I got a call today from a TV station in Colorado for an interview about Chased by an Elephant, our new book for families to help teach children the truth about male and female and the right attitudes about sexuality. The man on the other end of the line said they were interested because it was controversial, and after a few more questions revealed that yes, along with me there would be people representing the gay community reacting to my book. I said no, thanks. Here's why:
First of all, we need to seriously reflect on the fact that most of the American media take it for granted that parents teaching their children "the birds and the bees" is a controversial idea. This has happened because gayness has infiltrated the politically correct media. Journalism, publishing, TV, film, and radio entities have sold their souls to this form of individual sexual freedom. Alternative sexual identities (which represent a myriad of perverse and risky behaviors) are perfectly acceptable among one's colleagues, employees, and co-workers in the sold-out mainstream media world. That is a fact.
Consider that the pro-gay viewpoint gets practically unlimited access while the traditional morality viewpoint is pretty much forced underground. The only reason the media occasionally highlights the Christian-traditional morality worldview is to exploit "homophobia," simultaneously calling in the gay troops to bash us. Here in Utah we are treated to an array of sympathetic documentaries about gay married Mormons, serious news stories promoting societal acceptance for men who think they've changed themselves into women, obviously slanted debates, and radio spots with ex-communicated apostates criticizing the LDS Church. Programs, articles, and books for review that have anything to do with the promotion of traditional morality and normal sexuality are ignored and rejected. We get plenty of gay affirmation alone, less of the two sides pitted against each other, and practically none of the traditional sexual morality worldview by itself.
Here at SoL we get calls from the media now and then for statements or interviews, and usually their only reason is to make news by provoking controversy, providing fuel for the "victimized gay community." In this way, the pro-gay media is actually manufacturing controversy and reshaping our society.
That's why I said thanks, but no thanks. If the guy wanted to interview me without bringing in the gay parade, I would have accepted. "But it's only fair," he said, politely, conveniently setting aside the overwhelming media bias toward unlimited sexual freedom and against religion and traditional morality. I said we had a policy about avoiding being used to give a voice to dangerous and bad ideas we oppose. It was no surprise that he wasn't interested in interviewing me on my own.
It may be "fair" to show both sides, but since when should society treat good and evil as equal in value? Never. But of course it's worse than that. In today's secular, PC, media-biased culture, not only is evil given a dignified forum, it's winning. In reality there is no equality, no fairness regarding these two worldviews today ---not in the media, not in our education systems, and increasingly not in our government. That's why, at the very least, Health, Truth, and Goodness should never knowingly consent to share a podium on an equal footing with disorder, falsehood, and evil.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Who's on the Lord's Side?
As I write I see outside my window the 4-board crossbuck fence our neighbor of over 20 years built. The dark row of Ponderosa pines Maurice planted that were six feet tall when we moved in next door now tower thirty feet over the low fence. We played family games in the yard as we raised our seven children using the fence as the starting point for red light, green light and mother, may I? But the decades of sun, wind, rain, and snow proved hard on the simple wood fence. Every few years when the white paint had begun to flake off, Maurice handed us a can of paint over the fence, we donned our grubby clothes, and slapped on another layer on our side. When here and there a slat hung loose we got out a hammer and nails and repaired it. Our neighbor lost his wife a decade ago, and now he's gone too. We have nice new neighbors. I suppose we'll continue doing our part with the upkeep of the old fence. It's a pretty fence, a good one. We can see through and over it to wave at or visit with our neighbors, and at the same time it keeps the property lines clear and orderly.
All sorts of fences, borders, and boundaries are important in our lives for a myriad of reasons. Today we have the opportunity to choose sides in many a moral battle. Fence-sitting, or neglecting/refusing to make up one's mind about which side one is on, is not popular with God. In fact, if we refuse to be hot or cold where He is concerned, it makes Him want to, well, spew us out of his mouth (Revelation 3:16).
More and more, because of a culture that has demonized clear thinking in favor of political correctness, good people are being intimidated and conditioned into sitting on that fence that separates good and evil. Apparently, we're even afraid to bring up moral issues among our fellow church members, much less have intelligent discussions within the walls of a church building.
This is a shame. We have many reliable resources at our disposal to help us study out important issues of the day together with our brothers and sisters in the gospel: prophets, scriptures, history, the accumulated wisdom of the ages, ancestors, grandparents, parents, and to confirm truth in every situation, the Holy Ghost. These resources combined will put us on the right side of the fence every time. But people don't seem to be interested in truth and knowledge. What we are seeing is a rejection of these most reliable of resources. Besides those sitting on the fence who have set aside God, truth, knowledge, experience, and the whisperings of the Spirit in favor of keeping a pretense of unity (what we are unified in is not addressed), we have many in our ranks who for some reason (pride, arrogance, an attempt to cover their sins) think they know it all and have decided to take up residence on one of several very wrong sides.
Wrong sides? Yes. As C. S. Lewis put it in his 1946 novel That Hideous Strength, "There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there is never more than one." There is only one right answer, one right side, to important questions. One of the two main reasons we're here on earth is to make a choice as to which side we are on, the right one, or any number of wrong ones.
President Boyd K. Packer warned us of finding ourselves on the wrong side of the fence in 1996. “We may safely study and learn about the theories and philosophies of man, but if they contradict the plan of redemption . . . do not buy into them as truth. If you do, you may. . . have your testimony repossessed. Your respect for moral agency may go with it and you will end up with nothing.”
Who's on the Lord's side? Now is a time when people are presented with this choice in quite painful and dramatic ways. Here at the Standard of Liberty we hope and pray that the Lord's army will increase. It's not the easy side, but it's the one right one.
It's a wet, blustery fall day. The last yellow leaves on the aspen just outside my window are turning brown. Seven or eight plump little birds regularly visit the just-filled birdfeeder swinging on a nearly bare branch. Beyond it the simple old wood fence still stands, straight and white against the sweeping Ponderosas, reminding me that important boundaries must be kept in good repair.
All sorts of fences, borders, and boundaries are important in our lives for a myriad of reasons. Today we have the opportunity to choose sides in many a moral battle. Fence-sitting, or neglecting/refusing to make up one's mind about which side one is on, is not popular with God. In fact, if we refuse to be hot or cold where He is concerned, it makes Him want to, well, spew us out of his mouth (Revelation 3:16).
More and more, because of a culture that has demonized clear thinking in favor of political correctness, good people are being intimidated and conditioned into sitting on that fence that separates good and evil. Apparently, we're even afraid to bring up moral issues among our fellow church members, much less have intelligent discussions within the walls of a church building.
This is a shame. We have many reliable resources at our disposal to help us study out important issues of the day together with our brothers and sisters in the gospel: prophets, scriptures, history, the accumulated wisdom of the ages, ancestors, grandparents, parents, and to confirm truth in every situation, the Holy Ghost. These resources combined will put us on the right side of the fence every time. But people don't seem to be interested in truth and knowledge. What we are seeing is a rejection of these most reliable of resources. Besides those sitting on the fence who have set aside God, truth, knowledge, experience, and the whisperings of the Spirit in favor of keeping a pretense of unity (what we are unified in is not addressed), we have many in our ranks who for some reason (pride, arrogance, an attempt to cover their sins) think they know it all and have decided to take up residence on one of several very wrong sides.
Wrong sides? Yes. As C. S. Lewis put it in his 1946 novel That Hideous Strength, "There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there is never more than one." There is only one right answer, one right side, to important questions. One of the two main reasons we're here on earth is to make a choice as to which side we are on, the right one, or any number of wrong ones.
President Boyd K. Packer warned us of finding ourselves on the wrong side of the fence in 1996. “We may safely study and learn about the theories and philosophies of man, but if they contradict the plan of redemption . . . do not buy into them as truth. If you do, you may. . . have your testimony repossessed. Your respect for moral agency may go with it and you will end up with nothing.”
Who's on the Lord's side? Now is a time when people are presented with this choice in quite painful and dramatic ways. Here at the Standard of Liberty we hope and pray that the Lord's army will increase. It's not the easy side, but it's the one right one.
It's a wet, blustery fall day. The last yellow leaves on the aspen just outside my window are turning brown. Seven or eight plump little birds regularly visit the just-filled birdfeeder swinging on a nearly bare branch. Beyond it the simple old wood fence still stands, straight and white against the sweeping Ponderosas, reminding me that important boundaries must be kept in good repair.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Friends and Bullies: the Sexualization of Schoolchildren
Modern sex activists must work hard to maintain a hard-won victim/minority status for the sexually liberated. Just now, apparently there isn't enough, if any,"homophobia" or "discrimination" happening, there aren't enough, if any, "hate crimes" occurring against "gays" going on, and there aren't even enough, if any, "gay suicides" in the news which they can exploit to further their cause. (We use quotation marks because there is not enough proof, if any, that these people and events are what they are claimed to be.) Hence, activists have shifted to an even younger demographic and have grabbed for an even less believable complaint. They have regressed to the schoolyard. The complaint is bullying. Don't buy it. Here's why:
There is no such thing as a gay child. All human beings are innately heterosexual; it's simple biology. When we discuss the bullying of gay children, we have bought into the false idea that there is such a thing as gay children.
People assume that all this bullying is being perpetrated on children who have discovered their gayness and made it known, or on children everybody thinks they know are gay because of their mannerisms or interests. Neither of these sources -- the children themselves or others -- are in any way reliable. Children, if left to their natural modesty and innocence, know nothing about sex and sexuality. They should be taught the proper attitudes and facts at the appropriate ages. A young child who self-labels as gay has been taught it and probably doesn't have a clue about sex or the sexual behaviors gayness is about. If others decide a child is gay, they are mistaken. Why should laypeople be able to make this determination? Even doctors and scientists have no evidence.
What about the innocent child who is taunted with gay labels? Who is standing up for him? Not many. Evidently the public has bought into the clever idea that if a child is bullied for being gay, he is gay. But again, why should anybody believe schoolyard bullies? If a vulnerable kid gets called "gay" often enough he could start to believe it. It happens more often than people know.
So why are gay activists sending up the alarm about bullying if it actually recruits youngsters into their ranks? Don't they need the bullying to go on? Sure, but this tactic doubles their advantage. Not only do they cement their victim status, they get recruits. If bullying of "gay children" subsides or just doesn't pan out, they will think of some new complaint.
Children today who are called "gay" by their classmates may be different in any number of ways. The word gay is used for anything. Or they may also fit into kids' ideas of trumped-up "gay" stereotypes (such as less athletic, more verbal boys who like music and art, etc.) or may be going through a developmental phase they will grow out of (such as a girl being a tomboy). More serious is when children suffer from gender identity disorder or have been sexually abused. But incredibly, none of these factors are part of the conversation.
Sex activists and a conditioned public are actually creating a sexualized environment around children by legitimizing the bullying of "gay children." We would do well to ask, why are adults projecting adult sexuality onto innocent children?
