"to be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge." -benjamin desreali

Stinkin' cheaters

2010-07-02T15:54:00.003-06:00

Doug, I'm sorry, but I just can't stand the Uruguay team after Suarez robbed the Ghana team (and the entire continent of Africa) of its first ever semi-final match with a stinking, cheating, blatant, dirty handball on the goal line in the 120th minute. What a lousy way to "win."

My only consolation is that Suarez won't be playing in the next match against the Netherlands (who will surely crush the 'Guayans), and that he'll be forever remembered as the stinking, dirty cheater who robbed the Ghana team (and the entire continent of Africa) of its first-ever semi-final match because of a blatant, rotten handball on the goal line in the 120th minute.

I hope the Orange Men crush the Churritos next week and that Suarez has to watch the whole thing from the sideline sitting on his stinking, cheating, rotten, dirty hands. Just sayin'. ;)

Jon

Skimming At The Pump - The New Crooks Cool for Credit Card Fraud

2010-02-16T09:32:00.005-07:00

Reading this morning I found that 'somewhere' in Sandy we are being 'skimmed' at the gas pump. It has nothing to do with the cost of the gas but more so our credit card security being compromised. It seems that a device (as seen in the picture above) is syphoning our credit card information to be used for fraud. Sandy Police in this article said we should use cash as much as possible at the gas pumps. I can understand the logic behind this, yet I wonder about the prevention they are using to monitor the pumps. The 'unidentified gas station' in Sandy leaves me to wonder why it is still 'unidentified' as someone's credit has been compromised- or even more than just one, but many consumers. Realizing this could hurt the businesses business I feel that it is the lesser of two evils as Sandy residents credit could have been compromised and we aren't finding out the location or how many consumers have been compromised. I'm certain Sandy Police will get into contact with any and everyone that was compromised, right? I wonder what measures can be put into place quickly enough to ensure that business owners are inspecting their pumps so that Skimming doesn't occur.

Thoughts?

Privatization of State Parks

2010-02-15T18:45:00.000-07:00

Today I was reading in the Deseret News about Utah's Legislature making proposals to privatize our state parks.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700009643/Utah-Legislature-Lawmakers-explore-idea-of-privatizing-state-parks.html

I'm tremendously concerned about the proposal of this. I fully understand the reasoning that budgetary dollars are being scrambled for. I understand that the Legislature doesn't have the ability to go into a deficit for our State Parks either and I wouldn't recommend that.

Yet I am disconcerted that we are thinking that privatization is the answer. The example of 'This is the Place State Park' resonates as a poor example of what to do with the State Parks. Why? "Doug the park is well maintained!", they say. Yes, it is maintained but not too many enter because of the costs. The subsidy that the State has taken off of the price is worth the publics interest and education.

Consider Utah has 43 State Parks. What ones are on the privatization list? There is a council that is going to put forward to the Legislature a list of recommendations. How much of that list will be persuaded by lobbyist? I think that we run a risk in allowing this to happen.

The Warning & Brooksley Born

2009-10-20T21:58:00.002-06:00

I just watched this and I feel that it is very well said and laid out. Additionally, Brooksley Born is my new hero.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

Religious Discrimination

2009-10-14T11:13:00.002-06:00

Here's a link to Elder Oaks talk yesterday that has been a topic of discussion today. The report is that he is relating the discrimination that Latter Day Saints have received from our prop 8 involvement to the civil rights discrimination of the 1960's. This apparently has upset a load of people.

I just read through the talk (found here http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/religious-freedom ) and didn't see it that way. It sounds to me like he's saying that everyone in this country has a freedom of speech, and that a religious point of view is not less valid than a secular one.

thoughts?

for fun, you could read through the comments here
http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/705336506/Freedom-of-religion-under-increasing-attack-LDS-leader-says.html
or here
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=8297467&comments=true

This Video Is Awesome - Heard About It on Twitter, Watched It on Youtube and Now Share It With Friends On A Blog

2009-09-15T10:32:00.004-06:00

From A Deseret News Blog: Birth Control & Faith

2009-09-08T15:43:00.002-06:00

Here's the blog.

It discusses a family who have 19 kids, and don't believe in using birth control. They say they put their trust in God to determine how many children they will have.

Thoughts?

Nephi's Psalm

2009-08-23T16:25:00.003-06:00

One of the most important, yet often forgotten, doctrines of the Gospel is found in 2 Nephi 4:15-35. These verses are sometimes called “Nephi’s Psalm”. Nephi’s father Lehi has just passed away, and Nephi is alone as the family’s prophetic leader. Perhaps weighed down by this responsibility, coupled with the passing of his father, Nephi writes of his sadness at not living up to the blessings he has received. He recounts how he and his family have been led through the wilderness to a promised land, choice above all other lands. He has seen angels, been carried away to the tops of mountains, and had many marvelous visions. Yet he still falls prey to temptation. Indeed, in verse 27 he writes,

“And why should I yield to sin, because of my flesh? Yea, why should I give way to temptations, that the evil one have place in my heart to destroy my peace and afflict my soul?”

There are a couple of important lessons to be gleaned from the verses to this point. First, it can be somewhat heartening to know that a person as righteous and close to God as Nephi is can still feel inadequate at times. There is a measure of comfort to be taken from the knowledge that even a prophet can feel overwhelmed by their weaknesses. Additionally, these verses teach us that the closer we get to righteousness, the more our own failings, however small they may be, become apparent to us.

The seminal lesson to be learned, though, is how Nephi deals with these feelings of failure.

He writes,

“And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted. My God hath been my support.

Yea, I know that God will give liberally to him that asketh. Yea, my God will give me, if I ask not amiss; therefore I will lift up my voice unto thee; yea, I will cry unto thee, my God, the rock of my righteousness. Behold, my voice shall forever ascend up unto thee, my rock and mine everlasting God.”

All of us, every one, can relate to Nephi’s feelings of depression and failure. We strive to do what’s right. We raise families, attend church meetings, fulfill our callings and reach out to those around us. It can seem overwhelming at times. Often, we fail to do what we know we ought. But do not let that recognition of our own weakness allow us to be led by Satan down a path of depression and discouragement. Those moments of failure are some of the most important moments of our lives. They offer us the opportunity to look heavenward, to know in whom we have trusted, and tie us ever closer to our Father in Heaven.

Too often we, like Nephi, have the light of truth shine on our small imperfections and we feel like we’ll never make it, that we’ll never be good enough. But that is not the message of the Gospel! The “good news” is that, through the Atonement, we can triumph over our sins. This is a marvelous promise. In the words of Ammon, “there never were men that had so great reason to rejoice as we.” And why should we rejoice? The Savior taught us why, when he appeared to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland temple and said,

“Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice."

May our voices, like Nephi’s, forever ascend up to Him. For if they do, we will never despair.

Tax Hike for the NEW Jordan District

2009-08-05T17:41:00.006-06:00

As of July 1, 2009 the former Jordan School District split in two. The NEW Jordan District, which is located mostly on the west side of SL Valley, is receiving a 40% tax hike to meet budgets and the Community is in an uproar. The Superintendent just took a 40k increase after the split of the districts- his district was cut in half. This is causing some serious disgruntlement amongst those that are in the new district because of the hike in taxes yet they also disagree that the district split should have ever occurred. The Jordan District School Board just had their meeting and watch this video for the result- a hung board until next Tuesday.

Some feel that the NEW Canyons District has left the NEW Jordan District at a loss creating financial burdens and the district should not have been split. What are you thoughts?

Now also there is a case running through court systems to fight to have the two districts rejoined.

Overpopulation vs. Multiply and replenish

2009-08-04T15:36:00.006-06:00

Since Cameron didn't post this I am. Lets all note this article as the model of someone who isn't presenting an argument very well. Yet, lets open up the real discussions for comment:

-Is the world becoming overpopulated? And does it matter from a Christian viewpoint?

-Should those of us that are having children naturally really be looking at those that are ready for adoptive placement? Why aren't we more open to adoptive placement?

On another note, yet dealing with family size decisions have you heard quotes where it is essentially the women's choice in marriage to decide if the family should grow by another? I've heard this and I've always seen it as a clear 50/50 decision.

Has the 7th Seal Been Opened?

2009-08-03T11:27:00.003-06:00

In a previous blog post our friend 9nja noted that some have stated that President Hinckley opened up, or stated that the has been opened, 7th seal. I haven't done much research on this yet I think that it would be a fun and interesting conversation.

I apologize that I haven't been writing much. Truly life has been an interesting challenge as of late and I'm just starting to get the bug to start conversation.

Check out this talk where Hinckley opened up the 7th Seal, or did he?

Presidents Benson and Monson

2009-07-31T10:26:00.002-06:00

Thoughts? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehD390q9G3k

-- Post From My iPhone

The Economy is an Addict, & Government Spending is the Crack

2009-05-26T15:32:00.000-06:00

I would like to posit a theory, or perhaps make a prediction. The US will never pay off its national debt. Here's why:

Today's prevailing economic theory is that when the government spends money it grows the economy. Therefore, the government should play a significant role in making everyone more prosperous by spending lots of money. Of course, any money the government gets it must first take out of the economy through taxes. It is that feature of government spending that drives the furor over pork spending, earmarks etc. Why should my money go to fund some other state's lame pork project?

However, what's really interesting about federal spending is that they always spend more than they bring in from taxes. In other words, they run deficits. This of course drives most people even more crazy. But in reality it's done on purpose. That's right, despite all the rhetoric from all the politicians, the federal government spends more than it makes on purpose.

See, deficits mean that the government is getting and spending money it never took from you in the first place. It's basically free money. Free money which the feds use to pump up the economy, making us richer. A win-win scenario for all involved.

The catch is that the money for deficits has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is debt. It's sort of like a business taking out a line of credit with a bank. They use the available money when it's needed, and that extra cash makes it easier to expand and grow the business such that the debt is easily paid if and when it comes due.

But therein lies the problem with our national debt. As noted earlier, tax money is a deduction from the economy. If that tax money is used to pay back creditors instead of being plowed back into our economy, then the economy just got smaller. In this way we have steadily addicted ourselves to federal stimulus. Take away the spending and we'll go through withdrawal (recession). Since federal revenue relies on the strength of the economy, a recession reduces tax revenues, which, unless spending is cut, plunges us right back into deficits. Exacerbating the deficit issue further is the fact that prevailing economic wisdom is to increase government spending during recessions in order to boost the economy. Sort of like giving crack to a recovering addict.

a friend has a needy friend- who wants some answers....

2009-05-18T07:00:00.001-06:00

a friend has a needy friend- who wants some answers....
Here are my comments. Perhaps you guys could help in the mainstream comments.

_____________

Okay friend here goes. I hope that 'she' doesn't mind me saying a couple things that I think are a top the lists that deal with beliefs rather than just into main stream traditions or kick backs of the culture.

I believe firmly that the Holy Ghost (Galatians 5:22-23) tops the list of what binds our culture together. As we feel the Holy Ghosts promptings we find direction and a softening of our hearts to help serve others in many different wise ways.

Is that a cop out on the question, NO! That is the truth. It is what binds us together.

Considering the above mentioned (God is directing us through the Holy Ghost) I’d complete my response with these comments on the questions:

1. In your view, how does the Church strengthen LDS Peoplehood (ie unite people/communities and want to work together to support a bigger picture)?

a. We, Church members and the leadership, emphasize true needs for our membership to achieve true joy. Part of true joy is togetherness in my opinion—we foster in our communities continual interaction and support from it. We nominalize differences and evangelize our likenesses and strengths. Additionally, we attend bonding membership activities that help grow others continually (youth programs, relief efforts, missionary work, etc.). These focus on our main beliefs, those same beliefs we have felt a confirmation from God on. This comprises our testimony, thus confirmed by the Holy Ghost (Galatians 3:22-23). Our mission as a church and membership is nicely defined by 1) Proclaim the Gospel 2) Redeem the Dead 3) Perfect the Saints. Much, if not all, we do can be categorized into these three areas. We gain traction through focus and direction, openness and consideration, charity and love.

2. What makes you feel like you are a part of something larger than yourself?

a. I feel a part of something larger than myself due to the benefits (Galatians 5:22-23) that I feel and the friendships that have been cultivated. Then I see the after effect of my personal /church’s service—for example the change in my personal, family, church members, and community’s life/state.

I hope that you and your friend see this as a sincere reply. It is not stated with a preaching tone, but a very real very genuine explanation exposing my true thoughts and true essence of our church.

I’ll post this on my blog and see if there are any comments over there. http://consciousignorance.blogspot.com/

Interperet These Scriptures Please...

2009-04-28T15:13:00.002-06:00

3 Ne 20: 15-16

15 And I say unto you, that if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessing which they shall receive, after they have scattered my people—

16 Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many; and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he goeth through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

Mormon 5:24

24 Therefore, repent ye, and humble yourselves before him, lest he shall come out in justice against you—lest a remnant of the seed of Jacob shall go forth among you as a lion, and tear you in pieces, and there is none to deliver.

Provident Living, Fast Offerings, & The Spirit of the Law

2009-04-20T09:00:00.004-06:00

In Sunday School yesterday we talked about the law of consecration and the United Order. I have a few quick thoughts/questions that came from that lesson.

We were taught that today the law of consecration is to be willing to give all we have if asked, but that unlike the 1830s, we aren't asked to donate all our material possessions to be redistributed by the bishop. We read a lot of scriptures about equality and exalting the poor.

My question is if after providing for your own needs, you have a surplus each month, are you obligated to donate that in the form of fast offerings or some other charity of your choice? Is it ever proper to use that surplus to purchase some sort of "luxury" for yourself?

For instance, should you ever own a television that costs a few hundred dollars (or more)? Should you ever buy more than an average vehicle? Should you ever replace a home furnishing or appliance that isn't broken and unrepairable?

A voice in my head is arguing that the money for those things would be better off used for charitable purposes. There are people in my own neighborhood who are struggling, and frankly there is never a time when someone somewhere isn't in need. So should I forgo what could very easily be described as luxuries in order to donate any surplus I may have?

Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics And Evangelical Neglect

2009-04-06T15:38:00.000-06:00

Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics And Evangelical Neglect

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Humanities Research

Pay no attention to that [mother] behind the curtain...

2009-02-23T11:04:00.007-07:00

I've had the occasion recently to read and comment upon several posts in the blogosphere, related to motherhood, mothering, and identity as a woman in the church. I've felt the whole range of emotions from the peace and happiness that I know that the Spirit brings, to feelings of slight despair, as I contemplate my own failings as a mother.

It's funny. A woman in this church is almost put on a pedestal: we're faultlessly loving, completely unselfish, we're the "heart" of the home, our organizations are the "heart" of a ward. And yet lately, I have felt sidelined, just a little.

Our ward has started meeting at a different time: 9:00 am. It just so happens that my 1 year old son likes to nurse exactly when the sacrament is being served—I know this because it has happened three weeks in a row. The first Sunday I chuckled and shrugged it off. The second Sunday I felt a little bit irritated but thought, "Well, I'm sacrificing my ability to take part of this ordinance, yes. But the blessing of my sacrifice will be worth it." The third Sunday I started feeling that deep, bone clenching sorrow that I have felt from time to time, when it seems like nobody understands what I, as a young mother, go through.

I've had discussions with my husband, and on my blog, and on other blogs in the blogosphere, about nursing and how it is wonderful and healthy, and shouldn't be relegated to a dusky corner where nobody could see. People chime in and say that it's not that motherhood is overlooked, it's just sacred, a quiet duty that often goes unonticed, and my "Time will come" when I can sit through Sunday school and sacrament meeting and feel spiritually fed again.

My husband brought it up in ward council meeting last Sunday. He asked if there were any options for mothers who had to nurse or who couldn't break away by the time sacrament was being passed. The bishop told him that the Stake had asked that they not serve the sacrament in the foyer, because it would encourage people to sit out there rather than come into the chapel. The deacons can't come to the mother's room, though... it is inside the womens' bathroom.

