In October 2015, Senator MIke Lee gave what I believe to be one of the single most important public policy addresses of our generation entitled The Conservative Case For Criminal Justice Reform. In his address to the heritage foundation, Senator Lee lays out a conservative and moral basis for supporting efforts to reform our criminal justice system and focus on the rehabilitation of criminals. This is an excerpt of my favorite part, but implore you to read his powerful address in full:
“If there is one thought I can leave with you today, it’s this: criminal justice reform doesn’t call on conservatives to compromise our principles, but to fight for them. It’s about making our communities—the little platoons of service and cooperation at the heart of our republic—safe and prosperous and happy.
It’s about basing our laws, our court procedures, and our prison systems on a clear-eyed understanding of human nature—of man’s predilection toward sin and his capacity for redemption—along with an uncompromising commitment to human dignity.
Respect for the equal dignity of all human life, no matter how small or weak, and for the redemptive capacity of all sinners, no matter how calloused, is the foundation for everything that conservatives stand for. Our approach to policing and punishment should be no different. So, as I see it, criminal justice reform properly understood represents principled conservatism at its best.” (Emphasis added)
This is a guest post by Stephen Measure, who is a Mormon indie author. Most of his writing so far could be considered a defense of the moral positions of the LDS church on the controversial topics of our day. He’d like to write about something else yet continues to find there is more he needs to say.
This post was cross-posted at Stephen Measure’s personal site:
There is a war being waged within our culture today, two opposing worldviews about sexuality, both of which offer different visions of right and wrong. One of these worldviews is compatible with the moral beliefs of my religion, the LDS Church, and other religions that share those moral beliefs. The other worldview fights against us.
The Identity View Continue reading
Whenever a controversial position is held by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, detractors point to what they see as changes made in its history as evidence pressure tactics can work. They believe if there is enough “agitation” from without, with help from within, that doctrines become malleable. All it takes is for the prophet to “get a revelation and God’s mind will change on a dime.” Get the government involved, such as threatening tax exemption, and its a sure thing. Views like this are understandable for non-Mormons who have tentative grasp of Mormon history and doctrine. Members who believe this have no excuse other than blind devotion to personal presumptions. They set themselves up as wiser than the Prophets and Apostles chosen by God to be His representatives. Looking closer at the end of polygamy and Priesthood ban used as examples to prove LDS doctrine can easily be changed, it becomes less obvious there really was much of a difference.
Revelation is the foundation of the Gospel. This is not in dispute. A belief in prophets opens up the possibility of new understanding and the changes that can come with greater knowledge. To study the Doctrine and Covenants is to learn of doctrinal and procedural growth and expansion. Priesthood did not come out of whole cloth, but line upon line as the membership increased requiring new needs. Even up to the late 20th Century Priesthood organization was transformed as one set of positions were discontinued and another developed. Theological changes are not outside the realm of possibility, with questions about the afterlife following a pattern of questioning and then learning more. Damnation to an eternal lake of fire is transformed into a period of punishment and refinement before the final judgement. Heaven has multi-layered meaning with the traditional dichotomies of the soul’s fate a temporary condition. Too many mistake learning more as a sort of repudiation of former beliefs. The two most abused examples don’t prove this notion. Continue reading
As I pointed out in this post, it is easy to support the Brethren when they take positions that agree with your ideology. But a faithful Latter-day Saint should support the Brethren even when it is difficult.
The Church has made several statements about the environment in the last few years. The most important is this:
All humankind are stewards over the earth and should gratefully use what God has given, avoid wasting life and resources and use the bounty of the earth to care for the poor and the needy.
God created the earth to provide a place for the human family to learn, progress and improve. God first created the earth and all living things spiritually, and all living things have great worth in His eyes.
The earth and all things on it should be used responsibly to sustain the human family. However, all are stewards — not owners — over this earth and its bounty and will be accountable before God for what they do with His creations.
Approaches to the environment must be prudent, realistic, balanced and consistent with the needs of the earth and of current and future generations, rather than pursuing the immediate vindication of personal desires or avowed rights. The earth and all life upon it are much more than items to be consumed or conserved. God intends His creations to be aesthetically pleasing to enliven the mind and spirit, and some portions are to be preserved. Making the earth ugly offends Him.
I would like to ask readers to read the above statement at least twice before proceeding. My experience is that most people read all kinds of things into that statement that simply are not there.
OK, have you read and re-read that statement? Yes? Then let’s keep on going.
I recently wrote a post discussing Elder Bednar’s discourse on doctrines, principles, and applications. In that post, I focused on applications and policies as divinely inspired applications of eternal doctrine. In this post, I want to instead focus on the power of doctrine when understood to change our perspective. Continue reading