Literature Professors Unleashed

I believe Victor Hugo wrote Les Miserables to be a modern, updated, french epic in the model of The Iliad, The Aeneid, and Paradise Lost.  I also contend that Dostoyevsky intended the same with The Brothers Karamazov.  Their chief innovation, of course, was to write in prose rather than in poetic form.  But it doesn't end there.  While The Aenied and The Iliad captured the deeds of some hero past in order to exalt and establish a national identity, Hugo and Dostoyevsky wrote aspirationally.  They created modern heroes Jean Valjean and Alyosha Karamazov to embody the principles each author believed France and Russia respectively needed in order to promote and protect national interests and identity going forward.  Both authors hit their target, for few characters have moved me more than Valjean and Alyosha.

I believe Hugo and Dostoyevsky patterned their epic novels after epic poems purposefully, not incidentally.  For example, some argue that myth theory exists because we all come divinely pre-programmed with the essential elements of myth, and that each of our filaments, à la T.S. Eliot, require no outside training or influence to drum the beats of myth.  It's just part of us.  Others argue that we are all exposed to so much myth theory at such an early age that we are all just parroting it.  While I personally subscribe to the divine interpretation of myth theory, I believe that both Hugo and Dostoyevsky deliberately mined the epic poems for themes, patterns, and constructions to model in their signature novels.  How many pages did Hugo spend in the Paris sewers again?  That's an underworld montage if we've ever seen one.  

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

My best evidence is that Crime and Punishment, as well as The Hunchback of Notre Dame can both be considered modern approximations of a Greek tragedy (especially Hunchback, where every character of worth dies, and every wretch wins).  Dostoyevsky and Hugo each wrote their tragedy, and they each wrote their epic.  I believe there is significant intrinsic evidence within the texts, as well as extrinsic evidence from the authors' lives, to support my thesis, but frankly I don't have the time or expertise to find them all.  Someone who speaks Greek, Latin, French, Russian, or some combination of the same, is far better qualified to make these arguments.  Furthermore, there is absolutely no incentive for anyone to engage in such an endeavor, unless you are a Comp Lit professor stuck in the messed-up world of academic publishing in literary departments.  So, in truth this post is part "punt" and part critique.  

I've never understood the point of academic writing by Lit professors.  Why aren't they all writing novels and poetry?  As an English major, I read fabulous novels from great minds, only to pick them apart in essays that were completely different in style and purpose from the books they vivisected.  Writing about novels is not necessarily good training for writing novels.  People who are good at writing about novels are not necessarily good at writing novels.  Therefore, Lit professors are not generally novelists.  What a waste.  At its highest level, Literature departments reward regurgitative research instead of creation.  Currently, Lit professors must publish rarely-read scholarly articles to remain employed.

"Publish or perish" is a popular saying in academia.  Natural science professors write papers about ideas and discoveries that actually move scientific thought forward.  Social science professors write articles that can and do effect public policy.  English professors write about how a particular author's childhood experiences manifest in his or her writing.  *Yawn*  How does that move society forward?  No doubt there are Lit professors who disagree and can marshall points in support of such articles, but the simple truth is: Their articles do not get read, even within the field.

The Inklings was the name of the writing club J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis belonged to while on the faculty at Oxford.  Western civilization owes a lot to the Inklings—especially Orlando Bloom.  Why aren't humanities departments modeled after the Inklings?  I can only think of two English academic papers that have significantly contributed to society.  One was about Jane Austen's early life and led to the movie Becoming Jane.  The other was about Beatrix Potter and led to the movie Miss Potter.  Both are great films and both no doubt owe their existence to some Lit professor's academic paper. Thank you, wherever you are.  But how many trees had to die for humanities academic journals so that the world could enjoy these two movies?  Does anyone else read these articles besides aspiring screenwriters?  

I believe every Literature department should be like the Inklings, savage feedback and all.  Unfortunately, such change is unlikely to come from within.  Lit department heads were granted advance degrees not based on their creative works, but rather based on their textual analysis.  Why are we applying the scientific method to Literature?  Even Descartes would be offended.  My English degree was fabulous preparation . . . for my law degree.  Law journals are an entirely different animal from academic Lit publishing.  Attorneys (and even judges) routinely cite legal articles by law professors.  Even published legal articles by law students (called "notes") find their way into the holdings of legal opinions.  Every student in every law school is trained to research legal articles by law professors as a way to discover innovative arguments to support their clients' claims and defenses.  Like scientific journals, legal journals can and do change the world. 

Great novels change the world as well, one beautiful life at a time.  Literature departments should be petri dishes of creativity, fomenting great writing through local, regional, national, and university presses.  What benefit to a university does all the current academic Lit froth create?  Every university president should covet the benefits of even one marginally successful novel every five years from the university's literature faculty.  Publicity like that is a game changer.  Universities should not only encourage creative works, but also receive a (fair) share of the profits created thereby.

Obviously, this turns the academic Lit world on its head.  How would universities determine tenure?  Each university Inklings group would peer review the works of its faculty, and perhaps that of other university faculties.  Short story magazines and journals would proliferate, to the benefit of all (if you haven't read E.B. White's short stories, you are really missing out).   Submissions granted publication would carry significant weight, of course.  As it stands, Lit professor contracts are tied only to academic publishing.  In most instances, these contracts expressly state that creative works, submissions, and even publications will not impact tenure determination.  That is scandalous and soul crushing.

