Wasatch Intercept

Rick Votaw vs. Mike Ridgway

2011-11-19T14:05:00.000-08:00

Recently while I was reading the online version of the Salt Lake Tribune, I noticed the username of one of the people leaving a comment as a name I'd heard before. "RichardVotaw".

I recalled a couple of videos posted by Mike Ridgway on youtube, of a Rick Votaw, who was vice-chair of the Salt Lake County Republican Party until he completed his term in April 2011. One (link) shows Votaw gathering off-duty police,working as security for a county party nominating convention, to have Ridgway ejected. In the other (link), obviously recorded surreptitiously, Votaw stands before a meeting of Republicans, presenting himself as humble and freely available to contact, invoking his religious credentials to prove his own integrity.

While perusing the comments user "RichardVotaw" has left on the Trib website over the last few months, I got a feel for where this man is coming from. I certainly don't think it's reasonable to make judgements about someone based solely on what other people say.

Rick Votaw holds the Tea Party movement in less than the highest regard. On the official website of the Salt Lake County Republican Party, he was said (as recently as the 16th April of this year) to be "an ardent worker for delegate authority and privacy"
(link).

In August, he had this to say:

"I have never been in favor of this before, but now it is clear that the Tea Baggers have too much power in the convention system. The polls show that Orrin winswith the public, but the baggers may not give the public that choice. It may be time to do away with the caucus system and let the public have the right to choose who they want to represent them.

19 people, on a forum dominated by a small, ultra-left, fringe element in the community (link to an earlier blog entry regarding their motivations and credibility) clicked on the box to indicate that they "liked this".

Personally, I feel that the administrators of at the Trib should add the derogatory phrase Tea Bagger to their profanity filter, because of the lewd origin of the term.

I also noted in his Trib comments a reference to "Obummer".

Votaw's name caught the attention of the gay blogosphere last year, after the student newspaper at the University of Utah reported a crude sexual remark he made after seeing some activists who wore tape over their mouths to signify a silent protest. His penchant for name calling and rash statements is apparently not confined to just a grass roots uprising within the party which threatens the existing Republican power structure.

One surprising departure from what I would expect is that Votaw criticizes Utah alcohol control policy. I see some minor issues, a few requirements that are imposed on those who serve drinks that don't seem to have any practical purpose in implementing the overall guiding philosophy. Nevertheless, the overall guiding philosophy is sound. Make alcohol available to those responsible adults who choose to consume it, while ensuring that use is not encouraged. Taking into account the great harm alcohol does to our society, while accommodating free choice.

Utah liquor laws are constantly changing. Our legislature is open to compromise. The courts have also had their say. When I moved to the state in 1993, outdoor beer signs were prohibited. That law was struck down on free speech grounds. Votaw asks, "Why is the state in the liquor business anyway?" The answer is obvious: privately owned liquor stores would advertize, no business spends money on advertizing unless they expect it to increase sales, and they would sue and would win if "no ads" was made a condition of their license.

The latest Utah alcohol related controversy is a law requiring all restaurants licensed after January 2010 to pour drinks out of the sight of customers. Votaw calls this "the most idiotic kind of legislation". I don't really see the good or the harm. The vast majority of restaurants prepare food in a separate room, nobody complains, so why not? Many have claimed that this law make our state look foolish. I see this as an opportunity to demonstrate to the rest of the nation how petty those people are, who start the rumors that hurt our tourism industry. It's not hard to get a drink in Utah. Most objections to Utah liquor law come down to a perceived imposition into the transaction between a customer and his bartender, by some interloping busybody, that does nothing that actually impedes the sale.

If you don't follow any other link in this blog entry, please at least follow this one, and read the comments attached:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/51892847-90/party-ridgway-charges-republican.html.csp. Read Rick Votaw's own words about Mike Ridgway, then make your own mind up about this man.

Mike Ridgway is not an associate of mine. He wouldn't even recognize my name. I've just found the material he has placed on his numerous blogspot and youtube pages interesting.

http://www.mikeridgway.com/home.html
http://www.utgop.net/index.html
http://stalkingbramble.blogspot.com
http://mike-ridgway.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/miketangoromeo
http://www.youtube.com/user/mikeridgwayutah
http://www.youtube.com/user/stalkingMikeRidgway

I'm not very interested in Twitter, but I understand he's active there too.

As you can see in this video (link), Mike is articulate and informed. His views and values are clearly Republican.

Rick Votaw argues Mike has disrupted party meetings and frightened people. Mike is not a large man that could intimidate with his physical stature. All the instances I am aware of, I have never heard of Mike placing his hands on anyone, even in response to those who have placed their hands on him.

Is Mike Ridgway a conservative who thinks the Republican Party is too far to the center? A moderate who thinks it is too far to the right? Where does he stand on the Tea Party Movement?

At present, I really can't answer those questions. Mike has a lot to say on the internet about Utah Republican politics, however he spends very little time dealing with the issues where the right and the center of the party disagree. His focus is on exposing what he considers to be a local political party rife with corruption, an 'ol boy network that gives all power to elected incumbents and a small group of insiders, while shutting out the grass roots from any meaningful influence.

As best as I can tell, the cause for the persona non grata status, and complaints to police that he has gone to a political meeting where he is not permitted to be, stems from his opposition to the 2006 campaign of one Mark E. Towner, for the for the Utah State Senate, and the resulting acrimony between him and Mr. and Mrs. Towner.

A google search shows that Mark E. Towner, (blog) has been the subject of some criticism, unrelated to Mike Ridgway.

The following legal document explains the dispute:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1474657.html

All it takes to get a broad sweeping restraining order under current Utah law is for someone to attest, in a hearing the accused is not entitled to attend, that his actions caused fear of bodily injury or emotional distress, on more than one occasion. Good to know.

Could the real reason Mike Ridgway is stopped at the door, whenever he attempts to enter a Republican meeting, have nothing to do with preventing violence, or an incident where a speaker cannot present his message due to heckling, (or any other legitimate concern)? Is the true basis for the claims that he is disruptive the fact that he spreads information outside of authorized channels, with unapproved handbills, and discretely making recordings that will be placed on the 'net?

My 9-11 reaction, just after it happened

2011-09-11T15:50:00.000-07:00

A plea to our state and federal legislators: Whether the September 11 terrorists have succeeded or not depends on what you do in the aftermath.

17 September 2001

I think all of us in this country have been asked by friends about our feelings regarding the attack our society suffered on September 11, 2001. I write this one week after the tragedy occurred.

In response to these chilling acts of sheer evil, it has been heartwarming to me to see the outpouring of charity and patriotism from so many in our nation. Seeing the entire group of people who had just fled the Pentagon turn back in response to the call to aid their comrades still inside made me proud to be an American. We will never know the exact details of what transpired aboard the fourth aircraft just before it went down, but what we do know tells us that some of the greatest heros in our nation's history perished before or as the plane fell upon a piece of uninhabited land in Pennsylvania.

However I fear there will be another reaction to the carnage. I expect that already our elected officials are hearing from many of their constituents with the cry, "No measures should be considered too extreme in ensuring that nothing like this could ever possibly happen again."

Don't misunderstand me, this horrific incident provides lessons that we must learn from and act upon. Beforehand we didn't consider the personal grooming items of airline passengers to pose a threat. We now know differently. More restrictions on what may be carried onto an airplane, and closer inspection of these items, are necessary and appropriate.

We have also seen other changes at our airports. One of them is that only ticketed passengers are now allowed past security to the terminals. I see no indication that this restriction is temporary. Being as the hijackers all appear to have had their own valid tickets, I fail to see how this particular security measure would have impeded them, and therefore I fail to see why it is needed.

We have been shown some specific weaknesses that we have had. The fact that four planes could be simultaneously commandeered shows that the security inadequacies extend throughout our entire commercial air travel system. We must deal with this, but we must not take this as an indication that our entire pattern of living needs increased security. If we do, then we grant the terrorists their victory, for societal security is only improved at the cost of personal liberty. We must not let them succeed in curbing our freedoms and impacting each of our daily lives.

Some have said that our lives will never be the same. If we take this as the truth, then our enemies have accomplished at least a portion of their evil objectives.

It is not necessary and it is not appropriate to plot out every possible scenario of terrorist attack, and to implement solutions to the countless myriad of theoretical threats.

It cannot be denied that we have a lot more laws today than we did twenty years ago. Many things are now illegal which were not prohibited in the very recent past. Enforcement has been stepped up dramatically, and enforcement techniques are becoming more and more aggressive. Is this just a reasonable response to society being less safe than it was twenty years ago? As a freedom loving American, I am compelled to respond with a loud, Hell no! In the last two decades I have come to fear excesses in my government much more than I fear criminals and terrorists.

We know those, within our country, who have already been misguidedly advocating more restrictions on the people, will use this tragedy to lobby for causes completely unrelated to air piracy. They have been payed much more heed than I am comfortable with in the past, and sadly, I know that this will only renew their vigor to bring about a society that is more secure in general.

Now we wait. It is in the hands of our representatives, at all levels of government. Will they deal with the specifics of this attack, or will they pursue a broader public safety agenda? When we see what new laws will be passed in response to this, then we will know the extent of the damage done by the terrorists to their ultimate target, our freedoms, western culture, and the American way of life.

The point of the "...and I'm a Mormon" ad campaign.

2011-06-06T18:48:00.000-07:00

Notes I was reading from:

There are three statements I see repeatedly from people leaving comments on these "...And I'm a Mormon" videos, that I'd like to expound upon:

- What's the point?

- Your career success is your accomplishment, your religion has nothing to do with it.

- Is this a stealth campaign for Mitt Romney?

===

The point of these ads is straightforward, there's no hidden motive, there's a lot of unreasonable prejudice against us, and prejudice is always defeated when you get to know the people you've been prejudiced against, and see that they're just regular folks, not all that different from yourself.

I joined the Mormon Church when I was 19-years-old, and here's a rude little introduction I got to what I was in store for.

Around that time a friend stopped by, someone I was attracted to, who was actively dating guys within our circle of friends, but the two of us never got together. She had a couple of her friends with her. While we were making introductions, she blurts out, "He's a Mormon", and I saw their reaction to me change.

I called her aside and told her, "You bring girls over to meet a guy, then you torpedo any chance I had with them...thanks a lot".

A lot of people seem to have the idea that the way Mormons live, and the way Mormons think, is somehow significantly different.

Growing up, about the only thing I "knew", and I put "knew" in quotations, about Mormons, was that they were a restrictive religion, that has a lot of rules imposed on them.

I decided to Join when someone explained what Mormonism was really all about. Miracles in modern times, and the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ, because by 1830 old Christianity was broken beyond repair and a new start was needed. In my searches I found that all the other churches have is the Bible, and their differing understandings of it, I was excited to find the one church that had something more than that.

I didn't have missionaries hounding me, in fact my first several requests for them to visit me went nowhere.

As a convert, I know the differences between life as a Mormon, and life as a non-Mormon. Is it really that restrictive? Let's see...what do I do without, that I would otherwise have...what do a not go out and do for fun, that I would otherwise do?

We'll start out with the, quote, "restriction", that Mormons are the most famous for. Before I joined I picked up a taste for beer, and there have been some brief times since joining the church when I have gone back to drinking it. I couldn't tell you the difference between a pilsner and a lager, and I don't really care.

Wine, I don't really get the point of. The same goes for any sipping beverage, hot or cold. Give me something I can gulp so I can get the food down. Bars are not comfortable places for me, even if I hadn't found the church I don't see that I'd be spending much time there. Shots or mixed drinks, I have no use for them, whatsoever.

The prevailing view among Mormons is that it is morally wrong to drink, period. My perspective differs, slightly. In my view, there's no basis in the New Testament for the Old Testament concept of becoming "unclean" through sin continuing into the new covenant.

Jesus said (Matt. 15:11,16-20; Mark 7:14-23)... It's not what goes into the mouth that defiles us, it's the words that come out of it.

When I look at all the damage alcohol does in this society, I think that avoiding it altogether is the wisest counsel. Moderation is a concept subject to interpretation, and not getting a taste for alcohol in the first place you're not going to have a problem of use escalating to excess.

