O:9:"MagpieRSS":23:{s:6:"parser";i:0;s:12:"current_item";a:0:{}s:5:"items";a:20:{i:0;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:44:"Why Does My Church Oppose Medical Marijuana?";s:4:"link";s:76:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-does-my-church-oppose-medical-marijuana";s:8:"comments";s:85:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-does-my-church-oppose-medical-marijuana#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sun, 02 Oct 2016 22:01:50 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:16:"PoliticsReligion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3458";s:11:"description";s:363:"In February I found myself in a private meeting with the infamous &#8220;home teachers&#8221;—the somewhat pejorative nickname given to the two lobbyists employed by the LDS Church to influence politics in Utah. The meeting was in the office of Senator Madsen, who was sponsoring the medical marijuana bill that Libertas Institute was helping with and [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:19738:"<p><a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/utahmmj2.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-3459" src="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/utahmmj2.jpg" alt="utahmmj2" width="585" height="164" srcset="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/utahmmj2.jpg 585w, http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/utahmmj2-300x84.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 585px) 100vw, 585px" /></a></p>
<p>In February I found myself in a private meeting with the infamous &#8220;home teachers&#8221;—the somewhat pejorative nickname given to the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/2323383-155/mormon-church-lobbying-in-utahs-capitol">two lobbyists</a> employed by the LDS Church to influence politics in Utah.</p>
<p>The meeting was in the office of Senator Madsen, who was sponsoring the medical marijuana bill that Libertas Institute was helping with and supporting. The senator and I sat together with these two church representatives who informed us that they had just come from the office of the senate president, conveying to him their opposition to our bill. (Their going straight to leadership is a common tactic to help ensure the church&#8217;s will is carried out in Utah government; they visited the House Speaker as well.)</p>
<p>As you might imagine, the meeting was rather tense. We had clearly anticipated that the LDS Church would not support the legislation, but were hopeful that they would remain neutral rather than opposing it. Unfortunately, that was not to be.</p>
<p>So I took advantage of the opportunity to inquire why they opposed the bill—one that would clearly help thousands of people in Utah, and which was more tightly regulated than any other state, where the Church had not weighed in on, let alone opposed, any other program.</p>
<p><span id="more-3458"></span></p>
<p>No answer was provided—only that they were following orders and delivering the message. Noting that &#8220;we&#8217;re not science experts on this,&#8221; the lobbyists said that two apostles, who are physicians (Elders Nelson and Renlund), believe that &#8220;the science isn&#8217;t settled&#8221; and that the other leaders felt that the bill was &#8220;too broad, too loose, too much.&#8221;</p>
<p>When Senator Madsen asked who had presented what material that led to the decision, one of the lobbyists replied that &#8220;the church has attorneys who evaluate these things.&#8221;</p>
<p>I asked if there would be an opportunity for us to address an apostle or another leader to present the scientific evidence in favor of medicinal cannabis use, and we were flatly and immediately told no.</p>
<p>When I inquired as to whether the Church was opposing the bill because it allowed for cannabis that contained THC, they affirmatively replied that that was &#8220;a significant part&#8221; of the reason for their opposition. So Senator Madsen asked if the Church opposes members being prescribed Marinol, an FDA-approved synthetic substance that is 100% THC. Awkward silence ensued; the lobbyists had no response. Finally, they suggested that going through the &#8220;FDA process&#8221; is what made the latter okay, while other forms of cannabis would be frowned upon by the Church for circumventing the FDA.</p>
<p>Quick tangent: Church scripture <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98.6-7#5">holds</a> that anything &#8220;more or less&#8221; than the Constitution &#8220;cometh of evil.&#8221; There is no constitutional clause that justifies and authorizes the existence of the FDA, let alone one that allows the federal government to prohibit the use of any substance for medical reasons that has not received the blessing of this federal agency. You can draw your own conclusions, then, as to church leaders deferring to the unconstitutional (and therefore evil?) FDA.</p>
<p>After some tense conversation, I slowed things down a bit by addressing the home teachers directly. Here&#8217;s what I said, verbatim:</p>
<blockquote><p>It&#8217;s tough because we&#8217;ve put a lot of work into this bill. We feel it is more tightly controlled than in any other state where church members are able to use cannabis.</p>
<p>This opposition could, as you well know, kill the bill. Just yesterday, there was a Mormon mother in Oregon who had been <a href="http://www.people.com/article/utah-mom-illegally-treat-daughter-cannabis-oil">giving cannabis to her daughter</a> who has a malfunctioning pituitary gland. She had to return to Utah, where she lived. Somebody reported on her that she was using it for her daughter who has thrived under a regimen of cannabis under a doctor&#8217;s approval in Oregon. And DCFS showed up at her door yesterday. She&#8217;s now under investigation. [She fled the state that same day to avoid having her daughter taken from her.]</p>
<p>For my part—and I&#8217;m sorry to get a little emotional—I know hundreds of people who are in this predicament. This bill would help them. It would be very tightly controlled. But the bill stands a good chance of dying with the church&#8217;s opposition, and these people are going to continue to face the criminal justice system. I think that&#8217;s wrong.</p></blockquote>
<p>My remarks were not addressed; they provided no response, other than nodding their heads when I noted that the Church&#8217;s opposition would likely kill the bill.</p>
<p>I also noted that &#8220;every other organization that has opposed the bill has walked us through it saying &#8216;here&#8217;s what you can do to address our concerns,&#8217; and we&#8217;ve been very forthright in doing all of that.&#8221; But for the previous ten minutes, the Church&#8217;s representatives had been unwilling to address specific questions or provide any detail that would remove their opposition to the bill. &#8220;What can we do?&#8221; I implored one final time, wondering what amendments would alleviate the Church&#8217;s concerns.</p>
<p>&#8220;We can try to give you more, certainly,&#8221; we were told. &#8220;We can circle back.&#8221; The meeting ended.</p>
<p>After some phone tag, that &#8220;circling back&#8221; happened roughly one week later. We were told on that phone call, quite simply, that they had nothing more to give us. The conversation was over.</p>
<p>While our meeting left me quite frustrated, I felt more sadness than anything. Thousands of Utahns would be threatened with fines and jail time for using a plant to improve their lives—to become a functioning mother or father to their children, a productive member of society, and a person with increased quality of life.</p>
<p>And the emissaries sent to represent my own Church were unapologetic and indifferent to the plight of these church members. It was very sad for me.</p>
<p>Many people have wanted to know what happened in this meeting; I have been asked <em>many</em> times since the legislative session by friends and strangers for more detail. I had planned, without much strong feeling on the matter, to not disclose detail publicly. The reason I have changed my mind is the recent publication of purported &#8220;leaks&#8221; from a disaffected church employee. I&#8217;ve not paid these revelations much attention, as the summaries I read indicated that they are rather benign, and merely reveal a large organization managing things prudently. Good.</p>
<p>But one of the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4423214-155/leaked-videos-show-mormon-apostles-discussing">very recent items</a> caught my attention: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8hVH919KmY">a video</a> of an area committee meeting for western states in November, 2010, involving many of the apostles and other general and regional leaders.</p>
<p>The subject? Marijuana.</p>
<p>The presentation provided by <a href="https://www.lds.org/church/leader/gerrit-w-gong?lang=eng">Elder Gerrit Gong</a> is an update on how legislatures and voters in several states had decided on questions relating to marijuana in the months and years prior to the 2010 meeting.</p>
<p>Noting that not all arguments raised in the debate over marijuana merit response, Elder Gong advised the brethren that some arguments &#8220;gained credibility&#8221; because they were not challenged. As an example, Elder Gong cited the &#8220;far-fetched argument&#8221; that &#8220;unlike alcohol, no deaths are directly attributable to marijuana use.&#8221; On occasion, he said, &#8220;some of these things need to be refuted.&#8221;</p>
<p>Elder Gong addressed the shifting public perception of marijuana legalization, showing that polling has changed drastically over time, leading to steady, increased support. He remarked that &#8220;we sometimes focus on the high intensity battle, but we also have to make sure that we win the long term war&#8221;—presumably referring to the &#8220;war&#8221; of maintaining the criminalization of marijuana, which has had horrendous consequences, filling prisons, forcibly removing children from families, empowering drug cartels, and imposing significant costs on taxpayers without any viable return.</p>
<p>The presentation notes that the Church &#8220;generally defines&#8221; the <a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/word-of-wisdom?lang=eng">Word of Wisdom</a> &#8220;to include tea, coffee, alcohol, and illegal drugs.&#8221; This is consistent not only with the conventional interpretation of that revelation, but also the <a href="https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.3?lang=eng&amp;_r=1#21.3.11">Official Handbook</a> which states, under the section titled &#8220;Word of Wisdom&#8221; (my emphasis added):</p>
<blockquote>
<p id="p339" class="">The only official interpretation of “hot drinks” (<a class="scriptureRef" href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89.9?lang=eng#8" target="_blank">D&amp;C 89:9</a>) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term “hot drinks” means tea and coffee.</p>
<p id="p340" class=""><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs.</span></em> Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course, nothing in Doctrine and Covenants 89 (the section from which we derive the Word of Wisdom) states anything about hinging God&#8217;s law of health upon the ever-changing majoritarian votes of legislative bodies or ballot initiatives. A product being classified as &#8220;legal&#8221; or &#8220;illegal&#8221; through democratic action does not change its material composition or the beneficial qualities it may provide to our bodies.</p>
<p>Indeed, Elder Gong himself noted that church members should be &#8220;clearly reminded that popular classification of a substance, as legal or illegal, is not what determines obedience to the Word of Wisdom.&#8221; Unfortunately, he was using the inverse of the argument—that the legalization of marijuana does not mean its use allows one to still be in compliance with the Word of Wisdom. The flip side, of course, is that one is not necessarily violating it merely because some politicians decades previous decided to prohibit the use of cannabis.</p>
<p>It bears repeating: the Word of Wisdom <em>contains no language</em> that suggests that God frowns upon a person for consuming a substance that has been banned by a government. The &#8220;illegal substances&#8221; benchmark is one of modern creation, and without any scriptural (or, I think, logical) support.</p>
<p>If anything, one can <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-and-medical-marijuana">quite reasonably argue</a> that the use of cannabis is not only <em>not</em> banned by the Word of Wisdom, but that it is in fact <em>explicitly condoned</em>. Rather than handbook codification of conventional interpretation, here&#8217;s what the text <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89">actually states</a> (again with my emphasis):</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="">And again, verily I say unto you, <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em>all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man</em></span>—</p>
<p class="">Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Those who have researched the components of the cannabis plant, and their supplement to the endocannabinoid system within our bodies, are, like me, in awe at the wonderful properties this wholesome herb can provide. I praise God that he has &#8220;ordained&#8221; it for the use of man, as I have seen it substantially benefit and improve the lives of many of my friends and family.</p>
<p>Parenthetically, one could argue that the &#8220;spirit&#8221; of the Word of Wisdom centers more around abstention from addictive substances, encouraging us to be masters of our bodies and not become subject to the &#8220;evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days&#8221; (D&amp;C 89:4). And yet, just this weekend in his conference address, President Dieter Uchtdorf <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865663755/President-Dieter-F-Uchtdorf-O-How-Great-the-Plan-of-Our-God.html?pg=all">admitted</a> to heavy consumption of &#8220;many liters of a diet soda that shall remain nameless,&#8221; to much laughter from the worldwide audience. Obedient Latter-day Saints may abstain from alcohol, but many are heavily addicted to Diet Coke and other drinks, which govern their lives and alter their behavior and mood. Yet these remain in good standing with the Church and are of no apparent concern. These sweetened drinks are, after all, a legal substance.</p>
<p>And then there&#8217;s prescription drugs, including opioid painkillers that lead to the deaths of 24 Utahns on average each month. These are legal, and not a single bishop has initiated disciplinary proceedings for their use. Hundreds of thousands of Utahns are handed legal narcotics—packaged versions of street drugs—with the blessing of their doctor, and apparently church leadership. This heavy reliance upon actual drugs leads to stories <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/26/utah-mormons-prescription-painkiller-addiction">like this</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Maline Hairup was a devout Mormon. No alcohol, no coffee. She didn’t smoke. Until the day she died, she had never used illegal drugs. Yet she was an addict for most of her adult life.</p></blockquote>
<p>Methinks we&#8217;re missing the mark.</p>
<p>Elder Packer, in the discussion on marijuana, shared a story of a single-toothed individual using meth who has a &#8220;wasted life,&#8221; though it was unclear what it had to do with the subject at hand. Elder L. Tom Perry lamented the apparent inconsistency of emphasizing &#8220;getting rid of tobacco&#8221; while also &#8220;start[ing] a project to increase marijuana,&#8221; though it was unclear to what project he was referring.</p>
<p>Elder Russell M. Nelson noted that he had been at a conference in Colorado where the first question asked during a Q&amp;A session was about medical marijuana—perhaps unsurprising, given the legal activity in that state on the subject at the time. It was noted that the person was told that &#8220;the church has no position&#8221; on medical marijuana and that the Bishop &#8220;would counsel with the individual and teach him about the Word of Wisdom&#8221; using the scriptures and the handbook.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, many cannabis-using members of the Church have reported differing approaches their bishops have taken—some instructing them that its use is inconsistent with church doctrine and that the person would therefore not be worthy of admittance to the church&#8217;s temples. It is unclear if bishops have been given any uniform instruction on the matter since 2010, given the drastically changing political landscape on the issue of medical marijuana. Otherwise, sincere Saints using cannabis are subject to so-called &#8220;leadership roulette&#8221; whereby some bishops say it&#8217;s okay, and others say it&#8217;s not, using differing interpretations of the same doctrine.</p>
<p>I find my church&#8217;s opposition to the beneficial and medical use of cannabis to be troubling. Given decades of prohibitionist propaganda, it is not surprising to see church leaders maintain that position and resist any change to it. And having worked on this policy for several years, I completely understand how some people come from this background and are slow to adapt to new research, new stories, and new attitudes.</p>
<p>But I find it worrisome that the well-intentioned policy positions of these leaders are inherently presumed to be sanctioned by and given of God, when I fail to find any evidence of such—and when they themselves do not make the claim. Unfortunately, as the &#8220;home teachers&#8221; have carried the message to Capitol Hill, they consistently conveyed that their opposition to Senator Madsen&#8217;s medical cannabis bill was upon instructions &#8220;from the very top,&#8221; insinuating that the prophet of God, and therefore God himself (in the minds of many faithful church members), had directed the bill be killed.</p>
<p>I believe the Word of Wisdom explicitly allows for the beneficial use of cannabis, and that criminalization of this product not only denies law-abiding citizens its wonderful properties, but necessarily brings along a whole host of collateral consequences readily evident to anybody who has surveyed the damage caused by the so-called &#8220;war on drugs.&#8221; I find nothing in our faith&#8217;s doctrine that suggests this plant be made illegal, and ample societal evidences to suggest that it should not be.</p>
<p>I come at this from a different perspective than some. I am not hostile to the LDS Church, nor am I an unbeliever. I am a committed Mormon and love our theology. It is rich, inspiring, and wonderful. I am a firm believer and committed (though quite imperfect) disciple of Christ.</p>
<p>But I also believe that leaders of the church, though definitely well intentioned, are <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-lords-leaders-are-fallible-and-thats-okay">not always conduits of revelation</a>; their decisions and beliefs are not, in every single case, a reflection of God&#8217;s will. So I am comfortable in my belief while still providing for the leaders of my church taking incorrect positions—even ones that harm many Utahns through maintaining criminalization of cannabis.</p>
<p>Hopefully the near future will be one in which church leaders will be open to considering new evidence, hearing from members directly and positively impacted by the use of cannabis. There are many. And they don&#8217;t deserve to be punished for using wholesome herbs ordained by God to help them.</p>
<p>With or without the Church&#8217;s support, Utah&#8217;s law will soon be altered to provide for the legal, medicinal use of cannabis. Of that I am certain. It&#8217;s the right thing to do.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=LiR8vzsSqZs:KkTNxN1wk9s:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=LiR8vzsSqZs:KkTNxN1wk9s:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=LiR8vzsSqZs:KkTNxN1wk9s:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:81:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-does-my-church-oppose-medical-marijuana/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"53";}s:7:"summary";s:363:"In February I found myself in a private meeting with the infamous &#8220;home teachers&#8221;—the somewhat pejorative nickname given to the two lobbyists employed by the LDS Church to influence politics in Utah. The meeting was in the office of Senator Madsen, who was sponsoring the medical marijuana bill that Libertas Institute was helping with and [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:19738:"<p><a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/utahmmj2.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-3459" src="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/utahmmj2.jpg" alt="utahmmj2" width="585" height="164" srcset="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/utahmmj2.jpg 585w, http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/utahmmj2-300x84.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 585px) 100vw, 585px" /></a></p>
<p>In February I found myself in a private meeting with the infamous &#8220;home teachers&#8221;—the somewhat pejorative nickname given to the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/2323383-155/mormon-church-lobbying-in-utahs-capitol">two lobbyists</a> employed by the LDS Church to influence politics in Utah.</p>
<p>The meeting was in the office of Senator Madsen, who was sponsoring the medical marijuana bill that Libertas Institute was helping with and supporting. The senator and I sat together with these two church representatives who informed us that they had just come from the office of the senate president, conveying to him their opposition to our bill. (Their going straight to leadership is a common tactic to help ensure the church&#8217;s will is carried out in Utah government; they visited the House Speaker as well.)</p>
<p>As you might imagine, the meeting was rather tense. We had clearly anticipated that the LDS Church would not support the legislation, but were hopeful that they would remain neutral rather than opposing it. Unfortunately, that was not to be.</p>
<p>So I took advantage of the opportunity to inquire why they opposed the bill—one that would clearly help thousands of people in Utah, and which was more tightly regulated than any other state, where the Church had not weighed in on, let alone opposed, any other program.</p>
<p><span id="more-3458"></span></p>
<p>No answer was provided—only that they were following orders and delivering the message. Noting that &#8220;we&#8217;re not science experts on this,&#8221; the lobbyists said that two apostles, who are physicians (Elders Nelson and Renlund), believe that &#8220;the science isn&#8217;t settled&#8221; and that the other leaders felt that the bill was &#8220;too broad, too loose, too much.&#8221;</p>
<p>When Senator Madsen asked who had presented what material that led to the decision, one of the lobbyists replied that &#8220;the church has attorneys who evaluate these things.&#8221;</p>
<p>I asked if there would be an opportunity for us to address an apostle or another leader to present the scientific evidence in favor of medicinal cannabis use, and we were flatly and immediately told no.</p>
<p>When I inquired as to whether the Church was opposing the bill because it allowed for cannabis that contained THC, they affirmatively replied that that was &#8220;a significant part&#8221; of the reason for their opposition. So Senator Madsen asked if the Church opposes members being prescribed Marinol, an FDA-approved synthetic substance that is 100% THC. Awkward silence ensued; the lobbyists had no response. Finally, they suggested that going through the &#8220;FDA process&#8221; is what made the latter okay, while other forms of cannabis would be frowned upon by the Church for circumventing the FDA.</p>
<p>Quick tangent: Church scripture <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98.6-7#5">holds</a> that anything &#8220;more or less&#8221; than the Constitution &#8220;cometh of evil.&#8221; There is no constitutional clause that justifies and authorizes the existence of the FDA, let alone one that allows the federal government to prohibit the use of any substance for medical reasons that has not received the blessing of this federal agency. You can draw your own conclusions, then, as to church leaders deferring to the unconstitutional (and therefore evil?) FDA.</p>
<p>After some tense conversation, I slowed things down a bit by addressing the home teachers directly. Here&#8217;s what I said, verbatim:</p>
<blockquote><p>It&#8217;s tough because we&#8217;ve put a lot of work into this bill. We feel it is more tightly controlled than in any other state where church members are able to use cannabis.</p>
<p>This opposition could, as you well know, kill the bill. Just yesterday, there was a Mormon mother in Oregon who had been <a href="http://www.people.com/article/utah-mom-illegally-treat-daughter-cannabis-oil">giving cannabis to her daughter</a> who has a malfunctioning pituitary gland. She had to return to Utah, where she lived. Somebody reported on her that she was using it for her daughter who has thrived under a regimen of cannabis under a doctor&#8217;s approval in Oregon. And DCFS showed up at her door yesterday. She&#8217;s now under investigation. [She fled the state that same day to avoid having her daughter taken from her.]</p>
<p>For my part—and I&#8217;m sorry to get a little emotional—I know hundreds of people who are in this predicament. This bill would help them. It would be very tightly controlled. But the bill stands a good chance of dying with the church&#8217;s opposition, and these people are going to continue to face the criminal justice system. I think that&#8217;s wrong.</p></blockquote>
<p>My remarks were not addressed; they provided no response, other than nodding their heads when I noted that the Church&#8217;s opposition would likely kill the bill.</p>
<p>I also noted that &#8220;every other organization that has opposed the bill has walked us through it saying &#8216;here&#8217;s what you can do to address our concerns,&#8217; and we&#8217;ve been very forthright in doing all of that.&#8221; But for the previous ten minutes, the Church&#8217;s representatives had been unwilling to address specific questions or provide any detail that would remove their opposition to the bill. &#8220;What can we do?&#8221; I implored one final time, wondering what amendments would alleviate the Church&#8217;s concerns.</p>
<p>&#8220;We can try to give you more, certainly,&#8221; we were told. &#8220;We can circle back.&#8221; The meeting ended.</p>
<p>After some phone tag, that &#8220;circling back&#8221; happened roughly one week later. We were told on that phone call, quite simply, that they had nothing more to give us. The conversation was over.</p>
<p>While our meeting left me quite frustrated, I felt more sadness than anything. Thousands of Utahns would be threatened with fines and jail time for using a plant to improve their lives—to become a functioning mother or father to their children, a productive member of society, and a person with increased quality of life.</p>
<p>And the emissaries sent to represent my own Church were unapologetic and indifferent to the plight of these church members. It was very sad for me.</p>
<p>Many people have wanted to know what happened in this meeting; I have been asked <em>many</em> times since the legislative session by friends and strangers for more detail. I had planned, without much strong feeling on the matter, to not disclose detail publicly. The reason I have changed my mind is the recent publication of purported &#8220;leaks&#8221; from a disaffected church employee. I&#8217;ve not paid these revelations much attention, as the summaries I read indicated that they are rather benign, and merely reveal a large organization managing things prudently. Good.</p>
<p>But one of the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4423214-155/leaked-videos-show-mormon-apostles-discussing">very recent items</a> caught my attention: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8hVH919KmY">a video</a> of an area committee meeting for western states in November, 2010, involving many of the apostles and other general and regional leaders.</p>
<p>The subject? Marijuana.</p>
<p>The presentation provided by <a href="https://www.lds.org/church/leader/gerrit-w-gong?lang=eng">Elder Gerrit Gong</a> is an update on how legislatures and voters in several states had decided on questions relating to marijuana in the months and years prior to the 2010 meeting.</p>
<p>Noting that not all arguments raised in the debate over marijuana merit response, Elder Gong advised the brethren that some arguments &#8220;gained credibility&#8221; because they were not challenged. As an example, Elder Gong cited the &#8220;far-fetched argument&#8221; that &#8220;unlike alcohol, no deaths are directly attributable to marijuana use.&#8221; On occasion, he said, &#8220;some of these things need to be refuted.&#8221;</p>
<p>Elder Gong addressed the shifting public perception of marijuana legalization, showing that polling has changed drastically over time, leading to steady, increased support. He remarked that &#8220;we sometimes focus on the high intensity battle, but we also have to make sure that we win the long term war&#8221;—presumably referring to the &#8220;war&#8221; of maintaining the criminalization of marijuana, which has had horrendous consequences, filling prisons, forcibly removing children from families, empowering drug cartels, and imposing significant costs on taxpayers without any viable return.</p>
<p>The presentation notes that the Church &#8220;generally defines&#8221; the <a href="https://www.lds.org/topics/word-of-wisdom?lang=eng">Word of Wisdom</a> &#8220;to include tea, coffee, alcohol, and illegal drugs.&#8221; This is consistent not only with the conventional interpretation of that revelation, but also the <a href="https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.3?lang=eng&amp;_r=1#21.3.11">Official Handbook</a> which states, under the section titled &#8220;Word of Wisdom&#8221; (my emphasis added):</p>
<blockquote>
<p id="p339" class="">The only official interpretation of “hot drinks” (<a class="scriptureRef" href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89.9?lang=eng#8" target="_blank">D&amp;C 89:9</a>) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term “hot drinks” means tea and coffee.</p>
<p id="p340" class=""><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs.</span></em> Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course, nothing in Doctrine and Covenants 89 (the section from which we derive the Word of Wisdom) states anything about hinging God&#8217;s law of health upon the ever-changing majoritarian votes of legislative bodies or ballot initiatives. A product being classified as &#8220;legal&#8221; or &#8220;illegal&#8221; through democratic action does not change its material composition or the beneficial qualities it may provide to our bodies.</p>
<p>Indeed, Elder Gong himself noted that church members should be &#8220;clearly reminded that popular classification of a substance, as legal or illegal, is not what determines obedience to the Word of Wisdom.&#8221; Unfortunately, he was using the inverse of the argument—that the legalization of marijuana does not mean its use allows one to still be in compliance with the Word of Wisdom. The flip side, of course, is that one is not necessarily violating it merely because some politicians decades previous decided to prohibit the use of cannabis.</p>
<p>It bears repeating: the Word of Wisdom <em>contains no language</em> that suggests that God frowns upon a person for consuming a substance that has been banned by a government. The &#8220;illegal substances&#8221; benchmark is one of modern creation, and without any scriptural (or, I think, logical) support.</p>
<p>If anything, one can <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-and-medical-marijuana">quite reasonably argue</a> that the use of cannabis is not only <em>not</em> banned by the Word of Wisdom, but that it is in fact <em>explicitly condoned</em>. Rather than handbook codification of conventional interpretation, here&#8217;s what the text <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89">actually states</a> (again with my emphasis):</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="">And again, verily I say unto you, <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em>all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man</em></span>—</p>
<p class="">Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Those who have researched the components of the cannabis plant, and their supplement to the endocannabinoid system within our bodies, are, like me, in awe at the wonderful properties this wholesome herb can provide. I praise God that he has &#8220;ordained&#8221; it for the use of man, as I have seen it substantially benefit and improve the lives of many of my friends and family.</p>
<p>Parenthetically, one could argue that the &#8220;spirit&#8221; of the Word of Wisdom centers more around abstention from addictive substances, encouraging us to be masters of our bodies and not become subject to the &#8220;evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days&#8221; (D&amp;C 89:4). And yet, just this weekend in his conference address, President Dieter Uchtdorf <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865663755/President-Dieter-F-Uchtdorf-O-How-Great-the-Plan-of-Our-God.html?pg=all">admitted</a> to heavy consumption of &#8220;many liters of a diet soda that shall remain nameless,&#8221; to much laughter from the worldwide audience. Obedient Latter-day Saints may abstain from alcohol, but many are heavily addicted to Diet Coke and other drinks, which govern their lives and alter their behavior and mood. Yet these remain in good standing with the Church and are of no apparent concern. These sweetened drinks are, after all, a legal substance.</p>
<p>And then there&#8217;s prescription drugs, including opioid painkillers that lead to the deaths of 24 Utahns on average each month. These are legal, and not a single bishop has initiated disciplinary proceedings for their use. Hundreds of thousands of Utahns are handed legal narcotics—packaged versions of street drugs—with the blessing of their doctor, and apparently church leadership. This heavy reliance upon actual drugs leads to stories <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/26/utah-mormons-prescription-painkiller-addiction">like this</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Maline Hairup was a devout Mormon. No alcohol, no coffee. She didn’t smoke. Until the day she died, she had never used illegal drugs. Yet she was an addict for most of her adult life.</p></blockquote>
<p>Methinks we&#8217;re missing the mark.</p>
<p>Elder Packer, in the discussion on marijuana, shared a story of a single-toothed individual using meth who has a &#8220;wasted life,&#8221; though it was unclear what it had to do with the subject at hand. Elder L. Tom Perry lamented the apparent inconsistency of emphasizing &#8220;getting rid of tobacco&#8221; while also &#8220;start[ing] a project to increase marijuana,&#8221; though it was unclear to what project he was referring.</p>
<p>Elder Russell M. Nelson noted that he had been at a conference in Colorado where the first question asked during a Q&amp;A session was about medical marijuana—perhaps unsurprising, given the legal activity in that state on the subject at the time. It was noted that the person was told that &#8220;the church has no position&#8221; on medical marijuana and that the Bishop &#8220;would counsel with the individual and teach him about the Word of Wisdom&#8221; using the scriptures and the handbook.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, many cannabis-using members of the Church have reported differing approaches their bishops have taken—some instructing them that its use is inconsistent with church doctrine and that the person would therefore not be worthy of admittance to the church&#8217;s temples. It is unclear if bishops have been given any uniform instruction on the matter since 2010, given the drastically changing political landscape on the issue of medical marijuana. Otherwise, sincere Saints using cannabis are subject to so-called &#8220;leadership roulette&#8221; whereby some bishops say it&#8217;s okay, and others say it&#8217;s not, using differing interpretations of the same doctrine.</p>
<p>I find my church&#8217;s opposition to the beneficial and medical use of cannabis to be troubling. Given decades of prohibitionist propaganda, it is not surprising to see church leaders maintain that position and resist any change to it. And having worked on this policy for several years, I completely understand how some people come from this background and are slow to adapt to new research, new stories, and new attitudes.</p>
<p>But I find it worrisome that the well-intentioned policy positions of these leaders are inherently presumed to be sanctioned by and given of God, when I fail to find any evidence of such—and when they themselves do not make the claim. Unfortunately, as the &#8220;home teachers&#8221; have carried the message to Capitol Hill, they consistently conveyed that their opposition to Senator Madsen&#8217;s medical cannabis bill was upon instructions &#8220;from the very top,&#8221; insinuating that the prophet of God, and therefore God himself (in the minds of many faithful church members), had directed the bill be killed.</p>
<p>I believe the Word of Wisdom explicitly allows for the beneficial use of cannabis, and that criminalization of this product not only denies law-abiding citizens its wonderful properties, but necessarily brings along a whole host of collateral consequences readily evident to anybody who has surveyed the damage caused by the so-called &#8220;war on drugs.&#8221; I find nothing in our faith&#8217;s doctrine that suggests this plant be made illegal, and ample societal evidences to suggest that it should not be.</p>
<p>I come at this from a different perspective than some. I am not hostile to the LDS Church, nor am I an unbeliever. I am a committed Mormon and love our theology. It is rich, inspiring, and wonderful. I am a firm believer and committed (though quite imperfect) disciple of Christ.</p>
<p>But I also believe that leaders of the church, though definitely well intentioned, are <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-lords-leaders-are-fallible-and-thats-okay">not always conduits of revelation</a>; their decisions and beliefs are not, in every single case, a reflection of God&#8217;s will. So I am comfortable in my belief while still providing for the leaders of my church taking incorrect positions—even ones that harm many Utahns through maintaining criminalization of cannabis.</p>
<p>Hopefully the near future will be one in which church leaders will be open to considering new evidence, hearing from members directly and positively impacted by the use of cannabis. There are many. And they don&#8217;t deserve to be punished for using wholesome herbs ordained by God to help them.</p>
<p>With or without the Church&#8217;s support, Utah&#8217;s law will soon be altered to provide for the legal, medicinal use of cannabis. Of that I am certain. It&#8217;s the right thing to do.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=LiR8vzsSqZs:KkTNxN1wk9s:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=LiR8vzsSqZs:KkTNxN1wk9s:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=LiR8vzsSqZs:KkTNxN1wk9s:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1475445710;}i:1;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:41:"Sex and the State: An Analysis of Consent";s:4:"link";s:73:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/sex-and-the-state-an-analysis-of-consent";s:8:"comments";s:82:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/sex-and-the-state-an-analysis-of-consent#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Wed, 11 May 2016 14:40:14 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:12:"MiscPolitics";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3447";s:11:"description";s:356:"One of the most fundamental aspects of a legitimate government is having the consent of the governed—a point made clear in the Declaration of Independence. But you and I have never had a meaningful opportunity to consent to being ruled by the state. Proponents of the elusive and undefined &#8220;social contract theory&#8221; concoct all sorts [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:5526:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/sexconsent2.jpg"/></p>
<p>One of the most fundamental aspects of a legitimate government is having the consent of the governed—a point made clear in the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/">Declaration of Independence</a>. But you and I have never had a meaningful opportunity to consent to being ruled by the state. </p>
<p>Proponents of the elusive and undefined &#8220;social contract theory&#8221; concoct all sorts of mind-bending ideas to justify the plainly obvious fact that not all of the state&#8217;s subjects have provided consent. While much has been written in response to these ideas, it may be useful to analyze their arguments by substituting political rule for a situation in which every sane person agrees that consent is required: sexual intercourse.</p>
<p>We are often told that explicit consent to be governed is not necessary or practical, and that <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#ConPolOblEndGov">tacit consent</a> is sufficient—as if our unwillingness to abandon our home and distance ourselves from a certain group of elected officials is a signal that we consent to their exercise of power over us. This is like saying rape is fine so long as the woman fails to flee her abuser—an obviously preposterous position to take. </p>
<p>It is also claimed that participation in the process of government constitutes consent—that voting, for example, is an indicator of consent. <a href="http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-323-does-the-constitution-bind-anyone/">Lysander Spooner famously demolished</a> this claim, noting that not everybody who is governed can vote, not everybody who can vote does, and that many of those who do vote are acting out of self-defense with no intention of giving consent to the entire affair. Those who advance this flawed argument might similarly claim that a woman who agrees to go out with a man consents to whatever he might choose to do to her as the night progresses. We shudder at the thought, and yet it&#8217;s that thought that serves as the foundation of statism.</p>
<p>Others have argued that unanimous consent is impractical or, <a href="http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Locke/second/second-8.html">as John Locke said</a>, &#8220;next [to] impossible ever to be had.&#8221; Thus, rational creatures must be governed by a mere majority vote. Consent, then, is not of the governed, but of the majority of those who participate in the government&#8217;s process. This is an argument of convenience, not actual consent. It&#8217;s akin to arguing that a woman&#8217;s consent to sexual relations some of the time is approval for doing it at any time—or, worse, that the consent of some women is sufficient to assume that all women consent to intercourse with a man. Inconvenience for an individual or government does not justify circumventing actual consent.</p>
<p>Imagine, however, that consent to be governed was somehow at one point given. Can it be withdrawn? Or does the government set the terms and effectively <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/27/why-real-world-governments-dont-have-the-consent-of-the-governed-and-why-it-matters/">disregard any revocation of consent</a>? Would we expect that a woman who in the past consented to intercourse with a lover forever be forced into a sexual relationship with him in perpetuity?</p>
<p>Moving on from the nature of consent, we must address the question of what, exactly, we are consenting to. Are there terms and conditions anywhere written? In cases of an actual contract, the agreement is listed out in detail so that all parties are fully informed. No such list exists for the state; we supposedly consent to whatever is done by those in power, going so far as to bestow their majoritarian mandates with the sacrosanct label of &#8220;law.&#8221; This conjures up an image of Warren Jeffs making young women submit to his every whim, wrapping his sexual deviance in the color of religious authority. His harem didn&#8217;t know what they were in for—they simply knew that they must obey.</p>
<p>This takes us to the final point: why <em>should</em> we consent? Just as we might advise a battered wife to deny the sexual advances of her predatory partner, we should withhold consent from a group of men—call it a government—that imprison, steal from, and kill innocent people. We, the governed, have <em>not</em> consented; no such opportunity has been provided us. Our support for the state is a false presumption cloaking it in an aura of authority that does not actually exist. </p>
<p>&#8220;Yes means yes&#8221; has become the mantra of those fighting against sexual abuse by aggressors. The <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8">inverse implication</a> is equally important: no means no. The state&#8217;s lack of consent from those who are governed by it means, quite simply, that the very institution operates outside the boundaries of law and morality. It is effectively a political rapist.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=sIYPHvFMnps:15zsw9xGOlA:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=sIYPHvFMnps:15zsw9xGOlA:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=sIYPHvFMnps:15zsw9xGOlA:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:78:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/sex-and-the-state-an-analysis-of-consent/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"19";}s:7:"summary";s:356:"One of the most fundamental aspects of a legitimate government is having the consent of the governed—a point made clear in the Declaration of Independence. But you and I have never had a meaningful opportunity to consent to being ruled by the state. Proponents of the elusive and undefined &#8220;social contract theory&#8221; concoct all sorts [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:5526:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/sexconsent2.jpg"/></p>
<p>One of the most fundamental aspects of a legitimate government is having the consent of the governed—a point made clear in the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/">Declaration of Independence</a>. But you and I have never had a meaningful opportunity to consent to being ruled by the state. </p>
<p>Proponents of the elusive and undefined &#8220;social contract theory&#8221; concoct all sorts of mind-bending ideas to justify the plainly obvious fact that not all of the state&#8217;s subjects have provided consent. While much has been written in response to these ideas, it may be useful to analyze their arguments by substituting political rule for a situation in which every sane person agrees that consent is required: sexual intercourse.</p>
<p>We are often told that explicit consent to be governed is not necessary or practical, and that <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#ConPolOblEndGov">tacit consent</a> is sufficient—as if our unwillingness to abandon our home and distance ourselves from a certain group of elected officials is a signal that we consent to their exercise of power over us. This is like saying rape is fine so long as the woman fails to flee her abuser—an obviously preposterous position to take. </p>
<p>It is also claimed that participation in the process of government constitutes consent—that voting, for example, is an indicator of consent. <a href="http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-323-does-the-constitution-bind-anyone/">Lysander Spooner famously demolished</a> this claim, noting that not everybody who is governed can vote, not everybody who can vote does, and that many of those who do vote are acting out of self-defense with no intention of giving consent to the entire affair. Those who advance this flawed argument might similarly claim that a woman who agrees to go out with a man consents to whatever he might choose to do to her as the night progresses. We shudder at the thought, and yet it&#8217;s that thought that serves as the foundation of statism.</p>
<p>Others have argued that unanimous consent is impractical or, <a href="http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Locke/second/second-8.html">as John Locke said</a>, &#8220;next [to] impossible ever to be had.&#8221; Thus, rational creatures must be governed by a mere majority vote. Consent, then, is not of the governed, but of the majority of those who participate in the government&#8217;s process. This is an argument of convenience, not actual consent. It&#8217;s akin to arguing that a woman&#8217;s consent to sexual relations some of the time is approval for doing it at any time—or, worse, that the consent of some women is sufficient to assume that all women consent to intercourse with a man. Inconvenience for an individual or government does not justify circumventing actual consent.</p>
<p>Imagine, however, that consent to be governed was somehow at one point given. Can it be withdrawn? Or does the government set the terms and effectively <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/27/why-real-world-governments-dont-have-the-consent-of-the-governed-and-why-it-matters/">disregard any revocation of consent</a>? Would we expect that a woman who in the past consented to intercourse with a lover forever be forced into a sexual relationship with him in perpetuity?</p>
<p>Moving on from the nature of consent, we must address the question of what, exactly, we are consenting to. Are there terms and conditions anywhere written? In cases of an actual contract, the agreement is listed out in detail so that all parties are fully informed. No such list exists for the state; we supposedly consent to whatever is done by those in power, going so far as to bestow their majoritarian mandates with the sacrosanct label of &#8220;law.&#8221; This conjures up an image of Warren Jeffs making young women submit to his every whim, wrapping his sexual deviance in the color of religious authority. His harem didn&#8217;t know what they were in for—they simply knew that they must obey.</p>
<p>This takes us to the final point: why <em>should</em> we consent? Just as we might advise a battered wife to deny the sexual advances of her predatory partner, we should withhold consent from a group of men—call it a government—that imprison, steal from, and kill innocent people. We, the governed, have <em>not</em> consented; no such opportunity has been provided us. Our support for the state is a false presumption cloaking it in an aura of authority that does not actually exist. </p>
<p>&#8220;Yes means yes&#8221; has become the mantra of those fighting against sexual abuse by aggressors. The <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8">inverse implication</a> is equally important: no means no. The state&#8217;s lack of consent from those who are governed by it means, quite simply, that the very institution operates outside the boundaries of law and morality. It is effectively a political rapist.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=sIYPHvFMnps:15zsw9xGOlA:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=sIYPHvFMnps:15zsw9xGOlA:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=sIYPHvFMnps:15zsw9xGOlA:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1462977614;}i:2;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:44:"The Great and Abominable Church… of Caesar";s:4:"link";s:74:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-great-and-abominable-church-of-caesar";s:8:"comments";s:83:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-great-and-abominable-church-of-caesar#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 11 Jan 2016 01:33:45 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:16:"PoliticsReligion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3440";s:11:"description";s:355:"Two prophets, half a world and hundreds of centuries apart, were shown a detailed vision of the future. Nephi and John&#8217;s shared experience detailed many significant events, some of which yet remain in our future. And while Nephi was instructed not to document much of what he saw, the complete task fell to John—the (altered) result of [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:13036:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/fb/renderc.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Two prophets, half a world and hundreds of centuries apart, were shown a detailed vision of the future. Nephi and John&#8217;s shared experience detailed many significant events, some of which yet remain in our future. And while Nephi was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.24-28#23">instructed not to document</a> much of what he saw, the complete task fell to John—the (altered) result of which we have in the book titled <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/1?lang=eng">Revelation</a>.</p>
