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?

Another view of Glenn Beck's "Ministry"

Saw this today and found it interesting:

Glenn Beck Calls America Back – To a Generic God

By: Robert Parham
Posted: Monday, August 30, 2010 6:24 am
Section: EthicsDaily.com's Latest Articles

One excerpt:

At the very beginning of the "Restoring Honor" Rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, Beck proclaimed, "Something beyond imagination is happening. Something that is beyond man is happening. America today begins to turn back to God."

 And another:

No amount of Bible reading, sermons masquerading as prayers and Christian hymns can cover up Beck's civil religion that slides back and forth between the Bible and nationalism, between authentic faith and patriotic religion.

 Of course, in the mind of Glenn Beck, it is his rally, not any other factor or combination of factors, that starts America turning back to God. Of course, this assumes the need for such a revival, and that America has turned away from God in the first place. And then Beck has to walk a fine line, trying to encourage a belief in God, without being too specific so as to offend anyone who sees God differently than he does. This is especially important given Beck's own religious persuasion, which is far from the American mainstream.

Beck tries to unite all religious people to support his cause, but instead appeals only to the conservative tea party members whose generic mix of patriotism and religion leads them to believe that they are the only true patriots and believers.

The other interesting thing about this article is that its author, a Baptist leader, resists the opportunity to rail on Mormonism in general. Thank you for that little tidbit.

Ashamed of Christ?

Today, I received a forwarded e-mail from an LDS friend, which contained some beautiful images of Christ. It also included this message:

"I'm not ashamed  
He  is the only one that can save this country and
they want him removed from the  government..  

Our   great nation will not stand if we delete HIM  
from all aspects of our government as the   atheists
want."

And then, later, this one:

"Jesus   Test

This is an easy test, you score 100  or zero.
It's your choice.
If you aren't  ashamed to do this, please follow the directions.
Jesus said, 'if you are ashamed  of me, I will be ashamed of you
before my Father.'

This is the simplest test If you Love God, and are not ashamed
of all the marvelous things he has  done for you..
Send this to ten people"

Now, I think I love Christ, and I don't believe I'm ashamed of him, nor do I lack appreciation for all the marvelous things God has done for me. However, unfortunately, I scored a zero on the Jesus test.

I always have a problem with the many e-mails I receive which threaten bodily harm, calamities, and all sorts of evil results if I don't forward the e-mail to at least 10 friends. I find this to be a despicable infringement on my agency, and I routinely delete them, as I'm sure most people do. Maybe that's why my life is in shambles. However, this one might take the cake. Even without the political statement in the e-mail, it would be wrong for my friend to tell me how I must demonstrate that I am not ashamed of Christ. But with politics inserted, the offense becomes even more egregious. Now, not only am I ashamed of Christ if I choose not to forward your images, but I am also ashamed of Christ if I disagree with your politics. Sorry, but I find extreme arrogance and coercion in this approach, and I reject my friend's right, or anyone's right, to tell me how I must demonstrate my devotion to God, especially when that demonstration involves agreement with a particular political point of view. Somehow, I don't think Christ will be ashamed of me for feeling this way. Sorry, Tim.

Now let's talk about the political statement itself. It is not uncommon for Christians to complain about God being taken out of our government, by which of course they mean the Holy Trinity, their God, not the God in which Muslims, Jews, or anyone else believes. I have often argued against this proposition, but today I simply pose a number of questions to my LDS friend, which are directed specifically to Mormons. Here they are:

If you are not ashamed of Christ, wouldn't you want him in your church and your private worship, not in your government? Wasn't he the one who commanded us to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's (a bold pronouncement on separation of church and state)?

If you are not ashamed of Christ, wouldn't you want to honor the Constitution he inspired, which grants freedom of worship to all, not just to Christians?

If you are an LDS Church member who is not ashamed of Christ, wouldn't you believe the 11th Article of Faith, which allows all men to worship how, where, or what they may?

If you are an LDS Church member who is not ashamed of Christ, wouldn't you agree with Joseph Smith's pronouncement in the 134th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, which says: "we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion?"

If you are an LDS Church member who is not ashamed of Christ, wouldn't you want to worship him according to your own understanding of who he is and what he taught, rather than having your government prescribe worship according to Protestant or Catholic beliefs?

Doesn't putting Christ in government mean giving preference to those who believe in him over those who don't? Doesn't it mean imposing the beliefs and practices of the majority upon all the religious minorities? Even though Mormons consider themselves Christians, don't we really belong to a religious minority not unlike Jews, Muslims and others? If a belief system were chosen by our government to be the preferred method of worship, is there any chance it would be ours?

