Under the Banner of Heaven
This is by far the most difficult book for me to objectively review. I picked it up while visiting a relative's house (who hasn't been to an LDS Church service in a while, but is respectful towards the Church) after reading the inside cover jacket. I had never heard of it before and was under the impression that it was an investigative report on how some members of the FLDS church committed a heinous murder. I had been wanting to know more about the FLDS faith, and it seemed like a good storyline, so I dove right in. Boy was I in for a ride.
I went through a broad spectrum of emotions while reading Under the Banner of Heaven. At first (like the first 20 pages), Jon Krakauer does a great job of being completely journalistic and reports only the facts of the perpetrators' backgrounds and the history of the FLDS church. Then he ever so carefully and slyly introduces his personal agenda into the writing.
His comments were upsetting to me at first- not because he was shaking my faith (I have spent a LOT of time reading anti-Mormon books and literature and researching the facts...his discussion and "facts" about the "evil dark side" of the LDS faith were actually some of the least compelling and persuasive I've read...but more on that later). It's more upsetting and saddening to me that so many people have read this book and trusted this man's writing and now have a skewed and tragically incorrect knowledge of the faith that I know, love, and cherish.
Krakauer bills himself as a journalist, but in reality he is a story-teller. His previous works have similarly been stories based on true experiences (He also received much scrutiny for his other best-selling book Into Thin Air for inaccuracies in his depiction of that story). Nonetheless, he is a great storyteller, and it was engrossing and a fast read.
I can't decide if I believe that Krakauer endeavors to be as deceptive as he is. His writing style is such that he uses broad hyperboles frequently, and goes so far in his emphatic descriptions that he changes the meaning of his original statement. For example, he bluntly states as absolute fact that Mormons (members of the LDS Church) have to work hard and earn the love of Heavenly Father. While true that we do believe that faith and works are both required to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, we believe that the undying love of our Heavenly Father is unconditional. Many times he makes simple slips like this. He also repeatedly harps on the fact that violence and plural marriage are two of the greatest, most taught, and sacred tenants of the LDS faith. I'm really not sure where he got that idea...it was strange even to me that he would keep saying that. Again I'm not sure if he is trying intentionally to be deceptive with regards to these simple doctrines.
He does obviously have some adverse feelings towards the LDS Church. Though he advertises the book as focusing on the FLDS church, he spends the great majority of the work analyzing the mainstream LDS faith (which does intertwine to a certain extent with the FLDS), and speaking of how the current LDS members have this dark history which trains them to be violent and secretive.
He makes his case mainly by using two sources, whom he claims are the most reputable and well respected historians in American Mormon history. Both of these sources were apparently not friendly towards the LDS Church. The material Krakauer uses isn't anything groundbreaking or new- he essentially perpetuates the same fables, misconceptions, exaggerations, and hearsay which has been circulating (and depending on who you ask disproven) for generations now. As always, it is up to the reader to decide whose evidence they are going to believe, as the many versions of "Mormon History" all claim to be factually based and easy to believe from first examination. Naturally, if the reader only reads this story, they are getting an awfully one-sided account. According to some historically based reviews I read of this book, he didn't even consistently use his sources correctly. It has been said that he used the sources accounts as they fit his agenda, even if the accounts from his sources differed. How unenlightening.
After I finished the book, I heard that there was quite the hoopla within the religious community when it came out. I searched online and found these official statements from the LDS church concerning Under the Banner of Heaven. I had no idea the book was such a big deal!
From an intellectual point of view, I was disappointed from the first blatantly incorrect statement read. He lost his journalistic integrity with me, and now I cannot even believe anything he said about the FLDS faith and their followers, thereby frustrating the reason I picked up the book in the first place. Krakauer would be better served to keep his label as a storyteller, and stop trying to build an image as an investigative reporter.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Book: The Kite Runner
Kite Runner
Apparently everybody in the world loves this book...except me. I don't really like fictional books. I realize that this book is supposed to incorporate true events into a fictional storyline, but it just didn't work for me. Actually, this book was a testament to me why I don't spend time on fictional books...it was a semi-compelling story based upon bona-fide compelling events. I'd rather learn about the actual struggles of Muslim youth than a made up tale.
