Doctrine vs. Policy vs. Tradition

Two nights ago, Michelle and I were in Institute and were discussing Mosiah 9-16 and got on the discussion of the wicked traditions of the fathers of the Lamanites. Which led to a discussion of how there are a lot of church "traditions" that didn't have any foundation in doctrine and we need to be careful not to confuse the two, although many times they don't cause any contention.

I brought up the complication of church policies, which are not technically doctrine, because they aren't necessarily world wide, nor are simply traditions, because they do come as instruction from our church leaders and are to be followed. They also are much more likely to change over time.

A couple church policies that first came to mind are: 1) Blacks not receiving the priesthood. It wasn't ever a doctrine, but a church policy. 2) Missionaries outside the polynesian islands are not to wear lava lavas, but they can in the islands, as well as wearing sandals. 3) Temple workers are not to have beards. 4) Priesthood holders wearing white shirts while passing the sacrament. 5) Taking the sacrament with the right hand.

So not doing these things doesn't invalidate them (when related to an ordinance). And blacks that received the priesthood before them not receiving the priesthood became policy were not stripped of their priesthood.

So your thoughts on the importance of doctrine vs. policy vs. tradition, or just thoughts on the whole deal please! And if I made any mistakes, please correct me!

Church article on Muhammad

The following is an e-mail from Christian Johnson.  I thought it could use some more visibility.


Family and Loved ones,




I think you all will really like this talk. One thought I had while reading it was that we as Latter day Saints have no reason to hide or protect ourselves from other religion’s views. If we reach out to others, I believe the spirit will help us discern truth wherever it may be. We can be resonators of truth wherever we go. This is the way in which the Lord’s work touches others, it builds off of the gospel truths that individuals already have. President Hunter said, “We seek to enlarge the circle of love and understanding among all the peoples of the earth. Thus we strive to establish peace and happiness, not only within Christianity but among all mankind.”



I really like this statement. “As early as 1855, at a time when Christian literature generally ridiculed Muhammad as the Antichrist and the archenemy of Western civilization, Elders George A. Smith (1817–75) and Parley P. Pratt (1807–57) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles delivered lengthy sermons demonstrating an accurate and balanced understanding of Islamic history and speaking highly of Muhammad’s leadership. Elder Smith observed that Muhammad was “descended from Abraham and was no doubt raised up by God on purpose” to preach against idolatry. He sympathized with the plight of Muslims, who, like Latter-day Saints, found it difficult “to get an honest history” written about them. Speaking next, Elder Pratt went on to express his admiration for Muhammad’s teachings, asserting that “upon the whole, … [Muslims] have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations.””



Joseph Smith said, “The Prophet Joseph Smith, in one of his most eloquent pronouncements on tolerance and compassion, encouraged the Saints to expand their vision of the human family, to view people of other faiths and cultures as our Heavenly Father does and not according to the “narrow, contracted notions of men.” He taught that the Father will take complex personal, political, and social circumstances into account at the last day and render final judgment based on a divine, merciful perspective that surpasses our limited human understanding:”



http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=bbaba1615ac0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Have a wonderful day everyone.




Love,

Christian

Ecclesiastes

I know I've read Ecclesiastes before, but I guess this is the first time I am really paying attention to it. I am wondering if anyone else has found it to be as bizarre as I do. It seems nearly as useless as the Song of Solomon. Every few chapters there will be a one-verse sort of truism, but nothing that hasn't already been said in Proverbs. Mostly it just seems like endless repetitions of "All is vanity. Nothing matters. Women are pretty much evil. Wisdom is great! Except that it doesn't matter because whether you are punished or rewarded is absolutely random and nothing you do makes any difference because all is vanity. It's better to be dead than alive."

Please, if anyone sees this book differently, let me know how, because it's sort of depressing me every time I have my scripture study for the last week. And if you do agree, let me know so I don't have to feel so alone. :)

Independence Day

This last weekend I have come to the conclusion that I much prefer people referring to the 4th of July by its real name, Independence Day. There is a reason we are celebrating and lighting off fireworks. It is because the forefathers of our nation declared their independence from Great Britain in a move to establish a land of freedom. To me, it is along the same lines as calling Christmas X-mas. It takes the reason out of the title. So all in favor of making a more concentrated effort to call the 4th of July Independence Day signify with an Aye.

The Great Health Care Debate

I know you guys will get the hang of this sooner or later.  Until then, I will shamelessly transfer mass distributed e-mails to postings on this blog.  I received a forward from Mom which included a clipping from the The Spokesman-Review March 28, 2010 page 85 entitled Health Law's Heavy Impact by Paul Guppy.  The article begins with a classic Speaker Pelosi quote, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it..."  It then goes on to list some penalties and taxes that can alleged be expected from the Obama Health Care Bill in the coming years.  Included with the clipping was the following text of unknown authorship:

Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions are now subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax? The bulk of these new taxes don’t kick in until 2013 (presumably after Obama’s re-election). You can thank Nancy, Harry and Barack and your local Democrat Congressman for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Is this “Hope & Change” great or what? We can vote the bums out in November and demand that they eliminate the bill or at the very least defund it. Then in 2012 repeal it.

Here, then, is Micaela's response to the e-mail:

This is not actually correct. According to snopes, this piece of the bill only affects you if: you sell your home for a PROFIT above the capital gains threshold of $250K per individual or $500K per couple...then you pay the additional 3.8% on any gain over this threshold.

For example, if a couple filing jointly earns over $250K per year (or an individual earning more than $125K) sells their a $2 million home and makes a $750,000 profit, they would be responsible for paying the 3.8% tax on the $250,000 over the capital gains threshold of $500,000, for a total of $9500.

Snopes states that the median sales price of existing single-family homes in the U.S. was $170,700 in March of 2010, and that roughly 1.5% of all U.S. households earn above $250,000. You may or may not agree with the new tax, but we should at least be clear about who it applies to; certainly no one I know.

Liz then responded with this comment:

Thanks Micaela for finding out the detail. When I read it I wondered, because if it had been a straight forward 3.8% tax it seems like we would have heard about it before now.

As for me, I am more interested in the broader debate on the issue of mandated health insurance than on the specifics of how portions of the bill will be funded.  Near the end of the clipped article Paul Guppy writes "...Washington has joined 12 other states in a lawsuit challenging the federal government's power to force state residents to buy a product - insurance - from private companies."

This is the point on which I am personally conflicted.  What is the ethical ramification of this law?  Is it just to require private citizens to purchase health insurance?  How is this any different from the requirement to purchase auto insurance?  What else should the federal government mandate for the greater good of its citizens?  Why should I, through the federal government, be involved in the process by which my neighbor pays his doctor for medical care?  Is this a legitimate restriction of their liberty?

Here are my thoughts on the subject.  The purpose of laws is to prevent innocent people from being harmed by the actions or inactions of others.  However, all laws must be weighed against the extent to which they remove a person's liberty.  In the case of auto insurance, the law only requires that a driver be insured against the damage they might do to another's property with their car while driving on public streets.  This is a very specific circumstance.  Most people who have insurance will pay for additional coverage, such as for their own property, but the law does not require that.  The only way I can see justifying a mandate on personal health insurance is if you also require that I pay for your health care in the event that you do not.  But this opens a whole other debate which I don't have the energy for right now.

~A

Babies

Ok.  Here is a test to see who is paying attention.  We had our 17 week ultrasound today and it looks like we are having a boy.  Any name suggestions?

~A

State Cold Wars

Since Arizona's recent passing of their infamous immigration law there have been quite alot of unexpected responses.  In my own state of Colorado there are at least 2 organizations I have heard of who have tried to ban their members from travelling to Arizona in protest of the law.  Who are these radical groups?  The City of Boulder, and Denver Public Schools.  ???  Arizona beware...your tourism dollars are at risk! 

At any rate, I'm not posting this simply to air my incredulity at the actions of a few of my fellow Coloradans.  Mom sent around a forward attributed to Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen which I traced to an online journal.  I wanted to post our conversation and get all of your feedback.  So, here it is:
_
_

Mom:

I looked at Snopes and found no rebuttal of this information.  <>

Ammon:

Here is the original article on TucsonCitizen.com: http://tucsoncitizen.com/the-cholla-jumps/2010/05/01/state-senator-sylvia-allen-responds-to-sb1070/.  I always like to read the comments of readers to get some more varied opinions on articles.

Mom:

Thanks, Ammon. It was interesting to read the comments of others. What do you think about her message?

Ammon:

I do wish she would have been a little more specific about what the law said. It seemed like most of the article was taken up in why a law was needed and the objections of the opposition rather than what the law is trying to do and why that will solve the problems they are facing. There seemed to be somewhat of a disconnect between what she was saying about illegal crossings hurting those living on the borders and what the law would actually do (empowering law enforcement to verify legal status during routine traffic stops?) It seemed to me that if some rancher was having thousands of people move through his land every day that law enforcement could go to his ranch and verify this and do something about those people as they are entering, or follow them and see where they are getting help to transition into society. Also the same thing where ranchers are saying there are military operations, or clear and regular drug activity, that could be verified and those people could be treated like any other criminal organization rather than well meaning immigrants who sees no other way to improve their life.
_
_

So, anyone else want to chime in?  Jay, are you perhaps more tuned into the border issues that the rest of us?  

~A

Domestic Terror

I heard a snippet of comment today on the radio. I think it was from an FBI guy and it was relating to the second amendment and the legal purchasing of guns, probably motivated by the recent bombing attempt in Times Square. The basic gist was that he thought that any person on a terrorist watch list, or the like, ought to be prohibited from legally purchasing firearms. I am really not sure how I feel about the issue...

Currently, the second amendment guarantees the right to purchase arms for anyone who has not been convicted of a crime, or something like that. When I first heard the comment I was inclined to agree with him, but then I got to thinking about the intent behind the amendment, and wasn't sure we ought spread such a wide net. There is no constitutional definition of a suspected terrorist. I suppose that if the government were to go corrupt to a point that good people were motivated to rise up against it, those people would be considered terrorists by that government. So how do you word a law that will protect the rights of good, moral people trying to defend their moral existence, and still prevent evil people from obtaining weapons?

I do not believe that our representative government is broken. I don't think that anyone who were to engage in violent acts against our current government system would be justified in doing so, but as a student of history I can conceive of such a time. Our forefathers lived through such a time, and gave us the second amendment so that hopefully we would never again fall into such a state. I think that needs to be seriously considered before any changes be made to our laws. On the other hand, I'm all for making it difficult for people to hurt us.

Any thoughts on how to resolve the two sides?

~A

Beauty

After this last General Conference, I was talking to Michelle on the topic of beauty. And especially what we would teach our children about it. Instead of beauty being dependent on what we put on our body, our body itself is beautiful. Not in what we show off, but intrinsically. And even more than make up, or flattering clothes, as we keep out bodies fit and active, clean and organized, we shall be comely. God has made each and every one of us, and God doesn't make mistakes. Just think of Mahana. What a difference was made in simply cleaning up, taking care of her self made. It also definitely helps that someone else saw her beauty too. Another important part of raising up children with a healthy self image.

I know that clean hair, clean face, regular showers and deodorant, a clean hair cut, well groomed face (with or without facial hair), a body that is kept in shape by regular activity and good eating habits, will do more to bring out our beauty than anything we put on our body, or how much we show it off.

One thought I've had recently that has reoccured in some things I've seen/read (books, movies, media, etc) is one of the main themes of Atlas Shrugged. Its the concept that another's need obligates your action. Another way to put it is that the actions of others can be your fault if you could act to stop it, but don't. One example is if someone puts a gun to your best friend's head and says, "If you don't give me your money, I will pull the trigger." And if you don't, the previous stated logic implies that you are responsible for your friend's death. Another situation: If you are driving along and there is a homeless man on the side of the road with no food and you drive by and don't give them food or money to get food, it is your fault that they are starving. This is a lie of Satan that keeps people debilitated with undeserved guilt and enables those who would exploit the kindness of others. A.k.a. Moochers. This can be extended further to real life situations. Right now there is a national healthcare bill being greatly discussed. One of the main tenants of the bill is that everyone has the right to health care. This implies that someone who can is OBLIGATED to provide it for them. And if they don't, they hold the guilt of the sick person on their shoulders. This is a lie and violates one of the most basic human rights to self-determination of actions. The choice of inaction should never be illegal where no compact for action has been voluntarily entered into.

This does not mean that we should not voluntarily help those in need. But voluntary choice is necessary, and compulsion is wrong. That is all.

A Quick Political Thought

The American system of Government which not only allows for discent, but really relies on it, is the thing that makes this nation great. If something is a good idea, it can be heard and tried. If it is a bad idea, those who oppose can voice that and bring about change. I read a New York Times article recently about various states passing various laws which challenge, or even blatantly oppose various Federal regualtions, (undoubtedly leading to years of litigation and millions of dollars spent{wasted?}). It was very interesting. Strong, independant states make this the greatest nation in the world. Maybe not the most efficient...but there is always a price to pay for greatness.

I would much rather see our Civil Wars carried out in the courtroom than on the battlefield.

~A

Proud to be an American???

So, I recently received this picture in an e-mail, and thought it was worth posting. After looking at something like this, do you respond, "That's right, we are #1!" or do you think, "This is so true, and I am devastated to be living in such a nation of egotistically ethnocentric ignoramuses"?

Post One

So, this is the first post.

I was listening to the radio today and heard an interesting discussion about college funds. The basic opinion was that saving for your children's education should not be done until you have fully funded your own retirement account. The rationalle being that there are many ways to pay for college (part time/summer jobs, scholarships, grants, student loans, etc.), and only one way to pay for retirement (you put money in a savings account).

In particular, it was advised to avoid special government college savings accounts (529 plans) especially when your kids are young. If you put tons of money in and don't end up needing it because your child is a good student and earned a full ride scholarship, you will have to pay penalties to use that money for something else.

I just checked out some info on savingforcollege.com and they say that if a beneficiary dies, or gets a scholarship that you can file for an exception and avoid the penalty, but that there are still tax issues involved, because non-qualified distributions will be counted as taxable income in the year they are used. So I suppose that if you took $50,000 not needed for school and used it as a downpayment on a house, that would increase your taxable income by $50,000, thrusting you into a higher tax bracket for that year instead of spreading it out over several years at a lower tax rate.

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting discussion, and would like to hear other thoughts on the subject. Addy is only 3, so my practical experience is very shallow compared to many of you.

~A