NY CONSIDERS 'SALT' BAN IN RESTAURANTS...

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_news/new_york_state/chefs-call-proposed-new-york-salt-ban-absurd-20100310-akd

Chefs Call Proposed New York Salt Ban 'Absurd'

Updated: Thursday, 11 Mar 2010, 8:01 AM EST
Published : Wednesday, 10 Mar 2010, 7:36 PM EST

By ARUN KRISTIAN DAS / MyFox New York

MYFOXNY.COM - Some New York City chefs and restaurant owners are taking aim at a bill introduced in the New York Legislature that, if passed, would ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking.

"No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises," the bill, A. 10129 , states in part.

The legislation, which Assemblyman Felix Ortiz , D-Brooklyn, introduced on March 5, would fine restaurants $1,000 for each violation.

"The consumer needs to make their own health choices. Just as doctors and the occasional visit to a hospital can't truly control how a person chooses to maintain their health, neither can chefs nor the occasional visit to a restaurant," said Jeff Nathan, the executive chef and co-owner of Abigael's on Broadway. "Modifying trans fats and sodium intake needs to be home based for optimal health. Regulating restaurants will not solve this health issue."

Nathan is part of the group My Food My Choice , which calls itself a coalition of chefs, restaurant owners, and consumers, called the proposed law "absurd" in a press release issued on its Facebook page.

Ortiz has said the salt ban would allow restaurant patrons to decide how salty they want their meals to be.

"In this way, consumers have more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and are given the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles," Ortiz said, according to a Nation's Restaurant News report.

But many chefs and restaurant owners said they are tired of politicians dictating what they can serve and what people can eat. They have opposed the city's anti-sodium and anti-transfat campaigns.

"Chefs would be handcuffed in their food preparation, and many are already in open rebellion over this legislation," said Orit Sklar, of My Food My Choice. "Ortiz and fellow anti-salt zealot Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City seek to undermine the food and restaurant business in the entire state."

The American Heart Association encourages Americans to reduce their sodium intake and has advocated the reduction of sodium used by food manufacturers and restaurants by 50 percent over a 10-year period.

Chief justice unsettled by Obama's criticism of Supreme Court

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-roberts-speech10-2010mar10,0,4550858.story

By David G. Savage

March 10, 2010

• E-mail
• Print
• 
  
• Text Size

Reporting from Washington - Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told law students Tuesday that he found it "very troubling" to be surrounded by loudly cheering critics at President Obama's State of the Union address, saying it was reason enough for the justices not to attend the annual speech to Congress.

"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we are there," Roberts said at the University of Alabama School of Law.

Obama's speech in January came a week after the high court ruled 5 to 4 that corporations had a free-speech right to spend unlimited sums to elect or defeat candidates for office.

The president, looking down at the six justices in attendance, sharply criticized the Supreme Court for having "opened the floodgates for special interests" to sway elections.

Senate Democrats rose to their feet, applauding and cheering the president's comments.

When asked about this Tuesday, Roberts said the criticism itself did not bother him.

"Anybody can criticize the Supreme Court. . . . I have no problem with that," he said. He objected to criticism in such a public setting, where the justices had no choice but to sit silently.

"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court -- according to the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling," he said.

"It does cause me to think . . . why are we there?"

Three justices -- John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- did not attend this year's State of the Union. Both Scalia and Thomas have said they believe the speech has become a partisan pep rally that the justices should avoid.

When Obama voiced his criticism, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. shook his head slightly and appeared to say, "Not true."

Responding to Roberts' comments Tuesday night, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement, "What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections, drowning out the voices of average Americans."

Roberts also took issue with the Senate's confirmation process for judges and justices, saying it is contentious and unproductive.

"I think the process is broken down," he said. "The only people who can change it are the senators. I hope they do."

david.savage

@latimes.com

PELOSI HEALTHCARE: 'We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy'...

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576

Pelosi Remarks at the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered a speech this morning at the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties (NACo). This year marks the 75th anniversary of the organization.  Below are the Speaker's remarks:

"Thank you, President Valerie Brown [of Sonoma County, Calif.]  Don't we all take pride in Valerie Brown recently being named County Official of the Year for her advocacy on behalf of all of America's counties?  Thank you, Valerie.  Her wealth of experience – as a mayor, a state legislator, and an educator and a county executive - makes her an innovative and effective leader for the future.  At this time of great challenges, her understanding of the different needs of NACo's diverse counties is essential. 

"I understand many other county officials are here from California.  Any Californians to be heard from here?  Thank you for coming the distance to Washington and for going the distance for our constituents.  And I want to acknowledge all of you who are here. 

"I had the privilege last year to acknowledge the work of the Executive Committee of NACo by welcoming them to the Speaker's office in the Capitol.  This year, I have the even greater privilege to come to you to speak to all of the members of NACo. 

"On the 75th anniversary of the National Association of Counties, your leadership is more vital and more necessary than ever.  You know that.  I just want you to know that we in Congress do too. 

"The diversity of America's counties represents the diversity of America.  And yet, you share common responsibilities, whatever the diversity.  America's counties are leading on the issues most important to Americans: the education of our children, the health of their families, and the security of our communities. 

