Housewife Info Junkie

My thoughts on Hawaii's Marriage Equality Act of 2013

2013-10-16T14:10:00.001-07:00

by Rachel Murdock

Governor Neil Abercrombie has called a special legislative session on October 28, 2013 in an effort to legalize “gay marriage” in Hawaii. While I personally oppose gay marriage due to religious reasons, I hold no animosity to my gay brothers and sisters and am against discrimination directed towards them. I support the rights granted by same-sex civil unions. I do not support changing the meaning and purpose of the word “marriage” to include members of the same sex simply to grant federal tax benefits and make everyone feel like they are being “fair” and “inclusive.” I do not believe citizens of the state of Hawaii (as well as the country) are fully informed of the contents in various pieces of “gay marriage” legislation and the long term consequences they hold.

If I had just relied on news reports, I would have believed that the religious exemptions that Gov. Abercrombie included in this legislation truly allowed personal religious liberty when it comes to gay marriage. However, after reading the bill (which few people actually will,) I’ve found that the so-called “religious exemptions” in this bill are very narrow, limited and do not come anywhere close to covering individuals or religious organizations in their right to religious liberty.

First of all, it must be understood that the majority of people of faith do not oppose “gay marriage” because they are bigoted or homophobic. It is because they sincerely believe that religious scripture (i.e. God) prohibits homosexuality and that to participate in it is a sin. At the same time we recognize that we are all sinners and we all have the free agency to live our lives the way we chose. Still, people of faith have the right to stand for truth and righteousness at all times, and in all things, and in all places. As backward as some of these sentiments may seem to more secular minded groups and individuals, a certain amount of tolerance on their part is also needed. In my view, religious liberty takes precedence over “gay marriage.” While the founders of our country generally stated that we have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," they found it important enough to specifically guarantee that no law should prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Keeping in mind that individuals and religious organizations have the right to NOT be coerced into doing something that goes against their religious principles, please read carefully, section 572-G of the proposed bill which you can download here. The language of the bill grants priests and bishops of any denomination the right to refuse or solemnize any marriage and frees them from being subject to fines, penalties or other civil actions.

However, there are three conditions that must be met by religious organizations in order to exempt them from legal harassment should they refuse to make their facilities available to same-sex weddings.

1. The religious facility is regularly used by the religious organization for its religious purposes.

2. The religious organization restricts use of the religious facility exclusively to its members.

3. The religious organization does not operate the religious facility as a for-profit business.

If ANY of these three conditions are not met, then the protection of the section does not cover that religious facility. Condition (2) is the most head scratching line because almost all houses of worship that I know of, DO NOT restrict their facility (i.e. chapel) exclusively to its members. Most churches welcome visitors not of their faith and therefore this condition voids the entire so called “religious exemption.” This could force churches to become exclusive or stop solemnizing marriage all together. This is completely unacceptable.

Another huge flaw in the religious exemption is that it does not cover religious affiliates of churches such as Catholic Charities and other church owned adoption agencies. Schools owned by a church are not protected such as the Mormon owned Brigham Young University in Laie or the adjacent Polynesian Cultural Center. These affiliates and their employees should also be covered under the religious exemption because constitutionally, they also have the right to the free exercise of religion and should not be forced to go against their religious beliefs.

One of my biggest complaints about this bill is that it is selective in who it grants religious liberty to. This was summed up by Pakela A. who wrote a thoughtful analysis of the bill and stated:

"By limiting exemption from recognition of same-sex marraiges to “religions, their houses of worship or their ministers’ lawmakers are ignoring the fact that these religious entities and organizations are built upon individuals. Just as the gay communities are built upon individuals seeking rights to be protected from discrimination, the religious communities are built upon individuals and their rights to be protected from suppression of living their beliefs.”

The word EQUALITY is a comforting word that makes us feel good, safe and that all the world is fair. However The Wall Street Journal recently published an article by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway titled “Gay Marriage Collides With Religious Liberty.” The author points out that "When the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in June, President Obama said: "How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision—which applies only to civil marriages—changes that."

Note that only "religious institutions" are guaranteed religious liberty and not individuals. The article goes on to show that regarding gay marriage and religious liberty, "tolerance is not a two-way street." Specific examples are cited of individuals and businesses who have been legally harassed or forced to close their businesses because of their religious objections to catering same-sex union celebrations.

"It's not just religious-minded business owners who need to worry. County recorders, magistrates and judges in Iowa as well as justices of the peace in Massachusetts and town clerks in New York have been told that refusing to perform services for same-sex couples will result in criminal prosecutions for misdemeanors or other sanctions. Faced with choosing between their jobs and their religious beliefs, many have resigned, including a dozen Massachusetts justices of the peace." -Mollie Ziegler Hemingway

In the LGBT community’s march towards equality, people of faith have been trampled upon. Many people think this is okay because they view religion as intolerant and bigoted. But labeling people of faith as such, is in of itself, intolerant and bigoted. You cannot grant rights to one party at the expense of stripping rights from another. The gay community could very well make the same argument. Therefore a compromise is the best solution and that has already happened here in Hawaii in the shape of same-sex civil unions. I would support altering that law to allow same-sex couples to receive federal benefits. However, changing the definition of marriage--which was first an institute of God before it was ever an institute of the state--is wrong.

I believe that the majority of the almost completely democratic Hawaii legislature, is wanting to be as “forward thinking” as possible, wants to stand “on the right side of history” and most likely feels that changing the meaning of marriage is “the right thing to do.”

As a religious conservative (and I'll leave out the words, radical, right-wing and extremist because I am none of those,) I completely disagree. Unfortunately because there is almost no Republican representation in Hawaii, I am resigned to the fact that this bill will most likely pass-- unless citizens inform themselves of what is actually in this bill and speak up in large numbers. We should not be as foolish as our federal government leaders and pass the bill in order to find out what is in it. Any careful reading of the bill would show that this would be devastating to religious organizations and religious individuals.

I plead with Hawaii senators and representatives for a compromise. (and I have reached out to them.)

This is such a controversial issue with heavy consequences. People have very strong and passionate feelings on both sides. I do not believe it should be decided by the legislature or the court.

The issue of “gay marriage” should be put to a VOTE by the people.

If the legislative body refuses to let the people decide and is determined to pass a "gay marriage" bill on their own, then I would ask them to create a religious exemption that actually works:

1. The religious exemption in the bill must be rewritten to include individuals and business owners.
2. The exemption must be worded in such a way that there is iron-clad protection for religious organizations, their members, their affiliates and their facilities.
3. The condition that houses of worship be exclusive to members is preposterous, unconstitutional and must be changed.

I urge all citizens of the State of Hawaii to participate in YOUR government. Contact your senator and representative and let them know where you stand on the issue. They keep track of how many people are for and against the bill and would vote according to the majority of responses. You don't have to write a lengthy email or letter. Just a simple statement of where you stand would suffice. The special session begins on Oct. 28, 2013. Please contact them as soon as possible!

To find out who your state senator is and their contact information, click here.
To find out who your state representative is and their contact information, click here.
To read the proposed Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013, click here.

The United Stated Government murdered 297 Sioux Indians After 1stDisarming Them

2013-01-14T00:26:00.001-08:00

Found on a Facebook post by By Jeffrey E.

A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY TO THINK ABOUT.......December 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry's death squad, were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism.

We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation”. And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on “target shooting”. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.

As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of “our safety”.

Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute-
Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it.

Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.

How Mitt Romney Lost the Debate and Won My Vote

2012-10-24T16:44:00.000-07:00

By Joshua Uda

A campaign is not a solo act. Armies of advisors flank the party nominee to create a winning persona. They tell the candidate how to dress, what to say, how to say it. They even tell the candidate what to think. And they know best, because they have gathered and studied the market research and the psychological profiles of undecided voters. A candidate must be molded, shaped, and framed to energize the base, and then reshaped, and reframed to win the moderates.

While this process requires a degree of misrepresentation, it is necessary to win. And so… candidates soldier on for the greater good, conforming to the demands of their handlers, knowing that once they are in office, they will be free to follow their own moral compass. Until then, they must make sacrifices, even compromise and misrepresent who they really are if necessary. The end justifies the means.

I watched with great regret as this process played out in 2008. For many years, I had followed the public service of Senator John McCain, and admired him for his independence. He was never afraid to cross the aisle and oppose his own party to do what was right for America. He was one of my heroes, and I always hoped he might someday run for president. When that day came, the man I had come to respect seemed ready to stand his ground in his trademark maverick way, discouraging extreme and inflammatory discourse from his base and holding true to the noblest aspects of his conservative values.

Sadly, as Election Day neared and it became apparent that his opponent was taking the country by storm, John McCain suddenly began to change. His words and positions drifted and began to echo the party line, even those parts that he had previously rejected. Little by little, the man before me began to vanish, and all I could see was a puppet being manipulated by campaign managers and public image consultants. No matter how they tweaked him to appeal to the masses, all I saw was someone who had compromised the one thing I admired most for a shot at the presidency. He had abandoned his true self. He lost my respect, and he lost my vote.

McCain, however, was not the only presidential hopeful to catch my attention. During the primaries, another candidate gave me even greater hope for a better America, when he stood before the nation to speak on the issue of religious freedom. The speech was so moving that even Chris Mathews commented, “We have just witnessed greatness for the first time in this campaign.” And Governor Mitt Romney deserved that praise. He had stood before the nation to speak from his heart, giving a speech that he personally wrote and that expressed who he truly is, a man of great faith, compassion, tolerance, and goodness.

As a public servant, he had a solid public record of independent thinking, sound policy, and bipartisan cooperation – much like Senator McCain. However, unlike any presidential candidate in history, Mitt Romney also had a secret and deeply personal record of sincere compassion, astounding generosity, and humble service to all those around him. I had great hopes for Romney, but it seemed that before his campaign could even begin, he was closing the book and bowing out for the sake of the party.

It’s been a long time since then, and much has changed… but a few days ago, that man went before the nation as the Republican nominee to debate the President of the United States. For over a year, I have watched him campaign across America, but not as the candidate that caught my interest four years ago.

As in 2008, the nominee had been subjected to an extreme Washington makeover. Every aspect of the man, from his clothes to his words, was being carefully selected for him. But most notably absent were his personal values of Christian kindness, respect and compassion, his historic moderation, and his critical thinking. I witnessed a man that many characterized as a heartless bully, an arrogant and reckless war monger, a greedy and condescending aristocrat. In debates one and two, he was visually aggravated as he acquiesced to the demands of his campaign advisors to contend aggressively against the president, and at the end of the second debate, he could not even bring himself to look at his opponent, much less shake his hand. His entire countenance was full of darkness.

Like everyone else, I expected more of the same in the final debate, but something had changed since the week before. This time, Romney was pleasant, polite, and respectful from his first words to his last. He avoided contention throughout the debate, refusing to attack or even counter when attacked, and backed off meekly when confronted with misrepresentations of fact. He gave the president praise for the things he had done right, and honestly expressed agreement with policies that had worked well. Most notably, he deviated from his talking points, abandoning the saber rattling party line expressed so aggressively on his own campaign website, instead speaking of his hopes and aspirations for peace.

And so ended the final debate… with conservatives gawking at their champion for going like a lamb to the slaughter, and liberals mocking yet another astounding flip-flop by a candidate who has struggled to find his political identity.
But that is not what I saw.

In an obscure moment of post-debate punditry, one commentator mentioned that he had called a Romney campaign strategist during the debate to inquire as to the sudden and unexpected change of strategy. The strategist answered with frustration, “It was all Romney’s idea. He insisted that he do it his own way.”
His own way…

In that moment, I saw in Romney a man who had been besieged by stakeholders, each demanding that he represent their interests and ideals, each demanding that he play the game right, the way he had been coached, railing against railing, contending with pride and anger, refusing to give ground or to find common ground. I saw a man who had caved to the demands of the world around him, and a man who deeply regretted it because, despite his success and notable gains… their advice went contrary to everything he stood for and against everything he aspired to be.

I saw a man who, at some point after that second debate, recognized the spirit of contention, looked deep into his heart, and reflected on his own way, on the one and only way he had ever known and had always strived to follow.

"I am the way, the truth, and the light. I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, 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: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

According to the polls, Romney lost the debate. Republicans were quick to criticize him for not going for the jugular, for not attacking and counterattacking, for not proudly boasting of American strength… but they will still vote for Romney, no matter how flawed his performance.
As for me… a staunch and vocal Obama supporter… his performance was perfect.

And despite his earlier failings… his repentance and his courageous rejection of contention, not while on the ropes, but with incredible forward momentum and the goal in sight, risking everything… this example of Christian meekness… brought me to shame, and made me reflect on my own failure to walk in the path of Christ in all things… even in politics.

I want a president who will seek peace in the world. Both candidates claimed that night to want peace. But no argument, no matter how perfectly framed, no matter how eloquently delivered, or how loudly proclaimed could ever say more than the humble and heroic choice of a true Christian to stand as a witness of Christ at all times, in all things, and in all places, even if it be unto death.

Some may say that Romney threw the election that night and committed political suicide by failing to contend and by performing such an obvious about face… but I am convinced that he faced that prospect knowingly, determined to no longer be led by anyone but the King of Kings.

As he stayed after the debate to warmly converse with the President and First Lady, I saw a different look on Governor Romney’s face than I had seen a week earlier, not the personal disappointment and shame of compromise nor the lingering fire of contention, but the deepest and most serene peace that comes only from the Spirit of Truth as it witnesses to your soul that the path you have chosen is the path of Christ, the Son of God. It was the smile I have seen on the faces of Bishops and Stake Presidents as they warmly greet those in their congregations with unconditional love.

I could see then that Brother Romney had the peace of knowing that whether he would win or lose the presidential election, he had taken one step closer to making his calling and election sure. In that moment, he may have lost the debate, but he won my vote. He is the best of us, and I would be honored to have him as my president.

He that seeketh his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Second Debate Advantage: Romney or Obama?

