One document at a time....

Yes, that is how social changes occur, slowly and often imperceptably. Much like the frog in the kettle story....you remember it...if a frog is placed into hot water he will immediately jump to safety, but if the water is heated slowly he does not notice the danger until it is too late.

I haven't written in months as you know...not that I haven't been watching. I most certainly have. But it is hard on me emotionally sometimes to share thoughts on themes that are most disturbing. But today, I wish to share some thoughts.

I titled this post "one document at a time" borrowing a phrase from an article from the website United Families International. To quote them more fully, "One document at a time they are altering international norms, standards and definitions that control the debate in individual countries." On what subject? Gender, of course. Most recently, in a UN document, an expert on Human Rights, Martin Scheinin presented a report asserting that gender is not biological, but rather a social construct. He further explains that society, rather than nature (or God, I have to add here), controls how "women's and men's roles, functions and responsibilities...are defined and understood. Consequently, gender is not static; it is changeable over time and across contexts." Absurd...laughable. And yet dangerous. As these ideas are repeated nationally and internationally and taught to the young and impressionable, this can set an entirely new precedent for decisions that relate to gender, to sexual orientation being considered an "identity" that requires specific protections rather than a human behavior and laws that relate to the family. These "special protections" often under the guise of "hate crimes" threaten freedom of speech and religion. If that sounds a little extreme to you, look to other countries or you can look even more closely to home. Consider this:

Since Obama’s nomination of Chai Fledblum for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the press has released a series of startling quotations from Feldblum that reveal not only her agenda, but make evident the radical politics of many of President Obama’s nominees and staffers. She, like other Obama selections, has made no attempt to disguise her political agenda and openly supports the advancement of homosexual rights and same-sex marriage, even if it means overriding the will of the public.
Since her nomination the right has raised serious concerns about her personal neutrality and her general regard for the opinion of the public at large, arguing her nomination is a clear attempt to advance LGBT workplace rights outside of legislative channels. Their concern is rightly placed.
I’ve selected here a sample of quotes from Feldblum that provide a strong perspective on her political position:
My own view, reflected in my writing over the past decade, is that government often appropriately legislates on a shared social vision of morality and that changing the public’s moral assessment of same-sex sexual activity is thus key to achieving true equality for LGBT people. For some time, I have articulated this view as a requirement that the public must come to view homosexuality and heterosexuality as morally equivalent – that is, the public must believe that both straight sex and gay sex encompass equivalent moral ‘goods’…that there is nothing inherently immoral or wrong with two people of the same gender engaging in sexual conduct.

AND
I, for one, am not sure whether marriage is a normatively good institution. I have moved away from the belief that marriage is clearly the best normative way to structure intimate relationships, such that government should be actively supporting this social arrangement above all others. I currently believe that marriage is a normatively ‘good’ framework for most people to aspire to (I think), because it serves some very deep and legitimate human needs. But I also believe all of us are harmed, as members of a society seeking a common good, when society fails to acknowledge the wide array of non-marital intimate social structures that we as humans have ingeniously constructed to negotiate and make sense of the world.
AND:
As a general matter, once a religious person or institution enters the stream of commerce by operating an enterprise such as a doctor’s office, hospital, bookstore, hotel, treatment center and so on, I believe the enterprise must adhere to a norm of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Feldblum’s nomination came late last month and if confirmed, Feldblum would be one of five commissioners of the EEOC, which interprets and enforces federal equal opportunity laws.

We really can't be like the frog comfortable in warming waters...it is time to jump into action! Find a way that you can be more involved...you don't have to do a lot...just do something!

1. Be informed – watch the news, read books, read what is available on the internet in terms of news sources, blogs and other informational sites. Remember – Information is power!
2. Register to vote & then GO VOTE! Help other people in your neighborhood and community register to vote. Remind your neighbors and friends to vote on election day.
3. Actively address issues of concern – there may be issues of concern to you at a local school, at work, in your neighborhood, or city. Once you are informed, actively address your concerns by contacting those involved. If you have a particular concern, there are probably many other people just like you. Raise your voice – make phone calls, send emails, blog, Twitter – let people hear from you, or they will never know there is a problem.
4. Join or volunteer for an organization in your community – You can volunteer, join, or financially contribute to groups that promote the things you believe in, at local levels as well as higher, more distant levels like the UN. Let your talents and your interests guide you as you decide where to spend your time and energy. Speak and write logically, intelligently not emotionally.
5. Run for an elected position or support those who are running for – school board, city council, state representative – we need good, (meaning intelligent, articulate and moral) people in elected positions!
6. Teach your children and others around you to be civic minded – Through your example you will have a profound impact on your family, friends, neighbors and others. They will see your dedication and willingness to get out there and be involved, and many will feel inspired to participate also.

and I want to add a #7. Teach your children from the Proclamation on the Family and God's standard for sexual conduct. Teach them so they will be able to discern between truth and erroneous thinking and pray for them that they will have courage to stand for the right.

A parting thought---remember those in Maine. They will be voting on Nov. 2nd.

The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain...but not their ideology

What is happening to children in Spain that should cause us to take notice?
MADRID, January 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After three days of debate, the Spanish Supreme Court has declared that parents do not have the right to opt out of a national civics program that includes indoctrination in homosexualist ideology and other offensive elements.

The program, "Education for Citizenship," teaches children to make a "critical evaluation of the social and sexual division of labor and racist, xenophobic, sexist, and homophobic social prejudices" and instructs teachers to "revise the student’s attitude towards homosexuality." (More specifically, "The curriculum will teach children to accept "diverse family situations" and include training in "overcoming homophobic prejudice," and rejection of "discrimination" with regard to gender. In the parlance of the international pan-sexual movement, that encompasses radical feminism and homosexual identity politics, "gender" is an almost infinitely malleable social construct, having little to do with biology or reproduction. Groups at United Nations conferences have proposed such recognition for up to eleven "genders" including male homosexual, lesbian, bi-sexual, male-to-female "transgendered," asexual, hermaphrodite, and transvestite.The Spanish curriculum includes lessons in "moral pluralism" the concept that there is more than one type of "morality" and that adhering to the traditional concept of moral absolutes is inherently "intolerant.") It was formulated by Spain's Socialist Worker's Party, which has held power since 2004.

Following the implementation of the program, families sued to secure status as conscientious objectors in the State of Asturias, where the local Supreme Court ruled that they could not exempt their children from the course. They then appealed the case to the Spanish Supreme Court, which ruled against the families yesterday 23-7, in a plenary session.
Organizations representing dissenting families were defiant, arguing that the decision was unconstitutional, and had no authority over the autonomous provinces of Spain. They also announced plans to appeal the ruling to the nation's Constitutional Court, and beyond.

Parents who refuse to allow their children to attend, "are not committing any crime or illegitimate act with their children" said Benigno Blanco, President of the Spanish Family Forum, who also stated that "nothing is changing except for the four cases analyzed by the Supreme Court; all of the parents who have administrative or judicial coverage are perfectly able to impede their children from entering the classes." Luis Carbonel, president of Concapa (National Confederation of Catholic Parents and Pupils) told Fides news agency, "Every responsible family has the obligation to refuse this school subject." Saying it is a "matter of freedom, to defend the basic and highest right to educate our children in keeping with our own principles," he denounced the government for attempting to usurp the parents right to form "the consciences of their children."
Responding to the call of Spain's Minister of Education for all provinces to comply with the decision, Blanco stated that "the Minister can't give orders to the autonomous Communities" and added that she "can't change the Constitution nor human rights. That is higher than the hollow words of the Minister."
Spain's socialist political establishment, however, was jubilant.
"I celebrate that with this the debate is finished," said Spain's Justice Minister Fernandez Bernejo, who added that "this situation has been created by the bad decisions of some autonomous communities who haven't fulfilled their obligation to educate children well."

The Spanish Catholic bishops have responded with condemnations of the program, including an official statement that says that the program, "implies a serious wound to the original and inalienable right of parents and schools, in collaboration with them, to choose the moral formation that they want for their children. This is a right recognized by the Spanish Constitution (article 27.3). The government cannot supplant the society as an educator of the moral conscience." It goes on to state that "the educational centers of the government, losing their obligatory ideological neutrality, will impose on whomever has chosen the Catholic religion and morality another moral formation that hasn't been chosen by them."The archbishop of Madrid, Antonio María Rouco Varela, later clarified that "no one rejects the idea of having an obligatory course on citizenship, which is good," but added that "the concrete form" in which the government has developed the course "is an ethical-moral educational program that negates religion".

In his opinion article, published in the Spanish socialist newspaper "El Pais", Peces-Barba (one of the authors of the current Spanish national constitution) expressed outrage at the bishops' opposition to his plan, accusing them of "an extreme arrogance, a sensation of impunity and an insufferable sense of superiority, derived from the fact that they administer 'superior truths'" and claims that they have "spent years defying the legitimate authorities, the Constitution and the law, attempting to impose their criteria before the common good and the popular sovereignty residing in the Parliament."

The bishops, complained Peces-Barba, "assume a tradtional anti-modern and clerical culture that is opposed to many legal conclusions of the democratic Government, and that it intends to sell as the truth that sets us free. Now it is Education for Citizenship, before it was divorce, abortion, the teaching of religion, and homosexual marriage." Although the bishops' objections are based on the fact that the program will be imposed on Catholic children contrary to the will of the parents, Peces-Barba accused them of "harassing those who are heterodox" and "showing disrespect for individual consciences". "They cannot nor should they continue down this road, nor pull so hard on the rope", warned Peces-Barba. "They are responsible for the agitation that impedes social peace and are belligerent against the policy of the government and against any progress." The socialist added that the Catholic Church must back down from criticism of its plan or suffer consequences. "If this new climate is not obtained in the next legislature," he wrote, "it will be necessary to address the topic of the actions and situation of the Church and establish a new status, that puts them in their place and that respects the autonomy of the civil authority."

