January 2004 @ 10:29 am

Remarkable story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s official then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 lbs. 11 oz. (whoa Nelly!)

21 ”

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

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

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

UPDATE: Done! More photos can be found here

All Hands and the Cook

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

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

Diary of a Mom, Wife and Nursing Student

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

Craig’s Weblog –   

“This blog is way awes…”

A Season of Joy

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

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

drowning in a sea of ink

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

ms. morality

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

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

Eric’s Blog

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

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

Lend me some sugar… I AM your neighbor!

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

*2Flower* To You…

“my purrfect expressions of imperfection”

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

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

 As many have already noticed, there has been a little kerfluffle between Hugh, dp, and the folks at Times and Seasons. While I think I know which comment Hugh and dp were referring to and agree it at least came across as intemperate, I thoroughly enjoy all their blogs and will continue to do so.  At risk of exacerbating the issue, it reminded me of a talk given by BYU professor Richard D. Poll which was originally published in Dialogue. As Levi pointed out in a previous comment, labels aren’t always useful but I think the talk makes some interesting generalizations. ”What the Church Means to People Like Me”

My thesis is that there are two distinct types of active and dedicated Latter-day Saints. I am not talking about “good Mormons” and “Jack Mormons,” or about Saints in white hats and pseudo-Saints in black. No, I am talking about two types of involved Church members who are here tonight, each deeply committed to the Gospel but also prone toward misgivings about the legitimacy, adequacy, or serviceability of the commitment of the other. The purpose of my inquiry is not to support either set of misgivings, but to describe each type as dispassionately as I can, to identify myself with one of the types, and then to bear witness concerning some of the blessings which the Church offers to the type I identify with. My prayer is that this effort will help us all to look beyond the things which obviously differentiate us toward that “unity of faith” which Christ set as our common goal.  For convenience of reference, let me propose symbols for my two types of Mormons. They have necessarily to be affirmative images, because I am talking only about “good” members. I found them in the Book of Mormon, a natural place for a Latter-day Saint to find good symbols as well as good counsel.  The figure for the first type comes from Lehi’s dream–the Iron Rod. The figure for the second comes also from Lehi’s experience–the Liahona. So similar they are as manifestations of God’s concern for his children, yet just different enough to suit my purposes tonight.  The Iron Rod, as the hymn reminds us, was the Word of God. To the person with his hand on the rod, each step of the journey to the tree of life was plainly defined; he had only to hold on as he moved forward. In Lehi’s dream the way was not easy, but it was clear.  The Liahona, in contrast, was a compass. It pointed to the destination but did not fully mark the path; indeed, the clarity of its directions varied with the circumstances of the user. For Lehi’s family the sacred instrument was a reminder of their temporal and eternal goals, but it was no infallible delineator of their course.  Even as the Iron Rod and the Liahona were both approaches to the word of God and to the kingdom of God, so our two types of members seek the word and the kingdom. The fundamental difference between them lies in their concept of the relation of man to the “word of God.” Put another way, it is a difference in the meaning assigned to the concept “the fullness of the Gospel.” Do the revelations of our Heavenly Father give us a handrail to the kingdom, or a compass only?  The Iron Rod Saint does not look for questions, but for answers, and in the Gospel–as he understands it–he finds or is confident that he can find the answer to every important question. The Liahona Saint, on the other hand, is preoccupied with questions and skeptical of answers; he finds in the Gospel–as he understands it–answers to enough important questions so that he can function purposefully without answers to the rest. This last sentence holds the key to the question posed by my title, but before pursuing its implications let us explore our scheme of classification more fully.  . . . A point to underscore in terms of our objective of “unity of the faith” is that Iron Rods and Liahonas have great difficulty understanding each other–not at the level of intellectual acceptance of the right to peaceful co-existence, but at the level of personal communion, of empathy. To the Iron Rod a questioning attitude suggests an imperfect faith; to the Liahona an unquestioning spirit betokens a closed mind. Neither frequent association nor even prior personal involvement with the other group guarantees empathy. Indeed, the person who has crossed the line is likely to be least sympathetic and tolerant toward his erstwhile kindred spirits.  . . . Both kinds of Mormons have problems. Not just the ordinary personal problems to which all flesh is heir, but problems growing out of the nature of their Church commitment.  The Iron Rod has a natural tendency to develop answers where none may, in fact, have been revealed. He may find arguments against social security in the Book of Mormon; he may discover in esoteric prophetic utterances a timetable for that Second Coming of which “that day and hour knoweth no man . . . .” His dogmatism may become offensive to his peers in the Church and a barrier to communication with his own family; his confidence in his own insights may make him impatient with those whom he publicly sustains. He may also cling to cherished answers in the face of new revelation, or be so shaken by innovation that he forms new “fundamentalist” sects. The Iron Rod concept holds many firm in the Church, but it leads some out.  The Liahona, on the other hand, has the temptation to broaden the scope of his questioning until even the most clearly defined Church doctrines and policies are included. His resistance to statistics on principle may deteriorate into a carping criticism of programs and leaders. His ties to the Church may become so nebulous that he cannot communicate them to his children. His testimony may become so selective as to exclude him from some forms of Church activity or to make him a hypocrite in his own eyes as he participates in them. His persistence in doubting may alienate his brethren and eventually destroy the substance of his Gospel commitment. Then he, too, is out–without fireworks, but not without pain.  Both kinds of members are found at every level of Church responsibility–in bishoprics and Relief Society presidencies, in stake presidencies and high councils, and even among the General Authorities. But whatever their private orientation, the public deportment of the General Authorities seems to me to represent a compromise, which would be natural in the circumstances. They satisfy the Iron Rods by emphasizing the solid core of revealed truth and discouraging speculative inquiry into matters of faith and morals, and they comfort the Liahonas by resisting the pressure to make pronouncements on all subjects and by reminding the Saints that God has not revealed the answer to every question or defined the response to every prayer. As I have suggested, the Iron Rods and the Liahonas have some difficulty understanding each other. Lacking the patience, wisdom, breadth of experience, or depth of institutional commitment of the General Authorities, we sometimes criticize and judge each other. But usually we live and let live–each finding in the Church what meets his needs and all sharing the Gospel blessings which do not depend on identity of testimony. 

