Elder Oaks and Preserving Religious Freedom

There is considerable discussion out there about Elder Oak's talk given at Chapman University about religious freedom.  It is the sort of message that leaves me torn and restless.  As a deeply religious person I agree completely with the general sentiment expressed in his conclusion:

We must never see the day when the public square is not open to religious ideas and religious persons. The religious community must unite to be sure we are not coerced or deterred into silence by the kinds of intimidation or threatening rhetoric that are being experienced. Whether or not such actions are anti-religious, they are surely anti-democratic and should be condemned by all who are interested in democratic government. There should be room for all good-faith views in the public square, be they secular, religious, or a mixture of the two. When expressed sincerely and without sanctimoniousness, the religious voice adds much to the text and tenor of public debate.

No one should ever feel embarrassed or intimidated for expressing strong religious beliefs in the public square, and I agree that religions have much good to offer public policy on a more abstract level.  But at the same time, I disagree with Elder Oaks that religious expression should be given a special, elevated status in such discussions:

Another important current debate over religious freedom concerns whether the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives one who acts on religious grounds greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to everyone by other provisions of the constitution, like freedom of speech. I, of course, maintain that unless religious freedom has a unique position we erase the significance of this separate provision in the First Amendment. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief is not enough to satisfy the special guarantee of religious freedom in the United States Constitution. Religion must preserve its preferred status in our pluralistic society in order to make its unique contribution—its recognition and commitment to values that transcend the secular world.

This seems to me to go a step too far.  In a democracy all voices and viewpoints should be weighted equally, with none given a preferred status, just as each person's vote is given equal weight and none are given special status (unless you are on the Supreme Court, of course).  Giving preference to religious expression seems to contain a couple major problems.

First, religions simply do not agree with one another on most important issues.  There is not a monolithic religious point of view.  Some religions support gay marriage, some don't.  Some religions are overtly political, some aren't.  Some religions are incredibly strict and didactic about public laws and discourse, others are more lenient and hands-off.  To say that religious expression should be preferred is to throw open the doors to a cacophonous mess.

Which leads to the second point, which is that religions are notoriously antagonistic towards one another and I don't think Mormons, in particular, would be too pleased with where that might end up.  For doctrinal and evangelical reasons (meaning we are both idiosyncratic in our beliefs and aggressive in proselytizing them), we aren't exactly the most highly-regarded amongst the Protestant religions that dominate the country.  Giving preferred status to these may lead to more stringent restrictions to our religious freedom than any perceived restrictions some may feel now.

Finally, unless our government is established based on facts and reason, the wanton baseless emotions of a few could easily overrun the system.  Public officials have to be accountable and grounded to objective standards.  Religion can be beautiful and a force for good, but it is based on belief and faith and other deeply personal spiritual experiences that cannot be extrapolated to the many for purposes of establishing public policy.  Furthermore, as noted above, there are so many different flavors of religion that seeking to find some universal kernel on which to base public policy would be near impossible.

Now, I agree with Elder Oaks that our society is becoming more and more comfortable with moral relativism, and that this is a bad thing:

The preservation of religious freedom in our nation depends on the value we attach to the teachings of right and wrong in our churches, synagogues and mosques. It is faith in God—however defined—that translates these religious teachings into the moral behavior that benefits the nation. As fewer and fewer citizens believe in God and in the existence of the moral absolutes taught by religious leaders, the importance of religious freedom to the totality of our citizens is diminished.  We stand to lose that freedom if many believe that religious leaders, who preach right and wrong, make no unique contribution to society and therefore should have no special legal protection.

I disagree with the conclusion, however, that the remedy is found in a preferred position in the public square.  If religion is losing its influence in society, perhaps it is as much or more because we are doing a poor job defining what good we have to offer society than of being squeezed out by the forces of a some soft conspiracy.  We should focus more on humbly serving individuals and selling our message through personal testimony, than acting as a perceived victim on the public stage.

As to whether there really is a substantial erosion of our right to practice religion, as opposed to an erosion of our reputations as religious, I don't know.  Elder Oaks offers some examples that I plan on looking into, but I confess to having no reason to believe that my right to practice my religion is diminishing or will diminish in the near future.  I feel no threat to my First Amendment rights, and any threat to my standing in the public eye I will accept as my own failing and try to do better in the future.  To the extent that there is an erosion of my First Amendment rights, I stand with Elder Oaks in fighting against it.

Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays

Americans love war analogies.  It probably stems from our love of actual war, which I think is an actual collective sin we are committing.  So analogies between war and other non-war things are pretty unsettling and off-putting for me.  In the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, there are over 100,000 dead civilians, tens of thousands of dead combat troops, and millions of wounded.  So when we use frequent war allusions in sports and politics and the like I think we're being rather callous and glib.  If we paid more attention to our language and how we use it we might end up making different and better political choices in America.

That was all a slight tangent I started pondering as I considered this most special time of year when we can come together and debate whether or not there is a War on Christmas.  The weapons in this war are not missiles, bombs, drone attacks, and machine guns, but phrases like "Happy Holidays," the removal of nativity scenes from government-owned public places, and "X-mas."  The casualties are not human lives lost or permanent physical or psychological injuries and disfigurement, but . . . what?  I'm not sure.  Hurt pride, I guess.

What we have are some very conservative Christians who object to the de-Christianizing of Christmas.  Which makes some intuitive sense, I guess.  After all, this is a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.  Put aside for a moment that the holiday was started in part as a way to co-opt pre-Christian winter festivals, and that even before the supposed "War on Christmas" was launched by supposed atheists and statists we Christians did a pretty great job mucking it up on our own with our Santa Clauses and elves and red-nosed reindeers and general commercialism that has wrung any meaningful Christ-centered moisture from the public face of the Christmas cloth.  Put that aside and I can at least see a glimmer of what these staunchly pro-Christ-in-Christmas conservative Christians are getting at.

