Looking for Zion Beyond This Ignorant Present.

The Libertarian Mormon Dichotomy

2011-12-20T10:11:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-13T21:16:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-06T13:05:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-06T12:41:00.000-08:00

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

2011-03-08T12:35:00.000-08:00

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.

2011-03-08T12:32:00.001-08:00

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

2010-10-13T08:44:00.000-07:00

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.

Some Thoughts on So called "Cultural Mormons" and "Post-Mormons"

2010-10-13T08:42:00.000-07:00

Not long ago I read a blog from the City Weekly that had been quietly posted, without comment, on Facebook by a fellow Latter-day Saint. This blog claims to shed light on the honorable place of the “Cultural Mormon” in LDS society. Says the author: "It has become a common error to conflate the official LDS Church hierarchy with the membership of the church itself”

This thesis statement sums up the error of the entire blog. As there are no professional clergy in the church, and callings to authority are given to lay membership, the membership is therefore the hierarchy. You cannot divorce the membership from the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as borders and boundaries unite men so do doctrines create the unifying Orthodoxy defined by God himself. If the membership is attempting to live as closely to God as possible, they are on the same level as the General Authorities. The only defining element is individual adherence to Orthodoxy which is known only in each man’s heart and to God.

If there is any division between the authorities and the membership it is self imposed by the wordiness of the members, many of whom wish to make something of themselves by dropping the names of the Apostles for their own advancement or are so worldly minded they cannot divorce the temporal nature of this life to fully embrace the eternal nature of modern revelation. The callings vary; the men are the same as any other. On doctrine, the members are united with the “old Men in suits” because we are or will be asked to fill leadership positions in the church, we will be old men in suits.

The author goes on to enlighten the reader about the litany of Mormon cliques that exist around the church: "There are Jack-Mormons, ex-Mormons, inactive members, gay Mormons, feminist Mormons, intellectual Mormons, liberal Mormons...Besides them, there remain a whole bunch of people who may not subscribe to LDS doctrine, but still maintain many of the best Mormon values -- resolute cheerfulness, preparedness, self-sufficiency, thrift, etc. -- and share a common background, with a unique set of cultural references and signifiers. Such folks occupy a sort of frontier region -- unclaimed by the official Church and not subject to its realm, yet still connected to its wider community. Who's to say these people are not also part of Mormon culture? Are those of us raised in the LDS Church not supposed to revere our pioneer ancestors who were, after all, quite remarkable? Are we supposed to feel ashamed of our Mormon heritage, simply because some old guys in suits don't approve of our marriages, our academic research, or our political inclinations? Are we supposed to alienate our families, to stop showing up to reunions, for fear that Grandpa, hopped up on too many graham-cracker lemon squares, might start quoting from the "Proclamation on the Family"?

The blogger argues that the sobriquet, or name, Mormon is a malleable social marker like the terms Punks, Goths, Gays and liberal or conservative, all of which denote definite cultural subgroups. It is not, the title Mormon carries with it the rings of orthodoxy. Because the boundaries of Mormon doctrine are so clear cut, one cannot reject the doctrine and keep the name without a deep intellectual bankruptcy.

The Blogger speakes of: “people who may not subscribe to LDS doctrine, but still maintain many of the best Mormon values -- resolute cheerfulness, preparedness, self-sufficiency, thrift, etc. -- It is telling that the CORE values of the Latter Day saints, those of faith, sacrifice and obedience, are left off the list. I would argue that without these core values of faith in the church and obedience to its doctrines and leadership the blogger might as well be a Liberal-Gay-intellectual-jack-feminist Mennonite.

The underlying emotion of this blog is its disapproval of the LDS church as an institution. Derisively, the writer dismisses those obnoxious “old guys in suits” meaning the general authorities of the Church, as if they were bureaucrats at the U of U or stuffy diners at the Alta Club. He problem is one of temporal myopia, which all men suffer from, especially those who are enamored by religion while inside are terrified by the opinions of men. He claims it is the “old guys” in the hierarchy who disapprove of his “marriages”, “academic research” and “political inclinations”. The orthodox Mormon knows that the general authorities reflect the will of the God who called them to be his messengers. If the church is united against Homosexual marriage it is because God himself as decreed that it is an abuse of his purposes. If the church condemns certain political ideals, as it has most certainly, it is because God has revealed that such ideals are destructive to the progress and freedom of man. Therefore, the bloggers problem is with the orthodoxy of the church, his problem is that he has turned against God himself; it has nothing to do with the “old men in suits” at 50 west.

Yes, as the author states you can be proud of your Mormon heritage, but to proclaim pride in your ancestors and then to reject those very things they struggled, were persecuted and died for, while attempting to lay claim to some self-righteous personally revealed path is to insult the dead saints and make their sacrifice vain. After all if one can be a Mormon while rejecting the doctrine then what did they die and suffer for?

Why adopt the hyphenated moniker if you deny there is any truth in the church. Obviously the “old men” at 50 West are uneducated and un-enlightened about the worldly beauty of the counter culture. They must not be prophets at all because their counsel can be so easily cast aside without consequence. For example, like it or not, The Proclamation on the family, the document the blogger equates to a out of touch octogenarian, is an official proclamation of the church from its revelators. If accept the title of a Mormon, do you believe these men acted on their own to publish it without revelation? Thefor the orthodox the answer is no, the proclaimation exists because God had it proclaimed. If you answer yes, trivializing the proclamation for whatever reason (mostly the fact that it is unequivocally against the big push by the homosexual union advocates), you reject the God who had it written.

This makes you one of those of D&C 1:14-16 which states: “the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people; For have strayed from mine ordinances, and Have broken mine everlasting covenant; They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol.”

You can’t be “cut off” from a people unless you accepted a common union with them to begin with.

The orthodox, those who the blogger casts aside for their attempts to strictly adhere to LDS doctrine, are seen as odd only through eyes of narrow men. This is because every day to the orthodox is revolutionary as compared to the world view that every day is normal.

How do I mean? Let me explain, for the “cultural mormon”, each day passes and they know they are content to go about their day. They rest relatively easy that there is no battles on the horizons for them. They need not take a stand on the marriage issue; they have settled in their minds that their voice in support of the church doctrine is not necessary. That aspect of the doctrine is trouble anyway, its best to leave it alone, there is business to be done elsewhere. They need not take a stand on political issues of principle; even though the church has official statements on a many “political issues” of which they could bear testimony, they are content to believe that their politics and their faith need not meet. Indeed the political sermons of a multitude of conference reports past are best left on the shelf. After all Benson, Clark and McKay were too political. All that politics is dated “irrelevant theology”. They are fine to attend a bar, breath in the second hand smoke, as long as they don’t light up, and swear as long as they don’t take it seriously. They seem to believe that the spirit of God will accompany them there; after all, they did serve a mission in the late 90’s. They are free to take into their minds any content, as long as its not real porn. But no, Saw, Hostel and Goodfellas and any other of a long list of violent, language and sex filled films are fine. After all its not visual Porn, it’s just language and the situations that are pornographic propaganda.

For the Orthodox, each day is experienced with the awe of a traveler in a strange land. It is difficult for an orthodox thinker to comprehend the actions of the world simply because the orthodox view their world through a divine lens. To the Orthodox the Gospel is a eternal scale upon which all the experiences and theory’s of the world may be tested. Since the Gospel encompasses all of God’s creation, all the things the world may offer may be judged by it. If the orthodox hears a theory on the nature of God, he may, via study and prayer discern if that theory be true. If true he accepts it and does not think twice for he desires truth. If it be false he must reject it, for to accept a falsehood is to delude yourself and sets the foundation for the collection of further error. If he wants to know of abortion, he may look back to Elders Young and Snow who addressed the issue as an abomination before the turn of the century, before the USA began funding the mass taking of life with tax payer money. If he wants to know about Homosexuality he can look to the leaders of the church for those things God desires him to know. That is the text of orthodoxy, to admit that you do not know the reason for all things and be humble to move forward despite the reactions of the world. 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: “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 orthodox Mormon is a timid thing, an automated thing. The orthodox Mormon is not timid, he lives is a state of constant rebellion. Rebellion against a world that aims to destroy faith piece by piece, brick by brick, wall by wall and individual by individual. Each passing day is a revolution against the world, that is, if he is honest.

It requires more strength and courage to strive for orthodoxy in faith than any struggle for any temporal cause. Those who capitulate and accept the theory’s of their peers in the place of laborious study and seeking faith spend their days with the world whispering in their ear “you are ok with me, you have disagreed but conceded that my ways are tolerable”. The Orthodox spend their days hearing “you are a threat to me, how dare you deny what I am having the people taught.” For this reason, the orthodox never feel at home in this life, for this reason they hold closer and closer to that iron rod, because in a world where the teachings of men would have you deny your faith for peace, the only security is the one thing that is constant. That constant thing framed eternity by faith, that thing law and the God who issued it.

The end result of orthodoxy is unity of individuals and minds, that is if each individual is striving to be orthodox in their observance and attitude concerning the Gospel they become brave mariners following the same star to the same shores. The result of cultural “hyphenated” mormonism is rudderless mariners, each calling out a different distant gleam to the course plotter, and each ship with those who might accept their directions, ending in broken crumpled heaps under the pressing weight of cold dark sea water.

There is nothing Mormon in this “cultural Mormonism” specifically because it denies the power of orthodoxy. It is a Mormonism of the world. The World, or the myopic, temporal view of the world that so many men cling to when they reject the gospel, has never been a positive in the eyes of God. Mormons recognize that the lord is very displeased with the world as a whole and has commanded his saints not to degrade themselves to its level, but to “overcome the world” (Doctrine and Covenants 64:2) and has stated through Joseph Smith “Now here is wisdom and the mind of the Lord….I give not unto you that ye shall live after the manner of the world”(Doctrine and Covenants 95:13). In short, the more worldly you become, the farther from God you get. Rejecting the prophets, while trying to secularize the name of the church is about as worldly as you can get. As Satan knows all too well, in order to destroy something or someone holy, you must make them of the world, the only place Satan has any authority over those who allow it to him.

Their version of faith allows them the feel-good-ism of belief, but does not require anything of them otherwise, unlike those who came before us who died for orthodoxy. It is religious cowardice. If cultural Mormonism, is molded to fit the world, and allows for all the worlds trends and ways within it, then it is not Mormonism, it is the world wrapped in beguiling religious themes. Such is the faith 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 simple fact that these subgroups exist shows a lack of unity on behalf of those who have deemed themselves ”Hyphenated Mormons” and God has stated: " 'I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one, ye are not mine' (Doctrine and Covenants 38:27)." The doctrines of the church represent the Orthodoxy established by God. The laws of the church represent the Laws God himself had to keep and keeps still to reign in justice. One cannot reject these laws openly or in their heat without immediately rebelling against God. The author of the blog is correct in saying here have always been Mormons who dissent from the official Church platform. Yet he misses the fact that dissent from religion is not like dissent from party politics, when you reject the doctrine of religion, you reject the God from whom those doctrines emanate. Thus divorcing you from him and removing yourself from that unity God requires of his people.

So in the end, you may reject the doctrine of the church, you may deny the authority of those whom Orthodox Mormons look to as seers and revelators, and you may call yourself a Mormon. That is fine; this is a fallen world after all. But by doing so you are not a Latter-day Saint of God, in fact you don’t even attempt to be, and there is your downfall.

The 21st Century Digital Boys...

2010-10-13T08:41:00.000-07:00

As my generation comes to grip with our third decade of existence, it is impossible for us to avoid the realization that we are a generation, raised in luxury that borders the opulent. Even the poor among us possess amenities that were the far distant dreams of Phillip K Dick and Isaac Asimov. The standard of living in our generation has delivered success to every man who was willing to apply himself and struggle for his goals. We have seen the other side of the coin as well, that is that men who feel entitled to status or success, and refuse to labor and struggle fail. Their belief in their social entitlements leads them to blame their failings on the success of others. All this when a staple point of our of media is heartwarming drivel applauding true accounts of men and women who rose to prominence from destitute social origins.

As a generation we have never sacrificed anything. As a whole have we ever suffered for want or need? No. as children we never felt the pinch of Carters ineptitude, we never had to stand in lines for fuel rationings, and we have never been drafted to fight vicious wars overseas, though many of our dear friends and classmates used their agency and chose that sacrifice so others didn’t have to.

We were children when the Berlin wall fell and after that event there reality of the crushing hand of Socialism and Communism was washed from our social tablet.

Ever since the day God Commanded Adam to win his bread by the sweat of his brow (Gen 3:19) there have been men who sought to break that commandment and find an easier way. In every following generation there have been utopians seeking to save men from the “despotism of want and need”. They have taught that true freedom is freedom from struggle, toil and ache. F.A Hayek says it best:

“the word "freedom" was subjected to a subtle change in meaning. The word had formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men, release from the ties which left the individual no choice buy obedience to the orders of a superior.. The new freedom promised, however, was to be freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us… Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth.” ( The Road to Serfdom, The Great Utopia).

Every Utopian scheme to free people from the needs and struggles of life has failed. Some petered out like so many utopian settlements of the early American days, others roared to a blazing failure at the expense of millions of lives and untold billions in nations laid waste. The Promise that precedes the fall is that if the individual will only concede that it is the leader’s job to level the playing field, to ensure that the risk of life’s struggle and toil is evenly divided, that concession of your responsibility will result in greater prosperity for all.

As young Americans it is difficult for us to believe that there are men who aim to destroy the freedoms and rights of their peers because we have never dealt with them, neither have our parents and our grandparents defeated them over 60 years ago.

Obama's love affair with Abortion and the 1 billion dollar death industry.

2010-10-13T08:38:00.000-07:00

Much has been said about the perceived pro's and con's of the last 18 months with President Barack . Some claim he has been a national nightmare bringing consequences we have yet to realize. Other argue that he is doing the best he can with what he had when he took office. No matter what your views on the debt or the war, or the oil spill, there is one area in which 's agenda has been honed, effective and entirely consistent, Abortion. That one onerous subject that Elder Nelson has dubbed the “assault on the defenseless” . Today Obama O.K.'d the first taxpayer funded abortions under healthcare, essentially using money earned by citizens of this country to fund the destruction of others.

In April 2007, then candidate appeared before the body of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and praised their work on behalf of women, families and men “who have sense enough to know you are helping them”. During the course of this speech the President denounced measures taken to ban abortion as hostile to a “woman's right to choose”, all the while all but forgetting that each child is part of its father, but the paternal right to their children is never associated for the eugenic minded. 's summed up his support for abortion by saying:“ Its time for a different attitude in the white house. It is time for a different attitude in the Supreme Court. It is time to turn the page and write a new chapter in American history...So, you know where I stand. But this more is than just about standing our ground. It must be about more than protecting the gains of the past...This election is not just about playing defense, it’s also about playing offense. It’s not just about defending what is, it’s about creating what might be in this country. And that’s what we’ve got to work together on...There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield.”

Before we continue, we must take a look at the real motive of this “fundamental issue” and organization that the president so willing allied himself with. In 2009 Abby Johnson, a clinic director of Planned Parenthood left her position after viewing 13 week old unborn child in an ultrasound "trying to get away" as its life was being taken at a planned parenthood clinic. Johnson states: "I saw the probe going into the woman's uterus. And at that moment, I saw the baby moving and trying to get away from the probe. ... And I thought, 'It's fighting for its life.' And I thought, 'It's life, I mean, it's alive.”

After her exit from PPH Johnson confirmed that the real money for PPH clinics is in taking life for a fee: “there are definitely client goals," she said. "We'd have a goal every month for abortion clients and for family planning clients...Abortion is the most lucrative part of Planned Parenthood's operations," she said. "Even though they're two separate corporations, all of the money goes into one pot. With the family planning corporation really suffering, they depend on the abortion corporation to balance their budget, help get them out of the hole and help make income for the company...They really wanted to increase the number of abortions so that they could increase their income,"

The numbers released in PPH's own annual reports both confirm Johnson's story and provide a horrifying look into the numbers of life's being taken for gain. In 2000 PPH performed 197,070 abortion and provided a paltry 2,486 adoption referrals. The ratio of lives taken to adoptions placed is over 79 to 1. By 2007-08 ( the most recent numbers) PPH had upped the numbers of lives taken to 305,310 with 4,912 adoptions placed. The death vs life ration dropped to roughly 62 to 1, but the profit margin skyrocketed from $672 million total with $38.9 million in profit during 2000 as compared to $1.038 Billion with a $85 Million in profits in 2007-08.

The number 305,310 breaks down to roughly: 5871.3 abortions a week, 836.46 a day and 34.82 an hour. 34 unique individuals an hour are terminated by this organization for a convenient and affordable “$350–$900 in the first trimester”

This is the business the president so openly supports. His actions in office has made the business better and the number of abortions to rise, after all he did promise not to yield and he has not.

In January 23, 2009 the President overturned the Mexico City Policy, first enacted by Reagan, this policy protected taxpayer funds from being sent to overseas abortion providers. The presidents executive order makes non-governmental groups that do abortions in other nations or lobby pro-life countries to overturn their abortion limits eligible for public taxpayer dollars.

Since the election nearly every major appointee to office has been pro-abortion, over 20 influential offices in all stacked with such men and women. These appointees include the former legal director of National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws or NARAL as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of the Legal Counsel.

Following the Mexico city policy pledged his support for funding more abortions on the international scale by re-funding the United Nations Population Fund: "I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund...By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries," By “resuming funding to UNFPA” means that US funds were withheld from UNPFA by the Bush Administration after a State Department investigation found the agency was working hand-in-hand with Chinese officials who instituted its one-child population control policy. Following the governmental investigation, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said he had no doubt that the UNFPA was complicit in the population control program. "I determined that UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population-planning activities allowed the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion” (lifenews.com June 23, 2005)

Nearly 60 days the executive order President announced $50 million for the UNFPA (the Bush Admin had witheld $34 million, added $16 million), the UN population agency.
's Fiscal Year 2010 budget also continues funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
The Admin has made it a point to circumvent opposition to funding UNFPA. For example there is a current law called Kemp-Kasten which states that no funds may be made available to any organization or program that “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.” The Reagan Administration, just after the law had been passed in 1985, determined that involvement by the UNFPA in China’s coercive population control program violated the Kemp-Kasten Amendment and subsequently disqualified the organization for a portion of its 1985 funding.

However, the administration reversed the Bush administration rulings that defunded UNFPA via Kemp-Kasten. On page 918, the budget deletes conditions on UNFPA funding if Kemp-Kasten is not applied. That makes it so millions of dollars of taxpayer funds will flow to the UNFPA without current reporting and accounting requirements.

