Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Space, Not Competition, drives Evolution
8-24-2010
There is another intriguing story this evening in Daily Tech.com. It seems some upstart PhD candidate at the University of Bristol is turning paleontology on its ear with a “renegade theory” that has the entire club in an uproar.
Sarda Sahney, after re-examining the fossil record (really? All of it? I’m impressed) with several other people, including her senior advisor, is proposing that the driving force behind evolution is available space, rather than competition. Ever since Darwin, scientists have assumed that competition among species is what pushed the changes in species. But Ms. Sahney believes otherwise.
Here comes our second relevant quote of the day!
Ms. Sahney and her group's principle investigator, Professor Mike Benton, examined the fossil record and came to the conclusion that organisms made the biggest leaps when they were exposed to an uncolonized space -- somewhere devoid of competition.
Without going into any detail as to how this process might work, (because, I’m guessing, they have no idea) she sees the increase in time and safety presented by areas empty of other species, as the prime mechanism for large and faster evolutionary jumps. Of course lots of other paleontologists and evolutionary biologists don’t agree. It is risky and unpopular to take any path contrary to Darwin. Professional suicide in fact. (Watch “Expelled” by Ben Stein.)
So now we have the big debate, which will no doubt rage for years. Space or competition. Which in return, I suppose, comes down to pressure, or lack of pressure.
But I’m going to propose a third alternative. I have developed a brave and radical new theory. And why not? I have just as much chance of being right as they do. They may be basing their ideas on one—one-one hundred thousandth of the available fossil record, but I’m basing mine on practical logic. Which is a special and rarified branch of logic having to do with things like balanced meals, rights-of-way, common sense, and UFOlogy.
Here goes. Changes in species occur from neither competition nor empty areas devoid of other species. alterations occur as the result of annual design changes similar to clothing or automobiles. Yearly demographic studies are made which followed trends in popularity, practicality, and cultural considerations. Committees will meet and brain-storm the next models, approve the best ideas, and send them on to marketing. Marketing will look at yearly sales reports, geological and long-term climate trends, and approve or disapprove the new batch of prototypes. Final designs would be sent to tooling and manufacturing, where the new models would be put together, built, made, created, brought to life, recorded, and given stamps of approval from various and sundry government agencies.
From there the new models would be crated and shipped to their chosen locations, released, monitored for quality assurance, and forgotten. A huge wrap party is held, and then the whole process starts over again.
As a side note, the delivery vehicles used, look like massive versions of Douglas DC-8’s. They arrive here after a journey of dozens of light years from an auxiliary industrial complex in the Galactic Confederacy. The CEO of the Earth Fauna and Flora Manufacturing Corporation, or EFFMC, is the former tyrant-ruler Xenu. During his tenure as CEO design considerations were bases primarily on Thetan aesthetics.
Hey, it could happen.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Acidic Oceans
8-24-2010
Well, they’re at it again. Some fool-hardy scientists, more full of themselves than a bloated mosquito, have released findings from yet another research project involving Computer Models. This time we are being warned that the oceans are becoming more acidic and IT’S OUR FAULT!
Here’s the relevant quote:
According to this research, a decrease in pH means an increase in acidity. In 1750, the global mean ocean surface pH was at 8.2, and now it is at 8.1. If carbon dioxide emissions are not cut, the researchers' simulations predict that the pH could decrease to as low as 7.7 by 2100. On the other hand, if carbon dioxide emissions are controlled, the simulations predict that the pH won't fall below 8.0 by 2100. Research indicates that there will be an emissions peak in 2016, then it will decrease by five percent each year after.
Fascinating. No, really. Translated, it means “we know next to nothing about ocean acidity and it’s phases, but this model makes it sound as if we do.” I wonder how many factors they were able to program into their model. 10? 50? 100? And I wonder how they chose these factors? By committee? The head of the project? An RPG die? These are important questions because we know on the face of it that the vast majority of factors involved in a process as complex and lengthy as this one, remain undetected, unthought-of, and unknown.
Let’s be nice and give them 100 factors. This is a lot for a computer model, but they’re getting better at it all the time. Now let’s estimate (a technical term meaning “speculate”) that there are actually 10,000 +or -. I’m guessing it is more likely to be greater by a factor of ten, but that’s just me being cynical. How accurate a picture are we likely to get with a ratio like that?
