Tag Archives: Accountability

The End of Roe V Wade

Posted on by Karen Stark
1

Seeing “pro-choice” people so hysterically upset about the June 24, 2022 Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, makes we wonder whether they just don’t understand what the ruling does and does not do, or whether there is something more than the argument for choice going on.

This ruling did not create a nationwide ban on abortion. Abortion is not going away. No one is, or ever has been, “forced” by the government to bear children. Women still have control of their bodies, or at least as much self-control as they ever have had. As there has always been choice, especially all of the choices made which led to the situation seeking this particular choice, the “choice” to have an abortion is still there. There may be some other choices to be made about the where and when, but there is still choice.

About Choice

I always thought the real issue with choice was more about the desire to separate it from accountability – to remove the consequences of choices already made, which is what abortion essentially is. Now I see in these reactions that there is more to it than just this. People want to make selfish choices, but they also want affirmation that their choices are right, good, even virtuous. Even those who do not, or cannot (in the case of men) choose to have abortions themselves, want to feel that they have chosen the right side of this argument. The choice of language is to make one feel good promoting what is really bad: Pro-choice – as if anyone is really anti-choice; Reproductive “rights” and reproductive health care – which always results in death rather than reproduction.

This ruling leaves choice intact, but what it does do is remove the illusion that this particular choice is right or good. It removes the legitimacy of this action, which was wrong all along. Without the cover of “constitutional right” the bare selfishness of abortion is exposed.

Selfish choices are at the heart of all abortion, not just with those seeking abortion because a child would interfere with their life plans. There is also the selfishness of those who pressure or coerce vulnerable young women to get abortions, especially those who have already abused or exploited them and want to avoid responsibility for their choices. Then there is the selfishness, and greed, of those who profit from the industry, and the self-serving actions of those who exploit this issue to gain or retain political power.

Righting the Wrong

Many of us have known all along that abortion was morally wrong. Killing children is not “good” for individuals or for society, and certainly not for the aborted child. There never was a “right” to abortion in the constitution. Roe v. Wade was not a good ruling from the beginning. I knew it back in 1973 and was sick about it then. But according to our constitution we were bound by it. Just as we all are bound by this new ruling now.

I celebrate that we as a country are no longer bound by a bad court ruling. I applaud the Supreme Court Justices who had the courage to right this wrong. Women can and will still choose abortion, but now without national approval or sanction. The choice was always ours and so now is the accountability, whether that be for our personal choices, or our choice to vote for representatives who make laws in our States.

Celebrating Independence

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

As we celebrated Independence Day this year, I reflected on independence and why it is worth celebrating. Of course, on July 4th we celebrate the independence of a small group of colonies from the rule of their mother country and King. But it was the independent spirit of those colonists that led them to seek that political and institutional independence. An independent nation could not have been born without that spirit of independence.

Independent Roots

The roots of independence started with those brave souls who ventured across a vast ocean to settle a foreign wilderness. Though subjects of Kings, they had no assistance from the physically distant crown to ensure their survival. They learned that their survival depended upon their own self-sufficiency and actions for which they were personally responsible.

Forming communities required working together. Being so far removed from the mother country, they learned to govern themselves by necessity. It was quite some time before armies were provided for their defense, and the cost of such defense proved to be more than they were willing to bear. Their desire for self-determination and freedom outweighed the dangers that would be faced.

As things developed, leaders naturally sprung up from the masses, based on the strength of their characters, not appointed from above because of noble birth or the favor of Kings. It is because of this strength, courage and spirit, that independence from Britain seemed necessary and worth the long hard struggle.

Independent Individuals

At the heart of an independent nation are independent individuals. Independence implies a dependence on self rather than dependence on others or external conditions. It involves self-reliance and self-sufficiency – the ability to use resources, talents and abilities to meet one’s own needs. It includes a desire for self-determination, using agency to choose how to go about meeting those needs and how to personally pursue happiness. This is true liberty.