"Your common responsibilities bring you to Washington with a common cause: to strengthen the partnership between America's counties and the federal government.  It is in that spirit that I have come here today.  It's in that spirit that we will work together to, as your theme says, to 'find solutions in tough times.'

"I noticed as I was reading your program, it is pretty intense what you have been through this weekend and the beginning of this week, that you have one workshop that was 'Influencing Congress from Home'—the cyber influence, very, very important but let me say how important your presence here in Washington is, too.  It is very important you have come to all the distance, all the diversity, to make your cumulative impact on the Congress.  Please don't underestimate how important your visit is to us.

"I know that you sometimes have felt that your partnership with Washington has not been a balanced one – that burdens have been put on you that you simply cannot fulfill.  These difficult economic times have made your challenges even greater.  We all know that.   

"Together, here in this room, we have the opportunity to ensure that the partnership between America's counties and the federal government is strong, productive, and balanced.   

"Just a little more than a year ago, our President Barack Obama stood on the steps of the Capitol, just a little more than a year ago and called for swift, bold action now to restore our economic growth.  In his budget, he set out a blueprint founded on three pillars for our prosperity: a highly-educated workforce, the future, a clean energy economy, good-paying jobs, and quality, affordable health care for all Americans.  And he saw these critical building blocks as engines of job creation and economic growth.

"Answering that call, and responding to the needs of America's counties, we passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, creating and saving up to 2 million jobs so far, and more to come.

"You know best what the Recovery Act means to American's counties.  I have traveled the country, visited many counties to dedicate, groundbreak, observe funding coming into counties, tens of millions of dollars in some counties, over $100 million in some counties, hundreds of millions of dollars. For the Port of Houston, for a highway in Colorado, whether it is keeping teachers on the job, cops on the street, we believe that the Recovery Act was essential to keep us from an even worse recession.  But in fact, it has created or saved 2 million jobs. 
 
"Of particular interest to America's counties – we increased FMAP, providing immediate relief to counties in the 27 states that contribute to Medicaid, and shored up the safety net for families in difficult times.   We provided $624 million for counties in Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grants—and I know that is important to many of you, you have told me—to promote energy efficiency and conservation while creating jobs and lowering energy costs.  I am committed to ensuring that this initiative is strong and ongoing.  We have $178 million in Community Development Block Grants that helped you to expand community services, and modernize housing and wastewater systems.  Transportation investments and broadband access that have strengthened business opportunities close to home. 

"You've seen the results, many of you, you have told me about them and again, as I say, you have told me on the site right in your own counties.  But I want to just tell you, give you a perspective from here as to what the difference the Recovery Act has made nationally to our economy.  Consider this:

"In the last quarter of the Bush Administration, what was reported in the first quarter of last year, America's GDP, the rate of growth of GDP was a minus 6.4 percent.  Minus 6.4 percent.  In the equivalent quarter of the Obama Administration one year later, it is at plus 5.9 percent.  A swing of over 12 percent in the GDP.  This is the fastest rate that we have seen in a long time.

"When we were debating the recovery bill a year ago, a year and a month ago, the stock market was about 6,500.  Yesterday it closed 10,500—a swing of 4,000 points.    

"Just last week, we learned that America's manufacturing base grew for the seventh straight month – and is now at its second highest level in years.

"And think of this – jobs.  In the first three months of 2009, but let me just state one month so that we can compare them.  In January of 2009, the last month of the Bush Administration before we passed the Recovery Act, 779,000 Americans lost their jobs.  779,000 for January of 2009.  This January 2010, 20,000 Americans lost their jobs—far too many, we want to move to the plus side of course—but a difference of over three quarters of a million people in just that one month.  Thank you, American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.  

"But our work is far from complete.  We know that.  Congress will stay focused on our top priority: putting Americans to work.  And I said putting Americans to work, I didn't say putting Americans back to work.  Because we have far too people who will have no job, never had a job that they would go back too. 

"So we must invest in training, apprenticeships, and vocational education for the chronically unemployed so we put all of America back to work—some back to work, some newly to work.  I think you see this in your counties where we have some young people who have not had the opportunity that America must afford them so that as our economy grows with training and vocational training that many more people will participate in the economic prosperity that we see for our country.    

"Just last week, we passed the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, that's HIRE—Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, we write these acronyms—another step forward in our fight to put more Americans back to work. 

"With $15 billion in critical investments, this bill includes: extension of the Highway Trust Fund.  And though the investment is $15 billion and that is paid for, it will unleash tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure investment in your communities.  And for small business, we can never do enough and more needs to be done but in this particular bill: a payroll tax holiday for businesses that hire unemployed workers, to create some 300,000 jobs and an income tax credit of $1,000 for businesses that retain these employees.  It's very specific and targeted.  And then we have specific support to small businesses with tax credits and accelerated write-offs.

"This bill is one key element, just one step of our broader agenda to expand lending to small businesses, build the infrastructure of the future, support job training, keep police, firefighters, and teachers on the job. 

