For more information see http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=152149834808962
I still haven't been able to contact the following:
Adam Michael Ross
Alexander Williams
Benjamin John Spence
Brady Nicholas Rust
Brett Jackson Riley
Brian Douglas Nelson
Brittany Call
Brock Dennis Rose
Catherine Luz Cerdhe
Christopher Joseph Perry
Christopher Allen Carlsen
Clifton Todd Crosland
Daniel Ray Porter
Daniel Jaymes Skeen
Daniel James Lee
Daniel Guillermo Antivilo
David Cahrles Phillips
David Wesley Olsen
Eric Wesley Wilcox
Geoffrey Tucker Lang
Gregory Alan Garrett
Gyson Delmar Gray
James Matthew Ritchie
James Aarl Sykes
Jason Stuart Walke
Jaysen Varselle Williams
John Aaron Sones
Jonathan Wesley Hales
Jordan Dale Harding
Joseph Brandt Jorgensen
Joshua Michael Barney
Kade Brett Hansen
Kevin Mtthew Dennis
Kyle McKay Poulsen
Laurence James Wynder
Luke Thomas Sherry
Marco Antonio De Leon Jr.
Mark Ryan Wight
Matthew Jay Stokes
Matthew Frank Maylett
Michael Recio
Michael Ray Christensen
Michael Pierce Johnson
Michael Alexander De La Torre
Michael Crosby Long
Miguel Moreira Da Mota
Nathan Samuel Gill
Ninoska Altamirano
Omar Doctolero Ramil
Paul Benjamin McConnell
Richard McKay Childs
Robert Isaac Andersen
Robert Scott Runyon
Ryan Scott Sorensen
Scott Robert McIntosh
Seth Neal Ellsworth
Stephanie Ann Smith
Stephen David Hunter
Stephen R. Crooks
Thomas Cameron Waller
Tonya Michelle Olsen
Tyler Kimble Jestet
Tyler David Kelley
William Thomas Garner
Zachary Mark Bowman
If you know any of those listed, please invite them.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
My view of Mitt Romney
My view of Mitt Romney is not unique, but it is a bit unusual by virtue of my having been acquainted with Mitt for over 30 years and chatted with him on a few occasions.
On the positive side, he strikes me as charismatic, intelligent, and capable. I was very impressed by his handling of the Salt Lake City Olympics. He did well as governor of Massachusetts. I liked him personally when I knew him back in the late 70s and early 80s.
On the negative side, I have a few concerns. Though I'd like to think that he has sincerely held the various positions he's taken over the years, I find it suspicious that those positions have changed to make him politically attractive to those whose support he has needed in different situations. And listening to him speak during the 2008 primaries, I often found it difficult to sense genuine conviction in his words. I worry about what seems to me a lack of integrity or at least genuineness. I don't feel like I really know his heart. I guess that's true of any other human being, but it seems even more so with Mitt Romney. He's a mystery to me, and it's hard for me to get a sense of what he truly, deeply believes--as distinguished from what he feels he needs to say to garner support.
A second concern: I liked his generally moderate approach as Massachusetts governor. In fact, on some issues, he was just a bit more liberal than I felt comfortable with. During the 2007-2008 political season, by contrast, he seemed to shift so far to the right that I found many of his positions unpalatable--some of them out of harmony with my moral convictions. And in addition to the positions themselves, his way of expressing himself sometimes seemed calculated to position him as the meanest, toughest SOB among the Republican candidates. There was a lot of jockeying for that "honor" at the time.
Finally, I've been thrown by his odd comments on occasion about his faith. I know he's walking a difficult line--being true to his LDS convictions but trying to appeal to voters who are suspicious of or downright hostile toward the LDS Church. I believe he's genuinely religious. But some of his comments have seemed odd for a believing Latter-day Saint--on one occasion, for instance, expressing uncertainty as to whether there had been any real revelation from heaven since Mount Sinai. (This was to deflect, I think, the worry some have that his positions as US President, should he attain that office, would be dictated by LDS Church leaders.)
I guess I haven't been surprised at how many Latter-day Saints, including many of my friends, have become fans of Romney. He's attractive (in many senses) and claims to represent "conservative values." And there's not much of anybody else in the Republican field who seems to be much of a credible possibility as a 2012 presidential candidate. Plus Mitt is Mormon!