My husband said they discussed a multitude of possibilities, ranging from having Young Women deliver the sacrament to the mother's room, bringing sacrament into the foyer so that mother's can quickly break off their nursing and come get it, then go back in, to having mothers go ahead and come back inside the chapel while their babies fussed. The bishop said he prefered the last alternative, because it was less of a production, and fussing babies during the sacrament is not something he has a problem with.

When my husband piped up and said, "What about mothers nursing in the chapel," The bishop got this scandalized look on his face and said, "oh no. Not that."

I'm sure it will work out in the end. I'll train my baby to want to nurse a little earlier, before church starts. But to me this is all sort of symbolic... I feel sometimes like women and Womens' needs actually do get overlooked in planning and organizing things in the church. And none of us usually say a word about it, because our role is to be "self-sacrificing, completely unselfish." But at what point does this become impossible... after three missed sacrament ordinances in a row? After spending the middle hour of classes chasing my toddler all over the building and thinking this would be much easier at home?

I'm not saying I don't love church. I do. I'm not saying that the church is anti-feminist. I think our church includes women in everything, in admirable ways. I'm not lobbying for preisthood responsibilites. What I'm saying is, sometimes I find my heart aching on these long, difficult Sundays, and I wonder if, in finding ourselves placed on the pedestal, Women in the church don't often also find themselves placed in a corner... behind a curtain...overlooked.

a very interesting discussion

2009-01-09T14:09:00.003-07:00

going on over at Feminist Mormon Housewives. It's authored by a man who is struggling to deal with something that I guess a lot of Mormon men deal with in their marriage relationships, especially later in life.

Here's a link to the post.

It was just so very interesting to me... I don't know if it's something that people would be willing to discuss over here, but if you do I would be interested in everyone's perpsective on this.

Sigh. just call me the resident bringer-upper of highly embarrassing topics. I'm not even sure how to label this one.

Second Coming Prophecy Fulfilled

2008-12-29T08:26:00.003-07:00

From President Hinckley's October 2001 General Conference talk:

The era in which we live is the fulness of times spoken of in the scriptures, when God has brought together all of the elements of previous dispensations. From the day that He and His Beloved Son manifested themselves to the boy Joseph, there has been a tremendous cascade of enlightenment poured out upon the world. The hearts of men have turned to their fathers in fulfillment of the words of Malachi. The vision of Joel has been fulfilled wherein he declared:

“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

“And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

“And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.

“The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come.

“And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call” (Joel 2:28–32).

Who is the Author of the 116 Pages?

2008-12-29T07:41:00.003-07:00

I had always heard and thought that the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript were from the Book of Lehi, and that this was why Nephi had been commanded to write the small plates.

However, last night while I was reading I found this in 2 Nephi 5:

29 And I, Nephi, had kept the records upon my plates, which I had made, of my people thus far.

30 And it came to pass that the Lord God said unto me: Make other plates; and thou shalt engraven many things upon them which are good in my sight, for the profit of thy people.

31 Wherefore, I, Nephi, to be obedient to the commandments of the Lord, went and made these plates upon which I have engraven these things.

These verses show that Nephi had already been writing a history of his people when he was commanded to begin a new set of plates. So where is that history? Is this what went missing with the 116 pages? If so, where is the Book of Lehi - or is that a figment of my imagination?

Signs of the Second Coming

2008-12-22T08:11:00.004-07:00

A few weeks ago in Elders Quorum we talked about the Second Coming, and the importance of knowing and watching for the signs associated with it. So I dug up an old paper my mission president passed out and discussed in a zone conference. It's got a good list of prophecies, as well as the scripture reference for each.

On that note, here's an excerpt of a quote from President Harold B. Lee regarding studying the Second Coming. The full quote is found in the document below.

There are among us many loose writings predicting the calamities which are about to overtake us...Are you priesthood bearers aware of the fact that we need no such publications to be forewarned, if we were only conversant with what the scriptures have already spoken to us in plainness?

Second Coming

Publish at Scribd or explore others:

political candidates: what is your voting map?

2008-11-19T10:51:00.009-07:00

This story has caused me to ponder about the reasons why people vote for certain, er, people, when they vote.

At this point, we're pretty sure that Ted Stevens broke the law. That he will be serving time in prison is a strong possibility. So why did the people of Alaska vote for him?

My first, visceral reaction was likely prompted by my angst as a Utah independent/democrat in a religiously red state: It was a feeling of anger, of disgust. So, it's better to vote for a Republican, even if he's a criminal, even if he abused his office, even if he clearly has lost touch with his own professed morals and platform, than it is to vote for a Democrat?

When I stepped back to think about it, though, I realized that this was a lot more complicated than that. Ted Stevens put Alaska into play, politically. As a very senior member of the senate, he gives his little (OK, well, it's big geographically, but population-wise it doesn't even show up on the map,)state far more clout than they'd normally have.

Plus, they know him. They know who he is. They know what to expect from him.

Personally, I'm glad that the "Democrat" won by one percent of the vote, because clearly Stevens ought not to serve public office after what he did. (this is my own opinion interjected here). But this whole thing has gotten me curious about why people vote for certain representatives. Why do you vote for someone?

a) Do you vote because of party loyalty, ie, you're ideologically a republican, so you'll always vote for the republican candidate?

b) Do you vote for the person that you think will give you (as a part of your state, district, etc) more influence in lawmaking, and in our government?

c) Do you vote for the person whose personality you like the most?
(Someone you "click with", someone you think is "genuine", someone you think seems like a "good person.")

d) Do you vote for the person that seems to make the arguments that make the most logical sense to you?

e) Do you vote to keep the balance of power, either because of social responsibility (For instance our current solid, Democratic legislative and executive branches worry you enough to vote for the Republican), or out of sheer cussedness (eg, your state is overwhelmingly red, so you're going to vote blue to rage against the machine.)

f) Do you vote for someone because of loyalty, because they have a long record of doing good things for you and your state, and you have admired them for a long period of time? (Here I'm thinking of people like Ron Paul, who has gathered a large group of admirers and advocates over the years, Mitt Romney, who has been in the mormon spotlight for at least a decade, and of course, the senator from Alaska as well.)

If I were to map out my own voting, I'd say it's 33% c, 33% d, 20% a, and whatever minuscule percentage is left (I was never good at math)... the sheer cussedness thing.

How does your voting map out? (Yes, you're allowed to add more options. In fact, I'll add them to this post if commenters make a good enough case for them.)

Gay marriage is not a civil right

2008-11-09T18:39:00.005-07:00

I've believed this for a while -- it never sounded correct to me that gay marriage is paraded around as a fundamental civil right -- but now I know why.

***

I have a very good friend who grew up with me in the Church. We were in Scouts together as young boys. When we were in high school, he played Joseph Smith in a musical that our ward produced; I played Hyrum. He went on a mission to South Africa, and I went to Germany. He moved to Utah afterward, and I started having my suspicions that he was gay.

It took years for him to openly talk about it. We had a couple of chance meetings in Utah, but our first conversation since his awkward transitional period was not until quite some time had passed. I had moved back to Minnesota with my family, and early in 2006, I believe, I called him on his birthday, as I sometimes do with long-time friends.

I noticed something different right away. For one thing, he answered the phone. (Usually I would simply leave a birthday message. His mom had told me that he wouldn't even return some of her calls.) We talked for a couple hours, laughing and chatting and reminiscing.

After he completed his masters in opera, he moved back to Minnesota with his friend. (I don't like the term "partner" -- it implies either a law firm, or a business deal, or sex -- none of which ought to be discussed in polite company.)

I went to see him at a couple different theaters in town, and he always said we should get together, but we never have. Granted, we went to rival high schools, and we never really did anything back then either, other than attend the same parties and dances.

As many people do when they grow up, he has his own life now, in a completely separate world.

***

Last week Proposition 8 passed convincingly in California (again). Of course, my friend was against it. After putting much research and thought into it, I decided I supported the amendment (in part because of the blatant judicial overreach that had created a new protected class with the stroke of a pen -- highly irregular and legally imprudent).

I happened upon my friend's Facebook page and noticed his recent status updates and links to articles he had posted regarding the Church's involvement. I wasn't sure at first how to respond to them.

I thought I might just let them go, but then I decided I had to gently offer an alternate perspective. So I did.

Over the past couple days, we've gone back and forth in emails and comments to each other. He points out how the Church and Mormons in general are one or more of the following: wrong, hateful, discriminatory, blind, unthinking, old, rich, white, live in a bubble, and shouldn't be involved in politics.

One of his postings linked to a rather vitriolic, slanted, nasty article about the Church. I definitely couldn't let that stand, and I pointed out how hateful and discriminatory the article was. He removed the article link from his profile page.

Other times, I've gently rebutted his statements by reflecting the irony in his arguments. He deleted the links I posted to articles with alternate viewpoints. I wasn't offended or surprised.

In each of my comments, I tried to use the most logical arguments I could -- avoiding the emotion or reaction that sometimes peppered his. I thought I was pretty convincing. He didn't agree.

And then my last email to him finally led me to do some more research on whether gay marriage should be considered a fundamental civil right -- to settle the debate I had been having in my own mind. I found the answer to the question I had been looking for in two editorials rooted not in emotion, but in logic. They just made sense.

I have gone through many twists and turns in my search for a conclusion on this difficult issue. My mind is now satisfied in the matter. I submit the following two articles to let you decide if you agree.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004846
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/285fhdqe.asp

Jon

Am I a donkey in elephants' clothing?

2008-11-05T08:37:00.004-07:00

After last nights momentous win by Barack Obama and his speech I was found in my lounge chair in tears. I was not crying because of a loss for McCain, but for happiness for Obama, for ideals, for democracy, for our county, for equality. I wanted to be in Grant Park off of Lake Michigan in Chicago cheering him on.

For those of you that know me I have always been firmly grounded in the Republican Party. Yet in the past two elections I've found myself voting on the other side of the ticket several times. (For some of my family members who recall my heated rants and raves of the 80's and 90's- this is newsy. It is something I've kept under wraps.)

Have I been drawn into the Obama factor? Did the messaging of 'Change' finally hit my core even if its late for the balloting? I am not sure. I still see clear lines where I disagree with him on policy and moral standards. Yet I hear him and as he speaks, or spoke last night, I felt a reassurance that he is going to lead well. The 'this side, that side' noise dissipated. There is a mixture of happiness for him, his family, his heritage and yet there is interest in his ability, his views, and his potential. So I guess the question remains unanswered.

In matters of politics I try to keep my emotions distant from my decisions. I've found that when I allow my emotions to play into politics it simply goes to activistism. In the past 4 years I've found that drift away- perhaps due to maturity and experiences, and I'm thankful.

So is all this said with a level head? Yes.

I am going to approach this new presidency with a more open view. I think that I am going to focus more on issues and divorce myself from parties. (So many will say, "Doug that isn't realistic or even practical." I think that it will enlarge and develop my understanding of the issues, policies, and real needs.)

Last night after mid-night I turned off the election coverage and took sometime to think through what our nation has come to and then I thought about where we have come from. I appreciated this time of reflection and examining what is to unfold. Not only am I anticipating good but I hope to help mold it.

Prop 8: Some compelling arguments

2008-10-24T13:32:00.001-06:00

Here is an article which details all the legal ramifications to the church and in the schools if Prop 8 is not passed.

btw, where did everybody go?

The 411 on our current economic crisis.

2008-09-18T22:09:00.005-06:00

People are really worried right now. All over the world, the biggest, most stable financial institutions are either failing or looking decidedly shaky. So what's going on? How did we arrive at our current situation?

I have been looking around, listening to podcasts and reading articles, trying to understand what this current economic difficulty consists of, and how we arrived here.

I have found these links helpful. Michael Greenburger, in an interview with Terry Gross on the Fresh Air program. It's 40 minutes long, but if you listen to the first five, you'll find yourself understanding more than you did before.

Here's an article, from an almost opposite perspective, by a man that I respect as much as I tend to disagree with him: Ron Paul.

And just for fun, here's a short news story with sound bites from the two presidential candidates, explaining their economic policy.

So my question for all you deep thinkers is, what is the answer right now? If it's not higher levels of regulation, what is it? Should we just let our bubbles burst and ride out the tidal wave and see where it takes us, then rebuild from there? Or is that scenario too dire for survival? Is there an in-between?

What do you all think? Whom do you agree with?

Any additional posted articles will be welcome.

Vegetarians Have Small Brains

2008-09-15T10:49:00.003-06:00

I thought this story might make a good update to the Word of Wisdom posts from the early days of this blog (Ah, the memories).

Oh, and sorry about the title, I couldn't help myself.

"Scientists have discovered that going veggie could be bad for your brain-with those on a meat-free diet six times more likely to suffer brain shrinkage.

Vegans and vegetarians are the most likely to be deficient because the best sources of the vitamin are meat, particularly liver, milk and fish. Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anaemia and inflammation of the nervous system. Yeast extracts are one of the few vegetarian foods which provide good levels of the vitamin.

The link was discovered by Oxford University scientists who used memory tests, physical checks and brain scans to examine 107 people between the ages of 61 and 87."

Pro-Choice and Pro-life; finding common ground

2008-09-05T16:44:00.004-06:00

And now for something a little less light-hearted...

Yes, I realize that this is one of those topics you just, well. You don't bring it up. But I feel like people are so blind to each other on hot button issues. Especially this one. And so, without further ado, I'm going to just put some quotes out there, of discussion happening between members on various internet forums, on this most hot-button of hot button topics.

1)
L)Supporting abortion is not any part of my being, and even if it was my daughter in that situation, I would never want her to choose that route. Making a “mistake” is one thing, but taking the easy route out is quite another.

C) i don’t know how many women you’ve been close to that have had an abortion but let me tell you, it’s never the easy way out.

2)

C) BTW, I’m getting tired of people telling me I like to kill babies. The church’s stance is a pro choice position. What? YES. It’s pro-choice.

“Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.”

Taken directly from the church website.

What does this mean? Women should have a right to get an abortion in these circumstances. That’s right: to choose.

L) If the Church’s policy on abortion were law, you wouldn’t hear much complaint from me. But seeing that there is a HUGE gap between the two, I think you’re waaaay off.

3)
C) the point isn’t voting into law about what abortions can and cannot be done, the point is to vote for a woman’s choice to make the correct judgment. If there were no legal abortions, then nobody who was a victim of rape, incest, or whose life was endangered by pregnancy would have access. Thus, church policy is one of choice. A LIMITED choice, yes, but still a choice. The church would expect the woman to counsel with priesthood leaders about it, I’m sure… but ultimately, the church wants the choice in the hands of the woman. Don’t you think??

I personally cannot imagine having an abortion myself. I cannot imagine it. It would be a heart-wrenching thing. I know that there are reasons, but… it’s a big thing. A sad thing. I personally know someone who had to do it… their baby was not going to survive post birth, and the pregnancy was endangering her health. She really grieved over it.

(L?)Yes, we may all believe that babies are special and we all want as few aborted as possible. So what? You can’t write legislation around such “feel good” beliefs. You write legislation around real practical issues. Legislation needs to be justly enforceable.

4)

C) what happened to rape and incest? Those are two other conditionals the Church has thrown into the mix. Are you going to tell a pregnant teenager who was raped, and got an abortion, that she has done a selfish thing because she “didn’t want it?”

L)I would HOPE that it would be a hard decision, but when you get right down to it, the reason for an abortion is that you don’t want to have a baby (I’m not including serious medical issues). Whatever your age, whatever the reason, that’s the bottom line. I can’t think of a reason that would be more important than taking responsibility and giving the innocent baby you conceived the right to a life. The fact that partial birth abortion is even legal is insane to me, and no one could possibly justify to me why that option is necessary.
I can only imagine how difficult it would be to be in that situation; you may think I am made of stone, without feeling, but it’s really quite the opposite. I have had this touch my life in several ways, and my belief has not wavered.

For the record, I think the abortion issue is overblown, and a candidates stance on the issue makes little difference to me.

5)
L) I thought the church’s stance on abortion is pro-life.