<p>John&#8217;s imagery paints for us a great battle between two churches—two groups of people: the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of the devil. This divine duel, which predates our mortal experience, unfolds with apocalyptic controversy in the pages of scripture. It is the only real conquest that has ever existed, though adapted and fictionalized by many great writers: good versus evil; light versus darkness; Jehovah and His followers versus Lucifer and his subjects.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, John&#8217;s writings are difficult to interpret, and thus a stumbling block in our effort to make sense of their modern application. Though &#8220;<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.23#22">plain and pure, and most preciously and easy to the understanding of all men</a>&#8221; when John had finished his task, a &#8220;great and abominable church&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/13.26-29#25">corrupted it</a>. So just who, or what, is this great and abominable church?</p>
<p><span id="more-3440"></span></p>
<p>The identity of this group has long been the subject of speculation and, while I don&#8217;t claim to speak with any authority, I do believe that previous guesses have missed the mark—and that my belief offers a perspective that seems to not have been considered by most Latter-day Saints. For some time, chiefly due to Elder Bruce R. McConkie&#8217;s opinion, many believed that this nefarious &#8220;church&#8221;—referred to as Babylon in John&#8217;s writings—was the Roman Catholic Church. (This opinion being published as part of the authoritatively titled <em>Mormon Doctrine</em> led to its widespread adoption as the correct interpretation of the identity of the enemy in Nephi and John&#8217;s visions.)</p>
<p>This position has now been discredited. And yet, others affirm that the great and abominable church includes actual churches, and potentially other organizations. &#8220;No single known historical church, denomination, or set of believers meets all the requirements for the great and abominable church,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng">writes</a> Stephen E. Robinson, a popular Mormon author in the LDS Church&#8217;s official magazine. He continues: &#8220;Rather, the role of Babylon has been played by many different agencies, ideologies, and churches in many different times.&#8221; This vague interpretation of nameless and ever-changing actors is unsatisfying, much like clergy attempting to <a href="http://www.creeds.net/Westminster/c02.htm">describe God</a> as &#8220;a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions.&#8221; We must first know our enemy in order to defeat it.</p>
<p>The enemy is, and ever has been, Caesar—an abstraction referring to mortal and secular government, or &#8220;the state.&#8221;</p>
<p>Membership in God&#8217;s kingdom is exclusive and requires renouncing membership in, and allegiance to, the enemy&#8217;s kingdom. <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.10#9">Thus we read</a> that &#8220;there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.&#8221;</p>
<p>This &#8220;whore of all the earth,&#8221; which John similarly stated (as if to refer to its global presence) &#8220;<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/17.1?lang=eng#primary">sitteth upon many waters</a>,&#8221; was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/10.16?lang=eng#15">identified</a> by Nephi&#8217;s brother Jacob as &#8220;he that fighteth against Zion,&#8221; since, as God said, &#8220;they who are not for me are against me.&#8221; But Babylon is not comprised, by default, of every person who isn&#8217;t a baptized, faithful Latter-day Saint. It&#8217;s they who &#8220;fight,&#8221; or perhaps compete, against God. Who contends for man&#8217;s allegiance, reverence, and glory? Who claims power to rule, and dominion over the earth? Who dethrones God to exalt himself as deity? Caesar.</p>
<p>If the great and abominable church&#8217;s membership is comprised of those who fight against God&#8217;s kingdom, consider the apostle Paul&#8217;s <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/eph/6.12#11">description</a> of who he and the Saints were fighting against: &#8220;principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high <span class="clarityWord">places.&#8221; Put simply, the Saints were—and are—fighting against their respective Caesars who are institutionalizing the devil&#8217;s attempt to gain ground on the kingdom of God.</span></p>
<p>When Lucifer attempted to tempt Jesus, he approached him while he was high on a mountain, surveying the many kingdoms below. &#8220;All this power will I give thee,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/4.6#5">the devil said</a>, &#8220;and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.&#8221; Recall that the whore was not an amorphous label given sometimes to churches, and other times to &#8220;agencies&#8221; and &#8220;ideologies&#8221;—<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.11?lang=eng#10">it had</a> &#8220;dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.&#8221;</p>
<p>The leader of this great and abominable church was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/12.31#30">often</a> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/14.30#29">referred</a> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/16.11#10">to</a> by Christ as &#8220;the prince of this world&#8221;—perhaps an attestation to the influence he (temporarily) had. Lucifer gains power, oppresses others, corrupts the Saints, promotes the wicked, and institutionalizes evil through the use of government—through the forceful rule over men by other men. Satan&#8217;s control of earthly institutions of power—governments—was never disputed. It has, however, been <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/the-life-and-teachings-of-jesus-and-his-apostles/section-12-johns-witness-of-the-church-triumphant/chapter-55-the-kingdoms-of-this-world-are-become-the-kingdoms-of-our-lord?lang=eng">affirmed</a> by a modern prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith:</p>
<blockquote><p>Satan has control now. No matter where you look, he is in control, even in our own land. He is guiding the governments as far as the Lord will permit him. That is why there is so much strife, turmoil, and confusion all over the earth. One master mind is governing the nations. It is not the president of the United States; it is not Hitler; it is not Mussolini; it is not the king or government of England or any other land; it is Satan himself.</p></blockquote>
<p>I don&#8217;t believe that members or leaders of other churches, past or present, fit the characteristics of the great and abominable church—a group of oppressive, power-hungry people who fight (or act in opposition to, or compete against) God&#8217;s followers. When said churches have colluded with the government—when heads of state have become heads of religions—then we see these evils. And when church and state are separate, the latter still fits the bill, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/22.23#22">getting</a> &#8220;gain&#8221; and &#8220;power over the flesh,&#8221; seeking the &#8220;lusts of the flesh and the things of the world,&#8221; and doing &#8220;all manner of iniquity.&#8221;</p>
<p>One must also wonder if Nephi and John, looking forward to a future world with which they were completely unfamiliar, described governments as churches in part due to their shared appearances; Caesar&#8217;s counterfeits have produced statist <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Capitol_Building_Full_View.jpg">temples</a>, <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Supreme_Court_US_2010.jpg">robes</a>, <a href="http://www.trbimg.com/img-526a98c1/turbine/fl-new-election-precincts-20131026-001/2048/2048x1091">liturgy</a>, <a href="http://help.heinonline.org/wp-content/uploads/help/uscodesupp.jpeg">canonized texts</a>, and <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Obama_swearing_in.JPG">sacraments</a>. High priests and parishioners alike <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-i-now-remain-silent-during-the-pledge-of-allegiance">pledge their allegiance</a> and declare their submission to Caesar on an ongoing basis.</p>
<p>But no man can serve two masters, so it&#8217;s not surprising to see revered prophets taking sides in the eternal contest between Christ and Caesar, defying the mandates of men and the corruption of Lucifer. They declared themselves citizens in the kingdom of God, subject to Christ, and an enemy to Satan. Moses defied Pharaoh; Jeremiah rebuked Jehoiakim; Mary and Joseph fled from Herod&#8217;s murderous mandate, and Moses&#8217; mother likewise disobediently preserved her son&#8217;s life; Daniel rejected King Darius&#8217;s decree; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego chose God over Nebuchadnezzar; and many other examples affirm that worldly powers—wickedness encouraged and coordinated by the devil—fight against God. One scriptural story after another elevates a prophetic hero in the reader&#8217;s eyes specifically because he rebelled against the Caesar of his day.</p>
<p>Peter faced the same opposition. After Christ&#8217;s crucifixion—an action worthy of the great and abominable church—the Sadducees schemed as to how to quell the ecclesiastical opposition. “Let us straitly threaten them,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/4.17#16">they said</a>, &#8220;that they speak henceforth to no man in [Christ&#8217;s] name.” And that’s what they did.</p>
<div class="page" title="Page 98">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p>But Peter and his apostolic associates continued defying the &#8220;whore&#8221; that fought them; missionary work continued, as did the miracles. And in response, the high priest and his fellow Sadducees on the council (that held political authority) “were filled with indignation,” fueling their animosity enough to actually <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.17-18?lang=eng#16">seize and incarcerate</a> the religious renegades.</p>
<p>Later brought before the council, Peter was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.27-29?lang=eng#26">questioned</a> as to why he had defied their threats. “Did we not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in [Christ’s] name?” Peter’s <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.29?lang=eng#28">response</a> provides the theological foundation upon which Christians have defied Caesar in succeeding centuries: “<em>We ought to obey God rather than men.</em>”</p>
<p>No man can serve two masters. Caesar and God both demand our allegiance. The great and abominable church, or Babylon, or the great whore—the organized oppression of men by one another through earthly rulers and political institutions—does not tolerate individuals who pledge allegiance to God and claim citizenship in His kingdom alone.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>This competition—this fight against Zion—will come to a head, as described throughout scripture, and in Nephi and John&#8217;s visions. Babylon the great <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/18?lang=eng">ultimately</a> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.18?lang=eng#17">falls</a>, for every knee must bow, and every tongue confess, that Jesus is the Christ. Caesar&#8217;s worldly dominion melts away in an instant, as He who reigns replaces all the counterfeit competition.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=OkctpyixT_g:4HfBk7J9GKo:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=OkctpyixT_g:4HfBk7J9GKo:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=OkctpyixT_g:4HfBk7J9GKo:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:79:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-great-and-abominable-church-of-caesar/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"24";}s:7:"summary";s:355:"Two prophets, half a world and hundreds of centuries apart, were shown a detailed vision of the future. Nephi and John&#8217;s shared experience detailed many significant events, some of which yet remain in our future. And while Nephi was instructed not to document much of what he saw, the complete task fell to John—the (altered) result of [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:13036:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/fb/renderc.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Two prophets, half a world and hundreds of centuries apart, were shown a detailed vision of the future. Nephi and John&#8217;s shared experience detailed many significant events, some of which yet remain in our future. And while Nephi was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.24-28#23">instructed not to document</a> much of what he saw, the complete task fell to John—the (altered) result of which we have in the book titled <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/1?lang=eng">Revelation</a>.</p>
<p>John&#8217;s imagery paints for us a great battle between two churches—two groups of people: the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of the devil. This divine duel, which predates our mortal experience, unfolds with apocalyptic controversy in the pages of scripture. It is the only real conquest that has ever existed, though adapted and fictionalized by many great writers: good versus evil; light versus darkness; Jehovah and His followers versus Lucifer and his subjects.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, John&#8217;s writings are difficult to interpret, and thus a stumbling block in our effort to make sense of their modern application. Though &#8220;<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.23#22">plain and pure, and most preciously and easy to the understanding of all men</a>&#8221; when John had finished his task, a &#8220;great and abominable church&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/13.26-29#25">corrupted it</a>. So just who, or what, is this great and abominable church?</p>
<p><span id="more-3440"></span></p>
<p>The identity of this group has long been the subject of speculation and, while I don&#8217;t claim to speak with any authority, I do believe that previous guesses have missed the mark—and that my belief offers a perspective that seems to not have been considered by most Latter-day Saints. For some time, chiefly due to Elder Bruce R. McConkie&#8217;s opinion, many believed that this nefarious &#8220;church&#8221;—referred to as Babylon in John&#8217;s writings—was the Roman Catholic Church. (This opinion being published as part of the authoritatively titled <em>Mormon Doctrine</em> led to its widespread adoption as the correct interpretation of the identity of the enemy in Nephi and John&#8217;s visions.)</p>
<p>This position has now been discredited. And yet, others affirm that the great and abominable church includes actual churches, and potentially other organizations. &#8220;No single known historical church, denomination, or set of believers meets all the requirements for the great and abominable church,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng">writes</a> Stephen E. Robinson, a popular Mormon author in the LDS Church&#8217;s official magazine. He continues: &#8220;Rather, the role of Babylon has been played by many different agencies, ideologies, and churches in many different times.&#8221; This vague interpretation of nameless and ever-changing actors is unsatisfying, much like clergy attempting to <a href="http://www.creeds.net/Westminster/c02.htm">describe God</a> as &#8220;a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions.&#8221; We must first know our enemy in order to defeat it.</p>
<p>The enemy is, and ever has been, Caesar—an abstraction referring to mortal and secular government, or &#8220;the state.&#8221;</p>
<p>Membership in God&#8217;s kingdom is exclusive and requires renouncing membership in, and allegiance to, the enemy&#8217;s kingdom. <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.10#9">Thus we read</a> that &#8220;there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.&#8221;</p>
<p>This &#8220;whore of all the earth,&#8221; which John similarly stated (as if to refer to its global presence) &#8220;<a href="http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/17.1?lang=eng#primary">sitteth upon many waters</a>,&#8221; was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/10.16?lang=eng#15">identified</a> by Nephi&#8217;s brother Jacob as &#8220;he that fighteth against Zion,&#8221; since, as God said, &#8220;they who are not for me are against me.&#8221; But Babylon is not comprised, by default, of every person who isn&#8217;t a baptized, faithful Latter-day Saint. It&#8217;s they who &#8220;fight,&#8221; or perhaps compete, against God. Who contends for man&#8217;s allegiance, reverence, and glory? Who claims power to rule, and dominion over the earth? Who dethrones God to exalt himself as deity? Caesar.</p>
<p>If the great and abominable church&#8217;s membership is comprised of those who fight against God&#8217;s kingdom, consider the apostle Paul&#8217;s <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/eph/6.12#11">description</a> of who he and the Saints were fighting against: &#8220;principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high <span class="clarityWord">places.&#8221; Put simply, the Saints were—and are—fighting against their respective Caesars who are institutionalizing the devil&#8217;s attempt to gain ground on the kingdom of God.</span></p>
<p>When Lucifer attempted to tempt Jesus, he approached him while he was high on a mountain, surveying the many kingdoms below. &#8220;All this power will I give thee,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/4.6#5">the devil said</a>, &#8220;and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.&#8221; Recall that the whore was not an amorphous label given sometimes to churches, and other times to &#8220;agencies&#8221; and &#8220;ideologies&#8221;—<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/14.11?lang=eng#10">it had</a> &#8220;dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.&#8221;</p>
<p>The leader of this great and abominable church was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/12.31#30">often</a> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/14.30#29">referred</a> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/16.11#10">to</a> by Christ as &#8220;the prince of this world&#8221;—perhaps an attestation to the influence he (temporarily) had. Lucifer gains power, oppresses others, corrupts the Saints, promotes the wicked, and institutionalizes evil through the use of government—through the forceful rule over men by other men. Satan&#8217;s control of earthly institutions of power—governments—was never disputed. It has, however, been <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/the-life-and-teachings-of-jesus-and-his-apostles/section-12-johns-witness-of-the-church-triumphant/chapter-55-the-kingdoms-of-this-world-are-become-the-kingdoms-of-our-lord?lang=eng">affirmed</a> by a modern prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith:</p>
<blockquote><p>Satan has control now. No matter where you look, he is in control, even in our own land. He is guiding the governments as far as the Lord will permit him. That is why there is so much strife, turmoil, and confusion all over the earth. One master mind is governing the nations. It is not the president of the United States; it is not Hitler; it is not Mussolini; it is not the king or government of England or any other land; it is Satan himself.</p></blockquote>
<p>I don&#8217;t believe that members or leaders of other churches, past or present, fit the characteristics of the great and abominable church—a group of oppressive, power-hungry people who fight (or act in opposition to, or compete against) God&#8217;s followers. When said churches have colluded with the government—when heads of state have become heads of religions—then we see these evils. And when church and state are separate, the latter still fits the bill, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/22.23#22">getting</a> &#8220;gain&#8221; and &#8220;power over the flesh,&#8221; seeking the &#8220;lusts of the flesh and the things of the world,&#8221; and doing &#8220;all manner of iniquity.&#8221;</p>
<p>One must also wonder if Nephi and John, looking forward to a future world with which they were completely unfamiliar, described governments as churches in part due to their shared appearances; Caesar&#8217;s counterfeits have produced statist <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Capitol_Building_Full_View.jpg">temples</a>, <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Supreme_Court_US_2010.jpg">robes</a>, <a href="http://www.trbimg.com/img-526a98c1/turbine/fl-new-election-precincts-20131026-001/2048/2048x1091">liturgy</a>, <a href="http://help.heinonline.org/wp-content/uploads/help/uscodesupp.jpeg">canonized texts</a>, and <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Obama_swearing_in.JPG">sacraments</a>. High priests and parishioners alike <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-i-now-remain-silent-during-the-pledge-of-allegiance">pledge their allegiance</a> and declare their submission to Caesar on an ongoing basis.</p>
<p>But no man can serve two masters, so it&#8217;s not surprising to see revered prophets taking sides in the eternal contest between Christ and Caesar, defying the mandates of men and the corruption of Lucifer. They declared themselves citizens in the kingdom of God, subject to Christ, and an enemy to Satan. Moses defied Pharaoh; Jeremiah rebuked Jehoiakim; Mary and Joseph fled from Herod&#8217;s murderous mandate, and Moses&#8217; mother likewise disobediently preserved her son&#8217;s life; Daniel rejected King Darius&#8217;s decree; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego chose God over Nebuchadnezzar; and many other examples affirm that worldly powers—wickedness encouraged and coordinated by the devil—fight against God. One scriptural story after another elevates a prophetic hero in the reader&#8217;s eyes specifically because he rebelled against the Caesar of his day.</p>
<p>Peter faced the same opposition. After Christ&#8217;s crucifixion—an action worthy of the great and abominable church—the Sadducees schemed as to how to quell the ecclesiastical opposition. “Let us straitly threaten them,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/4.17#16">they said</a>, &#8220;that they speak henceforth to no man in [Christ&#8217;s] name.” And that’s what they did.</p>
<div class="page" title="Page 98">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p>But Peter and his apostolic associates continued defying the &#8220;whore&#8221; that fought them; missionary work continued, as did the miracles. And in response, the high priest and his fellow Sadducees on the council (that held political authority) “were filled with indignation,” fueling their animosity enough to actually <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.17-18?lang=eng#16">seize and incarcerate</a> the religious renegades.</p>
<p>Later brought before the council, Peter was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.27-29?lang=eng#26">questioned</a> as to why he had defied their threats. “Did we not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in [Christ’s] name?” Peter’s <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.29?lang=eng#28">response</a> provides the theological foundation upon which Christians have defied Caesar in succeeding centuries: “<em>We ought to obey God rather than men.</em>”</p>
<p>No man can serve two masters. Caesar and God both demand our allegiance. The great and abominable church, or Babylon, or the great whore—the organized oppression of men by one another through earthly rulers and political institutions—does not tolerate individuals who pledge allegiance to God and claim citizenship in His kingdom alone.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>This competition—this fight against Zion—will come to a head, as described throughout scripture, and in Nephi and John&#8217;s visions. Babylon the great <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/18?lang=eng">ultimately</a> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.18?lang=eng#17">falls</a>, for every knee must bow, and every tongue confess, that Jesus is the Christ. Caesar&#8217;s worldly dominion melts away in an instant, as He who reigns replaces all the counterfeit competition.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=OkctpyixT_g:4HfBk7J9GKo:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=OkctpyixT_g:4HfBk7J9GKo:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=OkctpyixT_g:4HfBk7J9GKo:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1452476025;}i:3;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:20:"What is Your Agency?";s:4:"link";s:52:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/what-is-your-agency";s:8:"comments";s:61:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/what-is-your-agency#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sun, 13 Sep 2015 20:40:02 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Religion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3433";s:11:"description";s:383:"A tragically large number of God&#8217;s children decided to reject His plan and follow Lucifer. This &#8220;war in heaven,&#8221; which continues today, was triggered by a cunning, counterfeit proposal that seduced many. We know that Lucifer&#8217;s supposed plan would have, if implemented, destroyed the agency of man. This scriptural signal conveys to us the importance [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:8685:"<p>A tragically large number of God&#8217;s children decided to reject His plan and follow Lucifer. This &#8220;<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/12.7?lang=eng#6">war in heaven</a>,&#8221; which continues today, was triggered by a cunning, <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/a-widespread-misunderstanding-about-satans-war-on-agency">counterfeit proposal</a> that seduced many.</p>
<p>We know that Lucifer&#8217;s supposed plan would have, if implemented, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/4.3?lang=eng#2">destroyed the agency of man</a>. This scriptural signal conveys to us the importance of agency, for if the enemy of all righteousness attempted to undermine it, we should therefore value it. But in my experience, it seems that while many Saints understand its <em>importance</em>, few understand its <em>purpose</em>.</p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">We often talk about the things necessary for agency to exist—commandments, choice, consequence, etc.—but the analysis often ends there. This would be like talking about what the process of birth entails without addressing the miracle of procreation or the purpose of life. Things are defined not by their</span><span class="s1"> circumstances, but by their characteristics. Even then, descriptions often fail to convey intent. Agency is more than its environmental elements, and even more than the inadequate synonyms often used to define it, such as &#8220;choice&#8221; or &#8220;free will.&#8221; </span></p>
<p>We&#8217;re taught that <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/agency?lang=eng">agency is</a> &#8220;The ability and privilege God gives people to choose and to act for themselves.&#8221; I&#8217;d like to show why I think this misses the picture.</p>
<p><span id="more-3433"></span></p>
<p>What is agency? Noah Webster&#8217;s 1828 dictionary—giving us a snapshot of the contextual interpretation of the word at the time it was used by Joseph Smith—<a href="http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/agency">defines it</a> both as &#8220;the quality of moving or of exerting power&#8221; and the &#8220;business of an agent entrusted with the concerns of another.&#8221; It&#8217;s this second definition (though the first is also quite relevant) that takes us to a clearer understanding of what <em>our</em> agency is.</p>
<p>An <em>agent</em> is a person who represents another; we are familiar with how they work in the world of sports, music, writing, and other industries. To help an individual see to the affairs of their business, agents are empowered to transact this business on behalf of their employer. The same relationship exists when using the synonym <em>steward</em>. In either case, the representative&#8217;s authorized and commissioned work becomes their <em>agency</em> or <em>stewardship</em>. The creator or employer holds this person accountable for the work performed in his name and with his authority, in an effort to ensure that it was done as directed.</p>
<p>This relationship is abundantly clear in scripture. For example, in Christ&#8217;s parable about the unjust steward <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/16.1-2?lang=eng">he taught</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>There was a certain rich man, which had a <em>steward</em>; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.</p>
<p>And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? <em>give an account of thy stewardship</em>; for thou mayest be no longer steward.</p></blockquote>
<p>Speaking to the Saints in Corinth, Paul <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/4.1-2?lang=eng">employed the same analogy</a> to describe our relationship to God:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="">Let a man so <em>account</em> of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and <em>stewards</em> of the mysteries of God.</p>
<p class="">Moreover it is <em>required</em> in <em>stewards</em>, that a man be found faithful.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>By now it&#8217;s likely apparent where I&#8217;m headed with this. You and I are God&#8217;s agents, or stewards. This <em>agency</em> we speak of so often is not merely &#8220;the ability and privilege… to choose and to act,&#8221; but rather, the specific things we are directed to do. Yes, we have the discretion to obey or disobey, as any earthly agent does, but it&#8217;s clear that <em>we have something to do</em>. We will be held accountable for our agency. It means more than that it simply exists; how can we fulfill our stewardship if it&#8217;s not even clear to us what it is, and that it is actionable?</p>
<p>So again, what is our agency? What does God want us to do? And for what things will we be held accountable?</p>
<p>I believe that our agency is closely tied to the greatest commandment. Our stewardship is to love God&#8217;s children—our fellow brothers and sisters—acting as representatives of God, who is not with us in person to bless and support His children. Of course, this makes functional sense; if an employer told his agent, &#8220;this is the most important thing I want you to focus on,&#8221; it readily becomes clear that the agency pertains to that specific thing, first and foremost. So, too, with us and God&#8217;s commandment to love Him and our proverbial (and literal) neighbor.</p>
<p>One might say that the Pharisees were obsessed with understanding and defining their agency—though they were, as we know, way off the mark. Their<span class="s1"> desire to rank the importance of certain mandates over others, and badger fellow Jews into compliance, provides the backdrop for a famous Biblical scene in which a lawyer from the group <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/22.36#35">asked Jesus</a>, “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?” The question was designed as a trap; the Pharisees had debated the question exhaustively, identifying more than 600 commandments after categorizing, dividing, and subdividing the Mosaic law. If erudite scholars in their sect struggled to sort through hundreds of laws to pinpoint the most important, then surely the unlearned son of a mere carpenter would be exposed to the people as a fraud. </span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,” Jesus replied. “This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” In one simple response, the fundamental precept of Christianity was established: love. Jesus had penetrated the purpose of the law that had for so long been mangled and manipulated. “On these two commandments,” he concluded, “hang all the law and the prophets.”</span></p>
<p class="p1">This meant something to the Jews who heard it. It was a common phrase that referred to the entirety of God&#8217;s teachings—the law, meaning the five books of Moses at the beginning of the Old Testament, and the teachings of subsequent prophets who followed Moses. What Jesus was teaching his disciples is that <em>love is the entire purpose of the gospel</em>.</p>
<p class="p1">It was their agency, and it is ours.</p>
<p class="p1">Satan sought to destroy this agency—and he seeks to do so now. <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.19-22?lang=eng#18">In our day</a>, &#8220;he rage[s] in the hearts of the children of men, and stir[s] them up to anger against that which is good.&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11.29?lang=eng#28">He is</a> the &#8220;father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger,&#8221; which is <a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/04/agency-and-anger?lang=eng">inconsistent with our agency</a>. Satan works tirelessly to <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/8.25?lang=eng#24">harden our hearts</a>, so that we fight and hate one another. He&#8217;s trying to undermine our agency, and too many Saints don&#8217;t even realize it&#8217;s happening.</p>
<p class="p1">Jesus, our perfect example of love, understood that he was given an agency, and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/2.49#48">went about his Father&#8217;s business</a>. So should we.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=RZAo8cRcRRs:y3wvTZJEFV4:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=RZAo8cRcRRs:y3wvTZJEFV4:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=RZAo8cRcRRs:y3wvTZJEFV4:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:57:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/what-is-your-agency/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"12";}s:7:"summary";s:383:"A tragically large number of God&#8217;s children decided to reject His plan and follow Lucifer. This &#8220;war in heaven,&#8221; which continues today, was triggered by a cunning, counterfeit proposal that seduced many. We know that Lucifer&#8217;s supposed plan would have, if implemented, destroyed the agency of man. This scriptural signal conveys to us the importance [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:8685:"<p>A tragically large number of God&#8217;s children decided to reject His plan and follow Lucifer. This &#8220;<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/12.7?lang=eng#6">war in heaven</a>,&#8221; which continues today, was triggered by a cunning, <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/a-widespread-misunderstanding-about-satans-war-on-agency">counterfeit proposal</a> that seduced many.</p>
<p>We know that Lucifer&#8217;s supposed plan would have, if implemented, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/4.3?lang=eng#2">destroyed the agency of man</a>. This scriptural signal conveys to us the importance of agency, for if the enemy of all righteousness attempted to undermine it, we should therefore value it. But in my experience, it seems that while many Saints understand its <em>importance</em>, few understand its <em>purpose</em>.</p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">We often talk about the things necessary for agency to exist—commandments, choice, consequence, etc.—but the analysis often ends there. This would be like talking about what the process of birth entails without addressing the miracle of procreation or the purpose of life. Things are defined not by their</span><span class="s1"> circumstances, but by their characteristics. Even then, descriptions often fail to convey intent. Agency is more than its environmental elements, and even more than the inadequate synonyms often used to define it, such as &#8220;choice&#8221; or &#8220;free will.&#8221; </span></p>
<p>We&#8217;re taught that <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/agency?lang=eng">agency is</a> &#8220;The ability and privilege God gives people to choose and to act for themselves.&#8221; I&#8217;d like to show why I think this misses the picture.</p>
<p><span id="more-3433"></span></p>
<p>What is agency? Noah Webster&#8217;s 1828 dictionary—giving us a snapshot of the contextual interpretation of the word at the time it was used by Joseph Smith—<a href="http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/agency">defines it</a> both as &#8220;the quality of moving or of exerting power&#8221; and the &#8220;business of an agent entrusted with the concerns of another.&#8221; It&#8217;s this second definition (though the first is also quite relevant) that takes us to a clearer understanding of what <em>our</em> agency is.</p>
<p>An <em>agent</em> is a person who represents another; we are familiar with how they work in the world of sports, music, writing, and other industries. To help an individual see to the affairs of their business, agents are empowered to transact this business on behalf of their employer. The same relationship exists when using the synonym <em>steward</em>. In either case, the representative&#8217;s authorized and commissioned work becomes their <em>agency</em> or <em>stewardship</em>. The creator or employer holds this person accountable for the work performed in his name and with his authority, in an effort to ensure that it was done as directed.</p>
<p>This relationship is abundantly clear in scripture. For example, in Christ&#8217;s parable about the unjust steward <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/16.1-2?lang=eng">he taught</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>There was a certain rich man, which had a <em>steward</em>; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.</p>
<p>And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? <em>give an account of thy stewardship</em>; for thou mayest be no longer steward.</p></blockquote>
<p>Speaking to the Saints in Corinth, Paul <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/4.1-2?lang=eng">employed the same analogy</a> to describe our relationship to God:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="">Let a man so <em>account</em> of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and <em>stewards</em> of the mysteries of God.</p>
<p class="">Moreover it is <em>required</em> in <em>stewards</em>, that a man be found faithful.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>By now it&#8217;s likely apparent where I&#8217;m headed with this. You and I are God&#8217;s agents, or stewards. This <em>agency</em> we speak of so often is not merely &#8220;the ability and privilege… to choose and to act,&#8221; but rather, the specific things we are directed to do. Yes, we have the discretion to obey or disobey, as any earthly agent does, but it&#8217;s clear that <em>we have something to do</em>. We will be held accountable for our agency. It means more than that it simply exists; how can we fulfill our stewardship if it&#8217;s not even clear to us what it is, and that it is actionable?</p>
<p>So again, what is our agency? What does God want us to do? And for what things will we be held accountable?</p>
<p>I believe that our agency is closely tied to the greatest commandment. Our stewardship is to love God&#8217;s children—our fellow brothers and sisters—acting as representatives of God, who is not with us in person to bless and support His children. Of course, this makes functional sense; if an employer told his agent, &#8220;this is the most important thing I want you to focus on,&#8221; it readily becomes clear that the agency pertains to that specific thing, first and foremost. So, too, with us and God&#8217;s commandment to love Him and our proverbial (and literal) neighbor.</p>
<p>One might say that the Pharisees were obsessed with understanding and defining their agency—though they were, as we know, way off the mark. Their<span class="s1"> desire to rank the importance of certain mandates over others, and badger fellow Jews into compliance, provides the backdrop for a famous Biblical scene in which a lawyer from the group <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/22.36#35">asked Jesus</a>, “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?” The question was designed as a trap; the Pharisees had debated the question exhaustively, identifying more than 600 commandments after categorizing, dividing, and subdividing the Mosaic law. If erudite scholars in their sect struggled to sort through hundreds of laws to pinpoint the most important, then surely the unlearned son of a mere carpenter would be exposed to the people as a fraud. </span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,” Jesus replied. “This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” In one simple response, the fundamental precept of Christianity was established: love. Jesus had penetrated the purpose of the law that had for so long been mangled and manipulated. “On these two commandments,” he concluded, “hang all the law and the prophets.”</span></p>
<p class="p1">This meant something to the Jews who heard it. It was a common phrase that referred to the entirety of God&#8217;s teachings—the law, meaning the five books of Moses at the beginning of the Old Testament, and the teachings of subsequent prophets who followed Moses. What Jesus was teaching his disciples is that <em>love is the entire purpose of the gospel</em>.</p>
<p class="p1">It was their agency, and it is ours.</p>
<p class="p1">Satan sought to destroy this agency—and he seeks to do so now. <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.19-22?lang=eng#18">In our day</a>, &#8220;he rage[s] in the hearts of the children of men, and stir[s] them up to anger against that which is good.&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11.29?lang=eng#28">He is</a> the &#8220;father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger,&#8221; which is <a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/04/agency-and-anger?lang=eng">inconsistent with our agency</a>. Satan works tirelessly to <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/8.25?lang=eng#24">harden our hearts</a>, so that we fight and hate one another. He&#8217;s trying to undermine our agency, and too many Saints don&#8217;t even realize it&#8217;s happening.</p>
<p class="p1">Jesus, our perfect example of love, understood that he was given an agency, and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/2.49#48">went about his Father&#8217;s business</a>. So should we.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=RZAo8cRcRRs:y3wvTZJEFV4:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=RZAo8cRcRRs:y3wvTZJEFV4:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=RZAo8cRcRRs:y3wvTZJEFV4:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1442176802;}i:4;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:38:"Dehumanization Through Objectification";s:4:"link";s:71:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/dehumanization-through-objectification";s:8:"comments";s:80:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/dehumanization-through-objectification#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sun, 06 Sep 2015 20:35:36 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Religion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3432";s:11:"description";s:425:"Perhaps society&#8217;s greatest failure is in denying the humanity of the individual. Throughout history, entire races, genders, cultures, religious groups, professions, and other classes and combinations have been collectively consolidated into generalized groups and pejoratively painted with broad brushes. Rather than seeing another individual as a person like them—another child of God with talents, trials, [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:6331:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/objectification_small.jpg"/></p>
<p>Perhaps society&#8217;s greatest failure is in denying the humanity of the individual. Throughout history, entire races, genders, cultures, religious groups, professions, and other classes and combinations have been collectively consolidated into generalized groups and pejoratively painted with broad brushes.</p>
<p>Rather than seeing another individual as a person like them—another child of God with talents, trials, qualities, and curiosities—far too many people dehumanize others, objectifying them for their pleasure or scorn. It therefore becomes easy to take advantage of another, after first deeming them of subhuman value—for if the person had human value, we might treat them as we ourselves would prefer to be treated by them.</p>
<p>The most striking example is pornography, where a person is reduced to mere body parts—a factory of flesh to be served up for those who wish to satiate their sexual gratification. Now that I&#8217;m a father, I find myself pondering what kind of life must lead a person to be photographed or filmed for the express purpose of another&#8217;s sexual self-indulgence—a dark and hidden act that takes into account nothing more than the size, shape, or sensuality of the model&#8217;s body. What kind of family did this person grow up in? How warped must his or her emotional development be to take pride in such work, and to be known for nothing more than how stimulating he or she is to others? If this person&#8217;s parents are unaware or supportive of such a line of work, then thought should still be given to what his or her heavenly parents would think of such behavior.</p>
<p>The degree to which this objectification has skewed the actions of so many can be demonstrated, I think, with a simple question: What father with a predilection towards pornography would want <em>his</em> daughter to be somebody else&#8217;s fleeting fetish?</p>
<p><span id="more-3432"></span></p>
<p>Growing up in southern California, I often observed immigrants laboring in others&#8217; yards—toiling in the hot sun for hours on end, performing tasks that few others would do with such dedication and quality. And yet, they were from a different culture and class; their employers and passersby did not interact with them, with rare exception. They were a means to an end—a cheap way to check off a few chores from the list.</p>
<p>Working now in public policy, I see the same objectification on a grander scale: immigrants are invaders, hell-bent on taking American jobs; Muslims are all terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers and supporters, hoping to kill infidels to earn virgins in the afterlife; children are ignoramuses that need the wisdom and conformity that Common Core and other top-down curriculum mandates provide; voters are usually ignorant individually, but in the aggregate their decisions are worthy of our subservience; soldiers are heroes; police are protectors; politicians are public servants; and on and on.</p>
<p>God does not judge us based on our affiliation with a successful sports team, how muscular we are, or if we&#8217;ve earned a military credential or professional recognition. &#8220;Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-sam/16.7?lang=eng#6">looketh on the heart</a>.&#8221; We are individuals—full of imperfections, interests, competing loyalties, funny stories, and endearing qualities. Our characteristics may categorize us, but they don&#8217;t define us.</p>
<p>It is easier to exploit others when we do not think of them as somebody&#8217;s child, or sibling, or parent. It&#8217;s why innocent bystanders of war&#8217;s carnage are blithely dismissed as &#8220;collateral damage,&#8221; or why we&#8217;re comfortable cutting off or raging at fellow drivers on the freeway. It&#8217;s also how supposedly progressive (though I might say regressive) &#8220;pro-choicers&#8221; have become cheerleaders for the mass slaughter of unborn babies and the subsequent harvesting and sale of their body parts.</p>
<p>Imagine if instead of seeing a &#8220;porn star&#8221; we could see a single mother of two kids with a drug addiction who is on the edge of eviction, or a person who experienced sexual abuse as a young child. Perhaps we&#8217;d feel sorry for these people, rather than perpetuating the problem for personal pleasure.</p>
<p>What if instead of seeing immigrants as threats, we pondered the reasons for which they want to abandon their home? Maybe we would have compassion for their circumstances, and be motivated to help them find the better life they seek.</p>
<p>Maybe we would be a kinder driver if we gave the benefit of the doubt to the guy in front of us, who might be rushing to the hospital. It might help us recognize our own hypocrisy, recalling instances where our actions—clearly justified in our own mind—may have led a nearby driver to get upset with us.</p>
<p>Might we reserve our adulation for veterans if we considered the alarmingly prevalent sexual abuse rate within the ranks, and the harm some of them cause to innocent people in their path? Doing so might help us to reconsider what heroism is, and reserve it for praiseworthy instances, rather than anybody wearing a uniform.</p>
<p>There are plenty of examples, of course, but the point is this: you and I are not the sum of our parts—we are more than that. Of course, we know this; we know full well what our positive attributes are, the ambition of our goals, the service we&#8217;ve rendered, the trials we have, and the knowledge we&#8217;ve gained. Let&#8217;s not fall into the trap of failing to see in others what is obvious through introspection: that humanity is intricate and has worth. In short, let&#8217;s take the Golden Rule from theory to practice.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=jGwlyJIzVS8:sudk2Zkjods:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=jGwlyJIzVS8:sudk2Zkjods:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=jGwlyJIzVS8:sudk2Zkjods:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:76:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/dehumanization-through-objectification/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"14";}s:7:"summary";s:425:"Perhaps society&#8217;s greatest failure is in denying the humanity of the individual. Throughout history, entire races, genders, cultures, religious groups, professions, and other classes and combinations have been collectively consolidated into generalized groups and pejoratively painted with broad brushes. Rather than seeing another individual as a person like them—another child of God with talents, trials, [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:6331:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/objectification_small.jpg"/></p>
<p>Perhaps society&#8217;s greatest failure is in denying the humanity of the individual. Throughout history, entire races, genders, cultures, religious groups, professions, and other classes and combinations have been collectively consolidated into generalized groups and pejoratively painted with broad brushes.</p>
<p>Rather than seeing another individual as a person like them—another child of God with talents, trials, qualities, and curiosities—far too many people dehumanize others, objectifying them for their pleasure or scorn. It therefore becomes easy to take advantage of another, after first deeming them of subhuman value—for if the person had human value, we might treat them as we ourselves would prefer to be treated by them.</p>
<p>The most striking example is pornography, where a person is reduced to mere body parts—a factory of flesh to be served up for those who wish to satiate their sexual gratification. Now that I&#8217;m a father, I find myself pondering what kind of life must lead a person to be photographed or filmed for the express purpose of another&#8217;s sexual self-indulgence—a dark and hidden act that takes into account nothing more than the size, shape, or sensuality of the model&#8217;s body. What kind of family did this person grow up in? How warped must his or her emotional development be to take pride in such work, and to be known for nothing more than how stimulating he or she is to others? If this person&#8217;s parents are unaware or supportive of such a line of work, then thought should still be given to what his or her heavenly parents would think of such behavior.</p>
<p>The degree to which this objectification has skewed the actions of so many can be demonstrated, I think, with a simple question: What father with a predilection towards pornography would want <em>his</em> daughter to be somebody else&#8217;s fleeting fetish?</p>
<p><span id="more-3432"></span></p>
<p>Growing up in southern California, I often observed immigrants laboring in others&#8217; yards—toiling in the hot sun for hours on end, performing tasks that few others would do with such dedication and quality. And yet, they were from a different culture and class; their employers and passersby did not interact with them, with rare exception. They were a means to an end—a cheap way to check off a few chores from the list.</p>
<p>Working now in public policy, I see the same objectification on a grander scale: immigrants are invaders, hell-bent on taking American jobs; Muslims are all terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers and supporters, hoping to kill infidels to earn virgins in the afterlife; children are ignoramuses that need the wisdom and conformity that Common Core and other top-down curriculum mandates provide; voters are usually ignorant individually, but in the aggregate their decisions are worthy of our subservience; soldiers are heroes; police are protectors; politicians are public servants; and on and on.</p>
