Mormon Apocalypse Not

So the editor of a virulent anti-Mormon website, which I will not link to or reference here, has filed a legal complaint in England against Thomas S. Monson under the British fraud statute passed in 2006. According to the suit, Monson has deliberately perpetuated seven separate lies for the intent of bilking two British citizens out of ten percent of their income via tithing payments to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The plaintiff insists that this stunt will result in a “Mormon apocalypse” that will cause the entire church to implode from within, leaving nothing but theological rubble in its wake.


The supposedly fraudulent premises that President Monson used to get his hands on tithing receipts are as follows:

    1. The Book of Abraham is a literal translation of Egyptian papyri by Joseph Smith.
    2. The Book of Mormon was translated from ancient gold plates by Joseph Smith, is the most correct book on earth and is an ancient historical record.
    3. Native Americans are descended from an Israelite family which left Jerusalem in 600 B.C.
    4. Joseph and Hyrum Smith were killed as martyrs in 1844 because they would not deny their testimony of the Book of Mormon.
    5. The Illinois newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor had to be destroyed because it printed lies about Joseph Smith.
    6. There was no death on this planet prior to 6,000 years ago.
    7. All humans alive today are descended from just two people who lived approximately 6,000 years ago.

The plaintiff seems to be chomping at the bit to get each of these statements to be considered by a court of law, which would presumably find them demonstrably false. The problem is that each has its problems, and many aren’t accurate representations of what Thomas Monson and the church over which he presides teaches.

Contention #1 is the “smoking gun” for anti-Mormons, because fragments of the papyri Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham turned up in the 1960s, and they consist of excerpts from the Book of Breathings, and ancient Egyptian funerary scroll. The problem is that they represent a tiny fraction of the documents in Joseph’s possession, and they aren’t part of the so-called “long scroll” that contempory witnesses pegged as the source for the Book of Abraham. The Church does not teach that these scraps are the source of the Book of Abraham, which means the contention stems from a false premise.

Contention #2 requires the plaintiff to prove a negative, which is all but impossible. In Joseph Smith’s favor, there were 11 witnesses who saw the physical plates, and there is much internal and external evidence that suggests that The Book of Mormon is indeed a historical document, evidence that critics either dismiss or ignore. As for the book being the most “correct” on earth, critics often seize on grammatical errors therein to prove this a false statement, when, in fact, the case for the book’s “correctness” rests on the idea that, in Joseph Smith’s words, a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” At issue is the definition of “correctness,” and legalistic word parsing ignores the context and the clear intention of the statement.

Contention #3 again attempts to prove a negative based on faulty assumptions about DNA studies that have failed to produce evidence of Semitic genetic markers in Native American populations. Such studies are severely limited in what they can definitively conclude, and they do not constitute proof that Lehi didn’t exist. And if Lehi did exist and has any living descendants, modern genetic science suggests that all Native American could therefore claim him as a common ancestor.

Contention #4 again takes a legalistic approach to the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Those who murdered them in cold blood did so for a host of reasons, but surely their hatred for the men was fueled by their stubborn insistence that they were engaged in the work of the Lord, and the Book of Mormon was at the center of their ministry. Had Joseph and Hyrum abandoned the Book of Mormon prior to their incarceration, it is unlikely they would have lost their lives at the hands of a bloodthirsty mob. Believers who therefore chose to characterize them as martyrs are well within their rights to do so.  In any case, the definition of martyrdom is entirely subjective.

Contention #5 is utterly bizarre. Prominent, faithful Mormon historians, notably Truman Madsen and Richard Bushman, have characterized Joseph’s destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor as a very bad thing.  Ben B. Banks, an emeritus General Authority and my former mission president, gave a 2006 devotional at BYU Idaho in which he stated that “both friends and enemies of the Prophet now agree that the act, legal or not, was unwise and inflammatory and was the major immediate factor that culminated in the Prophet’s death.” If a high-ranking church leader can criticize this event with impunity,  surely it’s ludicrous to suppose that support for the Expositor’s destruction is a key tenet of Latter-Day Saint teaching.

Contention #6 is not Church doctrine. To quote Brigham Young: “whether [God] made [the Earth] in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject.”  Yes, there have been church leaders, notably Joseph Fielding Smith, who have believed this, but there have been many  others, notably David O. McKay, who have not. The Church does not teach this as doctrine and does not require members to believe it.

Contention #7 is an indictment of the vast majority of Judeo/Christian thinking for thousands of years. Good luck with that.
That, of course, illustrates the central problem with this suit.  You want a court to affirm that the Adam and Eve story isn’t scientifically verifiable? Then how about Christ’s resurrection? Mohammad’s ascension? Moses parting the Red Sea? Every fundamental doctrine of every major world religion would therefore be a basis for fraud based on lack of empirical evidence.

All of that, of course, is tangential to this lawsuit’s real problem, which was summarized by a friend of mine who posted a link to this complain of Facebook.

“So this is what Thomas S. Monson will have to answer to in London,” my friend wrote. “Knowing deceit. ”

In other words, it’s not enough to prove that the Book of Mormon is hooey and that there was no Adam and Eve, despite both of those being unprovable negatives. No, to win this case, this guy has to prove that Thomas S. Monson knows that the Book of Mormon is hooey, and yet he lies about it in order to “to make a gain for himself,” to quote from the complaint. He also, apparently, has to prove that the reason he champions the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor is because he’s trying to bilk people out of their tithing dollars.

I asked my friend to explain this to me. When, for instance, does the deception begin? High-ranking church leaders start as low-ranking church leaders who genuinely believe this stuff. At what point do they abandon their integrity to actively perpetuate a lie? Do they discover the church is a fraud when they’re called as bishops? Stake presidents? Area authorities? Or do you have to become an apostle in order to get in on the secret – that this is all a scheme to line the pockets of the guys at the top?