Other matters that need a phone call from you to your senator are :

If there is ever a chance to stop the assault upon our lives that Internet pornography represents, it is through the Department of Justice being tough and enforcing the obscenity laws on the books. That is why it just rings with irony that David Ogden, whose hearing is today, is President Obama's pick for Deputy Attorney General.
Pornography and Obscenity: Ogden has extensively represented Playboy, Penthouse and other pornography businesses on numerous occasions and even argued to force the government to use tax dollars to publish portions of Playboy in Braille at the Library of Congress. He also served as legal counsel opposing the Children's Internet Protection Act and the Child Protection Obscenity and Enforcement Act, which requires pornographers to verify "performers" are not children.

Anti-Life Record: Ogden has a record of supporting an almost unlimited right to abortion, providing legal counsel for groups like Planned Parenthood, National Organization for Women and People for the American Way. He argued that "abortion rarely causes or exacerbates psychological or emotional problems," opposed parental notification for 14-year-olds, and called spousal notification a "burden" that "cannot be justified."

Pro-homosexuality activism: Ogden served as counsel of record for a legal brief that said homosexuality "is a normal form of human sexuality" and has called traditional marriage a "social prejudice."
Ogden has been nominated to uphold the very laws he has spent a career fighting.

Call your senators when you get this email and ask them to oppose the nomination of David Ogden. The Capitol Switchboard number is: 202-224-3121.

The “Stimulus” Spending Bill and Religious Freedom

According to recent plunging polls about how the public feels about the stimulus bill, Americans are beginning to understand the gravity of going into another trillion dollars of debt for a package that has so much pork.
One item of the bill has an additional problem because it impacts religious freedom. The Higher Education Modernization, Renovation and Repair section establishes a multi-billion dollar grant program to renovate and repair public and private colleges and universities. Hidden within this bill (Section 803 on page 164) is a prohibition on these funds being used for facilities that are used for "sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school department of divinity; or in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission."
What does this mean?
This prohibition is very broad and extremely ambiguous. It would prohibit religious students groups like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes or the Catholic Students Association and community churches from using any facility that is renovated using these funds, even if they are currently permitted to use them. Institutions of higher education would have to choose between kicking these groups out and turning down tens of millions in federal funds.
The primary effect of the funding restriction is to encourage colleges and universities to deny equal access to their facilities for religious organizations and to encourage all universities to identify and eliminate religious activities programs, and instructions on their campuses. This is a blatant attack on the First Amendment and a deceptive attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court and purge the public square of faith and prayer.
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has offered amendment #189 to remove the bill's prohibition on funding for modernization of higher education facilities where religious groups meet. A vote on the amendment is expected today.

Take Action:
Yes to #189

When you make your call to your senators mentioned above, also ask them to support Senator Jim DeMint's amendment #189 on the stimulus bill. The Capitol Switchboard number is: 202-224-3121.

I read something that impressed me the other day about idolatry. I read, "The Jews worshiped strange gods because they put their trust in the power of men and earthly governments instead of Jehovah and righteousness as the solution to human happiness and welfare." Does that have a familiar ring? I didn't think of the "great-hopes-that-Obama-and-his-administration-can-get-us-out-of-this-mess" as idolatry per se, but I suppose that anytime we look to someone or something other than to our Savior, we may as well be worshipping a little carved wooden calf for as much good as that will do. I hope you praying for the leaders of our government. They need our prayers and faith.

Modern Day "Wresting of scripture"

I have been really bothered over a Newsweek article where the author “wrests the scriptures” in support of homosexuality. It was so disturbing and upset me that someone used the scriptures this way. Some of the author’s comments included the following:


1. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.
2. Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument—in particular, this verse from Genesis: "Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." But if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn't God say, "Be fruitful and multiply"? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)
3. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?
4. Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for one another" (which he calls "a perversion") is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery. In his book "The Arrogance of Nations," the scholar Neil Elliott argues that Paul is referring in this famous passage to the depravity of the Roman emperors, the craven habits of Nero and Caligula, a reference his audience would have grasped instantly. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," Elliott says. "He's talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this list. We're not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage. We're talking about really, really violent people who meet their end and are judged by God."
5. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.
6. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace. The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage.

As I thought more about this,I realized that there will be many, not just one, who will teach the philosophies of men along with a little scripture. Clearly, it is an advantage if one can quote a little scripture along with “political correctness and tolerance vernacular of our day” to persuade Christians to accept this lifestyle. I know there are many Christians who sincerely wonder about how Christ would treat homosexuals or wonder how to reconcile his teachings of “love one another” and “judge not” with gay rights.
All of this makes me value the words of a present-day prophet even more. How grateful I am to understand that we can treat another human being with love, with dignity, with respect and kindness without condoning their practice. What a need there is in our day to heed the words of a prophet who defines and declares the word from God so there is no misunderstanding.



The following article was written in the Religion section of Washington Post in response to the Newsweek article.




In the latest issue of Newsweek, editor Jon Meacham explains: "To argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt--it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition." Indeed, he continues, "this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism." Curiously, he intends this as a defense of Lisa Miller's cover story, which announces that we should approve homosexual marriage because the Bible tells that Jesus would want us to.
On any plane of argument, the contradiction would appear stunning, but, then, neither Jon Meacham nor Lisa Miller are engaged in argument. They're speaking, instead, in familiar tropes and fused-phrases and easy clichés. They're trying to convey a feeling, really, rather than an argument: Jesus loves us, love is good, homosexuals love one another, marriage is love, love is loving--a sort of warm bath of words, their meanings dissolved into a gentle goo. In their eyes, all nice things must be nice together, and Jesus comes to seem (as J.D. Salinger once mocked) something like St. Francis of Assisi and "Heidi's grandfather" all in one.
In truth, of course, Meacham and Miller actually know what everyone else knows: The Bible offers no support for homosexual marriage. Christianity teaches love, mercy, and forgiveness for those who do bad things, true enough. Look, for example, at the story in the Gospel of John where Jesus offers his divine love, mercy, and forgiveness to a woman guilty of adultery. He shamed those who would stone her. He taught us all that we are sinners and often hypocrites. And then he told her, "Go and sin no more." He did not reinterpret the Old Testament to proclaim adultery another life-style choice.
Miller demolishes the distinction between sin and sinner, thus eradicating any real conception of sin and guilt. But without sin and guilt there is no need for forgiveness--and no basis for morality. An amoral world may be a quite suitable environment for gay marriage, but it is hardly the kind of world in which most Americans want to bring up their children.
Those who tried to live by the Christian understanding have come to amazingly similar conclusions about what God wants in marriage. We have had centuries to try out many different ideas and test them against the text of the Bible and experience. Only traditional marriage has stood. The Orthodox of Russia came to the same conclusion as the Roman Catholics of Italy. The Pentecostals of Kenya came to the same conclusion as the Reformed Christians of Scotland. Over time, different accommodations have been made to extreme or difficult situations, but the ideal has been clear: God's will is for marriage to be a covenant between a man and a woman. Nothing else will work.
The case for gay marriage in the Bible depends on the trick of taking a single idea and insisting that anything in the book that disagrees with it must miss the "spirit of the book." Do not underestimate how comforting this method of reading is. It allows us to pick up any text and discover that it agrees with our own insights. Of course, it also traps us in our assumptions and prevents any different voice from being heard. Reject the Bible, if you will--but don't pretend it means just what you want it to mean. The plain fact is that when the Old Testament talks about homosexual behavior, it condemns it. And when, in the New Testament, the followers of Jesus encountered homosexual acts, they quickly and universally condemned them.
Proponents of homosexual marriage suggest that the Bible has been twisted to support many dubious moral positions, which is true enough--and the metaphor most often used in this context is race. Didn't some Bible readers once condone negro slavery? Well, some Bible readers today object to same-sex marriage.
The comparison is facile and self-congratulatory. As the vote in California this November revealed, it is overwhelmingly rejected by African-Americans, who are, after all, the ones who should know. For that matter, the racial epithets hurled at African-Americans in California after the election suggests that gay activists aren't serious about the comparison, anyway. It is, for them, merely a handy stick with which to beat those Newsweek dismisses as fundamentalists.
And yet, there is a comparison to be made between advocacy of African slavery and same-sex marriage--though it works the other way around. Christian slave owners had to read race-based slavery into the Bible, and their arguments resemble in form all the other attempts--ancient and modern--to read into scripture what they wanted to find there.
Suppose we were to take the Bible seriously--where it agrees with us, and where it doesn't. We might do this not merely because the Bible asserts that God inspired it. Rather, over centuries, against critics who have used arguments and torture against Bible believers, we have developed reasons for our knowledge that the Bible is God's word. Through the long years, the Bible has been found to describe the human condition with force and accuracy: We will die, we are sinners, we exist in a world we did not make, we live through both joys and sorrows, we must train our children to carry on the work of this world, and we sense from time to time a higher reality beyond ourselves. Further, the Bible points us to the person of Jesus Christ, whom the practical experience of millions has found the best and highest hope of an answer to the human condition.
One thing the Bible never suggests is that the world must work the way we desire it to. Jesus loves us enough not to let us do whatever we want. Every generation attacks biblical ethics in some new way, but the Bible endures. Hypocrites pretend they have no sin. Hedonists pretend their sins are good. Honest people repent.
Joseph Bottum is editor of First Things: A Journal of Religion, Culture and Public Life. John Mark Reynolds, an evangelical, is associate professor of philosophy at Biola University. Bruce D. Porter is a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Parents.. be aware on January 27, 2009

Just another something our children and teens will deal with in these challenging times...

EQUALITY ON CAMPUS DAY! STUDENTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY!

JOIN TOGETHER IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT TOWARDS LGBT EQUALITY!

On January 27th, 2009, high school and college students across the country will wear the same shirt to school as a way to show unity within the community in the fight towards LGBT equality, particularly marriage equality. This is a visibility/fundraiser event geared towards achieving the following goals:

• Get students more involved in the fight towards LGBT equality.
• Raise the visibility of the LGBT movement towards equality by having everyone wear the same shirt on the same day.
• Students are encouraged to take group photos of everyone at their school wearing the Students for Equality t-shirt.
• Students for Equality is encouraging students to submit the group pictures to their school yearbooks and newspapers.
• Have the event one week after the inauguration to remind Obama that we are not going away. We are expecting him to address same-sex marriage, and LGBT rights in general.
• Raise money towards fighting for the legalization of same-sex marriage in the courts. Students for Equality will be donating a portion of the proceeds to Lambda Legal since they are currently fighting the state of California to repeal Proposition 8. Lambda Legal has also fought for LGBT equality in many other cases, including overturning sodomy laws in the United States on a federal level.
• The younger generation was very involved in the election this year," says Eric Ross co-founder of Students for Equality. "This event is a way for them to stay involved in political activism, and not just unite in the fight for marriage equality, but for LGBT equality as a whole."

