The recent politically-charged stake conference address in Sandy, combined with the Medicaid expansion debate on Utah’s Capitol Hill, has re-ignited the following debate: Is an “entitlement mentality” a sign of evil in our nation?

Let me be clear: I would like nothing better than to live in a society where hard working young family fathers and struggling single mothers had the ability to provide for their families, without help from the government. We actually used to be closer to that ideal than we are now. When I was a young teenager back in the late sixties and early seventies, all the families I knew, even those whose fathers had humble occupations, were able to provide at least a modest home and the basic needs for their families, including health care.

Thanks to collective decisions we have made in our democracy, two things have changed since then. We have created a health care delivery system so expensive that no family can afford health care on their own. If your employer or the government doesn’t provide basic health insurance, it’s simply too expensive for any but the most wealthy to afford. The other change we’ve created is an economic system that has resulted in the largest disparity between the rich and the poor than any other developed nation on earth. Related to this, and supported by multiple international studies, is the fact that poor children in the United States have the lowest chance of improving their lot in life than any other developed country.

There will always be a tiny minority of people in any society who fit the description of “takers”. But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about good, hardworking people who can’t provide for their families – especially when it comes to basic health care - no matter how hard they try. The cost is simply out of reach.

We, as a democratic society, have collectively created the society that produces suffering among good people whose only sin is not having an employer willing to pay for basic health care, and where hard working folks not blessed by God with the skills to be an investment banker can’t earn enough to provide for their families. We, as a democratic society, need to collectively step up to the plate and give those hard working people a hand up (not a handout) to achieve self-sufficiency. That’s what the Church teaches, and based on my training as a new bishop several years ago, the Church thinks it’s okay to make wise use of government programs to accomplish this. We also must fix the broken system we have all created and are all responsible for. Although not perfect, the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act is a good place to start.

Brigham Young once said, “I have seen many cases… where the young lady would have to take her clothing on a Saturday night and wash it, in order that she might go to meeting on the Sunday with a clean dress on. Who is she laboring for? For those who, many of them, are living in luxury. And, to serve the classes that are living on them, the poor, the laboring men and women are toiling, working their lives out to earn that which will keep a little life in them. Is this equality? No! What is going to be done? The Latter-day Saints will never accomplish their mission until this inequality shall cease on the earth.”

Do we have a problem with an “entitlement mentality” among the Latter-day Saints? I believe we do. The really evil entitlement mentality in our midst exists with those who have been deluded into believing that they are entitled to complete enjoyment of all the material goods they have acquired through the talents and privileges the good Lord has given them, their “gold, silver, silks and fine-twined linens”, without feeling the need to take any thought toward the poor other than to toss a twenty dollar bill to the bishop every Fast Sunday.

Now that would make an appropriate subject for a stake conference talk.

Is there really a possibility that Hill Air Force Base might close?

Consider the following very plausible scenario, consisting of several parts:

First, that Congress ends up solidly in Democratic hands after the 2014 election, with the House swinging to the Democrats and the Senate achieving a 60 vote filibuster-proof majority. Impossible, you say? It appears we’re going off the fiscal cliff in March. After all, your average Tea Party Republican thinks going off the cliff will be a good thing. Most economists predict that will send us back into a recession. You can argue all you want which side deserves the blame for this, but we’ve been down this road already during the Clinton administration. The Republicans took a beating at the polls then, and they will this time. The nation’s perception of the Tea Party has tanked since the 2010 election anyway; this would seal the deal. Demographic changes will simply add to the margin.

Second, the West becomes a collection of blue and purple states by 2015 – except for the two bright red holdouts, Utah and Idaho. Adding to the West Coast states, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico are well on their way from purple to blue, and the projected switch in Arizona, driven by the Latino demographic changes is well underway (as demonstrated by popular Republican congressman Jeff Flake winning the Senate seat there by the slimmest of margins). Both Montana’s senators are Democrats, and Wyoming has a history of electing Democratic governors, the most recent leaving office only two years ago.

Third, the ongoing fiscal imbalance (made worse by the upcoming Tea Party Recession of 2013) will force the nation into deep cuts in the defense budget, possibly without BRAC as a buffer this time.

Finally, we have to factor in the incessant negative political grandstanding of Hatch, Lee and Bishop against President Obama and the Democrats, including pot shots at Hatch’s old Republican Senate colleague, soon-to-be new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

You may or may not agree that the above will happen – but it’s hard to argue it isn’t possible.

