Nihilism Is Not a Life Plan

Spengler’s Universal Law #16: Small civilizations perish for any number of reasons,

 but great civilizations die only when they no longer want to live—David P. Goldman (How Civilizations Die, p. 122)

 

Back in college, a number of terms came up, from literary and philosophical movements that I didn’t have the background to understand. I remember struggling with them, and just generally having a distaste for some of these ideas—particularly for the literature related to them. Among the terms were existentialism and nihilism.

Using my dictionary from that time period isn’t that helpful. More commonly today, something existential, such as an existential threat, is related to the existence of a person, culture, or nation. That thing’s very existence is on the line. It’s a matter of life or death.

And nihilism tends toward believing in destruction first and foremost. Nihilism is basically a death wish—suicidal tendencies on a personal, cultural, or national level, or even larger.

By that definition, I would say today’s culture in nihilistic. Quite literally. It requires sex combined with sterility. A species that does not reproduce goes extinct. You could say this nihilistic cult is an existential threat to humanity.

According to David P. Goldman in How Civilizations Die, “The separation of sexuality from procreation in Greek culture helps explain the terrible demographic decay that Greece would suffer during the fifth and fourth centuries BCE” (p. 123). In short, the pattern of failure to want the culture to continue has been bringing down civilizations for millennia.

In that book, written in 2011, Goldman was hopeful that America was and would remain different from the other cultures in the world that were self-sabotaging, which he details in that book. He says,

Among the large industrial countries, there is one great exception to the declinist story: the United States. If a single characteristic makes America exceptional, it is the fact that American fertility has stabilized at replacement. In other words, as Europe and Japan reach the point of no return on the road to senility and depopulation, America will maintain its population, along with a healthy balance among age cohorts. In the second half of this century most of the great powers of the past—Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia, and Japan, among others—will cease to function. A century later they will have ceased to exist. What makes America utterly and completely exceptional among the industrial countries, in short, is that it will still be here in a hundred years.

It is not that Americans in general are having children, but that Americans of faith are having children, and there are more Americans of faith than citizens of any other industrial country (p. 191-192).

A decade later, it may be that he might not be so optimistic for America. The culture of death is winning converts even among the religious.

In my religion, the culture of marriage and family remains strong. But even there, there has been an onslaught of well-meaning (?) reformers, who insist that a loving God must accept their version of morality, which would include homosexuality and transgenderism. There are several ways they’re missing the proverbial ark.

They forget that doctrine isn’t a matter of cultural pressure; it is a matter of revelation from God. Then the only question is, are we getting God’s word and understanding it?

President Dallin H. Oaks, Sunday, April 3, 2022
screenshot from here

This past weekend was our semiannual worldwide General Conference. On Sunday afternoon, President Dallin H. Oaks spoke. He is one of the three First Presidency members, who, along with the Twelve Apostles, lead and guide the Church. His talk was entitled, “Divine Love in the Father’s Plan.” In it, he said,

Fundamental to us is God’s revelation that exaltation can be attained only through faithfulness to the covenants of an eternal marriage between a man and a woman. That divine doctrine is why we teach that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

That is also why the Lord has required His restored Church to oppose social and legal pressures to retreat from His doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman, to oppose changes that homogenize the differences between men and women or confuse or alter gender.

In other words, doctrine is not going to change on this. He explains, or reminds us, that we believe family relationships are eternal. We don’t marry “till death do us part”; we marry “for time and all eternity.” The family—including posterity—is intended to continue in heaven. You can’t continue a relationship with posterity if you don’t have a relationship that produces posterity.

This is not to say that those who are infertile, or who miss the opportunity to marry and have offspring in this life are doomed. In fact, we believe that every blessing will be given to us in the next life, if we keep the commandments in this life.

But those in the current cultural death spiral are not infertile—except by choice.

The Institute for Family Studies had a piece earlier this week lamenting the current choice to remain childless, and how this is a symptom of hopelessness. Another piece on anti-natalism in the Deseret News shows examples of a couple of tweets about what a good life choice it is to have children, which were bombarded by hateful dissent.

Liz Wheeler tweeted: “Truly the saddest thing in the world is when people deliberately choose not to have children. The most wonderful, fulfilling, sanctifying thing is having a baby with your spouse. Have lots of babies.”

Liz Wheeler tweet, image found here

Meghan McCain tweeted: “The biggest and worst lie my generation was ever sold is that motherhood is a burden and something you could take or leave. But nothing in my life compares to being Liberty's mom—the sheer joy, fulfillment, privilege it is.”

Meghan McCain tweet, image found here

Neither of these statements ought to be controversial. They are simply a personal expression of joy over having and raising children. Why the refusal to allow such an expression?

Because the cult of nihilism is a religion, and these expressions are heretical. They feel threatened by our disagreement with them.

gif found here

Ryan T. Anderson, in an essay used as the forward to the book Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution, by Carl R. Trueman, describes the adoption of a non-reality-based sexuality. He says,

Whereas for most of human history our sexual embodiment was a sheer given, allowing us to unite conjugally and form families, the modern therapeutic turn inward counsels people to be true to their inner sexual desires. What was once simply self-evident, that a boy should grow up to be a man, become a husband, and assume the responsibilities of a father, now entails a search to discover an inner truth about “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” based on emotions and will, rather than nature and reason.

This turn away from evidence and the world around us to some other, inner source of information has led to an inevitable politicization:

If our sexuality is our deepest and most important inner truth, and politics is about the promotion of the truth, then it was inevitable that sex would become politicized.

He’s not describing what should be here, or even what is actually truth; he’s describing what he sees happening in this sexualizing culture. He adds,

Whereas cultures used to cultivate the virtues that made family and religion flourish, in modernity the law would be used to suppress these institutions. They stood in the way of sexual “authenticity,” and politics sought to create a world where it was safe—and free from criticism—to follow one’s sexual desires. Hence, the push to redefine marriage legally was never really about joint tax returns and hospital visitation, but about forcing churches to update their doctrines and bakers to affirm same-sex relationships.

We are indeed in a religious war.

This new religion insists on decoupling sex from procreation. It has a preference for perversity and sterility, rather than natural familial love and procreation. And it plans on enforcing its tenets on the unwilling with greater skill and intensity than any previous inquisition.

However, it is a religion without hope for a future.

As light always overtakes darkness, a religion that values life—and bringing up life in a family—will overtake a religion against life. Because, to survive requires producing a next generation to pass along a culture to. A cult that despises reproduction cannot outlast its adherents. Nor does this cult want to survive. It is nihilistic. It is by definition suicidal. So we must resist it—and outlast it—by doing what civilizations do to thrive: honor God and protect the family.

Worship

This past weekend was the semi-annual world conference for my Church. There were three sessions on Saturday and two on Sunday. During the Saturday morning session, President Dallin H. Oaks spoke, and especially the first several minutes were meant for all people, not just members of our church.

Pres. Dallin H. Oaks, speaking during General Conference, Saturday morning,
October 2, 2021; screenshot from here

In another day or two, I expect the talks will be separate for viewing and reading—with footnotes. But today I did things the hard way and transcribed the first few minutes, so any errors are mine. 

President Oaks started with an example quoted by an earlier church leader about a good family who didn’t attend church, and why that is a concern:

Many years ago Elder Mark E. Peterson, a member of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, began a talk with this hypothetical example: “Kenneth and his wife, Lucille, are good people, honest and upright. They don’t go to church, though. And they feel they can be good enough without it. They teach their children honesty and virtue. And they tell themselves that is about all the church would do for them. And, anyway, they insist that they need their weekends for family recreation, and church going would really get in their way.”

Today my message concerns such good and religious-minded people who have stopped attending or participating in their churches. When I say churches, I include synagogues, mosques, or other religious organizations. We are concerned that attendance at all of these is down significantly nationwide. If we cease valuing our churches for any reason, we threaten our personal spiritual life. And significant numbers separating themselves from God reduces His blessings to our nations.

I’ve been sensing that, despite a long decrease, we’ve had something of a turning back to God recently. That seems to happen when we go through hard times—like hurricanes and floods in the Gulf Coast region. We’ve been going through it with a pandemic and the associated problems caused by the response to it, shutting down schools and businesses. I might only be sensing a regional response, and we’re in the Bible belt where people pretty openly live their religion. But is the turning toward God enough? That has been a question I've had.

There are a great many calamities scheduled for the last days, and maybe we’re in the midst of those, or on the cusp of things to come. But this nation, under God, ought to be protected, right? Unless we do not turn to God.

And maybe one way we need to do that, to show God that we have turned to Him, is to worship Him—in church on the Sabbath.

But, what about those who say they don’t get anything from Church? President Oaks talks about that:

Some say that attending church meetings is not helping them. Some say, “I didn’t learn anything today”; or “No one was friendly to me”; or “I was offended.” Personal disappointment should never keep us from the doctrine of Christ, who taught us to serve, not to be served.

With this in mind, another member described the focus of his church attendance: “Years ago I changed my attitude about going to church. No longer do I go to church for my sake, but to think of others. I make a point of saying hello to people who sit alone, to welcome visitors, to volunteer for an assignment. In short, I go to church each week with the intent of being active, not passive, and making a positive difference in people’s lives.”

I think that emphasis on taking action is important. President Oaks quoted the prophet of my youth, President Spencer W. Kimball, who taught this:

We do not go to sabbath meetings to be entertained or even simply to be instructed. We go to worship the Lord. It is an individual responsibility. If the service is a failure to you, you have failed. No one can worship for you. You must do your own waiting upon the Lord.

I’ve been thinking about that word worship. It has been confusing sometimes, here in the South, where I learned the word is used for church “singing time.” You can of course worship by singing hymns of praise; in fact, I love to do that. But I think of the word as something much larger than that.

