Is National Health Care Unconstitutional?

I have heard from a variety of sources that Obama's "victory" with National Health Care might be spoiled by a lengthy battle with the Supreme Court. Why? Because the system as it is designed and has been approved pushes aside other supreme court decisions with respect to abortion, and other rights that individuals have regarding their own health and taxation.

Most recently, a group of Attorney General's from at least 13 states have already threatened law suits claiming that some of the provisions are unconstitutional. I am no attorney and I am no fan of the legislation but I am not sure how this is considered unconstitutional?

Any thoughts? Suggestions? It feels like it is unconstitutional I just wouldn't know where to start on a valid case to prove such to be true.

The Value of Fear

I have heard from a variety of political pundits and politicians the use of the word "fear" as a form of insult or counter-argument to a policy or stance. Some claim that fear was used to push the United States into the War of Terror. Even the name itself seems to imply that fear and terror are the same thing and that the war on one would collaterally eliminate the other. In a way, fear is used to combat fear. Although I would not easily consider this as fighting fire with fire. In this case fighting fear with fear is more an act of hypocrisy since you don't fight alcoholism by more drinking, and you don't fight hunger with hunger. By embracing the tools of the enemy, you become your own worst enemy. In fact it would seem that using fear to try and sell a plan to dispel fear is a very common political tool and is the act of a desperate and manipulative elected official. Bush used it, and Obama has used it - both in the pushing for use of Stimulus money and continued war efforts. To a certain extent I think both sides of the Nationalized Health Care debate use fear to push their own agenda.

While many consider the use of fear to be a low blow tactic, I want to point out something that is very useful in the emotion of fear. Fear helps us humans, the natural man, foster a greater sense of purpose and strength in their own beliefs. While I disagree with the direction our current elected majority is taking the country, I do realize that such a time has awakened a sense of purpose and power within the power of the people. Perhaps that is the result of fear, fear of their future and the future of the country they so love.

Additionally, it would seem that fear has another added value that is perfectly articulated by Sterling Sill when he wrote, "We are afraid of the future. We are afraid of circumstances. We are afraid of people. We are afraid of ourselves. The scripture says that in the last day men's hearts shall fail them for fear. And yet, there is a very constructive fear that can actually prevent failure. When we are frightened and have our backs to the wall and are fighting for our lives, we feel a great new power stirring within us" (That Ye Might Have Life p.130).

As with anything that is good and valuable, there are those who wait to deceive and gain power over us as a result of fear. Perhaps instead of a fear of failure, the token argument for both continued war effort and with continued efforts to spend tax dollars on or in obtaining private companies, we should fear loss of freedom, and loss of life. Fear what matters most. Failure happens, and in some cases failure should happen. Fear of failure can often be failures root cause.

Harry Christmas!

"Clearly exhausted, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid mistakenly voted no before changing his vote to yes, which got a laugh in the chamber, especially from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell." - (http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/BREAKING__Senate_passes_health_bill_.html)

I was listening to the notorious "Glenn Beck" program the other day and I like the analogy one of the listeners called in. They said this Health Care bill; a "gift" from Congress to the population, is akin to me giving my grandma a brand new car she can't afford and then saying, "oh, by the way you'll need to make the payments, oh and while I mention it I can only give you the floor-mats right now, but you'll still need to make payments immediately, but you'll get the car in a couple of years, you'll really like it - Merry Christmas!" It's ABSURD! Maybe Harry had a momentary lapse of good judgment when he "mistakenly" voted no. Maybe the spirit was trying to tell him something? I've never witnessed such a willful destruction of the Constitution, no where does it say in that inspired document that it is the government's roll to provide for the welfare of the populace. So anyway, Harry Christmas...

WWSD? : What Would Santa Do?

Santa Claus is an interesting figure in human history and culture. The unique position Santa Claus holds is quite amazing. Democrats, Republicans, people of many nations of the earth, all seem to be able to unify during this season of the year under Christmas' spokesperson - Santa Claus. In one sense Santa has occupied a position that God himself has not achieved in the world today. People don't go to war over their belief in Santa Claus no matter what it looks like on Black Friday.

Considering the latest push by Democrats to pass sweeping health care reform by Christmas day, I find some value (perhaps facetiously) in asking WWSD, or What Would Santa Do? What party would Santa Claus be? More specifically, what would Santa feel about the Health Care reform and Nationalized Health Care?

