And it did snow - big time. Once again apologies for a late report but beer and hot tubs do prove to be a fair distraction.
It snowed overnight but it didn't seem that much to us, hardly worth clearing the drive. As we got to the hill in temps of -10 it was apparent that there had been more snow with the boards recording 9 cms but up the hill it felt a lot more. Most interesting was that the base had fallen to 164 cms which was the second consecutive fall on the second consecutive day of snow. For anyone confused see my earlier remarks about how hills over call their base in sketchy times and adjust back to the truth as they get some more snow.
We went to the Old Side and as we walked up the steps from the plaza it started to snow. It continued to snow ranging from light snow to just dumping all day. I think this is the first time I have ever skied a day when it has snowed without a break from bell to bell. Of course with conditions improving all day I declined to take any kind of break and put in a 9-4 day without interuption - you have to take advantage of the conditions when you get them.
We took our first run out across Cedar high traverse which had been closed for a lot of yesterday and which closed again shortly after we got across. Steep and Deep was our chosen ground and it certainly was - steep and deep all the way down with large untracked areas. Lynda and Lee hit the right exit chute and I took the left and both were seriously deep amd untracked. Finding the traverse closed next time we dropped Cedar Centre glades and then hit right into the KC shoulder - all good and getting deeper as the snow came down.
We then killed some time dropping Cedar Ridge and King Fir which were both deep and soft with untracked areas, each time returning through Kangaroo which was in pretty good shape (for Kangaroo) giving 4 runs through the roo and inculding a drop to the halfway trail from the left hand side for the first time this year. A final run through Linda's which was getting quite deep and we decided to try our luck on the New Side.
Most of the rest of the day was spent looping out into Currie via the high traverse which amazingly stayed open right up until the final run when we had to sidestep the low traverse to get across. Just like yesterday it is hardly worth recording all the runs as they were all great powder getting deeper as the day went on and quieter (deserted by the end of the day) as the weekend worriors headed for home. Those runs that only qualified as awesome were, Decline, Skydive, Stag Leap, Cougar Glades, Easter bowl and Concussion. Those that deserve a special mention over and above awesome were Anaconda Glades, Bootleg Glades and Secret chutes all due to the amazing deep soft powder we found.
All the runs from timber top (Lift Line, Big Bang, Puff Trees and Mitchy chutes were all good deep soft snow. The Saddles were open but we didn't have ago partly because they would still be pretty worn, partly because the light would have been poor below, partly because there was better stuff to be had and partly because they will still be there later this week when we get more snow.
The temps fell towards the end of the day and the snow actually stopped falling as I was laying in my hot tub drinking beer in temps of -14 and soon after that the stars came out. Temps overnight and into tomorrow are supposed to be -20 so it looks like a cold few days. Best of all is the outlook which is calling for snow and plenty of it on most of the next 7 days. Not great news for Lynda who has to head back to the UK for 7 days on Wednesday but good for the rest of us. Looking forward to some cold clear conditions before the next snow cycle, who knows, they might even open Polar Peak again.


