Behold our garden. It is small, but we like it.
I realize the picture quality isn't that great, but I think you get the idea.
This is what our garden looked like around the beginning of May. The four plants are roma tomato plants we bought from the local farmers market and transplanted shortly before this picture. The picture is from the southeast looking northwest. You can also see two of our trees in the background, one of which is flowering.
We are using a method of gardening called “square-foot gardening” where you don’t plant in rows so much but think of your garden three dimensionally. We are growing peas and pole beans up strings and putting plants that don’t need so much sun in the shade of tall plants, like tomatoes. I don’t know all the details of the philosophy – Katie found it in some book. 
So here are our tomato plants as of two weeks ago. We’re pretty excited. They are even bigger now. I expect about 120 to 150 tomatoes. 
Here is the south corner of our garden two weeks ago. We have some mixed salad-type plants growing in the front and on the left side. We already harvested the ones on the left right before this picture. You can also see some carrots, kale, swiss chard, green peppers, and the one in the back right is a tomatillo plant. 
Here are the north (back) and east (front) corners of our garden. In both cases we have zucchini in the middle. The back ones are surrounded by radishes with cucumbers and green pole beans in the back. The front ones are surrounded by spinach and green onions (both of which we have harvested). Down the right side we have sugar snap peas.
Just in the last two weeks we’ve harvested some more salad and green onions and also some radishes and peas. We’re also growing basil, oregano, parsley, lavender, rosemary, dill and cilantro elsewhere around our yard. 
This is a picture of Elizabeth we took yesterday, just for fun.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Fredricksons' Garden
Friday, June 22, 2007
Little Jack
We had our Baby!
He was born Tuesday, June 19th at 2:37pm. He was the same length as Grace was, 20 inches, but weighed a whole pound more (8 lbs, 2 oz). He and Alison are doing great, both are getting a decent night sleep thanks to her grandma being here, and Grace is really excited about her baby brother. Here are some pictures! 
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Evolution: Anathema to Mormons?
When Randy and his wife visited this past week, he reminded me that I promised an evolution post a while back. I had actually already written one, a long one, about a month ago, but I didn't like how it ended up, so I never posted it. Here's my second attempt.
With this post, I will not attempt a thorough scientific explanation of evolution, but rather reasons on why you can accept evolution as fact (all of it), and still believe the core doctrines of the church. I'll just state here that the question of whether the theory of organic evolution is true or not is about as silly as the question of whether Newton's theory of gravity is correct. Things fall. Species evolve. Done and done. If you don't accept it you haven't studied it enough. You might say about Newton's theory: "But didn't Eintein prove him wrong with the theory of relativity?" No, he did not- all Einstein did to Newton's theory was to show that it indeed WAS correct in situations where objects are traveling far slower than the speed of light. In fact, Einstein's theory reduces exactly to Newton's theory in the low velocity limit. Einstein expanded upon Newton, and in the future there will be experiments that expand upon evolution, but never prove it wrong- we're past that point already. The likelihood of evolution being proven wrong is about as likely as someone proving that mass actually repels other mass rather than attract it.
As I said, I don't want to get into all the whys and hows of how evolution works, but to talk about how you can accept it and still believe that God created the universe and the earth, and that Christ is still the Savior of it (ie, the important parts of the gospel)
Before we get into what the scriptures say, the first major obstacles to accepting evolution for any Latter-Day Saint are past and current statements by church leaders. We currently have several apostles that openly reject organic evolution, Elders Packer and Nelson probably chief among them (at least they have been the most vocal about it). I've read other, more oblique hints of objection from others such as the whole first presidency, and a few other apostles. Prominent former leaders who ardently objected to it include just about every church president from Joseph F. Smith onward, as well as Elder McConkie, who perhaps has had the most dramatic effect on current opinion in the church about it due to his Mormon Doctrine and The Seven Deadly Heresies, a BYU devotional talk. While I disagree with many of the points Elder McConkie makes in that talk, it is a valuable resource that coherently lays out the reasoning behind "orthodox" Mormon opposition to evolution. Here is part of what he says:These are questions to which all of us should find answers. Every person must choose for himself what he will believe. I recommend that all of you study and ponder and pray and seek light and knowledge in these and in all fields.
I believe that the atonement of Christ is the great and eternal foundation upon which revealed religion rests. I believe that no man can be saved unless he believes that our Lord's atoning sacrifice brings immortality to all and eternal life to those who believe and obey, and no man can believe in the atonement unless he accepts both the divine sonship of Christ and the fall of Adam.
My reasoning causes me to conclude that if death has always prevailed in the world, then there was no fall of Adam that brought death to all forms of life; that if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; that if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, and no eternal life; and that if there was no atonement, there is nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. I believe that the Fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself, and that the Atonement affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself.