If we consider the nature of Santa Claus, a man who operates outside of governmental regulation to do his good deeds every year (meaning his kind acts and charity are done without tax, without a government program to facilitate it), I would consider Santa Claus to be a character against nationalized health care.  What if Santa's charity was regulated by the government? Government regulations would slow down the gift giving process as they would need to go through testing processes, Santa would have to go through customs at every state, worry about import and export taxes between the nations, he would probably have to be licensed in every state by some new government bureau (The State Department of Gift Giving - Obama would have a Gift Czar to make sure nobody got more gifts than someone else) and Santa would have to install a GPS locator on his Sleigh so that the military could monitor his flight patterns ensuring that Santa's sled wouldn't be hijacked by a terrorist and flown into FAO Schwarz.


Santa makes a list of who is naughty and nice. He doesn't give to everyone. Naughty people don't get presents. Nice people get presents based on how nice they have been and what they want, not what Santa thinks we need. It would seem that there is a clear idea here that Santa Claus has rules when it comes to who gets the benefits of his charity. In this sense, Santa encourages the best behaviors and rewards those behaviors accordingly. Santa would not have given AIG billions of dollars for their poor business performance. Plus, Santa hired elves (a minority) without affirmative action and treats the environment well by using non-gas powered transportation that runs on renewable energy. He was doing that way before Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth!"

Santa Claus is a symbol of the human spirit and that all that is good and charitable in this world is done without government regulation. In my opinion, Santa would be a libertarian and certainly against a system of Nationalized Health care as a result.

The Citadel of Liberty under siege!

The question was posed can you support Obama in good conscience and still maintain your temple worthiness? After listening to one of our previous prophets speak on socialism, I pose the question can you in good conscience espouse the philosophies of Marx and Engels which seek to tear down this nation (a bastion of liberty in the world) and be a temple worthy member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? The conflict going on today between Conservativism and Liberalism is a continuation of the war in heaven. It's the same two philosophies - individual liberty vs. compulsion. Who's on the Lord side, who?

Interest Free Debt

In government, debt has been crippling this nations standing as a bastion of freedom to pursue the American dream of economic independence. One could argue that debt is the reason that our nation is experiencing the economic troubles that we are now facing. Either self-inflicted debt, or the debt selling program of banks and wall street-both have their hand in our current situation. In reading up on my gospel topics I came across some words on LDS.org about debt. The site says the following counsel:

"Since the early days of the Church, the Lord's prophets have repeatedly warned against the bondage of debt. One of the great dangers of debt is the interest that accompanies it. When it is necessary to incur debt, such as a reasonable amount to purchase a modest home or to complete one's education, the debt should be repaid as quickly as possible."

From this statement it would seem that there is little debate as to the counsel on debt. Avoid it, and even in the specific exceptions to the rule, that bondage should be removed as quickly as possible. However, repeated statement after repeated statement notes that the evil of debt is the interest that it bears.

What I wonder is, if there was no interest, would debt still be viewed as an evil or discouraged practice? Is being in debt to another, regardless of the interest, still a version of slavery that places us in bondage to another? If worldly debt itself is still a "no-no" even without interest, then it would seem that there is no argument that should be acceptable to a latter-day saint to be in favor of the current spending practices of the United States. What is good for the individual should also be good for government as we are to be a government of the people - right?

Thank you Dr. Friedman!

Part II, The best one yet!

Be sure to watch the other one first.

KGB subversion...

Bringin' out the Big Guns!

You can't top Milton Friedman. This guy is spot on! Hey Reed, I think the dude with the 'stache might be your dad.

"The Soul's Captain" by Orson F. Whitney

In the midst of debate on political issues and party politics, we should not forget that we are members of the same faith - or at least brothers and sisters. And that while politics are relevant and important, love for our fellow man and love for God should be at the forefront.

Often times the debate gets so polarizing that it seems as if we answer the question, "Whom Seekest Thou?" (John 20:15) with something other than "God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ". Republicans are wrong, Democrats are wrong, God is right. So when we consider our heroes, those whom we give our allegiance, perhaps we should not forget who should be our guide in this life and who's example we should be emulating. God is the only source of true hope. Repentance is the only change we should believe in. And the governments of men will all fall short of the Kingdom of God.

I came across the poem "The Soul's Captain" by Orson F. Whitney. I find these words to be an appropriate reminder with respect to our energies and efforts in this life:

"The Soul's Captain"
by Orson F. Whitney*

Art thou in truth? Then what of Him
Who bought thee with His blood?
Who plunged into devouring seas
And snatched thee from the flood,

Who bore for all our fallen race
What none but Him could bear--
That God who died that man might live
And endless glory share.

Of what avail thy vaunted strength
Apart from His vast might?
Pray that His light may pierce the gloom
That thou mayest see aright.

Men are as bubbles on the wave,
As leaves upon the tree,
Thou, captain of thy soul! Forsooth,
Who gave that place to thee?

Free will is thine- free agency,
To wield for right or wrong;
But thou must answer unto Him
To whom all souls belong.

Bend to the dust that "head unbowed,"
Small part of life's great whole,
And see in Him and Him alone,
The captain of thy soul.

Socialism doesn't work 'cuz Glenn Beck says so. Seriously.

Glenn Beck has self proclaimed that he is an entertainer. That said, at least his form of entertainment provides some kind of value to society because it causes people to think. Contrast this with the media outlets (notoriously liberal) who have done everything to convince Tiger Woods that the only relief he might find is through suicide concerning his personal tragedy.

No really I believe.

As if I needed any more reasons for not wanting to have the Catholics as back up on voting issues. The Pope came out today with even more brilliant reason why they are the number one church in favor of wealth redistribution.

Historically the Catholic Church has been a bastion of progressivism, sure they side with conservatives on issues like abortion so naturally one issue voters jump on board and think the grand ol’church is with them on every other conservative issue. If anyone cared to dig deeper they would find that Catholic political doctrine has more in common with modern progressives then modern libertarians or conservatives, the Popes comments today just show that even more. I mean in the picture he is clearly lessoning his carbon foot print by flying commercial.

Speaking to the “wealthy nations of the world” (read here America) it is their responsibility to the environment and the rest of the world to “encourage more sober lifestyles, while reducing their energy consumption and improving its efficiency." Sounds great right? Who doesn’t want to conserve more resources, (heck the more rare they are technically the more money we can make off them J) the problem as with every government program comes in when they decide how to limit resources and who gets what, basically government control over consumption AKA limiting the agency of people. With the Catholic track record of “helping people live up to their standards” I think I might be more inclined to want government control. Just ask any indigenous South American empire how the conversion to Catholicism went…o that’s right you cant ask them…they all died.

I mean take away the fact that this next statement comes from the Pope and you could attribute it to any communist leader through out history and think it fits. "Humanity needs a profound cultural renewal; it needs to rediscover those values which can serve as the solid basis for building a brighter future for all," I would be interested in knowing how the Catholic church would be interested in reshaping society, would they go back to banning certain books and burning heretics? Maybe they don’t want to go that far back?

Here’s another gem “Sad to say, it is all too evident that large numbers of people in different countries and areas of our planet are experiencing increased hardship because of the negligence or refusal of many others to exercise responsible stewardship over the environment," perhaps instead of blaming the downtrodden countries problems on the rich maybe they should look at the traditions they still practice, maybe these “poor countries” need to re-think their socialist paradigm and accept the philosophy of capitalism and individual liberty that made America what it is today?

Before you let me have it remember I’m not saying environment responsibility is a high and important priority, my question is rather, how do we achieve it? The Catholics like every progressive clearly feel unearned guilt for being wealthy is the first step to environmental atonement. Second, submit to the barrel of governments guns for the fix. Of course this is all assuming the premise of the argument that the environment is falling apart. Clearly I reject that out right so I guess the argument is moot point.

Banks: The Evil Solution

I read an article that reported the accusatory remarks of Barack Obama with respect to American Banks and lending institutions and their role in the economic collapse that we are experiencing. Obama has commented that irresponsible lending from banks and wall street are at fault for the economic crisis that this nation and much of the world has been facing the last few financial quarters. However, in almost the next breath, Obama implores those same institutions to lend more as the solution to help strengthen the rebuilding economy.

So, if over lending caused the problems to begin with, now over lending is supposed to be the solution? How can the problem be the solution? That is like saying, cutting off your arm caused a great deal of blood loss, so lets cut off the other arm to help combat the blood loss of the first arm being cut off. Stupid right?

