Thoughts on Independence, Moral Agency, SSM and Eternal Truth

I've been asked by more than a few followers of this page why I haven't posted anything about the recent ruling of the SCOTUS on same sex marriage. The short answer is that Patsy recently decided to exchange her bad knee for a cobalt steel replacement part, and her surgery and recovery have pre-occupied my free time. Now it's Independence Day weekend and I have a chance to reflect.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America

I find these latest developments in the LGBTQ (yes "Q" has been added - meaning "questioning" my sexuality) agenda to be so ironic. On the one hand we find advocates asserting their independence and exercising their moral agency to choose homosexuality. And on the other hand they could not be more anti-Christ than they are.

It was Christ in the pre-existence who championed our moral agency. We who walk the earth today were there as pre-mortal spirits. We sanctioned the plan of our Father in Heaven, the centerpiece of which was the ability to choose between right and wrong here in mortality. The consequences for our choices are not always immediately in evidence. Sometimes years go by before we reverse course and repent. Knowing there would be universal opposition to the truth, promoted and advocated by Satan and his minions, we accepted the offer of our Elder Brother, Jesus Christ, to come to earth, live the perfect life, and sacrifice Himself for all of us to satisfy all the demands of justice under the laws of God. There weren't "two plans" put forward - only one plan - and our Lord and Savior became the Chosen One to implement that plan.

So I find it sadly ironic, because there seems little more that I could offer at this point that I haven't already said on the matter. The plan of salvation, referred to as "the great plan of happiness" (see Alma 42) by Alma, has as the bedrock principle the creation of mortal bodies to house the spirits created by God. In order to bring to pass the immortality and the eternal life of man (see Moses 1:39), God's stated purpose for His existence, we must assist in His work by bringing to pass the mortality of man by providing the mortal bodies for those spirits. Gender identification is also imprinted as part of the plan. Males and females are distinctly unique in the creative process. Each contributes a piece to make a new human body. The two parts are joined together in a holy union, a holy matrimony, to complete the plan.

The perversions around human sexuality are no longer secret, nor spoken in hushed secret corners. In fact, those perversions which until a few years ago were against the laws of most states, are now freely available to all who would choose them. The SCOTUS, make that one justice of the SCOTUS in a 5-4 vote, who wrote the majority opinion, has chosen for the whole nation based upon the popular opinion of the electorate as registered in recent polling data about same sex marriage. I accept the ruling of the SCOTUS as the supreme law of the land in the highest court, even though I would side with those four justices who dissented.

You can herald the triumph of so-called "equal rights" and "equal access" to marriage if you choose - that is your right as well - but this latest decision has little to do with a Constitutional right. This wasn't about the Constitution, observed Chief Justice Roberts, writing in his minority opinion. Roberts correctly observed the Court had overturned the voice of the people who had voted to retain the definition of traditional marriage in the several States through their elected representatives in the Republic established under the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution can an "equal right" to gay marriage be found. You won't even find a definition of traditional marriage there. Instead, the Founders wisely left to the States the definitions and resolutions of those kinds of issues. At the federal level, power of, by and through the people's voice has been trampled upon once again.

This was about advancing the anti-Christ agenda, nothing more, nothing less. He didn't say that, I did.

Why anti-Christ? Because the argument that "God made me this way and there's nothing I can do about it," is fundamentally flawed. Those who so assert also claim there is no need to repent of their perversion because God made them that way. "I'm not sinning because there's nothing I can do about the way I am." How convenient. Those of us who were also made by God, by the extension of that reasoning must also get a "free pass" for repentance. We truly live in a day of "live and let live" and "God will beat me with a few stripes in the end" (2 Nephi 28:8) but I'll eventually be saved in my sins because God loves me just as much as He does you. But as scripture reminds us, no one is saved in their sins. (Alma 11:34-37). The subtle rejection of the need for a Redeemer and the need for repentance is what is at the core of the LGBTQ agenda. However, you won't hear it expressed in those terms from them. Being "anti-Christ" isn't subtle enough for them. Instead, they seek to "normalize" the perversion so revulsion evaporates.

The perversions in the flesh are analogous to the perversions they make in the Word. A lawyer asked the Savior a question: "Master which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:35-40).