"Tomorrow, Congressman George Miller will introduce his local jobs bill, which allows for county governments and municipalities to retain workers.  I think Valerie had a hand in this.  I know he is grateful to the input of NACo in crafting this significant legislation.  We believe at this time that nothing is more critical to the long-term economic security of American families and to our economy than comprehensive health care reform, health insurance reform. 

"As you are in Washington this week, we stand at the doorstep of history, ready to realize a centuries old dream, started by a Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt.  He was the one who started this country thinking in this direction, and we are deeply in his dept.  But, we are a hundred years late. A century old dream of health care for all, and we will be prepared to send the bill to President Obama's desk that ensures affordability for the middle class, accountability for the insurance companies, and access for millions more Americans, tens of millions more.

"Nobody knows better than you the strain on hospitals that never turned a patient away, and health care providers grappling with the challenges of the uninsured and shrinking reimbursement. You know as well as anyone, that our current system is unsustainable.   It's unsustainable to individuals and their families.  It's unsustainable for small businesses.  It's unsustainable for your communities.  It's unsustainable for our state, local, and national budgets. 

"President Obama said, one year ago, when he called the first bipartisan, on March 5th of last year, the first bipartisan House and Senate meeting together with many outside stakeholders together at the White House, to find a way for us to come together. And at that time, he said: 'Health care reform is entitlement reform.'  We cannot sustain the upward spiral of the increases in health care and what that means in Medicare and what it means in Medicaid. So from the standpoint of our national budget, and for your budgets, the current system, as I said, is unsustainable. 

"Again, it's unaffordable for families, individuals and families, for businesses of any size, and it is a cost to our economy.  Imagine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families health care needs are being met.  Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. 

"We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level.  It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure.  It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers.  That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities.  Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals. 

"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other.  But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket.  Prevention, prevention, prevention—it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. 

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.  Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President's economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation—innovation begins in the classroom—clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform.  Health insurance reform is about jobs.  This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon.

"We must have the courage, though, to get the job done. We have the ideas.  We have the commitment.  We have the dedication.  We know the urgency.  Now we have to have the courage to get the job done. So proud that President Obama is taking the message so forcefully to the American people! This is long overdue, a hundred years.

"The challenges we face, the health, the education, the education of our children, the economic well-being of their families, the safety of neighborhoods, all of this, all roads lead to you.  The challenges we all face are too great though for each of us to face them alone.  We need to form the partnerships, strengthen partnerships at every level of government and with committed and compassionate leaders to understand that the need to focus on the next generation, we need to focus on the next generation, not the next election. 

"With that in mind and with great enthusiasm and a sense of history that we have of this responsibility to ensure that health care in America is a right not a privilege; let us move forward in the spirit of restoring and strengthening our partnership, and finding solutions in difficult times.  In so doing, we will realize the dream of a brighter future.  Thank you for all that you do to make that so.

"Thank you NACo, for the opportunity to be with you.  On behalf of my colleagues in the Congress, I welcome you to Washington, D.C.  I hope we will see you on Capitol Hill.  We want your advocacy either here or from home. 

"Thank you, Valerie Brown, for the invitation to be here.  Thank you all." 

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20100304_Nutter_proposes_2-cent-per-ounce_sweet-drink_tax.html

Posted on Thu, Mar. 4, 2010

Nutter proposes 2-cent-per-ounce sweet-drink tax

By Jeff Shields

Inquirer Staff Writer

Mayor Nutter wants to treat the city's weight and wallet problems in his 2010-11 budget with the same remedy: the nation's highest tax on all sweetened beverages including soda, energy drinks, ice tea, even chocolate milk.

Nutter's plan would put Philadelphia at the front of the movement to tax sweet drinks, an effort that the beverage industry already opposes and that could encounter resistance in City Council.

The tax rate would be 2 cents per ounce, 40 cents on a 20-ounce bottle of soda. The levy would cover fountain-drink syrups and powders, based on the number of liquid ounces they produce. Diet drinks without added sugar and baby formula would be excluded.

City officials said they could raise $77 million a year. Health Commissioner Donald F. Schwarz estimated that a typical city resident drinks a half-liter of sweet beverages a day.

Nutter gave the tax a name, Healthy Philadelphia Initiative, but it's clear the city's first priority is to raise money.

Of the proposed added revenue, $57 million would go to the general fund. But Schwarz said $20 million annually would go to new programs fostering healthy eating and exercise, and he made it clear that he hoped to change habits.

"For the average individual in town, if this is passed on, we believe that we can make them healthier simply though substitution for healthier beverages," Schwarz said.

Schwarz, a pediatrician, rolled out statistics yesterday for reporters: Half of Philadelphia's children are overweight or obese, and soft-drink consumption is rising while milk consumption is falling.

Philadelphia is not the first to propose such a tax. New York, Massachusetts, and California are among seven states considering levies on sugar-sweetened drinks. But Nutter's proposal would double New York's and dwarf the 3 percent soft-drink tax in Chicago, the only major city with such a tax.

Chicago's tax, for instance, adds 4 cents to a 20-ounce Coke priced at $1.29. The city taxes soda, diet drinks, sports drinks, sweet tea, and all drinks containing natural or artificial sweeteners.

