Walker joined Difficult Run as an editor in August 2013.
He graduated from the University of North Texas with an MBA in Strategic Management and a BBA in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management. He's currently a grad student in Government at Johns Hopkins University. He has been published in SquareTwo, BYU Studies Quarterly, Dialogue, Graziadio Business Review, and Economic Affairs. He also contributed to Julie Smith's (ed.) 'As Iron Sharpens Iron: Listening to the Various Voices of Scripture'. His other online writing can be found at Worlds Without End and Times & Seasons. He lives in Denton, Texas, with his wife.
“We have this large body of evidence covering many, many years that consistently shows if you happen to live in an area with only one hospital you are going to pay a lot more,” [Carnegie Mellon economist Martin] Gaynor said.
That helps explain why a C-Section in one Oregon market costs more than $15,000 and can run for as little as $3,000 in St. Louis, where there’s lots of competition. For years, hospital executives have defended these prices saying it’s about quality, or that they see sicker patients, or lots of folks on Medicare. “That’s just not true,” said co-author Yale economist Zack Cooper.
I mention Pethokoukis’ blog specifically because it provides a number of informative links on the subject, including one from The New York Times appropriately titled “The Experts Were Wrong About the Best Places for Better and Cheaper Health Care.” This is what makes central planning so dangerous: experts are often wrong when it comes to making sweeping societal changes via laws and policies. When the market is allowed to work, as in the case of hospitals, prices drop and quality improves.[ref]For example, recent research suggests that competition between hospitals improves managerial quality and thus hospital performance (e.g. increase in survival rates of emergency heart attacks).[/ref]
My friend Chris Smith recently authored a piece over at Approaching Justiceon how minimum wage opponents get it wrong on economics. As I commented elsewhere, providing nuance to the discussion by pointing out some studies that find no effect on employment or by discussing trade-offs is important. But I think it is quite a stretch to say that minimum wage opponents believe in an “oversimplified economic theory that is not borne out by empirical research.” It’s not just that “many studies” show an increase in unemployment among the least skilled and least educated. That’s what most studies over the last couple decades have shown (as Neumark’s MIT-published book from a few years ago demonstrates as well as his literature reviews) along with plenty of recent research. There is also a difference between low-wage workers and low-income families. Many low-wage workers are not the primary breadwinners and are simply bringing in extra money for middle-class families.
Other studies show that an increased minimum wage causes firms to incrementally move toward automation. Now, this too could be seen as a trade-off: automation and technological progress tend to make processes more efficient and therefore increase productivity (and eventually wages), raising living standards for consumers (which include the poor). Nonetheless, the point is that while unemployment in the short-term may be insignificant, the long-term effects could be much bigger. For example, one study finds that minimum wage hikes lead to lower rates of job growth: about 0.05 percentage points a year. That’s not much in a single year, but it accumulates over time and largely impacts the young and uneducated.
Princeton’s Thomas Leonard has looked at Progressive Era policies and found that the minimum wage was wielded by progressive economists as a form of economic eugenics; a way of ridding the labor force of those considered “unemployable” or “unfit” such as women, immigrants, and blacks. It was a matter of social control rather than social justice, but now it is heralded as the latter.
I was reminded of all this when I read David Neumark’s (mentioned above) new Wall Street Journal article on this very subject. He explains, “Economists have written scores of papers on the topic dating back 100 years, and the vast majority of these studies point to job losses for the least-skilled. They are based on fundamental economic reasoning—that when you raise the price of something, in this case labor, less of it will be demanded, or in this case hired.” He cites some of the same research I mention above. He addresses some of the recent research showing no effect on low-skill employment:
But as Ian Salas of Johns Hopkins, William Wascher and I pointed out in a 2014 paper, there are serious problems with the research designs and control groups of the Dube et al. study. When we let the data determine the appropriate control states, rather than just assuming—as Dube et al. do—that the bordering states are the best controls, it leads to lower teen employment. A new study by David Powell of Rand, taking the same approach but with more elegant solutions to some of the statistical challenges, yields similar results.
Another recent study by Shanshan Liu and Thomas Hyclak of Lehigh University, and Krishna Regmi of Georgia College & State University most directly mimics the Dube et al. approach. But crucially it only uses as control areas parts of states that are classified by the Bureau of Economic Analysis as subject to the same economic shocks as the areas where minimum wages have increased. The resulting estimates point to job loss for the least-skilled workers studied, as do a number of other recent studies that address the Dube et al. criticisms.
Overall, I think all of this is good evidence for a healthy skepticism toward the minimum wage. Future evidence may convince me otherwise (I’ve been known to change my mind), but as of now, I think my position is as empirically grounded as any.