 According to one site, President Harold B. Lee responded to this talk in General Conference with a talk appropriately titled “The Iron Rod.”

There are those in the Church who speak of themselves as liberals who, as one of our former presidents has said, “read by the lamp of their own conceit.” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine [Deseret Book Co., 1939], p. 373.) One time I asked one of our Church educational leaders how he would define a liberal in the Church. He answered in one sentence: “A liberal in the Church is merely one who does not have a testimony.” Dr. John A. Widtsoe, former member of the Quorum of the Twelve and an eminent educator, made a statement relative to this word liberal as it applied to those in the Church. This is what he said: 

“The self-called liberal [in the Church] is usually one who has broken with the fundamental principles or guiding philosophy of the group to which he belongs. … He claims membership in an organization but does not believe in its basic concepts; and sets out to reform it by changing its foundations. … ”It is folly to speak of a liberal religion, if that religion claims that it rests upon unchanging truth.” 

  And then Dr. Widtsoe concludes his statement with this: 

“It is well to beware of people who go about proclaiming that they are or their churches are liberal. The probabilities are that the structure of their faith is built on sand and will not withstand the storms of truth.” (“Evidences and Reconciliations,” Improvement Era, vol. 44 [1941], p. 609.) 

  I’m not sure President Lee’s talk applies directly to Professor Poll’s but clearly, the debate goes on. I’m not saying this applies to anyone but the discussions just brought these talks to mind.  UPDATE: While googling the talks to find more background, I see dp already mentioned Professor Poll’s talk in December in the comments section of Times and Seasons no less! 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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