If the this scenario comes true, picture President Obama, Defense Secretary Hagel and the rest of the national security team facing a decision in 2015: For cost reasons, Congress decrees we need to close an Air Force base in the West. Should we close Nellis, just up the road from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s home in what will be a solidly Democratic state by then? Or do we close Hill? It’s hard to see how we win that argument, despite the obvious merits in favor of Hill. Anyone who thinks these decisions are made in the absence of politics is loony.

It would be tempting to lay the blame for this on the aforementioned Utah Republicans in Congress, but let’s face it – it’s our own fault. By demonstrating our collective willingness to elect the Republican candidate even if it’s the devil himself, we have taken a tremendous risk. In our current environment, purple states like Nevada and Colorado get wooed by the nation’s leadership like the head cheerleader in high school. Utah gets ignored; she has relegated herself to being the shy wallflower who never gets asked to dance. It’s hilarious how some in the Legislature have contributed to the partisan rhetoric that will certainly bias the nation’s future decision makers against us, and then support raising a measly couple hundred grand to support keeping Hill open.

For the sake of my neighbors and family members who would be decimated by this, I surely hope it never comes to pass. Whatever happens, it may be too late to change events. But we surely need to try.

Utah’s elected leaders, especially Hatch, need to tone down the rhetoric. Despite the anti-government harping, Utah benefits from federal government spending more than almost any other state, Weber and Davis Counties especially. But most of all, Utah’s citizens need to show that elections can be competitive here. Otherwise, the nation’s leaders and major political parties, both Democratic and Republican, will ignore our state and we will be left defenseless in Washington.

Cross-posted on Mormons For Obama.

This morning I re-read President Matthew DeVisser’s stake conference address about 2012 and the challenges facing his stake members. During the final two-thirds, the portion focused on his stake & stewardship rather than the nation as a whole, I found myself nodding in agreement with these points:

• We live in difficult and turbulent times.
• We should prepare ourselves temporally and spiritually.
• We have an obligation to help one another.

A time of fast communication, rapid global travel, increasing secularism, new challenges facing the Church, and worries about the end times, as sin and iniquity appear everywhere. This should sound familiar, as it’s an apt description of the 1970s, when President Kimball challenged Latter-day Saints to “lengthen their stride,” the 1930s when Elder Joseph F. Merrill challenged Gordon B. Hinckley to develop new methods for getting people interested in the Church, the 1890s when President Woodruff ended official support for “the principle” of plural marriage and Utah achieved statehood, the 1840s when the Church fractured after the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, and about AD 54, when Paul reminded the Thessalonians that a falling away had to occur before Christ returned. (We can go even earlier, as the Book of Job reminds us that people are born for trouble as readily as sparks fly out of a fire.) Each generation has certain favorite sins (slavery, spouse abuse, greed), and people grow up denouncing the sins of the previous generation (and, on occasion, their own) and then get shocked by the sins of the following generation. Worrying about society crashing down is roughly as old as . . . human society. The world is always ending.

That doesn’t mean we’re off the hook.

President DeVisser spoke wise words about the importance of temporal and spiritual preparation, referring the members of his stake to the words of President Hinckley about avoiding debt by buying a modest home and living within one's means, and by strengthening our relationship with the Savior. We will always live in difficult and turbulent times, and to be Latter-day Saints, to act rather than be acted upon, we need spiritual strength and to not let keeping up with our neighbors prevent us from serving our sisters and brothers. An avenue for spiritual strength is remembering the frequent comments by President Hinckley that now is a great time to be alive, a time to work towards Zion rather than huddling in fear of the Thunderdome.
Know hope.

I commend President DeVisser’s stake for their robust fast offering contributions, as that’s part of how we can fulfill our obligation to help one another. A human being needs a wide range of things to be able to fully express their agency, to use their life to grow and serve: love, purpose, food, shelter, education, safety, healthcare. Family, neighbors, the Church, and the nation are all good at providing a few of these things and bad at providing others. The Church recognizes this, as it instructs Bishops to familiarize themselves with government and community programs that provide medical care, counseling, help for people with disabilities, and job training and placement. We in the United States face the challenges of an aging population, millions of people residing in the shadows, an erratic climate, and rates of gun violence and incarceration that lead the developed world. At church, we learn about following the Savior and helping one another. During the rest of the week we need to talk & decide the best way to do this.

I second Hannah’s post about the importance of leaving partisan politics behind at the church doors, and Jeff’s comment that it is crucial we re-examine how we understand the connection between the Gospel and our politics, that we engage in conversation about which public policies we should support for the benefit of our communities. One of the several great things about 2012 was the emergence of Latter-day Saint writers in the political center and on the left. I encourage you to read through the posts at Mormon Liberals, at Mormon Democrats, and at Mormons for Obama, and to join LDS Dems, the national home of Latter-day Saints looking to have an impact on the Democratic Party and our country's laws.

Written by William

President Matthew DeVisser, Stake President of the Hidden Valley Stake in Sandy, Utah, has recently come under fire for a political charged sermon delivered on February 3rd at a stake conference.

Read more

Post by Rob T. Cross-posted from Mormon Liberals. This morning I re-read President Matthew DeVisser’s stake conference address about 2012 and the challenges facing his stake members. During the final two-thirds, the portion focused on his stake & stewardship rather than the nation as a whole, I found myself nodding in agreement with these points:

We live in difficult and turbulent times.

We should prepare ourselves temporally and spiritually.

We have an obligation to help one another.

A time of fast communication, rapid global travel, increasing secularism, new challenges facing the Church, and worries about the end times, as sin and iniquity appear everywhere. This should sound familiar, as it’s an apt description of the 1970s, when President Kimball challenged Latter-day Saints to “lengthen their stride,” the 1930s when Elder Joseph F. Merrill challenged Gordon B. Hinckley to develop new methods for getting people interested in the Church, the 1890s when President Woodruff ended official support for “the principle” of plural marriage and Utah achieved statehood, the 1840s when the Church fractured after the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, and about AD 54, when Paul reminded the Thessalonians that a falling away had to occur before Christ returned. (We can go even earlier, as the Book of Job reminds us that people are born for trouble as readily as sparks fly out of a fire.) Each generation has certain favorite sins (slavery, spouse abuse, greed), and people grow up denouncing the sins of the previous generation (and, on occasion, their own) and then get shocked by the sins of the following generation. Worrying about society crashing down is roughly as old as . . . human society. The world is always ending.

That doesn’t mean we’re off the hook.

President DeVisser spoke wise words about the importance of temporal and spiritual preparation, referring the members of his stake to the words of President Hinckley about avoiding debt by buying a modest home and living within one's means, and by strengthening our relationship with the Savior. We will always live in difficult and turbulent times, and to be Latter-day Saints, to act rather than be acted upon, we need spiritual strength and to not let keeping up with our neighbors prevent us from serving our sisters and brothers. An avenue for spiritual strength is remembering the frequent comments by President Hinckley that now is a great time to be alive, a time to work towards Zion rather than huddling in fear of the Thunderdome.

Know hope.

I commend President DeVisser’s stake for their robust fast offering contributions, as that’s part of how we can fulfill our obligation to help one another. A human being needs a wide range of things to be able to fully express their agency, to use their life to grow and serve: love, purpose, food, shelter, education, safety, healthcare. Family, neighbors, the Church, and the nation are all good at providing a few of these things and bad at providing others. The Church recognizes this, as it instructs Bishops to familiarize themselves with government and community programs that provide medical care, counseling, help for people with disabilities, and job training and placement. We in the United States face the challenges of an aging population, millions of people residing in the shadows, an erratic climate, and rates of gun violence and incarceration that lead the developed world. At church, we learn about following the Savior and helping one another. During the rest of the week we need to talk & decide the best way to do this.

I second Hannah’s post about the importance of leaving partisan politics behind at the church doors, and Jeff’s comment that it is crucial we re-examine how we understand the connection between the Gospel and our politics, that we engage in conversation about which public policies we should support for the benefit of our communities. One of the several great things about 2012 was the emergence of Latter-day Saint writers in the political center and on the left. I encourage you to read through the posts at Mormon Liberals, at Mormon Democrats, and here at Mormons for Obama, and to join LDS Dems, the national home of Latter-day Saints looking to have an impact on the Democratic Party and our country's laws.

A few minutes ago, the Salt Lake Tribune published an article written by Peggy Fletcher Stack about a Utah Stake President who delivered a passionate, semi-political talk over the pulpit. You can read the article and text of the talk here.

Read more

I just finished reading Stake President Matthew DeVisser's Talk [PDF] in a recent Stake Conference in Utah. I'm glad he said what he did. First of all, he's a good man just trying to do his best as he fulfills an incredibly difficult calling. I admire anyone who's willing to take on an entire Stake's-worth of responsibility in addition to work and family. Kudos to him for that. And I'd imagine he's feeling rather sheepish now that this speech has caused such a stir.

