January 2004

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Especially if you came from Mormon Archipelago as it only includes my major article posts.
Thanks for visiting!

Remarkable story.

It was, for those who knew his story, a remarkable statement, weighted with loss, pain and even a certain joy for Babb, a devout Mormon, that Heather’s life was lived in what she would have considered a full and fruitful faith. . .

The Heather that Babb spoke of was his 42-year-old wife, who died Dec. 6, days after delivering the couple’s eighth child. And her “understanding and position,” as Babb phrased it, virtually ensured her death.

She was killed by a cancer she apparently knew was ravaging her body, but which she’d kept a secret from everyone, her doctors and husband included. She died nine days after delivering a son, Jesse Carter Babb, in an emergency Caesarian operation during which surgeons discovered her cancer. . .

She died because, as far as anyone, including Greg Babb, can tell, she was determined to avoid an abortion or risk harming through cancer treatments the child she was carrying. . .

Driving that aim, he said, would have been her belief, girded in Mormon doctrine, that it was fulfilling her compact with her God to bring a life into the “temporal” world, which Mormons believe is a spiritual way station where people are tested to determine their worthiness before they are allowed, in death, to “graduate to the level of celestial kingdom.”

A spokesman for the church said the correctness of Heather Babb’s decision to withhold her fears about her illness could not be measured against church doctrine.

“There’s no way the faith could quantify or evaluate her decision,” said Salt Lake City-based spokesman Coke Newell.

“She clearly did the best she could, she must have gone deep into her soul and heart and mind,” he said.

There was another factor in his wife’s decision to keep her illness secret, Babb believes.

Mormon doctrine considers abortion a sin, punishable, in some cases, by removal from the church. But it permits abortion in cases where the life of the mother is at risk.

Heather Babb knew that, her husband said. If she had chosen an abortion in order to pursue cancer treatment, he said, “I would have supported her in that, one-thousand percent.”

Here is one example where abortion would be defensible and yet pro-abortion activists would have you believe this situation is the norm rather than a tiny fraction of when abortion is actually used. The Church clearly would have counseled that an abortion could have been acceptable in this situation. It seems difficult to second guess the mother’s choice but I can’t help but feel for the father and the eight surviving children. And who knows what the chances might have been that both mother and child may have survived? Ultimately though, she made an incredible sacrifice.

Matt Evans has a good post on Roe v. Wade at Times and Seasons with a link to a touching article by George Will on his son wih Down’s Syndrome.

I remember some time ago, the Church announced a temple was to be built in Hartford, Connecticut. Nothing happened, and a few years later the Church announced two temples were to be built in the same area, except they were to be in Boston and White Plains, New York. Ostensibly, there were too many problems in Hartford and the decision was to build two temples instead in the Northeast. But nothing seemed to come of either for quite some time until the Boston Temple was finally dedicated in 2000 after much legal wrangling. While all this was happening, the Palmyra temple was built and opened. I thought that when the Manhattan “Hong Kong”-style temple was announced (to be opened this spring) that plans for the White Plains temple were abandoned. Not so.

After years of delays and lawsuits, though, it appears that the Mormon Church is still committed to building the Harrison temple, where devout Mormons from Philadelphia to Hartford, Conn., could come for the faith’s most sacred rituals.

The town of Harrison’s best efforts to study the project into submission have succeeded in greatly scaling back the planned temple and frustrating church leaders. But the Mormon Church, which was founded in western New York state during the early 19th century, is moving forward.

“It will be built,” said James Staudt, a White Plains lawyer representing the church. “No, they did not wear the church out. I should think not.”

The church is now working to connect its property to a sewer line on the other side of the Hutchinson River Parkway, a complex, time-consuming project that must be completed before the town will issue a building permit. Staudt said that the church plans to see the sewer project through and then move on to the next phase of construction.

“As far as we know, based on the evidence of the construction going on, they intend to go forward with the project,” Harrison Supervisor Stephen Malfitano said.

Poor Connecticut. But after all the wrangling it’s interesting to think that New York will soon have three temples and New England has one in Boston.

It’s official then.

With the Sundance Film Festival starting, NPR takes a quick look at Utah’s other film phenomenon.

“Most of these LDS movies are very safe and familiar,” says Salt Lake Tribune film critic Sean Means. “They are all about the culture and sort of jokes about… green jello and…funeral potatoes and too many dishes at the potluck… there’s not a lot of discussion about what it really means to be a Mormon.”

There are some critically acclaimed exceptions, like the murder mystery Brigham City — but it failed to do well at the box office. Another new film in the genre, Saints and Soldiers, has won awards at seven film festivals — but it was purged of all Mormon references.

“We’ve had a lot of people who love the movie,” says Saints and Soldiers producer Adam Abel. ” And unfortunately, I think if they thought it was a Mormon [movie], they may just automatically think it’s a bad thing, rather than taking it for what it’s worth.”

For fun, they also have audio comparisons of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir’s version versus “The Singles Ward” version of “Come, Come Ye Saints.”

