Variation and Evolution in Latter-day Family Doctrine

Here is a paper I have just written for my School of Family Life Class. What a pain, but it was fun doing the research.
____________________

The LDS document, The Family: A Proclamation to the World, states that “the family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother...” However, it would be incorrect to conclude that this doctrine’s [1] eternal nature means that it cannot accommodate variation. The history of the Church demonstrates that the Mormon doctrine of family has undergone an evolution impressive in its breadth. The idea of family, both in doctrine and praxis, has been applied in such varied forms that outliers at either end of the spectrum are scarcely reconcilable as belonging to the same religion.


The Family as Central to Mormonism

As a Utah sociologist commented over half a century ago, “Society in both the Book of Mormon and Old Testament is conceived as an extended kinship group. All members thought of themselves as descended from a common ancestor.” [2] This view has deep resonance within the belief and practice of Latter-day Saints. From focus on genealogy and temple sealings to the commandment to hold Family Home Evenings, LDS members are steeped in a culture of family.

It is no surprise, then, that the ward is considered an extended family unit; the Bishop is often referred to as the “Father of the ward.” So too, the priesthood is thought of as inherently “Patriarchal,” and in rituals that offer Mormons a lens through which to view the world and all of life, they are powerfully reminded of the charge given to Adam and Eve to “multiply and replenish the earth.” However, the family, as currently understood, was not the initial model adopted by Latter-day Saints in the turbulent beginnings of the Nineteenth Century.


An Early Focus

The world in which the Church was restored was an unsettled one. The industrial revolution was beginning to force drastic change in society. Commenting on the predicament of the early Saints, sociologist O. Kendall White states:

The instability in their personal, family, and social lives was reflected in their fear that changes in the agrarian extended family portended extensive social disintegration. [They] failed to recognize the rise of the nuclear family as a form of kinship more compatible with [...] market forces, separation of work from the household, and the necessity of geographic mobility. [3]

Indeed, contrary to modern LDS family custom, the nascent Mormon ideology allowed the early Saints to resist the “trend toward the nuclear family,” presented as the model for Saints today.

The early Saints instead participated in a working theology that attempted to bring about the city of God, or Zion––a society that bridged the gaps between any individual families, and, more radically, between the living and the dead. In a sometimes violently changing world, nothing gave them “more [permanence] than the family.” [4]


Kirtland

It is during the Church’s Ohio period that one can observe the first major departure from the familial/marital norms of the day. It is likely that Joseph Smith’s first polygamist relationship took place sometime between 1831 and 1835, when he became involved with a young woman called Fanny Alger. (She would have been between 14 and 19 in this period.) It is difficult to ascertain the facts precisely, due to “conflicting accounts.” [5]

Todd Compton suggests that Joseph began to practice polygamy (in this case, with Fanny) about 1833, ten years before the revelation on polygamy was written and promulgated. Their relationship was short-lived; in 1836 Alger left for Indiana, where she remarried and bore her new husband nine children. [6]

Evidently, this relationship was shocking to contemporary sensibilities. Oliver Cowdery referred to it as a “dirty, nasty, filthy affair.” It was for this comment and others on the subject that he was excommunicated. Joseph Smith was very careful before the excommunication proceedings that Cowdery should clarify that Joseph had never “termed the Alger affair adulterous,” though he did not deny that he had a relationship with the girl. [7]

In the mid-1870’s, Martin Harris gave an interview, during the course of which he said that he,

[...] supposing that Joe was innocent [of the rumors about the Alger relationship], told him to take no notice of the girl, that she was full of the devil [...] but Joe Smith acknowledged that there was more truth than poetry in what the girl said. Harris then said he would have nothing to do in the matter, Smith could get out of the trouble the best way he knew how. [8]

Harris went on to explain that he believed that “God had rejected” the church, though he did feel “Mormonism was the pure gospel of Christ when it was first revealed.” The extent to which he thought the Alger affair entered into God’s rejection of the Saints remains unclear.

It seems unlikely that the truth of Joseph’s relationship with Alger was widely known within the body of the Saints, though they were doubtless aware of rumors (which concerned not only the Prophet, but the entire community). Perhaps in an attempt to quell such gossip, the body of the church canonized a “Chapter of Rules for Marriage Among the Saints”:

Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.

This section was appended to the end of the Doctrine and Covenants, though it is no longer found in the standard works, having become “obsolete” when the Church, in 1852, declared that it “had been practicing plural marriage [officially] for nearly a decade.” [9]

In any case, this relationship, sensational though it may seem to the modern reader, presaged more transgressions of Victorian social mores, as the Saints continued to build a culture steeped in their unique view of the scriptures.


Nauvoo

Polygamy continued during the years the Saints spent in Nauvoo. In a period of two and a half years, “Joseph married about thirty additional women, ten [10] of them already married to other men[!]” [11] (There are eight further wives who are disputed, and only one of these was unquestionably married to another man at the time.) What can explain or justify this strange, and––to the the 21st Century mind––highly objectionable practice of polyandry? [12] Several arguments have been posited:

Some have suggested that the current husbands were either non-Mormon or had apostatized. Historical evidence, however, shows that only three husbands were not Latter-day saints, and only one was a disaffected Mormon. “All other husbands were in good standing in the church at the time Joseph married their wives.” Others have opined that these ten (or eleven) women were in unhappy marriages. Actually, most of these women “stayed with their ‘first husbands’ until death.” Still others have theorized that these were marriages-in-name-only, never consummated. [13] Sylvia Sessions Lyon, however, one of the polyandrous wives, claimed that Joseph was the father of her child, Josephine Lyon Fisher. There is, of course, clear evidence that Joseph’s relationships with his other wives were in fact sexual. Further, a non-sexual marriage flies in the face of the rationale of polygamy, as will be explained. [14]

It was during this Nauvoo period that “the focus of Mormon [...] discourse shifted from the concept of salvation to that of exaltation. [...] including the imperative to achieve godhood.” [15] This notion is key to understanding these mysterious marriage arrangements. Joseph’s revelations tied the concept of godhood to progeny. If a person does not abide God’s “law, [...] they cannot be enlarged [that is, bear children in the eternities], but remain separately and singly, without exaltation [...] to all eternity.” Contrarily, those who are sealed and so marry by God’s “law” and are “sealed [...] by the Holy Spirit of promise,” will become gods, and will receive “exaltation and glory in all things [...] and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.” [16]

Even more significantly, Joseph promised to those already-married women that agreeing to marry the Prophet would “ensure [their] eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household. & all your kindred.” To the fathers of these women he promised that the union would “be crowned upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house both old and young.” [17]

