The Libertarian Mormon Dichotomy

A few nights back a fellow Latter-day Saint and highly articulate and ardent libertarian on Facebook named Connor Boyak explained to me his theory of government and rights. He explained that a government can have no more rights than those possessed by the individual. Specifically he said:

“I believe that governments only legitimately have authority that is inherently possessed by each individual comprising it, and which has been explicitly delegated to that government….Individuals lack the authority to dictate what relationships other adults may enter into, and lack the authority to tax one neighbor to provide money to another neighbor who enters into a favorable relationships, etc. They therefore cannot delegate that non-existent authority to the government of which they are a part. In short, communities have no rights. Only individuals have rights.”

My response to this comment was to point out that this view was very Ayn Rand of him, to which he defiantly asserted that Rand had “nothing to do” with his responses. That may be, however he might as well have been quoting Rands 1963 essay on Collectivized Rights in which she states:
“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”

This view then means that marriage laws are a violation of personal freedoms and an abuse of power. Let us then carry this idea out in some further examples using this libertarians own logic. I as an individual do not have the right to dictate what my neighbor will or will not drink or smoke, therefore I cannot allocate my elected representatives the power to enact any substance prohibitions. Libertarians lead the way in the movement to legalize Marijuana. Because I as an individual cannot ethically tell my neighbor what he will or will not read, or what he can or cannot display in public in terms of community standards (as the community has no rights) I cannot call for and cannot allocate to my elected representatives the authority to pass and enforce obscenity laws or material harmful to minors laws.

As a Latter-day Saint I asked him if he supported the Libertarian party view of same sex marriage. Specifically I asked him about a statement from Mark Hinkle, a libertarian party spokesman which included the following:
'Permitting couples to marry when they are of the same gender is a step in the direction of equality before the law, but a truly free society would not have government in the business of defining relationships at all…Marriage equality is not enough, however. I've heard some people express concern that allowing gay marriage would send us down a slippery slope. I hope it does. We should settle for nothing less than a society in which the legal code is wiped clean of references to a person's sexual identity or depends on how many sexual partners they have.” (Friday, June 10, 2011 "Libertarians say marriage equality only one step toward ending legal discrimination")

He responded: “Yes and no. The government should not be involved in marriage. If it is, then it should not endorse an incorrect definition of what marriage is. I do not believe that a union between two members of the same sex is an actual marriage in the true sense of the word. But I think that the government has no business in sanctioning, subsidizing, or incentivizing personal relationships of any kind”

Fair enough.

Here is where I find a serious conflict in the doctrine of libertarianism. As a Latter-day Saint I cannot accept this well meaning interpretation of government as true because I know of three cases (two of which I have been directly involved in and worked for) in which the LDS Church, under the direction of the General Authorities called for and supported laws that delivered to government the very powers the libertarians deny it can hold.

The first comes from the little recounted time before the pass of prohibition.In the early 1900’s the Church came out in favor of Prohibition, a series of laws and amendments that outlawed the creation and sales of alcohol in the US. In conference, many General Authorities encouraged the saints to vote in support of the prohibition laws and amendments:

“I desire that every man woman and child in the sound of my voice shall be workers to bring our fair state prohibition…” (Heber J. Grant, April conference 1916)

“On the twenty-seventh of June, this year, all Israel, at least in this state, shall have an opportunity to declare themselves in favor of or against God's truth that alcohol, strong drink in any of its forms is not good for man. They will tell you, We want to get rid of the saloons all right, but we can't do it. Prohibition, they will say, will not prohibit. I say, prohibition will prohibit as well as any other law will prohibit the transgression of it. Two things we ought to keep in mind,—First, we want the sentiment of the people back of it; and second, we want officers elected in the communities who are in harmony with that public sentiment. … Strong drink is not good for man. It is in your power to elect men who will enforce that law.” (David O McKay, General Conference, April 1911)

“Brethren and sisters, on the next election day, the people of Utah are asked to vote on an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Utah. There are several amendments. I am going to mention only one. It pertains to Prohibition in our State. As you know, we have Prohibition by legislative enactment, but it is not a part of the Constitution of the State, now if we can make it a part of the Constitution of the State, Prohibition is safe. Now, the suggestion is that the prohibition statute be made a part of the Constitution of the State… I am simply mentioning it so that when you go to the polls you will look at that amendment and vote "Yes." (David O McKay, General Conference, October 1918)

It must be noted that in these above comments that the there was no suggestion that the Saints merely support the measures, these were calls to action. The April 1911 conference was a call for the Saints to stand up and be examples to the world in support of laws that echoed the will of God. Furthermore they were counseled to seek the election of men who would enforce the proposed substance prohibition. Later in the 1918 October conference they were counseled to support the enactment of Prohibition in the state constitution.

