Gloat? Not much.

People have said that they expect me to *GLOAT*.  I'm not sure what they mean.

But I would not want anyone to be disappointed.

Will this serve?

How about this one?  A classy reminder of how some people fulfill their "GLOAT" quota.

Or maybe this one...

I have not felt to tell anyone, "Get Over It".

Okay.

Actually, I really didn't do much of anything.  Certainly nothing from which I feel to derive any particular degree of pride or satisfaction.

I don't like the "President Elect" all that much.  But I like the "Unelect" even less.  I'm pleased that she lost.  It is inherent in the competitive nature of political election that someone wins and someone loses.  Sorry if that hurts anyone's sensitive feelings.

If nothing that is happening in current events serves anything but my relative degree of antipathy, why would anyone expect gloating?

If anything, I would wish to characterize my feelings in the terms written by my Church leaders.

We invite Americans everywhere, whatever their political persuasion, to join us in praying for the president-elect, for his new administration, and for elected leaders across the nation and the world. Praying for those in public office is a long tradition among Latter-day Saints. The men and women who lead our nations and communities need our prayers as they govern in these difficult and turbulent times.  (Letter from LDS Church Leaders)

And I have to add.  The apparent public perception of the relative import of this election seems to be amplified beyond measure.  For my own feelings, I measure the relative importance of the outcome of this particular election pretty much the same as the last few.

Gloat?

Not much.

Political Capitol Presumes to Speak for the Church

The misguided proposal known as "Utah SB 100" continues to lurk in the dark halls of the Utah State Capitol.  In the left-slanted commentary about political dealings in Salt Lake City and throughout Utah, the "Utah Political Capitol" effectively puts foot-in-mouth.

Perhaps emboldened by their apparent success in pressing for government-sanctioned deviant "marriage" practices, the liberal-minded were wont to crow that the LDS Church has come out in support of SB 100, though the "discovery" was somewhat premature.  Apparently an anxious by-product of wishful thinking.

First they were all in a breathless sweat to make the announcement, "BREAKING:  LDS Church Announces Support for State-wide Non Discrimination Law"

Next, apparently disappointed that their spin was somewhat flawed, the group decides that the LDS Church is somehow "Walking Back" the announced support announcement.   "Walking Back" is a polite political term for abruptly changing your stated position.  It frequently accompanies the insinuation that advocates for the former ideology are being "thrown under the bus" in the interest of political expediency.  This elaboration appears to be "CYA" spin to cover up the embarrassing misread of the original Church statement, actually nothing particularly new, a work in progress derived from the Salt Lake City deliberations in 2009.

Finally the Deseret News publishes a statement from the Church explaining this fabricated controversy, clearly a product of wilful misunderstanding.  Apparently the Church feels entitled to actually speak for itself in isolated rare instances.  Imagine that.

Fox13, the local news affiliate in Salt Lake City, applies their own pro-homosexual spin to the story.

My initial examination of the proposed SB100 and why it is still a bad idea.

LDS Church Leaders: Legislating Morality

Church Authorities speak on “Legislating Morality”


Church leaders have consistently advocated for laws based on morality.  Seems fairly obvious...

“Don’t legislate morality.” I suppose persons who mouth that familiar slogan think they are saying something profound. In fact, if that is an argument at all, it is so superficial that an educated person should be ashamed to use it. As should be evident to every thinking person, a high proportion of all legislation has a moral base. That is true of all of the criminal law, most of the laws regulating family relations, businesses, and commercial transactions, many of the laws governing property, and a host of others.
So what does it mean when a person says, “Don’t try to legislate morality?” There is ample room for debate on the wisdom of most legislation, whether it has a moral base or not. Some legislation is unwise or undesirable because it is an excessive interference with liberty or because it will be impossible or expensive to enforce. But the mere statement that we should not legislate morality contributes nothing to reasoned public discourse.  (Dallin H. Oaks, Gambling—Morally Wrong and Politically Unwise)

Until recently, ethics and moral philosophy were the foundation of higher education. They were a legacy passed from generation to generation. Those values are as relevant today as when they were taught by Aristotle. Said he, “Man perfected by society is the best of all animals; he is the most terrible of all when he lives without law, and without justice” (Politics, 1.1253a, 31–34). Therefore, public and private morality need much greater emphasis everywhere.  (James E. Faust, Will I Be Happy?)

