We the People

One of the basic principles enumerated in the Constitutional commission is the government mandate to "provide for the common defense".  The specific interpretation of this phrase is that the government is charge to appropriate armies.  There are other government provisions supported by laws which extend specific authority to the executive, the President and his Cabinet.  The Department of Homeland Security was created in response to specific threats in the US against US citizens.

From my perspective, those protesting against the current acts of the President of the United States are seem to be arguing that the President exceeds his authority to act in behalf of the people.  "Not MY President!", they scream, along with other complaints of the same general class.  Few of them seem to express any logical rationale for that premise.  Some of them so consumed with their enraged and frenzied self-importance they seem to have great difficulty articulating ANYTHING even marginally intelligible.  They are essentially protesting against provisions of the US Constitution.

There is no law prohibiting these people from embarrassing themselves in public.  Indeed, many of them seem to be pursuing this end with the greatest energy and enthusiasm.  I have no idea how long these hysterics will be the popular trend, before they exhaust themselves.

Civility in the Public Square

Self-expression is vital to the communication process, but expletives should AUGMENT thoughtful dialog - not replace it. If you find yourself resorting to mostly vulgar or profane language, you are not any longer expressing yourself effectively. Little wonder we find scant meaning in the enraged tirades of demonstrators and their angry slogans. To me, they come across as little more than childish inarticulate and feeble-minded tantrums.

They Have Their Reward

Verily, verily, I say that I would that ye should follow popular societal trends; but take heed that ye do not your protests and resignation parties before men to be seen of them; otherwise ye have no reward of your Father who is in heaven.

Therefore, when ye shall do your resignation celebrations do not sound a trumpet before you, as will hypocrites do in the beer halls and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.

Resignation Parties

It appears that formal resignation parties in Salt Lake City are trending in popularity.  Deseret News reports on the last weekend celebration at Temple Square.  The LA Times even devoted some ink to the story.

Not that there is any real increase in the number of faithless and apostates leaving the Church.  Statistics would seem to indicate that there is and has always been a quite consistent flux of ingress and egress from Church membership.

Officially, judging by the statements from Church spokesman, we are supposed to be sad and regret that anyone makes the deliberate choice to leave.  But personally, I feel quite optimistic.  I'm happy and encouraged that these people discovered a new path to personal fulfilment and happiness.  And relieved that they are no longer burdened with the hypocrisy of associating with the Church that persists in traditional ideals that make them feel bad.

It seems so ironic to me that anyone is moved to manipulate the public news media into giving news time to this party.  Indeed, an earlier event reportedly was conducted more appropriately in a popular Salt Lake bar.  The most common statement from those departing souls seems to be to the effect that the Church stubbornly refuses to see things from their perspective, so in retaliation, this public swan song will deprive the Church of the beneficent blessings of their hypercritical non-participation.  And we'll all be sorry and miserable without them, forever more.  Or something like that.

It reminds me of so many "mass" demonstrations in the past.  Unhappy screaming people waving signs and marching around together to protest against some imagined slight.  I have been hearing about the staging of hundreds of different protests since I was young.  The faces never seem to change much, although the causes come and go with the tide.

Ironically, in the current party, most of those celebrating their own departure claim to be protesting against new Church policy that they claim reflects a lack of love and proper regard for children of so-called "same-sex" unions.  One protester is quoted, "We want this event to make a statement to the church today that its treatment of those we love has led us to this moment."  Just look at what you made me do.

Although many feign shock or surprise at the Handbook 1 revisons, Church doctrine has always regarded homosexual behavior as violation of the Law of Chastity, along with any other forms of sexual relationship outside the bounds of traditional marriage.  In fact, the same rules were implemented in policy long ago for families practicing polygamy, but nobody seems to have made any protests against that.  In any case, it seems that most of those in attendance at last weeks party never believed or practiced  keeping the laws of the Church anyway.  Apparently the majority of them were "Mormons" in name only.  Some of them even have tee-shirts to emphasize that fine philosophical point.

So apparently, notwithstanding the sympathetic noises coming from news coverage, the Church has lost nothing but faithless malcontents and detractors.  May they all find greater happiness in their future life.  May they all have better luck next time.

Church Handbook 1: Revisons and Reactions

I am not one to say "I told you so", but I honestly believe these prancing parading advocates encouraging our loving embrace of openly homosexual behavior are the ones who have precipitated the recent Church action of revisions to Handbook 1 regarding same-sex behavior.

As it turns out, this group of marchers and those they presume to support WERE actually engaging in a sort of "bridge-building".  Just not the bridges they were anticipating.  They at least partially have themselves to blame for the changes in Church policy.  Life is full of such surprises.

I can also say that this clarification of Church policy regarding same-sex relationships and Church membership is an answer to my own fervent personal prayers.

It helps resolve my concern that the Law of Chastity was being revised for the benefit of a certain interest.  My understanding was always that everyone is required to live by the same set of rules, and no personal circumstance exists that would allow exceptions.

Though I am certain that there have been people praying for other solutions to this problem.  I know that there have been.  Their prayers have been answered too - just not the way they were expecting.

I understand that some are angry, hurt, disappointed and offended by the Church position.  But from my point of view, this was a change waiting to happen.  I can see that some advocates can make a case for their position with regard to certain aspects of these issues, but the arguments seem of little merit because their whole rationale begins with a false premise.  It is vain to protest that a rope is sound except for a fatal weakness at the top of the line.

As has been the case with so many other such actions from the Church, this implementation of new administrative policy was a response to current events.  And inspired Church leadership acting under Divine direction.

