Monthly Archives: May 2020

After the pandemic, will we return to business as usual? – Open Democracy

Posted: May 4, 2020 at 11:14 pm

But to change the paradigm, to reset the system, we would have to give up too many things. Even if now, physically and psychologically damaged by the effects of the pandemic, we declare that we are willing to do so, as soon as normality returns our beloved capitalism of consumption, leisure, and perpetual mobility will return. And so will inequality. And then, anxious to "reincorporate", to "reopen", we will have forgotten our promises and vows, made in a moment of weakness when we were forced to reflect, because we were afraid of dying.

Changing the paradigm would mean, among other things, stopping the growth rate, so destructive for the climate and the biosphere, and entering a degrowth process, as many sociologists and economists already claim. This would mean changing the industrial model and minimizing the consumption of the unnecessary, of the dispensable, and ending the abuses of the financial economy, starting with tax havens. And at the same time, it would mean ending the tremendous inequalities, not only raising the standard of those who have nothing, but significantly reducing the standard of those who have a lot.

Since the evidence of the catastrophic scale of climate change has become undeniable, some timid model transition programmes have been launched, with the intention of progressively abandoning greenhouse gas emissions and moving towards non-resource-based growth, such as the European Green Deal.

But up until the beginning of March, billions of vehicles with combustion engines were still on the road. Tens of thousands of planes were still flying around the planet. In 2019, 90.3 million new cars were sold worldwide, even though it was 4% less than in 2018, at 94.4 million. On the morning of November 20, 2019, for example, there were 11,500 planes flying simultaneously around the world. What is the point of having an average of 154 daily flights between Sydney and Melbourne, according to 2017 data? And what is the logic behind the fact that 83.7 million tourists arrived in Spain in 2019, more than 80% of them on board aircraft? Aren't the 65.7 million tourists who visited New York in 2018 far too many? And what about the dozens of new airports, the countless kilometres of motorways, the billions of animals slaughtered, the endless hectares of forest deforested?

Although these figures should cause vertigo, they are generally assumed to be "normal", and it is to this "normality" that we aspire to return, the sooner the better.

Because: who, among the rich and the middle classes, is going to suddenly give up flying in airplanes, their second homes, their swimming pools, their cruise ships? And who, among the underprivileged, is going to stop dreaming of achieving one day, for himself or for his family, some of these privileges that the system promises, even though it almost never fulfils them?

Our system is full of contradictions, but Schumpeter has already said that the nature of capitalism is its creative destruction. Perhaps many will have taken advantage of the quarantine to ask themselves profound questions, although I don't think that the Covid-19 is strong enough to be a true game changer. More than one person will have to make a proposal for amendments, and I hope that this will have some influence on their future political behaviour. For example, in our democracies, where we will see whether those who are seriously committed to a change of model will win, or the nationalists and populists who are committed to deepening what we have, trusting in God and borders, will eventualluy win, and that they really do not care about the others .

What is almost certain is that, as soon as it leaves us, as many of us as possible will go back to normal, back to the beach. After all, we are members of an orchestra that will continue to play while the ship is sinking. But after the coronavirus catastrophe, one can honestly ask: will the new normality be business as usual or an opportunity to start changing, seriously, the paradigm of our civilization?

Read the original here:

After the pandemic, will we return to business as usual? - Open Democracy

Posted in Resource Based Economy | Comments Off on After the pandemic, will we return to business as usual? – Open Democracy

Back to the future on national development – Newsroom

Posted: at 11:14 pm

MAY 5, 2020 Updated 9 hours ago

Dr Caroline Miller is a former planning practitioner and now Associate Professor in the Resource & Environmental Planning Programme at Massey University.

Economic Recovery

Fast-tracking major projects under Muldoon didn't work out well for the economy and this Government needs to learn the lessons of history, writes Dr Caroline Miller

As a mature former planner and researcher on the history of planning in New Zealand,the announcement by the Economic Development Minister of new and accelerated Resource Management Act processesraises some immediate questions.

I'm old enough to remember the National Development Act (NDA) which was brought in to facilitate economic growth in a period of economic stagnation, albeit not as bad as our present situation. The NDA was used to consent the Muldoon Governments Think Big Projects, by offering an accelerated and truncated planning processes for selected projects. Some Think Big Projects such as the electrification of the main trunk rail line were worthybut others were less successful in producing the much-vaunted growth in jobs. That demonstrates the potential pitfalls of picking winners in an attempt to shore up an economy.

It was the failure of this economic strategy which plunged New Zealand into the neo-liberalreforms and restructuring of the Rogernomics period, reforms that inevitably destroyed more jobs than Think Big ever created. Rogernomics also, almost bizarrely, created the RMA to address the planning and consenting issues the NDA was designed to overcome. Given the legion of RMA critics and its almost constant amendment that was another less than successful project.

So, what can we learn from this history to help us decide on the likely success of these new proposals? Well, first, it is clear we are very poor at predicting the future with any accuracy. While many of the shovel ready projects may yield environmental and community benefits, many, particularly roading projects, will just cement in old thinking and old approaches.

Perhaps the issue is summed up in the use of shovel ready to describe the projects. Surely a 19th Century metaphor which is unsuited to a 21st Century New Zealand. Logically we would be better focused on projects addressing the impacts of climate change. Building more roads to address traffic congestion seems an attractive solution but does little to address our carbon emission from transport.

Matching new work opportunities to where those who are seeking work are located may be more challenging than it might first appear. I have some difficult in seeing how displaced workers from the tourism and service sectors can be transferred seamlessly to these new projects given the inevitable skills disjuncture.

Equally, enthusiasm for these reforms as a solution to the RMA seems to involve several leaps of faith. We do not know who will be part of the elite expert panel. Will panelists bedrawn only from experts who have been part of the RMA decision-making processes through the commissioner system? Few local authorities rely exclusively on councillors as RMA decision makers, so if the critics are right, then the commissioners/potential panelists are already part of the RMAs problems. If delays stem from the level of information required, then surely that will remain unchanged if the projects are to be speedily assessed? A comprehensive knowledge of a project is even more essential in such a decision making process.

The most sustained criticism of the RMA comes from its consultation and submission provisions. Those participating are usually portrayed as vexatious or displaying NIMBYist tendencies in trying to delay worthy projects. The effective removal of these voices leaves the expert panel with the challenging role of not only assessing the impact of the proposal on the natural and physical environment but also determining community impact. Most submissions come from affected residents, residents who have to live the rest of their liveswith the changes brought about by the proposal.

We are also being invited to believethe environment itself will be safeguarded in this process. The environment is always the silent party in any hearing and depends on the community and those assessing any proposal to have its voice heard. There has been the suggestion that environmental organisations will be allowed to submit, presumably to provide that environmental voice. Who will be selected remains a very important issue. For instance the Environmental Defence Society, on the surface a broadly based environmental organisation, has an immediate conflict of interest given the advice on RMA reform that it has been contracted to supply to the Ministry for the Environment.Equally, is one environmental organisation able to provide useful advice on all issues or is there room for regionally based groups?

One of the central features of New Zealands planning system has been an equitable and open process. Given the minister has said there will be a high level of certainty that the resource consent will be granted, there seems real doubtthis will be equitable. Rather, it suggests it will be a process tipped in favour of the development, subject only to a speedy and very basic assessment process. That could encourage development proponents to see it as the proverbial rubber-stamping process, rather than a way of improving their proposal. Submitters' views can and do improve proposals, just as a planners and other experts assessment may highlight areas where the predicted outcomes are unlikely or where adverse effects have been overlooked.

Having the expert panel as effective judge and jury with limited appeals only on matters of law further cements in place the legalisation of the planning system, a hallmark of the RMA. Id suggest it is this emphasis on legal issues that has help to ramp-up the cost associated with the RMA. When I started work as a planner in the early 1980s, planning(later RMA) lawyers, were a rarity and only sighted when an issue got to appeal. Now they are an integral part of the process from first lodgement to final appeal, and yet we still have complaints about RMA outcomes. This perhaps signals a time to stop demonising planners as the central problem with the RMA and instead start to look in more detail at the monolith that is now the RMA system. If we cannot identify all the causes of the problem then we are unlikely to find any useful solutions.

The questions are never-ending and we are in the early stages of developing this fast track legislation. All I am suggesting is that before we pick winners, something which has never been successful in the past, we learn a little from history. Most importantly we confront the contradiction at the heart of the RMA how to create a speedy responsive development orientated consent system which also achieves environmentally focused sustainable management of natural and physical resources. If that conundrum is solved, then we may really be onto an RMA winner.

See original here:

Back to the future on national development - Newsroom

Posted in Resource Based Economy | Comments Off on Back to the future on national development – Newsroom

Preparing for War in the Fog of Peace: The Transatlantic Case – War on the Rocks

Posted: at 11:14 pm

How do allies plan for war when they have different visions of how or with whom it might be fought? Strategic success is as much about adaptability as it is about plans. From Clausewitz to Yogi Berra, strategists know that prediction is a losing game, and that fog and friction will arise in unexpected ways. Alliances in a fog of peace have an added challenge: Their adaptations to external developments must themselves be adapted to the domestic politics of each of their members.

In a fog of peace, domestic political economy considerations are decisive. In the context of NATO and the European Union, strategic and operational planning, capabilities development, threat assessments, and burden-sharing initiatives will all be subordinate to domestic and European Union-level political economy factors, like fiscal, industrial, and labor policy. Policy-makers seeking to improve transatlantic burden-sharing and improve the set of capabilities available for conflict should therefore align such domestic and European Union-level factors with their desired defense outcomes. In short, they should focus on constraints in policy areas that they can affect, and that shape defense investment choices. These areas include mitigating the effects of E.U. fiscal rules and austerity on defense spending, rationalizing transatlantic markets for defense articles, and addressing the effects of labor markets on defense capabilities.

