Trump will not save you

I’m still trying to finish my thesis, but outside events do catch my attention from time to time. The US election is obvious a big one. This is a topic I’ve written about at length from time to time. I really do feel that – at least for those on the political right (the Left will have their own trials) – Trumpism is a test of character: one I fear that many have failed. But I am proud and have been rather gratified that many Latter-day Saints have proved resistant to Trump’s charms, such as they are. I would thus be really glad for Utah to vote for a third party, if it only has symbolic immediate consequence (I happen to believe the long-term consequences would be even more important).

However, there are obviously some members who feel differently. That may be for a variety of reasons, some of which I can sympathise with even if I believe it is mistaken. Other arguments I find less sympathetic, such as the arguments found here. I happened to respond to some snippets of that in the comments of another blog, but since I took the time thought I share my response here too, in case anyone else was wondering:


The Truth About Evan McMullin

Rather amusingly, the article swiftly admits they don’t actually know much about Evan McMullin’s career (though they find it surprising that CIA work might be considered “secret”. So what follows is mostly built on the boiler-plate anti-establishment ramblings of an “establishment” conspiracy, where “establishment” includes any rich people not named Donald J. Trump. None of it is based on verifiable facts about one Evan McMullin.

There is a powerful and established section of the Republican leadership (elected officials, party members, big donors) who do not support the values of grassroots conservative Republicans.

And Donald Trump does?

But How? Enter the Mormon Suckers. I am proud to be a Mormon so it pains me to say what I am about say. When the GOP Establishment Never Trumpers and their Clinton allies went looking for a 3rd party spoiler they needed someone with a constituency of sheeple who would follow him regardless of the obvious logical outcome (President Hillary)

“Suckers” and “sheeple”, eh? Good to see the author thinks well of their fellow saints. They then go on to talk about a “weak-minded demographic”. Hmmm…

The Mormon demographic is overwhelmingly pro-life, pro-family, anti-communist, and protective of the Constitution they believe was divinely inspired. So how do you get these folks to throw an election to Hillary Clinton, someone whom most of them revile? It’s a complex but straightforward sociological scheme. In addition to being hardworking, God fearing, Mom, Apple Pie and Baseball loving Americans, Mormons are also some of the biggest suckers in the nation.

Or maybe it’s because you (the author and fellow-travellers) nominated an adulterous, authoritarian, proto-Fascistic sex offender!?

Utah leads the nation in financial fraud schemes.

Considering Trump university, this really starts to look like its projecting. If you’re afraid of fraud, don’t vote for the fraudster!

What follows is a hypothetical extrapolation of the results of a Hillary President – one that revolves around the worst case scenario I might add. For some reason there’s no similar weighing up of the consequences of a Trump presidency, where the Alt-Right run rampant, the 1st Amendment is similarly gutted, and Trump starts a nuclear war at 3am because Xi Jinping said something less than complimentary about him on Twitter.

It’s also rather hilarious that they speak of Hillary’s spending bankrupting the nation, when Trump’s also proposing increased spending… and he’s the one with the track record of going bankrupt.

Read Dennis Prager’s excellent article ‘In Defense of Pro-Trump Christians,’ and then join the millions of other Christians who will be voting Trump to save our country from the terrible alternative.

Many of those Christians (and Dennis Prager) have sold their principles for a mess of pottage. What happened to “character matters”? What happened to principles above that of national aggrandisement? What happened to seeking for one’s nation to be good, and not merely great? Trump won’t save anyone. It verges on blasphemous and idolatrous to look to him as a Saviour. And Prager’s statement that “We hold that defeating Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, and the Left is also a principle. And that it is the greater principle” literally violates the first commandment.

You need to encourage the less likely voters to go the polls and you need to keep them from the conman.

Please Mormons don’t get suckered into the Con of the Century

This is grimly amusing, considering their claim McMullin is a conman is a baseless slur, while Trump is actually a defendant in a current court case involving fraud!

