South Georgia Feb. 7, 2005 edition
Terrorist Every time We Turn the Key
by John R. Taylor
You have heard all those who want to mind everybody else's business
scream about your SUV. How you should feel guilty about driving one
because you are aiding terrorist and destroying the environment. Well
maybe you are, but isn't it going a bit far when we don't have even
the freedom to choose what we drive? If are willing to pay $50 for a
tank of fuel that will take you 200 miles, I think you should have
that right. I like paying $16 for a tank that will take me 400 miles
better; of course I'd like it better were it four or five dollars.
The problem is that we should be able to drive what we want and can
afford, and not dirty up all our air, and help those who wish us dead.
And we can. We may not do it, but it is completely in our power to do
it. What we all together must realize is that it is not so important
what we pour our fuel into, but rather what the fuel is we are putting
in it. The gasoline we now use is distilled from petroleum crude oil,
a resource we have in great supply, but not nearly so great as our
colossal appetite for it. Because we can't supply it domestically we
have no choice but to import it. The United Kingdom has a vast North
Sea reserve and we import enormous quantities form them. This adds to
our trade deficit and is therefore damaging to our economy, however
the UK is our ally and doing business with them is much more favorable
than doing business with counties and peoples who are trying to
destroy us. But we require so much oil that we must get it from
everywhere. OPEC, the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries, is a
cartel of mostly Middle Eastern countries; Venezuela being the notable
exception. That their anti-competitive practice of suppliers banning
together to control the price of a commodity is unethical and would be
illegal in this country, should be enough for us not to trade with
them to say nothing of the fact that of every dollar we Americans
spend on their oil much of it goes to sponsor terrorism and acts of
violence against us and our allies. We are most literally trading with
the enemy. The attacks of 9/11 were funded by American dollars paid to
Saudi Arabia for oil.
We can fix all this by simply using alcohol as a motor fuel rather
that gasoline. The Model T was originally designed to run off alcohol,
but because gasoline was cheep and being discarded from the
distillation of kerosene anyway, they switched to gas. Today's modern
automobiles with their computer controlled fuel injection systems
could easily be made to use alcohol. Many new cars are already
multi-fuel ready. Most South American countries today use an ethanol
product which is at least 75% alcohol.
There are three main reasons to switch to alcohol fuel in all gasoline
powered cars. Any one of these reason alone are compelling enough to
make the transition, together they may be our epitaph.
We can supply our own alcohol. While there are naysayers who say
otherwise, we can unquestionable produce enough alcohol to meet our
needs. An alcohol-for-fuel industry would have to be created. The
relative small volumes of alcohol made for human consumption and
medical prepossess would be nothing to the vast refining operations to
supply the millions upon millions of gallons needed to fuel our cars.
But to question that we can get it done is ridiculous; just build more
stills. It might become a cottage industry; I'm sure there are some
good ol' boys around here that know how to make alcohol.
The present logistical and delivery systems can be completely
utilized. The same trucks which now bring gasoline to pumps at the
store on the corner can bring alcohol to those same pumps. The oil
companies, who are the major opponents to an alcohol fuel system,
could provide the distillation and refining facilities. They should
take a hint for the tobacco industry. That industry knows that it will
one day die, so the companies in that industry have bought food
companies, financial service businesses, and other non-tobacco
ventures. While the oil industry will not die in my lifetime, we
should not buy one drop of oil from Saudi Arabia to burn in our cars.
Stopping the importation of oil would not only severely cripple the
money pipeline to Moslem terrorist, it would also balance our trade
deficit. It is true we have created many new potential problems in
trade by shipping our jobs overseas, nevertheless it is oil which puts
us at the greatest disadvantage. Understanding trade deficits is a
topic for another time; but know this - our trade deficit negatively
impacts each and every American.
The second major reason that we should burn alcohol in our cars
instead of gasoline is that it is a renewable resource. We have used
enormous amounts of oil, and there are even now immense amounts in the
ground that we have not pumped out, and probably much more that we
have not yet discovered. But one fact is inescapable. The amount of
oil, however large that amount is, is finite. When it is gone, it is
gone. We cannot make more of it. One day we will run out. Is it not
smart to save an unreplenishable resource for uses which only it can
supply? Why burn it up in our cars when there is a replensihable and
renewable substitute? We can create a perpetual supply of alcohol.
The third of the major reasons to switch now to an alcohol-for-fuel
system is that it is immeasurably cleaner burning that any fossil
fuels. There has recently been a study which showed that our
automobiles are the chief factor in air pollution. Coal-fired electric
power plants were previously though to be the number one culprit.