Haven't Mormons historically been persecuted for their beliefs by the Christian majority, and don't we continue to endure the criticism of many Christians who say we are a cult, and that our beliefs do not reflect true Christianity? Is this Christian majority really the group we want to control how Christ is made a part of our government? Do we really want to pursue the goal of putting God back in government by joining with the very fundamentalist Christians who constantly criticize us, mischaracterize our beliefs, and deny our right to call ourselves Christians? Isn't this a very unlikely and unwise alliance?

Wouldn't it be wiser to pursue the goal of retaining the right to worship our way in private and not being required to worship someone else's way in public?

Just a little food for thought. Have a great day.

LDS Church in China

This week, the LDS Church announced that it is on the verge of concluding an agreement with the government of the People's Republic of China which will "regularize" the Church's activities in China. More information about this agreement was given in an LDS Newsroom article found here. Of interest to me is the fact that these talks were actually initiated by the Chinese government, who sent a high-ranking official to Salt Lake City to address the issue, after earlier meetings in China. A church spokesman pointed out that this does not mean the Church will be sending missionaries to China, only that church activities in China among those who are already members of the church will be more carefully defined. The representative, Michael Otterson, had this to say:

"The Church deeply appreciates the courtesy of the Chinese leadership in opening up a way to better define how the Church and its members can proceed with daily activities, all in harmony with Chinese law.”

Otterson also points out that this agreement reflects the trust that has built up between the LDS Church and Chinese government over the last 30 years, as the Church has demonstrated its willingness to comply with restrictions placed upon it in China. This change will bring great benefits to Chinese members of the church, and to expatriates living in China.

This issue is of significant personal interest to me, because my son recently returned from an LDS mission to England, where most of his proselyting efforts were directed towards Chinese people. He was taught Mandarin, and was able to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to many Mandarin-speaking people, most of whom were students attending university in England. Some of these students have already returned to China, and others will do so in coming years. This week's announcement means it will be easier for them to practice their religion and receive support from church leaders once they return to their homeland. This will bring inestimable blessings into their lives, and great joy to us, and particularly to my son, who has worried about how these new converts would be able to maintain their commitment to the gospel in a place that is so hostile toward religion.

England is not the only unlikely place to which the LDS Church has sent Mandarin-speaking missionaries. I have known of such missionaries being sent to several states and other countries. Those efforts will surely accelerate in light of this week's announcement. While the church may not be able to proselyte in China, they can still proselyte to Chinese people elsewhere in the world. Now, those people will be able to return to China and enjoy the fellowship of other church members there.

I appreciate the LDS Church's liberal approach on this issue, which recognizes the value of taking the blessings of the gospel to all people, wherever or under whatever circumstances they live. It reminds me of the immigration issue I have discussed earlier. In both situations, the Church's compassionate approach has made it clear that politics will not stop it from fulfilling its mission to share the good news throughout the world. Even godless communists, like illegal aliens, need to experience the love of Christ and the blessings of his atonement. This brings great comfort and happiness to me.

Restoring Honor

 As I said yesterday, I'm trying to move my political discussions here from facebook. So, rather than continue a thread started there, I have decided to recreate most of it here, including my response to the latest post from a friend. As a result, it will be rather lengthy.

Recently, I posted a comment on facebook questioning whether Glenn Beck is really the person that should be sponsoring a rally called "Restoring Honor." When some of my friends tried to defend Beck's honor, and encouraged me to watch him to see what he really says, this is how I responded:

Scott, I have watched him. I have read what he says. I have seen enough clips of him spewing lies and misinformation to make my stomach turn. Here are some examples:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/do-glenn-beck-fans-know-about-his-lie...s/question-593823/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/

Note that PolitiFact is a neutral site that evaluates the truth of statements made by people from all sides of the spectrum. They do not have it in for Beck.

The funny thing is that it is Beck's own words that condemn him the most. Beck has said he is an entertainer, not a journalist. He has said he is a commentator, and that he doesn't check his facts. Here he is saying it:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/Glenn-Beck-The-View

If you want to go on insisting that this is an honorable, honest man, be my guest. But that won't make it so.

 Not surprisingly, the response I got was to point out that President Obama lies too. Of course, this is absurd. You can't defend the honor of one man by challenging the honor of another. If Beck is a liar, he isn't made any less of a liar by the fact that others lie too.

