I would like people interested in this post to watch the first half of the video above. To summarize: a climate activist asks Jordan Peterson what can be done to change society, and Jordan Peterson says people should concentrate on changing themselves first. The climate activist is very unhappy with the answer.

Setting aside the triumphalist nature of the above interchange, I believe there is a very important Gospel-related message for the Church of Jesus Christ audience: what is more important, trying to change society of trying to change yourself? The answer is clearly the latter, ie, trying to change yourself should take precedence. All you have to do is listen to one session of General Conference — or read a few chapters of Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament or read the Book of Mormon — to see that the Church of Jesus Christ concentrates on self-improvement over societal improvement.

And the reason is that true followers of Christ believe that self-improvement will naturally lead to societal improvement.

Now this does not mean you should not be involved in societal improvement. Far from it. The Church encourages its members to be involved in politics and in their communities. But the emphasis is clearly and emphatically on self improvement first.

Readers will be familiar with the Book of Mormon pride cycle. To summarize, society is doing well, people get filled with pride, things go down hill, people suffer, people are humbled, they turn to God in sincere prayer, and things get better. And then people get filled with pride again, and so on.

How does society get better? When individual people humble themselves and turn to God to overcome individual sins (such as pride).

What do the scriptures say? Jesus’ teachings concentrated almost entirely on individual improvement, not societal social justice. He called on his followers to improve themselves, and when Jesus was asked to take political stands, such as answering whether people should pay taxes, he said, “”Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21). Jesus’s message: God cares about individual improvements and individuals turning to God more than he cares about secular government.

Why do prophets and the scriptures concentrate on individual improvement? Because this is something we can control. I am not saying it is easy (far from it), but an individual has much more power to change himself or herself than to change society. On a local level, you may be able to organize hundreds of people to oppose that new development, and therefore change the society around you, but most people seem to care about big, national and international issues that they cannot control instead of the local issues they can effect.

The classic case of worrying about something that is beyond your control is of course the climate change movement. There is nothing we human beings can do to change the climate in the short term, and in the long term the amount of collective action needed to make any significant change is massive. The IPCC reports indicate clearly that collective action could only change the climate by a few tenths of a degree C over decades, and even then we see significant problems with all of the IPCC projections. There are serious reasons to believe that even collective action cannot change the climate. Yet we see people like the woman in the above video and people like Greta Thunberg spending a huge amount of energy on a issue they cannot control or change.

Satan loves it when people concentrate on things they cannot change, rather than the things they can change. Satan does not want us to improve ourselves. He wants us to spend our energies on causes that are the least important things so we will not have time for the most important things. Elder Oaks discusses this in his classic talk, “Good, Better, Best.”

Modern-prophets constantly ask us to improve ourselves through individual action: observe the Sabbath, go to the temple, spend more time with our families, study the scriptures, do ministering visits, teach Come Follow Me with your families. Notice that prophets concentrate on things that members of the Church are able to do — they don’t give us impossible to reach goals.

So, to summarize, there is nothing wrong with being concerned about international trends and national politics. I certainly am concerned about these things. But where are our hearts? Do we spend most of our time and energy on things we cannot control or on things we can control? That is the key question.

Anybody who cares about the Mitt Romney campaign against Trump (and vice versa) should listen to this podcast by Dave Rubin. Rubin interviewed Richard Grenell, who is the current ambassador to Germany. (Grenell was just named Trump’s new director of national intelligence on Wednesday). Grenell was, for a short time, one of the leading foreign policy advisers to Mitt Romney during his 2012 campaign.

Grenell, who is openly gay, was forced out of the Romney campaign specifically because he was openly gay and had written an op-ed explaining why conservatives should support gay marriage. Grenell, using very diplomatic language, accuses Mitt of not defending him from social conservatives who wanted Grenell off of Romney’s presidential campaign, specifically because of his sexuality. In effect, Grenell says Mitt was too wishy-washy to defend Grenell, and Grenell was forced out of the campaign.

Four years later, Grenell says he found a candidate who didn’t care about the fact that he was gay, ie, Donald Trump. Grenell also admired Trump’s America First foreign policy. He joined Trump’s campaign and is now has one of the highest profile foreign policy posts in the U.S. diplomatic service. Grenell points out quite clearly that Trump’s foreign policy has been hugely successful, and says that Trump in three years has achieved considerably more than Obama or Bush ever achieved in Europe.