The Philadelphia proposal is 32 times Pennsylvania's state beer tax, a penny per pint.

A drink tax was briefly considered by the House Ways and Means Committee as a way to pay for a health-care overhaul last year. The mammoth soft-drink lobby, led by the American Beverage Association, Coca-Cola, and PepsiCo, helped quash the idea, boosting their spending on lobbying from $4.7 million in 2008 to $40.4 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The local campaign against the Philadelphia proposal surfaced yesterday with an alliance between the Pennsylvania Beverage Association and the Teamsters.

"Philadelphians already pay the highest sales tax in the state, and this would increase the cost of the beverages they enjoy by as much as a staggering 100 percent," Tony Crisci, lobbyist for the Pennsylvania Beverage Association, said in a statement timed to coincide with Nutter's release of budget details.

Crisci, in a phone interview, estimated the number of sweet-drinks jobs in the city at 2,000, including 1,000 in the Coke and Pepsi bottling plants in North Philadelphia and Northeast Philadelphia.

"Clearly, if there's a reduction in sales there's going to be a reduction in production and a reduction in jobs," he said. "We don't believe the way to solve obesity is to tax things."

Danny Grace, secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 830, was quoted in the news release saying, "Philadelphia can't afford to bleed any more middle-class jobs," particularly in an industry that he said had added jobs during the recession.

Kelly D. Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, disagreed with the pronouncements of Crisci and Grace. Brownell has been one of the country's strongest advocates for a sugary-drink tax to reduce the intake of "empty" calories devoid of nutrition.

Brownell said drinkers of sweet beverages would simply choose a diet drink, water, milk, or other drink, which would still require bottlers, drivers, and corner stores.

In a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year, Brownell and six other researchers and doctors recommended a 1-cent-per-ounce tax.

"We figured that would be more politically feasible . . . but, that said, a higher tax would accomplish a higher goal," Brownell said in an interview.

He rejected the idea that reducing sweet-drink consumption would not have an impact on obesity.

"No one thing you or I could conjure up will solve the problem all by itself. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be helpful," Brownell said. "I salute the mayor and the city and Health Department for taking the lead."

At Temple University's Center for Obesity Research and Education, director Gary Foster has been leading the study of childhood obesity and nutrition and their connection to the corner store. In a study released in the fall, Foster found that Philadelphia children who go to a corner store spend $1.07 and walk out with 360 calories, most from sugary drinks, chips, and candy.

"If we could change what kids eat by 100 calories a day . . . those kind of small changes are whopping if that happens five, six, seven times a week," Foster said.

Still, it would be a tough decision for some Council members, particularly those whose districts include businesses bound to oppose it.

Councilwoman Maria Quiñones Sánchez, who married into a family of retailers, represents a district filled with bodegas, and Coca-Cola has its main bottling plant at 725 E. Erie Ave.

She questioned how the city was going to make sure that store owners passed the sweet-drink tax on to consumers of a specific drink rather than raise prices across the board, even on healthy drinks. Health Commissioner Schwarz said the city would promote "the importance of passing this on to consumers."

The tax would be collected along with the city's gross-receipts tax at the end of the year as a business-privilege tax. City officials said it would not be a sales tax and would not require state authorization.

"I'm concerned for those businesses where soda products are a large percentage of their businesses," said Sánchez, who said she would meet with bodega representatives.

Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown, a champion of public-health initiatives, said that, in lieu of raising other taxes or cutting services, "we as legislators have a responsibility to give this proposal - as unattractive as it is to create a new tax - strong consideration."

Obama names brother of undecided House Dem (Jim Matheson) to Appeals Court.

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-now-selling-appeals-court-judgeships-health-care-votes

Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

"Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court," President Obama said.  "Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering.  I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench." 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr.: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Scott M. Matheson currently holds the Hugh B. Brown Presidential Endowed Chair at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1985.  He served as Dean of the Law School from 1998 to 2006.  He also taught First Amendment Law at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government from 1989 to 1990. 

While on public service leave from the University of Utah from 1993 to 1997, Matheson served as United States Attorney for the District of Utah.  In 2007, he was appointed by Governor Jon Huntsman to chair the Utah Mine Safety Commission.  He also worked as a Deputy County Attorney for Salt Lake County from 1988 to 1989.  Prior to joining the University faculty, Matheson was an associate attorney from 1981 to 1985 at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C.

Matheson was born and raised in Utah and is a sixth generation Utahn.  He received an A.B. from Stanford University in 1975, an M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1980.

So, Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother's vote?

Consider Congressman Matheson's record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he's "undecided" on ramming the bill through Congress. "The Congressman is looking for development of bipartisan consensus," Matheson's press secretary Alyson Heyrend wrote to THE WEEKLY STANDARD on February 22. "It's too early to know if that will occur." Asked if one could infer that if no Republican votes in favor of the bill (i.e. if a bipartisan consensus is not reached) then Rep. Matheson would vote no, Heyrend replied: "I would not infer anything.  I'd wait to see what develops, starting with the health care summit on Thursday."

The timing of this nomination looks suspicious, especially in light Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a federal job not to run against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary. Many speculated that Sestak, a former admiral, was offered the Secretary of the Navy job.