I like how he emphasizes that belief in this particular area of doctrine is completely up to the individual (just like any doctrine, really), but what I disagree with is the false dichotomy he sets up between belief in the atonement, and acceptance of evolution. His rhetorical strategy is to suggest that since evolution teaches that death existed before the fall (ie, 4000 B.C.), then the fall could not have happened (at 4000 B.C.), and therefore there was no need for an atonement. All I would say to this is that the biblical and even the temple descriptions of the garden of Eden and the fall are highly symbolic. Did they really eat a piece of fruit that caused their bodies (and the bodies of every other species) to degenerate? Was Eve's body really created from Adam's rib? We need to be very careful not to treat a religious document thousands of years old and having passed through the shaky hands of many scribes as a science textbook.
What is important in the story of the fall is that we are cut off from God because of our sins, and that we need a Savior to intercede for us. Physical death comes on all automatically so Christ will resurrect all automatically. Spiritual death comes on us because of our sins, so Christ will cover those sins that are repented of and save those who follow him. None of these truths require the odd belief that death came into the world around 4000 B.C. If no death existed before the fall, could Adam and Eve eat anything? You might say they were vegetarians, but plant life is...um, alive, and can die, so did the fall only affect animal life? Too many mental gymnastics are required to make that rather (with apologies to Elder McConkie) archaic view of the fall work even on its own internal logic, and nearly impossible when viewed with even rudimentary knowledge of science.
A better way is to follow the injunction of Jesus: "Render to Caeser the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". Lets leave science to the scientists, and the doctrines of salvation to the prophets. This might mean that when a prophet comes along and makes a statement about something in the physical world, we can smile and nod and then go about what we were doing since they were not called as prophets to expound upon science, but to call us to repentence. Often, they are flat out wrong, but this does not undermine their "prophethood". Even prophets are entitled to incorrect opinions. When a prophet speaks about Christ and salvation, I listen. When they talk about science, I tune out. In fact, there is danger in supposing that everything that falls from the lips of a prophet is inspired. There is also danger in thinking that if they are wrong on issues of science, then they might also be wrong on issues of salvation. The Brethren have realized this more and more, and now make far fewer statements about things not really pertaining to our salvation so as to not distract from the "important things".
So what happened at the fall? Modern scripture is quite clear that God created all things spiritually before he created them physically (see Moses 3-4), so I see no reason why the whole garden experience couldn't have been entirely spiritual. Adam and Eve were given choices. They chose knowledge of good and evil, and mortality. God then sent them down to the physical Earth where he had been in the process of creating their bodies from the dust of the earth (literally) for millions of years. Thus Adam fell physically from the presence of God, bringing physical death to us all. Does this mean they had human-like ape parents? Maybe. Does it really matter? I know creationists huff and puff and get all blue in the face talking about how ridiculous the idea is that we came from apes, but I really don't see how it belittles us to say that God used natural tools and processes to create our physical bodies.
Anyway, I'll pause there and see if there are differing or concurring opinions. To summarize my point, I say that the idea that evolution is in direct opposition to the concept of the fall is false (what I perceive as most members' main beef with evolution), even if many church leaders disagree. To justify going against a church leader, I say that we need to listen to them when they talk about the Savior and how to follow him and get back to heaven, but when they start opining on natural phenomenon like the origins of the human body, that is when we can smile and nod and move on (and not publicly denounce them- thats bad). Does that show too much chutzpah on my end?
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Nick in the News (or, Nick Touts Self)
I just wanted to vainly point out that if you google my name (in quotes) along with the word "thermoacoustic", that there are several news articles that have my name in them. (it helps to click on the "show similar results" button) Hurray for me!
Journalism's Overused Terms
I've noticed a few terms that journalists seem to be excessively fond of using lately.
They are:
panacea
perfect storm
anathema
chutzpah
Sometimes journalists overuse terms just as kind of a personal quirk. In that sense they are no different from the rest of us. (I once saw a weather report where the forecaster used the phrase "rough go of it" literally a dozen times in a three minute forecast.) However, these terms seem to me to have been used to exhaustion (my exhaustion anyway). It seems like it is similar to other problems that journalists have had in the past, like exaggerating the story by using words with more impact (massacre, bloodbath, etc.) in an attempt to capture interest.
Part of my problem with these particular words is that they have a tendency to be not precisely understood by readers, if not even by the writers. This is in fact partially a result of the overuse - writers (intentionally or not) find places to use the word where it doesn't quite communicate the idea at hand. In other words, the very overuse of the terms hinders a reader with limited vocabulary, like me, to figure out what the words mean from context.
Maybe I shouldn't pick on journalists. Some similarly overused and under-understood examples in the business world come to mind (e.g. audacious, organic growth). Journalists just happen to be on my mind.
Does anyone else get the same feeling about these (or other) terms?
Sunday, May 27, 2007
In the News
Here's a newspaper article talking about the project Alison has been working on for the past four years
As the article says, it's a book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Alison's main job has been to source check the stuff that the authors write and making sure that the foot notes are all correct. The project has been a long time in the making but it looks like it'll be out soon, which is good since we're having a baby next month. It'll be kind of sad when the book is done, it seems like it's taken over a very significant portion of our lives. What will we talk about if not a massacre of 120 people? I'm excited for the book to come out though, I haven't actually been able to read any of the text (apparently there's some type of author confidentiality thing that Alison always warns me about).
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Ninja on Pirates
To get you ready for Pirates III, here's a ninja's take on Dead Man's Chest.
(How do you put a video up to watch?)
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Summer Meditations
As I was putting my books in a stack for DI, I found Summer Meditations by Vaclav Havel (President of Czechoslovakia 1989-1992 and President of the Czech Republic 1993-2003). He started his book with:
As ridiculous or quixotic as it may sound these days, one thing seems certain to me: that it is my responsibility to emphasize, again and again, the moral origin of all genuine politics, to stress the significance of moral vlaues and standards in all spheres of social life, including economics, and to explain that if we don't try, within ourselves, to discover or rediscover or cultivate what I call "higher responsibility", things will turn out very badly indeed for our country.
The "moral origin" of politics? Unfortunately, Havel doesn't go on to descrive his definition of genuine politics - but I suspect that genuine politics is more about genuine cooperation of trustworthy and honest parties for the betterment of all sides. Economic deals also work best when both parties involved in a transaction benefit from that transaction - then the parties will continue to deal with each other in the future and continue to benefit. OK, I know this may be a simplistic view of the world, but I found it interesting.
In a country where we have established the separation of church and state (another issue, I know), I just hope that we don't also separate morals and politics. Like Havel said, we are each responsible for making moral choices. And like we have heard many times from Church leaders, these are the values we learn first at home.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Who Dies in Harry Potter 7?
This post is for those of us who read Harry Potter. In a recent news article JK “Rowling has said two major characters will die in ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.’” Which leads to the speculation; which two?
Since they are “major” characters (whatever that means) I’m going to rule out Mad Eye Moody and Tonks. But from the members of the Order of the Phoenix I can see Mr. Weasley dieing. He is some sort of father figure to Harry and goes out to fight. I don’t see Fred and George dieing, and the other Weasley kids (except Ginny) aren’t major enough. Hagrid, Lupin and Professor McGonagall could be but I doubt it.
Between Ron, Hermione, Ginny and Harry I hope none of them die, but can see two of them dieing – either Ron and Hermione or Ginny and Harry as they were the couples at the end of Book 6.
That assumes that Voldemort doesn’t count as one of the two since it is expected that he dies. If Voldemort is one of the two, then the second could easily be Harry, although I would prefer if it were Mr. Weasley instead.
Snape, Draco and Lucius are also candidates, but if Voldemort is one of the two then I don’t see the two major characters that die as both bad (or good, maybe, in Snape’s case. Who knows.).
In the end I think that Voldemort will die, a different bad guy and a good guy. Some minor characters will snuff it as well such as lesser members of the Order of the Phoenix and some Death Eaters like Crabbe and Goyle’s fathers.
Of the two major characters I would like to think it would be Snape (if he's bad) and Weasley, but I wouldn’t put high odds on it.
Discuss.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Campaign Update
For those not interested in presidential politics, here is a semi-amusing website(hat tip-> Eric Snider). As for the rest of us, it has turned out to be an interesting past few weeks in the presidential primary now in full swing. First up is the shear amount of money that was raised by everyone, and the shocking amount raised by Romney. Who really expected him to actually raise as much primary money as Hillary Clinton? Some in the media claim its all the rich Mormons giving to him, but come on guys, we all know what tight wads we all are. I'm willing to bet that he hasn't even scratched the surface of all the Mormon money he will get once everyone sees that he actually has a good chance now.
Also, for those who didn't hear because of finals or whatever, there was a republican debate a few nights ago. Now, I openly admit that I was biased to Romney going into the debate, but to be honest I only had a fools hope for him actually winning the republican nomination. Watching the debate and the reactions to it the next day changed that for me. He was really good. REALLY good- and 90% of everyone that wrote about it the next day proclaimed him the clear winner. In contrast to the other nine candidates, he smiled, didn't stutter, spoke very clearly, was composed, managed to weave a little humor into some responses, and came across as very "with it" and in control. Until the debate, I liked him only because of his record but was a little anxious that he wouldn't be able to hold his own in a vicious campaign with a Hillary, but now it is clear that he can, and probably will. Some of the new polls in some early states are starting to show that too: He's almost even with McCain in New Hampshire (I'd be surprised if he doesn't overtake him in the next poll because of his debate performance).
