Thomas S. Monson - America's Best Leader

US News and World Report published an issue for December 2008 highlighting America's Best Leaders in 2008. I posted the following response to the Editor's request for comments:

I was surprised to see that there were no religous leaders on the list of America's Best Leaders 2008. I don't know if this is because the judges don't think the religous leaders in America are demonstrating true leadership or if they just didn't consider any religous leaders in their pool of 100 people. Here is one American religous leader who should not have been overlooked as he clearly sets direction, achieves results, and cultivates a culture of growth:

Thomas S. Monson

Over 13 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "Mormons") voted to sustain Thomas S. Monson as the 16th President of the Church in April 2008.
When the California supreme court reversed a law that prohibited same-sex marriage in the state, President Monson issued a letter in June 2008 to the members of the Church in California asking them to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage." In response to Monson's request, Mormons, comprising less than 1 percent of Americans, contributed 40 percent of the $36 million that was donated in support of the constituional amendment, which succeeded in November 2008.

When asked what the ideal birthday gift would be for his 81st birthday in August 2008, his answer was: "Do something for someone else on that day to make his or her life better. Find someone who is having a hard time, or is ill, or lonely, and do something for them. That's all I would ask."

As for cultivating a culture of growh, approximately 300,000 people worldwide will join the Church in 2008, and Monson continues to encourage members to share their beliefs with their family, friends and neighbors. In October 2008 he urged members to "pray for the opening of those areas [of the world where our influence is limited and where we are not allowed to share the gospel freely], that we might share with them the joy of the gospel."

I cannot think of a better example of somebody who sets direction, achieves results, and cultivates a culture of growth.

Pro-Marriage, Not Anti-Gay

Joel P. Engardio is a writer, documentary filmmaker and civil liberties advocate who wrote a thoughtful, honest commentary of his opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage published on the ACLU Blog and on the Washington Post titled, Pro-Liberty, Not Anti-Mormon. He explained that he joined the protest at the Mormon Temple [in Manhattan, New York] to demonstrate against church interference in his civil rights.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/11/pro-liberty_not_anti-mormon.html#_login

I posted the following response to his article:

Most Mormons supported Proposition 8 because of it's implications for the institution of marriage, not in an effort to squelch the rights and liberty of homosexuals. The LDS Church issued an offical statement that clarified, "the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches." I am personally in favor of government granting same-sex couples all the benefits of marriage that can be granted to couples through civil unions, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage.

The following excerpt from a statement issued by the LDS church in August 2008 explains why allowing same-sex marriage is a mistake for society:

How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?

"Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.

"Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.
"When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

"It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?
"As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

"Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue."

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

Preserving the Family by Protecting Marriage

With the election today, the heated battle over a California ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to define marriage to be between a man and a woman has begun to shatter spending records and draw national attention. According to US News and World Report, the campaigns for and against Proposition 8 have raised more than $60 million in donations, setting a new record nationally for a social policy initiative—and trumping every other race in the country this year in spending except the presidential contest.

As of last week, roughly 40 percent of the campaign's overall donations have come from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This involvement of Mormons is attributable significantly to the clearly defined beliefs in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” and a letter from the First Presidency of the Church encouraging members in California to devote their time and resources to supporting Proposition 8.

Our support for Proposition 8 is not evidence of prejudice and discrimination against homosexuals. It is evidence of a clear understanding of the importance of the marriage contract and the central role that families play in the stability of our nation, our economy, our society, and our world. Children have a right to be born within the bonds of matrimony. Men and women have unique physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual characteristics that compliment each other and when all of these characteristics are brought together in the marriage relationship, they have the potential to bring children into the world and to fortify them with all of the support that they need to be successful in this life.

Gay rights are important. We must take action to protect the rights of people who are homosexual, but we do not have to redefine marriage to accomplish this. Gay rights can and must be established and preserved while also preserving and fortifying marriage by clarifying that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman.

If you are registered to vote in California, please vote YES on proposition 8 today.

Secret Combinations

My brother-in-law shared a story with me about the "enemies within" our government that remined me of the secret society of the Gadianton robbers that developed over 400 years in the Book of Mormon and resulted in the downfall of the Nephites.  

Alma 47

14 And it came to pass that Lehonti came down with his men and surrounded the men of Amalickiah, so that before they awoke at the dawn of day they were surrounded by the armies of Lehonti.