Lastly during his speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in 2007, the president fielded a question about his plans for “universal” healthcare and planned parenthood future. The president stated: “I just want to expand on that second part of your question which is role that organizations like Planned Parenthood play. Obviously, my hope under a universal health care system is that everybody’s got access to basic care and we have less of a patchwork quilt of services. That—I still believe that it is important for organizations like Planned Parenthood to be part of that system”

The admin kept its word to PPH and in 2009 slipped a provision in H.R. 3200 ( the proposed America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 ) Title V, subtitle B which called School-Based Health Clinics, outlined a new federal program where the government would fund health clinics near or in the nation's public schools. However, Section 399Z indicates that school officials won't be responsible for administering the clinics. Instead, that responsibility falls to the clinic sponsor defined as “"a hospital, a public health department, a community health center, a nonprofit health care agency, (or) a local educational agency." Planned parenthood fits the latter descriptions perfectly.

In October 2009 the Baucus Bill, or the The Senate version of America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 attempted to lay the groundwork to make groups like PPH quasi-governmental. Section 1803, page 503, called for a National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Resource Center and states:
The Secretary shall award a grant to a nationally recognized, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that meets the requirements described in clause (ii) to establish and operate a national teen pregnancy prevention resource center (in this subparagraph referred to as the ‘Resource Center’) to carry out the purpose and activities described in clause (iii). (emphasis added)

According to the requirements found in clause (ii):
The organization has demonstrated experience working with and providing assistance to a broad range of individuals and entities to reduce teen pregnancy. The organization is research-based and has comprehensive knowledge and data about teen pregnancy prevention strategies.

Again, Planned Parenthood meets the requirements outlined. As was confirmed in In July 2009 when Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) admitted that Planned Parenthood would be designated an "essential community provider," which would put them in line to qualify for federal funding for abortions, and potentially, administration of school based health clinics. Speaking of the Amendment that bears her name, when pressed by Senator Hatch to explain the language used she stated: “It would include women's health clinics that provide comprehensive services and under the definition of a woman's clinic it would include Planned parenthood clinics” (Catholic News Agency Dec, 6, 2009)

President Elect Obama and the Freedom of Choice Act

2008-12-01T12:52:00.000-08:00

During the election process and now after the election of President elect Barack Obama most of his most devoted votaries were seemingly ignorant of, or didn’t care about his pledge to enact the Freedom of Choice Act. This act would open the flood gates to mass fetocide, the killing of a fetus in utero, otherwise known by the ambiguous term abortion.

The United States of America has aborted roughly 48,589,993 unique human beings since Roe Vs Wade in 1973 (now, I must say that there are rare instances where abortions are justified i.e. rape and incest). In 2005, 1.21 million unique fetuses were terminated[1] according to the Guttmacher Institute (named in honor of the former president of Planned Parenthood and vice-president of the American Eugenics Society) citizens of the United States terminate an average of 850,000 unique children a year, and Obama, our incoming President Elect supports this practice and hails its practitioners saying:
“Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all the work that you are doing for women all across the country and for families all across the country—and for men, who have enough sense to realize you are helping them, all across the country…There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield…Now the good news is that there has been a decline in the teen birth rate in part due to the outstanding work of Planned Parenthood.”

During the same event Obama was asked “what would you do at the federal level not only to ensure access to abortion but to make sure that the judicial nominees that you will inevitably be able to pick are true to the core tenets of Roe v. Wade?

Obama replied: “Well, the first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s t he first thing that I’d do. Um, but the, okay, but, but your question about the federal courts is absolutely on target…That’s why I think it’s important for us obviously to get not only a Democratic White House as well as a stronger Congress to protect these rights. But I also think it’s important to understand that there’s nothing wrong in voting against nominees who don’t appear to share a broader vision of what the Constitution is about.”[2]

So Obama will not yield on abortion and he praises Planned Parenthood for their dedication. He also will sign the Freedom of Choice Act and sees that it is proper to vote against justices that don’t agree with his point of view. Along with this let’s look at his cabinet appointment, the most pro-abortion cabinet in US history.

1 Gov. Janet Napolitano is to become his new head of the Department of Homeland Security. Cathi Herrod, president of The Center for Arizona Policy, told LifeNews.com that Napolitano constantly shows "her radical pro-abortion position…the Governor is establishing a track record of being one of the most pro-abortion governors this country has ever seen,” [3]

2 A member of his Department of Justice Review Team is Dawn Johnsen, a former Legal Director for NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) from 1988-1993

3 Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is Obama's choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Daschle has acted as a fundraiser for Naral, case and point his Oct, 29, 2002 letter to NARAL supports entitled HARD WORK BRINGS SUCCESS. In this letter Daschle states: “ Rarely has so much been at stake for a woman's right to choose in a U.S. Senate Election.... Anti-choice forces are organizing and mobilizing right now to defeat champions of reproductive rights… So, we must succeed in getting out the pro-choice vote in this and other key states where pro-choice leadership could be lost… As the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, I've stood up for a woman's right to choose, and the pro-choice leadership of the Senate has made a difference by safeguarding women's rights from the anti-choice agenda of the Bush administration. Please give to NARAL today, so NARAL can mobilize the resources to get out the pro-choice vote on Election Day.”

4 Joe Biden, his vice president shows the following history:

Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Yet he says he Accepts Catholic church view that life begins at conception. (Apr 2007)[4]

Naral supports Biden in a press statement saying: “Sen. Biden has consistently expressed support for a woman’s right to choose. While we have not agreed with him on every vote, we have a longstanding relationship with Sen. Biden that is open, positive, and constructive, and we are confident this will continue in a new administration under Sen. Obama’s pro-choice leadership. “Most notably, Sen. Biden has a strong record of opposing judicial nominees with hostile anti-choice records.” [5]

The Freedom of Choice act (FOCA) is legislative act sponsored by Obama secretary of state Hillary Clinton, senators Lieberman and Feinstein. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Secretariat calls the FOCA the most “Radical Abortion Legislation in US History”[6]

The Legislation states:

Sec 4 (a) STATEMENT OF POLICY- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) CIVIL ACTION- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

The Act defines the viability of the fetus to be “that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman," But As FOCA in its current uses the word “heath” 12 times but fails in every instance to define the term, thereby leaving the decision on the viability of the life of the baby, and the heath of the mother in the hands of the practitioner who is paid to perform the abortion.

The lie behind the FOCA is that its purpose is to codify Roe V. Wade. The bill itself sets forth the goal to “To prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman's right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes”

Accordingly FOCA identifies abortion as a “fundamental right”, however current case law a decision to have an abortion is not a fundamental right as it was under Roe. In 1992, seven justices rejected that view and concluded that the Court's earlier decisions under Roe had too severely and improperly restricted the states' power to regulate abortion. Planned Parenthood v. Casey[7]concluding that the Court's earlier decisions had gone "too far" and that "not all governmental intrusion [into abortion] is of necessity unwarranted");[8]”

Speaking of the “fundamental right” Chief Justice Rehnquist states: Roe decided that a woman had a fundamental right to an abortion. The joint opinion rejects that view. Roe decided that abortion regulations were to be subjected to "strict scrutiny" and could be justified only in the light of "compelling state interests." The joint opinion rejects that view.[9]”

According to the USCCB Office of General Counsel, “FOCA would nullify Casey or, more accurately, render it superfluous, not in the sense of creating new constitutional law (Congress, of course, cannot do), but by creating a statutory abortion right that goes beyond what Casey and even Roe require.”[10]

Government institution of Abortion under FOCA.

As we stand now abortion provider Planned Parenthood receives 336.7 million dollars from American tax payers and committed 289,750 abortions in 2007. Taxpayer funding of this abortion provider makes up 33% of its income.[11]

Under FOCA tax payer funding of abortion would increase as the legislation would make states that withhold funding from abortion providers, while supplying state funds to health care providers who reject abortion discriminatory, and there fore in violation of the Act. Section Four of the act states: “A government may not… discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

Discriminate, in legislative and legal terms means simply to treat differently. Therefore under the FOCA institutions, doctors and hospitals that offer services to encourage childbirth and neglect or refuse to be associated with abortion can be charged with discrimination. FOCA also provides that “An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.”

In other words if your health care provider does not provide fetocide procedures, you may use the law to force them or line your pockets with their money. The government will thereby make abortion national policy that all healthcare providers comply with under threat of cohersion.

FOCA effectively removes the states rights to control the elimination of pre-born children within the borders of their own states, makes it impossible for local officials to enact and enforce the will of the community and represents the willingness of the federal government to oppress the will of individuals, local communities and governments.

Obama, as a constitutional professor knows the 10^th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That is to say that anything not expressly granted to the Federal government is reserved for the States or the People.

The constitution makes no reference to Abortion, Health, reproductive rights or discrimination, therefore the power to over see such issues are in the hands of the people and their local representatives, not the federal government, Obama knows this…and is showing his willingness to abuse the power of the Government.

To end on a religious note, God will not continue to prosper a people that institutionalize the destruction of the most innocent of Gods creations as a national entitlement. 42 million killed since 1973… How much longer can the Lord withhold his just hand?

[1] http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html

[2] Barack Obama before Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007

[3] http://www.lifenews.com/state3657.html

[4] http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/joe_biden.htm

[5] Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, August 23, 2008

[6] http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=26b1a32b-5a26-43a4-8852-506b90e97768, also see http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/FOCA/index.shtml

[7] , 505 U.S. 833,873-87 (1992)

[8] id. @ 944

[9] Id @ 954

[10] USCCB Office of General Counsel, August 2008, http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/FOCA/index.shtml

[11] PPFA Annual Report 2006-07, http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report.htm

Our Founding Fathers stood against the Re-distribution of wealth, the theory which Obama and his followers espouse.

2008-10-29T10:10:00.000-07:00

Our Founding Fathers stood against the Re-distribution of wealth, the theory which Obama and his followers espouse.

Please See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/obamas_patriotic_tonic.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owA2geM8OGg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

The Founders lived under taxation that was used to support the power and might of England. They sacrificed that they might be free from oppression of the state, and so that we, their children many of us, might also be free.

In our day, Obama has said he wants to collectivize our wealth, in doing so, when the government has the power to take by force, to socialize what was American freedom, our liberty will die.

When the men are beholden to their government for their needs and their welfare they are not free, they are slaves.

Did the King of England have any more right to tax and take from our founding fathers? Did the King with his “divine right” have any more right than a socialist “king” with a mandate from his party? No, no man or government has the right to take from another what is his, a man is free to give, but no man has the right, and no King or government has the righteous power to take, to steal from the people.

The government that takes from its people to support and grow its control and power over them is a tyranny, and in time any government that feels is has a right to the people’s money will use force to get it.

Our government is one of FREEDOM from the oppressive hand of the state; here are the words of our founding fathers:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.” — James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,” — James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia, 1984).

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” — James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” — Benjamin Franklin

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” — Benjamin Franklin

“These quotes and others make it clear that those who promote “redistribution of wealth” (OBAMA) as a task for the government run against the very basic principles underlying the United States of America. This is no detail.

What is really surprising is that many of the champions of socialism live in prosperity because of capitalism and because of the fruits of other people’s work and the strength of the ideals of the Founding Fathers and their counterparts in other lucky places. Nevertheless, they are not repelled by using their own prosperity as an argument against freedom and capitalism.

Are the principles of America guaranteed to exist forever, even if the people and the circumstances are against them? Let me end up with two not quite optimistic quotes”:

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” — John Adams

“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” — John Adams

I will not have my freedoms taken by men who are my peers. I stand with the founding fathers. I stand against the potential abuses of government as outlined by Barak Obama. And I Promise I will do all I can to keep my freedoms and my raise my children free from the thumb of a King, or anything like unto it.

NO TRUE AMERICAN, ONE WHO UNDERSTOOD THE FRAGILE NATURE OF FREEDOM, CAN OR WOULD WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE MOVE TO INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF HIS NEIGHBORS EVEN IN THE SLIGHTEST MEASURE, TO DO SO IS TO MOVE TOWARD TYRANNY AND THE END OF MEANINGFUL FREEDOMS.

Have we forgotten that “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson

LDS CHURCH, Prohibition, Socialism and Gay Marriage

2008-10-26T17:12:00.001-07:00

Over the last few weeks I have heard many of my peers lamenting the Churches involvement in the proposition 8 movement. Their claim is always the same, they say the church should not be involved in politics and that it doesn’t not affect them if the Government supports gay marriage, it’s a political issue.

This argument however is temporally minded and narrow. This mode of thought assumes that there is separation between the spheres of temporal action and affair and spiritual action and affairs when the opposite is true, our temporal choices and associations dictate eternal ramifications. Elder Ivins, speaking to the church stated that a mans politics is the reflection or the outgrowth of his religion: “I heard a man say, the other day, that his politics had nothing to do with his religion. I can think of no obligation resting upon me which is more sacred or nearer a religious duty, than that I see to it, so far as my influence, so far as my voice and my vote may go, that this civil government which we love, which we maintain, be administered by righteous men. To that extent it is my religion, and I don't want to be muzzled in saying so.” (Elder Anthony W. Ivins, Oct conference 1908)

Our politics is a reflection of our devotion to the Lord. We look to the prophet for guidance, why do so many stand against the church when it speaks out on social issues? When has the church ever been silent on social issues? The answer is never.

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)

“The remark has been made that whispering is being indulged in to some extent by some of the people to the effect, that the authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not want prohibition, and I think I am in a position to say, that the authorities of the Church, the Presidency, and the Council of the Twelve, stand for temperance, and they do want such prohibition. Those who declare to the contrary, when they come to you, tell them that they speak that which is not true. And I think I know what I am talking about.” (Elder Joseph F Smith, General Conference, April 1915)

The above conference excerpts are pretty blatant, not to mention openly political. Surely there were those so liberally minded to argue, “ if people wish to drink, its their choice, the government should not oppress those who are inclined to drink.” Or they would say “this forces those who drank underground, making them second class citizens, not able to express their love of fine drinks with their peers for fear of being rejected.”

The Churches purpose in supporting and promoting prohibition was to show that it was firm in following the Word of Wisdom and following the Lord command to keep our bodies and our communities pure. A people who aim for Zion can never achieve such a lofty goal if the people support and even cultivate vice in their mists.

Now, do we argue with the prophets, do we disregard their counsel because it varies with our view of things? or do we consider that maybe they see something we don’t and put faith in their direction despite the societal climate?

Prohibition was a moral issue, just like marriage, and the church supported it in full.

Another political issue the church was deeply involved in was stanch opposition to socialism in the United States and around the world. The opposition to socialism was deeply political and divisive. Many Latter-day Saints, again, argued that the church needed to stay out of the issue, that men should not be judged by their political leaning. That the lord would not condemn then for supporting the Equality that is levied out by the state as represented in socialism.

(Many Latter-day Saints today consider themselves socialist…obviously they either don’t care or they have stepped away from the follow the prophet motto, in any case keep reading)

Other members stayed neutral under the assumption that the changes in society that socialism wrought would not affect them, and that the issue was not truly important to religion.

Now this is upsetting to my Liberal Mormon friends but Ezra Taft Benson went as far as to say: “No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction. These evil philosophies are incompatible with Mormonism, the true gospel of Jesus Christ….. (General Conference, October 1961)

Benson further states: Up to now some members of the Church have stood aloof, feeling that the fight against socialistic-communism is "controversial" and unrelated to the mission of the Church or the work of the Lord. But the President of the Church in our day has made it clear that the fight against atheistic communism is a major challenge to the Church and every member in it…(Ibid)

…During the general conference of the Church in October 1959, President David O. McKay, in discussing the threat of communism, referred to W. Cleon Skousen's book, The Naked Communist, and said, "I admonish everybody to read that excellent book."(Ibid)

The stance in opposition to this, often very emotionally appealing, political theory alienated many members who felt to align themselves with the more leftist leaning in the communities. But the fact that many members felt slighted by the churches political stance didn’t and doesn’t matter…and why should it?

The church is eternal and governed by revelation with and eternal perspective. When the prophet speaks and takes a stance we need to listen, in the words of elder Benson: “Brethren and sisters, we don't need a prophet—we have one—we need a listening ear. And if we do not listen and heed, then, as the Doctrine and Covenants states, " . . . the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people." (ibid, D&C 1:14.)

Some may say I’m not socialist, but I’m a liberal mormon, to you Elder John Widstoe said the following: “In the United States, communists, Nazis, or fascists would probably insist that they are liberals… they are apostates from a cause, engaged in building their own cause under false colors, whether in the state or the Church. They are often without basic convictions, rudderless mariners, victims of every passing wave. Such men, whatever they may call themselves, are dangerous to human happiness… Their chief pastime is to sow the seeds of anarchy in the hearts of others… Proponents of a liberal religion are probably not certain of the foundations of their own faith and characterize their distrust by the world liberal.”(Elder John A. Widstoe October 1941, Improvement Era)

In the 1970’s and early 1980’s the church came out in strong opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, a stance that cause many prominent Mormon ”intellectuals” and Liberals to leave the church in protest.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which is intended to guarantee equal rights under the law regardless of the sex of and individual. Sounds like a noble cause, so why did the church oppose it?

In answer to repeated questions about its opposition to the ERA the Church said: Court and administrative interpretations of the ERA could endanger time-honored moral values by challenging laws that have safeguarded the family and afforded women necessary protections and exemptions…

Any reasonable chance for reversing the accelerating trend of courts to grant abortion on demand would probably be eliminated. It could affect issues that have yet to be decided, such as whether parents of minors must be notified and whether government funds will be involved…

Constitutional authorities indicate that passage of the ERA could extend legal protection to same-sex lesbian and homosexual marriages, giving legal sanction to the rearing of children in such homes… (The Church and the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: A Moral Issue, Ensign, Mar 1980, insert: 1)

Much of the churches opposition to the ERA is identical to their reasons for supporting Proposition 8 in California. Says the Church:

Our Creator has especially suited fathers and mothers, through physical and emotional differences, to fulfill their own particular parental responsibilities. Legislation that could blur those roles gives cause for concern… Churches have a responsibility and a right to speak out on moral issues. The Constitution neither states nor implies that churches shall not involve themselves in moral issues pertaining to government, only that government shall not establish a religion or prohibit the exercise of religion and free speech… The First Presidency has repeatedly encouraged Church members, in the exercise of their constitutional right as citizens, to make their influence felt in opposition to the proposed amendment…” (Ibid)

In reflecting on this we see that the church always takes stands on moral issues. There is nothing new in the churches opposition to Gay Marriage, in fact, the church and its prophet, as endowed representatives of the living God are under obligation to testify truth to the world… its just amazing how many Latter-day Saints reject their counsel in favor of temporal attitudes.

