Readers
Write Novels to Orson Scott Card
Edited and compiled by Kathy Green
Science, Fiction
Read
Article Here
Creation and Evolution in the
Schools, by Orson Scott Card
I am glad you printed the excellent
article by Brother Card. He is an outstanding writer and
has hit the nail on the head with his skilled and talented
abilities to express complex subjects in simple terms.
N. Lee Allphin
Stark City, Missouri
**
I am a great admirer of Orson
Scott Card, both as a thinker and a writer, and by and large
his explanation of the differences between "Creationism,"
"Intelligent Design," and Darwinism or Evolution
is right on. There is, however, one glaring oversight in
his argument: There is not one, but two definitions of evolution,
a fact the "scientists," (read apologists) have
managed to quite purposely obscure.
Taken as an evaluation of "Micro-Evolution,"
I find nothing to argue with in Mr. Card's treatise. It is
indeed an observable and testable scientific fact that evolution
within a particular species can and does take place. And
certainly natural selection is a part of that process. But
that is not what the argument has been about, lo this past
150+ years.
"Macro-Evolution,"
the idea that all living things on this planet, (and presumably
elsewhere in the Universe) began as the accidental combination
of some unknown chemicals, in some unknown matrix, producing
some undefinable form of life that somehow "evolved"
into everything, is today as patently absurd as it was when
Darwin first suggested it, with one important difference;
today scientists have the capability of proving it is absurd.
Mr. Card is simply mistaken when
he suggests that there are biological forms that demonstrate
that a simple species evolved into a more complex species.
Micro- evolution demonstrates that some simple organisms did
evolve into a more complex organism, but never into another
species. Beetles did not become birds, birds did not become
dinosaurs, (or vice versa) and there is absolutely no empirical
data to suggest anything with fins ever grew feathers or fur.
Lets be clear about one thing:
There are no "transitional forms" in the fossil
record, a fact attested to by the Director of the British
Museum of Natural History, the repository of the largest fossil
collection in the world. In a book written shortly before
his death (please forgive me, I can't remember his name, but
I will happily look it up if you like), he made no mention
of transitional forms, i.e., fossil forms that demonstrate
a transition or transformation of one species into another.
When asked why he omitted such an important part of the record
he candidly replied that he would have been happy to devote
an entire chapter to transitional forms, "but there are
none."
Stephen Jay Gould, the great
Harvard guru of evolution, and Niles Eldredge, (sic) the Director
of the American Museum of Natural History, admitted as much
when they authored the most spectacular academic absurdity
yet entered into the evolution debate. In their book, Punctuated
Equilibria, these two August academicians posited the
notion that at various times in the distant past an alligator
(or some unknown species) laid an egg and a duck (or some
other unknown
species) came out. In other
words, the reason there are no transitional forms is because
it happened too quickly but the reason this phenomenon has
never been observed is because it happens too slowly. A whole
book of scientific psycho-babble based on absolutely nothing
but hot air. They didn't even invent the idea, it was brainchild
of some California professor some years earlier who at least
had the integrity to give it an appropriate name. He called
it "The Happy Monster" theory.
Many scientists, delving into
the reality of the Macro-evolution proposition are beginning
to realize and state emphatically that it just doesn't work.
The fact is, there is no "Science," in Macro- evolution,
unless perhaps it is the science of supposition. In spite
of the National Geographic's frantic attempts to convince
the world that every new knuckle joint discovered "proves"
we evolved from some single-celled conglomeration of chemicals
bubbling up in the
primordial ooze, the fact remains
it cannot be observed, it cannot be tested, it cannot be replicated,
all requirements of any rational scientific exploration.
Instead we are treated to fantastic artwork and computer recreations
that celebrate the coming forth of the human
species in elaborate, full color
paintings.
One of the best examples of this
artistic emulation comes from the famous Scopes Trial. You
will remember how Clarence Darrow stunned the court by entering
into the trial record the then, new discovery of "Nebraska
Man." What was actually discovered was a tooth, a single
tooth. But no matter, the artists immediately went to work
and created a jaw for the tooth, then they created a skull
for the jaw, then a body for the skull and before long we
had a female counterpart and a child. The entire family of
"Nebraska Man" went on display in anthropology departments
all over the world. The only problem was, it turned out to
be the tooth of a pig. Still, I'll bet that Nebraska Man
can even today be found, in all its brilliant artistic glory,
in some book on evolution.
Mr. Card did however, bring up
one of the most important, and most overlooked elements of
the entire debate. (And by the way, the debate I'm referring
to is the debate between scientists and
evolutionists. I do not believe
someone who devotes his time to the study of Macro-evolution
can legitimately be called a scientist. Please note there
is no mention in any of this of "Creation," or "Intelligent
Design," or "God.") That element is politics.
Macro- evolution is now and always
has been the child of politics. The ravings of Karl Marx
were going nowhere until Darwin published The Origin of
the Species. You see, Mark had discovered that you can't
convince people they should surrender meekly to the dictates
of some faceless "state," if they believe they are
special. Darwin provided him the weapon with which he could
kill God and thereby the spirit of man. After all humans,
as Stephen Gould would later describe them, were "just
an accidental little twig." (Gould himself was an admitted
Marxist.) Marx was so thrilled with Darwin's work he wanted
to dedicate the first printing of Das Kapital to Darwin,
but his publisher balked. Nor was it the scientists of the
day that picked up the banner of Macro-evolution, quite the
opposite. It was the politicians (principally Thomas Huxley)
who proclaimed: "We can't have God; it interferes with
our sexual pecadillos."