In the name of "loving our neighbor" tolerance reached its pinnacle under hashtag #lovewins on word of the SCOTUS decision. It may be "love" in the eyes of homosexuals, but it still classifies as perversion as it was in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. The legal definition of love now having been defined by the courts notwithstanding, marriage between a man and a woman is God's law.

I find it nothing short of stunning how quickly this agenda has advanced in public opinion. Even among members of the Church there seems to be a "no big deal" attitude. "If gay people want to get married, that's fine with me, what's the big deal?" they seem to repeat among themselves, as though there will be no consequences for those who have chosen their perversions. The weakening of the moral fiber not only in America but world-wide, is well-documented and now continues without much resistance it seems. What was once the silent sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is now splashed boldly in rainbow colors illuminating the White House.

There is no other word than "stunning" to describe it. People forget that in both elections in 2008 and 2012, President Barack Hussein Obama was elected by stating his support for traditional marriage to avoid risking the alienation of voters in the Hispanic, Black and other religious communities who also favored traditional marriage. And now a rainbow colored White House in celebration of same sex marriage? Well, there you have it. . . that's stunning! You can ask yourselves why it happened so quickly, but the easy answers might be the influence of media, including television sitcoms and the attempts by advocates to "normalize" homosexual behavior. "We're just like you are," they will claim, and being the tolerant neighbor-loving and embracing people we are, and not wanting to be classed as "homophobic" we have come to the conclusion it can't be all that bad. That's how public opinion shifted so easily. One author called it "The Big Gay Lie."

The First Presidency

The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Either this week or the following week, congregations in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be discussing a lengthy letter produced by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. We sustain these fifteen men as living prophets, seers and revelators. The topic of their letter to the Church will be the recent SCOTUS decision. Once again members of the Church will be given an opportunity to absorb, digest, discuss, and either support or oppose their leaders on this topic. It is not the first chance, nor will it be the last to weigh in.

The assaults on religious freedom will continue unabated. I would expect the Church to continue to be the bastion of eternal truth it has always been. They constantly warn against being "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of [false] doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (See Ephesians 4:11-15). These fifteen men are the very reason Apostles were chosen and ordained in the meridian Church by Christ, and they are the modern-day counterparts.

I have read a lot, the ruling itself, all the dissents and much more while Patsy has been rehabbing her new knee. I have seen the comments of a lot of "good" members of the Church on forum boards and their social media postings. There are many who assert that like the question over Blacks receiving the priesthood and even longer ago with the rescission of plural marriage in the late 1800s, the Church will eventually come to its senses and bow to public opinion and political pressure on this issue too. They foresee a day when same sex marriages will be performed in the temples, just as Blacks were eventually granted equal access to all priesthood blessings.

But sadly, they will be wrong. Some say the Church will be on the wrong side of history unless it yields to public pressure. The passage of time will prove otherwise. Unless God has it in His mind to alter the bedrock doctrine of the great plan of happiness that has been revealed since the Creation without equivocation in Holy Writ, this question of "marriage equality" is nothing more than a cleverly crafted sophistry devised by Satan and his minions to separate the man from the woman. Since the plan was announced by our Father in Heaven and Satan opposed it in the pre-mortal council where we all upheld the plan, that has been his aim. (Moses 4:1-4). Don't forget that every single professed homosexual today is the product of the union of a man and a woman. Life is possible in no other way. If Satan succeeds in separating the man from the woman, if he undermines and erodes the underpinnings of traditional marriage, then the Father's announced purpose of His work and His glory can indeed be thwarted. That is Satan's aim, and he is making stunning progress toward achieving it. But in the end, he doesn't win if scripture is to be believed. (See a sampling in Revelation 19-22).

Don't seek to become an erudite so-called "Devil's Advocate". He has plenty of help already. Instead, seek to become a true disciple of Jesus Christ, not an anti-Christ who promotes and hails the LGBTQ agenda under the banner of political progress or equal rights. It is none of that. When you support and encourage their agenda you are in the ranks of the anti-Christs. You can't have this both ways any longer. The gulf between the two worlds is widening and can no longer be straddled comfortably as in the past.