Here’s a handy analogy. One hundred reasons (evidences) to commit murder are probably sufficient for a conviction, and are all the police would bother discovering. But for a forensic psychologist, or sociologist, enough digging, research, experimenting and hypotheses would likely reveal a lifetime of complex interconnections and decision-paths leading up to the murder, which would offer a completely new and different story. Much more thorough, and useful, from a predictor standpoint, as well as medical, in terms of treatment and prognosis. But she probably still did it.
Once again, I have no complaint with modeling complex systems on cool Macs, with those sleek design features. They are a useful tool, a powerful weapon in the arsenal of science. But they are not reality. Not the real thing. And they do not inform to the extent that they should be substituted for reality, especially by really smart people who should know better.
The modeling is fine. It should be combined with lots of other things in order to make educated guesses on the way to that elusive goal of “actually knowing.” And it’s okay to come and say, “hey, this is what we’re studying, and this is why, and this is what we think might be happening, but it could be this as well.” Instead, the preferred method these days is to release the findings prematurely, and in isolation, to some faction of the press, in this case usually an online geek-parade like Daily Tech. (I love Daily Tech.) One wonders what the actual motive is for such behavior. It is hardly professional. Has little to do with the scientific method. Is often politically-motivated. Absolutely inappropriate. And smacks of a new kind of über-geek narcissism.
And as long as they keep having the bad taste of doing it this way, I’m going to keep calling them on it. (Until I’m proven completely wrong by a precocious ten-year old.)
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Acidic Oceans
8-24-2010
Well, they’re at it again. Some fool-hardy scientists, more full of themselves than a bloated mosquito, have released findings from yet another research project involving Computer Models. This time we are being warned that the oceans are becoming more acidic and IT’S OUR FAULT!
Here’s the relevant quote:
According to this research, a decrease in pH means an increase in acidity. In 1750, the global mean ocean surface pH was at 8.2, and now it is at 8.1. If carbon dioxide emissions are not cut, the researchers' simulations predict that the pH could decrease to as low as 7.7 by 2100. On the other hand, if carbon dioxide emissions are controlled, the simulations predict that the pH won't fall below 8.0 by 2100. Research indicates that there will be an emissions peak in 2016, then it will decrease by five percent each year after.
Fascinating. No, really. Translated, it means “we know next to nothing about ocean acidity and it’s phases, but this model makes it sound as if we do.” I wonder how many factors they were able to program into their model. 10? 50? 100? And I wonder how they chose these factors? By committee? The head of the project? An RPG die? These are important questions because we know on the face of it that the vast majority of factors involved in a process as complex and lengthy as this one, remain undetected, unthought-of, and unknown.
Let’s be nice and give them 100 factors. This is a lot for a computer model, but they’re getting better at it all the time. Now let’s estimate (a technical term meaning “speculate”) that there are actually 10,000 +or -. I’m guessing it is more likely to be greater by a factor of ten, but that’s just me being cynical. How accurate a picture are we likely to get with a ratio like that?
Here’s a handy analogy. One hundred reasons (evidences) to commit murder are probably sufficient for a conviction, and are all the police would bother discovering. But for a forensic psychologist, or sociologist, enough digging, research, experimenting and hypotheses would likely reveal a lifetime of complex interconnections and decision-paths leading up to the murder, which would offer a completely new and different story. Much more thorough, and useful, from a predictor standpoint, as well as medical, in terms of treatment and prognosis. But she probably still did it.
Once again, I have no complaint with modeling complex systems on cool Macs, with those sleek design features. They are a useful tool, a powerful weapon in the arsenal of science. But they are not reality. Not the real thing. And they do not inform to the extent that they should be substituted for reality, especially by really smart people who should know better.
The modeling is fine. It should be combined with lots of other things in order to make educated guesses on the way to that elusive goal of “actually knowing.” And it’s okay to come and say, “hey, this is what we’re studying, and this is why, and this is what we think might be happening, but it could be this as well.” Instead, the preferred method these days is to release the findings prematurely, and in isolation, to some faction of the press, in this case usually an online geek-parade like Daily Tech. (I love Daily Tech.) One wonders what the actual motive is for such behavior. It is hardly professional. Has little to do with the scientific method. Is often politically-motivated. Absolutely inappropriate. And smacks of a new kind of über-geek narcissism.
And as long as they keep having the bad taste of doing it this way, I’m going to keep calling them on it. (Until I’m proven completely wrong by a precocious ten-year old.)
