The Old Morality

I admit it freely - I am a cultural laggard. When you ask me to name a current pop icon in any venue, I am stumped for an answer. My idea of cutting edge entertainment these days is Michael Buble, and he's a throwback to Frank Sinatra.

I watch a lot of old movies these days with my dear wife. TCM is our very favorite cable channel. That's Turner Classic Movies for the uninitiated. During the Christmas holidays we watched sappy, emotionally-charged melodramas on the Hallmark Channel, so predictable it felt like a cookie-cutter script factory was hard at work behind the scenes. Because I now own one, I was stunned to observe how many of the heroes in those movies also drove the Toyota Prius. So maybe at least in that one respect I can qualify as an "early adopter" of a cutting edge technology. But to give you some idea of the real me, the last movie we saw in a theater was "Saving Mr. Banks". I'm not ashamed to admit I shed tears watching Emma Thompson's portrayal of the stiff upper lipped Englishwoman, P.L. Travers (she was really Australian), who brought the character of Mary Poppins to life in her books. So cutting edge, right?

I offer this background to illustrate why I am dragging my feet on same-sex marriage initiatives that will be wending their way through the courts for as far as the eye can see into the future. I have tried to make clear in previous posts to this page that I am intimately familiar with the personal struggles of people with same-sex attractions. Though I am not a pop culture progressive liberal-minded individual, I am also not a homophobic bigot either. I have empathy for those who are confused by this issue.

My purpose today is to state the stark contrasts I see in the way the debate keeps playing out - legal activists pitted against (sometimes) self-righteous moralists. While those who would lobby for legal rights in the courts have made their arguments based primarily upon an "equal rights" and "equal protection" Constitutional platform, and that sounds perfectly legitimate in many minds, what has gone missing and is completely obscured is the inefficiency of the legal system to rule in matters with a moral component as religiously charged as homosexuality. Those who take the moral side, arguing that homosexuality is sin, fail to recognize the legal courts and the courts of public opinion have never been the place for making the moral argument stick. Morality is something quite separate and apart from legal machinations, and we would do well to keep them distinctly separate.

When I was a boy I remember a weak argument I always made with my Mother. I would say, citing some cool new thing "everyone" was doing, "But Mom, everybody's got one, or is doing it, or is going to it, or is (fill in the blank)." To which she would invariably respond, "David, just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it right." Ah, the indispensable wisdom of Mom.

America is now on the precipice of slipping off its perch as a moral beacon for the world. Some would argue America never was moral and never should be judged on that basis. Very well, have it your way if you wish. However, our early Founders spoke about the need for Americans to remain a moral people, because only a moral people could stand a chance of self-governance. They set an admirable, though not flawless, example for us to follow. At their core, however, these were remarkable men who acknowledged the right to freedom was granted by an all-wise Providence who was the Lawgiver. I have written extensively in many past blog posts about them. Moral agency was enthroned in the founding documents as the means through which freedom won in such a bloody enterprise as the Revolutionary War could be maintained. It was from God we gleaned our rights as free men, they told us, and from no other source. They argued freedom could not be obtained in any other way and from any other fountainhead.

Fast forward to 2014. God's laws have never changed. Policies, practices, procedures and politics have changed. Many of the practices of the past, while legal, were never moral. Slavery is one. Alcohol is another. Nazism and Adolf Hitler flourished in Germany before World War II in an environment legally permitting their existence. Cigarettes are legal, but all of these stand on weak ground when making a moral judgment. Apartheid in South Africa was legal until Nelson Mandela challenged the law with a more well-defined moral argument. Walter Williams correctly observed, "Legality, alone, cannot be the talisman of moral people." He also argues that private immorality (homosexuality) cannot suddenly somehow become moral just because it is openly practiced collectively and gains widespread acceptance. None of those facts change the underlying core reality it is morally wrong. Does the fact that marijuana has been declared legal in some states change smoking it into a moral activity merely because the courts have ruled it is legal and people now line up at a retail outlet to purchase it instead of in some back alley? Does same sex marriage, permitted in some states as legal, now alter the moral requirement of God?