This week covers the April 1971 Priesthood session. Let me give a brief rundown of some of the least interesting talks.
In the lead talk, President Joseph Fielding Smith describes what it is to be a priesthood holder:
We are ambassadors of the Lord Jesus Christ. Our commission is to represent him. We are directed to preach his gospel, to perform the ordinances of salvation, to bless mankind, to heal the sick and perhaps perform miracles, to do what he would do if he were personally present—and all this because we hold the holy priesthood. As the Lord’s agents we are bound by his law to do what he wants us to do regardless of personal feelings or worldly enticements. Of ourselves we have no message of salvation, no doctrine that must be accepted, no power to baptize or ordain or marry for eternity. All these things come from the Lord, and anything we do with reference to them is the result of delegated authority.[ref]He goes even further: “We must not be guilty of unrighteous and evil acts of abortion.”[/ref]
Not quite like this.
Future president Howard W. Hunter talks about the very mundane topic of the (then new) meetinghouse library program. Despite the subject’s fairly boring nature, as my stake’s Sunday School president, I was pleasantly surprised to see teaching addressed so strongly, if in a somewhat roundabout way. Hunter highlights D&C 42, explaining that the priesthood is to “teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel. And they shall observe the covenants and church articles to do them, and these shall be their teachings, as they shall be directed by the Spirit” (vs. 12-13). Hunter says we must “seek…diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). While some may find it (unjustifiably) tasteless, I thought his comparison of the packaging of the gospel message to marketing tactics made plenty of sense. Rhetoric and delivery are important. When combined with information or truth, it creates impact.
David B. Haight’s talk features similar thoughts through the discussion of the teacher development program. Drawing on the Savior’s admonishment to Peter in John to “feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17), Haight believes that not only must “[w]e must understand these instructions and our responsibility to “teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom” (D&C 88:77), but [also] to teach it effectively so that all of us, our children, our children’s children, and generations yet unborn will be able to perceive and comprehend the true meaning of life as proclaimed by the Master, and then have a desire to live it and eventually gain exaltation in the kingdom of our Heavenly Father…”
Sexual morality is addressed in several of the talks from the April session and Victor L. Brown provides a nice summary as to why such morality is important: “Sexual activity is to be indulged in only within the bonds of marriage. When this is the case, it is one of the most rewarding and satisfying experiences man can have. When this is not the case, the same experience becomes base and evil…Infidelity and promiscuous sex activity destroy the basic, vital institution of the family, which in turn destroys all that is good in life” (italics mine). While he does make some cringe-worthy comments about homosexuality,[ref]Brown says, “The Lord defined some very basic differences between men and women. He gave the male what we call masculine traits and the female feminine traits. He did not intend either of the sexes to adopt the other’s traits but, rather, that men should look and act like men and that women should look and act like women. When these differences are ignored, an unwholesome relationship develops, which, if not checked, can lead to the reprehensible, tragic sin of homosexuality. In other words, we have a responsibility as priesthood bearers to be examples of true manhood.” Ouch. And while there is nothing wrong with pointing out sex differences, we shouldn’t–as psychologist Steven Pinker notes–use “dubious sex differences to condemn the choices of women.”[/ref] Brown thankfully points out that morality encompasses far more than just sexuality and offers up honesty and integrity as vital to a moral life. Despite Brown’s anecdotes regarding the honest Mormon professional, it seems that modern Mormon businessmen could use Brown’s reminder. given that Utah is the state with the most affinity fraud per head.
The last three talks really shine. Wendell J. Ashton offers a touching address directed at his two sons. He stresses the “eternal principles” that “can help you lead in a world that cries out for real priesthood leadership.” And in one of the finest conclusions of a General Conference talk I have heard in some time, he declares lovingly,
Stand on your own feet. Stand tall. Hold your heads high as though you are truly sons of God, which you are. Walk among men as holders of powers beyond your own, which you have, through the priesthood. Move on the good earth as though you are partners of the Lord in helping to bring immortality and eternal life to mankind, which you are. Walk quietly, as in stocking feet; but walk fearlessly, in faith. Don’t let the ill winds sway you. Walk as leaders with the priesthood in the government of God. Walk with hands ready to help, with hearts full of love for your fellowmen. But walk with a toughness in righteousness.