One friend, dissatisfied with my challenge to this approach, repeated the charge using a euphemism to describe lying:

Politicians, journalists, celebrities - they all lie, Hansen. It is commonly referred to as spinning the truth as you probably know. Why do you expect Beck to be any different? Don't say because he is LDS, because then the conversation will turn to Reid.

And, let's not forget our own little indisgressions, half-truths and oopsies (what we thought was truth until we found out more). Humans are human - expect lies, especially in high profile personalities...

With politicians it is worse because they make decisions that directly and immediately affect people's lives is why. Journalists and celebrities, no problem - change the channel!

 I tried to point out that we're not talking about spinning the truth here, nor am I trying to hold someone else to a higher standard than I impose on myself. Here's my answer:

I know that I sometimes lie or stretch the truth or make mistakes. I admit that. I try not to do it, but sometimes I fail. But unlike Beck, I have not held myself out as a symbol and leader of honor and integrity in America. I don't live in a glass house. Beck does. And it has nothing to do with his professed religious beliefs.

Oh, and spinning something so it favors your beliefs is not at all the same thing as making something up out of whole cloth. These aren't spins, they are outright lies:
1. Death panels
2. Obama is a Muslim and wasn't born in the US.
3. Peter Orszag wasn't confirmed by the Senate.
4. The government spent $1.4 million to repair a door.
5. The average UAW worker makes $154 per hour.

There are many more, and the sheer volume of them demonstrates his intent to mislead the American public. He does so with the intent to sell his books, and to influence public opinion (and, as a result, elections). And he has the bully pulpit provided to him by Fox Noise to allow him the greatest possible influence, far greater than any single politician.

 That comment elicited this response from a different friend:

Scott, what proof is there, that those are lies?

 This response astounded me, as I find it hard to believe that anyone would still accept as true the five statements made by Beck that I called lies. Here is how I responded:

Del, are you serious? Wow!

1. There is absolutely no reference to anything akin to death panels in the health care bill.
2. Obama has said he is a Christian, and the state of Hawaii has shown us his birth record.
3. Peter Orszag, the man Beck called our budget czar, was confirmed by the Senate on January 20, 2009.
4. The government contract Beck was referring to actually included only $246,000 to repair several aircraft hangar doors.
5. The average cost of a UAW worker's wages and all their benefits is about $55.

I'm not going to do your research for you. If you don't believe me, check the facts yourself and prove me wrong.

I gave you several more examples above, but these don't even scratch the surface. Here is Beck himself admitting a lie, and claiming that he is not a reporter but a commentator and has no duty to check his facts.
http://www.tvsquad.com/2009/05/21/glenn-beck-gets-a-spanking-on-the-view/

Here's another whopper:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/

There are lots more. Just google "Glenn Beck lies" and you will find more than you could ever want.

 That comment by me brought this response from my friend:

‎"Obama said?" Isn't that a little like "Rush said" or "Glenn Beck said?" Rush said he is not racist! Are we going to accept that as fact or aren't we?

No death panels stated, but what is the result of socialized health care, everywhere it has ever been put in place? Never stated, but true enough!

The government contract comment should be well taken despite the cost. When does the government ever do anything as inexpensively as it could be done? My money, your money, remember?

We could go on and on! I will never excuse anyone of a lie, if it is a lie, but your earlier comment about "your guy lies too." How can you make a comment about a conservative that lies and be disgusted by that, and then turn around and support guys that lie? Obama has lied repeatedly! And no, I am not going to do your research for you!

 Finally, we get to my latest response, which is addressed to my friend, but is more general in its application. I invite my friend, or anyone else, to comment in response. Here it is:

Del, you don't want to do MY research? Don't be ridiculous. I did the research. I know that what I have said is correct. You challenge it, but provide no proof to back it up. Don't try to push that off on me.

As far as religion goes, I say I am a Christian. Many fundamentalist Christians say I am not. Does that make me a liar? Who gets to decide whether I am a Christian or not? I do. Who gets to decide whether President Obama is a Christian or not? HE DOES. If he says he believes in Christ, that's good enough for me. Nobody has the right to question the sincerity of another person's religious convictions. Beck tried that this week, and look where it got him.

Death panels? Palin made this up out of whole cloth, Beck backed her up, and their disciples have perpetuated the lie. There is no such provision in the law, there is no reason for it to happen, and there is no justification for the right causing the elderly to fear such a thing. Socialized health care is a red herring. We don't have socialized health care and you know it. Our system, even after recent changes, bears NO resemblance to socialized health care systems in other countries. You may think we are on the road to such a system, but we aren't there yet. Call me when such a thing is really proposed. In the meantime, can we please stop using false descriptors that mislead people, incite fear, and deflect the arguments away from what is true?