Increasing Uncertainty

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic and its strategic consequences, uncertainty was becoming the primary characteristic of the international system. While great-power rivalry appears to be the order of the day, there is no consensus on what such rivalry means for existing security institutions. Questions abound, from whether or how to preserve or reform these institutions to how regional security arrangements might be realigned. This strain is apparent in the transatlantic community from Brexit for the European Union to brain-death for NATO, and COVID-19 for both. The only certainty is uncertainty. In a lengthier piece, we identified quantitative and qualitative evidence of increasing uncertainty: an unmistakable trend toward greater diversity in allies perceptions of threats. Figure 1 visualizes that trend.

Figure 1: Standard Deviation in Threat Perceptions as Expressed in National Security Strategies, NATO and E.U. Members

Source: Graphic by Jordan Becker.

Order, Alliances, and Strategic Planning

How do states plan for war in such a strategic environment? Strategic planning is often neither threat based nor capabilities based, but resource-based, and rightly grounded in politics. While great powers may devise strategies based on structural factors like the distribution of relative power in such environments, national and regional political economies weigh heavily in shaping strategy and resource allocation, particularly among the small and mid-sized powers that comprise the system of alliances on which Americas strategic approach centers.

Defense planning, or the practice of military strategy in grand strategy, converts political will and community resources into defense capabilities, which planners think will bring strategic effects. Even assuming that states are rational, unitary actors, such planning lacks focus in the absence of a clearly identified and singular rival or threat. NATO is a multinational security community whose membership spans three continents and whose members adjoin not just the Atlantic Ocean, but also the Arctic and Pacific Oceans, the Baltic, Black, and Mediterranean Seas, as well as Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria. A multiplicity of interests whether conceived through the logic of consequences or that of appropriateness should therefore be considered a driving feature of the network of alliances in Americas security portfolio.

How, then, does the transatlantic security community prepare for war in these conditions? With the return of great-power rivalry, how do the United States and its allies seek to enhance deterrence and defense postures in multiple regions? Planning, resourcing, and developing the forces that strategists think will have the strategic effects needed to address these challenges is a long-term process, requiring institutionalized systems.

The multilateral structures of the European Union, and particularly of NATO, represent the most developed form of such systems. How does this institutionalization function? First NATO, and more recently the European Union, have sought to institutionalize defense planning with routinized processes. Updated and outlined for the public in 2009, NATOs Defence Planning Process provides a framework within which national and Alliance defence planning activities can be harmonised to enable Allies to provide the required forces and capabilities in the most effective way. While the European Union does not have a single process analogous to NATOs, its Coordinated Annual Review on Defence aims to foster capability development addressing shortfalls, deepen defence cooperation and ensure more optimal use, including coherence, of defence spending plans, and its Capability Development Plan defines future capability needs from the short to longer term.

Edward Luttwak explains the necessity of such processes: the development and production of sophisticated modern weapons takes years, requiring states to devise peacetime force development strategies that economically build forces for wars they can only anticipate. Figure 2 visualizes the challenge of devising such force development strategies in the multilateral security communities that anchor the current American-led order. National strategies only partially overlap with collective strategies, and processes like the NATO Defense Planning Process and the E.U.s Coordinated Annual Review on Defense do not affect the entirety of members national strategies strategy ultimately remains a sovereign matter for nations.

Figure 2: Strategy in a Security Community

Source: Graphic by Jordan Becker.

Nonetheless, NATOs Defense Planning Process at least has a reasonable record of influencing allies defense planning choices. Allies accepted and agreed on, for example, all new capability targets at their June 2017 defense ministerial meeting. In fact, the Defense Planning Process is unique in consensus-based NATO in that allies can override a veto, imposing a capability target on a nation over its objection if all other nations agree that it should accept the target a system known as consensus minus one.

The Limits of Institutions

Yet there inevitably are areas of national strategy that a process alone cannot shape. We maintain that national strategic cultures, national political economies, and E.U. macroeconomic and fiscal policy decisively influence how countries allocate resources to defense before NATO and E.U. planning processes take place. Specifically, the more Atlanticist (a preference for a transatlantic approach to European security, in which the United States role is central) a countrys national security strategy was, the more it contributed to shared operational priorities during NATOs out of area period (from 2000 to 2012). As European states experience increased unemployment, they slightly decrease top-line defense spending in response to unemployment, while shifting much more substantial amounts within defense budgets out of equipment and into personnel. E.U. members respond similarly to supranational (E.U.) fiscal constraints agreed to by heads of state and government as part of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union, and monitored (enforced) by the European Commission.

Processes cannot address these tough choices, which amount to rival claims on strategic resources, but politico-strategic dialogue may. For example, when NATO allies agreed to a pledge on defense investment at their 2014 Wales Summit, their heads of state and government gave broad but clear guidance not only to defense ministries to meet[] capability priorities, but also to finance ministries to reverse the trend of declining defense budgets. Two years later, E.U. heads of state and government formally adopted the NATO goals of moving toward spending two percent of GDP on defense and 20 percent of defense spending on equipment modernization. Early indications are that these political agreements are having some effect on resource allocation, as Figure 3 shows. European allies defense spending increased by $87 billion from 2014 to 2018. That this would occur in spite of disagreements regarding threats, economic fragmentation within Europe and the broader transatlantic community, and fiscal austerity in the European Union, points to the importance of cultural factors like Atlanticism. However, as Figure 3 also shows, increases may be stalling a transatlantic divide may harm burden-sharing and, perhaps paradoxically, weaken Europe as a strategic actor.

Figure 3: Annual Real Change in Defense Spending, NATO Europe and Canada

Source: NATO, Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2013-2019), 2020.

NATO and European Union agreement on exigent defense investment guidelines, as well as the downstream effects on coordinated capability development, point toward other opportunities for the two organizations to cooperate strategically. This is especially true given the tight interconnection between the economic strength of the transatlantic community and its military strength. For example, NATO and the European Union could build on current cooperation proposals to include the grand strategic area of resource allocation, ensuring that NATO and E.U. defense spending goals are not in competition with E.U. fiscal rules for scarce resources. Italys 2015 defense White Paper, for example, suggests the possibility that some defense spending could be excluded from the thresholds of the Stability and Growth Pact.

Trouble Behind, Trouble Ahead

At some level, all states must prepare for war. Robert Osgood called alliances latent war communities they are designed for that purpose. Indeed, Bear Braumoellers recent work extends Charles Tillys insight that war made the state and the state made war to international orders, which he argues prevent war among their members but are dangerous to non-members. Processes like those that NATO and the European Union have developed during the last eight decades of relative calm and prosperity are central to the transatlantic communitys ability to prepare for, and perhaps forestall, future wars. They are the best tools its members have to convert political will into capabilities that they believe will have strategic effects, like deterring adversaries or, if necessary, defending national territory and shared interests.

Processes are, however, no substitute for grand strategic vision. Such vision animated the creation of both NATO and the European Union. There is now a strong case for a bolder vision of transatlantic cooperation in defense planning and grand strategy to keep the fog of peace from turning into the fog of war.

What might such a vision look like? Some scholars have proposed to address the fog of peace by rediscovering geography to regionalize NATO defense planning, enabling allies to focus on capabilities that are most directly relevant to their own strategic priorities. Others have argued that it is time for Europe to seek and achieve true strategic autonomy, either by Europeanizing NATO (whereby the United States would reduce its footprint in the alliance and concentrate on its strategic challenges elsewhere), or by subsuming NATO into a broader European political-security framework. Even the possibility of extending Frances nuclear deterrent to its European allies has been raised, first by French scholars discussing nuclear solidarity, and then by President Emmanuel Macron, who invited European partners to be associated with the exercises of French deterrence forces in the interest of a true strategic culture among Europeans. Macron further clarified his intent in an interview with Wolfgang Ischinger at the 2020 Munich Security Conference, pointing to an unprecedented dialogue on nuclear deterrence among Europeans.

Challenges abound. First, transatlantic discord creates challenges for European Atlanticists, making it more difficult to align national strategies, and may even incentivize countries to curb defense spending to appeal to domestic electorates that bristle at external pressure. Second, the combination of economic recession and fiscal austerity that plagued Europe during the 2008 crisis appears likely to return in a more virulent form, which is almost certain to dampen defense investment.

Taking Europes destiny in its own hands is easier said than done. Years of low defense investment, the complicating effects of Brexit, the rise of populist politics across Europe, and uncertainties about Turkey, among other issues, cloud prospects for greater European defense autonomy. While retaining the transatlantic bond, in an era of great-power competition when conflict would almost certainly not be confined to one operational theater, it may be wise to encourage allies to concentrate on those tasks for which they are most geographically suited. For example, Baltic Sea states could focus on defending their territory from Russian aggression, while states along the Mediterranean could focus on combatting terrorism and building partner capacity each without fear of being criticized for inadequately supporting allies. Doing so would help link operational and strategic planning to threat assessments, while also helping to blunt conflict among allies about defining the array of threats, risks, and challenges that characterize the emerging security environment. It would enable the transatlantic security community to incentivize and leverage the national defense planning efforts of its members. Specializing like this would enable institutional work to focus on harmonizing, which encourages burden-sharing, as opposed to dominating, which incentivizes free-riding. But such specialization demands trust, which is currently in short supply in the transatlantic community and beyond.

Jordan Beckerwas Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the Institute for European Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel during this research. He is currently the U.S. Liaison to the French Joint Staff, and an associate researcher at the Institut de Recherche Stratgique de lEcole Militaire (IRSEM) and Sciences Pos Center for International Studies (CERI). He completed his PhD at Kings College London in 2017, and he is a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army. He previously served as defense policy adviser to the U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and as Military Assistant and Speechwriter to the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee (International Military Staff). He is solely responsible for his research, which does not reflect any official U.S. government position.

Robert Bell is CEO of National Security Council (NSC), a Limited Liability Corporation consulting firm, and Distinguished Professor of Practice at the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs at Georgia Tech. He is a PhD candidate in International Relations at the Fletcher School at TuftsUniversity. He previously served as Senior Civilian Representative of the Secretary of Defense inEurope and the Defense Adviser to the U.S. Ambassador to the North Atlantic TreatyOrganization, as well as Assistant Secretary General for Defense Investment on NATOsInternational Staff. From 1993 to 1999, he was President Bill Clintons NSC Senior Director forDefense Policy and Arms Control.

