Thoughts on the Bloggernacle, Panel

There has been much discussion about the much-discussed panel (and about the bloggernacle as a result -- after seeing a link to this blog post, I wanted to point out that the comma in the title was deliberate!), and I want to throw in my few cents' worth.

First of all, I listened to the recording, and thought the panelists all did a good job. Although I think Kaimi greatly overstated the fraction of the church elephant that the bloggernacle represents, I thought he came up with an interesting analogy. I loved Kristine's more personal approach; she read some powerful blog posts and interesting comments. And for all that Russell said he would be boring, he wasn't. I thought his analysis was well done and well presented. I particularly liked that he recognized the limitations of blogging, but recognized its strengths (conversation and interaction).

And then there was Lisa.

Anyone who has ever listened to her will know that she is funny, fun, and real. She's really a delight to listen to, personable and honest. (I will say that she needs to stop apologizing for who she is or what she think she is not.. She doesn't need a Ph.D. to communicate and to communicate well. :) )

Her honesty is something I appreciated in this panel. When the topic of the panel came up at DMI Dave's blog, I agreed with something said C Jones said about conservatives being somewhat excluded from the bloggernacle. I have seen this dynamic multiple times, and have repeatedly experienced it first hand in the year+ I have been blogging. I have close friends who have also felt this exclusion, to the point of essentially retreating and more or less giving up on commenting, particularly on the "big blogs." Just because some very, very small conservative blogs exist doesn't mean that the bloggernacle is fundamentally a welcoming place for conservatives. It's often not.

And yet, Lisa is possibly the first person I have heard who has so publicly and clearly admitted and recognized this. I read comments and emails from people who say that they care about community (and I believe they do) but few seem to really acknowledge the fact that there is a serious rift in this community or express a desire to do something about it. (I do remember reading a couple of good posts on BCC, one that was fairly recent, that tried to address the potential lack of community. I also have appreciated watching Deborah and Kathryn Lynard Soper recently try to build a bridge of understanding and camaraderie. I'd love to see more of this!)

I'm not saying the rift exists 100% of the time, and I do know that there are those who care deeply about this divide, but it seems there is often a sense of denial and/or defensiveness when the subject is broached. And the rift exists enough to make conservatives sometimes feel unwelcome, hesitant, even driven out. Unless this changes (getting to the question the panel set out to address), I don't see how we could think of the bloggernacle as really representative of Mormonism if it tends to exclude some of the very voices that are more typical of mainstream Mormonism.

So, back to Lisa. I actually couldn't decide whether to cheer or to cry when she quipped that (paraphrasing): "We berate conservatives/orthodox [her words] folks because we don't want to hear what we hear at church" and "we nudge some people like that out, because after all, if they want to talk churchy stuff, they can go somewhere else and do it in their own space." (For now, I'll try to ignore the fact that those in attendance laughed when she joked about berating conservative folks. Imagine if the tables were turned at church. Is berating or nudging someone out ever funny?)

Now, before you go all wonky on me (loved that word; I'm stealing it from Lisa), please don't misunderstand. I totally recognize and appreciate the fact that some people need a place where they can go to sort through their mind vomit (another one of Lisa's clever terms) and to come to grips with dissonance they might feel between the church and some of their personal perspectives. I understand that some people have had bad experiences with people in their family or in their church circle totally dismissing their questions and concerns, and/or unkindly "calling them to repentance." This should not be. Wherever we are, we need to feel loved and listened to, in spite of our questions or concerns or weaknesses. I feel saddened that people like Lisa feel excluded at church and have turned to the bloggernacle for a feeling of acceptance and support. And I am glad that some people have found reasons to stay, thanks to the bloggernacle. I tend to agree that a lot of these discussions really can't happen in a 30-minute Sunday-school lesson.

I do think, though, that we need to somehow learn to talk more freely with fellow church members in our real lives about our struggles. But, alas, I'm getting ahead of myself.

My blogging experience has given me a greater appreciation for the fact that we are all at different places in our journey of faith, and if we turn to God, however and wherever we can, He can bless us and help us move forward. I feel that I have learned better how to listen (even if people don't believe that's true), and I have gained more understanding of different points of view. This is extremely important to me, and it's a big reason why I blog.

But, to be honest, I think that "liberals" don't often take the time to really understand "conservatives'" point of view. Perhaps because conservative points of view have added to people's pain and struggle, I feel sometimes these perspectives are too easily and quickly dismissed. The "I get that at church" mindset often seems to create a barrier to listening and seeking to understand.

So if I may, I want to say this: Just because you hear similar thoughts at church doesn't mean that you really understand those like me who blog, and it doesn't mean our motives are the same as those who may have caused you pain (if their motives were truly malignant). We wouldn't be blogging if we weren't interested in discussion beyond what happens at church as well, so perhaps it's NOT all like what you get at church. :)

And please, please, don't assume that by sharing church-like thoughts, someone's intentions are to self-righteously call someone to repentance, to call someone else an apostate, or to try to shut down discussion. (These are all arguments I have seen repeatedly and usually unfairly used to shut down (nudge out) commenters like me.) Most of the time, people like me are also trying to work through our own thoughts, to understand others' points of view, and sometimes, yes, to represent the oft-underrepresented and -unspoken mainstream point of view. After all, people ARE turning to the bloggernacle more and more for understanding of Mormonism. If we don't allow for mainstream points of view, what kind of disservice might we be doing to the Church and to those who want to understand it?

I've talked about the problem of exclusion of conservatives, and addressed concerns about the public face of the bloggernacle. I have another bloggernacle concern that relates to all of this.