Incidentally, a few weeks ago my wife and I saw “Pride and Prejudice: A Latter Day Comedy” and I was quite impressed. Unlike other Mormon comedies it didn’t dwell too much on Mormony stuff, had a great plot (imagine that), and had the best (imaginary) sacrament scene of any of the other movies I have seen (which, granted, isn’t saying much). Plus, I thought there was a clever tie-in with a plot line in the original story and the (rumored?) Las Vegas marriage quickie trips that some BYU students made (please be urban legend - Where’s the Mormon Snopes when you need it?)

My wife who is a Jane Austen freak (and got me hooked on the BBC series) wasn’t as impressed. But then I think she’s more of an Austen purist, plus she wasn’t too keen on all the BYU co-ed’s midriffs. Obviously, she’s purer than me too.

Drew seemed equally impressed and even met Carmen Rasmusen (Utah’s contribution to American Idol) who has a cameo in the movie.

This may be a little weird for many but I was struck by this commentary on the Focus on the Family web site.

I saw “The Return of the King” both in Maryland and Utah and I was somewhat taken aback that in both places, people laughed when Gollum’s split personalities had what I thought was a very serious moment together. I was pleased to see I was not alone in thinking this was odd.

It’s a moment early in the film when Gollum, the shriveled little creature leading Sam and Frodo to Mordor, talks to himself while contemplating his reflection in a stream. Again, though the scene is a technical marvel, it’s not the special effects that grabbed me. It’s not even the nature of the conversation Gollum has with himself — a tortured exchange pitting whatever shred of goodness is left in him against the grotesque he has become in the wake of his obsession with the ring of the trilogy’s title.

No, what continues to haunt me about that scene has less to do with what happens on the screen as with what happened in the theater.

In the screening I attended, packed to the very worst seat in the house, there was no shortage of laughter as this pathetic character, physically and emotionally destroyed by his lust for his “precious,” sinks into complete and hopeless depravity. It is a heart-wrenching, desperate moment, painfully familiar to those of us who know how it feels to be simultaneously enticed by sin and aware that it distorts us on the inside every bit as much as it distorts Gollum on the outside.

And yet some people sharing the theater with me thought it was something to snicker about.

What strikes me about this, why I can’t stop it from unspooling in my mind, is that it puts into the starkest relief just what we’re up against in the battle to restore righteousness to the public square. It’s hard enough to coax the culture back from the precipice of self-destruction when fewer and fewer people recognize sin as sin. But when sin, and its terrible power to destroy, becomes just another excuse to share a few giggles and grins, it’s an altogether different, and altogether sadder, story.

Perhaps I’m too serious of a guy, who maybe takes the story too seriously after having just read the books recently. And just maybe it’s an overreach to condemn society by some people’s reaction to a CGI character’s silly rantings but it did seem inappropriate.

9 lbs. 11 oz. (whoa Nelly!)

21 ”

Mother and daughter are fine despite the six hour labor and then an emergency Caesarian section. A little scary for awhile but everything worked out.

Father is hoping the WNFL is created in the next 18 years in order to assure the family finances and a secure retirement (where did 9 lbs 11 oz. come from? - our boys were 9 and 8 lbs.)

I’ll post a photo when I can find my darn USB camera cable

UPDATE: Done! More photos can be found here

All Hands and the Cook

“When the cook came on deck,” said one Nova Scotian, “we did have problems!”

(an excellent group blog that flatters A Soft Answer as listed among its “Celestial Reading” (don’t hold it against them))

Diary of a Mom, Wife and Nursing Student

“I am a wife and mother of one who started nursing school in the fall of 2003. Nursing school is much more demanding than I ever imagined, but I am still trying to have a life, read about it here!”

Craig’s Weblog -   

“This blog is way awes…”

A Season of Joy

“About Me:
I am a Latter Day Saint, homeschooling mom who practices attachment parenting, extended nursing, co-sleeping, homebirthing, organic foods, the use of aternative medicines and quiverful thinking. We have three beautiful daughters, Ashley (12), Taelor (6) and Abigail (3). We are hoping to add to our family in the near future.

About this Journal:
I have started this journal in order to make a record of my thoughts. This blog is unabashadly LDS. I will talk about things here that are possibly contrary to others beliefs. You may agree with some of my statements - you may not. Some might make you think hmmmm and yet others will make you think that I am an old fashioned backwards lady who really needs to get her head on straight.”

drowning in a sea of ink

“Tanya is a mutant. She is fond of numbers, vampires, viruses, and sarcasm. She loves milk chocolate (never dark) and Stargate, separate or together.”

ms. morality

“Moral reflections on life and politics from an attorney-turned-homemaker.”

(plus two good articles “Beyond the Empty Promises: The Realities of Being Pregnant in a Large Law Firm” (interesting for me as a recent law grad) and “The Legality of Our Morality: The Case Against Same-sex “marriage”)

Eric’s Blog

“Eric D. Snider, the Utah-based writer, critic, humorist, raconteur, bon vivant, man-about-town and unicyclist”

(Although I have never heard of him before he seems quite prolific and has an incredible web site with too many movie reviews at both his site and at Rotten Tomatoes. He didn’t seem to care too much for Pride and Prejudice though.)