Again, I applaud Orson Scott
Card for taking on this "touchy" subject, but we
should cease allowing the evolutionists (Macro variety) to
frame the argument as science versus religion. The
glaring fact is, there is no
science in Macro-Evolution and until they can resolve that
little dilemma with legitimate scientists they have no more
right to a seat at the scientific table than the Pope!
Joe Meier
St. George, UT
**
I enjoyed Orson Scott Card's
article regarding the "Intelligent Design v. Darwinism
folly and found most of his arguments good, although Intelligent
Design tends to do little more than act as a 'disproof' to
Darwinism, rather than deserve a place of its own as a positive
theory in my opinion. However, this does little to damage
Mr. Card's basic arguments.
The problem I have with Darwinism
is that it is at best a theory. To its credit, as Card fairly
points out, it has given a mythological overlay under which
real scientific investigation into historical origins could
gain entry into society and supplant the “seven, 24-hour periods.”
It is the “leave well enough alone or you're a heretic” attitude
that prevailed in society and education when Darwin put forward
his theory. The trouble is that Darwinists have become as
Caligula after
displacing Tiberius in Rome.
They have designated themselves the new god by falsely promoting
(or neglecting to distinguish) the differences between fact
and theory. Either by excluding everything else or by false
declaration they mean to be thought of as the only game in
town.
To crown Darwinism 'fact by default'
is a regency Darwinism has never earned through scientific
merit. Intelligent design only gives some scientific explanation
for a common complaint about Darwinism that has existed for
decades.
As I see it, the problem is not
religion versus science, but intolerance from both sides.
At this point in time, the Darwinists (and of course their
lawyers and especially their patron saints at the ACLU) have
twisted the U.S. Constitution from a document guarantying
religious and non-religious freedom of speech and expression
into one guarantying censorship and exclusion of religious
thought of any kind from public education, discourse and display.
Any philosophy or theory even
originating from a religious basis is tainted beyond redemption
according to these folks no matter what other reason or philosophical
underpinnings it might otherwise have. This leaves Ayn Rand,
Nietzsche and Karl Marx — that happy and optimistic lot —
but of course excludes just about everybody else, from Aquinas
to Buddha to Kant. The effect of the unpopularity of the first
group and the exclusion of the second by public education
result in public school children not getting any benefit of
the “great books” education that most of their ancestors enjoyed,
until at least college, if at all.
Card looks at this as a problem
of what is or is not taught in public school science classes.
I agree that this is problematic and feel that both theories
should be given two sentences each in required science and
shifted off as elective classes for students wanting further
insight into either or both theories. Neither warrants recognition
as scientific fact. However, I see the whole spirit of censorship
and exclusion permeating its poisons to the rest of the public
school curricula, law and society in general as the real disaster.
If the Soviet, North Korean and Nazi experiences have taught
nothing else, it's that intolerance needs no God. It is time
that religious intolerance (whether real or perceived) stops
being the only intolerance recognized as a serious threat
by so many.
Laurence Jortner
Valparaiso, Indiana
**
What I find ironic in this whole
debate (Intelligent Design vs. Evolution) is that if you were
to step backwards and look at our scientific timeline over
just the past 20 years, genetic mutations in
cattle (for size, quality of
beef or milk) as well as advances in agriculture (be it corn,
soy, wheat, beans, tomatoes, flowers, etc) could not be explained
as evolutionary through purely natural cause and effect.
Didn't WE (as people) CREATE these new forms of plant and
animal life through genetic mutations that allows for attributes
that WE find desirable?
No, this argument is about acknowledgement
of a creator — whether deity or visitors from other planets
— in the whole argument.
Maybe one day everyone can look
up and see an eye looking down through some great undetectable
microscope and decide then that we as a society are either
unprepared to accept our "nothingness" or it's a
figment of our collective imaginations and subject ourselves
to an entirely new line of argument to understand the natural
phenomena that must have existed to allow what was just witnessed.
Sometimes I wonder if we aren't
a bit too "smart" for our own good, because we don't
seem to be looking at ourselves from the outside to realize
our own recursive efforts in this same way. We're at the
cusp of nanotechnology when we'll supposedly create nanobots
that are too small to directly observe, but which are expected
to do OUR bidding in CREATING machines or other things of
interest to US. I wonder if they'll one day rise up in similar
ignorance and denounce us as creators.
Justin Masters|
El Dorado Hills, California
**
I
agree almost 100% with Orson Scott Card’s evaluation of the
controversy between “evolution” and “intelligent design.”
The most egregious aspect of the debate is the gross ignorance
or fundamental dishonesty that is displayed by both scientists
and the news media when they assert that “intelligent design”
is just another label for “creationism.” Just because Protestantism’s
critique of Catholicism is flawed does not mean that Mormonism’s
critique of certain Catholic doctrines is therefore invalid.
The fact that both critique Catholic doctrines does not make
them the same, or equally valid or invalid.
What is Creationism?
Creationism, as self-defined
by its advocates (who have established societies for publishing
their books and DVDs and booking them into lectures at Christian
schools and churches), take as fundamental to the science
of the creation and development of life on earth an extremely
literal reading of the book of Genesis, with a creation in
six literal days (though in some cases the “days” are stretched
to 1,000 years each), and a Noachic flood in which sea level
rose thousands of feet and covered every mountain. They include
in this “fast track” creation the entire universe, and are
committed to the traditional Augustinian doctrine of creation
ex nihilo (from nothing), with no prior existence of
any matter or energy or, for that matter, time.
