Mormon Nudist Colony?

There is no adequate or quantifiable way that I can relay how I came across this site, or at least one that would leave me void of potential ridicule. But I stumbled upon something that made me do a double take, and I clicked out of sheer perverse curiosity. LDS Skinny Dipper Connection appears on first glance to be a social networking site designed to attract members of the church (obviously not active ones-regardless of what they may claim) who have a "wholesome interest in social nudity under appropriate circumstances." There is no nude photographs on the site itself but the site is designed to help those who feel that nudist colony types and naturism are LDS acceptable. They even go so far as to take scriptures out of context to help "justify" that their approach to social nudity is actually doctrinally sound!

Perhaps I am missing something in the translation of this poorly designed site that looks like it is from the mid 1990's, but don't we wear garments to cover our nakedness? There is a sacred temple ordinance to ENSURE that we are clothed, covered, and modest. These garments have been described as an outward expression of an inward commitment. So then, does it mean if you chose to act in opposition to garment related principles by being naked in public, that your outward expression is that you have no inward commitment?

In fact there are covenants associated with this practice that would suggest that any practice to the opposite would be a violation of those covenants. I don't know of any more obvious way to open the door to temptation and infidelity than to consider this practice in line with church doctrine. They call it naturist, I call it rationalization to the coo-coo degree.

In any case, I am constantly amazed at the number of individuals who, for some reason or another, go hyper-principled and act as if they have found the secret that is missing from the Mormon puzzle. For these guys it just happens to be socially acceptable nudity. Why didn't the prophets think of this before!? Nude Music and the Spoken Word with a Mormon Tabernacle Choir; youth conferences would be much more well attended; the possibilities are endless! Gives new meaning to "active" LDS.

A Day of Loss

Thursday June 25th, 2009 marked the passing of two icons. Farrah Faucet, who died of cancer at 62; and Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, who died at age 50.

While these are tragedies, primarily for those who were considered fans of these individuals, I couldn't help but notice that the media has already turned its programming into memorializing these two individuals with video obituaries and reflection on the lives that they lived.

Meanwhile, the United States is dying and the media has paid little attention, a small ratio in fact, to the the Senators looking to pass a 1 trillion dollar health care reform bill that they feel is "in reach". The last time I checked, we don't even have 1 dollar to spend on this program let alone 1 trillion.

For those that have not taken the time to view the blog site in its entirety, we have included a national debt ticker on the right side of the page. It shows that we as a nation are already 11 trillion dollars+ in debt and the numbers are rising exponentially each day thanks to the stimulus failures and other government bad ideas. With the passage of this health care bill we can consider our futures stolen away, and the death of America well underway. There is no dream left to be had. The future holds nothing but higher taxes and no ability to surface from such debt service. Mediocre health care will abound. The people of this nation will be too far into the system before they realize that this government can't clean up after a hurricane let alone maintain a health care system for over 300 Million people.

In the mean time remember the lives of two individuals who would be two very unknown nothings if it weren't for America and the opportunities to succeed that our nation has provided. Let's see how many Michael Jackson's and Farrah Faucet's find success when all they have in front of them is a 70 percent tax bill and a health care system that would not have even had the resources to extend their lives as long as they lived.

Agency - The Power of God

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, “Agency is an eternal principle which has always existed with God. Without agency there would be no God, for the power of growth and development toward perfection is determined by the freedom of choice. There could be no progression, no actual existence, without this great principle. Every intelligent being must have the power of choice. This is a law of their existence which God cannot violate.” (Religious Truths Defined, 1962, p. 88) There is so much that is said in this statement. Starting with the origin of agency, we understand that agency has always existed and is the very foundation of our existence. Without agency there would be no God and we would have no reason to be. This statement implies that agency's opposite is also true; where choice is limited or non-existent so is the power of godliness limited.

So where does that leave the current state of societies and governments of the earth? How can we reconcile ourselves to this idea that agency is the ultimate power in the universe? Does this quote simply apply to spiritual matters or can this translate to secular society? Does a perfect society allow for perfect freedom? Is a perfect society a practical concept for this earth? Some ideals seem to portray a society capable of living higher laws. Like many generations before us the earth as a whole is not capable of such ideals. So then, where can we rationalize limiting agency understanding that our earth is not able to live that higher law? In what ways can we support a limiting of agency while in this mortal sphere?

There are those that have sought to limit agency as a way to gather power, or the illusion of power. However, the only real power that any one person can have is the power of choice, a power that not even God will interfere with. So then, it would be right to place a responsibility on our elected officials and other public servants to preserve liberties and freedoms and to assist individuals in achieving success, not in limiting agency in the quest to obtain the illusion of power. This is not simply a political ideal but a principle of eternal law that when lived and embraced will empower and increase the societies in which it is found.

