BYU Reaction In the Box at the End of THE Game

Southpark's version of Hell, NOT THE LDS VERSION, but funny and unlike most Southpark stuff, its clean!

Rowan Atkinson's Version of Hell, "The French, Are You Here?"

Fictional Providence Stake.

This is a map of my version of the Providence Stake. The problem I ran minimized aggregate travel costs for the entire stake with the constraints that each ward had to have over 200 homes in its borders to be functional. I'm not going to post the original map, because the Church distributes them on a need to know basis and I was lucky to get that info and don't want to abuse it. The dots represent the density and number of LDS homes in those towns, but DO NOT REPRESENT THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF THE MEMBERS!

Read a Good Article

This is a good article about December 7, 1941 on this blog. The man referred to is also my grandfather and it was an important day for me as well.
http://feebleattemptsathumor.blogspot.com

Never Do This at a Funeral

I can't concentrate on all this school garbage so I thought I'd post this story of what not to do at a funeral. Its funny how school makes me think of funerals and death, huh?
When I was about 17 or 18, my former girlfriend's grandmother died. She was understandably distraught and asked if I would go to the funeral with her to provide support. I didn't really want to, I hated funerals and hadn't been to one since I was about 2 when my grandmother died, but I figured it would be the right thing to do. Accordingly, I slipped into my double-breasted suit and got all snazzed-up and off we went.
When we got to the funeral home, people were being ushered in and grieving over their loss. My girlfriend and her sister were locking arms trying to console one another. As we approached the usher, he looked at me and sized me up. Noticing my nice suit, he inquired, "are you a pall bearer." I was confused, I didn't know funeral terminology and so I looked at him and asked "excuse me". "Are you a pall bearer", he again asked. "What is this guy asking me", I thought. Again, "are you a pall bearer". Then came the little thought bubble placed directly over my numb skull, which read, "ah, he thinks I'm one of the Bairds that I went to High School with, one of them must be Paul, he thinks I'm Paul Baird." Naturally, I held out my hand to extend a friendly greeting and said, "no, I'm Clint D. nice to meet you."
The mood around me suddenly shifted. The usher looked at me in horror as if to say, "how dare you make jokes at such a solemn occasion." The people directly around me, including my girlfriend and her sister, went from crying to laughing. At that point, my aversion to funerals grew 10 fold.

But No Tolerance for Vandals!!

I should have made it clear in my rant that any little punk that vandalizes buildings in down town Provo should not be tolerated at all! They should be taken out and shot, right after Chris kicks them in the stomach and canes them within' an inch of their lives! J/K. Though, I have to say, their vandalism did afford me the opportunity to see Center Street on the news via, KUTV so thanks vandals, keep up the good work! Next time do me a favor and vandalize the Univeristy of Utah so that I can see the "ole stompin' grounds" on the news. I even have a suggestion, giant blue Ys on all the buildings that would be nice.
Clint

Who is Truly Tolerant?