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Ground Zero Muslim Center
8-16-2010
President Obama has had a few things to say about this proposed (and when we say “proposed,” we mean “foregone conclusion) Islamic Studies Center near Ground Zero, in New York. Here is a good sampling:
"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said in remarks at a White House dinner celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. "That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."
See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/president-obama-backs-muslim-center-near-ground-zero/19593495/?icid=sphere_copyright
I have to agree with him this time. He is absolutely right. This is America, and we have a sacred trust, and obligation, to hold the 1st Amendment sacrosanct. We cannot equivocate on this.
The Republicans are blasting the President on his statements, but the criticism rings hollow to my ears—after all, it’s an election year.
They are yelling at the wrong person. Obama, were he an actual American, and real President, would have found himself caught between the rock and the hard place on this issue. As president, he would rightfully have had to take just the stand that he has, and suffered the unpopularity and polling hits, content to be on the right side of the issue. As an American, he might have been conflicted, upset, even disgusted at the dilemma. But he is not—as far as I am concerned—a “real” American, nor a “real” President. (well, I might have to rethink that last one—he does live in the White House).
Because of who he is, (rather than who he portrays himself to be), I don’t think he had one second’s problem taking this stand, and making these statements. In fact, there are a lot of people, Obama apparently included, who believe Islam should have additional rights over those guaranteed by the Constitution. Rights no one else seems to have.
The President has shown no real evidence that he is a religious man. Which is fine. (And please don’t mention Rev. Wright’s “church.” That place is to religion what pornography is to sex.) But if he is religious, we can be confident that he is Muslim. (Which is fine as well, but I wish he’d be upfront about it). And he is still the wrong one to be yelling at. The conservative pundits have it wrong. (Or maybe they’re being cagey. Maybe they’re yelling at him because they think he’s being duplicitous and using his high office to further the cause of Islam. None of which is relevant to my thesis.)
No, the people the Republican’s should be yelling at are the Muslim’s who made the proposal. They have the right to worship when, where, and how they please. But the proposal itself is beyond the pale of bad taste. It is the single most insensitive thing I have ever heard of, with the possible exception of the Holocaust. They should not have asked. Having asked, New York had the right to deny it. They didn’t. They fast-tracked it—despite the fact that the same committee has been keeping a Greek Orthodox Church waiting 9 years for permission to effect repairs to damage caused by the 9-11 collisions.
They aren’t yelling at the Muslims who want to build at ground zero because they are afraid. They are afraid because a lot of Muslim’s (not all, by any stretch) are insane as measured by western standards. Of course, now that all values, standards, cultures, and civilizations are equal, there’s nothing anyone can do on that front.
They are afraid that extremist jihadists will come and kill them, and their families, and then kill a few thousand innocents just because. Remember—it is better to be dead than an infidel. No one wants a Muslim mad at them. So they are yelling at the President. It’s kind of like how we yell at Iran because we know North Korea is listening.
The fact that the proposal hasn’t been withdrawn is provocative. Just as the proposal itself was provocative. I do not for a moment think it was made innocently, out of a desire for peace and reconciliation. If that were the case, the Ground Zero Muslim Center would have been taken off the table long before now.
So what should we do? Nothing. As Americans, they have the same rights you and I do. But remember, this thing will be a blight to most Americans. An insult too extreme to be ignored, or suffered. And once finished, and open, security will cost millions. Not just internally, but think about all the money NYC will have to pay out every year protecting the place from people less genteel and sophisticated than you and I.
I hope America gives the place a chance to prove it’s sincerity as a place of peace, hope, and brotherhood. And I hope they do prove it. Really.
But I’m not holding my breath.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Ground Zero Muslim Center
8-16-2010
President Obama has had a few things to say about this proposed (and when we say “proposed,” we mean “foregone conclusion) Islamic Studies Center near Ground Zero, in New York. Here is a good sampling:
"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said in remarks at a White House dinner celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. "That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."
See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/president-obama-backs-muslim-center-near-ground-zero/19593495/?icid=sphere_copyright
I have to agree with him this time. He is absolutely right. This is America, and we have a sacred trust, and obligation, to hold the 1st Amendment sacrosanct. We cannot equivocate on this.
The Republicans are blasting the President on his statements, but the criticism rings hollow to my ears—after all, it’s an election year.
