In the wake of the unsuccessful Republican-led fight to defund Obamacare, and the shutdown of (a small part) of the federal government, many of my Republican friends are in despair and my Democrat friends are chortling with glee.

If you live in a world where you derive pleasure or become lugubrious because of the short-term tactical blunders of your friends or opponents, this reaction is very understandable.

I tend not to live in such a world. Make no mistake: my goal is to promote policies and ideas that decrease the size and power of government. This is the only solution to our long-term economic and societal problems. As such, I tend to look at things from a long-term perspective.

I don’t really care if the Republicans are well-positioned for 2014 or 2016, if all we are going to get from the Republicans is more Bush/McCain/Chris Christie, etc, etc, etc. I don’t see how that will resolve anything important.

If, however, we are creating the long-term conditions for a significant decrease in the size of government, then there are reasons to be optimistic.

With that in mind, let’s look at some (small) reasons for optimism.

Continue reading →

Note: In this article, I’m not talking about any specific political measure, on which there is always room for some disagreement. I’m talking about the law of chastity, which holds that sexual activity is only appropriate between a man and a woman, lawfully married as husband and wife.

In the aftermath of this past General Conference, I’m surprised that I’m still hearing members argue that Church’s doctrine regarding chastity is wrong, and that it will eventually change to accommodate same-sex relationships. Here, for example, are two  actual quotes from various places on the internet: “I don’t feel the spirit about what Elder Oaks says,” and “I feel peaceful when I say Oaks is wrong.” Someone else posted on their Facebook page, “Oaks fail.” Another has written an entire response to Elder Oaks’ talk, suggesting that his talk — and the Church’s doctrine on sexuality — is hurtful and probably wrong. Another self-proclaimed active Latter-day Saint has posted this online. Still others have pulled out the Church’s statement: “Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.” They have used this statement as evidence that we can just dismiss Elder Oaks’ teachings about the law of chastity as a personal, well-considered opinion, but not officially binding on members of the Church. Continue reading →

Ralph Hancock has a very good response to statements recently made by John Dehlin regarding the progression of revelation in the Church.  Hancock criticizes Dehlin’s picking and choosing of events (some of which have nothing to do with Church decisions and revelation: stop publishing of Mormon Doctrine, for example; or are questionable as whether they are actual driven by revelation); rather than looking at the whole picture. Dehlin tries to use specific things to show the Church will inevitably accept LGBT relationships, etc.  Hancock notes that Dehlin ignored the Proclamation on the Family that has frequently been quoted and requoted in General Conference since its debut about 20 years ago. Continue reading →

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about diversity. We believe that we can celebrate diversity, and that there is room in this Church for everyone. And we mean that when we say it. President Uchtdorf, for two conferences in a row, has talked about the importance of diversity in the Church. He highlighted the fact that we need everyone, no matter their differences. I love his remarks and think that he is absolutely, one-hundred percent right.

As wonderful as diversity is, I think that we sometimes misuse President Uchtdorf’s remarks in ways that he did not intend. President Uchtdorf, for example, was certainly not saying that the Church should celebrate all diversities in opinion and belief amongst its members. This past General Conference, for example, made it quite clear that Latter-day Saints should not and indeed cannot condone same-sex relationships as moral. Yet I’ve seen bloggers use President Uchtdorf’s remarks as if they somehow vindicated those who clearly contradict established Church teachings in just these sorts of ways. That is, I’ve seen people act as if President Uchtdorf just signed off on their errant views on sexuality. This is just one example. Continue reading →

Discussions in the Mormon blog world regarding social issues are often very frustrating because many readers refuse to consider what prophets have actually said regarding the issues they discuss.

The purpose of this post is to reemphasize — using the words of modern-day prophets, seers and revelators — the Church’s clear position on these social issues.

Elder Russell M. Nelson on same-sex marriage:

“Regardless of what civil legislation may be enacted, the doctrine of the Lord regarding marriage and morality cannot be changed. Remember: sin, even if legalized by man, is still sin in the eyes of God. While we are to emulate our Savior’s kindness and compassion, while we are to value the rights and feelings of all of God’s children, we cannot change His doctrine. It is not ours to change. His doctrine is ours to study, understand and uphold. Marriage between a man and a woman is God’s pattern for a fullness of life on Earth and in heaven. God’s marriage pattern cannot be abused, misunderstood or misconstrued.”

Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ talk reminded listeners that the 10 Commandment prohibition on idols is not only aimed at man-made statues. Idols are beliefs or world views that contradict God’s eternal truths. One of these idols is political correctness.

The Deseret News summarized Elder Oaks’ talk this way:

“We believe that, as an essential part of His plan of salvation, God has established an eternal standard that sexual relations should occur only between a man and a woman who are married,” he said.

The importance the Church places on the law of chastity explains its commitment to the pattern of marriage that originated with Adam and Eve and establishes God’s pattern for the procreative relationship between His sons and daughters for the nurturing of His children.

“There are many political and social pressures for legal and policy changes to establish behaviors contrary to God’s decrees about sexual morality and are contrary to the eternal nature and purposes of marriage and child-bearing. These pressures have already permitted same-gender marriages in various states and nations.”

Laws legalizing so called “same-gender marriage,” he added, do not change God’s law of marriage of His commandments and standards.

“We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from bowing down to or serving other gods and priorities — even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.”

Continue reading →