And sadly, I’ve seen that hypocrisy all too often. To my mind, if there’s one big reason to never vote or support Trump, it’s because almost every one of his supporters seems to lose their moral compass swiftly thereafter.


 

The above was only a brief response to an argument that I’ve sadly seen all too often, though not from LDS sources. Unfortunately, this argument – that any and every principle should be sacrificed so long as Hillary Clinton is defeated is wrong. Were I American, I would not desire Hillary Clinton as President. I’d oppose many of her policies, and be concerned at her tendency for evasion, unaccountability and dishonesty. But she’s not Hitler! But even if the document concerned was absolutely right about the dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency, to suggest that defeating her is the highest principle presupposes that the highest good is national survival, and our greatest concern the political conditions within it.

Scripture says differently:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

(Exodus 20:3)

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

(Matthew 10:28)

Even religious liberty – while valuable and something we should strive to protect – is not the most valuable principle. The Church through the ages has survived and even thrived under persecution, however unpleasant it may be to experience. Apostasies happen not because of persecution, but because the people go after strange gods, in this case gods of national pride, anger and political power.

To vote for Trump would be to choose a wicked man. That would be bad enough (“When the wicked rule the people mourn”, D&C 98:9), but it also involves surrendering higher principles. To select a man who openly and pathologically lies (look up the whole “John Barron” case) is to abandon the standard of honesty. To choose a predator who not only boasts of adultery, but has boasted of sexual assault is to make any defence of the family sheer hypocrisy. To choose a man who has pledged to order torture and retaliatory killings (that is, war crimes): to follow a course that we particularly as Latter-day Saints should be aware was followed by the Nephites and Jaredites of old, for which they were utterly destroyed.

I believe one can already see some of the moral consequences of the Trump campaign clearly. There’s the sudden increase – in just five years – of Evangelical acceptance of immorality in political leaders. There’s the mainstreaming of the fascistic and racist ideals of the so-called “Alt-Right”. There’s what some of the vocal opponents to Trump are already experiencing at the hands of his supporters. I believe to support him runs serious risks to one’s sense of integrity and morality. We know it does not profit a man to gain the whole world at the cost of his soul, but to gain Trump?

I also believe, however, that there can be lasting consequences for passing the Trumpian test. LDS resistance to Trump has attracted media attention in both the US and in the UK, and doubtless elsewhere too. I believe the idea that there is something in the Church that has helped people see with moral clarity will attract the honest in heart. Resisting Trump is not only the right thing to do, but it may well attract some to the message of the restored gospel, a message that will be of far longer-lasting importance than the fate of any nation.

“Choosing to be happy” and emotional integrity

I quite frequently run across the idea that happiness is a choice. In some sense this is very true. There’s definitely some choices that can prevent us from being happy, especially in the long term, for “wickedness never was happiness” (Alma 41:10). Our eternal happiness is dependent upon our ultimate choice, with “one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness’ (Alma 41:5), and ‘joy or remorse of conscience” being given to us “according to [our] desires” (Alma 29:5). It’s also true that from an eternal perspective we can “rejoice, and be exceedingly glad” even when we are persecuted and mistreated (Matthew 5:11-12) although it’s clear here this is talking in the sense of being fortunate in the knowledge that we are experiencing the same as the prophets and will be blessed like them, rather than actual emotional contentment from abuse. Likewise we can “count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations [trials]” (James 1:2), providing we realise its talking of [i]being[/i] fortunate, and not necessarily [i]feeling[/i] overjoyed.

However, this notion of happiness being a choice often seems mixed up with other ideas. There’s the idea that our attitude alone can dictate our happiness, meaning our emotional state, and that positive thinking can guarantee happiness. There’s the belief that somehow God has promised us continuous happiness in this life. Related to both the above is the idea that we should always be feeling happy.