They are yelling at the wrong person. Obama, were he an actual American, and real President, would have found himself caught between the rock and the hard place on this issue. As president, he would rightfully have had to take just the stand that he has, and suffered the unpopularity and polling hits, content to be on the right side of the issue. As an American, he might have been conflicted, upset, even disgusted at the dilemma. But he is not—as far as I am concerned—a “real” American, nor a “real” President. (well, I might have to rethink that last one—he does live in the White House).
Because of who he is, (rather than who he portrays himself to be), I don’t think he had one second’s problem taking this stand, and making these statements. In fact, there are a lot of people, Obama apparently included, who believe Islam should have additional rights over those guaranteed by the Constitution. Rights no one else seems to have.
The President has shown no real evidence that he is a religious man. Which is fine. (And please don’t mention Rev. Wright’s “church.” That place is to religion what pornography is to sex.) But if he is religious, we can be confident that he is Muslim. (Which is fine as well, but I wish he’d be upfront about it). And he is still the wrong one to be yelling at. The conservative pundits have it wrong. (Or maybe they’re being cagey. Maybe they’re yelling at him because they think he’s being duplicitous and using his high office to further the cause of Islam. None of which is relevant to my thesis.)
No, the people the Republican’s should be yelling at are the Muslim’s who made the proposal. They have the right to worship when, where, and how they please. But the proposal itself is beyond the pale of bad taste. It is the single most insensitive thing I have ever heard of, with the possible exception of the Holocaust. They should not have asked. Having asked, New York had the right to deny it. They didn’t. They fast-tracked it—despite the fact that the same committee has been keeping a Greek Orthodox Church waiting 9 years for permission to effect repairs to damage caused by the 9-11 collisions.
They aren’t yelling at the Muslims who want to build at ground zero because they are afraid. They are afraid because a lot of Muslim’s (not all, by any stretch) are insane as measured by western standards. Of course, now that all values, standards, cultures, and civilizations are equal, there’s nothing anyone can do on that front.
They are afraid that extremist jihadists will come and kill them, and their families, and then kill a few thousand innocents just because. Remember—it is better to be dead than an infidel. No one wants a Muslim mad at them. So they are yelling at the President. It’s kind of like how we yell at Iran because we know North Korea is listening.
The fact that the proposal hasn’t been withdrawn is provocative. Just as the proposal itself was provocative. I do not for a moment think it was made innocently, out of a desire for peace and reconciliation. If that were the case, the Ground Zero Muslim Center would have been taken off the table long before now.
So what should we do? Nothing. As Americans, they have the same rights you and I do. But remember, this thing will be a blight to most Americans. An insult too extreme to be ignored, or suffered. And once finished, and open, security will cost millions. Not just internally, but think about all the money NYC will have to pay out every year protecting the place from people less genteel and sophisticated than you and I.
I hope America gives the place a chance to prove it’s sincerity as a place of peace, hope, and brotherhood. And I hope they do prove it. Really.
But I’m not holding my breath.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: A New Sensibility
8-6-2010
We drove over to a big, brand new Good Will store today (yes, we shop at thrift stores) and we saw two reserved parking spaces we had never seen before. They were not for handicapped cars, (I think it’s irresponsible to let handicapped cars on the road anyway) instead, they were for environmentally aware cars-slash-people. The ink was green, and it said:
Preferred Parking
Parking for Environmentally Friendly and/or fuel efficient vehicles only.
Took me completely by surprise. But it did elicit one or two questions. Like . . . who decides which vehicles are friendly to the environment? What is the minimum allowable level of friendliness? And what is the criteria (if any) for fuel-efficiency in this particular parking lot?
I did not see an attendant standing by to offer helpful consultation as to who might qualify for these coveted spots, so close to the entrance to a thrift store. I did not see a list of acceptable makes and models, which would have been helpful. Nor did I see a comprehensive list of attributes and characteristics which would render a given person acceptable.
We were driving a 2007 Dodge Grand Caravan. It has a six cylinder engine and gets around 20 MPG. I doubt that would qualify. But we had 6 people in it, which brings passenger MPG up to 120. Do you suppose that would qualify?
