Sophistry

If you look up the word Sophistry in the dictionary you will find this defination:

subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

Another definition of the term would be:

A method frequently used in The Salt Lake Tribune

I'm referring to an article recently published by the Salt Lake Tribune (Feb 23) that was recently responded to by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS church).

Several weeks ago the LDS church announced a new president would lead the church. I watched the press conference where Thomas Monson was announced to be the new president. Questions from the media were taken. One question from the tribune seemed a bit odd and antagonistic. At least it seemed apparent that the question had deeper motives. This question asked if a member could disagree with the church and still be in good standing. It was framed with the example of a member who disagreed with the church's stance on the gay marriage amendment. President Monson responded that it depended on the disagreement. Matters of apostasy were not negotiable but private disagreements might be OK. I think I've preserved the gist of his comment. The tribune reporter was heard demanding an answer to the specific situation of the gay marriage amendment but never got an answer (as the one question rule had already been established). This incident made it seem like the Tribune was up to something so this most recent article is no surprize.

Now the Tribune article is full of sophistry. The LDS church's comment points some of this out but I'd like to point out some more. The Tribune goes through a list of people who were disfellowshipped or excommunicated for various public disagreements with the church. There is a heavy implication in the article that these are innocent people being hushed. It is also heavily implied that the man the article is about knew all these people and was deeply involved with their situations. I doubt this. The list sounds too much like a list of cases the Tribune has been keeping on file for an anti-mormon sweeps week or something. I'm pretty sure when it says things like: he kept his mouth shut when A did B and got ex communicated it is about the same as someone writing about my life and saying: he didn't even bring chicken noodle soup to Nigerian boy A who got the measles in 1927 even though I've never been to Nigeria and wasn't alive in 1927. I'm exaggerating here but I think my point is valid. Rather than talk about a specific issue the Tribune has decided to throw a bunch of other issues in there to make it seem ... well worse. It would have been one thing if the Tribune had at the end of the article put something like, there are these other cases .... but they didn't.

More sophistry. I just love the quote: "Now I can't sit in church next to Peter and Mary and their kids..." The problem is that Peter and Mary LEFT THE CHURCH. THEY WERE NOT EXCOMMUNICATED. So the implication that the church has forced these good people out is totally false.

What else? Oh! I noticed that the man played the "I'm a member of the Orchestra on Temple Square card" Now I've never seen that card played before, but the implication is that this somehow implies a high up member of the church is in disagreement. In reality I don't think anyone cares what the orchestra thinks, only how they play. But trying to use the orchestra to enhance his credibility was bad. Still I must note that the church didn't excommunicate him. They talked with him about not publicly writing letters damaging the church etc. but they didn't excommunicate him.

This brings up another point - Peter's original letter said the "church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ." I like how the church pointed out that "Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment." Do you see the difference. They church wanted us to be involved so we couldn't say something was forced on us. If we like Peter didn't like the amendment we could write our senator and explain why. So Peter jumped to a conclusion and wrote a letter opposing the church for a position it didn't have! So the whole sob story is ridiculous. The church's original statement that started the controversy already contained the freedom Peter claims it took away!

Finally I'll say a few words about the charge that the church discipline Peter. The church's response says: "In December 2007, Mr. Danzig voluntarily withdrew his membership in the Church by his own formal written request. He was not officially disciplined by the Church as the Tribune article indicated." This whole issue is framed as if he had been disciplined when the church says that he was not. Sure he was talked to, but he wasn't yet at an excommunication point. Someone wrote in the Tribune that the church needs to revisit this case because they are plucking away the wrong members. That person is too ignorant to realize that PETER LEFT THE CHURCH so the church can't re-visit the case IT NEVER HELD.

Why?

So I was walking through a tunnel on campus today to get to my class and I realized that someone had been smoking in the tunnel. They had long since left, but the air in the tunnel had yet to clear out. As I struggled to breathe I thought "Why?" Why would you smoke in a tunnel. If you smoke outside it may annoy others temporarily but they can usually move, or else a breeze will provide some fresh air. Tunnels on the other hand don't cycle air very fast so everyone else has to breathe in your smoke. On top of this you can't change your route in a tunnel - you're stuck walking right along with the smoke.
I would find a nice way to end this blog but I'm sick so it it over in 5 4 3 2 1 .

Wallpaper Warehouse

Super Mario Galaxy is one of the best games ever! It is certainly the best game on the Nintendo Wii right now. I can comfortably say that despite being a rabid Zelda fanatic. Twilight Princess was a wonderful game with superb art and story, but Super Mario Galaxy is actually better.
I discovered this over the Christmas break when I started playing the game on my brother's Wii. I basically played the game non-stop for a week. I'm not kidding. Was this a waste of time? Heck no! The game is incredible. The art is nice. There are diverse colors and textures. The levels are fun and varied. Galaxies have multiple levels that give you the opportunity to explore environments. Secrets are everywhere. The game never gets old. Even after you beat it with all 120 stars you can then replay as Luigi. The best part is that Luigi controls differently, but not annoyingly so. The levels are still fun because Luigi plays differently and because there are so many levels by the time you play them again you've forgotten how fun they were.
I knew I was going to love Super Mario Galaxy when I realized it was just Super Mario Brothers 3, which as everyone knows is one of the best games ever made in the history of the world. The characters are familiar and you get suits!!!!!!!!!!!!! You get the boo suit, bee suit, fire flower, ice flower, spring suit, red star (you can fly!!), star, super mushroom, and probably some others I'm forgetting. Also you can ride on stingrays, turtles and inside bubbles. You also get to balance on balls. Anyways there is a lot you can do.
The gravity effects in Super Mario Galaxy are a lot of fun. You get to walk upside down and all around on a variety of planets. Just play the game and you'll see why I rave about it.
Finally, the music in Super Mario Galaxy rocks. A lot of it comes from the earlier Mario games which adds familiarity, but the new compositions are great as well. The Battlerock galaxy has some cool futuristic music. And of course there is the Good Egg Galaxy that has a catchy tune that sounds really similar to the jingle for a store in Utah and elsewhere called Wallpaper Warehouse.

