Could It Get Any Worse?

I have really been working at putting myself out of range in this election season, as I mentioned in my last post. Instead, I have been filling my time with far more productive activities, like following the Cubs through the playoffs. How great is that story? After 71 years of futility they are going back to the World Series. I am so happy for them and all their long-suffering die-hard fans. I suspect there are overnight now more Cubs fans than at any time in their history.

And how about those Utes? Now 7-1 overall, and tied for the the lead in the PAC-12 South. Their 52-45 shootout with UCLA yesterday in the Rose Bowl where Joe Williams smashed the single game rushing record with 332 yards was poetry in motion on a football field. They got some love in the coaches poll today, moving up to number 16. Even the Cougars from the school down south have been fun to watch. Their record doesn't reflect how close they've come to being undefeated. Even Utah would be undefeated with a few more inches that fell short on the final drive in their single loss to California.

So, believe me when I say these have been pleasant diversions from the nightly news. Speaking of that, aside from the politics, I have wearied of the nightly crime blotter - murder, adultery, theft, burglary, armed assaults, and all that goes with it. As a product of the Sixties, I have always been a television addict, but those days are now gone as my television time has been self-restricted. I hate commercials. God blessed the man who developed the "Hopper," and I praise that man's name now.

I am continually reminded of the ancient record as found in Mormon 8. Mormon was the father of Moroni, and one of the last survivors of an ancient nation state that once thrived in the Americas. But his civilization was destroyed by wickedness. He writes here in about 400 A.D., with a prophetic vision of the times in which we live today:

 35 Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.

 36 And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts.

 37 For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.

 38 O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies — because of the praise of the world?

 39 Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not?

 40 Yea, why do ye build up your secret abominations to get gain, and cause that widows should mourn before the Lord, and also orphans to mourn before the Lord, and also the blood of their fathers and their husbands to cry unto the Lord from the ground, for vengeance upon your heads?

 41 Behold, the sword of vengeance hangeth over you; and the time soon cometh that he avengeth the blood of the saints upon you, for he will not suffer their cries any longer.

I want to be clear - I have always thought of myself as an optimistic person. I really don't want to believe in secret combinations that are set up to get gain, murder the innocents for power, and grind the faces of the poor into the dust. I don't look for the anti-Christ under every bush. I want to believe that people are basically decent, hard-working and honest with one another. I really don't want to let myself go there with conspiracy theories about "rigged" systems of government or business that pollute our inheritance as free people in America.

But, that said, the conditions, the rhetoric, the back and forth of the political dialogue to which we have been exposed this election cycle have been so reprehensible that if I had small children at home I would have no choice but to unplug the television. Even with sports, I record the games, fast-forward through the endless commentary and commercials and reduce my watching to the actual plays. That Utah-UCLA game yesterday took four hours. Watching it the "Hopper" way I do takes a little longer than a half-hour.

Elder David A. Bednar, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Filtering out all the "noise" is exactly what Elder David A. Bednar was speaking about here. The search for truth isn't difficult if we ask ourselves these two important questions posed by Elder Bednar.

Some are simply too young to remember the Clinton era when Bill was the POTUS and his whole presidency seemed to be one sexual intrigue after another. Stains on a blue dress, parsing of tortured definitions of what constituted "sexual relations" in front of a panel of the House of Representatives convened to impeach him for lying to a grand jury, and the lies that were told, then refuted and corrected with hard evidence to the contrary; all were the "highlights" of those years. Impeached in the House, but a conviction lacking in the Senate, Bill Clinton skated, though he was impugned and lost his license to practice law. And now he's back running for "First Gentleman," whatever that may come to mean. He is anything but a "gentleman."

This year the Clinton legacy has all been brought to the forefront once again, accompanied by the allegations of the escapades of one Donald J. Trump, man of the world if ever there was one. It seems our national moral compass has been demagnetized. We are no longer shocked by anything that once would have immediately disqualified these two candidates in Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Our true north is whatever a scheming politician says it is. I noticed the other day that the polling done last week puts Clinton and Trump in exactly the same place they were a year ago when this all started - in other words, nothing has been settled yet. I guess we should be grateful they are both the most loathed candidates ever put forward to run for the presidency.

I think the counsel of this priceless hymn is worth repeating - If the way be full of trials, weary not. . .



And so, in answer to my question, "Could it get any worse?" I answer yes - the Cubs could lose the World Series, and the Utes could lose to Washington next week and get little or no respect in the national rankings.

Memo to Utah: We are NOT a "Swing State"

In this election cycle we've just about heard it all by now. The latest flavor of the month has been that Utah might figure prominently as a "swing state." Here are the reasons why Utah is NOT:

1. The predominance of the Republican party has not changed, and it won't for this election cycle.

2. Yes, people hate the thought of voting for Donald Trump, but enough Republicans will vote for him that he will win Utah without much effort. He's up comfortably in the polls today.

3. It's hard to imagine the hated Hillary Clinton winning enough cross-over votes to change that outcome.

4. Just because there are two minority parties who have chosen Utah as their headquarters does not signal a mass uprising among the citizenry.

5. Even if Evan McMullin or Gary Johnson were able to somehow win Utah's six electoral college votes, that won't be enough to throw the election into the House of Representatives to determine the election.

6. In the grand scheme of national politics Utah isn't even a drop in the ocean.

7. One person's vote in Utah is almost immaterial because the outcome is always so predictable.

8. Whenever a viable third-party candidate has emerged, I have always voted for that person, as I did twice for Ross Perot. Why? Because my vote really doesn't matter much and I have always known it.

9. "But the Supreme Court hangs in the balance," I hear routinely from others. See above.

10. This might be the most important election of our lifetimes. See above.



I won't stay home and not vote for anyone. Instead, I will immediately fill in my mail-in ballot as soon as I receive it and be done with this election cycle.

I have unsubscribed from every single e-mail request from every single campaign that has solicited my donations.

I have rudely hung up on every pollster who has called my home.

I have turned off all the political coverage on the news channels.

I will tune out the debates whenever they pop up. Watching NFL football will be a welcomed relief by contrast. Shoot, watching ANYTHING else would be acceptable to me this year.

I have never seen a time in my life when the political process has produced such dismal choices. The two-party system has given us the worst outcomes I can imagine. I am boycotting and denouncing the two major candidates, and I will not vote for either one.

Others will tell me to adopt such a stance is un-American or irresponsible and my vote will not count or be meaningful. And they would all be right, because my vote in Utah is essentially meaningless. See above.

So who will I vote for? The one guy who's standing up for America. The most logical would be a vote for Evan McMullin. At least he most closely aligns with how I think and believe. I actually have several options. I could write in my wife's name, as Mitt Romney suggested he might do a few weeks back. Or I could vote for Thomas S. Monson or Joseph Smith or Mickey Mouse. I've even thought about writing in my home teacher. Any one of my sons and daughters would also be a good alternative.

Far from throwing away my vote in Utah, it will give me the satisfaction of taking a stand against the corrupt two-party system and the two corrupt candidates represented by the major parties. Both Trump and Clinton have headquarters here in Utah this year. It won't move the needle much either way, I predict.

I would love to hear anyone's comments about why I'm wrong. Go ahead, take a shot and convince me your one vote makes even a scintilla of difference in Utah.

I have often joked that this year I would write in the name of a righteous young man whom I love and trust as my number one choice, even though he isn't old enough to serve based upon the Constitutional requirements for office. In fact, I have several grandsons that fit that bill. And even more granddaughters!

If you live in Utah this year, you don't have to choose the lesser of two evils. Trust me, plenty of people in Utah will do just that and blindly drink the Trump Kool-Aid to prevent Hillary Rodham Clinton from winning. And Trump will win Utah. And he will garner enough voters to do it.

I just won't be one of them.

Speechless. . . and Clueless

I don't know how many people have noticed, but I'm getting this question a lot recently: "Why haven't you been writing about this election?" A close second in popularity is: "Who are you voting for?" Forgive my rant, but I will lay it all out.

In answer to the first, my response has been, "This election leaves me speechless." And it's true. What do you say that hasn't already been said? The two major political parties have been through a bruising primary season, eventually settling for their respective nominees on the two candidates with the highest negatives in terms of popularity in modern history. Right now, I am conflicted.

Which leads me to the answer to the second question. Ask me in November who I'm voting for, because right now I haven't got a clue. The electorate is woefully fragmented. The hashtags #nevertrump, #neverhillary are everywhere. As never before, this election looms as a vote AGAINST someone, rather than FOR someone. I talk to people every day who say they will NEVER vote for Trump and NEVER vote for Hillary. One thing is clear - they are both loathed in record numbers, and apparently loved by enough to grab their respective parties' nominations. Mind-numbing, right?

You Be The Judge, Make Your Choice - November Looms

On the one hand, we have a serial adulterer, working on wife number three, the owner of hotels, golf courses, casinos, escort services, a multi-billionaire with really bad hair who has built an empire on the foundation of his father's fortune, and a newcomer to the political scene who changes policy positions like you and I change our socks in the morning.

His demise has been predicted repeatedly for over a year because he has violated every pundit's political playbook of rules multiple times.

He's managed to offend nearly every ethnic group in America on a "platform" of building a wall on the Southern border, excluding Muslims from immigrating to America, and then touting a long list of populist conservative agenda items sufficient to win over Sean Hannity, among others. And by the way, Fox News is nearly unwatchable now. He played "bimbo" Megyn Kelly like a fiddle.

He personally attacked each Republican candidate along the way. His rhetoric against them was over the top. And everyone ate up his politics of personal destruction. Apparently, while we denounce bullies publicly, we embrace a "tough guy" with our votes. In the Utah primary, I voted for loser John Kasich, the obvious "protest" vote I could find against Trump and Cruz.

Despite the deep divisions within the party, Trump went on to secure the requisite number of delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot at the upcoming Republican convention.

Give him this - he has succeeded in a tough New York real estate business where few do. Were there ethics violations involved? Probably. Were bankruptcies the result in some cases? Who cares?

Despite Mitt Romney's protestations to attempt to wreck his chances, he has survived even the most blistering attacks from inside his own party. Romney called him "a fraud," "a con man," and worse. It  didn't matter in the least. Take a principled stand against Trump and he gains strength.

His reckless abandon in making his spontaneous and seemingly irresponsible comments is somehow appealing to the voters who have stoutly supported him and rejected every one of his opponents from among what appeared at the outset to be the strongest field ever assembled on the Republican side. Now as they coalesce around him, it seems beating Hillary is enough to unite the majority at any cost.

On the other side, we have a serial politician, dishonest lawyer, driven by power, greed and amassing a fortune based upon trading influence for contributions to a specious "foundation." The list of donors and their contributions to the Clinton Foundation and the favors obtained in exchange will be fully documented before November. Who cares?

She's the wife of an inveterate and skilled politician who enabled her husband's sexual exploits, then mercilessly berated and publicly humiliated all his accusers. Some voters in this election cycle are simply too young to remember. They will get a list of particulars from her opponent, no doubt. But will anyone really care?

The list of her political scandals is as long as a career criminal's rap sheet, spanning a period of well over forty years. She makes Ronald Reagan's "Teflon" moniker laughable. Reagan was around when character mattered, and his character was so well-documented nothing seemed to stick that was critical. These days nothing critical seems to stick to the Clintons, even suspected criminal activity. In that sense she and Trump have a lot in common.

Her record is clear, and her self-inflicted e-mail server debacle of handling sensitive classified documents while she was serving as Secretary of State under the Obama administration is only the latest in that long line of scandals. Is she guilty of felonies? Who knows? What she is guilty of is poor judgment on a host of issues. And setting all that aside, this qualifies her to serve? Go figure.

Somehow, her supporters have looked the other way in their enthusiasm for her candidacy. When pressed to name even one substantive accomplishment of this woman, those who are interviewed are routinely stumped by the question.

She has been opposed by only one seemingly weak candidate - an over-the-hill and underwhelming self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist whose honesty creds are at least legit, who prolonged the primary contests to the very last voter, even longer than it took Trump to vanquish the large Republican field. And what has been his platform? That Hillary Clinton wasn't liberal enough, not socialist enough, not progressive enough.

And finally, after setting aside his bruising and prolonged opposition, Clinton has enough votes for delegates, "super" or otherwise, to become the first woman from a major party to win her party's nomination. Being the first woman in politics may be her only achievement, but it is sufficient, it seems, in the minds of many.

And, Trump-like, that accomplishment in a tough game of politics may in fact be an achievement. If an upstart Senator from Illinois can win two terms in the White House, why not her? Why not Trump? There are many who love the narrative of the first black POTUS followed by the first woman POTUS, qualifications for the job notwithstanding. Elections have turned on less. Whose resume was thinner than Obama's?

Morality, it would seem, has taken a permanent holiday in American politics. If making America great again were to include a return to morality, I would be on board with it. However, the American psyche, it would seem, now favors looking for a departure from the politics of the past at almost any price. Bernie Sanders has made outrageous proposals for socialism on steroids. Give him points for sincerity and honesty. You can judge for yourself if he's credible. However, the fuzzy math associated with how to pay for it all is mind-boggling, and yet his appeal even here in redder-than-red Utah is stunning. He turned out BY FAR the largest crowds for his rallies of any and all competitors in Utah.

One has to suspend all reason and all rational thought to suppose that his foolishness in American politics is sustainable to any degree. We are living on borrowed money, and yet there is no serious debate any more about a balanced budget. Both political parties are spending us into oblivion. Does anyone believe either Trump or Clinton will curb the spending? They aren't even talking about it. The military leaders are warning that our national debt is our biggest security threat. Oh really? You don't hear politicians echoing that warning at all. They can't even agree on whether the attack last week in Orlando on defenseless gays and lesbians that killed 49 innocents in a bar was carried out by a "radical Islam" adherent or a "deranged madman." Are we at war with the Islamic State that has sworn to destroy America, or is what happened in Orlando merely a police matter?

The sad reality for me is that we have brought our current state upon ourselves, and we have no one else to blame.

Both Sanders and Trump have struck a raw nerve of discontent that has overthrown all the conventional wisdom traditionally ascribed to politics. All the enthusiasm in this cycle has been for Trump and Sanders. Trump logged more votes in the Republican primary season than anyone in history! No small feat. He claims that's because he's added Independents and Reagan Democrats to the mix. How or if that will translate into a win in November remains to be seen.

If I take my cues from the prophetic Book of Mormon, I would not be remiss in sizing up this election as unfathomable. Likening the years preceding the coming of our resurrected Lord among the Nephites on this continent to our day, there are ample precedents to suggest things are going to get a lot worse than better. Begin your reading in Helaman 1 through 3 Nephi 9. Consider these chilling insights:

. . . they did destroy the government of the land. . .  and all this iniquity had come upon the people because they did yield themselves unto the power of Satan. And the regulations of the government were destroyed, because of the secret combinations of the friends and kindreds of those who murdered the prophets. (3 Nephi 7:2; 5-6).

There are many ways to murder the prophets without killing them outright. One of the most effective is to simply ignore their warnings. Few people I know outside the Church care much about the contents of the Book of Mormon, nor the prophets, ancient and modern, who have given specific counsel about the days in which we live.

I've abandoned all hope of coming up with a palatable scenario to my liking at this point, and remain simply speechless and clueless about how all this turns out in November.

Memo to Glenn Beck: No "White Horse Prophecy"

Glenn Beck at Cruz Rally in Utah, March 19, 2016

Yesterday in Utah at a political rally for Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck stepped up to the stage with mic in hand and admonished the predominantly Mormon audience to rise up and fulfill the "prophecy" allegedly uttered by Joseph Smith that someday the Constitution would "hang by a tread" and needed to be rescued by the "body of the priesthood." Memo to the people of Utah and to Glenn Beck - the informed priesthood will continue to look to their priesthood leaders for direction, not to you.

Beck fancies himself as a reliable historian, but in this instance he demonstrated his lack of understanding. He certainly didn't do his homework, or he never would have pulled out that card and played it. Or, maybe he knew full well what he was doing in the heat of the presidential campaign and was pulling out all the stops in his strident advocacy for Cruz among Christians whom he had criticized in other places for not rising up in support of Cruz. Whatever his reasons, he got this one dead wrong.

As reported by Breitbart, Beck said the following: “I want to speak to you about something that may be controversial. And it’s not something that I have said when I have been out for Ted [Cruz] and now Mike [Lee]. But it’s something that this crowd needs to hear – that Utah needs to hear. The body of the priesthood is known to stand up when the Constitution hangs by a thread,” Beck said.

“I am a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints,” he explained. “What attracted me was not only the truth of the message, but also the people like President [Harold B.] Lee and President [Ezra Taft] Benson who knew exactly who we were – knew who we were as a country,” Beck said, naming prominent past presidents of the LDS Church.

“I joined many times. What held me through was the prophesy that the Constitution will hang by a thread, and this People would remember what our Founders did. It is our responsibility to stand for the Constitution,” Beck said.

At this point, Ted Cruz and the audience gave Beck a standing ovation.

Now, before the hate mail pours in, let me make it clear that standing for the Constitution is something I believe we must do. But I guess this is what I hate most about political speeches. The ones we hear directed at Mormons often seek to blur the distinctive line between the Church and the political arena which the Church assiduously attempts to keep separate. Political speech is often drenched in emotional and often hyperbolic sentiment that crosses the borderline of fact and truth in the name of whipping up an audience into a silly patriotic frenzy that is more often than not misguided. 

I wrote about "The White Horse Prophecy" when Mitt Romney was ramping up his run against Obama in the 2012 election, and nothing has changed since my first post about it in 2010.

Most members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have heard about something called "The White Horse Prophecy," but few understand its origins and implications.

Beck forgot to look into the most recent invocation of this specious "prophecy" when an unwise Idaho gubernatorial candidate, Dr. Rex Rammell, the Tea Party's darling, was forming groups encouraging others to study "the White Horse prophecy" in depth. Only priesthood brethren were invited and were instructed to go home and tell their wives.  

In advance of the primary election, on January 6, 2010, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) to which Glenn Beck belongs, was compelled to clarify the matter with this statement:

Two weeks ago The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement regarding the so-called "White Horse prophecy" in response to news inquiries regarding comments made by an Idaho politician. The matter has received additional coverage in the news media of late and so we reiterate that statement here: 

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is politically neutral and does not endorse or promote any candidate, party or platform. Accordingly, we hope that the campaign practices of political candidates would not suggest that their candidacy is supported by or connected to the church.

"The so-called 'White Horse Prophecy' is based on accounts that have not been substantiated by historical research and is not embraced as Church doctrine." 

  

Rammell's candidacy did elicit some support, if not entirely because of the controversy.  In the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary, he lost, but the veterinarian was successful in beating incumbent, C.L. "Butch" Otter in two counties and tying him in another.

  

So fast forward to yesterday in Utah. In the topsy-turvy world of national politics this year, Beck continues to fan the flames of rumor that persist that Joseph Smith purportedly said something to the effect in a private conversation with two Church members that the day would come when the Constitution of the United States would "hang by a thread," and the "elders of the Church would be called upon to rescue it."  

  

Beck needs to read this page, however, and he would learn the veracity and accuracy of the report of that conversation has always been in question because the recollections of the two men, Edwin Rushton and Theodore Turley, were not recorded in a diary by their friend, John J. Roberts, until ten years later when they were old men. Roberts first heard about it in the 1850s. As far as we know, the Prophet Joseph never taught anything like that publicly.

  

I believe the best in-depth treatment of this topic, if you're interested, is available here.  

  

It is clear there are numerous historical statements in support of the ideas expressed, but for the most part they are no better than the foundation upon which they rest -- the journal entry of a man who heard what two other men heard Joseph Smith say ten years earlier. Not exactly reliable and sound investigative journalism.

  

This isn't the first time this has happened. Besides the incidents surrounding Rammel's ill-fated gubernatorial race in Idaho, it surfaced in the presidential campaign of Senator Orrin Hatch, and then when Mitt Romney ran for Governor of Massachusetts, and then again when he ran for the presidency in 2012. Both were also Mormons (yes, Donald J. Trump, Mitt Romney IS a Mormon). However, to their credit, both disavowed the so-called "prophecy" then and so did the Church. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) would do well to immediately disavow what was said in his presence yesterday and put himself on the side of the Church and a more accurate accounting of the history. 

Politically, it's a negatively charged idea that the Church and/or its elders and/or an elder riding on a white horse (there are many possibilities) is somehow going to swoop in and take over a contested national Republican convention in Cleveland, or eventually the federal government that needs rescuing in a time of trouble. Like most faith-promoting rumors, this one is lacking in substance when the facts are examined in depth.  

  

That we believe as a Church the Savior will return and reign as King of kings and Lord of lords is indisputable (see Revelation 17:14; 19:16 for example), but to say the Church is going to set up a replacement government before that time is irresponsible and unfounded on all fronts.

Once again, Glenn Beck fails to pass the accuracy test and reveals himself for what he is - nothing more than yet another false prophet, however well-intentioned.

Who Will Be The Savior of The Republican Party?

Donald J. Trump

Donald J. Trump continues to fill up all the media outlets with what has become familiar behavior:

1. He seems never to have met a Republican that he likes. Name a Republican and he's immediately branded as "low energy," "a stupid idiot," "little boy Marco," "the weakest Republican candidate this party ever had," "a choker," "a liar," "the worst liar I have ever met," "the worst human being I've ever known," "you don't have one single endorsement among your Senate buddies, you should be ashamed of yourself," and the list goes on in endless epithets.

2. Yet he says, "I have so many friends." He cites his many friends in business, those around the world, in show business, in politics. "We're going to start winning, winning, winning, we're going to win so much you won't even believe it!" He truly is bigger than life, or so he would have us believe.

3. "I love you all - everybody in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada," (and he's just getting started on that line. We would suppose what with Super Tuesday coming up he will eventually get around to all of us whom he loves, loves, loves if we vote for him).

4. He hates Megyn Kelly of Fox News who dared to suggest his insults against women might be considered crass, or worse, just downright hateful. He calls her "a horrible person," "with blood coming everywhere out of her," and then boycotts her routinely instead of encountering her again. Is Mr. Macho really afraid of "that bimbo" Megyn Kelly? Or does she just come in for "fair and balanced" treatment he gives to anyone who dares to oppose him?

5. He's going to build a wall, "and now it just got ten feet higher," when the former president of Mexico suggested that Trump could just go pound sound if he thinks Mexico will pay for the wall. And Trump then goes on and on about the balance of trade between us and Mexico as though balancing our balance of trade accounts will somehow magically produce the $10 billion to build the wall. For a Wharton School of Business graduate, he must have been sleeping through Economics 101.

6. Article after article appears daily around the collective political water cooler of the American electorate. "What if Trump actually becomes our nominee," they stutter in disbelief. I know people so offended by Trump that they will vote for anyone else, yes, even a Democrat, rather than Trump.

7. There are other articles now appearing since the endorsement of Governor Chris Christie who suggest that Trump might just be a great choice as a nominee, since he's energized the Republican base like no one else has done since Ronald Reagan. Then they quickly add that Trump will rival Reagan among the greatest presidents. Seriously, I'm not making any of this up, am I?

Marco Rubio

Ted Cruz

Those are just seven observations off the top of my head that I've been following for the past several weeks. He's successfully thumped all of his would-be opponents into submission, and the field has narrowed to three with Trump, Rubio and Cruz. The desperation is now palpable. Like so many others who follow politics, this idea of "a savior" has been rattling around in my head with a hope that someone - ANYONE - might just be the ticket for America's future. But today it came into perfect focus for me.

Along with Patsy, we teach the fourteen and fifteen year-olds in Sunday School in our ward. Today we discussed "the doctrine of Christ," and spent our time together mostly in 2 Nephi 31. We had a good group today of seven delightful young ladies and one young man, as we took turns reading verses in the chapter. The topic heading is appropriate:

The “doctrine of Christ” is that all men everywhere must have faith in Jesus Christ, repent of their sins, be baptized, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end. The doctrine of Christ is the only way to be saved in the kingdom of God. It is the foundation of the Church and the central message of its missionaries.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson

I also taught the fourth Sunday lesson in the high priest group today, the one devoted to selected sermons from the most recent General Conferences. Today, our stake leadership asked us to reflect on the talk by Elder D. Todd Christofferson, titled "Why the Church." Punctuation nerd that I am, I initially pondered why that statement didn't have a question mark at the end. However, he made a statement, he wasn't asking a question.

We had a profitable conversation together considering his three main reasons why the Church exists and must exist if we are to be enabled to claim the blessing of eternal life. He offered his three reasons:

1. How does His Church accomplish the Lord’s purposes? It is important to recognize that God’s ultimate purpose is our progress. His desire is that we continue “from grace to grace, until [we receive] a fulness” of all He can give. That requires more than simply being nice or feeling spiritual. It requires faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism of water and of the Spirit, and enduring in faith to the end. One cannot fully achieve this in isolation, so a major reason the Lord has a church is to create a community of Saints that will sustain one another in the “strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life.”

2. There is a second major reason the Savior works through a church, His Church, and that is to achieve needful things that cannot be accomplished by individuals or smaller groups. One clear example is dealing with poverty. It is true that as individuals and families we look after the physical needs of others, “imparting to one another both temporally and spiritually according to their needs and their wants.” But together in the Church, the ability to care for the poor and needy is multiplied to meet the broader need, and hoped-for self-reliance is made a reality for very many. Further, the Church, its Relief Societies, and its priesthood quorums have the capacity to provide relief to many people in many places affected by natural disasters, war, and persecution.

3. The final reason I will mention for the Lord to have established His Church is the most unique — the Church is, after all, the kingdom of God on the earth. . .

Its destiny is to establish Zion in preparation for the return and millennial rule of Jesus Christ. Before that day, it will not be a kingdom in any political sense — as the Savior said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Rather, it is the repository of His authority in the earth, the administrator of His holy covenants, the custodian of His temples, the protector and proclaimer of His truth, the gathering place for scattered Israel, and “a defense, and … a refuge from the storm, and from wrath when it shall be poured out without mixture upon the whole earth.”

Rev. Paul Scalia

When I concluded the lesson, I left about five minutes at the end. The high priest group leader arose and stated, "I was impressed recently by reading the eulogy delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia's son, Paul, who is a Catholic priest. I think it might be the finest eulogy I've ever heard." Then he read in part:

We are gathered here because of one man. A man known personally to many of us, known only by reputation to even more. A man loved by many, scorned by others. A man known for great controversy, and for great compassion. That man, of course, is Jesus of Nazareth.

It is He whom we proclaim. Jesus Christ, son of the father, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified, buried, risen, seated at the right hand of the Father. It is because of him. because of his life, death and resurrection that we do not mourn as those who have no hope, but in confidence we commend Antonin Scalia to the mercy of God.

I came home and read the whole eulogy, and I concluded it is truly masterful. You can read it here.

So today, pondering the words of a living Apostle and a Catholic priest in the quietude of Pine Valley on a warm winter day, I have concluded there will be no savior in the offing to rescue the Republican Party, the Democrat Party or any other political entity we may have yet to hear about if a third party emerges out this political gumbo soup we are in today. We know the end result is the Savior's Second Coming, but the details between here and there do not bode well for would-be political anti-Christs who come among us posing as saviors.

May our descent into the moral abyss not be forever irretrievable or permanent, and may it someday be reversed if it is possible. That said (and I don't want to appear too negative here), we will be rescued by THE Savior Jesus Christ if we are attuned to His salvation, His resurrection, and His Church and kingdom on the earth today. And that may happen for Republicans and Democrats alike. In the end, we all have a lot more in common than we may imagine.

And that's not a bad thing. . .

Antonin Scalia, May We Find His Jurisprudence Peer Someday

Justice Antonin Scalia

Like many conservatives (and liberals too!), I was saddened to learn of the sudden and unexpected death of Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia over the weekend. The accolades and the tributes for him will go on for some time, I suspect. He is being widely lauded as the finest writer, legal mind and staunch defender of the originalist point of view when it comes to interpreting the Constitution that the Court may have ever seen. Finding his peer to replace him will be difficult. He has served longer than anyone else on the current Court.

The news had barely broken before the political wrangling had begun, including the opening moments of silence followed by "thermonuclear war" among the combatants at the latest Republican debate last Saturday night. Even before the ink was dry on the story of Scalia's death, President Obama signaled his determination to move ahead with his nomination "in due time."

In the one corner you have the liberals, who would love nothing more than putting forward yet another progressive judge through the nominating process President Obama will no doubt undertake at his earliest opportunity to cement his legacy in place.

In the opposing corner you have Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who immediately put out a press statement indicating the nomination belongs to the next president of the United States, and not the current lame duck one. McConnell's argument is certainly valid based on history.

Whoever Obama nominates, the smart money says it's dead on arrival. Anything less than a strict constructionist like Scalia will most certainly tilt the Court in favor of judicial activism. We've already witnessed that unlikely phenomenon with Chief Justice John Roberts surprising everyone by steering the Court with his majority opinions when Obamacare was upheld first, then the legalization of gay marriage.

It is not political hyperbole to state the intensity of this election season has shifted into high gear. While mildly entertaining until now, what with an avowed Communist Bernie Sanders challenging Hillary Clinton, who is almost certainly guilty of felonies over her e-mail handling while Secretary of State (but not likely to face any jail time), and billionaire Donald Trump continuing to suck all the oxygen out of the Republican nominating process, the tone of the debate will likely change where all three branches of government - the executive, the judiciary and the legislative - will all be involved.

Of course, few would doubt the ongoing dominance of the Republicans in maintaining control of both houses of the legislative branch (but even that is always an open question). The political divide over what will happen in debates over this POTUS nominating process will be epic, but not unheard of in the past. That said, we will see the Senate's role looming larger than ever in the coming months leading up to the election. Unless the Republicans close ranks and refuse to act on President Obama's nomination, the makeup of a new Court before the election would undoubtedly compromise the historical precedents of waiting to fill the post until after the election.

Let's look at the facts as they exist under the Constitution:

There is ample precedent in our past history on the side of those who advocate waiting until the next president is selected. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the so-called "Appointments Clause," allows a president to appoint specified public officials only with the “advice and consent” of the Senate, and the key word here is "consent." Though he may try to make this appointment on his own as a "recess appointment" when the Senate is not in session, he would exceed his authority in attempting it. Only the Senate may ultimately confirm the president's nominee to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.

Historically, it has almost universally been the case that the closer we get to the end of a president's term, the more a delay has been viewed favorably. I read this morning that from President John Tyler forward, we have seen sometimes extended delays in filling vacancies on the Supreme Court. We think the country is deeply divided now, but probably no more than it was in Tyler's time. The same conditions certainly are in place today.

There are a number of practical reasons for delay, not the least of which is giving the American voters one more chance in getting it right. The crux of the Roberts' majority opinion in upholding Obamacare was in essence, "Don't look to the Court to bail you out, America, when you make poor political choices." He was concerned about the Court not being politicized, but his rulings may have done exactly what he did not intend. Perhaps by waiting for the next president to be chosen, American voters will respect the Court more and the new president's choice for the Supreme Court will be more widely embraced by the majority, assuming the Senate majority remains in the same hands as the new president's. At least that is the most optimistic view of the matter.

In my extensive reading this morning, someone even suggested if the new president were a woman (let's hope it isn't THAT woman), by putting forward a nominee now Obama would preempt her preference. If the next president were a strict constructionist like Scalia, then that new president should have the right to put forward a nominee more in the vein of Scalia. All of that in my mind suggests that Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio would undoubtedly be more reliable choices certainly than Hillary Clinton. Who knows for sure what a President Donald J. Trump or a President Bernie Sanders would do? If for no other reason, undertaking a deliberative and thorough search for finding the peer of Justice Scalia is worthwhile and should not be rushed. We've had ample precedents for waiting longer than a year.

It would certainly be in keeping with Obama's nature to try to ram through a first-ever recess appointment, but he would likely run head-long into a legal wall of his own making that has held such appointments cannot be upheld without Senate consent.

Supreme Court Building, Washington D.C.

I'm remembering this morning that there was a 2014 decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, where the SCOTUS, led by Scalia's brilliant writing in concurrence, ruled against recess appointments. It wasn't even a close vote (9-0), where they struck down three of the president’s recess appointments. In essence the high Court ruled them unconstitutional. Those appointments were attempted by Obama during a "pro forma congressional break" of only three days.

Talk about prescient irony, it was Scalia himself who wrote what some dubbed a “withering” concurrence opinion, when he warned against transgressing against the text of the U.S. Constitution. Scalia vigorously stated: “The Court’s decision transforms the recess-appointment power from a tool carefully designed to fill a narrow and specific need into a weapon to be wielded by future Presidents against future Senates,” and be believed the real intent of the Founders was to limit, not allow recess appointments beyond what they had intended.

