For those of us outside Utah and Idaho, getting to the temple can often be an adventure. Right after I joined the Church, I moved to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and the closest temple was a six-hour bus ride away. When I got my endowments at the Sao Paulo temple, I heard the story of Brazilians from Manaus, Brazil. There are no roads to Manaus. So, the members there would take a boat for three or four days, then catch a bus for a week to get to the Sao Paulo temple. They would stay for several days and then head back. That, my friends, is sacrifice: a 3-4 week temple trip. (There is now a temple in Manaus).

When I moved to Miami the closest temple was 4-5 hours away in Orlando. Our stake included Key West, which is a 6 or 7 hour drive from Orlando. The temple bus would leave Key West at 4 a.m. to get to the temple by 10:30 a.m. It would leave again at 3 p.m., and the hearty Key West residents would get home by 10 p.m. or so. That is one long day on a bus. (Yes, they watched a lot of Church movies on that bus).

But of course Florida members who had been around longer remembered that the closest temple before Orlando was built was in Atlanta, and that is a 12-hour drive from Miami. And before that, the closest temple was Washington, DC.

Now, the Church is building a temple in Fort Lauderdale, which is just 45 minutes from Miami.

We now live north of Denver. The temple is only an hour and 15 minutes away. Somehow that still seems pretty far. We try to get there once a month but with kids and babysitting and business travel it’s more like 9 or 10 times a year, and the trip seems like an all-day trek.

But — hallelujah — the Church will soon break ground on the Fort Collins temple, which is only a half-hour from our house. So, the temple gets closer and closer.

Zion does exist in our fallen world, and it is closer every day.

Here is part 3 of my review of Good to Great by Jim Collins, and how we can apply it to the Church.  The First key concept: Level 5 Leadership.

In the book, it notes there are 5 levels of leaders, but only discusses levels 4 and 5.  Why? Because they both show positive results. However, there is a major difference in how those results are achieved and how lasting are the effects. Let’s first compare them: Continue reading →

The ongoing conversation about same-sex marriage has largely adopted the rhetoric of the civil rights movement. Those who oppose same-sex marriage are denying basic human rights to same-sex couples. Those who oppose same-sex marriage are not just wrong, their views are illegitimate and should not even be admitted into the conversation, on par with the racism of prior generations.

I think the tone of the discussion fails to capture what this is really about, though. This is not a matter of rights — it is a matter of definition. I support traditional marriage because I believe the family — with a father and a mother — is the fundamental unit of society. I believe that the rise in divorce, fatherless (or motherless) children, and single parents has contributed to a whole swathe of social ills, including an expansion of government social programs. This is not meant to be demeaning to hardworking single parents out there — they are doing the best they can in a hard situation. And I believe that divorce is sometimes justified. But I believe that children, on the whole, thrive best when they live in an intact home with their biological father and mother. And I believe that the number of divorces and broken families will continue to rise if we adopt same-sex marriage as the policy of the state.

You may initially dismiss this as fearmongering. But please be patient, and allow me to explain. Continue reading →

The Church responded to today’s Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage this way:

By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.

I would like to do a thought exercise on this statement. I am willing to be convinced that I am wrong, so if you have a polite disagreement with me, bring it on.

Let’s say that the people of California decided via referendum to confiscate all guns. Let’s say it was a close vote 52-48 percent. And let’s say by some miracle there is a governor and an attorney general in California who read the 2nd Amendment and say: “we cannot enforce this. This is unconstitutional.” And they refuse to enforce the confiscation. And then a federal court overturns the referendum and the Supreme Court agrees with the federal court.

Personally, I would support the governor and attorney general who refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law and I would support the federal judges who overturn said law.

So, it seems to me that focusing on the process itself is not really the issue. We are a republic, not a democracy, and this means that we do not determine something is right because 52 percent of the people support it. The purpose of government is to protect the natural rights of life, liberty and property. These natural rights are the foundation of the Constitution and our entire system of government. The Constitution has a series of checks and balances on the democratic process because pure democracy leads to mob rule. Under a pure democracy, 51 percent of the people can decide that all property should be confiscated from Mormons, and it will happen. Under a republic, there are systems in place, competing governmental forces, that will prevent mob rule.

Continue reading →

Here it is:

SALT LAKE CITY —
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released the following statement today regarding the decisions announced by the United States Supreme Court on cases involving marriage:

“By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.

“In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved.

“Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children. Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three-fourths of the states.”