2012-10-15T15:53:00.002-07:00

by Nate Mauch

1. This is a town hall format and from the start people have said Mitt is going to be at his weakest in this setting, and thus lowered expectations slightly. I believe that plays into our favor because when you tell Mitt he can't do something very well he tends to surprise. He's practiced town halls since selecting Paul Ryan and he's held press conferences, both of which Obama has NOT done at all during this campaign. Advantage: Tie

2. Libya, Libya, Libya - I'm hoping that once again the first question is about Libya because if so Mitt will pretty much put Obama on the defensive from the very start. He needs to look him in the eye and demand he tell the people in that town hall the truth about Libya, and tell all those watching the truth. He needs to attack on this hard, but his attack can't be about him, it must be that the American people deserve nothing less than the absolute truth. Paul Ryan obviously had a strategy not to be aggressive and let Biden be Biden and kill himself, but Mitt won't make that mistake and will attack and not let him or the moderator off the hook. Advantage: Mitt

3. Obama has said he's not going to be polite and to me that means he intends to come out similar to Biden. It also means he plans on going after Mitt personally on the "47%" and the silly tax returns that only they care about. Mitt has struggled thus far with answers to both of those issues and that's the only reason they worked at all, so I hope they have finally found an answer to respond with. What would I do? I'd use these new personal stories he's started using since the convention to counter the false narrative that he doesn't care about people, and state clearly looking into the camera "the truth is I care about 100% of the people and that's why I'm running." As far as the tax returns, I'd say "why is it people are supposed to care more about my personal finances than they are about how you're spending and wasting their money and bankrupting their kids and grand kids futures?" Advantage: Obama (unless Mitt has answers for them finally)

4. Economy should be easy. Just repeat that this nonsense of a 5 trillion tax cut is just that, nonsense. I'm fully convinced there is absolutely no way Obama has a chance on any economic questions because he's immediately at a disadvantage. He's the one with the abysmal record to defend and quite honestly its indefensible. If Mitt does exactly the same as last time and prosecutes that record while highlighting his experience we should see. Huge key to Mitt's success here is highlighting his bi-partisan experience in MA, the Indies LOVE that. Advantage: Mitt

5. Wild card. Both sides are extremely concerned with the moderator and how she's going to conduct herself, or whether she will follow the preset rules, unlike Martha Raddatz. Hey, I'm not a huge conspiracy theorist but its not a secret the media and Candy Crowley are Obama supporters, and the voters in attendance are selected by Gallup. Yes, the same gallup that Axelrod threatened and suddenly all of their polls swing to Obama and they kept using RV's instead of LV's later than they ever have before. If she tries interrupting Mitt like Raddatz did to Paul (to the tune of 34 times) Mitt must channel his inner Newt Gingrich and call her out. No need to debate 2 Democrats again like Paul Ryan had to do. Advantage: Tie

I think Mitt is in the drivers seat but must win decisively again to keep up the momentum and enthusiasm. I think Obama is on the ropes and close to being defeated but we can't leave it up to the judges, we must knock him out. A few reasons I think he's nearly done include the fact that in the battleground states there's only 1 where he's over 50% (WI). He's reduced ads and ad buys in Florida over the weekend signaling he thinks his chances are slim there and in VA we are out ahead performing way better in early voting and Obama is way down in the same regard. That means our 3-2-1 victory strategy is in play! We needed to win FL, VA, and OH (3), take back NC and IN (2), and win one other state from CO, NV, IA, NH, WI, MI, PA. At this point, I see us winning Ohio, CO, NV, and possibly NH. That's why I say Mitt needs to go for the knockout because we're on the cusp of victory. I'm a big MMA fan and you learn early on NEVER LEAVE THE FIGHT IN THE HANDS OF THE JUDGES, WACKY THINGS ALMOST ALWAYS HAPPEN.

It's my belief that if Obama isn't at 50% or above in a battleground going into the Election Day he will almost inevitably lose each one of those states. There's a reason undecided voters typically break hard for the challenger... They've had 4 years to decide to vote Obama again and if after 4 years they still haven't decided to vote for him, they will almost always decide to give someone else a chance. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results, then its no wonder they choose to break that cycle.

I'd also add that it all comes down to Ohio. I'm not convinced Mitt can win WI or MI although I obviously hope I'm wrong. In Ohio, there's a definite trend already playing itself out and it's on our side. In early voting Dem requests for ballots are significantly down, and I'm talking down around 30% in Cuyahoga County, the Dem stronghold housing Cleveland. In 2008 I believe Obama had around a 250,000 vote advantage in early voting, but this year Dems have about 160,000 less reg voters and Republicans have about 35,000 more. That pretty much undercuts that advantage now doesn't it? Oh, purely anecdotal but you should see these crowds he's getting in Ohio! I'm talking a town of 20,000 having 10,000 show up when they only expected 1,000! Obama only gets crowds like that at universities like stupid liberal Wisconsin-Madison. "There's a growing crescendo of enthusiasm here in Ohio and across the country for this campaign." - Mitt

Heck, I'm no fortune teller nor can I see into the future whatsoever, but I see something taking hold. When a Republican is only down 47-43 in MINNESOTA we could see a major landslide in our favor, but it completely depends on these final debates, especially on Tuesday. Lose this debate and Obama regains much of those losses, win this debate we continue that momentum and extend leads forcing him to make tough spending decisions in states he did not expect he'd have to defend.

I'm optimistic, cautiously optimistic.

Understanding Obama & Romney "by their fruits"

2012-09-28T21:44:00.004-07:00

In response to the previous post- Mitt Romeny: Stake President of the United States, my dad, Carl Uda wrote the following response:

I, too, know what Mitt Romney went through while serving as a bishop (I have served as a bishop for the past three and a half years). Knowing what he went through as a bishop, I can say that I know what manner of man he is. Mitt Romney is a good and caring man.

I have always taught my children, "You can always know what type a person a man is by the fruit he bares, for 'by their fruits you shall know them.' "

That has always been the standard by which I have determined what kind of person a man is - not by his good looks or his great wealth or by his good words alone, but by his good works - and it has never failed me. Even when men bash someone and ridicule him and disparage him, they don't denigrate or lessen his good fruits or good works, which are done in secret. Instead, they starken the contrast between themselves and that man of good fruits.

I have never personally met Mitt Romney, but I can say that I already know him and feel a certain kinship for him because of our common experiences as bishops, which, by the way, are not very common. We share a common bond as bishops, even though I have never removed a hornet's nest from my neighbor's swamp cooler like Mitt did.

It is my belief that Mitt Romney isn't trying to be POTUS because he wants power and recognition or fame. His motives are as pure as the desire to bless people's lives as only a bishop, struggling with the challenges of his ward family, can experience and understand. There are no polls that will tell a bishop how well he is truly doing. But when the 47% start to attend church, do their home and visit teaching, pay their full tithing, fulfill their callings, treat their families and neighbors kindly as they would want to be treated, stop abusing drugs and alcohol, repent of their sins and make life altering changes, then a bishop can feel good about strengthening the ninety and nine (or the other 53%) before leaving them to find the one (or before returning to the 47%) to minister to them for the purpose of blessing their lives and bringing them to Jesus Christ.

Not a moment do I believe that Mitt Romney meant that he doesn't care about the 47% who wouldn't vote for him. That isn't in his DNA. As a bishop, sometimes one must focus time and resources where it can do the most good. It doesn't mean the sinner can't be saved. It just means that, at that certain point in time, the sinner is not ready to be saved. You focus resources where it won't be trampled under foot by the ungrateful.

Of course Mitt cares about the 47%, but he knows if he can go out and hire more willing laborers from among the remaining 53% pool, he will surely get the fields harvested faster and more efficiently, and then, all will be blessed.

Please don't be too quick to believe the harsh and venomous judgments tossed upon Mitt Romney. If you must compare Mitt Romney to Obama, put those two men's fruits of the totality of their lives, side-by-side, point-by-point, and you judge what manner of men they are, remembering to judge righteouss judgement, for that judgement with which you judge, so shall you be judged. Let the words of the Holy Book guide you and let the Holy Spirit fill your hearts with inspiration to choose the doctrine of Christ and not the doctrine of the world, for the world hated Christ and crucified him. Please do not crucify him again, my friends. I tell you, you know the truth, for the light of truth is within all men, and it is within you, but when you choose against that light and you kick against the pricks, you only bring sorrow and pain to yourselves and to this great nation.

Farewell and good bye and let us pray for God's wisdom to be upon us all, that we may come away victorious, for we are in a war, and we fight not against men, but against powers and dominions and principalities. Our cause is just. This November 6th, vote your conscience. Remember this always, what manner of men ought ye be?

Mitt Romney: Stake President of the United States

2012-09-28T21:39:00.002-07:00

I received this as an email forward and have no idea who wrote it, but it provides good insight into the qualifications Mitt Romney has based on the work he did in his church as a bishop and stake president:

Stake President of the United States

A few years back, a hive of hornets decided to make its nest on top of a second-story swamp cooler outside my cousin’s Boston-area home. My cousin made an ill-fated attempt to remove the hornets, which resulted in a two-story fall and a broken arm.

This looks like a job for your home teacher, said my cousin’s home teacher.

The home teacher brought over his own ladder and clothed himself in homemade beekeeping gear. He then made his way to the hornet’s nest and gathered the whole thing up in a garbage bag, avoiding any stings or the more severe injuries that had beset my cousin. He did this with no public fanfare, no accolades, and no thought of collecting payment for his efforts. And, who was this noble home teacher? A man by the name of Mitt Romney.

Now, unless you’re familiar with Mormon lingo, you probably got lost when I introduced the phrase, home teacher, or you may have conjured up images of some kind of private educational tutor who was taking care of my cousin’s kids. That would have left you wondering why a tutor thought it was their responsibility to wrangle hornets.

But if you're a Mormon, the phrase made perfect sense, as did the rest of the story. You would know that every month, every member of a Mormon congregation receives a visit from two home teachers, who share an inspirational message but, more importantly, are charged with the responsibility of looking out for the family’s welfare. So, if a family is struggling, the home teachers are the spiritual first responders, and a good home teacher jumps at any opportunity to be of service.

Among other things, Mitt Romney is a good home teacher.

People who look to Mitt’s faith for clues about how he’d govern as president usually miss the target by a wide margin. They rip the more obscure elements of Mormon doctrine out of their theological and historical contexts, polygamy or underwear or planetary real estate and think they’ve discovered or explained something. They haven’t. The world at large, as it focuses on unusual theoretical elements of Mormon doctrine, all but ignores the eminently practical aspects of Mormonism as it is manifest in each Mormon's daily life.

Consider the fact that, home teachers receive no compensation for what they do. In fact, neither does anyone else in a Mormon congregation. The whole enterprise is supervised by a lay clergy that will often work over forty hours a week in their unpaid positions in addition to their real jobs, you know, the ones that actually earn them money. Mitt Romney has spent his entire adult life in these kinds of high-responsibility, time-intensive positions. He has been both a bishop, a leader of a ward that consists of a congregation of about 500 people, and a stake president, who oversees a stake, which consist of about six or so wards, giving him ecclesiastical responsibility for thousands of people.

So what does this mean? What, precisely, does a bishop or a stake president do that eats up so much of their time?

Go to a Mormon meeting on any given Sunday, and you’ll see three dudes sitting up by the pulpit. The guy in the middle is the bishop, and he’s already spent most of the day in meetings where he reviewed the ward's staffing needs and organizing relief efforts for families who may be struggling with health, financial, or spiritual issues. He’s also been meeting one-on-one with members of the church who look to him for counsel and support for personal problems that would turn your hair white. Usually, he's been doing all this since before the sun came up, so don’t be surprised if he nods off while the meeting progresses.

Please keep in mind, too, that there are no elections for bishops and stake presidents, nor are there reelections. Each leader is called to serve, and they accept the responsibility dutifully, no questions asked. They then serve for a period of time, usually between five and ten years, after which they are released, meaning they rejoin their congregations as lay members and have no more responsibility than anyone else.

The call to serve can come to any priesthood holder in good standing, but it usually comes to a certain personality type. Remember, bishops and stake presidents are confronted with massive organizational challenges accompanied by the most intimate, personal, spiritual struggles imaginable. So, they must lead without being authoritarian; they must judge without being judgmental, and they must minister without offending. That means the people who get this assignment are often more even-tempered than exciting, more reassuring than revolutionary, and more competent than colorful. Sound like any particular presidential candidate you might know?

Those who remain baffled by Romney's cool public persona have not spent a whole lot of time with an LDS stake president, a role for which Romney provides the quintessential example. If one truly understands his background, one shouldn’t expect a President Romney to dazzle the masses with rhetorical virtuosity.

One should instead expect him to remove practically and quietly the hornet’s nest from the nation’s second-story swamp cooler.

2012-09-28T14:45:00.001-07:00

2016: Obama's America -Not the anti movie I was expecting
by R. Murdock

I recently saw Dinesh D'souza’s documentary, “2016: Obama’s America.” I’m no movie critic and will not try to write a review about this film. But I wanted to share some of my thoughts about this very well made and researched documentary and encourage everyone to see it for themselves. Only after seeing it can you decide if you agree with the film’s arguments or not.

To be up front, I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and was one of the most passionate of supporters. When he won the election I was jumping up and down in my living room, crying tears of joy. I was proud of America for choosing the first black president and was filled with so much hope for the future. I literally thought my chest would explode with happiness.

I saw his election as a pivotal moment. Being of mixed race myself and dealing with insecurities of who I was, I felt a kinship to Obama, especially after reading his book, “Dreams From My Father.”

Over the next 3 years after his election, I experienced a change. I had been socially a moderate conservative but fiscally liberal. I began to study books about the founding fathers, the vision they had of America and the whole philosophy about responsibility, liberty and independence that conservatives hold. Over time my views changed. While I still like Obama as a person (most of the time,) I no longer agree with his policies, methods and ideology. He has not united us as I once hoped. Sadly, we are more divided than ever while our economy teeters on the brink of a fiscal cliff while Obama happily leads with the strange slogan of “Forward.”