C) The church’s stance on abortion is the church’s stance on abortion…. not declaratively aligned with either platform. In my own opinion, the church’s stance on abortion is pro-choice, because there are provisions where abortions are allowed, and my guess is the church would like that choice to be in the hands of the mother, not the government.

6) How about an election where we can follow our instincts to work together to build a future for all Americans, to find a way to actually reduce abortions, and to ensure the future and security of our country without losing sight of our democratic ideals?

(Nosurfgirl jumps in here) I think I like this last quote the best.

Here is a link to the Church's policy on abortion. Make sure you read, "additional materials," to get the whole quote.

What do you all think?
And have a nice day everyone. :)

Mormon Beard Theology

2008-08-30T22:05:00.011-06:00

I want a beard card.

By all accounts, the beard card is the most exclusive of church recommends. I have often wondered, jealously, what it would take to get one.

I have heard once or twice that you have to have a medical condition. What kind of medical condition would require you to grow a beard? Is it a skin sensitivity thing, or more along the lines of facial deformities, that qualify you for the card? Or is it dpi (like on a printer, dots per inch, only in this case, it would be hairs per inch of chin that a person is capable of growing?)

It is interesting, when contemplating the no-beard phenomenon among LDS church members, to look back on history. In these troubling times, we really ought to reflect on the sacrifices that the early church members made, and see if we can learn a lesson from them. Thus, I have decided to delve into the topic of Beard Theology in the LDS church.

If you study the past precedent (by looking at past presidents) you will see an interesting trend.

First, you have Joseph Smith. On a scale of 1-10, I’d rate his beardosity at a .5, because of the sideburns. You will note that they are longer than the regulation middle-of-the-ear missionary requirement, and quite bushy, too. But then, you see Brigham young, and whoa! We’re at an 4.5. What happened there?

I have two theories. a) Emma liked to kiss her husband and b) the conflicted self-image of prophethood.

a is self-explanatory. Let me elaborate on b. So when you read church history, you you see that Joseph Smith was already an unconventional leader. He didn’t buy into stereotypes. He didn’t like having authority. And so he felt no desire toward the added authority and association that a flowing set of chin-tresses might offer a prophet. He liked to get down with the people, stick pulling and rug-beating and all that, and a beard could only get in the way. Put people off.

Brigham Young was more of a no-nonsense prophet.

He had a lot to do, what with the trek west and the move south and the apostatizing California saints (look how history repeats itself), and so he didn’t want anyone to waste his time. In his younger yearsas leader of the church, lots of people argued with him. Maybe he got tired of people not taking him seriously enough, and one day, he sat thinking to himself, what does Moses have, being slow of speech and all, that I don't. When he really stopped to think of it, it was obvious what the real trouble was!

And so he just threw up his hands and grew a beard. You have to admit, it’s a lot harder to argue with this.

That probably worked well for a while, until people got used to it. It’s easy to ignore a little fringe like that. So he decided, he needed to grow a beard that nobody could ignore:

It must have worked for him, because he kept it for the last twenty years of his life, and every succeeding president for the next eighty years all had impressive facial foliage. It got to the point where people thought the Mormons were weird: bearded, polygamists in top hats, with canes and black suits.

Enter Reed Smoot. An enterprising politician, son of one of the founding Pioneers of salt lake city. He asked president Joseph F. Smith for permission to run for office in the senate. He did run, and won: the first Mormon in full-fellowship to serve at that level of government (after a very hairy set of trials, I might add). Here is a picture of him before he was made senator.

Here is a picture of him a while after.

And here is a picture of him later in life,

when his political influence and respect within the senate was a noteworthy thing. How strange. How symbolic. People don’t want Moses serving in their senate.

The church presidents seemed to follow suit. Look back at that first picture of the presidents, at the beardosity of Joseph F. Smith (I’d put him at an even 10), and then Heber J. Grant (we’re at a 5, now), and George Albert smith: a dismal 3 if I’ve ever seen one. And then…whoa! Look at that sparkling clean chin on President McKay.

It feels so strange to me, to know that people that I actually know remember David O McKay as the prophet of their childhood. He was the clean-cut, good looking man that was appreciated so much in the fifties. I don’t object to that at all. We as a church, have always aspired to refinement, to making a good impression. For very good reasons.

The only complaint I have is, what happened since? I miss beards on my prophets, on my bishops, on my spouse (OK, I don’t really miss that, who am I kidding.) But a perverse piece of me wants for him to grow a beard, just because he can’t. Because he works at BYU. He also can’t wear his crunchy Birkenstocks and knee-length shorts (one of the many reasons I was attracted to him. Who can resist a guy in birks?)

Anyway, my point is, maybe it’s time to move on, get over this whole five-o-clock-shadow complex. People made fun of Mitt Romney because he had perfect hair. What does that say about us? Maybe we should mess things up a little? Grow a few beards? Cultivate some arresting, mane-like tresses? I hate to say, but we as a church have lost our peculiar, charming sense of individuality in our style. I mean, there are those out there who are trying. To them, I say, keep up the good work, even though a moustache without a beard is possibly the most disturbing facial appendage known to man (well, woman, really.)

I must also end this post by saying, I think it is wrong to exclude women from the beard card, just because we are women. The fact that our hair follicles are biologically different, doesn’t mean we aren’t capable of handling beard-card-carrying status in the church. It is unjust. I feel suppressed. I feel excluded.
*Whew. Glad I got that off my chest.*

Information is power

2008-08-29T13:11:00.007-06:00

I have just discovered the Gospel Topics section of lds.org, and I am impressed with what I see. It's an entire directory of doctrines, policies, and issues about the Church, similar to that wonderful little handbook "True to the Faith" but with a much broader scope and a much richer experience.

You can click your way through to "Book of Mormon, Changes to" and find a nice summary of the issue, but don't stop there! Clicking on the Additional Information bar reveals historical information and a table highlighting the most common forms of changes. Also available are links to scriptural references and Church magazine articles that offer even more context and explanation.

I have a couple of gripes, of course. The organization of the Topics is unhelpful. Clicking on a letter of the alphabet seems a bit like late-'90s Yahoo! indexing to me. Sorting by number works for scripture chapters, since we're used to reading them linearly, but it doesn't make sense to organize the Gospel Topics section this way.

A more useful method might be to sort the Topics loosely by category. A home page should show a full list of categories, with a few Topics listed below each header. (Topics can appear in more than one category if relevant.) Each individual Topics page can have a few "Related Topics" links at the bottom.

For example, it would have been great to just click over to "Spaulding Manuscript" from the "Book of Mormon, Changes to" page rather than stumbling upon it through a search where I clicked a few times, typed something, and scanned the long list of results. (In software design, the more clicks or keystrokes you make to get where you want, the worse the design is. Good design gets out of your way and helps you do what you want to do. It makes your task easier.)

Additionally, when viewing a Topics page, only the summary is shown, unless you click on the bars below to reveal it. I would prefer if they were all open by default. Of course, some of the pages have only a summary, which is inadequate at best.

For example, the "Dispensations" page consists of one line and zero links to additional resources. I can only assume that no scriptural references exist and that nobody ever wrote an article on the subject in the history of the Ensign. (I kid.)

Other improvements might include a sidebar of the most-viewed or most-emailed Topics (even if only on the Topics start page), and a more prominent search field for the Gospel Topics section (the Answers to Questions link does this very well, but I almost missed it -- an open field beneath the title would be more inviting than a seperate page).

Overall, this is an impressive compendium. But if information is power, and if the goal is to get the message out (on any Church-related subject) to as wide an audience as possible, the information needs to be complete (i.e., more than one stinkin' line for "Dispensations"), and accessing that information must be as easy and intuitive as possible.

Jon

the meaning of marriage

2008-08-26T13:52:00.001-06:00

My mother just wrote a wonderful article on marriage, and why she supports prop 8. It's worth a read .

LDS Cinema's Next Great Hope

2008-08-21T11:32:00.007-06:00

The Mormon movie genre has taken a dive in recent years, sending most investors running for the hills. Larry Miller was probably the biggest Sugar Daddy in the Salt Lake Valley, but he sank so much money in the Work and the Glory series (which he'll likely never see again), and most everything else has been just plain awful, that funding for LDS filmmaking has all but dried up.

Enter Christian Vuissa, an Austrian-born Mormon who is the founder of the annual LDS Film Festival, and whose second feature-length film is about to hit theaters across the Intermountain West. The title sounds sappy ("The Errand of Angels"), and the trailer looks like an estrogen-laden chick-flick (it's about the struggles between sister-missionary companions and how one learns to reconcile with the other), but the reviews I've read so far give it surprisingly high ratings. One critic said he'd easily recommend it -- the first for an LDS film in a long time.

But that's all beside the point.

It's the film's budget that caught my attention. Vuissa is presenting 90 minutes of film, shot beautifully on location in Vienna on a budget of $175,000. No, that's not a typo.

For comparison, the Work and the Glory films cost about $7 million each. Unfortunately, those three movies only made about $7 million at the box office combined. Now you know why Larry Miller (and everyone else) decided not to reinvest.

So how did Vuissa make a film on location overseas with production values that reportedly rival "The Other Side of Heaven"? He tells us straight out in an email sent to an LDS film email list.

"First, we cut the production days to 15 days. That's up to 50% less than several of the productions made for less than $1 Mio. Second, we cut our crew down to 10 people, which is 70-85% less than most productions in the genre."

Sounds simple, right? Well, to be able to do this, you need very good people, which means you have to pay them enough to make them happy. Vuissa said 70 percent of the budget went to paying the cast and crew, and that they were paid at least as well as on other LDS movies.

So that's how you make a cheap movie...

"The problem with that is that low budgets usually make for lower-quality films, and as a result they will be less successful in the marketplace. I tried to avoid this dilemma by making sure that a few key 'ingredients' are in place, like a good script (without any fancy or costly extravaganzas), good actors, good locations, and a good cinematographer. I also looked for very talented people that could use the film for their resume."

He explained that the musician who composed the score, Rob Elliot, "didn't get paid as much as he is worth, but he will definitely get opportunities that pay better than anything he has done to date solely based on his work on this film."

It's almost like Vuissa knows what he's doing; as if he's been making shoestring-budget movies for years. (He has.) His annual LDS Film Festival (January 2009 will mark the 8th such event) has been the springboard for such hits as "Saints and Soldiers" and "The Best Two Years." Ever heard of them? Both were made for well under $1 million, and both easily made that up in theaters and on DVD (for good reason -- they're definitely worth seeing).

Vuissa's hope is that LDS films can someday command bigger budgets (he equates a $7 million Mormon-movie budget with a $700 million Hollywood budget -- i.e., completely outrageous), but bigger budgets will only happen if the movies can draw bigger audiences. His unique model for making a good film on a limited budget is simply brilliant -- and downright bold. But if the genre is to survive, more directors will have to follow his lead.

Jon

The Divine Institution of Marriage

2008-08-14T10:05:00.002-06:00

I've been reading up on this. I appreciate the Church's stance and explaination enclosed below. Also I appreciate the new literature that they've produced for us that are memebers to read and share.

Read below:

The Divine Institution of Marriage

SALT LAKE CITY 13 August 2008

Introduction

The California Supreme Court recently ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California. Recognizing the importance of marriage to society, the Church accepted an invitation to participate in ProtectMarriage, a coalition of churches, organizations, and individuals sponsoring a November ballot measure, Proposition 8, that would amend the California state constitution to ensure that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be legally recognized. (Information about the coalition can be found at http://www.protectmarriage.com/).
On June 20, 2008, the First Presidency of the Church distributed a letter about “Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families,” announcing the Church’s participation with the coalition. The letter, which was read in Latter-day Saints’ church services in California, asked that Church members “do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment.”
Members of the Church in Arizona and Florida will also be voting on constitutional amendments regarding marriage in their states, where coalitions similar to California’s are now being formed.
The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.
The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.
As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility.
Intending to reduce misunderstanding and ill will, the Church has produced the following document, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” and provided the accompanying links to other materials, to explain its reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative.
The Divine Institution of Marriage
Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”[1] Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.”[2]
In 1995, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” declared the following unchanging truths regarding marriage:
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . . The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
The Proclamation also teaches, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” The account in Genesis of Adam and Eve being created and placed on earth emphasizes the creation of two distinct genders: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”[3]
Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric.[4] Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”[5]
Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special privileges aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these privileges to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.
It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.
High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised.[6] This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task. As the prominent sociologist David Popenoe has said:
The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.[7]
Popenoe explained that:
. . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development. It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with a child’s long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support.[8]
Social historian David Blankenhorn makes a similar argument in his book Fatherless America.[9] In an ideal society, every child would be raised by both a father and a mother.
Challenges to Marriage and Family
Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage – come increasingly under assault. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006).[10] Divorce has become much more common and accepted, with the United States having one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Since 1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 45 million innocents.[11] At the same time, entertainment standards continue to plummet, and pornography has become a scourge afflicting and addicting many victims. Gender differences increasingly are dismissed as trivial, irrelevant, or transient, thus undermining God’s purpose in creating both men and women.
In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.
Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.
In November 2008, California voters will decide whether to amend their state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined in a broad coalition of other denominations, organizations, and individuals to encourage voter approval of this amendment.
The people of the United States – acting either directly or through their elected representatives – have recognized the crucial role that traditional marriage has played and must continue to play in American society if children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated.
Forty-four states have passed legislation making clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. More than half of those states, twenty-seven in all, have done so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in California, Arizona, and Florida.[12]
In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia. Yet, even in this context, a broad majority of courts – six out of eight state supreme courts – have upheld traditional marriage laws. Only two, Massachusetts and now California, have gone in the other direction, and then, only by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3 in both cases.
In sum, there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. As the people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its children. Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved.
Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom
Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished.[13] Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.”[14] Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.
In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.
As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,
Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.[15]
The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.”[16]
The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.
Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions.[17] Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.[18]
Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU.[19] Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished.
How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?
Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.
Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.
When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.
It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?
As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.
Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.
The Sanctity of Marriage
Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.
The final line in the Proclamation on the Family is an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” This is the course charted by Church leaders, and it is the only course of safety for the Church and for the nation.
________________________________________________
[1] Genesis 2:24.
[2] Matthew 19:4-6.
[3] Genesis 1:27.
[4] M. Russell Ballard, “What Matters Most is What Lasts Longest,” Ensign, November 2005, p. 41.
[5] United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), 10 December 1948.
[6] David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books, 1995); Barbara Schneider, Allison Atteberry, and Ann Owens, Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes (Birmingham AL: Alabama Policy Institute: June 2005); David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: Martin Kessler Books, 1996); David Popenoe and Barbara Defoe Whitehead, The State of Our Unions 2007: The Social Health of Marriage in America (Piscataway, NJ (Rutgers University): The National Marriage Project, July 2007 ) pp. 21-25; and Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker, “Do Moms and Dads Matter? Evidence from the Social Sciences on Family Structure and the Best Interests of the Child,” Margins Law Journal 4:161 (2004).
[7] David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: The Free Press, 1996) p. 146.
[8] Ibid., p. 145. See also Spencer W. Kimball, “The Role of Righteous Women,” Ensign, November 1979, pp. 102-104.
[9] David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, pp. 219-220.
[10] Stephanie J. Ventura and Christine A. Bachrach, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-99,” National Vital Statistics Reports 48:16 (18 October 2000); and Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, and Stephanie J. Ventura, “Births: Preliminary Data for 2006,” National Vital Statistics Reports 56:7 (5 December 2007).
[11] Alan Guttmacher Institute, “Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States,” In Brief, July 2008.
[12] Christine Vestal, “California Gay Marriage Ruling Sparks New Debate,” stateline.org, 16 May 2008, updated 12 June 2008. Stateline.org is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.
[13] Matt. 19:19.
[14] John 8:11.
[15] Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” BYU Devotional speech, 9 February 1999.
[16] Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston: The Coming Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty,” The Weekly Standard, 15 May 2006.
[17] Jonathan Turley, “An Unholy Union: Same-Sex Marriage and the Use of Governmental Programs to Penalize Religious Groups with Unpopular Practices,” in Douglas Laycock, Jr., et al., eds., Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008, forthcoming).
[18] Marc D. Stern, “Gay Marriage and the Churches, paper delivered at the Scholar’s Conference on Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, sponsored by the The Beckett Fund, 4 May 2006.
[19] “European Parliament Resolution on homophobia in Europe,” adopted 18 January 2006.

Ol'Bama was a race horse....

2008-07-23T14:08:00.006-06:00

I realize I have posted a couple of times on this blog recently... I wanted to get one more post on here before I went on my three week laptop-free vacation. Hooray!

I wanted to write about my schizophrenic feelings regarding this upcoming election. In the past I have blogged politics on my personal blog, but the people who read it tend not to really be interested in politics much. This seems much more of a politics-oriented arena. I am happy to find a venue for posting about this stuff; a place where people will enjoy reading it and go ahead and comment and start discussion.

I am trying to decide whom to vote for, for president this year. And I am becoming continually more divided. I have such mixed feelings about John McCain. And while I LOVE and adore Barack Obama as a person, and as the leader of worthy causes (change in Washington, empowering young and minority voters, racial unity and poverty relief) I do not exactly agree with some of his ideas for implementation. While I agree the Bush tax cuts are not fair to those at the bottom of the income scale, I do not necessarily think it's good for our economy to be taxing those at the very top either. While I am whole-heartedly in favor of his plan to help those who live in the lowest and lower-middle classes with tax breaks and refunds, and with his measures to support small businesses, I'm worried about the job-cost that will happen if big corporations are squeezed even further than our plunging economy is currently squeezing them.

And yet, Barack. He is such an amazing possibility. From all I've read and heard, our foreign allies (and also some of our less-than-allies) really like him and feel like he will provide a better basis for communication and collaboration internationally. I like his approach to the war: bring them home, but do it reasonably; we need to retain presence in Afghanistan and focus our military efforts there. And his approach to foreign policy: we need to enlist the help of world organizations and our foreign allies to fight terrorism. We also need to meet with all world leaders, even our enemies, as Regan, Roosevelt, and Nixon did; promulgating some of the biggest foreign policy successes in remembered American history.

The problem: the economy. Does he have any real, thought-out plans to reduce the national debt, any real solutions to the collapsing housing market? If he does, I have not read about them.

With McCain, I must admit I like him as a person less. He is volatile, has a nasty temper, kind of reminds me of the jocks at high school who went around giving wedgies and pushing the poor freshmen into trash cans. And yet... he has integrity. Sort of. Not in his personal life, but politically. He has stood up for what he personally believed in repeatedly, reached across the aisle and collaborated on many measures that earned him the distrust of his own party. This lack of partisanship makes me trust him a great deal more than I do Obama in that way... who has voted with his own party something like 95% of the time.

And now that he's thinking of taking Mitt on as his running mate... I'm a lot more comfortable with the idea of our troubled economy in the hands of a McCain-Romney administration. Romney is a brilliant businessman, he's creative, he works with people, even those he disagrees with, to effect real solutions. And he has gotten a lot done that way. He has saved lots of institutions and organizations from financial ruin.

I like Obama better. I believe fundamentally more in what he believes in. I just wonder if he can actually do it; if he has the experience and the chops to get it done, and if the economic side of things will be taken care of as well as he focuses on these goals.

I trust McCain's political integrity more. We know what we're getting with McCain, no surprises there. It seems that both parties agree now, too, that a withdrawal from Iraq is imminent and so my previous objections to McCain's stance on Iraq (stay there for as long as "needed", even fifty years if that is what it takes) are now rendered somewhat empty. And now with the possibility of Romney as running-mate... gosh. War and the Economy. Those are the big issues right now.

I think in the end it might have to come down to prayer for me, this time. How silly is that? I've spent two years following this race as if it were the kentucky derby. And now I'm tossing my carefully thought-out decisions to the wind and seeking personal revelation?

How do you all feel about this here horse race?

When the majority chooses

2008-07-19T19:17:00.003-06:00

Item 1:
http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/29/26-27#26

Item 2:
http://www.kswt.com/Global/story.asp?S=8696919&nav=menu613_2_6

Looks like California is about ready to slide into the Pacific.

Jon

Why Is a Mormon Excommunicated?

2008-07-16T15:37:00.002-06:00

Why Is a Mormon Excommunicated?

SALT LAKE CITY

16 July 2008

Periodically the news media gives extensive coverage to a high-profile case of a Mormon being excommunicated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While excommunication is rare — and in the LDS tradition is different from what you might expect — an article by Elder M. Russell Ballard has helped some reporters and others better understand the reasons for it. We encourage journalists, bloggers and others who write about excommunication, or other Church discipline, to read this article to better understand why the Church sometimes takes this action.

________________________________

A Chance to Start Over:Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings
By Elder M. Russell BallardOf the Quorum of the Twelve

M. Russell Ballard, “A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings,” Ensign, Sep 1990, 12
The longer I live, the more profoundly grateful I am that the Lord has given us a plan to help us grow and progress. As part of this plan, He has given guidance on how we can overcome serious error and sin. His desire is that all his children return to him, that all partake of the precious fruit of eternal life. (See Ezek. 18:21–23.)
Both the Lord and his church stand ready with open arms to welcome back all who stray. The First Presidency has extended this special invitation:
“We are aware of some who are inactive, of others who have become critical and are prone to find fault, and of those who have been disfellowshipped or excommunicated because of serious transgressions.
“To all such we reach out in love. We are anxious to forgive. …
“We encourage Church members to forgive those who may have wronged them. To those who have ceased activity and to those who have become critical, we say, ‘Come back. Come back and feast at the table of the Lord, and taste again the sweet and satisfying fruits of fellowship with the Saints.’ ” (Church News, 22 Dec. 1985, p. 3.)
When members need to have certain blessings withheld, the Lord’s object is to teach as well as to discipline. So probation, disfellowshipment, and excommunication, when they become necessary, are ideally accompanied by eventual reinstatement and restoration of blessings.
I remember as a child occasionally coming unkempt to the dinner table. My mother wisely sent me to clean up and then return. My parents would have been pained if I had taken offense and had run off—and I would have been foolish to do so. In the same way, the servants of the Lord occasionally find that they must, in loving concern, send some of Heavenly Father’s children out the door so they can return clean once again. The Lord does not want us to “miss supper.” In fact, he has a great feast prepared for those who return clean and pure through the door. He is greatly saddened when anyone decides they prefer to be unclean and miss the meal, or when they find an excuse to take offense, or when they run away. He is pleased to extend the chance to start over.
I’ve known a few rebellious people who disregard the commandments and are influenced by the evil one or by other rebellious people to transgress God’s laws. I’ve seen their distress and pain. I’ve also seen their joy when, humbled and fully repentant, they have returned to the Church and have had all their blessings restored.
“I Would Love a Blessing”
Some time ago I was asked by the First Presidency to stop and visit a man on my way to a stake conference. This man had been excommunicated, had fully repented, and had been found worthy to be baptized. But baptism did not restore his priesthood and temple blessings. That was my assignment, acting on behalf of the Lord at the direction of the President of the Church.
I found the man lying in a hospital suffering from a disease that left him unable to move or speak. On seeing him, I realized that it would be impossible to conduct the customary interview. Instead, I felt impressed that I should interview his wife, who was there with him. We found a vacant room in the hospital, and I had a wonderful visit with this stalwart woman, the mother of eight. She had stood by her husband, remaining true and faithful through all his struggle and difficulty. Now she, like her husband, greatly desired that he have his blessings restored.
As we walked back into the husband’s room, I asked his wife to help me communicate with him. During the two years that his body had deteriorated from disease, he had developed a way to communicate with his eyes. I leaned over his bed and said, “I am Elder Ballard. I have been sent here by the President of the Church. I am authorized to restore your blessings. Would you like that?” I quickly saw I wouldn’t need the help of his wife. Tears filled his eyes and ran down his cheeks in affirmative response.
I placed my hands on his head and, using terminology associated with this ordinance, restored to him the Melchizedek Priesthood.
He sobbed—perhaps the first sounds he had made in some time. I restored his office in the priesthood. Then I restored to him, by the power of the priesthood, the holy endowment that he had received when he went through the temple for the first time. Last, I restored what was perhaps most valuable to him—his sealings to his wife and children.
As the blessing concluded we were all filled with emotion. I looked at his wife and had the impression that I was to bless her also. I said, “Sister, would you like us to give you a blessing?”
She said, “Oh, I would love a blessing, Brother Ballard. I have not had a blessing in a long time.”
I asked her to sit down; then the regional representative, the stake president, and I placed our hands on her head. But when I tried to bless her, the words would not come. We took our hands off her head and I said, “Brethren, let’s move her chair closer to the bed.” We pushed her chair over where I could lift her husband’s hand and place it on her head, since he was unable to lift it himself. As we proceeded again with the blessing, the words flowed. Blessings were given, conviction and comfort came.
I have since thought what a marvelous lesson that experience teaches us. This man had sinned, and a loving Heavenly Father had required that he repent so he could be worthy to be once again numbered among the Saints. He had subsequently done our Heavenly Father’s will; he had turned his life around; he had repented. Now, back in the Church and continuing to progress, he was worthy to have his greatest blessings restored. And he was able to use his restored priesthood immediately, participating in giving his wife a special priesthood blessing.
Informal Church Discipline
When a bishop learns of a transgression, usually through the confession of the member involved, he first counsels with the member. When the sin is not grievous, the bishop may decide, through inspiration, that no disciplinary action is needed. He may continue to give counsel and caution, helping the member resist temptation and avoid further transgression.
Another option the bishop has is to place the member on informal probation, temporarily restricting his privileges as a Church member—such as the right to partake of the sacrament, hold a Church position, or enter the temple. The bishop may ask the member to surrender his temple recommend temporarily. In addition, he may require the member to make specific positive changes in attitude or behavior. No official record is made or kept of informal probation. The bishop maintains close contact with the member and may terminate the probation period when he is prompted to do so.
In these cases, informal Church discipline may negate the need for formal disciplinary action. Since repentance and reformation are the primary objectives of any Church disciplinary action, the bishop may feel that the person has done or is doing everything necessary to repent and that a disciplinary council would serve no useful purpose.
Formal Church Discipline
On the other hand, the spirit of inspiration may move the Church leader to convene a disciplinary council, particularly if the member holds a prominent position in the Church.
In the scriptures, the Lord has given direction concerning Church disciplinary councils. (See D&C 102.) The word council brings to mind a helpful proceeding—one of love and concern, with the salvation and blessing of the transgressor being the foremost consideration.
Members sometimes ask why Church disciplinary councils are held. The purpose is threefold: to save the soul of the transgressor, to protect the innocent, and to safeguard the Church’s purity, integrity, and good name.
The First Presidency has instructed that disciplinary councils must be held in cases of murder, incest, or apostasy. A disciplinary council must also be held when a prominent Church leader commits a serious transgression, when the transgressor is a predator who may be a threat to other persons, when the person shows a pattern of repeated serious transgressions, when a serious transgression is widely known, and when the transgressor is guilty of serious deceptive practices and false representations or other terms of fraud or dishonesty in business transactions.
Disciplinary councils may also be convened to consider a member’s standing in the Church following serious transgression such as abortion, transsexual operation, attempted murder, rape, forcible sexual abuse, intentionally inflicting serious physical injuries on others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, child abuse (sexual or physical), spouse abuse, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, embezzlement, theft, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury, or false swearing.
Disciplinary councils are not called to try civil or criminal cases. The decision of a civil court may help determine whether a Church disciplinary council should be convened. However, a civil court’s decision does not dictate the decision of a disciplinary council.
Disciplinary councils are not held for such things as failure to pay tithing, to obey the Word of Wisdom, to attend church, or to receive home teachers. They are not held because of business failure or nonpayment of debts. They are not designed to settle disputes among members. Nor are they held for members who demand that their names be removed from Church records or who have joined another church; that is now an administrative action.
The How of Disciplinary Councils
The bishopric, in consultation with the stake president, has the responsibility and authority to hold disciplinary councils for all ward members. However, if excommunication of a Melchizedek Priesthood holder is thought to be a possibility, the matter is transferred to the stake presidency, who, with the assistance of the high council, may convene a stake disciplinary council.
An appeal of a decision of a ward disciplinary council goes to the stake presidency and high council. Any further appeals go to the First Presidency.
Missions and districts have jurisdiction similar to that of stakes and wards, with mission presidents having jurisdiction over the missionaries and branch members in districts over whom they preside.
A disciplinary council begins with an opening prayer, followed by a statement of the reason for the council being convened. The member is asked to tell in simple and general terms about the transgression and to explain his or her feelings and what steps of repentance he or she has taken. The member may respond to clarifying questions from the leaders. Then he or she is excused, and the leaders counsel together, pray, and reach a decision.
The council takes into consideration many factors, such as whether temple or marriage covenants have been violated; whether a position of trust or authority has been abused; the repetition, seriousness, and magnitude of the transgression; the age, maturity, and experience of the transgressor; the interests of innocent victims and innocent family members; the time between transgression and confession; whether or not confession was voluntary; and evidence of repentance.
Those who sit on the council are to keep everything strictly confidential and to handle the matter in a spirit of love. Their objective is not retribution; rather, it is to help the member make the changes necessary to stand clean before God once more.
Possible Actions of Disciplinary Councils
Decisions of the council are to be made with inspiration. A council can reach one of four decisions: (1) no action, (2) formal probation, (3) disfellowshipment, or (4) excommunication.
Even if a transgression has been committed, the council may decide to take no action at that time. (The member would be encouraged to receive further counsel from his or her bishop.)
Formal probation is a temporary state of discipline, imposed as a means to help the member fully repent. The presiding officer of the council specifies the conditions under which the probation can be terminated. During the probation, the bishop or stake president keeps in close contact to help the individual progress.
The third decision the council may take is to disfellowship the member. Disfellowshipment is usually temporary, though not necessarily brief. Disfellowshipped persons retain membership in the Church. They are encouraged to attend public Church meetings, but are not entitled to offer public prayers or to give talks. They may not hold a Church position, take the sacrament, vote in the sustaining of Church officers, hold a temple recommend, or exercise the priesthood. They may, however, pay tithes and offerings and continue to wear temple garments if endowed.
Excommunication is the most severe judgment a Church disciplinary council can take. Excommunicated persons are no longer members of the Church. Therefore, they are denied the privileges of Church membership, including the wearing of temple garments and the payment of tithes and offerings. They may attend public Church meetings, but, like disfellowshipped persons, their participation in such meetings is limited. Excommunicated persons are encouraged to repent and so live as to qualify for eventual baptism.
Great consideration is given regarding the confidentiality of the decisions of a Church disciplinary council. No announcement is ever made when a member is placed on formal probation. Decisions to disfellowship or excommunicate are generally not announced publicly unless the transgression is widely known.
Restoration
Church disciplinary action is not intended to be the end of the process—rather, it is designed to be the beginning of an opportunity to return to full fellowship and to the full blessings of the Church. Priesthood leaders try hard to be sensitive to the disciplined person’s needs for understanding, encouragement, counsel, and assistance. They work to see that he or she has regular visits with his or her bishop; that the person has mature, caring home teachers or other specially assigned individuals; and that his or her family receive the attention, counsel, and fellowship they need during this difficult time.
The desired result is that the person will make whatever changes are necessary to return fully and completely to be able to receive the marvelous blessings of the Church. When the person has progressed to that point, his or her current bishop or stake president has the authority to convene a new disciplinary council to consider what action needs to be taken—even if the person is now living in a new ward or stake or if a new bishopric or stake presidency is now serving.
After the rebaptism of a person who has not been endowed in the temple, his or her membership record shows the original baptism date, with no reference to the excommunication. A man who previously held the priesthood but was not endowed should generally be ordained to his former priesthood office. Again, his membership record will show his original ordination date, with no reference to excommunication.
A person who was endowed in the temple before being excommunicated may regain priesthood and/or temple blessings only through the ordinance of restoration of blessings. This is a special ordinance performed by a General Authority as directed by the First Presidency. Afterwards, a new membership record is created, showing the original dates of baptism, endowment, sealing, and (if applicable) priesthood ordinations—with no reference to excommunication.
Our Father in Heaven is pleased to restore former blessings to his sons and daughters when they have demonstrated sincere and complete repentance.
“It Was Difficult but Necessary”
The trauma of being disfellowshipped or excommunicated from the Church will likely never be fully understood by those who have never experienced it. One man said, “The shock I felt was terrible.” But he knew it was the Lord’s will. “I could feel the spirit of concerned brethren in the room as I was told the decision of the council,” he said. “I felt only love and compassion.”
Still, the pain was hard to bear. “Left to cope with the anguish and grief inside me, I cried, I prayed, I lay awake at night afraid that I would lose my wife and children forever. Although I continued to counsel with my bishop, I felt alone, with rebellion in my heart many times and feelings of guilt because of this rebellion. …
“As I look back now, working through each personal challenge was terribly difficult but necessary, and the whole process was a great blessing to me. … Repentance is something that each individual must find for himself or herself, in process of time.”
Friends and family are vitally important for an individual who is struggling to return to the gospel path. Those around such a person must refrain from judging. They must do all they can to show love. The Lord has commanded, “Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.
“I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.” (D&C 64:9–10.)
A woman who had been a Relief Society president tells of the love and support she received during a painful period of disfellowshipment. “When the brethren of the council listened to me, I could feel love as I had never felt it before. They all wept with me.”
Although she initially felt as if her heart would “break into a million pieces,” the next day a comforting spirit returned, and she realized that she would not be abandoned.
One of the most difficult things for her was going to church the next Sunday, even though it was much easier than she had thought. The bishop made a point of shaking her hand. With words and without, priesthood leaders who had participated on the council expressed their concern and love. No one else knew. “There was no sign of disrespect,” she says.
As the weeks and months passed, she found that her pain and suffering were actually aiding the cleansing and healing process. In fact, her pain and suffering served a necessary purpose in the process of healing. And the pain that her family experienced was relieved somewhat through the kind and thoughtful attention extended to them by others.
With agony she acknowledges, “Every member of the Church must realize that he or she is capable of sinning. How I have paid for fooling myself about what I was doing!”
We must constantly guard our thoughts. Serious sin almost always begins with unworthy thoughts. Some years ago at the direction of the First Presidency, I interviewed a man for the restoration of his priesthood and temple blessings. This brother had been excommunicated while serving in an important calling in his ward. While we visited, I asked him, “How did this all happen?”
In very sober terms he said, “It all began when I picked up a pornographic magazine and read it. From this subtle beginning, I was led to more and more erotic things—including R- and X-rated films and videotapes—until I committed adultery with a prostitute.”
He continued, “As I look back, I can hardly believe I did those awful things. But I did them, and it all started by reading a pornographic magazine. Brother Ballard, tell the Saints to be careful what they read and what they see on television, movies, and videos.”
A sister who was disciplined after years of faithful service and devotion to the Church said: “I had no idea I was capable of committing such a serious transgression. I had assumed that if I knew something was wrong, I would never do it. Little did I understand the sometimes strange dynamics of human behavior, or what I was capable of.”
Never forget that. Satan is real, and he has the power to “grasp” mortals “with his everlasting chains … and [lead] them away carefully down to hell.” (2 Ne. 28:19, 21.)
Struggles and Blessings
The miracle of the gospel is that we all can repent. Church government calls for Church disciplinary councils. But the Lord’s system also calls for restoration following repentance. Disfellowshipment or excommunication is not the end of the story, unless the member so chooses. Rather, after excommunication, followed by full repentance, come additional steps, each one bringing great blessings: baptism, restoration of priesthood and temple blessings, further growth and participation in the kingdom, enduring in righteousness to the end.
President Ezra Taft Benson has spoken about the kind of repentance that truly brings forgiveness:
“I would not have anyone believe that there is no hope if there are some who have made such a grievous mistake, because repentance and forgiveness are also a part of the gospel. Thank God for that! But it must be real repentance. Such repentance is a deep, heartfelt sorrow for sin that produces a reformation of life. It is not just a confession of guilt. Sometimes we regard all too lightly the principle of repentance, thinking that it only means confession, that it only means feeling sorry for ourselves. But it is more than that. It is a deep, burning, and heartfelt sorrow for sin that will drive us to our knees in humility and tears—a deep, heartfelt sorrow for sin that produces a reformation of life. That is the right test: a reformation of life. Only then may the God of heaven in his mercy and his goodness see fit to forgive us. He—not the priesthood on the earth—is the judge. Priesthood holders can only carry out certain requirements. They can require certain things set forth in the revelations, but forgiveness comes from above.” (God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974, p. 196.)
Elder Marion G. Romney bore beautiful testimony of the principle of repentance. He said, “I am grateful for my Redeemer, grateful that he paid the debt and brought about the means of repentance so that by repenting of my transgressions I can bring my soul within the reach of his atoning blood and thereby be cleansed of sin. … I love the doctrine of repentance.
“During the past few months I have seen the need of it—oh, how I have seen the need of it. I have seen missionaries, Saints, and nonmembers of the Church in far-off lands sorrowing with a Godly sorrow for sin. I have heard them say, Oh, Brother Romney, do you think there is any hope for me, any chance for me to get on even the bottom rung of the gospel ladder?’ ”
I believe that is a question many ask who have undergone a Church disciplinary council. And President Romney, knowing the truth and power of the gospel, had a ready answer:
“And so I comforted and encouraged those who confided in me, and I encouraged all sorrowing, repentant men to be comforted—comforted by the experience of Alma and by Paul’s assurance that ‘… godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation. …’ (2 Cor. 7:10.) For today, as well as in days of old, there is hope, there is peace, there is rest in Christ for all whose Godly sorrow brings them to that repentance which worketh salvation. Forgiveness is as wide as repentance. Every person will be forgiven for all the transgressions of which he truly repents. If he repents of all his sins, he shall stand spotless before God because of the atonement of our Master and Savior, Jesus Christ.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1955, pp. 123–24.)
Elder Romney’s message is comforting to all who truly repent and return to the arms of a loving and merciful Savior. It is a lie propounded by the adversary that our sins can run too deep, that any one of us has sunk below the reach of the Savior and his atonement. The scriptures give us only one exception: those who have sinned against the Holy Ghost, “having crucified [the Savior] unto themselves and put him to an open shame” after having known the Lord’s power and partaken of it. (See D&C 76:31–37.) If we do not fall into this category (and those who do are few), we can, with the help of the Lord, come back onto the path and become clean and pure again, worthy to receive our Father’s greatest blessings.
Once a repentant member qualifies for these blessings, none will be withheld, including the blessings of the priesthood and the temple. President Spencer W. Kimball expressed this glorious principle in a beautiful way, and I add my testimony to his:
“When soiled clothes have been through the laundry and washed, starched and pressed, they are no longer filthy. When the smallpox victim has been healed and cleansed, he is no longer contaminated. … When one is washed and purged and cleansed, he is no longer an adulterer. …
“The effect of the cleansing is beautiful. These troubled souls have found peace. These soiled robes have been cleansed to spotlessness. These people formerly defiled, having been cleansed through their repentance—their washing, their purging, their whitening—are made worthy for constant temple service and to be found before the throne of God associating with divine royalty.” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969, pp. 352–53.)
To members and leaders of the Church who know of a brother or a sister who has been disfellowshipped or excommunicated: Love him or her without judging. Be sensitive and thoughtful without prying. Be warm and caring without being condescending. Be forgiving and forgetful. The Lord has said, “Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.” (D&C 58:42.) Can we be justified in doing any less?
To you who have come back into full fellowship in the Church: Welcome home! Now, as Nephi said, “Press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.” (2 Ne. 31:20.) Believe that promise.
To you who have not yet returned, who may still be struggling with the hurt and haven’t yet felt the healing: please allow yourself to feel the love that the Lord, his presiding authorities, and your friends in the Church feel for you. We are aware of your pain, and we pray for your healing and your return.
As the First Presidency has said, “We are confident that many have longed to return, but have felt awkward about doing so. We assure you that you will find open arms to receive you and willing hands to assist you. …
“We know there are many who carry heavy burdens of guilt and bitterness. To such we say, ‘Set them aside and give heed to the words of the Savior: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
“ ‘“Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
“ ‘“For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matt. 11:28–30.)’
“We plead with you. We pray for you. We invite and welcome you with love and appreciation.” (Church News, 22 Dec. 1985, p. 3.)

Of Prophets and Prophetic Counsel

2008-07-12T12:36:00.021-06:00

There has been a lot of ruckus lately; some murmurings of discontent among certain sectors of the LDS membership. This tends to happen whenever the leaders of the Church come out with some specific piece of counsel, whether it be as simple as the removal of a second earring, or as difficult and politically sensitive an issue as same-gender marriage.

Any Californians around here? Has the letter been read in your chapel yet? You know which letter. It’s all over the bloggernacle; “LDS leaders have sent out an edict on supporting the constitutional amendment to ban Gay Marriage.” Some bloggers are standing up and applauding, others are organizing sacrament-meeting walk outs. There are even people (Members, yes, even in good standing) who say: “They were wrong about blacks and the priesthood. They set that right. Well, I’m reserving my judgment and approval until this mistake is made right as well.”

"What if the prophet is wrong," they say. "What if he is being misled? What about personal revelation? Doesn’t that trump prophetic counsel? Nephi, for instance, was directed to kill Laban, in direct contradiction to Moses’ prophetic counsel. Maybe God is directing me to stand up against this counsel."

Here's the problem I have with all of this: Pride. Nephi's direction came by a special manifestation, and under extraordinary circumstances. Have you seen an angel? Did you shake his hand? Have you been given charge over an entire tribe of Israel? I doubt it. Those sorts of things are rare, and the people involved are carefully chosen by God. Nephi did not want to kill Laban, he had to be commanded to do it. He did not think he knew more than Moses. He was humble.

Remember those words of the primary song, “Follow the Prophet,” about Noah, about Samuel. Especially read my favorite line in the last verse, “If you don’t believe it, go and watch the news.” Lol.

And then, there is the first presidency message from last month; President Uchdorf’s message about following prophetic counsel, given with what seems to be fortuitous timing.

As I have been pondering all these things and struggling with my own feelings of sadness, compassion, political-correctness and everything else in the wake of the Church’s recent direction to its California members, I have thought about God’s mercy.

He (God), is such a merciful person, that He is willing to use imperfect men as His instruments. Prophets are not perfect. They may even put their foot in their mouths from time to time (Brigham Young has some entertaining examples.) They may go through normal periods of disobedience and contrition (think of Joseph Smith and the New and Everlasting Covenant, think of Jonah and Ninevah.) And yet, God ordains them and speaks through them. And We, the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, are expected to obey. It is our calling to obey the prophet, however little we think of what he has said or asked of us. If we do not obey, we are not right with God.

If we choose not to obey, it is a grave thing. Yes, personal revelation does have a place. It is true that, like the example of Nephi and Laban related above, that sometimes God asks something different of us. But this cannot be taken lightly. It cannot be a decision based upon pride; the idea that you think you might know more than the Prophet. You do not know more than the prophet. By definition, the Prophet, Leader of the Church and Lord’s mouthpiece, knows the most about what needs to happen in these, the latter days.

President Hinckley told the young women of the church not too long ago, that one pair of earrings was enough. This was a piece of prophetic counsel. Now, I’m of the opinion that Heavenly Father is not all that displeased with an extra jewel adorning the earlobe. I’m willing to hedge a bet that plenty of his virtuous followers, in various cultures and periods of history, likely had multiple pierces. So when did it become a matter of right or wrong?

The Answer: When it became a matter of obedience. The prophet asks it of us, and our relationship with God is directly related to how we respond to that request. It may seem like such a simple thing, a silly thing really. But then, so is the brightness-level of brass plates. And so are temple ceremonies; they are full of small, little details that may seem silly to some, and yet are somehow important. We don’t always know why until after we have attended the temple for awhile. Similarly, sometimes we do not know the point behind a piece of prophetic counsel until after we have followed it.

I have known wonderful people who also are actively homosexual. This is hard for me. But one thing I have learned in my life: I stand by the prophet. I may think I know stuff, but one thing is guaranteed: President Monson knows more about what will keep me in tune with the spirit, and safe in these difficult times. My heart may ache and my mind may even rebel, but the Spirit tells me that I am in the right when I follow the Prophet. And that is all I really need to know to follow him.

Mormons Encouraged to Share Personal Perspectives Online to Explain Their Faith

2008-07-03T15:33:00.003-06:00

Look here for the full post from the Church.

SALT LAKE CITY 3 July 2008 The July edition of the Ensign, a monthly magazine distributed to English-speaking Church members, features an address given by Elder M. Russell Ballard, a member of the Church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles. Elder Ballard encourages Church members to participate in the growing online discussion about the Church:

"There are conversations going on about the Church constantly. Those conversations will continue whether or not we choose to participate in them. But we cannot stand on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches. While some conversations have audiences in the thousands or even millions, most are much, much smaller. But all conversations have an impact on those who participate in them. Perceptions of the Church are established one conversation at a time."

In the Church’s monthly magazine, Elder M. Russell Ballard encouraged Church members to participate in the growing online discussion about the Church.
A set of guidelines and helps have been developed by the Public Affairs Department for Church members who wish to use the Internet to explain their religion to those of other faiths.
In the document, Latter-day Saints are encouraged to “share personal perspectives” to “explain the Church and what it’s like to be a member.”

A set of guidelines

When discussing the Church on the Internet, it's helpful to keep the following in mind:
• You’re speaking as an individual member of the Church, sharing personal perspectives. Don’t leave an impression that you are speaking officially for the Church. It’s your own experiences that will be insightful and interesting.
• Remember that “a soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger” (Proverbs 15:1). It almost never helps to argue or contend with others regarding your beliefs or to become defensive or belligerent. Just share your stories in a kind and gentle way, remembering that not everyone will agree with what you say—and that’s okay. Remember to respect others and their opinions.
• Be friendly and polite, even if you comment anonymously. Act like you would if you were talking to your next door neighbor. How you comment may be just as important as what you say.
• What helps the most are thoughtful and measured voices that explain the Church and what it’s like to be a member.
• Be relevant. Discuss the gospel where it’s the topic of conversation. Be cautious about trying to force a conversation about gospel topics.
• Everything you say or write could be on the Internet forever. Remember you’re always on the record.
Ways you might participate:
• Create your own blog, or comment on other blogs that are of interest to you.
• Share your perspective in the “comments” section of online news stories about the Church.
• Create videos that illustrate aspects of your membership in the Church and post them on video sharing sites like YouTube.
• Share material from Church Web sites by email and on the Internet.
How to use Newsroom.lds.org:
Newsroom.lds.org is the Church's official Website for the news media, opinion leaders and the public, including bloggers and others using new media. The Newsroom Website is a great resource to find content that you can reuse in your own blog, video, social networking page, etc. Available content includes:
• Links to news stories about the Church
• News released by the Church
• Commentary on issues impacting the Church
• Public issues statements
• Background material
• Statistics
• Video
• Audio
• Photos

Tree Hugging

2008-06-30T10:46:00.011-06:00

I'm rather moderate politically. As I've followed this election, I have liked candidates from all of the camps; including Ron Paul, Mitt Romney (yes, I really did like him for his policy...and not just because he is Mormon, long post for another time,) Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and of course my Dearly Beloved Barack. (See... I can make fun of myself.)

One of the things I love about the Democratic platform is the environmental policy.

I grew up in a beautiful part of the country: Northern California. The area where I lived was particularly prone to tree-huggers. Also hippies who lived up on the ridge in their little compound and smoked their favorite plants that they grew in their backyard. But I digress.

I grew up appreciating the unpolluted beauty of nature. I was able to appreciate it, in large part because of the radical environmental groups that made a big stink anytime a big company came in, wanting to develop land that would impact the environment in negative ways. The fine for littering on our public roads was $1,000. Wal-Mart has done some major pushing to get a store in there, and they still haven't suceeded. At last count, we had one K-mart, three franchise grocery stores in a 30-mile radius, and lots of mom-and-pop stores of other kinds. You want to go to the mall... you drive an hour to Roseville or Sacramento.

A particularly touchy (or if you're a Grass-Valley-ite like me, the word "dear" is more accurately descriptive) topic was the River. "The Riv", we call it. Or the Yuba. Or bridgeport. A picture is worth a thousand words:

I loved my small-ish town. It is really three towns, but we're all one town in heart. Altogether we are about the same size, person-wise, as Provo, Utah. But we are spread out over forty miles of rolling foothill and 1-100 acre lots. I won a poetry contest my Senior year in high school that was sponsored by the Land Trust. I will not post it here because it would be embarrassing and highly incriminating. Instead I will trust that all who read this now know my own veiwpoint on the environment.

Lately, we've had some news about Nasa and global warming. It was discovered not long ago that they had been hiding or downplaying evidence about Global Warming for political reasons.

Just the other day, NASA released new statements to try to amend what happened earlier, and one of their top scientists just came out with a statement of his own, on Global Warming and the potential problems we will have in future.

When I have talked with those who disagree with me on this topic, quite often a few common arguments come up.

1) Global warming is all liberal hot air. It's not real.

2) The earth has been warming ever since the ice age; there is nothing we can do about it and nothing we have done has significantly impacted it.

3) We have impacted it, but so have volcanoes and cows. No matter what we do, those sources of CO2 will continue and so we shouldn't get too worked up over what our own carbon emissions are doing to contribute.

I have various reasons for disagreeing with all these arguments, none of which I'll post here... maybe later, in a different post.

My question is, how do all of you feel about this in light of the new evidence? Any changes? What are your reasons for feeling differently, or not feeling differently?

Appendix: a recent, very interesting Ted Talk on Global Warming and the impact of Beef Eating.

A post on global warming by a person I love and adore.

Feminist Mormon Housewives: Traditional Marriage is Dead (and it's a good thing too)

2008-06-27T14:28:00.003-06:00

"The church has also reinvented marriage, most recently in the Proclamation on the Family. But as grand or inpired or annoying or frightening as you might find that document, it doesn’t reflect the reality of what marriage in the church was 100 or 50 or even 20 year ago. Re-read the polygamy parts of D&C 132, or ask someone who took her marriage vows before 1990 what she covenanted: it was a kind of marriage quite foreign to the one described in the Proclamation on the Family.

The LDS church has already reinvented marriage to conform to our ideas of morality and modern culture. Others have too. The battle now isn’t over whether ‘traditional marriage’ will survive but rather over who gets to have their redefinition accepted by the rest society."

Read the whole thing here.

I'm floored by this. I realize one of my blog partners here likes FMH, as it's been added to the links on the right. But I've read a few posts over the years and I can't say I'm a big fan. The intellectual histrionics shown in this post is the reason why.

The author argues that because of feminism and increased female independence, the old, evil reasons for marriage have given way to the new, better reason: love. Love is all you need, therefore anyone can and should get married. As long as they decide they love each other. And when they stop loving each other, they are free to leave.

But I ask, if this is true, if love is the sole reason to be married, then what's the big deal with marriage? Why bother? You can love someone without getting legally married to them. Why does the state recognize marriage at all? That's the question at the foundation of it all. Why does the state care? Here's a hint: it's not because of love.

Should Mormons be Conservatives?

2008-06-09T09:03:00.004-06:00

Starting at around Mosiah 29 the Book of Mormon talks politics a bit. King Mosiah wants to confer the kingdom to one of his sons, but they all refuse. He thinks about maybe forcing it on them, but, perhaps because of lessons learned from translating the Jaredite records, he instead does away with the monarchy and institutes a system of judges elected by the people. I don't know much more about the specifics of the Nephite government, but liberty and freedom seem to be a major theme for the rest of the Book of Mormon.

This kind of rhetoric lends itself greatly to comparisons with the writings of the Founding Fathers, and advocacy for limited central government. Are these comparisons correct?

President Benson, before becoming prophet but still while he was an apostle, spoke a lot about freedom and communism and threats to America - particularly the threat of secret combinations. He hated programs that he called socialism, all the way back to his days being the local county farming coordinator in Idaho when FDR started paying farmers to leave their fields empty.

President Benson was what today would be called the 'far right'. In fact, Harry Reid pretty much called him that on his trip to BYU last year. Is Senator Reid correct in saying that LDS leaders like President Benson wrongly led Church members down the path to conservatism?

Or was President Benson right to criticize the federal government becoming more and more socialistic? Are programs like welfare, farm subsidies, social security, etc Socialism?

If they're not, why not? If they are, what does that mean for our country, and what does it mean for us as citizens and as Latter Day Saints?

By way of references, President Benson's book, 'An Enemy Hath Done This' has a collection of his speeches and writings, and at this link you can read a speech he gave called, 'The Proper Role of Government'.

Musick has Charms...

2008-06-03T12:37:00.000-06:00

"Musick has Charms to sooth a savage Breast,
To soften Rocks, or bend a knotted Oak."
- William Congreve, in The Mourning Bride (1697)

On Saturday evening a few weeks ago I attended our stake conference’s priesthood leadership session and sang Jesus, Lover of My Soul (#102). Not exactly my favorite, but I agreed to do it. After my duet partner skipped town, I reasoned that with the lyrical quality of the melody and the sincere, personal tone of the text, I could get away with a solo, a capella version. Bold, I know, but It worked — the room was pin-drop silent as I sang, and I made it through intact. I received many positive acknowledgments afterwards — more heartfelt than just the usual “good job” — and I felt like my offering had been accepted as appropriate and sufficient.

Later that night, at the end of the adult session of our stake conference, the closing hymn was Abide With Me, ‘Tis Eventide (#165), a definite favorite of mine. I sat alone, since my wife was seated with the stake choir. I had received a couple impressions from the talks that I had written down, and reckoned it was the Spirit trying to tell me something. The two meetings were subtly and gently incredible, with the examples of our genuinely kind stake president, the soft-spoken temple president, the well-loved mission president (on his last few months), the humble new area authority, and the wise and caring (and high-ranking) general authority all shining through their words but not blinding.

As I sang the closing hymn, I started focusing on the words —
“Savior, stay this night with me…O, Savior, stay…”

I thought of my little boy who often asks me to stay by his bed as he falls asleep –
“Abide with me; ’tis eventide, and lone will be the night if I cannot commune with thee…”

Thinking of the issues I deal with and the children I try to guard, I sang:
“The darkness of the world, I fear, would in my home abide. O Savior, stay this night with me”

Having felt the spirit (through the words of the wonderful men who spoke), I choked through the last verse —
“Thy walk today with me has made my heart within me burn, as I communed with thee…”

One last time I pleaded the double refrain:
“O Savior, stay this night with me.”

I noticed even more the woman sitting next to me, consumed by her tears. I struggled to keep my voice, as I begged through my own tears —
“O Savior, stay this night with me…”

I couldn’t finish the rest of the line. I closed the Hymn book and listened to the rest of the congregation complete the request for me.

I haven’t been that taken by a hymn since my little boy was born.

We were, for one Sunday, part of the American Fork Hospital branch, run by a caring older couple each week for the benefit of the patients. My wife and I sat next to each other (she sat a little more gingerly that day than I). Hymn 169 contains this line:

“We contemplate thy lasting grace, thy boundless charity.”

Filled with the thrill of being a dad to my own little boy (and exhausted from the lack of sleep the previous nights) I thought about how much trust God was placing in us to take care of his child. It was an incredible and humbling thought. And then this line followed immediately:
“To us the gift of life was giv’n…”

It was all over for me at that point. We had literally been given a new life to take care of. Unfortunately, the hymn had two more verses to go, beginning with this:
“As now our minds review the past, we know we must repent…”

My gross and many errors came to mind, thinking how in the world am I expected to raise someone else if I’m so degraded? — I have to get my life back on track. The verse continued —
“Forgiveness is a gift from thee we seek with pure intent.”

It was as if the older couple running the branch chose this hymn specifically for me, specifically on this day, at the birth of my first boy.
“The blessings of this day will linger in our thankful hearts…”

My wife and I were holding hands tightly at this point, as we both fought to get through the hymn.
“And silently we pray for courage to accept thy will… We love thee, Lord; our hearts are full.”

I knew then for the first time what that sometimes trite phrase felt like. I was full of emotions of joy and incredible humility, and the hymn had touched me like no other.

I’m not much of a weeper, but I’ve got an old softy side to me that sneaks up every once in a while. (I got it from my dad.) Sacred music can have incredible power, if we open ourselves up to it. Every once in a while I do, and the knotted oak in my heart loosens a bit more.

Jon

New Blog Address

2008-05-27T17:00:00.002-06:00

Friends,
In the coming week or two I am going to try and convert this blog to a new one. I would like to, hopefully, port all of the posts and comments to the new blog address as well.

The new blog address (and thank you Jon!) is:

http://conscioiusignorance.blogspot.com/

It will shorten the address a little. So if you've found out information on how to move blog posts or comments from one blog to another let me know. I've done some research on it. I also may see if we can have a forwarding address to the new blog if persons come to the old (current) blog address.

Also for those that are interested I am thinking that as we post we'll want to copy these down for fun for later review. I am planning on doing a blog book on this site and distributing it to those that are authors or persons that have made good comments.

I'll get the blog author information sent to you once I've figured out how to move things around.

SO blog on.....

-J. Doug

Why Death?

2008-05-25T22:02:00.008-06:00

I think I understand the Plan of Salvation. Before the world was, we existed as Spirits living with God. God created the world, plants, animals, and people so that we all might have joy and rejoicing in the fruit of the garden and our posterity. Adam falls, that we might have that joy. We go out into the word and work hard and feel pain and grow in stature and wisdom, and hopefully in the Spirit. Because of Christ's atonement, we can return to be with God and live with him as resurrected beings, and our joy is full in that state.

So... what about death? Why is that a necessary step? It has always seemed wierd to me, that the body would have to die and then regenerate later. Why do we have to die at all?

Alma explained to his son, Corianton, that there needs to be a space between death and resurrection, but he never explains why. At least, not that I can find. So why do us flesh creatures die? Does it have something to do with the law of Justice? Christ had to "overcome" death... but He died, too. Not even He avoided the actual dying part.

Satan's lie to Eve was that she would not die if she partook of the fruit. He knew she would die if she did. Something about that transgression made us mortals subject to death... why?

I guess my real question is, if death was punishment for the fall, and we are not punished for Adam's transgression... well, basically the same question we discussed in two posts ago, only about death this time.

Thank you. It's so nice to get a break from my blog and talk about something else for a bit.

Pornography

2008-05-21T12:38:00.000-06:00

Visit http://www.nosurf.blogspot.com/

Original Sin

2008-05-13T15:27:00.003-06:00

From the Articles of Faith:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

What does that mean, specifically? Are we not "punished" in the sense that because of Adam's transgression death and sin entered the world, thereby removing all of humanity from the presence of God?

Peter Singer: Your Friend and Neighbor

2008-05-10T08:00:00.002-06:00

I posted this over on my own blog, but I thought I'd bring it over here as well. Enjoy!

Peter Singer wants me to kill my uncle. In fact, Mr. Singer would have already murdered his mother, but his sister won't let him. Peter Singer is the man who said this:

"Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person."

He's also the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. That's right, he's Princeton's ethics professor. And he believes that infants and handicapped people aren't really people. They may be humans, but that doesn't qualify them for his definition of a "person".

When I wrote "A Philosophical Study of Abortion" I commented on what seems to me to be the fundamental question of abortion - what makes a person a person? This is critical to the abortion question because most people intuitively know that killing an innocent person is wrong. Therefore, in an attempt to rationalize abortion, academics have parsed out new definitions of personhood. Singer's definition goes like this:

Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons.

As I noted in "A Philosophical Study of Abortion," each of these definitions has led down the dangerous road of excluding people like my seriously disabled uncle, or Peter Singer's Alzheimer's-stricken mother, or newborn babies. Most people go down this road, see the ending, and recoil at its baseness. But not Professor Singer.

"There appear to be only two possibilities: oppose abortion or allow infanticide."

Singer chooses infanticide.

There are two thought processes in regards to "thinkers" like Professor Singer. One is to dismiss him outright as a crank and a nutjob. Outlandish views like his make it easy to condemn our liberal, secular society and leave it at that. Another way is to dismiss him as "just" a philosopher, an academic, with no real say on policy or society.

Both reactions would be wrong.

First of all, as far as the world is concerned, he's not just a nutjob. He's a nutjob with a very important position with one of the most prestigious universities in the world. It lends he and his views credibility, as well as gives him a platform to teach the world his view of personhood.

Secondly, although he is "just" an academic with little influence on society, his views are far more commonplace than one might think. Consider for instance the fact that he partly came to his conclusions based on not wanting children or their parents to suffer with physical or mental handicaps. These parents could simply abort the fetus or kill the infant and then produce another child that will likely by "normal". The intention is to ease suffering, to reduce pain.

Now compare that with this often-used quote:

"We women know when it is or is not the right time to bring a child into the world...We act out of compassion when we wait to have a child until the time when we can give it the kind of life every child deserves. We act out of love when we consider what we would be taking away from the child or children we already have if we brought another child into our family now...We women know the truth: That given certain circumstances, abortion is the most morally responsible and loving choice we can make."

-Jean Stewart Berg and Anne Baker

Don't you get it? It's all about love, people. It's compassionate to end human life because that life might suffer or cause others to suffer.

Shortly after I wrote "A Philosophical Study of Abortion", I had numerous discussions and debates with various people about abortion. All of the arguments Singer uses were used by everyday people in these debates. I wrote about them here. From the "compassionate choice" argument, to being a "fully formed human", to a fetus being aware of itself and its own life - all of these are variations of Singer's arguments and all of them were used by non-nutjobs and non-academics.

Peter Singer's view is out there folks. People I interact with fairly regularly have espoused these views in some form or another. Commenters on this blog like Democracy Lover and Geoffrey have used them. Utah's own Green Jenni used them over and over again.

While it may be shocking to read Peter Singer's opinions, it's even more shocking to see them repeated by those in my own community.

"I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being."

It's about freakin' time!

2008-05-09T14:24:00.002-06:00

The ACLU has finally come out of hiding to release this statement (a month later):

ACLU Statement On The Government's Actions Regarding The Yearning For Zion Ranch In Eldorado, Texas (5/2/2008)

On April 3, 2008, Texas law enforcement officials obtained a search warrant related to the suspected sexual assault of a child and then conducted a raid on the Yearning For Zion (YFZ) Ranch near Eldorado, Texas. The search warrant was reportedly based upon a telephone call placed by a female who identified herself as a 16-year old resident at YFZ who was the mother of one child, pregnant with a second child, and who claimed she was being physically abused by her husband. The YFZ Ranch, which is more than 1000 acres in size, apparently housed more than 700 people (men, women, and children) who are associated with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), whose practices include forming families with more than one wife. Although the original search warrant identified only one case of suspected sexual assault, law enforcement officials have now taken into custody all of the approximately 462 children formerly residing at YFZ. The available evidence now suggests that the original call that served as the basis of the warrant was probably made by someone who had never resided at YFZ and that the accused “husband” was at the time residing in Arizona (and may never have lived at YFZ). Since that time, the media, including internet blogs and listservs, have been filled with reports about YFZ and the FLDS that describe forced marriages, marriages involving underage girls, forced sex with children, and other abuses. There also have been reports of young children suffering trauma caused by the forced separation from their parents.

Although all of the facts are not yet known, the governing principles are well-established:

First, children have a right not to be abused (sexually or otherwise) nor forced into marriages by their parents or by any other person.
Second, parents have a constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion and to raise their children in their own faith.
Third, children and parents have the right to be together unless it is determined, applying the proper legal standards adopted by the state and consistent with the United States Constitution, that temporary or permanent removal is necessary. Children may not be separated from their parents based solely on the state’s disagreement with a group’s thoughts or beliefs, religious or otherwise.
Fourth, all persons, including children, have the fundamental right to due process of law. Due process rights for both potential victims and parents accused of neglect or abuse must be respected, and the law must afford each family notice of and the opportunity to contest allegations related to custody in a timely manner.

Based upon news reports and other available information, the ACLU has serious concerns that the state’s actions so far have not adequately protected the fundamental rights at stake. Specifically, the ACLU is concerned that:

The initial raid at YFZ was prompted by a single allegation of abuse now reported most likely to have been made by someone who never resided at YFZ. Law enforcement officials have since removed every child who was living at the ranch, regardless of age or sex, and the state has justified that decision, in part, by explaining that all children at the ranch were at risk because they were exposed to FLDS beliefs regarding underage marriage. Religion is never an excuse for abuse. But, exposure to a religion’s beliefs, however unorthodox, is not itself abuse and may not constitutionally be labeled abuse.
Parents have been separated from their children without individual, adversarial hearings and without particularized evidence that they ever engaged in abuse or were likely to engage in abuse. Children from YFZ have since been dispersed around the state, compounding the harm of forced separation of children – particularly infants – and their parents.
Court-ordered DNA testing has been ordered for all children without having any specific evidence that the parentage of all children was actually in dispute. Parents have been pressured to consent to DNA testing if they wish to be reunited with their children who were forcibly separated from them.
State officials have an important obligation to protect children against abuse. However, such actions should not be indiscriminately targeted against a group as a whole – particularly when the group is perceived as being different or unusual. Actions should be based on concrete evidence of harm and not based upon prejudice against religious or other communities.

Under these circumstances, it is essential for Texas officials to provide fair judicial proceedings that respect the constitutional rights of all involved – children, parents, and religious communities – while ensuring at the same time that children are protected against abuse where there is credible evidence of such abuse.

The ACLU will continue to monitor the unfolding events and will work to ensure that Texas officials act in a manner that is consistent with the important principles set forth above, including making our views known to the Texas courts at appropriate points in the judicial proceedings.

An Irreverent Video...

2008-04-29T10:19:00.000-06:00

that makes me chuckle... a lot.

Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood

2008-04-27T16:12:00.002-06:00

Today in Gospel Doctrine the Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood came up and a good friend Rolland mentioned this account of how it was restored. Has anyone heard otherwise or is this correct? Thoughts?

Testimony of Addison Everett on Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood

The records of the Church indicate that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic Priesthood from John the Baptist on May 15, 1829; and that they received the Melchizedek Priesthood sometime afterwards from Peter, James, and John. This account gives more information about that second ordination.
Addison Everett was born in 1805 in New York, and joined the Church in 1837. He moved to Nauvoo and was acquainted with Joseph Smith and the other leaders there. He crossed Iowa with the Saints in 1846 and served as bishop of a ward in Winter Quarters, before joining the first company to Utah in 1847. He later served as a bishop in Salt Lake and colonized in southern Utah.
He was in Nauvoo when Joseph and Hyrum were martyred, and wrote a letter to Oliver B. Huntington describing something he heard the prophet say "in front of the Nauvoo Mansion House a few days before Joseph was martyred," giving information about the circumstances when Joseph and Oliver received the Melchizedek Priesthood. Huntington later copied part of that letter from Addison Everett into his own record:
"[Joseph said] that while they were teaching the people at Colesville, he was prosecuted, and arrested for being a false prophet and deceiving the people. * * *
"His attorney John Reid arrived about this time and told the court that he wished to see Mr. Smith in a private room a few minutes, as he was Mr. Smith's attorney; and when in the private room, Mr. Reid told Brother Joseph and Oliver that a mob was outside in front of the house preparing to mob them, and so he hoisted the window int he back of the house, and in a few rods they entered the woods; they traveled all night in a dense forest, some of the time in deep mud and water, and in the afterpart of the night Oliver became exhausted, and he (Joseph) had to almost carry him. Just at the break of day Oliver gave out and exclaimed, 'How long, O Lord? How long, Brother Joseph, have we got to endure this thing?' 'There,' said Brother Joseph, 'At that very time, Peter, James, and John came to us and ordained us to the Apostleship.'
"They had 16 or 17 miles to travel to get back to his father-in-law's, Mr. Hale's, but Oliver did not complain any more of fatigue.
"Now, Brother O.B., I have given you Brother Joseph's words as near as I can recollect, and I have thought of them a great deal as they were almost the last words I ever heard him speak. Your humble servant, A. Everett."
(See "Oliver B. Huntington Journal", Pioneer Press, Feb. 17, 1883, pp. 17-18; also Franklin D. Richards in Collected Discourses, vol 5, October 5, 1896; and Jenson, LDS Biographical Encyclopedia, 4:702)

Document prepared for HTML by Andrew F. Hobbs, Hamilton!, Ohio, July 1997.

Disregard for the U.S. Constitution...in Texas...again

2008-04-11T16:44:00.004-06:00

Item 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (Amendment 1, U.S. Constitution).

Item 2: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (Amendment 4, U.S. Constitution).

I think you see where I'm going with this.

How is it possible that a district judge in West Texas had seen enough evidence to issue a search warrant so broad in its scope and wide in its reach that it resulted in the removal of more than 400 children from their homes; the confiscation of computers, clothing, documents and other evidence from multiple buildings; and the forcible breach of a sacred religious structure?

It must be mentioned that the search warrant (the second of the two warrants) was issued based on the observations of State authorities who were acting on an arrest warrant (the first warrant issued) that might have named the wrong man. The observations that lead to the search warrant (the second one) were obtained while attempting to enforce an arrest warrant (the first one) that might have been invalid! Oops.

But wait, there's more!

The State of Texas now has in its custody more than 400 children, all of whom appear to be perfectly fine (i.e., no signs of abuse). They are allowing more than 100 mothers to stay with their children, as they all await a trial next Thursday, April 17, to see if the state should permanently retain custody of any of them.

The State has called in multiple hundreds of case workers, medical professionals, and others to provide for the needs of these nearly 600 people being housed in shelters. Prosecutors have hinted that they might want to charge the families for the cost of providing this safe haven (costing the State up to $30,000 per day) while these families wait to find out who the court decides should raise their children. I'm not making this up. The State has also called for at least 100 lawyers with ad litem experience to provide pro bono legal counsel for these children.

Quite simply, the State is overwhelmed.

"Houston, we have a problem."

Jon

What is Democracy?

2008-04-02T17:34:00.009-06:00

"What Democracy Means to Me" by Johnny Carson

To me, democracy means placing trust in the little guy, giving the fruits of nationhood to those who built the nation. Democracy means anyone can grow up to be president, and anyone who doesn't grow up can be vice president.

Democracy is people of all races, colors, and creeds united by a single dream: to get rich and move to the suburbs away from people of all races, colors, and creeds. Democracy is having time set aside to worship -- 18 years if you're Jim Bakker. Democracy is buying a big house you can't afford with money you don't have to impress people you wish were dead. And, unlike communism, democracy does not mean having just one ineffective political party; it means having two ineffective political parties. Democracy means freedom of sexual choice between any two consenting adults; Utopia means freedom of choice between three or more consenting adults. But I digress. Democracy is welcoming people from other lands, and giving them something to hold onto --usually a mop or a leaf blower.

It means that with proper timing and scrupulous bookkeeping, anyone can die owing the government a huge amount of money. Democracy means a thriving heartland with rolling fields of Alfalfa, Buckwheat, Spanky, and Wheezer. Democracy means our elected officials bow to the will of the people, but more often they bow to the big butts of campaign contributors. Yes, democracy means fighting every day for what you deserve, and fighting even harder to keep other weaker people from getting what they deserve. Democracy means never having the Secret Police show up at your door. Of course, it also means never having the cable guy show up at your door. It's a tradeoff.

Democracy means free television, not good television, but free. Democracy is being able to pick up the phone and, within a minute, be talking to anyone in the country, and, within two minutes, be interrupted by call waiting.

Democracy means no taxation without representation, and god knows, we've just about had the hell represented out of us. It means the freedom to bear arms so you can blow the "o" out of any rural stop sign you want. And finally, democracy is the eagle on the back of a dollar bill, with 13 arrows in one claw, 13 leaves on a branch, 13 tail feathers, and 13 stars over its head--this signifies that when the white man came to this country, it was bad luck for the Indians, bad luck for the trees, bad luck for the wildlife, and lights out for the American eagle.

I thank you."

I just finished listening to the podcast of last week's "This American Life”. The title of the program is "The Audacity of Government". If you have time, download it and have a listen.

http://thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=353

It's a fascinating discussion that touches on some of the Bush administration's blatant disregards for the constitution and the laws of the land. Not because he believes he's above the law, but because he chooses to follow a loose interpretation of the law.

But this is America. We've been taught from our childhoods that we have the ability to make changes. This is OUR government, they exist to do the bidding of the people. This is election season. It is our chance to make a change. But we have to be careful. We can't make our decisions on 20 second soundbites. At election time candidates will say whatever the polls tell them to say. We have to dig deeper than the soundbites.

Doug sent me this quote earlier today:

”An election is coming. Universal peace is declared and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry.”

-T. S. Eliot

I believe that this upcoming election has much more to do with personal freedoms and constitutional rights than it does about the war in Iraq and domestic healthcare. But most of the media is completely ignoring this issue. The question we have to ask ourselves is "which of the current candidates for president is most likely to ensure that this country will function the way that the founding fathers intended?" Which of these candidates is likely to repeal the policies and practices that the Bush administration has adopted which undermine the constitution? Who will restore the personal liberties that the Patriot act has taken away? Who will ensure that every person in a Guantanamo cell gets a fair trial? Who will create policies that will create a world where my children can enjoy the same freedoms I have enjoyed? Who will divide this nation into fractions to be sold off to the highest corporate bidder, and who will keep it indivisible under God?

Oh, the foxes are circling. They're playing their little game to build our trust. they'll tell us what we want to hear now, but which of them will attack first when the game is done?

Republican Party Platform

2008-04-01T14:53:00.003-06:00

So after our caucasus meetings last week I read the Republican Party Platform for the State of Utah. I though about a few things in it and I wonder how you feel about it as well. In the last two years I've really been trying to make sure I am still a republican. Ain't that something scary to say in Utah. (Let the witch hunt begin!) But I mostly agree with the platform. I just wonder about the holes within it.

Anything there that sparks you as not clear or that leans to one side more than the other? For instance Education....

Utah Republican Party State Party Platform
(as ratified at the 2004 State Convention)

PREAMBLE

We, the Republican Party of the Great State of Utah, affirm our belief in God and declare our support for government based upon a moral and spiritual foundation. We affirm freedom for every individual as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Constitution. We believe that citizens' needs are best met through free enterprise, private initiative, and volunteerism. We support the “Rule of Law” and believe in upholding the law of the land.

THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

We believe government properly exists by the consent of the governed and must be restrained from intruding into the freedoms of its citizens. The function of government is not to grant rights, but to protect the unalienable, God-given rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

PRIVATE PROPERTY

We recognize the rights of the individual to own property. We resist any effort by government to take private property without an overwhelming need for public use. We strongly oppose the forfeiture of private property from innocent owners.
REAFFIRMATION OF STATES' RIGHTS

We oppose congressional, judicial, and executive abrogation of the principle that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. We oppose unreasonable and intrusive federal mandates.

ETHICS AND STANDARDS

We demand honesty, integrity, morality, and accountability of our public officials. We will work to expose and stop corruption.

NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC PROTECTION

We support a military force of sufficient strength and readiness to deter any threat to our national sovereignty or to the safety and freedom of our citizens. We support the Constitutional mandate to protect and secure our national borders. We oppose placement of United States troops under any foreign command, including the United Nations. We support lawful efforts of local law enforcement agencies to protect citizens in their homes and in their communities. We urge reform of the legal system to accomplish a swift and balanced administration of justice, including consideration of rights of the victim. We support capital punishment when appropriate.

SELF DEFENSE

We support the individual constitutionally-protected right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes. We encourage personal responsibility for the care and use of these firearms.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

We claim freedom of religion for every citizen and expect the protection of government in securing to us this unalienable right. We affirm the right to religious expression, including prayer, in both private and public.

FAMILY VALUES

We recognize the traditional family as the fundamental unit of society. We affirm that parents have the fundamental right and primary responsibility to direct the upbringing of their children and to provide nurturing care, discipline and training in moral values.

RIGHT TO LIFE

We believe in the right to life for both the born and unborn. We strongly oppose abortion, except to preserve the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. We believe the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We believe all human life is sacred regardless of age or infirmity, and therefore we oppose abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the public funding of any of these abhorrent practices.

HUMAN SERVICES

We believe that the primary responsibility for meeting basic human needs rests with the individual, the family, and the voluntary charitable organizations. We recognize, however, that there are special social needs which must be addressed through state human service programs. We support requiring welfare recipients to work towards self-sufficiency.

HERITAGE

We recognize the contributions made to our quality of life through ethnic diversity.

EQUAL RIGHTS

We believe that no individual is entitled to rights that exceed or supersede the God-given individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Utah.

EDUCATION

We believe that all children should have access to quality education. Parents have the primary right and responsibility to educate their children, and we support their right to choose public, private, or home education. We support incentives to promote competitive excellence. We encourage cooperative initiatives to help all Utahns become literate in English. We support the prudent and profitable use of school trust lands. We support all interest and dividends from the permanent State School Fund being distributed to each public and charter school to improve student academic performance.

TAXATION

We accept the necessity for limited taxation in order for government to perform and administer those services which meet essential public needs. However, we recognize that the power to tax is also the power to control, and believe that the best way to control government is to strictly control the amount of taxes imposed on the people. We encourage further simplification of tax systems, the elimination of the estate tax, and broad-based rate reduction where possible.

REGULATION

We recognize that government regulation can be a major impediment to productivity and to competition. We must rely more on market forces and less on government. Regulatory power now exercised by the federal government must be eliminated or returned to state and local governments.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

We believe that a strong, diversified economy based on a positive work ethic, a well trained and well educated work force, a business-friendly environment, and safe work place will help Utah compete in a world market place. We believe that developing our human resources is essential to the future of Utah. We support the Utah Right to Work Law.

THE ENVIRONMENT

We appreciate the quality of our environment. Our air, water, and land are at the heart of our existence and must be protected through balanced management. We support reasonable laws and volunteer efforts to improve air and water quality. We continue to seek responsible solutions to controversies surrounding uses of our wilderness. We seek to preserve the environment while serving the best interests of our Utah citizens.

We oppose as unconstitutional the declaration by any President without approval from Congress of any large trace of land as a national monument. We call on the Governor of the State of Utah to use the Constitutional Defense Fund and other resources at his disposal to bring any such declaration affecting Utah before the United States Supreme Court for reversal.

JURY

The jury is a fundamental institution of liberty, because it is the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. The jury has the right and the authority to acquit if jurors feel justice will be served.

OUR MISSION

The Republican Party is a party by the people and for the people. We appreciate the productivity of our citizens, affirm the infinite worth of all individuals, and seek the best possible quality of life for all. We invite all citizens to join us in working together for a better Utah.

Personal Witnesses - Part II

2008-03-18T14:00:00.004-06:00

The following is an email I sent out about a month or so ago to some of my friends and family. I'm also posting the feedback I got from Doug and from my brother-in-law. Here it is:

So I've been listening to Truman Madsen's Joseph Smith CDs the last couple of weeks, and here's some things that struck me. Joseph said something along the lines of we have to come to know God. Not know of him or about him, but know him. He also said that every member can know him like the prophet and apostles do. I thought about that a lot. Something of that nature has been bouncing around my head for some time.

So today I'm getting around to reading some old emails and I came across the quote below:

Daily Gems
Searching for the Mysteries of Godliness
---------------------------------------------------

"The temple is a place to know the Father and the Son. It is a place
where we experience the divine presence. The Prophet Joseph Smith made this
plea: 'I advise all to . . . search deeper and deeper into the
mysteries of Godliness' (History of the Church, 6:363). And where shall
we search? In the house of God."
Topics: temples, family, Jesus
Christ, happiness

(Richard H. Winkel, "The Temple Is About Families," Ensign, Nov. 2006, 11)

Sweet! I knew there was a reason they always tell us to attend the temple more.

So.... now combine all this with some Sunday School epiphanies I had a number of months ago:

John 14:23

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

D&C 130:3

John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man's heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.

A personal appearance guys. And the requirement for this appearance is to Love God and Keep His Words. This makes me think a lot. Am I misinterpreting here? Is this one of those, "well, it really means after this life", kinda deals? Is it a really high level of Love and Keep My Words that few mortals attain? What level is that, exactly? The Brother of Jared is said to have had such faith that he could not be kept behind the veil. What does that mean? What was his level of Love and Keep My Words? The only people I have heard of seeing God or Jesus are prophets and apostles. Is that a requirement? Is that part of the calling, since the primary purpose of apostleship is to be a special witness of Christ? Or is it that prophets and apostles are the only ones that are allowed to share that witness?

Here's what my brother-in-law Shane sent me in reply:

You know, reading this from cameron makes me think of the sermon on the mount, "blessed are the pure in heart for they shall SEE God." what does it mean to be pure in heart? Does it combine all the principles of the gospel such as faith, repentance, baptism and so forth? although we know of saul seeing and hearing the lord before his conversion...and Joseph of course before he was able to be baptised. So, how can I, Shane Egan, become pure in heart? Its a definition I'd like to know more about...any thoughts?

I can't find Doug's email reply now, but he turned my attention to Elder Bateman's article in the December 2007 Ensign. Here's a pertinent excerpt:

The last prophet of the Old Testament was Malachi, who lived 400 years before the birth of Christ. At that time Israel in large part had turned away from the covenants made with Jehovah. Consequently, they were in apostasy. Although the Aaronic Priesthood was on earth when Jesus was born, the Melchizedek Priesthood had been taken from the earth. Therefore, there was a need for the priesthood and the gospel to be restored in their fulness.

Moroni taught that angels play a special role in the early stages of a new dispensation. He indicated that “the office of their ministry is … to prepare the way among the children of men, by declaring the word of Christ unto the chosen vessels [prophets] of the Lord, that they may bear testimony of him. And by so doing, the Lord God prepareth the way that the residue of men may have faith in Christ, that the Holy Ghost may have place in their hearts” (Moroni 7:31–32).

At the beginning of a new dispensation following a period of apostasy, there is no one with priesthood authority to administer the covenants in their fulness. Consequently, the Lord sends messengers from the other side of the veil to return priesthood keys and the gospel plan to the earth...

What is the lesson for us today as we enter a new Christmas season? Who will minister to those in need? Who are the angels that will prepare the way for His return? I have noticed that during the early stages of a dispensation, angelic ministers come from the other side of the veil, but as time elapses and the number of faithful members increases, more is expected of those in mortality. For example, when a new country is opened to the gospel, missionaries learn that many have been prepared in miraculous ways to receive the gospel, and miracles occur with some frequency to advance the work. Once a core of members is established, however, the Lord’s assistance changes as He provides opportunities for the members to become the miracle workers.

Consequently, miracles during this Christmas season require our faith and works. As we sing the hymns of Christmas and speak of angels sent to earth to witness the Savior’s birth in the meridian of time, may we rise to the occasion and minister to those in need in our day. May we be reminded of our promises to “bear one another’s burdens, … to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places … and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that [we] may have eternal life” (Mosiah 18:8–9).

I understand what Doug is saying here with Elder Bateman's article. We have to be the miracle workers, the angels, the people who spread the Gospel. However, I think that's a separate issue. It's helping and serving others, it's opening a new dispensation vs an "established" one. But that's not what John 14:23 is talking about. John, as well as Joseph's interpretation in the D&C, is giving requirements to see God. They are 1. love me 2. keep my words. Joseph in particular is pretty specific. He says it's a personal appearance.

So am I wrong? If I'm right, then why haven't I seen God? The requirements as put forth by John don't seem all that daunting at first blush. But apparently I'm missing something. Then, digging and thinking deeper, I realize that loving God and keeping His words can be more daunting than I might think.

You pick 'em -- April '08 edition

2008-03-13T10:12:00.003-06:00

All right, Doug started this (actually I did), so I'm making it official.

Place your bets for the new apostle, to be announced (most likely) on April 5, 2008.

Jon

Personal Witnesses

2008-03-12T15:44:00.010-06:00

So to continue to another question from our to-be-member of the church. (Yes, shes accepted baptism and working towards setting a date.) She wanted to know what we can become and exactly how did God arrive to be God. I stated this quote “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be” that I remembered from way back when and then really hoped that I hadn't stuck my foot in my mouth. Then I mentioned that it is my personal belief that God The Father knows what we have been through, He has lived a life, this is why agency is so important to him, He has such a great ability to succor us, He really does know our needs, and He understands our wants. I also stated it is my belief that as we accomplish his commandments, keep our covenants and participate in ordinances, refine ourselves individually (study, purity of heart), and so on and so forth that God grows because we, His people, have grown. (Would you agree to this?)

So then today, two days later, I had a breathing moment and thankfully I wasn't up in the night and it is a quote and by Lorenzo Snow speaking about The Father.

“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” by Lorenzo Snow

President Snow thereafter told the couplet to Joseph Smith who confirmed this as true. Then after years as stated in link above President Snow was taught by The Savior Jesus Christ in 1898.

Can we list all those that have seen or been taught by The Savior Jesus Christ in this dispensation? And can you include a reference with that individuals testimony? Then also lets post those that have seen The Father in this dispensation. (As you comment with them I'll add the person and the reference to the list below.)

Seen The Father
1. Joseph Smith Joseph Smith History 1:16- 20

Seen The Savior Jesus Christ

1. Joseph Smith Joseph Smith History 1:16- 20
2. Lorenzo Snow 1898 Vision in Salt Lake Temple

Trickle-down economics

2008-03-07T12:46:00.006-07:00

With the approaching General Conference, and the approaching church-wide sustaining of a new president (and First Presidency and probably a new apostle), I have just one question:

When a new president of the Church is called, sustained, and set apart, why do we not have to re-set apart everyone else in the Church?

Ready, set, go!

Jon

You can stick me in a cage, pump me full of hormones, and tell me to lay eggs. -Jon

2008-03-06T08:30:00.000-07:00

I found Jon's closing statement to be the best title anyone could pick for this blog entry.

I've heard tons of times 'moderation' on this and 'moderation' on that. But where does that come from? What does that mean for us? I realize in the D & C 89 it gives us a certain variety of foods that we can eat yet I am interested to know what we exactly we are to be moderate with? Which foods are too much? (You've noted meat previously and that is a classic thing to say.) But can we be overly indulging on veggies, carbohydrates, supplements? (This is not an argument to get me out of eating my vegetables--four years ago it would have been.) So that is question one, but what I really want to say is question two....

How do you feel about the advancement of science specifically the enhancement or fortification of foods (from vitamins, meat, to tomatoes)? Is there good to this? What is the bad? Should I be going organic? Is organic moderate? Is it extreme? Is there really a moderate anymore? Are we so caught up in our own diet plan that we've lost the real since of moderation?

I have many friends that are divided, but polite to one another, on both sides. (Except when it comes to a meal! Then the host wins and eats happily at the party they are at and the other puts two things on their plate and doesn't eat any of it. The casserole lover makes casserole and calls is 'casserole surprise', the organic buff has a plate of salad with an olive oil based dressing, the carb-less man gulps down two chugs of something that has so much powder in it you can taste it and then a piece of lettuce to top off the meal, or if you are on weight watchers they are counting their caloric intake so long they miss the meal, conversation, and party around them (4 oz of this... 135 calories x 4= .....!)

So what is a good moderate diet?

Question 3. How much activity is too much activity? How much weight is too much weight, how much is too little? I have been to two dietitians and they vary their beliefs. The first would have had me at 165 lbs and the other would have kept me at 200 lbs.

Oh and please no debate on the Word of Wisdom is worth anything unless we include caffine.

Lets discuss my waistline is waiting!

-Doug

Taking the Sacrament prior to baptism? What do you think?

2008-03-04T09:00:00.000-07:00

Perhaps this question is surprising to some yet in the past two weeks I really have tried to focus on something- looking for an answer and it really hasn't come to me. As we have just had someone baptized in our ward and then remembering previous ones that I have participated in I have always tried to make a point to tell the prospective member that they shouldn't take the sacrament until they are baptized. That said I've always felt good about telling them, and then also happy to see the day where they were able to take the sacrament.

So here is where the question comes into play for me. If we encourage adult prospective members of our church to not participate in the sacrament, as do many other churches, why do we not encourage our young ones under the age of 8 to do the same.

I have memories of speaking about this with my mother and she mentioned quotes of GA's that have mentioned it is okay for training that a child takes the sacrament. Yet I looked for some and haven't stumbled upon any.

Now I am not saying that I am going to stop my kids this Sunday, but typically when I get a strong question like this it comes prior to someone else asking me this question. As we have a first discussion at our home in the next couple of days I thought that I should ask it soon.

Please comment on this. I'd love to her your viewpoints and perhaps if you can find some doctrine or counsel on this I'd love that too.

-Doug

Now I'm a democrat..

2008-02-11T14:39:00.000-07:00

Cameron,

Now I'm a democrat, right? (The switch is becoming more and more attractive by the day I have to admit!) The posting on http://www.utahsenatedemocrats.org/archives/196 from Senator Mike Dmitrich is an interesting one. I'm good with the concept that he has, but my actual use of the JSD split in my last post was an example of how funding is being swiped from one area to the next and not concentrated in the actual 'schooling' of kids.

I agree with Ben's post that thinks that the school district could be even smaller to the city size however that would create huge problems in city that lie within SL County because of the criss-cross of county/city lines. (For instance my kids wouldn't attend Peruvian; they'd be booted to another school.) However in Ben's comments I don't agree with not regulating schools and moving to a financially incentivized educational system--those Ben are charter schools. Haven't you heard the grumblings of parents that care about how those charter school boards are running? Just two months ago in conversation at work I understood that a charter school in the south end of the valley after 2 years of operation the board, composed of those that created it, saw that they needed to keep their paid leadership positions and passed a resolution so that they could remain on the board indefinitely. (Special isn’t it!) I think this is why schools need to be regulated and have financial oversight. (The bean counter inside speaks!)

Perhaps equalization would help in the building of schools however it isn't an overarching solution.

I'm going to have to study more.

-Doug

School Thoughts

2008-02-11T10:23:00.000-07:00

In response to a comment posted on the blog.... I was not in favor of Referendum 1 in UT. I actually was against it. Frankly I have this issue to state. I don't know that I tow the line with any certain group. Perhaps you can help me categorize myself with your comments yet here is my issue with the educational process....

I believe that local control is going to be the best solve. I don't believe moving money allocated to public education to a charter schools is the answer (charter schools that are left out of the red tape and regulation game). For instance.... I am in favor of Jordan School District splitting up. I found that the larger the organization- the less the locals controlled it. I had significant issues with money spending within our JSD and read the analysis report issued and found that we really were supporting the west side of the valley's newer construction on schools and also growth. Maybe not the total lion share, but enough where we could allocate those monies to programs to enhance learning experiences. The east side of the JSD had already received its growth loooong ago, minus Draper. So why participate in building up the west side?.... (You are thinking that I am selfish 'east side snot' right now, but really I just see it as business... this should have been done long ago.) So what I'm trying to say in much less sophisticated and analytical way than you would Cameron is that I believe that we need systematic changes moving the control back to the school boards.

I can see your eyes rolling now.... I know you think that I believe in spreading equally and living in Utopia. I wish that I had time right now to go through and support ideas with case studies and such, but I don't. This weekend was busy and I wanted to get a response to you as quickly as I could. Sorry! I'll work some tonight to make sure that I respond with more analysis and better positioning tonight.

-The Ignorant One

RE: Class Size Reduction Ideas

2008-02-05T11:46:00.000-07:00

Cam,
I see your points made on class size reductions but..... I worry that you trust too much in the system. How are we going to disperse these funds- ratings by test scores? This sounds like 'No child left behind' to me.

I think that while fiscally difficult we have to go with the initiative that we build more schools, hire more educators, and then lower the class sizes. If our state or local populations were stable, no increase, we could look at just refining the process of 'how do we instruct', 'who do we hire', and 'what do we fix' with our dollars yet we almost can't. In Sandy, and surrounding areas, we just split Jordan Schools and I was in favor of this because it will allow us to come that much closer to do the aforementioned of refining our schools within my area.

A point that I agree with you on is hiring more teachers. Currently at my kindergartener's school there are aides which I am certain do some good. However, the need for trained instructors is greater.

-Doug

PS off to primary voting I go.

______________________________________
Class Size Reduction Ideas --taken from http://www.magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/

With the release of the Class Size Reduction (CSR) audit report which I wrote about here and here, the Utah Taxpayers Association (UTA) in its January newsletter wrote a short criticism of CSR efforts in Utah. They highlight that Utah's demographics - lots of kids, with more on the way - coupled with studies showing class sizes need to be at least as small as 15 (Utah is currently at 26), make class size reduction efforts pointless. They estimate that it will cost almost $900 million in additional, ongoing money to hire enough teachers to reach the 15 benchmark, and another $4 billion to buy land and build additional schools. The costs are staggering. Because of this, they posit that the CSR program should be scrapped with the money then being spent on other education programs like higher teacher salaries.The keystone of this argument is that, according to the UTA, studies show that only by reaching class sizes of 15 is there any noticeable increase in student acheivement. So I set out to verify the claim.The National Education Association's (NEA) website on class size makes it very clear that reaching 15 is the goal. It touts studies and statistics showing the effectiveness of having class sizes at 15, and supports petitioning of legislators to fund this goal. The website of utah's chapter of the NEA, the Utah Education Association, does not specifically address class sizes other than to say it supports funding and lobbying for smaller classrooms.Google offers some more information. It led me to a US Department of Education publication which contains a compilation and analysis of class size studies. This in turn led me to what seems to be the seminal study of class size reduction efforts: Tennessee's Project STAR (Student-Teacher Acheivement Ratio). This study compared student acheivement for k-3 graders in class sizes of 13-17 with classrooms of 22-25 and 22-25 with a teaching aide. The smaller classrooms showed significant improvement at all levels (Also of note was that the larger classrooms with a teacher aide did not show much improvement.). It also showed that low income and minority students got a big boost from the smaller class sizes, which tapered out after a couple of years.Project STAR seems to prove, or at least provide a strong basis for, what seems intuitive - that smaller class sizes are better. But the Taxpayers Association does not directly dispute that. Their criticism is that it would simply cost too much to reduce class sizes, and that the money is more efficiently spent elsewhere.How the Tennessee study does apply to UTA's argument, though, is that by focusing CSR monies to the first few grades, a lasting effect can be acheived, even after the student returns to the larger classes. This effect dimishes each year, but lasts until at least the 8th grade. Also important is that traditionally poor performing students get a big boost from the early class size reduction. And while 15 seemed to be the goal, anything under 20 netted significant results, especially for students coming from class sizes of 25+, as Utah's are.Based on this knowledge, my recommendation for Utah's CSR funding program would be to continue it, but to streamline it so that it reaps the most bang for the buck. All initial funding should go towards K-3rd grade classroom reduction, specifically in at-risk and low scoring districts. This way, the students who stand to gain the most are ensured of receiving the CSR money. Districts should apply for the money, with a clear plan demonstrating their need. Funds also should be required to be used for hiring teachers, and not for teacher aides.The drawback to this strategy is that, depending on the funding requirements for these specific districts, there very well may be districts that receive no CSR funding at all. However, the current program netted two teachers over seven years, and many districts had to use non-CSR money just to keep on the teachers hired in previous years. Clearly, the program as presently constituted is not working, and simply funding it sufficiently for everyone is just not financially feasible. Let's add to our current levels of CSR funding at a reasonable pace, and let's use it efficiently so that children, teachers, and parents actually notice the difference.And, please, let's keep track of it this time.