Accountable Independence

The exercise of liberty includes accountability. There are consequences of choices. Truly independent people take responsibility for the outcome of their choices, good or bad. Blaming implies dependence – someone or something else had control, we are powerless against whatever forces. Independent people not only take responsibility for the outcome of choices, but also take responsibility to correct errors and improve. Feelings of entitlement, expecting guarantees or wanting someone to step in and make everything right are signs of dependence.

Accountability raises the question of accountability to whom. Some may think independence means that one is only accountable to self. Yet, we live in a society. Are we accountable to each other? If so, does this place some in a position of control over others, creating dependence? Are we accountable to government? What does that mean in terms of our liberty and independence?

If we recognize the source of our inalienable rights and the resources, talents and abilities that we independently choose to use to meet needs, improve lives and be happy, then we will recognize that we are ultimately accountable to God. We will recognize the divine author of liberty and see in our independence as individual citizens our actual dependence upon God.

Independent Thought

Independent people think for themselves. In the formative days of our nation there was much more variety in viewpoints and perspectives than we might realize. There was no single official viewpoint or narrative that citizens were compelled to believe. Newspapers printed vastly different opinions and views of events. There were heated arguments in government and public gatherings.

Independent thinking people put in the effort to read and listen to various viewpoints and then come to their own conclusions. Freedom of speech was included in our Bill of Rights so that everyone could be heard, but it requires individual consideration of all perspectives to maintain real independence of thought.

Risks of Life and Liberty

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

I have observed through this year of Pandemic vastly different, even almost opposing, reactions and approaches to it. These have been so different that one might think we aren’t all dealing with the same thing. I read an article that examined these differences in terms of risk-aversion. As I read that article a thought came to me – If our forefathers had been as risk-averse as many of our citizens and leaders are today, we would have no United States of America.

A Risky Founding

The United States of America was formed at great risk. Let’s start at the beginning. How risky was it for people to take their families on board small ships and sail across a vast ocean? Unpredictable storms brought the risk of the ship sinking and all being lost. There were individual dangers too, mostly from illnesses that spread easily among close quarters. Stepping onto a ship in those days was very risky.

Surviving those risks of sea travel, these colonists set out to make homes in a totally foreign place. They had to find and grow food in unfamiliar settings to stave off the risk of starvation. There were risks from wild animals, unknown and unpredictable Natives, unfamiliar climates, and diseases. The fact that roughly half of the Mayflower passengers didn’t survive the first year here illustrates the severity of those risks. The risks didn’t diminish much as this new land became more settled, especially when settlers continually moved from established settlements to start new ones in the frontier.

The risk-adverse would have stayed in their known and predictable homes in Europe. They may have felt some security in the familiarity, but they were still subject to the many risks of life in that day.

After years of some prosperity here and possibly some risk-management as they learned and adapted, there came the issue of independence. The risk-averse would have not been willing to rock the boat. They would have accepted restrictions and oppression for the security of the Crown and remained second-class subjects. Some did. Even those risk-averse Loyalists became subject to the risk that they could come out on the losing side of the conflict.

Why were our founding fathers – and mothers – willing to risk their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor”? Why did they risk standing up to the greatest military power on the earth at the time?

Weighing Risks and Benefits

When it comes to risk there are always options to be weighed. Of course, some risks are taken out of stupidity, like the impulsiveness of youth not thinking through consequences, or being easily influenced by others. Most risks are taken, however, because something else is more important or because the consequences of inaction pose a greater risk than the action. It is often a matter of priorities.

For our forefathers the more important issue was liberty. It was worth the risk of everything else, as Patriot Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death”.

The risk-averse want guarantees – benefits without risk. Yet, there are inherent risks to life itself. Death is unavoidable and inevitable. Things happen that are outside human control. Managing risks really only effects the manner and timing of our individual deaths. Efforts to minimize risks can effect our quality of life – the amount of suffering or prosperity along the way. Too often, trying to eliminate one risk, just presents another. The question is then, which is the greater risk or which outcome is the most important.