Indeed, all those things are always in transition. Just because Obamacare is the law of the land today, is it morally defensible to fund it with the most massive theft of personal wealth ever attempted by economic redistribution? I hope Richard Lugar (former Republican Senator from Indiana) is right. The fundamental moral principles upon which America was founded are anchored in the bedrock principle of moral agency - the freedom to make moral judgments for the benefit of individuals and the whole society.

The moral law of sexual purity before and during marriage remains valid. The Church cannot condone immorality in any form it takes. Because we are all sinners and come short of the mark, Christ's atonement cleanses those who purify themselves in His perfection. (Moroni 10:32-33). The leaders of the Church, while sympathetic to the struggles of those with same-sex attraction, are not empowered nor authorized to alter the moral law upon which the plan of salvation rests, and in The Family: A Proclamation to the World (1995), they made the eternal law explicit and understandable. Gender differences are foreordained and were in place in our pre-existent unembodied spirits, just as they are in our mortal bodies now, and will be in our disembodied spirits awaiting our resurrected bodies hereafter. Neither can the leaders of the Church give a free pass to this supposed "protected class" of sinners over that imaginary "unprotected class." We are all sinners. All are subject to the principle of repentance. None is exempt. No One. So plain is that straight-forward declaration, it would seem, no one reading it could possibly misunderstand. The gospel of Jesus Christ is true.

But the debate rages on, even among those in the Church who should know better. I would suggest there is little that can be done in the courtroom of popular opinion or within the courthouse to alter wrong-headed thinking on this topic. The moral agency to make errors in judgment is also part of the plan of salvation. The latter-day reality has come when homosexuality is as rampant and acceptable as it was in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, and one can only speculate on how wicked the world must become before it is ultimately cleansed by fire.

The old morality is still the new morality and it is chiseled in stone. It has never changed. The requirements for happiness here and hereafter will never change. But don't be one of those who is beguiled by the siren call of immorality disguised as acceptance and tolerance at the expense of your own moral convictions. You hold fast to what you know is true, even if you lose badly in the court of public opinion.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks

Elder Dallin H. Oaks framed this debate very well in his last General Conference sermon, entitled "No Other Gods":

"There are many political and social pressures for legal and policy changes to establish behaviors contrary to God’s decrees about sexual morality and contrary to the eternal nature and purposes of marriage and childbearing. These pressures have already authorized same-gender marriages in various states and nations. Other pressures would confuse gender or homogenize those differences between men and women that are essential to accomplish God’s great plan of happiness.

"Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them. And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has identified as unchangeable.

"Our twelfth article of faith states our belief in being subject to civil authority and “in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority — to love and serve God — requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities — even those becoming popular in our particular time and place." (emphasis mine).

If you are living the moral law of chastity, I would predict you will never have the peace you seek in hoping the world will someday turn to righteousness because you believe the way you do in your heart of hearts. As in the days of Noah, the wicked will cling steadfastly to their wickedness and will be in denial until the floods of anger flow freely and they seek, too late, to be admitted into the sanctuary of the ark. In that day the flood took them into the spirit world where they could finally be in a place to learn the truths of the gospel.

In the latter days, when we live upon the earth, the unquenchable fire of destruction will also overtake the world, and the cleansing will be just as widespread, "equal rights" and "equal protection under the law" handed down by the suborned courts notwithstanding.

Moral Imperatives and Penn State - Secrets Shouted from the Housetops

The Savior warned us to never assume that our secrets would be safe. He prophesied they would be shouted from the housetops one day:

"For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore, whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops." (Luke 12:2-3).

In light of developments at Penn State University last week, we would all do well to ponder that passage of scripture. We have all done and said things in secret, perhaps, that we would be all be embarrassed about if they were to be shouted from the housetops. In this age of digital communication, truly our every word can be instantly broadcast around the world. Our digital footprint is available to the world and on fully display. From any mobile phone, computer or other digital device we communicate instantly with others, and some of us actually still believe we can do whatever we do anonymously or in secret. As I suggested in an earlier post, not so!