When believers enter the public square to try to influence the making or the administration of laws motivated by their beliefs, they should apply some different principles.
First, they must seek the inspiration of the Lord to be selective and wise in choosing which true principles they seek to promote by law or executive action. Generally, they should refrain from seeking laws or administrative action to facilitate beliefs that are distinctive to believers, such as the enforcement of acts of worship, even by implication. Believers can be less cautious in seeking government action that would serve principles broader than merely facilitating the practice of their beliefs, such as laws concerning public health, safety, and morals.
Believers can and must seek laws that will preserve religious freedom. Along with the ascendancy of moral relativism, the United States and other nations are experiencing a disturbing reduction in overall public esteem for religion. Once an accepted part of American life, religion is now suspect in the minds of many. Some influential voices even question the extent to which our constitutions should protect the free exercise of religion, including the right to practice and preach religious principles.
This is a vital matter on which we who believe in a Supreme Being who has established absolute right and wrong in human behavior must unite to insist on our time-honored rights to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues, and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. We must stand shoulder to shoulder with other believers to preserve and strengthen the freedom to advocate and practice our religious beliefs, whatever they are. For this purpose we must walk together on the same path in order to secure our freedom to pursue our separate ways when that is necessary according to our separate beliefs.
Second, when believers promote their positions in the public square, they should always be tolerant of the opinions and positions of those who do not share their beliefs. Believers must always speak with love and show patience, understanding, and compassion toward their adversaries. Christian believers are under command to love their neighbors (see Luke 10:27) and to forgive (see Matthew 18:21–35). They should also remember the Savior’s teaching to “bless them that curse [them], do good to them that hate [them], and pray for them which despitefully use [them], and persecute [them]” (Matthew 5:44).
Third, believers should not be deterred by the familiar charge that they are trying to legislate morality. Many areas of the law are based on Judeo-Christian morality and have been for centuries. Western civilization is based on morality and cannot exist without it. As the second U.S. president, John Adams, declared: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”9
Fourth, believers should not shrink from seeking laws to maintain public conditions or policies that assist them in practicing the requirements of their faith where those conditions or policies are also favorable to the public health, safety, or morals. For example, even though religious beliefs are behind many criminal laws and some family laws, such laws have a long-standing history of appropriateness in democratic societies. But where believers are in the majority, they should always be sensitive to the views of the minority.
Finally, the spirit of our balance of truth and tolerance is applied in these words of President Hinckley: “Let us reach out to those in our community who are not of our faith. Let us be good neighbors, kind and generous and gracious. Let us be involved in good community causes. There may be situations where, with serious moral issues involved, we cannot bend on matters of principle. But in such instances we can politely disagree without being disagreeable. We can acknowledge the sincerity of those whose positions we cannot accept. We can speak of principles rather than personalities.”10  (Dallin H. Oaks, Balancing Truth and Tolerance)

The Founding Fathers very likely were aware of the experiences of Roger Williams and others when they wrote in the First Amendment that the government cannot impede the free exercise of religion. They wrote that the church and the state were to be separate, independent entities, not to eliminate morality and God’s law but to make sure that the power of government could never be used to silence religious expression or to persecute religious practice. Once again quoting George Washington: “If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution, framed in the convention where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it.” (Maxims of Washington, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1894, pp. 370–71.)

What would Washington have thought if he could have foreseen our day? Would he have signed the document?
I believe he would have been troubled to see a time when citizens are forbidden to pray in public meetings; when people claim that “you can’t legislate morality,” as if any law ever passed did not have at its heart some notion of right and wrong; when churches are called intruders when they speak out against public policy that is contrary to the commandments of God; when many people reject the correcting influence of churches if it infringes on daily living; when religion is accepted as a social organization but not as an integral part of national culture; when people bristle if representatives of churches speak in any forum except from the pulpit.
Indeed, some people now claim that the Founding Fathers’ worst fear in connection with religion has been realized; that we have, in fact, a state-sponsored religion in America today. This new religion, adopted by many, does not have an identifiable name, but it operates just like a church. It exists in the form of doctrines and beliefs, where morality is whatever a person wants it to be, and where freedom is derived from the ideas of man and not the laws of God. Many people adhere to this concept of morality with religious zeal and fervor, and courts and legislatures tend to support it.
While you may think I am stretching the point a bit to say that amorality could be a new state-sponsored religion, I believe you would agree that we do not have to look far to find horrifying evidence of rampant immorality that is permitted if not encouraged by our laws. From the plague of pornography to the devastation caused by addiction to drugs, illicit sex, and gambling, wickedness rears its ugly head everywhere, often gaining its foothold in society by invoking the powers of constitutional privilege.
We see a sad reality of contemporary life when many of the same people who defend the right of a pornographer to distribute exploitive films and photos would deny freedom of expression to people of faith because of an alleged fear of what might happen from religious influence on government or public meetings. While much of society has allowed gambling to wash over its communities, leaving broken families and individuals in its soul-destroying wake, it reserves its harshest ridicule for those who advocate obedience to God’s commandments and uniform, inspired standards of right and wrong.
As M. J. Sobran recently wrote: “A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it.” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 58–59.)
There are probably many reasons for the change in public attitudes toward religion. Certainly we’ve had too many wolves posing as shepherds, prompting a national skepticism toward any who profess to represent God. The news media, which rarely report on the good things churches are doing in the world, almost never miss an opportunity to tell people when active church members do wrong. We read about crimes that are committed by former Sunday School teachers, ministers, or missionaries. But when was the last time you read that a crime was committed by someone who hasn’t stepped inside a church in forty years?
For that matter, when was the last time you saw religion or people of faith portrayed positively in any film or television program? For the most part, Hollywood’s attitude toward religion is typified by the expression of cartoon character Bart Simpson, whose mealtime grace consisted of these words: “Dear God, we pay for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing.” Can you imagine how embarrassed and disappointed our Founding Fathers would be to know of the blasphemous disregard many of those of the media have for God our Eternal Father. In fact, noted film critic Michael Medved accuses Hollywood of a deliberate attempt to undermine organized religion: “A war against standards leads logically and inevitably to hostility to religion, because it is religious faith that provides the ultimate basis for all standards.” (“Popular Culture and the War against Standards,” speech delivered at Hillsdale College, 18 Nov. 1990.)
Organized religion finds itself increasingly on the defensive. Not only are people questioning the right of the church—any church—to be involved in matters of public policy, but some are even beginning to wonder whether the church is entitled to exert any kind of meaningful influence on people’s lives. As one churchgoer recently said on a radio talk show, “I think the world of my minister—as long as he doesn’t try to tell me how to live my life.”
Is it any wonder, then, that religion now finds itself under attack in legislative assemblies and in the courts? In fact, the United States Supreme Court recently discontinued the time-honored judicial standard that gave considerable legal latitude to the free exercise of religion. Allowing people of faith to practice their religion free from the burdening effects of public policy is, according to the court, “a luxury that can no longer be afforded.” While the justices acknowledged that the ruling would “place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in,” they said it was “an unavoidable consequence of a democratic government.” (Oregon Employment Division v. Smith, 1990.)
I do not promote the religious practice that was in question in that case but I am concerned with the long-term implications of the decision. Wherever religious groups are in the minority and are not considered part of the mainline religious community, the potential for state intrusion upon their religious practices is real. With legislative bodies responding most often to the will of the majority, the free exercise of religion by minority faith groups is in peril.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (HR 2797) is presently before Congress. This important piece of legislation is designed to restore the protections for religious freedom that existed before this recent Supreme Court decision placed those protections in jeopardy. Because the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is necessary for the preservation of the free exercise of religion, it demands our support.
The constitutional provisions relating to government and religion were not intended to control the religious rights of people. Rather, they were intended to expand them and eliminate the fear of government intrusion. These provisions were meant to separate religion and government so that religion would be independent. The experiences of Roger Williams and other reformers provided the Founding Fathers of the U.S. with important facts to help them deal with the potential risks of a state religion corrupted by politics. Consequently, they drafted an article in the Bill of Rights to guarantee religious freedom from government as opposed to government freedom from religion.
In fact, the framers of the Constitution probably assumed that religious freedom would establish religion as a watchdog over government, and believed that free churches would inevitably stand and speak against immoral and corrupt legislation. All churches not only have the right to speak out on public moral issues, but they have the solemn obligation to do so. Religion represents society’s conscience, and churches must speak out when government chooses a course that is contrary to the laws of God. To remove the influence of religion from public policy simply because some are uncomfortable with any degree of moral restraint is like the passenger on a sinking ship who removes his life jacket because it is restrictive and uncomfortable.  (M. Russell Ballard, Religion in a Free Society)

