Posted on 12/30/2009 1:32:39 PM PST by Colofornian
The Mormon Media Observer looks back at the year filled with LDS newsmakers. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., tops the list, based on a newsmaker's frequency in the news as well as the significance of their stories.
1. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada
The Senate Majority Leader led the battle to push through health reform in the Senate. News coverage of Reid made a household name and the divisive debate made him out to be both villain and saint. He may still face a tough battle in his home state of Nevada to save his seat.
On Christmas The New York Times wrote:
"WASHINGTON -- It was the pinnacle moment of his political career. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, on the verge of making history by shepherding through far-reaching health care legislation, was called upon by the clerk to cast his vote. And Mr. Reid, who had fought tirelessly for months to get the health care bill adopted, looked up from his desk and said, "No." ...Mr. Reid's oh-no vote capped one of the more remarkable stretches in what is shaping up to be one of the more remarkable careers in American politics, characterized in no small part by the sheer inscrutability of much of what he says and does. In the end, of course, Congressional leaders are judged on one thing alone: whether they come up with the votes. And Mr. Reid -- the miner's son from Searchlight, Nev., the amateur boxer who worked his way through law school as a Capitol Hill police officer, who has a knack for mumbling and off-the-cuff gaffes -- had the votes."
2. Stephenie Meyer
The release of "New Moon" attracted media attention around the world. Here's a sampling of the some of the worldwide headlines: "New Moon takes biggest bite," "Vatican denounces the 'deviant' Twilight Movie," "Mormon who put new life into vampires."
The Sunday Mail of London wrote: "Her teenage vampire books outsell Harry Potter -- but she's a devout Mormon who lives modestly in Cave Creek, Ariz., and eats at the local burger joint. For a woman who has sold more than 85 million books and has been hailed as the new J. K. Rowling, it is a remarkably modest home. Set down a dusty dirt trail, the four-bedroom property blends seamlessly into the desert landscape -- low and sand-colored with just a few cacti for decoration. Only a high-tech camera and newly installed metal gates give some hint of the occupant's desire for privacy."
3. Elizabeth Smart
The young woman endured brutality and came to court this year to face her abuser, Brian David Mitchell. After attending Brigham Young University, she is preparing to serve a mission in France. She was named Utahn of the Year by the Salt Lake Tribune. The excellent tribute by Trib columnist Peg McEntee reads:
"She had wanted to confront Mitchell with her eyes and words, but, predictably, he sang his hymns and was removed from the courtroom. When it was over, Elizabeth Smart strode, tall and straight, into the rest of her life. For so many of us, her astonishing homecoming restored hope when there seemed to be none, and the knowledge that even terrible times can end, and end well. And she taught us this: Faith, whatever its source, can make amazing things happen."
4. Jon Huntsman Jr.
President Barack Obama named Utah's former governor U.S. Ambassador to China. He took his post in August. Huntsman played host to Obama during a visit to China in November. Chinese media lauded Obama for the choice for Huntsman's understanding of Chinese language and culture. Huntsman previously served a U.S. ambassador to Singapore.
5. Orrin Hatch
Sen. Orrin Hatch was a key opponent to health care reform and taken on foes like the Bowl Championship Series. He also played a role in honoring the Sen. Edward Kennedy at his death. Over the years, the pair made an interesting senatorial odd couple. Along with speaking at Kennedy's memorial service, Hatch penned this piece in Newsweek. He also penned a Hanukkah song which was both complimented and parodied on "The Tonight Show."
6. Glenn Beck
The firebrand talk show host continued to attract attention on his national radio and TV shows, through his books and in the news media. The picture of Beck sticking his tongue out made it on the cover of Time magazine and parodied on several comedy shows. Here was Time's assessment:
"Glenn Beck: the pudgy, buzz-cut, weeping phenomenon of radio, TV and books. Our hot summer of political combat is turning toward an autumn of showdowns over some of the biggest public-policy initiatives in decades. The creamy notions of postpartisan cooperation -- poured abundantly over Obama's presidential campaign a year ago -- have curdled into suspicion and feelings of helplessness. Trust is a toxic asset, sitting valueless on the national books. Good faith is trading at pennies on the dollar. "
7. Mitt Romney
Emboldened by conservative supporters, Romney is keeping his eyes on 2012 presidential prize. Romney has been delivering a lot of keynoters and political endorsements around the nation and is getting ready to launch a book-promotion tour. A National Public Radio blog recent said this about who is a GOP frontrunner for 2012:
"Answer: No one so far. Mitt Romney, the venture capitalist and former governor of Massachusetts who ran a pretty good campaign in 2008, remains the class of the field but kept a low profile in 2009. Mike Huckabee led in some polls of Republicans that also found Sarah Palin popular. But Huckabee ended the year uncertain about running (and damaged by a clemency scandal from his days as Arkansas governor). Romney remains too much a general election candidate, a problem for the Democrats to be sure but far from the average Republican activist's cup of tea. His past positions on social issues were too styled to Massachusetts, and his Mormonism still leaves the party's religious base lukewarm at best."
