Pro-Death?

Wow, It's been a while since I had my own post - but, please forgive me, as I'm living outside of the country - and it has become increasingly difficult to get involved with US current affairs. So here we go. The following is presented with, I admit, some sarcasm - The intent is not to hurt feelings, or belittle anyone, but to show the other point of view:

I was particularly struck with Stephanie's post on the Sanctity of Life. I feel that I have a quite good appreciation of and embracal of the sanctity of life. Therefore, I was, I feel justifiably, perturbed by the continual use of "Pro-Life" as a descriptive for one who takes Stephanie's stances. I felt that if I don't line up with that Pro-life stance, what does that make me? Pro-death? I don't blame Stephanie for this - actually, I think it is quite common, and has been shown over and over again in multiple posts and comments by many conservative contributers. There is an unsettling preference by quite a few to call the morality and desencey of the left-view point into question. I feel this is unfortunate. For this reason, I have decided to, at least for the extent of this post, claim the title of "Pro-death" - since i find myself in a contrary position to what has been defined as the "pro-life stance" on just about every issue.

I am Pro-death. On one level, this means that I am not anti-abortion. Sure, I disagree with people's reasons for abortion most of the time, but I feel that it is their choice to make (because i don't believe that human life starts at fertilization). I can't see a clear way of defining "rape" and therefore cant understand how one could legislate abortion on more than a superficial level. Therefore, I don't think it is a reasonable or helpful legislation to society as a whole. For this reason, I am generally in favor of not legislating abortion - though I think there should be some sort of parental cosent, doctor's consent, etc.

So, I am pro-death on the issue of abortion. But, that is not all. I am also pro-death on the issue of animal rights. I would never define myself that way - I do it, because it seems that my point of view is against the stand taken by pro-lifers. I feel that human kind's gross misuse of animial products and its blatant disregard for animal life is detestable. I am not a member of PETA and disagree with their occasionally voilent approach - but I do think that legilsation against overconsumption is a good idea - even if that meant putting some beef farmers out of business. I could only imagine how their families might suffer when dad's beef production livelihood is brought to a halt. I do consider myself an animal rights actavist. It has been said, "Animal rights activists have no problem potentially killing or maiming children to try and stop animal research." I could argue that I do not fit this stereotype, but will not bother at this point - I am already claiming to be pro-death, afterall.

I am also pro-death because I see some amount of value in stem-cell research (as I see some amount of value in animal research - If done humanely, and respectfully - and not for cosmetics and other useless stuff. I again don't consider embryonic stem-cells to generally be based in human life. Pro-death all the way.

I am also, apperantly pro-death when it comes to the environment. My wife and I have decided to have only 1 or 2 children by means of natural birth (if possible), and to adopt another 1 or 2 from suffering countries. We feel honestly that increasing the population of earth at this stage is irresponsible particularly when there are so many children that are not recieving the basic needs of human life and are dying in suffering countries.

I further feel that trying to "reduce our carbon footprint," besides being very in vouge right now (green is the new black), is a seriously important commitment for people of faith to make. We are the stewards of this planet and have a responsibility to it. I also feel that there comes a certian point where we, as Americans, cease to be responsible and instead, become addicted or obsessed to a certian way of life that has been engrained in us by generations of Christian breeding mixed with the supreme quality in neo-natal and pedeatric health care. The earth (as David has commented) has been replenished - it doesn't need to be desroyed by us - God's crowning creations. In fact, I'm so pro-death that I'd encourage others who are in a position to seriously ponder making a similar choice, as I sincerly feel it to be right - at least for me and my family.

Following my one-two children, I plan on procuring some change to ensure that I don't have more. Indeed, I will intentionally do things to stop a pregnancy from occuring. I will interfer with the natural processes of human sexuality and reproduction and, "play god" to some extent to ensure that my wife and I don't have a pregnancy that we're not prepared for. I see very little difference between unfertilized reproductive cells, and fertilized ones. If this makes me pro-death, then so be-it. However, I am positive that most people, in and out of the church, make a similar choice all of the time.

Refering to the Scripture quoted previously:

For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.

We need to remember that this was revealed in the early 1830's, when the population of planet earth had just reached 1 billion - as opposed to the 7 Billion that it will reach in 2012 - about 200 years later. There definately was enough to spare in 1830. Now, the tables have been turned - thanks to our gross overconsumption. I believe it is "moral" to place the earth and it's needs above the desire to have continually larger and larger families. Is this really pro-death?

I am also pro-death when it comes to dying. I sincerely believe that when a person is in constant pain, suffering, sorrow, and physical anguish - that will NOT get better over the course of his or her natural lifespan, that it is only charitable and loving to allow that person to gracefully exit this life. I read what the official church's stance is. Good for the official stance. That has no bearing on what I sincerely feel in my heart of hearts to be the most cheritable and loving approach. Pro-death one more time.

Because of my stance on these issues, does that make me a champion for human death? I recognize that my opinions will often differ from many of yours - maybe even all of you. But I do not, however, truely feel myself to be pro-death. I simply feel that I view things from a different point of view. Extremes on both sids (blowing up a research lab to blowing up an abortion clinic) are wrong. As long as we are avoiding those extremes, lets work to garner a healthy respect for BOTH points of view, rather than make one the champion of life and the other the champion of...death. Lets keep in mind that we have our different viewpoints for a reason.

111 comments:

Stephanie said...

Rick, no offense taken, of course. I am flattered that a rebuttal to my post requires a whole post.

I do think that legilsation against overconsumption is a good idea

Really? Legislation to limit the amount of animal products people can buy and consume? Who gets to decide how much is enough? What is enough? 1 steak per week? Or are you just going to regulate on the supply side? No thanks - I'm not interested in more government interference in my life.

I believe it is "moral" to place the earth and it's needs above the desire to have continually larger and larger families.

What can you find in current church doctrine to back this up? If D&C is outdated because we have 7 billion people on the planet now, where is the new revelation to support this? How do you know the tables have turned and there are not enough resources on the planet anymore? Al Gore? Your personal reproductive choices are your own. I argued for that in my post, and I support your ability to make them. But, I disagree that the D&C scripture is outdated - unless you can find a more recent conference talk to back that up, or some church doctrine that says the earth does not have "enough to spare" (although prophesy says that in the last days, there will be ecological damage to the earth, famine, drought, etc. I don't think this negates the Family Proclamation - given 13 years ago - that says the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force).

The Faithful Dissident said...

Rick,

I think I agreed with everything you just said. I'm also an animal activist (not in the PETA sense), but I stopped eating meat two years ago for ethical reasons. I feel that the part of the Word of Wisdom regarding meat consumption is the most overlooked and rationalized part. I've taken some flack from fellow Mormons who view vegetarianism as unnecessary, or even a sin. Personally, I find nothing but support from past prophets on the matter, including Joseph Smith. While I don't believe that consuming animals in a matter of life or death is wrong, this is not the case for most of the western world. We have so much good, quality food that we can survive on and live a long, healthy life. I see no valid reason for me to eat a piece of chicken, other than that it might taste good. I don't need it to survive and I have other options. I'd rather sacrifice my taste buds than that chicken's life. I'm appalled by the farming and slaughterhouse practices in much of the world. I know that some people make their living on farming animals for meat, but I can't support everyone and I don't support cruel treatment of animals for the sake of eating something that I don't have to have.

In regards to legislation against overconsumption, I think that would be hard to legislate, but I'm all for incentives for encouraging people to buy organic or non-animal products. Raising animals for meat and then slaughter is one of the biggest contributors of greenhouse gases. Al Gore isn't the only one who says that, just in case Stephanie is wondering.

I also applaud the decision that you and your wife have made concerning children. I expressed my views on the matter under Stephanie's last posting. I think adoption is a wonderful thing and I feel very strongly about going that route if my husband and I ever decide to have children. Global poverty is one reason to adopt, but another big one for me is that I think that Christians need to put their money where their mouth is. I think that in order to legitimately oppose elective abortion, we need to be willing to step up to the plate to take care of the children that the mother would have rather aborted. How many Mormons (or other Christians) do you know who are willing to give up having biological children in order to adopt such a baby? We're so caught up with stopping abortion, that we forget the end result is a baby that needs to be taken care of.

Stephanie, you say that the commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth" is still in force. Indeed it is. But does that mean that we all have to have 10 kids? Is someone who has 1 biological child or chooses to adopt instead of giving birth (even if physically capable) violating the commandment?

Rick, I symptathize with your views on euthanisia. I know what the Church says, but I'm a softie. I hate to see animals or people in pain or suffering. When there is no hope of recovering and death is imminent (or maybe a way's off, such as in the case of the French woman with the face tumour), then it would be excruciatingly difficult to tell that person that they just have to stick it out. I don't think I could do what Dr. Kevorkian did, but honestly I think his heart was in the right place.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Stephanie - legilsation on the production side. The government has and always will regulate food production businesses - if the cost of meat quodrupled, it would not be the government meddling in your life, but, rather, in the meat business.

stephanie said, "What can you find in current church doctrine to back this up? If D&C is outdated because we have 7 billion people on the planet now, where is the new revelation to support this?"

Here you go - here's the revolation you asked for:
D&C 58:26 - 26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

also: D&C 46:7 - 7 But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils

It is clear that just because something may not be a currently supported tentpole of the church does not make it wrong. In fact, the Lord expressedly tells us to seek out truths "as the Spirit testifies" - Those truths for me have become particularly valuable in this everchanging world - the church exists to guide a huge community of believers over 6 continents covering the globe. Just because something might not fall under the banner of doctrine that it chooses to make general to the whole body of saints does not make that something wrong, unnecessary, or unimportant. And just because something might not support the official position - well, As I see it an official position is just that - a position, in case the media asks some Church representative - an official position is not a doctrine of salvation. In our individual lives, and our individual familes, it is up to us to make many of those decisions. And we do it with prayer and fasting and study through the scriptures.

In other words, in order for a stance to be true, valuable, even salvific, does it need to be currently one of the tentpoles of the church? Or should the doctrines of the church be studied and prayed about, and added upon as the spirit dictates to you for yourself and your family (overwhich you have stewardship) if not the church as a whole.

Look, I am the last child in a family of 10 children. I should be thanking my parents for having so many, so I could come at the end of the litter. But that is just it - I have faith that had they done the responsible thing, I still would have come - one way or another.

Stephanie said...

fd, I already answered your question on the other post with regard to number of children. This is what I said:

The general commandment is to multiply and replenish the earth, but not "You must try to have as many babies as you possibly can until your body falls apart or you go insane". Church leaders counsel that under the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, we should carefully and prayerfully consider our resources and health in deciding how many children to have.

If you want to include the earth's resources in your decision, that is your business, but I am unaware of any quote from a GA specifying to factor in the earth's resources. Several apostles (including President Monson) have 3 children, so no, I don't think the Lord requires us to have 10. That doesn't mean that it is a minimum of 3 either. It is whatever you prayerfully decide. I never said anything otherwise.

Incidentally, I am close with 3 couples who cannot have children and who have tried to adopt for years. I spoke with one today about all of this, and she said, "What? I can't even adopt a child as it is. I don't want to compete with people who can have their own children!"

Rick, legislating meat on the production side WOULD affect me. Sure, we don't eat much meat, but if the price of meat quadrupled, that would affect my pocketbook and my life. Even if I were a vegetarian, I still wouldn't want the government meddling in the meat business because it isn't any of the government's business! Who is the government to tell people they can't raise animals to sell for meat if they want to? Who are YOU to decide that the government should tell people they can't raise animals to sell for meat if they want to?

In fact, I find it fascinating that on the one hand, you say, "Government shouldn't regulate abortions. Women should be able to abort if they want to", but on the other hand, you say, "Government should regulate meat production. People shouldn't be able to eat meat if they want to". All in the name of morality, nonetheless.

Rick, you said, I believe it is "moral" to place the earth and it's needs above the desire to have continually larger and larger families. Fine, study it out in your mind and find this truth and make that decision for yourself. But, don't try to pass it off as a universal "moral truth" that applies to all members of the church by contradicting current counsel and calling a scripture "outdated". It may be your opinion, but there is nothing in church doctrine that supports the claim that placing the earth and its needs above having a family is the "moral" choice. Calling this a "moral" choice is what I take issue with. It would mean that having a large family is "immoral", and that is not what the church teaches. The church doesn't say that having a large family is "moral" either - it just doesn't have a stand on the number of children you have (while still saying that the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force).

Anonymous said...

Indeed the church doesn't say it is immoral or moral - I never said that it did - I have stated MY OPINION - and have continually referred to it in terms as, "I believe" and "it's my opinion" What I take issue with is your constant assertation that if the church doesn't say it, it's not true.

And regarding the meat thing - the government is constantly messing around in the food production industry - subsidizing some products while paying farmers to NOT farm other products. That's what the government has been doing for a long time.

If the meat price quadrupled, I'd go out on a limb and say you probably wouldn't buy much - or, in other words, "sparingly" as the D&C puts it -

The government could easily and logically regulate meat production, where it could NOT logically and easily regulate abortion. Hence the difference between these two subjects.

Stephanie said...

Rick, you said We need to remember that this was revealed in the early 1830's, when the population of planet earth had just reached 1 billion - as opposed to the 7 Billion that it will reach in 2012 - about 200 years later. There definately was enough to spare in 1830. Now, the tables have been turned - thanks to our gross overconsumption.

This didn't sound like an opinion as much as you stating what you think is a fact that the earth doesn't have enough to spare anymore. But, if it is just your opinion, I apologize.

Rick, I already don't buy much meat, and I already eat meat "sparingly", but honestly, that isn't really any of your business. I do it because I want to. It isn't your job to get the government to regulate the meat industry so that everyone eats meat "sparingly" like D&C says to.

The government could easily and logically regulate meat production, where it could NOT logically and easily regulate abortion. Hence the difference between these two subjects.

Wow, really? It's an issue of logistics? You have no problem with the government meddling in people's lives if it can do it easily? I have a problem with the government meddling with people's lives because the government has no business meddling with people's lives. My issue with abortion is that it is another person's life (an unborn child), and I do think the government should interfere to protect the vulnerable and helpless of our society.

Anonymous said...

partly, yes - it is an issue of logisitcs - it was already stated in your post - How are you going to legislate that, if even the church will allow abortion in cases of rape and incest - who decides what is rape and what isn't? Legislate it according to trimester - legilsate it according to parental consent - I'm good with those - but to legilsate it as to wether or not someone chose to have sex or was raped or was date-raped, or was consentually raped, or what not - its kind of a rediculous notion. Food production, on the other hand, falls in with education, utilities, healthcare, transportation, public services, and other day-to-day aspects of american life that the government CAN and DOES regulate - hopefully for the benefit of society.

Oh, I thought of something kind of tounge-in-cheek. Are you, Stephanie, pro-life when it comes to the death penalty or to universal healthcare? :)

Stephanie said...

Okay, Rick, I know we have fundamental conservative vs. liberal differences here, but my opinion is that the government should be involved as little as possible. Yes, we need government. Yes, government fulfills some important purposes (post office, infrastructure, safety net, etc.) But, there is a limit. Just because the government regulates the food supply for safety doesn't mean the government needs to artificially restrict the meat supply to satisfy the values of some environmentalists. Talk about imposing values. Liberals scream all the time about how conservatives want to "impose" their values on everyone else (and I admit that some, like the birth control example I gave in the other post, do). But, this is a pretty good case of you (a liberal environmentalist) wanting to impose your values on other people.

I stated in another post that I am not for the death penalty. I kind of wish I were. I am for putting child molesters down into a deep pit and throwing a piece of bread at them once a week.

And universal healthcare? Are you equating universal healthcare to pro-life somehow? I am for the law we have that says that hospitals can't turn away people in emergencies - that 911 helps anyone who calls, regardless of ability to pay. Yes, I am for people receiving emergency care in life or death situations. Yes, I am for compulsory high-deductible catastrophe health insurance for everyone, so that the emergency care is paid for so hospitals stop going out of business because they are required to provide this emergency care that noone is paying for. Beyond that, no.

JDD said...

It's actually not that hard to define "rape." Rape: "Nonconsensual sexual intercourse, or intercourse where one party is too young to legally give consent." See, that wasn’t too tricky at all.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Stephanie, you said:
"Even if I were a vegetarian, I still wouldn't want the government meddling in the meat business because it isn't any of the government's business! Who is the government to tell people they can't raise animals to sell for meat if they want to? Who are YOU to decide that the government should tell people they can't raise animals to sell for meat if they want to?"

You should be glad that the government IS "meddling" in the meat business otherwise you would very likely have the runs regularly after eating hot dogs. Do you know anything about meat production? The entire process from raising of animals, to transport, to slaughter, to production of meat, to packaging, to when it gets to the supermarket, into your shopping cart, and into your family dinner. Farming is a business that involves live beings. It's different from any other business because we're talking about the handling of live beings here, who have rights (and should have more). Many farmers look at their animals and see dollar signs. I'm not saying that all farmers are indifferent to the welfare of their animals, but frankly many of them are. If government does "meddle" in the raising of animals, then there are limits to what they can do (I think there should be more, but hey, let's be glad that there are at least some). If raising animals was a free-for-all with no government interference, you would see even more unethical and cruel treatment of animals than we already do: pregnant sows held in tiny crates with no room to turn around, veal calves who never see the light of day, cows injected with hormones to produce 10x the milk that is normal and the resulting infections that occur, leading to increased use of antibiotics, hens crammed into cages or hen houses that are overpopulated and where hens peck each other to death. Just to name a few. And that's just the raising of animals. What about transport? Chickens stuffed into cages and frozen to death before they even reach the slaughterhouse (those are perhaps the lucky ones), cows crammed onto trailers and then forced off the trailer when it can't even walk (good thing the slaughterhouses have forklifts to help them up! I'm sure you saw the video from a few months back). And then what about slaughter? Well, I could sit here all day and list all the horror stories about slaughterhouses, but I'll spare you the details and I'll just say that the government SHOULD be meddling a lot more in the meat business, not just on behalf of the animals, but for YOUR sake. Do you know where e-coli begins? It's not always at the slaughterhouse where lack of proper hygiene makes its way into the sausage. It often begins at the farm, where the animals are not properly cared for or cleaned, so that infection is easily spread into the food chain. And how do the animals get that way? Mass farming, unethical treatment of too many animals, lack of inspection and regulation, carelessness, laziness, and then infection. So, if you want to eat sausage from whoever decides they're going to produce it, without any government interference, bon appetit.

