Home Teaching

Below is a guest post from Brucifer.

Something that has concerned me over the years is men who hold temple recommends and do not do their home teaching. 

Having served twice now as an elder’s quorum president, it was great to see the good work being done in the quorum, but unfortunately it was by far too few of the brethren.  My understanding of being a teacher or higher in the Aaronic priesthood or holding the Melchizedek priesthood is that we are covenant-bound to perform this sacred duty of home teaching. My logic follows if you are not fulfilling (or doing your best effort at least) these priesthood duties, then your priesthood leaders should seriously consider withholding the blessings of the temple until the situation is addressed. [Note I’m not lobbying for a change in Church policy, simply me expressing my train of thought.] 

I am aware that the Church is rolling out its new handbook of instructions, so I am unaware if there is anything said about this issue in the new handbook. Fellow bloggers, your thoughts?

General Conference

In my experience, attendance at General Conference videos is always considerably lower than attendance at sacrament meeting. Apparently, some people take the opportunity to have a ‘holiday’ from Church. I find this a bit bizarre - essentially what they’re saying is: “I’ll go to church to here some local person speak, but I’ll skip Church when the prophet speaks”. It seems kind of backwards to me.

I guess what it says is that a lot of people go to Church out of some sense of responsibility, since many people have a calling to fulfill, or at least they know people will notice if they’re not there. But when general conference these things do not apply, so some people stay away.

As President Hinckley says (most recently in the October Ensign), “Activity is the genius of the church”. One reason this is so seems to be because it spurs people to come along!

Thoughts or comments, anyone?

Contraception

It was suggested in a previous thread that we have a discussion about contraception.

“Professor” said: While it appears from my anecdotal experience that most members of the church use it in their marriage, why? And where is the official church position (Yes I have read the handbook and believe I have the answer, but I’m interested in yours).

Four views of God

 

This research was released a few months ago, and I found it very interesting. Here are the results:

• 31 percent believe in an Authoritarian God

• 25 percent believe in a Benevolent God

• 23 percent believe in a Distant God

• 16 percent believe in a Critical God

• Region of the country is significantly related to the four types of god. Easterners tend towards belief in a Critical God; Southerners tend towards an Authoritarian God; Midwesterners believe in a Benevolent God; and the West Coast believes in a Distant God.

• Individuals with lower educations and lower incomes tend towards more engaged images of God.

Personally, I believe in a Benevolent God, though probably on the angry side of that circle. I find the ‘popularity’ of Authoritarian God a bit surprising. The research suggests that this view is concentrated amongst active Christians. It seems to me that these guys are reading too much of the Old Testament and not enough of the New Testament.

Coke

On a lighter note, I’m curious as to what people think about coke. I know some committed LDS who have never touched it, and other committed LDS who drink it regularly. Here are some undisputed facts upon which I base my thinking:

• it is simply not the case that drinking Coke is definitively and unambiguously inconsistent with living the Word of Wisdom
• equally, no-one can claim that it is ‘just another drink’, give the high levels of caffeine it contains

I firmly believe that people who elevate coke to the status of coffee and tea as ‘banned’ substances are ‘looking beyond the mark’, and as such I’m opposed to such statements. However, I personally avoid coke – I like to steer well clear of any addictive substances (except chocolate!). But I’m really not concerned if another Mormon consumes it regularly. If they feel they’re keeping the Word of Wisdom, that’s good enough for me.

In the absence of clear direction from a prophet, we’re left to work these things out for ourselves. I believe the biggest problem we have with coke is not the consumption of it by committed LDS, but the number of LDS who insist it is part of the Word of Wisdom and subsequently condemn and judge those who consume it. More caring and less judging would strengthen the church immeasurably.

Social, Economic and Political Liberalism and the Gospel (Guest Post)

Below is a guest post by Phil Anthropis, our most prolific commenter.

As I read about the teachings of Milton Friedman in his Herald obituary today, I noted with interest his encouragement of reduction of government paternalism including abolition of rules about taking drugs, drivers’ licenses and other social laws and standards. 

I know someone involved in a political movement called the Liberal Democratic Party (www.ldp.com.au).  “The LDP is an Australian libertarian style party promoting individual liberty, free markets and small government.” 

Check out their web site – some of it makes sense.  But then, with that liberalism, they encourage legislators butting out of people’s relationships – they call it the ‘consenting adults’ principle. 

