Mormons and Soup Kitchens

I volunteered at the local St Vincent de Paul soup kitchen this morning.  I normally wouldn't go squawking about that sort of thing, but I read a forum posting recently where someone was criticizing the LDS faith and its adherents on the grounds that he had never seen a soup kitchen founded by a Mormon, and I wanted to clear up the facts regarding Mormons and soup kitchens.

The biggest reason that you don't hear about Mormon Soup Kitchens is that the LDS Church has a different way of providing support for the needy.  Every month, faithful LDS members fast and pray for a period of about 24 hours.  They then donate at least as much money as they saved by not eating during that period in the form of fast offerings.  Members who don't have money, such as farmers in third-world countries, can donate the food itself.  This money and food is then used to provide welfare assistance, beginning within the boundaries of the ward or branch, with the surplus spilling over into more general funds until it can be used the world over.

Welfare from the LDS Church is distributed under the direction of local bishops or branch presidents, who can call on the resources of the so-called Bishop's Storehouse to provide food, money, and other necessities to those in need.  Such welfare is extended to members and non-members alike, but is not given as a dole.  Except in very particular cases (e.g. a widow who has no family to support her), church welfare is viewed as temporary assistance, not a permanent commitment.  It is only to be used long enough for the person or family to become self-supporting and sustainable.  People who accept welfare from the church are also generally required to do something to in some sense earn the goods they are receiving.  For example, an able-bodied man may be asked to do yard work for a local widow each week.  He may be receiving far more assistance than a few hours of yard work would fetch in an open market, but it gives him the dignity of feeling that he is doing what he can to give back.  It helps to avoid giving the recipient a sense of entitlement.

The last time I went to the soup kitchen, one of the volunteers there mentioned that they used to require the homeless people to help out with either the serving or the cleanup in order to qualify for the free food they were getting.  But the ACLU caught wind of it and sued them for slave labor, and so they had to rely on volunteers for these duties instead.

The local LDS leadership helps to furnish these volunteers by assigning each ward to provide a certain number of volunteers in a rotating fashion.  The man running the soup kitchen told us that if it weren't for the support of LDS members who volunteer from wards around the valley, they would have had to close shop a long time ago.  In addition to providing manpower, the LDS church also donates food to the soup kitchen.

So if someone tries to tell you that Mormons aren't charitable because they don't start soup kitchens, just remember what Atticus Finch says: "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it."  It is easy to overlook the many, many good deeds done by the LDS church and its members, largely because many of these deeds are done quietly, without the left hand knowing what the right hand doeth.  I have learned more and more that what someone says about other people tells me far more about the person speaking than the people he's talking about.

Or I suppose you could follow Jack Handy's rule: "Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes."  ;-)

Rights, Privileges, and State Bill 81

The local news has been making a big deal about Utah's State Bill 81, a new immigration bill. Frankly, I hadn't heard anything about it until I started hearing stories like this, stating that the Salt Lake City police chief has warned legislators that his department will refuse to enforce it. It seemed odd to me that none of these news reports mentioned what the bill actually did. They only quoted the police chief refusing to make his officers into immigration agents. So I looked up the full text of the bill to see what the big deal was. It seems to do a lot of things that seem like common sense to me. For example:

• If someone is booked into jail for "driving under the influence," the county sheriff is expected to make a reasonable effort to check on their citizenship status before letting them go free.
  
• Liquor licenses won't be issued to illegal aliens.

... and so on. It looks like the part that the police department is up at arms about is this:

64 . prohibits a unit of local government from enacting an ordinance or policy that limits
65 or prohibits a law enforcement officer or government employee from
66 communicating or cooperating with federal officials regarding the immigration
67 status of a person within the state;

You can find more details on lines 577 through 592 of the same document. If I'm reading it right, it means that local police departments (or any government office) can't tell their officers that they're not allowed to report illegal immigrants. It doesn't necessarily mean that their officers have to report illegal immigrants--they just can't get in trouble if they do.

The only part I'm unclear on is this:

593 (d) This Subsection (3) allows for a private right of action by a natural or legal person
594 lawfully domiciled in this state to file for a writ of mandamus to compel a noncompliant local
595 or state governmental agency to comply with the reporting laws of this Subsection (3).

So my question for all you lawyer types out there is this: Does this mean that if I notice my local police department has a policy of refusing to cooperate with immigration officials, I can file to have them get rid of that policy? Or does it mean that if I notice an illegal immigrant in my neighborhood, I can file to make the local police investigate them? (I suspect the former.)

I have two more observations to make on the matter. First, the article I linked to earlier mentioned that people are afraid that it opens up a door to racial profiling. I just don't see how this law could possibly be construed to do that. It doesn't say that police officers can book people into jail on suspicion of being illegal immigrants, for example.

Secondly, I think people are getting confused about the difference between rights and privileges. People have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People have a right to choose what actions they will take each day, as long as their actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. People have a right to not be discriminated against based on their race, religion, and sex. People do not have a right to a job--that's a privilege. It's something that can be given or retracted at will. It is normally not wise for employers to fire somebody without reason, but they have every right to fire somebody who is not doing their job.