There are problems with all this. It is certainly the case that we need to keep perspective, count our blessings, and refrain from dwelling on our miseries. But the idea that a positive attitude alone is all that is necessary to guarantee continual emotional happiness is solipsistic, seeming to assume that there is nothing anyone else can do (even God), or that can happen to anyone else, that can affect our emotions. But this is untrue. Likewise, there are some emotional trials that positive thinking alone cannot fix, as Elder Holland points out regarding depression: “no one can responsibly suggest it would surely go away if those victims would just square their shoulders and think more positively”. If we believe that God has somehow promised continual emotional contentment in this life, then when the inevitable emotional disappointments happen we may think God has somehow failed us. Or, if we believe that our emotional state is always and readily under our control, we may believe that if we are feeling unhappy we have chosen to do so, and even that feeling unhappy is thereby a sin.

Unhappiness is not a sin

As said, it is important to retain perspective, be grateful to the Lord for our blessings (D&C 59:7) and be able to see his hand in all things (59:21). But ‘negative’ emotions will come, and these are not necessarily sins in themselves or the result of sins. Jacob (as I’ve mentioned before) speaks of ‘mourn[ing] out our days’, while Alma, leaving Ammonihah for the first time, was “weighed down with sorrow, wading through much tribulation and anguish of soul” because of the people’s failure to repent (Alma 8:14). Mormon even speaks of being “without hope” where his people were concerned (Mormon 5:2). None of the feelings of these men were sins.

Then there is the example of the Saviour himself, who was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). The image we have of the Saviour may cause us to forget that he experienced the full gamut of emotions we do. Sure, he loved (Mark 10:21, John 11:5) and felt compassion (Matthew 20:34). But he was also felt anger (Mark 3:5, Mark 10:14), wept (John 11:35, Luke 19:41), felt amazement and anguish (Mark 14:33) and deep distress (Luke 12:50). It is difficult to imagine all these emotions coexisting with a permanent feeling of happiness. And in all this, if we have seen Him we “hath seen the Father” (John 14:9), for as we learn from Enoch’s vision even the God of heaven feels indignation, anger and weeps for His children (Moses 7:28-34).

Emotional honesty and “bridling” our passions

It is okay to experience times of unhappiness and disappointment. By so doing we walk in the path of many of the best people who have ever walked on this earth, including the Saviour himself. It’s part of the purpose of this life, to experience trials and be tested, and the path of discipleship, as President Monson has stated, involves following the Saviour along paths such as those of disappointment and pain. And it’s important to be able to admit when we are, even just to ourselves. As Elder Cook quoted (also from the October 2014 General Conference) “‘How could it not make you feel worse to spend part of your time pretending to be happier than you are'”? Pretending to be happy is not going to make us be happy.

That sort of pretending can hurt us more than we realise. Sure, sometimes we must simply grit our teeth and persevere. But sometimes unhappiness and emotional discomfort, like physical pain, can teach us that there’s something we should change, about ourselves or our circumstances. Sometimes its right and proper to seek help from others. At other times, they are simply part of the coin of love, when we feel the distress of those we care about. In this way we can perhaps begin to understand in the smallest way how our Lord God feels.

Denying these feelings any place cuts us off from that. It can deprive us of the power we can gain from an emotional integrity, where we can admit to ourselves and God how we are truely feeling, and honestly lay those feelings at his feet (I have long been impressed by the honesty of the Psalmists, something I feel we can only benefit from in our prayers). Furthermore, as a friend pointed out to me last year, we are not asked to suppress or eliminate our emotions. Rather the scriptural instruction is to “bridle” our “passions” (Alma 38:12): a bridle does not kill a horse or stop it in its tracks, rather it allows us to steer it, to turn its strength and power to our advantage.

We are not promised continual happiness in this world. While “men are, that they might have joy” (2 Nephi 2:25), we must also taste misery so we might have joy (v.23) and “in this world your joy is not full” (D&C 101:36). A fulness of joy awaits us in the next life (D&C 93:33). What Christ does offer us, however, is peace (John 14:27), peace that will not preserve us from all sadness and heartache, but which can help us endure them. And – as I have very much experienced this past year – even amongst deep sadness we can have supernal moments of joy.