Obama ‘American Agenda’ Flashback: Dems Should Not Pass Healthcare With a 50-Plus-1 Strategy

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-american-agenda-flashback-dems-should-not-pass-healthcare-with-a-50-plus-1-strategy

"If we want to transform the country though, that requires a sizeable majority."

Fundamental Premises of Our Faith - Talk Given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks at Harvard Law School

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/fundamental-premises-of-our-faith-talk-given-by-elder-dallin-h-oaks-at-harvard-law-school

26 February 2010 The following is a transcript of a talk given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, member of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles, at Harvard Law School on 26 February 2010.

I welcome this opportunity to speak in what our hosts have called "Mormonism 101."  In his fine lecture last year Judge Thomas Griffith said he was giving "an introduction to the Mormon faith."  I intend to do the same, speaking from my special responsibility as an apostle called to speak as a witness of the gospel plan and mission and Church of Jesus Christ.

It is challenging to speak to such a diverse audience—some thoroughly familiar with the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ, some unaware, and many between those extremes.  I will address this diversity by speaking about some of the fundamental premises of our faith and how they affect our interaction with the rest of mankind.  My object is to illuminate several premises and ways of thinking that are at the root of some misunderstandings about our doctrine and practice.

I.

We Mormons know that our doctrines and values are not widely understood by those not of our faith.  This was demonstrated by Gary Lawrence's nationwide study published in his recent book, How Americans View Mormonism.  Three-quarters of those surveyed associated our Church with high moral standards, but about half thought we were secretive and mysterious and had "weird beliefs."[1]  When asked to select various words they thought described Mormons in general, 87% checked "strong family values," 78% checked "honest," and 45% checked "blind followers."[2]

When Lawrence's interviewers asked, "To the best of your understanding, what is the main claim of Mormonism?" only 14% could describe anything close to the idea of restoration or reestablishment of the original Christian faith.  Similarly, when another national survey asked respondents what one word best described their impression of the Mormon religion, not one person suggested the words or ideas of original or restoration Christianity.[3]

Even the "Tonight Show" took notice of this lack of understanding.  In the course of poking fun at Senator Orrin Hatch's Hanukkah song, Conan O'Brien led a chorus in singing several stanzas, including the following:

"Oh Mormons, Mormons, Mormons,

We haven't got a clue

Of what you folks believe in,

Or think or drink or do."[4]

My disappointment with these findings is only slightly reduced by Lawrence's other findings and observation that on the subject of religion Americans in general are "deeply religious" but "profoundly ignorant."  For example, 68% said they prayed at least several times a week, and 44% said they attended religious services almost every week.  At the same time, only half could name even one of the four Gospels, most could not name the first book of the Bible, and 10% thought Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.[5]

Many factors contribute to our people's predominant shallowness on the subject of religion, but one of them is surely higher education's general hostility or indifference to religion.  Despite most colleges' and universities' founding purpose to produce clergymen and to educate in the truths taught in their chapels, most have now abandoned their role of teaching religion.  With but few exceptions, colleges and universities have become value-free places where attitudes toward religion are neutral at best.  Some faculty and administrators are powerful contributors to the forces that are driving religion to the margins of American society.  Students and other religious people who believe in the living reality of God and moral absolutes are being marginalized.

Some have suggested that religion is returning to intellectual life.  In this view, religion is too influential to ignore in these times of the Taliban and the political influence of some religious organizations.  But it seems unrealistic to expect higher education as a whole to resume a major role in teaching moral values.  That will remain the domain of homes, churches, and church-related colleges and universities.  All should hope for success in this vital task.  The academy can pretend to neutrality on questions of right and wrong, but society cannot survive on such neutrality.

I have chosen three clusters of truths to present as fundamental premises of the faith of Latter-day Saints:

       1.    The nature of God, including the role of the three members of the Godhead, and the corollary truth that there are moral absolutes.

       2.    The purpose of life.

       3.    The three-fold sources of truth about man and the universe:  science, the scriptures, and continuing revelation, and how we can know them.

II.

My first fundamental premise of our faith is that God is real and so are eternal truths and values not provable by current scientific methods.  These ideas are inevitably linked.  Like other believers, we proclaim the existence of the ultimate lawgiver, God our Eternal Father, and the existence of moral absolutes.  We reject the moral relativism that is becoming the unofficial creed of much of American culture.

For us, the truth about the nature of God and our relationship to Him is the key to everything else.  Significantly, our belief in the nature of God is what distinguishes us from the formal creeds of most Christian denominations.  Our Articles of Faith, our only formal declaration of belief, begins as follows:  "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

We have this belief in the Godhead in common with the rest of Christianity, but to us it means something different than to most.  We maintain that these three members of the Godhead are three separate and distinct beings, and that God the Father is not a spirit but a glorified Being with a tangible body, as is his resurrected Son, Jesus Christ.  Though separate in identity, they are one in purpose.  We maintain that Jesus referred to this relationship when he prayed to His Father that His disciples would be "one" even as Jesus and his Father were one (see John 17:11)—united in purpose, but not in identity.   Our unique belief that "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit" (D&C 130:22) is vital to us.  But, as Gary Lawrence's interviews demonstrate, we have not effectively conveyed this belief to our fellow Americans.[6]

Our belief in the nature of God comes from what we call the First Vision, which began the restoration of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Joseph Smith, an unschooled boy of 14, seeking to know which Church he should join, was given a vision in which he saw two personages of indescribable brightness and glory.  One of them pointed to the other and said, "This is My Beloved Son.  Hear Him!" (JS-H 1:17).  God the Son told the boy prophet that all the "creeds" of the churches of that day "were an abomination in his sight" (JS-H 1:19).  This divine declaration condemned the creeds, not the faithful seekers who believed them.