So, for those of you suffering from cognitive dissonance, let me reiterate a few points:

–Romney’s campaign was anti-gay and Trump’s was not, and Romney did nothing to defend the gay guy, whereas Trump had no problem with the gay guy and even promoted him to a high profile position.

–Trump’s foreign policy has been hugely successful in a relatively short amount of time.

To be fair, Grenell is just one voice out there, and of course he has an incentive to claim success. He is, after all, part of Trump’s foreign policy team. But if you listen to the podcast (and please do before you comment on this post), Grenell lists many examples of Trump’s successes in Europe. I found his arguments convincing.

I mention this because, frankly, many of the recent posts I have seen regarding the whole Trump and Romney brouhaha have been childish. What I mean by this is that these articles turn Trump and/or Romney into cartoon characters. Trump is either heroic or really, really bad, like Nazi bad. And Romney is either a sinister schemer or Captain Moroni waving that title of liberty.

Friends, life is never that simple. People are much more complex than this. If you listen to CNN and MSNBC, Trump cannot even tie his shoes correctly and walks around insulting every person around him and of course is secretly planning a Hitler-like takeover of the government. And if you listen to many of Trump’s defenders, the president is playing 3D chess and is outsmarting the entire world.

Here is the reality: the truth is somewhere in between. Trump, like all presidents before him and certainly like all presidents after him, has done some good things and some bad things. The economy is doing well (in the short term — in the long term we are in for some pain). Trump has cut taxes and decreased regulations. His education and energy policies are, in my opinion, excellent. He has put forward many good federal judges. Some of his foreign policy has been very good. But of course he is out-doing Obama on the national debt, and, personally, I find much of his rhetoric to be very ugly. So, as I say, some good, some bad.

Meanwhile, anybody who thinks Mitt Romney has acted heroically is way off base. Mitt sought Trump’s endorsement in 2012, then came out against Trump in 2016, and then went begging for a Cabinet position in 2017, then sought Trump’s endorsement when he ran for the Senate in 2018, and then repudiated Trump in 2019 and ultimately voted for impeachment in 2020. No reasonable person can look at this record and see a consistent policy of integrity. Mitt has acted like a politician which is, after all, what he is. But I don’t think Romney is evil — I think he is misguided and perhaps miffed that a vulgar loud mouth like Trump has become president while Romney could not win in two presidential campaigns. Nobody can read Romney’s mind, but it is worth pointing out that a very large number of people believe he is motivated by jealousy. Mitt Romney’s favorability ratings nationwide have fallen from 43 percent in October 2012 to 18 percent in a recent poll. A lot of people don’t see him acting honorably.

The recent posts by Romney defenders trying to argue that he is acting like Captain Moroni are simply not convincing to anybody except the small, insular group of people who already love Mitt Romney. And the fact that most of these people seem to be suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome makes their arguments even less rational.

I really miss the pre-Trump days in one sense: it was easier to have reasonable conversations in those days. No president is perfect, and no president is perfectly evil. President Obama (one of my least favorite presidents) nevertheless did some good things. So did President Bush and President Clinton, and on and on. And of course all of these presidents also did bad things.

Here is my suggestion to the anti-Trump/Romney hero worship crowd: please listen to the podcast I linked at the beginning of this post. If you listen with real intent to understand, it really will give you another perspective that may blow your mind a bit. And then watch this short video by John Stossel. Stossel is very tough on Trump and very critical. But he criticizes in a fair way, and even pro-Trump viewers I know are forced to admit that Stossel’s criticisms are on target. This, my friends, is how you convince people.

The is a guest post by Michael Davidson

The Church has discontinued Handbook 1 and Handbook 2 in favor of a new volume titled “General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” It is available to all to peruse on the Church’s website and on the Gospel Library app.  It has been several decades since the previous iteration of the Church’s general handbook of instructions has been given such an overhaul, and it is the first time that it is explicitly public.

And, despite its now completely public stance, not much of it has changed.  The FAQ that accompanied the release recognizes that only nine of the thirty-eight chapters have been completed with the other chapters being largely copied word-for-word from the pre-existing handbooks. Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 18, 32, 36, and 37 are those completed chapters, but various changes have been made in the rest of the volume, particularly with regard to what we used to call Church discipline and disciplinary councils.  There are also some important updates to various Church policies and guidelines in Chapter 38.  