text:
Tottenham (h) preview - mugs day out
Whatever happens tomorrow...
I've toyed with a number of ideas for how and what to write here this evening. I was seriously thinking about highlighting the contrast in the way Spurs have gone about their transfer business when compared with ours. I thought about praising Daniel Levy as a football executive of great talent. I thought about talking about the massive improvements in Tottenham's group of players thanks to their new signings. But then I thought again. This is as Arsenal website. Why should I give that lot any credit whatsoever? It doesn't matter what's going on with transfers and Arsene Wenger and everything else that could be construed as negative at the moment. Tomorrow is match day. More than that, it's match day against those idiots from Middlesex. They hate us. We see them as a minor irritation twice a season. The only thing that matters in the run up to this game is supporting The Arsenal. Forget about the owner, the CEO, the Manager, the so called star players. All that matters is that Arsenal is OUR Club and everything else is irrelevant.
As it happens I still fancy us to win tomorrow, no matter what they've added to their squad. If our players put it in as they have in the last few games we can wipe the floor with Tottenham. They've won their first two matches in the Premier League, but their only goals have come from the penalty spot. My biggest fear tomorrow is not Tottenham, but a referee being exposed to such a volatile atmosphere for the first time. Still, if we play our game and put in the necessary effort we can be celebrating at the end.
I'll say no more other than to point out that Tottenham's fans are already giving it large. It is August 31st. They never learn. If they do beat us tomorrow they will become unbearable. I hope the players know that. Get behind the boys. Make it loud, make it intimidating. Let their players know what the North London Derby is all about, and stay safe around the knuckle draggers when they gob off outside the ground.
Remember, we are THE ARSENAL.
Posted by DvbrisG at Saturday, August 31, 2013
Arsenal make a signing to get the blood flowing
Not quite what we were hoping for
A signing! A new player! Can you feel that excitement? No, neither can I. All I can feel (and see) is resentment from Arsenal supporters at the arrival of yet another player for free. It's all a little unfair, maybe, on Flamini and I'll address that below. However, it is a symptom of the way this Summer has been for Arsenal fans that Flamini has not been so much welcomed as dismissed. Surprisingly the reaction has largely had little to do with the way he walked out after playing well for three months of his previous Arsenal career.
With the squad situation as dire as it is we should be lauding the arrival of Flamini. Here we are getting a player who always gives 100%, likes a tackle, and can play in three different positions. He provides us with quality cover and the sort of grit and needle that we've been sorely missing. In the absence of Mikel Arteta he is a player who has the discipline to protect the back four, albeit not the out and out top class holding player we really want. The fact that he hasn't been welcomed, as such, is simply down to the failure to bring in top class players for big money. If we'd signed, for example, Begovic, Fellaini, Higuain and Suarez/Rooney, as well as Flamini and Sanogo I reckon we'd all be very happy bunnies right now. As it is we have only the latter two, both on free transfers, despite being told by Ivan Gazidis that this was the year things would change. Arsene Wenger has simply ignored that and carried on his merry way.
Our transfer business has been a joke. There has been no apparent plan. There has been no strategy. What exactly are we trying to bring in? Is Wenger after a striker? Does he realise the need for a holding midfield player? Why is he going after yet more creative dwarfs to play in a creative role? There is seemingly nothing coherent about the targets we've chased. As for the way in which the business has been gone about you can only describe it as amateurish. Meanwhile the lies have been mounting up.
Arsene Wenger told everyone that nobody had spent any money. That was a lie. He told us that there were no top strikers available in Europe in this transfer window. That was a lie. He told us Arsenal work 24 hours a day to bring in new players. That was a lie. After all this he then asked the press to tell him names of players that were better than we've got already. That was just plain embarrassing. All of these statements reek of contempt for the supporters. We are the great unwashed, who know nothing about anything.
His favourite soundbite this Summer has been to keep telling us that transfers require the agreement of all three parties. Of course they do. But it's not really that difficult to get that agreement - other Clubs find it very simple. Why? Because they are keen to spend to improve.
The main reason we have been unable to buy top talent this year is Wenger's complete refusal to spend anything above his own valuation of a player. Once he sets his limit that is it. That's why we don't reach agreement with the selling Club. He fails to realise that his valuation is pretty much irrelevant if he really wants the player at Arsenal. The selling Club sets the price. You either match it or negotiate it to find agreement. If you want the player you pay the money. That is all there is to it. Transfers are really not that complicated, I am sure. Certainly the talks are not always honourable, as we saw with Real Madrid's apparent raising of the price for Higuain, but that's the way it is. If we wanted Luis Suarez we should have gone to Liverpool and made an offer they couldn't turn down. Instead of that we messed about thinking we were being clever. The end result was that we didn't get the player. Whatever my views on David Dein you can not deny that he got business done, usually with the minimum of fuss, and the minimum of publicity. It is a shocking state of affairs and Arsenal's men that matter should be ashamed of the balls-up they've made of it all.
By the way, welcome back Mathieu.
Posted by DvbrisG at Thursday, August 29, 2013
A very good week
Ramsey: Outstanding start
Much to my annoyance I've not been in a position to write anything since last week. Given the change in fortunes and performances of the team in that time it's been a shame to not be able to give credit where it is due for a change.
Let's start with last weeks win at Fenerbahce where I thought we were first class, particularly after half-time. When the draw was made many expected Arsenal to have a tough time against the Turks, and even more so with out lack of transfer action. To go out there and win 3-0 was outstanding. For me it ranks up there as one of our very best away performances in Europe, particularly off the back of what had happened against Villa just a few days before. Before the game Paul Merson (who these days delights in telling everyone he's a Chelsea fan) said that he expected Arsenal to struggle. After our comprehensive 3-0 dismantling of the opposition he told us "they're not a Fulham or a Spurs" as he identified our next two Premier League games. That sort of thing just about sums Merson up, though it leads me nicely on to Saturday at Fulham.
As with the game in Istanbul we were expected to have a really difficult afternoon at Craven Cottage. As it was, the Arsenal players put in a first class display and came away with a superb 3-1 win that could, in truth, have been five or six. I really enjoyed our speed on the break that led to a couple of the goals. It's something that has been missing for a long time, and Podolski's finishing was once again to the fore. I was not surprised to hear Merson tell us that "Fulham were poor" and that things won't be so easy against Tottenham. Believe it or not Paul Merson scored 99 goals for Arsenal and won five major honours at the Club. What is his problem? Is he still bitter that Wenger kicked him out less than a year after arriving and replaced him with Marc Overmars?
And so we come to the game last night. I thought the players were utterly professional on the night. It was very much a case of job done. They could have pressed the accelerator a bit more at times but a 5-0 aggregate win was more than adequate. Lee Dixon took on the Merson role on TV as he told us that Fenerbahce are "a very poor side". Really Lee? Is that the same Fernerbahce who lost in the semi-final of the UEFA Cup last season? As it was I thought there were one or two Arsenal players who weren't great on the night. I am very worried that Nacho Monreal really isn't a good enough full-back to be at Arsenal. Better than Santos, yes, but he is so often caught under the ball when it's played to the corner, while rarely being within 15 yards of the man he's marking. His lack of pace is a huge worry, as we saw when Andros Townsend destroyed him at QPR last season. If Kieran Gibbs was out for a long time I think we'd have a real problem. The other man I wasn't impressed by was Yaya Sanogo. I know it was his first decent run out in the first team but his first touch and mobility looked poor. He has plenty of time, of course, but is he really any better than Chuba Akpom at the moment? I would suggest probably not. On the positive side the players worked very hard when we weren't in possession, and that has been a feature of these last three games. Long may it continue to be so.
Obviously we are short of numbers. I think we're all tired of talking about it. We know we lack both quantity and a depth of quality in important areas. We need a top goalkeeper, we need a holding midfielder, we need a striker. You might notice I stopped short of saying we need a centre-back. I say this because Bacary Sagna has been exceptional filling in there. In fact he's been brilliant since pre-season began (as have Ramsey and Giroud). I regularly doubted Sagna last season, but he has shown he is more than worthy of keeping Carl Jenkinson out of the side at right-back at the moment. As a fourth choice centre-back I think he can save us at least £10m that could be spent elsewhere. If and when Mathieu Flamini is put on a contract we will have extended emergency cover for both full-back positions, freeing up Sagna as necessary.
The lack of signings remains unacceptable by any standards. The idea that lessons were learnt in 2011 has been shown to be nonsense. We are set (hopefully) for some kind of supermarket sweep in the last few days of the transfer window. To have not already done our business is bordering on the criminal. People say that Man Utd and Chelsea have signed nobody either, but I don't care about them – I am only concerned about Arsenal and our needs were rather more pressing than either of those Clubs – they won trophies last season, remember.
Amid all this lack of numbers and depth I was amazed at the team that lined up last night. I couldn't understand why Szczesny played. There was no need for Wilshere, Podolski or Giroud to take to the pitch either. Three or four changes could have been made to the starting line-up, and then a further three with proper substitutions. Instead of that we saw Jack Wilshere, Aaron Ramsey and Santi Cazorla playing 90 minutes again. We saw Kieran Gibbs inexplicably brought on from the bench early in the second half to play on the wing (in the previous two games it had been Monreal coming on when Serge Gnabry could have been given a run out and some very decent experience). Gibbs is injury prone, as we all know, so why take such an unnecessary risk ahead of the Tottenham game?
Wenger has already stated that he wants Roy Hodgson to consider Jack Wilshere's welfare when the England team play two games next week. Why should Hodgson take any notice whatsoever when Jack is brought on for 30 minutes at Fulham, with Arsenal 3-0 up, and then plays the full 90 minutes when we're 5-0 up against Fenerbahce? If Wenger wants Jack protected then he should start to practise what he preaches. Frimpong could have come on in both of those matches, or Gedion Zelalem could have had a run out at Fulham. It's just crazy, even before you consider what he's asked Hodgson to do.
It seems wrong to still be criticising after the good week we've had, so I'll leave it at that and hope for some massive signings in the few days ahead. I will just point out that we must have won, and disappointed the news outlets, as BBC News Channel considered Liverpool beating Notts County in extra-time to be bigger sports news than us qualifying. Do you think they'd have done that had we lost?
Posted by DvbrisG at Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Handicapped by our own Manager
...and it has been for at least five years
It's possible to lose just about any game of professional football. The FA Cup wouldn't hold its mystical attraction for smaller clubs if they could never get a result. Losing at home to Aston Villa is something that has happened plenty of times, and the 3-1 defeat we suffered yesterday was something that could have occurred even if we'd spent a record amount of money during the close season. However, by not strengthening the squad over the Summer Arsene Wenger failed to give his players the best chance of winning the game yesterday. If you have better players available then it is less likely you'll suffer the sort of loss that we did yesterday. The same thing applies with the Champions League tie coming up this week. Having seen further injuries to key players against Villa we are almost unable to field a full squad of first team players in Turkey. Again, Wenger has failed to give Arsenal the best opportunity to get through. But then I've never worked even one day in football, so what do I know?
There are calls for Wenger and the Board to go. I'm assuming that when people talk of "the Board" they really mean Kroenke. In terms of genuine influence the Arsenal directors have about as much power to do anything as you and I. Arsene Wenger is the major problem. He has been for years. As much as he was the reason we moved to an almost unprecedented level of success at Arsenal, he is solely responsible for the decline in quality and results in recent years. Before anyone throws the new stadium, and it's so called financial impact, in my face I would remind you that Arsene Wenger was the man who pushed for a move away from Highbury. He demanded a bigger stadium in order to "compete" in the transfer market. It was his idea. As I say, he is solely responsible.
If Kroenke was to throw it in, at a considerable profit to himself, the only person in a position to take on the Club is Usmanov. Let's leave aside whether or not you like the idea of such a man owning our Club and consider the fact that he is a billionaire of such proportions that he makes Abramovich look like Oliver Twist. We would have spending power to pretty much match Manchester City. However, if this Summer has told us anything it is that Arsene Wenger has no interest in spending anything more than he values a player at. What would be the point in Usmanov's money if Wenger was still in place to not spend it? Yet again I come back to the fact that Arsene Wenger is the problem.
It pains me to continually call for the head of a Manager who has given us so much to celebrate over the years. However, his judgement was impaired from the day he decided to sell Patrick Vieira. We should have won the Premier League in 2008, but Wenger refused to sign the one or two players we needed that January, and then also refused to bring back Jens Lehmann in place of Manuel Almunia. We should also have won the Premier League in 2011, but the squad was again left short by no more than one or two players, purely because he failed to go and make the requisite signings in January that season.
In recent times his public statements have become repetitive and embarrassing. The worst of them is his "if you can give me names of players who are better than what we have" etc etc. There is not a single person who has an interest in football (and probably plenty who don't) that couldn't provide a list of better players in every position than we have at Arsenal. In fact there was one who was with us up until a year ago, but was allowed to leave and fire Manchester United to the Title. Yesterday he told the press that Arsenal "work 24 hours a day" to bring in new players. Do not insult the supporters Arsene. Not everyone who follows football is your intellectual inferior. The contempt apparent in such an outlandish and outrageous statement is simply astonishing. It's a soundbyte of Redknapp proportions.
A part of me actually feels sorry for the likes of Ivan Gazidis. As I stated above, the Board is pretty powerless in the face of Arsene Wenger unless Stan Kroenke decides otherwise. Gazidis is particularly inert in this situation because Arsene Wenger actually appointed him. It must be some job where you get to appoint the person who is officially your boss. There is no way that Gazidis can sack Wenger, because Wenger gave him his massively paid job. What continues to amaze me is that there are people out there who will still defend Wenger in the face of such overwhelming evidence that the man has lost it and is currently the biggest problem that Arsenal Football Club has to deal with. I suppose Wenger might be considered the ultimate elephant in the room.