If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God’s servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law due to this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?

Similarly, some reach the pro-choice position by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so that our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes.   (Dallin H. Oaks, Weightier Matters)

Let me say again that the family is the main target of evil’s attack and must therefore be the main point of our protection and defense. As I said once before, when you stop and think about it from a diabolically tactical point of view, fighting the family makes sense to Satan. When he wants to disrupt the work of the Lord, he doesn’t poison the world’s peanut butter supply, thus bringing the Church’s missionary system to its collective knees. He doesn’t send a plague of laryngitis to afflict the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. He doesn’t legislate against green Jell-O and casseroles. When evil wants to strike out and disrupt the essence of God’s work, it attacks the family. It does so by attempting to disregard the law of chastity, to confuse gender, to desensitize violence, to make crude and blasphemous language the norm, and to make immoral and deviant behavior seem like the rule rather than the exception.
We need to remember Edmund Burke’s statement: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” 6 We need to raise our voices with other concerned citizens throughout the world in opposition to current trends. We need to tell the sponsors of offensive media that we have had enough. We need to support programs and products that are positive and uplifting. Joining together with neighbors and friends who share our concerns, we can send a clear message to those responsible. The Internet Web sites and their local affiliates will have their addresses. Letters and e-mails have more effect than most people realize, especially those like one sent by a Relief Society sister that stated, “I represent a group of over a hundred women that meets every week and often talks about the harm your program is doing to our children.”  (M. Russell Ballard, Let Our Voices Be Heard)

We must be aware that one of the most powerful forces Satan uses to destroy our purity of life is the deceit of conspiring men.

While deceitful men produce and sell alcoholic drinks the whole world over, to the amount of millions of gallons and for millions in gains and profits, the truth of the Lord’s words is coming home today in the terms of poverty; broken health; broken homes; broken hearts; industrial distress through loss of efficiency, lower production, and absenteeism; and carnage on the world’s highways, caused partly through the determination to exceed the speed limits on the highways.
In this day of the “new morality” as sex permissiveness is sometimes called, we should be made aware of the Lord’s concern about immorality and the seriousness of sex sins of all kinds.
We have come far in material progress in this century, but the sins of the ancients increasingly afflict the hearts of men today. Can we not learn by the experiences of others? Must we also defile our bodies, corrupt our souls, and reap destruction as have peoples and nations before us?
God will not be mocked. His laws are immutable. True repentance is rewarded by forgiveness, but sin brings the sting of death.
We hear more and more each day about the sins of adultery, homosexuality, and lesbianism. Homosexuality is an ugly sin, but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved with it, it must be brought into the open.
It is the sin of the ages. It was present in Israel’s wandering as well as after and before. It was tolerated by the Greeks. It was prevalent in decaying Rome. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are symbols of wretched wickedness more especially related to this perversion, as the incident of Lot’s visitors indicates.
There is today a strong clamor to make such practices legal by passing legislation. Some would also legislate to legalize prostitution. They have legalized abortion, seeking to remove from this heinous crime the stigma of sin.
We do not hesitate to tell the world that the cure for these evils is not in surrender.
“But let us emphasize that right and wrong, righteousness and sin, are not dependent upon man’s interpretations, conventions and attitudes. Social acceptance does not change the status of an act, making wrong into right. If all the people in the world were to accept homosexuality, … the practice would still be a deep, dark sin.” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, Bookcraft, p. 79.)
As we think back upon the experiences of Nineveh, Babylon, Sodom and Gomorrah, we wonder—will history repeat itself? What of our world today? Are we forgetting in our great nations the high and lofty principles which can preserve the nations?
I recall to mind the words of General Douglas MacArthur on the occasion of the Japanese surrender:
“Military alliance, balances of power, League of Nations all in turn failed. … We have had our last chance. If we do not now devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves … improvement of human character. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.” (Douglas MacArthur, “Last Chance,” Time, September 10, 1945.)
Are we not inviting eventual destruction as we desecrate all things holy and sacred, even to the common and irreverent use in our daily talk of the names of Deity, and make his holy day, the Sabbath, a day of work, of commercialism, and of pleasure-seeking?
How then can we hope to escape the wrath of God and have peace and righteousness in the land? The answer came thundering down from Mt. Sinai and remains the answer. We go to Sinai:
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. …
“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. …
“Honour thy father and thy mother. …
“Thou shalt not kill.
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.
“Thou shalt not steal.
“Thou shalt not bear false witness. …
“Thou shalt not covet.” (Ex. 20:3, 7–8, 12–17.)