I didn’t really want to park in one of the spaces anyway, because I can’t think of anything more pretentious and disingenuous than setting aside parking places for such meaningless, unquantifiable reasons. I mean, think about it—there is no discernable criteria involved in the message. As close as anyone could get is something like; “If you think of yourself as an environmentalist, or if you drive a hybrid, or electric car, or gas or diesel engine that gets pretty good mileage, or if you really like trees and clean air, or if you believe in Gaia, or are maybe pagan—but only the good kind—or you think the stock holders of BP should be taken out and shot, or you liked “Free Willy”, or “Ferngully”, or are really sad about Katrina, or think Obama and Biden are doing enough for the planet, or you believe in only wearing natural fibers, or are a vegan, or . . . well, you get the picture. All of the above please feel free to petition for an environmental parking space. (Hey, shouldn’t such a space be grass, rather than paved? And if it is grass, should anyone really be driving on it?)
Here’s what bothers me about this. Someone had to have had the idea to do this, and their internal censor must have actually let it pass. Not only that, they had to have talked to someone else about it, and everyone had to have agreed it was a good idea—not in the sense that there was any kind of reasoning for it—because clearly, as written, there was not—but because it would make everyone involved in creating the policy “feel good” about themselves, as well as whoever decided to park in a space. It’s all about feeling good these days. Remember when it was about being good, or doing good? Now . . . all we gotta do is feel good, and we’re part of the in crowd.
I saw this happen in the public schools too. For years the growing focus was on kids feeling good, until finally, every minute of instruction time was geared towards the students “feeling good” about themselves, until there was no academic rigor left, no scholarship, no sense of achievement—no need in a world where feeling good about oneself is the ultimate goal.
And now we can do it while we park our cars. Feel special. Feel exclusive. As long as we are kowtowing to the PC world of the newest sensation, the latest craze . . . the self-esteem addict.
It’s a brave new world boys and girls.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: A New Sensibility
8-6-2010
We drove over to a big, brand new Good Will store today (yes, we shop at thrift stores) and we saw two reserved parking spaces we had never seen before. They were not for handicapped cars, (I think it’s irresponsible to let handicapped cars on the road anyway) instead, they were for environmentally aware cars-slash-people. The ink was green, and it said:
Preferred Parking
Parking for Environmentally Friendly and/or fuel efficient vehicles only.
Took me completely by surprise. But it did elicit one or two questions. Like . . . who decides which vehicles are friendly to the environment? What is the minimum allowable level of friendliness? And what is the criteria (if any) for fuel-efficiency in this particular parking lot?
I did not see an attendant standing by to offer helpful consultation as to who might qualify for these coveted spots, so close to the entrance to a thrift store. I did not see a list of acceptable makes and models, which would have been helpful. Nor did I see a comprehensive list of attributes and characteristics which would render a given person acceptable.
We were driving a 2007 Dodge Grand Caravan. It has a six cylinder engine and gets around 20 MPG. I doubt that would qualify. But we had 6 people in it, which brings passenger MPG up to 120. Do you suppose that would qualify?
I didn’t really want to park in one of the spaces anyway, because I can’t think of anything more pretentious and disingenuous than setting aside parking places for such meaningless, unquantifiable reasons. I mean, think about it—there is no discernable criteria involved in the message. As close as anyone could get is something like; “If you think of yourself as an environmentalist, or if you drive a hybrid, or electric car, or gas or diesel engine that gets pretty good mileage, or if you really like trees and clean air, or if you believe in Gaia, or are maybe pagan—but only the good kind—or you think the stock holders of BP should be taken out and shot, or you liked “Free Willy”, or “Ferngully”, or are really sad about Katrina, or think Obama and Biden are doing enough for the planet, or you believe in only wearing natural fibers, or are a vegan, or . . . well, you get the picture. All of the above please feel free to petition for an environmental parking space. (Hey, shouldn’t such a space be grass, rather than paved? And if it is grass, should anyone really be driving on it?)
Here’s what bothers me about this. Someone had to have had the idea to do this, and their internal censor must have actually let it pass. Not only that, they had to have talked to someone else about it, and everyone had to have agreed it was a good idea—not in the sense that there was any kind of reasoning for it—because clearly, as written, there was not—but because it would make everyone involved in creating the policy “feel good” about themselves, as well as whoever decided to park in a space. It’s all about feeling good these days. Remember when it was about being good, or doing good? Now . . . all we gotta do is feel good, and we’re part of the in crowd.
I saw this happen in the public schools too. For years the growing focus was on kids feeling good, until finally, every minute of instruction time was geared towards the students “feeling good” about themselves, until there was no academic rigor left, no scholarship, no sense of achievement—no need in a world where feeling good about oneself is the ultimate goal.
