Author: Chris Henrichsen

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer. while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled. The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyrranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.

He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.

He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men–both natives and foreigners.

Having deprived her of this first right of a citizedn, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.

He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.

He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.

He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master–the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.

He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes, and in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardles of the happiness of women–the law, in all cases, going upon a flase supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.

After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single, and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.

He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction which he considers most homorable to himself. As a teacher of theoloy, medicine, or law, she is not known.

He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her.

He allows her in church, as well as state, but a suborinate position, claiming apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the church.

He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated, but deemed of little account in man.

He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and to her God.

He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her conficence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.

Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation–in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States.

from Elizabeth Cady Stanton, A History of Woman Suffrage , vol. 1 (Rochester, N.Y.: Fowler and Wells, 1889), pages 70-71.

With the announcement of Huntsman running for president and all the focus on Mitt and his Mormonism…I think there needs to be another Mormon in the 2012 mix.

Of course, I am not running for POTUS. Right now, I am deciding which race to pursue. My primary interest is in one of the Congressional races.

Today, I spoke with the executive director of the state Democratic Party. Things are now rolling…slowly…but rolling.

Being a father is a lot harder than I ever would have imagined. However, it is also more fun than I ever would have guessed.

A few days ago, I was in my front yard playing catch with my two boys. My daughter, also my youngest, came running out with a baseball glove that was way too big. The glove did not work (partially because it was too big, partially because she is a left-hander), but she was able to toss the baseball a bit.

As I played baseball with my three kids, I thought to myself “I love being a Dad.”

My children have many of my traits. I sometimes feel bad about that. After all, who would want to turn out like me. Luckily, they also have my wife Lyndee as an influence in there lives.

In a recent panel, my friend Christian described what it was like coming out as a homosexual to himself and his family. I hope that my children will never fear to tell me such things. I joked on the panel that the thing I would most struggle with was if my children ever came out as…Republicans. I am praying for the strength, patience, and love needed for that day. After all, Shem (age 9) is showing some serious Republican tendencies.

For Father’s Day, I got from my wife a University of Utah T-Shirt, an Orioles T-Shirt, and a Johnny Cash T-Shirt. I am a 4XL Tall and so t-shirts are hard to find…and pricey when I do. My daughter, Geneva, got me some Dad’s brand Red Cream Soda.

My son, Todd, got me Rock Band 2. He gave it to me Saturday so we could play last night. He played guitar. I was lead vocals. We did Weezer’s “Say it Ain’t So” (a long time karaoke favorite of mine) and Nirvana’s “In Bloom.” It was a blast. My boy and I…bonding over Weezer and Nirvana. This is love.

I love being a Dad.

Wait…Shem didn’t get me anything. Hmmmm.

My lips…or should I say my finger tips…have been with much guile. I need to change.

I do not think that this will mean that I will be more agreeable. I still think that certain views should be marginalized rather than engaged. Some arguments, left and right, are stupid. However, I do not need to be the one who points it out.

Instead, I would like to focus more of my energy on creating a positive vision of where I stand morally, politically, and theologically. I am not known as a Rawlsian liberal, I am known for my anti-conservative angst. Yuck. I need to do better.

I think that my first step will be to not go to blogs that provoke my angst. The mod queue at M* will miss me. The permas at fMh will have less need to eye-roll at my elitist comments.

This also means that I will be posting more rather than commenting elsewhere. I am looking forward to my summer.

I apologize to the many I have offended by my behavior. I do not apologize for my theory. However, my behavior has clouded my mind and my message.

A new chapter.

Upon arrival in Billings, we decided to do initiatory work for some of Lyndee’s ancestors. She went in first while I waited in the waiting room with Todd (11), Shem (9), and Geneva (5). After the drive, I was looking forward to relaxing in the temple.

Todd had another plan.

He had been promised a cover for his iPod touch when I had purchased covers for iPhones earlier in the week. Due to the trip, the acquisition of a case had been postponed a number of times.

Todd was now frustrated.

He didn’t want to hang around the temple.

He wanted to go to…Wal-Mart.