There is, of course, benefit to learning how to write and defend a thesis based on textual analysis.  Every scientist learns how to do this first in high school English before using those skills to immortalize their proven scientific hypotheses.  This instruction should be available and enforced in general, required writing courses, not beaten to death in the world of humanities academia.  Effective writing can and should be taught as part of every discipline, but there is no real-world need for the hyper-trained literary analysts that Lit professors become.        

From Blankets by Craig Thompson

The world's Literature professors, they who have the great works of the western world distilled upon their minds like the dews of Milton's highest heaven, are today sitting in their offices straining at gnats.  We should not tolerate this waste of the human spirit.  Universities should encourage and incentivize Literature professors to contribute to the body of creative works they have spent their lives studying.  Sometimes, those who teach can also do.  

Let's give them a shot.  

Kaepernick or Tillman? Maybe It's Both...

When I was at BYU, a black student ran for student body president.  I immediately told my friends that he would win in a landslide. When they asked me why I was so sure, I said, “Very few students care who is student body president, therefore few will actually do any real research.  However, most are conscientious enough to actually vote. So in the absence of any real information, the vast majority will say, “I have no idea who to vote for, but choosing a white student I don’t know over a black student I don’t know would be racist, and since I’m not racist, I’m voting for the black student.”

Sure enough, the black student won by a large margin.  In the months following his victory, I had a few opportunities to get to know the new president, Robert J. Foster, and it became abundantly clear that Rob was a phenomenal human being by any measure.  I doubt he remembers me or our brief interactions, but I still remember how he treated me on one occasion. We were in a meeting where there were many students and many ideas shared.  I don’t remember the topic, but I do remember that I raised my hand at one point and made a comment that I knew significantly moved the dialogue forward. He looked at me and nodded as I spoke, and then after the meeting he went out of his way to find me in the crowd to discuss my idea and to thank me.  As he did so, he looked at me with gratitude and sincere appreciation. I truly felt that he saw me, saw my desire for goodness and my capacity to help make good things happen.  He wasn’t threatened, he was a secure leader. I have never forgotten that brief interaction.

I am a fifth generation native Californian, born in Petaluma.  I was then raised in a suburb of Seattle at the height of the Microsoft era. I saw the homes of Bill Gates and Paul Allen go up on Lake Washington.  I attended BYU in Provo, Utah. I am entirely a product of the West, and I did not grow up seeing racism. I honestly do not remember either parent of mine ever saying anything negative about anyone because of the color of their skin at any time in my life.  I do not doubt that there is racism in the West, but I did not witness any of it.

I met and married my wonderful wife while we were students at BYU.  She was born in Idaho and grew up in Montana. After we both graduated, I was accepted at Duke University School of Law, and we left the West with our 1 year old baby and another baby on the way.

Durham, North Carolina was a very new experience.  I had been a missionary for our Church in Chile for two years and my wife had done the same in southern Spain.  I’m satisfied you can’t call people wholly naive who have spent 10% of their lives wading into the the lives of others to help them believe in God.  We had seen a lot of poverty, pain, heartache, and tragedy up close and personal. But there was something different about Durham, something I couldn’t put my finger on.  It took me a few weeks to figure out what was bothering me so much. Finally, the supermarket experience helped me figure it out.

I was walking down a long aisle in a Durham supermarket.  I realized that my item was not on that aisle, so I continued to the end.  There was a black man about my age, 25-30, coming towards me in the aisle. He also seemed to be doing the same, just walking to the end of the aisle.  He wasn’t actively searching the shelves. Being a friendly person, I attempted to make eye contact with him for several seconds as we approached one another, so that I could say “hello.”  He never looked at me. He didn’t look away, he didn’t look down, he just looked right past me. There was no pride on his face, no smirk, no evidence that he was trying to ignore me or diminish me.  As he walked past, my overwhelming impression was that he was merely assuming that I would ignore him. I was dumbfounded.

As I came to the end of the aisle and turned to the left, I immediately walked past a white man of about 30 pushing his shopping cart.  He nodded at me and smiled at me like I was in his club. It wasn’t a friendly smile, it was a confidential smile, if that makes sense.  The immediate contradiction between the two interactions was horrifying to me and I almost yelled at him, “I am not in your club!  WE--YOU and I--do not have a club!”

Again and again during our three years in Durham, my wife and I were saddened by how surprised black people were at merely being treated decently.  We did not go out of our way to do so, did not make any special effort, and did not treat the white people we encountered any differently. The reactions of the black people would typically follow a predictable arc: surprise, delight, distrust, and then normalcy.  At first they were surprised at being addressed as an equal, then they were delighted by it, then they wondered what it was we wanted from them, but finally they realized we were just being ourselves and settled into a normal, healthy interaction. The above arc describes our interactions with normal, black, North Carolina residents with whom we interacted in the community.

My black peers at the law school were not immediately surprised to be treated well, and are some of the finest individuals I have ever met. People like Chris Richardson, Venroy July, and Jonathan Calmore, to name a few.  But even they knew what it was like to be marginalized. I have heard many of these honest, accomplished, and talented individuals share stories of having to put their head down and just take undeserved abuse from authority figures, merely for being black.  Their stories infuriate me. If someone had treated me as they had been treated, I know that I would not have been able to humbly take it, that I would have fought back.