Bristling at the sudden and arbitrary "10-day" recess invention attempted by Justice Breyer in the majority decision, Scalia added: “A self-aggrandizing practice adopted by one branch well after the founding, often challenged, and never before blessed by this Court - in other words, the sort of practice on which the majority relies in this case - does not relieve us of our duty to interpret the Constitution in light of its text, structure, and original understanding.” His biting accuracy will be missed.

My hope for our country is that we will find Scalia's peer in Constitutional integrity somewhere in this country. I am not one who is horrified at the thought of losing the Republic over this latest development, however. Scalia's death came out of left field and was surprising, when easily two or three other "expected" deaths might soon occur in the next few years, adding even more slots to fill on the SCOTUS, and raising the presidential sweepstakes to an even higher level. Remember, elections have consequences, as President Obama was so fond of reminding us all.

In sum: There is no precedent for taking this pending nomination out of the hands of the next president after the election of November 2016. Neither is there any legal foundation upon which a recess appointment could be justified.

I've used the word "precedent" a lot in this post. But my final word is that if the election season of 2016 has taught us anything, it is that relying upon historical precedents is shaky ground at best.

Saving The Nation

My father, now pushing 94 and still going strong mentally, is only the latest in my circle to be swept up in what has been called the "Trump Summer". He writes to his old missionaries from the California Arcadia Mission at General Conference time. One of his lesser-known qualities is his penchant for satire. When most people think of who L. Brent Goates is, the first thought is he was a conservative, even stodgy, old Church leader not much given to light-mindedness. With this latest installment of his self-styled "Heart Lines", however, he breaks the mold.

October, 2015

“SAVING THE NATION”

There were 22 candidates for President of the United States in a survey, and a pack of 17 were on the Republican ticket. The shocking news however, was that Donald Trump was the front-runner. Yes, that real estate billionaire, reality TV star and the same one called by some the “clown prince of slime” led all the GOP candidates. This forebodes a catastrophe. So, what else could a red-blooded patriot like me do except to throw my hat in the ring?

President Goates (r) with his running mate,
 President Monson (l)

Admittedly, I don’t have an Abraham Lincoln countenance, but I’ve got a grizzled, haggard face that mothers love to love. And just because I’m bent over with spinal deformity doesn’t mean I’m “crooked”. And the votes are pouring in. I can count on two from my sixth-grade traffic patrol, four from my Wasatch Elementary dance club, and maybe 75% may recall I came in last in the vice-president race at Irving Junior High School. There’s just no stopping that kind of snow-balling support.

As presidential candidate and sole member of the STAP (Straight Talkin’ American Party), I’m convinced that my platform charisma will win over the public. And if my personal magnetism isn’t enough, there are always my forthright stands on the big issues. . .

. . . Like POVERTY. I'd say, “This is the richest nation in the world, and we’d be even richer if it weren’t for all the poor people. Still, you just can’t give poor people money. They’d only go out and use it to buy food and clothes and pay the rent.” (Such pithy statements of policy make other candidates fade into stunning irrelevance.)

I started out my campaign by getting an admiral’s commission in the Great Salt Lake Navy, but fell out of a canoe while bringing my candidacy to the local Indian tribe. I’m still aiming for appearances before the National Press Club in Washington, and appearances at auto factories along with the keys to many cities. After viewing my bumper stickers, posters and sweatshirts, they wanted me to don a turban and show up at a pier in Vancouver, B.C., so I could walk on water for the edification of the crowd. I declined on the grounds that might sink the campaign.

But, I will appear in skits. I do well playing a solemn “Smokey the Bear”, where I warn viewers the number one cause of forest fires is trees. I might make as good a presidential candidate as anybody. I know what the average American wants. In fact, I’d like to get a little of it myself.

And so, I’m hitting the hustling campaign trail, clutching my press books and handouts. And the campaign chest is filling up. A recent 89-cent-a-plate testimonial dinner in Hollywood yielded a whopping $351.55. The Sisters of the Poor co-sponsored the bash.

I want to say unequivocally that if the public is swayed by my glamor and elected me, it wouldn’t go to my head. I will always be aware of my humble station in life as a common, ordinary, simple savior of America’s destiny.

California, which produced Ronald Reagan, is always a key battleground state. There was always a lot of talk for Reagan in California, but a lot of talk, too, for Donald Duck, who lost a close race with Reagan.

Some people think my campaign talk is too light-minded, but here is some evidence that I can handle the sensitive, hot issues of the day.

GUN CONTROL: Who knows when you might encounter a moose sauntering down Main Street? In such cases I think guns might be useful, but still dangerous for the public at large.

SUPREME COURT RULINGS: I have no sympathy for the Supreme Court ruling on the rights of accused criminals. Why should we have to tell embezzlers, kidnappers, burglars and murderers their rights? If they don’t know their rights, they’re in the wrong business.

FLUORIDATION OF WATER: It was first put into water supplies and drinking water in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1822. It’s powerful. Not one of those people is still alive today.

SEX EDUCATION: I am four-square against sex education. The teaching of (you know what) in our public schools delivers such a devastating psychological blow to the student who flunks the course.

SOCIAL SECURITY: I’ll tackle Social Security too. They said back in 1932 that it would take care of the whole “old-people problem”. Look, we’ve been paying into it for 83 years and what good has it done? There are more old people now than when we started.

On all of these issues and many others, I am neither left wing nor right wing, but more or less middle of the bird.

To prove my point, I plan to attend the conventions of both major political parties. All I asked was for the privilege of making a two-minute speech at the Democratic convention. But the Arrangement Committee apparently felt with my penchant for light-mindedness I might interfere with their serious caucus which has first priority. They get caucused right there in front of everyone, some of them two and three times a day! My speech, they felt, might detract from the habitual popping of balloons, tooting of paper horns and parading around in penguin suits. This, mind you, from folks who never misbehave at home.