The game yesterday has been the subject of much conjecture among pundits and supporters alike. As far as I'm concerned we were beaten by a combination of two things, and neither of them were Aston Villa. Before I get back to Wenger I've got to deal with the referee, Anthony Taylor.
In the first minute of the game Taylor gave a foul against Tomas Rosicky for what was a superb tackle in the Villa half. Five minutes later he did it again. In between times Villa's players were at it all over the pitch without censure from Taylor.
Having taken the lead Arsenal were pretty comfortable. Villa were not a threat in any way. And then the Red Sea of Arsenal's midfield and defence (in the absence of Arteta) parted to allow Agbonlahor a run on goal. I've seen people moan about Szczesny in this one but that's unfair as he had to come and try to win the ball. What happened next is what concerns me. After the clear foul by Szczesny (which should have resulted in a penalty and a red card) the referee allowed the advantage of a free shot on an open goal which Villa missed. After the ball was hit wide the referee decided to award the penalty and book Szczesny. This is not acceptable. There is a difference between allowing play to go on to see if an advantage develops and actually allowing an advantage that a team fail to take. I don't see how you get given two bites of the cherry. It's ridiculous.
The niggly behaviour of the Villa players continued unabated while just about every challenge by an Arsenal player resulted in a free-kick. Kieran Gibbs got an awful cut following a bad challenge by Benteke (less than 30 seconds after the referee had penalised Giroud for a fair challenge at the other end - no free-kick was forthcoming for Gibbs). Giroud was then shoved in the chest by Vlaar in the penalty area as he chased a ball over the top but this was ignored by Taylor.
Then we come to the second penalty which was as good a tackle as you're going to see. I've seen what those idiots Murphy and Shearer had to say on Match Of The Day but that programme lost its credibility years ago. If that's a foul then we might as well go and watch basketball instead. Having given it (the linesman, with a better angle, gave nothing) the referee clearly knew he was wrong as he again issued just a yellow card. You can often tell a lot from the reaction of players and it was clear that everyone knew the penalty was a joke. I heard John Hartson on Radio 5 on my way home saying that it wasn't a massive turning point in the game. What nonsense that is - a goal that put Villa in front and a booking that would lead to a red card a few minutes later. Of course it changed the game.
When Koscielny did get sent off it was for a challenge that saw him not touch the opponent. It wasn't a dive, but it wasn't a foul either. Gabriel Agbonlahor's behaviour in getting around the referee to call for the red card has been ignored on television, but then it's only dirty foreigners that do that, isn't it? Less than two minutes later Vlaar took out a flying Rosicky, having already been booked, and yet no red card was forthcoming.
Referees are professionals these days. They are highly paid and, in the Premier League, are officially "elite" officials. That being the case they should be publicly answerable for their decisions in the way that a Manager is. Taylor should be questioned as to why he didn't send off Vlaar. I come back to another of my oft-quoted complaints on this site - either the referee is an incompetent, or there is something more sinister going on. I have said for a long time that I consider a number of officials in this country to be worthy of investigation. Displays like yesterday merely underline my stance.
So now let's deal with Arsenal and Arsene Wenger's contribution to yesterday. I'll keep this a little more brief as I'm conscious this post has dragged on somewhat. Regardless of the referee acting as a twelfth player for Villa we had the chances to have won the game. Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain was excellent down the left for Arsenal and Rosicky added a genuine spark to our play with his direct running. Sadly he was also responsible for two glaring misses when one-on-one with the goalkeeper. The shot he smashed miles over the bar was truly awful.
I've seen Wenger criticised for bringing on Cazorla at half-time instead of Podolski. I'm not having that. Cazorla did some travelling in midweek, but 45 minutes of action should not be beyond him. His display was abysmal when he did come on and his failure to control a football led directly to the second penalty and Koscielny's second yellow card. I would have raged at my seven year-old for such terrible attempts to trap the ball.
That's the only defence I'm going to give Wenger. Podolski and Sanogo spent most of the second-half warming up. In truth it was only ever Podolski who was going to come on. When Koscielny was sent off the two were called back to the bench. Podolski took off his tracksuit top and was ready to come on. He was then sent to sit down by Wenger. We were 2-1 down, with Aaron Ramsey playing centre-half, and the two strikers on the bench were told to sit down. The formation did not change. Even at 3-1 down we continued to play a lone striker. Surely a move to three at the back, with Podolski on for Walcott or Wilshere or whoever would have been the way to go.
When Villa went 3-1 up Arsene Wenger went and hid. As the vitriol poured from the stands he went and sat on the bench with his arms folded like a scolded child. With the injury time there was still the best part of ten minutes to go, yet the Manager had given up on the game. He should have been out on the touchline cajoling the side. He should have been making the long overdue substitution. Instead of that he went and sulked. Why should the players get any blame?
Things got even worse when Bacary Sagna got injured. Following lengthy treatment he finally was helped from the pitch. More than a minute later Podolski eventually came on. I got the impression that Podolski was seriously displeased as he hurled his tracksuit top across the bench in disgust at his belated introduction to play at left-back (still no change of formation). Why did it take so long? We played more than a minute with nine men because Wenger was sat on his hands watching but not paying any attention to what was going on. It was an insult to Podolski really. But the only other option was to bring on Emmanuel Frimpong who has not had a single minute of football since doing his cruciate while on loan at Fulham last season. If that doesn't underline the negligence of Wenger in the transfer market then I don't know what does.
Posted by DvbrisG at Sunday, August 18, 2013
Wenger's new low as he blames fans, Premier League season preview 2013-2014
It looks good in its Arsenal ribbons
I've held off from writing the annual season preview until after midday today as I wasn't sure if we would see an announcement of someone being signed in time for the Villa match tomorrow. With the injury news of Mikel Arteta being pretty disastrous I fully expected us to have done something over night. Despite what some would have you believe it is entirely possible to get business done at short notice. As it is we have done nothing at all. More on that in the preview that follows further down this post.
I was fuming last night, yet again, when I read Arsene Wenger's comments regarding Gervinho. Regular readers will know I'm not a defender of the Manager, and last night merely underlined why. Apparently Gervinho's generally awful displays were down to the pressure put on him by the supporters. What utter rot that is. If he thought he got a rough ride from us lot I dread to think what he'll make of those lovely gentlemen that make up the Ultras of AS Roma. According to our esteemed leader Gervinho was a very creative player. I suppose that was true to start with. Right up until defenders worked out he had one trick, and his only aim was to beat them on the outside and get to the byline. The trouble with one trick ponies is they don't get too far once they've been worked out. Gervinho got worked out by everyone very quickly.
According to Wenger the Ivorian found it particularly tough when playing at home. As it happens I don't think Gervinho had it too bad from the Arsenal fans. I would say that Aaron Ramsey got far worse than he did last year. The fact is that Gervinho simply wasn't good enough. I don't agree with the fans getting on a players back as it's no good to anyone. If you want to have a pop then do it at the Manager who keeps picking people who are either way off form, or way out of their depth.
I'd like to ask Mr Wenger how he explains Gervinho's display at Bradford City, and the worst miss I've ever seen from an Arsenal player, if it was home games that were the problem for him. At the end of the day Gervinho didn't have what it takes. For Arsene Wenger to have a go at the fans for his own shortcomings as a Manager is outrageous and shameful.
So the Premier League season starts tomorrow. I've been in two minds about whether to do the traditional preview this season. With the transfer window open for another two weeks the predictions I will make have every chance of looking even more stupid than they normally do. That being said, it is the traditional season opening piece on this site, so I've decided to go ahead with it. It's just a bit of fun, except the bit about Arsenal.
Our opponents tomorrow have a had a pretty decent pre-season. They've got a few wins, and scored a good number of goals. Most importantly they've got Christian Benteke to stay. For me he is just about the sole reason the Villans stayed up last term, and they will be reliant upon the big Belgian once again. Can he re-produce the form of his first year in England? I suspect he can, and Villa may well step up this season. I don't really understand the treatment of Darren Bent, and I wonder if it leaves them short should Benteke get a knock. Mid-table safety for Villa.
This is the first season in the Premier League for City. They won the Championship last season and their vociferous (violent?) support will follow them all round the country. As with all promoted sides they will need to get off to a good start and to have a great record at home. Thanks to that vocal following any visit to Cardiff will be uncomfortable for the opposition. Whisper it quietly, but they'd be more than happy to emulate Swansea City. Personally I wouldn't be upset to see the back of them at the end of the season, and they begin among the favourites to go down. Seventeenth position come May would be a massive achievement.
The Special One is back. Oh rejoice! All of English football is delighted to welcome Mourinho back to the Premier League. After all, it's been so dull without him. Or at least that's what Sky keeps telling me I should think. In the real World the only people happy to have Mourinho back are Chelsea supporters. His record speaks for itself, and you have to expect Chelsea to be up there challenging for just about everything. I suspect Lampard and Terry will move even further out towards the fringes at Stamford Bridge as Mourinho is happy to be ruthless. The surprise is that he's yet to strengthen his squad, apparently chasing Rooney at the expense of almost any other players. Is that folly? Something tells me Mourinho might have something up his sleeve, but quite why he's leaving it I don't really know. Top three for Chelsea, possibly Champions.
I like Crystal Palace. Selhurst Park might be a relic on three sides but it's a good away game to go to. The problem they have now is that they are managed by the self-publicist that is Ian Holloway. As with Mourinho Sky keep telling us to like Holloway because his public statements are always so funny. My aching sides are testament to that, I'm sure. I don't see any way that Palace can stay up, even though they've brought in goalscoring talent like Chamakh. Bottom place.
The post-Moyes era will be starting, perhaps unexpectedly, with Fellaini and Baines still in place at Goodison Park. All credit to both of them for making no attempts to force transfers to more glamorous new surroundings. Roberto Martinez has taken over and is highly regarded, especially after the FA Cup win with Wigan. However, I would be very concerned about the inability to Martinez to put together a side that can defend competently. He has also brought players in from Wigan, and I'm never a fan of players who've been relegated. If he can consolidate Everton's position and challenge for a UEFA Cup place, and maybe have a good cup run or two, then Martinez will have done very well in his first year. I think they'll be top eight, but maybe not so close to the places that matter.
The addition of Darren Bent this morning could be massive for Martin Jol's men. They've been released from Al-Fayed's circus, but it remains to be seen how the new owner will invest in the Club. By bringing in Bent he's given a positive sign, albeit only a loan signing at the moment. Bent has scored goals just about everywhere he's been. Last season they really struggled and Jol was under a bit of pressure. Maarten Stekelenburg should be an improvement on the veteran Schwarzer in goal and I see Fulham not having half the troubles they did last time out. Mid-table mediocrity should be very welcome.
The last of the promoted sides is managed by Steve Bruce. They used to be managed by Phil Brown. I hope they get relegated, and I'll be surprised if they don't.
Liverpool have certainly spent money again this summer. They've also shipped out Stewart Downing. It's difficult to assess how they will go until Luis Suarez's situation is finally sorted one way or the other. Whatever happens he won't be able to play until well in to the season. Aspas has made a decent start in pre-season, but I would worry about a midfield still reliant on Steven Gerrard. Without Carragher at the back they should be a bit quicker (although bringing in Kolo Toure was absolutely bizarre), and they are trying to strengthen the squad in all areas. I believe Simon Mignolet is the best goalkeeper in the country right now, and he is a massive improvement on Reina who has been largely awful for at least two years. If I had a worry for Liverpool it would be Brendan Rodgers. The man is David Brent being a football manager, and his constant public pronouncements on Suarez, while criticising anyone and everyone for talking about it, has not been the behaviour of a Manager at a huge Club. Top six if Suarez stays and performs properly.
The practice of collecting centre-forwards has not stopped with a change of boss at City. Tevez may have moved on, but Jovetic and Negredo have arrived. Pellegrini has a reputation that seems to slightly outweigh his achievements as a Manager and it will be interesting to see how he goes. With the money he has behind him, and the players in the squad, Manchester City should be right up there once again. I can see Micah Richards being more involved under the new man, which should strengthen their back four. However, if Kompany is missing for any prolonged period again they will struggle. Joe Hart is overrated in the extreme, as he proved once again on Wednesday, while we know Clichy isn't up to much. The defeat to Arsenal last week should have had alarm bells ringing and there is much work to do. Top four only for City should be considered failure.
David Moyes has replaced Mumm-Ra The Ever Living and the Champions may well have reached the end of an era in more ways than one. If I was a Man Utd fan I wouldn't be overly impressed with Moyes performance since he took over. No signings to speak of and a very public falling out with Wayne Rooney (Moyes can deny it all he likes, but it's clear the pair do not get on). Rooney's own public display by doing extra training less than 24 hours after Moyes told everyone he wasn't fit to play sent a certain message. They weren't particularly successful on tour, and a narrow win over relegated Wigan at Wembley means little. The players that have been so used to Ferguson have only a similar Scottish accent to compare with Moyes. It must be incredibly daunting having to follow someone like that, knowing that only winning trophies straight away will buy you any credit. United have a tough opening few matches, and I can see Moyes under real pressure early on. Last season they walked the Premier League with their weakest side in many a year. Hopefully they won't have it so easy this season. Surely Van Stapleton is due an injury, isn't he? Hopefully it comes just after Rooney has signed for Arsenal. I don't see this side winning the Title again under a new boss. Fighting for a top four place with the others for me.
I'd love to see Pardew staring the down the barrel at a relegation battle. I think the man is a complete cretin. His squad is poor at the back and relies too heavily on Cabaye and Ben Arfa to do the business. The situation with Cisse and the sponsor on the shirt was a joke that threatened to de-rail the side. Bottom six for Newcastle.
