Integrity is a Family Value

Some politicians talk all the time about family values, expressing a commitment to maintaining the standards of conduct and belief that form the bedrock of our families and communities. Despite what some might suggest, there are people across the political spectrum who believe deeply in the importance of these core values in our public and private discourse.

Prophets and apostles encourage us often to develop and practice these standards in our individual lives. They form the basis for our qualification and effectiveness in church service and temple worship. Fathers and mothers are often encouraged to teach values to their children by both precept and example.

The LDS Church, like most others, also encourages the public practice of such principles. As we choose those who will lead us, we are encouraged to place even greater emphasis on their moral qualities than on the positions they take on issues. In their oft-repeated statements on political participation, church leaders have made this duty clear: "Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest."

Integrity is indeed an important and timeless family value, essential both to us as individuals and to those we choose to lead us. A search of the church's website reveals many references to integrity. Integrity is one of the eight essential Young Women values.  And it is at the heart of what we teach our young men in the Scout oath and law. In fact, the very first point of the Scout law is: A Scout is Trustworthy. Bishop Richard C. Edgley of the Presiding Bishopric has said: "As Latter-day Saints we have a sacred obligation to not only teach the principles of honesty, but also to live them...."

It is clear that we must strive to be examples of personal integrity in our communities, and we must seek leaders in our communities, in our states, and in our nation for whom the practice of this essential principle is fundamental to their public service. The latter part of this can be difficult to do. Contrary examples are prevalent in both major parties and across the spectrum. Frequent news reports remind us how difficult it can be to combine politics and honesty. And yet, I wonder, are politicians less honest than the rest of us, or are their transgressions just more public? I know that despite my efforts to be honest in all my dealings, I sometimes fall short. I think most of us do, which is why examples of people who don't are so striking to us. But in spite of our own personal failings, we remain obligated to hold our leaders to high standards of moral trustworthiness.

It is in this context that we examine Wisconsin's newly-elected governor, Scott Walker. Governor Walker's campaign website proclaims his belief in "small town values." He is the son of a preacher, an Eagle Scout who remains active in the Boy Scouts of America. And he talks of getting rid of corruption in government. He commits himself "to support policies that reflect the values and priorities of the people...." His words certainly reflect the values Latter-day Saints would seek in their leaders.

The question is: do his actions support his words? Here, we must look carefully at what he has said and done since taking office, with the goal of holding him to the standard he has set for himself, while not judging him unfairly. This is not an easy process. But we cannot shun the responsibility. And so, I choose today to discuss the relevance of some of Governor Walker's official activities to this issue of integrity. While my views might be clear, I leave it to my readers (if there are any) to judge the Governor's actions for themselves.

On Friday, February 11, 2011, saying, "We must take immediate action to ensure fiscal stability in our state," Governor Walker issued a press release announcing the introduction of his "budget repair bill."  The following Monday, the 144-page bill was introduced in the legislature. The bill would save the state $30 million by requiring most state employees to make larger contributions to pensions and health insurance premiums, but would also eliminate or severely restrict collective bargaining rights, grant unprecedented power to the Department of Health Services to enact emergency rules denying medical assistance to the needy, and authorize the governor to fire any workers who participate in a work stoppage or slowdown. 

Wisconsin residents know what happened next. Amid massive protests by union members and supporters, the Republican-led legislature sought to quickly pass the bill. Undaunted, leaders of the two largest affected state employee unions reiterated their position: they will give the governor the economic concessions he wants, if he will remove the collective bargaining restrictions from the bill. He can have budget repair, if he just won't break their unions. The leader of the teachers' union put it this way: "We want to say loud and clear — it is not about those concessions," Bell said. "For my members, it's about retaining a voice in their professions."

Governor Walker's response: no thank you. He went on Fox News Sunday, refusing to accept the union proposal, but continuing to insist that the bill's purpose is to balance the budget. In a humorous part of the interview, the governor accused the unions of having tried to "ram through" legislation they wanted. He also suggested that President Obama and people from outside the state should not have a voice in this issue. He did not mention that substantial funding and support for his proposal, including television advertising, are coming from political action groups outside the state, including the staunchly conservative Club for Growth.

In a radio interview, the governor claimed that under his bill, "Collective bargaining is fully intact." Others disagree. National commentators have weighed in on the governor's strategy. Here's one. Internet searches will find many others.