And now in the year of our Lord 1977 there are among us those same vices which we have seen wreck empires, and we see them becoming flagrant in all nations. Shall we, like Belshazzar, sow the wind and reap the whirlwind? Shall we permit the home to deteriorate and marriage to become a mockery? Shall we continue to curse God, hate our enemies, and defile our bodies in adulterous and sensuous practices? And when the patience of the Lord with us is exhausted, shall we stand trembling while destruction comes upon us? Or shall we wisely see the handwriting on the wall and profit by the sad experience of the past and return unto the Lord and serve him?  (Spencer W. Kimball, The Foundations of Righteousness)

The New Testament invites the repentant disciple of Christ to live as a new person according to this law of love (see Rom. 6:4; Heb. 10:19–24). This renewal should influence our whole view of our duty toward others and our capacity to serve them and the Lord. Thus Paul urged that he who stole should “steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth” (Eph. 4:28).
Moreover, our forsaking of past sins and our desire to follow the Master’s example should make us aware of the need for the highest moral standards in our everyday obligations. President Spencer W. Kimball pointed out that honesty can be taught but not legislated. “‘There ought to be a law,’ many say when corruption raises its ugly head, and our answer is that there are laws—numerous laws which are not enforced; but our further answer is that you cannot legislate goodness and honor and honesty. There must be a return to consciousness of those values.” 6 When people practice those values, the power of the Spirit and the force of love can do what the law cannot—overcome the inordinate greed and covetousness that lead to stealing.  (Richard D. Draper, Thou Shalt Not Steal)

The virtue of tolerance has been distorted and elevated to a position of such prominence as to be thought equal to and even valued more than morality. It is one thing to be tolerant, even forgiving of individual conduct. It is quite another to collectively legislate and legalize to protect immoral conduct that can weaken, even destroy the family.  

“There is a dangerous trap when tolerance is exaggerated to protect the rights of those whose conduct endangers the family and injures the rights of the more part of the people. We are getting dangerously close to the condition described by the prophet Mosiah [in Mosiah 29:26–27]”.  (Boyd K. Packer, Children of God)

April 2011 General Conference

April Conference archives are HERE.

October 2010 General Conference

October Conference transcripts found HERE

April 2010 General Conference

The April General Conference addresses are available online HERE, now appearing in many multimedia formats for your convenience.

Church Policy: Political Neutrality

As aspiring disciples of Jesus Christ, it would do us well to keep in mind the very well known Church public policy on political neutrality. There is inspired wisdom and long experience behind this policy. This policy is summarized in a statement at the LDS.org newsroom:

Political Neutrality.

The Church's mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church's neutrality in matters of party politics applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.

The Church does not:

* Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or
platforms.
* Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources
to be used for partisan political purposes.
* Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party
they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a
candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints.
* Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.

The Church does:

* Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in
their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting
in elections.
* Expect its members to engage in the political process in an
informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the
Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have
differences of opinion in partisan political matters.
* Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy
or platforms are endorsed by the Church.
* Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan
way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral
consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.

Children of Divorce

I've put up a number of links on my personal web pages about divorce. But this article looks interesting by itself.

In online discussion I sometimes find this topic examined, and many of the participants express the sentiment that in cases of Temple marriages that are terminated by divorce, the children "follow the mother".

I've never heard any satisfactory explanation for that reasoning, nor do any who echo the idea know of any provenance. They just heard it somewhere.

Here's an authoritative quote that seems to address the subject:

As to the next question, “What happens to the children in the next life when there has been a cancellation of sealing of the parents?” it is understood that in the case of a cancellation of the sealing of the woman to the man, this does not cancel the sealing of the children to the parents, since they were born in the covenant, which is a birthright blessing. They remain in the status of the sealing to their parents and can never be sealed to anyone else. The decision as to with whom they will go will be determined by the Lord in the hereafter. Regarding being born in the covenant the General Handbook of Instructions states, “Children born in the covenant cannot be sealed to anyone, but belong to their natural parents. This rule is not altered by adoption, consent of the natural parents, request of the child after becoming of age or death of the natural parents.”