We need to remember that kids are naturally attracted to their own gender. This is called friendship. From these associations, a child becomes confident in his or her masculinity or femininity. This is a part of normal sexual development and important for relating properly to the opposite sex. Now children are hearing that if you are attracted to those of your same sex it is sexual and you must be gay. This is ridiculous. All normal children have best friends of their same gender, friends that at times they would rather be with than anyone else. The sexualization of same-sex friendship is a travesty.
Don't buy into the newest tactic. Yes, being against bullying sounds good, and everybody is against it. But there's no getting rid of it. Instead of all this talk about children taunting and teasing each other (which has always been and will always be), including now in sexual ways, why don't we teach children their innate spiritual self worth apart from what others say about them? Why not teach courage instead of victimhood? strength instead of weakness? right from wrong? good from evil? normal from unnatural? health from sickness? wisdom from recklessness? What kind of generation are we raising?
Children's admiration of one another is naturally nonsexual. Gay stereotyping is harmful and unfair. While unfortunate bullying, taunting, and teasing are not new, the dangerous sexualized labels kids are sticking on themselves and others is. We call upon everyone everywhere to refuse to label children any of these "alternative sexual orientations."
It's not children teasing each other we should be most worried about. It's the sexualization of children that should get our attention, which is promoted by the gay movement and its many unwitting supporters.
Unlimited sexuality used to be confined to San Francisco. Now it's crept into the classrooms, halls, and playgrounds across America.
There is no such thing as a gay child. All human beings are innately heterosexual; it's simple biology. When we discuss the bullying of gay children, we have bought into the false idea that there is such a thing as gay children.
People assume that all this bullying is being perpetrated on children who have discovered their gayness and made it known, or on children everybody thinks they know are gay because of their mannerisms or interests. Neither of these sources -- the children themselves or others -- are in any way reliable. Children, if left to their natural modesty and innocence, know nothing about sex and sexuality. They should be taught the proper attitudes and facts at the appropriate ages. A young child who self-labels as gay has been taught it and probably doesn't have a clue about sex or the sexual behaviors gayness is about. If others decide a child is gay, they are mistaken. Why should laypeople be able to make this determination? Even doctors and scientists have no evidence.
What about the innocent child who is taunted with gay labels? Who is standing up for him? Not many. Evidently the public has bought into the clever idea that if a child is bullied for being gay, he is gay. But again, why should anybody believe schoolyard bullies? If a vulnerable kid gets called "gay" often enough he could start to believe it. It happens more often than people know.
So why are gay activists sending up the alarm about bullying if it actually recruits youngsters into their ranks? Don't they need the bullying to go on? Sure, but this tactic doubles their advantage. Not only do they cement their victim status, they get recruits. If bullying of "gay children" subsides or just doesn't pan out, they will think of some new complaint.
Children today who are called "gay" by their classmates may be different in any number of ways. The word gay is used for anything. Or they may also fit into kids' ideas of trumped-up "gay" stereotypes (such as less athletic, more verbal boys who like music and art, etc.) or may be going through a developmental phase they will grow out of (such as a girl being a tomboy). More serious is when children suffer from gender identity disorder or have been sexually abused. But incredibly, none of these factors are part of the conversation.
Sex activists and a conditioned public are actually creating a sexualized environment around children by legitimizing the bullying of "gay children." We would do well to ask, why are adults projecting adult sexuality onto innocent children?
We need to remember that kids are naturally attracted to their own gender. This is called friendship. From these associations, a child becomes confident in his or her masculinity or femininity. This is a part of normal sexual development and important for relating properly to the opposite sex. Now children are hearing that if you are attracted to those of your same sex it is sexual and you must be gay. This is ridiculous. All normal children have best friends of their same gender, friends that at times they would rather be with than anyone else. The sexualization of same-sex friendship is a travesty.
Don't buy into the newest tactic. Yes, being against bullying sounds good, and everybody is against it. But there's no getting rid of it. Instead of all this talk about children taunting and teasing each other (which has always been and will always be), including now in sexual ways, why don't we teach children their innate spiritual self worth apart from what others say about them? Why not teach courage instead of victimhood? strength instead of weakness? right from wrong? good from evil? normal from unnatural? health from sickness? wisdom from recklessness? What kind of generation are we raising?
Children's admiration of one another is naturally nonsexual. Gay stereotyping is harmful and unfair. While unfortunate bullying, taunting, and teasing are not new, the dangerous sexualized labels kids are sticking on themselves and others is. We call upon everyone everywhere to refuse to label children any of these "alternative sexual orientations."
It's not children teasing each other we should be most worried about. It's the sexualization of children that should get our attention, which is promoted by the gay movement and its many unwitting supporters.
Unlimited sexuality used to be confined to San Francisco. Now it's crept into the classrooms, halls, and playgrounds across America.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
If I were LDS and Ex-SSSA
If I were LDS and also once, long ago, troubled with same-sex sexual attraction which I decided I didn’t want and chose to get over even though it was a difficult thing to do, I’d be confused about the Church right now. First, President Packer seemed to be saying my past sexual proclivities were sinful in thought and deed, that my feelings were not an identity, that I was just a sinner like anybody else who can repent and change in order to progress. This is what I would believe, and what worked for me. Then about ten days later the spokesman from the Church’s public affairs department came out with a statement. He seemed to say that same-sex attraction is an identity, that it’s not people’s fault, that those attractions or feelings aren’t sinful, that people with SSSA can progress in the church and enjoy the blessings of the temple. These two views are opposite. Maybe for a minute I wouldn’t know what to think about what is going on at the Church. I’d pray to get the Spirit to guide me.
I’d wonder why I had felt I should repent from my past attractions, thoughts, feelings, as well as any sort of conduct related to homosexuality, while repentance isn't even in others’ vocabulary. I'd wonder why others pretend that SSSA is pure and wholesome when I know from personal experience it isn't. I'd feel sorry for such people because they are fooling themselves. I'd wonder why others aren't encouraged to get the right kind of professional help, when the help I got so many years ago was so reasonable and enlightening. I’d wonder why others who have covenanted to keep their minds and hearts within the Lord's boundaries for sexuality don't feel they have to keep this covenant. I would have taken and continued to take this covenant very seriously.
I’d wonder why the world seems to give those involved in homosexuality so much special attention and acceptance and people like me who have left it behind absolutely none. I’d wonder why my experiences of getting into and getting out of homosexuality are discounted and ignored. I’d wonder why when I share my experiences and beliefs some people get really angry and call me all sorts of awful things, even wishing me dead. It’s a good thing I wouldn’t take these attacks personally. I would see that these people aren't ready to hear my testimony that they can turn back to God and change. I would know that is their choice. I would pray for them even though they feel and act as if they are my enemies.
If I were LDS and also ex-SSSA, it wouldn't be hard to decide to go with President Packer’s talk, the one he gave at General Conference on Oct. 3 at the pulpit. He’s the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I would remember how the Spirit confirmed to me that his words and warnings were true and right. I wouldn’t pay any attention to those who try to confuse or water down the gospel and the truth. I’d continue to make sure those three things — the prophets, the scriptures, and the Spirit — match up.
If I were LDS and ex-SSSA, I’d continue my regular habit of turning to the Lord all day every day. I'd do it because I love Heavenly Father and want to do His will, as Jesus showed. (People talk a lot about God loving them, but not much about them loving God and striving to do His will out of that love. While He gave us everything, He also makes great demands on us, such as keeping His law of chastity in our hearts and minds as well as physically.) I’d keep putting my full reliance on my Savior Jesus Christ and feeling the joy of his divine Atonement. I’d keep seeking truth and comfort from the Holy Ghost. I’d keep feeling God’s love. I’d keep striving to be that new creature in Christ I had become. I’d keep making good choices. I’d pray to be shown what other weaknesses and sins I have and work to leave them behind too, all through my life.
This is actually happening to people. Now that is love.
I’d wonder why I had felt I should repent from my past attractions, thoughts, feelings, as well as any sort of conduct related to homosexuality, while repentance isn't even in others’ vocabulary. I'd wonder why others pretend that SSSA is pure and wholesome when I know from personal experience it isn't. I'd feel sorry for such people because they are fooling themselves. I'd wonder why others aren't encouraged to get the right kind of professional help, when the help I got so many years ago was so reasonable and enlightening. I’d wonder why others who have covenanted to keep their minds and hearts within the Lord's boundaries for sexuality don't feel they have to keep this covenant. I would have taken and continued to take this covenant very seriously.
I’d wonder why the world seems to give those involved in homosexuality so much special attention and acceptance and people like me who have left it behind absolutely none. I’d wonder why my experiences of getting into and getting out of homosexuality are discounted and ignored. I’d wonder why when I share my experiences and beliefs some people get really angry and call me all sorts of awful things, even wishing me dead. It’s a good thing I wouldn’t take these attacks personally. I would see that these people aren't ready to hear my testimony that they can turn back to God and change. I would know that is their choice. I would pray for them even though they feel and act as if they are my enemies.
If I were LDS and also ex-SSSA, it wouldn't be hard to decide to go with President Packer’s talk, the one he gave at General Conference on Oct. 3 at the pulpit. He’s the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I would remember how the Spirit confirmed to me that his words and warnings were true and right. I wouldn’t pay any attention to those who try to confuse or water down the gospel and the truth. I’d continue to make sure those three things — the prophets, the scriptures, and the Spirit — match up.
If I were LDS and ex-SSSA, I’d continue my regular habit of turning to the Lord all day every day. I'd do it because I love Heavenly Father and want to do His will, as Jesus showed. (People talk a lot about God loving them, but not much about them loving God and striving to do His will out of that love. While He gave us everything, He also makes great demands on us, such as keeping His law of chastity in our hearts and minds as well as physically.) I’d keep putting my full reliance on my Savior Jesus Christ and feeling the joy of his divine Atonement. I’d keep seeking truth and comfort from the Holy Ghost. I’d keep feeling God’s love. I’d keep striving to be that new creature in Christ I had become. I’d keep making good choices. I’d pray to be shown what other weaknesses and sins I have and work to leave them behind too, all through my life.
This is actually happening to people. Now that is love.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
If I Were LDS with SSSA
If I were troubled with same-sex sexual attraction and also LDS, I’d be really confused and angry at the Church right now. First, President Packer said my sexual proclivities are sinful and immoral in thought and deed, that my sexual feelings are not an identity, that I’m just a sinner like anybody else who can repent and change.
Then ten days later the spokesman from the Church’s public relations department came out with a statement because the Human Rights Campaign complained. He said that same sex attraction is an identity, that it’s not my fault, that my feelings aren’t sinful, that I can progress in the church, that I can enjoy the blessings of the temple, that other members of the church should be kind to me (as if they haven’t been), but that I cannot act on my attractions. I can’t have a same sex partner. I can’t do what I want with my supposedly fine sexual feelings.
These two viewpoints are opposite. I'd wonder why the church, although it remains consistent on supporting traditional marriage and condemning homosexual behavior, seems so conflicted on certain other elements of this issue. I wouldn’t know what to think. I would realize that neither of these views could satisfy a person in my position. Pres. Packer said I had to repent. And Brother Otterson said I didn't have to repent but that I could never act on my feelings. In my confusion and misery, I’d try to get the Spirit to guide me.
