Notes From All Over For Week Ended July 18

July 18, 2009 | 22 comments
By

Comment here on the Notes From All Over for the past week. We’ve numbered the notes with letters for your convenience and to distinguish them from comments to this post.

22 Responses to Notes From All Over For Week Ended July 18

  1. queuno on July 18, 2009 at 7:03 pm

    Isn’t KSL and/or KBYU the Mormon television network?

  2. Bridget Jack Meyers on July 18, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    Regarding aq, I would just like to point out that unless he’s changed churches since I’ve been there, one of the four BYU Law professors who urged the Sotomayor confirmation was David Dominguez, a member of Christ Evangelical in Orem. He was the adviser of the campus evangelical Christian club during my time at BYU.

  3. queuno on July 18, 2009 at 7:31 pm

    aj – Would you ever go out with someone your bishop recommended? (Assuming that he’s your bishop and not like a close personal friend.)

  4. Dan on July 18, 2009 at 8:29 pm

    ak – so take that all y’all who think my cursing on my blog is a bad thing! ;)

    aq – good for them. maybe some good is happening at BYU these days.

  5. Dan on July 18, 2009 at 8:44 pm

    by the way,

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/18/AR2009071802065_pf.html

    Mormons, front and center on the role of torture at the CIA.

  6. Justmeherenow on July 18, 2009 at 9:51 pm

    Jack: I may be perverse but I find Steve Anderson (#/i/, who apparently from my home town in Cali but is now a Pheonix-area preacher’s) outspokenness interesting and, in a way, even appealing. Eg he has witness approaches for (demons-troubled) Pentacostals and culitist Jehovah’s Witnesses (and even for run-of-the-mill unsaved Protestants http://www.youtube.com/user/sanderson1611 In fact, he even has sermons wrt how subtly universalistic sentiments expressed by his fellow Baptist preacher Billy Graham mark Graham as a wolf in sheep’s clothing!)

    Then, when he was driving home from a 2nd weekend job in southern California and stubbornly refused to allow Border Agents to search his car without a warrant, he managed to get all beat up by them!:
    http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/06/pastor_left_bloodied_at_border.php

  7. Justmeherenow on July 18, 2009 at 10:03 pm

    Sorry for not copyediting the above.

  8. Sgarff on July 18, 2009 at 10:50 pm

    a- Singer’s contention that we should ration healthcare to the expense of the disabled is extremely misguided. By his reasoning the poor should also be denied health benefits because, after all, they would be happier and their lives would be more valuable if they were wealthy. And so, healthcare should favor the rich…Oh wait, isn’t that what we already have?

    i- That was so funny. His reasoning perfectly captures the pitfalls of worshiping every word in the KJV. I couldn’t possibly do a better job than this guy to discredit the view that the KJV is a perfect-magic book, no matter how hard I might try.

    Still though, maybe I can use that scripture as ammunition in a certain little toilet-seat dispute that I have with my wife.

  9. Kent Larsen on July 18, 2009 at 11:04 pm

    Queuno (1): Just to be clear, the call was not for LDS ownership, but rather LDS content.

    In that respect, KSL is really not too different than most other television stations — the vast majority of the content is very similar. KBYU is much closer, but probably too oriented toward academic programming to satisfy those looking for a “Mormon” channel.

    Now, the cable/satelite channel BYU-TV is still closer, from what I understand (I’ve never seen it), but probably also not really there.

    IMO, the issue of most concern is who controls the programming and what policies are established. If we end up with content similar to Deseret Book… well, I won’t be watching much.

  10. Kent Larsen on July 18, 2009 at 11:22 pm

    I’ve been meaning to comment and list my favorites of the week, and I think I’ve finally got around to it:

    (f)- Does anyone really believe in blood atonement? I know that some members once believed it, but I don’t think I’ve ever run into anyone who espoused the doctrine. Is there some legal advantage that escapes me to asking jurors if they believe this doctrine?