Image: NATO

Read more here:

Preparing for War in the Fog of Peace: The Transatlantic Case - War on the Rocks

Posted in Resource Based Economy | Comments Off on Preparing for War in the Fog of Peace: The Transatlantic Case – War on the Rocks

Keys to ‘Inclusive Economic Recovery’ in New York City Include Investments in CUNY and Workforce Development, Experts Say – Gotham Gazette

Posted: at 11:14 pm

Considering an inclusive recovery in New York City (photo: William Alatriste/City Council)

As the COVID-19 public health and economic crises continue, so does the conversation about recovery. This past week, the Center for an Urban Future (CUF), a nonprofit think tank focused on economic opportunity and equitable growth, hosted a digital discussion, Ensuring an Inclusive Economic Recovery in NYC, featuring several public policy experts.

Jonathon Bowles, the executive director of CUF, opened the discussion saying the immediate priorities are clear: keep people safe, get people back to work, and help our small businesses survive. He then posed the question to the panelists to kick start the conversation, asking if there is an opportunity in this crisis to build a more inclusive economy.

The panelists were Maria Torres-Springer, Vice President for US programs at the Ford Foundation and formerly Commissioner of three different New York City government agencies for housing, economic development, and small businesses; Maya Wiley, professor at the New School and former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio; Harry Holzer of the Brookings Institution and Georgetown University; David Jones, President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York; and Joey Ortiz, Jr., executive director of the New York City Employment and Training Coalition.

One of the broad themes in the panelists responses was that this situation offers an opportunity to do things differently and fundamentally change how New York thinks about economic recovery. On tangible ways to spur economic growth and improve equitable access for all New Yorkers going forward, two focus areas emerged: the roles of education and job training.

Torres-Springer said New Yorkers must first identify and be real about who has suffered the most and the fact that the community-level impacts of a disaster, like food insecurity, afflict marginalized populations on a daily basis.

She added that everyone must resist the temptation to make false choices. False choices between equity and growth, between public health and individual civil liberties, between fiscal prudence and strengthening, for instance, the not-for-profit sector, and instead take this opportunity and turn this crisis into a time when we can identify the types of strategies that strike a better balance and bend towards better outcomes.

Panelists agreed that economic growth should not be considered in a siloed way, but must be embedded into a conversation that encompasses public transportation, affordable housing, food security, workforce development, and how each impacts the economy. The pandemic disproportionately affects black and Hispanic communities and low-wage workers, Torres-Springer said. Holzer agreed, and said, first we learn, do no harm. But there is a lot of harm out there, and Maria is right, it falls, and especially in New York City, very heavily on people of color, disadvantaged workers, low-wage workers.

Jones, who is also on the MTA Board that oversees the citys massive public transit system, pointed out that black and Hispanic populations are suffering a higher COVID-19 death rate and that the hospitals serving communities of color in the city lack resources.

The pandemic has really exposed entrenched inequalities but it has laid bare the interdependence and interconnectedness, Torres-Springer said. And really shown us we are only as safe as the least protected among us.

To do recovery the right way, Ortiz said the city needs to bring people in from the most impacted communities, and ensure that they are part of the planning.

I think what often happens in any of these discussions is we bring incredible people together to talk about the challenges without the perspective of who may be living it on a day-to-day basis, he said. Its important for us to be empathetic, its important for us to understand and care very deeply about the communities we serve, but we need to invite them into this discussion in a very active way.

Jones described the interruption of education, especially for those who were only marginally involved in the system an unmitigated disaster, adding that we already knew we were having trouble in terms of retaining kids of color from poor communities in K-12, but weve done reports that show that the community college system in the State of New York cant be considered a great provider of job skills yet, and the assumptions that the community college system would be a feeder to the four-year system doesn't happen in New York.

Wiley agreed, pointing to how essential educational opportunity is for people of color and low-income communities and saying that, historically, city investment has been lacking. Limited funding for education, along with public transportation, technology, and job training -- which impact an individuals ability to access education -- are historic failures we keep reinforcing, Wiley said.

Its a combination of multiple pieces here, Ortiz said. The pieces that were raised before, in terms of K-12, and certainly the higher education CUNY system is essential here, but I think there is also meeting folks in between, the workforce development system, and smaller community-based organizations have done an incredible job of supporting people here in New York City.

Jones likened the CUNY system to apartheid, saying New York has an overwhelming number of black and Latino students concentrated in two-year schools. Its resource allocation, were not really adequately resourcing our community college system. I do think its a potential springboard. But we have to be serious, he said. We have to think more holistically and make community college perhaps a centrepiece.

Holzer agreed that community colleges are a key piece. I do think there is lots of good training at the community college level that does lead to good-paying jobs, some of them involve associates degrees, especially associates in science, he said. Some of them are good certificate programs and people have a greater likelihood of completing, but again its hard to build up capacity in these programs without money.

Education is directly related to access to the job market, of course, and over the last decade, there was huge growth in both low-wage industries and jobs for college educated individuals. Holzer said that jobs that used to only require a high school diploma now often require some kind of post-secondary education, and employers have a harder time filling certain gaps. To address this problem and increase access to the labor market, all the panelists agreed there are two main strategies: building the skill-building sector, and working with employers to create better quality jobs that can lead to a career.

Wiley cited three legs of a stool, with the need for a stronger education pipeline, better quality jobs, and especially more affordable housing, saying unless were addressing the affordability problem then we are not going to be doing enough just to be doing jobs or just to be doing education, we need the three legs of that stool.

It requires a vision that says a New York that we all want to live in, a diverse New York that has all of us in it. We can become San Francisco and watch people of color get pushed out and still be unaffordable for a white middle class, that doesn't help any of us, Wiley said.

The citys plan for addressing recovery is also dependent on the level of funding support that might be offered from the federal government. The point of this particular crisis is, is the federal government going to step in and provide more resources or not those two scenarios create different opportunities, Wiley said.

New York State and City face many billions in lower-than-expected tax revenue given the economic shutdown and recession brought on by the coronavirus outbreak, and are seeking bailouts from the federal level.

The services they end up cutting back on most severely are those that are trying to help those at the bottom who dont have political clout, who arent considered economically viable, Jones said of likely city budget cuts, some of which the mayor has already outlined for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1. And if we persist in that kind of behavior we are going to have the inequality system that we have now just explode.

One program that the mayor has put on the chopping block is the Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP), which seeks to connect NYC youth between the ages of 14 and 24 with career exploration opportunities and paid work experience each summer, according to the SYEP website.

Summer youth is a good example of when something is hard, lets just scrap it rather than say lets try to find the best possible plan to keep our young people safe, Ortiz argued. This was an incredible opportunity for them to develop the technological infrastructure that was required to learning or investing in the system from a distance. And now we have a situation where, during a health crisis, 100,000 young people wont have anything to do. These types of moments are when we need to take our big ideas and apply them so we can move forward in a really positive way.

We cant have young people who are already marginally connected to the economy with no summer plan, no school, Jones said. You cant do that. You can reconfigure it to have social distancing but weve got to get young people in these communities engaged and some income coming in for them and their family and some hope they can participate in the economy going forward.

Holzer added that a program like SYEP has strong evidence it actually helps students graduate from high school, it reduces engagement in crime, it reduces incarceration, violence and homicides and things of that nature, as an example. Its such a short-term mistake to not fund those types of things.

Torres-Springer pointed out that how New York recovers is uncertain because the city is still very much in the midst of the crisis. She added that there are a number of policies that are emergency measures, such as direct cash and paid sick leave, that months ago would have been unthinkable, but a key question is the transition from the short-term triage to the long-term policies.

We need to make sure peoples lives are secure and people have good wages, have a dignified and rising standards of living, Torres-Springer said. We cant fool ourselves that this is the job only of local and state policy-makers. We cannot let Washington walk away from their obligations.

Read the original:

Keys to 'Inclusive Economic Recovery' in New York City Include Investments in CUNY and Workforce Development, Experts Say - Gotham Gazette

Posted in Resource Based Economy | Comments Off on Keys to ‘Inclusive Economic Recovery’ in New York City Include Investments in CUNY and Workforce Development, Experts Say – Gotham Gazette

COVID-19: Here’s what decentralised planning teaches us to curb pandemics – Down To Earth Magazine

Posted: at 11:14 pm

Decentralised infrastructure and services provide a range of benefits for all stakeholders

Urban areas are right at the front of a public health emergency, as the world grapples with the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Cities across the world consist of high-density settlements, with high mobility and interactions between people.

India is under a national lockdown confining citizens to their homes and eliminating their mobility that has slowed the growth rate of infections, according to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW).

The lockdown slowed the infection growth rate to doubling every 7.2 days, from doubling every 3 days (prior to lockdown), the ministry said. Essential services during the lockdown including basic services like water and sanitation guided by urban planning become crucial.

Urban planning processes and systems need to strengthen themselves and build resilience to minimise the spread of disease outbreaks and address other grappling issues related to equitable resource management, quality of life and environmental sustainability.

Urban planning as a process, in fact, came into being as a response to public health crises: A trade-off of the industrial revolution. It gave significance to sanitary issues and overall quality of life.

Concepts of garden cities, infrastructure networks and services and habitable spaces are attributed to the revolution in urban planning more than 300 years ago.

As we battle the COVID-19 pandemic, what can we learn to make our cities more resilient for public health emergencies? Let us look at the following aspects of urban planning that can be mainstreamed.

Decentralisation of urban services

Urban planning and delivery of services presently follow a centralised top-down model in India, which is a linear approach. We seldom witness local area plans prepared by urban local bodies (ULBs) and miss out the paybacks by creating circular economy.

A decentralised approach is critical in times of a public health emergency. Such a model is based on an equitable distribution of land and resources in cities. This model limits mobility and provides space for healthy interaction in smaller scales.

A decentralised planning approach also provides opportunities and benefits of distributing health and water infrastructure across the city. In most cities across India, secondary and tertiary health care units are concentrated, negatively impacting the timely delivery of health services.

