Categories
culture politics

Public vs Private Companies

Blessed 2 Scrapbook
Photo by Paul Riismandel

Coverage of the Hobby Lobby case seems to be consistent in saying that the U.S. Supreme Court is essentially deciding the question of whether not-specifically-religious corporations can exercise religious rights. The issue in this case is requiring insurance coverage for federally determined forms of contraception but if the decision is based on the ability of companies to exercise religious rights then it could also extend to whether companies can choose under what circumstances they will offer their services.

It struck me this morning that the question isn’t really whether corporations can exercise religious rights. The real question is: at what point in the pursuit of profit do individuals diminish or forego their right to religious expression? Those siding with the government in this case are afraid that companies will be able to use the guise of religious belief to get around the expense of some legal mandates. After all, if the Green family (Hobby Lobby) can claim religious belief avoid paying for some expensive forms of birth control for their employees why can’t the Walton family (Walmart) do the same?

Categories
culture politics thoughts

The Liberty Line

In response to my question from yesterday I was surprised to discover that I got an answer and that the answer was an emphatic if ever-tenuous “yes.” We do have reason to celebrate our independence as a nation presently. More important than what the answer was was realizing what line in the sand would determine, at least for me, when the time had come that we no longer had reason to celebrate.

During the course of the festivities yesterday we stopped to pray over our afternoon meal (I’m sure people will not be surprised to learn that we were doing some grilling in the back yard for our meal) and while my brother in law was praying I realized that as long as we enjoyed religious liberty in this country, the freedom to pursue worship as we individually see fit (the only reasonable limitation being that one person cannot compel another to do something based on the first persons religious beliefs and practices), we would have reason to celebrate Independence Day. I don’t recall if there was something said in the prayer that prompted the realization or if it was simply the act of praying itself but the realization was powerful.

There are many other types of liberty in our nation that make our independence worthwhile but for myself I consider that if I had freedom of speech and association, the right to bear arms, protections against unreasonable search and seizure, respect for personal property, and all the other freedoms enshrined in our constitution but had the freedom to practice my religion taken away I would find no cause to celebrate what was left of our independence. On the other hand, if my freedom to live according to my religious belief were adequately protected but all other liberties were unprotected (insofar as they could be without infringing that one right) I would do whatever I could to promote those other natural rights but I would still consider myself blessed to live in a time and place where my religious freedom was recognized.

Categories
religion thoughts

The Only Possible Answer

In the Old Testament there is a fascinating story about two and a half tribes from the 12 tribes of Israel.  These two and a half tribes (Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh) were promised an inheritance by Moses that lay outside the promised land on the condition that their men would not reside there until the remaining tribes had taken possession of their inheritance lands in the promised land.

When Joshua took Moses’ place as the leader of Israel and was preparing to take the people across the Jordan River into the promised land he called the leaders of those tribes and reminded them of their promise to Moses. They responded by saying:

All that thou commandest us we will do, and whithersoever thou sendest us, we will go. (Joshua 1:12)

As I read that response I realized that if they truly believed that Joshua had authority from God to speak for God to them there was no other answer they could have given. Any other answer to be given would be an indication that they did not truly believe that Joshua had the authority to speak the word of God for them.

Categories
life thoughts

Be Where You Ought To Be


photo credit: orkydorky

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.

Categories
life

Receiving the Holy Ghost

It has been very amazing and gratifying in the last few days to watch Savannah since her baptism. On Sunday afternoon Savannah came to me and said that she had not felt anything change when she was confirmed and given the gift of the Holy Ghost. I reminded her that when the gift of the Holy Ghost is given we are invited to “receive the Holy Ghost.” I told her that we must work at doing those things which will invite the spirit of God to remain with us.

She told me that Ethan Miller, a boy in our ward who was also baptized last week, had said that he felt a change when he was given the gift of the Holy Ghost and I answered that some people do notice a change while others do not. Savannah’s response was insightful. She said, “Yes, our house hasn’t been suited to having the Spirit these last few days, people have been grumpy and not very nice.”

