What is grace?

There are a lot of definitions for this word depending upon its usage. In this instance I am talking about the Christian application of the word, specifically to the people of the Earth who are Gods children.

We are given agency.

In the bold experiment which is Earth, humans were given the agency to make choices. Those choices allow us to learn who we really are and what we want out of existence. Some choices are good, some are bad and all are our own.

God is perfect.

To dwell with God a person needs to be equally as perfect as God. To follow his laws, to meet the standards necessary to live in heaven, requires an already perfect being with nothing to tarnish their souls. Removing that tarnish requires atonement. As you would expect, this is not a simple task nor are we capable of completing it.

We make mistakes.

Humans are flawed. It was guaranteed that everyone would make mistakes at some point in their life. We would commit some flawed act or our intentions would be impure in a way that would tarnish our souls making us imperfect. This did not surprise God, nor did he fail to plan for it.

Perfection is a long way away.

It is an interesting word: perfect. It means without flaw. In mathematics we play with functions that approach a limit. The function can sometimes reach that limit, but it is impossible to reach it without applying infinity. Perfection of our souls is like this. As we make good choices our souls approach that limit, and though we can see the direction we are headed actually reaching the limit requires an infinite effort. Any number, when compared to infinity is effectively zero. This means that no matter how much work we put in to approaching perfection it is effectively zero.

The Atonement is infinite.

Bringing all of God's children up to snuff so that they can dwell with him is an infinite task. There is no way we could all pay for our shortcomings. To make up for this it took a special person to atone for all God's children and that atonement was infinite.

His grace is sufficient.

Christ made an atonement for our flaws. He did the time when we did the crime. In essence he has created equity by which he can buy our entrance into the presence of God. That equity is grace.

Made perfect.

With all our shortcomings atoned for, we just need to be made perfect. That will take time, a lot of time, but in the meantime we can dwell with God to hash things out.

Be perfected.

Gun Ownership Myths

Many recent conversations on gun control have sparked my need to look it all up. Since most people I speak with are pro-guns I thought I'd collect some data and post it here.

Where do you stand on Gun Control?

To be clear: I like the idea of having the right to own a gun. I just don't want one anywhere near my family or home.

So, you're for and against gun control?

It seems a bit contradictory, but this isn't a simple subject and the people generating the discussion are not helping. Examples include the NRA trying to stop government funding for safety research or Congress creating laws that do not allow the public to see Gun Store compliance records. Here is a list of pro-gun arguments that I think need some looking at:

1. Owning a gun makes you safer.

If you own a gun you have a higher risk of accidental death, suicide and homicide from a gun. In 2011, you were ten times as likely to be shot & killed in an argument than to stop a crime. In fact, for every time someone uses a gun in self- defence seven times as many die from assaults & murders, eleven times as many die from suicide attempts, and 4 times as many die in gun related accidents. Most of which happen near the home.

Of households with kids and guns 43% have at least one unlocked firearm. When testing kids, one third of 8-12 year-old boys who found a handgun also pulled the trigger. In Philadelphia you are 4.5 times more likely to be shot if you carry a gun and your odds of dying are 4.2 times greater. In states with higher gun ownership we have higher homicide rates (see graph above).

Even for women, having a gun in the home make you nearly 6 times more likely to be shot by a husband, boyfriend, and ex-partner than to be murdered by a male stranger. If you're in an abusive relationship you are 7 times more likely to be killed if he has access to a gun. In states with higher gun ownership rates, women were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than in states with lower gun ownership.

2. An armed society is a polite society.

This is simply not true. If anything it fuels aggression. Armed drivers are more likely to make obscene gestres and follow other drivers aggressively. Stand your ground laws have led to a 7-10% increase in homicides in the states that have them. Even concealed-handgun licenses make people more likely to threaten other people.

3. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

This one's my favorite because it assumes that without guns the same number of people would die each year. Guns do have an effect on homicide rates. For example states with the highest percentage of gun owners have a 114% higher murder rate than the states witht the lowest percentages of gun owners. States with gun restrictions tend to have lower rates of death by guns.

4. The Government Is Going to Take Your Guns

The thought here is that the Government is somehow going to pass a law that requires you to turn in your guns. Not only is this unlikely, it is also unconstitutional. We have no idea how many guns there are in the US, but there are approximately 260 million guns here, most of which are owned by private citizens which will outgun all enforcement agencies 40 to 1.

5. We don't need more gun laws we just need to enforce the ones we have.

2 out of 5 guns were purchased through a private seller which does not require a background check. 40% of inmates that used guns in their crimes purchassed them privately. 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check. Undercover researchers were able to convince 20% of licensed California gun dealers to sell them handguns. All evidence that our existing laws are unable to properly deter mis-sale of firearms.

Ban Guns?

Heavens no. We just need to figure out a better way to get things done. I'm not sure what that is yet and you can bet I'll make a post about it when I do. Till then, think for yourselves. If you don't want the risks, don't buy the guns or at the very least: make sure the guns you have are hard for even you to get to.

Be safe.

Mormons and Rated R Movies

While having a discussion about the Oscars with my brother he mentioned that the Prophet clearly stated that we should not watch Rated R movies. This prompted me to go actually look it up and it turns out, as I previously suspected, this is not true.

You weren't having a discussion with your brother?

No, that the Prophet said we're not supposed to watch movies that are Rated R. I have heard this from many different people over the years and I must have looked into it at some point because I always get this feeling it's not true.

So what did the Prophet say?