And now we can do it while we park our cars. Feel special. Feel exclusive. As long as we are kowtowing to the PC world of the newest sensation, the latest craze . . . the self-esteem addict.
It’s a brave new world boys and girls.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
IGM Settling IN
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Settling In
8-3-2010
Nita and I took a walk today. I may have mentioned to some of you that Aubrey (and now we) lives a ten-minute walk from the Palmyra Temple. I estimated that from looking at Google Earth, but I missed by a little. We walked to the Temple this morning and it took 25 minutes . . . but it was a pretty country road with so much green it hurt the eyes, and wonderfully old and quaint homes lining the lane—which is actually a state highway, but you can’t tell to walk along it.
The Temple is beautiful. Small, compared to many others, but set on a grassy hill, with the usual immaculate grounds full of dazzling flowers. A Nita paradise.
And since the Joseph Smith farm was a few hundred feet away, which meant the Sacred Grove was right around the corner as well, we walked over there and into the forest to meander the paths and see if we could feel some residual spirit still lingering from the Visitation. Maybe. How would I know?
We walked around the grove for an hour, and at some point the spirit backed-off in order to let sweaty exhaustion take center stage. By the time we found our way out, I was so tired I called Aubrey and asked her to come rescue us—which she did. Good girl, Aub.
I have been chastised for not mentioning how beautiful it is here—and it is, truly. But I am not recovered yet from my marathon trip, nor am I acclimated to the elevation, humidity, and flora-induced claustrophobia, so my appreciation is lackluster at best. Maybe it will improve this fall. I’m not optimistic though—everyone knows I have a huge, raging bias against all things eastern.
We’re supposed to be here though. I have no doubt of that. Now I just have to figure out why.
Our cottage is wonderful. Aubrey and Greg took it down to the floorboards and studs and fixed, upgraded, or replaced everything. Way too much work and money spent, but we love it. Small, but cozy. And we live ten feet from them, connected by an enclosed “breezeway,” and their house is big and old—1870 I’m told. The light in their house is buttery, and their kitchen-dining area is the kind one envisions for the Celestial Kingdom; all about family and love and modern conveniences. And they have a new dog—Meggie—a Australian Shepherd, and she is wondrously alive and happy. Newell, you would love her.
So I guess we’re really here. I know we’re supposed to be, but I wish I knew why.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Settling In
8-3-2010
Nita and I took a walk today. I may have mentioned to some of you that Aubrey (and now we) lives a ten-minute walk from the Palmyra Temple. I estimated that from looking at Google Earth, but I missed by a little. We walked to the Temple this morning and it took 25 minutes . . . but it was a pretty country road with so much green it hurt the eyes, and wonderfully old and quaint homes lining the lane—which is actually a state highway, but you can’t tell to walk along it.
The Temple is beautiful. Small, compared to many others, but set on a grassy hill, with the usual immaculate grounds full of dazzling flowers. A Nita paradise.
And since the Joseph Smith farm was a few hundred feet away, which meant the Sacred Grove was right around the corner as well, we walked over there and into the forest to meander the paths and see if we could feel some residual spirit still lingering from the Visitation. Maybe. How would I know?
We walked around the grove for an hour, and at some point the spirit backed-off in order to let sweaty exhaustion take center stage. By the time we found our way out, I was so tired I called Aubrey and asked her to come rescue us—which she did. Good girl, Aub.
I have been chastised for not mentioning how beautiful it is here—and it is, truly. But I am not recovered yet from my marathon trip, nor am I acclimated to the elevation, humidity, and flora-induced claustrophobia, so my appreciation is lackluster at best. Maybe it will improve this fall. I’m not optimistic though—everyone knows I have a huge, raging bias against all things eastern.
We’re supposed to be here though. I have no doubt of that. Now I just have to figure out why.
Our cottage is wonderful. Aubrey and Greg took it down to the floorboards and studs and fixed, upgraded, or replaced everything. Way too much work and money spent, but we love it. Small, but cozy. And we live ten feet from them, connected by an enclosed “breezeway,” and their house is big and old—1870 I’m told. The light in their house is buttery, and their kitchen-dining area is the kind one envisions for the Celestial Kingdom; all about family and love and modern conveniences. And they have a new dog—Meggie—a Australian Shepherd, and she is wondrously alive and happy. Newell, you would love her.
So I guess we’re really here. I know we’re supposed to be, but I wish I knew why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)