Sexual politics in Utah just got real

In the Feb 06 2015 Salt Lake Tribune, Paul Mero submits a remarkable article correlating with the recent Church news conference.  It stands out in honesty and candor like few other related comments I have seen.  I have copied the entirety here because I think it merits serious reflection.  I think the Salt Lake Tribune does not seek to promote or provide balanced discussion in the public square, and is not a worthwhile venue to publish such an article.

In light of the local euphoria over the recent statements by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding religious freedom and nondiscrimination, fully anticipating this euphoria to be temporary once the reality of what was actually said starts to sink in, I was reminded of the Hans Christian Andersen classic The Emperor's New Clothes.

You remember the story. Con men convince an arrogant and narcissistic king that they can make him a suit of clothes so special, so enlightened, that no mere common person would be able to see the suit. Of course, the king's sycophants weren't about to admit that they too were unable to see the clothing for fear of being marginalized as "hopelessly stupid." Once on public display, it took the innocence of a small child to reveal the obvious — the king "isn't wearing anything at all."

In its collective wisdom and painful honesty, the LDS Church, like the observant child in the classic story, just lifted all pretense from the serious debate over religious freedom and nondiscrimination. They said, for all intents and purposes, the emperor has no clothes. Sexual politics in Utah just got real.

With characteristic humility the LDS Church spokesmen told the truth: Resolving inherent legal conflicts between religious freedom and nondiscrimination will be very difficult. And I would add probably impossible to the liking of all opinions.

The legal conflict between religious freedom and nondiscrimination is inherent because those who cherish religious freedom view it much differently than those who cherish nondiscrimination and vice versa. Seasoned gay advocates know what I mean, as do seasoned defenders of religious freedom. Even as the LDS Church spokesmen uttered their words, seasoned observers knew that, far from drawing closer connections between the two issues, the divide had just grown wider.

The good news for sincere seekers of sound public policy is that the LDS Church's statements create an environment of honest dialogue. There is no more room for gay activists to imply LDS Church support for "activist sinners" (as opposed to repentant sinners) where none really exists. Nor is there room for social conservatives, like me, to imply that sexual politics can be simply ignored any longer.

The truth, now facing the Utah Legislature, is that nondiscrimination is forever linked with religious freedom in Utah. The delusion of Sens. Steve Urquhart and Jim Dabakis, that nondiscrimination is an absolute and independent civil right, has been laid to rest now by the LDS Church. More precisely, nondiscrimination is forever tied to the huge exception of individual conscience. In other words, there is no true religious freedom unless it applies equally to both religious institutions and their adherents.

Another delusion was settled, at least for the time being, by the statements of the LDS Church. Sexual politics is not viewed in the same pantheon of rights such as historic civil rights about race or sex. Despite sincere outreach to people with same-sex attraction issues, the LDS Church and most of Utah view homosexuality in terms of behavior. Race and sex (maleness and femaleness) are viewed as innate. For better or worse, homosexuality is largely viewed as something people do, not as something people are. This is precisely why the LDS Church cannot doctrinally satisfy gay activists who yearn to have their sexual relationships viewed as "worthy." And this is precisely why gay activists no doubt cringed when Elder Dallin H. Oaks punctuated during the Trib Talk interview that lifelong "chastity is not unique" to the human experience. His conclusion is unacceptable to gay activists — go ahead and "be gay" just don't engage in sexual relations outside of legal marriage defined as between a man and woman.

I appreciate this candor. It's refreshing even if it might make a prudent nondiscrimination bill more difficult to craft. Only one nondiscrimination bill with a clear provision for individual conscience can satisfy the constraints just imposed in principle by the LDS Church. Perhaps clever legislative attorneys can accomplish what LDS Church leaders, in the wisdom of Solomon, won't even attempt to address in the law. Good luck to all.

Paul Mero lives in Sandy, Utah, and can be reached at paulmero@msn.com.

I am uncertain about why Mr. Mero chose to publish this article in the Salt Lake Tribune.  It will certainly not be well received, or ever be thoughfully considered in that venue.  In fact it probably serves only to provoke more angry and threatening responses from the gentle readers of that journal.

