http://www.gallup.com/poll/125021/mormons-conservative-major-religious-group.aspx

Mormons are also far more conservative then any other faith group in the country. The more active you are the more likely you will be conservative.

So what causes the LDS propensity to be conservatives? Is it the theology or practice of the religion or is the demographic make-up of the active membership? In other words church attending white married folks with kids.

I feel that its both a combination of theology/practice combined with the demographics of the average US Mormon that create this strong conservative bent.

What does the wisdom of the bloggernaccle say the cause is?

Offensive or funny? You decide.

While I have no problem with Abraham (although if he had prepared to sacrifice MY son, I’m pretty sure the marriage would have been OVER), I don’t worship him. I am a Christian. Although I don’t really care what any one person thinks about my beliefs or religious practice, I feel kind of ruffled that someone would be so dismissive of Mormonism.

How do you feel about being part of an Abrahamic religion?

1. How would the bloggernacle rank Obama (I will try to get that poll thing working)?
2. When, if ever, will Mormons stop being so biased against the Democratic Party?
3. Why are Muslims so enamored with Obama?

I’m an unlikely UFC fan. I don’t like sports in general. Sure, I passively follow Boston teams. I’ll admit that I still feel connected to the Redskins from growing up in Washington, DC. And occasionally I do watch the post-season match ups. Yet I lack an active interest in sports and sport teams. I just can’t muster that much enthusiasm.

But I love UFC and its mixed martial arts (MMA) style of fighting. Other sports are highly contrived affairs: one doesn’t accidentally find oneself engaged in a baseball, soccer, or football game. Not even boxing, with all of its rules, occurs on accident. But anyone can end up in a fight, and everyone understands whats at stake when you win or lose.

UFC events have great production values, and whether you go to see them live or watch them on pay-per-view you’ll see very high quality and well put-together sporting event. My observances, in no particular order of interest or significance, are as follows:

1. If you’ve got tickets to a UFC event, then you should arrive there on time (or even early). I was a bit confused about this. The live event begins several hours before the preliminary fights air on Spike or Versus and before the main fights air on pay-per-view. So why do you want to arrive hours before that? Because the fights start several hours early before any live fights are broadcast. The live fights that are scheduled as live preliminaries or live pay-per-view fights may not take up their allotted time — knock outs and submissions end matches early. Broadcasts of the earlier fights take up any time that’s left over. If you’ve seen UFC preliminaries or pay-per-view fights, then you know that some of these fights from earlier in the night are very exciting.
2. If you’re attending a live UFC event, plan on spending the entire evening. You’ll be there for 5 or 6 hours, but the time will go quickly. When they’re broadcasting fights from earlier in the night to fill space after live fights, there’s an intermission at the live event. So there’s plenty of time to walk around and buy things.

Per item #4: Notice the three guys all standing on one stool holding the banner behind the fighter, who happens to be obscured in this photo by the banner, but you can see his feet below the banner. That’s Bruce Buffer, Veteran Voice of the Octagon, on the upper left side of the Octagon, reading from a card and standing next to UFC referee Mario Yamasaki.

