This week, our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to Ether 6-11. We talk about slippery slopes, immodesty, and conspiracy. Study with me!
Anchor.fm:
Soundcloud:
Youtube:
Showing posts with label #politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #politics. Show all posts
Sunday, November 15, 2020
Sunday, May 31, 2020
Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 75 - Religion is more important than politics
This week, our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to Alma 5-7. We discuss how Alma prioritized religion over politics, how the gospel message of repentance changes society for the better, and how Christ will make everything right. Study with me!
Anchor.fm:
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-podcast-ep-75-religion-is-more-important-than-politics
Youtube:
Anchor.fm:
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-podcast-ep-75-religion-is-more-important-than-politics
Youtube:
Friday, May 17, 2019
Satire: New list of Constitutional rights that are not written in the Constitution
<Satire>
Now that being written in the Constitution is no longer a standard for determining whether something is a constitutional right, Scholars are finding a plethora of new rights guaranteed by the most fundamental law in the United States.
Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders opened the proverbial floodgates by tweeting "Abortion is a constitutional right" on May 15th 2019. Of course, his opponents argued that there was nothing in the Constitution that provides even the right for medical procedures to be done, let alone the controversial practice of poisoning an unborn child, hacking them into bits, selling the parts of their body, and praising the people who said it was a good idea.
In response, Senator Sanders snapped "It's also my constitutional right to have you shut up and mind your own business!"
Since then, the following constitutional rights have been "discovered" by abortion proponents:
</Satire>
Now that being written in the Constitution is no longer a standard for determining whether something is a constitutional right, Scholars are finding a plethora of new rights guaranteed by the most fundamental law in the United States.
Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders opened the proverbial floodgates by tweeting "Abortion is a constitutional right" on May 15th 2019. Of course, his opponents argued that there was nothing in the Constitution that provides even the right for medical procedures to be done, let alone the controversial practice of poisoning an unborn child, hacking them into bits, selling the parts of their body, and praising the people who said it was a good idea.
In response, Senator Sanders snapped "It's also my constitutional right to have you shut up and mind your own business!"
Since then, the following constitutional rights have been "discovered" by abortion proponents:
- The right to have Starbucks employees spell names correctly on cups
- The right to a hot towel and a massage at work
- The right to assault people who wear red hats
- The right to use the bathroom in stores without purchasing anything
- The right to use that coupon that expired yesterday
- The right to a country with no crimes or weapons
- The right to shoot drivers going the speed limit in the left lane on the freeway
- The right to a decent Superman movie
- The right to have multiple beautiful women dressed as comic book heroines date you even if you're balding, overweight, and live in your parents' basement
- The right to get married to animals
- The right to go to heaven without keeping the commandments of God or giving any regard to his prophets
- The right to send people who judge you to hell
- The right as a sports fan to override any referee call
- The right to eat nothing but deep-fried sticks of butter without negatively affecting your health
- The right to enjoy a speedy and comfortable passage through airport security
"We're just getting started enumerating all the stuff the Constitution is going to make you do for us!" laughed a Sanders supporter as he reviewed the list. "Having never read it, I never considered it might be helpful! Using the Constitution to own the cons is the best idea ever!"
</Satire>
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
How I discovered that socialism might not be evil
One of the lines in Star Wars: Return of the Jedi that bothered me was the excuse that Obi-Wan gave to Luke after the relationship between Luke and Darth Vader was revealed:
"Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
The idea that something is true or untrue depends on our perspective has been reprehensible to me. As a Christian conservative, I love the idea of universal general truths, and I abhor concepts such as moral relativism. The constants of gravity does not change based on current societal trends. The immorality of murder cannot be removed by popular vote. Jumping into a volcano is a bad idea. Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. The United States declared independence from England in 1776. USC beat Texas in a double-overtime football game at the Coliseum 27-24 in 2017.
These facts do not require a particular perspective, or that the observer have certain feelings. They are objectively true.
In my youth, as I studied religion, politics, history, and science, I became more convinced of the importance of these universal truths. One of the natural applications of this was the evil of socialism.
The idea that the government should be able to take property, without any due process, from some citizens, and give it to other citizens, is legalized theft. I have always been opposed to the concept that any person is entitled to the property of others. The old Marx saying from each according to his ability, to each according to his need may seem appealing in terms of helping the poor, but attributing an entitlement to unearned goods and services without providing incentives to work, produce, and earn is hazardous at best, and at worst, a major contributor to the murder, imprisonment, and tyranny seen in communist nations in the 20th century.
In the past couple years, socialism has seen a resurgence in American politics, only this time, accompanied by the ultimately meaningless adjective "democratic." Democratic socialism is marketed with the same promises that leftist politicians have made for decades including health care and education, and with the indication that these things can be made affordable by taxing "the rich" (a group that is rarely defined specifically, and when defined, could not produce enough revenue to purchase all the promised services, even if taxed at a rate of 100%).
In the past couple years, I have struggled to understand how so many young people could get so excited about such a bad, old idea.
Of course, I saw the simplistic memes that described everything government did as "socialism." Memes with clever captions told me that I drove on socialized roads or that I was protected by socialized fire departments and police departments, but universal health care and universal education was something else entirely. Of course, conservative meme producers were quick to point out how disingenuous promises of "free stuff" are. They could point to times before any income tax and demonstrate that society managed to function relatively well without socialized services. The libertarian sentiment"taxation is theft" has become a memorable slogan, even though it is also simplistic.
People on the left have frequently pointed to corrupt corporate interests (some of which, to their credit, were legitimately bad). Some of their pundits have suggested that capitalism itself was the culprit... that in all cases, it promoted greed... an unfair generalization.
People on the right hosted discussions where they described socialism as evil... not just an unsustainable idea, but actually evil, and in every case.
While in the past, the universal absolute statement would have immediately appealed to me, now something seems off about the assessment. Thinking about the concept led me to realize that the issue was more complicated than I had initially thought. Perhaps my perspective was giving me a simplistic view of these socialist ideas, and that I could benefit from the counsel of Obi-Wan.
This sort of introspection is rarely easy. No one likes being wrong, and questioning the philosophies that have shaped perspective could lead to uncomfortable places. Societies have taxed their citizens by force, and have used the generated revenue to do various things (including those that I believe are necessary). How could it be acceptable to compel participation for public good in some cases and not others? Was it possible that I had already unconsciously given my approval for socialism? How could this compulsion be balanced with the idea that humans have basic freedoms?
In the end, Obi-Wan was right. The anti-socialist philosophy to which I had clung for most of my life depended greatly on my own point of view.
There is a different point of view... a context... in which socialism works. I do not mean just some universal services that require common funding such as the military, but an actual case in which people who produce little or nothing should be entitled to the income of others who produce and earn based on their individual production.
This context is called family. Most particularly, a family with children.
A parent, particularly a father, is obligated to work to produce not only for themselves, but for children who produce little or nothing. A newborn baby, for example, will incur numerous expenses, and in return will produce large quantities of dirty diapers and sleep deprivation. Toddlers are experts at turning clean clothing into dirty laundry, clean dishes into dirty dishes, and small disappointments into crises worthy of glass-shattering screeching, but of course, none of these skills are particularly marketable. Older children may be able to help more, but certainly not enough to offset the costs of larger meals and bigger clothing sizes for their growing bodies. Regardless of the inability of children to provide in meaningful ways, a parent who does not impart of their substance to provide food, clothing, and other tangible necessities (in addition to the emotional necessities) is criminally negligent, and in the worst case, should be compelled to provide these things.