  15 And it came to pass that when they saw that they were surrounded, they plead with Amalickiah that he would suffer them to fall in with their brethren, that they might not be destroyed. Now this was the very thing which Amalickiah desired.

 The most effective way for our enemies to defeat us is to secretly gain control of our government

 Helaman 3: 23

  23 And it came to pass in the forty and ninth year of the reign of the judges, there was continual peace established in the land, all save it were the secret combinations which Gadianton the robber had established in the more settled parts of the land, which at that time were not known unto those who were at the head of government; therefore they were not destroyed out of the land.

 The more settled parts of the land are the cities.  Do we know who really has control of the cities in the Untied States?

 3 Nephi 3: 15

  15 Yea, he said unto them: As the Lord liveth, except ye repent of all your iniquities, and cry unto the Lord, ye will in nowise be delivered out of the hands of those Gadianton robbers.

 The only way to be delivered out of the hands of the secret combinations is to repent of your iniquities because the Gadianton robbers control you through blackmail, vice, and idolatry.  If you want to be delivered from secret combinations you need to openly confess your sins and rely upon the strength of the Lord.  The only people who are immune from the tactics of secret combinations are the righteous. 

 4 Nephi 1: 46

  46 And it came to pass that the robbers of Gadianton did spread over all the face of the land; and there were none that were righteous save it were the disciples of Jesus. And gold and silver did they lay up in store in abundance, and did traffic in all manner of traffic.

 Mormon 1: 18

  18 And these Gadianton robbers, who were among the Lamanites, did infest the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof began to hide up their treasures in the earth; and they became slippery, because the Lord had cursed the land, that they could not hold them, nor retain them again.

 We need to look back at the example of the Lamanites to know how to defeat the Gadianton robbers and their secret combinations. 

 Helaman 6

37 And it came to pass that the Lamanites did hunt the band of robbers of Gadianton; and they did preach the word of God among the more wicked part of them, insomuch that this band of robbers was utterly destroyed from among the Lamanites.

 From this we can see that the best way to preserve the liberties and freedom of the United States of America is to preach the word of God.  

Establishing Zion

When I was in high school I made a trip to Washington D.C. with my US Government class and while I was there I met a girl from Arkansas who belonged to another Christian denomination.

Throughout high school and my mission, she and I exchanged letters and she wrote one letter to me that challenged our belief that the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were building Zion. She said that we were misled because Joseph Smith taught that Zion would be established in Jackson County, Missouri, then it would be established in Nauvoo Illinois and finally it would be established in Salt Lake City, Utah under the leadership of Brigham Young. From her perspective, the Mormons were being fooled into thinking that they could establish Zion and they kept changing their story about where Zion would be built. This was a little perplexing to me at the time because to me at the time, more than anything else, Zion was an awesome National Park in Southern Utah.

I can understand why she was confused about the doctrine of establishing Zion. Because many Latter-day Saints are also confused about the doctrine of establishing Zion.

When President Monson announced last weekend that the church would build a temple in Kansas City, there were many comments posted on blogs and news sites that hinted that it was time for members of the Church to pack their bags and move to Jackson County, Missouri. Obviously, some of them were joking and perhaps teasing other people who may have really had those thoughts; but regardless, it demonstrates a fundamental missunderstanding of what it means to establish Zion.

It is helpful to understand the history of the Church to understand why people would talk about "packing up and moving to Missouri" at the first sign of building a temple there.

The Church first attempted to build temples in Missouri in the 1830s when the early Saints dedicated a temple site in Independence, Missouri in 1831 and farther north in Far West, Missouri in 1838. In 1831, Joseph Smith prophesied that the New Jerusalem (the city of Zion) would be established in Independence, Missouri. Independece is a suburb of Kansas City, Missouri. Those temples were never constructed, however, as the Mormons were driven out of Missouri persuant to an extermination order issued by Governor Lilburn W. Boggs in 1838.

The Church relocated its headquarters to Nauvoo, Illinois, and then to Salt Lake City, Utah. Today, 13 million Church members are now spread throughout the world and there are more than 140 temples operating.

On the same day of General Conference on October 4, 2008 when President Monson announced the new temple in Kansas City, Elder D. Todd Christofferson gave an excellent talk about what is required to establish Zion.