While each of the new chapters are well done, they don’t represent any changes in direction or the guiding principles that have always governed in the Church.  I was not surprised, given that this volume is public, that time was taken to elucidate things that perhaps could be left unsaid when your audience is limited to stake presidencies and bishoprics.  Chapter 1-4 provide a great introduction to the doctrinal framework that gives structure to all that we do in the Church.  Out of the whole volume, these are the chapters that would be best for all members to read and understand.  The rest of the General Handbook simply cannot be properly understood without an appreciation of these principles, and many of the critiques I have read today miss this entirely.  

Perhaps the biggest change, in this author’s humble opinion, is in the significant revision to what is now Chapter 32, Repentance and Church Membership Councils.  It bears reading in full for those interested, but it is interesting that the words “excommunication” and “disfellowship” are nowhere to be found in this volume.  Instead, the results of a Membership Council may include no change or “remains in good standing,” “personal counseling with the Bishop or Stake President” on an informal basis, “formal membership restrictions,” or a “withdrawal of membership.”  

Personally, I like this change as it has always been the duty and responsibility of leaders and members to continue to fellowship the disfellowshipped and continue to communicate with, and minister to, the excommunicated.  In fact, as near as I can tell, the word “excommunication” is only listed twice in the LDS standard works; once in Section 134 in which the Church stands for the position that religious organizations should have the right to excommunicate members, but not to punish them in other ways. See D&C 134:10.  The other time is in the historical headnote to D&C 81, in which it is noted that one person mentioned in the revelation had been excommunicated.  

Instead, the scriptures refer to the names of unrepentant transgressors being “blotted out” from the membership records, and that they not be numbered among the membership of the Church.  In almost all cases, excepting those who are wolves (see Alma 5:59-60), we are to encourage repentance for those who stray, rather than shunning them or celebrating their sin.  I think that the new phraseology used here is better attuned to these needs and expectations. 

This could not be considered complete without addressing a couple of the elephants a small but loud contingent have walked into the room. The first I will address is transgenderism. In reading the sections added to chapter 38 on the topic, and the attendant changes made throughout to harmonize with these additions, I find nothing that is not in harmony with what has been taught and explained from the pulpit by the Brethren for many, many years.  What has changed is that the Church has closed a lot of loopholes that certain individuals thought existed in the written policy statements. Some critics of the Church have expressed gratitude for the increased clarity while bemoaning that the (arguably highly politicized) philosophical science of the day has not held sway against eternal truths announced by the Brethren. 

We all know the Church encourages us to be loving and compassionate in these circumstances.  In fact, it is the first thing said in this section and others.  With all of that, members of the lgbt community and their allies often make the argument that the Church’s refusal to accept the currently promoted social narrative on these issues is evidence of hatred and bigotry, and certainly a lack of love.  Aside from the obvious authoritarian bent of such pronouncements, we should still reach out in love and compassion and not allow the rejection of those expressions (if they are rejected) to dishearten us in so doing.

With that introduction, the teachings of the Church with respect to transgenderism are, as found in 38.6.21: 

(1) gender is eternal; 

(2) gender is first expressed physically in the developing child and that expression is the expression of the eternal gender of the spirit and body; 

(3) in the statistically limited cases in which there is physical ambiguity, consult with doctors and questions regarding ordination and temple ordinances should be addressed to the First Presidency; 

(4) leaders are to advise those considering medical or surgical intervention for the purpose of transitioning “will be cause for Church membership restrictions;” 

(5) leaders are also directed to counsel against social transition, which “includes changing dress and grooming, or changing a name or pronouns, to present oneself as other than his or her birth sex;” 

(6) “those who socially transition will experience some Church membership restrictions for the duration of this transition;” 

(7) restrictions for those who surgically, medically, or socially transition are a prohibition from “receiving or exercising the priesthood, receiving or using a temple recommend, and receiving some Church callings;” 

(8) other non-restricted Church participation is welcomed; and 

(9) if someone is “prescribed hormone therapy by a licensed medical profession to ease gender dysphoria or reduce suicidal thoughts,” but does not otherwise medically, surgically, or socially transition, and is otherwise worthy, they may have Church callings and attend the temple.

None of this is new or novel, even though it is being spelled out in greater detail in the General Handbook in this edition.

Also, the Church is decidedly in favor of people observing the law of chastity, and “only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband or wife should have sexual relations.” Anything outside of this, including same sex marriage, could subject the participants to withdrawal of membership.

To sum up, the handbook changes make the Church’s positions more public and more clear to all members and also the general public. But there are no indications the Church has made any significant changes on long-standing moral issues.

The Wall Street Journal has written what is says is the first article with Church comments on the $100 billion investment fund. I found it generally fair and a good example of how journalism should be practiced in our days of shock headlines and one-sided stories.

Take a look here.

Here are some key excerpts:

In their first-ever interview about Ensign Peak’s operations, Mr. Clarke and church officials who oversee the firm said it was a rainy-day account to be used in difficult economic times. As the church continues to grow in poorer areas of the world like Africa, where members cannot donate as much, it will need Ensign Peak’s holdings to help fund basic operations, they said.

“We don’t know when the next 2008 is going to take place,” said Christopher Waddell, a member of the ecclesiastical arm that oversees Ensign Peak known as the presiding bishopric. Referring to the economic crash 12 years ago, he added, “If something like that were to happen again, we won’t have to stop missionary work.”

During the last financial crisis, they didn’t touch the reserves Ensign Peak had amassed, church officials said. Instead, the church cut the budget.

A former employee and the whistleblower in his report said they heard Mr. Clarke refer to the second coming of Jesus Christ as part of the reason for Ensign Peak’s existence. Mormons believe before Jesus returns, there will be a period of war and hardship.

Mr. Clarke said the employees must have misunderstood his meaning. “We believe at some point the savior will return. Nobody knows when,” he said.

When the second coming happens, “we don’t have any idea whether financial assets will have any value at all,” he added. “The issue is what happens before that, not at the second coming.”

Whereas university endowments generally subsidize operating costs with investment income, Ensign Peak does the opposite. Annual donations from the church’s members more than covers the church’s budget. The surplus goes to Ensign Peak. Members of the religion must give 10% of their income each year to remain in good standing.

Dean Davies, another member of the ecclesiastical arm that oversees Ensign Peak, said the church doesn’t publicly share its assets because “these funds are sacred” and “we don’t flaunt them for public review and critique.”

Mr. Clarke said he believed church leaders were concerned that public knowledge of the fund’s wealth might discourage tithing.

“Paying tithing is more of a sense of commitment than it is the church needing the money,” Mr. Clarke said. “So they never wanted to be in a position where people felt like, you know, they shouldn’t make a contribution.”

I also liked this:

The former employees offered more details of Ensign Peak’s operations. During the bull market of the last decade, some of them said, the fund grew from about $40 billion in 2012 to $60 billion in 2014 to around $100 billion by 2019. About 70% of the money is liquid, one of the former employees said. As its assets swelled, Ensign Peak grew more secretive, said some of the former employees.

The firm doesn’t borrow money–the church warns members against going into debt. It also doesn’t invest in industries that Mormons consider objectionable—including alcohol, caffeinated beverages, tobacco and gambling. Mr. Clarke said the fund has pulled some of its money from an investment firm called Fisher Investments after firm founder Ken Fisher made remarks last year that Mr. Fisher, in a newspaper column, called “inappropriate.” A spokesman for Fisher declined to comment.

And this:

Among rank-and-file members of the church, the whistleblower report unleashed an intense debate about tithing and how the church uses its vast resources.

On a recent snowy Sunday at a Salt Lake City meetinghouse, members said they trusted church leaders with their own money, and would continue to donate 10% of their income. “They use it well,” said Lasi Kioa, a 61-year-old immigrant from Tonga and a lifelong church member. “They help other people. They build the church.
I believe in that.”

But Sam Brunson, a church member and tax law professor at Loyola University, said he wished church officials would use the $100 billion to help those in need today.

“They could go a good way to eradicating malaria, or fix Puerto Rico’s electrical grid,” he said. Alternatively, he said, the church could change what it considers tithing, allowing members to give 10% of their income to charity, rather than to the church itself.

Notice how the article quotes somebody both in favor of the Church position and against it? I know that is rare these days, but this is how journalism used to happen all the time.

