Inside Tad's Mind

For any of you that may be interested in astrology or astronomy, this is quite the New Years... Today at 12:13 pm Mountain Standard Time, the moon was at it's fullest, and all the way around the world in the darkness of night, it was eclipsed over much of Europe, Africa and Asia. Of course, today is also New Year's Eve, and the occurrence of a full moon on New Year's Eve hasn't happened since 1990. According to Spaceweather.com , an eclipsed Blue Moon on New Year's happens only once every 91 years! So this is truly a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence! So to recap, we have Mercury (and Mars) in Retrograde right now, adding to the energies of the Full Moon, which is falling on the global holiday of New Year's Eve, which is wrapping up the '00 decade, and then all of those factors are being amplified by the power of an extremely rare eclipse. Wow! We know that Mercury is Retrograde in Capricorn, and this full moon is in its natural home of Cancer. The sign of Can...

The sun rose just a little bit further north than it has in the last three days. It has once again begun its northward journey. The cycle of life continues, unbroken. This morning, Peter and Ephraim were the first two of the children up. At 6:30. It was still dark out. Sunrise this morning was at 7:50, so we had time to get everyone up and open a few presents before it started to get light. Having studied the solar astrology/mythology that underlies the choice of December 25 as the birth of many mythical gods and heroes, all personifications of the sun, I had a different view of this Christmas sunrise. As wonderful as Christmas is as a Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus (which probably did not occur on December 25), there is so much more to the holiday when one considers all of the midwinter traditions. December 21 is the Winter Solstice. From the Summer Solstice until the Winter Solstice, the sun appears to move southward. In the Northern Hemisphere, the length of the dayligh...

A wee bit different Holiday music. If you're listening, the music you're hearing is from the album The Castle of the Holly King by Shira Kammen. (For those of you reading this on Facebook or else where, click on the "view original post" or whatver it is.)

Back in the early 1980's, Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, came up with a great idea. He reasoned that if the price of one commodity goes up, consumers will switch to another commodity in its place. On the basis of this reasoning, the method of calculating the Consumer Price Index was changed. The result is that the inflation rate reported by the US Government is reported to be lower than it would if it was still calculated the old way. John Williams, the economist who operates " Shadow Government Statistics " likes to publish economic statistics as they would be if the CPI methodology hadn't been changed. This chart is a comparison of growth in the "real" (adjusted for inflation) US Gross Domestic Product using both the current CPI and the old methodology. When the line is above zero the economy is growing, with higher levels being greater levels of growth. When the line is below zero, the economy is shrinking, and in a reces...

I was reading the introduction to David Klinghoffer's Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History this afternoon. He makes a very interesting point: We need to recall that in historical fact, at a critical juncture, and as a direct result of the Jewish rejection of the Christian message, the early church jettisoned the observance of Jewish law. The book of Acts recounts how the apostle Paul, in teaching about Jesus, was "contradicted" and "reviled" by fellow Jews, leading him to conclude that the future lay no longer with his own people. "Since you thrust [the message of Christ] from you," he said, "behold, we turn to the gentiles." In this way a split developed within the church. It could continue as it was, under the leadership of Jesus' brother James within the bounds of Torah law, requiring all converts to be observant Jews. Or it could take Paul's more radical view of Jesus' teaching. At a council meet...

Most of us remember the story of how Christopher Columbus went to Ferdinand and Isabella and convinced them to back his voyage of discovery. In elementary school, I was taught that Columbus had watched the ships leaving port "hull down" as they went over the horizon and figured out that the Earth was round. Those that opposed his proposed voyage, so the story goes, all thought the Earth was flat. Why did they think the Earth was flat? Because their experience told them so. Their view of the world offered no clue otherwise, and their "intuition" told them their world was flat. Columbus, on the other hand, had done his "research" and had concluded that the Earth was round, and that he could get to the east by sailing to the west. The lesson to be learned here, I suppose, is that we shouldn't always test our intuitive sense of things, but should observe and think about what we see and hear. An excellent lesson to be sure, and left unexamined, there is not...