While children do not have the capacity to fully support the financial costs of the family, they do have an obligation to help assist in basic tasks of which they are capable. It is appropriate for parents to require their children to do chores, to tidy up after themselves, and to help one another, all without any additional compensation. In the context of a household, the idea from each according to his ability, to each according to his need is actually a good concept. Everyone pitches in, developing selfless motivations, to assist one another to be successful.
The goal of this implementation of socialism is to help children to become capable of production, so that when they are old enough to be free and independent, they will have received the necessary preparation.
That means that, in order for socialism to function in this context, the following things are necessary:
- The non-producers consent to the producers presiding over them
- The producers train the non-producers to become productive (as apprentices)
- The producers have close ties to the non-producers for whom they are obligated to provide
- The non-producers have natural incentives to become producers
This also means that in larger contexts, such as the context of the United States federal government, this model cannot work:
- There is too much grey area regarding who is or is not producing and who should preside
- Apprenticeship is not practical without cooperation to that end between the non-producer and the producer
- There are no natural ties to relate non-producers to producers, which means bureaucracies are needed to assess tiers of production, bind individuals in different tiers to one another, facilitate transfers of goods and services, and to enforce compliance
- There is not any significant incentive for any tier to produce more or to improve
The other important factor that helps socialistic practices work in a family setting is love. Mothers and fathers have natural tendencies to care for their children. This means that, even in cases when a child cannot become a producer (e.g. children with mental and physical disabilities), there is still a motivation in parents to care for their children. While there may be exceptions, most people would not characterize interactions with bureaucracy as "loving."
Elder Dale G. Renlund shared that "the greater the distance between the giver and the receiver, the more the receiver develops a sense of entitlement." (April 2016 General Conference). This idea highlights the most significant aspect of determining the success of socialistic practices: scale.
On a family scale, individuals are obligated to cooperate in love and respect for the benefit of all. On a neighborhood scale, families should have a desire to help and serve one another, but not necessarily provide for every need. On a city scale, resources such as police, fire departments, or sanitation should be shared. On the state scale, highways, prisons, and other resources should be pooled. On a national scale, the scope decreases to things that cannot be individually applied such as treaties with other nations, currency management, and defense. On a global scale, nothing is obligated.
This is not to say that individuals or private foundations cannot voluntarily take up causes on a larger scale... it is to say that these contributions must remain voluntary. A person who would rather contribute to the Prevent Cancer Foundation than MSF or the Red Cross should be able to do so.
Efforts to compel participation in socialism on large scales tend to have success with one of two properties:
- The socialistic practices have limited success in some areas while they can still be propped up by the wealth generation of capitalism (which is seen with some Nordic nations)
- The socialistic practices have limited success when the government kills and/or imprisons anyone who dissents (which could be seen in Venezuela, North Korea, the USSR, and Nazi Germany)
In either case, the consolidation of power necessary to compel participation is prone to corruption and mismanagement. I do not like the idea of Congressional Leader Nancy Pelosi making health care decisions any more than I imagine the American left loves the thought of President Donald Trump making their health care decisions. Additionally, the successes of these systems are unsustainable as capitalistic wealth creation is drained away.
Many proponents of socialism have their sights set on alleviating poverty on grand scales, but ultimately, individuals ought to do what they are able to make life better in their immediate vicinity. As noble as it may be to help everyone in the world, it might be smarter to look from a closer point of view. Take care of yourself and your family first. As you are able, help your neighbors. Remember the counsel of Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf, and "Lift where you stand."
The more people give to help their own families, the better off everyone will be.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
How to Survive the 2016 Presidential Election
Let me begin by explaining my perspective. Even if you disagree with my positions, I hope you find value in my suggestions for dealing with this election.
I did not support John McCain in the primaries of 2008, but I voted for him in opposition to Barack Obama. I did not support Mitt Romney in the primaries of 2012, but I voted for him with similar opposition in the November election.
Then came 2016.
Early in the race, I recall being frustrated with people who were already saying there were no candidates they wanted to support. If you believed everything Barack Obama said about himself, you could support Hillary. If you wanted to ignore every failure of socialism hoping that this time it would be different, you could support Bernie Sanders. If you wanted someone outside of politics to make a difference, Ben Carson fit the description. If you wanted someone who had political experience and constitutional principles, Ted Cruz was the man. If you wanted a compromiser who could relate to younger voters, Marco Rubio was viable. If you wanted an establishment Republican, there was Jeb Bush. Finally, if you wanted to flip people off, there was Donald Trump.
Through a series of events I am not sure I understand yet, the two parties lifted up Trump and Clinton as the nominees.
Any frustrations I had with people who said there were no good choices disappeared. On the one hand, Hillary Clinton has been tied to pay-for-play corruption in the State Department. She has obfuscated and lied about things even when she did not need to (such as her pneumonia episode). Even Democrats who supported socialist Bernie Sanders recognized her corruption in the primary process. For non-democrats, Clinton represents every flaw that accompanies big-government politics. On the other hand, Donald Trump is a crude individual who has used personal attacks and media manipulation to propel himself. He and his campaign promoted insane conspiracies that Ted Cruz's father might have been involved in the JFK assassination, and unnecessarily shameful attacks about Cruz's wife. His record with infidelity and morality directly conflicts with the standards that Republicans have typically tried to espouse. Even worse, his ideas for policy are all based on large government solutions including large tariffs, undefinable immigration changes that may or may not include a wall, and confusing foreign policy positions that have difficulty differentiating between friends and foes. Essentially, Americans are being given the choice between two Democrats... two unlikable Democrats.
Third party candidates have risen to try to position themselves as viable alternatives. Of course, Jill Stein of the Green Party is even further to the left of the major party nominees, but Gary Johnson has, in an attempt to court disenfranchised voters, put himself in roughly the same position as Trump and Clinton in terms of policy. He praised a lot of the Bernie Sanders strategy, and is left of Clinton on immigration. His foreign policy understanding is famously lacking, and his major priority is the legalization of drugs. Essentially, the major third party candidates have offered us two more Democrats from which to choose.
This, among other precedent, has led many people to conclude that the best thing they can do with their vote is to oppose one of the two major political candidates. The media is all over the Trump tapes (that reveal nothing new; Donald Trump has always been a crude man) to encourage people to prevent Trump from becoming President. Conservative sites have a target-rich environment to show Hillary's record of corruption (that also reveal nothing new; Hillary Clinton has always been a corrupt manipulator) that they use to encourage people to prevent Hillary from becoming President.
I completely understand wanting to prevent either one of these people from becoming President. Frankly, I understand wanting to prevent some of the third party candidates from becoming President as well.