How does this apply? Every police officer has a right to decide whether he or she will report an illegal alien to the proper authorities. If their boss (the chief) feels that by deciding to report or not to report illegal aliens, they are not doing their job properly, he can choose to fire them. He has been duly appointed to his position, and is therefore given this privilege. If, however, his employer (the government) decides that by firing those workers, or by establishing any policy contrary to the law, he is not doing his job properly, they can fire him as well. Since they have been duly appointed by the people, this is their privilege. And if their boss (the citizenship) feels that they are not performing their duty correctly, they can fire congress as well. This is a simple principle of self-governance, which falls under the Liberty category, and is therefore not a privilege, but a right of any people.

So the officers individually have the right to resign, or to stop performing their duty to the point that they get fired, if that's what they want. The chief has the right to do the same. But the Police Department as a government entity has neither the right nor the privilege to refuse to enforce a law which has been passed by duly-elected officials. Congress, likewise, has neither the right nor the privilege to refuse to represent their constituency. When the police begins to govern the people, rather than the other way around, it's called a police state, and we don't want that, now do we?

Why we chose to have our baby at home

An astute observer might have noticed in the pictures that we posted recently that Liz gave birth to Chris at home.  Before the birth, when we told acquaintances that we were planning a home birth, their responses often made it clear that there are a lot of misconceptions (no pun intended) about home birth, natural childbirth, and even childbirth in general.  I'd like to take a moment to explain why we decided to have a natural childbirth, why we decided to have a home birth, and why we're glad we did.

First of all, unmedicated childbirth presents a host of benefits--too numerous to mention here--to both the mother and fetus.  Among them are:

• The fetus is more alert, and is able to help move itself out during labor.
• Undrugged newborns breastfeed much easier.  Breastfeeding just after birth stimulates the production of breast milk, making it easier to continue breastfeeding afterward.  Breastfeeding likewise has numerous benefits for the fetus.
  
• The newborn is more alert and is better able to spend quality time bonding with both mother and father.
• The people we spoke to who had tried it both ways reported a much faster recovery time for the mother when giving birth naturally.
• Reduced risk of needing vacuum extractor or forceps (which reduces the risk and severity of tearing)
  
• Mobility during labor.  Adjusting and changing positions during labor can make things much more comfortable for the mother, but is out of the question when you have a hypodermic needle in your spine.
• Shorter labor.
• Avoid the side affects and complications from the epidural.
• Reduced chance and severity of post-partum depression.

And, perhaps most convincingly of all, the people we spoke with generally fell into one of three categories:

• Women who had only tried childbirth with an epidural generally expressed the feeling that they weren't brave enough to face the pain of a natural childbirth.
• Women who had only tried natural childbirth were generally content to continue doing so.
• Women who had tried both methods invariably said the natural childbirth was far better.  

Having decided that we wanted to have an unmedicated childbirth, the decision to give birth at home was a relatively simple one.  Hospitals tend to foster a culture of intervention.  After all, people only go to the hospital if they are injured or sick, right?  Apart from the rare case where a woman is at particular risk of complications, childbirth is a healthy and natural occurrence.  Luckily for us humans, women have been giving birth successfully for millennia without medical assistance.  Don't get me wrong--hospitals are very important institutions, and medical science has brought us a long way from the devastatingly high infant mortality rates of days gone by.  I would certainly prefer to be at a hospital in the case of a high-risk childbirth.  However, for the vast majority of pregnancies a birth at home is every bit as safe as a birth in the hospital.

As I said earlier, the hospital environment is geared toward taking someone who has something wrong with them and fixing it.  In the case of childbirth, the goal is to take a woman who has a baby in her tummy and remove the baby in such a way that both mother and baby survive.  If they can increase their personal revenue or the hospital's revenue at the same time, so much the better.  Very little attention is given to the comfort or wishes of mother or child unless they can charge you for it, and since doctors are busy (and human) they tend to want to do things in a way that is most convenient for the doctors.  With this in mind, drugs and surgery are the best ways to accomplish their goals.  They can easily take a perfectly healthy woman with a perfectly healthy baby and increase the hospital's profits while still ensuring, more or less, the survival of both mother and child.  Here's how:

1. There is a moment during transition (between first-stage and second-stage labor) when the natural hormonal changes taking place inside a woman's body will cause her to feel despair.  During this stage, she will say things like "I don't think I can do this anymore."  At this same moment, the same hormonal changes make her extremely open to suggestion.  If you tell her she needs a drink of water, or to go to the bathroom, she'll probably agree with you.  If the doctor says, "How about we give you a little something for the pain," she will probably consent unquestioningly.  Now the doctor has permission to give her an epidural (this was in the fine print of the forms you signed when checking in to the hospital).  Had they waited another half-hour, the woman's mental state would have naturally changed to one of quiet determination, and she would soon be in the pushing phase.  The epidural takes about half an hour to kick in anyway.
   
2. Once the epidural is administered, the anesthesia has a tendency to prolong labor, giving the doctor an opportunity to suggest "something to speed things up."  After hours of labor, and after being told that their labor is slowing down, most women will want very much to do something to get it over with.  At this point, assuming the epidural was administered properly, the woman will not notice the increased severity of the contractions as a result of the pitocin.  Indeed, the doctors and nurses will probably have to tell her when she's supposed to push because she won't feel the natural urge that normally accompanies contractions.
   