Admittedly, I didn't actually read this book. Lisa and I listened to it on CD as we drove across the country. Maybe that made the story less interesting or harder to follow. All I know is that I wasn't really compelled to listen.
Maybe I'm being too harsh. It's not a bad read if you like historical fiction (obviously...it's a NYT best seller about to be a movie). Just not my cup of tea.
Apparently everybody in the world loves this book...except me. I don't really like fictional books. I realize that this book is supposed to incorporate true events into a fictional storyline, but it just didn't work for me. Actually, this book was a testament to me why I don't spend time on fictional books...it was a semi-compelling story based upon bona-fide compelling events. I'd rather learn about the actual struggles of Muslim youth than a made up tale.
Admittedly, I didn't actually read this book. Lisa and I listened to it on CD as we drove across the country. Maybe that made the story less interesting or harder to follow. All I know is that I wasn't really compelled to listen.
Maybe I'm being too harsh. It's not a bad read if you like historical fiction (obviously...it's a NYT best seller about to be a movie). Just not my cup of tea.
Book: The Mormon Way of Doing Business
The Mormon Way of Doing Business
I had heard that there were a disproportionate number of LDS CEOs and high ranking corporate people in America vs. people of other faiths, and this book essentially highlights why the tenants of the LDS faith make these people who they are and how their faith affects their business principles. To be unbiased in my review, I must admit that the author of the book is LDS, but I believe that he was objective in his writing.
At the time of publication, the CEOs of JetBlue, Dell, Madison Square Garden, and Deloitte and Touche, the CFO of American Express, and the president of Harvard Business School as well as a high ranking professor in that same program were all LDS. It seems like there were more I just can't think of anymore, but those were the main ones.
The first half of the book steps point by point through the main beliefs of the LDS faith, giving relevant personal stories from each of these people's lives. The second half focuses mainly on the American Express, JetBlue, and Madison Square Garden CEOs experience during the events of September 11.
This book has probably done more to motivate me to work hard and to read than any other book I've read. Every one of these successful individuals has worked exceedingly hard in life, and has developed a love for reading. They have also, even though their positions are extremely time consuming, done all possible to keep their family as their top priority and to fulfill their callings. Most of them are either Bishops or Stake Presidents.
Lesson's I learned while reading this book: it's more important to work hard and intelligently during the time that you are working than to just pull long hours; it is much easier to focus while at work if your affairs at home are in order (in other words, disarray at home always effects job performance...or to be blunt, observe complete marital fidelity); behind every successful man is an amazing and patient and equally busy and productive woman; it is truly possible to be successful as a father, husband, and member of the workforce all at the same time if you're willing to put in the time and effort.
I had heard that there were a disproportionate number of LDS CEOs and high ranking corporate people in America vs. people of other faiths, and this book essentially highlights why the tenants of the LDS faith make these people who they are and how their faith affects their business principles. To be unbiased in my review, I must admit that the author of the book is LDS, but I believe that he was objective in his writing.
At the time of publication, the CEOs of JetBlue, Dell, Madison Square Garden, and Deloitte and Touche, the CFO of American Express, and the president of Harvard Business School as well as a high ranking professor in that same program were all LDS. It seems like there were more I just can't think of anymore, but those were the main ones.
The first half of the book steps point by point through the main beliefs of the LDS faith, giving relevant personal stories from each of these people's lives. The second half focuses mainly on the American Express, JetBlue, and Madison Square Garden CEOs experience during the events of September 11.
This book has probably done more to motivate me to work hard and to read than any other book I've read. Every one of these successful individuals has worked exceedingly hard in life, and has developed a love for reading. They have also, even though their positions are extremely time consuming, done all possible to keep their family as their top priority and to fulfill their callings. Most of them are either Bishops or Stake Presidents.
