By 5-4 in the Supreme Court, the big debate on marriage ends. Marriage can be defined as a legal agreement between two people of any gender combination. Amid all the rhetoric, political strategies, hostility, defensiveness, and sentimentality exhibited in the public debate of recent years, certain basic definitions got throughly lost in the legalistic and persuasive smoke and mirrors.
Marriage is not a domestic agreement between two people – maybe of two genders.
Marriage is a covenant between at least four entities
1 the man
2 the woman
3a the culture in which they live
and / or
3b God
4 children, who have a vested right to a solid stable extended family.
The two entities in the third part of the definition – churches and governments -- have for ages tried to ignore or discount the other. Neither can. Church leaders cannot ignore the legal requirements of civil governments in the marriage contract. Nor civil governments cannot just dismiss God as a mythic outside observer. God invented the institution; he is the key custodian.
The desperation of people who want to defend marriage as exclusively heterosexual became palpable in recent months. For example, some started to talk again about how the main purpose of marriage is to support children. It was laughable. For decades I heard all kinds of people of the highest rank carefully parse the definition of marriage from reproduction and needs of children. Children, for years, were the lost element of marriage. Even in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, –an institution which sometimes acts as if it invented the family and the family’s chief conservative defendant -- I remember in years past major conference addresses from apostles that noted the covenant of the man and the woman are the most important part of a marriage, not if any particular union produced children.
Opposite gender marriage of one man and one woman constitutes an 80 percent market share. It is true a considerable percentage of people in this market share are single. Neither governments nor churches have done a great or even a good job in protecting from evil this type of marriage.
Same gender marriage constitutes a 5 percent market share. Not everyone in this market share is in fact interested in marrying.
It is hard to fathom what the opponents of same gender marriage believe is possible. Do they, for example, think that it will become trendy and fashionable among heterosexual American guys in general and LDS guys in particular for them to have an intense bromance and then marry their best male friend? How many parents think that this is a distinct possibility among their heterosexual sons and grandsons? Even as a stage or fad? I personally doubt this scenario will happen, even in jest.
The leftover number between these two market shares constitutes the big 21st Century growth market in marriage: the multiple gender group marriage. It will be a big legal topic in American from now to 2045.
If Martians landed on Earth tomorrow and started studying human sexual habits, would they see any distinction or difference between same-gender sexual attraction and opposite-gender sexual attraction?
Interesting that around here in Utah when heterosexuals corrupted the concept of marriage, they called it "progressive," and when the homosexuals corrupted the concept, heterosexuals called it sin. Changing the gender ratio in marriage may be a 5 percent market share corruption of marriage. However, opposite gender marriage is a corruption institution and has been for ages. Among the various devolutions of marriage in the past thousand years:
Marriage as political alliance.
Child marriages.
Bride prices.
Dowries.
Legalized acceptable cruelty in marriage relationships toward women
Women treated as property with no rights.
Polygamy.
Polyandry.
"La casa grande -- la casa bonita."
Mistresses having legal rights along with the wives.
No-fault quickie divorces.
Female genital mutilation.
These practices are not the fault of homosexuals. Heterosexuals over time have done the most damage to the concept of marriage. They have certainly done a lot of damage to marriage since 1960.
Civil governments in general have done a lousy job in protecting and preserving marriage. However, churches have not been entirely effective, either. In fairness, though, neither the Old Testament or the New Testament are crystal clear on the subject of when God considers a couple “married.” The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has sections that do a more convincing job of defining that point.
Marriage was simpler when romantic love was not considered essential to the mix. Marriage should not be first and foremost about companionship. Marriage should not be confused with companionship. Marriage should also be stable, legal framework to raise children. Eventually most – if not all – marriages get various attachments. In-laws, friends, ecclesiastical leaders, doctors, accountants, lawyers. Children. And then their in-laws, friends, and so on. These attachments are really a good thing because no spouse can be everything to its spouse and children.
Still – If a married couple is not careful, a marriage is a great way to insure that you get what you do not want.
THE CALL TO ACTION
It would be nice to think that marriage is evolving upward like the human race is evolving upward. We can only hope that is true. History teaches us that culture goes up and down in its improvements and corruptions. However -- marriage does need Defense of Marriage Acts, but they need to be on a variety of heterosexual marriage practice reforms and on an International level of action.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
LINCOLN'S JUSTICE: a commentary about Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address on its 150th Anniversary
On 4 March 1865, Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office for President of the United States for his second term, a term that lasted 41 days.
The address he made on that occasion was short and to the point. Many people admire it for its supposed great style and its lofty thoughts.
Great style, yes. I do not think the thoughts are lofty. I dislike the talk intensely.
Here is the core of why I do not like the address.
This is what Lincoln said in the middle of the short talk. If I had been Lincoln, I would have been loath to blame God for his war’s overall bloodiness.
“ Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
If Lincoln had wanted to be truth and accurate, this is what he should have said on that day:
"My government did not expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither side anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Neither side would give up the war.
"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, or in conscripting young men into a war they did not start or want. However – Let us judge not me, so I will not judge you. The prayers of both sides might have been answered. So far, neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.
" 'Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.'
"American slavery is one of those offenses which according to MY will must needs come to an end.
"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.
"However – if I and my generals will that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, remember this fact my subjects – my judgments are true and righteous altogether."
For it was Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, their governments, and their generals -- not God -- who dragged out The Civil War.
The address he made on that occasion was short and to the point. Many people admire it for its supposed great style and its lofty thoughts.
Great style, yes. I do not think the thoughts are lofty. I dislike the talk intensely.
Here is the core of why I do not like the address.
This is what Lincoln said in the middle of the short talk. If I had been Lincoln, I would have been loath to blame God for his war’s overall bloodiness.
“ Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
If Lincoln had wanted to be truth and accurate, this is what he should have said on that day:
"My government did not expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither side anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Neither side would give up the war.
"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, or in conscripting young men into a war they did not start or want. However – Let us judge not me, so I will not judge you. The prayers of both sides might have been answered. So far, neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.
" 'Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.'
"American slavery is one of those offenses which according to MY will must needs come to an end.
"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.
"However – if I and my generals will that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, remember this fact my subjects – my judgments are true and righteous altogether."
For it was Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, their governments, and their generals -- not God -- who dragged out The Civil War.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
It is more than just gender issues -- MARRIAGE STILL NEEDS DEFENDING
The big debate ends. Marriage can be defined as a legal agreement between two people of any gender combination. Amid all the rhetoric, hostility, defensiveness, and sentimentality exhibited in the public debate of recent years, certain basic definitions got thoroughly lost in the legalistic and persuasive smoke and mirrors.
A BASIC DEFINITION
Marriage is not a domestic agreement between two people – maybe of two genders.
Marriage is a covenant between at least four entities
1 the man
2 the woman
3a the culture in which they live
and / or
3b God
4 children, who have a vested right to a solid stable extended family.
The two entities in the third part of the definition have for ages tried to ignore the interests of the other. Fact is – God cannot ignore the legal requirements of civil governments in the marriage contract. Fact is – civil governments cannot just dismiss God as an outside observer. If God did not invent the institution, then he is the key custodian.
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE
The desperation of people who want to defend marriage as exclusively heterosexual became palpable in recent months. For example, some started to talk again about how marriage supports children. It was laughable. For decades I heard people of the highest rank carefully parse the definition of marriage and the reproduction and needs of children. Children, for years, were the lost element of marriage. Even in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint , an institution which sometimes acts as if it invented the family, I remember major conference addresses from apostles that noted that the man and the woman were the most important part of a marriage, not whether or not it produced children.
If Martians landed on Earth tomorrow and started studying human sexual habits, would they see any distinction or difference between same-gender sexual attraction and opposite-gender sexual attraction?
Interesting that around here in Utah when heterosexuals corrupted the concept of marriage, they called it "progressive," and when the homosexuals corrupted the concept, heterosexuals called it .sin. Changing the gender ratio in marriage may be a corruption of marriage, but marriage is a corruption institution and has been for ages. This is only just the latest step in the devolution of marriage as a legal definition.
Marriage as political alliance.
Child marriages.
Bride prices.
Dowries.
Legalized and acceptable cruelty in relationships.
Women treated as property with no rights.
Polygamy.
Polyandry.
"La casa grande -- la casa bonita."
Mistresses having legal rights along with the wives.
No-fault quickie divorces.
Female genital mutilation.
These practices are not the fault of homosexuals. Heterosexuals over time have done the most damage to the concept of marriage. They have certainly done a lot of damage to marriage since 1960.
Civil governments in general have done a lousy job in protecting and preserving marriage. However, churches have not been entirely effective, either. In fairness, though, neither the Old Testament or the New Testament are really clear on the subject of when God considers a couple “married.” The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has sections that do a more convincing job of defining that point.
Marriage was a lot simpler when romantic love was not considered essential to the mix. Marriage should not be first and foremost about companionship. Marriage should not be confused with companionship. Marriage is about a stable legal framework to raise children. Eventually most – if not all – marriages get in-laws, friends, ecclesiastical leaders, accountants, lawyers attached to them – and children. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
Marriage is not a 24-hour service station. One spouse cannot expect the other spouse to fix everything for him/her. Some things the individual will have to fix on his/her own. Both spouses need friends for companionship and backup.
Still – If a married couple is not careful, a marriage is a great way to insure that you get what you do not want.
THE CALL TO ACTION
It would be nice to think that marriage is evolving upward like the human race is evolving upward. We can only hope that is true. However -- marriage does need Defense of Marriage Acts, but they need to be on a variety of marriage practice reforms and on an International level of action.
A BASIC DEFINITION
Marriage is not a domestic agreement between two people – maybe of two genders.
Marriage is a covenant between at least four entities
1 the man
2 the woman
3a the culture in which they live
and / or
3b God
4 children, who have a vested right to a solid stable extended family.
The two entities in the third part of the definition have for ages tried to ignore the interests of the other. Fact is – God cannot ignore the legal requirements of civil governments in the marriage contract. Fact is – civil governments cannot just dismiss God as an outside observer. If God did not invent the institution, then he is the key custodian.
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE
The desperation of people who want to defend marriage as exclusively heterosexual became palpable in recent months. For example, some started to talk again about how marriage supports children. It was laughable. For decades I heard people of the highest rank carefully parse the definition of marriage and the reproduction and needs of children. Children, for years, were the lost element of marriage. Even in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint , an institution which sometimes acts as if it invented the family, I remember major conference addresses from apostles that noted that the man and the woman were the most important part of a marriage, not whether or not it produced children.
If Martians landed on Earth tomorrow and started studying human sexual habits, would they see any distinction or difference between same-gender sexual attraction and opposite-gender sexual attraction?
Interesting that around here in Utah when heterosexuals corrupted the concept of marriage, they called it "progressive," and when the homosexuals corrupted the concept, heterosexuals called it .sin. Changing the gender ratio in marriage may be a corruption of marriage, but marriage is a corruption institution and has been for ages. This is only just the latest step in the devolution of marriage as a legal definition.
Marriage as political alliance.
Child marriages.
Bride prices.
Dowries.
Legalized and acceptable cruelty in relationships.
Women treated as property with no rights.
Polygamy.
Polyandry.