Caution: Do Not Tip the Ancient Rocks!

 Some of the rocks in Goblin Valley are precariously perched

 A couple of guys decided to tip one over

What a tragedy!

  Now there are hardly any rocks left on the whole San Rafael Swell for future generations to tip over!

In typical irresponsible journalistic fashion, the national news media or local newspapers focused on elements of the story that seem not particularly accurate or relevant, but most liable to stir public outrage.

The two men in the short video are characterized as "Boy Scout leaders", though I see no evidence of that.

Also the rock is most particularly identified as an "ancient" rock, whatever impression that might be intended to convey.  Again, no evidence for such an assertion, no particular geologist or authoritative reference given to verify that the rock might have "ancient" or any other particular qualities that might lead us to venerate it beyond the "rockiness" of any other plain old ordinary chunk of geological material.

In general, in the absence of any other compelling evidence, I would suppose that most rocks could be considered quite "ancient" in terms of biological lifespans.

The news story reports that the men "could face class B misdemeanor or second-degree felony charges."  Apparently for assaulting an "ancient" rock.  Or felonious rock toppling.  Or even rockless endangerment.

I can just picture the authorities imposing stiff punitive measures against the underlying strata of dirt and rock that failed to support the toppled boulder.  There should be severe penalties for such an outrageous and culpable lapse, to make a public example of the whole incident.  This should insure that offensive "ancient" rocks will think twice before ever presuming to fall over again.  Thus we can ensure that deseret rocks continue stalwart to do their rockly duty.

Whether or not this was a thoughtless and irresponsible act, it is an obvious indication that the entire San Rafael Swell and other public lands in Utah must be locked up permanently to prevent any future malicious acts of felonious ancient rock tipping. Humans are harming the natural environment and should not be allowed. The state has effectively applied such preservation measures to the Range Creek area, no reason why such methods should not apply to ancient rocks in state lands throughout Utah.

Latest news from the pretty great state...

Apparently the Utah Congressman heeded my recommendations for vigilance against personal assault on defenceless ancient rocks.  He refers to this outrageous destruction as "desecration".   But to his dismay, found that there are no laws in the books to send such scofflaws to the slave galleys, or submit them to be publicly drawn and quartered.

I'd be interested to learn exactly how many visits Rep. Dixon Pitcher might have actually made to the Goblin Valley region.  It seems quite obvious that not many even come near the place.  But to tip rocks over is somehow "desecration". 

According to the Wikipedia, "Many consider acts of desecration to be sacrilegious acts. This can include desecration of sacred books, sacred places or sacred objects. Desecration generally may be considered from the perspective of a particular religion or spiritual activity.  Desecration may be applied to natural systems or components, particularly if those systems are part of naturalistic spiritual religion."

Not sure what religion Rep. Dixon Pitcher may personally associate with Goblin Valley, but I presume that the "desecrators" also have religious views.

Sorry to get so rocked out about this.  Reality seems so much stranger than any fiction could ever contrive...

Bananna Bread and Current Affairs

I am so concerned about the confused world we live in.

What does it mean?

Is there black and white?

I am thinking now about teaching my sons, but I fear greatly that the power of the destroyer reigns openly now and is winning on so many fronts, it causes me great fear.

One issue that brought my fear to the front so dramatically was an article in Sunday's Salt Lake Tribune. (A copy of it online).

The article stated that two gay men advocating same-sex marriage were baking some banana bread to distribute, by no coincidence, in the district of Utah Senator Chris Buttars. Senator Buttars has a rather poor public image, to put it mildly.

I have a different view. Turns out, Buttars is bishop of an LDS ward, and my one of my son's wife used to be in his ward in West Jordan. Now on with the news story.

The homosexual advocates staged a visit to Buttars' home and feigned astonishment that he willingly accepted their embassy, and actually even appeared to be listening to them while they pleaded their message.

This was the essence of the article.