    (p)- Is it just me, or does this seem a little odd? I see the moral implications, but if its that important, why aren’t we suggesting that the marriage age be raised here in the U.S. also? Is there some cultural effect going on here?

    (y)- I know she isn’t really LDS any more, but she does write about Mormonism on occasion. Clearly, Dooce is hugely influential. I now wonder where Neinei sits in comparison!

    (ae)- I’m more and more impressed with Roy Halladay. He may well be the next Dale Murphy. Of course, he isn’t yet getting his due in terms of attention from the LDS audience, IMO.

  11. queuno on July 18, 2009 at 11:38 pm

    Queuno (1): Just to be clear, the call was not for LDS ownership, but rather LDS content.

    No, I got it. Hence my quip about KBYU.

    KBYU is much closer, but probably too oriented toward academic programming to satisfy those looking for a “Mormon” channel.

    It’s been a long time since I was forced to sit through a week’s worth of programming at KBYU (not since I was employed there), but aside from BoM lectures and devotional talks, I don’t know that anyone would call it “academic”. They used to run sports and children’s programs all the time.

  12. Sgarff on July 18, 2009 at 11:41 pm

    Kent,
    As far as I know, the only people who still believe in blood atonement live out in the desert with their many wives.

    Last year one of my law school buddies approached me to tell me that he learned something about my church in his criminal procedure class. He told me that his professor said that Utah was one of the only states that still employed the firing squad because the church is using it, to this day, as a way to enforce blood atonement. It’s amazing what you can learn in law school.

  13. queuno on July 18, 2009 at 11:44 pm

    Halladay pitches in Canada, which is probably part of the issue.

    Anecdotally, I think the “Wow, he’s a Mormon” athlete hero-worship that I so often witnessed in my youth has dwindled into “As long as he’s on my favorite team, and he pitches OK in his next start, then I’ll be more interested…” from this generation.

  14. jjohnsen on July 19, 2009 at 9:12 am

    Is there enough good content for a Mormon channel? They have their bases covered with academic type stuff, but what about children’s programming, sitcoms or 1 hour dramas? There aren’t even enough good Mormon movies to fill a year of “movie of the week” type shows.

    That seminary principal thing s disgusting, it makes me want to punch him in the face.

  15. Alison Moore Smiteh on July 19, 2009 at 11:04 pm

    LDS Church’s Deseret Ranch in Florida worth $1 billion?

    Woot! If we just sold that piece of land, the church could pay for the amazing new wild mustang contraception program the house passed this week, all by ourselves!

  16. Kari on July 20, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    c – Does anyone else have a hard time believing the Church’s statement? If it’s true, then either a) the police omitted “passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language” from their documenting what the good brother Nickel told them, or b) the good Brother Nickel didn’t think it would be wise to tell the police all the details up front.

    Why would the police omit details that the security guard told them? Are all the police in SLC anti-mormon, and were hoping to set the church up for a PR nightmare?

    Or if the police didn’t omit anything, then why would the security guard not tell the police that these two men were being lewd and/or groping in public? Wouldn’t the lewdness have led to additional charges if it had happened?

    Or is it more likely that these two LDS security guards took issue with two men kissing and took action against behaviour that would have been smiled upon (with a wink, wink to the other security guards) if seen occurring between a man and a woman? And only after being confronted by church security did the inebriated men begin using profane and lewd language?

  17. Justmeherenow on July 20, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    It’s possible the couple was purposely engaging in extraordinarily provocative behavior which the guards hadn’t seen fit to specifically elaborate about. Or, it’s possible the security guards completely exaggerated completely innocuous behavior wherein not so much as a wayward “glancing of the hand” occurred between the revelers, now so celebrated/complained of, depending on point of view. Yet there’s a 3rd possibility, too.

    As in any “s/he said-s/he said,” it’s also possible both sides sincerely believe their seemingly conflicting versions of what happened to be correct. This could happen, for example, if some of the behavior engaged in by the couple wasn’t thought by them to be anything out of the ordinary but it nevertheless was considered by the guards to be lewd.