I think that as long as there are divisions -- "ites" if you will -- like liberal and conservative, orthodox and new order (don't know if those are actual opposites, but you get where I'm going), feminist and not-so-feminist, mainstream and closer-to-the-edge, we (either on- or off-line) won't truly be able to be a community. Of course, as Elder Holland recently explained, the blessings of church membership come with a price, and we cannot simply remove the price tag at will, even for the sake of community. But so often, we have rifts between those of us who are striving to pay the price, those for whom church membership is a precious element of life. In fact, I feel that sometimes more effort is made to reach out to those not of or formerly of our faith, rather than to those who might be different from us within the faith.

If all we do is find our corner of the internet to simply be comfortable without sometime, somehow learning to come together in spite of our differences, I think we are missing the full meaning and purpose of our membership. It's not just about personal peace. It's about being one in a community, united in Christ.

I think J. Daniel Crawford said it well in the post I linked to above:

If we were one in Christ, I believe that we would be encouraged to treat everyone as a whole person, not simply as an amalgam of desirable and undesirable characteristics [might I add points of view?].... If we have [the love of Christ] I don’t believe our goal would be to create and reinforce the divisions among us. Instead, we would be bound in one great whole.

I hope that especially those who have power and influence in the bloggernacle will give some consideration to these wise words. Actually, though, I think it is something we all need to consider. I think too often, we allow ourselves to stay stuck in mindsets and modes of interaction that reinforce and facilitate the divisions and contentions that the Lord has asked us to leave behind. I think that only through a love and a unity that binds us together in spite of insecurities, struggles, frustrations, and even misunderstandings will we hope to come close to representing what the gospel and the church are about. Because ultimately, the gospel and church are about the Savior and His saving grace and about coming unto Him, and doing it together -- not about polygamy, or the Word of Wisdom, or politics, or most of the other comment-driving, conversation-producing, controversial topics we may discuss. I think we need to do better about helping people see that side of our faith that so far, the press has largely missed.

Actually, sometimes I think we miss it, too.

The Circle of Life

I said good-bye to Grandma today, probably for the last time.

Grandpa may be losing his mind, but his body is strong, so I might see him again.

But probably not Grandma.

I wasn't really prepared for it all. I came to the family reunion specifically knowing that it might be the last time I see them. I knew they weren't doing well, but....

I had the privilege of sitting next to Grandma. Of holding her soft hand. Of feeding her spoonfuls of yogurt. Of giving her glimpses of who and what she couldn't see. She would break into a huge grin when she would hear the sweet sound of the small children's laughter and chatter.

She kept talking of how much she wished she could see all the grandchildren and great-grandchildren who had gathered to honor her and Grandpa. I tried to communicate the love and honor that we feel. Tears came to my eyes as she simply turned the glory to God. Her humility in her suffering touched me.

Indeed, God has been so good to us. And how can I be anything but grateful to have had loving grandparents who have lived for this long, and to have so many wonderful, wonderful memories?

But with the gratitude, of course, comes great sadness. I finally had to take a walk to let the tears flow. They flowed again as Dad wheeled Grandma away toward the car. The realization of the temporary finality of it all was too much for me.

The emotion is draining, and I also find myself in a reflective mood. How strange it was to be at Grandma and Grandpa's house, but not to be the one splashing in the pool. I and my cousins and siblings are the parents now, and our parents are now the grandparents. I watched my dad holding one of my nephews and wondered what the next couple of decades will bring for us all as the circle of life continues.

This process of birth, life and death is a rich and fulfilling one. But it's also sobering. Time passes, and it passes quickly. Moments like these cause me to reflect on the importance of savoring life's stages, of making memories that can last, of putting God and family first.

Someday my children will sit by the side of their grandparents as they prepare to pass on. I hope they will feel the joy that I have felt that comes of sweet memories, of fun, of love, of the treasure that is family.

A Couple More Links

In a recent conversation elsewhere, I said that I'm not sure that the Founding Fathers would have wanted decisions made (such as what to do about marriage in our nation) without the consideration of moral -- even religious -- principles. I just wanted to provide a couple of links (here and here) that expound a bit more (better than I could) on the topic.

I could add here that two of my "non-religious" concerns with gay marriage relate to Constitutional rights: religious rights (see this article for an interesting discussion of this topic) and free speech rights. I am concerned that these rights could be threatened if gay rights prevail.

Please note that what I said earlier when I posted on this topic applies to these posts as well:

I realize this is an issue many people are tired of discussing. If that describes you, please feel free to ignore what I have said. It might be better if you do. :) I also realize how strongly people can feel about this topic. I respectfully ask that any comments be about the information, issues, and concerns that have been brought up, and not include personal attacks (or attacks on my faith or my Church) or bullying. If you have evidence to counter my concerns, by all means, feel free to share. I don't pretend to have a full understanding of this issue.

I do moderate comments. Inflammatory, attacking comments will either be edited or left out entirely. I don't expect that everyone will agree, and I'm open to listening to any point of view as long as it keeps on the topic at hand and I feel it remains respectful. Thank you.

"The Social Value of Traditional Marriage"

Elder Bruce C. Hafen spoke at the World Congress on Families in May of this year. Here is a link to his talk.

I include this in part because some people have asked what some of my more "non-religious" concerns are with gay marriage. This talk reflects some of them. (For example, note his extensive comments about the problems that have (and continue to) come as individual rights are put before the welfare of society as a whole; the concerns about less-than-ideal situations for children (where the ideal is to be raised by biological parents); and the potential threat to democratic society if marriage is undermined (although my concerns regarding democracy take a different road than his).)

While I realize that some will want to take issue with some of his points (I think I can predict which ones will get the most reaction), I think he makes a good case for leaving marriage as it has always been defined: between a man and a woman.

Learning a bit About Minerva Teichert

This was a fun story. Maybe you knew more about her than I did, but I learned something. (I never knew there was such a thing as an art mission. Did you?)

Sex Offenders on MySpace

I found this news story frightening.. 29,000 is a big number. Parents, be aware.

Home Teaching Can Be Hazardous to Your Health

Just when you thought you had heard it all....