That having been said, let me suggest the following:
1. Don't make excuses for any candidate. I know that Hillary Clinton will cause awful harm as President of the United States. That doesn't excuse Donald Trump's awful behavior. Additionally, I know that Donald Trump is unlikely to keep any of the promises he has made, and would be a disaster for America. That doesn't mean Hillary's dishonesty and criminal activity was OK. Acknowledge the imperfections that each person has.
2. People who have opposing political views are not incompetent racist traitor bigot liars (necessarily). Of course it is possible to find Trump supporters that are hateful lunatics, and Hillary supporters that actually hate America, but it is likely more productive to talk about ideas, principles, and values rather than slinging disrespect. If you have to become an awful person to show that someone else is an awful person, then what have you really accomplished?
3. The Government is incapable of solving most of our problems. Having voted for or against a candidate does not absolve an individual of personal responsibility. You must still help other people. You must still be decent and law-abiding. You must still work hard. You must still try to better yourself. Ultimately, the most significant sources of improving people (and in turn, society) are Jesus Christ, and strong families (in that order). The most important education, the preservation of values, the way people of different races, genders, and backgrounds can improve interactions... all of these things are best improved by fathers and mothers who love one another and their children. Religious institutions that promote faith and family, as well as charity, honesty, respect, virtue, and forgiveness support families in these efforts. These elements will do the most to solve the problems our society faces.
4. Don't let political frustration discourage you. It is easy to become cynical. It is easy to avoid participating in elections or political conversations. Sometimes, it seems justified. The outlook on the 2016 Presidential Election is not encouraging, regardless of which party wins. That does not mean that you should stop caring. That does not mean that your conscience is unimportant. That does not mean that America is beyond redemption. This nation has been in precarious situations before, and we have triumphed when enough people did the right thing when it was difficult.
5. In the end, the good guys win. I don't want to suggest that life will be sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows... There will be perils, disasters, tragedies, and horrors... many of them will be perpetrated by people (2 Timothy 3:1-7). I do want to suggest that, in the end, God will make everything right. No one will "get away with" their crimes. No injustice will go uncorrected. No wound will remain unhealed. No hurt will persist. In the end, good will triumph over evil. Have faith. Have confidence. Even if it doesn't look good right now, Jesus Christ is coming... and he will save us all.
Thursday, July 7, 2016
It's going to get worse... it's going to get much worse
Many people are frustrated with the current political climate in the United States. The major parties have chosen candidates that have become quite unpopular. Within the Republican party is a strong "never Trump" movement, and there are many people who had supported socialist Bernie Sanders and have become disgusted with the system that vaulted Hillary Clinton to becoming the nominee of the Democrats. On the one hand, Trump makes outrageous claims and impossible promises (much as Obama did) to try to gain support. On the other hand, the director of the FBI exposes most of the claims that Clinton made with respect to her handling of sensitive confidential information to be outright lies.
There is a growing number of people in the country, who, when analyzing the choices before Americans ask how could this happen?
Some might point to our education system. Though it is taking larger amounts of money, it seems to be producing diminishing returns.
Others point to economics. Many on the left use the gap between successful and unsuccessful as justification for government intervention in the free market.
There is no shortage of issues to which blame can be attributed. From racism, to sexism, to Islamophobia, to "white privilege," there is always some monster in some faction of our culture (not the faction to which we belong mind you... some other faction) onto which people will affix fault... a societal scapegoat.
Part of what make these issues easy to blame is there are legitimate problems in most of them. We are, as Mike Rowe said, "...lending money we don’t have to kids who can’t pay it back to train them for jobs that no longer exist." There are maneuvers attempted by large corporations that can best be explained by corporate greed. In other words, there are legitimate concerns expressed by both liberals and conservatives.
Ultimately though, even if everyone agreed to a single plan that would completely re-work the education system in the country, and even if every corporation was legally bound to ethical behaviors, society would still be burdened with envy, pride, wrath, sloth, lust, greed, and gluttony.
A civilization that is obsessed with how the choices of others negatively impact them is a civilization on the brink of disaster. It creates an urge to control (by any means) the choices of others. While it may start with the power of persuasion, it is far too tempting to avoid using the persuasion of power.
Of course, this does not mean that power should not be used in dealing with legitimate threats: crime must be punished. We should not tolerate the retention of the robber's stolen goods, the freedom of the abuser, or the life of the pedophile. Additionally, military force is necessary to protect our nation from foreign malefactors.
What this does mean is that people who are preoccupied with the flaws of other factions in society are easily manipulated. This tendency is observed in the Old Testament book of Joel:
"Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong." (Joel 3:9-10)
The imagery of reworking plowshares into swords and pruning hooks into spears is not intended to be limited to inanimate objects. People who might otherwise be reasonable can be whipped into a frenzy if they focus on problems beyond their direct control. It has been used to make people believe the source of their difficulties can be attributed to Jews, to whites, to blacks, to Republicans, to Democrats, to the wealthy 1%, to corporations, to unions, and to churches.
If the divisive trends that politicians exploit to sway their factions continue, then the situation in this nation is going to get worse... it's going to get much worse.
Jesus taught a parable to illustrate the point:
"Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
"I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18:10-14)
Though there are new and clever ways to express outrage and frustration with the flaws of others, they are, at the core, not so very different from rending one's garments, as was done anciently. Because of the central similarity, the counsel from Joel all the more applicable:
"Therefore also now, saith the Lord, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil." (Joel 2:12-13, emphasis added)
This is the key to avoiding the problems associated with obsessing over the flaws of others... addressing the flaws in yourself. Compare the amount of time spent in trying to fix the behavior of others to the amount of time spent trying to become better yourself.
In the end, Christ will come again, and he will take care of the great injustices in the world. Those who have indulged in envy, pride, wrath, sloth, lust, greed, and gluttony will reap what they have sewn. Those who have spent their efforts to try and purge themselves of their envy, pride, wrath, sloth, lust, greed, and gluttony will be rewarded.
Circumstances are likely to get much worse, but regardless of circumstances, the power of Christ can help you to be better.
There is a growing number of people in the country, who, when analyzing the choices before Americans ask how could this happen?
Some might point to our education system. Though it is taking larger amounts of money, it seems to be producing diminishing returns.
Others point to economics. Many on the left use the gap between successful and unsuccessful as justification for government intervention in the free market.
There is no shortage of issues to which blame can be attributed. From racism, to sexism, to Islamophobia, to "white privilege," there is always some monster in some faction of our culture (not the faction to which we belong mind you... some other faction) onto which people will affix fault... a societal scapegoat.
Part of what make these issues easy to blame is there are legitimate problems in most of them. We are, as Mike Rowe said, "...lending money we don’t have to kids who can’t pay it back to train them for jobs that no longer exist." There are maneuvers attempted by large corporations that can best be explained by corporate greed. In other words, there are legitimate concerns expressed by both liberals and conservatives.
Ultimately though, even if everyone agreed to a single plan that would completely re-work the education system in the country, and even if every corporation was legally bound to ethical behaviors, society would still be burdened with envy, pride, wrath, sloth, lust, greed, and gluttony.
A civilization that is obsessed with how the choices of others negatively impact them is a civilization on the brink of disaster. It creates an urge to control (by any means) the choices of others. While it may start with the power of persuasion, it is far too tempting to avoid using the persuasion of power.