Lend me some sugar… I AM your neighbor!

“I think my new thing will be to try to be a real happy guy. I’ll just walk around being real happy until some jerk says something stupid to me.”

*2Flower* To You…

“my purrfect expressions of imperfection”

For those who were kind enough to submit your blogs, I’m sorry for the delay in posting these. In the last month I have crisscrossed between Utah and D.C. four times. I have started me position at the Senate Judiciary Committee, putting my law degree to use by answering phones and doing odd jobs as they figure out what to do with me. I jumped on a plane back to Utah last week as the hospital thought my wife’s water broke (she’s staying out here until the delivery) but it was a false alarm. So I’m in limbo out here until our baby girl decides to make her grand debut.

I’ll try to straighten out the Mormon Blogosphere blogroll soon. Thanks and please let me know of any more blogs and corrections.

How can I enable links to specific links? Thanks for any help.

Very interesting speech given by Michael Crichton of E.R. and Jurassic Park fame. His speech was about “[t]he greatest challenge facing mankind” which he considers to be “distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda.” His prime example is the transformation of environmentalism from a science-based ideology to one based on faith.

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can’t be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people—the best people, the most enlightened people—do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them, as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let’s examine some of those beliefs.

He goes on to suggest that many past environmental prophecies and maybe even current ones are false. He also suggests that the way to save environmentalism is to take the religion out of it and use more science while making some unfavorable comparisons to religion in general (I think - I recommend reading the whole thing). However, I think Mr. Crichton makes a very interesting point with regard to framing environmentalism as a religion. I don’t mean to just pick on environmentalism as there are many ideologies that in one way or another may be elevated as kind of faith. In fact it sounds reminiscent of President Kimball’s talk, “The False Gods We Worship.”

My current bone to pick though, is that environmentalism is a perfect example of an ideology that is currently popular and widely accepted be it right or wrong. Where environmentalism surely enjoys widespread exposure in our schools and elsewhere as it is protected as free speech under the First Amendment, why should “official” religion be treated otherwise under the same Amendment? The same First Amendment is used to burden real religious speech under the Establishment clause to the point of suppression in comparison. Doesn’t seem right.

I’m back in Utah and I was surprised to hear an ad by the Human Rights Campaign during Rush Limbaugh’s show. It struck me as very odd: its argument was that any federal amendment enshrining marriage as between a man and a woman was decidedly unconservative and “a divisive and reckless use of our Constitution.”

The HRC is running the ads with a conservative group called Citizen Outreach. The ads are targeting several cities including Salt Lake City with ads in the Salt Lake Tribune. It’s unusual that Utah is ever targeted with national issue ads because its perceived to be a write-off for conservative and Republican issues. Maybe they believe Utah can be swayed by its polygamous heritage.

First, I find the whole argument specious. How can amending the Constitution be so dangerous in comparison when these issues will otherwise be inevitably decided by a mere five or so people in black robes? Four people decided the issue for Massachusetts last year (after months of delay of what was rumored to be a prolonged series of negotiations until the Chief Justice got the result she wanted). And, after last year’s Lawrence decision, does anyone seriously think the U.S. Supreme Court will avoid this issue?

Besides, those who prefer the states to handle gay marriage may be noble in their adherence to true Federalist principles but ignore the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has already made marriage a matter of the federal constitution (Reynolds- banning polygamy and Loving- finding that banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional). By saying that amending the Constitution is inappropriate, unnecessary, and divisive is essentially telling conservatives to lie down while the more liberal-friendly courts decide what the law should be for the rest of us.

Second, when dismissing a Constitutional Amendment, I have seen no one mention how difficult it is to pass an amendment. Both the houses of congress must propose the amendment by two-thirds and then three-fourths of the state legislatures must ratify it. Or the states may call a Constitutional Convention and propose and ratify the amendment by two-thirds (although I do not believe this has ever been done). Passing an amendment is not easy and can only be done by an enormous amount of political will from the vast majority of the people. This is in sharp contrast to how a relative few in the courts have foisted liberal agendas on the nation by “discovering” new rights in the Constitution. Isn’t it odd that they don’t trust the lengthy and cumbersome amendment process involving Congress and states to decide this issue but seem more than willing to trust the courts to do so?

But this is exactly what the HRC hopes to do while asking conservatives to stand down. While, I am unsure how popular such an amendment might be and what its chances are for passing, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be attempted. Obviously, some are concerned that it may indeed be successful and are trying anything to prevent its ratification.

(I find it laughable that the HRC is trying to instruct others on what “conservative” is. Despite its claim, “”While some may think of HRC as a liberal organization, we are truly bipartisan” they are essentially an arm of the Democratic party. (One example: in last year’s elections the HRC essentially turned a blind eye to Democratic gay-baiting of Republican candidates in Montana and Hawaii).)