Just and Holy Principles

The Church recently released a document called “The Divine Institution of Marriage.” The document explains the Church’s “reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative” and is intended to “reduce misunderstanding and ill will” regarding its position.

I’m glad the Brethren chose to publish this essay. I had been able to gather snippets of information regarding the reasoning behind the Church’s position on same-sex marriage from other statements, but there was no single document that combined them all or went this much in depth.

“The Divine Institution of Marriage” outlines the social, legal, moral, and political implications of legalizing same-sex marriage and the Church’s reasons for defending traditional marriage. The document mentions many common facts and arguments used to support traditional marriage, but from the Church’s unique perspective. Some parts could be more clear or argued in a better way, but overall it does the job. There is only so much evidence one short essay like this can provide.

Here are some of the most interesting and important quotes from it:

“Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults.”

“Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not ‘tolerating’ transgression… The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds — including same-sex marriage — does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term ‘hate speech.’ We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.”

“Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place ‘church and state on a collision course.’”

“Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.”

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.”

I invite everyone to read this document, think about it, and decide whether or not it makes sense to you. Same-sex marriage is an issue that will become only more pressing as time goes on. We must each decide where we stand and how to defend our position, whatever it is. Whether it makes sense to us or not, I hope we all choose to follow the Brethren, but we are not to follow them blindly. We must learn for ourselves if what they say is true, which I believe it is. Please study this document and the related materials and decide where you stand.

What do you think?

John McCain is no smooth talker. His talk, though straight, is a little dry. His temper is prone to flaring, and he seems to admit rarely when he’s wrong. No, McCain is no Jack Kennedy, no Ronald Reagan, and no Bill Clinton. And yet, he’s going to be the next president of the United States. Why? Because he’s more consistent than Obama, and consistency is everything in politics.

Consistency is key
Americans like consistency, predictability, and reliability. They have an innate desire to foresee what’s coming ahead. They crave security. They want to plan ahead, and it’s hard to plan things when examining the past does not help them predict the future. Consistency and predictability are vital to most aspects of our lives.

For instance, I used to ride public buses in Washington, D.C. and sometimes they would come on time, sometimes many minutes early, and sometimes as many as 40 minutes late. One day, I waited at a bus stop for 40 minutes with no bus in sight. Unfortunately, it was 10 degrees outside, windy, and humid. When the bus finally came, I was late for my appointment and frozen from head to toe.

Another time, while waiting for a bus scheduled to pass by every 7 minutes, a bus finally appeared on the horizon after 35 minutes, then another right behind it, and another, and another, and, yes, another. Five buses had all bunched together and arrived at the same time. This happened frequently. The problem was not as much that the bus was tardy but that I didn’t know when it would come. I would prefer that a bus come only once an hour and on time rather than wait for a few buses that come randomly throughout the hour.

Another example. Internet service can often be erratic. One minute it works, then it doesn’t. One minute you can download a 5 MB song in 20 seconds, then the next it takes 10 minutes to do the same. Sound familiar? When I can’t count on my Internet service, I go do something else until the Internet is consistent again. I enjoy consistency and predictability.

Back to the point
Consistent, predictable politicians tend to win. Like him or not, George W. Bush is both. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama are not. Their chameleon-like stances transform regularly for political expedience. Since the democratic primary elections, Obama’s positions have shifted noticeably on Iran, public financing, FISA, NAFTA, gun control, and even his reverend Jeremiah Wright (see here).

Obama’s march to the center is turning away voters who would love to believe in his ideas of “change” and “hope.” Voters are seeing through his capriciousness and believe that McCain is dedicated to his ideals. Certainly, McCain has wavered at times but not to the extent of Obama. In the end, McCain who is perceived to be more consistent, predictable, reliable (and dry) will win. No American wants to have to guess what the next president is going to do.

What do you think?

The opening of the 2008 Summer Olympics in China and the recent death of Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn give us an opportunity to reflect on Communism…and Mormonism.

Have you ever heard someone in church say, “Communism is a good theory that just hasn’t worked out well yet,” or “Communism and the law of consecration are basically the same thing”? I’ve heard both statements and disagree with both.

Let’s define them
In the ideal communistic society, the central government owns all land, credit, means of communication and transportation, property, and the means of producing goods and services. There are no classes, no families, no free speech, and no religion. In short, under Communism individuals are forced to live with nothing, and government is their God.