3. During the actual fight, there are four cameramen filming (literally: 4 guys with cameras). Each cameraman stands on a small stool and holds his camera on his shoulder, over the top of the Octagon, pointing his camera at live action. When the UFC fighters are fighting on the side of the Octagon that is directly beneath the cameraman, he gets down from his stool and films through the cage.
4. On TV, when Bruce Buffer (Veteran Voice of the Octagon) introduces each fighter, viewers see three members of the fighter’s entourage unfurl and hold a banner with sponsorship logos behind the fighter. What viewers do not see is that these three people are crowded onto a single stool behind the Octagon cage — the same stool that the cameraman stands on. (see image to the right)
5. The chain link of the Octagon stretches out of shape a bit when fighters grapple against it. So in between rounds, people come out and pull the chain link of the Octagon back into shape. They just squat down a couple of feet from the black chain link, grab it, and lean back to pull it towards them.
6. Doctors come into the ring and stand near the fighters between rounds. You don’t generally see them in the televised close-ups on the fighters and their coaches. The doctors dress rather stuffily. Last night one female doctor was wearing a blue cardigan and wore reading glasses on the end of her nose. A male doctor might have been mistaken for a caricature of Sigmund Freud. They give the general impression that they are real party poopers. (My wife’s brother is a doctor. Having studied medicine in Las Vegas, he actually knew one of the doctors who was there. He said it would probably be a pretty good gig.)
7. All fighters enter the arena, doing their famous “walk on,” out of the same corner of the arena and using the same path to the Octagon. A lot of other people might have known this, but for some reason I envisioned it like a football or basketball game, where each team enters out of a different end of the venue.
8. When you see a UFC event live in an arena, there are monitors everywhere (much like other live sporting events). So you can switch between watching the image being broadcast or the fighters themselves. In that sense, it’s the best of both worlds. However, you never get to hear the announcers or their commentary, and it’s difficult to hear Joe Rogan’s post-fight interviews over the crowd noise.
9. All the fighters seem to be fairly tanned, even one’s who look really pale on TV.
10. None of the fighters seem aware that the folks who’ve bought tickets are proud that their town is hosting a UFC event, and none of the fighters really play to the audience. Randy Couture, among the most media and PR-savvy UFC fighters, did start his post-fight interview by exclaiming how great it was to be in Boston, and the audience just went berserk. But I don’t remember hearing any of the other fighters remark about Boston at all. This definitely relegates UFC attendees to the status of mere spectators, so that there’s a missed opportunity to make ticket-buyers feel more like participants in the sporting event.
11. Everyone is thinner and better looking live than on TV. This is true of Bruce Buffer (Veteran Voice of the Octagon) and the UFC ring girls.
12. When Joe Rogan steps into the ring to do a post-fight interview, you can tell from his posture and his stride that he’s “turned it on,” and he looks totally different than he does when he walks away from the interview.
13. In person, the fights are much more intense. Even the fights that seem kind of boring on TV have a brutal intensity.

It’s really an amazing time. If a UFC event comes to a venue near you, you should go and see it. If you’ve never watched UFC, tune into The Ultimate Fighter, which is an MMA tournament show that is dubbed “reality television.” You can also check listings on Spike TV or Versus for UFC broadcasts. It’s far-and-away the most fun sport to watch.

My wife’s brother, his wife, my wife, and me at UFC 118.

Yesterday I was perhaps too helpful. A transcript prepared for your enjoyment follows. Names have been redacted to protect the innocent.

From: [REDACTED]
To: John [RANDOM]

Good morning Professor [RANDOM]! I hope this email finds you well. I was wondering if you knew what my grade was before my final exam? Also was wondering about the grades for the Critical Anyalysis two and three. Any feedback on them for me would be very helpful for my future writing. It is not one of my best attributes! (writing that is!) Thanks and just wanted you to know I really enjoyed our class! And I will look at LMU as a possibiliy for my future beyond Tusculum! Have a very bless day! [REDACTED]

From: John [RANDOM]
To: [REDACTED]

[REDACTED],

I am not Professor [RANDOM]. He is a different person with a different email address. I suggest that you look up the correct address for him and send him your email. Perhaps you might want to edit it a bit to improve its style and grammar.

Though I am not the John [RANDOM] you intended to write, I am happy to give you some needed feedback on your writing. First of all, I would suggest using the “Enter” key more frequently to create paragraphs. This helps separate your ideas and gives your emails a pleasant format.

Second, I am unfamiliar with the phrase, “Have a very bless day!” and it appears to me to be grammatically incorrect.

You should capitalize a parenthetical if it is a stand alone sentence as yours is.

You should never begin a sentence with a conjunction.

I hope that this advice is helpful to you in your writing.

Best regards,
John

From: [REDACTED]
To: John [RANDOM]

John,
My apologies for getting the wrong email address. Had I known that an arrogant person, such as yourself, was to receive the original email, it would not have been sent. I didn’t realize that I would be graded on the content of the writing in the email. It was written early in the morning, and I guess I forgot I was already in my “English class”!
Thank you for your critique of my writing. How many years did it take you to get your Masters and become a professor in college? What’s that? You don’t have one? That’s what I thought!
Christians have very blessed days, everyday! I sure wished you knew one so that you too can have a very blessed day!
Is this two many paragraphs for you to handle, or should I continue? I really do have better things to do!
There is no need for you to respond back. You have been blocked!