    I know from engaging in hugs with my girlfriend, when I was young, around my father that there are some things some people consider innocent but are considered “not so much” by others. Eg, some would consider a public embrace of/pat to the glutes as entirely innocuous and acceptable public behavior whereas others would hold it as an inappropriately sexual pubic display of affection or “groping” — and this regardless of whether it were a hetero or gay couple who happened to be involved.

  18. Kari on July 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    Justmeherenow,

    I agree with you that there are always two sides to a story. In fact, I think that the likelihood is that the two young men were purposely trying to get a reaction from others in the plaza; either pedestrians or security guards.

    My point though is that the church’s press release has more details than the police report. Why is that? Why wouldn’t the guards be more specific in details with the police, yet be specific enough with superiors that this would be detailed in a press release? Why does the police report only mention kissing and hugging, but the press release implies serious debauchery — “They engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language, and had obviously been using alcohol”?

    To my mind either the police withheld information from the report, or the Church is exaggerating their claims to vilify the men involved, after all, not only are they homosexuals, they had obviously been using alcohol.

    Another question, is it really the church’s policy to insist that anyone groping (or even simply kissing) leave the plaza immediately? Why not a warning? e.g. “Excuse me gentlemen, this plaza is private property of the CoJCoLDS, and we would appreciate it if you wouldn’t behave in this manner. Kissing is ok, but if you want to continue with more intimate behavior we would ask that you leave the plaza. I can recommend a nice cheap hotel nearby.”

    I have a hard time believing they were treated in the same manner a young heterosexual couple would have been treated.

  19. Kari on July 20, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    Correction to my last post. The church does claim that the guards asked the behavior to stop before asking the men to leave. But again, the details of the police report and the press relate are different on these details.

  20. Justmeherenow on July 20, 2009 at 7:38 pm

    What’s the moral to the story?

    For gay couples: Generally expect the same rights as heterosexual couples, no more, no less. For Temple security: Make sure complaints specify behavior that would not be allowed of any couple, heterosexual or gay.

    The problem, as I see it, is that Church, then and now, only wants to make completely generic complaints about the couple’s behavior. This doesn’t there had been no perception by Temple security that the gay couple had been groping. But this lack of detail makes the examination of the incident problematic, IMO. And, if Temple security hadn’t provided any details to the cops, they quite rightly could only specify in their report what had, in actuality, been detailed: the couple’s hugging and kissing and then their refusal to leave.

    * – * – *

    FABLE

    A worker is harrassed and complains to a supervisor, “I’ve been harrassed,” with specifying in what way s/he’d been harrassed.

    The supervisor makes mention of the generic complaint to the alleged harrasser.

    The alleged harrasser, however, is sincerely perplexed as to what was the genesis of the complaint.

    The supervisor asks the complainant for details. Who then specifically alleges that the person had implied it’d be “greeeaaaat to just eat me all up”(!!)

    This detail was brought to the offending party’s attention. Who gave the following explanation of the offending incident:

    The accused had been feeling self-conscious about being sweaty and, when the accuser had strolled in, the accused had hoped to diffuse the accused’s own worries by mentioning the freshness of the accuser’s cologn. “Mmm — nice flavor,” the accused had mispoken, innocently intending to have used, instead, the word scent.

    MORAL

    For the accused: Be careful about mentioning other’s cologne unless you know the person good enought to gage their reaction. For the accuser: Be specific in complaints so that they can be responded to, fairly.

  21. Justmeherenow on July 20, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    oops

    – 1st sentence of “fable” should have said without — not with

    guage mispelt

  22. Amy S on July 21, 2009 at 10:23 pm

    Kent,

    I swear to you a couple years ago I had a seminary supervisor (I was a teacher) talk to us about blood atonement, that there would be one. I’ve got to go look up my notes. I remember not really knowing how to take it…

    And although I find Dooce occasionally worth looking in on, I think Nie Nie’s following is gaining in leaps and bounds. But they are both so different they are hard to compare. It’s like comparing Ugly Betty and Lost.