This, more than any other consideration, is the material point. Joseph thought of himself and his calling in terms of kingship. In 1844, in a meeting of the Council of Fifty, Joseph was declared “King and Ruler over Israel,” and, indeed, over the whole earth. Ultimately, then, the Prophet’s marriages were dynastic in nature; he was creating a monarchical kinship structure. “Joseph’s kingdom grew with the size of his family, and those bonded to that family would be exalted with him,” including, ostensibly, his wives’ first husbands. [18]

Realizing this may begin to explain why, often, the first husbands of such a match approved. That is not to say that these marriages were without struggle. Emma Hale Smith, understandably, had a difficult time accepting plural marriage. Likely, she was able to cope by telling herself, and others, that her husband’s “plural wives were ‘celestial’ only, that he had no earthly marital relations with them.” [19] When faced with evidence to the contrary, she reacted. In an oral tradition of the Snow family, LeRoi C. Snow recounts:

...the Prophet and Emma [came] out of a room upstairs and [walked] together toward the stairway [...] Almost at the same time, [...] Eliza R. Snow [who was pregnant] came out and walked toward the [...] stairway. Joseph [...] kissed Emma goodbye, and [then] walked on to the stairway, where he tenderly kissed Eliza, and then came down the stairs [...] [A]s he reached the bottom step, there was a commotion on the stairway, and [...] Eliza came tumbling down the stairs. Emma had pushed her, in a fit of rage and jealousy; she stood at the top of the stairs, glowering, her countenance a picture of hell. [...] “Her hip was injured and [...] she always favored that leg,” said Charles C. Rich. “She lost the unborn babe.” [20]

Further Developments

After the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, the Church, under the direction of Brigham Young, continued to pursue a course regarding marriage and family that was deeply at odds with the prevailing culture. “For example, after Joseph Smith’s death, some women, who were originally sealed to him, married Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball for time. [...] [T]heir offspring [would] belong to Smith in the hereafter. Thus, Young and Kimball would contribute to Smith’s eternal progression.” [21]

It was also apparent that President Young would safeguard Brother Joseph’s familial interests in other ways. Joseph had married a woman named Zina Huntington, who, a few months earlier, had been wed to Henry Jacobs, a faithful member of the Church serving in the office of Seventy. Zina had continued to live with Jacobs, and would do so throughout the Prophet’s life. She would eventually bear Jacobs two sons. After Joseph’s death, however, she was approached by Brigham Young who told her that “‘if she would marry him she would be in a higher glory.’ [...] Zina was already sealed to Joseph Smith, so it is not clear how being sealed to Brigham for time would improve her chances for eternal salvation.” Nevertheless, she married Young for time in September 1844. As had been the practice with all of Joseph’s polyandrous wives, she continued cohabiting with her first husband, Henry, who had stood as a witness to both of Zina’s other sealings. [22]

They traveled west with the Saints, living together as husband and wife, but when the company reached Mt. Pisgah in Iowa, Brigham Young

“announced that ‘it was time for men who were walking in other men’s shoes to step out of them. Brother Jacobs, the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of Brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit.’” [23]

This announcement surely devastated Henry, who was then called by President Young on a mission to England, where he served faithfully. He later settled in California, where he wrote to Zina, now living as a plural wife of Brigham Young, “O how happy I should be if I only could see you and the little children, bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh. [...] I am unhappy, [...] there is no peace for poor me. [...] O Zina, can I ever, will I ever get you again[?]”

In a Valentine (undated) he added later:

Zina my mind never will change from Worlds without Ends, no never, the same affection is there and never can be moved[.] I do not murmur nor complain of the handlings of God no verily, no but I feel alone and no one to speak to, to call my own. I feel like a lamb without a mother [...] May the Lord our Father bless Brother Brigham and all purtains unto him forever. Tell him for me I have no feelings against him nor never had [...]

Though Henry and Zina’s story was unusual in detail, even for the time and culture within the Church, they demonstrate––painfully––the level of sacrifice and dedication required for membership in this new kingdom and culture.

The practice of polygamy was defended by various arguments on the part of Brigham Young and his fellows. One of the champions of plural marriage, George Q. Cannon, belittled the practice of monogamy saying,

[...] I wonder how man, standing up in the face of heaven, dare look at woman and talk about being her protector. Read the history of the sex and of the frightful evils which have been brought upon our sisters [...] If it were to be told to another people differently situated to us, with different traditions to us, they could not believe that intelligent man would entertain for one moment, or that women themselves, in view of what their sex has suffered, would cherish and cling to the wretched traditions [that is, monogamy] that have prevailed in Christendom [...] [24]

This rhetoric is a far cry from more current teachings about marriage, but it was not unusual for its time. In fact, a resolution approved by an assembly of Mormon women declared that polygamy was, “the only reliable safeguard of female virtue and innocence [...]” [25]

It is also interesting to note Brigham Young’s encouragement of women to pursue employment outside the home. This is another indication that the industrial-era concept of the nuclear family had not yet been assimilated by the Church. He taught that:

We have women here who [...] would make just as good mathematicians or accountants as any man; [...] We believe that women [...] should stand behind the counter, study law or physics, or become good bookkeepers and be able to do the business in any counting house [...] [26]

The Law of Adoption

One of the fascinating outgrowths of Joseph Smith’s promises regarding polyandry, was a practice that came to be known as The Law of Adoption. In Joseph’s day, the marriage of a daughter or a sister to the Prophet could guarantee one’s own salvation; it was helpful in the final reckoning to be well connected. Similarly, early Saints felt that it would be beneficial to be related to other notable priesthood leaders. As the solemnization of polyandrous marriages began to wane, this was accomplished by the practice of

adopting individuals into one’s spiritual family. Although not a literal process by which fatherless children were taken into other families, in a symbolic and religious sense that is exactly what happened. In order to complete the chain of family connections back to God the Father, grown men were spiritually adopted in a special ordinance to prominent church leaders. If the adopted man was a head of a family of wife and children, the entire family was considered linked to the earthly-spiritual father, usually an apostle [...] [A]dopted sons and families considered themselves under the dominion and protection of their surrogate father [...] often [assuming] the surname of their new father as their own, even though they themselves were grown men with children. [27]

This practice was ended by President Wilford Woodruff in April 1894. When he encouraged the Church members to begin researching their genealogy and doing temple ordinances for the ancestors in their family line. This preserved the practice of sealing, but did so within a new context, reaching across the boundary of death. [28] Here we see another shift in the Mormon understanding of family––this time, moving nearer to embracing the concept of the nuclear family. Being sealed to prominent members of the Church took a back seat to being sealed to one’s own biological ancestors. This practice reemphasizes the idea that the Saints cannot “without [their] dead[,] be made perfect.” [29] Thus salvation for Mormons is tied to relatives who may not have even been members of the Church during their lives.