Of course, this does not mean that power should not be used in dealing with legitimate threats: crime must be punished. We should not tolerate the retention of the robber's stolen goods, the freedom of the abuser, or the life of the pedophile. Additionally, military force is necessary to protect our nation from foreign malefactors.
What this does mean is that people who are preoccupied with the flaws of other factions in society are easily manipulated. This tendency is observed in the Old Testament book of Joel:
"Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong." (Joel 3:9-10)
The imagery of reworking plowshares into swords and pruning hooks into spears is not intended to be limited to inanimate objects. People who might otherwise be reasonable can be whipped into a frenzy if they focus on problems beyond their direct control. It has been used to make people believe the source of their difficulties can be attributed to Jews, to whites, to blacks, to Republicans, to Democrats, to the wealthy 1%, to corporations, to unions, and to churches.
If the divisive trends that politicians exploit to sway their factions continue, then the situation in this nation is going to get worse... it's going to get much worse.
Jesus taught a parable to illustrate the point:
"Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
"I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18:10-14)
Though there are new and clever ways to express outrage and frustration with the flaws of others, they are, at the core, not so very different from rending one's garments, as was done anciently. Because of the central similarity, the counsel from Joel all the more applicable:
"Therefore also now, saith the Lord, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil." (Joel 2:12-13, emphasis added)
This is the key to avoiding the problems associated with obsessing over the flaws of others... addressing the flaws in yourself. Compare the amount of time spent in trying to fix the behavior of others to the amount of time spent trying to become better yourself.
In the end, Christ will come again, and he will take care of the great injustices in the world. Those who have indulged in envy, pride, wrath, sloth, lust, greed, and gluttony will reap what they have sewn. Those who have spent their efforts to try and purge themselves of their envy, pride, wrath, sloth, lust, greed, and gluttony will be rewarded.
Circumstances are likely to get much worse, but regardless of circumstances, the power of Christ can help you to be better.
Monday, November 9, 2015
Shocking Details From the Other Mormon Handbook
Recently, my Facebook feed has been filled with comments, memes, and images regarding some shocking changes that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints made to a handbook of instructions for church leaders regarding homosexuality and apostasy.
The headlines in blogs and from the stories of news organizations emphasized only one possible outcome of the changes: that Mormon Leaders would refuse baptism to the children of gays.
I read a number of reactions that ranged from people encouraging trust in the leaders of the church to posting apologetic explanations to people considering leaving the Mormon church because of this shocking truth.
I was a bit surprised at the volume of reactions to this news. It seemed to me that after the headline had drawn traffic and people saw what it was really about, some new bit of information would draw attention away and it would be rapidly forgotten. Days later, I still see numerous posts, comments, and reactions to this news. I have read posts wherein people still express shock and surprise that the Mormon church would implement such a policy that seems to target individuals based on their sexual orientation.
If you are among those who were shocked by the new details from the Mormon Handbook of Instructions, then perhaps you could particularly benefit from learning the shocking details from the Other Mormon Handbook. You know, the one that no one seems to be talking about, but that makes policies on apostasy seem as shocking as the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes in Jesus Christ... Even if you are not among those shocked by the recent policy news, the shocking details from the Other Mormon Handbook, will still be beneficial.
Of course, by Other Mormon Handbook, I mean The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.
The circumstances of this books arrival and the claims made in this book are more shocking than any policy decision the church has ever made (and that includes decisions regarding plural marriage, priesthood availability, or sticking with the Boy Scouts). Think about it. A young man in upstate New York was personally visited by an Angel and told about a book of scripture, hidden for centuries, written in a language that no one spoke, and that the record had been inscribed on plates of gold. Additionally, this record represented proof that peoples who had inhabited the American continent ages earlier had been Christians, and that they had fallen apart when they rejected Christ.
If these claims are not shocking enough, Mormons claim that Joseph Smith Junior, an uneducated laborer, was able to translate this record into English through the power of God himself. As miraculous as the use of diverse tongues on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), this young man not only produced a translation in a short time, but did it while enemies tried to attack him and his supporters. He also persuaded friends to help finance its publication, which was not an inexpensive investment. After it was done, he stood behind the work that he claimed God had helped him perform by saying: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Introduction to the Book of Mormon)
The idea that it is the most correct book is certainly shocking, but that a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book, is incredibly bold.
Rational individuals should immediately demand (in light of these shocking details and claims) what the Mormon Church intends to do to back them up (if they haven't already).
Of course, the way in which the Mormon Church backs up these claims is perhaps more shocking than anything else. This translation is not in some "leaders-only" handbook or kept in a vault in the mountains near Salt Lake City. The Church has gone to great lengths and great expense to make this handbook available to everyone. If you like to read physical books, check here: https://www.mormon.org/free-book-of-mormon. You can read it online for free here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng. Yes, there's an app for it too: https://play.google.com/store/books/details/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_day_Saints_Th?id=oAkd9j3xSqoC. Additionally, volunteer missionaries across the world are eager to provide individual support as you put the shocking claims of the Mormons to the test by reading this book and praying to God to come to your own conclusion.
For those who are already members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the need to read the Book of Mormon has not diminished. Shocks from changes in church policies (or any other aspect of the faith) are best handled by returning to this handbook, which laid the foundation of the Mormon Church. If you have read it, read it again. If you have not read from it today, read from it today. If you have not prayed to our Heavenly Father regarding the shocking claims that it makes and that it represents, pray today. If you have prayed, but you have not been willing to act according to the answer you have received, then read it some more. If you have prayed, but you do not believe that God will answer your prayer, then read it some more.
Ultimately, the more that you read, study, consider, and pray about the Book of Mormon, the more you will see that the claims, practices, policies, and traditions in the Mormon Church are not shocking at all. The real shock is that Jesus Christ (who is very much alive and well) is reaching out to you in a personal way through this book. Joseph Smith was not exaggerating or being rhetorical when he said that you could get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book. Whatever other news headlines arise in the future, you can be confident that God lives and that he will make sure everything works out in the end. In the end, he is coming to save us all.
The headlines in blogs and from the stories of news organizations emphasized only one possible outcome of the changes: that Mormon Leaders would refuse baptism to the children of gays.
I read a number of reactions that ranged from people encouraging trust in the leaders of the church to posting apologetic explanations to people considering leaving the Mormon church because of this shocking truth.
I was a bit surprised at the volume of reactions to this news. It seemed to me that after the headline had drawn traffic and people saw what it was really about, some new bit of information would draw attention away and it would be rapidly forgotten. Days later, I still see numerous posts, comments, and reactions to this news. I have read posts wherein people still express shock and surprise that the Mormon church would implement such a policy that seems to target individuals based on their sexual orientation.
If you are among those who were shocked by the new details from the Mormon Handbook of Instructions, then perhaps you could particularly benefit from learning the shocking details from the Other Mormon Handbook. You know, the one that no one seems to be talking about, but that makes policies on apostasy seem as shocking as the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes in Jesus Christ... Even if you are not among those shocked by the recent policy news, the shocking details from the Other Mormon Handbook, will still be beneficial.
Of course, by Other Mormon Handbook, I mean The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.