I sound the warning voice here to those of you who are blindly advocating for something you don't fully understand - don't swallow the Kool-Aid by filling up your social media posts with exultation over what appears to be a "victory" for equal rights under the law. There are many examples of morally reprehensible behaviors that are legally protected. Abortion rights might be the most obvious example. This SCOTUS same sex marriage ruling is a short-term victory, like everything else that resembles a Satanic idea in opposition of eternal truth. Here's a sample from the Church's response:

"A family built on marriage of a man and a woman is the best setting for God’s plan of happiness to thrive. That is why communities and nations generally have encouraged and protected marriage between a man and a woman, and the family that results from their union, as privileged institutions. Sexual relations outside of such a marriage are contrary to the laws of God pertaining to morality.

"Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World.'

"Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same‐sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there."

Just as I have exercised my freedom of speech rights here, those of you who oppose my point of view are also free to express your opinion. We are all independent and we are free to choose whatever position we would like. We can do so respectfully but vociferously in whatever forum we elect. Remember, the blessing of moral agency, the freedom to choose and the subsequent consequences that go with those rights are all part of the plan of salvation. All of it has a root in God our Heavenly Father and in His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who is our Redeemer. When you exult in choices outside the parameters of God's perfect plan, please stop to think twice before going further down that path.

I've had occasion recently to review every single entry in the personal journal of President Harold B. Lee. It has provided great insight into the inner workings among the men we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators. As part of that reading I also spent last Sunday re-reading the General Conference sermons of all the General Authorities during the 18-months tenure of President Lee. I discovered this statement in the General Priesthood Meeting of October 1972:

President Harold B. Lee, 1972

"I want to warn this great body of priesthood against that great sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, which has been labeled as a sin second only in seriousness to the sin of murder. I speak of the sin of adultery, which, as you know, was the name used by the Master as he referred to unlicensed sexual sins of fornication as well as adultery; and besides this, the equally grievous sin of homosexuality, which seems to be gaining momentum with social acceptance in the Babylon of the world, of which Church members must not be a part.

"While we are in the world, we must not be of the world. Any attempts being made by the schools or places of entertainment to flaunt sexual perversions, which can do nothing but excite to experimentation, must find among the priesthood in this church a vigorous and unrelenting defense through every lawful means that can be employed.

"The common judges of Israel, our bishops and stake presidents, must not stand by and fail to apply disciplinary measures within their jurisdiction, as set forth plainly in the laws of the Lord and procedures as set forth in plain and simple instructions that cannot be misunderstood. Never must we allow supposed mercy to the unrepentant sinner to rob the justice upon which true repentance from sinful practices is predicated."

Note in his statement, there is no "special class" that eludes the demands of justice because "I was born this way." As President Lee suggested way back then, "every lawful means" to oppose same sex marriage has been undertaken, and time and again the courts have struck down those attempts. Losing in the court of public opinion, however, is no new development the Church is seeing for the first time. It has been the unrelenting reality of the Church's existence since 1830. The Savior faced rejection daily during His mortal ministry. The rejection of the world is the inherent theme of walking the straight and narrow path leading to the tree of life, and those who mock today may find in their ranks the members of the Church who have been deceived even when they were once among "the very elect". (See 1 Nephi 11-14; D&C 45:57-59; Matthew 24:24; JST Matthew 22; 37; D&C 33:16-18).

One son asked me last week if this assault on religious liberty would force the Latter-day Saints into the seclusion of our religious practice in our homes. I reminded him of the Church's missionary mandate. We cannot invite the world to "come unto Christ" by living like cloistered monks behind the protection of the walls of our homes. We as Church members must vigorously defend eternal truth as only found in the revealed word of God. Anything outside that scope, while legal and politically progressive (even correct!), may not be, and often is not, moral.

Even the SCOTUS does not have the final word on the moral code as defined by our Creator.

Moral Agency, Rebellion and Reconciliation

This has been an eventful week. Two stories from real life have become a useful metaphor for me in helping to describe what has just happened in our country.

TUACHAN, Ivins, UT

My wife and I took a long weekend trip to a distant city for a little R&R. We had a delightful weekend enjoying the splendor that is Southern Utah's color country. Without being too specific to protect the identity of the family we witnessed in action, a small drama played out in front of me that has some metaphorical value.

We attended a sacrament meeting while we were away. We happened to pick a ward where the ward conference was happening. Presiding at the meeting was the stake president. Their stake theme was published in the program - "Coming to understand the use of priesthood keys in the Church and our personal lives." Maybe it was because it's a topic with which I am very familiar and I've written about extensively, but I had a feeling their stake was in good hands and they were well-led by the man from whom we would be hearing later in the meeting. I was not disappointed in my early assessment.

The bishop bore a brief five-minute testimony. Then the stake president called on a youth leader and a young woman, both of whom had attended the stake girls' camp that week. They reported on the camp, their feelings about it, and what a spiritual uplift it had been in their lives.

Then a mini-drama played out in front of me. A mother and one of her daughters (it was a family of five children seated in the row in front of me), began exchanging hand-written notes on the front of the printed program. Because I was situated a row behind and between them, I could easily read their written exchanges.

The mother began, "Did you feel anything at girls' camp this week?" I should mention this was her oldest daughter whose natural hair color was red. But this daughter had dyed the front of her hair blue.

The daughter took the proffered note from her mother and returned it without comment, a look of loathing and rebellion on her face as she handed it back defiantly.

By now the stake president was at the podium and was developing a topic, ironically, of standing firm in our faith by choosing correct principles and aligning ourselves with the Lord and His admonitions through living prophets.

The mother then wrote: "You will NEVER be able to feel the spirit in your life with such a BAD ATTITUDE!"

The stake president from the pulpit: "Even God had to bow before the agency of His children in their poor choices, because He decreed that each would have the freedom to exercise moral agency. When our children rebel, it must never be because we have failed to teach them or to berate and judge them harshly for those choices. We must love and succor unconditionally as He would each of His children. His patience with us must mirror our own with our children."

The daughter had finally had enough. She grabbed the program and the pen and screamed on paper, "STOP IT!"

The stake president, continuing to develop his theme: "Obedience is the key to having the spirit in our lives to direct us. As we obey, as we love one another in our families, and as we give heed to the counsel of our living oracles, we develop the power of the priesthood in our individual lives to weather the storms of adversity and sin that will continually beat upon us until the Lord comes again."

The mother, seemingly oblivious to the counsel of their stake president and determined to have the last word with her daughter, then wrote: "You will NEVER be happy until you obey the commandments." This time the daughter refused to even pick up the program or look in her mother's direction. She simply ignored the note. The icy exchange had ended and her mother put away her program. I was struck by the fact that this blue-haired daughter had gone to girls' camp and she was sitting in Church. She could not be considered in my quick calculations as a total loss.

Another human drama between a 91-year-old father and a son who has rejected him as a father was also playing out last week. A copy of a letter from the father to the son was shared with me. This is a father whose history with this son has been tempestuous their entire lives. Now, the father, attempting a final reconciliation in the gathering sunset of his life writes in part:

"Your refusal to accept my telephone calls makes my efforts to reach you very difficult. . . I have faithfully written to you each month to express my love and to plead and beg for some response from you. All this has been to no avail and only painful silence has resulted. After a year I am still bewildered by your failure to respond [he then postulates on the possible reasons for being ignored]. . . There are other possibilities of course, but I have concluded that I cannot continue on with my practice of writing letters to you each month when I never know after a whole year whether they are even read, welcomed or useful in any respect. So, unless I receive an answer to this fervent inquiry, I will cease formal writing. Then, what are we left with? A father-son relationship that only I acknowledge and treasure. That is so saddening and empty. Only you can make it otherwise and I pray with all my heart that you will do so."

Two real-life examples of the painfully poignant feelings of distraught parents who are grappling with the rebellion and rejection by children of their parenting efforts. I would suspect these examples are not isolated. Perhaps they are universal.

Now take those two stories and imagine that pathos and the disappointment of our Father in Heaven who looks down on the SCOTUS rulings against DOMA and Prop 8 in California last week, having the effect of further bolstering the LGBT agenda for gay marriage in the name of "marriage equality." He has given revelation upon revelation, following centuries, even millennia since creation's dawn, of confirming conformity from the majority of His children with respect to marriage being defined as between one man and one woman, then having His doctrine ridiculed, derided and decried as "discriminatory." Imagine the patience, the irony, the disappointment and the long-suffering of God who is also a Parent. Yet how does He react? Does He harshly condemn, berate, brow beat, work with guilt to compel His children to do what He commands? No. He bows beneath the rod of moral agency. He warns, He continues to instruct through His living oracles upon the Earth today, and He continues to patiently nurture until the day of the final harvest. He must submit, even the God of the universe, to the immutable principle of moral agency. Even He. And so must we.