Sure the integrity these men have at the lower levels doesn’t just vanish as they age. If they were, indeed, called upon to deliberetaly perpetuate a hoax,  their consciences would eat them alive. And yet, none of them waver in their commitment to the lie. And they seem serene and content rather than fraught with guilt. And Thomas Monson is the serenist and contentist of the whole bunch.

If this is the best the anti-Mormons have in the way of sparking a Mormon apocalypse, then they must be pretty depressed. This case is going nowhere, and everyone knows it. What mystifies me is the fact that so many who hate the church are willing to believe the worst of those who continue to support it.

Sustaining the Fallible

My briefly resurgent acting career led to many backstage discussions on a variety of topics, but religion usually came to the forefront. On one occasion, I was asked how I could support a church where the policy is that “when the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done.”

I responded by saying that wasn’t the policy, and that I didn’t believe that.

“No, no, I’ve heard that over and over again through the years,” my debating partner said. “If that’s not the policy now, then they’ve changed it – which means it wasn’t inspired in the first place.”

So I took to Google, and I found the source for the quote in question. It comes from a 1945 church magazine, wherein the uncredited author states the following in a Ward Teaching message:

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.


What to make of this? For if this is true, then our leaders who get to think for us must be infallible.  But infallibility is at odds with the central doctrine of agency, which ensures that even the prophet has the freedom to make mistakes. To presume, then, that everything our leaders say flows directly from the mind of the Almighty is to suggest that at some point, either agency is extracted from the souls of the church hierarchy, or they achieve perfection in mortality.

Since neither of those is a workable possibility, that statement must be wrong.

Lest you think me faithless in coming to that conclusion, I share the concurring opinion of President George Albert Smith, who was the president of the church at the time this statement appeared in a church publication. In a letter written to a Unitarian minister criticizing the idea of mindless Mormons, President Smith had this to say:

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders.” However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church… [which] gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.”

I shared that with my debating partner, who scoffed at the idea. “Do you get to pick and choose, then? Who gets to decide what’s true and what isn’t?”

 We do.

Not only do we get to decide, we have the responsibility to decide. And God will hold us, not our leaders, accountable for the choices we make.

My debating partner saw this as a cop out. I see it, however, as the central principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Let’s cite a practical example. Our leaders have taught us that it is essential that we keep the Sabbath day holy. It’s one of the Ten Commandments; Christ Himself reiterated its importance during His mortal ministry, and modern revelation commands us to do it, too. So how do we go about it?

Well, back in the time of Moses, most of the thinking on the subject was done for you. Specific rules were prescribed that outlined exactly what you could and couldn’t do.  By the time Jesus arrived on the scene, the rules had been codified to the point of absurdity – you can take X number of steps on the Sabbath, for instance, and only eat eggs laid on the Sabbath by a “laying hen.” Jesus rejected all that – he “fulfilled” the law, meaning that the principle of the law was still in effect, but you were responsible for how you obeyed it. You keep the Sabbath Day holy, and you justify to God why your choices make that happen.

No leader stands between you and Christ. You, personally, are accountable for every choice you make.

Of course, that’s not just true of you and me. That’s true of Thomas S. Monson, too – and every other prophet who has ever lived. If it were not so, then agency would have no meaning, and the purpose of this life would be thwarted.

I thought about that as I read this essay by a guy named Ganesh Cherian at, a guy who probably ought to know better. He’s a former bishop and a current high counsellor who read the LDS Church’s brilliant new essays on difficult subjects and is now experiencing a crisis of faith because, whether he realizes it or not, he believes both the Church and its leaders are supposed to be infallible.

Consider Cherian’s reaction to the essay about the Book of Mormon translation process, which discusses the various accounts of the translation which suggest that Joseph used a seerstone in addition to the Urim and Thummim. “How was I to know that a stone he found in a well was instrumental in this process of translation?” he laments. “Every picture, or  video I have ever seen has him sitting at a table with the gold plates before him pouring over these ‘curious characters’ by the light of a candle!”

So now it’s not just infallible prophets Cherian expects – it’s infallible pictures and videos! Never mind that there is no information in that essay that hasn’t be readily available for over a century to anyone interested in looking for it, and that the stuff he finds so problematic has been mentioned in General Conference and discussed intently in a variety of forums. The fact that he passed along his own uninformed opinion is evidence that the church is engaged in disinformation. Apparently, Cherian’s error is the Church’s fault.

Or try this on for size:

“As recently as June I reasoned with a friend that polygamy was needed because there were so many more women than men at the time,” this guy writes, noting that it is “an argument that the polygamy essay seems now to repudiate.”

Well, yeah. It’s an argument that’s also repudiated by the 132nd Section of the Doctrine and Covenants, which explains precisely why polygamy was practiced and has been in print for over 150 years. The article quotes John A. Widtsoe’s 1945 statement that debunks this Mormon folk legend, so it’s not as if the Church has suddenly shifted gears radically. Yet, once again, his lazy acceptance of a hoary folk story is somehow a sign of the Church’s mendacity. “I love my church and credit where I am in my life to years of church service,” he says, “but I cannot ignore the dishonesty.”

Dishonesty? Whose dishonesty? All the information that shocked him has been around forever. Every issue Cherian finds problematic stems from his own mistakes and misunderstandings. It is likely that Cherian will continue to compound his error, as his essay makes it clear that he expects infallibility from his leaders and his church. “I understand how essential it is to ‘sustain’ the Brethren,” he says,  “but these days I live with a caution that those ideals that I believe today could be dismissed by future First Presidencies.”