The most important event between birth and death

During some of my gospel reading I came across a statement from Elder John A. Widtsoe in his book Evidences and Reconciliations. Under the heading "Why marry in the temple?" the opening statement reads, "Marriage, the most important event between birth and death is a determining condition of life's happiness." I thought about that statement for minute and reconciled it against other gospel principles to eventually come into agreement with that statement.

Then I could not help but look to the issue of Same-Sex marriage which has been such a hot topic since the last general election. When I first noticed the church get so involved in the issue I admit I experienced some reluctance with supporting those efforts. Not because I agree with same-sex marriage but because I am not sure that government should be involved in marriage at all. Additionally, if churches want the government out of their lives, churches should be out of the governments lives, right? Then I wondered why gays seem to be so militant about the issue. Preaching tolerance while not possessing the principles they hypocritically wish to engender in others.

Then I continued to read the section in Evidences and Reconciliations and I came across another key idea that clarified why the church would be so strongly involved. The statement reads, "Marriage is of such crucial importance in life that it should begin with full obedience to God's law. Love is the foundation of marriage, but love itself is a product of law and lives by law. True love is law-abiding, for the highest satisfactions come to a law-abiding life."

Gay marriage is clearly against law whether you call it nature's law or God's. Same-gender marriage clearly stands in opposition to the organization established for the protection and arrangement of procreation. According to Elder Widtsoe, it then stands to reason that gay marriage is a violation of God's law and is therefore not capable of real love. Supporters of gay marriage would have us believe that marriage will somehow change their level of love for their partner to some deserved level. The church sought to protect the most important event between birth and death in determining our heaven designed happiness. We were asked to stand in opposition to the lies of the adversary wishing to publicly indoctrinate society into thinking that gay marriage is capable of love when in fact all the adversary is trying to do is ease society into a culture of permissiveness and violation to God's laws.

Mormon First, Citizen Second

Every country on earth has laws that in someway contradict the lifestyles, standards, and principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. These laws can vary in their nature as well as their impact in society. As a tenant of the gospel teachings we believe that we are to be subject to our rulers/leaders and to obey, honor, and sustain the law. At the same time, Latter-Day Saints have the added challenge to follow higher laws, the laws of God, and have covenanted to do such.

Christ gave the example that when conflict arises between the laws of man and the laws of God, following and accomplishing the work of our Father in Heaven is more important than the judgments and penalties that society may place on righteous obedience.

D&C 58:6 states "Behold, verily I say unto you, for this cause I have sent you—that you might be obedient". Then in D&C 134:4 it reads "We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion;" In these versus we see that we are in this life to demonstrate our obedience to God ultimately, and that the laws of God and religious worship are not to be controlled or influenced by the will of government. As I interpret those references I feel that a clear conscience is one where dedication to God comes first and to country second.

Would this opinion make me a threat to national security? Perhaps in the eyes of some. For me, dedication to deity represents no loss of patriotism, in fact I feel that allegiance to deity over country is a more accurate view of patriotism. Our founding fathers dedicated a healthy portion of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution in recognition of the rights bestowed by and dependence on God that we as a nation should recognize. Would it be fair to say that when a nation places themselves over God or superior to His teachings that such pride is the root disease that will lead to the downfall of that nation?

John Taylor on Rights

From a short portion of John Taylor's book "The Gospel Kingdom" comes the following quote that I think would do the world some good to read:

"There was a time when I thought I had a great many rights of my own, but now I have got to understand that I have all the rights that God will give me, and I don't want to have any more. I want to live in the light of his countenance, to ask him to give me his Spirit, and then I know I shall prosper. When you feel like talking about your rights, let me advise you to go into your closet, forget your imaginary rights, and ask the Lord to give you the wisdom to guide you aright, that you may act before him as children of the light, and not be the means of throwing a stumbling block in the way of others. By pursuing this course, you will get along much easier, and there will not be nearly so much of that spirit of grumbling and complaining."

John Taylor - Journal of Discourses 9:13 April 6, 1861.

Is this a terroristic website then?

So, I don't know if some of the fury and outrage has subsided at all since the Tea Party, but we need to keep it up and I hope this photo does it for you. I honestly don't know how much true "Change" we can hope for with the 2010 elections, but we can do what we can do. For myself it'll be one vote each for McCain out of office, Kyl out, and Rep. Flake in. Sorry M. Galt I know you don't like that last one. Furthermore I hope we can get some factual information posted through this blog to assist in being better informed voters. Let's hope for some real change, the good non-Marxist kind!