Joseph Smith's first vision showed that the prevailing concepts of the nature of God and the Godhead were untrue and could not lead their adherents to the destiny God desired for them.  A subsequent outpouring of modern scripture revealed the significance of this fundamental truth, and also gave us the Book of Mormon.  This new book of scripture is a second witness of Christ.  It affirms the Biblical prophecies and teachings of the nature and mission of Christ.  It enlarges our understanding of His gospel and His teachings during His earthly ministry.  And it also provides many teachings and illustrations of the revelations by which we may know the truth of these things.

In a New Testament letter the Apostle Paul explained his testimony of Christ.  He wrote the Corinthian saints that he did not come to them "with excellency of speech or of wisdom," because he had "determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:1-2).  He added that his preaching "was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and of power" (vs. 4).  He did this, he explained, that their faith "should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God" (vs. 3).  Similarly, the Book of Mormon condemns those who hearken to "the precepts of men, and [deny] the power of God and the gift of the Holy Ghost" (2 Nephi 28:26).

These teachings explain our testimony of Christ.  We are not grounded in the wisdom of the world or the philosophies of men—however traditional or respected they may be.  Our testimony of Jesus Christ is based on the revelations of God to His prophets and to us individually.  I will explain this process of revelation in my third premise.

What does our testimony of Jesus Christ cause us to affirm?  Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Eternal Father.  He is the Creator.  Through His incomparable mortal ministry He is our Teacher.  Because of His resurrection all who have ever lived will be raised from the dead.  He is the Savior whose atoning sacrifice opens the door for us to be forgiven of our personal sins so that we can be cleansed to return to the presence of God our Eternal Father.  This is the central message of the prophets of all ages.  Joseph Smith stated this great truth in our third Article of Faith:  "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we testify with the Book of Mormon prophet-king Benjamin that "there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent" (Mosiah 3:17).

Why is Christ the only way?  How could He break the bands of death?  How was it possible for Him to take upon himself the sins of all mankind?  How can our soiled and sinful selves be cleansed and our bodies be resurrected by His atonement?  These are mysteries I do not fully understand.  To me, the miracle of the atonement of Jesus Christ is incomprehensible, but the Holy Ghost has given me a witness of its truthfulness, and I rejoice that I can spend my life in proclaiming it.

III.

Purpose of Mortal Life

My second fundamental premise concerns the purpose of this mortal life.  This follows from our understanding of the purposes of God the Eternal Father and concerns our destiny as His children.  Our theology begins with the assurance that we lived as spirits before we came to this earth.  It affirms that this mortal life has a purpose.  And it teaches that our highest aspiration is to become like our Heavenly Parents, which will empower us to perpetuate our family relationships throughout eternity.  We were placed here on earth to acquire a physical body and, through the atonement of Jesus Christ and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of His gospel, to qualify for the glorified celestial condition and relationships that are called exaltation or eternal life.

We are properly known as a family-centered Church, but what is not well understood is that our family-centeredness is not just focused on mortal relationships but is a matter of fundamental theology.  Under the great Plan of the loving Creator, the mission of His Church is to help us achieve exaltation in the celestial kingdom, and that can only be accomplished through an eternal marriage between a man and a woman (D&C 131:1-3).

My faithful widowed mother had no confusion about the eternal nature of the family relationship.  She always honored the position of our faithful deceased father.  She made him a presence in our home.  She spoke of the eternal duration of their temple marriage and of our destiny to be together as a family in the next life.  She often reminded us of what our father would like us to do so we could qualify for the Savior's promise that we could be a family forever.  She never referred to herself as a widow, and it never occurred to me that she was.  To me, as a boy growing up, she wasn't a widow.  She had a husband and we had a father.  He was just away for a while.

We affirm that marriage is necessary for the accomplishment of God's plan, to provide the approved setting for mortal birth, and to prepare family members for eternal life.  Knowledge of God's plan gives Latter-day Saints a unique perspective on marriage and children.  We look on the bearing and nurturing of children as part of God's plan and a sacred duty of those given the power to participate in it.  We believe that the ultimate treasures on earth and in heaven are our children and our posterity.  And we believe that we must contend for the kind of mortal families that provide the best conditions for the development and happiness of children—all children.

The power to create mortal life is the most exalted power God has given his children.  The use of this creative power was mandated in the first commandment, to "be fruitful, and multiply" (Gen. 1:28), and another important commandment forbade its misuse.  ("Thou shalt not commit adultery" [Exo. 20:14], and "Thou shalt abstain from fornication" [1 Thess. 4:3].)  The emphasis we place on this law of chastity is explained by our understanding of the purpose of our procreative powers in the accomplishment of God's plan.