More recently the church has been very active in and very supportive of groups that seek to establish and uphold community standards and enforce Obscenity Laws. The LDS church has been deeply supportive of various groups and even has an appointed member of the Seventy (formerly Elder John M. Madsen) to interface with such groups. This writer worked for the better part of the last decade seeking the creation, recognition of community standard obscenity laws and found that at every turn the brethren were supportive. The church even established (in conjunction with former Catholic Archbishop George H. Neiderauer) the Utah coalition against Pornography or UCAP. This support included financial donations to anti-obscenity groups via the LDS Foundations.

Lastly there is the issue in which the Libertarian party and the LDS church were set against each other like the magnetic poles. Proposition 8 was an amendment to the California constitution, which was voted on and passed in November of 2008. This amendment delivered to government the power to define marriage as between Man and Woman.

Now I must state clearly, the libertarian Boyak was a defender of the Church amid the Prop 8 ordeal of 2008 in as much as he openly defended the church’s right to act as it did; despite his aforementioned philosophy which states: “Individuals lack the authority to dictate what relationships other adults may enter into…. They therefore cannot delegate that non-existent authority to the government of which they are a part.”

On his blog The Libertarian defended the church by saying:
"Speaking out on political issues is something the Church has always done. For what is politics, but a system of principles upon which men should be governed? …Contrary to other inaccurate assertions, it would be hypocritical for the Church to support an issue in principle only, and not rally its forces when the principle at hand is under threat of perversion or extinction…The Church has a divinely-mandated duty to speak out against moral issues, as has been evidenced by the prophetic cry of repentance throughout the ages. Some issues receive a significantly greater amount of attention from Church leaders, and it’s up to them to determine what hand they will play; after all, they are the leaders of the Church. When the moral issue they are concerned about takes its shape in the form of legislation, this in no way hinders them from persuasion and encouragement."

Now while Boyak stands with his religion, the temporal political ideology he represents attacks it as a enemy of freedom. In a post on the libertarian Party website entitled “California case represents the ills of Direct Democracy” author Andrew Davis stated:
"Proposition 8 represents the ultimate failure in direct democracy and majority rule—when the people vote against more freedom, rather than for more freedom.
The Libertarian Party officially opposes marriage as an institution of government--both gay and straight marriages. "Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships," says the Party's platform. However, some Libertarians argue that until marriage ceases to become a government-licensed institution, there should be equality in it regardless of sexual orientation”

In another post entailed “equal rights for all…or just some”, The party posted a scathing attack on the LDS church insisting that representatives of the LDS church( and other groups) were guilty of depriving people of their rights and goes on to accuse these representatives of deceitful actions, attempted extortion and violating civil rights. Finally this posts ends with the battle cry “ When the California marriage ban is eventually overturned the ‘Yes on 8’ supporters will be forced to realize that their argument is unfounded and irrelevant, until then the battle for civil rights will continue to be fought in California.”
We must assume that since this was found on the official party page, the editors of that page agree with its assertions. This is telling because it shows here that the doctrine of frail man that comprises this Party of frail men is in opposition to the things God has shown us by his appointed leaders. In short, if libertarianism rises to power, it will become a persecutor of the righteous.


With all this in mind we must then look to what the LDS church had to say
“A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.
We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.”

Marriage in this case is a tradition, an institution that makes society what it is.And as it is one of the few institutions which builds its foundation directly upon a divine order, righteous men and women are expected to defend it and preserve it for the next generation of Gods children. otherwise we end up like the generation of the flood or like the cities of the Plains. And like the cases of Prohibition and Obscenity laws, the church is leading the way as an ensign to the nations.

Now here is the rub if one takes a libertarian view and lends their support and talent to its promotion they end up supporting(at least in this case) a temporal ideology that teaches contrary to the teachings of the prophets. To the libertarian the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the above cases of Prohibition, support of Community standards and Obscenity Laws and in the case of advocating and organizing for proposition 8, the Church was acting in a manner that makes it an enemy of freedom.