Whether they are number one or two on the list of dirty air makers,
changing to an alcohol fuel would make our air a great deal cleaner
for us and all of our posterity.
There has been and will continue to be those who fight with all their
might to stop this from happening, but they all are motivated by
self-serving reasons and hidden agendas. But it must happen. We owe it
to our children.
Making it Big in a Small town
Haley Ray Warren was crowned Little Miss Georgia Cotton 2005, Saturday
Jan. 29 in Tifton. This is added to a long list of local and state
titles she has won. Haley is a seven year old student at Cook County
Elementary School and is the daughter of Jody and Stephanie Warren of
Adel. She is represented by Mirage Model Management of Valdosta and
was recently signed by Elite, one of the top modeling agencies in the
world. This small town girl is definitely going places.
Back to the Top
A Common Man's View on Gun Control
by David Hewitt
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will
look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the
blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Why then does the vocal media seem to leave the impression everyone is
in favor of a gun ban? The only people you hear on the news to support
anti-gun control is the survivalist militias and diverse Hollywood
types like Charlton Heston and Ted Nugent. It is my intention to give
a common man's view of this issue and what I think we can do. I'll
also give a wide variety of quotes in support of my position.
I categorically state I believe that gun control is doomed to fail in
what most people say is the goal. The assault ban treaty didn't
prevent people from killing others all across the country. Mr. Brady
was shot with a pistol and a low-powered one at that. The school
shootings that gun control advocates use to advance their agenda?
Rifles, pistols, and other weapons that they stole from family.
My point? How does one prevent suicides, school shootings, accidents,
and other things that make the gun control advocates salivate? Total
gun elimination. Close all gun pawns, hunting clubs, Wal-mart gun
sales (including Kmart, Target, etc), and any other gun shops. Take
people's hunting rifles, their sharpshooting competition weapons, and
other such heirlooms. Do all that and you just might keep kids from
dying and adults from accidentally hurting themselves. But that won't
stop gang wars, organized crime, drug dealers from having
guns...selling guns to kids. Okay, so maybe that won't work for
keeping the kids from dying either.
Here's a favorite quote: After a shooting spree, they always want to
take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell
wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns
are the police and the military. -- William Burroughs
Gun control won't work, I come to this conclusion time and again. So,
what do we do? We educate. Gun safety in school, no gun sold without a
child proof-lock and a case to lock it in, guns no longer sold in open
gun shows, those are a start. Every child's hero from Barney to the
Wiggles and beyond can have shows teaching kids to stay away from
Does this invade our children's innocence? Ask yourself this question:
Would you rather have your freedoms, your children alive, and your
guns; or no rights, kids still thinking guns are playthings, and no
guns. The question always comes down to personal freedoms or safety.
What do we give up to be safe?
Another aid to our safety that would leave our liberty is to require
lie detector tests with every purchase and regular psych screenings to
make sure those that people do not develop suicidal, sociopathic, and
psychopathic tendencies. Of course, this would be a big invasion of
privacy; especially if the police agencies had access to the
information. But it is an imperfect solution to an imperfect problem.
All these aids to controlling guns, and we still wouldn't be perfectly
safe. But we would be safer. Everyone who is mentally able, physically
capable, and financially able to own a gun would have one, if they
wanted one. In an era of police taking a long time to reach the scene
of the trouble, you need some way to protect yourself. 911 isn't it. A
burglar could enter your home in thirty seconds or less, be at your or
your child's bed in under two minutes. Best Case, the man/woman runs
at the sight of you.
Worst case, he attacks. If he's dangerous and not dissuaded by
whatever alarm system you have, what do you do? Hide under the bed?
Pray to God? Or shoot him, hopefully not hitting anyone innocent in
There's a quote in the Book of Luke where Jesus tells people to sell
their raiment (clothes) for a sword. Jesus' disciples had swords. They
understood that the weapons are not evil or wrong, it is the person we
must look at. Don't take away the good people's method of protection,
train them to use their weapons. Teach their children to respect and
honor what a gun can do (Don't leave it at, 'Don't Touch', make sure
they know why).
Okay, so what do we have left to say. Gun control doesn't work.
Criminals will always be able to get the weapons. Gun elimination will
stop some of the school shootings, accidents, etc. but not all. I have
given a few suggestions on ways to allow for gun ownership and still
cut down on the deaths. Also, the anti-burglary argument was given.
This is a thorny problem and will probably never be solved in a truly
democratic society. Half the people want guns and the other half
doesn't. No true majority yet rules.
Final warning against gun elimination, which is what gun control will
lead to. If criminals and governments are the only possessors of the
weapons, one or the other or both will end up controlling every aspect
of your life. A government that controls the guns does not have to
keep the people happy, either.
Here are two final quotes:
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real
advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would
take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown
in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that
forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm
only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."
-- Cesare Beccaria
"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny
gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Back to the Top
Who Elects the President?
By john R. Taylor
There has been much talk about how our President is elected of late,
and it is true that Al Gore received more popular votes, (the votes
you and I cast), than did George Bush in bush's first election.
Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison were also elected even
though they did not receive the most popular votes. It is also true
that Bill Clinton never received more than 46% of the votes in either
of the two elections for President that he won, and that means that at
least 54% of the voters voted for someone else. It is nevertheless
those votes that do, at least indirectly, decide the election.
In the original Constitution, before it was amended, only the members
of the House of Representatives were elected by popular vote. The
Senate was elected by the state legislatures and the President and
Vice President by the Electoral College. The Constitution was later
amended to allow the Senators to be elected by popular vote of their
state. As in most state offices, Senators and members of the House
must receive a majority of votes to be elected. If there are more than
two candidates and no one candidate receives more than 50% of the
votes then the two leading candidates have a runoff. This way no
candidate can be elected to office without receiving more than 50% of
the votes. But this is not true of the Presidency. He, or she when
this becomes applicable, is elected by a majority of electoral votes.
These electoral votes are cast by electors who are pledged to their
candidate. When you cast a vote for a presidential candidate you are
actually voting for the elector who is pledged to that candidate.
Their names are listed on the ballet. There is one electoral vote for
each congressional district. In each state whoever gets the most
popular votes gets all of the electoral votes for that state, except
Main and Nebraska who divide their electoral votes by congressional
Because of this system a third party candidate actually lessens the
chances of the major party candidate that he most agrees with. In the
Clinton elections the vast majority of those who voted for Ross Pero
would have voted for President Bush or Bob Dole in a runoff. Because
there is no runoff, Pero helped Clinton get elected. In the most
recent election, Ralph Nader took votes away from John Kerry. Though
Nader's liberal political philosophy is much more aligned to Kerry's,
he actually helped Bush by taking votes away from Kerry.
The Electoral College also creates a disparity in the value of a vote.
We all like to think that our vote is worth as much as anyone else's,
however they really aren't. Because most states use a winner take all
system for awarding their electoral votes it doesn't' matter if a
candidate gets 99% of the popular vote in a particular state or 51%.
If a candidate wins a several states by a large margin but loses
several others by a small margin he could quite easily loose the
election and have the largest total of popular votes. If you live in a
state which Kerry is going to win big your vote doesn't' really count.
The same can be said of a state like Georgia for Bush.
What is the answer? The simplest fix is to scrap the Electoral College
altogether and have the President elected by popular vote. This might
force a run-off if there is a strong third candidate, but that might
not be so bad.
Back to the Top
How They Can Steal the
By john R. Taylor
It is not likely and I pray
it will never happen, but it is altogether possible that they could
steal the presidency. It is not likely and I pray it will never
happen, but it is altogether possible that they could steal the
presidency. Who are they? They are either of the political parties.
The vehicle which they could use the Electoral College.
In the past I never would
have even thought it in the realm of real possibilities, however in
the past few years both major parities have shown that the survival
and growth of the party is of paramount importance, even more
important than the good of the nation. Political parties serve some
good in our system. They help us to know where a particular candidate
stands on issues and they have become part of the political system
both inside government and out. However, George Washington warned us
about the inherit dangers of political parties and he was not
Neither of the major
parities nor any of the minor ones have a corner on the market of the
concept of party first, country second. They all are guilty, but it is
the Democratic Party in which I am the most afraid of stealing the
Presidency. The reason for this is that they have shown over the last
dozen years or so that they would use almost any means to achieve
their ends, even if those ends are obviously contrary to the will of
the people. The filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominees is
a prim example. The people of this country elected President Bush and
the senators to fulfill their joint responsibility to nominate and
confirm federal judges, but because the nominees were not to the
liking of a minority of the democrats they used the filibuster to stop
the confirmation process. They would be the first tell yell that they
didn't get to vote if the situation were reversed but they think
nothing of denying their colleagues the right to vote on the
It was the many editorials
and letters which were published just after the presidential election
that made me worry. In many of them the theme was that the American
people were too stupid to choose a president. Somehow everyone that
did not agree with them had been hoodwinked and doped into a foolish
vote. In some of the editorials the author plainly said that the
voters were not smart enough to be allowed to elect the resident. Will
guess what, that is one of the major reasons that the Electoral
College was dreamed up in the first place. The founding fathers were
certainly elitists by today's standards. Of course, in their world it
was probably true that the average man how not the time, education nor
intellectual experience to make wise political decisions. Because of
this the Electoral College provided a buffer between the voters and
the actual election of the President. In that way, if the voters made
a horrible mistake in deciding the person to be President, the more
enlighten electors could correct it by electing someone else.
That was one of the two
reasons for the Electoral College. The other was to appease the large
and small states. When there is debate about Electoral College today
it is always about the disproportional representation of the small
states that is debated. But it is the other reason we should most
To explain this, let's review the mechanics of the Electoral College.
When we vote for a presidential candidate we actually vote for an
elector who is pledged to that candidate. The elector is pledged to a
candidate, but the elector does not legally have to vote for that
candidate. For example, a little over 270 electors have been elected
who are pledged to vote for President Bush on Dec. 13, 2004. He was
not technically the President Elect until after that. Now let use
suppose that 270 of those electors had decided to vote for someone
else. Me, for instance, I am constitutional eligible. Would I be the
President, even though no one voted for or few even heard of me? Yes I
would be. But we don't have to worry about that. The electors had no
reason to vote for me. They had every reason to vote for President
Bush to whom they are pledged. They are party loyalists. Getting him
reelected is what they live for. But could there be a scenario where
the electors would vote for someone other that the candidate to whom
they are pledge? I can think of one, and it alarms me.
The democrats have for
years tried to get a liberal into the White House. They got Clinton
elected, but after the Republican Revolution of the early 1990s his
policies were fairly conservative. Michael Dukakis and John Kerry were
roundly rejected. It is apparent, that for the foreseeable future,
they can not win the south with a New England Liberal and they will
not nominate a conservative or moderate, and they can not win without
the south. Surly what I am about to suggest will never happed. But it
would take only a conspiracy of 270 party loyalists to pull it off.
270 who think we are too dumb to elect the correct president. Less
than three hundred who would do almost anything to have it their way.
Now this is how they could
pull it off. At their convention, the demarcates nominate a moderate
or even a conservative. Let's say Sam Nunn. In the general election
voters elect at least 270 electors pledged to Sam Nunn. However, the
electors don't cast their electoral votes for Nunn. They vote for Ted
Kennedy. Who would be the President? Ted Kennedy. Now unless Nunn was
in on it, and I think he is much too honorable to do such a thing, he
would raise high heaven. The people would be up in arms, but there
would be nothing that could be done. It is all constitutionally legal.
I don't think this remotely
likely; if I did I would never give them the idea. I hate nothing more
than the so-called journalists who like to give terrorists ideas about
how they can hurt us. My aim is only to warn as many as I can that
this should not even be a constitutional legal possibility. If this
did even happed we no doubt would be amending the Constitution the
next day. Let's not wait.
Back to the Top
Enemies Have WMD NOW!
by Adam Armstrong
To those who feel it was a mistake to invade
Iraq: you have failed to learn a very important lessen in logic. As a
teaching tool, let me tell you how my daughter learned this lesson.
As a new sixteen year old driver, she was
parking in a shopping center parking lot. The space she decided to
park in was an angle type and it was angled in the other direction. As
she started entering the space, my niece, who was setting in the front
passenger side, said she didn't think they could make it. Well, my
daughter thought she could. She kept going. When she felt the car stop
and saw the white Toyota in front of her rock, she knew she had been
The lesson in logic she learned that day, and
the one I hope my disgruntle countryman will soon learn, is that the
consequences of being wrong is a factor of paramount importance in any
decision. What was my daughter's down side. If she was wrong but
continued on her course, she would cause an accident, damage property
and possible cause injury, a relatively catastrophic loss. If she was
right and could have made it, but stopped anyway, she would have to
stop and back up, a relatively small loss.
In the Iraqi question we must also consider the possible downside.
Opponents of President Bush and our decision to go into Iraq now
vehemently announce that we were wrong. They say that Saddam Hussein
had no weapons of mass destruction and that his regime had no ties
with al-Qaida. Many are not totally convinced of either of these
assertions at this moment, however let us suppose that this is indeed
the truth. What is the down-side to being wrong? A ruthless, murdering
tyrant and his oppressive regime have been deposed. A people have the
opportunity of political freedom for the first time in their history.
