Merry Christmas from all of the voices here at UtahVoices.com. May we earnestly seek to find peace for all, and bring joy to all that we may meet! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

So the “BOYCOTT UTAH” cries have begun. The protests against the LDS church are raging. This is laughably ineffective, and it’s such a waste of time – unless you’re trying to make fools of yourselves and counter-productivity is your goal. Here is what I take issue with:

1. I don’t like protesters, in general. I mean, there’s decent protests and then there are silly, time wasting, angry, counter-productive protests like the one I’m seeing in the news. There’s a right way to go about making changes, and there are wrong ways – this shows their true rainbow of colors and it’s not that pretty. So, you didn’t like the outcome of a democratic vote in favor for the opposite of what you wanted, all this vote means is that you have a ways to go to gain mainstream acceptance to the point, when the time comes, you can raise enough counter money to push your own ballot measure to have the amendment changed or removed through another democratic vote.

Here’s a free tip to the protesters: When the day comes that you would like to use democracy (instead of throwing fits) to get what you want, you REALLY want the indifference of those who opposed you to increase – and these protests… not so helpful.

2. So why the LDS church? They weren’t the only donors. There aren’t the only people who voted (there are not 5 million Mormons in California), 70% of African Americans also opposed you – so why the Mormons specifically? First off, we’re an easy target. Not too many other religions will jump to support the LDS Church, and I don’t think gays will take their protests to the inner-cities (just a hunch). Correct me if I err, but I never realized the LDS church had that much influence on the African American community. Since that last sentence was sarcasm, I honestly don’t believe the LDS church does have the influence on the African American communities to cause 70% of them to vote in favor of Prop 8. You may want to consider that two separate groups, and if you think you’re being effective protesting at the Mormon temples, you’ll probably be just as effective in the inner-cities and should plan some protests there. Unless black people scare you more than Mormons, which, then, you are racists. See what I did there?

A major reason the LDS Church is targeted is that the Mormons were the biggest donors to the pro-prop8 cause – not the Church itself, but by-golly, you get some Mormons behind a cause and they run with it.

So the Mormons donated a ton of money, and because of that, Proposition 8 passed, right? Here’s some problems then:
A) I guess that means that the Mormons care more about you not getting married than you do about getting married, if the gays didn’t raise as much money. You may just need to care more about it.
B) If the gays did raise that much money, then it was a fair battle and the amount of donations really should cancel each other out as far as a level playing field. Then you only have to fault your own marketing strategy which would require you to protest at the anti-prop8 headquarters for doing a lousy job.

To sum up: Either You don’t care as much about marriage as the Mormons, or, you just weren’t as effective in arguing your case. Either way, you only have yourselves to blame for dropping that ball and not making it significant enough.

Nobody likes a sore loser.

It’s kind of sad, really. The worst part about it?:  The bulk of the anger and protests are directed at the Mormons. Not because it somehow hurts the Mormons, but it’s a very ineffective people to protest to. Have you seen that commercial where the referee was being screamed at by a coach on the sideline, yet the ref had a deadpan face and all that screaming didn’t phase him? The Mormon church is pretty much like that ref. The LDS Church is used to the protests, the bashing, the mud slings, the smears – have you ever been to an LDS General Conference? Protesters are nothing new to them – you’re not going to make a dent.

Which brings up another good point: Fighting fire with fire is probably not effective in this case. I have yet to hear a homosexual behind a microphone saying, “I have a dream that, one day, Mormons and homosexuals will sit down at a table together…” – That’s not the kind of protests I’m seeing. It makes me sick, and should make African Americans everywhere sick, to compare their plight to that of the blacks. I think it would be wise to drop that comparison if you want the indifference of the 70% of African American supporters to increase, too.

The other comparison that is pretty stupid? The comparison to the anti-polygamy movement the Mormons had to face.
A) “Non-Traditional” Marriage: To compare your battle with that of the Mormon’s battle with the government over polygamy as both being “Non-Traditional marriages”, is a loose and bogus comparison. Do you think, in some countries, that muslims who are legally allowed to marry 12 year old girls is wrong, or is it nothing more than a “Non-tradional marriage”? What about Hillbillies that marry their first cousins? That sounds like “Non-Traditional marriage” – “Non-Traditional marriage” is a loose term and carries no weight, let alone any vague comparison to other forms of “Non-Traditional” marriages. I don’t think you want to compare yourselves to some of those “non-traditional” marriages. In fact, there probably is nothing MORE traditional than polygamy. Have you read the bible? Have you studied the histories of ancient, even some modern, societies? Polygamy wasn’t unusual.

B) There was never a vote to strip polygamy or not. The Mormons had no choice. The government intervened and told them, “Stop polygamy or else…”. No democratic vote was ever introduced to allow Mormons the opportunity to democratically oppose it. It was a case where the government, not the people, chose to interfere with religious freedom, which is also what the homosexuals are trying to do – without the success of a democratic election to back them up, they are trying to remove religion’s right to declare that homosexuality is sin and not allowed in their definition of marriage. If you don’t like it, do it the democratic way this country set up, don’t just try to FORCE the issue. You lost. Pick yourselves up, wipe of the dust, and try again.

C) Religiously speaking, Incest was once necessary, right? Otherwise, how did Adam and Eve’s kids multiply? At one point in time the Lord said that it was no longer necessary and a sin if you did it. So that was over. Over the centuries after, polygamy was introduced and sometimes commanded. This continued to move the purposes of God forward – the first big commandment of “Multiply and replenish the earth”. Not to get into too much detail, you are free to look it up in a sex education book, but this commandment required a man and a woman, or a man and many woman would work, and work much faster. When polygamy was introduced by Joseph Smith, it was unpopular and unwanted. Sure, to those who think marriage is all about sex, it may sound fun – but I assure you, there are other reasons for getting married and easier ways to just have sex with multiple women. There was responsibility and care given to those families, widowed women who needed land, and to “multiply and replenish” as well. Often times, natural and external circumstances will be methods God uses as revelation. When polygamy was done, it was made known. It is now a sin because it is no longer necessary. To compare homosexuality to polygamy is absurd.

There are many people who love each other and don’t get married. MANY people. So what’s the problem? Why do you want it so bad? Marriage used to be primarily a responsibility – love only made it easier, but it wasn’t “first comes love, then comes marriage”, usually it was “First comes marriage, then comes love, if you’re lucky”. That got lost in the clouds over time. So, don’t tell me you have the right to marry just because you “love” each other. Love is not the root of  “traditional” marriage, either. If it’s simply to further your cause for mainstream acceptance, you need to go about it in a better way than throwing fits. That’s counter-productive. You can’t FORCE acceptance. There are better forms of persuasion, but it’s not going to happen by somehow forcing religions to change their core morals. You can’t do that because they believe their morals are dictated by God, not by homosexuals. You have to find a civil compromise, or you have to keep trying the right way, not by balking at and stomping on the democratic voice of 5 million people. The first time this issue came up in 2000, it was voted in favor of marriage between a man and a woman by 61%. This time it was 52%. At this rate, you may succeed – But don’t expect those who believe opposite not to fight you on it. And remember: You only solidify, even increase, the feelings against it by you behavior when you lose.

“Fear is the opposite of faith”

I believe political neutrality is vital to objective reasoning when it comes to political decisions we make. Too many Latter-Day Saints don’t really side with the church on political neutrality (not that the church has asked for that) and most of their loyalties lie within the Republican party. Sometimes saying anything contrary to the Republican or Democratic party automatically puts you in the “if you’re not with us, then you’re against us” category. I think getting sucked into the extremely divisive precepts of each party is dangerous, but especially right now, I want to tackle the Republican party, since most LDS, in Utah and other places, are affiliated with them.

Obama got a few more votes than past Democrats in this state, but the margin was still quite large. It’s not surprising, but I think some of the thought behind the decision to vote for McCain instead of Obama is wrong.

An NBC News exit poll showed 20% of Americans are concerned, and 24% are scared. On the flip side 24% were optimistic and 30% were excited. Where do you lie? And what drew you to that conclusion?

Certainly many conservative moral principles that are held by myself and other Latter-Day Saints are within the Republican party, but not all of them. The Church said that good can be found in both parties, and I believe that.

So, if you voted for McCain, was it out of hope and faith for what he could accomplish, or was it out of fear and concern over what Obama might do to this country? Fear and Faith will often lead us to action, but faith leads us to the right action where fear will often take us the wrong route.

I think in the last general conference there was a lot discussed on faith, and hope, and looking forward to the future without despair or discouragement. I think, in contrast, this political contest was filled with a lot of the same “politics of fear” that we are used to, but it’s been worse than I have ever seen it, and it’s almost been one sided.

Here’s how “Politics of Fear” works:
Political races draw a lot on emotion, and they play heavily on the fact that politics have virtually the same effect as cocaine on the brain. But the details are “boring” to the general public. Few people want to watch a documentary, but people love to see dramatic recreations. I don’t want to hear your boring details on recovering the economy, I want to hear the dramatic effect the economy is having. There is little logic and a ton of emotion that goes into politics because logic doesn’t excite passions. Hope in change was really on Obama’s side because of the fear all of us are already experiencing. Most people want change and will cling to that. McCain didn’t have that luxury. He had to battle that, and the greatest thing to oppose hope is fear.  Obama had a great potential story – the first black man to be elected president. That is some pathos that’s hard for Repubs to overcome. But fear could take it away. Fear draws the opposing emotion. Fear of the unknown is perfect in Obama’s case. Take it. Run with it.

I, along with many other people I know, were grateful that it wasn’t Hillary Clinton in the White House – but it wasn’t because Hillary was getting smeared over and over by Obama that she lost, it’s because we knew what she was like and Democrats didn’t like it. Yet, she used “fear” against Obama, and this is where the “fear” tactics began and it shifted into the Republican party full speed. I would watch the two campaigns closely. I would watch the speeches and the debates. I would listen to the analysis of both parties on MSNBC and FOX News for a little balance. I saw the same things. This is what I saw:

There seemed to be an 80/20 rule with the campaigns. With Obama’s it was 80% hope and 20% fear: Mostly fear of having another 4 years like the last 8, and a little Keating 5, and Palin becoming president fear. With McCain it was 80% fear and 20% hope (at best). I’m not going to fault McCain on all of it. There were some things that were off limits and he stuck to it, for the most part. Obama’s lack of military experience and Jeremiah Wright were two things off limits. But the other things he brought up such as this fear of his past associations and fears of socialism ended up creating a monster that quickly got out of control. All of a sudden people took hold of that fear and ran with it. The Republican base that he was appealing to with those tactics was embarrassing and sickening, yet it worked for the most part. Emails about Obama’s “terrorist ties” and his “Marxism/Communism” and him being “Muslim”, as if that was a dirty word, were rampant. They’ve drug Obama’s name and character through the mud, calling him a “Terrorist” and “Baby Killer”. I heard that over and over from several different Republicans. When you looked at the rallies the two parties held, one the atmosphere was positive and hopeful, the other was angry and doubtful. Shouts of “Kill him!” were heard, people talking about how mad they were and how scared they were from the McCain rallies. McCain, to his credit, did try to stop some of this near the end, but it was already out of control.

McCain lost. I think he lost graciously. I thought his speech was well written and positive. He looked visibly embarrassed and upset when hearing the boos and jeers when mentioning Obama and unifying behind him. I think he knows that it got out of hand. It’s hard to create so much doubt and fear in the minds of people and then turn around afterword and say, “Well, I lost, oh well, let’s get behind this guy and support him during his presidency”, when people are already afraid of the man because of the political race you ran. If you actually believed any of those things, wouldn’t you say, “America, we should be concerned”, after losing?

I don’t know if the Republicans really stepped back and saw this. Some I have talked to saw it clearly. You know what the Republicans reminded me of? The Anti-Mormons from past to present. They would accuse Joseph Smith of being a terrorist, they would point out his “charisma” as a characteristic of satan. Charisma can be both a positive and a negative attribute that should never be used as an identifier of a person’s goodness or darkness. The fear tactics and smears that the Republicans were shouting from the rooftops reminded me of the fear tactics and smears – the twists of truth into lies – that Anti-Mormons are known for doing. I’m sure many of these extreme right-wing evangelical “Christians” took a page out of that same book for this campaign and it showed. Yet, as Latter-Day Saints, who have been subject to this kind of rhetoric since the Church was formed, how many of us bought into it? How many got sucked into the same fear that has been used against us for so long?

Phil, who writes for Utah voices, did bring up a good point that stuck with me. Mitt Romney was rejected by the Republican party for very similar reasons. He was a victim of this himself and it just carried over. Most people honestly believe he would have won because the economy was such a hot topic. I think if it was Romney or Ron Paul, this campaign would have had a different tone and Republicans may have retained the white house. But the psychos of the Republican party got loose. Romney wasn’t rejected because of his politics or his lack of qualifications vs McCain, he got rejected because he wasn’t “Christian” enough for the party’s base. We can analyze more later, but Huckabee really set that fire and stayed in the race long enough to make sure Romney got out. How should you feel about your undying loyalty to the party that rejects you for not being “Christian” enough? How should you feel about those same people who use the same tactics and methods against Obama, who usually took the high road during the campaign?

Now we can introduce the debate of Democrat vs Republican here, but as far as I’m concerned, neither party has the capacity or capability to really make positive change in this country. I have faith in my Church, I have little to none in our politics. Obama doesn’t concern me any more than McCain did – Obama actually concerns me less. For all the whacked out, psycho, extreme, obnoxious nut jobs that the far-left has – Obama didn’t seem to attract those people to his rallies. If he did, they were tame. On the other hand, it seems like the whacked out, psycho, extreme, obnoxious nut jobs the far-right has, which I never really thought were as many until now, sure were at the McCain rallies in droves. Their ignorance and fear-mongering spread like wildfire and created an even wider gulf between the two parties in this nation. This division is the opposite of unity, that fear is the opposite of faith, and that behavior is opposite of a Latter-Day Saint.

Weather you agree with the Democratic positions on anything, or not, is beside the point in this. After all, there were three states that had pro-family initiatives on the ballot this election, all three states voted in favor of marriage between a man and a woman. The two largest of those three states, Florida and California, also voted for Obama. Maybe this country isn’t set to go to “Hell in a hand-basket” quite yet, after all.

I don’t think Obama is as bad as you may believe. I think he is a good person with a sincere heart. Maybe I’ve been duped. Time will tell, of course, but maybe we should try to have a little faith instead of fear. Maybe change, in this case, is a good thing. What’s the worse that could happen? The economy tanks, we spend our means warring in foreign lands, we lose our homes and our jobs? Too late, people. Let’s give this a shot for 4 years and if it continues the downward spiral, maybe the extreme right-wing will wake up, get practical and put Mitt Romney or Ron Paul on the ticket.

Telling a Republiscum or Democrap that I’m 31 years old and have never voted is like telling them that I am a backwoods communist with terrorist ties hell-bent on destroying America as we know it. At least I actually hear something that both parties agree on.

After declaring my non-voting demon status, I then get the all to familiar, yawn-educing, cries of:

“If you don’t vote, you can’t have an opinion!”

Thanks for stripping me of my right to formulate an opinion, communists! In all reality, I have opinions, and I have a right to have them. It’s my opinions that have led me to not vote. I make my voice heard by letting people know full well why I don’t vote. I’m not a passive non-voter by any means. So, I’ll offer those opinions that millions of non-voting Americans share that, maybe, will help you die-hard voters understand and soften your tone about it. (All 5 of you who may stumble on this article)

Then I’ll share why, for the first time in my 13 years of voter eligibility, I registered to vote this year.

I do take a little out of George Carlin’s book on why he never voted. Said he:

“You may have noticed that there’s one thing I don’t complain about: Politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says, ‘They suck’. But where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from another reality. No, they come from American homes, American families, American schools, American churches, American businesses, and they’re elected by American voters. This is the best we can do, folks. It’s what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out.

….I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don’t vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, ‘If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain’, but where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain.

I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.”

That’s wisdom there. You thought Bill Clinton sucked? Well, I didn’t vote for him. You think George W sucks? Well, I didn’t vote for him. If you think our current president sucks, and you blame all the republicans who voted for him, then you are in as much fault for encouraging those Repubs to vote. You have no right to complain. You should have said, “Vote for John Kerry or stay home” – That would really emphasize how emphatically you think the other candidate is less than horse crap. But you told the republicans to vote, you begged them to vote, and you got what you asked for.

Here are some other reasons, in no particular order, that leave such a bad taste in my mouth, I feel that I would be more productive staying home and unlocking new songs on Rock Band than voting:

1. Celebrities want me to vote. You talk as if we are supposed to hold your opinions higher than our own. You don’t have that ethos with me. The simple fact that these arrogant, tasteless, coke-snorting, immoral drunks think I should vote makes me not want to vote. Though, it only makes sense that people who pretend to be someone else for a living would support a cause to allow this country to be led by people who pretend to be something else for a living.
2. Electoral College. Maybe if I was in a swing state this wouldn’t be on my list, but I lived in Idaho and Utah most my life. The general population decides my vote goes to a republican. People can talk all they want to about “making your vote count, let your voice be heard”, but the popular vote means nothing (see: Al Gore vs Bush). The Electoral College tells me I’m voting for McCain weather I vote Obama, or Mickey Mouse – but if I stay home, it lets me let my voice be heard by not lending my voice to the herd.
3. Conspiracy Theories / Voter Fraud. I hear the cry, “Vote! Vote! Vote!”, then from the same voices I hear, “Votes get changed!”, “Hanging Chads don’t count”, “Registrations are fraudulent”,  “Registrations are tossed out”, “Voting machines get hacked”, etc, etc. So this is supposed to give me confidence in our voting system? I’m not one for bazaar conspiracy theories, but I also don’t doubt the abilities of “secret combinations”, or that fraud really happens. It’s a tiresome argument I have to hear and if I don’t vote, I don’t have to question if my vote was even counted or changed.
4. Vote for the “lesser of the evils”. What a dumb thing to believe. People are so bent on “having” to vote that they justify voting for corrupt politicians by just choosing the “lesser” of the evils. I don’t vote for evil. If I truly believe that both are evil, but one is more so, why would I vote at all? So, if one guy molested 10 kids under the age of 8, and the other raped 14 women, would you then vote for the rapist of the women as the “lesser” of evils because at least he raped adults and you HAVE to vote? It’s an absurd thing to say, and I don’t think people believe it. I honestly think people say that but believe their party leader is a saint and the other party leader is a devil. If I truly think both parties are evil, weather one is more evil or not, I won’t dare put my check mark next to any of their names.
5. “Make your Vote Count” or “A Vote for ______ is Really a Vote for _________”. The last election I was tempted to vote. The taste in my mouth with Bush and Kerry was so bitter that I nearly registered to vote, but vote for Ralph Nader. I wanted to see a strong independent, but Nader would have had to do. But when I told people this, here is what I heard, “No, no, no, no, no – You have to make your vote COUNT! Nader has no chance, you need to support a real candidate” Uhhh.. no. I also heard, “A vote for Nader is a vote for Kerry!” – or Democrats said, “A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!”. My reply? “A VOTE FOR NADER IS A VOTE FOR NADER, you dolt”. I don’t care if the rest of the crowd is rooting for America or China in the Olympics, if I am from Zimbabwe, then I will root for Zimbabwe. So, they tell me to vote, and in the same breath want to tell me who I should not be voting for. “OK, then should I vote for Kerry? “NOOOO!!! That’s what we are trying to avoid by telling you not to vote for Nader!” Which beings me back to, why are you just not telling me to vote for who you want me to vote for or stay home? So I just stayed home.

So here I am, the day before elections and after writing all this it just reminds me of how absurd this whole voting game is. Yet, I registered to vote this year. Maybe I just wanted to qualify for jury duty, maybe I wanted people off my back, maybe a small part of me wanted to actually try and vote this year. Tomorrow I get to stand in a voting booth and decide if I’m just giving into peer pressure because P.Diddy and my friends and family think I should vote, if my vote will actually be counted and remain who I voted for, if it will even matter anyway because of the electoral college, if I’m only going to be voting for “evil” – lesser or greater, and if I’m really voting for someone else if I don’t vote along one of the two parties.

I think I will vote, though. I will break my tradition and put down my “boycott the vote” sign in my brain and put my mark next to someones name. I’ll deal with the consequences and sigh afterword when I watch the lawsuits fly as accusations of “vote stealing” start pouring out. But who would deserve this personally historic vote from myself?

I’ll detail more after I do vote, if my conscious allows me to vote for someone, but this is what I am thinking as of today:

Yes, Obama has some ties to questionable people, but that’s because 6 years ago he was a human palling around with other humans. For the last 25 years McCain has been palling around with fellow “terrorists” in the government, as far as I’m concerned. I think he’s long forgotten what it’s like to be human. Maybe somewhere between the purchase of his 4th and 5th house. Maybe that’s why he chose Palin, which would have been a good idea if I considered small town Alaskans human. I come from small town, I wouldn’t vote for any of those crazy people any more than I would vote for myself in a position of that import.

One party has really showed its dark side in this election and it makes me sick to hear how bad they have been dragging the other man’s name through the mud and attempting to enduce fear in people. I consider the attempt to rob faith in people by enducing fear an evil act. Yes, both sides do it, but one has done it much worse than the other, and I think that declares to me who the “lesser of the evils” really is.

After all, if, as a non-voter, I am looked at as a backwoods communist who supports terrorists and is hell-bent on destrying America as we know it, not valuing freedom or the constitution – then I have something in common with one of the candidates. And since I know it’s not true of me, I certainly believe it’s not true of him.

I’ll be the first to post on this. I’ll bite.

Prop 8 – A 100% Religious centric perspective

So, why on earth is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints so concerned about this amendment in California? Why, when they encourage political neutrality would they involve themselves in such a heated political issue? If we indeed believe that we “teach men correct principles and let them govern themselves” would they even feel the need to get so heavily involved in pushing this proposition’s success?

I think I have a good idea.

A ‘YES’ vote on Proposition 8 would make an amendment to the California constitution defining ‘marriage’ as only between a man and a woman. Why does this matter? Right now, the domestic partner law in California allow for the same rights that a state can grant to a married couple. So why the ‘marriage’ definition battle?

Ultimately, marriage has become the battleground for homosexual mainstream acceptance. In a way, it has little to do with the civil rights that belong to married couples under civil law, because they have that in California, but the way civil law acts toward religious institutions in this regard.

I’m all for the separation of church and state. That means keep the government out of my religion and we’ll keep our religion out of your government. Unfortunately, this ‘battleground’ of marriage crosses some of those lines. It’s not unusual for the government to try to restrict religious practices, and it’s not unusual, especially when moral issues are on public tickets that religion gets heavily involved. The separation has  slowly fused itself together in areas and, especially where it affects religion, you’ll see religion getting involved as we are seeing now.

So how does this affect the LDS Church specifically? There are ‘fears’ about the implications of ‘hate crimes’ or losing tax status for not allowing homosexuals to be married, but there is also a problem with the doctrine of chastity, not having sexual relations with anyone except husband or wife with whom you’re legally and lawfully wedded. This doesn’t mean the couple needs to be sealed in the temple to be keeping the law of chastity, but merely has to be legally and lawfully wedded.  At that point the definition of chastity may have to change. What would stop a male couple from going to the Church claiming that they are “legally and lawfully” married according to state law and therefore not in violation of the law of chastity and, if they qualify for all other temple requirements, should be able to enter the temple for sealing or other ordinances? The church would then have to make a harder stance on the actual act of homosexuality being a sin, weather  the state of California told you it was OK to marry or not. This may risk the Church to lose their tax exempt status for discrimination. It’s a concern.

It’s obviously a rock and a hard place. The church encourages support and love for our homosexual brothers and sisters, and it’s true that God is no respecter of persons. A sin is a sin. Everyone will need to be cleansed of sin to inherit their reward no matter what the sin was. The Church has said they look at it as any other sexual sin outside of marriage, and treats it as such. The state of California has basically allowed that definition of marriage to be altered and now Proposition 8 is trying to set in stone that definition so the state of California can’t tell the Church what is sin and what is not. It’s not up to California.

I think this is where it gets deeper. The root of the argument isn’t merely the temporal consequences of the definition of marriage. It goes much deeper. I think it even goes deeper than homosexuality as a sin. It goes to very core of why this church even exists.

In teaching the Gospel Principles course in the LDS church, and while in the section that deals with the family, I gained a new appreciation for the Church’s position on the family, and I think this line in chapter 36 of the Gospel Principles manual sums it up:

“The family is the most important unit in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church exists to help families gain eternal blessings and exaltation.”

Why does the Church exist? “… to help families gain eternal blessings and exaltation.” That’s a profound statement. Think about it: That entails everything about what this Church is. It includes the entire organization. From the Relief Society to the Priesthood, from the welfare program to the missionary program, from the Prophet and Apostles to the door greeter at the meeting house, from the sacrament service to service projects, from the church house to the Temple – it ALL exists for the family to receive eternal blessings and exaltation.

Even going beyond that, the LDS Church affirms that it is Christ’s church, it is His organization, that He stands at the head of it and has since the beginning of time. It is Christ’s plan that the Church has the charge of implementing and moving forward. We believe that before the world even existed this plan for eternal happiness existed, and that the fullness of His plan is realized when the family unit is established and progresses in the eternities.

To see an example of this, one only has to look at the Garden of Eden as a model. What was created in the Garden was meant to be eternal. The body and spirit united, husband and wife (or family) established, and all in the presence of God for eternity. The first great commandment given to all living creatures in the creation was to “multiply and replenish the earth”. This was a commandment before the Fall of Adam and Eve, and therefore was an eternal command. After Adam and Eve disobeyed the Father they were removed from his presence, the spirit and the body would be separated upon death, and the family unit would not be eternal unless what is sealed on earth could be sealed in heaven using the Priesthood of God. This could not be accomplished on our own. This required Christ and his Atoning sacrifice to restore that was lost and unify that which was separated. Our exaltation depends on the sealing ordinance, the propagation of our eternal families depends on our gender, and all of it relies on the Atonement of the Savior.

To cheapen marriage and family cheapens the Atonement of Christ.

I don’t think Christ would take that lightly, and we shouldn’t either. I would say that statement is all inclusive, too, not simply with gay marriage alone. It’s apparent to members of the Church, and that which has been revealed, the family is the primary target of satan for good reason – it’s the full realization of the plan of our Heavenly Father. Weather it be money that divides families, or cheapening family relationships and the sacredness of sexual relations as seen on TV, magazines, movies, internet, and other places. The significance of that bond has been minimized with divorce rates and public support of unwed pregnancies of public figures. The homosexual movement to redefine marriage is just another in a long list of tools satan is using to devalue the family unit and the centrality it is to Christ and His Church and our Heavenly Father’s eternal plan. When marriage ends up being nothing more than a political battleground, or a soapbox, for the mainstream acceptance of an ‘alternative’ lifestyle, it cheapens what marriage should be about.

This is obviously not an argument that can be used on a political floor. It is one reserved for those who profess a belief that the LDS Church IS Christ’s church. It’s reserved for those who have sustained our Prophet and Apostles as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. There is no decision made by the first Presidency and Apostles to take an active roll of this significance without a unanimous decision. For those members of the Church who have sustained these brethren that means that we firmly believe this support of the Church’s efforts on Prop 8 comes from Christ himself. I believe that it IS possible to love our homosexual brothers and sisters without having to condone the actions, and I’m sorry that people can’t seem to see the difference between opposing homosexual marriage, and the lifestyle, and opposing homosexuals as people. Though, when it comes down to defending homosexual marriage or defending Christ, I think it’s clear who I will defend.

Socialism vs. Capitalism vs. Satan’s plan for America vs. God’s plan for America vs. What’s going on with America?

I’ve been hearing this argument over and over again lately:

Obama = Socialist
McCain = Capitalist

This argument, of course, leans on the notion that Socialism is of the devil and Capitalism is a gift from God therefore:

Obama = evil
McCain = good

This is SO misleading on so many levels. I was listening to Glen Beck today, and I love and loathe him on several points and he got my wheels turning today. He was making this comparison and I was conflicted. On one hand, equaling the playing field sounds good – helping those who struggle because they haven’t made it yet. But then, why is this the governments job? Why should the government “force” those who have succeeded to pay more because of their success? After all, as Glen pointed out, isn’t “force” Satan’s plan? More government regulation infringes on our freedoms. That’s “force”. I agree.

So, why are we taxing at all?!?!?

My argument is – WE’RE ALREADY IN A SEMI-SOCIALIST SYSTEM. The Republicans are no better than the Democrats in this regard, it’s just a matter of who gets taxed what. So the republicans believe in tax breaks for the rich but keep taxing the middle-class the same – how is this less “force” than shifting the tax burden to the rich? It’s all TAKING taxes, it’s just who you tax for the best result.

BUT WHY PUNISH THE RICH FOR THEIR SUCCESS?!?!

1. It makes to poor feel better. That’s not a good reason, it’s just an observation.
2. Tell me about their success. How did it come about? I know tons of middle class citizens, such as myself, where it’s not unusual to pull a 3AM work session. It’s not unusual for millions of middle-class Americans who work like dogs to try to make ends meet and achieve that same less-taxed success that other people are enjoying. Some of the wealthy get there because of inheritance, a lucky break, or even with the same hard work everyone else is going through. Many times the success of the wealthy relies heavily on the backs of the middle-class. It often relies on acquisitions, lawsuits, exploiting weak companies, exploiting loopholes, shady marketing techniques, and it becomes a cut-throat-survival-of-the-fittest society.

How does this somehow qualify for less “punishment” than the middle-class? I don’t think they are more skilled, talented, or hard-working than 95% of the population. Other than the theory of trickle-down economics, why should they qualify for more tax breaks than the middle-class?

So, let’s talk about trickle-down economics: It’s not working. It could work. For that matter, Socialism COULD work. So COULD Capitalism. The reason that neither work, or are working now, is simple:

GREED.

Socialism would work if greed and power was taken out of government, and Capitalism would work if you took the greed and power out of the corporations. The reality of America’s situation is that the government is bought and paid for by giant corporations. Corporations rarely play the do-gooder – instead, if it makes them more money, they’ll move their workforce to Mexico, or India, or China. Just today the New York Times is running an article about JPMorgan. Want to know what they are doing with their $25 Billion injection from the taxpayers? It’s not going to the loans, it’s going to a cushion for acquisition of other banks. So, if there’s a depression, they strip the competition and ride it out until they come out the other end on top. Do you really think that corporations have YOUR best interest in mind?

I think it’s silly how they have easily duped the public into thinking that somehow less taxes on the rich is less Socialism than less taxes on the not-so-rich. It’s even more silly for them to convince people that it’s working.

Last, a little note to my LDS friends about this:
Look at the Bible. Look at the Book of Mormon. Kings were established. I often think about King Benjamin in the book of Mosiah. He was a “KING” – but read about the things he wrote. He was a servant to the people, though he was appointed to lead them. He warned of greed. Note, that he was a king. So was Nephi, who was also a prophet. If our system is THE righteous system, then how come it wasn’t the system established in the Book of Mormon, or Bible? Like I said, ANY of it could work if we practiced temperance and charity and the other principles of the Gospel.

I firmly believe that the constitution of the United States was inspired by God. I believe it mainly paved the way to allow the restoration of Christ’s church. The premise of the Constitution is pure and good, and necessary, to allow us freedoms to choose – but those freedoms allow for more evil to creep in, and, as written in the Book of Mormon, this land is a choice and blessed land as long as we CHOOSE good over evil. This doesn’t mean choosing Republican over Democrat, or Capitalism over Socialism – it’s choosing to live by the principles we value. It has little to do with our monetary system which won’t exist in the next life, anyway, other than the principles that guide how we govern that money and use it to take care of those without it.

The one thing that should always be on the forefront of our minds is the reason for much of the destruction to the people in the Bible and especially as pointed out in the Book of Mormon. In compiling and writing the book, Mormon had one group of people in mind – US. Now. In this time. As he pointed out again and again, it was pride, envy, and greed that brought down the people of the Americas, stripping the “promise” out of the Promised Land. It served as a pattern and warning to us. I think we are seeing a similar breakdown now. Let’s keep that in mind as we search for, evaluate, and support the “good” system. I personally think there’s no recovery, only preparation. The only way to strip greed and pride out of the people is a big slice of humble pie. And make no mistake, unless the people at the top do it on their own, it’s coming.

So, I say, let’s try something different for a while as far as taxes go, if we even can survive to that point. I say, if they are TAKING it anyway, let’s see how it can be given to help support those who work just as much, and as hard, and as smart as the wealthy. Let’s, as a country, as a society, learn to support each other as a whole instead of just ourselves. It’s that unity that Satan tries desperately to destroy and he’s done a great job on a corporate and government level. Let’s try not to blindly support his efforts.