Posted by:
AnonNow
(
)
Date: September 13, 2016 11:05PM
The following represents the position of myself and most, but probably not all, of my family. I have one son, in particular, who is a member of the LDS church and might not agree with all of the following.
We do not discriminate against any religion, regardless to whom or what people may pray or worship. People may pray to and worship the rising Sun or to Buddah or whatever it may be, so long as they allow others this same privilege, and they also take responsibility for whatever results their actions bring to themselves and to society.
We do not discriminate against any lifestyle choices, whether it is LGBT, or any other lifestyle choice, again as long as they allow others this same privilege, and they also take responsibility for whatever results their actions bring to themselves and to society.
We endorse a principle that is known in academia as the “Harm Principle”, but we choose to call it by another name, “Freedom From Harm To Others”.
For us, the meaning of “taking responsibility for one’s actions” means a person’s actions should not create harm to others, and in cases where harm is created, it needs to be rectified (corrected and made whole) to the greatest extent possible.
The meaning of “harm”, in this context, is when a person impedes the creation of “Value” as described in our Mission Statement (below). In #1 of the Mission Statement, the meaning of "Value" is determined by each individual for themselves, whatever each individual person decides is valuable for themselves, but also within the infringement limitations described there. In contrast, for statement #2, "Value" is defined by everybody else EXCEPT themselves. They do not get the privilege of deciding what is "Valuable" for somebody else -- the intended recipient of the "Value" gets to make that decision for anything under statement #2.
Mission Statement:
1. We will defend and protect each person's right to create "Value" for themselves, through the pursuit of their own dreams, and to the extent that they also allow others to do the same.
2. We will encourage each person to create "Value" for society, not just for themselves, to the extent that the intended recipients of that "Value" judges it to be valuable.
And for us, “Value” (under statement #1) means that when we evaluate an idea, principle, or doctrine, we will evaluate it completely within the context of the theoretical benefit we perceive it can yield to society here on earth, independent of any specific ideas of heaven or an afterlife.
One way that we find helpful in that evaluation is to ask ourselves the question, “if everybody on earth were to adopt the idea that is under consideration, what would happen to humanity?”
For example, some religious groups believe that the best course of action for a person is to remain celibate (abstain from marriage and sexual relations). But if everybody on earth were to adopt that idea, what would happen to the human race? It would go extinct in one generation. So, we reject that idea as having no personal value to us. However, if somebody else deems that this course of action brings Value to themselves, we will support them in that decision.
Some religious groups might advocate that a person should embark on some course of action purely under the idea that they will receive blessings in heaven for doing so. But we believe that the action must also have at least a theoretical argument for producing a benefit to mankind here on earth, independent of any ideas of heaven. Thus, if the idea is based purely on the premise of “blessings in heaven”, and upon no other principle, we reject it as having no personal value to us.
Another way we might express our own personal definition of “Value” is: we reject any idea that would influence our way of life that is not plausibly supportable by science. That might be considered to be a controversial statement to many, but we can express the idea yet again with the following: we believe that (1) the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and (2) the religion of Jesus Christ, are synonymous terms, and we also believe that it will always be in complete harmony with science. We might not (yet) understand some of the science it is based on, but it will always be in harmony with it.
Thus, the creation of “Value”, as it pertains to the Mission Statement, will always be via actions that are themselves in harmony with science, and designed to help the human race on this earth, independent of any specific ideas of heaven.
That’s a definition that many people will not accept. But that’s OK. We don’t care if they accept it or not.
Police Officers:
My wife’s little brother is Chief of Police in a little northern town, and his wife is a Utah State Highway Patrol (a Utah Trooper). I have a nephew that retired as a Utah Trooper. And I have several sons all of whom are considering Police Academy. When you have family members and loved ones who put their lives on the line in the regular course of duty, it gives you a deeper appreciation for the duties and sacrifices the men and women in law enforcement make for the protection and service of the community. While there are always going to be a few bad apples in any apple cart, we believe police officers (in general) are an honorable group, and we support them with respect and appreciation, and we urge all others to do the same.
2nd Amendment and Guns:
There is an “anti-gun” element in the country that is trying to paint “pro-gun” people as right-wing fringe fanatics. We think that is ludicrous. But rather than try to argue with them, our position is quite simple:
We support the gun policies that the majority of the “boots on the ground” police officers desire to see enacted, who are also in the jurisdiction where the policies would take effect.
We do NOT support, say, New Jersey Police Officers deciding what Salt Lake City gun policies should be. But we DO support Salt Lake City Police Officers deciding what Salt Lake City gun policies should be.
That’s our position. Pure and simple. When it comes to gun policies, we support the police.
Polygamy:
We live in Utah. I get asked about polygamy all the time.
First, let me say that I am not a polygamist. I am a third-generation descendent of Orson Pratt, who was one of the original Apostles of the LDS church, and was also a polygamist (in the mid-1800’s). But there has been no polygamy in my line since him. And any claims to the contrary are patently false.
For polygamy, our analysis of it really boils down to nothing more than a simple math problem:
For any society that:
1. Has (roughly) an equal number of boys and girls born each year, AND...
2. Has (roughly) equal mortality rates between boys and girls, AND...
3. Has very few, if any, divorces, AND...
4. Everyone gets married, AND...
5. Girls, on average, choose a husband who is older than them, AND...
6. The society is growing, THEN...
For such a society, simple mathematics tells us that polygamy must exist. If it does not exist in that society, then it means one or more of the above six items is false for that people.
This must be the case because if the above six items are all true, it means that a larger set of girls from a later generation is marrying, on average, a smaller set of boys from an earlier generation, due to the growing population, and the fact that the girls (on average) are marrying men older than themselves.
If we are not going to allow polygamy, what do you propose we do instead? Do you propose to require (by force of law) that the girls must marry men of their own age? Or do you propose to require (by force of law) that they have fewer children (so that it is not a growing population) like China has done? Or do you propose (by force of law) to tell some of the girls they cannot get married?
It’s a math problem. You are going to have to pick one of the above, because there are no other mathematical possibilities. None. You may not like it, but you must pick one of the above. It boils down to mathematics, and math doesn't care about your social or religious beliefs.
As for my family, we believe that the government shouldn't be involved in any way with intimate unions and/or relationships of any kind among informed consenting adults. Period. And all of the arguments to the contrary are usually straw men and/or bring in yet other issues that likewise should be none of the government’s business.
Our Mission Statement says we shall “defend and protect each person's right to create "Value" for themselves, through the pursuit of their own dreams, and to the extent that they also allow others to do the same.” This means that for someone else, if they believe that polygamy creates “Value” to them, and they are informed consenting adults, and they are committing no other crime, we will support their decision. We not only will support it, but we will “defend and protect” their right to live that life style, to the best of our ability, within whatever legal framework we are able to do so.
And that is not a popular position to have in the Mormon-controlled state of Utah. But we don’t care. That is our position, and we will stand by it, because it’s the right thing to do.
We, as a people, and as citizens of the United States, should defend and protect the Methodists, or the Protestants, Muslim, LDS, Catholic, or Hindu, or any other group in their rights. The government is for the protection of all it's citizens, whatever their religious views, opinions, or lifestyle choices may be, and nobody should be permitted to overstep the proper bounds or to interfere with the rights of others in their pursuit of what each believes to be of value to themselves, as long as they in turn respect those same boundaries for others, and commit no other crime in doing so.
Nevin Pratt