Why I voted for President Obama:


Part of it is that I simply like President Obama. I think he has basically done a good job as president, with some exceptions, of course. I do believe he stopped the economic downfall with the stimulus package. I believe he tried his darndest to work with Republicans at the chagrin of his Democratic cohorts and despite the fact that the Republicans blocked him at every turn. I actually like his healthcare plan and because of it, my daughter Vienna, who would otherwise be ineligible for our insurance at her age, was able to get the best care for her recent eye nerve palsy. I do trust Obama and though like any politician he's done his fair share of taking things out of context, exaggerating and even lying, I believe for the most part he's been honest with us about what needs to be done. He still embodies some hope for our country to me.



But, another reason I voted for Obama is that I am really angry at the Republicans. I think they have acted reprehensibly over the last four years and in this election cycle. They try to tell us that pretty much everything bad about our country right now is Obama's fault but I was there and I remember the obstructionism done by the Republicans. Some even outright said their first priority was to make Obama a one-term President. That is shameful! I simply wasn't going to reward that behavior with my vote. And maybe even worse was their behavior during this campaign. If I hear "I built that" or that Obama is a socialist or that he lied about Bengazi one more time, I think I'll scream! These lies and fear tactics make me sick. He didn't say you didn't build your business, he is FAR from a real socialist and he was prudent with the information he divulged about Bengazi FOR GOOD REASON! And, sure the Dems did some of that, too but not nearly to the extent the Reps did. My gauge is my anger and I never got as angry at Democratic tactics as I did the Republicans. Again, it was disgraceful - simply bad sportsmanship.



However, if Romney had been a better candidate, I might have been swayed. I really wanted to vote for a Mormon. At least I would know that person would hold many of my personal views about life and the big picture. Unfortunately, I don't think he's a good representative of our faith. We are taught to be honest in ALL our dealings with our fellow men and I don't believe he has been - especially when you consider he is responsible for his own campaign. Maybe candidates have to move one way for the primaries and then another way for the general election, but he could have done so while also maintaining a core set of beliefs. I honestly don't know what he represents or what he would do as president, not on the economy, not on the social issues that matter to me most and certainly not on foreign affairs. In that area, in particular, I think he is weak in his understanding and convictions. It's too bad too because I believe he is a very good man, a good husband and father and someone who has a history and foundation in Christ and service to others. Being a Mormon gives you that. I probably would have voted for Hunstman.



So, with all of my own wavering through this process and after irritating many, especially my patient husband, with my differing views, I come in on the side of President Obama and hope he wins. But, no matter who wins, my biggest hope is that both sides can stop hating the other and start working together again. I don't think that's possible, but we've all got to get over our sore-loserness, find common ground, and compromise to solve our problems rather than dig our heels into whatever ideology we've chosen to prescribe to. Our country is just going to continue downward until we do.

God's plan in Politics- part 3, Foreign affairs

Turning our attention to foreign affairs in our quest to find out how God's plan would work in politics, the biggest issues that tend to loom are war and intervention - mainly when to do them. I tried to remember what policies each end of the political spectrum had but I had trouble so I looked it up. It turns out that it's not that easy to figure out, especially for the right. It seems the parties have changed their stances through recent history so this won't be very helpful in deciding which I prefer at the end of this experiment. But, I can at least work on God's plan as it relates to foreign affairs in general.

Let's start with war because I think that might be easier. It's clear in the scriptures that God dislikes war (Isaiah 2:4, Psalms 46:9) but that He also knows that it is sometimes necessary (Ecclesiastes 3:1,8). The question is when is it right to go to war or start a war and when is it wrong? I believe, from my upbringing in the LDS church and my studies in the scriptures that the only two good reasons to go to war are for self-defense or when God specifically says to. In the Book of Mormon, it is clear that it is ok to go to war in self-defense. The Nephites had to do this a lot because the Lamanites attacked them, their families and their freedom. In one such instance, the Lord tells the Nephites, "Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed." (Alma 43:47).

In the Old Testament, we find an instance of God telling the Israelites to go to war. God gives the land of Israel to the Israelites and they must go to war with Canaan to get it. In the book of Joshua, you can read where God has told him to do this. "now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel." (Joshua 1:2) In this instance, God was explicit that they were not to take of the spoils of the war - everything was to be destroyed.

Other than these reasons, it is hard to justify a war. I think even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are hard to defend because we could reasonably have bolstered our own homeland security, which we did, and gone after terrorist cells using special forces, which we also did. We could reasonably say that it is self-defense to go after these bad guys in this way since they're the ones eager and capable of coming after us. But, to invade a whole country, whose government is not actively attacking us, is not really in the realm of self-defense. You may argue that the government was harboring the terrorist cells but it would be a much more prudent action to impose sanctions, get a coalition together to do the same and pressure the government to assist us in getting the bad guys or allow us to come in and do it ourselves. This would be much more along God's ideas of how we should conduct ourselves than going to an all-out war, which endangers many more innocents.