In contrast, according to Ezra Taft Benson, “the law of consecration is a celestial law, not an economic experiment.” Individuals choose to give their property to the Church and decide how much they need back to support their family’s “wants and needs.” There is no coercion, and, most importantly, God is the cornerstone of the entire system.

Quotes
Here are some quotes from the Brethren.

Marion G. Romney (1979):
“Communism is the greatest anti-Christ power in the world today and therefore the greatest menace not only to our peace but to our preservation as a free people. By the extent to which we tolerate it, accommodate ourselves to it, permit ourselves to be encircled by its tentacles and drawn to it, to that extent we forfeit the protection of the God of this land.”

Ezra Taft Benson (1977):
“Communism introduced into the world a substitute for true religion. It is a counterfeit of the gospel plan…”

“Another notable counterfeit system to the Lord’s plan is collectivized socialism. Socialism derives its philosophy from the founders of communism, Marx and Engels. Communism in practice is socialism…Both communism and socialism have the same effect upon the individual–a loss of personal liberty.”

First Presidency (1936):
“We call upon all Church members completely to eschew Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America.”

Are Mormons communists?
Yes, Mormons are communists–only in the sense that we believe that our community around us is important. We should care for and help our neighbors in need, but we should choose to do it on our own. Communism may sound enticing to some people, but I doubt it does to the approximately 94 million who died under it and those who have survived it.

***Please read this stirring account of Ezra Taft Benson’s visit to the Soviet Union while he was the U.S. secretary of agriculture.***

What do you think?

The Church’s recent letter on same-sex marriage in California has caused quite a stir. The typical gay rights supporters outside the Church oppose the Church’s position, but many latter-day saints have told me they don’t support the Church’s position and may even fight against it.

The conflict
These experiences raise an interesting, and very crucial, question: how should latter-day saints act when the Church’s policy positions conflict with their personal beliefs? This question is not a new one. Latter-day saints have posed it to themselves many times in the past.

For example, the Church supported laws prohibiting alcohol in the 1920’s and 30’s, but many latter-day saints opposed them. Utahns voted to ratify the 21st amendment in 1933 which repealed prohibition, despite Heber J. Grant’s plea to vote against it. During the 1970’s, the Brethren opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, and though Utah did not ratify the amendment many latter-day saints still supported it.

For many years, the Brethren have supported federal and state marriage amendments that would define marriage as between a man and a woman, and in 2007 Church leaders counseled Utah legislators to use a more compassionate approach with illegal immigrants. People have reacted to these positions in many different ways .

Typical reactions
I think there are at least five typical ways that latter-day saints react to official church statements on public issues.

1. Do nothing. People who do nothing are apathetic or ignorant or both. They might not care to think about government issues at all or might not care when the Church makes official statements on public issues. They might hear or read the statement and realize they need more information or understanding to act on it but don’t care enough to learn more.
2. Blindly obey. People who blindly obey are like marionettes attached to strings controlled by the prophet. They do whatever he says without even asking themselves why the Church might voice an opinion on the issue at hand.
3. Obey to understand. People who obey to understand choose to obey the prophet immediately whether they understand the reasoning behind the Church’s position or not. If they don’t understand or don’t agree with it, then they seek knowledge to understand as they obey.
4. Understand then obey. People who understand then obey choose not to act on an official statement until they understand the reasoning behind it. If they never understand or agree with it, then they choose not to obey.
5. Resist. People who resist may or may not understand the Church’s official position but don’t agree with it and choose to oppose it actively.

How do you react? Which reaction is best?

Is it official?
Many latter-day saints question whether the Church’s official statements are doctrine or just suggestions to follow. Even more people wonder what to do about counsel given in a conference talk or other speech that doesn’t explicitly present the Church’s official position but could seem to imply it. For example, the Church teaches us to incur as little debt as possible in our personal lives, and in 1993 Elder Maxwell said in a speech at BYU that through the national debt “we are robbing our children and grandchildren, however silently, of their economic freedom and future.” Does this mean it’s wrong for governments to incur debt? Are these teachings and statements official church positions on government policy or just counsel or personal opinions?

What do you think? Please comment.