8. Max Hall
BYU football quarterback Hall got his 15 minutes of national fame after the BYU-Utah football game when he said: "I don't like Utah. In fact, I hate them," Hall said. "I hate everything about them. I hate their program. I hate their fans, I hate everything. ... I think the whole university, their fans and their organization, is classless." He later issued an apology and was sanctioned by the Mountain West Conference.
9. John Yettaw
The Missouri man widely noted in international media for his Mormon faith was held for a time in a Burmese prison charged with crime related to a swim across a lake to one of the world's best-known democracy figures, Aung San Suu Kyi. He left Myanmar with a U.S. senator. Despite his good intentions, Yettaw gave an unfortunate impression of Mormons to the world.
10. Michael Otterson
He was the spokesman behind the LDS Church statement at the Salt Lake City council meeting in early November that appears to be changing the politics in Utah for gays.
"The Church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage. They are also entirely consistent with the Church's prior position on these matters. The Church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman. I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree -- in fact, especially when we disagree."
Twice obviously : ) Life is a soliton.
That is the tricky part, full of logical contradictions. Those logical contradictions falsify the idea of any omnipotent god.
I always got an "F" if I didn't show my work...
Sarcasm is obviously lost on you.
Regardless, God is not an idea that He can be falsified. Nor does logic work if you start with erroneous presuppositions.
Presuming that that argument falsifies an omnipotent God depends on wrong presuppositions about God and wrong use of the definition of *omnipotent*.
If you want to disprove God, you're going to have to find a better method than one devised by the finite and imperfect minds of man.
That is correct. God is an idea that man created.
Presuming that that argument falsifies an omnipotent God depends on wrong presuppositions about God and wrong use of the definition of *omnipotent*.
Omnipotent is pretty self explanatory, hard to get that definition wrong.
If you want to disprove God, you're going to have to find a better method than one devised by the finite and imperfect minds of man.
Falsifying the idea of God is trivial. If I look in the bottom of my coffee cup and don't see God I have falsified it. On the other hand you have your work cut out for you if you want to prove the existence of God. Good luck : )
Elsie you never show your work : )
Here is a simple, easy to understand example. If God is Omnipotent then it can do anything right? So it should be trivial to build a mass that can't be moved right? But God is omnipotent and can do anything so there is no mass that it can't move. Therefor he can't build a mass that he can't move. But God can do anything, therefor it can build a mass that it can't move. Ad infinitum.
God can do one or the other but not both. When people start throwing around words like omniscient and omnipotent, those are easily falsified concepts.
That darned coffee cup of yours again. You've been looking for God in there for many years, on FR alone.
Are you expecting the grounds in the bottom to self-organize into an image of Jesus or something? Maybe a little tiny Jesus walking across the surface of your coffee? What, exactly, is it that would convince you of the existence of God, in your coffee cup?
That is correct. God is an idea that man created.
First you agree that He is not an idea, then you say He is. Which is it? Is He an idea or not?
Then you shouldn't have any problem distinguishing the difference between having unlimited power and being able to *do everything*, as if having power makes one able to do contradictory things, which it doesn't. Starting with a false premise leads to erroneous conclusions. God is not capable of doing *whatever He wants* which is really a inadequate man-made construct.
God cannot change and God cannot lie, to start with, so the premise that God can do everything, or anything He wants, is false, therefore any conclusions based on that will be wrong.
Time for you to head back to Logic 101
Disproving God takes more that corrupted reasoning. In order for you to definitively demonstrate that there is no God, you need to know all things for all time and eternity, and everywhere, which would make you God. Since you can't do that, and aren't that knowledgeable, you by, default cannot disprove God.
We can’t see air either, therefore it must not exist....
Howdy Regulator : ) As an ex Mormon there were taboos against drinking coffee. Mormons are actually pretty accepting folk, but drinking, smoking and coffee tend to push the limits.
Are you expecting the grounds in the bottom to self-organize into an image of Jesus or something? Maybe a little tiny Jesus walking across the surface of your coffee? What, exactly, is it that would convince you of the existence of God, in your coffee cup?
I am subtly making fun of all those people who see images of Christ or Mary on a potato or burnt toast : )
If I knew his address, I’d send him a custom coffee cup with the word “god” silkscreened in the bottom. He probably still wouldn’t find God as a result, but we wouldn’t have to read about him looking in that infernal, godless coffee cup anymore.