The First Presidency, and by extension the Lord says: “The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage” (Letter of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008)

And as representatives of the Lord, they have asked the Latter-day Saints to act: “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” (Ibid)

Above I mentioned President McKay telling the saints to read the Naked Communist, a text which chronicled the rise, threat and future of socialism and communism. It is important to note that one of the goals of Communism as outlined in this book the prophet supported in Conference was the following:

Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them censorship and a violation of free speech and free press.
Break down all cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
And Finally to Present homosexuality, degenerates and promiscuity as normal natural and healthy. (W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Communist, P 261, 11th edition 1962)

These are all goals those on the leftist leaders (many, many republican leaders) support and promote. How sad is it that even though the prophets have addresses this issue, many of us actively resists their counsel for the sake of political fashion and emotional appeal? All of things McKay warned us of have happened…now some are set to see the last goal happen…in the name of equality, despite being warned.

So, to my friends who stand against the Lord and either support proposition 8 saying: “I don't feel like God is going to condemn me for supporting equality” or those in selfish apathy chose to do nothing. It seems that the Lord has made his will know to us through his Prophets by telling us “Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage”.

This is not an issue of how two individuals feel, its not about desires or equality. In the end our moral responsibility is to see to it that we follow the guidance of the Lord. In following we need to see to it that his children who have yet to come to life have the blessings of entering homes that mirror, as closely as possible, that eternal standard God himself has established.

If we stand against this counsel, or do nothing, is that not rejection of the Lord? Is that not apostasy?

An open Letter to My friends and family

2008-10-20T08:53:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends and Family,

As we approach the close of this election season there are many issues that should be weighed not as political issues, but as spiritual issues of eternal importance.

The issue of marriage is inseparably connected with religion; this is because God has instituted marriage as the means of providing life and proper rearing of children, which is the promotion of life.

My concern is Senator Barak Obama’s vow to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) .
The Defense of Marriage Act (H.R.3396) simply states that states do not have to recognize the legitimacy of same sex marriage, even if homosexual union are recognized on other states: “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”
The act also states that marriage is between men and women only: “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Obama, in all of his interviews in homosexual press sources emphasizes his desire to repeal this act saying: “Senator Biden and I have long committed ourselves to supporting fundamental civil rights for all. In addition to the issues you mentioned, I also support full repeal of DOMA to provide equal federal rights and benefits to LGBT couples.”(WashingtonBlade.com, “Obama pledges ‘equality for all’ Vows to fight for full federal recognition of couples in civil unions, domestic partnerships” By WILLIAM R. KAPFER Sep 10, 2008)

From the same interview Obama is asked:

Washington Blade: You have called for the full repeal of DOMA. If elected president, will you introduce legislation calling for its repeal during your first year in office?

Obama: I have long been on record opposing DOMA, and an Obama-Biden administration will
work hard to ensure that we can pass a repeal of that law as soon as possible.

If DOMA is repealed, the result forces all states to recognize same-sex marriages passed by just a few states (not to mention gay couples will sue in mass for state recognition) and thereby Obama will legalize homosexual marriage in the United States.

The scriptural record as we have it makes it clear that our situation is not new. The issue of marriage is not unique to our 21st century hubris. The Book of Ecclesiastes gives us a wonderful passage to understand our current situation. “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any whereof it may be said, see this is new? It has been of old time, which was before us.”( Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)

Our biblical tradition tells of a people like us, who when given to choose between honoring Marriage or accepting a counterfeit, chose to go with those choices that supported the counterfeit. This choice took place before Noah.

Our day is not unlike the time preceding the great destruction of the flood. Our day, in fact, is a carbon copy of those times as the Lord has told us: “as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be at the coming of the son of man” this passage from the Savior found in Luke 17:26 and Matt 24:37 is my concern, and the foundation of my letter to you.

But are we indeed like the times of Noah? The bible doesn’t tell us much about that generation, how ever two biblical sources do. First the Book of Enoch, quoted as scripture as Jude and 2nd peter and The book of Jasher referenced in Joshua and 2nd Samuel. Both of these text give us some insight into the time of Noah.

Starting with 1 Enoch (apocryphal); once man had adorned themselves with gold and jewelry: “there arose much Godlessness, and they committed fornication and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways.” (1 Enoch 8:2-3) Their loose morals served only to engender the wrath of the Lord who tells Enoch: “So the judgment will come upon them because they believe in the debauchery of their bodies and deny the spirit of the Lord” (1 Enoch 67:10-11, Charlesworth translation, also Gen 6:7)

We also are told that the practice of homosexuality in that time was rather extravagant as Enoch describers “Men dressing like women and women like men” (The Chester Beatty Papyrus 91:1) Men had become so vain and confused that they: “put on more jewelry than women and more multicolored ornaments than a virgin” (Charlesworth 1 Enoch 98:2)

Speaking to Enoch the Lord laments the extent of the homosexual activity saying: “they have rejected my commandments and my yoke, worthless seed has come up not fearing God…and have laden the whole earth with untruths, offences, abominable lecheries, namely one with another and all manner of unclean wickedness which are disgusting to relate” (2nd Enoch 34:1-2)

Another alarming aspect of the Anti-Deluvian wickedness that directly ties them to our day are the multiple traditional accounts that describe them practicing abortion.

Professor James H. Charlesworth’s translation of Enoch records that a fallen angel taught mankind “the smashing of the embryo so that it may be crushed” (Enoch 69:12) while the R.H. Charles translation reads “the smiting of the embryo in the womb that is may pass away”

The same situation is played out in the book of Jasher which tells us: “For in those days the sons of men began to trespass which had been commanded to Adam to be fruitful and multiply in the earth. And some of the sons of men caused their wives to drink a draught that would render them barren, in order that they may retain their figures and whereby their beautiful appearance might not fade.” (Jasher 2:19-20)

Enoch himself draws the correlation between our time and his as he prophesies: “And in those days, they (the women) shall become pregnant, but they (the sinners) will come out and abort their infants and cast them out from their mists; they shall also abandon their other children, casting their infants out while they are still suckling. They shall neither return to them (their babes) nor have compassion upon their loved ones” (Charlesworth 1 Enoch 99:5)

On this matter too, Obama is the Abortion Candidate, once stating that if his daughters “made a mistake”, that is knowingly and with forethought engaged in sexual intercourse, the only means by which children are produced, he did not “ want them punished with a baby," (March 30 2008 At a town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pennsylvania)

Obama has set himself on the side of those who extinguish the most innocent of lives for the continued perceived convince of others.

According to the catholic news agency; “In the July 17, 2008 speech, Obama attacked the Supreme Court decision that upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban and the nomination of Supreme Court justices who favor overturning Roe v. Wade. In the speech the senator said, "There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield.” (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11918)

Remember Planned parenthood killed a record 289,650 preborn babies at Planned Parenthood clinics in fiscal year 2006-07, an increase of nearly 25,000 from 2005-06. For these killings Planned Parenthood received $336 million in taxpayer money last year. (http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007070.cfm)

Obama also stated (granted he is also referencing Planned Parenthoods dispensing of contraceptives and Kinsey based counseling) “Now the good news is that there has been a decline in the teen birth rate, in part due to the outstanding work of Planned Parenthood. But we all know that we can do more… It’s amazing how many women tell me the stories of how important it was for Planned Parenthood to provide them services when they were in college and they did not have the health insurance or the access to a regular doctor that they needed. To be able to have somebody they could trust to deal with so many of their basic and essential health issues.” (Barack Obama before Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007)

Obama was asked by an audience member about how Planned Parenthood fit into his administration plans and Obama replied: “Now, I know I’m limited on time but I just want to expand on that second part of your question which is role that organizations like Planned Parenthood play. Obviously, my hope under a universal health care system is that everybody’s got access to basic care and we have less of a patchwork quilt of services. That—I still believe that it is important for organizations like Planned Parenthood to be part of that system. (ibid)

He then promised socialistic health care to the audience “But, in the meantime, what I’ve said is that I believe we can have universal health care in this country by the end of the next president’s first term. By the end of my first term as president [applause] of the United States of America.” (ibid)

Obama was then asked: “what would you do at the federal level not only to ensure access to abortion but to make sure that the judicial nominees that you will inevitably be able to pick are true to the core tenets of Roe v. Wade?”

To which he replied: “Well, the first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. [Applause.] That’s the first thing that I’d do.” (ibid)

These issues are not political, they are spiritual. They are issues that reflect our respect for that which God has created. These are the issues at the core of society; these are the things the Lord will question us on at our judgment. Did we practice faith in him and uphold that which he delivered to us in his Word? Or did we fear man more then we feared him? Did we look the other way on the degrading of the family because we were caught up in the thrall of the political joust?

Politicians come and go, and we can rationalize to ourselves, but I know the Lord will hold us all accountable for who we chose to align ourselves with and who we give our time, our allegiance and our vote to.

The Children of the Lord deserve to be born into and raised in homes that mirror the model laid down by that being that created them. Man, being the creation, the offspring of the Lord, his children, cannot by their own will alter the foundations of the Lords house and not expect to be held accountable for their action or inaction. That is man cannot alter that which he did not create, and man cannot kill that life which is not their to kill for they, of their own power did not create life, it is not theirs, it is a unique child.

The Lord cannot be fooled…I pray that we will not be either.

Your Friend

James B Smith.
Miloap@hotmail.com

Obama's letter opposeing Prop 8,and his interviews in the Advocate

2008-10-20T08:26:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends, below the intoductory article you will find a copy of a letter witten by Obama in opposition to propisition 8. the source for the letter is his campaign website for LGBT issues.
Obama is dead set against protecting marriage, which means he also against history and Gods Plan of Salvation and Family.

Obama opposes proposed ban on gay marriage
San Francisco Chronicle, John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/01/MN8J11I731.DTL&type=politics

(07-01) 19:35 PDT -- Gay rights moved to the forefront of the presidential campaign Tuesday after Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's announcement that he opposes a November ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage in California.

In a letter to San Francisco's Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club, the presumptive presidential nominee said he opposed "the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution" and similar efforts in other states.
Obama's position on Proposition 8 was announced at a club event Sunday.

… On Tuesday, Obama spokeswoman Shannon Gilson released this statement:
"Senator Obama supports civil unions, and he has consistently opposed federal and state constitutional marriage amendments because as we have seen in some states, enshrining a definition of marriage into the constitution can allow states to roll back the civil rights and benefits that are provided in domestic partnerships and civil unions."

But civil unions, gay activists argue, aren't the same as marriage, and they say his earlier stance would put Obama on the wrong side of what's increasingly seen as a civil rights issue.

… Groups opposing Prop. 8, which would amend the state Constitution to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," were excited to have Obama on their side and more than willing to overlook his mixed record on the same-sex marriage issue.

But Prop. 8 supporters accused Obama of trying to have it both ways by coming out publicly against same-sex marriage, but opposing any efforts to ban those unions.

"His position makes very little sense," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, California. "If he's opposed (to same-sex marriage), he should just say so. Instead, he's trying to appease the wealthy elite who support gay marriage."

Obama's letter opposing same-sex marriage ban
The text of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club in San Francisco:
Dear Friends,
Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage ct and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S.
Constitution or those of other states.

For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans. Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama

April 10, 2008
Obama Talks All Things LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transexual) With The Advocate
By Kerry Eleveld
Advocate.com

The Advocate: Let’s start with what’s hot -- why the silence on gay issues? You’ve done only one other interview with the LGBT press. I know people wish they were hearing more from you.

Obama: I don’t think it’s fair to say "silence" on gay issues. The gay press may feel like
I’m not giving them enough love. But basically, all press feels that way at all times…But I haven’t been silent on gay issues. What’s happened is, I speak oftentimes to gay issues to a public general audience…So I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history.

Advocate: Do you think it’s possible to get full repeal of DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act)? As you know, Senator Clinton is only looking at repealing the plank of DOMA that prohibits the federal government from recognizing state-sanctioned unions.

Obama: I don’t know. But my commitment is to try to make sure that we are moving in the direction of full equality, and I think the federal government historically has led on civil rights -- I’d like to see us lead here too.

Advocate: Both you and your wife speak eloquently about being told to wait your turn and how if you had done that, you might not have gone to law school or run for Senate or even president. To some extent, isn’t that what you’re asking same-sex couples to do by favoring civil unions over marriage -- to wait their turn?

Obama: I don’t ask them that. Anybody who’s been at an LGBT event with me can testify that my message is very explicit -- I don’t think that the gay and lesbian community, the LGBT community, should take its cues from me or some political leader in terms of what they think is right for them. It’s not my place to tell the LGBT community, "Wait your turn."… So I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn’t be equal because there’s a stigma associated with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it.

Obama:…As I said, I think the LGBT community has every right to push for what it thinks is right. And I think that it’s absolutely fair to ask me for leadership, and my argument would be that I’m ahead of the curve on these issues compared to 99% of most elected officials around the country on this issue. So I think I’ve shown leadership.

Advocate: What event or person has most affected your perceptions of or relationship to the LGBT community?

Obama: …I actually had a professor at Occidental…Lawrence Goldyn, I think it was. He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time, but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.

Advocate: Did you have a chance to ask him about being gay?

Obama: I’m sure we did, but as I said, he was really comfortable in his own skin, and the relationship was a strong friendship and I never felt as if I had to get over any mental hurdles to be close to him or to learn from him. He’s probably somebody who had a strong influence

Excerpts from Washington Blade interview with Obama entitled:
“Obama pledges ‘equality for all’ Vows to fight for full federal recognition of couples in civil unions, domestic partnerships”
By WILLIAM R. KAPFER Sep 10, 2008

Blade: Would you decline to nominate a qualified Supreme Court justice or cabinet member who had a history of anti-gay rulings?

Obama: I would have to consider the totality of the candidate’s record and qualifications.
However, I think someone who has an established record of failing to support equal opportunities for all Americans would not fare well in an Obama-Biden administration.
Obama: … Senator Biden and I have long committed ourselves to supporting fundamental civil rights for all. In addition to the issues you mentioned, I also support full repeal of DOMA to provide equal federal rights and benefits to LGBT couples.
America must live up to our founding principle of equality for all, and it’s wrong to have millions of LGBT Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation.

… If I am honored to serve as your President, I will continue to do what I’ve done throughout my career and in this campaign: speak out on behalf of the cause for equal justice and opportunity for LGBT Americans.

Blade: You have called for the full repeal of DOMA. If elected president, will you introduce legislation calling for its repeal during your first year in office?

Obama: I have long been on record opposing DOMA, and an Obama-Biden administration will work hard to ensure that we can pass a repeal of that law as soon as possible.

Blade: Do you think repeal of all of DOMA would, in fact, prompt Congress to strongly consider and possibly pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage?

Obama: Again, I think this issue ties in to who controls Congress. And a Democratic Congress that enacts a repeal of DOMA would not be likely to pass a Constitutional ban on gay marriage — partly because our party rejects enshrining discrimination and divisive distinctions among citizens into our founding documents.

Blade: If DOMA is repealed fully or in part, the federal government most likely still could not recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships performed by states. Would you ask Congress to pass federal enabling legislation that would require the federal government to recognize civil unions and/or domestic partnerships performed by states so that same-sex couples joined in civil unions or domestic partnerships could obtain the same federal rights and benefits of marriage that you have called for?

Obama: I support the notion that all people — gay or straight — deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to heterosexual married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else.

If elected, I would call on Congress to enact legislation that would repeal DOMA and ensure that the over 1,100 federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally recognized unions.

As I have said before, I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all — a promise that certainly extends to the LGBT community. I do envision a time when we all enjoy that promise, but we have to work hard to get there. LGBT Americans deserve real change, and they deserve it now. Certainly as a nation we can all agree that discrimination has no place in our America. Same-sex couples face legal discrimination every day — that we can, and must, end — by repealing DOMA, providing federal rights and responsibilities to same-sex families, and supporting LGBT parents, to start. And we need to remember that it’s not just couples that need protection — we need to pass long overdue legislation that ends employment discrimination, enhances hate crimes protections, and repeals “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

OBAMA REFUSED TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

If the full repeal of DOMA forces all states to recognize same-sex marriages passed by just a few states, aren't you, in effect, supporting same-sex marriage in the United States? As a former law professor, do you believe the repeal of DOMA would force all states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Mass. and Calif. under the Constitution's full faith and credit clause?

How would you handle institutions such as the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army — which havebeen known to engage in discriminate against gays — to underscore your message?

Obama promised to repeal Defense of Marriage act

2008-10-20T08:20:00.000-07:00

"That Thou Shalt Not Covet Thine Own Property.” D&C 19:26

2008-08-04T09:34:00.000-07:00

that thou shalt not covet thine own property.” D&C 19:26

While driving from my office in Salt Lake City to my home in Utah county on Friday July 25 2008, I heard on the radio an offer for a truly remarkable deal. The deal, which was for a limited time was for two whole acres of land in scenic Mapleton Utah for the bargain price of $300,000 dollars. I laughed and thought to myself; we are a sick, sick people, we have priced the land God owns right out of the hands of those who need it most.

We as a people do not use the land the lord has allowed us to dwell upon for its rightful use. In all actuality our love of the dollar has lead us to neglect the resource the lord has placed in our stewardship. What we do with the land we have been blessed with is actually quite ugly and disgraceful, that is we buy it up in mass, subdivide it, pave it over, and turn it for as much profit as possible. Thus making the land unprofitable to anyone! 100 acres, properly used, can loosen the financial burden of food for dozens of families, but we, as a people, driven by our wealth worship, prefer to flip the property for “starter houses” and “Affordable Luxury” starting in the low $200,000’s.

To till the earth is one of the purposes of man according to Moses 3.5, 4.29, 51. Moreover the Book of Jubilees (abt. 161-50 BC) teaches that while in the Garden of Eden the Lord sent angels to instruct Adam on the arts of cultivating the earth. Those very things the word of wisdom informs us we should feed ourselves (grains ect) can only come through proper cultivation and care of the land.

Having a Food Storage is not the Same as being self sufficient

As it stands now most Christians in our culture have all but forsaken the blessings of the earth in lieu of 1/8 acre luxury homes and unlimited convenience. We have been warned of the future, anybody who has studies the writings of the modern prophets know just how cataclysmic the end times will be, and that when the lord raises his hand to cleanse his creation all the iphones and technology we worship will be of no avail ( see the John Taylor vision, diary of Wilford woodruff April 15, 1878, also see CWHN 17:86).

When the hand of the Lord comes down, those who live in quick buck subdivisions will be unable to sustain themselves beyond their food storage, and in time will be dependant on others, if not the Bishops Storehouses. However, those people, both Mormon and non Mormon alike, who wisely use the land will have room for crops and animals which can them be used to provide for their families.