The developing situation had obviously left local leaders, the bishops and stake presidents, with an unfair burden on their judgement.  I can imagine being personally conflicted and torn by the many impassioned pleas for justice.  Especially in the face of such a shift in the legal scene.

Now that burden has been shifted.  I have little doubt that local leaders have made their own decisions about how to act in cases affected by this concern.  Perhaps some of them will be all the more troubled by this course of action.  But it was really the only way to resolve the conflict.

I am personally impressed that the policy change reflects the collective wisdom and experience of those who guide the Church with their prophetic calling.

And I am mightily relieved that I don't have to make such impactful decisions regarding people's lives.  In retrospect, I see that the drive to give legal status to same-sex marriage was the impetus for this seeming new policy.  In reality, there is nothing particularly new about it.  The policy simply extends administrative rules and oversight to Church doctrine that has long been in place. What is actually "new" is any hope or expectation that immoral behavior will be tolerated or accepted by the Church.  Indeed, the scope of acceptance and practice throughout the world shows a surprising degree of diversity, from countries that legally embraced same-sex relationships decades ago, to those who still cling to some vestiges of traditional morality.

Plenty of pubic sorrowing, agonized hand-wringing stories and demonstrations are now being staged.  As if advocates and those fully engaged in this behavior are shocked and surprised that anyone would ever think to disapprove of their choice to act in open defiance of eternal commandments, so presumptuously to spoil their blissfully happy homosexual relationships.  If you were among those so posturing, I'm honestly sorry to disappoint you, but rather pleased that you're not quite so in charge of things as you might have been led to believe.

All popular opinion to the contrary, it turns out that there really can be no such thing as "Mormons for Gay Marriage".  It is a total contradiction in terms.

My focus is not distracted.  As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.  Not that I am claiming to be perfect in any particular aspect.  But striving nonetheless.

Mormons Building Bridges to Nowhere

In Utah, one of the most visible local manifestations of homosexual activism seems to be the staging of the annual "Pride" demonstration.

One group advocating for their own exclusive community refers to themselves as "Mormons Building Bridges".  In this instance, the label is intentionally misleading, since the hallmark characteristic of the group appears to be a concerted effort to impose protective walls of separation around certain groups of more sensitive people. 

The fact that this group chooses to stage their demonstrations within view of the temple in Salt Lake City seems particularly aimed to promote derision for the Mormon Church.

It seems intended to be the homosexual advocates answer to the popular annual Pioneer Day celebration staged in the same location on a different day.

The name some members of this group have chosen to identify themselves is particularly ironic.  Rather than building any effective social "bridges", they seem to advocate from the perspective of people who have wilfully alienated themselves from the Mormon Church and Mormon teaching.  In this they effectively act to tear down any existing "bridges" that might exist, apparently anticipating that the entire Mormon community will somehow transform themselves, and concede to demands for "reform" and revision that would serve to accommodate  homosexual advocacy groups.  In a social niche that publicly and vociferously advocates for what they prefer to characterize as "choice", what they seem to be seeking is suspension of any resulting consequences for choosing to engage in deviant behavior, in violation of rules and moral standards which Mormon culture teaches and believes.

Also ironic are attempts some members of these special interests have made to characterize homosexual behavior as "normal" or "natural".  The effort seems to promote a sort of cognitive dissonance, with "normal" but uniquely colorful figures participating in a public pageant that seems intended to accentuate their differences.

Advocacy of this genre appears to exploit the public sympathy for "collective guilt", generally preferring to overlook scriptural admonitions that fail to support such theories.

Another cry commonly raised is that protesters are motivated by "Christlike love".  This argument pointedly ignores that Jesus regularly condemned the unrepentant.  We cannot serve two masters.  It is impossible to please the Lord without resisting the wiles of the adversary.  As writer Orson Scott Card has so aptly put it, 

Those whose "kindness" causes them to wink at sin are not being kind at all, for the only hope of joy that these people have is to recognize their sin and repent of it.   True kindness is to be ever courteous and warm toward individuals, while confronting them always with our rejection of any argument justifying their self-gratification.  (Orson Scott Card, "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality").

"Pride" is yet another term that has been coopted by homosexual groups.  The word used to mean something specific, but now it has become rather exclusively associated with flagrant demonstrations that tend to characterize people focused on the promotion and normalization of homosexuality.

A number of other formerly useful terms are now employed in specifically nuanced ways to obscure all the real implications of homosexual behavior.  One of the most commonly used words that is now used in this context is "equality".

Ironically, in this context the term connotes almost the opposite of the original meaning.  What the group is advocating for basically constitutes special pleading to justify exclusive treatment and a unique set of social rules for a specific group of minority interests.

Members of the group appear to find satisfaction in expressions of contempt for Mormon culture and community.  For example, the effigy figure of a former Mormon political candidate displayed in juxtaposition with promoting a locally popular black-humor satire intended to ridicule local Mormon culture and customs.

One of the common charges such groups level at the Mormon Church is that repressive rules tend to increase stress and depression among those that even bother worrying about trivial things like God's commandments.  In the groups of interest this supposedly results in high rates of abuse for prescription drugs such as Prozac, and even in increased incidence of suicide in some communities.  It is particularly to be deplored if any member of the homosexual community or the feminists might feel depressed or inclined to suicide.

This display of compassion  seems to be reserved for sufferers in the fringe interest groups, however.  It appears to be one of those ideas that can be expressed by a slogan on a protest placard or even a tee-shirt.  Purported "studies" of increased problems experienced by Mormon women or would-be Mormon homosexuals never seem to notice that just about everyone encounters similar challenges, apparently whether they be Mormon or not.

 

As with other such demonstrations, it rather begs the question.  In a manner of speaking, why should we realistically expect to have the mountain come to Mohammed?