I can’t think of a more accurate summary of what things were like in the days leading up to her baptism. We were busy with all the regular tasks of life plus we had the excitement and stress of preparing for a big event plus Laura was helping out the kids swimming teacher get ready for the start of swim lessons this week. A spiritual atmosphere had definitely taken a back seat to a hectic and frazzled one last week.

Later Sunday evening Savannah got upset over how we were handling dinner with the result that she screamed at Laura and I and then stomped off to her room. Later I was pleasantly surprised as she came down the hall and very meekly said, “Dad, will you forgive me for screaming at you?”

I told her that I forgave her and then she said, “that’s hard, I’ve never had to ask someone to forgive me before.”

A minute later I heard her asking Laura for forgiveness as well. Laura later explained that she and Savannah had discussed forgiveness and repentance that morning. Apparently the discussion had an impact on Savannah and it’s clear that she is doing the work to receive the Holy Ghost.

Categories
thoughts

Repentance and Forgiveness

Last night Laura commented on how amazingly forgiving Heavenly Father is toward His children. I’ve been thinking about that ever since then. It is true that He is incredibly forgiving (because He loves His children so much) and yet He cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Hence if we are to emulate Him in our actions we must learn how to love sinners while abhoring sin.

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.

Categories
culture politics

Freedom OF Religion

By now everybody in Utah at least has heard about the speech given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks at the BYU-Idaho devotional yesterday on the subject of freedom of religion. It will surprise nobody who knows anything about me to hear that I agree 100% with everything he said.

Considering that I could not hope to add insights beyond those of Elder Oaks some might question why I would bother to write anything about his speech. There are two reasons – first, this subject of our freedom of religion (for any atheists I could comfortably call it “freedom of conscience”) is important to every American who cares about preserving a viable nation where we enjoy any amount of liberty whatsoever and thus I could not pass up the chance to promote that message; and second, when I saw that some of what he said was being misunderstood (as shown in a poll where 2 in 3 respondents disagreed with his  assertion that the retaliation and intimidation against supporters of Prop. 8 was similar in nature to the voter-intimidation of blacks in the South) I knew that it was necessary for people who understood what he said to stand up and declare their understanding.

I would like to address those two reasons for writing in reverse order, first to address the apparent misunderstanding and then to talk about how we must treat the freedom of religion in order to preserve a free society.

The poll cited above asks if respondents agree with Elder Oaks that “the anti-Mormon backlash after California voters overturned gay marriage last fall is similar to the intimidation of Southern blacks during the civil rights movement.” With only that question to go on it is understandable that people would think to disagree. The blacks during the civil rights movement faced intimidation tactics for a much longer period of time and from more than just lay people, but from official quarters as well. The problem with the question is that it misrepresents what Elder Oaks actually said. Here are his words:

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be identified as supporters. . .

It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation. (emphasis added)

Vandalism, harassment, firings, boycotts of member businesses, and retaliation against participants were all forms of intimidation faced by both blacks in the South and supporters of Proposition 8, yet that is not how he was trying to compare the two situations. Let me repeat his comparison with special emphasis:

. . . these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South . . .

If you don’t believe that this is how he meant his statement hear the explanation that Elder Oaks himself gave (h/t Matt Piccolo):

Now for the question of how we must treat the freedom of religion in order to preserve a free society. Elder Oaks quoted Richard John Neuhaus who said, “In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb.” If we hope to preserve a free and robust society we must insist that we and those who disagree with us tolerate any expression of opinions whether it be religious, atheistic, psychoanalytic, Marxist, just plain dumb, or any other description. That starts with us before we can reasonably demand it of those who disagree with us. As Elder Oaks said:

“At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.”

Once again Elder Oaks has addressed this issue better than I could so I will summarize his conclusion.