There are many political, legal, and social pressures for changes that de-emphasize the importance or change the definition of marriage, confuse gender, or homogenize the differences between men and women that are essential to accomplish God's great Plan of Happiness.  Our eternal perspective sets us against such changes.

In last year's lecture, Judge Griffith explained another characteristic of Mormons that stems from our belief that we are all children of Heavenly Parents.  He said we have "an optimism about human potential that encourages sociality."  As a result, "we like people and that which we do best is build communities."[7]  While some people complain that Mormons are not good neighbors because we are focused so intently on our families and our Church programs, I believe Judge Griffith had it right when he said that Mormons are good members of a community.  This is why Mormons are often sought out to lead and staff cooperative community efforts.

Judge Griffith also notes that because our church congregations are defined geographically rather than by personal preference, our Church attendance and associations tend to be racially and socially diverse.  We work side-by-side in church with other Mormons we may never have met or chosen as friends otherwise.  We are assigned to make frequent visits to the homes of a few other members to see what service is needed.  We are responsible to watch over, be with, and strengthen one another.  As Judge Griffith said, we "come to appreciate and even love those whose backgrounds, personalities, and interests are different from our own."[8]  We learn how to serve outside our personal preferences and this prepares us for volunteer community service.

Finally, our understanding of the purpose of mortal life includes some unique doctrines about what follows mortality.  Like other Christians, we believe that when we leave this life we go to a heaven (paradise) or a hell, but to us this two-part division of the righteous and the wicked is merely temporary, while the spirits of the dead await their resurrections and final judgments.  The destinations that follow the final judgments are much more diverse, and they stand as evidence of the magnitude of God's love for His children—all of them.

God's love is so great that He requires His children to obey His laws because only through that obedience can they progress toward the eternal destiny He desires for them.  Thus, in the final judgment we will all be assigned to the kingdom of glory that is commensurate with our obedience to His law.  The Apostle Paul described these kingdoms.  In his second letter to the Corinthians, he told of a vision in which he was "caught up to the third heaven" (2 Cor. 12:2).  Speaking of the resurrection of the dead, he described "bodies" with different glories, like the respective glories of the sun, moon, and stars (1 Cor. 15:40-42).  He referred to the first two of these as "celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial" (1 Cor. 15:40).  For us, "eternal life" in the celestial, the highest of these glories, is not a mystical union with an incomprehensible spirit-god.  As noted earlier, eternal life is family life with a loving Father in Heaven and with our progenitors and our posterity.

The theology of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is comprehensive, universal, merciful, and true.  Following the necessary experience of mortal life, all sons and daughters of God will ultimately be resurrected and go to a kingdom of glory more wonderful than any mortals can comprehend.  With only a few exceptions, even the very wicked will ultimately go to a marvelous—though lesser—kingdom of glory.  All of this will occur because of God's great love for His children and it is all made possible because of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ, "who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands" (D&C 76:43).

IV.

Sources of Truth

I have described some things that may seem doubtful and untrue to some of you.  This concluding part describes our fundamental LDS premises on how one can know the truth of such things.

Mormons have a great interest in pursuing knowledge.  Brigham Young said it best:

"[Our] religion . . . prompts [us] to search diligently after knowledge. . . . There is no other people in existence more eager to see, hear, learn and understand truth."[9]

On another occasion he explained that we encourage our members to increase their knowledge in every branch of learning because "all wisdom, and all the arts and sciences in the world are from God, and are designed for the good of his people."[10]

We seek after knowledge, but we do so in a special way because we believe there are two dimensions of knowledge, material and spiritual.  We seek knowledge in the material dimension by scientific inquiry and in the spiritual dimension by revelation.  In the interest of time I will say no more of the material dimension except to affirm the obvious truth that thousands of Latter-day Saints perform brilliantly in the material world without denying—and, indeed, by using—the parallel truths and methods of the spiritual world.

I will speak about the spiritual dimension and the way we experience its truth.  This concerns revelation, God's communication to man—to prophets and to every one of us, if we seek.

Revelation is clearly one of the distinctive characteristics of our faith.  Beginning with Joseph Smith's First Vision, described earlier, this founding prophet of the restored Church was directed and edified by a continuing flow of revelation throughout his life.  The immense quantity of his published revelations, including the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, carried forward his unique calling as the prophet of this last dispensation of time.  In this prophetic revelation—to Joseph Smith and to his successors as presidents of the Church—God has revealed truths or commandments to His prophet-leaders for the enlightenment of His people and for the governance and direction of His Church.  This is the kind of revelation described in the Old Testament teaching that "the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7).  Joseph Smith declared that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded upon direct revelation, as the true Church of God has ever been."[11]  "Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion?" he asked.  "We have none," he answered.[12]

Joseph Smith also taught—and this is the subject most important to this part of my remarks—that because revelation did not cease with the early apostles but continued in these modern times, each person can receive personal revelation for his or her conversion, understanding, and decision-making.  "It is the privilege of the children of God to come to God and get revelation," he said.  "God is not a respecter of persons; we all have the same privilege."[13]  The New Testament describes such personal revelation.  For example, when Peter affirmed his conviction that Jesus was the divine Son of God, the Savior declared:  "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17).

