Failure to commit

Despite my noticing early on that it was common for church members to be conservative (and being frustrated with that), it was still a new level of horror to find members wanting Trump. 

While technically he is not really that different from Reagan, previous Republicans at least tried to keep a veneer of civility. Without that, how do you not recoil from the ugliness?

Therefore, it does feel better this time around to see many people who have been traditionally conservative rejecting Trump. 

That is not just people I know from church. Other people I have not liked at all recently making good points against Trump include Stephen A. Smith, Charlamagne tha God, and almost kind of getting there is Joe Rogan. 

I don't want to reject this coming around -- which is so needed -- but there is something bugging me. I guess it's my concern that they still only really miss the veneer.

I am thinking of two things specifically. I do see them with members, but not exclusively. 

One is the tendency to vote for third party candidates or to write someone in. Recently there was someone who can't vote for Trump so she plans to write in Nikki Haley. 

Why?

Because Haley is a woman of color, but not THAT woman of color? Because Trump criticized Haley, so she must in some way be superior?

Haley endorsed Trump. She sent him dates when she could help with his campaign. 

Haley wants Trump to win. No, she probably doesn't like him as a person, but he is the power in the Republican party right now. She is willing to capitalize on that, no matter how repugnant he is.

Great protest.

The other thing I hate -- and this probably will surprise some people -- is ranked choice voting. I voted against ballot measure 117.

It feels to me like the people who favor it are the same ones who don't want Trump in office but they don't want to vote for Harris. They want this way to withhold their support without the bad consequences happening.

Let me tell you something about 2016: I don't believe that James Comey wanted Trump to win. I think he just wanted to tarnish Hillary Clinton's win to knock her down a peg, uppity women and Democrats and all that. I don't know how much difference he made, but it was the wrong thing to do.

For moderate Republicans, look, on the left we have a similar issue with "progressive" voters. They hate and feel superior to everyone. They are too conscientious and ethical to commit to trying to work toward something better, so they vote for Putin affiliate Jill Stein or they don't vote at all or they write in, well, probably not Mickey Mouse... maybe Bernie Sanders. 

The result is either we succeed without them, or we get something worse.

What I am asking for is commitment to the common good.

Don't try and weasel out of it. Don't cling to your ability to have contempt for everyone else. 

Actually look at what is needed, what is dangerous, what is hate-driven and what is at least trying, and commit to that.

The commitment doesn't end there. People are imperfect and systems are imperfect. It requires calling and letter-writing and maybe volunteering. It certainly requires paying more attention to local issues. 

But really, if you have any desire to be moral or ethical, do you think you can do it by looking down on everyone else and refusing to commit?

Do you think you can do it by putting the burden on everyone else? 

King-men and the Constitution

I've spent so much time going over the problems of dominator culture, and have only barely touched on what could be with partnership culture... that could be a good area to explore.

However, there's an election rapidly approaching and early voting has already started. For vote-by-mail, we are doing our ballots tonight. 

That makes this a good time to focus on the election. I have a couple of things that apply specifically to members, though the principles could certainly have a broader application. 

First of all, I speak of the king-men.

That term specifically comes from Alma 51, where there is a group of Nephites that want to move away from having judges and appoint a king. That may be the part we have most in mind because there were wars going on anyway, and the lack of unity complicated those wars. However, we also see that happening with Amlici in Alma 2, and Jacob in 3 Nephi 7. 

It's not that unusual, that someone will want more power than the law gives them. 

It's not that unusual that such a group will try and overthrow the government. They fail a lot, which is helpful, but the problem doesn't really go away.

It might seem weird that other people -- who are not going to be the king -- will support it. 

We get a partial explanation in Alma 51:8:

Now those who were in favor of kings were those of high birth, and they sought to be kings; and they were supported by those who sought power and authority over the people.

There shouldn't have really been people of high birth, but there would have been people who had more money and thought they were better (that is the most frequently repeated problem). 

In addition, once you start establishing ranks, then there are always people who might not be that high, but will still be over someone and love that, the crux of dominator culture.

If you are thinking that does not apply to Trump and his supporters, well, I have seen people referring to Barron as their future king, I have definitely seen a worsening of dominator culture whenever he is running and ruling, and some of that hagiographic art and the gold statue at the 2021 CPAC... I mean, the signs are there. 

I know it sounds very dramatic to say that if you don't vote for Harris now you won't get a chance to vote for president again, but I'm very concerned that it is true.

I know there are church members who were there on January 6th and I know there are members who defend them, and they are wrong. If there are any questions about that, this is a time to ponder.

That leads to the other thing.

Some of you may be familiar with the so-called White Horse prophecy, and unsubstantiated prediction that the constitution of the United States would hang by a thread and it would be upon the Church to save it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy 

It is important to note that it is unsubstantiated. If something was actually said, we are not sure what or how or in what context.

However, we very well may be in that position now. Remember that we had people ready to hang the vice-president of the United States because he would not refuse to certify election results, his actual constitutional duty. 

