Why I am a Latter-day Saint

[_Themis]

This is really the heart of the issue. You have agreed with what I say is the simplest explanation, but you choose to believe what you want even against a lot of evidence saying it is wrong.

I'm not sure that the simplest explanation being God doesn't exist equates to "a lot of evidence saying" God doesn't exist.

My statement was never meant to suggest that was the only evidence. I was referring to all the evidence that shows Joesph was making up his religion that we find ourselves members of.

My argument is quite a bit more than, "it makes you feel better." It satisfies my conscience. Nobody's conscience requires her/him to believe in God. But I think that if a person with a conscience doesn't believe in God then s/he is obligated by her/his conscience to take on the whole burden of preserving some good things into the eternities. Are you ready for that burden, Themis? Because somebody's got to do it.

This is just another confirmation of how little substance you have for your beliefs. It still comes down to believing what you want because you don't like the idea that God may not exist. You also seem to assume man is not working on what is possible to preserve about mankind. If God does not exist then your believing it anyways does nothing to help the situation you are so concerned about, and you are actually doing the opposite.

[_canpakes]

We adopted our three children when my youngest was 21 months, so I've never had the opportunity to stare into the eyes of my "newborn son or daughter," but my oldest daughter moved back in with us a year ago April with her five-month-old baby son, and I've stared into his eyes.

Very cool. And thank you for being the kind of person to open his heart and home to a child that needed a family... three times at that.

I've thought about the awesome nature of my relationship with and love for my wife...

Good. : )

I've listened to pieces of hauntingly beautiful music...

Don't stop; music could certainly be interpreted as another 'Gift from God'...

Those experiences were all extremely cool, but none of them produced anywhere near the same rushing sensation as when I asked God if the LDS Church was true back in Autumn 1976.

That's not to say that they cannot, some day.

The odd thing is that (and correct me if I'm wrong) you state that your rushing 'confirmation' came months after asking your question. Without additional context linking the environment that you were in to your question, I do not see a reason why the sensation would be connected by you to a question that you asked months prior. This would seem like you were playing out a 'self-fulfilling' prophecy of sorts.

I live in Utah, and we don't take a lot of trips to the East Coast, but if we ever happen to do take a trip to the District of Columbia I'll be sure to visit the Vietnam Memorial Wall.

I honestly believe that everyone should visit this memorial. Regardless of how one feels regarding our role in that war, the memorial itself is a powerful reminder of the fragility and temporary nature of life vis-a-vis our decisions and their repercussions. As opposed to looking at a generic sculpture of a soldier or several, it is not easy to pan across the vast field of names, of real people, real identities, without being hit by a powerful wave of emotion over their ultimate sacrifice.

If you make it out that way, you should definitely take a moment to stop for a visit.

But I digress...

Next chance I get I will eat three Cinnabons, though since I'm LDS I won't "wash it down with a double cappucino." I'll let you know if either of those two experiences result in the rushing sensation I had in 1976, but I think it's understandable that I'm a little skeptical either will.

Oh, It'll work. Maybe even twice. : )

[_canpakes]

God could program a supercomputer that would tell each person individually precisely what God wanted them to hear? I'm not convinced of that.

Actually, Im not suggesting that God can or would program a supercomputer to do this. Re-read my statement; what I'm saying is that I see absolutely no reason, when I move within the realm of your reasoning, why your version of God could not simultaneously speak to 7 billion people in even 7 billion different languages or dialects, given that the state of computing today would probably see the same feat performed by a contemporary supercomputer. In fact, if you believe that God could alternately induce the sensation that you experienced, and do it simultaneously to everyone else on the globe, then what is the difference? You and I might perceive a difference linked to the implied computing power and intellect required to speak many languages, but if all of them are God created, what would be the problem for God?

If you are going to tell me that God can only speak to one person or create a sensation for one person at one time, then we introduce a new problem. To illustrate - if you believe this, and use your own example as a typical occurrence, and the sensation lasted, say, 5 seconds... then under the 'one person at a time' rule, God can only speak to or create 6.3 million 'contacts' a year. That means that to hit every person on the globe at least once, God would require 1000 years to do the trick.

Meanwhile, this is the entity that supposedly created Adam and Eve out of dust, and a whole universe for them to wonder at. All by 'natural' means, of course.