Lesson's I learned while reading this book: it's more important to work hard and intelligently during the time that you are working than to just pull long hours; it is much easier to focus while at work if your affairs at home are in order (in other words, disarray at home always effects job performance...or to be blunt, observe complete marital fidelity); behind every successful man is an amazing and patient and equally busy and productive woman; it is truly possible to be successful as a father, husband, and member of the workforce all at the same time if you're willing to put in the time and effort.
Book: The Science of Cooking
The Science of Cooking
As if there were any doubt, I think this solidifies my standing as a total nerd. This book is published by a company that mainly puts out textbooks, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were part of the curriculum in some culinary schools. I picked this one up because I love to cook and it seemed logical to me that I could be a better chef if I scientifically understood the process of cooking. I believe that I achieved that goal.
I think that another dimension is added to the cooking experience when preparing a gourmet dish is viewed as an experiment in chemistry and biology rather than a mechanical procedure. It is one thing to be able to follow the directions of a cookbook. It is another to understand why we cook different foods at different temperatures and why we add certain ingredients and mix them certain ways.
In reality, I still have no idea what I'm talking about, but it was an interesting read. It reads like a textbook and is chuck full of information you probably haven't thought about before (Why does meat brown? How do you know when something is fully cooked? What makes a food/sauce thick?). If you like science you'd like this book. If you like cooking you'd love this book. If you like science and cooking, well then more power to you. If you don't like either, I pity the fool!
As if there were any doubt, I think this solidifies my standing as a total nerd. This book is published by a company that mainly puts out textbooks, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were part of the curriculum in some culinary schools. I picked this one up because I love to cook and it seemed logical to me that I could be a better chef if I scientifically understood the process of cooking. I believe that I achieved that goal.
I think that another dimension is added to the cooking experience when preparing a gourmet dish is viewed as an experiment in chemistry and biology rather than a mechanical procedure. It is one thing to be able to follow the directions of a cookbook. It is another to understand why we cook different foods at different temperatures and why we add certain ingredients and mix them certain ways.
In reality, I still have no idea what I'm talking about, but it was an interesting read. It reads like a textbook and is chuck full of information you probably haven't thought about before (Why does meat brown? How do you know when something is fully cooked? What makes a food/sauce thick?). If you like science you'd like this book. If you like cooking you'd love this book. If you like science and cooking, well then more power to you. If you don't like either, I pity the fool!
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Horray For Books!
It took me some 25 years, but I can now say that I enjoy leisure reading. I guess that's what happens when you haven't owned a gaming system in your residence for over 6 years and then don't get cable for a while. On a side note, we realized recently that we pay $8/mo for the most basic cable package (I don't even call it cable because it only gives us the network stations) and only watch 2 shows every week- The Office and ER. Considering that The Office is 30 mins. long and ER 1 hour, that means we pay approximately 67 cents for every episode of The Office and $1.33 for every episode of ER. Money well spent!
Anyway, since I've been reading, I figured it was time to do a quick review of the books I've read since April. I'll list them in the order I read them, with the most recent being last. This will be a series of posts to section the reviews more.
Anyway, since I've been reading, I figured it was time to do a quick review of the books I've read since April. I'll list them in the order I read them, with the most recent being last. This will be a series of posts to section the reviews more.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Fist
Those of you who know me well know that I have a somewhat unhealthy infatuation with sports which, if left unbridled, would probably take over my life. (Little known fact- My two pipe-dream professions while in high school were an airplane pilot and a sports announcer...I even did the on-air tv morning announcements and some local cable shows for my high school). However, Lisa keeps a good watch on me and I'm pretty well motivated to do well in school, so I don't spend nearly as much time on sports as I used to.
My favorite league to watch and follow has always been ice hockey. I know...you're thinking to yourself "I thought they only still played that in Canada and Soviet-bloc countries anymore." Well guess again...it's still around, although the least popular of the big 4 (football, basketball, baseball, hockey), but picking up steam.