Well, of course they could be, but its unlikely they will. It’s doubtful that First Presidencies will dismiss genuine ideals – don’t expect the Law of Chastity to go away anytime soon. But will future First Presidencies gain greater insight and change church policies in the future? Of course! Isn’t that the reason we have a First Presidency? Living prophets guide the church through the times in which they live, and the church adapts accordingly. Line upon line, precept on precept. If Jesus went from “grace to grace,” as the Doctrine and Covenants said He did, we should certainly expect his church to do likewise.

Yet are these leaders going to make mistakes along the way? Of course they are. They don’t forfeit their agency when they accept high callings, nor should we expect them to. But so many do expect them to, and that’s the problem.

So many people who find themselves doubting and then abandoning the church feel they’ve stumbled on some great secret when the discover their leaders are fallible. This has always been the case. In the days of Joseph Smith, people left the church because the prophet misspelled their names in revelations. Joseph, and all of his successors, have repeatedly made it clear that they are imperfect human beings, but the expectations of others won’t allow them the right to fallibility that they claim for themselves.

Returning to my backstage banter with my debating partner, the question was then raised as to how I could sustain a leader if I know they make mistakes. Could I sustain them and follow them even if what I know what they’re asking me to do is wrong?

Well, yes and no. There’s wrong and there’s wrong.  I’ve never been asked by a church leader to violate the principles of the gospel. I have, however, been asked to do things with which I disagree.

For example.

I had one bishop who addressed our elder’s quorum with his concern that some of us were not adhering to what he called “the uniform of the priesthood.” He insisted that to wear anything other than a white shirt to church was an act of disrespect. (At the time, I had a black shirt that I thought looked really cool, and I had almost worn that they day he raised this issue.) He told us we all ought to wear white shirts to church from there on out.

The members of the quorum reacted in a number of different ways.

Some, who wore white shirts regularly and didn’t need to do anything to come into compliance with this requirement, took it in stride and paid little attention. Others, including the bishop’s counselor, took it as a point of pride to wear colored shirts from that point forward to demonstrate that the bishop had overstepped his bounds. (None of those who did this, incidentally, were disciplined in any way for ignoring the bishop’s counsel.)

Then there was me.

I thought, and still think, that this is a silly bit of nonsense. The Lord is not offended by colored textiles, and this struck me as a bit of cultural nonsense that the bishop had accepted as being more important than it really was. I disagreed with his counsel.

But from that point forward, I wore a white shirt to church.

Why? Because this bishop was a good man, and I sustained him. And he was a righteous man who loved and served the Lord, and he was in a position of leadership that deserved my respect. And if all I had to do to show my support of this man was don a white shirt, it was the least I could do.

We are not supposed to sustain church leaders in spite of their fallibility. We sustain them because of their fallibility. Because they’re imperfect, they need us to help them and bear them up, not criticize them for every misstep. Sustaining the fallible is the point of having a church in the first place. That’s the central purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior expects us to love others as he has loved us. He has loved us knowing perfectly just how imperfect we are. When we expect perfection from others, even those at the highest levels of the church, we are not being remotely Christlike.

There. Stallion has spoken, and the thinking has been done.

(That’s a joke.)

The Settling of Science

In my real life job, I teach prisoners and parolees to identify the consequences of their behavior. To illustrate that some consequences are non-negotiable, I propose a bet.

In this bet, I hold a book, and I say that I’m going to let it go. If the book falls down, they have to pay me fifty bucks. But if the book falls up, then they get the fifty bucks. To date, no one has taken the bet.

Why not? Simple. The science of gravity is settled.

Nobody is willing to argue that the book might fall upward, because the mechanics and properties of gravity are verifiable and replicable, and have been proven by years of study and direct experience. If I want to drop a bowling ball off the top of the Empire State Building, a scientist can calculate precisely how long the ball will take before it hits the ground. Other factors may come into play – wind resistance, say, or some foreign object interrupting the ball’s fall – but the effect of gravity on the ball’s trajectory isn’t really open to debate, and the velocity can be reliably determined with a great degree of accuracy.

That, see, is how science is settled. Not by fiat; not by some bullying, fallacious argument from authority. It is settled by a consistent series of observed results.

By that standard, those who use names to belittle critics of anthropogenic climate change theory fail miserably. Calling people “deniers” and censoring anyone who dares to question global warming orthodoxy is indicative of a subject that people are trying to “settle” by means other than science. There are no “gravity deniers” because gravity is impossible to deny, and anyone could confront a deluded soul unwilling to accept Newtonian physics with empirical evidence that they’re wrong.

The global warming crowd, on the other hand, can’t do the same. In fact, they do just the opposite. They boast of their unanimous “consensus” in order to silence legitimate inquiry in the hopes that you’ll overlook the fact that their consensus has been demonstrably wrong for more than a decade and a half.  Yet I’m the one branded a denier, a heretic, a troglodyte, because I refuse to allow the credentials of the scientific community to persuade me to overlook the facts.

Here are some facts. Or, if you prefer, these are genuinely settled science.

1. Global warming stopped seventeen years ago.

2. None of the alarmists in the scientific community predicted that there would be no global warming from 1997 until 2014.

3. There is no unanimity among scientists or anyone else on some of the most critical tenets of climate change alarmism.

4. None of the proposals on the table to combat the (non-existent) rise in global temperatures would lower global temperatures. they would, however, keep billions of people in developing nations mired in poverty. 

Let’s address each of these in turn.

1. Global warming stopped seventeen years ago.

This is true, but it’s also heresy. Notice my word choice – the politically correct verb to describe the nearly duo-decadal absence of global warming is “paused,” not “stopped.” Inherent in the word “pause,” you see, is an assumption of temporariness. Yes, the world hasn’t warmed for 17 years, they tell you, but there’s no doubt it’s going to pick up again.

This from the boys who cried wolf who were off about how much warming there would be between ’97 and today by 300% or so. 


