Dueling Doctrine

I hesitate to post anything about doctrinal questions here as it has gotten me in trouble in the past, but this one is an honest question so maybe I can get away with it.

What is the substantive difference between the Catholic Doctrine of the Infalability of the Pope and the Mormon Doctrine that The Prophet will never lead us astray?

We often poke fun at the Catholic Doctrine because so many popes through history were clearly corrupt, but a close reading of the catholic doctrine will point out that it does not refer to his personal character or dealings in secular matter only that when speaking on matters of doctrine he is "preserved from error".

Mormons likewise believe that the prophets are humans and suffer from all the frailties of humans, but the phrase "The Prophet will never lead us astray" is uttered regularly as if it were doctrine and that seems to be the same essential sentiment.

I'm also unclear on the scriptural basis for the assertion. I can trace it to a talk given by then Elder Ezra Taft Benson who cites Wilford Woodruf's talk defending the first official declaration. There is also an unsourced quote wandering around, but one never knows if unsourced quotes were every really said at all.

I'm personally bothered because I thought that personal revelation was the hallmark of our religion, not obeysence to any scripture living or ancient. It is by personal revelation that we know the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and all the other scriptures to be true. It is by personal revelation that we know that the prophets are in fact prophets of God.

Why then are we discouraged from seeking personal revelation on matters once the prophet has spoken on them? I know some will say that we are encouraged to get personal confirmation, but really it's only confirmation we are encouraged to seek. We are told to pray to know that it is true, not to pray to know if it is true.

I'll stop there for now. So tell me, what am I missing?

Is it true that

It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Or is it perhaps better to suggest that

It is better to be known for a fool and learn than to remain a fool unknown.

Pay $5 for gas

There's something special about $5/gallon gas. It was the thing we all worried about this summer as the price nearly reached that point, and it changed driving habits. It may have even had a lasting impact on american car makers' business model. (Maybe). Many say this is a good thing. Robert J. Samuelson of Newsweek recommends it for security reasons. Others recommend it for environmental reasons. Some suggest raising the price for revenue generation.

But that of course is something that either the market or the government will have to do. But is there something each of us could do? What if we each committed to paying $5/gal for gas. No I'm not saying find the most expensive gas in town, or just burn an extra $20 each time you fill up. But what if each time we bought gas we figured out what it would cost at $5/gal and squirrled the money away somewhere. Put it in your savings acount and save towards a vacation, or save it for when fuel costs really do soar. Or use it to add solar panels or donate it to energy research. Shoot invest it in energy research and get some profit back. Or save it to buy an electric car.

The point is two-fold. First we prepare ourselves for the inevitable return of high prices. If we are already paying $5 then the price shooting up to $3.50 is no big change on our balance sheet. Second, it encourages us to plan in terms of the higher price. How would assuming a price of $5 affect our choice of cars or our driving habits. It would be a shame if the lessons we learned during this summer's run up in prices were forgotten now that gas is again under $2.

I realize, that those who would participate in this are already environmentally conscientious, and no I'm not certain I have the discipline to do it myself, but it is an idea that I think could make a difference for individuals, and maybe, just maybe, for society.

The Old Ditch on Atherton

They have been doing a lot of work on the open ditch across the street from our Church building. Several months ago they anounced that it would be covered up. I was reasonably pleased because it is an eyesore and can smell. However, we don't live all that close to it so I wasn't terribly concerned one way or another. Besides it would take a way a place for skaters to hang out. (OK, I'm of mixed feelings about that one.)





Here's what it used to look like. (Sorry I didn't figure out how to download just the picture.)

Old View

Then for several months the street was half blocked off so they could come in with the giant earth movers and pipes 3 feet in diameter to place the drainage safely underground. I wish I had a picture of that, but I never bothered.

Once the large work was done I expected them to quickly put up a drab barrier and be done with it. Instead the work dragged on and some stonework seemed to go in slowly. Then today they transformed it to a beautiful display of what look to be native (or at least climate appropriate) plants. I think it is beautiful and I am thoroughly impressed.



















Good work Long Beach on a job well done.

On the Nature of Punishment

Several weeks ago, before the UCLA / USC rivalry game, I learned that both teams would be wearing their home colors which was against the rules.

Now at this point the rule seems iron clad, perhaps just because I generally believe in following rules at least unless some compelling higher obligation prevents it.

What struck me as odd was when I learned what the penalty was. USC (the visiting team) would lose a time out. Some how I found this hillariously funny. Delineating a punishment seemed to lessen the impact and meaning of the rule. If the punishment were forfeiture of the game, then there is no way that USC would have even considered it. As long as the punishment was unstated it could be that severe, but once the punishment was stated the rule became almost pointless. This is especially true given that UCLA purposefully blew a timeout because they were in on the decision.

I guess somehow delineating the results always changes something from an iron clad rule to a choice where you weigh the advantages and disadvantages of a decision. As Garrison Keeler once said, there is no rule that you can't fight in hockey. There is just a rule that if you do you have to sit in a box for a little while.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is an odd movie at best, but certainly very interesting and very well acted. It tells the story of a man born with the infirmities of an 85 year old man who then proceeds to age backwards. It is largely a study on death starting with his childhood (in a retirement home) and ending with his own death as he regresses toward infancy. It is also an exploration of how we build a life, and how the flow of time is a uniform reference that we depend on. Growing younger instead of older he has certain experiences at abnormal times in his life and others such as establishing a long term relationship are nearly impossible.

The movie is very long but never really drags. Excellent acting from an impressive cast Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt center the cast, but the supporting cast is equally important and impressive. It is very emotional and generally poignant. So yes it is likely to win some oscars and I would recommend it.

Google Maps Street View

Well I must say that I am thoroughly impressed with google maps street view. I first ran across it while exploring the neighborhood around my new job, but have since used it to explore my own neighborhood and even my mom's home town of Taylor Arizona. It is sometimes rather odd the things they do and don't have. For example, I was unable to get a full view of my own house as the truck didn't seem to have gone down that street, but I found my Uncle Norris's house in a much smaller city clear as day. I could tell you the color of the paint and what cars were parked out front. Small world.