Oh Happy Day!

Yesterday we learned that Federal Judge Dee Benson issued his ruling in the FLDS UEP trust case.  May I say that this was the most significant event (in the polygamy world) since the victims of the 1953 raid were returned to their homes, or since the 439 YFZ ranch children were allowed to return home.

I can't help but smile, because Judge Benson was strident in his criticism of the state's attorneys and their pathetic inability to provide a decent legal argument as to why the state should have invaded a church and confiscated its property.  I think my greatest satisfaction comes from thinking about Brute Wisass and how he told the FLDS people he was their S.O.B. (State Ordained Bishop).  He acted like he was God's gift to the people - a great savior, yet he was smug, arrogant and stubborn.  He appeared to care only for himself and a few cronies.  Payback's a bishop !!!!

It is almost mind-boggling to think of the defeat of Wisass and the Fooles. I hear rumors that Wisass wants to appeal, but one bright observer asked, "With whose money?"

I note that there are new allegations of child-trafficking across the Canadian border. I guess we have to wait for evidence of you-know-what (penetration, conception, pregnancy etc.) to corroborate or dismiss the rumors. I sense that many ambitious folks will try to leverage this matter into more political capital.  My fear is that it is always about selfish and ulterior motives, not the welfare of the people. Sadly, many will quickly forget the rapid rise and fall of Wisass and how he impaled himself on the deceptively sharp stake of the anti-polygamy movement.  Many will follow in his tragic footsteps because they have long forgotten the liberty aspirations of their pilgrim ancestors.

I'm not saying that polygamists are perfect, but targeting them to impose patronizing intervention or busybody interference is never right.  There are some who would say that the Amish are abusing their children because they do not let them play video games.  The only way to rid America of the peculiar and mystifying traditions of the Amish is to wipe them all out.  They are allowed to survive because they bring in tourist dollars.  Modern LDS demagogues secretly love our region's polygamists because they make them appear and feel clean and righteous (by contrast).

It is ironic that Benson's ruling appeared at the same time as a fairly disturbing revelation from the twin border towns (that several prominent leaders are being expelled).  I don't know the details of the situation, but anything that can help people not to put their "trust in the arm of flesh" is a good thing.  Like it or not, the banks and their armies seem not to want to ignore this quiet remnant in the Rockies, so perhaps our dramas will only escalate.  One day we may want to link arms and collaborate for survival's sake.  Priesthood lineages and leadership are supremely important, but their ostensible significance may wane in a time of global war and hunger.

I think now is a time for much prayer in behalf of the FLDS people that they can have (not just their UEP Trust but also) their peace of mind and stability restored (but always in keeping with true principles of liberty and compassion).

Gaddafi's dictatorial example appears to be a painfully and ironically bad one.  He was recently heard calling his people "rats" and promising to "kill" them.

BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES !!!!

Strange Bedfellows

Some ironies can reach historic proportions.  I would argue that it was the religious Christian folks of the 1870's who clamored the loudest for the eradication of the Mormons (or at least the "barbaric" Mormon practice of polygamy).  Whether unintended or not, the eventual consequence was that the Supreme Court weighed in and authorized the states to limit First Amendment "free exercise" when associated with certain claims of religious protection. This amounted to a legislative "blank check".  You could "believe" what you wanted to, but the "exercise" of those beliefs had to now be supervised by government moods.  It was understood that the government would thenceforth control the sacrament of holy matrimony.  Marriage contracts went from common-law ecclesiastical to civil-law legal.

Now that marriage is a government institution (where the state is a party to your marriage), it might be easy to limit the number of the spouses, but much more difficult to dictate the gender of the parties to the contract.  Several states (and Canada) now marry same-sex couples - mostly because there is no intelligent argument for why our government should favor one religious theology or sacrament over another (not to mention family arrangements post-Griswold and Roe).  Our nation may have been founded as a Christian republic, yet, with the fraudulent "ratification" of the Fourteenth Amendment, we are now a secular corporation in which religion should hold no influence.

The irony of this situation now is that those same religious Christian folks (who yearned to curtail the rights of the Mormons) are upset with the (unintended) outcome.  They are not sure of whom to be most afraid - the gays or the polygs.  Even more ironic still, is the mass migration of the Mormons themselves into this petulant crusade (evident in the Proposition 8 madness).  Last Friday (2/5/11) LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks gave an impassioned speech arguing for the protection of Americans' rights to "exercise" their religious beliefs.  Before you get fooled into thinking that he is arguing for a full-scale reversal of the Reynolds decision, let's see what his primary focus is:

Said Elder Oaks: "Along with many others, I see a serious threat to the freedom of religion in the current assertion of a 'civil right' of homosexuals to be free from religious preaching against their relationships."