A great talk by Kathy D. Pullins, "Choose Ye This Day"

I was listening to BYU TV as I worked in the kitchen this morning and heard a wonderful talk from BYU Women's Conference 2002. Kathy Pullins is an Associate Professor of Law at BYU. I'd like to share a portion of her remarks here:

Sisters and brothers, we are now being confronted by twenty-first-century Korihors. Those same erroneous philosophies are being redressed and recycled by the adversary and delivered at rapid speed and in multiple mediums. President Ezra Taft Benson observed: “The type of apostates in the Book of Mormon is similar to the type we have today. God, with his infinite foreknowledge, so molded the Book of Mormon that we might see the error and know how to combat false educational, political, religious, and philosophical concepts of our time.”


Indeed, every generation of believers—and especially this one—has encountered its Korihors, those who would twist and distort the truth. I find it interesting that Korihor emerged against a backdrop of peace after a season of mourning and great spiritual cleansing in the land. It was a time when the freedom of religion was protected, and the existing law in Zarahemla promoted an orderly society. Korihor used those conditions to his advantage and urged the people to replace the prophecies of God with the philosophies of men.


Similarly, our nation is healing from a time of devastating loss and mourning. In the aftermath of the recent national tragedy, many have sought spiritual comfort and understanding. Like the people of Zarahemla in 74 B.C., we are guaranteed today the freedom to worship God by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the laws of this land are designed to promote and maintain an orderly society. Because we live in this dispensation, the adversary’s work is accelerated and a virtual army of well-trained Korihors are seeking currently to confuse, distract, and ultimately destroy our faith in the Savior.


Why do you think that so many found the message of ancient Korihor compelling? I picture him as an articulate man with a commanding presence and a charismatic personality. Having surrendered such powerful talents to Satan, he sought to confound and misdirect the people. He pressed his philosophies, which denied Christ and spoke against the prophets, upon the faithful. Korihor’s purpose was to “interrupt their rejoicings” (Alma 30:22). And when he had the people’s attention, his next tactic was to have them doubt what they had been taught in their youth by their parents. Because such thinking appealed to their pride, they were primed to listen to his ideas.


And what did they hear? In that one chapter, Alma 30, Korihor preaches fifteen false philosophies. Let’s examine in some depth just three of them, some of their current manifestations, the truths that transcend the philosophical logic, and ways we can fortify ourselves against them.


Relativism is the first. In verse 17, Korihor offered as fact that “whatsoever a man does is no crime.” This approach views life through a blurred, darkened lens. Elder Neal A. Maxwell explains, “Relativism involves the denial of the existence of absolute truths and, therefore, of an absolute truthgiver.” A modern application of relativism is situational ethics, the practice of being moral chameleons. Such individuals adjust their ethical conduct and code, depending upon the current context and which method will serve their purposes best. In addition, one who subscribes to this philosophy concludes that, in the short- and the long-term, we are ultimately accountable only to ourselves. Such thinking does not even acknowledge our eventual command performance before the great Judge (Psalms 75:7). Considering this approach, Elder Richard B. Wirthlin concludes, “Societies structured by situational ethics—the belief that all truths are relative—create a moral environment defined by undistinguished shades of gray.”


Note the contrast between gray relativism and the distinct boundaries that mark the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We have been given clear commandments and have made covenants that require our specific and consistent behavior. Our demeanor does not depend on our location or the company we keep; to the contrary, we are commanded “to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things and in all places” (Mosiah 18:9; emphasis added).


To illustrate how we can find ourselves in settings where we confront relativism, I’d like to tell you of an experience I had some years ago while I was in law school. I had traveled with some of my classmates to attend a conference for women student groups in a large city on the West Coast. All of the sessions addressed current hot topics in the law, the presenters were well prepared, and the large audience was receptive. The keynote speaker was especially skillful. Her style was practiced, and her tone was persuasive; she told stories that her audience could relate to, and she took a clever, backdoor approach to presenting her politically charged subject. As I listened to this speaker’s opening remarks, I felt uneasy and began looking around the large auditorium to see others’ reactions. The women were riveted upon the presenter’s every word. When her voice rose in a question, almost every person in attendance nodded her head in enthusiastic agreement. My discomfort escalated as I witnessed the speaker’s smooth manipulation of facts and distortion of solid ethical standards.


At the end of the first day, I sat at dinner with some of the representatives from other schools and listened as they reviewed the sessions they had attended. Without exception, these bright, articulate young women singled out the main speaker’s address as the highlight of the conference thus far. Moreover, they wholeheartedly endorsed her platform. They didn’t state their reasoning outright, because it was so obvious to them: if you are female, intelligent, and educated in the law, you will subscribe to this wise, seasoned practitioner’s approach. Soon I knew I couldn’t let my silence lead others to think that I agreed with this conclusion, and I began to search for a time and a way to express my differing perspective.