If I were an active LDS adult I would know that my attractions (romantic or sexual appetites, passions, desires, thoughts, and feelings) are supposed to be kept within the Lord's boundaries. As we learn from the scriptures, we're supposed to purify our hearts and minds as well as our hands. And I would know in my heart of hearts that homosexuality is outside those boundaries and unclean. Jesus said, "Whoseover looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." It follows that homosexual attractions, like adulterous attractions, are lustful and sinful. I would know that I must be accountable for these attractions, and not pretend they are out of my control.
If I were LDS troubled with SSSA, I'd go with President Packer’s talk, the one he gave at General Conference on Oct. 3 at the pulpit. He’s the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I wouldn’t pay any attention to anything or anyone else on this earth. I’d study the scriptures. I’d seek the Spirit to confirm that what Pres. Packer said was true. I’d make sure those three things — Pres. Packer, the scriptures, and the Spirit — match up.
If I were LDS with SSSA I’d get help. I’d repent. And I’d do it because I love Heavenly Father and want to do His will. I’d do it with full reliance on my Savior Jesus Christ. I’d seek truth and comfort from the Holy Ghost. I’d feel God’s love. I’d become a new creature in Christ and leave this sin behind no matter how hard it was or how long it took. Then I'd do the same thing with every other weakness and sinful tendency or temptation I experienced, all through my life.
This is actually happening to people. Now that is love.
Then ten days later the spokesman from the Church’s public relations department came out with a statement because the Human Rights Campaign complained. He said that same sex attraction is an identity, that it’s not my fault, that my feelings aren’t sinful, that I can progress in the church, that I can enjoy the blessings of the temple, that other members of the church should be kind to me (as if they haven’t been), but that I cannot act on my attractions. I can’t have a same sex partner. I can’t do what I want with my supposedly fine sexual feelings.
These two viewpoints are opposite. I'd wonder why the church, although it remains consistent on supporting traditional marriage and condemning homosexual behavior, seems so conflicted on certain other elements of this issue. I wouldn’t know what to think. I would realize that neither of these views could satisfy a person in my position. Pres. Packer said I had to repent. And Brother Otterson said I didn't have to repent but that I could never act on my feelings. In my confusion and misery, I’d try to get the Spirit to guide me.
If I were an active LDS adult I would know that my attractions (romantic or sexual appetites, passions, desires, thoughts, and feelings) are supposed to be kept within the Lord's boundaries. As we learn from the scriptures, we're supposed to purify our hearts and minds as well as our hands. And I would know in my heart of hearts that homosexuality is outside those boundaries and unclean. Jesus said, "Whoseover looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." It follows that homosexual attractions, like adulterous attractions, are lustful and sinful. I would know that I must be accountable for these attractions, and not pretend they are out of my control.
If I were LDS troubled with SSSA, I'd go with President Packer’s talk, the one he gave at General Conference on Oct. 3 at the pulpit. He’s the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I wouldn’t pay any attention to anything or anyone else on this earth. I’d study the scriptures. I’d seek the Spirit to confirm that what Pres. Packer said was true. I’d make sure those three things — Pres. Packer, the scriptures, and the Spirit — match up.
If I were LDS with SSSA I’d get help. I’d repent. And I’d do it because I love Heavenly Father and want to do His will. I’d do it with full reliance on my Savior Jesus Christ. I’d seek truth and comfort from the Holy Ghost. I’d feel God’s love. I’d become a new creature in Christ and leave this sin behind no matter how hard it was or how long it took. Then I'd do the same thing with every other weakness and sinful tendency or temptation I experienced, all through my life.
This is actually happening to people. Now that is love.
HRC Attacks LDS: Is Threatening Religious Freedom a Good Strategy?
As we see anti-religion laws passed and individuals fined and imprisoned for expressing their Biblical views in Canada and the UK, we Americans shouldn’t be too surprised that our first freedom is being threatened here at home. President Boyd K. Packer, who after a long silence calmly repeated the Church’s orthodox view regarding sexual morality, is being used as a feather in the cap of the Human Rights Campaign. The LDS Church is being harassed, intimidated, and lectured to by this politically powerful sexual liberation group that has captured the vain heart of our culture and media.
We do not know what gives anybody the right to demand anything from a church, but the one big complaint from HRC against the LDS Church is that its doctrines are hurting their people’s feelings. The truth is HRC is exploiting suicides they do not know the underlying causes of, and they are angry that this church is freely expressing its view that so-called alternative sexual identities are excuses for bad sexual manners.
One of our subscribers pointed out that other groups based on sexual immorality that could have had their feelings hurt by President Packer’s words, such as prostitutes, pornographers, and the pedophilia-promoters from NAMBLA, have not attacked the Church. Is it that the people at HRC are so thin-skinned that they can’t tolerate it when a church they don’t even belong to or believe in expresses its doctrines in a privately-owned building in fly-over Utah? No, they are not thin-skinned, although they count on their rank and file to be; they are calculating. They have made headway these other groups have not and now dare to use anything and everything to make the rebellious, the gender-disordered, the sexually-confused, the promiscuous, and the self-inflicted sick and dying look like upstanding victims of bigotry and discrimination.
With the dangers we face in America from radical Islam which promotes death to infidels, including unequivocal violence against those engaging in homosexual behavior, it occurs to us that the HRC should actually be spending a great deal of its resources championing our constitutional freedoms and traditional institutions. Organized religion is a key factor that keeps despotism at bay. Dictating to churches what they can or cannot say, as HRC has done to the LDS Church, is a form of tyranny, and such tyranny could turn around to harm the HRC and its followers in a big way.
In the meantime, it is not too much to ask that while sex activists exercise their freedoms they allow us ours. The fact that noisy homosexualists can’t seem to leave marriage, our churches, and our children alone should be a revelation to all right-thinking, freedom-loving, God-fearing Americans.
Which do you think is more valuable to the well-being of our country? Freedom of religion or unlimited sexual freedom? If proponents of each continue to stand for their beliefs, and the sex activists continue to manipulate government and the Constitution to further their cause, the two cannot peacefully co-exist. One will eventually be forfeited. As things are going we can guess which it will be, and a very bad move for everyone it will be in the long run.
Is anyone out there still not clear on why we call ourselves the Standard of Liberty?
We do not know what gives anybody the right to demand anything from a church, but the one big complaint from HRC against the LDS Church is that its doctrines are hurting their people’s feelings. The truth is HRC is exploiting suicides they do not know the underlying causes of, and they are angry that this church is freely expressing its view that so-called alternative sexual identities are excuses for bad sexual manners.
One of our subscribers pointed out that other groups based on sexual immorality that could have had their feelings hurt by President Packer’s words, such as prostitutes, pornographers, and the pedophilia-promoters from NAMBLA, have not attacked the Church. Is it that the people at HRC are so thin-skinned that they can’t tolerate it when a church they don’t even belong to or believe in expresses its doctrines in a privately-owned building in fly-over Utah? No, they are not thin-skinned, although they count on their rank and file to be; they are calculating. They have made headway these other groups have not and now dare to use anything and everything to make the rebellious, the gender-disordered, the sexually-confused, the promiscuous, and the self-inflicted sick and dying look like upstanding victims of bigotry and discrimination.
With the dangers we face in America from radical Islam which promotes death to infidels, including unequivocal violence against those engaging in homosexual behavior, it occurs to us that the HRC should actually be spending a great deal of its resources championing our constitutional freedoms and traditional institutions. Organized religion is a key factor that keeps despotism at bay. Dictating to churches what they can or cannot say, as HRC has done to the LDS Church, is a form of tyranny, and such tyranny could turn around to harm the HRC and its followers in a big way.
In the meantime, it is not too much to ask that while sex activists exercise their freedoms they allow us ours. The fact that noisy homosexualists can’t seem to leave marriage, our churches, and our children alone should be a revelation to all right-thinking, freedom-loving, God-fearing Americans.
Which do you think is more valuable to the well-being of our country? Freedom of religion or unlimited sexual freedom? If proponents of each continue to stand for their beliefs, and the sex activists continue to manipulate government and the Constitution to further their cause, the two cannot peacefully co-exist. One will eventually be forfeited. As things are going we can guess which it will be, and a very bad move for everyone it will be in the long run.
Is anyone out there still not clear on why we call ourselves the Standard of Liberty?
Monday, October 11, 2010
Reply to Recent Comments
Dear Michael, Chelsea, various "Anonymous" souls, and all other individuals who oppose us,
Thank you for reading our blog and sharing your feelings. We appreciate the great amount of emotion behind your comments. But you might want to read our new book Chased by an Elephant, the Gospel Truth about Today's Stampeding Sexuality, before making up your minds. It's about things beyond ourselves: truth, reality, nature, God's law of chastity, and Christ as our Savior, all of which every one of us is free to embrace or reject. It's for Christian parents who wish to pass on their values to their children who are learning all manner of opposite information from the world around them, such as in their schools and in the media.
Surely you agree that we live in a diverse world and that other views (besides sexual liberation and the demonizing of traditional morality and Christianity) should be allowed. In America, freedom to act and speak according to the dictates of one's conscience is still guaranteed to us as well as to you. If you believe, which we don't, that practicing and sharing our intellectual, moral, and religious convictions could cause anyone to end their life, it follows that whatever you do and say could do the same. Have you ever thought that the promotion of your ideas could be hurtful to somebody? For instance, there are many sensitive, feeling people who have left their dark experiences with pornography addiction and unwanted homosexuality behind, and when they share their views or tell their personal stories they are verbally abused and bullied very, very badly indeed by those on your side.
It is best to study these things out from both sides before attacking the accumulated wisdom of the ages and others' experiences. After you have read our books or other materials we would be happy to hear from you again and post any results of critical thinking you have exercised on the timeless realities, scientific facts, and important principles we claim. Remember, we don't engage in or post personal attacks such as those we have received from you.
You may be interested in knowing that we have a riveting new book that will appeal to young adults coming soon called Captain of My Soul, the true story of a young man breaking free from unnatural and unwanted sexual tendencies.
Also in the works is a G-rated picture book called Me Tarzan, You Jane for children about the reality of male and female and natural gender roles and the primary principle behind human mating and marriage. It highlights an essential view stunningly absent in today's anything-but-the-truth mainstream. This book will counter It's Perfectly Normal by Robie H. Harris, a picture book of sexual activist propaganda which contains graphic content promoting all manner of sexual experimentation including masturbation and homosexuality, among other such books that can be found in elementary school libraries which introduce and promote unlimited sex and sexuality to little children.
Thank you for reading our blog and sharing your feelings. We appreciate the great amount of emotion behind your comments. But you might want to read our new book Chased by an Elephant, the Gospel Truth about Today's Stampeding Sexuality, before making up your minds. It's about things beyond ourselves: truth, reality, nature, God's law of chastity, and Christ as our Savior, all of which every one of us is free to embrace or reject. It's for Christian parents who wish to pass on their values to their children who are learning all manner of opposite information from the world around them, such as in their schools and in the media.