“2016” relies heavily on Obama’s own words from his book, “Dreams From My Father.” It delves into Obama’s past, the places he’s lived, the experiences he’s had, the people who mentored him, and the lack of a relationship he had with his estranged father. It also discusses anti-colonialist views held by Barack Obama Sr. and how the younger Obama was influenced by those views despite his father being absent for most of his life.

While watching this film, I didn’t find myself hating Obama. In fact it solidified some of the kinship I had felt before. I felt compassion for him because of the journey and life he’s had. I don’t blame him for his views. I understand perfectly why he has them. The question is: Is it good for America to have a president who doesn’t believe in the greatness of America to the same degree most of us do? Is it good to have a president who believes America practices colonialism and feels he should apologize to the world for past grievances and bring America down a notch?

Obama’s world view isn’t radically different from how many liberals see the world. But it is radically different from how America, as a whole, views the world. Obama has taken definitive action affecting US policy with the world, which has a direct impact on our countries status in every way possible.

There is no way I could possibly sum up or explain the fascinating story and conclusions made in this film. I think everyone, liberals and conservatives, should see this and decide for themselves.

It’s important for Obama supporters to understand that this isn’t an ugly, hateful Obama bashing movie. Nor is it a far right, radical conservative, racist movie. It is Barack Obama’s story. It is told by a man who himself grew up in a third world country and has his own unique experiences and feelings about and towards the United States of America. D'souza contrasts Obama’s world view with the vision the founding father’s had for our country. The two are different. It’s up to the viewer to decide if that matters to them or not. If I had seen this movie four years ago, I simply would have decided that some of the conclusions were wrong but believe everything else about the movie. I then would have chosen Obama’s vision over the founding fathers. But of course, that’s before I had educated myself on what the founding father’s actually established and hoped for our great nation-- and how the unique experiment of America changed the world.

Please go see “2016: Obama’s America.”

Top 10 Reasons Mitt Romney is Unlikeable

2012-07-21T12:32:00.001-07:00

I received this as an email forward. It didn't say who wrote it, but it was just too good, I had to post it.

A lot is being said in the media about Mitt Romney not being "likable" or
that he doesn't "relate well" to people. Frankly, we struggled to
understand why. So after much research, we have come up with a Top Ten List
to explain this "unlikablility."

*Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney:*

1. Drop-dead, collar-ad handsome with gracious, statesmanlike aura. Looks like every central casting's #1 choice for Commander-in-Chief.

2. Been married to ONE woman his entire life, and has been faithful to her, including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS.

3. No scandals or skeletons in his closet. (How boring is that?)

4. Can't speak in a fake, southern, "black preacher voice" when necessary.

5. Highly intelligent. Graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School...and by the way, his academic records are NOT sealed.

6. Doesn't smoke or drink alcohol, and has never done drugs, not even in the counter-culture age when he went to college. Too square for today's America?

7. Represents an America of "yesterday", where people believed in God, went to Church, didn't screw around, worked hard, and became a SUCCESS!

8. Has a family of five great sons....and none of them have police records or are in drug rehab. But of course, they were raised by a stay-at-home mom, and that "choice" deserves America's scorn.

9. Oh yes.....he's a MORMON. We need to be very afraid of that very strange religion that teaches its members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally conservative, charitable, self-reliant, and honest.

10. And one more point.....pundits say because of his wealth, he can't relate to ordinary Americans. I guess that's because he made that money HIMSELF.....as opposed to marrying it or inheriting it from Dad. Apparently, he didn't understand that actually working at a job and earning your own money made you unrelatable to Americans.

*My goodness, it's a strange world, isn't it?*

What is Marriage Anyway?

2012-05-16T13:52:00.000-07:00

By R. Murdock
(Edited on 5/18/12)

The social definition of marriage has changed over the last few decades. Something that used to seem simple and straightforward has become convoluted, confusing and hard to define. In the effort to make everything fair and politically correct, the sacred and powerful tool used to most effectively create a family has come under attack.

Some say that marriage is outdated, unnecessary and disregard it as “just a piece of paper.” Strangely, some of these same people also seem to hold marriage in higher regard when it comes to gay marriage. They classify it as a civil right even though there is no mention of “the right to marry” in the constitution, bill of rights or amendments. Some people believe marriage is about love, while others place importance on the “perks” government gives to those who are married. Others feel that government has no place in marriage at all.

So what is marriage anyway? Most would say it is about two people who love each other, deciding to spend their life together and forming a contract in order to unite property and pledge fidelity to each other.

However, during the course of civilization, marriage hasn't been so much about love, but more about the sexual approval of society. No one has a problem with love and friendship. But sexual behavior comes under much closer scrutiny due to the consequences of said behavior.

Marriage has historically been a multiparty agreement between individuals, government, society and religion and is used by society to protect the family from the consequences of sexual behavior. However, attitudes towards sexual behavior began to change during the sexual revolution. Sex was once viewed as a sacred expression of love between husband and wife as well as the fundamental means to the propagation of the human race. After the sexual revolution, sex is now seen by many, merely as a recreational tool for self gratification--to be used without conditions, with anyone or anything.

Most people agree that love can play a role in sex, but many seem offended when it is suggested that sex is about creating babies and should be used within the bonds of marriage to protect the family.

We’ve often heard that the family is the basic building block of society. Society is basically a very large organization of people. There are many sub-organizations within society. Organizational units of society are setup to provide or produce the components of a healthy civilization. For example: companies produce goods and services. Political parties and churches produce values, ideas and viewpoints. Armies provide security.

However, the basic building block to these organizations is the family. It is the smallest organizational unit, which provides all the sub-organizations with the most necessary component-- People.

Families, like organizations, have different strengths and weaknesses and not all families are created equal. Some are broken, some have fewer resources than others. Some do not have the education required to operate at the most optimal level. But all families headed by a husband and wife, are designed to produce people. If the family remains in tact after the bearing of children, and if the husband and wife are able to work together in unity as they rear those children, then the people produced by that family are much more likely to be successful in more aspects of life.

I am not saying that children raised by single parents will not be successful or that infertile couples are not a family. Children raised by single parents can grow up to beat the odds and contribute greatly to society. However, studies have shown that a child raised by both a mother and a father has a higher chance of becoming a hard-working contributor of our society.

A majority of the population is against gay marriage, although attitudes are changing. However, it is not because that majority disapproves of men loving men and women loving women as the LGBT community suggests. I think we all agree that love is good. It is the sexual relations between members of the same sex that is disapproved of. Simply put, there is no benefit to the organizational structure of society, to sanction a union that was not designed to produce people.

At this point, it seems that only two of the four parties are willing to enter into the multiparty agreement of marriage. The couple wanting to pledge lifelong commitment to each other and the government, which seems willing to grant the privileges it allows for heterosexual couples. This would equate to a civil union.

Society is still steeped in a huge debate regarding redefining marriage and whether or not homosexual unions justify a family: the basic building block of society. Many argue that gay couples can adopt or use in vitro fertilization via surrogate just as heterosexual couples do. This is a valid point as it is now an option. Obviously that hasn't been the case until recently.

Most Religions consider homosexuality a sin and remain staunchly against same-sex marriage because it goes against basic religious tenets. Some Jews and Christians point to the Old Testament where they believe that civilizations were destroyed by God for the sin of homosexuality. Whether you agree with that or not, it is another explanation for why some people oppose it so strongly.

If two of the four parties are against entering into the multiparty agreement of marriage, then civil unions will have to due for now.

This country was founded on the most basic fundamental value of freedom. But freedom is not full reign to do whatever you want to do. This would lead to chaos. Society implements rules and laws to keep order and allow the most freedom for it’s citizens. Free reign ends where another’s rights begin.

Does the government have the right to force unwilling parties into this multiparty agreement? If half of society believes that homosexual unions do not produce societal building blocks, and if churches view the practice as a sin, how can you force them into a binding contract?

In their attempt to force society to accept their sexual behavior, the LGBT community has masterfully devised a huge public relations campaign involving Hollywood and the main stream media to get their message out-- and its working. Every sitcom has the obligatory loveable gay character to get audiences to identify and sympathize with. The mainstream media has jumped on the bandwagon and criticizes anyone who disagrees with same sex marriage as being intolerant, bigoted and un-evolved. The music industry touts that homosexuals are “born this way” and they have no choice in regards to their sexual preference. These forces have joined together in a huge effort to make the gay marriage issue all about acceptance, love, fairness and equality. But that is not what the argument is about. Society does not oppose those values.

Society demands order, not chaos. It demands rules and law, not a free for all. It demands no disruption to the basic building blocks that keep it productive and functioning. We believe in agreements between willing parties. We believe in calling things what they are. Words have meaning.

We do not commission businesses and we do not incorporate armies. Because each provides a different function, the word and action used to empower them is different. Likewise we do not marry homosexuals but can grant them a civil union.

If someday, federal law requires all states to recognize same-sex marriage, then married homosexual couples will find that although they have the label they sought after, they will still be viewed by much of society as a mislabeled organization-- unable to perform the fundamental function of a family.

No one is stopping homosexuality and no one is stopping them from loving whomever they choose. I am in support of civil unions, but this is not enough for the LGBT community. They want society’s approval of their sexual behavior. They want society and religious institutions to sanction their homosexual behavior as a proper use of the procreative power. This is something those two parties are not willing to do at this point.

Society and religions may eventually change their views. As the the Greatest Generation and the first wave of baby boomers disappear, the old fashioned values and historic views of marriage will most likely fade as well. There may not be many people left to defend marriage as we know it. The way marriage is defined will be decided by the next generation, and the consequences of that change will be determined decades after.

Understanding Proposition 8 – A Deeper Look

2012-05-16T13:24:00.002-07:00

by Joshua Mililani Uda, October 16, 2008

Love is the most powerful attracting force in the universe. It draws us together to be in each other’s presence. It compels us to share our time, our thoughts, our concerns, even our possessions. Love fills us with a desire to bring each other happiness, peace, and joy. Sometimes love compels us to create together, to create relationships, homes, even life. Love is universally honored and appreciated as a force for good, and the purest of motives. It is acknowledged as the only force more powerful than our instinctive will to survive, a force so great that we would sacrifice our own lives to preserve the happiness and security of those we love. So why would anyone want to stop two people who love each other from being married?

In order to understand the answer to that question, we must first understand what marriage is and what marriage is not. We must also understand why society embraces marriage, and why two people would want to be married.

For as long as humankind has kept written records, humans have acknowledged marriage as a multiparty agreement between a man, a woman, society, government, and even God. While many variations of this agreement exist, the general terms are often similar and fairly simple. American society generally accepts the following terms as part of the marital agreement:

1. The man and the woman agree to share property, privacy, and privilege.
2. Government agrees to treat these two individuals as if they were one with respect to their property, privacy, and privilege.
3. The man and the woman agree to mate with each other.
4. Society agrees to condone the mating of the man and the woman.
5. Society also agrees to disqualify the man and woman as prospective mates for others.
6. In the religious tradition, deity sanctions the mating of this couple as an appropriate use of creative power.

Thus, the marriage agreement generally involves two aspects: sharing and approval. When we look a little deeper, however, we can see that the approval aspect of marriage is not related to friendship or love. While marriage is an agreement that provides approval of sexual behavior, it is not an agreement that provides an approval of love. Such an approval is unnecessary because love is universally approved, as is friendship. Sexual behavior, on the other hand, is scrutinized and evaluated for its impact on society. The approval of society accompanies marriage because marriage is viewed as an agreement designed to maximize the positive impact of sexual reproduction while minimizing the negative impacts on society. Specifically, marriage is embraced and used by society to protect the family.

There are many organizational units in society, which produce or provide components of a healthy civilization. Some produce goods and services, and we call these companies. Others produce ideas and philosophies. We call these political parties and churches. Some provide safety and security. We call these armies. Ultimately, however, all of these units and the many others that exist in civilizations are composed of people.

People are the building blocks of society, and only one unit in society produces those building blocks. We call it the family. The family is considered the fundamental unit of society because no other unit can be built without the building blocks produced by families.

Societies have always given special attention to the formation of families because families play such a central role in the development, growth, sustained existence, and prosperity of civilizations. Many dangerous structural weaknesses can threaten family stability. If a family is not formed properly, it may easily break down and cease to produce good members of society. Without good members of society from which to build companies, political parties, churches, and armies, society itself loses stability. When families fail, society fails; therefore, societies have used marriage as a means to ensure the integrity of the family unit.

The general terms of the marriage agreement are designed to ensure that the building blocks of society produced by families are properly nourished, protected, educated, and prepared to become productive members of society. Scientists and researchers agree that children raised by both a father and a mother are more likely to be properly nourished, protected, educated, and prepared to become productive members of society. Accordingly, societies have historically disapproved of fornication, adultery, and divorce, as these practices often result in teen pregnancies, single mothers, deadbeat dads, and confused, neglected, and insecure children. While some do succeed in raising healthy children under these circumstances, statistically, those cases are the fortunate few.

Because people have a tendency to seek approval and acceptance from others, social disapproval has proven to be an effective deterrent to the unstable formation of families. Since marriage provides the approval of society, government, and religion; most devoted couples will seek to be married before they begin to create a family, and they will commit to fidelity and mutual support in order to enter the marital agreement. Both fidelity and mutual support facilitate the creation of a stable environment in which to raise productive members of society.

So, we have outlined what marriage is and what it is not. We have examined why society embraces marriage, and why a couple would want to be married. With these ideas in mind, we can now address the original question. Why would anyone want to stop two people who love each other from being married?

First we must reemphasize that love is not under consideration in marriage because love is universally approved. Sexual behavior is scrutinized and evaluated for its impact on society. Society does not disapprove of love between a man and a woman, nor does society disapprove of one man loving another man or of one woman loving another woman. This is called having a best friend. Many of us have our guy friends and our girlfriends of the same gender. We love and care for these people very much. We want to be with them. We want to share with them. We want to make them happy. Usually we do this by showing our concern, by listening to their problems, and by providing advice or encouragement. Often we assist them with their labors or provide other temporal support. We loan them our resources; we give them gifts; we open our homes and our families to them. Sometimes we love our friends so much that we would even give our lives for them.