"La casa grande -- la casa bonita."
Mistresses having legal rights along with the wives.
No-fault quickie divorces.
Female genital mutilation.
These practices are not the fault of homosexuals. Heterosexuals over time have done the most damage to the concept of marriage. They have certainly done a lot of damage to marriage since 1960.
Civil governments in general have done a lousy job in protecting and preserving marriage. However, churches have not been entirely effective, either. In fairness, though, neither the Old Testament or the New Testament are really clear on the subject of when God considers a couple “married.” The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has sections that do a more convincing job of defining that point.
Marriage was a lot simpler when romantic love was not considered essential to the mix. Marriage should not be first and foremost about companionship. Marriage should not be confused with companionship. Marriage is about a stable legal framework to raise children. Eventually most – if not all – marriages get in-laws, friends, ecclesiastical leaders, accountants, lawyers attached to them – and children. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
Marriage is not a 24-hour service station. One spouse cannot expect the other spouse to fix everything for him/her. Some things the individual will have to fix on his/her own. Both spouses need friends for companionship and backup.
Still – If a married couple is not careful, a marriage is a great way to insure that you get what you do not want.
THE CALL TO ACTION
It would be nice to think that marriage is evolving upward like the human race is evolving upward. We can only hope that is true. However -- marriage does need Defense of Marriage Acts, but they need to be on a variety of marriage practice reforms and on an International level of action.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
An editorial on the War on ISIS
In August 1917, a few months after the United States declared war on the Axis, and several months before the first American soldiers actually arrived to fight in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson formed a large committee – no fewer than 125 academics and politicians – to set up the framework of the Post-War New World Order of the Ages. It included an academic committee that wrote proposals for the New Middle East. Remember, at the time, the Ottoman Empire still existed. Not one committee member actually was a modern Middle East expert. Most of the time, they scurried around libraries to get basic information. The committee chairman was an academic expert of the Crusades.
The committee’s work had one notable short coming: no one seemed much interested in the region’s oil. European Nations noticed the oil and what it meant to modern warfare. Britain and France managed to carve up what had been The Ottoman Empire into states dividing the tribes. Therefore, Europe – not the locals -- dominated the region and the oil.
I do not know who advises The Obama Administration this week, but they remind me of Wilson’s committee.
I have no tolerance for or connections to ISIS. ISIS can hardly be considered loveable at this stage of The Great Game. However, they are not worse than the leaders of the Ottoman Empire or the colonial managers who ruled the place for England, France, and [eventually] the USA. Rules of cause and effect determine why the Obama Administration reaps whirlwinds sewn nearly100 years ago. I seriously doubt ISIS can do sustained damage major or minor to the USA.
To review:
THE USA made a war with troops in 1991 in Kuwait. We got the oil back, but the war did not solve the overall problem in the region. The USA mad a war with troops in Iraq in 2002 and for ten plus years thereafter. It did not solve the problem and in fact made the problem more complicated. War made it worse. Insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result. How can the Obama administration think that they can take down this organization and make a difference with air strikes and drones alone? Air strikes and drones will generate more hate in the Iraqis against us ? If and when we put thousands of troops into this war, they cannot win it. They have not won so far.
Insanity is sometimes defined and doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.
You cannot find anyone in the military or intelligence who believes that bombing more innocent civilians in Iraq and Syria is going to generate positive results
No strategy is probably better than doing dumb things just because the administration must look active and engaged and people are generally anxious and fearful.
The problems with Obama’s announcement on 10 September should be obvious: 1) It will require a lot of American soldiers in Iraq and Syria. 2) Once our soldiers are in Iraq and Syria, they are in there for good. 3) The USA cannot win the war.
Let’s look at what Middle Eastern needs and goals for the 21st century. What the people need is clear.
1) Fewer nations should evolve as opposed to more of them.
2) Ideally, there should be a large pan-Arabic-Palestinan-Muslim-Jewish state with equal rights and fair play for all.
3) If the locals cannot get that, then 3 or 4 states – tops -- with equal rights and fair play for all..
4) Modern Iraq should not be one of them. Iraq’s boundaries were drawn up after World War I to divide the locals and keep the resources in European control.
5) The resources under the ground are controlled by the locals above the ground.
I read that Cheney and the hawks want the administration to do “a more muscled response” in Iraq. Meaning put soldiers in harms way in a cause that we cannot win. Cheney’s view seems to be that the USA should now be actively engaged in War That Will Not End.
ISIS would not exist if Cheney and company had not involved the USA in that whole Iraq military mistake. The anniversary of World War I should remind Cheney that muscular responses take on an uncontrollable life of their own.
THE CALL TO INACTION.
Congress should not reinstate conscription.
Congress should not fund any Middle Eastern Adventures which will not work or which we will not win.
Congress should insist on its Constitutional right to declare war – and not declare war.
The committee’s work had one notable short coming: no one seemed much interested in the region’s oil. European Nations noticed the oil and what it meant to modern warfare. Britain and France managed to carve up what had been The Ottoman Empire into states dividing the tribes. Therefore, Europe – not the locals -- dominated the region and the oil.
I do not know who advises The Obama Administration this week, but they remind me of Wilson’s committee.
I have no tolerance for or connections to ISIS. ISIS can hardly be considered loveable at this stage of The Great Game. However, they are not worse than the leaders of the Ottoman Empire or the colonial managers who ruled the place for England, France, and [eventually] the USA. Rules of cause and effect determine why the Obama Administration reaps whirlwinds sewn nearly100 years ago. I seriously doubt ISIS can do sustained damage major or minor to the USA.