Surely you agree that we live in a diverse world and that other views (besides sexual liberation and the demonizing of traditional morality and Christianity) should be allowed. In America, freedom to act and speak according to the dictates of one's conscience is still guaranteed to us as well as to you. If you believe, which we don't, that practicing and sharing our intellectual, moral, and religious convictions could cause anyone to end their life, it follows that whatever you do and say could do the same. Have you ever thought that the promotion of your ideas could be hurtful to somebody? For instance, there are many sensitive, feeling people who have left their dark experiences with pornography addiction and unwanted homosexuality behind, and when they share their views or tell their personal stories they are verbally abused and bullied very, very badly indeed by those on your side.
It is best to study these things out from both sides before attacking the accumulated wisdom of the ages and others' experiences. After you have read our books or other materials we would be happy to hear from you again and post any results of critical thinking you have exercised on the timeless realities, scientific facts, and important principles we claim. Remember, we don't engage in or post personal attacks such as those we have received from you.
You may be interested in knowing that we have a riveting new book that will appeal to young adults coming soon called Captain of My Soul, the true story of a young man breaking free from unnatural and unwanted sexual tendencies.
Also in the works is a G-rated picture book called Me Tarzan, You Jane for children about the reality of male and female and natural gender roles and the primary principle behind human mating and marriage. It highlights an essential view stunningly absent in today's anything-but-the-truth mainstream. This book will counter It's Perfectly Normal by Robie H. Harris, a picture book of sexual activist propaganda which contains graphic content promoting all manner of sexual experimentation including masturbation and homosexuality, among other such books that can be found in elementary school libraries which introduce and promote unlimited sex and sexuality to little children.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Beware the Gay Suicide Card
One of the arguments made by critics of the LDS Church on the topic of homosexuality is that its stand causes young people to take their own lives. Detractors are actively using the gay youth suicide card on the LDS Church in the wake of President Packer's talk at the Church’s General Conference, Oct. 3. On Oct. 7, a “silent protest” was held where a group of mostly young people lay down, death-like, outside the gates of the Salt Lake Temple. While we should all mourn suicides, is the Church responsible? Will the words Pres. Packer spoke at a church meeting really cause people to take their own lives as activists are saying?
It has been admitted by activists that lies are acceptable in order to further their cause. One example is, talking about being “born that way,” activists said, “If this is an easier route to acceptance (which may in fact be the case), is it really so bad that it is inaccurate?”
It follows that we must take every pronouncement of a “gay suicide" with a very large grain of salt. In fact, some families of these suicide victims being cited by activists are speaking out.
Affirmation, a group self-described as LDS and pro-gay, in an article about suicides, is warned by family members of young gays David Standley and Todd Ranson who recently died not to jump so quickly to the causes of their deaths.
“David had a very severe mental illness his entire life where he experienced depression that he was unable to overcome. His biological father also committed suicide, which increased his chances to 90 percent that he would also do the same. David had the same mental illness as his biological father and his biological father’s father,” wrote Standley’s mother.
“Some people have said that Todd ended his life because he was gay or felt persecuted by the LDS Church and his family, but this is not true,” a family member wrote on a tribute web site dedicated to him . . . “Todd attempted suicide previously and we know from that experience that his manic depression was a constant thorn in his side and that there were other factors that influenced his suicide.”
As a matter of fact, mentally and emotionally healthy people of all ages do not kill themselves because others disapprove of them. Correction, criticism, and even rejection are part of life. We get disappointed, dropped, dumped, dismissed, disowned, and deceived by others. History is full of individuals and groups, good and bad, being rejected. People are even imprisoned because society cannot accept their behavior. And yet the vast majority do not commit suicide. Therefore, criticism or rejection, including bullying, cannot be blindly accepted as the cause for gay suicides.
A study called “Risk Factors for Attempted Suicide in Gay and Bisexual Youth” (G. Remafedi, 1999), reports that for every year a young person puts off labeling himself gay, the risk of suicide decreases by 20% (See narth.com). Of course activists do not want this known. We once asked a youth counselor at Utah Pride if she ever tried to dissuade a young teenager from labeling himself gay quite yet and there was total silence on the other end of the phone.
Rather than disapproval or perceived rejection from one’s family or church, could it be that there are hidden factors at work that contribute to gay youth suicides? How about encouragement to adopt a popularized but unnatural sexual label? How about addiction to soul-killing same-sex pornography and promiscuous anonymous sexual encounters? How about the mind-altering drug abuse that goes along with homosex? How about being introduced by adults to behaviors too heinous to mention in polite society? How about being told they are forever homosexual and thinking they will never have a normal sex and family life? How about hearing over and over that gays commit suicide if they aren’t accepted by their family or church? How about confusion, self-loathing, depression, and guilt coming from a young person’s own dark thoughts and behaviors with no hope or resources for deliverance in sight?
As we’ve been hearing, some believe no “serious crisis [should] go to waste.” Please note that schools play down student suicides so as not to encourage copy-cat behavior. We never see gay activists playing down suicides. On the contrary, any suicide they can possibly connect to gayness is shamelessly exploited to further their cause.
Given the above considerations, we should be highly skeptical of sexual activists’ exploitation of any person’s violence against himself.
Also see “Is ‘gay’ agenda to blame for teen suicides?” by Linda Harvey at www.missionamerica.com
Update: It's no surprise to us that soon after this post was published Affirmation removed the families' remarks about the above young men's real reasons for suicide from their websites.Can anyone doubt how despicable and dangerous the gay suicide lie is?
It has been admitted by activists that lies are acceptable in order to further their cause. One example is, talking about being “born that way,” activists said, “If this is an easier route to acceptance (which may in fact be the case), is it really so bad that it is inaccurate?”
It follows that we must take every pronouncement of a “gay suicide" with a very large grain of salt. In fact, some families of these suicide victims being cited by activists are speaking out.
Affirmation, a group self-described as LDS and pro-gay, in an article about suicides, is warned by family members of young gays David Standley and Todd Ranson who recently died not to jump so quickly to the causes of their deaths.
“David had a very severe mental illness his entire life where he experienced depression that he was unable to overcome. His biological father also committed suicide, which increased his chances to 90 percent that he would also do the same. David had the same mental illness as his biological father and his biological father’s father,” wrote Standley’s mother.
“Some people have said that Todd ended his life because he was gay or felt persecuted by the LDS Church and his family, but this is not true,” a family member wrote on a tribute web site dedicated to him . . . “Todd attempted suicide previously and we know from that experience that his manic depression was a constant thorn in his side and that there were other factors that influenced his suicide.”
As a matter of fact, mentally and emotionally healthy people of all ages do not kill themselves because others disapprove of them. Correction, criticism, and even rejection are part of life. We get disappointed, dropped, dumped, dismissed, disowned, and deceived by others. History is full of individuals and groups, good and bad, being rejected. People are even imprisoned because society cannot accept their behavior. And yet the vast majority do not commit suicide. Therefore, criticism or rejection, including bullying, cannot be blindly accepted as the cause for gay suicides.
A study called “Risk Factors for Attempted Suicide in Gay and Bisexual Youth” (G. Remafedi, 1999), reports that for every year a young person puts off labeling himself gay, the risk of suicide decreases by 20% (See narth.com). Of course activists do not want this known. We once asked a youth counselor at Utah Pride if she ever tried to dissuade a young teenager from labeling himself gay quite yet and there was total silence on the other end of the phone.
Rather than disapproval or perceived rejection from one’s family or church, could it be that there are hidden factors at work that contribute to gay youth suicides? How about encouragement to adopt a popularized but unnatural sexual label? How about addiction to soul-killing same-sex pornography and promiscuous anonymous sexual encounters? How about the mind-altering drug abuse that goes along with homosex? How about being introduced by adults to behaviors too heinous to mention in polite society? How about being told they are forever homosexual and thinking they will never have a normal sex and family life? How about hearing over and over that gays commit suicide if they aren’t accepted by their family or church? How about confusion, self-loathing, depression, and guilt coming from a young person’s own dark thoughts and behaviors with no hope or resources for deliverance in sight?
As we’ve been hearing, some believe no “serious crisis [should] go to waste.” Please note that schools play down student suicides so as not to encourage copy-cat behavior. We never see gay activists playing down suicides. On the contrary, any suicide they can possibly connect to gayness is shamelessly exploited to further their cause.
Given the above considerations, we should be highly skeptical of sexual activists’ exploitation of any person’s violence against himself.
Also see “Is ‘gay’ agenda to blame for teen suicides?” by Linda Harvey at www.missionamerica.com
Update: It's no surprise to us that soon after this post was published Affirmation removed the families' remarks about the above young men's real reasons for suicide from their websites.Can anyone doubt how despicable and dangerous the gay suicide lie is?
Monday, September 13, 2010
Mating and Marriage
There's a great article from The National Review called “The Case for Marriage.” Of course! Government has historically taken an interest in the institution of marriage because of children; it's about what to do with the children that regularly come from mating. Traditional marriage with its natural gender roles is never perfect (because human beings are never perfect) but it is in the best interests of children. Our government and legal system must continue to support marriage with its traditional definition—as importantly linked to procreation—
or we’ll find ourselves on the road to the government taking upon itself the role of parent, with dangerous and disastrous consequences.
As for so-called gay marriage, try as they might, men cannot mate with other men and women cannot mate with other women. So why should government take any interest in their relationship? Of itself it doesn’t produce anything. As for the argument that government should support adult emotional relationships, government has never gotten involved in people's emotional unions alone. Can you imagine the colossal intrusion and power that would lead to? Government could dictate what should happen in every human relationship imaginable! That’s why government should only have something to say about the one union that regularly creates children, that is, marriage as it has always been defined.
As for another argument about how many heterosexual couples do not procreate for various reasons (infertility, choice, age), the principle still stands. These couples still mate, that is, they do the very thing people do that makes babies. Gay couples do not mate, that is, they do not do the very thing that makes babies. In fact, it's impossible to get a baby from anything they do together. Whatever else people acting homosexually do, they can’t mate and never do. Therefore, they can never be married as the word marriage is defined. If we decide to call what they do marriage, we will have ruined the word as it has always stood with its foundational purpose and definition: marriage exists and is encouraged in the hope that every child may be born into the most stable environment possible, to the basic family unit consisting of a legally united and recognized opposite-sex couple, which is usually his own biological mother and father from whom much is expected by society for the sake of its own survival.
There's yet another newish argument that government, with its interest in children, should legitimize gay marriage because gay couples are now getting children through outside means such as adoption, sperm donation, or surrogacy. All we can say is, government shouldn't support such things because they are not in the best interests of children. It's incredible that people are bringing children into a home without both a mother and a father where the adults are modeling maladaptive and dangerous behavior on purpose. Gay couples who go to these lengths are acting in their own various interests, and not in the best interests of the children they contrive to adopt or create. For example, we've heard that gay men will each simultaneously donate their sperm to the surrogate mother so no one will know which man's child is the result. Besides these adults treating procreation like a game and human beings like entitlements, do they not wonder if the child will ever want to know which of these two men is really his biological father? People need to know these things for medical records at least.