Of course, so is Harry Reid--and I'll offer as my view, despite the incredulity many may greet it with, that Reid represents LDS values more truly than Romney does (see http://english.byu.edu/faculty/youngb/reid.pdf , for instance). And I find another LDS political figure, Jon Huntsman, to be much more appealing than Romney. It would be great to have an LDS president (though it would at the same time expose the Church to a lot of hostility from all sorts of directions--including of course the Evangelical Right), but I think it would be a shame if the first LDS POTUS had views that, for me, are so far out of harmony with LDS values as I believe some of Romney's to be.
Speaking of "conservative values," I believe America has been built on a combination of liberal AND conservative values, as well as on values that transcend or bridge political differences. (So much, of course, depends on your definition of the terms.) And "conservative values" are emphatically NOT equivalent to Latter-day Saint values. Some "conservative values" are--for instance, if you want to call self-discipline, self-reliance, integrity, and fidelity "conservative." But what intelligent "liberal" would really reject those values? And you could with equal justice call values like faith, hope, charity, compassion, generosity, tolerance, goodwill, respect, and fairness "liberal." And on which side would you place knowledge, wisdom, patience, and humility? For that matter, does any contemporary political approach leave much room for humility?
In any case, it seems to me to demean religious faith and eternal principles to try to align them exclusively with a political party or ideology. For Latter-day Saints who know their history, it should be obvious that Joseph Smith was NOT a typical conservative in either the nineteenth- or twenty-first century sense. (See http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/05/politics-where-do-i-fit-on-spectrum.html for more thoughts on this.)
I myself don't feel comfortable aligning myself with any one spot on the political spectrum (as I explain here). I've been pleased recently to find a statement by Dallin H. Oaks that expresses a similar feeling: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (for the source, click here).
So where does that leave me with Mitt. Not especially interested, unless he comes across a lot differently than he did in 2008.
On the positive side, he strikes me as charismatic, intelligent, and capable. I was very impressed by his handling of the Salt Lake City Olympics. He did well as governor of Massachusetts. I liked him personally when I knew him back in the late 70s and early 80s.
On the negative side, I have a few concerns. Though I'd like to think that he has sincerely held the various positions he's taken over the years, I find it suspicious that those positions have changed to make him politically attractive to those whose support he has needed in different situations. And listening to him speak during the 2008 primaries, I often found it difficult to sense genuine conviction in his words. I worry about what seems to me a lack of integrity or at least genuineness. I don't feel like I really know his heart. I guess that's true of any other human being, but it seems even more so with Mitt Romney. He's a mystery to me, and it's hard for me to get a sense of what he truly, deeply believes--as distinguished from what he feels he needs to say to garner support.
A second concern: I liked his generally moderate approach as Massachusetts governor. In fact, on some issues, he was just a bit more liberal than I felt comfortable with. During the 2007-2008 political season, by contrast, he seemed to shift so far to the right that I found many of his positions unpalatable--some of them out of harmony with my moral convictions. And in addition to the positions themselves, his way of expressing himself sometimes seemed calculated to position him as the meanest, toughest SOB among the Republican candidates. There was a lot of jockeying for that "honor" at the time.
Finally, I've been thrown by his odd comments on occasion about his faith. I know he's walking a difficult line--being true to his LDS convictions but trying to appeal to voters who are suspicious of or downright hostile toward the LDS Church. I believe he's genuinely religious. But some of his comments have seemed odd for a believing Latter-day Saint--on one occasion, for instance, expressing uncertainty as to whether there had been any real revelation from heaven since Mount Sinai. (This was to deflect, I think, the worry some have that his positions as US President, should he attain that office, would be dictated by LDS Church leaders.)
I guess I haven't been surprised at how many Latter-day Saints, including many of my friends, have become fans of Romney. He's attractive (in many senses) and claims to represent "conservative values." And there's not much of anybody else in the Republican field who seems to be much of a credible possibility as a 2012 presidential candidate. Plus Mitt is Mormon!
Of course, so is Harry Reid--and I'll offer as my view, despite the incredulity many may greet it with, that Reid represents LDS values more truly than Romney does (see http://english.byu.edu/faculty/youngb/reid.pdf , for instance). And I find another LDS political figure, Jon Huntsman, to be much more appealing than Romney. It would be great to have an LDS president (though it would at the same time expose the Church to a lot of hostility from all sorts of directions--including of course the Evangelical Right), but I think it would be a shame if the first LDS POTUS had views that, for me, are so far out of harmony with LDS values as I believe some of Romney's to be.
