The Problem of Language

    In case you all have wondered I have ADD when it comes to blog posts. Today is no different. As I stated early on I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormon if you prefer. I am proud to declare this fact. There is no shame in it. Further, I am a fairly open minded individual and state that as far as what happens on judgment day is concerned I don't know who will go where, save for the few where scripture has explicitly stated otherwise. Sadly others do not share this same respect (yes I am looking at you extreme fundamentalists).

    It has been vogue in the extremist circles to call Mormon's members of a cult or cultists. Often times the defamers try to support their assertion through a series of half-truths, out of context quotes, and full-blown lies. I honestly am not surprised then that as Mormons are having their "moment" then that their most ardent detractors are becoming more prominent as well. Sadly this is always the case with any group that rises from obscurity their opponents rise up and attack. The attack that is the most dishonest and by extension most infuriating is the assertion that Mormonism is in fact a "cult."

    Now I recognize that the technical definition of cult can apply to all religions and yadda yadda yadda but to use that as an excuse to not bring up the issue is weak. Why is it weak? Simple the connotation is something of a more sinister nature. Whenever someone is said to belong to a "cult" the general image that people have is one of human sacrifice, mass suicide, or some other related practice. Which practices, last time I checked, were discouraged by the church insomuch that there would be instant excommunications from the church for such activities. The Mormon church in general is a body doing much good in the world in terms of humanitarian services. Though many people still hold to the cult idea. Why?

    The answer is in the language if you can control the language you can control thought. If you can control thought you can control actions. If you can control actions you control the person. This is exemplified during the rise of Nazi Germany. Certain groups of people were demonized and called unsesirables. With this use of language the people's opinions of these groups morphed from ambivelence to minor digust to extreme disgust to the point of murder.  Language controlled thought and thought controlled action in this case their is no question.
   
    What though am I getting at? Am I trying to compare the plight of Mormons not to that of the Jews in the holocaust? Of course not what I am saying is that if we do not control the language of extremism then extremism will take control of us.

    Diasagree with Mormons all you want argue the doctrine but know that they are not a cult I am an example of this. The people I disagree with are examples of this. Look to the members of the Church and ask yourselves are these really the evil people some would want me to believe? The answer in the majority of cases will be a resounding no!

An address to Church members and Utah HB 116

This blog post is addressed not to the American public at large but to a certain subset. These people are the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As a side note I will write another post in response to the American public at large so no need to fear. The question before us today is concerning illegal immigration. There are many arguments both for and against it that shall be addressed in the general blog post and touched upon here. What we are going to discuss is concerning the LDS church’s stance on Utah House Bill 116 (known as the Bill or 116). For some reason many find it strange that the church would support a bill that seems to grant amnesty to the illegals and allow them to live as legal residents. There is of course a proviso in their that the detractors fail to realize and that is that the Bill encourages and supports enforcement of current immigration laws while pushing for a change to a less Draconian system. Herein we shall discuss the detractors most used argument—that of using Article of Faith 12—and look at it from a reasonable standpoint and deconstruct the argument as it stands.

“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (Article of Faith 12) So for the detractor’s argument they state that the support of 116 breaks this Article and command from God. I would argue against such a stance for this one reason. The first is that illegal immigration is an act of desperately seeking freedom from a nation that is ruled by crime lords and kingpins and is therefore seeking a higher and more transcendent law. This is the law of caring for the family. This nation was built upon the breaking of laws to create a better place for their prosperity. In fact treason was committed thus breaking the 12^th Article of Faith. So I ask this question for all to ponder and that is, “If our fathers broke the law, bucked their duty to their king do they not stand condemned?” If you answer that they do not stand condemned by reason of fulfilling a higher law by seeking freedom from oppression then cannot the same be said for illegal immigrants? They seek freedom, not from governmental tyranny but the tyranny of fear and crime. Therefore are they not as innocent as our revolutionaries? Of course they are the fight of our fathers and the fight or the immigrant is the same it is the fight of freedom. The fight of justice. The fight to become more than they were before and secure a better place for their posterity.

There is also a second point I would like to point out and that is the road to apostasy. Many would say that this is merely an opinion given by the First Presidency and that this in no way bears any stamp or approval from God. That is false in every way imaginable. An official opinion given by the general offices of the church is, of necessity, approved by the First Presidency after much prayer and consideration. This prayer will lead to revelation and such was the case concerning 116. There are others who say that since they did not say, “This saith the Lord…” that it is merely the general opinion. Again that is a false assertion. Joseph Smith the First President of the Church and Prophet of the Restoration stated that the words “Thus saith the Lord” are not necessary when conveying the will of the Lord only the word of the prophet speaking officially in his capacity as prophet. In this instance the word of the Lord has been sent down from above and given to his chosen rulers. The Church’s support of 116 is the will of God and when we start to question this support then we draw closer to that dark realm of apostasy.

In conclusion the support from the Church in relation to HB 116 is logical and does not in fact counter the commands found in Article of Faith 12 for it is supporting the higher law of supporting the family and attaining freedom from an evil tyrant. Furthermore my fellow members we have sustained the brethren in General Conference we must sustain this decision by them or else we take a step closer to apostasy. My fellow members look deep into your hearts and consider your opinions on this matter and follow that which is true. Although to come to a good and honest conclusion concerning the matter we must look closer and use the reasoning that God has given us and as stated before another post on that will be coming later.