Those who hate America and wish as many of us dead as possible have
one less sanctuary from which to finance and train terrorist. Now we
cannot forget that this came at a high price. Many brave Americans
gave their last full measure of devotion for this cause. Freedom has
always exacted a high price. In the famous words of Thomas Payne,
"tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered, yet we have this
consolation with us; that the harder the conflict the more glorious
the triumph. What we obtain too cheap we esteem too lightly. It is
dearness only which gives a thing its value, and it would be strange
indeed, if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly
Much of this has been said and augured before,
but what has escaped note is what would have been the down side had we
been wrong the other way. What if we had left Saddam in power and he
had and used WMD? How many tens of thousands or even millions of
Americas could now be dead or suffering from a nuclear terrorist
attack? If we had been wrong the other way it might very well have
been the most cataclysmic disaster this nation has ever faced.
If September 11 taught us anything, it should
have taught us that we are vulnerable. We are the one superpower in
the world, but our people are in jeopardy. The primary duty of any
American president is to ensure the safety and security of the
American people. As the great nation that we are, we should do all
that we can to make the world a safer and better place to live, but it
is the interest of America and Americans which must come first.
Our enemies now have weapons of mass
destruction. They may not have nuclear warheads atop ICBMs, but they
have access to dangerous nuclear material and deadly chemical and
biological substances. Many of the same people who express fear of
America's nuclear energy program and would in a minute line up to
protest the construction of a new nuclear power plant in this country,
seem to have no problem whatsoever with Iran, Pakistan or any other
Islamic country building such plants. Do they so how think that
Americas would be less dead from an intentional terrorist attack using
radioactive materials than if they were to die from an accidental
exposure to such material?
It is my hope that our leaders will soon
understand that the safety of the United States demands that nations
whose populations have shown that they wish us dead should not be
allowed to possess any radio active material. Most of these countries
have abundant supplies of oil and they can us it to generate electric
power. America should use all its means, including all out military
force to remove nuclear weapons form Pakistan and India. While India
is not a majority Moslem state, it too must disarm in order to
maintain a balance of power between it and its potential enemy
Pakistan. Our safety requires that nuclear weapons be removed from
Pakistan. While it is true that we bought their government's very
unsteady alliance, the people of that country have great hate for
America. They are harboring Osama Bin-Laden and many of what is left
of his al-Qaida captains.
Rogue nations such as North Korea must also be
forced to disarm, and give up all radioactive materials. This is a
matter of national security. Our leaders must act now, before we are
again the victims a sneak attack.
Back to the Top
While many of the humanists and atheists would
have us believe that religion is outdated and irrelevant in today's
world, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of the world's
inhabitants have very strong religious views. Most of the good
actions, and sadly, many of the bad, are done for religious reason. In
this country we as a nation have strayed far from our religious roots.
Views & News will present an essay on a different religion each week.
We will be as subjective, opened minded,
factual, and fair as possible. Nothing in any essay is in anyway
intended as an endorsement of any particular religion. If you would
like to dispute, correct, or add to anything presented, please submit
these to us. Christian and non-Christian religions will both be
covered and we will select their order by what we deem as relevant and
interesting at the present time. Religions that are very well known,
will be presented after those we know little of as a matter of course.
If you have missed any of our past essays on Islam, Jehovah’s
Witnesses, or the Anglican Church, you can read them online at
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
Again there is just too much material to cover
in one week's column. We will present part one this week and part two
next week. Part one will have "The Articles of Faith", which are the
basic beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints, a
proclamation on the family, and a brief overview of the Church's
history. Next week part two will contain statistics and more in-depth
study of its history, and doctrine. In two weeks we will continue with
the Presbyterian Church.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
was organized as an institution among men on April, 6, 1830. However,
members of the Church believe that the Church is a restoration of the
original church Christ founded. Joseph Smith Jr. was the founder and
first president of the church and is believed by the Latter-day Saints
to have been a prophet, as have been all of his successors. The church
endured much persecution in its early days, and Joseph Smith was
murdered by a mob in 1844. After the death of their leader some of the
members splinted off into separate groups and started their own
churches; the Community of Christ, (formally the Reorganized Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), is the largest of these groups.
Nevertheless, most of the members followed Brigham Young to Utah, and
they are now more than twelve million "Mormons" worldwide.