Do you see why I state that a more direct communication is not any more improbable than a 'sensation'? And why trying to rationalize a 'sensation' as the definitive answer from God just opens you up to an even greater level of guesswork and 'self-fulfilling' reasoning (circular argument)?

I'm not convinced that God has any more omniscience than S/He has omnipotence, but I still think it's possible that what goes on in God's mind might surpass the ability of anybody to put it into a computer. The possibility exists that God may be able to communicate with all of us as fast as we need to hear from him by way of the Holy Spirit, but not by way of any other means.

Well, notwithstanding other theories this introduces the LDS concept of the Holy Spirit being God's messenger and only being able to be in one person at one time. Refer to the mathematical problem of this above... and that's even before we get to the problem of how this definition of teh Holy Spirit was derived.

Regardless, you have stated that you can interpret something as a particular communication that is not direct communication but rather is an emotional or physical feeling. Presumably your version of God could not directly create this sensation simultaneously within 7 billion people any more so than speak to that number simultaneously, so I am unsure why you lend more credibility to this 'method of answer' anyway.

Presumably my "version of God could not"? I don't think that necessarily follows.

Then please present rationalization or reasoning as to why one is attainable and the other is not, per your interpretation of both options vis-a-vis God's abilities.

This is not a line of inferences that start and end with the same assertion! As just one example of how it's not, I've never used the first statement to argue the truth of the second one. So how can you claim that I'm using circular logic? Furthermore, I've never said that you "can determine, with absolute certainty," any of those three things. They're all contingent on the existence of God, and I've admitted over and over that I don't strictly know that God exists. So why do you assert that I have asserted that you "can determine, with absolute certainty" any of those three things?

Because you state that you have. Hence your claim that your question was answered.

Do you disagree with my conclusion here about why I believe that you have stated these things? If so, why?

Are you going to answer my question about me using circular logic?

The one directly below this text? We're getting there...

Anybody who really paid attention to what I was saying would realize that what I meant was that my "question was answered" if there was in fact a God to answer it. I made it clear that the existence of God was my axiom, just like Euclid made it clear that the existence of one and only one line through a point parallel to another given line, was one of his axioms. So just as Euclid never stated that he had determined, "with absolute certainty" that the angles in any given triangle always add up to precisely 180 degrees, neither was I stating that we can determine, "with absolute certainty," that God has given us an answer to a question we ask (uness God knows of some way S/He can communicate with us that does give us that absolute certainty, which is certainly possible). Everything I have said about one knowing that one has heard an answer from God is, of course, contingent on the actual existence of God.

This is an assumption, then, correct? The existence of God?

You stated that your reasoning was exactly the same as Euclid's, and I responded as to why it is not (from earlier, The essential difference between your reasoning and Euclid's is that Euclid's proofs can be reproduced by anyone using the same set of tools, with exactly the same result).

You have never explained how my reasoning is any more circular than Euclid's. All you have ever said, in an attempt to convince me that my reasoning is circular, is that I assumed God existed at the beginning of my reasoning, and I assumed God existed at the end of my reasoning. Similarly, Euclid assumed the truth of his axioms at the beginning of his reasoning, and he also assumed the truth of his axioms at the end of his reasoning. So why should I believe that my reasoning is any more circular than Euclid's was?

Not so. Euclid did not waste effort randomly assuming the existence of any characteristic or condition that he was 'proving' in any of his proofs. His assumptions were typically axioms (self-evident), and the structure of the proof relies on known and mutually-agreed-upon definitions. Euclid observed that a thing was true or that a relationship existed, then set about to map out (the 'proof' process) a set of steps or instructions that could be replicated by anyone with exactly the same results.

You, by comparison, are assuming that God exists, and offer no verifiable or repeatable set of steps to determine either your initial assumption or your conclusion. Your initial assumption has no concrete definition. Nor is the conclusion, or any step, or any result of a step definitively repeatable or verifiable by any other person. This is not a 'proof' and the claim that both use 'assumptions' therefore makes both your arguments and Euclid's equally valid is, in and of itself, an invalid argument that cannot overcome the circular nature of your core argument.

Anyone can construct an argument that superficially resembles the structure of a Euclidian proof, but doing so does not make the argument the same as a proof, or make it valid, or keep it from being circular.

[_canpakes]

Jesus of Nazareth said that those who sin are the servants of sin, and I think that's really true, and in addition pretty universally experienced; the human condition certainly seems to include (for pretty much everybody) getting addicted to behavior that does nobody any good and that we don't really enjoy; on the contrary, it repulses us. So, "proclaiming the gospel," to the extent that it frees non-Mormons from that sinful behavior, and therefore brings more joy into their lives, is indeed providing service to those non-Mormons.

