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:

• 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.

In the end, most people are good.  For conservatives read 'tax-and-spend, anti-war, tree-huggers can be good people.'  For liberals read 'Christian, right-wing, Bible-thumping, hicks can be good people.' 

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.

Rejecting the Illusion of Ownership

Property is a concept that is learned at an early age.  In fact, before children can learn what it means to share something, they must first learn what is theirs.  Parents, including myself, frequently define objects by their owners from clothes to shoes to rooms and especially more fragile and valuable belongings such as smartphones, computers, and tablets.

It is no wonder that the concepts of property and ownership seem so important in our culture.  Our laws protect property owners from warrantless searches and seizures.  Stealing or vandalizing property is illegal in every state.  Corporations invest substantially in protecting their ideas, creations, and inventions, labeling these things intellectual property.

In political circles, heated debates arise from laws that may affect health or even life.  Defenders of abortion have been known to argue their case using slogans such as "my body, my choice." (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/29/codepink-protesters-heckle-paul-ryan-my-body-my-choice/)

On the other side of the political spectrum, members of the Mormon church differentiate the concept of the law of consecration with socialism or communism principally by pointing out that the law of consecration embraced private ownership.  For those unfamiliar with this concept, the idea is largely based on the Utopian society that existed in America based on the account in the Book of Mormon.  "And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift." (4 Nephi 1:2-3)  The concept of giving all ones belongings to the church is not unique to the Book of Mormon, the Apostles of Christ in the New Testament also practiced a form of this united order.  "And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."  (Acts 4:33-35)

This law as was once practiced by Mormon communities involved giving all property to a church leader, and then claiming back only what was needed.  The need of the individual was determined largely based on the claims of the individual, and in this sense differed from Communism or socialism where need is determined by the governing entity.  Church leaders have spoken passionately regarding the position of the LDS church on these other practices: Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the united order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan. Communism debases the individual and makes him the enslaved tool of the state to whom he must look for sustenance and religion; the united order exalts the individual, leaves him his property, "according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and his needs," (D&C 51:3) and provides a system by which he helps care for his less fortunate brethren; the united order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man's God-given free agency; the united order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet." (Conference Report April 1942, emphasis added)

The problem with any of these philosophies is this:  Ownership is an illusion.

No man owns anything.  While people can argue "it's more mine than yours" regarding a great many things, the ultimate truth for nearly all objects is that do not belong to any man.

Certainly objects may be in the possession of men temporarily, and it is true that men may be responsible for certain things temporarily...  They may even be entitled to be responsible for certain things, but the temporary nature of this responsibility prevents true ownership.

If an individual gains possessions throughout their life, they cannot retain them after death.  Even the treasures the Pharaohs hoarded for the afterlife have been claimed by thieves and archaeologists.  While some control may be carried out by means of a will, typically, a will only reinforces how all of ones possessions will belong to someone else.

Land that may have been occupied by a family for generations was there before any family was.  Homes, vehicles, and furnishings were constructed using resources that have been on and/or nurtured by the earth for ages... and in the beginning, God created the earth.

Even more than things around us, our bodies are not our own.  The effort that mothers invest in bearing and delivering children is difficult to fathom.  The care of many parents for young children to help them is vital, especially since humans are unable to care for themselves in their early years.  In having a body, each person also has a debt to those that helped them obtain and maintain it.

More than this, each human being can find themselves owing far more when they realize the magnitude of the sacrifice that Christ himself offered to purchase immortality and eternal life for the children of men.  The Apostle Paul observed: "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s." (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)  Another way to put this is instead of "my body, my choice" it is "not your body, so be careful with your choice."

After considering all things, no one really owns possessions, they simply borrow and modify them during their brief lives.  No one really owns their body, they are occupying it temporarily.  Those that have gone before to develop tools and technologies, or those that have nourished and nurtured people in their youth have laid the foundation for any accomplishment or acquisition later in life.

God's role in the foundation of all property or his investment in humanity is impossible to quantify.  The amount of effort in making a world as complex and beautiful as the earth and setting in motion all the natural processes that have sustained humanity from the days of Adam and Eve represents more than a whim.  Even Christ who seemed to restore sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and life to the dead with ease asked for some other way than to face the suffering that he inevitably endured. (Luke 22:42)  In the end, he not only suffered for sin, but he single-handedly broke death.  Leaving his tomb not only brought life to him, but promises permanent life, peace, and healing to all those who have had cause to suffer in mortality.

The question then becomes, if God sacrificed so much and invested so much in humanity, why does he hide himself?  Why does he not plainly walk among men exclaiming his love personally?  Why create the illusion that man owns anything, body or property, if he does not?  If God was always capable of immediately saving us, why create such an elaborate façade in which some men who are good are made to suffer and some who do evil appear to triumph?

The truth is that God is an engineer.  He is like a computer programmer.  Frequently, the purpose for writing a program is to assist in solving a problem or finding the answer to a challenging question.  A program is particularly useful for repeating similar steps with variable input.  Even God, who knows everything, invested to find the answer to a difficult question and to repeat the general algorithm for each human being that ever has or ever will live. 

The question is "what do you want?"

This may seem like a simple question.  Why not simply ask it?

Of course the question is more complicated than the possible answers one might receive.  For a hungry man, food might be the answer.  The man that is lonely might answer companionship.  The man that is bored might answer entertainment.  Perhaps every man has wanted each of these things at different times.

How do we know what we really want?