The Manifesto and Aftermath

In 1890 Wilford Woodruff promulgated a document now known as The First Manifesto. This “signaled the official end of polygamy” within the Church. [30] It was a difficult issue for the Saints to face. On the one hand, “the principle” had been taught as absolutely necessary to exaltation; [31] on the other, now the major barrier preventing Utah’s gaining statehood had been hurdled. What were the members currently practicing plural marriage to do? Abraham H. Cannon recorded in his journal that President Woodruff “expected polygamists to continue to support their wives [...] this support included cohabitation.” [32]

In 1891, President Woodruff stated publicly that “the Manifesto was intended to apply to the Church [...] everywhere in every nation and country,” and that the Church was “giving no liberty to enter into polygamous relations anywhere.” Cannon noted in his journal that Wilford Woodruff had explained his statement, saying that “he was placed in a position on the witness stand [and] could not answer other than he did.” [33]

Though ended officially, the Church solemnized some few polygamous marriages for several years. This began when George Q. Cannon suggested to President Woodruff that such marriages might be performed in Mexico and Canada (ostensibly because they were legal in those countries, though, in fact, this was not the case). Joseph F. Smith later reported to Reed Smooth that the President agreed, “letting Cannon direct the new polygamy so that he [Woodruff] would not participate directly as Church President.” In 1897, the last of Woodruff’s presidency, there was a dramatic increase in these quietly authorized marriages, perhaps because Utah’s new statehood would minimize “federal interference.” [34]

During Presidency of Lorenzo Snow, there was a general reaffirmation of the Manifesto. As a result, new polygamous marriages nearly ceased. However, during the tenure of Joseph F. Smith, the practice experienced a resurgence, with his approval. Admittedly, the President had to walk a fine line. In 1904, during the Smoot hearings, he said that from the time the manifesto was introduced “there never [had] been, to [his] knowledge, a plural marriage performed with the understanding [...] or permission of the presiding authorities of the church [...]” However, in 1911, in a telegram to the then-Senator Smoot he wrote: “If the president inquires about the new polygamy tell him the truth [...] the men occupying presiding positions who became polygamists [in Mexico and Canada] since the manifesto did it in good faith.” [35]

This change in the Church’s official attitude signaled another decisive shift in the direction of the nuclear family. (Though it is appropriate that plural marriage, a practice begun in secrecy, should end that way.) By the end of Joseph F. Smith’s presidency, polygamous marriages had ceased being solemnized with the sanction of the Church, and Mormonism was moving in a direction that would win it widespread approbation.


The Modern Era and Beyond

As the Church continued to move into the 20th Century, public opinion began to look brighter. Jan Shipps has written that a new “positive trend in the Mormon image” began in the 1930’s and eventually began to replace the backward, negative impression that had characterized most “gentile” press until that point. The “scattering of the gathering” also helped non-members to see that Latter-day Saints were not a threatening element to society, as Mormons moved away from Utah and rubbed shoulders with their non-Mormon neighbors. [36]

This tendency also likely had an effect on the culture of the Church. Now, as the Saints dispersed, stakes gave way to districts, and wards to branches. The number of fellow religionists an LDS person could call on shrunk. As a result, Mormons had to rely on the structure of the immediate family to a greater degree.

By the 50’s, the Saints were seen as “neat, modest, virtuous” and, above all, “family-loving.” Part of this positive image was likely aided by the contrast between Mormons and the burgeoning hippie culture. [37]

So modern Mormonism’s family doctrine had undergone a further shift. Where the Saints were once mistrustful of the government, they became its model citizens––reflections of exactly the family model that their culture and doctrine had initially resisted. New understandings had to be reached––storing the old wine in new bottles––but in the process preserving all that could be saved. Family was still central, but perhaps at the cost of some sense of community. Polygamy was still doctrinal, but for most Latter-day Saints, plural spouses are only for the life to come. 19th Century rhetoric about God and His “wives” gave way to other, now more familiar words: “Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.”

It is impossible to know what permutations the Church, and the Church’s notion of family may take in the future. Again, the Saints find themselves in a position increasingly opposed to modern sentiment. We are preserving a model that today’s culture finds outmoded and backward. In any case, whatever accommodations we make for the future, we can be sure that family will remain central, no matter how we reinvent it.

____________________

[1] It is notoriously difficult to pin down exactly what is meant in LDS discourse by the word “doctrine,” to say nothing of deciding what “the doctrines” of the Church actually are. For the purposes of this paper, “doctrine” is considered any teaching that, coming from a sufficiently high authority, carried enough force to be brought into practice by the Saints. Thus, “doctrine” will be seen to change throughout the history of the Church.

[2] From Herbert Ray Larsen, “Familism in Mormon Social Structure,” Ph.D. diss., University of Utah, 1954, 156. Quoted in Quinn, 163.

[3] White, 290, emphasis added.

[4] Ibid., 290-93.

[5] Bushman, 323.

[6] Bushman, 326-27. Also see Compton, 4-5.

[7] Ibid., 324.

[8] Martin Harris Interview with Anthony Metcalf, circa 1873-74, Vogel, 348.

[9] Van Wagoner, 69-70.

[10] By Compton's count, eleven of the wives were already married. See Compton, 15.

[11] Bushman, 437, emphasis added. Indeed, as Compton explains, chronologically, of the "first twelve wives, nine were polyandrous." In this period, "polyandry was the norm, not the anomaly" p. 15.

[12] This is not precisely “polyandry” as the sociologists would define it. However, the term has been used frequently in the literature on the Nauvoo period, so it will suffice for the purposes of this paper.

[13] Bushman, 439.

[14] Compton, 12-16.

[15] Ibid., 4-9. White, 292.

[16] Doctrine and Covenants 132:17, 19.

[17] Quoted in Bushman, 439.

[18] Ibid., 439, 523.

[19] Compton, 12.

[20] Newell and Avery, 135.

[21] White, 295.

[22] Compton, 20, 80-84, “There were no divorces as a result of [Joseph’s] polyandrous marriages.”

[23] Van Wagoner, 79.

[24] Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, 198-199.

[25] Quoted in White, 298.