Regardless of the gender of our friends, none of these acts are considered homosexual. The soldier who loves his friends so much that he throws himself on a grenade to save them is not homosexual because of his love. The definition of homosexuality is not to love someone of the same gender, no matter how strong that love is. Friendship does not become homosexuality until two people of the same gender engage in sexual acts with each other.

With marriage, love is not being submitted for approval; sexual behavior is being submitted for approval. For heterosexual couples, this approval is easily granted because their sexual activity may produce children, and they are promising to also create a stable environment for those children, so the children may someday become good members of society.

With homosexual couples, this approval is not easily granted for several reasons; primarily, their sexual activity can never create children. The couple cannot produce the building blocks of society; therefore, they are not the fundamental unit of society, and their sexual behavior is not approved.

We must note here that sexual activity of any kind is rarely used exclusively for reproductive purposes; however, social approval is not so much based on the intent of sexual partners as it is based on an evaluation of the possible impact on society. Society considers many impacts in addition to the production and development of people, including changes to the pool of potential mates, reproductive health and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, unplanned parenthood, abortion, broken families, children in foster care, and many others.

This evaluation of social impact (not sexual intent) is reflected in society’s historical disapproval of unmarried heterosexual partners and in the general acceptance of sexual activity within the bonds of marriage. Married couples may not intend to have children or may not be able to have children; nevertheless, if they do have children, those children are statistically more likely to be raised in a stable environment and prepared to become good members of society. Production of children is not mandatory for approval; rather, the potential for that production within a stable environment is the perceived benefit that leads society to accept marital sex.

The evaluation of social impact is perhaps the most rational reason for the disapproval of homosexual behavior; however, an honest investigation into people’s opinions and feelings about homosexuality will produce a variety of less rational, yet no less real, emotional and mental barriers to approving such behavior. While many of these sentiments are openly discussed, others are quite taboo. Still, we must eventually address all of them if we are to come to a mutual understanding and find an answer to our original question. Those sentiments that are more sensitive must especially be discussed because they are the feelings that frequently lead to heinous hate crimes, prejudice, and discrimination. For the sake of clarity, they are presented here in a scientific and straightforward manner.

First, homosexuality is commonly seen as a perversion and an abuse of the power to create life. Many view this power as a sacred gift granted by God. Even those who do not believe in God typically feel a profound respect for the intimate and marvelous ability to create life. Misuse of this power for any purpose, whether for masturbation, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, or bestiality, is often considered perversion. To pervert is to change, alter, or distort something. In that sense, all of these acts are indeed perversions – changes, alterations, and distortions of human reproduction. Thus, the sexual behavior is not approved.

Second, many of the sexual acts listed above are considered sinful, which means contrary to the will of God. Many believe that God gave mankind the power of procreation and gave guidelines for the appropriate use of that power. They also believe that God created the institution of marriage. Naturally, their belief system would not allow the possibility of changing that institution to incorporate those who cannot procreate together and who are practicing sexuality in a way that has been forbidden by many religions. Thus, the sexual behavior is not approved.

Third, many sexual acts considered sinful, such as masturbation, homosexuality, and bestiality, cannot create life; rather, they are used to self gratify. They have no useful or meaningful purpose other than to release dopamine and cause physical pleasure. Many do not consider the case in which two homosexual partners seek only to bring happiness to each other; instead, they see homosexuality as a willingness to do anything for self gratification. Self gratification, or selfishness, runs contrary to friendship and love. Usually selfishness is the cause of divorce or broken friendships, and selfish people are rarely accepted by others. Thus, the sexual behavior is not approved.

Fourth, homosexuality fails many ethical tests. For example, Kant’s Universality Test of the Moral Imperative requires that we imagine a universe in which everyone was required to follow the maxim or perform the action in question. We assume that what is truly good for one must also be good for all. If homosexuality were to replace heterosexuality, all human life would cease within a generation. Only the practice of artificial insemination could prevent the extinction of humankind.

Because of these ethical tests, many non-religious people are opposed to homosexuality. They find that even outside of the constraints of religion – entirely within the boundaries of metaphysics and ethics – homosexuality is still viewed as a vice rather than a virtue. Thus, the sexual behavior is not approved.

Fifth, many are appalled by the thought of homosexual intercourse. They view the specific techniques of homosexual intercourse as unsanitary, particularly in the case of male homosexuality involving anal intercourse. While this is not the only method of homosexual intercourse, it has become the most salient, and it continues to shape perceptions about homosexuals.

Anal intercourse, whether it is practiced by homosexual or heterosexual couples, is revolting to many. The human rectum is an orifice of the digestive system, not the reproductive system. It is the passageway of human waste and excrement. This excrement is considered to be the filthiest of all materials. It is foul smelling and naturally repugnant. Furthermore, anal intercourse is damaging to the tissues of the colon and rectum and often causes bleeding, which brings infection from excrement and facilitates the introduction of sexually transmitted diseases. Accordingly, the thought of homosexuality is naturally appalling to many people. Thus, the sexual behavior is not approved.

Because of these reasons and perhaps others, many in society will never accept or condone homosexuality. Unlike the primary reason for disapproval, these last five are fraught with logical fallacies. However, regardless of whether or not any of these reasons are logical or justified, they are certainly real; they are extremely significant, and they must be considered because they continue to hinder the social approval of homosexual behavior.

Remember that the marriage agreement involves two aspects: sharing and approval. While many do not approve of the sexual behavior of homosexuals, they are willing to participate in a multiparty agreement involving only the sharing aspect. This means that the couple will share property, privacy, and privilege, and the government will recognize their right to do so and treat them as one person with regard to those things. We call this a civil union.

Still, civil unions are not good enough for some homosexual couples because they want the one thing that only the word “marriage” provides, and that is social acceptance and approval of their choice to engage in sexual acts with a partner of the same gender.

Why do you need to “marry” the person you love? If your answer is that you want the legal rights and legal privileges of marriage, then a civil union will provide all of those. If you simply want society to honor and accept your love, then friendship will suffice. If, however, you also want social acceptance and approval of your sexual relationship, then you must be married.

Unfortunately, that is the great illusion that has led so many homosexuals to seek government sanction of same-sex marriage. They are under the false impression that receiving a title of marriage will provide acceptance for them as it has for so many heterosexual couples. This sad misunderstanding demonstrates their failure to see the mechanisms of civilization that have embraced marriage and made it a central institution in society.

Remember, marriage is a multiparty agreement:

1. From an individual standpoint, marriage represents an agreement to share property, privacy, and privilege. It also represents a commitment of fidelity.
2. From a government standpoint, marriage represents recognition of the right to share property, privacy, and privilege.
3. From a social standpoint, marriage represents a sanction of the proper formation of a family, a fundamental unit with potential to create good members of society.
4. From a religious standpoint, marriage represents an approval of the proper use of creative power.

If these are the parties of the multiparty agreement, only two can be satisfied with same-sex marriage. The civil union agreement only requires the participation of these two satisfied parties, but the marriage agreement requires the participation of all four.

Too many in society are not willing to sanction same-sex marriage as the proper formation of a family, a fundamental unit that will produce good members of society. Too many in the various churches throughout this nation are not willing to use their religious authority to approve homosexuality as a proper use of creative power. Should we force these two parties into the contract? Or, should we allow them to make their best judgment in this issue and let the other two parties create their own contract?

In the end, “married” is just a word. It is a word that indicates the formation of a specific unit in society, the family – producer of people. Still, it is just a word. There are many words that represent the formation of societal units, words like incorporation. Incorporation is also just a word, and articles of incorporation are just paper; however, they represent a multiparty agreement that has actually taken place. You can call a company incorporated, but if the relevant parties have not actually agreed to the contract, what does it mean?

The word “married” is like a stamp of approval. A stamp of approval is created to express a sentiment that already exists. The stamp itself is just an image, but it represents a careful process of evaluation and judgment. You can create and apply a similar stamp without completing that process, but what does it mean?

Just calling yourself incorporated does not make you a legitimate business, a legal producer of goods and services. Calling yourself married does not make you a family, a producer of human life. Stamping yourself with “approved” does not force the evaluation board to approve you, and calling yourself married does not force society and religion to approve of your sexual behavior.

Again, if homosexuals want marriage because they want legal rights, then a civil union will do. If they want marriage because they want approval, they are gravely misguided. Those that will approve of their sexual behavior because they are married, likely already approved of it before. Those in society that do not approve will not be swayed by what they view as a counterfeit stamp of approval – false articles of incorporation. A homosexual couple will still be viewed as a mislabeled organization, an under-the-table business, a false fundamental unit that cannot perform the fundamental function of a family.

It is important that we distinguish between the different units in our society and understand the role that they each play. If we do not, we will struggle to allocate the proper resources to the development, utilization, and preservation of each unit. It is even more important that we continue to recognize the family as the fundamental unit of society, so that we can continue to place it first on our list of priorities. No other unit should be allowed to share that position because no other unit is so crucial to society.

This is why so many feel that we must retain the specific stamp of approval which has been created for the designation of a fundamental unit. Certainly, we must at least understand the consequences of throwing that stamp on anything that merely approximates a family.

The title, type, function, and description of organizations are all connected for the sake of order and clarity. A company is created by incorporation. A family is created by marriage. An army is commissioned. A labor union is unionized. Words have meaning. You cannot incorporate an army. Its primary and intended function is not to produce goods and services. True, an army can buy goods and services. It purchases weapons and supplies from many corporations, but it is not a corporation. It has a different function; it requires different resources; it is governed by different laws, so we commission it and do not incorporate it.

Likewise, same-sex couples can never create human life together. They can buy the seeds of life or buy life itself by adopting, but they can never produce that life alone, not without the participation of a third person of opposite gender. While some heterosexual couples suffer tragically from infertility, most can produce life. The social impact of their heterosexual behavior is viewed as potentially beneficial; therefore, society broadly accepts that behavior and is willing to marry those couples and recognize them as a family.

No homosexual couples can ever produce life… not one. They simply do not have the capability or potential to perform that function. Society does not perceive the same potential benefits when evaluating the social impact of homosexual behavior; instead, society perceives many negative potential impacts. Therefore, many do not consider a homosexual union to be equal to the family, the fundamental unit of society, the producer of people. Society is willing to unionize those same-sex couples, but many are not willing to marry them.

Willing is the key word. Two homosexuals may be willing to love and support each other; that is friendship. No one is stopping them. They may be willing to participate in homosexual acts; that is homosexuality. No one is stopping them. They may be willing to share property, privacy, and privilege; that is a civil union. No one is stopping them.

Ultimately, homosexuals are not really asking to do something. They are asking others to do something. They are not asking for the right to do what they are willing to do. When they ask for marriage, they are asking the rest of us to do something that we may or may not be willing to do. They are asking society to approve of their homosexual activity, and they are asking religious institutions to sanction their homosexual behavior as an appropriate use of creative power.

Are these other parties willing? That is the real question posed by Proposition 8. That is the underlying referendum being presented to us for a vote. By voting “Yes” on Proposition 8, we would do more than define marriage as a union only between one man and one woman. We would answer the underlying question of our willingness to participate in the marital agreement with homosexuals. By voting “Yes”... we would answer, “No… we are not willing. We are not willing to approve the social impact of homosexual activity. We are not willing to sanction homosexuality as a proper use of creative power. We are not willing to enter the multiparty agreement. We are not willing, and we choose to abstain.”

...That is an exercise of our freedom, not a restriction of theirs.

Proposition 8 is not about telling people who they can and cannot love. It is not about telling them who they can and cannot be with. It is not about preventing the legally recognized sharing of property, privacy, and privilege. Proposition 8 is about defining marriage. It is about the right and freedom of society and religion to abstain from a multiparty agreement deemed unacceptable. It is about preserving the coveted title of marriage as a stamp of approval for that fundamental institution which contributes the most to society. It is about protecting the unique status of the family and ensuring its place as the first and ultimate priority of civilization. Only the union of a man and a woman can create the greatest of all resources – human life. For that, we honor them. For that, we approve of them… and for that, we marry them… for only they have the power to create our future and the future of all humanity.

Joshua M. Uda © 2008 - All Rights Reserved

Why I do not support gay marriage

2012-05-10T20:42:00.001-07:00

By R. Murdock-

Gay marriage has become a difficult subject to discuss, especially if you are against it. President Obama was recently applauded for changing his stance on gay marriage. However, if you have the opposite opinion, you can be assured you will be called a bigot among many other choice names.

The fact is, I use to support gay marriage because I didn't understand what the long term consequences could be. Because of my Christian upbringing, I believe that homosexuality is wrong. At the same time, I do believe that some people are born with same sex attraction. How do I reconcile this with my religious beliefs? I'll quote a scripture that sums it up for me:

"I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; then will I make weak things become strong unto them."
Ether 12:27

I could write a novel about why we have weakness, sickness, trials, hardship and struggles. But in a nutshell, I believe we all have our own personal challenges because they can help mold us into better people if we let them.

I sympathize with those who struggle with same sex attraction. I have no idea what that would be like. I do not hate them or condemn them. I know of gay men and women in my church who choose to "bridle their passions," trust in God, and manage to find happiness in their life while living a chaste and moral life. Others choose not to take that difficult path because they see no happiness or fulfillment down that road. Who am I to judge? I certainly struggle with my own weaknesses that I find difficult to bridle.

We are all children of God, despite the decisions we make in life. We shouldn't discriminate against anyone whether it be race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

However, the interesting thing about rights and freedom is that your rights end where another's begin - and religious freedom is one of the basic rights granted to us as US citizens.

It's easy to say "well what's wrong with loving couples marrying and starting a family, even if they're same sex? They're not hurting anyone or forcing you to do the same."

If that were the case, I would still be for it. The problem is; legally redefining what marriage actually is, opens up a can of worms for religious people who by law, have the right to think homosexuality is an "abomination."

If marriage is redefined to include same sex couples, the line between separation of church and state would become muddled. Many churches would refuse to perform or recognize same sex marriages because of their religious beliefs. But that would be contrary to the law which would then recognize these marriages as legal.