3. The baby, however, is now the victim of three separate effects of events so far.  First, the anesthesia is making the baby feel groggy and slowing his vital signs.  Second, the pitocin is working to increase his heart rate.  Thirdly, the mother's contractions are now much more severe than they should naturally be, so the baby is being squeezed by the uterus more than he should be.  This trifecta of stimuli will often throw his heart rate (as measured by the external fetal monitor) into disarray, leading the medical staff to conclude that the fetus is distressed and must be extracted via C-section.
   

And so you see how easily the medical team can upsell their services.  A mother who would have only been charged for the hospital bed, room, and standard staff for a day or two can now be billed for the epidural kit, the anesthesiologist, the pitosin, and a full-on invasive surgery, plus the extra time she'll spend recovering.  And the doctor used every available medical technique to ensure that mother and baby survived, rendering him practically immune to litigation.  This probably explains why c-section rates in hospitals are over 30% (and rising) while out-of-hospital births have c-section rates around 4%.

Also, at home the mother has much more freedom to move around into different positions, even taking a bath or a nap if she feels like it.  We can eat or drink whatever we like whenever we like, we never have to worry about when to go to the hospital or about having the baby in the car on the way there.  Liz, like most women, feels much more relaxed at home than at the hospital, and relaxation is one of the most important ways to reduce pain during contractions.

We were able to find a really excellent (and extremely qualified) midwife named Rebecca, who came highly recommended by friends.  With our insurance, the entire birth process cost just as much as it would have at the hospital.  (If we didn't have insurance, it would have cost much less than the hospital).  She has a birth center that would have cost about $750 to use (includes meals, etc.), and we asked her what the biggest advantage would be to using the birth center instead of our home.

"Family," she replied.

"What do you mean?"

"A lot of times if you tell your family that you're planning to give birth at home they're horrified, but if you tell them you're having it in a 'birth center' it lends a certain amount of credibility to it.  I will have all the same equipment with me when I come to your house, so there's no difference in risk to you or the baby if you have it at home."

In our first appointment, Rebecca spent a couple of hours asking and answering questions, and subsequent appointments tended to last an hour or more.  We were able to develop a rapport with her that would have been impossible with most obstetricians.  (Liz still hadn't seen her OB in person after four appointments there).   Rebecca also had a knack for calming Liz down and assuaging her fears.

We also took a Bradley Methods class to educate ourselves about the childbirth process.  In addition to teaching us what to expect from labor itself, our Bradley instructor coached us on nutrition and exercise that was particularly important in ensuring that Liz would be ready for the process.  We learned pain management techniques and different birthing positions that often work best during labor.  The course lasted two hours, one day a week, for twelve weeks.  By the end of it we felt really empowered and at peace about the whole thing.  Labor was no longer something we feared.  We knew what to expect, and we knew what we would need to do to make it a successful experience.

So what was it like to have a baby at home?  In another posting I will write about the experience.  Stay tuned.

How much does your interest rate matter?

Liz and I have been looking at buying a home recently (as if having a baby weren't enough stress) so I've had mortgage rates on the brain. We recently got pre-approved for a 4.75% loan, which appears to be just about the lowest rate in recent history. It was up around 6% last November, 9.25% in the summer of 2006, 15% in 1986, and a whopping 18% in late 1981. So how much of a difference does it make to be buying a home now instead of at one of these higher interest rates? Let's take a look.

If we don't count mortgage insurance or any other added fees, we can calculate that a $100,000 loan will look like this at the interest rates mentioned above:

As you can see, borrowing the same amount of money in the early 1980s, you'd have had to pay almost three times as much as you do now. The interest alone would have been over four times the price of the home itself! Now, the interest won't even sum up to the original home price. Of course, homes were cheaper back then, too. So maybe the home that cost $100,000 back then is worth $500,000 now.

The $8000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers (anybody who hasn't owned their primary residence in the past 3 years) is a nice extra incentive, but it's a pittance compared to the lower interest rates.

One more quick comparison before I finish: let's say that you bought a home for $100,000 five years ago and then refinanced it last year for 6%. Let's say you're now wondering whether you should refinance the home, which you've determined would cost you about $5000. You probably haven't paid off much of the principle on the home because the banks purposely weight the payments so you're paying mostly interest for the first several years. Assume that you've still got about $90,000 left on your mortgage and you decide to refinance for $95,000 so that you can get up-front money to pay for the cost of refinancing. Even though it's a 30-year loan, you plan to make extra payments to pay it off in 25 years since that's what you would have done anyway. Here's the difference between just paying off the rest of your $90,000 and refinancing:

So despite adding $5,000 to your loan today, you'd still come out over $13,000 ahead at the end of 25 years!

Another baby Chris photo

Isn't he just the cutest baby ever?

Here I am holding our beautiful baby boy, less than 15 minutes after he was born! Christopher James Jensen. Born 8 pounds 10 ounces!

My Very Pregnant Wife

Here's a photo taken March 17. Chris was born nine days later.

Baby Chris

We had our son this morning at 4:44 AM.  8 pounds 10 ounces.  Twenty and a half inches long.  Pictures will come later.  First, a nap.

