Can you be a temple recommend holder and support Obama?

You are free to disagree with me (and probably will), but I wish to take sometime to help clarify this question in the temple recommend interview, "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" To me, it is near impossible to not associate with groups that are not in complete accord with the church. One could even say that the Church working in conjunction with or "associating" with other faith's could be a violation of this. I prefer to go after intent when it comes to temple interviews. And the side of the question that goes to intent is the part where it asks if we agree with the groups or individuals that are opposed to the teachings of the church. "Oppose" in this use is being more than disagreement, but that stand openly and actively against the teachings and practices of the church. So in the case of Obama, how would supporting his presidency stand up in a temple recommend interview?


1) Obama believes in the right to abortion and has voted repeatedly in support of this right. Although there is some controversy, Obama has also given evidence that he has opposed legislation that would protect babies who survived abortion from their right to life. Without adding insult to the injury, or to inflame those who wish to attempt to dismantle the argument, we will deal strictly on the issue of abortion (not infanticide) as Obama has eliminated debate on his stand on abortion. In an Illinois state test given to its legislators on the issue, Obama's answer stated, "Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade." Additionally, Obama has reduced the social status of children to being punishments to the women conceiving them. There is no secret that the church stands openly and consistently against the practice of abortion for personal or social convenience and consider children to be holy. So much so that "Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church." This is strong language supporting the sanctity of the church's position that life is of the highest value and that murder, or the taking of life against one's will, is the second greatest sin that a person can commit. On this stand alone, one could make the argument that Obama is supporting a woman's right to violate the law of chastity without social or economic recourse, as well as the death of innocent children. Two of the strongest issues that a politician can take stand on, are issues that Obama stands in clear conflict with church policy.

2) Gay Rights: This is an issue that the Church has taken very public issue with. The Church does not support homosexual lifestyles, the practice of homosexuality, and does not support homosexual marriage.  With that being said, the church has also recently supported an ordinance in Salt Lake City that would not allow for discrimination against an individual in the arena of housing and employment based on being gay. With that being said, one could summarize the Church's stand in saying that being gay is a moral issue where God is the supreme judge and employment and housing are temporal issues that no human being should be denied based on the issue of personal or private moral conduct. Barack Obama is actually closer to the church on this issue than some think. While Obama clearly supports gay lifestyles as not being a choice (the church opposes this idea), Obama is quite in line with the church based on this statement, "Now, with respect to marriage, it’s my belief that it’s up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal." (Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007)

So while Obama clearly does not oppose the homosexual lifestyle, his reasoning on a social level is inline with the church to a certain degree. This is a religious matter. So perhaps on this issue there is "recommend neutrality". Although one could make the argument that the issue of spiritual significance is that Obama supports a sinful lifestyle that the church has openly opposed.

These are the clear issues, abortion and homosexuality, where Obama stands opposed to the Church under official acts or declarations of the Church. If we were to turn to statements made by church presidents/prophets that stand against Obama's actions the list could go on for miles.

Based on two of the most significant and current intersections of where Church policy and social policy meet, Obama teaches and endorses practices and principles opposed to those being taught by the church. These are also issues where the Democratic party are inline with Obama's feelings. So this does beg the question, does someone who supports Barack Obama or the democratic party stand in violation to the question in the temple recommend interview? This is a deeply personal judgement call and is made ONLY by the person or people who are given inspirational authority to judge. But ultimately is the agency of the individual who is disclosing their worthiness to the Lord's representatives in the temple recommend interview.

For this writer, I feel that there is ample evidence that agreement with Barack Obama or the democratic party on these issues is a direct and clear violation of the temple recommend worthiness interview. I see no accord with supporting and sustaining the church, promising to keep the commandments that uphold the principles of chastity in marriage between a man and a woman as well as the sanctity of life, and do so without hypocrisy in supporting Barack Obama on these issues. One can be a democrat and not be in accord with these principles of the party. However, considering the significance of these platforms to the democratic party, I would question as to why one would be a democrat if they disagreed with their party on these issues of utmost significance.

What do you mean Lobbyists are in the white house?