There are natural consequences involved with poor choices. It is Parenting 101. Children must be taught correctly to see and to learn what those consequences will be. Sadly, they must often suffer painful experiences to learn those natural consequences. Only last night, little munchkins living for the weekend with their parents under our roof for the holiday weekend, were reminded gently by their parents that failing to eat their dinner resulted in the natural consequence of having to forego Grandma's homemade cookies for dessert. Screams of how HORRIBLE their parents were rang through the house. Screams of protest and anger, harsh judgments about their abilities as parents were rendered. "You are the MEANEST mother in the whole world!!" But the consequences stood. They were learning as little ones, not having to wait until they had dyed their hair blue, or were still stoutly refusing the impassioned entreaties of aged parents after a lifetime of rejection.

It was Kahlil Gibran who wisely stated: "We choose our joys and sorrows long before we experience them."

And so it is. The day will come when America will pay a terrible consequence in its rebellion against God and the natural law of marriage between a man and a woman. I hope before the final judgment day arrives I will be living on the other side of the green, green grass in the cemetery. There is nothing in the scriptures suggesting to me things are going to get dramatically better before we see the Second Coming.

But I am cheered by the hope that out of all this chaos will someday emerge the Zion for which I long:

"And now I give unto you a word concerning Zion. Zion shall be redeemed, although she is chastened for a little season. . . Therefore, let your hearts be comforted; for all things shall work together for good to them that walk uprightly, and to the sanctification of the church. For I will raise up unto myself a pure people that will serve me in righteousness; And all that call upon the name of the Lord, and keep his commandments, shall be saved. Even so. Amen." (D&C 100:13, 15-17).

I suspect before that day comes even young ladies with blue hair and recalcitrant sons who refuse to accept their aged father's earnest entreaties will also submit.

An additional valuable insight was reinforced the other night as we were participating in a sealing session. "I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection." Fathers will someday resurrect their children. The keys of the holy resurrection are a patriarchal priesthood entitlement to the faithful. And knowing the patience of our Father in Heaven, I suspect patient patriarchs seeking to become just like Him will also wait for as long as it takes for their children to be given every possible chance to repent and align themselves with the revealed gospel of Jesus Christ even beyond the grave.

Just a thought. . . sometimes reconciliation takes a very long time, but it is ALWAYS possible.

Chicken, Gay Marriage and Landslides

Last week millions of Americans, some of whom had never been to a Chick-fil-A before, discovered their political preferences had merged with a great chicken sandwich. And the lemonade is second to none as well.

But the chicken sandwich was only a side order to the controversy that sparked over remarks Dan Cathy, owner of the famous franchises that are always closed on Sunday, made about traditional marriage. Said Cathy, if America expands the definition of traditional marriage to include gay marriage we are "inviting God's wrath." His remarks were made on an Atlanta radio station, but they quickly spread nationwide.

Dan Cathy, Founder of Chick-fil-A

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," he explained. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that ... we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

Time will tell whether he is right or not (he is), but God tends to be patient with His children. When I returned from my LDS mission to England in the late sixties, people were saying back then if God didn't soon destroy the city of San Francisco, He would have to apologize to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. We all smiled back then because the gay community was viewed as a small and inconsequential minority. Then was then and now is now.

That's why a tweet on Twitter caught my eye the other day. It was re-tweeted by someone in my follower camp. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee tweeted: "Closest Chick-fil-A to San Francisco is 40 miles away and I strongly recommend they not try to come any closer." A mayor. . . of a major U.S. city. . . in the twenty-first century in America. . . sounding like. . . a sheriff. . . in the wild wild West. . . of yesteryear. . . amazing! And they call such folks "progressives."

Supporters of traditional Christian values about traditional marriage between a man and a woman took to the Chick-fil-A franchises across the nation in record numbers to vote with their pocketbooks in an overwhelming show of support for Cathy's remarks. These must have been the angry people then-candidate Barack Obama dismissed disparagingly in 2008, who were clinging to their guns and their Bibles. That was followed a few days later by a "kiss-in" at Chick-fil-A restaurants by the gays who were defiant and filled with indignation. They still have not been informed, I guess, that marriage any way they define it is NOT a civil right.