This is interesting to me, because reduction of government interference in business and personal life, (allegedly being anathema to modern progressive governments everywhere) has also been a very important tenet of many successful LDS people that I have known.  

Long ago I recognized a contradiction between the economic liberalism and self-regulation that seems to be the modern way, and the propensity of LDS to favour conservative social and moral laws. 

It makes sense that many multinational-business people take a libertarian approach.  Openness is the modern way and progress can’t really be stopped – only slowed down. 

Now, in the ‘War in Heaven’, which side would have been considered the liberal, and which side the protectionists?  The answer seems clear to me – Satan’s side wanted to force everyone to do right while God’s side – us – were intelligent and free risk takers, willing to chance falling down in the hope of achieving glory. 

Do you see a relationship here with the self-regulation of liberalism as against the unproductive evil of state control? 

Now, let’s take this a step further.  I have said many times that the church would look a lot different today had we truly been granted religious, political and economic freedom in the early days. 

However, regulation against LDS forms of marriage, LDS political interference and against LDS church-controlled business’s vertical integration all amounted to state interference. 

LDS plural marriage became fodder for US legislators to enforce the Victorian ideal of marriage onto society – in an era where four fifths of the world tolerated other marriage forms. 

Therefore, the state took on the big government paternalistic role, while the LDS church would have enjoyed better freedom under a more libertarian regime. 

But remember the pilgrims?  How they fled Mother England to find a place where they could freely believe?  The very establishment of the church was tolerated under a context of religious freedom, enshrined in the
US constitution. 

So in this context I find it interesting that LDS are generally against the legalisation of gay marriage.  I can almost hear your dismay at drawing a link between restrictions on celestial plural marriage and gay unions.  I only do it to point out that they have a common enemy – repressive Victorian-based marriage law.  Believe me, the guys who are banning gay marriage would do Joseph Smith no favors either. 

When studying sociology, we were shown how property and inheritance were a driving force behind formation of Victorian marriage laws.  Today, property, tax and inheritance make Victorian-era marriage a preferable option from a regulatory point of view. 

So what do you think?  Has the devil got it right in this instance?  Should we outlaw gay marriage?  Or should we encourage self-regulation, freedom of choice and facing your own consequences? 

If you can show me rationalizations for liberalism of trade, I can use the same philosophical points for showing you liberalization of marriage styles.  After all, the current Victorian-era marriage structure, as we have learned, is by no means ‘the right and only one’.  Over-regulation is holding back progress which enforces contradictions and abuses, and freedom of choice with facing your own consequences is a correct principle under the gospel. 

It may astound you to hear me say that I could favour economic liberalism, if any government truly has the guts to really carry through with real liberalism.  But none will.  All democratic governments have to survive politically, and play the advantage for their constituents.  So my reluctance to subscribe to Friedman’s extremes is merely a survival tactic until the Saviour comes to show us what freedom is all about, when, ‘without compulsory means’, truth and power shall become part of my crown.

Mormons in the news

A couple of LDS brothers appeared in a Victorian court a couple of days ago, and the Herald Sun was kind enough to pick it up. At least they were very peninent about their crimes – perhaps that’s a good example. But the article highlights a difficulty with church terminology. The brothers are referred to as Mormon ‘priests’, which to the layman suggests they have some kind of elevated status in the Church. In fact, the opposite is true. When I think of priests who are in their 20s, I immediately think that they’re less active. That’s quite a difference.

Taxes and the Book of Mormon

On several occasions I’ve heard fellow Mormons cite the story in Mosiah chapter 7 as some kind of evidence we’re taxed too highly. In Mosiah, (chapter 7, verses 22 and 23), they talk about being imposed with a tax amounting to “even one half of all we have or possess”, and describe the tax as “grievous to be borne”. The story goes that if a tax of 50% was “grievous to be borne” then, the almost 50% rate we have now must be the same, and thus we have some kind of doctrinal condemnation of the current tax system.

Well, any clear-thinking person will recognise this argument as pure rubbish. True, the highest tax rate (including Medicare levy) was 48.5% until the last budget (now 46.5%), but it’s a marginal tax rate, not an average tax rate. That is, it was the rate paid on income above a certain threshold, not the rate paid on all income, as it was with the people in Mosiah.

Purely on this basis, it’s a completely spurious comparison to make. The progressive nature of the tax system means that most people pay an average tax rate well below the highest  marginal rate. For example, the average tax rate for people on (a) $30,000; (b) 50,000; (c) $80,000; and (d) $200,000 is: (a) 18%; (b) 23%; (c) 29% and (d) 40%. (These rates are lower for people with families, courtesy of Family Tax Benefits).