That's eloquently written. However, the 'service' here is more of a simple presentation of a free-will option. I get what you are trying to say but this is a different state of service than, say, feeding a hungry family, or performing medical services for indigent folks, or engaging in a Habitat for Humanity build, to name a few examples.

Ordinances (like baptism and the temple endowment) are an important part of the process of that liberation, so "redeeming the dead" is also service.

I do not see why either is necessarily linked to 'freeing non-Mormon from sinful behavior'.

And "perfecting the Saints" is nothing more than perfecting that liberation, so it is also service.

It is also the same service as you previously listed, so it is not an additional service. Just a more intense version of the same, perhaps. ; )

I might note the paradox in trying to 'perfect' anything as regards bringing joy to one's life. There is a curve of diminishing results that can trigger a level of stress, guilt and self-flagellation not necessarily conducive to 'joy'. Perfection is not achievable, and use of the word is unfortunate, even as it is understood that this does not mean that any member is trying to be 'perfect' (cue lots of passages from Ephesians...).

I state that the CoJCoLDS "is based entirely on mortal, earthly existence, occurrences and experiences" because, as an entity, it formed out of the actions and commitments of mortals here, while still quite fleshy and alive. The events that define the Church are thus locked into the history and actions of people within it and their interactions with other folks outside of it. Even the Book of Mormon, if taken literally, speaks to events that would have been happening within the mortal phase of any existence.

What about Section 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants?

Same issue. Taking 138 at face vale asserts that certain folks and their actions were pre-ordained; this does not imply that the earth-bound church that followed in their wake is represented in the same way or duplicates any heavenly organization.

Interestingly, 138 is written in a way that suggests that baptism for the dead is not a necessary activity of the living nor the only method of achieving acceptability within the afterlife by God (which can also be suggested by Joseph Smith's claimed vision about his brother Alvin). It's quite cleverly worded.

The LDS Church claims that God inspired (and inspires) it and its doctrines. If that is true, then what the LDS Church has taught about the afterlife matters quite a bit.

Which does not appear to be much, and almost nothing of that subject that is accepted as 'doctrine'. And what is accepted as doctrine has some serious paradoxical issues.

Obviously I believe the existing data came from revelation from God. Why do you think it is contradictory or that it can't "work out as stated"?

Ponder the example of 'families forever', but only in the upper third of the Celestial Kingdom.

Related, ponder the absurdity that you cannot be in that level, regardless of how 'perfected' you are, if you enjoy coffee, for which the initial suggestion about avoiding was not a commandment, and for which the subsequent 'upgrading' to commandment level is ambiguous, and the reasons behind it unknown, because the church leaders who followed Joseph Smith had no idea how to interpret the Word of Wisdom, and their failure to interpret why Joseph spoke of it in the first place.

Perhaps some of the data has been fudged. But when the Church promotes the idea that the men leading it always get the message right even if they are purposefully ambiguous in stating what and why - versus God, who flippantly changes his mind about core principles based upon local attitudes of non-members and their government - then what capacity exists for honest self-reflection of the 'arm of the flesh' by the men making the rules?

They may believe that they'll see their family members again, but that doesn't mean that their churches teach that they'll see those family members. There are at least some churches that think Jesus' statement about how some people who resurrect won't marry or be given in marriage, means that there will be no association with family members in the afterlife.

Just because something is not taught as a 'for certain' thing by another church about the afterlife does not imply that the church in question regards it is not possible. Similarly, you are basically admitting this about the LDS afterlife perspective when you state that not everything about it is definitively known (as what is known still needs post-death elucidation by God, and what remains unknown is infinitely more substantial). All that the LDS Church has added to the equation is a new set of limitations and exclusions that requires a membership fee to participate in the chance to enjoy a 'families forever' scenario bizarrely conditional on mortal marital status and simultaneously unable to actually encompass every family member.

[_Bazooka]

It is a simple fact that if somebody (or some group of people) doesn't take action to preserve forever some good things, then there will come a time, sometime between now and 150 billion years from now, when there is a last generation of the human race (or perhaps more accurately, that the string of races that humans evolve into will come to an end). That generation won't reproduce. Some may not mind not reproducing, but for the majority at least it's going to be a very dark day. Are you really saying that we don't owe that future generation anything?