(See more on this topic: What is Marriage Anyway?)

If same sex marriage is legal, then children in public schools can be taught that a family can be any combination of groups, including two dads or two moms. Some would hail this as progress. But to those with beliefs against homosexuality, this is the equivalent to how atheist parents feel about prayer in school.

Churches and clergy can legally be sued if they do not allow same-sex marriages in their facilities, or do not wish to perform them: A Methodist church lost its tax exempt status because they refused to allow a same sex couple to marry in their facilities (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html)

Ministers who preach against homosexuality could be sued for "hate-speech" and can be fined by the government. This has already happened in Canada. (http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/category-homosexuality.html)

Religious adoption agencies can be sued or shut down if they refuse to place children in gay households: In Boston, MA (where gay marriages are legal,) Catholic Charities have closed their doors because the state required them to allow adoptions to same sex couples, and they refused. They were a large and worthwhile charity with great power in the state and they were overruled. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/for-bishops-a-battle-over-whose-rights-prevail.html?pagewanted=all)

Religions that sponsor private schools will no longer be able to deny admissions to gays based on their honor code and will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples.

Physicians who refuse to do fertility treatments on same sex couples because of religious reasons, can be sued. This happened. The physician lost and the state is requiring him to treat everyone as equals.

If Gay Marriage is supported by the government, then those who are same-sex married, who are 'LDS' and legally recognized as married by the government, can sue to be married in the LDS temple. If the church did not comply they could lose their tax-exempt status. (http://protectingmarriage.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/six-consequences-the-coalition-has-identified-if-proposition-8-fails/)

Whether or not you agree with the stance of many religions on gay marriage, they are protected by the constitution to have those beliefs and not be dictated to by the government.

This is why many are in favor of civil unions. It's a compromise for churches to allow civil rights to gay couples without putting into jeopardy, the religious rights of a large majority of US citizens.

TSA is foolishly trained to target the wrong people

2012-05-07T21:20:00.002-07:00

After traveling by air more than usual over the past month, I wanted to share an insight I had.

The agency that the government set up to protect us from terrorists in the air, seems to have forgotten what terrorists look like. In our day to day lives, the "boogie man" can look like anyone. But a terrorist, at least the ones in the past decade, tend to have a distinct look and come from a distinct place. I don't fault TSA workers for this simple oversight and can't imagine having a more unpleasant job. But the TSA and government officials who made the rules, need a little refresher. THIS is what a terrorist looks like...

Osama bin Laden Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Shoe Bomber Underwear Bomber

Please stop targeting the wrong suspects. We don't even remotely fit the profile description. And yes, profiling, though politically incorrect, is a much more intuitive way to find a terrorist then randomly searching children, babies, the elderly and handicapped. To my knowledge, none of these profile groups have EVER attempted to hijack or blow up a plane. These are NOT your suspects:

Most SHOCKING TSA Pat-Downs

TSA security looks at people who complain about ... TSAsecurity

TSA pats down 4-year-old who had just learned about 'stranger danger' after she hugs grandmother

TSA Pats Down Cancer-Stricken 95-Year-Old Woman, RemovesAdult Diaper

"Aggressive" TSA Pat-Down of 7-Year-Old withCerebral Palsy Forces Family to Miss Flight

TSA Admits ‘Bad Judgment’ After Disabled Man Subjected toAirport Pat-Down

95-year-old Air Force vet loses $300 during TSA pat-down

Mormon Mommy Blogs: What’s the Allure? It’s not that complicated folks!

2012-03-12T11:03:00.002-07:00

By R. Murdock

I recently read a political article about the Romney campaign seeking to capitalize on the popularity of Mommy Blogs. It also highlighted a mommy blog written by Mitt Romney’s daughter-in-law. The media managed to snag some candid shots of the Romneys before the blog was made private. While the main headlines of the story focused on a picture of Romney with messed-up hair, the writer also attempted to define mommy blogs, explain the allure and focus on the Mormon Mommy Blog phenomenon.

Popular Mormon scholar and writer, Joanna Brooks, explained these blogs as a reflection of traditional Mormon gender roles. She stated:

"In conservative Mormon culture, having large, beautiful, well-appointed families conveys a great deal of status. It's an approved path to visibility and power for Mormon women."

The author of “C Jane Enjoy It” and Mormon mommy blog pioneer called these blogs mommy porn. She said there is a relentless pro-family theme. While secular mommy blogs delve into the challenges of motherhood, LDS offerings tend to keep things upbeat, portraying family life as an unadulterated joy. She sees something theological in blogs like Romney's, with perpetually-proselyting Mormons using them as tools to convey the blessings of their faith. "I mean, you put your kids down, and you go and read someone else's blog whose life is like perfection... It's almost Photoshopped, but instead of a perfect body, it's the perfect experiences."

These descriptions rubbed me the wrong way. While I have no argument regarding those who read these blogs, they are missing the mark in a BIG way when explaining the motivation behind those who write them.

Let me explain. For those who qualify themselves as full-time homemakers, they can attest that Motherhood is a very thankless job. Yes, there are definitely moments of fulfillment and purpose, but the daily grind and the same-old same-old routine is not only monotonous, but sometimes feels pointless.

Please understand that I believe there is no greater calling then being a mother. Mothers not only fulfill basic needs, but are given ample opportunity to teach every skill that children will need to be successful in life. A mother’s charge is to teach what is right and wrong and other fundamental principles needed to be a decent, productive and useful human being.

But these lessons are not taught in quick easy sessions. They are taught over a lifetime through hands-on experience, life’s lessons and from a degree earned at the University of Hard Knocks. The rewards do not come often. Sometimes mothers won’t know if what they’ve done today means anything until their children are adults.

What does this have to do with mommy blogs? Are Mormon moms really trying to portray their so-called “perfect life” in the blogosphere to gain status and power in their large circle of Mormon friends and family? The answer is simple: No!

I think the biggest motivation these Mormon moms have is to show the world what they did today; to put their work on display and say, “Look at what I made!”

Those who don’t stay at home all day with children and instead work at a desk or in an office, or anywhere outside the home, for that matter, should understand the desire to be recognized for your work. If you work with a team and complete an important presentation, or make a big sale, or close a huge deal, you want your boss and your colleagues to pat you on the back and say good job! Maybe you’ll even get a raise or a promotion for work well done. Likewise, if you spend a couple weeks working on a presentation you eventually reach a point when you are finished. The work is complete and you can see the fruit of that work.

As moms, we don’t have that. We are never finished. We can change 10 poopy diapers in one day and the baby never says, “Gosh mom, you are so good at wiping my little bum. Thanks for your hard work!” But mothers continue their work, day in and day out, sometimes with little to no recognition.

There are milestones in motherhood when we feel like we accomplished something: like potty training, getting a child to sleep in their own bed, or weaning a child off the binky. But who is there to pat us on the back, give us a raise and a promotion? No one really, until mommy blogs came about.

Here we have a medium where we can throw the perfect birthday party for our daughter, take pictures and blog about it to show the world how awesome everything looked after our hard work. Some cynical person might look at that and say, “Gee, these mommy bloggers are always trying to paint such a rosey perfect picture of their life.” But they are wrong. We simply want people to see what we did, and to get acknowledged for it! The comments section of the blog is what motivates these moms. From here they get the encouragement, praise or even advice that they need to continue to do their jobs without going absolutely insane.

In fact, if you scrutinize Facebook or any other social media site, you will see that they are driven by the underlying desire in human nature to be noticed, to be appreciated and to be acknowledged. Is it any wonder why Facebook has become so phenomenally successful? Not really. As human beings, we crave acceptance and appreciation. It is a part of our DNA, whether we admit it or not.

Yes, as Mommy Bloggers we may take pictures when everyone is dressed up and perfect, but perhaps it’s because that is such a rare experience and takes an astronomical amount of effort to get everyone looking perfect and smiling at the same time.

Maybe they aren’t the most popular of Mormon mommy blogs, but I’ve seen plenty with half naked kids after they just finished drawing a beautiful mural all over their bedroom wall with poop. Is this our perfect life? No, but it’s what happened to us today and we want the world, or at least the bloggernacle, to know that despite this awful thing we had to deal with today, we didn’t go crazy! We cleaned up the mess and everyone is happy again. Then all our friends (and for some lucky few, a lot of strangers) can go comment on our blog and say how amazing we are for handling that situation so well. We get credit, we get noticed and we get appreciated for our work that day.

What’s the allure of Mormon Mommy blogs? That’s simple: It’s a much deserved pat on the back!

:::

Original article referenced: Buzzfeed article by McKay Coppins http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/mitt-romney-wants-to-follow-you-on-twitter

NewtToons

2012-02-06T13:42:00.000-08:00

This was so funny, I had to share! (From Mitt Romney Central)

Mitt Romney: Habitual Fixer

2012-01-02T10:06:00.000-08:00

Utah Representative, Jason Chaffetz, on the campaign bus with Mitt Romney in Iowa. The air vents needed fixing. Mitt found the duct tape and fixed it.

Merry Christmas-No offense intended

2011-12-22T14:08:00.000-08:00

To All My LIBERAL Democrat Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2012, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

To My Conservative Republican Friends:
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!!

(borrowed from a friend's Facebook status.)

Occupy movement turning into the very thing they are protesting against

2011-11-18T14:16:00.000-08:00

As reported on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Occupy Wall street Movement already has it's own "Haves" and "Have Nots." While occupying Zuccotti park in Manhattan, the group has turned into the very thing they are protesting against by self segregating into an elitist section, and a ghetto section. Very fascinating. My favorite part is the guy at the end who thinks there's a difference between "personal" and "private" property in regards to his iPad that he doesn't want to share. Private property should be shared, personal property shouldn't be shared. Funny!

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Ever have any doubts about greed and capitalism? - Must Watch!

2011-11-17T15:16:00.000-08:00

In his book "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962) Milton Friedman (1912-2006) advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom.

An excerpt from an interview with Phil Donahue in 1979. (Still rings true today!)

The Occupy Protestors could learn a few lessons from my kids.

2011-11-03T14:37:00.000-07:00

by R. Murdock

As I was watching the news and seeing the video footage of the unrest going on around the country and specifically in Oakland, something seemed vaguely familiar about the protestor’s behavior. Then it hit me. They reminded me of my kids! At first I sympathized with their movement and even empathized with them. But as the protests have dragged on without any specific goals, and as they’ve become violent and destructive, I have no more sympathy for them. They are a bunch of adults throwing a group tantrum. If they lived in my home, these are the lessons I would teach the so called 99%.

Lesson 1: My two-year old has recently entered the notorious tantrum stage, or terrible twos. She is perfectly happy as long as she can eat candy all day long and watch Dora. But if I take away the candy or turn off the TV, she throws a huge tantrum and is nearly inconsolable. But I don’t get too upset. After all, she’s only two, and after awhile she’ll learn that We don’t throw tantrums when we don’t get our way.

Lesson 2: I also have a six and eight year-old who get extremely upset anytime one gets to do something that the other doesn’t. Whenever they eat, they assess their portion sizes or count every sliced piece of fruit to make sure that they have an equal amount. If they discover that the other person has more than them, a big whine fest ensues about how life isn’t fair. How do I respond? With the same answer my mom gave me when I was a kid:

“Who said life is fair?”.

I hated that answer when I got it, and my kids don’t like it either. But I’ve tried to teach them that throughout their entire life, they will constantly see people who have more of something than they do. It may not seem fair. But life isn’t meant to be that way. The sooner they accept that, the less disappointing their life will be.

Lesson 3: My eight year-old son loves to earn money. He’s constantly looking for jobs around the house to earn a quarter here and there. We’ve tried to teach our kids the value of hard work and entrepreneurship, and he’s the child that seems to fully embrace those concepts. By working hard and saving, as well as coming up with various “business ideas” to sell things to kids in the neighborhood, he normally has a fair amount of change on hand to buy the things he wants.

This doesn’t make his little sister very happy. In fact, she thinks it’s just not fair that he has money to spend when she doesn’t. She wants me to just give her money. But whenever I ask her to do a chore, she refuses. She doesn’t normally look for opportunities to make money like he does. She would rather play dress-ups and Barbies than spend the day folding laundry, scrubbing the bathroom or washing the dishes. And who can blame her? She is only six after all! Since she normally doesn’t have any change on hand to spend I explain to her that If you aren't willing to do the work (any work), you are not going to get paid.

I’m assuming that these Occupy protestors were taught similar lessons in their own homes. By now, they are all old enough to have learned that we don’t throw tantrums when we don’t get our way. Life isn’t fair. If we want money, we need to be willing to work for it. And another important lesson: we shouldn’t covet what someone else has.

I know that 14 million people are out of work in this country. In fact, my husband lost his job when the economy came crashing down, too. We almost went bankrupt and lost our house. But we avoided our own financial meltdown by renting our house out, moving into my parent’s basement, starting a business and working every random job we could find. We could be out there with those protestors with signs that read, “Death to Capitalism” and “We’re part of the 99%” But we don’t give our power away that easily.

My husband has a degree, a lot of experience and has worked in management. But when he could only find a job that paid $10 an hour, he took it. It was not enough for us to even barely scrape by. So we started a business. In the last three years since losing his job, we’ve managed to keep our house, avoid bankruptcy, pay off over $30k in debt and provide employment to other people. Those things would never have happened for us had we pointed the finger of blame at others rather than work towards a solution.

Are we mad at capitalism for putting us in that position? NO! Capitalism saved us. It provided the opportunity for us to recover. We don’t have time to protest and whine about life not being fair. We are too busy working, providing jobs, paying off our debts and trying not to be a burden on society.

To these protestors I’d say: instead participating in a massive group tantrum by causing civil unrest, rioting, putting police officers’ lives in danger, destroying property and setting fires-they should be taking control of their lives. They should be using capitalism to their own advantage; to improve their own situation, whatever it may be. Government can’t create jobs. Yet, if these 14 million unemployed people tried to start their own businesses, surely a good percentage of them could succeed. It is totally possible.