Far below 50% in all cases, though the $200,000 salary is getting up there. But I’d argue people on that income are using strategies to lower that rate anyway. In any case, the argument that our tax system is “grievous to be borne” could really only be made by the wealthy, but the people I’ve heard complaining are not in those income brackets, and seem to be talking about their own situations.

Now that analysis is enough to throw the whole comparison out. But there’s an even stronger reason to dispatch with the argument. The problem is that we’ve only talked about the revenue side (from the government’s perspective) and not the expenditure side. It’s often overlooked that the government isn’t some black hole that sucks in our money, never to be seen again. The government uses our taxes to fund a wide range of services. The biggest expenditure items are welfare, health and education.

Quite clearly, we receive a lot for our taxes. Our children get primary and secondary education, and a heavily subsidised university education if they so choose. We complain about the health system a bit, but if we compare it to history and to other countries, it is amazing what it provides. For virtually no cost, women give birth, people are treated for cancer, and heart transplants are given. And then with the welfare system, even for those of us who are employed, it acts as unemployment insurance, as we know we can access benefits should we lose our jobs. In addition, it helps out the disadvantaged (although a few bludgers are out there), which is an indirect way of us giving charity.

Now, I can’t say for certain, but I’m pretty sure that the people in Mosiah didn’t get such services. It seems like the money all went one way, and they didn’t see anything. So I’d suggest that anyone who thinks this passage of scripture has much to say about our current tax system is just looking for something to whinge about. They clearly haven’t thought much about this issue.

Sunday Sport

This was in the Melbourne Herald Sun the other day: 

Mormons fight Sunday footy

Karen Collier October 17, 2006 12:00am

CHURCH-going footballer wants Sunday Grand Finals scrapped because of his religion.

Strict Mormon Campbell Walshe is taking legal action against his league, claiming discrimination after missing a premiership play-off last month.  The midfielder and two teammates, ruckman Jeremy Jose and fellow midfielder Stephen Hoare, abstained because their religion forbids sport on Sundays.“Sunday is the Lord’s day,” Walshe said. “It is a day devoted to worship, attending church and spending time with family and friends.” Football authorities are monitoring Walshe’s bid in what is shaping as a test case.Walshe complained to the Equal Opportunity Commission earlier this year. He has now taken his grievance to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.Riddell District Football League is resisting any changes to the grand final schedule.RDFL general manager Neill Sharpe said the discrimination allegations would be defended. The league’s last three seniors premierships have been held on Sundays.The Mormons, or members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, frown upon sport and other distractions, such as shopping, on Sundays.Walshe spent time worshipping during his Diggers Rest team’s 69-point Grand Final loss to Riddell on September 24.“I could not even go to the match as a spectator,” he said after a preliminary VCAT hearing yesterday. Walshe, 22, Jose, 24, and Hoare, 22, are among their club’s top players.Teammates supported their decision. ”Who knows what would have happened if we were all able to play?” Walshe said.

Walshe played for 20 other games, including two finals, this season.Senior coach Glenn Hopkins and club president Peter Gulliver are backing the legal action.“We respect these guys because their faith is so strong,” Hopkins said.

“We understand they’ve got to stick by their beliefs.”Football Victoria is closely watching the case, which will proceed to a full hearing if mediation talks fail.Chief executive Ken Gannon said although Saturday was most common, Sunday finals were timed to avoid clashes with nearby leagues.

Latter-day Saints spokeswoman Dorothy Petkoff urged sports officials to give Sunday sport the boot. 

It’s great that these guys had the courage to not play on Sunday. But I can’t say I support their legal action. I think there are two issues at stake here: the perception of the Church, and the right of these guys to play in a Grand Final. My firm view is that the former is far more important than the latter, and I’d argue that there is a real risk of the this action resulting in a negative perception of the Church.

It’s not as if the League put the finals on Sunday just to stop these guys from playing. The fact of the matter is that high-level (and some lower level) sports are played on Sunday. By all means, lobby for change, but I think legal action will turn people off the Church unnecessarily.

I do understand that it must be tough for these guys to miss a grand final – I was in exactly the same situation two years ago in another sport at a similarly high level. But in its proper perspective, it’s really just a game, while the impact legal action could have on the community’s perception of the Church could be long-lasting and significant.