Once again the World Baseball Classic has demonstrated that even the greatest players in the world can't beat an inspired team playing for National Pride.
I first saw a WBC game in 2006 when I went to see the US play Korea at Angels Stadium. I was expecting to see the US team easily defeat the Koreans. The US was largely Major Leaguers and the Korean team had only one I think, and he wasn't pitching that day. Instead, I saw a bunch of Superstars playing like it was spring training while an inspired national team picked them apart. The US team finished a disappointing 8th in that tournament. Korea lost only one game, to Japan, which left them in 3rd place.
I thought this year would be better. The US played an inspired game against Canada that looked and felt like a playoff game. And it included such greats as Derek Jeter, Kevin Youklis, and MLB MVP Dustin Pedroia. But by the second round injuries had thinned the group and the US finished the round 2-2 having only one their must win games. The comentators only added to my frustration when rather than call upon the US team to step up and tough it out they started calling for changes to the format, and making excuses. (Once again suggesting that our professional season is more important than a world competition.)
By contrast, Japan and Korea lost only to each other and in route to their final appearance Japan beat Cuba twice, and the US once. Korea soundly defeated Venezuela who had handed the US two of their previous three losses.
So it was an exciting game last night as Japan and Korea each came in 2-2 against each other and 4-0 against anyone else. Two teams that played old school baseball of singles, stolen bases, (both teams had strike-em out, throw-em out double plays), and sacrifice bunts and flies. Korea had their Ace on the mound who had beaten Japan twice, but Japan countered by taking long at-bats, and hit a lot of foul balls so that he had thrown almost his limit of 100 pitches after 4 inning. He left after 4+ having given up only 1 unearned run.
By the bottom of the 9th it was 3-2 Japan, but Korea fought back to send it to extra innings. Then in the 10th with runners on 2nd and 3rd, Korea made the mistake of pitching to Ichiro Suzuki, the best player in the game. It was only a single, but it drove in two runs and Korea wasn't able to respond in the bottom.
It was an exciting game to finish what is one of my favorite sporting events. And even though I only watched to incoming statistics and the team I was routing for (Korea, I think they were robbed in 2006) it was still fun.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Testimony
I was thinking the other day about architecture. When I studied art history, architecture was my favorite part because while it was about art, it was also about what could and couldn't be done and how a building could be built.
The early square arches of the druids then early greeks could not span large distances because stone has good compressive strength, but very poor tensile strength. Thus, many pillars were needed to hold up stone roofs. By contrast, early wood constructions could be quite expansive inside because wood is light and has tremendous tensile strength for its weight.
Of course in time, the arch was constructed allowing people to span great widths with only compressive force. Eventually, tall cathedrals with huge pointed arches had both large expanses and lots of light. Then, with the addition of steel and concrete, huge skyscrapers could be built with a skelleton of support structures that can withstand the loss of any one support, strikes by airplanes, and even earthquakes. Only prolonged structural trauma can bring it down.
I wonder to what extent our testimonies are like buildings. There are certain similarities of needing weight bearing vertical pillars and something to stretch between them to shelter us from doubt and competing ideas as well as wandering in error, making all the old mistakes rather than learning from those of others. But still I think testimonies are as different in structure as buildings are. Some are built on a series of pillars that must be strung close together and can each support tremendous weight. "The prophet speaks for God", "The prophet will not lead us astray", "The book of mormon is true", etc. The testimony requires a firm certainty of all of the minutia of the gospel to stand. Thus, they must believe firmly that God wanted to keep the priesthood from the blacks until 1978 and not a moment sooner.
I don't know that my testimony was ever built like that, but I'm certain that isn't what it is like now, and I doubt I could go back to that kind.
I read somewhere that truths like "3+5=8" and "there is a personal God concerned with my daily affairs" trigger the same paths of the brain and are equally certain to people that believe them. Neither of them are beliefs or axioms, they are rock solid truths, at least to that individual. My problem is I think that part of my mind died some years ago. Not just the part concerning matters of faith but the whole part concerning certainty. I've heard enough about number theory to realize that "3+5=8" comes from a series of conventions about what numbers represent, the rules of addition and the meaning of equality.