Personal revelation—sometimes called "inspiration"—comes in many forms.  Most often it is by words or thoughts communicated to the mind, by sudden enlightenment, or by positive or negative feelings about proposed courses of action.  Usually it comes in response to earnest and prayerful seeking.  "Ask, and it shall be given you;" Jesus taught, "seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you" (Matt. 7:7).  It comes when we keep the commandments of God and thus qualify for the companionship and communication of the Holy Spirit.

Here is a personal example.  Nearly 50 years ago, while I was employed by a large law firm in Chicago, Dean Edward H. Levi, who was later to serve as Attorney General of the United States, approached me with a proposal that I leave the law firm and become a professor at The University of Chicago Law School.  He said, "I know you will want to pray about this."  He knew that because he knew me.  I had been his student, we had frequent associations when I was the editor-in-chief of his school's law review, and he had successfully recommended me to be a law clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren.  I discussed this unexpected new career path with my wife.  My personal journal for that August 1961 records:  "We prayed about it all through the weekend and shortly felt that this was what we should do."  I wrote to our parents:  "None of us knows where this will lead, but we feel perfectly peaceful in our hearts that this is another valuable preparation for us."  This experience illustrates what we Latter-day Saints mean by personal revelation—a feeling of confirmation in response to earnest prayer for guidance in an important personal decision.  To cite other examples, we believe that revelation also occurs when a scientist, an inventor, an artist or great leader receives flashes of enlightenment from a loving God for the benefit of His children.

Some wonder how members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accept a modern prophet's teachings to guide their personal lives, something that is unusual in most religious traditions.  Our answer to the charge that Latter-day Saints follow their leaders out of "blind obedience" is this same personal revelation.  We respect our leaders and presume inspiration in their leadership of the Church and in their teachings.  But we are all privileged and encouraged to confirm their teachings by prayerfully seeking and receiving revelatory confirmation directly from God.

I explain this principle by an analogy from the law.  We are all familiar with official use of certified copies of legal documents like a death certificate or an honorable discharge from military duty.  The official certificate allows such copies to be accepted as if they were originals.  This practice is based on the fact that anyone who doubts the authenticity of the certified copy can verify its authenticity by going to the original.  So it is with the prophetic revelations of prophets of God.  They are the certifying authorities that their teachings or directions are from God.  Anyone who doubts this—and all are invited to ask questions about what is true—can verify the authenticity and content of the message by checking it with the Ultimate Source, by personal revelation.  As Joseph Smith taught, "We never can comprehend the things of God and of heaven, but by revelation."[14]

Most Christians believe that the scriptural canon—the authoritative collection of sacred books used as scriptures—is closed because God closed it shortly after the death of Christ and there have been no comparable revelations since that time.  Joseph Smith taught and demonstrated that the scriptural canon is open.[15]  In fact, the canon of scripture is open in two ways, and the idea of continuing revelation is crucial to both of these.

First, Joseph Smith taught that God will guide his children by giving new additions to the canon of scriptures.  The Book of Mormon is such an addition.  So are the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.  Sometimes those new revelations explain the meaning of scriptures previously canonized—meanings that may not have been evident in earlier times.  Most often prophetic revelations add new doctrinal understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and new illustrations of His love for and guidance of His children.  Continuing revelation is necessary for us to understand what the Lord would have us do in our own time and circumstances.

Second, continuing revelation also opens the canon as readers of the scripture, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, find new scriptural meaning and direction for their personal circumstances.  The apostle Paul wrote that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16; also see 2 Peter 1:21) and that "the things of God knoweth no man, except he has the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 2:11, Joseph Smith Translation).  This means that in order to understand scripture we need personal inspiration from the Spirit of the Lord to enlighten our minds.  Consequently, we encourage our members to study the scriptures and prayerfully seek inspiration to know their meanings for themselves.  Thus, while Latter-day Saints rely on scriptural scholars and scholarship, that reliance is preliminary in method and secondary in authority.  As a source of sacred teaching, the scriptures are not the ultimate but the penultimate.  The ultimate knowledge comes by personal revelation through the Holy Ghost.

It is time for me to conclude.  In doing so I offer a closing commentary on this "Mormonism" that is so satisfying to so many Latter-day Saints and so puzzling to so many others.

It works.  Jesus taught, "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:2).  To me, to countless other participants, and to many observers, the fruits are good—good for the members, good for their families, good for their communities, and good for their nations.  Peter Drucker told a seminar at Harvard that "the Mormons are the only utopia that ever worked."[16]  Whatever one may think of utopias, their participants make good neighbors.  The millions of dollars worth of supplies and services The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members are quietly and efficiently providing to repair the terrible tragedy in Haiti are evidence of that fact.  That effort is worthy of pride by its members and emulation by others.

As an apostle, I am called to be a witness of the doctrine and work and authority of Christ in all the world.  In that capacity I bear witness of the truth of these premises of our faith, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.