Creationism is not only in conflict
with Darwinism, it is also in conflict with geology and cosmology
and astronomy. The age of the earth and its history is currently
estimated at more than 4.2 billion years, with the most current
theory on the formation of the moon being that a proto-planet
about the size of Mars hit Earth at an angle, melting it and
outgassing tremendous amounts of lighter elements that coalesced
in orbit into the moon. Estimates of the creation of the
universe put it around 15 billion years ago, at the Big Bang,
when all current matter and energy rushed out from a singularity
to cool and contract into the millions of galaxies within
15 billion light years away from the Hubble Space Telescope.
It should also be pointed out
that a belief in Creationism is not required by LDS scriptures.
The Book of Moses clarifies that the Genesis account only
talks about the creation of this Earth, and does not address
the steps in the creation of the rest of the universe. The
Prophet Joseph Smith showed he was a better Bible scholar
than the Creationists by explaining that Genesis, in Hebrew,
clearly states that there was preexisting matter used in the
creation of the Earth. The Pearl of Great Price makes clear
that the “days” of creation simply designate phases of the
creative work, not 24-hour periods, and that God had an eternal
span to plan and execute the creation of our mortal home.
The notion of the simultaneous creation of time and space
and matter is rejected because we know that we are just as
eternal as God. Noah didn’t have to build his ship because
the sea level rose, but because he was traveling from North
America, the site of Eden and the city of Enoch, to Asia,
just as the Jaredites and Lehites did the reverse journey
hundreds of years later.
Intelligent Design Is a Scientific
Critique of Darwinism
Intelligent Design is different
because it does NOT base its arguments on the text of the
Bible. Instead, it points out the flaws in Darwinism and
other scientific theories that assume that there was no purposive
action involved in the creation of the universe, of the Earth,
of life, or of the development of life.
ID simply shows that Darwinism
does not fulfill its promises and predictions. For example,
Darwin admitted that the Cambrian explosion, in which all
of the major “body plans” of living things came into existence
in a very short time, challenged the prediction of his theory
that evolution would proceed through innumerable small, relatively
continuous steps. The fact that the fossil record actually
shows no change in species for millions of years, and new
species erupting with distinct characteristics, to stay the
same for millennia, is why Stephen Jay Gould proposed “Punctuated
Equilibrium” as an addendum to Darwinism, suggesting that
the REAL evolution of new species takes place “off stage”
in small, isolated groups, which then rejoin and replace the
older versions of the species. PE is NOT supported by a majority
of Darwinians, though.
The biggest gap in Darwin’s theory
is right at the beginning of life. We know of no way that
anything less than a complete biological cell can be called
alive. Before Darwinian random mutation and natural selection
through differential survival can operate, there must be a
cell with DNA that can be mutated, and which can reproduce.
How do you get that cell in the first place? Darwinism, by
definition, CANNOT EXPLAIN IT. And the National Academy of
Science and Richard Dawkins can only wave their hands and
say that there are lots of theories under consideration, and
they have confidence (another word for “faith”) that the materialistic,
wholly natural and atheistic answer will be discovered REAL
SOON NOW, the same thing they have been saying since DNA was
discovered 50 years ago.
The Miller-Urey experiment does
not in fact relate to the real ancient earth, but even if
it did, or if you get amino acids from comets, the REAL PROBLEM
is how you assemble the amino acids and other simple organic
molecules into the first living, and reproducing, cell. It
has to have a membrane that separates it from dilution and
random chemical reactions, but it has to be selectively permeable
to let in needed nutrients and raw materials and energy sources
and emit waste products. It has to have some source of energy
to run the mechanism. It has to have a mechanism of proteins
to construct and run its factories, and it has to have a computer
made of DNA (or RNA) that is programmed to precisely match
the structure in which it is embedded!
But DNA cannot create a new cell
to match its programming without an existing cell that matches
its programming, and a cell without DNA cannot self-assemble
DNA instructions that will create a duplicate cell. You need
the chicken AND the egg, or the chemicals will simply die!
Darwin ignored this problem because
he didn’t know that cells are incredibly complex machines.
He thought basic cells were just like lime Jell-o, with no
complex structure. In fact, they are the most complex mechanisms
on Earth, more than a 747 or a nuclear submarine or a computer.
DNA is precisely like a computer
memory. Instead of 1s and 0s, it has four different interchangeable
components, abbreviated A, G, T and C, which can be stacked
together like alphabet blocks in any order. However, to run
a cell, they have to be stacked in precisely the correct order
to direct the construction of proteins that actually work
to build and operate a cell. For example, if there were a
really simple cell with only 100 steps in its DNA, there would
be 4 to the 100th power possible combinations that could occur.
However, only a few of them could operate a viable cell.
That means that there would be (let us say) 4 to the 95th
power ways it could go wrong, a number which exceeds the number
of atoms in the Earth. The notion that some random concatenation
of DNA or RNA in some primordial bouillabaisse could come
together to form a viable cell is beyond reasonable belief.
