Since it's April 6th, here's a treat.  It's the 174th anniversary of the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Keith sent this link my way last week.  It seems appropriate to post these together.  For those not familiar with the history, here's a short historical recap:  The church was founded on 6 April 1830 by Joseph Smith and five others.  In not too much time, many members moved to Missouri.  The native Missourians weren't too happy with them being there, so they tortured, harassed, and forced them out of the state at gunpoint.  The church then settled in Illinois.  After a few years, the natives of Illinois followed the example of the Missourians.  They also murdered Joseph and his brother Hyrum.  After being thrown out of Illinois, the church settled in the midwest and specifically in what became Utah.

I'm glad for Illinois' recent resolution.  I hold nothing against those of Missouri or Illinois, despite the fact that my ancestors were among those who were persecuted there.  Let's put the dark past behind us and move on to a brighter future.

I've read a fair amount these last few weeks on two issues - performance of same gender marriages in San Fransisco and Mel Gibson's new movie The Passion of Christ.  My intent here isn't to discuss either topic specifically, but rather to discuss some of the debate that is associated with them.

Based on my non lawyerly understanding of the subject, here's what happened in San Fransisco: in 2000, the majority of the citizens of the state of California voted in favor of not allowing same gender marriage.  The mayor of San Fransisco gave permission for same gender marriages to be performed.  Such marriages were performed.

I don't want to discuss whether such marriages should or should not be legal at this time.  What I'm alarmed about is the disrespect the mayor had for the law.  He brushed the law aside (and the votes of the majority of the citizens of the state of California) and consented to the granting of marriage licenses to same gender couples.  Whatever moral high ground he wants to claim for himself in defense of his action, I think he loses by not respecting and obeying the law.

Does our law not provide for people to voice their opinions?  Does it not allow for them to petition the government to address specific issues?  Does it not provide a court system to examine the legality of existing laws?  Does it not provide a means to elect a new government more favorable to one's personal views?  Yes, in every case, it does.

One of the duties of a citizen of this nation, especially of an elected official, is to uphold the law.  In many cases that means to uphold laws with which we, personally, do not agree.  One of the foundational pieces of doctrine of the church in which I am a member is this statement: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.  (12th Article of Faith)  I do not support breaking the law.

I am appalled at the actions in San Fransisco for several reasons.  First, the mayor broke the law by permitting illegal actions to occur.  Second, justices of the peace and other government officials sanctioned the mayor's actions.  Third, citizens took advantage of a situation and themselves participated in breaking the law by being married.  I understand that the specific issue here is a very personal one.  However, I find it very hard to be persuaded to condone actions like this.  To me they are saying that their personal needs are more important than the laws of the state and country in which they live.

In conversations regarding the issue of gay marriage, several people have talked about legislating morality, pushing beliefs on people, and intimating that to not approve of [insert social issue here] implies hatred.

A few weeks ago, I blogged generally about a conversation I had with a close friend of mine.  One of the things we discussed was the set of events in San Fransisco.  He made the comment that it is impossible to not legislate morality and that all those who accuse the conservative right of such actions are themselves performing or advocating such actions.  Said a bit more plainly - if a religious man passes a law that outlaws adultery, he is legislating morality.  If another man passes a law legalizing adultery, he is also legislating morality.  One one side is restriction, on the other is the lack of restriction.  On both sides is a belief system codified into law.  If laws are passed that legalize same sex marriages, those laws legislate morality just as much as the Defense of Marriage Act legislates morality.

In like manner, many, who are in favor of defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, are accused of pushing their beliefs on others.  Quite obviously, those who are in favor of defining marriage as the union of any two people are also pushing their beliefs on others.  There's an old saying “it takes two to tango.”  It applies here.  Both sides are pushing their beliefs on the other.  Both sides are trying to legislate morality.  There is nothing wrong with doing either.  That is what freedom of expression, democracy, and representative democracy are all about.  However, they are also about abiding by the laws that have been passed by that same process whether or not yours was the side that won.

The issue of “disagree with me implies you hate me (or the group I'm defending)” is very often just a bit of rhetorical hyperbole.  My personal stance on homosexuality is that it is wrong.  That said, I have more than one friend in the gay or bi community.  I try to practice the “love the sinner hate the sin” ideal.  I try to accept other people where they are and for who they are.  Accepting them doesn't imply that I sanction everything they do.  It also doesn't imply that I burn down their homes or beat them to a bloody pulp in the streets.