Questions

Is preserving liberty worth a risk of life? When is the risk to life great enough to restrict liberty and how much? Such decisions vary according to individual priorities and perspectives, as we have seen in the approaches to this pandemic.

How would our forefathers judge today’s risk-aversion? Living amid every day dangers that they did, would they see our fearful avoidance as silly? Would they see contradictions in a society that celebrates risky extreme sports, yet fears simple human interactions?

After their sacrifices to secure our liberties, what would our founders think of our reluctance to risk losses or unpopularity (being cancelled) for exercising our right to act independently or speak our minds? Would they wonder to what extent our freedoms must be threatened before we would be willing to take the kind of risks that they did to establish and preserve them?

Self-Determination

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

Self-Determination Starts Early

During the past few months of living with my now 18 month old granddaughter, I have been reminded of the innate human drive toward self-determination. Even at a very young age, little humans show individual will and a desire to do what they want. As soon as they have some mobility they will move toward an object that they desire. As small motor skills develop they grasp and manipulate objects to explore them. They want to go where they want and do what they want.

One large drawback for this is the lack of ability to communicate what one wants. One of the first, and probably most used word for children is “no”. Though they might not be able to articulate what exactly they want, they are able to let you know exactly what they do not want.

“No” is also used frequently toward children as they seek after what they want. Parents have a challenging role to provide an environment for children to learn and develop while keeping them safe from danger. Some are better than others at balancing this. There are parents who provide more than needed direction and restriction in the name of protection.

Maintaining Balance through Trust

Key to maintaining a good relationship through this balancing act is trust. If children feel loved and secure they learn to trust that their parents want what is best for them. Parents and others can try to teach children about dangers and how to avoid them, but sometimes the best teacher is experience. Unfortunately, over-protection often deprives children of such experiences. There are always some children more inclined to be obedient who might become overly dependent. And others more independent might resist restrictions and become rebellious.

Self-Determination Applied to Government

The founders of the United States of America recognized the human need for self-determination. They saw monarchy and the systems of the old world as working against that. In forming a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” they realized the value of individuals and the importance of individual rights. Many resisted ratifying the new Constitution because of the lack of a Bill of Rights. Why was this so important? They wanted to make sure that governmental powers were limited and preserved the rights of individual citizens toward self-determination.

Government also has a stated role to provide protection to citizens from threats and defense from attacks. This requires a balance not unlike the parental balance between encouraging development while protecting. There may be times when safety would require limiting individual freedom to do certain things. This is the argument given at the present time regarding this pandemic. Yet, there are others pointing out the dangers of increased government control.

Trust in Government

If the underlying condition with parenting is trust, then it would seem that trust of government would be essential for citizens to accept restrictions in the name of safety. But government is really people. We have elected officials who are supposed to act in the public interest, but too often act according to the own self-interest. We have officials who seem to thrive on excessive use of power. Just because someone has been elected to an office, does not mean that they have superior intelligence or knowledge and know best what to do. Yes, they often rely on “experts” for information, but do these experts also have other motives?

Our constitution allows for the people to vote to remove from office those who they feel are not representing them and their interests. Unfortunately a huge bureaucracy consisting of officials, not elected by or accountable to the people, is in the position of making and enforcing regulations.

Once power is used to limit individual freedoms, even in the face of a real threat, it can become easier for those in power to see other “threats” warranting further limits of freedom. Over-controlling government, just like over-protective parents, can restrict growth and foster dependence, especially among those inclined to be trusting and obedient. But it also can provoke those inclined toward independence and lacking trust in government to the point of rebellion.

Maintaining Balance

The federal government is furthest removed from the people and much less in tune with the diverse situations in various parts of the country. It would make sense that elected officials on the most local levels would know best their own constituents and their situation and needs. They would seem more receptive to input from their neighbors about what is needed. It is easier for constituents to communicate directly with them and be more involved. This is one reason the founders created a Republic and left certain rights with States.

Though we are experiencing something dangerous today, I think it important to keep in mind the possibly greater danger to our freedoms by extreme restrictions imposed by government. The survival of individual citizens is of course important, but so too is the survival of our freedoms and form of government.