The circumstances of this books arrival and the claims made in this book are more shocking than any policy decision the church has ever made (and that includes decisions regarding plural marriage, priesthood availability, or sticking with the Boy Scouts). Think about it. A young man in upstate New York was personally visited by an Angel and told about a book of scripture, hidden for centuries, written in a language that no one spoke, and that the record had been inscribed on plates of gold. Additionally, this record represented proof that peoples who had inhabited the American continent ages earlier had been Christians, and that they had fallen apart when they rejected Christ.
If these claims are not shocking enough, Mormons claim that Joseph Smith Junior, an uneducated laborer, was able to translate this record into English through the power of God himself. As miraculous as the use of diverse tongues on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2), this young man not only produced a translation in a short time, but did it while enemies tried to attack him and his supporters. He also persuaded friends to help finance its publication, which was not an inexpensive investment. After it was done, he stood behind the work that he claimed God had helped him perform by saying: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Introduction to the Book of Mormon)
The idea that it is the most correct book is certainly shocking, but that a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book, is incredibly bold.
Rational individuals should immediately demand (in light of these shocking details and claims) what the Mormon Church intends to do to back them up (if they haven't already).
Of course, the way in which the Mormon Church backs up these claims is perhaps more shocking than anything else. This translation is not in some "leaders-only" handbook or kept in a vault in the mountains near Salt Lake City. The Church has gone to great lengths and great expense to make this handbook available to everyone. If you like to read physical books, check here: https://www.mormon.org/free-book-of-mormon. You can read it online for free here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng. Yes, there's an app for it too: https://play.google.com/store/books/details/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_day_Saints_Th?id=oAkd9j3xSqoC. Additionally, volunteer missionaries across the world are eager to provide individual support as you put the shocking claims of the Mormons to the test by reading this book and praying to God to come to your own conclusion.
For those who are already members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the need to read the Book of Mormon has not diminished. Shocks from changes in church policies (or any other aspect of the faith) are best handled by returning to this handbook, which laid the foundation of the Mormon Church. If you have read it, read it again. If you have not read from it today, read from it today. If you have not prayed to our Heavenly Father regarding the shocking claims that it makes and that it represents, pray today. If you have prayed, but you have not been willing to act according to the answer you have received, then read it some more. If you have prayed, but you do not believe that God will answer your prayer, then read it some more.
Ultimately, the more that you read, study, consider, and pray about the Book of Mormon, the more you will see that the claims, practices, policies, and traditions in the Mormon Church are not shocking at all. The real shock is that Jesus Christ (who is very much alive and well) is reaching out to you in a personal way through this book. Joseph Smith was not exaggerating or being rhetorical when he said that you could get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts than by any other book. Whatever other news headlines arise in the future, you can be confident that God lives and that he will make sure everything works out in the end. In the end, he is coming to save us all.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Should I freak out about the election?
Attention liberals: this post is not intended for you. This post is intended for conservatives that are upset about politics in the United States. This post may cause you to feel angry, and perhaps develop a desire to argue with me. I do not want to argue with you, so please feel free to read my other posts, or peruse the internet for pictures of cats, or robots, or robot cats. By continuing to read this post, you agree that you are conservative... not liberal, not moderate, not "fiscally" conservative, but conservative.
Ok, so for anyone who was unable to discern previously, I consider myself very conservative on the political spectrum. There are a large number of members of the Mormon church who believe as I do, although the church is politically neutral and there are many good members of the church that lean far to the left. Since liberals are not reading this post any longer, I have no qualms in declaring that they might be well-meaning, but are completely wrong.
The past few weeks have been filled with disappointment for conservatives. There are many of us who believe that President Obama is taking the country in a direction that will weaken the United States defensively and economically. I watched the internet and television on election night and felt my heart sink when states began turning blue. I asked myself what was wrong with Americans, and could not help but feel a special disappointment with the state of Ohio. I had, probably against my better judgment, been following several political conservatives in the media, and told myself that the death threats, slurs, and vile hatred being spewed out against them personally and those that believed in conservatism would be worth it because we would at least be able to put the proverbial brakes on the out-of-control big government mentality that had prevailed during the Obama administration.
Of course, people that were brave enough to declare themselves conservative were lambasted with additional profane and vulgar language after the election in the lowest form of gloating. (for example: http://twitchy.com/2012/11/07/obama-supporters-serve-up-venomous-revenge-to-actress-stacey-dash-die-come-off-porch-house-slave/ warning: language)
Writing a few posts on a blog has obviously not made me a target of the crazed haters that occupy the fringes of the left, but the feeling of being gloated over is seen in numerous passive aggressive statements from even well-meaning leftists. A link that I have seen posted several times is one in which the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints congratulates President Obama on his re-election. (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-on-election-result) As a member of the church, this does not surprise me. The church is politically neutral, and particularly where the opposing candidate was a member, it is appropriate to show that they are not unhappy with the result, and that Romney's candidacy was not (as some may have believed) an attempt to gain political power for the church. It is positive, concise, and clear.
The issue appears when liberals use this and other messages to congratulate the President on his re-election. They are frequently accompanied with statements exhorting conservatives not to "freak out" or expressing a desire to "work together" and "move forward."
Statements such as these come off to conservatives like this:
You should be happy about the results of the election because I am happy about them.
Or
You shouldn't freak out about the election, because my candidate won.
Of course, as a conservative, I believe that leftists would post far fewer of these "work together" and "don't freak out" nuggets of advice had Romney won the election.
In truth, conservatives such as us do have a few reasons to freak out... and no gloating liberal or progressive wearing moderate clothing is going to convince us otherwise. Below are legitimate reasons to feel discouraged:
1. Obama's statement about "flexibility" after the election - (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326) - The idea that Obama was moving to the center only temporarily in order to win votes is not baseless. There were a number of promises that Obama made before his first term that he did not keep. Now that there is no re-election about which to worry, how far left can he go?
2. The Supreme Court - Should there be any retirements or vacancies in the Supreme Court, Obama will appoint another subscriber to the "living" constitutional theory that believes pushing progressive theories is the unwritten goal of our highest law.
3. Socialist policies - Any one who talks about "fair share" without insisting on a flat rate for all social classes is by definition discriminating against certain social classes. That is by definition socialist. Obama has not even made a secret of his plan to make the wealthiest individuals (who are in the best position to hire others or to purchase the most goods and services from those that do) the target of his tax policies.
4. Lack of Defense - The Benghazi incident is consistently dodged by the Obama administration as "being investigated." Part of the problem though is how a consulate in a notoriously dangerous nation was not watched more carefully and defended more thoroughly. To the observer, Obama has placed a higher priority on his golfing than the defense of the country, hoping that his friendly demeanor will decrease the hatred of America by our enemies.
5. The Republican Party re-evaluating social conservatism - The party that gave us moderate John McCain in 2008 and moderate Mitt Romney in 2012 has started to wonder if they are too conservative. The party's defense of traditional marriage and stance for the sanctity of the life of the unborn have spawned leftist campaigns encouraging women to "vote with [their] lady parts." (http://twitchy.com/2012/10/02/for-shame-women-obama-literally-reduced-you-to-sum-of-your-ladyparts-vote-like-lady-parts-depend-on-it/) For some reason, the GOP thinks if we switch to a libertarian philosophy of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism that we will win, in spite of the fact that moderates have done poorly. I find this point to be more discouraging than many of the difficulties that are coming or may potentially come out of the Obama administration. Defending marriage is a noble cause... and so is trying to prevent the exploitation of the unborn. Forfeiting principles in favor of popularity is the wrong move. I believe the GOP should return to its conservative base and hold fast to correct principles regardless of whether they are popular or politically correct.