So I ask you dear readers, exactly how horrible am I? Were I truly horrible I would have simply deleted the misdirected email. Instead, I let this student know of the problem with the email address and provided the feedback that was requested. My thinking is that if you’re going to email me, I’m going to respond.

(Let me digress a moment to point out that both people have messianic complexes. I heard a late night talk show host say that about Obama the other night–saying that he doesn’t care about being re-elected, he just wants to get his agenda pushed forward. But Palin’s book sure sounds like she feels the same way–called by God! That’s the similarity I’ve found so far)

I figured I’d be A. bored stiff B. underwhelmed.

Not so much. Well, it’s definitely not a work of great literature. One problem I see is the different voices, which makes the book seem inconsistent. Incongruous? You can clearly tell when the ghost writer is writing, the polish is apparent and there’s an attempt to make political points. A good successful attempt. But the more interesting parts are where Palin herself is speaking about her life.

I’m about a third of the way through and I’ve come to a few conclusions. First of all, Sarah Palin works her butt off and always has. Her parents taught her the meaning of a good honest day’s work. If she’s to be believed, she had at least one job as early as she could get one, often two and she paid her own way through college. My mind was boggled as I read about all the things she does in the course of a year, or a day. Car-pooling, important government meetings, having babies, shooting her moose, dressing it out, getting it ready for the freezer AND cooking it.

That’s pretty impressive. Secondly, in many ways, she’s the quintessential American. Sports, an early awareness of the political process and an apparent patriotism, and focus on family seem to be an important of her life. I was surprised to realize that a male politician with this type of resume would look pretty good indeed.

Thirdly, she doesn’t stand much on ceremony or appearances. She and Todd got married at the courthouse, just the two of them and two old people they went and recruited from the old folks home across the street. She fired the chef at the governor’s mansion, cooking their own meals and hiring a caterer for important functions. I could go on and on in this.

She doesn’t spare herself in telling how she betrayed her stepmother-in-law when Faye Palin ran for mayor of Wasilla. Sarah didn’t think Faye could win (she didn’t, but how much of that is Sarah’s fault is anybody’s guess) so she urged other, more viable (in her opinion) candidates to run. She writes about Todd’s anger at her and admits she blew it. I respect that.

I’m not into the part where McCain asks her to run yet.

There are things about Palin that bother me still. I was embarrassed to be a Republican when she blew the Katie Couric interview. (Why are Republicans so reluctant to say she blew it? She did! College educated Republican governor didn’t know Katie was going to crucify her if she could? Heck, I know that! She can say she wasn’t prepared (and I don’t know what she says about that yet because I’m not there yet), but I’M not prepared and if I went into an interview with Katie Couric, I’d know I was in for it and be ready to do battle, not be interviewed warmly, kindly and gently.)

Her voice grates on me. Actually it sounds like my voice, kind of high-pitched and teenagery. I wish somebody would teach her to modulate so she sounded more mature and graceful. I think she did her family a major disservice by agreeing to run for vice-president. Bristol needed her, Trig needed her, and Todd needed her more than the country needed her. Exposing them to the media on-slaught can’t have been good for them. On the other hand, she appears to be a talented politician, and maybe more–maybe a stateswoman–I haven’t decided yet. Would we limit a man that way? I don’t know. I thought Romney’s focus should have been on supporting his wife over running for president. Thought the same thing about Edwards. Family trumps politics. Although few politicians seem to think so.

I’ll keep you posted as I read the book. But I’m starting to really like this woman. You may see a complete 180 on my part.

The funny thing is I got her book because I was (and still might) planning to rip off the faces of the staunch Republican women who insisted we read this book in book club, continuing (in my view) the marginalization of the few Democrats in our ward who’ve been offended in the past. I’m wavering between insisting, on my turn, that we read Obama’s book or The Help. The Help is a better book, but if I’m going to have tea party politics shoved down my throat, I might have to shove back. Even though I don’t feel much good about Obama any more.

PS A point I made to a friend the other day: She said she was beginning to not like Michelle Obama. I said, “oh, give me a break. Does the name “Nancy Reagan” mean anything to you?” She was all about herself, her clothes and hair. She spent a bundle in the White House. If Michelle is being too much of a Marie Antoinette, she’s in good company.