They've bought pretty well and Gary Hooper should be a more than adequate replacement for Grant Holt, if he can keep fit. They have a very decent goalkeeper in John Ruddy who they missed badly at times last season. I've liked Hughton as a Manager in the past, but I went off him and his side with how they played at our place last season. Bottom half, but I don't think they'll go down - it might be tight for a while.
When they sacked Nigel Adkins it looked like one of those decisions that owners take that see their side get relegated. However, they went from strength to strength under the new man. Ricky Lambert had a huge impact on his England debut the other night, and Saints will again be reliant on his goals. I see them struggling this season, perhaps more than last year. A relegation battle looms, but I think they'll be okay as there is plenty of dross still in the Premier League.
Pulis is gone. Hooray! Hughes has replaced him. Boo! Still hope they go down.
Paolo Di Canio is a character that could either make or break his side. He's been backed in the transfer market where he's made a number of signings. He's clearly tried to use his contacts and knowledge with regards the continental market, but has he signed players of the requisite quality? If he believes Vito Mannone is an adequate replacement for Mignolet then I would argue that his choice is flawed. Could be relegated, with Di Canio out of the door fairly quickly. On the other hand they could finish top half.
They certainly didn't suffer from second season syndrome last time out. Michael Laudrup took them to a whole new level, with Michu the signing of the season in the Premier League. They look to have held on to their star man, and the addition of Wilfried Bony should bring even more up front. I watched the first leg of their European qualifier the other week and they looked excellent. Ashley Williams may yet be lost to Arsenal, but if they hold on to him and Michel Vorm the Swans will continue to impress. Top half, if they hold on to their players.
This is their year. And it's 1-1 at Newcastle.
The Baggies got off to a flier last season, and it sustained them until late on. A weaker record after Christmas maybe gave a better clue as to their overall quality, and they need to get by without the power of Romelu Lukaku. The signing of Nicolas Anelka is guaranteed to bring goals, provided they can create the chances for him to put away. Bottom half, but I expect them to be safe.
Liverpool is fast becoming the feeder club to this lot. A fit Andy Carroll (which is easier said than done it would seem) will cause enough problems for goals to be scored at the right end. At the back I'm not convinced by West Ham at all. They will rely heavily on the combative nature of an Allardyce assembled midfield, but I see them struggling overall. They should be relatively safe in mid-table, but it won't be pretty.
The only team any of us are actually interested in. I'll start by saying I expect us to finish within the top four at the end of the season. The side showed enough battling qualities at the end of last season to show they've developed a very good will to win. However, that wasn't enough to get us even remotely close to a poor Manchester United side.
We were told by Ivan Gazidis in May that this was the year the finances would be used on the squad. I urged caution on this very site due to the timing of Gazidis' comments, coming just a day before the season ticket renewals were due. It gives me no pleasure to have been proved right to this point. We have that same group of players that couldn't get close to the top of the table last season. However, we are now missing Mikel Arteta for at least a month and he was just about the most crucial element in the improved results.
We are relying on Olivier Giroud for the goals to win us matches up front. I don't mind Giroud. I think he's a battler, a strong front man. But he's not prolific. He misses too many chances to be really top class. The sight of him looking skywards with his hands clasped together in front of his face after missing another one is still all too familiar. The positive side is that he has had an exceptional pre-season campaign and can hopefully hit the ground running. Theo Walcott will need to chip in with more than his fair share from out wide.
The lack of signings can still be offset with new arrivals before the deadline passes in early September. The problem with that is that the season begins tomorrow. We will be well in to the season by the time we reach that stage. We could make some really big signings in the next two weeks, yet miss out on the Title having dropped early points. We could be out of the Champions League too. Not having got business done is negligent. The current injury problems in the squad merely underline the issue.
Not every signing has to be a star player, and the squad is awfully weak right now. Why risk missing out on the Title by dithering when you have the money to spend? We might still challenge for it. Obviously I hope we do. Fourth place is not enough. Football has moved on from the time when anyone could win the league, so fourth is not an achievement - it is the minimum requirement.
Regardless of the signings that may or may not be made tomorrow marks the beginning of another long season. We will have highs and we will have lows. We will win games and we will lose games. Obviously we all want a good fast start tomorrow against Aston Villa. I'm not going to hold my breath but I live in hope. Whatever happens early on in the game I hope the fans stay behind the players. It's not their fault we are so thin on the ground as the season begins. They deserve our support because they'll be wearing the red and white tomorrow. Let's give it to them loud and proud. We are THE ARSENAL.
COME ON YOU GUNNERS!
Posted by DvbrisG at Friday, August 16, 2013
Where is the excitement?
Remember this?
The new season begins this Saturday. Normally this is the most exciting time of the year for a football supporter. Everyone starts from the same point, and the next nine months will bring joy and thrills and despair and disappointment. It's the reason we go to watch our teams. This season I find myself not caring for the fact that we play our first game in four days time. The first game of the season should be played in glorious sunshine, with the new signings taking the stage for the first time in a real game. There is nothing like seeing those new players for the first time, and giving them their own personal reception as their names are announced. I'll never forget the buzz around the ground the first time we saw Dennis Bergkamp and David Platt, appear at Highbury. Even before the Sunderland game last season with Podolski and Cazorla lining up produced a superb atmosphere. Yet here we are with only one new player, a free transfer from the French second division, who looks like he'll miss the start of the season with an injury. It's even forecast to rain at the moment. I am not excited in the slightest. Arsenal have done nothing across the close season to make me look forward to what might lay ahead this year.
The fact is that Arsenal's squad is threadbare and lacking quality, as it was last season. Being short on numbers is really no different from last term. People will point to the number of players that have been sold, but only Gervinho was ever really involved last season from that group. His sale is offset by the arrival of Sanogo and the possible promotion of Zelalem and Gnabry. However, that team last season scraped a dismal fourth place on the final day. Any contention from Arsene Wenger that we can challenge without additions is as empty as it is embarrassing. We all know he doesn't believe that himself, so why come out with such nonsense?
The line up of the players at Members Day last week should have been a massive eye opener. There were 17 outfield players on show, including the two kids mentioned above. Arsene says he has "16 regular players" to choose from. I don't know if he's noticed, but he has to name 18 for every game. With Miyaichi, Rosicky, Sanogo, Monreal, Vermaelen and Diaby all crocked at the moment, and Walcott and Ramsey picking up knocks too, you'd have to wonder what planet the Manager is on in not adding to his options.
One of the things Wenger has claimed is that the transfer market has been slow for everyone. That is a lie. Manchester City and Spurs have signed players. Other big Clubs around Europe have signed players. Liverpool have signed players. To say that nobody has done business, just because Chelsea and Man Utd haven't, is crass and insults the supporters own intelligence. We have wasted the Summer months chasing a player I don't think we can buy. We could have had Higuain in place already. We could have had Fellaini in place. We could actually have had Wayne Rooney had we offered the same to Man Utd for him as we offered to Liverpool for Suarez. As it is we have two goalkeepers, neither of whom are good enough. We have two fit centre-backs. We have no defensive minded midfield player, with Mikel Arteta's professionalism getting us out of trouble for most of last season. We have one centre-forward. The gaps are obvious to everyone. Yet we've seen no movement to address the issues.
The Champions League qualifier looms large on the horizon. Olivier Giroud has been superb in pre-season and has to play. So what happens if he gets injured on Saturday against Villa? We will be going to Turkey with either Podolski or Walcott playing the lone striker role. The evidence that neither player is genuinely capable of doing that job is overwhelming. Considering that the last season finished three months ago it really is negligent to allow ourselves to be gambling like this.
Those that would choose to defend Wenger and the lack of transfers have gone through their full list of annual excuses. We are now on to the final two. The first being that "he's waiting to see if we get through the Champions League qualifier" and the second that "the transfer window doesn't close until September 2nd". Neither of these has any merit. In terms of the first one it is obvious that strengthening before the qualifier gives you a better chance to actually get through. The second is a joke when you consider that the season starts this week - we will be well in to the season by the time we get to September. Let's just say we drop four or five points (or worse) in the first few games, before doing our late transfer business, and then miss out on winning the Title by three points, or fail to get through in the Champions League. Would it not have been worth doing business a little earlier? There simply is no defence when everyone knows we have so much money available.
I'll leave you with one more thing of major concern. There has been a rumour bubbling under for the last couple of months linking Arsenal to a £4m move for Gareth Barry. He is out of favour at Manchester City. He will be available on the cheap. He would be a typical Wenger signing, designed to annoy everyone who wants money spent. In short he would be the new Mikael Silvestre. I would not be surprised to see it happen. And that doesn't fill me with excitement either (especially as Mathieu Flamini is currently training with Arsenal and available on a free - who would you sign?)
Posted by DvbrisG at Tuesday, August 13, 2013
The muddled mind of Ian Wright, Emirates Cup preview
A bit of action for the home fans
Ian Wright has been taken on again by the BBC. This time he will be co-presenting the Sunday night 6-0-6 show alongside Kelly Cates (formerly Kelly Dalglish). I'm not too sure why they haven't given the pair the flagship Saturday evening show as they'd be a far more listenable duo than Mark Chapman and the cretinous Robbie Savage. Frankly any programme with Robbie Savage on it should never make it to air. I'm quite looking forward to hearing Wrighty on a Sunday, as long as he realises he needs to practise what he preaches - he has already said the show is about "the fans", so let's see if he can remember that when he starts shouting the odds.
As part of Wrighty's contract it would seem we might get some output from him via the BBC website as well. Sadly, if his weekly column in The Sun is anything to go by it won't be great reading for Gooners. Today he has started having a pop at the Club already. He rightly states that we need signings, top signings, to compete (thought I wouldn't agree we're quite in the dire straits he claims we are with his list of weak positions). However, he then goes on to say that Luis Suarez would be making a mistake by joining Arsenal. I couldn't quite believe what I was reading. Here is Ian Wright, Arsenal legend, self-proclaimed Gooner, telling our number one transfer target to go and join a better Club than Arsenal. Then Wright wonders why a lot of Arsenal fans give him stick. Could you honestly imagine Thierry Henry coming out with that kind of tosh?
Those with a sharp memory will recall there was another occasion when Ian Wright told one of Arsenal's transfer targets to go and join someone else. On that occasion it was his son, Shaun Wright-Phillips, who was advised to sign for Chelsea instead. It wasn't a great career move, was it? After all, it cost him a place in the World Cup squad the following year, and he spent most of his Stamford Bridge career getting splinters in his backside. I hope someone can let Luis Suarez know that Ian Wright doesn't often give out the best careers advice.
It's Emirates Cup weekend and that means that the home supporters get their first views of the new Arsenal squad (cough). At least they'll get to see Gonzalo Higuain making his debut, albeit not for Arsenal but against them instead. I do hope there are no fools out there planning on barracking Higuain - he didn't "choose" Napoli, Arsenal chose not to meet Real Madrid's valuation. If you want to give anyone stick over Higuain not becoming an Arsenal player then aim it at the Arsenal dugout. For what it's worth I can see Higuain wanting to make something of a point tomorrow, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him give our defence a tough time. The man is a finisher supreme and I fully expect him to score against Arsenal.
I believe both days have now sold out, which comes as a slight surprise. I suspect a lot of the tickets have been snapped up by the Turkish contingent living in North London. I'm not going to rake over the coals of the invitation afforded to Galatassaray again. I expressed my dismay at the whole episode in this piece some months ago.
It says a lot about those that run the Arsenal website that they have focused much of the attention this weekend on the return of Emmanuel Eboue. These cretins are so out of touch with the supporters that they think we all love Eboue. He has been set up as some kind of modern day Perry Groves. I suppose they are similar in a way - neither of them were very good. I actually admire Eboue for the way he recovered from his treatment at the Wigan game when he had to be taken off for his own good. However, he soon returned to the annoying, ineffective, diving fool he had been before. Lest we forget, Eboue was so bad that even Arsene Wenger had to sell him in the end. He wasn't much different towards the end of his Arsenal career to Andre Santos. Even today the official website have got Jack Wilshere singing Eboue's praises. It's really quite frightening. One thing about Perry Groves was that his effort for Arsenal could never be questioned. Perry was and is a Gooner. Eboue was just a joke for the most part.
In the Title for this post I've put "Emirates Cup Preview" but to be honest there isn't really anything to preview from an Arsenal point of view. The squad is pretty much as it was, at the moment, in terms of who we'll see when the season actually starts. Yaya Sanogo might make his first appearance at some point in the weekend, and Santi Cazorla will probably get a run-out of some sort. Gedion Zelalem and Serge Gnabry (and Damian Martinez, with Szczesny still struggling) are still around the first-team and I expect them to be involved too. Apart from that it's nothing much to report. I hope that those in attendance get entertained by a couple of Arsenal wins - the winning habit is a nice one to have, as I've stated before. I also hope things pass off peacefully, but I suspect they may not. I don't have BT Sport so I don't know if I'll get to see any of the action.
I'll try to write a brief post at some point on Sunday evening in order to round up the weekend. Until then, let's hope Sanogo out performs Higuain.
Wenger's new low as he blames fans, Premier League...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Lee Myung-hee was accused of using company resources to illegally hire foreign housekeepers.
Lee Myung-hee, wife of Korean Air chairman Cho Yang-ho, arrives for questioning on her arrest warrant at the Seoul Central District Court in Seoul on June 4, 2018.
The matriarch of the troubled Korean Air dynasty was grilled Monday over allegations she used company resources to illegally hire foreign housekeepers, as a probe into the scandal-hit family widened.


This is a placeholder page for Anthony Myrick, which means this person is not currently on this site. We do suggest using the tools below to find Anthony Myrick.
You are visiting the placeholder page for Anthony Myrick. This page is here because someone used our placeholder utility to look for Anthony Myrick. We created this page automatically in hopes Anthony Myrick would find it. If you are not Anthony Myrick, but are an alumni of Lower Lake High School, register on this site for free now.


AWES TGT PGT Answer Key 2018: Army Welfare Organization Society is likely to reveal provisional Answer key of the Army Public school recruitment drive by the third week of January. Candidates who appeared for the TGT PGT and PRT Teacher exam, which was held on 15 to 17 January. They can download the APS Part A and Part B AWES CBS Answer key 2018 from here. Candidates can download the question paper and answer keys of the APS Teacher Recruitment from the official website of AWES. For details such as shift wise AWES Teacher Exam Answer Key 2018, APS recruitment subject wise answer key and written exam scorecard updates are given below.
(आर्मी पब्लिक स्कूल शिक्षक उत्तर कुंजी): The AWES Organization Teacher Recruitment drive answer key will be released on the official website of the AWES site. Candidates who appeared for the written exams that were held from 15 January to 17th January 2018, they will be given access to download the answer key one week after the written examination. Steps that are required to download the APS Teacher Answer Key 2018 from the official portal are as follows.
The TGT online exam answer key for the language teachers will be available on the official website. Aspirants are required to clear all the selection stages which are set for the teacher recruitment such as PRT teacher screening test followed by other levels such as Interview, evaluation of teaching skills and Computer proficiency. A candidate provisional selection is based on the selection criteria as well on the scorecard. Candidates who appear for the objective test they can download the APS PRT Answer Key PDF from here as soon as it is released officially.
Cross check OMR sheet marked responses.
The Army Public School TGT PGT answer keys of Part A which was comprised of MCQ questions from General awareness, Mental Ability, English Comprehension, Educational Concepts, and Methodology as well as the Subjective exam ( Part B) APS TGT Answer Key 2018 will be revealed before the scorecard. And on the basis of cut-off candidates will be selected for further rounds of selection. The AWES invited more than 1000 vacancies for the PGT TGT and PRT recruitment to recruit the staff for over 137 CBSE affiliated Army Public Schools.
Releasing an answer officially keeps the competition healthy as well as from the day of examination students just keep thinking about the responses that they have made. Therefore, to solve this problem the exam conducting authority reveals the provisional AWES TGT PGT Answer Key 2018 of all the subjects for which the recruitment was organized.
Note: The APS teacher recruitment drive answer key will be revealed within one after the written exam. Stay connected with this page to get all the latest updates regarding the AWES PGT TGT Answer Key 2018.


text:
← The Missouri Old Sow Cannon, or "Foli's Folly"
A Peek behind the LDS-strogen Curtain →
Elder Packer and the Danger of Homosexuality, 20 Years Later
Posted on May 26, 2013 by Clair Barrus
Twenty years ago this week, Elder Boyd K. Packer gave a talk[1] to the All-Church Coordinating Counsel[2] opening with some advice he received about which direction church administrators should face.
"Either you represent the teachers and students and champion their causes or you represent the Brethren who appointed you. You need to decide now which way you face." Then he added, "some of your predecessors faced the wrong way."
Elder Packer said this advice was difficult to follow at first, but "in time, I did understand, and my resolve to face the right way became irreversible."
He gave several anecdotes about blessings of unquestioning obedience to file leaders saying he knew "how easy it is to get turned around." He warned of three dangers influencing church members to "face the wrong way" which "have made major invasion[s]" into the church because of "social and political unrest." Members of the church were succumbing to these "temptations" because they seem "so reasonable and right."
"The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals."
To illustrate his points, Elder Packer quoted from three letters, each representing one of the three dangers and provided specific responses to each. This post will focus on the issue of homosexuality.
By the time Elder Packer gave this talk in 1993 church leaders had firmly established a stance regarding homosexuality – that it was an unnatural condition one was not born with, a "disease" possibly brought on by parental failure, masturbation or satanic influences. The most influential source of thought about homosexuality had been Elder Spencer W. Kimball's 1969 Miracle of Forgiveness.[3] He, along with Mark E. Peterson had been assigned over issues regarding homosexuality in 1959.
Elder Kimball believed "such a disease [was] curable" suggesting gay men marry women to overcome their homosexual desires. The church soon published a pamphlet stating the same, that men might be cured if they "father children" in a traditional marriage. This approach to try to cure homosexuality would continue until 1987 when First Counselor Gordon B. Hinckley said "marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices."[4]
In the mid to late 70s the church stepped away from labeling people as "homosexuals" concerned that such labels would make "the matter seem beyond solving." On this topic, Elder Packer stated in a 1978 pamphlet on homosexuality, "to introduce it I must use a word. I will use it one time only. Please notice that I use it as an adjective, not as a noun; I reject it as a noun." Today, the church still prefers to say someone has "same sex attraction" rather than is a "homosexual."
In 1962 Elders Kimball and Peterson instructed BYU not to allow homosexuals to attend the university. Various efforts were used to expel gay men from campus including interrogating fine arts and drama students, license plate monitoring, spying, coordination with local law enforcement, and polygraph tests. For a period of time, BYU used electro-shock therapy to cure homosexuality.[5]
The church became politically and financially involved in opposing the Equal Rights Amendment in 1976 saying, among things that the ERA would result in "an increase in the practice of homosexual and lesbian activities."[6]
In 1988 the church contracted with the Hawaii marketing agency Hill and Knowlton to monitor legislative action and promote church views regarding homosexuality with the Hawaii state legislature and the U.S. Congress. In 1990 three same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses in Hawaii, raising concerns with the church and setting the stage for the church's future efforts to protect monogamous marriage in the U.S.[7] Related legal activities continued in Hawaii, and on May 19, 1993, the day after Elder Packer gave his talk, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that refusing marriage licenses was unconstitutional in Hawaii.
Efforts to legalize gay marriage in the U.S. began in 1990
In his talk Elder Packer quoted from the letter he recently received from an eighteen-year-old gay Mormon, allowing Elder Packer to illustrate the "Gay/Lesbian challenge" to the church. The young man said he had experienced "what it's like to be a homosexual in a Church which is sometimes less than accepting of its gay members." He described supportive Bishops and Stake Presidents who have helped him spiritually, but inferred he had other difficult experiences in the church. He offered to meet with Elder Packer to "discuss the issues facing gay Latter-day Saints and the Church" in a mutually respectfully way. [8]
To the audience, Elder Packer responded to the letter:
"That young man with gender disorientation needs to know that gender was not assigned at mortal birth, that we were sons and daughters of God in the premortal state."
He noted he had received hundreds of letters "from members who are hurting or leaders who are worried," but cautioned his audience that the rank and file would feel "discontented" if "we concentrate on solving the problems of the exceptions."
"Those who are hurting think they are not understood. They are looking for a champion, an advocate, someone with office and influence from whom they can receive comfort. They ask us to speak about their troubles in general conference, to put something in the curriculum, or to provide a special program to support them in their problems or with their activism."
He warned the audience "when members are hurting, it is so easy to convince ourselves that we are justified, even duty bound, to use the influence of our appointment or our calling to somehow represent them." He notes that such sympathizing could tempt us to "soften the commandments to comfort them" and warns of reverse-revelation. "[I]n our efforts to comfort them, we lose our bearings", leaving our assigned areas unprotected by facing the wrong way.
Elder Packer indicated those who are hurting should be helped and comforted and used a quote by Joseph Smith about how to provide that comfort:
The question is not whether they need help and comfort. That goes without saying. The question is "How?" The Prophet Joseph Smith, when he organized the Relief Society said, "There is the need for decisions of character aside from sympathy."
He warned that "If we are not very careful, we will think we are giving comfort to those few who are justified and actually we will be giving license to the many who are not."[9]
The next day, Hawaii's Supreme Court ruled that the state's refusal to issue marriage licenses constituted sex discrimination. The church began a series of anonymous efforts to combat gay marriage in Hawaii, Alaska, California (Prop-22 and Prop-8) and in other states.[10] The Proclamation on the Family was penned as efforts to legalize gay marriage gained momentum and the church became more involved. The Proclamation would later became a rallying call for leaders to mobilize members of the church to get spiritually, politically and financially involved protecting the family by combating gay marriage. By 2009, Utah ranked last in the nation favoring gay rights legislation, many seeing these rights as an effort to destroy the family.[11]
Thousands protest at Temple Square in 2008 over LDS church Prop-8 efforts (BGordon Photo)
When the extent of Prop-8 efforts by the church came to light, it became a divisive issue both in and out of the church. Protests at temples became common. Gay Mormons who remained in the church felt divided, as did many straight Mormons who sympathized with gays in general, or gay loved ones. Elder Packer's 2010 speech stating homosexuals could overcome their orientation sparked thousands of protesters to march on temple square.[12]
However, some things changed.
Grass-roots efforts by Mormons arose along a number of fronts. Popular church playwright and author Carol Lynn Pearson's Good Bye, I Love You personalized the issue of homosexuality for many Mormons when she wrote about her life with her gay husband who died of AIDS while under her care.[13] Groups formed to provide fellowship for gay Mormons such as Affirmation. Groups like Family Fellowship began providing support for LDS families with gay children. Groups like Mormons Building Bridges formed to send messages that Mormons were gay-friendly. Some local wards and stakes held outreach meetings for gays in their boundaries. BYU students participated in the "It Gets Better" video campaign. BYU students formed an Understanding Same-Gender Attraction group.
Hundreds of Mormons marched in the 2012 gay pride parade in Salt Lake as a show of good will to the LGBT community
Changes also occurred in the church. Of homosexuality, Elder Oaks noted "Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn." The church's printed version of Elder Packer's 2010 talk excluded his statement that God would not let individuals be born gay. The church cautioned "not to blame family members for choices made by a person with homosexual problems." Suggestions that masturbation causes homosexuality are no longer taught. Statements that homosexual thoughts are sinful have been removed from the Handbook of Instructions. The church has distanced itself from groups promoting reparative therapy. A General Authority offered an apology to gays and lesbians from an LDS background at a stake sponsored activity. The first openly gay Bishopric member was called. The church said it was open to accepting gays into the Boy Scouts program. BYU lifted a ban on the advocacy of homosexuality. The church promoted non-discrimination legislation in Salt Lake City. A statement by the church said it does not object to many of the rights associated with civil partnerships. President Hinckley, Elders Holland and Uchtdorf have emphasized God's love for homosexuals.[14]
A new church website, "Mormons and Gays" includes media emphasizing compassion and understanding towards homosexuals. Church leaders state same-sex attraction is "not an illness or a disease," that "no one chooses to have such attractions" and that "no one fully knows the root cause of same-sex attraction." An apostle hopes the site will help the "family remain intact," that the feelings of gays "are real," and that no other church "should be more loving and compassionate" towards gays. Homosexuals "are real, that they are authentic, that we don't deny that someone feels a certain way."[15]
The church's view on traditional marriage remains firm as it continues efforts to prevent gay marriage.[16] But in other aspects it appears to be shifting from a strict conservative stance to one of more moderation. Social change in Western civilization is quickly shedding attitudes of the past in favor of a more gay-friendly, tolerant society. Despite its fight against same-sex marriage, the LDS church is also in a process of change. The backlash against its Prop-8 campaign was severe and may have caused the church to take conciliatory measures to rectify perceptions of homophobia. Whatever the reason, the church appears to be in the process of abandoning much of its hard-line approach towards homosexuality.
Also at play seems to be more of a willingness by church leaders to listen and to, and try to make room for those once considered a danger to the church. Rather than just face upward to higher leaders or doctrinal principals, leaders are now encouraging Latter-day Saints to face both directions.
[1] Elder Boyd K. Packer, "Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council." Text available at http://www.zionsbest.com/face.html. Lynn G. Robbins of the presidency of the 70 reported that Elder Packer asked him "which way do you face" when on his first assignment as a 70 (1997). Apparently this was still on Packer's mind, and made a strong impact on Robbins. Packer told him "a 70 does not represent the people to the prophet, he represents the prophet to the people." Robbins went on to warn against such things as accommodating local customs, and leniency in granting temple recommends, church school admittance and missionary applications. (General Conference broadcast, Saturday Morning session, Lynn G. Robbins, 10/4/2014).
[2] The All-Church Church Coordinating Council is over the teaching organizations of the Church, assisting with the correlation effort. For its genesis, see Prince, Gregory A., and Wm Robert Wright. David O. McKay and the rise of modern Mormonism. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah P, 2005, 149-50.
[3] Spencer Kimball, Spencer W. The Miracle of Forgiveness. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969, 77-78, 85. For statements by church leaders on homosexuality see O'Donovan, Connell. "The Etiology of Homosexuality from Authoritative Latter-day Saint Perspectives, 1879-2006." Nov. 2006. 21 May 2013 <http://www.connellodonovan.com/etiology.htm>.
[4] Hinckley, Gordon B. "Reverence and Morality." General Conference address, April 1987.
[5] O'Donovan, Connell, '"The Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature": A Revised History of Homosexuality & Mormonism, 1840-1980.' Connellodonovan.com. 1994, 2004. 21 May 2013 <http://www.connellodonovan.com/abom.html#byu>.
[6] "The Church and the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: A Moral Issue," Ensign, Mar 1980; D. Michael Quinn, The LDS Church's Campaign Against the Equal Rights Amendment, Journal of Mormon History Vol. 20, No. 2, 1994, 85
[7] Crapo, Richley, Chronology Of Mormon / LDS Involvement In Same-Sex Marriage Politics, Mormon Social Science Association
[8] The young man was Tony Collette who has written about this experience in Anderson, Lavina Fielding, and Janice Merrill Allred. Case Reports of the Mormon Alliance. Volume 3, 1997. Salt Lake City, Utah: Mormon Alliance, 1997, chapter 9, also available at http://fromonegaymormon.blogspot.com/. The full text of his letter to Elder Packer and Elder Packer's response is available here.
[9] Note that the above several paragraphs are also about feminism and intellectualism, not just homosexuality.
[10] Crapo; "Chronology of Mormon involvement in Prop. 22." lds-mormon.com. 23 May 2013 http://www.lds-mormon.com/doma.shtml; Rosen, Yereth. "Mormons join Alaska campaign to ban gay marriage by Yereth Rosen "Http://members.tripod.com/~no_on_2/rns1001.html; C., Laura, "A Prop 8 Timeline" Mormons for Marriage, 23 May 2013 <http://mormonsformarriage.com/?page_id=68>.
[11] Jeffrey Lax and Justin Phillips, "Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness," American Political Science Review, p.41. Summarized results available at "Utah ranks last in attitude to pro-gay policies," Mormon-Chronicles.
[12] "2,000-3,000 protest for gay rights outside Mormon church offices in Salt Lake City."DeseretNews.com. 23 May 2013 <http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700071914/2000-3000-protest-for-gay-rights-outside-Mormon-church-offices-in-Salt-Lake-City.html?pg=all>
[13] Pearson, Carol Lynn. Good-bye, I love you. New York: Random House, 1986.
[14] See for example Wenger, Kaimi. "Evolving LDS views on homosexuality." Times Seasons. 11 Sept. 2011. 22 May 2013 <http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2011/09/evolving-lds-views-on-homosexuality/>.
[15] New Mormon church website touts softer tone on gays by Peggy Fletcher Stack, Salt Lake Tribune
[16] For example, this week — "Mormon church arranged meeting ahead of LGBT vote." The Spectrum, 23 May 2013 <http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20130517/NEWS01/130517002/Mormon-church-arranged-meeting-ahead-LGBT-vote>.
This entry was posted in Culture, History, Politics and tagged BYU, Homosexuality, politics, Proclamation on the Family by Clair Barrus. Bookmark the permalink.
Elder Packer and the Danger of Homosexuality, 20 Years Later — 23 Comments
Joseph Smidt on May 26, 2013 at 9:16 am said:
Nice history lesson on this topic. It's interesting see some of the defining moments in history that I never knew (like Hawaii) than watch this evolution since then.
R. Gary on May 26, 2013 at 10:30 am said:
Thank you for the link to Elder Packer's 1993 talk. After reading it out loud with my wife, I strongly disagree that it contains anything not in harmony with the current First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. I believe President Packer and his associates in the First Presidency and the Twelve unanimously approved the Church's official response to last Thursday's BSA vote, in which the Church states:
————– quote ————–
"Sexual orientation has not previously been—and is not now—a disqualifying factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops."
————– end quote ————–
NoCoolName_Tom on May 26, 2013 at 3:41 pm said:
R. Gary, perhaps you should re-read another classic from Elder Packer, "The Unwritten Order of Things". Church policy, practice, and beliefs are much more than what the manuals and handbooks vaguely state. Let's stop trying to rewrite history by claiming it's always been this way. It hasn't. Things have been changing.
Bridget Jack Jeffries on May 26, 2013 at 5:15 pm said:
The first openly gay Bishopric member was called.
Except that a ward executive secretary is not classified as a member of the bishopric.
"The ward clerk and ward executive secretary work closely with the bishopric, but they are not members of the bishopric and do not need to be released when the bishopric is reorganized." ~ CHI, Book 1, p. 6
R. Gary on May 26, 2013 at 6:24 pm said:
NoCoolName_Tom: The talk Clair Barrus refers to in the title of his post and in its first paragraph is Boyd K. Packer's 1993 talk, named and linked in the first footnote. Quotes and references to this talk are sprinkled throughout the article.
Again, I strongly disagree that Packer's 1993 talk contains anything not in harmony with the current First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. Furthermore, I believe President Packer and his associates in the First Presidency and the Twelve unanimously approved the Church's official response to last Thursday's BSA vote, in which the Church states:
That sentence does not represent a change.
When it comes to boys who want to join LDS Scout troops the compelling interest of the Church was in 1993, as it is today, a willingness to abide by certain standards of behavior. These standards include abstinence from sexual relationships. And then, as now, the Church remains firmly committed to upholding those standards.
Nate W. on May 27, 2013 at 12:30 am said:
He warned the audience "when members are hurting, it is so easy to convince ourselves that we are justified, even duty bound, to use the influence of our appointment or our calling to somehow represent them."
I'm pretty sure that the scriptures tell us who we should advocate for:
Clair Barrus on May 27, 2013 at 1:01 am said:
Jack, at his website, Mitch Mayne says he was sustained an executive secretary in his bishopric. Apparently this is not technically the case though. Thanks for the info.
http://www.mitchmayne.com/
R. Gary, I don't see any overt contradiction in the First Presidency's advocation of gays in the Boy Scouts, and Elder Packers 1993 talk either. I do however see a shift in tone and emphasis from the way things were 20 years ago.
I am not aware of the church speaking in favor of expanding gay rights for any group before prop8.
Casey on May 27, 2013 at 1:39 am said:
R. Gary, your arguments here strike me as someone clinging so stubbornly to their favorite tree that they're not noticing the forest changing from summer to autumn. In the strictest technical sense, of course, you're correct that the Boy Scout statement does not represent any kind of formal policy change. Personally, I find it significant that the church released a statement reaffirming its neutrality on homosexuality (as opposed to homosexual behavior), because I don't think that would have happened twenty years ago. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Regardless, this post makes it clear that the church's rhetoric about homosexuality has changed dramatically in the last few decades. Packer's curt dismissal of the boy with "gender confusion" is a far cry from mormonsandgays.com, which represents exactly the kind of dialogue that was once unthinkable. That's not even mentioning past rhetoric spoken over church pulpits about homosexuality as a disease or mental illness. Only the most ardent pedant would argue that this doesn't represent real change, even if you leave the BSA out it altogether.
Richard Lamborn on May 27, 2013 at 6:23 am said:
I'm curious as to when behavior explicitly entered the church's discourse in this specific context.
According to this post and its citation, it is not there in the 1962 declaration of BYU's policy and practice, note 5, above.
However, it is explicit in the May 26, 2013 First Presidency letter regarding the BSA.
When was the church's distinction first overtly and expressly made?
Bridget Jack Jeffries on May 27, 2013 at 8:13 am said:
Clair ~ Yeah, I know that's what Mayne says, and what a lot of Mormons seem to believe about the executive secretary calling.
I always felt like there was a bit of a triumphalist hype surrounding Mayne's "leadership" calling. To this Protestant, an exec secretary is more on par with an administrative assistant than a congregational leader (and the CHI pretty much says as much on that count). To my knowledge, exec secretary isn't even in the pecking order for presiding over or conducting Sacrament meeting, even if the entire bishopric is unavailable. I can't remember who leadership passes to in that case, but it isn't the exec sec.
I'm not saying that it isn't a positive step for GLBTs in the church for the church to call an openly gay man to a significant administrative calling in the ward, but there just seemed like a rush to declare that Mayne was now a "leader" and a "bishopric member," and I couldn't agree with that. Then again, while Mayne is "openly gay," he is also chaste and not in a relationship with another gay man. This was more of a change in cultural attitude than a change in policy of any sort.
R. Gary on May 27, 2013 at 8:39 am said:
1. In the past, did sexual orientation alone bar any LDS boys from Scouting?
2. "President Packer has an extensive publication record on homosexuality—and … the edited version of his [October 2010] conference talk matches precisely what he has always taught. Far from backpedaling, the edited version is a smooth continuation of principles that he has taught for over thirty years." (Gregory L. Smith, "Shattered Glass: The Traditions of Mormon Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Encounter Boyd K. Packer," FARMS Review: Volume – 23, Issue – 1, Pages: 61-85, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2011.)
It is a long article, but worth the read for anyone who is interested in Packer's views on homosexuality.
Clair Barrus on May 27, 2013 at 11:13 pm said:
Regarding the church's earlier position on Boy Scouts and homosexuality, I've excerpted three related articles, two from 1991, and one from 2000.
SCOUTERS ADVOCATE STRONG DEFENSE, By Douglas D. Palmer, Deseret News Wednesday, June 26 1991
… an official of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Tuesday he would recommend that the church withdraw from the Boy Scouts of America if the church is forced to register homosexual Scouts …
Elder Jack H. Goaslind, a member of the church's First Quorum of Seventy, president of the church's Young Men program and a member of the Boy Scouts' National Executive Board, reiterated his position Tuesday that he is not in a position of making final decisions regarding the church's involvement in Scouting. That is the responsibility of the First Presidency, he said.
But he said he would recommend the church … withdraw from the Boy Scouts if it is forced to follow court rulings on the admittance of … homosexuals
Church News, "BSA officials refute reports of 'changing era for values'" Saturday, Aug. 24, 1991
Contrary to some reports in the news media, Boy Scouts of America is not changing its values, according to Ben Love, Chief Scout Executive.
"The traditional values represented in the Cub Scout, Boy Scout and Exploring programs are as relevant for the 1990s as they were when the movement was founded, and will not change," Love said. …
[An announcement] … implied that the new, non-traditional program [to help self-identified gays] marked the beginning of a changing era for values associated with Scouting. …
"Learning for Life" is a partnership between teachers and Scouting that will be conducted during the school day in classrooms by teachers and other volunteers. …
LDS Church Entwined In Struggle For Scouting, Rolling Stone pg 100 6 Jul 2000 By Chuck Sudetic
WASHINGTON, DC — On April 26th the Supreme Court met to determine the constitutional rights of the Boy Scouts of America. The case on the docket was Number 99-699, the Boy Scouts of America vs. James Dale. In a courtroom filled with law students, gay activists and television crews, Supreme Court Justice David Souter argued that the Boy Scout Handbook does not spell out any policy banning gays. …
The Mormon Church, the largest sponsor of Boy Scout troops in the United States is fiercely opposed to admitting homosexuals and has stated that it will end its nine-decade-long affiliation if gays are admitted. …
In 1995, Elder Jack Goaslind, a national BSA Executive Board member and president of the Mormon's youth organization, was asked during a civil hearing why the top leaders of the church were willing to leave BSA if it becomes accepting of gays. "Well, to be direct with you, it was because of the number of cases that have come before the courts on different homosexual-conduct acts that it's been discussed thoroughly there. And the decision has been reached," Goaslind said. …
Clair Barrus on May 28, 2013 at 12:02 am said:
Richard Lamborn, Three statements seem to give a sense of time frame for when behavior became the emphasis in church discourse.
The 1st is somewhat generic– in that homosexual behavior is mentioned along with heterosexual behavior. The 2nd is explicitly about same-sex attraction, and the 3rd is published in the Handbook of Instructions.
[Letter from The First Presidency. "Standards of Morality and Fidelity," November 1991]
"There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior. However, such thoughts and feelings, regardless of their causes, can and should be overcome and sinful behavior should be eliminated."
[Dallin H. Oaks, "Same Gender Attraction" October, 1995]
'… we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) "thoughts and feelings" (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) "homosexual behavior" (which is a serious sin)'
Handbook 2: Administering the Church (2012)
"Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God …
"If members engage in homosexual behavior ….
"While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.
"If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them …
Richard Lamborn on May 28, 2013 at 4:48 pm said:
Some excellent research Clair.
I'm left wondering why the behavior issue with regard to homosexuals was apparently not explicit earlier, why there was an apparent need to make it emphatically explicit and why it was made explicit when it was.
Not that I'm asking you to do more research, Clair 😉
Clair Barrus on May 28, 2013 at 6:56 pm said:
Regarding Oak's statement that it was homosexual *behavior* that was sinful rather than thoughts — in late September, 1995, the Proclamation on the Family was published. The next month, Oak's article on same-sex attraction was published. Oaks had worked on his talk since March, and the Proclamation had been worked on for about a year. I believe the Proclamation was worked on by a committee.
With all that preparation, I suspect they may have consulted professional research on the topic and learned there was a strong possibility of inborn same-sex attraction. Oaks may have taken the opportunity to cover that base by emphasizing behavior over thoughts. However Elder James E. Faust had just denounced "the false belief of inborn homosexual orientation" that September.
Re: "Three statements seem to give a sense of time frame for when behavior became the emphasis in church discourse."
Let's not forget Boyd K. Packer's talk on this subject, published by the Church 35 years ago.
On March 5, 1978, Packer spoke to a BYU Twelve Stake Fireside about homosexuality. "I speak," he said, "to those few, those very few, who may be subject to homosexual temptation." Over and over, he warned "those few" to resist such temptations, "for a lifetime, if necessary."
"Do not respond to those feelings." he continued, "Bad thoughts often have to be evicted a hundred times, or a thousand. But if they have to be evicted ten thousand times, never surrender to them. You are in charge of you."
He identified homosexual temptation as "an affliction," a cause of pain and suffering. Yielding to that temptation only makes things worse. "When practiced," he warned, "it is immoral. It is a transgression…. Such actions are wrong."
The distinction between temptation and transgression is not new. Eve did not transgress by being tempted of the devil, but by yielding to that temptation.
Steven Jones on May 29, 2013 at 10:16 am said:
Informative and insightful — thank you, Clair. Can you elaborate on the role played by BYU, its shift in policy towards "gays"? This shift seems to trace to about 2007 – correct? April 2007 was the commencement at which BYU awarded Dick Cheney an honorary Doctoral Degree with a great deal of publicity – and Dick Cheney has long been an open advocate for gay marriage.
Has the shift at BYU affected the Church ("the tail wagging the dog"), or vice versa?
Steve Jones, I haven't looked closely at BYU and its approach to homosexuality. I think you may have a good point though about Cheney's April 2007 visit to campus to receive an honorary doctorate degree and speak at commencement. Remember too that at this time, Mitt Romney was gaining traction as a viable candidate for president, with the church's help. More attention was being paid to Romney and the church.
The following events leading up to Cheney's visit and changes to BYU's honor code regarding homosexuality may be relevant:
– April 8, 2006, BYU expresses concern that accreditation agencies will not respect their religious missions. BYU requests exemptions "from employing gays and lesbians" on the faculty among other things
– April, 2006, Two dozen gay-rights protesters are arrested on BYU campus for trespassing. They are from Soulforce, a pro-gay group which has been travelling the country protesting at conservative universities
– June 2006, BYU professor Jeffery Nielsen's contract is allowed to expire after he questioned the church's opposition to gay marriage
– March 2007, Soulforce again protests at BYU
– April 2007, Dick Cheney visits BYU campus to deliver the commencement address and receive an honorary degree.
– April 2007, "In response to the requests and efforts of several gay students, BYU amends its Honor Code to remove ambiguous wording and clarify its position regarding homosexuality. Prior to the amendment the Code was unclear on whether simply declaring oneself gay implied "advocacy of a homosexual lifestyle"(an Honor Code violation). The amended Honor Code makes it clear that "one's stated sexual orientation is NOT an Honor Code issue" but maintains that homosexual behavior and/or the promotion of homosexual relations as "morally acceptable" remain Honor Code violations." –LDS Gay History Timeline [Unabridged], http://mormoninthecloset.blogspot.com/2008/11/lds-gay-history-timeline-unabridged.html
Michael on May 29, 2013 at 9:07 pm said:
and yet they folded. This saddens me greatly.
Mark Thomas on June 2, 2013 at 1:45 am said:
In a related matter, from the Salt Lake Tribune, 5/29/13:"A gay-rights group is protesting Weber State University's decision to name a new family center after senior Mormon apostle Boyd K. Packer.
"The Utah Stonewall Democrats say the center should not be named after Packer, who most recently stirred contention in April when he publicly warned against a "tolerance trap," apparently in referring to the legalization of gay marriage.
"To name something that is family-oriented in honor of a person who has such a narrow vision of what a family is, a vision that quite frankly excludes a lot of Utah families, is reprehensible in my opinion," said Bob Henline, a board member of the Democratic caucus.
"The group sent a letter Friday to Weber State Board of Trustees Chairman Alan Hall, though a school spokesman said Hall had not seen it as of Wednesday afternoon.
"An online petition pushing the university to change the name of the Boyd K. and Donna S. Packer Center for Family and Community Education had nearly 1,900 signatures by Wednesday afternoon.
"The family center is not a building, but rather a fundraising and support group for existing community programs. Weber State officials hope naming the center after the high-ranking president of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles will drive up donations.
"Such namesakes "either have got to have money they're willing to put in or the name recognition has to connect with folks that do have money," said Jack Rasmussen, dean of the College of Education. "There was no specific donation made by the Packers, but there's been a lot of money come in in support of that naming, a lot of kickback." . . .
Sarah on November 30, 2013 at 1:01 am said:
In regards to the proclamation being released and hawaii, LDS really need to look out of Utah and BYU and instead look onto the political stage in a much broader sense.
In 1993 Dean Hamer released his study re the gay gene. News articles were splashed across the world- Gay gene found! Born gay! Study proves people genetically born gay! In scientific circles however, criticism was made of his methodology (detectable by a first year psych student) and reviews critising his research was published in peer reviewed journals- generally inaccessible to the public. Hamner, knowing that the public was *very much* sold on the gay gene but that his credibility shot in his field, attempted to replicate the study 2 years later-1995.
Again there was much fanfare- "gay gene will soon be isolated". Time, National geographic, NY times and other European outlets heavily advertised the gay gene. Hamer announced his results would soon be published proving there was a gay gene. We were told these results would be published in October 1995.
In October 1995 the proclamation was released to the WORLD. As promised, so too were Hamers. But the results were quietly released, with little media attention- his previous study had not been replicated and there was no proof of a gay gene. He was disgraced, went before the ethical board & was moved from his department.
Hawaii had little significance outside of the USA. The gay gene was splashed across the world. Historically, the announcement of definitive proof of the gay gene (not since substantiated and now believed to be culturally driven) came at the same time preparations for the proclamation begun. The proclamation and the results Hamer's second study were timed to be released at the same time. Ironically, Hamer's final results did little to undermine the proclamation.
The LDS church is well informed regarding the world stage, there are more LDS outside the US than within it. We would do well to open our eyes to the politics on the world stage before we start looking outward by only looking inward- we must look both ways.
Clair Barrus on November 30, 2013 at 2:44 pm said:
Sarah, thanks for broadening the perspective of events surrounding the Proclamation. It is interesting that the "Gay Gene" hype may have been an important motivator for the church.
etseq on May 4, 2014 at 2:16 pm said:
Isn't lying considered a sin in your religion? Dean Hamer is a world renowned geneticist and despite constant attacks like this on religious websites, his study was universally praised by scientists and had passed rigorous peer review. Contrary to what was stated here, there have been 6 attempts at replication and 5 have been successful, which is an incredibly robust finding (attempts at replication once is common, maybe twice if it is an important result). Hamer's work was targeted for political reasons and any scientific criticism it received was technical, run of the mill scientific feedback. No one in his field thought that he had faked or manipulated his results for political reasons. In fact, the only accusation of impropriety came from a low level lab assistant at the NIH who had never met Hamer nor worked with him but filed an ethical complaint with the IG of the NIH, which they had to investigate by law. To no ones surprise, the IG found the no evidence to support the allegations and instead criticized the complainant who admitted during the investigation that he had no real evidence but was certain there had to be fraud because the results of the study contradicted his fundamentalist christian faith.
Hamer went on to pioneer other noteworthy genetic studies, including, ironically enough, evidence of a genetic predisposition for belief in supernatural narratives (the press called it the "God Gene" but that was an oversimplification – just as "Gay Gene" was similarly reductive but that is the fault of the media not science. He retired recently and now lives in Hawaii with his long term partner, who is a documentary filmmaker. They were recently married in Hawaii, which passed gay marriage by a wide margin despite another well funded effort to kill it, which included efforts by the LDS church (little had changed in 20 years when since the Hawaii litigation). They both now collaborate on documentary projects now aimed at saving gay youth from the toxic homophobia that leads many to kill themselves. Your Church, I am sorry to say, has been instrumental in fostering this attitude of shame and self-loathing in both LDS families and the wider culture. One would hope LDS members, the vast majority of whom I am sure are good people, would come to realize the damaging fruits of their church's teachings and at minimum, cease political and judicial efforts to restrict the right of Gays and lesbians.


text:
Q: What is the point of & in Rust if I can omit it? This is the code:
struct Foo { x: i32 }
fn bar(foo: &Foo) -> i32 {
  foo.x
}

It compiles. Then, I remove the & and it also compiles:
fn bar(foo: Foo) -> i32 {
  foo.x
}

The question: what's the difference and why it might be necessary to use this symbol here? Let me rephrase: why dereferencing is not syntactically explicit?

A: foo: &Foo is a reference to a Foo, while foo: Foo is a Foo value.
The first signature declares that the function only borrows foo by taking a reference, the second signature declares that it takes ownership of the value.
Although both compile, and both are correct, there is a difference in how you call them and what you can do in the function body.
First variant:
bar(&foo)
// foo is still available here

Second variant:
bar(foo)
// foo is no longer available here; it was moved into bar
// (unless foo is Copy, in which case it is copied into bar)

Furthermore, if the function bar owns the value foo, it is possible to move fields out of foo. This is not possible if foo is a reference.
Here is a demonstration with a field type that is not Copy:
struct Foo {
    x: String,
}

fn bar1(foo: &Foo) -> &String {
    // let y = foo.x;  // moving out of a reference would not compile
    &foo.x // can return a reference to field
}

fn bar2(foo: Foo) -> String {
    foo.x // can move x out of foo
}

fn main() {
    let foo = Foo {
        x: "foo".to_string(),
    };

    let x: &String = bar1(&foo);
    let x: String = bar2(foo);

    // bar1(&foo);  // would not compile; foo has been moved into bar2 above
}

Playground

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange