It's Christmas season and amidst the joy and fun lingers the realization that "The Season" will be over all too soon. Like many of you I'm sure, I love this time of year. A large portion of that is the openness with which people reference, and revere, the Savior in word and in song. Mostly I love the Spirit that seems to transform us as a people, temporary as it may be. This year though I find myself wishing for more.
The songs and stories largely tug at the heart strings with references to the sweet child, born in humble circumstances, who brings the promise of happiness, peace, goodwill, love, cheer, etc. It's very heartwarming. And it's very appropriate given that it is His birth we celebrate at this time. But I'm increasingly convinced that it's insufficient.
Even now there are numerous factions of malcontents actively engaged in trying to eradicate any mention of religion, most especially of Jesus Christ, from public discourse. Do we meet them halfway to their goal by failing to deliver His real message at the very time that people's hearts are most likely to be open? Does that make us unintentional accomplices?
As charming and touching as the story of the Savior's humble birth is, it is not the the real point. It is His victory over death, His sanctifying teachings, His redemptive sacrifice. The Master told us himself, "This is my work and my glory; to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of Man." May we truly honor Him by doing our part in bringing to pass His work.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Circular firing squad
I heard the results of a poll that claims over 40% of Democrats want someone to Challenge Pres. Obama in the Democrat primary in 2012. Seems they don't think he's liberal enough.
(Pause for laughter)
As a staunch conservative I can't think of anything that would please me more than for a primary challenge to force Obama to move further to the left next election cycle.
It'll be like taking candy from a baby.
(Pause for laughter)
As a staunch conservative I can't think of anything that would please me more than for a primary challenge to force Obama to move further to the left next election cycle.
It'll be like taking candy from a baby.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
History repeats itself
There are great lessons to be had in the pages of the Book of Mormon. Individuals, families, communities and entire cultures stand to gain valuable insights from the successes and failures of the past. This concept extends to all forms of researching history, but gains added value when recorded by prophets from a spiritual paradigm.
Current events have served to remind me of a specific example found in the war chapters. For the most part of the war chapters the Nephites were largely victorious in battle. Later they began to lose; and lose big. City after city was lost to the Lamanites. It resulted in the death and/or bondage of countless Nephites.
The difference had less to do with how the Nephites dealt with their enemies, and more to do with how they dealt with each other. An uprising of the King-Men caused them to contend with one another rather than focusing on strengthening themselves against their common enemy. It proved to be their undoing.
Of course hindsight is always 20/20. At the time the the King-men were a legitimate, pressing threat. What else could the Nephites have done? I don't know the answer to that for them. It appears the Adversary is the original author of triangulation. I do know that Mormon, for lack of space, was very selective in abridging the Book of Mormon, so there's something there we're supposed to learn.
(For me this seems to parallel our times greatly. I see today's far left, an ideology that desires government to be rulers over us and greatly reduce our liberties, as akin to the King-men. Those of us that believe in what our founders began are like the Free-men. But that's a different post.)
I think what we can learn for our church, our stakes and wards, and especially for our families is to remain united in righteousness. Contentions among ourselves will force the Spirit to withdraw, leaving us vulnerable to spiritual attack from our common enemy.
Current events have served to remind me of a specific example found in the war chapters. For the most part of the war chapters the Nephites were largely victorious in battle. Later they began to lose; and lose big. City after city was lost to the Lamanites. It resulted in the death and/or bondage of countless Nephites.
The difference had less to do with how the Nephites dealt with their enemies, and more to do with how they dealt with each other. An uprising of the King-Men caused them to contend with one another rather than focusing on strengthening themselves against their common enemy. It proved to be their undoing.
Of course hindsight is always 20/20. At the time the the King-men were a legitimate, pressing threat. What else could the Nephites have done? I don't know the answer to that for them. It appears the Adversary is the original author of triangulation. I do know that Mormon, for lack of space, was very selective in abridging the Book of Mormon, so there's something there we're supposed to learn.
(For me this seems to parallel our times greatly. I see today's far left, an ideology that desires government to be rulers over us and greatly reduce our liberties, as akin to the King-men. Those of us that believe in what our founders began are like the Free-men. But that's a different post.)
I think what we can learn for our church, our stakes and wards, and especially for our families is to remain united in righteousness. Contentions among ourselves will force the Spirit to withdraw, leaving us vulnerable to spiritual attack from our common enemy.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not
I recently read a comment in another forum from a member of The Church that said that the more he reads the scriptures the more liberal he becomes. Blood nearly shot from my eyes and ears. It seemed to be such a perfect contradiction that I actually had to read it through several times to realize he was serious. Then my heart broke.
I concluded there are only two possible explanations: 1)He doesn't understand the scriptures when he reads them. Or 2)he doesn't understand the modern definition of liberal. (I quickly discounted a 3rd possibility, which was that he has insights into the scriptures that escape 98% of church members, including the Lord's prophet and apostles.) For him and any others that may have fallen victim to this deception, I extend a hand of fellowship by way of enlightenment.
I leave myself room to believe that he may not be an across-the-board liberal. To be so he would have to be in favor of abortion on demand, for any reason or for no reason at all. It would mean being in favor of gay marriage and protected class rights for the LGBT community. These are both in direct contradiction to revealed doctrine. It would mean believing it is moral to forcibly confiscate other's money in order to fund programs they may or may not support. True liberalism believes that our income belongs to the government and they allow us to keep what they feel we need or deserve. Liberal voters, comprised almost entirely of an array of special interest groups, have learned they can vote themselves largess at the expense of others. In any other arena it would be called theft. Being a true liberal would mean knowingly, willingly supporting programs for which we can't pay and passing the burden on to their children and grandchildren.
No, I have to give my friend the benefit of the doubt and presume that when he says he gets more liberal it is a more targeted liberalism. Probably because he feels like liberal policies feel more compassionate than conservative views. It certainly can seem that way superficially. But there is a distinction that should be glaringly obvious to LDS observers.
The basic premise of liberal politics is a belief that government can and should correct life's perceived unfairness. But whether this is done through regulation, legislation, or taxation/redistribution (the only tools at governments' disposal) it always results in a loss of freedoms,also known as Agency. Liberals seem to value fairness, or the illusion of it, as defined by them, over liberty.
It really sounds compassionate for government to use its power to force citizens to do or contribute to doing right. But if filtered through an understanding of scripture it resembles Lucifer's plan, which was originally to enforce righteousness. The principle of agency is so important to God's plan that He was willing to lose 1/3 of His children in order to ensure it. I believe many of those lost souls were not evil, but merely deceived. I place any Christian liberal in that same category. Man's Adversary continues this rebellion on earth and being the father of all lies he attempts to appeal to our better nature to promote his evil designs. It is incumbent upon us to recognize this.
Christ never taught anyone to use the government to achieve anything. He was about changing hearts. Government regulation is about controlling behavior. The Lord's purposes can never be met by attempting to coerce behavior. Quite the opposite in fact.
I see the the struggles between liberals and conservatives, generally speaking, as a continuation of the War in Heaven. My heart actually breaks for my friend. I can't help but feel that anyone making an appeal to scripture to support or promote liberalism risks offending God.
I concluded there are only two possible explanations: 1)He doesn't understand the scriptures when he reads them. Or 2)he doesn't understand the modern definition of liberal. (I quickly discounted a 3rd possibility, which was that he has insights into the scriptures that escape 98% of church members, including the Lord's prophet and apostles.) For him and any others that may have fallen victim to this deception, I extend a hand of fellowship by way of enlightenment.
I leave myself room to believe that he may not be an across-the-board liberal. To be so he would have to be in favor of abortion on demand, for any reason or for no reason at all. It would mean being in favor of gay marriage and protected class rights for the LGBT community. These are both in direct contradiction to revealed doctrine. It would mean believing it is moral to forcibly confiscate other's money in order to fund programs they may or may not support. True liberalism believes that our income belongs to the government and they allow us to keep what they feel we need or deserve. Liberal voters, comprised almost entirely of an array of special interest groups, have learned they can vote themselves largess at the expense of others. In any other arena it would be called theft. Being a true liberal would mean knowingly, willingly supporting programs for which we can't pay and passing the burden on to their children and grandchildren.