Speaking of "conservative values," I believe America has been built on a combination of liberal AND conservative values, as well as on values that transcend or bridge political differences. (So much, of course, depends on your definition of the terms.) And "conservative values" are emphatically NOT equivalent to Latter-day Saint values. Some "conservative values" are--for instance, if you want to call self-discipline, self-reliance, integrity, and fidelity "conservative." But what intelligent "liberal" would really reject those values? And you could with equal justice call values like faith, hope, charity, compassion, generosity, tolerance, goodwill, respect, and fairness "liberal." And on which side would you place knowledge, wisdom, patience, and humility? For that matter, does any contemporary political approach leave much room for humility?
In any case, it seems to me to demean religious faith and eternal principles to try to align them exclusively with a political party or ideology. For Latter-day Saints who know their history, it should be obvious that Joseph Smith was NOT a typical conservative in either the nineteenth- or twenty-first century sense. (See http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/05/politics-where-do-i-fit-on-spectrum.html for more thoughts on this.)
I myself don't feel comfortable aligning myself with any one spot on the political spectrum (as I explain here). I've been pleased recently to find a statement by Dallin H. Oaks that expresses a similar feeling: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (for the source, click here).
So where does that leave me with Mitt. Not especially interested, unless he comes across a lot differently than he did in 2008.
Monday, August 2, 2010
My view of Mitt Romney
My view of Mitt Romney is not unique, but it is a bit unusual by virtue of my having been acquainted with Mitt for over 30 years and chatted with him on a few occasions.
On the positive side, he strikes me as charismatic, intelligent, and capable. I was very impressed by his handling of the Salt Lake City Olympics. He did well as governor of Massachusetts. I liked him personally when I knew him back in the late 70s and early 80s.
On the negative side, I have a few concerns. Though I'd like to think that he has sincerely held the various positions he's taken over the years, I find it suspicious that those positions have changed to make him politically attractive to those whose support he has needed in different situations. And listening to him speak during the 2008 primaries, I often found it difficult to sense genuine conviction in his words. I worry about what seems to me a lack of integrity or at least genuineness. I don't feel like I really know his heart. I guess that's true of any other human being, but it seems even more so with Mitt Romney. He's a mystery to me, and it's hard for me to get a sense of what he truly, deeply believes--as distinguished from what he feels he needs to say to garner support.
A second concern: I liked his generally moderate approach as Massachusetts governor. In fact, on some issues, he was just a bit more liberal than I felt comfortable with. During the 2007-2008 political season, by contrast, he seemed to shift so far to the right that I found many of his positions unpalatable--some of them out of harmony with my moral convictions. And in addition to the positions themselves, his way of expressing himself sometimes seemed calculated to position him as the meanest, toughest SOB among the Republican candidates. There was a lot of jockeying for that "honor" at the time.
Finally, I've been thrown by his odd comments on occasion about his faith. I know he's walking a difficult line--being true to his LDS convictions but trying to appeal to voters who are suspicious of or downright hostile toward the LDS Church. I believe he's genuinely religious. But some of his comments have seemed odd for a believing Latter-day Saint--on one occasion, for instance, expressing uncertainty as to whether there had been any real revelation from heaven since Mount Sinai. (This was to deflect, I think, the worry some have that his positions as US President, should he attain that office, would be dictated by LDS Church leaders.)
I guess I haven't been surprised at how many Latter-day Saints, including many of my friends, have become fans of Romney. He's attractive (in many senses) and claims to represent "conservative values." And there's not much of anybody else in the Republican field who seems to be much of a credible possibility as a 2012 presidential candidate. Plus Mitt is Mormon!
Of course, so is Harry Reid--and I'll offer as my view, despite the incredulity many may greet it with, that Reid represents LDS values more truly than Romney does (see http://humanities.byu.edu/english/faculty/youngb/reid.pdf , for instance). And I find another LDS political figure, Jon Huntsman, to be much more appealing than Romney. It would be great to have an LDS president (though it would at the same time expose the Church to a lot of hostility from all sorts of directions--including of course the Evangelical Right), but I think it would be a shame if the first LDS POTUS had views that, for me, are so far out of harmony with LDS values as I believe some of Romney's to be.
Speaking of "conservative values," I believe America has been built on a combination of liberal AND conservative values, as well as on values that transcend or bridge political differences. (So much, of course, depends on your definition of the terms.) And "conservative values" are emphatically NOT equivalent to Latter-day Saint values. Some "conservative values" are--for instance, if you want to call self-discipline, self-reliance, integrity, and fidelity "conservative." But what intelligent "liberal" would really reject those values? And you could with equal justice call values like faith, hope, charity, compassion, generosity, tolerance, goodwill, respect, and fairness "liberal." And on which side would you place knowledge, wisdom, patience, and humility? For that matter, does any contemporary political approach leave much room for humility?