Living in a world with an illusion that possessions are long-lasting if not permanent, or that the satisfaction of appetites and passions are the only source of positive feelings allows people to pursue these things without needing to consider what lies outside the illusion.  A truth that cannot be clearly seen and that demands investment of those who seek it is less desirable when the promised positive outcomes are not verifiable.  Consequently, spiritual truths are only sought after by those that truly want them, not by those that have a casual curiosity, or that wait for proof instead of leaping in faith.

This is not to say that life is completely artificial, or that those who work hard in professions which may be temporary or of little spiritual significance are misplacing their effort.  In the life to come for example, we will not have need of doctors, but those that ease the suffering of the sick provide important and real service here and now.

Principles of religious piety such as chastity, honesty, benevolence, and the desire to learn are not backward ideas from spiritual nuts.  These principles represent the pursuit of God himself... the quest to find the truth beyond the illusion of mortality.  Those that embrace these principles reject the illusion of ownership.... or at least ownership here.  They believe that Christ was literal when he taught "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."  (Matthew 6:19-21)

There will come a time when God's program reaches a conclusion for each of us.  There will be a day when life on earth has manipulated us into revealing what we really want.  Fortunately, desires are malleable.  There is time for everyone to learn to see through the illusion.  The end is not yet here.

Whether or not you accept the principles of Christianity, realize that it is worth the investment to find the truth, even if it means experimenting with less scientific principles such as faith.  Illusions may have their purposes, but ultimately, the truth shall make us free.

The Word of Foolishness

Recently, the Mormon church produced an official clarification regarding the stance of consuming caffeine.  For a long time, members of the LDS church have had varying opinions regarding whether it was permissible to drink colas or other caffeinated beverages.  I have listened to passionate exchanges regarding the exact wording of section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants (which is known as the Word of Wisdom to Mormons) and the implication of Gordon B. Hinckley's words in the CBS program 60 Minutes where he implied that faithful members of the church avoid caffeinated soft drinks.

On the one hand of the debate, I have heard people in favor of drinking caffeinated beverages ask "where does sit say caffeine in the Word of Wisdom?"  True enough, the word cannot be found there.  On the other hand, the word "heroin" or the phrase "huffing markers" and a variety of other practices seem to be missing, although the church openly condemns addictive and/or illegal drugs.  (http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/ForTheStrengthOfYouth-eng.pdf?lang=eng pp 25-27)

On the other hand of the debate, I have heard people interpreting "addictive" such that it applies to almost anything.  While pain killers and stimulants may be described by those that use them as needful, the need for food and water obviously does not represent an addiction to be avoided.

Along with a list of prohibitions, the Word of Wisdom also contains a list of practices that are encouraged.  These items also spark controversy among Mormons... particularly those that believe in the divinity of vegetarianism.

I recall a time when I was proclaiming my affinity to meat (I believe I was referencing delicious Memphis-style pulled pork barbecue) when I was rebuked by another member who pointed out passages from the Word of Wisdom.  The actual verses that describe the concern expressed read as follows: "Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine. All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth; And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger." (D&C 89:12-15)

There was an individual with whom I spoke that was convinced that this was the most important element of the Word of Wisdom.  They believed that the reason these lines were present was to warn us of the evils of farming cattle.  The wide-eyed, sincere explanation I was given indicated that cattle produced a large amount of methane gas, and that if we allowed all that methane to be produced the ice caps would melt and life as we knew it would end.

While I have heard many theories about events and actions that might lead to the end of civilization, that was the only occasion of which I know where cow farts were suggested.

I have also heard arguments that were better crafted in favor of vegetarianism.  Many of them quote prominent church leaders.  Bruce R. McConkie said in his The Millenial Messiah " Isaiah gives us these poetically phrased particulars about animal life during the Millennium. ‘The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,’ he says, ‘and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock.’ Implicit in this pronouncement is the fact that man and all forms of life will be vegetarians in the coming day; the eating of meat will cease, because, for one thing, death as we know it ceases. There will be no shedding of blood, because man and beast are changed (quickened) and blood no longer flows in their veins.” (p 658)  George Q. Cannon stated "We should by every means in our power impress upon the rising generation the value of life and how dreadful a sin it is to take life. The lives of animals even should be held far more sacred than they are. Young people should be taught to be very merciful to the brute creation and not to take life wantonly or for sport. The practice of hunting and killing game merely for sport should be frowned upon and not encouraged among us. God has created the fowls and the beasts for man’s convenience and comfort and for his consumption at proper times and under proper circumstances; but he does not justify men in wantonly killing those creatures which He has made and with which He has supplied the earth” (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon p 24)

Certainly these statements gain credibility from members who recognize the names of Apostles.  I have read that Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, and Joseph Fielding Smith were also proponents of eating meat only very sparingly in accordance with the Word of Wisdom.

Why then do modern leaders seem to place such an emphasis on avoiding alcohol, tobacco, and harmful drugs instead of echoing the words in the scriptures themselves?  I submit it is because they are privileged to give interpretation of the scriptures (not just the Word of Wisdom, but all scriptures) that is both currently prudent and generally applicable to all people.  In other words, prophets are authorized to prophesy.  The current emphasis as spoken through general conferences and general statements constitutes authoritatively the will of God himself.

To illustrate the need for current interpretation of the scriptures (even more modern scriptures such as the Doctrine and Covenants), here is a scripturally based argument that drinking beer is consistent with the Word of Wisdom:

"That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make. And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies." (D&C 89:5-7)  This passage implies that wine is permissible to drink only if it is home-made and used only in Sacrament services.  The conclusion is that not all alcohol is bad.  Further on, the Word of Wisdom reads "All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground— Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain." (D&C 89:16-17, emphasis added)  In this passage, the use of grains for mild drinks is approved.  Barley is particularly used in the brewing of beer, which is not necessarily a "strong" alcoholic beverage.  Since other grains can be used in the starch source for beer, the clause at the end of verse 17 seems to permit beer that contains other grains.  The conclusion based on this reading of the scriptures themselves is that it is ok for Mormons to have a cold one!

