In this recent post on the Roe v. Wade decision I discussed how the Supreme Court corrected decades of judicial activism on the issue of abortion.

The Supremes are also correcting judicial activism when it comes to religious liberty.

A study in the Supreme Court Review shows that the Supreme Court with John Roberts as the chief justice sides with religious groups 81 percent of the time. That compares to only 46 percent of the time during Justice Earl Warren’s tenure (1953 to 1969), 51 percent of the time during the Warren Burger Court (1969–1986) and 58 percent when William H. Rehnquist was chief justice (1986–2005).

And most frustrating for the many anti-Trump Latter-day Saints, three of the six pro-religious liberty justices on the Roberts court were appointed by the much-pilloried former president. (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett).

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a clear position on religious liberty: it is one of the few political issues in which the Church does not pull any punches. The Church newsroom pointed out a week ago that Church leaders have spoken out in favor of religious liberty 13 times in the last year.

President Oaks summed up the Church’s perspective: “Religious freedom is a fundamental feature of our religious doctrine. The restoration of the fullness of Christian doctrine teaches us that God created and put His children on earth to grow spiritually by making right choices between good and evil consistent with His commandments…Freedom of choice is, therefore, fundamental to God’s plan.”

Continue reading →

This article in Meridian is definitely worth reading.

The argument is that the Melchezidek Priesthood as well as the Aaronic priesthood existed on the Earth through most of the Old Testament period.

Key excerpts:

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “All the prophets had Melchizedek priesthood.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 181) As D&C 84:17 explains, Melchizedek priesthood is the presiding authority which “continueth in the church of God in all generations.” There can be no church organization or full administration without it. This system held Moses through Malachi. Interestingly, Lehi held Melchizedek priesthood and keys sufficient to lead his family to a promised land with fully functioning temples and no Aaronic or preparatory priesthood.  That he, Jeremiah, and Ezekial were quorum associated seems likely. 

As to Israel’s backsliding in their demand for a king, the Lord made the best of it. He directed the prophet Samuel to prepare Saul for this office with sacred instruction on the roof of the Seer’s house. The circumstances might suggest to us a priesthood endowment, followed by an anointing the next morning naming Saul as Captain of the Lord’s inheritance, or Israel’s king. The king of the Lord’s inheritance can only be Melchizedek priesthood bearing. (1 Sam. 9:25, 10:1) Immediately Saul  is found prophesying among the prophets who also held Melchizedek priesthood. (1 Sam. 10: 5-6, 10-13) Samuel recorded the “manner of the kingdom,” meaning the regulation of a kingdom in which a righteous king is set apart. He must act in concert with a priest and prophet at his side, a triumvirate foreshadowing the Lord’s coming to fill all of these offices. (1 Sam. 10:25) 

It is on this wise that David and Solomon came to rule Israel in their turn–holding Melchizedek priesthood. Solomon built the temple David envisioned. Temple construction and implementation is the province of the high priesthood only. Elders and seventies cannot assume this obligation.

As to other witnesses to Melchizedek priesthood activity in Old Covenant times we might cite:

David’s wives were given to him by the prophet Nathan in an eternal marriage covenant (D&C 132: 38-39), that David offered sacrifices as on Araunah’s threshing floor which he did by virtue of Melchizedek Priesthood. (2 Sam. 24:25) That David’s children had their endowments as is shown in the story of Tamar and Amnon. Tamar “rent her garment” in token of a broken temple covenant, the garment being the Hebrew ketoneth passim which is the garment Adam was given when he left Eden. (2 Sam. 13: 19) Solomon’s temple was commissioned, built, and consecrated by the high priesthood, meaning high priests, as elders and seventies cannot head such a work. It would appear that many Israelites who camped about the temple received full blessings there.

The Old Testament prophet Elijah held sealing keys, and governed a school of prophets who had Melchizedek Priesthood. (1 Kings 17:1) We might also recall that the Nephites had Melchizedek Priesthood though they lived the law of Moses. Lehi had this priesthood when the Nephites left Jerusalem as did Ezekiel and Jeremiah who were his fellow servants, possibly members of a Council of Twelve. There was no Aaronic Priesthood utilized in the Book of Mormon (there were no Levites). 

In summary, we turn to three masterful statements by Elder Bruce R. McConkie:

Ancient Israel was a nation, a kingdom, and a church all wrapped up in one. Moses in his day was the prophet, seer, and revelator; Aaron was the presiding bishop; the twelve princes of Israel, one heading each of the tribes, held an equivalent status to that of the Twelve whom Jesus chose; and the seventy elders, who with Moses and Aaron saw the Lord, were what we would call the First Quorum of Seventy. There were elders and judges (bishops) and other officers, presiding, as circumstances warranted, over tens and fifties and hundreds and thousands. Israel operated as a theocracy, as a congregation of the Lord’s people, as a church…. [The rebellious] were excommunicated anciently as they are today. (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p. 333)

After the days of Moses, the ruling, governing, theocratic power in Israel was the Aaronic Priesthood. But most of the time, if not at all times, there were prophets and seers and congregations of brethren who held the Melchizedek Priesthood, which enabled them to perform celestial marriages. (McConkie, Bruce R., A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p. 506)

“‘Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them,’ the Lord commanded Moses, ‘and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.’ (Num. 11: 16-17.) Thus was the Lord’s system of government perfected in ancient Israel. Moses served as the prophet, seer, and revelator; at his side were ‘the princes of Israel,’ twelve in number, comparable to the Twelve Apostles, one of whom presided over each of the tribes (Num. 7); then came the Seventy—holy and noble men who also sat in judgment and regulated the affairs of the people. And a millennium and a half later, the Jews still maintained the form of their ancient order; the Great Sanhedrin—either patterned after or descended from the Quorum of Seventy called by Moses….’” (McConkie, Bruce R., Mortal Messiah: From Bethlehem to Calvary, 4:164)

I find the argument convinced. What do you think?

An alternate title for this post could be: most of the real misogyny appears to come from the left.

I mention this especially because my lovely wife has noticed this most of her life: left-wingers really do *hate* people like her. I am talking about women who may or may not have professional careers but are also dedicated to their family, their children and who even — heaven forbid — love their husbands!

And if these women decide to enter public service in any way, the hatred is multiplied a hundred-fold.

If you look at the rhetoric from the left, the biggest threats to the United States are apparently people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, a firebrand conservative congresswoman from Georgia, and Lauren Boebert, another conservative congresswoman from Colorado. And when you throw in other prominent conservative women like new Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett and South Dakota governor Kristi Noem, you get nonstop hate whenever their names are mentioned.

I first noticed this phenomenon when Sarah Palin was chosen by John McCain as the VP candidate in 2008. Do you remember how much hatred was aimed at Palin, with constant Saturday Night Live skits and misogynistic jokes from late-night comics?

This was especially strange for me because I remember very well when Geraldine Ferraro was chosen the VP candidate by Walter Mondale in 1984. I was living in Boston that summer and the entire city was excited about this groundbreaking development for women. Women were finally being taken seriously on a national political stage! Of course there were the occasional sexist remarks about Ferraro, and Mondale lost the election to the very popular Ronald Reagan, but I think history will agree that Ferraro was mostly feted rather than hated.

When John McCain, a Republican, did the same thing, I thought for sure the reaction would be similar. I was as wrong as you can be. They even made fun of Palin’s son with Down’s Syndrome. They hated the fact that she had five children. They hated the fact that she appeared to a dedicated family woman (she and her husband have since divorced, but anybody who has been divorced knows you cannot blame this on just one person). They hated the fact that Palin was attractive and well spoken. But most of all they hated her for her political views.

Continue reading →

I took an introduction to constitutional law course in the early 1980s when I was in college. The professor was an open left-wing activist. When we got to the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide, the professor said something like this:

“The Roe v. Wade decision was a poor one, with almost no basis in constitutional law, but we must all agree that it is the correct decision because it reflects the will of people in our modern world. Nobody wants to prevent pregnant women from controlling their own bodies.”

The professor said that the right to abortion would be codified and that the legal foundation of the law would become better explained over time.

And for many years it appeared that my professor was correct. The Casey decision in 1992 further supported Roe v. Wade, and it appeared for many years that we would have legalized abortion nationwide for our lifetimes.

What changed?

Continue reading →

Some quick thoughts: he is direct and to the point and answers directly from Church doctrine. He does not shy away from promoting Church policies, even with regards to tough questions on issues of sexuality. This man is very clearly inspired by the Lord.