We may have our food storage, but food storage is not the same as being self sufficient. We as a people are completely dependant on super markets for all our needs, and when the times go bad, many will be completely dependant on the storehouses. The Lord gave us the Land to bless our lives. We should utilize ALL WE CAN to its fullest effect.

We should use the land properly, that is to provided for our needs, not pave it over for quick, subdivisions. Yet this lust for money over anything else is nothing new for the church. For example President Brigham Young addressed the problems of business minded saints with the following: “I will refer to our merchants, I mean our Mormon merchants particularly. What do they say about their goods? They do not ask what their goods are worth, or what they paid for them, but what people will give for them? That is the price. It is not what their goods are really worth, but how many greenbacks will it take to buy me another stock of goods. It will take a good many. What their goods are worth is not a question with them, but what they can get. They will get sorrow- the most of them will be damned, there is no doubt of it, unless they repent.”[1]

The placing of temporal excess over priesthood and Church duties has been a cause of much heartache and sorrow in the Church. This has been the case since the inception of the Church for Joseph Smith observed: “The spirit of speculation in the lands and property of all kinds, which was so prevalent throughout the whole nation, was taking deep root in the Church. As the fruits of this spirit, evil surmising, fault finding, disunion, dissension and apostasy followed in quick succession.”[2]

And just a few years later Wilford Woodruff observed: “Many of the leading brethren had given their time and talent to speculation and were absorbed in schemes detrimental to their religious standing, quite contrary to the counsel of the Prophet…Their Financial speculations brought on a spirit of self sufficiency, and that spirit made them wise on their own conceit …Such wisdom was undermining their integrity to the Church.”[3] Is it not telling that our world compels us to become financially self sufficient yet to elder Woodruff this sense of self sufficiency corrupted leading brethren?

This trend did not subside as the persecutions followed the saints for after leaving Kirkland, Heber C. Kimball returned and found: “Trade and traffic seemed to engross the time and attention of the Saints. When we left Kirkland, a city lot was worth about $150; but on our return, to our astonishment, the same lot was said to be worth from $500 to $1000…in fact everything in the place seemed to be moving in great prosperity and all seemed determined to become rich……I had many days of sorrow and mourning, for my heart was sickened to see the awful extent that things were getting to…The Ohio mobbing, the Missouri persecutions, the martyrdom, the exodus, nor all that Zion’s cause has suffered since, have imperiled it half so much as when mammon and the love of God strove for supremacy in the hearts of his people”[4]

Our world loves the well to do, we admire Donald Trump and we emulate the entrepreneur who reaps wealth in his youth. We buy books on living in “wealth Cycles” to learn principles of prosperity and we invest in books that show us the LDS ways of building wealth because those who have money must know something we don’t. But once again the gospel turns the table on temporal things as John Taylor points out that “Money is not to be compared with intelligence.”[5]

The prophets are constantly critical of the pursuit of excess, here are several examples:
"The Latter-day Saints, in their conduct and acts with regard to financial matters, are like the rest of the world. The course pursued by men of business in the world has a tendency to make a few rich, and to sink the masses of the people in poverty and degradation. Too many of the Elders of Israel take this course. No matter what comes they are for gain—for gathering around them riches; and when they get rich, how are those riches used? Spent on the lusts of the flesh." [6]

"Instead of reflecting upon and searching for hidden things of the greatest value to them, [the Latter-day Saints] rather wish to learn how to secure their way through this world as easily and as comfortably as possible. The reflections, what they are here for, who produced them, and where they are from, far too seldom enter their minds."[7]

"I am sorry that this people are worldly-minded. . . . Their affections are upon . . . their farms, upon their property, their houses and possessions, and in the same ratio that this is the case, the Holy Spirit of God—the spirit of their calling—forsakes them, and they are overcome with the spirit of the evil one."[8]

Heber C Kimball once stated: “After a while the gentiles will gather by the thousands to this place, and salt lake will be classed among the wicked cities of the world. A spirit of speculation and extravagance will take possession of the saints and the result will be financial bondage”[9] Do we not see this daily? Members of the Church saddled with such debts and excess that their goal is to be debt free by retirement? We must also observe that the word luxury is used to describe everything we need from houses to cars. Luxury…is unnecessary.

Lastly, president Kimball sums up the problem that plagues us so in the following eloquent yet alarming speech (exerpts from “The False Gods We Worship,” Ensign, Jun 1976):

I would sometimes just stand silently in the mellow light and the fragrance of sunflowers and ask myself, “If you were going to create a world, what would it be like?” Now with a little thought the answer seems so natural: “Just like this one.”… and when I pass through the lovely countryside or fly over the vast and beautiful expanses of our globe, I compare these beauties with many of the dark and miserable practices of men, and I have the feeling that the good earth can hardly bear our presence upon it. I recall the occasion when Enoch heard the earth mourn, saying, “Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me?” (Moses 7:48.)
… That such a cry should be necessary among a people so blessed is amazing to me. And that such things should be found even among the Saints to some degree is scarcely believable, for these are a people who are in possession of many gifts of the Spirit, who have knowledge that puts the eternities into perspective, who have been shown the way to eternal life.
Sadly, however, we find that to be shown the way is not necessarily to walk in it, and many have not been able to continue in faith. These have submitted themselves in one degree or another to the enticings of Satan and his servants and joined with those of “the world” in lives of ever-deepening idolatry.
The Lord has blessed us as a people with a prosperity unequaled in times past. The resources that have been placed in our power are good, and necessary to our work here on the earth. But I am afraid that many of us have been surfeited with flocks and herds and acres and barns and wealth and have begun to worship them as false gods, and they have power over us. Do we have more of these good things than our faith can stand? Many people spend most of their time working in the service of a self-image that includes sufficient money, stocks, bonds, investment portfolios, property, credit cards, furnishings, automobiles, and the like to guarantee carnal security throughout, it is hoped, a long and happy life. Forgotten is the fact that our assignment is to use these many resources in our families and quorums to build up the kingdom of God—to further the missionary effort and the genealogical and temple work; to raise our children up as fruitful servants unto the Lord; to bless others in every way, that they may also be fruitful. Instead, we expend these blessings on our own desires, and as Moroni said, “Ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not.” (Morm. 8:39.)
As the Lord himself said in our day, “They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own God, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.” (D&C 1:16; italics added.)
… In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern, and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had—in spite of these things, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people—a condition most repugnant to the Lord.
We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)
We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:53.) We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chr. 20), and when Elisha’s life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (2 Kgs. 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, “And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” (2 Kgs. 6:17.)

[1] By Journal of discourses vol 11 p 19
[2] History of the Church, Vol. 2, pg 387-88.
[3] The Life of Wilford Woodruff (1945), p 67
[4] , The Life of Heber C. Kimball (1967), p 99, 101, 181
[5] Journal of Discourses 20:169
[6] Journal of Discourses 11:348
[7] Journal of discourses 7:282
[8] Journal of discourses 11:216
[9] Heber C Kimball, Deseret News, Church Dept pp 3, May 23, 1931

The Myth of Mormon Intellectuals

2008-07-31T19:28:00.000-07:00

My quick thoughts on “Mormon intellectuals”

I honestly don’t believe that there is such a thing as a Mormon intellectual. Intellectualism exists as a byproduct if the schools of philosophy. The great thinkers came about in the Christian world as a way to replace the loss of revelation. Think about it, once the priesthood vanished, then and only then does the idea of mans search for God come into full swing. Intellectualism was on full display at the Nicean council and in all the religious creeds that divided and sub-divided the Christian world. The end result has be fractionalization and error so much so that Thomas Jefferson states of Christian thinkers: “They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great Reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were He to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.”[1]

Intellectualism is the arena of the schools, and the schools mans attempt to replace that revelation that God wisely removed from him, there fore intellectuals with their trust in their own reason and ability are the anti-thesis of the meek of the lord, who rely on God for guidance and further knowledge.

In the early days of the church Clement says of the intellectuals at Rome: “…I saw naught else was done, save only that doctrines were asserted and controverted without end, contests were waged, and the art of syllogisms and the subtleties of conclusions were discussed… This only I understood that opinions and definitions of things were accounted true or false, not in accordance with their nature and the truth of the arguments, but in proportion to the talents of those who supported them.”[2]

Then along comes Barnabas, the apostle of the Lord who addresses the crowed with a speech the according to Clement was anything but polished: “Truly I perceived that there was nothing of dialectic artifice in the man, but that he expounded with simplicity, and without any craft of speech, such things as he had heard from the Son of God, or had seen. For he did not confirm his assertions by the force of arguments, but produced, from the people who stood round about him, many witnesses of the sayings and marvels which he related.”[3]

Barnabas, the ineloquent, in opposition to the argument and intellectual one-ups man ship of the intellectuals delivers a direct, unwavering and in roman eyes totally irrational morsle of truth, he says: "Hear me, O ye citizens of Rome. The Son of God is now in the regions of Judaea, promising eternal life to everyone who will hear Him, but upon condition that he shall regulate his actions according to the will of Him by whom He hath been sent, even of God the Father. Wherefore turn ye from evil things to good, from things temporal to things eternal… But if ye be converted, and act according to His will, then, coming to the world to come, and being made immortal, ye shall enjoy His unspeakable blessings and rewards."[4]

And then what happens? That same thing that happens today, the intellectuals, unable to loosen their souls from illusion of knowledge afforded them by wealth and education turn and mock and question the simple words of the Lord. “Those who thought themselves learned or philosophic began to laugh at the man, and to flout him, and to throw out for him the grappling-hooks of syllogisms, like strong arms. But he, unterrified, regarding their subtleties as mere ravings, did not even judge them worthy of an answer, but boldly pursued the subject which he had set before him.”[5]

Intellectuals have the following problem; they wish to find a medium on which they can have both temporal knowledge and spiritual revelation agree. If their temporal knowledge can in their view, explain the gospel, then they can have their cake and eat it to, that is temporal status with spiritual blessings. Intellectuals are never content with the idea that they may not be prepared for greater knowledge. For example, “mormon” Feminists cant resist the topic of the Heavenly Mother, they have to discuss it. These women (and some men) governed by their pride and their refusal to accept the Lords established boundaries allow their minds to be darkened by their own quest to outshine the Lords anointed. In the end, those poor simple saints who live and die with the simple testimony have more faith, and in return a greater reward than those who question and expound on that which the lord:

1) has not revealed,

2) is sacred and there for should be sought out only in prayer and

3) is not immediately necessary for our journey here on this strictly temporal plain.

Some may argue, well Hugh Nibley was an intellectual. No, Nibley was impatient and critical of the culture of error through education men build up around themselves. Nibley was reverent of the Brethren and he was very, very humble I challenge anybody to show me where Nibley purposefully challenged the authority of the Church or challenged Church Doctrine like so many “intellectuals” have.

But the gospel is not if this world, this temporal world is not the real world, if God is eternal, and he is, then that place where God lives and has his eternal existence is the real world making this place, with its finite time span (from creation to destruction) removed from the real world. With that understanding, that this world is not all there is, who needs intellectual reason, argument and dialectic hubris when we have direct revelation and guidance to plot our path. Besides if one believes in the eternal existence on man he needs only to obedient and patient and his questions will all be answered once we pass from this place and go back to the real world where we continue to progress. To attempt to root out all the questions here, acting beyond the Lords set will, so that one may claim the answers and intellectual gratification by worldly acclaim, is not faith at all, its suspicion and doubt.

Intellectuals question the answers, and then seek their own aggrandizement in the eyes of the world that is why so many get excommunicated. To receive answers one must have faith, if one searches for answers, but has no faith in the power of revelation he will paddle his little boat of a mind in circles saying a lot, pontificating a great deal but accomplishing very little. There no such thing as a Mormon intellectual because God himself only disperses light and truth, and honest Mormons look to God, not to mans intellectual hubris.

[1] Letter to Charles Thompson 1816, Bergh 14:385

[2] Clementine Recognitions CH III

[3] Ibid ch 7

[4] ibid

[5] Ibid ch 8

Letters to a anti-mormon pastor- History vindicates all truth

2008-07-29T11:27:00.000-07:00

The Following letters were sent to Pastor Shawn McCraney of Salt Lake City Utah. The purpose of each letter was to ascertain just how a evangelical pastor explains the errors in the reformers doctrine of the "Infallible bible". My questions rested on two premises:

1st The Bible is not universal to all Christians. Syrian Christians and Copts and others have Bibles that contain different canonical books. There for if God gives the western, roman influenced, protestant churches a "perfect, infallible bible" while leaving the early Christians (who did not have a Bible) and the eastern Christians without said perfect word, that makes God a respecter of persons and therefore not God at all.

and 2nd That the Bible possess the errors of 1800 years of translations. To back up my claim I cite only Christan scholars from the last century who have documented these issues.

You will see, (if you actually read the letters) that out of the dozens of serious questions submitted about the Bible and the Christian world, the Pastor always resorts to myopic references to Mormonism, eventhough the questions are not about Mormons, but about bible history.

(also see my other writings on history versus the modernChristan world:
http://thisignorantpresent.blogspot.com/2008/07/against-shawn-mccraney-evangelical.html

http://thisignorantpresent.blogspot.com/2008/07/against-shawn-mccraney-evangelical_29.html

http://thisignorantpresent.blogspot.com/2008/07/against-shawn-mccraney-evangelical_3720.html)

I am not now apologizing for the LDS church, I am saying that no man or woman can claim that "authentic" Christianity is represented by today's amalgam of christian churches.

Letter one Sent Wed 4/09/08 10:18 AM To: shawn@bornagainmormon.com

I have heard you on many occasions level stale charge against the Mormons that they are not Christian. My question is Christian according to who’s standard of Christianity? Surely the evangelical Christianity we have in 2008 has multiple changes from the Christian faith of 1808. The professions of faith in 1808 were also different from the faiths professed in 1608. Just as 1608 would have shown stark variations from 1508. Over the generations different cultures have all claimed truth, and each has passed away giving rise to others with different views. Luther disagreed with Calvin. Calvin varied from Wesley. And so on. In the early days of the church Tertullian rendered different opinions from Origen.

So far as the cannon of the bible, L.A Maratorian’s cannon (which is the oldest cannon we know of) varied from the cannon of Origen of 210ad (Origen omitted James and Jude from his cannon). Esuebius’s view of the cannon was again different from the cannon prescribed by Athanasius of 376 ad. Even the cannon put forth by the synod of Carthage was not universally accepted by the ancient Christian world.

In the 5th century the Syrian Christians “closed” their cannon, yet their cannon was different from the cannon of the western church (Syrian christens omitted 2 peter, 2 & 3rd John, Jude and the great revelation of John) did their acceptance of only 22 books make them less Christian then the western church and its 27?

The church in Ethiopia had four books in their cannon that the western church did not accept including: the Book of Clement and the Book of the Covenant. Did the Ethiopian acceptance of other sacred works make them less Christian then the standardized church that fell for so many centuries under often oppressive roman rule?

The Syrian church, the Coptic, the Gnostics, the Armenians, the Ethiopians, though they were all honest people who served god to the very best of their ability, their bible was and still is different then the “perfected word of God” used by modern Christians.

There was no official pronouncement of doctrine until the council of Trent in the mid 16th century. Jude and 2nd peter both quote the book of Enoch, Enoch of course was preserved by the Syrian church, yet modern christens treat the book, which the early church quoted as scripture with neglect. If this and other books like Barnabas, I Clement and Hermas were important to 1 and second century Christians why are they not important to us? Various church leaders read Barnabas and clement and Hermas and even the revelation of Peter (which in many places was interchanged for the revelation of John)

If the bible is the perfect word of God way does its content vary over the centuries and presents stark variation from Christian church to church? If so many churches that existed after the death of the apostles and before the rise of the multiple protestant churches observed different cannons where is the unity of the prefect bible? If only a small group of Christians who lived after the 16th century standardized cannon have the perfect word does they not make God a respecter of persons, giving unto some the perfect word while letting those poor misguided Syrians, Coptic’s, Ethiopians and others grope for truth in blindness?

Since the bible did not appear in the scene after the death of Christ and there was no real cannon for three centuries after the apostles (376ad) and still no standardized cannon for 1,500 years after Christ (Trent), does your condemnation of Mormon acceptance of non-canonical works also condemn ancient christens who possessed no bible and yet believed assorted non-canonical works?

Does the astonishing lack of Christian doctrinal unity over the centuries undermine the claim of a perfect Bible? It was the great scriptorian John Chisholm who pointed out hundreds of years ago that “there are as many interpretations of the bible as there are readers of it”

Yet despite the turbulent and varying history of the cannon all of modern Christianity utilize the bible as the only means of the lords will to be made known. This is the same attitude of the Pharisees who when confronting Christ could quote scripture for every and all of their actions and rationalizations. In the mind of the Pharisees the scripture they possessed was their word and their authority. They did not need the new revelation Christ presented them for they already had their central authority. To the Jews Christ’s teachings and revelations were dangerous things because they represented a threat to their power, authority and their status quo. Revelations in short cannot be controlled therefore it must be done away. Why do we need a prophet when we have all the dead ones? They would ask.

How is the bible the perfect word of God when so many of those who professed a faith in Jesus Christ never possessed the cannon Christianity now claim to be infallible? How is the bible the ONLY means of the Lords word when millions who lived before 376 never saw a copy? How is it perfect when most of the eastern churches have books we do not possess. How is it perfect when we do not even accept many of the books the writers of Jude and 2nd peter accepted?

Response to Letter ONE sent From shawn@bornagainmormon.com Sent: Mon 4/14/08 9:05 PM

"Mormonism teaches a gospel contrary to the Bible - all history aside.The Bible is the definitive authority on Christianity.Period.End of story.Done."

Letter TWO Sent Tue 4/15/08 3:27 PM To: shawn@bornagainmormon.com

Shawn you responded to my letter with a simplistic:
“Mormonism teaches a gospel contrary to the Bible - all history aside. (No history is precisely the issue; time vindicates all truth there for history must be addressed properly)The Bible is the definitive authority on Christianity. (This is true, but we must examine the history of the cannon to answer establish you claims against Mormon scripture)Period. End of story. Done.”

Shawn, same on you you’re a seminarian for pete’s sake cant you respond at all? Or would you be better suited if mailed you cheering your side and quoting bilge like Dee Jay Nelson?

Shawn, for such a vocal proponent of true Christianity you have shown a remarkable arrogance when asked sincere questions. In fact if you read my previous letter you would know that my questions were not about Mormon doctrine but about defining a Christian standard.

