not fall into that trap.

[...]

There will be some give and take during what I’ll call stage 2 – see below. What must happen as things shake out is for the other competitors to fall away, leaving Perry as the last not fully DC establishment candidate remaining to oppose Mitt. This is the period during which conservatives must continue to come together and consolidate around Perry as the not-Mitt candiate, if you will. If we do that, the stage will be set for a head-to-head match up on Super Tuesday.

[...]

It will not be easy and is sure to be a tough, dirty fight. But if conservatives want a nominee more in line with their views, as opposed to Washington’s, then March 6 is the day to ultimately demonstrate it. Even then it will not be over. A positive is that Perry should prove to be the stronger of the two as we move on into the South. The way the schedule plays out, it could very well be a seesaw battle.

But if we can pull this off, conservatives will finally have the fight they want and also be in a position to win it. As a conservative, this is the best case scenario I can envision playing out. But we cannot give up early, or easily. Obviously, Texas Governor Rick Perry and his team must do their part, as well. Barring that, it will be Mitt and quite likely what Hillsdale College History Professor Paul Rahe recently called “just another bump in the long, gentle road leading us to soft despotism” given a Romney nomination and potential victory in 2012.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Hey! Good Luck With That!

Iran boasts of surveillance of aircraft carrier and claims U.S. ‘is not in a position’ to prevent blockage of major shipping lane

Q: What does the U.S. Navy call the ships of the Iranian Navy?
A: Targets.

Also, when you see the article above, you will note the BIG ship and the MANY planes. It is relatively easy to photograph a carrier. It is altogether a vastly different proposition to take one on.

But, hey! Good luck with that, Iranians!

Posted in General | Leave a comment