At the same time, the primary health infrastructure in cities is not in a state to cater to the demand of neighbourhoods.

Decentralised infrastructure and services provide a range of benefits for all stakeholders. From the users point of view, decentralised systems are more economical: They reduce dependency on the central system, provide the opportunity for resource recovery and can be planned and modified according to the requirement of the users. From the authorities point of view, these systems reduce their overall load, and help in better resource management.

Source: Shivali Jainer,Dhruv Pasricha

Cities with decentralised systems in place for provision of these services have been able to keep up with the provision of essential services to all citizens during lockdown measures and have also ensured that the chain of transmission is broken, resulting in the flattening of the curve.

With water supply becoming more evident in the battle against the pandemic, a family of five would need 100 to 200 litres of water per day only to wash hands. It is important to introduce the concept of circular economy of water, by reusing wastewater.

In Singapore, 40 per cent of the water demand of citizens is met through reclaimed wastewater. Decentralised solutions for water supply and wastewater treatment focussing on circular economy will ensure citizens have access to safe water.

Similarly, decentralised municipal waste management holds key in trying to limit to transmission of the virus through movement of waste collected vehicles. Sanitisation drives and solid waste management are interlinked.

Cities like Mysore in Karnataka, Panaji in Goa and Alleppey in Kerala are considered one of the best cities in waste segregation and recycling, according to Not in My Backyard, research conducted by non-profit Centre for Science and Environment.

These cities have a strong system of decentralised waste management. In Alleppey, for example, the municipality does not collect waste and residents have to segregate and reuse waste as compost or biogas.

In Panaji, the municipality collects biodegradable waste every day and non-biodegradable waste twice a week, which promotes community compost. This reduces mobility and improves the health of hygiene of citizens: Crucial to contain the spread of disease outbreaks.

In terms of health infrastructure, the coverage of primary health infrastructure in Kerala through a robust public health system has the stat flatten the curve. It is estimated that more than 85 per cent of beneficiaries in Kerala have access to primary care through Accredited Social Health Activists.

This coverage of public health programmes has led to effective contact tracing and quarantine, without any negative impact on the delivery of essential services. In addition to this, the state also set up 1,255 community kitchens that prepare 280,000 food packets of the citizens. Such services are crucial when a lockdown is enforced in order to break the chain of transmission.

Decentralised planning with focus on resource recovery and equitable distribution of resources is key for the effective delivery of services.

A collateral advantage of decentralised planning is the strengthening of local institutions and ULBs that are involved in the delivery of critical services like sanitation, waste management, healthcare and public hygiene. This helps in building resilience at the local level.

What scale of decentralisation?

As mentioned in the 2014 guidelines of the Urban and Regional Development Plans Formulation and Implementation (URDPFI), the thrust of microplanning should shift to local area plans to encourage decentralisation and improve implementation of development plans.

Planning decision and implementation of plans should be disaggregated in order to bring the process closer to the local people, according to the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendment acts.

They are, unfortunately, rarely implemented, as major conventional proposals and provisions point only to centralisation of services.

Ward-level local area plans (LAPs) stated as the lowest scale of hierarchy in URDPFI guidelines are supposed to be prepared by the ward committee in consultation with the community.

The scale of these plans is appropriate for decentralised planning, with the delivery of services at community level being more economical and sustainable.

The detailed project reports (DPRs) within these LPAs can be implemented at various scales ranging from an individual household to a larger community.

For example, in case of decentralised waste management project, the criteria for classification of scale is the amount of wastewater generated, which in turn is dependent on the number of user population, area and land use.

According to URDPFI guidelines, LAPs should be prepared to direct the development or redevelopment of land to enhance health and safety of the residents to support economic development, enhance the quality of living and for area specific regulatory parameters for the area covered.

LAPs also provide a basis of identification of vulnerable areas in a ward. These are areas where essential services like water supply, sanitation, drainage, health infrastructure, etc is lacking. It is to be noted that these areas are generally informal settlements, where a cluster of COVID-19 cases are observed.

Decentralised planning can help with the efficient delivery of services by decentralisation of powers and resources.

They also provide a feedback mechanism for preparation of city level masterplans and zonal plans, etc reducing the overall burden on city-level infrastructure and at the same time providing robust and sustainable systems to fight sudden public health emergencies.

We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.

Excerpt from:

COVID-19: Here's what decentralised planning teaches us to curb pandemics - Down To Earth Magazine

Posted in Resource Based Economy | Comments Off on COVID-19: Here’s what decentralised planning teaches us to curb pandemics – Down To Earth Magazine

As Kamloops Council approves mill rates, the Mayor says there’s issue with the cost for major industry – radionl.com

Posted: at 11:14 pm

Kamloops City Council has approved the 2020mill rates which determine what each tax class will contribute to the tax base.

Mayor Ken Christian says it was approved fairly quickly which is a reflection of the finance committee spending a lot of time on it over the winter.

He says we do have an issue with respect to the rate for major industry. That really only affects Domtar and Tolco. And its a remnant of a kinder and gentler time when Weyerhauser was the only show in town and they were paying a lot of the freight. And now Domtar is left and theyre paying just over $5.5 million a year in their tax bill.

Christian says it is working to try and make that more fair but it needs other industries and utilities to help spread that tax burden.

Major industry will be taxed $68.30 per $1000 of assessed value. Ken Christian says the tax burden is slowly shifting more onto home owners.

There was a time when this was a resource based town and those resource industries were right in town, we used to have a sawmill right down here and that kind of thing. That has changed. And certainly we have got a lot more of our taxes from the residential tax base as we shift to a knowledge based economy.

Christian says the tax structure was still sort of camped in the 70s and council has been active in trying to modernize it.

More here:

As Kamloops Council approves mill rates, the Mayor says there's issue with the cost for major industry - radionl.com

Posted in Resource Based Economy | Comments Off on As Kamloops Council approves mill rates, the Mayor says there’s issue with the cost for major industry – radionl.com

Minerva Reefs Travel guide at Wikivoyage

Posted: at 11:13 pm

The North and South Minerva Reefs are two submerged atolls between Tonga and Fiji to the north, and New Zealand to the south.

At the beginning and end of the tropical cyclone season, the Minervas are a frequent rest stop for sailboats headed to or from New Zealand.

Both Tonga and Fiji claim the Minervas. The dispute has yet to be resolved.

Both are essentially rings of coral enclosing central lagoons. At low tide, the reefs are partially above sea level and provide smooth water in the lagoon for anchoring or landing. At high tide waves of two to three feet may occur in the lagoons if it is windy and the surrounding seas are six feet or more in height.

The only way to visit them is by boat or seaplane. Both North and South Minerva have wide passes through their reefs allowing entry for deep draft sailboats. However, South Minerva has coral heads in the pass and in the anchorage area as well. The coral heads are not difficult to avoid in good seeing conditions, however in rough seas and squally, cloudy weather it can be dicey. North Minerva's pass and lagoon are both clear of coral heads

Dinghies and kayaks are the most viable options. In North Minerva the sandy lagoon bottom shallows near the inner edge of the reef. In most places it is not difficult to anchor a dinghy in 10 feet or so and step off on to the reef at low tide.

There was at one time the foundation of a lighted beacon at the south end of North Minerva.

The snorkeling along the inner edges of the reefs is excellent and varies as one goes around them. The Blacktip and Whitetip reef sharks are pretty timid.

Crayfish, or tropical lobster, are plentiful. Tuna, jack and other reef fish are easy to catch in the passes or along the outside of the reef.

North Minerva can be a haven of refuge in winds up to 35-40 knots assuming normal tides and absence of storm surge. Anything beyond that and it would be better to head for Fiji, Tonga or New Zealand as the season dictates.

Read the original here:

Minerva Reefs Travel guide at Wikivoyage

Posted in Minerva Reefs | Comments Off on Minerva Reefs Travel guide at Wikivoyage

Mormon fundamentalism – Wikipedia

Posted: at 11:12 pm

Belief in the validity of selected fundamental aspects of Mormonism as taught and practiced in the nineteenth century

Mormon fundamentalism (also called fundamentalist Mormonism) is a belief in the validity of selected fundamental aspects of Mormonism as taught and practiced in the nineteenth century, particularly during the administrations of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the first two presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Mormon fundamentalists seek to uphold tenets and practices no longer held by mainstream Mormons (members of the LDS Church). The principle most often associated with Mormon fundamentalism is plural marriage, a form of polygyny first taught in the Latter Day Saint movement by the movement's founder, Smith. A second and closely associated principle is that of the United Order, a form of egalitarian communalism. Mormon fundamentalists believe that these and other principles were wrongly abandoned or changed by the LDS Church in its efforts to become reconciled with mainstream American society. Today, the LDS Church excommunicates any of its members who practice plural marriage or who otherwise closely associate themselves with Mormon fundamentalist practices.

There is no single authority accepted by all Mormon fundamentalists; viewpoints and practices of individual groups vary. Fundamentalists have formed numerous small sects, often within cohesive and isolated communities in the Western United States, Western Canada, and northern Mexico. At times, sources have claimed there are as many as 60,000 Mormon fundamentalists in the United States,[2][3] with fewer than half of them living in polygamous households.[4] However, others have suggested that there may be as few as 20,000 Mormon fundamentalists[5][6] with only 8,000 to 15,000 practicing polygamy.[7] Founders of mutually rival Mormon fundamentalist denominations include Lorin C. Woolley, John Y. Barlow, Joseph W. Musser, Leroy S. Johnson, Rulon C. Allred, Elden Kingston, and Joel LeBaron. The largest Mormon fundamentalist groups are the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS Church) and the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB).