Recent wedding reception... the bride was someone I knew, raised in the church...disrespectful of her family members. I can relate to enjoying a beer, but I don't get those who think that not having alcohol at a social gathering somehow diminishes their enjoyment.

The sabbath day, the fourth of the ten commandments, is something that we take seriously. It is against our religion to work, shop, play sports, or go out to a paid meal in a restaurant on our Sabbath. (Since we're not fundamentalists, we don't insist that the Sabbath must be on Saturday). If you invote me to a Barbecue on Sunday, I'll politely decline, so let's have it on Saturday.

Oh, and the so-called "magic underwear". Instead of putting a symbol on a chain around my neck, I have three symbols sewn on my undershirt, and one over my knee. Why anyone would find any kind of prurient curiosity in this, I don't know. When I began wearing them, I was told that they would be a shield and a protection as long as I am worthy. This does not say that they're going to save me from internal injuries in an auto crash, or from having my flesh burned in a fire. I see them much like like a "wwjd" bracelet, a constant reminder of my faith and the need to strive for a higher standard of conduct because of it.

That's it. We do the same jobs (except for being a bartender), play the same sports, enjoy the same hobbies as everybody else. Some difference.

The things that my faith takes away from me are pretty minimal, now let's look at everything it gives me.

Most important is all the divine truth it has brought to my awareness, enabling me to form a deeply personally fulfilling world view that is both magical and reasonable. I'll post a link for my blog entry, "Why I believe, not your typical Mormon testimony". (Link)

It's given me a community. Mormonism is not just you go for a Sunday sermon and a weekday night Bible study, it's a very well put together social and practical support system. Through a coordinated effort, my Utah neighborhood averted flooding in 1983, and this Winter's snowpack poses a very real threat of those conditions reoccurring this year. My wife is recovering from a major surgery. Soon my employer plans to send me out of state for a project. The ladies at church have been eager to offer their help.

This church offers me many ways to help those in need.

Mormonism is what you make of it, and I have made something positive of it.

===

I am a success because of my religion.

At 19, I was a mess, completely unprepared by the California public school system to function as a self-sustaining and productive adult member of society. If you had the determination, they had the advanced classes, otherwise, there were no plans or programs in place to inspire the unmotivated, they just push you through, until they push you out the door. Need I say anything about what happened after graduation, when I enrolled in the local community college?

Some friends at church suggested full-time missionary service as a means to get my head on straight and my life in order. After being a member for just a year and a half, I got my call from the church to serve in England.

When I returned, I re-enrolled, and this time was productive.

===

This has run on long enough, so on the matter of Mitt Romney I'll be brief. The church does not endorse political candidates, and although Romney highly regarded in the Mormon community, there are a lot of us who don't want him, or the other Mormon planning to run, Jon Huntsman, Jr., in the Oval Office. My objections to Romney are detailed in a previous blog entry, (Link), and as the campaign progresses, I'll be adding remarks about Huntsman if I see him making any significant gains.

Mormon Fundamentalist Theology, And Why I Cannot Abide By It

2011-03-09T14:02:00.000-08:00

Previously I have explained some of my experiences looking for a home for myself in Mormon Fundamentalism (link), and where I now stand on the general topic of religious fundamentalism (link).

Today I have chosen to go beyond the generalities of what I have previously written, into specifics on the most prominent beliefs unique to Mormon Fundamentalism, and why I can no longer hold to them.

Alternative Succession Theories

In the early 90's I first learned of Lorin Woolley's claims about what is now commonly referred to as "The Eight Hour Meeting". At that time I thought I had discovered something as significant as what had originally attracted me to Mormonism in the first place, The First Vision of Joseph Smith.

The flowchart on the website run by Brian C. Hales, MD, (link) uses the title, "Alleged 1886 ordinations", to refer to The Eight Hour Meeting. The chart demonstrates quite effectively how central the meeting is to the authority claims of the vast majority of those involved in this movement.

Hales is a biased source, a mainstream Mormon with the intent of picking apart Mormon Fundamentalism, in much the same way outside critics attempt to undermine his (and my) church. Tactics which Mormons usually denounce with the valid question, "Is there so little to extol in your own beliefs that you have to resort to attacking ours?"

Dubious methods notwithstanding, I believe his material to be reliable, though a few more groups could have been listed in the chart. I would add United Order Publications/School of the Prophets (Robert Crossfield, pseudonym "Prophet Onias"), Winston Blackmore and those who left the Canadian branch of the FLDS with him, and the various groups John W. Bryant, Davied Israel, and Hava Pratt have started. Mike Rigby (Modern Automated Publishers) the book he promotes, "Sacred Scriptures", and the study groups he has led, might also have been worthy of mention.

Before I relocated to Utah, at a Sunstone Symposium West, I met author Samuel W. Taylor, (link), son of the apostle excommunicated in 1911 over the polygamy issue, and grandson of the LDS Church president who authored the 1886 revelation, and (allegedly) conducted the meeting. I highly recommend Sam Taylor's works, "Family Kingdom", "The Kingdom or Nothing", "Nightfall at Nauvoo", and "Rocky Mountain Empire". He believed that the Eight Hour Meeting actually took place, but mentioned "The Polygamy Story, Fiction and Fact" by J. Max Anderson, when I discussed the matter with him.

Anderson is associated with Brian C. Hales, and much of the content on Hales' website, and in books the two later co-authored, appear to be an extent ion of this earlier work. I obtained a copy of The Polygamy Story and found it made a convincing case against Lorin Woolley's claims. Were it not for this, I very well could have joined the Apostolic United Brethren. I certainly would have given this possibility much more serious consideration once I had moved.

With this house of cards collapsed and removed from the table, only a few theories remain as to the true successor of Joseph Smith, Jr.

The claims of the Lebaron Family, with their hereditary propensity for mental illness, do not impress me. Though I did take some amusement during the years when I worked a few blocks from the intersection where Ben had gone out in the middle of traffic, and did push-ups to prove he was the One Mighty and Strong. Personally, if I thought I was the OM&S, I think I'd try walking on the water in the fountain outside the Church Office Building (kidding, kidding).

Jim Harmston declared a revelation that time to proselytize had ended. With his source of converts cut off, and the high number of defections, the collapse of his church in eminent.

Chris Nemelka? Don't make me laugh.

Outside of Brighamite Mormonism, we have 167 years advantage over those in the succession crisis to see just how the other contenders had performed.

My conclusion: Thomas S. Monson, through Brigham Young, is Brother Joseph's legitimate successor. Not really by the strength of his own position, he has never translated an ancient language by the gift and power of God, declared any previously unrevealed doctrines to the church, or added the verbatim text of any, "Thus saith the Lord", revelations to the Doctrine and Covenants, but rather by the weakness of all other possibilities.

The One Mighty and Strong and The Setting In Order

And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God.
-Doctrine and Covenants 85:7

This person will go through the land, assigning parcels of property...and he will set the entire world right. Huh? Does it make any textual sense to you to have to have these two events, of very different importance, put together into one passage?

One of the more significant faults I see in the reasoning of many Christians (Evangelicals in particular) is their eagerness to take a single excerpt from the Bible, and build an entire theology around it. Fanciful interpretations of the above cited quote outdo any of the Evangelicals imaginative fabrications, such as cars suddenly careening down the freeway unoccupied, by a long stretch.

Book of Isaiah scholar Avraham Gileadi has said nothing in public about his 1993 excommunication from the mainstream LDS Church. He has since been reinstated. That leaves me to speculate that this believing member of the church received such a harsh sanction not because of any deliberate disloyalty on his part, but rather because his writings found an eager audience in the fringes of the faith. In Isaiah, Gileadi finds prophesy of a figure in the latter days destined to a great work. He calls this man The Davidic King aka. Davidic Servant. Believers in the One Mighty and Strong have latched onto this as validation. The problem is that Gileadi believes that the prophesies can and do have multiple meanings, that they foretell several different things happening, at several different points in history. He takes prooftexts pertaining to Christ, and reads into them a second individual, who will prepare the way for the Second Coming. I don't think so.

The only half-way convincing argument I have found that another great prophet is foretold in prophesy is that Joseph Smith did not accomplish the deeds that the "Choice Seer" of II Nephi 3 was supposed to, therefore this must apply to a later prophet, who will bring forth the Sealed Portion. Believe me, I'm one of those Mormons who long to see another Joseph Smith, liberally proclaiming new truths to the elect who will receive them with joy...and I fear that the current leadership want to exclusively advance pragmatists and businessmen, no dreamers or visionaries, within their ranks. Can he come from outside the church? Doctrine and Covenants 42:11, a favorite for Elder Packer to cite at General Conference (link), would argue not.

Does the LDS Church even need to be set in order?

The very reason that Mormon Fundamentalists are considered fundamentalists (link) is that they believe they are holding to old truths, divinely revealed, that everyone else has forsaken. They (like all alternative succession theory proponents in the Restoration) believe that this work started out perfect, under God's continual guidance to keep out any error, but the mainstream somehow lost their way at some point in time.

My study of history leads me to regard this as a faulty premise. Mormonism, from it's very beginning, has been a collection of ideas, some of them reasonable and profound, some not. Mormon leaders have gotten enough wrong that I cannot accept the notion that the church has ever been under constant heavenly direction. They've gotten enough right that I plan to keep my book collection, church membership, and belief in a God that has, from time to time, communicated with us. Line upon line, precept on precept.

Joseph Smith is the Holy Ghost

"The Holy Ghost is now in a state of probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has."
-The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 245; Sabbath address, Nauvoo, 27 August 1843. Reported by Franklin D. Richards.

"You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself."
-From The King Follet Discourse

"Would to God, brethren, I could tell you who I am! Would to God I could tell you what I know! But you would call it blasphemy, and there are men upon this stand who would want to take my life"
-cited in Life of Heber C. Kimball, by Orson F. Whitney, pg. 322.

The prevalent view among Mormon Fundamentalists that the time had come for the Holy Ghost to take a physical body, to live out a mortal life as we all must do as an essential step in our eternal progression, and that Joseph Smith was this incarnation, using the above cited (highly cryptic and ambiguous) quotes from Joseph Smith as the basis, is one more example of taking an original source, and building upon it with assumptions.

Continuing Revelation

This is the one thing both mainstream Mormons and Mormon Fundamentalists agree upon, that Joseph Smith's successor, and his, and his, from here on out, would be prophets.

It's a common perception that Mormon Fundamentalists are doing the best job, of all sects in the restoration, of carrying on original Mormonism. Dead wrong! They may be carrying on certain aspects of it, but if you are looking for an organization that lives Mormonism, just like the Mormons in 1844 lived it, (and I have looked!), you will not find it.

The fact of the matter is that all restoration churches have taken the teachings of Joseph Smith and added to them, regarding themselves as being led by a prophet, with the full authority to pick up where he left off. Though it should be noted that Brigham Young made statements that indicate that he did not immediately consider himself as such right after assuming the presidency.

One glaring example is the bizarre hairstyles, clothing, and ideas of the FLDS, like red is prohibited (it's Jesus' color and only he can wear it), or that non-FLDS entering an FLDS house defiles the building (Joseph Smith ran a boarding house). These are very recent introductions of Warren Jeffs. If you look at the pictures of the 1953 raid, you won't find any of it.

Adam-God

To the critic, Adam-God is a simple matter: Brigham Young taught palpable nonsense.

I give him more credit than that. No simple minded fool could have accomplished the things he did.

Adam-God is incomprehensible to me. I do not see how Adam and God could possibly be one and the same, how he could have returned to the garden to confront himself about partaking of the forbidden fruit. For that matter, I don't even believe that Adam and Eve literally existed. Most of what purports to be literal history in the Bible is literal history, though the books of Genesis, Job, and Jonah are most certainly mythology. And yes, I'm well aware of the difficulties this presents in reconciling this view within a religious tradition which puts a greater emphasis on the role of Adam than perhaps any other. That's a blog entry all it's own, or possibly even a series of them.

