Vote for Freedom, Faith, and Family

I started this post last Thursday but didn’t finish. With Early Voting starting today, November 21^st, I needed to post my recommendations for the November election (which I did here). Spoiler alert, this time, without exception, I recommend voting Republican from top to bottom. (Plus some conservatives in nonpartisan races.)

So now I’m back to this post on the presidential race. I am taking note of a video call from last week (Sunday, October 13^th) talking with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about why good Christians—including our particular type of Christian—should vote for Trump. (I wasn't on this call; I saw the recording.) I think most Christians will find that this resonates with them as well. It’s a way to talk with friends and loved ones who see themselves as seeking the virtuous choice, but have been getting their information from, well, less than truthful sources.

Donald Trump speaks during the LDS Roundtable video call
October 13, screenshot from here

 

A Vote for Trump is a Vote for Freedom, Faith, and Family

As some of you may remember, I did not support Donald Trump in 2016 (I absolutely did not vote for Hillary; I did a protest vote in a state where Hillary could not win). In the Primary I supported Ted Cruz. I was annoyed at Trump’s way of belittling all of his opponents, and I thought the attacks on Ted Cruz were unfounded and over the top (that he was a liar, which he isn’t; that his wife was ugly, which she isn’t; that his father supported Castro in Cuba and/or was related to the Kennedy assassination, which were pure fabrications).

These are what people summarize now as “mean tweets,” although I really never went to Twitter back then. They aren’t insignificant. But Ted Cruz forgave him and endorsed him, in exchange, it appeared, for promises of conservative judicial nominations. I saw that Cruz believed he’d gotten such a promise, but I hadn’t personally gotten that promise. (It turns out Cruz saw that promise kept.)

But, worse, Trump had been, up until almost that point, as far as I could tell, a Democrat billionaire playboy, which was a repugnant image, and I didn’t see a conversion story from that to constitutional conservative family man.

Statements from Trump’s 2016 campaign aligned with my views, but I didn’t believe him—until he proved himself as President.

When he won the Primary, I was morose, believing that was the end of our constitutional republic. But the Spirit whispered to me, “Trust Me.” I didn’t know what that meant. It didn’t seem to mean I should vote for Trump, or maybe it meant that it didn’t matter at the time, just that things were not as bleak as I thought they were. And that was true; we had some pretty good years on the way to recovering from the Obama malaise. And I have come to believe that God is making good use of the unique person that Donald Trump is.

I disagreed with President Trump about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 “vaccine,” but there was a lot to agree with him on in his presidency. He severely cut illegal immigration at the southern border. He cut regulations. The economy flourished—right up until the pandemic shutdown, which was nevertheless in recovery by election day. He moved the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. There was a lot related to that, including treaties with surrounding Middle East countries—the Abraham Accords—that convinced me of his abilities as a negotiator and statesman. He decimated ISIS, which looked more like a pet project than an enemy under Obama’s administration. And I came to admire Trump’s ability to be reverent and respectful at the right moments and of the right things. Notice his honoring Rush Limbaugh at a State of the Union address.

This is to say I strongly supported him in 2020. I was very upset at what happened with that election and severely disappointed that things didn’t get set right. I believe J6 was a setup. But whatever happened, it was not caused by President Trump inciting a riot; that is a lie. The lies that have continued during the Biden/Harris administration have been insufferable. There is so much to say against Kamala Harris (before and following her coup of Biden) that it could fill books.

But today I’d rather spend most of the time on why a vote for Trump is a vote for freedom, faith, and family.

 

Saints (Disciples of Christ) Should Seek to Vote for Trump

This past Sunday evening, as I mentioned, there was a video call featuring President Donald Trump, Glenn Beck, and Senator Mike Lee aimed at Latter-day Saint voters. The call was initiated from Prescott, AZ, and included people in Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and probably a few other invited people (or anyone the invited people knew and invited). There was a panel of other brief speakers, all of whom are prominent Latter-day Saints. In fact, Donald Trump was the only one on the call who was not a Latter-day Saint. But he was surprisingly well-versed and respectful. And that seemed genuine. We Latter-day Saints make up about 2% of the US population—much higher in those states, though.

[It was sponsored by LDS4Trump.com. I was able to see the entirety on YouTube last week, but now I don't find that video. I find only segments. The Mike Lee segment is here. Parts of speeches from Donald Trump, Glenn Beck, and Mike Lee are here. Note that President Trump's portion is audio only. The other speakers included Travis Padilla, city councilman in Queen Creek, AZ; Congressman Burgess Owens of UT; Congressman Celeste Malloy of UT; Sheriff Mark Lamb of Pinal County, AZ; Congressman Andy Biggs of AZ; Tina Descovich of Moms for Liberty; Raul Labrador, Attorney General of ID, and Warren Peterson, Senate President of AZ.]

The premise is that there are a number of Latter-day Saints who hold Trump’s past against him; he committed adultery, ending two marriages. And—“mean tweets.” OK, except, the alternative is a woman who slept her way to power with an affair with Mayor Willie Brown while he was married. And the ultimate sacrament of this woman who never bore a child is abortion up through nine months (maybe beyond). You can’t vote against Trump for his past sins without voting for Kamala with her past and current sins.

Trump, more and more, is open about his religious faith. It isn’t maybe as obvious as some of ours, but he is more open now than he used to be. And one thing about Trump: he is authentic. If he didn’t respect religious Americans and our faith, he wouldn’t say he did, because we could tell. Stories abound now of him having prayer with people while he was in office; we just didn’t hear then about those things; they were mostly private. Since he was spared, for some special purpose, by God on July 13 from an assassination, he has been both more open about his faith and more resolute about fighting the tyranny that is against us all. And I also believe he was spared for some purpose God has for him.

Senator Mike Lee speaks during the LDS Roundtable video call
October 13, 2024, screenshot from here

During this video call, Senator Lee outlines reasons to vote for Trump. He references Doctrine & Covenants 98:10, about seeking wise and good leaders for government. Then he goes on—and this first part is more of why Kamala Harris doesn’t qualify to get our vote:

Point number one that I want to make is that a lot of Latter-day Saints seem to fall into the trap of assuming that, yes, because it's a good idea and we've been admonished in scripture to seek out good and wise people to do it, that what they need to find is someone who reminds them of their bishop [congregation leader] their stake president [leader over multiple congregations in a local area] or their Relief Society president [women’s auxiliary leader] in order to support them.

Now, look, I know both of these candidates, and I will tell you right up front neither one of them is going to be mistaken for your stake president or Relief Society president. They didn't grow up in our faith, much less in our culture. They may not use the same words. They may not have the same customs that we do. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that this supports their [the people supporting Harris] conclusion.

And after having worked with both of them for years, I can tell you, if you're looking for an example of character and decency and civility as between the two, Kamala Harris is not going to come out on top of that equation. She's just not.

If you want to talk specifics, I'd be happy to talk to you about specifics. But just as Donald Trump is not a member of the Tabernacle Choir, neither is Kamala Harris. So don't hang your hat on that.

Senator Lee’s second point is about the US Constitution, on which he is an expert. This next section compares the two candidates regarding their understanding and dedication to the Constitution:

As I look at this, and I look at each candidate's approach toward the Constitution, I don't think this is a close call, not by a mile. Whether you're looking at basic respect for the fundamental structural protections in the Constitution—the vertical protection that we call federalism, or the horizontal protection of separation of powers—those things are upstream from every other protection in the Constitution.

And remember the whole darn point of the Constitution, the only reason we have this Constitution, the only reason why anyone has any constitution, is to temper the passions of a democratic society. They are designed to be counter-democratic, because sometimes you need that in order to protect the rights of minorities: minority viewpoints, minority interests—and yes, even minority religions like ours. I'll get back to more of that in a moment.

So, the structural protection: Donald Trump has shown 100 times more understanding, compassion, and devotion to those structural protections of the Constitution than Kamala Harris has. Donald Trump understands that it was a good thing that the Supreme Court of the United States undid the tyrannical move from Roe v. Wade in 1973 in the Dobbs decision two years ago. The Supreme Court said this is not a federal issue, made a federal constitutional issue by the Constitution. Therefore, questions like these not being made federal by the Constitution are up to the states primarily, to be decided at the state and local level. He understands and respects that.

He also understands and respects the fact that it's tyrannical that most of our laws, measured by word length, page length, weight, volume, regulatory compliance, economic impact—you name it, almost any measure—the federal laws made by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats now vastly outnumber those made by Congress, notwithstanding the fact that Article 1 sections 1 and 7 of the Constitution make clear you cannot make a federal law except through Congress. Both houses of Congress have to pass it on, present it the president, before you—  All these things show Donald Trump's much more favorable commitment to the Constitution has been.

Kamala Harris, she rejects those things fundamentally. She belongs to a party that has become overtly contemptuous of things like the Electoral College, of things like the non-representative Senate, because the Constitution says that every state shall be represented equally in the United States Senate. Kamala's party is openly hostile toward those viewpoints. Then, when we get to the Bill of Rights, you look at your First Amendment rights freedom of speech, freedom of religion, redress of grievances. Kamala has sought to curtail those things, as she has Second Amendment interests.

I realize I’m quoting most of Senator Lee’s speech here, but these are important points. He next gets to religious freedom, which is of paramount interest to Latter-day Saints, as it should also be to other Christians, and other religious people:

Then, let’s talk about the big elephant in the room: religious freedom. This is one of the areas where I find most disagreement with our Latter-day Saint friends who have chosen to defend and protect and advocate for Kamala Harris, because one cannot support Kamala Harris and call her a friend of religious freedom. Those two things don't exist.

Now, the news media—including, unfortunately, to a significant degree, with an assist from the news media empire owned by our Church: KSL and the Deseret News—have unfortunately helped to sort of sanitize and gloss over Kamala Harris's legislative record. But having served with her for the entirety of her four years as a US senator, I can tell you something very, very disturbing that every Latter-day Saint should be aware of before casting a vote for president this year: she's the sponsor of a bill called the “Do No Harm Act.” And like many bills introduced by Democrats, this title is deceptive. It is deceiving because this bill is anything but one that does no harm. The purpose of the Do No Harm Act is to essentially gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Lee gives a hypothetical example of a medical school, noting that Brigham Young University, his alma mater (and mine) and in his hometown of Provo, UT, has just announced it will be adding a medical school to the university. I don’t believe BYU plans to build a hospital; for now it plans to associate with nearby hospitals, but the point is nevertheless valid:

When you have a medical school, you inevitably have doctors, you know, professors at your medical school who practice medicine, and if at some point a Kamala Harris administration were to step in and mandate either that all hospitals receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds must perform abortions or sex change operations or you name it, and BYU's medical school decided that it couldn't do that consistent with BYU's religious mission, that's an easy case for you to invoke the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But in Kamala’s America, under Kamala’s bill, that would be off the table. And I can point to thousands of other hypothetical examples and not so hypothetical examples of where this would come into play.

He adds this summation:

If you elect Kamala Harris as our next president, you are sowing the seeds for the destruction of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and with it religious freedom itself.

The stakes are high in this election. As Elon Musk has put it (elsewhere, of course; not on this video call), if we lose this election, we may never have a free and fair election again. Our elections will be decided by the ruling regime, as in Venezuela or Russia or China.

Glenn Beck speaks during the LDS Roundtable video call
October 13, 2024, screenshot from here

This is already long, but I’d like to add just a part of Glenn Beck’s speech, about our heritage of being a Constitution-loving people:

Our faith believes in the freedom of speech. Our faith believes in the freedom of religion. Our faith—  When Brigham Young and the Saints were chased out of the country, they ended up in a faraway place that wasn't even part of America at the time, and that was Utah. And one of the first things they did was hold a parade with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. I don't know who was there to watch it, when there weren't any streets or anything else, but it was to drive home the message that people can go wrong, but the principles of our country are true. That doesn't mean we always live up to them.

I and many others on the phone are constitutional conservatives. We don't want a theocracy or anything else. We want the Bill of Rights that have been enshrined and built our country. That's all we want.

I should mention that there is a statement from Joseph Smith—not with the full force of prophecy, not canonized, but often referred to—that there may come a day when the Constitution is hanging by a thread, and if it is to be saved, it will be because of the righteous saints who come to the rescue. President Trump referred to this in his talk; I imagine someone briefed him on it. We are at such a thread-hanging time.

This is one version of the Constitution hanging by a thread statement,
image is from Christian Fire Poppy, the portion of her video of the
LDS Roundtable that was her commentary before the clips of the speakers.

We can't stand on the sidelines. Glenn Beck was wearing a T-shirt with the Deitrich Bonhoeffer quote, “Not to act is to act. Not to stand is to stand. Not to speak is to speak.” Then he ends with this call to action for our time:

Your vote, even if it's happening in a place where you're like, “Well, it's all going to go to the Democrats,” or “It's all going to go to the Republicans,”  your vote counts. You know where it counts? In the eternities. We are all going to be held responsible, especially us with additional information. We are going to be held responsible. What did you do when the freedom of, not just your children and your grandchildren, but the children all over the world was at stake? What was it you couldn't get past? What was it you ignored? This is the time. And this is the time that we are to rise up as God-fearing people with our voices and our votes.

Quote from Ezra Taft Benson about the Constitution being saved,
which should give us hope, if we are doing our part. Image
is from Christian Fire Poppy's video, during her commentary.

Despite having diametrically opposed differences, we are to be united. What is it we can unite around? Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and our divinely inspired Constitution. We invite others to join us there. And we let go of animosities toward anyone who couldn’t see what we see. Vote. And vote wisely: for freedom, faith, and family. And bring others with you.

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.

Go Ahead and Light the World

As it has the past several years, our Church has a worldwide campaign for the month of December called #LightTheWorld. Each year it’s a little different. This year has the theme One by One. The idea is to do small acts of service every day. And if enough of us do that, we light the world—we make it a much brighter place. Here’s this year’s introductory video:

An innovation this year is a daily prompt that comes to your phone (sign up here), suggesting a small act you can do that day. If the day’s idea doesn’t work for you, you can ask for an alternative. It’s suggested that you use the hashtag #LightTheWorld on social media, so we can all see how it spreads. I’ve had friends doing that. But, I don’t really understand hashtags, and also I’m hesitant to tell what I’m doing. Hard to know whether that’s because I feel like my contributions are so small, or are things I would be doing anyway, or if it’s because of modesty about the quiet service I’m doing. Suffice it to say I’m trying to do some little good thing, intentionally, every day during this lead up to Christmas.

Yesterday’s prompt was “Share a scripture with a loved one.” I like this one:

Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.—Jude 1:21

The day before was “Perform an act of service for a family member.” That day I did a thorough cleaning of the bathroom floor, with Mr. Spherical Model. We used a pressure washer along with a carpet shampooer to suction up the water. It was hard and messy. And more his service to me than the other way around. But then I cooked dinner for him, which I don’t always do on a Saturday.

One day was to donate to a reputable global charity. We had talked about what charities we would give to this year, which was more than usual despite not having more funds. But I added to that a small donation (the amount of a music lesson I earned) to Hillsdale College, from whom I have benefited much but to whom I had never contributed. (You can donate here.) 

One day was “Offer a prayer of gratitude for Jesus Christ and His mercy.” That was both easy and something that is part of daily life. But I did it intentionally that day.

The #LightTheWorld 2019 Calendar
found here

We should be doing these things all year. But, even so, refocusing on what we should be doing helps us do more of it. So I’m glad that’s one of the benefits of the Christmas season.

Our reading this past week, for church, was the three epistles of John plus the epistle of Jude. It seemed appropriate for this time of year that the theme of these chapters is light and love.

In 1 John 1:7 we’re told we should start with fellowship to God, and that leads us to fellowship with our neighbors. This is how we share our light together.

In 1 John 2:9–11 we learn that anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. But anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light.

Being holy, or filled with light, or any other way to define being followers of Christ, is about more than avoiding doing wrong, or sinning; it’s about showing love toward one another.

Is the world better when we do these things? Look at the list in 1 Corinthians 13. We’re expected to show Christlike love:

·         By being long-suffering.

·         By being kind.

·         By ridding ourselves of envy.

·         By not making ourselves out to be better than we are or better than others.

·         When our behavior is not unseemly—that is, not indecent or unbecoming.

·         By not being selfish or self-centered.

·         By not being easily provoked.

·         By thinking no evil.

·         When we don’t take joy in evil-doing.

·         When we do take joy in truth.

·         When we’re open to believing,

·         And to hoping,

·         And when we endure in the light no matter what.

Is the world better off when people try to emulate these attributes than when they do not?

Put another way, do we have more civilization when people choose these behaviors and ways of thinking? An honest person would have to say yes. We’d rather live with kind, unselfish, honest neighbors than mean, self-serving, dishonest neighbors.

photo by Hakan Erenler

We’d rather live in the light than in darkness.

So let’s spend this month trying a little more intentionally to add light to the world each day. The world will be that tiny bit brighter. And, if we do that every day, it may become a habit beyond the month.

Go ahead; #LightTheWorld.

Scouts and Honor

Last week the Boys Scouts of America changed their name to reflect a change of accepting girls. This week major Scouting sponsor, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, announced they will discontinue their association with Scouting at the end of 2019.

President Thomas S. Monson with Scouts
April 13, 2002
image from here

It looks like cause and effect. But I don’t believe that’s really accurate.

So, what I’m about to present are my personal views; I am in no way a spokesperson for either the Church or Scouting. But I have an insider’s view of both. So, maybe I can help offer some understanding.

Let’s start with what I see as the Church’s viewpoint.

For the past century the Church has adopted Boy Scouting as the activity program for their young men, starting with Cub Scouts at age 8 (so not including Tiger Cubs at age 7), and up through Boy Scouts, including Explorers, Venturers, and/or Varsity Scouts for ages 14-17. This has always been in addition to the larger youth program that teaches young men to grow into spiritual leaders in their homes and communities.

A year ago, the Church announced that it would discontinue the Boy Scout program for boys age 14+. For a very long time, the Boy Scout program for older boys has not been a good fit for the Church. With few exceptions, the Church has sponsored a troop for each congregation, called a ward, including the units from Cubs on up. But outside the Church, the older groups are designed to attract young men (and some young women) with similar individual interests, rather than the general interests of all the Boy Scouts in a unit’s neighborhood. So youth leaders have long struggled with various iterations, trying to make the program work for all the young men in a particular ward.

In other words, Boy Scouting has never been all there was for youth in the Church, because it has never been enough.

Add to that the fact that, for the past 22 years (since February 1996), there are more Church members outside the United States than inside. While Boy Scouts exist in some other countries, the reality is that the majority of boys in the Church have never had access to Boy Scouting.

That means the Church has long been developing a full, worldwide program for youth. That, program, along with changes for young women, was what was announced this week.

When the Church discontinued the Scouting program for older boys, the Church nevertheless paid sponsorship throughout the year as though they were still sponsoring those boys. In other words, the Church went out of its way to prevent its withdrawal from doing harm to the Boy Scout national organization.

Boy Scouts perform flag ceremony in the Mormon Tabernacle
in honor of Constitution Day celebration September 18, 2009
image from here

Now we come to the announcement this week. The Church is giving more than a year and a half for the BSA to prepare and rearrange their budget and planning. It will be a significant adjustment. As the news has been announcing, that’s a loss of about 425,000 boys nationwide. In the Sam Houston Area Council, where we live, about 3,400 LDS boys in 221 units make up about 10% of Boy Scout membership, and about 17% of the total units, along with their budgets, a portion of which goes to support the Council and the national BSA organization.

In Utah, I don’t have access to the numbers, but I’m guessing Boy Scout membership is probably north of 70%, and the budget might be more than that. That will include property, such as scout camps, which are outright gifted to the Boy Scouts.

Non-LDS boys have always been welcome in LDS troops. And after the pull-out, LDS boys will still be welcome in other community troops. But, in Utah especially, it will be a much smaller organization than it has been.

The Church could have simply made the announcement and gone ahead immediately. If they were reacting to last week’s name change or something else, that’s what you would expect. Instead, they’ve tried to make the transition as easy on BSA as possible. Why would they do that, unless they wanted the Boy Scouts to continue on without them?

In the joint statement made by the Church and BSA on May 8th, they say this: 

While the Church will no longer be a chartered partner of BSA or sponsor Scouting units after December 31, 2019, it continues to support the goals and values reflected in the Scout Oath and Scout Law and expresses its profound desire for Scouting’s continuing and growing success in the years ahead.

Scout Oath and Law

The Scout Oath and Law, as I’ve written before, are a very good guide for civilization. [In fact, I’ve written about Scouting here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.]