[26] Ibid., 299.

[27] Quinn, 174.

[28] White, 301.

[29] Doctrine and Covenants 128:15.

[30] Cannon, 28.

[31] “‘What will become of those individuals who have this law taught unto them in plainness, if they reject it?’ asked Orson Pratt at the official announcement of plural marriage as a doctrine and practice of the LDS church in 1852 [...] ‘I will tell you: they will be damned, saith the Lord God Almighty’ [...]” See Quinn, 181.

[32] Cannon, 28.

[33] Ibid., 28.

[34] Ibid., 28.

[35] Ibid., 28-31.

[36] Shipps, 58.

[37] Ibid., 59.

____________________

Works Cited

Bushman, Richard Lyman. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. Knopf: New York, NY 2005.

Cannon, Kenneth L., II. “After the Manifesto: Mormon Polygamy 1890 - 1906.” Sunstone. January-March, 1983.

Compton, Todd. In Sacred Lonliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. Signature Books: Salt Lake City, UT, 1997.

Newell, Linda King, and Valleen Tippetts Avery. Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith.
University of Illinois Press: Champaign, IL, 1994

Quinn, D. Michael. The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. Signature Books: Salt Lake City, UT, 1997.

Shipps, Jan. “Surveying the Mormon Image Since 1960.” Sunstone. April, 2001.

Van Wagoner, Richard S. “Mormon Polyandry in Nauvoo.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Fall, 1985.

Vogel, Dan. Early Mormon Documents: Vol. 2. Signature Books: Salt Lake City, UT, 1999.

White, O. Kendall. “Ideology of the Family in Nineteenth Century Mormonism.” Sociological Spectrum. June, 1986.

What's Wrong With the BYU Honor Code, Part II

These were printed on March 23 in the Daily Universe:

‘Sinboards’

Several people have written letters arguing for skateboards to be permitted on campus. These sly serpents make fairly convincing arguments equating “boarding” to biking and saying that any property damage caused would be minimal. While these arguments may be true, they stray away from the main reason to have this rule implemented in the first place: Skateboarders are bad people! People who ride on these things are most certainly associated with things such as baggy pants, sweating and cannabis. These street urchins do not fit into the middle-upper-class BYU image, and will become a problem if not harshly dealt with.

It is not enough to kick skateboarders out of every part of campus (as well as any other reputable establishment in Provo). This is the treatment is common everywhere and boarders have gotten used to it. To assure success in this fight, we must expel all skateboarders on first violation.

I hope all non-boarding students understand that these people are not like you and me. Anyone who rides one of these sinboards could not possibly have enough honesty to keep the Honor Code, intellect to graduate without cheating or faith to be a believing member of the Church. Perhaps even more important is the fact that instead of listening to Country and Broadway musicals, many of these dunces will bring the devil on to our campus through the hip-hop music in their iPods. This plague of false preaching must stop, as we weed all of the skaters out of campus.

John VanDenBerghe

Salt Lake City


Considerate clothing

To the women who think it’s acceptable to wear tank tops and short shorts out to tan in Helaman Quad, I submit the following:

“And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you.” Dallin H. Oaks, General Conference, April 2005.

It is hard enough for the young men of the Church to keep a clean mind and a pure heart without you lying around half-naked right outside our dorms. Please be more considerate of not only the BYU Honor Code, but also of the spiritual well being of the men you date. We are doing our best to be worthy to enter the temple and serve the Lord as missionaries. Could you help us out by wearing modest clothing?

Sam Speer

Ogden

And these on the 25th:

Grossly misinformed

As a BYU freshman who enjoys skateboarding regularly, I am writing in response to the March 23 letter “Sinboards.” The ridiculous presumptions made by the author are astounding. Paralleling the devil to hip-hop? Saying all skaters are bad people? Claiming that skaters are incapable students, and even worse, church members? That letter was not only preposterous and grossly misinformed, but false as well.

I can name 10 people off the top of my head who attend BYU, who have received or are soon receiving their mission calls, who I skate regularly with. All are terrific examples to me. Outlawing skateboarding is unnecessary. Skateboarding is a creative outlet that has brought a great deal of joy into my life as well as countless other adolescents to young adults.

I keep the honor code. I don’t smoke weed. I don’t cheat in class. I’m submitting my mission papers soon. And I skate all the time and love it! This contradicts the author’s statements completely. The skaters aren’t the problem — it’s ignorance that needs to stop. Skaters don’t need to be weeded out, which is the wish of the author.

As 3 Nephi 18:30 reads, “ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him.” Let the Lord judge who can have enough “faith to be a believing member of the church.” The “Sinboards” author and anyone else worried that skating is tainting BYU’s middle-upper-class image can keep their close-minded, dogmatic opinions to themselves.

Alex Willden

Milwaukee


Skateboarder and still worthy

My name is Lin Skinner my wife and I were recently married in the Provo temple, but after reading that article I realize that I wasn’t worthy of a temple marriage because I was a sly serpent, a bad person, not honest enough to sign the Honor Code or intelligent enough to graduate without cheating, and that I have been committing a multitude of sins for the last 14 years of my life. According to the author of “Sinboards,” skateboarding is a sin.

I skateboard with many different people; some are students at BYU, but you are right, they are not like you. They are open-minded and intelligent individuals with many different personality traits. One could not classify them simply as skateboarders. You have a very ignorant and biased point of view of skateboarding. I wish for you to actually know something about skateboarding and those that participate in it before you run your mouth in such a way that is very insulting to my wife and I and many others attending the fine university of Brigham Young.

I remember the first skateboard I got; my mother got it for me. I loved it and it kept me out of trouble. It was the only thing that could help me relax. I can’t count the times I have prayed while kneeling on my skateboard. I just want you to know that your article has inspired me not to quit but to continue skateboarding for all eternity.

Lin Skinner

Springville


Saints and skaters

To the author of the March 23 letter, “Sinboards,” how can you be so shallow and narrow-minded? Your lack of perspective is not only embarrassing, but even frightening — what if someone believes you are an accurate representation of BYU students and faculty?

You have apparently had a less than positive experience with those who choose to skateboard, but, regardless, who is to say that everyone is the same? Who has met every skater? Is it to be said that everyone who rides horses thus loves country music, owns a pair of cowboy boots and enjoys branding livestock? Does anyone who drives an electric car consequently enjoy ethereal music, follow a vegan diet and smoke marijuana? It isn’t fair to categorize. It isn’t just to presume. It isn’t Christlike to discriminate. God loves us all.