Taken to his philosophy full extension according to the libertarian, in all three cases the Church was advocating that its members support laws that give government authority that the individual does not possess right to grant. In his own words he explained:
“…governments only legitimately have authority that is inherently possessed by each individual comprising it, and which has been explicitly delegated to that government….Individuals lack the authority to dictate what relationships other adults may enter into, and lack the authority to tax one neighbor to provide money to another neighbor who enters into a favorable relationships, etc. They therefore cannot delegate that non-existent authority to the government of which they are a part.”

It seems then that the Libertarians own devotion to temporal wisdom betrays his own defense of his religion. The question then is this, how can one say that they support the church in its actions, and then throw ones time, efforts and support behind a party, group or organization that not only advocates the opposite of the church on important issues, but teaches a temporal doctrine takes a stand that casts the church as an enemy of freedom for its actions?

Interestingly Boyack’s Libertarians own logic states here that people and groups are well within their rights to protest and organize to influence a cause, as long as their actions do not attain their goals of enforcing community standards or any social prohibitions on individuals.

Porn: Prostitution En Masse

I was once told by someone who I thought to be an intelligent human being, that pornography could not be defined. Her explanation was very simple; she says “one man’s vice is another man’s art”. However this little bromide never really settled with me. I had always been taught that porn was disrespectful to women and in a religious home we believed it was an insult to God himself.

Art work tells a story, the pictographs on cave walls echo through history with the story of civilization. Every story has a beginning, middle and an end as all things do. When we admire a great painting we admire not only the brush stroke, but the creative process that preceded it and the finishing touch that made it flow on canvas. In a book we admire the establishment of a theme, we are thrilled to follow its development and we are comforted with we see the end. These aspect of art give us joy, they allow us to feel some connection with the work itself. For example the artworks James Christensen or Berkley Breathed are well known for delivering a childlike sense of fun and fantasy. The literary works of a C.S. Lewis or Jane Austen wrap worlds and messages of change or struggle around characters the reader can see in their minds. This is art in its fullest sense, which is that it expands a person’s view and brings them joy.

This idea that porn could be art was further discredited in my mind when I learned the origin of the word itself. The term we know as pornography comes from the Greek adjective, pornographos, which means the “writing about prostitutes”.

It will be impossible to define the term pornography without making a moral judgment. Every element of a society can be traced to the presence or lack of a moral code. To elaborate on the idea of porn being photograph or recording of sex acts would be true, but in passing over the impact of porn on society the treatment would be myopic and it would be very shallow. Porn is inextricably connected to prostitution, as men and women are compensated for their participation in sex acts. Therefore we must conclude to define porn as mass, legal, prostitution by proxy.

Let us examine a realistic example to fit this new definition. Take Woman A and Man A, who have decided to make a pornographic film. They go in, meet with a representative of some porn company, who decides to give them a deal. This deal stipulated that these two will do three films for $5,000 a film. There is a stipulation in the contract that they must at least do certain things, the more they do, the more they will be paid. Here you have that important element of prostitution, the contract verbal or written, to sell yourself to another for profit. The only difference, the prostitute of ages past could only be sold once at a time. These prostitutes, once copied are sold to thousands as an alternative to real intimacy.

There are those who argue that porn is expression, or protected speech. This argument may have been pretty solid for defense attorneys in the 1970’s, but science today tells us otherwise. We now know that images are processed differently than written or spoken messages in the brain. The visual image is processed instantly and the body reacts instantly. This is the evolutionary “fight or flight” reflex all people experience watching a scary movie. The eyes don’t discern fake from real. The individual must desensitize themselves to overcome it.

Written and spoken messages are processed differently. The brain has to think and decipher the words and their connection to each other. It has to discern the tone in a speaker’s voice. It is a completely different set of biological tools than those used for visual stimuli.

