The Lord Will Always Warn His People

In 1978, the late Neal A. Maxwell (former Apostle in the Mormon Church) delivered a powerful and prophetic sermon at Brigham Young University concerning what he called “the secular church.”

In this talk he predicted the rise of irreligion as the new state religion and prophesied that the important moral issues of life, family, marriage and religious rights would become subjects of intense persecution by the Secular Church.

Although he does evoke a few examples from the Book of Mormon, Elder Maxwell’s talk is a message and a warning to people of all faiths.

Video collage and above content was created by Seth Adam Smith.

The 8th Amendment and Gay Marriage

—By Paul Wilson

It has been very quiet here at UtahVoices. I think with the downturn of the economy most of us authors here have been a bit preoccupied with other things than blogging.

I have been actually meaning to write this post for a couple of months. Even though California’s Proposition 8 has passed I still think we are just at the beginning of this topic. Unfortunately, the incivility we’ve seen the last few months from the gay community is most likely only going to get worse.

I saw first hand this disrespect to other people and organizations having a different viewpoint when I went to Salt Lake to support the LDS Church’s stance against gay marriage. The gay community had decided that they were going to target the Mormon church because it was the Mormon’s fault for Proposition 8 passing in California.

Interesting thought, even though the Mormon vote only accounted for 2.4% of the overall vote. However, this percentage was large enough that the opponents against Prop 8 decided to rally Temple Square (without a legal permit) and vent their frustration. I went to make a stance against such religious bigotry. I was surprised however, that when I got to Temple Square how large the gay protest was. There was most likely a thousand plus people that marched on Temple Square screaming their hatred to the church.

I was with a very small group standing quietly to protest the march. Our quiet passiveness was in stark contrast to the chanting and screaming by the gay community supporters. Due to this unusual approach I was interviewed by KSL, Salt Lake’s local television station. In my interview I stated that even with Amendment 8 passing that no rights of the gay community were lost (my interview appears between 3:13 and 3:36 of the below video).

That’s right I said “Amendment” and not “Proposition.” I was nervous and without thinking I interchanged my words. I didn’t see my mistake until later that night on television. I am grateful to KSL for correcting my slip in the text of the article, but I still felt foolish for making such a simple mistake.

However, my quite visible mistake can easily be used as a metaphor for legalizing gay marriage. The 8th amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

The passing of Proposition 8, if upheld, will make sure that the California citizens shall not be at the mercy of the legal system inflicting an excessive bail on marriage. If gay marriage becomes a civil rights issue, those of us who feel that homosexuality is immoral and wrong will be at the mercy of those who do not.

If marriage had been redefined to be between any two consenting adults, it wouldn’t have added rights to the gay population, but it would have taken away rights from adoption agencies, churches, schools, and other organizations whose moral agencies didn’t agree with same-sex partnerships. Here are just a few examples how legalizing gay marriage would create an excessive fine imposed upon our society.

Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple’s application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.

Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state’s highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City’s ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls’ parents sued, saying the school was violating the state’s civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.

Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, California, refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship. He claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment. The woman sued under the state’s civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman’s right to medical treatment will trump the doctor’s religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple’s legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.

Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, California, requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city’s marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts’ leases. Meanwhile, the mayor’s office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts’ $1-a-year lease for a city building

While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit activities or events which go against what they hold sacred.

Where does this conflict between the two opposing mindsets end? Why should one minority’s ‘rights’ override the majority’s legal and religious rights and views? In turn, this same minority feels that others’ ‘bigotry’ and ‘narrow-minded thinking’ are trampling on their views and rights.

Is there even a common ground available to settle on? There has to be, but right now I can’t see one.

The Gift

—by Paul Wilson

Christmas for me is a time of reflection, and whether you celebrate Christmas or not, I feel it is always an important time to remember the real purpose and meaning of life. For me the purpose of life and the meaning of life are two very different things. Different both in application and in belief.

My understanding of the purpose of life and the meaning of life have come little by little—and in a large sense the truths are still unraveling for me. Yet, as I discovered more and more how differently both these beliefs interact with my life, I also began to see how both of these principles are dependent upon each other.

So, for this Christmas I offer, as a belated gift, my insights and philosophies on this subject in hopes that I can give something that has come to mean so much to me. I hope this gift does not come off presumptuous or arrogant. I do not pretend to be an intellectual, in fact, what might seem profound to me may be quite trifle to you. If this is the case, this will neither surprise nor offend me. So, with this being said, I move on to share with you my Christmas gift.

