Specific and Contemporary: LDS Church Counsel

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has issued letters stating specific policy regarding support for two popular legislative measures from different areas in the US.

LDS Church leaders sent letters to members in Colorado expressing opposition to legalizing assisted suicide, as in Colorado Proposition 106.

Letters were also sent to Church members in California, Arizona, and Nevada encouraging them to oppose legislative measures which would legalize marijuana use.

"The church maintains a firm belief in the sanctity of human life," the First Presidency letter said, "and opposes deliberately taking the life of a person even when the person may be suffering from an incurable condition or disease. Life is a sacred gift and should be cherished even in difficult circumstances."

"While the church opposes physician-assisted suicide, members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life through means that are unreasonable. Decisions in such cases are best made by family members after receiving wise and competent medical advice and seeking divine guidance through fasting and prayer."

A growing number of scientific studies show that marijuana use disrupts brain development, according a review of the literature published by the American Psychological Association. Findings suggest structural and functional brain changes, and one decades-long longitudinal study showed an average loss of six IQ points among persistent users, similar to damage from exposure to lead.

"Gay" in the News: Arizona Controversy

Those of you who claim religious rights in Arizona are irritating to those of us who are "gay".   Opponents of the legislation assert that the result will be "NO GAYS ALLOWED" signs being posted by businesses.

Aside from the fact that no such signs have ever been produced, other than by "gays" making this argument, this is cited by homosexual advocates as a compelling and inevitable "slippery slope".

I am not convinced by the specious reasoning.  The number of tee-shirts on display with pro-homosexuality slogans is not equivalent to democratic process, nor does getting your staged protest tantrums in the news establish "consensus".  This does not even amount to "appeal to authority" logic.  It is simply demanding government support for a position that cannot be logically defended.

While the advocates for "equality" would find some satisfaction in forcing everyone to hold their hands over their hearts, stand at attention, and sing "Glory, Glory Hallelujah!" every time another "gay" flaunts his deviance, I feel no reverence for this false sense of  "equality".  It has little to do with bigotry, and everything to do with morality.

Self-identified "Gays", it would seem, have yet to live up to their own ridiculous labelling. They're just not all that gay.

Abortion: Unanwerable Questions...

Why should the baby live?

Why indeed?  Perhaps the greater question is, why should ANY human life be permitted?

I initially read the anti-abortion article that reviewed this journal article from the perspective of opponents of abortion, and was sceptical that it was being accurately characterized.  I honestly did not believe that a so-called medical ethics journal would present this question in such a manner.  But it turns out that the review article is fairly accurate. 

Top bioethicists defend infanticide this week in leading medical journal

 The journal paper posits that fetuses and newborns ‘do not have the same moral status as actual persons’.  I regard this as an untenable position, and considering the source, an intolerable assertion.

As the anti-abortion reviewer observes -

 "...these bioethicists have actually done us a service. If we don’t like their conclusions, then it should actually lead us to question the premises from which they logically flow."

And as the article summarizes -

"...we can draw one of two conclusions from that – either we should embrace infanticide or stop doing abortions."

 I agree, and I think the answer should be obvious to all.  Human life has an intrinsic value that cannot be ignored, whether it be represented by an adult Einstein or a tiny baby.  Just because future potential cannot be objectively quantified does not allow us to treat it with any less respect.

Abortion Pills for our Little Girls

Abortion pills for my little girls

Some of the events being covered in the news these days make me ashamed to be a member of the human race.

We are now hearing arguments defending the right of fifteen-year-old girls to have access to abortion pills.  The Obama administration now supports the measure, although the position was intitially somewhat ambiguous.  Mr. Obama says:

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

At one time, Mr. Obama was of a mind that "common sense" would play a role in making these drugs available to teen girls:

“I will say this, as the father of two daughters. I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine”.

That rationale has apparently been abandoned in favor of a more progressive approach now.

The argument is so inconsistent.  The assumption is that fifteen year-old girls - not grown women, but girls - tend to be sexually promiscuous, so since this is inevitable, we might as well legalize birth control measures for them.  And the government, under Obamacare rules, fully supports this idea.

 Some proponents claim that the reason for promoting this murder of innocents is the supposed value of  something they have called "women's reproductive rights".  The FDA approved this abortion-pill access for girls under pressure from legal extortion by such groups in the courts.  NPR is a popular source for examining this perverted rationale:

NPR comments
Conservatives respond to NPR Argument

The proposal would also allow the product to be sold on retail shelves, rather than behind the pharmacy counters, with age to be verified by cashiers rather than pharmacy staff.

Previously, the need to keep the product behind the pharmacy counter has limited its availability to hours when pharmacies are open and has in obtaining the pill, which works best when taken as soon as possible after unprotected sex.

Any restrictions on birth control are apparently unacceptable to some advocates.

Speaking for the abortion promoters, justifying their court action against the FDA:

Abortion advocates reaction 

 “We are deeply disappointed that just days after President Obama proclaimed his commitment to women’s reproductive rights, his administration has decided once again to deprive women  their right to obtain emergency contraception without unjustified and burdensome restrictions,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which initiated the lawsuit against the FDA.

 Apparently what grade-school aged girls really need is to have removed any burdensome restrictions, so they can freely engage in sexual activity without any fear of biological repercussions or consequences.

 

Have no fear.  We're going to get just what these women's groups demand.  Whether we want this for our young daughters or not. 

I was just considering this from a more personal perspective.  My mother was married when she was sixteen, and my oldest brother was born when she was still a high-school teenager.  My mother has lots of great-grandchildren now.  What if none of them had ever been born...

Current events update - Mr Obama is apparently in the process of changing his mind again, in response to public opposition to abortion pills.

Pill mandate reconsidered...