Read more

This “Voices” feature was written by Tanisha W. 

I have been in the Church since I was two years old. I have gone through primary, the young women's program, and seminary and truly Love Heavenly Father and our Savior Jesus Christ.

I have thrived in the church despite various ups and downs but ran into a roadblock when my stake decided to form a "student" ward which, rapidly turned into a "singles" ward. The challenge that I faced there, in adjusting and feeling at home compacted when my father passed away in 2006. I began struggling more than ever with identity and felt a loneliness and emptiness as I tried to make sense of life.

I made the mistake of quitting too many of the activities that I had been involved in, in other aspects of my life, and found myself socially and emotionally dependent on this singles ward setting. I became incredibly depressed and the only message I was hearing on a consistent basis in church was about marriage. I grasped onto any message of the Savior and clung to it, but those messages didn't come often enough. I began to have panic attacks and on one Sunday after Sacrament Meeting I was stopped by an older man that told me how as a child, he was jealous of black babies because he believed they were breast-fed chocolate milk. The turmoil in my spirit escalated and I froze, not knowing what to say. I did not need this added attack on my body image.

I've since been able to return to my home ward where I felt a much greater peace as I enjoyed serving in the primary. But as I have come out of my depression I've begun seeing how much of what I was feeling the whole time, was race-related.

The singles ward after sacrament was somewhat of a meat-market with flirting and chatting among the majority of the young adults looking for dates. This didn't appeal to me at all in the first place, as that is not the place that I am at in my life right now. Then I began to realize that even if I were interested in dating, there was no one in my area to even talk to with the same ethnic heritage as me. Increasingly I realized how many "what-if" scenarios existed. I realized that the culture of the church is one that is not really welcoming to people of African descent, particularly not African-Americans.

I am 28 now and have steadily been searching information on blacks in the church, and see that I am not alone in how I feel.  I have found the Black LDS Facebook Group where church members of African-descent along with members of other backgrounds can discuss the gospel as well as the various experiences that we have gone through.  I have also discovered the Genesis Group, an organization that the church formed in 1971, in order to further fellowship African-American saints.  I have found these treasures and many more.  I have been greatly blessed by the information that I have found and look forward to what the Lord has in store.

-Tanisha Waggoner
~ Aspiring Game Designer and Entrepreneur
Hana o sakaseyou!

In the renewed debate over the Second Amendment since Sandy Hook, one argument continues to pop up: The right to keep and bear arms was written into the Constitution as defense against government tyranny.

Given the pervasive nature of this claim, it is important to dig a little deeper to understand what it means. What specifically was the feared tyranny of the national government the Second Amendment was intended to defend against, and what does the Second Amendment mean in our day?

To quote self-proclaimed constitutionalists: We need to find out what was in the mind of the Framers. In the case of the Second Amendment, there is no mystery on this subject. We know from the writings of southerners like James Madison, George Mason and Patrick Henry that they were worried the Constitution could give the federal government authority to take over state-run slave patrols in the South. Maintaining peace in the South required a police state to keep slaves from revolting, and Southern states had laws drafting whites to take part in these militias. Substitute the phrase “slave patrol” for “well-regulated militia” in the Second Amendment and the somewhat strange wording immediately makes perfect sense.  One habit conservatives can’t seem to shake, while encouraging us to hold exactly to the original intent of the Framers, is their tendency to conveniently forget those same Framers institutionalized human bondage into those original documents.

Given that the Civil War and the Reconstruction Amendments rendered the original intent of the Founders obsolete, what does the Second Amendment mean today? Recent court decisions have upheld the right of individual citizens to possess firearms, while also upholding certain restrictions on that right. But it is ludicrous to claim that these court decisions have included the legal right of citizens to take up arms against the government.

Let’s call a spade a spade. When one hears of “Second Amendment remedies” if the ballot box does not deliver the required outcome, we are speaking of armed terrorism against the United States. And what would these terrorists be fighting against? Despite the appropriation of the Tea Party label, I see no taxation without representation here. Every member of Congress and the President was chosen in free elections by a majority of their constituents. If anything, it’s Tea Party politicians who have suppressed the right of equal representation in recent years, through gerrymandering and six hour waiting lines at the polls. Political arguments in America are to be settled at the ballot box and in the courts, not at the point of a gun.

There will always be a small minority of ignorant extremists who fantasize about taking up arms against the government. However, there is no excuse for Latter-day Saints to hold these views. In addition to Matthew 5:44, which all Christians are bound to obey, we have modern revelation to give us clear guidance. “We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.” (D&C 134:5).