So I was checking the game recap recently for when the Philadelphia Flyers played the Washington (DC) Capitols, and this was the picture they had posted on the Flyers homepage:
Now what can we gain from this picture? Hmm...maybe that parents and kids alike have bright beaming smiles on their faces like they're watching Copperfield perform magic as they observe Mike Richards (Flyers - orange) make a little school girl out of some Washington player. My favorite is the kid in the upper-right corner who looks barely 10 with the HUGEST open mouth smile. My mom just walked by, saw the picture, and commented something to the effect of how barbaric and horrible it is. Ladies and Gentlemen, consider this your introduction to one of the most interesting and ongoing debates in all of sports...the need (or lack thereof) for fighting in hockey.
What are we, Neanderthals?! It's just a street fight on ice! Somebody think about the children! What kind of role models are these thugs?! How can bare knuckle brawls possibly enhance a skill sport? Well my friends, you may be surprised to know that I am a long-standing and avid supporter of fighting in hockey. I could write for entirely too long all about why hockey fights get a bad wrap from the ignorant, but I'll suffice to list just a few reasons why hockey brawls actually give more to the game than they take away.
First of all, critics claim that if the NHL (National Hockey League) is ever going to become more mainstream, they have to get rid of fighting because it's just not something that people and families want to see. Hmm...again I refer you to the picture at the beginning of the post. Furthermore, I give you one of the greatest overall fights of all time. This was a few years ago between Philadelphia and Ottawa. A (still record) 410 penalty minutes were handed out, and there were barely enough players left on each team to finish the game (you need 5 on each side and I think the Flyers had 7 and Ottawa 8 when all was said and done). Listen to the crowd in the background and you tell me how many people were mortified at the atrocity happening on the ice.
Uh huh. Didn't hear too many people in that sold out arena of about 19,000 complaining about what they were seeing. (FYI, this all took place on consecutive face-offs and took probably no more than 15 seconds off of the game clock. Although over 400 penalty minutes were assessed for the game, no real punishments of any consequence were handed out...everyone was back for the next game)
Ok, now this is an extreme example. Most fights are only a minute long and only between two players. Anyway, my point is that people seem to like it. I mean really like it. I think from a popularity standpoint more hardcore fans would be put off by a loss in fighting than new fans would be attracted. The real problems with popularity, in my opinion, are that the NHL has done a horrible job with marketing and that the game simply doesn't lend itself to TV well (it's just plain hard for someone who doesn't know what's happening to follow along!).
Secondly, it's not the so-called bloodbath that many would have you believe. The players are in a controlled atmosphere with the referees closely watching (yup...they just watch). I'm not going to get into it, but there are plenty of written as well as unwritten rules governing hockey fights. By and large the players walk (skate) away with minor cuts and bumps with most of the damage done to ego.
Finally, I buy into the theory that allowing fights prevents more serious injuries. Look at it this way- hockey is a very fast sport. I trust most of you have gone ice skating before, and realize that you start going pretty fast pretty quickly once you get those legs pumping. Many of you have probably accidentally ran into someone else while skating- yea ouch. Now imagine that you're trained to skate exceptionally fast and someone else as equally trained doesn't like you and decides to "accidentally" clip your knee or your FACE while skating by each other. Or how would you like to have a half-pound brick of solid rubber hit you in the head or back going about 95 mph?
It would be hard to prove that any of these actions were done purposefully, but yet many of them could end your career. Fights allow an effective outlet for aggression before frustration and anger lead to cheap shots. In essence, fights actually protect the players from incidents like this:(FYI- in an odd coincidence, the player you just watched get whacked across the side of the head is the same player that started the whole Philadelphia-Ottawa scrum you watched earlier. His name is Donald Brashear...an "enforcer". Word to the wise...don't mess with a team's enforcer.)
On a relatively side note, if you understand the dynamic of the game, you understand that winning a fight many times shifts momentum and can lead to winning games. Teams put a lot of money into having players who can intimidate and win fights if needed.
Anyway, this is getting absurdly long, so there's the debate - consider yourself informed.
