I was recently reading in Deuteronomy chapter six where Moses instructs the people thus:

And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. (Deuteronomy 6:6-9)

As I read that, the thought struck me that there are some laws and instructions that must be followed literally, such as the command that the people mark the upper and side posts of their door with the blood of their Passover lamb (Exodus 12) but that commands such as this, which are literally kept by wearing phylacteries and having a mezuzah on their door, are more important to be kept figuratively if the people are to become covenant people with the Lord than they are to be kept literally.

Of course it is hard to truly keep a command figuratively while ignoring the literal interpretation but ask yourself where the saving power of this command is. Is it in nailing a box to your doorpost and tying boxes onto parts of your body or is it in speaking and thinking and acting upon the law even in casual situations such as sitting in your house and walking by the way?

Even a casual observer could walk down the street of an orthodox Jewish neighborhood and notice the mezuzot on all the doors. If they knew nothing of the Jewish religion they would still recognize that there was something going on in that neighborhood. Should they enter a Jewish synagogue they could notice the phylacteries tied on arms and heads even if they did not understand the meaning of what they saw. It would take more careful observation to notice how dominant religious discussions are among the orthodox people than to notice the boxes on the people and on the buildings.

Just as it is easier to see the boxes than hear the conversations, so it is easier to imitate the boxes than to infiltrate the conversations. Anyone might place a mezuzah on their door and have the home mistaken as a Jewish residence but to constantly speak of the laws and traditions without coming to understand and appreciate their meaning would be virtually impossible.

Christians have no command that they should wear phylacteries but if they wish to become people whom their Lord would side with in a day of reckoning they must talk of the law while sitting in their homes and walking by the way, and not just when they are attending their worship services. How else can we expect to have the law written upon our hearts? (see Romans 2)

I hope I live what I believe in a way that it is as obvious in my life as if I were wearing phylacteries and had a mezuzah on my doorpost.

Over time my reluctance turned to ambivalence and shortly before the reunion I decided to go as a show of support for the one of my brothers who was planning to attend and who had put some work into pulling the reunion off – after all, the reunion was not 25 miles from my house.

I must say that when we went I was very pleasantly surprised to feel right at home talking with uncles, aunts, and cousins whom I have rarely seen and some of whom I had never met.

Last week we had a family reunion at Bear Lake. It was great for the kids to see their cousins and for everyone to have fun on the water and off. In planning for the trip the hardest thing was deciding whether we should come back Saturday night or whether we should stay over Sunday and come home Monday morning. For a variety of reasons we decided to come home Saturday.

We felt good about that decision but as if to confirm our choice, the discussion in Sunday School focused on the importance for each of us to be where we ought to be. Of course it included the declaration that “at this moment Sunday School is where you ought to be.”

As I listened to the lesson I thought about the fact that being where we ought to be, or as it was said of Gideon’s men, “{standing} every man in his place,”(Judges 7:21) is a prerequisite to obeying the counsel that President Uchtdorf gave in the October 2008 priesthood session of general conference that we should stand close together and lift where we stand.

I hope our family can always be found standing in our place and lifting where we stand.

Last night, before I realized that today was Father’s Day, Enoch taught me exactly what it means to be a father. He was fussy and tired, it was two hours past bedtime, and we had already had a long day. I went in and picked him up out of the crib and rocked/bounced/cuddled him until he finally fell asleep. I remembered times with various kids when I have done that despite being completely frustrated with the child and/or despite feeling that I simply could not meet their needs at that time.

The lesson was basically that fatherhood is all about doing what needs to be done because you love your children and it needs to be done even when you don’t want to do it or think it is more than you can do.

Last week I received a new donor card from the Red Cross and a letter to go with it. The letter contained an interesting statistic that the Red Cross receives a large majority of their donations from only 30% of their donors. Just to be clear, the statistic is that 30% of those who donate – not 30% of the total population – provide much more than half of the blood supply. Specifically it is the 30% who donate repeatedly and of course the message of their letter is that they want me as part of that minority of donors.

Later in the week I was at the temple when the thought struck me that although I have no statistics on it, I think it highly likely that the great majority of temple work done is performed by a minority among those who go to the temple. I realized that this is a consistent pattern. Only a small minority of Boy Scouts perservere in their scouting and advance to the Eagle rank. A minority of families raise the majority of children in each succeeding generation. A minority of active voters participate in the primary process and earlier activities to get informed and select candidates for office. A minority of religious people actually attend services regularly and keep their respective churches operating.