In the case of works of visual art there is a simple test that will set true artwork apart from photocopied prostitution and that is to ask if life is being degraded for sales. Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo, like other great artist dealt with nude images, which did not make them pornographic. In fact one of the signs of a true artist is one who treats anatomy and muscle definition like a science, a mind that portrays the epic nature that is humanity. Here is the test, the artist celebrates humanity in life full experience, there are a multitude of avenues to portray, and through his work the artist can capture them all

On the other had the pornographer celebrates nothing of mankind, in fact he wants as little to do with it as possible. He will argue that sex is a celebration of life, as if sex taken lightly was never followed by consequences. In the separating of sex from the emotional and physical consequences that follow it, they are selling a fragmented existence, and not celebrating humanity. Humanity feels pain, emotions and suffers or triumphs, the pornographer cares nothing for these things, the pornographer cares nothing for mankind save the money he can get from them. Life is degraded for sales numbers, making sex a commodity does not celebrate humanity, and it puts a price on it.

Because of these facts it is increasingly difficult to define pornography as “speech” when speech to humans is so different from what we see. There can be no cutting social commentary in porn because porn only has one message, and that message is self indulgence. Where the message is “Self-Indulgence” there can be no other message, there is only a selfish act.

In cases when we have to judge if something counts as pornographic we must ask ourselves what the redeeming or cultural value of that product is. I am sure that the once banned book “A Catcher I the Rye” has value. It tells a definite story and has a message, unlike most pornographic productions that exist for the sole purpose of displaying and profiting from sex.

Porn when stripped of all the money it wraps itself in so self righteously, is prostitution for the technological age. It is vacant, hollow and lacking in everything humans need to communicate. There can be no value to it if it cannot enlighten or challenge the mind. Because it seeks intentionally to be as base and coarse as possible it drives from it any message that might redeem it as a social commentary.

incomplete thinking

Are we a generation of incomplete thinkers? Do we hold and espouse views that in one thought seems very reasonable, but when followed through to their logical and implied ends are totally at odds with our proclaimed values?

This occurred to me recently as I was involved in letter writing with an old friend who had recently taken up social positions that were at odds with our common faith. We began to discuss religion and politics and he made it very clear that he believed that all religion should “always be expelled from political practices and participations”. This stance was taken by him because he claimed to fear theocracy, which he defined as the worst possible form of government. I commented in reply that such as banning religion from politics was impossible because there is no such thing as non-religion, the secularism he was espousing is simply a replaced faith in a God with faith in man’s own ability. Humanism is a religion; it’s just a religion where man and his reason is his own god. Such secular religions were often far more violent and murderous that any group of men who committed any crimes in the name of God. The fact remains, we have to go back hundreds of years to find a calculated and organized government killing and intolerance campaign claiming to do god’s will, yet we must only look to the east in recent decades to find mass murder influenced by Neitcheze’s Superman or Marxian godless utopianism.

I rested the letter at that, not wanting to risk my friendship by questioning the thinking behind his feelings. Then I recalled a comment he had made to me earlier about the upmost important issue of free speech. In a letter to me regarding internet censorship he had said well “Internet freedom is paramount to a united world of open and free speech. Internet censorship is wrong on all levels”.. and there is the incomplete thinking. On the one hand he speaks of the value and “paramount” need for free speech, then in the next he seeks to have government define what is viable free speech and what is secondary and therefore superfluous speech.

Obviously such thinking has never been diagramed on a board to try to examine the outcome as the outcome of expelling religion from political realms becomes a exercise in censorship worthy of the Nazis or the communist. You cannot claim to love free speech and deny the right of individuals to express religion influenced and even infused political thought.

Some Reflections on Religion and the College Campus

Being on a college campus is like stepping into a new world. You cast your eyes about and you see so many things you know to be wrong that it causes a sort of confusion attempting to figure them all out. This feeling of being a traveler in a strange land is made all the worse if you are a Christian who strives for Orthodoxy.

College is the Humanist playground of our day. God has no place on campus, and given the conduct and dress of some of the children there I think he would choose not to be there. Not that he would refuse his spirit to the people there, but that the spirit of the people refuses him. During my first week as a transfer Aviation student at University of Central Missouri I was exposed to a litany of things I had never experienced before.

1) Open discussion in class between students about what exams they had cheated on and how.

2) Young women in the hall discussing how the number of their sex partners had increased during the first weeks of school.

3) A science professor lecturing on how there “are no absolutes in science” then proclaiming that God does not exist.

4) An English professor displaying openly vulgar and graphic videos as a teaching aid.

5) I was given a pamphlet of student discount coupons for Planned Parenthood.

6) A slew of other immodesties and vulgarities I will not mention.