One of the things Barack Obama campaigned on was the idea that he would end the control of lobbyist in Washington DC. Perhaps we should have smelled the crap as it was coming out rather than waiting for it to hit the fan. But as this recent article states, "The Barack" has invited several lobbyists into the white house to discuss the health care legislation.

The latest polls tell a very interesting story. Over half of the population is against the senate health care bill. Less than 30 percent approve of it meaning that a quarter of the country doesn't care or hasn't made up their minds yet. So, provided that our elected officials actually speak for us, this bill is dead. That places an overwhelming majority opposed, and few for it. Since the bill is actually close to passing one can rightfully ask the question: Why are the Senators not voting in accordance with the voice of the people?

That's right, lobbyists. The alleged fight to end corruption by Barack Obama has brought major kick backs in the form of a stimulus bill to the lobbyists or rather the companies they represent, and now the health care bills which will serve a one two punch to the American people is being led and decided behind the closed doors of the white house. This is not a matter of national security so make these meetings public Mr. Obama. If there is nothing to hide, then don't hide it. So far his presidency is as transparent as a festering pile of animal feces. About as pleasant too.

Should we call it "Black Friday" anymore? Isn't that racist?

After reading this article about how the good reverend Jesse Jackson said that if a black representative voted against the health care bill that they were not considered a black man, I started to reconsider what other things we call black. After all, lets be careful about this, we wouldn't want the hypocritical adulterer Jesse Jackson to think ill of us.

Near the end of this week is the anniversary of a day where many will engage in sub-human consumerism on what has been called "Black Friday". Retailers make large campaigns out of what is the start of the most consumer driven time of year - the holiday season. To many, Thanksgiving is simply Black Friday-Eve.

I'm thinking that such a term, Black Friday, is also racist. Why, because Jesse Jackson inadvertently said it was....really - I'll show you.

If Jessie Jackson is right, then this health care debate is not about the national health care bill, it is about getting poor people (who are apparently all black people) free health care. The article states, "He (Jackson) added that he wasn't saying that black lawmakers must vote a certain way. Instead, they should vote the interests of the people in their districts, and he said the healthcare bill would help Alabama because it's one of the poorest states in the country. The poorest people need health care protection," Jackson said. "They have the highest infant mortality and the lowest life expectancy. They're dying from lack of access.""

So the if black people should be voting for the health care bill because it helps poor people, and because poor people are black, this is really a health care bill to support black people. So a vote against the bill is a vote against poor black people. But if all black people are poor then why do we call one of the largest spending days of the year "Black Friday"? According to Jessie Jackson, black people are poor so what money would they have to spend on Black Friday?

Racism is just too confusing isn't it.

California's greatest problem: Television Power Consuption

Being the front runner in the "state heading for bankruptcy" category, California decided to tackle its greatest challenges facing their government: The Televisions are not energy efficient enough.

That's right, California feels that the way to work out their energy problems is to require that all TV's for sale be energy efficient by 2011. Never mind that prices will probably increase or that people will start going out of state or online to get their TV's just to get around whatever problems this regulation may cause. Never mind that this will be one more thing for the state to have to pay to enforce costing the state and local retailers possible revenues. Never mind border controls or crime prevention in the escalating drug trafficking; lets worry about TV.

According to the linked article, only a 1/4 of the TV's in the state meet the strict requirements imposed by the California legislature. They say that this will cut California's power bill by 1 billion dollars. How much benefit is offset by having to enforce this? What about the increased cost to each individual for a replacement TV? Do we need a TV czar in California to keep this great travesty from continuing?

WHY IS IT THAT ALL GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS NEED TO BE BOURNE ON THE BACK OF THE CITIZENS? Shouldn't government find solutions that lower the burdens on the people? When government is insufficient or failing, wouldn't less government be a wise solution? California, my past home, please wake up and smell the ocean breeze. Tell your government to back off and get out of the way!

CALIFORNIA - FIGHT THE FIGHTS WORTH FIGHTING!