We can be grateful supporters and protesters over gay marriage are not yet killing each other with six-shooters in duels at dawn. Yet.

Mayors of Chicago and Boston, playing to their liberal bases respectively, even suggested Chick-fil-As were not to be welcomed there and threatened to deny building permits if they tried. While God's wrath and its demonstration hangs in suspension for the moment, the defiant wrath of pro-gay marriage advocates is now vividly on full display. For the first time they have a sitting POTUS who supports their position, and just last week support of gay marriage was written into this year's Democratic Platform of core beliefs.

No one seems to care anymore about the rule of law in this country. The attacks on Chick-fil-A are un-American, and pure and simple bigotry. The SCOTUS has NOT declared gay marriage is a civil right in America, and until they do people in good conscience who oppose it are free to oppose it with their public speech if that's how they feel. And even if gay marriage is someday written into law, people can still say whatever they want. This is still America and free speech is protected.

Advocates for gay marriage certainly are free to exert and impose their minority views on the rest of us, but the minute the majority opinion starts to express themselves with chicken sandwich purchases, there is outrage. There is no bias case that can be made legally against anyone who says they stand in opposition to gay marriage. Dan Cathy stands squarely with millions of other Americans believe in the sanctity of one-man one-woman marriage based upon religious tenets.

Some secular humanists even oppose homosexual marriage on simpler grounds because they believe nature, nurture and procreation go together. They see marriage between a man and a woman on purely pragmatic grounds as a stabilizing force for good in society, regardless of religious dictum.

So it comes to this: If you brand someone as a hater or a bigot because he or she opposes the expansion of the definition of traditional marriage, such a stand should be labeled for what it is - unfair and narrow-minded.

The flip side is also true: If someone sincerely believes our society would be better off with what they label "marriage equality" and it is the only fair and just thing to do, that belief should be respected. In America we get to say what we think.

Mayor Ed Lee, San Francisco

So Mayor Lee of San Francisco says he "strongly recommends" that Chick-fil-A stays out of his fair city? Really? Is he sending a message as an elected official that something untoward might happen if his "recommendation" is violated? Really? Is he sending a message that threats will be upheld in his wild, wild town in the West? Hang Dan Cathy at dawn from the nearest tree and let him swing in the wind? Really?

Is that what we've come to? That a mayor elected by homosexuals whose political views he is determined to uphold regardless of the unsettled law in this arena of marriage definitions has the right to punish those with whom he disagrees politically? Really?

I also noticed last week the black preachers in America are now coming out in opposition to President Barack Obama's support of gay marriage. The vast majority of those preachers have now drawn the line in the sand against their great black leader because he has gone too far in their view. Is the good mayor now going to publicly oppose those black preachers who proclaim homosexuality to be a sin in God's eyes? Will he warn them to stay out of San Francisco and muzzle their pulpits as well? If he's consistent in his reasoning that's exactly what he should do. Don't hold your breath.

The public grandstanding against Chick-fil-A by politicians in these three U.S. cities, San Francisco, Chicago, and Boston, is coming from far left wingnuts. The masks are off, the gloves are on, and the punches are being thrown, but America isn't buying it.

In record numbers Americans swamped Chick-fil-As with orders for chicken sandwiches. In Salt Lake City, the line at the food court in the new City Creek Center wound all the way around the court and out the door as people waited over an hour to buy lunch in support of Dan Cathy. The liberal agenda is a failing proposition on all levels, and it will backfire at the voting booth in November.

It's a game of chicken with landslide written all over it.

Gay Marriage and Immigration -- Some Thoughts

Let me make a bold statement -- I do not speak for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on anything. What I do here is totally on me. This blog represents no one but me. I am an agent unto myself, and I take full responsibility for what I think and what I write. If you disagree, I would love to discuss it with you. If you support my conclusions, then come join with me in expressing those opinions more courageously than you have heretofore done, and help spread the love.

In a bipartisan vote in favor of extending marriage rights to gay couples, the New York State Senate passed the bill after provisions protecting churches who opposed the measure were written into the language of the final version. It is significant to some proponents of the LGBT community that the legislature in New York is under Republican Party control. It signals progress to them that other "red" states may soon take up their cause.

New York becomes the sixth state where gay couples can wed, doubling the number of Americans living in a state with legal gay marriage.