The old saw that a million monkeys
randomly typing a million computers could write Romeo and
Juliet is just hogwash. Every atom in the universe would
need to be converted to monkeys and computers, and do nothing
but randomly type for billions of years, before that could
be accomplished, precisely because we are ruling out the possibility
of any intelligent person who can oversee the work and selectively
weed out the non-Romeo text. All of the examples offered
by scientists along this line always cook the books by inserting
an intelligent editor who culls the nonsense. They are simply
affirming that the creation of the first DNA in the first
cell could only have come about through purposive oversight.
Materialism Powers Darwinism
The assertion that the universe,
Earth and living things came into existence through random
chance, rather than purposive action, has been around for
millennia, including the teachings of Democritus and Epicurus.
They were motivated NOT from scientific observation or experiment,
but rather by a desire to avoid the accountability and guilt
that arise from a belief in a Creator to whom we are answerable.
That “materialism” or “naturalism” has always existed, but
it was only with Darwin’s theory that, as biologist Richard
Dawkins says, it became possible to be a scientifically respectable
atheist. The fact is that “naked Darwinism” appeals to many
people, including many scientists, because it helps to justify
the atheism that they already desire.
The fact that scientific knowledge
does NOT logically result in atheism is evidenced by the thousands
of scientists in all fields who are religious and believe
in God as a real being. As evidenced by scientists like Henry
Eyring, there is no conflict between their belief in God and
the scriptures and their scientific understanding. In fact,
historically, it was primarily religious people, even clergymen,
who became scientists, because they started with the understanding
of God as having laid down sovereign laws, which could be
discovered by mankind. That was the viewpoint of Isaac Newton.
This understanding is precisely the reason that modern science
developed in Christian Europe, rather than in India or China
or even the Muslim civilization.
A prominent evolutionary biologist
is Kenneth Miller, author of a textbook on biology that was
at the center of a lawsuit in Georgia over a sticker the school
board wanted to add, reminding students that Darwinian evolution
is a “theory, not a fact.” Miller is a Catholic who wrote
a book, Finding Darwin’s God, in which he explains that he
believes that God inserted the potential for development of
Mankind into the mix of matter and energy at the moment of
creation, so that the biosphere fulfills God’s intent, even
though He did not manipulate it along the way. Miller was
featured in a PBS book and TV miniseries on Evolution.
At the same time, the fact that
Miller believes in both God AND Darwin is not enough for Richard
Dawkins, the most well-known militant Darwinist. Dawkins
proclaims loudly that evolution inexorably demands atheism,
and that people like Miller (as he told him to his face a
few months ago at a scientific conference, reported in Scientific
American) are either stupid or ignorant or insane.
ID IS Science
The one point at which I disagree
with Card’s essay is when he states that Intelligent Design
is not itself science. ID is just as much science as archeology
when it determines that a piece of rock is artificial rather
than the result of erosion and weathering. ID is just as
much science as cryptology when it determines that a mass
of data includes an intelligible message rather than random
noise (such as a signal picked up by a Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence). ID is just as much science as any forensic
scientist (ala CSI) who determines that a person’s death was
caused intentionally, rather than by accident.
The basic technique of Intelligent
Design science for detecting evidence of intelligent, purposive
action in apparently natural phenomena is to point out where
random chance is so unlikely to be the cause of an observed
condition that purposive action is more rational. Opponents
of ID claim that one cannot make the claim that something
was caused by purposive action until one (a) names WHO was
the actor and (b) HOW he did it.
But that is not true. A bad
explanation does not have to be replaced by a better one.
A bad explanation can be rejected on the basis of its own
inadequacy, and reasonable people can say “We currently don’t
know who or how.” Seekers like Wilford Woodruff were not
forced to join existing churches just because they couldn’t
at first point to a more valid one.
Here is another example: When
one passenger plane slammed into the World Trade Center on
September 11, 2001, it was possible that it was a horrendous
accident, caused by failure of a mechanical or electronic
system on the plane. However, when the second plane hit the
second tower, it was immediately obvious that the chance of
this occurring by accident twice within a few minutes was
unbelievably small. The much more rational explanation was
that someone purposely caused both planes to hit both towers.
We did not know WHO had caused it, and we did not know HOW
they did it, but we darn well knew that it was NOT random
chance. The attack on the Pentagon confirmed that conclusion,
but we did not need that additional data point to know that
this was an intentional attack by an intelligent agent who
wanted to kill Americans and destroy two of the most famous,
and symbolic, buildings in America.
ID simply points out those circumstances,
both present and historical, where belief in a random cause
of the event is unreasonable, and driven by aversion to the
idea of an intelligence higher than, or at least prior to,
man’s. After all, scientists are on the verge of manipulating
DNA to alter living things, to cause an evolutionary step,
and perhaps create a new species. Rather than the illogical
claim that this proves Darwin’s theory, it rather demonstrates
that an intelligent agent can cause speciation and evolution.
It also demonstrates that very subtle interventions can cause
evolutionary changes. A God’s intervention can be at the
level of cosmic rays that alter DNA at the time of nuclear
mitosis, causing a new characteristic that propagates naturally
as it proves its superiority in ensuring the survival and
reproduction of the species.
The idea of a prior intelligence
intervening to push evolution is not strange. It was the
central thesis of Arthur C. Clarke’s screenplay for the movie
2001. Clarke is not a Christian, and does not believe
in Jehovah. However, his mind is open to the idea of other
intelligent species in the universe, who may have affected
life on Earth millennia ago.