One year and counting.

A year ago when James and I conceived the idea of this blog we wanted to create a place online where we could carry out the same type of conversation we have in person. We wanted it to be a place where people of differing ideas could come and discuss politics and culture from an LDS perspective. James and I seldom agree and we wanted to create the opportunity to draw others into the discussion as well. To this point I think we have been successful, I know there are still many out there who stop by and read but do not participate. I want those of you in that category to do so, we need your opinions and ideas to keep it fresh and moving forward without seeming repetitive.

For those of you who have been around the site for a while you may have noticed that I have been absent with the posts most weeks. Like all of you the pressures of work, school and family seem to catch up when we least expect it. More importantly though I have tried to post things only when I feel like I haven’t said it before. What I would encourage all our posters to do is seek for original ideas and concepts that we haven’t all written about. I can safely say we all get it, we don’t like Obama, do we have to write about it every week?

As a blog mission statement I hold that the dialectic method is the best way to flesh out ideas and come up with new ones. This method with its required questioning can and is uncomfortable because we put our ideas up for debate thereby exposing ourselves to criticism. As uncomfortable as this is if we start with one main idea we all share as a goal it can be easier. This idea would be our combined effort to try to find truth. If this is the end goal for each of us then all the negative can be removed, sure we may find that our ideas don’t stand up, thus just like capitalism from our failures we have an opportunity for real growth and rebirth.

While most of our conversations here are civil, I would ask that we each evaluate our reactions to each other as we start year number two. I would rather draw people to this site with stimulating thought rather then to see the blog equivalent of WWE Smack Down. Also I think a more civil and refined interaction will bring out those less comfortable with confrontation but have great points to be made.

Thanks to all of you for chipping in again, and if you are out there reading this and thing you want to post send me an email and we can get you on all you have do is write me m.galt13@gmail.com

Latter-Day Beliefs and Libertarianism

Last I checked atheism is defined by its lack of believe in God, or in the existence of a deity. So in this case the absence of something is the definition of its opposite. Additionally, libertarianism defines itself as a belief in the absence of or limitation of government with its opposition being communism or authoritarian forms of government. Both in agreement with opposition to anything that places itself over the rights of the individual to chose. It would appear that there are similarities in principle between atheism and libertarianism perhaps just focused on different aspects of life.

As Latter-Day Saints, as believers in an all powerful, all-knowing, and all-encompassing God who will soon reign as king over all people, and where the church is the encompassing government on the earth, how can a latter-day saint be a libertarian? Are the two ideologies mutually exclusive or in conflict with each other principally speaking? If not how so? Discuss amongst yourselves....

"If there were no God, there would be no Atheists." - G. K. Chesterton

Peace, man.......

I just wanted to post a little something commemorating our beloved Messiah spreading hope and change throughout the Muslim world this week. I am just so grateful to have a competent president with firm resolve with which to protect the United States from radical regimes throughout the world, those regimes which seek the destruction of America. It is truly a sight to see that he can approach these nations and negotiate the downfal..... I mean protection of the United States through diplomatic means. Thank you Mr. Obama. Thank you.

Only Obama can prevent forest fires

Back in the day when Smokey the bear used to warn us against forest fires I should have seen his message as the communist propaganda it was.

I facetiously refer to the economic parallel I would like to call the forest fire principle. Many people look at forest fires for their destruction and for what appears to be a black, lifeless remainder as a result. Nature should teach us the lesson that with these fires also comes the opening of seed pods and seed cones that are then planted as a result of these fires and represents natures way of replenishing and repopulating the forests. There is a natural cycle that must take place if there is to be any life at all. Sure that means that for a couple of years the picture may look bleak and destroyed, but the cycle allows for new life and new growth that would have laid dormant had there not been the otherwise destructive fires. To deny these fires to take place is to deny life itself.

As I look out over the vast landscape of the American economy I see our very own Smokey the bear trying to prevent the forest fires within our economic system. Smokey the president has sought to prevent the natural processes of failure from occurring over at GM and other industries throughout this nation all in the name of preservation. "Only the government can prevent forest fires". But where would we be today if the telegraph and morse code people were bailed out by the government and subsidized to continue today? What if they never failed? Would we have email? Would we have this blog? Even if we did still have those things it would be foolish for the government to continue to feed a dying industry. So why try so hard and spend so much to save something that isn't working? Bailing out these companies is like trying to prevent the economic life of this country from coming forth.

What our president is doing to the economy is as if he is aborting the next economic generation and preventing new life from coming forward.