Purposely destroying language, as in hijacking the word marriage, in order to further a self-serving agenda is a cowardly and tyrannical thing to do. Our government representatives and officials should see through it.
revised 10/12/10
or we’ll find ourselves on the road to the government taking upon itself the role of parent, with dangerous and disastrous consequences.
As for so-called gay marriage, try as they might, men cannot mate with other men and women cannot mate with other women. So why should government take any interest in their relationship? Of itself it doesn’t produce anything. As for the argument that government should support adult emotional relationships, government has never gotten involved in people's emotional unions alone. Can you imagine the colossal intrusion and power that would lead to? Government could dictate what should happen in every human relationship imaginable! That’s why government should only have something to say about the one union that regularly creates children, that is, marriage as it has always been defined.
As for another argument about how many heterosexual couples do not procreate for various reasons (infertility, choice, age), the principle still stands. These couples still mate, that is, they do the very thing people do that makes babies. Gay couples do not mate, that is, they do not do the very thing that makes babies. In fact, it's impossible to get a baby from anything they do together. Whatever else people acting homosexually do, they can’t mate and never do. Therefore, they can never be married as the word marriage is defined. If we decide to call what they do marriage, we will have ruined the word as it has always stood with its foundational purpose and definition: marriage exists and is encouraged in the hope that every child may be born into the most stable environment possible, to the basic family unit consisting of a legally united and recognized opposite-sex couple, which is usually his own biological mother and father from whom much is expected by society for the sake of its own survival.
There's yet another newish argument that government, with its interest in children, should legitimize gay marriage because gay couples are now getting children through outside means such as adoption, sperm donation, or surrogacy. All we can say is, government shouldn't support such things because they are not in the best interests of children. It's incredible that people are bringing children into a home without both a mother and a father where the adults are modeling maladaptive and dangerous behavior on purpose. Gay couples who go to these lengths are acting in their own various interests, and not in the best interests of the children they contrive to adopt or create. For example, we've heard that gay men will each simultaneously donate their sperm to the surrogate mother so no one will know which man's child is the result. Besides these adults treating procreation like a game and human beings like entitlements, do they not wonder if the child will ever want to know which of these two men is really his biological father? People need to know these things for medical records at least.
Purposely destroying language, as in hijacking the word marriage, in order to further a self-serving agenda is a cowardly and tyrannical thing to do. Our government representatives and officials should see through it.
revised 10/12/10
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Of Churches and Christians, Garages and Cars
It's understandable how certain false doctrines are embraced; they relieve us of the painful process of searching our souls.
For example, we often hear people testify that if we work hard and do our very, very best, Christ will "make up the difference." How many times have we heard, "You did your best and Christ will make up the rest?" Well, what if our best is just not very good at all, as King Benjamin tells us? Hugh Nibley said none of us are very brave or wise or pure. So, who are we to judge our own works in any degree as good or great? Where is any Christ-like humility in that? What we're supposed to be doing is striving to serve God and giving Him all the glory. Did I say all? Yes, all.
Whereas the scriptures say that we mustn't lean on our own understanding, that the Lord is our shepherd, that we must trust in him, that HE is THE light, THE life, and THE ONLY way, we often hear the idea that we should trust mostly in the arm of the flesh (ourselves and other humans) for our salvation, that the Savior can be treated as a sort of safety net, just in case we missed something. The truth is, Christ is the bridge itself, and the only bridge, not a mere safety net should we happen to lose our footing. And the reality is we all lose our footing; whether this happens in little ways or big ways, often or infrequently, doesn't matter. A question worth contemplating is, how would this safety-net/just-in-case view lead one to Christ, to humble oneself before God, to become truly religious/like Christ? The answer is, there is not much chance it will. We're nowhere near the bridge so why would we even need a net? We're walking on an earthbound path of our own making, which path leads to increasing vanity and pride.
It is as if we are saying,"I am doing so well that I don't need a Savior. Well, maybe I need him some, especially when I need comfort." Perhaps we think more often of Christ as a compassionate friend who is there to empathize with us when life is difficult rather than as a Redeemer who is there offering to intercede with the Father to save us from our sins, small and large, if we'll only seek to know what our shortcomings are and humble ourselves before him.
As C. S. Lewis said, the question is not, What are we to make of Christ? but, What is Christ to make of us? He wants to make us different and new, noble spiritual beings. We cannot make new soul-deep creatures of ourselves; only Christ can do that. Only he can make us fit for God's presence. It is his example of utter selflessness, of giving the Father all the glory, of purity of heart, that we must follow, and his redeeming grace that we must humbly and joyfully and gratefully receive if we are to become new creatures.
There's another strange false doctrine going around that perhaps grew from the one above. Some believe that with every good deed we do we undo a portion of the suffering of Christ. In other words, we have the power to make ourselves exempt or immune from the fall, from Christ's suffering, and from his saving grace. Of course this cannot be so. Man is fallen. The Atonement has been accomplished. What's done is done, and Christ is the only way. If we choose to believe such heresies we are living in a dreamworld, presuming to be our own savior and judge, even our own god. Such a person comes to church and serves in callings, but is actually rejecting the Lord. What would we honestly call such a church? The Church of Oneself? It certainly isn't the Church of Jesus Christ.
We like what somebody said in church last week, "Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car."
For example, we often hear people testify that if we work hard and do our very, very best, Christ will "make up the difference." How many times have we heard, "You did your best and Christ will make up the rest?" Well, what if our best is just not very good at all, as King Benjamin tells us? Hugh Nibley said none of us are very brave or wise or pure. So, who are we to judge our own works in any degree as good or great? Where is any Christ-like humility in that? What we're supposed to be doing is striving to serve God and giving Him all the glory. Did I say all? Yes, all.
Whereas the scriptures say that we mustn't lean on our own understanding, that the Lord is our shepherd, that we must trust in him, that HE is THE light, THE life, and THE ONLY way, we often hear the idea that we should trust mostly in the arm of the flesh (ourselves and other humans) for our salvation, that the Savior can be treated as a sort of safety net, just in case we missed something. The truth is, Christ is the bridge itself, and the only bridge, not a mere safety net should we happen to lose our footing. And the reality is we all lose our footing; whether this happens in little ways or big ways, often or infrequently, doesn't matter. A question worth contemplating is, how would this safety-net/just-in-case view lead one to Christ, to humble oneself before God, to become truly religious/like Christ? The answer is, there is not much chance it will. We're nowhere near the bridge so why would we even need a net? We're walking on an earthbound path of our own making, which path leads to increasing vanity and pride.
It is as if we are saying,"I am doing so well that I don't need a Savior. Well, maybe I need him some, especially when I need comfort." Perhaps we think more often of Christ as a compassionate friend who is there to empathize with us when life is difficult rather than as a Redeemer who is there offering to intercede with the Father to save us from our sins, small and large, if we'll only seek to know what our shortcomings are and humble ourselves before him.
As C. S. Lewis said, the question is not, What are we to make of Christ? but, What is Christ to make of us? He wants to make us different and new, noble spiritual beings. We cannot make new soul-deep creatures of ourselves; only Christ can do that. Only he can make us fit for God's presence. It is his example of utter selflessness, of giving the Father all the glory, of purity of heart, that we must follow, and his redeeming grace that we must humbly and joyfully and gratefully receive if we are to become new creatures.
There's another strange false doctrine going around that perhaps grew from the one above. Some believe that with every good deed we do we undo a portion of the suffering of Christ. In other words, we have the power to make ourselves exempt or immune from the fall, from Christ's suffering, and from his saving grace. Of course this cannot be so. Man is fallen. The Atonement has been accomplished. What's done is done, and Christ is the only way. If we choose to believe such heresies we are living in a dreamworld, presuming to be our own savior and judge, even our own god. Such a person comes to church and serves in callings, but is actually rejecting the Lord. What would we honestly call such a church? The Church of Oneself? It certainly isn't the Church of Jesus Christ.
We like what somebody said in church last week, "Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car."
Friday, May 21, 2010
The Pursuit of Happiness and the Fatal Principle
Our Declaration of Independence says that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But should people have a right to pursue their personal idea of happiness by any and every means? Of course not. Our society has all kinds of restrictions and outlaws a number of behaviors such as rape, murder, stealing, etc. The writers of the Declaration on which our country is founded meant that all people have the right to pursue happiness by lawful and moral means. It was written in a time when people were permanently divided and oppressed according to unchangeable class or social status, ruler-mandated religious denominations, and the like. Perhaps it's hard for us complacent, multi-generational Americans to imagine such a time when people did not enjoy such things as social mobility, property ownership, and religious freedom. Evidently, it was a very big deal to conceive of a such a nation as this was meant to be. The Founders wanted a different sort of society where everyone was equally free to pursue virtuous goals and worship God according to the dictates of a moral conscience.
Jan Lewis in The Pursuit of Happiness, explains that in using this phrase America's Founders actually had in mind not the fulfillment of the individual as we hear about today, but the fulfillment of family life as the ultimate wished-for personal happiness. This included the freedom to pass on one's moral/religious convictions to one's children and the opportunity for property ownership (acres for a house, garden, animals, pond, etc.) in order to independently provide for the spiritual and physical needs of a growing family. In those days owning a house was not considered for its own sake as a financial investment as it often is today, but for the sake of long-term conjugal family security. At its core the Declaration was meant to proclaim the human right to pursue the best safeguard against tyranny and the best chance for human happiness possible here on earth: family life.
Increasingly, since the 1920s, the original meaning of the pursuit of happiness has been redefined, even high-jacked, to include unlimited sexuality, the opposite of virtuous family life. We've seen how co-habitation, out-of wedlock pregnancy, divorce, abortion, homosexuality and the like, have become de-stigmatized, then championed, all in the name of individual freedom, fulfillment, or happiness.
Of course licentiousness does not bring happiness, only misery, but we live in a blind and prideful society which values only itself and has abandoned its responsibilities to both past and future generations. Sexuality is now the one impulse that need not be bridled---except perhaps where it is associated with marriage, ecclesiastical discipline, and sex crimes, and even these restrictions are fast fading away. We have rampant infidelity, open marriages, legalized "gay marriage," churches softening and abandoning their doctrines, a growing gay clergy, and new laws and policies, local, state, and federal, reflecting ever-widening boundaries for all manner of sex and sexuality for all ages.
In the 1940s C. S. Lewis, in his essay "We Have No 'Right' to Happiness,'" (God in the Dock) discusses this societal trend, adding, "Our sexual impulses are thus being put in a position of preposterous privilege. The sexual motive is taken to condone all sorts of behaviour which, if it had any other end in view, would be condemned as merciless, treacherous and unjust." He is right. If our society did not embrace irresponsible sexual freedom as happiness, but rather the pursuit of classic family life as happiness, a "gay" man's abandonment of his wife and children, an adulterous woman's convenience abortion, a public school teaching children that homosexuality is normal and having a father who objects arrested, a little boy being encouraged by the adults around him to dress and act as a girl in preparation for hormones and surgeries that will further confuse his mind and mutilate his healthy young body, and many other behaviors, would not be condoned as they now are, but summarily condemned as merciless, treacherous, and unjust.