To review:
THE USA made a war with troops in 1991 in Kuwait. We got the oil back, but the war did not solve the overall problem in the region. The USA mad a war with troops in Iraq in 2002 and for ten plus years thereafter. It did not solve the problem and in fact made the problem more complicated. War made it worse. Insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result. How can the Obama administration think that they can take down this organization and make a difference with air strikes and drones alone? Air strikes and drones will generate more hate in the Iraqis against us ? If and when we put thousands of troops into this war, they cannot win it. They have not won so far.
Insanity is sometimes defined and doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.
You cannot find anyone in the military or intelligence who believes that bombing more innocent civilians in Iraq and Syria is going to generate positive results
No strategy is probably better than doing dumb things just because the administration must look active and engaged and people are generally anxious and fearful.
The problems with Obama’s announcement on 10 September should be obvious: 1) It will require a lot of American soldiers in Iraq and Syria. 2) Once our soldiers are in Iraq and Syria, they are in there for good. 3) The USA cannot win the war.
Let’s look at what Middle Eastern needs and goals for the 21st century. What the people need is clear.
1) Fewer nations should evolve as opposed to more of them.
2) Ideally, there should be a large pan-Arabic-Palestinan-Muslim-Jewish state with equal rights and fair play for all.
3) If the locals cannot get that, then 3 or 4 states – tops -- with equal rights and fair play for all..
4) Modern Iraq should not be one of them. Iraq’s boundaries were drawn up after World War I to divide the locals and keep the resources in European control.
5) The resources under the ground are controlled by the locals above the ground.
I read that Cheney and the hawks want the administration to do “a more muscled response” in Iraq. Meaning put soldiers in harms way in a cause that we cannot win. Cheney’s view seems to be that the USA should now be actively engaged in War That Will Not End.
ISIS would not exist if Cheney and company had not involved the USA in that whole Iraq military mistake. The anniversary of World War I should remind Cheney that muscular responses take on an uncontrollable life of their own.
THE CALL TO INACTION.
Congress should not reinstate conscription.
Congress should not fund any Middle Eastern Adventures which will not work or which we will not win.
Congress should insist on its Constitutional right to declare war – and not declare war.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
90 Years Later: REMEMBERING THE NATIONAL DEFENSE TEST DAY BROADCAST AND ITS LESSONS
September 2014 marks the 90th anniversary of a landmark radio broadcast done by the U S Military. Western Electric recorded the broadcast from the telephone lines, which is now one of the oldest existing original radio broadcast recordings in history. I write “original” because a number of famous radio recordings that come from an earlier date (the KDKA 1920 presidential election returns comes to mind) actually were re-creations from a later date. The KDKA 1920 election return recordings was recreated in 1936 and 1950.
On 12 September 1924, the US military mobilized for a National Defense Test Day. The entire concept alarmed the nations and militaries of Europe, but the military mobilized mostly as a publicity gimmick and a male bonding ritual in honor of General of the Army John Pershing, who retired from the Army the next day.
The culminating event of the Test Day was a live coast-to-coast radio broadcast, starting at 8:00 EST. One old time radio history website described the broadcast and the surviving recording this way:
“9/12/24-- National Defense Test Day Broadcast. WEAF-WCAP network of eighteen stations. Linecheck recorded by Western Electric. A ninety-minute program aired to demonstrate how radio could respond to national emergencies thru the interconnection of stations in various cities. Speeches by Secretary of War Weeks, General Pershing, General Saltzman of the Signal Corps, and General J. F. Carty of AT&T. This broadcast marked the first major demonstration of multiple remote cut-ins on a single program, with engineers in fourteen cities responding on cue, followed by two-way conversations between General Pershing and generals representing each of the Army Corps areas. Most of the program was recorded and pressings of the discs were presented to General Pershing. Sets of the discs are also held by the Library Of Congress and the National Archives. Audio quality of the recording is excellent, but two of the sides recorded were damaged during processing and do not survive.”
Let me clarify some points made in this summary. The broadcast originated from the radio station in Washington D.C. The military selected the other radio stations in this ad hoc network for maximum nation-wide radio coverage. Their selection of stations performed successfully, though the whole intermountain west had limited coverage from one station in Denver – two if you count the station in Omaha. California’s coverage was limited to one station in Oakland. The military could have improved Coverage in The West by adding KSL and KNX, but apparently the generals did not consider The West important. They provided thorough coverage in The East though.
THE BROADCAST
The recording features numerous joys for old radio enthusiasts. For starters, at the very beginning someone taps on the microphone (a big ancient canister models from the sound of the reverb) like it was amateur night in Weehawken. The voices sound as if they were recorded in a long metal tunnel, which was typical of old radio’s sound. The announcer lists every last radio station in the network, something that soon became impractical to do when NBC and CBS eventually created their national networks in 1926 and 1928. This is the first radio recording of multiple remote cut-ins on a single program; it was the first public coast-to-coast multiple radio station broadcast with remote cut-ins. It featured a roll call of radio broadcast telephone operators starting in Washington and sounding off in a line that stretched in less than a minute to Oakland. This is the first radio recording that featured a participant in Salt Lake City – and villages in Wyoming and Nevada for that matter.
Today only experienced and sophisticated listeners with patience can sit through the whole recording. It has no commercials, being a federal broadcast. It has no orchestra or band music. It features a cabinet secretary and a bunch of generals speaking about military strategy and radio technological details – neither of which will leave the audience laughing. However, in 1924 the broadcast must have been revelation to small town and rural radio owners.
General Pershing’s address still feels like revelation, considering how frank he is about his experience in World War I and coordinating the American mobilization in 1917-1918 for the Great War in Europe. He admitted publicly that the military made mistakes in the mobilization. It is true: the American mobilization made many mistakes and missteps, took too much time, too much money, crowded too many boys in too few training camps. It will be darned interesting to see if any modern general will someday make the same sorts of admissions in public about shortcomings in Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.