What I do know is that Adam being our Father and our God, the only God with whom we have to do, made sense to a highly intelligent man, a man more successful and inspired than I. I just lack the insights required to understand exactly why it made sense to him.

Multiple Mortal Probations and Veganism

Unlike the rest of the rest of the topics I am covering in this entry, these two are not universally accepted by all Mormon fundamentalists. They have, however, become popular with some, in recent years.

Joseph Smith's journal, 9 November 1835, (HC vol. II, pgs 304-307), records an encounter with a man calling himself "Joshua the Jewish Minister". Wikipedia lists him as "Robert_Matthews_(con_artist)" (link). Joseph regarded this man with suspicion, and concludes by dismissing him, remarking how he, for once, cast out the devil in bodily shape, and I believe a murderer. In their conversations, Joseph declared that this man's belief in this transmigration of soul or spirit from father to son was a doctrine of the devil.

A Sunstone presentation I attended a few years back, did argue that near the end of his life, Bro. Joseph contemplated the idea, and that this seemed to have led Eliza R. Snow to believe in it.

I have to ask, what would be the purpose? Reincarnation is absolutely inconsistent with my understanding of the plan of salvation. To come back, over and over, until you finally get it right? You will never get it right. The entire object of this mortal sojourn is to trust in Jesus as your Savior, and thereby obtain pardon, because fallen man is incapable of attaining heaven on his own good merits. Additional lives would only compound the problem with additional sins.

The Apostle Paul was concerned that contention over abstinence from meat would divide the church (Romans 14:1-3), though he did identify this as something those who have fallen away, in the latter times, would embrace (I Timothy 4:1-4). Peter was ordered by the Lord, in the Book of Acts, chapters 10 and 11, not to refuse the flesh of even those animals the old law forbade.

In proclaiming the unique sanctity of human life, The Christian Faith promotes the interests of humanity. No where in scripture does it say that any life, other than human life, is precious unto God.

Some contend that sensitivity for animal live fosters sensitivity for all life. When I look at the values system that today's vegans operate under, I see animals and the environment taking priority over the well being and standard of living of humans. When they do express care about people, it's in misguided ways. They are eager to buy into alarmist theories about human activity diminishing the habitability of the planet, and they place the "choice" of a mother over the life of the baby.

Plural Marriage

Yes, I've finally gotten to it. I have deliberately placed this last because that is where it fell in my priorities when I considered myself a believer in Mormon Fundamentalism, and a part of that movement.

The one thing I never wanted, nor ever felt called of God to do, was to father a large brood, far in excess of what one wife could carry. My stance is now that Joseph Smith's polygamy, which included polyandry anathema to the later official polygamous doctrine of the church, pushed good leaders out and into public opposition, caused the prophet to defensively impugn the reputations of several women who rejected his advances, set in motion events that led to the martyrdom, and hinders evangelism to this day, never produced any offspring, or in any other way accomplished anything positive.

I forgive Brother Joseph. I cannot cast a stone, because in his position, I would be sorely tempted. Testosterone is the most destructive mind altering substance known to man, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I think better of the motives of those who have developed the doctrine and carried it on. I know them and can attest that they are devoutly religious and sincerely believe that this was established by divine revelation. If multiple sex partners is your real objective, there are much easier means.

It has been claimed that simple logistics compel the expulsion of young men, and intense competition for females just entering the age where they are able to bear children, in a polygamous society. If a group only accepts as members those born into the group, this has some merit. Those groups open to converts are another matter. Attend any church, especially a congregation created specifically for singles above the age of 30, and a fact is apparent, women are much more religiously inclined then men. Humanity's 51/49% female/male split is only reflected with children of the age where they are brought by the parents choice. No advocate of polygamist doctrine has ever said that it is for everyone, they see it as only for a small segment, the most religious of people.

Anti-polygamy activists will not tell you just what percentage claim government welfare or are involved in underaged marriage. I cannot counter them with any empirical statistics, what I do have to offer is my own eyewitness observations that the real numbers would dispel the prevalent notion that these are problems inherent to the system of polygamy.

I understand a second season of the TLC Channel series Sister Wives is due to air soon, and will focus on the criminal investigation prompted by some people who saw the first season, searched to discover the city they lived in, and called the police department. Good. America should be informed, and should be shocked to learn, that these activists are people who don't just want statutes kept on the books as a symbolic statement of the greater society's moral views, but who actually think that an adult having sexual relationships with multiple willing and knowing adults should be an enforceable offense in 2011, so that any and all polygamists can be brought before the courts. This is the tenuous basis of their shrieks, in the comments of youtube videos and newspaper stories, that "Polygamy is a crime".

So Just What Was It That Once Drew Me To This Religious Movement?

Whenever a dissatisfied Mormon looks into becoming a part of Mormon Fundamentalism, the motivation is always the same: we see things in early Mormonism that we desperately want to cling to, but can't find in the mainstream church today.

What I was longing for, though I was cautious about it then, and have completely dismissed it now as an unrealistic desire of youthful idealism, was something many in the generation half-way between mine and my parents dreamed of. Some actually worked for it, though these efforts had generally failed and been abandoned by the time I became old enough to join in.

I've never shared the radical left-wing politics of the 1960's (when do we radical right-wingers get our 1960's?), but I strongly relate to disillusionment with mainstream society, and the desire to build some better alternative. To separate from the establishment and join others working together for our mutual benefit, holding all material possessions in common. To be given a house, in exchange for getting together with all the men to build new houses when they are needed, rather than paying a mortgage for 30 years. To see my labor go to the direct benefit of all in my close-knit (in my preference-religious separatist) community, rather than watch the bulk of my gross pay go to taxes and loan interest.

The early Mormons shared this vision, though the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not offered anything like this for a very long time.

Jobs in in Salt Lake City, working with technology, make for a considerably easier life than trying to farm the rough desert terrain that guys like Talmadge Weis and his Immanuel Foundation and Fraternity of Preparation once settled on. Knowing about the novel legal theories they attempted to operate on, in pro se filings in relation to their property taxes, further contributed to my reasons not to seriously investigate the possibility of joining them.

I was not going to place myself into the position other idealists before me had, giving all my money and possessions to the commune, entitled to get nothing back were I to decide to leave, unless I was absolutely sure that I and mine would be safe, and that their doctrines were sound. A wide variety of people have been burned by a wide variety of communal efforts.

Some company out of Las Vegas, Ranger Enterprises, obtained title to the fraternity's land for $15k in back taxes. The fraternity responded by filing appeals (continuing the same ineffectual legal reasoning). While the appeals were in progress, they planned to keep at least one person on the property, to keep Ranger from taking control, demolishing their buildings, and putting the land to their own use.

This place was truly out in the middle of nowhere. The small town of Milford, Ut., 30 miles away, was the closest sign of civilization. It must have been a terrifying experience when those holding the fort, following Weis' no-gun policy, were attacked by thugs employed by Ranger Enterprises.

Tony Alexander Hamilton was an experienced military veteran, and he disregarded that policy. One night the Sheriff's Department arrived to remove him. When he attempted to speed away in his truck, they opened fire, using the possibility that he might have been going to get weapons as their justification. When Tony had stopped a dog handler released his animal. Tony's well placed shot ended the threat of this vicious beast tearing into his flesh...and created a much worse threat. "G- d- it Tony, you killed my dog, now I'm going to kill you". Bam! Another well place shot ripped into the leg of the angry man intent on murder. Tony had neutralized him without having to take his life. A clear cut case of self-defense, though in this corrupt society, a citizen who shoots a rogue cop cannot expect anything other than the rest of life in prison, under any circumstance. At least he is still alive.

Which brings me today, happy with Joseph Smith and the great heritage I was adopted into when I converted, seeing nothing better in either secular or religious life than the mainstream LDS Church, and proceeding in my spiritual and temporal affairs accordingly.

Response to TheWoodsofJordan - Leaving Mormonism

2011-01-03T14:27:00.000-08:00

Jordan is a young man I can somewhat relate to. A religious seeker very much like myself. His explorations have received a considerable amount of attention on Youtube. I think he's made a hasty decision recently, and this is my case as to why he should reconsider.

Part 1

Part 2

Notes I used to make these two videos:

Jordan, I'm Gary.

I'm a Mormon who frankly admits that Joseph Smith taught some things that don't stand up to scrutiny. I don't think that it is necessary to agree with absolutely everything a religious teacher ever had to say in order to find value in his teachings.

First of all, let me say that this all or nothing, the church is true or it is not, either everything is 100% true or it is 100% worthless, is not reasonable. The missionaries and the members may have been of such a mindset, but I'm telling you right now, throw that nonsense away. Mormonism, like every other philosophy, is a collection of ideas. Ideas should be taken one at a time, considered each on it's own individual merits.

I think you're being hasty in throwing throwing away a tremendous source of truth, and the resources that really helped me as a 19-year-old, when I converted. At that time, psychologically, I was a mess, completely unprepared by the California public school system to succeed in college, and function as a self-sufficient, productive adult in society. Through the church and it's unique programs, especially in my case the missionary program, I found helpful people who enabled me with the tools to take the pieces and put together the foundation for a great adult life.

The Bible says that if a prophet proclaims a false prophesy, you should not be afraid of him. Evangelical Fundies may WISH it said that if he issues a false prophesy, he never was a prophet in the first place, and that none of his previous pronouncements have any validity, but that simply is not what it says.

Sometimes the material we have from Joseph was on par with what we would expect from someone of his educational level and frontier surroundings, sometimes downright silly, other times we have things that were extremely profound. And Therein lies the proof. A man who exhibits knowledge and wisdom far beyond what he (and all those he associates with) are normally and naturally capable of is obviously getting this advanced information from an external source.

He taught that death was not the final opportunity to accept Christ, that there will be preaching in the afterlife while we await the day of resurrection, and the opportunity to accept, answering the hopeless dilemma of how a just God could deny heaven to people for not accepting a Savior that they never had the opportunity to learn about. The entirety of Christendom, and not just Evangelicals who think that their faction of Christianity are the only real Christians, but all the sects who accept Jesus of Nazareth as the promised messiah, seems to be in unison in the belief that death is the final opportunity to accept Jesus. Yet this one young frontiersman steps forward and challenges them all, in this unfair standard, that unjustly condemns so many souls, and is not supported anywhere in the Bible.

Then there's the Book of Mormon, intelligent educated people to this day find it's teachings deeply meaningful. In the day, it was dismissed as a stolen manuscript of an incomplete novel written by a deceased preacher. The real manuscript has been discovered, and only superficial similarities, a few still cling to this, trying to put forth a speculation that there was a second Spaulding manuscript, though the critics have mostly moved to another book, View of the Hebrews, but I've read it, again found only superficial similarities, and major differences. It's about a completely different tribe of Israel coming across the ocean for an entirely different set of reasons. A plausible naturalistic explanation to the origin of the Book of Mormon has simply not been given, though many have tried. The fact remains that producing this book was beyond the capabilities of Joseph and his associates, unless they had otherworldly help. It leads people to Christ, and that answers the question of whether negative supernatural forces could have been behind it.

Some people, who don't actually know any Mormons, or at least don't know any very well, may think that Ed Decker's cartoon, that get's so many views here on YT, and the rest of the defamatory material being passed around by those with an agenda against the church, represents what real Mormons believe, and therefore Mormons must, one and all, be psychotic, completely detached from reality, in order to believe such obviously absurd things. But c'mon Jordan, you've actually gotten to know us, you know that the church is full of thoughtful and reasonable people.

It sounds like one of our missionaries has done you a great disservice by discussing his personal speculation about multiple gods in existence. As if we don't have enough problems with our detractors taking the Lorenzo Snow couplet, "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become", drawing their own absurd inferences, and proclaiming that their own absurd inferences are what Mormons believe. Forget this nonsense about space gods having endless celestial sex in order to populate new planets. It's all a load of speculative, unauthoritative crap. Real Mormon doctrine teaches that this earth, after it has been made perfect, will be the location of the Celestial Kingdom.