It should be kept in mind that to be born in the covenant is a birthright blessing, and that if a child remains worthy in this life of celestial blessings, regardless of the actions of his parents, he is assured of that birthright and is guaranteed eternal parentage. One’s worthiness in this life through living the gospel and keeping the commandments, in this as in all things, is the key to eternal life. (Elder James A. Cullimore,  Q&A: Questions and Answers,” New Era)

Reason and accountability

This is a better theme for serious "Father's Day" discussion than the perpetual silliness that goes on here, for example. So many participants in the "Bloggernacle" just seem to love to muse and moon over meaningless questions.

I've wondered for a long time how men could surrender themselves to the bland impotence that so characterizes such discussions, amongst the obsessively politically correct, and elsewhere. To me, it seems to represent a concerted effort to betray most of the meaningful things that distinguish us as men.

We can focus in on the one of the particular points of doctrine that so offends, especially at this weekend event that at least theoretically used to be about celebrating "fatherhood", but is now more commonly used as an opportunity to denigrate.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World proclaims, among others:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.

The Proclamation is dynamic and bold -- and that offends quite a few people. Though it is not politically correct, it should go without saying that men have a unique role that differentiates them from women. This axiomatic premise parallels Melvin Udall's stereotyped thinking, in the film "As Good as it Gets".

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

There are fundamental differences between men and women, males and females. Some institutional implementations are founded upon those ideas, and they function successfully to the degree that those sex differences are recognized and properly accommodated. While Udall's encapsulation may not perfectly characterize the kernel of the fundamental difference, he does far better than most, in this age of unreasoning antipathy toward the male of the species.

Check some earlier comments that relate to this issue, in fascinating and intriguing ways.

(Interspersing some replies from that other blog discussion...)

Melvin Udall was held up in the film as a generally reprehensible (and somewhat insane) human being — that was the point.

Yes, I think I understand why you felt we were intended to regard the character of Udall as “reprehensible” and insane. But in fact, his most offensive trait in the film seemed to be a rather painful and brutal degree of honesty.

How does honesty become anti-social and pathological?

(Other blog reply...)

Jim, let me ask you a yes or no question: do you believe that in order to describe women, you “think of a man… and take away reason and accountability”?

I could discuss this question at some length, but first, you must answer a yes or no question: Do you believe in the “divine design” reflected in the Proclamation?

Your antipathy for this line of thinking makes me uncomfortable to pursue it further. Sorry for disturbing the peace. Please feel free to ignore my comments, if it will make you feel happier.

(Other blog reply...)

Cobabe, don’t confuse antipathy for you with antipathy for the Proclamation. Consider yourself persona non grata until you answer my question, you coward.

And to show you that I’m not a coward, I’ll answer your question, you loathsome wuss: Yes, I believe the “divine design” part. Now what?

(Further quote from "As Good as it Gets"...)

Carol Connelly: Do you have any control over how creepy you allow yourself to get?
Melvin Udall: Yes I do, as a matter of fact. And to prove it, I have not gotten personal, and you have.

Yes, I obviously thought I saw something instructive in Udall’s unusually hyperbolic thinking. Of course it is not correct to so simply characterize differences between men and women — doesn’t do it justice at all. That would be an interesting and complex subject in itself.

Then too, I see this with the understanding that Udall is a fictional character, a sort of composite caricature of someone manifesting psychiatric dysfunction. Udall is not a real person, neither is the thinking reflected in his fictional character an accurate portrayal of o-c disorder. His character is as exaggerated as his statement about how he writes women.

The sad fact is that Udall is able, in his twisted sense, to readily identify an important truth that our politically correct society cannot countenance. Udall is honest about his perceptions. Many of the rest of us have to pretend to deny what is fundamentally true. Those laboring under this bizarre obsession/compulsion are perhaps more seriously mentally afflicted than Udall himself.

Perhaps, when we look at the Family Proclamation, the reductionist approach is somewhat problematic. The initial selection of one phrase in isolation from the rest of the Proclamation may detract from the obviously holistic intent of that instrument. As I read it, the Proclamation intends to advocate for a particular balance. All members of a family are included and to be considered as a unit, notwithstanding the different contributions each member brings to the group. Regarding the individual pieces, particularly from a defensive or antagonistic perspective, probably distracts us enough from the original intent that the real message of the Proclamation is compromised.

Men and women do not exist independent of each other. Rather, their different roles complement each other to create a relationship that works to satisfy the specific and individual needs of all its members.

"Unrighteous dominion" is almost an automatic reaction for many liberal-minded LDS Church members in this context. One of the considerations that generally seems to be neglected when we invoke “unrighteous dominion” is that it would seem to imply that “righteous dominion” is also a possibility.

In fact, I would suggest that “righteous dominion” predominates in almost all cases, and “unrighteous dominion” is, for practical purposes, a temporary and transitory state. I suspect most of us wander into that territory from time to time. Thank God we have the opportunity to repent and correct our mistakes.

One more thought — unrighteous dominion. It is not just a man’s territory. Anyone can tread there.

In the church there is a peculiar tendency to become blind to this, perhaps because the scriptures make such a dramatic point in condemning the problem as manifested in the ranks of priesthood. For priesthood-holding men, unrighteous dominion has certain unpleasant implications that do not affect non-priesthood-holders. But abuse of authority is an egregious sin, in any case — whether the offender be a man or a woman.

I further extend my previous comments about “dominion” in general. Under the guiding principles of the gospel, it is our prerogative to have dominion over our individual stewardships. This applies to men and women, fathers and mothers — and children, in a more limited sense. One of the challenges of mortality is to learn to administer our dominion according to righteous principles.