Another arguable reason to go to war would be humanitarian - a brutal regime oppressing its citizens, such as what we see in Syria or in the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan. But, I don't believe God's plan would allow for us to do that, either. Again the action to take that would better fit His plan would be sanctions and pressure from other countries and to bolster the security of the people where we can. There is a great example of this in the Book of Mormon. A large group of Lamanites who had at one time attacked and killed Nephites on a regular basis, were converted to the gospel by some of those Nephites and vowed never to take up arms again. They buried all of their weapons of war as a sign of their covenant and called themselves Anti-Nephi-Lehis. When the other Lamanites came to attack them, instead of digging up their weapons, they "prostrated themselves before them to the earth", meaning they literally laid down at the mercy of their attackers' feet. The Nephites never attacked the Lamanites in return, even though this group of people who had just converted, were being slaughtered. When the Lamanites saw that the Anti-Nephi-Lehis were not going to fight or run away, many of them threw down their weapons of war and repented of all the murders they had done before and joined them. The rest of them eventually slinked away after having killed about a thousand people. But, more than twice that joined them. Even though the Nephites did not attack the Lamanites, they did move the Anti-Nephi-Lehis to new land within their borders so that they could protect them. And this they did through several attacks by the Lamanites. This is an amazing testament to the power of righteousness and a perfect example of how to perpetuate God's plan, even in times of war.

Remember that war means loss of life, which is precious and should be preserved as much as possible. Lives are already being lost in some countries because of internal strife, a cruel dictator or other oppression, but those lives that are lost because of the free choice of other human beings stand as witness to the evil that is being perpetrated and God will punish those that commit those crimes. Another story in the BofM is of Alma and Amulek who are imprisoned for preaching and all those who believe are burned. Amulek knows he and Alma could stop them by the power of God and asks Alma to do something to save the people. Alma replies:

"The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord... doth suffer that they may do this thing,... that the judgements which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day." (Alma 14: 11)

So, if you think that drunk driver or that rapist/murderer is getting away with something - he isn't. And neither are the despots that are making their own people suffer.

Also, those that lose their lives will find peace and their eternal reward waiting for them, as illustrated by the Anti-Nephi-Lehis who died. It says in the Book of Mormon "and we know that they are blessed for they have gone to dwell with their God" (Alma 24: 22).

Finally, those who survive will have endured trials that will raise them up in the eyes of God and increase their reward because of those trials. Remember Job and that he was blessed "twice as much as he had before" all of his trials (Job: 42.10). Another scripture that comes to mind here is Doctrine and Covenants 122:7 which says:

"And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee;...and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good."

I think when considering God's plan for us and the rest of humanity, it is best to take a prime directive approach to war - allow other countries to run themselves, progress or digress, and make their own mistakes on their own. Their people have their own lessons to learn in this life and so unless those people or governments are actively trying to get us, we should allow God's plan to move forward for them without our interference.

When I asked Andy about this, I asked him if he knew for a certainty that his neighbor was right this minute beating his wife, would he go into their home to stop him or would he call the police? He said he'd go into their house to stop him. I think that is a good point, but I think that God's plan would call for us to find a peaceful way to stop that man once we got into the house, and to stop the dictator's evil.

When it comes to non-military intervention, we should take a similar stance, with some differences. A good analogy is that of a community of families or households. We would not intervene in someone else's affairs unless there was a dire need or, if they asked for help in some way. But, otherwise, their lives, decisions, and trials are their own and we would not barge in with our own ideas trying to change things. The same would be true in our community of countries. Live and let live but if there is a humanitarian need, let's get in there and help, where we can. This goes along with several of the principals we've discussed, free agency, self-reliance, the value of service and the idea that each person's/country's lives and paths are their own and their struggles are what God has given them to work through. The bottom line is unless it's a humanitarian need, we shouldn't be interfering to change regimes, drive a country in another direction or even to force Democracy on them. If they want Democracy, they'll get it for themselves.

It was difficult to find scriptures on these specific topics but using what I know and the scriptures we've used before, I think these ideas would be compatible with God's plan. But, I would love to hear your input - less on what you or your political party believes, though - and more on how you think God would expect us to handle these situations.

Thank you for indulging me in my exploration of ideas. I hope it was some sort of help to you or at least entertaining. I was right, though that it didn't help me much to decide on a party or candidate to vote for in this election. I think both parties have some ideas that go along with God's plan for us and each has ideas that are decidedly not along God's path. I am getting closer, though.

God's Plan in Politics - Part 2 - Social issues, section 1

Ok everyone, strap in because we're talking about social issues, this time. We think the economy is controversial but it doesn't hold a candle to these doozies. If you didn't get to read my first blog in this series, check it out. It's about economics and how God's plan would define the perfect economic system. Today I'm going to explore how God's plan relates to social issues in politics to see if I can determine where the true answers lie on the conservative-liberal spectrum. My hope is that this can help me decide which party to support in the coming election. We'll see if this works. I will be splitting this one into two sections. As I wrote it, it got pretty long.

Abortion: Let's start with my favorite topic, abortion. It's probably the most controversial of these, except maybe gay marriage but abortion is the one I'm most passionate about and this is my blog so I'm making it first. Being a strict pro-lifer, I've never given the choice issue the weight that maybe it deserves in the debate. Life and choice seem completely contradictory. But, recently I have been considering one of the most important principles of the gospel, at least from a Mormon perspective and that is free agency. We, Mormons, believe that is one of the great laws that even God will not bend. He will not disturb someone's free agency, even if someone is going to die because of someone else's choices. So, how does this play into the abortion issue? That's a tough one.

Of course we have to start with life and the great value of it in God's plan. Taking someone's life is not only breaking God's law, we consider it the most egregious sin, except for denying the Holy Ghost outright. So, if you believe that life begins somewhere in the womb, and not once the fetus emerges, and you define yourself as a Christian, I don't see how you could not believe that taking that life is a great sin, especially considering the innocence of the child. There is nowhere in the time of the pregnancy which it would be considered safe to have an abortion and still be within God's law because we have no idea at what point God sends His child's spirit into the growing body. On top of that, if you believe as we do that we come to this Earth to learn, be tested and gain experience in this life, abortion takes all those opportunities away from a brother or sister spirit. There are several scriptures against killing - I'm sure we know them well:

"Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13, and repeated in 9 different places within the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants)

"Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth" (2Nephi 9:35)

"He that kills shall not have forgiveness" (D&C 42:18)

But what of choice? From the very beginning, Adam and Eve, God has emphasized choice - "Of every tree...thou mayest freely eat" (Genesis 2:16). Does this mean that we should have the freedom to choose abortion? That the law should not hinder that choice? Let's read further in that same chapter in Genesis: "But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:17) God is clearly giving the law and the consequence of breaking that law. So, we see that clearly God believes in laws and their consequences. But, that doesn't answer the deeper question- whether a man-made government has the right to make such a law. There are actually some scriptures that address this, or at least our responsibility to keep those laws:

"Be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates" (Titus 3:1)

"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me." (D&C 98:5)

So, it would seem that God accepts governments, and their making of laws - as long as they are constitutional and supporting freedom and rights. The question of whether a law against abortion is unconstitutional is basically one of opinion and depending on the members of the court who hear it, could be different. But, that matters less than the right that a government has to ban abortion.

So, it comes down to this, in my view: abortion is against God's law and thus, should be against human law, as well. Women have a choice, a God-given freedom of agency to break God's law, whether there is a man-made law in place or not. It does not take away a woman's choice any more than the law against murder keeps a killer from making that choice. The only difference is that there are earthly consequences as well as heavenly ones to making that choice.

There is a group that I subscribe to called Feminists for Life that advocates greater support for women who find themselves pregnant unexpectedly. They, as I, believe that if these women had greater financial, emotional and moral support, there would be no more need for abortion. These women would have a better choice to either keep the baby or put him/her up for adoption. They recognize that abortion does neither the baby or the woman any good and most of the time women greatly regret the decision. I believe this is the answer that fits in God's plan. There should be a man-made law that matches God's law to give every child a chance to live - no exceptions as in God's plan there would not be any. Along with this law, there should be immense, government supported help for any woman who is surprised by a pregnancy. Our culture and society should open their hearts and arms to these ladies to help them make the right choice and to support that choice through encouraging the father's support, encouraging colleges to provide services so women can complete their education, workplaces to provide child care and other needed services so women can keep working if they want and need to. Most of all, society needs to reject any stigma against an unwed mother that may still be lingering and especially any stigma against putting a child up for adoption so that this choice is viable and preferable.

On the spectrum of right/left, I think this answer falls to the right because of their support for a law. I have yet to see either side take up a policy for greater support for unwed mothers to prevent abortion. Tell your party to be the first!!

Gay Marriage: Maybe even more explosive than abortion, gay marriage has proven to gain support more and more every year. It is likely to be legalized everywhere one day. But, should it? As Christians, should we be considering God's plan when voting on this divisive issue? It is one that feels good to support. Everyone deserves love and to spend their lives with the one they love without fear of losing valuable privileges that are given to other couples. We are told to love one another so does opposing gay marriage mean you are a bigot? These are all questions that I think can be answered by the gospel and God's plan for us as we live on this earth.

We all know that the scriptures denounce the practice of homosexuality (Lev. 18:22, 1 Tim 1:10, 2 Ne. 13:9) But, we must balance that with the second greatest commandment "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matt 5:43 and in ten other scriptures) and what Christ taught "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another" (John 13:34 and in at least 4 other scriptures). So, how do we love our brothers and sisters who are homosexual without condoning their actions? And, is the issue of gays having the opportunity to marry even our business?

God's plan is clear that the nuclear man/woman based family is how it should be, based on his commandments, for multiplying and replenishing the earth (Gen. 1:28 a commandment we still believe to be in force, as stated in the Mormon document "The Family A Proclamation to the World") and for the ideal balance of gender qualities it brings to a family. This is the ideal that is expressed in the proclamation: "Marriage between a man and woman is essential to His eternal plan." Further, the Proclamation describes the sacred gender roles that a father and mother have in the family and how those are critical to the best way to rear children:

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

"Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation", it says. But, the ideal is clear and we should consistently support the ideal, even if it doesn't always happen.