Of course, the argument that beer is ok is tongue-in-cheek.  Modern prophets are very clear on the current standards necessary to show compliance with the Word of Wisdom.  President Thomas S. Monson said "Hard drugs, wrongful use of prescription drugs, alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco products destroy your physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. Any form of alcohol, including beer, is harmful to your spirit and your body. Tobacco can enslave you, weaken your lungs, and shorten your life." (http://www.lds.org/new-era/2008/10/standards-of-strength?lang=eng, emphasis added)

The truth is that the scriptures, while vitally important, are only one tool to learning the will of God.  God called circumcision an everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:10-14), yet later, the Apostle Paul said "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." (1 Corinthians 7:19)  These scriptural points seem to be mutually exclusive.  While some of the law of Moses including animal sacrifice was fulfilled with the coming of Christ, Paul was clear that works of the flesh, most of which being at odds with the law of Moses, would prevent entrance to the Kingdom of God: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galations 5:19-21)

Even the laws of health given by God have changed over time.  Through Moses, God declared the laws for animals which were and were not permissible to eat. (Deuteronomy 14:3-20)  Through Peter, God declared that this law had been changed. (Acts 11:2-18)

The ultimate conclusion that Latter-Day Saints should draw is that if God really had a problem with caffeine, he would probably tell us through prophets.  If God's biggest worry was the low number of Mormon vegetarians, we would hear General Conference talks on it frequently.  Based on recent conference addresses, it seems that generally he is far more worried about the use of tobacco, alcohol, and harmful drugs than he is about burgers and Mountain Dew.  That is not to say that individually, he may want certain people to be more healthy, and it is possible on an individual basis that people may be moved to change their diets or exercise habits, but this is not the doctrine to be preached to all members from the pulpit or in Sunday School.

God may be the same yesterday today and forever, but the things he asks his followers to do may change.  Taking into account only one source of truth will never result in a complete understanding.  Those that only look to the scriptures, or only look to prayer, or only look to a prophet may miss out on truths of God that can be found elsewhere.  Being stuck on a few words in scripture that are resolved by modern prophets can turn the Word of Wisdom into the Word of Foolishness.

When everything is visible, when all truth is known, the concepts that may seem to mutually exclude one another will no longer be seen as contradictory.  Mormons should not limit their search for truth to any one source.  President Joseph F. Smith said "We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure.” (Conference Report, Apr. 1909 p 7)

God loves homosexuals, but he also loves racists

"Hate the sin but love the sinner."

This phrase seems to be increasing in popularity.  Nowhere is it more popular than in debates about homosexuality.  The phrase is among the more tame used to tell those that believe homosexuality is sinful that they should be more accepting of its practitioners.  In less tame debates, those that condemn the practice are called "homophobic," "bigoted," "hateful," or some other unsavory name.

In more civil conversations, those that are more defensive of the homosexual position will use the "hate the sin but love the sinner" phrase persuasively.  Particularly when they themselves are Christian and they seem to apply this principal in practice.  Those that do not believe in God or in the concept of sin are far less persuasive.

The phrase is typically used to convey a sense of understanding.  Those that defend homosexuality imply that they are aware of the concerns of those that view it as sinful.  Those that argue against homosexuality are in a difficult situation when the phrase is used because it is true that God hates sins, but loves those that commit them. Jesus Christ himself was not afraid to mingle with those that had gone astray, although it brought disdain from the Pharisees and others of his contemporaries.  To reject this argument would be to reject Christ.

The problem with this phrase is credibility.  It is not difficult to tell people that they should be more accepting of a group you have already accepted.  It is currently politically correct and in many circles socially acceptable to practice homosexual behavior.  Defending a popular and politically correct point of view does not make those of us who embrace a more traditional view think that we are understood.

Exactly how do you hate the sin but love the sinner?  Is not practicing it oneself enough?  Is speaking out against the sin appropriate?  If so, how does one speak out against a sin in a loving manner?  How can a person express love toward an individual that embraces or perhaps even identifies themselves by their practice of something abhorrent?

Rather than tackle the homosexuality debate, I would like to discuss the difficulty of the "hate the sin but love the sinner" phrase by applying it do something that is not politically correct or popular: racism.

God hates racism, but loves racists.  By extension, you should hate racism, but love racists.

Racism is perhaps the most politically incorrect ideal that a person can have.  In fact, by writing this post, I have probably precluded myself from a political career.  That having been said, I have known racist people that I would consider to be good people, certainly as much as those defending homosexuality can think of examples of good people that are gay.

I also believe that racism is a label that is frequently assigned to ideas that are not actually racist.  Racism is not synonymous with prejudice.  I have a bit of experience with this.

In high school, I was a scrawny-built geeky kid.  As such, I occasionally feared that I would be victimized by bullying.  I recall spending extra time to avoid areas where I knew certain Hispanic students gathered.  It was not the fact they were Hispanic that bothered me, it was the culture of particular groups that seemed to embrace brawling that was distasteful.  I also avoided the Caucasian jock culture or the Caucasian punk-rocker culture that seemed to embrace similar practices.

I definitely pre-judged these groups.  It is possible that the members of these cultures in high school might have treated me with respect and dignity in spite of my social ineptitudes and lanky build, but I was afraid to take that chance.  My prejudice was not based on race, it was based on culture.  In fact, I had friends that were Hispanic, black, and Asian with whom I got along well.  They were typically the less popular and more studious types to whom I could better relate, and by whom I felt less threatened.