To the unaware or uninitiated, there were many things here that were not apparent, and would lead to gross misunderstanding. On that basis, I was so offended that I nearly went into shock, literally. I got out of my rehab bed at the hospital to denounce the article to my room mate. Bob was more sensible and less emotional, but he was also outraged and visibly upset.

First problem is casting Buttars as a bad man, a homophobe, and bigot. Because of my church affiliation and loyalty, and life-long practical experience in such matters, I know without asking that Buttars meets the highest moral and social standards, and is an honorable man in whom I could trust.

Something is wrong here. Whose judgement of morality is the more reliable?

Should I believe the sensibilities of a news editor and some social advocates with an axe to grind, or men who I know are serving the Church of the Living God?

For me, this is no choice at all, but I recognize that this kind of background information is totally missing for most readers of the news article. To them, Buttars is a firmly entrenched homophobe whose Archie-Bunker like heart is melted by kindness and gay love and banana bread.

So it teaches us that gay lovers really know what love is after all, and we are just cold hearted and mean- spirited to say our church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes same-sex marriage.

The position staked out in the newspaper article by the gay advocates is laughable, to any who know the job a Mormon bishop fills.

Bishops are primarily a sort of social counsellor to their congregation, thus they serve first and foremost as a sympathetic listener to the troubled. To any and all who are troubled or afflicted in any way, they can knock on the bishops' door, day or night, and at the very least, unburden their soul to an active and sympathetic listener. The Bishop does more than just listen. He often pays bills for the indigent, soothes the troubled soul of the abused or depressed, gives referrals for professional counselling, provides food or clothing or financial assistance for the naked or hungry or cold, or perhaps just a shoulder to cry on or an ear to share glad tidings when there is no one else. How ironic that these two men come bringing symbols that represent the very essence of what no being on earth could possibly understand better than a man like bishop Buttars. And according to the SLTrib columnist, they feign surprise that he listens to them!

[I am not half done with the issue yet, but I'm much too tired to continue and do any justice to th subject, I thought it would be a idle time in my life, and I can hardly get a word in edge wise, More to come,,,]

THOUGHT occurred to me last night that some might mistakenly think I am attempting to defend bishop Buttars. Or represent his position better than the SLTrib editors and columnists can do. I am not. I am just making my voice heard, for what it is worth, because I think there is a problem with the way the story is being told now, from both sides of the aisle.

I don't know the banana bread makers, nor the SLTrib people, nor Chris Buttars, nor any of the countless others involved in this melee of misunderstanding. I just want the big wheel to stop on a number that is a winning number, that pays off for all. I believe the world was designed very purposefully and carefully to afford us all the opportunity to find our own kind of happiness, if we just take the right opportunities as they come along. We get subtle guidance to help our choices, so we aren't completely alone all the time.

Anyway, more about the news article and the bishop.

SLC Liberals

Here's a fine representation of foaming-at-the-mouth liberalism, alive and well in Salt Lake City. The argument is ostensibly over "domestic partners", though it ultimately reads "gay rights campaign". It runs downhill from the start.

Inevitable references to Hitler and charges of totalitarianism against Church members and everything related to Utah government.

Leading the charge, another typically scintillating commentary from columnist Rebecca Walsh...

Rebecca Walsh: Anti-gay patriarchy takes SLC to woodshed

The Eaglets were getting restless. While the matrons of the Eagle Forum looked on, state senators debated the doomsday consequences of Salt Lake City's domestic partnership registry - the stuff of conservative creed and eternal salvation, no less.

But these two fledglings seemed to miss the outraged breathlessness of Monday's debate; they were bored. So while practicing sign language flashcards, they pretended to pick their noses.

And on the Trib's comment blog, some choice words from the elite cadre of SLTrib readers, who claim to deplore Utah Senator Chris Buttars because of his "hateful" demeanor:

These folks aren't like parents; they are like Nazis, who also persecuted gay people.

And Mormons wonder why us liberals remain silent when Mitt Romney runs into a buzzsaw of evangelical Jesus Freak bigotry?

Oh, the irony, the irony!