About the timing. For those paying any attention, the Church has been going through some major changes in the past few months. Our beloved Prophet Thomas S. Monson passed away in early January; he was a lifelong champion of the Boy Scouts, but it is obvious that any changes happening now were in the planning stages for a long time and had his full support. His successor, President Russell M. Nelson, is age 93 already—older than President Monson was. But he just finished a worldwide tour, and has been so full of energy it leaves many of us breathless. (He still skis with his grandchildren, by the way.) He is wasting no time putting changes into action.

None of these changes are doctrinal. All of them are designed to put more responsibility for our own spiritual growth on ourselves, from children on up, and for helping us put the gospel into action by ministering to one another. This has included changes in local priesthood quorums, retiring the visiting teaching and home teaching programs and changing them into more integrated ministering programs. There have been changes in what young people (ages 12+) are able to do in our temples—which follows lowering the ages for missionaries, a change that came about just a few years ago.

We’re getting so we’re expecting a new announcement every week. So the announcement this week—which was expected eventually, after last year’s ending of Scouting for 14+—is timed for the Church’s needs, and not in response to any BSA policy or name change.

Now for my view of the Boy Scouts.

Boy Scout badges, image from here

Here’s a brief timeline related to current issues:

·         1907 Boy Scouts are founded in Great Britain by Robert Baden Powell.

·         1910 Boy Scouts of America begins founded by W. D. Boyce.

·         1912 Girl Scouts are organized in America by Juliette Gordon Low, patterned after the Boy Scouts, but always a separate organization.

·         1913 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints adopts Scouting as its activity program for boys.

·         1969 BSA begins allowing young women to join Explorer posts wherever chartering organizations allow.

·         2000 After years of litigation, BSA prevails in the US Supreme Court’s ruling in “Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,” which means BSA and other private organizations have the right to set membership standards, including exclusions of homosexual Scouts and Scout leaders.

·         2000+ Despite the legal victory, BSA faces persecution and exclusion from organizations, institutions, and facilities over their exclusion of openly homosexual members (as Scouts or leaders).

·         Meanwhile, BSA tightens its training and rules to prevent molestation of youth, even as NAMBLA prints materials telling predators how to infiltrate youth organizations, particularly BSA[i].

·         2012 BSA’s 11-person national committee reaches “unanimous consensus” that continuing to exclude homosexuals from Scouting was in the best interest of Scouting.

·         2013 More than 1400 BSA volunteer leaders nationwide vote to accept all boys into Scout troops, regardless of sexual orientation; local entities retained the ability to abide by church beliefs. This became policy January 2014. Mr. Perry, the National President, said, “Everyone agrees on one thing, no matter how you feel about this issue, kids are better off in Scouting.”[ii]

·         2015 In July “open or avowed homosexual” adults were no longer banned from youth leadership.

·         2017 In January BSA began allowing transgendered boys (i.e., biological girls who see themselves as boys) to participate in BSA troops.

·         2017 In October BSA announces it will begin having Cub Scout dens for girls, and in 2019 will begin having regular BSA troops for girls (local units will have separate dens or troops for girls, and will not include girls within boy troops).

·         2018 On May 2^nd a name change was announced, from Boy Scouts of America to Scouting BSA, to accommodate the addition of girl troops into Scouting.

·         2018 On May 8^th The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announces plans to end its relationship as a sponsoring organization as of December 31, 2019.

The Boy Scouts have been pummeled for literally decades now, by people who, rather than start an organization catering to their own values, have insisted that the Boy Scouts become something different.

You’ve heard of the slippery slope. The Boy Scouts continue with the same Scout Oath and Law they have always had. But society around them, instead of recognizing those values, has derided and persecuted them.

In our Church, youth with same-sex attraction were never disallowed from any troop I’m aware of. However, there’s an assumption—because it’s in the Scout Oath as well as part of the religion—that the boys are not sexually active. A boy with same-sex attraction would receive the same level of care and attention as any other boy (maybe more, simply out of concern for him in his challenges). But the Church would never have supported a boy’s acting on those impulses, any more than it would have encouraged heterosexual boys to be sexually active.