Here’s the dictionary definition of the verb, to start us off:

1.     To show religious devotion or reverence for; adore or venerate as a deity

2.     To have intense love or admiration for; adore or idolize

3.     To engage in worship, or perform an act of religious devotion; specifically, to offer prayers, attend church service, etc.1.

from Webster's New World Dictionary, ed. 1982

Jordan Peterson, who thinks about everything deeply, including things that have been so natural to me since childhood that I may not have thought about them that deeply. He has talked about what the word worship means. He starts with what it is not: 

Now, if you’re like me, or if you’re like me when I was a kid, because I haven’t thought about this for a long time, it was never really obvious to me why God would want to be worshipped. You know, you go to church, and you offer up your praise and thanks to God, and think, “Really, does that make a lot of sense?” It’s like, “Why in the world is that what He wants?” It’s almost like you’re kneeling down in front of an ancient Middle Eastern tyrannical emperor and vowing your submission. And that never sat well with me, and I suppose it doesn’t sit well with many people. And I think that’s because it’s not the proper way of conceptualizing it.

So what does it mean to worship? Peterson, in that clip, had been talking about Abraham, and how he changed, or reconstituted himself, becoming a new person. In Abraham’s case, that even included changing his name from Abram, meaning “exalted Father,” to Abraham, meaning “Father of a multitude,” which must have been somewhat frustrating to him as he and his wife neared the end of their first century childless before miraculously having a son. Anyway, Peterson says,

The worship is something like, you know, this is alluding back to my original proposition that it’s how you act that’s the issue. And the worship is the decision to enact the good in whatever form it is that you can conceptualize it, as well as trying to continually re-conceptualize the good in a manner that makes the good that you’re conceptualizing even that much better. Right? Because, when you start aiming, the probability that you’re going to be aiming in the right direction is very low. But hypothetically, as you aim, and as you practice, and as you learn, the target is going to shift in front of your eyes, and you’re going to be able to follow it every more clearly.

To enact the good—that’s an apt definition of worship—assuming you know what the good is. I believe he means ultimate good. I’ve heard him say elsewhere that what we conceptualize as ultimate good is what our God (or god) is to us.

There’s another place where Dr. Peterson talks about the word “sin.” It has an original meaning of something like “missing the mark,” using that archery aiming idea again.

What is it we’re aiming at? And missing, and learning with practice to aim at more accurately? Dr. Peterson goes on here to say,

I suppose it’s akin to the later Christian idea that it’s the imitation of Christ that’s the sacred duty of every Christian. And every human being, I suppose, insofar as that’s an archetypal idea. And the idea is something like, well, it’s the embodiment of the good that’s the issue. And it’s not your stated belief in the good.

We worship Christ by imitating the way He lived His life. If the whole world did that, we’d have people who are (this is Paul’s list from his letter to the I Corinthians 13):

·         Charitable.

·         Long-suffering.

·         Well behaved.

·         Selfless—thinking of others first.

·         Not easily provoked.

·         Thinking good thoughts.

·         Truthful.

·         Hopeful.

·         Believing (not cynical).

·         Enduring and faithful.

·      That’s in addition to the Ten Commandments, which lead us to honor God, family, life, property ownership, and truth. These are all very civilizing things worth aiming at.

We get something out of our worship of God; it transforms us into better human beings. Also, when we do that at church, instead of some vague and not very spiritually intensive nature hike or boat outing, we connect with others who are attempting the same aim. President Oaks said,

Church attendance can open our hearts and sanctify our souls. In a church we don’t just serve alone, or at our own choice or convenience. We usually serve in a team. In service we find heaven-sent opportunities to rise above the individualism of our age. Church-directed service helps us overcome the personal selfishness that can retard our spiritual growth.

One of the problems we have, after a generation or so of decreasing church attendance—i.e., decreasing worship at church—is an upcoming generation that doesn’t understand community service. Some do. But there’s a definite shortage of volunteers for PTOs, or for Scout troop leadership, or even professional society leadership. Why put work into something you’re not getting paid for? Because service to others is a form of worshipping God. We will worship something. And if it isn’t God, it will be something aimed much lower.

There are advantages for us in attending church as well. President Oaks says,

In church we associate with wonderful people striving to serve God. This reminds us that we are not alone in our religious activities. We all need associations with others. And church associations are some of the best we can experience, for us and our companions and children. Without those associations, especially between children and faithful parents, research shows increasing difficulty for parents to raise children in their faith.

At such a time as this, we are greatly in need of children raised with faith. Civilization depends on it. It may be that our liberty here in America depends on it. And I hope we’re not too late.

Bonus: I saw this on a friend’s Facebook post (originally attributed to Sharon Martin), shortly after I’d heard President Oaks’ talk. It’s a message coming to many minds today.

Divinely Inspired Constitutional Principles

Of the 195 countries in the world today (depending on how you count), all but three have a written constitution. All of these derive from the existence of the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the oldest, most longstanding of them all. Many states, as in the United States, in Mexico, and other places, may also have their own written constitutions. Texas does.

In our worldwide conference yesterday, President Dallin H. Oaks,[i] of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, talked with us about the US Constitution and the divinely inspired principles of freedom it embodies. Why was that brought up in a worldwide religious meeting?

President Dallin H. Oaks, of the First Presidency of 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
speaking at Sunday afternoon's General Worldwide Conference
screenshot from here

 

As Pres. Oaks said,

The United States Constitution is the oldest written constitution still in force today. Though originally adopted by only a small number of colonies, it soon became a model worldwide.

And,

The United States Constitution is unique, because God revealed that He established it for the rights and protection of all flesh.