I guess the question we all must ask ourselves, regardless of where we come down on the overall debate, is whether the governor is living up to his promises. Is he being honest about his true goals? Even if you believe union-busting is a valid aim, if the governor continues to tell us this is about budget repair, what does that tell us about his character? Are his actions those of a "leader[] who will act with integrity and [is] wise, good, and honest?" Are we entitled to expect a higher standard from our elected officials? I'd like to know what you think.

This blog is written primarily for an audience of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon). However, I welcome all readers and encourage respectful and sincere comments and questions, particularly from those who may be unfamiliar with Mormon practices and traditions. The views expressed here are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official position of the LDS Church or its leaders.

Happy Birthday, Glenn Beck!

Today is Glenn Beck's 47th birthday. Happy Birthday, Glenn! I would like to join with many other Americans in sincerely wishing for you an enjoyable and relaxing year ahead.

Anyone who reads this blog (DOES anyone read this blog??) knows that I have frequently commented on Glenn Beck, usually not in the most glowing of terms. Today is different. I will not criticize Glenn Beck today. Instead, with a recognition that entertainers like Glenn Beck exist in various forms and with different agendas in the American political arena, I would like to use this occasion as an opportunity to make a call for action that applies to all. I call upon myself first, and any others who would care to follow, to make changes in the way we educate ourselves and conduct our discourse. I know that I remain too arrogant and self-righteous to completely succeed in this effort, but I want to try, and I hope you will too.

I note in passing that our political environment is changing. Republicans now control the House of Representatives, many state legislatures and state houses. Some of the rhetoric that preceded the last election has subsided, but other forms have stepped up. President Obama's ratings are climbing. Keith Olbermann was fired by MSNBC despite having the highest rated program on the network. Glenn Beck has lost more than a third of his viewers in the past year, and his radio show has been canceled in New York and Philadelphia. It seems that Americans are taking a new and fresh look at who and what they want to see and hear.

With all of this in mind, may I suggest my own fresh look at how we could improve ourselves and our country? Here are 12 ideas; gifts, as it were, that we could offer to Glenn for his birthday:

• Let's be more civil. A recent tragedy in Arizona was used by people on both ends of the political spectrum to promote their agenda. This is wrong. But that doesn't mean we can't use the incident as an opportunity to re-examine our approach to politics. The truth is, we threaten too much. We attack people, not ideas. Our rhetoric is often filled with hatred and references to violence. We can do better. We can show more respect for people without abandoning principles. In fact, showing more respect for people will strengthen our principles.
• Let's avoid name-calling. This is an approach that belongs on the grade school playground, not in serious political discussion. I have called people hypocrites, liars, stupid, ugly, and lots of other naughty names, and all it produced was defensiveness and anger. It is not productive to call anyone who disagrees with you a Nazi. It is not fair to the accused, nor to the Nazis, and especially not to those who suffered at the hands of Nazis. The same is true of many other labels used by people from all parts of the political spectrum.
• Let's speak more softly. We can be calmer, less emotional, less strident, and still make our point. I have learned from the scriptures and from my own personal experience that people often listen more carefully to a still, small voice than to a screamer.
• Let's stick to the facts. Arguments often take place when participants are tied to a position without regard to what the facts really show. Instead of assuming we know what the truth is, let's investigate it, examine it, and then form our positions based on fact rather than perception. We still might not agree, but much more productive discussions will ensue.
• Let's avoid stereotypes. All conservatives are not this, and all liberals are not that. Every person has his or her own views and motivations. We should follow the Stephen Covey principle of seeking first to understand, then to be understood.
• Let's value education. Learning can come from taking classes, obtaining degrees, reading good books, surrounding ourselves with smart people, or simply from experiences that teach us valuable lessons. Education in all its forms enriches our lives and makes us more understanding and tolerant. There is too much ignorance in our society, too much distrust of the well-educated, and too much willingness to rely on uneducated views. Far too many of our political commentators lack the kind of formal or informal education that would qualify them to influence serious thought.
• Let's distinguish between entertainment and news. Television and radio succeed by making money. They make money by attracting viewers and listeners. They attract viewers and listeners primarily by entertaining, not informing. There once was a clear distinction between news and entertainment shows on television. That time is no more. The boundary has been breached, and it now falls to the viewer to distinguish fact from opinion, truth from persuasion. We often don't do that very well, and the purveyors don't do much to help us.
• Let's study history. There is no reason to repeat past mistakes, and while we may disagree on what lessons history teaches us, we can't learn any lessons from history without studying it.
• Let's be skeptical of conspiracy theories. I don't know if Oswald really acted alone, but I know there are some people out there who see a conspiracy in everything that happens. A healthy dose of skepticism is worthwhile. Communists and Muslims are very unlikely to work together to destroy the US government, and I strongly doubt that President Obama's mother and grandparents conspired when he was born to falsify his birth record so he could become president 40-some years later. Even though some of these ideas may support our political views, accepting them at face value weakens our society and the quality of our political discourse. That's not to say the theories can't be true, just that we should be very careful before we accept them, and equally careful before we believe someone who sees a conspiracy under every rock. 
• Let's be citizens of the world. I'm not talking about world government, but greater international understanding. The United States is a great nation, and we are a great people, but we do not have a corner on the goodness market. There is much we can teach other nations, but there is much we can learn from them as well. Our nation and our values would be more accepted and respected if we showed greater respect and acceptance of others. We would also enjoy greater prosperity and peace.
• Let's try to agree more. We can accomplish much more if we look for areas of common interest, instead of obstinately clinging to ideas that divide us all the time. Even on very divisive issues like abortion or gun control, there are many things that all but the most extreme among us can agree upon. Why not pursue those common values, and seek change that most could agree upon, instead of focusing all our attention on the things that divide us. Seeking unity where it is possible will strengthen us as a people.
• Let's be happier. With all that is going on in our nation, it's easy to get discouraged. We blame each other for causing problems, and dread what the other side will do next to make things worse. I don't know about you, but I need to remind myself more often of the good things in my own life and in our country. God is good, and through his grace we can make it through all our personal and national challenges.

This list is admittedly exhausting, but hardly exhaustive. There is much more we could do, but I think this is a start. I welcome your comments.

Sanity in Immigration Reform

Unlikely praise for Utah this week, as the New York Times published an editorial on Saturday praising the Utah Compact, a recent statement of views on immigration which has been endorsed by government, law enforcement, business, and religious leaders in Utah. Here's a link to the full text of the compact, which seeks and encourages civility and sanity in dealing with immigration issues. It's not long, and well worth the read. Some highlights:

• "Immigration is a federal policy issue between the U.S. government and other countries — not Utah and other countries."
• "Local law enforcement resources should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code."
• "We champion policies that support families and improve the health, education and well-being of all Utah children."
• "We must adopt a humane approach to this reality, reflecting our unique culture, history and spirit of inclusion."

The Utah Compact is supported by Mayors of Salt Lake City and County, the Utah Attorney General, two former governors, a former US Senator, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake, the Deseret News, and a broad range of other civic, business and religious leaders. The LDS Church hasn't officially signed the document, but did issue this statement of support, calling the Compact a "responsible approach to the urgent challenge of immigration reform" which "is consistent with important principles for which we stand." This powerful endorsement for a compassionate approach to immigration reform is consistent with past statements (e.g., here and here) the Church has made, and it makes a bold statement regarding the Church's attitudes. I have previously commented on the Church's approach.

Sadly, many LDS Church members appear to be out of touch with their own Church's official view. The harsh and completely uncompassionate approach taken in Arizona, which was the primary factor leading to the Church's call for compassion, was written and sponsored by an LDS state legislator, Russell Pearce. Another LDS state legislator, Stephen Sandstrom, plans to introduce similar legislation in Utah. Sandstrom, whose website touts his "LDS Mission to Venezuela" as well as the fact that he is a graduate of Brigham Young University, says on his website that he "fully support[s] the statement issued by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." However, in statements quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune, Sandstrom made his true position more clear: "I kind of wish I’d been given more of a heads-up because it is taking aim at the bill I’m doing. My other thought was that I thought the church’s no-position was the best way to go and to let this be the purview of government."

Clearly, Sandstrom isn't happy with the Church's role in the dialog. Unfortunately, some other members of Utah's predominantly LDS state legislature agree with Sandstrom, as do a substantial number of Utah's citizens. As I have said before, I am troubled by the apparent disregard so many LDS Church members give to a strong official stance the Church has taken numerous times on this issue. It is particularly troubling when politicians play on their Church membership and activity to get elected, and then so completely disregard the Church's teachings in their public service.

It is clear that the hatred expressed by so many is having a negative effect on the Church's reputation and proselyting efforts, as well as a negative economic effect in Arizona and elsewhere, which Utah will clearly feel should similar legislation be passed there. But most significant is the negative effect such hatred has on communities and families, when it brings discrimination and division, instead of unity and healing.

As this article points out, many feel that the New York Times editorial endorsing the Utah Compact will have little or no effect on the dialog in Utah. Regrettably, that is probably true. Still, the fact that one of the nation's preeminent newspapers would take notice of efforts being made in the small and conservative state of Utah is a positive sign for the future. Let's hope it has some effect, and let's hope that reason, compassion, and LDS Church policy prevail in Utah.

If you agree with the principles in the Utah Compact, please go to www.utahcompact.com, and join me by adding your name to the list of signers. As the Compact says: "The way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our immigrant neighbors." Those of us who agree need to make our voices heard.

Tea Party at the Pulpit

Yesterday was fast and testimony meeting, and I had an interesting experience. One member of the congregation stepped up to bear his testimony, talked about going to a "tea party" meeting the day before, and discussed some of the things he learned there. There was actually very little in his remarks that most LDS church members would find offensive, but I was troubled by it nonetheless. I guess I think asking conservative church members whether his comments were offensive is kind of like asking white people whether the Florida State Seminoles mascot is offensive.

I admit that I am extremely sensitive on this issue. I carry around a huge chip on my shoulder, because throughout my adult life I have been treated by many LDS church members as though my political views make me an apostate. Church leaders have repeatedly expressed the Church's official neutrality on political matters. Here is their official statement on the issue:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/political-neutrality

Before every general election in the US, the Church reiterates its neutral stand, and reminds us, as they did in 2008, that, "Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties."

Nevertheless, many LDS Church members seem to completely disregard this official view. They believe Glenn Beck is a worthy Latter-day Saint, but Harry Reid is not. They believe that they, not the appropriate bishop or stake president, have the right to determine Brother Reid's worthiness to hold a temple recommend or call himself a Latter-day Saint. Such attitudes are not restricted to elected officials. I have repeatedly been asked by well-meaning church members how I can possibly be a good Latter-day Saint and a democrat. My commitment both to my religion and to my political views has been questioned by those who think they know what I should believe better than I do. I have several friends who have actually left the Church because they were falsely made to feel that their political views were inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

After church yesterday, I had a conversation with a good friend who happens to be a John Bircher. Despite my considerable disagreement with him on many political issues, I have great respect for him. He pointed out to me that LDS Birchers are even more rare than LDS liberals, at least everywhere except Appleton, Wisconsin. He has taken the approach to just let things like this roll off his back, and not say anything about it. I wish I could adopt that approach. I know I should. But I just have a really hard time figuring out why it is that when someone else thinks it's ok to espouse their political views in church, and I challenge them on it, I'm the bad guy. I'm the one who is being confrontational and not following the principles of the gospel, while the person who started it is excused. I don't get that. Maybe someday, when I develop greater humility, I will understand, but right now I don't.

I should also say that I consider the man who bore his testimony yesterday to be a friend. I like him, respect him, and enjoy working with him in my church calling. I believe him to be a very good person, far better than I am, who is true to his convictions. He also makes no secret of his political views. It is not uncommon for him to find opportunities to insert references to his politics into conversations or comments during priesthood and Sunday School lessons. As a result, my guard was already up when he went to the pulpit yesterday. It shouldn't have been, but it was.

I am not going to go through the entire testimony word for word to discuss what I found offensive. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to dissect my comments from the pulpit that way. The essential message in his comments, as I understood it, was that our right to practice Christianity should be defended and that we should vote for candidates who will uphold this right. This is not at all inconsistent with the principles of the gospel. However, I think the point could have been made just fine without referring to the discussion of this issue at a tea party meeting or the implication that tea party candidates are the only ones who believe in protecting Christian values. I also found comments about "our stimulus dollars at work" and the political correctness of showing respect to other religions but not Christianity to be unnecessary and distracting.