[pt. 2]

In your explanation of your reasons for renouncing Mormonism, you cite and challenge Joseph Smith's description of the nature of God as being unbiblical, advocating the traditional trinitarian position. The third and final point I will make, supporting the strength and value of Joseph Smith as Christian theologian, who introduced bold new ideas that deserve much more thoughtful consideration than they have received (outside his own church), is for the clarified information about God that he gave us, information that is not in conflict with what we already have from the Bible.

Jesus cannot be his own father, the idea that trinitarians are trying to convey when they proclaim that, "Jesus is God", is false. In Matthew 4, Jesus is tempted by the devil. Tempted into what? Rebellion against himself? Jesus rejected glory for himself, directing all glory to the Father. He constantly emphasized his subordinate role to the Father. How could he be subordinate to himself? In the Great Intercessory Prayer of John 17, Jesus prays that all his disciples, and later in the prayer all the world, may be one, as he and his father are one.

Earlier in the Book of John, Jesus proclaimed, "Before Abraham was, I am". In Exodus 3, The God that Moses interacted with proclaimed, "I am that I am".

So let's look at this God of the Old Testament.

In the poetry of Psalms, God is once described as having wings and feathers. Prominent anti-Mormon author and traveling speaker Walter Martin was fond of using this verse, in isolation, to ridicule us, saying that our God is a chicken. But let's go back from this literary portion of the Old Testament, back to the historical accounts of Book of Exodus, to Moses and his God, in chapter 33. Can you seriously tell me that there is some alternative explanation, other than that this chapter detailing a literal encounter with a God, who is a corporeal being?

This God traveled in front of the Isrealites, and and periodically came to visit their portable tabernacle, covered in a cloud of smoke by day, and in fire by night. We find this description over and over. Does this sound like the formless spirit-god of sectarian Christianity, whose being occupies the entire universe?

Now if you believe that God the Father was the being that Moses and the Israelites interacted with as their God, then there's your proof that the Old testament God has a physical body. But here's where things get a little more complicated.

Ironically, one of the favorite proof texts used by trinitarian advocates of strict monotheism is actually their own undoing.

[Isaiah 43:10-11] A God that was "formed" (created), a time before this God was "formed" (created), the Savior.

Did Moses see the Father? Not according to John 1:18 and 6:46.

To further demonstrate that Jesus was the firstborn of all God's created beings I refer you to Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14.

Now let's look at a few other proof texts used against the Mormons.

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth". Now that sounds pretty clear. Since this idea is Biblical, it must be found all over the Bible, supported by the preponderance of scripture, right?

The closest thing is Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent". Why do men lie, and need to repent? Because we are corporeal beings?

Evangelicals have a great propensity for taking a single passage, and building an entire theology around it. Just look at all these tales of unoccupied cars, and other fanciful notions about "the rapture".

Wrapping this up, you express that you have grown weary from organized religion. Fair enough. I myself have gone back and forth as to whether to consider myself a loyal supporter of the LDS Church, or an independent, unaffiliated Christian who finds value in the teachings of Joseph Smith. At the present I find that there is benefit in active membership. The crucial thing is accepting Jesus of Nazareth as the foretold messiah, your personal savior. Anyone who thinks Mormons teach that we can work our way to heaven on our own merits is mistaken. We believe that we have all come short, that obtaining a pardon for our sins through the attoning sacrifice of Christ as our only hope. The difference between us and other Christians in the fine details of what puts grace into effect.

Many Mormons don't understand why it is claimed that that we are not Christians. They'll say "We teach Christ, of course we are Christians". Since they are not aware of the notion we supposedly have a "different Jesus", they can't offer a persuasive argument against it. The idea that Mormons have a different Jesus is ridiculous. If I were to look at you and declare, "Behold Jordan, a formless spirit and not a corporeal being", would you look behind you? All that is proven by all the irreconcilable differences is that once side, or the other, has some very mistaken notions about Jesus, it does not prove that one (or the other) is trusting in some different, fictional, imaginary Jesus hat has no power to save, because he doesn't exist. That is why we Mormons challenge the teachings and authority of other churches, but we do not question the Christianity of the people in those churches.

Eternal salvation is dependent on trusting in Christ. Accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet is not as absolutely crucial, but I think that those who reject him are throwing away a lot of blessings that have enlightened my mind and have enriched my life and my relationship with God. If Joseph Smith was indeed acting on behalf of Jesus Christ, then there is some danger that rejecting his works are a rejection of the works of Christ, constituting a rejection of Christ, at least in part.

If you can't bring yourself to believe that Joseph Smith was a proven true prophet, then why not at least keep an open mind? You expressed an intention to seek formal cancellation of your baptism and church membership. I have to ask what would this accomplish? I was christened in a Presbyterian Church as a small child, and I have no problem with that. At the very least, I figure I've got both bases covered. Keep in mind that LDS leaders consider renunciation an act of wrongdoing, and if you ever do reconsider, they will expect a lot more in penance than simply being told that you want back in.

I find there to be unnecessary authoritarian rhetoric in the church, but as long as I'm free to leave at any time, then I'm not going to get worked up about it. If that's more than you can abide, then you can still study Joseph Smith's teachings, and accept those things that make sense into your own belief system, without accepting everything, calling him a prophet, or without being an active participant in church meetings.

A call for theist solidarity

2010-09-28T05:21:00.000-07:00

There was a time when people of faith could afford to engage in bickering among ourselves.

Back in the 1980’s, the only significant opposition my church faced was from Evangelicals. In the comparative religions section of their bookstores, the number of books and pamphlets challenging Mormonism typically was greater than those against all other religions, combined, including Islam. Walter Martin, Ed Decker, Dick Baer, Jim McKeever, James R. Spencer, and others toured the country, lecturing in churches on our supposed errors. Decker’s film, The God Makers, received extensive play in these churches, though you’ve probably never heard of The God Makers II. By the time it came out, many had become concerned over some of the claims Decker and his associate Bill Schnoebelen were making, and began distancing themselves.

As a brash young return missionary with a 80286 based DOS computer, with a whopping 40 MB hard drive and a 2400 baud modem, I took to the fidonet-linked dial up BBS’s with vigor, eager to take on any and all who would accept my challenge.

With several decades of life experience, you’ll find my online persona to be significantly more tactful these days, though I retain much of that earlier passion for online intellectual sparring. I no longer seek to engage those from rival factions of Christianity, however, since a more pressing cause has emerged.

It was once said that organizing atheists is like herding cats, but the advent of the internet has proven that old adage false. These people, though there is much they don't see eye-to-eye on, have united to change western society, and they have made their influence for secularism felt.

If you doubt the impact they are having, just look at how the general public now reacts to the buzz phrase "The Religious Right". Many, who are not among the ranks of those adamantly opposed to religion, have been persuaded that a movement to maintain or regain the historic Christian influence in American society is actually some kind of a subversive plot, covertly seeking to replace our form of government with a despotic theocracy. People who would like to take this country back to the United States of the 1950’s, minus the cold war and Jim Crow laws, are suspiciously viewed as scheming to take us back to the inquisition.

We can spend our time nitpicking each other's theology. We can argue that the next guy’s approach to evangelism is offending the majority of his target audience, and hurting the cause. We can trade accusations that unless you change your beliefs, or change your ways, God is not going to let you into heaven. Though the fact is, that matter is up to God. My opinion of your salvation, and yours of mine, have no bearing on who will actually be saved, and a point can be made that placing yourself into the judgment seat of Christ is the sin of idolatry.

Meanwhile, anti-religions sentiments are growing. Those whipping it up make no distinction between Mormons, Evangelicals, Catholics, or any other community of believers who do not keep their faith, and their faith influenced values, confined within the walls of the home and the church building. They say that by expressing our values in the public square, we are violating their right to be peacefully left alone, that if we cannot compartmentalize our beliefs and enter the doors of the statehouse with a strictly secular mindset, we are unfit to hold office. Thus we find ourselves faced with a very real and expanding threat to our rights as citizens.

We can engage in endless debate about what might happen in the eternities, or we stand together in social and political activism on matters where we agree, and which affect the here and now. We can be divided (and conquered), or we can unite out voices so that the message get's out as loudly as we can get it out, we don't want to subvert democracy, we want to participate in it.

Today we find ourselves in a society bitterly divided between two conflicting values systems, fighting over which will emerge as the American system of values. Ironically, we who are trying to maintain the way things have been historically are commonly perceived as the aggressors.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

One of the great things about the United States is that not all parts of it are the same.

If only we could all just agree to let the Baptists have Bible Belt, let Utah be Mormon, and let New England be secular, we could have a cease fire in the culture wars…if only we could all just accept, and indeed celebrate, the fact that American communities have varying levels of religious influence, and we are all free to choose someplace that suits us better if we are not comfortable where we currently live.

The other side will never agree.

They consider predominant religious influence in a community to be tantamount to theocracy, and as long as it exists anywhere within the jurisdiction of what they consider to be their secular nation, they will fight.

When they can’t muster the numbers to prevail, they turn to the judiciary. Thus we find ourselves in the position where we must reach across state lines, and oppose liberal trends in other parts of the country, in order to avoid federal action that will be binding where we live.

We don’t even need to get into Soviet or Red Chinese models.

Recently there were massive protests in London against the Pope. Religious literature being handed out in that country is being scrutinized, and arrests are being made if they can infer anything derogatory in the contents. In France, the government has officially declared itself to be secular. Laws are presently being enacted against the wearing of religious garb. Legal hurdles have long stood in the way of French Mormons seeking to have a temple of their own.

In the United States, standing on public property, declaring your message to all who pass by, has historically been the most fundamental example of the expression of free speech. Today, American police regard any activity that causes another person to call in a complaint as creating an unlawful disturbance. Youtube is filled with footage of street preachers being confronted. Those who try to argue about their rights very often find themselves being taken away to jail.

The environment in which we live is becoming increasingly hostile to all people who are open and public about their theistic belief. I say it’s time to put off our arguments about who believes in the wrong God, until the more immediate crisis has been resolved.

Sunstone 2010, My somewhat Rambling Wrap-Up

2010-09-15T05:21:00.000-07:00

It's been many years since I attended a Sunstone Symposium. Having such a goldmine of information within such close driving distance, only to let the opportunity pass by, year after year, is almost as bad as living within 20-60 minutes travel time of eight world class ski resorts, for seventeen years, and only trying to learn to ski once...oops...I must confess to being guilty on that account as well. This Winter I'll have to do something to rectify the latter overlooked opportunities, (yeah, yeah, I say that every year, but this time I mean it).

"The Stoners"

I recall reading a column by Robert Kirby, some time back, where he referred to those involved with Sunstone as "The Stoners". Excellent analogy. In high school, there is no group subjected to more suspicion and scrutiny as those dubbed "The Stoners". However, once you get to know these kids, you soon realize just how laid back and innocuous they actually are. When there are problems around the campus, you're much more likely to find the culprits spending their time after school with such wholesome seeming activities as football and wrestling.

Sunstone attracts a crowd that is predominantly liberal, in both the theological, as well as the political, senses of that word. A wide spectrum of perspectives on Mormonism are represented, from those totally devoted, who haven't missed a sacrament meeting or a tithing check in 20 years, and whose beliefs are 100% in line with the official teachings of the church, to those who consider the church a destructive fraud, and every stage of belief or doubt in between.

Sunstone also attracts the the attention, and sometimes the ire, of church headquarters. (link) (link) BYU faculty, proceed with extreme caution. Once in a Salt Lake restaurant, I overheard some guy ask his friend, "Sunstone, isn't that some kind of apostasy group?" Sadly, he is hardly the only person in this valley holding such a perception.

Rather than considering Sunstone as a thorn in their side, like the folks at 47 East South Temple do, two smaller churches in the Joseph Smith Restoration Movement used this year's symposium as an opportunity for outreach. The Community of Christ was the subject of quite a few presentations, and sponsored a hospitality suite. One of the Hedrekite splits (the one that accepts the revelations of both Fetting and Draves) also sent one of their apostles for a session that was an overt effort at proselytization.