I was even more astonished that in each of these offending cases, exception being the evolutionist science professor, the offending parties all bore Christian emblems on their person. Over the next few days I kept my eyes out for the display of such emblems and their presenters. What I found was the cross is mere jewelry to most. A symbol for the world to see, but in no way a factor in governing of the mind.

It should be said, that there is nothing orthodox their Christianity. It is a Christianity of the world. Their version of faith allows them the feel-good-ism of belief, but does not require anything of them otherwise. If Christianity is molded to fit the world, and allows for all the worlds trends and ways within it, then it is not Christianity, it is the world wrapped in religious themes. Such is the Christianity of timid people. People who are uncomfortable with the fact that there is nothing worldly about the Church of Christ, because the Church of Christ not only predates this world, but will post date it as well.

The act of taking on oneself the name of Christ, and then molding your image after that of worldly trends and attitudes is to blaspheme the name of Christ, to take his name in vain. To be a follower of Christ is to strive for Orthodoxy and set oneself against the world for Christ’s sake. It is as Chesterton said so well: “To the Orthodox there must always be a case for revolution…In the upper world hell once rebelled against heaven. But in this world heaven is rebelling against hell. For the orthodox there can always be a revolution; for a revolution is a restoration. At any instant you may strike a blow for the perfection which no man has seen since Adam. No unchanging custom, no changing evolution can make the original good anything but good.” (Orthodoxy)

There is no reason to believe the idea that the Christian needs be a timid thing. The Christian is not timid, he lives is a state of constant rebellion. Each passing day is a revolution, that is, if he is honest.

We have been trained, by years of visual representation to view orthodoxy as a stale and stagnate thing. Orthodoxy is commonly seen as the attitude of aged gothic cathedrals and pomp and circumstance of the middle aged church. It is seen as out of date, out of touch and oppressive to vibrant expression.

In fact the modern "non-denominational" craze of religion does, in its every fiber try to shed the likeness of such orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is quiet and solemn, non-denominational is loud and passionate. Orthodoxy has rites and ordinances, non-denominational hold such things as perfunctory.

However, in the shedding of the appearance they have also shed the rebellion orthodoxy stands for. Orthodoxy is a uncompromised pursuit of purity. Orthodoxy refuses to accept the unacceptable and refuses to bend to the demands of worldly trends.

Satan knowing that his works, once discovered, will be proclaimed by the honest Christian as evil, has made it is mission to convince us that through his works may well be evil, they are tolerable. And the Christian world we tolerate his evil schemes in our mist, for to fight them would require more sacrifice than many of us are willing to give.

Latter day saints are given the same option, though we do not at this time suffer death for our opposition, there are those who have had to make that choice. Sometimes if we acquiesce, and agree to tolerate satans methods, we can become very rich, we can be very modern, we can become popular and successful for all the world to see. But in all these things we are stained with sin, for we did not brandish our sword of virtue and holiness when confronted with the adversary works, for to do so would have meant the loss of position, title or income, we instead sought our own gain and place and let the evils work upon others.

The world tells us: There is no organization that can bind you.

The non-denominational says: there is no need for organized religion, only faith

The orthodox says: there must be order in all things, God cannot exist in chaos.

The world tells us: anything goes as long as you are good.

The non-denominational say: there is no need for baptism, its just an outward expression of inner faith, purely symbolic.

The orthodox says As Christ could do nothing save that which he saw his father do, we can do nothing save that which we saw of the Christ.

Repentence

Is it possible that it is when we repent that we make the most progress?

Repentance humbles the sinful person while it acknowledges the power of our Heavenly father to help us. Repentance is not God demanding our confession, it is that we meekly approach him and ask him to hear our confession. It’s a difficult thing to do, not because it’s hard for us to physically, rather it is hard on our spirits. Repentance requires that we be contrite and that we be stripped of pride.

Someone who is puffed in pride cannot repent properly. We often hear the old saying that “pride cometh before the fall” well, to be honest pride does not come before the fall. Pride is the fall. Elder Neal A. Maxwell said that “Pride keeps repentance from even starting or continuing. Some fail because they are more concerned with the preservation of their public image than with having Christ’s image in their countenances! (Alma 5:14.) Pride prefers cheap repentance, paid for with shallow sorrow. Unsurprisingly, seekers after cheap repentance also search for superficial forgiveness instead of real reconciliation. Thus, real repentance goes far beyond simply saying, “I’m sorry.” (Ensign Nov, 1991)

It is something interesting that the more a person needs to repent the more difficult it is to repent. The deeper the hole is dug the harder it is to climb out of. After a certain point as the hole gets deeper you end up shoveling dirt on your own head. Pride tells us that our failings are out weighted by our successes. Soon our pride tells us that even though we may have sinned a little here, been dishonest a little there, and cheated a lot a moment ago, we really don’t need to repent because we are paying our tithing and we keep up on our callings. This kind of attitude robs us of something very special, something God has given us and actually wants us to experience. He wants us to experience repentance because he wants to talk to us, he wants to work with us through our problems.