I'm not sure that this paragraph should be prefaced with "It is a simple fact..." as it's simply pure conjecture and personal testimony bearing.
On what basis do we owe future generations anything?

Separately, I can't find where you answered my question "Do you believe you will need a series of secret handshakes and code words to get into heaven, regardless of the life you've led?"

[_KevinSim]

Themis, why do you think that anything I have said is illogical?

I can tell you are a good person, but most of what you say on this topic is illogical. That you cannot see it may be a good question to explore. You want to assume your LDS God exists based on no good evidence. You assume he would not let you be self deceived by your self generated sensations. If you assume this, you have to assume he would also do the same for everyone else in the world.

Not at all. God wants people to talk to Her/Him, to realize they can't know anything in the spiritual realm without input from Her/Him and therefore go to Her/Him for that information. If someone does go to God for that information, ready to base the whole rest of that someone's life on whatever answer God gives her/him, then God will give her/him an answer s/he can't mistake; anybody else God leaves to their own devices.

This is obviously false as people do this on a daily basis.

I find it very hard to believe that people take questions like this to God on a daily basis.

How would God go about correcting the "vast majority of the planet"? Blaring out for everybody to hear, "This is God! The Zoroastrians are right! Everybody become a Zoroastrian"? Even if God could create such an audio message for everyone to hear, which I doubt, how would the world know that that message came from the good God who controls the universe, and not from an evil or amoral impostor, who wants to deceive us into believing erroneous things about God?

You are attempting again to distract from the issue with what I call the absolutism game. The issue was not about knowing anything absolutely, which is impossible.

When did I say anything about knowing something absolutely? I'm not saying I didn't; maybe I did; I just am not aware that I ever said anything about knowing something absolutely.

The issue was about how God could communicate clearly his message to sincere inquirers. I gave you some clear ways that are so much above subjective feelings you interpret the way you want.

The implication is that it is because we can interpret subjective feelings however we want that your clear ways "are so much above" them. I say that God is completely able to use subjective means to clearly give us yes or no answers to the questions we ask Her/Him, and that's all we need to establish whether or not God endorses one particular faith.

We cannot know anything absolutely, so how is some feelings with no message better then an angels appearing and telling you in your own language what is true? At least with the angel you will have a very hard time confusing the message, regardless of whether is is a good or bad angel.

And what good will that do, knowing "the message" with perfect clarity, but not knowing whether the message came from God or not?

Easy. Someone makes up the question they want. They word it the way they want. They get to look for positive or negative feelings or events to interpret it as an answer to a questions they created and also created how to interpret a potential answer.

There's some truth to what you say here. I don't know if I told this as part of my story, but the night I got my answer in Autum 1976 was the culmination of a long series of the questions you described. Having spent a little over three years in the LDS Church's seminary program, I was inundated with the idea that the way to find out if the LDS Church was true was to read the Book of Mormon, ponder on what I'd read, and then pray and ask God if the Book of Mormon was true; having done all that, God would most certainly reveal to me whether it was or not via the Holy Spirit. So I started a cycle; I'd read the Book of Mormon, ponder, and pray about it as prescribed; each time I'd get a little bit of a good feeling as an apparent response; each time I would think that was God telling me that the Book of Mormon was true; but each time I'd realize that I had wanted that response; I had wanted to have the feeling that indicated that the Book of Mormon was true; and each time I would realize in my heart of hearts that for that very reason I couldn't count on that answer having come from God; I realized that I could only count on an answer having come from God if I got to the point where I was just as much ready for a no answer as I was for a yes one. And then the cycle would start over again. It was a very frustrating experience. I kept doing it over and over again, even though the result was always the same.

Then in Autumn 1976 it occurred to me that maybe what I needed to do was ask the question in a hurry, without giving myself time to grow a desire for a yes answer. In the very moment I thought this, I threw my mind at God, putting everything on the line. I uttered no words, but the essence of my communication with God was, "Is it?" I wanted to know if it was true, and the it I was talking about was the LDS Church. So in the end I didn't even pray about the Book of Mormon; I skipped that step entirely and asked my question about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The rest I've already told you. I was completely overwhelmed by a rushing, shivering sensation that encompassed my whole body, several hundreds of times more intense than any of those good feelings I had had before when I prayed about the Book of Mormon. I found myself forced to the conclusion that God was telling me that the LDS Church was true.