<p>God does not judge us based on our affiliation with a successful sports team, how muscular we are, or if we&#8217;ve earned a military credential or professional recognition. &#8220;Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-sam/16.7?lang=eng#6">looketh on the heart</a>.&#8221; We are individuals—full of imperfections, interests, competing loyalties, funny stories, and endearing qualities. Our characteristics may categorize us, but they don&#8217;t define us.</p>
<p>It is easier to exploit others when we do not think of them as somebody&#8217;s child, or sibling, or parent. It&#8217;s why innocent bystanders of war&#8217;s carnage are blithely dismissed as &#8220;collateral damage,&#8221; or why we&#8217;re comfortable cutting off or raging at fellow drivers on the freeway. It&#8217;s also how supposedly progressive (though I might say regressive) &#8220;pro-choicers&#8221; have become cheerleaders for the mass slaughter of unborn babies and the subsequent harvesting and sale of their body parts.</p>
<p>Imagine if instead of seeing a &#8220;porn star&#8221; we could see a single mother of two kids with a drug addiction who is on the edge of eviction, or a person who experienced sexual abuse as a young child. Perhaps we&#8217;d feel sorry for these people, rather than perpetuating the problem for personal pleasure.</p>
<p>What if instead of seeing immigrants as threats, we pondered the reasons for which they want to abandon their home? Maybe we would have compassion for their circumstances, and be motivated to help them find the better life they seek.</p>
<p>Maybe we would be a kinder driver if we gave the benefit of the doubt to the guy in front of us, who might be rushing to the hospital. It might help us recognize our own hypocrisy, recalling instances where our actions—clearly justified in our own mind—may have led a nearby driver to get upset with us.</p>
<p>Might we reserve our adulation for veterans if we considered the alarmingly prevalent sexual abuse rate within the ranks, and the harm some of them cause to innocent people in their path? Doing so might help us to reconsider what heroism is, and reserve it for praiseworthy instances, rather than anybody wearing a uniform.</p>
<p>There are plenty of examples, of course, but the point is this: you and I are not the sum of our parts—we are more than that. Of course, we know this; we know full well what our positive attributes are, the ambition of our goals, the service we&#8217;ve rendered, the trials we have, and the knowledge we&#8217;ve gained. Let&#8217;s not fall into the trap of failing to see in others what is obvious through introspection: that humanity is intricate and has worth. In short, let&#8217;s take the Golden Rule from theory to practice.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=jGwlyJIzVS8:sudk2Zkjods:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=jGwlyJIzVS8:sudk2Zkjods:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=jGwlyJIzVS8:sudk2Zkjods:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1441571736;}i:5;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:57:"How Going to Church Helps Us to Keep the Sabbath Day Holy";s:4:"link";s:90:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/how-going-to-church-helps-us-to-keep-the-sabbath-day-holy";s:8:"comments";s:99:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/how-going-to-church-helps-us-to-keep-the-sabbath-day-holy#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sun, 09 Aug 2015 16:29:16 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Religion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3427";s:11:"description";s:322:"I gave the following talk in my ward today. Occasionally I try and ponder the words and phrases we commonly use to emphasize their meaning and rescue them from their casual familiarity. For example, I was recently teaching my children about the microwave in our kitchen. I paused a moment when I realized that to [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:20477:"<p>I gave the following talk in my ward today.</p>
<hr style="margin: 0pt auto 10px; width: 300px; text-align: center;"/>
<p>Occasionally I try and ponder the words and phrases we commonly use to emphasize their meaning and rescue them from their casual familiarity. For example, I was recently teaching my children about the microwave in our kitchen. I paused a moment when I realized that to some extent, the word explained itself: the devices use electromagnetic waves with short (“micro”) wavelengths to heat our food. This became a teaching opportunity.</p>
<p>A similar experience occurred on my mission, when we were introduced to a deaf, 10-year-old Cuban girl living a small Honduran pueblo, where I was serving. She was interested in learning, but we didn’t know sign language. My companion and I procured a book to learn Spanish sign language, and I spent the next week poring over its contents. At our next appointment this young girl was amazed by my ability to communicate; I had very quickly learned what otherwise would have taken months—something I attribute to whatever the equivalent of “gift of tongues” for hands would be.</p>
<p>As my companion and I began to teach her, we brought up the subject of baptism. She explained, in sign language, that she had already been baptized as a child. But something odd stood out to me, a sign language newbie. There was a sign for baptism, and then there was a separate sign for sprinkling water on an infant’s head—the Catholic method of baptizing a new baby. I asked this young girl to do the sign for baptism again, and she complied by holding her fists out with thumbs extended upward, turning them both 90 degrees at the same time, and then returning them to the upright position. The sign for baptism itself implied immersion. This became a teaching opportunity.</p>
<p><span id="more-3427"></span></p>
<p>Today I’ll be speaking about keeping the Sabbath day holy, but in doing so I want to rescue the term from its casual familiarity. We speak often in the Church about faith, prayer, repentance, the sacrament, and other principles and ordinances, but sometimes I worry that we grow so used to them that they become monotonous and almost without meaning. So to start, let’s discuss what we mean by keeping the Sabbath day holy.</p>
<p>The word <i>Sabbath</i> comes from the Hebrew <i>shabbath</i>, meaning day of rest. From the creation of the world through today, God’s followers have been counseled to abstain from the rest of the week’s work in order to worship Him. Since Christ’s resurrection occurred on a Sunday, His disciples have observed that day as the Sabbath. When Moses reminded the children of Israel of the Sabbath’s importance, he related one of the Ten Commandments that said it should be “kept holy” (Exodus 20:8) or “sanctif[ied]” (Deut. 5:12). What does it mean, exactly, to sanctify the Sabbath, or keep it holy?</p>
<p>Both of these terms reference being set apart—think of our holy temples being a refuge from the rest of the world. Keeping the Sabbath day holy therefore means treating it different from the other six days of the week, and more specifically, doing things that improve our relationship to God. For this reason, Christ taught that “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27)—because it is designed and recommended for our physical and spiritual benefit. Like other commandments, this is not a burdensome mandate from a cruel God looking to prevent us from having fun, but rather a condition that, if obeyed, will lead to spiritual fulfillment, love, and personal growth.</p>
<p>Twenty years ago when he introduced the Proclamation on the family to the world, President Gordon B. Hinckley prefaced it with an explanation as to why he and other church leaders felt it was needed. “With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth,” <a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/stand-strong-against-the-wiles-of-the-world?lang=eng">he said</a>, “with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn.” And then he read the proclamation. This idea of Latter-day Saints taking on the “slow stain of the world” had been on President Hinckley’s mind for some time; <a href="https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/earl-c-tingey_law-sabbath/">months before</a>, he taught in a regional conference that we Mormons have a “tendency to take on the ways of the world. We don’t adopt them immediately, but we slowly take them on, unfortunately,” he continued.</p>
<p>Do you think he was wrong? And if not, what do you suppose is an antidote to this slow stain? President Hinckley offered his suggestion, when he followed up his observation with this desire: “I wish I had the power to convert this whole Church to the observance of the Sabbath.” I’m reminded of a quote from Neal A. Maxwell who once taught, “The ways of the world receive constant reinforcement—should not the ways of heaven?”</p>
<p>That, in a nutshell, is what Sunday should be about. Take a brief mental inventory of your life from Monday through Saturday. It’s filled with work, errands, education, raising a family, chores, entertainment, and all sorts of other things. But it’s also bombarded with messages and messengers that are at odds with the “ways of heaven.” Did you know that the average American spends around <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-19/we-now-spend-more-time-staring-at-phones-than-tvs">three hours</a> of each day watching TV? And an <i>extra</i> <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-19/we-now-spend-more-time-staring-at-phones-than-tvs">three hours</a> on their mobile devices? Think about that for a moment—it’s staggering! Six hours each day, on average, passively consuming media prepared for you by individuals who aren’t concerned with your spiritual welfare, intellectual development, emotional health, or family relationships. They want you to click and watch. They want ad revenue. They infuse their images and posts and graphics and programs with content that’s directly at odds with the standards we Latter-day Saints believe in.</p>
<p>Elder Maxwell was right—the way of the world receive constant reinforcement. Today, the Sabbath day, is an opportunity to reinforce God’s ways, if for nothing else than to strengthen and prepare us for the rest of the week.</p>
<p>This fortification of our “armor of God” (Ephesians 6:11-18) is one of the reasons you and I are here today, at church, participating in this meeting and the two that will follow. Daily battle causes our armor to become chinked, dented, and dulled. We need a fix-me-up. As Elder Holland once wrote, “the Church is not a monastery for the isolation of perfect people. It is more like a hospital provided for those who wish to get well.” Some of us have experienced significant trials over the past few days and are here today seeking support and comfort. Others have made some bad decisions or unfortunate mistakes, and are pondering how they can repent and move forward. Some have a fork in the road and need guidance to figure out which path to take. And undoubtedly there are some here today who have had a great week and look forward to more spiritual nourishment, to continue their pursuit of happiness. We all have different things going on that have led us here, but fundamentally we’re all here for the same reasons—to worship Jesus Christ.</p>
<p>To be honest, on some occasions I’ve actually questioned whether that’s true. Throughout my life I’ve been in some sacrament meetings or church classes where Jesus wasn’t mentioned a single time. People are generally eager to talk about their opinions and personal experiences—and while these can be important and helpful, we can (and perhaps should) talk about them outside of church if they’re not directly related to the Savior’s atonement or God’s plan of happiness. We’re all familiar with testimony travelogues or tangents in class that take up precious time. I believe that these important meetings should be focused on our Savior—we’re members of His church, worshiping Him in a chapel dedicated to God. We just promised to always remember Him in taking the sacrament, and it’s His gospel we are here to study and apply.</p>
<p>The Lord has indicated that “It is expedient that the church meet together often” (D&amp;C 20:75) and that “when [we] are assembled together [we] shall instruct and edify each other” (D&amp;C 43:8). Our meetings are to be conducted by leaders who are “led by the Holy Ghost” (D&amp;C 20:45). These meetings are, by way of commandment (3 Ne. 18:22), open to the public—all are invited to come and learn of Christ and worship with us.</p>
<p>I recall as a missionary sometimes being nervous about bringing investigators to church, as it seemed to be “hit and miss” as to how things would go. Often times, the investigator would latch onto something that was said or done by a member, implication the entire gospel because of the actions of a single, imperfect individual. It raises an important question: are we, as disciples of Christ, thinking, saying, and doing the things that would reflect positively upon Him?</p>
<p>I often ponder what our meetings would be like if the Savior were actually here with us. Consider that for a moment—how would you be acting right now if Jesus Christ were sitting next to the Bishop on the stand? Perhaps there would be a few less mobile devices being used. Maybe more toddlers would be under control. I doubt anybody would be dozing off. Passing the sacrament would suddenly take on far more meaning for the young men, who would clearly understand the significance and spiritual meaning of the bread and water they pass out to us. Whatever you’re thinking right now about how this meeting would be like with the Savior present? That’s exactly what we should be striving for regardless. Easier said than done, right?</p>
<p>What’s important, of course, is that we try. Church meetings aren’t meant to be casual. We’re not supposed to “endure to the end,” in the impatient sense of the term, in order to be able to go home and eat and get on with our day. These meetings are supposed to have meaning. We should be walking away uplifted and edified—better for coming than had we stayed home.</p>
<p>I recognize that that’s not always the case. But as I’ve talked about this specific issue with many individuals, I’m left with the impression that many members of the Church perceive the three hour block as a passive experience that should uplift, educate, and inspire them, without them having to do anything about it. For these people, it’s all take, and no give. It’s like virgins with trimmed lamps who expect the oil to magically appear and automatically refill whenever depleted.</p>
<p>Now, I’m as guilty as anybody when talking about the importance of preparing for Church, and using our meetings as an opportunity to serve and uplift others, instead of waiting to be served and uplifted <i>by</i> others. My nature is to be introverted and focused on the task at hand, rather than thinking about and talking to others. But as I ponder what the ideal is—what would please the Savior if he were sitting on the stand observing Brother Boyack in the congregation—I see plenty of room for improvement, as I’m sure you do for yourselves.</p>
<p>Let me try to explain this from a different angle. The word <i>church</i> is a translation of the Greek <i>ekkl?sia</i>, which is better translated to mean<i> gathering</i> or <i>assembly</i>. Church isn’t just about the building itself, or the formal meetings that take place in it. It’s about you and I, meeting together to fellowship and commune and worship together. The gospel itself is a communitarian endeavor, and not an individual one. You can study the gospel all you want at home, in isolation, without having to deal with anybody else—but you won’t be able to live it. A Priesthood holder, for example, is unable to bless himself. He is empowered to serve others, and must be served <i>by</i> others. We need one another, and that’s what coming to church is all about. Each of us has something to contribute. As the Apostle Paul taught:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="p2">For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.</p>
<p class="p2">For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.</p>
<p class="p2">For the body is not one member, but many.</p>
<p class="p2">If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not [part] of the body; is it therefore not of the body?</p>
<p class="p2">And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not [part] of the body; is it therefore not of the body?</p>
<p class="p2">But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.</p>
<p class="p2">But now are they many members, yet but one body.</p>
<p class="p2">And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.</p>
<p class="p2">Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary. (1 Cor. 12:12-16, 18, 20-22)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Whether you’re old or young, male or female, born in the covenant or a recent convert, gay, straight, black, white, introverted, extroverted, a scriptorian or an ignoramus, there is a place for you here—you are a member in the body of Christ. We have need of you. But each member should contribute, just as each part of our body serves a purpose. This means coming to church not just to attend, but to <i>participate</i>. Think of what that means for you. Perhaps it means serving in your calling with a little more zeal, or simply giving the sacrament speakers your undivided attention. It probably means volunteering once in a while to say a prayer or answer a question, rather than evading the teacher’s eyes after he or she asks for help. It also means setting up chairs, cleaning up after ourselves, saying hi to a visitor, substituting in a class when necessary, asking the Bishop if there’s anything we can do to help, and visiting in the hallways not just with our friends, but the friendless. This church isn’t meant to be a top-down, authoritarian, monolithic entity. In my mind, it’s a bottom-up, organic, diverse group of individuals learning the gospel of Jesus Christ, loving one another, and seeking after Zion. Being here at church—and more importantly, doing what the Savior would want us to do while here—is essential.</p>
<p>Last week, I drove from Salt Lake City to Lehi, through some moderately busy rush hour and construction traffic, without really paying any attention. The trip was a familiar and routine one, from the state Capitol in Salt Lake City, where I often work, to my home. As the trip ended, my conscious mind became aware of what had happened, and I marveled that I had safely navigated such a lengthy distance at high speeds without being actively focused. I call this “driving on autopilot,” and it happens to me more frequently than it probably should, as I find myself thinking about all sorts of things while driving a route that I’m familiar with. I don’t advise doing this, especially since it reduces your ability to quickly respond to a dangerous situation on the road.</p>
<p>Several months ago while driving on “autopilot,” I nearly avoided an accident when my subconscious mind recognized that the person in the lane next to me was too close to my car, and caused my conscious mind to react and avoid contact with the other vehicle. This near-miss sent adrenaline coursing through my veins, overriding any desire or natural tendency to shift back into autopilot for the remainder of the drive. I was alert and attentive, and fully engaged in the task at hand. I was a better driver.</p>
<p>And in reality, the excuse for my auto-piloting is false; no two trips are the same. Sure, the origin and destination may be, but the rest of the experience includes thousands of variables unique to that drive—different drivers around me, different road conditions, different amount of sleep I had the night before, different thoughts running through my head, etc. It’s a false security to claim that because I’m heading to a familiar place, that I’m safe to tune out and let my subconscious mind take over.</p>
<p>I suggest that the same holds true for our spirituality and coming to church each Sunday as part of keeping this day holy. Sometimes it might feel like week after week, church meetings become monotonous and repetitive, neither interesting nor inspiring. But each week is different. You’re different. You’ve had experiences, good and bad, that merit pondering, repentance, or repetition. There are new people attending this assembly—members of the body of Christ whose purpose you can help discover. Perhaps there are people absent who you can think about, and reach out to, letting them know they were missed.</p>
<p>It’s a false security to claim that because church is familiar, that it’s safe to tune out and go through the motions. Lest we forget, Satan “rage[s] in the hearts of the children of men, and stir[s] them up to anger against that which is good. And others [he] pacif[ies], and lull[s] away into carnal security, [so] they [] say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell” (2 Ne. 28:20-21). We are in the midst of a war that commenced in the pre-mortal realm. Can we succeed in defending against an enemy we don’t understand or pay attention to? If we treat lightly the weekly renewal that church meetings can provide, and the spiritual fortification that keeping the entire Sabbath day holy can offer, how will we fare in the succeeding days when we are incrementally exposed to Satan’s rage and pacification through work colleagues, friends, classmates, and every form of media? Are we here today, at church, actively looking to restore and fortify our armor of God, as we head out into the battlefield during the remainder of the week? Do we even know that the battle is happening?</p>
<p>For at least two decades, the leaders we sustain as prophets and seers have been especially concerned “with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world.” The Proclamation on the family, as noted earlier, was introduced to help combat this trend. But keeping the Sabbath day holy is also a method to consistently combat the infectious “ways of the world.” We’ve each been commanded by God to “go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day” in order to “more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world” (D&amp;C 59:9).</p>
<p>Meeting together today is only one aspect of keeping the Sabbath day holy, but it’s an important one. We renew our baptismal covenant by taking the sacrament, and re-commit ourselves as disciples of Christ to keep His commandments. Through song and instruction, we worship Jesus Christ and publicly declare our allegiance to him. We study the gospel, discuss its application in our lives, and fellowship together to support and serve one another. It’s important that each of us is here in church each week, but it’s more important that the church is in each of us—that instead of being a passive three hours, it’s a participatory experience that empowers us to become better Christians, better spouses, better parents, and better people.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=z9OMuXUAfNQ:oa-cy8zRfbs:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=z9OMuXUAfNQ:oa-cy8zRfbs:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=z9OMuXUAfNQ:oa-cy8zRfbs:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:95:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/how-going-to-church-helps-us-to-keep-the-sabbath-day-holy/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:1:"5";}s:7:"summary";s:322:"I gave the following talk in my ward today. Occasionally I try and ponder the words and phrases we commonly use to emphasize their meaning and rescue them from their casual familiarity. For example, I was recently teaching my children about the microwave in our kitchen. I paused a moment when I realized that to [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:20477:"<p>I gave the following talk in my ward today.</p>
<hr style="margin: 0pt auto 10px; width: 300px; text-align: center;"/>
<p>Occasionally I try and ponder the words and phrases we commonly use to emphasize their meaning and rescue them from their casual familiarity. For example, I was recently teaching my children about the microwave in our kitchen. I paused a moment when I realized that to some extent, the word explained itself: the devices use electromagnetic waves with short (“micro”) wavelengths to heat our food. This became a teaching opportunity.</p>
<p>A similar experience occurred on my mission, when we were introduced to a deaf, 10-year-old Cuban girl living a small Honduran pueblo, where I was serving. She was interested in learning, but we didn’t know sign language. My companion and I procured a book to learn Spanish sign language, and I spent the next week poring over its contents. At our next appointment this young girl was amazed by my ability to communicate; I had very quickly learned what otherwise would have taken months—something I attribute to whatever the equivalent of “gift of tongues” for hands would be.</p>
<p>As my companion and I began to teach her, we brought up the subject of baptism. She explained, in sign language, that she had already been baptized as a child. But something odd stood out to me, a sign language newbie. There was a sign for baptism, and then there was a separate sign for sprinkling water on an infant’s head—the Catholic method of baptizing a new baby. I asked this young girl to do the sign for baptism again, and she complied by holding her fists out with thumbs extended upward, turning them both 90 degrees at the same time, and then returning them to the upright position. The sign for baptism itself implied immersion. This became a teaching opportunity.</p>
<p><span id="more-3427"></span></p>
<p>Today I’ll be speaking about keeping the Sabbath day holy, but in doing so I want to rescue the term from its casual familiarity. We speak often in the Church about faith, prayer, repentance, the sacrament, and other principles and ordinances, but sometimes I worry that we grow so used to them that they become monotonous and almost without meaning. So to start, let’s discuss what we mean by keeping the Sabbath day holy.</p>
<p>The word <i>Sabbath</i> comes from the Hebrew <i>shabbath</i>, meaning day of rest. From the creation of the world through today, God’s followers have been counseled to abstain from the rest of the week’s work in order to worship Him. Since Christ’s resurrection occurred on a Sunday, His disciples have observed that day as the Sabbath. When Moses reminded the children of Israel of the Sabbath’s importance, he related one of the Ten Commandments that said it should be “kept holy” (Exodus 20:8) or “sanctif[ied]” (Deut. 5:12). What does it mean, exactly, to sanctify the Sabbath, or keep it holy?</p>
<p>Both of these terms reference being set apart—think of our holy temples being a refuge from the rest of the world. Keeping the Sabbath day holy therefore means treating it different from the other six days of the week, and more specifically, doing things that improve our relationship to God. For this reason, Christ taught that “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27)—because it is designed and recommended for our physical and spiritual benefit. Like other commandments, this is not a burdensome mandate from a cruel God looking to prevent us from having fun, but rather a condition that, if obeyed, will lead to spiritual fulfillment, love, and personal growth.</p>
<p>Twenty years ago when he introduced the Proclamation on the family to the world, President Gordon B. Hinckley prefaced it with an explanation as to why he and other church leaders felt it was needed. “With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth,” <a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/stand-strong-against-the-wiles-of-the-world?lang=eng">he said</a>, “with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn.” And then he read the proclamation. This idea of Latter-day Saints taking on the “slow stain of the world” had been on President Hinckley’s mind for some time; <a href="https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/earl-c-tingey_law-sabbath/">months before</a>, he taught in a regional conference that we Mormons have a “tendency to take on the ways of the world. We don’t adopt them immediately, but we slowly take them on, unfortunately,” he continued.</p>
<p>Do you think he was wrong? And if not, what do you suppose is an antidote to this slow stain? President Hinckley offered his suggestion, when he followed up his observation with this desire: “I wish I had the power to convert this whole Church to the observance of the Sabbath.” I’m reminded of a quote from Neal A. Maxwell who once taught, “The ways of the world receive constant reinforcement—should not the ways of heaven?”</p>
<p>That, in a nutshell, is what Sunday should be about. Take a brief mental inventory of your life from Monday through Saturday. It’s filled with work, errands, education, raising a family, chores, entertainment, and all sorts of other things. But it’s also bombarded with messages and messengers that are at odds with the “ways of heaven.” Did you know that the average American spends around <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-19/we-now-spend-more-time-staring-at-phones-than-tvs">three hours</a> of each day watching TV? And an <i>extra</i> <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-19/we-now-spend-more-time-staring-at-phones-than-tvs">three hours</a> on their mobile devices? Think about that for a moment—it’s staggering! Six hours each day, on average, passively consuming media prepared for you by individuals who aren’t concerned with your spiritual welfare, intellectual development, emotional health, or family relationships. They want you to click and watch. They want ad revenue. They infuse their images and posts and graphics and programs with content that’s directly at odds with the standards we Latter-day Saints believe in.</p>
<p>Elder Maxwell was right—the way of the world receive constant reinforcement. Today, the Sabbath day, is an opportunity to reinforce God’s ways, if for nothing else than to strengthen and prepare us for the rest of the week.</p>
<p>This fortification of our “armor of God” (Ephesians 6:11-18) is one of the reasons you and I are here today, at church, participating in this meeting and the two that will follow. Daily battle causes our armor to become chinked, dented, and dulled. We need a fix-me-up. As Elder Holland once wrote, “the Church is not a monastery for the isolation of perfect people. It is more like a hospital provided for those who wish to get well.” Some of us have experienced significant trials over the past few days and are here today seeking support and comfort. Others have made some bad decisions or unfortunate mistakes, and are pondering how they can repent and move forward. Some have a fork in the road and need guidance to figure out which path to take. And undoubtedly there are some here today who have had a great week and look forward to more spiritual nourishment, to continue their pursuit of happiness. We all have different things going on that have led us here, but fundamentally we’re all here for the same reasons—to worship Jesus Christ.</p>
<p>To be honest, on some occasions I’ve actually questioned whether that’s true. Throughout my life I’ve been in some sacrament meetings or church classes where Jesus wasn’t mentioned a single time. People are generally eager to talk about their opinions and personal experiences—and while these can be important and helpful, we can (and perhaps should) talk about them outside of church if they’re not directly related to the Savior’s atonement or God’s plan of happiness. We’re all familiar with testimony travelogues or tangents in class that take up precious time. I believe that these important meetings should be focused on our Savior—we’re members of His church, worshiping Him in a chapel dedicated to God. We just promised to always remember Him in taking the sacrament, and it’s His gospel we are here to study and apply.</p>
<p>The Lord has indicated that “It is expedient that the church meet together often” (D&amp;C 20:75) and that “when [we] are assembled together [we] shall instruct and edify each other” (D&amp;C 43:8). Our meetings are to be conducted by leaders who are “led by the Holy Ghost” (D&amp;C 20:45). These meetings are, by way of commandment (3 Ne. 18:22), open to the public—all are invited to come and learn of Christ and worship with us.</p>
<p>I recall as a missionary sometimes being nervous about bringing investigators to church, as it seemed to be “hit and miss” as to how things would go. Often times, the investigator would latch onto something that was said or done by a member, implication the entire gospel because of the actions of a single, imperfect individual. It raises an important question: are we, as disciples of Christ, thinking, saying, and doing the things that would reflect positively upon Him?</p>
<p>I often ponder what our meetings would be like if the Savior were actually here with us. Consider that for a moment—how would you be acting right now if Jesus Christ were sitting next to the Bishop on the stand? Perhaps there would be a few less mobile devices being used. Maybe more toddlers would be under control. I doubt anybody would be dozing off. Passing the sacrament would suddenly take on far more meaning for the young men, who would clearly understand the significance and spiritual meaning of the bread and water they pass out to us. Whatever you’re thinking right now about how this meeting would be like with the Savior present? That’s exactly what we should be striving for regardless. Easier said than done, right?</p>
<p>What’s important, of course, is that we try. Church meetings aren’t meant to be casual. We’re not supposed to “endure to the end,” in the impatient sense of the term, in order to be able to go home and eat and get on with our day. These meetings are supposed to have meaning. We should be walking away uplifted and edified—better for coming than had we stayed home.</p>
<p>I recognize that that’s not always the case. But as I’ve talked about this specific issue with many individuals, I’m left with the impression that many members of the Church perceive the three hour block as a passive experience that should uplift, educate, and inspire them, without them having to do anything about it. For these people, it’s all take, and no give. It’s like virgins with trimmed lamps who expect the oil to magically appear and automatically refill whenever depleted.</p>
<p>Now, I’m as guilty as anybody when talking about the importance of preparing for Church, and using our meetings as an opportunity to serve and uplift others, instead of waiting to be served and uplifted <i>by</i> others. My nature is to be introverted and focused on the task at hand, rather than thinking about and talking to others. But as I ponder what the ideal is—what would please the Savior if he were sitting on the stand observing Brother Boyack in the congregation—I see plenty of room for improvement, as I’m sure you do for yourselves.</p>
<p>Let me try to explain this from a different angle. The word <i>church</i> is a translation of the Greek <i>ekkl?sia</i>, which is better translated to mean<i> gathering</i> or <i>assembly</i>. Church isn’t just about the building itself, or the formal meetings that take place in it. It’s about you and I, meeting together to fellowship and commune and worship together. The gospel itself is a communitarian endeavor, and not an individual one. You can study the gospel all you want at home, in isolation, without having to deal with anybody else—but you won’t be able to live it. A Priesthood holder, for example, is unable to bless himself. He is empowered to serve others, and must be served <i>by</i> others. We need one another, and that’s what coming to church is all about. Each of us has something to contribute. As the Apostle Paul taught:</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="p2">For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.</p>
<p class="p2">For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.</p>
<p class="p2">For the body is not one member, but many.</p>
<p class="p2">If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not [part] of the body; is it therefore not of the body?</p>
<p class="p2">And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not [part] of the body; is it therefore not of the body?</p>
<p class="p2">But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.</p>
<p class="p2">But now are they many members, yet but one body.</p>
<p class="p2">And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.</p>
<p class="p2">Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary. (1 Cor. 12:12-16, 18, 20-22)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Whether you’re old or young, male or female, born in the covenant or a recent convert, gay, straight, black, white, introverted, extroverted, a scriptorian or an ignoramus, there is a place for you here—you are a member in the body of Christ. We have need of you. But each member should contribute, just as each part of our body serves a purpose. This means coming to church not just to attend, but to <i>participate</i>. Think of what that means for you. Perhaps it means serving in your calling with a little more zeal, or simply giving the sacrament speakers your undivided attention. It probably means volunteering once in a while to say a prayer or answer a question, rather than evading the teacher’s eyes after he or she asks for help. It also means setting up chairs, cleaning up after ourselves, saying hi to a visitor, substituting in a class when necessary, asking the Bishop if there’s anything we can do to help, and visiting in the hallways not just with our friends, but the friendless. This church isn’t meant to be a top-down, authoritarian, monolithic entity. In my mind, it’s a bottom-up, organic, diverse group of individuals learning the gospel of Jesus Christ, loving one another, and seeking after Zion. Being here at church—and more importantly, doing what the Savior would want us to do while here—is essential.</p>
<p>Last week, I drove from Salt Lake City to Lehi, through some moderately busy rush hour and construction traffic, without really paying any attention. The trip was a familiar and routine one, from the state Capitol in Salt Lake City, where I often work, to my home. As the trip ended, my conscious mind became aware of what had happened, and I marveled that I had safely navigated such a lengthy distance at high speeds without being actively focused. I call this “driving on autopilot,” and it happens to me more frequently than it probably should, as I find myself thinking about all sorts of things while driving a route that I’m familiar with. I don’t advise doing this, especially since it reduces your ability to quickly respond to a dangerous situation on the road.</p>
<p>Several months ago while driving on “autopilot,” I nearly avoided an accident when my subconscious mind recognized that the person in the lane next to me was too close to my car, and caused my conscious mind to react and avoid contact with the other vehicle. This near-miss sent adrenaline coursing through my veins, overriding any desire or natural tendency to shift back into autopilot for the remainder of the drive. I was alert and attentive, and fully engaged in the task at hand. I was a better driver.</p>
<p>And in reality, the excuse for my auto-piloting is false; no two trips are the same. Sure, the origin and destination may be, but the rest of the experience includes thousands of variables unique to that drive—different drivers around me, different road conditions, different amount of sleep I had the night before, different thoughts running through my head, etc. It’s a false security to claim that because I’m heading to a familiar place, that I’m safe to tune out and let my subconscious mind take over.</p>
<p>I suggest that the same holds true for our spirituality and coming to church each Sunday as part of keeping this day holy. Sometimes it might feel like week after week, church meetings become monotonous and repetitive, neither interesting nor inspiring. But each week is different. You’re different. You’ve had experiences, good and bad, that merit pondering, repentance, or repetition. There are new people attending this assembly—members of the body of Christ whose purpose you can help discover. Perhaps there are people absent who you can think about, and reach out to, letting them know they were missed.</p>
<p>It’s a false security to claim that because church is familiar, that it’s safe to tune out and go through the motions. Lest we forget, Satan “rage[s] in the hearts of the children of men, and stir[s] them up to anger against that which is good. And others [he] pacif[ies], and lull[s] away into carnal security, [so] they [] say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell” (2 Ne. 28:20-21). We are in the midst of a war that commenced in the pre-mortal realm. Can we succeed in defending against an enemy we don’t understand or pay attention to? If we treat lightly the weekly renewal that church meetings can provide, and the spiritual fortification that keeping the entire Sabbath day holy can offer, how will we fare in the succeeding days when we are incrementally exposed to Satan’s rage and pacification through work colleagues, friends, classmates, and every form of media? Are we here today, at church, actively looking to restore and fortify our armor of God, as we head out into the battlefield during the remainder of the week? Do we even know that the battle is happening?</p>
<p>For at least two decades, the leaders we sustain as prophets and seers have been especially concerned “with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world.” The Proclamation on the family, as noted earlier, was introduced to help combat this trend. But keeping the Sabbath day holy is also a method to consistently combat the infectious “ways of the world.” We’ve each been commanded by God to “go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day” in order to “more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world” (D&amp;C 59:9).</p>
<p>Meeting together today is only one aspect of keeping the Sabbath day holy, but it’s an important one. We renew our baptismal covenant by taking the sacrament, and re-commit ourselves as disciples of Christ to keep His commandments. Through song and instruction, we worship Jesus Christ and publicly declare our allegiance to him. We study the gospel, discuss its application in our lives, and fellowship together to support and serve one another. It’s important that each of us is here in church each week, but it’s more important that the church is in each of us—that instead of being a passive three hours, it’s a participatory experience that empowers us to become better Christians, better spouses, better parents, and better people.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=z9OMuXUAfNQ:oa-cy8zRfbs:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=z9OMuXUAfNQ:oa-cy8zRfbs:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=z9OMuXUAfNQ:oa-cy8zRfbs:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1439137756;}i:6;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:72:"The LDS Church Should Abandon the Boy Scouts—But for the Right Reasons";s:4:"link";s:103:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-lds-church-should-abandon-the-boy-scouts-but-for-the-right-reasons";s:8:"comments";s:112:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-lds-church-should-abandon-the-boy-scouts-but-for-the-right-reasons#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sun, 02 Aug 2015 17:06:53 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Religion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3425";s:11:"description";s:404:"At the Boy Scouts of America&#8217;s annual meeting in 2014, the organization&#8217;s president, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, stated that he strongly believed that to allow homosexual leaders to participate in the program &#8220;would irreparably fracture or perhaps even provoke a formal, permanent split in this movement,&#8221; and declared that he would &#8220;oppose any [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:12378:"<p>At the Boy Scouts of America&#8217;s annual meeting in 2014, the organization&#8217;s president, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/05/24/3441414/robert-gates-would-have-supported-gay-scoutmasters/">stated</a> that he strongly believed that to allow homosexual leaders to participate in the program &#8220;would irreparably fracture or perhaps even provoke a formal, permanent split in this movement,&#8221; and declared that he would &#8220;oppose any effort&#8221; during his presidency to consider the issue. A year later, however, he reversed course, pushed for the policy change, and now the fracturing he previously feared may be coming true.</p>
<p>Following the BSA&#8217;s announcement that it would <a href="http://scoutingnewsroom.org/blog/boy-scouts-of-america-amends-adult-leadership-policy/">no longer prohibit openly gay adult leaders</a>, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints <a href="http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-re-evaluating-scouting-program">made an announcement of its own</a>. As the largest sponsoring organization of the Scouting program, constituting 17% of membership nationwide for the BSA, the LDS Church stated that &#8220;the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church&#8221; and as a result, &#8220;the century-long association with Scouting will need to be examined.&#8221; Many believe the writing is on the wall, and the relationship will soon end.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s ignore, for now, the confusing part of this announcement—the declaration that an openly homosexual leader in the BSA is &#8220;inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church.&#8221; (Did I miss an announcement in general conference?) As an Eagle Scout myself, and as the son of a dedicated, decade-long Scoutmaster who ran a functioning program providing memorable experiences for dozens of young men, I have spent the last few years pondering whether I want my son to participate at all. The Church&#8217;s potential separation—one which I previously believed would never occur under the presidency of Thomas S. Monson, an <a href="http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&amp;sid=2605476">über Scouter</a> who has <a href="http://www.ldsbsa.org/lds-bsa-scouting-history/thomas-s-monson-award/">an award in his name</a>—may make my decision easier.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll say it outright: I believe that the Church <em>should</em> separate from the BSA, but for the right reasons.</p>
<p><span id="more-3425"></span></p>
<p>My argument can be best explained, perhaps, by contrasting it against its opposite. Noah Feldman, a law professor <a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-31/mormons-american-dream-includes-the-boy-scouts">writing in <em>Bloomberg</em></a>, claims that the LDS Church needs the BSA in order to retain its Americana image. The Church, he says, has long &#8220;striven to integrate into American society&#8221; and that &#8220;Scouting has been an important vector for LDS integration into mainstream American life.&#8221; Leaving the BSA, argues Feldman, would change the Church&#8217;s <em>general</em> policy from one of &#8220;integration&#8221; with Americans to &#8220;separation.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;To be a Boy Scout is to be proudly American,&#8221; Feldman writes—never mind the fact that Scouting is of English heritage, not American, owing to its creation by Robert Baden-Powell, a lieutenant general in the British Army who wanted to teach boys about reconnaissance and military scouting. For its part, the LDS Church made clear in its announcement that as a global organization, it had &#8220;long been evaluating the limitations that fully one-half of its youth face where Scouting is not available.&#8221; (And what about all the girls?)</p>
<p>While the issue of homosexual leaders is a concern to many, myself included, there are significant issues with Scouting more generally that lead me to believe that the LDS Church would be better off on its own. Feldman&#8217;s article almost makes the point for itself. The awkward association between American nationalism and The Church of Jesus Christ—whose kingdom was not only <em>not</em> connected to The United States of America, but <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/18.36#35">not even</a> &#8220;of this world&#8221;—is reason enough to part ways. Young men and women should be educated and encouraged to become dedicated followers of Christ, and not the American flag. Fixating their view on both God and Caesar—encouraging loyalty and fidelity <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_Promise">to both</a>, despite being taught that <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/6.24#23">no man can serve two masters</a>—is a paradoxical program in desperate need of realignment.</p>
<p>Or, abandonment. The Scouting program is steeped in statism. Baden-Powell himself was an authoritarian whose vision of his fledgling program was to train boys in militaristic fashion with the virtues that militaries focus on and foster. &#8220;A Scout is loyal to the King&#8221; and his subordinates, Baden-Powell <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_Law">wrote</a>. &#8220;He must stick to them through thick and thin against anyone who is their enemy, or who even talks badly of them.&#8221; Unsurprisingly, unquestioning and submissive obedience is another &#8220;Scout law&#8221; Baden-Powell created. &#8220;A Scout obeys orders… without question. Even if he gets an order he does not like, he must do as soldiers and sailors do, he must carry it out all the same <em>because it is his duty</em>…&#8221; (emphasis in the original). Present in Scouting are the virtues of a good soldier: courage, patriotism, self-discipline, and obedience; absent is emphasis on humility, love, knowledge, individual expression, etc.</p>
<div style="font-size: 11px; font-style: italic; color: #333; text-align: center; padding-bottom: 8px;"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/05/14/us/14explorers2-600a.jpg" alt="" /><br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html?_r=2&amp;ref=us">Scouting youth train</a> in an anti-terrorism military exercise</div>
<p>Spencer W. Kimball <a href="http://warlikepeople.com/">noted four decades ago</a> that Americans tend to &#8220;train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching&#8221; of loving our enemies. Does Scouting foster the former, or the latter?</p>
<p>While Baden-Powell <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=R2lJgMD9MRAC&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;dq=scouting%20for%20boys&amp;pg=PA320#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false">encouraged</a> his young followers to &#8220;work for the good of the State&#8221; and to not &#8220;think of yourself, but think of your country and your employers,&#8221; the American program encourages becoming a citizen of the community, nation, and world. Youth are still seen today as they were in the progressive industrialist era in which Scouting was born: cogs in a machine that need to be molded, refined, and polished to become a well functioning component, subordinate to the interests and goals of the collective.</p>
<p>I would hope it would be different in the Church of Jesus Christ. I believe my son, as a spiritual son of God, has an identity shaped over eons of premortal study, interaction, and progress. I believe he has talents, interests, and priorities that need not be programmed, but discovered. I don&#8217;t want him to become an &#8220;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/us/mormons-and-scouts-act-as-partners-in-molding-boys.html?_r=2&amp;pagewanted=1&amp;hp">upstanding citizen</a>,&#8221; since this pathetically low benchmark has produced, throughout the world&#8217;s history, droves of mindless drones that follow tyrannical orders &#8220;because it&#8217;s the law&#8221; or &#8220;because it&#8217;s their duty&#8221; or &#8220;because they were ordered to.&#8221; I want my son to discover his true identity and mission in life, use his agency to fulfill his divinely appointed stewardship, and pursue his path where it leads him. He is an individual—a child of God. He is not a &#8220;citizen&#8221; whose duty is to King or country, especially since one&#8217;s duty to God often requires <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/religion-and-the-state-can-latter-day-man-serve-two-masters">defying Caesar&#8217;s demands</a>.</p>
<div style="font-size: 11px; font-style: italic; color: #333; text-align: center; padding-bottom: 8px;"><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/fb/bsaflag.jpg" alt="" /><br />
<a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-i-now-remain-silent-during-the-pledge-of-allegiance">Flag worship</a> and nationalism are core aspects of Scouting</div>