Freedom of speech

Apparently there was a cable company that couldn't permit an Anti-Hillary movie to air on their pay-per-view channels because it fell under the time period that makes it subject to campaign finance laws. The Supreme court is now thinking of striking down the law competely, based on it First-Amendment implications.

It is odd how we can say that a film that gets released six months before an election would be okay, while a film that gets released a little closer to the elections should be subject to campaign regulations.

I understand the desire to prevent the nation from becoming a plutocracy, where he who has the most money controls the government. But the justices are right to be concerned about the implications of limiting the publication of free speech. What's the difference between the U.S.'s blocking the publication of campaign ads and China's blocking YouTube? Ultimately, if we can't trust American citizens to make an informed decision while they're being inundated with campaign ads, why do we think we can trust them any more when they're not?

Heist

Here's an interesting article that exposes some of the reasons that the credit crisis really happened, and why what Washington is doing now isn't likely to fix anything.

Youtube diplomacy

There are a lot of areas where I disagree with President Barack Obama, but you've got to admit the man is smart.  He's begun using YouTube to express America's goodwill toward Iran.  If this can help to improve relations between the U.S. and Iran, bringing the citizens together, that will be one undeniably good thing that he has done as President.

When I was in France, I was surprised at how many people there said, "What do the Americans think of us?  We hear that they don't like us."  Then I came back to the U.S. and people kept asking me, "What did the French people treat you?  We hear they don't like Americans."

The fact is, if people can realize that we all care about one another, and that despite our political differences we are all a part of humanity, we will be one step closer to world peace.  No amount of speaking softly, and no amount of carrying large sticks, can ever be a substitute for feelings of charity and goodwill among the populace of two nations.

Complaint to HBO

Submitted here

To whom it may concern,

I would like to add my voice to the thousands that I'm sure you have already heard regarding the scheduled airing of an episode of Big Love which contains scenes from a temple ceremony practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While I realize that many people find it difficult to understand why Latter-day Saints would feel offended at having this ceremony publicized, that does not excuse ignoring the fact that they will. I am one of them.

We consider the temple ceremonies to be extremely sacred (and beautiful) events, which require a certain amount of spiritual preparation to be understood and appreciated. It is our hope that everyone in the world will experience these ceremonies first-hand, after having prepared themselves for it. However, to broadcast it without discretion for all the world to see is to show a fundamental lack of appreciation (and respect) for the sanctity of these ordinances.

In your official response to criticism regarding the airing of this episode, you apologized to "those who may be offended," but announced that you planned to air the show regardless. I hope that you will understand how shallow this apology sounds to those who you are offending. Likewise, the assurances that you have taken steps "to assure the accuracy of the ceremony" are unconvincing in light of the fact that the character who is supposedly attending the temple session "as she faces losing the church she loved so much" is living a lifestyle that would preclude her from temple attendance in the first place.

While you have made some overtures at explaining that the LDS church does not permit polygamy among its ranks, you still portray the polygamists in this series as being members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is patently false. Ever since the LDS church officially banned polygamy well over a century ago, those who continued to engage in polygamous marriages have removed themselves from fellowship with the church. They do not attend church in LDS wards, as they have their own religious leaders. If they go to a temple, it is one that they build (such as the one found on the FLDS compound in Texas recently), which is not associated in any way with the LDS church.

To Latter-day Saints, the Temple is such a sacred place that you must hold a current temple recommend from a bishop to enter therein. In order for a bishop to sign such a recommend, you would have to (among other things) attend church regularly and pay a full tithe. You would almost certainly be asked to participate in a church calling. A standard temple recommend is valid for two years, and a computerized barcode system keeps records synchronized between the temples and local wards. In and of itself, this does not make it impossible for an unworthy person to enter the temple, but it does seem extremely unlikely.

I do recognize your right as a production company, and as American citizens, to use your resources to portray anything you want--any way you want--on your network. Because Latter-day Saints are a peace- and freedom-loving people, I hope you feel free to air the show without the fear of retribution that you might face if you were offending members of certain other religions.

That said, I hope you will understand that Church members will not see this as a harmless and moving portrayal in a TV drama, but as an improbable excuse to show something that's "never been shown on television before." Don't be surprised, either, if we don't trust the intentions of the show's producers, including Tom Hanks, who has been quite open about his feelings toward LDS members who supported Proposition 8 in California. And although, up to this point, I have not had a subscription to HBO, please be assured that my decision to do so in the future will hinge largely on the respect you show (or don't show) toward that which I hold dear.

Sincerely,

James Jensen

Unemployment: An interesting trend

I noticed an interesting trend the other day, as I was researching unemployment rates in the U.S.
See if you can notice a trend in these two images: Here and Here.
Obviously, this isn't an in-depth scientific study, and the statistical analysis is rendered imperfect by the flaws in the electoral vote system. But it sure seems like the most left-leaning states are the ones with the worst unemployment rates. I can think of a few possible explanations for this:

1. People tend to vote for change when the economy is weak, regardless of who is in power. Maybe since these states were hit the hardest by the economic downturn, their citizens were more prone to vote for the "other party."
2. Liberal legislation puts more government spending toward taking care of the jobless. Perhaps people in states with higher unemployment rates feel safer with liberals in power, because they'll be better cared-for if they lose their job.
   
