Consider these two approaches to reducing poverty: (1) asking people to give up resources in the true spirit of charitable giving; (2) taking away people’s resources and distributing them to lower socioeconomic classes.

Example of approach 1.
The City of Enoch and 1st century AD Book of Mormon people are excellent examples of number 1. Those people willingly gave of their resources to help the poor and needy.

Example of approach 2.
Political socialism (i.e., taking tax dollars from the higher socioeconomic classes and redistributing it to lower classes).

The first approach is praiseworthy; the second is pernicious, which is why Ezra Taft Benson wrote: “I fear for the future when . . . governments have used and are using American tax money to pay for socialism” (Elder Ezra Taft Benson, BYU Speeches of the Year, 1963).

 So the big questions is: “Why do government administrations look to expanding social welfare programs when dealing with lower class poverty? Shouldn’t the help largely come from charitable giving? I think the answer is that some political leaders want to expand social welfare because they are crappy givers themselves, and as such, they cannot imagine others giving generously.

Ready to be surprised?
 
Think about how much money you gave in charitable donations last year. If you paid an honest tithe then you gave at least 10%. Care to guess what percentage of Vice President Joe Biden’s income went to charity over the last 10 years?
Not 12%
Not 10%
If you thought 5%, you’re wrong.
And not even 2%
Over the last decade, 0.2% of the Vice President’s income went to charity. But wait, there’s more! That 0.2% translates into just $369 dollars per year.

Unfortunately we find the same sort of thing with the President. Before running for political office, what percent of Obama's income went to charitable donations?
Not 10%
Not even 5%
If you thought at least 3.5% you’re wrong.
And not even 2%
Before running for the senate and White House, about 1% of Obama’s income went to charity. Okay, we'll give him credit for giving slightly more when it became politically expedient to do so.

Personal charitable donations are not a political issue. There are plenty of generous and not so generous givers on both sides of the political spectrum. My point is simply this: It should come as no surprise that politicians who are themselves stingy givers would want to expand social welfare programs. Why? Because they can’t imagine others giving generously. In their minds the only way to provide for the haves nots is to forcibly take from the haves.  

Our country needs a spirit of charitable giving, not a spirit of spreading the wealth.

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/politics/26taxes.html 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm

 
 
Lehi was a great philosopher whose philosophical contributions have been under recognized.  He contributed to humanity’s understanding of agency and ontology long before Aristotle (384 – 322 BC), Plato (427 – 347 BC), Socrates (469 – 399 BC), Confucius (circa 551 – 479 BC), and even Pythagoras (circa 580 - 500 BC).  We don’t hear much about his philosophical contributions because his ideas came out of the New World through a record hidden from the world for over a thousand years. 

Second Nephi, chapter 2 contains 4 major philosophical and theological truths that are worth mentioning.  They are (1) the symbiosis of good and evil, (2) the irrational implications of moral relativism, (3) the essential nature of moral agency, and (4) the symbiosis of joy and misery.

1.  The symbiosis of good and evil.  “For it must needs be that there is an opposition in all things.  If it were not so . . . righteousness could not be brought to pass. . . . Wherefore, all things must needs be compound in one.” (verse 11)

To a certain extent righteousness is defined by its opposite, evil, and evil is defined by its opposite, righteousness.  Righteousness is what it is because it is contrasted with evil, and evil is what it is because it is contrasted with righteousness.  When Lehi wrote that all things must be compounded into one, he was saying that if one ceased existing, the other would cease existing as well.  In modern day language we might say that righteousness and evil are two sides of the same coin.  One side of the coin relies on the other side for its existence.  Consider that if you removed the “heads” from a coin it would no longer be a coin, and thus the “tails” would cease to exist as well.  There are no "heads" without "tails", and there is no righteousness without evil.  

2.  The irrational implications of moral relativism.  “And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin.  If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. . . . And if there be no righteousness . . . . [then] there is no God.  And if there is no God . . . there could have been no creation . . . [and] all things must have vanished away.” (verse 13) 

Moral relativism claims that there is no divine law governing what is good and bad behavior, and thus any behavior that feels good and does not hurt others is appropriate.  Relativism also asserts that, because there is no law, there is no sin or evil.  However, as Lehi pointed out, if there is no sin then there could be no righteousness because they are opposite sides of the same coin, and without righteousness there could be no God because He is perfect and glorified.  Finally, if there were no God there could be no creation and everything would vanish into nothingness.  But the universe is not in a state of nothingness because we know we are here.  The reality of our existence puts moral relativism on a shaky foundation.  When carried to its logical conclusion, it is an intellectually bankrupt enterprise. 

3.  The essential nature of moral agency.  “Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.” (verse 16)

In this verse Lehi is referring to the power to choose between good and evil (moral agency).  There are two essential influences that must exist for mankind to exercise its moral agency and thus qualify for a kingdom of glory – they are the influences of good and evil.  We cannot qualify for exaltation without being enticed by evil influences (and eschewing them), and we cannot qualify for exaltation without being enticed by righteous influences (and choosing to follow them).  Evil enticements come from Satan and his followers, and righteous enticements come from the Spirit of the Lord.  Both are necessary for agency to exist.     

4.  The symbiosis of joy and misery.  “[W]herefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.” (verse 23)

This verse refers to the essentiality of the Fall of Adam.  Adam and Eve could only feel true joy after falling from the presence of God and experiencing the misery that comes with telestial, mortal existence.  And so it goes with us.  Living through mortality with all its misery and suffering is essential if we are to truly understanding the joy that comes with the Plan of Redemption.  The Plan of Redemption is sometimes called the Plan of Happiness, and for good reason.  Those who experience redemption after enduring the trials of mortality will experience immense happiness.  This concept can be extended to other areas of life, such as that we appreciate the joys of health through sickness and we appreciate the joys of success through failure.  Of course, we do not need to purposely create misery, sickness, and failure to experience their opposites, these things just seem to find us in mortal existence.

In many respects, these profound ideas are superior to contributions from more recognizable philosophers who came centuries later. I think this makes Lehi one of the most under recognized philosophers in the history of the world.
 
 
Picture
Charles Darwin and his wife Emma were a bit of an odd couple in a spiritual sense. The one thing that kept them together was their devotion to one another. Their love transcended their different levels of spiritual devotion.

Spiritually speaking, Charles was a withered plant, while his wife Emma was like a tall and vibrant evergreen tree. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in their views on suffering. 

In 1866 Charles wrote the following about suffering: “It has always appeared to me more satisfactory to look at the immense amount of pain and suffering in this world as the inevitable result of natural sequence of events, i.e., general laws, rather than from the direct intervention of God.”

Here Darwin falls prey to the old atheist trap of thinking that if God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful, then why is there so much suffering in the world? Amazingly the answer to this question was right in front of him. His wife Emma had the answer. Here is what she said about suffering after caring for Darwin during one of his bouts of acute illness in 1861.

“I find the only relief to my own mind is to take it as from God’s hand, and to try to believe that all suffering and illness is meant to help us to exalt our minds and to look forward with hope to a future state.” She seems to be saying that the Lord intended for us to prove ourselves worthy of exaltation by testing our diligence in a world full of pain and suffering.

Their spiritual differences were also manifested in their choice of literature. During times of trial and leisure, Emma enjoyed reading uplifting Christian writings, while Darwin demonstrated a penchant for literature with agnostic leanings. On one occasion in 1869 while the young American writer Henry James visited their home for lunch, he observed Emma reading Fervent Prayer while Darwin read The Index. The Index was “a newspaper produced by a group of disaffected American Unitarians and philosophical unbelievers” who rejected the “authority of the Bible, Church, or Christ.” Darwin was a regular contributor to the newspaper and shared its humanist doctrines with the family, occasionally becoming “indignant with anyone who doubted their complete accuracy.”

Poor Emma. How difficult it must have been for her to endure Darwin’s skepticism. The difference in spiritual commitment was difficult for Emma. Later in life she realized that “the ‘painful void’ which [she] had spoken of just before their wedding, still lay between them.” Because of his resolute agnosticism, she was unable to share the beliefs of hope and peace with Charles. It also appears that his intractable skepticism weakened her faith. 

In spiritual terms, it is clear that Emma was the stronger partner. She remained steadfast in the faith through good and bad times while her husband wavered. She tried to build up her children’s faith while her husband occasionally challenged it. And she was patient with his overt skepticism, while he, it appears, was too prideful to learn more about her beliefs. 

Science heaps praise upon Charles. I am heaping praise upon Emma. If the most important work we do is within the walls of our own homes, then she deserves credit for raising her children in righteousness and teaching them to honor and fear God – the most important accomplishment in any era.

(Source: Darwin, His Daughter & Human Evolution, by Randal Keynes)
 
 
Here I go with one of those I told you so moments.

A short while ago I posted an article on the pros and cons of the Canadian Healthcare model. (For those of you who do not know, Canada has government run, socialized medicine.) President Obama’s administration is in the process of building a similar model in the United States. 

One of the cons I mentioned in that post is that the Canadian model is not effective at controlling costs. That’s right, costs are spiraling out of control in Canada just like they are in the US. And on the other side of the ocean, healthcare costs are also rising sharply in most European nations with socialized medicine.

Funny thing is, the Democratic healthcare bill was passed largely to control spending. Apparently the current US administration didn’t look into what is happening to medical costs in socialized countries; if they had, they might have reconsidered. I suppose they think they can do socialized medicine better than the rest of the world.

Good luck!

And now I'll sign off with an amazing revelation:

Health care costs can only be controlled by reforming health care delivery, not by reforming healthcare insurance, which, unfortunately, is all the recent health care bill does.
 
 
In 1998 British physician Andrew Wakefield authored an article in the prestigious medical journal Lancet linking the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine to autism. Recently he has been accused of scientific misconduct leading to the vaccine-autism scare. Now he is banned from practicing medicine in England.   

I am not going into the allegations against the study – you may look them over here if you like. Critics maintain that Wakefield’s results were intentionally falsified to support the conclusion that MMR may influence incidences of autism. The British General Medical Council agrees. Earlier this year the council concluded that Wakefield “acted dishonestly and irresponsibly in his controversial research.” I have no reason to doubt these accusations.

Wakefield’s critics are now claiming that he has blood on his hands. Because of the vaccine-autism scare which he perpetuated, many parents refused the MMR vaccine for their children, leading to a spike in rates of measles, mumps, and rubella and an increase in serious illness and deaths from these diseases.

I think Wakefield took a bold gamble and lost. There are two ways this could have gone. (1) If subsequent research had confirmed his conclusions (it has not, by the way), he would have been hailed as a hero and we would have given him a Nobel Prize in medicine. (2) Subsequent research did not confirm his conclusions, so investigations and accusations followed to the point where he has been branded a charlatan by the larger medical community. Poor Wakefield – he flipped a coin and called “heads”, but it came up tails.

Scientific misconduct aside, I think Wakefield deserves some credit. You see I am a parent of young children. When I find out that they are going to get 3-5 vaccines in one day according to the guidelines set forth by the American Academy of Pediatrics, I cringe. Common sense tells me that 3-5 shots are overloading my kid’s immune systems, which is why they are sometimes cranky and feverish for the next 24 hours. Hey you guys setting the vaccine schedule, do ya think we could spread this out a bit?

In all likelihood Wakefield’s research also contributed to the recent debate on the use of Thimerosal in vaccines. Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines. While there is no evidence to suggest that it increases the risk of autism and other disorders, in 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics agreed to reduce or eliminate Thimerosal in childhood vaccines as a precautionary measure. As a parent I think this is a good thing regardless of what the science says or does not say.

I am not trying to take sides on the Wakefield debate; I am pointing out that some good has come from it. The debate prompted a lot of research that definitively answered whether vaccines influence autism, and it raised awareness of the heavy vaccine schedule for children and the use of Thimerosal as a preservative.

While his article may have prompted some parents to forgo the MMR vaccine, thus leading to increased rates of these diseases, let’s be careful about putting all the blame on Wakefield. There are other reasons why people don’t get their children vaccinated (e.g., financial, distrust, religious, complacency, etc.), and vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing disease.

2 cents.
 
 
Picture
With an ecological disaster currently underway in the Gulf of Mexico, I could not help but wonder if this calamity falls under the last days' calamities listed in the scriptures.

Presently four angels on our world have been given the power to save and destroy life, to spread the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, and to seal up things unto life or to cast things down into darkness and despair. (D&C 77:8)

These four angels have another important responsibility - as destroyers. At God’s command they will send great calamities upon the earth. The Lord said “For all flesh is corrupted before me; and the powers of darkness prevail upon the earth, among the children of men, in the presence of all the hosts of heaven—Which causeth silence to reign, and all eternity is pained, and the angels are waiting the great command to reap down the earth.” (D&C 38: 11-12).

Given their direct involvement with mankind, it would seem that these four have an intimate knowledge of the wickedness that is in the world; this might explain why they have been pleading with the Lord to let them carry out their duties as destroyers. D&C 86:5 tells us that these “angels are crying unto the Lord day and night . . . to be sent forth to reap down the fields.” It appears that they have grown weary of the wickedness that covers the earth. They have seen enough and are anxious to get on with the business of punishing and purging wickedness. Certainly they have marveled over God’s patience.

Why have they been held back? The Lord has held them back because He does not want their calamities to disrupt his growing church, which is why He said “pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender, lest you destroy the wheat also.” (D&C 86:6). However, I wonder if things are beginning to change.

The BP oil disaster has me thinking about angel #2. What is in his vial? His vial contains destruction in the seas. Revelation 16:3 says that when “the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea . . . it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.” And Revelation 8:8-9 says that when “the second angel sounded . . . it [was as though] a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died.”

When I view the video of oil gushing from the ocean floor, it reminds me of a volcano blowing fire and dust (“a great mountain burning”). Pictures of the oil washing up on shore resemble the “blood of a dead man”. And the oil is killing many creatures in the sea. With no end to the gusher in sight, the spill may once day cover an area large enough to qualify as “a third part of the sea” (what the ‘sea’ refers to, I don’t know).

 
 
Picture
The recent death of four-year-old Ethan Stacy at the hands of his abusive step father has been heart wrenching for many Utahns. Recent evidence indicates that he was repeatedly beaten by his step dad, left alone to suffer from his injuries, and left alone to suffer through traumatic brain injury during the final days of his life. 

Where was Ethan’s mother through all of this? She was physically present, yet emotionally detached. A former friend of the mother told KSL news that the mother telephoned her in Florida days before Ethan died and complained that Ethan would not stop crying and would not stop calling for his “mommy”. Apparently his cries were irritating the mother. The woman who should have loved and helped her son turned into an unfeeling bystander. Ethan cried for help as he slowly died.

Picture
A similar event took place a few years ago in Galveston, Texas. In October 2007 the body of a young girl was discovered in a plastic container partially buried in a watery bog. Investigators called the child Baby Grace until they found out that it was the body of Riley Ann Sawyers.

During the trial it came out two-year-old Riley was repeatedly beaten with a belt and had her head repeatedly pushed into a pillow and under water for not saying “please” and “yes sir” to her parents. During her final beating she cried out to her mother for help by saying “I love you.” Her plea for her mother to save her went unheeded. Moments later she died after her rampaging stepfather threw her across a room and fractured her skull. 

In both cases the parents tried to cover up the murders. Ethan’s parents bashed in his face and teeth with a blunt object (probably a hammer) and set fire to his body before burying him. Riley’s parents let her body decompose in a plastic container for a month or two before putting her out to sea.

I am not going to go into behavioral science explanations of infanticide or discuss the issue of insanity as a legal defense (which seems to be the defense that Ethan’s step father is cooking up). Also, I am not going to discuss the anger and sorrow that I feel whenever I contemplate these events. Instead I am going to finish this blog post with an expression of light and hope.

Because of the great plan of happiness of our God, Ethan and Riley will be taken into God’s presence where they will be surrounded by His love and compassion for eternity. They will be exalted on high as a prince and princess to the most high God, and become heirs to all that He has. This is God’s blessing to all children who die before the age of accountability. This realization helps replace feelings of anger and sorrow with feelings of hope and peace.
 
 
In my study of epistemology (i.e., knowing and how we know), I have come to the conclusion that spiritual ways of knowing can be just as certain as empirical (visual) ways of knowing. 

For some time I believed that spiritual knowing lacked the certainty that we attribute to empirical knowing. I mean, most people would agree that seeing something is more certain than spiritually ‘feeling’ something. After re-evaluating this position and the evidence, I think it is false.

I have come to the conclusion that there is just as much certainty in spiritual experience as there is in empirical experience. Consider times when the spirit bears powerful testimony of the Book of Mormon, when the Lord directly answers heartfelt prayers, and when the power of God is felt through priesthood blessings. We can know that those experiences are real. For many they are just as real as reading this post on a computer screen. I have experienced this sort of thing myself. I have had spiritual experiences where I know something supernatural happened.

Alma commented on the certainty of spiritual experiences in his address to the Amalekites. Regarding the experiment of planting a seed of faith (Alma 32), he wrote that when we plant a seed of faith, it will swell, sprout, and begin to grow. This swelling, sprouting, and growing refer to the spirit working in our lives. Planting a seed of faith causes us to feel the spirit more strongly, to see that it is good.

Can we be certain that something good is happening to us? Alma’s answer is “Yea.” He wrote that “ye must needs know that the seed is good.” Herein lies the certainty. “Your knowledge is perfect in that thing . . . for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.” In other words, we know that the spiritual experiences are real. We know that something good and supernatural has happened to us.

But wait a minute; I thought faith was not having a perfect knowledge. Where does the uncertainty come into play? Alma explains it this way: “and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect? Nay.” He is saying that while we are certain of having had spiritual experiences, we still lack perfect knowledge of God and the power of the priesthood and prayer. There is so much more for us to learn. The more we exercise faith in the Lord, the more knowledge we will receive. We can continue to acquire knowledge through faith until we reach the point where, like the Brother of Jared, we receive a perfect knowledge of the Lord.

Our certain spiritual experiences are what allow us to rationally declare “I know God lives”, “I know the priesthood power is real”, and “I know the Book of Mormon is true.” Although we lack a perfect knowledge of these things, the experiences which led to our testimony of these things are as real as the chair you are sitting on. As Alma pointed out, these experiences are clearly “discernible.”
 
 
What do all these events have in common?

Copernicus’ book “On the Revolution of Celestial Spheres” (1543)
Newton’s book “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” (1687)
Einstein’s Relativity (1907)
Alexander Fleming’s Penicillin (1928)
The Human Genome Project (2003)

They are all scientific discoveries and advancements that have had a major impact on the world, yet when the discoveries were made, life went on as usual. Consider that on a certain day in 2003 when the Human Genome Project was declared finished, you woke up and went about your daily affairs as though nothing of huge importance happened. Yet on that day Francis Collins and his colleagues completed a major genetics project that has greatly advanced science and human health and will continue to do so into the future.   

When major discoveries are made, life tends to go on as usual. There are exceptions to this rule, however. Our parents or grandparents likely remember the great excitement that resulted when Jonas Salk (not to be confused with the Jonas Brothers, younger folks) introduced a safe Polio vaccine in 1955. Or they remember the excitement that arose when, in 1922, two physicians from Canada walked onto a hospital diabetes ward full of grieving parents and dying children, gave the children injections of their newly discovered hormone called insulin, and quickly brought the comatose children back from the clutches of death.

Did you know that a major medical discovery was made over the last year, a discovery that will likely go down in the history books as having a significant impact on heart health? As the discovery unfolded, you and I probably went about our daily affairs as though nothing hugely important occurred. Interesting, isn’t it? Here is what happened.

Researchers at the University of Utah and other locations discovered that stem cells taken from the bone marrow of heart failure patients, incubated in a bio-reactor, and then inserted into failing hearts, rejuvenated heart muscle. Researcher Dr. Amit Patel said that the inserted stem cells "send out little chemicals that go to all the local heart muscle, and throughout the body . . . recruit[ing] other cells to the heart [that] work together to actually rebuild and remodel [the heart]." Dr. Patel described the remodeling and rebuilding process as “very dramatic." The procedure is not yet a cure, but it is prolonging lives and giving heart patients and their loved ones new hope.

The Lord is the benefactor of great latter-day scientific discoveries. The apostle Paul testified that in the last days, God would pour out His spirit upon all flesh (Acts 2:17). Joseph Fielding Smith taught that that spirit, the Light of Christ, inspires men to “invent and discover the great truths which, until now, the Lord has seen fit to keep hid from the inhabitants of the world.”

The Spirit of the Lord will continue to bless us with scientific discoveries just as the apostle Paul testified nearly 2000 years ago. We might not know when breakthroughs occur, but they are happening, thanks to the Lord.
 
 
I am as conservative as the day is long, which leads me to ask, “Why am I criticizing Utah’s conservative Sutherland Institute in this blog post?” I am criticizing the organization for biased reporting of survey findings on marriage in order to make those findings support its political agenda. 

I call it like I see it when it comes to science, and as I see it, the Sutherland Institute is AWOL (Along Way Out to Lunch) on its interpretation of the results of a 2006 American Community Survey on immigration.

BYU’s Daily Universe reported on the Sutherland Institute’s findings. Here is some of what the Daily Universe reported on 08/31/2009:

A recent study released suggests that the influx of Hispanic immigrants into Utah is strengthening marriage in the Beehive State.

The Sutherland Institute, a Utah-based research organization, released a study comparing Utah citizens and illegal immigrants. The study analyzed factors such as hours worked per week, English fluency, state inmate population and marriage comparisons.

The study showed that the “marriage decisions of non-citizen Hispanics suggest illegal immigrants are strengthening the family in Utah.” The data, from the 2006 American Community Survey, showed that in Utah, 66.6 percent of adult citizens are married and 69.2 percent of adult non-citizen Hispanics are married.

Derek H. Monson, a policy analyst for Sutherland and lead author of the publication, said . . . “According to our research, undocumented immigrants are continuing valuable cultural trends that will in turn help strengthen other marriages by association.”

In addition to comparing marriage rates, the study compared Utah citizen and Hispanic non-citizen divorce rates. The study found that of the adult citizens in Utah, 9 percent are divorced, while non-citizen Hispanics have a divorce rate of 3.1 percent.

“The more successful marriages there are, particularly in a world of high divorce rates, the stronger the institution of marriage will be,” Monson said.

So what is wrong with the Sutherland Institute’s study on illegal immigration and marriage? There are two major problems. 

First, I obtained a copy of the 2006 American Community Survey (from which the Sutherland Institute drew its conclusions) and found that it did not collect data on immigration status, thus generalizations to illegal immigrants are not justified. Yet the Sutherland Institute spun the demographic data to make it sound like the results could be extended to illegal immigrants. 

Second, the Sutherland report states that the institution of marriage is strengthened by having more illegal immigrants because they have fewer divorces. Hmm? Since when did divorce rates become an appropriate barometer for measuring respect for marriage? I don’t know about you, but I know a lot of divorced people who highly respect marriage, which is why they tend to get married again. Divorce rates are more a reflection of marital conflict and cohesion than they are a reflection of respect for the institution of marriage. 

To make legitimate conclusions about whether illegal immigrants in Utah are strengthening the institution of marriage, researchers would have to do at least three things: (a) define what it means to ‘strengthen the institute of marriage’; (b) adequately find ways to measure ‘strengthening the institute of marriage’ (called an operationalization); and (c) collect data on those measures from a sufficiently random sample of illegal immigrants. 

The Sutherland Institute did none of these things. It spun the 2006 American Community Survey data to make the claim that illegal immigrants are “saving” marriage in Utah. This blunder reflects either political bias or insufficient understanding of research methodology, or both. Either way, no good.
 
Google Analytics