It appears the legal ramifications of what is being done to promote the LGBT agenda will continue to be defined by votes in various jurisdictions throughout the country, with many predicting this New York vote will spur momentum in other states to follow suit.

There are many who say, "What's the big deal? If they want to get married, who are we to get in their way?" It is not likely lightning bolts will strike dead gay couples on the courthouse steps when they step out of the shadows to legalize their domestic relationships. The world will not suddenly come to screeching halt because of it, nor will the stock market collapse, the moon be turned to blood, and earthquakes and plagues suddenly break out in response.

Instead, the reality is that life will continue. Oh, except that life is created between a man and woman and it's called procreation and gays and lesbians have no ability to create the life. But I digress. I've written about all of that before. If you are confused about the associated underlying gospel doctrine, please click the link. Study it as passionately as you tend to give heed to the prevailing winds of false doctrine that swirl around your head. Do not let the political winds that blow at gale force turn you away from the foundation of truth that has already been laid for you. God would not have you believe a false doctrine in this benighted world when He has given you light and truth in unfailing doses of brilliant illumination.

I have been thinking this morning in the wake of this news what it really means for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose leaders stand shoulder to shoulder with other religions in opposition. The Church's opposition in California to the Prop 8 ballot initiative seeking to legalize gay marriage there in recent years is an example of what can be forecast into the future on this issue. New York may the be latest fatality in the onward spread of LGBT thinking, but the Church's opposition will not abate.

On the immigration front here in Utah, we have seen as recently as last week a referendum of sorts on the Church's benign and humanitarian stance. Critics of the position of the Church have openly stated they prefer to uphold the platform of the national GOP and the state GOP that opposes any and all attempts short of 100% enforcement of border security. They criticize the Church for not screaming at the federal government to do its job. The delegates I saw in action at last week's state GOP convention who were determined to send a message were predominantly members of the Church. It seems they are more interested in upholding and sustaining the platform of the Republican Party than they are of the stated position of the leaders of their Church.

They adamantly cite the 12th Article of Faith:  “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” They contend the Church can't have it both ways, picking and choosing which laws they obey, honor and sustain. It's as if they want to hold the Church accountable for the federal government's inability or unwillingness to carry out its constitutional duties. If the Church makes a determination on the grounds of the federal government's failure to act to enforce immigration laws, that is something completely different than asserting the Church is not adhering to the tenets of the 12th Article of Faith.

It seems the members of the Church will have to be tested yet again in these times over this question: Will they come out in support of popular issues like gay marriage and immigration enforcement in opposition to the public positions the Church's leaders have taken, or will they align their thinking, writing and speaking with their leaders?

I have answered that question for myself. I will stand with the Brethren. Scroll down the comment page until you see the post by "goatesnotes" -- that would be me.

I have cited my reasons in past posts, but some of it bears repeating this morning in the wake of this latest challenge to the stated positions the Church has taken. Some ask, "Why does the Church get involved in these controversies? Why don't they just mind their own business and let people do what they want? Don't they believe in free agency?"

In matters involving morality, the Church has an obligation and duty to its members to lead out and give direction. The Church will never violate the exercise of moral agency, but it will offer guidance and direction while leaving the final decision in the hands of the individual. In both controversies, the LGBT agenda and immigration, the Church is doing nothing more than restating the time-honored Christian traditions of what constitutes the true definition of marriage between a man and a woman, and advocating the need for humanitarian considerations in our treatment of immigrants without regard to their legal status.

Because I have already addressed the LGBT issues in the past, this morning I'll flesh out the immigration debate in more detail.

Winston Churchill

In a radio broadcast in 1939, Winston Churchill, speaking about Russia said: "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."

If we were to attempt to unravel the riddle of the current state of immigration in this country, perhaps that is where we must start -- the national interest of the politicians we have elected to represent our individual interests. This much is certain: the federal government has failed to secure our borders in the aftermath of 9/11 and continues to dither without any forward progress toward addressing the practical realities of the presence of some 12 million undocumented residents who are here illegally. Why is that true?

The cynic would say, and who would contradict, it's because they represent a block of voters that must be wooed. Why has there been little but token effort to secure our borders? Why has comprehensive immigration reform legislation at the federal level been blocked again and again? It seems as if a false choice has been erected -- amnesty or deportation -- so why can't we take a vote, pass laws and come to some agreement? Why do we permit identity theft, document fraud, employers who hire illegals knowingly, and give access to our schools, our health care and other services knowingly without any political will to enforce the laws we already have on the books both in the states and at the federal level?