In any case, it seems to me to demean religious faith and eternal principles to try to align them exclusively with a political party or ideology. For Latter-day Saints who know their history, it should be obvious that Joseph Smith was NOT a typical conservative in either the nineteenth- or twenty-first century sense. (See http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/05/politics-where-do-i-fit-on-spectrum.html for more thoughts on this.)
I myself don't feel comfortable aligning myself with any one spot on the political spectrum (as I explain here). I've been pleased recently to find a statement by Dallin H. Oaks that expresses a similar feeling: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (for the source, click here).
So where does that leave me with Mitt. Not especially interested, unless he comes across a lot differently than he did in 2008.
On the positive side, he strikes me as charismatic, intelligent, and capable. I was very impressed by his handling of the Salt Lake City Olympics. He did well as governor of Massachusetts. I liked him personally when I knew him back in the late 70s and early 80s.
On the negative side, I have a few concerns. Though I'd like to think that he has sincerely held the various positions he's taken over the years, I find it suspicious that those positions have changed to make him politically attractive to those whose support he has needed in different situations. And listening to him speak during the 2008 primaries, I often found it difficult to sense genuine conviction in his words. I worry about what seems to me a lack of integrity or at least genuineness. I don't feel like I really know his heart. I guess that's true of any other human being, but it seems even more so with Mitt Romney. He's a mystery to me, and it's hard for me to get a sense of what he truly, deeply believes--as distinguished from what he feels he needs to say to garner support.
A second concern: I liked his generally moderate approach as Massachusetts governor. In fact, on some issues, he was just a bit more liberal than I felt comfortable with. During the 2007-2008 political season, by contrast, he seemed to shift so far to the right that I found many of his positions unpalatable--some of them out of harmony with my moral convictions. And in addition to the positions themselves, his way of expressing himself sometimes seemed calculated to position him as the meanest, toughest SOB among the Republican candidates. There was a lot of jockeying for that "honor" at the time.
Finally, I've been thrown by his odd comments on occasion about his faith. I know he's walking a difficult line--being true to his LDS convictions but trying to appeal to voters who are suspicious of or downright hostile toward the LDS Church. I believe he's genuinely religious. But some of his comments have seemed odd for a believing Latter-day Saint--on one occasion, for instance, expressing uncertainty as to whether there had been any real revelation from heaven since Mount Sinai. (This was to deflect, I think, the worry some have that his positions as US President, should he attain that office, would be dictated by LDS Church leaders.)
I guess I haven't been surprised at how many Latter-day Saints, including many of my friends, have become fans of Romney. He's attractive (in many senses) and claims to represent "conservative values." And there's not much of anybody else in the Republican field who seems to be much of a credible possibility as a 2012 presidential candidate. Plus Mitt is Mormon!
Of course, so is Harry Reid--and I'll offer as my view, despite the incredulity many may greet it with, that Reid represents LDS values more truly than Romney does (see http://humanities.byu.edu/english/faculty/youngb/reid.pdf , for instance). And I find another LDS political figure, Jon Huntsman, to be much more appealing than Romney. It would be great to have an LDS president (though it would at the same time expose the Church to a lot of hostility from all sorts of directions--including of course the Evangelical Right), but I think it would be a shame if the first LDS POTUS had views that, for me, are so far out of harmony with LDS values as I believe some of Romney's to be.
Speaking of "conservative values," I believe America has been built on a combination of liberal AND conservative values, as well as on values that transcend or bridge political differences. (So much, of course, depends on your definition of the terms.) And "conservative values" are emphatically NOT equivalent to Latter-day Saint values. Some "conservative values" are--for instance, if you want to call self-discipline, self-reliance, integrity, and fidelity "conservative." But what intelligent "liberal" would really reject those values? And you could with equal justice call values like faith, hope, charity, compassion, generosity, tolerance, goodwill, respect, and fairness "liberal." And on which side would you place knowledge, wisdom, patience, and humility? For that matter, does any contemporary political approach leave much room for humility?
In any case, it seems to me to demean religious faith and eternal principles to try to align them exclusively with a political party or ideology. For Latter-day Saints who know their history, it should be obvious that Joseph Smith was NOT a typical conservative in either the nineteenth- or twenty-first century sense. (See http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/05/politics-where-do-i-fit-on-spectrum.html for more thoughts on this.)
I myself don't feel comfortable aligning myself with any one spot on the political spectrum (as I explain here). I've been pleased recently to find a statement by Dallin H. Oaks that expresses a similar feeling: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (for the source, click here).
