Romney is no JFK

. . . and that might not be a bad thing for his intended constituency. For about six months the "anti-Mormon" diatribe has been mostly the creation of a liberal press out to give the impression of an epic battle that only exists in their imagination. After all, the only ones that have been posting scathing attacks on Mitt's faith have been the Media with quotes in the stories and some Liberals; hardly a place for Evangelical Christian voices. For that reason, the media have been the ones that have created the "Mormon question" out of thin cloth. The near silence of the Christian Right, despite the untrustworthy polls, on the Mormon faith of Romney seemed a relief.

That has slowly changed. The religious opposition to Mitt's Mormonism has gained some steam among Republican Religious Right advocates. That isn't to say there haven't been outspoken Evangelical Christians who have given support to the Presidential bid. However, there does seem to be a sharp split between those who think it should bar him and those who think it shouldn't. Despite the loud advice that Romney should give a similar rousing "JFK and the Catholic Question" speech, the party and the politics Romney finds himself in could actually make it a failure.

The most important difference is that the Republican Party is not the same as when JFK talked to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. More importantly, JFK was a Democrat in a country relatively secure in the idea of a national religious commonality. Back then there was no Religious Right. Such a movement of conservative religious political activists was still underground from the time of the repeal of alcohol prohibition. That stunning national rebuke, according to some historians, caused the Evangelical movement to turn inwards and shun politics. It wasn't until the 60s when the social traditions of the United States were questioned and attacked that a Religious Right slowly gained political momentum. Now they are in full bloom and very potent.

Religion does matter to a large segment of the Republican party. It has yet to be proven how much of an inclusive or exclusive brand of religiosity is involved. What is known is that any presidential candidate in the primaries has to face issues of faith, or be rejected by a powerful group of voters. That is why Romney cannot act like JFK. Any attack on religious political participation to the degree that Kennedy expressed would alienate the core religious voters. For instance, Romney could never (and probably would never) say anything like:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.

or:

I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him¹ as a condition to holding that office.

and:

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition -- to judge me on the basis of 14 years in the Congress, on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools -- which I attended myself

Where JFK could get away with this then, as he was a Democrat and his true audience was outside the halls of his speech, those words are anathema to the Republican Religious Right at this time. For starters, many believe that the idea of Separation of Church and State is an un-Constitutional lie and discriminatory to people of faith. Second, related to the former, aid to parochial schools and boycotts against public schools are considered a fight for the rights of religious people to have a voice.

It is for this reason Romney must be very careful about what he says when distancing himself from religious issues. Unlike JFK, who many suspected was Catholic in name only and had a large general election Catholic support, Romney doesn't have the luxury or the political philosophy to draw a sharp line. That would cost him as much support in the primaries as it might save him in the general election. As explained elsewhere about the religious audience he would be talking with:

Romney and his advisers compare the speech he will give to John Kennedy's appearance before the Houston Ministerial Association in which he addressed concerns about his Catholicism by talking about "an America where the separation of church and state is absolute." Romney can't say exactly that, since many of the supporters he's courting think the doctrine of separation of church and state is not enshrined in the Constitution and has been used by liberals to take religion out of public life. Plus, he's not asking that his faith not be an issue. He wants it to be an issue. He's running on it, but he wants to be the one to draw the line marking where his faith ends.

The best intellectual argument Romney could use isn't available to him, which is that all religions have their odd traditions and beliefs that look highly quirky under close examination. Romney could use my Catholic Church as an example, but in doing so, he'd risk alienating another key constituency. Imagine what fun he could have had with the Charismatics, some of whom speak in tongues or drink snake venom.

And so Romney is stuck in the middle of a very delicate balance. He is trying to come off (and arguably with more success than compared to the other two legitimate contenders) as "The Conservative" choice, but not have to deal with the "cultic beliefs" that his natural constituents brand him as having. As things have picked up outside the print establishment, his chances are not looking good. At best he has some strong support among Evangelical leaders, but the ground forces are fidgety.

It would be best to take up the mantra of conservative commentator Hugh Hewett, "I'm not looking for a pastor. I'm looking for a President," if the Religious Right is going to have any power in '08 elections. There is still time for that to happen, but no speech is going to sooth souls when faith is more than a side issue. Certainly Giuliani and McCain haven't been friendly to the religiously motivated. It will have to be up to the people to decide if theology or public morality is the ideals driving the political wagon. Those who say you can't have one without the other might find themselves standing alone.

Post-Mortem Republicans

For years the only power that the Conservative Republicans really had was the presidential cabinet. Then in 1992 the Liberal Democrats took over the U.S. House, Senate, and White House. Some say in that year that a short guy with a collection of charts lost the election for the Republicans.

For me it seemed that the end of the world was fast approaching. With mostly godless Liberals ruling a nation that had a blessing and a cursing, the return of a Divinity would be a welcome relief. It was obvious that the rest of the world wasn't repenting. They were either losing faith or becoming murderous fanatics.

A Miracle happened in 1994 and a Conservative Republican revolution had started. There was hope that the years of banal attacks against honest faith, family, and righteousness were about to be halted. Finally, in 2000 the Conservative Republicans took all three U.S. Houses. Slowly more conservative measures were getting enacted. A President and others were standing up against unrighteous laws and evil dictators. For a time it seemed things were changing for the better.

Then, something horrible intervened. The Liberal Democrats once again took over the reigns of government. The only thing standing between them and faith, family, and decency is a veto. The worst of this is that Conservatives helped them achieve this victory.

Self-Delusion

It is hard to say if Conservatives really made this change possible. There are many centrists and Independent voters with influence. What is known is that there were Conservatives who said they would vote Democrat this year. Of course, the two issues they said determined that was so-called corruption and the Iraq War. Perhaps it is simply a sign of licking wounds, but prominent Conservative Republicans are almost glad this happened. Glen Beck, Conservative radio personality and CNN Commentator had this to say:

Now, as we’re all painfully aware, yesterday was Election Day. Thank you that it`s over. Thank you. For the first time in 12 years, the Democrats are about to control the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate. But here’s the real story: It’s not so much that the Democrats won, but that the Republicans lost. . .