True racism is a prejudice based on no other characteristic other than race.

During my high school years in southern California, a controversial proposition appeared on the state ballot that dealt with preventing illegal aliens from obtaining health and education benefits.  There were a large number of Hispanics that came to school with their faces painted or wearing shirts that had the no symbol over the proposition number, 187.  Many of them decried the measure as racist.  Rumors spread even to less social circles such as my own that there would be an attempt by those in opposition to the measure to walk out of school.  During my PE class, I recall seeing a series of automobiles drive past the school brandishing large Mexican flags and shouting at us.  Since I did not speak Spanish, I did not understand many of the things that were shouted, but I do recall one.  I was standing next to a black boy and several Hispanics when I heard a passenger in one of these cars shout "F___ you white boy!  F___ you n_____!  Viva Mexico!!" 

I found it ironic that they were out protesting a measure they considered racist, but had no problems judging myself or using the n-word to refer to the black boy in my class.  That having been said, it was not difficult for me to dismiss this behavior.  While I knew such racism was wrong, I did not feel compelled to shout back a suggestion that they not yell demeaning slurs regarding the race of others.  Perhaps because I was afraid that such action would subject me to some retaliation after school, and perhaps I believed that the measure would likely fail anyway.  In the end, proposition 187 passed, but was later declared unconstitutional.  The very next year in high school, most students had forgotten about it life returned to normal.

I recall another instance of racially motivated violence at my high school between a black boy and a Hispanic boy.  There were many expletives and slurs used before the two brawled, but the tamer among them involved the black boy telling the Hispanic boy to "go back to his country" and the Hispanic boy replying that the black boy should "go back to Africa."  I did not have any desire to interfere in the conflict.

While the behavior in the previous examples is genuinely racist, the more socially detestable forms of racism are those that are held by whites against minorities.  I know of individuals that have harbored such feelings.

I recall a conversation with an individual that believed he had been robbed by a group of Hispanics.  The one experience had caused him to view all Hispanics as thieves.  He told me that he did not want to be racist, but that they "made" him racist.  Even though I was young at the time, I knew that it was probably an unfair generalization to make.  I was certain that my Hispanic friends did not participate in theft, and seemed to be good religious people.  I also knew the man that confessed his racist feelings to me was also a good man that selflessly helped others.  Should I have shouted "racist" at the top of my lungs and never spoken to him again?  Should I have tried to quote the Book of Mormon where it says "he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile"? (2 Nephi 26:33)  I did nothing.

Outside my rather mild anecdotal sources, there are more serious accounts of racism.  There exist people that believe crimes against certain people are justifiable because of their race.  There are those who do not wish to have others in their neighborhood because of their ethnicity.  There are those that ridicule, humiliate, and abuse others for no reason but their skin color.

It is easy and politically correct to see the harm that can exist when race becomes a criteria for judging someone.  That having been said, I believe that God loves racists.  God loves people that do awful things.  God cares about the well being of those that abuse others.  God truly hates the sin, but loves the sinner.  With respect to a sin that is nearly universally despised, who will stand up and tell people that they ought to love racists?  Who will tell people that decry racism that they should be more loving and kind toward the KKK or neo-Nazis?

What about the people that have racist beliefs that feel they cannot help it?  What about the people that feel others made them racist?  You and I may believe it is a choice, but perhaps those that have racist feelings genuinely do not.  It could even be argued that racism is a naturally occurring feeling that has existed in many civilizations throughout recorded history, just as there are those that make claims about the natural existence of homosexuality.

In the end, these arguments do not matter, because racism is wrong.  Modern prophets have been clear regarding the position of Mormons and racism: "The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church)

The ultimate question is how to hate the sin but love the sinner.  The type of sin is not important to this principal.

Are those that stand up in defense of homosexuality in the name of loving the sinner as eager to stand and defend those that commit sins they recognize as wrong?  Or are those that oppose homosexuality really being asked to hate the sin but love the sinner as long as the sin is trendy and/or politically correct? 

If you do not believe that racism is a sin, then substitute racism for some other practice that you believe is sinful.  How do you show Christian love and fellowship to someone while simultaneously denouncing the sins they embrace?

There is no perfect answer to the question.  Even God uses different approaches with different people.  Consider the following:

• To Ninevah, God sent Jonah saying that within forty days the city would be overthrown (Jonah 3:4)
• To Jerusalem in the days of Zedekiah, God sent Lehi to tell them they would be destroyed (1 Nephi 1:13, 18-20)
• To the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul wrote "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (1 Corinthians 2:9)
• To the seven churches of Asia, the Apostle John wrote "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Revelation 3:21)
• To the people of Israel, Isaiah wrote "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isaiah 1:18)
• To the people of Israel, Isaiah also wrote "But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked." (Isaiah 57:20-21)
• When his Apostle Peter tried to tell Christ he would not be killed, Jesus rebuked him saying "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matthew 16:23)
• When a sinful woman came and worshipped him, Christ forgave her in spite of the disaproval of the Pharisee in whose house he was saying "Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little." (Luke 7:38)

Essentially the scriptures are filled with examples where God promises hellfire and damnation to the wicked, and peace and eternal life to the righteous.  He condemns and threatens some people for indulging in abominations, and pleads with others to accept his love and grace.  The constants in all these situations are his hatred for sin and his love for those guilty of it. 

Perhaps there are cases when people ought to condemn that which is wrong boldly.  Perhaps there are other cases when avoiding conflict is preferable.  The constants however must be maintained. 