The simple answer is we seem to lack the political willpower in the halls of Congress in Washington D.C. to do anything about it. The federal government has abdicated one of its few expressed powers granted to it in the Constitution -- to secure the national interest -- and many of its elected representatives have breached their oath of office to defend us from all enemies foreign and domestic.

So, if that case can be made that the federal government has been derelict in its duty and it has a perceived political benefit in doing so (wooing potential voters with a wink and a nod with a free pass over their true identities), what comes next? At that point is civil disobedience justified and to what extent? Can a state pass a law requesting a waiver from the federal government to collect taxes so the revenues generated under the bill can be utilized to take enforcement steps against crime within the borders of its state? Shall federalism -- the argument over which powers are the states' and which the federal government's -- finally be defined by such a course of action? Stay tuned, that's what this is all about.

Arizona responded with a harsh enforcement law designed to put teeth into the growing problem it faced along its borders. Not wanting to repeat the same mistake in Utah, a coalition came together around a document entitled the "Utah Compact." It laid out five basic principles, beliefs really, about how legislators should go about putting together legislation attempting to address the immigration issue:

THE UTAH COMPACT
A DECLARATION OF FIVE PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE UTAH’S IMMIGRATION DISCUSSION

FEDERAL SOLUTIONS Immigration is a federal policy issue between the U.S. government and other countries — not Utah and other countries. We urge Utah’s congressional delegation, and others, to lead efforts to strengthen federal laws and protect our national borders. We urge state leaders to adopt reasonable policies addressing immigrants in Utah.

LAW ENFORCEMENT  We respect the rule of law and support law enforcement’s professional judgment and discretion. Local law enforcement resources should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code.

FAMILIES  Strong families are the foundation of successful communities. We oppose policies that unnecessarily separate families. We champion policies that support families and improve the health, education and well-being of all Utah children.

ECONOMY  Utah is best served by a free-market philosophy that maximizes individual freedom and opportunity. We acknowledge the economic role immigrants play as workers and taxpayers. Utah’s immigration policies must reaffirm our global reputation as a welcoming and business-friendly state.

A FREE SOCIETY  Immigrants are integrated into communities across Utah. We must adopt a humane approach to this reality, reflecting our unique culture, history and spirit of inclusion. The way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our immigrant neighbors. Utah should always be a place that welcomes people of goodwill.

Out of that modest beginning came Utah's HB116, an attempt to pass legislation at the state level designed to go as far as a state could in taking on the practical realities of dealing with an immigrant population, taking into account their illegal status, and providing a path forward for them that respected the humanitarian needs of those affected.

Yes, the legislators were warned in advance that on its face it was unconstitutional because it was asking for a waiver from the federal government to allow it to collect taxes normally passed along to the feds, but pass it did and it was done knowingly. It was based in large measure on the need to preserve families that were being broken up because of the absence of federal guidance and hit-and-miss enforcement that left everyone grappling with what to do -- arrest and deport, ignore and co-exist, embrace or reject. But at a deeper level, it sought to define where we draw the line on enforcement -- go after the criminals, not the hard-working law-abiding aliens who are honestly seeking a better life in America.

The Church buttressed the legislation that was signed into law by the governor with a restatement of its long-held position on the matter. In part, the Church reaffirmed: "What to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in various states within the United States is the biggest challenge in the immigration debate. The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God."

And therein, a simple statement of belief based upon a moral principle -- how we treat each other as children of the same Father in Heaven -- has the Church set its statement before us to accept or reject. It troubles me that perhaps some of us have gotten our priorities out of sync. It seems about half of us Republican Mormons in Utah are more interested in what the Party thinks than what the Brethren do.

If it came to a showdown, and you were standing before your precinct to be elected as a state delegate, how would you respond? Would you swear an oath of allegiance to the state Republican Party platform to get elected, or would you stand on the moral principles as outlined by the Church in seeking a humanitarian approach to a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma?

I have enough confidence in the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to believe they are aided by revelation in their attempts to unravel even the peskiest Gordian knots of gay marriage and immigration.

How about you?