Further, Mormons and Christians believe in the sacred nature of procreation. We literally work with God to create bodies for his child spirits to inhabit. Misusing that sacred power is troubling to Him, to say the least. As Christians, we must support God's plan in every way, including in the voting booth. If we don't, we will have to face Him one day and account for our own actions.

However, His law is also very clear that we should love everyone, including those with whose lifestyle we don't agree. We must also allow them the same free agency that I spoke of above. Everyone is on this Earth to deal with the physical, emotional, mental and sexual qualities that God gave them and not only are we not to judge others and their actions, we are to love and support them where we can - where we are not violating our own values. This means we should not be hindering their legal rights as a couple, in fact, compassion dictates that they should be allowed to visit one another in hospitals, should be allowed to be each other's beneficiaries in whatever benefits or legal processes they're involved in. If they want tax breaks as married couples have, fine - allow that. It doesn't hurt anyone and shows the love and compassion the Savior would have for them. Those are things of Caesar and of governments and if government makes these things legal, then I would happily support them.

I think God's plan is very clear on how we are to get along in this world with one another. Live and let live where we can but we should not promote an institutionalized practice that is counter to His plan and His will for us on this Earth. Again, my belief is His plan is for us to vote against gay marriage but accept and love all people as our brothers and sisters - as they truly are.

I don't think either party has addressed this issue appropriately. Though the right tends to believe in marriage only between a man and woman, they also tend to lack the compassion and support they should be giving to those who have same-sex relationships or the ability to compromise so they can have legal rights that married couples have. The left seems to ignore the ideal of the nuclear family in favor of allowing gay marriage. On this issue, I declare a draw. We need to go back to the drawing table and come up with a system that shows the love and compassion that gay couples need and deserve while still setting apart marriage for heterosexual couples.

Next time, I'll try to tackle the death penalty, stem cell use and euthanasia - what fun topics, huh? :\ Well, hopefully we're all getting something out of this. Feel free to argue with me and express your opinion. Who knows you might change my mind! ;-)

And, in case you missed it, here's a link to part one of my series of God's Plan in Politics - the Economy.

Applying God's Plan to Politics - Part 1

I have been thinking lately about politics, as many of us have. Choosing a Presidential candidate has been difficult for me since I see value in both parties as well as severe problems. I decided to see if I could apply what I KNOW I believe to be true to this dilemma; my Mormon/Christian beliefs. I think that I have discovered that with the correct understanding of God's plan, Christ's atonement and the principles embedded in those, I can answer most any political question. Of course this is using my interpretation of God's plan but I think I can back it up with scriptures and history. So, if you're interested, come along on this journey with me through the next few posts and let's see if I'm right. And, please comment, ask questions, and help me tweak these ideas or tell me where you think I'm flat out wrong. But, to do that, I need you to put aside your already political thinking and try to tap into your Christian understandings, if those are what you subscribe to. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how these might work with other belief systems but I'd love to hear your thoughts on those, too.


In going through this exercise, I hope to figure out which party and candidate to support in the upcoming election. My hypothesis, however is that I won't be able to do that because both parties have some of the ideals that I'll be talking about. I'm not sure yet if one of them will stand out as enshrining a majority of the principles in God's plan. So this exercise may be for naught. But it should be fun, anyway.

Let's start with economics since that seems to be of highest priority in this election. Republicans and those on the right seem subscribe to capitalism with as little government involvement as possible - let the market work things out. Whereas the Democrats and those on the left seem to be a bit more flexible on this. They too believe in capitalism but seem to think it's ok for the federal government to get involved when things seem to go against some people. So, what might God prescribe as the optimal way to manage an economy?

As I see it, there are several instances in scripture and history where God's people have used one particular economic system. In the early days of the Mormon church, this system was called the United Order, but we find it also described as "having all things in common". We, in the Mormon faith say that it is a "divine principle whereby men and women voluntarily dedicate their time, talents, and material wealth to the establishment and building up of God’s kingdom." (LDS.org, Guide to the Scriptures). These days, it's practiced in a much milder form, devoting volunteer time and tithing and fast offerings to the church, but back in the day, The United Order was all-encompassing, sharing all wealth, property and time to the community that was the church at the time.

This system is also found in the Book of Mormon, historically around 35-341 AD, after Christ's visit to the people in the Americas. In 4 Nephi 1:3, it says,

"And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift."

But, it is not unique to Mormons. It is also found in the New Testament. Members of the church, converted by the apostles and led by Peter lived the law of consecration. In Acts 2:44,45 it is described like this,

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

In Acts 4:33,34 it further talks about this system,

"neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

In the early history of the church, the United Order did not survive because of the weaknesses of human beings. Greed and jealousy made it impossible. In the New Testament times, Ananias and Sapphira were caught disobeying this law and, combined with lying to the Lord, it got them killed. I think the same greed kept this system from surviving then, as well.