Had you read it you would know that you did not answer a single question I asked you. Your refusal to answer any question of substance makes your claim to any kind of Christian knowledge extremely suspect and hints at fraud. For one who presents himself as an authority on Christianity (surely you must see yourself as having some authority on the matter if you present yourself in public as a source of information concerning true Christianity vs. Mormonism) not to acknowledge direct questions concerning the authority of the bible signals that you are not so much interested in Christianity as much as you have a bone to pick with Mormons.

You are correct that the Bible is indeed the defining authority on Christian teachings, but there are as many interpreters of the Bible as there are readers of it. For more than 1,000 years before our current understanding of the Bible there were hundreds of groups, and millions of people, proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ and unless Jesus provided multiple optional and often contradictory teachings all of them were incorrect. There are and were multiple cannons! The Bible we possess was not did not always exist, cannons changed from group to group. The Copts, the Gnostics, the Ethiopians, the Ebonites, the Syrians and others all had Bibles that were different from our own. Therefore if the western orthodox Bible is the infallible word, then by your doctrine all these groups, millions of Christians who lived both before and apart from western orthodoxy under roman influence are condemned by you!

So yes the Bible is the Definitive authority on Christianity BUT the bible as we know it is not the bible that has always been, so there in lies the question, are those who lived before the bible excluded from the ranks of Christianity because they believed doctrines that the modern Christian dogma does not recognize? Let me provide you with one example:
Origen was considered the spokesmen of early Christian orthodoxy during the years Origen worked his understanding of the godhead was the standard followed by thousands. According to Origen writing late circa 150-228 AD (see Origen, On first Principles):
-God was the creator of all things, including Christ himself.
-Christ as a being was created in the preexistence with all other intelligent beings.
-All creatures of god were disembodied minds created to worship the Lord only.
-All intelligences were given free will to worship or not.
-Those who declined to worship god forever fell.
-Spirits are put into the body before their redemption
-Christ was the one intelligent being who stayed perfect to Gods will. Christ and God were one in will.
-Professor Bart D Erhman notes concerning Origen’s Godhead “Just as Iron placed in a hot fire eventually takes on all the characteristics of the fire, this one (Christ) took on all the characteristics of God, became so infused with gods wisdom that it became gods wisdom, so infused with gods word that it became gods word” (Lost Christianities, 155)
Christ was one with god, distinct in person but equal in righteousness, more importantly God created the world through Christ (Origen: On First Principles 2:6)
In total according to the orthodoxy for which Origen was celebrated Christ was SUBORDINATE to god, Christ was distinct in person but “less than the Father” (Origen, On First Principles 1:3)

This early Christian orthodox view is strikingly close to the view espoused by Mormons, so were those Christians who followed this view of Origen unchristian, or “out you lunch” as you have proposed.

Beyond that The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus, were both considered scripture and both are NT cannon but neither is alike, each contains books the other lacks. These books held as scripture would, by their virtue of possessing differing holy texts (many removed by later Christians who disagreed with the texts), provide differing views of the church and doctrine. Again we must ask why did God let the early Christians grope in darkness with differing and constantly changing cannons and then provide to later Christians living under a state controlled Christianity a perfect, inerrant and infallible Bible?

Shawn, the total outcome of the western orthodox (roman influenced Christianity) was shaped by these various groups with their various cannons. The battles over doctrine from those who understood it shaped and molded the bible not under apostolic authority but under the premises of debate and power. Therefore as a Christian, you must be able to answer these questions, without the ability to answer the problems found in post apostolic church history your grounds for attacking any other faith is flawed.

As a seminarian you must be able to answer the question. Because the issues of "Mormon vs. Christian are rooted in the history of the church. Let me restate my questions to you again so that I may understand your views:
1) Syrian Christian cannon of the 5th century omitted 2 peter, 2 & 3rd John, Jude and the great revelation of John did their acceptance of only 22 books make them less Christian then the western church and its 27?
2) The church in Ethiopia had four books in their cannon that the western church did not accept including: the Book of Clement and the Book of the Covenant. Did the Ethiopian acceptance of other sacred works make them less Christian then the standardized church that fell for so many centuries under often oppressive roman rule?
3) If the Bible is the perfect word of God way does its content vary over the centuries and presents stark variation from Christian church to church? If so many churches that existed after the death of the apostles and before the rise of the multiple protestant churches observed different cannons where is the unity of the prefect Bible? If only a small group of Christians who lived after the 16^th century standardized cannon have the perfect word does they not make God a respecter of persons, giving unto some the perfect word while letting those poor misguided Syrians, Coptic’s, Ethiopians and others grope for truth in blindness?
4) How is the Bible the perfect word of God when so many of those who professed a faith in Jesus Christ never possessed the cannon Christianity now claims to be infallible?
5) How is the Bible the ONLY means of the Lords word when millions who lived before 376 never saw a copy?
6) How is it perfect when most of the eastern churches have books we do not possess?
7) How is it perfect when we do not even accept many of the books the writers of Jude and 2nd peter accepted (I Enoch)?

Response to Letter TWO From: shawn@bornagainmormon.com Sent: Mon 4/21/08 2:30 PM

Okay, James, let's get down to brass tacks - nuance doesn't work with you.I am NOT an apologist. My ministry is NOT to apologists or LDS who want tobe heard. I do not care about "exchanging ideas" with an LDS defender of thefaith. Our ministry is to the LOST and the SEEKING - you do not see yourselfas either, I have nothing to say to you. You believe what you want. I will believe what I want. We'll let the God of heavenput His stammp of approval on one of us later. Now move along.Shawn

Letter THREE Sent: Fri 5/09/08 10:04 AM To: shawn@bornagainmormon.com

Shawn,
I am not a defender of the faith, nor am I interested in defending the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The LDS church has survived over a century of critics and formers members nipping at its heels, I certainly do need to throw my hat into a ring where it is so obviously unneeded. In my previous letters I mentioned the LDS church only on the basis that without historical context an attack on any religion is flawed. The questions I posed to you were not argument points on LDS doctrine rather they were sincere questions on Biblical Authority from the non-denominational perspective. I ask questions not to bash, bashing is a futile exercise; futile because neither party is teachable as both tend to be rigidly dogmatic and often monstrously arrogant, a lesson I learned on my mission.

I am however searching, and all men who are concerned with truth are searching. And no man who is in the pursuit of truth will ever stop searching and be content with the status quo or will be content to be told how things are without unending investigation. I believe that prejudice does not stem from making up ones mind and defending that belief, I believe that prejudice and error stem from making up ones mind before examining all possible evidence and opinion. To me freedom and truth are gained by constant effort to obtain them, I doubt very much that the spirit of God comes to dwell with a man in full unless that man gives all he can to discover the ways of the Lord. It was Justin Martyr who pointed out that honest men “ love only what is true and decline to follow traditional opinions” (apology I 5-6, 10) There for please understand, I have no intent of debating Mormonism with you, I have no intent on attempting to correct you, and I have no intent on “bringing you back to the fold” as Your repetitious sarcasm and hostility toward the LDS Church bares all the marks of a man who is more than content with his position and stature.

What I do want to understand how a evangelical, non-denominational, Christian minister, a man who has established himself as a Sheppard to the “lost and Seeking” confronts some of the issues of antiquity presented in post apostolic and pre-standardized cannon Christianity.

You have declined to answer any questions at all, but I wish to present one more. My question is thus: How does the evangelical doctrine of stand alone Biblical authority solve the Mark vs.. John discrepancy on the crucifixion date of the Christ.

In Mark Jesus send two disciples to prepare the Passover meal (Mark 14: 12-13), the meal is prepared and he dines with them for the last supper (Mark 14:17-26). Following the Passover meal Christ is arrested (Mark 14:53). The flowing morning he is bound and taken before Pilate and crucified the day after the Passover meal.

The story in John differs starkly from Mark. In John, Jesus is arrested before the Passover meal, his disciples never prepare it and he never eats the last supper. John18: 12 has Christ being arrested and the cock crowing for Peter the evening before the preparation of the Passover. Verse 28 states specifically that the Jewish leaders who led Christ from Caiaphas to the Hall of Judgment decline to enter the hall “lest they should become defiled; but that they might eat the Passover” (John 18:28). Later John 19:14 states “And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour, and he (Pilate) saith unto the Jews ‘behold your King!” after this pronouncement he is taken baring his cross (17) and crucified (18)

So in Mark, he is alive and well on the day of the preparation of the Passover meal, he eats with the disciples and then crucified the next day.

In John is arrested the night before the preparation, tried the next morning and killed before the Passover mean is even eaten. Symbolically killed the same day as the sacrificial lamb before the Passover.

According to John, the Christ was dead before the account in Mathew even took place.

I am not interested in Mormon vs. Christian here, I simply wish to known how you, as a Christian minister, address the theological problem presented in the Mark vs. John discrepancy.

Thank you for you time.

Responce to Letter THREE From: shawn@alatheaministries.com Sent: Mon 5/12/08 2:06 PM

I spend most of my present day activities answering theolgical issueswith searching people - and refusing to take the time to answer issuesfrom people who present them who do not care to know the truth. I discern you are the latter. Out of respect for the time God has given me, I decline to take the timeto deliver a very reasonable response - and bid you God's speed. Shawn

Do we have more of these good things than our faith can stand?

2008-07-29T09:37:00.000-07:00

“Do we have more of these good things than our faith can stand?”
----Spencer W. Kimball ensign, June 1976

We are at war, a war that is waged with fury and rage from the enemy. It is a war in which the latter day saints are sadly outnumbered. In many cases it is a war in which some of our greatest hindrances come from our own self imposed limitations.

In war on cannot supply his enemy, wither they be his misguided brethren or a tyrant of old, with the funds to carry on his assaults. To say one is opposed to the enemy, and then to continue to finance his assault is to undermine ones own credibility before god and fuel his own destruction. Yet this friend is exactly what we do. The war is against pornography, and our enemy pummels us with iron fists and fight back with foam gloves. Those wicked souls, both living and cursed who helm the pornographic secret combination, aim not to be merely a pest to be objected to, but rather to cut down our very youth before they come of age. To rob innocence from the house of the Lord God! For to destroy one priesthood man, is to rob his children of the blessings of an honorable father and opens the door to the apostasy of entire generations of that mans seed.

“Cataclysm for the people on this planet is most likely to flow from technology created by men who cannot also tame that technology because they cannot tame themselves…”[1]
In spite of the warnings, we have become so attached to technology that many youth today feel slighted, less in touch and un-entertained unless they are plugged into a network, and there is where the calamity lies.

The saints have been told Members of the “Church should avoid pornography in any form and should oppose its production, distribution and use” [2] Comcast cable ( as well as the other major media providers) is a multi-million dollar distributor of hardcore porn[3], such distribution the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has asked us to oppose, yet deal makers at BYU signs a deal by which the only way Latter-day Saints can watch BYU football is by subscribing to and by extension supporting a distributor of hardcore porn, the very thing we are not to do. Duff Tittle at BYU “Comcast Corp will get you all the channels you need….Comcast has all the packages”[4] Tittle is absolutely correct, Comcast has it all including six PPV porn channels broadcasting 24 hours a day.[5]

It matters not if a Latter-day Saint Comcast customer blocks the horrid content on his home receiver, his money is still being sent to support a distributor of porn. If we are at “war” with Satan [6] then we are war with his means of attack, we cannot win the war if we continue to fund the attack of our enemies.

Some may say that it is out of necessity that we have our daily dealing with the world, that we as a people could not support ourselves long if we did not play the game of the world. To such men I would ask “ do you not believe that God has the means to bless those who seek to remain unspotted above all things?” if a man were to quit his business to avoid the vulgar and gross minds and mouths he found there would the Lord not bless him for doing so? If all Latter-day Saints were to stop paying for Comcast and other cable and satellite services due to the pornographic propaganda and content found on all such services would the Lord not compensate them for their perceived sacrifice of modern convenience? For the sake of his people remaining pure I believe the Lord would open the heavens in ways we cannot conceive. Not only that but the hand of the lord would be extended to show us how to operate effectively without those corrupted vessels!

It is the cunning deceit of the adversary that tells us it is too difficult to go without many of those things that have been corrupted by pornography. It is the adversary that tells us we should tolerate the threat of exposure to wickedness so that we may profit or be fashionable and modern. If every Latter-day Saint could have the veil moved, if only for a moment to see the workings of the adversary, and witness all his paths and devices, we would all be intolerant of those things that bare his fingerprints. If our eyes could witness his sinister ways president Cannon states: “we would not be so unguarded and careless and so indifferent whether we have the spirit of God with us or not; but we would be continually watchful and prayerful to our heavenly Father for his Holy Spirit and His holy angels to be around about us to strengthen us to overcome evey evil influence”[7]

We are to be a Zion people, yet this hallowed mantle can never grace our brows unless we are united in our efforts to protect purity and build the kingdom of God. We need not think that we can simply profess our disgust with the pornographic flood, then not take action to oppose it. In our world of “Affordable Luxury” and “doctrine for Dummies who refuse to study” there is no guarantee that another will take up their sword in your stead.

We MUST be willing to sacrifice any and all the things of this world to retain the purity of Angels, if we must. We can, no, we must be instruments for good in all fields, good media, good music, good literature for it is in our nature to be excellent. Yet, excellence was never forged in the mist of indulgence, capitulation and rationalization. If your in-home internet is a threat to purity, remove it, use the library. If your cable TV is a threat to purity (not to mention that all major cable companies are porn distributors and Latter-day Saints have been told to oppose distribution), get rid of it. If your Internet compatible cell phone represents temptation, get a cheaper phone with out internet temptation. sometimes our advancement, if not viewed with an eye single to the splendid glory of the Almighty God, can be our downfall.
We live in a blessed age of technology convenience, but wickedness keeps pace with advancement. We have blessings but we must never forget that the misuse of blessings brings the judgment of a just God. The flood of ever increasing media devices are indeed a marvel of the age. But are we so awed by our new toys and increased earning capability that we not as cautious as we should be?

[1] elder Neal a Maxwell, The Smallest part, P.5
[2] LDS.org, Gospel Topics, Pornography
[3] Comcast Cashing in on Porn, David Lazarus, San Francisco Chronicle, 2/13/2004
[4] BYU’s MWC Games Found on Comcast, Sara White, 08.03.2007. http://www.newsnet.byu.edu
[5] as of July 24 2008, TVplanner.comcast.net, search salt lake city
[6] Benson, The Power of the Word, May 1986 ensign
[7] George Q Cannon, Journal of Discources Vol 11 pg 30

Idolatry, Pornographic culture and the worldly mindset.

2008-07-29T08:34:00.001-07:00

Idolatry, Pornographic culture and the worldly mindset.

The official website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when dealing with the issue of pornography presents the following advice to faithful members: “Members of the Church should avoid pornography in any form and should oppose its production, distribution and use”.[1] This puts Latter-day Saints in a curious position, how do we oppose the production and distribution of porn when so much of our culture is so deeply rooted in it. The answer lies in our faith in God and whether we really are working for the establishment of Zion or not.

Why should the Church even have to remind us to oppose the production and distribution of obscenity? The answer lies in a letter written by a prominent Lds businessman defending his company’s ties with the multibillion dollar porn industry. In regard to the television systems owned by the company used to sell in room Pay-per view films the letter states: “if we were to eliminate the R and non-rated (read pornographic) offerings the systems would not be economic”. Remember there is no governing rating body to oversee pornography, the term “XXX” is instated by produces to entice viewers to coarse content, there for “non-rated” means pornographic. Elsewhere the letter acknowledges the existence of “extreme” material but says they must maintain the minimal amount of porn to “support the economics of the [TV] system[2]”.

The answer is financial, for this prominent businessman the financial penalties of opposing the blight of pornography carried more weight then the guidance put forth by the men he recognizes as prophet seers and revelators. This attitude is nothing new and we have warnings from general authorities addressing it in no uncertain terms.

For example Brigham Young “We hear the elders in Israel praying and praying that the Lord would preserve us from the wicked, and probably within an hour after they will be found coaxing perhaps one of the most ungodly men in the world to trade with them, to rent their houses, or to let them build houses for him and to be his servant or servants.”[3] Though this cutting criticism was spoken over a century ago, our growing consumption of media produced by minds steeped in secularism and the blind eye men are willing to turn in the name of business proves its accuracy.

Brother Brigham also warned of the effect of courting Babylon after asking for protection from it: “Such individuals will keep praying to the Lord to preserve us from the wicked, when their constant effort is to mingle with, and to call into the mist of this people the wicked and the ungodly; and they are so blind to the mind and will of the Lord that their efforts in this direction will never cease until there was enough of the wicked to overthrow the kingdom of God, or to break us up and drive is somewhere else”[4]

Over a century ago President George Q Cannon said the following:
“There should be a greater strictness enforced among our people. There has been a growth of wrong doing in many quarters that has been most painful to all those who have the welfare of the Saints of God at heart and who desire the prosperity of Zion. Now, such a condition of things, if permitted in our mist, unchecked, would be productive of the most terrible consequences. The spirit of God would undoubtedly be so grieved that it would forsake not only those who are guilty of these acts, but it would withdraw from those who suffer them be done in our mist unchecked and unrebuked… of their not taking the proper measures to check and to expose their iniquity”[5]

April conference 1869 President Brigham Young stood before the body of the saints and said the following: “What next? Shall we have to run to London, New York or Paris for our fashions? When I see the disposition among the Latter Day Saints to follow and customs of the world, I think, why do you stay here? ... We are the teachers of life and salvation and yet are anxious to follow the nasty, pernicious fashions of the day… It is beneath the character of the Latter Day Saints that they should have no more independence of mind or feeling than to follow after the groveling customs and fashions of a poor miserable wicked world.”[6]

Those things of the world, those tools utilized by the adversary to draw our attention away or to pollute our minds will cause the spirit of the lord to withdraw not only from those who do them, but also from those who do nothing to stop them. There are no pacifists in the war for souls. Not only that but it is beneath our character to follow those earthy and temporal costumes of popularity and gain.