<p>There are myriad other reasons to abandon the BSA: high costs and aggressive fundraising programs annually annoying Church members; piles of paperwork and frequent training, discouraging adult leaders from full and enthusiastic participation; a split focus, with youth and leaders struggling to find the balance between the Church&#8217;s program for young men and the BSA; and an obsession with rank advancement and micro-managed measurement of progress, causing many to lose sight of the forest for the trees.</p>
<p>Feldman writes that Mormonism&#8217;s separation from the BSA would be &#8220;an act of secession for the church—secession from the evolving American way.&#8221; Homosexual leaders or not, I contend that this would be a good thing, since the &#8220;American way&#8221; is hardly an ideal to be inculcated in every child, let alone one that has received a divine stamp of approval. &#8220;It will always be necessary to have institutional ties and practices to the American mainstream,&#8221; he continues, &#8220;in order to be accepted by it.&#8221; Perhaps the time has come to stop prioritizing cultural acceptance and focus more on being a <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/peculiar-people">peculiar people</a>.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d love to see a Church program for both boys and girls that features many of Scouting&#8217;s praiseworthy components, but with a Christian individualist twist:</p>
<ul>
<li>Regular camping and other outdoor adventure activities, with a focus on God as Creator, appreciation for the beauty of nature, and exploration of the abundance and diversity in the world around us.</li>
<li>Weekly exposure to life skills from a variety of areas, taught by those with expertise and experience in the field.</li>
<li>Fellowshipping with and service to fellow youth and others in the community.</li>
<li>Discussion groups on how to be faithful to God, encouraging youth to share their struggles and support one another.</li>
<li>Teamwork and leadership training opportunities, with a focus on building skills to build the kingdom of God.</li>
</ul>
<p>I regularly speak to homeschooling groups, and sometimes share my concern that many homeschool families are literally creating school at home—implementing the awful aspects of government institutions within the four walls of their own home. If one is to homeschool, one should <em>do it right</em> and not merely replicate public schools within one&#8217;s own house. If the Church is to separate from the BSA, I would likewise hope that radical change is on the table, rather than retaining some of Scouting&#8217;s more systemic issues.</p>
<p>For me, the issue of homosexual leaders in the BSA is a small concern compared to those listed above, yet it may be the driving force that leads to the separation I strongly support. As a former Scouter myself, and as the father of a son who is more than a cog in a machine, I hope that his future opportunities as a young man within the Church are conducive to the plans God has for him.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=LHyVLhjMuow:x5PqS4NRLr0:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=LHyVLhjMuow:x5PqS4NRLr0:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=LHyVLhjMuow:x5PqS4NRLr0:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:108:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-lds-church-should-abandon-the-boy-scouts-but-for-the-right-reasons/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"27";}s:7:"summary";s:404:"At the Boy Scouts of America&#8217;s annual meeting in 2014, the organization&#8217;s president, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, stated that he strongly believed that to allow homosexual leaders to participate in the program &#8220;would irreparably fracture or perhaps even provoke a formal, permanent split in this movement,&#8221; and declared that he would &#8220;oppose any [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:12378:"<p>At the Boy Scouts of America&#8217;s annual meeting in 2014, the organization&#8217;s president, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/05/24/3441414/robert-gates-would-have-supported-gay-scoutmasters/">stated</a> that he strongly believed that to allow homosexual leaders to participate in the program &#8220;would irreparably fracture or perhaps even provoke a formal, permanent split in this movement,&#8221; and declared that he would &#8220;oppose any effort&#8221; during his presidency to consider the issue. A year later, however, he reversed course, pushed for the policy change, and now the fracturing he previously feared may be coming true.</p>
<p>Following the BSA&#8217;s announcement that it would <a href="http://scoutingnewsroom.org/blog/boy-scouts-of-america-amends-adult-leadership-policy/">no longer prohibit openly gay adult leaders</a>, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints <a href="http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-re-evaluating-scouting-program">made an announcement of its own</a>. As the largest sponsoring organization of the Scouting program, constituting 17% of membership nationwide for the BSA, the LDS Church stated that &#8220;the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church&#8221; and as a result, &#8220;the century-long association with Scouting will need to be examined.&#8221; Many believe the writing is on the wall, and the relationship will soon end.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s ignore, for now, the confusing part of this announcement—the declaration that an openly homosexual leader in the BSA is &#8220;inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church.&#8221; (Did I miss an announcement in general conference?) As an Eagle Scout myself, and as the son of a dedicated, decade-long Scoutmaster who ran a functioning program providing memorable experiences for dozens of young men, I have spent the last few years pondering whether I want my son to participate at all. The Church&#8217;s potential separation—one which I previously believed would never occur under the presidency of Thomas S. Monson, an <a href="http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&amp;sid=2605476">über Scouter</a> who has <a href="http://www.ldsbsa.org/lds-bsa-scouting-history/thomas-s-monson-award/">an award in his name</a>—may make my decision easier.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll say it outright: I believe that the Church <em>should</em> separate from the BSA, but for the right reasons.</p>
<p><span id="more-3425"></span></p>
<p>My argument can be best explained, perhaps, by contrasting it against its opposite. Noah Feldman, a law professor <a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-31/mormons-american-dream-includes-the-boy-scouts">writing in <em>Bloomberg</em></a>, claims that the LDS Church needs the BSA in order to retain its Americana image. The Church, he says, has long &#8220;striven to integrate into American society&#8221; and that &#8220;Scouting has been an important vector for LDS integration into mainstream American life.&#8221; Leaving the BSA, argues Feldman, would change the Church&#8217;s <em>general</em> policy from one of &#8220;integration&#8221; with Americans to &#8220;separation.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;To be a Boy Scout is to be proudly American,&#8221; Feldman writes—never mind the fact that Scouting is of English heritage, not American, owing to its creation by Robert Baden-Powell, a lieutenant general in the British Army who wanted to teach boys about reconnaissance and military scouting. For its part, the LDS Church made clear in its announcement that as a global organization, it had &#8220;long been evaluating the limitations that fully one-half of its youth face where Scouting is not available.&#8221; (And what about all the girls?)</p>
<p>While the issue of homosexual leaders is a concern to many, myself included, there are significant issues with Scouting more generally that lead me to believe that the LDS Church would be better off on its own. Feldman&#8217;s article almost makes the point for itself. The awkward association between American nationalism and The Church of Jesus Christ—whose kingdom was not only <em>not</em> connected to The United States of America, but <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/18.36#35">not even</a> &#8220;of this world&#8221;—is reason enough to part ways. Young men and women should be educated and encouraged to become dedicated followers of Christ, and not the American flag. Fixating their view on both God and Caesar—encouraging loyalty and fidelity <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_Promise">to both</a>, despite being taught that <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/6.24#23">no man can serve two masters</a>—is a paradoxical program in desperate need of realignment.</p>
<p>Or, abandonment. The Scouting program is steeped in statism. Baden-Powell himself was an authoritarian whose vision of his fledgling program was to train boys in militaristic fashion with the virtues that militaries focus on and foster. &#8220;A Scout is loyal to the King&#8221; and his subordinates, Baden-Powell <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_Law">wrote</a>. &#8220;He must stick to them through thick and thin against anyone who is their enemy, or who even talks badly of them.&#8221; Unsurprisingly, unquestioning and submissive obedience is another &#8220;Scout law&#8221; Baden-Powell created. &#8220;A Scout obeys orders… without question. Even if he gets an order he does not like, he must do as soldiers and sailors do, he must carry it out all the same <em>because it is his duty</em>…&#8221; (emphasis in the original). Present in Scouting are the virtues of a good soldier: courage, patriotism, self-discipline, and obedience; absent is emphasis on humility, love, knowledge, individual expression, etc.</p>
<div style="font-size: 11px; font-style: italic; color: #333; text-align: center; padding-bottom: 8px;"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/05/14/us/14explorers2-600a.jpg" alt="" /><br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html?_r=2&amp;ref=us">Scouting youth train</a> in an anti-terrorism military exercise</div>
<p>Spencer W. Kimball <a href="http://warlikepeople.com/">noted four decades ago</a> that Americans tend to &#8220;train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching&#8221; of loving our enemies. Does Scouting foster the former, or the latter?</p>
<p>While Baden-Powell <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=R2lJgMD9MRAC&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;dq=scouting%20for%20boys&amp;pg=PA320#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false">encouraged</a> his young followers to &#8220;work for the good of the State&#8221; and to not &#8220;think of yourself, but think of your country and your employers,&#8221; the American program encourages becoming a citizen of the community, nation, and world. Youth are still seen today as they were in the progressive industrialist era in which Scouting was born: cogs in a machine that need to be molded, refined, and polished to become a well functioning component, subordinate to the interests and goals of the collective.</p>
<p>I would hope it would be different in the Church of Jesus Christ. I believe my son, as a spiritual son of God, has an identity shaped over eons of premortal study, interaction, and progress. I believe he has talents, interests, and priorities that need not be programmed, but discovered. I don&#8217;t want him to become an &#8220;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/us/mormons-and-scouts-act-as-partners-in-molding-boys.html?_r=2&amp;pagewanted=1&amp;hp">upstanding citizen</a>,&#8221; since this pathetically low benchmark has produced, throughout the world&#8217;s history, droves of mindless drones that follow tyrannical orders &#8220;because it&#8217;s the law&#8221; or &#8220;because it&#8217;s their duty&#8221; or &#8220;because they were ordered to.&#8221; I want my son to discover his true identity and mission in life, use his agency to fulfill his divinely appointed stewardship, and pursue his path where it leads him. He is an individual—a child of God. He is not a &#8220;citizen&#8221; whose duty is to King or country, especially since one&#8217;s duty to God often requires <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/religion-and-the-state-can-latter-day-man-serve-two-masters">defying Caesar&#8217;s demands</a>.</p>
<div style="font-size: 11px; font-style: italic; color: #333; text-align: center; padding-bottom: 8px;"><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/fb/bsaflag.jpg" alt="" /><br />
<a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-i-now-remain-silent-during-the-pledge-of-allegiance">Flag worship</a> and nationalism are core aspects of Scouting</div>
<p>There are myriad other reasons to abandon the BSA: high costs and aggressive fundraising programs annually annoying Church members; piles of paperwork and frequent training, discouraging adult leaders from full and enthusiastic participation; a split focus, with youth and leaders struggling to find the balance between the Church&#8217;s program for young men and the BSA; and an obsession with rank advancement and micro-managed measurement of progress, causing many to lose sight of the forest for the trees.</p>
<p>Feldman writes that Mormonism&#8217;s separation from the BSA would be &#8220;an act of secession for the church—secession from the evolving American way.&#8221; Homosexual leaders or not, I contend that this would be a good thing, since the &#8220;American way&#8221; is hardly an ideal to be inculcated in every child, let alone one that has received a divine stamp of approval. &#8220;It will always be necessary to have institutional ties and practices to the American mainstream,&#8221; he continues, &#8220;in order to be accepted by it.&#8221; Perhaps the time has come to stop prioritizing cultural acceptance and focus more on being a <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/peculiar-people">peculiar people</a>.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d love to see a Church program for both boys and girls that features many of Scouting&#8217;s praiseworthy components, but with a Christian individualist twist:</p>
<ul>
<li>Regular camping and other outdoor adventure activities, with a focus on God as Creator, appreciation for the beauty of nature, and exploration of the abundance and diversity in the world around us.</li>
<li>Weekly exposure to life skills from a variety of areas, taught by those with expertise and experience in the field.</li>
<li>Fellowshipping with and service to fellow youth and others in the community.</li>
<li>Discussion groups on how to be faithful to God, encouraging youth to share their struggles and support one another.</li>
<li>Teamwork and leadership training opportunities, with a focus on building skills to build the kingdom of God.</li>
</ul>
<p>I regularly speak to homeschooling groups, and sometimes share my concern that many homeschool families are literally creating school at home—implementing the awful aspects of government institutions within the four walls of their own home. If one is to homeschool, one should <em>do it right</em> and not merely replicate public schools within one&#8217;s own house. If the Church is to separate from the BSA, I would likewise hope that radical change is on the table, rather than retaining some of Scouting&#8217;s more systemic issues.</p>
<p>For me, the issue of homosexual leaders in the BSA is a small concern compared to those listed above, yet it may be the driving force that leads to the separation I strongly support. As a former Scouter myself, and as the father of a son who is more than a cog in a machine, I hope that his future opportunities as a young man within the Church are conducive to the plans God has for him.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=LHyVLhjMuow:x5PqS4NRLr0:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=LHyVLhjMuow:x5PqS4NRLr0:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=LHyVLhjMuow:x5PqS4NRLr0:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1438535213;}i:7;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:81:"Dear Kate Kelly: “Sparking Joy” is Not a Litmus Test for the Gospel of Christ";s:4:"link";s:107:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/dear-kate-kelly-sparking-joy-is-not-a-litmus-test-for-the-gospel-of-christ";s:8:"comments";s:116:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/dear-kate-kelly-sparking-joy-is-not-a-litmus-test-for-the-gospel-of-christ#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sun, 26 Jul 2015 13:58:17 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Religion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3423";s:11:"description";s:341:"Kate Kelly was excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints one year ago. In the months prior to this culminating severance, as her Ordain Women group increasingly agitated for a doctrinal shift in the Church, I observed and opined that she had reduced the restored gospel of Jesus Christ to a male-dominated [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:9028:"<p>Kate Kelly was excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints one year ago. In the months prior to this culminating severance, as her Ordain Women group increasingly agitated for a doctrinal shift in the Church, I observed and opined that she had reduced the restored gospel of Jesus Christ to a male-dominated social club in need of her feminizing reforms.</p>
<p>In one interview after another, I looked for—and failed to find—an expression of testimony. I awaited an affirmation of her faith. Instead, she would say things like &#8220;<a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865600318/Women-seeking-admission-to-priesthood-meeting-march-again-to-Temple-Square.html?pg=all">I love this church</a>,&#8221; &#8220;<a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58104587-78/women-kelly-church-ordain.html.csp">I love the gospel</a> and the courage of its people,&#8221; and that her mission through Ordain Women was to &#8220;<a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303910404579485782242824574">stand up</a> for [her]self and for people that [she] loved.&#8221; Indeed, in her written defense hoping to deter her bishop from choosing excommunication, there was not one whit of testimony—no attempt to make clear that her spiritual house was still built upon Christ&#8217;s rock. Instead, she <a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/230724199/Kate-Kelly-Letter-of-Defense-to-bishopric-deciding-her-fate">blandly informed the bishop</a> that she had loved her &#8220;association with the Church&#8221; and &#8220;the feeling&#8221; she got attending meetings, as if she was casually expressing affection for her local Rotary Club.</p>
<p>One year later, Kelly is <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2738628-155/kate-kelly-if-staying-in-lds">encouraging</a> her formerly fellow congregants to abandon our affiliation with the Church if our &#8220;participation in Mormonism [does not] spark joy.&#8221; Even now, the phrases she chooses are indicative of her indifference to the principles of the gospel—rather than referring to membership in the Church, or God&#8217;s kingdom, or belief in and commitment to the gospel, she presents a sterilized picture of &#8220;participation in Mormonism,&#8221; as if it&#8217;s a mere parade or fad or social campaign.</p>
<p><span id="more-3423"></span></p>
<p>For Kelly, her affiliation in the Church which booted her out had apparently degraded into nothing more than an additional identity—an extra few characters on one&#8217;s résumé, surrounded by similarly unnoteworthy endeavors such as membership in a jazz band or speech and debate club. Of course, from this perspective, it&#8217;s reasonable for her to suggest that if one&#8217;s &#8220;participation&#8221; in a group brings more perceived judgment than joy, one should simply walk away, shrugging off this previous identity like one would a sweat-stained jersey from a perpetually losing soccer team.</p>
<p>Those familiar with scripture will recognize the story of the <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/7.13-14#12">strait and narrow path</a>—the theological allegory denoting the difficulty of discipleship. Christ taught his followers that few would find this path, while on the other hand, &#8220;wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat.&#8221; Kelly, having chosen the latter course, predictably describes this newfound flexibility as &#8220;empowering.&#8221;</p>
<p>Neal A. Maxwell once wrote that the strait and narrow path is one &#8220;of high adventure for the brave, not the intolerant; it is not an ecclesiastical &#8216;country club&#8217; situated on a narrow theological terrace.&#8221; While the Kate Kellys of the world suggest that such associations should be for selfish benefit, providing joy as a baseline condition of considering affiliation, Christ makes clear that following Him will not be perpetual rainbows and sunshine.</p>
<p class="highlight">&#8220;Think not that I am come to send peace on earth,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/10.34-36?lang=eng#33">he taught</a> the Twelve Apostles. &#8220;I came not to send peace, but a sword.&#8221; Domestic turbulence and interpersonal strife were but a few of the conditions he suggested would result from choosing this path. These same apostles, commissioned to evangelize his teachings in the surrounding areas, did not shirk their duties in difficult times—they found joy during, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.41?lang=eng#40">and even because of</a>, the persecutions they faced. Similarly, Joseph Smith taught that &#8220;a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.&#8221; Such a nuanced, complex, and rich theological outlook is lost on those who myopically dictate that things be a certain way to be worthy of their support.</p>
<p class="highlight">Of course, man is that he might have joy. At a casual glance of <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.25?lang=eng#24">this scripture</a>, one might hastily infer that if one&#8217;s &#8220;participation in Mormonism&#8221; (whatever that means) has failed to produce this emotion, it is worth searching for it elsewhere. But Ms. Kelly forgot, or chose to disbelieve, in the &#8220;<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.38?lang=eng#37">joy of Christ</a>&#8221; that is uniquely provided to us through the <a href="https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/living-book-mormon/atonement-jesus-christ-glad-tidings-great-joy">Savior&#8217;s atonement</a>. Christ&#8217;s Church need not be governed by equal parts male and female members to be true, and to be the vehicle for His gospel. Focusing on such a criteria—especially in apparent absence of any foundational fidelity to the gospel&#8217;s key tenets—completely misses the point of what &#8220;the church&#8221; Kelly once loved is actually about.</p>
<p class="highlight">Sometimes I find going to Church to be intellectually dull or spiritually lackluster. At different periods of my life I have considered discipleship to be demanding, and the ever-present checklist of ecclesiastical to-dos to be tedious. I have objected to organizational actions the Church has taken. In all the congregations I&#8217;ve been a part of throughout my life, there have been some <em>really</em> annoying people. In a few instances, I have been hurt by supposed Saints. And don&#8217;t get me started on what it&#8217;s like being stuck in nursery with a bratty, tired toddler producing voluminous amounts of noise and misery for myself and everybody within the sound of her voice.</p>
<p class="highlight">But I don&#8217;t attend worship services and &#8220;participate in Mormonism&#8221; primarily to make friends, or to feel good, or to cultivate an enjoyable association. I go because I believe in, and have received a witness of, the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that God speaks to man, that Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is a true record revealed by the power of God for our benefit and application, and that the priesthood authority to perform saving ordinances was likewise restored.</p>
<p class="highlight">Perhaps you&#8217;re a social outcast, an introvert, or you&#8217;ve been thrust into the outer darkness of adult interaction by being called to the Primary. Maybe a church leader in your ward is a bully, your choir can barely muster five people, or monthly testimony meetings have more awkward, lengthy pauses than testimonies. And then there&#8217;s the suffering Saints who fall through the cracks, the perpetually low home and visiting teaching statistics, or the teeth-pulling that has to happen to rally enough volunteers for some needed service.</p>
<p class="highlight">It&#8217;s clear that we Latter-day Saints have <em>a lot of room for improvement</em>; we&#8217;re not perfect. But let&#8217;s be clear: we&#8217;re not an association of self-interested social justice seekers trying to &#8220;<a href="http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2768326-155/latter-day-saints-gather-outside-mormon-headquarters?fullpage=1">raise hell</a>,&#8221; as Kelly suggested we should. We&#8217;re a community of Saints—disciples of Christ trying, however imperfectly, to follow His commandments, believe in His teachings, and seek His will in our lives. &#8220;Sparked joy&#8221; or not, we&#8217;re committed members of the body of Christ.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=EKpmqtFVhiU:7egLmJv1--Q:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=EKpmqtFVhiU:7egLmJv1--Q:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=EKpmqtFVhiU:7egLmJv1--Q:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:112:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/dear-kate-kelly-sparking-joy-is-not-a-litmus-test-for-the-gospel-of-christ/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:3:"136";}s:7:"summary";s:341:"Kate Kelly was excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints one year ago. In the months prior to this culminating severance, as her Ordain Women group increasingly agitated for a doctrinal shift in the Church, I observed and opined that she had reduced the restored gospel of Jesus Christ to a male-dominated [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:9028:"<p>Kate Kelly was excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints one year ago. In the months prior to this culminating severance, as her Ordain Women group increasingly agitated for a doctrinal shift in the Church, I observed and opined that she had reduced the restored gospel of Jesus Christ to a male-dominated social club in need of her feminizing reforms.</p>
<p>In one interview after another, I looked for—and failed to find—an expression of testimony. I awaited an affirmation of her faith. Instead, she would say things like &#8220;<a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865600318/Women-seeking-admission-to-priesthood-meeting-march-again-to-Temple-Square.html?pg=all">I love this church</a>,&#8221; &#8220;<a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58104587-78/women-kelly-church-ordain.html.csp">I love the gospel</a> and the courage of its people,&#8221; and that her mission through Ordain Women was to &#8220;<a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303910404579485782242824574">stand up</a> for [her]self and for people that [she] loved.&#8221; Indeed, in her written defense hoping to deter her bishop from choosing excommunication, there was not one whit of testimony—no attempt to make clear that her spiritual house was still built upon Christ&#8217;s rock. Instead, she <a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/230724199/Kate-Kelly-Letter-of-Defense-to-bishopric-deciding-her-fate">blandly informed the bishop</a> that she had loved her &#8220;association with the Church&#8221; and &#8220;the feeling&#8221; she got attending meetings, as if she was casually expressing affection for her local Rotary Club.</p>
<p>One year later, Kelly is <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2738628-155/kate-kelly-if-staying-in-lds">encouraging</a> her formerly fellow congregants to abandon our affiliation with the Church if our &#8220;participation in Mormonism [does not] spark joy.&#8221; Even now, the phrases she chooses are indicative of her indifference to the principles of the gospel—rather than referring to membership in the Church, or God&#8217;s kingdom, or belief in and commitment to the gospel, she presents a sterilized picture of &#8220;participation in Mormonism,&#8221; as if it&#8217;s a mere parade or fad or social campaign.</p>
<p><span id="more-3423"></span></p>
<p>For Kelly, her affiliation in the Church which booted her out had apparently degraded into nothing more than an additional identity—an extra few characters on one&#8217;s résumé, surrounded by similarly unnoteworthy endeavors such as membership in a jazz band or speech and debate club. Of course, from this perspective, it&#8217;s reasonable for her to suggest that if one&#8217;s &#8220;participation&#8221; in a group brings more perceived judgment than joy, one should simply walk away, shrugging off this previous identity like one would a sweat-stained jersey from a perpetually losing soccer team.</p>
<p>Those familiar with scripture will recognize the story of the <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/7.13-14#12">strait and narrow path</a>—the theological allegory denoting the difficulty of discipleship. Christ taught his followers that few would find this path, while on the other hand, &#8220;wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat.&#8221; Kelly, having chosen the latter course, predictably describes this newfound flexibility as &#8220;empowering.&#8221;</p>
<p>Neal A. Maxwell once wrote that the strait and narrow path is one &#8220;of high adventure for the brave, not the intolerant; it is not an ecclesiastical &#8216;country club&#8217; situated on a narrow theological terrace.&#8221; While the Kate Kellys of the world suggest that such associations should be for selfish benefit, providing joy as a baseline condition of considering affiliation, Christ makes clear that following Him will not be perpetual rainbows and sunshine.</p>
<p class="highlight">&#8220;Think not that I am come to send peace on earth,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/10.34-36?lang=eng#33">he taught</a> the Twelve Apostles. &#8220;I came not to send peace, but a sword.&#8221; Domestic turbulence and interpersonal strife were but a few of the conditions he suggested would result from choosing this path. These same apostles, commissioned to evangelize his teachings in the surrounding areas, did not shirk their duties in difficult times—they found joy during, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.41?lang=eng#40">and even because of</a>, the persecutions they faced. Similarly, Joseph Smith taught that &#8220;a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.&#8221; Such a nuanced, complex, and rich theological outlook is lost on those who myopically dictate that things be a certain way to be worthy of their support.</p>
<p class="highlight">Of course, man is that he might have joy. At a casual glance of <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.25?lang=eng#24">this scripture</a>, one might hastily infer that if one&#8217;s &#8220;participation in Mormonism&#8221; (whatever that means) has failed to produce this emotion, it is worth searching for it elsewhere. But Ms. Kelly forgot, or chose to disbelieve, in the &#8220;<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.38?lang=eng#37">joy of Christ</a>&#8221; that is uniquely provided to us through the <a href="https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/living-book-mormon/atonement-jesus-christ-glad-tidings-great-joy">Savior&#8217;s atonement</a>. Christ&#8217;s Church need not be governed by equal parts male and female members to be true, and to be the vehicle for His gospel. Focusing on such a criteria—especially in apparent absence of any foundational fidelity to the gospel&#8217;s key tenets—completely misses the point of what &#8220;the church&#8221; Kelly once loved is actually about.</p>
<p class="highlight">Sometimes I find going to Church to be intellectually dull or spiritually lackluster. At different periods of my life I have considered discipleship to be demanding, and the ever-present checklist of ecclesiastical to-dos to be tedious. I have objected to organizational actions the Church has taken. In all the congregations I&#8217;ve been a part of throughout my life, there have been some <em>really</em> annoying people. In a few instances, I have been hurt by supposed Saints. And don&#8217;t get me started on what it&#8217;s like being stuck in nursery with a bratty, tired toddler producing voluminous amounts of noise and misery for myself and everybody within the sound of her voice.</p>
<p class="highlight">But I don&#8217;t attend worship services and &#8220;participate in Mormonism&#8221; primarily to make friends, or to feel good, or to cultivate an enjoyable association. I go because I believe in, and have received a witness of, the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that God speaks to man, that Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is a true record revealed by the power of God for our benefit and application, and that the priesthood authority to perform saving ordinances was likewise restored.</p>
<p class="highlight">Perhaps you&#8217;re a social outcast, an introvert, or you&#8217;ve been thrust into the outer darkness of adult interaction by being called to the Primary. Maybe a church leader in your ward is a bully, your choir can barely muster five people, or monthly testimony meetings have more awkward, lengthy pauses than testimonies. And then there&#8217;s the suffering Saints who fall through the cracks, the perpetually low home and visiting teaching statistics, or the teeth-pulling that has to happen to rally enough volunteers for some needed service.</p>
<p class="highlight">It&#8217;s clear that we Latter-day Saints have <em>a lot of room for improvement</em>; we&#8217;re not perfect. But let&#8217;s be clear: we&#8217;re not an association of self-interested social justice seekers trying to &#8220;<a href="http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2768326-155/latter-day-saints-gather-outside-mormon-headquarters?fullpage=1">raise hell</a>,&#8221; as Kelly suggested we should. We&#8217;re a community of Saints—disciples of Christ trying, however imperfectly, to follow His commandments, believe in His teachings, and seek His will in our lives. &#8220;Sparked joy&#8221; or not, we&#8217;re committed members of the body of Christ.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=EKpmqtFVhiU:7egLmJv1--Q:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=EKpmqtFVhiU:7egLmJv1--Q:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=EKpmqtFVhiU:7egLmJv1--Q:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1437919097;}i:8;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:83:"Lazy Conservatives and a Losing Cause: Marriage, Morality, and a Missed Opportunity";s:4:"link";s:113:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/lazy-conservatives-and-a-losing-cause-marriage-morality-and-a-missed-opportunity";s:8:"comments";s:122:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/lazy-conservatives-and-a-losing-cause-marriage-morality-and-a-missed-opportunity#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:57:34 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:4:"Misc";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3421";s:11:"description";s:378:"This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a legal opinion on a 5-4 vote, holding that every state in the country must recognize, and perform, marriages for same-sex couples. Predictably, conservatives are outraged. Contrary to what they believe, they bear some of the blame for today&#8217;s ruling. I&#8217;ve grown quite fond of the adage, &#8220;Never give your [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:3295:"<p>This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a legal opinion on a 5-4 vote, holding that every state in the country must recognize, and perform, marriages for same-sex couples. Predictably, conservatives are outraged.</p>
<p>Contrary to what they believe, they bear some of the blame for today&#8217;s ruling.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve grown quite fond of the adage, &#8220;Never give your friend a power that you wouldn&#8217;t want your enemy to have.&#8221; In political parlance, this means you shouldn&#8217;t empower the state to do something you like when your party or perspective is dominant, because that power can be wrested from and used against you. And that&#8217;s what has happened here.</p>
<p><span id="more-3421"></span></p>
<p>Marriage licensure <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/state-sanctioned-marriage-rendering-unto-caesar-that-which-is-gods">has long been used</a> as a tool against undesirable people—a way to forcibly, financially, and politically undermine unions that the majority deems offensive or worthless. This government power has long been approved and encouraged by social conservatives looking to impose their religious and social views on society through the coercive arm of government.</p>
<p>Today, that coercive arm has punched them in the gut.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the thing: because these people relied on government to enforce their vision of society, they fell asleep at the wheel—they haven&#8217;t been persuading others as to the importance of man-woman marriage, or proselytizing the gospel and (their understanding of) God&#8217;s definition of marriage. They abandoned the marketplace of ideas in favor of the machinery of the state. They&#8217;ve been spending their time focused on ballot initiatives and legislative strategies, instead of marketing campaigns, evangelism, and individual interactions.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s little surprise, then, to watch the tides of public opinion shift so sharply. People generally get what they want–and now many people want what social conservatives have long been opposing.</p>
<p>This is why I say that such conservatives have been lazy, abdicating their responsibility to engage with others to government force. This was, from its inception, a losing cause. Those who are wailing and gnashing teeth in response to today&#8217;s court opinions and others preceding it should undergo some serious self-introspection and ask themselves what <em>they </em>have done—apart from showing up at the ballot box every so often—to advance the ideals and definitions they espouse.</p>
<p>Marriage is important, and morality is essential—but for too long, social conservatives have relied upon Caesar to impose such institutions and ideals on the masses. Today they begin to reap what they have sown—and they have nobody to blame but themselves.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=sqpyys4OJ24:2ut7iZaSqY4:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=sqpyys4OJ24:2ut7iZaSqY4:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=sqpyys4OJ24:2ut7iZaSqY4:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:118:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/lazy-conservatives-and-a-losing-cause-marriage-morality-and-a-missed-opportunity/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"25";}s:7:"summary";s:378:"This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a legal opinion on a 5-4 vote, holding that every state in the country must recognize, and perform, marriages for same-sex couples. Predictably, conservatives are outraged. Contrary to what they believe, they bear some of the blame for today&#8217;s ruling. I&#8217;ve grown quite fond of the adage, &#8220;Never give your [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:3295:"<p>This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a legal opinion on a 5-4 vote, holding that every state in the country must recognize, and perform, marriages for same-sex couples. Predictably, conservatives are outraged.</p>
<p>Contrary to what they believe, they bear some of the blame for today&#8217;s ruling.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve grown quite fond of the adage, &#8220;Never give your friend a power that you wouldn&#8217;t want your enemy to have.&#8221; In political parlance, this means you shouldn&#8217;t empower the state to do something you like when your party or perspective is dominant, because that power can be wrested from and used against you. And that&#8217;s what has happened here.</p>
<p><span id="more-3421"></span></p>
<p>Marriage licensure <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/state-sanctioned-marriage-rendering-unto-caesar-that-which-is-gods">has long been used</a> as a tool against undesirable people—a way to forcibly, financially, and politically undermine unions that the majority deems offensive or worthless. This government power has long been approved and encouraged by social conservatives looking to impose their religious and social views on society through the coercive arm of government.</p>
<p>Today, that coercive arm has punched them in the gut.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the thing: because these people relied on government to enforce their vision of society, they fell asleep at the wheel—they haven&#8217;t been persuading others as to the importance of man-woman marriage, or proselytizing the gospel and (their understanding of) God&#8217;s definition of marriage. They abandoned the marketplace of ideas in favor of the machinery of the state. They&#8217;ve been spending their time focused on ballot initiatives and legislative strategies, instead of marketing campaigns, evangelism, and individual interactions.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s little surprise, then, to watch the tides of public opinion shift so sharply. People generally get what they want–and now many people want what social conservatives have long been opposing.</p>
<p>This is why I say that such conservatives have been lazy, abdicating their responsibility to engage with others to government force. This was, from its inception, a losing cause. Those who are wailing and gnashing teeth in response to today&#8217;s court opinions and others preceding it should undergo some serious self-introspection and ask themselves what <em>they </em>have done—apart from showing up at the ballot box every so often—to advance the ideals and definitions they espouse.</p>
<p>Marriage is important, and morality is essential—but for too long, social conservatives have relied upon Caesar to impose such institutions and ideals on the masses. Today they begin to reap what they have sown—and they have nobody to blame but themselves.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=sqpyys4OJ24:2ut7iZaSqY4:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=sqpyys4OJ24:2ut7iZaSqY4:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=sqpyys4OJ24:2ut7iZaSqY4:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1435334254;}i:9;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:61:"Religion and the State: Can Latter-day Man Serve Two Masters?";s:4:"link";s:92:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/religion-and-the-state-can-latter-day-man-serve-two-masters";s:8:"comments";s:101:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/religion-and-the-state-can-latter-day-man-serve-two-masters#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:39:41 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:16:"PoliticsReligion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3419";s:11:"description";s:384:"Jewish leaders conspired to kill Jesus Christ. It was thought by many Sadducees—the aristocratic class controlling the Sanhedrin, Israel&#8217;s highest political body—that this act would squash the uprising and neutralize the threat to their power. They thought wrong. You see, Peter had found his voice; having denied the living Christ, he finally mustered the courage [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:8594:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/capitoltemple.jpg" alt=""/></p>
<p>Jewish leaders conspired to kill Jesus Christ. It was thought by many Sadducees—the aristocratic class controlling the Sanhedrin, Israel&#8217;s highest political body—that this act would squash the uprising and neutralize the threat to their power. They thought wrong.</p>
<p>You see, Peter had found his voice; having denied the living Christ, he finally mustered the courage to boldly proclaim Christ crucified. The message was carried on, much to the dismay of the ruling elite in Jerusalem.</p>
<p>&#8220;What shall we do to these men?&#8221; they <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/4.16#15">asked</a> themselves, scheming how to react anew to this persistent perturbance. &#8220;Let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.&#8221;&nbsp;And that&#8217;s what they did.</p>
<p>But Peter and his apostolic associates continued in their work, having been commissioned of Jesus Christ to carry his gospel to the four corners of the Earth. The teaching continued, as did the miracles. And in response, the high priest and his fellow Sadducees on the council &#8220;were filled with indignation,&#8221; fueling their animosity enough to actually <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.17-18?lang=eng#16">seize and incarcerate</a> the religious renegades.</p>
<p><span id="more-3419"></span></p>
<p>Later brought before the council, Peter was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.27-29?lang=eng#26">questioned</a> as to why he had defied their threats. &#8220;Did we&nbsp;not we straitly command&nbsp;you that ye should not teach in [Christ&#8217;s]&nbsp;name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s&nbsp;blood&nbsp;upon us.&#8221;</p>
<p>Peter&#8217;s <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.29?lang=eng#28">response</a> provides the theological foundation upon which Christians have defied unjust decrees in succeeding centuries: &#8220;<em>We ought to obey God rather than men.</em>&#8221;</p>
<p>Jesus Christ himself avoided the murderous mandate of a corrupt government when, following God&#8217;s counsel, his family&nbsp;fled to Egypt to escape the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM">democide</a> King Herod ordered upon male infants two years of age and younger. &nbsp;Later in life, he all but ignored the ruling regime as he went about his Father&#8217;s business.</p>
<p>It makes sense why; Christ himself explained in explicit detail that loyalties cannot be split. &#8220;No man can serve two masters,&#8221; he said in his Sermon on the Mount, &#8220;for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.&#8221; Especially when competing powers pit themselves against one another—God and the state—it becomes clear that, as Peter indicated, it is better to disregard the political pressures of one&#8217;s peers in favor of following the divine course.</p>
<p>&#8220;But shouldn&#8217;t we submit to the state?&#8221; Latter-day Saints ask along with their confused counterparts from two millennia ago.&nbsp;&#8220;Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/20.22?lang=eng#21">or no</a>?&#8221; Again, Christ&#8217;s counsel cut to the heart of the <a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/03/jeffrey-f-barr/render-unto-caesar-amostmisunderstood-newtestamentpassage/">issue</a>: &#8220;Render therefore unto&nbsp;Caesar the&nbsp;things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.&#8221; This leaves to the reader the operative question of&nbsp;<em>what</em> belongs to the proverbial Caesars in our day—which of their claims and mandates deserve our loyalty, and when.</p>
<p>If everything belongs to God—a concept supported by <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ps/24.1?lang=eng#0">ancient</a> and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/4.22?lang=eng#21">modern</a> scripture—the question readily answers itself.</p>
<p>Governments throughout history have had an abysmal&nbsp;and&nbsp;tragic&nbsp;track record. The&nbsp;list is as depressing&nbsp;as it is endless—states of all sizes have imprisoned political dissenters, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide">exterminated</a> undesirables, suppressed conscience, confiscated property, devaluated currency, and otherwise been the instigators of injustice and immorality. Operating on&nbsp;the theoretical basis of protecting rights, governments have repeatedly proven themselves to be&nbsp;the chief <em>violators</em> of individual rights—the disease masquerading as the cure.</p>
<p>Even in the so-called &#8220;land of the free,&#8221; the government plunders property, police kill innocent people, bureaucrats force people out of business, legislators break apart families by incarcerating the breadwinners over non-violent offenses against the state&#8217;s&nbsp;vision of society, and faceless foreigners are&nbsp;consistently killed, written off as collateral damage in a siege of never-ending international conflict, now orchestrated by unseen demons from the sky. These brief examples don&#8217;t do justice to the magnitude of the problem, and the degree to which the U.S. Constitution has utterly failed to restrain government power.</p>
<p>And yet Latter-day Saints are sometimes encouraged to serve both God and state. Take, for example, a recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/07/religion-and-government?lang=eng"><em>Ensign</em> article</a>&nbsp;titled &#8220;Religion and Government.&#8221; Readers are told that religion is &#8220;most successful and most effective&#8221; when it &#8220;protect[s] and encourage[s]&#8221; the government. &#8220;A complete divorce&#8221; of religion and government, on the other hand, &#8220;is healthy for neither.&#8221; Properly implemented, the article&#8217;s author asserts, religion &#8220;encourages good citizenship and adherence to the law of the land.&#8221;</p>
<p>What if the &#8220;law of the land&#8221; compels a Christian photographer or baker to participate in and support a homosexual marriage service?</p>
<p>What if the law requires a Christian to be conscripted into killing innocent people half a world away in an unjust military intervention?</p>
<p>What if the law requires a horribly sick, bed-ridden mother of young children to steer clear of a natural plant that can bring her relief where pharmaceuticals couldn&#8217;t, and restore quality of life to her entire family?</p>
<p>What if the law criminalizes speech or condones slavery?</p>
<p>What if the law legalizes the theft of property, outlaws prayer, sanctions the murder of unborn children, or censors evidence of government corruption?</p>
<p>What if the law has been substituted for the <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/modern-day-gadiantonism-government-by-the-laws-of-wickedness">laws of wickedness</a>, allowing Gadiantons to gain control?</p>
<p>Shall we submit in each case, and in so doing be considered a good religionist—a model Latter-day Saint?</p>
<p>There have been, and will continue to be, times in&nbsp;which men&#8217;s loyalty is split between&nbsp;masters: God and the state. Unqualified subservience to the latter—whether out of fear, duty, or ignorance—is to place the former in secondary status. It is tantamount to disagreeing with Peter, saying instead that &#8220;We ought to obey men&nbsp;rather than God.&#8221;</p>
<p>Just as rendering unto Caesar requires understanding what he&#8217;s actually due, learning&nbsp;which laws actually deserve our loyalty requires an analysis deeper than the several seconds it would be afforded in Sunday School. Inquiring minds can <a href="http://libertasutah.org/thelaw/">start here</a>.</p>
<p>Religion needs government like a battered wife needs her abusive husband. Maybe a divorce is not the &#8220;healthy&#8221; option, but it&#8217;s best to stay as far away as possible until there is any valid reason to associate with it.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=jtj2NealyXI:1NvlaZZ5wRY:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=jtj2NealyXI:1NvlaZZ5wRY:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=jtj2NealyXI:1NvlaZZ5wRY:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:97:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/religion-and-the-state-can-latter-day-man-serve-two-masters/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"26";}s:7:"summary";s:384:"Jewish leaders conspired to kill Jesus Christ. It was thought by many Sadducees—the aristocratic class controlling the Sanhedrin, Israel&#8217;s highest political body—that this act would squash the uprising and neutralize the threat to their power. They thought wrong. You see, Peter had found his voice; having denied the living Christ, he finally mustered the courage [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:8594:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/capitoltemple.jpg" alt=""/></p>
<p>Jewish leaders conspired to kill Jesus Christ. It was thought by many Sadducees—the aristocratic class controlling the Sanhedrin, Israel&#8217;s highest political body—that this act would squash the uprising and neutralize the threat to their power. They thought wrong.</p>
<p>You see, Peter had found his voice; having denied the living Christ, he finally mustered the courage to boldly proclaim Christ crucified. The message was carried on, much to the dismay of the ruling elite in Jerusalem.</p>