ID is a Valid Scientific Testing
of Darwinism
Scientific theories have to be
testable. If they cannot stand up to tests, they are not
valid. The scientists (biologists, physicists, mathematicians,
astronomers) who subscribe to the Intelligent Design hypothesis
are proposing ways to test the theory of Darwinian evolution.
It does not pass those tests. Darwinism is, like Ptolemaic
cosmology for basic celestial navigation, a theory that is
useful in certain applications, but it is simply dishonest
for its supporters to say that it is so “super true” that
it is beyond being tested.
We Latter-day Saints don’t even
believe that the Gospel and the scriptures are so “super true”
that they are beyond testing. Alma Chapter 32 and Moroni
Chapter 10 invite us to test the gospel, to try the experiment.
When Darwinians say that their
favorite theory cannot be tested, they have gone outside the
realm of science into a fearful, uncharitable and unhopeful
faith. They are taking the same attitude to Michael Behe
and other ID scientists that Cardinal Bellarmine did toward
Galileo. They want to put them under house arrest, and suppress
the teaching and publication of their ideas.
Clearly, the faithful Darwinists
don’t believe that Darwinism has evolved enough backbone to
stand erect. The poor beast has to be protected, lest its
unfitness to survive be manifest.
Raymond Takashi Swenson
Idaho Falls, Idaho
[Thanks for your attention, readers!
Editor}
***************************************************************
Where is the Sin in Sincere?
Read
Article Here
The Seven Deadly Sins of Sacrament
Meeting Talks, by Christian A. Johnson
I would like to present a different
perspective on the advice of "careful drafting."
I worry that we fail to rely
on the Holy Ghost (for example see D&C 68:2 and especially
D&C 84:85: "Neither take you thought beforehand
what ye shall say; but treasure up in your minds continually
the words of life, and it shall be given you in the very hour
that portion that shall be meted unto every man." The
most powerful talks I have delivered have been when I have
done good preparation, then followed the spirit at the pulpit
to direct me which of the materials I need to present. Of
course this can be terrifying and one has to keep an eye on
the clock (as so eloquently discussed) but I feel my presentations
are more spiritual (although perhaps not as polished) when
I am relying on the Spirit to puts the words in my mouth.
Brad Howel
Rexburg, ID.
**
Loved your article and insights
on the Seven Deadly Sins of Sacrament Talks.
There is one standing problem
that recurs often in our ward — the bishopric not timing out
how long it takes for special musical numbers, blessings,
youth talks, announcements, etc. Sometimes they even book
3 talks at 10-15 minutes each —AFTER the musical number and
youth talks (which often take too long when one of them reads
an entire article from the New Era). Knowing how long it
takes to prepare a Sacrament meeting talk, I am always hurting
for the last person, (once a very interesting doctor in our
ward and once our stake patriarch), who were both left with
only 5 minutes through no encroachment of other speakers,
just poor planning. If only a bishopric member would stand
up out of courtesy to the prepared speaker and ask if they
would please give their talk the next week, or whenever possible.
I am going to send your article
to several of my family and friends.
Rebecca Langford
Oregon City, Oregon
**
Thanks for your great article
on the Seven Deadly Sins. I would add another sin, perhaps
related to #7. Many people, at the beginning of their talks,
will say something to the effect that they are very nervous:
"If this podium weren't here, you would see my knees
knocking," "I would rather be sitting down there
in the audience than up here speaking to you." I'm not
sure what I would call this sin, but it sure is irritating.
Also, using the phrase "You
guys" mostly be our young people, is a little irritating.
Maybe it's just me.
Chuck Peterson
Lakewood, Colorado
**
Those in attendance at Sacrament
Meetings, especially investigators, are often distracted and
perhaps awe-struck by certain common patterns of irreverence:
(1) The intense traffic in and
out of the chapel for various reasons while those who have
been asked to speak are delivering their talks.
(2) Conversations between members
of the congregation while speakers are giving their talks
(whispering not excepted.)
(3) Personal reading (except
when noting scripture passages at the speaker's suggestion.)
If the speaker senses the congregation is uninterested in
his talk, it can be a distraction to him in his delivery.
(4) The random scratching of
someone's back (quietly patting a baby to give comfort, of
course, is excepted.)
(5) Eating during the service
(bottles for hungry babies excepted.)
(6) Attire inappropriate for
church services (including — but not limited to — comic strip
ties popular even among some grown men.) that might be a distraction
to a proper worship atmosphere, attitude or attention to the
speakers.
(7) Clipping fingernails.
Reed Andrew
Portage, Wisconsin
**
An excellent article, and one
that is sorely needed by many adult and young-adult speakers.
Tim Dall
Falls Church, Virginia
**
I loved this article! I'd love
to see one more point added: Reading the whole talk. I don't
mind listening to a speaker read a few appropriate (short)
quotes, but when the entire talk or very long quotes are read
instead of paraphrased, I'm ready to get out of the meeting!
While the General Authorities
read their talks, it is only from the teleprompter for the
benefit of transcribers and interpreters. (It also helps
to keep them in their assigned time limit.) If you've ever
put on General Conference with the closed captions, you will
notice that from time to time, they will say something that
was not originally in their speech (probably following the
spirit). Our stake president is quite adamant that the high
council write their talks, and then leave them home. I must
say that I actually look forward to High Council Sundays because
I know that the message will come from the Spirit, where the
speaker is in tune.