As someone with a strong interest in the study of Mormon breakaway groups, this symposium was a rich source for details. I had the good fortune of meeting Steven Shields, author of the definitive work on this matter, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, and asked his opinion of the online war of words between Christopher Warren and Gilbert Clark, alias Davied Israel (link). I was curious as to whether I was correct in assuming that Clark was behind an anonymous attack site against Warren, (link), and whether any of the accusations had any merit. Shields pointed out how Warren lost his wife to Clark's rag-tag group, located in Canebeds, Az, (near Colorado City), and said that that investigators in Sweden had looked into Chris Warren, but found no cause for action. Like is generally the case when there is a dispute, the truth is to be found somewhere in between.

One thing that was been puzzling me for a while is why, except for a fledgling following of the Community of Christ, non-Brighamite Mormon schisms have no presence in Utah. While it is true that most people who are unhappy in the LDS Church eventually come to renounce Joseph Smith and Mormonism entirely, enough dissatisfied Mormons are turning to Mormon Fundamentalism that polygamous groups in Utah, if not thriving, are at least getting enough new blood to keep them very much alive.

The consensus of opinions I received was that people cling to what is familiar, and they find groups that recently separated less foreign than those which have had 166 years to develop their own unique culture.

Matthew Phillip Gill, who left the LDS church, released "The Book of Jereneck", and started his own church (link) was the subject of an interesting presentation. One rather angry seeming man in the audience, who in another session's Q&A asked rhetorically, "What good has polygamy ever done anyone?", got up in this one and made a lame joke poking fun at Gill and his book. For some reason, it did get some laughter. Why this guy would be bothered about somebody in England circulating a book, posting youtube videos, and holding religious meetings, I don't quite get.

By far the session I got the most out of contained three papers on the progress and current state of The House of Aaron (link) and the followers of Ross Wesley Lebarron and Fred Collier.

Over the years, I've attended a few of the Saturday morning services The House of Aaron holds in Taylorsville, and I have some contact information to visit their main base of operation, a communal living arrangement known as Eskdale, Ut., out in the west desert, with dairy farming as their main source of income. One of these days I've got to go out there and see it for myself. One of these days...

Normally isolated religious communities, holding all material possessions in common, attract some substantial suspicion and criticism. With The House of Aaron, however, you won't really find any of it with a google search. No blogs or "support forums" put up by disgruntled ex-members, or any of that. The Utah Attorney General's Office's "Primer on Polygamy" once accused this group of being secretive and polygamous, but they deny holding polygamous beliefs and I've seen no evidence that they are lying. The current version of the primer (link) no longer has any mention of them.

The House of Aaron today has embraced Messianic Judaism and denies having any connection to Mormonism, though telltale signs from the past can be found. Like their revelatory book starting with chapter 139. The LDS Doctrine and Covenants ends at chapter 138.

I've met both Lebarron (while he was still alive) and Collier. Those discussions focused on their ideas, leaving me to wonder if either of them had (or ever had) any followers. The presentations at the symposium were primarily written to address this and other practical, rather than ideological, matters.

Glenn Beck was the focus of some derisive material recorded from the Comedy Central channel, and played during the lunch break. I caught some of it, but didn't find it all that funny. That's not to say that I'm all that fond of Beck. In actuality, I'm just as put off by him as these liberals. The difference is that I am put off by him for an entirely different set of reasons.

After seeing the lunchtime laughter at Bro. Beck's expense, I was expecting Saturday's panel discussion about him to be a hatchet job. To my surprise, two of the four panelists were articulate conservatives, speaking favorably for the man. When one stated his view that Beck contributes positively to American civic discourse, there were a considerable number of groans heard from the audience. One of the presenters who was critical of Beck started to describe the demographics of the Tea Party Movement, "Over 55, driven more by ideology then reality, this reminds us a lot of...". At this point the speaker paused, and I couldn't help myself. "Sunstone!"

Having personally rejected the all-or-nothing, either the Church is true or it is not, approach, the Sunstone crowd is about the only group that I really fit into in terms of my religious philosophy, (though more often than not on a Sunday morning these days you will find me in attendance at my neighborhood ward house). Rather disconcerting, considering that when it comes to political and social activism, many of "the stoners" would seek to obstruct everything I stand for, just as I would do likewise.

A few people remembered me.

A long term member of the board of the Sunstone Foundation, J. Frederick "Toby" Pingree was my bishop in a Northern California singles ward, waaaaaay back in the late 1980's. He's been about the only priesthood leader, in all my time in the church, who has ever thought that I could be trusted with a calling involving leadership. He is, without a doubt, the most unique return mission president I've ever met.

Anne Wilde still recognizes me, from my days of searching, in vain, for a place for myself in Mormon Fundamentalism. Having been married to the late Ogden Kraut, there is no one who is more knowledgeable about the organized groups and independents, than Anne.

Steve Mayfield was busily engaged as the official photographer of the event. "Hi Steve", "Hi Gary", was about all I could get in, as he buzzed by. When I first came to Utah, I met Steve when he was working for Van Hale in Hale's printing and book selling business, as well as being actively involved in Hale's "Mormon Miscellaneous" efforts. That seems to have been temporary for him, as he was new to the area as well, and was looking for a position in law enforcement. Today I frequently see him in the background on the news, collecting evidence for SLCPD's crime lab. He's always there outside General Conference, with a camera around his neck, as well. Probably on his own time, rather than the city's.

Gathering intelligence is what Steve lives for, to the point where his passion for collecting information once brought some attention that he did not want. Jerald and Sandra Tanner published a booklet, and sold it for many years, accusing Steve of infiltrating anti-Mormon organizations using an assumed name. "Unmasking a Mormon Spy", was the title. He's a wealth of fascinating information, and I'd love to be one of the people he actively shares it with. However, my association with the Sharp Family, which I explained when I started this blog (link), put an abrupt end to any possibility of such a friendship.

Interesting people, interesting topics. My decision to attend this year was time very well spent.

Too close for my comfort

2010-06-10T05:28:00.000-07:00

I took these pictures a few years ago in Kearns. DCFS is what Utah has named the agency that most states refer to as Child Protective Services.

I have witnessed both of these entities involved in actions I find troubling, to say the least, seeing them in such close quarters raises some questions.

Cults and Mind Control, no such things

2009-12-16T09:33:00.000-08:00

I grew up in the 70's, when the papers were filled with sensationalized stories about "the Moonies" using protein deprivation, sleep deprivation, and love bombing, to turn college kids into glazen eyed zombies, selling flowers in the streets 18 hours a day.

Then I actually got to know a few of them.

I sat down for discussions over meals, (first myth out the window - protein deprivation), and found out for myself how their minds work. I found them to not only be very devoted to their organization and willing to make great personal sacrifices in building it up, but also to be thoughtful, intelligent, and fully in control of their own free will.

I came to see brainwashing for the fairytale that it is, right then and there.

To me, it is utterly absurd to think that a human being can be reduced to an unthinking automaton by psychological manipulation, but as I observed in a previous entry, what people want to believe commonly dictates what they do believe. Many display a strong desire to believe lurid tales, (usually about places they have never been, and people they have never met), so they unquestioningly hang on every word told by someone who "escaped the cult".

Ironically, this same thought process in people involved in purported "cults" is viewed as evidence that their ability to think for themselves has been compromised.

Someone who has never been involved will read a book containing the horror stories of a disgruntled ex-member, along with their explanations of what the organization teaches (selected facts, carefully chosen so as to create a negative impression). They will then go to their friend or family member with the damning evidence. When that person rationalizes it all away, they become convinced that their loved one is under some evil cult leader's spell.

In reality, just as people are inclined to accept with little questioning that which fits their pre-conceived notions, it is also a normal human response that any person, when presented with information which stands in apparent contradiction to what they hold to be true, will look for reasons to dismiss it. "You have been programmed if you can't you see the obvious truth", is essentially the same as saying, "If you look at same facts as I do, yet don't draw the same conclusion, you must be cognitively impaired”, an incredibly arrogant position to take.

Indeed, all this cult hysteria does not foster reasonable thinking, and that is exactly what the people who throw that term around want. They have no desire for you to come away with a clear and accurate understanding of what the group in question is all about, they just want to foment fear.

Sadly, the public typically does fall for it. They will (foolishly) look at a group differently after hearing someone brand it as a cult.

It's a safe bet that many who read this are saying to themselves, "but there are cults". Yes, I'm sure that there are religions you do not like, but take a minute to ask yourself what they all have in common?

I personally think the world would be better off had L. Ron Hubbard, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, and Bob Larson never come to any position of public prominence. But I'm not about to lump very different individuals together, or try to frighten you into staying away with loaded words chosen to manipulate you into an emotional response.

To an Evangelical, a cult is "a group that claims to be Christian, but does not adhere to the essential doctrines of the Christian faith". (Because they did not claim to be Christian, Heaven's Gate and The Order of the Solar Temple, who committed mass suicide in 1997 and 1994 respectively, would not qualify). A secular person will gave you a completely different definition. The fact is that there is no firmly established meaning, it's a meaningless pejorative term that scares people. Any person who knows this, yet continues to proclaim that there are such a thing as cults (and cult brainwashing), is either unreasonable or dishonest.

Addendum

I just discovered this. Can anyone honestly say that this guy shows any indication of not being able to think for himself?

Raising the bar

2009-12-05T22:53:00.000-08:00

"We cannot send you on a mission to be reactivated, reformed, or to receive a testimony. We just don't have time for that". -Elder M. Russell Ballard

Some claim that the LDS Church is hemorrhaging members. In large part, I think that the notion of devoted adult members leaving in droves is the wishful thinking of those with ill feelings toward the church. For most of us, periods of inactivity come and go, disturbing facts are discovered and trouble us until we can find a reason to dismiss them, but once committed intellectually to the Mormon world view, people generally stay. Nevertheless, this commitment (also known as conversion) is not automatic. We do have a problem, at least in one sense.

I was surprised by the recent study which put the LDS retention rate at 70%. My own observation is that half of the people I have known who were raised in Mormon households no longer consider themselves Mormons as adults.

The church really does need to make time for them.

When it comes to their Missionary Program, I honestly don't think that the Mormon hierarchy knows what they have.

The vast majority of people who come in contact with LDS Missionaries have no idea who Joseph Smith was before, and have no idea who Joseph Smith was afterward. Contacting strangers door-to-door, and in public places, are simply not an effective way of spreading a message. On the contrary, what these practices are effective in doing is creating a public impression that your church is pushy and confrontational, closing a lot of minds that could have been reached through television and other less intrusive and intimidating means.

This said, I'm not arguing that Mormon Missionaries should stop proselytizing and go build houses for the poor. The Missionary Program takes young people and focuses them exclusively on religion, every waking minute, for a year-and-a-half to two years. I'm not knocking the good work done my Habitat for Humanity, the Missionary Program just has a different purpose. It exists to foster conversion, and while the ratio of man hours spent vs. baptisms achieved is not what would be considered productive by anyone in the business world, it is very effective at converting one group of people: the missionaries themselves.

I have no doubt that many I have known, who are wholeheartedly dedicated to the church, would either be lukewarm members, or would have dropped out of the church, were it not for their missionary experience. My life would have turned out much different had I spent that portion of it in the Army, or some other place, and not for the better.

No doubt the General Authorities realize that there is a lot of immature behavior going on in the mission field. Had one of them paid an unexpected visit to the Missionary Training Center dorms during the evening, especially the night we had a big war, throwing M&M's at each other like they were buckshot, we would have all been in a lot of trouble. By "raising the bar", they must have felt that they were doing something to curb the horseplay and rule violations, and to eliminate the slackers who would drag their companions down. But can you really expect anything different from young adults not long out of high school, especially at the beginning of their term of service?

I'm a big fan of Richard Dutcher's movies (if you've never seen "States of Grace", you've GOTTA go buy it, I don't recommend "Falling", though). His first, "God's Army", is the story of a young man called to serve in Los Angeles, who arrives uncertain as to why he decided to go and whether he would stay. The movie details his initial struggles, which lead him to gain strength through adversity, and catch the vision, laying the foundation for a successful mission and a successful life. It is a masterful depiction of what a mission can do for a youth from a troubled family, going through difficulties as he enters adulthood.