Rumors have been swirling for a while now about big changes at the Deseret News. If you are interested in a thorough discussion of the possibilities I suggest listening to last Monday’s episode of RadioWest. Possible changes include laying off a third to half of the staff, cutting the number of days that the print edition is published, moving into KSL’s building and sharing more operations with KSL, and making an effort to reach out to Mormons outside of the Wasatch Front.

Much of what is discussed there hasn’t happened yet, but some big announcements have happened this week. On Tuesday a new editorial advisory board was announced. Included are familiar LDS names such as Sheri Dew, Clayton Christensen, Jane Clayson, and Matthew Holland.

Thursday the “New Media Leadership Team” was introduced.

So what does this mean for the future of the paper and Mormon media?

Blogs are on trailing end of a wave of popularity as even less substantial means of commutation are coming to the fore. But the old media have seen the sudden success of opinion based “news” and have rushed to emulate it, because it can be done on the cheap. Look at how Newsweek has flushed itself down a toilet to become a higher brow, slightly smarter print edition of the Huffington Post. This has worked so well for Newsweek that the venerable magazine was recently sold for $1. I don’t mean a copy of the magazine. I mean the whole company. We’ve subscribed for years but after the recent changes, we canceled our subscription.

The Editorial Advisory Board looks to me like the starting lineup of a Mormon Huffington Post. I have no idea if this will broaden the appeal of the paper outside of the Wasatch Front. Instead of producing news it looks like it is aimed at producing influence. The sort of articles that people will link to on Facebook.

The New Media Leadership Team made up of a guy that ran a digital scrapbooking company, a director of online instruction from BYU-Idaho, and an SEO guru.

I assume that these guys are going to make the Deseret News and Mormon Times an online juggernaut. None of them seem to have any journalism experience, which means they fit in well with the editor of the paper Joe Cannon.

I should probably add another disclaimer here. I am about as related to George Q. Cannon as Joe is, so perhaps I should be running the paper.

In any case, I am sad to see the Deseret News transforming itself from a local paper that reported the news (most of the news anyhow, there has been some filtering, but not much) to a Church-owned Mormon opinion and lifestyle operation, meant to serve Mormons and not the people of Utah.

Now we’ll have a quasi-official mouthpiece of the Church that can take a stand on the most irrelevant of issues. I doubt that the new Deseret News will show as much diversity as the recent PR campaign has. They should have just bought Mormon Mentality instead of going through all this effort. We’re much cheaper than their SEO guy, and we allow for dissent!

The theologian corrupts theology by wanting to turn it into a science.
By looking for rules for grace.

– Don Colacho (Nicolás Gómez Dávila)

Discuss amongst yourselves.  ..bruce..

My current ward has those callings, too, distributed through the Young Men and Young Women. But they also have a few youth serving in other capacities, the most visible of which is Ward Organist and Ward Chorister. My ward is a normal-sized ward with a normal number of adults who can fill the normal ones a ward requires to function. We don’t have any made-up callings or super-specialized ones, but we do have enough people to go around to have all the Primary classes team-taught and run 2 nurseries and have several separate Elders Quorums functioning (for 3 language groups in the ward). Additionally, ours is a ward that provides significant numbers of adults to Stake leadership positions: the Stake President, a handful of High Councillors, and a few of us in Auxiliary presidencies. What I am saying is that we are not some teeny tiny struggling barely-a-ward. We have people. So why don’t we have adults serving in all the regular callings?

The youth providing our music are not temporarily placed: they have been doing it for a year and other youth served before them. I am not sure why it bothers me. When the young woman who plays the organ was called (to replace an adult who was quite a pro), I was worried that it would cause her major stress. It doesn’t seem to, but she just isn’t as accomplished as some of the adults in my ward would be, so we sing slowly and repeat a lot of hymns again and again. The one serving as chorister does alright–no one watches the chorister anyway. They are probably gaining some good skills, but they are skills they can gain doing these same things within the youth sphere. I feel like they should be able to enjoy their low-stress calling years at least until they graduate from high school, but this batch didn’t even make it out of middle school. Let the adults keep the ward going.

Or maybe I’m just jealous and wish I could get released from my Stake Calling to lead the music in Sacrament Meeting.

What do you think? Is there any problem with having youth called to non-youth callings? Is it just good practice for the next 70 years of their life as adults in a lay-Church?