Well apparently there is more to the story. Rolling Stone magazine, one of the media outlets that contributed quite vocally to the Obama election effort is now referring to him as a "sellout." The writer of this linked article feels that Obama is as corrupt as the next guy and that what he is doing is extremely suspect. This writer almost implies that the banks and Obama are in bed together and are fostering corrupt government programs feeding the special interests of the banking institutions. The writer documents how Obama is pouring tax payer dollars into these large firms as kickbacks in the form of the stimulus. He complains that the stimulus money went to these banks to pay bonuses but that more data is surfacing that he knew quite well where that money would end up. So on the one hand, Obama campaigned against evil banks and implementing controls on their systems of operation, then gives them a kick back in government positions in the white house and in the form of stimulus money, again calls them evil, then begs them to do more lending as they are the solution to the problems this nation is facing economically speaking. The irony doesn't end there.

Last week Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize only days after he committed more troops to escalate the war in Afghanistan. Two faced irony seems to surround this tumultuous first year of his presidency. It would appear that Obama's approval ratings are sinking faster than the titanic after hitting an iceberg. Maybe there is something about over promising that just comes to bite people in the butt. I don't know.

But one thing I do know, that you can't solve a problem by repeating the problems that got you there to begin with. Perhaps the wise council to not get in debt is wise and prudent council that applies to government operations as well as responsible business practices. I suppose the democrats missed that memo.

What's wrong with Capitalism?

Those that claim support of socialism often do so because they have fault with capitalism. It would seem that socialism is treated by many to be the opposite of capitalism. I don't consider this to be true, however, in this day, these two systems seem to be the two sides of the coin that look the opposite direction. This leads many to believe that if you find fault with capitalism by default you should agree with socialism. However, fault with the one system should not necessarily constitute endorsement of the other.

In any case, I have started to wonder: Do those who oppose capitalism have a fault with the system itself, or with some of the results of those who abuse the system? For those who support socialism, greed is sited as a character flaw endorsed by capitalism. Yet, I have read nowhere in capitalistic literature that greed is the goal. Greed is found in all forms of government. Different government structures simply shifts who is greedy or who is allowed to be greedy. Productivity and profitability, augmenting the industry of each individual to provide for themselves, these are the hallmarks of capitalism, not greed.

With capitalism greed is developed in the individual. With socialism, government embraces greed. With communism greed is the object of the dictator. All systems allow for greed to exist.

So outside of greed, a character trait rooted in the natural man irrespective of government structure, what fault is there with capitalism?

Youth of Isreal or Scraping the Gene Pool

I am going to try my best to not make this a bitter diatribe against the youth of today and the youth of the church but it might be difficult. Some background in where I am coming from on this topic might be helpful as well. About 6 months after I got married to my beautiful wife her mother passed away from breast cancer leaving behind four children, two of which were still teenagers. As the only married sibling and perhaps the most stable family my wife and I were asked and decided to move into my mother-in-laws home to take care of the two younger siblings. Within a few months of moving in we were able to help the oldest enter the mission field and only had the youngest, a senior in High School, left at home with us. The year that followed as we strove to help her finish high school and enter college was riddled with difficulty that came down to one thing. My sister-in-law was immature and selfish and even with every sacrifice my wife and I had made for her she seemed to believe that we didn't care about her and did not do anything for her. I thought for a moment that perhaps this was just her way of dealing with her mother's passing until I realized that she had always been this way. It has caused me to take a serious look at the youth around me and pray that the line in the song stating that "the children are our future" is horribly wrong or at least giving them more credit than reality will come to show us.
Working with the youth in the church now I worry about the mentality that a lot of the youth are being brought up with. I worry about the future of the church and of our nation and now that my wife and I are going to be starting our family I worry about how to raise my children in order to help them over come the selfishness, the dim-wittedness, and the gross incompetence that seems to be in abundance with some of our youth. I was attending a scout/youth training meeting a few weeks ago and heard a startling statistic. The speaker told us that only 3 out of every 10 deacons in a quorum would end up serving a mission. That since the church has "raised the bar" the number of missionaries in the field has decreased by over 30,000. I was also startled to learn that the number of sister missionaries went from totalling 10% of the mission force to now over 20% of the active mission force. What has happened to our young men? What can we do with our youth? As parents what can be done?
I didn't write this post as a solution that I have found at all. Having started at the opposite end of the spectrum raising a 19 and a 17 year old instead of starting with a baby and going the normal route I am actually at a loss for words and worry about my future kids. I guess that this post is more of a search for advice more than a giving of advice. So parent's of the church and progenitor's of our future leaders, what are some of the things you have done to help your children? What are some of the tactics/teaching methods you have employed or have seen employed to help our children and youth develop into strong members of the church and intelligent members of society? I don't want to hear why you believe the kids are screwed up. This country has become so accustomed to playing the blame game and pointing fingers instead of taking the initiative to clean up the mess that it makes me sick. No blame game, solutions are what we need. What do you have?