N. Eldon Tanner’s talk, for me, is the highlight of the Priesthood session. In the midst of recent controversies and polarization among Latter-day Saints surrounding women and the priesthood, excommunications, and the policy regarding children of same-sex parents, the talk is a powerful reminder that we should not be rejoicing in the falling away of fellow members. “Good riddance” is the not the appropriate response:
Every bishop, every stake president, every leader of any organization knows someone who needs attention, and you and we have the responsibility of going to find that lost sheep…These young men [and women] and these older men [and women] who are inactive in the Church, who have strayed away from the Church because of inactivity or for any reason, need our help and need our attention just as much. They need our prayers and our consideration, and nothing will bring us greater joy and happiness than to see one come back into activity.
Tanner reminds the audience that not all inactivity is due to sin, but sometimes due to neglect. In his recalling of the parable of the lost sheep, I’m reminded of the accompanying parables of the lost coin and the prodigal son. Sheep and sons can wander away. Coins can’t. Owners lose those due to neglect and carelessness. We blame those who are offended rather than seeking to be less offensive.
We as a community have responsibilities toward our members:
Often some little thing, some slight, or a misunderstanding causes one to become inactive. There are those who are discouraged and inactive because they have felt neglected or have been offended; or they are guilty of some transgression of their own, and as a result feel that they are outcasts or that there is no place for them, that they are not worthy or wanted. They feel that they are lost and cannot be forgiven. We as leaders must let them know and make them know that we love them, and help them to understand that the Lord loves them, and that the Lord will forgive them if they will truly repent.
There are people “in every ward ranging in ages from twelve to seventy who, though they would deny it, are hungry for attention, for brotherhood, and for an active life in the Church.” We must say to them, as Tanner did to one inactive brother, “Listen, brother, you need activity in the Church, but we need you, we really need you.” This fellowship goes beyond the individual: “By saving one, we might save a family. We might even save a generation. By losing one, we may lose not only the individual but a family and his posterity.”
One of the final comments of Harold B. Lee rounds out Tanner’s excellent message. Is all that effort worth it? “I want you to know that it would be worth it if it were my grandson, or one of mine. It would be worth it if it were one of yours.”
Overall, a particularly moving Priesthood session.
—
Here are the other folks participating in this grand scheme who have also written blog posts responding to the Priesthood session of the April 1971 General Conference. (If any of the links don’t work, try back later. They are all coming online during the day.)
The nature of partisan politics has shifted over the last few decades, transforming political parties into tribal identities and opposing partisans into what philosopher Jason Brennan calls “civic enemies.” This is likely unsurprising to most readers, but now there is intriguing evidence supporting the inkling. Recently, Vox reported on the research of political scientists Shanto Iyengar and Sean Westwood, which found that America’s two dominating parties have become even more polarized:
The experiment was simple. Working with Dartmouth College political scientist Sean Westwood, Iyengar asked about 1,000 people to decide between the résumés of two high school seniors who were competing for a scholarship.
The resumes could differ in three ways: First, the senior could have either a 3.5 or 4.0 GPA; second, the senior could have been the president of the Young Democrats or Young Republicans club; third, the senior could have a stereotypically African-American name and have been president of the African-American Student Association or could have a stereotypically European-American name.
The point of the project was to see how political and cues affected a nonpolitical task — and to compare the effect with race. The results were startling.
When the résumé included a political identity cue, about 80 percent of Democrats and Republicans awarded the scholarship to their co-partisan. This held true whether or not the co-partisan had the highest GPA — when the Republican student was more qualified, Democrats only chose him 30 percent of the time, and when the Democrat was more qualified, Republicans only chose him 15 percent of the time.
Think about that for a moment: When awarding a college scholarship— a task that should be completely nonpolitical — Republicans and Democrats cared more about the political party of the student than the student’s GPA. As Iyengar and Westwood wrote, “Partisanship simply trumped academic excellence.” It also trumped race.
The whole piece is both fascinating and deeply troubling and provides more reason for me to disengage from politics altogether. As Georgetown professor Peter Jaworski commented on Facebook in light of these findings, “Partisan politics corrupts your character. Instead of trying to get votes for your favoured tribe, try to make money instead. Engaging in markets makes mean people nicer, makes you more trustworthy, more charitable, and more beneficent.”
A recent piece in The Washington Post illuminates an often overlooked obstacle to economic mobility:
In recent years, and especially over the last few months, economists and other public policy experts across the political spectrum have come to realize that zoning rules are a major obstacle to affordable housing and economic opportunity for the poor and lower middle class. By artificially restricting new construction, zoning and other similar land-use restrictions greatly increase the price of housing, and prevents the market from adjusting to increasing demand. This emerging consensus is a good sign, though it may be difficult to translate it into effective policy initiatives.
We’ve highlighted zoning herebefore, especially from more market-oriented economists. Yet, there seems to be a growing bipartisan consensus. Good thing too:
Our blast into the General Conference past continues with my second installment of this 14-year project. Once again, this session has a mixture of gems, doozies, and pleasant, if not forgettable, instruction for the Latter-day Saints.
Marion G. Romney begins the April 1971 Saturday afternoon session by focusing on the existence of Satan (an odd topic in my view). “A corollary to the pernicious falsehood that God is dead is the equally pernicious doctrine that there is no devil,” he pronounces. “Satan himself is the father of both of these lies. To believe them is to surrender to him. Such surrender has always led, is leading now, and will continue to lead men to destruction. Latter-day Saints know that there is a God. With like certainty, they know that Satan lives, that he is a powerful personage of spirit, the archenemy of God, of man, and of righteousness. The reality of the existence of both God and the devil is conclusively established by the scriptures and by human experience.” While Romney engages in decontextualized scriptural proofs (e.g. the Satan of Job is not the Satan of the New Testament; Moses 1 seems to draw on Matthew 4), I was somewhat drawn to the declaration of the reality of spiritual entities and, by implication, spiritual warfare. It must be remembered that while
the early Christians did indeed regard the gods of the pagan order as false gods, they did not necessarily understand this to mean simply that these gods were unreal; they understood it to mean that the gods were deceivers. Behind the pieties of the pagan world, Christians believed, lurked forces of great cruelty and guile: demons, malign elemental spirits, occult agencies masquerading as divinities, exploiting the human yearning for God, and working to thwart the designs of God, in order to bind humanity in slavery to darkness, ignorance, and death. And to renounce one’s bonds to these beings was an act of cosmic rebellion, a declaration that one had been emancipated from (in the language of John’s Gospel) “the prince of this world” or (in the somewhat more disturbing language of 2 Corinthians) “the god of this world.” In its fallen state, the cosmos lies under the reign of evil (1 John 5:19), but Christ came to save the world, to lead “captivity captive” (Ephesians 4:8), and to overthrow the empire of those “thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers” (Colossians 1:16, 1 Corinthians 2:8, Ephesians 1:21, 3:10) and “rulers on high” (Ephesians 6:12) that have imprisoned creation in corruption and evil. Again, given the perspective of our age, we can scarcely avoid reading such language as mythological, thus reducing its import from cosmic to more personal or political dimensions. In so doing, however, we fail to grasp the scandal and the exhilaration of early Christianity.[ref]David B. Hart,Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 113-114.[/ref]
The metaphysics are interesting. The talk not so much.
ElRay L. Christiansen’s address has some fairly pointed criticisms of the easily angered: “To become upset and infuriated over trivial matters gives evidence of childishness and immaturity in a person.” While this doesn’t really take into consideration natural temperament and environmental factors (and thus the need for anger management), Christiansen’s talk is nonetheless important in drawing attention to our often harmful behaviors that are influenced by anger. “Anger does not contribute to good,” he states. “It is a destroyer, not a builder.” Righteous anger is justified in his view (such as Moses breaking the tablets or Jesus “cleansing” the temple), “[b]ut to lose our temper, to explode, to become ugly, punitive, and hateful when faced with frustrations is inexcusable!” Anger “destroys wisdom and sound judgment. When we become upset, reason is suppressed, and anger rushes in.” To have an “uncontrolled temper is [to be] like an undisciplined child.” Such a person expresses “emotions explosively or by sulking, and disregards the feelings of those about him.” In short, “[o]ne of the greatest accomplishments of a person in this life is to develop and practice self-control.” While anger can lead to inspired actions (one must not forget the wrath of God toward evil), many times in our modern age it leads to nothing more than divisive outrage statuses on Facebook or Twitter. “Your anger is a gift” only if it leads to action that actually helps people. Otherwise, it is just ego masturbation.
In the most uninteresting of the talks, S. Dilworth Young explains to the audience that they should bug their non-member neighbors about the Church because that is what Peter and Paul would apparently do. Moving on.
Milton R. Hunter’s talk on adultery is nothing new. However, I do like how he presents sexual morality in the context of human flourishing: “Frequently married people commit adultery and single people indulge their passions in acts of fornication. The results are unhappiness, the loss of love, breaking up of homes and destroying of family life, increase in the number of divorces, shame, loss of spirituality, apostasy, and eventually loss of eternal salvation.” This looks at sexual morality from the angle of eudaimonia; a perspective I tend to prefer. And while there are appropriate criticisms of the modern overemphasis on The Family™, Hunter provides an excellent reminder as to why the family plays such a large role in Mormonism: “The greatest of all laws in this gospel plan pertains to marriage for life and eternity. Thus it pertains to the family eternal. The sweetest joys and greatest blessings that can be gained in mortality and in the life to come are attained through family life lived in accordance with the gospel plan. Thus, a basic law in marriage is the law of chastity. Men and women cannot defile the fountain of life and reap a fullness of joy. Happiness and purity of heart and mind go hand in hand.” Family life is the context in which the good life is found.