Problem is - Dallin - you cannot have your cake and eat it too, so, while you are busy championing your right to exercise your belief that government must not allow gays to marry, I am grateful that you are simultaneously championing my right to call my three girl-friends "plural wives" without having to go to prison for felony bigamy. Oaks also said:

"If that [constraining the freedom of religious speech] happens, we will have criminal prosecution of those whose religious doctrines or speech offend those whose public influence and political power establish them as an officially protected class." 

Am I the only one who sees the irony and hypocrisy of these statements when they are analyzed against the backdrop of political/ecclesiastical policies in Utah?  Judge Desleaze Lintbag said that she cannot give the UEP Trust back to the FLDS people because their practice of plural marriage makes them criminals!  Remarkably, she is re-enacting the conduct of earlier government officials who would not return the property of the LDS Church in the 1890's unless it repudiated one of its core doctrines. I think Lintbag, Snortlaff and Oaks need to get their stories straight before they talk or try to shape public policy.  Let's read more of what Oaks said - -

Religious individuals should insist on their constitutional right and duty to exercise their religion, to vote their consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates." Elder Oaks said.  He called for a unified, broad coalition defending religious freedoms — a proposal that doesn't require common doctrinal ground between faiths, but a shared belief that the rights and wrongs of human behavior have been established by a Supreme Being. "All who believe in that fundamental should unite more effectively to preserve and strengthen the freedom to advocate and practice our religious beliefs, whatever they are." he said. "We must walk together for a ways on the same path in order to secure our freedom to pursue our separate ways when that is necessary according to our own beliefs." 

YEAH  - NO KIDDING !!!

Also - did Dallin Oaks write (or collaborate on) this recently proposed Utah bill? - -(HB 109)

Section 3. Section 63G-12-103 is enacted to read:
Prohibitions on state and local governments.
Except in the most limited instances when strictly necessary to avoid the gravest abuse of a constitutional right and more paramount public interest and subject to the provisions of Section 63G-12-104, the state or a political subdivision of the state may not:
(1)  infringe or substantially burden a person's religious liberty, including compel, restrain, or burden a person in their goods and civil capacities; or
(2)  restrict or deny freedom of religious speech and the free expression of religious and moral beliefs in public.

Section 4. Section 63G-12-104 is enacted to read:
Compelling state interest.
(1)  Religious liberty is substantially burdened when a person is coerced or required to act or significantly modify behavior contrary to sincerely held religious beliefs and principles and freedom of conscience.
(2)  The state or a political subdivision of the state may not substantially burden a person's religious liberty unless the state or political subdivision can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence:
......(a) that the application of the burden to the person is:
............(i) in furtherance of a compelling state interest required to protect the peace, health, and safety of the state; and
............(ii) strictly necessary to avoid the gravest abuses endangering a constitutionally recognized and more paramount interest; and
......(b) that there are no other means reasonably available to achieve such ends.

If you're not confused, I am.  COME ON, GUYS.  MAKE UP YOUR SCHIZOPHRENIC MINDS !!!

Epidemic !!!

I have been reading Utah news reports over the last few years.  Utah is famous for its polygamy.  People from other states laugh at Utah because of the rampant polygamy and the Mormons and their many wives.  Heck, word has it that there are 39,004 Mormon polygamists (or maybe "fundamentalists"), so polygamy and child abuse must be widespread.

To hear the anti-polygamy activists, something needs to be done about the proliferation of child brides.  Organizations are formed in their name.  In fact, the repute of this vast, immeasurable problem rang so loud in legislators' ears, that (at the urging of Mark Shurtleff) they felt compelled to get the situation under control.  The powerful solution came in the form of a new law - a law with some teeth. 

Frustrated at the seven month sentence given to Rodney Holm for his third marriage, polygamy-haters now had a strong weapon and deterrent - the Child Bigamy statute.

76-7-101.5. Child bigamy -- Penalty.
(1) An actor 18 years of age or older is guilty of child bigamy when, knowing he or she has a wife or husband, or knowing that a person under 18 years of age has a wife or husband, the actor carries out the following with the person who is under 18 years of age:
(a) purports to marry the person who is under 18 years of age; or
(b) cohabits with the person who is under 18 years of age.
(2) A violation of Subsection (1) is a second degree felony.
Enacted by Chapter 6, 2003 General Session

Unfazed by the gross unconstitutionality of the statute's language (what does "purport" mean? - - what does "cohabit" mean? [I co-habit in my house every day with my wives and my teen daughters]), proponents cheered the opportunity to put thousands of offender sickos behind bars.  For example, let's say you have a 19-year-old boy who is married to an 18-year-old wife.  Let's say he then has sex with a 17-year-old girl from work.  If he is not religious, this is NOT a crime at all.  However, if he can be proved to be from a Fundamentalist Mormon family, well  . . . . . .then . . . . . . he'll do 15 years in prison.  Seems fair, doesn't it?  See, it's not your actions that people hate, it's your damned religious beliefs they'll imprison you for.

So, this potent new law gave Shurtleff what he needed - finally a chance to put all those child-marrying polygs in prison.  I think it has been HUGELY successful - my gosh, since the law was enacted eight years ago, law enforcement has triumphed over this molestation epidemic and proudly convicted the following men:
-
-
-
-

 . . . . . . . . . . . So now we can all sleep peacefully knowing that Utah is clean and pure again.

Homework assignment for Monday:  Will Kody Brown get the same sentence in Nevada for having four wives, as Tom Green will in Utah?

How can He allow it?

In my short life, I have heard many people say, "If there is a God, how can He allow such a thing?"  The "such-a-things" have included:

Devastating earthquakes
Hurricane Katrina
Stalin's purges
The crucifixion of Jesus Christ
Disfiguring birth defects
Catholic priests molesting young boys
Allied bombings of Leipzig and Dresden in WWII
50,000,000 U.S. abortions since 1973
Roseanne Barr singing the national anthem

The logic behind the question is probably as follows -

"I think that if there were a God, He would be so benevolent that He would definitely intervene before any of the above horrors could occur."  

So, the assumption is that, since those things did and do occur, there must be no God.  I guess, if you are inclined to be an unbeliever, that is a pretty convenient and callous excuse for sitting on the fence, either insisting that God must not exist or that, if He does exist, He is a real jerk.  I think this kind of reasoning manufactures a million new liberals every year.

The answer to this mystery is at once the cause of the problem itself.  We have no recollection of the life we experienced before coming to earth.  We don't remember the God who raised us.  We are tempted to conclude that this life is "all there is".  If there was no life before this one - and no life after it, then the inequities of our mortal experience are galling and inexplicable.  Why are some people born into the "lap of luxury" and others in the abject deprivations of a dark jungle?

I suggest that our God DOES exist and that He is PERFECTLY just and compassionate.  Plus - He knows exactly what He is doing.  He is perfectly competent and reliable. Furthermore, I shall argue that one of His primary objectives is to guard and cultivate our FREE AGENCY.  Everything we are is both "thanks to" Him, and a direct result of our own choices.  Why then, do we have to come to this grim sphere and suffer either brief or protracted torment?  I submit that it is so that we can come face to face with adversities tailored specifically for us, and make choices, sometimes tough choices.

If you look at the life circumstances of each of God's earthly children, you will see vast differences in conditions and opportunities.  Despite the machinations of Obama and other arch-socialists like Van Jones, there is no way you can "equalize" the station of all six billion mortals.  Some will die of HIV as infants.  Many won't survive till birth.  Others will live long, rich lives and win the praise of millions (see Pope John Paul II).  How can we reconcile these inequalities?

Who gets to decide under what conditions we enter this mortal life?  I believe that we lived with our kinfolk and our exalted parents for a long time before we came here.  We exercised our free will and made good and bad choices.  We grew and learned, and formulated opinions.  Some were faithful, and some were less so.  Eventually, our Father reminded us that, if we wanted more fulfillment and progression, we needed to pass on and receive a mortal body.  There were millions of parents on earth preparing to conceive children.  Which embryo should we be sent into?  I believe that there were critical discussions (and perhaps negotiations) regarding which family we would join - which country and century we would grow up in.  Our Heavenly Father probably also reminded us that we had demonstrated certain shortcomings and failings in our "pre-mortal" life - weaknesses that could best be remedied by a certain set of conditions and challenges.  Thankfully, with His perfect foreknowledge, God could see in advance what trials we needed, and He exercised perfect wisdom in guiding us into the family and environment where we stood the best chance of confronting and conquering those weaknesses IF WE WANTED TO.  We, of course, saw the wisdom and merits of His recommendations and GLADLY signed on - eager to progress and savor the thrills and spills of a telestial, mortal (corrupt) experience.  Whichever way you slice it, by participating in the decision of where and when we were born, God set in motion (and became the CO-AUTHOR of) every future experience in our lives. Are we willing to take that "faith-leap" and accord Him our trust?  Can we be grateful that He allowed all of it?