In no case are we to begin hating the sinner.  God said "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." (D&C 64:10)  He also said "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." (Matthew 5:7)

In no case are we to begin loving the sin.  Alma taught "for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." (Alma 45:16)  Jesus himself said "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23)

In the end, there was only one who did not have a problem with loving sin and hating sinners.  Everyone else can benefit from the advise to hate the sin and love the sinner.

God Actually Has Given Us the Spirit of Fear

I have heard and read in several places recently a suggestion or pet-peeve of many Christians both within and without the LDS church regarding the fear of God.  Almost every time I have heard "fear of God" or "God-fearing" or some other similar phrase, it has been accompanied by a recommendation of avoidance.  Frequently it is also used in connection with a passage in the New Testament: "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." (2 Timothy 1:7)

When I sit down and try to think of the last time I have actually heard the phrase sincerely used by anyone other than myself, I am unable to recollect any examples in the past ten years.  I have not heard people compliment the piety of others by describing them as God-fearing except as examples of 'what not to say' in lessons.  I do not recall an instructor or speaker recommending that their audience ought to fear God, excepting that the immediately clarify and say they mean to 'respect' God.

Perhaps my experience is not completely representative, but it seems that a lot of effort is expended in getting people to avoid a phrase that no one uses.

The ironic element of the fear of the fear of God is that it is partly based on a misunderstanding of the passage in 2 Timothy.  Paul continues in verse 8: "Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God." (2 Timothy 1:8)   Paul was talking about the fear of affliction in the passage, or feeling shame because of Christ; he was not at all talking about the fear of God.

People have used the passage 2 Timothy to discourage discussion of topics that might lead us to believe that God might ever do something besides make people feel warm and fuzzy.  While it is true that the emphasis of prophets and apostles in the LDS church seems to highlight the love, mercy, and forgiveness of God, ignoring the wrath and power of God leaves Christians lacking context and understanding.

Implying that ideas that might provoke fear are never from God leaves Christians with a consistency and credibility problem.  Under the assumption that anything that inspires fear must not be from God, consider the following conclusions:

• Noah's ark is not true since God would never threaten to destroy all but eight human beings (Genesis 6-7)
• The ten plagues with which God cursed Egypt must not have been real, since God would never threaten his children (Exodus 7-12)
• Elijah was not a real prophet since he took people of another religion to a river and slaughtered them (1 Kings 18:40)
• Jeremiah was not a real prophet of God, since he threatened the people of God with utter destruction (Jeremiah 16:1-15)
• Zephaniah (and almost all of the other minor prophets in the Old Testament) were not real prophets because they foretold God sending great destruction and death (Zephaniah 1:14-18)
• Jesus was probably just kidding about the signs of destruction and sorrow that would appear before his second coming (Matthew 24)
• Paul was probably just kidding when he foretold the wrath of God and the times of peril that would appear in the last days (2 Thessalonians 1-2)
• John was using artistic symbolism when he described the son of God returning in glory and slaying all the wicked (Revelation 19)
• Lehi in the Book of Mormon was definitely not a prophet because he told the people of Jerusalem that if they did not repent, they would be destroyed (1 Nephi 1)
• When King Benjamin was just a fear-monger because he embellished the punishments that God places on the wicked to manipulate his people (Mosiah 2:37-39)
• Captain Moroni was an unholy angry man, because God would never threaten to kill people (Alma 44)
• When Jesus said that the gates of hell stand open to receive those that do not accept his doctrine, he probably meant the gates of a bureau of guidance counsellors that will lovingly help people understand what is right since he is God and God is love (3 Nephi 11:38-40)
• The Book of Ether was probably just made up since it depicts God using wars to wipe people off of his promised land, which a loving God would never do (Ether 15)
• Joseph Smith was probably just having a bad day when he had the revelation on marriage recorded.  After all, God wouldn't actually say "For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed." (D&C 132:14)

Obviously all of these conclusions are incorrect.

For those that are surprised that God uses fear, threats, and destruction to accomplish his purposes, know that you are not alone.  Even prophets of God have experienced similar shock.  Consider the burden of Habakkuk in the Old Testament.  When he learned that God was using the wicked Chaldeans to destroy Israel, he was shocked that God might use something he felt was evil.  (Habakkuk 1)

I believe that many people have become too cavalier in their view of God, or in assessing their relationship to him.  Some of my own pet peeves include the following (commentary not italicized):

• Jesus is my elder brother - The concept may be true.  He is the Son of God, and we are children of God, ergo he is our elder brother... but that relationship really does not earn any points.  After all, his 'brothers' mocked him, spit on him, beat him, betrayed him, and murdered him.  Jesus declared that "whosever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." (Mark 3:35)  In claiming brotherhood with Christ, is it the intention of an individual to announce "I'm doing the will of God!"  Maybe they are, but it seems arrogant.
• God is love - The famous scripture in 1 John 4:8 was not given to say that God is a human emotion, it was given to teach people that we ought to show love and kindness for one another.  Do not be fooled into reducing God into an emotion.  He is a person.  While Jesus Christ truly showed love, he was not afraid to identify and condemn hypocrisy, sin, and irreverence.  Perhaps it was love of his father and the Temple that motivated him to make a whip and drive the thieves and money changers out, but it is obvious that God is more complicated than a single human emotion.
• The spirit makes me feel happy - This could also be God makes me feel happy or some other phrase that ties God to happiness.  Unless you worship Prozac, God is not depression medication.  You don't 'take God' and then 'feel better.'  Does this mean that a person who is not feeling happy must not have the spirit or must not be close to God?  Or could it mean that God isn't doing his job, which is apparently to make you happy.  This again seems arrogant.
• Jesus Christ is my personal savior - I've already addressed my dislike of the overuse of the term 'savior'.  The addition of the terms 'my personal' makes this even more annoying because it implies ownership.  While most people that use it probably do not intend to claim that they 'own' Jesus, I would try very hard to make sure I was not implying any entitlement to the power produced in the infinite and incomprehensible sacrifice of Christ.  If Jesus feels like I have truly accepted him, he will at his own discretion and judgement offer forgiveness for my sins.
• When I pray, I talk to God like he is my friend - That's right up their with claiming Jesus is your brother.  Maybe other people are better than I am, but I do not want to claim to be chums with God.  I don't envision approaching his throne and offering a fist-bump.  I am not expecting him to offer me a cold beverage and talk about old times.  I expect to be on my knees... and my head will probably be lowered.  Maybe that's old fashioned, but that's how I would approach a being that is all-powerful, and knows every weakness I have and every mistake I have made.  We ought to think of God less like a chum or a pal and more like... a God.

