This site has been down for quite some time – again, not sure why – but I haven’t been concerned, because I’m not really posting here anymore. Please come visit me at Canonizer.com if you want to see what I’m doing these days.

Thanks!

So this blog has been down for a bit, and I’m not sure why. I’ve been told I’ve been under attack from people upset by my updated CES Letter Reply, although I think it’s probably more mundane than that. A simple database repair got it up and running. I’m now working on Canonizer.com, and my updated reply can be found over there. 

I admit I have neglected this site as of late, and most of my new stuff will be written over there. At the same time, I will be updating this site on occasion, and I want to keep it online as a repository for everything I’ve written thus far. There’s well over a million words of nonsense here, and I don’t want that to disappear into the ether.

Anyway, thanks for your patience, and I look forward to interacting with you either here, at Canonizer, with Dinner Table Politics, or anywhere else I may find myself in 2019.

The latest episode of Dinner Table Politics is online!

The Democrats are poised to ride the “Blue Wave” to retake Congress, but is there a 2016-style upset in the making? Abby and Jim discuss the biggest political surprises in history, notably the hanging chads of Bush v. Gore, and how that relates to one of Abby’s favorite episodes of “How I Met Your Mother.” Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, and Rutherford B. Hayes all play a part in the drama, even though Abby does not have a poster of Rutherford B. Hayes hanging on her wall.

Download the episode here.

Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

______________

Several weeks have not been posted on this blog. That ends NOW!!

Click here to listen to the podcast about Utah’s ballot propositions.

Click here to listen to the podcast about surviving the Kavanaugh mess.

Click here to listen to the podcast about presidential responses to natural disasters.

And, again, subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

The latest episode of Dinner Table Politics is online!

The accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh prompt Abby and Jim’s discussion about scandals past and present, including Clarence Thomas, Bill Clinton, and presidents stretching all the way back to George Washington. Kennedy, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Jefferson – even Washington himself were all subjects of salacious rumors, many of which turned out to be facts.

When scandal arises, why does who you vote for impact who you believe? What was Gloria Steinem’s “One Free Grope” rule? And, on a less important note, what is the proper way to pronounce “harassment?”

Download the episode here.

Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.


_________

Also, if you missed last week’s episode, here it is:

Abby and Jim asked who was the “Senior Trump Official” that wrote the anonymous Op-Ed in last week’s New York Times? We review the list of suspects, including Jon Huntsman, Jr., Larry Kudlow, Mike Pence, Kellyanne Conway, and Melania Trump. (It probably wasn’t Melania Trump.)

Also, are we living in a computer simulation? Elon Musk says yes, but Abby only says maybe.

Download last week’s episode here.

Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.

The latest episode of Dinner Table Politics is online!

Fresh from her internship in Malawi, Eliza returns to Dinner Table Politics to discuss how gender roles affect income and education, as well as other things she learned on the other side of the world. (Spoiler alert: It seems Trump has fans in Africa, too!)

Jim and Eliza then discuss the events she missed here in the United States, including the Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination and whether or not he views Roe vs. Wade as “settled law.” Paul Manafort’s convictions on eight felony counts prompts an impeachment discussion, and, in the midst of the podcast recording, Michael Cohen plead guilty to eight more felonies! Could it be that Robert Mueller’s “witch hunt” is coming up with more than a few real witches?

Also, which member of the Royal Family would Eliza be willing to die for?

Download the latest episode here.

Subscribe via iTunes here.

 

“The Lord has impressed upon my mind the importance of the name he has revealed for his church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

So said President Russell M. Nelson, President of said church, the one with the unwieldy name that will never enter common parlance, because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has eleven syllables, and “Mormon” only has two.

But that’s not going to stop us from going to war against nearly two centuries of colloquial speech. “We have work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with his will,” President Nelson said. “In recent weeks, various church leaders and departments have initiated the necessary steps to do so. Additional information about this important matter will be made available in the coming months.”

That information will likely include the fate of mormon.org, the “I’m a Mormon” media campaign, and, of course, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, all of which are at the forefront of Church communications and, apparently, out of harmony with the will of the Lord. “LDS” is now verboten, too, which is a problem, as LDS.org is the LDS Church’s official website – oh, wait, I mean the official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Having invested billions of dollars to define the word “Mormon,” we will now engage in a Quixotic attempt to keep people from using a word we’ve labored to define since 1830, and which we will now try to pretend doesn’t exist.

Call me faithless if you want to, but I just don’t get it.

It’s not like we chose the label “Mormon.” It was inflicted on us by our critics, and there was no escaping it. (The same is true, incidentally for the label “Christian” in the New Testament, as Acts 11:26 makes clear.) Eventually, we embraced it, and it became part of our identity. Every attempt to purge it from who we are has failed miserably, and this latest attempt, even though it has the imprimatur of revelation and the will of the Lord, is likely to fail, too.

And now, a story.

I was serving as a Mormon missionary- pardon me, I mean a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – in Scotland back in 1989 when then-Church President Ezra Taft Benson gave a masterful talk on the evils of pride. (Actually, it was read by President Hinckley, as President Benson was too ill to address his fellow Mormon – oops, I mean his fellow members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – at the time.)

The talk was probably the most powerful message of President Benson’s entire tenure in the Church, and I recommend its contents to you without qualification. The problem was that it included the following paragraph:

In the scriptures there is no such thing as righteous pride—it is always considered a sin. Therefore, no matter how the world uses the term, we must understand how God uses the term so we can understand the language of holy writ and profit thereby.