This leaves, "knowing there is a God", as a rather difficult proposition because, I don't really believe in knowing. I believe there is a God or at the very least a higher sense of morality. I live my life according to this assumption not just because it is real, but also because I believe it will lead to greater overall happiness for me in this life. The literal reality of God is neither as certain nor as important to my faith as to others. I am Christian because the ideal of a God willing to sacrifice himself to show mercy to all people is the most compelling myth I have ever heard. It is something I can hope to be true, and to paraphrase Alma, that hope can grow into abiding faith which strengthens me to act as I believe that God would have me act. It is eventually as real in how I go about my daily actions as the rising and setting of the Sun, not because it is equally literally true, but because it is equally valuable in shaping my decisions and bringing happiness to myself and those around me.
In this way I feel like my testimony is perhaps more like a cathedral or a skyscraper. I am hesitant to make this statement because I think it can be misperceived as suggesting that my testimony is somehow better than the more traditional one. I certainly don't believe that. I simply mean that my testimony rests on a distributed structure of supports that are marked more by their practicality than their reality. I can easily accept flaws in the church or its leaders because the whole of the Gospel means so much to me.
What is difficult for me is when I feel that people are trying to compell my actions based on a testimony structure that I neither have nor desire. The insistance that I should do something or at least refrain from things, because the prophet says so, and I claim to believe in this Church. Of course I love, honor and praise the prophet. I have learned so much good from his teachings and they have helped me to be a better person. But I don't agree with all that he says. When people insist that I fall in line and question my testimony, I feel like they are walking around my cathedral yelling at me for not having a large pillar in the center chamber while kicking at the seemingly delicate and superfluous flying buttresses around the outside. I think they want to strengthen me and make me more like them in their faith, but they don't realize that instead they are chipping at the plain and precious truths of my testimony until I feel like I am scrambling to shore them up in the hopes that the whole thing won't fall down.
It has of late been a time for sacrifice, battle and struggle. I hope that this peaked time of struggle is coming to at least a brief hiatus in the near future. I pray that months of forgiveness and rebuilding are shortly upon us and that the scars of todays battles will be soothed and cleansed in His blood that the brotherhood of the church may be strong and I can feel comfortable and confidant in my place once again.
The early square arches of the druids then early greeks could not span large distances because stone has good compressive strength, but very poor tensile strength. Thus, many pillars were needed to hold up stone roofs. By contrast, early wood constructions could be quite expansive inside because wood is light and has tremendous tensile strength for its weight.
Of course in time, the arch was constructed allowing people to span great widths with only compressive force. Eventually, tall cathedrals with huge pointed arches had both large expanses and lots of light. Then, with the addition of steel and concrete, huge skyscrapers could be built with a skelleton of support structures that can withstand the loss of any one support, strikes by airplanes, and even earthquakes. Only prolonged structural trauma can bring it down.
I wonder to what extent our testimonies are like buildings. There are certain similarities of needing weight bearing vertical pillars and something to stretch between them to shelter us from doubt and competing ideas as well as wandering in error, making all the old mistakes rather than learning from those of others. But still I think testimonies are as different in structure as buildings are. Some are built on a series of pillars that must be strung close together and can each support tremendous weight. "The prophet speaks for God", "The prophet will not lead us astray", "The book of mormon is true", etc. The testimony requires a firm certainty of all of the minutia of the gospel to stand. Thus, they must believe firmly that God wanted to keep the priesthood from the blacks until 1978 and not a moment sooner.
I don't know that my testimony was ever built like that, but I'm certain that isn't what it is like now, and I doubt I could go back to that kind.
I read somewhere that truths like "3+5=8" and "there is a personal God concerned with my daily affairs" trigger the same paths of the brain and are equally certain to people that believe them. Neither of them are beliefs or axioms, they are rock solid truths, at least to that individual. My problem is I think that part of my mind died some years ago. Not just the part concerning matters of faith but the whole part concerning certainty. I've heard enough about number theory to realize that "3+5=8" comes from a series of conventions about what numbers represent, the rules of addition and the meaning of equality.
This leaves, "knowing there is a God", as a rather difficult proposition because, I don't really believe in knowing. I believe there is a God or at the very least a higher sense of morality. I live my life according to this assumption not just because it is real, but also because I believe it will lead to greater overall happiness for me in this life. The literal reality of God is neither as certain nor as important to my faith as to others. I am Christian because the ideal of a God willing to sacrifice himself to show mercy to all people is the most compelling myth I have ever heard. It is something I can hope to be true, and to paraphrase Alma, that hope can grow into abiding faith which strengthens me to act as I believe that God would have me act. It is eventually as real in how I go about my daily actions as the rising and setting of the Sun, not because it is equally literally true, but because it is equally valuable in shaping my decisions and bringing happiness to myself and those around me.