Ah, so you’re ribbing Catholics, then, while engaging in a formerly illicit behavior?
Just don’t start talking into that coffee cup, the next time you’re looking for Him in there, especially if you’re in Utah. The irony would be so thick, I’m sure something would spontaneously combust, lol.
He who has ears, let him hear. - Matthew 11:5
LeGrande - "That is correct. God is an idea that man created. "
Metmom - First you agree that He is not an idea, then you say He is. Which is it? Is He an idea or not?
God is an idea that can't be falsified, unless it is clearly defined. Once it is clearly defined, like saying God is Omnipotent then the idea can be falsified.
God is not capable of doing *whatever He wants* which is really a inadequate man-made construct.
Then clearly God is not omnipotent, by your own admission. I apparently was under the false impression that you thought God was Omnipotent.
God cannot change and God cannot lie, to start with, so the premise that God can do everything, or anything He wants, is false, therefore any conclusions based on that will be wrong.
We are in total agreement that God cannot be omnipotent. Now you are starting to sound like a Mormon : )
Disproving God takes more that corrupted reasoning. In order for you to definitively demonstrate that there is no God, you need to know all things for all time and eternity, and everywhere, which would make you God. Since you can't do that, and aren't that knowledgeable, you by, default cannot disprove God.
You are correct. I can't prove a negative (or prove anything at all). In other words I can't disprove the possible existence of Despator (God of creation). It is only when people give that God defining characteristics that I have a shot at falsifying it. I can falsify some things : )
As it turns out though, Despator and I are good drinking buddies and he doesn't recall a JHWH around when he created everything (himself included) ex nihilo : ) Can you falsify Despator?
Are you willing to defend your beliefs or do you want to run away?
- - - - - - -
No, I would never claim you did. LOL. Offense, however....
Yes. Life is good isn't it?
Just don’t start talking into that coffee cup, the next time you’re looking for Him in there, especially if you’re in Utah. The irony would be so thick, I’m sure something would spontaneously combust, lol.
Hmm, my wife has become quite the barrista. She even draws pictures in the espresso's. It is kind of a daily joke trying to guess what the drawing is of : ) Maybe I will see God one day.
God is omnipotent.
Messing with the definitions creates a false premise which will get you a wrong answer.
You cannot disprove God. It’s not possible. And you haven’t falsified anything, either.
Tell me, why are you so interested in disproving God and trying to dissuade people from believing in Him?
What’s it to you whether people believe or not? How is it hurting you any?
Thank you for your reply. It actually helped answer a few questions.
I too found the difference between the beliefs and facts to be disconcerting. That is why I left, but I have continued to be amazed by the same disconnect everywhere I look.
- - - - - - -
You are welcome.
I understand, that for some, the idea of having faith necessitates the dismissal of the so-called differences between said faith and “reality”. And in some cases that is true, I suppose.
My current primary research area is Medieval hagiography, and many of the experiences of the mystics require a “willing suspension of disbelief” even among the faithful.
However, that does not necessarily mean that all faith requires such. Most conflicts or controversies, especially within much of the history/doctrine of traditional Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism can be explained satisfactorily.
Don’t get me wrong, Christian Church History stinks and there have been many wrong things done and claimed in the name of Christianity, but that does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water.
Christianity is about Christ, separate from the Church Militant and more and more Christians are recognizing problems in our history and dealing with them. For the most part, practicing Christians do not whitewash nor manipulate (including destruction of sources) that are considered controversial or embarrassing.
My problem with the LDS faith is that they deliberately lie and mislead their own followers as well as outsiders. I have seen firsthand how they whitewash their history, remove sources, edit microfilms, and manipulate their members. The LDS faith, IMO, be better off and would have a much less apostasy rate, if the leaders were up front about the problems and deceptions of their church. Theoretically, they could admit there are multiple contradictory “first vision” accounts, that certain doctrines were taught and believed by many but are NO longer considered doctrine, and develop a consistent systematic theology that would solidify their doctrine. Furthermore, the dismissal of the idea of a “prophet”, with the impression/belief of infallibility could be an “out” for many issues, including the contradictions in teachings.
However, that would flatten the LDS church doctrinally and philosophically. It would require them to give up the BoM (other than as a 19th C. religious work), the D&C (other than as a group of teachings), the PGP, their claims of priesthood, and the claim of being the only true “restored” church. It would also require less control of their membership and a more lenient stance of the development of doctrine.
BTW, have you ever read any of Lee Strobel’s books? He was a journalist started off seeing the same “disconnect” and as an atheist. A couple of his books are interviews with philosophers and theologians and their answers to his issues. They are worth a read, even if you do not agree with his conclusions.
And I apologize if this is a little rambling. Painkillers kicking in. :)
everyone needs a hobby...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.