Catherine Larsen
Sandy, Utah
**
I like this article. Some of
it gave me a good chuckle, and I will definitely keep these
guidelines in mind! I'd like to add one other point.
People should not get up and
criticize other religions, especially by name. I have cringed
sometimes over that, and prayed there were no investigators
at church that day.
Virginia Gillis
Hull, Massachusetts
**
My family and I spent 28 years
in the Houston area from late 69 to mid 98. We lived in the
Southwest and were in the Houston Stake, Maplewood 1st ward
and then the Houston South Stake in the Mission Bend Ward.
I was on the high council in
the South stake and the stake president (Leo Smith) asked
me to prepare a handout to help people give better talks.
After lo these many years, he called me recently to see if
I still had a copy. He said, "There are some folks here
that really need it." It had a couple of limericks and
some pencil sketches of actual people listening and sleeping.
I wasn't able to find it, but I remembered one of the limericks:
There once was a meeting so boring,
The Saints could all be
heard snoring.
The meeting droned on,
Can this be Forrest Lawn?
At Amen our spirits go
soaring.
The other one was about a good
meeting and as I remember I covered many of the points you
did. The only one I had that you didn't was, "Don't
apologize for being unprepared. The audience will find out
soon enough."
Theft of time happened here in
Orem about a year ago. President Hinckley showed up at a
local fast and testimony meeting unannounced. The Bishop
announced that they wanted to leave him about 20 minutes for
a few remarks. Some lady got up and talked through all of
his time. He got up and bore his testimony briefly and sat
down. The audience was disappointed that they had been deprived
of a personal message from the prophet.
John P. MacLean.
Orem, Utah
**
I loved this article. Thank you!
I wish the author would submit it to the Ensign. I
really wish more wards would take advantage of the opportunity
to call someone to the "Speech Specialist" calling
that falls under the rubric of the Activities Committee.
Erin Dyal
Tbilisi, Georgia
**
I do think lots of people have
NO idea how to prepare for a talk, and no idea how long a
page of information will take to present. A couple of guidelines:
A handwritten 8 1/2 x 11 page will take 60 to 90 seconds.
A typewritten page will take 2–4 minutes (if you don’t elaborate
on the content, and depending if it’s single or double-spaced).
These are my own estimates for my own they might not be accurate
for others.
Another help might be to watch
the clock, having decided — in advance — what parts of the
prepared talk can be skipped if:
1. the talk turns out to be
longer than the bishopric asked for, or
2. the time to speak turns
out to be shorter
Personally, I have to have extensive
notes — whether to speak or to teach. That makes it easy
to time a talk and decide in advance what to delete, if time
requires. I’m in awe of folks who can deliver, apparently
off the cuff, great talks (to a schedule) without notes.
I also KNOW that the only way that happens with any consistency
is if they rehearse, rehearse, rehearse. (If people don’t
write things out, they need to be better prepared than time
or capability allow, at this point in my life.)
I’ve also observed that in General
Conference, most speakers use teleprompters; generally very
well. The speakers probably also know the approximate number
of words to write for the time they are given. And conference
ALWAYS ends on time, or a couple of minutes early, which is
amazing when you consider the number of speakers.
Reading through the article,
I realized the 7 deadly sins had turned into 7 commandments.
Cynthia Kondratieff
Sunnyvale, California
**
I would like to say something
about this list of ‘deadly sins.’ I think that the seven points
are valid. I think too that President Monson was right to
take the time to prepare such a talk (see Call to Duty). The
talks that they give need to be typed out so that the translators
can do a good job.
And here comes the “however.”
I read a book a couple of years ago called Teaching by
the Spirit by Gene R. Cook.
In this book Elder Cook explains
the importance of “preparing the messenger” and allowing the
spirit to guide the speaker. It has been my sad experience
to sit and listen to talks “read” by speakers, who spent weeks
preparing the talk and then missing the point which is that
they were there to say what the Savior would say if he were
there. Yet they all finished dutifully with “in the ‘Name
of Jesus Christ.”
The footnote at the bottom of
Isaiah 58:2 says it well “They do all the rituals, but lack
something yet.”
I know that when the young and
the newly baptized give a talk they can be forgiven for writing
down some notes but I would hope that any priesthood holder
would throw out his notes, prepare himself and then speak
with the Spirit. This means studying the scriptures, fasting
and praying and obeying the commandments and it has been my
experience that your soul becomes filled with light and you
can then truly say, “in the name of Jesus Christ.”
Sander Witte
Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
**
The biggest "Deadly Sin"
of Sacrament Meeting Talks is failure to preach the gospel
of Jesus Christ, something that requires the use of the scriptures.
I am very disappointed that this "Deadly Sin" was
not included in this author's list. In my view, the sin of
failing to preach the gospel in Sacrament Meeting talks is
a big problem in the Church. It damages testimonies.
John W. Redelfs
Juneau Alaska
**
You forgot one, which can be
totally inappropriate. Visual aids. I have seen a High Councilman
wear wrestling headgear for about five minutes. I saw another
High Councilman bring object after object out. It really
can detract from the spirit.
Basically, I think it has been
taught to members, that in Sacrament meeting talks, no visual
aids should be used other than the scriptures.
I believe there is doctrine about
what is appropriate for visual aids.
Douglas Stanley
Bountiful, Utah
**
This talk should be reprinted
in the Bishop's Handbook of Instructions and given to every
person asked to speak in Sacrament Meeting. Thanks! It will
be in my permanent file for future reference and a handout
to all my family and friends.