Democratic Socialism

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

What’s in a Name?

I am alarmed by the promotion of socialism in America today. Proponents throw out definitions and make distinctions between socialism, communism and what they are calling Democratic Socialism and even Social Democracy. Does giving it a better sounding name makes it a better thing? Or do they think they have found a way to create a good version of an inherently bad thing? It is as if what makes socialism a bad thing is purely in the details of implementation. And they know a way to create the utopia without the oppression, starvation, and disasters that have historically followed previous attempts.

In reality, what makes any brand of socialism bad is the principles upon which it is based – principles which are directly in opposition to the principles upon which the United States was founded. To think that such conflicting principles can be merged into a successful system is unrealistic.

A Little History –
Foundations of American Government

I studied Karl Marx, and admit that some of his ideas sound rather good – in theory. This is especially so when understood in light of the system of aristocratic oppression of peasants from which he came. But this kind of oppression is a far cry from anything experienced in America today.

American colonists rejected this same aristocratic system in creating the United States of America. A fundamental principle of our government is the right to own private property and subsequent associated rights. It is true that this opportunity initially was not available to everyone, but it was available to many more than the “1 percent”-ish, wealthy land-owning class in the Europe they left.

Our government is based upon principles of personal choice and self-direction. It encourages initiative, innovation, free enterprise, personal development and prosperity. In such a system, some obviously prosper more than others, but otherwise there is little or no incentive for excellence or improvement. Consequences, positive or negative, are always connected to choice.

The Fallacy of “Rule by the People”

Our government was designed to keep a balance of power between branches of government and with representation of the people. Socialism presents itself as “rule by the people” because it sprung out of an effort to eliminate a elite ruling class, but the reality is that it creates an opportunity for a different, but very powerful ruling government entity.

Government is actually controlled by people – either “we the people” as a whole with each having some say in a representative manner, or a government controlled by a single dictator or a powerful group or “party”. The idea of “democratic socialism” is basically using democratic principles of choice/vote to get citizens to voluntarily give up control to a government, which most likely will become powerful and oppressive. There are always those waiting to take control and exercise power that citizens relinquish.

Democratic Socialism?

It is naive to think that you could take from socialism some good things and merge them with democracy and have something better. How could one guarantee economic benefits without decreasing liberty? How could one prevent the negative aspects of socialism becoming part of the system?

The costs of socialism would involve more than money, but also a loss of freedom. The distinction that “democratic socialism” is better than communism or plain socialism because it takes into account the choice of the people, is a misleading assumption. The majority might vote into effect socialistic laws, but then those laws become binding on everyone. There is no ability to “opt out” of compliance, but rather there are serious penalties for those who did not personally choose. Such socialism gives tremendous power to the state. In effect, the choice to vote for socialism is actually a choice to give away freedom.

If government becomes the giver of all good things to everyone, someone has to pay for all this. It is unrealistic to think that it will all be free. If the government is the giver of everything, it also becomes the taker. Taxes have to increase for everyone, not just the rich. The rich, being taxed more greatly, would be enticed to leave the country taking with them their earning potential, goods and services, and leaving employees without jobs and the government without their taxes.

Human Nature

The underlying issues and the reason socialism has and will continue to fail, is basically human nature. True economic equality can not be accomplished by compulsion or legislation when you recognize the core issues of selfishness and greed. You can’t cure the greed of the wealthy by taking away from them and giving to the greedy poor who want what they have not earned. Greedy politicians will always ensure that they get more than everyone else.

History has shown that even by physically eliminating (killing off) the wealthy, educated and prosperous, another group – government – steps in to assume the position of power and control, leaving the masses no better off and likely much worse off. The few, now government officials, will glut on the labor of the people. And history has shown that tyranny follows.