My hope is that your eyes will be opened as you venture out of your shell and learn to see the beauty in all people, find their virtues and see what some of us “non-boarding students” have seen. Every one of us has flaws and “all (of us) have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).” Don’t let yourself down because you choose not to see the good in others: “skater” and “saint” are not mutually exclusive.

(Wasn’t the debate about longboards anyway?)

Randal Graham

Mapleton

In response to this insanity, I penned and submitted the following:

Two birds, one stone

It was simultaneously hilarious and painful to read the recent letters "Grossly misinformed," "Skateboarder and still worthy," and "Saints and skaters.” All of these authors, bless them, seemed to take a previous letter, "Sinboards," at face value. I am not the author of that letter, but it seems obvious to me that his tirade against skateboarding was tongue-in-cheek. You see, Alex, Lin, and Randal, he wasn't being serious. Indeed, he was humorously arguing against his real position––thus lampooning those who disagree with you!

Allow me to demonstrate. Mr Sam Speer wrote a recent letter ("Considerate clothing") criticizing women who were sunbathing near Helaman Halls wearing shorts and tank-tops. If I were to respond satirically to his letter, it might sound like this:

I agree wholly with Mr Speer! Do these scandalously-clad ladies have no sense of propriety? No care for the young men nearby? As we all know, males are simply time-bombs of immorality waiting to go off. Who among such could bear the sight of bare shoulders (not to mention knees!) without immediately engaging in mortal sin? Knees and shoulders are pornographic! Furthermore, as a scarcely-in-control male myself, I believe the Honor Code doesn’t go far enough. Let the school mandate burqas as standard female attire; if they cannot swim in one, ban female swimming entirely. This is a small price to pay for the purity of the stronger sex! Sisters, no more fetching hair styles and absolutely no makeup. Also, don't make eye contact with the brethren: confidence in women is too attractive. We are hardly accountable for our actions as it is, but with so many sirens running about campus, it's miraculous that we males haven't all been excommunicated. If you cannot take responsibility for our thoughts and actions, Ladies, BYU ought to become a male-only university!

Nicholas Sherwood
Granby, Missouri

The Honor Code is fine, I guess. It's the people who are crazy (read: stupid). I hope that they publish this one!

Ooh! a new one...

So here is another W.A. Bouguereau of Mary and Christ, which would make a lovely pair with the other one.

I Love You, Kara Thrace

I don't know if it's because she can fly a raptor like no one else can, or because of her ability to make witty cynicisms in the heat of battle, but Starbuck is easily my favorite character on BSG. So here's to you, you beautiful - violent - psychotic - alcoholic - adulteress, you.

In Opposition toTestimony as Rhetorical Bludgeon

Testimony is a unique aspect of LDS doctrine and praxis. It is similar in some ways to the protestant phenomenon of "being saved," or "getting convicted" of the truth. It is made more unusual by our somewhat ritualistic practice of "bearing testimony": the once-a-month program of telling fellow church members what we already know, expressed in commonly accepted phrases. It is at least a fascinating cultural marker, and means by which members bind themselves to the community.

However, testimony, like almost any aspect of religion, has its proper time and place. Unfortunately, much has been made of the idea that "no one can argue with a testimony!" (This statement is, of course, patently false.) Because of this, bearing testimony is seen as a kind of trump card, to be thrown down defiantly in the midst of debate to silence all opposition! This practice is, in its way, more pernicious than the usual biblical proof-texting/bashing that goes on in marathon apologetics matches. This is so for a number of reasons.

1. As testimony is tied to spiritual insight/intuition and worthiness, to use testimony against an intellectual opponent is to call into question their worthiness. (This is not unusual; for some practitioners, step-one of Mormon apologetics is "Character Assassination.") It also uncharitably forces one's opponent into the uncomfortable position of questioning one's own worthiness.

2. Since testimony springs from interaction with the Holy Ghost, using it in debate may sully or demean the character of a member of the Godhead. Thus the debate becomes a sort of "my deity can beat up your deity" argument.

3. To so use one's testimony totally refuses to take into account the fact that good, wise, spiritually sensitive people can disagree on spiritual topics and never reach (in this life) agreement. Take, for instance, the issue of organic evolution as considered by the Twelve Apostles. The Church attempted to formulate some kind of official position. Various members of the Twelve researched the topic, prayed, and presented their differing opinions. On one side stood B.H. Roberts, James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe; among the opposition was Joseph Fielding Smith. In spite of much study and prayer they never reached any agreement!

4. It is possible for promptings/revelations to (seemingly) contradict each other. Of course, of two mutually exclusive propositions, both may not be true. However, with time, we may learn that the propositions are not, in fact, exclusive. Or perhaps we may find that the Spirit was bearing testimony to what we could understand, but giving us a rather simplified picture which will one day become clearer, more nuanced.

In any case, we ought to resist––adamantly!––this abuse of testimony. To so beat a heavenly plow, given to sow truth in our souls, into a sword of hubris is inexcusable. If there is to be debate, let us use appropriate rules of engagement, not character assassination, veiled in the aspartame of tearful saccharine. A knife coated with honey is no less a knife. It is against this practice that I offer the following few lines:

How blithely we declare "I know,"
But saying doesn't make it so.
Turn on the quivering voice and tears,
(The nose runs when the Spirit's near)!
Go on, parade for all to see
This strange epistemology––
Stand with the weeping, certain crowd:
"It's true for being said aloud!"
Marshalled in lachrymosal ranks,
We roll out our rhetorical tanks––
But will we find, once we've attacked,
We're routed by a single FACT?

Madonna of the Roses

This is my new favorite painting. Ever. Now, take a moment and listen to the song below while enjoying this image. (You can open a larger version by clicking on it.) It'll be the best eight minutes of your day.



Here are the lyrics (adapted from a devotion called the Angelus):

The Angel of the Lord declared to Mary:
And she conceived of the Holy Spirit.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Behold the handmaid of the Lord: Be it done unto me according to Thy word.

Hail Mary . . .

And the Word was made Flesh: And dwelt among us.

Hail Mary . . .

Amen, amen, amen.

And that, folks, is why we need more Catholics in the world.

Ba'al wants to remind you...

...to come to the temple this month.

I have a message to declare to thee,

A matter I would recount.

A word of wood,

And a whisper of stone,

The murmur of the Heavens to the Earth,

Of the Deep to the Stars.

I understand lightning not known to the Heavens,

A matter men do not know,

Nor understood by the earthly multitudes.

Come, pray, and I shall reveal it,

In the midst of my mountain,

In the holy place,

The mountain of my inheritance,

The pleasant place,

The hill of my victory.