This CBS News "48 Hours" story speaks for itself, so I won't add much of my commentary to it other than to note that it is not isolated to Focus on Children or to Samoa. Within the last two years, similar cases have developed with China, Guatemala, Viet Nam, and other countries.

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." LDS Second Article of Faith "For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every soul of them should repent,....Cain and his posterity must wear the mark which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with fuller's soap every day, they cannot wash away God's mark." John Taylor, Millenial Star Vol 14 pg 418 I don't think I am the first person to notice this disconnect in LDS doctrine. White folks are only punished for their own sins, but blacks and "Lamanites" are eternally marked and cursed because of the sins of their forebears. Blacks because of Cain and Ham, Lamanites because of Laman, Lemuel, and the other progenitors of that race in the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 5:21, Alma 3: 6, 17:15) Blacks were excluded from the Priesth...

A friend of mine took me to task for "dumping on adoption" and asked me to write about something else. This one is for you, Rachael. I thought the "Christmas Controversy" that made so much noise in 2005 had blown away but apparently there are some folks that want to keep it alive . I think the LA Times is being a bit presumptuous to claim that the Obama family prefers one greeting over another and I think the whole controversy is just a bit absurd. Very few scholars believe Jesus of Nazareth, if they believe He even existed, was born on December 25. It is pretty well accepted that the date for Christmas was "borrowed" from earlier "Pagan" religions. Mid winter celebrations have existed in many cultures since long before the first century and the beginning of the Christian era. Many of these cultures even have mythological heroes or man-gods born on December 25. Why? Well, because the people in these ancient cultures didn't have TV, or even ...

Apologists for the infant adoption industry like to claim that the fees collected by adoption agencies are to cover expenses and so on, that there is no profit or profit motive involved in the practice. I usually counter this by pointing out that part of purchasing a car goes to pay the salesman, some pays the rent for the dealership, some goes to taxes, and so on. When money changes hands, and a product is delivered, it is selling. With infant adoption, the product is a human baby. The only difference between a for profit company and a non-profit is that one's books say "shareholder equity" and the other's say "retained earnings.' But in light of this ABC News story that ran last Mar 12, I don't think even the "it's only fees and costs" story holds up: When a couple seeking to adopt a white baby is charged $35,000 and a couple seeking a black baby is charged $4,000, the image that comes to the Rev. Ken Hutcherson's mind is of a practi...

Eventually, I will post the rest of my paper, but I think it appropriate to post the Bibliography, and I have some use for having it available online. This represents only the sources used in my paper, not the full extent of sources considered. “Adoption is the Best Option” http://adoptionisthebestoption.yolasite.com/ (a really good example of misleading appeals to emotion.) Alternate Religions Educational Network. Alternate Religions Educational Network (AREN) http://www.aren.org/ . accessed Nov 26, 2009. Babb, L. Anne. Ethics In American Adoption. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey 1999. Baptist Children’s Home and Family Services (BCHFS) http://www.bchfs.com . Accessed Sept 9, 2009. Barrett, William P. “Americas Most (and least) Efficient Charities.” Forbes Nov 2004 Bender, Karen E., & Nina de Gramont, eds.. Choice: True Stories of Birth, Contraception, Infertility, Adoption, Single Parenthood, & Adoption. San Francisco, CA: MacAdam-Cage 2007 Berne, Emma Carlso...

A couple of Amy's "friends" decided they needed to get involved and "support" Lessa in making her decision to relinquish her baby. I won't mention their names here, but I am certainly tempted to. Normally, I would refrain from public criticism of an individual, but the involvement of one of them in particular deserves to be recorded and published. This woman, who claims to be an active Latter-day Saint has no relationship to Lessa other than as a friend. She has no stewardship, she has no priesthood authority, and yet she saw fit to "counsel" Lessa in direct opposition to the counsel of Lessa's mother and myself, who are her parents and have, by LDS reasoning, stewardship and, until I renounced my membership in the church, I had the alleged priesthood authority. Amy and I were "entitled" to revelation regarding our daughter. Our unnamed friend was not. This woman conceived her first child out of wedlock. Did she subsequently marry the...