Legally the Boy Scouts won their case in 2000. And they continued to stand strong for yet another dozen years. People who insisted that homosexual sex was not a sin told the Boy Scouts, who weren’t even accepting illicit heterosexual sex, that they needed to conform. The method of persuasion was persecution and pressure, to the point that Boy Scouts could no longer use public facilities, including many schools. Some schools even refused to allow them to recruit, or pass out informational flyers—while Girl Scouts and other organizations were allowed.

Every step of change has included considering, “How can we do what’s best for the boys?” Sometimes the decision went something like, “If we give in on this point, the pressure will go away, and it will have very minimal impact on the organization overall.” That was certainly true for allowing boys with same-sex attraction.

At this year's District Awards Dinner,
Mr. Spherical Model accepted
the Chartered Partner Award on behalf
of our local Church jurisdiction

Later, with the increased protection policies and training, there was less risk for allowing homosexual adult leaders, although there was the loss of leaders who would model only moral sexual behavior—i.e., marriage. I would have preferred they’d stayed strong on this. Unlike for boys, at this point it became about, not what a boy thinks, but what an adult does.

The transgender policy was another step with very little impact. The number of actual transgender teens is tiny, and the number of those individuals who would choose to join themselves to an organization with the Scout Oath and Law would be much tinier. And local organizations always retained their freedom.

Now, about girls joining.

The insider view looks more family friendly than feminist. What happens is that families who support their sons in Scouting also have girls. Those girls end up tagging along at those Scout activities. I did this myself, decades ago, as an unofficial Cub Scout. I did the field trips and the crafts. I just didn’t get any badges—and I didn’t get to make a pinewood derby car. But I was there, because, where else was I supposed to go?

So girls have been hanging around, unofficially for a long time. Or, sometimes the family gets split up trying to support a Girl Scout troop as well. During the few years when we had Boy Scouts and a Girl Scout at the same time, we divided duties that way, and kept ourselves very busy. But, as I’ve said before, the Girl Scout program wasn’t ever up to the level of the Boy Scout program.[iii]

What most families who will have girls join Scouting want is to have the whole family together. That does not mean the girls will be in the boys’ troops. It means that they’re hoping the sponsoring organization—their school, their church, their Kiwanis Club—will also sponsor a unit for girls. Then they can share some of the leadership, and can coordinate.

So you might have the boys’ troop meet on one side of the school cafeteria and the girls’ troop on the other. The family goes together to the same place at the same time. And the girls get a better program than they were offered before.

Girls have been part of older Boy Scout units—the Explorers, including the Sea Scouts—for decades, even in the same troops as boys. This is simply an expansion to younger ages, with more continued separation at the Cub and Scout levels.

Would I have liked this opportunity for my daughter? I might have. Much of it was about associations with friends, and meeting her needs. So I can’t be certain I’d have signed her up. But, because of my familiarity with Boy Scouts, I would have been willing to consider it.

It would be interesting to see the alternate universe in which the Scouts never gave in at all, regardless of the persecution. But, at the local level, among those who give all those thousands of volunteer hours for their kids, they’re still going by that Scout Oath and Law. And I hope they can hang on for the next generation.

---

[i] Jeffery Curley, age 10, was raped and murdered Oct. 1 1997. The perpetrators had in their possession NAMBLA materials, as well as a book, “Rape and Escape,” published by NAMBLA. They used an idea from the NAMBLA materials to lure the boy. The family sued NAMBLA for its contribution to the murder of their son; the ACLU defending NAMBLA pro bono, claiming NAMBLA has 1st amendment rights to free speech; ironically, the ACLU requested a gag order against the prosecution and asked for witnesses who testified in the Curley case concerning the NAMBLA information to be disallowed.

[ii] “Boy Scouts End Longtime Ban on Openly Gay Youths,” by Erik Eckholm, New York Times, May 23, 2013:    https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/boy-scouts-to-admit-openly-gay-youths-as-members.html

[iii] We participated in Girl Scouts up through her Silver Award. But changes like this show why we didn’t want to further the relationship: “Girl Scouts Now Allowing Adult Males to Share Female Restrooms and Changing Rooms With Children as Young as 5” It isn't feminists who want to join the Boy Scouts; it's people who don't want that agenda pushed on their daughters who are likely to join Boy Scouts.