<p>&#8220;What shall we do to these men?&#8221; they <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/4.16#15">asked</a> themselves, scheming how to react anew to this persistent perturbance. &#8220;Let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.&#8221;&nbsp;And that&#8217;s what they did.</p>
<p>But Peter and his apostolic associates continued in their work, having been commissioned of Jesus Christ to carry his gospel to the four corners of the Earth. The teaching continued, as did the miracles. And in response, the high priest and his fellow Sadducees on the council &#8220;were filled with indignation,&#8221; fueling their animosity enough to actually <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.17-18?lang=eng#16">seize and incarcerate</a> the religious renegades.</p>
<p><span id="more-3419"></span></p>
<p>Later brought before the council, Peter was <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.27-29?lang=eng#26">questioned</a> as to why he had defied their threats. &#8220;Did we&nbsp;not we straitly command&nbsp;you that ye should not teach in [Christ&#8217;s]&nbsp;name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s&nbsp;blood&nbsp;upon us.&#8221;</p>
<p>Peter&#8217;s <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/5.29?lang=eng#28">response</a> provides the theological foundation upon which Christians have defied unjust decrees in succeeding centuries: &#8220;<em>We ought to obey God rather than men.</em>&#8221;</p>
<p>Jesus Christ himself avoided the murderous mandate of a corrupt government when, following God&#8217;s counsel, his family&nbsp;fled to Egypt to escape the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM">democide</a> King Herod ordered upon male infants two years of age and younger. &nbsp;Later in life, he all but ignored the ruling regime as he went about his Father&#8217;s business.</p>
<p>It makes sense why; Christ himself explained in explicit detail that loyalties cannot be split. &#8220;No man can serve two masters,&#8221; he said in his Sermon on the Mount, &#8220;for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.&#8221; Especially when competing powers pit themselves against one another—God and the state—it becomes clear that, as Peter indicated, it is better to disregard the political pressures of one&#8217;s peers in favor of following the divine course.</p>
<p>&#8220;But shouldn&#8217;t we submit to the state?&#8221; Latter-day Saints ask along with their confused counterparts from two millennia ago.&nbsp;&#8220;Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/20.22?lang=eng#21">or no</a>?&#8221; Again, Christ&#8217;s counsel cut to the heart of the <a href="https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/03/jeffrey-f-barr/render-unto-caesar-amostmisunderstood-newtestamentpassage/">issue</a>: &#8220;Render therefore unto&nbsp;Caesar the&nbsp;things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.&#8221; This leaves to the reader the operative question of&nbsp;<em>what</em> belongs to the proverbial Caesars in our day—which of their claims and mandates deserve our loyalty, and when.</p>
<p>If everything belongs to God—a concept supported by <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ps/24.1?lang=eng#0">ancient</a> and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/4.22?lang=eng#21">modern</a> scripture—the question readily answers itself.</p>
<p>Governments throughout history have had an abysmal&nbsp;and&nbsp;tragic&nbsp;track record. The&nbsp;list is as depressing&nbsp;as it is endless—states of all sizes have imprisoned political dissenters, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide">exterminated</a> undesirables, suppressed conscience, confiscated property, devaluated currency, and otherwise been the instigators of injustice and immorality. Operating on&nbsp;the theoretical basis of protecting rights, governments have repeatedly proven themselves to be&nbsp;the chief <em>violators</em> of individual rights—the disease masquerading as the cure.</p>
<p>Even in the so-called &#8220;land of the free,&#8221; the government plunders property, police kill innocent people, bureaucrats force people out of business, legislators break apart families by incarcerating the breadwinners over non-violent offenses against the state&#8217;s&nbsp;vision of society, and faceless foreigners are&nbsp;consistently killed, written off as collateral damage in a siege of never-ending international conflict, now orchestrated by unseen demons from the sky. These brief examples don&#8217;t do justice to the magnitude of the problem, and the degree to which the U.S. Constitution has utterly failed to restrain government power.</p>
<p>And yet Latter-day Saints are sometimes encouraged to serve both God and state. Take, for example, a recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/07/religion-and-government?lang=eng"><em>Ensign</em> article</a>&nbsp;titled &#8220;Religion and Government.&#8221; Readers are told that religion is &#8220;most successful and most effective&#8221; when it &#8220;protect[s] and encourage[s]&#8221; the government. &#8220;A complete divorce&#8221; of religion and government, on the other hand, &#8220;is healthy for neither.&#8221; Properly implemented, the article&#8217;s author asserts, religion &#8220;encourages good citizenship and adherence to the law of the land.&#8221;</p>
<p>What if the &#8220;law of the land&#8221; compels a Christian photographer or baker to participate in and support a homosexual marriage service?</p>
<p>What if the law requires a Christian to be conscripted into killing innocent people half a world away in an unjust military intervention?</p>
<p>What if the law requires a horribly sick, bed-ridden mother of young children to steer clear of a natural plant that can bring her relief where pharmaceuticals couldn&#8217;t, and restore quality of life to her entire family?</p>
<p>What if the law criminalizes speech or condones slavery?</p>
<p>What if the law legalizes the theft of property, outlaws prayer, sanctions the murder of unborn children, or censors evidence of government corruption?</p>
<p>What if the law has been substituted for the <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/modern-day-gadiantonism-government-by-the-laws-of-wickedness">laws of wickedness</a>, allowing Gadiantons to gain control?</p>
<p>Shall we submit in each case, and in so doing be considered a good religionist—a model Latter-day Saint?</p>
<p>There have been, and will continue to be, times in&nbsp;which men&#8217;s loyalty is split between&nbsp;masters: God and the state. Unqualified subservience to the latter—whether out of fear, duty, or ignorance—is to place the former in secondary status. It is tantamount to disagreeing with Peter, saying instead that &#8220;We ought to obey men&nbsp;rather than God.&#8221;</p>
<p>Just as rendering unto Caesar requires understanding what he&#8217;s actually due, learning&nbsp;which laws actually deserve our loyalty requires an analysis deeper than the several seconds it would be afforded in Sunday School. Inquiring minds can <a href="http://libertasutah.org/thelaw/">start here</a>.</p>
<p>Religion needs government like a battered wife needs her abusive husband. Maybe a divorce is not the &#8220;healthy&#8221; option, but it&#8217;s best to stay as far away as possible until there is any valid reason to associate with it.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=jtj2NealyXI:1NvlaZZ5wRY:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=jtj2NealyXI:1NvlaZZ5wRY:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=jtj2NealyXI:1NvlaZZ5wRY:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1434983981;}i:10;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:29:"Mormons and Medical Marijuana";s:4:"link";s:62:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-and-medical-marijuana";s:8:"comments";s:71:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-and-medical-marijuana#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sun, 10 May 2015 21:08:22 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:16:"PoliticsReligion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3417";s:11:"description";s:360:"As Libertas Institute has become a leading force in the effort to legalize medical marijuana in Utah—the backyard of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—I&#8217;ve been paying attention more closely to the experiences and thoughts of Mormons around the country who use, or desire to use, cannabis as a medical treatment option. Nearly [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:6950:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/ldscannabis.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 25px;"/>As <a href="http://libertasutah.org">Libertas Institute</a> has become a leading force in the effort to <a href="http://libertasutah.org/cannabis/">legalize medical marijuana in Utah</a>—the backyard of <a href="http://lds.org">The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints</a>—I&#8217;ve been paying attention more closely to the experiences and thoughts of Mormons around the country who use, or desire to use, cannabis as a medical treatment option.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction">Nearly half</a> of the 50 states have now legalized cannabis for medicinal and/or recreational uses, thereby defying federal law criminalizing possession and use of the plant. This patchwork of policies has produced a similarly heterogenous set of experiences by church members.</p>
<p>The fundamental question to be addressed by followers of Christ who seek to keep His commandments is whether the use of this plant for medicinal purposes is an acceptable action. One litmus test used to help determine the answer to that question is the <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng">Word of Wisdom</a>, commonly known as the health standard to which Mormons adhere.</p>
<p><span id="more-3417"></span></p>
<p>This health standard—first revealed merely as a &#8220;greeting; not by commandment or constraint&#8221; and later <a href="https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf">turned into a commandment</a>—makes no mention of cannabis. It <em>does</em> say that &#8220;all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man… to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.&#8221;</p>
<p>The concern over cannabis is often irrational; many Mormons have no problem with doctors prescribing, and patients using, highly toxic opioids that lead to high rates of chemical dependency. Utah is <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/02/living/lisa-ling-mormon-drug-abuse-essay/">well known</a> for the large percentage of people dying from overdosing on prescription drugs. These aren&#8217;t drug addicts in the familiar sense—they are in too many cases upstanding individuals who find themselves needing pain relief and being sent down a spiral of dependency and self-destruction because opium is societally (and legally) accepted, whereas cannabis is not. An <a href="http://www.health.utah.gov/vipp/topics/prescription-drug-overdoses/">average of 21</a> Utahns die every month from overdosing on opioids.</p>
<p>The fact that a few politicians have decreed cannabis to be legally verboten has led many in the church&#8217;s lay clergy to ecclesiastically punish their congregants who have used it, even if under a doctor&#8217;s recommendation. I am aware of cases, for example, in which Church members who use cannabis for strictly medical purposes have had to surrender their temple recommend upon their bishop&#8217;s demand.</p>
<p>The gatekeeping questions that must be answered in the affirmative in order to enter the temple include two that may relate to the use of cannabis: &#8220;Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?&#8221; and &#8220;Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?&#8221; The Church&#8217;s official handbook, which bishops use to determine the worthiness of each member, encumbers the scriptural language of the Word of Wisdom with additional instructions that state, &#8220;Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.&#8221; Contextualized this way, the health code becomes tainted with legal implications; one is no longer allowed to use wholesome herbs that &#8220;God hath ordained&#8221; unless certain legislative and bureaucratic bodies have given their blessing. Doctors have additionally become placed by church leaders as mandatory intermediaries between a person and his or her own health treatment.</p>
<p>Taking medical cannabis thus introduces some uncertainty in determining how to appropriately answer the question regarding the Word of Wisdom. As for the other question, the interviewee can theoretically answer in the affirmative to the extent that the person is not lying about their use of cannabis—even if it is &#8220;against the law.&#8221;</p>
<p>In at least one area, would-be disciples of Christ who are using cannabis as a medical treatment are being denied the opportunity to be baptized at all. A mission president in Portland Oregon <a href="http://mormonism-unveiled.blogspot.com/2012/02/oregon-mission-president-instructs.html">instructed</a> the missionaries he&#8217;s in charge of that &#8220;no individual who smokes marijuana for &#8216;medicinal purposes&#8217; can be baptized a member of the Church in this mission.&#8221; His reasoning relies upon a faulty—<a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-making-friends-with-the-nazi-mammon-of-unrighteousness">though prevalent</a>—interpretation of the 12th Article of Faith, as well as a <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/05/state-supremacy-vs-the-supremacy-clause/">misinterpretation</a> of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It is quite sad to see priesthood holders subjecting a person&#8217;s spiritual progress to the political decrees of (often corrupt) agents of the government. (This becomes especially worrisome when considering the selective approach used; people violating immigration laws, for example, are baptized and welcomed into the faith.)</p>
<p>Having become so deeply involved in the effort to legalize medical cannabis in Utah, I have heard far too many stories about dependence and death, or suffering and side effects from law-abiding citizens who have relegated themselves to using dangerous or ineffective remedies to help treat or alleviate their conditions. Some of these people have confided in me their secret use of cannabis to provide relief when nothing else has worked—and some have been openly admitting their use of this plant. That such people are being pitted between much needed physical relief and good standing within their church is a tragic frustration that will hopefully soon be resolved through educating ecclesiastical leadership about its benefits, and taking politics out of what should only be a medical consideration.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=dEr0QkvepBw:DmkeBSnSADQ:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=dEr0QkvepBw:DmkeBSnSADQ:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=dEr0QkvepBw:DmkeBSnSADQ:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:67:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-and-medical-marijuana/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"38";}s:7:"summary";s:360:"As Libertas Institute has become a leading force in the effort to legalize medical marijuana in Utah—the backyard of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—I&#8217;ve been paying attention more closely to the experiences and thoughts of Mormons around the country who use, or desire to use, cannabis as a medical treatment option. Nearly [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:6950:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/ldscannabis.jpg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 25px;"/>As <a href="http://libertasutah.org">Libertas Institute</a> has become a leading force in the effort to <a href="http://libertasutah.org/cannabis/">legalize medical marijuana in Utah</a>—the backyard of <a href="http://lds.org">The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints</a>—I&#8217;ve been paying attention more closely to the experiences and thoughts of Mormons around the country who use, or desire to use, cannabis as a medical treatment option.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction">Nearly half</a> of the 50 states have now legalized cannabis for medicinal and/or recreational uses, thereby defying federal law criminalizing possession and use of the plant. This patchwork of policies has produced a similarly heterogenous set of experiences by church members.</p>
<p>The fundamental question to be addressed by followers of Christ who seek to keep His commandments is whether the use of this plant for medicinal purposes is an acceptable action. One litmus test used to help determine the answer to that question is the <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89?lang=eng">Word of Wisdom</a>, commonly known as the health standard to which Mormons adhere.</p>
<p><span id="more-3417"></span></p>
<p>This health standard—first revealed merely as a &#8220;greeting; not by commandment or constraint&#8221; and later <a href="https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf">turned into a commandment</a>—makes no mention of cannabis. It <em>does</em> say that &#8220;all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man… to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.&#8221;</p>
<p>The concern over cannabis is often irrational; many Mormons have no problem with doctors prescribing, and patients using, highly toxic opioids that lead to high rates of chemical dependency. Utah is <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/02/living/lisa-ling-mormon-drug-abuse-essay/">well known</a> for the large percentage of people dying from overdosing on prescription drugs. These aren&#8217;t drug addicts in the familiar sense—they are in too many cases upstanding individuals who find themselves needing pain relief and being sent down a spiral of dependency and self-destruction because opium is societally (and legally) accepted, whereas cannabis is not. An <a href="http://www.health.utah.gov/vipp/topics/prescription-drug-overdoses/">average of 21</a> Utahns die every month from overdosing on opioids.</p>
<p>The fact that a few politicians have decreed cannabis to be legally verboten has led many in the church&#8217;s lay clergy to ecclesiastically punish their congregants who have used it, even if under a doctor&#8217;s recommendation. I am aware of cases, for example, in which Church members who use cannabis for strictly medical purposes have had to surrender their temple recommend upon their bishop&#8217;s demand.</p>
<p>The gatekeeping questions that must be answered in the affirmative in order to enter the temple include two that may relate to the use of cannabis: &#8220;Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?&#8221; and &#8220;Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?&#8221; The Church&#8217;s official handbook, which bishops use to determine the worthiness of each member, encumbers the scriptural language of the Word of Wisdom with additional instructions that state, &#8220;Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.&#8221; Contextualized this way, the health code becomes tainted with legal implications; one is no longer allowed to use wholesome herbs that &#8220;God hath ordained&#8221; unless certain legislative and bureaucratic bodies have given their blessing. Doctors have additionally become placed by church leaders as mandatory intermediaries between a person and his or her own health treatment.</p>
<p>Taking medical cannabis thus introduces some uncertainty in determining how to appropriately answer the question regarding the Word of Wisdom. As for the other question, the interviewee can theoretically answer in the affirmative to the extent that the person is not lying about their use of cannabis—even if it is &#8220;against the law.&#8221;</p>
<p>In at least one area, would-be disciples of Christ who are using cannabis as a medical treatment are being denied the opportunity to be baptized at all. A mission president in Portland Oregon <a href="http://mormonism-unveiled.blogspot.com/2012/02/oregon-mission-president-instructs.html">instructed</a> the missionaries he&#8217;s in charge of that &#8220;no individual who smokes marijuana for &#8216;medicinal purposes&#8217; can be baptized a member of the Church in this mission.&#8221; His reasoning relies upon a faulty—<a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-making-friends-with-the-nazi-mammon-of-unrighteousness">though prevalent</a>—interpretation of the 12th Article of Faith, as well as a <a href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/05/state-supremacy-vs-the-supremacy-clause/">misinterpretation</a> of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It is quite sad to see priesthood holders subjecting a person&#8217;s spiritual progress to the political decrees of (often corrupt) agents of the government. (This becomes especially worrisome when considering the selective approach used; people violating immigration laws, for example, are baptized and welcomed into the faith.)</p>
<p>Having become so deeply involved in the effort to legalize medical cannabis in Utah, I have heard far too many stories about dependence and death, or suffering and side effects from law-abiding citizens who have relegated themselves to using dangerous or ineffective remedies to help treat or alleviate their conditions. Some of these people have confided in me their secret use of cannabis to provide relief when nothing else has worked—and some have been openly admitting their use of this plant. That such people are being pitted between much needed physical relief and good standing within their church is a tragic frustration that will hopefully soon be resolved through educating ecclesiastical leadership about its benefits, and taking politics out of what should only be a medical consideration.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=dEr0QkvepBw:DmkeBSnSADQ:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=dEr0QkvepBw:DmkeBSnSADQ:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=dEr0QkvepBw:DmkeBSnSADQ:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1431292102;}i:11;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:62:"Mormons Making Friends with the Nazi Mammon of Unrighteousness";s:4:"link";s:95:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-making-friends-with-the-nazi-mammon-of-unrighteousness";s:8:"comments";s:104:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-making-friends-with-the-nazi-mammon-of-unrighteousness#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:23:55 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:16:"PoliticsReligion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3411";s:11:"description";s:369:"In June 1933, just a few months after Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany, a convention of some seven thousand Jehovah&#8217;s Witnesses convened in Berlin. They unanimously adopted &#8220;A Declaration of Facts,&#8221; a document in which they established their opposition to the rising Nazi regime. Copies were sent to every government official they could [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:16981:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/monazi.jpg"/></p>
<p>In June 1933, just a few months after Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany, a convention of some seven thousand Jehovah&#8217;s Witnesses convened in Berlin. They unanimously adopted &#8220;A Declaration of Facts,&#8221; a document in which they established their opposition to the rising Nazi regime. Copies were sent to every government official they could identify; more than 2.5 million copies were disseminated. </p>
<p>The response was predictable—the German government criminalized their religious services and missionary work. Roughly half of their twenty thousand German members served terms in prison or a concentration camp. Several thousand died during incarceration due to hunger, exposure, or abuse. Over two hundred were tried in a Nazi court and executed. </p>
<p>As documented in <em><a href="www.amazon.com/gp/product/0806146680/ref=as_li_tl?tag=connsconu-20">Moroni and the Swastika</a></em>, written by David Conley Nelson, this scenario stands at odds with how members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acted towards and were treated by the same government. The book exhaustively documents the alarming degree to which church officials bent over backwards to appease, accommodate, and even proactively ingratiate themselves with Nazi leadership. </p>
<p>What becomes clear from the revealed history of interactions between Church officials and Nazi party leaders is the earnestness of the desire on the part of Mormon leaders to make friends with German rulers to ensure the safety of Church members and the ability of the Church&#8217;s missionary work to continue. The price was deemed worth it by leaders who—some reluctantly, and many cheerfully—modified church curriculum to remove any reference to Jews or Israel, including Sunday School lessons, hymns, and other material; included Nazi insignia, such as flags, and Hitler&#8217;s portrait, in Church meetings; played Hitler&#8217;s speeches during or after Church meetings, compelling congregants to listen; enthusiastically and reflexively repeating the &#8220;Heil Hitler&#8221; salute; expelling Jews from church services; excommunicating a rebel, Helmuth Hübener; denying legal assistance to Mormon Jews wishing to emigrate to America to escape the Hitler regime prior to the war; publishing op-eds and other material affirming that Nazis and Mormons shared several overlapping interests, and emphasizing that one could be a good Mormon and a good citizen of the Nazi state; and on and on.</p>
<p><span id="more-3411"></span></p>
<p>Of course, this is alarming—but what I considered especially revealing, if unsurprising, was the revelation regarding how ingrained a misunderstanding of Church doctrine had become, leading to widespread submission to, if not active support of, the Nazi government. I refer specifically to the Twelfth Article of Faith, and section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants—two reference points that receive frequent mention in the book, as they were repeatedly cited by lay German Mormons and high-ranking American church leaders as the basis for appeasing the Nazis and standing idly by while tyranny increasingly entrenched itself.</p>
<p>In the mid 1920s, for example, mission president Hugh J. Cannon told Berlin police of &#8220;the church&#8217;s belief in subjugation to local police and noted that the well-being of the Imperial Government was the object of their daily prayers.&#8221; One of his successors, Oliver Budge, informed the Gestapo in a 1933 letter that church members &#8220;are taught, especially, to be able to class themselves with the best citizens of the country, and to support, in the full sense of the word, the ordinances and laws of the town, the state, and the country in which they live… [W]e teach that the present party in power, and the laws governing the country, be supported by the members of the church.&#8221;</p>
<p>Lay members understood and internalized the message; one Mormon soldier who fought for the Nazi regime, when interviewed by the book&#8217;s author, simply stated that &#8220;Latter-day Saints should support the government!&#8221; Included with his reply was a copy of a 2004 Sunday School lesson manual featuring a quote from Church president Heber J. Grant stressing compliance with the Twelfth Article of Faith and Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants. In <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-heber-j-grant/chapter-17?lang=eng">that lesson</a>, President Grant is quoted as saying, &#8220;It is one of the Articles of our Faith to obey and uphold the laws of the land.&#8221; Following references to D&#038;C 134, he also stated, &#8220;The Saints on either side [of war] have no course open to them but to support that government to which they owe allegiance.&#8221;</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I believe that these references—including the many that permeate the book—are incorrect. They rely upon an interpretation of these two scriptural provisions that is certainly commonplace, but is one that requires overlooking the actual textual construction.</p>
<p>First, the context of these references should be offered, even if it is ultimately dismissed by some who resolutely consider them divinely sanctioned scripture. The <a href="http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/articles-of-faith">Articles of Faith</a> were written by Joseph Smith, founding prophet of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, as part of an <a href="http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Articles_of_Faith">1842 letter</a> to the editor of the <em>Chicago Democrat</em> in response to questions regarding the founding and nature of this new religion. Claiming such a media response as tantamount to scripture is somewhat akin to attempting to canonize the transcript of President Gordon B. Hinckley&#8217;s <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/an-interview-with-gordon-hinckley/">interview</a> on 60 minutes with Mike Wallace. Neither, of course, were claimed to be revelation. And as the Church&#8217;s <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-134-earthly-governments-and-laws?lang=eng">own curriculum</a> states, section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants is not revelation: &#8220;It should be noted that in the minutes, and also in the introduction to this article on government, the brethren were careful to state that this declaration was accepted as the belief, or ‘opinion’ of the officers of the Church, and not as a revelation, and therefore does not hold the same place in the doctrines of the Church as do the revelations.&#8221;</p>
<p>As such, it might be easy to dismiss adherence to these provisions since they may lack the divine weight that some seek to impregnate into the pages from which we read them. But let&#8217;s accept, for conversation sake, the position that the average Mormon takes—that they are in fact binding upon church members. </p>
<p>How, then, are we bound?</p>
<p>The Twelfth Article of Faith reads as follows:</p>
<blockquote><p>We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.</p></blockquote>
<p>Most members of the Church focus only on the first part of this provision, asserting that we should subject ourselves to government, period, end of story. That position necessarily ignores the <a href="http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-twelfth-article-of-faith-and-obedience-to-the-law/">conjoining qualification</a> wherein compliance is conditioned on the actions of those running the government. The correct reading of this Article stipulates that submission is predicated on these rulers <em>obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.</em> It therefore follows that when those in government are breaking the law, then our submission is not required. (Of course, this also requires understanding <a href="http://libertasutah.org/thelaw/">what law actually is</a>, as it is not simply whatever mandates a group of government officials thinks up, however benevolent or barbaric.)</p>
<p>It becomes obvious, then, that pointing to this Article as the basis for unqualified allegiance to whatever government is in power is false. Exterminating Jews, for example, is not lawful, even if it is technically legal; God does not expect feckless submission to those who carry out such horrific acts. </p>
<p>But what of D&#038;C 134, similarly referenced as a reason to play nice with those in power? The relevant passage of this &#8220;declaration of belief regarding governments and laws&#8221; reads:</p>
<blockquote><p>We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.</p></blockquote>
<p>As with the Twelfth Article of Faith, many Church members simply internalize only the first few words of this verse, leading them to incorrectly believe that God binds them to &#8220;sustain and uphold the [government] in which they reside,&#8221; period, end of story. But again, the qualifying conditions that follow make clear that such allegiance is predicated on lawful activity. Such support is required, we further read, while we are &#8220;protected in [our] inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments.&#8221; Sedition and rebellion &#8220;are unbecoming every citizen <em>thus protected</em>.&#8221;</p>
<p>A fair and plain reading of this scripture results in the same conclusion: a government that violates a person&#8217;s rights is not deserving of support—and at a minimum, there is no divine obligation to simply submit to the mandates of those in power. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the incorrect interpretation of these passages is offered to readers of <em>Moroni and the Swastika</em>—an otherwise outstanding book I heartily recommend reading—whose author at the very introduction tells us that the Twelfth Article of Faith and D&#038;C 134 together comprise an &#8220;important religious tenet&#8221; and constitute &#8220;a charge to cooperate with civil government however onerous it may be.&#8221; </p>
<p>Clearly, having the Church sanction rebellion against an oppressive military machine would be unwise; organizational opposition to a ruthless political regime would bring swift and fatal retaliation. However, while <em>institutional</em> defiance is strategically foolhardy, the question of <em>individual</em> resistance should be treated separately—and in that realm we must address whether God actually intends for each of his followers to follow orders from repressive regimes and respectable Republics alike. </p>
<p>Helmuth Hübener&#8217;s story provides a case study against which we can analyze this question. While the Church had been strenuously attempting to be considered friendly—or at least non-threatening—toward the Nazi regime, one of its members, a young teenage boy, was authoring scathing rebukes excoriating Adolf Hitler and his minions. These documents were disseminated furtively throughout Hübener&#8217;s town of Hamburg, and when caught, his friends were imprisoned for several years, while the 17-year-old ringleader—and faithful Mormon—was beheaded by guillotine. He was subsequently excommunicated by his rabidly pro-Nazi ecclesiastical leader, and his story was suppressed by BYU officials and Church leaders for years, citing sensitivities of upsetting communist leadership in East Germany with whom the Church was trying to build a relationship in order to facilitate church business and missionary work.</p>
<p>Few will dispute the wisdom of strategy, and the importance of picking one&#8217;s battles. It does little good to one&#8217;s self, family, congregation, or others to put up a quick fight and be executed. It is perhaps for this reason that—unlike the non-revelatory scriptures referenced earlier—God actually <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/82.22?lang=eng#21"><em>has</em> stated</a>, &#8220;this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you.&#8221; It follows the old adage of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer; there is logistical benefit in not incurring the wrath of a powerful foe.</p>
<p>But while strategy should be considered, that does not constitute a valid claim to argue that God absolutely forbids anything but servility to the state. To the extent that Helmuth&#8217;s story is known, he is praised as a freedom fighter—a brave and principled young man who stood up for his convictions, and who sought to popularize the truth. His excommunication—considered by many to never have been valid in the first place—was later rescinded. Books, plays, movies, and other media extol his heroism. It&#8217;s easy to recognize the virtue of his activism. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s also easy to cast aspersions on his contemporaries who courted favor with the very enemy Helmuth was fighting. How easy must it have been to follow the masses—to silently and idly accept the increasing levels of restrictions, first because they didn&#8217;t affect you, and later because circumstances were too severe to speak out? </p>
<p>The mind, in such circumstances, is desperate for self-soothing arguments that ameloriate one&#8217;s conscience. Thus did German Mormons embrace a number of myths regarding the Third Reich&#8217;s friendliness towards the faith: that Hitler had read the Book of Mormon; that he based his supposed health code on the Word of Wisdom; that his Winter Relief program—where Germans were told to eat a simple meal on the Second Sunday at donate saved funds to the war effort—was based on the church&#8217;s Fast Sunday program; that close parallels existed between the Nazi drive for racial purity and genealogical research, and the Church&#8217;s own quest for family history; and at worst, that Hitler himself was on a mission from God. Thus did Hübener&#8217;s pro-Nazi branch president tell his flock &#8220;about the importance of keeping the laws of the land and supporting and sustaining the Führer who was ordained of God.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sadly, sensitivities often trumped conscience, whether individually or institutionally. The Church&#8217;s effort to suppress Hübener&#8217;s story, detailed in length in this book, was spearheaded by Thomas S. Monson, who had been tasked with overseeing the Church&#8217;s efforts regarding East Germany. When approached by an Associated Press reporter inquiring as to why he had stopped BYU from continuing a very popular production of a play on Hübener&#8217;s life, and why research and publication of the story had been quashed, then-Elder Monson replied:</p>
<blockquote><p>Who knows what was right or wrong then? I don&#8217;t know what we accomplish by dredging these things up and trying to sort them out.</p></blockquote>
<p>It&#8217;s admittedly easy to play armchair quarterback and see the apparent misguidedness of censoring so important a story out of concerns that may have been unfounded. The motives of Elder Monson were, we must presume, sincere—he, like Church leaders for decades, had a fixed goal as the primary priority: keep missionary work going. These ends justified controversial means, whether ingratiating the Church with the Nazi regime from the highest levels, or controlling the flow of information in the decades that followed the war. </p>
<p>Helmuth&#8217;s story speaks to me. I believe he did what was right. And as the familiar primary tune counsels us, we are to &#8220;do what is right, let the consequence follow.&#8221; Put differently, ends don&#8217;t justify the means; does a crucial &#8220;end&#8221; such as perpetuating Church programs and allowing missionary work to continue allow us to support the problematic means listed above? It&#8217;s a pertinent question for the future, and one which deserves serious reflection—not to recommend institutional changes and counsel those in command of the Lord&#8217;s Church, but to ponder individual action and the degree to which one is willing or obligated to support an unsupportable government.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=vU9LOncl868:N10cBGZKIgo:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=vU9LOncl868:N10cBGZKIgo:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=vU9LOncl868:N10cBGZKIgo:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:100:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormons-making-friends-with-the-nazi-mammon-of-unrighteousness/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"22";}s:7:"summary";s:369:"In June 1933, just a few months after Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany, a convention of some seven thousand Jehovah&#8217;s Witnesses convened in Berlin. They unanimously adopted &#8220;A Declaration of Facts,&#8221; a document in which they established their opposition to the rising Nazi regime. Copies were sent to every government official they could [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:16981:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/monazi.jpg"/></p>
<p>In June 1933, just a few months after Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany, a convention of some seven thousand Jehovah&#8217;s Witnesses convened in Berlin. They unanimously adopted &#8220;A Declaration of Facts,&#8221; a document in which they established their opposition to the rising Nazi regime. Copies were sent to every government official they could identify; more than 2.5 million copies were disseminated. </p>
<p>The response was predictable—the German government criminalized their religious services and missionary work. Roughly half of their twenty thousand German members served terms in prison or a concentration camp. Several thousand died during incarceration due to hunger, exposure, or abuse. Over two hundred were tried in a Nazi court and executed. </p>
<p>As documented in <em><a href="www.amazon.com/gp/product/0806146680/ref=as_li_tl?tag=connsconu-20">Moroni and the Swastika</a></em>, written by David Conley Nelson, this scenario stands at odds with how members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acted towards and were treated by the same government. The book exhaustively documents the alarming degree to which church officials bent over backwards to appease, accommodate, and even proactively ingratiate themselves with Nazi leadership. </p>
<p>What becomes clear from the revealed history of interactions between Church officials and Nazi party leaders is the earnestness of the desire on the part of Mormon leaders to make friends with German rulers to ensure the safety of Church members and the ability of the Church&#8217;s missionary work to continue. The price was deemed worth it by leaders who—some reluctantly, and many cheerfully—modified church curriculum to remove any reference to Jews or Israel, including Sunday School lessons, hymns, and other material; included Nazi insignia, such as flags, and Hitler&#8217;s portrait, in Church meetings; played Hitler&#8217;s speeches during or after Church meetings, compelling congregants to listen; enthusiastically and reflexively repeating the &#8220;Heil Hitler&#8221; salute; expelling Jews from church services; excommunicating a rebel, Helmuth Hübener; denying legal assistance to Mormon Jews wishing to emigrate to America to escape the Hitler regime prior to the war; publishing op-eds and other material affirming that Nazis and Mormons shared several overlapping interests, and emphasizing that one could be a good Mormon and a good citizen of the Nazi state; and on and on.</p>
<p><span id="more-3411"></span></p>
<p>Of course, this is alarming—but what I considered especially revealing, if unsurprising, was the revelation regarding how ingrained a misunderstanding of Church doctrine had become, leading to widespread submission to, if not active support of, the Nazi government. I refer specifically to the Twelfth Article of Faith, and section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants—two reference points that receive frequent mention in the book, as they were repeatedly cited by lay German Mormons and high-ranking American church leaders as the basis for appeasing the Nazis and standing idly by while tyranny increasingly entrenched itself.</p>
<p>In the mid 1920s, for example, mission president Hugh J. Cannon told Berlin police of &#8220;the church&#8217;s belief in subjugation to local police and noted that the well-being of the Imperial Government was the object of their daily prayers.&#8221; One of his successors, Oliver Budge, informed the Gestapo in a 1933 letter that church members &#8220;are taught, especially, to be able to class themselves with the best citizens of the country, and to support, in the full sense of the word, the ordinances and laws of the town, the state, and the country in which they live… [W]e teach that the present party in power, and the laws governing the country, be supported by the members of the church.&#8221;</p>
<p>Lay members understood and internalized the message; one Mormon soldier who fought for the Nazi regime, when interviewed by the book&#8217;s author, simply stated that &#8220;Latter-day Saints should support the government!&#8221; Included with his reply was a copy of a 2004 Sunday School lesson manual featuring a quote from Church president Heber J. Grant stressing compliance with the Twelfth Article of Faith and Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants. In <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-heber-j-grant/chapter-17?lang=eng">that lesson</a>, President Grant is quoted as saying, &#8220;It is one of the Articles of our Faith to obey and uphold the laws of the land.&#8221; Following references to D&#038;C 134, he also stated, &#8220;The Saints on either side [of war] have no course open to them but to support that government to which they owe allegiance.&#8221;</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I believe that these references—including the many that permeate the book—are incorrect. They rely upon an interpretation of these two scriptural provisions that is certainly commonplace, but is one that requires overlooking the actual textual construction.</p>
<p>First, the context of these references should be offered, even if it is ultimately dismissed by some who resolutely consider them divinely sanctioned scripture. The <a href="http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/articles-of-faith">Articles of Faith</a> were written by Joseph Smith, founding prophet of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, as part of an <a href="http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Articles_of_Faith">1842 letter</a> to the editor of the <em>Chicago Democrat</em> in response to questions regarding the founding and nature of this new religion. Claiming such a media response as tantamount to scripture is somewhat akin to attempting to canonize the transcript of President Gordon B. Hinckley&#8217;s <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/an-interview-with-gordon-hinckley/">interview</a> on 60 minutes with Mike Wallace. Neither, of course, were claimed to be revelation. And as the Church&#8217;s <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-134-earthly-governments-and-laws?lang=eng">own curriculum</a> states, section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants is not revelation: &#8220;It should be noted that in the minutes, and also in the introduction to this article on government, the brethren were careful to state that this declaration was accepted as the belief, or ‘opinion’ of the officers of the Church, and not as a revelation, and therefore does not hold the same place in the doctrines of the Church as do the revelations.&#8221;</p>
<p>As such, it might be easy to dismiss adherence to these provisions since they may lack the divine weight that some seek to impregnate into the pages from which we read them. But let&#8217;s accept, for conversation sake, the position that the average Mormon takes—that they are in fact binding upon church members. </p>
<p>How, then, are we bound?</p>
<p>The Twelfth Article of Faith reads as follows:</p>
<blockquote><p>We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.</p></blockquote>
<p>Most members of the Church focus only on the first part of this provision, asserting that we should subject ourselves to government, period, end of story. That position necessarily ignores the <a href="http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-twelfth-article-of-faith-and-obedience-to-the-law/">conjoining qualification</a> wherein compliance is conditioned on the actions of those running the government. The correct reading of this Article stipulates that submission is predicated on these rulers <em>obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.</em> It therefore follows that when those in government are breaking the law, then our submission is not required. (Of course, this also requires understanding <a href="http://libertasutah.org/thelaw/">what law actually is</a>, as it is not simply whatever mandates a group of government officials thinks up, however benevolent or barbaric.)</p>
<p>It becomes obvious, then, that pointing to this Article as the basis for unqualified allegiance to whatever government is in power is false. Exterminating Jews, for example, is not lawful, even if it is technically legal; God does not expect feckless submission to those who carry out such horrific acts. </p>
<p>But what of D&#038;C 134, similarly referenced as a reason to play nice with those in power? The relevant passage of this &#8220;declaration of belief regarding governments and laws&#8221; reads:</p>
<blockquote><p>We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.</p></blockquote>
<p>As with the Twelfth Article of Faith, many Church members simply internalize only the first few words of this verse, leading them to incorrectly believe that God binds them to &#8220;sustain and uphold the [government] in which they reside,&#8221; period, end of story. But again, the qualifying conditions that follow make clear that such allegiance is predicated on lawful activity. Such support is required, we further read, while we are &#8220;protected in [our] inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments.&#8221; Sedition and rebellion &#8220;are unbecoming every citizen <em>thus protected</em>.&#8221;</p>
<p>A fair and plain reading of this scripture results in the same conclusion: a government that violates a person&#8217;s rights is not deserving of support—and at a minimum, there is no divine obligation to simply submit to the mandates of those in power. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the incorrect interpretation of these passages is offered to readers of <em>Moroni and the Swastika</em>—an otherwise outstanding book I heartily recommend reading—whose author at the very introduction tells us that the Twelfth Article of Faith and D&#038;C 134 together comprise an &#8220;important religious tenet&#8221; and constitute &#8220;a charge to cooperate with civil government however onerous it may be.&#8221; </p>
<p>Clearly, having the Church sanction rebellion against an oppressive military machine would be unwise; organizational opposition to a ruthless political regime would bring swift and fatal retaliation. However, while <em>institutional</em> defiance is strategically foolhardy, the question of <em>individual</em> resistance should be treated separately—and in that realm we must address whether God actually intends for each of his followers to follow orders from repressive regimes and respectable Republics alike. </p>
<p>Helmuth Hübener&#8217;s story provides a case study against which we can analyze this question. While the Church had been strenuously attempting to be considered friendly—or at least non-threatening—toward the Nazi regime, one of its members, a young teenage boy, was authoring scathing rebukes excoriating Adolf Hitler and his minions. These documents were disseminated furtively throughout Hübener&#8217;s town of Hamburg, and when caught, his friends were imprisoned for several years, while the 17-year-old ringleader—and faithful Mormon—was beheaded by guillotine. He was subsequently excommunicated by his rabidly pro-Nazi ecclesiastical leader, and his story was suppressed by BYU officials and Church leaders for years, citing sensitivities of upsetting communist leadership in East Germany with whom the Church was trying to build a relationship in order to facilitate church business and missionary work.</p>
<p>Few will dispute the wisdom of strategy, and the importance of picking one&#8217;s battles. It does little good to one&#8217;s self, family, congregation, or others to put up a quick fight and be executed. It is perhaps for this reason that—unlike the non-revelatory scriptures referenced earlier—God actually <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/82.22?lang=eng#21"><em>has</em> stated</a>, &#8220;this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you.&#8221; It follows the old adage of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer; there is logistical benefit in not incurring the wrath of a powerful foe.</p>
<p>But while strategy should be considered, that does not constitute a valid claim to argue that God absolutely forbids anything but servility to the state. To the extent that Helmuth&#8217;s story is known, he is praised as a freedom fighter—a brave and principled young man who stood up for his convictions, and who sought to popularize the truth. His excommunication—considered by many to never have been valid in the first place—was later rescinded. Books, plays, movies, and other media extol his heroism. It&#8217;s easy to recognize the virtue of his activism. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s also easy to cast aspersions on his contemporaries who courted favor with the very enemy Helmuth was fighting. How easy must it have been to follow the masses—to silently and idly accept the increasing levels of restrictions, first because they didn&#8217;t affect you, and later because circumstances were too severe to speak out? </p>