Anyone who has kids will know the feeling of love you feel when you find your little kids attempting to work through a problem you know they cannot fix. At first the child is really confident because in their heads they have a plan, but soon, because they are still small, their plans don’t work out and you can see their frustrations build and soon come the little tears. I would like to think that that same feeling we have as we help little children work through their frustrations is a smaller degree of that perfect love God feels for us when we approach him to repent and work with him to overcome our problems. After all Christ himself told us that to attain the kingdom we must be like little children.

A person cannot repent unless they first recognize that they have done wrong. Often the more a person sins, they slowly loose the ability to discern sin from righteousness. Sometimes it takes a change of heart that brings a desire to repent. Every day we hear on TV and media about people who have changed their minds, yet when the Lord speaks to us he stresses we have a change of heart. A mighty change of heart. Again elder Maxwell taught us:

There can be no repentance without recognition of wrong…After recognition, real remorse floods the soul. This is a “godly sorrow,” not merely the “sorrow of the world” nor the “sorrowing of the damned,” when we can no longer “take happiness in sin.” (2 Cor. 7:10; Morm. 2:13.) False remorse instead is like “fondling our failings.” In ritual regret, we mourn our mistakes but without mending them.

There can be no real repentance without personal suffering and the passage of sufficient time for the needed cleansing and turning. This is much more than merely waiting until feelings of remorse subside. Misery, like adversity, can have its special uses.

In the anguishing process of repentance, we may sometimes feel God has deserted us. The reality is that our behavior has isolated us from Him. Thus, while we are turning away from evil but have not yet turned fully to God, we are especially vulnerable. Yet we must not give up, but, instead, reach out to God’s awaiting arm of mercy, which is outstretched “all the day long.” (Jacob 5:47; Jacob 6:4; 2 Ne. 28:32; Morm. 5:11.) Unlike us, God has no restrictive office hours.”

People are often afraid to repent, because to fully repent means to turn your back on those things that influence and produce sin. For some people repentance means cutting off friends who are bad influence, it may mean getting rid of music and movies that even suggest impure things. Repentance means not just changing your ways, it means having that mighty change of heart that beings men to Christ.

Repentance is letting go of the world. Because when we repent we have to forsake all the sinful things we did, Repentance is the first step to becoming s Zion person, a Zion father, mother, sister, brother or child. That’s the power of repentance; it is the power to return you to God. God never forsakes us, when we choose to do sinful things it is us who forsake God. Repentance is the begging of returning to him, if no unclean thing can be in god’s presence, then we must be vigilant about repenting. We must be clean; it is true that cleanliness is next to Godliness, because if you are clean God and Christ will in fact stand beside you.

the mercy of Christ.

The Gospels of Christ contain a rather curious admonition to each would be disciple that proclaims, in no uncertain terms “be ye therefore perfect.” Given that we all I would hope have a pretty clear understanding of our mortal weakness this seems like an impossible command to keep.

The truth is that The Lord knew full well that no man could be perfect like Christ, but that by no means meant that man should not be perfect in his personal labor to become like Christ.

In order to progress down the path to perfection we must identify the attributes that Christ himself possessed and emulate these as closely as possible. The attribute I have been asked to speak on is the mercy of Christ.

The Prophet Joseph urged, “Be merciful and you shall find mercy.” SO what do we know of the mercy of Christ? We know it is eternal, it is perfect and it is free to all those who will repent of their sins and follow the commands of the father.

We know it is a liberal thing, that is, it treats all men as equals according to the knowledge and their works. The gods of the pagan world were renowned for their capricious attitude, which reflected the human failings of their followers. But The true god can never be capricious or cruel, his mercy is such that he cannot condemn you for those things you did not know, and those things in your life you could not control.