Resources:
Church official statements on public issues
Sutherland essay on how LDS legislators use personal beliefs in politics
Another blog’s perspective on this issue

The other day, I watched Amazing Grace, the movie. Several people had recommended it to me, and I highly recommend it to you. The movie tells the story of William Wilberforce (1759-1833) who was a member of the British Parliament. During his career, he converted to Christianity and wondered if becoming a monk or minister would be better for him than continuing in politics.

In the movie, Wilberforce meets some anti-slave trade activists. One of them, a man, says, “Mr. Wilberforce, we understand you’re having problems choosing whether to do the work of God or the work of a political activist.” After a dramatic pause, a woman quietly but confidently continues, “We humbly suggest that you can do both.”

For the rest of his life, Wilberforce fought valiantly to abolish slavery in the British Empire. He gathered evidence, held meetings, sought to persuade other members of parliament, and introduced an anti-slave bill each year. Year after year, his colleagues ridiculed him, his plans were frustrated, and he became very ill. But he did not give up.

Finally, just three days before his death, Wilberforce heard that the Bill for the Abolition of Slavery was guaranteed to pass, which it did one month later on August 28, 1833. William Wilberforce was a man who observed the horrific practice of slavery, believed he could do something to stop it, and sacrificed his life to do so.

Are we willing to fight for such a cause? When we observe suffering, injustice, immorality, corruption or anything that causes tearful eyes or anxious hearts do we act to make it cease? Do we dedicate enough time to solving problems around us to help improve our families, communities, and our nation?

Are we even aware of the critical issues of our day? Do we inform ourselves about them and seek to understand and undertake the best steps to resolve them? Or do we rest apathetically in our comfortable La-Z-Boys of life choosing to ignore the perilous storms that swirl around us? Do we hope or assume that someone else–someone more determined, educated, or eloquent will protect us?

I believe that ordinary people like Mr. Wilberforce, you, and me can accomplish extraordinary things. To do so requires courage, persistence, and knowledge, but we can do it. I hope that each of us will identify just one truth we can defend, one injustice we can remedy, or one cause we deem worthy–whatever it is–that we can fervently support.

I hope that just as our founding fathers did in support of the Declaration of Independence, we can “pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor” for a cause that we believe to be just.

What do you think?

We Latter-day Saints need to be more active in public dialogue and debate. We need to vote more often and inform ourselves better as we do. We need to study the issues and voice our opinions to government officials, private institutions, friends, family, and neighbors. We need to stand for truth, righteousness, decency, honesty, freedom, and the family. If we don’t, then who will?

Elder Ballard said in 2003 that “we need to raise our voices with other concerned citizens throughout the world in opposition to current trends. We need to tell the sponsors of offensive media that we have had enough. We need to support programs and products that are positive and uplifting. Joining together with neighbors and friends who share our concerns, we can send a clear message to those responsible.”

Elder Ballard also recently said, “May I ask that you join the conversation by participating on the Internet to share the gospel and to explain in simple and clear terms the message of the Restoration … you can start a blog in minutes and begin sharing what you know to be true. You can download videos from Church and other appropriate sites, including newsroom.lds.org, and send them to your friends. You can write to media sites on the Internet that report on the Church and voice your views as to the accuracy of the reports. This, of course, requires that you understand the basic principles of the gospel. It is essential that you are able to offer a clear and correct witness of gospel truths. It is also important that you and the people to whom you testify understand that you do not speak for the Church as a whole. You speak as one member–but you testify of the truths you have come to know.”

“Far too many people have a poor understanding of the Church because most of the information they hear about us is from news media reports that are often driven by controversies. Too much attention to controversy has a negative impact on peoples’ perceptions of what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really is.”

I know a lot of people who are heeding Elder Ballard’s counsel. They have blogs (my brother has about 7), avoid bad media, write letters, and do many other good things to spread the Gospel and defend truth. I think we can do much more. I know it’s difficult to find time to do these things. I have a hard time sometimes even though I’m very involved in government and politics and blogging. But we can’t sit idle while other interest groups shape the debate and public policy. We must let our voices be heard!

What do you think? Please submit comments about personal stories when you’ve let your voice be heard and made a positive difference. They will inspire us and give us ideas of what we can do to help.