Freedom vs. Safety

A few days ago James posted on the raid and seizure of property in 3 muslim mosques. I found it intriguing that GreatWhiteHope, a self professed conservative, made these comments on the subject:

What about Major Hasan? He joined the military because we are tolerant. He spoke out against the war while in the military because we are tolerant. He exhibited multiple signs that he was a radical islamo-jihadist but we allowed him to carry on because we are tolerant. He attended the same mosque as two of the 9-11 hijackers because we are tolerant. And now 13 people are dead and 30 some odd people have had their lives changed forever through injuries inflicted by Hasan because we are tolerant. If there was a legitimate reason to tear down that mosque then it needed to be done. Don't trust what is portrayed in the media. I no longer have t.v. but my guess is that the media is having a hay-day with protecting Maj. Hasan and his ties to Islam.

To take down terrorism - resolve in my opinion is the most important ingredient. I don't want to live like Israelis where every time I get on a public bus I have to wonder if it will be my last day on earth because of some whacked out suicide bomber.

Furthermore here's another thought - I think Rev. Wright's church should be torn down. He's spreading hate and avarice and it's creating factions and animosity amongst Americans.

I value my life and the lives of my family. When you are dealing with terrorists there is no "gentlemanly" warfare. Such a perspective lead to the fall of the British in the Revolutionary war. It will ultimately lead to our ruin because of whimps that are unwilling to fight an enemy on their terms because we think we are above it.

Are we as Americans really ready to give up our freedoms in the name of safety? Have terrorists succeeded in making even devout Libertarians fear enough for their lives that we would rather be in bondage to our own country?

Many Liberals are willing to give up freedoms for financial security, freedom in exchange for healthcare, and even freedom in kind for the ability to feel superior to other countries. Where do we draw the line? At what point is our safety more important than our liberty? Do we have the right to take those freedoms from our children simply because there is a chance of them being harmed?

When compared to the gospel I see that our Heavenly Father has put us in a world where our safety is far from guaranteed. He allows the choices of one to affect an innocent bystander, and even sometimes for a guilty party to go unpunished in this life. While I know that He felt at least as much pain and outrage as I did in the wake of Sept 11, He will not take away our freedom to act and be acted upon simply to guarantee our safety. Do we truly want our government to take away those freedoms so that we worry a little less that we may be a victim in a terrorist attack? Does our government even have close to the power to ensure our safety even if we gave up every freedom we have? Can they make the terrorists stop hating us or those within the country stop speaking ill of others and creating dissension? Every communist country that has tried that has failed.

I have always loved the quote "Give me liberty, or give me death." It summarizes my feelings exactly, and while I feel the tragedy of those who have died the victims of terrorist attacks, each is a martyr in the cause of freedom. I honor their blood with the fight to maintain every freedom they enjoyed, and ensure that their posterity may enjoy those freedoms too.

Obama just isn’t that smart.

I know I may give a little too much away about my secret Bloger identity but M.Galt lives in what was once the great state of Arizona. What’s great about living in Arizona is the fact that the economic stimulus has created so many new jobs in our state, I mean in our 15th congressional district alone 30 jobs where created by the wizard Obama at a cost of $761,420. Hurray for Arizona! One problem….Arizona only has 8 congressional districts…hummm that’s a brain twister. Then up on the Navajo reservation $34 million was spent in Arizona’s 86th district. The problem is that the reservation is in the 1st district.

But what’s even better is the congressional districts in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands together netted $56.1 million collectively. That’s great; the congressmen from those districts must be local heroes. Wait.. what’s that? Those territories don’t have congressman? Well that would mean there are no congressional districts on those islands? But Obama says that the money was spent in their 99th congregational districts?

I’ll cut to the chase, either this represents one of two things. #1 Obama is too stupid to realize that these districts don’t exist. It’s hard to believe that a person with that large of a lack of basic knowledge about his own country would be elected to the highest office of the land. So I’ll go with option #2 we are seeing full on corruption and money laundering for the political class. They are literally making money out of whole cloth, giving it to themselves, hiding it incredibly badly, as stimulus funds in make believe lands spread around the country, and then counting on us and our children to pay it back for the next few hundred years.

What’s even crazier about this is that the main stream media is talking about it. Will any of those still hoping for hope and change please step forward and admit they made a mistake yet? No? Well we will be here for a while so when you’re ready we are waiting with open arms.