Now that we have made the sexual impulse a "right," this fatal principle, as Lewis calls it, "must sooner or later seep through our whole lives. We thus advance toward a society in which not only each man but every [unschooled and selfish] impulse in each man claims carte blanche. And then . . . our civilization will have died at heart and will . . . be swept away."
So much has happened which Lewis could hardly have imagined, but he clearly saw the direction the world was headed. It's incredible to us at SoL that even those with resources, influence, and obligation avoid this topic like the plague. Many of our seemingly most moral and conservative leaders no longer take a stand on issues of sexual morality. They, quite irresponsibly, turn a blind eye to the tragic consequences for a society bent on sex, sex, and more sex. As a result, Lewis's prediction is coming true. To its detriment, as our society has settled on pushing and celebrating unlimited sexuality it has had no trouble pushing and celebrating every other preposterous entitlement men arbitrarily claim from society as a right: a "right" to marriage, a "right" to be a parent, a "right" to destroy the unborn, a "right" to own a house, a "right" to have a job, a "right" to free health care, a "right" for foreigners to break America’s laws, and the list goes on. So much for the sense of personal responsibility needed to pursue real happiness.
The fatal principle is at work.
Jan Lewis in The Pursuit of Happiness, explains that in using this phrase America's Founders actually had in mind not the fulfillment of the individual as we hear about today, but the fulfillment of family life as the ultimate wished-for personal happiness. This included the freedom to pass on one's moral/religious convictions to one's children and the opportunity for property ownership (acres for a house, garden, animals, pond, etc.) in order to independently provide for the spiritual and physical needs of a growing family. In those days owning a house was not considered for its own sake as a financial investment as it often is today, but for the sake of long-term conjugal family security. At its core the Declaration was meant to proclaim the human right to pursue the best safeguard against tyranny and the best chance for human happiness possible here on earth: family life.
Increasingly, since the 1920s, the original meaning of the pursuit of happiness has been redefined, even high-jacked, to include unlimited sexuality, the opposite of virtuous family life. We've seen how co-habitation, out-of wedlock pregnancy, divorce, abortion, homosexuality and the like, have become de-stigmatized, then championed, all in the name of individual freedom, fulfillment, or happiness.
Of course licentiousness does not bring happiness, only misery, but we live in a blind and prideful society which values only itself and has abandoned its responsibilities to both past and future generations. Sexuality is now the one impulse that need not be bridled---except perhaps where it is associated with marriage, ecclesiastical discipline, and sex crimes, and even these restrictions are fast fading away. We have rampant infidelity, open marriages, legalized "gay marriage," churches softening and abandoning their doctrines, a growing gay clergy, and new laws and policies, local, state, and federal, reflecting ever-widening boundaries for all manner of sex and sexuality for all ages.
In the 1940s C. S. Lewis, in his essay "We Have No 'Right' to Happiness,'" (God in the Dock) discusses this societal trend, adding, "Our sexual impulses are thus being put in a position of preposterous privilege. The sexual motive is taken to condone all sorts of behaviour which, if it had any other end in view, would be condemned as merciless, treacherous and unjust." He is right. If our society did not embrace irresponsible sexual freedom as happiness, but rather the pursuit of classic family life as happiness, a "gay" man's abandonment of his wife and children, an adulterous woman's convenience abortion, a public school teaching children that homosexuality is normal and having a father who objects arrested, a little boy being encouraged by the adults around him to dress and act as a girl in preparation for hormones and surgeries that will further confuse his mind and mutilate his healthy young body, and many other behaviors, would not be condoned as they now are, but summarily condemned as merciless, treacherous, and unjust.
Now that we have made the sexual impulse a "right," this fatal principle, as Lewis calls it, "must sooner or later seep through our whole lives. We thus advance toward a society in which not only each man but every [unschooled and selfish] impulse in each man claims carte blanche. And then . . . our civilization will have died at heart and will . . . be swept away."
So much has happened which Lewis could hardly have imagined, but he clearly saw the direction the world was headed. It's incredible to us at SoL that even those with resources, influence, and obligation avoid this topic like the plague. Many of our seemingly most moral and conservative leaders no longer take a stand on issues of sexual morality. They, quite irresponsibly, turn a blind eye to the tragic consequences for a society bent on sex, sex, and more sex. As a result, Lewis's prediction is coming true. To its detriment, as our society has settled on pushing and celebrating unlimited sexuality it has had no trouble pushing and celebrating every other preposterous entitlement men arbitrarily claim from society as a right: a "right" to marriage, a "right" to be a parent, a "right" to destroy the unborn, a "right" to own a house, a "right" to have a job, a "right" to free health care, a "right" for foreigners to break America’s laws, and the list goes on. So much for the sense of personal responsibility needed to pursue real happiness.
The fatal principle is at work.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Love Speech
We challenge any clear-thinking person to find anything hateful in this blog.
Like we've said so many times before, we love people. We value their health and well-being, and their immortal souls. This means we are obligated to disapprove of bad ideas and behaviors. Truly loving people means you care about them. It means you do what you can to teach them the truth and warn them about dangers. Of course they are free to take it or leave it.
Is that so difficult to understand?
In light of the amount of hate mail we receive at SoL, we think the Laman and Lemuel syndrome applies today. They got angry at the truth, angry enough to wish harm on the messenger.
Like we've said so many times before, we love people. We value their health and well-being, and their immortal souls. This means we are obligated to disapprove of bad ideas and behaviors. Truly loving people means you care about them. It means you do what you can to teach them the truth and warn them about dangers. Of course they are free to take it or leave it.
Is that so difficult to understand?
In light of the amount of hate mail we receive at SoL, we think the Laman and Lemuel syndrome applies today. They got angry at the truth, angry enough to wish harm on the messenger.
Utah Pride Center Recruits Kids
We at the Standard of Liberty were dismayed to hear of an annual “Queer Prom” held at the Salt Lake City Library Saturday April 10 for ages 14 through 20. This is eighth or ninth grade well into college age. Gay or straight, this is inappropriate. The gathering is legal only because there is no alcohol. We point out that many things that are legal are not healthy or wholesome (smoking, alcohol abuse, adultery, pornography), and this is one of those.
Traditional high school proms are based on nature, order, and traditional gender roles. This particular dance is held solely based on anomalistic ideas about gender, sexuality, and sex. Throwing minors together with adults on the basis of unlimited sexuality is bizarre and irresponsible. But we found out there’s more to it than that.
We made a few phone calls. The library passed the buck to the city. The city hasn’t responded. So we called the Utah Pride Center which sponsors the event and many other events throughout the year for this same age group. Lily Rodriguez, the "HIV Prevention Counselor" whose job it is to counsel youth on sex and sexuality, defended these events. She said the prom was not about sex and sexuality but about making friends.
We went to see for ourselves. There were certainly very young kids attending this event. We saw them holding hands and skipping to the entrance. As they arrived they were accosted by adults with badges and clip boards and asked to fill out a lengthy survey. Many of them sat down and poured over the survey for up to an hour before going into the dance. It seemed to us that the youngest kids were dressed most normally, and that the older the attendees looked, the more outrageously they presented themselves. We saw one male attendee, surely even older than 20, milling around and introducing himself where the kids were filling out their surveys. He hobbled around on women’s 6-inch platform strappy heels, wore a spaghetti-strap short black flowy dress and black hose, continually adjusted his falsies and flourished a big Japanese fan. In this same area, a child-like girl, who looked even younger than 14, was dressed like Minnie Mouse, complete with mouse ears.
Ms. Rodrigez had failed to mention this 15-page questionnaire. We obtained a copy. It asked the kids what school they attended and if it had a gay club. It asked them to label themselves one of seven “sexual orientations” and one or more of seven “genders” (with spaces for “other”). It asked questions about “hate-based” harassment at their school. It invited them to meet with a person named Jenny Arm (of unknown credentials) present at the dance and gave her phone number. The survey also asked explicit questions about the young attendees’ sexual behaviors, such as, “In the past six months, have you had anal sex without a condom?” The last page congratulates the kids (“YOU ARE FABULOUS!”), informing them that the information they have provided will be distributed “to important organizations, including schools.” (See this survey at standardofliberty.org.)
Ms. Rodriguez misrepresented this event. Not only is it inappropriate and potentially dangerous, it is obviously used to sexually exploit and influence kids and recruit them into gay activism to further the Center’s political agenda.
Ms. Rodriquez informed us that the Center welcomes not only gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth, but “questioning” youth. We say that it’s about time somebody questioned Utah Pride Center. We asked her if she ever tells these kids that they might not be sexually different at all (but rather bored, rebellious, addicted to pornography, rejected, heartbroken, confused, abused, etc.), and she changed the subject.
We agree with Tammy Bruce (a self-identified lesbian herself) who wrote, “I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today.” (The Death of Right and Wrong, 2003). SoL calls upon the City of Salt Lake to refuse to approve the Center’s requests for the use of city property for youth activities. We call upon the Division of Child and Family Services to investigate Utah Pride Center regarding the welfare of minors. We call upon “important organizations, including schools” to reject Utah Pride Center’s self-serving propaganda. We call upon parents to protect their children from this misguided group and others like it.
Utah Pride Center has no business targeting, sexually labeling, and exploiting minors. Troubled youth should be directed to parents, family members, foster homes, churches, professionals, and social and community organizations which do not inappropriately sexualize children and which have only their best interests at heart.
Traditional high school proms are based on nature, order, and traditional gender roles. This particular dance is held solely based on anomalistic ideas about gender, sexuality, and sex. Throwing minors together with adults on the basis of unlimited sexuality is bizarre and irresponsible. But we found out there’s more to it than that.
We made a few phone calls. The library passed the buck to the city. The city hasn’t responded. So we called the Utah Pride Center which sponsors the event and many other events throughout the year for this same age group. Lily Rodriguez, the "HIV Prevention Counselor" whose job it is to counsel youth on sex and sexuality, defended these events. She said the prom was not about sex and sexuality but about making friends.
We went to see for ourselves. There were certainly very young kids attending this event. We saw them holding hands and skipping to the entrance. As they arrived they were accosted by adults with badges and clip boards and asked to fill out a lengthy survey. Many of them sat down and poured over the survey for up to an hour before going into the dance. It seemed to us that the youngest kids were dressed most normally, and that the older the attendees looked, the more outrageously they presented themselves. We saw one male attendee, surely even older than 20, milling around and introducing himself where the kids were filling out their surveys. He hobbled around on women’s 6-inch platform strappy heels, wore a spaghetti-strap short black flowy dress and black hose, continually adjusted his falsies and flourished a big Japanese fan. In this same area, a child-like girl, who looked even younger than 14, was dressed like Minnie Mouse, complete with mouse ears.