Digital technology destroys our presumption of secrecy. WikiLeaks exposed thousands of classified government documents, embarrassing diplomatic leaders everywhere. How many of you know teenagers whose innocence has been betrayed when they were caught “sexting” to a friend? What they thought was innocent fun is suddenly broadcast everywhere, relationships are destroyed, and pain is inflicted.

Our deep dark secrets are harder and harder to hide. Sooner or later we are betrayed. If not in this world, doesn't anyone who believes in God have a sense of moral accountability before Almighty God? If what we do and say in secret is not revealed in this world, it will certainly be on full display when we stand before the judgment bar, won't it? How are we to assume we can hide from an omniscient God?

King Benjamin observed: "I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them. But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not." (Mosiah 4:29-30).

The question God poses to Adam in the garden after he has partaken of the forbidden fruit, "Adam, where art thou?" is not because God didn't know the answer. Rather, He was more interested in whether Adam knew the answer. I submit we must make every effort to speak, write, and act in greater purity before the Lord.

We are living in a very public world these days. As disciples of Christ, we are charged with bearing witness to His name in our lips, in our hearts and in our daily walk. I'm not as worried about what others think about me as I am about what my Savior thinks. His eyes are upon us all. He knows us. He will succor us in all things. The least we can do is reflect His glory in our lives in exchange for His atoning sacrifice on our behalf. Even though true disciples are not yet perfected, their diligence is required in eschewing the temptations with which we are beset.

Which brings me to the topic today. In the category of colossal moral lapses, cover-ups and hidden sins, the events at Penn State this last week are in a lamentable category all by themselves.

Former Penn State head football coach, Joe Paterno 

In case you've been living under a rock, a storied football tradition at Penn State University came crashing back down to earth with the revelation that a defensive coach was in fact a serial child molester and had abused at least eight young boys under the noses of the university's top brass. After many years of head football coach Joe Paterno and university President Graham Spanier, acting in what they deemed to be the best interests of "the program," the board of trustees finally took action and fired both of them abruptly when the scandal blew up in their faces last week. The assistant coach who was allowed to retire without any of these sordid facts tainting his reputation, now stands arrested and will likely face the rest of his life in prison. The athletic director was put on administrative leave.

What a sad end to the career of college football's winningest coach. Whatever his legacy might have been in the future, it will now be forever tainted by his inability or unwillingness to prosecute swift justice against his assistant who was the perpetrator of the abuse against so many young and innocent boys. The scandal and his role in it will forever be the first item listed in his resume. How tragic!

"The failure of top university officials to act on reports of Sandusky's alleged sexual misconduct, even after it was reported to them in graphic detail by an eyewitness, allowed a predator to walk free for years — continuing to target new victims," said Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly. "Equally disturbing is the lack of action and apparent lack of concern among those same officials, and others who received information about this case, who either avoided asking difficult questions or chose to look the other way."

I have not read the court documents, but those who have waded through them describe Paterno's assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, as "a monster" at work under the safety and protection of a bureaucratic cover-up designed to protect "the program."

Even more troubling, perhaps, is the rioting on campus that ensued. I kept wondering as I watched those scenes unfold, "What are the parents of these students thinking about the lack of moral clarity in their children that they cannot distinguish between right and wrong?"

It's one thing to be loyal to an iconic football coach, but does that loyalty manifest itself inappropriately and is it out of step with reality when it supports the obvious lack of moral turpitude of those who were in a position to end the abuse but failed to?

Do crowds of college students taking to the streets in the middle of the night and overturning a media truck in fury for reporting the facts of the matter make the disclosure of the beastly conduct of one assistant football coach somehow acceptable?

Does defending the indefensible somehow trump the morality of basic human conduct?

When does football become more important than what is considered a reasonable, even minimal, standard of acceptable moral behavior?

Even in a godless society, does sexual abuse of young boys by an authority figure EVER become morally justified in the name of protecting "the program?"

Can anyone, even a casual observer, even begin to count the cost in the lives of those boys, their families and the sordid ramifications of their future lives in the wake of what was perpetrated upon their souls? I am a somber witness of what can happen to the life of an innocent child who is sodomized at a young age. The ripples in that pond can go on and on forever.