One final thought. After the meeting, I had a pleasant conversation with my friend, where I tried to politely express my concerns. I want to reiterate here one of the things I said to him. In his testimony, he made reference to the comments of a Christian minister at the tea party meeting, who was calling for tolerance for Christian beliefs and values. I asked my friend if he had ever stopped to think that this Christian minister very likely has no respect for our religious beliefs, considers us to be members of a cult, and refuses to consider us Christians. An interesting thought to contemplate, as we decide with whom we should ally ourselves in our zeal to protect our values and beliefs.

Can't we all just get along?

Interesting article in the Christian Science Monitor today. Various groups of American Muslims are trying to combat increasing hatred and violence shown towards them by mounting public relations campaigns designed to point out that they are peaceful, ordinary Americans just like you and me. Some of them, like this one, are very touching:


The need for such responses is both increasingly apparent and frightening. Alarming accounts of violence and persecution aimed at people for the sole reason that they are Muslim are being heard throughout the country. Several examples are given in the Christian Science Monitor article. Those accounts make it clear that there is a segment of our society which views hatred and discrimination against an entire religion as an appropriate response to the violent actions of a few members of that faith. This proposition should be rejected by all who value religious freedom.

My ancestors felt this kind of hatred and discrimination at a time in our nation's history when there was virtually no one to stand up for them. The President of the United States told them their cause was just but he could do nothing for them. The sting of that persecution continues to this day to contribute to feelings of defensiveness and victimization felt by many Mormons. We, as much as anyone, should feel the pain of our Muslim brothers and sisters, and should reach out to them in love, peace, and understanding. We, as much as anyone, should realize that persecuting anyone for their religious beliefs endangers everyone's right to practice their religion. As one man puts it in this public service announcement, "If we don't have our rights, you don't have your rights." Amen.

Glenn Beck, Again!

We just can't seem to keep this guy out of the news. In an article quite relevant to the subject of this blog, the Washington Post asks today, "Is Glenn Beck's rise good for Mormonism?"

That's a pretty easy one. No. It is bad for Mormonism. Read the article. It will tell you why. Laying aside my personal disagreements with Beck, it is always bad when an entire religion is stereotyped based on the conduct and beliefs of one person. Mormon leaders have repeatedly made it clear that the Church finds good in all political parties, and the Church benefits from having prominent members in different places on the political spectrum. With Beck's emphasis on religion, the danger increases that many will see him as the sole political voice of Mormonism, particularly with the overwhelmingly conservative tenor of Utah politics. This is unfortunate.

Can someone tell me why people like Glenn Beck and Russell Pearce are seen by many as reflecting the views of all Mormons, while Harry Reid is not? With Reid so much in the public eye, wouldn't you think people would understand that Mormons come in different political flavors? But apparently it doesn't work that way. Why is that?

First Martin Luther King, Now 9/11

As if last week's rally on the anniversary and at the location of  Martin Luther King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech wasn't arrogant and dishonorable enough, it came out this week that Glenn Beck will join with Sarah Palin in another rally to be held in Anchorage on September 11, 2010. News of the event came first in Vanity Fair, buried deep in a scathing article about Sarah Palin, which is worth a read on its own merits. Then, Beck talked about it on his show, coyly dodging questions about it and failing to mention the actual date. Here's the video:


Today, several media outlets are reporting the story, including Huffington Post,  Salon, and Politico. But I believe David Weigel has hit the nail right on the head in his assessment of this event. In an article on Slate.com, Weigel says:

"I think you're going to see a sequel to Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally. Like I noted in my article on that rally, it wasn't overtly political for the same reasons that his paid speeches aren't overtly political. The people who show up for these events are already converts. The point of these events is to bolster their political anxiety by telling them they are needed to reclaim America in the name of God."

Of course Beck wasn't and won't be overtly political! Everyone knows the religious conservatives have already co-opted God, so when Beck talks of returning to God, he is inviting a new conservative crusade to rid the country of the infidel liberals into whose hands we foolishly entrusted the government. He never has to use the words "conservative" or "liberal," "Republican" or "Democrat," because everyone, especially his millions of bleating disciples, already know the code. I have already talked about who the God is that Beck is talking about, but the point is quite clear. Beck has placed himself in the enviable position of being able to talk politics without talking politics, to seek converts and still be able to deny that he is proselyting.

Beck has already desecrated the memory of Martin Luther King, and now he will dishonor the memory of the thousands who died on September 11th, taking what is an American tragedy that belongs to all of us, and claiming it for his own personal and political gain. If this isn't a window into his soul, what is?