6. The Media - It is absolutely infuriating to see the lack of coverage. Reporters have, for the most part, bought the "we're investigating it" line from Benghazi without asking for details of the investigation. When interviewing conservatives, the mainstream media possesses a talent for finding those that are least able to articulate their views, or those from the fringe that could easily be portrayed as racists or undesirable. Although there are a multitude of liberals that could just as easily make the left look foolish, they are always overlooked by the mainstream media. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-supporters-celebrate-election-victory-no-more-israel-fk-that-sht-kill-those-mother-fkers/ warning: language)
7. Pot and Gay Marriage as ballot measures - Several states including Colorado had measures regarding gay marriage and the legalization of pot. The populations of these states apparently felt the small percentage of the population that actually use pot or are gay were among the most important issues. Is changing the law for these items really that helpful for any state? Certainly I am among conservatives that feel that the fact these things are even considered debatable issues is a sign indicating the moral decay of society at large.
Of course the complete list of points is actually much longer, and any of these points could be supplemented with additional details and sources confirming how conservatives actually do have lots of reasons to freak out.
Ultimately though, in spite of the reasons for freaking out, even obnoxious gloating liberals can be right when they advise conservatives to stay calm. Of course, for different reasons than they think.
Consider how many people freak out because they think that the world will end soon. There is a wide sense across several religions that seem to perceive that we are living in the latter days, or the end times. Though many religions have a similar perception, Christianity emphasizes the importance of the latter days through prophets and scriptures. Christianity also emphasizes the terrible tribulation that accompanies the approach of Christ's second coming.
Below is a list of reasons that people could use to freak out that the world is ending:
1. Wars and rumors of war - Matthew 24:6
2. Earthquakes in diverse places - Matthew 24:7
3. Famine and pestilence - Matthew 24:7
4. False prophets - Matthew 24:11
5. Apathy and hatred - Matthew 24:10,12
6. Widespread pride and selfishness - 2 Timothy 3:2
7. Those that do good are despised - 2 Timothy 3:3
Essentially, all of these perils are being seen presently. The calamities that prophets both ancient and modern have foretold are unfolding before our eyes. Certainly this list is not comprehensive either, and details and sources could supplement any of these points.
Fortunately, I am not aware of any gloating liberals telling people not to freak out over these things; in fact, leftists are notorious for freaking out over wars, famines, earthquakes, and apathy (though typically only apathy toward spotted owls or 'climate change').
In the case of the signs of our times, it is Jesus Christ himself that tells us not to be troubled:
"...see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass..." (Matthew 24:6)
Jesus Christ is the master of not freaking out. Even before he was brutally tortured and killed, he gave comfort to his apostles:
"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." (John 14:27, emphasis added)
While the gloating leftist stirs hearts to anger, the conservative that remembers Christ can have comfort in calamity. In fact, the essence of conservatism should exude confidence.
- A conservative does not need to freak out that injustice exists; we can have confidence that if we work hard, a source higher than the government will ensure that malevolence is punished and benevolence is rewarded.
- A conservative does not need to freak out that some people have more money than others; we can work hard to improve our own circumstances, and give Christian charity to those in need around us.
- A conservative does not need to freak out that a few SUVs on the road will end the world; we can have confidence that Jesus Christ will restore the earth to a paradisiacal glory that has not been known since the days of Eden.
- A conservative does not need to freak out over the election of a President of the United States; as much as we love our country and want it to succeed, ultimately, as conservatives, we are also citizens of a great kingdom with an immortal and omnipotent King that is not subject to elections or the vices inherently present in political office...
So fellow conservatives, don't freak out. Think of the reasons we have to be confident. Ultimately, remember that in the United States of America, we have no man for whom we shout 'God save the King' because the ideal for conservatives, and for all Americans is that God is the King.
Ok, so for anyone who was unable to discern previously, I consider myself very conservative on the political spectrum. There are a large number of members of the Mormon church who believe as I do, although the church is politically neutral and there are many good members of the church that lean far to the left. Since liberals are not reading this post any longer, I have no qualms in declaring that they might be well-meaning, but are completely wrong.
The past few weeks have been filled with disappointment for conservatives. There are many of us who believe that President Obama is taking the country in a direction that will weaken the United States defensively and economically. I watched the internet and television on election night and felt my heart sink when states began turning blue. I asked myself what was wrong with Americans, and could not help but feel a special disappointment with the state of Ohio. I had, probably against my better judgment, been following several political conservatives in the media, and told myself that the death threats, slurs, and vile hatred being spewed out against them personally and those that believed in conservatism would be worth it because we would at least be able to put the proverbial brakes on the out-of-control big government mentality that had prevailed during the Obama administration.
Of course, people that were brave enough to declare themselves conservative were lambasted with additional profane and vulgar language after the election in the lowest form of gloating. (for example: http://twitchy.com/2012/11/07/obama-supporters-serve-up-venomous-revenge-to-actress-stacey-dash-die-come-off-porch-house-slave/ warning: language)
Writing a few posts on a blog has obviously not made me a target of the crazed haters that occupy the fringes of the left, but the feeling of being gloated over is seen in numerous passive aggressive statements from even well-meaning leftists. A link that I have seen posted several times is one in which the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints congratulates President Obama on his re-election. (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-on-election-result) As a member of the church, this does not surprise me. The church is politically neutral, and particularly where the opposing candidate was a member, it is appropriate to show that they are not unhappy with the result, and that Romney's candidacy was not (as some may have believed) an attempt to gain political power for the church. It is positive, concise, and clear.
The issue appears when liberals use this and other messages to congratulate the President on his re-election. They are frequently accompanied with statements exhorting conservatives not to "freak out" or expressing a desire to "work together" and "move forward."
Statements such as these come off to conservatives like this:
You should be happy about the results of the election because I am happy about them.
Or
You shouldn't freak out about the election, because my candidate won.
Of course, as a conservative, I believe that leftists would post far fewer of these "work together" and "don't freak out" nuggets of advice had Romney won the election.
In truth, conservatives such as us do have a few reasons to freak out... and no gloating liberal or progressive wearing moderate clothing is going to convince us otherwise. Below are legitimate reasons to feel discouraged:
1. Obama's statement about "flexibility" after the election - (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326) - The idea that Obama was moving to the center only temporarily in order to win votes is not baseless. There were a number of promises that Obama made before his first term that he did not keep. Now that there is no re-election about which to worry, how far left can he go?
2. The Supreme Court - Should there be any retirements or vacancies in the Supreme Court, Obama will appoint another subscriber to the "living" constitutional theory that believes pushing progressive theories is the unwritten goal of our highest law.