I'm sure that Obama has lied too. I have never said I unconditionally support him or hold him to a different standard. If he's wrong, he deserves the same level of criticism as anyone else. Of course, you give no examples or proof of his supposed lies, because the conservative way is just to scream the allegations over and over again without proof until the gullible start to believe them. However, even if Obama has lied, what does that prove? Only that he's wrong too, not that Beck is right. You sound like the little kid caught stealing. "But Mommy, Jimmy did it too!" That argument didn't work then, and it doesn't work now.

The only thing you are right about in your comment is this: "We could go on and on!" Yes we could, exposing lie after lie, and no matter how many I point out, you will continue to claim they aren't lies, even when Beck himself admits that he lied. You will continue to divert attention away from Beck by pointing the finger at others. So be it.

Mormons and Immigration

Yesterday, I stumbled upon a Deseret News editorial published a few weeks ago that addressed the illegal immigration issue in a remarkably well-reasoned way. After publishing a series of special reports on the subject, and attempting to consider the issue from all sides of the debate, the Deseret News editorial board shared their opinions, which included this conclusion:

"We encourage all Utahns to take the time to learn and ponder. We don't need to follow anyone else's lead. We can lead out in thoughtfulness, creativity, comprehensiveness and compassion. Others have left a remarkable legacy for us. Let us leave a legacy for those who follow that will stand the test of time and that will reflect and honor the sacrifices of those who preceded us.
At the end of the day, what we do about immigration will say more about "us" than it will about "them." We need to find a way so that they, and we, are one."

 Reflecting on Utah's history, the editorial points out that all Utahns, regardless of their religious background, share the heritage of Mormon pioneers who immigrated to Utah from other states and nations at great personal sacrifice, seeking a better life for themselves and their families.

"Therefore, we, of all people, should be sensitive to the desire of others to provide more opportunities for themselves and their families. We, of all people, should take the time to learn to love our neighbors, rather than allowing the fact that they are different to cause us to want to drive them from our midst. We, of all people, should set a higher standard of concern, compassion and love. Except for Native Americans, we are all here because of immigration. Common decency, and gratitude for what we have, should cause us to embrace those who have a desire to share in and add to what is already here."

 The editorial recognizes that immigration is a complex issue, requiring a consideration of many factors, not just a knee-jerk reaction calling for deportation of all illegals. The Deseret News is, of course, owned by the LDS Church, so one would expect its views to reflect those of its sponsoring institution. Indeed, church leaders have made similar statements in the past. In February 2008, Elder Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventy said:

"Immigration questions are questions dealing with God's children. I believe a more thoughtful and factual, not to mention humane approach is warranted, and urge those responsible for enactment of Utah's immigration policy to measure twice before they cut."

 In making the statement, Elder Jensen made it clear that this was not just his view. "I was assigned to come here by the First Presidency of the Church," he said.

Last month, the Church's First Presidency issued a statement that repeated pleas made in the past for compassion and careful reflection on the issue of immigration. The statement includes this language:

"Finding a successful resolution will require the best thinking and goodwill of all across the political spectrum, the highest levels of statesmanship, and the strongest desire to do what is best for all of God’s children."

 It is clear that many Mormons either haven't listened to the Church's official statements, or have chosen to ignore them. The latest Deseret News editorial elicited many angry responses. Russell Pearce, sponsor of Arizona's well-known anti-immigrant legislation, is a Mormon, and has been outspoken in his call for strict enforcement of immigration laws and his rejection of the need for compassion in dealing with immigrants. Sadly, many Mormons agree with him. Here is one view of Pearce's positions. Pearce's involvement in the immigration debates has had a negative effect on the LDS Church's efforts in Hispanic communities, with many immigrants wrongly assuming his views reflect those of the Church. I wrote to Pearce, asking him how he felt about taking positions that bring shame and damage to his church. He acknowledged that he does not speak for the church, but gave no indication that he had ever publicly made that clear. He was completely unapologetic about his total lack of compassion or careful reflection on the immigration issue. He said: "The only shame comes from members who think our Church is above the law.  WE are commanded to obey the law.  Members who break the law or promote lawlessness are those I believe bring shame."