I sincerely hope the twisted thinking of school administrators at Penn State who looked the other way in this sordid series of events is not representative of what is going on nationwide in other schools, but there is evidence it is not unique to Penn State. The culture of the NCAA has contributed to these events, I am sorry to say. The quest for money, ever increasing amounts of it, while somehow proclaiming its amateur status is naive. You can't have it both ways.

The purity of the NCAA's amateur image is continually challenged as recruiting violations pile up, disclosures of under the table payments to star athletes by boosters are disclosed, and the list goes on and on. Those guilty of crimes are routinely slapped on the hands, then go on to sign multi-year, multi-million dollar contracts with professional teams. Purity and college (even high school) athletic programs are not often two words found in the same sentence. There is a distortion over what is right and what can be considered acceptable conduct when boosting your "program," it seems.

The stark revelations at Penn State are a reminder once again that what we think is true, we hope is true, because we seem to value sports figures so much in our society, is nothing more than a sordid sham of excessive proportions.

The moral question was put into sharp contrast for me when I read in The New York Times a statement of one of the rioters who said, "It's not fair. The board is an embarrassment to our school and a disservice to the student population."

Really? The board of trustees acted decisively and accurately when it ended the season of Paterno prematurely by firing him, along with the university's president. As leaders of the university, the lapse in their moral judgment was appalling. Where's the outrage for the abused? Students are angry because their beloved coach was fired?

The evidence suggests both knew what was going on for fifteen years right under their noses and they took no decisive measures to clean house. Now their reputations, whatever they were before the events of last week, will be forever tainted and attached to this scandal. Evermore, they will have to live with their complicit decisions to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

And there is nothing supportive rioting students can do to alter that fact.

George Washington -- how it all began

For many months, I have wanted to briefly cite my love and admiration for George Washington.  I have written about John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and other luminaries in our struggle to be free, but last night I was prompted again to say something here about Washington.

We were sitting around a bonfire, as is our custom here at the Ranch during the summer evenings, eating homemade grape ice cream (I've given you the recipe in a comment below, you won't be disappointed) and sampling Grandma's desserts (many varieties of cookies, brownies and other delectables).  One of my precocious granddaughters after listening to me talk about the founders in glowing terms, asked, "Grandpa, did you know George Washington?"  I told you I was growing older. . .

I replied, trying to repress my laughter, "No, I didn't really KNOW him personally, but I've read a lot about him and the other founders."  Some things have to be explained, you see, when the questioner is four years old.  It's that perception of time thing they don't understand.  At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it.  I'm not really that old.

I was reminded in her question last night about a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to Dr. Walter Jones in 1814.  Jefferson was our nation's third President, serving from 1801 to 1809.  Jefferson captured the essence of the first President, George Washington, in this word picture:

“[H]is was the singular destiny and merit, of leading the armies of his country successfully through an arduous war, for the establishment of its independence; of conducting its councils through the birth of a government, new in its forms and principles, until it had settled down into a quiet and orderly train; and of scrupulously obeying the laws through the whole of his career, civil and military, of which the history of the world furnishes no other example.”

George Washington was the commander of the Continental Army in the American Revolutionary War from 1775 to 1783.  He did not want the command when it was first offered.  His record of military achievement prior to the Revolutionary War was that he had lost more battles than he had won.  In the early stages of the War he made several tactical errors.  His mastery of military strategy was lacking.  His troops were, like himself, first farmers.  The term "summer soldiers" was coined to describe those who left the battlefront to return to their farms in the fall to harvest their crops.  They were by all descriptions a rag-tag undisciplined lot.  However, no one doubted his valor and courage, nor his moral integrity.  He was a leader people could believe in.  Soldiers loved him.  They would to a man fight and die for him.  He accepted the post under some measure of duress from his peers. 

He could have used his position as the General to his own advantage, but he never did.  There were suggestions that he assert himself over the civilian authorities and take forcible control of the government and the army as the king, but to those who suggested the idea to him, Washington issued a stern rebuke.