There will never be true equality in a society unless and until all of the people, especially those in leadership positions, are equally good, righteous and selfless. All must be willing to put the welfare of others and the good of society above their own self interests. I don’t see this happening in the USA of today. There will always be those individuals who thirst for and then abuse power. A socialist system gives them a great opportunity, which can easily be seen in a study of history.

Why this Generation?

The real irony to me is the support of socialism by a “me-generation” – one that has grown up being told how special they are, getting and expecting attention for everything they do, and feeling entitled to anything that anyone else has. How could socialism possibly work with such people? Do they really think that by all getting free stuff that they want, that it can still be “all about me”?

Communism/socialism treats the masses as “comrades” – all the same, nothing special about any, all insignificant workers, easily replaced by any other warm body. Is this really what they want – to be just a nameless number in a system? Or are they just short-sighted, thinking only of getting something without any personal effort? Did they really buy into the idea that they were individually that special when they all got the same participation trophy? Or did they just come to expect any reward that anyone else got because it would not be fair for some to get something that others did not?

Do they think that things like a guaranteed job with a living wage would mean that they – these young people who feel that menial physical labor is beneath them – get the kind of job they choose? Historically those government guaranteed jobs have been things like working in rice paddies, mines and factories.

Do they think that a house for everyone means they get the house they want in the neighborhood where they want to live? Historically government guaranteed housing has been government assigned sub-standard housing built by workers who have no incentive to do good work.

Maybe the appeal of socialism seems natural for those who have come to feel entitled, but that is a deceptive seduction. In buying into it, they may get what they feel entitled to, but it is an empty prize – meaningless because in accepting it, they lose any uniqueness, individuality or personal sense of accomplishment.

Agency and Liberty

The purpose of government should be to facilitate the free exercise of agency, to protect and promote liberty. Government guarantees however, tend to come with increased government control and less freedom to choose. This inconsistency of this with the value we Americans place on the rights of personal choice should be obvious.

American Dream vs Socialist Fantasy

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

We are hearing much about Socialism these days. A study of history should show that this does not turn out well. However those promoting Socialism in America propose that their version would bring all of the benefits without any of the problems.

Before we get all excited about getting free stuff, I think we need to understand some fundamental principles upon which our government and American society was founded. The principles underlying Socialism are in direct opposition to the principles underlying democracy and our way of life – the American Dream.

In the Beginning

The founders of our country wanted a government that didn’t interfere or impede personal pursuit of happiness. In the world they came from peoples’ lives were limited by the circumstances of their birth. They sought to eliminate those constraints and place everyone on the same ground. That does not mean there are not limits, but rather than limits imposed by culture or government, all are limited by their own personal desire, initiative and effort.

There were no guarantees of prosperity given to these new Americans by their newly established government. Just opportunity and guarantees that the government would not restrict their rights. The prosperity of the Nation was dependent upon the prosperity of its citizens. They prospered through their initiative and hard work. Their efforts benefited not only themselves and their families, but they also contributed to society. When everyone contributes, society prospers.

A Living Wage

One expectation of this new socialism is that everyone is entitled to an income sufficient for them not just to live – but to live comfortably, or in a manner in which they would like. They use the term “a living wage”. The reality is that people all over the world are “living” on very little income, especially compared to what most people in this country make. Even those living near poverty in this country live better than many in the world.

Wages are based, not on needs of the worker, but on what the work is worth – the value of it to an employer or someone seeking a service. Therefore, some jobs are “worth” more than others. Usually there has been a significant investment in time and effort and experience to meet requirements for certain jobs, therefore the pay for those is higher – they are worth more.

Adjusting the Wage Gap

There are two ways to approach insufficient income – decrease expenses or increase income. Many would simply suggest pay everyone more. But it is more complicated than that.

At times I have said, somewhat tongue in cheek, that the reason my husband and I enjoy relative financial security is that we “live like poor people”. Basically, we learned to live and be comfortable living “beneath our means”. We could have, like many other people, gone into great debt to have a bigger house, nicer cars, lots of toys and expensive vacations. We adjusted our “wants” to invest in our future, so that now retired, we are comfortable and have a sense of security.

This seems to be a hard concept for many, especially young people who have come to see as necessities many things that I easily lived without for years. When things get hard, there is a great distinction to be seen between “life sustaining” and “lifestyle maintaining”. So “living wage” based on the idea of “life sustaining” would include only basics. Heat and electricity and food are life sustaining. With limited income, adjustments can and should be made on expenses.

Of course, the other way to fix the disparity is to increase income. In other words, find a job that pays better. This of course, is easier said than done. Knowing that wages are based on the value of the work done, the way to do that is to increase personal work value. It likely will require gaining more education or training to qualify for a higher paying job. This is where initiative and effort come in. It also may require delayed gratification and sacrifice to increase one’s value to employers.

The idea of the same pay for menial labor that can be done by someone with no education or training and professional work by someone with a Degree and specialized training removes the value and worth of the education and training. It removes any incentive for people to better themselves to improve their financial situation. It would dumb down the work force.

Simply “giving” jobs to everyone without even the effort of applying – the effort to sell an employer on the “worth” of your labor – results in workers with no ambition. This is even greater when the jobs given are those the person has no interest, desire or ability to do. The quality of goods and services will go down. No one really benefits.

Free College Education

Education is an investment. It takes time and effort. It requires delayed gratification and sacrifice. Many in my generation and generations before really did “live like poor people” while pursuing an education. It may take years to finish the education process, then more years of experience to get the full benefit of that investment.

The idea of financial aid for education, in the way of scholarships, grants and even student loans, should also be seen as an investment. It is not a handout, a given, an entitlement. It is not simply based on need. Those receiving such aid must take some initiative and put forth effort to apply. They must give those providing the money some assurance that this money will be well spent. They are investing in someone who will eventually give back to society in some way.

To take away any requirements, any process involving effort to apply, also takes away any accountability for how that money is used. Where is the incentive to study and do well if the money keeps coming anyway? The idea that everyone is entitled to 4 years of extended adolescent partying, while taking some classes, does nothing to benefit society. Sure they may learn some things along the way and get a Degree, but without learning responsibility and accountability, what kind of citizens will they make?

Free Housing

The promise of housing for every American sounds too good to be true – because it is. The dream of the colonists and early Americans was to own property and be able to do with it as one chooses. In the Europe they came from, there were a few very wealthy people owning most of the property.

Early Americans of course, didn’t arrive on the frontier to find a nice house and well kept yard waiting for them. They obtained some land and then “improved” it. They sweated to remove trees, cultivate land, dig ditches, build houses and other buildings. It took a great deal of work. Because of that effort, they took pride in the results. They worked more to maintain, expand and continue to improve their property.

Homes, like jobs become better with effort. They are an investment. Having them given to you without effort, removes the responsibility and accountability. If “free housing” is given, it comes with the expectation of “free maintenance”. It is the owner’s responsibility, right? We often see this with rental property. What incentive is there for tenants to improve what does not belong to them? What incentive is there for landlords to improve what they do not have to live in?

There are many homeless people in our country, and varying causes for that homelessness. Some are homeless because the costs of housing are too high. So what is the solution for them? Have the government pay for them to live in a nice house? Or provide incentives for builders to build housing that they could afford? This may not be as big or nice a house as someone else’s, but probably much nicer than a cardboard box on the street (or the makeshift shanties many in other countries live in).

Some people are homeless because they choose to be. We value freedom of choice in this country. “Free housing” would eliminate choice of where, and often how one lives.

The Choice

So even though the idea of free stuff for everyone sounds wonderful, it is a fantasy. History has shown us that Socialism cannot provide benefits without cost. The costs may not be so much monetary as they are losses of freedom. We loose our right to choose – a right that ironically seems so vitally important to the same people who advocate Socialism.

This country and our government were built upon principles of individual liberty, self-determination, personal responsibility and accountability. The role of government essentially should be to insure those inalienable rights of life and liberty and allow us “the pursuit of happiness” as we see fit. It is indeed a dream. Maybe a dream not realized the same for everyone, but the dream is available to all.

The alternative is truly a fantasy. A fantasy that in practice likely will turn into a nightmare.

Flattering Words

Posted on by Karen Stark
1

I have been intrigued by the phrase “flattering words” used frequently in the scriptures. It is usually in reference to the tactics of Satan.

What is Flattery?

Flattery involves saying nice things – giving attention or praise to someone. Definitions suggest it is untrue or insincere, excessive or exaggerated. The intent is to please others, win their favor or approval, or ingratiate them so they will feel that they owe you something or need to reciprocate. It may seem to be a good thing to make someone feel better through compliments or praise, but at the heart flattery is dishonest. There is something false about it.

The real intent is not to build up, but to influence. There is an underlying attempt to manipulate, to get someone to do something or encourage them to follow. It is seductive – we trust the flatterer, conform and follow to receive more. Flattery pretends to be our friend acting in our best interest, but in the end it is self-serving on behalf of the flatterer.

Flattery can use partial truth – stating something we already believe, preceded by a seductive “if” and followed by “then you will. . .” With all of the #MeToo attention lately about inappropriate behavior, it occurred to me that this is precisely how sexual predators work. The are expert in using flattering words. “You are special” “I can make you a star”.

The real lie is not that we are inherently bad or worthless, rather than wonderful as the flatterer tells us. The lie is that doing the wrong things will bring us the approval, praise or attention that we seek.

Promoting Pleasure

What could be more flattering that encouragement to “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.” 2 Nephi 28:7

I had an interesting conversation when the question was asked “If you knew the world would end tomorrow, what would you do with your last day today?” Many of the comments were about “bucket list items”, like adventures, taking that last opportunity to some fun thing that they had always wanted to do. The flatterer would convince us that a fulfilled life is a life full of pleasure, and we would should not deny ourselves any enjoyable thing.

How self-centered to think that life should provide never ending opportunities for our entertainment and enjoyment. Never mind that many of those things which are presented as “pleasurable” come with some rather painful and unpleasant consequences. The flattery also comes with the promise that there will be no negative consequences.

Which leads to the next flattery . . .

. . . When God is inserted into flattering words.“God loves all his children just the way they are and wants them to be happy” so therefore whatever makes one happy is good, approved by God and should be encouraged. This is the kind of flattery which would cause parents to think they were good parents for allowing their children a steady diet of sugar, no schedule for sleep, meals or anything, and fully encourage dangerous play.

Preventing Accountability

As Satan flattered Cain with the idea that he could kill and have his brother’s flocks and no one would know, he flatters us that our sins, flaws and mistakes can be secret. Flattery also tries to convince us that we can do whatever we want and nothing bad will happen, results will always be in our favor.

Nehor, in the Book of Mormon used these very flattering words to lead the people astray: “all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.” (Alma 1:4)

One of Satan’s strategies to destroy agency is to remove accountability. The flattery is that we can do whatever we want without negative consequences. We can have pleasure without pain.

Pride & Popularity

Flattery plays to human vanity – the fault of pride. We all want to feel that we are okay. We love to hear “you are wonderful”, “you are beautiful”.

We are told to tell ourselves affirmations – to “Love yourself”, “celebrate your uniqueness”.  It is true that many of us have tendencies toward constant self-criticism and positive affirmations help counter that, however both can be manifestations of an unhealthy focus on self. When we don’t feel good about ourselves, we are especially vulnerable to flattering words, as if hearing from someone else that we are wonderful will make it so.

Pride really desires to feel that we are more than okay, that we are somehow better than others. “It is all about me.” Flattery feeds the comparisons of pride – to be smarter, more beautiful, more accomplished, more successful than others. It makes us feel that we are more than we know we actually are. But we want to believe that others think more of us, so we eat it up.

This kind of flattery prevents any real improvement. If we are okay – or more than okay – there is no need for change or progress. Add to that the flattery that rather than change yourself, everyone else should have to adjust to accommodate you, because you are perfect the way you are.