This last post made me think about an issue near and dear to my heart, the issue of tolerance. We hear this term more and more frequently these days and we see it less and less. My mother-in-law and my wife are both card carrying liberals. They were trying to convince me that most conservatives were taught to be intolerant. I didn't know exactly what to say at the time and for want of keeping the peace, I just nodded in agreement, but I think this is how I'd respond if the same conversation came up again. Yes, most conservatives are indeed intolerant as are almost all liberals. I've observed that often those people who are most vocal about the need for tolerance are the worst practitioners! Unfortunately, instead of practicing the true tolerance, that the Savior advocated, which meant perfect tolerance and love for people, but not tolerance for bad policy or practices (or for U of U fans). Instead, many would rather create their own definition, being selectively tolerant only to people they agree with and despising people who oppose them. This reminds me of Tammy Bruce's book, she talks about how many in the gay community literally broke out the bubbly when they found out Reagan had a horrible disease. As if to prove my point, the news just reported the defence that many are giving to the North Carolina State professor who called for a Caucasian genocide and it reminds me of the widespread support that Ward Churchill received when he implied that the victims of 911 deserved it calling them "little Eichmanns".
Actors in Hollywood constantly preach "tolerance" out of one side of their mouth, while the other side lashes out and defames people whom they disagree with "rednecks, idiotic, inbred" and the list of slurs goes on and on and is usually much more colorful. I remember when the bastion and shining example of "tolerance" Cal-Berkley signed off on a half-time show to be performed while BYU was in town. In the show they made fun of the mormon faith in the most condesceding ways imaginable and the crowd ate it up. Supposedly tolerant Cal fans hooted and hollered and poked fun at the mormons.
I wonder, is it "tolerance" they want or a reversal of the moral structures and norms in america, the only gauge of right and wrong being day time television and the philosophies of cultural icons. A great example of these "wolves in sheep's clothing" are those who created and liberally apply the term homophobes to others. This is a term created specifically for demeaning those who don't see the world as they do and is broadly applied (I wouldn't have a problem with the term if it was used to describe those who are homicidal towards homosexuals or even those who hate other people). However, with their definition of homophobia almost anything qualifies you. You don't have to be a Nazi placing a pink triangle on a homo-sexual to be a "homophobe", all you have to do in order to classify for this distinction is to say "you know what, wrong is wrong." To qualify for "enlightened" you have to say that immorality is morality and courage. You can even have close friends or loved family members who are homosexual, but if you don't deny Christ's teachings, you are not deserving of their "tolerance". If the "tolerance police" truly were tolerant, the term Christmas wouldn't bother them, they wouldn't be bothered if a child wanted to say a prayer in school or at a graduation, or if they wanted to read scriptures during free-reading time, they wouldn't be going around the country with a chisel taking the 10 commandments off of everything and changing all the names of towns with religious connotation. Its ironic that the "tolerance police" mock the one person in the history of the world that is truly tolerant (tolerance in its truest form, being patient and loving towards those who offend). They have no tolerance for Him or his gospel and try to stifle any dialog about Him or His life, becoming incensed when anyone has the audacity to release a movie about his life. Is this tolerance? I don't think that we as LDS should allow the "tolerance police" hijack "tolerance" language, only the Lord has a monopoly on that one.

A Sign of the Times moment

This sign of the times moment brought to you by Hannity and Colmes. A North Carolina State Professor said this, "how are we going to exterminate white people of the face of the planet?" Went on to say that it was the only solution. I would say that fits into the category of the "love of many shall wax cold". Wouldn't you? What made it worse is the substantial applause at his comments, I would say more than the applause by those supporting Mit Romney at Fordham University on the Chris Matthew's College Tour. Screwed up world.