  1. We must speak with love, always showing patience, understanding and compassion toward our adversaries. . . Even as we seek to speak with love, we must not be surprised when our positions are ridiculed and we are persecuted and reviled.
  2. We must not be deterred or coerced into silence by the kinds of intimidation I have described. We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. . . when churches and their members or any other group act or speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have a right to expect freedom from retaliation.
  3. We must insist on our freedom to preach the doctrines of our faith. I will add here that the freedom to preach the doctrines of our faith does not translate into a freedom or right to compel others to participate in that faith. This is true whether the issue is a specifically religious participation or a more secular participation. In other words, it is wrong to punish someone for choosing not to participate in a public religious observance (a prayer in a public setting for example) just as it is wrong to prevent someone from choosing to engage in a religious activity in a public setting.
  4. The call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification. At the same time, religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society.
  5. Latter-day Saints (or anyone else) must be careful never to support or act upon the idea that a person must subscribe to some particular set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for a public office. . . Such advocacy suggests that if religionists prevail in electing their preferred candidate this will lead to the use of government power in support of their religious beliefs and practices. In case that was unclear to anyone let me emphasize his point which was that the idea that a person must subscribe to some particular set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for a public office should never be acted upon or even supported.

(italic comments mine)

Cross-posted at Pursuit of Liberty

Categories
culture thoughts

What Does It Mean to Forgive?

When Elizabeth Smart testified last week there was a renewed flurry of media coverage of that infamous case. While the contents of her testimony were shocking (as expected) there was nothing in her testimony that actually surprised me. I remember a couple of weeks after she disappeared when I thought that I hoped she was dead because if she was still alive at that point the nature of her ordeal was all too easy to guess. I’ll just have to say that all the evidence I have seen since her return (including the way she has stayed largely out of the spotlight) has proven that fleeting wish to be completely misguided.

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.

Categories
life

The Difference Between Explanation and Debate

I learned some very interesting things as a result of Michael Jackson’s death. I know, most people would look at me and say “David, you seem like the type of person who would not even be paying attention to that kind of news.” They would be right, but one article caught my attention. It really wasn’t about Michael Jackson’s death – it was really about Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW’s) and it was written because Michel Jackson was raised in an JW household so his death brought up the subject of what they believe.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) are familiar with being viewed as being outside the mainstream of Christianity – that’s one thing they share with JW’s. For this (and probably many other) LDS the JW’s seemed even more outside the mainstream of Christianity than we are. (They may well view us as being more on the outside than they are.) I’ve had interactions with JW’s at various times in my life and each time they seemed to be arguing their position and trying to put my beliefs down – the result was that I came away feeling that their beliefs were odd and inconsistent or full of logical holes. I was left wondering how anyone could accept such an obviously flawed belief system. Years ago I even took the time to read some of their official church publications. These were better than the debates (sometimes one-sided debates) that I had been subjected to, but their beliefs still seemed partially incoherent.

This article was written by someone who was raised in a JW jousehold, like Michael Jackson, who never did choose to become a JW. He understands their theology from an insider perspective but he is not trying to proselyte or convince, only explain. This time, although I believe differently than the JW’s on many issues their theology finally seemed coherent – I could understand how it would not feel weird to those who believed its teachings.

The result was that my respect for the JW’s has grown and I have a newfound appreciation of the power that accompanies someone telling about and explaining their beliefs from a personal perspective as opposed to official institutional explanations or individual argumentation. This is further proof of why the Savior said that “he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention.”

Categories
technology

Official vs Unofficial

Ever since I became aware of Mormons Made Simple I have been considering whether I should share the site with others. It is intended to be a resource for those who are not familiar with the LDS church to understand the church as an organization and as a culture. My conflict was not that it is a poor or misleading site – it isn’t as far as I can see – but rather that it is not an official site from the church and I prefer to point people to the official sources of things – especially since the church has an official site specifically for those who are not members of the church.

In and of itself my initial question does not seem widely important, but it led me to another more general question which I thought about for some time. Is it a good thing for members of the church to create their own resources when the church has already provided resources for the same specific purpose? My conclusion was that we have been commanded to “do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.” (Doctrine and Covenants 58:27) I could not predict how much righteousness might come to pass from Mormons Made Simple, but it seems a good thing for people to be doing of their own free will.

My question for other people is, would you be more likely to recommend the official site, or the unofficial site to people? Are there times when one might be better than the other?