In this way I feel like my testimony is perhaps more like a cathedral or a skyscraper. I am hesitant to make this statement because I think it can be misperceived as suggesting that my testimony is somehow better than the more traditional one. I certainly don't believe that. I simply mean that my testimony rests on a distributed structure of supports that are marked more by their practicality than their reality. I can easily accept flaws in the church or its leaders because the whole of the Gospel means so much to me.
What is difficult for me is when I feel that people are trying to compell my actions based on a testimony structure that I neither have nor desire. The insistance that I should do something or at least refrain from things, because the prophet says so, and I claim to believe in this Church. Of course I love, honor and praise the prophet. I have learned so much good from his teachings and they have helped me to be a better person. But I don't agree with all that he says. When people insist that I fall in line and question my testimony, I feel like they are walking around my cathedral yelling at me for not having a large pillar in the center chamber while kicking at the seemingly delicate and superfluous flying buttresses around the outside. I think they want to strengthen me and make me more like them in their faith, but they don't realize that instead they are chipping at the plain and precious truths of my testimony until I feel like I am scrambling to shore them up in the hopes that the whole thing won't fall down.
It has of late been a time for sacrifice, battle and struggle. I hope that this peaked time of struggle is coming to at least a brief hiatus in the near future. I pray that months of forgiveness and rebuilding are shortly upon us and that the scars of todays battles will be soothed and cleansed in His blood that the brotherhood of the church may be strong and I can feel comfortable and confidant in my place once again.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Simple Sentences, Powerful Effect
If by some strange chance I change my mind and vote for Prop. 8, it will be because of these simple sentences.
"You will NEVER see me sending out emails about prop 8. It is hard enough for me just to support the prophet on this one. But we are. Big faith builder :)"
The sentence is a paraphrase from friends. I foolishly deleted the email. They are Mormon liberals with more faith in both their liberal ideology and their Mormon faith than I have. (I tend to be fretful and nervous when there are real or perceived conflicts and then compensate with obstinence and anger. Bad combination.)
Somehow the simple combination of clear pain and frustration with the tone of faith and submission touches me far, far more than all the preaching, explaining, threats, and punishment that I have been subject to so far. Not surprising, but I think local leadership might want to learn that not everyone sees the gospel the way they do, and so their approach comes across as manipulative and demanding and everything that 121 says it shouldn't be.
"You will NEVER see me sending out emails about prop 8. It is hard enough for me just to support the prophet on this one. But we are. Big faith builder :)"
The sentence is a paraphrase from friends. I foolishly deleted the email. They are Mormon liberals with more faith in both their liberal ideology and their Mormon faith than I have. (I tend to be fretful and nervous when there are real or perceived conflicts and then compensate with obstinence and anger. Bad combination.)
Somehow the simple combination of clear pain and frustration with the tone of faith and submission touches me far, far more than all the preaching, explaining, threats, and punishment that I have been subject to so far. Not surprising, but I think local leadership might want to learn that not everyone sees the gospel the way they do, and so their approach comes across as manipulative and demanding and everything that 121 says it shouldn't be.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Anti-Prop 8 Supporters
Author's Note, I would like to take this post public, but I need to think it through thoroughly first.
Today while taking Sage to a birthday party I came across a group of people holding up large banners urging passers by to vote against proposition 8. I honked my horn in support before realizing that I would have some fast dancing to explain to Sage why I was honking without bringing up the issue further than Staci would approve of. After dropping her off I came around and talked with one of them for just a few minutes.
They were from the local Unitarian Universalist Church (one I have felt drawn to and considered going to during Priesthood and Sunday School time until Staci asked me to help in primary). But really made them stand out those was simply that they were beautiful loving families making what I think is the most powerful statement on the issue that can be made. Namely, "Please don't destroy our marriages." For all the rhetoric about what this may or may not mean, and what it may or may not cause in the future, for the present a vote yes is a vote against their marriage and a vote no is a vote to let them have that marriage. I realize many would argue that isn't the point of the church's stand, but it is what it does.
What I would really like to say to the Bishop and the Stake President is that before they start taking action against me, go down and tell these people to their faces that their marriages aren't as good as yours. Tell them they don't deserve the same title and that giving it to them is a threat to your children. I say that because you aren't asking any real sacrifice of me, but you are asking me to say that to them in a quiet private box where no one can see me. And that's what I won't do. So before you ask me to do it in a sneaky way. Do it yourself, to their face, and let me watch.