I suspect that "Mormons" seldom wonder why liberals remain silent in any circumstances -- since there is no evidence that they ever do.

Inevitable reference to Nazis -- one of the standard themes of liberals characterizing those who don't share their bias.

A certain local organization headquartered at 50 E. N. Temple presumes to direct every little detail of its members' lives, down to choice of beverages and underwear. Its silence on this hatemongering by some of its members is deafening. Apparently its leaders, both the recently-departed and the living, have abdicated their role as prophet, seer and revelator to certain reactionary elements within their society.

That group should be called The Church of Chris Buttars and Gayle Ruzicka, at least until those two individuals are hauled before a bishop's court for mean-spiritedness and making the church look silly!

This comment starts off with the standard complaint that Church leaders dictate everything to members. But then rolls into a contradictory assertion that leaders have now "abdicated".

Most ironic in all such spiteful and antagonistic tirades are charges of "hatemongering". You can always invalidate logical argument by calling it "hate speech" or something equally ambiguous.

And then there's the perfect illustration of why we avoid using terms like "compassion", which are an exclusive liberal trademark. Another editorial gem in today's SLTrib, from Rebecca Walsh, liberal warrior for gay rights and whatever else violates the laws of reason and legality. In her lexicon, liberals have shifted toward the middle to become "moderates", while everyone who has read the Bible becomes a right-wing fascist.

Ten years ago, LDS General Authority Marlin Jensen gave Mormon faithful permission to be Democrats.

We all know how well that went.

Now, Jensen has been dispatched to speak for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' First Presidency on immigration.

"I believe a more thoughtful and factual, not to mention humane, approach is warranted and urge those responsible for enactment of Utah's immigration policy to measure twice before they cut," he said last week.

In house editorials, the church-owned Deseret Morning News has called on lawmakers to pause in their rush to demonize and purge Utah's undocumented immigrants. LDS Apostle Elder Russell M. Ballard signed an Alliance for Unity statement against a bill that would repeal in-state tuition for undocumented students. And Jensen, the urbane and moderate face of the church, called out legislators in direct and pointed language, saying immigration is a moral and ethical
issue - code for legislative intervention from South Temple.

Walsh now has me convinced that Elder Jensen is an ally in her pro-lesbian camp, and Elder Ballard has joined the Gay Alliance to ensure that Church members get their measure of compassion. Remember, the term "compassion" equates to a morality that withholds judgement of sin and evil, and lovingly embraces whatever "alternative lifestyle" form of depravity happens to be in vogue. And "moderate" means anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton.

I'm trying to understand why the SLTrib would mount a smear campaign like this.

They're the ones who are always harping on "the great divide" -- the gulf that separates Church members from "normal" Utahns.

This has all the looks of a nuclear bomb set between us. I'm thinking of burning down the SLTrib editorial offices myself.

Advocates of Impeachment

SLTrib article says there is a "growing tide" of advocates to impeach the Bush presidency.

It then goes on to list all the important players.

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson.

Cindy Sheehan.

Sen. Dennis Kucinich.

And a whole host of certifiably rabid and vacuous Hollywood activists.

Imagine that.

This really sounds like the same cast that has been playing the same "anti-war" tune for several years. Difficult to read from the article how this constitutes a "growing tide". Maybe it's just wishful thinking on part of the SLTrib editorial staff.

Anyway, the article then goes on to explain, in rather lame terms, that there's actually only mixed support for impeachment. Apparently Senator Kucinich has introduced articles of impeachment against Cheney, but with certain foreknowledge that the impeachment proposal will not be considered by the Congress. Here's a news article on that.

I would like to think that accusers at such a level have something at stake. In an ideal world, false accusations would not matter, since everyone would learn the truth and the innocent accused would be vindicated. Under the less-than-ideal circumstances of today's trial-by-media mentality, however, public opinion has a significant impact, and would seem to be rather easy to manipulate. I would feel far less cynical about this whole matter if it were stipulated up front that "anti-war" advocates face serious consequences when their false accusations prove to be without basis.