This sounds a lot like Socialism or even Communism, to me. I know that is political blasphemy but it's hard to argue that God has not supported such economic systems in the past. My personal belief is that the Law of Consecration/United Order in its purist form is the ideal economic system that God wants for his people. We, as Mormons, believe it will be reinstituted at the Second Coming, this time permanently with Christ as its head. It is part of His plan for us.

So, in my humble opinion, this preoccupation with such strict capitalism is not God's ideal for us. Failing the actual ideal, we should be institutionally supporting the poor and making the playing field more level for everyone.

However, this system must be combined with the most important value of work. This is also an ideal that God expects of all of his people. How can we help the poor if we, ourselves, are not willing to work? How can we contribute to society or be a good citizen? Helping the poor, in this instance, is not a permanent welfare state. It is a temporary lift up to a point where someone can again work and support the community, in some way.

This idea goes all the way back to Genesis 3:19 which says: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread". The scriptures are replete with verses extolling the value of work and its importance to us and our growth. Here are a few more:

Proverbs 10:16 - "Labour of the righteous tendeth to life"

Proverbs 14:23 - "In all labour there is profit"

Romans 2:10 - "But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good"

Matthew 25:21 - "Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou has been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things"

Mosiah 13:14 - "And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes" (King Mosiah as a great example of this principle)

Alma 36:25 - "The Lord doth give me exceedingly great joy in the fruit of my labors"

D&C 42:42 - "Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer"

D&C 58:27 - "Men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause"

So, when you think about a United Order system- similar to Communism, minus the corruption and dictator, and combine that with work of our own free will to sustain the community and help those who are less fortunate, you get pretty much what God wants us to aspire to.

My lovely daughter Vienna brought up the question - what is the incentive? Great question. I heard recently that people need some sort of incentive or motivation for anything they do. So, what is the motivation to work if you are assured to be cared for by the economic system. Well, in God's system, there are many, including striving toward righteousness, belonging to a larger community, and the pride of working for you and your family. Notice none of these are monetary or material in nature. Humans must grow past their need for such things before this system can work.

My uber-smart husband asked "What about render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?", meaning shouldn't this question be put in the realm of government, and isn't really a religious question at all? That's a fair question. Was Christ really separating the spiritual from the temporal? The quote is found in Matthew 22. The Pharisees were trying to trick him into saying that paying taxes was illegal - wouldn't that be cool? But, Christ knows what they're thinking and quotes this famous phrase, followed by "and unto God the things that are God's". Not only is he fabulously ensnaring the Pharisees in their own trap but also teaching a valuable lesson about the goodness of both paying taxes and, in my opinion, paying tithes. He's basically equating them. Further, we Mormons believe that all things are spiritual. God's plan for us is not a temporal/material one. He wants us to return to Him where material things don't matter. Everything we do here is toward that end. D&C 29:34 says "all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal". Also, one of our main tenants, an Article of Faith, number 12 to be exact, says: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying honoring and sustaining the law". So, as an Article of Faith, government is clearly a spiritual matter to us.

But, to my point, if I am going to use this exercise to help me decide who to vote for in the election and which political party I more align with, that is a trickier question. It would be easy for me to say this leans towards the Democrats because they more strongly believe in a state organized system to help the poor, whereas Republicans are more market-based, believing that smaller charitable organizations are the best way to care for the poor. Plus, I believe the Democrats do have a strong work-ethic, unlike the caricature painted by the right. It was under Clinton that the Welfare-to Work act passed, for example.

But, I am sure that some of my more right-leaning friends might disagree with that, stating that work and self-reliance is center to this system and their economic platform. Their market-driven system requires one to work for his/her own living. But, I think that I would have to counter with their extreme aversion to anything coming even close to Socialism or Communism. Of course, I hope you all fact-check me, correct me and call me on my fallacies.

At this point, though - I think I'm going to have to give this one to the Dems. But, fear not my Republican and far-right friends. Next time, I plan to tackle social issues - abortion, gay marriage, etc. You are sure to prevail as the moral superiors in that arena! Or will you? ;-)

Lessons from Dachau

Lessons from Dachau


Our visit to the Dachau concentration camp left me contemplating what I learned and how I would allow this experience to affect my life. As I noted in my previous post, Dachau 2012, it was a somber and reverent experience being in the place where so many people suffered horribly and died at the hands of other people. Most people recognize the Holocaust as one of the great tragedies of history and an event we never want to repeat, but how much have we really learned from it and what does it mean for me, specifically in my life?

One of the things I recognized while on the grounds was that the people who died there and most, if not all, of those who suffered are now at peace in a place free from pain and suffering. They no longer need our help or our prayers. Appreciating the weight of what happened there is an exercise for ourselves, not for them. We need to fully grasp what happened so that we can take responsibility, as human beings, to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Unfortunately, it is happening again, right now in different parts of the world; atrocities just as gruesome and cruel as the Holocaust. And, until this point, I have neither known or cared much about them. At the Salzburg Seminar, I learned a little about what's happening in Syria. Men, women and children are being killed by the thousands and not much is being done about it. Just last week another village was invaded and 78 people were massacred. There are other atrocities happening all over the world and I know nothing about them.