In regards to adoption, I know that there are many couples who wait a long time to adopt. I know of some couples who have been waiting years. But you have to ask yourself why that is. The Mormon couples that I know only seek to adopt from LDS services. I'm sure LDS services does a fine job, but of course there are limited children available for adoption in the Mormon sphere. Many couples are also picky. (I'm not saying that your friend is picky, but many are.) They want a baby, not an older child. They want a white baby. They don't want a child with a handicap or one that has special needs. I'm sure the US has many excellent adoption agencies, which aid in the adoption of both international children (which admittedly can be expensive and time-consuming), as well as American children. From articles and programmes I have seen, it seems that there are many children in the US who need to be adopted. So what's the problem? Most are black, hispanic, no longer infants, and some have special needs. Some couple are open-minded enough to adopt such a child, but many aren't. They want a newborn baby that is the same race as them without any complications. For those who are willing to take what they get (which is sort of what happens when you give birth, except that you have a little more say in the matter of race), those are the people who will have to wait the least. If you want to get choosy, you have to realize that it can take a while before you're matched up with the right child. That's especially true in the case of international adoptions. So you can't really say that those who choose to adopt instead of birthing are competing with infertile couples in regards to how many children are available. Sometimes it's more a matter of who scoops up the "best babies" first and then the ones who nobody wants are still left without parents. It's a sad reality.

Stephanie, you said:
"Yes, I am for compulsory high-deductible catastrophe health insurance for everyone, so that the emergency care is paid for so hospitals stop going out of business because they are required to provide this emergency care that noone is paying for."

And what happens when you can't afford that "high-deductible?" Let's say a low income family, 2 parents with 3 kids, is in a car accident and all require long hospital stays and treatment. How are they going to afford that "high deductible" x 5? Who's going to pay that? A lot of families live from one paycheque to the next. They have no savings, sometimes because they just earn very little or because they're lousy money managers. Look, I know that we've had the long socialized health care discussion already and I know that you are adamantly against it, but wouldn't such a family as mentioned above fare better under a government health plan?

The Faithful Dissident said...

One last thought regarding meat. Meat should be expensive. If we saw more organic and smaller farms (which I think anybody with common sense agrees is best for animals and the environment, not necessarily your pocket book), then the price naturallly goes up. When it comes to meat in particular, its production is a huge polluter of greenhouse gases. On top of that, it requires taking the life of an animal. Now, Stephanie, I'm not suggesting that the government ration how many steaks per week you get to eat, but to be honest, I think that it should sting a little when you decide to buy steak. Enough that you will not want to buy it every day. Enough that it will motivate you to look at alternative foods. I'm not suggesting that you eat steak every day, but most Americans probably do eat meat every day. And lots of it.

I feel the same way about gas prices. Yes, people need cars and cars need gas, at least right now. I'm not saying the gov't should ban gas. But it should hurt a little at the pump, enough to dissuade you from taking a leisurely cruise just for the heck of it. Gas is not a renewable resource and it pollutes the environment. I don't meant to point fingers, but you Americans (and I will say Canadians as well) have been the worst polluters. This is partially due to individual action (such as buying a truck, SUV, or big car when you really don't need it), and also lack of public transportation options, such as trains. Europeans have done much better to build railways and drive smaller cars that need less gas. And I'm sure that the high gas prices here in Europe are a big motivation to find alternatives to buying big cars and driving everywhere. Lowering gas prices in North America is like slapping a band-aid on a severed limb. It does nothing to solve problems long-term.

Stephanie said...

fd, my BS is in Animal Science. I spent a year working in the meat store at BYU and took a class in meat production where I made many processed meat foods, hot dogs included - and the best pineapple pork sausage my husband and I have ever tasted. I also worked at the BYU dairy and worked on a cow-calf operation. I even slaughtered a few animals in my work. I attended the National Meat Association convention for two years and received a scholarship from the organization one year while PETA protested in cow suits outside. Yeah, I know a bit about the meat industry - and the people who criticize meat producers because they "think" they know so much about it. In fact, if we are really interested in safety of our food supply, let's support the farmers/ranchers in our own country so that we can purchase food products that ARE regulated instead of importing them from other countries where they may or may not be raised appropriately. That is what would happen if the supply side is restricted. Unless you restrict imports also.

I already said Just because the government regulates the food supply for safety doesn't mean the government needs to artificially restrict the meat supply to satisfy the values of some environmentalists. There is a huge difference between the two. Artificially restricting meat supply so that people less eat meat because YOU want them to has nothing to do with safety of the food supply.

Fd, have you ever tried to adopt internationally? It is just as expensive with just as much red tape and hoops to jump through. In fact, some countries have rules about who can adopt that are even more strict than the rules in the U.S.

Obviously that family isn't going to pay the bill - but they don't pay the bill anyway. If everyone had to pay a small premium to a high deductible insurance, at least the hospital would get paid for everything above the $20K, whereas now they get paid nothing. Then maybe more hospitals (particularly in low income areas like Los Angeles) would stay in business.

Meat should be expensive . . .I think that it should sting a little when you decide to buy steak. Enough that you will not want to buy it every day. Enough that it will motivate you to look at alternative foods.

All of this is YOUR opinion based on YOUR feelings about animal rights. You have no business increasing my costs based on your values. This is imposing YOUR values onto ME.

I feel the same way about gas prices . . .But it should hurt a little at the pump, enough to dissuade you from taking a leisurely cruise just for the heck of it.

My head is going to explode. Now, you not only want to tell me how much meat to eat- you want to tell me when I can and cannot take a drive in my own car on roads I pay taxes to pave with gas that I purchase? What else would you like to tell me to do?

In case you didn't notice, the market is doing just fine at raising gas prices and restricting driving. Government need not get involved (unless it is to do something like remove artificial barriers to drilling to ease the burden a bit).

I don't know . . . I would say China is a pretty bad polluter of the environment, too.

Joel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joel said...

I just want to voice my support for everything Stephanie has said without adding anything new. She and I agree on this stuff pretty exactly.

And yes, this is a classic liberal/conservative argument that hasn't been settled, well, ever. And never will be.

Funny how there are inconsistencies on both sides, though, huh?

The Faithful Dissident said...

Stephanie,

And what happens when we all just drive around whenever we want, as much as we want? Or eat as much meat as we want? You make it sound like there are no consequences to a life of indulgence. There are. You might not see them on a daily basis, but people in Bangladesh and certain islands in the Pacific are. Their countries are slowly drowning because of global climate change. You may live your entire life without seeing any significant changes were you live, but your children might. If there were no consequences to such behaviour and practices, or if it was only about YOU and what YOU want to do, then I'd say drive to your heart's content. Even if gas prices soar even higher, no one is going to stop you from driving as much as you want or eat as much as you want. Your budget will probably be the only one to impose any restrictions on your lifestyle. But the more you needlessly drive around in your SUV (I'm not saying YOU personally because I have no idea what kind of car you have), then the bigger carbon footprint those of us who ARE concerned about the environment and the earth that future generations will inherit, have to make up for. So you may look at my views as restricting your lifestyle, and maybe they do, but yours certainly restrict mine and everyone's children because of the damage done to our environment. Our lifestyles (me, you, everyone in the western world) are restricting the lifestyles of the people who are getting hit hard by climate change by not cutting back.

Obviously, you and I feel differently about animals. I realize that for me to sit here and list reasons about why you should have more compassion for animals would be futile. But meat production doesn't just affect animals. It affects the environment, which affects everyone's quality of life (or lack thereof) all around the world. You've mentioned before that you have children. I don't know whether you think about what their world will be like once you're gone. I think maybe that you see gov't restrictions or price increase in meat or gas as a way for Liberals to make your life miserable. Like we just sit back and laugh and say to ourselves, "Haha, let's impose all these restrictions to rob Americans of their freedom" The truth is that people like me, and many other Liberals, don't believe that most people will cut down on consumption unless there's something in it for them, or unless they haven't got much choice. And people like me do care about the state of the environment, what it's become and where it's headed. It's scary and it's only getting worse. If that means nothing to you, or if you think that it's more important to be able to cruise around in your car on cheap gas or eat as much cheap meat as you want without any environmental consequences, than cutting down on consumption in order to preserve a better world for future generations, then I don't know what else to say. If unlimited consumption is more important than making changes to preserve Mother Earth for your children, then there's nothing more any of us can do except work harder to cut down on our own carbon emissions in order to make up for what you're not doing.

I do know a thing or two about international adoption. My husband and I haven't done it yet, but it's not unlikely that we won't. I have friends who have adopted and I have already looked into what it takes to apply, be approved, and cost. Last I heard, Norwegians adopt more children per capita than any other country in the world. The waiting period varies by country and there are several factors that can impact how long it takes. At best, 1 year, currently 4 years is worst case scenario. Red tape can be a problem, but it usually goes pretty smoothly as long as you fit the criteria. For most countries, that includes being under age 40, being married at least 2 years, good health, and having a job. The cost is roughly $20,000 USD, although the actual cost is less because I would either get about 30-40% of that back in cash from the gov't (if I don't work) or my regular salary for a year if I do work, which would more than cover the cost of adoption. That would be my maternity leave, which couples who adopt get just like couples who have their own babies. But that would be a gov't social benefit, which I know you are opposed to, Stephanie.

Lastly, Stephanie, you said:
"I don't know . . . I would say China is a pretty bad polluter of the environment, too."

So, in other words, I pollute, you pollute, let's all pollute.

Stephanie said...

fd, I am not sold on this whole global climate change. Sure, the climate is changing, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is being caused by humans. The earth goes through cycles, and the data is only very recent. Half the scientists support the theory of human-caused global warming, and half the scientists don't. Who is to say that your half are right? Particularly when the solutions are so intrusive? And particularly when the climate has recently changed again so it might not be warming, it might just be changing?

Sure, I agree with mandatory emissions testing and compliance on vehicles. That is a pretty proven pollutor of the environment. But, I am not ready to jump on the global warming bandwagon and support the government passing all sorts of restrictions and making things a bunch more expensive just because some people think it might change the climate. It might not. I'd like to see some credible evidence first.

I am also not going to defend my care for animals. Domestic livestock were put on the earth to be eaten. Yes, we should do that humanely, and yes, I believe current practices in the U.S. are humane. I know you disagree, but that doesn't mean that I don't "care" about animals.

Everything you described in the international adoption is still a major hardship. If a couple wants to do that, fine. Just don't bug me about wanting to have my own children and saying that is selfish because I haven't paid $10K (after taxes) and waited for four years to adopt another child.

I am also saying - quit blaming the world's problems (like pollution) on the U.S. - which is doing a lot to clean up the environment on its own without government intervention (isn't green the new black?), and share some blame where appropriate.

Stephanie said...

Looking back over these comments, fd, you twisting things to say "Because you don't agree that government should increase the cost of gas and restrict the meat supply to increase the cost of meat, you don't care about the environment".

Not true - I do care about the environment. I just don't think it is the government's business to artifically restrict supply or raise prices to accomplish the goals of some special interest groups. I care about the environment, but I am not on the global climate change bandwagon.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I just don't understand this notion of having to wait to see whether climate change is for real before making any major changes. You say the evidence is 50-50. I think that's a stretch. I know that a few scientists share your view, but I don't believe that that many do. Most say that real change has to be made now. I think it's a mistake to wait when there is so much evidence staring us in the face now. Even if the world's climate is just "changing" or going through some sort of cycle (I'm not a scientist, so your theory may hold some ground), the population is around 7 billion now -- not what it was during the last major "cycle." How can that not have an impact?

You said that "domestic livestock were put on this earth to be eaten." I say that's fine when the need is there, such as in times of "cold or famine." Several Church leaders have said the same. Joseph Smith spoke out against taking the lives of animals where unnecessary. There was a time when humans in parts of the earth were totally dependent on their animals for survival (Norway was such a place at one time because of the cold climate and limited resources). I think that time has passed and that's why I feel that we should cut out as much meat as possible instead of making it what the rest of our meals revolve around.

From Wikipedia:
"According to a 2006 United Nations report, Livestock's Long Shadow, livestock is responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. This however includes land usage change, meaning deforestation in order to create grazing land. In the Amazon Rainforest, 70% of deforestation is to make way for grazing land, so this is the major factor in the 2006 UN FAO report, which was the first agricultural report to include land usage change into the radiative forcing of livestock. In addition to CO2 emissions, livestock produces 65% of human-induced nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the global warming potential of CO2) and 37% of human-induced methane (which has 23 times the global warming potential of CO2)."

I know that this might not be "credible" enough for you, Stephanie, but it's enough for me to motivate myself to change. You say that you care about the environment, but if you are waiting around for hard core proof that is convincing enough for you before you are willing to make changes that may hurt a little, then I'm sorry that I question just how much you really care about it. I don't mean to offend you, it's just my opinion. I'm sure you disagree.

I am more than willing to share the blame for pollution. If you read back to my earlier comments, I pointed out that Canadians were big polluters like Americans. And Europeans are by no means blameless either. Norwegians are paying over $11 USD/gallon for gas and they still needlessly idle their cars. My mother-in-law lives outside of town and will make 2 or 3 trips per day when she could cut it down to 1 if she really wanted to. As you pointed out, China is a huge polluter. We all need to share the blame and we all need to do our part to improve things. I feel that I'm at least trying to do my part, even if I am hopping on that bandwagon. Perhaps future generations will find out that you were right, I was wrong, and Al Gore was a clueless idiot just spreading liberal propaganda. But if the majority of scientists happen to be right, then it'll be a shame that we didn't do more when we had the chance.

Stephanie said...

fd, I don't mind making changes now. I am driving less - I rarely run errands so that I can cluster them all into one day. I recycle like noone else - half my garbage goes into the recycle bin. I purchase with packaging in mind and try to use as much re-useable stuff as possible. I keep my home at 80 degrees to cut down on electricity usage. But, I don't think it is the government's business to tell me to do that or to make it so expensive that I have to. Provide incentives - sure, but don't force me to.

Same for animal consumption. My family eats meat sparingly. The WoW said to. We feel better when we do, and we save money on our grocery bill. But, don't artifically restrict supply to make me.

Quit telling me I don't do enough to change. Enough for who? You?

Here's a hint to liberals: if you want change in the world, inspire. Teach. Share information. But, don't look down your noses at other people who don't do "enough" for you or who don't agree with the same policy as you or who don't think we should all be subjected to government intervention to solve the world's problems. It is called "Liberal Elitism" for a reason.

Anonymous said...

A few things - fd - your claim about the Amazon could not be more correct - the Brazilian government released those statistics. Brazil has been taking alot of flack because of their allowance of deforestation to procure grazing land. they've been trying to cut back, and in this last year have done so dramatically - I'm going to save specifics for a possible future post. (something I've been researching/looking into).

Stephanie - I understand where you are coming from - for along time - maybe most of your life, you've looked at the liberal point of view as elitist and depreciatory. Maybe if we were sitting in a room having this discussion, you'd see that fd and I aren't trying to be elitist and tell you how bad you are - we are just trying to inspire - garner support for a cause - that, at least in this religious community, seems to be a loosing battle.

I respect the changes you've made, Stephanie - from some of the discussions we've had from the very beginning of this talk, I can see that you DO care about stuff - and I've respected that from the beginning. So, the problem obvsiously doesn't lie with you. I will go on a limb and say that MOST people aren't as responsible as you, however. MOST people will not make changes unless a)the law necessitates that they do, or b) their current lifestyle becomes cost-prohibitive. I definately wouldn't like to live in a world where big brother is running around determining what food I can or can't eat, what vehicle I have to drive, and how much I can drive it, what clothes I have to wear, etc. That prospect sounds terrifying to me. However, I also don't think that the average Joe is going to just make the most responsible choice because he's smart, well read, and a concerned citizen. I think that the average person is going to do what works for him the best - that's why fd and I consider high gas prices and high meat prices - even cost-prohibitively high - to be a good idea - it suddenly becomes in peoples best interest to make those changes- so why not?

environmentally, people usually won't make the right decisions because the right decisions cost a little more, and they are a little more time consuming - so what is wrong with a little bit of legislative incentive to encourage people to make the right decision - no one is FORCING anyone's BELIEFS on anyone else - but I think we can both agree (whether you are sold on global climate change or not - personally I can't see how this is still "up for debate) that doing things that show us to be good stewards of the earth is a good idea.

If I wanted to FORCE my IDEAS on people, I'd go off and say something like this. "Global Climate change is real, therefore, vegitarinaism, recycling, shopping organic, using public transportation, and cutting back on consumerism should all be made requisite, and failure to comply should be punished by law. furthermore, a couple should be limited by law to only have 1 child, if that......" However, that is not how I feel. I am not trying to, as you've claimed so often, stephanie, to force my beliefs on you - fd and I are simply trying to inspire - and we are simply stating the belief that legal incentives to help inspire the non-inspireable is a good idea. Not force, but help inspire - people can still make their own choices....

The average Joe will NEVER do what's best for anyone but HIMSELF - history has shown this over and over and over again. Sometimes, governmental incentives are required to help what's best for the average Joe be what also is best for the world and society as a whole.

Stephanie said...

Rick, what kind of government/legal incentives are you proposing?

The Wizzle said...

See, I really think most of us fall pretty close to the same point on the spectrum on a lot of these issues - we just sort of self-identify differently, and maybe technically fall on one side of the fence or the other...

...but when it comes down to the reasoning, and the thought behind it, we're not very far apart. That makes me feel good.

And I've said it before and I'll say it again: terminology like "pro-life" and "pro-family" only hurts everyone. :)

The Faithful Dissident said...

Rick,

I agree 100% with what you said. As you pointed out, neither of us want to FORCE people like Stephanie to do or not to what she wants to do. (Stephanie, kudos to you for doing what you're doing to help the environment. In your previous posts, I got the impression that you were concerned about YOU and that being allowed endless consumption with no consequences - environmental or economical -- was your priority. I appreciate what you ARE doing and I see now that the impression I had of you wasn't totally accurate.) But I have to agree with Rick, that the average Joe is not doing what you're doing and they never will until they feel it in their budget. That's why Rick and I feel the way we do. It's not because we think we're some sort of liberal elite. Our difference is where we prioritize things. I'm not saying that you don't care about the environment, Stephanie (although I admit that I wrongly got that impression from your previous posts), but I think that Rick and I just happen to have it a little higher on our list of priorities. If I'm wrong, you can correct me, but, Stephanie, it appears that you believe that the rights of individuals to continue the life of consumption without any gov't involvement or economical consequences is a higher priority since there is no "credible" evidence that climate change is due to human behaviour. Rick and I believe that climate change due to human behaviour is real and we feel that most people will never be motivated enough to make changes on their own, and therefore we feel that certain gov't measures are both appropriate and needed.