. . . Well, you know what? Here’s the other real story. I mostly agree with them. See, what happened -- hear me out -- the Democrats didn’t win yesterday with their classically liberal agenda, but the more conservative- minded, Blue Dog Democrats or independent-thinkers, like Joe Lieberman, were appealing to voters . . .


. . . Besides voting for candidates, voters also turned out yesterday to weigh in on the issues in the form of ballot initiatives. The people have spoken and, with very few exceptions, they have come out overwhelmingly in favor of English as the official language, strict immigration reform, and a ban against gay marriage. Now, how on Earth did the Democrats win when the majority of Americans seem in favor of classically Republican points of view? . . .

He isn't the only one talking this way who is fully Conservative and Republican. Others include the likes of Dick Armey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and even the unabashed Rush Limbaugh getting into the act. This all sounds nice and hopeful, but the truth is not as pleasant.

Facing Reality

All this talk of the American people voting for smaller government, more accountability, and locally still voting conservative on issues should be a sign of good things ahead. The problem for Conservatives is that these are minor developments on the road to major setbacks. Those Democrats in power are not going to be the centrist Democrats they think were put into leadership. The ones that hold the most important positions are actually very Liberal. It becomes possible to see this in the words of the new Speaker of the HouseNancy Pelosi, one of the most Liberal people in one of the most Liberal districts:

. . . Democrats are charting a New Direction, one that unites our country and addresses the real priorities of all the American people. By raising the minimum wage, increasing access to health care, making higher education more affordable, achieving energy independence, enhancing retirement security, and providing real security at home and overseas, Democrats will provide opportunity, security, and prosperity for all, not just the privileged few.

Democrats will make our economy more fair by giving a raise to the nearly 7 million hard-working Americans earning the minimum wage . . .

. . . Democrats will reverse the $12 billion raid on student aid enacted by the Republican Congress in order to help finance tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans . . .

. . . Calling for real investments in alternative fuels and tapping into America’s vast resources and ingenuity, we will send our dollars to the Midwest, not the Middle East, and achieve energy independence within ten years.

We will guarantee a dignified retirement by continuing to fight the privatization of Social Security and protecting pensions . . .

. . . The war in Iraq is not making our country safer; it is not making our military stronger; and it is not making our world more stable. Democrats want the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country and want the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq to begin in 2006 . . .

She isn't the only one who has a more Liberal, rather than centrist or conservative, idea about government. The House will shift Left in the coming years. It will be the usual big government programs, class warfare, and partisan politics that the Conservatives who voted Democrat thought they were fighting against. When the worst fears of Conservatives are realized, don't think the Liberal Democrats will give up power. It might be another 30 years before another chance for Conservatives to govern comes along.

I had warned my fellow Conservatives that they were throwing away everything for pretending their enemies were friends. Some listened, but too many either voted Democrat or didn't vote at all. The best thing to have done was clean house amongst ourselves rather than invite the clawed cat to clear out the rats. Now everything we had worked for will be torn to shreds.

The Spiritual Aspect of Political Freedom

By Kevin B. of "The Title of Liberty"



I have always been intrigued by the prevalence of warfare and political content in the Book of Mormon, despite it's claim to being a spiritual rather than a historical record. When one considers the perspective of the record's primary compiler, Mormon, as a military commander, this content is not altogether surprising. However, we are told repeatedly throughout the text that the intended audience of the record is the people of our day. Further, we know that engraving space on the metal record was limited and that the contributors to the records compiled by Mormon were commanded to only write that which pertained to spiritual matters. We can therefore conclude that the warfare and political content of the Book of Mormon have specific spiritual importance to our time.

Political Structure as a Spiritual Issue

When I first conceived the topic, I had in mind was to show how political freedom had an important role on the the spirituality of citizens. However, after re-examining the lessons taught by the text, it became clear that I had it exactly opposite: The spirituality of individuals and a nation as a whole has an important role in their political freedom. Their political structure tends to be directly or indirectly determined by their spiritual integrity. In preparation for this article, I skimmed the Book of Mormon for political content. Skimming for spiritual and political content made the correlation more obvious to me than previous times I have read the book.

Readers of the Book of Mormon will be well acquainted with the oft-repeated promise of prosperity and liberty to those who keep the commandments of God, and the promise of destruction to those who do not. This promise applies specifically to the Americas, which I explore further below. We see this concept early in 1st Nephi and throughout the text. Mormon frequently interjected his own commentary ("And thus we see that...") within the record he was abridging to reinforce this message.

Time after time, we see individuals who first rebel against the church and gospel of Christ, then second rebel against the socio-political order. They either seek to overthrow the government to their own advantage, or by joining the Lamanite nation and inciting them to war against the Nephite nation. Always, it was the spiritual rebellion (whether on the part of a group of dissenters or a leader already in a position of power) that proceeded the political rebellion and oppression.

Characteristics of Righteous Leadership

There are many examples of good political leadership offered by the Book of Mormon, listed below:

- Servants of the people

The first King Mosiah, followed by King Benjamin and his son the second King Mosiah gives us a good example of "servant leadership."All 3 of these kings relied on their own efforts to provide for their living, not by taxation. They served as moral examples. They consulted "men of God" in political and military matters. They served on the front lines of battle when war was necessary.

- Religious liberty

Under the Reign of the Judges in the books of Mosiah, Alma, and Helaman, we see a repeated insistence of the law that there should be no religious persecution. Men cannot be judged by the law based on his beliefs, except where his beliefs threaten the liberty of the people. We also see among the Lamanites, following the conversion to Christianity of Lamoni's father, the established decree of religious liberty (and prohibition of religious persecution) to all Lamanites.