We are not wealthy. We are not part of the so-called 1% and we still live in my parent’s basement. But I don’t covet what the rich have. I didn’t earn their riches. They did. I didn’t sacrifice, take risks and put in the hard work to get where they are. But you know what? I’m willing to do what it takes to get myself in a better place. And after all that we have sacrificed to pay off debt, build our business and create wealth, I would sure as heck not want any of the 99% saying they want an “equal share” of my hard earned money. If they want it, they need to go out there and be builders, not wreckers.

Mormons-The Modern Day Christians

2011-10-28T19:05:00.000-07:00

Jesus Christ-Founder of Christianity

I received this email which had been forwarded around since Oct. 14, 2011. It is written by a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in response to Pastor Jeffress's inflammatory statements that Mormons are not Christian and that the church is a cult. Robert Starling does an excellent job of explaining exactly what a Christian is and that by Pastor Jeffresses definition of Christianity, the original Christians in Antioch, the Catholic Church and Protestants churches are not Christian either. This is a definite "Must Read!" -R. Murdock

Letter to Pastor Jeffress of the 1st Baptist Church of Dallas
By Robert Starling
CEO Trefoil Productions LLC

Dear Pastor Jeffress,

I’m just one of the millions of people who saw and heard on TV news shows your statements that “Mormonism is a cult” and “not a part of orthodox Christianity”. As a faithful lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I felt a strong reaction to those statements, as you might imagine. My remarks here are only my personal thoughts, but I assure you they are heartfelt.

My reaction was twofold. First, I saw your remarks as an unfortunate “below-the-belt” swipe at Mitt Romney in the hopes of advancing your own favorite political candidate. While you certainly have the right to do that, I think many Americans join me in feeling that such a move was beneath a prominent religious leader such as yourself.

Second, as a devoted believer and follower of Jesus Christ I was saddened that you felt the need to speak out against my faith and beliefs. I’m sure there are those who think it was done with malice, but I’ll try to do the Christ-like thing and give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you’ve just been misinformed about “Mormonism” as many others have been.

But it might surprise you to learn that I actually agree with part of what you said, although perhaps for different reasons than you might imagine.

You said that Mitt Romney is “not a Christian” (and by association myself and the other six million-plus Americans who are Latter-day Saints). But I believe you need to be more specific. There are many different kinds or “flavors” of Christians. I agree that the LDS people are not Baptist Christians or Evangelical Christians or Catholic Christians, etc. I will even agree that we’re not part of “orthodox” or “traditional” flavor of Christianity, if by that you mean the post-Nicene church that became the “universal” or “catholic” version of Christendom.

I believe my faith to be the original church of the Corinthians, the Ephesians, and yes, those who were first called Christians in Antioch, - that same church now restored in these latter days. So I call myself a “latter-day Christian", with theological roots that precede the “historical” or “orthodox” version that was the product of the various councils and creeds. That “orthodoxy” eventually became so corrupt and so apostate that the Reformers broke away from it in protest of its having “fallen away” from Biblical truths (2 Thess. 2) and “changed the ordinances” (Isa. 24:5) so that the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3) was no longer recognizable as the church that Jesus organized.

There were many enlightened Christian thinkers and theologians in history who, like Joseph Smith, believed that Christianity had become apostate and that a restoration of the New Testament church of Christ was necessary. John Wesley the founder of Methodism wrote:

It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; . . . From this time they almost totally ceased; . . . The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens . . . . This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left.

The Works of John Wesley, vol. 7, pp.26-27

As I’m sure you well know, John Smythe the founder of the Baptists first left his position as a Church of England minister and joined the Separatists, but then dissolved his congregation to re-form it as the first General Baptist church among English expatriates in Amsterdam in 1609. He felt that the “historic” or “orthodox” Christianity of his time had wandered astray, especially with regard to the apostate doctrine of infant baptism. Those first Baptists were considered a “cult” by many Protestants in the “traditional” Christian denominations that persecuted them unmercifully.

Around 1640, Roger Williams of Providence, Rhode Island, founder of the first Baptist church in America refused to continue as pastor on the grounds that there was:

… no regularly‑constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor could there be until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming, I am seeking.

(Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In, ed. William Cullen Bryant, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872, vol. 1, p. 502.)

If I understand your words correctly your definition of a Christian (and that of most Evangelicals) is a pretty narrow one, far different from the standard meaning found in most dictionaries. Personally I think anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God and as his/her personal Savior who died for our sins and was bodily resurrected on the third day is a Christian. C.S. Lewis described such people as “mere” Christians.

But your narrow definition would exclude anyone who:

1. Does not believe in a closed canon of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.

2. Does not accept the Nicene Creed as an accurate description of the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

3. Believes in living prophets and apostles as the “foundation” of Christ’s earthly church.

4. Believes in continuing revelation from God to man.

I could go on. I’m very familiar with the standard arguments against “Mormonism”.

But the Bible says that believers in Christ were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26). I would respectfully submit that those Christians:

1. Did not believe in a closed canon of scripture. (some of the New Testament had not yet been written.)

2. Did not accept the Nicene Creed as an accurate description of the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. (it would not be written for 300 years)

3. Believed in living apostles and prophets as the “foundation” of Christ’s earthly church.

4. Believed in continuing revelation from God to man.

So if you’re going to say that Mitt and I are not Christians based on those reasons, you’ll have to say that the believers in Antioch were not Christians either according to your definition.

You said in your Hardball interview that “Mormonism” is a “cult” because:

Joseph Smith Jr.

1. “Mormonism came 1800 years after Jesus Christ”

2. “Mormonism has its own human leader, Joseph Smith”

3. “it has its own set of doctrines”

3. “it has its own religious book, The Book of Mormon, in addition to the Bible”

Your exact following words were: “and so by that definition it is a theological cult”. You made a weak distinction between a theological cult and a sociological one, but most people will not even notice that fine differentiation. It was obvious to any sophisticated viewer that your main goal was to keep repeating the word “cult”. It’s such an inflammatory buzz word that I’m sure your goal is to use it as often as you can to scare people away from “Mormonism” without seriously considering our theology and our beliefs. It’s a word used to end or avoid discussion, not to foster it. As a Latter-day Saint I welcome the opportunity to “stand ready to give a reason for the faith that is in me”, but those who sling around the word “cult” with respect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seek to cut off debate rather than to encourage dialog. It’s as though they are afraid of an open and honest discussion.

But following your own definition of “cult” for a moment, I’d like to respectfully submit that:

St. Peter

1. Roman Catholicism came 300 years after Jesus Christ.

2. Roman Catholicism has its own human leader, the Pope (or Peter if you accept the Catholic claims that he was the first Pope)

3. Roman Catholicism has its own set of doctrines (Mariology, transubstantiation, priestly celibacy, veneration of “saints”, indulgences, etc.)

4. Roman Catholicism has its own religious books (9 deuterocanonical more than those found in the Protestant Bible – also used in Eastern Orthodox churches)

And even your own Baptist flavor of Christianity in some ways fits your definition of what makes a cult;


John Smyth

1. “Baptistism” came 1609 years after Jesus Christ

2. “Baptistism” had its own human leader John Smythe – a Church of England minister (see footnote below from the website of the Baptist History and Heritage Society)

3. “Baptistism” had its own unique doctrines, including the “believer’s baptism” of adults.

4. “Baptistism” was considered a cult by the “orthodox” or “traditional” or “historic” Christian denominations of the time. In fact Baptists suffered severe persecution from other Christians who believed in the “mainline” doctrine of infant baptism prevalent in that era. Thousands of Baptists were martyred for baptizing adults.

One of the dictionary definitions of a cult is that is a small isolated group that is out of the mainstream. That certainly does not apply to my church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the fourth largest religion in America, and the second largest Christian church in Washington, Oregon, and California (after Catholicism). You mentioned that there are 15 million Southern Baptists. By 2012 at the present rate of growth there will be more Latter-day Saints than that.

Pastor Jeffress, in order to be consistent and truthful you would have to admit that the same definition you’ve used to brand “Mormonism” a cult applies at least in part to Roman Catholicism and “Baptistism” as well. Are you willing to say that on national television? I would hope so. I would hope that you’d want to be totally consistent and truthful.

What I believe happened to “the faith once delivered to the saints” (is this). There was a great apostasy that fundamentally changed the New Testament church of Jesus Christ into something so different that those Christians at Antioch or Peter or Paul would not have recognized it in the Dark Ages that came upon the earth. (Amos 8:12) That apostasy required the “restitution of all things” prophesied in Acts 3:21 to occur before Christ’s return. That restitution or restoration of original Biblical Christianity was what was looked forward to by Roger Williams.

I testify to you that that restoration has come, and the original Christianity is back on the earth in its fullness as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you would like to investigate these claims I’ll be happy to “bring forth my strong reasons” for “the faith that is in me.” I would welcome a thoughtful dialog.

Cordially yours,

Robert Starling

A Latter-day Christian

(footnote to above reference to John Smyth)

BHHS -- Baptist Beginnings http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm

The first General Baptist church, led by John Smyth, was founded in Amsterdam, Holland, in 1608/09. Its members were English refugees who had fled England to escape religious persecution. John Smyth was a minister in the Church of England. As a student and later as a pastor and teacher. … By 1608/09, Smyth was convinced his Separatist church was not valid. Most of the members had only infant baptism, and the church was formed on the basis of a "covenant," rather than a confession of faith in Christ. Smyth therefore led the church to

disband in 1608/09 and re-form on a new basis–a personal confession of faith in Christ, followed by believer’s baptism. Since none of the members had been baptized as believers, Smyth had to make a new beginning. He baptized himself and then baptized the others. His baptism was by sprinkling or pouring, but it was for believers only.

Will you pay more under Cain's 9-9-9 flat tax plan?

2011-10-27T13:37:00.000-07:00

In the recent CNN/GOP debate, Rick Santorum stated that Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan would raise taxes on 84% of Americans. After the CNN debate, one of the news analysts agreed that from their number crunching, this could be true. I asked one of my intelligent math wiz friends to do his own analysis, and this was his response:

By Brian Larson:
As far as I can tell...right now...Looks like the states with no income tax and high sales tax will end up losing with the 9-9-9. Also the people with High income tax and low sales tax really dont lose anything they just end up saving more money than spending it. In turn, hurting the recovery of the economy. This is all real general though. I think to get a real analysis you would really need to do this for every tax bracket and state to get an over all comparison to how it would effect the nation as a whole. So thats my partial analysis.

It sounded like a great idea at the start but looking into it further I think it does more harm then good for the economy. HOWEVER, in the states with high income taxes it actually increases employment. This is due to the cost of labor is now cheaper. So if companies can find ways to cut capital spending, then more jobs would be created. Granted the Government gives some sort of incentive to higher these new workers to keep production levels high enough to cover the wages. So it really is a mix of how the consumers will end up and how corporations will end up. Personally, I think that the corporations will end up winning in his 9-9-9 plan. What's new right! LOL! So there you have it. My ASU degree might come in handy sooner than I thought!

Thoughts on the 99% - Occupy

2011-10-27T13:30:00.000-07:00

The possessions of Occupy Oakland protestors are seen strewn about Frank H. Ogawa plaza Tuesday in Oakland, Calif. Occupy Oakland protestors were evicted from the plaza early Tuesday morning. Photo courtesy of Ben Margot/AP

While scanning through the status updates of my Facebook friends, I came upon this status thread by a friend who served an LDS mission in the Japan Tokyo South Mission at the same time I did. I've always liked a lot of his comments and especially loved this post. I whole heartedly agree with his thoughts and wanted to make them more accessible to others as not everyone is FB friends with the intelligent Michael Brady. Here are his thoughts on the whole Occupy issue- R. Murdock

By Michael Brady-

Wall Street, the financially "rich," and the U.S. government are not the problem. Individuals are the problem. They succumb to greed and power. De-institutionalizing is not the answer. People taking accountability for their actions is the first step toward the answer. The next step is realizing that their actions have caused personal and societal harm. Changing personal actions is the final step. If people--ALL people--can be taught, correctly understand and apply correct principles, they can govern themselves in ways that are individually and collectively beneficial.

I doubt the majority of those misrepresenting us "99%" understand comparative advantage, or even zero-sum game theory, let alone the terms.

Would there be any poor among us if the following things happened: 1) Everybody did their share; an honest day's work, based on the abilities of the individual, 2) Those applying for and administrating welfare were honest, -- for Latter-day Saints, I'll throw in 3) Everybody paid a generous fast offering.

Furthermore, another call to repentance for the "entitled": I watched President Obama's inauguration. He said: "Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America. For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. ...All this we can do. And all this we will do."

How the crowd cheered! And looking at photographs of the National Mall the very next day, I was inexpressibly disappointed in the amounts of GARBAGE that LITTERED the grounds of our beautiful capital. If individuals can't be counted on to pack out and throw away the waste that they bring in, how can we count on them to contribute to the picking ourselves up and dusting ourselves off part?

We must be united in effort and individually committed to the cause. The litterbugs who rationalize "They pay people to pick up my garbage, so littering is okay" will need to experience a change of heart. To quote a religious leader, "This isn't a program of 'give me.' This is a program of 'self-help.'"

Individuals must rehabilitate themselves, each and every American, each and every citizen of the world, and then the "system" will be rehabilitated by natural consequence, on the basis of an improved personal and social consciousness and conscience.

People will be happier, simply because they know that they are better people, that they have improved and contributed to the improvement of the greater good. They will be enabled to become better fathers and mothers, better friends, better CEOs, better welfare recipients, better citizens.

The next questions are: how do we begin to teach correct principles? What are these correct principles? Where do we find them? How do we know that they are correct?

In a Christian setting, the answers are very obvious. I believe Stephen R. Covey to be a leading authority on how to present religious principles in ways that translate into the vernacular appropriate to different social settings. His Seven Habits are genius (borrowed from Jesus Christ), and the first three begin with the individual.