Fake "Captain Moroni" had it completely wrong. 

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-utah-riots-salt-lake-city-us-news-826c912c28ef70e166ad965913dc28ea

In fact, our constitution is flawed, like the people who created and ratified it. There is a process for amending it, and there can be good things to do with that, but they are not throwing out everything because it gives a result that we don't like, part of which includes movement toward greater equality.

If there is a time that church members can save the constitution, it may very well be by Utah, Idaho, and Arizona voting for Harris.

Imagine that

Recently, on this blog and the main blog, there have been several references to sex. There was one thing that I haven't really brought up: 

Moving away from dominator culture can result in people having more enjoyable sex. That can be a good thing.

Better sex still wouldn't be a given. It would probably require some communication and effort, but if you remove the part where there is competition and dehumanization and selfishness, that can be a big leap forward.

That possibility seemed too obvious to need saying, but I may not always be the best judge of what is obvious.

Just in case this is also not obvious, moving past dominator culture would make everything better.

Would things automatically be perfect? No.

Still, imagine corporations not being so consumed with record profits that they tended toward underpayment, undervaluing, wage theft, and stinginess with benefits.

Imagine pharmaceutical companies not so consumed with record profits that they did not overprice needed medications, including medications that someone else had invented, but then their equity firm bought the company and went straight to extortion.

Imagine no rape or harassment.

Imagine no child abuse.

Imagine children not being bullied!

Actually, a lot of progress has been made on that one, at least in some places.

I have been reading several memoirs for Pride lately. Bullying comes up a lot, though not so much for Janet Mock while in Hawaii, because their culture was more accepting. It didn't make everything perfect, but definitely better than what Jonathan Van Ness faced in Illinois or Cleve Jones in Indiana or Arizona.

My friends' children also tend to be much more accepting. The result of this is that queer kids don't have to be suicidal and are less open to being exploited by predatory adults. I am all in favor of that.

I am not naive enough to think that even in liberal Oregon's metro area that all of the kids are enlightened and supportive. Not only does bullying still exist, but there are parents working hard to undo the acceptance, even here. I mean, the reason I have read Jonathan Van Ness at all is that he was referenced by a lying school board candidate:

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2023/05/do-they-know-or-care-that-they-are-lying.html

It is still better.

It is also a good model, because realistically, not everyone will get there right away. We have to consider how to defend those that need defending (including ourselves) without ourselves becoming the bullies.

For example, I keep running into this issue where I agree with so many things that prison abolitionists point out, but I can't be a prison abolitionist because they keep ending up defending abusers and blaming circumstances. No, there are people who just get a kick out of being abusive. I may not know what can be done, but I find their refusal to meaningfully engage with that issue very angering.

It is a complex and a hard world. I know that, but I also know that it can be better. 

While there is much that can be done together and needs to be done together, I also know that there needs to be a change inside too. 

Without declaring that I am there, the progress I have made in that direction is elevating. I am not just better, I am happier.

Can you imagine that?

Another scripture featuring patriarchy

The "other" is referencing an earlier post about James 1:27.

Realistically, there are many, many scriptures that have patriarchy behind them. Since I have been writing about dominator culture and chastity, I have been thinking about Moroni 9:9-10:

And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue—

And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery.

Prisoners of war are being raped, murdered, and eaten; that is awful and disgusting and evil.

I will allow that the fact that the woman were raped is a sign that the patriarchy was already there; rape is a way that you dominate women.

I think there are some other things about it that are being perceived incorrectly. Without casting any blame -- Mormon and Moroni were good people in difficult times -- we can do better.

I am also not going to lower the value of chastity and virtue; those are important.

What I will argue is that if chaste and virtuous people of any gender are raped, that has not made them any less chaste or virtuous. That is a matter of what you do, not what others do to you.

It is devastating to have someone do something to your body that you do not want. There are terrible feelings of helplessness and betrayal and maybe worthlessness for not being able to stop it.

Those would be similar feelings to what a male rape victim would go through. The difference is that then the judgment would be about their manliness and if they really wanted it and if maybe they are gay, all of which is rotten.

What I am saying is that the real crime of rape is the assault on bodily autonomy. Our thinking about it is gendered in a way that is not merely not helpful but actually harmful.

Remember one of the things that made Elizabeth Smart's ordeal was hard was the analogy she had been taught about chewed up gum, and nobody wanting that.

I have read a few stories about young LDS women who were raped. Although they had been saving themselves for marriage, they later went through stages of promiscuity. I thought part of it was trying to exercise some choice and control, even if it was through choices they wouldn't have made before. I suspect now that a feeling of being "ruined" was also part of it. Why bother anymore, now that it is too late?

That kind of thinking is the fault of patriarchy, and it is a feature, not a bug.

It's patriarchy that says that women are property of men, and subservient. It can come out as sadism or that they should have the right or that the woman really wanted it or that what she wants doesn't matter, but it is that supremacy and dominion that is the essence of dominator culture.