Credit Cards and the Word of Wisdom

Reading D&C 29:34 we understand that even laws that appear to be temporal laws, such as the word of wisdom, are really meant to have spiritual implications. The word of wisdom and others like it are laws that are designed to help keep us free of obstacles or distractions in feeling of the spirit. For the word of wisdom, its key promise is strength to our body and minds and for us to be given wisdom and treasures of knowledge even hidden treasures. Or in other words,  do not partake of things that will cause our faculties to judge righteously to be diminished or destroyed, or that will shut us off from the spirit. The word of wisdom also counsels against partaking of items that are addictive and enslaving. Sin is no respecter of person, and therefore no exceptions should be made to these laws including the person saying, "I can keep it under control-that rule doesn't apply to me because I can handle myself and won't get addicted". Such a rationalization is a lie of the adversary meant to lull the individual into a sense of complacency with sin.

While credit cards seem to have no attachment to the word of wisdom (unless you are eating them for roughage),  there are principles that coincide with the counsels of warning similar to those in the word of wisdom. As coffee and tea are readily available and carry no age restrictions for consumption, many in the world consume coffee at very early ages. This consumption creates an environment of people that "can't start their day without a cup of coffee". To that end I have seen some start their lives so young with credit cards and unnecessary spending that the credit balances are rarely caught up or erased.

It is easy for a person with a credit card to rationalize the use of the card as an emergency use only, to build their credit, etc. However, the brethren have been as clear on this issue as they have on coffee and tea which could also have a rationalized benefit should you chose to see it that way. With debit, we are counseled to avoid unnecessary debt (necessary debt being defined as a house, a reasonable car, and for your education), don't become in bondage to creditors, engage in a prudent savings plan, and live within your means. Credit cards are living outside of your means, it eats up savings, and is a debt that carries an enslaving high interest rate-all in direct violation of the counsel of the brethren. If wise counsel is followed, then credit cards are not needed and the individual can avoid the bondage that is sure to follow.

Have you ever noticed that the church does not accept credit cards for tithing as many other faiths have done? Is this because the church couldn't set that up? Of course they could. And there is a very clear reason why they probably won't ever take credit cards for tithing or fast offerings. So if the above is true, that credit can be seen as an addictive practice that will consume the individual with worldly interests, then why have one to begin with? Why have a coffee maker and a can of coffee grounds if you know you shouldn't drink it? If you have a credit card will that dismiss the spirit-of course not. But having the credit card leads to using the credit card, and using the credit card leads to nothing good and wise and to practices that diminish our capacity to feel and recognize the promptings of the spirit.

Obama On: How To Bite the Hand That Feeds You

Over the weekend Barack Obama made a trip to China. Amongst other issues, Obama prodded China to take a more involved role in the climate. In other words China, you are not doing enough for the climate. For those that don't know, The United States of America is being kept afloat economically by China - for now. The Trillions in deficit that this country is currently burdened, comes primarily in the form of loans from the Chinese government. So what Obama has effectively said, 'Thank you for keeping our country afloat, thank you for paying for our bailout money that has gone to support GM and other "not so environmentally friendly auto manufacturers"; now you, China, should do more for the environment.' Nice Obama, real nice.

When Joseph Smith ran for president one of the points in his candidacy was for the abolition of slavery. Slavery being primarily based upon the principle that no one should be enslaved to another economically or otherwise. As a country, we are currently enslaved to the wills of China. If they cut off the money to this country they can call their loans due and effectively foreclose on the United States. (yes it is that real) So not only are we as a people enslaved in part due to Obama's spending, but Obama also has the nerve to go to our debtor and tell them they need to be more environmentally friendly? Seriously? Shouldn't he be over there begging China to give us more time before they dump the dollar and by so doing truly crash our economy? Just a thought, Obama, don't bite the hand that is feeding us as a nation.

Here's the Line... and the government just crossed it.

I realize that Iran is being led by some crazy nut jobs that have little good to say about America, but when the federal government busts down a Muslim mosque simply because they have ties to Iran they have crossed a line. According to this article, the Federal Government has seized the 500 million dollars in assets from 4 mosques in New York.