Forgiving My Husband and My Children

Saturday, my hubby and children were gone all day. And they had the One Harry Potter Book that we had agreed to limit ourselves to. Not really wanting to wait for them to get home, having recently had major headaches that make it harder to read, and feeling like pampering myself a little, I bought the CD version of the book at Costco (one of the last copies in the whole city, I dare say). I got a good four or five hours of housework done, cooked dinner for the family that ended up eating elsewhere (no, that's not what I need to forgive them for), and of course, was entranced by Book 7 as I have been with the entire series. (And if you haven't heard the narration by Jim Dale, you must find a copy just to hear how he does the different voices. Simply fabulous!)

Anyway, I found out that during the day, hubby asked his sister how the book ended. Realizing that he has his agency, but still incredulous, I made it clear in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that I wanted to know NOTHING about what happens. I made sure he told our son, who also wanted to know the ending. (C'mon, what's the point of reading if you know how it ends???) I thought I made it abundantly clear. (Incidentally, busy hubby claimed that since he knew, he felt no need to read the book. Famous last words. My non-night-person husband stayed up until 4:00 the other morning to finish it. :) )

Anyway, not that I'm surprised, but little ears and little mouths can not easily be stopped, and little minds have short memories, especially when it comes to having secret information that must carry with it a sense of power. When family got home Saturday, I doubt there was much after a brief greeting before my two youngest blurted out how the book ends! The next day, they added more that they learned as their brother had read and shared more.

Alas, my sense of forgiveness is tested to the limit!

(The CDs take longer than reading, so I'm still lagging behind most of you. Don't test my limits any more, please. DON'T TELL! :) :) )

A Night to Remember

For one of his Faith in God requirements, our son, JJ, gave our Family Home Evening lesson tonight. He kept the topic a secret (as we read over the options in the Faith in God booklet, I left it up to him to choose). He was clearly excited to give the lesson, and prepared it completely on his own.

We sat on the couch. He asked us all to go find our scriptures, which we did. He pulled out a tray (the kind with legs that you use when you have more guests than table room), which he used as his pulpit. And he began a review of scriptures on the Holy Ghost. He asked us to share what these scriptures meant, and shared his own thoughts.

If I wasn't moved and impressed alraedy, then he did something that surprised and thrilled me. He said, "I have one other scripture to share. I wasn't planning on doing this, but...." He asked us to turn to Matthew 11, verses 28 through 30, verses he had shared just last night during family scripture study. I was impressed with his ability to lead us through these verses, asking Dad to read the first, me to read the second, and RS to read the third. He then asked us to share what we thought these verses had to do with the lesson.

And then he shared his thoughts. "I wasn't planning on sharing these scriptures. I thought, 'But I just shared them last night' (which he had; he's excited about the New Testament right now and is reading it). But I felt like I should share them. And I think that it means that we can feel the rest of the Lord through the Holy Ghost."

Of course, I can't remember his exact words, but the maturity and depth that he showed tonight was almost more than a mother of an eight-year-old could hope for. He had an impression and acted on it, even as it didn't make sense to his mind. He saw the connection between this scripture he has grown to love and the topic he had chosen tonight. And he concluded his lesson by bearing his testimony, a testimony that brought a calm to the room that was palpable.

It was definitely a night to remember!

When Children Ask Hard Questions

When children ask hard questions, I believe they are opportunities. I also realize that they can be very, very difficult moments when the questions our children ask hit on the very questions we have ourselves. These in my mind are pivotal mini-crossroads moments. It's important not to sweep their questions under the rug (and FWIW, I hope it's clear that I'm not advocating this). We can acknowledge their concerns (even commisurate with them as appropriate). The fact that they care and are asking questions is a good thing, and we want them to always feel they can. But I think the opportunity comes in helping them look and live beyond their questions. Rather than leave them with their questions hovering in their minds, we can add a "but" to our "I don't know" or "I have the same questions sometimes."

"But do you know that God cares about your questions and you can talk to Him about them anytime?"
or
"But can I share what I do know?"
or
"But even though I don't understand everything and sometimes wish I knew more, I do feel peace about...."

Our children are so observant with what they see, but without our teaching and guidance, they may not know to what Source to look for help in their moments of confusion, fear, pain, sorrow or questioning.

I guess for me I know of no other satisfactory way to approach ANY of the hard questions of life -- the ones my childrens have, or the ones I have. When they come to me with questions (even those that I myself have, and this has happened), I try to explore faith with them, to teach what I hope for and believe in in the eternal scheme of things, and to hope that the Spirit will help them (and me!!) find peace and reconciliation in spite of the pain and struggle and unfairness, real or perceived. (Sometimes it's in the teaching that the Spirit can help us as parents increase our own faith in our own questioning and struggles!) God cares about our pain and questions (I'm learning this more and more and believing it more and more)and I think we need to help our children learn that turning to Him is always the best answer, no matter what the question.

(The following was added after the original post went up because I think this talk is relevant. Besides, I want the reminder and think it's a good one for any parent!)

Elder Holland's talk reminds us that we can't speak enough of our faith to our children, even if it's solid and firm (and especially, I would suppose) if we struggle a bit along the way. The whole talk is well worth a read.

I think some parents may not understand that even when they feel secure in their own minds regarding matters of personal testimony, they can nevertheless make that faith too difficult for their children to detect. We can be reasonably active, meeting-going Latter-day Saints, but if we do not live lives of gospel integrity and convey to our children powerful heartfelt convictions regarding the truthfulness of the Restoration and the divine guidance of the Church from the First Vision to this very hour, then those children may, to our regret but not surprise, turn out not to be visibly active, meeting-going Latter-day Saints or sometimes anything close to it.... [YIKES!]

Live the gospel as conspicuously as you can....And bear your testimony! Don’t just assume your children will somehow get the drift of your beliefs on their own....

[M]ight we ask ourselves what our children know? From us? Personally? [Read through his list of what they should know and see and feel from us...testimony of scriptures, prayer and fasting (for them as well as for other things), temple, prophets, and especially of God and His Son.]

...Brothers and sisters, our children take their flight into the future with our thrust and with our aim. And even as we anxiously watch that arrow in flight and know all the evils that can deflect its course after it has left our hand, nevertheless we take courage in remembering that the most important mortal factor in determining that arrow’s destination will be the stability, strength, and unwavering certainty of the holder of the bow.

When I read this talk several months ago (and again refresh my mind on these sobering teachings), I realized that I can - indeed, must - do better. And I once again resolve to take moments when my children ask hard questions (and even when they don't...to find every opportunity I can) to testify with "powerful heartfelt convictions" so that there is NO question in their minds how I feel about the gospel, and so their tender seeds of faith (and my growing tree) can be fed at every possible opportunity.

ipod Intro Video

It's a little goofy, but interesting to see it all at work (if you haven't already). Go to the bottom of this page for the YouTube video.

Church Milestones: 1 Million Missionaries, 13 Million Members!

This was a fun story to read! The work continues to move forward!

Update: This story contains more information, including "snapshots" of "new missionaries sent out" since the Church was restored.

New Hinckley Building Dedication to be Broadcast Live from BYU

If you are interested in this, you can find more information here.

On Multiplying and Replenishing: A compilation of counsel

(Note: It was recently brought to my attention that compilations of quotes such as I had could be violating copyright laws. Therefore, I have taken down most of the quotes and left the links of the talks where the quotes were found.)

Over the past several years, in many different settings, I have had some interesting discussions about the topic of birth control and/or the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. (Note that these are not necessarily the same topic!) Over the past hundred years, and even in my lifetime, we have seen some difference in the way these topics are addressed. In particular, we rarely hear anything specifically about birth control per se. We also hear that the decisions about family size and planning are personal, between a couple and the Lord.

I want to suggest that even as specific directives related to birth control might not be as plentiful as they used to be, the doctrine related to the commandment to multiply and replenish has basically remained the same through the course of the past century. Our leaders have never stopped talking about the importance of having children and how "multiply and replenish" is a commandment, part of our covenant responsibility. They have repeatedly expressed concern about the ways the adversary is undermining the family, including falling birth rates and changing attitudes about having children. They have also talked about the blessings that come from having children, and also the consequences, both on a general and individual level, when the plan is not followed as designed and taught. I think a lot of these concerns were those that underpinned past teachings by Church leaders as well.

I think our leaders leave it up to us to listen carefully and prayerfully consider their counsel and concerns. I see a lot of teaching correct principles and trusting us to govern ourselves. We are not "command[ed] in all things" with regard to specifics (the "how"), and we shouldn't expect to be. But we are taught repeatedly about the "what" and "why." I believe the Lord wants married couples to learn to have ears to hear and discern truth in prophetic and scriptural counsel, and to then work together and with Him to make specific decisions. (This process obviously would apply to individuals as well with most other topics.) Therefore, our leaders have given us general counsel and direction and it is up to each couple to prayerfully consider what to do about that counsel. Paraphrasing President Packer, "True doctrine, understood" is what ultimately influences and "changes behavior."

Let me be clear that I firmly believe that God will not simply play a headcount game in the judgment day; rather, I believe He will consider our hearts, motives, desires, and priorities. Counsel about multiplying and replenishing is not simply about family size or headcount, because there are factors (such as fertility issues or health problems) that can sometimes be outside of our control and affect our ability to choose how or when children come. When prophets speak of those who, through no fault of their own, will receive the fulness of God's blessings, they not only speak to those who don't have the chance to marry and have children, but also to those who face physical or other limitations that limit the number of children they can have, even as they wish they could have more. The Atonement can cover what we cannot do if our desires and hearts are in line with the commandments we have been given. (On a personal note, as someone who, because of health issues (and after prayer and fasting) has (with her husband) felt that she should not at this point have more children, I find this to be extremely comforting. I keep hoping my situation will change, but....)

I also believe that part of the purpose of life is to learn how to exercise our agency for good and for God's glory. As such, it is imperative that we remember that no one can decide specifically for another what the "right approach" is to implementing prophetic and scriptural counsel. We cannot tell someone else when to have children or how many to have. All we can do is consider the counsel and the principles together.

Therefore, the purpose of this post is basically to review counsel that has been given in a variety of contexts by a variety of leaders. The post also includes general information from the Church website and/or Church manuals and other materials. I have sought to include only counsel given during the past 15 years from those leaders who are currently living (and/or similarly current statements in our magazines and manuals, and on the website). I do this both because this will be long enough as it is (!!) and also because I'm interested in what is being said in our time by our current leaders, even though there has been much doctrinal consistency throughout the decades with the ideas discussed herein. The exception to this approach will be when current materials such as manuals or talks quote earlier statements, which in essences bring earlier statements to a place of current relevance.

As you review these things, I think that Elder Eyring's counsel is worth keeping in mind:

"In our own time, we have been warned with counsel of where to find safety from sin and from sorrow. One of the keys to recognizing those warnings is that they are repeated. For instance, more than once in these general conferences, you have heard our prophet say that he would quote a preceding prophet and would therefore be a second witness and sometimes even a third.... The Apostle Paul wrote that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Cor. 13:1). One of the ways we may know that the warning is from the Lord is that the law of witnesses, authorized witnesses, has been invoked. When the words of prophets seem repetitive, that should rivet our attention and fill our hearts with gratitude to live in such a blessed time" (emphasis added).

Note that some of the following counsel deals directly and specifically with the commandment to multiply and replenish, other counsel deals with concerning trends, and still other counsel was included (e.g., on covenants, the adversary's efforts to undermine God's plan, on decision-making) because I think it could be applicable to the topics at hand. (I have noticed that often there are gems of wisdom and insight embedded in a talk that appears to be on one topic but also teaches about other topics as well. I'm sure there are plenty of these types of statements that I didn't find.)