Pepperdine University–Malibu, CA

During the second year of my graduate program, I helped start up the Pepperdine Policy Review and served as its first editor-in-chief. This academic journal includes articles–long and short–on various public policy topics. If you’d like to take a look at the finished product go here. Given that it was our first year publishing the journal, I think it turned out very well. I’d love to hear any comments you have about it.

Also, you can read a story here that the Pepperdine PR department wrote about me and the journal.

For some time now, I have struggled to understand whether or not government should define marriage as between a man and a woman. The Church has very specifically counseled us to do all that we can to support constitutional amendments (state and national) that ban same-sex marriage. For me, an official directive from church leaders is enough to spur me to action because I know that Pres. Monson is a prophet of God. Protecting traditional marriage through the law does feel like the right thing to do. And yet, my rational mind and intense inner drive to understand everything cause me to continue to seek knowledge and understanding to help square my logic with my heart. I think this is what we are supposed to do–follow the prophet even if we do not understand everything, but do all we can to understand through study and prayer. Answers may not come when we prefer, but they come if we persist.

I still don’t completely understand the legal and moral reasoning behind banning same-sex marriage. It’s hard for me to accept any law that limits individual liberty. Freedom to choose is what makes America great. However, I’ve learned that marriage is less about the individual and more about the family–as ordained by God–and society. The purpose of public policy should be not only to help individuals find happiness, but also to help society progress as a whole.

Only the “natural family” (father, mother, and children together) can cause society to progress in perpetuity. Government should not sanction any type of relationship that runs counter to the natural family. Encouraging the natural family is not about civil rights; it is about encouraging and preserving the only institution that can promote progress and freedom.

A recent publication of the Sutherland Institute has helped me understand this reasoning better. It’s a dialogue between the Institute’s president, Paul Mero, and Stephen C. Clark, an attorney in the gay rights movement who is also in a same-sex relationship. Below are links to the dialogue’s three parts as well as some of Mr. Mero’s quotes that have helped me understand better why the law should prohibit same-sex marriage. The dialogue is fascinating, educational, and blunt. If you open the dialogue, be warned that, as you may imagine, it contains some sexually explicit language in order to debate the issue.

Here are the quotes:

“If a relationship requires the state to formally create it, then it is a creature of the state, and the antithesis of freedom … The natural family does not require the state to create it; it is prior to the state. State sanction in its case is only to confirm in public policy that society recognizes and encourages its ideal…

The ‘Friends’ characters are not a family. ‘Murphy Brown’ and her daughter are not a family. Unfortunately, the ‘Bundys’ are a family. The ‘natural’ seems to be the key to understand all of this. The state interest is in the natural family. It is quite patient with all sorts of atrocities in ‘natural’ families, and has zero patience for even minor glitches in ‘created’ families, because only in the natural family can the ideal be realized for human progress and freedom. ‘Created’ families exist as contracts with the state. In their formation they are pretend families. They play house. Their human emotions are real, but their family structure is fabricated. The state can recognize and legitimize a family structure. It would be impossible for it to even try to recognize and legitimize every human emotion. To do so would also be the antithesis of freedom…

I have some very wonderful friends, dear friends, I would die for them. I have cried with them, rejoiced with them, sacrificed for them, counseled their children as if they were my own — but we are not a family. All of my love for my friends is authentic; it is real. But all of this genuine sentiment and service does not make us a family … Nature created families; the state simply recognizes what nature created. If indeed you are truly insulted by my words, then take it up with nature (and ‘Nature’s God’)…”

What do you think?

Read the dialogue:
Part I
Part II
Part III

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns for self-defense and hunting. This landmark case was the first in the Court’s history to address the Second Amendment explicitly. The Court’s ruling overturned a 32-year-old law that banned handguns in Washington, D.C.

The debate over the right to bear arms consists mostly of historical circumstances and the specific wording of the Second Amendment. Legal scholars have debated the meaning of the words “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” with excruciating detail for a long time. To me, the arguments on both sides were compelling for a long time. But recently, I came across a quote that made me lean in the direction of individual rights in gun ownership.

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 says, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” This phrase uses the same construction as the Second Amendment and to me says, “because religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government and happiness, we must encourage schools and education forever.”