I could paraphrase, but why not put the actual quote and reference here:

"We counsel you, young men, not to pollute your minds with such degrading matter, for the mind through which this filth passes is never the same afterwards. Don’t see R-rated movies or vulgar videos or participate in any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive, or pornographic. Don’t listen to music that is degrading." - Ezra Taft Benson, April 1986 Conference. To the “Youth of the Noble Birthright”

He begins that talk with "Tonight I would like to speak directly to you young men of the Aaronic Priesthood." This talk was clearly directed toward the young men of the church which is clearly understood to be the Aaronic Priesthood holders 12-18 years of age. This is the first mention of Rated R movies by a Prophet and with good reason too. In the 80s it was becoming cool to be under 18 and see a Rated R movie. I remember my friends that year trying to buy tickets for Aliens, Platoon, Stand by Me and the like.

What about girls?

He left that out for some reason, but that didn't stop people from believing he meant everyone. All the subsequent mentions of Rated R movies I found fall into these categories:

1. Quotation - This is where the general authority (Seventies) quotes Ezra Taft Benson's talk often only using the "Don’t see R-rated movies" part and omitting the context (Kofford). This implies that the Prophet has said no when he said no to the people who shouldn't see it.
2. Personal Preference - This is often stated as "I would never watch another R-rated movie again (Bednar)" or "in our family we have decided to not see R-Rated movies." And I applaud them for using their God given agency.
3. No Reference - This one is almost as bad as #1. The speaker/writer says "the prophets have told us not to" and leaves it at that. The fact that no Prophet has commanded the people to avoid any specific rating of movie eludes them.

So we all should watch Rated R movies?

No, we should stop saying a Prophet commanded us to do so. This falls in line with saying the Prophet commanded us not to have caffeine, chocolate and doctor prescribed drugs. He didn't and I wish Mormons would stop saying he did. This has become part of Mormon culture and it is not a good facet of our people. We should choose for ourselves the good from the evil. Why else are we given the Gift of the Holy Ghost and the Spirit of Christ if not to discern for ourselves?

So, banning Rated R movies is not a commandment?

Nope, and sad is the day when the Prophet says so. It will mean that the membership of the church is incapable of making good content watching decisions for themselves and their families. "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward" (DC58:26).

Be discerning.

Homeopathic Remedies & Homeopathy

You have heard these words spoken from time to time, usually to help shore up the validity of some product. "My Naturolpathic Doctor recommends homeopathic remedies." "My kid's teacher suggests Airborne^®, it's homeopathic." They have an interesting meaning and I think everyone should know.

What is homeopathy?

Good question, it was created by Samuel Hahneman in 1796. It was during a time when bloodletting and purging were still being practiced. With all this bleeding, sweating & vomiting going on there had to be a better way.

Was it homeopathy?

For a time, yes. We should get more into the explanation of what it is. There are four parts to homeopathy: the preparation, miasms, dilution & the proofing.

Well, if they proved it...

That's not what the proofing means. They would test all kinds of things on healthy people and record what symptoms they developed from these substances. So if Ludicillin turned you green and broke wind often they would wright that down and that is a proofing of that substance.

Miasms

So once we know what causes a set of symptoms we know that the substance resonates with those symptoms. What this means is that if someone walks in with green skin the doctor should ask "Do you fart a lot." If the patient asks yes then you should give them Ludicillin (you know, the thing that causes those symptoms).

Surely you don't give them the cause.

Well, actually you don't. One of the things homeopathy was trying to fix was doctors giving poisonous agents to their patients to hopefully cure them. So good ol Hahneman said the medicine should be diluted. And he said the more diluted the medicine was the more effective it would be.

Really?

Well the patients didn't need to know how it worked, just if they got better or not and since it was much more effective than poison, vomiting & bloodletting, people thought it was a good idea.

How dilute?

If you take a gallon of the Ludicillin and put it into 9 gallons of water you get what is called a 1 solution. If you put 1 gallon of the 1 solution solution into 9 gallons of water you get a 2 solution. 1 gallon of 2 solution in 9 gallons of water, 3 solution, etc. So a 1 solution is 10 gallons, 2 solution 100, 3 solution 1,000, etc.

What kind of dilution are we talking about?

For homeopathy, they want 28 solutions and 30 solutions. I've even heard of a 32 solution. So, for a 30 Solution you would have 1 gallon of the Ludicillin in 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 gallons of water.

That's a lot of water.

You probably need an image of how big that is. A 30 solution would make a sphere with a radius of 966,811km (1,611,351 miles). That's a ball of water 70% the size of the Sun or 2.5 times the distance to the Moon. Now imagine dumping 1 gallon of your medicine into the ball, shaking it up, and pulling a cup of that out. How much of the medicine do you think would be in that cup? Avogadro put a limit on that.

Avogadro's Limit?

Yes, if you take a 1 part of a 23 Solution there is a 50% chance there will be 1 molecule of the substance in it. So a 30 Solution has 1 chance in 20,000,000 to have 1 molecule in it.

Is homeopathy a sham?

In not so many words, yes. It's fine when people are trying to fix a runny nose or a headache. The placebo effect should help them. It becomes a problem when they claim to fix more serious issues. Homeopathic remedies will never fix any ailment.

Be healthy.

Too Many Mormon Infographics

They keep churning them, so I'll keep posting them: Another installment of Infographics created by the Mormon Church.

Youth Seminary

Teenagers in the LDS church attend Seminary. Where I grew up we would go to seminary before school from 6:15-7:15 am. We'd get out just in time to start High School at 7:50 am. Kids in areas that have a high percentage of LDS people will often get "away time" so they can attend Seminary during school hours. Our High School does just that, and there's a Seminary building right next door. Crazy.

Mormon Missionary Service

People always love the missionaries. I know, because I was one. Surprisingly everyone loved me anyway. This infographic covers some cool statistics about missionaries.