- Taxation

In contrast to the excellent example of King Benjamin, we have the example of King Noah, who taxes his people one fifth (20%) of all they produce to support himself, his wives, concubines and priests. He also builds up elegant buildings and thrones for himself and priests. This is noted in context of the description of Noah as a wicked king. We also have the example of the people of Limhi, who return to the original land of Lehi-Nephi and request whether the Lamanites will give them land to occupy. As a trap, the king of the Lamanites vacate some land for Limhi's people. The Lamanites impose a tax of half of all they produce, or take their lives: “a tax which is grievous to be borne . . . And is not this, our affliction great? Now behold, how great reason we have to mourn.”

(For perspective, a comparison to the current American tax system: “Tax Freedom Day,” the day of the year in which American’s earnings are their own after taxes, is April 26 for 2006, or 31.6% average tax burden, based on Federal and State income tax only. This does not include sales-based taxes, gasoline taxes, so-called "vice taxes" on cigarettes, alcohol, etc. , or government administered lotteries-- which I consider to be voluntary taxation for the stupid.)

- Slavery

Mentioned specifically as being against the law under the Reign of the Judges, and under the 200 years of peace and equality following the visitation of Christ to the Americas.

- Power and War

There are many shining examples of appropriate use of power and war (Captain Moroni, wielder of the Title of Liberty comes to mind) but I find it best expressed by Pahoran, the Chief Judge of Captain Moroni's time:

I, Pahoran, do not seek for power, save only to retain my judgment-seat that I may preserve the rights and the liberty of my people. My soul standeth fast in that liberty in which God hath made us free.

And now, behold, we will resist wickedness even unto bloodshed. We would not shed the blood of the Lamanites if they would stay in their own land.

We would not shed the blood of our brethren if they would not rise in rebellion and take the sword against us . . . therefore . . . let us resist evil, and whatsoever evil we cannot resist with our words, yea, such as rebellions and dissensions, let us resist them with our swords, that we may retain our freedom, that we may rejoice in the great privilege of our church, and in the cause of our Redeemer and our God. (Alma 61: 9-14)

- Representative Government

Described as ideal in a world where “just men” (righteous kings after Christ’s model of servant leadership) cannot be guaranteed. This was hinted upon when the original Nephi was reluctant to become king ("...I was desirous that they should have no king,” 2 Nephi 5:18) and was reiterated by the second Mosiah, having learned from the example of King Noah:

* “Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you. (Mosiah 29:13)

* “Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you.”(Mosiah 29:16)

* “And behold, now I say unto you, ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood.” (Mosiah 29:21)

* “For behold, he has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him; and he trampleth under his feet the commandments of God;” (Mosiah 29:22)

* “And he enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people, yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him he will send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness.”

On to the selection of leaders and laws by the people:

* “Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore, this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction…” (Mosiah 29:26-27)

Book of Mormon Perspective on American Liberty

We know from repeated instances in the Book of Mormon that the Americas are declared by God to be a "land of promise."

We know from Nephi’s vision (1 Nephi 13) some 2000 plus years before the Declaration of Independence, that America in our time was specifically discovered and established by God-- we learn that the spirit of God wrought upon Columbus and other gentiles; “and they went forth out of captivity.” (1 Nephi 13:13)

16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity [American colonists] did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.

17 And I beheld that their mother Gentiles [England] were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them [the War of Independence].

18 And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.

19 And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.

We see these concepts came to be echoed later in America's founding documents-- such as the proclamation that God, not government, is the source of our "inalienable rights."

Lehi prophesies the New World to be a land of liberty (2 Nephi 1:6-11) – Keeping in mind Nephi's encouragement to "liken the scriptures unto us," does this not apply equally to the current inhabitants (us) as it did to the descendants of Lehi?

6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves.And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.

11 Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten." (emphasis mine)

Secular Humanism and Political Freedom

In chapter 30 of the book of Alma, we are introduced to an Anti-Christ named Korihor. The interesting thing to me about the encounter with Korihor is the parallels between his rhetoric and the arguments made by secular humanists. At this time, the coming of Christ had been prophesied but had not taken place.

-In Alma 30: 13 & 15, Korihor argues for Impiricism, stating that prophets could not know of anything which is to come, and that one cannot know of things they cannot see.

-In verse 14, he dismisses belief in the coming Messiah as "foolish traditions of your fathers."

-In verse 16, he characterizes religion as a crutch for the mentally weak ("it is the effect of a frenzied mind")

-In verse 17, Korihor argues for a "might makes right" system (essentially social Darwinism) which leads neatly into situational ethics: "whatsoever a man did was no crime"

-In verse 18, he promotes hedonism, rationalizing that immoral acts had no consequence, as he claimed there is nothing after death.

-Further, in verse 23, he claims that religion is a mechanism to keep the people in ignorance and usurp power and authority over them. He follows this in verse 24 with the claim that religion is a form of bondage, that keeps people from free thought.

The people rejected his rhetoric and turned him over to the law. When presented to Alma, the Chief Judge of the time, he attempted to argue that this integration of church and state was a form of oppression on the people. Alma rebutted to Korihor with the reminder that both the judges and the priests earned their own livings, independently of their church or civil service. Korihor's rhetoric would be echoed later by others who conspired to overthrow the government. Again, the interesting thing to me about this encounter is how closely the rhetoric of Korihor the Anti-Christ matches the rhetoric of today's rabidly vocal minority, the secular humanist left.

Secret Combinations Then and Now

Political, religious, and economic conspiracies are referred to in the Book of Mormon as "secret combinations," and is the forth most frequent topic in the text; behind only the topics of Christ, missionary work, and warfare. This should be an indicator of the importance of being aware of them and keeping them out of our society.