The LDS Church has tried, through repeated statements by church leaders and through editorials in its own newspaper, to emphasize the need for compassionate, well-reasoned, careful consideration of immigration issues. Meanwhile, many LDS Church members urge a hateful, "illegal is illegal" approach, requiring immediate deportation of all illegals. Unfortunately, many people both inside and outside the Mormon church view the latter as the official position of the church. Clearly, the LDS Church gets it. When will its members get it? When will they come to realize how much their hatred and bigotry is hurting not only immigrants but also their own church?

Beck Hurts His Own Cause

Even though I have little use for Glenn Beck, and often criticize the things he does and says, I think he's an intelligent man who seems to consider his own self-interest before he speaks or acts. Speaking the truth doesn't seem to be a primary motivation, but helping his own cause, including improving ratings and selling books, clearly is. That is what makes today's story very surprising. Here and here are a couple of the many articles about it.

This story actually surfaced last week, when on his August 24 show, Beck accused President Obama of supporting a "liberation theology" that does not conform to "true" Christian values. On Sunday, Beck expanded on his statements, asserting, among other things, that the President's views are "a perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as most Christians know it."

The unfortunate thing about that last statement is that many Christians consider Beck's views a perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Mormons have been struggling for years to overcome the claims of many fundamentalist Christians who assert that Mormons are not Christian, that Mormonism is a cult, and that it promotes a false gospel. This is a difficult issue, which turns on the right of any person, Christian or not, to define what is "true" Christianity, and what is "false" Christianity. By raising this issue with respect to President Obama, Beck exposes his own hypocrisy, emboldens those who question Mormons' Christianity, and hurts the cause of his own religion.

Mormons believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of the world, they worship him as God, and they believe he has redeemed them from their sins. Mormons have several beliefs that differ from those held by some fundamentalist Christians, but so do adherents of many other Christian faiths, including principally Catholics. Without delving into specific differences of opinion, I want to address the question of whether any Christian has the right to judge whether or not another person is a true Christian.

Wikipedia asserts that there are as many as 38,000 Christian denominations. In the US alone, one site lists 30 different Christian denominations with at least 50,000 members, though many of these have separate branches that could actually be defined as different denominations. Clearly, there would be no reason for all of these denominations to exist in the absence of some doctrinal or practical disagreements. It would be axiomatic to suggest that each Christian would believe the doctrines espoused by his or her own church to be the true Christianity, and that they would disagree with interpretations made by other churches that don't agree with their own. There simply is no universal agreement on Christian beliefs.

This situation is not new. Even in the New Testament we have evidence of disagreements among Christ's disciples on important points of doctrine. In the centuries following the crucifixion, many disputes arose regarding orthodox views. Throughout history, many attempts have been made to unify Christian beliefs, largely without success. Rifts between the Eastern and Western churches and the much later development of Protestantism were among the largest divisions in Christianity, though many other breaks have followed. One of the most significant of those, to me at least, is the advent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1830. Mormons believe the establishment of their church was the restoration of true Christian doctrines lost over the centuries after Christ's death. This is not unlike the view of Protestants that the reformation was needed to bring Christianity back to its true, original creed.

Adherents of any Christian (or non-Christian) denomination have the right to believe that theirs is the only correct belief system, but this is far different from having the right to question the sincerity or validity of someone else's different beliefs. Mormons "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." (Articles of Faith 11). This is a fundamental principle of respect that should frame the religious beliefs of all.

In my opinion, no Christian has the right to decide whether someone else's religious views conform to some interpretation of orthodoxy, or to deny them the right to call themselves Christian. It is the fundamental right of each person to decide their own religious beliefs. By denying this right to President Obama, Glenn Beck invited others to deny him the same right. Because I belong to the same church Beck does, he also invited others to question my beliefs and to deny my Christianity. Beck's short-sightedness on this issue makes no sense. It certainly is not in his self-interest, and it is a blatant betrayal of all those who share his religious beliefs. He has set back the cause of all Mormons and others who seek the right to call themselves Christians.

OK, I'm going to try to use this blog

I created this blog some time ago, but I haven't really used it. Lately, I have been making a number of political statements on facebook, which have generated some controversy, since many of my friends have very different political views, and many others don't care to see political discussions at all. I have decided to try to change my approach. Instead of posting my political commentaries on facebook, I will try to post them here. That way, those who are interested in what I have to say, especially those who disagree with me, can read and comment on my views, while those who aren't interested don't have to block me on facebook. We'll see how well it works. I have a couple of things to post today, and I'll try to keep up with this in the future. No guarantees.