The Difference Between Mormon Temples & Chapels

There are a lot of people that have seen our Temples and seem to think that's where we all meet on Sundays. We don't. This oddity breeds a lot of speculation of what we actually do in Temples that ranges from the offensive to the obscene. The truth would disappoint you all.

Marriage Does Not Define Same Sex Unions

This term is what is used to define a union between a man & man or a woman & woman. It is being incorrectly used and I think the gay community should be offended.

Here we go again.

Maybe. It's been on everyone's mind more than it probably should. It has been discussed on this blog more than once. Mostly because this is where I put my possibly offensive political and religious opinions.

So what's different?

Nothing, everything. I'll start with quickly defining marriage. It is used to define a union between a man and a woman. The word marriage actually includes both man and woman in it's etymology. The latin "matrem" means mother and the latin "monium" means the action, state or condition of. Together they define the creation of a state where the woman becomes a mother. The word actually defines traditional marriage.

But the world has changed.

Not really. 95% of women on the planet have been married to a man by age 49 (1). That means 95% of women know what marriage means. By sheer volume of understanding, the definition of marriage stands.

But the laws & rulings?

There have been laws passed and rulings made in the last decade that have been trying to change the definition of the word. We can all vote to change the meaning of water, but water is still two hydrogen and one oxygen in a chemical bond and no amount of money and lawyers will change that.

So gay folk can't get married?

Yes. Society has bombarded them with the idealism of marriage their whole lives. Why shouldn't they want to add that label to their unions? They love each other, they want to start a family, they want to be just like everyone else...but they're not.

How rude!

Stop right there. What is wrong with not being like everyone else? They go on parade celebrating their differences. They fight in court to have rights applied to them as a seperate protected group (and rightly so). They have gone out of their way to point out how they are proud to be different.

But they're not?

This argument is much like a stereotypical Feminist demanding to be a man. Not demanding the same rights as a man, but demanding to legally be a man. Not a sex change, that's a whole other discussion. She demands to have her birth certificate say man, her employment records to say man, her tax returns to say man, legally a man in every way, but she's still a woman. A true feminist would find this idea offensive. What is wrong with being a woman that you would need to legally be a man? Fight for the rights not the label.

How does this apply to gay marriage?

They're fighting for the wrong thing. The label does not define them. They will forever be fighting people to agree with their new label when it does not fit them. Just like a the woman above arguing with someone that she's a man when clearly she's not. I think the gay community should be offended.

Well, they are mad.

They should celebrate the virtues that make them who they are. Not try to conform to a label that they can never live up to. The gay community needs to understand this before they find that their victories are hollow.

Hollow victories?

Yes, this is not like slavery. Slavery was about denying human rights to people who are human. Gay marriage is about fighting to obtain a label to define something that label does not define. Many of the rights are already available and more are being won every day without the offending label. So it doesn't matter if you are fighting to call alcohol water, when what you want is the right to drink alcohol.

And can get drunk?

This is not something that goes away with the generations. 100 years from now they will still know the etymology of marriage. They will still know that 2 men or 2 women cannot have children on their own. They will still know that a happy household with a mom & dad produce happier and healthier children. If it looks like a goose, walks like a goose, honks like a goose it's not a duck, but it doesn't mean that geese are lame.

Honk if your gay!

Do not hate your brother's & sisters because they disagree with you. My gay friends are dear to me and I am tired of them hurting over something that shouldn't have hurt them at all.

Be equitable.

The Supreme Court Ruling on Proposition 8

This is a quick explanation of the actual Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8. Unfortunately it is not actually about Proposition 8, it is about the people's right to defend it.

Proposition 22

In California, voters passed a law (Proposition 22) in 2000 defining marriage. The Gay Marriage community threw money at it until they found a loophole they could invalidate it with. The decision by the California Supreme Court was that since the California constitution did not have any words about Gay Marriage in it, a law containing those words was unconstitutional. Proposition 22 was invalidated.

Proposition 8

Insensed at being disenfranchised by money and lawyers the people of California decided to change California's constitution to include the wording defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The Gay Marriage supporters filed suit to prevent the initiative from being placed on the ballot. The California Supreme Court upheld the right of the initiative to be placed on the ballot. It again passed and the Gay Marriage supporters went to task throwing money at the problem trying to find a loophole.

Proposition 8 Upheld

The California Supreme Court upheld the Proposition 8 as voted. The case was then taken to Federal Court.

The People Fight Back

When suit was filed in Federal Court to get rid of the initiative that was passed by the people...again, the people who were supposed to uphold the law decided not to. It is the job of elected officials to defend the laws voted in by the people otherwise laws mean nothing. Governor Schwarzenegger decided to force his opinion on the people by not defending the case and allowing the plaintiffs to win by default. The people who passed the law asked to defend the law they passed and were allowed to be named as defendant in the trial.

The People go to Trial

The case was heard by the Federal Court and Proposition 8 was overturned because it was not in the state's interests to allow the banning of Gay Marriage. This judgement was from a self identified Gay Judge. It was in his own self interest to have Proposition 8 repealed and I'm surprised this was allowed. The people then appealed this judgement with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the Federal Appellate court for California. They ruled that the California Amendment to its Constitution was Unconstitutional according to the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

US Supreme Court Ruling

The appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judgement went to the US Supreme Court and they made an odd decision. But let's recap first:

1. Prop 22 passed.
2. Prop 22 repealed by CA Supreme Court.
3. Prop 8 proposed.
4. Prop 8 allowed on ballot by CA Supreme Court.
5. Prop 8 passed.
6. Prop 8 Upheld by CA Supreme Court.
7. Leaders won't defend law in Federal Court.
8. The people defend the law instead.
9. Gay Federal Judge repeals Proposition 8.
10. Ninth Court Of Appeals Upholds Gay Judge's decision.