Knowing the option on of the leaders on the subject of peculiarly, we will then move on to new territory, before we precede we must understand the following points:

Pornography represents a Secret Combination. This secret combination encompasses more than just obscene images. The pornographic combination encompasses humanist ideologies, deviant sexual behavior and lifestyle and other practices. Pornography is a lifestyle and ideology that serves to destroy the souls of men by focusing attention on selfishness, instant gratification and abuse of sexual intercourse..
Pornography that is produced and sold as a product is a form of the Mahan principle. The Mahan principle is the act of converting life into personal gain and wealth (see Moses 5:31)[7]. As sexual intercourse is the vital means of preparing tabernacles for children who have the promise of Godliness, those who traffic pornography are selling the abuse of creation, the creation of gods to be. It is the act of trafficking and charging sacred and holy things on a worldly level.
Temporal idolatry consisting of love of or ambition for wealth, status and a desire for ease serves to distract men from the ways and the commandments of God. Idolatry is the focus of a mans attention on temporal institutions and practices.
Pornography thrives off of the misdirected priorities of such men. Idolatry causes men to look to their left as the adversary operates almost entirely unhampered on their right.
Hence Pornography, Pornographic culture and Idolatry are fellow travelers. Where one exists there you will find the other. This was the case among the pre apostasy church: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen”[8]
To remove the threat of pornography in any community you must remove the desire to own, to facilitate and to sacrifice to modern idols. For : “In vain do we flatter ourselves as to the necessities of human maintenance”[9] and “In no case ought I to be necessary to another, while he is doing what to me is unlawful. Hence…care must be taken by me, lest what I am forbidden to do be done by my means[10]…Amid these reefs and inlets, amid these shallows and straits of idolatry, Faith, her sails filled by the Spirit of God, navigates; safe if cautious, secure if intently watchful[11]”

I understand that there are some things that the Latter Day Saints choose not to speak about in great detail. The specific punishment of the church in The Last Days revealed in Doctrine and Convents 112: 25, Idolatry and Pornography are three of those subjects.

These subjects are distasteful because nobody wants to think that they, or their loved ones might be among the first swept aside when the lord clears his house. Yet we know that the lord holds much of his wrath first for members of his church “who have professed to know my name and have not known me and have blasphemed against me in the mist of my house”[12]

All three of these subjects are inseparably connected. The more you know about either subject, the more you have to alter you life and behavior to steer clear of the destruction to come.

The more you understand the issue of idolatry, the more you must discipline your life to abstain from the actions, attitudes and occupations that surround idols. You must free yourself from dependence upon them and you must cease devoting your time and talents, which for many of are covenanted to the lord, to these consumer inventions

The more you know about the secret combination of Pornography, the more you will have to divorce yourself from the cultural sacrament of media which serves as the delivery service for obscenity and pornographic propaganda. I believe that just as one cannot discern the ways of the Lord without revelation, the same holds true for understanding the paths and plans of the devil. While you are complacent, self involved and tacitly accepting the works of the adversary you cannot discern his ways for you are engulfed by them, you cant see the forest through the trees. It is only when you remove your heart and mindset from those things he has influence over, once you have a pure situation the lord can show you in greater detail how to avoid and understand the actions of wickedness. the lord grants greater vision to those who seek to keep his holy paths, for greater vision allows us to discern threats before they surface.

The more you know about the Last Days the more you have to discipline your daily routine be become worthy of the safety of the Priesthood blessing during the cleansing desolating scourge to come. The corruption represented by pornography and idolatry is a measuring stick for the wrath of the Lord. The more pornographic culture a community creates, the more idols they devote their time to, the more they pollute their environments with these materialistic things, the heavier the hand of the Lord will be.

This is doubly so with the Saints who are expected to stand apart of these end times corruptions. If we fail to keep the Lords standards in all we can the Lord has warned us: “…otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured upon the children of Zion. For shall the children of the Kingdom pollute my holy land? Verily I say unto you nay.”[13]

Is it possible that our love of modernity, entertainment and desire to excel temporal finance is aiding in the pollution of the land the where the Lord has allowed us to dwell? I surely am not the first person to observe that many Latter Day Saints will pray for protection from the wicked ways of the world one day, then court it the next. Many Latter Day Saints have been playing both ends against the middle for years as Brigham young tells us: “We hear the elders in Israel praying and praying that the Lord would preserve us from the wicked, and probably within an hour after they will be found coaxing perhaps one of the most ungodly men in the world to trade with them, to rent their houses, or to let them build houses for him and to be his servant or servants.”[14] Though this cutting criticism was spoken over a century ago, our growing consumption of media produced by minds steeped in secularism and the blind eye men are willing to turn in the name of business proves its accuracy.

What are pornographic culture and idolatry?

If we are going to deal with these subjects properly first we must define pornographic culture. Our ever coarsening media has produced a rapidly retreating standard of obscenity. What was offensive 30 years ago is prime time TV comedy today. What was hardcore illegal pornography 40 years ago is an introductory sexual education class at Berkley or a myspace.com webpage. Thus we see that the contemporary standard of acceptable content is useless, for it will change in the coming years.

The purpose here is not to debate what qualifies as pornographic based on our desensitized rationalizations. Our arguments here will be based solely on an eternal standard of morality. The Lord has set very strict and exacting standards for his people. Many of us today may not think that the TV show “friends” is pornographic per-say; however its constant trivialization of sacred things and mockery of sex and family makes it so. The eternal standard of morality cannot be rationalized away; the temporal standard will always be changed to suit personal and financial interest.

With this in mind, pornographic culture is a culture in which the sacred and the holy are trivialized and sold at a price. It is a culture where sex is used to sell products, a culture where fornication and sexualized violence are the backbone of entertainment, a culture where the sexualization of innocence is state sponsored and it is a culture where these things are accepted, rationalized and purchased en masse.

To add further clarity to your understanding of what pornography truly is, let us take a moment and look back to the days of Adam. When Satan temped Cain to kill his brother Abel he did it according to a certain principle, take his life and all he has becomes yours. This was known as the “Mahan Principle”. This principle became the motivation for despots and tyrants for thousands of years to this very day. The principle is nothing more than the transition of life into personal gain or property. Pornography is an ideology, a culture and the perfection of the Mahan Principle. Pornography literally takes the lives of addicts and converts their addiction to their personal gain. Unlike the despots of old who killed their victim and took their worldly possessions. These despots of morality kill the spirits of their victim and then continue to suck the life and property from them for a lifetime. This perfection of the Mahan Principle lies in the creation of an unlimited source of lives to turn into finance.

As Latter Day Saints we are under a covenant to hold ourselves to a standard the world views as antiquated and obsolete. Yet the Lord commands us “Ye are therefore commanded to be perfect, even as your father who is in heaven is perfect”[15] and “Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your father who is in heaven is perfect”[16] and we know that the “Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them”[17]. So there we are our progress toward perfection is a commandment not a guideline.

What state of things is symbolic of perfection? The eternal order of the Law of Consecration, we as perfect people will be required to live this way of God. It is a state of order and perfection that defies any vain attempt to equate it with any earthy institution for the Lord has declared: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”[18]

This commandment to perfection and our quest for the Law of consecration again brings us back to our understanding of the ideology of pornography. As we are influenced by or tacitly accept even the minutest pornographic messages in media we are pushed away from perfection.

Look at the word consecrate which means: to make or declare sacred or holy, to set apart, devote to the worship or service of God. Pornography, then, is the ultimate antithesis of the Law of Consecration. The Law of Consecration requires us to consecrate our lives and our talents to the Kingdom of God. By this act of consecration we sanctify our lives.

Looking from another angle our bodies are temples, we do not pollute our bodies, we do not scar them with ink or piercing like so many godless cultures have in the past. In this same vein we do not add to the Temples of the Lord, we do not arbitrarily paint the sides of the building or add our furniture the interior because it suits us. We take care of these because they are sacred, consecrated to the work of the Lord, they are his, and only his.

Temples, as we know, are used for the redemption of the children of the Lord, to give the opportunity of eternal life to those who did not receive it in this life. Our bodies as temples serve to give mortal life to the children of the Lord, and to deliver the message of Eternal life in this life. There fore our bodies as temples are consecrated and sanctified to the work of the Lord.

Because we did not create our bodies we cannot dictate its uses. The power to set laws and boundaries belongs only to the man that brought the creation into being. Is the created to set itself at odds with the source of its creation? Of course not, yet it is exactly this fallacy promoted by pornography, the fallacy man dictates the use of the body he did not have the power to create and does not have the power to sustain.

The things that are sacred cannot be used for gain or traffic for any temporal finance. Satan knows that in order for any sacred or consecrated thing to be used for finance it must be de-sanctified. Pornography is the process of de-sanctifying the Temple body for temporal gain. It is the act of trafficking the act of creation for finance.

Pornography takes what is sacred, private and intimate and makes it public for all to see. It destroys; it subjugates the individual for the immediate titillation of the mass. That person ceases to be a sacred and private soul, and becomes an object of broadcasted lust.
What the world sells us as entertainment, for the most part, serves as the official organ of this corrupting process. If we are influenced by media to lower our standards, to assimilate to cultural trends or accept the presence of the pornographic as “unavoidable” they have accomplished their goals. And if they can get us to hand over our hard earned finance to aid their distribution and facilitation of vice then they have won us over to their side.
For when we do these things, accept and consume impure media, even the tacit acceptance of moral corruption puts us without the walls of Zion and pains that Holy Ghost who leads us. In a many cases we would all do well the follow the wise council of president Ezra Taft Benson who told the youth to “Have good associates or don’t associate at all”[19]

Nephi tell us “Wherefore, do not spend money on that which is of no worth, nor Labor for that which cannot satisfy” 2nd Nephi 9:51. Why did he send our latter day people such a warning? He sent it because in our world today money is the language of value. When we purchase any product we tell its provider, “We value you product, not only do we value it but we want it in our daily lives!” Daily Latter Day Saints pay for cable and satellite television services that deliver a very clever variety of pornography directly to their family rooms. Day in and day out Latter Day Saints purchase movies and music that contain pornographic content and propaganda, take theses products back to their homes and devote hours of their lives to their consumption. This consumption saturates the mind and environment with worldly messages and values that serve to influence opinion and attitudes.

It is an adherence to worldly trends and values that instills in us a desire to consume corrupting worldly media. This adherence instills in us a desire to be accepted by the men the world celebrates. This adherence is a danger to all who aim to achieve celestial glory, for celestial glory cannot coexist with acclaim from a fallen world.

Paul’s Warnings to Avoid Worldliness.
Paul’s letters contain multiple, powerfully worded, warnings to the saints to avoid the behaviors of the worldly gentiles. Like our latter day conference talks Paul is continually reminding the saints of their importance and their need to keep the commandments. Paul felt this issue to be of such importance that the exact same warning appears in his letter to the Ephesians and in the second chapter of his letter to the Colossians. Paul states the standard of saints in a way to which there is no question to his meaning:
“This I say therefore…that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind…who being past all feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness in greediness”. [20]
“…Fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not be once named among you as becometh saints. Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, which are not convenient; but rather giving thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, not unclean person, nor covetous man who is an idolater hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ or God.”[21]
Paul rounds out his warning with a commandment, which again, leaves little question to his meaning:
“…let no man deceive you with vain words[22] …be not ye therefore partakers with them…and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them.”[23]
The wording of all these passages tells all we need to know about the worldly Gentiles in Paul’s day:
They were vain, meaning they were excessively prideful. We need only watch American Idol tryouts or read any pop culture magazine to see our modern day equivalences. “Passion for Fashion” dolls are sold to young girls, lowering their modesty standards to the lowest common denominator. Many so called “successful” men parade around town in extravagant and useless vehicles that serve as symbols of their status. And in line the philosophers of Rome many clad themselves in attire designed to show their status and position in society.

They were” past all feeling”. Over the last few years while researching “The Sex Industrial Complex” I sat in the company of the producers of pornography, rapist, pedophiles and I read the diaries of sexual serial murders. These are the ones who are past all feeling, those who can inflict harm and pain on the innocent for pleasure, finance or find entertainment in such material. Being “past all feeling” also applies to those who can watch violent and degrading films and rationalize their intake.

They were lascivious or feeling morbid sexual desires; morbid being gruesome and repugnant. A modern day equivalent would be the social acceptance of sadomasochism and so called “dominatrix” and Homosexual sexual acts that are now so common they serve as punch lines on primetime TV.

They were greedy. Simply, they desired more than was sufficient for their needs. Always measuring their success in numbers or acres. As Hugh Nibley points out such men “know the price of all things and the value of nothing. To them the value is the price”[24]

All of these things apply to our TV programming, or music and our motion picture industry. I will not provide examples, I should not have to for we all, if we are at all sensitive, have seen the progressive degradation of our culture. Paul ends his warning with a powerful and prophetic prose: “For because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.[25] Be not ye therefore partakers with them.”

Paul commanded the saints: “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them.”[26] Yet today many Latter Day Saints willingly shell over their hard earned money to partake of and financially support motion pictures and music with crass and degrading humor or violence in the name of entertainment. We often hear a mild denunciation of the overtly objectionable and obviously offensive media content in weekly Church services. Then in elders quorum we hear elders quoting the meek and beguiling trite like “Dumb and Dumber”, “Zoo Lander” and other PG-13 films with scatological and sexualized “comedy” designed to shock and offend. Having done this myself on many occasions in the past I am convinced that many Latter Day Saints do not take Paul’s instructions seriously.

Elsewhere Tertullian points out that Christians should not be enablers of the wicked, as we are when we excuse their ways and purchase their products, he says: “In no case ought I to be necessary to another, while he is doing what to me is unlawful. Hence I ought to understand that care must be taken by me, lest what I am forbidden to do be done by my means.”[27]

We are a media saturated culture. We as Latter Day Saints need to rid ourselves of the lure of constant media barrages attempting to sell us, or at least get us to accept worldliness in its many forms. Our free time should be put to better use than “entertaining” media consumption.

In the media we consume there is very real idolatry, Idolatry we accept and even support and partake of by our associations and purchases. Though music and assorted media have their positive uses, once they become a distraction from our duties, and once what they represent becomes the object of our ambition and desire they become idols. In our American Idol world, the lure of fifteen minutes of fame has more followers than Baal of old. As Christians, again to quote Tertullian “Why should we not recognize the subtleties of Satan, who makes it his aim that, what he cannot effect by our mouth, he may effect by the mouth of his servants, introducing idolatry into us through our ears?”[28]

Idolatry is as misunderstood as pornography is. When men think of Idols we think of carved, lifeless gods created by heathen nations. When we as a people do not or choose not to identify idols properly, we are forever in danger of being deceived and abused by those who exploit ignorance and apathy. While idols do come in these classic forms, other idols are far more prominent in our society today. Our modern idols are wealth, cars large houses and the like with all the amenities and the social status these things bring. The false gods we worship are the consumer goods of Babylon. Babylon is fuelled by the creation and sales of new idols to keep men’s minds enchanted.

In regard to temporal idolatry, Avraham Gileadi points out: “the Hebrew verb ‘worship’ (abad) also means work. Applying this dual meaning, whatever people work at, spend their energies and resources on, is what they worship. But Isaiah notes that those who belong to Babylon don't see Babylon for what it is. They can't for a moment imagine they are worshiping idols or that there is a problem with what they do. They carry their idols on their persons, they place them in their homes, they idolize and adore them, yet they don't discern that it is idolatry. The culture of materialism, like any other, perpetuates itself and provides its own rationale.”[29]

Such is the case with our day. Having been born into a world of instant gratification, in which we have never truly been called to sacrifice anything of real substance, we fail to realize that our adoration, reliance and ambition to obtain or be associated with worldly products and institutions are in many cases idolatry. President Spencer W. Kimball said the following of the problem among the Latter-day Saints: “The Lord gave us a choice world and expects righteousness and obedience to his commands in return. But when I review the performance of this people I am appalled and frightened. Iniquity seems to abound...Many people spend most of their time working in the service of a self-image that includes sufficient money, stocks, bonds, investment portfolios, property, credit cards, furnishings, automobiles and the like to guarantee carnal security throughout, it is hoped, a long happy life.. Forgotten is the fact that our assignment is to use these many resources in our families and quorums to build up the kingdom of God- to further the missionary effort and the genealogical and temple work…to bless others in every way that they may also be fruitful… In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had…we are, on the whole, and Idolatrous people- a condition most repugnant to the Lord”[30]

Does this mean that members of the church who are successful in business and prominent in temporal institutions idolaters? No, successful men are not idol worshipers if they are temporally successful as long as they can adhere to the following guidelines as put forth by Spencer W. Kimball: “Unless and acquisitive person can positively accumulate and hold wealth while still giving full allegiance to God and his program- Unless the rich man can keep the Sabbath, keep his mind and body uncontaminated, and give unstinted service to his fellowmen through Gods appointed way- unless the affluent man has total control and can hold all his possessions in trust, subject to the call of the Lord through his authorized servants, then that man, for the good of his soul, should certainly ‘go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor…and come follow me.” [31]

Unless our lives can conform to President Kimball’s guidance we are serving two masters. While we labor for temporal status and goods we are in constant danger of idolatry. When we are serving the world, and remain at its mercy for our lifestyle and desirous of its recognition wickedness will spread. It is better to live simply, serve God, and be subject to his call than to achieve the highest echelons of temporal status. Because idolatry enables the secret combination of pornography, we should strive to live free of its influence or presence, our lives should be tailored to meet the Kimball standard.

Proper use of modern blessings

Please note that while this text is critical of our consumption and dependence on media and temporal tools, I am in no way advocating we go without them. The blessings of our age are to be used wisely and for the just purposes of the Lord. We have been taught that the Lord desires us to be rich, but it must be done in his designed way, which is the righteous way. We must always remember it is the misuse of blessings that often brings the greatest punishment. Wickedness keeps pace with the speed of advancement and every tool or opportunity the Adversary can use to weaken our resolve or even simply distract us from our duty he will utilize. Wasting time is just as much a sin as drinking or smoking, all sin is waste.

Some may say that such a view, a view of strict peculiarity is extreme in our modern times. However history is replete with instances where the Lords people were commanded to take extreme measures. Surely Alma could have kept his mouth shut and found a happy medium in King Noah’s court. For surly there were luxuries there to be found nowhere else, and surly their lives were deeply rooted in their relative advancement. It would have been temporally expedient for him to have remained silent in the face of wickedness and worshipped the lord in secret. Had he done this, his rational would have matched much of the thinking of our modern day and like much of the modern day he would have been destroyed.

In this case the wilderness was not the forest and jungle he and his followers escaped to, the wilderness was instead the civilization of the wicked city. For in the jungle and forest the spirit of God was free upon all people without fear of reprisals for open worship, and there is no advancement the world can offer that cannot be out done by revealed truth and unified righteous efforts. The same is true for us today, we enter the temple because it is separate form the civilization in which we live, it takes us to a higher plain, it takes us out of the wilderness and closer to God.

We have been called out of the world. Many of us view the idea of wilderness as the desolate regions through which Lehi and the Jaredites traveled. While this is correct increasingly the wilderness has become our own concrete canyons, our sprawling suburbia where predators lurk behind closed doors and drawn curtains. Our wilderness is the smattering of bile and garbage sold as wisdom that we must ingest and regurgitate if we which to be “successful” by modern terms. There is a very enlightening passage in the “wilderness vision” of Wilford Woodruff where the Lord defines 19th century civilizations a “wilderness of darkness and error”[32] which his church had been called out of.