"Zion is Zion because of the character, attributes and faithfulness of her citizens ... If we would establish Zion in our homes, branches, ward and stakes, we must rise to (a Zion standard). It will be necessary to become unified in one heart and one mind, to become ... a holy people and to care for the poor and needy with such effectiveness that we eliminate poverty among us. We cannot wait until Zion comes for these things to happen. Zion will come only as they happen."

From the Church Website:

"The word Zion appears repeatedly in all the books of scripture of the Church. In latter-day revelation, Zion is defined as "the pure in heart" (D&C 97:21).

"In the early days of this dispensation, Church leaders counseled members to build up Zion by emigrating to a central location. Today our leaders counsel us to build up Zion wherever we live. Members of the Church are asked to remain in their native lands and help establish the Church there. Many temples are being built so Latter-day Saints throughout the world can receive temple blessings.

"The word Zion can also refer to specific geographic locations, as follows:
The city of Enoch (see Moses 7:18–21).
The ancient city of Jerusalem (see 2 Samuel 5:6–7; 1 Kings 8:1; 2 Kings 9:28).
The New Jerusalem, which will be built in Jackson County, Missouri (see D&C 45:66–67; 57:1–3; Articles of Faith 1:10)."

In summary, Zion is being established in Missouri, but until we have established Zion in the Stakes throughout the world where we now live, we do not need to worry too much about the building up on Zion in Missouri, although we should all rejoice in the progress that the Saints in Missouri are making as is evidenced by the fact that the Church is building a temple in Kansas City, MO. Dieter F. Uchdorff said during the Priesthod Session of General Conference on October 4, 2008, "Stand close together and lift where you stand". This counsel is certainly applicable to our mandate and our covenant to establish Zion. You will know that we have established Zion when the members of the Church are united, pure in heart, and there are no poor among us. In the mean-time, let's all strive for that perfect standard by standing close together and lifting where we stand while doing all that we can to be united, to be purified in Christ, and to ensure that there are no poor among us.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

Some people believe that the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding the roles of men and women in the family are sexist. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines sexism as "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex".

The Family: A Proclamation to the World was issued by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in September 1995. This document outlines the roles of men and women in family relationships as follows:

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed."

If you only read the first two scentences you might get the impression that the Church's teachings are sexist because, alone, these statements clearly foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. However, the two scentences that follow definitively refute any claims of sexism: mother and father are equal partners, and special circumstances may require mothers to preside provide and/or protect and may require fathers to be primarily responsible for the nurture of children.

The life of Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate in 2008, provides a visible example of special circumstances that require individual adaptation of the roles of fathers and mothers. This morning I heard a story on NPR where a woman said that Sarah Palin should not be running for office when she has young children and a brand new baby to care for. A man responded by saying that this was a sexist comment.

I believe that the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints support his opinion that this is a sexist comment. If Sarah Palin is elected Vice President, by virtue of her office, she will be in a superior position to provide for and protect her family (and my family) and these circumstances will require her husband to assume the role of being the primary nurturer for their family. Sarah Palin may be the Ester of the 21st Century, "who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" (Ester 4:14) , I pray that God will bless and magnify her and her husband so that they will be able to attend to the needs of their children while providing this great service to their country.

Does Sarah Palin have Mormon Ancestors?

I love to do family history research, so this is a fun question to ask. If anybody who reads this blog can find any additional information, please share it in the comments section:

From Wikipedia:

"Palin was born Sarah Louise Heath in Sandpoint, Idaho, the third of four children of Sarah Heath (nee Sheeran), a school secretary, and Charles R. Heath, a science teacher and track coach. Her family moved to Alaska when she was an infant. As a child, she would sometimes go moose hunting with her father before school, and the family regularly ran 5K and 10K races."



I could not find any information about her father to make a definitive connection, but I may have found her grandfather. Charles Renfrow Heath was born 17 October 1923 in Pocatello, Bannock, Idaho. He served in the Army in WWII. According to his obituary in the Idaho State Journal he was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he enjoyed fishing and hunting, he married Mary Johnson on 19 August 1930, and he was survived by family members which included his son Charlie R.

Can anybody confirm or deny that Charlie R. is not the father of Sarah Heath Palin, the Vice President running mate of John McCain, republican presidential nominee?