Perhaps my favorite story about George Washington happened in the final year of the Revolutionary War.  Washington was dealing with severe shortages in the number of troops, clothing, food and pay for those troops.  He had served under a dysfunctional and largely ineffective civilian Congress for more than eight years. In the last year of the war the troops were near the breaking point. They hadn't been paid in a almost a year and there was little hope remaining the situation would be cured.  There was a pernicious pamphlet circulating among his soldiers calling for them to storm Congress and force them to pay the delinquent wages.

Washington called a meeting to discuss the problem. He told the troops he knew what they were going through and he urged them to wait on Congress. Most were not the least bit convinced.  He began to read a letter to them from a member of Congress.  He took out his glasses so he could read it and his hand trembled visibly.  In simple words, apologizing to them, he said, "I am sorry Gentlemen, I have grown old in your service, and now it appears I have also gone blind."  There wasn't a dry eye in the room and the disaster was averted. That's leadership.  He had suffered side by side with his men, and everyone knew it.  If you only read one book about George Washington, read the one cited here:  The Real George Washington.

He was exemplary as the Commander in Chief of the army, then later when he served as an elected representative from Virginia to the Continental Congress after the War.  He consistently deferred to their civilian control and authority, establishing an important pattern to observe for later generations and following the rule of law established under the Articles of Confederation until the Constitutional Convention created a new rule of law.  He was ever the subservient advocate of "the people."

In 1783, when the War for Independence had ended, he resigned his commission as General, longing to return to his beloved Mount Vernon.  Retirement was his sole ambition in life at that point.  By so doing, he proved King George III was underestimating the character of this other George.  The popular thinking at the time was that Washington, unable to resist the lure of wielding power would simply not be able to walk away quietly, and King George III predicted as much.  When the king was told of rumors that Washington was returning to his farm, he responded, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

Well, there are those who erected an obelisk to his name in Washington D.C., then named the city after him who would have agreed with that assessment.  The majesty of George Washington was the purity of his heart and character.

Washington was called back from retirement, however, denying him his wish for a quiet life on the farm as he presided over the Philadelphia Convention that drafted the United States Constitution in 1787.  When the provisions of the Constitution had been ratified by first nine, then eventually all the thirteen original colony states, Washington was elected as the first President of the United States of America.  He was unanimously elected by the first Electoral College, something that has never been repeated since in American history.

Washington eschewed any party label, and urged against the practice, fearing a fracturing of the people in the fledgling republic.  He served two terms as America’s first President from April 30, 1789 to March 4, 1797. Then Washington decided it was important for him to step down.  He had no lust for the power that might have so easily been conferred upon him by the people.  He wanted to set an example before the world, not just for the people of America, so a peaceful transition of power was possible.  He believed it was an absolute necessity before he died, again keeping in mind the precedent he wanted to set forevermore.

His concern was if he died in office and the vice-president ascended to the presidency, it would resemble too much an "heir" ascending to the throne after the death of a king.  He was ever the careful strategist then.

Washington’s farewell address, of course, was once again a precedent maker.  It would become the most quoted political speech ever given.  In it he warned of the importance of virtue among the electorate, and he issued a crystal clear warning against partisanship, sectionalism, and involvement in foreign wars.  It was forever afterward sought for wisdom in these matters, but history since has proven difficult to abide by his precepts. 

There was enormous admiration for this self-disciplined leader, perhaps again the highest praise coming from his former adversary, King George III.  He said Washington’s retirement from the presidency along with his earlier resignation as General and Commander in Chief, “placed him in a light the most distinguished of any man living,” and that his relinquishing power made him “the greatest character of the age.”

It is such a stark contrast to what we witness today, isn't it?  Think of the hundreds of millions of dollars amassed and spent for years in the runup to a presidential election in our modern era by eager candidates grappling for the very power Washington eschewed and deferred to other successors willingly without as much as a whimper of protest. 

George Washington died in 1799.  Henry Lee, delivering his funeral eulogy, declared Washington “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”  Historians consistently rank him as one of the greatest Presidents of United States of America.

It was his moral clarity and purity, once again, that exemplifies his greatness in my mind.