<p>The mind, in such circumstances, is desperate for self-soothing arguments that ameloriate one&#8217;s conscience. Thus did German Mormons embrace a number of myths regarding the Third Reich&#8217;s friendliness towards the faith: that Hitler had read the Book of Mormon; that he based his supposed health code on the Word of Wisdom; that his Winter Relief program—where Germans were told to eat a simple meal on the Second Sunday at donate saved funds to the war effort—was based on the church&#8217;s Fast Sunday program; that close parallels existed between the Nazi drive for racial purity and genealogical research, and the Church&#8217;s own quest for family history; and at worst, that Hitler himself was on a mission from God. Thus did Hübener&#8217;s pro-Nazi branch president tell his flock &#8220;about the importance of keeping the laws of the land and supporting and sustaining the Führer who was ordained of God.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sadly, sensitivities often trumped conscience, whether individually or institutionally. The Church&#8217;s effort to suppress Hübener&#8217;s story, detailed in length in this book, was spearheaded by Thomas S. Monson, who had been tasked with overseeing the Church&#8217;s efforts regarding East Germany. When approached by an Associated Press reporter inquiring as to why he had stopped BYU from continuing a very popular production of a play on Hübener&#8217;s life, and why research and publication of the story had been quashed, then-Elder Monson replied:</p>
<blockquote><p>Who knows what was right or wrong then? I don&#8217;t know what we accomplish by dredging these things up and trying to sort them out.</p></blockquote>
<p>It&#8217;s admittedly easy to play armchair quarterback and see the apparent misguidedness of censoring so important a story out of concerns that may have been unfounded. The motives of Elder Monson were, we must presume, sincere—he, like Church leaders for decades, had a fixed goal as the primary priority: keep missionary work going. These ends justified controversial means, whether ingratiating the Church with the Nazi regime from the highest levels, or controlling the flow of information in the decades that followed the war. </p>
<p>Helmuth&#8217;s story speaks to me. I believe he did what was right. And as the familiar primary tune counsels us, we are to &#8220;do what is right, let the consequence follow.&#8221; Put differently, ends don&#8217;t justify the means; does a crucial &#8220;end&#8221; such as perpetuating Church programs and allowing missionary work to continue allow us to support the problematic means listed above? It&#8217;s a pertinent question for the future, and one which deserves serious reflection—not to recommend institutional changes and counsel those in command of the Lord&#8217;s Church, but to ponder individual action and the degree to which one is willing or obligated to support an unsupportable government.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=vU9LOncl868:N10cBGZKIgo:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=vU9LOncl868:N10cBGZKIgo:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=vU9LOncl868:N10cBGZKIgo:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1427127835;}i:12;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:59:"A Widespread Misunderstanding About Satan’s War on Agency";s:4:"link";s:89:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/a-widespread-misunderstanding-about-satans-war-on-agency";s:8:"comments";s:98:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/a-widespread-misunderstanding-about-satans-war-on-agency#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sun, 08 Feb 2015 23:48:10 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Religion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3408";s:11:"description";s:329:"Having been raised in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I was taught the key doctrines of the faith—along with various teachings that were not necessarily true, though I accepted them as such in my youth. This was the case with one of the most central issues in our theology—the catalyst for choosing [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:9830:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/fb/council.jpg"/></p>
<p>Having been raised in <a href="http://lds.org">The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints</a>, I was taught the key doctrines of the faith—along with various teachings that were not necessarily true, though I accepted them as such in my youth. This was the case with one of the most central issues in our theology—the catalyst for choosing Christ over Satan. I&#8217;m referring to the &#8220;war on agency&#8221; waged by Lucifer, God&#8217;s fallen son. </p>
<p>It wasn&#8217;t until I read a book called <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Satans-Free-Agency-Greg-Wright/dp/193098006X">Satan&#8217;s War on Free Agency</a></em> several years ago that I realized I had not correctly understood this foundational event. Taking certain statements by church leaders at face value, I had believed that Satan wanted to force us to be good, and that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ wanted to allow us our agency to <em>choose</em> to be good. </p>
<p>Reading the book, however, I realized that since the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ there have been contradictory statements made by church leaders suggesting, perhaps, some confusion on this topic—certainly there was not consensus. For example, then-Elder Ezra Taft Benson <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-3-freedom-of-choice-an-eternal-principle?lang=eng">taught</a>, &#8220;The central issue in that premortal council was: Shall the children of God have untrammeled agency to choose the course they should follow, whether good or evil, or shall they be <em>coerced and forced to be obedient</em>? Christ and all who followed Him stood for the former proposition—freedom of choice; <em>Satan stood for the latter—coercion and force</em>&#8221; (emphasis added).</p>
<p><span id="more-3408"></span></p>
<p>Other quotes from church leaders exist suggesting disagreement on this position. Questioning &#8220;whether the intelligence of man can be compelled,&#8221; President J. Reuben Clark <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-6-our-premortal-life?lang=eng">said</a>, &#8220;As I read the scriptures, Satan&#8217;s plan required one of two things: either the compulsion of the mind, the spirit, the intelligence of man, <em>or else saving men in sin</em>&#8221; (emphasis added). Questioning the former, it&#8217;s clear he was suggesting a stronger case for the latter.</p>
<p>The Church&#8217;s own approved literature suggests a diverging view of the common &#8220;force&#8221; narrative; one Institute manual <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/print/old-testament-teacher-resource-manual/-genesis-3-moses-4?lang=eng">notes</a>, &#8220;Most people think that [Satan] would have forced us to do right, but that is <em>only one possibility</em>. Certain conditions are necessary if we are to have agency… Satan might have destroyed our agency by eliminating any one of those [conditions] and he is still trying to destroy our agency using the <em>same</em> techniques of deception and lies&#8221; (emphasis added).</p>
<p>What are those conditions? Understanding how agency works will help us understand how Satan sought—and seeks—to undermine it. Agency requires three things: options to choose from, freedom to choose, and consequence for the choice. Like a three-legged stool, agency can be weakened or destroyed (in theory) by attacking any one of the three. </p>
<p>Let&#8217;s also establish an important point: no scripture mentions Satan forcing people to be righteous. Further, we read that Lucifer told Heavenly Father, &#8220;I will be thy son, and <em>I will redeem all mankind</em>, that one soul shall not be lost.&#8221; Consider this question: if Lucifer intended to coerce obedience to God, then why did he propose to redeem us? Redemption would not be necessary under a system of compulsory obedience. This admission on Satan&#8217;s part makes clear that his proposal included options to choose from, and the freedom to choose—the two conditions that would make redemption necessary at all.</p>
<p>It therefore follows that Satan&#8217;s proposal sought to undermine the third: consequence for the choice.</p>
<p>This becomes a logical understanding of Satan&#8217;s strategy when you compare his pre-mortal proposal to his actions today. If God is <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/10.18?lang=eng#17">the same</a> yesterday, today, and forever, it&#8217;s worth pondering whether the same is true of Satan. Wouldn&#8217;t he be attempting to do today what he did then? Nobody believes that Satan is trying to force us to obey God today; why do we believe he attempted it eons ago?</p>
<p>Imagine Satan addressing the hosts of heaven, whether individually or collectively, in an attempt to build support for his proposal. Do we honestly believe that trillions (or more) of God&#8217;s children would get excited about being forced into compliance? Coercion naturally evokes resistance; it would be impossible to build a popular campaign on a platform of widespread compulsion. It&#8217;s almost laughable to picture Satan at a pre-mortal pep rally, shouting to the masses, &#8220;Follow me, and I will force you to be good!&#8221; It simply does not ring true.</p>
<p>What does seem viable is Satan encouraging people to follow him so they could do what <em>they</em> wanted to do and be held harmless. Consider the state of affairs during the time of the restoration, in which <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1.16?lang=eng#15">God notes</a> that people &#8220;seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man <em>walketh in his own way</em>, after the image of his own God.&#8221; This is an environment in which Satan finds success. </p>
<p>In other words, Satan proposed exempting us from the consequences of choice—eating, drinking, and being merry, while still being redeemed in the end. Satan wanted to save everybody, regardless of their choices. </p>
<p>This is <em>appealing</em>. It&#8217;s definitely a platform that would <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/6.16?lang=eng#15">lead away</a> the hearts of the hosts of heaven. And it&#8217;s exactly how we see Satan operating in scripture. </p>
<p>Think of the secret combinations in the Book of Mormon gaining power and then replacing the laws of God with the &#8220;<a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/modern-day-gadiantonism-government-by-the-laws-of-wickedness">laws of wickedness</a>&#8220;—<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/8.16?lang=eng#15">committing</a> &#8220;all manner of wickedness and whoredoms&#8221; and getting away with it, or so they thought. The corrupt Nephites in Ammonihah &#8220;did not believe in the repentance of their sins&#8221; and had to be taught that &#8220;the Lord surely should come to redeem his people, but that he should not come to redeem them <em>in</em> their sins, but to redeem them <em>from</em> their sins&#8221; (emphasis added). They had come to embrace Satan&#8217;s model, believing that they could do whatever they wanted and get away with it.</p>
<p>Satan gave Korihor <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/30.53?lang=eng#52">a message</a> which he regurgitated to others, offering a false philosophy in which <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/30.18?lang=eng#17">he led away</a> &#8220;the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.&#8221; Korihor clearly was not compelling obedience to the Nephite faith; his campaign was a consequence-free lifestyle.</p>
<p>Nephi <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.8?lang=eng#7">noted</a> that &#8220;there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin… there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.&#8221; Minimization of accountability—dodging the consequence—is part and parcel of Satan&#8217;s strategy.</p>
<p>We cannot fight an enemy we do not understand; resisting Satan requires knowing he exists and how he operates. Satan <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/50.3?lang=eng#2">wants to deceive us</a> to overthrow us. Misunderstanding his motives is an effective sleight of hand; if we don&#8217;t see him coming, his chance of success increases. </p>
<p>Whatever the reason that the &#8220;force&#8221; model has persisted as a belief regarding how Satan attracted a third of God&#8217;s children, I find it lacking both in scriptural support, personal observation, and logic.  A being <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/10.20?lang=eng#19">who</a> &#8220;stirreth [us] up to iniquity against that which is good&#8221; is not interested in compulsory obedience. The reality is, I think, obvious: the Enemy of God wants us to make bad choices, and tempts us into doing so by leading us to believe that we will not one day be held accountable for our actions.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=9F5tqvVKiVk:XS1QswT8PL0:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=9F5tqvVKiVk:XS1QswT8PL0:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=9F5tqvVKiVk:XS1QswT8PL0:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:94:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/a-widespread-misunderstanding-about-satans-war-on-agency/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:3:"162";}s:7:"summary";s:329:"Having been raised in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I was taught the key doctrines of the faith—along with various teachings that were not necessarily true, though I accepted them as such in my youth. This was the case with one of the most central issues in our theology—the catalyst for choosing [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:9830:"<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/fb/council.jpg"/></p>
<p>Having been raised in <a href="http://lds.org">The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints</a>, I was taught the key doctrines of the faith—along with various teachings that were not necessarily true, though I accepted them as such in my youth. This was the case with one of the most central issues in our theology—the catalyst for choosing Christ over Satan. I&#8217;m referring to the &#8220;war on agency&#8221; waged by Lucifer, God&#8217;s fallen son. </p>
<p>It wasn&#8217;t until I read a book called <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Satans-Free-Agency-Greg-Wright/dp/193098006X">Satan&#8217;s War on Free Agency</a></em> several years ago that I realized I had not correctly understood this foundational event. Taking certain statements by church leaders at face value, I had believed that Satan wanted to force us to be good, and that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ wanted to allow us our agency to <em>choose</em> to be good. </p>
<p>Reading the book, however, I realized that since the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ there have been contradictory statements made by church leaders suggesting, perhaps, some confusion on this topic—certainly there was not consensus. For example, then-Elder Ezra Taft Benson <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-3-freedom-of-choice-an-eternal-principle?lang=eng">taught</a>, &#8220;The central issue in that premortal council was: Shall the children of God have untrammeled agency to choose the course they should follow, whether good or evil, or shall they be <em>coerced and forced to be obedient</em>? Christ and all who followed Him stood for the former proposition—freedom of choice; <em>Satan stood for the latter—coercion and force</em>&#8221; (emphasis added).</p>
<p><span id="more-3408"></span></p>
<p>Other quotes from church leaders exist suggesting disagreement on this position. Questioning &#8220;whether the intelligence of man can be compelled,&#8221; President J. Reuben Clark <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-6-our-premortal-life?lang=eng">said</a>, &#8220;As I read the scriptures, Satan&#8217;s plan required one of two things: either the compulsion of the mind, the spirit, the intelligence of man, <em>or else saving men in sin</em>&#8221; (emphasis added). Questioning the former, it&#8217;s clear he was suggesting a stronger case for the latter.</p>
<p>The Church&#8217;s own approved literature suggests a diverging view of the common &#8220;force&#8221; narrative; one Institute manual <a href="https://www.lds.org/manual/print/old-testament-teacher-resource-manual/-genesis-3-moses-4?lang=eng">notes</a>, &#8220;Most people think that [Satan] would have forced us to do right, but that is <em>only one possibility</em>. Certain conditions are necessary if we are to have agency… Satan might have destroyed our agency by eliminating any one of those [conditions] and he is still trying to destroy our agency using the <em>same</em> techniques of deception and lies&#8221; (emphasis added).</p>
<p>What are those conditions? Understanding how agency works will help us understand how Satan sought—and seeks—to undermine it. Agency requires three things: options to choose from, freedom to choose, and consequence for the choice. Like a three-legged stool, agency can be weakened or destroyed (in theory) by attacking any one of the three. </p>
<p>Let&#8217;s also establish an important point: no scripture mentions Satan forcing people to be righteous. Further, we read that Lucifer told Heavenly Father, &#8220;I will be thy son, and <em>I will redeem all mankind</em>, that one soul shall not be lost.&#8221; Consider this question: if Lucifer intended to coerce obedience to God, then why did he propose to redeem us? Redemption would not be necessary under a system of compulsory obedience. This admission on Satan&#8217;s part makes clear that his proposal included options to choose from, and the freedom to choose—the two conditions that would make redemption necessary at all.</p>
<p>It therefore follows that Satan&#8217;s proposal sought to undermine the third: consequence for the choice.</p>
<p>This becomes a logical understanding of Satan&#8217;s strategy when you compare his pre-mortal proposal to his actions today. If God is <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/10.18?lang=eng#17">the same</a> yesterday, today, and forever, it&#8217;s worth pondering whether the same is true of Satan. Wouldn&#8217;t he be attempting to do today what he did then? Nobody believes that Satan is trying to force us to obey God today; why do we believe he attempted it eons ago?</p>
<p>Imagine Satan addressing the hosts of heaven, whether individually or collectively, in an attempt to build support for his proposal. Do we honestly believe that trillions (or more) of God&#8217;s children would get excited about being forced into compliance? Coercion naturally evokes resistance; it would be impossible to build a popular campaign on a platform of widespread compulsion. It&#8217;s almost laughable to picture Satan at a pre-mortal pep rally, shouting to the masses, &#8220;Follow me, and I will force you to be good!&#8221; It simply does not ring true.</p>
<p>What does seem viable is Satan encouraging people to follow him so they could do what <em>they</em> wanted to do and be held harmless. Consider the state of affairs during the time of the restoration, in which <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1.16?lang=eng#15">God notes</a> that people &#8220;seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man <em>walketh in his own way</em>, after the image of his own God.&#8221; This is an environment in which Satan finds success. </p>
<p>In other words, Satan proposed exempting us from the consequences of choice—eating, drinking, and being merry, while still being redeemed in the end. Satan wanted to save everybody, regardless of their choices. </p>
<p>This is <em>appealing</em>. It&#8217;s definitely a platform that would <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/6.16?lang=eng#15">lead away</a> the hearts of the hosts of heaven. And it&#8217;s exactly how we see Satan operating in scripture. </p>
<p>Think of the secret combinations in the Book of Mormon gaining power and then replacing the laws of God with the &#8220;<a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/modern-day-gadiantonism-government-by-the-laws-of-wickedness">laws of wickedness</a>&#8220;—<a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/8.16?lang=eng#15">committing</a> &#8220;all manner of wickedness and whoredoms&#8221; and getting away with it, or so they thought. The corrupt Nephites in Ammonihah &#8220;did not believe in the repentance of their sins&#8221; and had to be taught that &#8220;the Lord surely should come to redeem his people, but that he should not come to redeem them <em>in</em> their sins, but to redeem them <em>from</em> their sins&#8221; (emphasis added). They had come to embrace Satan&#8217;s model, believing that they could do whatever they wanted and get away with it.</p>
<p>Satan gave Korihor <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/30.53?lang=eng#52">a message</a> which he regurgitated to others, offering a false philosophy in which <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/30.18?lang=eng#17">he led away</a> &#8220;the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.&#8221; Korihor clearly was not compelling obedience to the Nephite faith; his campaign was a consequence-free lifestyle.</p>
<p>Nephi <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.8?lang=eng#7">noted</a> that &#8220;there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin… there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.&#8221; Minimization of accountability—dodging the consequence—is part and parcel of Satan&#8217;s strategy.</p>
<p>We cannot fight an enemy we do not understand; resisting Satan requires knowing he exists and how he operates. Satan <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/50.3?lang=eng#2">wants to deceive us</a> to overthrow us. Misunderstanding his motives is an effective sleight of hand; if we don&#8217;t see him coming, his chance of success increases. </p>
<p>Whatever the reason that the &#8220;force&#8221; model has persisted as a belief regarding how Satan attracted a third of God&#8217;s children, I find it lacking both in scriptural support, personal observation, and logic.  A being <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/10.20?lang=eng#19">who</a> &#8220;stirreth [us] up to iniquity against that which is good&#8221; is not interested in compulsory obedience. The reality is, I think, obvious: the Enemy of God wants us to make bad choices, and tempts us into doing so by leading us to believe that we will not one day be held accountable for our actions.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=9F5tqvVKiVk:XS1QswT8PL0:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=9F5tqvVKiVk:XS1QswT8PL0:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=9F5tqvVKiVk:XS1QswT8PL0:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1423439290;}i:13;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:35:"Why Latter-day Saints are Condemned";s:4:"link";s:68:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-latter-day-saints-are-condemned";s:8:"comments";s:77:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-latter-day-saints-are-condemned#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sun, 21 Dec 2014 15:06:59 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Religion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3405";s:11:"description";s:362:"King Mosiah had many duties, one of them being the charge over the protection of, and addition to, the plates of Nephi—the official record of the Nephite people to be used &#8220;for the instruction of [the] people&#8221; and their &#8220;profit.&#8221; Eager to help future generations know of their prophecies and experiences, the plates were added [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:14972:"<p>King Mosiah had many duties, one of them being the charge over the protection of, and addition to, the plates of Nephi—the official record of the Nephite people <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/19.3?lang=eng#2">to be used</a> &#8220;for the instruction of [the] people&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/5.30-32?lang=eng#29">and their</a> &#8220;profit.&#8221; Eager to <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/25.26?lang=eng#25">help future generations</a> know of their prophecies and experiences, the plates were <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/jacob/1.1-2,4?lang=eng#0">added to periodically</a> for posterity&#8217;s edification.</p>
<p>Having been raised in an environment rich with teachings and the documentation thereof, it should strike nobody as a surprise that Mosiah was well prepared to act upon other records he received. After all, if the entire intent of prophetic scripture-making was to benefit others, then of course he and his people would want to benefit from the record of God&#8217;s dealings with others.</p>
<p>When Mosiah&#8217;s sons began their missionary work among the people of Limhi, they were <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/8.7-9#6">presented with a mysterious discovery</a>—24 gold plates discovered in the ruins of a fallen and forgotten civilization, written in an unknown language. Limhi <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/8.12#11">was hoping</a> to find a way to translate the record &#8220;to know the cause of their destruction.&#8221;</p>
<p><span id="more-3405"></span></p>
<p>When the record made its way to Mosiah, all of Nephite society was abuzz with the discovery and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/28.12?lang=eng#11">likewise</a> &#8220;desirous beyond measure to know concerning those people who had been destroyed.&#8221; Using seer stones, Mosiah translated record which laid bare the rise and fall of the Jaredite society, replete with carnage and evil, counterbalanced at times with God&#8217;s divine intervention and grace. Having read Mosiah&#8217;s translation, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/28.18?lang=eng#17">it</a> &#8220;did cause the people of Mosiah to mourn exceedingly, yea, they were filled with sorrow; nevertheless it gave them much knowledge, in the which they did rejoice.&#8221; Abridging the record, Mormon parenthetically <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/28.19?lang=eng#18">notes</a> that &#8220;it is expedient that all people should know the things which are written in this account.&#8221;</p>
<p>This quest for knowledge was not a passive or selfish endeavor, with Mosiah and others wanting to become historians or merely satisfy an intellectual curiosity. Rather, it was intended to improve their lives. Mosiah himself demonstrates this in detail.</p>
<p>This man, like his father Benjamin, was a righteous king. The people over which <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29.40?lang=eng#39">he ruled</a> &#8220;did not look upon him as a tyrant who was seeking for gain, yea, for that lucre which doth corrupt the soul; for he had not exacted riches of them, neither had he delighted in the shedding of blood; but he had established peace in the land, and he had granted unto his people that they should be delivered from all manner of bondage; therefore they did esteem him, yea, exceedingly, beyond measure.&#8221;</p>
<p>This had been their experience for some time. By the time that Mosiah was looking to find a successor, Nephite civilization been largely flourishing under the benevolent rule of Mosiah and his fathers for nearly a century. But when Mosiah was presented with the Jaredite record, and that of Limhi&#8217;s people, he became convinced of the need to radically restructure the model of governance in Nephite society.</p>
<p>Gathering his people, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29.35-36#34">he</a> &#8220;unfolded unto them all the disadvantages they labored under, by having an unrighteous king to rule over them&#8221; along with the &#8220;iniquities and abominations, and all the wars, and contentions, and bloodshed, and the stealing, and the plundering, and the committing of whoredoms, and all manner of iniquities which cannot be enumerated&#8221; but which are byproducts of having a government with power centralized under a kingship. He thus told them &#8220;that these things ought not to be, that they were expressly repugnant to the commandments of God.&#8221; </p>
<p>Recognizing that elevating some people over others is an inequality, King Mosiah <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29.32#31">taught</a> that it &#8220;should be no more in this land.&#8221; He continued: &#8220;I desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike…&#8221;</p>
<p>As a solution he advocated decentralization, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29.34#33">arguing</a> that &#8220;the burden should come upon all the people, that every man might bear his part.&#8221; Consequently, his subjects &#8220;became exceedingly anxious that every man should have an equal chance throughout all the land.&#8221; </p>
<p>What&#8217;s interesting about all of this is that <em>it was foreign to their experience</em>; for decades, Mosiah&#8217;s subjects had no reason to question their model of government. Life was good under great leadership. The &#8220;disadvantages&#8221; to which Mosiah referred them were theoretical in nature, as they did not share that experience.</p>
<p>But others did experience it—Limhi&#8217;s people, under the rule of the wicked King Noah, had a <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/11.3#2">tax burden of 20%</a> to support the King&#8217;s lavish lifestyle and that of his inner circle, and were <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/11.2-15?lang=eng#1">encouraged</a> to become immoral and deviant. </p>
<p>This aberration notwithstanding, limited as it was to this smaller group of Nephite separatists, Mosiah&#8217;s warnings were likely influenced far more by the Jaredite record which he had translated and promulgated to his people. In that record, a portion of which we have preserved in the <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether">book of Ether</a>, the reader finds steady carnage and conquest with competing kings warring over territory and power. </p>
<p>It didn&#8217;t need to be this way. Jared and his brother, the fathers of this new nation, provided spiritual and social leadership throughout their journey and upon settling in their new land. As their lives ended, they asked their families for any last wishes. They requested that <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/6/19-23?lang=eng#18">a kingdom be formally organized</a>—a position that &#8220;was grievous unto them.&#8221; The brother of Jared prophetically warned, &#8220;Surely this thing leadeth into captivity.&#8221; </p>
<p>It didn&#8217;t start out that way, just as it didn&#8217;t with the Nephite nation. Jared&#8217;s son Orihah became the first king and was, like Benjamin and Mosiah, and righteous king <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/6/30?lang=eng#29">who</a> &#8220;did walk humbly before the Lord.&#8221; But the model had been created, the precedent set, and the power centralized. The brother of Jared&#8217;s posterity fulfilled his prediction, as the record repeatedly demonstrates. The battle to wrest control of power led to <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/8.3?lang=eng#2">political</a> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/9.7?lang=eng#6">imprisonment</a>, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/8.5?lang=eng#4">internal insurrections</a>, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/8.7?lang=eng#6">lust for power</a>, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/8.11-12?lang=eng#10">conspiracy</a>, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/9.1?lang=eng#0">revolution</a>, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/9.11?lang=eng#10">bribery</a>, and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/9.12?lang=eng#11">prolonged warfare</a> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/13.31?lang=eng#30">where</a> &#8220;all the people upon the face of the land were shedding blood, and there was none to restrain them.&#8221; In <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/14.21#20">the end</a>, &#8220;the whole face of the land was covered with the bodies of the dead.&#8221;</p>
<p>Imagine Mosiah reading this over, seeing himself in the position of the early Jaredite founders. A righteous man in power will restrain himself from imposing burdens on other people, but any wise man understands the maxim that you should never entrust your friend with a power that you wouldn&#8217;t want your enemy to have. </p>
<p>&#8220;How much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction!&#8221; Mosiah <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29.17?lang=eng#16">told his people</a>, referring them to the story of King Noah they had learned about. </p>
<p>But to emphasize his point and make himself clear, he alluded to the Jaredite nation&#8217;s history full of attempts to remove wicked kings from power. &#8220;Ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king,&#8221; Mosiah <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29.21-23?lang=eng#20">taught</a>, &#8220;save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood.&#8221; Why? &#8220;He has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him; and he trampleth under his feet the commandments of God; And he enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people, yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him he will send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is serious stuff. One can only imagine how Mosiah felt, seeing the warning signs all around him—and being in a position to do something about it. His desire was clear, for after he referenced these examples he <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29.24?lang=eng#23">told the people</a> that &#8220;it is not expedient that such abominations should come upon you.&#8221;</p>
<p>So he did something about it. He abolished the kingdom and relinquished his authority. He proposed a decentralized system of judges to rule people based on the existing laws they had operated under. He learned from the mistakes of the past and chose not to repeat them. Mosiah applied scripture and acted upon the knowledge he received. He did with this new information what he was hoping future people would do with the information he and his predecessors had been documenting in their own records.</p>
<p>Mormon and his son Moroni <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/a-forgotten-focal-point-in-the-book-of-mormon">doubled down</a> on this imperative to apply the scriptures when summarizing the end result of both the Nephite and Jaredite nations. These last prophets, whose work was to compile a concise summary of the records and point us to the key lessons to learn (and apply), knew what they were doing. They wrote <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/26.12?lang=eng#11">what God commanded them to</a>, having seen their audience—you and I—in <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/morm/8.35#34">a detailed vision</a>. It is safe to assume, then, that what was written in the Book of Mormon was intentionally included so as to be most profitable to us in likening principles and historical experiences <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/19.23#22">to ourselves</a>. </p>
<p>With this context, it becomes clear why the children of Zion have been condemned in these the last days. We praise ourselves for being a tithe-paying, temple-going people, but from the earliest days of the restoration we Saints <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84.54-58#53">have been condemned</a> for not &#8220;remember[ing] the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon.&#8221; Interestingly, the importance of remembering scripture (in order to be able to apply it, of course) was emphasized in this book itself—the word <em>remember</em> appears 161 times, used often by prophets nearly begging everybody to keep God&#8217;s past dealings with them at the forefront of their mind, so as to inspire them to stay on the straight and narrow. </p>
<p>More importantly, the Lord notes, the point is to &#8220;not only… say, but to do according to that which I have written.&#8221; This action—based on lessons learned from the book of scripture created <em>just for us</em>—is meant to &#8220;bring forth fruit meet for [our] Father&#8217;s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.&#8221;</p>
<p>Mosiah re-architected the government over which he presided in response to warnings he observed in historical and scriptural records. He and his fellow prophet-scribes helped create and compile a book that was preserved, provided, and translated for us—a guidebook permeated with lessons to be learned, principles to be applied, and trends to be avoided should we want to avert the same fate faced by two previous civilizations who were similarly warned by prophets of the outcome of wicked rulers, centralized power, and deviation from God&#8217;s commandments. </p>
<p>You and I lack the power to unilaterally redesign an entire society, but that&#8217;s beside the point. The Book of Mormon&#8217;s teachings are meant to be applied as much individually as they are institutionally; we have plenty of opportunity and need to change our own behavior in response to historical and scriptural warnings. Unfortunately it seems many of us Latter-day Saints have become comfortable in our condemnation, unwilling or uninterested in doing <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/do-you-really-want-the-rest-of-the-book-of-mormon">what is necessary</a> to take seriously the book we claim to believe and appreciate. I hope we can change course—and soon.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=4mBqUcJ6Jk8:Gd1-YPJItKo:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=4mBqUcJ6Jk8:Gd1-YPJItKo:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=4mBqUcJ6Jk8:Gd1-YPJItKo:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:73:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-latter-day-saints-are-condemned/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"12";}s:7:"summary";s:362:"King Mosiah had many duties, one of them being the charge over the protection of, and addition to, the plates of Nephi—the official record of the Nephite people to be used &#8220;for the instruction of [the] people&#8221; and their &#8220;profit.&#8221; Eager to help future generations know of their prophecies and experiences, the plates were added [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:14972:"<p>King Mosiah had many duties, one of them being the charge over the protection of, and addition to, the plates of Nephi—the official record of the Nephite people <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/19.3?lang=eng#2">to be used</a> &#8220;for the instruction of [the] people&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/5.30-32?lang=eng#29">and their</a> &#8220;profit.&#8221; Eager to <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/25.26?lang=eng#25">help future generations</a> know of their prophecies and experiences, the plates were <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/jacob/1.1-2,4?lang=eng#0">added to periodically</a> for posterity&#8217;s edification.</p>
<p>Having been raised in an environment rich with teachings and the documentation thereof, it should strike nobody as a surprise that Mosiah was well prepared to act upon other records he received. After all, if the entire intent of prophetic scripture-making was to benefit others, then of course he and his people would want to benefit from the record of God&#8217;s dealings with others.</p>
<p>When Mosiah&#8217;s sons began their missionary work among the people of Limhi, they were <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/8.7-9#6">presented with a mysterious discovery</a>—24 gold plates discovered in the ruins of a fallen and forgotten civilization, written in an unknown language. Limhi <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/8.12#11">was hoping</a> to find a way to translate the record &#8220;to know the cause of their destruction.&#8221;</p>
<p><span id="more-3405"></span></p>
<p>When the record made its way to Mosiah, all of Nephite society was abuzz with the discovery and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/28.12?lang=eng#11">likewise</a> &#8220;desirous beyond measure to know concerning those people who had been destroyed.&#8221; Using seer stones, Mosiah translated record which laid bare the rise and fall of the Jaredite society, replete with carnage and evil, counterbalanced at times with God&#8217;s divine intervention and grace. Having read Mosiah&#8217;s translation, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/28.18?lang=eng#17">it</a> &#8220;did cause the people of Mosiah to mourn exceedingly, yea, they were filled with sorrow; nevertheless it gave them much knowledge, in the which they did rejoice.&#8221; Abridging the record, Mormon parenthetically <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/28.19?lang=eng#18">notes</a> that &#8220;it is expedient that all people should know the things which are written in this account.&#8221;</p>
<p>This quest for knowledge was not a passive or selfish endeavor, with Mosiah and others wanting to become historians or merely satisfy an intellectual curiosity. Rather, it was intended to improve their lives. Mosiah himself demonstrates this in detail.</p>
<p>This man, like his father Benjamin, was a righteous king. The people over which <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29.40?lang=eng#39">he ruled</a> &#8220;did not look upon him as a tyrant who was seeking for gain, yea, for that lucre which doth corrupt the soul; for he had not exacted riches of them, neither had he delighted in the shedding of blood; but he had established peace in the land, and he had granted unto his people that they should be delivered from all manner of bondage; therefore they did esteem him, yea, exceedingly, beyond measure.&#8221;</p>
<p>This had been their experience for some time. By the time that Mosiah was looking to find a successor, Nephite civilization been largely flourishing under the benevolent rule of Mosiah and his fathers for nearly a century. But when Mosiah was presented with the Jaredite record, and that of Limhi&#8217;s people, he became convinced of the need to radically restructure the model of governance in Nephite society.</p>
<p>Gathering his people, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29.35-36#34">he</a> &#8220;unfolded unto them all the disadvantages they labored under, by having an unrighteous king to rule over them&#8221; along with the &#8220;iniquities and abominations, and all the wars, and contentions, and bloodshed, and the stealing, and the plundering, and the committing of whoredoms, and all manner of iniquities which cannot be enumerated&#8221; but which are byproducts of having a government with power centralized under a kingship. He thus told them &#8220;that these things ought not to be, that they were expressly repugnant to the commandments of God.&#8221; </p>
<p>Recognizing that elevating some people over others is an inequality, King Mosiah <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29.32#31">taught</a> that it &#8220;should be no more in this land.&#8221; He continued: &#8220;I desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike…&#8221;</p>
<p>As a solution he advocated decentralization, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29.34#33">arguing</a> that &#8220;the burden should come upon all the people, that every man might bear his part.&#8221; Consequently, his subjects &#8220;became exceedingly anxious that every man should have an equal chance throughout all the land.&#8221; </p>
<p>What&#8217;s interesting about all of this is that <em>it was foreign to their experience</em>; for decades, Mosiah&#8217;s subjects had no reason to question their model of government. Life was good under great leadership. The &#8220;disadvantages&#8221; to which Mosiah referred them were theoretical in nature, as they did not share that experience.</p>
<p>But others did experience it—Limhi&#8217;s people, under the rule of the wicked King Noah, had a <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/11.3#2">tax burden of 20%</a> to support the King&#8217;s lavish lifestyle and that of his inner circle, and were <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/11.2-15?lang=eng#1">encouraged</a> to become immoral and deviant. </p>
<p>This aberration notwithstanding, limited as it was to this smaller group of Nephite separatists, Mosiah&#8217;s warnings were likely influenced far more by the Jaredite record which he had translated and promulgated to his people. In that record, a portion of which we have preserved in the <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether">book of Ether</a>, the reader finds steady carnage and conquest with competing kings warring over territory and power. </p>
<p>It didn&#8217;t need to be this way. Jared and his brother, the fathers of this new nation, provided spiritual and social leadership throughout their journey and upon settling in their new land. As their lives ended, they asked their families for any last wishes. They requested that <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/6/19-23?lang=eng#18">a kingdom be formally organized</a>—a position that &#8220;was grievous unto them.&#8221; The brother of Jared prophetically warned, &#8220;Surely this thing leadeth into captivity.&#8221; </p>
<p>It didn&#8217;t start out that way, just as it didn&#8217;t with the Nephite nation. Jared&#8217;s son Orihah became the first king and was, like Benjamin and Mosiah, and righteous king <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/6/30?lang=eng#29">who</a> &#8220;did walk humbly before the Lord.&#8221; But the model had been created, the precedent set, and the power centralized. The brother of Jared&#8217;s posterity fulfilled his prediction, as the record repeatedly demonstrates. The battle to wrest control of power led to <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/8.3?lang=eng#2">political</a> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/9.7?lang=eng#6">imprisonment</a>, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/8.5?lang=eng#4">internal insurrections</a>, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/8.7?lang=eng#6">lust for power</a>, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/8.11-12?lang=eng#10">conspiracy</a>, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/9.1?lang=eng#0">revolution</a>, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/9.11?lang=eng#10">bribery</a>, and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/9.12?lang=eng#11">prolonged warfare</a> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/13.31?lang=eng#30">where</a> &#8220;all the people upon the face of the land were shedding blood, and there was none to restrain them.&#8221; In <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/14.21#20">the end</a>, &#8220;the whole face of the land was covered with the bodies of the dead.&#8221;</p>
<p>Imagine Mosiah reading this over, seeing himself in the position of the early Jaredite founders. A righteous man in power will restrain himself from imposing burdens on other people, but any wise man understands the maxim that you should never entrust your friend with a power that you wouldn&#8217;t want your enemy to have. </p>
<p>&#8220;How much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction!&#8221; Mosiah <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29.17?lang=eng#16">told his people</a>, referring them to the story of King Noah they had learned about. </p>
<p>But to emphasize his point and make himself clear, he alluded to the Jaredite nation&#8217;s history full of attempts to remove wicked kings from power. &#8220;Ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king,&#8221; Mosiah <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29.21-23?lang=eng#20">taught</a>, &#8220;save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood.&#8221; Why? &#8220;He has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him; and he trampleth under his feet the commandments of God; And he enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people, yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him he will send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is serious stuff. One can only imagine how Mosiah felt, seeing the warning signs all around him—and being in a position to do something about it. His desire was clear, for after he referenced these examples he <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29.24?lang=eng#23">told the people</a> that &#8220;it is not expedient that such abominations should come upon you.&#8221;</p>
<p>So he did something about it. He abolished the kingdom and relinquished his authority. He proposed a decentralized system of judges to rule people based on the existing laws they had operated under. He learned from the mistakes of the past and chose not to repeat them. Mosiah applied scripture and acted upon the knowledge he received. He did with this new information what he was hoping future people would do with the information he and his predecessors had been documenting in their own records.</p>
<p>Mormon and his son Moroni <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/a-forgotten-focal-point-in-the-book-of-mormon">doubled down</a> on this imperative to apply the scriptures when summarizing the end result of both the Nephite and Jaredite nations. These last prophets, whose work was to compile a concise summary of the records and point us to the key lessons to learn (and apply), knew what they were doing. They wrote <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/26.12?lang=eng#11">what God commanded them to</a>, having seen their audience—you and I—in <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/morm/8.35#34">a detailed vision</a>. It is safe to assume, then, that what was written in the Book of Mormon was intentionally included so as to be most profitable to us in likening principles and historical experiences <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/19.23#22">to ourselves</a>. </p>
<p>With this context, it becomes clear why the children of Zion have been condemned in these the last days. We praise ourselves for being a tithe-paying, temple-going people, but from the earliest days of the restoration we Saints <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84.54-58#53">have been condemned</a> for not &#8220;remember[ing] the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon.&#8221; Interestingly, the importance of remembering scripture (in order to be able to apply it, of course) was emphasized in this book itself—the word <em>remember</em> appears 161 times, used often by prophets nearly begging everybody to keep God&#8217;s past dealings with them at the forefront of their mind, so as to inspire them to stay on the straight and narrow. </p>
<p>More importantly, the Lord notes, the point is to &#8220;not only… say, but to do according to that which I have written.&#8221; This action—based on lessons learned from the book of scripture created <em>just for us</em>—is meant to &#8220;bring forth fruit meet for [our] Father&#8217;s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.&#8221;</p>
<p>Mosiah re-architected the government over which he presided in response to warnings he observed in historical and scriptural records. He and his fellow prophet-scribes helped create and compile a book that was preserved, provided, and translated for us—a guidebook permeated with lessons to be learned, principles to be applied, and trends to be avoided should we want to avert the same fate faced by two previous civilizations who were similarly warned by prophets of the outcome of wicked rulers, centralized power, and deviation from God&#8217;s commandments. </p>
<p>You and I lack the power to unilaterally redesign an entire society, but that&#8217;s beside the point. The Book of Mormon&#8217;s teachings are meant to be applied as much individually as they are institutionally; we have plenty of opportunity and need to change our own behavior in response to historical and scriptural warnings. Unfortunately it seems many of us Latter-day Saints have become comfortable in our condemnation, unwilling or uninterested in doing <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/do-you-really-want-the-rest-of-the-book-of-mormon">what is necessary</a> to take seriously the book we claim to believe and appreciate. I hope we can change course—and soon.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=4mBqUcJ6Jk8:Gd1-YPJItKo:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=4mBqUcJ6Jk8:Gd1-YPJItKo:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=4mBqUcJ6Jk8:Gd1-YPJItKo:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1419174419;}i:14;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:46:"Torture is okay, because hey, we’re awesome!";s:4:"link";s:73:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/torture-is-okay-because-hey-were-awesome";s:8:"comments";s:82:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/torture-is-okay-because-hey-were-awesome#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Wed, 17 Dec 2014 02:31:09 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Politics";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3404";s:11:"description";s:380:"After four years and forty million dollars, a Senate committee released a report last week summarizing its findings and views of the Central Intelligence Agency&#8217;s use of torture against alleged terrorists held captive by the agency in hopes of extracting useful information. The report contains a number of startling (but perhaps unsurprising) revelations, such as [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:10337:"<p>After four years and forty million dollars, a Senate committee released a report last week summarizing its findings and views of the Central Intelligence Agency&#8217;s use of torture against alleged terrorists held captive by the agency in hopes of extracting useful information.</p>