We learn in Mormon chapter 8 that the Book of Mormon would come in a time “when there shall be great [spiritual] pollutions upon the face of the earth; there shall be murders, and robbing, and lying, and deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations; when there shall be many who will say, Do this, or do that, and it mattereth not, for the Lord will uphold such at the last day. . . Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins.” (Mormon 8:31,32)

Moroni has our time shown unto him and “knows [our] doing;” he condemns those who “build up . . . secret abominations to get gain” warns that “the sword of vengeance hangs over you.” (Mormon 8:35, 40, 41)

Moroni, speaking directly to our time, warns us again in Ether 8:

...[W]hatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not.

Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people. (Ether 8: 22-25)

The Remedy for Political Malady

Thus far we have established, according to the lessons of the Books of Mormon, that political freedom is tied to the spiritual integrity of the peoples of a nation and their leaders. We have seen some qualities of good political leadership. We have explored the divine preparation for the establishment of American independence and the spiritual conditions required for the preservation of liberty. We have seen the introduction of secular humanist thought which produces dissent from righteous leadership and threatens liberty. We have seen the dangerous influence of political, economic, and religious conspiracy and the direct warnings to watch out for and avoid them in our time; at the risk of our own destruction.

Seeing the parallels to all of these issues in our own time, one then might ask what can be done to offset these dangerous influences? The Chief Judge Alma faced this same dilemma in Alma 31, when faced with the imminent dissent of the people calling themselves Zoramites. Alma feared they would join with the Lamanite nation and incite them to war against the Nephite nation again.

His resolution? Missionary work: "And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God."

Is it really that simple? Unjust political conflict resolved by a little preaching? Obviously, it can't always work. There are cases where evil men simply refuse to conform to the principles of peace and liberty because those principles prevent them from obtaining the power they seek. We see repeated instances later in the book of Alma where Captain Moroni would force captured enemy combatants to choose between taking an oath to preserve peace and liberty, or death (This solution is obviously only workable under righteous leadership).

While we may not be able to offset all evil by "the preaching of the word," it should be apparent that any hope of maintaining our political liberties is fruitless unless we can maintain a standard of spiritual integrity throughout the people in general. Our Founding Fathers recognized the Source of human liberty-- it should follow that a nation will cease to honor that liberty if it ceases to recognize that Source.

Importance of Israel’s War

The news has been non-stop in its presentation of a little war in a mostly undesirable part of the world that comprises a little more land than Rhode Island in the United States. Strangely, what happens in Israel can effect the whole world. Why? Because that tiny spot represents the religious history of very powerful religious groups. There are the Christians who formed from the Jewish heritage and rapidly grew. Muslims claim to be true inheritors of the “People of the Book” (i.e. in the Koran and not the Bible), with the others as apostates and enemies of truth. This combination of people laying claim to such a small territory is bound to cause trouble.

Right now the war is between the Jews and the Muslims, with Christians acting as some kind of back seat drivers. This is to be expected. Very powerful Muslim countries are itching for a fight between East and West, or in their view the Righteous and the Infidel. A no-holds bar war would draw the “Christian” nations in, if for no other reason than oil profits. There are those who say “curse on both your houses” against Muslims and Jews in the recent conflict, but that is wrong. Again and again the aggressor has been Muslims, with Israel as a ripe target for religious zealots. They don't want peace, but power of the ultimate kind.

Those who are for peace must stand with Israel if they believe in freedom, democracy, and civilization. That means more than railing against terrorists, but holding all Islamic countries responsible. Very few speak out against the terrorist acts of a few because they secretly, if not openly, support them. They consider it a struggle against infidels and want all people to worship Allah. It is not enough for simple missionary work (that is actually going well when it comes to Islamic growth), but they want to conquer the world. The problem is, there are groups like Israel and the United States that refuse to cooperate. And so, the sins of the terrorists are put on the heads of the defenders:

And whom do you blame for your plight? Logic would seem to dictate that the Hezbollah terrorists and their suppliers are to blame. If Iran and Syria weren’t funding, training, and supplying Hezbollah terrorists, none of this would have happened in the first place. If they weren’t launching missiles from your neighborhood, Israeli forces wouldn’t have bombed your neighborhood. Failing that, if terrorists hadn’t prevented your friends and family members from leaving, they wouldn’t have been hurt by Israeli bombs, even though, their homes and their possessions would have been destroyed as Israel worked to defend itself.

But, no, the blame falls squarely on the U.S. Why? Because the U.S. sells military weaponry to Israel. Because the U.S. is Israel’s ally. The U.S. doesn’t have to be within a thousand miles of the conflict to be at fault. There is no outrage expressed toward the Iranian mullahs and Syrian dictator that provide the missiles and war materiel that keep the conflict going after more than a month. There is no anger expressed toward the terrorists (brave martyrs, freedom fighters) that started and continue to pursue the war.

The solution to the Lebanese people featured in the article, of course, is to get rid of the Jews. One woman says, “They [Americans] have a big country, so why don't they give them [Jews] some land there so we can live in peace.” Another woman says, “I just wish I had a plane so I could destroy Israel, Bush and his dog Olmert.”

It is not as if Israel has, at least at this time in history, missed opportunities to reconcile with the Islamic world around them. They have made concessions that any other country would consider acts of treason. Yet, exactly what they have feared would happen with such concessions has happened. Instead of making things better, it only makes things worse. And if the Muslims finally do win and destroy Israel from off the Levant, it would be a mistake to think that is as far as they will go. They want us all and we shouldn't let them have it:

Israel has a right to exist, as much as anyone. You name a people and we could turn all those arguments against them. Heck at least the Jews paid for the land to begin with even if others feel that they can tell them what they own and what they don't.

It is more than enough time for the rest of us to DEMAND that Islam finally act like they keep claiming and start to be a people of peace. Israel has acted UNILATERALLY and still it is not enough, giving up the Gaza which of course now is where they are being hit from. . .

I don't want to be forced to live your religion, your sharia laws or the way you treat women. You can keep that garbage. None of it is worthy or of good report. If you want it STAY THERE! If you want peace, my first suggestion is that you let go of your bigotry against Jews.