Oh, and did you note the warning that this will be LONG? I've tried to organize in a way that makes the post visually accessible so you can skim and skip as desired, but there is only so much I could do. I wanted this to be fairly comprehensive. (That said, I'm sure I have missed quotes; I finally reached a point where I needed to just post this! If you find one missing, please let me know.)

I'll begin with some general information as given in Church resources, not specifically tied to any particular leader.

(One last thing: A request for this post is not to shoot the messenger. If you don't like what is said here, don't take it up with me, and don't make any attacks on the leaders or the Church. Remember, in the end, this issue is between you and your spouse and the Lord so take it up with Him. :) This post is also not intended to send someone into a tizzy of guilt (to which I am personally prone); again, it's a topic that in the end can only be fully explored with one's spouse and with the Lord. The compilation of counsel is meant to be as an aid in that process.)

General Information
First of all, let's just consider what one would find if searching in the index of topics on lds.org on the topic of birth control.

Some similar concepts are discussed in the True to the Faith entry on birth control.

Note again the emphasis on doctrine that can help couples prepare to make appropriate decisions about family planning.

In an Ensign article on this topic, we read:

Bringing children into the world is certainly not convenient. Most often it involves physical pain followed by great sacrifice and selflessness. But the blessings of keeping God’s command to rear children are some of the sweetest blessings He offers. Indeed, in many ways parenthood gives us a foretaste of
godhood.

Marriage and Family Relations study guide (copyright 2000):

(From a talk by Elder Boyd K. Packer.


From the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve:

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

Note the preface that President Gordon B. Hinckley gave when he read the Proclamation for the first time.

President Hinckley said: “Of all the joys of life, none other equals that of happy parenthood. Of all the responsibilities with which we struggle, none other is so serious. To rear children in an atmosphere of love, security, and faith is the most rewarding of all challenges. The good result from such efforts becomes life’s most satisfying compensation” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1994, 74; or Ensign, Nov. 1994, 54).


President Hinckley, as quoted by Elder Oaks (original talk by Pres. Hinckley is: “If I Were You, What Would I Do?” Brigham Young University 1983–84 Fireside and Devotional Speeches, Provo, Utah: University Publications, 1984, p. 11). [In his quote, there is the trust and tone that I think our leaders in general have taken. They focus on the doctrine and trust that we will prayerfully ask the Lord how He would have us implement that doctrine.]

President Gordon B. Hinckley: "You have nothing in this world more precious than your children."

President Thomas S. Monson: "No sacrifice is too great, no pain too severe, no waiting too long....
It is our solemn duty, our precious privilege—even our sacred opportunity—to welcome to our homes and to our hearts the children who grace our lives."

President James E. Faust was quoted in this article about concerning trends.

President James E. Faust talks about his views on attitudes that some have that we need to control the population to save the earth.

President James E. Faust talks of the happiness that comes from marriage and parenthood.

President James E. Faust talks about how parenthood is a covenantal responsibility.

President James E. Faust talks about decision-making and serving the Lord with our decisions.

President James E. Faust talks about being co-creators with God.

President James E. Faust speaks again on covenants.

President Boyd K. Packer: "Do not be afraid to bring children into the world. We are under covenant to provide physical bodies so that spirits may enter mortality (see Gen. 1:28; Moses 2:28). Children are the future of the restored Church."

President Boyd K. Packer speaks on the importance of parenthood.

President Boyd K. Packer said that the words in the Proclamation on this subject have "taken on the status of scripture." He also expresses concern about trends such as declining birthrates and how such trends bring consequences. Here he talks of the consequences to the Lord's work. He also mentions that having children is the "paramount purpose" of marriage.


Pres. Boyd K. Packer talks about how we shouldn't have to ask what the Church's position is on this topic and others.

President Boyd K. Packer talks about how marriage and parenthood are key to receiving the fulness of joy mentioned in the scriptures (he lists the following: 2 Ne. 2:25; 2 Ne. 9:18; D&C 11:13; D&C 42:61; D&C 101:36).

Elder Boyd K. Packer talks about how having children is a key part of the great plan of happiness, and that they must speak about this plan in boldness even when not everyone's life fits the ideal. (FYI, in this talk, he mentions contraception.) He also speaks of teaching rules, not exceptions.


Elder L. Tom Perry: "Families lie at the center of our Heavenly Father’s plan."

Elder L. Tom Perry

Elder Russell M. Nelson talks of how the adversary seeks to undermine parenthood.

Elder Russell M. Nelson talks about priorities, about faith in our family life, and that bringing children to the world is heeding prophetic counsel -- and brings great blessings! He also speaks about concerning social trends such as declining birth rates.

Elder Russell M. Nelson (this is a little older, but to me reflects the
recognition that we can receive personal revelation about how to obey the
commandment>.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks: To the first man and woman on earth, the Lord said, “Be fruitful, and multiply” (Moses 2:28; see also Gen. 1:28; Abr. 4:28). This commandment was first in sequence and first in importance. It was essential that God’s spirit children have mortal birth and an opportunity to progress toward eternal life. Consequently, all things related to procreation are prime targets for the adversary’s efforts to thwart the plan of God.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks speaks on priorities and putting God's work first, which includes the "birth, nurturing, teaching, and sealing of our Heavenly Father’s children. Everything else is lower in priority." We should consider the eternal impact of the decisions we make.


Elder Dallin H. Oaks talks of laying up treasures in heaven, our children and posterity. He also quotes Pres. Kimball who said, “It is an act of extreme selfishness for a married couple to refuse to have children when they are able to do so” (Ensign, May 1979, p. 6). We should have as many children as we can care for (in every way).

Elder Dallin H. Oaks gives his talk about the importance of making life decisions. He quotes Elder Earl C. Tingey who talks of concerning social trends, and Elder Oaks speaks of these himself, talking of the adversary's opposition to the plan.