DISCLAIMER: By posting this link, I am not claiming to be a disciple, or even a fan, of Glenn Beck. In fact, I'd like to officially put a little distance between him and me right now, on the record. But this clip is well done and representative of how I feel about the whole situation down at Wall Street. http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=19882747&topic_id&v=3&tcid=fb_video_19882747

These are some of my favorite comments that Michael received from his post:

Beau- I think you're right Mike, it starts with self. People who are angry at others for not funding them won't ever change that mindset - no amount of money in the world can do it. What these folks should be doing, rather than congregating and asking for handouts and saying death to capitalism is knocking these companies on their duffs. I'd bet there are folks out there right now who could create a company that would be the next Apple or a bank that would cater to those who are left behind by the big banks or fleeced by the payday lenders. Let's do that instead of whining.

Michael- @Beau: No amount of money can change that mindset because funding them not only enables the problem, but gives it momentum. I was calling around to some homeless shelters one day, and the advice one of the workers gave me was: sometimes the best way to help a homeless person is to say "no." Otherwise, they'll never realize that they have the ability to shape their own lives, instead of exploiting others.

Fred- Love of money is still the root of all evil. You can have anything in this world for money, and people who go to work for the megabanks don't do it because they want to help people. They do it to enrich themselves so they can have more than they need. On the other hand, people who go too deeply into debt to buy too much house, hoping to mimic the behavior of the predatory wheeler dealers by "flipping" it end up being willing victims of the very bloodsuckers they are trying to emulate. It's not enough to be honest with others; you have to be honest with yourself. Work for what you get, be happy if you have sufficient for your needs, and remember that more than enough is too much. Use your surplus, if you have any, to help others.

Jodi- I think it's obvious from all comments as to how complex issues these are, which is why I also believe it is dangerous to work in absolutes i.e., "people take advantage of the system therefore it isn't right to blame the system" or to even suggest that the way the system is is needlessly causing suffering. Just because there are homeless people who may not do their part does not mean that they don't need help, or that they don't deserve our help. I feel the need to distance myself from these kinds of discussions because I'm not sure my blood pressure can handle it any longer. I find myself longing to throw myself back into the scriptures not just for comfort but also to regain some sanity after the whirlwind of blame, anger, judgment and prejudice infecting the rhetoric of our politics and even every day lives. What I love about the gospel is it's simplicity and I for one have never been able to find a scripture which condones loving, serving or providing for others on condition, but there are well over a thousand describing the opposite which is that we have no right to judge who is worthy or deserving of our love, time and means since all of those things are God given anyways. King Benjamins speech where he says that we have no right to say that the beggar has put his petition to us in vain, or brought upon himself his misery, because we are all beggars to God who has given us all that we have both temporally and spiritually, is pretty much the truth that I prefer to fall back on and have form my life philosophy. Not to mention the bulk of Christ's teachings which emphasize the heart of the matter which is without charity we are nothing. I have worked for five yrs now with the seriously mentally ill, extremely low income population and so I get to see these issues affecting people firsthand. I also have an entire family who have also suffered from the very bad choices of a few. So I guess to end this I of course agree individual accountability being the key but I do not think that means that we shouldn't raise our voice in protest when other people abusing their accountability has caused others to suffer. The civil rights movement is a good example because it went way beyond individual accountability and into societal accountability for suffering and abuses we were allowing to happen right under our noses. I respect the Wall Street protests because if nothing else they are bringing awareness to the issue of NO accountability in our market besides profiting off of others to make a few extremely rich being dangerous, and quite frankly not fair. People took on mortgages that they couldn't afford, and displayed habits of greed which made them suffer, but there were also thousands of wise, hard working, saving and responsible people (my family included) who through no fault of theirs had their futures taken from them so, yeah, I feel there is a lot to be concerned and incredibly frustrated about. I also have a difficult time ever seeing the need to bring someone like Glenn Beck into a conversation even though after all of the incredibly hateful, mean and unchristlike rhetoric he has spewed he happens to have a valid point. Let's leave that wolf in sheep's clothing out of our conversations completely and stick to the Godhead and our prophets when forming opinions on issues which ultimately involve our brothers and sisters.

Michael- In the simplest of terms, the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only thing that can save any of us, as individuals or as societies. Indeed as the gospel teaches, if we as individuals would like to be saved, then serving self and ignoring society, i.e., your neighbors, does not warrant salvation. See Moses 7:18.

While good intentions are meritorious in God's eyes, effectiveness will do more good than misguided attempts at change. Hopefully the "Occupy" movement will be catalyst to a more effective output than YouTube videos that mock the protesters.

Barry- After scanning the comments, I would say that personal responsibility is indeed important. But it's not the whole point. If we adopt that as the whole point, we risk ignoring other ideas of the Savior, especially charity. Personally, I would rather help those that may not NEED it than not help those that truly do need help. I see that as erring on the side of the Lord.
Not everyone will embrace personal responsibility and not everyone is capable, there are legitimate reasons to seek help.
Finally, one cannot serve both God and Mammon. Profit before people is NOT the Lord's way. That's why I tend to distrust corporations. That and the decreased personal responsibility of corporate leaders.
I could rant on, but I should save it for another day. ;)

Michael- So far I agree with pretty much everything that has been added to this discussion, yet it still seems that some are at odds with some of my sentiments. I suppose I didn't articulate myself well enough, because I feel like we're all saying the same thing, yet disagreement still exists.

Charity and pride are central to every issue due to the fact that the absence of charity and the presence of pride will inevitably cause problems.

I believe that giving commodities and money to a family whose breadwinner is unemployed is charitable. I believe it is uncharitable to sustain that family indefinitely while father and mother laze about, simply because their needs are being met by the efforts of others. True charity is helping a person be more like Christ; enabling poor behavior is helping a person become less like Christ. If I were to help the father, I would assist with his temporal means until he becomes self-sustaining; in the meantime, I cannot rob him of the process of personal growth by experiencing the humility that is requisite to be sustained by the spirit, and ultimately accomplishing, with his wife, everything that is necessary for the innocent children.

Jesus Christ did for me what I could not do for myself. So must we help others who cannot do for themselves, but then we help them to become more able. This is what Christ does with us through covenants and the principle of upward harmonization.

The unemployed father, and the greedy CEO, and you and I all face the same issue, and we all have the same problem. As we become accountable to our Lord and to ourselves, we grow into positions where we can benefit and bless the lives of other children of God. But if we are greedy, selfish, lazy, entitled, unaccountable, or any of the other "Mammonistic" traits that are bringing our nation down, then how can we serve God, as Barry points out?

Finally, we will all be struggling with losing our pride and nurturing our charity for a long, long time. I am not calling for perfection in these areas (though Christ did). Every father and crooked CEO will hopefully make movement in the right direction. However slow the process, progress is still progress.

The Book of Mormon Musical, A Mormon's Perspective

2011-10-08T08:47:00.000-07:00

I've been pretty fascinated with the attention the vulgar musical "The Book of Mormon" has brought to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I will never see it because I feel extremely uncomfortable around profanity and vulgarity. However, I truly believe that the attention generated by the musical can be good. Here is a copy of an email I received originally sent by Mormon actor, Michael Ballam, who actually saw the musical and gives some good insight. At the end, I've included a video of a song from this musical. I actually really like the song "I Believe." There are some funny parts that make fun of Mormons...but it's good to have a sense of humor, and in reality, it's quite moving in some ways. Also, having been a missionary myself, I can relate to some of the feelings of this young elder - R. Murdock

Michael Ballam on the Book of Mormon Broadway Musical

(Michael is an actor, singer and Professor of Music at USU.)

I spent the evening with Hal Prince & Sheldon & Margie Harnick last night as they were honored for their lifetime achievement in the theatre in Manhattan. Hal produced/directed Damn Yankees, Pajama Game, Fiddler on the Roof, West Side Story, Sweeny Todd, Phantom of the Opera, etc etc. Sheldon wrote She Loves Me, Fiorello, Apple Tree, Fiddler on the Roof, etc. Sheldon and Margie were VERY offended by Book of Mormon because they didn't like the depiction that one of the Elders had never read the Book of Mormon before going out into the field. I think I am perhaps the only Mormon they know, but they are VERY protective of me! I assured them, that such a thing is VERY unlikely to happen, but it did make for an interesting dramatic scenario. (Now that I think about it, there may be more out there than we know).

There is a song called "Turn it Off" which implies that Mormons shut down their base impulses. In other words, if they have a pornography or sexuality issue, they just don't think about it, and move on to other more productive things. I know that is rather simplistic, but there is some truth to the fact that we feel in order to overcome our problems we need to block the impulses and move on to better and loftier things. They thought it made us look like unfeeling, simple folk, which we are not. Perhaps I was SO WORRIED about what might take place in that musical, I was pleasantly surprised that they made the church look like good people. I asked him what he thought the message was and he said, "Those Mormons DO believe some peculiar things, BUT they all seem to be nice and happy! So, just because you don't get it don't knock it." I'm ok with that.

The Book of Mormon Musical is such a perplexing issue. We live in a very mocking world. Our humor has degenerated to ridicule and shock value. The irony of this musical is that the information center in Manhattan has been inundated for request for Books of Mormon. Somehow, people who see the musical ask themselves, "What is it about these people that make them happy and loving?" As a result, they want to read the book. One of my friends in NYC is going out and giving away Books of Mormon outside the theatre and requesting to put them (FREE) inside the theatre. If the authors are really sincere when they say they have deep respect for the LDS church, it should not bother them.

I saw it in previews and was stunned beyond belief at how vulgar it was. I never dreamed I would live to hear such vulgarity uttered from a stage. I was numbed within minutes. I focused more attention on the audience than I did the stage trying to assess the response of those present. There were clearly defined groups. There were the South Park, young outrageous kids who were there who guffawed at every shocking obscenity (how long can you shock people before they're unshockable?), then there were the mature, Broadway devotees who had furrowed brows trying to understand WHAT IN THE WORLD IS THIS. Then there was another group I couldn't figure out. They were somewhat restrained in their reactions. At intermission I took out my pad of paper to write down some thoughts when someone from behind me said, "Brother Ballam?" I thought maybe it was the destroying angel who had come to wisk me off to an eternal punishment. It was a sweet lady with her husband who had come from Salt Lake City with 150 other Mormons to do work in the Temple. They came to check things out. During the second act THOSE were the folks I watched.

Act II is QUITE different than Act I, and the tables turn about the influence of those courageous Elders and the impact they have on the people of Uganda.

There is a baptismal scene that is riveting and the audience became VERY quiet as those dark black actors whose behavior had changed from anger and hostility to peace and joy as they came onto the stage dressed in white... it was something to see. The final statement of the musical as I read it was: Yes, some people believe some crazy things (like Jesus coming to the Americas after his crucifixion and ancient Jews leaving Jerusalem in 600 BC and crossing the sea... both ideas get a chuckle, you can tell it makes the audience think (Captain Cook...white god??? Ancient temples in meso-America, etc), but there is SOMETHING about these people that is good. They are happy and loving and forgiving. There has to be something to it. I thought it was a subtle love letter to Mormons, BUT it is in the midst of a vulgar show that could NEVER play before our audience.

The next night I sat at the opening night party of HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS next to the widow of Jule Styne (who wrote FUNNY GIRL). She knows the boys who wrote B of M and said I should contact them and explain that I think it could play before an LDS audience (of which there are 14M worldwide) if it weren't vulgar. She thinks they might re-write it. We'll see. I didn't get the message that religious people are out of touch with reality, I got the message that those WONDERFUL, COURAGEOUS, CLEAN-CUT youngsters who dedicate AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, two years of service in parts of the world for which they have no experience or tools, MATURE very quickly and develop deep love for the people they serve. I think that is the take most people had leaving the theatre.

Of course, I felt like going home and washing my mouth and ears out with soap. It has generated HUGE interest in the Mormons in Manhattan and in a positive way. The "Mormon Jokes" in it are the kind you would hear given at ward parties. We do have a sense of humor about ourselves, and yes, we are a PECULIAR people and intend to remain so. I think the church has reacted EXACTLY the right way by not protesting or showing offense. We have been good sports about it, which I think will prove important in the perception the world has for us. We ADMIT that our story is unlike any other and we make no apologies for that.

Who knows, maybe were it not for the over the top vulgarity and profanity that has come to be the hallmark of our entertainment world, that segment of the populace would never have had ANY contact with what Mormons believe or who they are. If that group goes away knowing nothing more than the fact that Mormons are all over the world trying to help and serve and hold to their unusual beliefs it might do some good. In the meantime, we have to take the higher road and realize the power of the Book of Mormon has lasted for 2600 years and will endure for eternity...the musical will not.

-Michael Ballam

"I Believe" from the Book of Mormon Musical

Pastor who called Mormonism a cult would do well to follow basic Christian principles

2011-10-07T20:25:00.000-07:00

By R. Murdock

Today a Southern Baptist minister from a mega-church, endorsed Rick Perry, a true Christian. Afterwards when talking to reporters, he said he did it because Mitt Romney is not a Christian, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) is a cult.

Robert Jeffress just created a huge PR headache for Rick Perry who's campaign later had to come out and assure everyone that Rick Perry does not think that Mitt Romney is a member of a cult.

The funny thing is that Jefress stated "I think Mitt Romney's a good, moral man, but those of us who are born again followers of Christ should prefer a competent Christian." So is he saying it's better to be competent than good and moral?

Jeffress later went on to say that if the choice comes down to Obama and Romney, he would plug his nose and vote for Romney (because apparently it really isn't that big of a deal to be part of a cult these days.) He gives his reason here:

Jeffress Statement:

"I would rather have a non-Christian who at least supports biblical principles than a professing Christian like Barack Obama who embraces unbiblical positions."

My Restatement of what he's actually saying:

"I would rather have a member of a cult who is good and moral and at least supports biblical principles than a professing Christian like Barack Obama."

I know, it's confusing, a true flip flopper. Now it's better to have a cult member than a Christian. This guy really needs to figure out exactly what a Christian is, and then act like one. (Hint: Those who followed Jesus Christ during biblical times were called Christians which was a derogatory name, just like "Mormon" started out as a derogatory name as well. A Christian is a follower of Christ.)