An argument will inevitably be presented that says that not all Muslims are radicals or support them. I wish that were true (and for some few it might be), but it is their responsibility to clean up their religion and not the rest of us. It is this self-cleaning that has helped develop so many strains of Christianity and helped neutralize the more violent portion. In some ways it has sadly diluted the faith of Christ, but at least has opened up a dialogue that can be shared by individuals without much compulsion. Even the most radical “fundamentalist” groups are not blowing up hospitals and schools.

Compare what a few angry Christians say with what a leader of a powerful group who has shown they will do what they say, has said:

From The Intelligence Summit:
Iran’s Hizbollah, which claims links to the Lebanese group of the same name, said on Tuesday it stood ready to attack Israeli and U.S. interests worldwide.
“We have 2,000 volunteers who have registered since last year,” said Iranian Hizbollah’s spokesman Mojtaba Bigdeli, speaking by telephone from the central seminary city of Qom.
“They have been trained and they can become fully armed. We are ready to dispatch them to every corner of the world to jeopardise Israel and America’s interests. We are only waiting for the Supreme Leader’s green light to take action. If America wants to ignite World War Three … we welcome it,” he said.

Whoa, whoa whoa.. Hang on one sec. Does this sound to anybody else like this?:

And it seemeth a pity unto me, most noble Lachoneus, that ye should be so foolish and vain as to suppose that ye can stand against so many brave men who are at my command, who do now at this time stand in their arms, and do await with great anxiety for the word—Go down upon the Nephites and destroy them.
And I, knowing of their unconquerable spirit, having proved them in the field of battle, and knowing of their everlasting hatred towards you because of the many wrongs which ye have done unto them, therefore if they should come down against you they would visit you with utter destruction.
I swear unto you with an oath, that on the morrow month I will command that my armies shall come down against you, and they shall not stay their hand and shall spare not, but shall slay you, and shall let fall the sword upon you even until ye shall become extinct. (3 Nephi 3:3-4,8)

The answer to all of this might be disturbing, but it might also be the only answer. We must forget the “innocents” of the Muslim people and hold them all as responsible. They are upholding these evil men without either speaking out or fighting them. The wicked become heroes and “freedom fighters” instead of the violent Islamo-fascists they really are behind the curtain of protectors of the poor and downtrodden. Upholding the terrorists make them one of them with or without weapons. If they make peace than they are worthy and if they stand with the violent than they should accept their fate:

15 As the LORD commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses.

16 So Joshua took all that land, the hills, and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same;

17 Even from the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir, even unto Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon under mount Hermon: and all their kings he took, and smote them, and slew them.

18 Joshua made war a long time with all those kings.

19 There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle.

20 For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Joshua 11: 15-20)

Israel spared those who would make peace. It was those who wanted war and domination (most of the people of the land of Canaan) who were annihilated. Most of all, the whole of a nation becomes worthy of such derision and destruction when it becomes hard to tell the wicked from the righteous:

37 And it came to pass that the Lamanites did hunt the band of robbers of Gadianton; and they did preach the word of God among the more wicked part of them, insomuch that this band of robbers was utterly destroyed from among the Lamanites.

38 And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils, and to join with them in their secret murders and combinations.

39 And thus they did obtain the sole management of the government, insomuch that they did trample under their feet and smite and rend and turn their backs upon the poor and the meek, and the humble followers of God.

40 And thus we see that they were in an awful state, and ripening for an everlasting destruction. (see Helaman 6: 21-23, 37-40)

Again, it is up to the people to clean house or others will do it for them as “the people” become part of the problem. It is for these reasons that decent people should stand with Israel and hold the Muslims (all of them) accountable for what is going on in their countries. It is true that both the West and Israel are not completely innocent. But, at least they are trying where the Muslims continue to make excuses, stand by terrorists, and do nothing without violent threats. This behavior must stop and wrongdoers held accountable before any lasting peace can be achieved.

This might not happen, according to prophecy, until the end comes and Jesus Christ returns. Too bad, for there is much to admire about Islam when it lives up to itself. Barbarism has made it unworthy of respect.

A New Gathering

Watching such series as "Cops," "Dog the Bounty Hunter" and "Homicide: 48 Hours" on television has been an eye opener. These shows follow law enforcement around as they work to catch criminals. Some of the worst of humanity can be seen lying, cheating, stealing, fighting, and generally doing evil things. In many cases, these are daily news stories placed up close. It reminds me of the Second letter of Paul to Timothy explaining the condition of the world:

1 THIS know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

I know there are good people everywhere, but it has become hard to point them out in today's filth. We may all be born innocent, but our spirits seem over influenced by the material bodies and satanic suggestions. Many people are crying out for a better society built around the ideas of integrety, honesty, morality, and most importantly faith in God.

One of the constant themes during the foundation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the building up of Zion. This was more than simply learning to live a good Christian life. It was the concept of gathering together as a people and building up a community of believers. It was believed that the Saints could help usher in the Second Coming of Christ by forming a group worthy of God's favor. Due to negative circumstances both inside and outside the faith the dream was never realized. A new era started, as explained by Bruce R. McConkie in his .Peru Talk several years ago:

We are in the midst of a period of change and realignment where one of the basic doctrines of the Restoration is concerned.

We were directed in the day of Joseph Smith to do one thing with reference to the gathering of Israel and the building up of Zion. Today we are counseled to turn away from the past and do something entirely different. . .

. . . We are living in a new day. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is fast becoming a worldwide church. Congregations of Saints are now, or soon will be, strong enough to support and sustain their members no matter where they reside. Temples are being built wherever the need justifies. We can foresee many temples in South America in process of time.