Each of us has a unique assignment that constitutes our stewardship. This principle is taught in the parable of the talents. Dominion over our own stewardship is righteousness inasmuch as it is guided by gospel principles. It is a reflection of the eternal stewardship we look forward to, modelled after Heavenly Father’s eternal kingdoms.

I think it is instructive to compare phrases like

…reinforcing the norm of gender-disparate economic power

against

Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If I were to make it the subject of intensive study, which one of the philosophical approaches these statements epitomize would seem likely to yield the most productive result — e.g. happiness, fairness, prosperity.

I don’t share any grave concerns about catering to the lunatic fringe on either side of the “iron rod”.

Innovative contemporary sociological theories modelling marriage relationships are all just nicey-nice. Gay and lesbian stuff is, well, enticing, I suppose, for a select minority. But the majority — more than 95% of us, I would guess — will be best served by striving for obedience to the correct principles outlined in the Proclamation. Notwithstanding the popular clamor for "diversity", there is no reason for most of us to experiment with any of these distasteful distractions or perversions from the “divine design”.

And, I presume for those who, like me, occasionally come to themselves, and find themselves straying outside of the ideal — if you’re like a happy pig, pleased to be wallowing in mire, well and good for you.

But if you're unhappy, and cannot understand why, perhaps you would be interested to see my further elaboration on this idea. If and when you come to realize how you have been mislead and cheated, and can see how far off the path you have strayed, please make an effort to repent and seek forgiveness, and set your steps to return to the true church.

Prodigal sons, as ever, will be welcomed back to the fold.

Testing Legality

In my view, the restoration has a poor record of success when it comes to testing the laws of the land in court. For more than 150 years it has been a dismal and discouraging effort for the saints of God to importune the courts for redress. In legal matters regarding everything from trivial personal harassment lawsuits against Joseph Smith, on up to the testing of the constitutionality of federal anti-polygamy laws, the church has waged and consistently lost many important legal battles through the courts at every level.

Having personally sustained my own significant trauma at the handling of the courts, I shrink from the very suggestion that we might obtain any kind of satisfying judgement in the several legal matters currently concerning the general body of the church. But, notwithstanding my own reticence, and even in the face of confusion within the ranks regarding these matters, we are clearly obligated to follow the consistent counsel of the brethren in this matter. The saints have always been instructed to make every effort to work within the law. We believe in honoring and sustaining the law of the land. In many instances throughout church history, church members have been horribly abused at the hands of the system which should have protected them. Yet they always continued to press for justice and sound judgment.

I can see no other alternative. In the case of the assault on marriage laws, I honestly believe it may be a futile effort. But we ought to follow the example set by our stalwart predecessors, in exhausting every recourse to obtain legal settlement of the current issues.

How to Forgive -- revisited

President Faust's conference address magnified this topic into bold letters (James E. Faust, “The Healing Power of Forgiveness,” Ensign, May 2007, 67–69).

If we can find forgiveness in our hearts for those who have caused us hurt and injury, we will rise to a higher level of self-esteem and well-being.

We revisited the issue in President Kimball's teachings last Sunday in Elder's quorum.

This passage of scripture stands out --

Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. (Doctrine and Covenants 64:9-10).

President Kimball's counsel --

To be in the right we must forgive, and we must do so without regard to whether or not our antagonist repents, or how sincere is his transformation, or whether or not he asks our forgiveness.

...and further --

Many people, when brought to a reconciliation with others, say that they forgive, but they continue to hold malice, continue to suspect the other party, continue to disbelieve the other’s sincerity. This is sin, for when a reconciliation has been effected and when repentance is claimed, each should forgive and forget, build immediately the fences which have been breached, and restore the former compatibility.

The early disciples evidently expressed words of forgiveness, and on the surface made the required adjustment, but “forgave not one another in their hearts.” This was not a forgiveness, but savored of hypocrisy and deceit and subterfuge. As implied in Christ’s model prayer, it must be a heart action and a purging of one’s mind [see Matthew 6:12; see also verses 14–15]. Forgiveness means forgetfulness.

The phrase in their hearts has deep meaning. It must be a purging of feelings and thoughts and bitternesses. Mere words avail nothing.

"For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.” (Moro. 7:8.)

Henry Ward Beecher expressed the thought this way: “I can forgive but I cannot forget is another way of saying I cannot forgive.”

I may add that unless a person forgives his brother his trespasses with all his heart he is unfit to partake of the sacrament. (Spencer W. Kimball, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball, Chapter 9: “ Forgiving Others with All Our Hearts,”.(2006),89–101)

Sobering thoughts to ponder.

On personal reflection, I see that I am not very good at living these principles. How hard it is to be honest about forgiving those who have hurt or offended. I cannot see how it is done.

Very easy to forgive and forget trivialities. They really don't matter anyway. The big things are the ones that seem unreasonable or impossible to forgive.

How can I ever forgive those complicit in causing my brother's death? I want to kill them myself, with my bare hands. How am I supposed to forget what they did?

Yet, as Section 64, if I forgive them not, I am guilty of greater sin than they.

BYU Graduation -- The Day After

Near as I could judge, the visit of US Vice President Dick Cheney at the BYU commencement ceremonies had to be one of the most overhyped non-events in the history of BYU.

The ominous rumblings about massive protests failed to materialize anywhere within sight. I suppose something might have been happening elsewhere, but on campus it looked just about like any other graduation day. Lots of graduates flapping around in their cap and gown. Proud parents and family gathering for picnics and photos. Crying babies (might be a more common feature at BYU than at other campuses).