Boxer, Reid, Pelosi, Biden, Obama - Where does the nonsense end?

Here you go you liberal whiners! The unaldulterated version........still sounds the same to me.....



Alan Keyes said on election night when the death of our nation was sealed as Obama was declared the winner, "Has the world gone mad?" I wonder daily, I really do. So what is the sense behind Dems wanting to increase our energy costs in addition to doing nothing but exacerbating the already precarious situation of our dependence upon foreign oil? When did Mankind become the enemy? I thought the earth and all things in it were created to assist in fulfilling our existence - that "Men are that they might have joy!" Stop raining on my parade, LIBS! All I want is to be a productive member of society - Work to provide for my family and improve our station in life and raise my kids in a safe area.

Lower taxes! Stop taking my money for governmental bureacracy and social programs that cripple society! Stop pushing social agendas and political idealogies that weaken our nation! Stop wasteful spending of taxpayer money! Just stop.... Why can't you liberals out there see that Washington is full of corrupt officials that have forgotten they were elected to serve the public and not themselves?

Thoughts from Sterling Sill

Sterling Sill was a member of the Quorum of the Seventy "back in the day." He was known for being a prolific writer. In his book "That Ye Might Have Life" are several quotes that I find relevant to our world, to politics, and to the LDS blogging experience. Our recent flare up with the bloggernacle over my Obama - temple worthiness post has exposed some interesting aspects of modern human behavior.

There are many individuals who worship in a wide variety of ways. And when I mean worship, I am not speaking of a dedication to God and his church, but to the worship of  the various influences we all allow in our lives each and everyday. To this point, Sterling Sill wrote, "As we honor our heroes, we tend to build their great qualities into ourselves." I ask, based on those who support abortion, are permissive to promiscuous and sinful lifestyles, or find benefit in degrading or downplaying the words of inspired but imperfect leaders, who are your heroes? What qualities are being internalized thus demonstrating who your heroes really are?

The next thought came as I realized how many people have apostatized from the church recently due to the influence of fault finding with the brethren on issues that might be socially unpopular. Arguments in the world and in the blogosphere are rarely kind towards the brethren. From Olberman calling Elder Oaks one of the worse people in the world, to liberally minded individuals siding with the world and opposing the church on the stance of Same Sex Marriages, many are demonstrating a lack of faith in the Lord's anointed.

To those that consider my commentary to be a confession of blind obedience I say, "Thank you." It was Christ who said to Thomas the apostle after his resurrection, "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Then it was Alma who was preaching to the humble on faith in Alma 32 verse 21 that said, "And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Being blind does not imply that we are ignorant, nor is it a sign of weakness. In fact the Lord himself said that it is an act of faith to follow truth even before we have a full knowledge of it. In time the Lord blesses us with a more complete testimony of truth.

Sterling Sill made this statement that I believe separates a great many in the world of blogging and in the world at large when he wrote, "It was a very fortunate man who said that he not only obeyed God, but that he also agreed with him."

Dear MormonBlogs Directory Site

Angela, apparent moderator of the MormonBlogs directory site made comment on our previous post of the following prior to eliminating our blog from their site listings:

 Your hateful screeds against the standing president of our nation, lawfully elected (whether you agree with his politics or not) linked with the implication that those who disagree with you are unworthy somehow has driven my decision to drop your blog from mormonblogs. Good luck with your ventures. Your target audience is not one we desire at mormonblogs. My feeling would be the same if this were a left-wing blog calling members unworthy who watch Glenn Beck.

No hard feelings I hope.

I wish to give rebuttal to this statement. Not in hopes of getting admitted back on to their blog listing because if this blog is not welcome then perhaps it is not the right place for our site anyway. But the principles at play here seem to be unsettling and therefore I wish to make comment - after all this blog is a blantant giving of my opinion and those who chose to participate.