As I thought about it I realized that the only minorities that matter are not those we are assigned to such as Hispanics, African Americans, blind people, or midgets, but the ones we decide to be part of like repeat blood donors or involved citizens.

Everyone, by their choices, is part of some minorities whether good or bad. For those who wish to make a difference the question is not merely “what good things do I want to do” but “what things can I do more or better than most of the people who are casually involved?” As we make those decisions we must recognize that we can’t do everything but we can choose where to do something.

In the perpetual effort to have a presentable house where multiple young children live and grow, an idea finally came to me that people will treat themselves and their surroundings in a way that reflects how they view them. If children view themselves as carefree and without responsibility they will take no responsibility. If they view parents as having the primary purpose of serving kids they will treat parents as servants. If they view their home as little more than a shelter from the wind and rain they will treat home like a cave.

On the other hand, if kids view themselves as someone special with important responsibilities and a grand destiny, like princes and princesses, they are more likely to look beyond the desires of this very instant and plan to meet the destiny they envision. If they see parents as important role models they are more likely to emulate them rather than make demands on them. If they see home as a sanctuary, rather than a shelter they are more likely to treat it with some respect and care.

With that thought in mind we have begun to emphasize to our children their identity as children of a heavenly king in hopes that they will think of themselves as more than merely bipedal hominids. We are also asking them to think of and treat their home as a castle such as children of a king might live in. Personally I’d like them to treat home as a temple but I fear that high standard might be discouraging rather than ennobling.

It’s too soon to be sure how much long term effect this will have on the kids but for myself I know that this mindset helps me not to give in to the temptation to allow my expectations to slip when things start to pile up around us.

Over the course of six years of writing online I have been asked why I focus so much on political issues and not so much on promoting a moral society. I think it’s a great question and I have thought much about it. The short answer is that my focus has been mainly on the political system and how it impacts society as well as how we can have a positive effect on the system that is currently in place.

For some time now I have found myself falling back in private political discussions to the position that all the best efforts and intentions with regard to political activity are no more than a bandaid over the ills of society and that true progress and stability in society are utterly dependent on the underlying morality or righteousness of the society being governed. It is exactly the same with a wound: a bandaid can help keep it clean and impede further infection but real healing is an internal function of the body. From outside the body the most we can do is create an environment that is conducive to healing.

What does that mean with regard to political involvement? A couple of things:

The most important thing it means is that we must recognize that no matter how pure or even effective our political efforts may be they cannot finally solve any of the problems we face. We must keep in the forefront of our minds the fact that actual solutions must begin and be rooted in the basic cells of society, our families. With that understanding we might be more careful in the laws that we support to make sure that we are supporting and enabling healthy families rather than passing out casts and crutches for the broken homes which we have in ever increasing abundance. (We should also recognize that “broken” homes include more than just the poor or single parent families that get so much public sympathy.)

The second thing that means is that we must recognize that even though we cannot force people to be righteous, or smart, or tolerant through legislation what we establish in law is a baseline of decency and goodness in society—in other words, what we legislate is what we can and should enforce as a society and the bare minimum of what we should adhere to as individuals. When we remove or alter existing legislation we should consider whether we are truly promoting liberty or whether we are aquiescing to the destructive forces operating on our society.

Third we need to recognize that the vast majority of those who wish to use legislation to do more for society than it can actually do, in other words those who would use legislation as a tool for social engineering, are good and honest in their intent even when they are misguided in their efforts. Those who recognize the natural limitations of political action must work to help them recognize those limitatons and also work to expose that small minority who are actually using the power of government under the guise of social justice who are not acting honestly but instead are seeking for their own power or for the destruction of that which supports a moral society.

In summary, political power can be used to define and enforce a social baseline for conduct and expectations but it cannot be used to make society good—even if we want it to—and those who seek to use political power for more than that generally do so out of ignorance or misunderstanding rather than out of malice.

More importantly for me: what does this mean for my political involvement?

It’s going to be a less prominent part of my life. I still see political participation as vastly important to letting my light shine. I plan to be an example of an informed citizen who takes his opportunities to participate in the political process seriously. I will always be there at the ballot box and will do everything possible to help my elected representatives at all levels to make enlightened political decisions in my behalf. That being said I feel the need to talk more about building an ideal society than about the specifically political aspects such as the legislative process, voter participation, and Constitutional government. All those things are important and I will not abandon my beliefs and positions with regard to those things. My focus is shifting but not my beliefs.

Along with that shift in focus I plan to consolidate my writing here on my personal site. Pursuit of Liberty will eventually go away but it’s content will be preserved as a subdomain here. I might go so far as to crosspost specifically political content on that subdomain but I make no promises to do so. my focus will be on building and documenting how we should build a strong and sustainable society with healthy families at the core and morality and faith in God as essential pillars along with good government to keep it stable. Mitt Romney spoke of strong defence, strong economy and strong

This is an expanded and slightly modified version of what I posted as Limitations of Politics at Pursuit of Liberty.

As I was thinking about this I realized that one of the reasons that He can forgive so freely and love so unconditionally (to forgive all but the single sin which can only be committed with the full knowledge and unassisted choice of the sinner) is that due to the nature of Eternal law His forgiveness does the sinner absolutely no good unless they choose to repent. Regardless of how merciful He is, the sinner cannot receive any glory that is governed by a law which they do not choose to obey.

Those who focus on the need for grace can rightly point out that without forgiveness from our Savior our repentence would be worthless because even with repentance “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) While that doctrine is accurate it has no saving value because of how infinite our Father’s love is.

If we recognize that He already and unconditionally loves us enough to forgive anything except a conscious and fully informed rejection of Him and all that He offers us, we should find motivation in that knowledge to desire to repent. If we desire to repent we find, with that combination of faith and desire, the strength necessary to repent in order to receive the healing benefits of the atonement of Christ and the infinite love of our Father in Heaven.

This year I have already heard some people who argue out of spite that the winner of the Alabama – Texas game should not be considered the National Champion. Personally I think that’s foolish. Whatever team wins that game will have gone undefeated having played against an undefeated team in their bowl game. What more could we ask of them? The same criteria will apply to the winner of the TCU – Boise State game and thus I argue that while the coaches are obligated to vote for the winner of Alabama-Texas the AP voters should create a split championship by voting for the winner of the TCU-Boise State game (unless Texas-Alabama is compelling while TCU-Boise State turns out to be a really sloppy game on both sides). In fact, Obama should follow his sportsman’s heart by inviting both teams to the White House and honoring them as is traditional for the National Champion. (If he really wants a playoff the President could invite them on the same day and watch them play a friendly scrimmage. )

I just had to get this out before the Fiesta Bowl began today so that I could be fair to both teams – especially considering I have a favorite in this contest. While I like both TCU and Boise State better than either Texas or Alabama I would definitely prefer to see TCU win.

As I saw the coverage of her testimony a scripture crossed my mind and got me thinking.

I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. (D&C 64:10)

This includes Miss Smart despite her horrific ideal. I don’t mean to imply that I can or should judge whether she has or will forgive Mitchell – her ordeal just happened to be the subject at hand when I had the thought. The reason that I bring it up is that her situation, including her giving testimony, specifically apply to my thoughts on the nature of forgiveness.

First, the Lord is not required to forgive Mitchell – that’s between the two of them and Elizabeth has no say in the matter – that’s the crux of my realization. Second, no matter how heinous his crimes against her the Lord expects her to pursue that path of forgiveness with regards to her captor. So again the question – what does it mean to forgive – especially in a case such as this?

I believe that what Miss Smart has done since returning to her family in 2003 is perfectly compatible with the proper forgiveness that the Lord expects of her. She has helped to write a book on survival for abductees, she has testified very forcefully against her abductor, but perhaps more importantly she gives no evidence of defining her life by that experience. Of course I have never met or talked to her – I give this strictly as an unconnected observer – but considering her apparent poise and maturity I believe she must have personally forgiven the man she testified against even as she seeks to ensure that justice is done. I don’t believe that she could move on with her life so successfully as she appears to have done if she were dwelling on the crimes committed against her. Dwelling on that past would be a hallmark of non-forgiveness. Doing everything she can to protect herself and others from the person who committed a crime against her is not at all incompatible with the path of forgiveness. In fact, holding Mitchell accountable for what he did is the kindest thing she could do for him. If he ever wants to repent of his actions he will have to take responsibility for what he has done – that’s a necessary component to repentance.

As Elizabeth appears to have forgiven and set herself firmly on the path of healing, I think the saddest part of this whole case is that the chances of justice being served are so low. I would guess that Wanda Barzee – who is as much victim as criminal – is more likely to be found competent to stand trial than Brian David Mitchell – who is all criminal in this case (meaning he is absolutely culpable) but who is intelligent enough and disciplined enough to live off of taxpayers while successfully avoiding real consequences for his criminal behavior by successfully playing the part of being insane. Even if he were somehow to be found competent he would spend the rest of his life with society paying for his crimes while he lives a life that is no more meaningless and irresponsible than the one he was living while perpetrating this crime.