BCS the Big Concocted Stinkpickle

Yet again, we have all become victims to the inept system that is the BCS. Every year the only people we hear defending it are those who are paid by the BCS. A system built on greed and dedicated to the proposition that the rich should get richer even if they haven't done anything to warrant it. It is the anti-meritocracy, the equivalent to members of the communist party in the Soviet Union becoming the only upper-class in the nation, simply because they were, because they belonged to the party (like say a Baylor).The first argument for the BCS is that it is the best system to match up the 2 best teams in college football that there can be, because the athletes grades would suffer if the season was expanded by a playoff.1aa. They have had a tournament for years and it works fine and some of the finest academic institutions in the country belong to this league. The truth is that the BCS is intent on creating an artificial divide between the haves and the have-nots, because they know that the difference in talent is not as great as the myth that they constantly perpetuate and if the "mid-majors" were left to their own devices, the power dynamics would shift over time as they always have (remember the military academies used to be powerhouses as well as many of the smaller schools in the midwest). Look at what Gonzaga has done for there basketball program without a system like the BCS stacking the odds against them. Utah was able to rise and compete on the national level, Loyola Maramount, UNLV the list goes on.The next argument is that it creates controversy and hence is good for college football.Rebuttal- Doesn't March Madness create a lot of buss with Cinderella teams coming out of no where every year and isn't that much more exciting then having the same old-BCS teams going to the same games every year? I want to see young innovative coaches implementing new exciting schemes in the mix! Wouldn't it be great to see if Boise State could win the whole thing or if Utah would've done it two years ago? This is what made the movie Hoosiers so compelling, a small school with big heart and a great coach, playing a Powerhouse, the David and Goliath story, retold every year.Next we're told that these smaller teams couldn't compete with the "big boys" and hence they don't deserve to be there. "Maybe if they would put real teams on their schedule", we are often told.The truth, however, is that the so called "big" schools are afraid of putting these "mid-majors" on their schedules. Think about it. Does anyone want to play Boise State this year? Oklahoma is gotta be shaking in their boots. They have nothing to gain, because they have created the perception that the WAC is so much worse than the BIG 12 so if they lose, they look bad and if they win, even though beating a good team, they are told they were supposed to win. When the "bigger" conferences schedule these teams, they will often only do it if is a 2 for 1 deal, therefore stacking the odds against the smaller school. Many won't play unless it is a deal requiring the unfortunate non-BCS school to play only at their place, like Utah at Michigan. But we see that when BCS schools go into non-BCS stadiums, they often lose. Look at Utah beating California and Texas A&M two years ago. In its glory days, BYU routinely stuck it to BCS foes coming into Edwards Stadium. Miami, Penn State, Texas, Notre Dame, Texas A&M are a few examples.Well why don't they play in a real conference? I hear this one a lot.This is because the BCS schools have contempt for non-BCS schools and don't want to elevate them. When you think of BYU - Arizona State or BYU - Washington or BYU - Oregon, aren't you conditioned to think, well those PAC 10 schools are much larger programs? Come on you think that don't you? Well consider this, BYU's attendance, which has dropped off the last 5 or 6 years because of the damage the BCS has done, was at 60,524 this year. There were only 3 PAC10 schools higher than that; USC 91,480, California 62,951 and UCLA 60,676 so UCLA only averaged 150 more per game. Utah's attendance (and they are known for being fair-weather fans) was higher than 3 PAC 10 schools. So there is more interest in BYU and Utah than many BCS programs (come on, I go to Uconn, but you can't tell me they are more deserving of access to the BCS than BYU), but these conferences don't want them a part of theirs, because that would elevate their status and they would have to compete for recruits. Look at Ben Olson, he went to UCLA over BYU (even though he is LDS), because he wanted a chance to at least compete for a title.The argument I was recently presented with by a Uconn student, who defended the BCS was this, "you make some good points, but these schools don't belong to conferences that are steeped in tradition, and have played one another for over 100 years, like say the BIG 10".It baffles the mind, it really does. Don't these people think for themselves? With the Internet, information is just a click away. Don't they know that the University of Utah was founded in 1850, before ANY PAC 10 school and BYU in 1875 before most of them. BYU and Utah were playing against one another in 1896 before UCLA was even founded in 1919!The bottom line is this, either you are division 1a or you are not. This is the only sport with no legitimate championship. It is a total joke that any team in sports can go undefeated and not have a championship or the right to earn it on the field! What is the point of playing, why don't we just hold a vote on the Internet, which team is the most popular each year? Is this football or professional wrestling?Clint