3. Liberal legislation favors public welfare over businesses. Perhaps the political environment of these states makes jobs harder to create, or makes it so that people aren't as motivated to get a job.

So it basically boils down to:

1. People in struggling economies tend to vote for the "other guy," OR
2. People in struggling economies tend to vote for liberals, OR
   
3. Liberal policies are worse for the economy.

I'm sure there are lots of folks who would love to debate endlessly about which of these possibilities is true. But just as an exercise in theory, let's explore the consequences of the first two (the consequences of number 3 are obvious).

If you assume that the number 1 priority of elected officials is to get re-elected (a bit simplistic, but bear with me), would it make more sense for liberals in office to strengthen the economy, or to further expand welfare for the unemployed?

On the one hand, if the economy improves, people wouldn't be as interested in voting for the "other guy." On the other hand, if unemployment goes back down, people would feel more comfortable voting for conservatives. Catch 22.

Estimating Postage

So we're sending a letter to Liz's brother in New Jersey, and I want to know whether I'll need extra postage. While Liz's part of the letter is written on a small, light sheet of stationery paper, my part is a four-page printed dissertation on Light and Knowledge and its role in our eternal progression. I know that the printing paper we're using right now is heavier than normal (we were lazy and bought it while we were shopping at Costco, and we had a choice between 800 sheets of heavy paper and a whole box of normal), so I set out on a quest to figure out about how much this letter will weigh.

First I looked at the packaging on our printing paper and found the "24 lb" marking. From my time spent working at Office Depot, I knew that this was a way of describing the paper's density, however, and not the weight of the ream. Some Internet research revealed that this weight refers to a ream (defined as 500 sheets) of "standard size" paper, which is not the 8 1/2"x11" that you might think, but rather 17"x22", which gets cut down to make four sheets of normal printer paper. So to calculate the weight of one sheet, we need to know:

1. There are 24 lbs of standard-sized paper in a ream.
2. There are 500 sheets of paper in a ream.
   
3. There are 4 sheets of letter-sized paper for each 1 sheet of standard-sized paper
4. There are 16 ounces per pound.
   

So (24 lbs/500 standard)*(1 standard/4 letter)*(16 oz/lb) = 0.192 ounces.

I figure Liz's letter and the envelope weigh less combined than one more sheet of printing paper, so just to be safe, I estimated about 5 sheets' worth, or 0.96 ounces at the most. Being under one ounce, it qualifies for a standard 42-cent stamp. Tah-dah!

Update

We ended up buying this kitchen scale, which has been extremely useful for measuring out ingredients in recipes and such. We also use it as a postage scale, which is much easier than doing the math each time.

Update on Life

I realized that I have been woefully remiss in updating this blog.  I'm really going to try to be better about it.

The most important thing that's happened since I last posted is that Liz is pregnant, and expecting on March 19!  It's a boy, and so far we've started calling him Christopher James Jensen.  What do you think?

New Companion Blog

Since most of the people who read this blog probably aren't interested in the various bugs I run into at work, I've started a new blog (Adventures in .NET-dom) to chronicle such things.  If you're the geeky type, or just have too much time on your hands, feel free to check it out!

Pride

I feel the need to rescind much of what I said in my last posting. As I've been pondering it, I've come to realize that I was unnecessarily harsh on the Catholic church and the Pope in particular. I had no more right to assign ulterior motives to him for cutting off church access to Catholic records than anybody else would have of claiming that I had ulterior motives for being a missionary. I was a victim of the same sort of pride that I so easily saw in others. I have sacrificed a great deal of time, money and effort to help strengthen the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because I really believe that it teaches the True Gospel of Jesus Christ. When the Catholic church announced that they were restricting record access in order to "ensure that such a detrimental practice is not permitted," I naturally felt that someone had attacked something very dear to me, something close to my heart, and something so unquestionably pure and good that they could not possibly have any righteous motive for doing so.

While I believe that many people in the world have used supposed religious beliefs as an excuse to commit the evil in their hearts, I also recognize that many truly altruistic people are simply at odds regarding what things are helpful and what things are hurtful in this world. And while from a purely secular viewpoint it seems inconceivable that performing ordinances by proxy could be detrimental, it is very reasonable for somebody to call it that if they believe it to be against God's will. Anything out of line with God's will is, by nature, detrimental, and a secular perspective cannot hope to see things as clearly as God does.

As for the obstacle that this decision serves for those doing genealogical research, one can hardly expect the Pope to attach any importance to what genealogists think of him or his policies, or the effect his decisions may have on a field that probably seems from his point of view to have absolutely no merit. As far as he sees it, they could burn all the records and there wouldn't be one soul more or fewer that would make it into heaven. In fact, doctrinally speaking, I believe the same thing, but in a different way. Just as Pharoah's might was useless to stop the Israelite exodus, all the powers of this earth won't prevent the Lord from bringing eternal life to even one person who would go there. That doesn't mean it was right for the Pharoah to send his armies, but knowing that he had it was more important for Israel to have faith in God's power than to worry about the armies that had been sent against them.

So anyway, I still feel that the Pope and his church are incorrect doctrinally, as they think I am wrong doctrinally. But I need to apologize for having been so prideful as to think that I could know the intentions of their hearts. I'm sorry.

Motives

I learned today that the Catholic Church has ordered their parish registers closed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Of course, I am not so naive as to expect members of all faiths to agree with the LDS viewpoint on baptisms by proxy. The Bible only makes one mention of the practice, and it's brief enough to make people extremely unclear on its true meaning. Many explanations have been offered, mostly in an attempt to disprove the LDS viewpoint, and none of them are very convincing to me. A quick search makes it evident that most commentary that has evolved around this scripture exists solely to prove that the Mormon standpoint is incorrect. They don't have to agree about what it means; they just have to agree that it doesn't mean what Mormons think it means. As one such website points out:

Note that, in order to disprove Mormonism, we need not know for certain which view of the passage is correct, so long as we know a possibility that fits the passage and other passages.

Thus, it is less important to actually understand the meaning of the passage than it is to prove that there might be some other explanations. I understand the desire to see things this way.

When a person joins the LDS church, a person must be baptized, whether or not they were baptized into some other church before, because in a sense, the basis of the LDS church is that the world suffered a great enough loss of gospel knowledge and authority through the absence of prophets and apostles during the past two millennia that God saw fit to call a prophet and restore it all. To become a member of the LDSLDS doctrine holds that God will only uphold baptisms performed under His authority (i.e. through the LDS church). If you assume that God really did call Joseph Smith as a prophet, this point of view actually makes sense. But if you begin with the assumption that God can't or won't call prophets anymore (a theory for which I have yet to find any solid basis, but one which nevertheless has been a basic tenet of most Jewish, Christian, and Muslim sects for well over a thousand years), then it's really easy to see this as an affront. It basically says to the Christian world, "You're wrong." Or at least, "You're wrong about some of these things." And while the Christian world can't seem to agree on any single set of doctrines, most individual Christians believe that such differences of opinion are acceptable in order to maintain unity in what they see as "The Church," or the collective body of all people who believe in Christ, regardless of differences in doctrine and opinion. But to have one church arise, claiming not to have branched off from any of the other churches, but to have been founded by Jesus Christ himself, and saying that no baptism performed outside its purview will be recognized by God at the last day.... well, it's not easy to take that sort of thing lightly. I mean, when you've accepted Jesus into your life and seen the great change that the Holy Spirit has wrought upon you, and then somebody says there's more to it than that, it's easy to perceive it as an attack on some very important parts of your life--an attack on your faith itself. And for leaders of those churches, who have consecrated so much of their time, faith, and energy--to say that their church is somehow lesser than some other church is a hard thing indeed. It is only natural for them, quid-pro-quo, to refuse to recognize LDS baptisms, as the LDS church does not recognize theirs.

And so it it not surprising to me when leaders of other churches don't wish to cooperate with the LDS church. It is a hard thing to overcome the perceived slap-in-the-face and seek to do what is beneficial to everyone. Certainly, members of the LDS church have often had difficulty turning the other cheek in all circumstances. Many of the early members fought back against the mobs that sought to turn them out of their homes, against the direction of the church's leaders. But that's not what Christianity is about, is it? Christianity is about putting every ounce of pride, envy, hate, and malice that we have "upon the altar," and allowing it to be consumed. I do not claim to be perfect in this sense; only one man ever was. But it's the thing we strive for. In becoming Christian, we say to God, "I will seek above all else to follow the example and commandments given by Him whose name I bear." And so it pains me to see Christians, and especially leaders of Christian churches, acting out of any less-than-righteous motives. And that, unfortunately, is what I see in this decision on the part of the Catholic Church.

If the Pope felt that it harmed the souls of those for whom baptisms were performed, then I would not feel this way. In that case, he would be acting to serve the best interests of those peoples' souls, most of whom undoubtedly lived good lives according to the Christian principles taught by the Catholic church in their day. If there were any chance that this were the reason for his decision, I would assume that he was acting out of pure altruism. I tend to assume that people are acting out of the best intentions that I can possibly imagine them having. And I know, ultimately, it is not my place to judge the man. This isn't between him and me--it's between him and God. Nevertheless, I am taking advantage of the right I have to voice my opinion. And my opinion is that this new policy of the Catholic church is motivated by pride, and is enacted without due regard to the good of everyone involved. "Mormons" seek to perform genealogical research out of a sincere desire to bless those who do not have the power to help themselves. The Pope can believe that they're wasting their time. But there is no grounds for him to believe that it could in any way harm the people for whom the ordinance is being performed. Either you believe that the LDS Church has authority from God or you don't. If you don't recognize baptisms performed by the LDS Church, then you don't believe that they have any effect, right? So in what way does it harm anybody when they perform them?

I know I've met Catholics who thought that by performing baptisms for the dead, we were somehow forcing them into church membership without their say-so. Those who felt this way were never willing to take the time to understand any differently. Had they been willing, I would have explained that by our own doctrine, we are simply giving these people the opportunity to accept a baptism which was performed on their part. Did the Savior die only for those who wanted to be Christian? No. He gave himself as a sacrifice for all mankind. But will all mankind have a heavenly existence forced upon them? No. Clearly those who reject holiness and choose a life of sin will not have their place in the Kingdom of Heaven. If you believe that Christ's atonement was necessary for our salvation, then you believe that He opened the door to those who would be saved. Jesus taught that baptism is a requirement for entry into His Father's Kingdom, but does anybody believe that if a person is baptized against their will, they will somehow be forced into heaven against their will? A baptism-for-the-dead, even if you believe in such things, can only have force if the baptised recognize it. If you don't believe in such things, then it surely can do no harm. So why are people so opposed to it?

But perhaps I'm being too hard on them. Perhaps they see themselves as taking the opportunity to prevent us from damning our own souls. Would a good Christian farmer sell his pagan neighbor a chicken, if he knew it could very well be used in some kind of forbidden ritual? Would a patriotic American ever sell a flag to someone who might be planning to burn it? As any decent person would refuse to allow a suicidal friend to borrow a weapon, perhaps the Pope sees it as his moral duty to prevent his church from permitting this wicked practice, as long as they have any way to prevent it. Maybe he believes that, by removing our capacity to sin, he is somehow bettering our eternal situation. Such a belief could easily become the subject of an enormous theological debate: if you deny someone the agency to choose what they believe to be right, but which is actually wrong in the eyes of God, and the decision has no bearing or effect on anybody else, living or dead, will God be more tolerant, in the end, of their desire to have done it? Maybe that's his reasoning.

I doubt it though. I'm pretty sure it was intended (and will be interpreted) to be a measure taken by the Catholic church to place a stumbling block in the way of Latter-day Saints. The two churches have shown remarkable cooperation in recent humanitarian aid efforts, and here we have the Pope saying, "It's fine for us to cooperate when we're being charitable towards others, but I won't allow my church to share information with you that will help in your genealogical efforts." Nevermind that the information that the Church gleans from such efforts is made available to members of all faiths, including the Catholic who wrote the first article I linked to in this posting. Mormons are not the only ones who have had their hearts turned to their fathers, and I think the consequences of this policy may be much more far-reaching than the Pope thought or intended.

That said, it is his decision to make. I recognize his authority to withhold such information, regardless of whether I like it. And may God always grant him the inspiration he needs as a man charged with the spiritual leadership of so many people around the world.

Web sites

A while back, I promised that I'd share a bit of information about the things I'd been doing since I got home from my mission, so I guess I'll start with my job.

I'm working as a software engineer doing web development for a company called TrueNorthLogic. We provide web services for educators, like reporting tools and such to improve communication between administration and teachers.

Liz and I have a new website at http://j2jensen.googlepages.com/

In other news, my pet project is a site to help families keep their contact information up to date. It's slow going, though, as I'm struggling to make Seam and other technologies work the way I want them to.

Blessings: my two cents

I met a French-speaking immigrant at a Stake Conference in my mom's ward shortly after I got home from my mission. I let him know that he could call me if he needed help with translations and such. His ward presidency contacted me the other day, and I was able to translate as some members of his ward, including the bishop and the Relief Society President, worked to determine his level of need for welfare. It was really something to participate as he explained his situation. The food stamps he gets each month for him and his wife and their grandson tend to last them two or three weeks. The money they get pays the rent on a humble apartment and the utility bills, but after that, "On manque même du savon." They can't even afford soap. Apparently they were doing all right back when he had a job, but he had some back problems that prevent him from doing heavy lifting and such now. He and his wife attend English classes daily to improve their communication skills, and the ward will undoubtedly see what they can do to find a job that will suit his condition, but in the meantime he told us how it breaks his heart to not be self-supporting. My mind kept returning to a few thoughts:

• How fortunate I am to have so many things that he does not have: skills with computers, a command of the English language, a nice job, a nice apartment, a strong and healthy body, and so on.
• How fortunate he is to have the few things he does have. Imagine how many nations in the world could not even attempt to support someone in his situation. Without food stamps and a means of paying the most basic bills, I cannot imagine that he and his wife could survive in most places.
• How much good the church must do in the world. While I was there, they drew up a "shopping list" of everything that they might need in terms of food. They would go to the bishop's storehouse the next day and pick up all the stuff for free. They would meet again soon with a French-speaking leader from his former ward and discuss how to help him monetarily. How many similar cases must the church treat each year? It really is wonderful.

On a related vein, our ward has been given the responsibility of having Elders on call for priesthood blessings at the local hospital for the next few weeks. There is actually an entire branch that has been formed in order to provide spiritually for the patients there, complete with weekly sacrament meetings and volunteers that visit every single bed in the hospital every single day. Many of the patients there have worthy priesthood holders in their own family that they can ask for a blessing. But often enough there are people who ask the front desk to arrange to have somebody from the church come and give them a blessing. So the nearby wards have been called upon to provide emergency blessings as necessary. So far, I've been on call a few nights, but there were no requests those nights. At least one of the elders in our ward, however, had a couple of opportunities to give such blessings, along with one neat opportunity to speak to somebody who was interested to learn about the church. He referred her to the local full-time missionaries.