--From the Ugaritic Ba'al Cycle

P.S. The formatting here was tricky, so appreciate the clear parallelisms.

Cool Logo

I love this!

Parable: A Mule Named Science (UPDATE!)

(UPDATE!) Check this out!

Once upon a time there was a farmer who owned a mule. The mule's name was Science. He was a very good mule who worked very hard hauling all kinds of loads up to the top of Truth Hill. In the past, he had hauled Electric Lights, Antibiotics, The Theory of Relativity, Nuclear Power, Vaccination, and many other items to the summit. (Once, he hauled up Newtonian Physics, but it had since been knocked some way down the hill.)

One bright sunny morning, the farmer wanted to haul another load to the top. It was a different load than ever before. In fact, it was enormous! It was a boulder the size of a mule atop a Ford Gremlin atop an elephant. The boulder was called Atheism. Science the mule eyed the load warily, but the farmer didn't pay him any mind. After all, Science was so very useful at hauling other things, why wouldn't he be able to handle this load?, thought the very stupid farmer.

The farmer got out his ropes and chains and soon enough Science found himself tied to the side of the massive boulder. He slipped amid the ropes until his feet didn't even touch the ground anymore. So Science dangled. The farmer began to be disappointed and then became angry.

A few minutes later, some of the farmer's neighbors came along. They had never really trusted the mule, although they loved to take advantage of all the wonderful items he had hauled to Truth Hill. When they saw what the farmer had tied to the mule, they were upset. You see, ever since it had been first discovered and named, the neighbors had hated that boulder. Atheism, they liked to say, was an eyesore. It had no place atop Truth Hill. On the other hand, there was a boulder that they loved. It sat nearby, and looked very pretty. Full of interesting striations of different colors and possessing a pleasing shape, the neighbors called it Intelligent Design. If the farmer was allowed to have his boulder on the hill, they ought to be able to have theirs.

Soon they came up with a rather clever idea. They spoke to the farmer and told him that they understood his predicament. You see, they said, the mule's load was unbalanced. He would never be able to carry the boulder tied to his side like that. They then suggested a solution: Why not tie a similar load to Science, but on the other side. That way the load would be balanced. The farmer didn't like their idea, but the neighbors outnumbered him, so he finally conceded.

The neighbors got a bulldozer* and lifted up Intelligent Design. They brought it near to the other side of Science and secured it to him with their own ropes and chains. But when they pulled the bulldozer away––alas!––Intelligent Design fell against the mule and crushed him. Poor Science could only writhe while his internal organs hemorrhaged and great streams of blood poured from his every orifice. A few moments later, with eyes bulging, swollen tongue lolling, and entrails dangling, he died.

Their was a great outcry, because after all, it was... like... EEEW! Hearing all the commotion, the Wise Man from the village hobbled up the path with his walking stick. When he saw what had happened he was dismayed. He had liked Science and had thought of him as a very useful animal. "What have you done!" he asked the crowed. They explained to him what had taken place amid much buck-passing and many excuses and justifications.

Quoth the Wise Man: "Dammit. You guys are so frigging retarded." He explained to them their folly. "Couldn't you see the real issue here?" he asked, rhetorically. "It is true the load was unbalanced, but this wasn't the kind of load Science could have carried to begin with! When you tried to balance it, you just doubled the problem." He sighed. "Geez, you guys."

With a heavy heart, he decided what he must do. He stood straighter and taller than the farmer or his neighbors had ever seen. In the midst of his neighbors he raised his walking stick, which was really a magical staff. With a resonant voice he chanted the magic words "Tubulous Ligatinous et Vasectimous Immedious!" and sterilized the lot of them.

The Wise Man lived a long and happy life, and when he died, it was with the satisfaction of knowing that none of those morons in the village would be passing on their clearly deficient genetic material.

*I know what you're thinking. Why not just use the bulldozer to carry the boulder up the hill? Well, for your information, the hill was too steep and the path too narrow to admit heavy moving equipment. So there.

Ann Lewinson is a twit.*

A so-called film review used merely as a springboard for anti-mormon vitriol. She should lose her job. Look here to contact the paper and demand the following three changes:

1) The paper must publish an article censuring Ann Lewinson for her article.

2) The film review in question must be immediately pulled.

3) Ann herself must publish an apology.




*This was a difficult post to name. Other candidates were: "Ain't no cure for Crazy B*tch," and "As useless as a lesbian in the kitchen on Thanksgiving." I finally settled on a title, but had to change it for the sake of propriety. Let's just say "twit" was originally different by exactly one letter.

BAAAAAAAAAAARRRRFFF!!!

Sometimes there just isn't enough vomit in the world to do a thing justice. Steady your gorge and grab a basin, folks. It's gonna be a rough one.



Well, now that I'm sure you've all purged... I can only say that I would rather perform gay marriages myself than watch that monstrosity again. Note the alarmist tone behind the saccharine; do they mean to say that the big, scary homos are out to destroy their families? Really? Do they even know any gay people?

Here's my point. If you have thoughtful religious reason(s) for voting a certain way ("I believe x is wrong," "The prophet/bible says x is wrong," "The meatball on last night's spaghetti appeared to me in a vision and told me that the government is trying to steal my kidneys... oh, and also that x is wrong,") then to abandon those religious reasons and replace them with specious and alarmist secular reasons says something important. It suggests what value you place on the religious thought behind your political action: not much.

And so to you, Janice Kapp Perry, I say: grow a pair, be upfront, state your reasons––the rational ones... and, oh, PLEASE don't put it to music. My tender stomach thanks you in advance.

Oh bother...

Why do Mormons have such a hard time grasping basic principles of not looking like complete psychos? Honestly. Try to tone down the crazy, brothers and sisters... at least in public.

To wit: this bit of silliness. Is that honestly worth the trouble? Who comes off looking wild-eyed snake-dancing control-freak crazy? (Hint: it isn't the guy who made the calendar.) Obviously they didn't like the image of the church being sexed up, and that's okay (although, I think that it probably had a positive effect on missionary work... just sayin'), but if you're going to carry out disciplinary procedures because of "image" reasons, you ought to make sure that you aren't jumping out of the frying pan and into the sister-wives-and-kissin'-cousins fire. Honestly, President Davie, next time do you just want to call up the Associated Press and chant "Blood Atonement, Blood Atonement, Blood Atonement," into the phone? It would save the high council the trouble, and the "I'm-out-of-my-mind" PR message would be about the same.