From my Dachau visit, I have learned that I need to be more informed and active in whatever ways I can to speak out, vote, get involved or otherwise fight against these atrocities. I need to learn more about the UN, Amnesty International and other organizations to see if I should support them or speak out to them in some way. Part of me thinks that as I do this research, I will find that there is little that I can do to help these people around the world. But, if that happens, at least I can pray for them and find more opportunities in my own local community to help and to serve in some way. As a Christian, I believe that every person around the world is a child of God and loved by Him. Each one is a valuable soul and I cannot ignore their suffering.

From my visit and reading from Viktor Frankl's book, "Man's Search for Meaning", I also learned that my personal trials and struggles are what I make of them. In his book, Frankl wrote that:

"Everything can be taken from a man or a woman but one thing: the last of human freedoms to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."

and "When we are no longer able to change a situation - we are challenged to change ourselves."

So, no matter what is happening in my life, I have a choice of attitude and how I will allow the circumstance to change me. The people in concentration camps had this choice, too. Most became defeated, sullen and despondent, and they would not be blamed in the least in their situation. But, some few made a choice to rise above their plight, make right choices to help those around them, even at their own risk, and hold on to hope and faith in the future. Often times this saved them from others and from themselves. Frankl also referred to these struggles as "tasks" to be worked through as opposed to crises that are somehow defeating us. As long as I keep these things in mind, and remind myself of the things I've conquered in the past and that others have lived through, I know I can meet any challenge that the Lord sees fit to give me. I know that they are all for my own growth and perfection.

Finally, I am reminded of what I felt as I walked down the path, beyond the gravesites where were buried the ashes of thousands of unknown people and past the firing range where countless were executed. Seeing the beautiful overgrown plant-life and hearing the birds singing all around, one phrase went through my mind: "The Lord will reclaim His Earth". It was a testament to me that God is in charge. He would not remove the perpetrators' free agency and stop the Holocaust, but He is making that place His own and beautiful again - He is making it right. That reminds me that we are the same way. We may make a mess of our lives but through Him, we can be reclaimed as well and made right. He is reclaiming the souls that were lost in that place decades ago, He is reclaiming the grounds on which those souls suffered, He is dealing with those that perpetrated those evils and He can reclaim us, as well, if we let Him.

I am so grateful for the opportunity I had to visit Dachau and learn these lessons. I hope that I can really learn them by becoming a better person: finding a way to help those who are struggling now, recognizing trials in my life as opportunities to grow, and allowing myself to be reclaimed through God and His work. If you have an opportunity to visit one of these special and, in my opinion, sacred sites, I hope you take it and find some new understanding for yourself. And if you can, read Frankl's book. It will give you a unique perspective on the Holocaust and your own life.

Viktor Frankl, "Man's Search for Meaning"

Wiki article on Dahau

Dachau 2012

Yesterday the Salzburg Seminar group went to the Dachau Concentration Camp. I knew it would be a moving and spiritual experience for me and it was. Words cannot describe the horror that occurred there and nothing I can write will be nearly as moving as being there or even that others have written about the holocaust but I wanted to get down my thoughts before they escape me.

I prepared for the trip by reading most of "Man's Search for Meaning" by Victor Frankl, which describes daily life in a concentration camp and looks at the psychological affects and choices that men have when they are imprisoned there. The book describes details quite well and gives you a good idea of the struggles prisoners have in the camps, while also explaining the choices one has to either give up and wallow in despair or view the experience as your "task" in life to get through with dignity and doing right. Besides being an excellent introduction to what I would see, today, it provides a valuable perspective for anyone who is going through a crisis about how to make the best of it.

I said a prayer before I left that I would be able to feel the Spirit helping me to understand whatever my Father in Heaven wanted me to know or feel from my visit today. He did not let me down. Many people talk of an "aura" about the place. I could definitely feel that but it felt like the Spirit to me - a spirit of respect, grimness and great reverence for the things that happened there. I learned a lot about what led up to the camp and the history of the Nazi regime. Dachau was the first concentration camp and was used as a model for most of the others. Being the first, it housed many prisoners in the early 1930's, before WWII even started. These were mostly political prisoners, people who were against the National Socialist party that was coming into power. It wasn't mostly Jews at first and most people didn't die there - some were actually released after a period of training to be real Germans and worthy of citizenship. Of course they were carefully watched after they left. It wasn't until later that the camps became primarily for Jews and primarily to torture, humiliate and generally make them miserable. It was then that Victor Frankl's account is more applicable.

Walking around the camp, I first saw the area for roll-call, where each morning and night men lined up by the thousands to be counted. They had to stand there for more than an hour at a time, in any weather and no matter what their physical health was, and it was normally at least malnourished and weak. I remember that as I stood there and looked out over that vast area, I could see the image of all those men in ragged uniforms standing row by row.