My religious upbringing has ingrained into me that life is a training ground. We exist to be tested, and depending on how we do in this life will ultimately decide what level of progression we will obtain in the next life. As with all things, there is definitely more to this belief, but this is pretty much the core of it.

However, life for me is not just about trying to fill out the right multiple choice answers. Rather, it is also about trying to understanding why I even bother filling out the multiple choices in the first place. Why put your efforts into doing something if you do not understand why you are doing it. Surprisingly, this concept of mind has increased my faith in God instead of diminishing it?

That for me has been the ultimate question in my life—what is my purpose? This question has plagued me for years. I cannot exactly remember when I finally came to find an answer which satisfied me, but it hasn’t been too long.

The purpose of life, for me, is to find truth and to live it as best as you can. I do not subscribe to subjective truth, but I do believe in subjective people. We are intricate beings who are woven with cords of emotional and intellectual complexities. We all interpret differently what we think to be right.

That is why I feel it is important to constantly redefine what truth is to us. Often I see many devout followers of religion (particularly those of my own faith) not seeking to continually discover and re-discover truth. The truth they found at the beginning of their sacred religious pilgrimage never grew from a tiny seed of hope to a mighty oak of faith. Instead, the seed morphed from a seed of truth to a seed of complacency.

Truth is fluid in the sense that as individuals we are unceasingly changing. As Heraclitus stated, “You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” Like water, truth continuously flows and what was true in your life 10 years ago, is not pertinent today.

That may sound as an absolute, but think of it in another sense. As a child, If you only learned your ABC’s what real benefit would they be to you now if you never formed them into words. Yes, the ABC’s are still considered a true principle, but it is a principle that is not pertinent because you never really developed that particular truth.

For me this understanding has helped me be much more open-minded. I have learned that what I consider as truth is definitely not the end, but rather the beginning, of my understanding. Appreciating people’s ideas who oppose my beliefs has helped me further understand myself and what I believe in.

I learned as a missionary for my church, though, that living truth doesn’t necessarily determine that my life has meaning. I served as a missionary in Southern California from 1996 to 1998. The first six months of my mission I lived a life as close to what I thought was right as possible. I sincerely tried to understand truth. However, I remember after six months of this life I was miserable. I wasn’t miserable because I was living a life of truth, but rather I was miserable because I was living only a life of truth.

Yes, “truth will set you free.” Free from the chains of ignorance. Free from the absurdities of temporal knowledge. Yet, being free rarely equates to happiness. Why? Happiness is not an idea or belief like truth, but an action.

The reason I was miserable as a missionary was that I was not focusing on the meaning of life, and for me, this meaning, which illuminates truth, is love. It wasn’t until several years after my mission that I discovered love to be the fountain of joy, peace, and above all significance in one’s life.

Unfortunately, in the English language we have only one word for love but a thousand different definitions. When I speak of love, I speak of healthy relationships we develop with the people we engage with on a day by day basis.

As I think of all the happy times in my life, I recognize that these memories are surrounded by the love of others. Holding my soon-to-be wife’s hand on our wedding day; my family cheering me as I received my college diploma; and even feeling my unborn daughter move around in my very pregnant wife’s belly; are all memories that have enriched and developed my life.

Death, pain, and suffering are also all teachers in unearthing meaning to one’s soul. For me, I firmly believe that there is love and even truth in personal suffering. Yet, as I contrast my alone times of pain, and the suffering I spent with others, I can starkly see a difference. Though, I believe there are times that detaching oneself from others for self reflection is a must, I have found that suffering alone is a recipe for dark misery, and greater pain; whereas, healing and hope have come about only as I have reached out to others for strength. The pop motivational speaker Tony Robbins encapsulated it well when he stated, “The quality of your life is the quality of your relationships.” 

It has been this desired quality that has proven to be guidance in my own life. In my early twenties I was the ultimate networker. I would learn your name, your passions, and your job, within the first minute of talking with you. I was the entrepreneur who continually probed to learn if there was anything you could do for me. Yet, throughout the years as I morphed from self-absorbed to self-aware, I became acutely mindful that I needed to be more on the giving side than the taking with those who I valued. Being a locus which devours a friend of all usefulness was not a friend at all. 

Interestingly, it wasn’t until years after making this change in my behavior that I saw the difference. One day I was pondering on what made me the most happiest, and I recognized it was the time spent building memories with my family and friends. I know for many of you this is not a new discovery, but for an ambitious 20-something year old, it was a profound revelation. It helped me recognize that there is nothing so valuable in this world that is worth losing the love of another. 

As our nation embarks on some difficult economical times I hope my Christmas gift will linger in your thoughts. No matter how financially destitute you may feel, there is no destitution as great as being void of truth and love. If you pursue for truth continually and strive to love throughout your life, you will always have a divine purpose and a lasting meaning to your existence!  

May you have a meaningful Christmas and a purposeful New Year!

BOYCOTT THE MORMONS!

- By Chad

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.

A Liberal LDS Perspective on Prop 8

-By Crystal

Proposition 8 deeply troubles me and what Californian, Idahoan, and single adult Latter-day Saints are being asked to do about it deeply offends my religious beliefs as a Latter-day Saint. What I feel about gay marriage is a big part of that and a big part of my religious beliefs as a Mormon.

First, my baptismal covenants are, as stated in Mosiah 18, “to mourn with those that mourn, to comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as a witness of God in all times, and in all things, and in all places.” Prop 8 and the rhetoric surrounding it partially bothers me for that reason. I have a lot of friends who grew up LDS and are gay and their stories are TRAGIC. Horrible. It is disgusting how they have been treated, how they treated themselves when they were struggling with how their felt, and the people who treated them like that are not without blemish, despite them thinking they were just encouraging righteousness and protect the family by trying to “save” my gay friends from themselves. It’s reprehensible and I believe they will be held accountable. I think that since Mormons have covenanted to comfort those that stand in need of comfort that that should be our #1 goal. A lot of the rhetoric surrounding prop 8 communicates to my gay friends that they are fundamentally wrong, that they should repent, and that they’re not the same as we are, and ergo shouldn’t have the same rights that straight people have. Ugh.

So I always knew I was an economic liberal, and I became a social liberal when I started realizing that equality and choice were important as a meesly freshman at BYU. I started thinking about my political and religious beliefs, evaluated why I thought them, and when I got to gay marriage I couldn’t find any way around it. In order to all be created equally with the same unalienable rights and privileges (dec. of independence.) and that we’re even equal before God in terms of what the doctrine says, there was inequality when it came to sexual preference. I realized back then that there were tax breaks, healthcare rights, hospital visitation rights, property rights, etc. that are being denied to people just because of their sexual preference. Wrong.

LDS doctrine is all about equality: “D&C 78:5-6 “That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things. For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;” and what my government says about equality in the constitution and declaration of independence means what’s happening is wrong.

The arguments for prop 8 and against gay marriage in general are:

#1 Gay marriage violates the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman (funny thing that polygamy never enters into this argument, weren’t my maternal ancestors prosecuted for a definition of marriage alternative to a man and a woman by substituting women?)

#2 Gay marriage destroys families and by a greater extension society since family is the foundation of society

#3 Gay marriage is a sin

#4 Gay marriage will lead to the end of the world (I’ve seriously heard that)

#5 Gay marriage hurts our rights and privileges

Here is why this language bothers me. No one is stating the fundamental fear, at least the Brethren aren’t although Marcello addressed it, the real reason why my Church has joined this hokey coalition. The real fear is that if gay marriage becomes a reality and a constitutional amendment, a Church can be held unconstitutional by choosing not to perform gay marriage. That’s the real fear.

Otherwise, the arguments don’t stand.

#2: Because honestly, I know many many gay couples who have been together for 10, 15, 20, even 50+ years. They are stable and are contributing to the stability of society. They treat each other with love, they are forming a family unit providing stability to our way of life. They are good parents of children, and good parents of animals (important in my book!).

#1: Gay marriage does not threaten my marriage to Joel. We’re still very happy thank you, and I don’t see how it will threaten how we communicate and relate with each other now or in the eternities. In fact I have learned a lot about healthy marriages and relationships from my friends in gay marriages and/or partnerships. Yes I believe that marriage can be eternal, and I absolutely believe in the beautiful relationship that results when the sexes are equally partnered.

In terms of earthly marriage and how it is defined in the legal code, people have the right to commit to be with whomever they want to. Yes Californian homosexuals might already receive many of the rights I’ve mentioned before of tax breaks, common property, healthcare, etc. but prop 8 denies them the right of public commitment before the law, of calling their union a unit, a family.

Whether or not gay marriage is a sin should not even be used as a reason. We’ve been told not to judge, that God will be the judger and if we judge others we’ll be held accountable. Live your covenants, and don’t make other people live covenants they haven’t made with God. Please keep religion out of defining what marriage is in law. Like Jon said, “Get religion out of our government and get government out of our religions.” I personally think that using religion to justify why certain laws should or should not exist will lead to #4, and not gay marriage. We keep heading down this path, and we’ll all be forced to be Born Agains, or Evangelical, or Muslim, or Mormon, or Catholic, or Jewish, or Atheists. We’ll be taught in our schools what is doctrine and what is not. We’ll be told how we should practice our religion. Do you want that? I don’t and I will fight till my dying day to keep government out of religion and religion out of government.

So the real fear is #5, that it hurts our rights because it’s possible that the Church could be forced to perform gay marriage in our temples. Catholics are afraid of performing gay marriage in catehdrals, or being forced to give their orphans to gay couples.

This is what makes me sad about what CA Latter-day Saints are being asked to do. Everyone, including our leaders, needs to lose arguments 1-4 because they don’t stand and let’s just address #5. The Protect Marriage Coalition certainly isn’t. Why are we part of it again? We aren’t operating under a limited light and knowledge in regards to 1-4. We know it as well as everyone else. Instead, work towards laws that maintain the separation of Church and state, allow a church to define marriage however it wants, to define family however it wants, and allow gay and straight people to get married, to have civil unions, and to do that in a Church that wants to offer gay and straight marriage, or only straight marriage, or whatever marriage, or gay and straight marriage by a Justice of the Peace. So let’s just leave this Protect Marriage Coalition and do the real right thing here. Let’s live true to our religious and American views of equality as well as the separation of Church and State. Let’s write a law that insures equal rights, equal families, equal marriage, and maintain Church and State at the same time and the right for a Religion to practice how, where, and when it may. And let’s have citizens and legislators write this law, not religions. Passing Prop 8 is not going to do that, and is going to violate a lot of principles that we hold dear.

And now for the thing that upsets me more. Not only do I dearly believe in the separation of Church and State, and not only is that a part of my scriptural doctrine, but the Church has always made a big deal about never telling it’s members who to vote for and how to vote. Fundamental stance for us, and here we are telling CA saints how to vote and why they should vote that way. And it’s not just Californians telling other Californians how to vote, but it’s Idahoans and BYU students, and institutes across the country.

We’re using words that don’t spread tolerance, that make our gay brothers and sisters hate themselves. We’re using arguments that are false. We are not showing our best Christian selves. We are not showing our best American selves. My Relief Society president, for whom I serve as first councilor, actually banned the entire topic of homosexuality from our Relief Society because in her words, “you never know who is gay and who isn’t and this Relief Society will not be the place where they decide to hate themselves forever or permanently leave the church and hate Mormons.” We are making people permanently hate us.

And now for my biggest issue. American Mormons have allowed themselves to be hijacked politically and to ignore important issues because of our fears about gay marriage and abortion. We are ignoring poverty, crime, equal taxation, equal rights for women (men are still paid more than women), law and order, world peace, cleaning up the environment etc. Show me where in our doctrine it says “thou shalt give tax breaks to the rich and large corporations and none else,” “thou shalt have AK-47s available for purchase by anyone who wants to,” “thou shalt pollute the earth and never ever worry about Global Climate Change,” “thou shalt teach everyone to pray to your God in school and none else,” the list goes on.

I didn’t plan on making prop 8 a big issue. I have always been vocal about what I think, I thought everyone knew where I stood, and it is outside my stewardship as a resident of Utah to tell Californians how to vote. But I read Elder Ballard’s and Elder Cook’s talks and they encouraged me to go viral with how I felt about prop 8 so I followed my priesthood leadership and did just that. This is not only how I feel rationally when I reason through equality on the doctrinal and governmental level, but it is what I feel is right. It is what is communicated to my soul, what the “plain and precious voice” says to me.

Now respond or argue, don’t. Think about what I said, don’t. Change your mind, don’t. I’m a big fan of free agency and you have the right to agree with me 100%, 90%, 80%, 50%, 40%, or 0%. And I love you all still the same, and I hope you love me the same and don’t worry about my choices or beliefs. You worry about yours, and I’ll worry about mine. And together we won’t collectively worry about the rest of America or the world. We’ll just love each other and get rid of monstrosities like having poverty in the 21st century. And like I said before, I’m open minded enough to think that we’re all right to varying degrees. I hope some of you can admit that too about my beliefs.

Why the LDS Church REALLY cares about Prop 8

- By Chad

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 = FAIL. Capitalism = null.

-Written By Chad

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.