It's the same thing with this. Yes, let's differentiate, but let's not look like we're stomping on the little guy (albeit the little guy with about 4 or 5 extra chromosomes as a result of freaky inbreeding). I mean, they do fall under the "Mormon" umbrella, so let's find an accurate way of distinguishing nomenclature. (Oh, and can we try not to say things like "[Real Mormons w]ear regular modern clothing and have contemporary hairstyles." That just sounds a wee bit "pot and kettle": "Oh sure, we believe in a Mother Goddess and that God dwells on a planet near a star called Kolob, and, yeah, we do think that if a ghost won't shake your hand, it's probably okay to listen to him and do what he says, and I shun diet coke like it's black tar herion, but we're not weird like those polygamous people." Besides, the hooker-hump hair thing that you see all over BYU campus may be contemporary, but it's gosh-awful. Girls could we stop that? It lengthens your face to the point that every time you open your mouth, I expect to hear Mr Ed neighing. Not attractive.)

Anyhow, that's enough for now. Just take it down a few notches, folks. We sound crazy enough without any help!

Stouffer's:Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here

Hello, muffins, to one and all,

I thought I would say a few words about my new job: awful, dreadful, satanic.

Well, perhaps a few more than that. It is a DELIGHT (a not-very-subtle homage to Will Farrel as James Lipton). Today, I was working on a line which was purported to make "meatloaf." This is characteristic of the kind of creativity and nod-and-a-wink marketing that goes on here (remember, there is only one thing more deeply felt at Nestlé than their sense of the bottom line: their sense of irony) because today's product could neither be legitimately called either "meat" or "loaves."

The shape was something a bit lozenge-like, and about the size of two Reeses cups. Meat-like pods, really. Although, I have to admit that, given their dimensions, I can foresee a future scholarly study of Freudian themes in the commercial food world, because they were not-altogether-unpleasantly gonadal in appearance.

Now the actual ingredients that seem to have gone into making these––erm––doodads, were not immediately apparent; I wasn't looking at a recipe, you see. However, rest assured, my culinary acumen has neither faltered nor become tarnished with disuse, so I can now confidently say that the main ingredient used in this "product" (for want of a more accurate moniker) was basically the minced anal passages of rats and other unlucky members of the family Rodentia in the last throes of bloody-frothy-mawed hydrophobia, who had fed on the (surprisingly nutritious) remains of choleric Sudanese infants (made ever-so-luckily available for the purpose by Nestlé's marketing of infant formulas in various third world nations––see Google for all the sordid details).

Let me make it clear that the chefs at Nestlé have really outdone themselves. The aroma was incredible. Possessing a bouquet of lovingly-herb-flavored meatiness so intense, and fruity rectal top-notes so exquisite that within minutes tears and various other mucosal secretions were streaming down my face, and by the end of the day Ebola-magnitude bleeding had commenced from orifices various and sundry, it must simply be smelled to be believed. Indeed, that may not even be enough. Let's say rather that a sample of the proteinous slurry must be personally introduced by massive blunt force trauma into your olfactory glands using a steel ramrod propelled by a blasting cap to be believed.

In any case, once this singular sphincter chutney has been flavored to... (shall we say "perfection"? Not quite the right word) ...to the total destruction of all mankind's hope in the afterlife or any kind of loving deity, indeed, flavored to the the convincing of Jew and Gentile that the only god there could be in such a universe is Cthulhu and that HE DEMANDS SACRIFICE!, they add a little garlic, which rounds the whole thing out nicely I think. Then they put the mix through machinery which was found to fall almost, but not quite entirely, totally short of the safety and sanitation requirements for the automotive manufacturing industry (thus they were able to buy it at a discount). The "product" passes through a kind of scrotal press (I imagine), where it is extruded [1, see footnote] into it's characteristic shape. From there it goes into the ovens, where, with various members of minority groups, it is readied to be taken to the production line.

My job, for the first half of the day, was to take a rolling rack loaded with approximately 27 fifty-pound trays full of "product" from the still-zyklon-B-scented oven room to the line, where various other members of that most-unfortunate of minority groups (that is, Stouffer's employees) would place meat-pods, six at a time, into plastic trays that zipped along a conveyor belt at about one-and-one-half times the speed of what might be considered reasonable for a factory employing slaves paid (on a per-diem basis) only by the possibility of continued life, toward, at some purely hypothetical future date, a purely hypothetical customer, who is (purely hypothetically, mind) interested in purchasing a tray of what must seem to be six imitation bear testes.

During the second half of the day, I was––in part––making sure the fifty-pound trays got to all the required employees, and––in part––being one of the required employees to whom the trays got. Actually, that's not entirely accurate. I was not, myself, putting the knobs of protein into the plastic trays; I had masseuse duty. It is an odd fact that at Stouffer's the management requires all food to be massaged before it goes into cryogenic storage to await the creation of a market desperate and hungry enough to actually purchase said product. (Some of us suppose that mass suicides will become the norm before then, but there is no way of knowing whether some Stouffer's product may actually be the cheapest and most reliable form of suicide available––owing to the fact that cyanide poisoning and self inflicted gunshot wounds have a failure rate of 0.001% and 2% respectively, so cold storage seems prudent for the time being.) In any case, food massage is the order of the day. I have soothed lasagna noodles into baths of marinara and cheese for hours at a time, so I imagined the task today would not be too difficult. How wrong I was. And how wrong wrong wrong this task was. It was not so much a process of massage as it was of smashing into submission. As it turned out, possession of a Y chromosome totally disqualifies an employee from being an effective nugget masher. (I will let you draw your own conclusions about the subconscious psychology at play here. Let me just say that I was led to muse that some of these women might have been hired for this responsibility after simply judging the state of their husbands: if he seemed sufficiently cowed and servile, they could obviously do the job with an effective level of verve. I feel that the Lord has made His will clear about this, even in extenuating circumstances; See Deut. 25:11-12.) In any case, they had to be smashed flat into the tray so later on down the line they could be squirted with gravy or spermicidal mint jelly or something-or-other.

So that's my job. Awful, dreadful, satanic. Perhaps I should have just left it at that.
____________________________


[1] Note: It is a testament to the rather poetic brand of Sartrian philosophy behind the production here at Stouffer's that tissues, used in nature as extruders of feces, should be used in a culinary setting as extrusions of something far worse.

[2] Personally, I quite like the way this post turned out. Indeed, I think "fruity rectal top-notes" may be the finest three words I have ever committed to HTML.

Pardon me, but it seems that I'm not here,orOh bother, my mind just broke.