My favorite league to watch and follow has always been ice hockey. I know...you're thinking to yourself "I thought they only still played that in Canada and Soviet-bloc countries anymore." Well guess again...it's still around, although the least popular of the big 4 (football, basketball, baseball, hockey), but picking up steam.
So I was checking the game recap recently for when the Philadelphia Flyers played the Washington (DC) Capitols, and this was the picture they had posted on the Flyers homepage:
Now what can we gain from this picture? Hmm...maybe that parents and kids alike have bright beaming smiles on their faces like they're watching Copperfield perform magic as they observe Mike Richards (Flyers - orange) make a little school girl out of some Washington player. My favorite is the kid in the upper-right corner who looks barely 10 with the HUGEST open mouth smile. My mom just walked by, saw the picture, and commented something to the effect of how barbaric and horrible it is. Ladies and Gentlemen, consider this your introduction to one of the most interesting and ongoing debates in all of sports...the need (or lack thereof) for fighting in hockey.What are we, Neanderthals?! It's just a street fight on ice! Somebody think about the children! What kind of role models are these thugs?! How can bare knuckle brawls possibly enhance a skill sport? Well my friends, you may be surprised to know that I am a long-standing and avid supporter of fighting in hockey. I could write for entirely too long all about why hockey fights get a bad wrap from the ignorant, but I'll suffice to list just a few reasons why hockey brawls actually give more to the game than they take away.
First of all, critics claim that if the NHL (National Hockey League) is ever going to become more mainstream, they have to get rid of fighting because it's just not something that people and families want to see. Hmm...again I refer you to the picture at the beginning of the post. Furthermore, I give you one of the greatest overall fights of all time. This was a few years ago between Philadelphia and Ottawa. A (still record) 410 penalty minutes were handed out, and there were barely enough players left on each team to finish the game (you need 5 on each side and I think the Flyers had 7 and Ottawa 8 when all was said and done). Listen to the crowd in the background and you tell me how many people were mortified at the atrocity happening on the ice.
Uh huh. Didn't hear too many people in that sold out arena of about 19,000 complaining about what they were seeing. (FYI, this all took place on consecutive face-offs and took probably no more than 15 seconds off of the game clock. Although over 400 penalty minutes were assessed for the game, no real punishments of any consequence were handed out...everyone was back for the next game)
Ok, now this is an extreme example. Most fights are only a minute long and only between two players. Anyway, my point is that people seem to like it. I mean really like it. I think from a popularity standpoint more hardcore fans would be put off by a loss in fighting than new fans would be attracted. The real problems with popularity, in my opinion, are that the NHL has done a horrible job with marketing and that the game simply doesn't lend itself to TV well (it's just plain hard for someone who doesn't know what's happening to follow along!).
Secondly, it's not the so-called bloodbath that many would have you believe. The players are in a controlled atmosphere with the referees closely watching (yup...they just watch). I'm not going to get into it, but there are plenty of written as well as unwritten rules governing hockey fights. By and large the players walk (skate) away with minor cuts and bumps with most of the damage done to ego.
Finally, I buy into the theory that allowing fights prevents more serious injuries. Look at it this way- hockey is a very fast sport. I trust most of you have gone ice skating before, and realize that you start going pretty fast pretty quickly once you get those legs pumping. Many of you have probably accidentally ran into someone else while skating- yea ouch. Now imagine that you're trained to skate exceptionally fast and someone else as equally trained doesn't like you and decides to "accidentally" clip your knee or your FACE while skating by each other. Or how would you like to have a half-pound brick of solid rubber hit you in the head or back going about 95 mph?
It would be hard to prove that any of these actions were done purposefully, but yet many of them could end your career. Fights allow an effective outlet for aggression before frustration and anger lead to cheap shots. In essence, fights actually protect the players from incidents like this:(FYI- in an odd coincidence, the player you just watched get whacked across the side of the head is the same player that started the whole Philadelphia-Ottawa scrum you watched earlier. His name is Donald Brashear...an "enforcer". Word to the wise...don't mess with a team's enforcer.)