No, I have to give my friend the benefit of the doubt and presume that when he says he gets more liberal it is a more targeted liberalism. Probably because he feels like liberal policies feel more compassionate than conservative views. It certainly can seem that way superficially. But there is a distinction that should be glaringly obvious to LDS observers.
The basic premise of liberal politics is a belief that government can and should correct life's perceived unfairness. But whether this is done through regulation, legislation, or taxation/redistribution (the only tools at governments' disposal) it always results in a loss of freedoms,also known as Agency. Liberals seem to value fairness, or the illusion of it, as defined by them, over liberty.
It really sounds compassionate for government to use its power to force citizens to do or contribute to doing right. But if filtered through an understanding of scripture it resembles Lucifer's plan, which was originally to enforce righteousness. The principle of agency is so important to God's plan that He was willing to lose 1/3 of His children in order to ensure it. I believe many of those lost souls were not evil, but merely deceived. I place any Christian liberal in that same category. Man's Adversary continues this rebellion on earth and being the father of all lies he attempts to appeal to our better nature to promote his evil designs. It is incumbent upon us to recognize this.
Christ never taught anyone to use the government to achieve anything. He was about changing hearts. Government regulation is about controlling behavior. The Lord's purposes can never be met by attempting to coerce behavior. Quite the opposite in fact.
I see the the struggles between liberals and conservatives, generally speaking, as a continuation of the War in Heaven. My heart actually breaks for my friend. I can't help but feel that anyone making an appeal to scripture to support or promote liberalism risks offending God.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Have we lost our way?
I think the debate over taxes needs a drastic paradigm shift. A shift back to where it once was rooted.
As the debate rages over whether or not, and for whom, to extend the "Bush tax cuts" (I even hate the term and what it suggests) the arguments all revolve around the relative effectiveness of the differing policies. Democrats believe it's too costly to extend the current rates for the wealthy. Republicans believe it is the path to job creation. (For the record, the Republicans are right. But I digress from the purpose of this post.)
Take a few steps back and consider the nature of progressive taxation. Why isn't the discussion about the morality of simply taking people's property (money) from them? If you or I took a person's money against their will, even if we did something 'good' with it, it would be theft. Legalities aside, from where does the government derive the moral authority to pillage? Who gets to say when someone else has enough? Does anyone consider the effect on the families from whom the money is extorted?
People are envious creatures, and they tend to resent those they envy. The biggest problem with the 16th Amendment is that it permits politicians to exploit this too common character flaw. Voters are offered all kinds of goodies that should not be the role of government. And all at the expense of the rich.
If our politicians would consider the morality of taxation, rather than just the math, perhaps they would take only what is needed instead of what they can get.
Which in the long run would be the best math too.
As the debate rages over whether or not, and for whom, to extend the "Bush tax cuts" (I even hate the term and what it suggests) the arguments all revolve around the relative effectiveness of the differing policies. Democrats believe it's too costly to extend the current rates for the wealthy. Republicans believe it is the path to job creation. (For the record, the Republicans are right. But I digress from the purpose of this post.)
Take a few steps back and consider the nature of progressive taxation. Why isn't the discussion about the morality of simply taking people's property (money) from them? If you or I took a person's money against their will, even if we did something 'good' with it, it would be theft. Legalities aside, from where does the government derive the moral authority to pillage? Who gets to say when someone else has enough? Does anyone consider the effect on the families from whom the money is extorted?
People are envious creatures, and they tend to resent those they envy. The biggest problem with the 16th Amendment is that it permits politicians to exploit this too common character flaw. Voters are offered all kinds of goodies that should not be the role of government. And all at the expense of the rich.
If our politicians would consider the morality of taxation, rather than just the math, perhaps they would take only what is needed instead of what they can get.
Which in the long run would be the best math too.
Friday, November 5, 2010
A picture worth a thousand words
Brevity is the soul of wit. This picture illustrates the story of America's last two years brilliantly. The donkey meant well, but the job is just too big. Perhaps an elephant will do better.
By the way, since the donkey is the symbol for the Democrats, it seems it would be appropriate on several levels to assign a different title to Nancy Pelosi's Lame "Duck" session.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)