So where does that leave me with Mitt. Not especially interested, unless he comes across a lot differently than he did in 2008.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Respecting the President / Political Bullying
A friend of mine has blogged about the Nebo School District decision--and then reversal of that decision--NOT to let students hear the President of the United States speak. You can read his post via the link below; my comment follows.
https://webmail.byu.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=16732fb329df463f8739ab1b89d63018&URL=http%3a%2f%2fgideonburton.typepad.com%2fgideon_burtons_blog%2f2009%2f09%2fpublic-schools-and-political-bullying-a-report-card-from-utah.html
Thanks, Gideon. As a couple of the comments have suggested, liberals and Democrats can be intolerant too, when given the chance. But the fact is that in Utah, especially Utah Valley, one party and one political persuasion heavily dominate. That means that here and now, they are the ones doing the bullying. They are the ones who can, and because many of them feel so certain they are right and see themselves so close to having complete domination, it is easy for many of the dominant persuasion to demonize, demean, and intimidate those with different views.
It’s not unlike racism. Of course, people of various races are capable of all that is good or bad in human nature. But typically it is racial minorities that face persecution, because the majority has the power to persecute and, measuring everyone against itself, easily transforms racial difference into inferiority.
With race too, Utah Valley has far to go. I had no idea it had SO far to go until I became friends with lots of the valley’s blacks and hispanics and learned some of what they, including their school children, face. Some of the incidents--I’m referring to incidents right here in Utah Valley--were so bad that when they were reported to President Hinckley, he wept. In response, he gave a stirring address in the priesthood session of General Conference, April 2006, in which he denounced racism and intolerance and mean-spiritedness in general, asking, “Why do any of us have to be so mean and unkind to others? Why can't all of us reach out in friendship to everyone about us? Why is there so much bitterness and animosity? It is not a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” No one indulging in such behavior, he said, “can consider himself a true disciple of Christ, nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the Church of Christ.” He called for efforts to “accommodate diversity” and called for any who were guilty of “racial hatred,” including “racial slurs and denigrating remarks,” to “ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.”
I wonder if we need such an address again, this time focusing specifically on political ridicule and bullying, especially directed against children. LDS Church leaders have long tried to persuade members that it’s OK to be a Democrat, that “various political parties,” including “all major” ones, have “principles compatible with the gospel.” Church leaders have deliberately, though quietly, encouraged political diversity in Utah. Just as previous Church presidents have met with presidents of the country, President Monson recently met with President Obama. President Uchtdorf and Elder Ballad attended the inauguration, and both felt encouraged by the spirit of unity they felt there. Pres. Uchtdorf said it was great “to see a unity there that I hope will last on and continue throughout the years of this administration.” He also said, “We pray for President Barack Obama’s success in these challenging times and join in his expressions of hope and optimism.” According to Elder Ballard, “We need to exercise our prayers and help him accomplish the great objectives that he has set.” All of this is vastly different in tone and spirit from much of what is heard in Utah Valley, where the great majority claim to be Latter-day Saints.
Simply being a citizen of the United States should impel you to listen to your president with respect, whether or not you agree with him. I don’t understand why so many in Utah Valley fail to meet even this minimal standard.
Posted by: Bruce Young September 11, 2009 at 04:38 PM
https://webmail.byu.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=16732fb329df463f8739ab1b89d63018&URL=http%3a%2f%2fgideonburton.typepad.com%2fgideon_burtons_blog%2f2009%2f09%2fpublic-schools-and-political-bullying-a-report-card-from-utah.html
Thanks, Gideon. As a couple of the comments have suggested, liberals and Democrats can be intolerant too, when given the chance. But the fact is that in Utah, especially Utah Valley, one party and one political persuasion heavily dominate. That means that here and now, they are the ones doing the bullying. They are the ones who can, and because many of them feel so certain they are right and see themselves so close to having complete domination, it is easy for many of the dominant persuasion to demonize, demean, and intimidate those with different views.
It’s not unlike racism. Of course, people of various races are capable of all that is good or bad in human nature. But typically it is racial minorities that face persecution, because the majority has the power to persecute and, measuring everyone against itself, easily transforms racial difference into inferiority.
With race too, Utah Valley has far to go. I had no idea it had SO far to go until I became friends with lots of the valley’s blacks and hispanics and learned some of what they, including their school children, face. Some of the incidents--I’m referring to incidents right here in Utah Valley--were so bad that when they were reported to President Hinckley, he wept. In response, he gave a stirring address in the priesthood session of General Conference, April 2006, in which he denounced racism and intolerance and mean-spiritedness in general, asking, “Why do any of us have to be so mean and unkind to others? Why can't all of us reach out in friendship to everyone about us? Why is there so much bitterness and animosity? It is not a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” No one indulging in such behavior, he said, “can consider himself a true disciple of Christ, nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the Church of Christ.” He called for efforts to “accommodate diversity” and called for any who were guilty of “racial hatred,” including “racial slurs and denigrating remarks,” to “ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.”