On a relatively side note, if you understand the dynamic of the game, you understand that winning a fight many times shifts momentum and can lead to winning games. Teams put a lot of money into having players who can intimidate and win fights if needed.
Anyway, this is getting absurdly long, so there's the debate - consider yourself informed.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Source of Emotions
First of all, since Lisa is going to be posting something everyday this month in our family blog, I'll probably stick mostly to this one so as to not overload the other one.
I was walking down the stairwell of the Wilmot Building (which is where I spend most my time on campus...it is the epicenter for the Institute of Optics) and thought to myself "Hmm it feels like Christmas." Yup- I'm fully aware that it is November 2nd and I was all hyped up on Halloween all of two days ago. I'm also aware that we have such milestones as Election Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, The First Day of Advent, Hanukkah, and my personal favorites Diwali and Eid al-Adha to hit before Christmas.
So what it is that makes us "feel" like it's a certain season? Ever since we've been here in Rochester, I feel flooded with old feelings that I used to get every year that I didn't get while in Utah. Is it the trees? The humidity? Maybe it's the overall colors or something less obvious like the altitude. Is it the weather patterns or maybe how people act? Could it be the building materials and how they look or smell at different times of the year?
Whatever the cause, I find our unconscious emotional reactions to seemingly unidentified catalysts amazing. All I was doing was walking down the stairs to heat up my frozen chimichanga lunch for the billionth day in a row after completing a somewhat difficult mathematical derivation (not exactly bringing in the holiday cheer!) and BAM, I'm ready for Christmas. Maybe it's the faint smell that emanates from the heating ducts mixed with the smell of hot beverages.
I felt the same way about the start of school and Halloween. For some reason the feelings conjured up while in my youth are stronger when I'm in an area that more closely resembles home. I really enjoy it and almost every day have had some sort of thought revolving around how much I've missed living in the Northeast for the past 7 years. (Though I must add, to appease the non-Easterners in the crowd, that I'm not saying that we'll live in the east forever- I'm just saying I like it :) )
Maybe I should read a book on human psychology. Maybe I should just attribute it to Wal-Mart having their "Black Friday" holiday kick-off celebration today instead of the day after Thanksgiving.
I was walking down the stairwell of the Wilmot Building (which is where I spend most my time on campus...it is the epicenter for the Institute of Optics) and thought to myself "Hmm it feels like Christmas." Yup- I'm fully aware that it is November 2nd and I was all hyped up on Halloween all of two days ago. I'm also aware that we have such milestones as Election Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, The First Day of Advent, Hanukkah, and my personal favorites Diwali and Eid al-Adha to hit before Christmas.
So what it is that makes us "feel" like it's a certain season? Ever since we've been here in Rochester, I feel flooded with old feelings that I used to get every year that I didn't get while in Utah. Is it the trees? The humidity? Maybe it's the overall colors or something less obvious like the altitude. Is it the weather patterns or maybe how people act? Could it be the building materials and how they look or smell at different times of the year?
Whatever the cause, I find our unconscious emotional reactions to seemingly unidentified catalysts amazing. All I was doing was walking down the stairs to heat up my frozen chimichanga lunch for the billionth day in a row after completing a somewhat difficult mathematical derivation (not exactly bringing in the holiday cheer!) and BAM, I'm ready for Christmas. Maybe it's the faint smell that emanates from the heating ducts mixed with the smell of hot beverages.
I felt the same way about the start of school and Halloween. For some reason the feelings conjured up while in my youth are stronger when I'm in an area that more closely resembles home. I really enjoy it and almost every day have had some sort of thought revolving around how much I've missed living in the Northeast for the past 7 years. (Though I must add, to appease the non-Easterners in the crowd, that I'm not saying that we'll live in the east forever- I'm just saying I like it :) )
Maybe I should read a book on human psychology. Maybe I should just attribute it to Wal-Mart having their "Black Friday" holiday kick-off celebration today instead of the day after Thanksgiving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