Pershing also talked live over the radio with four generals who oversaw Defense Test Day activities in various regions. He talked first with a general headquartered in New York, then a general in Chicago, then a general in Omaha, and then a general in Oakland. The peasants sat before their radios listening in enraptured silence.
Pershing’s talk with his general in New York is one of the few humorous highlights of the broadcast. The New York general seems to have a few too many martinis to celebrate Test Day’s conclusion or to steady his nerves for the nation-wide radio hook up. At one point, he sings (off key yet) a few lines of an old barracks song, much to Pershing’s horror.
The broadcast also gave the rural radio audience a sense of the scale of America. Pershing in Washington, which was in nighttime, asked the general in Oakland about the sunset, which had just occurred and was then lingering in golden twilight.
The generals’ main broadcast goal consisted in teaching citizens how the government could use radio to instantaneously broadcast information to the entire nation during a crisis using a radio network, ideally a radio network with telephone lines and/or shortwave. It was also clear that the military could use radio for its instantaneous private communications as well. That night saw an altogether prophetic broadcast, maybe THE most prophetic radio broadcast ever done.
QUICK COMMUNICATION
Consider the old days.
It took days for telegraph reporters to get the news of the Battle of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to the rest of the northeast USA, even longer out to the west coast.
In contrast, 17 years after the Test Day broadcast, the Japanese Air Force followed a commercial radio station frequency into the Island of Oahu and bombed the US military installations on the island. Within minutes, the commercial radio stations of Oahu were broadcasted information, warning and instructions to the residents. Interestingly enough, the radio news networks did not get wind of the situation for more than two hours. The attack started at noon, eastern time, but John Daly did not read the first live CBS radio report until 2:30 p.m. ET. If KNX in Los Angeles or KCBS in San Francisco had received reports from Honolulu earlier than that, the whole CBS network could have reported the attack considerably sooner.
In contrast, 19 years after the test day broadcast, the allied command in England signaled NBC Radio a warning about the impending D-Day Invasion (a Morris code V repeated three times), NBC warned its executives and radio stations to activate (a special four note NBC chimes), and within minutes, the entire continental USA got the news that the invasion had started.
When President Lincoln was assassinated it took several hours, sometimes a couple of days for the telegraphs and newspapers to disseminate the bad news.
In contrast, consider when President Roosevelt died 20 year after the test day broadcast. Roosevelt died at 3:45 p.m. Central Time in Warm Springs Georgia. Roosevelt’s administration did not release the new for nearly an hour. The first newscaster to broadcast a news bulletin was John Daly on CBS, who interrupted a program at 5:40 p.m. ET (4:40 p.m. CT) with the first report. Never the less the whole nation knew about the death in less than an hour after it occurred, though the nation could have learned quicker if the administration had been willing.
President Kennedy was assassinated nearly 40 years after the Test Day broadcast. Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy at 12:30 p.m. CT, and within 4-10 minutes, radio and TV news reporters broadcast bulletins locally in Dallas and then nation-wide. Walter Cronkite of CBS TV News broadcast its first TV network bulletin ten minutes after the shooting; Alan Jackson of CBS Radio News broadcast its first radio network bulletin shortly thereafter. In the first hour, as evidenced by a recording made by the White House, both an Air Force jet-liner transporting half of the President’s cabinet to Japan and the officials in the White House situation room used the private news services to gather their information. The administration made the official announcement of the death of the president 35 minutes after he died in the Parkland Hospital emergency room.
In October 1958, NBC broadcast live to the entire nation the ceremonies surrounding the grand opening of its new broadcast facilities in Washington D.C. It broadcasted part of that ceremony in color on live TV; the videotape record of that broadcast is the oldest surviving color videotape still in existence. President Eisenhower attended the broadcast and spoke – it was the first time he appeared on a color TV broadcast from Washington. He said that government should attach itself to the very best communications available to keep the citizens alert and informed. Eisenhower’s remarks seem remarkably candid today, considering how many political leaders do not want to keep the citizens in any sort of loop.
On 11 September 2001, at 8:42 ET, an airliner crashed into the almost top floors of the north World Trade Center Tower. The various networks started reporting the news within 1 - 4 minutes. All of them reported and showed the second airliner crashing into the south World Trade Center on live TV. This event broadcast illustrated graphically that TV viewers not only could get instantaneous information all over the world, but that it was also possible from them to get mass induced instantaneous stress disorders from watching disaster. In the 21st Century, one does not have to live through disaster to feel as if one has lived through disaster.
President Bush the Second was visiting a school in Florida at the time of the attacks. The military and the secret service quickly evacuated him and his entourage to Air Force One. The military decided not to fly it directly back to Washington. Instead it took the better part of the day to lolly-gag its way back via Louisiana and Omaha. This was done out of fear that the Washington air space was not secure of lurking terrorists. The president did not make any sort of information speech to the nation until later in the evening, but he could have given the public up to the minute information if he wanted to. He did not.
Thus, the National Defense Test Day broadcast was indeed prophetic about how quickly governments could get important information to the citizens in times of crisis. When it wanted to.
INSTANT MISCOMMUNICATION
What the September 1924 Test Day broadcast did not tell us was how much hatred, propaganda, lying, and out right miscommunication radio and TV networks can broadcast quickly.
For example:
In October 1938, Orson Welles and his "Mercury Theater On The Air" broadcast a live dramatic adaption of H G Wells’ old science fiction novel “The World of The Worlds.” Welles and his writers gussied up the old book by setting it in modern times and presenting the narrative as if it were a series of radio news bulletins and live news broadcasts. The Mercury Theater did not have a big audience that night (it was opposite Edgar Bergen’s megahit Sunday night comedy-variety program), but a considerable percentage of those who listened to the broadcast thought it was really describing a real invasion of Earth by Martians.