<p><a href="http://loadedtrolley.com.au/study2014-sscistudy1/">The report</a> contains a number of startling (but perhaps unsurprising) revelations, <a href="http://rt.com/usa/213603-torture-panel-shocking-findings/">such as</a> sleep deprivation, forced rectal hydration, threats made against detainees&#8217; family members, extensive waterboarding, knowingly innocent people still being held and tortured, and a concerted effort by the CIA to evade transparency and accountability.</p>
<p>The reactions to this report have been voluminous and varied in their degree of dismissal or objection. One commentary on the issue, however, encapsulates a response that I believe to be held widely by Americans. It was passionately offered up by Andrea Tantaros of Fox News who justified torture because it was &#8220;what the American public wanted&#8221; the Bush administration to do in order &#8220;to keep us safe.&#8221; Dismissing the report as being solely &#8220;about politics,&#8221; she <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-host-cia-torture-america-awesome">launched into</a> a jingoistic spectacle of American cheerleading.</p>
<p>&#8220;The United States of America is awesome, we are awesome,&#8221; she said, then arguing that &#8220;the reason [Democrats] want to have this discussion is not to show how awesome we are.&#8221;</p>
<p><span id="more-3404"></span></p>
<p>I cannot help but draw scriptural correlation to current events, so, let&#8217;s have at it.</p>
<p>The prophet Nephi, speaking in his <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/25.4?lang=eng#3">trademark plainness</a>, wrote of a future time <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.19#18">in which</a> &#8220;the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance.&#8221; In that day—our day—some would be <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.20#19">stirred up to anger</a>, full of rage. Others, Nephi says, would be pacified, lulled away into carnal security—in Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s words, embracing the &#8220;calm of despotism.&#8221; The mentality of these individuals is reflected in a <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.21?lang=eng#20">simple statement</a>, indicative of an entire mindset: &#8220;All is well in Zion.&#8221;</p>
<p>Of course, this position of pride (with its corresponding arrogance and abdication of personal responsibility) is not merely a byproduct of the modern age. We observe its patterns and effects in the lives and times of Nephi&#8217;s posterity. It is, as President Uchtdorf <a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/pride-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng">notes</a>, &#8220;the original sin, for before the foundations of this earth, pride felled Lucifer, a son of the morning &#8216;who was in authority in the presence of God.'&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;If pride can corrupt one as capable and promising as this,&#8221; Uchtdorf says, &#8220;should we not examine our own souls as well?&#8221;</p>
<p>The Andrea Tantaroses of the world would have us overlook our mistakes and justify our misdeeds by comparing ourselves to others and esteeming them as less &#8220;awesome&#8221; than us. While this woman spoke in absolutes—&#8221;we are awesome&#8221;—she likely meant, as so many others do, that we are simply <em>more</em> awesome than others. Government violating your rights? Put up with it, citizen—because where else would you go? Freedoms vanishing? At least they&#8217;re not vanishing as fast as they are elsewhere! Be grateful that the tyranny you are seeing spring up around you is not a deluge. Bask gleefully in the softness of your enslavement.</p>
<p>This pride by comparison was most notably exhibited by the Zoramites. While today propagandists claim we are &#8220;awesome&#8221; from digital media platforms, they <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.13?lang=eng#12">built a physical platform</a> to proclaim a similar message.</p>
<p>&#8220;We believe that [God] has elected us,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.16-18?lang=eng#15">they said</a>, &#8220;that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by [God&#8217;s] wrath down to hell.&#8221; For this perceived comparative advantage they repeatedly thanked God &#8220;that we are a chosen and a holy people.&#8221;</p>
<p>Alma and his brethren, serving as missionaries among this group, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.19?lang=eng#18">were</a> &#8220;astonished beyond all measure&#8221; at this self-aggrandizing pride-fest. President Uchtdorf suggested that we should examine if we are guilty of similar behavior. As one data point, consider <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/15/that-big-cia-torture-report-americans-just-shrugged/">recent polling</a> after the release of the CIA torture report and the corresponding media firestorm. The general response by Americans to the reports of brutality and inhumanity was a collective &#8220;meh.&#8221;</p>
<p>The prophet Mormon knew that things in his day were anything <em>but</em> awesome. He extensively <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wickedness-abominations-and-wikileaks">documented a long list</a> of atrocities implemented by prideful people excusing away their wickedness. It was done to show what people who are &#8220;not awesome&#8221; do. It was done to help us learn from their mistakes so as not to repeat them.</p>
<p>Have we learned from—and avoided repeating—those mistakes?</p>
<p>The self-aggrandizing status quo is clearly comfortable for people who otherwise would have to admit their incorrect beliefs—or worse, their complicity. Thus we see widespread whitewashing of wickedness using deceitful, dismissive claims that the criticisms are irrelevant; one sees no need to change when he feels that he already is &#8220;awesome.&#8221;</p>
<p>We Latter-day Saints are held to a higher standard in this regard, being called as a <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/peculiar-people">peculiar people</a> who have <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/07/understanding-our-covenants-with-god?lang=eng">made covenants</a> to live more closely in accordance with God&#8217;s laws. And yet we remain, like the Israelites who we love to criticize for their misguided waywardness, an <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/06/the-false-gods-we-worship?lang=eng">idolatrous people</a> who are <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84.54-57?lang=eng#53">under condemnation</a>. We, of all people, must recognize and reject even the semblance of self-deception. We are not awesome because we are not acting like it.</p>
<p>Andrea Tantaros was evidently not upset that the torture happened—that the rights of innocent people were violated or that the government approved and implemented inhumane treatment against suspects. What she <em>was</em> upset about was that the conversation about the CIA torture was being driven by individuals of a differing political ideology, and more generally, that the conversation was happening at all. &#8220;This makes us look bad,&#8221; she argued. &#8220;And all this does is have our enemies laughing at us.&#8221;</p>
<p>Laughing? If I&#8217;m an Afghani father whose teenage son was randomly rounded up by a bounty hunter in the chaotic aftermath of the American occupation, detained for over a decade without being able to contact me, and now I have further evidence—admissions from the U.S. government, no less—that my son was tortured at the hands of this foreign government, <em>my emotional response would not be laughter</em>. I would be uncontrollably <em>outraged</em>.</p>
<p>But we should not concern ourselves primarily with what our &#8220;enemies&#8221; think about our actions. We <em>should</em> be concerned with whether God approves of our behavior. &#8220;What Would Jesus Do?&#8221; is a common question sporadically pondered by Christians, but very infrequently applied in the context of public policy. Would Jesus condone the actions of the CIA? I doubt it. (That tells you, tangentially, whose side Dick Cheney is on…)</p>
<p>The scriptures speak of &#8220;perilous times&#8221; in these latter days <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-tim/3.2?lang=eng#1">when</a> &#8220;men shall be lovers of their own [awesome?] selves,&#8221; and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/12.43?lang=eng#42">point out</a> the Pharisaical trend of &#8220;lov[ing] the praise of men more than the praise of God.&#8221; Paul likewise <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-tim/4.1-4?lang=eng#0">noted</a> that many would &#8220;after their own lusts… heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears&#8221; and &#8220;turn away their ears from the truth, and… be turned unto fables.&#8221;</p>
<p>The allegation of our collective awesomeness is unfounded. It is, rather, a fable—a concocted myth designed to ameliorate our conscience and circumvent conversation about apologies and reform. Latter-day Saints should instead wholeheartedly and vocally reject modern-day Rameumptoms.</p>
<p>When Moses was given a grandiose vision by God, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1.10?lang=eng#9">what was his takeaway</a>? &#8220;Now… I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.&#8221; The Andrea Tantaroses of the world could stand to replicate this humility and recognize our faults and weaknesses. Chances are, you and I need to as well.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=95EI85LwptE:VfqvFuHJQHI:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=95EI85LwptE:VfqvFuHJQHI:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=95EI85LwptE:VfqvFuHJQHI:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:78:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/torture-is-okay-because-hey-were-awesome/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"35";}s:7:"summary";s:380:"After four years and forty million dollars, a Senate committee released a report last week summarizing its findings and views of the Central Intelligence Agency&#8217;s use of torture against alleged terrorists held captive by the agency in hopes of extracting useful information. The report contains a number of startling (but perhaps unsurprising) revelations, such as [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:10337:"<p>After four years and forty million dollars, a Senate committee released a report last week summarizing its findings and views of the Central Intelligence Agency&#8217;s use of torture against alleged terrorists held captive by the agency in hopes of extracting useful information.</p>
<p><a href="http://loadedtrolley.com.au/study2014-sscistudy1/">The report</a> contains a number of startling (but perhaps unsurprising) revelations, <a href="http://rt.com/usa/213603-torture-panel-shocking-findings/">such as</a> sleep deprivation, forced rectal hydration, threats made against detainees&#8217; family members, extensive waterboarding, knowingly innocent people still being held and tortured, and a concerted effort by the CIA to evade transparency and accountability.</p>
<p>The reactions to this report have been voluminous and varied in their degree of dismissal or objection. One commentary on the issue, however, encapsulates a response that I believe to be held widely by Americans. It was passionately offered up by Andrea Tantaros of Fox News who justified torture because it was &#8220;what the American public wanted&#8221; the Bush administration to do in order &#8220;to keep us safe.&#8221; Dismissing the report as being solely &#8220;about politics,&#8221; she <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-host-cia-torture-america-awesome">launched into</a> a jingoistic spectacle of American cheerleading.</p>
<p>&#8220;The United States of America is awesome, we are awesome,&#8221; she said, then arguing that &#8220;the reason [Democrats] want to have this discussion is not to show how awesome we are.&#8221;</p>
<p><span id="more-3404"></span></p>
<p>I cannot help but draw scriptural correlation to current events, so, let&#8217;s have at it.</p>
<p>The prophet Nephi, speaking in his <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/25.4?lang=eng#3">trademark plainness</a>, wrote of a future time <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.19#18">in which</a> &#8220;the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance.&#8221; In that day—our day—some would be <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.20#19">stirred up to anger</a>, full of rage. Others, Nephi says, would be pacified, lulled away into carnal security—in Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s words, embracing the &#8220;calm of despotism.&#8221; The mentality of these individuals is reflected in a <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.21?lang=eng#20">simple statement</a>, indicative of an entire mindset: &#8220;All is well in Zion.&#8221;</p>
<p>Of course, this position of pride (with its corresponding arrogance and abdication of personal responsibility) is not merely a byproduct of the modern age. We observe its patterns and effects in the lives and times of Nephi&#8217;s posterity. It is, as President Uchtdorf <a href="https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/pride-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng">notes</a>, &#8220;the original sin, for before the foundations of this earth, pride felled Lucifer, a son of the morning &#8216;who was in authority in the presence of God.'&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;If pride can corrupt one as capable and promising as this,&#8221; Uchtdorf says, &#8220;should we not examine our own souls as well?&#8221;</p>
<p>The Andrea Tantaroses of the world would have us overlook our mistakes and justify our misdeeds by comparing ourselves to others and esteeming them as less &#8220;awesome&#8221; than us. While this woman spoke in absolutes—&#8221;we are awesome&#8221;—she likely meant, as so many others do, that we are simply <em>more</em> awesome than others. Government violating your rights? Put up with it, citizen—because where else would you go? Freedoms vanishing? At least they&#8217;re not vanishing as fast as they are elsewhere! Be grateful that the tyranny you are seeing spring up around you is not a deluge. Bask gleefully in the softness of your enslavement.</p>
<p>This pride by comparison was most notably exhibited by the Zoramites. While today propagandists claim we are &#8220;awesome&#8221; from digital media platforms, they <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.13?lang=eng#12">built a physical platform</a> to proclaim a similar message.</p>
<p>&#8220;We believe that [God] has elected us,&#8221; <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.16-18?lang=eng#15">they said</a>, &#8220;that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by [God&#8217;s] wrath down to hell.&#8221; For this perceived comparative advantage they repeatedly thanked God &#8220;that we are a chosen and a holy people.&#8221;</p>
<p>Alma and his brethren, serving as missionaries among this group, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.19?lang=eng#18">were</a> &#8220;astonished beyond all measure&#8221; at this self-aggrandizing pride-fest. President Uchtdorf suggested that we should examine if we are guilty of similar behavior. As one data point, consider <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/15/that-big-cia-torture-report-americans-just-shrugged/">recent polling</a> after the release of the CIA torture report and the corresponding media firestorm. The general response by Americans to the reports of brutality and inhumanity was a collective &#8220;meh.&#8221;</p>
<p>The prophet Mormon knew that things in his day were anything <em>but</em> awesome. He extensively <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/wickedness-abominations-and-wikileaks">documented a long list</a> of atrocities implemented by prideful people excusing away their wickedness. It was done to show what people who are &#8220;not awesome&#8221; do. It was done to help us learn from their mistakes so as not to repeat them.</p>
<p>Have we learned from—and avoided repeating—those mistakes?</p>
<p>The self-aggrandizing status quo is clearly comfortable for people who otherwise would have to admit their incorrect beliefs—or worse, their complicity. Thus we see widespread whitewashing of wickedness using deceitful, dismissive claims that the criticisms are irrelevant; one sees no need to change when he feels that he already is &#8220;awesome.&#8221;</p>
<p>We Latter-day Saints are held to a higher standard in this regard, being called as a <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/peculiar-people">peculiar people</a> who have <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/07/understanding-our-covenants-with-god?lang=eng">made covenants</a> to live more closely in accordance with God&#8217;s laws. And yet we remain, like the Israelites who we love to criticize for their misguided waywardness, an <a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/06/the-false-gods-we-worship?lang=eng">idolatrous people</a> who are <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84.54-57?lang=eng#53">under condemnation</a>. We, of all people, must recognize and reject even the semblance of self-deception. We are not awesome because we are not acting like it.</p>
<p>Andrea Tantaros was evidently not upset that the torture happened—that the rights of innocent people were violated or that the government approved and implemented inhumane treatment against suspects. What she <em>was</em> upset about was that the conversation about the CIA torture was being driven by individuals of a differing political ideology, and more generally, that the conversation was happening at all. &#8220;This makes us look bad,&#8221; she argued. &#8220;And all this does is have our enemies laughing at us.&#8221;</p>
<p>Laughing? If I&#8217;m an Afghani father whose teenage son was randomly rounded up by a bounty hunter in the chaotic aftermath of the American occupation, detained for over a decade without being able to contact me, and now I have further evidence—admissions from the U.S. government, no less—that my son was tortured at the hands of this foreign government, <em>my emotional response would not be laughter</em>. I would be uncontrollably <em>outraged</em>.</p>
<p>But we should not concern ourselves primarily with what our &#8220;enemies&#8221; think about our actions. We <em>should</em> be concerned with whether God approves of our behavior. &#8220;What Would Jesus Do?&#8221; is a common question sporadically pondered by Christians, but very infrequently applied in the context of public policy. Would Jesus condone the actions of the CIA? I doubt it. (That tells you, tangentially, whose side Dick Cheney is on…)</p>
<p>The scriptures speak of &#8220;perilous times&#8221; in these latter days <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-tim/3.2?lang=eng#1">when</a> &#8220;men shall be lovers of their own [awesome?] selves,&#8221; and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/12.43?lang=eng#42">point out</a> the Pharisaical trend of &#8220;lov[ing] the praise of men more than the praise of God.&#8221; Paul likewise <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-tim/4.1-4?lang=eng#0">noted</a> that many would &#8220;after their own lusts… heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears&#8221; and &#8220;turn away their ears from the truth, and… be turned unto fables.&#8221;</p>
<p>The allegation of our collective awesomeness is unfounded. It is, rather, a fable—a concocted myth designed to ameliorate our conscience and circumvent conversation about apologies and reform. Latter-day Saints should instead wholeheartedly and vocally reject modern-day Rameumptoms.</p>
<p>When Moses was given a grandiose vision by God, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1.10?lang=eng#9">what was his takeaway</a>? &#8220;Now… I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.&#8221; The Andrea Tantaroses of the world could stand to replicate this humility and recognize our faults and weaknesses. Chances are, you and I need to as well.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=95EI85LwptE:VfqvFuHJQHI:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=95EI85LwptE:VfqvFuHJQHI:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=95EI85LwptE:VfqvFuHJQHI:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1418783469;}i:15;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:49:"Can Prophets Come from Outside Church Leadership?";s:4:"link";s:74:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/can-prophets-come-from-outside-the-church";s:8:"comments";s:83:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/can-prophets-come-from-outside-the-church#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sun, 14 Dec 2014 15:08:27 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Religion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3402";s:11:"description";s:348:"I find it troubling that, speaking generally, people seem unable or unwilling to observe something in the present that they readily admit occurred in the past. This pattern permeates scriptural application (or lack thereof), which is fairly odd since the very purpose of these scriptures is to be applied in our lives. Consider an example [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:12004:"<p>I find it troubling that, speaking generally, people seem unable or unwilling to observe something in the present that they readily admit occurred in the past.</p>
<p>This pattern permeates scriptural application (or lack thereof), which is fairly odd since the <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/morm/8.34-35?lang=eng#33">very purpose</a> of these scriptures is to be applied in our lives.</p>
<p>Consider an example I find extremely problematic: the <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/a-forgotten-focal-point-in-the-book-of-mormon">widespread ignorance or outright rejection of what I consider to be the Book of Mormon&#8217;s secondary purpose</a>. With repetition and great emphasis, the book&#8217;s editors point out historical evidences for &#8220;secret combinations&#8221; and the manner by which they overpower a society (through the government), and then <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/8.23-26?lang=eng#22">make explicitly clear</a> that we will face the same conflict in our own day. Most Latter-day Saints are comfortable reading about and recognizing the influence of these groups in past societies, but are ill-equipped to discern who they are—and what they&#8217;re doing—in our day. </p>
<p><span id="more-3402"></span></p>
<p>For another instance of this inconsistently held belief, think of the many calamities related in scripture, and foretold regarding the future. Famines, fires, flood, and rampant chaos are historical oddities we casually read about in the comfort of our home, yet the scriptures warning about similar circumstances at our doorstep are disregarded as irrelevant, thus not motivating any significant percentage of the Mormon population to materially and spiritually prepare for such calamities.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s also <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/prophetic-support-for-a-modern-callout">plenty of evidences</a> of past call-outs, whereby God, through a prophet, told a group of people to abandon their society and begin their own. Perhaps in some theoretical sense Latter-day Saints are open to the idea of this happening again, but it&#8217;s never discussed in any church setting and therefore few individuals, I presume, pursue the idea in their personal study.</p>
<p>While these are important issues, I want to address another in detail that nearly shouts from the many scriptural passages which support it—for those who have ears to hear, anyway. I&#8217;m speaking about God calling prophets outside the hierarchy of the established Church to call people to repentance.</p>
<p>The Book of Mormon opens with the story of one such prophet, Lehi, whose prophetic commission came from a vision he received of God. He, along with <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/1.4?lang=eng#3">many other prophets</a>, &#8220;went forth among the people, and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/1.18?lang=eng#17">began to prophesy</a>&#8221; about the impending destruction of Israel should they continue to alienate themselves from God. Positioning himself as a prophet among a wicked people brought him <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/1.19-20?lang=eng#18">mockery and attempted murder</a> by &#8220;God&#8217;s people&#8221; who rejected God&#8217;s message.</p>
<p>A contemporary of Lehi&#8217;s shared many similar experiences. Jeremiah had been <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/jer/1.4-10#3">foreordained to become a prophet</a>, yet found himself rebuking the religious leaders of his day for their misdeeds; the church leaders <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/jer/26.6-9#5">called for the death</a> of the Lord&#8217;s emissary. Yet he <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/jer/26.12-13#11">delivered his message</a>: &#8220;The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that ye have heard. Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God; and the Lord will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you.&#8221; This prophet, whose source of authority was a direct call from God, was imprisoned, punished, publicly humiliated, and eventually killed for delivering unpopular messages he had been instructed to convey.</p>
<p>What of Abinadi? King Noah employed false priests who encouraged corruption and infidelity, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/11.20?lang=eng#19">leading God</a> to call &#8220;a man among them&#8221; to call them all to repentance and threaten destruction for continued disobedience. The establishment, unsurprisingly, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/11.26?lang=eng#25">was</a> &#8220;wroth with him, and sought to take away his life,&#8221; which they eventually did. </p>
<p>When discussing prophets, we Latter-day Saints are quick to cite <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/amos/3.7?lang=eng#6">Amos 3:7</a>, wherein we read, &#8220;Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.&#8221; But who was Amos, and what kind of prophet was he? <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/amos/7.14-15?lang=eng#13">He himself explains</a>, to the king of Judah at the time: &#8220;I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit. And the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel.&#8221; His message <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/amos/5.21-24?lang=eng#20">was likewise</a> an excoriating, divine rebuke against church culture, criticizing tradition and ritual and calling for judgment and righteousness instead.</p>
<p>How about Samuel the Lamanite? While the Nephites had languished &#8220;in great wickedness,&#8221; this man <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/13.5#4">preached</a> &#8220;the words of the Lord which he doth put into my heart,&#8221; and which <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/13.7#6">an angel told him</a>, to Nephites who first <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/13.2#1">expelled him</a>, and then <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/16.2?lang=eng#1">attempted to kill him</a>. Those who believed him sought after Nephi, Helaman&#8217;s son, who then baptized them. </p>
<p>Of course, these prophets—and surely there are more I&#8217;ve missed, or whose prophecy and mission were not recorded and preserved for us to learn about—are merely a model for Jesus Christ who himself was sent of God, outside of church hierarchy, from humble and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/1.46?lang=eng#45">unlikely</a> circumstances, to call people to repentance. The existing establishment of religious authority, most notably the Pharisees, claimed to be the conduit to God. Thus, when the Conduit himself appeared before them, rebuking them with simplicity and boldness, they, following the pattern, desired to exile him. </p>
<p>Like the other issues presented at the outset of this article, Latter-day Saints are comfortable with these scriptural stories, and perhaps some of us take note of the pattern. We recognize the Pharisees of the past, both literal and figurative, and shake our heads that they would find themselves at odds with a person who is clearly a prophet of God, not realizing how much we benefit from hindsight and taking for granted the fact that knowing these people were prophets requires no discernment on our part—we are told as much directly by the scriptures we accept as authoritative.</p>
<p>But how would we fare if a prophet came to us today outside of the hierarchy of the Church? Would we learn from the mistakes of the past so as not to repeat them? Or would we side with the structure to which we have accustomed ourselves, thus removing the need for tackling hard questions such as determining if a person claiming a divine mandate, and chastising us for our wickedness, is in fact a prophet?</p>
<p>It&#8217;s instructive to note that these prophets are sent to God&#8217;s people because of general wickedness, and not necessarily corruption within church leadership. While in many cases the religious establishment had become rotten, this was not the experience of Samuel the Lamanite, whose mission came despite Nephi, and presumably others, righteously trying to do the very thing that Samuel was sent to do. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s irrelevant, then, whether leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are doing exactly what God wants them to or not. God can send—and perhaps has sent?—prophets outside of this organization. He would do so because of a general deviation from the path he wants us to follow. It has happened previously, so why not today? Are we so confident of our supposed righteousness, despite <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84.54-57#53">God himself noting</a> that we are condemned, and our minds darkened?</p>
<p>I also find it interesting that the examples listed above entail missionary work within the ranks of the supposedly faithful. God&#8217;s prophets, in these cases, were sent to rebuke those who claimed to be God&#8217;s disciples, yet who had deviated from the course they claimed to follow. None of these instances entail a non-hierarchical prophet being tasked to preach the gospel among nonbelievers; the pattern, it seems, is that iniquity or idolatry within Christian communities causes God to shake things up a bit in hopes of getting the people back on track.</p>
<p>This is uncomfortable doctrine—the idea has led people since time immemorial to reject, if not attempt to kill, people who claimed to be prophets but didn&#8217;t come up &#8220;through the ranks,&#8221; as it were. It&#8217;s difficult for us to sift through claims of prophecy and we therefore rely upon the scriptures, or the structure of the church, to tell us who is in a position of authority—who can be trusted to relay God&#8217;s message. We want somebody else to do the thinking—and deciding—for us. </p>
<p>I recognize that there are people in our day who claim, or who others have claimed, to be called of God to deliver a message of warning and repentance. I take no position in this article on any of these individuals or their messages—I only wish to establish that this type of thing can happen. It&#8217;s scripturally sound. We should expect it.</p>
<p>Cultivating a spirit of discernment—deciding for ourselves, with God&#8217;s guidance—therefore becomes key. Perhaps in recognition of this imperative, and in reference to the very time in which we live, Christ <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-m/1.22#21">told his disciples</a> that just prior to his Second Coming—an event soon pending—there would &#8220;arise false Christs, and false prophets.&#8221; Speaking of false prophets previously, Jesus had <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/7.20?lang=eng#19">given the key</a> to discernment: &#8220;by their fruits ye shall know them.&#8221; You&#8217;ll note, of course, that he did not say that we shall know them by whether they hold a position within the Church.</p>
<p>Can prophets come from outside the leadership of the Church? The scriptural record is clear—and if we&#8217;re sincere about believing that what we read is indicative of present and future events, then we must concede that an unchanging God may very well commission people in our own day to preach repentance unto God&#8217;s people. </p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=McnMyHfkOM8:7uyQAVZ509c:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=McnMyHfkOM8:7uyQAVZ509c:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=McnMyHfkOM8:7uyQAVZ509c:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:79:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/can-prophets-come-from-outside-the-church/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"57";}s:7:"summary";s:348:"I find it troubling that, speaking generally, people seem unable or unwilling to observe something in the present that they readily admit occurred in the past. This pattern permeates scriptural application (or lack thereof), which is fairly odd since the very purpose of these scriptures is to be applied in our lives. Consider an example [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:12004:"<p>I find it troubling that, speaking generally, people seem unable or unwilling to observe something in the present that they readily admit occurred in the past.</p>
<p>This pattern permeates scriptural application (or lack thereof), which is fairly odd since the <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/morm/8.34-35?lang=eng#33">very purpose</a> of these scriptures is to be applied in our lives.</p>
<p>Consider an example I find extremely problematic: the <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/a-forgotten-focal-point-in-the-book-of-mormon">widespread ignorance or outright rejection of what I consider to be the Book of Mormon&#8217;s secondary purpose</a>. With repetition and great emphasis, the book&#8217;s editors point out historical evidences for &#8220;secret combinations&#8221; and the manner by which they overpower a society (through the government), and then <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/8.23-26?lang=eng#22">make explicitly clear</a> that we will face the same conflict in our own day. Most Latter-day Saints are comfortable reading about and recognizing the influence of these groups in past societies, but are ill-equipped to discern who they are—and what they&#8217;re doing—in our day. </p>
<p><span id="more-3402"></span></p>
<p>For another instance of this inconsistently held belief, think of the many calamities related in scripture, and foretold regarding the future. Famines, fires, flood, and rampant chaos are historical oddities we casually read about in the comfort of our home, yet the scriptures warning about similar circumstances at our doorstep are disregarded as irrelevant, thus not motivating any significant percentage of the Mormon population to materially and spiritually prepare for such calamities.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s also <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/prophetic-support-for-a-modern-callout">plenty of evidences</a> of past call-outs, whereby God, through a prophet, told a group of people to abandon their society and begin their own. Perhaps in some theoretical sense Latter-day Saints are open to the idea of this happening again, but it&#8217;s never discussed in any church setting and therefore few individuals, I presume, pursue the idea in their personal study.</p>
<p>While these are important issues, I want to address another in detail that nearly shouts from the many scriptural passages which support it—for those who have ears to hear, anyway. I&#8217;m speaking about God calling prophets outside the hierarchy of the established Church to call people to repentance.</p>
<p>The Book of Mormon opens with the story of one such prophet, Lehi, whose prophetic commission came from a vision he received of God. He, along with <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/1.4?lang=eng#3">many other prophets</a>, &#8220;went forth among the people, and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/1.18?lang=eng#17">began to prophesy</a>&#8221; about the impending destruction of Israel should they continue to alienate themselves from God. Positioning himself as a prophet among a wicked people brought him <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/1.19-20?lang=eng#18">mockery and attempted murder</a> by &#8220;God&#8217;s people&#8221; who rejected God&#8217;s message.</p>
<p>A contemporary of Lehi&#8217;s shared many similar experiences. Jeremiah had been <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/jer/1.4-10#3">foreordained to become a prophet</a>, yet found himself rebuking the religious leaders of his day for their misdeeds; the church leaders <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/jer/26.6-9#5">called for the death</a> of the Lord&#8217;s emissary. Yet he <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/jer/26.12-13#11">delivered his message</a>: &#8220;The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that ye have heard. Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God; and the Lord will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you.&#8221; This prophet, whose source of authority was a direct call from God, was imprisoned, punished, publicly humiliated, and eventually killed for delivering unpopular messages he had been instructed to convey.</p>
<p>What of Abinadi? King Noah employed false priests who encouraged corruption and infidelity, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/11.20?lang=eng#19">leading God</a> to call &#8220;a man among them&#8221; to call them all to repentance and threaten destruction for continued disobedience. The establishment, unsurprisingly, <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/11.26?lang=eng#25">was</a> &#8220;wroth with him, and sought to take away his life,&#8221; which they eventually did. </p>
<p>When discussing prophets, we Latter-day Saints are quick to cite <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/amos/3.7?lang=eng#6">Amos 3:7</a>, wherein we read, &#8220;Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.&#8221; But who was Amos, and what kind of prophet was he? <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/amos/7.14-15?lang=eng#13">He himself explains</a>, to the king of Judah at the time: &#8220;I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit. And the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel.&#8221; His message <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/amos/5.21-24?lang=eng#20">was likewise</a> an excoriating, divine rebuke against church culture, criticizing tradition and ritual and calling for judgment and righteousness instead.</p>
<p>How about Samuel the Lamanite? While the Nephites had languished &#8220;in great wickedness,&#8221; this man <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/13.5#4">preached</a> &#8220;the words of the Lord which he doth put into my heart,&#8221; and which <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/13.7#6">an angel told him</a>, to Nephites who first <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/13.2#1">expelled him</a>, and then <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/hel/16.2?lang=eng#1">attempted to kill him</a>. Those who believed him sought after Nephi, Helaman&#8217;s son, who then baptized them. </p>
<p>Of course, these prophets—and surely there are more I&#8217;ve missed, or whose prophecy and mission were not recorded and preserved for us to learn about—are merely a model for Jesus Christ who himself was sent of God, outside of church hierarchy, from humble and <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/1.46?lang=eng#45">unlikely</a> circumstances, to call people to repentance. The existing establishment of religious authority, most notably the Pharisees, claimed to be the conduit to God. Thus, when the Conduit himself appeared before them, rebuking them with simplicity and boldness, they, following the pattern, desired to exile him. </p>
<p>Like the other issues presented at the outset of this article, Latter-day Saints are comfortable with these scriptural stories, and perhaps some of us take note of the pattern. We recognize the Pharisees of the past, both literal and figurative, and shake our heads that they would find themselves at odds with a person who is clearly a prophet of God, not realizing how much we benefit from hindsight and taking for granted the fact that knowing these people were prophets requires no discernment on our part—we are told as much directly by the scriptures we accept as authoritative.</p>
<p>But how would we fare if a prophet came to us today outside of the hierarchy of the Church? Would we learn from the mistakes of the past so as not to repeat them? Or would we side with the structure to which we have accustomed ourselves, thus removing the need for tackling hard questions such as determining if a person claiming a divine mandate, and chastising us for our wickedness, is in fact a prophet?</p>
<p>It&#8217;s instructive to note that these prophets are sent to God&#8217;s people because of general wickedness, and not necessarily corruption within church leadership. While in many cases the religious establishment had become rotten, this was not the experience of Samuel the Lamanite, whose mission came despite Nephi, and presumably others, righteously trying to do the very thing that Samuel was sent to do. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s irrelevant, then, whether leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are doing exactly what God wants them to or not. God can send—and perhaps has sent?—prophets outside of this organization. He would do so because of a general deviation from the path he wants us to follow. It has happened previously, so why not today? Are we so confident of our supposed righteousness, despite <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84.54-57#53">God himself noting</a> that we are condemned, and our minds darkened?</p>
<p>I also find it interesting that the examples listed above entail missionary work within the ranks of the supposedly faithful. God&#8217;s prophets, in these cases, were sent to rebuke those who claimed to be God&#8217;s disciples, yet who had deviated from the course they claimed to follow. None of these instances entail a non-hierarchical prophet being tasked to preach the gospel among nonbelievers; the pattern, it seems, is that iniquity or idolatry within Christian communities causes God to shake things up a bit in hopes of getting the people back on track.</p>
<p>This is uncomfortable doctrine—the idea has led people since time immemorial to reject, if not attempt to kill, people who claimed to be prophets but didn&#8217;t come up &#8220;through the ranks,&#8221; as it were. It&#8217;s difficult for us to sift through claims of prophecy and we therefore rely upon the scriptures, or the structure of the church, to tell us who is in a position of authority—who can be trusted to relay God&#8217;s message. We want somebody else to do the thinking—and deciding—for us. </p>
<p>I recognize that there are people in our day who claim, or who others have claimed, to be called of God to deliver a message of warning and repentance. I take no position in this article on any of these individuals or their messages—I only wish to establish that this type of thing can happen. It&#8217;s scripturally sound. We should expect it.</p>
<p>Cultivating a spirit of discernment—deciding for ourselves, with God&#8217;s guidance—therefore becomes key. Perhaps in recognition of this imperative, and in reference to the very time in which we live, Christ <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-m/1.22#21">told his disciples</a> that just prior to his Second Coming—an event soon pending—there would &#8220;arise false Christs, and false prophets.&#8221; Speaking of false prophets previously, Jesus had <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/7.20?lang=eng#19">given the key</a> to discernment: &#8220;by their fruits ye shall know them.&#8221; You&#8217;ll note, of course, that he did not say that we shall know them by whether they hold a position within the Church.</p>
<p>Can prophets come from outside the leadership of the Church? The scriptural record is clear—and if we&#8217;re sincere about believing that what we read is indicative of present and future events, then we must concede that an unchanging God may very well commission people in our own day to preach repentance unto God&#8217;s people. </p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=McnMyHfkOM8:7uyQAVZ509c:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=McnMyHfkOM8:7uyQAVZ509c:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=McnMyHfkOM8:7uyQAVZ509c:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1418569707;}i:16;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:29:"An Open Apology to Glenn Beck";s:4:"link";s:62:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/an-open-apology-to-glenn-beck";s:8:"comments";s:71:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/an-open-apology-to-glenn-beck#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sun, 07 Dec 2014 15:02:33 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Politics";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3401";s:11:"description";s:341:"The invite was received. The plane tickets were purchased. The questions were prepared, and I was set to go. Tomorrow, I was going to fly to Texas to appear on Glenn Beck&#8217;s TV program. Those plans, shall we say, &#8220;fell through.&#8221; You see, while over the past few weeks I pitched Glenn&#8217;s team on having me on [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:5349:"<p>The invite was received. The plane tickets were purchased. The questions were prepared, and I was set to go. Tomorrow, I was going to fly to Texas to appear on Glenn Beck&#8217;s TV program.</p>
<p>Those plans, shall we say, &#8220;fell through.&#8221;</p>
<p>You see, while over the past few weeks I pitched Glenn&#8217;s team on having me on to discuss <a href="http://feardombook.com"><em>Feardom</em></a>, I didn&#8217;t have in mind what his researchers later found: a blog post from early 2012 in which I said some not so nice things to and about their boss.</p>
<p>Titled &#8220;<a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/an-open-letter-to-glenn-beck">An Open Letter to Glenn Beck</a>,&#8221; the post was a reactionary takedown of Glenn&#8217;s treatment of Ron Paul. After I was informed that Glenn&#8217;s staff had come across it, I went back and read it myself to see what I had said nearly three years ago. I was with my family, and in sheer surprise at the… ahem… strength of some of the words, I read some excerpts to my wife who, along with myself, was surprised by my tone.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the harshest part, though a similar tone pervades the entire article:</p>
<p><span id="more-3401"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>But good heavens, Glenn. You’re so inconsistent! For example, you’ve recognized that Ron Paul is the closest thing we’ve got to the founding fathers, and then you encourage people not to support him. Then you about-face and suggest he’s what we need, only to then attack him a few days later.</p>
<p>Flip-flopping Mitt Romney? He’s got nothing on you.</p>
<p>But hey, I get that you have a hard time with consistently applying a principle. Many people do. No sweat. All is forgiven. I don’t listen to you, and I encourage others to steer clear, but you’re welcome to continue your self-contradicting tirades all you like, so long as you have the breath to do so. I prefer to keep my distance from you, as I don’t consider you a reliable source of analysis and truth. In short, I ignore you.</p></blockquote>
<p>After I read the article I fully expected my invitation to be withdrawn—and it was. Rightly so, of course; I wouldn&#8217;t really want to share my platform with a person who had treated me like that.</p>
<p>The interesting thing about reading this missive I wrote is that I agree with the substance—Glenn Beck was wrong to treat Ron Paul as he did, and wrong to malign his supporters—but I completely disagree with the tone. I can clearly tell that I wrote it from a defensive, reactionary position, but if the same events occurred today, the article would be quite different.</p>
<p>I can also tell that I was enjoying myself a little while writing it; I used to find pleasure in flame wars, tearing to pieces the opposing side. Years ago, I found value in being correct, but undervalued the importance of delivery and diplomacy. That has since changed.</p>
<p>What did it for me is <a href="http://libertasutah.org">Libertas Institute</a>—a serious effort to change public conversation and policy. Here I found myself strategically planning how to find long term success for liberty in my home state. Could a bombastic approach produce desired results? Clearly not—a few friends might cheer, but it would do little to attract, let alone persuade, those outside my camp.</p>
<p>And so, my new organization forced me to transform both my personal attitude and my public persona. I now recognize, and practice, what I disregarded years ago: that the message I hold so dear will find its way into the hearts and minds of those within my sphere of influence more through friendliness than flames. Respecting others, and wearing a smile on your face, opens doors that angry Facebook rants never did. Liberty will win when more of its messengers behave in a way that others would want to emulate.</p>
<p>Whether or not future opportunities of collaboration exist with Glenn Beck, I apologize to him for the way I communicated my thoughts to him. We disagree on many issues, but agree on many more—and in the past few years I have had great success in working together with people on areas of agreement, despite other disagreements. I no longer see a need to berate a person for the policies they support that I find problematic.</p>
<p>Of course, I still criticize flawed positions, whether held by friend or foe. But that&#8217;s where I prefer to focus my ire—on policy, not people. I missed the mark when going after Glenn to the degree I did, and I likewise missed that mark in earlier years on a routine basis. I now see almost everybody as a friend—one who simply needs a little convincing to &#8220;see the light&#8221; and embrace a position of liberty. Whether they ultimately agree or not, it&#8217;s a healthier and happier approach to life, and one I hope others in the liberty movement will adopt.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=DOBSo64YliM:TS_v3bhsJIw:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=DOBSo64YliM:TS_v3bhsJIw:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=DOBSo64YliM:TS_v3bhsJIw:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:67:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/an-open-apology-to-glenn-beck/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:2:"30";}s:7:"summary";s:341:"The invite was received. The plane tickets were purchased. The questions were prepared, and I was set to go. Tomorrow, I was going to fly to Texas to appear on Glenn Beck&#8217;s TV program. Those plans, shall we say, &#8220;fell through.&#8221; You see, while over the past few weeks I pitched Glenn&#8217;s team on having me on [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:5349:"<p>The invite was received. The plane tickets were purchased. The questions were prepared, and I was set to go. Tomorrow, I was going to fly to Texas to appear on Glenn Beck&#8217;s TV program.</p>
<p>Those plans, shall we say, &#8220;fell through.&#8221;</p>
<p>You see, while over the past few weeks I pitched Glenn&#8217;s team on having me on to discuss <a href="http://feardombook.com"><em>Feardom</em></a>, I didn&#8217;t have in mind what his researchers later found: a blog post from early 2012 in which I said some not so nice things to and about their boss.</p>