I was a mess when I was handed my high school diploma, completely unprepared by the California public education system to productively function as an adult in society. I registered for classes at the local community college, but accomplished very little. At 19, I joined the LDS Church. Two psychologists were assigned as my home teachers, (they were no doubt given all the "problem members" of the ward). As the first anniversary of my baptism approached, they suggested I consider submitting papers to serve. It is said within the church that a mission will be the best two years of your life. While this was hardly the easiest and most enjoyable time of my life, it was certainly the most productive in terms of personal growth. Of all those I served with, I was probably the one that needed this life changing experience the most. But that was before they "raised the bar".

Tom Green's side of the story

2009-11-15T16:41:00.000-08:00

Tom Green can no longer speak up for himself. The Utah Board of Pardons and Parole, an unelected and accountable body of former prosecutors, who's decisions cannot be appealed, has warned him that in order to remain a free man, he'd better keep his mouth shut. Five years in prison has a way of beating all the fight out of a man, who once stood before television cameras, pleading with America for the civil rights he and his family were being denied.

While he was in prison, his wives were circulating the following document. Because a google search cannot find anywhere else that this is posted, I am sharing it here.

No one has asked me to do this. I am putting this up on my own because it is a story that needs to be told.

Welfare Fraud?

Message to Mr. Tom Green by "A-Taxpayer-in-Alpine" Friday, July 13 [year unspecified]

Be a big boy. Take responsibility for yourself and your family, and quit crying foul. You got yourself into this mess. Maybe you are right and the persecutor has ulterior motives. What difference does it make to me?

As a taxpayer, I personally do not want my tax dollars to go to having to take care of all these children you continue to have. HOW MANY OF YOUR CHILDREN DO I HAVE TO SUPPORT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS?

You are entitled to your faith, and your beliefs on having children and however many wives - but should MY TAX DOLLARS be having to support your religious beliefs or the consequences of them? I THINK NOT.

Yes, taking you to trial cost a bundle. But hopefully, when faced with these bills, you will realize that YOU NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELVES AND YOUR CHILDREN,,,AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR BELIEFS --- JUST LIKE THE REST OF US.

A Taxpayer in Alpine, Utah

Mr. Taxpayer in Alpine, Utah,

I agree with you that a man should support his own family. I was doing exactly that. We were living comfortingly and enjoying life and our family, We lived in a mobile home park in Sandy. But the neighbors and the managers thought they ought to "rescue" my wife, LeeAnn. When I advised them to stay out of our family, they filed a notice of eviction. We fought it in courts for several years. I had to do my own legal work, which cut into our family business. the courts ignored the prejudicial nature of our eviction and forced us to move our homes.

Since our homes were older than 8 years (they were actually 20 years old, but nice) there was no place on the Wasatch front (where we worked) to put them. So we were forced to go 200 miles out into the West Desert.

While putting our main house out there the Juab County Fire Marshall, driving drunk, passed out, swerved into the home and demolished it. His insurance company didn't want to fix he home so that we could put the halves together.

Six months later, while wrangling with the insurance company, a violent windstorm came and demolished both halves of the home (you cannot insure a home 'til it's set up).

I had to take more time away from our business to get my family a place to live. I began to renovate the 50 year old homestead cabin that was on our property, includig rebuilding the roof.

By that time, our family was scattered around with relatives, and some of the wives applied for welface (we were not about to let our children starve while I worked to get them a place to live). Ultimately we moved into the the old cabin while we developed our raw land by installing water and sewer ($20,000 total). Because of old wiring, the old cabin burned to the ground one night. We lost all our possessions and a three year old son.

State welfare representatives came to us the next day and and offered aid to those of us who were not receiving any. They said since I had no marriage license with my wives (they only let you hav one) I would be considered an "absentee parent" and would have to pay it all back once we were on our feet again. They assured me I would be able to make payments. I agreed to that.

Two years later we terminated assistance, as we were adequately housed and had our business operating again. I went to the state, via my attorney, to settle. Rather than negotiating a reduced amount to pay, I volunteered to repay every penny we had received (now retired Assistant Attorney General, Ray Gammon of Provo/Orem, will verify this. Call him1 He said in his entire career collecting money for the state he never had such a cooperative client as myself!) I told Mr. Gammon that we were very grateful for the assistance of the people of this state, and we were (are) happy to pay it back. I didn't try to negotiate an amount to be repaid, I told Mr. Gammon to determine it. He did and I signed a stipulation judgment to pay it all back.

I asked Mr. Gammon how much the payments would be. He said I would be contacted by the Richfield Office of Recovery services to determine my ability to repay and and they would set me up on the payments. Four months later, rather than being set up on payments, I was prosecuted.

I went down to Richfeld accompanied by a friend (who can attest to this) and asked why they had never set me up on payments, as promised. They said, "Oh, David Leavitt got special permission from the Attorney General's office to take over your case."

And, of course, David Leavitt had more to gain by painting me as a welfare mooch than to allow me to make payments. I was never set up on payments like the state promised me. I got prosecuted instead. I'm still waiting to make my payments to the state.

Mr. Taxpayer in Alpine, I never had any intention to live off your tax dollars.

I'm very sorry we ever did.

I'm very sorry that we were ever in needy circumstances.

I'm very sorry that we were forced out f our comfortable homes in Sandy into the desert.

I'm very sorry that we were forced to live in a dangerous home that took the life of my very beautiful baby boy.

I'm very sorry that the state did not let us keep our promise to make payments.

I'm very sorry that a politician, who told us that we could get a lot of publicity if he prosecuted us, thought that this would help anyone, including society.

I'm very sorry that he was successful i getting the public (like yourself) to believe that we were trying to take advantage of you.

Society set up the safety net to help people who have setbacks like ours to get back on their feet. We took advantage of the aid that was offered (and needed) and were, and are, fully willing to pay it back.

Mr. Taxpayer in Alpine (and any of the rest of you), if you will calculate ow much the $54,435 we owe the state us your share ($0.06), I'll bring it right to your home and pay you back directly.

Please email me at clangreen@juno.com and let me know the amount and your address and I WILL pay you back.

And I DO thank you for your kind assistance (no sarcasm here - I'm serious).

Sincerely, Tom Green

Polygamy, hatred, and the "True Believer"

2009-11-13T19:09:00.000-08:00

"All lies and jest, still the man hears what he wants to hear and he disregards the rest" - The Boxer, Simon And Garfunkel
On the Salt Lake Tribune website, polygamy stories draw a group of commenters who generally don't participate on any other topic.

The majority believe that the issues of taking multiple wives, and taking underage wives, are inseparably intertwined.

A few people posting in these comment threads question just how widespread the "child bride" problem is, or whether it is legal and appropriate for the government to act against an entire community as a "criminal class". One lady I have a great deal of admiration for is Deb Lee. She's asks the hard questions, and she's become a popular target for insults and vitriol. The class she shows in the face of it all should be an example to us all.

The Tribune's reporter specifically assigned to polygamy stories is not a rabid polygamy hater, and for it, she is regularly accused of practically aiding and abetting.

What I see in play is some kind of morbid curiosity. For some reason, that eludes me, some people in this country are eager, desperate even, to believe lurid tales of organized abuse rings, masquerading under the guise of religion, holding children hostage as sex slaves today, right here within the boarders of the good 'ol USA.

This is by no means an intellectual exercise for this group of "true believers", they believe it with their hearts, and any skeptic will quickly be accused of being either a child abuser or a child abuse enabler.

This "true believer" phenomenon certainly did not begin with this particular group. In the 1980's, a book called "Michelle Remembers" was released. In it's aftermath, a large number of apparently unconnected individuals, across both North America and Europe, began coming forward with accounts "recovered memories" of satanic ritual abuse. Evangelical Christian traveling speakers Bob Larson and Jerry Johnston were drawing huge audiences, then Geraldo Rivera fanned the flames even more with a primetime special, treating it all as real. But was there any evidence?

Girls, whose bodies showed no sign of childbirth, claimed that they had been held as "breeders", producing baby after baby to be sacrificed on some hidden alter by people living perfectly normal and respectable lives by day. In the height of the craze, the owners of the McMartin Preschool were jailed, and the building was razed to look for underground tunnels where the children claimed they were taken for abuse. In the end, all the frantic digging could not make up for the fact that the tunnels simply did not exist.

We can go back even further, to a town called Salem, where some accusations from a few little girls caused more than a little commotion in the community.

Back to the present. As someone who has gotten to know these people over a prolonged period of time, ultimately coming to agree with with Gordon B. Hinckley when he stated on Larry King Live that plural marriage is not doctrinal, nevertheless coming away with a great respect and admiration for them, I know that enough marriages to underage girls have taken place that law enforcement interest comes at no surprise. Courts of Law have held those individuals responsible for it accountable.

It should also be noted that Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who is in no way a synthesizer, and in fact admits that his office considered raiding a Kingston church meeting to forcibly collect DNA samples, stated in an interview on 1 Aug 2010 (Take 2, KUTV) that he was satisfied from the reports of his network of inside informants that no underage marriages had been performed by the FLDS since 2004.

Then there are the more problematic issues, like the "human incinerator" supposedly located next to the Texas FLDS Temple, or the young man who recently published a book claiming to have recovered repressed memories from the age of five, where Warren Jeffs took a him out of class, sodomized him in the bathroom, then returned him to the classroom with no physical injuries.

But the "true believers" scream that a widespread problem exists, and that the authorities are doing practically nothing.

I recently (outdated link removed) challenged a "true believer", who complained that nothing was being done to "eliminate this scourge", on just what she thinks should be done to eradicate polygamy?

Indiscriminately round up children? Raids to capture the lists of every person in membership or in sympathy? GPS tracking for life? Forced sterilizations? Sending out spies to discover if any new groups are forming? Labeling American citizens, convicted of no crime, as part of a "criminal class", and suspending their civil rights solely on the basis of whom they associate with?

Two other "true believers" took their shots at me, neither of them offering anything substantive to counter my reasoning. Afterward the original "true believer" I challenged thanked them "for answering my specious argument", refusing to address me directly.

My question remains unanswered, just what would it take to satisfy these people? Perhaps, operating on such an emotional level, there is no answer. Perhaps they simply perceive evil, want the evil excised from society, and they have not thought it out any further beyond that.

When I actually start publicizing this blog, so that people will actually start reading it, hopefully I can get some insightful comments as to why they so passionately want to believe. Could it just be that some have a pathological need for a scapegoat to hate, or that they find some personal validation in believing the worst of those who seem strange or different from themselves, or could it go even deeper than that? For now, I remain perplexed.

As for myself, I don't want to believe that horrible things are happening in my community, in my country, and in my world, though I will accept that which can be reasonably proven.

What is a Fundamentalist?

2009-11-07T17:00:00.000-08:00

A quick google search reveals that this term was coined relatively recently, (within the last hundred years), and that society is still in the process of hammering out what will ultimately be the firm definition for it.

My observations have led me to conclude that a fundamentalist is best described as a person who believes that he is clinging to ancient truth, divinely revealed, that he feels mankind has largely fallen away from. The fundamentalist mentality is very much left-brained, literal, legalistic, and rigid.

Does that make it a strictly religious term, or a strictly derogatory term? I don't think so. In some situations, a no-compromise, let's get back to basics, attitude is appropriate. The American form of government is a prime example of something which should be approached from a fundamentalist perspective. We began with a set of declared principles that were brilliant, inspired even, and through legislation and judicial rulings, we have been screwing them up, getting further and further away from original intent, ever since.

When it comes to religion, fundamentalism was a place where I once found comfort, but ultimately had to concede that a "package deal", all or nothing, mindset; a belief that we originally started out with something that was perfect, completely error free, does not stand up to scrutiny. No reasonable person could believe that the prophet-warrior Joshua literally made the earth stop turning for a day. Having watched the way religious fundamentalists will rationalize away anything they find in scripture or secular history, which stands in contradiction to their pre-conceived notions, as well as they way they have treated me differently after learning that my faction of Christianity is a different one than theirs; while I won't join the voices that blanketly condemn and spout inflammatory rhetoric likening the "Religious Right" to the Taliban, I do conclude that it does foster some attitudes that are not only flawed in their reasoning, but are unhealthy to the person believing them as well.

As someone with a Mormon background, this topic inevitably leads me to the question, is Mormonism a fundamentalist religion?

Mormons believes that their faith represents a restoration of lost truth. There absolutely are fundamentalist aspects to it...but they also believe that communication with God is ongoing, and that this is a special time in history, with truths being revealed in modern times that have heretofore not been given to mankind. To a fundamentalist, his ultimate source of truth is a book of ancient scripture. To a Mormon, his ultimate source of truth is a prophet who lives today, who has the full authority to clarify and expand upon the teachings of any prophet which came before him.

From my studies, I am aware of five unique new teachings introduced by Brigham Young: Adam-God, blood atonement, Jesus being begotten by sexual intercourse between God and Mary, non-polygamists being relegated to a subservient position in heaven, and that the Blacks would not receive the priesthood until after all the other decedents of Adam had the opportunity. None of these are accepted as the authoritative position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today.

If Mormons were truly fundamentalists, they would not feel at liberty to dismiss troubling parts of the discourses of the early brethren as unauthoritative speculation. That is why those who have a fundamentalist mindset when they convert will eventually will eventually make a choice, they will either accept some compromises on the rigidity of their belief system, or they will leave the church to associate with polygamists.

But what could possibly be wrong with getting tough on crime?

2009-06-08T03:07:00.000-07:00

1968

2009

In my last post, I stated that one of my key objections to politician Mitt Romney was his emphasis on cracking down on crime.

Often when I criticize the laws currently governing this country (and I often do), I get the knee jerk response, “Oh, then you want to have no laws at all”.

I try, usually in vain, to explain that what I want are reasonable laws.

I’ve been watching since about 1980, as new restrictions have been continuously added, penalties increased, misdemeanors have been raised to felony status, surveillance has become ubiquitous, and as enforcement tactics have become more and more forceful and violent. No reasonable person can deny that the laws of this country are much tougher today than they were when Reagan took office. I’ve seen an endless line of scary bogeymen being paraded before the public, drugs, criminals, terrorists, impaired drivers, identity thieves, the war on this, the war on that, in order to frighten the people into accepting control measures that they would normally recognize as going too far.

And I’ve seen the results. I couldn’t begin to count all the decent people I have known, who thought that all of this would never affect them, because they live good lives and would never do anything to cheat or harm their neighbors…until one night they found themselves being taken from their cars or from their homes, handcuffed, and put in the back of a squad car.

Anyone who demands proof that the US has become an authoritarian state need only look at our prisons, which currently hold a greater percentage of our population than Iran, China, or any other despotic regime, either now or in history.

It is clear to me that excessive laws have become much greater threat to the honest citizen than drugs, crime, terrorism, or the distracted driver in the next lane.

That’s the problem, but what is the solution? As I stated in the beginning, I am not some anarchist advocating the abolition of the rule of law. Indeed what I am advocating is a return to the rule of law, and to the principles enumerated in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Disorderly conduct, obstructing justice, failure to obey a lawful order, criminal mischief, these are just a few examples of vaguely defined charges which enable police to stop any activity they choose, even though no law has been passed specifically prohibiting that activity, and to arrest anyone whose behavior they don’t like. Giving those in authority the power to make up the law as they go along is not the rule of law, it is rule by fiat, or put even more simply, tyranny.

Getting rid of these broad sweeping laws would be a good first step.

Some say that our society swings like a pendulum, back and forth between a civil rights model and a crime control model. My own personal observation is that once a restriction is passed, it’s usually in place forever, once the government expands itself to deal with some supposed problem, it will never admit it’s error and back out, once a right is limited or lost, seldom will we ever get it back. But if the pendulum theory is right, then it is my hope that the public will turn off the scary images that CNN is bringing into their living rooms in vivid high def, will examine the world from the prospective of what they actually see with their own eyes as they go about their daily lives, will realize that the world they actually live in is really not all that dangerous, will stop demanding for the congressman they have on speed dial to fight for tougher laws, and will start calling that congressman with suggestions to start scaling things back to the way they were in a more free and reasonable time, repairing the damage caused to our once free society by 30 years of misguided zealotry.

Romney 2012?

2009-06-08T02:51:00.000-07:00

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts”-Mitt Romney
Mr. Romney is no more of a friend to the Libertarians and Constitutionalists in the Republican Party, than he is to social conservatives.

As part of his presidential run, Romney joined the NRA, but unlike abortion and gay marriage, where he actually did retract his former liberal positions, the caveat, "I don't agree with them on everything", indicates that spending a few hundred dollars on a life membership was simply a move for show. The fact is that he has never given any indication that he has reconsidered his actions when he enthusiastically supported and signed into law a state statute paralleling the absolute worst piece of legislation to come out of the Clinton administration, the so-called "assault weapons ban". Deceptively titled, in order to create the illusion that all that would be affected were a few exotic models that the average citizen would have no use for, this was actually a sweeping law affecting many commonly owned firearms and firearm accessories. We can thank God that, in order to get the federal ban passed, they had to include an expiration date, and that when that date came, there was not enough votes in Congress put it on Pres. Bush's desk (another betrayor of true conservative principles, who had indicated he would sign it).

One of the major points Mitt Romney made in his 2008 campaign was getting tough on crime. (See my blog entry following this one (link) for a follow up on what could possibly be wrong with that).

As governor of Massachusetts, he had a firm policy that his office would not issue any pardon or commutation under any circumstance (link). Anthony Circosta was a decorated combat veteran, who most certainly deserved clemency for an indiscretion at age 13, so that he could fulfill his dream of becoming a police officer. The Board of Pardons supported his petition, however the governor used the same rubber stamp, "NO!", on his application, that he used on every other that came across his desk.

Another example of Romney taking a inflexible and unreasonable stance is contained in a youtube video (link), where Romney rebuffs a man in a wheelchair, then turns away from him and ignores the man's attempts to continue the conversation, after the man tries to explain his medical situation. He tries in vain to tell Romney that he is opposed to the legalization of marijuana for everyone, that his doctors can attest to the legitimate need and benefits in his case, and that synthetic substitutes have not worked. All Romney could do was regurgitate the old line, of dubious reasoning, that pot is a gateway to hard drugs (but the two recreational drugs that are legal, alcohol and nicotine, are not?), and move away.

Under a Romney administration, we could expect no relief from interdiction roadblocks, police turning traffic stops into vehicle searches based solely on a hunch, homes being searched simply because some druggie relative gives your address as the place he is staying when he is booked into jail, SWAT teams attaching cables and ripping the doors and windows off people's homes (as the A&E channel films), real estate being seized even if the district attorney determines that there is insufficient evidence to support criminal charges, and any large sum of cash found on your person being taken and held, until you can hire a lawyer and prove in court that it was not from any ill-gotten source.

About Mitt Romney he really has going for him is a proven track record with managing money. However, Republicans who are primarily concerned with economics are vastly outnumbered by people focused on conservative social issues, and those who advocate states rights and limiting the federal government.

It’s amazing he got as far as he did, and for the sake of this country, I hope he’s long gone from the American political scene by 2012. I’m all for putting a Mormon in the White House…just not this Mormon.

Comment threads on the Salt Lake Tribune web edition

2009-05-01T06:16:00.001-07:00

One of the places on the internet where I spend some time is in the comment threads on the Salt Lake Tribune website.

Most users choose screen names which give readers absolutely no clue as to who they really are. Anonymity emboldens many. They feel that the threads are a place where they can be free to behave in a rude manner with no social consequences, to blow off steam and make rash statements that would cause their family, friends, neighbors and associates to lose respect, if they were to openly act in such a way.

Personally, I question the premise that there is therapeutic value in throwing a tantrum.

If you have ever been a part of the Utah community, you already know this, but for the benefit of those who are not familiar with the predominant local culture, there is a very deeply ingrained sentiment that "contention is of the devil", and therefore must be avoided. As a result, by their silence and refusal to participate, those in the mainstream of Utah society have effectively handed this forum over to a small but unified, disgruntled minority, whose views are so extreme that they will never get anyone representing their ideas elected into public office. Thus these people feel disenfranchised, angry, and in need of a means to communicate their grievances to the world.

At first glance, those who dominate the Trib comments may sound like liberal Democrats. Keep reading. Liberal Democrats are uneasy about being labeled Socialists, these people openly embrace the term and rail against capitalism, rejecting it in it's entirety. Liberal Democrats have a wide diversity of views on matters of faith, these people are unified behind a position that religion is harmful to humanity and that God does not exist. Liberal Democrats pride themselves on their compassion, these people scream just as loudly as the worst right-wing reactionary for criminals to be severely punished, often advocating dispensing with trial and adopting the cruel and unusual practices of foreign countries. Liberal Democrats stand for personal freedom, these people want the public closely watched, especially while driving on the road, to make sure that we're not doing anything unsafe. The fact that any story about traffic safety will always prompt a flood of complaints that the Utah Vehicle Code is not tough enough, nor enforced enough, demonstrates that as long as the nannystate isn't pushing morality, these people are all for it. After following the comments a short while, it should be clear what those who dominate them actually represent: far left-wing radicalism.

When I comment, I use my real first and last name. My goal in posting, giving thumbs up, and giving thumbs down, is to play what small part I can in offsetting the dominance this fringe element currently holds over that forum. Hopefully others will do likewise, and as our numbers grow, eventually we can make that forum more representative of the views of this state's mainstream.

Make no mistake about it, these people hurt Utah. Their nasty remarks are being read outside of the state, and conclusions about Utah are being drawn from them. Most of us want tourism, want families to move here, and want business owners to relocate or expand their companies here. Our biggest obstacle is the horrible reputation Utah has nationally. I've lived here since 1993, and I can attest to the fact that the rumors I have heard being passed around out of state, perpetuating this negative image, are largely inaccurate. Those on the left would like you to believe that life in a conservative community is repressive. As I continue this blog, I will set the record straight on claims that Utah is a place of stifling morality.

I may occasionally use links to this blog, rather than cutting and pasting large excerpts from it, so dear reader, if the opinions I have shared so far have intrigued you, and you plan to come back, you may find some heated exchanges.

I have one thing to say to those who come here from the Trib to challenge me, bring it! I'm up for the fight, and I will not enable comment moderation. If people try to flood me with cut-and-pasted material that they did not author, I will disregard and delete it, but any cursing and insults will be left up, as a testament to the mentality of those responsible for them.

Added 23 Feb 2011 - Since I wrote this entry, the Tribune has changed the system for leaving comments twice. The present only displays 10 at a time (this is fixed and there is no option to select display other than 10 at a time), and it shows reply trees in a way that is not easy to follow. The good news is that since it is tedious to read, the filth that pervades that forum is less likely to be read. The bad news is that with fewer people trying to participate, the old diehards committed to using the comments as a weapon to disparage and undermine The State of Utah, The LDS Church, and anything/anyone on the political right, hold an even stronger position of dominance.

The bitter, nasty tone of the comments is at an all time low, to the point where I'm questioning whether challenging it is even still necessary. Sometimes the hateful motives and faulty reasoning of those with malicious intentions needs to be exposed, sometimes it is readily apparent to any reasonable person.

Why I believe - not your typical Mormon testimony

2009-05-01T05:21:00.000-07:00

Creation proves the existence of a creator.

It is the natural order for organization to move to disorganization, the ONLY time disorganization moves to organization is when an intelligent being acts as organizer. For this universe and this world to have come into existence, a creator HAS to have been involved, otherwise disorganized matter would have remained disorganized matter in perpetuity.

The very first thing I was taught in Physics 101 was, In all scientific experiments, the result will either be random or predictable. It is simply not scientifically possible for anything unique and functional to spontaneously create itself.