The day before D-Day’s Normandy Invasion in June 1944, news broadcaster Robert Trout at CBS was involved in a miscommunication that resulted in a bulletin announcing that the Normandy Invasion had started when it was in the preparation stage.
I once heard as part of an Old Time Radio program recording, a news bulletin that announced that the USA had dropped an atomic bomb on a Japanese city other than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In September 1945, the day before the Japanese surrendered, a couple of networks did bulletins announcing the surrender of Japan – prematurely.
On 8 July 1947, radio stations in New Mexico and some network news broadcasts reported that an unidentified flying object had crashed in the plains near Roswell, New Mexico.
When Kennedy was shot, some reported that a secret service agent had also been killed in the shooting. I suspect they got the details of the Officer Tippetts shooting confused. The networks all reported early on accounts of gun fire coming from the grassy knoll as well.
In 1992, when President Bush the First vomited on the prime minister of Japan at an official state dinner, CNN a few hours later got a report and came very close to announcing on live TV that President Bush had died.
THE LEARNING CURVE
The Defense Test Day radio broadcast demonstrated the future of broadcasting to its listeners that night, and made a number of prophecies that came true very quickly. The generals failed to tell us one important thing about radio and television networks – the technology is morality neutral. It is good or bad depending on the morality of those who control the cameras and microphones.
On 12 September 1924, the US military mobilized for a National Defense Test Day. The entire concept alarmed the nations and militaries of Europe, but the military mobilized mostly as a publicity gimmick and a male bonding ritual in honor of General of the Army John Pershing, who retired from the Army the next day.
The culminating event of the Test Day was a live coast-to-coast radio broadcast, starting at 8:00 EST. One old time radio history website described the broadcast and the surviving recording this way:
“9/12/24-- National Defense Test Day Broadcast. WEAF-WCAP network of eighteen stations. Linecheck recorded by Western Electric. A ninety-minute program aired to demonstrate how radio could respond to national emergencies thru the interconnection of stations in various cities. Speeches by Secretary of War Weeks, General Pershing, General Saltzman of the Signal Corps, and General J. F. Carty of AT&T. This broadcast marked the first major demonstration of multiple remote cut-ins on a single program, with engineers in fourteen cities responding on cue, followed by two-way conversations between General Pershing and generals representing each of the Army Corps areas. Most of the program was recorded and pressings of the discs were presented to General Pershing. Sets of the discs are also held by the Library Of Congress and the National Archives. Audio quality of the recording is excellent, but two of the sides recorded were damaged during processing and do not survive.”
Let me clarify some points made in this summary. The broadcast originated from the radio station in Washington D.C. The military selected the other radio stations in this ad hoc network for maximum nation-wide radio coverage. Their selection of stations performed successfully, though the whole intermountain west had limited coverage from one station in Denver – two if you count the station in Omaha. California’s coverage was limited to one station in Oakland. The military could have improved Coverage in The West by adding KSL and KNX, but apparently the generals did not consider The West important. They provided thorough coverage in The East though.
THE BROADCAST
The recording features numerous joys for old radio enthusiasts. For starters, at the very beginning someone taps on the microphone (a big ancient canister models from the sound of the reverb) like it was amateur night in Weehawken. The voices sound as if they were recorded in a long metal tunnel, which was typical of old radio’s sound. The announcer lists every last radio station in the network, something that soon became impractical to do when NBC and CBS eventually created their national networks in 1926 and 1928. This is the first radio recording of multiple remote cut-ins on a single program; it was the first public coast-to-coast multiple radio station broadcast with remote cut-ins. It featured a roll call of radio broadcast telephone operators starting in Washington and sounding off in a line that stretched in less than a minute to Oakland. This is the first radio recording that featured a participant in Salt Lake City – and villages in Wyoming and Nevada for that matter.
Today only experienced and sophisticated listeners with patience can sit through the whole recording. It has no commercials, being a federal broadcast. It has no orchestra or band music. It features a cabinet secretary and a bunch of generals speaking about military strategy and radio technological details – neither of which will leave the audience laughing. However, in 1924 the broadcast must have been revelation to small town and rural radio owners.
General Pershing’s address still feels like revelation, considering how frank he is about his experience in World War I and coordinating the American mobilization in 1917-1918 for the Great War in Europe. He admitted publicly that the military made mistakes in the mobilization. It is true: the American mobilization made many mistakes and missteps, took too much time, too much money, crowded too many boys in too few training camps. It will be darned interesting to see if any modern general will someday make the same sorts of admissions in public about shortcomings in Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.
Pershing also talked live over the radio with four generals who oversaw Defense Test Day activities in various regions. He talked first with a general headquartered in New York, then a general in Chicago, then a general in Omaha, and then a general in Oakland. The peasants sat before their radios listening in enraptured silence.
Pershing’s talk with his general in New York is one of the few humorous highlights of the broadcast. The New York general seems to have a few too many martinis to celebrate Test Day’s conclusion or to steady his nerves for the nation-wide radio hook up. At one point, he sings (off key yet) a few lines of an old barracks song, much to Pershing’s horror.
The broadcast also gave the rural radio audience a sense of the scale of America. Pershing in Washington, which was in nighttime, asked the general in Oakland about the sunset, which had just occurred and was then lingering in golden twilight.