Anyway, it was nice to see a fair article on this issue. Read the whole thing.

I attended my ward’s last Boy Scout Court of Honor this week.  It was a somber event for me.  Two of my sons received merit badges, and one young man was honored as an Eagle Scout. These were of course pleasant things to observe, but I kept on thinking about how the Scouts represented a simpler time, a time when there was nothing controversial about honoring God and being morally straight.

There is a Portuguese noun called “saudades,” which means you miss something or long for something so much that it hurts.  I have saudades for that America, the America of my youth that has been lost for so many people.

And then a frightening thought hit me:  the end of the Scouts for my ward also means that my young men are set free from the structure of the Scouts.  Now they are supposed to set their own goals.   By the end of January, my sons will have set their goals, and it will be interesting to see how many of those goals are kept.

But here is another frightening part:  my sons have two parents active in the Church and a lot of support from an excellent ward. What happens to the young men and young women who do not have that support for one reason or another?

The Church is going through a revolution of sorts.  President Nelson’s many, many reforms are, to be clear, welcome.  I consider them inspired, and I believe they will have consequences over the long term that are overwhelmingly positive for members of the Church.  But in the meantime, there will be a lot of questions and concerns, as always happens whenever we are faced with rapid change.

Members are increasingly responsible for their own learning and their own testimonies.  In a home centered and Church supported environment, the onus is put on the members to do homework at home.  You cannot rely on a gospel doctrine teacher or somebody else in the ward to tell you about the doctrine and Church history– you need to research it yourself. 

The Church has always promoted personal responsibility and self-fulfillment.  That is part of the reason I wrote this post back in 2014.  It is simply a cop out to spend your time complaining that the Church didn’t teach you certain things.  At the end of the day, you are responsible for your own Gospel learning and your own reaction to new revelations about Church history.

But this is even more true now.  You are responsible for ministering to those in need on your own without having to report monthly.   (Yes, you should have regular talks  with EQ leadership, but that is not the same thing as monthly reports and puts more responsibility on you to do the work without being pushed by leadership).  You are responsible for discussing Gospel topics on a nearly daily basis with your family through the Come Follow Me program. And young men and young women will have even more responsibility in their quorums to act on their own without leaders prodding them into action.

When you add it all up, this means much more individual stewardship.  And it means that you are more and more responsible to work out your own salvation.

As a student of Church history, I think back to the Saints in Nauvoo right after Joseph Smith died. It must have been a trying and frightening time.  Brigham Young was asking them to make a perilous journey across dangerous territory to move to a barren desert surrounded by cold mountains.  The Saints were literally leaving the United States to move to uncharted territory.  Some people stayed in Illinois with Emma Smith and Joseph Smith III.   But others followed the new Church leadership.

It was a great separation. One group was following the new prophet of God and others were not.  We are in a time like that now:  members can either follow the inspired Prophet of our time, President Nelson, or they can head down “broad roads, that they perish and are lost.” (1 Nephi 12:17). To be clear: I am NOT saying that all of the people who don’t study Come Follow Me will be lost. I don’t know their hearts, and I don’t know all of their circumstances. The judgement is ultimately up to Heavenly Father.

But I am saying that all of the changes going on in the last few years provide additional responsibilities for Latter-day Saints to study and pray on their own and not rely on Church leaders or teachers to provide all of the answers. Others times had other challenges. Church members in the 1830s and 1840s suffered persecution and violence that we do not, in general, suffer today. This persecution caused many of the elect to leave the Church. One of our challenges today is to do more study at home, relying on Church materials for support.

The good news is that there are many people in your wards and stakes who will help you along this journey.   If you feel you need additional help, go to your EQ presidency or your Relief Society president or your Sunday School presidency. They are certain to help answer any questions you may have.

And here is a personal experience:   the program is already working.  In my family, the regular discussion of the Gospel through Come Follow Me has been a great blessing.  All of us are pondering the scriptures and their meanings more than ever, and we are doing it at home with the help of Church material.  Discussions can be very deep, and even our nine-year-old spends time pondering out loud the mysteries of existence and how the plan of happiness makes it all more understandable.

So it is a scary time, but also an exciting time.  I cannot help but feel that Church leadership sees that our testimonies must be strengthened for the times to come.  There are new dangers on the horizon but also new opportunities for learning and love.

It is a great thing to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.