So the US Supreme Court Ruling today was not to repeal Proposition 8. It was not to uphold the California Supreme Court Decision. It was not to uphold the Ninth Court's decision. What was it you ask?

The US Supreme Court ruled that the People are not allowed to defend a law.

What are we supposed to to when our leaders go against the public will? How are we supposed to defend ourselves? We cannot. Or at least that's what the US Supreme Court ruled today. If the Governor at the time, Schwarzenegger, had actually done his job Proposition 8 would have been upheld and would be in place.

Ramifications

The smart part of their ruling is that it has nothing to do with Gay Marriage. They completely skirted the issue. This will not affect states where the laws have already passed. Nor will it prevent future laws from being passed. This only affects laws challenged in Federal Court where the people with the standing to defend them refuse to do so. I can only hope that the case is refiled and the Governor steps up to do his job. For now:

Be legal.

How Men Are Percieved

I've been very happily married for nearly 14 years. I have four children ages 11, 10, 8 & 5. I've been very active in the lives of my wife and kids. I enjoy their company and I get the feeling they feel the same. Why am I telling you this? This is not how society sees me.

Probably dresses like a freak.

I heard that. No, this is not going to be a post about how society needs to stop judging people by how they look. We've been beaten over the head with that enough.

My head's still sore.

I'm probably going to make it hurt in a different way. Years ago I was out with my oldest two kids at the park, they were probably 5 and 4 and I was out giving their mom a break so she could nap with the third (she cleaned the house instead). My kids are really friendly and when they saw other kids at the park they instantly ran off to play leaving me to watch them in amusement on a bench a little ways off.

Sounds nice.

It was. They were happy, I loved watching them and it was a nice day out. As time went on though I became increasingly aware of moms at the park watching me. A couple of them were whispering to each other looking in my direction. I looked around so see what was going on.

It's the clothes right?

Stop that. I was dressed normally. I didn't think much of it and went back to watching the kids. A homeless man wandered through the park looking through trash cans. One of the moms took this opportunity to leave. That's when it hit me: I was the only other man at the park, sitting alone, watching children with a smile on his face.

Man you're creepy.

That's what they must've thought. I decided to call each child over to inquire on their status. You know: "Are you having fun? Are you thirsty? Do you need to use the potty? Stay away from the mud." The usual questions. After that the moms seemed less disturbed with my presence.

Until that point I was a pedophile. When did the default position on a single man become a pedophile? Now when I go to a park I have a mental timer counting down the time between child check-ins. If it goes too long I can feel my status change to pedophile.

From what?

Good question. Years more of watching my own children with and without my wife has taught me that without my wife I become a "deadbeat dad." That's the next step up. The only reason a solitary man would be at the park with his children is because he must be divorced and cannot entertain the children at his apartment. This is usually aggravated by the fact that I worked during the week and would be out with my kids on a Saturday.

And thus have custody.

Yep, that's my assigned time. While I won't say that Pedophiles and Deadbeat Dads don't exist, I do take exeption to those being my default assignments. I've compiled a list of defaults for men:

• Man: Pedophile
• Man & Kids: Deadbeat Dad
• Man & Wife: Boyfriend
• Man, Wife & Kids: Cheating Husband
• Man, Kids & other women have talked to wife: Good Husband

Most single men do not hang out at parks and so they probably are not aware of this social dynamic. Once you have kids, you become painfully aware of how much the world hates you. Try taking your kids for an ice cream at McDonald's. If your wife isn't there: Deadbeat Dad trying to buy your kids affection.

It only costs $1.50/child.

Has the news really jaded us so much that we expect that anyone we do not know is, by default, bad? I grew up an only child and so I didn't have a lot of empathy for other people not like me (though I thought I did). Having children has opened me up to a new set of social graces. They have taught me how to percieve the people around me and I like what they see. Older folks are nice people who know a lot and are trying to help, people your age are potential playmates and younger kids are people who might need help.

Children are so naive.

To a point yes. We can't leave ourselves completely open to harm by others. We can find ways to see the best in others and maybe, just maybe, I'm not actually a pedophile.

Be charitable.

LDS Infographics Again

The LDS church has added a few more infographics to add to my first and second list. Here's three more to add to it:

Africa Clean Water Project

The Mormon Church is involved in many humanitarian aid projects. One of them is bringing clean water to African communities. The best part of LDS Charities is that the Mormon Church pays for all the overhead so 100% of donations go to the cause.

< LDS Timeline of Christianity

The Mormon view is not always a unique one, but in the case of Christ's church it tends to differ from other religions. Especially in the case of how history has played out. This is not to say events did or did not happen, but more of how those events are interpreted. This infographic sums it up nicely.

A Global Christ Centered Faith >

Where are the LDS people? All over the world. This infographic covers how the Mormons are worldwide, where those people live, what languages they speak and other tidbits about how members are aware of the world around them. A very useful trait in the Global Information Age.

More Mormon Infographics

Wouldn't you know it, they released another interesting infographic.

General Conference

The LDS church has a conference for all 14 million of it's members plus anyone else that wants to tune in. This infographic shows some interesting statistics about General Conference. You can watch conference this Saturday and Sunday. Check on the General Conference website for more info.

Update 04/22/2012 - Man, them LDS folks are busy. They've made yet another infographic.

Mormon Lay Leadership

One of the things that sets Mormons apart from other religions is they have no paid clergy. In face, no leadership in the church is paid just for being a leader. This info graphic only covers two tiers of church leadership: The Congregation called a Ward and the Stake which is made up of several (approximately 7-15) Wards.

Be graphical.