So while asking a question when we want one particular answer does in fact keep us from being sure God has actually given us the answer we need, the challenge then is to get to the point where we're equally as ready to take either a yes or no answer to our question. It's a difficult challenge, but doable; I met it, and so can anyone who really, really wants to know the truth.

Bio-chemistry provides the answers to why we feel certain sensations, including yours. Why would you consider yours reasonably outside of self-generated?

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter to me whether it was self-generated or not. God knew that if I, having asked that question, did not get a response, then I would never have any other opportunity to ever know anything for sure about Her/His will. I have faith in a God who wants me to know Her/His will, and who has, via the Holy Spirit, the power to answer prayer; so it logically follows that, if such a God was in control of the universe, then S/He would ensure that I got the answer God wanted me to get. So, even if I did completely self-generate the rushing, shivering sensation I got, I have concluded that God wanted me to get that answer, for the simple reason that God has never given me any other answer to the question I asked. God knew at the time that I would take that answer as an answer from Her/Him, and never gave me an answer to the contrary, so that answer must have been the one God wanted me to have.

Yes, clear answers that were totally useless, because nobody would know whether they were true or false! Why would any deity in Her/His right mind broadcast messages that S/He knew weren't going to do any good?

You have got to be kidding me. You think some sensation with no message attached to it other then what you provide is somehow superior to some being showing up and talking to you in your own language.? If an angel shows up and tells you Scientology is the right and only true path to God, this is somehow a useless message because you cannot be certain it comes from God? If so then how much more useless is your own experiences? Be honest now.

I am completely honest! How in the world am I to know that the only being that can send (apparent) angels to me is the good God that controls the universe? Are you sure you want to use the example of Scientology? If the angel of which you spoke were to appear to me and tell me that Scientology was in fact "the right and only true path to God," I'd be tempted to laugh in her/his face. I probably woudln't, but I would most definitely ask the angel why I should believe that s/he was telling the truth about Scientology.

That does not in the slightest refelect badly on the usefulness of my own experience in 1976 and my interpretation of it. The possibility exists that any being whatsoever can communicate with me at pretty much any time. But God knows that at the moment that I ask Her/Him a foundational question, ready to base the whole rest of my life on whatever answer God provides, if God doesn't provide an answer to that question then I will never have any chance of ever understanding God's will. And therefore, when I asked that question, I can be sure that God did respond to it.

[_KevinSim]

I am a Latter-day Saint because I believe in God. I believe in God because I recognize that I am not God, nor likely to become God in the next thousand years or so. I recognize that my conscience requires that I work toward the preservation, forever, of some good things; I owe that much to future generations of the human race. I recognize that I am not by myself capable of preserving, forever, any good things, so I have faith that someone else is doing it, and I am trying to work in tandem with that someone else; this is what I meant by saying I believe in God. I don't see an alternative that is both conscientious and realistic.

This is such a strange and illogical statement. His conscience requires him to work to preserve some things. He then assumes he cannot do it, so will believe in a being he has no idea exists, that can. How is this doing anything towards preserving some good things. He never has explained this.

That depends entirely on whether there actually is a good God that controls the universe. If there is, and if my efforts result in putting me in communication with that God, then the possibility exists that I will do a much, much better job as preserving good things into the eternities than I could have by myself. In fact, I feel comfortable estimating that by myself I would not have helped preserve any good things into the eternities, while if I was working together with God, I could preserve at least some good things into the eternities.

On the other hand, if there isn't a God, then you are right to conclude that I would be accomplishing nothing. But so what? In such a case there wouldn't be any way I could have preserved any good things into the eternities, so I would have lost nothing.

You may scoff at my attitude, Themis, but I ask you, what is the alternative? If you yourself can't bring yourself to believe in God, or perhaps more accurately put, someone who is preserving forever some good things, then it falls to you to preserve forever some good things. The work of God must go forth, whether there actually is a God to carry it forth or not. Are you capable of carrying it forth by yourself? Or, to make it even more general, are you willing to work with a group of like-minded women and men who collectively take the responsibility to preserve forever some good things? If so, then more power to you. But I suspect that, like me, you will find the job too daunting. You may find the challenge beyond you, or even beyond the group of women and men you associate with. That being the case, you'd better hope that someone is up to the challenge because, as I said, the work must go forth. Future generations of the human race deserve for it to go forth.