Persecution of the Mormon Faith

The other day, I went into a dangerous part of West Warwick, Rhode Island with the LDS missionaries. As we pulled up to the home of those we were visiting, I was shocked as about 5 young men appeared seemingly out of nowhere. They came up to us and followed us as we walked the short way to the home, the whole time screaming obscenities and foulness that I won't repeat. It was directed not at "mormons", I'm not even sure they knew what a "mormon" was. Their diatribe was directed at their own Savior! They uttered some of the most foul things I've ever heard at the one person, who loves them more than anyone.
It was a strange experience, that 5 people whom I had never seen would go out of their way to confront us and deride Jesus in such a way. I felt a range of emotions, shock, anger, but then I felt a gladness, because I remembered what the Lord said "blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."
I also thought of something that I read while I was at the University of Utah. During the war in Vietnam, men were flown in and out by commercial jet. Those leaving Vietnam and those arriving in country would often pass one another on the their respective paths. One path led to hell and one to home. For both groups of men, it was a profound experience. For the men newly arrived, it was a shock to see the haggard, tired and transformed men who were shells of their former selves. They wondered if they would end up like that if they made it home at all. I was amazed reading these accounts, because the reaction of those home "newbies" was predictable, they wanted to jump back on the plane and go home, but the men leaving Vietnam, on the other hand, their reaction was totally conter-intuitive. They should have been glad to go home to their parents and family, but they were not. They saw what they had lost and they became angry! They started to hurl insults and threats in an attempt to break the "new guys'" faith.
When I read this, I realized that it is the same with the growing persecution of the LDS faith. Men are all given the ability to detect good and evil. We can look at someone's face and see either light or darkness in their eyes and we either get angry or our testimonies are strenghtened and we are convicted to follow Christ. I was amazed the other day when someone told me I was evil "persecuted evil is still evil", he said. He told me that I shouldn't ignore the bible as mormons do and I thought, but wait a minute, why is he saying its ok to persecute "evil". Doesn't the bible tell us to love our enemies and pray for them? I don't try to be evil and I hope I'm not, I like many other christians in the world pray that I'll do what the Savior would have me do, I know I've done a lot of things that I'm not proud of, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints alone has given me the strength to overcome, where things that seemed impossible and consuming are barely an afterthought now and if that is evil then I don't know what good is. If it is the church of the devil as some profess, why does it have such a powerful influence for good (by their fruits we shall know them).
As persecution increases as it has been (we see this with Mit Romney and having to "explain his mormonism"), I hope that we as followers of Jesus Christ can take confort in the fact that our reward will be great in heaven if we endure the trial of persecution. I don't mean to say in this article that only LDS members desire to follow Christ, I'm know there are lots of good people around the world, who are persecuted because they are trying to follow truth. Much of my family is not LDS and I know they try to live right and are good people. I know that the LDS faith teaches that most religions have truths and teach good things so it would stand to reason others follow true principles and are thus mocked by the world because of it, but I'm focusing on the rise of persecution directed at the LDS Church. We as members of the Church should rejoice when we are persecuted and should not be discouraged by it! Just maybe, that means that we are on the right track, especially in a world where society's values are so out of line with the teachings of the Savior.

Roger Williams Noted the Apostacy and Hoped for the Restoration!

When Christ was fulfilling His earthly ministry, He chose apostles by the authority of the priesthood and they were given authority to baptize, heal, cast out evil spirits and speak with power and authority and given the privileges of revelation. After Jesus ascended into heaven, the apostles continued to spread the word and run the affairs of the Church, but they were persecuted and slain for their beliefs. So great was their persecution, that this authority and the priesthood disappeared from the earth, the Gospel of Jesus Christ being corrupted by wicked men as recently portrayed in a movie, the events that took place during the Council of Nicea. Doctrine was born out of contention, strife and political rangling. For hundreds of years, people searched for the truth, but could not find it, fulfilling the biblical prophecy, that "the days come saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: And they shall wander from sea to sea , and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord and shall not find it."
There were good people throughout this dark age from about 300 a.d to the early 1800s that recognized that the Church, as established by the Redeemer of the World, no longer existed. Roger Williams, a very righteous man, who was noted for his deep love of the Native-Americans and who founded the first state in modern history with separation of church and state (Rhode Island) said in the 1600s "nothing in the poor span of my life has convinced me that the true Church of Christ as instituted by the Savior, still remains and extant". He had seen what men had done over the long dark ages of "Christianity" in the name of God, he'd seen the atrocities the puritans had wrought upon the Native-Americans in the name of God and he had seen men burnt at the stake for "heresy". Therefore he deduced from his lifetime of scripture study and contemplative prayer that in order for a church to be the truly authorized and authentic Church of Christ, first, the Church would not have a "hireling ministry" or in other words, men that depended on preaching popular and accepted precepts of men in order to gain a livelihood or else they could never accept truth when it presented itself. 2. the Church must have the courage to "purge itself of false worship" even at the risk of incurring persecution by the rest of the world if its teachings were not in line with earthly standards. 3. it must have the authority to perform sacred ordinances (Roger Williams denounced his own baptism of an early Anabaptist congregation, because he concluded he lacked the authority). And the Church must trace an apostolic succession (or an unbroken authority passing from one priesthood holder to the next) and for this to occur, he deemed it necessary for Christ to appear again to man and renew this authority and choose new apostles. 4. the true Church of Christ would endure persecution, but not be the persecutors of others for perceived falsehoods. The people of God throughout biblical history were always persecuted for His sake.
Two hundred years after Roger Williams, the true Church of Christ was restored and does extant!! Christ has chosen new apostles who possess the authority to act in his name, revelation continues and a prophet is on the earth. The faithful are being gathered again. Learn more about this by going to http://www.lds.org/.