So, in order for God to protect our agency and free will, He had to step back.  He had to "turn us loose" in a world where His assistance could perhaps only be gained through sacrifice and prayer - otherwise we are pretty much "on our own".  He had to "make Himself scarce" so that we wouldn't count on Him to fix every little boo-boo or answer every childish question.  It is also very important that we learn to take responsibility for our own decisions and futures (although some never will).

The downside of living in this, a corruptible, "telestial" world is that anything can go wrong, and people can be really rotten. We look at our injuries and illnesses as loss and punishment. We resent adversity because we don't immediately appreciate the opportunity and growth it affords us.  We look up to the heavens and ask, "Why would you inflict this sorrow on me?  Surely I have done nothing to deserve it!"

We become victorious when we finally arrive at the point where, instead of cursing God for our difficulties, we recognize that He co-authored this mortal experience with us, and with the express purpose of helping us to be better and have more joy.  If this life is brief (and it is when compared to eternity), then would we not rather achieve lasting joy and blessings than demand only the fleeting satisfactions of this life?

And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, . . . .D & C 59:20

Impotence

I have watched with genuine concern the protests taking place in major cities in Egypt. Regular citizens of Egyptian society have taken to the streets by the tens of thousands.  Several hundred have been killed (mostly by the police).  The army is out in force, however, it is showing great restraint and is apparently very sympathetic to the protesters.

Why are these people protesting?  Why are they so determined to get rid of President Hosni Mubarak?  Mubarak announced today that he is not seeking re-election and is willing to permit a transition of political power to a new government or new leaders.  What made the Egyptians so unhappy with Mubarak?  Was it the 20% unemployment?  Is it the vast economic gulf between the opulence of the rich and the poverty of the masses?  Surely, when tens of thousands of sincere protesters register such indignation against a corrupt dictator, his departure can now spell a new era of prosperity and success for the average Egyptian.

How much will you bet me that things will not be different one year from now?  Will Mubarak's successor implement sweeping fiscal changes and restore financial control and stability to the Egyptian economy  --  and, if not, why not?

Did Mubarak control Egypt's economy, or is it controlled by some "central" bank (like the private bank - the "Federal" Reserve in the U.S.)?  I submit to you that whoever Mubarak's successor turns out to be, he will be just as impotent as Mubarak and just as impotent as the millions of frustrated protesters to do anything to prevent the fraud and corruption of the central banking system, with its death-grip on the monetary supply, and its fractional reserve usury scam.

I am beginning to think that national usury schemes are an unavoidable disease in any telestial world.  For a season, good people hit upon the idea of using precious metals as value equivalents - as an honest measurement and medium of exchange.  Gold may be shiny and appealing - it may even have limited uses in industry, but its role as currency elevates it to a status of great importance.  I don't remember my wives saying to me - "Honey, why won't you bring us home a big chunk of zinc or nickel?".  Like silver, gold is hard to find and extract, and everyone can mutually agree on ascribing a constant value to it.  Remember that gold doesn't "grow" in value, it is simply that our paper Federal Reserve Notes shrink in value.

In a movie last night ("The Importance of Being Earnest") I saw a man holding a first-class train ticket valued at four pence (circa 1895).  Have you ever asked yourself why the value of money has to be diluted decade after decade, and who is causing it?  Could it be that when you borrow ten dollars and promise to pay back eleven dollars, that you have to work harder to find that eleventh dollar - and, when all the money in circulation has been loaned into circulation, and everybody is chasing around trying to find the "eleventh dollar" that doesn't exist, then the only solution is to PRINT MORE DOLLARS?  That's what causes inflation.  So how do you prevent runaway hyperinflation? - - easy - just create the Internal Revenue and tax all the surplus paper dollars out of circulation every spring (ever feel like you've been had?).

When a den of Gadianton robbers conspires to substitute paper bills (or notes) for real currency, there is the risk that another set of crooks will de-couple the supply of paper money from the amount of silver and gold in a country's treasury, and then the kings can easily "drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornications" (= Bible-speak for profiting off of the private usury banking scam).  Jesus Himself got pretty ticked off at those money-changers.  I wonder what He would say about inflation and deflation, and war-lending, and progressive income taxes, and Bernanke's "Quantitative Easing" (= usurer speak for printing hundreds of billions of new paper notes to mask our insolvency).

Do you look with sadness upon the effective impotence of the Egyptian protesters?  Does the Lord look with sadness upon our impotence when we cannot successfully protest the plundering of our land - His land?

Ezekiel 18:13  Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.