I believe I will get many write-in votes in November, so I’m not letting up. I’ll keep working for an invitation to “Meet the Press”. Who’s to say I’d be worse than some of the numerous clowns running?

This thing started out as a big joke and ends that way too. Sometimes I just get bored with the restrictions of old age, and then I turn to my trusty old IBM Selectric typewriter. I push the fantasy-humor keys and you see what results. But to my prime audience of missionaries, there is a disclaimer. This is the only time you do not have to believe what you read in “Heart Lines”.

Keep that smile,

President L. Brent Goates

Hillary Clinton: “liar,” “dishonest” and “untrustworthy.”

I don't know when the summer leading up to a presidential election has ever been more interesting (read "strange") than this one. I think someday America will probably have a female president. There, I've said it. But this woman, who has been running for president most of her adult life, now faces the end of the trail.

Hillary Clinton

The smart money on the Democrat side got behind Hillary Clinton early. Then a radical socialist named Bernie Sanders started making headway and he began to nibble away at the Clinton lead. Strange that someone even more polarizing and radical than either Obama or Clinton could make that kind of headway.

Now comes news that her fund raisers are reporting less than enthusiastic support from traditionally reliable sources. Some are aching for Vice-President Joe Biden to get into the race, and even President Obama has reportedly "given his blessing" for another Biden run at the presidency. So much for forgotten pledges to Bill Clinton, who campaigned for Obama in exchange for a Hillary endorsement someday. The political calculus these days for me has become increasingly mystifying, and well, just strange. But some have suggested the Biden pick as VP was a cool political strategy on Obama's part because it insulated him from impeachment - no one would want Joe Biden as the replacement POTUS. Yes, strange.

Yesterday Hillary boasted that she already had 25% of the "super delegates" on the Democrat side already locked up, and she was certain the nomination would be hers. Well, time will tell on that one. Strange she could be so self-assured when her favorability ratings and her polling numbers keep dropping like a rock. She thinks the "fix" is in, but she may just sink her own ship that is beyond fixing.

On the Republican side all the air in the room is being sucked up by Donald Trump. He has been dissed, dismissed, and disassembled a thousand times piece by piece this summer by all the pundits who claim he has "no chance" of winning the nomination, much less the presidency in November 2016, and yet his ascendancy cannot be denied. Strange that someone so bombastic, arrogant and off-putting could somehow tantalize the electorate the way this man has.

Jeb Bush was the presumptive nominee a few weeks ago until Trump got into the race, and since that first debate Bush has been dropping. Three of his fund raisers have already abandoned the ship. That's very strange, given the inevitability of another Bush/Clinton match-up predicted by the political punditry earlier in the summer.

Someone I read yesterday on Twitter suggested to the DC establishment that if they want to stop Trump they should just endorse him. Strange that you've never heard that strategy enunciated in politics before this year. But these are not normal times. The disfavor into which the Republican establishment has dropped keeps finding new bottoms.

The Republican field is deep this year and filled with what one would presume is a talented field. One would think the GOP hierarchy would be licking its chops in glee. Experienced governors and ex-governors with tremendous accomplishments in the field this year would be a campaign organizer's dream come true. Talk about an embarrassment of riches! But this year things are different. Things are very strange this year.

Donald Trump

Topping the early primary polling, of course, is Mr. Trump, followed now by retired brain surgeon Ben Carson, and retired HP CEO Carly Fiorina. It depends of course on who's doing the polling, but the strange thing about the ascendancy of Trump, Carson and Fiorina is that they are political outsiders. It seems Republicans have forsaken their party champions and taken leave of their collective conservative and time-tested reasoning ability and their rational and measured sense of propriety. That's strange indeed to think Trump could be the standard bearer for conservatives.

But maybe, just maybe, what's happening is a collective disenchantment with leadership in the GOP. They made bold promises about standing up against Obama. Republicans swept control of both houses of Congress in 2014, with high hopes the promises made would be promises kept. But their perception seems to be that they got nothing of what they bargained for from either Boehner in the House or McConnell in the Senate. One senses the makings of an uprising in the base.

Maybe in part that's what might explain Trump's ascendancy. His scorched earth policies and rhetoric - maybe the best word is "hyperbole" - have swept across the land like a raging wildfire of pent up anger, especially over illegal immigration. Many are warning of what happened in pre-World War II Europe as millions promoted and embraced Adolph Hitler in the name of German nationalism. That idea, however, seems a little strange to me, since Obama would resemble more of a dictator than Trump. But I said this was a strange summer.

Nevertheless, there are those who see all the familiar earmarks of what's now happening in America in our desperate search for a savior who can deliver America. "Making America Great Again" has struck a responsive chord and Trump has found legs with his slogan this summer. Granted he's a little light on the specifics of HOW he's going to do that, but it seems a refreshing alternative to what Obama has given us in his "transformational change" of nearly everything in America.

People are saying they've had enough of politicians and their promises, period. Somehow, almost mystically it seems, Trump has managed to differentiate himself from lifelong politicians and their promises. He says outrageous things that would doom any other politician and he gets away with it as his poll numbers continue to soar! And that's very strange.

Here's the essence of all this: There was a poll last week that caught my attention. It was done by Quinnipiac, and summarized by Breitbart. The participants in the poll were asked to give the first word that came to their minds when Clinton, Trump and Bush were mentioned.

The top three words used to describe Hillary Clinton were "liar," "dishonest" and "untrustworthy."

And that might be the first thing I've read this summer that was not strange.