Fear of God is a good thing.  As Proverbs says, "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." (Proverbs 9:10)  Fear does not just mean respect, it means humility; it means understanding that God has all power.  We do not inherently have a right to salvation... he offers it conditionally.  The poor in spirit, the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart... these are they who shall find the kingdom of God. (Matthew 5:1-12)

Fear in the sense of humility is what Jesus taught when he told the following parable:

"And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;  And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.  For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 14:7-11)

 God actually has given us the spirit of fear.  He wants us to be worried about our thoughts, our words, and our deeds.  (Mosiah 4:30)  He has made no secret of his intention to annihilate the wicked when he returns. (D&C 45:47-50)  He has openly declared that he will reign over the earth.  (Revelation 19:11-16)  He is also clear that we ought not feel secure about our current position.  (2 Nephi 28:21)  The facts imply that we should be a bit fearful.

What he does not want is a paralyzing fear that makes people want to avoid him.  This is where the emphasis of modern prophets and apostles becomes important.  An understanding that he could wipe us all out should add something to the fact his prophets are pleading with us to "be a little better." (http://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/09/the-quest-for-excellence?lang=eng) 

Ultimately, the context of fear and humility gives power to everything else we receive from him.  When we fear him, his love means more.  When prophets beg us to repent, it represents not just a good life strategy, but the request of the Most High God that we accept the very thing for which we should be begging him.

To Hold the Power of God

The Ark of the Covenant was the central and most important piece of worship in the ancient Tabernacle, and subsequently, in the Temple of Israel.  A chest that contained artifacts of wonder such as the tablets Moses received from God containing the ten commandments, a pot of manna, Aaron's rod that budded, it has inspired the faith, fear, and imaginations of many people. (Hebrews 9:4)  Perhaps one of the most famous fictional stories surrounding this relic is the first Indiana Jones film "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Of course Indiana Jones is a fictional work, and much of the entertainment in it came from action scenes fighting Nazis rather than the Ark itself.  Notwithstanding this, a main theme in the film involves a real power that appears to surround and protect the Ark.  The idea that there exist powers beyond human comprehension was fundamental to Indiana Jones triumphing over Beloch and his Nazi allies.  It is also worth noting that the power could not be captured or harnessed by the Nazis anymore than it was captured by the Philistines when they captured it from Israel.  (1 Samuel 5)

Though fictional, the principal used for Biblical consistency is both accurate and pertinent to understanding the genuine power of God.

God's power cannot be captured.  It cannot be bought.  Emulating the rites of the priesthood do not produce power any more than Beloch's taped ceremony as he opened the Ark of the Covenant.  Consider the following passage:

"For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." (Hebrews 5:1-6, emphasis added)

Of course, excluding murderous Nazis from accessing the power of God is not likely to raise any concerns.  If there are any special interests that were opposed to Nazis being portrayed as evil, or implying that they were unworthy in God's eyes, I am not aware of them.  It is not only culturally acceptable, it is an understatement to say that individuals who behave as the antagonists in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" should probably not be called to be priests of God.

There are, however, many individuals and groups that have a problem with how Mormons did or do now exclude individuals from obtaining priesthood office. 

Before even beginning to tackle this concern, there are a couple important points of which to be aware about the general nature of the Priesthood in the LDS church.

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not have a professional clergy. 
• A deacon that faithfully passes the sacrament to the congregation and assists in the collection of funds to help those in need (fast offerings) earns $0.00 for his work.  A Bishop that may spend hours meeting with individuals and families as well as teaching lessons, fulfilling public speaking responsibilities, making financial decisions about the expenditure of funds, and visiting the members of his ward also earns $0.00 for his work.  Having a higher office typically only results in more work.  "Advancement" in the "hierarchy" does not increase salary since there is never any pay.
• Priesthood is not necessarily synonymous with leadership. 
• While it is true that Apostles and Bishops and Teachers may be said to preside over others in different situations, this involves a concept called Priesthood Keys.  This concept was established by Jesus Christ himself.  "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19)  The concept of keys of the kingdom represents the authority and responsibility to do as Christ himself would do on behalf of a particular level of church organization.  An Elders Quorum President is authorized to receive guidance and offer direction for the Quorum of Elders over which he presides.  The President of the Church, as the Apostle Peter, has the keys of the entire Kingdom of God on earth.

The issue of exclusion from Priesthood authority is most currently criticized in the exclusion of women.  It is true that women are not called to be priesthood holders, and that women do not obtain priesthood office in the organization of the church.  Currently, only males that meet worthiness requirements are eligible to be called to receive the priesthood.