Let Rocky Anderson and Dennis Kucinich be removed from office themselves.

Let Cindy Sheehan and the other Hollywood hysterics resume their status as cartoon caricatures.

And let all the newspaper editors and media experts remember their own immoderate rhetoric, and be ashamed.

Wouldn't that be the day!

PS: Here a KSL news article reporting an "Impeachment Rally" in Salt Lake City this Saturday. Near as I can tell from the photos, only a handful of people were in attendance.

Additional evidence of the "growing tide" of support for this idea.

Gun control, peace and safety

Obviously there are two sides to this argument. So many things happening in the world that add information to the discussion. More to know than I can process effectively. The news tends to magnify the proportions. Extreme violence is remarkably rare, so when it happens it is all the more shocking.

Today I look at the reports of seemingly routine violence in places like Iraq. Yesterday's news showed the human remains of blood and gore splashed all over the place. It would seem that the average Iraqi citizen has dozens of automatic weapons and a supply of ammo that would stagger Arnold Schwarzenegger - before his heart attack. Apparently there are enough explosives in country to launch a shuttle mission.

I review the news about a berserk college student in Virginia murdering dozens of helpless people whose only imaginable offense against him was that they happened to be there. This is not Iraq. Why did this person have available resources to wield such destructive power? What could have prevented such a senseless outrageous act of wanton killing? Do we need to have battle armor ready in case of such incidents to protect ourselves?

An editorial in today's SLTrib says

Laws don't deter people with criminal intent; otherwise our prisons would be empty. A criminal is one who violates the law. How does the gun-control lobby propose to make lawbreakers into law-abiders? If lawbreakers are not deterred from criminal pursuits by laws currently in place, why should more laws deter them?

I well understand those who look for means to stop such awful things. But it does not appear that the answer lies in keeping everyone from having guns. The ones who do the damage here were able to obtain the weapons and ammo in spite of the laws. Thus the laws apparently just make it impossible for the innocent to defend themselves. Instead of being subject to return fire, attackers know they may slaughter at will for an interminable period, while we summon out the select few who supposedly defend us from this kind of predation.

Cheney at BYU: In the news, blogs

I seldom find anything to agree with in SLTrib editorials, but this one seems to hold the grasp of one essential idea...

...protests, boycotts, issues brought to the forefront - it's all good. It's all part of the participatory process.
So let Cheney speak. Be appalled, or enthralled. He may posture and prevaricate, but he will be speaking to a class of college graduates who presumably are capable of weighing his words against his record.

I don't find anything else of merit in the thoughts expressed, but at least they got one foundational idea right.

Then there's this article from one of the regular columnists, which hews close to the traditional SLTrib line of enthusiastically misrepresenting and slandering the church and anything related to it.

Actually, the SLTrib did better than DesNews on this. The DN article could only find controversy as the point of discussion.

LDS Blogs are more-or-less dominated by outrage that Cheney is not already caged up in chains. Few seem to recognize that the federal prosecutor labored for more than a year to convict Bush and Cheney and company on all kinds of charges, but failed to deliver. Anyway, sentiments in the Bloggernacle are strikingly similar to something from MoveOn.org these days. Typical fare at a couple of representative blogs: Times and Seasons author says Cheney deserves a fair trial, oblivious to the fact that it already happened. Guy Murray's Messenger and Advocate follows the crowd with a rather disappointing anti-war posture that pretty much obscures all reasonable considerations. Others are far less even-handed in their discussion and rhetoric.

More stories in the Deseret News

BYU OKs Cheney protest
LDS Church statement concerning Cheney visit to BYU
LDS Church fires back at criticism over Cheney
Readers on Cheney — with a 'Y'
Protests not new at Y.


And in the Salt Lake Tribune

BYU allows students' Cheney protest
LDS Church responds to Tribune columnist
BYU allows Cheney protest
Chilly for Cheney at BYU?

SLTrib articles make me angry...

So, what else is new?

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson continues his ACLU antics...