[In this address, not fully reprinted in the Ensign, Elder Oaks also mentioned Elder Nelson's talk on "Faith and Families" which is linked above. He mentioned particularly the fact that he and his wife followed prophetic counsel to have [five!] children even while he was pursuing his extensive education. He also mentioned that talks prepared under the inspiration of the Spirit and given by our leaders are not to be "enjoyed" but to "inspire, edify, challenge, or direct." We should not "trifle" with the words spoken but should open our ears to hear, as King Benjamin counseled (Mosiah 2:9). He also reiterated what has been said before about prophets teaching the general rule, not the exception. I think all of these concepts are relevant to this post.]

Elder M. Russell Ballard talks of how the Proclamation came in the midst of concern that the Brethren had for the many ways the family was being attacked. The Proclamation was created through the divinely-inspired council system. He also reminds us that "the family is the basic unit of eternity." He expresses the concern that marriage is too often seen as a relationship for adults, not an "institution for rearing children. Children are considered a choice rather than a blessing."


Elder M. Russell Ballard says that the main purpose of the earth is so children can come and progress and the commandment to multiply and replenish is still in force.

Elder Richard G. Scott says that we have the responsibility to bear and raise children as part of the plan. Study Adam and Eve to see how they lived according to the plan, even when it was difficult.

Elder Robert D. Hales says that Satan attacks the family and discourages childbearing as one of our highest priorities in marriage.

Elder Henry B. Eyring talks of the commandment to multiply and replenish and disagrees with theories that concerns about poverty overpopulation are not a reason to not have children.

Elder David A. Bednar talks of the plan and the commandment to multiply and replenish.

From Seventies and other General Leaders (in no particular order):

Elder Merrill J. Bateman gave a powerful talk about the important years between ages 18-30 and how decisions we make during those years can affect us eternally. He spoke particularly of the gift of procreation and how whether or not that gift will rise with us in the resurrection depends on how we receive and exercise that gift on earth.

Elder Douglas W. Shumway talks of the adversary's attacks on the family, including encouraging couples to avoid parenthood.

Elder Charles Didier: A key purpose of marriage is procreation, key to the plan.

Elder F. Burton Howard says that we are one with the Creator when we fulfill the commandment to multiply and replenish.

Sister Susan Tanner says that many miss the blessing of parenthood by seeing it as an inconvenience.

Elder L. Aldin Porter talks about the sacred doctrines in the Proclamation and how they should be carefully considered as we build our homes and families (and/or as we seek marriage companions). He talks of the world's trends to see parenthood as a barrier to personal fulfillment. The Proclamation teaches us otherwise.

Elder J. Ballard Washburn says that the covenant of marriage includes a willingness to have children. As a doctor, he expresses concern about "false doctrines of the world" that could cause us to break covenants. (Here he basically spoke against deliberately limiting families.)

Elder Ben B. Banks: We cannot overemphasize the importance of parenthood and the family.

Other places for more quotes, from our manuals:

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: David O. McKay

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Wilford Woodruff

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Heber J. Grant

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: John Taylor

Kieth Merrill's Commencement Speech

I thought some of you might enjoy this. I especially loved his story about winning an Oscar and the mists of darkness that emerged as a result. His actions upon coming to himself are meaningful.

Anyway, enjoy! :)

Follow-up to "The Mormons"

Apparently, in Utah on KUED and KBYU, there will be an hour-long program on Friday night at 8:00 MDT. Apparently, there will be a panel including people from BYU and the University of Utah. You can find out more about it here.

This news story also contains a reaction from Elder Jensen, speaking about how the Church leaders feel about the program.

If only we could have heard more from Elder Holland....

I haven't read any of the other interviews yet, but Elder Holland, in his usual warm and articulate and yet forthright way, really gave a great interview. You can read it here. Too bad more of his words weren't included. Polygamy, historical folklore (especially as relating to blacks and the priesthood), homosexuality....he addresses tough issues with finesse. He also bears bold testimony along the way and explains the price of membership very well -- all with classic Elder Holland big-heartedness.

What to do about "The Mormons"

I liked this thoughtful review on the PBS documentary, with some worthwhile suggestions about the opportunity this provides us to help others understand us. (Update: The link has several comments from Church spokesperson Michael Otterson.)

Criticism of Church Leaders: Is it ever a good thing? (updated)

This was supposed to be a response to a recent comment on my blog, but got far too long, so I'm pulling it out as a separate post. Please withhold judgment on the post until you have read the whole thing. I think Elder Oaks gives us some really, really good insight on how we truly can make a positive difference in the Church.

p.s. This is one of those posts that deals with the "rule" not the exception. I know some people have their horror stories about leaders, but I think there is value in focusing on the rule, not the exception. And, you will note that Elder Oaks gives guidance about how to deal with potential problems or differences that can arise, so this isn't just a post about blind following 100% of the time. Again, it contains wise counsel about how to deal with differences in an appropriate way. Lastly, I think there are different viewpoints out there of what "criticism" means. I sense that Elder Oaks' use of the word as truly speaking evil of a leader, truly (and publicly) criticizing him/her. I think it's possible that there might be a different word he would use for "feedback." I think I can believe in the value of feedback without upholding criticism as acceptable.

I submit that there may be more than meets the eye on the issue of criticism and why it is discouraged in the Church. There is more to consider than just the process of "There is an idea out there that somehow our leaders will benefit from our criticism, but there is more to consider. Elder Oaks spoke clearly on this:

I have given the following counsel to Church members—those who have committed themselves by upraised hands to sustain their church leaders:

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“ ‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)...

The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. The Church leaders I know are durable people. They made their way successfully in a world of unrestrained criticism before they received their current callings. They have no personal need for protection; they seek no personal immunities from criticism—constructive or destructive. They only seek to declare what they understand to be the word of the Lord to his people.

Everyone will obviously take his or her own approach, but I think Elder Oaks' counsel is really significant. I have found that I don't feel the Spirit with me as much when I have a critical spirit. Of course that applies to criticism of anyone, but I feel it's particularly offensive to the Spirit when I criticize those whom I sustain and who are called of God. It affects my spirituality, without question. When I trust them, even when I don't agree or don't understand, there is a power, a confidence, that comes into my life. It becomes an anchor that makes a tremendous difference for me personally, for my family. I believe MORE good would come about in the Church if there was more sustaining of and following our leaders -- not because we think they are always right, but because we believe that sustaining them is right. Perhaps they don't need our feedback as much as they need our hearts. (Does this mean I think that everyone who ever says anything against them is an apostate? No. But I believe this is something that can and would make a difference at the individual, familial and institutional levels.)

I am particularly struck by Elder Oaks' comment that it doesn't matter if what we say is true; criticism of church leaders is always a negative.

But does that mean that feedback can never be shared, or that there aren't things to do when there really is an thought about something that can be improved? NO. Elder Oaks continues to help us understand the characteristics of appropriate behavior and how we handle differences in the Church:

Our Father in Heaven has not compelled us to think the same way on every subject or procedure. [This isn't about being cookie cuttered people, or blind followers!] As we seek to accomplish our life’s purposes, we will inevitably have differences with those around us—including some of those we sustain as our leaders. The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them. [Emphasis mine.] What the Lord has said on another subject is also true of the management of differences with his leaders: “It must needs be done in mine own way.” [I think this is so significant!] (D&C 104:16.) We should conduct ourselves in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not cause us to lose the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord.

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love."

Sustaining our leaders doesn't mean we won't have differences of opinion, but it does mean we will seek to handle those differences in the Lord's way.

Elder Oaks then lists five options we have:
1. Overlook the difference
2. Reserve judgment and postpone action, in a spirit of patience and trust [I like to use the phrase "benefit of the doubt"]
3. Take up differences privately with the leader (in a private meeting or a letter or other correspondence)
4. In cases of alleged wrong behavior, communicate with the person who is in a position could correct the offending party if that is needed (e.g., talk to a Stake President for issues with a bishop, etc.)
5. Pray. Pray that the Lord can correct the situation and pray for ourselves to discern if we are truly correct in our point of view.

Today's world is full of the idea that we are somehow obligated (and/or entitled) to voice our opinions: we protest, we write public letters to the editor, we rant and rave, we debate issues online, etc. etc. etc. But the Lord asks us to handle problems or perceived problems in the Church differently -- for the benefit of His work and also for our own benefit. This doesn't preclude the potential for feedback, but, can help prevent the spirit of contention, pride and unnecessary criticism from entering the situation, and keep us more open to the influence of the Spirit.

Cheney and Criticism; Panel Discussion on Cheney and the War

There's a story on BYU's newsnet site that talks about a Q&A with Pres. Samuelson that was recently held. Not surprisingly, the topic of Cheney's visit came up, directly and indirectly. I was interested in the following:

One question prompted President Samuelson to clarify the appropriateness of criticizing university decisions.

Students commit, by signing the Honor Code, not to criticize those we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators, he said. But, he further explained, this doesn't mean students can't disagree with the administration.

"I think you need to understand that you can criticize the administration; that does happen regularly," he said.

Draw your own conclusions on that.

As an FYI, another story I read today says that there will be a panel discussion on Monday on “Vice President Cheney and the Global War on Terror” in the Varsity Theater from 2 to 3:30 p.m. The public is invited to attend if interested.

The story I read says the following:

Each panelist will present a short statement, to be followed by panel discussion. After the panel speaks, the floor will be open for audience questions.

Jeff Ringer, director of the David M. Kennedy Center, will moderate the panel. Joining him will be Darren G. Hawkins, international relations coordinator; Donna Lee Bowen, Middle East Studies/Arabic coordinator; Ralph C. Hancock; and Scott Cooper.

An Open Apology: After all, words can hurt

I was touched by a recent example of humility on one of the open threads during Conference, while Elder Holland was giving his bold and powerful talk. A person who had made sharp comments simply apologized. It actually brought tears to my eyes, in part because some of those sharp comments had caused me some pain. I was touched at this person's willingness to simply, quickly, and publicly apologize. I felt a healing in my heart because of this simple action.

Elder Holland's talk, that person's example, and recent experiences in my life have all combined to make me want to just say, "I'm sorry" if I have ever said anything or engaged in a way that caused you pain. It feels a bit weird to do it in this general way, but it's all I can do at this point.

This realm is so very limited, and I'm sorry when I too easily forget how much pain people might bring with them when they choose to come here. As much as people appear to be strong and ready to engage in lively discussion, I am reminded that often people come online with "sorrow that the eye can't see." I realize not everyone does, but there are enough who do. And I fear somewhere along the way the past year, my words may have inadvertently caused pain for someone already struggling. Although I make a concerted effort not to comment out of anger, frustration, or a spirit of criticism, I realize that even without the intent to inflict pain, words can still hurt.

If this has ever been the case with you, if my words have ever caused you pain, I am truly sorry, and I pray you can forgive me.

Reflections on Conference

While some thoughts are still fresh, I wanted to record some of what struck me from conference (with no order...more stream-of-consciousness)....