But as I've alluded to a couple of times so far I think this is a matter of public v. private observance, and I think the Defenders in the War on Christmas are on the wrong side of this one.  We live in a country that is multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-everything.  We Americans aspire to the ideal of tolerance and civility.  We have created this pretty rare country where ethnic and religious tensions have been historically pretty low key.  Only we're moving away from that recently.  There is a very vocal contingent of Americans that are creating tension with Hispanics.  The Christian right is continuing to gain power to push its anti-differences agenda and have swept Mormons into their net.  Muslims are have seen a steady deterioration in their public standing culminating in the embarrassingly bigoted "Ground Zero Mosque" fiasco.  And the list could continue.

The backdrop of all this, of course, is that we live in an increasingly heterogeneous society, so there is more and more bumping into each other causing the inevitable building of friction.  Whereas before you could walk down the streets of most small- to mid-sized towns in America and feel pretty certain that you were only going to pass by other white Protestants, now you're bound to encounter more diversity.  Whereas before any small- to mid-sized town in America could safely put up a nativity scene on the grounds of county courthouse because everyone that would see it was Christian and no one would care or complain, now you've got many more people of different faiths and backgrounds that might not share those Christian sensitivities.

The Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  There are two different things there.  The second part, known as the Free Exercise Clause, is not really at issue here.  Having public displays of Christianity on government property doesn't prohibit anyone from exercising their own religion differently.  It is that first part, known as the Establishment Clause, is a little more tricky.  Does having a nativity, something overtly Christian, on government property constitute an establishment of Christianity as the de facto government-sanctioned official religion?  Would we allow overtly Muslim scenes during Ramadan?  Jewish scenes for Passover?  Hindu, Sikh, atheist, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Scientologist, etc. scenes at other times?  Should the government be in the business of doing anything overtly religious at all?

These are difficult legal issues that are being sorted out constantly in the courts.  But if we remove for a moment the legal issues and just focus on the human side, I think the ideas get more clear.  Christmas is a great time of year.  More volunteerism occurs, more charitable donations, more goodwill.  For Christians there is (hopefully) more of a focus on Christ, which is excellent, but for people of all faiths Christmas is becoming a time to focus on family and giving and, yes, presents and decorations and everything else.  Why would we choose to be less inclusive?  Why would we try to force only the extreme Christian view on others instead of something many more people can embrace?  What could we possibly gain by pressuring businesses and public entities to say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" or something that more people can identify with?

I just don't understand when people want to force their religion on others and into the public square.  This isn't missionary work and glorifying Christ and expressing our faith, those sorts of things are done in humility and personally and one-on-one, this is about xenophobia and pride.  I think it does absolutely no good to worry about some nebulous "war" on Christmas, but it does all the good in the world to celebrate Christmas privately as a religious holiday and publicly as an all-inclusively holiday.  So, Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays, whichever suits you best.

Between a Cult and a Hard Place

Here's a fun little question:  Which major American political party is friendlier to Mormons?  Just like the question I asked before about which party is more likely to nominate a presidential candidate, this one isn't as simple as it seems.

Now, we at the Mormon Left have spent a couple years showing that Mormonism and liberalism are just as compatible (more compatible, in my opinion, but that's just an opinion) as Mormonism and conservatism.  This post is not about which major ideology is most compatible with Mormonism.  It is about which party is more friendly to Mormons.  The simple answer is that the bases of parties both think we are a cult, but with their own twists.

Take the recent story about Sharon Angle.  Ms. Angle is the delightfully bizarre Republican running against Harry Reid.  She regularly immerses herself in overtly Christian memes as a way to appeal to her base (and also, presumably, because she has deep religious beliefs).  The pastor of her church recently went into some detail explaining that the LDS Church is a cult.  That link is to the liberal online magazine, Salon.com.  If you take a moment to peruse the comment section you will find that the most prevalent response from the liberal commenters is, "Yeah, so what?  All religions are cults."

The big difference, though, is how institutionalized the Mormons-are-a-cult meme is in each party.  I don't think I've ever heard someone considered a liberal leader single out Mormonism as being a cult (If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to admit it).  Such comments are made by many rank-and-file liberals, to be sure, but institutionally I don't think liberals have gone there.  On the other hand, influential conservative leaders say or imply it often.  For example, all of your run-of-the-mill extremely influential Christian Right leaders have made the case.  Mike Huckabee, former and future serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination, famously made it a part of his campaign against Mitt Romney.

So here you have the basic conundrum of being a Mormon trying to be actively engaged in partisan politics.  Would you rather be courted for your vote while snickered about behind your back and singled out among Christian religions as a cult, or openly sneered at as a cult and lumped in with all the other religions?  An appetizing decision to make, no?  Either way, you have a political party that doesn't respect your religion and discounts your role in public discourse automatically based on your religion.

In the end, Mormons in both political camps need to push back against those that consider us a cult.  We should absolute embrace and celebrate those doctrinal and practical differences that separate us from evangelicals and other religions, but the overt negativity from the political bases of both parties is harmful to our church.  We should be magnifying the call from Elder Cook in the latest General Conference: "In our increasingly unrighteous world, it is essential that values based on religious belief be part of the public discourse. Moral positions informed by a religious conscience must be accorded equal access to the public square. Under the constitutions of most countries, a religious conscience may not be given preference, but neither should it be disregarded."

Early Mormon Cooperatives

I've been reading Building the City of God by church historians Leonard Arrington, Dean May, and (kind of) Feramorz Fox.  I wrote a post about the Law of Consecration and Stewardship here.

Not long after the saints arrived in the Great Basin, "gentile" traders and merchants arrived and started making huge money off the saints.  Brigham Young was against trading of any sort, but especially among the members.  His thought was that a man should be making something, or producing something, and that work in shops was okay for women, but not for men.  What's more, he was against the idea of a man gaining wealth at the expense of the producers.