Rocky rips Bush at "impeachment" rally

Apparently about fifty people showed up to hear the speech. This guy is just a clown and an embarrassment. He is testifying at a sham "impeachment" trial in Washington state -- probably because he would fear assassination if he tried such antics in Utah.

The other editorial article was so full of ironic twisted perversions it still makes me angry just to think of.

School clubs: Gov. Huntsman should veto anti-gay bill

Opens up with traditional slandering of conservative Utah lawmakers.

It is amazing the lengths to which homophobic Utah legislators will go...

This is the standard label for homosexual advocates to use, attempting to discredit those who uphold traditional standards of morality and decency.

Moves right along to...

What we do believe, and hope, is that when Gov. Jon Huntsman reads it, he will have the good sense, the compassion and, yes, the common decency to veto it.

This notwithstanding the fact that the ideals embodied in this editorial reflect the very antithesis of good sense, compassion, and in particular, common decency.

This great example of high-minded critical thinking closes with what amounts to a bit of coarse locker-room humor, which we might expect from dumb football players, but seems out of place in editorials from supposedly responsible journalists. Then again, this is editorial content from the Salt Lake Tribune -- they have a tradition to maintain.

The deceivers who tangle the web...

Interesting SLTrib article today, from outspoken church critic RB Scott.

Mixing religion and politics: Oh, what a tangled web . . .

Ron starts off on the wrong foot with his blatantly inappropriate and offensive poetic title, and just naturally flows down hill from there.

He flatly -- and mistakenly -- insinuates that church leaders are practicing deceptive tactics in order to play a political game. Stirring up controversy, sowing the seeds of confusion and discord -- these are exactly the kind of reaction Ron always seems wont to provoke.

President Hinckley is not a liar by any definition. He needs no defense from people like Ron, who always manage to twist things to serve their own point of view.

I personally am certain that Ron will find, sometime in the future, that editorializing against the church carries a far greater cost than he can afford.

I have been following the reaction of various church members toward the First Presidency statement. It makes a fascinating study.

For the most part, in the general body of the church I think there is little controversy or question in our minds. When Church leaders counsel us to act, we act. Since we already support and sustain members of the first councils of the church as prophets, seers, and revelators, when they speak with authority, critical analysis can wait.

There are many, however, for whom some deliberation is apparently warranted. They demand to test inspired counsel against the philosophies of men, to satisfy their own intellect, or simply to show their own politically-correct approval or disapproval.

Whatever the reason, this small but vocal minority can always be noticed in such matters. They take the forefront in media coverage. They seem to love to "be seen of men". And, I believe, because they hear their own voices echoing in the silence, they presume to represent the rest of us.

I have no objection to others voicing their opinions, but I take exception when they presume to issue moral or intellectual judgments against the church or in opposition to Church authority. Those of us in the silent but faithful minority need to participate in the public forum, so as to avoid leaving the impression that dissenters and dissidents represent any significant segment of the faithful disciples. While it goes against my natural inclination to be outspoken, I have learned through sad experience that if we fail to protest when we are misrepresented, many of those who view things from without will assume that we have no opposing views and nothing to say in such matters. Apparently, from the legalistic perspective, it is true that "Silence gives assent".

In case any are mislead by the attempts so sow doubts about the legitimacy of religious groups engaging in political activism, at this link some of the guidelines are nicely illustrated.

It is a specious red-herring to insinuate that the tax-exempt status of the church is in jeopardy, or to suggest that the church would fail to take imperative action or unequivocally express an official position on issues with clear moral implications. This misinformation has often been perpetuated by the doubters and naysayers as justification for advocating non-involvement or avoidance of politically sensitive issues, but it is clearly contradicted by the facts. Those asserting that the church is putting tax-exempt status in jeopardy are apparently more interested in sowing the seeds of doubt than any loss of tax status.

When there is an issue upon which the voice of the Lord has been heard, the church will let it be known, in clear and unmistakable terms. Those with ears to hear, let them hear.

News: Thieves steal old scriptures

SLTrib: Thieves steal old scriptures

Difficult to imagine an act more cynical than stealing scriptures.