Those that take issue with this policy fall into two groups: those that are legitimately concerned that women are not as valued as men by the Church and/or God himself, and those that think the church should meet the currently established standards for what is politically correct.  It is sometimes difficult for me, as a male, to determine who falls into what category since the question that is asked by either group is "why can't women hold the priesthood?"

There are many people within and without the church that attempt to answer this question.  I have heard those within the church say that because women are more spiritual, men need the priesthood to become spiritual, or some other well meaning but misguided piece of supposition.  I have heard people without the church speculate about polygamy coming back or other equally ridiculous conspiracy theory.

For those in the group that are eager to criticize an organization that does not seem to be up to date with the current cultural acceptability, I would say "you're asking the wrong question."

For those with legitimate concerns that want to know the truth, I would also say "you're asking the wrong question," but there would be more sympathy in my voice.  At least I would attempt to be less abrasive than I can sometimes seem.

Another criticized exclusion from Priesthood authority revolves around a practice that no longer even exists: the exclusion of males of African descent.  People eagerly label Mormons as racists because of this practice, in spite of the fact that the abolitionist views of many members were among the reasons that the residents of Missouri in the early 1800's wanted Mormons exterminated.  The policy was reversed in 1979.  The extension of the priesthood to all worthy males regardless of race or color is canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 2 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng).

Those that take issue with this former policy fall into two groups: those that are legitimately concerned that the policy existed and/or that the policy which was followed by leaders in the church changed, and those that think the church should meet the currently established standards for what is politically correct.  The question asked by those in both categories is typically "why couldn't blacks hold the priesthood?"

There are numerous individuals within the church that have speculated on the purposes for excluding blacks from priesthood office, but the church's official statement exposes these explanations for what they are: speculation.

"The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church)

For those in the group that are eager to criticize an organization that does not seem to be up to date with the current cultural acceptability, I would say "you're asking the wrong question."

For those with legitimate concerns that want to know the truth, I would also say "you're asking the wrong question," but again, there would be more sympathy in my voice. 

Looking further back in time, it becomes apparent that restricting access to the Priesthood is not a recent practice in the church of Jesus Christ.

Jesus himself had an experience with a woman from Canaan:
"Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." (Matthew 15:21-28)

Only after impressive poise, faith, and humility after Jesus had called her a dog did she obtain a special exception for the policy of the day.

King Saul decided to take action when Samuel, the authorized Priest of God did not come when he was expected.  "And Saul said, Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace offerings. And he offered the burnt offering. And it came to pass, that as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him, that he might salute him.  And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash; Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the Lord: I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering.  And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.  But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee." (1 Samuel 13:9-14)

Saul acted as a priest and even though he was the King of God's chosen people, he was not of the correct tribe, and did not have authority to offer a sacrifice.  God subsequently rejected him as king.  This policy of exclusion went beyond non-African males, or even people of the House of Israel. 

Going back further, in the days of Moses a man named Korah and several of his friends determined that Moses took too much upon himself to preside.  As a consequence of their rebellion, God caused the earth to open up and swallow Korah and his followers.  Subsequently, God prepared a demonstration to show the people who had Priesthood authority in the house of Israel.  The princes of each tribe wrote their names on rods that they placed before the tabernacle.  The next morning, Aaron's rod miraculously budded, blossomed, and brought forth almonds.  This rod was kept in the Ark of the Covenant itself as a testimony against those who thought they could claim God's power.  (Numbers 16-17)

Even further back, in the days of Israel himself, he and his elder brother Esau were the children of the patriarch Isaac.  Although Abraham had more than one son, Isaac was the son promised him by God.  (Genesis 17:15-16)  This meant the priesthood could not be held by two brothers.  Esau cared nothing for his birthright, and was willing to sell it for a mess of pottage. (Genesis 25:29-34)  Eventually, when Isaac realized that he had bestowed his patriarchal blessing on Jacob instead of Esau, he would not take back what was done. (Genesis 27:37)  Ultimately, it became clear that God had directed Jacob to receive the priesthood power when he extended the Abrahamic covenant to Jacob. (Genesis 28:13-15)

Passing the priesthood between a Father and only one of his Sons appears to have been the original method for accessing the priesthood.  Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and Shem seem to represent the ancient order of Priesthood patriarchs. (D&C 84:14-16)  When two brothers of the same parents are not both eligible to receive the priesthood, it is difficult to imagine a system that is less exclusive. 

With additional context, important patterns regarding the availability of God's power become visible.  It was once extremely exclusive, and it has gradually moved toward a system of much greater inclusion over time.  Additionally, these changes are not brought about because of the perceived needs or desires of people in any given time.  Saul's acting as a priest was a sin, whereas in latter days, 16 year old boys can be authorized to bless the emblems of Christ's flesh and blood.  Change came when God said it should come: not before, not after.

While there are contemporary pressures that can cause many to question why certain groups appear to be excluded, the context of history provides a vastly more important question: why is God calling so many more priests?

While he may be sensative to the changing needs of societies, God probably is not concerned with the modern standards of politcal correctness.  If he were, then many of the standards of worthiness would have altered to be more inclusive of practices such as homosexuality.  Also, he would not have started including all the sons of Aaron into priesthood offices, but would have continued with the system of passing authority from a father to one of his sons.

Knowing the exact reasons why certain groups have been excluded at various times is not likely to accomplish more than satisfy curiousity.  If percieved inequality is the basis for judging whether God loves a particular individual or a type of individual, then knowing details for why some of his children seem to have so much more than others of his children may even do more harm than good.  What some one else has or lacks has absoultely nothing to do with the fact that God loves you individually. 