Ms. Rodrigez had failed to mention this 15-page questionnaire. We obtained a copy. It asked the kids what school they attended and if it had a gay club. It asked them to label themselves one of seven “sexual orientations” and one or more of seven “genders” (with spaces for “other”). It asked questions about “hate-based” harassment at their school. It invited them to meet with a person named Jenny Arm (of unknown credentials) present at the dance and gave her phone number. The survey also asked explicit questions about the young attendees’ sexual behaviors, such as, “In the past six months, have you had anal sex without a condom?” The last page congratulates the kids (“YOU ARE FABULOUS!”), informing them that the information they have provided will be distributed “to important organizations, including schools.” (See this survey at standardofliberty.org.)
Ms. Rodriguez misrepresented this event. Not only is it inappropriate and potentially dangerous, it is obviously used to sexually exploit and influence kids and recruit them into gay activism to further the Center’s political agenda.
Ms. Rodriquez informed us that the Center welcomes not only gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth, but “questioning” youth. We say that it’s about time somebody questioned Utah Pride Center. We asked her if she ever tells these kids that they might not be sexually different at all (but rather bored, rebellious, addicted to pornography, rejected, heartbroken, confused, abused, etc.), and she changed the subject.
We agree with Tammy Bruce (a self-identified lesbian herself) who wrote, “I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today.” (The Death of Right and Wrong, 2003). SoL calls upon the City of Salt Lake to refuse to approve the Center’s requests for the use of city property for youth activities. We call upon the Division of Child and Family Services to investigate Utah Pride Center regarding the welfare of minors. We call upon “important organizations, including schools” to reject Utah Pride Center’s self-serving propaganda. We call upon parents to protect their children from this misguided group and others like it.
Utah Pride Center has no business targeting, sexually labeling, and exploiting minors. Troubled youth should be directed to parents, family members, foster homes, churches, professionals, and social and community organizations which do not inappropriately sexualize children and which have only their best interests at heart.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Be Careful What You Wish For
Dear Anonymous:
Because of your references to what occurs in the temple, we choose not to post your last comment. But here is our reply:
We still don’t see any problem with the husband/wife wording. A husband is male, a wife is female, as in Adam and Eve. According to God, marriage only takes place between the two opposite sexes.
God gives us an unchanging standard of human conduct on important topics. Sex is important. And when people misuse the human sexual appetite someone gets hurt. This is taken for granted. It is only the modern licentious movement that is seeking to replace common knowledge with a new arbitrary self-serving standard. As Dostoeyvski said, Where there is no God, all is permitted. Those caught up in this movement are seeking to remake the law of chastity unto themselves to include some of the most base and degenerate desires and behaviors human beings are capable of.
It might be enlightening to talk to a doctor who cares for those who engage in sodomy. Not a pretty sight. These poor people are afflicted with unspeakable chronic maladies in their private parts and life-threatening diseases. Lives are shortened. The human body is not made to participate in such behavior. It cannot be called chaste by any stretch of the imagination. Decent people do not do it. You are not only denying God, you are denying nature and reality you can see with your own eyes.
Be careful what you wish for. In the 1940s George Orwell wrote, “ . . . [A]ll societies, as the price of survival, have to insist on a fairly high standard of sexual morality.” No civilized society would endanger its existence in order to indulge a small percentage of the population which claims it has a right to arbitrarily change the standard for sexual morality for everyone. No truly religious church would compromise doctrine and order to accommodate the flagrantly licentious. The presumption and arrogance of the self-serving few who pressure churches to overturn their basic rules for sexual morality to suit them is off the charts. If they get their way, these few will not just be accommodated, they will destroy. We repeat, be careful what you wish for. You can’t have the Church in the form you want it. It will cease to exist. If we have a church left at all we’ll have, as Flannery O'Connor put it, the “Church Without Christ.”
Look for the new book Chased by An Elephant, the gospel truth about today’s stampeding sexuality. It's for parents raising children but it sounds like some of the basic truths it contains are unknown to you. Coming soon!
Because of your references to what occurs in the temple, we choose not to post your last comment. But here is our reply:
We still don’t see any problem with the husband/wife wording. A husband is male, a wife is female, as in Adam and Eve. According to God, marriage only takes place between the two opposite sexes.
God gives us an unchanging standard of human conduct on important topics. Sex is important. And when people misuse the human sexual appetite someone gets hurt. This is taken for granted. It is only the modern licentious movement that is seeking to replace common knowledge with a new arbitrary self-serving standard. As Dostoeyvski said, Where there is no God, all is permitted. Those caught up in this movement are seeking to remake the law of chastity unto themselves to include some of the most base and degenerate desires and behaviors human beings are capable of.
It might be enlightening to talk to a doctor who cares for those who engage in sodomy. Not a pretty sight. These poor people are afflicted with unspeakable chronic maladies in their private parts and life-threatening diseases. Lives are shortened. The human body is not made to participate in such behavior. It cannot be called chaste by any stretch of the imagination. Decent people do not do it. You are not only denying God, you are denying nature and reality you can see with your own eyes.
Be careful what you wish for. In the 1940s George Orwell wrote, “ . . . [A]ll societies, as the price of survival, have to insist on a fairly high standard of sexual morality.” No civilized society would endanger its existence in order to indulge a small percentage of the population which claims it has a right to arbitrarily change the standard for sexual morality for everyone. No truly religious church would compromise doctrine and order to accommodate the flagrantly licentious. The presumption and arrogance of the self-serving few who pressure churches to overturn their basic rules for sexual morality to suit them is off the charts. If they get their way, these few will not just be accommodated, they will destroy. We repeat, be careful what you wish for. You can’t have the Church in the form you want it. It will cease to exist. If we have a church left at all we’ll have, as Flannery O'Connor put it, the “Church Without Christ.”
Look for the new book Chased by An Elephant, the gospel truth about today’s stampeding sexuality. It's for parents raising children but it sounds like some of the basic truths it contains are unknown to you. Coming soon!
Chastity 101
We don't know quite what to do with anonymous emailed comments. Since we can’t reply to them privately, we have to reply on our public blog. The following was a comment on our post entitled “Gays in the Church – Let’s Think it Through.”
Anonymous:
So, lots of questions/concerns, but interestingly enough, you might actually be wrong about the temple.
In the 1990 changes the law of chastity went from gendered to non-gendered. Since now everybody just follows chastity by restricting sexual relations to their legal spouse, theoretically, a legal gay marriage does not violate that covenant.
You don't have to teach two laws. You just have to apply the one law equally.
SoL response:
First, we don’t know what you mean by any change “from gendered to non-gendered.” We’re pretty sure the words “husband or wife” are meant to refer to opposite sexes.
Second, your theory does not hold water. The law of the land may sanction "gay marriage," but this does not change God's law of chastity which says that homosexual sex is out of bounds, monogamous or not. You seem to have ignored the fact that the very nature of homosexuality is unchaste. And of course monogamy does not necessarily equal chastity in any case. There are many ways heterosexual married people can be unchaste, too. Even our feelings and thoughts can be unchaste, such as lusting after other people's spouses. Our outward behavior, as well as all our desires, passions, and appetites, are to be kept within God's law.
Anonymous:
So, lots of questions/concerns, but interestingly enough, you might actually be wrong about the temple.
In the 1990 changes the law of chastity went from gendered to non-gendered. Since now everybody just follows chastity by restricting sexual relations to their legal spouse, theoretically, a legal gay marriage does not violate that covenant.
You don't have to teach two laws. You just have to apply the one law equally.
SoL response:
First, we don’t know what you mean by any change “from gendered to non-gendered.” We’re pretty sure the words “husband or wife” are meant to refer to opposite sexes.
Second, your theory does not hold water. The law of the land may sanction "gay marriage," but this does not change God's law of chastity which says that homosexual sex is out of bounds, monogamous or not. You seem to have ignored the fact that the very nature of homosexuality is unchaste. And of course monogamy does not necessarily equal chastity in any case. There are many ways heterosexual married people can be unchaste, too. Even our feelings and thoughts can be unchaste, such as lusting after other people's spouses. Our outward behavior, as well as all our desires, passions, and appetites, are to be kept within God's law.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Pure Love 101
We received this short comment from "Anonymous" concerning our previous post about gay sensitivity training in church.
"There are many ways to hate people. Ask yourselves this - would Jesus hate them too? No (need it be even said...) Love them; it’s harder but better for all in the long run."
This is our response:
Thanks for commenting. May we suggest that if you're going to invoke the name of Christ, you better know what he is really about.
There may be many ways to hate people, but there is only one way to truly love them. The one most pure and correct way, the way Jesus loves us, is perfectly patient, but does not enable our stagnation, errors, sins, or self-destruction. We are called upon to put off the natural man inside us who is so prone to wander away from God and His goodness. He invites each of us to become a new, selfless person intent on doing God's will, which will at some time or other mean putting aside our own will, as Jesus exemplified by His life and Atonement. And of course it’s entirely up to each of us. If and when we accept Christ as our Savior we are obligated to share the good news.
Most people neglect to separate people's infinite worth from the things they say and do. By making this mistake, they make more mistakes, among them, tending to embrace people’s wrong ideas and behaviors while forgetting to truly value the people. Would you encourage your friend to chain smoke or abuse drugs? No. And yet this is what gay-sympathizers are doing. They are encouraging an unnatural and extremely addictive and risky lifestyle. It doesn’t have to be this way. With a little courage you can value and love people and disapprove of the things they do come what may. Society does it all the time. Parents do it every day and correct their children. God gives us an unchanging standard to go by.
You say it is hard to love them but better for all in the long run. But your "love" and your "long run" are different than Christ's. Yours are based on comfortable human relations and the now, his are based on a relationship first with God the Father and with eternal growth and progress for His children. You say it is "hard" to love them; but it is always easier to go along with wayward people than to take a stand and truly love them. What you call love accepts people's unnatural self-determined sexual orientation (without even wondering what travesties may have caused it) because you would rather enjoy "peace" and be liked than do the difficult, right thing. What you call love does not take into account the person's temporal or spiritual safety, health, well-being, progress, and posterity. Rather than any kind of pretense of love, that sounds more like one of those many self-interested ways to hate.
C. S. Lewis put it so well: "Love may forgive all infirmities and love still in spite of them; but Love cannot cease to will their removal . . . Love is something more stern and splendid than mere kindness."
Friday, February 5, 2010
Gay Sensitivity Training -- In Church?
Yes, it's happening. Only, we didn't imagine bishops and stake presidents would be the instigators. It all comes as a sort of backlash on the wake of the Prop 8 victory. It seems as if some Mormons couldn't take the heat and have now organized gay sensitivity training sessions.
In California, during church services, assigned speakers claimed a gay identity and told their sob stories to a captive audience, eliciting weeping and hugging. Handouts with gay-affirming quotes and personal experiences replaced the scriptures. (No, you won't find quotes from The Miracle of Forgiveness
here.) Read this emotionalized propaganda from the Salt Lake Tribune, "Gay rights: Oakland LDS Stake tries to heal post-Prop 8 rifts." (We wonder how orthodox members would feel in such a meeting. Or how about a person who was involved in homosexuality and who then wanted out, turned away from it, and repented by the grace of Christ?)