The LDS Church began prohibiting the contracting of plural marriages within the United States in 1890 after a decree by church president Wilford Woodruff. However, the practice continued underground in the U.S. and openly in Mormon colonies in northern Mexico and southern Alberta. According to some sources, many polygamous men in the United States continued to live with their plural wives with the approval of church presidents Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith.[6][8]

Some fundamentalists have argued that the 1890 Manifesto was not a real revelation of the kind given by God to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, and others, but that it was rather a politically expedient document intended by Woodruff to be a temporary measure until Utah Territory gained statehood. They make their argument based upon textual evidence and the fact that the "Manifesto" is not worded in accordance with similar revelations in the LDS scriptures. This argument further holds that after joining the Union, Utah would have had the authority to enact its own laws with respect to marriage, rather than being bound by U.S. territorial laws that prohibited polygamy. Before statehood could be granted in 1896, however, the federal government required Utah to include a provision in its state constitution stating that "polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."[9] Fundamentalists (and many scholars of Mormon history) also believe that a primary impetus for the 1890 Manifesto was the EdmundsTucker Act of 1887, a stringent federal law that legally dissolved the LDS Church, disenfranchised women (who had been given the vote in Utah in 1870), and required voters to take an anti-polygamy oath before being permitted to vote in an election.

With the selection of Latter-day Saint Reed Smoot to be one of Utah's representatives to the U.S. Senate in 1903, national attention was again focused on the continuation of plural marriage in Utah, which culminated in the Reed Smoot hearings. In 1904, church president Joseph F. Smith issued a "Second Manifesto", after which time it became LDS Church policy to excommunicate those church members who entered into or solemnized new polygamous marriages.[10] The seriousness with which this new measure was taken is evinced in the fact that apostle John W. Taylor, son of the church's third president, was excommunicated in 1911 for his continued opposition to the Manifesto.

Today, the LDS Church continues to excommunicate members who advocate early Mormon doctrines such as plural marriage, enter into or solemnize plural marriages (whether in the United States or elsewhere), or actively support Mormon fundamentalist or dissident groups. Although some LDS Church members continue to believe in the doctrine of plural marriage without practicing it,[11] Joseph Smith's teachings on plural marriage remain part of the scriptural canon of the LDS Church.[12] The LDS Church prevents any of its members who sympathize with Mormon fundamentalist teachings from entering its temples.[13]

During the 1920s, a church dissenter named Lorin C. Woolley claimed a separate line of priesthood authority from the LDS Church's hierarchy, effectively setting in motion the development of Mormon fundamentalism.[14] Most of the Mormon polygamous groups can trace their roots to Woolley's legacy.[15]

For the most part, the Utah state government has left the Mormon fundamentalists to themselves unless their practices violate laws other than those prohibiting bigamy. For example, there have been recent prosecutions of men who belong to fundamentalist groups for marrying underage girls. In one highly publicized case, a man and one of his polygamist wives lost custody of all but one of their children until the wife separated herself from her husband.[16] The largest government effort to crack down on the practices of fundamentalist Mormons was carried out in 1953 in what is today Colorado City, Arizona, which became known as the Short Creek Raid.

Other fundamental doctrines of the Latter Day Saint movement besides polygamy, notably the United Order (communalism), while equally important in the practices of some fundamentalist sects, have not come under the same scrutiny or approbation as has plural marriage, and the mainline LDS Church has mostly ignored this aspect of fundamentalism; in any case, no revelation or statement condemning it has ever been issued.

Most Mormon fundamentalists embrace the term Fundamentalist (usually capitalized).[6] Mormon fundamentalists share certain commonalities with other fundamentalist movements, but also possess some clear distinctions of their own.

Fundamentalists within the Mormon tradition do see religious authority as inerrant and unchanging, but tend to locate this authority within their view of "Priesthood", which is conceived of as more of a charismatic authority and often physical lineage than an external organization. In this view, ordination lineage becomes all-important and an external organization such as a church may "lose" its theological authority while the "priesthood" (conceived in this abstract and individualistic sense) may continue via an alternative lineage. Mormon fundamentalists frequently assert that priesthood is prior to the Church.[17]

Unlike more prevalent Biblical (non-Mormon) fundamentalist groups, who generally base their authority upon an unchanging and closed canon of scripture, Mormon fundamentalists generally hold to a concept of "continuing revelation" or "progressive revelation," in which the canon of scripture may be continually augmented.

Another of the most basic beliefs of Mormon fundamentalist groups is that of plural marriage, which many of them view as essential for obtaining the highest degree of exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Mormon fundamentalists dislike the term "polygamy" and view "polygyny" as a term used only by outsiders.[6] They also refer to plural marriage generically as "the Principle", "celestial marriage",[18] "the New and Everlasting Covenant", or "the Priesthood Work."[6]

The practice of plural marriage usually differs little from the manner in which it was practiced in the nineteenth century. However, in some fundamentalist sects it is considered acceptable for an older man to marry underage girls as soon as they attain puberty. This practice, which is illegal in most states, apart from polygamy itself, has generated public controversy. Examples include the Tom Green case, and the case in which a man from the Kingston clan married his 15-year-old cousin, who was also his aunt.[19] Other sects, however, do not practice and may in fact vehemently denounce underage or forced marriages and incest (for example, the Apostolic United Brethren.)

In addition to plural marriage, Mormon fundamentalist beliefs often include the following principles:

Mormon fundamentalists believe both that these principles were accepted by the LDS Church at one time, and that the LDS Church wrongly abandoned or changed them, in large part due to the desire of its leadership and members to assimilate into mainstream American society and avoid the persecutions and conflict that had characterized the church throughout its early years.

The term "Mormon fundamentalist" appears to have been coined in the 1940s by LDS Church apostle Mark E. Petersen[21] to refer to groups who had left the LDS Church. However, Mormon fundamentalists do not universally embrace this usage and many simply consider themselves to be "Mormon".[22][23] Today, the LDS Church considers the designation "Mormon" to apply only to its own members and not to members of other sects of the Latter Day Saint movement. One LDS leader went as far as claiming that there is no such thing as a "Mormon fundamentalist", and that using the two terms together is a "contradiction."[24] The LDS Church suggests that the correct term to describe Mormon fundamentalist groups is "polygamist communities".[25]

In rebuttal to this nomenclature argument, certain Mormon fundamentalists have argued that they themselves are in fact more correctly designated as Mormons in so far as they follow what they consider to be the true and original Mormon teachings as handed down from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Within this context, the LDS Church is often regarded by such fundamentalists as having abandoned several foundational aspects of Mormonism as noted above.[23][26]

The majority of Mormon fundamentalists belong to sects that have separated themselves from the LDS Church. As such, most are considered to be "Brighamite" sects within the Latter Day Saint movement.

The Apostolic United Brethren (AUB) is estimated to have about 5000 to 10000 members throughout Utah, Montana, Arizona, Wyoming, Missouri, and Mexico and is perhaps the largest Mormon fundamentalist group. Several of its towns are organized into United Orders; the church has established a temple in Mexico, an Endowment House in Utah, and operates several schools.

The AUB emerged when their leader, Joseph W. Musser, ordained Rulon C. Allred as an apostle and counselor, which led to a split between Mormon fundamentalists in Salt Lake City and those in Short Creek, Arizona. The AUB is currently headed by Lynn A. Thompson and a priesthood council.

The AUB is one of the more liberal of the Mormon groups practicing plural marriage. The leaders of the AUB do not arrange marriages nor do they authorize plural marriages for people under 18 or for those who are closely related.

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS Church) is estimated to consist of 6000[27] members. A succession crisis has been brewing in the church since 2002, when Warren Jeffs (convicted of accessory to rape and sentenced to life in prison in 2011), became president of the church. There has been extensive litigation regarding the church for some time, as property rights of disaffected members are weighed against the decisions of church leaders who hold trust to the land their homes are built upon. A large concentration of members lives in the twin cities of Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah, as well as in Bountiful, British Columbia. The church has built a temple near Eldorado, Texas. The members of the FLDS Church tend to be very conservative in dress and lifestyle.

Beginning April 4, 2008, over a four-day period, troopers and child welfare officials searched the church's YFZ Ranch and removed 416 children into the temporary custody of the State of Texas.[28] Originally officials from the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services took 18 girls into temporary custody of the state, after responding to a phone call from the YFZ ranch alleging physical and sexual abuse of a 16-year-old girl, who also claimed to have been married at age 15 to a 49-year-old man.[29] On the following day, Judge Barbara Walther of the 51st District Court issued an order authorizing officials to remove all children, including boys, 17 years old and under out of the compound.[30] The children were being held by the Child Protective Services 45 miles away, north of the ranch. 133 women also voluntarily left the ranch with the children.[31] On May 29, 2008 the Texas Supreme Court ruled that CPS must return all of the children. The court stated, "On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted."[32] The call that provoked the raid was a hoax.[33] Despite this, investigations resulting from this raid resulted in charges against twelve men associated with the FLDS Church, six of which have resulted in convictions ranging from 5 to 75 years in prison.[34]

The first member of the group that bought property near Lister was Harold (aka) Micheal Blackmore, who moved there with his family in 1946.[35] Other members of the church who believed in the principles of plural marriages soon followed. After Winston Blackmore became the bishop in the 1980s, the group took the name of Bountiful.[35]

In 1998 the estimated population was 600 and has since grown to about 1,000. Most of the residents are descended from only half a dozen men.[36] The current FLDS bishop is James Oler.

In 2002 the Mormon fundamentalists in Bountiful divided into two groups: about half are members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church), and the other half are members of the Church of Jesus Christ (Original Doctrine) Inc.[37]

The Church of Jesus Christ (Original Doctrine) Inc.,[37] is an FLDS-offshoot based on the teachings of Winston Blackmore, who split with the FLDS Church after concluding the president of the church, Warren Jeffs, had exceeded his authority and become too dictatorial. This group was formed in September 2002, when FLDS Church president Warren Jeffs excommunicated Winston Blackmore, who for two decades was Bishop of the Bountiful, British Columbia group of the FLDS Church. About 700 people continue to follow Blackmore, while about 500 follow Jeffs.[38]

The Kingston clan, officially known as the Latter Day Church of Christ, includes approximately 1200 members. This co-operative runs several businesses including pawnshops and restaurant supply stores.

The Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a group of about 100 to 200 people; most live near Modena, Utah, or Tonopah, Nevada. The Righteous Branch was organized in 1978 by Gerald Peterson, Sr., who claimed that he was ordained a High Priest Apostle by AUB leader Rulon C. Allred. Later, after he was murdered, Rulon C. Allred appeared to him as an angel to instruct him to preside over the keys of the priesthood. This church has built a pyramid-shaped temple and Gerald Peterson, Jr. is their current leader. Like the AUB they are modern in their dress and do not allow girls under 18 to be married.

The True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days (TLC) is headquartered in Manti, Utah. Membership is estimated at 300 to 500. Organized in 1994, the TLC was a new "restoration" for the "very last days" before the Second Coming of Jesus. While the church initially grew rapidly, it has since stagnated and declined in numbers and converts since it ceased missionary efforts in 2000.

About 1500 people are members of a group located in Centennial Park, Arizona, called The Work of Jesus Christ. In the early 1980s there was a conflict of leadership in the FLDS Church. Some of the members were very unhappy with the changes being made by various influential men in the community. When the FLDS Church abandoned leadership by council and instituted a "one-man rule" doctrine, those who wanted to maintain leadership by a priesthood council founded Centennial Park in 1986, approximately 3 miles (5km) south of the twin communities of Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah. (Location of Centennial Park).

The name "Centennial Park" is a reference to the 1886 events surrounding Lorin C. Woolley, which serve as the basis for fundamentalist claims of priesthood authority. Members of this group (referred to by members as "The Work") denounce all violence and abuse, do not permit marriage of young girls, and disavow the extreme practices of the FLDS Church. However, like the FLDS Church, they practice a form of arranged marriage. They dress in modern, modest attire.

The Centennial Park group has built a meetinghouse for weekly services and a private high school. A charter school was built in 2003 for the town's growing elementary-age population. About 300 members of this group live in the Salt Lake Valley, where they hold meetings monthly. Members living in Salt Lake City often travel to Centennial Park every month to help in building the community. This group is led by a Priesthood council.

The group was profiled on the ABC television program Primetime in a story entitled, The Outsiders, and also on The Oprah Winfrey Show.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Kingdom of God[39] is based in the Salt Lake Valley, and has around 200 members. The sect was founded by Frank Naylor and Ivan Nielson, who split from the Centennial Park group, another fundamentalist church. This group trace their authority through Alma Adelbert Timpson and Frank Naylor. The church is estimated to have 200-300 members, most of whom reside in the Salt Lake Valley. Mostif not allof the members of this group were previously associated with the Centennial Park or FLDS Church. The group is also known as the "Third Ward" or the "Naylor group", after Frank Naylor.

The School of the Prophets has its headquarters in the Salem, Utah area. In 1968 Robert C. Crossfield published revelations he had received in the Book of Onias, which (among other things) chastised certain LDS Church leaders; he was excommunicated in 1972.[40] In 1982 Crossfield established a School of the Prophets, overseen by a president and six counselors.[40] Ron and Dan Lafferty (convicted of the July 1984 murder of their brother's wife and infant daughter) served for a month as counselors in the Provo, Utah School of the Prophets in March 1984.[41] Four months after being removed [42] from the school, they committed their crimes. The continuing revelations were later named the Second Book of Commandments;[43] it has 275 sections, dating from 1961 to 2018. (2BC Website)

There is a large movement of independent Mormon fundamentalists. Independents do not belong to organized fundamentalist groups and do not generally recognize any man as their prophet or leader. Because Independents are not one cohesive group, they are very diverse in their beliefs and interpretations of Mormonism; therefore, their practices vary. Many Independents come from a background in the LDS Church, while others come from other Christian or Mormon fundamentalist backgrounds.

Independents rely upon personal inspiration and revelation to guide them; there is no ecclesiastical structure among the Independents, although Independents often socialize with each other and may meet together for religious services.

Statistically, it is difficult to estimate how many Independents there are, but a recent estimate indicates that there may be more independent fundamentalists than there are in any one of the formally organized polygamous groups and may number as many as 15,000.[44] According to this informal survey, about half of Mormon fundamentalists, both those in groups and those outside of groups, currently practice polygamy. There are many Independents in Utah, Arizona, Missouri[45] and Brazil.

See the article here:

Mormon fundamentalism - Wikipedia

Comments Off on Mormon fundamentalism – Wikipedia

Mormonism – Wikipedia

Posted: at 11:12 pm

Religious tradition of the Latter Day Saint movement

Mormonism is the predominant religious tradition of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity started by Joseph Smith in Western New York in the 1820s and 30s.

The word Mormon originally derived from the Book of Mormon, a religious text published by Smith, which he said he translated from golden plates with divine assistance. The book describes itself as a chronicle of early indigenous peoples of the Americas and their dealings with God. Based on the book's name, Smith's early followers were more widely known as Mormons, and their faith Mormonism. The term was initially considered pejorative,[1] but Mormons no longer consider it so (although generally preferring other terms such as Latter-day Saint or LDS).[2]

After Smith was killed in 1844, most Mormons followed Brigham Young on his westward journey to the area that became the Utah Territory, calling themselves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Other sects include Mormon fundamentalism, which seeks to maintain practices and doctrines such as polygamy,[3] and other small independent denominations. The second-largest Latter Day Saint denomination, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, since 2001 called the Community of Christ, does not describe itself as "Mormon", but follows a Trinitarian Christian restorationist theology, and considers itself Restorationist in terms of Latter Day Saint doctrine.

Mormonism has common beliefs with the rest of the Latter Day Saint movement, including the use of and belief in the Bible, and in other religious texts including the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. It also accepts the Pearl of Great Price as part of its scriptural canon, and has a history of teaching eternal marriage, eternal progression and polygamy (plural marriage), although the LDS Church formally abandoned the practice of plural marriage in 1890. Cultural Mormonism, a lifestyle promoted by Mormon institutions, includes cultural Mormons who identify with the culture, but not necessarily the theology.

Mormonism originated in the 1820s in western New York during a period of religious excitement known as the Second Great Awakening.[4] After praying about which denomination he should join, Joseph Smith, Jr. said he received a vision in the spring of 1820.[5] Called the "First Vision", Smith said that God the Father and His son Jesus Christ appeared to him and instructed him to join none of the existing churches because they were all wrong.[6] During the 1820s Smith reported several angelic visitations, and was eventually told that God would use him to re-establish the true Christian church, and that the Book of Mormon would be the means of establishing correct doctrine for the restored church. Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and other early followers, began baptizing new converts in 1829. Formally organized in 1830 as the Church of Christ.[7] Smith was seen by his followers as a modern-day prophet.[8]

Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was translated from writing on golden plates in a reformed Egyptian language, translated with the assistance of the Urim and Thummim and seer stones. Both the special spectacles and the seer stone were at times referred to as the "Urim and Thummim".[9][10] He said an angel first showed him the location of the plates in 1823, buried in a nearby hill, but he was not allowed to take the plates until 1827. Smith began dictating the text of The Book of Mormon around the fall of 1827 until the summer of 1828 when 116 pages were lost. Translation began again in April 1829 and finished in June 1829,[11] saying that he translated it "by the gift and power of God".[12] Oliver Cowdery acted as scribe for the majority of the translation. After the translation was completed, Smith said the plates were returned to the angel. During Smith's supposed possession, very few people were allowed to "witness" the plates.

The book described itself as a chronicle of an early Israelite diaspora, integrating with the pre-existing indigenous peoples of the Americas, written by a people called the Nephites. According to The Book of Mormon, Lehi's family left Jerusalem at the urging of God c. 600 BC, and later sailed to the Americas c. 589 BC. The Nephites are described as descendants of Nephi, the fourth son of the prophet Lehi. The Nephites are portrayed as having a belief in Christ hundreds of years before his birth. Historical accuracy and veracity of the Book of Mormon was and continues to be hotly contested. No archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in ancient America has been discovered.[13]

To avoid confrontation with New York residents, the members moved to Kirtland, Ohio, and hoped to establish a permanent New Jerusalem or City of Zion in Jackson County, Missouri.[14] However, they were expelled from Jackson County in 1833 and fled to other parts of Missouri in 1838. Violence between the Missourians and church members resulted in the governor of Missouri issuing an "extermination order," again forcing the church to relocate.[15] The displaced Mormons fled to Illinois, to a small town called Commerce. The church bought the town, renamed it Nauvoo, and lived with a degree of peace and prosperity for a few years.[16] However, tensions between Mormons and non-Mormons again escalated, and in 1844 Smith was killed by a mob, precipitating a succession crisis.[17]

The largest group of Mormons (LDS Church) accepted Brigham Young as the new prophet/leader and emigrated to what became the Utah Territory.[18] There, the church began the open practice of plural marriage, a form of polygyny which Smith had instituted in Nauvoo. Plural marriage became the faith's most sensational characteristic during the 19th century, but vigorous opposition by the United States Congress threatened the church's existence as a legal institution. Further, polygamy was also a major cause for the opposition to Mormonism in the states of Idaho and Arizona.[19] In the 1890 Manifesto, church president Wilford Woodruff announced the official end of plural marriage.[20]

Because of the formal abolition of plural marriage in 1890, several smaller groups of Mormons broke with the LDS Church forming several denominations of Mormon fundamentalism.[21] Meanwhile, the LDS Church had become a proponent of monogamy and patriotism, has extended its reach internationally by a vigorous missionary program, and has grown in size to a reported membership of over 16 million.[22] The church is becoming a part of the American and international mainstream.[23] However, it consciously and intentionally retains its identity as a "peculiar people,"[24] believing their unique relationship with God helps save them from "worldliness" (non-spiritual influences).