I just wanted to say that I've thoroughly enjoyed this debate so far. I go to church with about 15 other people, most of whom are over the age of 60 and could care less about politics, so blogs like this are a great thing. I think we've all done a good job of trying to get our point across and hopefully we've learned from each other. Stephanie, I can sense from some of your responses that you must be fuming mad at me because of some of my views. I was thinking how ironic it is that we can have totally different views on so many things and yet still share the same religion. I wonder, if we were in the same ward and I expressed my political views to you (without involving any personal accusations), would you view me as an obnoxious, liberal elitist out to rob you of your personal freedom? I hope not, because sharing my views is actually one way that I (and perhaps Rick) "teach, inspire, snd share information," which is what you wanted from us. You may not agree with how we go about doing it, but you are free to have your opinions, as are we, and that's one freedom we don't want to rob you of. :)

Stephanie, hopefully there is SOMETHING that you have learned from us or can think differently about after this discussion. I realize that we won't change each other's minds on most things. Like I couldn't disagree with you more about the meat industry and the treatment of animals raised for meat in America (or anywhere else for that matter). I think that we see what we want to see. You have been in slaughterhouses and you have slaughtered animals. Everything looked fine to you. And yet I can look at the same scenario and see that everything is not fine. We will probably disagree on this for the rest of our lives, but that's where freedom of opinion comes into play.

I will tell you what I've learned from you, Stephanie. I've learned that you make human life as a top priority and have made the sacrifice to be a stay at home mom with 4 kids, which I know is the toughest job in the world. You are a champion for the human right to life and I think we need more people in the world who think like that. The lives of human beings is becoming less of a priority among certain people. I bet you're a great mom and your kids are probably your #1 priority. We may disagree on a lot of technical stuff, but I applaud you for that. I don't think you're selfish for wanting kids of your own, I never said that you were. I was merely pointing out where and how Mormons can make a difference in the lives of parentless children if they are willing to adopt, particularly the children who are "less desirable" to most couples. It's something that many never think about and most never consider adoption instead of biological children.

I don't have kids and I may never have them. It's too early to say because there are soooo many factors to consider. My animals are in a way my "kids." That may sound lame to you, but I have been an animal lover since day 1. I should have cut out meat long before I did, but I listened too much to people (Mormons in particular) who were negative about it. Another point where we disagree strongly on is farm animals. You believe their purpose is solely to be eaten and I disagree. I have immense compassion for animals. I always have and just as it would cause you grief to see your children in pain, so it is when I see animals in pain -- particularly when it's unnecessary. Meat-eaters often like to taunt vegetarians, telling them about the steak they had for dinner or the amazing sausage that they ate. I take it all in stride. Now, you may view me as some annoying animal rights activist who just wants to make life difficult for you and the farmers of the world, but I believe that this compassion and love of mine comes from somewhere, namely God. Wouldn't all compassionate feelings of love be of God? Most of the animal rights activists that I know are like me. I'm not involved with any extreme groups like PETA or the Animal Liberation Front, but we do try to motivate people to change. Most of them are very good, kind, compassionate people who care immensely about animals and their welfare. (And if you want to count Joseph Smith as one of those people, I guess I'm in good company. :) Once again, it has to do with different priorities and values. For people like me, the priority of animal welfare and environment is right up there because the stakes are so high. It's about the value and ethics of animal life, as well as preservation of the environment. When people don't prioritize these things, it causes us pain. Just like seeing someone have an unjustified abortion probably causes you pain (it does me too!).

Anonymous said...

so, incentives? So, the government currently gives wheat farmers compensation so that it is more financially advantagous for them to not farm on certian years than to farm - the reasoning behind this is to keep the supply and demand in check - and keep wheat prices not dropping to rediculous lows. This would be one with meat - currently, I think meat prices are rediculously low - I mean think about it - if I wanted to buy a chick to raise on my own, as a pet, the bird would cost 5-10 bucks and then the feed for it's whole life would be even more. but If I wanted to buy a WHOLE roast chicken, it costs 3.99 at the grocery store. strange. Anyways, the point is to raise the price of meat - instead of 3.99 for a roast chicken, what about 30.99? Instead of $10 for a filet minion, what about $100? extreme? Not when you think that these are living souls we are eating - they should only be consumed rarely - and with prices like that, the average joe can still get them. But only rarely. Also, tax the crap out of any imported meat(especially from Brazil - I am all in favor of economic sanctions against Brazil - at the current rate of deforestation (70% due to beef grazing), the Amazon will be gone in 30 years. and, ironically, it produces 30% of earth's oxygen. so until Brazil stops allowing this deforestation - which could conceivably lead to the death of millions of people and the extinction of thousands of species of plants and animals (something like 45% of earth's bio-diversity is in the Amazon) - we should see them as terrorists - economic and political sanctions is the answer for that crap - tangent, sorry. - - stuff like that

- or give a more solid voice to organizations like PETA - right now they are seen as nut jobs, but if they had some government backing (which is not hard to get for some organizations, but apperantly extremely hard for animal rights ones) so that they are seen as legit public service groups - run non offensive adds, get the word out, etc.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I personally wouldn't donate to PETA because I disagree with a lot of their approaches and methods. I've donated to Humane Society Int'l, as well as my local one in Norway, which I view as more moderate. I also like IFAW and WWF. However, despite PETA's methods, they have uncovered a lot of terrible abuses that probably no one else would have, and they didn't always have to use extreme methods to do so. Sometimes it's as simple as going on with a hidden camera. PETA uncovered the appalling cruelties in the slaughter of chickens used by KFC. I can't remember whether it was PETA or another organization that went undercover in a big Kosher meat plant in the US and filmed absolutely horrible footage of cows being slaughtered. Not only was it extremely cruel and unethical, but consumers were being misled to believe they were buying meat that had been slaughtered according to Kosher rules. And then of course there was the downer cow/forklift footage that made world news a few months ago. That was filmed undercover by The Humane Society, which decided to randomly visit that particular meat plant. I don't believe that it was an isolated incident, unfortunately.

In relation to meat prices, even in expensive Norway, meat is relatively cheap. The per kilogram price of red meat is cheaper than chicken, which I've never understood. Pigs and cattle require a lot more to raise and they contribute more to greenhouse gases. But because red meat is more popular than chicken, more farmers produce it. On top of that, meat is cheaper than soy. I pay almost $10 USD for 4 soy burgers, whereas I could buy the real thing for about half the price. It's cheaper to raise soybeans than cattle, so why are soy burgers so expensive? Because nobody wants them. Vegetarian products are still in very low-demand here, they're imported, and nobody in Norway is interested in producing them. The ones that I buy come from Sweden and there are only 2 brands to choose from.

Unknown said...

I'm a bit new to this blog so I'm not totally familiar with the extent of your argument over previous posts. However, I cannot help but argue when you attack the designation of "pro-life," that the non-conservative side of the spectrum does precisely the same thing. All merit-based arguments aside, if someone calls themselves pro-choice does that mean that anyone NOT pro-choice is by default anti-choice the same way that anyone NOT pro life is pro death?? I mean when you sarcastically call your self pro-death on so many issues I can't help but think you assume anyone opposed to you on abortion is anti-choice--you know reject the idea of free agency, are opposed to free speech, open markets, all the things that make this country what it is.. Of course pro lifers don't feel that way and of course pro choicers don't think death is the answer to everything. Everyone assigns labels to their own view that put it in the best light possible. It may make the other side feel somehow ostracized but you can't sit there with a straight face and argue that just the conservatives do it....

Stephanie said...

fd, if you were in my ward, I would be glad to have someone to talk to who cares about politics and what is going on in the world. :)

Our difference is where we prioritize things.

True, true.

I agree that there are abuses in the meat industry and that some slaughterhouses, packers, etc. break the rules. Inspectors need to do a better job (perhaps more tax dollars need to go to inspectors because I think they are spread pretty thin). But, the rules and systems in place are compassionate, IMO.

I don't understand people who "taunt". I want to eat meat. Fine. Leave me alone. You don't want to eat meat. Fine. I'll leave you alone.

Incidentally, I re-read D&C 89 last night and was struck by definition of "sparingly" - in winter, in times of cold, and in times of famine. We eat meat a lot more often than that - particularly since we like to grill in the summer. Also, it says that grain is the "staff of life". I am pondering ways to eat more whole grains and less meat. A little bit of meat (like bacon) added to lentil soup gives it flavor and "umami". I don't really know how to get that otherwise. But, I am thinking about it.

So, yes, you have inspired me personally, but I still don't feel that restricting the supply of meat is appropriate at this point. And no way would I support tax dollars going to PETA, Rick. No way. Of course, tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood, and that blows my mind.

Rick, the government subsidizes farmers so that the crop supply doesn't dry up - so that the U.S. doesn't import all its food. We need to be self-sufficient in food production (although, admittedly, we are becoming less and less so. Some people are fine with that in terms of a global free market, but it scares me). I don't agree that the price of meat is ridiculously low, and I don't agree that there is a need for government to get involved to raise the price. If meat producers aren't making money, they get out of the business. And meat isn't a necessity like grain. I would agree with restricting imports of meat just for the safety factor and relying solely on U.S. producers for U.S. consumption.

extreme? Not when you think that these are living souls we are eating - they should only be consumed rarely

Rick, both of these are your opinions. Sure, everyone agrees animals are alive, but most people don't have a problem eating them. And not everyone agrees that they should be consumed rarely. Do you think we should go back to Prohibition since the WoW says not to drink alcohol?

Since, we're going around in circles, I'll agree to disagree. Personally, I am fine with restricting my own consumption. But, I am not fine with the government forcibly restricting consumption of other people because I think the reasons you state are subjective.

Stephanie said...

Good point, amber brown.

Stephanie said...

wizzle, yes and no. I think this whole discussion is a good example of the fundamental underlying difference between liberal and conservative thinking: conservatives are more concerned with the individual, and liberals are more concerned with society (as Dave pointed out in a previous post's thread). So, although we all agree that measures to protect the environment are good, the conservative side says "not at the expense of individual freedom" while the liberal side says "in the best interest of society as a whole, individuals must be compelled to comply". That is what the argument comes down to (and as BBD pointed out - will probably never be resolved because it is a fundemental difference). Within the framework, we need to figure out how to compromise or we'll never get anything accomplished. :)

The Faithful Dissident said...

Stephanie,

You should try veggie bacon strips. You can get them in most big US grocery stores. Fry them in oil, they're not bad. Tastes similar to the crunchy, lean part of bacon, minus the artery-clogging fat. Once they're crispy and brown, crumble it into your finished lentil soup (never boil soy products or they taste like crap). Of course it doesn't taste EXACTLY like bacon, but you get the same sort of salty, crispy, smokey, baconey experience. Also excellent on veggie burgers and
veggie BLT sandwiches.

When I was in the US last, I tried some soy "chicken" fingers. I think they may have been called "Smart" something, the same brand as the bacon strips. I was extremely impressed, it was the closest thing to real chicken that I've come across. They cost a lot more than real chicken, but they're excellent because I couldn't detect any "soy" flavour. Fry them a bit in some oil, top it off with some lettuce, tomatoes, and make "chicken" fajitas.

Just thought you might be interested.

The Faithful Dissident said...

One more thought:

When I decided to cut out meat, I thought it would be a struggle to give up soups and stews. I was never much of a meat eater in the first place, except for some chicken and chicken-based soups. I thought I would miss the soups and stews in the winter, but I found that I didn't have to give them up. There are so many great veggie stocks, both in cubes and cartons, that I just substitute it. It's a matter of experimenting with different stocks, veggies, herbs, and spices. Adding beans, lentils, and bulgur can make it much more filling. There are some great recipes and tips on the web.

big.bald.dave said...

Amber, the "pro-choice" designation was simply a response to the "pro-life" camp's attempt to arbitrary appropriate family values. If you'll remember, "pro-life" came first, and the pro-deathers (thanks, Rick) had to come up with a positive way to frame their argument. I fall somewhat in-between the two camps, but would consider myself strongly pro-life in the literal sense.

With regards to animal consumption, I'll admit it - I'm a fan of the cow, the pig, and chicken in both their living and dead forms. I believe animals were put on the earth for human consumption, and I certainly do my share of that. But there are tremendous abuses that go on that need to be stopped, and I think organizations like PETA, though I detest many of their practices, have their place. I absolutely don't feel they should be government-sponsored, just as Planned Parenthood shouldn't be.

Honestly, despite my liberal tendencies, I think the government should be less involved in the business of price-fixing and supply regulation. Meat is too cheap - the equilibrium market price is much higher than the artificially legislated price, the quantity demanded is therefore too high, and the suppliers have no incentive to differentiate themselves from competitors on the basis of quality. The abuses we see in mass meat production are a direct result of meat being inexpensive.

I, for one, would be fine with meat being more expensive, and I would still pay for it. Like others have said, meat is not a necessity, it's a luxury. Just like I am still willing to pay a premium for my BMW that only gets 22-ish mpg because it is a blast to drive, I'm willing to pay a premium to eat what I want. In my opinion, that is the American way. That is why I support a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions; it creates financial incentives to reduce pollution, but does not force those companies that aren't able to (or *gasp*, don't want to) reduce to be able to operate, while still protecting the environment on an aggregate level.

As a liberal, I feel the government should be in the business of providing the essentials of life and decency for those who cannot entirely provide for themselves. I'm not sure meat falls in that category; there are plenty of other sources of protein that are comparatively inexpensive (potatoes, for instance). I am very frustrated with the liberals AND conservatives in Congress who bent to the farm lobby and renewed the Farm Bill for the next however many years. It all comes back to money, of course, and the money keeps winning. And the environment and the animals keep losing.

Stephanie said...

fd, thanks for the suggestions. I may try the bacon strips. In general, I don't really like foods that "pretend" to be other foods. I love tofu (plain and cold, actually), but I don't like tofu burgers. I really think my solution will be to figure out more meatless dishes that we like (like you said in your second comment). We have a few. Chili beans over baked potatoes (served with cheese and sour cream, of course!) is one. But, I would like to do more with combos of beans and rice. I am raising boys, and boys need "man food", so although I would be fine eating a salad every night, I don't really think it would be appropriate for their growing bodies.

Stephanie said...

One last thought - I feel that the purpose of government should be to preserve individual freedom while protecting individuals. For example, you can drink alcohol, and you can drive, but you can't drive drunk. You can't use your choices to endanger others. I approve of anti-pollution measures like limiting car pollution and factory pollution and water pollution because I can clearly see how the pollution hurts other individuals.

If I really felt that people in the U.S. choosing to eat meat, or meat production in the U.S., was somehow hurting people in other countries or in our own, I would agree that the government should limit it. But, I don't. I don't think the "evidence" of a cause and effect relationship is compelling.

Anonymous said...

Stephanie, I'll admit it - being vegitarian for me is tuff - I REALLY like the taste of meat. I mean alot. But I've been one for more than 3 years, and it has actually made quite a difference in a lot of way - not the least of which is health. The reason that I mention it is that we have had to be creative in how we go about being vegitarian - here are some of our favorite things

I myself don't particularly love meat substitutes either (they are entirely to processed, an I can't imagine the alterations to the soy to get it to act like meat - so I prefer natural substatutes). Portabello Mushrooms (not more expensive than an individual hamburger patty at any major grocery stores) are AWESOME - they have protien, they tatse meaty, and they soak up flavor better than anything - I love them and highly reccomend portabello burgers, etc. Also, Asian and wild mushrooms are very meaty for things like soups, curries, and stews (but stay away from nasty little canned or saute'ed button mushrooms -they give mushrooms a bad name) - Mushrooms seriously are a wonderfood that can replace meat most of the time

Eggplant - when a mushroom doesn't work, Eggplant is SUPER meaty and does the same thing - soaks up an extrordinary amount of flavor - learning to cook with eggplant as the main ingredient has been very fun for my wife and I.

Garbanzo beans - God's little gift to the vegitarian - I love it more than I can say (sniff, sniff - I'm getting teary just thinking about it)

Obviously soy - tofu is great cold and wet, but is best fried with just a little butter - even the staunchest meat eaters that have tried firm pan seared tofu have loved it. Soy milk and soy icecream (I see them as their own thing) are also good - especially if you happen to be lactose intolerant (like my wife)

FWIW, I still eat eggs and milk, provided they have been produced in a cage-free, grain-fed environment - my wife does not. Eggs have been very important for me though - and without the yolk, they are just a little pocket of pure protien - pretty cool, actually

Polenta (sp?) This is amazing stuff - relatively cheap (cheaper than meat) and made with whole grains as a protein source - it works as a meat substitute (though it isn't chemically altered to try to taste like meat) and is surprisingly tastey - I suggest going to some vegitarian restraunt and ordering soemthing with Polenta to try it and see if it is for you - its' amazingly healthy and tasty. And like most raw vegitarian food bases, not particularly expensive.

So we've come up with lots of curries, stews, poached, etc. vegitables and it has being vegitarians has caused us to become familiar with and learn to love spices - to flavor stuff (cause plain is admittedly booring). Using less meat engenders more creativity in the cook, as you are constantly trying to come up with new ways to put stuff together and new flavors - it's made me appreciate the herbs, grains, etc. that god has given for the use of man.

Ironically, steph, it was that line in the WoW that orignally inspired my vegitarianism - "winter and famon" just don't come in the US - I mean, we haven't had a famon in the last hundred years - and winter - what with heater units, heated cars, heated work places, etc, most of the US doesn't have to deal with "winter" as a reality - so, for me, that meant, when you are freezing or starving, go ahead and kill an animal - God is cool with that - human life does come first (maybe I'm pro-life afterall:) but if you aren't dying, then wheat and grains and herbs and fruits and vegitables are the staff of life, so use them like I've ordained. My take, anyways. it was only later that my reasons came to include envirnomental and animal rights.

anyways, just some of my experiences of how to phase meat out without freaking out.

Stephanie said...

