We Believe in God

In the course of my travels I often get ask what Mormons believe.  Well, to be honest, believe a lot of things.  However, that answer leaves the questioner with no more information than when they asked.  What do we believe?  What is a quick concise answer that I can give? 

Joseph Smith wrote an article to a newspaper that asked him the very same question.  In what is know known as the Wentworth Letter he writes of his account and the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, up until that time in 1842.  At the end of the letter writes 13 statements, later to be known by the Church as the Articles of Faith.  In this writing I would like to examine the first:

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

Pretty straightforward.  Not much point in having a Church if you don't believe in some sort of deity.  In this, there is specific reference to three beings.  God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit.

"Believe in God; believe that he, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend."

What proof do we have of God's existence?  Only what He sees fit to give us.  We have limited counts in Scripture of Him actually appearing.  We know he appeared to Adam in the Garden of Eden,  the prophet Enos, the Apostle Stephen, and to Joseph Smith.  Because that of Joseph Smith's is the most recent, it is the most detailed account we have of such a visitation.  In it is also proof positive that God has a body of Flesh and Bones, and is a separate being from the Son.

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.  Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

Here it is more clear that these 3 Holy Beings are actually 3 distinct and separate beings.  

 

In the great Intercessory Prayer offered by Jesus shortly before his death, he prayed "That they may be one; as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they may also be one in us: that the world may believe thou hast sent me."

If someone were to argue that sounded like the Father and the Son were the same being, I would totally understand that confusion based off that verse alone.  However, upon closer inspection, Jesus is praying that the disciples be one, even as the Father and Jesus are one.  Is he asking that they be of one body, or perhaps, one in heart and mind?  Clearly, the latter.  And as such, the Father and the Son are two beings, but so united in heart and purpose that they can be considered One.

So what does each one do?

"Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth. These personages … are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator."

God the Father, is the Grand Creator.  He is our Father, and SHupreme Ruler of the Universe.  He is our God, and the God of Jesus Christ.  He created a plan whereby man could progress to Perfection and live the Life He lives.

"God found himself in the midst of spirits and glory, and because he was greater, he saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have the privilege of advancing like himself--that they might have one glory upon another and all the knowledge, power, and glory necessary to save the world of spirits."

Next, is God the Redeemer, or Jesus Christ.  Jesus is that same Being born to Mary, crucified at Golgatha, and risen from the Empty Tomb.  It is He who came to Earth and paid the price for Humanities sins and enables the whole Plan of the Creator to work.  He is the Grand Executor of the the Father's Will.

And thirdly, we have God the Testator, the Witness, or the Holy Ghost.  He is the only being mentioned of the three to not have a physical body.  His job is to testify of Truth, that our Faith maybe validated.  If these three beings were compared to the Human Body, the Father would be the Mind, the Son the Arms and Legs and the Holy Ghost would be the Mouth.

Superheroes and Godlike Perfection

I will be the first person to claim I am very imperfect.  I believe I am a generally good person, I might even believe myself greater than I really am, but by no means am I perfect, and would be a rather dangerous role model.  One of the biggest challenges I face is accepting my own limitations, while seeking to push those boundaries.

Ever since I was a little kid, I have always fantasized about being a super hero.  He even has a name, and a costume.  Every night as I go to bed trying to sleep, that is what I am thinking about.  I love my and kids, but quite frankly, thinking about them keeps me awake.  As I fall asleep, I pretend to be him, saving not just the world, but the universe!  I generally fall asleep pretty fast, so I think the technique works.  When I don't do this, I am awake for hours!

Well, that fantasy doesn't help me at all to accept my mere mortal qualities.  In fact it is a hindrance, because now I have to come to grips with not have having awesome super powers.

But on a more practical note, this also means having to identify weaknesses, and prioritizing them to make them strengths and better myself, while not overwhelming myself, losing steam and just giving up. 

Jesus command "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is Heaven is perfect."
 
Let's be real for a moment here.  There is no way I will accomplish that before I die.  To be as Perfect as the Father is simply impossible to accomplish here in mortality.  To obtain a perfect knowledge, perfect love, justice, mercy, faith, will not happen.  To make it even more difficult, He possesses these qualities in Absolute Perfection, not just relatively. 

The great prophet Moroni wrote "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for your, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ...and again if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ..., then ye are sanctified in Chirst by the grace of good, through the shedding of the blood of Christ..., that ye become holy, without spot."

So, if I do my absolute best to love God, and deny myself of all ungodliness then I am perfect in Christ.  Being perfect in Christ means, according to Moroni, that his Grace will make up the difference between me and Absolute Perfection (the difference I am sure cannot even be measured by any number comprehensible to man).  That is now at least a manageable goal.

There is absolute wisdom in the following words : "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can;and wisdom to know the difference."

To those that feel overburdened I would ask that you simply do the best you can do, no matter how meager it may seem, and ask that God make the difference.  When I have done so, I accomplished so much more than I alone could.  While I cannot quantify His power in my life, I can testify of its reality and effect in my life.  Having seen miracles, and performed them, I cannot deny them, nor Him.

Benefit or Waste of Time?

Let me be honest upfront.  The mere fact I am writing this makes me a hypocrite, and make absolutely no claim to any sort of perfection, or strength.  I will endeavor to better myself, but that is all I can claim at the present moment.  I will not begrudge anyone thinking me a hypocrite by the end of the article.  You have been warned.

When I travel for work on a Sunday, I normally will not attend church services.  Between finding time (usually in class or attending drill), finding a meeting, finding transportation and actually going, I have given a lot of ground over the years.  If I were to be accused of giving up too much ground, I would probably stand guilty.

However, this weekend proved to be a delightful exception.  Having been given the entire weekend off from training, I spent most of the day Saturday just being lazy and doing nothing.  However, a fellow class mate, and probably an answer to a prayer, either from me, or someone who has a vested interested in my well being, invited me to accompany them to dinner.   During the course of dinner, the conversation turned to religion, and being from widely different religious backgrounds, the conversation took some interesting twists and turns.  However, during the course, I was actually invited to attend my own religious services.

What was my first reaction?  It wasn't, "Sure, I think that is a fantastic idea.", but rather "I didn't bring any Church clothes." (and this was just after I berated Utah mormons for being so judgmental and trying to appear perfect in everything. Told ya, hypocrite)

So after having that very poignantly pointed out, I relented to go.  However the deal was, no church services before 11 (this wasn't my idea, but I put absolutely no resistance).  I get back to the Hotel afterward and look up the local ward, and they meet at nine (whew, so I don't have to go to church).  However, it was then proposed that we go to a local Protestant church, and some church is better than no church (there went my out).

We meet Sunday morning and go searching for a Church.  The night before we found no less than 10 with a half hour of driving.  However, Sunday morning, we seem to have trouble finding a Church that doesn't look like bringing your own snake is a requirement for entry (probably offended someone with that remark, and for that I ask apology, and again see the reference to hypocrisy and judgmental Utahns).  This whole time I am thinking "maybe I won't have to follow through on this"  But after a bit of searching, and a very determined friend, we found what appeared to be a suitable church.  (see last parenthetical insert).  Now I am thinking, I won't be the first one one of the car and maybe that will get me out of this.  Well, I was the second one out of the car, and we did go inside.

Upon entering, we were very well received.  We took our seats, and if I didn't know better, the chapel could very have been an LDS chapel.  The song numbers were located in the same place, the bench layout was identical, and people were going around shaking hands as if they knew each other.

That was the end of my comfort zone.  We stood up to sing, the prayer was a little different than I am accustomed to hearing, but no less heartfelt, and after a musical presentation, the congregation clapped (that was the biggest shocker to me).  The collection plate was passed around in a very similar fashion and timing to our Sacrament.  Then came the Sermon. 

It was very, very well done.  It dealt with preparing for the return of Jesus.  Some minor doctrinal differences, but nothing to distract from the message, and I left as what I would consider a better person for having gone.  I felt my priorities in life better aligned, as normally happens when I attend church, and felt very edified.

I spent more time marveling afterward that I take so much for granted.  I have the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ in my life, and often pay it no more than a cursory thought here and there.  These lovely folks, are confined to their interpretation of the Bible, and relish every bit of it.  In the day of Judgment, I would really be found lacking.

All in all, it was a very pleasant experience.  I learned that not all prayers are answered in manners that I would often expect.  It made me WANT to want (yes I said want to want) attend church and be more diligent in my preparation for the spiritual feast I am offered on a weekly basis. 
.
To SFC Z, I say thank you.

Life Lesson

When I was in the 8th grade I selected to go to a seminar.  It wasn't until I attended the seminar that I found out it was about racism, and I was immediately disinterested.  But during this class, I learned a lesson that I did not fully appreciate until I was older.

The instructor handed each of around 10 pieces of paper of different colors. Each color was assigned a point value, and if the sum of the paper equaled a certain total or higher you were placed in an elite status, if the total was lower, you were placed in a lower class.  The point of the activity was to accumulate as many points as you could through trade with the other students. If you were in the elite class you could make the rules that dictated trade. 

I was not fortunate enough to be placed in the elite class at the beginning. So for a few rounds I tried to trade around and accumulate wealth, but with never any real purpose.  Finally enough of us "poor" people banded together and decided to give one of enough points to elevate them to rich class to help us out.  As luck would have it, they decided to make that person me.

What's the very first thing I do with my elevated status?  I propose a rule that when one of us richies wants to make a trade with a non-richie, they have to approve it, regardless of the imbalance.  Needless to say the activity ended pretty quickly after betraying what used to be my "equals"  I didn't care, I had tiltled the rules to my advantage and was having fun.

The discussion turned to why we wanted to further our advantage rather than help out those less fortunate than me.  But the lesson was lost on me until a few years ago.  Those that are in power have an obligation to use that power to help those under his stewardship, rather than seek to further that power.  As Jesus taught "whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant."  Leadership is an opportunity to serve, seen as anything else is an abuse of power. 

In a revelation to Joseph Smith, the Lord revealed "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion...No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-sufferering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile- Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing afterward an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved; lest he esteem thee to be his enemy."

Real power comes from the ability to influence others, and not from titles.  My position in the military enables me to help Soldiers, both placed directly under me as well as those outside my NCO support channel.  The NCO creed also states that I am not to use position to attain pleasure, profit or safety, but rather should place the needs of my Soldiers above my own.  To use it for any other purpose is abuse, and should have my rank taken away.

In State Tuition for Undocumented Residents

Below is the letter I sent my State Representative in the Utah Legislature.

Honorable Mr. Sumsion,

I am Darrel Ross, a resident and voter in your district, in Eagle Mountain, Utah.  I am writing to ask you to vote against HB 191, a bill that would remove in state tuition from undocumented residents.

While I in no way wish to advocate illegal immigration, or the breaking of the law, this law does nothing but punish the wrong people.  This law targets children of people who came here illegally.  For many of these children, this is the only home they have known, and are every bit American as you or I.  For many of these children, they are the first in their family to attend college, and the family's first hope to break the cycle of poverty that is so often prevalent among "illegals".  Our society has a vested interest in helping them become productive members of society rather than continue to find ways to further dehumanize and continue this cycle of poverty.

If it is the People's desire to end illegal immigration, there are other, more productive, ways to do so.  There need to be ways to discourage people to immigrate illegally, such as stronger sactions on employers who hire unauthorized people; stricter security at the border.  I think an even more productive manner would simply make it easier to immigrate here legally (I got my SECRET security clearance in the military faster and easier than my wife got her Permanent Resident Alien Card), but that is to be done at the National Level.  But for the people who are already here, especially the children who have known no other home, we need to focus on solutions to make them productive members of society.  Allow them to contribute.  We can do this easier by allowing them to get an education, allowing them to work so they can pay taxes and have dignity.

Please remember, the people this bill will effect are God's children too.  We as a society have a mandate given us to care for the poor and needy, and many are poor and needy because they lack to tools to rise above poverty, like education and opportunity.  Let us not punish them for decisions their parents made.

Darrel Ross

Balanced Budget Amendment

The balanced budget amendment is a bad idea.

Consider the family that lives paycheck to paycheck.  Common sense states, do not spend more than you make.  Great advice, and I would recommend it to any family.  If you spend less than you make, guaranteed you will never file for bankruptcy. 

Great for families, good MICRO economics, bad MACRO economics.  Running a nation has a few other considerations ones have to consider.

Say we ratify the amendment that Congress can only spend what it takes in revenue.  Let us also say in March of any given year we are attacked by a foreign power and a declaration of war is needed.   Wars cost money, the fiscal year does not start until October, and the National Budget is set before March.   Therefore, legally, and constitutionally our response would have to be "Next fiscal year, you're going to regret this because we are going to war."

So we make a provision for acts of war.

Here's another scenario.  Let's say in February, we have an Earthquake the magnitude of what happened in Chile, or Haiti.  "Sorry San Fransisco, you need to wait until October to get your aide."

Now we have a provision for natural disasters.

Let's say come August we realize that our revenue projections were short and we are out of money (this happens all the time actually).  Do we shut the government down completely until October?  Do we stop all forms of welfare?  Do we halt defense spending completely?

So now you have a poor populace that depends on food stamps for food, that can no longer feed their families, and you expect to put down the resulting riots (people will do desperate things when they are hungry) with unpaid soldiers?

Now that I have outlined a few of the problems, let us deal with a few other issues.  One of the basic underlying principles of any government is to facilitate trade and economy.  Government must help control inflation/deflation and facilitate employment.  At times, they must inject money into the system (via spending) and at times they must take money from the system (via taxes).  A congress that cannot deficit spend cannot do their job. 

Am I implying that government should spend, spend spend?  No.  Spending must be decided on what will benefit the economy.  One tell tale sign of overspending is inflation.  Some inflation will happen naturally, regardless of government does. Spending too much will increase the supply of money, and the demand for it will fall, and that will destroy the economy. Currently our inflation rate is 1.5%, almost non existent.  Our unemployment rate is 9.1%.  Of the two, unemployment is the larger problem, and that is generally resolved via SPENDING(like the widely unpopular Stimulus bill of 2009).  Were the two numbers flipped, you would want to TAX.

The idea of the national debt being too high is a scare tactic used by politicians use to get elected.  Please see my above analogy.  My house cannot spend more than it makes, therefore the country cannot.  That is false.  That uses the economic logical fallacy of what works for one works for all.  As long as the Congress has the power to deficit spend and regulate commerce, we are fine.  If we take that power away, then we cripple ourselves. 

Lecture is over, now for me to get on my soapbox.

If you want a balanced budget (which some years is good) then Congress should propose one.  However, I feel that the failure of this amendment to be ratified will be used as an excuse by the Republican held House to not pass a balanced budget.  The tea party ran on cutting spending, but they never said where.  So I challenge you, Congress.  Put your money where your mouth is.  Pass a balanced budget this year, and then try to get re-elected.  Pass a balanced budget, but don't cut my government services(you can cut from the services my neighbor uses though), and don't raise my taxes, this is the cry of the tea party.  There is not reason to amend the Constitution.  If a balanced budget is the way to go, Congress already has spending power, they can pass one from year to year.

National Government Vs States Rights

I have mentioned in a previous posting that I love reading the Deseret News opinion forums.  If that is ever taken away from me, I really don't know how I would function. 

Ever since the last presidential election, I have seen an overwhelming amount of letters stating that the Founding Fathers and Framers never meant to have a strong national government and that is why the Constitution was written.  I am going to say nothing could be further from the truth.

Let us go back and examine a little history.  During the American Revolution, the American people fought against the tyranny of the Crown and Parliament.  They drafted the Declaration of Independence, and shortly afterward drafted the Articles of Confederation, although not officially ratified until 1781, they were essentially in effect in 1777.  The Articles of Confederation were a disaster!  They essentially created a crippled central government that could not tax, but only ask for money.  They basically created 13 small countries, allied in name only.  Different currencies, different trade laws made them all unstable, and ripe for the picking of any major European power that wanted to conquer them.  Benjamin Franklin made several cries for unification, as evidenced by his famous political cartoon of the snake cut up in 13 pieces saying unite or die.

Finally, in 1787 the Constitutional Convention was held.  In it, the States would give up several of their rights, and be subject to a more powerful, but still limited National Government.  The idea of Federalism was born.  Their would be certain aspects that would belong strictly in the domain of the National Government, and restrictions placed on what States could and could not do, as well as the National Government.  The National Government could tax, could create a military and regulate commerce between the several States.  Power would be split among three different branches of government, so no one person or entity could abuse power.

During the ratification campaign across the country, a series of papers were written, primarily by written by Alexander Hamilton and secondly James Madison.  In Federalist 10, James Madison discusses factions.  He moves forward the idea that the democracies of Greece failed because they were too small.  Factions would eventually develop, a faction being a political party who is driven by one narrow purpose.  This purpose could be something as small as "We are against people leaving their porch light on past 3 am".  This faction, if unchecked would gain followers and soon develop unlimited power.  He argued that a large democracy would work.  Where this "We hate porch lights" faction could be popular in Maine, with the geography and population of the United States, would be countered by another faction in Delaware that would claim "Porch lights must be on all the time."  And this would prevent one idea, or group from dominating all others.

Where am I going with this?  If too much power is vested in the State, it will lead to factions much easier than if the power is given at the National level.  In a real world example, the political power of the LDS Church is very strong in Utah, nearly 60% of the State claims membership, but on a National level it is much weaker because the population in the Northeast has very different ideas about how things should run, and the South has different points of view that are different from both.  All of these seek to balance each other out.  Now I am not saying the LDS Church having political influence is good, or bad, nor that they are seeking it (they are generally apolitical, but this is all a different discussion for a different day) but when 60% of the State's population belongs to any one cause (church, or poker club even) they will have some political power.  Because of this, people who do not belong to said organization run the risk of having their rights impeded.  So unless a higher authority than that of the State is their to protect their rights, mob rule will result.

Another extreme example of States rights was that of slavery.  Left unchecked, and for years, it was perfectly legal in some states to own another human being.  We later fought a war over whether or not the National Government could intervene of the issue.  I, for one, am glad the States lost this battle.

Let me use the organization of the Church as an example.  I would call them a Central form of government, but locally ran.  All of the policies, laws, regulations all come from one source, Church Headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah.  However, it is up to the local wards, branches and stakes to put them into effect.  The church has policies in place to help the poor and needy, but it is the local bishop, using that guidance that dispenses and authorizes that funding.  The result is One Doctrine, One Faith and a very personal application of that.

Wouldn't that be more effective than having different rules and regulations in different regions?  Take the idea of marriage.  Under the Constitution, Article IV we find the good faith and credit clause.  All States must recognize the actions of other States.  I am married by Utah law, but if I move to California, they must recognize that Utah marriage.  Under the 10th Amendment, marriage is a purview of the States.  Today, in some states it is legal for two people of the same gender to marry.  In others, those marriages are illegal.  So what happens if a same gender couple from Massachusetts moves to Utah that prohibits the recognition of that marriage?  Are they married or not?  If there was a stronger Central government that set one national standard, there would be no question.

Am I advocating the National Government have the power to regulate anything and everything and strip the States and local governments of all power?  No.  However, in cases that effect all Americans (like marriage) they should be able to.  Local issues, that affect only that State or city should be left up to that level of government.  Issues like, at what time will the street lights come on?  How are the citizens of city A going to be able to travel to City B to conduct business?  What types of business do we want to foster and encourage here locally?  Those are great issues that should be left completely out of the National Government.