[_KevinSim]

Thsmis, why do you think that anything I have said is illogical?

I answered all your questions and you have ignored them all. Why is that? I can play your childish game.

Themis, it would be wise to avoid making careless assumptions. I was not playing a "childish game"; rather I simply didn't see your other post until just recently. It's a non-trivial job to respond to every post someone makes on this discussion board, especially when there are three people (Bazooka, Canpakes, and you) responding to me, and I have to respond to all three. Furthermore, I'm holding down a full-time job, and I've got a wife and kids who need my time too.

[_KevinSim]

I'm not sure that the simplest explanation being God doesn't exist equates to "a lot of evidence saying" God doesn't exist.

My statement was never meant to suggest that was the only evidence. I was referring to all the evidence that shows Joesph was making up his religion that we find ourselves members of.

Interesting pronoun that you used there, we. Are you saying that you're LDS, Themis?

My argument is quite a bit more than, "it makes you feel better." It satisfies my conscience. Nobody's conscience requires her/him to believe in God. But I think that if a person with a conscience doesn't believe in God then s/he is obligated by her/his conscience to take on the whole burden of preserving some good things into the eternities. Are you ready for that burden, Themis? Because somebody's got to do it.

This is just another confirmation of how little substance you have for your beliefs. It still comes down to believing what you want because you don't like the idea that God may not exist.

Exactly! I've never said that I believe in God because there's a preponderance of evidence that God exists. I have fully admitted that, as far as I know, God might not exist. But what's the point of not believing that God exists? Sure, we may find that our beliefs align pretty well with what the evidence says, but what will be the result in the long run? Nothing of lasting good will come out of the human race. That just seems a little pointless to me.

You also seem to assume man is not working on what is possible to preserve about mankind.

Preserve how long? Five billion years, past the destruction of Planet Earth? Possibly, though I don't see much evidence of attempts to so preserve things. But what about one hundred and fifty billion years, past the end of the heat death of the universe? Is anybody attempting to preserve some good things past that point? I sincerely doubt it.

If God does not exist then your believing it anyways does nothing to help the situation you are so concerned about, and you are actually doing the opposite.

Hardly the opposite. If as you say "God does not exist" the result in the end will be precisely the same; nothing good will be preserved forever.

[_KevinSim]

We adopted our three children when my youngest was 21 months, so I've never had the opportunity to stare into the eyes of my "newborn son or daughter," but my oldest daughter moved back in with us a year ago April with her five-month-old baby son, and I've stared into his eyes.

Very cool. And thank you for being the kind of person to open his heart and home to a child that needed a family... three times at that.

You're welcome! They were a sort of package deal, three children of the same birth mother. She relinquished her parental rights on the condition that they all go to the same home.

I've listened to pieces of hauntingly beautiful music...

Don't stop; music could certainly be interpreted as another 'Gift from God'...

I agree with that.

Those experiences were all extremely cool, but none of them produced anywhere near the same rushing sensation as when I asked God if the LDS Church was true back in Autumn 1976.

That's not to say that they cannot, some day.

The odd thing is that (and correct me if I'm wrong) you state that your rushing 'confirmation' came months after asking your question.

You might be wrong; I certainly didn't intend to say the confirmation came "months after asking" my question. As I told Themis a few posts ago, I asked about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon over and over again, and got what I thought was a yes answer each time, but each time I recognized that because I had wanted a yes answer each time, and had definitely not wanted a no answer, that therefore I couldn't count on the answers I had gotten as having come from God. After quite a bit of struggling and soul searching, I finally got to the point where I was as prepared for a no answer as I was for a yes answer, and immediately asked God if the LDS Church was true. No sooner had I asked my question than I got my answer, the answer I have based my theology on all the 37 years since then.

I live in Utah, and we don't take a lot of trips to the East Coast, but if we ever happen to do take a trip to the District of Columbia I'll be sure to visit the Vietnam Memorial Wall.

I honestly believe that everyone should visit this memorial. Regardless of how one feels regarding our role in that war, the memorial itself is a powerful reminder of the fragility and temporary nature of life vis-à-vis our decisions and their repercussions. As opposed to looking at a generic sculpture of a soldier or several, it is not easy to pan across the vast field of names, of real people, real identities, without being hit by a powerful wave of emotion over their ultimate sacrifice.

If you make it out that way, you should definitely take a moment to stop for a visit.

I will visit it next time I head out that way.