Jan C.
Draper, Utah
**
This was most appropriate topic
and one that needs to be addressed over and over. It is a
scary experience for many people but nothing helps like being
prepared both spiritually and mentally for a talk.
Steve Wilson
Nampa, Idaho
**
In response to Christian Johnson's
article about sacrament talks, I wish he would include the
one sin that I really do not enjoy listening to: reading straight
from the Ensign, New Era and Friend.
And half the time the reader
never looks up at the congregation just keeps mumbling
on. And talk into the microphone!
Jacquelyn Davidson
Monterey, Virginia
**
Thumbs Up from Down Under
Read
Article Here
Finding Nephi’s Bountiful in the
Real World, by Warren P. Aston
Excellent article, well documented,
thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
Reg Hardman
Brisbane, Australia.
**
Great Grandma Unveiled
Read
Article Here
The Face Behind the Veil, by
GG. Vandagriff
I was wondering if you might
be able to put me in touch with G.G. Vandagriff, who wrote
"The Face Beyond the Veil" for your website in 2002.
I have some information about her great-grandmother that she
might find to be of interest.
Shannon Dennison
Broomfield, Colorado
*******************
Free and Easy
Read
Article Here
Freecycling — Changing the World
One Gift at a Time, by Clark and Kathy Kidd
We had a heavy oak entertainment
center that was moved to our front foyer when we got new carpeting
in October. I gently nudged my husband a few times to get
it out of there. (Note that it has been almost 3 months!)
When I saw the article about freecycling, I asked my husband
if he thought that was a good idea. He said yes, and I had
seven responses in less than a day. The first response was
in 20 minutes! It was picked up the next day.
I love this magazine. It is the
highlight of my day.
Diane L. Irwin
Saline, Michigan
**
I told my kids about that Freecycle
website. Emily, the one who lives in Connecticut, called me
tonight and told me what happened when she used the site.
She had a stray kitten hanging around her house that she had
been feeding and when the temperatures dropped last night,
to about 10, she decided to take it in and isolate it in a
spare bedroom from her cats. She called the humane society,
but they wanted $55.00 to take it, and since they are poor
that was not an option. So she remembered this website and
tried it. Within 4 hours a family came and got the cat.
Needless to say she was very happy with the outcome. So
thank you Meridian. You made someone in my family happy.
Pat Fletcher
Maryland
*******************************************
Baby Love
Read Article Here
Espousing Politically Incorrect
Doctrines: Counsel to Unwed Parents, by Kevin Broderick
My husband and I are one of the
many couples with LDS Family Services who are excited to start
our family through adoption. As we have trudged through our
journey to adopt, we have occasionally felt inadequate, thinking
about the trust the birthparents will be instilling in us.
This article gave me comfort
as it discussed the importance of having children sealed to
a mother and father who deeply love and care for each other.
We know that we will give our children all we are capable
of on this earth, but the most important thing we can give
them is our family forever. And that gives me comfort and
confidence as we continue to hope and pray for our future
children to join our forever family.
Alison Carlson
Des Moines, Iowa
*************************************************
Eternal Love
Read Article
Here
Same-Gender Attraction, by Elder Dallin H. Oaks,
October Ensign
An open letter from a Meridian
reader to his son:
Dear Son,
How do I begin? I wish our hands
could touch and through that contact we could see all the
other sees, absorb all the other feels. One day we will, but
we will just need to stand in each other's presence to know
all, to understand all. I look forward to that day.
I don't know for sure all Elder
Oaks was trying to or not trying to convey in his discourse.
What does pull on my heart, and hurts to contemplate though,
is the deep and abiding yearning of many LDS men and women
who feel outside the circle of the Church, and therefore assumed
to be outside the circle of their God. In their shoes I would
be led to wonder if I were among those children of perhaps
a lesser god. Where were God's words to me? Who was I supposed
to turn to? Had God expressed His love and I just didn't realize
He was talking to me too?
Here is what I do know:
There is no sin in same sex attraction.
There is no sin in opposite sex attraction. Both can sit side
by side in church. Both can attend the temple and receive
their endowments, both can lose themselves in the service
of others there. Both are under the same commandments of love
Father has extended to ALL his children — the law of chastity,
the law of tithing, the law of the Sabbath, etc. Both have
their respective crosses to bear. No soul travels this life
experience (which includes all time from birth to resurrection)
without being tried in all things. Each will experience that
which will prove and try them. None would, in the light of
understanding, want to trade their probation for another’s.
Any indulgence in prejudice and superstition, given or received,
cheats both souls. Each indulgence robs the infected of the
power to see clearly; to see as God sees, to love as God loves,
to understand.
Marriage between a man and a
woman, the bearing of children, the family organization, is
holy doctrine ordained before the foundations of the world
were laid. Our Father’s call to defend and honor that institution
is to all his children, opposite and same sex attracted alike.
For some it may mean defending without experiencing, but with
that defense comes an empowering knowledge that God keeps
His promises and that their joy too will be full; that if
they endure to the end nothing will be withheld from them
- a promise to all God’s children.
It comes down to this: Do we
believe God, or not? If we do, then we should feel comfortable
enjoying a sacrament meeting or a temple session, regardless
of our sexual attractions. All of us are commanded to keep
our thoughts and passions within the bounds the Lord has set.