Because members of the church were strongly discouraged from getting involved in trading, the gentile merchants had the market to themselves and became very rich at the expense of the saints.  This became very alarming to many members, who petitioned Pres. Young to allow the members to get involved in trading at a cooperative level.  At first he balked, but eventually relented.  Here is how the authors of the book describe the evolution of his thought process:

Finally, it is important that Brigham Young believed strongly in social equality.  Ideologically opposed to gradation of wealth and status among his people, he sought instinctively for a scheme that would prevent aggrandizement of a few at the expense of the many.  His opposition to the first association of Mormon traders proposed to him in 1860 was based partly upon these grounds.  He consistently encouraged the widest possible ownership of the new cooperatives, to prevent the establishment of a wealthy privileged class.  The cooperative movement was, thus, wholly consistent with his own social philosophy.

The cooperatives were set up to be community owned.  Since the Brigham City cooperative was particularly successful and well-known, we'll use it as an example.  At first the citizens of Brigham City would buy inexpensive stocks in the cooperative.  The cooperative would then purchase goods from the east or, probably more likely, from the big Salt Lake cooperative which purchased goods from the east.  The saints would buy exclusively from the cooperative, essentially running the gentiles out of business.

As the cooperative gained strength and money it would start getting involved in "home industries" such as tanneries, shoemaking, raising cattle, blacksmithing, and so on, until the community was entirely self-sufficient.  Since it was community owned, the cooperative tended not to enrich any one person above any other, and Pres. Young's quest for self-sufficiency and social equality was met.  At the end of the year big dividends were paid to members or reinvested in the cooperative.

In practice, however, there were some drawbacks.  Some of the cooperatives were funded almost exclusively by two or three big spenders.  And instead of voting by the one-man-one-vote model of some European cooperatives, they voted by one-share-one-vote, which meant that big shareholders were given big voting advantages.  Also, while the initial stocks could only be purchased by tithe-paying members of the church, there was no such restriction on their subsequent transfers, which meant that shares ended up in the hands of those not exactly operating with the same basic assumptions as tithe-paying members.

Nevertheless, the cooperatives were generally very successful:

In 1875 there appeared an apostolic circular that summarized clearly considerations that led the church into cooperation and praised its progress.  Cooperation, the leaders explained, had been a means of countering "a condition of affairs . . . which was favorable to the growth of riches in the hands of a few at the expense of the many."  Fearing that a wealthy class might arise with interests "diverse from those of the rest of the community," the church officials concluded that such an occurrence "was dangerous to our union; and, of all people, we stand most in need of union and to have our interests identical."  The ZCMI had been opposed by the wealthy and the established, but since its founding had established a solid reputation while paying substantial dividends and paying a church tithe on all its profits.

Practical considerations such as a world that is smaller and more interconnected than in the 1860s and 1870s, and members of the church being encouraged to stay where they are and build up the kingdom, make cooperatives essentially impossible.  But more fundamentally, this is a mentality that simply doesn't exist in our society today, and I don't think it really exists in the church anymore, either.  We are no longer interested in smoothing out wealth and power inequalities, and if the prophet and apostles made statement like those above today they would be branded as communists or socialists and threats to the Constitution.

In the early years of the church, however, complete social equality was an express goal of the priesthood leaders and it could still be today if we had the same will.  Joseph Smith's Law of Consecration and Stewardship was the first effort to make it happen but failed as the saints were driven from state to state.  Cooperatives were the second effort and were successful enough to lead to the United Order, which will be the next installment.

The Law of Consecration and Stewardship

I am currently reading the excellent book Building the City of God, which is a study of early communitarian efforts by the saints.  Though I'm obviously no historian, I thought it might be interesting to write a few posts about what I'm reading as I go along.  I just finished the section on the Law of Consecration and Stewardship, which was Joseph's early attempts in Kirtland and Missouri to get the saints to live a more perfect economic system.

The basic gist of the plan went something like this:  First, all members deeded their real and personal property to Edward Partridge, the presiding bishop.  In the earliest iterations of the Law the person would completely forfeit all property if they left the church, i.e. the church had full rights to the property.  Later, when civil courts eroded that away, the person could get real property back, but not personal property and not any of the yearly consecrations.  Second, Partridge would lease and loan back those respective properties to the individual, depending on their needs.  Third, the individual, though a steward over the land, would have the control to do with the property whatever he or she desired.  Finally, at the end of the year the individual would consecrate to Partridge any excess gains above what they needed.

The Law of Consecration and Stewardship struck a balance between individualism and communalism by giving each individual the choice of what to do with his or her property and encouragement to be creative and industrious, while also requiring the pooling of resources above any person's needs for the benefit of the poor.  This was different than "common stock" communities like the Shakers where literally all possessions were owned by everyone, including clothing and household items, which led to a certain anarchist free-for-all in practice.

The authors gave five reasons why the Law of Consecration and Stewardship didn't last, and they contend that number five is overemphasized at the expense of numbers one through four:

1) Most of the converts to the early church were poor and had nothing to consecrate. Yet inheritances had to be provided for them.  2) Most of the consecrations that were made were in kind, while most of the church's investments (in real estate and so on to provide stewardships for those who needed them) required liquid resources. Conversion of the former into the latter was difficult on the Missouri frontier.  3) Constant persecution made property accumulation almost impossible.  4) The opposition of the courts to the Mormons, and to cooperative (and communal) ventures generally, made it easy for apostates who had made gifts to the church to disrupt the financial affairs of the system by demanding and securing the return of all their consecrated properties.  5) The converts were not faithful in making their initial and annual consecrations.

Those first four factors are no longer true, so the question I have is, could this system work today?  If President Monson announced in General Conference that the church was reinstating the Law of Consecration and Stewardship as revealed to Joseph Smith would it 1) work and 2) be embraced?