Stakes of Zion are also being organized at the ends of the earth. In this connection, let us ponder these truths: A stake of Zion is a part of Zion. You cannot create a stake of Zion without creating a part of Zion. Zion is the pure in heart; we gain purity of heart by baptism and by obedience. A stake has geographical boundaries. To create a stake is like founding a City of Holiness. Every stake on earth is the gathering place for the lost sheep of Israel who live in its area.

The gathering place for Peruvians is in the stakes of Zion in Peru, or in the places which soon will become stakes. The gathering place for Chileans is in Chile; for Bolivians it is in Bolivia; for Koreans it is in Korea; and so it goes through all the length and breadth of the earth. Scattered Israel in every nation is called to gather to the fold of Christ, to the stakes of Zion, as such are established in their nations.

Isaiah prophesied that the Lord “shall cause them that come of Jacob to take root; Israel shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit.” The Lord’s promise is: “Ye shall be gathered one by one, O ye children of Israel.” (Isa. 27:6, 12.)

That is to say—Israel shall be gathered one by one, family by family, unto the stakes of Zion established in all parts of the earth so that the whole earth shall be blessed with the fruits of the gospel.

This then is the counsel of the Brethren: Build up Zion, but build it up in the area where God has given you birth and nationality. Build it up where he has given you citizenship, family, and friends. Zion is here in South America and the Saints who comprise this part of Zion are and should be a leavening influence for good in all these nations.

And know this: God will bless that nation which so orders its affairs as to further his work.

His work includes the building up of Zion in the last days. He has commissioned us to do that work for him. The foundations of Zion have already been laid in North America, in South America, in Europe, in Asia, in the South Pacific and in every place where there are stakes of Zion. But Zion is not yet perfected in any of these places. When she is perfected, it will be as it was with Zion of old—the Lord will come and dwell with his people.

The condition of the World today makes me wonder it is time to renew the idea of gathering the Saints closer together. I don't mean the almost unconscious gathering to Idaho and Utah. Rather, a commitment to gather with a goal in mind to create a particular community. I don't think it would be improbable to form gated communities with specific ideals. The days of deadly persecution, in the United States at least, are in the past. It even seems possible for LDS members to go back to Independance Missouri if they desired and bought up land. Money and the Law are more important today that they ever were in the early years.

Such a plan won't be easy, and not all problems will suddenly no longer exist. But, polygamous "Mormons" seem to be proving a new religious gathering in the middle of a pluralistic democracy can be possible in small groups. The closest modern example of a "mainstream Mormonism" built community is Provo, UT and Rexburg, ID. Both are centers of LDS learning. Like Joseph Smith's vision of the center of Zion as a large Temple University complex, these two places act as gathering areas for the Church's young and growing. It might be possible to study them and decide how to improve on the "accidental providence" of their existance as LDS communities.

Questions naturally arise. Where would such a community be built? What would be the laws and standards? What legal ramifications still exist? How ready are the Saints for such an experiment? Does it go against modern revelation as to our current mission to the world? Is it desireable?

Answers to these questions are vital to achieving any new gathering. Perhaps the online world of blogging is the closest Mormons can come these days to a seperate community of believers. Of course, the main reason for gathering in the days of Joseph Smith was to build Temples for the people. These days Temples can come to the people. Zion still remains a dream that all Saints desire to see become reality. Perhaps the most important starting point is in our hearts and homes.

Era of Religious Respect?

The use of "respect" rather than "tolerance" in the title is very important. They are not the same words, and can have very specific meanings. Toleration is often used as a blunt instrument that silences voices and forces acceptance with tyrannical consiquences. To respect something doesn't always mean accepting as of equal importance. Respect is why I feel it is right for the cartoons to run and it is right for the Mulsims to demostrate against them. At the same time, intolerance is the reason why I feel it is wrong for the cartoons to run and it is wrong for the Muslims to demonstrate. Respect is about accepting the existance and important of viewpoints. Tolerance is simply intolerance of particular viewpoints that aren't within the accepted norm of permissable discussion.

The Muslim outcry over blasphemous cartoons has created a discussion between freedom of expression and decourum, democracy and religious passion. It is a discussion that secularists have thought unworthy of consideration when it comes to Christians. For too long Western secularism, especially of the Hollywood kind, has treated Christian beliefs as childish at best and dangerous at worst. What has the Christian reaction been? A stimied, but gradually louder, voice of dissent.

Hopefully the demonstrations by vocal Muslims will energize religious people in the West to resist their own beliefs getting brutalized. The problem is that Muslim demonstrators should not be role models for the future war against secularized society. Militantism is considered both unChristian and an exchange of one bad thing for another. It is, however, the resistance that Christians should emulate as they contend for the faith. But, there is something about taking actions that speak louder than words as long as it isn't violent. As examples:



NBC pulls the plug
on 'Book of Daniel'

Nashville's WSMV-TV General Manager Elden Hale, Jr. said: "Based on a review of the first three episodes and the clearly voiced concerns from our viewers, we have determined that the program 'The Book of Daniel' is not appropriate for broadcast television in this community."

After the first three episodes, only Burlington Coat Factory was left as a national sponsor.

The heat began to generate for the show following WND's first story. Shortly afterward, the American Family Association launched a national boycott, citing WND's story.

AFA Chairman Donald E. Wildmon said NBC's decision to cancel the program is instructive.

"This shows the average American that he doesn't have to simply sit back and take the trash being offered on TV, but he can get involved and fight back with his pocketbook," he said.

The network had to absorb millions of dollars in losses each time it aired the program, Wildmon pointed out, because the show's sponsors bailed out.

"We want to thank the 678,394 individuals who sent e-mails to NBC and the thousands who called and e-mailed their local affiliates," he added.

Besides Nashville, other NBC affiliates across the nation either never aired the show or stopped broadcasting it. They included Hattiesburg, Miss.; Meridian, Miss.; Jackson, Miss.; Amarillo, Texas; Wichita, Kan.; Beaumont, Texas; and Terre Haute, Ind.