That and much more are personal trials for each of us. None
should cheat themselves by assuming the other has it easier,
or my cross is unique therefore special words must be written
just for me. Any indulgence in that line of thinking cheats
our souls and robs us of the power to join with God in making
our lives as productive and joyful as He promised they can
be. God HAS spoken and He is a God of truth and cannot lie.
Love, Dad.
**
In Memoriam
Read Article
Here
Pulitzer Prize Winner,
Jack Anderson: Celebrating America’s Premier Muckraker, by
Mark Feldstein
In 1947, I was an 18-year-old
bride when I first moved to Washington D.C. with my husband,
Victor Rainey. We attended the wonderful chapel in Washington
D.C., which has now been sold. My first introduction to it,
by the way, was when a taxi driver asked us if we wanted to
see the "most beautiful building in D.C." He drove
us by the Washington fairy-tale chapel — an architectural
work of art, we thought..
Jack Anderson was a member of
the ward, and was already known as Drew Pearson's gofer.
I didn't care much for Drew Pearson's radio show, and rarely
read his column, but Jack himself was personable and had a
lot to say in Sunday school classes, and in person also.
While I liked him, I really thought he was a little bit of
a garbage man, always cruising around looking for 'items'
for Drew. He was interesting to talk to, and it was always
rather a good thing to stand near enough to hear his conversations,
as you gained all kinds of inside info through the back door,
you might say. Besides, he made very little effort to keep
people from hearing. I considered him a showman! I'm sorry
to say I don't really remember his wife, except that she was
pretty and very nice. After all, that was 58 years ago.
I'm sorry he died from Parkinson's
Disease — a very sad ending for a most interesting life. I
thought the article was well-written. I believe Jack's testimony
was deeply grounded. He knew the gospel was true.
Delsa Anderson
Phoenix, Arizona
**********************************************************************
Happy Returns
Read Article Here
Books that Illuminate the
Prophet Joseph, by Daniel C. Peterson and William J. Hamblin
Great to have you two brethren
back again on the pages of Meridian. I used to look forward
to your pieces on Islam, the Middle East and associated issues.
Well written. Insightful. Each one a treasure. Liked your
article today on Joseph Smith books, but I hope you will continue
to publish pieces about the Middle East as well.
Steven Orton
Burke, Virginia
*******************************************************************
The Final Judge
Read Article
Here
Judge Alito: A Man for All
Sessions, by John and Hannah Smith
I believe the discussion over
whether Judge Alito should be confirmed or not is simply in
line with the Constitution and our democratic process. As
members of the Church I think we should realize that this
discussion is also in line with The Plan of Salvation and
specifically our "Free Agency". Further, the things
we don't believe in should not affect the way we live our
lives. If I had a vote in congress I would vote to confirm
Judge Alito but I believe the process of allowing both sides
must go on.
The Lord will be the final Judge.
Thanks for your article.
Tom Johnson
Bass Lake Ward,
California
********************************************************************
Former Chief of Police Evades
Speeding Ticket
Read Article
Here
Prolific Writer
and Great Supporter of the Constitution, W. Cleon Skousen,
Passes Away, by Paul Skousen
Born in Southern Alberta, Cleon
Skousen was a cousin and close friend of my mother, who passed
her admiration of him on to her children. I recall many of
his books adorned our shelves, most bearing his personal inscription.
About 22 years ago, Cleon and
his wife Jewel attended a large family reunion in Waterton
Park on the US border.
To help raise money to offset
reunion costs, Cleon brought one of his first edition, first
off the press books, Isaiah Speaks to Modern Times,
and auctioned it off. Two of my sisters decided they each
wanted the book badly enough that the ensuing bidding war
did not finish till several hundreds of dollars had been committed.
It turns out that each one thought it would be the perfect
gift for my mother.
Due to work commitments, we had
to leave the reunion early and were consequently asked if
we would mind driving the Skousens to the airport in Calgary
to catch their flight home. We jumped at the opportunity and
during the next three hours thoroughly enjoyed a personal
and private interview. We talked about everything; politics,
scriptures, the Church, Israel, leadership, unions, crime
—you name it. I tried to soak it all up. It wasn’t hard to
keep him going, he seem so willing to impart his wisdom. Needless
to say we were taking the scenic route.
Unfortunately my attention may
have been a little too occupied, for as we traveled I noticed
flashing lights in the rear-view mirror. Upon stopping, Cleon
urged me to hurry back and ask the officer if there is anything
I could do for him. I diligently obeyed, was informed I had
been going eight miles per hour over the speed limit and was
let off with a warning. When I got back in the car Cleon smiled,
almost as if he knew. In explaining, he simply said, “The
more effort an officer has to make, the more likely he is
to make sure it is worth his time.” I have always remembered
this sage advice, which has served me well at various other
times in my life.
Cleon Skousen both satisfied
and fuelled my curiosity. Truly he helped many of us to come
to understand the learning of men and the mysteries of God
and at the same time challenged us to reach further.
Brian Pratt
Calgary, Alberta,
Canada
**
I can't remember how many times
I have referred to The First 2000 Years and his other
books that followed. These books literally made the Old
Testament come alive for me. I could understand them so clearly,
and I have literally “treasured” my four volumes of Treasures
of the Book of Mormon. I can hardly study without them.
He left a gold mine of scripture-informative material that
will be passed on to coming generations. He was an exceptional
man and will be missed.
Iris Thayer
Kingman, Arizona