<p>Titled &#8220;<a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/an-open-letter-to-glenn-beck">An Open Letter to Glenn Beck</a>,&#8221; the post was a reactionary takedown of Glenn&#8217;s treatment of Ron Paul. After I was informed that Glenn&#8217;s staff had come across it, I went back and read it myself to see what I had said nearly three years ago. I was with my family, and in sheer surprise at the… ahem… strength of some of the words, I read some excerpts to my wife who, along with myself, was surprised by my tone.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the harshest part, though a similar tone pervades the entire article:</p>
<p><span id="more-3401"></span></p>
<blockquote><p>But good heavens, Glenn. You’re so inconsistent! For example, you’ve recognized that Ron Paul is the closest thing we’ve got to the founding fathers, and then you encourage people not to support him. Then you about-face and suggest he’s what we need, only to then attack him a few days later.</p>
<p>Flip-flopping Mitt Romney? He’s got nothing on you.</p>
<p>But hey, I get that you have a hard time with consistently applying a principle. Many people do. No sweat. All is forgiven. I don’t listen to you, and I encourage others to steer clear, but you’re welcome to continue your self-contradicting tirades all you like, so long as you have the breath to do so. I prefer to keep my distance from you, as I don’t consider you a reliable source of analysis and truth. In short, I ignore you.</p></blockquote>
<p>After I read the article I fully expected my invitation to be withdrawn—and it was. Rightly so, of course; I wouldn&#8217;t really want to share my platform with a person who had treated me like that.</p>
<p>The interesting thing about reading this missive I wrote is that I agree with the substance—Glenn Beck was wrong to treat Ron Paul as he did, and wrong to malign his supporters—but I completely disagree with the tone. I can clearly tell that I wrote it from a defensive, reactionary position, but if the same events occurred today, the article would be quite different.</p>
<p>I can also tell that I was enjoying myself a little while writing it; I used to find pleasure in flame wars, tearing to pieces the opposing side. Years ago, I found value in being correct, but undervalued the importance of delivery and diplomacy. That has since changed.</p>
<p>What did it for me is <a href="http://libertasutah.org">Libertas Institute</a>—a serious effort to change public conversation and policy. Here I found myself strategically planning how to find long term success for liberty in my home state. Could a bombastic approach produce desired results? Clearly not—a few friends might cheer, but it would do little to attract, let alone persuade, those outside my camp.</p>
<p>And so, my new organization forced me to transform both my personal attitude and my public persona. I now recognize, and practice, what I disregarded years ago: that the message I hold so dear will find its way into the hearts and minds of those within my sphere of influence more through friendliness than flames. Respecting others, and wearing a smile on your face, opens doors that angry Facebook rants never did. Liberty will win when more of its messengers behave in a way that others would want to emulate.</p>
<p>Whether or not future opportunities of collaboration exist with Glenn Beck, I apologize to him for the way I communicated my thoughts to him. We disagree on many issues, but agree on many more—and in the past few years I have had great success in working together with people on areas of agreement, despite other disagreements. I no longer see a need to berate a person for the policies they support that I find problematic.</p>
<p>Of course, I still criticize flawed positions, whether held by friend or foe. But that&#8217;s where I prefer to focus my ire—on policy, not people. I missed the mark when going after Glenn to the degree I did, and I likewise missed that mark in earlier years on a routine basis. I now see almost everybody as a friend—one who simply needs a little convincing to &#8220;see the light&#8221; and embrace a position of liberty. Whether they ultimately agree or not, it&#8217;s a healthier and happier approach to life, and one I hope others in the liberty movement will adopt.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=DOBSo64YliM:TS_v3bhsJIw:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=DOBSo64YliM:TS_v3bhsJIw:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=DOBSo64YliM:TS_v3bhsJIw:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1417964553;}i:17;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:33:"Mormon Pharisees and Phylacteries";s:4:"link";s:66:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormon-pharisees-and-phylacteries";s:8:"comments";s:75:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormon-pharisees-and-phylacteries#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sun, 23 Nov 2014 14:57:17 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Religion";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3399";s:11:"description";s:390:"It&#8217;s not uncommon for my Facebook posts to receive hundreds of comments; the more controversial the topic, the more comments are usually generated. A few issues, without fail, rank near the top: military intervention, breastfeeding, and vaccinations. But these threads were recently overshadowed by an unexpected tidal wave of opinion on an absurd issue: BYU-Idaho students [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:9463:"<p>It&#8217;s not uncommon for my Facebook posts to receive hundreds of comments; the more controversial the topic, the more comments are usually generated. A few issues, without fail, rank near the top: military intervention, breastfeeding, and vaccinations. But these threads were recently overshadowed by an unexpected tidal wave of opinion on an absurd issue: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10101607175199989&amp;set=a.740645084329.2330080.17810148&amp;type=1">BYU-Idaho students being admonished for exposing ankle flesh</a>.</p>
<p>Individuals who attend one of the LDS church-owned educational institutions agree, as part of enrollment, to abide by the school&#8217;s &#8220;Honor Code&#8221;—a code of conduct governing things such as drug and alcohol consumption, interactions with the opposite gender, and dress and grooming standards. It is part of the price of admission to study at the tithing-subsidized church colleges.</p>
<p>As many critics have (correctly) pointed out, however, the minutia of these mandates can sometimes be borderline (if not outright) ludicrous.</p>
<p>For the past several years, the LDS Church has invested substantial time and money in the creation of <a href="https://www.lds.org/bible-videos/">video vignettes of popular New Testament stories</a>. The production cost and attention to detail have been significant; as the Mormon Newsroom <a href="http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/bible-brought-to-life-on-ancient-jerusalem-set">wrote</a>, &#8220;The creators were careful to reflect the stories of the King James Version of the New Testament as faithfully as possible, paying meticulous attention to scriptural details.&#8221; This careful detail especially included wardrobe and grooming, ensuring that the actors appeared like the individuals they were portraying, to create fidelity to the original story.</p>
<p><span id="more-3399"></span></p>
<p>This detail, of course, includes facial hair—a popular style for Israelite men during the time of Christ. Because some potential actors are generally prohibited from growing facial hair while attending one of the Church&#8217;s schools, the casting department addressed the issue on their &#8220;Frequently Asked Questions&#8221; <a href="http://ldsavdcasting.blogspot.com/p/new-testament-phase-3-faqs.html">page</a>: &#8220;I go to BYU and they do not allow beards. Can I still participate?&#8221; The page clarifies that it is possible to obtain an exemption to the section of the honor code that prohibits facial hair for men.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/1867918-155/beard-ban-at-mormon-schools-getting?fullpage=1">One man</a> in this situation, a student at the LDS Business College, <a href="http://i.imgur.com/QSzdbF4.png">obtained the exemption</a> earlier this month after signing a <a href="http://i.imgur.com/pvY5goG.png">lengthy and detailed agreement</a>. Noting that the student had provided evidence that he was filming in the Church&#8217;s New Testament videos, the letter states, among other requirements, that he &#8220;is required to dress professionally (in a shirt and tie) as a way to compensate for not shaving&#8221; and &#8220;is required to wear a lanyard stating [he has] official authorization to wear a beard.&#8221;</p>
<p>Here is the student, with &#8220;professional dress&#8221; (&#8220;to compensate&#8221;) and his lanyard:</p>
<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/beard.jpg?r=2" alt="" /></p>
<p>Let&#8217;s sum up: here we have a guy who has sought out an opportunity to participate in the Church&#8217;s videos recreating important and spiritual scenes from the scriptures. Assuming that he will be representing a &#8220;believer,&#8221; he will be trying to place himself spiritually, emotionally, and mentally in the place of one of Christ&#8217;s early followers. Despite this affiliation—potentially representing one of Christ&#8217;s early representatives—the student must be chastened, contractually constricted, and made to caution others as to his supposedly unclean and unkempt state.</p>
<p>Lest critics assume otherwise, let me clarify emphatically that I strongly believe in the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, its restoration to the earth, and modern revelation. Unlike many Mormons, however, I am <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-lords-leaders-are-fallible-and-thats-okay">completely comfortable</a> in recognizing that the Church&#8217;s leaders are not always perfect, that individuals who are at times inspired are not necessarily inspired all the time, and that a leader&#8217;s virtue and wisdom does not automatically trickle down to subordinate staffers who implement and execute the various policies overseen by that leader.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll say it simply: I believe that the no-beard policy at Church schools is stupid. The presence of facial hair is not an indicator of spirituality, intellect, or fidelity to God&#8217;s commandments; saints and sinners span wide swaths of society, including a variety of dress, grooming, cultural, and behavioral standards. Modesty and cleanliness can be easily achieved even with a beard. And as we all know, men in early Church leadership often had beards, and only in past decades has an apparent <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56042739-78/beard-beards-byu-church.html.csp">desire for cultural conformity</a> developed into an institutional inquisition against an aspect of male bodies that God himself saw fit to include in His design.</p>
<p>Of course, Jesus himself is exclusively portrayed in LDS art as being bearded, and is never once thought of as being spiritually lazy, culturally rebellious, or any of the other stigmas assigned to beards by some Saints. It&#8217;s humorous, on that note, to ponder what a popular depiction of Christ would look like after undergoing the Honor Code requirements, as is shown here:</p>
<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/jesusbeard.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Like the foolish man who built his house upon the sand, many people realize that there is no rational foundation upon which to construct an argument against facial hair that has to do with the spirituality of the bearded individual. Thus, most people who object to criticisms against these policies reduce the entire conversation to the requirement and agreement: Church leaders have decided to only admit clean-shaven men to Church-owned schools, and therefore anybody who has agreed to this provision must unquestioningly abide by it. It is, they say, nothing more than a contractual obligation—one which gives them no right to complain.</p>
<p>This trivial position entirely misses the point. Nobody is suggesting that students burn their beard exemption cards in protest like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft-card_burning">draft dodgers</a> of the 60s, or show up to the testing center with two day&#8217;s growth, or otherwise engage in defiance of the commitment they&#8217;ve made. The point is that the requirement is apparently arbitrary and asinine. The fact that many have agreed to abide by it does not automatically assign to it any relevance, reverence, or respect.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s hard not to draw parallels to the very scriptures in which this LDS Business College student will be immersed in his role recreating them. The Church&#8217;s <a href="http://youtu.be/7wcJSpw2A-Y?t=8m17s">depiction of the story</a> of the leper being healed by Jesus accurately shows the man ringing a bell to identify his presence to passersby, somewhat akin to the lanyard-hung alert required of the bearded actor shown above. And the Pharisees, as we have been taught since our youth, were far more concerned with fanatical obedience to unimportant rules than the underlying principles and truths of the gospel—proudly enlarging the borders of their robes and sizes of their phylacteries to outwardly fake what they inwardly lacked.</p>
<p>Hugh Nibley, eloquent as always, emphasized this point thusly:</p>
<blockquote><p>The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism&#8230; the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is not so much a condemnation of Church leaders as it is of Church culture—a widespread attention towards, and reliance upon, external factors as a basis of judging inward belief and motivation. Pretentious policies predicated on false presumptions should be discarded; if &#8220;man looketh on the outward appearance, but the <span class="smallCaps">Lord</span> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-sam/16.7?lang=eng#6">looketh on the heart</a>,&#8221; should we Saints not work towards the latter rather than stubbornly focusing on the former?</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=1TXKmepgOCc:W8vMTrdVMKI:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=1TXKmepgOCc:W8vMTrdVMKI:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=1TXKmepgOCc:W8vMTrdVMKI:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:71:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/mormon-pharisees-and-phylacteries/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:3:"130";}s:7:"summary";s:390:"It&#8217;s not uncommon for my Facebook posts to receive hundreds of comments; the more controversial the topic, the more comments are usually generated. A few issues, without fail, rank near the top: military intervention, breastfeeding, and vaccinations. But these threads were recently overshadowed by an unexpected tidal wave of opinion on an absurd issue: BYU-Idaho students [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:9463:"<p>It&#8217;s not uncommon for my Facebook posts to receive hundreds of comments; the more controversial the topic, the more comments are usually generated. A few issues, without fail, rank near the top: military intervention, breastfeeding, and vaccinations. But these threads were recently overshadowed by an unexpected tidal wave of opinion on an absurd issue: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10101607175199989&amp;set=a.740645084329.2330080.17810148&amp;type=1">BYU-Idaho students being admonished for exposing ankle flesh</a>.</p>
<p>Individuals who attend one of the LDS church-owned educational institutions agree, as part of enrollment, to abide by the school&#8217;s &#8220;Honor Code&#8221;—a code of conduct governing things such as drug and alcohol consumption, interactions with the opposite gender, and dress and grooming standards. It is part of the price of admission to study at the tithing-subsidized church colleges.</p>
<p>As many critics have (correctly) pointed out, however, the minutia of these mandates can sometimes be borderline (if not outright) ludicrous.</p>
<p>For the past several years, the LDS Church has invested substantial time and money in the creation of <a href="https://www.lds.org/bible-videos/">video vignettes of popular New Testament stories</a>. The production cost and attention to detail have been significant; as the Mormon Newsroom <a href="http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/bible-brought-to-life-on-ancient-jerusalem-set">wrote</a>, &#8220;The creators were careful to reflect the stories of the King James Version of the New Testament as faithfully as possible, paying meticulous attention to scriptural details.&#8221; This careful detail especially included wardrobe and grooming, ensuring that the actors appeared like the individuals they were portraying, to create fidelity to the original story.</p>
<p><span id="more-3399"></span></p>
<p>This detail, of course, includes facial hair—a popular style for Israelite men during the time of Christ. Because some potential actors are generally prohibited from growing facial hair while attending one of the Church&#8217;s schools, the casting department addressed the issue on their &#8220;Frequently Asked Questions&#8221; <a href="http://ldsavdcasting.blogspot.com/p/new-testament-phase-3-faqs.html">page</a>: &#8220;I go to BYU and they do not allow beards. Can I still participate?&#8221; The page clarifies that it is possible to obtain an exemption to the section of the honor code that prohibits facial hair for men.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/1867918-155/beard-ban-at-mormon-schools-getting?fullpage=1">One man</a> in this situation, a student at the LDS Business College, <a href="http://i.imgur.com/QSzdbF4.png">obtained the exemption</a> earlier this month after signing a <a href="http://i.imgur.com/pvY5goG.png">lengthy and detailed agreement</a>. Noting that the student had provided evidence that he was filming in the Church&#8217;s New Testament videos, the letter states, among other requirements, that he &#8220;is required to dress professionally (in a shirt and tie) as a way to compensate for not shaving&#8221; and &#8220;is required to wear a lanyard stating [he has] official authorization to wear a beard.&#8221;</p>
<p>Here is the student, with &#8220;professional dress&#8221; (&#8220;to compensate&#8221;) and his lanyard:</p>
<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/beard.jpg?r=2" alt="" /></p>
<p>Let&#8217;s sum up: here we have a guy who has sought out an opportunity to participate in the Church&#8217;s videos recreating important and spiritual scenes from the scriptures. Assuming that he will be representing a &#8220;believer,&#8221; he will be trying to place himself spiritually, emotionally, and mentally in the place of one of Christ&#8217;s early followers. Despite this affiliation—potentially representing one of Christ&#8217;s early representatives—the student must be chastened, contractually constricted, and made to caution others as to his supposedly unclean and unkempt state.</p>
<p>Lest critics assume otherwise, let me clarify emphatically that I strongly believe in the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, its restoration to the earth, and modern revelation. Unlike many Mormons, however, I am <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-lords-leaders-are-fallible-and-thats-okay">completely comfortable</a> in recognizing that the Church&#8217;s leaders are not always perfect, that individuals who are at times inspired are not necessarily inspired all the time, and that a leader&#8217;s virtue and wisdom does not automatically trickle down to subordinate staffers who implement and execute the various policies overseen by that leader.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll say it simply: I believe that the no-beard policy at Church schools is stupid. The presence of facial hair is not an indicator of spirituality, intellect, or fidelity to God&#8217;s commandments; saints and sinners span wide swaths of society, including a variety of dress, grooming, cultural, and behavioral standards. Modesty and cleanliness can be easily achieved even with a beard. And as we all know, men in early Church leadership often had beards, and only in past decades has an apparent <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56042739-78/beard-beards-byu-church.html.csp">desire for cultural conformity</a> developed into an institutional inquisition against an aspect of male bodies that God himself saw fit to include in His design.</p>
<p>Of course, Jesus himself is exclusively portrayed in LDS art as being bearded, and is never once thought of as being spiritually lazy, culturally rebellious, or any of the other stigmas assigned to beards by some Saints. It&#8217;s humorous, on that note, to ponder what a popular depiction of Christ would look like after undergoing the Honor Code requirements, as is shown here:</p>
<p><img src="http://connorboyack.com/img/jesusbeard.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Like the foolish man who built his house upon the sand, many people realize that there is no rational foundation upon which to construct an argument against facial hair that has to do with the spirituality of the bearded individual. Thus, most people who object to criticisms against these policies reduce the entire conversation to the requirement and agreement: Church leaders have decided to only admit clean-shaven men to Church-owned schools, and therefore anybody who has agreed to this provision must unquestioningly abide by it. It is, they say, nothing more than a contractual obligation—one which gives them no right to complain.</p>
<p>This trivial position entirely misses the point. Nobody is suggesting that students burn their beard exemption cards in protest like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft-card_burning">draft dodgers</a> of the 60s, or show up to the testing center with two day&#8217;s growth, or otherwise engage in defiance of the commitment they&#8217;ve made. The point is that the requirement is apparently arbitrary and asinine. The fact that many have agreed to abide by it does not automatically assign to it any relevance, reverence, or respect.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s hard not to draw parallels to the very scriptures in which this LDS Business College student will be immersed in his role recreating them. The Church&#8217;s <a href="http://youtu.be/7wcJSpw2A-Y?t=8m17s">depiction of the story</a> of the leper being healed by Jesus accurately shows the man ringing a bell to identify his presence to passersby, somewhat akin to the lanyard-hung alert required of the bearded actor shown above. And the Pharisees, as we have been taught since our youth, were far more concerned with fanatical obedience to unimportant rules than the underlying principles and truths of the gospel—proudly enlarging the borders of their robes and sizes of their phylacteries to outwardly fake what they inwardly lacked.</p>
<p>Hugh Nibley, eloquent as always, emphasized this point thusly:</p>
<blockquote><p>The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism&#8230; the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is not so much a condemnation of Church leaders as it is of Church culture—a widespread attention towards, and reliance upon, external factors as a basis of judging inward belief and motivation. Pretentious policies predicated on false presumptions should be discarded; if &#8220;man looketh on the outward appearance, but the <span class="smallCaps">Lord</span> <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-sam/16.7?lang=eng#6">looketh on the heart</a>,&#8221; should we Saints not work towards the latter rather than stubbornly focusing on the former?</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=1TXKmepgOCc:W8vMTrdVMKI:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=1TXKmepgOCc:W8vMTrdVMKI:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=1TXKmepgOCc:W8vMTrdVMKI:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1416754637;}i:18;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:32:"Changing Deckhands or Direction?";s:4:"link";s:64:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/changing-deckhands-or-direction";s:8:"comments";s:73:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/changing-deckhands-or-direction#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:36:43 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Politics";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3397";s:11:"description";s:361:"The following op-ed was published this past weekend by the Daily Herald. The ballot box provides American citizens an opportunity to indicate their support for or opposition to a variety of political candidates and proposed policy changes — an opportunity that a majority ignore; in Utah County, more than 67 percent of voters abstained from voting [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:6827:"<p><em>The following op-ed was <a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/opinion-shapers/opinion-shaper-election-day-has-little-effect-on-big-picture/article_b262aea2-2cea-5b44-aca9-67d1a3269fc2.html">published</a> this past weekend by the </em><em>Daily Herald</em>. </p>
<hr style="margin: 0pt auto 10px; width: 300px; text-align: center;" />
<p>The ballot box provides American citizens an opportunity to indicate their support for or opposition to a variety of political candidates and proposed policy changes — an opportunity that a majority ignore; in Utah County, more than 67 percent of voters abstained from voting in the general election earlier this month.</p>
<p>For the few who do vote, this process becomes a majoritarian popularity contest in which warring factions attempt to wrest power from their competitors in hopes of imposing their views on everybody else. As Lord Acton wrote, “The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” No student of history should regard American elections as a particularly praiseworthy process.</p>
<p>Of course, most see the current system as the least problematic approach to public policy, and therefore a valid system by which the government can be changed. But will this election actually change the direction America is heading, or is it, in the end, a theatrical rearrangement of deckhands on a ship whose course is fairly fixed?</p>
<p><span id="more-3397"></span></p>
<p>Republicans regained control of the U.S. Senate, thus putting the GOP into majorities in both chambers of Congress. Many people who object to the clearly anti-liberty Democrat agenda are excited by the opportunity this presents, and hopeful that change is afoot. But the future should be informed by the past; context and data are better indicators of a trend than hope and prayer.</p>
<p>When the Republicans were last in control of Congress, a variety of flawed, big-government policies were foisted onto the public. In the cloud of fear following the 9/11 attacks, Republicans rammed the USA PATRIOT Act through both chambers without reading it, strengthening the foundation of today’s surveillance and police state in which liberty, privacy, and security have been substantially eroded in the name of “fighting terror.”</p>
<p>Republicans also gave us No Child Left Behind, a heavy-handed federal intervention into local education, and a precursor to Common Core. The same party cheerfully enacted Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of the welfare state since Medicare’s creation in 1965, and an unfunded mandate costing over half a trillion dollars in the first decade alone.</p>
<p>While new elected officials might bring redemption to the supposed party of limited government and low taxes, a decades-long trend of increasing interventions and violations of liberty provides skeptics with sufficient reason to doubt this outcome, welcome though it would be.</p>
<p>Costs for post-9/11 wars currently stand at $4.4 trillion, 6,800 dead American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of dead Middle-Easterners, rampant sexual abuse and suicide within military ranks, and untold amounts of collateral damage. The federal government routinely spies on our digital communication and personal information, unfazed by Edward Snowden’s revelations of the NSA’s activities. The USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and Americans have to collectively work for nearly four months of each year merely to finance the government’s tax bill.</p>
<p>These and a lengthy list of other policy problems present a foreboding question to the politically inclined individual: is any of it going to change, to any substantive degree, any time soon? Did the election of Mike Lee in 2010, or Orrin Hatch in 2012 change this direction — or will Mia Love’s election do it? The question answers itself.</p>
<p>While the charted course of the federal government has long been in the direction of a perilous cliff, concerned citizens should consider fixing their gaze at more local levels where government can be — and often is — far more active than Congress. Consider this data point: in 2013, Congress passed 57 new bills. In the same year, the several states together passed some 40,000 new bills into law. This torrent of new laws makes a truism out of Gideon J. Tucker’s quote from 1866: “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.&#8221;</p>
<p>And it’s not just state legislatures — in many cases, voters become directly complicit in furthering the growth of big government, less liberty, and more taxes and debt by supporting these measures at the ballot box. Republican majorities permeate Utah County, and yet a new tax increase was just approved in American Fork, and Provo taxpayers were committed to $108 million in new debt because of the votes of roughly 10 percent of voting-age residents.</p>
<p>Electing new people into office may slightly and temporarily alter the trajectory of government, but without active watchdogs and a freedom-minded people jealously guarding their liberty from encroachment, the direction will remain the same. After all, as Thomas Jefferson said, &#8220;The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”</p>
<p>Here’s the key takeaway: showing up on Election Day to express your position on a few things — even if you’re one of the few who took the time to research what you’re voting on — doesn’t cut it. Elected officials, no matter how saintly they may seem in their private lives, generally cannot be trusted to protect your rights. They work with, and are lobbied by, people who desire more power and money — at our expense. No matter what level of government, it is highly tempting to disregard liberty and constitutional fidelity in exchange for praise, political favors, and power.</p>
<p>Casting a few votes won’t change this trend. Abandoning the political process is unlikely to affect it. Campaigning for your neighbor or friend won’t do it. Big problems require bold solutions — and while there are a variety of options and strategies to consider, a fundamental question first needs to be addressed: do we even care?</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=L1MGhpoKd9s:9tXilCHi8a4:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=L1MGhpoKd9s:9tXilCHi8a4:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=L1MGhpoKd9s:9tXilCHi8a4:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:69:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/changing-deckhands-or-direction/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:1:"4";}s:7:"summary";s:361:"The following op-ed was published this past weekend by the Daily Herald. The ballot box provides American citizens an opportunity to indicate their support for or opposition to a variety of political candidates and proposed policy changes — an opportunity that a majority ignore; in Utah County, more than 67 percent of voters abstained from voting [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:6827:"<p><em>The following op-ed was <a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/opinion-shapers/opinion-shaper-election-day-has-little-effect-on-big-picture/article_b262aea2-2cea-5b44-aca9-67d1a3269fc2.html">published</a> this past weekend by the </em><em>Daily Herald</em>. </p>
<hr style="margin: 0pt auto 10px; width: 300px; text-align: center;" />
<p>The ballot box provides American citizens an opportunity to indicate their support for or opposition to a variety of political candidates and proposed policy changes — an opportunity that a majority ignore; in Utah County, more than 67 percent of voters abstained from voting in the general election earlier this month.</p>
<p>For the few who do vote, this process becomes a majoritarian popularity contest in which warring factions attempt to wrest power from their competitors in hopes of imposing their views on everybody else. As Lord Acton wrote, “The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” No student of history should regard American elections as a particularly praiseworthy process.</p>
<p>Of course, most see the current system as the least problematic approach to public policy, and therefore a valid system by which the government can be changed. But will this election actually change the direction America is heading, or is it, in the end, a theatrical rearrangement of deckhands on a ship whose course is fairly fixed?</p>
<p><span id="more-3397"></span></p>
<p>Republicans regained control of the U.S. Senate, thus putting the GOP into majorities in both chambers of Congress. Many people who object to the clearly anti-liberty Democrat agenda are excited by the opportunity this presents, and hopeful that change is afoot. But the future should be informed by the past; context and data are better indicators of a trend than hope and prayer.</p>
<p>When the Republicans were last in control of Congress, a variety of flawed, big-government policies were foisted onto the public. In the cloud of fear following the 9/11 attacks, Republicans rammed the USA PATRIOT Act through both chambers without reading it, strengthening the foundation of today’s surveillance and police state in which liberty, privacy, and security have been substantially eroded in the name of “fighting terror.”</p>
<p>Republicans also gave us No Child Left Behind, a heavy-handed federal intervention into local education, and a precursor to Common Core. The same party cheerfully enacted Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of the welfare state since Medicare’s creation in 1965, and an unfunded mandate costing over half a trillion dollars in the first decade alone.</p>
<p>While new elected officials might bring redemption to the supposed party of limited government and low taxes, a decades-long trend of increasing interventions and violations of liberty provides skeptics with sufficient reason to doubt this outcome, welcome though it would be.</p>
<p>Costs for post-9/11 wars currently stand at $4.4 trillion, 6,800 dead American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of dead Middle-Easterners, rampant sexual abuse and suicide within military ranks, and untold amounts of collateral damage. The federal government routinely spies on our digital communication and personal information, unfazed by Edward Snowden’s revelations of the NSA’s activities. The USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and Americans have to collectively work for nearly four months of each year merely to finance the government’s tax bill.</p>
<p>These and a lengthy list of other policy problems present a foreboding question to the politically inclined individual: is any of it going to change, to any substantive degree, any time soon? Did the election of Mike Lee in 2010, or Orrin Hatch in 2012 change this direction — or will Mia Love’s election do it? The question answers itself.</p>
<p>While the charted course of the federal government has long been in the direction of a perilous cliff, concerned citizens should consider fixing their gaze at more local levels where government can be — and often is — far more active than Congress. Consider this data point: in 2013, Congress passed 57 new bills. In the same year, the several states together passed some 40,000 new bills into law. This torrent of new laws makes a truism out of Gideon J. Tucker’s quote from 1866: “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.&#8221;</p>
<p>And it’s not just state legislatures — in many cases, voters become directly complicit in furthering the growth of big government, less liberty, and more taxes and debt by supporting these measures at the ballot box. Republican majorities permeate Utah County, and yet a new tax increase was just approved in American Fork, and Provo taxpayers were committed to $108 million in new debt because of the votes of roughly 10 percent of voting-age residents.</p>
<p>Electing new people into office may slightly and temporarily alter the trajectory of government, but without active watchdogs and a freedom-minded people jealously guarding their liberty from encroachment, the direction will remain the same. After all, as Thomas Jefferson said, &#8220;The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”</p>
<p>Here’s the key takeaway: showing up on Election Day to express your position on a few things — even if you’re one of the few who took the time to research what you’re voting on — doesn’t cut it. Elected officials, no matter how saintly they may seem in their private lives, generally cannot be trusted to protect your rights. They work with, and are lobbied by, people who desire more power and money — at our expense. No matter what level of government, it is highly tempting to disregard liberty and constitutional fidelity in exchange for praise, political favors, and power.</p>
<p>Casting a few votes won’t change this trend. Abandoning the political process is unlikely to affect it. Campaigning for your neighbor or friend won’t do it. Big problems require bold solutions — and while there are a variety of options and strategies to consider, a fundamental question first needs to be addressed: do we even care?</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=L1MGhpoKd9s:9tXilCHi8a4:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=L1MGhpoKd9s:9tXilCHi8a4:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=L1MGhpoKd9s:9tXilCHi8a4:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1416325003;}i:19;a:14:{s:5:"title";s:69:"Transparency, simplicity, publicity: Words for GOP to live by in 2015";s:4:"link";s:99:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/transparency-simplicity-publicity-words-for-gop-to-live-by-in-2015";s:8:"comments";s:108:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/transparency-simplicity-publicity-words-for-gop-to-live-by-in-2015#comments";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Sat, 15 Nov 2014 04:13:09 +0000";s:2:"dc";a:1:{s:7:"creator";s:6:"Connor";}s:8:"category";s:8:"Politics";s:4:"guid";s:40:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=3396";s:11:"description";s:352:"The following op-ed was published this week by Fox News. It was written, in part, to publicize the forthcoming publication of Feardom. Every Republican newly elected to the U.S. Senate shares at least one thing in common: they each campaigned on repealing the Affordable Care Act. As Americans all across the political spectrum prepare for a [&#8230;]";s:7:"content";a:1:{s:7:"encoded";s:6674:"<p><em>The following op-ed was <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/13/transparency-simplicity-publicity-words-for-gop-to-live-by-in-2015/">published</a> this week by Fox News. It was written, in part, to publicize the forthcoming publication of <a href="http://feardombook.com">Feardom</a>.</em></p>
<hr style="margin: 0pt auto 10px; width: 300px; text-align: center;" />
<p>Every Republican newly elected to the U.S. Senate shares at least one thing in common: they each campaigned on repealing the Affordable Care Act.</p>
<p>As Americans all across the political spectrum prepare for a fresh round of debate regarding this controversial policy reform, it’s important to pause and address how it was adopted in the first place.</p>
<p>If we’re to believe one of its creators, “ObamaCare” came into existence only because of “the stupidity of the American voter.” Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist and chief architect of the law, <a href="http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/09/caught-camera-obamacare-architect-admits-deceiving-americans-pass-law/" target="_blank">admitted last year</a> to a friendly audience that it “was written in a tortured way” to dodge legislative obstacles, and that “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” that “was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”</p>
<p>Let’s take Gruber at his word—that the success of the president’s signature policy proposal was predicated on ignorance and obfuscation. One must conclude from his explanation that the Obama administration relied upon—and helped to maintain—the electorate’s alleged stupidity; in the eyes of a politician, an ignorant populace is a malleable one. “Great is truth,” wrote the dystopian author Aldous Huxley, “but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.”</p>
<p><span id="more-3396"></span></p>
<p>This ignorance was fostered through a number of false claims made both before and after ObamaCare’s passage. The president <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/" target="_blank">promised</a> Americans that, “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.” Families were told that their premiums <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/10/23/now-there-can-be-no-doubt-obamacare-will-increase-non-group-premiums-in-nearly-all-states/" target="_blank">would be lowered</a> “up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.” Those who already had insurance were pacified by <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/02/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-says-people-health-insuranc/" target="_blank">being told</a> that their “only impact is that their insurance is stronger, better and more secure than it was before. Full stop. That’s it. They don’t have to worry about anything else.”</p>
<p>Whether it be through omission of truth or outright lies such as these, designed to neutralize the opposition, politicians routinely keep the public in the dark and thus unable to mount a defense and oppose policies (or politicians) to which they object. Without the ability to recognize and respond to observable problems, an ignorant public must rely upon what Christopher Guzelian, a legal theorist, calls “risk communication”—the (often false) information conveyed to them by politicians and the media describing what threats exist, how scared they should be, and what measures they should support in response.</p>
<p>A policy predicated on deception and ignorance is ripe for repeal, but as the new Republican majority begins to agitate for reform, they should emphatically reject the tools and tactics used by Gruber and his associates by legislating, at a minimum, according to these three core principles:</p>
<p>First, transparency. Barack Obama campaigned on this promise, and has <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/03/barack_obama_promised_transparency_the_white_house_is_as_opaque_secretive.html" target="_blank">miserably failed</a>. While Gruber was correct to note that a “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Republicans should repudiate this tactic and take the higher road by holding open meetings, providing draft text of legislation well in advance of a vote, including their political opponents in all relevant discussions, and being forthcoming, honest, and sincere with their constituents throughout the entire process. This alone would be a breath of fresh air, and perhaps increase their <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance" target="_blank">single digit approval rating</a>.</p>
<p>Second, simplicity. The Affordable Care Act is 381,517 words long—86.7 times longer than the U.S. Constitution and twice as long as the New Testament. “It will be of little avail to the people,” wrote James Madison, “that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” Republicans should commit to simple legislation and simple explanations, treating the American people as their equals—nay, employers—rather than uneducated underlings unable to comprehend congressional complexity, whether intentionally “tortured” or not.</p>
<p>Finally, publicity. If Americans are uniformed on a policy being proposed by congressional Republicans, then they should commit to proactively educating the public, using any and all means possible—and with substance, not sound bytes. A voter’s supposed “stupidity” should be seen as detrimental, rather than politically advantageous.</p>
<p>Republicans have been given an opportunity that they should not squander. Earning the public’s trust, and attempting to reverse course, will require more than talking points and tweaking policy—systemic changes are needed. A new Senate majority now exists for the Republicans in large measure because of bold promises made to the public. We now wait to see if we’ve been lied to once again.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=ca_S-qDTdLQ:N1AmvUcAdbM:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=ca_S-qDTdLQ:N1AmvUcAdbM:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=ca_S-qDTdLQ:N1AmvUcAdbM:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";}s:3:"wfw";a:1:{s:10:"commentrss";s:104:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/transparency-simplicity-publicity-words-for-gop-to-live-by-in-2015/feed";}s:5:"slash";a:1:{s:8:"comments";s:1:"5";}s:7:"summary";s:352:"The following op-ed was published this week by Fox News. It was written, in part, to publicize the forthcoming publication of Feardom. Every Republican newly elected to the U.S. Senate shares at least one thing in common: they each campaigned on repealing the Affordable Care Act. As Americans all across the political spectrum prepare for a [&#8230;]";s:12:"atom_content";s:6674:"<p><em>The following op-ed was <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/13/transparency-simplicity-publicity-words-for-gop-to-live-by-in-2015/">published</a> this week by Fox News. It was written, in part, to publicize the forthcoming publication of <a href="http://feardombook.com">Feardom</a>.</em></p>
<hr style="margin: 0pt auto 10px; width: 300px; text-align: center;" />
<p>Every Republican newly elected to the U.S. Senate shares at least one thing in common: they each campaigned on repealing the Affordable Care Act.</p>
<p>As Americans all across the political spectrum prepare for a fresh round of debate regarding this controversial policy reform, it’s important to pause and address how it was adopted in the first place.</p>
<p>If we’re to believe one of its creators, “ObamaCare” came into existence only because of “the stupidity of the American voter.” Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist and chief architect of the law, <a href="http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/09/caught-camera-obamacare-architect-admits-deceiving-americans-pass-law/" target="_blank">admitted last year</a> to a friendly audience that it “was written in a tortured way” to dodge legislative obstacles, and that “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” that “was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”</p>
<p>Let’s take Gruber at his word—that the success of the president’s signature policy proposal was predicated on ignorance and obfuscation. One must conclude from his explanation that the Obama administration relied upon—and helped to maintain—the electorate’s alleged stupidity; in the eyes of a politician, an ignorant populace is a malleable one. “Great is truth,” wrote the dystopian author Aldous Huxley, “but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.”</p>
<p><span id="more-3396"></span></p>
<p>This ignorance was fostered through a number of false claims made both before and after ObamaCare’s passage. The president <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/" target="_blank">promised</a> Americans that, “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.” Families were told that their premiums <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/10/23/now-there-can-be-no-doubt-obamacare-will-increase-non-group-premiums-in-nearly-all-states/" target="_blank">would be lowered</a> “up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.” Those who already had insurance were pacified by <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/02/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-says-people-health-insuranc/" target="_blank">being told</a> that their “only impact is that their insurance is stronger, better and more secure than it was before. Full stop. That’s it. They don’t have to worry about anything else.”</p>
<p>Whether it be through omission of truth or outright lies such as these, designed to neutralize the opposition, politicians routinely keep the public in the dark and thus unable to mount a defense and oppose policies (or politicians) to which they object. Without the ability to recognize and respond to observable problems, an ignorant public must rely upon what Christopher Guzelian, a legal theorist, calls “risk communication”—the (often false) information conveyed to them by politicians and the media describing what threats exist, how scared they should be, and what measures they should support in response.</p>
<p>A policy predicated on deception and ignorance is ripe for repeal, but as the new Republican majority begins to agitate for reform, they should emphatically reject the tools and tactics used by Gruber and his associates by legislating, at a minimum, according to these three core principles:</p>
<p>First, transparency. Barack Obama campaigned on this promise, and has <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/03/barack_obama_promised_transparency_the_white_house_is_as_opaque_secretive.html" target="_blank">miserably failed</a>. While Gruber was correct to note that a “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Republicans should repudiate this tactic and take the higher road by holding open meetings, providing draft text of legislation well in advance of a vote, including their political opponents in all relevant discussions, and being forthcoming, honest, and sincere with their constituents throughout the entire process. This alone would be a breath of fresh air, and perhaps increase their <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance" target="_blank">single digit approval rating</a>.</p>
<p>Second, simplicity. The Affordable Care Act is 381,517 words long—86.7 times longer than the U.S. Constitution and twice as long as the New Testament. “It will be of little avail to the people,” wrote James Madison, “that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” Republicans should commit to simple legislation and simple explanations, treating the American people as their equals—nay, employers—rather than uneducated underlings unable to comprehend congressional complexity, whether intentionally “tortured” or not.</p>
<p>Finally, publicity. If Americans are uniformed on a policy being proposed by congressional Republicans, then they should commit to proactively educating the public, using any and all means possible—and with substance, not sound bytes. A voter’s supposed “stupidity” should be seen as detrimental, rather than politically advantageous.</p>
<p>Republicans have been given an opportunity that they should not squander. Earning the public’s trust, and attempting to reverse course, will require more than talking points and tweaking policy—systemic changes are needed. A new Senate majority now exists for the Republicans in large measure because of bold promises made to the public. We now wait to see if we’ve been lied to once again.</p>
<div class="feedflare">
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=ca_S-qDTdLQ:N1AmvUcAdbM:D7DqB2pKExk"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?i=ca_S-qDTdLQ:N1AmvUcAdbM:D7DqB2pKExk" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?a=ca_S-qDTdLQ:N1AmvUcAdbM:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ConnorsConundrums?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a>
</div>";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1416024789;}}s:7:"channel";a:9:{s:5:"title";s:19:"Connor's Conundrums";s:4:"link";s:32:"http://www.connorboyack.com/blog";s:11:"description";s:71:"Rants and musings about things political, philosophical, and religious.";s:13:"lastbuilddate";s:31:"Sun, 18 Feb 2018 20:12:06 +0000";s:8:"language";s:5:"en-US";s:2:"sy";a:2:{s:12:"updateperiod";s:6:"hourly";s:15:"updatefrequency";s:1:"1";}s:9:"generator";s:30:"https://wordpress.org/?v=5.0.1";s:10:"feedburner";a:2:{s:14:"emailserviceid";s:17:"ConnorsConundrums";s:18:"feedburnerhostname";s:29:"https://feedburner.google.com";}s:7:"tagline";s:71:"Rants and musings about things political, philosophical, and religious.";}s:9:"textinput";a:0:{}s:5:"image";a:0:{}s:9:"feed_type";s:3:"RSS";s:12:"feed_version";s:3:"2.0";s:8:"encoding";s:5:"UTF-8";s:16:"_source_encoding";s:0:"";s:5:"ERROR";s:0:"";s:7:"WARNING";s:0:"";s:19:"_CONTENT_CONSTRUCTS";a:6:{i:0;s:7:"content";i:1;s:7:"summary";i:2;s:4:"info";i:3;s:5:"title";i:4;s:7:"tagline";i:5;s:9:"copyright";}s:16:"_KNOWN_ENCODINGS";a:3:{i:0;s:5:"UTF-8";i:1;s:8:"US-ASCII";i:2;s:10:"ISO-8859-1";}s:5:"stack";a:0:{}s:9:"inchannel";b:0;s:6:"initem";b:0;s:9:"incontent";b:0;s:11:"intextinput";b:0;s:7:"inimage";b:0;s:17:"current_namespace";b:0;s:4:"etag";s:29:"mresky1mB7J9skj+BZS2s8XXb7c
";s:13:"last_modified";s:31:"Wed, 09 Jan 2019 04:00:22 GMT
";}