Quick and strange thoughts before sleeping.

First off, you should not try to think about concepts like infinity or eternity. I think that doing so has just unhinged me. So don't read this post. I mean, really, navigate somewhere else or go make yourself a snack.

You've been warned!


...


Okay, now that those wussies are gone, it's time to get down to business:

I was thinking about exaltation tonight (eternal life/lives, whatever), and this is how I have understood it. There are an infinite number of intelligences. God or gods put them into spirit bodies. Some of those bodies eventually get physical bodies. Some of those will end up becoming like God and participating in his work. Clear enough? Everyone followed that? Good.

Now, here's my issue. Because God is love, eventually everyone that is of His species (no word for it really, but you know what I mean) gets a chance to become like him. All intelligences get the chance to be embodied and exalted. Some in each batch (like cookies) will not make it, but those that do become like God then add their manpower to the family business and "cookie making" proceeds at a greater rate. At an exponential rate, actually. Acceleration is the name of the game.

However, if we accept that 1) there is an infinite number of intelligences, and 2) God's process of apotheosis (deification) is carried out in finite batches, then we have trouble. Any finite number you subtract from infinity still leaves infinity. Therefore, there exists an infinity of intelligences that will be waiting for an infinite amount of time to become like God. However, an infinite amount of time is by definition a period that never ends. If you must wait an infinite period for your waiter to bring your meals to your table, you never get to eat. Ever. Mealtime never happens.

Thus we are now facing an infinite number of intelligences who will never get the chance to become like God.

Let's take this in a scarier direction. Express the problem as a ratio, or a division: finite:infinite or finite/infinite=functionally zero. Any number divided by infinity is NOTHING.

Ergo, we don't exist. Our existence is a total impossibility.

On the other hand, the fact that I am writing this is evidence that I exist. We cannot imagine our non-being, because the act of imagining itself implies being. Try to imagine traveling through the empty space of the universe, dodging stars or whatever. You never get to the end. Even if you run into an enormous, spheroid brick wall that encompasses all the space you have flown through, you can still take a hammer to the bricks and start making a dent. Either you eventually break through, or there is just more brick, but you can conceivably keep chipping away forever, never ceasing to move forward, albeit slowly.

Thus, ultimately, we cannot conceive of either finite space or time. That is, we cannot pass into non-being or annihilation. Existence cannot cease.

As it turns out, then, we can neither exist any more than we can not-exist. So we have two mutually exclusive impossibilities (which is, in itself, by definition, an altogether convoluted and impossible state of affairs).

Does it make me evil...

...if I tell you that this is simultaneously one of the funniest and most adorable things I have ever seen. (This is why I should never be a parent.)

The Many Faces of Nicholas

Okay, so I found the coolest thing from the St. Andrew's website: an online face morpher! Truly cool stuff; just upload a photo and go to town. Here are some of the filters I've tried:
Nicholas as anime:
Nicholas as a scary baby:
Nicholas as an ape-man:
Nicholas as a Modigliani painting:
And, finally, my favorite:
Nicholas as an El Greco:
Oddly, the most frightening transformation I have not posted here. It was supposed to be a depiction of what I would look like as an older adult. As it turns out, there is enough red in my hair, and enough Israelite blood in my veins that I am going to become something less like Shylock, and rather more like Marlowe's "Jew of Malta." Truly unsettling in a very Fagin-esque way. I guess I just hope I die young.

That, or become an ape-man.

[This was inspired by a similar post on the blog 15 Minute Lunch. The language can be mature and the content unrefined, but he is seriously whoops-now-I'm-sitting-in-a-puddle funny. (Mom and Dad, you won't enjoy it. Sorry.) You've been warned, mind. Oh, and for those of you who have gotten it by email, he is responsible for the 1977 JC Penny Catalog (with commentary) viral.]

Thus it begins...

This is the start of my Marshall Plan: turn a mustache into a modest handlebar mustache, and thence into a wildly immodest handlebar mustache. Salvador Dali, eat your melting-clock-like heart out!

Status Update

Attn: All parties interested in the health of Nick's Commonwealth.

Measures taken have largely eliminated conflict in the North. However, guerrilla forces are still active on the Southern border.

Preparing for a reconnaissance mission, but it has yet to be scheduled--hopefully this week. The stealth of said operation is extremely questionable. (In other words, even if you're shooting cameras instead of guns, when a tank rolls into town, you can't help but notice.)

PETA or Pita?

In a recent ad campaign––called "Holocaust on Your Plate"––the world's preeminent bastion of nutjobbery, PETA, has used graphic pictures to compare eating meat with the worst depredations against the Jews during the second World War.





Try as they might to hide behind the mask of animal rights, we know the darker message PETA is trying to send:
Jews are delicious!

Horrible, horrible, most horrible...

Dear reader, please do not read the following. Save yourselves and your children from the scars which will be etched permanently into your psyche. Cover their eyes as you would at the sight of the glistening detritus of an accident involving a train and a nursing home outing group.

For the past three days, I have been violently, desperately, hideously ill. Never did I understand all the ways in which agony could present itself. I spent, for instance, last night stretched out in the thrall of the most spectacular indigestion I could conceive. The burn of acid arpeggiating up and down my esophagus, while great waves––nay, tides––of nausea swept over me, threatening to drown me in their bilious depths. It was like a symphony of horror, in the scope of Mahler, but not in his style. Its composition was rather like that of Messiaen: delicate permutations of digestive dissonance, an intricate paean of suffering to the honor of an ancient and vindictive god. I tell you, if there were some drug which could induce pleasure in equal scope and variety, none of us would stop at selling children into horrible slavery, or passing offspring through the fires of Moloch to procure it.

Thus we are brought to the awful events of this morning, when, once again I offered violent and abundant offering to the porcelain deity, Commodus, and then spent more than five hours prostrate and unconscious on the floor of her temple.

Then, upon awakening, I said to myself, quite unexpectedly, "I think I may be an atheist now."

I understand, dear reader how one might wonder at this effect being brought on by an upset stomach. Yet, I must question, is that precisely the right word?

Upset? Yes, it was upset. Upset in the same way Vlad the Impaler had a reputation for being a bit brusque at times.

Upset? Yes, like Adolf-bloody-Hitler got a little cheeky with some Jewish acquaintances.

Upset? Nay, reader, say rather that my stomach has given us pretty solid evidence that god is dead, because I SEEM TO HAVE EATEN HIM!!!

Anyhow, I'm off to bed now. Hope you're all doing well.

XOXOXO