I wonder if we need such an address again, this time focusing specifically on political ridicule and bullying, especially directed against children. LDS Church leaders have long tried to persuade members that it’s OK to be a Democrat, that “various political parties,” including “all major” ones, have “principles compatible with the gospel.” Church leaders have deliberately, though quietly, encouraged political diversity in Utah. Just as previous Church presidents have met with presidents of the country, President Monson recently met with President Obama. President Uchtdorf and Elder Ballad attended the inauguration, and both felt encouraged by the spirit of unity they felt there. Pres. Uchtdorf said it was great “to see a unity there that I hope will last on and continue throughout the years of this administration.” He also said, “We pray for President Barack Obama’s success in these challenging times and join in his expressions of hope and optimism.” According to Elder Ballard, “We need to exercise our prayers and help him accomplish the great objectives that he has set.” All of this is vastly different in tone and spirit from much of what is heard in Utah Valley, where the great majority claim to be Latter-day Saints.
Simply being a citizen of the United States should impel you to listen to your president with respect, whether or not you agree with him. I don’t understand why so many in Utah Valley fail to meet even this minimal standard.
Posted by: Bruce Young September 11, 2009 at 04:38 PM
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The conspiracy theory mentality
Today I ran into a fun post, accompanied by a video, at http://zpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/08/of-conspiracies.html.
Having lived through the "Paul is dead" hoax, the "moon landing is fake" theory, and lots of other strangeness, I find conspiracy theories in general to be often laughable but sometimes pernicious.
I occasionally need to use snopes.com and other sources to explain to my friends why I'm not going to pass on their frantic e-mails about the latest terrible thing "THEY" are doing. (E.g., http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/07/false-claim-about-aclu.html.)
I've also posted on the Obama birth certificate craziness--http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/02/president-obamas-birth-certificate.html. The amazing thing with that conspiracy is that "they" even managed to put an announcement of Obama's birth in a Honolulu paper shortly after his "birth," in anticipation of his run for the presidency--unless all the old Honolulu newspaper archives have been falsified!
What's wrong with the conspiracy theory mentality? Yes, paranoia, fear, distrust. I've even seen conspiracy-prone friends on the verge of psychosis, seeing "signs" everywhere: in license plates, on billboards, on ceilings in the Salt Lake Temple. The conspiracy theory mentality also breeds contention, lack of civility and charity, egomania, violent fantasies, and the breakdown of such mental faculties as insight, wisdom, intelligence, understanding, and rational inquiry and analysis. I believe it shows a lack of genuine trust in God. And it diminishes and destroys such gifts of the Spirit as love, joy, peace, faith, hope, meekness, patience, and brotherly kindness. Come to think of it, it basically takes a wrecking ball to all of the Christlike attributes.
I suspect these are among the reasons LDS Church leaders have warned against this kind of mentality, a mentality to which Church members are sometimes prone. I remember several instances of such warnings, and I read recently in The Mormon Quest for the Presidency (Newell Bringhurst and Craig Foster) of Church efforts during the 1990s to dissuade members who were following the likes of Bo Gritz into various troubling activities: refusing to pay taxes, forming armed militias, accusing Church leaders of "muzzling" President Benson, etc. Bo Gritz, a white supremacist and conspiracy theorist who had joined the Church and who ran for the US presidency, ended up asking to have his name removed from Church records, feeling the Church had gone astray, and went on to take part in the "Fellowship of Eternal Warriors" and other survivalist groups and to warn that America was in "the cusp of Global Corporate Fascism." Another Church member who was excommunicated (and later started his own sect in Manti, Utah) accused the Church of supporting the "New World Order," a favorite target of conspiracy theorists (including Bo Gritz, who believes the United Nations is a front for the New World Order).
In response to some of these conspiracy theorists and other right wing activists of the early 1990s, Elder Boyd K. Packer said the following in his October 1992 General Conference address ("To Be Learned Is Good If . . ."): "There are some among us now who have not been regularly ordained by the heads of the Church and who tell of impending political and economic chaos, the end of the world--something of the 'sky is falling, chicken licken' of the fables. They are misleading members to gather to colonies or cults. Those deceivers say that the Brethren do not know what is going on in the world or that the Brethren approve of their teaching but do not wish to speak of it over the pulpit. Neither is true."