I would also remind these wannabe terrorists that armed struggle does not work in today’s world. Change against tyranny is wrought following the model of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. My favorite example happened in January 1991, when thousands of unarmed Lithuanians stood arm in arm in Vilnius and faced down Soviet tanks and machine guns by singing folk songs.  Thirteen were killed and over a hundred injured, but in an eerie resemblance to the account of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis in the Book of Mormon, the bravery of these unarmed Lithuanians so stung the Soviet troops that they stopped firing. Eight months later, the toppling of this domino by a tiny Baltic nation led to the downfall of the Soviet Union.

Conservatives love to quote the White Horse Prophecy, which states the Constitution will hang by a thread and be saved by Latter-day Saint priesthood holders. Church authorities have never authenticated this prophecy, but even if it is true, wouldn’t one possible scenario be the Church standing up to armed right-wing terrorists?

I hope that day never arrives, but if it does, I pray I will have the courage to follow the example of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis and the Lithuanians, standing beside my fellow Latter-day Saints singing “Let there be peace on earth” in defiance of those who would destroy our legally elected government through terrorism.

This "Voices" feature was written by Samantha F.

I am not someone who knows a great deal about America’s fairly complex system of government and like a lot of voters I tend to think about issues on a case by case basis. That is why this past election was a particularly hard decision. Do I swing towards the democrat side of our country or the republican side? Or do I settle for an independent party that realistically has little influence at the polls? I am young and I admit I have very little life experience so I turned to others for advice. One such person was my own father who I consider a very sensible and knowledgeable man.

I started the conversation with very loaded questions that concerned me the most. Already by looking at what I’ve learned from our church, how it runs, and what the savior has taught I didn’t understand why my dad, the majority of my family and even the majority of my church were republicans.

Why do so many people in the church identify more with the Republican Party and capitalism when we fully anticipate (and currently participate in a form of) the Law of Consecration? The concept of nationalization and the redistribution of wealth will be very present during the millennium in Christ’s kingdom. Throughout his reign earth will become a paradise. No one will be left to starve or suffer in poverty. The church already has a system of commodity resource centers that make sure no saint will go hungry or cold. How can Mormon republicans support capitalism when it seems like the Lord will create a worldwide government that strays away from the rat race of materialism and is based off our understanding of socialization?

How can political decisions and restrictions of lifestyles based off of religious reasons coincide with "we claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may" (Articles of Faith 13). This applies to religious freedom yet when stretched it can also be used to endorse the “live and let live” attitude. Basing your decisions off your spirituality may create a society that you feel more comfortable in but it can also limit others in their pursuit of happiness.

Why do we teach about the personal responsibility to be hospitable to others and value people as individuals, to give to society and work with what you get to build up God's kingdom but actively be against multiculturalism, equality, economic responsibility, fair taxes, and the separation of church and state?

After our very long conversation he understood my opinions and I understood his as a very conservative republican. He identifies with the right-wing party because they seem to have a purer belief in free agency when it comes to what you earn. It's like our position on gambling. We don't gamble because if you win, you didn't earn that money and it isn't fair to have something you did not personally work for. Being required by a government to give up your hard earned money to help those less fortunate goes against that because both parties, in the end, might not get what they earned. The Law of Concentration trusts people to be faithful laborers who are accountable, sensible stewards of their possessions and inheritance (D&C 42:32, D&C 72:17, 22). The New Jerusalem guarantees that people will be “amply supplied and receive according to his wants” (D&C 42:33). Not everyone is a practicing, faithful laborer and a disciple of Christ or other respected spiritual and/or political leaders. Looking back at history communism and socialism can easily become corrupt and unfair. Democrats and republicans bank on different economic systems, however; in the end every system of generating, dispensing, and consuming possessions and services can be successful. Currently it’s just a matter of trusting a system that imperfect people can survive on.

The kingdom of God values socialism. End of story. There is no question to that, but it will also promise to reward you with what you deserve, taking away equality in mankind. After the millennium you will only receive a degree of glory that is based off your behavior in this life. Those two ideas clash with each other. I joked that he wants to skip the millennium and get right to the final judgment. I suppose democrats just have more faith in man-made organizations and trust that others outside of the faith work for the same common good. I recognize that the church, on a fundamental level, looks out for the best interest of others but I also recognize that the church is not in charge of the general public. The government is and they deserve to have the same level of intense control on society.