So…Sterling W. Sill cusses over the pulpit:
Because we draw so much from the rebellion, weakness, and evil with which we are surrounded, we tend to load ourselves up too heavily with guilt complexes, mental problems, insecurity, and mediocrity. I recently heard of a man who compounded the problem by hoarding his mistakes. He often referred to the fact that his D.F.T. drawer was the largest file in his office. Someone once asked him what these file letters stood for, and he said they identified a collection of the damn fool things that he had done. Most of us are not bad people—we just let our D.F.T. files get too large (bold mine).
I fully plan on using this quote in a sacrament talk. What’s so great about it–beyond the ruffling of Mormon feathers–is that it addresses the all-too-common Mormon practice of self-flagellation. The talk highlights struggle and growth instead of impossible perfectionism and does so through the lens of optimism and hope. “The religion of Christ itself is not so much a set of ideas as it is a set of activities,” says Sills. “The purpose of the Church is to help us translate the principles of the gospel of Christ into constructive, meaningful human experience. And everyone should work toward this end by a daily practice of thinking some uplifting thoughts, listening to some fine music, reading some stimulating literature, doing some good deeds, and having some great experiences every day.” This fits with the above mentioned paradigm of eudaimonia. Sills offers a great reminder of how exciting life can be, beginning with one’s birth: “Great experience number one is that I managed to get myself born, and I have been very pleased about that ever since…I am very glad that [my parents] were not members of this modern breed of abortionists who are followers of King Herod in his program of slaughtering the innocents.” Drawing on Henry Thoreau, Sills believes “we should thank God every day of our lives for the privilege of having been born. And then he went on to speculate on the rather unique supposition of what it might have been like if we had not been born. Just suppose that you had never been born or that your parents had never been born. Think of all of the excitement and opportunities you would have missed as a consequence.” He then talks of rebirth, but not in the typical renew-my-covenants-every-week-via-the-sacrament way:
Phillip Brooks was once asked when he was born and he said, “It was one Sunday afternoon when I was twenty-five years old, just after I had finished reading a great book.” Saul of Tarsus was reborn on the Damascus road. Joseph Smith was born again after reading a great scripture. In 1932, Walter Pitkin wrote his book Life Begins at Forty, but that is ridiculous. Life begins every morning. Life begins when we begin. And our real lives begin when we determine to live by every word of the Lord.
This demonstrates that spiritual experiences can occur in many different ways through multiple forms and mediums. A good book is put on the same plane as Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus. It’s no longer strange to think that I may be far more moved by Pergolesi’s Stabat Mater or “Who Am I?” from Les Miserables than what I find in an LDS hymnal.
I appreciated Franklin D. Richards’ comments on wealth given the constant criticism (from both members and non) that the Church’s corporatism means it serves “mammon” instead of God. The first step to using wealth correctly according to Richards is responding to it with gratitude: “Regardless of the difficulties existing in the world today, we as a people must recognize that we have been blessed abundantly with the resources of this world; yet we know that whatever we have is the Lord’s and that he has blessed us with these things to see how we will use them.” Next, he touches on a subject I’ve written on for a forthcoming publication: the paradox of wealth as both a blessing and a curse.
It is interesting to note that here, as elsewhere in the scriptures, promises of earthly wealth and increased talents are made to those who live the gospel principles, and counsel is given to use our talents and wealth for the building of the kingdom. Many scriptures, however, contain words of admonition regarding temptations brought about through the acquisition of wealth and its use for unrighteous purposes…Throughout the history of the Church its leaders have taught the value of the principles of work, industry, and thrift; and as they have been practiced, Church members have prospered in numerous ways. Likewise, members have been counseled to establish and maintain their economic independence, and employment-creating industries have been encouraged. In furtherance of these teachings, every man who has property and means should live so as to obtain wisdom to know how to use them in the best possible way to produce the greatest amount of good for himself, for his family, for his fellowmen, and for the kingdom of God.