This is an excerpt from my paper exploring the influence of religion on the choice between adoption and parenting among unwed mothers. The earliest records of adoptions come from ancient Babylon, c. 1700 B.C.E. The Judeo-Christian tradition records two significant adoptions, that of Moses to Pharaoh’s daughter, which Moses repudiated, and the adoption of Ester by Mordecai, which reflects Persian law rather than any Judaic custom. “Talmudic Rabbis relied upon these two references to support their teaching that an orphan brought up in one’s household was, according to scripture, to be treated as a child born to the family. Talmudic law does not recognize legal adoption (Babb 1999).” Jewish law “refused to recognize such an institution within Jewish law. Rather they created an institution called ‘A Person Who Raises Another’s Child’ which is quasi-adoption.” This institution does not change the legal status of the person whose custody has changed. (Broyde 2005) Adoption figures historic...

The Associated Press reports today that Dr. Noel Gardner testified that Brian David Mitchell, Elizabeth Smart's alleged kidnapper, has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but he is mentally competent to stand trial. I got to thinking about this, and a comparison to Nephi came to mind. Mitchell claims to be a prophet. He kidnapped Elizabeth Smart with the intention of making her a plural wife. In the Biblical time of Nephi, when women and children were chattel, this would be stealing -- a violation of the eighth commandment. Not common among the Jews of that time, but not unheard of in the time when there were "bride prices." Nephi claimed to be a prophet, he tells us this in his autobiography, I Nephi. He admits that he killed Laban in cold blood (I Nephi 4; sixth commandment) so he could steal the plates of brass (eighth commandment). With Mitchell, we have competency hearings to determine if the man is connected enough to reality to understand the charges against him....

A comment I saw on Facebook this morning caused me to reflect on the difference between being a victim and taking responsibility for one's situation. It is an interesting conumdrum to consider. When one trusts another, that is a choice. Responsibility is realizing that it was a choice and that other choices could have been made. Now suppose that someone convinces you that they are trustworthy. The other person works very hard to convince you that they are on your side. They do everything they can to give you warm fuzzies and make you feel loved, accepted, and supported. But also suppose that this other person has his or her own personal agenda that depends on you doing something that will benefit them, but not necessarily you. Then suppose that this person provides you with all sorts of reasons for you to do what they want, and omits telling you about the negative side. If you do what they want you to do, and you are damaged by it, are you "responsible" or are you a ...

The LDS Church teaches-- or at least pays lip service to -- the concept of personal agency. The church's official doctrine is that it was Satan's plan to have everyone be perfectly obedient, and therefore everyone would make it back to the Celestial Kingdom. So far, so good. The church also teaches blind obedience to the prophet as God's voice on Earth. For you endowed Mormons, perhaps you will recall the part of the Endowment where Adam is worhiping at his alter and when asked why, replies, "I know not, save that it was commanded." I will save a discussion of the inherent contradiction in these two bits of doctrine for another day. For now, I want to discuss the responsibilities of the Prophet and the Church when promulgating policy and doctrine that are to be blindly obeyed. (Yes, I know that doctrine also says you're supposed to "study it out in your mind" and then pray for confirmation. Another subject for another day. For now, let me just ask, h...

Yesterday at 12:58 AM, Lessa had her baby. Today, at 12:30, if she carried through on her plans, she signed papers relinquishing the baby for adoption. Less than a day after the baby was born. The intended adopters are a couple from Farmington, Alan and Lynette Blood. The Blood's will pay for their purchased baby by paying "fees for services" to LDS Family Services, the baby selling arm of the LDS Church. I would like to ask all of the mothers out there if they were capable of making an informed choice about anything, let alone giving a baby up for adoption less than 24 hours after your first delivery and following 72 hours of labor? Yet Utah law permits a young, naive mother to sign away her child under just such circumstances. And the law provides no rescission period. Once the papers are signed, they are permanent and irrevocable. I ask all of you, is this just? In every professional field that deals with adoption there is a code of ethics. In every single code of ethi...