I think it would have to look something like this:  Every member would deed over all their real and personal property to the church.  The church would then lease and loan back that property according to needs and the individual or family would be a steward over those properties.  Each member would be expected to continue to work and be productive.  At the end of the year all income above what was strictly needed would be consecrated back to the church for the support of the poor and the building of the kingdom.

In practice it would mean that members living in huge homes and driving expensive cars, and the like, that exceed their needs would probably have to sell them and find more modest accommodations and consecrate the excess to the church.  How many members would be willing to do that?  I live in a stake that is probably 80% super rich and I wonder how many would support a modern Law of Consecration and Stewardship with a full heart, without reservations, knowing that they would have to move out of their McMansions or legitimate mansions, sell their Porches and yachts, and give away the rest.

But it isn't just the rich that would have to make uncomfortable decisions.  Would each of us be willing to forfeit, at the end of each year, any assets that otherwise would have been accumulated in savings accounts, retirement accounts, educational accounts, and investments acting on faith that those things would be taken care of by the church?  It would take real faith to not save for the future believing that the church would take care of you in your old age or in emergencies.  It would take real faith to not save for your children's college believing that the church would pay for that in the future.

The argument against such an economic system is that it stifles the drive to be successful and innovative.  If you never tasted the fruits of you hard work (to put it more starkly: if you never got to enjoy all the money you would earn from being successful), why would you even try?  Why would a person go through all that work and school to become a doctor if they didn't get paid like a doctor?  Why would a person put so much blood and sweat into an innovative and successful business if they didn't have the chance to earn that huge return on investment in the end?  Why should we work hard and then just give our money away to the poor?

The answer is faith, I think.  Such a system could only work if the saints had faith enough to become successful and industrious and then consecrate the excess to the church to support the poor and build up the kingdom.  It cannot work if greed is the only motivator, it could work if faith replaced that greed.  Should we not expect that of ourselves as members of the true church?  Thoughts?

The Immigration List, Continued

An investigation into the now infamous immigration list has revealed that two state workers compiled the information illegally from state databases.  I wrote a little about it a few days ago here.  This entire episode has ratcheted up the level of intensity surrounding the immigration issue here in Utah and also nationwide.  Amidst all of this the Church's position is to approach immigration with a spirit of compassion, "careful reflection and civil discourse," and "the strongest desire to do what is best for all of God's children."

After skimming the Deseret News comment sections to some relevant articles and doing a little "web surfing" I'm finding that a lot of politically conservative members of the church aren't so thrilled with the vibe they are getting from the church on this issue.  They find themselves in a somewhat unfamiliar position of not being exactly on-board with a political issue into which the church has inserted itself.  The word you are looking for is: schadenfreude.

The go-to authority for most of these people is the Twelfth Article of Faith, which of course states that "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  This says it all for them, that the law says deport illegals so we have to support it.  Let's set aside for now that these same people have done anything but honor and sustain laws with which they disagree, such as health care reform, and would gladly accept the government failing to enforce that one.  We all have convenient little mental gymnastics we can perform to bend logic to fit our preconceived ideas.

Setting that argument aside, what many of these politically conservative outspoken members fail to remember, also from the scriptures, are stories such as these:

1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.

2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.

4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

7 But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea 

11 ¶ And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.

12 And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.

13 And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.

14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.

15 The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?

16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

It was illegal for Christ to do these things on the sabbath, and yet He did anyway.  So, what is more important, a Christlike compassion and willingness to serve and strengthen those in need, or obeying, honoring, and sustaining the letter of the law?  What is more important, Matthew 22:36-40 or the Twelfth Article of Faith?

I don't think we should simply ignore the 12th, but let's at least put it in perspective.  It doesn't trump the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves.  These illegal immigrants are our neighbors, they are good people, and the fact that they are here illegally doesn't allow us to just blindly demand that the full weight of the law be executed.  Instead, it actually gives us a chance to exercise some charity and do something might be uncomfortable doing: forgiving and reaching out in compassion to illegal immigrants.

The Condemnation of Hunting for Sport

Utah allows the hunting of black bears, and is currently updating its bear management guidelines.  There is strong support for bear baiting, which is the practice of placing enticing food in a spot and waiting in hiding for the bear to wander up and then killing it.  How brave and heroic.  There are also multiple bear hunts during the year, including spring hunts where many mothers are killed, leaving newborn bear cubs orphaned and, essentially, dead as well.  Utah also allows the hunting of cougars, elk, deer, pronghorns, moose, Rocky Mountain goats, rabbits, bighorn sheep, bison, sandhill cranes, and a whole flock of different kinds of birds.  Have a thirst for killing?  Please come to Utah (although Utah certainly isn't alone in this regard).

Now, I don't have a problem with all kinds of hunting.  The Word of Wisdom gives us some helpful direction in this matter:

12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;

13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;

15 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.

Hunting for food is so ingrained in our culture, and essentially every culture on Earth, that I don't have any meaningful objections.  I also admit to eating my fair share of meat, meaning I can't point to hunters as violating the tenet that meat is really only to be used sparingly and in times of winter or famine without also indicting myself.  I am, however, trying to make a conscious effort to reduce my meat intake.

Unfortunately, a substantial amount of hunting that goes on here in Utah has nothing to do with procuring food and raiment, and thus must be condemned.  Do bear hunters eat the bear meat?  How about cougar hunters?  Do you think Sarah Palin is landing the helicopter to gather the succulent wolf meat after her aerial hunts?  How important to our society is the availability of moose and bison burgers?  What wine goes best with sandhill crane, do you suppose?

So if these hunters aren't in it for the food, what are they in it for?  The kill.  They love to kill.  They also love this:

Let's return to the scriptures, this time in Doctrine and Covenants 49: "And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need."  Hunting predators and hunting for sport is wasting flesh and is needless.  It is directly against the Lord's will to do such things.  Let me also throw some quotes from modern-day prophets at you.  First, from President Kimball:

Now, I also would like to add some of my feelings concerning the unnecessary shedding of blood and destruction of life.  I think that every soul should be impressed by the sentiments that have been expressed here by the prophets.  And not less with reference to the killing of innocent birds is the wildlife of our country that live upon the vermin that are indeed enemies to the farmer and to mankind.  It is not only wicked to destroy them, it is a shame, in my opinion.  I think that this principle should extend not only to the bird life but to the life of all animals.  (President Spencer W. Kimball, Fundamental Principles to Ponder and Live, Ensign (CR), November 1978, p.43).