Looking down Camp Road toward the Maintenance Building with barracks plots on the side



We went through the museum which is in the building where new prisoners were brought to be processed. We took the path that the prisoners took. They were stripped of their clothes and relieved of all of their possessions, recorded carefully in large registries that reminded me of those you'd see when you check into a hotel, categorized and labeled with numbers, by which they would be known (no names were ever used, according to Frankl), and color-coded patches to show why they were there - political dissidence, moral deviancy/criminal behavior, homosexuality and whether they were Jewish, Polish, Russian or whatever and finally cleaned and disinfected before being given prison uniforms - sometimes used by those who had died - and sent to their designated place in the barracks. In each of these rooms I could envision crowds of prisoners being processed into the dreary life they faced ahead.

Right in front of this "Maintenance Building", where the new prisoners were processed, there is now a sculpture memorial. It clearly represents the repulsiveness of the place. Made of iron, it depicts scrawny bodies piled on one another and gives you an uneasy feeling.



Monument in front of the Maintenance Building





There were 30-something barracks, each which should have housed about 50 people but ended up housing hundreds each by the end of the war. By then they slept in bunk boxes (rather than bunk-beds) with so many head to foot in each box that they would all have to roll over at the same time, when a whistle blew. I could clearly see these people in their bunks, wearing the dismal uniforms and looking malnourished. I saw the bathrooms which were just about 9 or so toilets/urinals lined up in one room and two round wash basins in the adjoining room. I could see the men as they washed up at these basins. Early in the history of the camp there was also a room for lockers for each prisoner. These were later removed to put more beds in.





Bunk Beds



There are only two barracks there, now and they have been reconstructed - so nothing original in them. The rest of the barracks are gone, leaving only the obvious plots of where they stood in two long rows on either side of a wide corridor called "Camp Road". I heard somewhere that the prisoners dreamed of walking to their freedom along this road. I could again envision these men crowded in the road each day with guards around them.

The Barracks plots with a reconstructed barracks in the distance.



Behind the barracks, are the memorials by different religions. The only one I really cared to see was the Jewish one which depicted an ugly building with a ramp going down into it with railings that looked like the barbed wire that surrounded the original camp. This memorial was supposed to make you feel like you were going down into a gas chamber and it did its job. In the very bottom, as you are within the dark, brick chamber, there was a hole in the ceiling that looks up to a Menorah on the roof and allows the sunlight to come in. It was here that I started to cry. But, it wasn't just from the incredible sadness I felt for the many people who died there, but also a sense of gratitude in knowing that their souls were taken up and given all the peace and freedom they had longed for. The Spirit was strong there and the veil thin.

Inside the Jewish Memorial

From here we went to the Crematorium section. This was the most emotional place for me. As I looked into the ovens, it was hard not to imagine a human body inside. There really are no words to describe the emotion here. The tears flowed, though. Two rooms away was the gas chamber. This one, it is said, was never actually used. But even if it wasn't, 30,000-40,000 people died in this camp. Many others were shipped to the Auschwitz chamber. You could see, in the chamber, the fake shower holes in the ceiling, drains in the floors and the box in the wall where the pellet would be dropped. This room was completely heart-breaking. There was also another crematorium near this building - the older one where most of the cremations happened.




Ovens in the crematorium

When the liberators came in and began to clean up the place, they found the containers with all the human ashes in them. Ashes of thousands of people who were killed or died of sickness. These ashes were buried in two graves behind the larger building and now have memorial plaques that say "Grave of thousands of unknowns". A small path leading away from these graves, goes into a beautiful garden area, overgrown with trees, flowers and other plants. As I walked down this path, I could hear the birds chirping. Halfway down is a firing range where executions were carried out. Some of the students reported finding bullet holes in the back wall and even one hole with a bullet still in it. I did not go close enough to this wall to see it, but passed it by walking along the loveliness and feeling very emotional. Again there really are no words to describe these emotions but there were so many all combined together within me. As I walked the path, one phrase went through my mind "The Lord will reclaim His Earth".

Path overgrown and beautiful

I felt that no matter what horror these poor people had to endure, it is now over and they are in the comforting arms of the Lord. He will overcome all the terrible things that we do on this Earth and will one day restore beauty and perfection. That is the biggest message that I got from my visit. It brought me such peace to know this but also a lot of inspiration to find more ways in my life to try to end such atrocities or prevent them from happening. I plan to write another piece about the lessons from Dachau but for now, I am happy to end here.

Andy, the students and faculty and I left Dachau a little different, a little better than when we arrived. I think I was prepared for what I saw and experienced there, but I will still never forget it and hope to use what I gained for good in my life.

The Different Definitions of Christianity

I have been loving this recent conversation in the media, online and in our social sphere regarding whether or not we Mormons are Christians. It was begun by two Mormons running for President and spurred by a Baptist Minister calling the LDS church a cult and not Christian. This idea of Mormons being Christian or not has always fascinated me and so this uproar has been quite exciting. I have learned so much in the last few days and I'd like to share my insights.