This made me think of an Richard Bushman essay I had read in which Bushman compared the symbolic meaning of two early Illinois cities…Chicago and Nauvoo.

Chicago is the great city of American Industrial Revolution. It is also the back drop of Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle.”

Nauvoo was established at the height of Joseph’s communalism. While the center of Chicago’s activity was commerce, the name Nauvoo replaced the city’s earlier name of Commerce. At the heart of Nauvoo was not money and trade, but the Temple.

As I listened to my tired 11 year-old beg to go to Wal-Mart, I realized that the focus of our family is not the temple of Joseph Smith, but the temple of Sam Walton.

Now, I am not a Wal-Mart hater. I am not interested is this post becoming about the store or the company. Instead, this is about personal realization that my family, both individually and collectively, is more Chicago than Nauvoo. We are more Commerce than Nauvoo…or Beautiful.

This is why the idea of the temple as a refuge from the world is important. Not only is it a refuge from the language and immorality of the world…it is a refuge from commercialism and greed.

I am still working through the symbolism of the temple rituals. However, I think I know what I want the temple to symbolize for me and my family.

A refuge.

This week, my family is taking a trip to Billings, Montana. The Billings Temple is our local temple.

I have not been to the temple for over two years. It has been even longer since I have done an endowment session. This may be the first time I have been excited about going to the temple since my sealing to my wife in 1998.

I am not sure what to expect. Well, I know what will happen…I have been before. I am just not sure what the experience will be like.

Nibley loved the temple for many reasons. For me, the thing which stuck out to me was his portrayal of the temple as a sanctuary from the world. As a social scientist and theorist, I am curios about symbols and images that I may have missed in the past.

On a personal level, I am going to the temple for a different reason. I am hoping to find my God. I have rediscovered my faith in him. Now I hope to find a relationship with him. I do not know if this is what I will find in Billings, but I feel that the temple should be a stop on my journey.

Thanks for letting me share my journey with you.

Can there be a faithful liberal Mormonism? I have recently rediscovered my faith in Christ and come to terms with my Mormonism. My quest from here is to discover my path within Mormonism.

I am not talking about political liberalism. While political liberalism is my primary specialty, this is not “Can a Mormon be a Democrat?” Instead, I am thinking of liberalism in a religious sense. I will commence here my attempt to define a type of Mormon religious liberalism.

I recently belonged to a forum which often referred to True Blue Mormons (TBM). A TBM is somebody who fully accepts the LDS narrative about church history and the scriptures. I do not know what this fully means, but on this particular forum, the TBM, even if well educated in their respective field, is an ignorant fool. They do not realize how corrupt the Church is. They do not realize that Joseph Smith was a fraud. They clearly had not seen the light like those on this forum.

I no longer belong to this forum.
Continue reading “True Blue Mormon Liberalism”

Today, in testimony meeting, Kelly walked up to the pulpit. Five months ago, we did not know whether she would ever walk on her own again.

Today, in testimony meeting, Kelly bore her testimony. Five months ago, we did not know if Kelly would speak again.

On Christmas Eve, Kelly and her five year old daughter Elise were skiing with family and friends. A snowboarder slammed into both of them. He was going at a very high rate off speed.

Elise died on Casper Mountain.

Kelly was in a coma for weeks. Later she spent months in rehabilitation in Denver. We all asked, “Would she fully recover?” She appears to be making great strides.

Today she mentioned that a fellow patient in the hospital did not have memories of her children. Kelly expressed gratitude for the memories she still had. Many struggles remain, but she still has memories of Elise.

Kelly expressed her love for her Heavenly Mother.

Kelly expressed her love for her Heavenly Father.

I am glad I was there this morning. I now have a desire to be less cynical.

Happy Mother’s Day.

In “Marx’s Contributions and their Relevance Today,” John G. Gurley takes an interesting approach to viewing the contemporary economic world through the lens of Marxist analysis. He asks us to consider what Karl Marx himself would say if he were “to rise from the dead and survey our world of theory and practice.” Gurley approaches the question by looking at what he views as the seven major contributions of Marx to economics.