Truth and lies

A few months ago I found myself reflecting on the importance of truth. I had been wondering why I found it difficult when people espoused certain concepts with the claim that these things were “helpful”. I find myself almost instinctively pulling away from such things, but I wondered why I did it, and if I was wrong.

After some pondering, I realised what I found objectionable was the idea that I should accept something because it was helpful, without knowing if it was true, and on a personal level found I had to reexamine myself for those ideas I had come to accept that were unhelpful, and also untrue. Because truth matters, on a cosmic and a personal level.

I do not believe it is a coincidence that God is described as “the spirit of truth” (Doctrine & Covenants 93:23-26), nor that the Brother of Jared’s great statement of faith that permitted him to be redeemed from the fall and enter the presence of God was “Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie” (Ether 3:12, my emphasis). In contrast, one of Satan’s preeminent titles after his fall is “the father of all lies”, who aims to “deceive” men (Moses 4:4). We are especially directed to avoid lying about other people (Exodus 20:16), but there is a broader principle at stake: To the extent that we tell and believe truth, we become closer to Our Father in Heaven and Our Saviour. And the extent to which we either tell or believe lies places us closer to the Adversary. And this will be especially important in the times to come, for one attribute of those who are prepared for the Second Coming is that they “have not been deceived” (D&C 45:57).

Truth in the public square

Which takes me to a related topic. Namely the social and legal changes that have been happening in the West concerning marriage, family and identity.

It goes without saying that I oppose these changes. I believe, and the scriptures teach, that these developments are founded on a mistaken idea of human identity, and on what will promote human happiness. They furthermore lead people away from the plan of salvation that God has set. For those who do not know this yet, I invite them to read the words of ancient and modern prophets, and prayerfully seek truth. I believe these will have eternal consequences for individuals and families, and consequences upon the nations involved, as stated in The Family: A Proclamation to the World: “Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets”.

I am furthermore concerned at the wider implications of these developments, upon family stability, in education, in employment and ultimately for freedom of conscience, which has already come under attack. For those Church members who are complacent or supportive of these developments, I invite them to think about what has happened and what will increasingly happen to those who oppose these developments in public.

But there is another aspect of many of these developments that I have found increasingly concerning. And this is what is happening to truths in the public sphere, even self-evident truths that one can recognise regardless of one’s opinions. Regardless of one’s opinions of same-sex “marriage”, said couples cannot have children by themselves. Children attached to such couples are not the children of both, and said children do not have two fathers or two mothers; the truth is that said children have in many cases been deprived of a mother or father respectively (in some cases under very sad circumstances). In such cases we are deliberately creating broken families, and then asserting that everyone involved, including the children themselves, deny the existence of one of their parents. Likewise, regardless of one’s opinion of the efficacy of “sex-reassignment” surgery, someone such as Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner was not “always a woman”, as advocates are arguing (never mind the fact that he actually remains anatomically male!). He was born a man, he fathered children; to support such a rewriting of history, or the rewriting of birth certificates, is not only to deprive children of a father, it is to tell an untruth. Likewise the idea that the US Constitution contained a right to same-sex “marriage” that was somehow undetected for 228 years until found merely by application of the law is manifest nonsense. And so on, along with the notion that the judgement of nine black-robed priests somehow represents a triumph for “democracy”, or the simple intellectual incoherence that goes with believing that sex isn’t innate, but sexual orientation is, and that there is no mental difference between men and women, unless we’re talking about a transsexual man.

This is all bad enough, but is worse for the degree that such untruths are becoming enforced through state recognition, state education and social pressure. Believing untruths is dangerous enough, but saying untruths when we know them to be untrue can be even more so. In 1984, doublethink is the phenomena by which – partly through state action, but partly through the desire to fit in – people knowingly espouse untruths and hold mutually contradictory ideas. Hence the Ministries of Peace, in charge of war, or the Ministry of Truth, with responsibility for propaganda and lies. According to the book, the logical culmination of this would be the insistence that 2+2=5. And this is what we are seeing: the assertion that children have two fathers, the claim that a man and father has always been a woman, or that contractual sexual relationship between partners of any sex constitutes a marriage. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

This knowing acceptance of lies forms a powerful lever of social conditioning by which people can be persuaded of the rightness of actions they know are wrong. It is a way by which people’s moral compasses can be wrenched into untrue forms, so that they lose the capacity to recognise truth and become mental captives. Yet this is not being forged for us by a vicious police state with an all-powerful intelligence apparatus. We have forged these chains for ourselves, so that the saying of truths can be rendered unacceptable and intolerable, and people’s livelihoods ruined, with little state action at all, but the mere noise of the mob. While state action may follow (and the signs aren’t good), and may intensify, we are making ourselves mental slaves entirely by our own hands.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
(Isaiah 5:20)

And he beheld Satan; and he had a great chain in his hand, and it veiled the whole face of the earth with darkness; and he looked up and laughed, and his angels rejoiced.
(Moses 7:26)

Edit: And in a related issue to this post, it seems the calls for the imposition of taxes on churches and so on haven’t even waited a few days to start. Considering the claims that Same-sex marriage would have zero consequences upon religious freedom or anything else that I heard as recently as (literally) yesterday, I can’t help but regard this as part of the “We have ALWAYS been at War with Eurasia” “We have ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia” mindset I was talking about.

Reasons to read the Old Testament #3

I’ve mentioned that I’ve always loved the stories of the Bible. What I should probably confess is that I’ve had a long love of the particularly gory ones. Ehud killing the fat king of Moab (Judges 3), Jael putting a tent peg through Sisera’s temples (meaning his head, not a place of worship, Judges 4), Elijah’s epic confrontation with the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18), I loved and love them all. And I know I’m not the only one, for I distinctly remember Blood and Honey, a children’s television programme that involved Tony Robinson giving particularly vivid retellings of the Old Testament stories on location. I loved that too (sadly it doesn’t appear to be available on DVD).

But I know some people don’t quite have the same appreciation for these stories that I do, which I think is sometimes a shame (particularly when that aversion leads them to sanitize such things for youth who might actually find, as I did, such stories appealing). Yet I believe these stories and others that may jar with people’s sensibilities have value beyond that of my own entertainment. I believe, in fact, that what they offer is so valuable that they are a strong reason to read the Old Testament. While each story carries its own lessons, I believe there are three broad points that should lead even those who are averse to such tales to take them seriously:

1) Such stories have a lot to teach about right and wrong. This might seem particularly jarring considering what I’ve just mentioned, and the rather long list of unpleasant acts that can and do occur in such stories. But just because something is described in the Old Testament doesn’t mean that it is being approved by the Old Testament. And Old Testament narrative in particular can often use quite subtle techniques, such as allusion and narrative repetition, to convey its moral viewpoint. Thus Jacob’s trickery of Isaac, where he disguises himself as his brother to gain his father’s blessing (Genesis 27), appears in rather a different light when Jacob just a few chapters later is similarly fooled by Laban into marrying the wrong sister (Genesis 29). Judah’s inappropriate relations with Tamar (Genesis 38) are condemned by their juxtaposition with the account of Joseph resisting temptation (Genesis 39). These stories provide paradigms of both right and wrong doing, and have much to teach anyone paying attention.

2) Such stories can teach us about the difference between our ways and the Lord’s ways. While the above point applies to many such stories in the Old Testament, it doesn’t apply to every story that may offend modern sensibilities. In some cases acts that we may consider wrong under normal circumstances are commanded by the Lord directly, or practices may be apparently endorsed that we are uneasy with. Such stories, however, may well teach us something similar to the account of Nephi killing Laban in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 4). The Lord’s ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9), and he may on occasion command us to do things that go against our preconceived political, social and religious opinions. Indeed in many respects He seems to make a habit of it. The stories of the Old Testament can also offer a particular challenge to our social mores, those things we might consider the obviously natural and right way of doing things simply because they’re what we know and have grown up with. They may help us resist the myth of progress, and resist the temptation to consider our modern social arrangements part of the eternal Gospel – even such things, to take an aforementioned trivial example, as modern courtship rituals once we consider the stories of Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 24) or Ruth and Boaz (Ruth 3-4).

3) Such stories are honest. This honesty can be seen in two ways. The first is to compare it with what else was being written from that time period. The records of the Egyptian Pharaohs, for example, glorify their victories, selectively remove any mention of their defeats and even remove mention of particular rulers who their successors preferred to forget (such as Hatshepsut). In contrast consider the Old Testament’s treatment of Moses and David: the great lawgiver who spoke with the Lord face to face, and Israel’s greatest king and founder of a dynasty. While Moses is undoubtedly depicted as a figure to be emulated, we are not spared his mistakes and are informed that the Lord prevented him from entering into the promised land because of just such a mistake (Numbers 27:12-14). Meanwhile David’s adultery with Bath-Sheba and his murder of Uriah is not only depicted, but fiercely condemned by the prophet Nathan (2 Samuel 12:1-12).

But there is another aspect to the honesty of these stories too, and one which bears on their sometimes unsavoury nature. The “horrible” things described in these stories happen. They’re not just stories, and they’re not even just a reflection of conditions in the ancient world. They happen today. We are accustomed to being comfortable in the modern West, but when one looks around the world today there are places where these things happen. Nor is the West immune to such things: some horrific things happen in dark corners out of sight, while just seven decades ago Europe was wracked with war and atrocities that make a mockery of any claims to modern moral progress. They are part of our recent past, they are (across the world, and even hidden amongst us) parts of our present, and we cannot assume they will not form part of our future. Scripture, if it is to be a saving influence on human beings, must deal honestly with the human condition. It must be able to acknowledge the horrible things they do, the horrible things they can experience and the extreme responses such circumstances might call for, in order to provide divine guidance for such times. It is this understanding, I feel, that helps us understand why certain things happen (or are even commanded) in the Old Testament, and why the Old Testament talks about them. We may feel uneasy with them in our present ease, but the time may come – and undoubtedly the time will come for some – when the Old Testament’s account of extreme times is more relevant than ever.

Why do you want to work here?

I find myself still seeking work, still waiting for a decision on my Phd application and still dealing with the Kafkaesque bureaucracy of the DWP, all of which is infuriating and vexing to the soul. I find the lack of reciprocity disturbing and the bureaucratic desire to reduce everything down to boxes stifling, all of which are worthy of comment at some point.

However, one thing I’ve found my attention drawn to is the myriad ways that honesty is discouraged and dishonesty encouraged, something best encapsulated in the above question that nearly all employers ask. Virtually all employers ask prospective employees why they want to work there, but peculiarly, they don’t want to hear the real answer – namely that the prospective employee needs a job. Rather the prospective employee is expected to manufacture some answer about their great desire to work in that particular role, or for that particular company – an answer that is true in a few cases, but certainly not a majority. If you’re Tate & Lyle, people are not coming to work for you because of the appeal of your corporate culture. Yet employers evidently don’t want to, and choose not to hear this, and prefer to hear some elaborate fiction.

Thus, at the very beginning of the relationship between an employer and employee, dishonesty is made part of the foundation of their working relationship. And yet few seem to find it disturbing that our society chooses to establish its working relations on falsehood. I can’t presume to know the full consequences of this on our society, but it surely can’t be a surprise when elsewhere in working environments – bank debts, hospital scandals and so on – unwelcome truths are hidden away, since that pattern is established at the very beginning.