Our ward is also back to being in charge of keeping the snow cleared in front of the church: a less glorious, but probably equally necessary task, since the law requires that the walks be cleared. I'm back in charge of organizing the snow removal when necessary. I'm sure glad there are so many members around here--a lot of us are across the street or just down the block from the church building. I imagine they must do things a little differently in places where most members have to drive an hour or more to get to the nearest meetinghouse.

On a completely different topic, Liz and I had a great laugh over two bills her mom got the other day. Apparently the company printing the graduation announcements for Liz's twin brothers, Rick and Rob, realized that they had undercharged her. So, although she had paid the amount she was billed, she received two additional bills, in separately stamped envelopes, explaining that she needed to pay the remaining balance: two cents.

I'm not even joking. Have a good weekend, everyone.

Talks, calling and releasing

Liz and I were asked to give talks in church yesterday, and since we were already part of two special musical numbers, we basically dominated the meeting. That was kind of weird.

There was a reorganization in our ward's Elders Quorum yesterday. As usual, I had met with the Stake Presidency previously. They had told me that the new future Elders Quorum President had asked to have me be his first counselor, and asked if I would accept this calling. I said yes, so yesterday I was called, sustained, and later set apart in my new calling. I still don't have any idea what to expect from it, but I guess it will give me a lot more opportunities for Adventures in Mormondom. Due to the personal nature of some of the things I'll be doing, though, I'm not sure if I'll feel free to share much publicly on the blog. We'll see.

Later last night, we began getting text messages informing us that President Gordon B. Hinckley had passed away. I was present at the General Conference section immediately after the death of the Pope John Paul II back in 2005, where President Hinckley gave some very tender praise to the then-recently-passed Catholic leader. I hope that at least those parts of the world who notice the passing of this church leader will likewise have kind words to say, although the church has a mere 13 million members.

Are Mormons in general, and Mitt Romney in particular, going to use his death to gain publicity for our religion? No. Let us mourn.

Back in the Saddle

I've decided it's time to start writing again, now that I'm starting to get the hang of life. Much has happened since last I wrote. Here are the main points (in roughly the order in which they occurred):

• I got engaged
  
• I got a job
• I got an apartment
  
• I got married
• I got a car

I'll likely mention the specifics of these events in more detail in future postings, but I decided to use this one just to get the ball rolling.

Now, what current event should I talk about? Hmmm.... Here's one. Has anybody heard of hard disk space just kind of disappearing on Windows Vista? Here's the thing: Vista says my C: drive has 65.4 GB used, but if I check either using the folder properties window or other software that analyzes disk usage, I'm only using about 49 GB. So somehow my computer is using 15 GB of disk space that's not in files. Puzzling. That's a whopping 33% of the amount I'm really using.



That'll do for this posting. I'm sure to have more in the near future. Check back often.

Talk in church

As many friends have been asking, here are the details of the no-longer-called-homecoming talk that I've been asked to give in the sacrament meeting at church:

Sunday, September 23, 2007
Winder Third Ward
4551 S 1200 E
SALT LAKE CITY , UT 84117
Sacrament meeting begins at 10:50 AM

Everyone is welcome.

Feels like home

Well, I finally landed last night in Salt Lake City after midnight after various complications due to Air France's overbooking our flight. I got released as a missionary this morning. I'll be spending the day with my family and girlfriend. My blog postings should be more frequent now, but shorter for a little while as I become accustomed to the American keyboards.

How is everybody?

Les Derniers Jours (The Latter Days)

So, I realize that I haven't written in quite a while. To summarize the last several months:

I was the mission financial secretary for 7 months. I did office work during the day and missionary work in the evening, in the Versailles area.

Then I got transferred to Caen to be Zone Leader in the Normandy Zone. I've been here for the past three months, and tomorrow I'll be finishing up the "normal" part of my mission.

My mom and cousin will be picking me up and we'll tour Europe a little together. I'll still be a missionary, though, until September 3, when I get home and get released. Expect my next update after that.

Just Kidding

I got surprise transferred into the Mission Office to work as the Accountant. Keep sending all packages and letters to the Bureau address:

Elder James Kenneth Jensen
France Paris Mission
23, rue du Onze Novembre
78110 Le Vesinet
France

No change

I'll be spending another transfer in Nogent with Elder Jeter. Same district. Nothing special to report. Happy All Saints Day.

Baptism, Transfers, Training, and District Leader

We just successfully had the first baptism that I've ever organized. It went great. The two converts are very happy.

My companion got transferred, as expected, and I am training a bleu (greenie) from Texas named Elder Jeter. I'm also district leader this transfer. This'll be a lot of new responsibilities for me all at once, so I'll need your prayers of support.

Thanks, everybody!

Love,

Elder Jensen

In Nogent

Those who've managed to keep in touch through my family know by now that I've been in Nogent for about three weeks. It's closer in to Paris, and we actually have to go through Paris in order to get to certain parts of our zone. It's a much busier area than any of the other two I've been in, and Elder Huntsman and I are working really hard to keep up with everything.

Email update

Most of you won't be emailing me during my mission anyway, so this shouldn't matter, but I just found out that the U is changing their policies regarding my utah.edu email address that everyone normally sends to. So please send email instead to my gmail account. If you don't know my address, make a comment to this post and when I find time I'll give it to you.

Elder Jensen