In summary, “the real test of a man is his attitude toward his earthly possessions.” However, the second half of the talk connects this with tithing. While I am convinced of the theological connection tithing has with the law of consecration, I can see this talk being interpreted as nothing more than a marketing ploy. The message?: Pay your tithing or you love money more than God. That’s a cynical interpretation, but possibly a valid one. What’s worse is it trumpets the rhetoric of the widow’s mite as being “as important and acceptable as the rich man’s offerings.” Yet, as New Testament scholar Craig Evans explains,
The context of the widow’s offering suggests…that it is an example of the very thing that Jesus warned about: the “house,” or estate, of the poor widow has finally been consumed. The traditional, popular interpretation that views the widow as a model of sacrificial giving probably has missed the point. Nor is the point that the smallness of her gift is in God’s sight equal to the much larger gifts of the wealthy. The point lies in the fact that the poor widow cannot afford her tiny gift, which amounts to “her whole life”…while the wealthy person who gives a large gift does not even miss it. The example of the widow’s mite is a tragic example of the exploitation of a temple establishment that has become oppressive, not generous and protective.[ref]Craig A. Evans, “Mark,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, ed. James D.G. Dunn, John William Rogerson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1093-1094.[/ref]
Nonetheless, Richards reminds us that the purpose of riches are for “doing good. Therefore, let us dedicate our means to the building of the kingdom of God. Let us this day resolve to be honest with the Lord in the payment of our tithes and offerings…The Church is designed to take care of the spiritual and temporal needs of its members, both living and dead; and the pattern encompasses programs such as educational, missionary, welfare, auxiliary, social services, genealogical, and many others.”[ref]For how much good the Church actually does around the world, see Ann M. Hansen, “The Minor Religions in International Relations: The Case of the Mormons in the 20th and 21st Centuries,” Ph.D. dissertation, Babes-Bolyai University (2013).[/ref]
Finally, Mark E. Petersen accompanies Spencer W. Kimball’s alarmist address with his own brand of apocalypticism: Crime rates are through the roof! The world is going to hell in a handbasket! Granted, crime had been rising for some time in 1971 and would continue through the 1990s. But crime has returned to 1970s rates. Furthermore, long-term trends show an overall decrease in violence worldwide. Even with slight upwards bumps in the U.S. homicide rate, the overall trend is one of decline. It’s data like these that makes it difficult to take claims that The World™ is getting worse seriously.
All in all, another enlightening, frustrating, and overall satisfying session of General Conference.
——
Here are the other folks participating in this grand scheme who have also written blog posts responding to the Saturday Morning session of the April 1971 General Conference. (If any of the links don’t work, try back later. They are all coming online during the day.)
The Economist has a short piece on climate change and politics that is as obvious as it is interesting. The partisan divide on climate change began in 1997 “when a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, threw his weight behind the UN effort to introduce mandatory caps for greenhouse-gas emissions.” Political support of science often has nothing to do with scientific literacy (as the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale has demonstrated). “Knowledge of science makes little difference to people’s beliefs about climate change,” the article states, “except that it makes them more certain about what they believe. Republicans with a good knowledge of science are more sceptical about global warming than less knowledgeable Republicans.” Climate change also seems to a concern of the privileged:[ref]To be clear: this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concerned, but people who are comfortable and don’t have to worry much about money, food, education, and employment have time to worry about the climate.[/ref] “The rich are more concerned about climate change than the poor, who have many other things to worry about. A giant opinion-gathering exercise carried out by the United Nations finds that people in highly developed countries view climate change as the tenth most important issue out of a list of 16 that includes health care, phone and internet access, jobs, political freedom and reliable energy. In poor countries—and indeed in the world as a whole—climate change comes 16th out of 16.”
What is perhaps most interesting is that despite the gaps in percentage, the trends tend to be the same for Republicans, Independents, and Democrats.
For some reason, I allowed Nathaniel to drag me into this 14-year scheme of reading a new General Conference session every week (you can check his post for the details). My first reaction was a big nope. Quite honestly, General Conference bores me. I don’t find it particularly edifying and frankly find the style and content of most General Authority talks to be lacking (to put it kindly). So the idea of reading multiple talks a week and then writing about them couldn’t have been less appealing.
And yet…
As I thought about it, the project seemed more and more worthwhile. I would become truly familiar with the teachings and trends of modern Mormonism. I would understand more fully what my parents’ generation grew up with. Furthermore, I would be taking seriously the words of leaders I sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.