As a Born-Again Christian, I'm assuming Mr. Jeffress probably believes that as long as you profess Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, then you're saved by grace. Obama and Romney both claim to have done this, so it really doesn't matter what they do, think or follow after that.

(Note: Mormons believe that we are saved by Christ's grace after all we can do. That's why many are perceived as "good" and "moral," because they believe that being a follower of Christ, AKA Christian, actually means following His example and trying to do what He would do.)

Mr. Jeffress also stated in an interview to a news organization that Mormons are not Christian because they worship Joseph Smith. This is totally NOT TRUE. Mormons only worship Jesus Christ. In the Book of Mormon, which is another testament of Jesus Christ, it says "(Christ) is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God."

Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, which testifies of Christ. We honor Joseph Smith the same as a Baptist would honor Moses, who brought forth the Ten Commandments; or John the Beloved who wrote the Book of Revelation. We are grateful to have the Book of Mormon, the Bible and the Ten Commandments. But in no way do Moses, John the Beloved/Revelator or Joseph Smith save us from our sins, nor would we EVER worship them.

I have no doubt that Mr. Jeffress loves and worships Jesus Christ. He is not a perfect follower or Christian, and none of us are. When someone says, “I believe in Christ.” Who are we to judge what is in that person’s heart. Christ knows perfectly who His followers are. They are the ones who hear His voice and do their best to follow Him.

With the deep love Mr. Jeffress has for his Savior and Redeemer, how would he feel if someone came along trashing his faith and told him that he does not follow Christ, believe in Christ, worship Christ? How would he feel if someone said the Southern Baptist Convention is a cult? I don’t think he would like that at all.

A person's faith is deeply personal and sacred. The personal relationship they have with God is something great to be treasured. No one likes to have such treasures maliciously and publicly attacked, belittled and misrepresented.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm called a Mormon because I believe in the Book of Mormon, which like the Bible, testifies that Jesus Christ is the son of God, the Savior of the world and all mankind. I am a sinner and would be lost without the perfect love and sacrifice of Jesus. I know He loves me. He gave His life for me and suffered unspeakable pains on my behalf. I try to show my love and appreciation for Him by doing my best to follow His perfect example. Everyday I fall short of taking upon me His name. But I repent and He forgives me and I keep trying. I am honored to be a follower of Christ. No matter how many times people say that I am not a Christian, I know that the One person who matters the most to me, knows who I am and knows I do my best to follow Him. I love my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I'm grateful for His grace and mercy. He wants me to be happy, and when I follow Him, I have joy in my life.

Those like me, who follow Christ, and those who do not, would do well to remember one of His simple yet profound teachings:

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

Painting by Greg Olson, a Mormon and a Christian who loves Jesus Christ

How a Socialist became a Conservative

2011-09-19T14:10:00.000-07:00

By R. Murdock

I consider myself a very religious person. Recently as I’ve studied the scriptures with renewed interest, certain topics and passages have continually jumped out at me. Those are succoring the poor and needy, and the importance of liberty. These topics may not seem to have much in common. But through studying these areas, I have gained a greater understanding of the importance of free will, and the charge we have been given to care for those in need.

I never thought that Religion and Politics had much to do with each other. In fact, they seem to clash frequently. But through understanding some of my religious beliefs, I have restructured some of my political leanings. This has occurred by studying the founding principals of our country, and the fact that God fearing people firmly believe in the principle of "Free Will."

In the news today, we hear a lot about bank and company bailouts, increased taxation of the wealthy, budget deficits, social welfare, nationalized health insurance and so on. Our country is deeply divided over social and economic issues. I’ve always tried to understand where people of opposing opinions are coming from. If we can first understand that most people hold firmly to their differing viewpoints because they believe it is morally right, then perhaps we wouldn’t judge each other so harshly. We all come from different backgrounds and have had different experiences-- which shape our individual worldviews. We need to respect each other and learn to carry on constructive conversation about our opposing viewpoints.

I live in one of the most conservative states in the country. I was raised Republican but have always based my political viewpoints and decisions based on what I personally believed about certain issues, and not strictly on the GOP platform.

However, I must confess-- my views have been more in line with socialist thinking. As friends and family have passionately expressed to me their fears that our country is slipping into socialism, I’ve shrugged my shoulders wondering inwardly what was so bad about that? I didn’t know exactly what all socialism entailed, but if it meant helping the poor and needy at the expense of the wealthy, I was all for that!

I grew up in an environment where there was constant financial pressure. There were times when there was not enough food to eat. The phone line, electricity and water were shut off all too often. We’d run out of toilet paper and not be able to afford more until the next paycheck. This was a huge inconvenience!

We struggled. Yet both of my parents are some of the hardest working people I know. Despite having eight children of their own, they were always taking people in who needed a place to stay. This didn’t help their financial situation, but they take seriously the charge to care for the needy, widowed, orphaned and sick. They have shown true charity as they have given even when it seemed like that had nothing to give.

There were times growing up when we had to seek help from our church. We also were on food stamps and Medicaid. If it weren’t for Medicaid, my little sister would have died due to chronic illness that required very expensive treatment. Never during these times of assistance were my parents NOT working. In fact, during the worst period of financial stress, my father was working 3 jobs while my mother ran a daycare out of our home.

Needless to say, I bristle when I hear people verbally bash those in need of government assistance. While I admit that I’m sure there are some people who take advantage of social welfare programs, there are plenty who are hard working Americans who have simply fallen on hard times. These people have worked hard, paid their taxes, and through no fault of their own, find themselves in situations where they require help. It is humiliating for them to seek that help, but when you have hungry, uninsured children; what do you do? I’m grateful that those programs were available to us. Since that time, I am positive my father has more than paid back the welfare he received through payment of his taxes.

Growing up in a family where the lack of money was a constant source of stress and worry, it was hard not to envy those who seemed to have so much more. The worldwide gap between the ultra wealthy and the poor is enormous. Yet aren’t we all children of God? He created this earth for all of us, yet a few end up with most of its riches. I thought this was incredibly unfair. Especially when those with great wealth seemed to squander it on houses, boats, cars, jewelry and an excess of materialism, while other people in the world were starving.

The idea of taxing the rich to give to the poor just made sense. If the rich were going to be selfish and hoard all the wealth, they deserved to have some of it taken away in order to help those who had very little.

During recent political discussions, I have heard many conservatives rant and rave about the injustice of wealth redistribution. They complained about socialism creeping into our government and a new era of rewarding irresponsibility. During these tirades (See Fox News) they berate, insult and belittle the poor and the needy calling them “lazy” and “losers.”

The scriptures are perfectly clear when it comes to helping the poor and needy. One prophet taught:

“Ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish. Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer for his punishments are just-”

“And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God.”

Another prophet taught that people should impart of their substance according to that which he had. And if they had more abundantly they should impart more abundantly.

But there was a verse that I had never noticed before in my studies that really caught me off guard. It said: “And thus they should impart of their substance of their own free will…”

Now I apologize to those who so desperately tried to explain this to me. The point that people were trying to make was that it isn’t right for the government to FORCE people to help the poor. I heard the “force” statement, but what spoke louder to me was the anti social welfare sentiment. I wasn’t making the connection that forcing people to do anything, is against God’s nature.

I know that the scriptures teach the importance of free will, but I didn’t see the harm in taxing the rich to help the poor. After all, the rich would still be rich. And none of it belonged to them anyway, right? Everything belongs to God…BUT, if we are taught not to steal, then property rights must mean something to God after all.

It sounded perfectly reasonable to me that those who have plenty should give to those who have little. Why should one man be hungry when another has plenty to share? Even better, if he refuses to share, which he probably will, just take it away from him and give it to the poor man. Let everyone be equal, and let those who have more, pay their Fair Share.

The problem is that government is trying to force people to do good.

So now I understand the foundation of the argument against socialism, against government welfare, against excess taxing and spending. But yet I have benefited from government programs. How do I reconcile this? What would people do if these programs did not exist? Isn’t a little socialism okay?

Ezra Taft Benson answered this question in an article published in 1968 titled “The Proper Role of Government.” He stated:

“In reply to the argument that a little bit of socialism is good so long as it doesn’t go too far, it is tempting to say that, in like fashion, just a little bit of theft or a little bit of cancer is all right, too! History proves that the growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship. But let us hope that this time around, the trend can be reversed. If not then we will see the inevitability of complete socialism, probably within our lifetime.”

Socialism leads to communism. And once we enter that door, it is easy to keep sliding down the path-- giving up one freedom at a time. In recent years we have sacrificed our freedom and privacy for the benefit of our safety and security from terrorists. Now we are sacrificing freedom for the benefit of our economic security. After so many fought and died to gain our independence and freedom, we are gradually trading our birthright for a bowl of pottage.

A big part of the problem is that if we don’t appreciate and value what we don’t understand, then like Esau, we’ll easily trade it away for the hopes of something better or more immediately rewarding, not realizing that the thing we gave away was more precious than all the safety and security in the world.

In 1950, Mark E. Peterson said about the Constitution:

“Nobody is going to risk very much to save an instrument which he does not understand, nor is he going to jeopardize his life or property to preserve principles he does not accept.”

I am actively studying daily, the principles of the founding fathers and the rights given to us in the Constitution. It has been an extremely rewarding experience to learn about the men who established our nation. Most Americans know very little about these great men. I have heard it argued that the founding fathers are irrelevant to our times because they presided over a nation that was significantly smaller, existed mainly on the east coast, and had completely different challenges and circumstances. These people fail to appreciate that if it weren’t for the divinely inspired constitution, they wouldn’t enjoy the rights and freedoms they have today, nor would they be living in the most prosperous nation in the world.

I would challenge everyone to study the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and history of the founding of our nation. We can’t appreciate something we have no knowledge about.

If a communist country attacked us for the purpose of taking over our country and gaining power and authority over us, you can bet every American would stand ready to defend their country, families, liberty and freedom. But we're more likely to lose our freedoms in more subtle ways.
A few become convinced that they are doing mankind a great service by providing for the poor and essentially taking care of all temporal needs, by increasing taxes and creating government programs. With the power of the government, they can compel, force, and coerce people to take care of the poor.

Much has been said about the Tea Party movement. I've heard them called racist and angry. I can understand their anger when they see subtle government decisions that put us on the slippery slope to socialism. But I would caution them to be careful where they direct their anger. Do not heap the blame on the poor. Do not fling insults and ridicule at those who are working hard to support their families but still come up short. This kind of attitude does nothing to further their cause. In fact, it makes it easier for people to justify in their minds that they are absolutely correct…the rich won’t help the poor, so they must be forced.

Others become so fearful of the path they see us on that they over reach and talk about over throwing the government or seceding from the union (Rick Perry.) This goes against all reason and against the mandate of God. We are “One nation under God.” Those who wish to destroy the nation instead of seeking out positive ways to educate people about basic liberties are just as bad as those who would lead us to communism and just as dangerous.

There are so many good people throughout this nation. Despite our weaknesses, we are better than we give ourselves credit for. I know of many good families who are wealthy and give generously to those in need. They are shining examples of what Jesus Christ taught and how he wants us to live. If enough people with means did all they could to take care of the poor among them, what need would we have for government programs and social welfare?

It all comes down to freedom. Are we being forced, or do we get to choose?

Do we have any choice in big bank bailouts? No. They are using our tax dollars to bail out these companies. And if we don’t pay our taxes, we go to jail. That’s force. What about Universal health care? In theory it sounds good. Everyone gets health insurance. But who pays for it? Our tax dollars-- which all are compelled to pay.

Ezra Taft Benson gave a great example in his article on “The Proper Role of Government.” His argument is that the government cannot have a power that a single individual couldn’t have. People created and empowered the government. So any powers the government has can only come from the people.

“Suppose pioneer “A” wants another horse for his wagon, He doesn’t have the money to buy one, but since pioneer “B” has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor’s good fortune, Is he entitled to take his neighbor’s horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer “B” wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it.
If “A” has no proper power to take “B’s” property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that “B” give his extra horse to “A”, they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:
“For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another.” (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93)

In regards to social issues: Does the government have a right to say who can or can’t marry? No. People have the right to pursue whatever course brings them happiness. But as we’ve seen by example in states that have legalized same-sex marriage, if a pastor, priest or bishop refuses to perform such marriages that have now been deemed legal, then they are breaking the law. So in essence they can be forced to do something they believe to be morally wrong.

As Thomas Jefferson spent 17 days working on the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence, he struggled tirelessly to include a least eight of the “ancient principles” he had come to admire. Among these principles he held to was the following:

“Among the most important of the unalienable rights are the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to pursue whatever course of life a person may desire in search of happiness, so long as it does not invade the inherent rights of others.”

People have the right to live their lives in ways others may find to be morally wrong. But that is their right. However, once their rights invade the inherent rights of others, that is unconstitutional. A person could not force another person to perform a marriage they feel is morally wrong. The government certainly has no right to do so either!

The same goes for abortion. Yes a mother has a right to do whatever she wants with her body. However, when her rights infringe on another human being, namely the unborn baby, then her rights end.

We live in the greatest nation on earth. God has actively preserved this land as a place of freedom and liberty. We must be active participants in preserving that liberty, especially as it is threatened on every hand with obvious brutal attack--and more subtle and crafty worldly reasonings that are formed for the express purpose of destroying our freedoms one by one. We must study the constitution so we understand what our rights are. We must be active in our communities and not stand by the side in hopes that someone else will take up the banner of freedom for us.

I’ve always loved my country. But I grow to love her more everyday. I have a greater appreciation for those who sacrificed their lives for the freedom I enjoy. Let us not dishonor their sacrifice by letting these rights slip away because we think we can get something better in return. My generation has not held the same passion and fervor for this great nation as that of my parents and grandparents. But I see that changing. I see people my age becoming aware of what is happening, and striving to educate themselves. Let us all take up the banner of liberty and preserve this great country that God has blessed us with and never take for granted these sacred freedoms and liberties.

Sources

Kimber, Glenn J., and Julianne S. Kimber. America In History and Prophecy
God-Family-Country Publishing, 2007.

Benson, Ezra Taft. “The Proper Role of Government” http://www.libertythroughcapitalism.com