We believe our US Constitution was divinely inspired at a time and place that made the restoration of the gospel—the founding of our Church—possible, just three decades after it was written. But it’s not just for Church members; it’s for the benefit of all mankind.

US Constitution
image from Wikipedia

While there were other places and people in the world that spoke about human rights and equality—as opposed to a stratified society, which was the norm and had been historically—the United States Constitution was the first to put that into law. There was no place else in the world at that time that would have been receptive to Christ’s restored religion in which God is no respecter of persons but invites all to come unto Christ.

Pres. Oaks has the qualifications to speak on the matter:

·         He clerked for the Chief Justice of the United States.

·         He taught law for 15 years.

·         He served on the Utah Supreme Court for 3 years.

·         He has served as an apostle for our Church for 37 years.

I could add that he also happened to be the President of my alma mater, Brigham Young University; his term ended at my graduation. That doesn’t have anything to do with his expertise on the Constitution and how it relates to the Church, but it adds to my respect for him.

He speaks clearly and lays out his points logically. Always. And yet, he tends to stir up the occasional hornets’ nest when he speaks. Maybe because he’s willing to state things at odds with current culture or political correctness.

I suppose in today’s climate, you’re not supposed to say that something one country has is better than what other countries have. But if it weren’t true, we wouldn’t have a border problem. So let’s just admit that there’s something good here in America. And whatever good we have probably stems from the freedom and prosperity we have directly resulting from our Constitution.

Freedom relates to agency—our ability to choose, and therefore to be accountable for, our actions. He said,

The most desirable condition for the exercise of that agency is maximum freedom for men and women to act according to their individual choices. Then… every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, the Lord revealed, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. This obviously means that human slavery is wrong. And, according to the same principle, it is wrong for citizens to have no voice in the selection of their rulers or the making of their laws.

So individual freedom is the overriding principle. But he further distills what makes the US Constitution such a good pattern for the world into these five principles (but not necessarily limited to only these):

1.       The source of government power is the people.

He adds that,

Sovereign power in the people does not mean that mobs or other groups of people can intervene or intimidate to force government action. The Constitution established a constitutional democratic republic, where the people exercise their power through their elected representatives.

2.       A division of power in which only limited, enumerated powers are granted to the central government, and all other rights are reserved “to the states respectively or to the people.”

3.       The separation of powers among independent executive, legislative and judicial powers. More than a century earlier “the English Parliament pioneered the separation of legislative and executive authority when they wrested certain powers from the king.” But it was an inspired innovation to have all three branches co-equal, so they “could exercise checks upon one another.”

4.       The Bill of Rights, guaranteeing individual rights as well as limits on government authority.

These are not new, as he points out:

Here the inspiration was in the practical implementation of principles pioneered in England, beginning with the Magna Carta. The writers of the Constitution were familiar with these, because some of the colonial charters had such guarantees.

5.       The rule of law, as opposed to ruler’s law.      

He says,

We are to be governed by law, and not by individuals. And our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any officeholder.

Here in Texas our state constitution was patterned after the US Constitution, so I thought I’d take a look and see if it held these five principles.

The opening of the Texas Constitution, handwritten 1876
image from Wikipedia

Bill of Rights, check. Instead of amendments, Article I is the Bill of Rights. It starts with Freedom and Sovereignty of the State, saying this:

Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

This is the basis of the contract between Texas and the United States of America.

Going on, it covers being a republican form of government—representing the voice of the people. That’s the first principle of Pres. Oaks’ list, so check that. Then comes equal rights for all—no special privileges for any. Then comes equality under the law, saying it this way:

Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. 

There are several in a row related to freedom of religion: no religious tests to qualify for office or public trust, provided that a person acknowledges “the existence of a Supreme Being.” Without a Supreme Being, there are no God-given rights to preserve; that would be a problem. Then witnesses cannot be disqualified based on religious belief nor lack thereof; “but all oaths or affirmations shall be administered in the mode most binding upon the conscience, and shall be taken subject to the pains and penalties of perjury.” Next is freedom of worship—and this is longer and more detailed than the First Amendment in the US Constitution. It says,

All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

There’s one more related to religion: no appropriations can go to sectarian purposes—that is, to the benefit of a particular religious sect. No financial religious favoritism.

Next comes freedom of speech and press. Then no illegal searches or seizures. Then rights of the accused, which look similar to in the US. Listed separately are rights of bail, and denial of bail after multiple felonies, which is somewhat long and detailed, with a couple of sub-sections.

Then is the writ of habeas corpus, which shall never be suspended. And that is followed by an inclusive one with no excessive bail or fines; no cruel or unusual punishment; courts must be open; and there must be a remedy by due course of law. Then comes no double jeopardy, and the right to trial by jury.

Things are getting detailed. I’ll add that there are specific limits to imminent domain, including a definition of “public use” to prevent taking property for economic development purposes—which was an amendment in 2009.

There is no deprivation of life, liberty, or property except by due course of the law. There are a couple of others related to law and life. And then a definition of treason against the state:

Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; and no person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

We can’t leave out the right to keep and bear arms. Then military is subordinate to civil authority, and there’s no quartering of soldiers in houses.

Let me add this one, added in 2005: “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” And “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” The US Supreme Court is currently at odds with the Texas Constitution.

President Oaks, by the way, mentions this, saying:

Despite the divinely inspired principles of the United States Constitution, when exercised by imperfect mortals, their intended effects have not always been achieved. Important subjects of lawmaking, such as some laws governing family relationships, have been taken from the states by the federal government.

He also mentions other infringements such as "The First Amendment guarantee of free speech has sometimes been diluted by suppression of unpopular speech," and some messiness concerning the separation of powers. People definitely make divine inspiration go awry when they don't follow it. 

Nevertheless, these principles, Pres. Oaks says, make it so all individuals are equal before the law. That is the goal. Unfortunately, that is not always the outcome.

The Texas Constitution has a total of 34 rights in that Article I, all coming ahead of the code of laws.

So are all five principles covered in Texas? Yes. We have rule by the people. We have rights of state government that have not been granted to the federal government. We have the separation of powers: executive, two-chamber legislative, and judicial (divided into civil and criminal state supreme courts). We have the Bill of Rights, which we’ve detailed. And we abide by the rule of law, rather than ruler’s law.

Hurray for Texas!

So what do we do about this love of the principles of the Constitution?

We use the moral agency God has given us to make the best decisions we can and use our influence for good. Pres. Oaks suggests some things good citizens can do:

In the United States and in other democracies, political influence is exercised by running for office—which we encourage—by voting, by financial support, by membership and service in political parties, and by ongoing communications to officials, parties, and candidates.

It’s a fine line, and he’ll be getting flack just for trying to carefully walk it. But he suggests both being politically involved and not criticizing others in how they are politically involved, or in the choices they make. As he says,

There are many political issues. And no party, platform, or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then, members should seek inspiration on how to exercise their influence according to their individual priorities.

You don’t know the thought processes another person has gone through, or what their particular priorities are—or even what they may or may not be aware of. So you shouldn’t decide someone is an unworthy church member simply because their political opinions may differ from your own. In a church where the membership heavily leans conservative, I guess that needed to be said.

Often when I hear Pres. Oaks speak, I am wondering which people is he speaking to concerning a particular point. In October 2020 he reminded us that our process is to accept the result of an election, and if disappointed work toward the next election. This was before the election was stolen, but I still took it to heart, since I saw election fraud as likely because of all the mail-in votes and other challenges to basic election integrity. But I couldn’t picture Latter-day Saints going out and protesting. This time he said,

Being subject to presidents or rulers of course poses no obstacle to our opposing individual laws or policies. It does require that we exercise our influence civilly and peacefully, within the framework of our constitutions and applicable laws. On contested issues we should seek to moderate and unify.

I of course agree. But did we members of our Church really need reminding that we influence only civilly and peacefully, within the law? That seems like a given. Or maybe I’m unaware of some rabble-rousing Latter-day Saints somewhere?

I was heartened to hear him say, “We should trust in the Lord and be positive about this nation’s future.” I do trust in the Lord. But I haven’t lately been positive about this nation’s future. He says we should all of us, around the world, pray for our leaders. I do that.

It may be that, while I love the US Constitution, as Pres. Oaks clearly does, he knows more about the future than I do. In my assessment, we are at a stage where we could call what we have the Democratic-Socialist Tyranny of America (that appears to be the intention of those currently in power and trying to make their power permanent), as opposed to the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America.

If I continue to support Texit, it will be with an eye toward influencing, where I can, to live where we have the divinely inspired principles of the US Constitution. I want that for my beloved United States as well the nation-state I’m living in. But if I can't get it in both, I'll aim for where I live.

In Daniel Miller’s book on Texit, which I’ve been reading this past week, he points out that other places that have separated, such as Scotland from Great Britain and Catalonia from Spain, when you ask a person where they’re from they don’t say the larger unit they’re affiliated with; they say their home place. But here in Texas—well, we sometimes do say Texas before America, as people in probably no other state would do, but we still pledge allegiance to the US flag just before turning toward the state flag and pledging allegiance to Texas (pp. 174-177). The two didn’t used to seem incompatible. They certainly aren’t incompatible when considering the actual US Constitution. But that’s not really what we’ve been dealing with for quite a while.

So I’m considering President Oaks’ words. I am loving an honoring the US Constitution—and our equally principled Texas Constitution. And I’ll watch and hope for America’s positive future, while also pursuing freedom, prosperity, and civilization where I think I have influence to do so.

_____________

[i] As of today, this link of the full session was available, but later this week each speech should be available separately, along with the transcript, including footnotes.

Good Advice for the Next Day

I’ve never been very good at predictions. But I do try to prepare for whatever may come, which means I’ve done a sort of war game in my head for various scenarios. I have a sense of what might happen tomorrow—and the days that follow. I’m quite a lot more optimistic about our country’s future than I was four years ago. But we’ll see.

I’ve told a few friends this, about last time, and maybe it’s worth sharing today. When I pray, I try to also listen for answers. Most times answers come in the form of noticing what is happening that I had prayed for and getting a sense my prayers were part of making it so. Sometimes an answer comes as words I hear in my mind. One of the more such notable times was four years ago in election season, shortly after the primaries. Ted Cruz had pulled out of the race. At the time I thought that meant the end of our constitutional republic, and I was mourning. And praying. And the words came to me, “Trust Me.” That was all. I wasn’t sure what it meant. But in hindsight I can see that God knew the good that Donald Trump would do for our country, and that maybe he was uniquely qualified to do those things. God knew that only such a person could stand up to the opposition during this unusual time.