Understanding every reason for everything God does or has done is not likely to take place in a single lifetime.  That having been stated, understanding some of the plans God will use to accomplish his goals can provide clarity and priority to revealed truth.  God's plans for the last days are particularly important.

In the book of Daniel, God revealed to King Nebuchadnezzar that in the last days, "shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." (Daniel 2:44)

Mormons are not unique in their assessment that humanity has entered the latter days.  Jesus Christ promised that he would return.  Prophets throughout the Bible have foretold that the messiah would reign, and that the earth would be changed such that even nature would exist in greater harmony than we currently understand. (Isaiah 11)  The book of Revelation is filled with prophecies about the end of the latter days.  John describes angels proclaiming "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." (Revelation 11:15)

With his goals and plans in mind, and with the context of an increasing number of priesthood holders throughout time, the importance of why a certain group seems excluded diminishes. 

It does not matter why women are not called to be priesthood holders or why blacks have been generally called and accepted as priesthood holders for a relatively short period of time. 

Speculating, distressing, or arguing about these details is like arguing about how Indiana Jones never actually went into the German submarine before it went to the secret Nazi base.  And to keep with the theme, imagine the argument is taking place in a narrow tunnel, and a giant round stone is rolling down the tunnel toward the people arguing.  Perhaps it would be smarter to stop worring about the details of a movie and get out of danger... (just a thought)

In the end, the boldest and most important truths of Mormonism regarding the priesthood are not about exclusion, they are about inclusion.  Mormons claim that the priesthood found in their church is authority from Jesus Christ himself.  Latter Day Saints claim that a resurrected John the Baptist who was resurrected restored the authority to baptise to the prophet Joseph Smith.  We claim that the subsequent month, Peter, James, and John, the apostles that Jesus Christ personally chose, came and restored the high priesthood.  All priesthood holders in the church trace a line of authority through this... and if these claims are true, then the power to baptise and to bless and to officiate is genuinely power given by Jesus Christ.  And if it is the power of Jesus Christ, then he can pretty much distribute it to whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants... and he will never be wrong.

The claim about priesthood that is vital is that it is the authority to act in the name of God himself.  God is calling more priests because he wants more people to have access to his power, whether that means baptism by an authorized baptist, or receiving a blessing of healing.  Calling more priests means God may be anticipating more people needing help, and he is mercifully making that help a little closer.

Miracles Matter

Miracles seem to be found throughout the scriptures.  Who can forget the stories of the Red Sea dividing, or fire falling from heaven on Elijah's sacrifice?  The healing of Naaman the Syrian and manna that fed the Israelites are also miraculous.

The New Testament is also filled with miracles, particularly those performed by Christ himself.  He healed the blind, the deaf, the lame, and even brought the dead back to life.

The Book of Mormon also contains accounts of miracles.  The Liahona that appeared seemingly from nowhere guided Lehi's family to the land of promise.  The escape of Alma and those that had followed him from bondage only came when their captors miraculously slept soundly one day.  The 2000 young warriors fighting under Helaman helped obtain victory without losing the lives of even one among them.  Of course, Christ himself came and performed miracles as he had during his mortal life in Judea.

Mormons in theory believe that miracles still occur.  In fact the Book of Mormon rhetorically denounces those that claim otherwise by asking "has the day of miracles ceased? Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men? Or has he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he, so long as time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved? Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain." (Moroni 7:35)

In practice however, there seems to be a trend of devaluing miracles.  In a class I recently attended, there were a number of participants that commented to the effect of declaring that miracles are unimportant.

This is not limited to simply a recent class, I recall hearing many people over the past fifteen years within the Mormon church declare that because spiritual witnesses are superior to the witnessing of miraculous happenings, miracles are nice but unimportant.

It is true that spiritual evidence is of vital importance to Christianity.  It is also true that many people who witnessed amazing miracles seemed unconvinced of the truths of the gospel or the teachings of God's prophets.  Some of the same children of Israel that walked across the Red Sea on dry ground were found a short time later worshipping a golden calf.  The same Kingdom that saw fire fall on Elijah's sacrifice and proclaimed "The LORD, he is the God!" did not take down the idols that were put up by Jeroboam the son of Nebat.  In the Book of Mormon, Laman and Lemuel who were directly told by an angel that they were to return to Jerusalem and obtain the brass plates immediately doubted that they could prevail against Laban.

Given such examples, it is not difficult to understand why Mormons would put a low priority on miraculous happenings.

However understandable the conclusion may be, it is totally incorrect.

If miracles were so ineffective and never made any significant difference, then why are there so many examples of them recorded throughout the scriptures?  Why would Jesus have spent so much time doing things that cannot yield permanent results?

The truth is that miracles can have a profound impact.  Miracles show that God has power to do things that no one else can.  Miracles fuel the hope that in the end, God really will make everything right.

Belittling miracles is belittling the power of God himself.  His acts of power and mercy ought not be marginalized by those that have not seen or recognized miracles ought not assume they are unimportant.

While he may not perform miracles at the whim of every person that wishes to see one, or their purpose may not be to prove himself to those that doubt him, it is wrong to think that they are unimportant.  It is also incorrect to believe they have ceased.  He is capable of doing great things, and he does them regularly even if they are not always visible to everyone.

In the end, God's miracles will be visible to all.  When he comes again, he will remove every disease and infirmity; he will heal every wound and take away every pain.  All those that have died will live again.  All those that have suffered will find relief.  For his greatest miracle, he will save us all... and that is no small feat...