I get that terrorism is alive and well, but the war should not turn on the rights of the citizens just because of a possible connection to a country who could possibly do something against us. The reality is that there are plenty of other ways to fight the political war against this country without placing the rights of innocent American's and other religions second.

This is a wrong step simply because I doubt there was not a better way to take your aggressions our on Iran. Had they busted down a corporate office that would be one thing but they entered their temples. What would it be like if you were in the middle of an initiatory and the feds came barging through telling everyone to get out and that they were seizing the operations of the LDS temples? Considering how this government has been defining terrorists this may not be as far a jump as you might think.

The church is cool with being gay?

I gave this story some time to settle not because I agree or disagree with the church but because I wanted to see what would happen as a result of the church's action in the matter. For those outside of the Salt Lake area you might not have heard the story. The Salt Lake City Council was voting on an ordinance that made it illegal for a business in the Salt Lake City boundaries to fire someone for being gay and that someone cannot be turned down housing for being gay. What surprised most people was that the church dropped by and made a public statement that they were not opposed to this legislation on the grounds that it was fair, and well thought out legislation that protected basic human rights and that the church felt that the ordinance was not an attack or did violence to the institution of marriage.
Watch this News Video if you want a summary:


I couldn't help but think as to why the church would need to come out and say anything at all. The first and obvious response would be to pander to all the critics that the church doesn't hate gays, but they are simply pro-marriage. That answer has merit, but I think that there is more to this. I believe this legislation also could have gone much further and to a point where the church would have come out against another gay "legislation". Notice that the legislation doesn't say that you have to hire someone because they are gay which would be strictly against the church policies. It says that they can't be fired because of being gay. Any other version of the law could have put the church in some pretty hot water.

In either case, I think this was a smart move by the church. Still there are some who think that this law IS  a threat to traditional marriage. Watch this news story. What's your take?

You Can't be a Connoisseur of Junk Food.

By definition of the all wise Merriam Webster, a connoisseur is "one who understands the details, technique, or principles of an art and is competent to act as a critical judge". So if there are no subtleties and we are not dealing with "art" then you can't be a connoisseur of it-right?

Junk food is not subtle, it is not really art as it involves fat or calories that will soon become fat, salt and some form of artificial flavoring. No art, no complex subtleties, no "principle" - meaning no such thing as junk food connoisseur. Therefore there is no saying that a Dorrito is a sublime culinary accomplishment. There are no hidden, subtle or "notes" to a can of coke. It is sugar, water, caffeine and artificial flavoring. Anyone who tries to take something like a pork rind and elevate it to something that is good for you would be seen as a liar.

Yet somehow, over the weekend, a slight majority of our elected leaders have taken a health care bill that is filled with nothing but garbage and things that are bad for this country, and to fatten up our government while offering no value to the people and attempted to pass it off as something historic and great. Nancy Pelosi who has given the most transparent commentary on this legislation as noted (in this Huffington post article, "likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later. "Oh, what a night!" she proclaimed at the beginning of a press conference held after the vote." Then to add insult to injury Obama issued a statement saying, "I look forward to signing it into law by the end of the year."

To me this sounds like, "Isn't this 100 pound pile of butter flavored shortening just fantastic! It is just as good for us as battered deep fried bacon!" and Obama adding "And I look forward to the day when my signature effectively forces the nation to not only eat this battered deep fried bacon but I am going to make sure that each American puts a nice pat of butter flavored shortening on top for good measure!"

AND ARE WE SUPPOSED TO SIT HERE AT EAT DEEP FRIED BACON TOPPED WITH BUTTER FLAVORED SHORTENING????!!!! I DON'T THINK SO!!!!

We are supposed to consider this legislation a good thing for our country? What I find the most depressing is that Nancy Peolosi sees a system like social security, and Medicare, two things that are currently running bankrupt in this country and say that this legislation is just like those and somehow we are supposed to see this as a good thing?!