It is important to me to accept people for who they are for many reasons.  One of the main reasons is justice.  I am not a perfect person by any standard.  I quite often do not live up to the ideals in which I believe.  I'd rather not add hypocrisy to my list by pointing fingers at others, while I have many faults of my own.  That said, I do not expect (or even desire) that people accept my faults.  I hope they accept me for who I am and help me become better, but I do not hope they embrace my faults.

I lumped Mel's movie into this post, because of some of the criticism I've heard regarding his movie.  Many have accused him of being anti-semitic.  On that matter I say this - I believe there was a man named Jesus Christ who lived about 2,000 years ago, that many of the Jews of that time hated him and conspired to have him killed, and that the Romans of that time tortured and executed him.  None of those actions justify me in attacking anyone of Jewish or Roman descent.

Indeed, as a Christian, I should follow the instructions of Him in Whom I profess to believe and forgive those men of long ago.  I believe that Jesus sacrificed Himself as a result of His great love for all mankind.  Shouldn't I follow His example and do all I can to love them as well...even if it means loving those who harmed Him?  Yes.  Absolutely.  If I attack some poor Jew on the basis of the actions of his ancestors of 2000 years ago, I'm worse than those who conspired to kill Jesus, for I knew and promised to live the law of Christ, yet I reject it in my actions.  Once again, love the sinner hate the sin.

While thinking of patriotism, I'm drawn to a somewhat similar concept...nationalism.  I hate nationalism.  I hate it.  In my mind, it is at least as vile as any other stereotype or prejudice.  It's worse than anti-semitism, racism, or religious persecution, simply because it typically excludes more people than any of those.

I define nationalism as “my country is better than yours.”  Even when my country is clearly doing something wrong, my country is still better than yours!  It justifies current bad deeds based on good deeds long past (we helped the French 50 years ago, so they should bow to our will now).  It blinds our minds to the virtues of others and the faults in ourselves.  It is an insidious evil that poisons our reasoning, our political view points, and our ability to be true patriots.

I define patriotism as doing what is right irrespective of circumstance.  A patriot will sacrifice for the greater good (a father for his family, a soldier for his country).  A patriot is an enemy of tyranny and a friend of freedom.  He doesn't lend his good name to support evil causes.  He does lend his hand to help those who accept his help no matter their citizenship.

I think this is just what Gordon B. Hinckley meant when he said, “I think there are many good people everywhere. And our appeal is to those people. We don’t down grade any Church. We don’t speak disparagingly of any Church. We simply say to people of other Churches, bring all the good that you have and come and let us see if they if we can add to it. Now that’s all there is to it.”  (see http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm)  A patriot, religious or otherwise, simply says, let me see if I can help you.  Teach me what you know, and I'll teach you what I know.  A nationalist (I'm from the US, therefore I'm the best.  I'm from Texas, therefore, I'm the best.  I'm white, therefore, I'm the best...) is too proud to admit that he can learn from anyone.

There's a little history here.  From September 1996 to September 1998, I was a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I served in the Russia Moscow Mission.  Since I was a native English speaker, I had to learn Russian.

It just so happens that the Russian word for park and the English word for park are cognates, that is, the sound the same in both languages.  In plural, they are slightly different.  In English, you pluralize park by adding an “s.”  In Russian, you pluralize by adding an “ee” (long e).  So, my last name translated into Russian is Parky (“ee”, “ey”, or “i” didn't suit me, so I opted to use “y” for the transliterated form).

Instead of calling me Elder Parks, I was often called Elder Parky or just Parky.  When I got home, the name just stuck.  When I registered my domain, lparky.com (Louis Parky) was the most logical choice (it was also available!).

Obviously, Louis Parks is Potato Man.  Where did the name come from?

Potato is a double-edged sword for me.  I wrote a parable back in '96 about potatoes.  Rather than accepting the status quo, the potato was trying to be the best he could be and rise above his surroundings.  I wrote it to a missionary, trying to explain my thoughts on life.  A few months later, I told it to my companion at the Missionary Training Center (MTC).  (I'll blog about being a missionary a bit more some day.)  Since he was about 6'2" and I'm 5'7", he used to call me spud.  It was very complimentary, meaning that in his eyes, I was trying to be the best friend to him and the best missionary I could be.

Potato also refers to a sarcastic comment I made a few months ago.  Jeremy Field and I were taking a class together at University of Phoenix.  He's a good friend of mine, so I spoke very candidly about an issue we were both having with the class.  I choose the first word that came to mind, potato, for an analogy I was making.  So, when I use potato referring to UoP, I'm covertly showing off my cockiness.

Using the two definitions together, I suppose Potato Man means that I'm a cocky guy, but that I'm always trying to do the right thing.