The truth is that, despite involvement by some Latter-day Saints in right-wing movements and conspiracy theorizing, the membership of the Church as a whole--and especially the leadership as a group--have been reasonably mainstream, preferring a rational approach to national and world problems and participation in the normal workings of civil society. The First Presidency has sought a good relationship with ALL recent US Presidents, of both political parties. And for any who may be saying, "But doesn't the Book of Mormon teach conspiracy theories?" I would give as my considered opinion the following: The teachings of that book--about violent bands of robbers, about political corruption, and about spiritual darkness in general--are not only true but are vastly different (especially in tone and spirit) from the typical conspiracy theory mentality. One of the biggest differences is that the Book of Mormon calls on people to repent of their own sins, NOT to become obsessed with other people's sins, especially sins that are supposedly hidden somewhere in the recesses of a bizarre and incredibly complicated conspiratorial design but that, it turns out, are mainly a fantasy projected from the dark chambers of one's own soul.
Having lived through the "Paul is dead" hoax, the "moon landing is fake" theory, and lots of other strangeness, I find conspiracy theories in general to be often laughable but sometimes pernicious.
I occasionally need to use snopes.com and other sources to explain to my friends why I'm not going to pass on their frantic e-mails about the latest terrible thing "THEY" are doing. (E.g., http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/07/false-claim-about-aclu.html.)
I've also posted on the Obama birth certificate craziness--http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/02/president-obamas-birth-certificate.html. The amazing thing with that conspiracy is that "they" even managed to put an announcement of Obama's birth in a Honolulu paper shortly after his "birth," in anticipation of his run for the presidency--unless all the old Honolulu newspaper archives have been falsified!
What's wrong with the conspiracy theory mentality? Yes, paranoia, fear, distrust. I've even seen conspiracy-prone friends on the verge of psychosis, seeing "signs" everywhere: in license plates, on billboards, on ceilings in the Salt Lake Temple. The conspiracy theory mentality also breeds contention, lack of civility and charity, egomania, violent fantasies, and the breakdown of such mental faculties as insight, wisdom, intelligence, understanding, and rational inquiry and analysis. I believe it shows a lack of genuine trust in God. And it diminishes and destroys such gifts of the Spirit as love, joy, peace, faith, hope, meekness, patience, and brotherly kindness. Come to think of it, it basically takes a wrecking ball to all of the Christlike attributes.
I suspect these are among the reasons LDS Church leaders have warned against this kind of mentality, a mentality to which Church members are sometimes prone. I remember several instances of such warnings, and I read recently in The Mormon Quest for the Presidency (Newell Bringhurst and Craig Foster) of Church efforts during the 1990s to dissuade members who were following the likes of Bo Gritz into various troubling activities: refusing to pay taxes, forming armed militias, accusing Church leaders of "muzzling" President Benson, etc. Bo Gritz, a white supremacist and conspiracy theorist who had joined the Church and who ran for the US presidency, ended up asking to have his name removed from Church records, feeling the Church had gone astray, and went on to take part in the "Fellowship of Eternal Warriors" and other survivalist groups and to warn that America was in "the cusp of Global Corporate Fascism." Another Church member who was excommunicated (and later started his own sect in Manti, Utah) accused the Church of supporting the "New World Order," a favorite target of conspiracy theorists (including Bo Gritz, who believes the United Nations is a front for the New World Order).
In response to some of these conspiracy theorists and other right wing activists of the early 1990s, Elder Boyd K. Packer said the following in his October 1992 General Conference address ("To Be Learned Is Good If . . ."): "There are some among us now who have not been regularly ordained by the heads of the Church and who tell of impending political and economic chaos, the end of the world--something of the 'sky is falling, chicken licken' of the fables. They are misleading members to gather to colonies or cults. Those deceivers say that the Brethren do not know what is going on in the world or that the Brethren approve of their teaching but do not wish to speak of it over the pulpit. Neither is true."