Today while taking Sage to a birthday party I came across a group of people holding up large banners urging passers by to vote against proposition 8. I honked my horn in support before realizing that I would have some fast dancing to explain to Sage why I was honking without bringing up the issue further than Staci would approve of. After dropping her off I came around and talked with one of them for just a few minutes.
They were from the local Unitarian Universalist Church (one I have felt drawn to and considered going to during Priesthood and Sunday School time until Staci asked me to help in primary). But really made them stand out those was simply that they were beautiful loving families making what I think is the most powerful statement on the issue that can be made. Namely, "Please don't destroy our marriages." For all the rhetoric about what this may or may not mean, and what it may or may not cause in the future, for the present a vote yes is a vote against their marriage and a vote no is a vote to let them have that marriage. I realize many would argue that isn't the point of the church's stand, but it is what it does.
What I would really like to say to the Bishop and the Stake President is that before they start taking action against me, go down and tell these people to their faces that their marriages aren't as good as yours. Tell them they don't deserve the same title and that giving it to them is a threat to your children. I say that because you aren't asking any real sacrifice of me, but you are asking me to say that to them in a quiet private box where no one can see me. And that's what I won't do. So before you ask me to do it in a sneaky way. Do it yourself, to their face, and let me watch.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
To Brother Loveridge from Sister Loveridge
After the Bishop came to take my temple recommend and release me from my calling, I told Staci that I wouldn't be attending sunday school and priesthood until after the election. I also told her that if she wanted me to stay she should get me a job in primary or nursery. (She is after all 1st counselor in primary.) Today I got the following email from her.
Dear Brother Loveridge,
Please help us prepare for our Sacrament meeting program on the 2nd and 3rd Sunday of October. During the last 2 blocks of church (10:15 - noon) in the chapel. We especially need help with Sister Miller's class (ages 4-6). One of the weeks Sister Miller will not be there. We especially need help with crowd control and with snack time in the middle of the practice outside on the back lawn area.
Thanks,
Sister Loveridge
I had to laugh at how formal it was, but I also have to admit there are good reasons that I love this woman.
Dear Brother Loveridge,
Please help us prepare for our Sacrament meeting program on the 2nd and 3rd Sunday of October. During the last 2 blocks of church (10:15 - noon) in the chapel. We especially need help with Sister Miller's class (ages 4-6). One of the weeks Sister Miller will not be there. We especially need help with crowd control and with snack time in the middle of the practice outside on the back lawn area.
Thanks,
Sister Loveridge
I had to laugh at how formal it was, but I also have to admit there are good reasons that I love this woman.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
No I Don't Want to come Talk to You
Do church leaders not know how intimidating they are? Do they not realize the authority and threat they carry. I just feel like sometimes they act like I should want to come and visit with them in their offices. The truth of the matter is that it ranks in my mind just a few steps above gang firing squad. Right now it is all I can do to stay active and stay quiet so when the bishop asks me to come and talk with him in his office it feels really over the line. I feel pressured and hurt.
Just leave me alone!!!
Just leave me alone!!!
Monday, August 25, 2008
Defend Marriage or your women will all become lesbians!?!
This is actually a reasonably well written discussion and acknowledges the pain that is caused by requiring that all marriage be hetero-sexual. I think it is wrong, but that is mostly with the assumptions not the logic.
http://dennisprager.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/20/california_decision_will_radically_change_society?page=1
But my favorite part is the second to last paragraph on the first page which, as near as I can figure, is suggesting that if we allow gay marriage a lot more women will choose lesbianism. I find this amusing for several reasons
http://dennisprager.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/20/california_decision_will_radically_change_society?page=1
But my favorite part is the second to last paragraph on the first page which, as near as I can figure, is suggesting that if we allow gay marriage a lot more women will choose lesbianism. I find this amusing for several reasons
- It's probably untrue. While there may be a continuum of sexual orientation, I doubt there would be that much of an increase in lesbianism.
- Considering how much Lesbian porn is marketed to the straight male (I know I shouldn't know that) that could be the biggest selling point for gay marriage: LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE AND INCREASE THE CHANCE THAT YOUR WOMAN WILL SWING BOTH WAYS, MAYBE EVEN TRY A THREESOME.
The paragraph is generally flawed with the notion that marriage is effectively channeling sexual activity at all. Infidelity has been a constant since long before marriage and has been throughout all of marriages history. Marriage's ability to channel sexuality has been further undermined by birth control, a fluid economic system, and women's liberation. (All of which are good things by the way.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