Nothing wrong with that, right? After all, language changes considerably over the years, and how a word is used in holy writ is not always compatible with how it is used in colloquial speech. The word “charity,” for instance, is seldom used in conversation the way it is employed by Paul in the King James translation, and most modern versions of the Bible render the word as “love” instead. The fact that the scriptures don’t ever have Mosiah telling his son Ammon, “Hey, look at all those arms you cut off! I’m proud of you, kiddo!” doesn’t mean that using the word in that context is a violation of God’s will.

Or does it?

I was sitting in a sacrament meeting in Galashiels, Scotland, when a visiting member of the High Council of the local Mormon congregation – I’m so sorry, I mean the local congregation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – referenced President Benson’s talk and made it clear that the primary message he had received was the word “proud” was now not to be used in any positive context. Now when his kid came home with a good grade, or, say, he chopped off a lot of arms, he would say he was “pleased,” not “proud.”

I thought this was just one guy, but in the weeks, months, and even years to follow, I sat through scores of sermons where “pleased” became the preferred synonym for “proud.” It wasn’t until 2010 – 21 years later! – when Dieter Uchtdorf made me pleased to say “proud” again.

“For a while it almost became taboo among Church members to say that they were “proud” of their children or their country or that they took “pride” in their work,” President Uchtdorf said. “The very word pride seemed to become an outcast in our vocabulary.”

Gee, ya think? But then President Uchtdorf set the record straight:

I believe there is a difference between being proud of certain things and being prideful. I am proud of many things. I am proud of my wife. I am proud of our children and grandchildren.

I am proud of the youth of the Church, and I rejoice in their goodness. I am proud of you, my dear and faithful brethren. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with you as a bearer of the holy priesthood of God.

He was also the first member of the First Presidency to admit to drinking Diet Coke. Bless him.

The “proud” taboo, however, was largely due to a misunderstanding of a prophet’s intent, not a direct prophetic decree. President Nelson seems quite serious about this, and I fully expect we’re going to hear about this in October as we devote a great deal of time and energy to undo centuries of prophets lauding Mormons, Mormonism, LDS stuff, and all the shibboleths we’re no longer supposed to say.

I fear a worst case scenario where this becomes the central focus of our attention, and the dawn of a sort of pharisaical uneasiness where anyone who slips up and says “Mormon” will be judged as being critical of the prophet. But the word has too much history and is too easy to use for the world to comply, and eventually, maybe 21 years later, an apostle will call himself a Mormon in a Conference talk, and it will all be over.

Or maybe not. Another thought comes to mind.

Mormons – what am I thinking? I mean members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – conduct official business under the authority of what’s commonly called the “Melchizedek Priesthood.” But as D&C 107 makes clear, that’s not what it’s actually called.

1 There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.

2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.

4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

So, to summarize, to avoid frequent repetition of the name of Deity, they chose to give the most important priesthood that had a long, unwieldy name a nickname instead, referencing a great prophet whose moniker also coincidentally began with an M.

Aren’t we making precisely the opposite move here?

The more I think about this, the more frustrating it is. We’ve already spent a whole lot of your tithing dollars on the word Mormon – if this was upsetting to the Almighty, it would have been nice to know that prior to buying so much network TV time. And now we’re going to spend millions of dollars to try to go to war against two centuries of colloquial speech?

And this is the most pressing issue facing the Church today?

Now don’t get me wrong. I have learned that “sustain” does not mean “agree,” and I sustain President Nelson and will do my best to comply with his plan here, even though I think it is more than a little goofy. I just worry that the imprimatur of revelation – “the Lord has impressed upon my mind” – is likely to try the faith of many who will become discouraged when the word “Mormon” refuses to conveniently slide down the memory hole.

We’re being set up for failure. Because no matter how many times we say The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – too frequent repetition of the Lord’s name, anyone? – the fact remains that “Mormon” isn’t going to go away. And I hope we don’t have to wait 21 years to realize that.

This is the first episode of Dinner Table Politics that has been formatted specifically for radio, with the possibility of being broadcast on KSL! Stay tuned for more details as they become available.

Abby and Jim, fresh from a visit to London and France, discuss the history of the British crown and the differences between the governments of the USA and the UK.  Learn why Oliver Cromwell was the LeBron James of his day and whether or not Winnie the Pooh was named after Winston Churchill.

Many questions: would America be better if Donald Trump were only the head of state, not head of government? (Or vice versa?) Why does D-Day still matter over seven decades after the fact? And is Disney’s animated Robin Hood movie historically accurate?

Download the latest episode here.

Subscribe via iTunes here.

The latest episode of Dinner Table Politics is online!

Jim and Abby discuss free speech, most notably how expensive it is. A political attack from 1800 comes under scrutiny, as does the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

Plus: should James Gunn be rehired as the Guardians of the Galaxy director? Why can’t we go back to the moon? (Hint: It’s a wardrobe problem.) And is the best proof that no alien life exists the fact that none of it has tried to contact us?

Download the latest episode here.

Subscribe via iTunes here.

The latest episode of Dinner Table Politics is online!

Abby and Jim ask the question: Is Bernie Sanders’s “Medicare for All!” proposal a good idea? (Spoiler alert: no.)

Also, Bob Woodward’s latest book calls to mind “Bobby B’s” Watergate history, and Sacha Baron Cohen’s “Who Is America?” comes under fire for helping to create the divisions it seeks to expose.

Plus – Arthur the Aardvark’s sister D.W. needs to tell us what her initials stand for, and a White House version of The Bachelor is an idea whose time has come.

Download the latest episode here.

Subscribe via iTunes here.