Thursday, December 29, 2005

Got Proof?

The Practical Mormon has an announcement. We can prove the existence of God, and the truth of Mormonism!

First, a bit of background. We invite you to sit for a moment, while we discuss the concept of "proof."

Let us begin by dismissing a few irrelevant definitions of the word:
Printing: The penultimate draft of a document, re-read by an editor or writer for final corrections before printing. "Don't start printing 'til I finish with the proof."
Mathematics: A proposition that, assuming certain axioms, some statement is necessarily true. "Part of my proof is the postulate "Two lines can intersect at only one point.'"
Chemistry: A compound activated by mixing with water and sometimes sugar or milk. "Proof yeast"
Archaic: An impenetrable or tested object. "Proof armor"

Now let us consider two more-relevant definitions, the applications of which are frequently confused:
Law: A judgment. "Can we prove OJ was innocent? One jury decreed him not guilty of the murder of two people; another held him responsible for civil damages."
Science: Evidence. "This hypothesis is supported by the following proofs."

In law, one assembles evidence, in hope of persuading a third party* of the validity of one's stance. The resulting judgment** has no scientific validity. It's merely a judgment that one side or the other prevails in court. Here, a "win" is often only a technical victory, and usually a pyrrhic one.***

In science, however, there is never a "final judgment." One assembles proof, considers contrary proof, and arrives at a tentative hypothesis or explanation. Over time, sufficient proofs are assembled to enable scientists and other observers to make less-tentative theories. Good scientists will always, of course, hold open the possibility that they have misinterpreted the evidence, and continue to take a tentative position on their explanations.

And so we arrive at a new question: Should religious discussions about "proof" fall under the heading of law, or of science?

The Practical Mormon proposes the faithful Saint should develop a judicious, and careful, combination of legal and scientific "proof."

For the investigator, and for all Saints in matters of doctrine, wisdom suggests that one take the role of scientist. If faith is belief in things "which are true," then the rational man seeks ways of finding "truth."

In fact, the prophet Alma famously proposes the rational, scientific method for seeking truth:
"But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you..." (Alma 32:27)
The prophet then goes on to propose a scientific process for knowing the truth of any gospel question.

Thus is the Natural Man satisfied, so that the Spiritual Man, the Faithful Saint, may come to the fore.

When, then, should the Faithful Saint take the role of judge? Alma's formula to the rescue: "…even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words." (Alma 32:27, again)

Faith is the experiment; knowledge is the judgment. Science, then Law.

Thus saith the Practical Mormon.

* A judge, a jury or an arbiter. In locales where judges and prosecutors are elected, the entire case may be played in public for a different party: the electorate.

** Guilty, not guilty, or in civil cases, in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant. Note that courts never find people "innocent," so every victory is tainted.

*** The fact of being hauled into court -- even when one prevails -- brings with it legal costs, opportunity costs, increased insurance rates, stress-related health problems, and a stain on one's reputation. And the adversarial nature of the legal system savages relationships between the parties to any lawsuit.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Twenty Questions -- One at a Time

Question -
Since the time when Brigham Young taught that both the moon and the sun were inhabited by people, has the Mormon Church ever found scientific evidence of that to be true?

Answer: Dear Brother --

Shut up.

No, seriously, thank you for your question.

It's important to distinguish between "teachings" and "speculations."

While I'd venture to guess that most modern Latter-day Saints believe there is created life outside our little solar system, not one of us believes that there is created life where no life can exist.

Like every other intelligent person who walks the earth, Brigham Young enjoyed speculating about things outside his purview. I do it; you do it. Those speculations and jokes and debates don't constitute doctrine; they were never intended to, and were never understood that way, even when they were first spoken. They are and always were just one guy's opinion.

You may be familiar with biblical passages where Paul (and others) do the same thing.

I hope this answers your question. If you'd like to discuss this further,
or have other questions, please feel free to write again.

--The Practical Mormon

Thursday, October 13, 2005

We Answer Questions

Question: What is the Prophet's view about members working in a Casino?
-- Tina

Answer: Dear Tina --
Thank you for your question.

The prophet hasn't stated his personal view, to my knowledge -- though in truth it doesn't much matter.

The only thing that matters on this point is the Lord's view, and that can only be known through prayer and earnst study.