The generals’ main broadcast goal consisted in teaching citizens how the government could use radio to instantaneously broadcast information to the entire nation during a crisis using a radio network, ideally a radio network with telephone lines and/or shortwave. It was also clear that the military could use radio for its instantaneous private communications as well. That night saw an altogether prophetic broadcast, maybe THE most prophetic radio broadcast ever done.
QUICK COMMUNICATION
Consider the old days.
It took days for telegraph reporters to get the news of the Battle of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to the rest of the northeast USA, even longer out to the west coast.
In contrast, 17 years after the Test Day broadcast, the Japanese Air Force followed a commercial radio station frequency into the Island of Oahu and bombed the US military installations on the island. Within minutes, the commercial radio stations of Oahu were broadcasted information, warning and instructions to the residents. Interestingly enough, the radio news networks did not get wind of the situation for more than two hours. The attack started at noon, eastern time, but John Daly did not read the first live CBS radio report until 2:30 p.m. ET. If KNX in Los Angeles or KCBS in San Francisco had received reports from Honolulu earlier than that, the whole CBS network could have reported the attack considerably sooner.
In contrast, 19 years after the test day broadcast, the allied command in England signaled NBC Radio a warning about the impending D-Day Invasion (a Morris code V repeated three times), NBC warned its executives and radio stations to activate (a special four note NBC chimes), and within minutes, the entire continental USA got the news that the invasion had started.
When President Lincoln was assassinated it took several hours, sometimes a couple of days for the telegraphs and newspapers to disseminate the bad news.
In contrast, consider when President Roosevelt died 20 year after the test day broadcast. Roosevelt died at 3:45 p.m. Central Time in Warm Springs Georgia. Roosevelt’s administration did not release the new for nearly an hour. The first newscaster to broadcast a news bulletin was John Daly on CBS, who interrupted a program at 5:40 p.m. ET (4:40 p.m. CT) with the first report. Never the less the whole nation knew about the death in less than an hour after it occurred, though the nation could have learned quicker if the administration had been willing.
President Kennedy was assassinated nearly 40 years after the Test Day broadcast. Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy at 12:30 p.m. CT, and within 4-10 minutes, radio and TV news reporters broadcast bulletins locally in Dallas and then nation-wide. Walter Cronkite of CBS TV News broadcast its first TV network bulletin ten minutes after the shooting; Alan Jackson of CBS Radio News broadcast its first radio network bulletin shortly thereafter. In the first hour, as evidenced by a recording made by the White House, both an Air Force jet-liner transporting half of the President’s cabinet to Japan and the officials in the White House situation room used the private news services to gather their information. The administration made the official announcement of the death of the president 35 minutes after he died in the Parkland Hospital emergency room.
In October 1958, NBC broadcast live to the entire nation the ceremonies surrounding the grand opening of its new broadcast facilities in Washington D.C. It broadcasted part of that ceremony in color on live TV; the videotape record of that broadcast is the oldest surviving color videotape still in existence. President Eisenhower attended the broadcast and spoke – it was the first time he appeared on a color TV broadcast from Washington. He said that government should attach itself to the very best communications available to keep the citizens alert and informed. Eisenhower’s remarks seem remarkably candid today, considering how many political leaders do not want to keep the citizens in any sort of loop.
On 11 September 2001, at 8:42 ET, an airliner crashed into the almost top floors of the north World Trade Center Tower. The various networks started reporting the news within 1 - 4 minutes. All of them reported and showed the second airliner crashing into the south World Trade Center on live TV. This event broadcast illustrated graphically that TV viewers not only could get instantaneous information all over the world, but that it was also possible from them to get mass induced instantaneous stress disorders from watching disaster. In the 21st Century, one does not have to live through disaster to feel as if one has lived through disaster.
President Bush the Second was visiting a school in Florida at the time of the attacks. The military and the secret service quickly evacuated him and his entourage to Air Force One. The military decided not to fly it directly back to Washington. Instead it took the better part of the day to lolly-gag its way back via Louisiana and Omaha. This was done out of fear that the Washington air space was not secure of lurking terrorists. The president did not make any sort of information speech to the nation until later in the evening, but he could have given the public up to the minute information if he wanted to. He did not.
Thus, the National Defense Test Day broadcast was indeed prophetic about how quickly governments could get important information to the citizens in times of crisis. When it wanted to.
INSTANT MISCOMMUNICATION
What the September 1924 Test Day broadcast did not tell us was how much hatred, propaganda, lying, and out right miscommunication radio and TV networks can broadcast quickly.
For example:
In October 1938, Orson Welles and his "Mercury Theater On The Air" broadcast a live dramatic adaption of H G Wells’ old science fiction novel “The World of The Worlds.” Welles and his writers gussied up the old book by setting it in modern times and presenting the narrative as if it were a series of radio news bulletins and live news broadcasts. The Mercury Theater did not have a big audience that night (it was opposite Edgar Bergen’s megahit Sunday night comedy-variety program), but a considerable percentage of those who listened to the broadcast thought it was really describing a real invasion of Earth by Martians.
The day before D-Day’s Normandy Invasion in June 1944, news broadcaster Robert Trout at CBS was involved in a miscommunication that resulted in a bulletin announcing that the Normandy Invasion had started when it was in the preparation stage.
I once heard as part of an Old Time Radio program recording, a news bulletin that announced that the USA had dropped an atomic bomb on a Japanese city other than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In September 1945, the day before the Japanese surrendered, a couple of networks did bulletins announcing the surrender of Japan – prematurely.
On 8 July 1947, radio stations in New Mexico and some network news broadcasts reported that an unidentified flying object had crashed in the plains near Roswell, New Mexico.
When Kennedy was shot, some reported that a secret service agent had also been killed in the shooting. I suspect they got the details of the Officer Tippetts shooting confused. The networks all reported early on accounts of gun fire coming from the grassy knoll as well.