Brigham young was most vocal on this very issue as he criticized those who came to Utah while still lusting for the goods of the eastern states saying: “what do they want them for? They want what they call civilization- that is fighting, gambling, killing, whorehouses, drinking houses and every species of debauchery that can be imagined on the face of the earth. That is their civilization and what they want introduced here.”[33]
President young goes on to quote John the revelator stating that it is the saints duty to come “out of Babylon, out of this confusion and wickedness which they call civilization!...it is corruption and wickedness of the deepest dye it is no society for you my people, come out of her.”[34]

The problem of pornography and idolatry are compounded when we excuse and assist the presence of wickedness. If we ignore the warning signs due to a desire for convience and entertainment and neglect the wise council Tolerance of sin is itself a sin….All human affairs must be measured by the standards of right. If evil is in man's acts. It becomes a sin to support them.”[35] We defile ourselves through those things we associate with. Brigham young concludes “After all these revelations and commandments the people who profess to be saints will mingle with the wicked and foster those who would cut their throats and feed and clothe and give everything they can gather together”[36]

The problem of pornography is increased when we are not watchful or when we are overly focused on temporal goods and conveniences. The daily grind we have set for ourselves can dull our sensitivity to the will of god. President Cannon remarks on this subject : “ I find I have to be careful while engaged in business, for I know that the tendency of my mind is to devote all my thought and all my time and attention to the business that is at hand…This is the tendency of people generally and we have to guard against it and for which we have to be reproved that we may not yield to it to so great an extent as to drive the spirit of god from us…if we grieve the spirit of god when we are performing our temporal duties it is because we allow the one idea to absorb out attention too much”[37]

Doctrine and covenants tells us: “Now here is wisdom and the mind of the Lord. Let the house be built, not after the manner of the world; for I give not unto you that ye shall live after the manner of the world”.[38]

Not only does the Lord not give to us to live after the manner of the world, Joseph Smith and President Benson state specifically:
1st Joseph “It is useless for us to expect the favor of the world. We have been called OUT of the world…”[39]
and Benson “As Latter-day Saints, we too have been called out of the world.”[40]

We are told by the apostle John: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the father is not in him. For all that is in the world…is not of the father, but is of the world.”[41]

Why have we been called out of the world? Joseph Smith sums this up simply: “We ought to have the building up of Zion as our greatest object”[42]
Finally how are we to build Zion? D&C 105:5 tells us that Zion cannot and will not be achieved “Unless it is by the principles of the law of the Celestial Kingdom”[43] and our time is short.

[1] Lds.Org
[2] Letter from J.W. Marriott to American Decency Association of Fremont, MI June 6th 2000
[3] Brigham Young Journal of Discourses 11:347
[4] Ibid
[5] George Q Cannon; January 18 1885, JD 26 138-139
[6] Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p 4
[7] I choose not to address the issue of pornography’s direct ties to murder in this text for will require too much space and is deeply dark and disheartening to recount. However for evidence concerning this link please see “The Sex Industrial Complex: Americas Secret Combination” By John L. Harmer and James B. Smith, 2007
[8] Romans 1:22-27 also see Jacob 2:13-14, 23, 31-33
[9] Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, Schaff, Philip Menzies, Allan. Christian Classics Ethereal Library p 90
[10] Ibid p 89
[11] Ibid p 102
[12] Doctrine and Covenants 112: 26
[13] D&C 84:58-59
[14] Brigham Young Journal of Discourses 11:347
[15] Matt 5:48 JST
[16] 3 Nephi 12:48
[17] 1 Nephi 3:7
[18] Isaiah 55:8-9.
[19] Ezra Taft Benson, Safety in the Face of Dangers, BYU Devotional, May 10, 1966
[20] Ephesians 4:17,19
[21] Ephesians 5:3-5 also Colossians 3:5
[22] Also see Colossians 2:8: Beware lest any man through philosophy and vain deceit after the traditions of men and the rudiments of the world.
[23] Ephesians 5:6-7,11
[24] Hugh W. Nibley, Leaders and Managers, BYU Commencement 1983
[25] Ibid 5:6 also Colossians 3:6
[26] Ephesians 5:6-7,11
[27] Tertullian pg 89
[28] Ibid pg 99
[29] ibid
[30] Spencer W. Kimball, The False Gods we worship, June 1976 Ensign
[31] Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 358, Teachings of the Latter Day Prophets, 1986 p. 714-15
[32] Waiting for Words End, The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, Susan Staker, Signature Books, 1993, pg 343
[33] Journal of discourses 11 pg 300
[34] ibid
[35] John A Widstoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, Bookcraft 1943 Page 271
[36] ibid at 22
[37] G.Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol 11 pg 33
[38] Doctrine and Covenants 95:13
[39] Millennial star 29:268
[40] Elder Ezra Taft Benson, Safety in the Face of Dangers, BYU devotional, may 10 1966
[41] 1st John 2:16
[42] Joseph Smith DHC 3:390-391
[43] D&C 105:5

Pornography, media and idols

2008-07-29T08:32:00.000-07:00

Pornography, media and idols

I in June 2007 I learned that a Bishop of a BYU student ward no longer asks his prospective missionaries if they have ever viewed pornography. He now asks them when the last time they viewed it was. In our day it is not a question of if an individual will be exposed to porn, but when or where they will be.

Despite our best efforts the pornographic siege today is in many ways equivalent to Greek siege of Troy. The pornographers assault our gates and defenses and then like the Trojan horse enter our homes. These modern Trojan horses take the shape of DVD’s, CD’s, I-pods, computers and internet compatible cell phones. And like the Trojans of old, we often willfully bring them into our homes and celebrate what we have found and brought into our possession. Too often we do not realize that wickedness keeps pace with advancement and every opportunity we give the adversary to access our eyes and ears is an opportunity he will utilize.

This Trojan mentality, creates a situation in which we as members of the church of Jesus Christ are not only exposed to the wicked will of the world, but we purchase devices for its delivery, unwittingly support it creators and grant it value in our society by passing the finance the Lord has blessed us with to the enemy of all mankind.

Every Latter Day Saint has been taught of the evils of this wicked substance and most Latter Day Saints believe they know how to identify and avoid it effectively. Few of these good people however are doing enough. The majority of my generation suffers from a grave misunderstanding concerning the nature of this problem. This misunderstanding has made many of us unknlowingly “porn enablers”. Though we are not consumers, we are also not its ardent enemy and have been lulled into a false sense of security by our comfortable living standards and easy access to conveniences. Our values have been warped and perverted by our luxury as President Benson points out: “so garbled in values have our morals become that some youth would not dare touch a cigarette but freely engage in petting”[1]

We believe and have been indoctrinated by the world that we must accept the existence of sin in our communities and associations. This doctrine is in direct contrast to the teachings of the prophets.
· In 1966 Elder Ezra Taft Benson exhorted the students of BYU to “Have good associates or don’t associate at all…if your friends or associates encourage base thoughts, then you had best leave them…we are in the world, it is true, but we must not partake of the evils of the world”[2]
· Spencer W. Kimball has told the saints: “We pray with our Lord that we may be kept from being in the world…We live in a permissive world, but we must make certain we do not become a part of that permissive world, that degenerate world”[3]
· And to quote John Widsote: “Sin cannot be shown love or mercy. However meek and beguiling it may present itself. It cannot be condoned. Were that done the structure of truth would collapse. The battle of the Church is against sin, of every kind; it must be conquered, or the plan of salvation-will be defeated; it must be fought to the bitter end. Tolerance of sin is itself a sin….All human affairs must be measured by the standards of right. If evil is in man's acts. It becomes a sin to support them.”[4]

President Ezra Taft Benson warned the saints against this tolerance in pursuit of status in 1966 when he said the following: “As the world becomes more wicked, a possible way to attain worldly success may be to join the wicked… We are in the world, and I fear some of us are getting too much like the world. Rather than continue a peculiar people, some are priding themselves on how much they are like everybody else, when the world is getting more wicked. ..The honors of men, more often than not, are fleeting. Anxious to run after the honors of office or succumb to the pressures of public glamour and worldly acclaim, some of us are no longer willing to stand up for all the principles of the gospel. We seek to justify our unrighteousness by claiming that, if only we can get title or position, then think of the good we can do. Hence we lose our salvation en route to those honors…Seeking the applause of the world; we like to be honored by the men the world honors. But therein lays real danger, for ofttimes in order to receive these honors, we must join forces with and follow those same devilish influences and policies which brought some of those men to positions of prominence. More and more the honors of this world are being promoted by the wicked for the wicked.” [5]

Along these lines Elder Marion G. Romney stated unequivocally: “We must be careful that we are not led to accept or support any organization, cause or measure which in its remotest efforts, would jeopardize free agency, whether it be in politics, government, religion, employment, education or in any other field. It is not enough for us to be sincere in what we support. We must be right.”[6]

How can we be a peculiar people if we are embracing the same attitudes a practices of the world in regards to finance and entertainment? This has always been the case with the saints, we have been warned before:
"Can you go to work and make a people of one heart and one mind while they are possessed with the spirit of the world? You Cannot. Can they feel the same interest in the Kingdom of God while possessing the spirit of the world that they would if they were filled with the spirit of Christ? They Cannot. How can they devote their lives to the building up of the Kingdom of God when they do not delight in it, but delight in building themselves up, in making gain and gathering around them the riches of the world? The Latter-day Saints, in their conduct and acts with regard to financial matters, are like the rest of the world. The course pursued by men of business in the world has a tendency to make a few rich, and to sink the masses of the people in poverty and degradation. Too many of the Elders of Israel take this course. No matter what comes they are for gain—for gathering around them riches; and when they get rich, how are those riches used? Spent on the lusts of the flesh." [7]
This situation has not changed. We still pursue courses for gain that we cannot excuse by saying “its just business”. With the saturation of the gross pornographic secret combination our responsibility to deviate from worldly customs and practices grows daily. Unless this is done we unwittingly enable pornography.

For example, despite the council of the church to oppose the production and distribution of “any form” of pornography thousands of latter day saints send monthly checks to Comcast cable. Comcast is a major distributor of Hardcore pornography and all types of Pornographic propaganda from the ultra smutty MTV and VH1 to the playboy programs on the E! Network to the homosexual content found on Bravo. Other pornographic film companies advertise for the pornographic films like “Girls gone Wild” on basic cable late at night. The monthly paycheck sent to Comcast and other support this distribution. As the saying goes the cash register speaks louder then the pulpit. Cable and satellite companies are HUGE in the porn net and serve and distribution sources.

Now it can be said that we have the ability to block certain channels from being viewed in our homes, we even have the ability to block shows of unacceptable ratings. These things do not change the fact that we are still sending the wealth the lord has blessed us with into the hands of faceless companies who profit and distribute porn. Is the glowing screen of digital entertainment worth it? it is if you love college football. The Lord has said “Behold, it is said in my laws, or forbidden, to get in debt to thine enemies” (D&C 64:27), yet as you hear these words many of our peers are signing binding contracts to financially support the distributors of filth in order to view the “splendor of the Coliseum”.

If the Latter-day Saints are at war with pornography we cannot effectively do spiritual battle when we are sending our money to those that distribute our enemy. This being the case the words of John Widstoe are as true today as they were 60 years ago: Tolerance of sin is itself a sin….All human affairs must be measured by the standards of right. If evil is in man's acts. it becomes a sin to support them…” for the lord cannot view sin "with the least degree of allowance"(D. & C. 1:31).

In early 2006 I conducted several interviews at several “trendy” media and apparel shops in Utah and Salt Lake County. During these interviews I spoke to a young woman working at a major CD/DVD retailer in the Provo Town center. The young woman identified herself as an active Latter Day Saint currently attending BYU. The woman admitted to having sold “hundreds” of the pornographic (Playboy/Hustler ECT) videos the store kept in stock over the several months she worked at the store. She stated “I don’t like it, but its part of my job”
Just down the hall was a store that specialized in “skateboarder” style fashions. This store featured pornographic propaganda only in the men’s section of the store. The items for sale promote some of the most brutal and pervasive porn producers. Both of the young women manning the cash registers admitted to being Latter Day Saints who attended Provo High School. Both admitted to selling items promoting Playboy, Hustler and others to young men and women to patrons of their store.

Finally early last year I sat in a meeting of concerned members of the church from around the country discussing the problem of Pornography on cable and satellite TV. I challenged the group to explain why, if they had full knowledge that their TV provider was a porn distributor, they kept willingly giving them money. Seeing how in our world money is the true language of value and the cash register preaches louder than the pulpit. Many of the group stated that they hated the fact that they were giving money to a porn provider, but they had to pay for it in order to watch General Conference and BYU TV.

Any member of the church who grew up in the rural Midwest as I did knows that the church broadcasts Conference to the ward houses for the purpose of bringing the saints together to partake of the teachings of the brethren as a body. This being the case one can circumvent financially supporting the sleaze merchants by attending conference at the Ward houses. The groups’ real argument was “we don’t like the porn, but we love the convenience of watching Conference in our bath robes“.

Underreported and gravely misunderstood is that pornography and the dirty propaganda that surrounds it is the Mahan principle. It is the transition of life into wealth and property. Pornography is a tool utilized by the despots of the soul to create an unlimited reservoir of addicts from which they can extract an unending source of wealth. It is well established that those addicted to porn often lose all they have worked for and give all they earn to satisfy a growing hunger for depravity. In essence they have lost their agency. Unlike the despots of old who used the sword to take their victims temporal goods, pornographers use lust to rot away their victims’ free agency. These pornographers openly proclaim “I am… the master of this great secret, that I may murder to get gain…I am free; surely the flocks of my brother falleth into my hands”[8]

At the same time Pornography is the antithesis of the will of the Lord. Pornography is the trafficking of sacred things for temporal gain. The body is the creation of the Lord and Temple of the spirit, pornography is the selling of what the Lord has consecrated to the lowest bidder.

In summery many suffer from a destructive tolerance of the pornographic in the name of convenience, worldly accolades, entertainment and fashion. Like the BYU student who wears a t-shirt dawning the stoic face of Che’ Guevara with his favorite Cougars hat or the USU institute student who lends her time to the yearly Planned Parenthood chocolate sale in Logan, they are ill equipped to battle the adversary on this plain because they are uneducated and are already aiding him.

We as latter day saint are often Porn enablers due to often over emphasized fascinations with having the cutting edge toys, devotions to accruing temporal wealth. An over emphasis on these things often causes us to miss the subtlety of filth that is sleeping inside our digital Trojan horses. This attitude caused president Kimball to tell the church “In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had…we are, on the whole, and Idolatrous people- a condition most repugnant to the Lord” [9] Our idolatry has made us easy prey.

Youth must be shown that all of their decisions and actions in connection to media and temporal philosophy are a demonstration of preference, where their interest, loyalty and obedience lay. Each decision to support socially destructive or spiritually destructive music, media or groups tells the Lord of their status and obedience. They must understand that every opportunity they give themselves to be exposed to porn and its ilk, will be the opportunity the adversary takes. Every media toy that delivers a temptation, no matter how “new” and technically advanced can and will be used to threaten their spiritual purity.

Such is the nature of Satan’s plan to utilize those things that make us weak or envious, to make us feel we can give and take and still remain pure as Zion.

Satan's game has never changed. Why change the program with such a winning record? In Satan’s first entrance into our historical record he tempts Eve to defy the command of the Lord by saying in essence "this will make you wise". "It will make you as the Gods knowing good from evil" (Gen 3:5) he said using the temptation of greater knowledge to woo the fair maiden.

Today as in the antediluvian era “it will make you wise” is the unofficial slogan of every company or ideology pushing their product or lifestyle. It is the slogan of a world dominated by the desire to get gain, a world dictated by the amassing of gold and silver by peddling worldly knowledge. Money and power, however abundant or limited, have always been Satan's favored mediums of oppression. With control over the worldly system of value exchange kingdoms have been bought up, brutal armies have marched over the globe, false prophets, churches and other anti-Christ's have risen and fallen. It is fascinating that the temptation "it will make you wise" is followed by the worldly standard of "you can have anything in this world for money". Both sayings are commonly used by proponents of pornography

Just what are some of these things that will make us wise that we can buy with money? Tobacco and alcohol in the past have both been marketed to the educated, refined and original. Always selling and air of sophistication or social entertainment the vice merchants tell us: “You can really tell a man by the alcohol and tobacco he chooses". By their worldly standard it is wise of us to choose the product that makes us as temporally socially desirable as possible. They sell us images of desirable women leering at the attractive man who sips from the appropriate drink or takes long satisfying drags from the right tobacco. All the while the male who chooses unwisely stands alone in the shadows. "Drink this, smoke that, it will make you wise"

Before Pornography had its media boom in the 50’s its messages was sold to us under the pretence of expanding our wisdom. N ow pornography in all its insidious forms has been melded into the education system and supported there by tax payer dollars. Students seeking specialized degrees are forced to take classes at many American universities that require them to produce their own pornography so they can "overcome their biases". Affluent pederasts in positions of influence have introduced pornography to our elementary school children for the purpose of molding a wicked and sexually numb generation. Our music industry, our movie industry and their ilk proliferate hardcore pornographic messages in their music and videos to children of all age and race via cable TV and wireless media devices supplied by parents.

The grandfather of the pornography flood was Alfred Kinsey of Indiana University. Kinsey sold the people of United States his volume of pornographic propaganda entitled "Sexuality and the Human Male". This volume was promoted as research and rocked the country with its "scientific" findings of homosexuality and rampant immorality. This book and his subsequent book “Sexuality and the Human Female” are now the foundation for homosexual, pedophile, the abortion movements.

Inspired by the "scientific" findings of Kinsey’s Gomorrian epics, a young man named Hugh Hefner proclaims himself "Kinsey’s pamphleteer”. Hefner proceeds to spread Kinsey’s gospel of abomination under the title “Playboy Magazine”. Hefner aimed to promote enlightened sexuality and change society via his message of Kinseyan sexual wisdom[10] proclaiming to the world “it will make you wise".

Following the selling of Kinseyan pornographic wisdom the organized proponents of homosexuality have created an entire culture based upon the idea that unquestioned tolerance of lifestyle and multiculturalism can enlighten and bring wisdom to entire societies. We now see them in our schools and on television saying to us "this will make you wise"

In our day world wide saturation of media has made it possible for wicked minds like these to dupe even the very elite into investing their lives in the pursuit of tainted and corrosive worldly wisdom and notoriety. The world is so deeply rooted in media that few realize that each time they purchase a product or give support to a cause that contains questionable messages or images…they are lending their support to those who wish to crush their testimony. This is the situation with our latter day youth.