3. Socialist policies - Any one who talks about "fair share" without insisting on a flat rate for all social classes is by definition discriminating against certain social classes. That is by definition socialist. Obama has not even made a secret of his plan to make the wealthiest individuals (who are in the best position to hire others or to purchase the most goods and services from those that do) the target of his tax policies.
4. Lack of Defense - The Benghazi incident is consistently dodged by the Obama administration as "being investigated." Part of the problem though is how a consulate in a notoriously dangerous nation was not watched more carefully and defended more thoroughly. To the observer, Obama has placed a higher priority on his golfing than the defense of the country, hoping that his friendly demeanor will decrease the hatred of America by our enemies.
5. The Republican Party re-evaluating social conservatism - The party that gave us moderate John McCain in 2008 and moderate Mitt Romney in 2012 has started to wonder if they are too conservative. The party's defense of traditional marriage and stance for the sanctity of the life of the unborn have spawned leftist campaigns encouraging women to "vote with [their] lady parts." (http://twitchy.com/2012/10/02/for-shame-women-obama-literally-reduced-you-to-sum-of-your-ladyparts-vote-like-lady-parts-depend-on-it/) For some reason, the GOP thinks if we switch to a libertarian philosophy of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism that we will win, in spite of the fact that moderates have done poorly. I find this point to be more discouraging than many of the difficulties that are coming or may potentially come out of the Obama administration. Defending marriage is a noble cause... and so is trying to prevent the exploitation of the unborn. Forfeiting principles in favor of popularity is the wrong move. I believe the GOP should return to its conservative base and hold fast to correct principles regardless of whether they are popular or politically correct.
6. The Media - It is absolutely infuriating to see the lack of coverage. Reporters have, for the most part, bought the "we're investigating it" line from Benghazi without asking for details of the investigation. When interviewing conservatives, the mainstream media possesses a talent for finding those that are least able to articulate their views, or those from the fringe that could easily be portrayed as racists or undesirable. Although there are a multitude of liberals that could just as easily make the left look foolish, they are always overlooked by the mainstream media. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-supporters-celebrate-election-victory-no-more-israel-fk-that-sht-kill-those-mother-fkers/ warning: language)
7. Pot and Gay Marriage as ballot measures - Several states including Colorado had measures regarding gay marriage and the legalization of pot. The populations of these states apparently felt the small percentage of the population that actually use pot or are gay were among the most important issues. Is changing the law for these items really that helpful for any state? Certainly I am among conservatives that feel that the fact these things are even considered debatable issues is a sign indicating the moral decay of society at large.
Of course the complete list of points is actually much longer, and any of these points could be supplemented with additional details and sources confirming how conservatives actually do have lots of reasons to freak out.
Ultimately though, in spite of the reasons for freaking out, even obnoxious gloating liberals can be right when they advise conservatives to stay calm. Of course, for different reasons than they think.
Consider how many people freak out because they think that the world will end soon. There is a wide sense across several religions that seem to perceive that we are living in the latter days, or the end times. Though many religions have a similar perception, Christianity emphasizes the importance of the latter days through prophets and scriptures. Christianity also emphasizes the terrible tribulation that accompanies the approach of Christ's second coming.
Below is a list of reasons that people could use to freak out that the world is ending:
1. Wars and rumors of war - Matthew 24:6
2. Earthquakes in diverse places - Matthew 24:7
3. Famine and pestilence - Matthew 24:7
4. False prophets - Matthew 24:11
5. Apathy and hatred - Matthew 24:10,12
6. Widespread pride and selfishness - 2 Timothy 3:2
7. Those that do good are despised - 2 Timothy 3:3
Essentially, all of these perils are being seen presently. The calamities that prophets both ancient and modern have foretold are unfolding before our eyes. Certainly this list is not comprehensive either, and details and sources could supplement any of these points.
Fortunately, I am not aware of any gloating liberals telling people not to freak out over these things; in fact, leftists are notorious for freaking out over wars, famines, earthquakes, and apathy (though typically only apathy toward spotted owls or 'climate change').
In the case of the signs of our times, it is Jesus Christ himself that tells us not to be troubled:
"...see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass..." (Matthew 24:6)
Jesus Christ is the master of not freaking out. Even before he was brutally tortured and killed, he gave comfort to his apostles:
"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." (John 14:27, emphasis added)
While the gloating leftist stirs hearts to anger, the conservative that remembers Christ can have comfort in calamity. In fact, the essence of conservatism should exude confidence.
- A conservative does not need to freak out that injustice exists; we can have confidence that if we work hard, a source higher than the government will ensure that malevolence is punished and benevolence is rewarded.
- A conservative does not need to freak out that some people have more money than others; we can work hard to improve our own circumstances, and give Christian charity to those in need around us.
- A conservative does not need to freak out that a few SUVs on the road will end the world; we can have confidence that Jesus Christ will restore the earth to a paradisiacal glory that has not been known since the days of Eden.
- A conservative does not need to freak out over the election of a President of the United States; as much as we love our country and want it to succeed, ultimately, as conservatives, we are also citizens of a great kingdom with an immortal and omnipotent King that is not subject to elections or the vices inherently present in political office...
So fellow conservatives, don't freak out. Think of the reasons we have to be confident. Ultimately, remember that in the United States of America, we have no man for whom we shout 'God save the King' because the ideal for conservatives, and for all Americans is that God is the King.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Be an American, not a troll...
The political debate in the United States has heated up as election day has approached. Every record not protected by law has been examined. Popular figures have thrown their support behind one candidate or another, and plead for Americans to do the same. Every idle word has fallen under scrutiny, and even the amount of scrutiny given has fallen under scrutiny.
People that had once posted only Farmville requests and videos of frolicking cats have added to their timelines support and opposition for political philosophies and candidates. Some of these posts are civil. Some less so.
Some conversations that appear in social media legitimately explore issues and logically attack or defend political candidates, but many have observed a decreasing amount of civility in these debates.
Ad hominem attacks label candidates and anyone who might dare to support them stupid, racist, un-American, hateful, or seditious at their best. At their worst, accusations of rape, incest, murder, burglary, treason, or any number of other criminal acts are slung back and forth angrily.
Some claim to legitimately examine both sides of an issue or positions on a candidate when in fact they are guilty of the "straw man" fallacy. They misrepresent the positions or candidates in a manner that makes them weaker, and then attack the vulnerabilities they helped create. To a lesser degree, this is done by representing the best arguments from one position, and pitting them against the weakest arguments from the opposing view.
The vile nature of the political atmosphere leaves many feeling disenchanted with the American government; after all... whoever wins will be hated and loathed by half the country regardless of what they do. Many people avoid politics altogether as a result. Of course the problem with this position is that the government of the United States is based on the participation of citizens. Uninformed citizens and/or citizens that refuse to engage in the political process are negligent in their duty.
There are others that, when confronted with an attack against their political views, feel compelled to counter-attack. This occurs whether or not the initial attack was a legitimate argument, or whether or not the initial attack was directed at them personally. Of course, the mud being slung makes it difficult not to take some attacks personally. A member of the Mormon church might be offended by people referring to Temple garments as "magic underwear" when what the real purpose of the attack was is "don't vote for Mitt Romney." On the other side of the spectrum, a liberal might be offended by portrayals of Democrats as perpetrators in rape tents with the Occupy Wall Street movement when the real purpose of such a portrayal is "don't vote for Barack Obama."