One day during law school, I overheard a black, female law student’s conversation with a friend.  This particular woman had always impressed me. She was kind, competent, and extremely intelligent.  She was talking about racism and I heard her say, “I almost prefer those who are openly racist with me, because then at least I know where I stand.”  I knew that she and I had interacted frequently during our time at law school, and that she could never say that I had been openly racist to her. Did that mean that she trusted me less?  Did that mean that she suspected I was secretly racist, and that I thought less of her? I admit that initially I was worried about me and how she saw me.  But then I began to try and imagine the experiences she must have gone through that she would say such a thing.  My heart ached for her and so many who must feel similarly.

These experiences provide a backdrop for my thoughts on the NFL kneeling issue.  It is painful to see so many good friends and family members so vehemently disagree about this.  What if I told you that everyone (almost) is right? Too many are talking past each other, and it is because too many are speaking a different dialect, and don’t even know it.

One such dialect is the military dialect.  In the military, the flag is revered to a degree most regular citizens cannot even comprehend.  To those in the military, our flag is a symbol of the sacrifices and risks every service man and service woman makes for our country.  Those sacrifices are extreme and over time those sacrifices begin to coalesce around the symbol of the flag and the national anthem.  This is by design. Military involvement is dangerous work, and symbols and mantras and ideals are used to help assuage the emotional toll.

Even more importantly, to our wonderful service men and women the flag comes to represent not just their own living sacrifices, but the sacrifices of all those who came before them.  Specifically, those heroic men and women who have given their lives for our country. This heightened reverence for the flag is not limited to those who have served, but emanates from them throughout their immediate and extended families.  Over time, a veteran’s respect for the flag becomes readily apparent to those around him or her, causing a similar increase in respect and reverence in an outward-extending rippling effect. My two grandfathers served in the military, and one graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy. Do I betray them and their military service if I support those who kneel during the national anthem?

This heightened respect for the flag within our country just is, and everyone involved in this discussion needs to accept its very relevant place in the dialogue about kneeling during the national anthem.  For the many Americans who don’t understand the strong emotional reaction many have against the kneelers, this greater understanding about what the flag and the national anthem mean to so many among us should help explain.

To illustrate this cultural difference, allow me to explain a unique feature of latin american culture.  There are not “Yo Momma” jokes in latin america. There is no such thing as a funny “Yo Momma” joke there.  Here in America, we understand that “Yo Momma” jokes are not referencing your mother, or any mother in particular, but rather a nebulous, nowhere, “neutral” mother.  One can argue that “Yo Momma” jokes are in bad taste, but few in America would say they are extremely insulting, or that they qualify as “fighting words.”

Not so in latin america.

While I was a missionary in Chile, I worked with a missionary from Argentina who was about the most cheerful and hilarious fellow I’ve ever known. In our apartment, there were three of us from America and the one Argentinian. The four of us became great friends during our time serving together. During one period of rest, the topic of “Yo Momma” jokes came up.  My Argentinian friend couldn’t believe that we joked about our own mothers in such a way, he found it extremely offensive.

We explained that we weren’t talking about our mothers, or anyone else’s mother for that matter.  We broke down the jokes for him and their cultural context. After awhile, he began to understand. We decided to take it a step further and explained that we wanted to engage in a social experiment where we made “Yo Momma” jokes to him in Spanish to see if he could be conditioned not to have such a strong reaction.  He agreed.

The result was fascinating.  After we had explained the cultural context, but before we were making the jokes directly to him, he was able to crack a smile at a few of the jokes and see some of the humor in the most innocent of Yo Momma jokes.  Once we began saying them directly to him; however, his response was visceral. So strong was his cultural opposition to denigrating one’s mother, he could not help but get riled up at the quite innocuous jokes we related.  He knew we loved him, he knew we had never seen or met his mother, he knew it was just an experiment, and he knew that we were not serious. Nevertheless, we could see him physically struggle with the confluence of emotional waves peaking within him.

It was eye opening.

Like the flag and national anthem, the president of the United States of America is also a symbol of our nation.  However, that symbol is not static. There is a new face every four to eight years. Many people will honor and revere the office and the individual one year, only to decry and demean the office and the new individual immediately after the next election.  Most Americans would say that the office of the President of the United States is one of our nation’s greatest symbols, and that denunciations of any currently sitting president is a reviling of the man and not the country or office he represents. One of the great traits of our republic is that we are free to oppose the president while maintaining our patriotism.  More specifically, we are free to oppose the president without going to jail or to the guillotine. This is one of the greatest of American innovations. Opposition to a King had always been treason, but here in America, as well as in the rest of America’s democratic progeny, opposition to the executive does not necessarily mean one is unpatriotic.

I submit that those who kneel during the anthem, and their supporters, are applying the same logic of opposing the president to the flag and national anthem.  They are opposing what they see as unjust components of of the American experience, without opposing all the good, or diminishing those who have sacrificed their lives to protect our country. And, since many of them do not have the heightened cultural reverence of the flag and national anthem that comes with military service, they are confused as to why their protest against the national anthem engenders so much more hatred than any everyday American’s rant about the president.  We as Americans have peacefully coexisted with our fellow Americans with opposing presidential preferences for centuries. The are our friends, co-workers, and family members. Another hallmark of Americanism is that we can agree to disagree about the president agreeably. "Then why not the flag and national anthem?" some wonder.