How much fat and empty calories are in this legislation - 1990 pages when it was first introduced (read it here)!  When was it introduced October 29th 2009. When was it voted on - 9 days later. That would mean that one person would have to read and digest completely 221 pages a day or 13 pages an hour if you read for 16 hours each day. I submit that this is an impossible task. It would be a difficult task to digest 221 pages of law in 9 days to any efficacy let alone 9 times that in the same period of time.

Nancy Pelosi and every elected official that voted for this bill should be removed from office immediately for gross negligence in their responsibilities. Even if the whole thing was good, it is grossly negligent to consider passing something that might be "less than perfect" in that short of time.

Nancy Pelosi is trying to be a connoisseur of junk food - or in other words, she is trying to pass off this legislation as something that is good for this country and piece of government art when it is nothing more than empty calories and bureaucratic control looking to fatten up our government.

Why can't the people vote on the heath care bill?

Election day this last week encouraged me to ponder as to why not allow the citizens to vote on something so significant and so polarizing as the various health care bills? In local elections we can vote on where the money is spent - schools, bonds, etc. It would seem that overhauling the entire nation's health care industry, something that deals with our health and welfare and our abilities to receive this help would be worth allowing us the people the chance to vote on it.

When politicians hide these 2000 page bills from the public and push it through congress, bullying their own party members to vote for it, by default I don't trust it. After thinking about it, other than presidents, what is the last thing that we as a nation voted for? It would seem to me that we don't vote on things like this because it isn't the job of the federal government to do things like this. The government is looking to spend 1.2 trillion dollars on something extremely polarizing, this being our country and our taxes, shouldn't we the people have a say in the matter?

Botox Pelosi

When is enough enough? Where is the outrage?! I think Pelosi has used so much Botox its leaking into her cranial cavity, I would say brain but I'm convinced she doesn't have one. She said she would post the "health bill" from hell (which no rational American wants) for 72 hrs, and then rescinded her statement. See: Pelosi Breaks Pledge to Put Final Health Care Bill Online for 72 Hours Before Vote - http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/pelosi_breaks_pledge_to_put_he.asp

Is it too harsh of me to say that I hope Hell is cranking up the heat for the grand reception of a couple of these choice liberals of which one happens to be Pelosi? I'm spooled up and I am sick and tired of this endless garbage back and forth between Republicans and Democrats who are both consistently running the course of this country down the crapper. Furthermore it is the apathy and indifference of many Americans which is allowing this to take place. WAKE UP! PAY ATTENTION! PARTICIPATE AND VOTE THESE DESTROYERS OF THE CONSTITUTION OUT!!! Better yet....those in a position to run who place character and principle above self stand up and be heard!!! Stop putting party before country!

Flu Schmoo

The local news reported this morning that in Utah only 3 percent of the population has received their H1N1 (swine flu) vaccination. I for one have opted not to get the vaccination thinking that I am not at high risk, I work from home most of the time and frankly, it's the flu. It happens. Fewer people have died from swine flu than they do from the seasonal influenza virus so I don't buy into the "hype" either.

The news report mentioned a poll that asked if the poor response with swine flu vaccinations had any negative effect on Obama. Republicans voted on the poll and democrats voted. It seems that both parties feel that the flu is not something that should be politicized. Well I say everything can be politicized.

What I say is, if the swine flu is really a national emergency as Obama has declared it to be so, then only 3 percent of our local population being treated is a terrible response to a national emergency. What if only 3 percent of people were treated or given protection during hurricane Katrina in New Orleans? What if 3 percent of the people were shielded from the 9/11 terror attacks? What if someone poisoned our drinking water supply and only 3 percent of the people were able to get remedy from that emergency?

So either the swine flu isn't really a national emergency and Obama is using this as some sort of power play or political opportunity to show he is "taking care of America's health", or the swine flu is a national emergency and the government has failed miserably to combat the problem. If swine flu is not a national emergency, then Obama has abused his power and turned this issue into a waste of government funds and is the political equivalent to "the boy who cried wolf." If there is a national emergency and the government's swine flu response is what we can expect as protection from our government, consider yourself dead - at least 97 percent of us that is. And we are lead to believe that national health care is a good idea?