Here is George Q. Cannon:

We should by every means in our power impress upon the rising generation the value of life and how dreadful a sin it is to take life.  The lives of animals even should be held far more sacred than they are.  Young people should be taught to be very merciful to the brute creation and not to take life wantonly or for sport.  The practice of hunting and killing game merely for sport should be frowned upon and not encouraged among us.  God has created the fowls and the beasts for man’s convenience and comfort and for his consumption at proper times and under proper circumstances; but he does not justify men in wantonly killing those creatures which He has made and with which He has supplied the earth.  (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, selected, arranged, and edited by Jerreld L. Newquist, p.24).

Finally, President Joseph Fielding Smith:

I never could see why a man should be imbued with a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy animal life.  I have known men -- and they still exist among us -- who enjoy what is, to them, the “sport” of hunting birds and slaying them by the hundreds, and who will come in after a day’s sport, boasting of how many harmless birds they have had the skill to slaughter, and day after day, during the season when it is lawful for men to hunt and kill (the birds having had a season of protection and not apprehending danger) go out by scores or hundreds, and you may hear their guns early in the morning on the day of the opening, as if great armies had met in battle.  And the terrible work of slaughtering the innocent birds goes on.  (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol 4, p.45).

It seems pretty clear to me that hunting for sport is at odds with Mormonism, and yet it is more popular in Utah and the West every year.  I suspect that there must be quite a bloodthirsty thrill when you are peering through your scope with a bison, bear, crane, or bighorn in the crosshairs and you know that by just squeezing your finger a little you will destroy that animal.  Then you can have it stuffed and placed in your house for all to gaze upon and wonder.  I can't think that this is the type of feeling that our Heavenly Father would like engendered in His people.

This type of hunting is only by degrees more shameful, in my opinion, than the person who is willing to exploit every possible natural resource, develop every lucrative tract of land, or carve up every possible recreation area for the almighty dollar at the expense of all the life that they are destroying through habitat destruction and pollution.  All life has intrinsic value, and spiritual worth and intelligence, and we value it far too little.

The Right Kind of Justice For Illegal Immigration

We've entered a new era of creepy in the Utah immigration debates.  A group of "Concerned Citizens," who cowardly chose to remain anonymous, quietly spied on Hispanics and compiled a list of 1,300 names of people they claim are illegal immigrants.  They listed names, birthdays, addresses, phone numbers, workplaces, Social Security Numbers, and due dates of women who are pregnant.  There is good evidence that the group had illegal access to private information through government databases.  Besides being creepy and despicable, and this should come as no surprise, the list is also inaccurate.

The most common trope about illegal immigration is that it is just that, illegal, and that we shouldn't allow any illegal activity in America to go unpunished.  Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration undermines the rule of law, cheapens our legal system, and threatens our security.  These conservatives want the illegals rounded up and shipped off.  Their rhetoric, unfortunately, usually goes beyond simply wanting the immigration laws enforced, it usually contains a level of vindictiveness and anger that is easily associated with racism and xenophobia.  It is unChristlike and unbecoming of members of our faith.  They want justice through punishment.

What they are less interested in, however, justice through mercy, which is just as valid.  It is equally as just for me to forgive a neighbor of his trespasses against me as for me to prosecute my neighbor and demand the full weight of the law be brought down on him.  Of course, different crimes require different demands of justice.  We don't simply forgive a murderer, that is too heinous to apply easy mercy.  But we don't typically require speeders to be fully fined and prosecuted.  We have to use some judgment about where it is humane and reasonable to demand full justice through punishment or full justice through mercy.

So the question is where does illegal immigration fall in our sense of justice.  The facts are that most illegal immigrants come here to find a better life.  There are more jobs, security, and opportunities in America than nearly anywhere else on Earth.  We are a nation built upon the very idea immigration, most of it illegal or at least unethical, and that is not lost on those coming today.  They would likely go through the legal process of immigration if it were reasonably available to them, which it is not.  The vast majority of illegal immigrants are peaceful, otherwise law-abiding, intelligent, and hard working.  And Hispanic, which makes it easy for some to delineate differences from themselves and single them out.  It makes it easier to hate them.

My idea of justice is that it is not morally sound to harbor such hatred-filled feelings towards Hispanic illegal immigrants and demand full justice by punishment.  I don't think it fits the crime.  The crime is that they are simply here, they haven't infringed on any of my rights and haven't hurt me in any way.  The jobs argument is slippery at best.  They are simply generally good people trying to make their lives better in the only way they know how.  They have families and are trying to give their families the best life and most opportunities that they can.  Then some racist and McCarthy-istic group comes along and spies on them and feeds on their fears and threatens to bring down full punishment on them.

Justice through mercy is much more fitting.  If we identified them, gave them a path towards citizenship, enforced some penalty such as a fine or a loss of some social benefits until they become citizens, and dealt with them humanely and morally, we'd be much better off and justice would be much better served.

I would hope that Americans, and members of the Church in particular, learn to treat illegal immigration differently that other sorts of crime.  I would hope that we see them as children of God and try to help them instead of punish them.  I hope we enact the right kind of justice, and not the ugly kind that these "Concerned Citizen" predators are demanding.

Cancer, Healing, and the Meaning (Or Lack Thereof) of This Life

"Cancer" is one of the five worst words in the English language.  It sounds ugly.  It has ugly, death-ish connotations.  It evokes images of some alien life taking over one's body.  It has two c's that make different sounds, which is lame and annoying.  And when you learn that a young, healthy loved one has cancer it is so devastating.  You find yourself doing verbal somersaults to avoid saying the word out loud, as if by saying it you will make it worse.

So I recently had the occasion to give a loved one a priesthood blessing related to a cancer diagnosis, and as I've contemplated mortality and healing I've started having a lot of questions which I've never thought about before.  After that blessing I went and read Elder Oaks' talk from the most recent conference called "Healing the Sick".  The takeaway point, I think, is the following:

From all of this we learn that even the servants of the Lord, exercising His divine power in a circumstance where there is sufficient faith to be healed, cannot give a priesthood blessing that will cause a person to be healed if that healing is not the will of the Lord.

This has left me somewhat puzzled.  Elder Oaks is saying that the will of the Lord always trumps everything else, including priesthood blessings and faith of the person that is sick.  I don't think anyone would argue with this.  So what, then, is the role of faith and priesthood blessings?  If they can never change the will of the Lord, why bother?  This leads, I think, to a sort of Calvinistic determinism that is incompatible with our faith.  If nothing we do will ever change the already-determined future that the Lord has created for us, it renders moot our most important heavenly endowment, free agency.

The only way for me to reconcile all of this is, and maybe this is common knowledge and I'm a little slow, is if there are situations, and presumably fairly common situations since we are encouraged to have constant faith and exercise our priesthood often, where the Lord has no particular will one way or the other concerning whether a person will live or die, be healed or not be healed -- if there are situations where the Lord essentially challenges us to persuade him.

If this is the case it opens up a whole mess of possibilities.  If we have the power, even the duty, to persuade the Lord one way or the other, we can do some pretty serious miracles and good works.  I've always known all of this, I think, but I've never given it much thought and I've never really internalized it.  It is also a very liberating idea.  To know that our future is really and truly not already mapped out for us, that the Lord knows our capabilities and potential but that our choices are still ours, that we have absolute power over our choices, frees us to act more boldly and with less fear.

But I've also encountered another puzzle in all of this, one I don't think I understand.  When you encounter the mortality of a young and otherwise healthy person, it is natural to wonder what the point of this whole life is, anyway.  It is such an infinitesimally small slice of our eternal existence, and good and bad opportunities are so unevenly allotted, it is getting harder and harder for me to ascribe too much meaning to it.  I've started really considering and accepting the idea of progression between kingdoms and strong universalism.

That's not to say that my loved one with cancer is in danger of not making the celestial kingdom if that person should die today (very unlikely, we have a pretty fortunate cancer diagnosis), so I'm not just trying to justify a bad or lukewarm life about to be extinguished.  My loved one would assuredly be a shoe-in for a pretty sweet afterlife and anyway has a long time to live yet.  But as I've considered how short life can be, and how seemingly random and unfair it can be, I just can't bring myself to believe that any person can make or break the entire rest of eternity in this short mortal existence.

I guess what I'm saying is, I've got a lot to think about.

Religious Freedom and the Ground Zero Mosque

The Eleventh Article of Faith states: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

I stated in my last post that my evolving three pillars of Things I Care About The Most In Politics are peace, a healthy sustainable environment, and moral/religious agency.  I think if we safeguard these three things we can live in a pretty great world for a long time.  Of course the three are intimately intertwined.  War is usually based on scarcity of resources (the environmental aspect) or religious conflict.  If we could focus on cleaning up our religious conflicts and our environment, sustainable peace would surely follow.

Unfortunately, there are many right here in America who want to restrict the religious freedom of anyone that worships different than they do, thus creating more conflict and less peace.  The latest and most public incarnation of this bigotry is the uproar over the plans to build a mosque and Muslim information center a few blocks from ground zero.

The opponents of this mosque truly believe that those who died on 9/11 would be dishonored by the mere fact that Muslims would have a place of worship so near ground zero.  The only way this thinking makes sense is if you believe that all Muslims are responsible for the actions of al Qaeda and the extremist factions that want to harm the United States.  This is, of course, absurd and bigoted.

Only a very tiny fraction of the around 1 billion Muslims in the world have radicalized and condone terrorism and violence against civilians.  Granted, that tiny fraction is doing some serious harm, but it is still no reason to condemn an entire religion.  What's more, Muslims in America are showing no signs of radicalization and some polls have shown that they are less likely than the American population at large to condone terrorism.

And lets not pretend that some of our actions in the Middle East played no part in creating extremism to begin with.  It does not justify terrorism, but it is relevant to understanding why such extremism exists.

If we were to hold every religion to the standard that those protesters are holding Islam, we would not allow any religion in our borders.  Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Mormons all have extreme factions and skeletons in their closets, but we are willing to overlook those because we are a supposed "Judeo-Christian" nation.  Frankly, I'm more afraid of extremist Christian groups like the Christian Identity and other racist, nationalistic groups than anything else.

And if we allow the intolerant to dictate how, where, and what Muslims in this country worship, what is to stop them from coming after Mormons next?  They've got some pretty weird beliefs, don't they?  Then they can go after the Jehovah's Witnesses, then Buddhists, then Catholics.  Where do we draw the line?

Fundamentally, we have to let all religious people peaceably practice their religion, or practice no religion at all, if we want true religious freedom in this county and if we want to retain our moral agency.  That means coming to terms with Islam and extending a hand of fellowship.  It means truly respecting all peaceable religions and demonstrating true tolerance of differing religious beliefs.

If we let this sort of bigoted religious thinking to become mainstream in America we will all become less free.  We will be less free to practice any religion we want, less free to exercise our moral agency and strive to become more like Heavenly Father in the way we best see fit, and less free to hold points of view of any kind that are unpopular with the majority.

The Great Mormon Novel

I am going to wade into a conversation that occurred about a year ago but which was rekindled recently by an article in Slate that asked the question:  "Where is the Great Mormon Novel?"  The article was written as a critique of the new novel by Mormon Brady Udall called The Lonely Polygamist.

This article lead back to an article in the Mormon Times that stated that the Great Mormon Novel is impossible for impossibly shallow reasons thoroughly discredited here and here.  The gist was that Mormons are not self-critical enough and not willing to question beliefs enough to write great literature.  The discussion then turned a bit more meta with the proposition that we shouldn't even be worried about creating the Great Mormon Novel because the concept itself is outdated and unworthy of our attention.  This is my incredibly glib recap of the discussion and I encourage you to read through those links and flesh out the arguments for yourselves.  (As a side note, if you haven't spent some time exploring Mormon artistic endeavors at A Motley Vision and Dialogue, it is worth your time to do so.)

I think transcendent literature is something that is universal to our shared human experience.  What makes a piece of literature timeless is that it speaks to people from different backgrounds, cultures, eras, and genders, and can reveal something new to each.  My initial reaction, then, was that a Great Mormon Novel is not very likely, not because we aren't able or willing to question faith and authority and embrace ambiguity and conflict, but because we are pretty weird.  Pres. Hinckley, on several occasions, reiterated the words of the apostle Peter in referring to us as a "peculiar people."  We have always been encouraged to live apart from the world and embrace our peculiarity.

Of course the Gospel is universal, but a piece of Mormon literature is not just a rephrasing of the Gospel.  Mormon literature is about Mormon culture and the internal and external difficulties we face in our quest for faith, individualism, collectivism, and understanding.  There really has never been anything remotely like Mormonism and the culture we've created, I think, and therefore trying to connect it to a wider audience through literature might be a task that cannot be perfectly accomplished (which would, in my mind, be the definition of "Great").

I'm not implying that there is not great Mormon literature out there, there certainly is.  But a novel by a Mormon about Mormonism that is widely regarded as a masterpiece of literature that crosses boundaries might be too much to ask.  We're just too different.

The more I've thought about this, however, the more I think my initial reaction might be wrong and that might be an indication of unhealthy pride more than anything.  A Mormon's journey through life is not so much different than other people's.  Like everyone we are trying to develop stable relationships, confront our internal and external demons, make sense of contradictions, and find peace in a decidedly unpeaceful world.  We're not above any of that, and the ability to illuminate these issues is what makes literature great, and potentially Great, and I think doing so in the context of Mormon beliefs and culture is just as likely as any other culture or point of view.

The lack of the Great Mormon Novel is not an indictment of our literature or beliefs, it's just that there are very few Hemingways, Foster Wallaces, and Jameses and there are really just very, very few Mormons in the world.  But it might just be that very uniqueness of point of view that makes a Great Mormon Novel possible. One of the ways that Great literature is able to provide that freshness and universality that people crave and remember is by providing a new point of view that sheds a slightly different light on an otherwise mundane subject (think of the way Elder Bednar is able to talk about subjects we've heard hundreds of times from a new perspective that sheds some new light on it and gives us a deeper understanding).

I recently came across an idea from Mormon writer Karl Keller that I think expresses all of this well.  His point was that great Mormon art is "not art filling a religious purpose, but religion succeeding in an aesthetic way."  We have this incredibly beautiful and rich religion that can succeed in an aesthetic way, and our literature can reflect that and cross boundaries and be recognized as something Great.

But we, as a religion, really need to do a better job promoting that art.  We need to consume it, demand more of it, and think and talk critically about it.  We need more than the traditional Deseret Book fodder, which only strives to inspire rather than find true understanding through a confrontation of ambiguity and conflict.  There is nothing wrong with inspiration from time to time, but it can't be the principal goal of our art.  

Approaching Immigration With A "Spirit of Compassion"

Perhaps you heard that Arizona passed an immigration law that is controversial.  Most of the controversy centered around the following language from the bill (read it here in pdf), Article 8 paragraph B:

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.

As for the legal side of the thing, first, "lawful contact" may be the most broad language ever written in the history of American legislation.  It encompasses almost anything apart from an explicitly illegal traffic stop (which almost doesn't exist anymore: one mph over the speed limit, faulty tail light, "you looked like you were swerving within you lane", you vaguely fit the description of an alleged malfeasor, etc.) or the police barging into your home without a warrant.  Basically, lawful contact is not a limitation at all, let alone a reasonable one.

Second, the Constitution’s equal protection clause forbids the government from differentiating between anyone, including illegal immigrants, on the basis of race. Under the Arizona law no one has suggested any other potential grounds for the police to reasonably suspect someone is an illegal immigrant besides the fact that they have Latin American-colored skin.  What else could possibly fall under "reasonable suspicion"?  I can't think of anything.  Governmental racism is, bluntly, unconstitutional.

Third, being an illegal immigrant is a crime of status. There are no other real objective facts besides skin color that would indicate that a person is here illegally, unless a police officer actually saw them sneak across the border. Without objective facts beyond skin color, any time a police officer stopped someone asking for proof of legal residency would be an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment.

All of this was impressed upon Arizona in fairly strident terms and, as a result, they decided to change the language a little to read, instead of "lawful contact," "lawful stop, detention or arrest."  Slightly, but not much, better.  This change may or may not improve the legal side of the bill but it doesn't improve our basic approach to immigration.

It is important to first dispel a nasty bit of false information and state that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are less likely to commit crimes or be incarcerated than U.S. citizens.  These are not inherently violent people.  They come here, almost universally, to get a job and, more often than not, to send the money to family back home in Latin America.  This makes for a complicated economic issue.

One the one hand businesses love illegal immigrants because they provide cheap labor.  They cannot avoid paying sales tax and gasoline tax and the like.  On the other hand they are likely taking jobs away from legal Americans, likely suppressing wages overall, likely not paying any income taxes while likely taking advantage of things like public schools and hospitals, and likely not spending very much money in our economy as they send a huge amount back home.  This last point, euphemistically called remittances apparently, is fascinating because it represents Mexico's second largest form of income behind the oil industry.  It's a mixed economic bag but probably mostly negative.

The moral bag, on the other hand, is less mixed, in my opinion.  I think we fail to take into account how much of this is our fault.  I cannot abide arguments that we, the United States, should never admit our weaknesses, and here is a pretty glaring one.  The reason illegal immigration is mixed up in our minds with violence is almost completely related to the drug smuggling.  Guess what, America, if we weren't so addicted to heroin, cocaine, and, to a lesser extent, marijuana, there wouldn't be drug smuggling problems.  We have created a huge market for illegal drugs and, as a result, a huge problem with violence.  Mexico's number one problem, and the number one reason regular old non-drug related immigration is at the levels it currently is, is tied directly to our insatiable appetite for drugs.  The corruption and violence in Mexico, leading to a depressed economy and emigration to the United States, is caused by the drug cartels.  Take away America's need for drugs and we take away the immigration problem.

No amount of harsh language and unconstitutional legislation will fix this problem.  We will only fix the problem by partnering with Mexico to reduce drug trafficking.  And racist laws like Arizona's will make it more difficult to work with Mexico, exacerbating the problem.

But more than that we have to ask ourselves how moral our general attitudes are regarding immigration.  And the church has made clear that this is a moral issue more than a political one.  The church's stance on illegal immigration was given by Elder Marlin K. Jensen:  "The church's view of someone in undocumented status is akin, in a way, to a civil trespass.  There is nothing inherent or wrong about that status."  He stated that immigration legislation should be enacted in a "spirit of compassion."  In response to criticisms of this position church spokesman Mark Tuttle said, "I wonder how they'd feel about the second great commandment, to love thy neighbor as thyself. It's not an answer to your question, but it's another question."  Actually, it seems like a perfect answer to those criticisms.

Now go back and look at Arizona's approach to illegal immigration, and the anti-immigration rhetoric being spewed throughout Utah and the United States, and members of the church.  Does it seem infused with a spirit of compassion?

Additionally, should we be morally satisfied by arbitrarily drawing a line on the map and telling the people below that line that they must live in poverty while we above that line live in wealth? Especially considering that they did not choose where they were born any more than we did?  Would we treat Canadian or English immigrants like we treat the darker-skinned Mexican immigrants?  Knowing how successful the church is in Latin America, should we really be looking down on these immigrants and wanting nothing more than to put them in prison or send them back from whence they came?  Are we truly treating them like equal children of God?

It is an incredibly complicated issue.  I understand that there are national security implications, economic implications, and counter-moral implications.  None of this is lost on me.  But it seems that too many of us are staking out dubious moral and ethical positions that are not in harmony with the Gospel's spirit of compassion.

The Threat From The Extreme Right

I received the following letter from my good friend, Tony, not long ago. He gave me permission to post it here:



I have become increasingly concerned with the growing political polarization of the United States and the dramatic shift to the extreme-right. When I was in Boston in October, the political divisions in the country were amazingly palpable. I am concerned with the growing extremist and fascist groups in the United States that are becoming accepted by the mainstream population and condoned by political pundits, governmental leaders, political candidates and media outlets. In many ways the politically empowered are pandering to these new groups in order to retain their positions of power, control and influence. I do not know what the future holds, but I am worried that the extreme-right has the capacity of causing serious damage to the political infrastructure of the United States in a misguided effort of renewing the “Republic”.



The Doctrine and Covenants section 134 states, “We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such government; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected.” The inherent and inalienable rights are defined in section 134 to include “the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.” I challenge any individual to provide a legitimate illustration of infringements of these inalienable and inherent freedoms under President Obama’s administration. Thus, in the absence of any reasonable violation, LDS people should sustain and uphold the government of the United States.



We, as LDS people, have a responsibility to sustain and uphold our government. Thus, it is imperative that we resist the urge to affiliate with, espouse the beliefs of, or provide support to any extreme-right group that suggests subversive behavior. I recognize the key distinction between opposing a particular political position and sedition. I take no issue with a person’s opposition to the Healthcare Reform Bill. However, when that person’s opposition engenders statements or acts of government overthrow (generally cloaked in the word “renewal”) then he crosses the line between rigorous political debate and sedition.



I am including a few articles that validate my anxiety about the United States political landscape. I hope my concern proves to be unfounded.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123783904&ps=cprs



All the best,

Tony

The LDS-Gore Alliance

The Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune are both reporting that Al Gore is meeting with Church leaders today. It appears that Gore requested the meeting, perhaps after witnessing the Church participating in Earth Hour by turning off the lights at the Salt Lake Temple.

As for Earth Hour, where people are asked to turn off their lights for an hour as a show of respect for our environment, a way to act against global warming, and a way to raise awareness, I guess its not too bad an idea. I am all for reducing energy consumption, replacing old lightbulbs with CFLs, driving less, and the like, but I'm not sure sitting around in the dark for an hour is for me. But I was glad to see the Church participate with its most iconic temple as an indication that we are aware of the global warming problem, we think it is real and manmade, and we are willing to make that known publicly.

On top of that the Church is now working on building new LEED certified meetinghouses, which are green buildings that use less energy and are more environmentally friendly.

So now Utah's favorite politician, Al Gore, is requesting meetings with Church leadership. No one knows what they are going to discuss, but I imagine Gore is interested in prodding the Church to stick with this new lurch towards the left, environmentally speaking, and offering any support he can.

I think this is a tremendous step in the right direction, with or without the involvement of Gore (who I think is awesome, by the way, so throw your stones, I don't mind). I'm not saying it is necessarily the Church's responsibility to teach the members a sound environmental ethic as an extension of Church doctrine (though I believe it fits in nicely), but the fact that our spiritual leaders are beginning to lead by example shows that it is an issue that should be treated seriously by members and not just dismissed as left-wingers' attempts to take away our freedoms and comforts for a mere whim.

Now, if we can just stop using rain forest wood for decoration in our temples . . .