Mormon Infographics

In recent years you have been seeing Mormons more and more in the media. The reports range from praise and honesty to rage and lies. To help clear things up some media outlets have gone to the trouble of putting facts into attractive and useful infographics to help us better understand them Mormon folk. I decided to compile some of them here:

Mormons In America

The Pew Forum put together a list of statistics showing how America views Mormons and how Mormons view america. There is no accompanying article for the infographic, but there is a considerable amount of text. Highlights include LDS opinions about the election.

Mormon Volunteerism

University of Pennsylvania professor Ram Cnaan and fellow researchers Van Evans and Daniel W. Curtis jointly published a study which producted this infographic. It talks about hours and dollars spent in and out of the LDS church. Highlights inlclude how prosocial Mormons are.

Mormonism 101: FAQ

The Mormon News Room put together an article answering common questions about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This is a sizeable article containing a lot of useful information about the church. It finishes with a handy infographic summing up some statistics about the church and its members. Highlights inlclude their christianity and attendance.

These handy, more palatable bits of data should help you and your friends know more about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). My hope is that through good information we might dispel the misconceptions about the church. So if you found these useful, please share them with a friend. You can even use the social media buttons below.

The Definition of Marriage

I decided to look up the definition of marriage the other day. I was curious as to the exact wording that would be used. I was surprised to see what they had done.

All sources clearly state that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. No surprise there, this definition has been clearly defined in nearly all societies in history. Though they might recognize other unions, genders or relationships, the clearly defined rules of marriage has always been assigned to a man and a woman.

The entymology of the word relates it both to a man and a woman. The latin matrem (meaning mother) and monium (meaning action, state, condition), together meaning a relationship where the female becomes a mother. This can only happen in a male-female relationship.

Imagine my surprise when some of the dictionaries included a secondary definition including same-sex marriages. The defining of words is a unpassionate discipline that does not bend to the whims of society. If a word falls into general use in society, it's definition needs to be established and subsequently published. If a word is used as slang by a small group and fails to gain such widespread usage or understanding it is not to be entered and called slang. But there it sits, begging the question why?

How about widespread usage? How many people in society use the word "ideal" to mean "idea" (ie. I have a good ideal)? Or how many say "I have more then you" when they mean than? Do you find those definitions in the dictionary? No. Well, what does society think?

Didn't same-sex marriage just become legal in several states? Not by the will of the peoople. In fact, not a single US state has voted in same sex marriage. Whenever the people have been asked to define marriage they have said again and again that it means a union between a man and a woman. Those states that currently allow same sex marriage only do so because millions of dollars were paid to lawyers to make it so. And serving a small group's interests does not a definition change.

Common use is where we derive definitions from and the common use for these alternatives to marriage requires modifiers to avoid confusion. When someone in the media or just a person on the street wants to tell you about the civil union of a homosexual couple they say phrases like "same-sex marriage," "gay marriage" and "homosexual marriage." There is a reason for this, when the general public hears the phrase "married couple" they know that means a man and a woman. Without the modifiers the word's meaning is clear and understood.

If I were to mention dry water an idea pops into your mind contrary to the word water. There are scientific publications that refer to a silica coated substance that is 95% water. It is dry to the touch and could be very useful in chemical applications. If that term were to gain widespread usage would dictionaries then add the "dry" definition to the word water? No, of course not.

By adding the same-sex entries definition of marriage, dictionaries have taken a political stance on the issue. As a percieved neutral source, this is a violation of the public trust in such institutions as dictionaries. I find this unconsionable, irresponsible and damaging. What other definitions can they be persuaded to change?

Be defined.

It's the end...again!

Here we go again. Another person has figured out when the end of the world is. I don't believe him, nor have I believed any of these other folks that sell destruction. Let us take a moment to ponder the reasons they say the world will end on x:

• The bible tells me so - There have been many to predict the end of the world. For example:
  • Charles Taze Russel predicted it would be in 1874 then successively in 1878, 1914, 1915, 1918 & 1925. In the end he said 1874 did happen, but it was symbolic.
  • Jim Jones predicted November 18, 1978. Unfortunately he committed suicide with 900 of his followers so he never found out he was wrong.
  • Michael Drosnin predicted December 2, 2006 using computers to read the "Bible Code."
  The funny thing about searching the Bible to prove when the world will end or the Second Coming of Christ is it says you can't: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." MAT 24:36 So the book they are looking to as an authority explicitly says that it can't help them.
• The [insert ancient culture] Knew - The most popular prediction these days is from the Mayan Calendar. People say the Calendar ends in 2012. They are correct: the Mayans made a Calendar and in the interest of planning ahead made future calendar dates extending to 2012. This wasn't because they said the world would end, they just didn't make more Calendar. Most Calendar companies have not printed 2013 yet, does that mean the world will end? No, someone will print them when we get sufficiently close just like the Mayans would have if their civilization continued long enough.
• Some Wise Man Said So - See the first entry. These are the same type of crazy folk, they just used other sources to come up with their faulty data:
  • Rabbi Sabbati Zevi predicted 1648AD & 1666AD. He later went crazy and joined Islam.
  • Nostradamus predicted July 1999 stating "The year 1999, seven months, From the sky will come a great King of Terror: To bring back to life the great King of the Mongols, Before and after Mars to reign by good luck."
  • Johannes Stöffler predicted February 1, 1524. He noticed that all the planets were going to line up and thought this would cause mass flooding.

So, we're still here and Harold Camping says that May 21^st, 2011 the rapture will happen. My first question is: What is the Rapture? I know what people say it is. It's been explained to me over and over. The reason I ask is that no one can tell me where they get this little doctrine from. Not ministers, not the internet, not even crazy fundies can tell me. They often refer to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, but this doesn't give any clear information about a doctrine and requires a lot of wild interpretation to generate the entire doctrine of the rapture.