The April 1971 morning session was a good place to start. It combined the things that I both love and hate about General Conference. The first two talks were less than stellar. Joseph Fielding Smith’s talk was (what would now be) a typical, unremarkable rundown of basic Mormon beliefs. His outline could be straight out of a manual. The talk has virtually no scriptural references or historical sources. While this probably shouldn’t bother me, it does. Mormon theology has evolved and I don’t think many members or leaders are aware of its evolution, despite the claim of “continuing revelation.” Granted, this was 1971. The New Mormon History was just starting to gain momentum (The Mormon Experience hadn’t even been published). Despite these misgivings, I did like this line: “…The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [is] the custodian and dispenser of [the gospel’s] saving truths…” Reminded me of Terryl & Fiona Givens’ claim in The Crucible of Doubt that members of the LDS Church are custodians of the temple.
Spencer W. Kimball’s talk was annoyingly alarmist, though intriguing from a historical view. Kimball engages in some inflammatory anti-gay rhetoric, being two years after the Stonewall riots. But considering the 1970s was a transformative decade for the LGBT community, it is interesting to see how some Church leaders were responding to the trends around them. Nonetheless, the “perversion” of homosexuality is not the main topic, but fits snuggly into Kimball’s apocalyptic rhetoric and worldview: “We are living in the last days, and they are precarious and frightening. The shadows are deepening, and the night creeps in to envelop us.” According to Kimball, the “world is now much the same as it was in the days of the Nephite prophet who said: “… if it were not for the prayers of the righteous … ye would even now be visited with utter destruction. …” (Alma 10:22.)” Our world is “sinking into depths of corruption. Every sin mentioned by Paul is now rampant in our society.” The “eccentricities and disobedience” of the youth are “laid at the feet of those parents who gave them an example of disobeying both government and God’s laws.” Among these sweeping statements, Kimball makes the following claim without a hint of irony: “Many voices, loud and harsh, come from among educators, business and professional men, sociologists, psychologists, authors, movie actors, legislators, judges, and others, even some of the clergy, who, because they have learned a little about something, seem to think they know all about everything.” Since I think the evidence is in favor of the world getting better overall, I found little to be salvaged from this talk.
However, Marvin J. Ashton’s talk struck home for me. With President Nixon declaring a “war on drugs” in June of that year, it is noteworthy that drug addiction plays a prominent role in Ashton’s talk. Yet, it isn’t the addiction or drug use that is Ashton target, but the reasons for it:
If we as parents and friends advise our youth that drugs are bad, evil, and immoral, and yet we do not try to understand why our youth turn to this evil substitute for reality, then the drugs themselves become the issue and not the symptom of the greater issue of unhappiness. We need to know why our loved ones want to run from their present life to the unknown yet dangerous life of addiction. What causes a strong, lovely, vibrant young person to allow a chemical to control his or her behavior? What is there at home, school, work, or church that is so uncomfortable that an escape seems necessary? If we were not faced with the evils of marijuana, LSD, speed, and heroin, we would be faced with some other type of escape mechanism, because some of us as brothers, sisters, parents, friends, and teachers have not yet been able to reach our youth in such a way as to give them the confidence and love they seek. Some of us are not providing the stability in the home, the respect, and the care that every person needs. They need more than Church upbringing—they need a loving home life.
“That’s why I’m a drunk. When I’m drunk, I can stand myself.”
Ashton’s approach recognizes the lack of human connection behind addiction. Without using the term, his description acknowledges drug use as a shame-based behavior: “May I reiterate that while drugs are a most serious problem, and while the Church is a flexible instrument in the Lord’s hands, we must not be diverted from our eternal and most effective course by problems that, though serious, are only symptoms of greater ills” (italics mine). The way to address these “greater ills” is to “strengthen their homes and personal lives through warm, loving reeducation around basic gospel principles.” Instead of responding undesirable behaviors with shame, anger, and fear, “it is imperative that there be love, understanding, and acceptance in the home so our youth can learn that only steadfast pursuit of God’s ways will bring a rich, happy life.” And though many “who are part of the drug scene tend to adopt unusual dress, hair styles, and other mannerisms which set them apart…we do only harm by rejecting them from our meetings and general fellowship.”[ref]Only if they “become offensive or unacceptable by reason of extreme behavior” should we exclude them.[/ref] He offers credible advice to parents:
Parents, let’s make certain our youth are not continually exposed to the idea that the stresses of daily life require chemical relief. Factual information about drugs should be constantly stressed rather than attempts to frighten or shame. We must try to rear our children so that they are neither deprived of affection nor spoiled. We must give our children responsibilities according to their capabilities and never overprotect them from the difficulties they will encounter. As sure as some adults—mothers and fathers—continue to sow the wind, they will reap the tornado. Let us more firmly entrench ourselves in the true purposes of family life and sow oneness and reap joy.