For many Americans, the flag does not primarily represent their own sacrifices in the military, or the military lives lost protecting our soil.  For many Americans, the flag represents the whole melting pot of our country, all of its history and opportunity, of which the military is one important part, but not the only part.  And unfortunately, many Americans have been repeatedly pushed to the bottom of that melting pot and been scalded. Just as a large pot can produce many bowls of delicious soup and still have caked on muck at the bottom, many of us floating in the middle or at the top of the American melting pot do not fully understand what it has felt like to be at the bottom.  This is especially true in the western United States.

I have a close family member who lives in a mid-sized, western city that has a military base among its population.  He did not serve in the military, but he is vehemently opposed to the kneelers. A discussion with him was very revealing.  Among his comments were the following, “most of the black people in this town are soldiers from the local army base. They are among the best men and women I have ever met.  I have never heard any of them complain about racism here, and never once heard anyone else ever speak ill of them or any other black person.”

There is a lot going on in his statement, so allow me to unpack it, (1) his own experience with black Americans has been entirely positive; (2) his own experience with white treatment of black Americans has been entirely positive; and most importantly (3) his own impression of black Americans is entirely positive!  He is not racist, and he is deeply and genuinely offended at any suggestion that he is.  He is not racist and he does not see racism.

He is like I was before I went to North Carolina.  He and I grew up in largely a post-racist society. When I went to Durham, I was thrust into a late-racist society.  I am sensitive to the fact that I painting an entire region with a broad brush. However, all I can do is speak to my own experience, and I am applying what I believe is my own objective analysis to how racist a particular region is. My measurement is:

In general, how surprised is the local black population to be treated with basic human dignity by a newly encountered white person?  

Having lived in Seattle, Provo, Rhode Island, Houston, and Durham for significant periods of time, I believe I am qualified to share my personal experiences and opinion on the regional differences of this particular indicator.  Houston is significantly better than Durham, Rhode Island even better than Houston, and Seattle and Provo are even better still.

Why is this important?  It is important because my family member does not react to racism in the same way he doesn’t react to “Yo Momma” jokes. However, blacks around the country, and especially in certain regions, live with racism on a daily basis in a way that many whites across the country have no context for.  The Yo Momma jokes are ripping them apart. Had I never lived in North Carolina, I would never have believed it. It was only after having many black friends share personal stories with me where they feared for their lives for no other reason than driving while black, that I began to understand the severity of the racism they deal with. While these instances are more common in the South, they are found everywhere in our nation.

The result of these cultural distinctions is that we are talking past each other. We need to start listening to one another, and start saying different things:

I am so sorry that you lost your son in the service, I understand that the national anthem means something to you that it couldn’t possibly mean to me based on my life experience.  Please, please believe me when I say that for me, supporting the kneelers does not mean I dishonor your son!

or

I am so, so sorry that you have been treated horribly for merely being black.  That is unacceptable and unfair and I can see how your American experience has not been the same as mine and why you might feel there is a need for change, and a need to protest the national anthem. I understand that your doing so is not intended to reject our fallen soldiers. 

There are some who oppose the kneelers who are actually racist.  But it is my experience, and my profound belief, that the vast majority of Americans who oppose the kneelers have more cultural experience and background with the flag/military culture than they do with the racism/mistreatment culture.  They aren’t racist themselves and they just don’t have significant or meaningful interactions with the reality of racism. For them, kneeling during the anthem is like Yo Momma jokes for my Argentinian friend. It is too emotionally difficult.

There may be some who support the kneelers who wish to see America brought down.  But it is my experience, and my profound belief, that the vast majority of Americans who support the kneelers earnestly believe that it is possible to support better treatment for black Americans without in any way dishonoring the military, our veterans, or our fallen heroes. For these Americans, those who oppose kneelers seem to be ignoring the damaging treatment of black Americans, and it hurts them emotionally just like Yo Momma jokes hurt my Argentinian friend.

Too many of us are reacting emotionally based on our own cultural experiences.  My hope is that both sides might try harder to feel what the other feels, and that both sides may not give in so easily to the “either/or” trap.  America is built on our founders’ ability to avoid the either/or trap. It didn’t have to be either states’ rights or federal rights. It could be both.  The simple truth is that some things are better handled by the states, and others by the federal government. People may disagree about which things, but people who are honest with themselves have to admit that depending on the issue, we all bang the drum for states rights for some things, and then bang the drum for federal rights on others. I do not betray my grandfathers by supporting the kneelers, but rather honor their service. Is it possible to betray our veterans by pursuing the very ideals they fought and died to protect?

America is here because we repeatedly figure out ways not to get stuck in “either/or”.  It is okay for many of us to feel emotionally troubled by kneeling during the national anthem, and still be very supportive of justice for black Americans.  No amount of logic is going to make the emotional turmoil go away, it is ingrained in us. It is also okay for many of us to support those who kneel during the anthem, and still feel proud to be an American and honor our service men and women as well as those who have given our lives for our country. No amount of anger over kneeling during the anthem is going to make our emotional turmoil over racism go away.

We can honor our military AND demand justice and equality for all because we are American, and that’s what we do.  We get things done.

Democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, electricity, telephone, flight, computers, internet, and on and on. We get things done.

America, we’ve got this.

Why are we the Salt of the Earth?

Jesus Christ described His believers as “the salt of the earth.”  Matthew 5:13.  I don’t believe there is just one interpretation of this scripture, but there is one that has been a blessing in my life and that I haven’t heard anywhere else.  

I believe that when Christ called us salt, he was referring specifically to the salt added to the sacrifices required by the law of Moses in ancient Israel.  In Israel, the salt added to the burnt offerings of the Jews created a “sweet savour” intended to rise up to God.  Today, we can add a sweet savour to the sacrifices and suffering of both Christ and our fellow men by helping others come unto Christ and by acting as our brother’s keeper.  

The connection between Christ’s New Testament declaration that we are the salt of the earth and the salt used in the burnt offerings of ancient Israel came to me at a BBQ, of all places.  Many years ago, I was present somewhere meat was cooking over a flame.  I noticed that the meat didn’t smell very appetizing.  

A few minutes later, I was struck by a sudden change in the aroma--the meat now smelled very good.  I asked the chef what he had done, and he simply stated that he had added salt.  Sensing there may be some significance to this, I decided to study the references to salt in the scriptures.

Leviticus 2:13 says, “And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.”  Salt was a required part of every meat offering made by the children of Israel.  The Old Testament references the “sweet savour” created by these offerings 43 different times.  Numbers 28:6 says, “It is a continual burnt offering, which was ordained in mount Sinai for a sweet savour, a sacrifice made by fire unto the Lord.”  

It is the salt that makes the offering “sweet.”  Otherwise, it is just raw, burning flesh.  I believe this idea of a sweet savour applies to Christ’s atoning sacrifice, as well.  His suffering is a free gift for all who are willing to hear and do His word.  Whether we accept Christ or not, “[s]urely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”  Isaiah 53:4-5.  

Christ suffered for the sins of all, even those who don’t accept Him.  When we act as His undershepherds and help someone to repent of their sins and accept Christ, we act as the salt on that portion of Christ’s suffering.  That repentance makes His sacrifice sweet to Him and sends up a “sweet savour” unto the Lord.  When we “lift up the hands that hang down, and the feeble knees”, we act as the salt on that individual’s sacrifice or suffering, giving it meaning and making it “sweet.”  Hebrews 12:12.

Christ’s disciples in His day understood what He meant by calling them the salt of the earth.  Ephesians 5:2 says, “And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.”  And in 2nd Corinthians 2:15, it says, “For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ[.]”  

I love the symbolism of a sweet savour.  I imagine that savour rising up to God from the temple in Jerusalem in ancient Israel, and today that savour rises up all over the world as we help others come unto Christ, or to feel His love and watchcare.  Even the original passage itself supports this application.  Matthew 5:13 states, “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?  It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”  Christ uses the word salt in direct relation to savour.

I am not the savouriest salt around.  I do not lift my eyes to the needs of those around me as often as I could or should.  I frequently put myself ahead of others and miss their suffering or needs entirely.  But this idea of the salt of the earth serving as a symbol of ancient Israel and Christ’s sacrifice helps me to be better.  I love the idea that our efforts to bring others unto Him can make His sacrifice sweet to Him, over and over again.  We also make the suffering of those around us sweet when we mourn with them, comfort them, and serve them.

May we all strive to remember that Christ never wished anyone to sacrifice without salt, even Himself.  There are the raw and hurt all around us, waiting for the sweetness to come--waiting for us to help send up a sweet savour unto the Lord. One of the scribes of Jesus' day understood this. After asking Christ which is the first commandment of all and hearing the response, the scribe said, "Well, Master, thou has said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." Mark 12:32-33.

"And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou are not far from the kingdom of God." Id. at verse 34. It is love for God and others that sends up that sweet savour.

Why I'm Voting for Evan McMullin

A few years ago, I read the story of a man who attended a parent meeting at his children’s high school.  The meeting's purpose was to outline the school’s sex education program, and the father wanted to know what his children would be learning.  

After sitting quietly for a few minutes as various birth control methods were discussed, the man raised his hand and quietly asked, “what about abstinence?”  There was some scattered laughter and the instructor smiled smarmily as she informed the man that they were going to focus on more “realistic” methods.

After a few more minutes, the instructor indicated that there would be a short break for cookies and juice and encouraged the parents to introduce themselves and enjoy a snack.

Everyone stood up, except for the one father.  It wasn’t that he felt full, or that he didn’t want to meet the other parents, he just had this overwhelming feeling that he should stay seated.  The feeling perplexed him. He didn’t want to seem stand-offish and certainly didn’t want to offend.  But there he sat, rooted to his seat, alone while everyone else ate and mingled.  

After a few minutes, the instructor called the meeting together and once everyone was seated, she segued into a discussion about Sexually Transmitted Diseases.  She made it clear that the mix and mingle session was timed and designed to demonstrate how STD’s can be spread among a population.  She said, “I want you to imagine that STD’s are passed by a simple handshake, and that now each and every one of you now have an STD.”

The man stood up, and as humbly as he could muster, said, “we don’t all have an STD...one of us abstained.”  

For some reason, that story provides the context for my support of Evan McMullin.  I simply cannot hold my nose and vote for either Clinton or Trump.  

I believe that Evan McMullin is the best option, and thanks to Utah, voting for McMullin may actually make it possible to avoid Clinton and Trump.  Avoid Clinton and Trump?  Yes, please.  

People may feel that McMullin isn’t qualified, but I disagree.  I don’t actually believe there are only a handful of people who could adequately serve as President.  As an attorney I interact with a lot of people from a lot of different walks of life and I am frequently surprised by the depth of understanding, analysis, and common sense from what the political elites call the “masses” or the “sheeple.”  That being said, McMullin has a lot more experience than most.

According to Nate Silver at five-thirty-eight, McMullin only has a chance to win Utah, but that may be enough.  If McMullin wins Utah and neither Trump nor Clinton wins 270 electoral votes, those three candidates will be put before a House vote. But, who’s to say the House chooses McMullin over Trump?  

That is where the rest of the nation comes in.  Many House Republicans don’t like Trump, but they may be afraid of inflaming their electorates by voting for McMullin if it is put before the House.  By voting for McMullin in states other than Utah, moral Republicans send a message that they won’t punish their House Republican Representatives for voting for McMullin if it goes to a House vote.  

Some people say that a vote for McMullin is a vote against a conservative Supreme Court.  I say that I refuse to throw away the moral high road in the name of the moral high road.  There is no guarantee that Trump will appoint moral, conservative Justices, but there is a guarantee that by putting Trump into office, we lose the right to use private behavior to exclude from public office forever.  Liberal Emperor Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law Professor, has said that Americans rely too much on the personal lives of its politicians in deciding whom to vote for.  I disagree. We have differentiated ourselves from most other foreign governments by historically refusing to consider adulterers etc.  

We cannot allow that ship to sail.  

Some might say that a vote for McMullin is a vote against women.  I hear all the time the accusation that people aren’t voting for Hillary merely because she is a woman.  I don’t doubt that there are some who feel this way, but I do not believe that most who oppose Hillary do so merely because she is a women.  

Liberals tend to divide Republicans into two camps: dumb Republicans, and (in their minds) a much smaller group of confounded “thinking” Republicans.  Even assuming this characterization to be true, the former group certainly didn’t hold Sarah Palin’s gender against her and the latter holds Margaret Thatcher up to legendary status.  I am no fan of Palin, but I suspect that most liberals accusing so called “dumb” Republicans of being prejudiced against Hillary have conveniently ignored their prior smugness about these same “dumb” Republican’s adoration of Sarah Palin.  

I personally would love for all the women in the world to know that a woman can be President of the greatest nation on earth.  But not Hillary.  There is a lot to dislike about Hillary, but at the end of the day the thing that I have the hardest time with, and this may sound odd, is Hillary’s treatment of staff and secret service agents.  There is a lot of evidence that she treats the people who work for her, and who protect her, horribly.  

I once worked at a large, International law firm where I saw many attorneys treat the staff like furniture.  It broke my heart to walk by human beings who anticipated that I would ignore them. My life has been greatly blessed by incredible paralegals, secretaries and case managers over the years.  They are my co-workers and my friends and I am still in touch with many of them.  They are human beings who have been a great blessing to my practice, to my family, and to my life.  

Hillary’s treatment of those she sees as beneath her may seem a small thing, especially in comparison to Trump’s many misdeeds, but for me it is why I accept as plausible most of the other bad things said about Hillary.  Her treatment of those who help her hasn’t given me any reason to give her the benefit of the doubt.  It may be a straw, but to me it shows the direction the wind blows.  Again, I am not defending Trump in any way, but merely saying that Hillary, too, is unacceptable to me, independent of, and prior to this email fiasco.  

Some say that this is all too far fetched and that a vote for McMullin is a vote for futility.  To them I would cite the story of Helmuth Hubener...

Hubener was a German teenager who was born after his mother was raped by her boss.  Hubener spent a lot of time living with his grandparents, and one evening after they had gone to bed, he holed up in an attic room of their home and listened to a forbidden BBC radio news show broadcasted in German.  As he listened, Helmuth Hubener felt strongly that the BBC report was telling the truth about Hitler.  

Unable to stay silent, Hubener began a clandestine resistance to Hitler with two other teenagers.  He used a government typewriter and government stamped paper to denounce Hitler as a murderer and repeatedly posted the flyers all over his city in the dead of night.  

Hubener and his two young associates were eventually caught and tried before Germany’s highest court, the infamous Blood Tribunal.  The two other boys were sentenced to work camps, and Hubener was executed by guillotine on his mother’s birthday.  And to what avail?  What benefit did Hubener’s tiny, insignificant resistance serve?  Quite a lot, actually.

When Germany started to put itself back together after the war, the guilt was tremendous.  “How could we have done such horrible things?  How can we ever hope to move forward?”  Broken-hearted Germans clung to stories like Helmuth Hubener’s, “we weren’t all bad, we weren’t all blind, there was good among us, there is good among us, we can move forward, we can be better!”  

Helmut Hubener was a Mormon, like Evan McMullin.  McMullin’s candidacy may seem small or insignificant, but like he says, it’s never too late to do the right thing.  I, unfortunately, don’t see a lot of good coming from a Clinton or Trump presidency; however, I am encouraged that there is still a lot of good in this country and remain hopeful that the best is yet to come. I, like many across America, will abstain from Clinton and Trump, and will continue to work to pick up the pieces of my party and put it back where it belongs.

You are, of course, free to vote for a man who has made a mockery of marriage and women, but do not be offended if many of us Republicans abstain.  We will not allow this, the party of Lincoln, to be hijacked by the likes of Trump, Gingrich and Giuliani, who come to us like ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing.  By their fruits we already know them.  If they can’t keep their promises to their wives, how can we expect them to keep their promises to us? You might see them as men who have accomplished much, I only see them as men who picked the banner they thought would get them the furthest, for as long as it was convenient to them. Why is it that the term RINO is used most vehemently against those in our party whose policies seem less conservative and not against those whose morals are the most lacking?

I wish McMullin wasn’t the best option.  I wish another candidate had won the Republican nomination.  I wish Romney chose Rubio instead of Ryan, I wish Petraeus hadn’t pulled a Hamilton and had been available for Romney to choose instead of Rubio or Ryan.  I wish McCain hadn’t have pulled a Hamilton years ago so he could have been selected instead of Quayle.  Then the Clintons would never have existed beyond Arkansas….  

But I can’t have what I wish for, all I can do is vote my conscience, even if it is on a wing and a prayer. I don’t know about you, but I have seen amazing things happen on a wing and a prayer.  And so tomorrow I will be voting for Evan McMullin.  I invite you to do so as well.

An Open Letter to Evangelical Trump Supporters

This letter is written to all Evangelical Trump supporters.  It is specifically written to those supporters who feel a reticence, a tugging at the heart against supporting a known womanizer.  I believe a great many good, honest Christian men and women feel a genuine sense of disgust about voting for Donald Trump, but are trying to soldier on.  If that is you, I ask you to consider the following...

I was recently reminded that 54 million Evangelical voters stayed home in 2012 and didn’t vote.  54 million Christians turned up their nose to a good, decent, Mormon candidate, thereby allowing Barack Obama to stay in office.  

Today, many of those same Christians are surprised and offended that Utah is turning up its nose to Donald Trump.  There is no evidence that Romney was racist, that he ever refused to pay small business owners, was ever unfaithful to his wife, or was ever inappropriate with a single woman in his entire life.  There is a lot of evidence that Romney is a better businessman that Trump, more charitable than Trump, a better husband than Trump, a better father than Trump, and a whole lot more Christ-like and God-fearing than Trump.  

The same pastors and ministers who told you not to vote for Romney for the horrible sin of being Mormon are now telling you it’s okay to hold your nose and vote for a known adulterer and womanizer.  These are the same leaders who have taught full lessons in your churches about why the Mormons are bad/wrong/evil.  These are the same leaders whose livelihoods depend on your donations.

Did you know that Mormon Bishops don’t depend on our donations for their livelihood?  Our local leaders are called Bishops and they have normal jobs. They volunteer their time for 5 year terms, keeping their jobs at the same time.  They are married with children and don’t make a dime for their service.  They aren’t wholly responsible for weekly instruction, either, rather we members ourselves take turns giving sermons, or “talks”, each week, and teach the sunday school classes to the adults, youth, and children.

Did you know that we don’t have classes teaching us why you guys are bad/wrong/evil in our church?  Your leaders tell you that the Mormons believe in prophets and continuing revelation, and that there is no modern revelation.  If there is no modern revelation, then how do your pastors know God wants you to vote for Trump?  They deny the very ability to receive such guidance.  

If even for a moment you have wondered at the inconsistency of someone telling you not to vote for Romney one year and then four years later demand that you vote for Trump, then please read on.

As your sincere brother in Christ, I invite you to have a change of heart.  I don’t believe the Lord is happy with how Evangelical Christians have been taught to think of Mormons.  We Mormons don’t bear ill well towards you, and we don’t deserve yours.  Most of us, or our ancestors, were you at one time--good, mainstream Christians who loved Jesus and tried our best to follow the Bible.  

The difference is that one day we came to believe that no man alive since Martin Luther had a right to tell God when enough was enough.  Like you, we honor and revere Martin Luther for protesting the Catholic Church. Catholic leadership wasn’t following the bible, and they weren’t putting God’s word into the hands of the people.  Tyndale, who translated the Bible into English, said that he would make it so that a plowboy would know more of God’s word than the Catholic priests.  

Mormons honor and love the reformers, each of them did their best to restore God’s church to the earth, to follow the Bible as closely as possible.  But since all of the reformers denied continuing revelation, who among them was authorized to declare the reformation “complete?”  Who among them was authorized to deny God’s word in Matthew 7, wherein we are all provided with a perfect method for testing any future prophets?  

Your leaders deny the existence of prophets in violation of Matthew 7.  Matthew 7:15-20 says:

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

If there were to be no more prophets, then the Lord could have simply stated as much.  Instead, he gives us a perfect way to test those who claim to be a prophet, “by their fruits ye shall know them.”  

Mormons are applying this test to the election, and that is why many of us are not voting for Trump.  We have asked ourselves, “can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit?”  We don’t believe that Trump will be good for our nation.  And, we are concerned that Evangelical Christians are not applying this same test.  What bad fruits did Mitt Romney bring forth?  And yet you judged him to be evil.  What good fruits has Trump brought forth?  And yet you judge him to be good.

I suppose we Mormons should not be surprised, because this is the same thing you do with the Book of Mormon.  Your leaders tell you it is evil and not to read it.  Our leaders don’t tell us not to read the Bible, we love and honor the Bible.  In fact, I personally believe that Mormons honor the Bible more than Evangelicals and I’ll tell you why.

In Shakespeare’s Henry V, the triumphant English King wooed Princess Katharine of France shortly after defeating the French army at Agincourt.  The princess is skeptical of Henry, which is understandable considering his recent takeover of her country.  The following interchange occurs:

KATHARINE

“Is it possible dat I sould love de enemy of France?”

KING HENRY V

“No; it is not possible you should love the enemy of

France, Kate: but, in loving me, you should love

the friend of France; for I love France so well that

I will not part with a village of it; I will have it

all mine: and, Kate, when France is mine and I am

yours, then yours is France and you are mine.”

Many Evangelicals look at Mormons and ask, “is it possible that I should love the enemy to the Bible?”  Mormons are dumbfounded by this attitude and see it as misinformation fed to you by your pastors.  We are not enemies of the Bible, we love the Bible so much that we refuse to part with not only its commandments, but also with the world described in the Bible.  When we read the Bible we see a God who loves and interacts with His people.  A God who is deeply involved in the day to day affairs of those who love and follow Him.  We refuse to believe that miracles have ceased, that the heavens are closed, and that God no longer sends his holy prophets to guide His people.  We refuse to accept that the world that existed in the Bible no longer exists today, especially when those telling us as much deny the ability or willingness of God to communicate such things.

Tell me, which reformer from Martin Luther onward had the authority to say that the reformation was over?  Which reformer received the revelation that there would be no complete restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, with prophets, apostles, revelation, temples etc.?  

The answer is none.  

So, your leaders told you not to vote for Romney, that Mormons were evil, and that Trump is good.  But they don’t believe in revelation?  Then they are giving you their own opinion, not God’s.  They expressly deny the ability or willingness of God to guide His people through continuing revelation.   

The fact is that I know that you have received and continue to receive guidance from God in your life.  Think of the many prayers God has answered for you.  Think of all the miracles, big and little, that you have seen in your life as a result of your faith and hope in Christ.  Think of the grace you have felt as you have sought and received forgiveness of your sins through the sacrifice of Christ.  Are not these revelations?  Yes!  God is not dead and nor is His interaction with His children.  The Bible is not dead either, and nor is the world it describes.

You say that a vote for Evan McMullin is a vote for Clinton.  I say there is a pathway to victory through the electoral college.  You say that such a victory would only happen on a wing and a prayer.  I say that you and I have both seen amazing things happen on a wing and a prayer.

You say that Hillary is far worse than Trump and that we Mormons are deluding ourselves.  I say that Romney is much better than Obama, Hillary, AND Trump and where was your vote for Romney four years ago?  

Again, I invite you to consider your prejudice, to accept that your feelings about Mormons are not based in truth.  This is not a political post, my goal is not to convince you to vote for Evan McMullin.  I have other intentions.  I believe that you have dismissed the Book of Mormon and the Mormon church out of hand due to misinformation given to you by a paid clergy who depend on your donations.  

The massive double standard from Evangelical leaders who dismissed Romney and who are now embracing Trump is the best evidence I have ever seen that perhaps you cannot trust all that they have told you about Mormons.

They were wrong about Romney, they are wrong about Trump.  Perhaps, just perhaps, they are wrong when it comes to Mormons.  

I know the Bible to be the word of God and I will not part with a single miracle of it.  I know that Christ died for all of us, just like the Bible says He did.  I also know that He resurrected in Jerusalem and 1800 years later actually appeared to a teenage boy in upstate New York.  You dismiss Joseph Smith and ask “why should I believe in him?”  I say that I don’t care who Joseph Smith was as much as I care that Christ took the time to come down and appear to someone again.  I'm not asking you to worship a man, but to humbly consider that God once did speak to His children and that He is free to do so again. Are you 100% sure that Christ did not appear to Joseph Smith?  

I know that Christ has restored his Church to earth, and that the Book of Mormon is true.  He is no respecter of persons and He loves us today as much as he did in the days of Daniel, the days of Hezekiah, the days of Caleb, and the day when Peter left his nets behind.  Both the first day Peter left his nets, and the second.  I know Christ came to Peter at the beach that second time, after His resurrection, because He knew Peter and knew Peter’s story.  Christ was personal enough to work within Peter's personal, individual story. And, He knows my story and He knows yours.  Is it possible to betray Christ by accepting His power in our lives and His ability to guide His people on earth today just as He did in the Bible? Does He love Peter more than you? I don't believe so.

I promise that if you will read the Book of Mormon and ask God in humble prayer if it is true like the Bible, that he will answer you.  

You say that the story of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon is just too fantastic.  I say, you’re right, just like the Bible.  Isn’t it wonderful?