Perhaps these Oakland people never understood the demands of religion in the first place. They seem to have set aside God in favor of personal comfort and convenience. For "gays," it's their unnatural sexual inclinations they put before God. For the others, it's public opinion they put before God. Gays want to be seen as victims, their supporters want to be seen as compassionate, all so they'll be popular with each other. (And it's especially incredible to us that no one seems at all concerned about what horrors might have caused this travesty in the first place, or the welfare of anybody's body or soul.)
Perhaps every one of us is in danger of forgetting, or never knew, the essence of Christianity. Some seem to have adopted a make-shift, Jesus-Lite, pretend religion that is based on human relations and is much easier to take than actual religion.
Evidently in some LDS wards God is out. Homosexuality is in. So what will we see happening in our church meetings next? See a previous post, "Gays in the Church? Let's Think It Through." We are very naive if we think Mormon gays' "rights" will end with group sensitivity training sessions. As they themselves say, "It's a step."
Please note that we are not opposed to those with sexual problems participating in church along with the rest of us sinners. We say: love them, welcome them, encourage them to repent, get help, and overcome this stagnating sin so they can move forward. What's horribly wrong here is the public acceptance and normalization of homosexuality itself. We are doing an unspeakably terrible disservice to these deceived and confused people by not offering truth, repentance, and help. We're also hurting children, youth, and ourselves who are being exposed to this travesty as if it is harmless.
The truly religious strive to change themselves to fit God. What we see here is a bunch of pseudo-religious people striving to change God to fit themselves. Sad.
In California, during church services, assigned speakers claimed a gay identity and told their sob stories to a captive audience, eliciting weeping and hugging. Handouts with gay-affirming quotes and personal experiences replaced the scriptures. (No, you won't find quotes from The Miracle of Forgiveness
here.) Read this emotionalized propaganda from the Salt Lake Tribune, "Gay rights: Oakland LDS Stake tries to heal post-Prop 8 rifts." (We wonder how orthodox members would feel in such a meeting. Or how about a person who was involved in homosexuality and who then wanted out, turned away from it, and repented by the grace of Christ?)Perhaps these Oakland people never understood the demands of religion in the first place. They seem to have set aside God in favor of personal comfort and convenience. For "gays," it's their unnatural sexual inclinations they put before God. For the others, it's public opinion they put before God. Gays want to be seen as victims, their supporters want to be seen as compassionate, all so they'll be popular with each other. (And it's especially incredible to us that no one seems at all concerned about what horrors might have caused this travesty in the first place, or the welfare of anybody's body or soul.)
Perhaps every one of us is in danger of forgetting, or never knew, the essence of Christianity. Some seem to have adopted a make-shift, Jesus-Lite, pretend religion that is based on human relations and is much easier to take than actual religion.
Evidently in some LDS wards God is out. Homosexuality is in. So what will we see happening in our church meetings next? See a previous post, "Gays in the Church? Let's Think It Through." We are very naive if we think Mormon gays' "rights" will end with group sensitivity training sessions. As they themselves say, "It's a step."
Please note that we are not opposed to those with sexual problems participating in church along with the rest of us sinners. We say: love them, welcome them, encourage them to repent, get help, and overcome this stagnating sin so they can move forward. What's horribly wrong here is the public acceptance and normalization of homosexuality itself. We are doing an unspeakably terrible disservice to these deceived and confused people by not offering truth, repentance, and help. We're also hurting children, youth, and ourselves who are being exposed to this travesty as if it is harmless.
The truly religious strive to change themselves to fit God. What we see here is a bunch of pseudo-religious people striving to change God to fit themselves. Sad.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Freedoms at Risk
Incredibly, some people continue to voice the ironic sentiment that we at the Standard of Liberty should not be allowed to speak, blog, send emails, or anything of the sort. This is nothing new. We have been dealing with this oppression and persecution for ten years and it is precisely the reason we chose the name we did for our organization. Yes, we are free, whether certain people like it or not, to practice our religion and speak our minds. As such, there is nothing some people would like better than to shut us up. We wonder if they realize that by hoping to curtail our constitutional liberties (which we utilize within the law and without hurting anyone), they may end up also curtailing their own.
George Orwell, in the 1940s, put it this way. Not only is "the very concept of objective truth fading out of the world,"but "almost certainly we are moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships -- an age in which freedom of thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless abstraction." The first things to go in such a nightmare are sexual morality, religion, and free speech, and we are well into making that nightmare a reality. Read: political correctness, hate crimes bills, anti-discrimination laws based on perverse sexual identification and behavior, pressure and punishments given to churches, fines and imprisonment of orthodox Christians, all of which increasingly favor a person's or group's unlimited sexual freedom over all other considerations, including public decency, safety of children, and our still constitutionally enumerated and guaranteed first amendment freedoms.
Who knew through what avenue totalitarianism would actually creep into America, that it could be through something so ordinary and hackneyed as sexual immorality, among other things? Not Orwell, although he did warn that ". . . all societies, as the price of survival, have to insist on a fairly high standard of sexual morality. . . Society has always to demand a little more from human beings than it will get in practice. It has to demand faultless discipline and self-sacrifice, it must expect its subjects to work hard, pay their taxes, and be faithful to their wives, it must assume that men think it glorious to die on the battlefield and women want to wear themselves out with child-bearing."
(Incidentally, isn't it amazing that these very situations Orwell so casually lists in an obscure essay are the very issues being denigrated today? Taken point for point, our culture has been infiltrated with a welfare entitlement mentality, those who think they are above paying their taxes, adultery, homosexuality, and family abandonment, the idea that there is nothing worth dying for, and the belittling of motherhood except perhaps as the least-priority portion of a woman's personal self-fulfillment, as if the obligation to propagate the human race were completely optional, if not evil.)
President Joseph F. Smith knew. He said, "There are at least three dangers that threaten the Church within, and the authorities need to awaken to the fact that the people should be warned unceasingly against them. As I see these, they are flattery of prominent men in the world, false educational ideas, and sexual immorality. But the third subject mentioned -- personal purity, is perhaps of greater importance than either of the other two. We believe in one standard of morality for men and women. If purity of life is neglected, all other dangers set in upon us like rivers of waters when the flood gates are opened." (Improvement Era, Vol. 17, No. 5. p.476. March 1914.)
It is not only the integrity of churches that are threatened by sexual immorality. It is society as a whole and every person's individual freedom.
George Orwell, in the 1940s, put it this way. Not only is "the very concept of objective truth fading out of the world,"but "almost certainly we are moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships -- an age in which freedom of thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless abstraction." The first things to go in such a nightmare are sexual morality, religion, and free speech, and we are well into making that nightmare a reality. Read: political correctness, hate crimes bills, anti-discrimination laws based on perverse sexual identification and behavior, pressure and punishments given to churches, fines and imprisonment of orthodox Christians, all of which increasingly favor a person's or group's unlimited sexual freedom over all other considerations, including public decency, safety of children, and our still constitutionally enumerated and guaranteed first amendment freedoms.
Who knew through what avenue totalitarianism would actually creep into America, that it could be through something so ordinary and hackneyed as sexual immorality, among other things? Not Orwell, although he did warn that ". . . all societies, as the price of survival, have to insist on a fairly high standard of sexual morality. . . Society has always to demand a little more from human beings than it will get in practice. It has to demand faultless discipline and self-sacrifice, it must expect its subjects to work hard, pay their taxes, and be faithful to their wives, it must assume that men think it glorious to die on the battlefield and women want to wear themselves out with child-bearing."
(Incidentally, isn't it amazing that these very situations Orwell so casually lists in an obscure essay are the very issues being denigrated today? Taken point for point, our culture has been infiltrated with a welfare entitlement mentality, those who think they are above paying their taxes, adultery, homosexuality, and family abandonment, the idea that there is nothing worth dying for, and the belittling of motherhood except perhaps as the least-priority portion of a woman's personal self-fulfillment, as if the obligation to propagate the human race were completely optional, if not evil.)
President Joseph F. Smith knew. He said, "There are at least three dangers that threaten the Church within, and the authorities need to awaken to the fact that the people should be warned unceasingly against them. As I see these, they are flattery of prominent men in the world, false educational ideas, and sexual immorality. But the third subject mentioned -- personal purity, is perhaps of greater importance than either of the other two. We believe in one standard of morality for men and women. If purity of life is neglected, all other dangers set in upon us like rivers of waters when the flood gates are opened." (Improvement Era, Vol. 17, No. 5. p.476. March 1914.)
It is not only the integrity of churches that are threatened by sexual immorality. It is society as a whole and every person's individual freedom.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Still Standing
We have been very busy in recent months (a wedding of one child and triplets born to another!) and have not given attention to this blog. Checking our emails, we found that the publisher and author of No Going Back, the terrible book we recently reviewed, and some other people, are very upset with us. We have received email after lengthy email defending this book to us or because of us.
It turns out these are people with multiple problems. Even though they profess to be latter-day saints, they are passionate about arguing for the sin and weakness and confusion of homosexual lust. Hope for repenting of and overcoming homosexual thoughts and feelings is something they simply are not interested in. In addition, they cannot take criticism, so they demand that we apologize for our views.
This reaction is sophomoric and highly unprofessional. When people organize, write, or publish, they open themselves up to critical thinking and responses. Our response is sincere, well thought out, logical, and orthodox. It concerns ideas and principles. We have not "misrepresented" anyone or anything. But all that aside, it appears that these people have decided that we at the Standard of Liberty are not entitled to our opinion. And some wonder why we call ourselves the Standard of Liberty!
With all the positive feedback being reported by Zarahemla Books about this book, it seems strange that they are spending so much time and effort and words fretting about us. When people are overly defensive like this, their position tends to weaken. All we can surmise is that we have hit a nerve. They are not as confident as they let on. They seem to need everyone's approval. Sounds not only unprofessional but a bit pathological, OCD, or at least high school.
We have nothing more to say about this very bad book. Those who are unhappy about our assessment and our views and demand that we change them are out of luck. We will continue to stand for the truth come what may.
It turns out these are people with multiple problems. Even though they profess to be latter-day saints, they are passionate about arguing for the sin and weakness and confusion of homosexual lust. Hope for repenting of and overcoming homosexual thoughts and feelings is something they simply are not interested in. In addition, they cannot take criticism, so they demand that we apologize for our views.
This reaction is sophomoric and highly unprofessional. When people organize, write, or publish, they open themselves up to critical thinking and responses. Our response is sincere, well thought out, logical, and orthodox. It concerns ideas and principles. We have not "misrepresented" anyone or anything. But all that aside, it appears that these people have decided that we at the Standard of Liberty are not entitled to our opinion. And some wonder why we call ourselves the Standard of Liberty!
With all the positive feedback being reported by Zarahemla Books about this book, it seems strange that they are spending so much time and effort and words fretting about us. When people are overly defensive like this, their position tends to weaken. All we can surmise is that we have hit a nerve. They are not as confident as they let on. They seem to need everyone's approval. Sounds not only unprofessional but a bit pathological, OCD, or at least high school.
We have nothing more to say about this very bad book. Those who are unhappy about our assessment and our views and demand that we change them are out of luck. We will continue to stand for the truth come what may.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)