I decided that the best opportunity would be at a delegates’ meeting on the second and final day of the conference. As BYU Law School’s representative, I knew I would be asked to sign off on a resolution that endorsed many of the falsehoods presented in the opening keynote address. It would then be sent on to the American Bar Association with a letter of support from the national student organization. I was certain that my refusal to put my name and the law school’s name at the bottom of that document would be met with surprise, opposition, and even anger; but I was certain that the time had come for me to take a stand.


Then, just before the roll call was taken, the lead delegate announced that because of time constraints, the resolution would be tabled until the following year. Well, I have to confess to you that my initial reaction was overwhelming relief that I didn’t have to oppose what appeared to be something that had unanimous support. That feeling faded quickly, however, and I knew that I still needed to weigh in. That night in my hotel room I wrote a four-page letter informing the conference leaders that my school would not have endorsed the measure, and using the truths of the gospel, I explained why. Upon reflection, I can say that I honestly don’t believe my few words of dissent were likely to persuade anyone who read the letter to change her opinion, but I needed to voice them. The absolutes of the gospel required such action.


Hedonism is the second philosophy that I’d like to discuss with you. Verse 18 of Alma 30 describes the deterioration of the character of individuals who would value pleasure above all else, those who did “lift up their heads in wickedness.” Today hedonism is big business. At every turn, we’re assaulted by enticements to be entertained and urged to seek that which stimulates and distracts. Such pursuits never satiate the appetites that crave them. Indeed, when we make the pleasure of our senses a priority in our lives, ironically we dull those senses and become “past feeling” (1 Nephi 17:45).


By contrast, as members of the Church, we understand that we are literally here in mortality to seek joy (2 Nephi 2:25). In his April 1995 general conference address, Elder Maxwell pointed out the distinction between pleasure and joy: “Sensory happiness is illusory happiness. Even legitimate pleasure is as transitory as the things which produce it, while joy is as lasting as the things which produce it!” If our first priority is to show our love for our Heavenly Father and our gratitude to our Savior by honoring the covenants we have made with them and seeking to build a kingdom on earth, joy will be both the sustaining byproduct and the ultimate result of our efforts (D&C 11:13).


The third philosophy is negativism. In Alma 30:13, Korihor calls out to those who are “bound down under a foolish and vain hope.” He states that belief in Christ is a cumbersome “yoke” and equates commandments with restrictions, even bondage. He views obedience to divine laws as a hold upon our freedom and urges us to throw off such restraints. Thus, Korihor attempts to steer us away from the faith that we feel in our hearts by appealing to our logic. He asserts that our faith in and obedience to God is the result of a “frenzied mind”; it is a mental “derangement.”


What a difference it makes when we view obedience with the Spirit and through the gospel lens! The truth is that obeying commandments does indeed bind us—to God—and, in the process, frees us from the bondage of sin (Romans 6:18). Korihor and his counterparts in today’s world continually seek to present such potentially faith-destroying distraction and logical persuasion that can have a corrosive effect upon the hearts of those who hear them. As Sister M. Catherine Thomas warns, “The danger of riveting false concepts upon our hearts, of embracing the precepts and uninspired philosophies of men, is that they limit our perception of the truth and thus inhibit our spiritual power and happiness; they thicken the veil.”


In verse 18 we learn that Korihor’s persistent preaching did, indeed, distance some of his listeners from the Spirit, for he was successful in “leading away the hearts of many.” As I have read and reread this verse in preparing to speak today, I have been struck by the following: this anti-Christ led “away many women, and also men” (emphasis added). I’ve asked myself, Did Korihor seek out the women first? Were their tender hearts especially vulnerable to his message? If so, his reasoning might be found in these thoughts from Sister Patricia Holland:
“If I were Satan and wanted to destroy a society, I think I would stage a full-blown blitz on women. I would keep them so distraught and distracted that they would never find the calming strength and serenity for which their gender has always been known.”Clearly we can see how devastating and far-reaching the impact is when the adversary uses false logic to capture the hearts of righteous women!


As wives, mothers, sisters and daughters, many look to us for direction. We must strengthen our resolve and stride firmly past a barrage of such tactics. Gerald N. Lund has observed that “the path that leads back to our Heavenly Father meets inevitable opposition. At times our heads are confused by those who would seek to mislead our hearts. Living in the Age of Information, we are unceasingly bombarded by facts and ideas. But information added to more information does not equal truth.” How can we keep our minds clear and our hearts full of faith as we walk that straight and narrow path back home?


We must be ever vigilant and continually guard against Satan’s customized methods of planting fear and doubt in our minds and hearts. If we are to resist and stand firm, we should be anticipating erroneous, man-made ideals and preparing to counter such philosophies as relativism, hedonism, and negativism. We can do so by calling upon time-proven, faith-building approaches such as praying always, studying the scriptures, worshipping in the temple, heeding the counsel of our leaders, serving one another, and seeking the influence of the Holy Ghost continually.

Attorney general, Jerry Brown....not a man of his word?!!