In 1992, when President Bush the First vomited on the prime minister of Japan at an official state dinner, CNN a few hours later got a report and came very close to announcing on live TV that President Bush had died.
THE LEARNING CURVE
The Defense Test Day radio broadcast demonstrated the future of broadcasting to its listeners that night, and made a number of prophecies that came true very quickly. The generals failed to tell us one important thing about radio and television networks – the technology is morality neutral. It is good or bad depending on the morality of those who control the cameras and microphones.
Sunday, August 3, 2014
BEYOND THE DEATH OF A DOG
I read reports in the Salt Lake Tribune that an official investigative board cleared and justified the Salt Lake City police officer who killed a dog while doing a search in the dog’s back yard.
Of course the board did that – especially since it could not get testimony from the dog.
It feels like we now find ourselves in a dystopian police-state novel with a plot that has spun off its axis. This becomes apparent when we consider what should have happened in this troubling incident.
.
People and their elected leaders must insist on the Constitutional Right that police must get warrants. That should be obvious. In this case, It is bad enough that law enforcement just searched a backyard for whatever reason, aside from the issue of an officer shooting and killing a homeowner's dog.
Officers should be equipped with bear pepper spray – a non-lethal solution -- in case a home-owner's dog is [understandably] angry or charging officers who have crossed its territory.
There is a bigger issue here for us to consider. What does it say about government law enforcement, about the advertising pressure we get from weapons manufacturers, and human nature itself that it is socially acceptable to carry and use lethal weapons when we could develop, manufacture, carry and use when necessary non-lethal weaponry.
Guns are not a tool. Guns are a symbol. Symbol of power.
Friday, July 25, 2014
ASKS SOME QUESTIONS
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Office of the First Presidency published an open letter on June 28, 2014. Newrightasecension reprints the letter with some comments.
In God's plan for the happiness and eternal progression of His children, the blessings of His priesthood are equally available to men and women. [who have men available] Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices [currently – for revelation goes on and on].
All service in the Church has equal merit in the eyes of God.
[A nice sentiment. It reads well and sounds appreciative and inclusive . . . but really? Will either we or God put the service of J Reuben Clark and Harold B. Lee and the service of the laziest female teacher in primary in equal merit?]
We express profound gratitude for the millions of Latter-day Saint women and men who willingly and effectively serve God and His children. Because of their faith and service, they have discovered that the Church is a place of spiritual nourishment and growth.
We understand that from time to time Church members will have questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice. Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding. We feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from Church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them.
[Therefore, Ordain Women does not particularly impress newrightascension. It has yet to take serious action to get what it wants.]
Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. [Beware: if you ask upity questions, it will not win you friends among your ward or your stake leadership either. ]
Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.
[The placement of “faithful” in the sentence is illuminating, to say the least. If an “unfaithful” church leader has generated public opposition for his sins, the wording makes clear that it is obviously his own neck.]
The Council of
The First Presidency and
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Official Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
© 2014 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All Rights Reserved
“Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy.” Given that opening, rightascension has some questions.
1. What percentage of the church membership is adult male? Is adult female?
2. What percentage of the active church membership is adult male? Is adult female? I admit that this question is interesting to ask but unanswerable because of ambiguous definitions.
3. If – for the sake of an example number – say, 53 percent of the active adult membership is female, should 53 percent of the ward-level, stake-level, and general membership decision-making leadership be female?
4 From a organizational function analysis point of view, if half of an organization’s membership cannot achieve the highest leadership roles from the beginning, does this make the organization more or less strong and secure?
5 What is the real difference between being consulted in a decision and in making the decision?
6. If God will discuss church leadership only with males, what does that tell us about God?
7. Should we expect an answer?
This editorial does not make recommendations.
In God's plan for the happiness and eternal progression of His children, the blessings of His priesthood are equally available to men and women. [who have men available] Only men are ordained to serve in priesthood offices [currently – for revelation goes on and on].
All service in the Church has equal merit in the eyes of God.
[A nice sentiment. It reads well and sounds appreciative and inclusive . . . but really? Will either we or God put the service of J Reuben Clark and Harold B. Lee and the service of the laziest female teacher in primary in equal merit?]
We express profound gratitude for the millions of Latter-day Saint women and men who willingly and effectively serve God and His children. Because of their faith and service, they have discovered that the Church is a place of spiritual nourishment and growth.
We understand that from time to time Church members will have questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice. Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding. We feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from Church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them.
[Therefore, Ordain Women does not particularly impress newrightascension. It has yet to take serious action to get what it wants.]
Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. [Beware: if you ask upity questions, it will not win you friends among your ward or your stake leadership either. ]
Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.
[The placement of “faithful” in the sentence is illuminating, to say the least. If an “unfaithful” church leader has generated public opposition for his sins, the wording makes clear that it is obviously his own neck.]
The Council of
The First Presidency and
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Official Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
© 2014 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All Rights Reserved
“Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy.” Given that opening, rightascension has some questions.
1. What percentage of the church membership is adult male? Is adult female?
2. What percentage of the active church membership is adult male? Is adult female? I admit that this question is interesting to ask but unanswerable because of ambiguous definitions.
3. If – for the sake of an example number – say, 53 percent of the active adult membership is female, should 53 percent of the ward-level, stake-level, and general membership decision-making leadership be female?
4 From a organizational function analysis point of view, if half of an organization’s membership cannot achieve the highest leadership roles from the beginning, does this make the organization more or less strong and secure?
5 What is the real difference between being consulted in a decision and in making the decision?
6. If God will discuss church leadership only with males, what does that tell us about God?
7. Should we expect an answer?
This editorial does not make recommendations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