The nature of politics in any republic is also a contributor to such a climate. While serious analysts try to examine the business and/or government experience that candidates have, campaigns in almost all parties frequently delve into popularity games that are not so very different from the ploys used in elementary school class office races. "Longer recess" and "soda machines in the lunch room" won popularity and earned votes, even when the office for which the candidate was running did not have power to keep such promises.
Even promises that are valid and might be kept are sometimes thwarted by unforeseen events such as court rulings. People that honestly want to improve their government and country can become easily frustrated when they see people fighting so vehemently against them. Even pious religious leaders have been seen on both ends of the political spectrum demonizing views that they believe are immoral.
To add additional difficulty to the task of political engagement, the government has become increasingly involved in moral and/or religious issues in the past fifty years than they ever had before. Nearly every ideology is affected by government involvement. Those on the left are frequently telling the government to stay out of their reproductive systems, such as in attempting to ban abortions. Those on the right are upset that private doctors are not permitted to refuse treatments they view as unethical such as abortions. The Atheist feel unrepresented when a public servant says "God bless America." The Christian feels unrepresented when a public servant pulls down a cross that memorializes veterans. Ideologies are far less compatible today than they have been. It feels as though the amount of common ground that exists is shrinking.
The question becomes, in spite of the hostile climate, how does one fulfill their political responsibility without becoming a troll? The following list explores solutions:
The purpose of this post is not to persuade anyone to subscribe to my political views (although the world would undoubtedly be a much better place if everyone did). The main point is that it is ok to be politically involved, and even passionately so, as long as we do not become the vile things of which our opponents accuse us. Be an American, not a troll.
People that had once posted only Farmville requests and videos of frolicking cats have added to their timelines support and opposition for political philosophies and candidates. Some of these posts are civil. Some less so.
Some conversations that appear in social media legitimately explore issues and logically attack or defend political candidates, but many have observed a decreasing amount of civility in these debates.
Ad hominem attacks label candidates and anyone who might dare to support them stupid, racist, un-American, hateful, or seditious at their best. At their worst, accusations of rape, incest, murder, burglary, treason, or any number of other criminal acts are slung back and forth angrily.
Some claim to legitimately examine both sides of an issue or positions on a candidate when in fact they are guilty of the "straw man" fallacy. They misrepresent the positions or candidates in a manner that makes them weaker, and then attack the vulnerabilities they helped create. To a lesser degree, this is done by representing the best arguments from one position, and pitting them against the weakest arguments from the opposing view.
The vile nature of the political atmosphere leaves many feeling disenchanted with the American government; after all... whoever wins will be hated and loathed by half the country regardless of what they do. Many people avoid politics altogether as a result. Of course the problem with this position is that the government of the United States is based on the participation of citizens. Uninformed citizens and/or citizens that refuse to engage in the political process are negligent in their duty.
There are others that, when confronted with an attack against their political views, feel compelled to counter-attack. This occurs whether or not the initial attack was a legitimate argument, or whether or not the initial attack was directed at them personally. Of course, the mud being slung makes it difficult not to take some attacks personally. A member of the Mormon church might be offended by people referring to Temple garments as "magic underwear" when what the real purpose of the attack was is "don't vote for Mitt Romney." On the other side of the spectrum, a liberal might be offended by portrayals of Democrats as perpetrators in rape tents with the Occupy Wall Street movement when the real purpose of such a portrayal is "don't vote for Barack Obama."
The nature of politics in any republic is also a contributor to such a climate. While serious analysts try to examine the business and/or government experience that candidates have, campaigns in almost all parties frequently delve into popularity games that are not so very different from the ploys used in elementary school class office races. "Longer recess" and "soda machines in the lunch room" won popularity and earned votes, even when the office for which the candidate was running did not have power to keep such promises.
Even promises that are valid and might be kept are sometimes thwarted by unforeseen events such as court rulings. People that honestly want to improve their government and country can become easily frustrated when they see people fighting so vehemently against them. Even pious religious leaders have been seen on both ends of the political spectrum demonizing views that they believe are immoral.
To add additional difficulty to the task of political engagement, the government has become increasingly involved in moral and/or religious issues in the past fifty years than they ever had before. Nearly every ideology is affected by government involvement. Those on the left are frequently telling the government to stay out of their reproductive systems, such as in attempting to ban abortions. Those on the right are upset that private doctors are not permitted to refuse treatments they view as unethical such as abortions. The Atheist feel unrepresented when a public servant says "God bless America." The Christian feels unrepresented when a public servant pulls down a cross that memorializes veterans. Ideologies are far less compatible today than they have been. It feels as though the amount of common ground that exists is shrinking.
The question becomes, in spite of the hostile climate, how does one fulfill their political responsibility without becoming a troll? The following list explores solutions:
- Be informed. Nasty political advertisements are not effective against people who have already looked at the issues and come to their own conclusions. They target the uninformed. This leads into the next point which is...
- Choose reliable sources of information. There is no such thing as an unbiased source, since no source presents all of the information. The decisions regarding what to report and what to ignore are always based on the opinions of editors (and others) as to what is important or what will bring the most viewing.
- Don't get offended. This is of course easier said than done. Try to avoid sources of information that use images and language that will bother you. Unsubscribe to the posts of some of your Facebook friends. Stop following celebrities on Twitter. Of course, eventually you will find something that offends you. Resist the urge to immediately post something in rebuttal. Evaluate whether pursuing a dialog is for the purpose of informing or rebuking can prevent pointless debates. This leads into the next point which is...
- Avoid pointless debates. If you have already made up your mind and cannot be persuaded, talking to someone else who has made up their mind and cannot be persuaded probably wastes time. Debates are only helpful for weighing two opposing views. If you talk to someone who is unsure, being persuasive is perfectly fine. Being a little abrasive might even be ok, depending on the people involved and assuming that arguments presented are founded in facts and honest beliefs rather than clever fallacies.
- Prioritize your principles. Do you know what things you would be willing to compromise? Do you have ideals from which you cannot withdraw support? Candidates and platforms include so many issues, and it is possible that opposing parties might have some elements that are appealing. Those that most firmly support what is most important to you should have support. For Christians, the most important principles must be religious. Saving mankind by embracing good and denouncing evil is more important than saving whales. For environmental purists, saving whales is far more important than other economic or governmental concerns. Choices between platforms become easier when you know what is most important to you.
- Be consistent. Another way this point might be phrased is to examine your beliefs to see if there are any problems. This does not mean to go read everything from people that disagree with you and hate you... It also does not mean that if you find an inconsistency, you should throw out your principles immediately. Is there a better argument to support something that you believe in your heart? Are the arguments to believe something else more compelling? Everyone is guilty of some hypocrisy, but the effort to keep it to a minimum is a good thing.
The purpose of this post is not to persuade anyone to subscribe to my political views (although the world would undoubtedly be a much better place if everyone did). The main point is that it is ok to be politically involved, and even passionately so, as long as we do not become the vile things of which our opponents accuse us. Be an American, not a troll.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)