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. . .

Predicting the Future of Politics

I was reminded today about an old Yogi Berraism: "Predictions are always uncertain, especially about the future."

When you look back ten years, is there anyone who could have predicted then where we would be as a nation today? So why would anyone in their right mind believe ANYONE living today could possibly predict the future of politics in this country?

That said, I will venture a guess that things as they are today will not remain for much longer politically. The Republicans are still smarting from the election of 2012. There were many surprises. The old methods of analysis of the demographics have faded away, it would seem. Conversely, there were numerous allegations of voter fraud and stealing the election in key battleground states. Whatever the facts may someday reveal, it was a shock to the conservative base to which I belong.

We face some daunting challenges. The country is broke, at least by the traditional definitions of what that means. When we spend more than we take in that used to mean "broke." We have a federal government that is out of control in its spending habits. We can’t afford what they are doing. We now have a government that is doling out benefits across a broad spectrum to half the citizens. Our private industry, once the envy of the world in productivity is now stalled and mostly stagnant compared to China's output. The Republican Party, once the champion of free enterprise, limited government and individual freedom and responsibility lost its way in the darkness of progressivism a long time ago.

Democrats were historically the party of big government. There was hope in the 90s when Bill Clinton declared the end of big government, constrained as he was by the Newt Gingrich revolution in Congress that produced a balanced budget. Now they too have lost their way. Under Barack Obama it appears they would make everyone dependent upon big government. They believe they have discovered the golden ticket to winning elections in perpetuity among voters who like the dole they receive in whatever form it takes.

Sadly, about all we got Republicans to admit in this last election cycle is that they could manage big government better than Democrats. While I at one time believed there was a clear and obvious contrast between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, when it comes to the argument about Big Government versus small government, the argument became a blended mishmash that was nearly indistinguishable, especially in that last debate.

So I've mostly gone silent on the political front since that first week in November. Stunned and still recovering would be the best way to describe my reaction. This country has been without a true political freedom of expression and limited government party for many years.

That reality must change. The upstart "tea party" has received its death warrant from more than a few pundits, most recently from former Senator Bob Bennett, who was soundly thrashed in the Utah nominating convention in 2010, and whose seat is now held by Mike Lee (R-UT). But I have the sense predictions of the spirit it represents may be premature. I hear a lot of rebellion talk brewing under the surface in the Republican Party, at least here in Utah. You can describe "the base" any way you wish. I choose to think the true conservatives, moderates and independents who make up Utah's "base" were aroused in 2008, spoke up in 2010, and still shout, "Stop it! Reduce this out-of-control federal government! Wake up, Washington, and put a lid on the debt, the spending and the deficits that are enslaving our future generations. Reduce the taxes, abandon the regulatory agencies that are throttling down the economic engine of America. Stop it all!"

This ground swell of emotion and political action state by state made a decision to return to the Republican Party in 2010, hoping they would get it right. The grassroots elements of the tea party now seem to be opposed once again to the "establishment wing" of the Republican Party. We saw it play out in the primary elections held in the states during the last cycle. If all the establishment can give us is an argument they can be better managers of a bloated government, then my prediction is an easy one to make - those grassroots people will abandon the Republican Party, both here in Utah and nationally.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

As an example, I suspect Mike Lee chose the Republican Party only because it was the most expedient vehicle in which to ride at the time. I might be wrong. I didn't discuss it with him personally during his run when he had my unabashed support, but everything he has done since being elected leads me to believe he cannot long endure the status quo I see promoted by the establishment in the party.

So here's my bold prediction, and I've held this view for some time now: The new political reality we will see playing out in the future is no longer going to be Republican versus Democrat. That's been a carefully managed political contrivance of convenience and expediency for way too long. No, instead, it’s going to be lovers of freedom and limited government versus Big Government dependency. We may be running out of time to make a conscious choice about that. Events may compel us into that path whether we like it or not.

Back in the day, Abraham Lincoln left the Whig Party and formed the Republican Party because he and others would not compromise on slavery.

In the future people like me will leave the Republican Party because we will not and cannot compromise on freedom and limited government. Finding candidates who believe in principle over party will be the next challenge.

Democrats and Republicans Responsible for Bankrupting America

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) might be the last truth-teller left standing in Washington D.C. In this interview he explains how both political parties have been the willing co-conspirators in bankrupting America through their self-destructive path of compromise against the principles of liberty.

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?