Like most other Christian groups, Mormonism teaches that there is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but unlike trinitarian faiths, the LDS Church teaches that they are separate and distinct beings with the Father and Son having perfected physical bodies and the Holy Ghost having only a body of spirit.[25] While the three beings are physically distinct, in Mormon theology they are one in thoughts, actions, and purpose and commonly referred to collectively as the "Godhead".[26][27] Also, Mormonism teaches that God the Father is the literal father of the spirits of all men and women, which existed prior to their mortal existence.[28] The LDS Church also believes that a Heavenly Mother exists.[29][30] Further, it is believed that all humans as children of God can become exalted, inheriting all that God has, as joint-heirs with Christ, and becoming like him as a God.[31] Lorenzo Snow is quoted as saying "As man now is God once was: As God now is, man may be."[32]

Mormonism describes itself as falling within world Christianity, but as a distinct restored dispensation; it characterizes itself as the only true form of the Christian religion since the time of a Great Apostasy that began not long after the ascension of Jesus Christ.[33] According to Mormons this Apostasy involved the corruption of the pure, original Christian doctrine with Greek and other philosophies,[34] and followers dividing into different ideological groups.[35]Additionally, Mormons claim the martyrdom of the Apostlesled to the loss of Priesthood authority to administer the Church and its ordinances.[36][37]

Mormons believe that God re-established the early Christian Church as found in the New Testament through Joseph Smith.[38] In particular, Mormons believe that angels such as Peter, James, John, and John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith and others and bestowed various Priesthood authorities on them.[39] Mormons thus believe that their Church is the "only true and living church" because divine authority was restored to it through Smith. In addition, Mormons believe that Smith and his legitimate successors are modern prophets who receive revelation from God to guide the church. They maintain that other religions have a portion of the truth and are guided by the light of Christ.[40][41]

Smith's cosmology is laid out mostly in Smith's later revelations and sermons, but particularly the Book of Abraham, the Book of Moses, and the King Follett discourse.[42] Mormon cosmology presents a unique view of God and the universe, and places a high importance on human agency. In Mormonism, life on earth is just a short part of an eternal existence. Mormons believe that in the beginning, all people existed as spirits or "intelligences," in the presence of God.[43] In this state, God proposed a plan of salvation whereby they could progress and "have a privilege to advance like himself."[44] The spirits were free to accept or reject this plan, and a "third" of them, led by Satan rejected it.[45] The rest accepted the plan, coming to earth and receiving bodies with an understanding that they would experience sin and suffering.

In Mormonism, the central part of God's plan is the atonement of Jesus Christ.[46] Mormons believe that one purpose of earthly life is to learn to choose good over evil. In this process, people inevitably make mistakes, becoming unworthy to return to the presence of God. Mormons believe that Jesus paid for the sins of the world and that all people can be saved through his atonement.[47] Mormons accept Christ's atonement through faith, repentance, formal covenants or ordinances such as baptism, and consistently trying to live a Christ-like life.

According to Mormon scripture, the Earth's creation was not ex nihilo, but organized from existing matter. The Earth is just one of many inhabited worlds, and there are many governing heavenly bodies, including the planet or star Kolob, which is said to be nearest the throne of God.

In Mormonism, an ordinance is a religious ritual of special significance, often involving the formation of a covenant with God.[48] Ordinances are performed by the authority of the priesthood and in the name of Jesus Christ. The term has a meaning roughly similar to that of the term "sacrament" in other Christian denominations.

Saving ordinances (or ordinances viewed as necessary for salvation) include: baptism by immersion after the age of accountability (normally age 8); confirmation and reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost, performed by laying hands on the head of a newly baptized member; ordination to the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods for males; an endowment (including washing and anointing) received in temples; and marriage (or sealing) to a spouse.[49]

Mormons also perform other ordinances, which include the Lord's supper (commonly called the sacrament), naming and blessing children, giving priesthood blessings and patriarchal blessings, anointing and blessing the sick, participating in prayer circles, and setting apart individuals who are called to church positions.

In Mormonism, the saving ordinances are seen as necessary for salvation, but they are not sufficient in and of themselves. For example, baptism is required for exaltation, but simply having been baptized does not guarantee any eternal reward. The baptized person is expected to be obedient to God's commandments, to repent of any sinful conduct subsequent to baptism, and to receive the other saving ordinances.

Because Mormons believe that everyone must receive certain ordinances to be saved, Mormons perform ordinances on behalf of deceased persons.[50] These ordinances are performed vicariously or by "proxy" on behalf of the dead. In accordance with their belief in each individual's "free agency", living or dead, Mormons believe that the deceased may accept or reject the offered ordinance in the spirit world, just as all spirits decided to accept or reject God's plan originally. In addition, these "conditional" ordinances on behalf of the dead are performed only when a deceased person's genealogical information has been submitted to a temple and correctly processed there before the ordinance ritual is performed. Only ordinances for salvation are performed on behalf of deceased persons. See also: Baptism for the dead.

Mormons believe in the Old and New Testaments, and the LDS Church uses the King James Bible as its official scriptural text of the Bible. While Mormons believe in the general accuracy of the modern day text of the Bible, they also believe that it is incomplete and that errors have been introduced.[51][52][53] In Mormon theology, many lost truths are restored in the Book of Mormon, which Mormons hold to be divine scripture and equal in authority to the Bible.[54]

The Mormon scriptural canon also includes a collection of revelations and writings contained in the Doctrine and Covenants which contains doctrine and prophecy and the Pearl of Great Price which addresses briefly Genesis to Exodus. These books, as well as the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, have varying degrees of acceptance as divine scripture among different denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement.

In Mormonism, continuous revelation is the principle that God or his divine agents still continue to communicate to mankind. This communication can be manifest in many ways: influences of the Holy Ghost (the principal form in which this principle is manifest), visions, visitations of divine beings, and others. Joseph Smith used the example of the Lord's revelations to Moses in Deuteronomy to explain the importance of continuous revelation.

"God said, 'Thou shalt not murder' at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conductedby revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire."

Mormons believe that Smith and subsequent church leaders could speak scripture "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost."[55] In addition, many Mormons believe that ancient prophets in other regions of the world received revelations that resulted in additional scriptures that have been lost and may, one day, be forthcoming. In Mormonism, revelation is not limited to church members. For instance, Latter Day Saints believe that the United States Constitution is a divinely inspired document.[56][57]

Mormons are encouraged to develop a personal relationship with the Holy Ghost and receive personal revelation for their own direction and that of their family.[55] The Latter Day Saint concept of revelation includes the belief that revelation from God is available to all those who earnestly seek it with the intent of doing good. It also teaches that everyone is entitled to personal revelation with respect to his or her stewardship (leadership responsibility). Thus, parents may receive inspiration from God in raising their families, individuals can receive divine inspiration to help them meet personal challenges, church officers may receive revelation for those whom they serve.

The important consequence of this is that each person may receive confirmation that particular doctrines taught by a prophet are true, as well as gain divine insight in using those truths for their own benefit and eternal progress. In the church, personal revelation is expected and encouraged, and many converts believe that personal revelation from God was instrumental in their conversion.[58]

Mormonism categorizes itself within Christianity, and nearly all Mormons self-identify as Christian.[60][61][62] For some who define Christianity within the doctrines of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, Mormonism's differences place it outside the umbrella of Christianity.[63][64][65]

Since its beginnings, the faith has proclaimed itself to be Christ's Church restored with its original authority, structure and power; maintaining that existing denominations believed in incorrect doctrines and were not acknowledged by God as his church and kingdom.[66] Though the religion quickly gained a large following of Christian seekers, in the 1830s, many American Christians came to view the church's early doctrines and practices[67] as politically and culturally subversive, as well as doctrinally heretical, abominable, and condemnable. This discord led to a series of sometimes-deadly conflicts between Mormons and others who saw themselves as orthodox Christians.[68] Although such violence declined during the twentieth century, the religion's unique doctrinal views and practices still generate criticism, sometimes vehemently so. This gives rise to efforts by Mormons and opposing types of Christians to proselytize each other.

Mormons believe in Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God and Messiah, his crucifixion as a conclusion of a sin offering, and subsequent resurrection.[69] However, Latter-day Saints (LDS) reject the ecumenical creeds and the definition of the Trinity.[70][71] (In contrast, the second largest Latter Day Saint denomination, the Community of Christ, is Trinitarian and monotheistic.) Mormons hold the view that the New Testament prophesied both the apostasy from the teachings of Christ and his apostles as well as the restoration of all things prior to the second coming of Christ.[72]

Some notable differences with mainstream Christianity include: A belief that Jesus began his atonement in the garden of Gethsemane and continued it to his crucifixion, rather than the orthodox belief that the crucifixion alone was the physical atonement;[73] and an afterlife with three degrees of glory, with hell (often called spirit prison) being a temporary repository for the wicked between death and the resurrection.[74] Additionally, Mormons do not believe in creation ex nihilo, believing that matter is eternal, and creation involved God organizing existing matter.[75]

Much of the Mormon belief system is geographically oriented around the North and South American continents. Mormons believe that the people of the Book of Mormon lived in the western hemisphere, that Christ appeared in the western hemisphere after his death and resurrection, that the true faith was restored in Upstate New York by Joseph Smith, that the Garden of Eden was located in North America, and that the New Jerusalem would be built in Missouri. For this and other reasons, including a belief by many Mormons in American exceptionalism, Molly Worthen speculates that this may be why Leo Tolstoy described Mormonism as the "quintessential 'American religion'".[76]

Although Mormons do not claim to be part of Judaism, Mormon theology claims to situate Mormonism within the context of Judaism to an extent that goes beyond what most other Christian denominations claim. The faith incorporates many Old Testament ideas into its theology, and the beliefs of Mormons sometimes parallel those of Judaism and certain elements of Jewish culture. In the earliest days of Mormonism, Joseph Smith taught that the Indigenous peoples of the Americas were members of some of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Later, he taught that Mormons were Israelites, and that they may learn of their tribal affiliation within the twelve Israelite tribes. Members of the LDS Church receive Patriarchal blessings which declare the recipient's lineage within one of the tribes of Israel. The lineage is either through true blood-line or adoption. The LDS Church teaches that if one is not a direct descendant of one of the twelve tribes, upon baptism he or she is adopted into one of the tribes. Patriarchal blessings also include personal information which is revealed through a patriarch by the power of the priesthood.