The Rapture, as I have heard, is when all the believers are taken to heaven right before God/Christ comes to destroy the surface of the Earth. You would think that something this important would have more than a few vague verses. Nope. They're nowhere to be found. According to the Bible there is nothing even resembling a rapture. So not only is Mr. Camping predicting something his source says he cant, he's predicting an event his source doesn't say will happen.

Be thorough.

Chandra Avenged?

The final sentencing for Ingmar Guandique was issued today. He is was convicted of killing Chandra Levy and sentenced to 60 years in prison. Good, evil doers should be dealt with especially when they've done evil.

Which he did, right?

I dunno. The evidence was sketchy at best. He was convicted based on two main criteria:

1. He told an inmate that he killed her.
2. He raped two women in the park where Chandra's body was found.

Wait, what?

Actual testimony stated that Ingmar told another inmate that he killed Chandra while trying to rob her. He was also afraid of violence against rapists in the prison. He was in prison for raping two women in the same park where they found Chandra. There is no DNA evidence, the polygraph was inconclusive and that's it. He's in for 60 years.

But the jury...the judge...?

In civil cases plaintiffs prove their point by a "preponderance of the evidence," that is they win if it is more likely than not. This is not a civil case, it's criminal. The standard for criminal cases is "beyond a shadow of doubt" or in other words if you doubt the evidence the criminal doesn't get convicted.

Ok...

When OJ Simpson was brought to trial the preponderance of the evidence pointed toward him killing his wife which was good enough for civil court (where he lost). In his criminal trial when all the facts were submitted there was enough doubt as to his guilt that he was found not guilty.

So what?

In this case the evidence against Ingmar is so circumstantial there can be nothing but doubt. This isn't a shadow of doubt this is an entire eclipse of doubt. No fingerprints, no DNA, no witnesses, no admission of guilt, no information pointing toward the incident at all except for one inmates testimony of what Ingmar said and that he has a history of violence. How many other people fit this profile? How many of them will be getting 60 years in jail?

Ack.

Ack is right. This is a major failure in our justice system. I am rather conservative when it comes to jailing folks who have done something wrong, but if you can't prove it, they didn't do it and that's it. I'm sad she's dead. She was two years behind me at Davis High. This is a sad way to remember the girl who wanted to get into government by falsely imprisoning an immigrant.

Be just.

Being at One

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. - Third Article of Faith, LDS

The atonement is the most talked about and most misunderstood part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I covered a bit about sin in my blog about the Second Article of Faith. It was mostly about what sin is and how we can commit it. To recap it's to act knowingly or willingly against the will of God. We're imperfect and sometimes it seems a better idea to do the wrong thing rather than tough out the right. Guaranteed we've all done something.

Lemme diverge a bit and talk a little about God & Heaven. God knows how to be happy. I know, duh, but it needs to be said. He wants us to be happy and has prepared a place where we can achieve that forever. It doesn't mean that we get to do whatever we want because we will eventually step on someone's toes. The natural answer would be "don't hang around other people", but we're social beings and cannot spend eternity alone. So to boil it all down, some strict ground rules need to be set. For one you have to be capable of following the rules and be clean from trespasses altogether.

Now back to sin. If we have sin, we cannot go to this place. To fix sin you need to be able to reverse your actions or be punished. Reversing actions is impossible and punishment is more than we can bear with our mortal bodies. Eternal consequences and temporal bodies don't mix.

So now what? We sin, we can't be in heaven and God can't just forgive us. Why can't he forgive us? Justice. He is a just God and in so being he cannot be merciful or he contradicts himself. Since we can't pay the debt (being mortal and all) and God has to be just we need a third party to help us fix this.

Enter the Savior. There are a few requirements for this position:

1. Power Over Death - He needs to be able to withstand the punishment for sin without dying.
2. Mortal - If there's no risk there's no sacrifice and only morals have the risk of death.
3. Perfect - How can anyone be expected to give their entire eternal fate over to someone they can find fault with?
4. Infinite - If you atone for 1 quintillion sins what if there was one more. It is this "what if" that always requires atoning for one more sin. Hence, infinite.

We all know who fit the bill and did it willingly: Jesus Christ. His father was God, giving him power over death and the ability to avoid sin. His mother was Mary, giving him the ability to die and adding risk to this whole thing. He, by his very nature, is full of charity (the reason why he volunteered). Charity is love without limitation. Love without limitation is infinite and powerful enough to overcome infinite pain.

Now that all the criteria is met we need to look at the act. In the Garden of Gethsemane Christ suffered for all the sins of mankind. He had endured 40 days without food, the betrayal of his own people, Satan, hatred and many more things we do not know, but this single event scared him. He knew what needed to be done. His whole existence was spent preparing for this moment and when it arrived he asked if there was another way. This was a big deal and I'm glad he chose to do it.

Now for the second part of the Atonement. So that all could be raised in incorruption never to die again Christ needed to break the bonds of death, by dying. He died on the cross and two days later he rose. There is more to his life, ie. he set the example; He endured all things so he could succor us; He taught how we should be; and most importantly he gave us the conditions of his contract. All these things done because he knew we, his brothers and sisters, could not do it on our own and volunteered to help us out.

Now this deviates strongly from most other Christian faiths in a few ways:

1. Garden of Gethsemane - It is believed that Christ went to the Garden to negotiate with God about the Crucifixion the next day and provide a place so Judas could find him.
2. Crucifixion - It is also believed Christ paid for our sins by dying on the Cross.
3. Resurrection - This is tied to neither the garden or the Crucifixion. It is believed that ressurrection is just being saved from hell and that the dead rising would be the same as giving our bodies life again.

As stated above, we believe that Christ paid for our sins in the Garden. He died on the Cross so he could break the bonds of death so we all could be resurrected. We are resurrected with perfect bodies so we can live forever.

So now Christ had fulfilled his end of the contract. He had paid for our sins. So what does that mean for us? If we do what he says we can all shake off the sins that bind us down and be raised to incorruption. All the principals and ordinances of his gospel are found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as well as those people with the authority to administer them. With these handy tools we can enter into the kingdom of heaven and partake in eternal happiness. Goody for us.

Be One

Musing on Proposition 8

I was thinking about California's Proposition 8 passed in 2008. I decided to look up how much the LDS Church actually donated to the campaign. I found a letter originally written by Kevin Hamilton and modified by Elizabeth Ogden Agle. Here is that letter:

1. Mormons make up only 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 750,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 36 million.^{[1] [2]}
2. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then out of a total of 5,661,583 yes votes, LDS voters made up 4.4% of the Yes vote and 2.3% of the total Proposition 8 vote (11,050,301).^[3]
3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign (only spending legal, non-monetary, in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58, to cover the travel expenses of leaders, website creation and management, YouTube videos, and negligent publicity - a letter and a satellite broadcast). Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.^[4]
4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $36 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.^[5]
5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.^{[6] [7] [8] [9] [10]}
6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Proposition 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Proposition 8. San Diego County voted in favor of Proposition 8. Orange County voted in favor of Proposition 8. San Luis Obispo County voted in favor of Proposition 8. Sacramento County voted in favor of Proposition 8. Fresno County voted in favor of Proposition 8. And the list goes on and on: Merced, San Bernardino, Riverside, Mariposa, Tulare, Imperial, etc.^[11]
7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.^[12]
8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).^{[13] [14]}
9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims - all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.^{[15] [16] [17] [18] [19]}
10. Though the Church urged its members to "do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment," not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.^{[20] [21]}
11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church has always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.^{[22] [23] [24]}
12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do - we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.

Written by: Kevin Hamilton and edited by Elizabeth Ogden Agle: "[While] I do not know [Kevin] personally...I decided to research them (and tweak a few since I believe they were written before the final vote count)...my list of sources that concur with the statements [are at] the bottom of the facts...Thank you for any interest. If the media wants to use these facts, they would need to contact Mr. Hamilton. Please also note Mr. Hamilton's disclaimer that accompanied the original text: 'Any errors are mine and in no way reflect official Church policy or doctrine.'"

SOURCES:

1. http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/contact-us/usa-california
2. http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
4. http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/church-clarifies-proposition-8-filing-corrects-erroneous-news-reports
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
6. Parker v. Hurley
7. http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713
8. http://www.conservapedia.com/Parker_v._Hurley
9. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association v. Bernstein and Pester
10. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07091902.html
11. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01
12. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html
13. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html
14. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1
15. http://www.protectmarriage.com/about/organization
16. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=282
17. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/5050/story?id=6137237&page=1
18. http://www.forward.com/articles/14521/
19. http://510report.org/2008/11/08/fremont-muslims-vote-for-prop-8/
20. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html
21. http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
22. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
23. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-0
24. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/aprqtr/pdf/26cfr1.501(c)(3)-1.pdf

I knew most of the information above though it was nice to see it all put together in one place. This was posted on a Facebook Group about Proposition 8.

Be tolerant.

Gramps was a sinner.

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. - Second Article of Faith, LDS

I know what you're thinking: "so what?" This was a big deal at one time and has caused many arguments and discussions through the ages. I want to define a couple of terms first:

Sin - To act knowingly or willingly against the will of God. So it's wrong, you know it's wrong and your gonna do it anyway. Sure you might rationalize it somehow, but it is still wrong. That is sin, got it.

Transgression - To act against the will of God. You don't know it's wrong, it is and you are doing it. You'll find out later that you messed up, but for now you are completely ignorant.

Ok, back to the the thing at the top. Back in the second century Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lion, came up with the doctrine of Original Sin. This is the belief that we all are born with sin because Adam was kicked out of the Garden of Eden. So that means a 1 minute old infant has sin or in other words has acted knowingly and willingly against the will of God. Bad baby.

This doctrine was not fully realized until the Catholic Church adopted the doctrine of infant baptism around the fourth century. So with this ammunition they taught that babies will go to hell if they are not baptized.

This doctrine was brought into debate during both the First and the Second Great Awakening (during which Christ's Church was restored) making this a very important topic for the last 300 years or so. This is why we felt it necessary to put this in our beliefs.

What we believe is that Adam Transgressed the law. God clearly stated: "thou shalt not eat [or] thou shalt surely die." -Gen 2:17. Meaning that if he ate the fruit he would die. He succumbed to another definition of dying, separation. He was separated from God by being kicked out of the garden. As a result all of us are not in the garden and not with God (eg. fallen), but we are not going to hell.

How is that you ask? We also believe in the innocence of little children. Since they cannot fully understand the laws of God, they cannot act knowingly or willingly against it and therefore are without sin. When they are sufficiently able to make these choices they are capable of sin and need the redemptive power of Christ.

So, we will all be punished for our own sins and not for Adam's transgression. So to sum up there is the Catholic view and our view:

Catholic - Adam sinned by partaking of the fruit so we all have sin and need to be baptized so we don't go to hell.

Mormon - We are not in the garden and are responsible for our actions.

I think it was best said: "Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have joy."

Be accountable.

Trinitarian

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. - First Article of Faith, LDS

This statement has caused a lot of controversy and none at the same time. It is really what sets us apart from the Christian community as a whole. Yet most Christians I've asked on the subject believe the same thing. Lemme break it down.

In Catholicism the incredibly confusing Nicean Creed contradicts itself up one side and down the other to reach a consensus about who God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are. The official interpretation of that document is that God has no form, is everywhere, is one being with 3 parts and eternal. That is the official Catholic stance.

In recent years I have heard a new word from the Protestant community: Triune. It is an appropriate term to define what the Catholics believe, which is that God, Jesus & HG are the same being. The reason for this distinction is that the word Trinity means a group of three. Triune means one thing with three distinct parts.

The Mormon Church believes in the Trinity, three distinct beings with one purpose. I do not find this surprising because if you worked with the same two people for hundreds of years (let alone millions) you might be in synch, knowing the will of the others and doing what they would need to be done. Hence also being one in purpose, mind and body.

Many people who read this might say "that's what I believe" and they wouldn't be alone. I have found that whether you're a Protestant, Catholic, Evangelical or other Christian you are inclined to believe in the Trinitarian God over the Triune God because it is easier to comprehend three beings that are one in unity. I also find the one triune being with three incarnations to be confusing as well. This is where Joseph Smith came in.

Joseph was similarly confused about this and religion alltogether. While inquiring in prayer he was visited by the Trinity who cleared up any confusion and confirmed what you all were thinking: that God and Jesus are two different people. They came at the right time to reestablish Christ's Church on the Earth. Any earlier and it would have been snuffed out being called heretics. Any later and it would have met the same fate. This time of the Second Great Awakening provided the opportune moment to restore what was lost with the Apostles.

So to reiterate what Joseph Smith said in the First Article of Faith. The LDS church believes in God and in Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. Three distinct beings with one purpose. God being the Father of Jesus Christ and testifying of him just as Christ testifies of his father. The Holy Ghost testifies of the truth which is they are one in mind, body, and purpose, but not substance. I agree for many more reasons than I have stated here.

Be Trinitarian.

The Articles of Faith

Back in the beginnings of the Mormon faith there was a lot of buzz about what we actually believed. There were some good rumors, but mostly bad. In 1842 John Wentworth then editor of the Chicago Democrat wanted to know what the LDS church believed in. Instead of going to the man on the street, a baptist minister or a reporter down the hall he did something which would be considered unorthodox in today's journalism: He asked the leader of the Church, Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith was also of a mind to let anyone know who asked what we believe. He was cool like that. In writing his response he created probably the clearest list of what we actually believe. It compares well with the beliefs of other churches and doesn't split hairs. So complete and concise was this definititon that the church leaders have included them in the standard set of LDS scriptures.

Enough fanfare, here's the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Over the next several months I will be expounding on the information held in these Articles. I hope to further inform and enlighten those interested in what we believe. You can also see LDS beliefs at their website.

Be concise.

Vaccinating Against Ignorance

One of Lisa's friends recently posted a video advocating a new cure for Autism:

So the basic gist is a couple really wanted a baby. They got a healthy baby. The doctor gave the baby evil vaccines that caused autism. The mother did research and found a homeopathic doctor. He cured the baby. He is now asking for your donations to help spread the word.

Clear Enough

I have a few problems with this video. The first being how parents stated in the video that they didn't see any symptoms until 2 months after the vaccinations. It takes less than two weeks for a vaccination to clear a person's system. If there was any damage to be done, it would have happened in those two weeks and would have shown up in that time. Even stretching out the time scale to a month still leaves another month without symptoms. My guess is that the child was going to develop autism with or without the vaccines.

But the studies...

You are right. There have been studies that say they show a correlation, but none have provided solid evidence (Weak Study Example, Article on MMR & the CDC). I do understand how someone could come to this conclusion. Statistics show as number of vaccines have increased the number of autism cases have increased. Also children receive a lot of vaccinations before the age of 5. Nearly all autism cases are diagnosed before age 5 and probably within a few months of a vaccination shot. So it is easy to see how a logical causation theory might evolve. However, the number of wireless devices, tickle me Elmos and complaints about Corporate America have increased during that same time. Children also go to McDonald's, grandparent's houses and have their diapers changed around the time of vaccines. Who's to say none of these are the cause?

OK, what else?

Glad you asked (I might've gone on ranting about the vaccines cause autism thing, I mean don't get me started on Jenny McCarthy. My friend Matt ranted about the vaccines are bad thing, I'm ranting, anyways). She found a book on Homeopathy and thought it looked promising. Really? Is this the same Homeopathy I've heard about? Here's a very good explanation of what Homeopathy is:

I can boil the whole industry down to one word "placebo." Placebos only work when the person they are given to thinks that they should work. Five year olds are not aware of psychological disorders, let alone having one. Also if it is in fact autism then the problem is caused a chemical imbalance or a genetic disorder. Either way it slows the development of certain parts of the brain causing a problem that cannot be fixed by a diluted solution or any other medication. That would be like trying to fix someone cut off at the knees with a pill. Unless you have a leg growing pill, that would be handy.

So, it worked.

Did it? Or did it work like a placebo on the parents? The child improved (which is totally awesome). I don't think it was the Homeopathic Acupuncturist (which is, by the way, not a doctor). If you take the Homeopathic remedy for a headache and you get better it doesn't mean it was the "Headache Medicine." On the box of homeo-aspirin it says it might take up to 12 hours to take effect. The average headache is gone within 12 hours.

But, the Testimonials.

They're just that, testimonials. I can say anything I want about a product. I can even create circumstances where people will believe and repeat what I say about the product. It does not, however change the fact that it is wrong and does not work. Learn for yourself if the information is true. An informed person is a safe person. Unless you've intercepted top secret Mafia/FBI/KGB/LDS/CIA/MSN/TLA papers, then you're in big trouble.

Be sensible.