Pursuing Power

Connected to pride is the pursuit of power. If you are convinced of your superiority – you are smarter or better than others – you naturally should have power over other inferiors. Control, dominion and compulsions follow. Flattery convinces those with power that they are deserving and it is okay to use that power for their selfish desires rather than any sense of responsibility for the welfare of others.

Flattery lead to thinking that you are your own god. You are the supreme authority over self, and therefore not subject to restrictive rules or authority.

False Prosperity -Wealth Without Work

Connected to a lack of accountability is the flattering idea of gaining wealth without work. Lotteries make huge amounts of money by flattering us that we could become rich – and think that we should be rich. Pride causes us to compare with others and to envy and covet.

Such flattery leads people to seek the “vain things of the world” or “treasures” that really have no lasting worth. I find it interesting that “vain and foolish” are paired together so much in scripture.

Flattery about worldly wealth encourages dishonesty and deceitfulness – lies that ends justify means. Flattery feeds entitlement, the idea that you have some “right” to have anything you want and that you deserve any good thing that anyone else has. Flattering words fuel socialism – the promises of “free” things without mention of the real cost of loss of freedom.

Precepts of Men

The flattery here is in our own wisdom, or the pleasing philosophies of men. The result is in effect setting up things like science, “learned” experts, or even ourselves as god. We can create our “own truth” rather than acknowledge actual truth. We then can feel “authentic” when living by our self-defined reality. “Be true to yourself” is really code for “embrace your natural man”. Flattery convinces us that the natural man is our authentic self and should be embraced and affirmed rather than overcome.

All flattery is a tool of the adversary to shift our focus to ourselves, to the “vain things of the world” which bring no lasting happiness, and to draw us away from God, the source of all that is good.

Honesty

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

Honesty

Some thoughts about honesty in a world of deception, relative truth, and rationalization.

Honesty & Truth

Honesty is an admirable virtue. It is an aspect of good character, an indicator of a good person. There are generally two aspects of honesty – honesty in speech and action. These are reflected in two of the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not steal and Thou shalt not give false witness. But honesty goes beyond these outward manifestations.

To be truly honest, there must be a clear standard of truth with which to be true. There are a plethora of laws dealing with all of the potential instances of dishonesty.

One could insist that it is the intent at the core of honesty or dishonesty that matters. If the intent is to mislead or deceive, that is clearly dishonest, while those who are misinformed may speak untruths without awareness. Deception is the presentation of opinion, belief, or perception as truth.

When we do not act in accordance with real truth – absolute truth – we are deceiving ourselves. We deceive ourselves first because we want to believe we are okay doing what we want to do. We then seek agreement from others to validate our own false perception and actions.

Continue reading →

A Spectrum of Spiritual Disorders

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

Could we all be suffering from different forms of the same basic disorder – each falling somewhere along a spiritual disorders spectrum?

The Process of Change

I recently read a book about a woman’s personal story of overcoming and changing her life in a positive way. As I read, I was flashing back to another book that I read almost 30 years ago by a man sharing his story of personal change and overcoming.

Though their challenges were different, both of these people went through essentially the same process – a spiritual process of rebirth, a change of heart, a spiritual awakening, and an accompanying change of their lives. At the time I read the earlier book, I was involved with a Twelve Step program and this book was recommended as an example of that process. This man’s issues did not involve substance abuse, but his recovery process was the same as those who did. The Twelve Steps have been successful for people with a variety of addictions, including things like gambling and addictive relationships.

Continue reading →

Agency & Accountability

Posted on by Karen Stark
Reply

Any attempt to separate consequences from actions or accountability from agency is in effect seeking to destroy agency.

Agency & Accountability

I first thought to do a word of the month on accountability, since that seems to be in short supply in some circles today. I had also considered using agency as a word of the month. The more I thought about it, I realized that agency and accountability need to be presented together. They are two sides of the same coin. One cannot really function without the other. I am also beginning to understand more clearly how Satan seeks to destroy agency by trying to remove accountability.

Continue reading →