The Mormon affinity for Judaism is expressed by the many references to Judaism in the Mormon liturgy. For example, Smith named the largest Mormon settlement he founded Nauvoo, which means "to be beautiful" in Hebrew. Brigham Young named a tributary of the Great Salt Lake the "Jordan River". The LDS Church created a writing scheme called the Deseret Alphabet, which was based, in part, on Hebrew. The LDS Church has a Jerusalem Center in Israel, where students focus their study on Near Eastern history, culture, language, and the Bible.[77]

There has been some controversy involving Jewish groups who see the actions of some elements of Mormonism as offensive. In the 1990s, Jewish groups vocally opposed the LDS practice of baptism for the dead on behalf of Jewish victims of the Holocaust and Jews in general. According to LDS Church general authority Monte J. Brough, "Mormons who baptized 380,000 Holocaust victims posthumously were motivated by love and compassion and did not understand their gesture might offend Jews ... they did not realize that what they intended as a 'Christian act of service' was 'misguided and insensitive'".[78] Mormons believe that when the dead are baptized through proxy, they have the option of accepting or rejecting the ordinance.

Since its origins in the 19th century, Mormonism has been compared to Islam, often by detractors of one religion or the other.[79] For instance, Joseph Smith was referred to as "the modern mahomet" [sic] by the New York Herald,[80] shortly after his murder in June 1844. This epithet repeated a comparison that had been made from Smith's earliest career,[79] one that was not intended at the time to be complimentary. Comparison of the Mormon and Muslim prophets still occurs today, sometimes for derogatory or polemical reasons[81] but also for more scholarly (and neutral) purposes.[79] While Mormonism and Islam have many similarities, there are also significant, fundamental differences between the two religions. MormonMuslim relations have been historically cordial;[82] recent years have seen increasing dialogue between adherents of the two faiths, and cooperation in charitable endeavors, especially in the Middle and Far East.[83]

Islam and Mormonism both originate in the Abrahamic traditions. Each religion sees its founder (Muhammad for Islam, and Joseph Smith for Mormonism) as being a true prophet of God, called to re-establish the truths of these ancient theological belief systems that have been altered, corrupted, or lost. In addition, both prophets received visits from an angel, leading to additional books of scripture. Both religions share a high emphasis on family life, charitable giving, chastity, abstention from alcohol, and a special reverence for, though not worship of, their founding prophet. Before the 1890 Manifesto against plural marriage, Mormonism and Islam also shared in the belief in and practice of plural marriage, a practice now held in common by Islam and various branches of Mormon fundamentalism.

The religions differ significantly in their views on God. Islam insists upon the complete oneness and uniqueness of God (Allah), while Mormonism asserts that the Godhead is made up of three distinct "personages."[84]Mormonism sees Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah and the literal Son of God, while Islam insists that the title "Messiah" means that Jesus (or "Isa") was a prophet sent to establish the true faith, not that he was the Son of God or a divine being. Despite opposition from other Christian denominations, Mormonism identifies itself as a Christian religion, the "restoration" of primitive Christianity. Islam does not refer to itself as "Christian", asserting that Jesus and all true followers of Christ's teachings were (and are) Muslimsa term that means submitters to God.[85] Islam proclaims that its prophet Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets",[86] and that no further prophets would come after him. Mormons, though honoring Joseph Smith as the first prophet in modern times, see him as just one in a long line of prophets, with Jesus Christ being the premier figure of the religion.[87] For these and many other reasons, group membership is generally mutually exclusive: both religious groups would agree that a person cannot be both Mormon and Muslim.

Mormon theology includes three main movements. By far the largest of these is "mainstream Mormonism", defined by the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The two broad movements outside mainstream Mormonism are Mormon fundamentalism, and liberal reformist Mormonism.

Mainstream Mormonism is defined by the leadership of the LDS Church which identifies itself as Christian.[61] Members of the LDS Church consider their top leaders to be prophets and apostles, and are encouraged to accept their positions on matters of theology, while seeking confirmation of them through personal study of the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Personal prayer is encouraged as well. The LDS Church is by far the largest branch of Mormonism. It has continuously existed since the succession crisis of 1844 that split the Latter Day Saint movement after the death of founder Joseph Smith, Jr.

The LDS Church seeks to distance itself from other branches of Mormonism, particularly those that practice polygamy.[88]The church maintains a degree of orthodoxy by excommunicating or disciplining its members who take positions or engage in practices viewed as apostasy. For example, the LDS Church excommunicates members who practice polygamy or who adopt the beliefs and practices of Mormon fundamentalism.

One way Mormon fundamentalism distinguishes itself from mainstream Mormonism is through the practice of plural marriage. Fundamentalists initially broke from the LDS Church after that doctrine was discontinued around the beginning of the 20th century. Mormon fundamentalism teaches that plural marriage is a requirement for exaltation (the highest degree of salvation), which will allow them to live as gods and goddesses in the afterlife. Mainstream Mormons, by contrast, believe that a single Celestial marriage is necessary for exaltation.

In distinction with the LDS Church, Mormon fundamentalists also often believe in a number of other doctrines taught and practiced by Brigham Young in the 19th century, which the LDS Church has either abandoned, repudiated, or put in abeyance. These include:

Mormon fundamentalists believe that these principles were wrongly abandoned or changed by the LDS Church, in large part due to the desire of its leadership and members to assimilate into mainstream American society and avoid the persecutions and conflict that had characterized the church throughout its early years. Others believe that it was a necessity at some point for "a restoration of all things" to be a truly restored Church.

Some LDS Church members have worked towards a more liberal reform of the church. Others have left the LDS Church and still consider themselves to be cultural Mormons. Others have formed new religions (many of them now defunct). For instance the Godbeites broke away from the LDS Church in the late 19th century, on the basis of both political and religious liberalism, and in 1985 the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ broke away from the LDS Church as an LGBT-friendly denomination, which was formally dissolved in 2010.

As the largest denomination within Mormonism, the LDS Church has been the subject of criticism since it was founded by Joseph Smith in 1830.

Perhaps the most controversial, and a key contributing factor for Smith's murder, is the claim that plural marriage (as defenders call it) or polygamy (as critics call it) is biblically authorized. Under heavy pressure Utah would not be accepted as a state if polygamy was practiced the church formally and publicly renounced the practice in 1890. Utah's statehood soon followed. However, plural marriage remains a controversial and divisive issue, as despite the official renunciation of 1890, it still has sympathizers, defenders, and semi-secret practitioners within Mormonism, though not within the LDS Church.

More recent criticism has focused on questions of historical revisionism, homophobia, racism,[89] sexist policies, inadequate financial disclosure, and the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Read the original here:

Mormonism - Wikipedia

Comments Off on Mormonism – Wikipedia

SANS 2020 Automation and Integration Survey Shows Investment on the Rise – Herald-Mail Media

Posted: at 11:10 pm

BETHESDA, Md., May 4, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --There is clear progress being made in automation and integration, with many organizations ramping up investments on projects that are geared toward enabling staff to work smarter and more efficiently. This is according to the results of the SANS 2020 Automation and Integration Survey, which will be presented by SANS Institute in two webcasts on May 19 and May 20.

"It's been said many times that people are the most valuable asset to an organization," says SANS analyst and security operations expert Don Murdoch. "The 2020 A&I survey results show that organizations are making strategic investments that will improve day-to-day operations in order to maximize staff, support staff working smarter, and improve both security operations and incident response. Automation is expected to bolster all around improvements for both people and processes in most cases, not used as a method to reduce head count."

The 2020 survey results show a substantial uptick in adoption of dedicated automation solutions, with an 11.8% increase in tool adoption in the past year. This data point is even more significant when coupled with the fact that survey respondents reported increased funding levels of 3% to 10% above 2019 levels.

Higher emphasis is being placed on implementing projects that improve security operations. Projects such as improving incident response (IR) command, managing IR, and cyber threat integration top the list of priorities, with 27% to 30% of survey respondents either currently implementing or planning to implement such projects within the next year.

"There is a learning curve," cautions Murdoch, "and a definite need for organizations to make sure that they apply automation and integration to work activities that improve day-to-day processes. In analyzing the survey results, it's clear that organizations are applying automation and integration to many project areas that will maximize overall security spend."

Webcasts Details

Full results of the SANS 2020 Automation and Integration Survey will be shared during a webcast on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. EDT (17:00 UTC), sponsored by CloudPassage, Devo, DomainTools, Siemplify, Swimlane, and ThreatConnect, and hosted by SANS Institute. Register to attend the webcast at https://www.sans.org/webcasts/112640

Get additional perspective on the survey results in a second webcast on Wednesday, May 20 at 1:00 p.m. EDT (17:00 UTC), in which representatives from CloudPassage, DomainTools, and ThreatConnect will join a panel discussion to dive deeper into the results with survey author Don Murdoch and survey advisor Barbara Filkins. Register to attend this webcast at https://www.sans.org/webcasts/112645

Those who register for either webcast will be among the first to receive the associated whitepaper written by Don Murdoch, SANS analyst, instructor, and security operations expert.

About SANS InstituteThe SANS Institute was established in 1989 as a cooperative research and education organization. SANS is the most trusted and, by far, the largest provider of cyber security training and certification to professionals at governments and commercial institutions world-wide. Renowned SANS instructors teach over 60 different courses at more than 200 live cyber security trainingevents as well as online. GIAC, an affiliate of the SANS Institute, validates a practitioner's qualifications via over 35 hands-on, technical certifications in cyber security. The SANS Technology Institute, a regionally accredited independent subsidiary, offers master's degrees in cyber security. SANS offers a myriad of free resources to the InfoSec community including consensus projects, research reports, and newsletters; it also operates the Internet's early warning system--the Internet Storm Center. At the heart of SANS are the many security practitioners, representing varied global organizations from corporations to universities, working together to help the entire information security community. (https://www.sans.org)

More here:

SANS 2020 Automation and Integration Survey Shows Investment on the Rise - Herald-Mail Media

Posted in Automation | Comments Off on SANS 2020 Automation and Integration Survey Shows Investment on the Rise – Herald-Mail Media