Hmm. I think I'll try tofu in stiry fry instead of chicken. We'll see how my kids react. :)

Stephanie said...

. . . and my husband, too (although his cholesterol is a big reason why we hardly ever eat red meat).

Stephanie said...

*stir* fry

The Faithful Dissident said...

Here's a really easy tofu recipe that my husband LOVES:

Buy some firm tofu (like for stir-frying) and cut it up into smallish cubes (the same size you would bits of chicken).

Make a marinade of some oil (sunflower, vegetable, or corn), soy sauce (preferably the dark kind), and throw in some spices: salt, pepper, curry, ginger, garlic powder. Mix the tofu into the marinade and let it sit for an hour or so in the fridge.

Heat up your frying pan, then sautee the tofu in oil until it gets a bit brown, just like you would chicken. Make sure to flip the cubes around so they get brown on all sides.

Once the tofu is brown, throw in chopped peppers (red, green, yellow, whatever you want), and chopped red onions. You can also throw in some green squash if you like.

Serve with tortillas or Arabian flat bread. Throw on some lettuce, tomatoes, sour cream, etc.

Good stuff.

Anonymous said...

I would also have to agree completely with everything Stephanie has said.

Rick, you are a great guy and very funny but holy cow! I don't think you could be any further from what is right.

You gave the scripture, "D&C 58:26 - 26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward." and then you say the Goverment should regulate how much meat we can consume. Wouldn't this mean we are compelled to do something against our will? This is the perfect scripture that shows the liberal attitude is false, ie, relying on the government for everything. We have to take responsibility for our own actions.

"I believe it is "moral" to place the earth and it's needs above the desire to have continually larger and larger families." in response to that, I KNOW it is NOT moral to place the earth above...
Yes we should be responsible and not litter, use excess of anything etc. But as far as I know, my church teaches that the entire purpose of the earth is to be tested and gain a Mortal Body! Children are an heritage of the Lord. That is fine if people chose to only have one or two or no kids, that is a personal choice. But to say that we should place the "environment, being green, blah, blah, blah, above children is absolutely absurd!

Yes, there are many children in need of adoption, and I totally support it and I feel bad for there situation, but to say that one is being irresponsible for having their own children and not adopting is just as absurd. Many adoptions cost upwards of $20,000, not a practical option for most. Just a side note, we have at least 25 adopted kids in our ward, go my ward!

F.D. you said, "I think that in order to legitimately oppose elective abortion, we need to be willing to step up to the plate to take care of the children that the mother would have rather aborted." How about we use a simple idea called resposibililty. You made the decision to have sex, you work you butt off to provide even if the baby was a mistake. I know not all cases are the same and that easy but this is part of the "test" of life we are going through, to see what we do with our probationary state. Just as God lets innocent people get killed, so do innocent children suffer. They will be blessed one day, and the perpetrators will also receive their reward. We will be judged according to our actions.

Hey I just had a thought, this is all God's fault. if He wasn't so irresponsible in creating so many spirit children the earth would be cleaner!

F.D.-you say,"I just don't understand this notion of having to wait to see whether climate change is for real before making any major changes. You say the evidence is 50-50. I think that's a stretch. I know that a few scientists share your view, but I don't believe that that many do."

That's about as convincing as saying that we don't have to see anything positive from Obama in order to know if he is a good candidate, especially when everything points to the opposite.

And to say, "I know that a few scientists share your view, but I don't believe that that many do."
A few? 30,000 scientists is a few? Do some homework and you will find that the professor Al Gore studied under and first learned about global warming from has backed off of global warming being caused by humans.


I'm sorry I am so frustrtated, but it is such a silly reason to limit the number of children one choses to have. 20 children is fine if you teach them to be responsible stewards.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Matt, in regards to abortion vs. adoption, you said:
"How about we use a simple idea called resposibililty. You made the decision to have sex, you work you butt off to provide even if the baby was a mistake."

I agree with that completely when we're talking about adults! But what happens when a 12 or 13 year-old gets pregnant? Should we just say to her, "You made the decision to have sex, you work you butt off to provide?" How many 13 year-olds can be good mothers? Not many. Or what if the mother is a drug addict or mentally handicapped? And what if they absolutely do not want the child and have no intentions of caring for it and raising it in a safe environment? Do we just say, "It was your decision, your mistake, deal with it?" Then we end up with another screwed-up generation. My whole point was that these are often babies that are aborted. I'm definitely not happy about that, but how many people are willing to adopt a crack or fetal-alcohol syndrome baby? So what are we supposed to do with them? I don't think forcing the mothers to raise them just because they made a mistake is feasible. If it were something else, yes, you make a mistake then you have to pay the consequences. But not when it involves an innocent child.

I never said that people who choose to have their own children over adopting are "irresponsible." What I AM saying is that many who ARE in a position to do so (financially, physically and emotionally) don't even consider it an option and they may just be able to help such a child as I mentioned above.

You said:
"I know not all cases are the same and that easy but this is part of the "test" of life we are going through, to see what we do with our probationary state. Just as God lets innocent people get killed, so do innocent children suffer. They will be blessed one day, and the perpetrators will also receive their reward."

Remember that not everyone shares our beliefs in a "probationary state." Many crack moms couldn't give a crap about what they do to their child and the last thing on their drug-induced minds is the wrath of God. Matt, did you ever think that maybe it's not just THEIR test? Could it be that maybe God is testing our compassion to reach out to children who need to be rescued? Yes, God lets innocent people -- including children -- suffer. But IF we can do something about it and don't, aren't we just as guilty? (And I'm not pointing fingers at your saying that YOU'RE guilty, I'm speaking generally as society on a whole.) Sometimes it's not enough to JUST feel sorry for others. IF we are in a position to help and fail to do so, then I think we have failed OUR test. And I'm more than willing to fess up to mistakes that I've made in witholding help from others when I probably should have reached out.

As for global warming, I'm not going to say that there AREN'T 30,000 scientists who say that climate change isn't caused by humans. But how many are there who DO say it is the result of humans? And not just in the US, but worldwide, in places that are getting hit hardest like Greenland, northern Canada, northern Europe, the Alpine glaciers, Antarctica, low-lying countries like Bangladesh, Pacific islands, etc. If it's really about 50-50, why aren't we hearing more from all these scientists who say it's all a farce? Is it purely the result of worldwide liberal propaganda?

The Faithful Dissident said...

Some "food for thought," (no pun intended. :) As I've said before, my personal reasons for abstaining from meat are mostly ethical, but once I started to research the topic of meat and how it relates to Mormonism, I felt even better about my decision. I just wanted to share some of the quotes from Church leaders that inspired me. The JST about "requiring the blood of every beast" at my hands was one that really made an impression on me. It made me think that I better have a good reason for taking animal life, and right now I don't.

"When men live to the age of a tree, their food will be fruit...If everyone in this Church will... live upon vegetables, not many generations will pass before the days of man will again return. But it will take generations to eradicate entirely the influences of deleterious substances."
--Brigham Young

"God knows what course to pursue to restore mankind to pristine excellency and primitive vigour, and health; and He has appointed the Word of Wisdom as one of the engines to bring about this thing, to remove the beastly appetites and... promote peace between him and the brute creation...let them be sparing of the life of animals, it is pleasing saith the Lord that flesh be used only in times of winter, or of famine."
--Hyrum Smith

"...surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands."
--Joseph Smith's translation of Genesis 9:11

" In conversation with one of the brethren the other day, the brother remarked 'the diet of the poor is principally bread and meat, and if they dispense with meat, they will be reduced to very hard fare.' I reasoned with him...that articles of food could be raised more cheaply and in greater variety than the flesh of animals. It is an exceedingly difficult thing for most people to break off and discontinue cherished and long standing habits."
--Elder George Q. Cannon

According to the "Journal History", Lorenzo Snow paid "special attention to that part of the Word of Wisdom which relates to the use of meat, which he considered just as strong as that which related to the use of liquors and hot drinks." He "was convinced that the killing of animals when unnecessary was wrong and sinful, and that it was not right to neglect one part of the Word of Wisdom and be too strenuous in regard to other parts."

President Snow "introduced the subject of the Word of Wisdom, expressing the opinion that it was violated as much or more in the improper use of meat as in other things, and thought the time was near at hand when the Latter-day Saints should be taught to refrain from meat eating and the shedding of animal blood."
--"Journal History"

"I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he NEEDS them for food...I am a firm believer in the simple words of one of the poets: 'Take not away the life you cannot give, for all things have an equal right to live'."
--Joseph F. Smith

"The unnecessary destruction of life begets a spirit of destruction which grows within the soul. It lives by what it feeds upon and robs man of the love that he should have for the works of God. It hardens the heart of man. The unnecessary destruction of life is a distinct spiritual loss to the human family. Men cannot worship the Creator and look with careless indifference upon his creation. The love of all life helps man to the enjoyment of a better life. ...Love of nature is akin to the love of God, the two are inseparable."
--Joseph F. Smith

"...during the years we have had a cafeteria I have not, with exception of not more than a dozen times, ordered meat of any kind. ...I have endeavored to live the Word of Wisdom and that, in my opinion, is one reason for my good health."
--President Heber J. Grant

"It was shown in the history of plant science that plants contain all the necessary food substances: proteins, fats, starches and the carbohydrates, minerals, water [and] vitamins. The Great builder of the earth provided well for the physical needs of His children. Countless varieties of edible plants, vegetables, cereals, fruits and nuts are yielded by Mother Nature for man's daily food. If one uses meat it must be used sparingly and in winter or famine only.... They who wish to be well and gain the promised reward stated in the Word of Wisdom must obey all of the law, not just part of it as suits their whim or their appetite, or their notion of its meaning."
--John A. Widtsoe

President Joseph Fielding Smith's wife, Jesse Evans Smith, said, "my husband doesn't eat meat" and he felt a "disdain of meat and a love of vegetables."

The Faithful Dissident said...

In regards to the discussion we were having earlier about the price of meat in the US and how much the gov't should be involved in it, I received an interesting article from a friend on that topic, from a health perspective.

http://www.truthout.org/article/are-rising-obesity-rates-linked-us-farm-aid

Anonymous said...

I just thought it would be appropriate to mention here that it has been proven, time and time again, that healthcare benefits directly correspond with a decrease in the infant mortality rate. Therefore, I find it somewhat hypocritical to find conservatives denouncing abortion while simultaneously opposing healthcare benefits, whether through universal healthcare, or even prenatal care programs. In my opinion, you cannot simultaneously claim to be "pro-life" and at the same time fight against healthcare for the elderly, uninsured children, and expectant mothers.

The U.S. currently ranks 37th in infant mortality rates (right behind South Korea, but ahead of Croatia). Rather predictably, the groups with the highest mortality rates were those more likely to live in poverty, in other words, people who could not afford healthcare.

Anonymous said...

I also forgot to add something that came to mind when reading the comments to this post.

Some have mentioned the "red tape" involved in adopting a child. Personally, if I were to put a child up for adoption, I would hope there would be "red tape". I'd prefer to have any adopting parents be checked for criminal records, mental health issues, stability of their relationship, housing circumstances, employment stability, health issues, etc. before they take any child into their home. After all, we're not talking about an animal shelter here, where you just show up, pick one out, and go home with it.

As to abortion itself, I don't think we can realistically legislate it. People tend to forget that abortion was being practiced long before it became legal. Of course, abortions were rather easily obtained by wealthy women prior to Roe v. Wade since they were usually the ones that could afford a trip out of the country where abortion was legal. There were also abortions being done illegally, in situations where the womans life was at risk (sterilization and an experienced staff tend to be important in medical procedures).

I personally do not believe abortion should be used as a form of birth control, but we need to be pragmatic in finding solutions. In my opinion, we would be better off focusing our time, money and energy in educating people on the alternatives, such as adoption. I also think we should offer housing for women who fear some sort of violence or reprisal from angry parents or partners that may not be too happy if the woman announces she is pregnant. In my local area there is an organization called WEAVE (Women Escaping A Violent Environment) but they are constantly struggling to find funding, and have to occasionally turn people away due to limited space.

Of course, to realistically consider alternatives to abortion, we would have to take the rather liberal position of spending more money on such programs. This then leads to such political slogans as "tax and spend liberals," with no mention of exactly what the "spend" part is going towards.

Anonymous said...

F.D- sorry, it wasn't you that said it was irresponsible, I think it was Rick.

I know abortion is not easy to legislate and there will always be exceptions to every rule, but the attitude of "it's too hard so let's just make it legal" is the real problem. When abortion becomes so common as a method of birth control then it does devalue human life and bring the judgements of God upon our nation. It's the same with gay marriage and other issues, when something immoral becomes mainstream it totally affects society as a whole. Especially as members of the church we need to stand up and not let anything go just because it is P.C.
I know most people are not our faith but it is our responsibility to be an example and be a peculiar people.

John, with the abortion health care issue, again it is the overall attitude that is the problem. When people are given a fish instead of taught how to fish nothing is accomplished. Again, there will always be exceptions but to just give health care away without any real requirements, will, in the long run be worse and cost more (causing greater econimomic stress) than educating people. We certainly need some kind of health care reform (I pay $600 a month being self-emplyed) but not FREE healthcare.

It has been mentioned that we pray and seek inspiration on the number of children we wish to bring into the world, but in no way should we imply that one persons revelation or inspiration is for the everyone as we can only receive "personal" revelation.

Anonymous said...

Matt, although I understand the points you are trying to make, the evidence is the opposite. Nations which have implemented single payer healthcare actually spend less in GDP than the US does with it's for-profit healthcare (US is around 13% while nations with universal healthcare are usually around 5-8%).

Also, you are speaking in vague, theoretical (maybe even philosophical) terms when you use the classic "teach people to fish" argument. Is there any solvency at all that providing healthcare benefits to the public causes people to trash their health? No!

In fact, in our for-profit healthcare system, companies have a vested interest in patients who need to continually return for care. In Great Britain, a not for-profit healthcare nation, doctors actually get paid MORE if they persuade their patients to live healthier lives (ie. exercising regularly, quitting smoking, lowering cholesterol, dieting, etc.).

Of course there will always be people who abuse any service, but the Book of Mormon teaches us that those who desire "that which is not good" are in the minority. That said, I post the following quotes:

"Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people."
(Mosiah 29:31)

“Suppose that in this community there are ten beggars who beg from door to door for something to eat, and that nine of them are imposters who beg to escape work, and with an evil heart practice imposition upon the generous and sympathetic, and that only one of the ten who visit your doors is worthy of your bounty; which is best, to give food to the ten, to make sure of helping the truly needy one, or to repulse the ten because you do not know which is the worthy one? You will say, administer charitable gifts to the ten, rather than turn away the only truly worthy and truly needy person among them. If you do this, it will make no difference in your blessings, whether you administer to worthy or unworthy persons, inasmuch as you give alms with a single eye to assist the truly needy.”
- Brigham Young

Anonymous said...

Oh, and the requirements are still there, they are there in the shape of taxes. We all pitch in, by doing so others get the care they need when they need it, and when our time comes we get the care we need also.

That may seem blasphemous to some, but sounds rather Christlike to me.

I also find it ironic that when this issue comes up, conservatives want to argue that we are imposing our standards on others, but don't see the irony in making that claim in light of abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, prayer in schools, saying the "under God" part of the pledge of allegience (that was added in the mid 1900's by the way), and the list goes on. Someone must do these things, but preventing deaths, disease, and sickness...that's taking away agency. =)

Stephanie said...

john, being against socialized healthcare is not the same as being against healthcare for "elderly, uninsured children, and expectant mothers". I would be for going to a non-profit system, but still not socialized care.

Also, the scriptures you quoted say that usually the majority of the people will choose right. It is when the majority choose wrong that we are in trouble. I don't think that saying that the majority choose anything is an indication that it is right just by virtue of being chosen.

I wish I had a nickel for everytime I am called un-Christlike for being a conservative. I'd be a rich woman.

Stephanie said...

I also find it ironic that when this issue comes up, conservatives want to argue that we are imposing our standards on others, but don't see the irony in making that claim in light of abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, prayer in schools, saying the "under God" part of the pledge of allegience (that was added in the mid 1900's by the way), and the list goes on.

Yeah, and I saw the irony the other way - liberals always screaming about conservatives imposing values, but have no problem imposing their own.

I'll take these issues one by one with this basic premise I already mentioned: I feel that the purpose of government should be to preserve individual freedom while protecting individuals.

1. Abortion - Which value is being imposed here? The one I'll admit is the value of human life. Yes, I would like to preserve and protect human life. I laid out my case for a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to be pregnant. But, once she is pregnant, I view that unborn baby as a separate being who needs to be protected, so I believe our role as a society in protecting the lives of its members should be to protect the life of the unborn baby by denying abortion. If that is imposing a value, fine.

2. Gay rights - as I stated previously, I am not interested in denying anyone else benefits. Two guys want to live together, have a kid, raise the kid, have health benefits that way? Fine. But, don't impose YOUR values on me by redefining the definition of marriage and then expecting me to go along with it and teach my kids about "family diversity".

3. Stem cell research - again. What value am I imposing? The value of human life of an unborn baby. I have no problem defending that position.

4. Prayer in schools - I am actually not for prayer in schools, mainly because I don't want other religions imposed on my kids. I just don't think public school is the place for institutionalized religion. However, I am totally for Christian clubs or other voluntary measures where children who want to get together and exercise their religion (like prayer by the flagpole) can.

5. Pledge of allegiance - we were a nation founded under God. It is part of our history and heritage, so I think it is appropriate to recognize, acknowledge and appreciate that (even if the words were added later).

Stephanie said...

Someone must do these things, but preventing deaths, disease, and sickness...that's taking away agency.

Uh, no. The issue is responsibility. Who is responsible for healthcare? I want to be responsible for mine, and I want you to be responsible for yours. I don't want to take measures to be healthy and be careful with my resources when considering whether or not an illness requires medical attention but pay the same amount as someone else who isn't careful with their health and who sees the doctor for every little sniffle. That is my problem with socialized care. That is why I want a system that both 1. protects against financial ruin in the case of an accident or devastating diagnosis but 2. also preserves financial incentives for good decision making. Hence, my high deductible traditional indemnity insurance plan with a Health Savings account that essentially removes the need for managed care (why have someone else manage your care when you manage it yourself?) so that you and your doctor make decisions yourself. I believe the cost of healthcare would be greatly reduced, making it affordable for the great majority of people. Then, we could pitch in a small amount for programs like Medicaid that help the poor. I'm not opposed to helping people who need it - I am just opposed to this idea of "universal" care, particularly when so many lifestyle choices have health problems associate with them. I don't want to be responsible for everyone else's choices. I don't think it is fair to put them into the "pot" and make me pay a portion. THAT is taking away my agency.