A newspaper publisher, John Wentworth, asked
Joseph Smith Jr. what the Mormons believed and the letter he wrote in
response is now called the "Wentworth Letter" and from it two
documents have come to be used by the members of the church. One of
these, the Articles of Faith is canonized in the Pearl of Great Price,
a book Latter-days Saints hold to be scripture. The current President
of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, wrote, "The Family: a Proclamation
to the World", in 1995 and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles published
"The Living Christ: the Testimony of the Apostles" in January 2000.
These three documents provide a good overview of Mormon doctrine in
general. Next week we will look at more specific doctrine.
THE ARTICLES OF FAITH
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535-541
WE believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ,
and in the Holy Ghost.
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be
saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:
first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third,
Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of
hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the
laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel
and administer in the ordinances thereof.
We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive
Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists,
and so forth.
We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions,
healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated
correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and
we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things
pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration
of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon
the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the
earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the
dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege,
let them worship how, where, or what they may.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and
magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in
doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the
admonition of Paul-We believe all things, we hope all things, we have
endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If
there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy,
we seek after these things.
The Family: a Proclamation to the World
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the
Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained
of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the
eternal destiny of His children.
All human beings-male and female-are created in the image of God. Each
is a beloved spirit son or daughter of Heavenly Parents. And, as such,
each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential
characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity
In the premortal realm, spirits sons and daughters knew and worshiped
God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His
children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to
progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine
destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness
enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave.
Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it
possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for
families to be united eternally.
The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their
potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's
commandment for his children to multiply and replenish the earth
remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the
sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and
woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely
appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in
God's eternal plan.
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for
each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the
Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their
children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and
spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to
observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens
wherever they live. Husbands and wives-mothers and fathers-will be
held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is
essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within
the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who
honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is
most likely to be achieved when founded on the teachings of the Lord
Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and
maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness,
respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational
activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their
families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the
necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are
primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these
sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one
another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances
may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend
support when needed.
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse
spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities
will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the
disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities,
and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We
call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere
to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the
family as the fundamental unit of society.
(Copyright © 1995, November 1995 Ensign, a magazine published by The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
THE LIVING CHRIST
THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTLES
THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
As we commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ two
millennia ago, we offer our testimony of the reality of His matchless
life and the infinite virtue of His great atoning sacrifice. None
other has had so profound an influence upon all who have lived and
will yet live upon the earth.
He instituted the sacrament as a reminder of His great atoning
sacrifice. He was arrested and condemned on spurious charges,
convicted to satisfy a mob, and sentenced to die on Calvary's cross.
He gave His life to atone for the sins of all mankind. His was a great
vicarious gift in behalf of all who would ever live upon the earth.
We solemnly testify that His life, which is central to all human
history, neither began in Bethlehem nor concluded on Calvary. He was
the Firstborn of the Father, the Only Begotten Son in the flesh, the
Redeemer of the world.
He rose from the grave to "become the firstfruits of them that slept"
(1 Corinthians 15:20). As Risen Lord, He visited among those He had
loved in life. He also ministered among His "other sheep" (John 10:16)
in ancient America. In the modern world, He and His Father appeared to
the boy Joseph Smith, ushering in the long-promised "dispensation of
the fulness of times" (Ephesians 1:10).
Of the Living Christ, the Prophet Joseph wrote: "His eyes were as a
flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his
countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was
as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of
"I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was
slain; I am your advocate with the Father" (D&C 110:3-4).
Of Him the Prophet also declared: "And now, after the many testimonies
which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all,
which we give of him: That he lives!
"For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice
bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father-
"That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were
created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters
unto God" (D&C 76:22-24). We declare in words of solemnity that His
priesthood and His Church have been restored upon the earth-"built
upon the foundation of . . . apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
himself being the chief corner stone" (Ephesians 2:20). We testify
that He will someday return to earth. "And the glory of the Lord shall
be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together" (Isaiah 40:5). He
will rule as King of Kings and reign as Lord of Lords, and every knee
shall bend and every tongue shall speak in worship before Him. Each of
us will stand to be judged of Him according to our works and the
desires of our hearts. We bear testimony, as His duly ordained
Apostles-that Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. He
is the great King Immanuel, who stands today on the right hand of His
Father. He is the light, the life, and the hope of the world. His way
is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in
the world to come. God be thanked for the matchless gift of His divine
The original document signed by the three members of the Presidency of
the Church and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.