So, Jerry Brown, California attorney general has now decided that he cannot defend the constitutionality of Prop 8.....interesting since that is part of his job description. Here are the duties of his elected office:

1. As the state’s chief law officer, ensures that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced.
2. Heads the Department of Justice, which is responsible for providing state legal services and support for local law enforcement.
3. Acts as the chief counsel in state litigation.
4. Oversees law enforcement agencies, including District Attorneys and Sheriffs.

(California Constitution, Article V, Section 13.) and Government Code

Somehow, he seems to have moved from doing what he was elected to do; enforce the laws of our state. But just a short time ago he seemed pretty clear on his duty. Immediately after the 2008 elections he said, " His office would defend the "will of the people" in the Nov. 4 election." He also said at the same time, " He would defend marriages contracted after the state Supreme Court voted 4 to 3 on May 15 that a state law against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional." Do you remember hearing that? I do. And to me, in both instances, he is ensuring enforcement of the laws of our state. But that was then. Here is what he says just a little over a month later.

News Release
December 19, 2008
For Immediate ReleaseContact

Attorney General Brown Urges California Supreme Court to Invalidate Proposition 8
Sacramento – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today called upon the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because it deprives people of the right to marry—an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution. “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Attorney General Brown said. In this case, Attorney General Brown concludes that existing case-law precedents of the Court do not invalidate Proposition 8 either as a revision or as a violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine. But this does not resolve the matter. In the In re Marriages Cases, the Court held that article I, section 1 of the California Constitution provides a right to marry that cannot be denied to same-sex couples. Attorney General Brown argues that in order to invalidate such a fundamental right, the Court must determine that there is a compelling justification to do so. But in the In re Marriage Cases, the court found that no such compelling justification exists. Accordingly, Proposition 8 must be stricken. Attorney General Brown believes that same-sex marriages entered into between June 16 and November 4, 2008 are valid and recognized in California regardless of whether Proposition 8 is upheld.

Well... it appears that he keeps his word sometimes, at least if he personally supports the law. And you know, this isn't the first time, that he has pledged support for a controversial issue and then acted in defiance to it. In 2006, while running for attorney general against Rocky Delgadillo, the sticky issue was raised regarding the death penalty. It was a well-known fact that he personally opposed the death penalty as did his father before him. But he needed to reassure voters that he would be tough on crime. Note what he said on June 2, 2006 as quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle.

"The people of California can count on me to follow the law," Brown said. "It's the law, and I will follow the law. The voters have made it clear, the Legislature has made it clear, and the courts have made it clear. The attorney general's duty is to follow the law. That means upholding death penalty convictions and defending these convictions through the appellate process."
Brown said he is "ready, willing and able" to fight off the appeals by lawyers and see that the death sentences approved by juries are carried out.
"This is a non-issue," Brown said.

A non-issue? Really.... one only has to look at his time as governor to see how "ready, willing and able" he was to enforce the law. As governor, Jerry Brown vetoed death penalty legislation, but the Legislature overrode the veto in 1977. He came under fire for appointing judges who opposed capital punishment, most notably Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird.

And now, in 2008, once again, we find Jerry Brown, our attorney general, not defending the law nor the will of the people. There seems to be a pattern of behavior here and it seems to indicate that he has trouble doing his job when it conflicts with his personal views. Rumor has it that he may run for governor again and I'm sure if that doesn't pan out he can always run for attorney general again in the 2011 elections. But I sure hope that more people in our state will look for and support a candidate who will keep their word to the citizens of California and enforce the laws of the state instead of pandering to the will of special interest groups.

I have included another article on this same subject below.

California Betrayal Brown vs. the People

By William C. Duncan

On Friday, California attorney general Jerry Brown decided not to honor an earlier promise to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the state marriage amendment approved by voters on November 4. California voters were denied even a pro forma defense of the measure by the government official constitutionally charged to enforce state law — because he just changed his mind. In a December 19 press release, the attorney general said: “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.” He thus endorsed the idea that marriage, as it has always been understood, is so grossly contrary to California 's constitutional principles that an amendment protecting that understanding cannot be allowed into the constitution even if duly enacted by voters. To understand the depth of the betrayal here it is necessary to remember how we got to this point. In May 2008, the California supreme court announced that the state's constitution contained a hitherto unseen mandate redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. In response, pro-family groups had gathered the requisite signatures to put Proposition 8 on the ballot. This measure would add a definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the California constitution, thus correcting the state court's misunderstanding of that document.
The California supreme court decided not to wait for the people of the state to weigh in on marriage and allowed licenses to issue to same-sex couples beginning in June. The attorney general also did his part in opposing the amendment by changing the official ballot description from a neutral description (that the amendment would define marriage) to say that Proposition 8 “eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry.”
On November 4, it became clear that despite every effort by the judicial and political classes of the state to prevent their doing so, California voters had affirmed the principle that our inherited understanding of marriage as the union of a husband and wife deserved constitutional protection.
Opponents of the measure, including the city and county of San Francisco , then filed suit saying that Proposition 8's single-sentence amendment was such a major change to the state constitution that it should have been approved by the legislature before going to voters and was thereby invalid. (This same legislature had twice voted to overturn California 's marriage law, enacted by voter initiative, despite a clear constitutional provision saying that a voter initiative could not be overturned by a legislative vote.) This is the case in which the attorney general has now decided that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is beyond the pale.
Ken Starr will be part of the legal team defending Proposition 8 on behalf of its proponents. It should be remembered that these proponents were granted the right to defend the marriage law only because the California supreme court gave them special permission to be part of the case. Without that permission, Proposition 8 would have gone without a voice in court.
All of this serves to confirm the worst fears of Proposition 8's supporters. The political and legal elites of the state have done all within their power to endorse the idea that support for traditional marriage is the rankest kind of bigotry that does not deserve even a nominal word in its favor by government officials.
If Proposition 8 does not hold, this new dogma will be the official state policy — and this in spite of a clear legal mandate of the voters of the state to the contrary.
A court order invalidating Proposition 8 would also give the supreme court a super-constitutional power, above the amendment process provided for in the text of the constitution, to determine what subjects are germane to constitutional lawmaking by the people of the state. There is no other way to understand this new theory that a manufactured and unenumerated “right” can become so “fundamental” that it can no longer be the subject of a simple amendment. And, of course, who will decide whether a right has attained this stature? The California supreme court.
The question now appears to be whether the California supreme court will step away from the brink of legal chaos and affirm the principle that the government of California will be a government of laws and not of men and women.