Anonymous said...

You said:
3. Stem cell research - again. What value am I imposing? The value of human life of an unborn baby. I have no problem defending that position.

First of all, it's a stem cell, in my opinions it's no more an unborn baby than a man's sperm or a woman's eggs. Secondly, the stem cells that Bush shut research down on are cells that will never be involved in the creation of a child. So the reality is he shut down research which may have destroyed the embryos in the process of making advances in medicine, because having them go to waste is more moral? To me it's kind of ridiculous. The logic for this seems similar to the logic used by the Catholic Church to deny the use of birth control (to be fare, our Church denied the use of birth control up until the mid 80's also).

You said:
I am totally for Christian clubs or other voluntary measures where children who want to get together and exercise their religion (like prayer by the flagpole) can.

I believe Christian clubs are okay, but I don't understand why school property has to be used. After all, our Church uses institute buildings and chapels for seminary and institute and there doesn't seem to be a problem. You may be the exception, but most of the time when I speak to conservatives, they are all for Christian clubs, but not so enthusiastic of Muslim clubs, or Wiccan clubs. I'm sure many conservative communities around the nation wouldn't feel comfortable with Mormon clubs meeting at their flagpole either, and that's where the problems lie. These things just create divisions in schools and communities. You seperate the believers from the non-believers, the Christians from the non-Christians, etc. In my own school, a Muslim friend of mine had to be excused from class several times a day in order to lay out his prayer rug and pray towards Mecca. Needless to say, Christian parents complained.

Don't get me wrong, I know you mean well, and others do too, but in my opinion, this is just the reality.

You said:
Pledge of allegiance - we were a nation founded under God. It is part of our history and heritage, so I think it is appropriate to recognize, acknowledge and appreciate that (even if the words were added later).

Personally, I've never seen how saying "under God" does anything but cause contraversy. I know MY faith is neither strengthened nor diminished by it, and I don't know of a single instance in which someone suddenly had a spiritual awakening because of it. My atheist friends remained atheist, my agnostic friends remained agnostic. What is the point of acknowledging that we are a nation Under God? Is it so those kids that are Christian can look around with a smirk thinking "yeah, and all you non-Christians better remember that!" In my opinion it's like saying "one nation, founded by white people" and then when people objected saying "wells it's true!"

Also, our nation may have a heritage of strong Christian faith, but it has just as strong a heritage in agnosticism and even atheism. Remember Thomas Paine? Die hard atheist, who wanted it noted that he never changed his views when he was lying in his deathbed. Then there is Thomas Jefferson, who wrote his nephew that he should read the Bible with skepticism:
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than that of blindfolded fear". He then goes on to advise that when his nephew does read the bible, to question the teachings of those who say Jesus was divine.
Then there is Benjamin Franklin, who's religious views are fairly well known, so I won't even bother going into them here.

Anonymous said...

Matt, thanks. It's true, someone who is as admittedly pro-death as I am couldn't be ANY FURTHER from what is right. I find it interesting who theoretical your arguements are. The world is not Mormon. We can't hold the world to the standard by which you and your family have been held to. There are many, many different people and viewpoints that make up our global community. I think your sweeping generalizations show that you forget that.

Stephanie - it seems to me that you are quite concerned about YOU. to quote you, "I feel that the purpose of government should be to preserve individual freedom while protecting individuals"

That's all fine and good when it comes to you and your family - but do you see the problem? It's all about YOU! It's all about the individual. If everyone was Stephanie and her family, and everyone had the same belief set and the same situation, and the same hardships and struggles as you, then, yeah, your definition of govt. would be right on.

However, everyone is not you. In fact most of the world is so far less fortunate than youa re that it's scary to think about. We have a vast array of peoples and situations and cultures and beliefs and lifestyles, etc. in this country, and to treat everyone as if they were YOU and hold them to YOUR standards is highly theoretical - it can't happen - decisions must be made that are best for ALL - for the WHOLE - for society What is best for US? That is where the conservative arguement breaks down.

For non-religious conservatives, it's not a problem, because they can just say, "oh well, dog eat dog world, survival of the fittest and stuff." but for religious conservatives, expecially those who have been comanded to consecrate all that they have to the building up of Zion, the "What's best for ME" approach doesn't cut it - because, in everysense, what's best for me is the opposite of Christ's teachings - not only that, they go against JS's teachings as well.

Not only that, they are the reason that we had things like the Mormon War and the Indian Wars - because the powers that be were only interested in what was best for themselves. so they pushed out and killed Native Americans and Mormons and Catholics and Blacks and Gays and Jews and anyone else that they percieved as a threat to their way of life and what was best for their Allmighty - the ego.

So we see that the continual arguement that the government must do protect INDIVIDUAL's right s(really, that means the person in question's rights) and do what's best for the INDIVIDUAL (really that means the person who's making the statement) can't stand. A government must do what's best for society as a whole, even if it imposes a tad (and I do mean a tad in the whole grand scheme of things) a bit.

The Faithful Dissident said...

In regards to health care:

Matt:
"Again, there will always be exceptions but to just give health care away without any real requirements, will, in the long run be worse and cost more."

OK, Matt, how do we get people to earn health care? How are the most vulnerable, dysfunctional, poorest of society ever going to earn their care? Aside from paying their share of taxes to fund health care, what more can we ethically/morally do than give these people health care when they need it? How can we withold care when human beings need it (and we all do!) and how do we establish what an appropriate "requirement" is so that they've earned the right to see a doctor? Remember, we can be talking about a single mom with 5 kids or a schizophrenic who can't hold down a job.

Stephanie:
"I want to be responsible for mine, and I want you to be responsible for yours."

You know what? I CAN'T be responsible for my own health care because I can't afford to. I have a heart arrythmia and have been to the cardiologist twice in the past 4 years. Luckily, I didn't need surgery, but if I did I can guarantee you that I wouldn't be able to afford it out-of-pocket. Just seeing the cardiologist would take a big chunk out of my yearly budget. My way of being "responsible" is paying my taxes, and then I've "earned" the right to see the cardiologist for a minimal cost that I can afford. Is what I pay in taxes per year more than it costs to see a cardiologist one time out-of-pocket? Perhaps. But if I need heart surgery someday, I can guarantee it won't be.

Matt, you're right about abortion. I don't think any of us liberal Mormons are saying "let's just make abortion legal so that some people can use it as a means of birth control if they want to." Of course none of us support that. We support the same exceptions that the Church deems acceptable. Where we perhaps differ is that some Mormons think the solution is a total ban on abortion. Liberal Mormons believe that there must be a loophole so that girls who are raped can get an abortion. Ideally, it would be wonderful to say "OK, no abortions except if you've been raped," but how do we implement such a system? Then we have women going around crying rape when they haven't necessarily been raped and then we're back to square one: women getting abortions who shouldn't really be getting them. I don't think any of us in this forum are pro-abortion. All of us agree that abortion as a birth control method is wrong (if anyone disagrees, speak up). Ideally, we ALL want abortion to ONLY be carried out in cases such as rape, incest, and where the mother's life is at stake. I agree that a woman's right to choose should end at her decision whether or not to have sex. However, when she hasn't made the decision to have sex and ends up pregnant, I believe that she should have the option of terminating the pregnancy. The Church supports that choice as well.

In regards to stem-cell research, I think it's easy to condemn it until you are suddenly paralyzed or have a child with some rare genetic disease. While many view destroying a human embryo as immoral (and maybe it is), I look at the greater good that can come out of it. If we were killing full-term babies to cure paralysis or cystic fibrosis, it would be much, much more of a problem that couldn't be justified. To take the life of an embryo, that doesn't yet have a beating heart or feeling, in order to possibly save the life of a human being that is already alive and breathing is, in my view, a morally-justified trade-off. I'm not saying that the embryo has no value. It does, it's the very beginning of human life. However, when done respectfully and ethically, I think that it's justified because of the greater good. Just like in the matter of a 13 year-old being raped by her father and having an abortion is morally justified. In this case, we're often talking about a fetus with a heartbeat. It's taking a human life, but it's recognizing that the 13 year-old's innocence and suffering justifies not forcing her to carry out the pregnancy.

So, for those of you who are opposed to stem-cell research, just think about whether you would feel any differently if you or your child had an illness that currently had no cure but showed promise for a cure if stem-cell research is allowed. By the way, stem-cell research is one area where the Church does not have an official position. That doesn't mean of course that they condone it, but neither can it be interpreted to mean that they oppose it.

Stephanie said:
"I wish I had a nickel for everytime I am called un-Christlike for being a conservative. I'd be a rich woman."

Stephanie, if you switch that to being liberal and getting a nickel every time someone says you're un-Christlike, you could be a VERY rich woman. Especially as a Mormon Liberal! :)

Guys, sorry if I fall behind in this discussion in the next few days. I'm going to be stuck at work the entire weekend. Will try to pop by when possible.

Anonymous said...

"Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on money is the equivalent of slapping a Jesus Fish on the American flag in my opinion. Personally, my faith is too personal and too important to be so trivialized.

You may be unaware, but when it was suggested that we put "In God We Trust" on money, it was highly opposed by Churches. They thought God was too sacred to put on "filthy lucre" and "mammon". When it was suggested we say "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, many Churches complained that this was using God's name in vain, and was too much like Great Britain's "God Save the Queen".

The Faithful Dissident said...

One more thing before I go. A bit off-topic, but yesterday it was in the news that white Americans will no longer be a majority by 2042:

"By 2050, whites will make up 46 percent of the population and blacks will make up 15 percent, a relatively small increase from today. Hispanics, who make up about 15 percent of the population today, will account for 30 percent in 2050, according to the new projections." (Associated Press)

How does this make you all feel? Remember that most of the current minorities vote Democrat. Is having a white minority in America a good thing? Bad thing? Do white Republicans have a reason to feel threatened?

The Faithful Dissident said...

... my Hispanic family likes to joke that it's just fulfilling the prophecy about the Lamanites "blossoming as the rose." :)

Amy said...

Yep Rick, I'd say you were definitely pro-death for the reasons listed.

*wink

I haven't bothered to read all the comments because I'm on limited internet time on vacation. But I will say that the terms Pro-Choice and Pro-Life have bothered me for some time now. While I hate "politically correct"-ness I wish there was some other way to describe where you stand on abortion, stem cell research, population concerns, etc. These are all such individual issues. And it is very possible to be 'for' one and 'against' another.

Stephanie said...

john, good points. You are right - I am not opposed to stem cell research. It is harvesting those stem cells from otherwise living embryos that bothers me. In fact, I am not sure how I feel about methods of conception that create unused embryos. I want people who want their own children to be able to have them, but I am not sure how I feel about creating live embryos that most likely will be discarded. Of course, this is easier to say because I have had my own children and am not facing the choice, but I admit that I am uncomfortable with it.

About religion on school campuses, you bring up good points, too. I am not opposed to students using school property when it is not being used, or using their own time (like lunchtime or before school). Basically, if their religious club doesn't interfere with anyone else or use public funds. Prayer at the flagpole falls under this. Students come before school and use an area that otherwise wouldn't be used during that time. I have no problem with that (I never participated in the Christian club at my school, but we did have a large one). But, I do not agree with public universities installing foot baths for Muslims. Is it because I am against Islam? No, it is because I don't think that $25,000 of public university funds need to be used for religious purposes.

At least nine universities in the U.S. have rooms on campus dedicated to Muslim prayers, and more than a dozen schools have either installed foot baths like the ones proposed in Dearborn or are in the process of constructing them.

When I was in high school, we used a few classrooms for early-morning seminary the year that our building was being remodeled. We used them when they were empty. I have no problem with that. However, I would have a problem if the church was asking the high school to build special rooms or designate special rooms just for seminary. Public schools are not the place to cater to religions. I suppose if reality then dictates no religious clubs on campus, I would prefer that to one group getting preferential treatment.

What is the point of acknowledging that we are a nation Under God?

IMO - to give credit where credit is due.

Rick, when I am talking about me, I am not just talking about ME - Stephanie. I am talking about me, the individual. And you, the individual, and my neighbor, the individual. I am talking about not trampling on the rights of individuals. How very "liberal" of you to use my word choice to accuse me of selfishness. ;)

decisions must be made that are best for ALL - for the WHOLE . . . So we see that the continual arguement that the government must do protect INDIVIDUAL's right s(really, that means the person in question's rights) and do what's best for the INDIVIDUAL (really that means the person who's making the statement) can't stand. A government must do what's best for society as a whole, even if it imposes a tad (and I do mean a tad in the whole grand scheme of things) a bit.

Rick, I fundamentally disagree. Society functions for the individual. We are members of society because it benefits us as individuals.

Stephanie said...

I CAN'T be responsible for my own health care because I can't afford to. I have a heart arrythmia and have been to the cardiologist twice in the past 4 years. Luckily, I didn't need surgery, but if I did I can guarantee you that I wouldn't be able to afford it out-of-pocket.

Isn't that the point of health insurance? So that things like heart surgeries are covered even though the average person can't pay for them out of pocket? I am not advocating for no health insurance. I am saying - let me be responsible for my choices, and you be responsible for your choices. In the U.S., that would mean getting and maintaining health insurance. Yes, health insurance is expensive and tied to employment and therefore isn't available to everyone. I would like to change that (so would John McCain).

I don't like managed care because I don't like the idea that someone else decides what is necessary and what is covered. I would prefer to make those choices. There are all sorts of things (like an adult tetanus shot) that I want but that aren't covered by my insurance. There are other things my insurance will cover that I will never use. I would prefer more control (both for ME and all INDIVIDUALS).

Liberal Mormons believe that there must be a loophole so that girls who are raped can get an abortion.

A lot of conservative Mormons believe the same thing.

Stephanie said...

fd, here is how I feel. All things being equal, I don't care what the demographic make-up of the U.S. is. I like U.S. culture. I like our values and traditions. If people come to our country and assimilate into our culture, I am fine with that. If they want to celebrate their own cultures and share them with us, I'm fine with that. But, I like this idea of America. I like patriotism. I like being unified as Americans.

I'll tell you what I don't like. I don't like when politicians (or political pundits) pander to different racial groups and try to create voter blocs to swing elections. If everyone identified as Americans first and voted with "what is best for America" (or in my case as a conservative, "What is best for the average individual in America?"), then I don't think it is very relevant what race they are. But, if people identify themselves by their race first, and say, "As a [black] man, what is best for [black] America?" or "As a [hispanic], etc." then I have to admit that the projected statistics do worry me. And, honestly, a lot of people do seem to identify by their race first.

Anonymous said...

Rick, let me clarify. What I meant was that you couldn't be any further from what is right on the large families=irresponsibility issue, but not on the others.
Y
ou're right, the world isn't Mormon, but you are. "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ".

You said, "but for religious conservatives, expecially those who have been comanded to consecrate all that they have to the building up of Zion, the "What's best for ME" approach doesn't cut it.
I don't feel giving my earnings to druggies and people who leech the government is "building up the kingdom of God". If those people became educated through Gov't assistance to become self reliant, that's what I would consider building up the kingdom of God. I don't mind the liberal attitude of wanting to help everyone and their dog (literally:), it's the "give it all for free" without any requirements for change that I don't like. For example, In MOST cases welfare is used and abused and never repaid.

F.D. you said, "How are the most vulnerable, dysfunctional, poorest of society ever going to earn their care?

This is the same liberal argument and attitude for abortion rights.
Liberals tend to focus on the minority (rape or incest) for determining what is best for the majority. As I have said many times, there will always be exceptions but we must legislate what is, as Rick said, "best for the whole", and I'll add responsible whole.

John, read the "5000 year leap" and you will understand everything the founding fathers put into the constitution was centered around God and being a "religous and moral people". Ben Franklin said the constitution will only be effective under such conditions.

Anonymous said...

You said:
I'll tell you what I don't like. I don't like when politicians (or political pundits) pander to different racial groups and try to create voter blocs to swing elections. If everyone identified as Americans first and voted with "what is best for America" (or in my case as a conservative, "What is best for the average individual in America?"), then I don't think it is very relevant what race they are. But, if people identify themselves by their race first, and say, "As a [black] man, what is best for [black] America?" or "As a [hispanic], etc." then I have to admit that the projected statistics do worry me. And, honestly, a lot of people do seem to identify by their race first.

This just seems to contradict what you have advocated previously. I mean, you obviously identify yourself as a Mormon first, before you identify as anything else. Then you identify as a conservative Christian. So when you are arguing you are arguing "what is best for a(Mormon) America, or a (Christian) America." Or you are arguing "as a Mormon," or "as a Conservative," or "as a believer," etc.

It's not like we have a very good record of looking out for what is best for blacks, hispanics, asians, etc. in this country, so I don't see why it would be a problem.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you've heard of the term "Jack Mormon"? Well this term originated from Democrats that were sympathetic to the Mormon cause in the early days of the Church. They weren't members, so people called them "Jack Mormons".

Anyway, the early Church whole-heartedly embraced politicians that catered to them as a group, as these politicians are praised in our Church books. I don't see how we can then look down on politicians that "cater" to other groups, whether they be black, hispanic, gay, Muslim, etc.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Yesterday at work I got some sad news about a co-worker. He's 19 years old, just finished school to become a truck driver and had literally just started his career a few months ago. (He worked in the dementia ward where I worked as a summer student last year, which is how I got to know him. He still picked up the odd shift, but like I said had just begun driving trucks full time). Anyways, about a month ago he started having headaches and eye trouble while at the nursing home. After some testing, they discovered he had a brain tumour. He had surgery to remove 80% of the tumour. They didn't remove all of it at the time because he would have gone blind, plus they had to establish whether it was cancerous. We were hoping and praying it wouldn't be cancerous, but now the tests have come back and it is indeed malignant. I don't know all the details of his treatment options, but it sounds like he's probably going to have to have the rest of the tumour removed in order to have a chance of saving his life. However, that means he will be permanently blind. I don't know his prognosis, but I assume he faces chemo and/or radiation on top of surgery. And who knows whether the cancer has spread.

So this got me thinking. If this young man lived in the US right now, what options would he have? Let's assume that he had no insurance. He probably wouldn't because he's over 18 and lives on his own and is done school (which means if he was covered under his parent's insurance before, he probably wouldn't be now). On top of this, since he's 19 and had just started work, he probably wouldn't have insurance because either he wouldn't be able to afford it, or if his employer offered it, he hadn't been working long enough to qualify. On top of this, he's going to be a 19 year-old blind man who can't drive trucks anymore. So if he lives, he probably won't be able to find work. That means he'll have to rely on the government's disability pension to support himself.

So, Matt and Stephanie, I know that you want people to be responsible for their own health care. You take care of yourselves and this man should take care of himself. Under that system, would he have a chance? Since he's at that tricky age of no longer being a child, but not yet a full-time working adult with insurance from his employer, would his case just be one of those unfortunate things that no one can really do anything about? Also, since he will be blind and most likely have to go on disability for a long time -- perhaps forever -- who would pay for that? A charity like a church or the Salvation Army? The gov't? Or would that be treading on your rights since your tax dollars would be funding his health care and his very existence? Perhaps even special equipment to help him live at home. Or what if he had to live in an institution? What if he wanted to go to a school for the blind in order to help him get a job suited for his disability? Remember he can't pay for it himself because he can't work. Should tax dollars cover that? Or should it be left to charity?

Stephanie said...

john, what? There is absolutely no contradiction in what I said. Don't put words in my mouth. Yes, I am Mormon, and yes, I am Christian, but that doesn't mean I vote thinking, "What is the best thing for Mormons?". If I did, then I wouldn't be so interested in religious freedom for everyone else.

fd, I don't think all of your assumptions hold. If he just started work as a truck driver and is an employee, he likely has insurance. Being blind, he would likely qualify for disability payments from the government and Medicaid - which I am not opposed to. Why would you think I am? Just because I am opposed to socialized medicine doesn't mean I am opposed to safety net programs like disability. Please don't put words into my mouth.

And just because he is blind doesn't mean he would choose to stay on disability and Medicaid his whole life. He may want to find other skills he has and make a productive career out of them.

The Faithful Dissident said...

So you're only opposed to your tax dollars going towards preventing someone from becoming disabled by getting medical help (OK, early detection would have been difficult in the case of my co-worker, but in other cases symptoms can appear early enough in an illness to do something about it). But you're OK with your tax dollars going towards helping him only once he's become disabled? What about preventative medicine? Sometimes this can be cheaper to the tax payer than a lifetime spent on disability.

OK, so if he's a truck driver maybe he would have had insurance even after just a couple months. But what if he worked at Wal-Mart? As far as I know, only full-time employees who have worked for at least 3 months are eligible for any benefits there.

Stephanie said...

fd, yes, I am opposed to socialized healthcare.

Anonymous said...

You said:
john, what? There is absolutely no contradiction in what I said. Don't put words in my mouth. Yes, I am Mormon, and yes, I am Christian, but that doesn't mean I vote thinking, "What is the best thing for Mormons?". If I did, then I wouldn't be so interested in religious freedom for everyone else.

I didn't think I was putting words in your mouth. I must be misunderstanding your arguments however. For instance, I don't understand why you will state that we should have "Under God" in the pledge by arguing that "we were a nation founded under God. It is part of our history and heritage, so I think it is appropriate to recognize, acknowledge and appreciate that." This seems to be entirely based on your identifying yourself as part of the Christian heritage of the nation, as you are certainly not taking into consideration the atheist or agnostic heritage as well when making that statement.

Anonymous said...

I guess I am assuming you are taking the stance that other conservatives have taken on things though, so excuse me if I am wrong. I was thinking that you most likely argue against gay marriage on the basis that it is a danger to the family (obviously this would mean traditional families, as it isn't protecting gay families), or that if we allowed gay marriage, the Church would be in danger of being discriminated against for not allowing gay marriages. This is most certainly voting in favor of what is good for Mormons or Christians, since it is certainly not taking into consideration what is good for religions that allow gay marriage, or gay people who wish to be married.

I just assume that conservatives who argue for un-regulated capitalism, which is the belief that individuals seeking self-interest benefits all, would also have no qualms with self-interest in politics (whether that self interest favors your group, religious beliefs and values, etc).

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but one last thing. In representative politics, it is the duty of the elected official to see to the interests of their constituents. If you represent a community made up of African-Americans, Hispanics, or even rich White guys, or evangelical Christians, than those are your constituents and "catering" to their specific concerns would be your duty.

Stephanie said...

john, hmm. Interesting point. I have beliefs and teachings from my religion that influence what I think is best for mankind, but voting on what I think is best for all individuals based on my beliefs is different than voting on what I think is best for Mormons

For example, I think that preserving the definition of traditional marriage is in the best interest of all children, regardless of religion or race, because I think that the "ideal" scenario for raising children is one mom and one dad. Like I said, I am not opposed to civil unions so that invidividuals can choose to form gay families if they want, but I think the general ramifications to individuals in society (particularly children) by redefining what makes up a family is damaging.

So, yes, I vote using all of my influences and beliefs that come from being Mormon, but I don't vote for "what is best for Mormons" at the exclusion of everyone else. Just like I am concerned about someone who is hispanic voting for "what is best for hispanics" at the exclusion of everyone else - particularly if hispanics are the largest voting bloc. What would you think if I said that because I am white, I am going to vote for what is best for white people - at the exclusion of all minorities? You would probably call me racist and say I don't care about minorities. Why would it be any different if I were a minority?

(Also, I am not in favor of completely unregulated capitalism. I am in favor of as much free market and capitalism as possible with the few necessary regulations to protect individuals.)

The Faithful Dissident said...

If I were black and lived in a black neighbourhood, then I bet I would vote based on what I felt was best for blacks. I think that white Americans, who make up the majority (at least until 2046 :) have a hard time understanding what it really means to be a minority in America. I have black and hispanic relatives in America and I can see that they've struggled with things that most white Americans can't really appreciate, like living in the projects or being hassled by the cops over the most trivial matters. I don't know the statistics, but it's not much harder than taking a trip to many of America's big cities to see the racial segregation that still exists, at least in an economic form. I grew up close to Detroit and it always amazed me how just a short drive from beautiful Bloomfield Hills, where virtually everyone is white, one can find such depressing places like Detroit's inner-city where virtually everyone is black. If I lived in Detroit's inner city, then I can imagine that I would absolutely be voting for someone who I felt would be better for me, a black person, to provide me health care and the means of finding a better job to move to a better neighbourhood.

So, theoretically, voting solely on racial grounds is racist. However, I think that it's more understandable when you're a minority and I don't think white people can really understand it without walking in their shoes. In certain parts of America, if you're born white, then you've already got an advantage over the black guy that lives a couple streets down from you. And it's not just blacks. Arabs have to fight off the stereotypes of being terrorists, Hispanics being illegal or lazy, etc. If you're white, you never experience racism, unless perhaps you find yourself in a place where whites are the minority -- which few would dare to venture into anyways.

Stephanie said...

In representative politics, it is the duty of the elected official to see to the interests of their constituents. If you represent a community made up of African-Americans, Hispanics, or even rich White guys, or evangelical Christians, than those are your constituents and "catering" to their specific concerns would be your duty.

I agree with this statement, but this is different than what I was saying. I said I don't like when politicians (or political pundits) pander to different racial groups and try to create voter blocs to swing elections.

I can say the same thing about politicians pandering to women, or unions, or any special interest groups. Yes, it happens because people feel underrepresented, so they want someone who is going to meet their needs this time. I understand why it happens, but I think that politicians and pundits make it worse by breaking votes down and going after the group that will swing the election. I think that overemphasizes special interests and de-emphasizes just plain old "What is best for American citizens?". (And I admit that in observing Republicans, I see a lot of politicians pandering to the special interests of big corporations - likely due more to some kind of kick-back than to swing voters, but I don't agree with it either way).

TLars said...

I first read your article when it was published over a week ago, and have been thinking about it ever since; more specifically in regards to comments about green being the new black and reducing our carbon footprint. I had not re-read your article until this evening. Before re-reading your article, my recollection was that in regards to bearing children your article basically stated that since the earth now had over 7 billion inhabitants there is no longer a need to multiply and replenish the earth. It must have been this line that did me in:

"We feel honestly that increasing the population of earth at this stage is irresponsible."

Is this to say that someone is irresponsible if they are multiplying and replentishing the earth? Last time I checked that phrase was still part of the ceremony in a temple sealing.

The Family proclamation leaves no doubt in my mind when it states:

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.

Seems to me that the brethren of the church felt VERY strongly inspired to tell the world when they each signed this document that the command still stands, MULTIPLY AND REPLENISH THE EARTH. I guess there is room enough for 7 billion? ;)

Anonymous said...

Thank you "Utes" for your comment. I have read the article over and over in my mind and it shocks me everytime. I'm sorry but Rick, you sound like a devil in sheeps clothing. You claim to be LDS but you knock A LOT of what the church stands for. We ARE commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. In the scriptures God says that the things of this earth were put here for US to use. There is enough for 7 billion people and more! I thinks it's ridiculous how you say it's "irresponsible" for people to continue to multiply and replenish the earth like we ARE COMMANDED TO DO! WOW!
2nd- I don't understand how ANY LDS can be ok with abortion. The ONLY way I am ok with abortion is rape, or if it is harmful to the mother. But only before the heart can beat (because I feel that's when the spirit enters the body- if there's church doctrine that says otherwise I am open to changing my belief). The reason I feel like people are ok with abortion is because they can't suck it up and deal with the responsibility of their actions. If your dumb enough to get pregnant when you didn't want to you should not be given the option of abortion, and you can instead give it up for adoption.
I honestly can not believe you said you think the D&C is outdated. EVERY PART OF SCRIPTURE WAS MEANT FOR OUR DAY. Ezra T. Benson said that members would learn more about our day by reading the scriptures then by reading any magazine or newspaper or watching the news. Whether it be past prophets or past scripture or todays scripture, we are supposed to listen and apply the doctrine in our lives. Not just the parts that we feel are correct but ALL of it. The Lord has promised that the prophet CAN NOT lead us astray, and if he had any thoughts to do so he would be struck dead. I know that to be true. And I am very thankful for that knowledge.
As a final thought I think it would do everyone good (in the world), to read "Many are Called, but Few are Chosen," by H. Verlan Adersen, and "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen. Ezra T. Benson recommended the latter in General Conference.

big.bald.dave said...

I don't understand how ANY LDS can be ok with abortion. The ONLY way I am ok with abortion is rape, or if it is harmful to the mother. But only before the heart can beat (because I feel that's when the spirit enters the body- if there's church doctrine that says otherwise I am open to changing my belief).

I don't think any of us, even us liberals, are "ok with abortion". I abhor the practice and certainly never plan to have one (I'm a dude, after all :P), though I can't rule out the possibility that extenuating circumstances could force my wife to have one.

The church's stated stance on abortion allows for termination of pregnancies conceived by rape or incest, in cases that endanger the life or health of the mother, and in cases where the child would not survive long after birth. All of this is, of course, to be done in counsel with priesthood authorities, etc. As far as I know, there is no official doctrine defining when the spirit enters the body, though I am inclined to believe it happens at birth.

I oppose abortion, but I also tend to oppose governmental regulation of abortion. That's the real issue here - whether or not each of us supports the government outlawing the practice. In theory, I would support a law banning abortions except in the cases outlined in the Church's position, but in practice the "health of the mother" clause makes such a law completely unenforceable; ANY pregnancy is a threat to the health of the mother.

I believe it was Alan Colmes (the liberal half of Hannity & Colmes) who said that he espouses the conservative position on abortion - that it's not the government's place to decide. And I tend to agree with him.

There are just too many cases in which the mother needs to make that decision with her doctor and her God, and in a matter this personal, I'd just as soon let God be the judge of who is right and who is wrong.

Stephanie said...

Ezra T. Benson said that members would learn more about our day by reading the scriptures then by reading any magazine or newspaper or watching the news.

I have never heard this quote, but I have found this to be true in my life.

In theory, I would support a law banning abortions except in the cases outlined in the Church's position, but in practice the "health of the mother" clause makes such a law completely unenforceable;

It seems like arguments like these are coming up more frequently. Legalize illegal immigration because it is "unenforceable". Legalize drug use because we don't want the prisons full of drug users - too much work for law enforcement. I wonder what this means for our society when we allow so much more just because we don't want to worry about enforcing it. Just a thought.

I believe it was Alan Colmes (the liberal half of Hannity & Colmes) who said that he espouses the conservative position on abortion - that it's not the government's place to decide.

I know we've been going in circles on this, but just one more time - the conservative position (from my view) is that the government should stay out of people's lives unless those people are negativly affecting other people's lives. In the case of abortion, making it illegal would be the government protecting an innocent life, which is totally in line with conservative beliefs.

big.bald.dave said...

It seems like arguments like these are coming up more frequently. Legalize illegal immigration because it is "unenforceable". Legalize drug use because we don't want the prisons full of drug users - too much work for law enforcement. I wonder what this means for our society when we allow so much more just because we don't want to worry about enforcing it. Just a thought.

That is a very poor representation of the liberal position on these issues. I am all about PRACTICAL solutions to these problems. Your statements make liberals look lazy, like we aren't interested in solutions because they require effort.

As long as there are incentives rewarding certain behaviors, those behaviors will continue regardless of the law. Just because a certain behavior is detrimental to society does not make a legislative ban effective. If you want to reduce the number of abortions (as I most certainly do), the right approach is not to legislate a ban, it's to provide real incentives for alternatives.

Anonymous said...

Utes, I don't know if you caught Rick's statement on the "Elephant in the room" post, "I am very worried that President Monson would do something this brash and this outward. I think it is a definate step in the wrong direction - And I agree that it will be looked on as a dark page in the Church's history one day." Apparently Rick receives revelation superior to the prophet.
Knowing this, it's not too surprising that he believes what he on this issue. It really is kind of scary.

-another anonymous

Anonymous said...

Rick said, "However, I also don't think that the average Joe is going to just make the most responsible choice because he's smart, well read, and a concerned citizen. I think that the average person is going to do what works for him the best - that's why fd and I consider high gas prices and high meat prices - even cost-prohibitively high - to be a good idea - it suddenly becomes in peoples best interest to make those changes- so why not?"
Rick in pretty much all of your comments you talk about "compelling" people to live a life that is "right" in your eyes. That is exactly the devils plan. To make people choose what is right. That is not how the Lord wants it. "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.- D&C 121:39" Oh wait, the D&C is outdated apparently. You say it scares you to think about living in a world that controls every aspect of your existence, and yet your ideas do just that.... force "your right ideas" on others.



Rick said, "We have a vast array of peoples and situations and cultures and beliefs and lifestyles, etc. in this country, and to treat everyone as if they were YOU and hold them to YOUR standards is highly theoretical - it can't happen - decisions must be made that are best for ALL - for the WHOLE - for society What is best for US? That is where the conservative arguement breaks down."
What is "right" for society as some people view, may or may not be "right" for me as an individual. And I don't want someone else determining what is "right" for me and my family, or anyone else's.


John said, "Oh, and the requirements are still there, they are there in the shape of taxes. We all pitch in, by doing so others get the care they need when they need it, and when our time comes we get the care we need also.

That may seem blasphemous to some, but sounds rather Christlike to me."
In "Many are Called but Few are Chosen...." "Government can give nothing to one person unless it has first taken something from someone else. This taking is usually in the form of taxes which the taxpayer is compelled to pay at the risk of having his property taken by force. How would you regard compulsory charity if performed without being legalized?... And if you pass a law and legalize the taking and the giving, have you really changed the essential nature of the act? Haven't you merely legalized stealing?... Another problem which should worry those favoring compulsory charity is this: How much of 'A's' property should be taken- 10%, 20%, or more? What answer are you going to give to the socialists and communists who propose taking 100% and then returning to 'A' only what he "needs"? Is it not an exercise of unrighteous dominion to forcibly take any property from one to whom it belongs and give it to another to whom it does not belong?" pg. 38-39

Stephanie, I have tried very hard to find that quote by Ezra T. Benson and am still looking! I KNOW that he did say it. When I find it I will let you know, it's just a matter of remembering where I read it!

Amy said...

Regular Anonymous,

Are you by any chance remembering the First Presidency Message from December 1988? Jesus Christ---Gifts and Expectations. click here to check

Amy said...

Or was it this one? (just trying to help) I really liked this quote by Ezra Taft Benson, especially in regards to this site's posts and comments: "[Everyone] should know the Book of Mormon better than any other book. If we really did our homework and approached the Book of Mormon doctrinally, we could expose the errors and find the truths to combat many of the current false theories and philosophies of men, including socialism, humanism, organic evolution, and others."

TLars said...

I preface this (my second comment ever on your blog) with a bit of background. I enjoy reading blogs, and I enjoy learning perspective on politics. I came across "your" (all eight of you) blog a few weeks back as I was specifically looking for a blog where LDS people were posting their ideas/interpretations on politics today. From what I've read, I must congratulate the eight of you on a fantastic forum for sharing ideas. I have not yet read the posting regarding an elephant in the room, but I must admit that I feel a bit like that myself busting in and posting on your blog. When I wrote my first comment I debated whether or not to post anonymously, but now I am very glad that I did not. I feel that by avoiding anonymous comments we (and our comments) become "real" (if that makes any sense); something akin to people who drive around in their cars flipping people off because there is the safety of anonymity. Anonymous, I guess I'm calling you on the carpet here: it's pretty easy to call Rick a Devil in Sheep's clothing when you are disguised yourself!! :)

With a few clicks you could learn that I am a libertarian leaning republican. I currently serve as the treasurer of the republican party in my county. I believe deeply that The Book of Mormon was written for our day; not only to be "Another Testament of Jesus Christ", but also that we might awaken to our awful situation of the secret combinations that exist in our government.

Enough about me; back to the commenting.

I'm quoting Anonymous who quoted Rick as saying:

"Rick said, "However, I also don't think that the average Joe is going to just make the most responsible choice because he's smart, well read, and a concerned citizen. I think that the average person is going to do what works for him the best - that's why fd and I consider high gas prices and high meat prices - even cost-prohibitively high - to be a good idea - it suddenly becomes in peoples best interest to make those changes- so why not?"

Ok, Rick, my response to this is as follows:

I married in 2001, shortly after being married I got in a HUGE fight with one of my wife's best friends regarding governments fluoridating water. I had just completed a health/nutrition class at the University of Utah where my professor "taught" me that I needed to vote to "put fluoride in the water" because this is what was best for the people. (I might add that this was before I was a libertarian leaning republican.) I followed my professors words exactly and voted to fluoridate the water. Back to fighting with my wife's friend; I told this friend that I was all for fluoridating water, that she was a crazy conspiracy theorist. I had nothing to base my beliefs on other than what I had been taught at the U of U. Well, long story short, I wish I hadn't have been so ignorant with my wife's friend. With a simple bit of research I learned just how bad fluoridating water can be. Not only that, I learned that great pressure has been applied to teaching our children in school just how good fluoride is, just how great it is that fluoride is in our toothpaste. The ADA says it, so it must be true? Right? How does this relate to what you said, Rick? You said, that me, an every-day Joe, smart and well read would not be willing to make the right choice, right? Because libertarian republicans like me are all about capitalism right? Well, I just spent $6 a tube buying all natural tooth powder. And, guess what, the government didn't even need to step in and tell me that is what I MUST do!!

Another example:

About a month or so ago I watched a FANTASTIC documentary (which you can watch in its' entirety at: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-world-according-to-monsanto-a-documentary-that-americans-wont-ever-see-full-video/). I now have ZERO desire to purchase Wheat Thins (which I absolutely LOVE) for fear that they are likely processed with GMO wheat. So, what do I do, I now purchase snack crackers that cost me DOUBLE because they are organic/non-GMO.

You see, Rick, I believe that Republicans and Democrats, when it really comes down to it want a lot of things in common. It's the media that wants us to think otherwise. We live in the greatest propaganda campaign of all time. This issue is most important or that issue is most important. It sounds like you guys have been debating abortion endlessly, when I would imagine that when it came down to it, being LDS we prescribe to the same belief that abortions should be avoided except in the case where the women's body is in harm or where rape has occured. (And don't forget to involve the Lord in your decision!) Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we all believe in that principle. Teach the people principles and let them government themselves. As you stated, God does not need to command in all things, we need to be actively seeking/doing good things.

I recently attended the republican convention for my state. I came home quite disheartened that all that was "preached from the pulpit" was that the most important thing is that we "elect republicans". I must say that I disagree. I think the most important thing is that we elect individuals who are principle driven. I even wrote an e-mail to my state republican chairman asking him that at our next convention we bag a few of the speakers and instead hold classes to teach our state and federal constitution to people.

I was never once required in my education at the University of Utah to read the constitution; yet, I was required to take numerous courses on diversity. Bizarre.

Anyway, I see no need to increase the price of meat. If you feel so sincerely (and you have convinced me to eat less meat) that people should be aware of what is going on in the slaughterhouses then teach people, hand out movies, hand out brochures, everywhere. I keep copies of documentaries on GMO, fluoride, and aspartame in my briefcase at all times so that I can hand them out and teach what I feel is important. I do not want the government to tax you or me more so that my pet issues dvd's can be mailed out to all american's because I think they need them. No, that is my responsibility.

LOVE YOUR BLOG!!

Go Utes!!!

Anonymous said...

Wow, Utes - that was very thoughtout, and thoughtful of you. I have nothing but respect and admiration for you and your your political opinions. But you are NOT the average Joe - simply because you have put so much thought into stuff. If we were all like you (which most of America is not) It is likely that my opinions on some of these things would change. I, as an aside to your aside, do support floridation of water - oh well.

In response to your talk about the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, Indeed, also last time I checked, that statement can be found in the temple (but who knows these days ;) I ask, who are we to decide what that means? does it mean that the earth today, as in the times of Adam, is just as in need of peopling? Or does it mean to have posterity and find joy in them? does it set a number? What number should we multiply by? technically if you multiply by a fraction, that would actually kill alot of people. (a little joke there)

And Replenish. What an interesting statement. I think we hear MULTIPLY and forget the Replenish part. Unfortunately, multiplying is easy-queasy. Replenishing, on the other hand, not so much. We could see this as "re-people" which Orson Hyde and Brigham Young did (which brings up an interesting arguement about evolution for another day). Or, we could look at it as actually replenishing the earth and it's resources. Replenishing these things would include not taking more than we leave (the whole thing of leaving the place better (more plenished) than we found it). Again, open for interpretation, but that is how I see it - therefore If the command to me is to multiply, i will (I'm hopefully going to be able to have two birth children of my own - and raise two more by adoption, God willing - that is multiplying by 1). If the command is replenish, well, reducing my ecological footprint, being environmentally concious, not supporting the meat industry, etc...well, I figure I have that base covered as well. Thanks for your comments - the sight is for everyone :)

Anonymous said...

anonymous - hi. Welcome to the site. I am excited, because you just called a devil in sheep's clothing, and you likened my religo-political views to the devil's plan. Which further proves my point at the begining of this blog - that I am, just like the devil, pro-death. ;) But seriously, comments like that hurt your cause more than they help. Especially since you know I'm LDS

SO....lets clear the misconceptions that have been built up around me.
I believe in God the Eternal Father and Jesus Christ
I believe Joseph Smith to have been the prophet of the Restoration
I believe the current prophet to be inspired to lead and guide this poeple in these times.
I believe in, read daily, and have faith in the scriptures (all of them)
do I need to keep going? Lets also add some to that, though.

I do not believe that everything that every prophet has ever said, every scripture and every conference talk (much less every book published by a conservative LDS guy with an ax to grind) can be taken A) literally (at face value), and B) as the unchanging, universal truth of God It is requisite that statements be interpreted, due to the nature of speach. If we did A and B, we'd still be killing all the Amorites, and we'd self destruct due to the vast amount of contradictions found in this VAST array of literature. The Lord commands us to read the scriptures and sustain the prophet, and he also commands us to apply them to our lives the way that we are best able. Which I've done for myself.

Ezra T. Benson is a great case in point. As the aged prophet of the Church, I loved and respected him and feel that he was doing his very best to lead the Lord's people in righteousness. However, he was VERY conservative - even outspokenly so (there are recorded cases of him alienating members of the 12 because of his outspoken conservativism - - other members of the 12 have talked about organic evolution as a means of God's creation...) So, can I take everything he says as the revealed word of God? nope. Not even if he says it in converence, because he is still a human being with passions. Try taking everything Brigham Young said from the pulpit as the revealed word of God ;) (read the Journal of Discourses and you'll know what I'm talking about)

Secondly, Anonymous, Lets quote me here, " I disagree with people's reasons for abortion most of the time, but I feel that it is their choice to make (because i don't believe that human life starts at fertilization). I can't see a clear way of defining "rape" and therefore cant understand how one could legislate abortion on more than a superficial level." Besides the bit about being people's chose to make, that is pretty much inline with the Official Church Position on the matter. I am not "okay with abortion." I think it's bad and detestable. I love kids. I want some of my own. I'm a kindergarten/elementary school teacher, for pete's sake!!! I am not pro-abortion - just not in favor of legilating it - two totally differen things.

Also, not sure where you are going with "I believe the prophet won't lead us astray...." bit - but, coincidentally, I do too. Isn't that cool, and absolutely not scary. If you read my previous comment, I truely do. I love prophets -I dig em. I'm very grateful for them - however you want to say it. Don't think they'll lead us astray. Another thing I'm extremely grateful for - maybe even more than the above mentioned, is my ability to Choose and Think for myself. Which I've done. Which seems to scare you for some reason.

You say, "Rick, in pretty much all your posts, you talk about "compelling" people to live a life that is "right" in your eyes."

Uh, no? Really? I think you have Totalitarianism and Social Democracy mixed up. Actually, I feel we shouldn't compel people. I am all about less laws and more taxes - and higher prices. I think, as long as we're stuck in this Capitolistic mire that we find ourselves in, why not make the most of the power of Mammon? If they all want to serve mammon, let's just make it more expensive. That'll teach em.

Anyways, I feel I've spent enough time responding to your accusations - I've got better things to do. So many souls to destroy and so little time. It's a daunting task, you know....

The Faithful Dissident said...

In regards to whether a prophet can lead us astray or not, I have a few thoughts that I'd like to share.

I believe that members who follow every word that the prophets have said will be blessed by the Lord for their obedience. No doubts about that. Even if a prophet CAN lead us astray, I don't believe that we will be held accountable for that if we were just obeying him like we're told to do. However, I do believe that we will be held accountable for how we obey our own individual conscious. So, as blasphemous as this may sound to some of you, if a prophet says we should do something, I ponder, pray about it, consider it, and still don't feel good about it, then I'm not going to do it. It's not because I want to be a rebel, because I'm a Liberal, or because I have a weak testimony. The main reason why I feel this way is because of the Church's racist past. Mistakes have been made in regards to teachings about race, they've been somewhat acknowledged by a few General Authorities, and the Church has moved on. That's fine with me. However, I find it hard to not look back at history and ask myself whether that could happen again. Back in the 60's George Romney was under pressure from the Church to change his political view on civil rights, and Church leaders tried to use their teachings on "the negro" as justification for him to tone it down -- the same teachings that are now regarded as wrong (though the myths persist among certain members).

So whether it's a matter of race, socialism, gay rights, organic evolution, or how many earrings I have in my ears, I'm going to listen to what my conscience tells me. Once again, I do not condemn any of you who want to do everything the prophet says we should do. Continue what you're doing, I'm sure the Lord will bless you for your obedience. I love the Church and I cherish my membership in it. I try to be a good person, even though I'm sure I fail miserably at times. I think I try to keep an open mind and a humble heart. But one's conscience is a very powerful thing and I feel the Lord all gave us one for a reason. I'm glad that George Romney listened to his in regards to civil rights for blacks in America.

So, Rick, continue thinking and choosing for yourself. Just like the others in this group, I think that you're a good person doing your best to be a Christlike Mormon in a way that aligns with what your conscience tells you is right. I think that if everyone, Conservative or Liberal, could do that in full honesty, then the world would be a better place for all.

TLars said...

Rick, thanks for the kind words. Y'all really do have a great blog. Now, back to the debate:

Rick stated:

"I ask, who are we to decide what that means? does it mean that the earth today, as in the times of Adam, is just as in need of peopling? Or does it mean to have posterity and find joy in them? does it set a number? What number should we multiply by?"

I can tell you what I think it means, but that would just be my interpretation. Instead, let's look at what you have stated here, Rick. Let's break it up, question, by question.

1) I ask, who are we to decide what that means? This is exactly us conservatives point. Each of us, individually yet with the Lord DO need to decide for OURSELVES exactly what it means without persuasion from the government. Who are we to decide? Is that to say there is somebody better out there who should decide for us? I think not. I think this was what the war in heaven was all about agency and choice. I for one would like to keep my choice intact without be coerced into anything by my FEDERAL government.

2) Does it mean that the earth today, as in the times of Adam, is just as in need of peopling? Of course the earth today is much more populated today than it was in the times of Adam. Last time I check 7,000,000,000 was a LOT larger number than the simple number "2"; and I should know, I am a public accountant after all!!. Is there still room? I have my personal belief's on that. What is fact is that the temple ceremony and the Proclamation on the Family, both of which I would argue are indisputable gospel doctrine, continue to command us to multiply and replenish. These seem to be commandments in the hard definition sense of the word; the type of doctrine which in old biblical times began with "Thus sayeth the Lord". If it were in scripture it would read, "Thus sayeth the Lord, my commandment to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."

3) Or does it mean to have posterity and find joy in them? Yes, this is commanded as well, however, it is a separate line; thus a related yet separate command.

4) does it set a number? You and I, and everyone else knows it does not. Absolutely not. This is what is left between that couple and the Lord. Keep in mind also that, there is no maximum nor minimum set. These maximum or minimum (whether through physical childbirth or adoption) numbers are to be decided between that couple and the Lord without any restriction or coercion from a federal government.

5) What number should we multiply by?" Unfortunately, I (nor any person or government) can give you assistance on this one. This is for you, your spouse and the Lord. If you do not know the answer to this, then keep doing what you are doing, read your scriptures, attend the temple, and pray to the Lord of hosts that he might help you find your answer. Honestly, I think you've got an argument in multiplying by fractions; probably just the accountant in my, but yes, it is possible to multiply by fractions or even zero; but, the point is that this is the CHOICE of the parents, not our federal government!!!

Rick, you've talked about how after we hear what the prophets say, it is up to us, to use our agency and choice to decide whether or not to obey. I TOTALLY and completely AGREE. As I stated earlier, we know this is EXACTLY what the war in heaven was about. If you are so for agency and choice regarding what the leaders of your religious faith say, why too can we not allow our government to teach us what they may believe are correct principles and then allow us to decide whether or not to obey (or change our lifestyles in the number of children we wish to have or not have)?

Enjoy your day.

Utes

Anonymous said...

Dude, I'm in no way for federal mandate about how many kids you can have - financial incentives? Maybe,if done right. China has been cheezed up because the government decided to madate the amount of children they could produce (1) and now there are little dead baby girls floating up the Gangese (incidentally why my wife and I will adopt from China). Anyways, yeah - all I said initially about that is that I feel that it is irresponsible to INCREASE the total population of the world - if you only have two, you aren't increasing the total, cause you'll die, and the number will still be two. So it's multiplying by 1. Lets Multiply and replenish the earth as the lord has so ardently and earnestly comanded us. Multiply by 1 and then replenish it (go green). bye.

TLars said...

That phrase "go green" seems to imply many things to many people. And this is what I have a hard time with: according to some websites, going green means "reducing your carbon footprint" by having less (or no children) because the earth is full. Having less, okay, you may have an argument, but what about those who say, "have none". This I find in direct conflict with the commandments of God.

TLars said...

Also, might I ask you, Rick, to go Green by, 1) buying non-gmo food; 2) asking our government to quit poisoning our water with fluoride, and 3) quite poisoning our bodies with immunizations that contain mercury.?

Stephanie said...

Amy, that's an awesome quote! And so true.

Anonymous said...

Definately - sounds good - especially the food part - I've been working on erradicating all forms of packaged and processed foods from my diet. non-gmo sounds right up my alley (except I didn't have a name for it). Floride thing, I don't feel like it's life or death, and if places don't floridate (a la Utah) then I can go buy ANY toothpaste on the market and floridate. Where I live now, the question is, can one safely drink the water, rather than floridate it. And the third charge - Mercury Immunizations - sounds good. I'd love to hear more about that.

I think about people having no kids - well, thats totally up to them - if they feel like they can multiply another way, cool. Not nec. what I'm going to do, but it's their call. I wouldn't say that I expect anyone to make the same decision as me. Go Utes!

TLars said...

Rick,

I assume that in your last comment when you stated, "A La Utah" this meant than you understood that Utah does not fluoridate its' water. I no longer live in Utah, but I did hear that there were some things in the works to STOP fluoridating the water there. Anyway you got me thinking about it so I just contacted the "Safe Drinking Water Coalition" in Lehi, Utah. Currently, all of Salt Lake County, and most of Davis county DO fluoridate their water. The Provo/Orem area does NOT fluoridate their water.

Just wanted to alleviate any misconceptions.

Utes

Anonymous said...

Utes- Seeing as that's not your "real" name you are just as much posting "anonymously" as I am, so you can call me Jessica if you'd like, 'cause honestly it wouldn't matter if my name was fred, tom, george, or georgana! You wouldn't know me on the street from the next person, but call me Jessica.

Rick said, "Why is it unfortunate? for the simple reason that Jackson said in the beginning. Is the mere allowance of two homosexuals claiming the status of "married" really going to "bring on the calamities fortold by ancient and modern prophets"? No."
- You're a real piece of work Rick! I don't think its a matter of "claiming the status" of marriage. It is a Law of God. Bottom line. Homosexuality (and other acts of destroying marriage) has destroyed civilizations in the past, and will be a part of destroying ours!

Rick said, "I am very worried that President Monson would do something this brash and this outward. I think it is a definate step in the wrong direction -"

Rick said, "I think that, for at time, we were led astray - and Then led back."

Rick said-"The Lord commands us to read the scriptures and SUSTAIN THE PROPHET, and he also commands us to apply them to our lives the way that we are best able. Which I've done for myself."
Is that what you call following the Prophet? Voting no on the Marriage Amendment?

Rick :"Also, not sure where you are going with "I believe the prophet won't lead us astray...." bit - but, coincidentally, I do too. Isn't that cool, and absolutely not scary. If you read my previous comment, I truely do. I love prophets -I dig em. I'm very grateful for them - however you want to say it. Don't think they'll lead us astray." You are contradicting yourself man.

Rick said, "I am all about less laws and more taxes - and higher prices. I think, as long as we're stuck in this Capitolistic mire that we find ourselves in, why not make the most of the power of Mammon? If they all want to serve mammon, let's just make it more expensive. That'll teach em." It's a form of forcing them to do what's right in your eyes. Call it what ever you want but it's an act of force.

Rick said, "Anyways, yeah - all I said initially about that is that I feel that it is irresponsible to INCREASE the total population of the world - if you only have two, you aren't increasing the total, cause you'll die, and the number will still be two." So again, listening to the prophets council on "multiplying and replenishing" is irresponsible.

I am sorry for calling you a devil in sheeps clothing. Sometimes we eat our words, I'm eating mine. I just don't understand how you can say/think some of the things you do when you say you love the prophets and everything.

Rick: "I believe the current prophet to be inspired to lead and guide this poeple in these times." ... but you think he's leading us in the wrong direction on at least ONE subject.

Rick: "I believe in, read daily, and have faith in the scriptures (all of them)"... but the D&C is outdated, the Proclamation wasn't meant for the "World" only us LDS, and the current prophet/scripture is the only one we need to "heed" to.

I'm sorry I was/am dissrespectful. I do not want to offend you. No one has offended me. I am trying to understand why some people think/act the way they do...

Amy said...

Anon Jessica, please keep coming around because everyone participating is making this site that much more interesting! Plus, I think everyone on this site has caused some offense in discussion, whether intended or not. But its good that you apologized for the wolf-in-sheeps-clothing comment, because namecalling is against the rules. (see post #1 on this site)

And I think---its good to understand why/how people believe or think the way they do. Even if it doesn't change the way we think, its good to try to see something from someone else's perspective.

Anonymous said...

Very well stated Anon Jessica.

Isn't it great how consistently inconsistent them good ol' liberals are. Sure makes it easy to argue any side of any issue.

me

Anonymous said...

Rick said, "Why is it unfortunate? for the simple reason that Jackson said in the beginning. Is the mere allowance of two homosexuals claiming the status of "married" really going to "bring on the calamities fortold by ancient and modern prophets"? No."
- You're a real piece of work Rick! I don't think its a matter of "claiming the status" of marriage. It is a Law of God. Bottom line. Homosexuality (and other acts of destroying marriage) has destroyed civilizations in the past, and will be a part of destroying ours!

Rick said, "I am very worried that President Monson would do something this brash and this outward. I think it is a definate step in the wrong direction -"

Rick said, "I think that, for at time, we were led astray - and Then led back."

Rick said-"The Lord commands us to read the scriptures and SUSTAIN THE PROPHET, and he also commands us to apply them to our lives the way that we are best able. Which I've done for myself."
Is that what you call following the Prophet? Voting no on the Marriage Amendment?

Rick :"Also, not sure where you are going with "I believe the prophet won't lead us astray...." bit - but, coincidentally, I do too. Isn't that cool, and absolutely not scary. If you read my previous comment, I truely do. I love prophets -I dig em. I'm very grateful for them - however you want to say it. Don't think they'll lead us astray." You are contradicting yourself man.

Rick said, "I am all about less laws and more taxes - and higher prices. I think, as long as we're stuck in this Capitolistic mire that we find ourselves in, why not make the most of the power of Mammon? If they all want to serve mammon, let's just make it more expensive. That'll teach em." It's a form of forcing them to do what's right in your eyes. Call it what ever you want but it's an act of force.

Rick said, "Anyways, yeah - all I said initially about that is that I feel that it is irresponsible to INCREASE the total population of the world - if you only have two, you aren't increasing the total, cause you'll die, and the number will still be two." So again, listening to the prophets council on "multiplying and replenishing" is irresponsible.

I am sorry for calling you a devil in sheeps clothing. Sometimes we eat our words, I'm eating mine. I just don't understand how you can say/think some of the things you do when you say you love the prophets and everything.

Rick: "I believe the current prophet to be inspired to lead and guide this poeple in these times." ... but you think he's leading us in the wrong direction on at least ONE subject.

Rick: "I believe in, read daily, and have faith in the scriptures (all of them)"... but the D&C is outdated, the Proclamation wasn't meant for the "World" only us LDS, and the current prophet/scripture is the only one we need to "heed" to.

I'm sorry I was/am dissrespectful. I do not want to offend you. No one has offended me. I am trying to understand why some people think/act the way they do...

Anonymous said...

oops - that was just anon-jessica's last post - it was an accident that I reposted it. I'll give a proper response later today.

TLars said...

Anon Jessica,

Yes, I am "disguised" as Utes. My point is that "Utes" is a registered name, and with a few clicks, you WILL indeed know what I look like if you passed me on the street! Not only that, you would know my full name. But, thanks for calling me out anyway.

Utes.

Anonymous said...

Utes: I know I can click on your name and find out everything and more about you, but I didn't want to do that myself. My blog is private anyways, mostly for the "scary" people I don't want viewing my blog. But I think you know what I meant, I wasn't trying to be rude or anything.

Amy: the quotes that you found by Ezra T. Benson are really good ones, there just not the one I remember. I WILL find it though! I don't know how serious you were when you said to keep coming back, but before I read that I was thinking about not. I felt/feel bad that I keep "picking" on Rick. So I will stop that but just give my two cents everyonce in a while!
Jessica

Amy said...

I was very serious. I think Rick would agree that the discussions where people are straight up with what they're thinking are the best ones on this site.

(and when I said we've all probably caused offense I meant throughout the entire site on various discussions, not just this one...just another reason to assume the best I guess!)

Amy said...

oh yeah, and correct me if I'm wrong Rick, but I believe you're pretty good at taking care of yourself...do you feel picked on? (not counting the devil comment)

Anonymous said...

Do I feel picked on? Nope. I'm very confident in my position. I have a bad case of, "I'm right and anyone else who doesn't agree with me is obviously below me." Therfore, picking on me doesn't do anything. ;)

Now, I was trying to respond to Anon-Jessica earlier and I had a dang good post lined up - but then in my haste to try to get back to my employment, I lost it and instead just reposted her criticism of me...as if the first one wasn't enough. Anyways, Anon-Jessica, I would really like you to understand me (and other - I'm not alone in my political beliefs at all) so, I figured the best way to do that would be to just repost your criticisms and interject in text - I'm not going to use quotation marks - just going to add in paragraphs - hope you can understand my "new" voice:

Jessica said:

Rick said, "Why is it unfortunate? for the simple reason that Jackson said in the beginning. Is the mere allowance of two homosexuals claiming the status of "married" really going to "bring on the calamities fortold by ancient and modern prophets"? No."
- You're a real piece of work Rick! I don't think its a matter of "claiming the status" of marriage. It is a Law of God. Bottom line. Homosexuality (and other acts of destroying marriage) has destroyed civilizations in the past, and will be a part of destroying ours!

-Ah, but it IS a matter of claiming the status - I never argued about weather or not homosexuality and "other acts of destroying marriage" was moral or right or acceptable. I prefer to keep those musings to myself. The question is and always will be a question of semantics - words - and othing more - what to claim on one's taxes, if you will. YOu see, even believing what you stated above, you hating Homosexuality and all it entails will not stop it - its here to stay - and has been from the beginning of time. It's not a question of do I agree with it, but a question of "whats in a name." How (out of curiosity) does that qualify me as "a real peice of work"?(another name calling incident, btw.)

Rick said, "I am very worried that President Monson would do something this brash and this outward. I think it is a definate step in the wrong direction -"

Rick said, "I think that, for at time, we were led astray - and Then led back."

Yes and Yes - I did say those things and meant them. That does not mean, however, that I view Monson as some sort of fallen or invalidated prophet - he has has is calling and will continue to do it to the best of his ability. I may feel that he made a mistake, but, hey -- he's human - we all do that (except me, obviously).

Rick said-"The Lord commands us to read the scriptures and SUSTAIN THE PROPHET, and he also commands us to apply them to our lives the way that we are best able. Which I've done for myself."
Is that what you call following the Prophet? Voting no on the Marriage Amendment?

Yep. The key word for me was "apply them to our lives the way that we are best able." I don't live in California, so I can not vote on said topic, but If I did, you can bet that I would vote no on that. It is the only way that I feel i could be true to myself - and being honest and true to myself and my personal relationship with God is of upmost importance to me. It doesn't mean that I reject and no longer sustain the prophet - just that I'm not going to fall in line with his urgings at this instance.

Rick :"Also, not sure where you are going with "I believe the prophet won't lead us astray...." bit - but, coincidentally, I do too. Isn't that cool, and absolutely not scary. If you read my previous comment, I truely do. I love prophets -I dig em. I'm very grateful for them - however you want to say it. Don't think they'll lead us astray." You are contradicting yourself man.

Nope. I'm not. I stand by that. Just because I disagree with something that the prophet might have said or done, just because I feel it to be a mistake doesn't mean that I think him to be a fallen prophet or guilty of leading us astray. I love and respect him, and I allow him the room to make a goof everyonce in a while - That simply doesn't affect my faith in his calling as the divinely sanctioned leader of this church. I believe that regardless of the mistakes of men, the truth of God will go forth Boldly, Nobly and INDEPENDANT...so the prophet will not lead us astray. I do feel that he might kick himself someday for falling inline with an approach to a problem that might not have been the best approach.

Rick said, "I am all about less laws and more taxes - and higher prices. I think, as long as we're stuck in this Capitolistic mire that we find ourselves in, why not make the most of the power of Mammon? If they all want to serve mammon, let's just make it more expensive. That'll teach em." It's a form of forcing them to do what's right in your eyes. Call it what ever you want but it's an act of force.

Nah, man - governments are ment to control people to some extent. That's just the way it is. You could say that any form of legislation is "a form of forcing" someone to do something that is right in someone else's eyes. Its an act of governance, not an act of force. The difference between me and you is that I feel that A and C should be legslated and B should be left alone, and, in many instances, you feel that A and B should be legilsated and C should be left alone.

Rick said, "Anyways, yeah - all I said initially about that is that I feel that it is irresponsible to INCREASE the total population of the world - if you only have two, you aren't increasing the total, cause you'll die, and the number will still be two." So again, listening to the prophets council on "multiplying and replenishing" is irresponsible.

Read my response to UTES on this subject. I outlined it pretty clear - If you don't get it, I'm sorry - I'm all about following temple ordinance here -again, I just view it a bit differently than you - leave it alone, you're accusing me of something that isn't accurate.

I am sorry for calling you a devil in sheeps clothing. Sometimes we eat our words, I'm eating mine. I just don't understand how you can say/think some of the things you do when you say you love the prophets and everything.

- Hope this exercize helps your understanding.

Rick: "I believe the current prophet to be inspired to lead and guide this poeple in these times." ... but you think he's leading us in the wrong direction on at least ONE subject.

-Addressed above - I grant him, as a human, the opportunity to be wrong in at least ONE (hey, more than one even) subject while still being qualified to be inspired and lead and guide this people in these times.

Rick: "I believe in, read daily, and have faith in the scriptures (all of them)"... but the D&C is outdated, the Proclamation wasn't meant for the "World" only us LDS, and the current prophet/scripture is the only one we need to "heed" to.

- That's quite a manipulation of what I said. I never said D&C is outdated - simply that times change, and with them the accuracy or the applicability of certian revelation (hence the need for continuing revelation) - if this weren't so, we'd still be held to the law of Moses, and still be killing the Amorites.
As far as the Proclaimation goes...again, not sure when I said that. It's putting words into my mouth
And as far as "the current prophet/scripture is the only one we need to "heed" to." - I'm not sure what that even means - I never said anything like that, nor do I feel that way. In fact, It's quite a polar opposite from what I feel.

Let me tell you a bit about me for a second. I got a degree in History (focus on the Ancient Near East) from BYU and have been preocupied with World Religion, culture, and Early Christianity ever since. In fact, this is the driving force behind what I am doing for Grad-School. I've thought alot about inspiration, revelation, religion, scripture, etc. It's not something that i approach lightly. So when I say I love the scriptures, I mean it - but obviously my experiences with these things have altered my POV a bit. Could you possibly expect them not to?

I'm sorry I was/am dissrespectful. I do not want to offend you. No one has offended me. I am trying to understand why some people think/act the way they do...

- Here's the deal - the things we do, the experiences we have, the knowledge we gain and the way the spirit speaks to each of us colors our outlook in many different ways. You do not belong to a congregation of believers that is monolithic in its make-up. We ALL view stuff a bit differently from one another. That's good. In fact, its good that someone might have a testimony of something that directly conflicts with your testimony - that means we are still individuals. Sure, my approach to the world is different than yours. Please don't belittle it though - you and the other anonymous have done a bang up job of trying to do that. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, beliefs and values without being belittled by the "Saints" that are supposed to be their "brothers and sisters." A better approach would be to actually TRY to understand such beliefs.

When it comes right down to it, the important thing is that we show love and respect for one another. That's what Christ was about, and that is the purpose of Religion's exiistance. Hope that helps you better understand me - Rick

Stephanie said...

Congratulations on getting the second post with 100+ comments, Rick. (Of course, I do feel a litle cheated since it was really a rebuttal to my post, which has a mere 20+ comments) [insert smiley with tongue sticking out here]

Anonymous said...

Amy and Stephanie: In a letter to H. Verlan Anderson dated July 28, 1976, (In the Apendix I in "Many are Called but Few are Chosen"), Ezra T. Benson said "I am a great believer in the Book of Mormon and feel strongly that it was written for our day and time. I have said to many people that a person will come to be better informed reagarding what's happening in the world today by reading the Book of Mormon than all the magazines and newspapers combined."

F.D.: I understand and agree with you when you said that you ponder, pray about it, and consider about what the prophet has asked us to do, however I don't agree when you say that if you still don't feel good about it, then you're not going to do it. I don't think it's blasphemous I just don't agree with you. I have found in my own life that when I come to the conclusion that is not inline with what the prophet has said that it is my own conscience that I'm fooling.

Rick: "In fact, its good that someone might have a testimony of something that directly conflicts with your testimony - that means we are still individuals." I think that's a load of crap. How can the Spirit testify to our individual spirits/hearts two different things that conflict with eachother? That doesn't make sense. I understand that the church can mean something different to everyone because of experiences and testimonies but the Holy Ghost will not testify to us conflicting thoughts/ideas/testimonys. Oh and I wasn't putting words in your mouth about the Proclamation being "meant for the World" according to what you said. You said it in your first post to the commenter Stacey.

Rick: "There are a great many wise men and women too in our midst who are too wise to be taught; Therefore they must die in their ignorance, and in the ressurection they will find their mistakes. Many seal up the door of heaven by saying, "So far God may reveal and I will believe...." Joseph Smith, History of the Church 5:423-25

"The doctrine of revelation far transcends the doctrine of no revelation; for one truth revealed from Heaven is worth all the sectarian notions in existence." Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:252.

There sure is A LOT of Latter Day Saints that need to do some serious searching to help them come to the knowledge of the truth....

Jessica

big.bald.dave said...

How can the Spirit testify to our individual spirits/hearts two different things that conflict with eachother? That doesn't make sense. I understand that the church can mean something different to everyone because of experiences and testimonies but the Holy Ghost will not testify to us conflicting thoughts/ideas/testimonys.

In general, Jessica, I'm closer to your opinion here than I am to Rick's, but I do have to disagree with this blanket statement. The prophet receives revelation for the entire church, the stake president for his stake, the bishop for the ward, the father for his family, etc., and anything that isn't covered is left to personal revelation.

It is entirely possible and legitimate for two people to prayerfully consider a topic (take something as silly as the consumption of caffeine, for instance) and receive two different answers. I believe laws like the Word of Wisdom are vague for a reason - because each individual should come to their own conclusion with the help of the Spirit.

With regards to President Monson's statement on same-sex marriage, I was initially quite disappointed. I feel it is in everyone's best interest for the Church to stay out of politics (and vice versa). However, I have come to accept the prophet's request and as a result would support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage if it came to a vote in Arizona. But I certainly don't begrudge Rick for coming to a different conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Jessica: A load of crap? See, my point exactly - thanks, Dave for that - WOW is a great example. I know plenty of people who's testimonies of the WOW are CONTRADICTORY to mine - however, that doesn't invalidate their testimony, nor does it invalidate mine - it just means that their life experience has colored them in a different way than mine - For instance, I know a very faithful, active and admiral beef farmer who's testimony of the word of wisdom is VERY different than mine. I still love him and have NO UNKIND FEELINGS toward him, just because he sees things from a different angle than me - and I'm an animal rights activist. I can love him for who he is, and respect his opinions and views for what they are - that is, sincere.

To be honest, I am not sure where your animosity is coming from - you've said some really mean stuff to me - and continue to say it - and I've responded with patience and good humor - even trying to opne myself up to a complete anonymous stranger. I've been trying to help you see where I'm coming from. but for some reason you just keep coming up with really terse and offensive stuff. Why so bitter?

Anonymous said...

Jessica - Wow, you've been reading for that long, huh? Why have you only started commenting now? As it is, I can't recall my wording to Stacy back then (it was like 8 months ago) but I did go and do a quick review of the discussion between Stacy and me. What I was saying is that the Proclaimation, though it may be for the World, is not something that we can legilsate - The Proclaimation can be doctrinal, it can be ideal - but in a society that is not ready for that, it can't be implemented. Therefore, we need to look at stuff that can be. Thats all.

Again, Jessica - I have done ALOT - I mean ALOT of soul searching, studying, fasting and prayer to come where I am. I have never said I'm right and others are wrong- I've simply said, Here is some stuff that I feel. I find it highly offensive that you would be brash enough to try do damn me by quoting Joseph Smith (again out of context) and assuming that it points to me. Stop making assumptions about someone who you don't KNOW.

Anonymous said...

Ricardo, I agree that the "brethren" (I hate when people use that term, it just bugs me) individually may make remarks or comments that are out of their opinion only, but when the first presidency unanimously fasts, prays and literally talks to God, I don't think they are going to do something that is "a step in the wrong direction", maybe the opposite direction of political correctness, but not the opposite direction of the will of God.

I found this awesome quote the other day when I taught a lesson on following the prophet in priests quorum. Pres. Hinkley said, “Remember whose church this is. It carries the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, who stands as its head. His is the power to remove any who is found remiss in his duty or who is teaching that which is not in harmony with His divine will.

“I say for each and all that we have no personal agenda. We have only the Lord’s agenda. There are those who criticize when we issue a statement of counsel or warning. Please know that our pleadings are not motivated by any selfish desire. Please know that our warnings are not without substance and reason. Please know that the decisions to speak out on various matters are not reached without deliberation, discussion, and prayer. Please know that our only ambition is to help each of you with your problems, your struggles, your families, your lives. …

“Ours is the responsibility outlined by Ezekiel: ‘Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me’ (Ezekiel 3:17)."

Despite my disagreement with the majority of your comments and reasonings I must say that I admire your strength of testimony as many with your views are not so strong in their testimony of the Gospel.

peace out:)

The Faithful Dissident said...

"F.D.: I understand and agree with you when you said that you ponder, pray about it, and consider about what the prophet has asked us to do, however I don't agree when you say that if you still don't feel good about it, then you're not going to do it."

OK, Jessica. So what would you have done if you had been George Romney? Honestly? He feels good about fighting for black civil rights and he has GA's telling him that he's acting in conflict with prophetic revelation concerning "the negro." Do you adopt their racist teachings, scrap your fight for black civil rights, or do you obey?

I'm married to a non-member. I know what prophets have said over and over again about getting married in the temple. Although recent prophets have perhaps not harped on it so much, pick up some of the older materials and when you read talks from general conference and such, and it sounds like I'm pretty doomed. So what's my solace when I encounter such depressing stuff? Because I know that I prayed about it, fasted about it, and got what I believe to be a crystal clear answer that I was supposed to marry the man that I did. If I had to bet on it, I would bet that he will never join the Church, at least in this life. But I'm through feeling guilty, sad, or sorry for myself because I'm "jeopardizing" my salvation for marrying a non-member. God told me to do it and if He wants to condemn me for it, then he's at least going to have to give me points for doing what He told me to.

So, I could have listened to the prophets anyways and married some guy from Provo, where I probably would have been miserable. (No offense to anyone from Provo.)