And what of those who feel they are “failing in the home” because of their wayward children?: “I believe we start to fail in the home when we give up on each other. We have not failed until we have quit trying. As long as we are working diligently with love, patience, and long-suffering, despite the odds or the apparent lack of progress, we are not classified as failures in the home. We only start to fail when we give up on a son, daughter, mother, or father.”
The contrast between Ashton and Kimball demonstrates that if apostles can see and address the world differently, so can local members.
Finally, Ezra Taft Benson offers a healthy, edifying testimony of our eternal nature, the Resurrection, and the need for an eternal perspective. It was an excellent follow-up to Ashton’s talk, reminding us of our inner divinity and potential: “As eternal beings, we each have in us a spark of divinity. And, as one who has traveled over much of this world, on both sides of the iron curtain, I am convinced that our Father’s children are essentially good. They want to live in peace, they want to be good neighbors, they love their homes and their families, they want to improve their standards of living, they want to do what is right, they are essentially good. And I know that God loves them.” But all these virtuous desires do not end here because of the Savior’s resurrection: “Yes, there is the ever expectancy of death, but in reality there is no death—no permanent parting. The resurrection is a reality.” Peace between peoples, good neighbors, loving homes and families will not end. They will continue because death has been conquered. I wholeheartedly agree with Benson’s declaration: “There is nothing in history to equal that dramatic announcement. “He is not here, but is risen.””
I take the good with the bad of General Conference. I’m excited to do so each week.
—-
Here are the other folks participating in this grand scheme who have also written blog posts responding to the Saturday Morning session of the April 1971 General Conference. (If any of the links don’t work, try back later. They are all coming online during the day.)
With the sting of the latest terrorist attacks still lingering, questions regarding radical Islam have once again surfaced, from the legitimate to the Islamophobic. When it comes to support for ISIS, the Economist reports that a Pew study from last spring finds that attitudes toward the terrorist group in 10 Muslim-majority countries were “overwhelmingly negative.”:
It found that 99% of Lebanese and 94% of Jordanians, for instance, held “very unfavourable” views of the group. Even in Saudi Arabia, a country whose Wahhabist creed is seen as a wellspring of jihadism, there is little indulgence: in a face-to-face poll in September sponsored by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think-tank, a scant 4% of Saudi respondents expressed any degree of support for the group.
However, the same article provides this interesting, if not disturbing, insight about those who do support the terrorist organization:
“Teachers and preachers and professors declare support for the bombings, and stay in their jobs, and then we wonder why youths go and join [IS],” laments a Twitter message from Ali al-Jifri, a popular Sufi leader in Abu Dhabi. Muhammad Habash, an exiled Syrian Islamic scholar, argues on the website All4Syria that IS is not a product of some conspiracy but the outcome of mainstream religious teaching: he notes that one of the group’s most effusive Facebook cheerleaders is a former professor at a Saudi university and the daughter of a noted Syrian preacher. Interviewed on SkyNews Arabia, Ibtihal al-Khatib, a Kuwaiti writer, contends that IS did not emerge from a void but from a heritage that Islamic thinkers refuse to re-examine: “We are paying a price for keeping silent for many years, but now that harm comes knocking on our doors we have to accept responsibility.”
Research indicates that many terrorists are both educated and well-off financially. While increased education may slightly decrease support for terrorism, economist and Brookings fellow Madiha Afzal finds that ideological curriculum (specifically in Pakistan) may be responsible for the rising extremist views among the younger population:
My regressions also show that older people have more unfavorable opinions toward the Taliban, relative to younger people; this is concerning and is consistent with the trend toward rising extremist views in Pakistan’s younger population. The problems in Pakistan’s curriculum that began in the 1980s are likely to be at least partly responsible for this trend. Urban respondents seem to have more favorable opinions toward the Taliban than rural respondents; respondents from Punjab and Baluchistan have more favorable opinions toward the Taliban relative to those from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which as a province has had a closer and more direct experience with terror.
Afzal’s research finds that across the educational spectrum, an overwhelmingly majority hold unfavorable views of terrorism. But her data provides an important counterpoint to those who simply think education in the abstract is the answer. One can be highly educated, but when that education is ideologically biased, intolerant, and exclusionary, then those indoctrinated are likely to be as well.
My third guest post at Times & Seasons is titled ““That They Might Have Joy”: Conquering Shame Through At-one-ment.” I use Steve McQueen’s 2011 film Shame as a springboard for discussion about shame, vulnerability, and human connection. The post can at times be a little graphic given the subject of the film (sex addiction), but it offers the chance to explore shame, the addictive behaviors that often emerge from it, and its possible role in the Fall.
My third guest post at Times & Seasons is titled “