His mercy toward us is extended according to his eternal knowledge of who we are, what social conditions we were born into, what things, what worldly traditions shaped our understanding and how we accepted and lived the gospel to its fullest in spite of worldly influence.

But what is mercy to us? To fallen man mercy is a trait that must the cultivated and carefully nurtured. Mercy is a trait that the world is at war with. Since mercy is a trait of the most high god, it is a thing that has no place to the worldly minded.

It is a curious thing that you can see how men can grow from wickedness to merciful or from merciful to wickedness all as a consequence of their choices. An example would be Alma the younger who went from a deeply wicked man to a prophet.

It is also true that many men who present themselves as merciful and honest are anything but. Often men will seek to take advantage of others by presenting their motives as pure and only seeking the best interest others. All the while they angle to exploit business dealings and associations to further themselves at the expense of other. Such action, which is typical of those who profess themselves business men of the world, is merciless. A merciful man seeks to treat men equally, even seeks to serve those who are not as well off as himself.

The Good Samaritan was willing to pay for the cost of the needs of the man who had been mugged by robbers. Remember it was Christ who washed the feet of his apostles, not strictly the other way around.

The trait of Christ like mercy is signified by a willingness to make large personal and temporal sacrifices for others, and expect nothing in return. IF your aid to the needy comes with strings, that is not mercy, it is selfishness.

We see this in our media more and more. Our world does a funny thing in that it constantly pleads for social peace and civility and then proceeds to produce and consume massive amounts of violent and brutal material.

Our television and films have become, in large measure nothing more than celebrations of death and destruction, a thing which normal people watch strictly because it is so abnormal. A freak show so to speak. There is nothing enlightening about crime shows, but there is something darkening about them. in the quest for sales these shows parade out some of the sickest elements of society with the guarantee that next week they will have “the most shocking case yet”

IN the case of our modern films, technology has made it possible to completely obscure the lines between real and fake depictions of violence. Not only do films now possess a coarseness that never existed in the past, they serve it up to us in 3D

I mention these things because the person who indulges in these media depictions of violence will lose, measure by measure the spirit of god that is with them. Those things that offend the Holy Ghost cause him to leave us. Men who offend the Holy Ghost by partaking in things that are dark and abusive, will never be able to truly understand or emulate the mercy of Christ.

If they cannot grow in possession of mercy, they cannot become as Christ. These violent things in our mist are there coincidentally, they are calculated to stunt mans ability to progress, they are carnal, and as the book of Mormon points out so well, being carnally minded is death.

There are two more things that exist in this world that are calculated to stifle mans progression toward emulating the mercy of Christ.

Jacob chapter 2 outlines them both, first in the lust for and pursuit of excess wealth.

In verse 13 Jacobs points out the wealth of the people is squandered on things of the world, on fashions and fads, and the people have begun to look down on others who do not possess as much. It needs be noted that money is not the root of all evil, money is a tool, like a hammer. No it is the lust for excess, more than is sufficient for your needs that is the root of all evil, otherwise known as greed.

This desire for excess causes men to treat others without mercy. The mercy toward the family is blunted as the pressing need to upkeep expensive lifestyles demands more and more time. The pleas of children, who the gospels tell us have a right to the time of their parents, often go unattended as the labor of the world toll higher and higher. Often the parent will, under stress, lash out at the family who should only receive his kindness.

Also, often, as the desire for excess increases, and the man possesses more and more, the relationship with his spouse will wither like a dying leaf, green in some places and brown and dead in others.

A sense of mercy will tell a man when he is deficient in his duties toward his family. Mercy will allow him to see his kids as they truly are, that is, children of the father who have been placed in his care to be taught the ways of god in this life. A lack of mercy will be displayed in a man who continually places his desire, over the needs of those who have been placed in his care.

The final things I will focus on that exists to stifle mans progression is the other half of Jacob 2, and that is obscenity and immorality. Jacob tells us that “God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination” and that the indulgence in social trends or behaviors that belittle, undermine, or joke about morality cause sorrow.

The Lord proclaims “For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and Abominations of their husbands” IN our day we must also add that often it is the wives who are causing their husbands to sorrow.

Pornography and pornographic culture are merciless. They exist for no other cause than to rot and fester the mind and soul. They exist the traffic, or sell the holy things of life for money and gain.