Persecution

I wanted to make everyone aware of a situation that is happening in Russia as reported in the Globe and Mail, a Canadian Newspaper. You can read the article here. The Russian Orthodox church and the Kremlin are persecuting non-Russian faiths. I was interested most in the persecution of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (mormons or LDS church) as I am a member of that church; however, the persecution goes to many other denominations as listed in the article. The government is storming meetings and harassing churchgoers in an attempt to promote nationalism. This seems like the worst possible thing to do to gain the support of your populace. It may get people to get in line, but will ultimately lead to resentment and all the negative effects of that.
When I read the article I didn't see any problems involved with the sects listed. Each one functions pretty much worldwide without issues. The only conflict seemed to be with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and of the three objections listed only refusing military service seemed to have governmental implications - and that only if Russia was vigorously waging wars and running out of troops (which doesn't appear to be the case anytime remotely soon).
As for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I know from firsthand experience that it wants stable countries and is fine with Russian culture being maintained. The church teaches its members to be law abiding and its own scriptures teach that "governments were instituted by God for the benefit of man" Doctrine and Covenants 134:1. Russia shouldn't fear the church. Worldwide the church helps governments in many ways, for example, when natural disasters occur the church gives service and humanitarian aid in a way that makes the government's task much much easier. The church tells its members to support the government and be involved.
As for the Russian Orthodox Church's opposition to these sects, if it is about bad values, disrespect and disintegration of the family, etc. then their should be no argument with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Go to the church's website and in just a few minutes you'll realize the church is good in all these areas. If the argument is about losing Russian identity, then the church also should not be feared. Whenever the church dedicated a temple they have a cultural celebration designed to show the great things the particular area has. We have no desire to destroy culture. If the Russian Orthodox Church is worried about losing converts, well then let's be honest and admit that. This is the only argument with any value. I would argue that persecution is not the way to gain converts. Of course the LDS church will continue to preach and gain converts. We are concerned with the welfare of every soul. We don't expect other churches to stop teaching, preaching and baptizing - so why should the Russian Orthodox Church expect every other church to stop?
The world is not blind to what is happening in Russia. Russia can build itself into a great nation, the envy of the world. Persecuting its citizens will not achieve this goal and the publicity of such persecution will only harm Russia, not help it.

What's Happening to the Political Parties?

Wow. Super Tuesday has turned into a nightmare. Neither the republicans nor the democrats have a clear winner (although McCain is looking likely for republicans). Even worse than this, I don't know if I'll be able to vote for either candidate in the end.
On the democrat side we have basically Clinton and Obama. Clinton is not acceptable to me or most Americans. She's false. In addition I hate socialized medicine (having seen it firsthand in England). It doesn't work. Then there is Obama. His rhetoric is interesting. We need to unite! Unfortunately he is the most liberal senator right now and holds many positions that would make even his liberal supporters cringe. I don't see how someone on the extreme far left is supposed to unite the country. A moderate might. A democrat with a few crossover issues might. But Obama? I don't believe he will.
What about the republicans? Surely there is hope in the friendly right :). Not really. McCain is almost certain to get the nomination now. That would be great (tongue in cheek). McCain has been fighting dirty. At the same time he doesn't have the conservative vote. He's mainly been winning by picking up independents. The conservatives have been split between Romney and Huckabee which means conservatives won't get a conservative candidate.
McCain worries a lot of people. On the conservative side there is distrust about a lot of his crossover bills. These were on campaign finance reform, immigration and other issues. I think some of these were really bad ideas and some even unconstitutional, but I don't want to discuss them in detail. Moderates will be annoyed with McCain's war stance. He makes George Bush look like the president of Switzerland. McCain joked a while back that we need to "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran". Who jokes about that when they are running for president? If elected he's going to have to deal with Iran. I can see him having friendly talks with that statement on the record. Its fine to say, we can't let Iran kill everyone, but to say what he said is stupid. McCain's war positions are more troublesome than this one quote, but this is a blog, not a novel so I'm going to move on.
A search of McCain's other issues will find a lot to worry conservatives, independents and democrats. I'm not sure if I'll be able to vote for him. Maybe if Romney were his running mate, but maybe not.
What if McCain picked Huckabee as his running mate? That would appease conservatives, right? I don't think so. Having Huckabee as a running mate would significantly decrease my chances for voting for McCain. Huckabee is on the conservative side of the spectrum, but on almost every issue he is skewed enough that I don't like him. If Huckabee gets the nomination I don't plan to vote for him.
Now, talking about both parties, I've noticed that they are both fighting amongst themselves. They are both going to implode. The Hilary-Obama brawl is pitiful to watch and the republican mudslinging fest has got to go. There aren't going to be any good candidates if we keep this up.
My final thoughts: Why can't republicans care about the environment, admit that global warming exists, care about education, and not rush into war? Why can't democrats be pro-life, pro-values, anti-socialism, and anti-heavy taxes?
Final final thought: The senate thankfully has the most power in the country. We need good senators (and to a lesser extent representatives) to moderate a bad president.