Pray for Japan

Fire at the Tabernacle!

It was the first news I heard on the first day home for Christmas break. The Provo Tabernacle was on fire! By the time I woke up and rushed downtown, the roof had collapsed and the fire was torching the rubble. It was so cold that the water used to fight the fire had frozen on the outside. Since it hadn’t been detected until it was too dangerous to save the building, thousands of gallons of water were being used to keep the fire from spreading. Icicles on one side of the wall; flames, smoke and steam were on the other.

I felt as though a family member had died. From countless stake conferences, concerts, and civic events inside, to simple walks around its walls, it was the location of hundreds of treasured memories for me—as well for most valley residents. Walking around the smoking edifice brought all of those happy memories back, but also made the destruction that much more painful. After nearly 24 hours of burning through the treasured interior, all that was left was a shell. By the time the smoke had cleared, it looked like a bombed out European cathedral.

Although fire can never burn memory, it might change it. Memory is always changing—being formed and reformed in response to new events. Buildings like the Provo Tabernacle that have stood strong, tall, and (mostly) unchanging through the years link us to our past. That physical link went up in smoke. Only ash and brick is left. Given its history, no one would question that the community got more than its fair share of use out of it.

However, what if the building had only stood for a couple years before burning down? Would it still be a tragedy? Would it be more or less of one? Architectural merit for a hypothetical church building aside, if people had still had incredible spiritual experiences it would still be a loss. The newer building would have less history, but also greater promise lost. Perhaps on an accounting balance sheet, the loss would be the same—a regional center for worship. The replacement for the recent building would be easier—build a new building and the promise of the future is restored, and a short history is lost. For the tabernacle, no new building replaces the history—no matter its functionality. For that reason, I hope it will be rebuilt in the spirit of a restoration.

Yet, in spite of the fire, the only true tragedy would be to forget the joyful memories of the years when the building stood tall—and rejoice that I was able to sit in that great building before it burned down. And perhaps, given that some of life’s experiences are like fires that destroy buildings with great promise for the future, remembering with gratitude is the only thing that I can preserve with certainty.

On Utah and the Tea Party

In case anyone thought that political ideas from Utah were limited to Utah, and that political conversations at BYU were completely different than discussions happening nationwide, several recent articles in the New York Times seem to prove that wrong. Whether or not you agree with the Tea Party or Glenn Beck, clearly some ideas about the constitution from both Utah and/or strands of Mormon conservatism are making an impact.

(Which isn't to say that other strands of Utah or Mormon political belief aren't good or valid, or that I agree with this particular strand of ideas.)

Here are the articles:

"Being Glenn Beck"
by Mark Leibovich, New York Times Magazine
29 September 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/magazine/03beck-t.html

***

"Exploring the Meaning of "Constitutional Conservatism"
by Lincoln Caplan, New York Times
1 December 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/opinion/02thu4.html

"The anger felt by those who favor constitutional conservatism is potent. Call the slogan vague. Call it arrogant. It would be shortsighted to dismiss this increasingly used rallying cry."

***

Radical Constitutionalism
by Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Magazine
26 November 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/magazine/28FOB-idealab-t.html?scp=1&sq=utah%20tea%20party&st=cse

"Not all Tea Party enthusiasts, of course, are devotees of Skousen, and Lee is just one senator. But the sort of thinking Lee embodies, rooted in a radical suspicion of the powers of government, is resurgent."

***

D.I.Y. Populism, Left and Right
by Matt Bai, New York Times Magazine
30 October 2010
(Reported from Provo, Utah)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/weekinreview/31bai.html

"Perhaps, then, we should expect the liberal bloggers of 2006 and the Tea Partiers of 2010 to be eclipsed in the years ahead by other grassroots insurrections. For politicians, the implications of this new world are unsettling, as they look for a way to withstand the battering from one side and then another.

"They might take a lesson from Utah, where one long-serving senator is packing up his office, while the other picnics with the Tea Party. You can try to reason with the David Kirkhams of the world, or adopt their rhetoric. The one thing you can’t do, it seems, is wish the new reality away."

Remember

On Tweeting the Revolution! (or not)

There were two very interesting articles about the use of technology in inciting social activism.

The first in The New Yorker, Small Change, by Malcom Gladwell, asserts that social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) are inherently based on weak link associations—acquaintances not friends—and thus cannot be reliable for the strong friendships necessary for organizing protests or revolutions.

The second, at DesignObserver.com, Malcolm Gladwell Is #Wrong, by Maria Popova, who is a regular contributor to Wired magazine, takes Gladwell to task on this assumption and a host of other points in his article.

On a first read, I tend to agree with Popova, but maybe I'm biased since I am using social media.

Freedom

“. . .On the side of the Union, it is a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men—to lift artificial weights from all shoulders—to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all—to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life.”

—Abraham Lincoln, 4 July 1961
In a special message to Congress, describing the reason for preserving the Union.

Today I am grateful for a land where the condition of men has been so elevated because of the sacrifice of so many who came before. On their sacred ground, I have a chance to make my future—to work, to dream, and to build in freedom. Thank you to all have fought and who do fight to preserve such rights. I am grateful for all who seek to "elevate the condition of men" in their civic standing, but also their personal standing.

I am grateful for those, who through their personal goodness and virtue blaze a pathway of self-improvement and self-discipline. They show a way to becoming better people, better citizens, better sons and daughters, better families, better friends, better husbands and wives.

I am grateful on this anniversary of our country's Independence for such men and women who sacrifice and who did sacrifice to build a structure of civic freedom. And equally grateful for those, through their personal goodness show how to achieve the true freedom of self-mastery.

Happy Independence Day.

I'm hurt, how about you?

Apple Health Care