Schools and education in general have many uses, among which are to teach religion, morality, knowledge, skills, and other instruction. But schools and education are independent of the “religion, morality, and knowledge” that can be taught there. Other things can be taught in a school, but schools can also be used to teach things necessary for “good government and the happiness of mankind.” The institution of schools is separate and distinct from the goal of having an educated people; it is one means of achieving that goal but could be used for other purposes. But it is important to encourage schools hoping that they achieve that purpose.

In a similar manner, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” allows the people to organize “a well regulated militia,” but that right could be used for other purposes. The right is separate and distinct from the goal of having a militia to maintain the security of the state. Therefore, individuals have the right to bear arms, whether they use it to organize a militia, for hunting, or for self-defense, but it is necessary to protect that right so that a militia can keep the people free if necessary.

Of course, irresponsible people who have guns can injure or kill people. As the Supreme Court said, this interpretation of the Second Amendment does not mean that any person no matter what should be able to use any weapon in any way they please. Government should take measures to regulate the use of weapons. It is clear to me, though, that the individual right to bear arms is constitutional and necessary to maintain freedom in the U.S. in the case that attacks on an individual, their property, their family–whether by the government or another individual–require the use of arms.

Whether or not you agree with this decision, I think it highlights the truth of Rex E. Lee’s statement, “when you vote for a president, you are doing more than picking the person who will lead us in war and peace and have access to Camp David and Air Force One. You are also in effect making a decision as to what kind of person you want on the Supreme Court.” The Court’s opinion was split 5-4 with justices commonly described as conservatives in the majority. Remember this summer and fall that the most important consideration to make when voting for president may be the type of justices each candidate would select to be on the Supreme Court.

What do you think?

With gas prices at $4/gallon, drivers finally seem to have reached a tipping point. At last, people are starting to drive less, use public transportation more, and grasp for any opportunity to save money on gas. Auto dealers, retailers, and blood banks, among many others, are offering deals for free gas. Some companies are even offering to pay a person’s gas bill if they turn their car into a rolling billboard to advertise for them.

Turn that frown upside down
Higher gas prices are making consumers, companies (especially airlines, trucking companies, and others that rely on gasoline to make a profit), and politicians reacting to their constituents concerns frown. Meanwhile, environmentalists and their friends are smiling. They know that the higher gas prices go the greater the urgency people will have to use and develop alternative fuels and transportation that are more environmentally friendly than oil.

For instance, the Toyota Prius, a hybrid of electricity and gas, has been selling quickly, and Honda just released a hydrogen powered car that emits no pollution. What may disappoint environmentalists, though, is that at a certain point high enough gas prices may spur people to demand more “dirty” energy like coal and oil. We may have reached that point already.

Should we drill for more oil?
President Bush is urging Congress to lift the ban on drilling for oil and natural gas on U.S. coasts and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. He also wants to open federal lands for oil shale development in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. Bush claims that these resources could produce more than 800 billions barrels of oil, “more than a century’s worth of currently projected oil imports.”

High gas prices may be good
Secretly, well, until now, I hope that gas prices stay high–but not too high. This way, Americans will feel desperate enough to accelerate the development of cleaner fuels and technology but won’t demand that we open more areas for drilling. It would be very nice to have vehicles powered by any cheap, clean fuel and to become energy independent. I’m afraid that if we increase oil production and gas prices fall, then superior fuel and technology will take much more time to develop.

Let the people decide
And yet, I think it’s wrong for the government to deny Americans the use of vast resources available in our own land. Companies should be allowed to take advantage of any energy resources available. We should drill for more oil and natural gas, convert shale into oil, and continue to invest in alternative forms of energy like hydrogen, electricity, biofuels, and wind and solar power. It may take industry longer to develop superior fuel and technology, but with all options on the table the best one will eventually rise to the top. Private competition and ingenuity, rather than government bureaucracy, will eventually find the best solutions.

At the Sutherland Institute this week, Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT) said that the Western Republican Caucus will propose a comprehensive energy policy platform that focuses on boosting production of all forms of energy, innovating new energy solutions, and incentivizing conservation. I think this is the right approach. We must not become narrow minded on energy policy. We must allow private industry to explore every possible option to help us become energy independent and, hopefully, more friendly to the environment.

What do you think?

Related post–Gas Prices: Patience Please…