Being accused of standing opposed to an elected president is not a violation of the 12th article of faith. Nor do I feel it righteous or morally agreeable to stand idly by and allow for the prophetically declared inspired constitution to be trampled, abused, or disregarded by the leaders of this country. Where moral and political opposition is felt, we are encouraged to voice our opinions. The church's involvement in Prop. 8 in California is proof that we as members of the church are to take an active role in standing up for moral principles in our society. Priesthood holders are instructed to be the leaders that this society needs by standing up for the teachings of the church in all our endeavors.

In the article posted Saturday November 28th 2009 discussing an individuals temple worthiness against support of two ideals, abortion and homosexuality, evidence was given to support that both the democratic party and our current president stand in opposition to the church in what I consider to be significant and clear doctrinal principles. I made it very clear that it is not support of the president or the democratic party alone that is a violation of temple worthiness, but support of the principles that these two entities espouse that actively defy the doctrines of the church.

Speaking against the president is not a new thing by members of the church nor do I consider it a violation of christ-like behaviors. Christ himself spoke out against Ceasar, Pilate, and other social and political leaders in his day. Sadducee's, Publicans, and Pharisees, even professors of other religions were constantly denounced and were counseled to repent. Joseph Smith once said of President Van Buren, "he is so much a fop or fool (for he judged our cause before he knew it) we could find no place to put truth into him. We do not say the Saints shall not vote for him, but we do say boldly.... that we do not intend he shall have our votes." He then later stated on a trip home from meeting with the president, "On my way home I did not fail to proclaim the iniquity and insolence of Martin Van Buren, toward myself and an injured people. May he never be elected again to any office of trust or power. (the president) Was not as fit as my dog, for the chair of state; for my dog will make an effort to protect his abused and insulted master, while the present chief magistrate will no so much as lift his finger to relieve an oppressed and perecuted community of freemen."

With regards to the "punishing" of other blogs in a similar fashion were they left wing blogs demonstrating a point of view contrary to the MormonBlog directory, I have to say, that this is a statement of hypocrisy and a double standard that I will hold no reservation speaking against. I have visited other blogs listed on MormonBlogs and found that they not only spoke out strongly against George W. Bush in his presidency, but have spoken out against the church directly. Many of the "left-wing" or liberal blogs listed on the site have openly declared that they find fault with the church. Yet, they continue to be listed. We have spoken in support of the church and with respect to the blog article in question by Angela, the article is a denouncement of principles that should be morally offensive to all church members. I have not made the judgment call that individuals are not worthy, the brethren have been clear in making that distinction. My post is simply a repeat of that information. "Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church."

So to disagree with the information in this post and to the degree that you feel that a statement regarding a judgment on church membership from the church itself is not inline with the feelings of the MormonBlog directory, then perhaps the site should have its name changed. As the "Mormon Church" feels that individuals who support these causes are unworthy of a temple recommend, and they are not worthy of membership in the church.


No hard feelings? Why should I? I have done nothing wrong with my writing. I am a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and have a testimony that this is the only true church on the earth. That Thomas Spencer Monson is the prophet on the earth today and the leader of God's government on the earth. Abortion is a practice of the devil and is the combination of two of the greatest and most egregious sins one can commit - sexual sin and murder. Practicing homosexuality is a sinful abomination that leads the individual down paths away from God and will disqualify an individual for membership in the church. If there is no value in asking the question "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?" then why have it in the temple recommend interview? If our answers are to be of no consequence then why does the Lord want that question in there? The question is of utmost spiritual relevance as an improper answer to this question can disqualify an individual for the blessings of temple worship - the highest worship in the church.

To all in the blog world who wish to discuss politics, society, or matters of the law, please come and participate. We will disagree - so what. It is not only my right as a citizen of this country to express my opinion, but I feel it my obligation to stand for high moral conduct as espoused by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Had my comments been inflammatory due to a false claim or false information, I would feel that our expulsion from this directory would be justified. Instead, I feel like saints in other times and places that have seen undue persecution for standing up for moral and gospel principles. Perhaps the comments of others could be construed to match this description, but then again, all should be entitled to their opinion, even those who feel that being Mormon and naked in public is in accord with gospel principles.

To show no hard feelings I will leave the link to the MormonBlog directory up on our site as I feel that people should be allowed to find sources where others are free to express their opinions. These links should be available to all of our readers as well.