Did anyone else catch the debate? Does my characterization of it match yours?
Friday, May 04, 2007
PBS Special
I don’t know if any of you ended up seeing “The Mormons” on PBS earlier this week. I have a few comments about it that I want to mention.
1) Katie and I have known this was in the works for a couple of years. Katie’s brother, Dan, was interviewed for it as was the Tillamen-Dick family who are friends of Katie’s family. Dan’s interview didn’t make the final cut, but the segment on the Tillamen-Dicks did. The family might look familiar to those of you who were at our wedding reception in Colorado.
2) Overall, I thought the program was pretty good. It was not overly unbalanced. I had a few complaints, detailed below, but overall it was better than I expected.
3) They had a few too many excommunicated members commenting on things other than their own excommunication. There were about 6 commentators that were either excommunicated, disfellowshipped, or self-distanced from the religion after being members. A couple of them were pretty obviously anti-mormon. They had a few members of the church that were quite eloquent and several general authorities including, President Hinckley, Elder Oaks, and Elder Marlin Jensen. I suppose you could say that’s balanced, but I think having the anti-mormons comment about Joseph Smith or polygamy is a bit like asking Hugo Chavez to comment on Bush’s foreign policy. There were several rather unbiased commentators including a history professor or two, an evangelical Christian scholar, and the well-known literary critic, Harold Bloom. I was grateful for that.
4) As far as the content goes, I had a problem with some of the things they said about Joseph Smith.
They emphasized his “treasure hunting” and the fact that he was tried at court for treasure hunting. They even said explicitly that he was good at it. The narrator said it as did an interviewee whose description said “Former Church Educator”. Neither of them mentioned that he was acquitted (as in every other trial) and neither justified the claim that he was good at treasure hunting. I think most people would say that the fact that he was always poor as somewhat credible evidence that he was ever “good at it” in any way we would think of.
They also emphasized his apparent thirst for power in Nauvoo. He was the political, military, judicial, and religious leader. They neglected to mention how popular he was and how the people he “ruled” wanted it to be that way. They also neglected to mention his time at Liberty Jail, his frequent arrests in Missouri for crimes of which he was never convicted. I guess my point is that they seemed to be very meticulous about reporting the strange or unusual things he did without being as meticulous in showing the strange or unusual things done to him. Though, to be fair, they didn’t mention anything about freemasons.
5) I thought they did a remarkably good job on the topics of polygamy, the mountain meadows massacre, temples, and missionary work. The coverage of the church’s opposition of the ERA was, however, wholly unsatisfactory. Comments by excommunicated feminists were rebutted by a member who bumbled his way to a rather sexist explanation.
Also, they spent some time on Reed Smoot. That part was very educational for me.
6) The filmmaker seemed to have a hard time getting her head around the fact that church leaders insisted there was no room for middle ground as far as the Joseph Smith story and the Book of Mormon goes. It seemed like she was always asking them why they couldn’t just admit that maybe there was no first vision, and that maybe the angel Moroni didn’t really appear to Joseph Smith, or maybe the Book of Mormon really came from somewhere else.
7) The film mentioned the time when Elder Packer said (I think to some sort of gathering of church leaders) that the three biggest threats to the church are feminists, homosexuals, and intellectuals. I hadn’t heard of this. But after discussing this with Katie, we think we know what he means. The word “feminist” is, of course, rather imprecise. But for certain definitions I agree with Elder Packer. As far as intellectuals go, that seemed really odd to me at first. But then I read some of the interviews on the PBS website and knew exactly what he meant. The excommunicated intellectuals interviewed had several things in common. First, they had a tendency to question and seek proof of everything. I would say that that’s pretty typical of all scholars and not necessarily bad. Second, they applied that standard of questioning and proving to church doctrines. Third, they questioned church doctrine and proposed different doctrine. Fourth, they advocated their proposals by publishing them or teaching them.
In some ways it’s sort of baffling. These people disagree with major church doctrines, don’t sustain local and/or general leaders, and try to persuade others to their point of views; yet many were surprised and upset when they are excommunicated.
I guess maybe it was best said by Nephi (or Jacob?) in the pair of verses, “When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God…” and “But to be learned is good if they hearken to the counsels of God.” (2nd Nephi 9).
Anyway, if you haven’t watched it, it’s worth seeing. I found it interesting and overall, pretty good.