So, tell me again – how on earth is it “settled” that warming will pick up again? It’s the opposite of “settled.” The observed facts contradict the predictions. (Remember, gravity works every time.) I don’t care how many degrees you have, Michael Mann or James Hansen. I don’t care how famous you are, Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio. You were flat out, dead wrong these past seventeen years. What credential could possibly compensate for an error this huge?

2. None of the alarmists in the scientific community predicted that there would be no global warming from 1997 until 2014. 

These are the people “settling” the science –  the people who were, you know, flat out wrong. The people who demand we make radical changes to industrialized societies that will have devastating economic impacts on the poorest of the poor based on demonstrably flawed climate models which didn’t accurately reflect the past but must be militantly obeyed without question as we dismantle the future of developing nations chasing a chimera that left the scene in the last century.

3. There is no unanimity among scientists or anyone else on some of the most critical tenets of climate change alarmism.  

“No, that’s not true! 97%! 97%! 97%!”

That number is repeated, mantra-like, to silence all skeptics. 97% were wrong about the 17-year absence of warming in the past, but who are you to challenge them about the future?

I’ve already addressed that, but let’s break that 97% figure down a bit more, shall we?

The figure comes from one guy’s website, where he ran an analysis of 12,000 peer-reviewed papers, 97% of which claimed that humanity is having an impact on the climate. 

Badabing, badaboom. There’s your consensus.

So 97% think that humans are the dominant factor in climate change? Well, no. Quite the opposite. The website guy admits that, while 97% acknowledge some human impact, less than 50% of those papers maintain that humanity is the primary driver of said warming.  That’s hardly a consensus, but even that’s misleading. “Less than 50%” tacitly implies something in the 40-45% range. How much less than 50%?

Try 65 papers out of the 12,000 reviewed. 

65. Out of 12,000.

For you fans of settled mathematics, that is, indeed, less than fifty percent. In fact, it’s less than one percent. Yet every screeching news story, every Al Gore rant, every high priest of alarmism demanding that climate change heretics be burned at the stake – or disposed of by some more carbon-friendly means – is pulling a bait and switch, pretending that 97% is less than 1%, and those asking questions are going against settled science.

This makes my blood boil, thereby increasing my personal impact on the climate.

See, I’m part of that 97% consensus. I think humanity has an impact. I even think I, personally, have an impact. But I’m not arrogant or asinine to assume that when I turn on my heater on a cold January night, my contribution to the climate is greater than that big, fiery ball of flame that floods the earth with light and heat.

4. None of the proposals on the table to combat the (non-existent) rise in global temperatures would lower global temperatures.

Cap and Trade. The Kyoto Protocols. A direct carbon tax. Climate reparations for poor countries. All of these have been put forward as “solutions” to the artificial crisis of global warming. They’re each different in their approaches, but they all have one thing in common: not one of them would actually reduce global temperatures. True, we have no observed facts, but even the proponents of these misguided policies have publicly conceded that they would do nothing to the climate. You want consensus? That’s consensus. Yet these abominations are still pushed as options, even though they represent a regressive economic burden of trillions of dollars to be borne by the world’s poor.

These proposals are not only ineffective; they’re immoral.

Honestly, you want to tell an African nation with a GDP 1/100th of the United States that they can’t mine coal and drill for oil because some completely ineffectual international climate change protocol tells them they can’t? The benefits of development are prosperity, freedom and hope. That development is stifled by climate change proposals, which have the benefit of making the draftees feel morally superior while doing jack about the problem they’re designed to solve.

You back these proposals,  and you’re advocating that more people subsist and eke out their lives in grinding poverty. You pass these proposals, and you don’t prevent a theoretical warmer future. You do, however, ensure that more people die right now.

The more I watch this debate unfold, the angrier it makes me. There is no symbolic gesture, no “good start,” no “consensus” that justifies the deliberate oppression of the world’s poor. And that’s precisely what all current climate change “solutions” now on the table really are.

You want to settle the science, alarmists? Give me empirical facts, not flawed models. Show me a plethora of accurate predictions, not empty credentials. Justify your stupid, expensive, oppressive proposals by showing they’ll produce real benefits, not poverty and death.

I’ll settle for nothing less.

A (Reluctant) Capitalist Manifesto

I’m a capitalist, and so are you.

Now, you may find that statement offensive. It seems many capitalists don’t realize they’re capitalists, including My Esteemed Colleague, who has devoted a great deal of time and energy to championing the principles and ideology of the former Soviet Union. What he doesn’t realize, though, is that the Soviets were capitalists, too.The fact of the matter is that everyone who has ever set foot on this planet was and is a capitalist, regardless of the silly labels we all dress up in to make ourselves feel better.

We’re all capitalists not because we want to be, but because we have no other choice.

Keep in mind that no one is saying you have to be happy about being a capitalist. I often find it a downright miserable experience, myself. I’d much rather enjoy wealth without responsibility and live on a Caribbean cruise ship for the rest of my life. But no, capitalism requires me to get up in the morning and do something that somebody else is willing to pay for, even when, or especially when, it’s something I really, really don’t want to do.

It means I end up competing in the open market against people who are smarter, more skilled, better-looking, younger, and luckier than I am. It means I am routinely screwed over by my own incompetence or by the whims of fate, not necessarily in that order, but usually. Who wouldn’t prefer a world where such indignities weren’t necessary?

I’m not a capitalist because I dig capitalism. I rather hate it, actually. But I’m a capitalist because that’s how the world works.

Compare capitalism to any other natural law – gravity, for instance. Personally, I’m not a very big fan of gravity. I think flying without benefit of aircraft would be kind of neat, and gravity has broken my arm and back on occasions where I wasn’t mindful enough of its influence. But regardless of whatever vote we might take on repealing the law of gravity, it’s going to ever be with us. Hence, if we are going to live in a physical universe where gravity is more or less a constant, the sensible thing to do is make the most of it rather than rail against its injustices and inequities.

Capitalism operates on a similar principle.

Every economic system in the world boils down to the reality that people are rewarded for either what they have or what they can do. Redistributive systems designed to thwart capitalism invariably fail because they ignore that the wealth necessary to meet their utopian goals can only be generated by capitalistic means. Wealth redistribution only works when there’s wealth to redistribute, and wealth is only created when somebody uses their skills or resources to provide value to somebody else. When governments dilute the incentive to create wealth, they create more equality of outcome, but that equality is married inescapably to poverty. 

All that said, we have both gravity and airplanes. That’s not because airplanes foolishly try to ignore gravity, but rather incorporate the realities of gravitational principles into their designs. Similarly, people’s lives are improved when economic system recognize capitalistic realities and account for them in how they structure their societies. Thus redistribution is a poor substitute for wealth and job creation, and policies designed to use the market rather than subvert tend to result in a higher quality of living overall.

One other addendum. Too many members of the church think that capitalism is somehow divinely sanctioned, when, in fact, it’s anything but. It’s a reality, yes, but it’s the reality that exists solely because we live in a fallen world. In Eden, Adam and Eve didn’t have to be capitalists. It was only after they were expelled from paradise that suddenly the deal was that “in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground.” Capitalism was inflicted on us; it’s nothing to celebrate.

Yet after President Obama was reelected in 2012, an LDS Stake President addressed his congregation by lamenting the fact that this was a victory of “socialism over capitalism,” as if capitalism itself is a divine virtue. If that were the case, then we can expect capitalism to be the order of the day when the Savior returns. But he’s told us to seek a Zion society instead. In such societies, “the people are of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.” Communists have tried to replicate that without the righteousness and achieved lamentable results, but the goal is to get to a place where the curse of capitalism is finally lifted from us. Mormons who think capitalism is the bee’s knees ought to spend more time reading the Doctrine and Covenants and studying the United Order.

Until such time as we are righteous enough to live the higher law, capitalism is what we’re stuck with. We need to acknowledge that, even as we yearn for something better.

A Letter to Santa

Dear Santa,

How are you, my jolly friend? Not well, and not jolly, if this video you made is any indication.

First off, could you be more specific as to where this was filmed?

Every other movie where I’ve seen your digs has shown me bright, colorful, charming mansions with high ceilings and ample lighting. Yet there you are, sweating in some creepy, dank basement with water dripping everywhere and only a flashlight for illumination. I’m not quite sure how that works, given that the Weather Channel tells me the current temperature up around your parts is a balmy -15°F, and that it hasn’t been warm enough to melt anything for weeks on end.

Has your furnace gone haywire?

How else to explain your ragged appearance with your red coat hanging open and your sticky, soiled undershirt on full display? If the furnace is cranked up, that means your electricity is probably working, too. Why the flashlight? Where is the video crew getting the juice to power the camera you’re using?

Look, why don’t you go upstairs?

I think we’re supposed to presume that your workshop is washed out, or something like that, except your backdrop looks more like a subterranean bunker than high ground, and no doubt the strange, isolated tropical weather that’s put you out of business would’ve flooded that space first. So what gives? After all, you’re Santa Claus. Jolly ol’ St. Nicholas.

Sainthood is not compatible with dishonesty.

I hate to accuse you of skirting the truth. I really do. Your centuries of reindeer-fueled philanthropy have built you a stellar reputation, which is clearly what Greenpeace wanted to exploit by featuring you in this dreadful propaganda piece. The weird, Unabomber-meets-Blair-Witch setting you’ve created here isn’t the only thing that’s false in this video.

The bottom line is that you’ve got your facts all wrong.

“My home in the Arctic is fast disappearing,” you tell us. Except it isn’t. Ice in the arctic grew 29% in a single year. And down south, the Antarctic ice sheet is at a 36-year high and continues to grow. We got ice coming out our eyeballs, so maybe you should see a plumber about all that dripping.

Fact is, the globe hasn’t warmed at all for 15+ years or so. Even the alarmists at the UN have been forced to admit that. Your new friends at Greenpeace tend to respond to these awkward facts by citing the hoary 97% statistic that has been misrepresented to show unanimity among climate scientists that agree the planet is boiling over, and it’s all our fault. Except none of their models predicted the current decade-and-a-half pause in warming. So if 97% of scientists have now been proven wrong, what good is it to know that they’re all wrong together?

It seems none of these facts have deterred you from your alarmism. “Unless we all act urgently,” you warn us, everyone’s going to have “an empty stocking forevermore.” But even that’s bullplop. Scientists are 100% in agreement that there isn’t any proposal on the table that would actually lower global temperatures. So even if “we all act urgently,” the climate’s going to continue to do what it’s going to do. And what it’s going to do is change. It’s been changing for millions of years before humans appeared on the scene, and it will likely change for millions of years after we’re gone. The hubris of assuming that humanity has the power to set a global thermostat one way or the other is pretty galling, especially in light of how hopelessly wrong “the consensus” has been up to this point.

Sorry to beat up on you, Mr. Kringle, but what we’re left with here is an alarmist organization willing to lie repeatedly. Greenpeace resorts to threatening the demise of a fictional character to support their provably false premise, yet, somehow, it’s the Republicans who are “deniers” and “hostile to science. ” Not quite sure how that works.

I’d suggest coal in your stocking, Santa, but I know how Greenpeace feels about fossil fuels. But I just wanted to let you know that this creepy, sour video was a really stupid idea.


Little Stallion

P.S. I want a pretend horsey and a choo-choo train.  Also multiple fracking permits on BLM land.

Why is it okay to mock the Mormons?

Years ago, noted actor Dustin Hoffman played the role of Shylock in a Broadway production of Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice.” That generated a certain amount of controversy, given the fact that “The Merchant of Venice” is a decidedly anti-Semitic play. Shylock is nothing but a collection of hoary Jewish stereotypes, as well as a melodramatic stock villain a la Snidely Whiplash. It’s not hard to imagine audiences in Shakespeare’s day booing and hissing at him as he performed the Elizabethan equivalent of tying a damsel in distress to the railroad tracks.

But Hoffman, himself Jewish, was lauded for performing the role in a way that turned Shylock into a three-dimensional person, generating a degree of sympathy for the character and his cultural plight. Ever since then, every production of “The Merchant of Venice” has taken a similar approach, which is entirely appropriate. Modern audiences, to their credit, refuse to tolerate ignorant slander of groups of people because of their race or religion.

There is, however, at least one glaring exception.

I was watching a late night rerun of “The Simpsons,” in which Homer and his family find themselves in an indoor play place, with a huge slide that leads to a dark hole in the ground. “Where does that slide go?” Bart asks. The answer comes as we follow a young boy down the slide as it empties into a room filled with dead-eyed children wearing white shirts and ties and standing in rows. The boy finds himself wearing a white shirt and tie, too, and he hears a voice over a loudspeaker saying, “Welcome to the Mormon Church, America’s most respectable cult.”

Cue uproarious laughter.

My guess is that, unless you’ve seen that particular episode, this is the first you’re hearing about this snotty little dig at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The broadcast was not followed by protests or outrage. Members of the church who saw it took it in stride. I wonder if the same thing would’ve been true if Shylock–style stereotypes were hauled out of mothballs for a throwaway sitcom gag. There’s really no way of knowing, because no producer would ever do something so disrespectful to the Jewish community, and furthermore, no audience would find it funny. But when the Mormons are the butt of the joke, laughing is acceptable and indignation is absent.

If you doubt that, look no further than the Broadway stage, where an extraordinarily vulgar musical portraying Mormons as deluded, albeit well-intentioned imbeciles is the toast of New York, hauling in big box office and winning hordes of prestigious awards. Now imagine if the show were called “The Koran” instead of “The Book of Mormon,” and it depicted the Prophet Mohammed having zany adventures alongside some of his most dimwitted followers. How many Tonys do you think that would win?

My point in bringing this to light is not to lobby for Mormon victim status. To the contrary, there’s something positive about the fact that Mormons are now considered worthy of ridicule and no longer ignored. It’s also a credit to members of my church that the specter of violence is never raised when Mormons are mocked like this.

At the same time, I wonder if the people who would recoil at Shylock but laugh heartily at a performance rife with Mormon caricatures even notice the double standard. I would hope so, but I also know that it took hundreds of years before Shylock stopped being funny.

State of the Stallion

A moribund blog is not the product of a feeble mind. Or, that is to say, a feeble mind is not the only excuse for a moribund blog, nor should this blog in any way be used as evidence that my mind is not feeble. Capice?

Yes, it’s been over a month since I posted anything, and longer still since I posted anything without videos of pooping animals in them. My apologies. The fact is that any spare time devoted to writing has been directed toward my book, which is finally in the hands of an agent at the moment. It used to be in the hands of two agents, but one has turned it down via the following verbiage:

Thanks for giving us another shot at GODS, MONSTERS, AND JEFF DOWNEY. You’re certainly got a very original and intriguing premise here, and Jeff Downey is a likeable hero, but I’m afraid we weren’t feeling fully invested in his story overall. We’ll step aside, but thanks again for the look, and best of luck!

Hear that? They’ll “step aside.” They don’t want to stand in the way of the book’s greatness! At least, that’s how I’m trying to take this. The truth is that I think the book is now in strong enough shape to actually work, but I’m also so bone-tired of revising it that such weariness may now be showing in the latest drafts. If the other agent turns it down, I may sit on it for awhile before I can look at it with fresh eyes.

So now, for the first time in forever, I feel interested enough in writing something else that I’m taking a crack at blogging again. But what to blog about? I could inflict several stale pieces I’ve written that were rejected by the Deseret News, but they “stepped aside” from them because, frankly, they weren’t good. So I thought I’d start fresh and begin at the beginning.


Behold! I shall break my first annual, and perhaps last annual, State of the Unionesque pronouncements unto various categories, beginning from the broadest view and zooming in as we get closer to stuff.


Well, it’s kind of a mess. Isn’t that to be expected, though? From a religious perspective, we’re told that Christ will return to a wicked and debased world that has descended into utter chaos, so it’s not particularly surprising to see the descent in process. As I’ve considered this over the years, my temptation has been to be fatalistic – everything’s going to suck, so why fight it? Except that isn’t necessarily the case. The polarization between the world and God will mean that as the bad gets badder, the good will get gooder.

What this does mean, though, is that I find myself increasingly skeptical of political solutions that promise to stem the tide of suckiness. While I remain more conservative than liberal, I doubt the ability of any party or politician to stop or even slow the spiral into a world of utter crap. This doesn’t mean I’m nihilistic, but rather that God, not the state, is where I am placing my faith.


Interesting stuff happening on the homefront, no? Frequently I have lamented the utter ineptitude and small-mindedness of the GOP, and the government shutdown debacle had me convinced that Republicans had essentially resigned themselves to permanent regional minority status.

And then Obamacare came out and sucked far beyond anyone’s expectations of possible suckitude.

I find this fascinating, only because it’s becoming clear to all but the most stubbornly partisan leftists that Obamacare doesn’t work, nor can it work. I’m not just talking about the website, which may, eventually, sort of work. I’m talking about a system that combines all the waste of government bureaucracy with the most egregious excesses of the free market to produce the worst of all possible worlds. Never mind the hundreds of policies already canceled – wait until tens of millions of employer plans go down the drain when the business mandate finally kicks in. If you like it, you can’t keep it – and you’ll pay through the nose for lousier coverage.

I don’t think America is going to stand for that.

That shifts the political landscape considerably. Prior to the Orwellianly-monikered Affordable Care Act’s splattering, the long-term forecast was Democrats with a slight chance of Commies. The Electoral College was so heavily skewed to growing Democratic demographics that the idea of a Republican in the White House again in my lifetime seemed like a pipe dream.

But then Obamacare blew out and left its skid marks all over the place.

It’s not insignificant that, for the first time, people see Obama as a liar. And by “people,” I mean “me.” I have always respected and liked the president personally, even as I watched his well-intentioned incompetence dig the nation deeper into debt, idleness, and despair. But his “you can keep your plan” lie was so egregious that even lefties can’t defend it, and it’s so clearly deliberate that it’s hard to fall back on the “gosh, he just didn’t know” excuse that has shielded from legitimate questions about the IRS, the NSA, Benghazi, etc. No longer can his defenders scream “racism!” when people point out that this guy’s doing a lousy job. And when the best defense against charges of dishonesty is that he’s just monumentally inept, you know he’s in trouble.

The implosion of Obamacare, then, has a huge silver lining. It’s the newest of America’s bloated entitlements, but it’s also the first to fall. Possibly, this may spur people on both sides of the aisle to prevent the slo-mo train wreck that is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and then maybe – gasp! – fix these programs before the country collapses. Because, remember, if they don’t fix them, the country will collapse.

A month or two ago, I thought such a collapse inevitable. Now I’m cautiously less dismal.


John Swallow, Utah’s corrupt attorney general has resigned. He did so claiming that his resignation had nothing to do with the impending criminal charges being brought to bear against him, and the fact that he postponed his resignation until the day when he would be eligible for a state pension never seems to have crossed his mind.

This guy is so extraordinarily dirty.

For the better part of a year, Utahns have been inundated with stories about Swallow’s shadowy meetings with seedy characters, the gifts and vacations he accepted from people with business before the Attorney General’s office, his incomplete and inaccurate financial disclosures, and, most recently, the massive amount of electronic data pertinent to the state’s investigation that has mysteriously disappeared.  When John Swallow asked Jeremy Johnson if there was a “paper trail” connecting him to the personal use of Johnson’s million-dollar houseboat for a family vacation, Swallow acknowledged that what he had done was wrong, even if it may have been legal.  But at his press conference, he insisted he was not only legally above board, but also “100% ethical,” which assumes “ethical” now means “really, really not ethical.”

Nice to have him gone.


I’ve seen a bunch of movies since I last wrote about any of them. I generally write my reviews for the Deseret News, so I feel less motivated to spew much of them here. To sum up,  I liked-but-didn’t-love “Ender’s Game,” I thought “Catching Fire” was exponentially better than “The Hunger Games,” and I thought “Thor: The Dark World” was pointless, although not as pointless as “Marvel’s Agents of Shield,” which now has half a dozen or so unwatched episodes cluttering up my DVR.

“Agents of Shield” has really disappointed me. Every time I try to give that show another chance – and I so wanted it to be adequate – I end up turning it off after about fifteen minutes. It feels episodic in a 1970s sort of way, and that’s not a good thing. Nothing that happens in one week seems to impact what happens the next, and there’s no need to watch the thing in order to know what’s going on. Which means, of course, that there’s nothing that’s going on to hold your attention from week to week.

I binge-watched “Breaking Bad” and wrote a nasty column about it, a column that I hereby disavow, as the series, in total, addresses every one of my concerns, and you sure as crap aren’t rooting for Walter White by the end of the thing. It’s amazing how well thought out and executed that series was, and it only got better as the seasons rolled on. How many other shows can make that claim? By my count, none, really.


It seems dead. I can’t restore the database. If anyone knows how to kickstart a dead database, I’m happy to get it up and running again. I’ve run out of options.


I weight thirty-five to forty pounds less than I did before I started the Somae plan. I fluctuate about five pounds here or there, but I’ve more or less kept off the lard for the past six months. That’s a good thing, right?

I’ve been cast in “A Few Good Men” at Pioneer Theatre in Salt Lake City, and I’m pretty excited. Pioneer Theatre is the only year-round professional theatre in Utah, and I auditioned without any expectations that I’d actually get a role. But I’m going to be playing a guy named Whittaker who I know nothing about. He has a couple of decent scenes. It will be fun to stick my toe back in the theatrical waters.

My family is doing well; we’re happy and healthy, and we’re going on a Caribbean cruise at the end of this month. So, you know, there is too much in my life that doesn’t suck.

There. Does this count as a real blog entry? Can we all be friends again?

Personal PAC Money

At the end of the pointless government shutdown that did nothing but damage, Republican representative Tom Rooney of Florida was asked who won in the stand-off. His answer was not the president, the Democrats, or even his own party. The winners, he said, were “the people that managed to raise a lot of money off this.”

By that standard, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee can confidently declare victory.

Senator Cruz’s political action committee raked in $797,000 dollars just this past quarter alone. Here in Utah, Republicans were inundated with 13 separate fundraising requests from our own Senator Mike Lee, who also fared well financially in the midst of the debacle, raising close to $250,000 for his 2016 reelection campaign. What’s interesting, however, is that there is a significant difference in these fundraising tallies beyond their disparate dollar amounts.

Under federal law, the funds raised by Senator Lee for his campaign is revenue that cannot be spent, in any way, for personal use. The same is not true of the money raised by Cruz’s PAC, which can be spent on anything with little or no accountability. And both Cruz and Lee gathered over two million signatures against the Affordable Care Act that were collected by The Senate Conservative Fund, a PAC that is also free to spend the money it raises however it sees fit. With two million more people on their mailing list, it is likely that they, too, will see significant returns from the shutdown fallout. But it is also likely that those who donate to these causes are unaware of how easy it is for their money to be misused for purposes entirely unconnected from the cause they thought they were supporting.

Consider Republican Congressman Ander Crenshaw of Florida. His leadership PAC spent $32,000 to take some of his contributors on a tour of California wineries. Democratic Representative Robert Andrews pulled $16,000 out of his PAC to take his family to a wedding at a four-star resort in Scotland. Both of these seem egregious misuses of donated money, but both expenses were entirely legal under existing laws.

Those who are motivated enough to open their wallets to support the candidates and causes of their choice expect their resources to be employed for the purposes for which they were given. Current law gives them no assurances that this will be the case. Cruz and Lee and others have a moral responsibility to spend PAC funds appropriately, but not a legal responsibility. Donors ought to be aware of the difference.

A Joseph Fielding McConkie Story

I served as a missionary in Scotland for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints from September of 1987 until September of 1989. For the last five months of my service, that mission was under the direction of Joseph Fielding McConkie, a singularly gifted gospel teacher, a devoted disciple of Christ, a fierce champion of the Restoration, and a bold witness of the divine mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith. President McConkie passed away on October 10th, 2013.

He was only my mission president for a relatively short period of time, but he made an indelible impression on me and on my testimony of the Restored Gospel. If you have read anything I’ve written on the subject of religion here on this blog, chances are you’re reading warmed-over McConkie. So much of my thinking on these subjects has been shaped by his perspectives that it’s difficult to separate his point of view from my own.

As I attended his funeral yesterday and sang “Praise to the Man” alongside other middle-aged dudes in a choir of former Scotland missionaries, I tried to think of the best way to honor his memory here. I could recount some of his more memorable teachings, or I could recount some examples of his singular sense of humor.

Then I remembered a story that does both.

During a series of missionary zone conferences, President McConkie would take Bible texts used by critics of the Church and demonstrate how, rather than prove the Mormons wrong, these verses in context actually reinforced a testimony of the Restored Gospel. On this occasion, President McConkie began his instruction by quoting from the Book of Matthew, Chapter 22, verse 30:

“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

By that time in my mission, I had bumped into many an angry evangelical Christian that had thrown those words of the Savior in my face as evidence that the Latter-day Saint doctrine of eternal marriage ran contrary to the Bible. The conventional wisdom is that Jesus was announcing that there is no such thing as marriage in heaven. Certainly a cursory reading of his statement here would give that impression.

Not so fast, President McConkie said. Back up a little, focus on the context, and understand the point that the Savior is trying to make.

He began in verse 23 of the same chapter, which sets up the exchange that yields Jesus’s marriage statement:

The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection…

President McConkie noted that it’s important to recognize the Sadducee agenda here. These guys are questioning Jesus not to challenge him about marriage, but rather to trip him up about the reality of resurrection, a doctrine they rejected. (“The Sadducees didn’t believe in a resurrection,” President McConkie said, “so they were sad, you see.”)

That’s why Jesus, in his response, doesn’t focus on marriage, either. “But as touching the resurrection of the dead,” Jesus says:

But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
(Matthew 22:31-33)

The astonishing doctrine is not the marriage doctrine, then, but rather the doctrine of resurrection, and everyone knows it, including the Sadducees. That’s the point of the exchange. So when we look at what Jesus says about marriage in order to make that point, we need to realize that his purpose is not to expound on the nature of marriage in the eternities to a group that rejects eternity, but rather to sidestep the rhetorical trap the Sadducees are setting.

Jesus did that all the time. “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” and “the baptism of John, was it of heaven or of men?” and “he that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone” were all examples of Jesus refusing to accept at face value the premises being presented to him.

That’s all well and good, but what did Jesus mean about marriage in verse 30?

The key, according to President McConkie, can be found in the antecedent to the word “they” in Jesus’s answer. “They” neither marry nor are given in marriage. Who are “they?”

The Sadducees, in setting up the scenario to flummox the Savior, talk about how “there were with us seven brethren,” and each of them, in turn, marries a woman whose first husband dies. The next husband dies, too. This happens over and over again, and she ends up marrying eight times, so who is going to be her husband in the resurrection?

Again, it’s essential to remember that this query is coming from a group of people who don’t believe in a resurrection. They think this example, then, shows how ridiculous the concept of resurrection is on its face, and that Jesus won’t be able to provide a satisfying answer, and his authority with the masses will be undermined by anything he says.

But Jesus refuses to play the game.

“They neither marry nor are given in marriage,” Jesus says – the “they” in question being the people provided in the Sadducee example. “There were with us seven brethren,” the Sadducees said, emphasis added. In other words, seven Sadducees, who don’t believe in a resurrection, marry a Sadducee woman who obviously wouldn’t believe in a resurrection, either. The Savior, then, is masterfully skewering them for their presumption in assuming they’ll be married in a resurrection they deny.

They, the eight men and the one woman who deny the resurrection in the example provided, aren’t going to be married in the resurrection. If you want to be married in the resurrection, you have to accept the Lord and his doctrine. Implicit in Jesus’s rejection of the marriage example of the Sadducees is an assumption that, while “they” won’t be married, there will be others who will be.

“There’s a modern precedent to this,” President McConkie told us. “Can anyone think of a woman in our day who has been married eight times?”

Sure, we all answered. Elizabeth Taylor.

“Good. Is there any question as to who Elizabeth Taylor’s husband is going to be in the resurrection?”

We, laughing, shook our heads.

President McConkie laughed, too, and then said, “Elizabeth Taylor is going to be lucky to be resurrected.”

Joseph Fielding McConkie. A great scholar and a great man. I’m going to miss him.