Regardless of who we might have nominated, the other side would call that person evil in all the ways they can think of. So we needed someone that the insults would bounce off of, someone who was even energized by the battle.

My sense is that the swamp is only beginning to be cleared out. Truth is only just beginning to be shouted from the housetops. In the language of my religion, the “secret combinations,” or the “Gadianton robbers,” are being revealed. And maybe we were warned about them in scriptures, not just so we could sadly watch in dismay as our civilization collapses, but so that we could root them out in the nick of time and have some freedom and prosperity for a bit longer before the apocalyptic end that comes just before the millennial reign of Christ.

crowd comparisons from Sunday
found on Facebook here
Image from attn: on Facebook

Anyway, I’m gingerly predicting good things following voting day.

I don’t expect Wednesday to dawn with things settled. Maybe not for many days. But I think things will go better than we have feared in the wake of many reports of voter fraud.

We face a real enemy. A monster that requires God’s intervention to hold at bay. I don’t always know the details of God’s will. But I think His will at this time is more freedom—especially freedom of religion and speech—and maybe the return of a time of some prosperity. If it happens, that will be God’s will.

If things don’t go as I hope, then I can also be calm inside, knowing that it is in God’s hands, and He has a plan—even if I can’t see it all.

I don’t expect the enemies of God to stop their fight after Tuesday—regardless of how our elections turn out. But I do hope we offer evidence that a majority of the people choose God’s side, honoring God, life, family, truth, and property. Choosing freedom, prosperity, and civilization—rather than the alternatives of tyranny, poverty, and savagery.

Either way, I’m looking at this high tension time, and I’m looking for peace, and wisdom.

In literature, here are a couple of quotes from Gandalf in Lord of the Rings:

Some believe it is only great power than can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay…small acts of kindness and love.—Gandalf

Image from attn: on Facebook

"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

“So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

Image found on Pinterest

How about wisdom from a prophet in scriptures? I used this one the day after the 2012 election.   This is Paul’s letter to the saints at Philippi:

Philippians 4:8  Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Keep your mind occupied with the good that we still have around us, despite the turmoil in the world.

At our recent General Conference, President Dallin H. Oaks spoke to us about the appropriate behavior to have after an election. He quoted the 12^th Article of Faith, written by Joseph Smith following a time of intense persecution of the saints:

“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying , honoring, and sustaining the law.”

President Oaks added,

This does not mean that we agree with all that is done with the force of law. It means that we obey the current law and use peaceful means to change it. It also means that we peacefully accept the results of elections. We will not participate in the violence threatened by those disappointed with the outcome.

At this point there’s a footnote referring us to a piece in the Economist called “A House Divided.” I wasn’t able to read beyond two paragraphs without a subscription, which started at $25, which I didn't pay. It started by complaining about Trump’s refusal in 2016 to accept the election unless he won; so I wonder if the remainder of the piece mentions that the Democrats in reality never accepted the election results even to this day. As I was searching for this, I came across another article by the same title, worth a read, by Tal Bachman. 

I admit that I took note here, during the conference talk, because, while I don’t foresee our side getting violent; I do foresee it being very difficult to accept election results in the face of so much known voter fraud by Democrats.

President Oaks goes on:

In a democratic society we always have the opportunity and the duty to persist peacefully until the next election.

I love and honor President Oaks. And I believe he knows a lot more than I do. I am more than a little concerned, this election, however, that if the Democrats win, we will not have the opportunity to persist peacefully until the next election, as we have always been free to do in the past.

I was worried. Was I in a position where I would find it difficult to obey? I hope not.

And then my optimistic side kicked in, and I thought, he must know our side is going to win, and these words are aimed at the side that has been refusing to concede elections, and has been threatening and participating in violence against anyone who doesn’t share their ideology.

He then spends much of the remainder of the talk detailing why violence cannot be part of civil protest for a believer in the gospel. And I’m thinking, Wow! Did members of our Church need to be told not to join in riots? Being reminded to accept results, yes. But to not riot?

President Dallin H. Oaks, speaking at BYU, October 27, 2020
image found here

President Oaks recently spoke on the same subject, in more detail at a BYU Devotional. Both talks emphasized how to love better those we don’t agree with, even those who might be our enemies. At the devotional, he said,

Only the gospel of Jesus Christ can unite and bring peace to people of all races and nationalities. We who believe in that gospel—whatever our origins—must unite in love of each other and of our Savior Jesus Christ.

This is a challenging thing we’re being asked to do.

I have asked for divine help with this frequently these past few years. I ask my Heavenly Father to fill me with love, both so that I can feel safely loved, and so that I have a full reservoir of love to give. I don’t think I’m good enough on my own to love those who hate me and despitefully use me,[i] but with His help I believe I can.

Still, I hope that we have enough peace going forward that those I face in my neighborhood and at the grocery store don’t begin to appear to me to be enemies. I heard today that a friend of mine, in a nicer neighborhood not far from here, was confronted and threatened by neighbors who found out they had voted for Trump. This is in Texas, in the state’s largest and most conservative senatorial district. Things are less civilized than they appear.

At the same General Conference, another of our apostles, M. Russell Ballard, also urged us to love our enemies, and to redouble our prayers. A year ago he had asked Americans specifically to pray for our government leaders, and the good families of our nation. This time he made that call to the whole world:

Today I expand my call for prayer to all people from every country around the world. No matter how you pray or to whom you pray, please exercise your faith—whatever your faith may be—and pray for your country and for your national leaders…. We stand today at a major crossroads in history, and the nations of the earth are in desperate need of divine inspiration and guidance. This is not about politics or policy. This is about peace and the healing that can come to individual souls as well as to the soul of countries—their cities, towns, and villages—through the Prince of Peace and the source of all healing, the Lord Jesus Christ.

He then pointed out that, after praying, Jesus Christ took action to help people. So, pray, and then act in service and love. That’s what to do after the painful tension of this election season. And always. No matter what happens.

Here’s what I expect to do the day after the election. And every day after that, as long as we have the freedom to do it:

found on Facebook, here

One final quote of wisdom, from poet Robert Frost:

In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: it goes on.

---

[i] Matthew 5:44 

Old Wisdom

There is age-old wisdom, and there is sometimes wisdom in age. When things have been known—or at least accepted—to be best for society, we ought to have some respect for that.

Among the age-old wisdom is that family is the basic unity of society. In order to have a strong society—civilization—you need strong families—consisting of a married man and woman. So marriage is important. And having children, and raising them in the safety provided by married parents is also important.

I heard these old notions reaffirmed in a couple of different places this past week.

It was our semi-annual worldwide conference for my Church—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Among the many speakers was Dallin H. Oaks, always one of my favorites. He was President of Brigham Young University when I attended there. Briefly after that he served on the Utah Supreme Court, before being called as an apostle for our Church. He is now in the First Presidency, and is the senior apostle next to President Russell M. Nelson, who was called as an apostle at the same time as President Oaks.

President Dallin H. Oaks
screen shot from here

President Oaks, with his background in law, lays out information in a very orderly and direct way. That’s his style, and I appreciate that about him. He spoke twice at the weekend conference: Saturday morning, and the Saturday evening Women’s session. Both times he mentioned that truth about marriage.

Quoting from "The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” he said,

We affirm the Lord’s teachings that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” and that “marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.”

He commented on the pressure against this stand:

[S]ome are troubled by some of our Church’s positions on marriage and children. Our knowledge of God’s revealed plan of salvation requires us to oppose current social and legal pressures to retreat from traditional marriage and to make changes that confuse or alter gender or homogenize the differences between men and women. We know that the relationships, identities, and functions of men and women are essential to accomplish God’s great plan.

Talking about the importance of children, he said,

[W]e also have a distinct perspective on children. We look on the bearing and nurturing of children as part of God’s plan, and a joyful and sacred duty of those given the power to participate in it. In our view, the ultimate treasures on earth and in heaven are our children and our posterity. Therefore, we much teach and contend for principles and practices that provide the best conditions for the development and happiness of children—all children.

People are upset sometimes when the Church—and other churches—step into the political arena, taking a stand on particular issues. But this is why. These things affect us deeply. Near the end of this address, he was talking about the adversary, Satan’s efforts against what we know is good:

[Satan] seeks to confuse gender, to distort marriage, and to discourage childbearing—especially by parents who will raise children in truth.

I’ve written, multiple times, on each of these issues.

·         Gender confusion: here, here, and here.

·         Defending traditional marriage: the large collection here, but also a three-art series ending here, and also here.

·         Rates of reproduction: here  a three-part series ending here, and also here.

In the General Conference Women’s session, Saturday evening, President Oaks further mentioned these cultural pressures, along with some troubling statistics:

Children are our most precious gift from God—our eternal increase. Yet we live in a time when many women wish to have no part in the bearing and nurturing of children. Many young adults delay marriage until temporal needs are satisfied. The average age of our Church members’ marriages has increased by more than two years, and the number of births to Church members is falling. The United States and some other nations face a future of too few children maturing into adults to support the number of retiring adults.[1] Over 40 percent of births in the United States are to unwed mothers. Those children are vulnerable. Each of these trends works against our Father’s divine plan of salvation.

The solution to the deterioration of valuing family is not to give in to cultural pressure; it is to adhere to the wisdom we know from historical evidence and from the happiness that comes from living in a way that leads away from the chaos, including listening to the wise words we hear from our Eternal Father, in scripture and in words of the prophets.

Along these lines, during a very long (2 ¾ hours) interview of Jordan Peterson by Dr. Oz, Peterson was responding to a question about where he lands on the political spectrum, which is a challenge for someone who isn’t a political thinker, but a thinker in the fuller sense. He’s a traditionalist, temperamentally (which is a much fuller conversation with Dr. Peterson), but also creative. So he doesn’t fit easily into prearranged boxes:

It’s not like I don’t think that the dispossessed deserve a political voice. Now, that’s why I was interested in socialist politics when I was a kid, and I understand perfectly well that hierarchies dispossess, and that something has to be done about that. But I also think that we mess with fundamental social structures at our great peril.

Dr. Jordan Peterson (right) talks with Dr. Oz
screen shot from here

What does he think we’ve been messing with to our detriment? The same things Dallin Oaks has mentioned, mainly marriage.

So, here’s a social scientist/clinical psychologist’s view on throwing out the tried and true:

I think we’ve destabilized marriage very badly, and that that’s not been good for people, especially not good for children. But I don’t think it’s been good for adult men and women either.

And I certainly, as a social scientist—one of the things you learn, if you’re a social scientist, and you’re well educated and informed, is that, if you take a complex system—let’s imagine that you have a complex system, and you have a hypothesis about how to intervene so that it will improve. OK, so what will you learn? You’ll learn, once you implement the intervention, that you didn’t understand the system, and that your stupid intervention did a bunch of things you didn’t expect it to, many of which ran counter to your original intent. And you will inevitably learn that.

So, I learned that via a whole series of very wise mentors who insisted, to everyone they talked to who was interested in public policy, for example, that when they put in place a well-meaning public policy initiative, that they put aside a substantial proportion of the budget to evaluate the outcome of the initiative. Because the probability that the initiative would produce the results desired was virtually zero.

That sounds an awful lot like our Spherical Model saying, particularly about government interference:

Whenever government attempts something beyond the proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property), it causes unintended consequences—usually exactly opposite to the stated goals of the interference.

So Jordan Peterson tilts conservative on that basis. But another clue is that he’s not looking at the world in disgust that we haven’t fixed everything yet; he’s in awe that things work as well as they do:

I don’t expect systems to work perfectly. If they’re not degenerating into absolute tyranny, I tend to think they’re doing quite well. Because, if you look worldwide, and you look at the entire course of human history, degeneration into abject tyranny is the norm.

And so, if you see systems like our system, say, in the democratic Western world, that are struggling by, not too badly, you should be in awe of those structures, because they’re so difficult to produce and so unlikely.

What is the so-called liberal approach (sometimes called “leftist” but actually southern hemisphere tyrannical approach)? Interfere. Badly.

You take a system that’s working not too badly. “Well, I’m going to radically improve it.” It’s like, “No. You’re not.” You’re not going to radically improve it. You might be able to improve it incrementally, if you devoted a large part of your entire life to it, and you were very humble about your methods and your ambition.

But if you think that some careless tweak of this complex system, as the consequence of the illogical presuppositions you learn in three weeks in your social justice class at university, and that’s going to produce a radical improvement? It’s like, you can’t even begin to fathom the depths of your ignorance.

 Dr. Oz asks him what specifically does he think has derailed marriage. He speculates that some of it is the changing roles from women becoming more autonomous—mainly from technological advances surrounding hygiene and birth control. Many of these changes are for the good, for women certainly, but also society, because we are able to benefit more from the genius of women. But the changing roles are still very new, anthropologically speaking, so there’s going to be some stress there as men and women renegotiate.

Dr. Jordan Peterson
screen shot from here

He totally disagrees with the assertion that women were previously oppressed by men; mostly men and women worked together to struggle out of poverty and oppression any way they could, which, without those technological advances logically placed women mostly at hearth and home.

Anyway, what has done the most harm to marriage?

The other thing that’s happened, as far as I’m concerned, is that we got a little too careless about liberalizing the divorce laws and changing the structure of marriage in general. I don’t think that that was good for people, especially not for children. Because, the evidence that children do better in intact two-parent families is overwhelming. No credible social scientist that I know of disputes that.

That’s what I have seen in the data[2] as well. And if that weren’t affirming enough, he goes on to say what we know about the family:

It might be because the minimal viable social structure is actually the minimal nuclear family: two people. One isn’t enough. Two is barely enough. But it’s a minimum.

Especially—I think the reason for that is, this is how I look at it: Everybody has lots of flaws, and tilts toward insanity in at least one direction. And so, partly what you want to do is, you want to link up with someone over the long run, because they’re— They might be sane where you’re not, and vice versa.

So, if you have a partner, and you put yourself together—and this is also how marriage works symbolically, by the way; it’s the reunion of the original man, before the separation into man and woman. You put yourself together. You have one person who’s basically sane….

Because, if [children] have parents, if they have a parental unit, let’s say, that’s communicating, and that’s straightening each other out, then the child can adapt to that unit as a microcosm of broader society. And so, if the child can figure out how to get along with the parents, in the best possible sense, then they’re also simultaneously figuring out how to get along with everyone else.

And I think, if you go below that pairing, things fragment in a way that can’t be easily rectified.

Maybe it's time we turned back to the old wisdom. Because the only way to rectify the situation now requires rebuilding: more people living the tried and true way that leads to civilization; and speaking truth, loud and clear enough that those who’ve been persuaded by those trying to meddle with what has worked for millennia will hesitate—and think again.

________________________________________________

[1] This footnote was included in the print version of Pres. Oaks' talk: See Sara Berg, “Nation’s Latest Challenge: Too Few Children,” AMA Wire, June 18, 2018, wire.ama-assn.org.
[2] For a collection of data, see “Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences,” 2002, Institute for American Values.