Saints who seek to live lives in harmony with the Spirit of God inevitably get anwers to prayers about how they should conduct those lives.

If you're considering (or counseling someone who's considering) a casino career, in light of the Church's consistent and long-standing position against gambling, it's wise to both pray for guidance and consult with the local bishop.

May the Lord bless your efforts to live close to the Savior and His teachings.

--The Practical Mormon

Saturday, July 16, 2005

C'mon, Man. It's the 2000s!

Finally. More than half-way into the decade, someone's stepped up and given it a name. It's not like the 80's or the 90's, this decade. This one simply didn't have a name. We were vacillating between "the aughts" and "the Ohs." But then, this:
The end of Eminem? : "That he's pulled off such a feat within this era, within the realm of rap, makes the dynasty that much more remarkable. Both the 2000s and hip-hop favor the chew-'em-up, spit-'em-out mentality. Together, they're nearly lethal to longevity."

Now when the Practical Mormon's surly teenaged (pardon the redundancy) offspring need an excuse for failing to clean their rooms, they've got a good line.

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Have I Thunk Any Good in the World Today?

There was a time when the Practical Mormon made end-of-the-monthly visits (Yeah, you know what we're talkin' about) to some rather prominent members of the Church...One of whom presided over our local temple.

During one visit, this young, newly-endowed, visitor inquired of that wise and elderly host: Don't you get bored, going through multiple endowment sessions every day?

"Nope," we were assured. "I learn something new every time."

Still unsure about how even to get from the dressing room to the endowment room, we found this assertion a bit incredible.

Now, twenty-some years and hundreds-some endowment sessions later, we're astonished at our former cluelessness. The intelligence available in the endowment is so vast, so mind-expanding, so multi-layered, so complex, it would take a lifetime of regular attendance to even nibble around the edges. And that's just the endowment.

So here's a part of what we learned yesterday at the temple:

It's possible to restrain the Spirit of the Lord through our own thoughts and behavior.

The Practical Mormon has somewhat to say concerning this matter:

We attend the temple approximately once a month (sometimes more frequently) with Gale, our best-friend-since-high-school. On the way home, we had ourselves a converse on this topic. "No way," sez Gale, "do individuals have the power to restrain God."

We rehearsed for Gale an incident of a few years back where one sympathetic soul suffered a part of the pain being undergone by another. Proof, we suggested, that we are spiritually intertwined with one another.

We rehearsed, too, the scripture requiring us to forgive all men -- proof, we said, that we restrain God by our unwillingness to forgive.

If we beings are this intertwined (and we'd have to be, in order for the Atonement to work), mercy forbids one being to forgive another for an offense against a third party -- unless that third party openly forgives.

"But," quoth Gale, "the Atonement took place 2000 years ago, long before we committed our offenses."

"Hmmm," thunk we. "Perhaps now we have additional evidence that all things are present to the Lord."

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Madam, I'm Adam

A Socratic Dialogue for Believing Saints

The Morabbi asks: Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

To which the Uncertain Believer responds: I'm not sure.

M: Shall we consider the matter?

UB: I'd like that.

M: Let us find out first whether we share common ground. Do you believe in God?

UB: Yes, I definitely believe in God. I've had spiritual experiences, and I've heard God's voice and felt the presence of the Spirit in my life.

M: What do you believe about God?

UB: That He...They...It...She...OK, He -- I'll say He -- is good. And that He loves us. And that we are His children. In fact, I believe that we lived with Him before we came to this earth, and that our spirits are literally His crowning creation -- maybe even His literal spiritual offspring.

M: You hesitated at first. Do you believe God is a He?

UB: OK, I actually believe that "God" is more like a title -- maybe even a priesthood calling. And that there is only one "God" (the office), just like there is one "Bishop" (the office)... but that quite a few perfected beings have the calling of "God," just as quite a few imperfect beings hold the calling of "Bishop."

I guess I also believe that the Hebrew term Elohim means a council -- a plurality -- of Gods, amongst whom there are certainly Goddesses. But that this council is absolutely united -- One -- just as the Church is counselled to be "one," and married people are counselled to become "one."

So He/They/It/She -- it all applies. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is God. The Elohim -- the council -- is God. But since Jesus -- the God of this world -- counselled us to pray to the Father, I comply and say "He" when I discuss God.

M: Then we're on common ground so far. Let's move along. Do you believe that God -- whether alone or in concert with others -- created this earth?

UB: Well, I might believe that. Or I might believe that the earth came about through natural means. I'm not sure.

M: Would you agree, though, that even if it came about through natural means, those means arose under the direction of God?

UB: As a believing Saint, I'll stipulate to that. I believe God organized the earth and all of the universe -- but I'm uncertain about how or when it happened.

M: Excellent. Then we're still on the same page. Do you likewise believe that there is a plan, whereby all of God's children -- you, me and all the rest of us -- come to this earth, gain bodies, and learn to live by faith? And that there was a Savior who atoned for our sins so that we can live in the presence of God for eternity?

UB: Yes, I absolutely believe that. That's pretty basic Mormonism.

M: By the way, does the Savior have a title?

UB: Oh, Yes. I know this one! He's Y'shua Mashiach -- the redeemer, the annointed one. Most of the Old Testament refers to him by those specific names -- which names in English we render as Jesus Christ.

M: OK, back to the basic Mormonism. Would you also agree that Jesus is the Firstborn of God -- not just the only Begotten son of God, but also His firstborn of the Spirit?

UB: As a believing Saint, I'll stipulate to that. Nearly every book of scripture uses the term Firstborn to describe either the literal Christ, or some individual who is a type of Christ. The firstborn lamb is sacrificed in the temple...I could go on.

M: Then we can agree that Christ is the firstborn...and that by extension the rest of us are the later-born?

UB: No argument there.

M: And that there was a grand council of all the spirits before this world began -- a council in which you and I were participants? And in which every spirit who would come to this earth assented to a particular plan of salvation?

UB: Basic stuff. Yes.

M: So we have a finite number of spirits assigned to this world?

UB: Yup. There's a firstborn. And if every spirit attended the same council there must be a lastborn. So there's a finite number.

M: And would you agree that the plan called for each of those assenting spirits to experience mortality in an earthly body?

UB: I'll give you that.

M: Then which of those finite number of spirits was the first to be placed into a human body?

UB: I don't know that person's name.

M: Do you know that person's title?

UB: Nope.

M: Perhaps that title is Adam? And perhaps the first female spirit to be placed into a human body has the title of Eve?

UB: Well I guess you can assign any title you want to the FIRST people.

M: And does it matter to our relationship with God whether the bodies they inhabited were created from monkeys or from dirt?

UB: Matter? Was that a pun? No, I suppose it doesn't matter. As spiritual beings, we are not our bodies. Our bodies are merely tabernacles for our spirits.

M: So we don't disagree about Adam and Eve?

UB: Well, when you put it that way....

--The Morabbi, your friendly neighborhood Practical Mormon.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Today's Picky Grammar Lesson

Pour, pour poor BCC (The Picky Grammarian seizes upon bullet-point #3). Today's picky grammar lesson is this: You don't pour over paper. Didn't your mother teach you anything? (wink) You may pour over the sink, but you may only pore over paper.

Now use a napkin to wipe that smirk off your face -- as you versez pour pauvre BCC.

Sunday, May 01, 2005

Measure for Measure

DP at asks a good question: "How do we measure our personal spirituality?" Here to save the day is The Practical Mormon, cape askew, hair windblown. The measure of personal spirituality -- and the key to knowing one is headed for the Celestial Kingdom -- is this: Are you having spiritual experiences?

If we accept the premise of 1 Nephi 33-34, and of Alma 11:37, which is that no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of God, and the premise of Alma 7:21, which is that the Spirit does not dwell in unholy temples, then the measure of personal spirituality is certain. If you're having spiritual experiences, your personal spirituality is acceptable to the Lord. And you're on track to dwell in the Celestial Kingdom.

If you're NOT having spiritual experiences, you need to clean up your life so as to allow the Spirit to dwell with you again.

Specific enough? Measurable enough? Yup. Now put away your Franklin Planner.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

To Thine Own...Enemy...Be True

The Practical Mormon has discovered the secret of life -- or at least the secret of virtue. It occurs to us that only one thing differentiates good from evil.

And it's NOT the number of home teaching visits, the volume of prayer, or the quality of the fast. It's not the number of balls I toss with my kid, the number of hugs I apportion to my spouse, or the quality of our family home evening treats.

Two men may profess identical ethics and values, but the good man will apply his rules of conduct at all times to all people, while his lesser brother will apply those rules only when it is convenient, and only to those he considers worthy.

The measure of virtue, then, is the degree to which a man bears his enemy as he bears his friend.

"Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus..."
--Paul, Philippians 2:2-5

Monday, March 28, 2005

Liar, Liar -- But No Hell Fire

Woo-hoo. The Practical Mormon is going to allow digging through some private email -- and at the same time explain why lying's not a sin!

Here's a transcript of a recent discussion, responding to a question about how to deal with a child who sometimes lies. The Practical Mormon writes:

Nearly everyone I've ever met -- and if I've met you, you're included, even if I really like you -- lies at times by omission, by puffery, by blaming, by bragging, by playing the victim, by shirking, by flattery, by pretense, by concealing, by covering for others, by covenant breaking (which includes gossiping, coveting, taking offense easily, and failing to sustain people you've covenanted to sustain), and -- rarely -- by flat-out, knowingly, misrepresenting the truth.

These are such common human traits that -- had I not known one friend who (to my knowledge, at least) doesn't do any of 'em, not even the flattery one -- I'd say that dishonesty is inescapable in mortality.

TPM's correspondent replied:
I agree with you about the many ways people can lie, but I take issue with the point about lying "by omission." I don't think honesty is an excuse for rude behavior.

To which TPM reponded:
Oh, I completely agree with you on the subject of rude behavior, though I continue to categorize lies by omission as lies. More to the point, I think that from an eternal perspective, unkindness is a greater sin than lying.

To my mind, lying is neither a sin nor a virtue, anymore than red is a sin or a virtue. It's a description of behavior that may or may not be sinful. I lie all the time about St. Nick, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny. And my whole ward joins me in lying every time we have a ward Christmas party. I lie when I put makeup on my face to hide a zit. I lie when I tell a story and leave out the details that don't serve the purpose of my tale. I lie when I tell a joke, read fairy tales to my kids, or when I write a book of fiction. The difference between me and most folks is that I simply don't think lying -- in and of itself -- is wrong.

Here are some other instances when I'd have no ethical trouble at all with lying:

1. When a person with a big nose asks me if her nose looks big. Ditto for anything else that a truthful answer wouldn't fix. If I'm at church with someone who wants to know if her ugly shoes are ugly, she ain't getting a truthful answer from me. What would be the point?

2. When someone wants an answer to a question that's none of their business. I weigh 165 on my driver's license. I'm dreaming. But what's accomplished by my upping that number every time I renew my license? Blah-blah-blah. Mind your own business.

3. When the truth would endanger an innocent. If a psycho were to hold a gun on me and demand to know the location of my kid, for the purpose of depriving that kid of life or virtue or family, I'd lie my head off. And I wouldn't feel the least bit guilty. I don't owe psychos or terrorists a truthful answer.

Oh, there are thousand more.

As far as I'm concerned, the only time lying is a sin is when it's used to extract unearned gain, or to dodge deserved consequences. It's a sin, in my mind, to steal cookies (unearned gain), and it's a sin, when caught with those cookies, to blame one's little sister (evading deserved consequences).

It's likewise a sin to lie on one's resume (unearned gain), and to kill your wife when you're caught lying about getting into medical school (mark hacking...I mean, evading deserved consequences).

All the other little lies we tell -- from the Prophet Joseph denying the practice of polygamy (a combination of "none of your business" and defending the very existence of the Church) to pretending we didn't hear that noise our mother-in-law made in the bathroom (an important time to lie by omission!) -- all those lies are required to defend what we hold dear and to live peacefully in a world that contains Other People.

Nobody asks in a recommend interview "Have you lied?" You're asked if you're honest in your dealings -- which to me (and you're free to interpret the question any way you'd like) means Do you pay your taxes, Do you keep your contracts and commitments, Do you accept deserved consequences, and Do you avoid unearned gain. Nobody cares whether I lie when I compliment the bishop on his scary new haircut. [And to those who think evasion isn't lying, I say, you're lying. It's no less a lie to say "Um, it's a STUNNING haircut" (tangent: ain't "stunning" a terrific word?) than it is to say "Um, sure, great haircut."]

Thursday, March 24, 2005

You Can't Make Me -- Evolutionary Mormonism

The openly Christian, vaguely Mormon-critical WND uses this headline for a link to a Deseret News article on how evolution is taught in Utah schools: "Utah's non-war over origins." The WND subhead reads: "Darwin's theory taught – but probably not believed."

The WND headline is found in a group of stories tracking the war between scientists and Creationists -- thereby suggesting that "those darned Mormons" aren't toeing the party line in the anti-evolution fight.

Don't fret, kiddies. The Practical Mormon is here to pour oil on your furrowed brow. Squint your eyes and meditate on this:

Suppose, just suppose, that the evolutionists are right.

Suppose the most rabid evolutionists are right.

Suppose life erupted in the oozy slime of prehistoric sea glurge, which then spat forth trypanosomes and tyrannosaurs, marigolds and monkeys.

And suppose those clever little marsupials somehow spawned Fred and Wilma, Daryl Hannah, and me and you.

If this Darwinario turns out to be True©, does it disprove Creationism?

Well, yes.

Does it disprove Mormonism?

Not at all.

Mormonism parts with Mainstream Christianity™ on several doctrinal points, in particular, in its beliefs about an antemortal spiritual existence.

The majority Christian view of the human soul splits into two camps:
  • Traducianism -- a view held by, amongst others, Lutherans. It argues that both the human soul and the human body are propogated by the parents. In other words, the act of conception creates every element of humanity.
  • Creationism -- a view held by the larger body of Christianity, which argues that the soul is created by God immediately upon conception.
The Saints, on the other hand, hold to a belief that most nearly matches the doctrine of Infusionism (also called proeexistiani), which posits that we existed as intelligences, and then as teachable spirits, and individual personalities, long before we came to earth, and that our spirits are infused into our bodies at some point between conception and birth.

Uniquely, the Saints believe that the soul is the permanent (and longed-for) union of the body and the spirit -- a state that exists only amongst resurrected beings.

What has this to do with evolution and creationism?

Just this: Latter-day Saints, alone amongst all of Christianity, can embrace science and theology. Only Mormonism can worship a God that uses evolutionary means to create bodies for mankind, and then -- at a time of His choosing -- infuse those bodies with His spiritual offspring.

The beauty of holding this position: Joseph Smith understood and taught the principle of antemortality well before Darwin published The Voyage of the Beagle, the seminal work of evolutionary theory.

Mormonism alone can confidently assert that we are the literal offspring of God, and that the mechanism by which our bodies came into being is merely interesting, and not at all relevent to the fundamental truth of the gospel.

So go ahead, my fellow Saints. Embrace evolutionary theory. Teach it. Believe it, if you like. For its great irony is that it demonstrates the truth of Mormonism.

Saturday, March 19, 2005

Today's Picky Grammar Lesson

Attention: When you comply with an order, you don't "tow" a line.

You toe it. You put your toes on the line, so that you and your fellow GIs are standing in a straight line, shoulder to shoulder, at full attention.

The Practical Mormon expects you to discontinue use of any references to towing lines.

Immediately. Right Now. Toe the...oh, never mind.

Friday, March 18, 2005

Bit of an upgrade

I've added Haloscan commenting and trackback to this blog.

Downside: It deleted all previous comments. Sigh.

Thursday, March 17, 2005

The Tithe is High, but I'm Holding On

The amusing Christopher Bigelow and the thoughtful Jana Riess have written a dumb, a Dummies book...on Mormonism. Our erstwhile cross-town rival Peggy Fletcher Stack favorably reviews the book in Saturday's Salt Lake Trib.

While the Practical Mormon is a big fan of both Chris and Jana, and approves of most of what we've read so far, their comments about tithing leave us spoiling for a debate. To wit:

Tithing is only a warm-up exercise: As much of a sacrifice as paying tithing is, Mormons see it as a lesser law that God gave because people couldn't live the higher law. Basically, tithing is God's Plan B, a first step in learning to live Plan A, which Mormons call the Law of Consecration.

Lessee...How do we put this succinctly? Um...Bologna!

This, says the Practical Mormon, is the deal with tithing (At least, here's the deal so far as temple-attending Saints should be concerned):

Tithing isn't the Blue-Light Special on the Law of Consecration. The Law of Consecration is tithing, (and contrary to the assertion in this otherwise-fine Gospel Doctrine resource) the Practical Mormon holds that the Law of Consecration is not in abeyance.

OK, it's a fine distinction, but imagine, for a moment, that the Law of Consecration works this-away:

1. God provides everything, and permits the Saints to live by, or ignore, the Law of Consecration.
2. We choose to consecrate everything back to God.
3. God tells us to take stewardship over 90 percent of everything.
4. We cut a check to the Church for the other 10 percent, because God gives the Bishop (et al) stewardship over that portion.

And imagine, for another moment, that there's a wise purpose in this division of stewardship -- which we call Agency. So long as the 90 percent of God's -- and by extension, the Church's -- resources are held by agents, no damgummit can ever again confiscate those resources.

Is it possible that rather than being in suspension, the Law of Consecration is, in fact, fully operational right here, right now? And that in addition to the metaphorical lessons we usually take from the Parable of the Talents, the tale also has an entirely literal interpretation?

The Practical Mormon says eh-yup.

And gets a nasty little shiver when confronted with "I paid my tithing and found this shiny new car in my driveway" stories suggesting that paying tithing is the sure road to riches.

Sunday, March 13, 2005

Corrupt LDS Software

You thought we were talking about The Godmakers, didn't you!

New computer, re-installation -- and corrupted Folio Infobases disks. The Practical Mormon needs a friend! Any kind soul willing to upload a replacement for our LDS Collectors Library '97 software? We'd ask the Infobases/Folio people, but they're ppfffffttt. Posted by Hello

Friday, March 11, 2005

Better Red than Mislead

Christopher Bradford -- the Grasshopper of Let Us Reason -- comments on the discrepency between limited-geography models of the Book of Mormon, and the persistent North-American bias of persistent North-American Saints.

For those not familiar with the debate: BYU prof John Sorenson proposed in his influential 1985 book An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon that Book-of-Mormon peoples may have occupied only a tiny area of a particular Central American penninsula.

Dr-Brother Sorenson's theory flies in the face of Mormon mythology about the genealogy of North-American natives. While it's been widely embraced by Mormons Who Read FARMS Publications, it doesn't seem to have made the rounds of either Tom Murphy or a sizable number of Primary choristers, who -- in my ward at least -- continue to sing Book of Mormon Stories with feather fingers and tom-tom thighs.

Here's the Practical Mormon's take:

Sorenson's right. Murphy's right. Joseph Smith is right. And my patriarch is right.

See, according to God -- by way of my patriarchal blessing -- I'm an Ephraimite; never mind that my genealogical records prove that my DNA is an all-American mix of Polish, Swedish, French-Canadian, and Mayflower English. In fact, so far as my DNA is concerned, that mysteriously dark-skinned woman married to my French-Canadian gggfather may mean I'm a "Lamanite."

And yet, my Patriarchal Blessing calls me an Ephraimite -- a designation I accept without question, because I believe I'm assigned to the tribe of Ephraim, regardless of my DNA.

Likewise, is it not reasonable to suggest that all Native Americans are assigned to the Lamanite branch of the Tribe of Joseph? And that their DNA is no more a factor in that assignment than mine is in mine?

And likewise, is it reasonable that we put a stop to the sharing-time war whoops? Please?

Thursday, March 10, 2005

Today's Picky Grammar Lesson

Attention: The word "apropos" is not a synonym for "appropriate."

It is a synonym for "With regard to..." or "Within the bounds of..." The correct syntax is "Apropos of ____...", as in "Apropos of this discussion, I've never read the Book of Mormon."

We now resume regular programming.

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

The Practical Mormon 1:1

I, the Practical Mormon, having been born of goodly bloggers, therefore I was taught somewhat in the learning of the bloggernacle; and having seen many contentions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days, yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and mysteries of God -- and some darned fine insight on what it means to be a practicing Saint -- therefore, I make a few notes of my proceedings in my days.

Yea, I make a record in the language of...well, English..., but I'll attempt to include the learning of the Jews and the language of the Chinese. (Can't help it. I'm a raving Sinophile.)

And I know that the notes that I make are purdy-much true; and I make 'em with mine own Toshiba, and I make 'em according to my google -- and my multitude of high-falutin' college degrees....