President Benson once said:
“We are in the world and I fear some of us are getting too much like the world. Rather than continue a peculiar people some are priding themselves on how much they are like everybody else when the world is getting more …As Latter-day Saints, we too have been called out of the world. …Anxious to run after the honors of office or succumb to the pressures of public glamour and worldly acclaim, some of us are no longer willing to stand up for all the principles of the gospel. We seek to justify our unrighteousness by claiming that, if only we can get title or position, then think of the good we can do. Hence we lose our salvation en route to those honors…”[11]

The desires to garner the attention and acceptance our latter day media is a desire that will, if left unchecked buy gospel principle and spiritual guidance, will create the very same issues President Benson was talking about.

Before I get too critical let me specify that there is good music and entertainment and the bad. The good will keep the spirit with you and will not affect your sensitivity. The good will even bring tears to your eyes and often call to your mind a remembrance of the Lords charity toward you.

The bad however will chisel away at your spiritual defenses, lower your sensitivity and callous your empathy, and lead you to idolatry, which is its goal. So much of what the world calls entertainment is a clever marketing campaign for corruption. Brigham Young once counseled the saints:
“In nearly all cities or towns of an extensive population there are certain vices, or crimes… borne with by the people as a kind of unavoidable or necessary evil; such, for instance, as gambling, drunkenness, vain and wicked amusements and allurements, directly calculated to corrupt the morals of the people and lead them from the paths of virtue and truth. Among the most conspicuous and fashionable of these we might mention…corrupt and immodest theatrical exhibitions, magical performances, etc., all of which are apt not only to have an evil tendency in themselves, but to mingle the virtuous and the vicious in each others society; not for the improvement of the vicious but rather to corrupt the virtuous.
And so far at least as the members of the church are concerned, we would advise that …vain and useless amusements be neither countenanced nor patronized; they have been borne with, in some instances heretofore for the sake of peace and good will. …If the people were all righteous, it would do to dance, and to have music, feasting and merriment. But what fellowship has Christ with Belial? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what union have the sons and daughters of God with the children of this world, who fear not God nor regard man. All amusements in which saints and sinners are mingled tend to corruption, and has a baneful influence in religious society.”[12]

Brother Brigham was adamant about maintaining a division between the believers and the gentiles. He knew, as we are supposed to know, that the allurements of the temporal world are designed for the temporal world and not for edification of the eternal soul. His warning is a true today as it was when it came from his lips.

However, music, celebration and gatherings have always been associated with the Kingdom of God. Doctrine and Covenants encourages our gathering for musical entertainment: “If thou art merry, praise the Lord with singing, with music, with dancing, and with a prayer of prayer and thanksgiving.”[13] We also know that Brigham and the other church leaders held dances and meals at their houses.[14] We know of at least one occasion where president young was up until three am dancing and enjoying the company of his friends.[15] And the Latter-day Saints routinely gather for the music and celebration of the Nauvoo and Palmyra Pageants, this practice is a positive thing for the unification of the Followers of the Lord

The visions of the prophets are littered with accounts of heavenly choirs singing to the glory of the Most High God. In the meridian of time concourses angels heralding the birth of the Savior filled the shepherd’s ears with beautiful songs of joy for example. To proclaim this joy the Lord has his choir (which is a mission of the Church) and his symphony. When combined these bodies sing praise that brings tears to the eyes of those who hear them.

While the Lord uses his choir to accompany his spirit, likewise the adversary to uses music to promote his. One needs only compare the soothing harmony of the Mormon tabernacle choir to the driving double base pedals, over produced power cords and spiritually and morally bankrupt content of music to pinpoint the difference in the two messages and uses of music.

Just as a daily diet of the Mormon tabernacle choir will bring you closer to the Lord with its message, a daily diet of secular music will drive you from him, in some measure, with its message. In a sense music is used as spiritual propaganda, taken in small doses it can sway over time and when indulged in it will change behavior and outlook. These effects go for motion pictures and Televisions as well, in fact any warning you hear from a general authority concerning music can go all types of media.

Looking at media, we will focus on music for the sake of time, just message wise what can we pick out? Let us first look at the hip hop culture and genre. We see drug dealing and use, sex, violence, revenge, abuse, intimidation, prostitution, greed, lust, power and worldly goods. It seems Hip-Hop music is the perfect example of Satan’s theme of “you can have anything in this world for money!” In addition looking at the content of Hip-Hop and what passes for Rhythm and Blues (R&B) brings light to Nephi’s words “…to be carnally minded is death…”[16] What may be worse is that they produce music that dwells on all these corrupting topics, portray these things as desirable, then they thank God for their success at their public gatherings

What are some of the reoccurring messages in Rock, Punk and Indy music genres? Here we see sex, immaturity, anger, angst, depression, heart ache, death, lost love, confusion, suicide, anarchy socialism and communism. It is interesting that while Hip-hop and R&B cultures dwell so heavily on the fleshy, flashy, shiny things you can buy with money, so much of rock, punk and others dwell on the things in life people feel they have no control over. The beauty of life is forgotten unless it is applied to the “no rules, reckless abandon, last summer as kids” theme that rock has made its staple point. sex and purity are viewed as a passing thing to be interchanged with booze and social events.

Looking deeper we find a weird Chicken Little “the sky is falling” attitude applied to the unhappy aspects every daily teenage life. Multiple, very unhealthy, gothic views of death, the emptiness of life, the morbid and the sensational are cultivated by bands like the Used, My Chemical Romance, AFI, Disturbed, Slipknot and others.

People will find exceptions and say “You’re wrong this song is upbeat and happy!” While exceptions to the rule may exist, they do not take away the fact that the messages in Rock, Punk and other styles are rarely pro-family, pro-gospel, and optimistic and have a greater tendency to dwell on the sensual, sensational, sordid and brutal.

What about country music? People either love country music or they hate it. While country has a large variety of good content with its Christian and pro family messages and genuinely sincere love songs, there are an awful lot of songs about the same kind of “reckless abandon” behavior that rock and punk dwell on namely premarital sex, drinking and partying.

All of this adoration for lasciviousness in media is in direct contrast to the past when the pornographic and undesirable parts of society were seen for what they were, fringe and unwanted. An appreciation of pornography, the sensational and the sordid was unheard of and even more it was shunned by society. In contrast today children are raised to envy pornographers like 50 cent, Lil Jon, Eminem, Snoop Dogg and other undisciplined and puerile men. They are raised to emulate them. Moreover many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints buy and download their music (and the music of others of like mind) to saturate their environments with their messages in the name of entertainment.

Many of the stores we do our shopping like FYE in Provo in sell pornographic videos in public view where children can easily see the product. Popular clothing stores in Utah sell propaganda from some of the most brutal porn companies to teenage boys and girls. Even worse many young members of the Church apply for jobs at stores that sell pornographic products every day. By doing this, members of the Church of God are lending their talents and labor to peddling porn, but to them that ok as long as it doesn’t require they work on Sunday.

Media pornography can be very mild in its form or very graphic, we need to remember the words of elder John A. Widstoe: “Sin… however meek and beguiling it may present itself it cannot be condoned… Tolerance of sin itself is a sin.”[17] My friend Alex Boye once pointed out “just as a little white lie is still a lie, mild sexual content in a movie, even if it is camouflaged with comedy, catchy songs or star appeal it cannot and should not be rationalized, it is still pornography. Pornography is anything that mocks the sacred nature of intimacy, anything that takes what should be holy and personal and makes trivializes it in public.”

As always Alex makes a wonderful point. But beyond just mocking the things of God, even what seems to be minute trivial and tame media pornography ruins lives. Pornography is the conduit by which Satan and his aids gain access to the hearts of the children of the Most High, and turn them into arbiters of the most inhuman brutality.

Does this mean that we should be in the practice of avoiding most secular musical and media offerings? That is exactly what this means, to avoid the low, vulgar doggerel of a secular world. This is not my opinion from my experience; our dear Elder Boyd K. Packer sounded this warning before this author was born. Elder packer states: “In our day music itself has been corrupted. Music can, by its tempo, by its beat, by its intensity, dull the spiritual sensitivity of men…Our youth have been brought up on a diet of music that is loud and fast, more intended to agitate than to pacify, more intended to excite than calm…Such music has little virtue and it is repellant to the spirit of God…By comparison we have not given sufficient council and attention, I think, to the music our young people consume. And consume is the proper word…the breach between the world and the extremes of its music and the Church is wider in our day than ever in generations past…Be selective in what you consume and what you produce, it becomes a part of you…virtue by choice will not associate with filth, evil cannot tolerate the presence of light.”[18]

Elder Packer ends this power warning on the same theme previously suggested by Brigham Young: “Young people you cannot afford to fill your minds with the unworthy hard music of our day. It is not harmless…You degrade yourselves when you identify with all of those things which now seen to surround such extremes in music: the shabbiness, the irreverence, the immorality…Such music as that is not worthy of you.”[19]

President Young and Elder Packer both warn of the danger of entertainments “apt not only to have an evil tendency in themselves, but to mingle the virtuous and the vicious in each others society; not for the improvement of the vicious but rather to corrupt the virtuous.”

The warning still holds true today and the men behind the music today know it. It is their goal to corrupt the pure so to speak, just as the brethren have said. It’s called marketing. In an effort to sell more products they target emotionally immature youth with calculated secular messages designed to establish their product as desirable. They sell our children "non-conformist" ideals that demand conformity in order to receive recognition in their trend riddled hip-hop, skater, punk or Indy-rock cliques. These cliques often scoff at the other secure in the knowledge their chosen venue of non-conformity has made then wise.

The music business and its associated social cliques are an idol where, in my experiences, far too many youth worship. Many will no doubt recoil at this charge and assume I say this strictly for shock value, I do no such thing, we have been warned "If we lust . . . for the riches of the world, and spare no pains [hard work] to obtain and retain them, and feel 'these are mine,' then the spirit of the anti-Christ comes upon us. This is the danger . . . [we] are in."[20] or “Whatever people work at, - spend time or resources on, set their hearts upon- that they serve[21]”

The music industry and culture can be an idol of public recognition, an idol of money and notoriety to which the naiveté of youth aspires. Youth devote their precious hours of their lives to cultivating the image of or making it in the "biz". They sell their spiritual selves out and adopt the manners and dress of their chosen clique with worldly ambitions to look the part and fit in. All these clothes which they purchase to assimilate, they purchase at clique specific stores that profit from our non-conformist conformists. To this idol they devote hours of practice and self promotion. They are lusting for the image. Their success will ensure others will admire them they way they admire other temporary idols of pop culture. In essence they are, in the words of Jacob “laboring in sin”[22], in their attempts to conform to their desired clique defile themselves for “In things unclean, none can appear clean. If you put on a tunic defiled in itself, it perhaps may not be defiled through you; but you, through it, will be unable to be clean.”[23]

Now why is this idolatry? Is the desire for earthly notoriety wrong? It is if you are bound by covenant to establish the kingdom of the Lord. If you have promised the Lord your time and talent and promised to sacrifice for his will to be done, then to not strive for that purpose is to rob God of that which is his. It is amazing that a early Christian apologist like Tertullian understood this principle, yet so many of our day miss it completely. That motto of our modern day is “seek ye first financial independence and status then all shall be added unto you”, this followers of Christ in all generations have understood to be a perversion of doctrine. Lord had revealed to us that any temporal success we achieve will be provided in his own way only AFTER we have “obtained a hope in Christ” then will we have riches and temporal success because we “seek them for the intent to do good”[24]

Idolatry, according to understanding, is to take that worship, devotion and sacrifice which is due to the Lord and grant it unto another affection either of temporal substance or promise of personal advancement. Thus says Tertullian: “The essence of fraud, I take it, is, that any should seize what is another’s, or refuse to another his due; and, of course, fraud done toward man is a name of greatest crime. Well, but idolatry does fraud to God, by refusing to Him, and conferring on others, His honors.”[25]

According to this ancient Christian author all sin either leads to idolatry or is found practiced, in some degree, by idolaters: “After such crimes, so pernicious, so devouring of salvation, all other crimes also, after some manner, and separately disposed in order, find their own essence represented in idolatry…Thus it comes to pass, that in idolatry all crimes are detected, and in all crimes idolatry. Even otherwise, since all faults savour of opposition to God, and there is nothing which savours of opposition to God which is not assigned to demons and unclean spirits, whose property idols are”[26]

Tertullian lived from A.D. 145–220, though the world had fallen into apostasy, he still strived to cleave to the righteous path as much as was possible. In his generation men suffered from the same crippling lack of understanding we suffer from today. According to tertullian: “the expansiveness of idolatry has to be foreguarded against by us, since in manifold wise it subverts the servants of God; and this not only when unperceived, but also when cloaked over. Most men simply regard idolatry as to be interpreted in these senses alone, viz.: if one burn incense, or immolate a victim, or give a sacrificial banquet, or be bound to some sacred functions or priesthoods”[27]

Yet this idolatry is nothing new in the church. The members have been plagued since the restoration with one form of idolatry or another. President Kimball makes it clear: “In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had…we are, on the whole, and Idolatrous people- a condition most repugnant to the Lord” [28]

In the eternal view what is the benefit of devoting hours, days and years in coveting the wealth, acceptance and fame of secular trends and subcultures. There is no benefit. By definition any time that you devote to your own temporal aggrandizement is time you are taking from your gospel responsibilities.

There is another question which rises from this issue, and that is it right that those who proclaim themselves to be disciples of the Living God be involved in temporal practices that serve to distract others from the Gospel light? I have known many Latter-day Saints who, after gaining notoriety in music cliques, lured others away from their Gospel duties and into this temporal idolatry. Tertullian is right to ask the question of worldly minded Christians “For how have we renounced the devil and his angels, if we make them? What divorce have we declared from them, I say not with whom, but dependent on whom, we live?... Can you have denied with the tongue what with the hand you confess? Unmake by word what by deed you make? Preach one God, you who make so many? Preach the true God, you who make false ones?”[29]

Tertullian goes on to state that those who labor to create that which is worshiped by the world “make, that they may be able to be worshipped, do worship; and you worship…To them you immolate your ingenuity; to them you make your sweat a libation; to them you kindle the torch of your forethought…Do you affirm that you worship not what you make?” and “No art, then, no profession, no trade, which administers either to equipping or forming idols, can be free from the title of idolatry; unless we interpret idolatry to be altogether something else than the service of idol-tendence.”[30]

The status, the wealth and the celebrity the world worships in our modern music (and other) media is idolatry. How else can we explain the tabloids magazine and TV shows? How do we explain that a bratty celebrity who spends 26 hours in jail gets more news coverage than actual world events? How else can we explain the way our young grope after styles and fashions sponsored by media icons? This very real idol of media lures away the affection of youth, thus distracting them from their covenant duties and robbing the Lord of their honors, and placing them elsewhere, namely that which makes us fashionable.

The Lord was adamant that he would not acknowledge Priesthood holders who did not honor him in a revelation to John Taylor he tells us:
“My Priesthood, whom I have called and whom I have sustained and honored, shall honor me and obey my laws, the laws of my Holy priesthood, or they shall not be considered worthy to hold my Priesthood, saith the Lord …for if my Priesthood whom have chosen, and called, and endowed with the spirit and gifts of their several callings, and with the powers thereof, do not acknowledge me, I will not acknowledge them, saith the Lord; for I will be honored and obeyed by my Priesthood.”[31]

In his masterful work “the Last Days” Brother Avraham Gileadi sums up the problem better than I ever could: “Idolatry nonetheless assumes many forms… less tangible than statue worship perhaps, but just a virulent. Any Idolatry diverts the attention of the worshiper from the true God and his law to a counterfeit… we must not presume that people worship only false Gods. Among the Lord people, worship of the true God is rarely done away with. Rather they often worship the true God alongside the false Gods. They maintain a careful equilibrium in order to preserve an identity with the national God….at the same time the people follow their own Gods as they please. This compromise enables people to satisfy both their carnal instincts and their spiritual aspirations. It causes the Lords prophets to cry in anguished tones, “chose this day whom ye shall serve” and “How long will ye halt between two options”[32]

Thus we see that Pornography and idolatry are fellow travelers. When men become enchanted by idols and their desires, in part or in full, become set on attaing those idols, they will excuse and overlook other crimes and sins that surround them. Men will rationalize “if only we can get title or position, then think of the good we can do” and ignore that “that in idolatry all crimes are detected, and in all crimes idolatry” Thus Pornography grows stronger and stronger because our love of temporal entertainments and association causes us to turn a blind eye in the name of convince and entertainment.

[1] Ezra Taft Benson, “Safety in the Face of Dangers”, BYU Devotional May 10, 1966.
[2] Ibid
[3] Spencer W. Kimball, God Will Not Be Mocked” Ensign, Nov 1974
[4] John A Widstoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, Bookcraft 1943 Page 271
[5] Benson, Safety in the Face of Dangers
[6] Ibid
[7] Journal of discourses 11:348
[8] Pearl of Great Price, Moses 5: 31,33
[9] Spencer W. Kimball, The False Gods we worship, June 1976 Ensign)
[10] See Judith A Reisman, “Kinsey Crimes and Consequences” for a detailed account.
[11] Elder Ezra Taft Benson, Safety in the Face of Dangers, May 10 1966
[12] Brigham Young, Second Epistle of the Twelve, Oct 1, 1844
[13] D&C 136:28
[14] Bringing the saints together as a group for celebrations and gatherings was encouraged in a 1st century letter from Clement the disciple of Peter to James who was at Jerusalem, Clement advises: “fix love into your minds; and for its entrance there is only one fit means, viz, the common partaking of food. Wherefore see to it that ye be frequently one another’s guests, as ye are able…knowing that, giving temporal things, ye shall receive eternal things”
[15] see Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young as a Statesman, CWHN Vol 13 pg 181
[16] 2nd Nephi 9:39
[17] John A Widstoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, Bookcraft, 1943 Page 271
[18] Boyd K. Packer, Conference Report Oct 5th 1973, pg 25 emphasis added
[19] Ibid
[20] Journal of Discourses 10:300
[21] Avraham Gileadi, “The Last Days”, Deseret Book, P 16
[22] Jacob 2:5
[23] Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, Schaff, Philip and Menzies, Allan (1845-1916), Pg 97
[24] Jacob 2:19
[25] Ibid pg 80
[26] Ibid
[27] Ibid
[28] Spencer W. Kimball, The False Gods we worship, June 1976 Ensign)
[29] Tertullian, pg 84
[30] ibid pg 90
[31] Revelation to John Taylor Oct 13 1882, church historians office Salt Lake City Utah
[32] Gileadi, “The Last Days”, P 11-13