I now realize that those who really believe that Mormons are not Christian have a very different definition of Christianity than I, and I believe most other people, do. I have been having a Facebook conversation with my very liberal religious studies professor friend who is adamant that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints falls outside the Christian sphere. He says that we are not "historical" or "orthodox" Christians as defined by the Ecumenical councils, the first seven of which were within a thousand years of Christ's death and then there were a whole bunch more after that. The most recent, according to Wikipedia, was in 1670, I think.These councils are regarded as infallible canon by the Catholic and Protestant churches. They set out a lot of definitions and rules that the orthodox Christian world must adhere to.

Because these ideas developed over hundreds of years in many councils, it would take a lot to fully learn and understand them. As my religious studies friend said, it would take about four different classes over about four semesters in college to do it. A "healthy dose of Greek philosophy is helpful to understand some of the more complicated doctrines too, such as the Trinity. And apparently, if you don't believe in the Trinity, three separate beings but all in one God concept, you are not a Christian. Well, I haven't taken those classes, nor do I know any Greek philosophy so I don't know enough about the councils or creeds to speak too much about their principles. But, my definition of Christianity is definitely different.

In fact, most of what I hear in the media doesn't address these councils or whether or not the LDS church adheres to their precepts. Usually, we hear reporters asking their interviewees to address the fact that the LDS church states very clearly that we follow Christ's teachings, that His name is part of our name and that all of our beliefs spelled out on mormon.org (thanks everyone for getting that out there, by the way) are very Christ-centric. This leads me to believe that maybe most people are thinking the same thing that I am - that the definition of Christianity is simply a belief in and following of Christ and His teachings.

This definition stems from the Bible and from common sense - as well as about every dictionary I have seen (see below for some links). The Bible doesn't use the word Christian much, but when it does, it is referring to the disciples of Christ. Acts 11:26 cites the first time the disciples were called Christians in Antioch. The term is also used in 1 Peter 4:16 and Acts 26:28 when King Agrippa tells Paul that he almost persuades him to be a Christian. This is before any councils got together to decide whether or not these disciples believed in the Trinity concept, which is not mentioned at all in the Bible.

So, obviously what we're dealing with are two very different definitions of Christianity.  I'm not here to tell you which you should believe but I do want to tell you why I believe the Biblical definition is the correct one.

The words that my facebook friend used to describe this definition were: historical, orthodox and traditional. He called the influences from the councils that gave rise to this definition historical, theological, political and philosophical. To me, all of these words imply human: in human history, human traditions, human theology, politics and philosophy. None of them address the eternal, spiritual or God-given aspects of a definition of Christianity which I would fully expect something based on Jesus Christ to be. Humans are fallible and imperfect and frankly anything that comes from them is too. How many philosophers have really given us truth? There are a lot of opinions out there of what truth is, but that's certainly not the same. And don't get me started on politicians! And, when you use the word "historical" how infallible can that be? Who's history? Did they write or tell it objectively? How many times have we heard that history is written by the winners or that our kids' history books aren't exactly right? And then there's tradition - the Christmas tree is a tradition, as are candy canes, wreaths, and Santa Claus. Most of these things didn't originally come from the Christian faith, they came from paganism and were adapted. How true or infallible can tradition be if they can so easily be changed and adapted to suit someone's needs?

When I read into the councils and creeds, I found that a lot of the principles were exactly what I've been taught in the LDS church. Check out the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian creed. This last one gets a bit confusing but it and the other ones clearly state many truths that are found in scripture, including that God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate individuals. So, I don't want to disparage these councils at all. I think that those who gathered there were doing their best to grasp the teachings found in the gospels and writings of the apostles as best they could. I believe they were good men doing a good thing and I'm sure did it better than anyone else on the Earth possibly could at that time. I just don't think that you can selectively exclude groups of people who claim to be Christian from this group based on the ideas that came from the councils.

I believe that the simplest and most inclusive definition of Christianity is most appropriate. This definition is what we find in the dictionaries and is clearly implied in the New Testament. Technically, this also comes from humans, but it is the original and simplest definition and is unencumbered by the adaptations and interpretations that came after.

Christians are those that believe in Christ as their savior and follow his teachings. Its canon is the teachings of Christ and the commandments. Its principles are spelled out clearly in the Scriptures - no need for four semesters of college and an knowledge of Greek philosophy to understand them. Its authority does not go back to councils of men but to the original scriptural accounts written by the apostles.

Unfortunately, I don't think the vast majority of people understand these differences. They simply hear their minister or priest say that Mormons aren't Christians and then assume we don't believe in Christ. This is a real shame and so I hope that we can start really discussing these different definitions so people are clearly informed and can make their own decision as to whether they think Mormons are Christian or not.

I'm so glad that we have had this conversation in our country just so that I could more fully get this. I hope that we keep talking about it and that more recognize these differences. I am so glad to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I know I am a Christian, no matter what history or tradition says. I know Christ is my Savior, that he suffered and died for me and my sins and that through Him, I can repent of my transgressions and be saved. I'm so grateful for that knowledge and for the growth in understanding I have had over the last few days. I hope that my learnings have helped you a bit, too.

Some links:
What Mormons believe about Jesus Christ: http://mormon.org/jesus-christ/
My profile on mormon.org: http://mormon.org/me/37PK/

The first four definitions of Christian that came up on Google for me:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christian

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian