Today the World Lost a Hero it Never Knew it had

For those of you who knew him, you knew him as Frank the Fish. Always, he was excited to see the many people who called him friend. You loved him because he was carefree and always ready to impart a fish hug, full of love, to anyone in need of a warm, though often slimy, embrace. But Frank was far from ordinary; Frank was the hero that you did not know you had, and he as done more for human life than any fish come before. This is the Frank you did not know; this is his story.

Frank the Fish was born in the rice patties of Taiwan. Though limited by his stature, Frank quickly became the big fish in the big pond. His aptitude for languages, coupled with the street smarts to out whit a Colombian drug lord (this happened), enabled Frank to run the streets of Asia with an iron fin. Frank never used opium, but at a very young age he learned the power and addiction of the drug. Addiction because you were willing to do anything for it, and power because you were willing to do anything that Frank wanted you to do for it. Frank's cartel stretched across the world; his money, power and influenced infiltrated our everyday lives, but we never knew it. I wish not to divulge too many details of Frank's former life; it brought him deep sorrows and pains in his later years. Instead I will tell you how Frank escaped.

Frank had a beautiful family, a wife named Spring, and two baby twin girls named Angel and Dream. They were his whole life; he cared for nothing more than their futures. Frank decided to dissolve his opium cartel, go into hiding, and give Angel and Dream a chance to live a better life than he himself had done. This was the beginning of the end for Frank; for , when you become as powerful as he was, you make enemies, and enemies who pretend to be your friends.

Two days before Frank had planned to leave, his North Korean safe house was overrun be marauders hell bent on killing. Frank was found weeping in a corner holding the lifeless and bloodied body of his baby Angel as he whispered oaths of vengeance on the heads of those in his inner circle. God help those who betrayed Frank.

Frank turned to the only source he had, that he knew would help him get his revenge, the C.I.A. Frank started as an informant giving details of drug caches, illegal operations, and sources of corruption within the world's governments. Eventually Frank became an operative helping to secure information from various organizations from around the world. When 9/11 happened, Frank saw an opportunity to finally enact his final revenge on the man who destroyed Franks will to live, Osama Bin Laden. With Franks sources of contact and information networks, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda began to deteriorate. Frank led the charge in undermining on of the world's most violent and blood ridden organizations.

Frank was there with Seal Team 9 when Osama's Pakistani compound was taken in the middle of the night. Osama was dead at the hands of Frank, whose thirst for blood had finally been satisfied. Only then on the long flight back from Pakistan did Frank's loneliness overtake him. Frank always had a purpose in life, first of the desire for money and power, second, for the joy of love for his family, and finally, the all encompassing thirst for vengeance. But, now Frank was alone, and in the gale of bitterness.

He retired from the C.I.A. and went into hiding in the only place Frank knew he could never be found, deep behind the tall walls of the Mormon Mecca, Salt Lake City, Utah. I found him alone in a park weeping in a shallow puddle. So dejected was he, that he did not contest being brought home to live with me. This is where Frank's story ends. Every soul that came into his life, each one of you, brought a sliver of joy and a beam of light back into his life. Slowly the pains of black hate were cleansed away by the power of friendship. He delighted in his new friends and joyed in their daily visits to him. The last six months of Franks life helped restore him, in part, the joy and love that he had felt for his family.

Frank succumbed to years of battle wound, poisons, griefs, and pains, but he died with love in his heart for his friends and family, regret for his wrongful actions, and hope to be reunited with the ones he loves. May we all be so lucky to have an ending to life as Frank had. You inspire me Frank, and I will hold out hope for the day when death brings our friendship back to life. God speed.

The Theory of God Ethics

In philosophy class, Professor Jensen was discussing the origin of ethics. The basis of our study came from Plato's discussion of ethics with Euthyphro outside the Lyceum in Athens. If you are not familiar with this work, I suggest reading it. Euthyphro is thought provoking. Based on the Theory that God is ethical, and murder is unethical, we were discussing whether it was ethical for God to kill Uzzah for attempting to steady the Arc of the Covenant when the oxen stumbled (1 Chronicles 13:9-10). Some say it was ethical because God had commanded it and that God decides ethics, others say it was ethical but they did not know why, they merely trust that God knows the laws of ethics better than we do. I however, have a theory that the design of the arc (gold encompassing a wood core, carried about on wood stick preventing it from being grounded, and subjected to immense static electricity from the sand in the desert) could constitute a very large electric capacitor capable of holding a charge strong enough to instantly kill a man. To this I said it is possible that God gave the command to not touch the Arch of the Covenant, not because He (God) would kill you, but because the Arc itself would kill you, thus his commandment was one of protection rather than one of ethics. This theory is mine alone, and Professor Jensen had never heard it before. I ruined his lesson plan and left him struggling to lead the discussion until he changed examples. It was not my intention to ruin his discussion, though his surprise at my comment was comical. He did, however bring up some interesting points regarding ethics and their origin which have inspired this thought.

If you ask a man of faith what is the origin of ethics, he will likely reply,from God. The 'faithful' often claim that God himself establishes all that is good, and all that is bad. God then gave us his, or at least part of his, ethical code in the form of commandments. These commandments act as a guide, as well as a standard by which the 'faithful' believe they will be judged in the last days. But, if you were to ask a faithful man why God chose the commandment 'thou shalt not kill', he might respond with, 'because murder is unethical'. This circular path of thought leads us to our final question, is murder unethical because God commands, or does God command because murder is unethical?

This question makes the faithful uneasy, especially if they believe that God is all powerful, as most do. If God decides ethics, and God is all powerful, then God has the ability to change his ethics as he sees fit. This would allow God to have commanded 'thou shalt kill' from the beginning, or even change to this commandment now. God's ability to change his mind would then force us as his children, to loose confidence in him. Yesterday, God gives us a standard to live, by which we can obtain heaven, but the day before we die God changes his standard and we fail to enter heaven, can we have faith in such a being? Oh, many of you would say 'but God would never do that', why not? Would you respond, that murder is unethical? By the rationale that God defines ethics, then murder would no longer be unethical, if that is what God decided, thus it would be acceptable for us.

But if God truly could/would not command us to kill because murder is unethical then we must accept the fact that God lives and operates under a law, that even he cannot change, which also existed before him. God cannot make himself God if the law existed before him; only the law, which existed before him,  can make him God. In short, God is not God because he is God; God is God because of the standard that he lives by has made him God. This theory is sure to be highly controversial in religious circles because it presents the possibility that God is subject to something higher than him, and that God could lose his God-hood if he ever violated the law that made him God. Rest assured that God can only be God and nothing less because he is incapable of breaking the law of heaven; God has in turn become the law of heaven through his enforcement of the law and is only subject to himself (a law that he cannot change).

God is subject to himself, but what is it about God that he is subject to? What is the essence of God? When God describes himself, does he wish to flaunt his power, his knowledge, or his rank? More than anything else, God is the antithesis of hate, for "he that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is Love" (1 John 4:8). This simple statement conveys more truth (in my opinion), more knowledge, and more guidance than any other verse, dialogue, or sermon ever given. We must comprehend that God is love before we can begin to understand his works. Why did he create us, why are we here, what are we supposed to accomplish, what is his plan, where is the end, what is the end, and how must it end? Without God's love, the answers to life's most important and far reaching questions remain out of our reach. But God is love, and God is the standard of heaven, and the true source of our ethics.

This love, 'God's love', is not the love that either you or I am capable of fully obtaining. His love is more perfect, his love is more sincere, his love is pure charity, "but charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever, and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him" (Moroni 7:47). For God in "the last great day of judgement, which..shall pass upon the inhabitants thereof, (shall judge)..every man according to his works" (D&C 19:3). Do we need more proof that pure charity is the standard of heaven (ethics), as well as the standard by which heaven shall admit us? I for one do not.

This theory, which I call 'The Theory of God Ethics', presumes that God exists, that God takes an active roll in our lives, and that we can be admitted to heaven to live with God. If you wish to argue any of these three assumptions then this theory is not applicable to you. However, to argue any point one must begin at a point of common belief before debating further conflicting views and these assumptions serve as our common ground.

It is my opinion, however, that if you wish to debate God's existence, his active participation in our lives, or the possibility of acceptance in heaven, than debating the origin of ethics should be the least of many of your concerns.