Courtesy of the Salt Lake Tribune, we are now to understand that pharmacies in Utah tend to "confusion" regarding the federal government regulations.  The suggestion from journalists at the SLTrib seems to be that the ignorant and backward predisposition of pharmacists in Utah is rather less than pleasing to them...

"Confusion" article in SLTrib

Current research tends to nuance the definition of abortion, with equivocation denying accusations that the Plan B pill, drug pharmaceutical name "levonorgestrel",

interferes with embryo implantation.  Apparently most research indicates that the drug effects contraception by prevention of normal release of eggs by the ovaries.  Why this is technically considered to be somehow different from early-term abortion seems to be a matter of semantics.

PubMed abstract on mode of action

In the latest on this issue, the Obama administration has abandoned any legal challenge to the court ruling clearing the way for abortion pills to be peddled alongside the candy and gum at the drug store.

Plan B now sold to girls as young as 11

 

Be Prepared

This is the boy scout's motto.

Be mentally prepared by having disciplined yourself to be obedient to every order, and also by having thought out beforehand any accident or situation that might occur, so that you know the right thing to do at the right moment, and are willing to do it.

Be physically prepared by making yourself strong and active, able to do the right thing at the right moment, without hesitating.

Be morally prepared by learning correct principles, and not deviating.

Follow the straight and narrow course, laid out according to long-standing tradition that is based on correct principles. This leverages our future off from the wisdom of those that have gone before. It prepares us for that which is to come.

Not that this kind of preparation necessarily enables us to anticipate the future. We cannot know what lies ahead with any great certainty. And the future holds many things in store that must come unforeseen.

What preparation does is gift us with the increased ability to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves to us along the way. It may not fit with the plan we have crafted for the future, but we will be made more ready to accommodate that opportunity and make use of it, as it comes before us. This is the purpose for being prepared. It helps us maintain balance under difficult and challenging situations.

Be prepared.

Boy Scouts -- a great tradition

Fine article in today's Salt Lake Tribune. Boy Scouts collect tons of food results of the annual "Scouting for Food" drive in Utah this weekend.

In spite of occasional efforts to discredit and defame the reputation of the Boy Scouts of America, this organization continues to reflect the strongest belief in teaching high moral values to young people. It has long been plain to me that Scouting fills some of the most vital roles in perpetuating the ideals that make us strong and successful.

Popular misconceptions regarding agency

From a General Conference address.  (May 1992 Ensign,  Our Moral Environment, President Boyd K. Packer)

While we pass laws to reduce pollution of the earth, any proposal to protect the moral and spiritual environment is shouted down and marched against as infringing upon liberty, agency, freedom, the right to choose.

Interesting how one virtue, when given exaggerated or fanatical emphasis, can be used to batter down another, with freedom, a virtue, invoked to protect vice. Those determined to transgress see any regulation of their life-style as interfering with their agency and seek to have their actions condoned by making them legal.

People who are otherwise sensible say, "I do not intend to indulge, but I vote for freedom of choice for those who do."

Regardless of how lofty and moral the "pro-choice" argument sounds, it is badly flawed. With that same logic one could argue that all traffic signs and barriers which keep the careless from danger should be pulled down on the theory that each individual must be free to choose how close to the edge he will go.

The phrase "free agency" does not appear in scripture. The only agency spoken of there is moral agency, "which," the Lord said, "I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgement." (Doctrine and Covenants 101:78.)

One of the mistaken ideas we often hear associated with the "free agency" term is that it implies some ideal state of borderline anarchy. I'm pretty sure this idea has been sorely abused since Joseph Smith spoke the words, "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

Joseph never taught that it was wrong for those who know and follow the correct principles to "impose" their ideas of righteousness on others. Support for government and respect for the law are explicit principles in church doctrine. The most common associated complaint we hear from those of liberal persuasion is that we cannot exist with true freedom unless people of faith keep their mouths shut about their beliefs. We shouldn't be forcing our religion on others. We cannot legislate morality. Blah blah blah.

Apparently they believe God expects everyone to make up our minds and commit to good or evil in a sort of moral vacuum. Heaven forbid that we should ever pass laws that actually reflect the true values we understand based upon commandments of God. Unthinkable -- that would be depriving others of their "free agency"!

It seems almost a cliche among those who favor this thinking that implementing laws which impose moral values epitomizes "Satan's Plan". Thus the ultimate evil consists of telling someone else how to follow the laws of righteousness. If there ever was a more backward approach, it is difficult to imagine what it would be.

One of the most important teachings I know on this issue is found in 2 Nephi  chapter 2. The idea of opposition is very well understood, but another important principle stands out:

Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other. (2 Nephi 2:16)

Clearly an important implication here is that "enticement" is an essential element in our exercise of agency. This rather contradicts the notion that true agency requires us to operate from an exclusively intrinsic base, with no external forces influencing our choices. Most of us with experience at the primary level of church education understand very well that we must be guided in our choices by the Holy Ghost -- "Choose the Right" is our motto. We choose the right by inspiration. This is our "enticement" to good. And of course there are also always evil enticements drawing us the other way.

This is the cost which enables our agency. There is no principle in the gospel that can be construed to dictate that the environment in which we are required to practice our agency must be free from rules and laws that guide our thinking and acts. Indeed, a clear view of church history with regard to civil government would seem to indicate just the opposite. The church has always promoted strong government and the passage of laws based in principles of righteousness.

In fact, under the common misapplication of the term, "free agency" actually exists nowhere. Many of us live in bondage of various forms that constrain our ability to freely make choices. I believe we must ultimately be judged for our actions based on the options available to us, and the enticements we were subject to at the time.

Elder Packer's point is a legitimate one. Moral agency is never "free" in any way. It always comes at a cost, and it is always compromised by the enticements of the world.