Only six episodes of the "Book of Daniel" were shot. Kevin Reilly, NBC Entertainment president, said the network's reluctance to order more episodes had more to do with the series' sluggish ratings performance than controversy.

NBC halts Britney's
crucifixion mockery

Reacting to pressure from Christian groups, NBC canceled an episode of "Will & Grace" that featured Britney Spears as a conservative who hosts a cooking segment called "Cruci-fixin's" on a Christian TV network.

NBC last week was forced to pull its highly touted new show "The Book of Daniel" because of charges its portrayal of Jesus was blasphemous.

The point is that Western society should learn how to be more respectful of faith. It shouldn't take a Fawtwa like stance in the decision to show respect. On the other hand, all religious people should understand enough of how Muslims feel about the sacred to reject the violence without throwing out the message.

It still leaves a question of how Mormons should respond to disrespect for the sacred. After all, there are some things in the LDS religion that have the same "don't touch" policy (although for different reasons) that Muslims do about their prophet. Should we take a stronger stand or ignore it as immature posturing?

The Family and Gender Success

It used to be that the girls were in trouble, and feminist ideas of equality would save the day. The main weapon of "equality" was to insist there was no difference between the sexes and attack males as if they were in the way. It appears that the technique is working. According to The Trouble with Boys by Peg Tyre, boys are turning off and tuning out education. Girls, on the other hand, are at least succeeding. This might be good news to those who believe in a Feminist utopia where women are significant and men are . . . something else. But, for those who care about the future of everyone this can only be bad. After all these years of equality of the sexes we are learning by science and society that there really are differences between males and females.

According to the blog commentary Does Our Society Treat Boys Like Defective Girls, society is most likely going to ignore the obvious:

Despite this crisis, our society is working hard to promote tolerance to the point of destroying the institution we need most – the traditional two-parent family with both a male and a female role model, where both parents fulfill their responsibilities to each other and to their children. Even as the pop culture regularly portrays men as unfeeling dolts, the tolerance crowd continues to blindly claim that their proposals will not harm the basic institution of our society, but long-term evidence shows that this is not true.

Ironically, the same same article rejects what it just suggested:

I’m not advocating a return to obviously bad sexist attitudes.

It is "bad sexist attitudes" that we need to return. I don't mean seeing women as inferior, unintelligent, and only objects of desire. Rather, I mean the attitudes that feminists would consider undesirable. That would include women as mothers and nurturers and men as providers and protectors. Latter-day Saints were warned by prophets in The Family: A Proclamation to the World exactly what happens when men, women, and children are not in stable relationships. Society sufferes and everyone loses. Girls and Boys don't need role models. They need loving and traditional parents:

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

The Future is in the Past

Wow, the Editorial It's the Demography Stupid by Mark Steyn is very impressive. I don't know if this is particularly of Mormon interest, although it mentions Mormons and deals with a very Book of Mormon subject. I have been having the same ideas for some time about the ultimate defeat of liberalism by its own sword of human-hatred and bread and circuses in the name of human rights. Ironic that the ones that are screaming "human rights" and "diversity" will ultimately be the ones that usher in the exact opposite.

For conservative religions that will be both good and bad. Good, because the liberals will finally lose the culture war by fiate. The morality of the Godfearing will be back in world wide vogue. Bad, because the ones they are opening the doors to are not interested in any kind of human rights. And that is what Mormons will have to face in the next 50 to 100 years. Why must societies either become libertine godless immorals or absolutist god fearing hoards? Zion will definantly be born in pain, tears, and blood.

Some fine gems to quote:

The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion. The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths--or, at any rate, virtues--and that's why they're proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam.

Read this one and think of the Gadianton Robbers who could only be destroyed when the society rejected them without accomidation:

That, by the way, is the one point of similarity between the jihad and conventional terrorist movements like the IRA or ETA. Terror groups persist because of a lack of confidence on the part of their targets: The IRA, for example, calculated correctly that the British had the capability to smash them totally but not the will. So they knew that while they could never win militarily, they also could never be defeated. The Islamists have figured similarly. The only difference is that most terrorist wars are highly localized. We now have the first truly global terrorist insurgency because the Islamists view the whole world the way the IRA view the bogs of Fermanagh: They want it, and they've calculated that our entire civilization lacks the will to see them off.

And Satan slowlyand carefully leads us down to Hell. We worry about the world environment decay and don't see our own personal moral decay:

There will be no environmental doomsday. Oil, carbon dioxide emissions, deforestation: none of these things is worth worrying about. What's worrying is that we spend so much time worrying about things that aren't worth worrying about that we don't worry about the things we should be worrying about. For 30 years, we've had endless wake-up calls for things that aren't worth waking up for. But for the very real, remorseless shifts in our society--the ones truly jeopardizing our future--we're sound asleep. The world is changing dramatically right now, and hysterical experts twitter about a hypothetical decrease in the Antarctic krill that might conceivably possibly happen so far down the road there are unlikely to be any Italian or Japanese enviro-worriers left alive to be devastated by it.

I think the first half and the last sentence are significant. As much as I dislike Clinton and his kind, I don't think its important to the main point:

The latter half of the decline and fall of great civilizations follows a familiar pattern: affluence, softness, decadence, extinction. You don't notice yourself slipping through those stages because usually there's a seductive pol on hand to provide the age with a sly, self-deluding slogan--like Bill Clinton's "It's about the future of all our children." We on the right spent the 1990s gleefully mocking Mr. Clinton's tedious invocation, drizzled like syrup over everything from the Kosovo war to highway appropriations. But most of the rest of the West can't even steal his lame bromides: A society that has no children has no future.

Illegals and the Church

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has tried to add a provision in United States law protecting Churches from illegal immigration prosecution. I applaud that they are trying to make changes legally, but saddened that it goes against the very ideas of why there are immigration laws. The protection of both everyday citizens and the whole nation are at the mercy of illegal immigrants flaunting the practically open boarder policy. We need to get tougher with the laws we do have and with teeth!