There is something that the lord tells us that people who partake in such material and behaviors take delight and serve to bind down and destroy the tender natures of gods daughters, says he they “lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness” how often do we hear or see portrayed the image of a corrupt minded person who, via clever words or slick rationalization gets another person to compromise their morals and standards?

A man in possession of mercy or who strives to emulate the mercy of Christ will not, even cannot act as a corrupting influence;

A man in possession of a merciful spirit cannot, and will not take unfair advantage or attempt to further himself in the world at the cost of others.

Remember, when it comes to the world, its path is like a loud and wild river, Dead things always flow downstream, dead things go with the flow of fads and trends carried from place to place. Only a living thing can stand against the rushing current.

And as the dirty water bashes you, and your strength is gone from so many hours fighting the current, it is the mercy of God that hold you up. When your body has given out, and you have done all you can do for yourself and those within your reach, it is the mercy of god that will pull you to the calm of the shallows.

As a man strives to emulate the mercy of Christ with the torrents of the world pressing against him, the spirit he has with him imbues him with the vision of the potential glory of others, what each of his peers could be. This vision motivates us to reach out, to share what we have, to offer truth where only lies have been found. Sharing the gospel, boldly and humbly in a violent, obscene and confused world is an act of love and mercy.

God himself as seen us in glory, he has seen and worked with us in our pre-mortal youth, he has seen us as what we could become, he has seen us as he is. With such a view how could he not do all in his power for our good?

There is a pattern set forth in the scriptures that Christ himself draws out attention to. At the wedding in Cannan, Christ provides wine for the guests after his mother alerts him to there being a shortage. After all was done and everyone had their fill, there was much left over, according to Truman Madsen, that excess was over 100 gallons.

When Christ fed the multitude with bread and fish, again there was an excess. He provided more than was needed for those in need.

Finally in modern revelation we are told that the earth is full of resources need for the care of man, and that there is plenty to spare.

If the Lord provides so much in excess of those temporal things that nourish and aid the body. Imagine if you will the overflow of mercy of available to those who’s souls are weak and in need. As was said by the prophet Joseph, show mercy and you will receive mercy. I hope that we can all emulate the attributes of our father and brother, I pray we can become a truly peculiar people by blacking out negative influences in our lives.

Singling out President Packer, an exercise in Godless Chaos

What President Packer stated was not HIS stance (though I know from personal experience that he knows the truth of his own words), as an Apostle of the church, speaking in official capacity in the Conference of the Church, he was, having been assigned that subject the voice of the collective brethren, and thus the spokesman for God.

The argument from those who are angered by Packer (who would have thought Ammonihah was a suburb of SLC?) is one of chaos pure and simple. While they may acknowledge that God exists, they reject the idea that his laws are binding. Their argument cancels out the reality of God as a God of Law.

Laws are not there to enslave man, or to cause them pain. But to free him by highlighting the proper use of this life so that he might avoid the tar and traps of fallen existence. If those laws were issued half heartedly by God, and God rationalizes and excuses their breaking in accordance with the shifting ideals of fallen man, then God is not exacting, is full of deviation; in short he is not God and man has nothing to worry about.

Or if God issued those laws, and then deliberately created people who had no freedom of choice (such as a hardwired undeviating biological homosexual), no other possibility or option than to deviate from the commandments and laws (in this case Gen 1:27-28 & 2:24-25), then he is capricious as Zeus and therefore not God and we have nothing to worry about.

The only answer is that God knew men would have weakness and predilections and set laws so that men could govern themselves in a away most fit for their eternal outlook.

I am fascinated at how this counter-culture has unwittingly followed the prophetic pattern, that is, each time in history a prophet has called a people to repent of their disobedience to God's Laws they have been met with antagonism and disapproval. Packer’s message was one of repentance, he did not disavow the reality of Homosexual feelings, he did say that repentance was necessary for eternal peace.

I am deeply disheartened in the members who are lashing out at the church for its stance. It shows a lack of faith in total. Not that the offended are bad people, but that they wish to have eternal truth match the relative comfort of temporal views, when the truth is that these two run in opposite directions. While it may cause pain in individuals, the church's stance is that the pain cause by this temporal malady can be relieved by exerting faith in Christ. That faith is not a faith in man or his ability (or inability) to define what afflicts a person’s heart or soul. It is faith in an eternal father who exists outside this ignorant present and thus sees and feels the impact of all the influences of the world upon each individual and can heal the soul with an everlasting touch.