Prop 8 and the California Legislature or time to sign another petition!

My last post was rather enjoyable in that I could share something positive. Unfortunately, today's news is disappointing but regrettably predictable. Did anyone really believe that the election decided the issue? Lest you feel discouraged, I'd like to share something I read from the Bible this morning, in Ezekiel 2-3.

Ezekiel is called by the Lord to take the word of God to Israel. The Lord says to him," I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me...For they are impudent children and stiffhearted...and go, get thee to them of the captivity, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord God; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear..." Interesting to note that Israel has already been overthrown and they are in captivity and yet are still as stiffhearted and unrepentant as ever. The Lord then explains why it is necessary to declare his word even if the people ignore the warning. (And this is the significant point to remember when you feel like all this petitioning of our leaders is pointless.) "I have made thee a watchman (true, we are not prophets but we are nevertheless, under obligation to share the word of the Lord to our family, friends, neighbors, Congress members, etc.) unto the house of Israel; therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet, if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul."

More recently, President Monson has counseled: "You be the one to make a stand for right, even if you stand alone. Have the moral courage to be a light for others to follow."

Opponents Try to Overturn Prop 8 Sign the Petition To Help Stop Them!

"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." ~Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address.What would President Lincoln think if he saw the state of California's politics? Do our elected officials represent the people any longer? Consider their record with regard to family law.

In 2000, the people of California petitioned to put Proposition 22 on the ballot that affirmed that marriage would continue to be defined in traditional terms, as being between one man and one woman. The people voted and by a margin of 61/39% passed this proposition. In political terms that is an overwhelming mandate.

First, our State Supreme Court ignored our voice and by May of 2008 overstepped their governing limits and created a new law - homosexual marriage.
Next, the people answered that insult and petitioned to vote on the issue of marriage law. This November after an expensive and tiring campaign the majority of the people of California again voted and passed Prop 8, a State Constitutional Amendment that reaffirms traditional marriage. The voice of the people has clearly stated, twice, that we want marriage to be defined as the union of a man and a woman.

However, this has not stopped our governing officials from speaking out and trying to impose their own will on the people. Since the passage of Prop 8 our Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger has gone on record calling for the State Supreme Court to overturn that vote.
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1403231.html

And now, our state senate and assembly have drafted resolutions blatantly fighting against Prop 8. "On Tuesday, the second day of the 2009-10 legislative session, Sen. Mark Leno and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (both D-San Francisco) launched senate resolution 7 and HR 5 in the Assembly. If approved, the bills would place both houses of the California Legislature on record as opposing the controversial initiative and declaring it an illegal revision to the state constitution." Politicker CA, December 2, 2008
http://www.politickerca.com/jeffmitchell/3349/leno-ammiano-launch-bills-support-overturning-prop-8

Opponents of Proposition 8 are working hard to overturn Proposition 8 in our legislature before the case is heard in the Supreme Court. This weekend picketers were on street corners asking for support for SR7 and HR 5. Petitions are being circulated in hopes of gaining 1,000,000 signatures to show support of this attempt to overrule our vote.
http://www.eqca.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4025663&aid=11489

We must answer this attempt to silence our vote. Please quickly do the following things:

1. Sign the petition to let our legislators know that they represent your vote and that they must uphold the law.

2. Write to your State Senator and State Assemblymen and let them know that they are accountable to the people who voted for them.

3. Alert your friends. The opposition is trying to collect 1,000,000 signatures to show their support. We must continue to show that the majority of Californians stand by their recent vote.

Please forward this email to all your friends and to those who worked with you on the Prop 8 campaign. Though many of us are tired after a long battle to initially pass Proposition 8, it is apparent that it will take more energy and effort to continue to defend the laws that protect our families. May we remind our elected officials of Abraham Lincoln's desire "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" that includes California.