The commencement program went off as planned, without interruption. The only unexpected surprise to members of the audience was the attendance of President Hinckley. He presided over the program, which included presentation of an honorary degree to Vice President Cheney and four others.

I've looked over some of the press coverage of the protests and rallies that were intended to make some kind of political statement, mostly for consumption by the hordes of media people who flocked into town looking for "news". I presume that what the media people found was what they sought -- a few hundred exceptional and miserable malcontents shouting slogans at each other off in some corner, away from all the other BYU students who were celebrating the day. By contrast, BYU President Samuelson reported that more than 6000 graduates participated in the orderly and otherwise rather unremarkable commencement, with more than 20,000 in attendance.

I thought it was interesting that the First Presidency also invited Vice President Cheney to visit with them before the commencement ceremony, in a private meeting.

I have been really entertained by most of the press coverage and attention-getting theatrics of this issue. It has been way better than any talk show. Even better than the last BYU protest I was involved in.

I was especially amused to note that the “alternative” ceremonieswere all timed to take place _after_ the real commencement ritual. Even BYU political protesters didn’t want to miss out on their own graduation.

I personally don’t see the point. I did not attend my own graduation ceremony at University of California. They sent my diploma in the mail. At that point in time, I had everything I ever wanted of beneficent gifts bestowed by my Alma Mater. I just wanted to get away from there.

Incidentally, the last BYU protest I was personally involved in was the occasion of the departure from the BYU faculty of a certain Assistant Professor, by the name of Cecilia. Those of you with good memories will know of whom I speak.

On that occasion, I also sided with BYU trustees.

BYU President Samuelson announced the awarding of honorary degrees and read the curriculum vitae for each of the recipients. President Hinckley sat just behind the speakers podium, and applauded each of the awards. Elders David Bednar and Richard G. Scott sat between vice president Cheney and President Hinckley.

President Hinckley and Vice President Cheney walked into the Marriot Center together, both waving at an obviously friendly and enthusiastic crowd.

As far as I know, President Hinckley’s appearance yesterday was unannounced and a total surprise to most of those in attendance. As he entered, spontaneous applause quickly spread through the audience. He waved his cane in response.

It was a moment of joyous exultation. If I’d had a white handkerchief, I would have waved it.

To be honest, I almost neglected to note the entrance of Vice President Cheney, following right behind President Hinckley and the two apostles in his company. Cheney might just as well have been absent, for all the attention he got at that moment

I personally will interpret President Hinckley’s leadership at this meeting as reaffirmation from church leaders that they continue to support our US government leaders.

The commencement ceremonies were totally unremarkable in every respect. The speakers addressed issues relating to BYU, graduation, and the challenges of life. Cheney’s address itself was brief and entertaining. My impression, as on previous occasions, is that he is an accomplished public speaker.

I saw no indication to justify the notion that church leaders or BYU administrators were attempting to be “silent” about their continuing patriotic support and loyalty, as some have suggested. It is obvious that they are not “speaking out against the administration” of Bush and company because they have no substantive criticism. I cannot understand why anyone would reasonably imagine otherwise.

The strongest impression I had at the commencement ceremony was that this occasion is _not_ a political statement. Nobody is announcing official church sanction of wars or government officials. I am certain that Cheney did not obtain absolution for his sins from the church leaders.

Rather than hearing political themes, what I saw and heard was a unanimous expression of approval for the intergenerational process at BYU that produces college-educated people. BYU perpetuates family traditions in higher education. The most important people in attendance — families. Graduates and their spouses and children. Mothers and fathers, grandparents, aunts and uncles, siblings.

It was not an occasion to make critical remarks about political issues. It was a family celebration.

As a side note, Hugh Nibley’s disparaging remarks about robes and vestments is well taken. I have attended dozens of graduation ceremonies in the last three decades, and this aspect always seems to lend a dark and foreboding air. Why doesn’t academia dispense with this cumbersome artifact from the dark ages?

April 2007 General Conference: Favorites

Some of the addresses from this conference really stand out.

Elder David A. Bednar's talk about the born again transition was one of the most unusual metaphors I have ever heard. He called it the "Pickle Parable".

President James E. Faust's talk on forgiveness was the most moving of the conference. At several points during delivery of the talk, he was overcome by the poignancy of expression, and had to pause to regain control of his emotions. I thought it was a rare and exemplary moment of spiritual insight and inspiration.

Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin's football anecdotes were unexpected and delightful.

President Gordon B. Hinckley's good humor was threaded throughout the conference. He has such indomitable spirit and good will.

Conference weekend

 Conference weekend is one of the best times of life.

October conference is timed to coincide with a natural sort of winding-down season, looking forward to the onset of winter. Time to take stock of summer events that we were too busy to examine closely through the last few months. In the garden, gathering up the last zucchini and tomatoes. Bringing in firewood to warm the home through the cold snowy months to come.

The mountain colors here look to be notably fine this fall. Maples in the mid-elevations are at their most fiery blaze orange. The higher-up aspens are just coming into their best golden shimmering cloak. Some of the early frost has even colored up the oakbrush.

I anticipate the counsels to come in this conference just as I look forward to the autumn splendor. The best words of wisdom will be delivered to the Lord's disciples in the coming few days.

May our hearts be open and our minds clear to receive the inspiration and beauty of these messages that have been prepared for this very day and time. And may the Lord find us to be ever willing and profitable stewards in His service.

Temple divorce II

Reiterating some thoughts shared elsewhere...

I am vitally interested in these questions. While I have implicit faith that Heavenly Father will eventually help us understand all the implications, I don't know exactly what a divorce means in terms of my temple covenants.

For myself, I suppose that civil divorce from a temple marriage is relatively meaningless, in the eternal scheme of things. This is an act intended to cover a situation that can only exist in this temporary state. I am thinking that perhaps Jesus' words about divorce in the New Testament have strong application to the idea of cancelling a temple sealing. He said that the followers of Moses were given permission to divorce only because they stubbornly and wilfully insisted. I don't believe this was to their credit, and the pervasiveness of divorce in our society has similar significance.

I prefer to think that I stand assured of the blessings that have been promised, if I keep myself worthy, regardless of the acts or worthiness of others. While I cannot imagine exactly how these blessings will come about, I trust that it is so. My temple covenants are eternal. They cannot be abrogated or compromised by decrees of civil law, nor by the faithlessness of others. It is a fundamental doctrine of the gospel that we are accountable for our own acts, and will not be punished for the misdeeds of others.

Yet it stands to reason that we could not have any kind of eternal relationship - as in my case, given the fact that my exwife and I could not even survive a couple of decades of trial here. Alma counsels that "this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God" and that the same spirit which possesses our bodies now will continue with us in the worlds to come. Our marital relations will not undergo some miraculous transformation at the last day. Impossible to guess now how these difficulties will be worked out, but they must be, and will be, eventually.

It may be that some of our struggle with a rationale for divorced and fragmented families stems from our inability to understand the real nature of celestial marriage. I suppose what we can picture now is a very simplified version of what life with Heavenly Father will really be. We strive to model our earthly families after the form and function of the celestial, as far as we can envision that environment. From my perspective, this is a good thing to look forward to-things can only get better. (And I find myself feeling as though they could not get much worse, just now.)

I will always wonder, though: If I was really a good person, perhaps these evil things would not have happened to me. During the time when I was happily married - and it was quite a long stretch - I often expressed in prayers my gratitude for such a good marriage. What can I say now? Thanks for the memories, it was good while it lasted? I just don't feel as if "Better luck next time" is a very comforting thought.

What is "temple divorce"?

The term seems to be rooted in Mormon folklore.

On divorce in Mormon culture from Encyclopedia of Mormonism

I have never heard a satisfying explanation for "temple divorce", and in fact I'm not sure the church even uses such terms formally.  Elder James A. Culimore considers this question in a 1975 Church publication.

Temples are not about divorcing. "Divorce" itself, it would seem, really has only temporal connotations, so in terms of binding covenants sealing for time and all eternity, it does not seem like the appropriate term.

I understand the church offers an administrative action referred to as "cancellation of sealing". But I am still not sure I understand what that means. How can an eternal covenant be "canceled"?

Do the participants kneel together at the same altar in the temple where their sealing was pronounced, and somehow un-promise?

Specific counsel from Elder Dallin H. Oaks somewhat illuminates this discussion, which frequently generates more heat than light.

Martin's Cove settlement

The ACLU continues to harass the church in cases with very little basis for preserving "civil liberties".

This week in an out-of-court settlement the church basically agreed to demands from the ACLU to cease any form of acknowledgement that the historic Martin handcart company was actually a group of faithful Mormon pioneers, and in the future they will be referred to as habitationally-challenged communal seekers of a higher metaphysical plane, seeking refuge from traditional patriarchal tyranny".

ACLU lawyers demanded that all signs and artifacts related in any way to Mormon faith be removed at least a mile from the site, which will be designated a "religion-free zone". Visitors to the area will be subject to random interrogation to ensure that harmful religious ideation is not being wantonly encouraged or promoted. All persons or vehicles entering or leaving the monument site will be subject to security checks, and any religious contraband will be confiscated. Those criminals apprehended in the act of speaking about the Mormon religion will be subject to fines and imprisonment. First-time offenders will be permitted to attend an ACLU sponsored anti-religion sensitivity training course in exchange for shorter jail sentences.

ACLU lawyers praised the agreement, saying that it was a significant victory for first-amendment rights, marking a new era of progress in the fight for freedom from religion.

Martin's Cove settlement

Advocating righteousness: No Apologies Necessary

I have seen a surprising picture developing out of recent controversy regarding LDS Church leaders supporting the proposed constitutional marriage amendment. It would seem that there are a number of people associated with the church, who feel guilty to promote unequivocal opposition to homosexual behavior.

In fact, a whole lot of them seem downright apologetic.

And, in fact, there are a significant number who presume to criticize the church for its continuing opposition to anything resembling approval for or sanction of homosexual "lifestyle".

It is a confusing position to advocate, because many of the proponents feel justified by their understanding of principles of "compassion" or "tolerance". They seem unable to discern how temporary concessions under that "compassion" rationale ultimately compromise the quality of life for everyone involved. Every experience through the history of human existence testifies that it is never compassionate to compromise with evil.

To me this ambivalence is difficult to reconcile. In my experience the church has never offered the slightest concession to those entangled in sexual deviance. Such sinful misconduct has always been unacceptable and condemned in the strongest terms. It is my understanding that church membership is automatically severed for individuals engaged in homosexual behavior. To me, this policy seems unremarkable and consistent.

I don't expect anything to ever change in this respect. But it would seem that quite a number of church members are even hopeful that it will.

Who thinks we owe the sinners an apology for advocating repentance and righteousness?