The first of these contributions is Marx’s theory of historical materialism which established a framework “for analyzing economic, social, and political changes over long periods of time.” Today, Marx would find that he was correct about the “transitory” nature of capitalism. Yet, he would find that socialism had not replaced mature capitalist political economies, but instead had taken hold in “immature capitalist or even pre-capitalist societies.” The proletariat in advanced industrialized countries have become satisfied with their relative condition and unwilling to challenge exploitation.

In some way, the transitory nature of capitalism is an evolutionary one. I say this because capitalism changes, but it is not replaced. We see this in the way that capitalism adopts government investment and welfare mechanisms to mute the more brutal aspects of free-market capitalism. Yet, the adaptations do not negate poverty, inequality, exploitation, or alienation. All of this is to say that capitalism has evolved rather than be replaced by communism as Marx predicted. Marx may have been right about capitalism (in many ways), but he may have underestimated the extent to which the forces of capitalism seek to maintain capitalism.

The second contribution which Gurley lists is Marx’s conclusion that working class in “bound” to remain in a lower and “impoverished” position in relation to “the growing wealth around it.”

Today, Marx would find that the position of the working class has not changed in its relative position to the capitalist classes. While the details surrounding the conditions of the class may appear different, Marx “would see here essentially the same class structure that he left.” Additionally, Marx would find that economists today, like those in his day, continue to ignore his analysis of labor value and exploitation.

Another contribution of Marx was his “economic theory of the state.” Marx felt that the state could do little to “alleviate the commercial crisis of capitalism.” While the state can make temporary effects though fiscal and banking policy, state primarily works to support the capitalist class. Gurley says that Marx would be “surprised” by the government measure used to stabilize the economy. I agree that he might be surprise by the extent to which big government has been mobilized to support capitalism. However, I think that he would see this as proof of his prediction that capitalism is instable. It is so instable that the forces of capitalism require full backing of the state to perpetuate.

Marx also explained how alienated workers continue to support and idealize capitalism. Additionally, those workers who questioned the merits of capitalism where often mislead or “deceived by numerous anarchist, reformist, and bogus socialist movements.” As a result the workers are not only alienated from the means of production and their own humanity, but also from each other. This division of the working class has long diluted the working class as a political force.

Today, Marx would be dismayed by the grasp of nationalism amongst the working class. The working class seems more likely to be patriotic or nationalistic, in an absolute sense, than amongst elites where as sense of cosmopolitanism is more accepted and encourage. Yet this allegiance to nation state, for Marx, is not is the interest of the worker, particularly when the national interest is the basic for denying the working class progress. He would likewise be dismayed “by the continuing debilitating influence of religion on the working class.” Marx was right to say that the working class are too easily pacified in their alienation by religion. As a religious person, I often am shocked (though I tend not to be so shocked anymore) by the amount of religion that is really just an endorsement of the bourgeois way of life.

Needless to say, Marx would be disappointed today if he returned, both with the state of the world and the state of economics. However, given his understanding of the forces of economics he would not be surprised. He may not have predicted that things would turnout as they have, but many of his assumptions were correct, even if the class struggle did not manifest itself as he might have hoped. I think that he would be most discouraged that while the class structure of society is so evident in the capitalist world, it is widely ignored. We continued to move forward as though we are a classless society, when in fact the classes are just moving farther apart before our eyes. Yet, we still do not see it. Gurley concluded by saying that a revived Marx “begin organizing the proletariat.” I wonder if the despair would overwhelm him. It does me when I consider the prospect of an egalitarian society.

Happy Birthday.

Gurley, John G. “Marx’s Contributions and their Relevance Today.” The American Economic Review 74, no. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Ninety-Sixth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (1984): 110-115.

This afternoon, my co-host will be Bored in Vernal. BiV is a regular guest here at FPR and she is also a driving force behind Wheat and Tares.

Some ground rules for the open threads:
1. Be Nice.
2. Disagreement with the comments and talks is allowed…mocking is not.
3. This is a faithful..though liberal at times…Mormon blog. The threads will be conducted accordingly.

I look forward to everyone’s comments. Let us end this on a strong note…by again having more comments than the BCC thread.