The truth is that, despite involvement by some Latter-day Saints in right-wing movements and conspiracy theorizing, the membership of the Church as a whole--and especially the leadership as a group--have been reasonably mainstream, preferring a rational approach to national and world problems and participation in the normal workings of civil society. The First Presidency has sought a good relationship with ALL recent US Presidents, of both political parties. And for any who may be saying, "But doesn't the Book of Mormon teach conspiracy theories?" I would give as my considered opinion the following: The teachings of that book--about violent bands of robbers, about political corruption, and about spiritual darkness in general--are not only true but are vastly different (especially in tone and spirit) from the typical conspiracy theory mentality. One of the biggest differences is that the Book of Mormon calls on people to repent of their own sins, NOT to become obsessed with other people's sins, especially sins that are supposedly hidden somewhere in the recesses of a bizarre and incredibly complicated conspiratorial design but that, it turns out, are mainly a fantasy projected from the dark chambers of one's own soul.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
False claim about ACLU
I received an e-mail from a friend today passing on a message, variants of which have apparently been circulating for years, claiming the ACLU wants to remove cross-shaped grave markers and end prayer in the military. I replied as follows (plus I've added here some biblical references I used in responding to some websites publishing the same "information"--such websites mainly belong to conservative Christians but also include one run by KKK sympathisers):
Thank you for thinking of me when you sent this. I do pray for those in military service, many of whom put themselves unselfishly in harm’s way and are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, as some of them, unfortunately, are called on to do.
Happily, the ACLU has NOT filed suit to have military cross-shaped headstones removed. As far as I know the other suit (to end prayer completely) is also a complete fiction. For information on this false rumor, see http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp (Snopes tracks down and evaluates all sorts of rumors, including, for instance, the rumor that the LDS Church owns the Coca-Cola company: http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/mormon.asp ).
I’m sure there are many other ways to verify the falsity of these rumors. (For instance, see http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/aclu-markers.htm , http://hubpages.com/hub/Everything-Under-the-Sun , and http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/02/chain-email/no-aclu-lawsuit-over-cross-shaped-headstones/ --this last one including information from the ACLU itself, from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and from the American Battle Monuments Commission.)
I will not be passing the e-mail message on to others for two reasons. First, I believe it’s wrong to knowingly present false information as if it were true—and I am confident in this case that the information is false.
Secondly, the reference to “the retched [wretched] ACLU and our new administration” does not seem to me to express a Christlike attitude (see http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/07/instruments-of-lords-peace.html ). The reference to our president and to an entire branch of our national government seems to me inappropriate given the 12th Article of Faith and especially Doctrine and Covenants section 134, verses 5 and 6 (“We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside. . . . We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such. . . ."). [See also 1 Peter 2:13-14 & 17, & Romans 13:1-7. Also Exodus 22:28, Eccl. 10:20, Acts 23:5, 1 Tim. 2:1-3, etc.]
It also seems to me to contradict the attitude President Monson and other Church leaders have invited us to take (see http://www.mormontimes.com/around_church/general_authority/?id=5918 , http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-leaders-attend-president-obama-s-inauguration , and
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/latter-day-saint-leaders-attend-national-prayer-service ).
Thank you, though, for the reminder of the need for and the power of prayer.
Thank you for thinking of me when you sent this. I do pray for those in military service, many of whom put themselves unselfishly in harm’s way and are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, as some of them, unfortunately, are called on to do.
Happily, the ACLU has NOT filed suit to have military cross-shaped headstones removed. As far as I know the other suit (to end prayer completely) is also a complete fiction. For information on this false rumor, see http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp (Snopes tracks down and evaluates all sorts of rumors, including, for instance, the rumor that the LDS Church owns the Coca-Cola company: http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/mormon.asp ).
I’m sure there are many other ways to verify the falsity of these rumors. (For instance, see http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/aclu-markers.htm , http://hubpages.com/hub/Everything-Under-the-Sun , and http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/02/chain-email/no-aclu-lawsuit-over-cross-shaped-headstones/ --this last one including information from the ACLU itself, from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and from the American Battle Monuments Commission.)
I will not be passing the e-mail message on to others for two reasons. First, I believe it’s wrong to knowingly present false information as if it were true—and I am confident in this case that the information is false.
Secondly, the reference to “the retched [wretched] ACLU and our new administration” does not seem to me to express a Christlike attitude (see http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/07/instruments-of-lords-peace.html ). The reference to our president and to an entire branch of our national government seems to me inappropriate given the 12th Article of Faith and especially Doctrine and Covenants section 134, verses 5 and 6 (“We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside. . . . We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such. . . ."). [See also 1 Peter 2:13-14 & 17, & Romans 13:1-7. Also Exodus 22:28, Eccl. 10:20, Acts 23:5, 1 Tim. 2:1-3, etc.]
It also seems to me to contradict the attitude President Monson and other Church leaders have invited us to take (see http://www.mormontimes.com/around_church/general_authority/?id=5918 , http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-leaders-attend-president-obama-s-inauguration , and
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/latter-day-saint-leaders-attend-national-prayer-service ).
Thank you, though, for the reminder of the need for and the power of prayer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