Some may mistake this for an argument against macroevolution. Evolution is a matter of biology, and unlike physics, which I find fascinating, biology is a science I have no interest in. Theistic evolution seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I don't care to delve further into how the creator engineered this work. My concern is establishing that world was engineered, a fact which is just as obvious to me as the fact that my watch must have been designed by a person. That I didn't watch him draw out the plans, and can give you little or no information about who he was, hardly constitutes grounds to dispute the watchmaker's existence.

Furthermore, personal experience confirms to me that not only does God exist, he actively, though discretely, intervenes in my life.

I have seen events fall into place so precisely that I cannot believe that they were just a series of coincidences. Most significantly were the rather extraordinary circumstances which led me to discover Mormonism.

As a reckless, self-destructive teenager, it is a miracle that I never killed or crippled either myself or any other person. Literally a miracle.

Within Mormonism, there is a phenomenon sometimes referred to as a "burning in the bosom" (Luke 24:32). We believe that this is the influence of the Holy Ghost. I call it as a phenomenon because I am convinced that it is legitimately supernatural. I have felt it so powerfully that I cannot consider it possible that it was just my imagination. Furthermore, I felt overwhelmed by it before anyone told me about it, and as a missionary I had people just as strongly affected ask me what it was, who I had not yet taught about it, or told to expect it.

After the scientific need for an intelligent designer, and all that God has done in my life, the final pillar of my faith is the Book of Mormon.

I do not hold conventional Mormon beliefs about this book of scripture, nevertheless, I certainly do believe in it. Whether it contains accounts of actual people who lived, and events which actually took place, I don't know. I'll leave it up to FARMS, and those who challenge their premises, to continue to battle it out over questions of archaeology, and whether the metals, plants, and animals of the BOM could have been found anciently in the Western Hemisphere. To me, these are peripheral issues. The true measure of it's worth is in it's teachings. The fact that young man, on the American frontier in the 1820's, whose education came primarily in his home, produced a work that educated people to this day find so deeply meaningful, is a miracle. I firmly believe that Brother Joseph could not have produced it without supernatural assistance, and that since it testifies of Christ, that supernatural force has to have been a positive one, ie. God.

I've read the collection of B. H. Roberts writings, published by Signature Books under the title, "Studies of the Book of Mormon". This contains what critics of the church consider to be the strongest arguments for Joseph Smith being capable of producing the BOM with the sheer power of his fertile imagination, and the sources available in his community. My reasons are a series of blog entries of their own, but for now I will simply say that I remain unconvinced.

I have also read Ethan Smith's, "View of the Hebrews", and the Spaulding Manuscript, both alleged to be source material for the Book of Mormon. I found in both of them only general similarities and some very significant differences. A verbatim quote would be the smoking gun that shoots down the Book of Mormon, but guess what?, not a single instance can be found.

Within the Book of Mormon, the Book of Jacob ends with the phrase, "Brethren, adieu". Letters written by his mother demonstrate that she would close with this French word. Also there's that passage about treasures becoming slippery, a reflection of superstitions the prophet was known to have held in his youth. These examples serve as subtle hints that Joseph produced this work himself, that it was not ghost written or plagiarized.

This undoubtedly sounds very different from the way you usually hear a Mormon "bear his testimony".

Most who come to my blog are probably familiar with the way Mormons express usually their faith. The fact that I have not made the statement, "I know the church is true", most likely stands out to you. The one thing that just about everyone considering what to make of Mormonism all have in common is the approach, "It this true or is it not"?

This position may be popular, but is it reasonable?

People love to question whether a source of information and ideas is credible. If they can label it is not credible, they feel relieved of any further need to consider anything that source has to offer. I assert that this is intellectual laziness. If someone asks me to take their word for something that cannot be independently verified, that's one thing, but when I listen to people presenting lines of reasoning, I take their arguments one by one. That which I find to be reasonable I adopt into my own beliefs, and that which I do not find reasonable I do not.

Joseph Smith presented the world with some profound lines of reasoning, but since he claimed to see God, and claimed that God had rejected Christendom and had began Christianity anew through him, people are eager to dismiss him, and everything he ever taught, in their entirety. Not only that, there exists a prejudice that anyone who takes Smith's teachings and claims seriously cannot possibly have anything meaningful to say.

What I find incredible is that on the one hand, the critics assert that Joseph had such an amazing intellect that he made up this rich and complex system of belief from the sheer power of an incredible imagination, and on the other hand, they say that nothing this highly intelligent man ever had to say deserves any serious consideration.

When I study this man's teachings, I find a combination of the profound and the absurd. He gave us answers to all the most vexing questions Christian thinkers have been struggling with for centuries. One of his most valuable contributions addressed the matter of those who die without ever hearing the gospel. He told us that the assumption that death is the deadline for accepting Christ is wrong, that there is still time to be taught and to accept in the next life, while we await the resurrection. He also mistook Masonic folklore for literal history, was deceived my a con man named John C. Bennett, and said that some common Egyptian funerary scrolls, which had nothing to do with the Israelites or their faith, had been written by the biblical patriarch Abraham, in his own hand. At times he demonstrated a level of reasoning consistent with the limited educational opportunities of the frontier, at others his teachings far surpassed anything we could expect from someone of his background. All of which leads me to one clear conclusion, here we have one fallible mortal man, who did from time to time converse with God and angels.

Why my religion makes me a better person

2009-04-28T05:40:00.000-07:00

One significant impact the internet has had on our society has been to bring together people on the fringe, who otherwise would sit alone with their quirky beliefs. Atheists (antitheists really, a true "a-theist" would not care) are a prime example. Practice of organized religion may be at an all time low, but the vast majority of Americans still profess some kind of belief. What these antitheists lack in number, they compensate for in the sheer noise they make. Indeed, you will not find any group active on the 'net today who are anywhere near as vociferous as these so-called atheists.

Anyone surfing the 'net today sees it constantly. Blogs, message boards, youtube comments, and any other place where it is easy to leave a quick, snide, anonymous, remark are filled with outright denials that any God exists, and attempts to demonstrate that religion has never done anything but harm mankind.

I take issue with the claim that religion is harmful because I know that I am a much better person today than I would be if I had no faith.

Christianity encourages charitable giving and service, it fosters wholesomeness in personal appearance, as well as in the general way a Christian lives his or her life, and it dissuades personal gain at other's expense by teaching that we will all be ultimately held accountable by an authority that we cannot hide anything from.

Christians proclaim the unique sanctity of human life, that we not just another species of animal, but were created in the image of God. Our scriptures teach over and over again that the worth of our souls is great (while not a single verse would indicate that animal life has any intrinsic value, sorry vegans). In a world where life is cheap, where so many young men engage in gang violence, and so many young women consider killing a pre-born child to be "freedom of choice", this message is sorely needed.

For a Christian, the focus is on the eternal, rather than immediate gratification. A world without any religion would most certainly have a lot fewer relief organizations than our world does.

Even if no God exists, religion is an influence for good. While it is certainly true that an occasional person uses religion towards his own malicious or selfish ends, this hardly changes the fact that overall, religion has been a positive for humanity.

My journey

2009-04-20T22:57:00.000-07:00

I grew up in the suburban city of Concord, California. The Golden State has some great places that I enjoy visiting on vacation, but I consider the negatives of living there as outweighing any advantages. My opinions of that state's public school system are strongly unfavorable. Many of my Summers were spent with my grandparents, who owned a cottage on a lake in Michigan. I would have chosen to settle in Michigan as an adult, however my life was changed forever when I discovered the state of Utah and the Mormon faith.

By nature I am a religious seeker. My parents held strong Christian values, though they did not feel it necessary to be involved in organized religion. I consider this to have been unfortunate, as a I really could have used the kind of support system offered by a church during some very difficult school years. One of the (few) advantages of life in the Bay Area was a wide range of religions to explore. I made the rounds, but it was the claims of the Prophet Joseph Smith which impressed me more that anything else I found. All the other Christian denominations seemed to be a rehash and reinterpretation of the same old information. The Prophet Joseph stood out as someone with something more.

After a few semesters at the local community college, not really accomplishing very much, I decided to submit papers to serve a mission. I'd been in the church a little over a year at that point. I received a call to the England London South Mission. For me, day to day life as Mormon Missionary was drudgery, but the high points made it all worthwhile. High school had not prepared me to effectively function in society as an adult, but after my mission I was able to return and this time complete an associates degree, marry in the temple, and begin a career in electronic communications.

As religious seekers do, after a few years in one church I was beginning to get restless, hoping there was something more out there to find. At that time I embraced a strongly fundamentalist approach to religion. On my first visit, I had fallen in love with Utah, and determined that this would be the place where I would pertinently settle down. Now, Utah had something even more to offer: Mormon splinter groups.

I relocated and traveled all over the state, meeting some rather interesting people. Over the next few years I met with Ogden Kraut, Ross LeBaron Sr., Fred Collier, Alex Joseph, Art Bulla, some representatives from the Peterson group whose names I do not remember, and some followers of John Perry Chaney. I was a guest in Jim Harmston's home and attended his 2-day "models" presentation. I attended a Sunday service with the AUB, and once drove around and had a look at Colorado City, though no one seemed to watch me, or even notice me.

For a while I attended a weekly study group held at a Sandy library. Both Sterling Allen (greaterthings.com) and Rich Kuchinsky (prominent Republican, recently deceased) have claimed to have started this for political topics, though when I got involved a lady named Nancy Ross was running it, and most of the speakers discussed the advanced concepts of Mormonism. A well attended meeting, presented by Randy Dalton, who at that point had been expelled from Harmston's TLC Church, brought the meetings to an abrupt end. At that time, the TLC was the subject of a lot of interest and concern. Two leaders from Church Security were in attendance. One of the regulars recognized them, and announced who they were. After that, the number of people who continued showing up was not enough to keep the group sustainable.

In all this searching, the only people I found with whom I felt a desire to establish an ongoing association and fellowship were one extended family by the name of Sharp (Will, Roxanne, Bob, Kelly, their spouses, and their children), most of them living in Emery and Carbon Counties. The Sharps were strongly pro-life, and pressed the issue so forcefully in their LDS wards that they had been excommunicated. Afterward, they adopted Fundamentalist Mormon beliefs and would protest the LDS Church's weak position on abortion at General Conference and the Manti Pageant. On several occasions I joined them in protest. I was living in West Valley at the time, so distance prevented me from regularly attending their home church meetings. Eventually the Sharps came to completely reject Mormonism, and became Roman Catholic. In October 2009, Utah news media reported that Will and his wife Charmaine had been murdered by one of their sons, who had suffered serious brain damage in an auto accident some years before.

Having come up empty in my search for spiritual fulfillment, I began to try to "find myself" in other ways. On my own at the time, these were some lonely years. I needed to go through these experiences, but by the end, I was glad to put that episode of my life behind me.

Today, I am back with the woman I originally married twenty years ago, I have reconciled with the LDS Church (mutually), and I disavow fundamentalism as simplistic and intellectually limiting. (I go into detail on my perspective on the general topic of fundamentalism in my 7 Nov. 2009 entry, and Mormon Fundamentalism specifically in my 9 March 2011 entry). My religious beliefs are now more in line with many in the Sunstone crowd (though politics are a completely different matter, note my 15 Sep. 2010 entry).

It disappoints me that I was never able to find anything better than the LDS Church. Following a radical out in the wilderness like Joseph Smith, doing his best to provide his people with an alternative to life in mainstream society, appeals to me much more than sitting in a respectable church on Sunday morning. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that there is nothing better out there to join, and that being active in the LDS Church is where I belong, at least for now. My career has advanced to the point where I enjoy a very cushy, low stress job, which pays sufficient to afford a modest but comfortable home, a few nice cars, and a few pieces of top-of-the-line equipment so that I can make the most of my hobbies.

I may not have ever done anything that has changed the world, then again, God grants the talents necessary to change the world to very few. What I can say is that I am at peace. That when the time comes to account for those talents I have been blessed with, I can honestly answer that I did what I could with what I had. My life cannot a characterized as a steady course, but then again, in my wandering I have been to places that the average person seldom sees, and have found opportunities for personal growth that only a rare few get to experience. A progression which is ongoing.