Well, I must say that this issue has made me decide that if I knew someone was an illegal immigrant I would turn them in regardless of religion. This is partly because I don’t believe it is equal to speeding, but more closely related to an invasion and act of war; although not necessarily the same thing. In fact, if I learned someone was an illegal alien I would neither baptise or give a calling to that person. I have never been in that situation that I know of, but my feelings are set! Now, the question would be what consiquences it would have for me to refuse. Does anyone know what has happened to someone who has refused a baptism or ordination? Is there eclesiatical reprimanding or simply passing the responsibility? At any rate, I would turn them in to the authorities as enemies of national security.

Now, I am not against changing the law to make it more streamlined to legally enter the U.S. (although a blanket allowance is NOT an option I will accept). However, until we find a way to make it less uncomprehensible for immigrants to enter legally and protect the already legal citizens at the same time, than I want a moritorium on immigration other than with very strictly enforced visas.

My own opinion about the actions of the Church? Perhaps they should rethink how they do religious business until the laws change. In the past I can see how they could turn a blind eye as everyone else seems to have done the same and made immigration law into no-law. Currently, however, that is not the case and the Church should start following the law. It is true that immigration is a government, and not eclesiastical, issue. However, the Church's involvement in law making has changed that status at least periferally. I am not against the Church trying to influence and change the law. I am, and so are many LDS members, against it breaking the law on an issue that doesn't seem moral enough for civil disobediance justification.

To answer a few questions brought up at another blog.

Would you still be for it if you knew that such enforcement would increase the cost of a head of lettuce to $6.35 (as someone mentioned earlier)?

Yes, it is a small price to pay to protect the United States from the influx of murderers, rapists, and those who have no business getting here without going through proper channels. I would certainly not move to another country without doing whatever was needed legally to live in, say, Canada. It isn't about money. Its about national security and doing the right thing!

what about good Mormon employers (and I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a few here in the Phoenix area that do this) who stop by the open air labor market and pick up a few guys without papers for some casual construction-type labor?

They are breaking the law and acting dishonest. This should cause them to rethink their worthiness to go to the Temple. This goes beyond the "speeding" argument as I have said above, because it is close to an invasion; usually considered an act of War by other nations.

Would you feel compelled to turn Bro. Employer in for labor law violations? He’s violating The Law as well!

Actually, I would follow the gospel ideal first. Go to that person and explain what you find seriously wrong with what they are doing. If they continue to support illegals I would think of raising my hands in objection to callings within the Church. Finally, after deliberation and objection, I would turn them in for violating the law.


I have no qualms about this one bit! Its time to "lay down the law" in order to protect the U.S. against foriegn invaders who can do harm and just slip away into the dark mists of Mexico. The other alternative is that if you are an illegal who breaks the law, then instant death penalty no matter how small the infraction. After all, you aren't really a citizen and could just as easily be a spy or terrorist. Due process of guilt or innocents is, of course, expected. If found innocent they should immediately be sent back to where they came from. Extreme, but it might deter the more sinister elements from deciding its easier to do their damage over the boarder and on U.S. soil. If they want in, they should be documented and easily traced with a declaration of discernable reasons for entering.


Like I said above, I am not against streamlining the immigration laws making it less confusing to get in. What I am against is making it so easy that any can get in, or not doing something about those who are currently getting in and getting away with it against the moral and physical safety of this nation. I know of no nation that is so open, against its own laws, to allowing people from other nations to willy nilly come right in. My guess is that even Canada isn't so open; or at least probably follows its own lenient laws about citizenship.

The Romney Factor

There have been a spat of discussions everywhere about Romney as the next Presidential contendor. The question on most people's minds is how his Mormonism will play out. This is especially the case with the religious conservitive segment of the Republican party that is often at odds with anyone not of their flavor of Christianity or non-Christians in general. So far there hasn't been much, if any, words exchanged about Romney in the negative. The most troublesome part of the Republican party has been quiet. Of course, this is most likely because the primaries are a few years ahead.

The liberal media has stayed rather quiet as far as his religious identity, refering instead to the possible bad hype it will play in certain segments. That is most likely because of two possibilities; they want conservatives to trounce on themselves and they want to not look like the religiously biased people most of them are. That might be an added plus to his running for President when it comes to the Mormon image. So far the secular section has stayed either nuetral or positive toward the fact he is Mormon, and looked more at his career. Of course, the truely touchstone sections of the media have ignored him completely. At this time it is a wait and see moment of calm.

Some have wondered if his winning the presidency would be a bad thing, with non-stop excuse for public Mormon baiting. Past examples have shown, however, that what the person does as a politician plays much more airtime. Sen. Reed, for instance, is a pure politician with hardly a notice of his religious affiliation in his speach and actions (and that discussion is another post). Conservative Mormons might end up excited by him politically, but be dissapointed how little he will change the National perceptions.

He is, however, in the middle of two fractious sides of the political social wars. He is most likely to be seen as too Conservative for the Liberals and too "Mormon" for the Religious Right. That might make it tough to please enough of both parties to gain a majority. He could lose by fiat based on opposing fears.

On the other hand, I don't think his becoming President would be a bad thing. He has already proven his ability to change a dangerously contorted mess and get voted governor of a highly Democratic state. His past actions seem to dictate an ability to weather crisis and come out on top. In the end, I would say he would be anywhere from nuetral to good for the LDS Church’s image and mission; baring an excessively nasty scandal. Then again, as someone else has pointed out, scandal is what politics thrives on.

I wish him well, and as both a Conservative and a Mormon I would vote for him. He is currently the most viable Conservative Republican in the recognized running. It might end up him against a moderate Republican group of primary contendors. The only real visible "threat" would be if Jeb Bush decides to run; and for me that would make a hard choice and a belief that Jeb would win because he is not Mormon. As for who will win the actual Presidential race if he ran? Thats up to the Democrats.