M E R I D I A N M A G A Z I N E
Send your messages, comments
and thoughts to editorial@meridianmagazine.com
Please include your name, city, and state or city and country.
Readers Write
Novels to Orson Scott Card
Edited and compiled by Kathy Green
Science, Fiction
Read
Article Here
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?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.
Reader in 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
**
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
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
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
*******************************************
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
*************************************************
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.
**
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
**********************************************************************
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
*******************************************************************
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