- (An addition to my original list): I am amazed at how simple the gospel really is. Just consider what kind of people we would be if we really put into practice what we have been taught: forgiveness, repentance, covenantal marriage, testimony, controlled communication with others, gratitude....) Really, sometimes I think we look for "some new thing" rather than realizing the power of simple gospel principles to bring us to Christ and to allow Him to change our minds and hearts.
- I noticed a lot on prayer, both directly and indirectly. I feel that improving my prayers, increasing quantity and sincerity is something I need to do.
- There were several wonderful and powerful testimonies about the Restoration.
- I loved Sister Parkin's talk on gratitude. I also appreciated how she began it, talking of how blessed we are as women in the Church (and now I read that she channeled Eliza R. Snow...an example of a woman of spirituality, strength and perspective). [I recently wrote on a quote of hers.] I suspect that the more gratitude we have, the more we will feel that as daughters of God. I was humbled by her testimony and counsel, and feel I have a long way to go in being grateful, even in trials.
- That ties into Elder Holland's words about being "of good cheer" -- a commandment! I'm not so good at that when I don't feel good. Lately, I've been struggling with not feeling gloomy about feeling yucky day after day. I need to do better there. There is so much to be grateful for!
- And, along with that, I felt an urgency in the last session about repentance, and not procrastinating such. I felt the need to use every day to prepare to meet the Lord. (A side thought for me is how trials are there to help us with that, so I need to meet my trials head-on...which ties into the last two points for me). (My husband is reminding me of something Elder Eyring said a couple of years ago...that it is going to become harder, not easier, to keep our covenants. So we'd better be about figuring out how to better do that so we can be on firm ground as the world keeps ripening in iniquity.)
- I was tempted for a moment to zone out a bit on the talk on tithing...after all, I have been a full tithe-payer my whole life. I'm grateful I kept focused (felt a nudge to do so) because one of the most moving stories from Conference was that from Elder Kikuchi. I was reminded of the powerful story of the saints in St. George who were admonished by Pres. Lorenzo Snow to pay their tithing, and that they would be blessed in their time of drought. Here, we have a modern version of the same pattern. I felt the Spirit very strongly during that story.
- Elder Holland's words on words will stay with me for a long time. There will always be improvement in that area to be had, I'm afraid. After all, using scripture he said we could be perfect if we could control our tongues! I loved the way he ended talking of having the tongue of angels. If only I allow the Spirit to help me in the use of the tongue, I can be more perfect in Christ.
- Elder Anderson's talk was great: "The gospel's true, isn't it?" If that is the case, then nothing else matters! Reading someone else's notes from this: "The gospel is true, isn’t it? Then what else matters? We must simplify and sacrifice, distinguishing between what is nice, what is important, and what is absolutely necessary." Powerful, powerful stuff. Simple and powerful.
- Also from those same notes (thanks, Christian!): "Knowing what is right that others think is wrong, and what is wrong that others think is right, requires a testimony. Especially for those born in the Church, it may not be spectacular. One must respond to feelings from the Holy Ghost rather than nailing down every intellectual loose end." How often I would love to yell that from the rooftops when reading or participating in online discussions. :)
- Pres. Faust's talk on forgiveness was stirring. He has such a tender heart anyway, but I've never seen him fight with his emotions as he did today. The examples he gave were truly inspirational, and gave me food for thought. I sometimes have a hard time letting go of hurt and clearly I need to do better there. I've always loved the thought that he shared about leaving room for forgiveness, but I'm also reminded that the faster we get there, the better off we will be. I think it's really a worldly fallacy that we should hold onto bad feelings for some purpose. The Lord really can help us let go if we let Him, for I have experienced that. And yet, I still fight it! (What's up with that? That natural (wo)man thing....)
- When Elder Dahlquist gave his talk on "Who's on the Lord's Side, Who?" I and my daughters yelled out "I am!" I love the doctrine that if we stay on the Lord's side, the devil cannot have power over us. My children find comfort in the fact that the devil isn't more powerful than the Savior, and that our choices can determine how much influence he has in our lives. This talk reinforced that so beautifully, and it was fun to see them make that connection in their little minds (big spirits).
- Elder Nelson on repentance: "the prize is worth the price."
- I need to read the Bible more!
- I appreciated Elder Oaks' talk on divorce. I wept while thinking of loved ones in my life who suffered much in their marriages and waited on the Lord who led them to finally leave (those situations where abuse is continued and unrepented of). I know this happens because I have seen it. And yet, I think it's such an important message for most of us that covenant marriages require commitment. And that is also sometimes easier said than done. But I think "the prize is worth the price" can apply here, too. It's too easy to think working through a marriage is too hard, and I appreciated his solemn reminder that usually, staying in a marriage and working through that tough climb to marital harmony is a lot better than dealing with the fallout of divorce. (We listened to the talk again tonite. Those concerned about women staying in abusive marriages should really pay attention to how he comparmentalizes his counsel. He makes that exception first, but then spends the rest of the time on the rule, and that is important to remember, IMO.)
- I want to use the hymns more in our home.
- Pres. Packer's talk was stirring...such a testimony of the truth received from prophets (as shared in the tabernacle). It was moving to think of early church leaders testifying and teaching there. Imagine what they must think to see how the word of the Lord is spread today!
- I want to be a pickle! :)
- One of the thoughts I had is that it must be something else to have a church with such breadth as ours...internationally and also experientially with respect to the church. What may be an oft-repeated topic for me might be a first-time talk for someone who just joined the Church. And, as was reiterated to me with Elder Kikuchi's talk on tithing, there are things to be gleaned for all of us, regardless of how long we have been in the Church. Even though their words are for the whole church, with the help of the Spirit, they can be personal and meaningful.
- I've been thinking a lot about the role of history in our Church, and Elder Tingey helped show us that there is much in our history that is meaningful and useful. [On the other hand, there are aspects of our history that aren't as necessary for us to focus on. What matters most is to focus on that which inspires, edifies and changes our lives.]
- I can't wait to hear the concluding song of the priesthood session! Ron Staheli is a talented man. I will always be grateful for the chance to sing in one of the choirs at BYU way back when (I was in Women's Chorus, and had a couple of chances to sing under Drs. Staheli and Wilberg. I still get chills whenever I hear a Wilberg arrangement. It was great to hear his "Redeemer of Israel" which I got to sing in General Conference when Elder Holland (then BYU President) was first called to be a General Authority.)
- I have to say that I was so impressed with my children. I don't know that I really listened to Saturday sessions until I was well into my teenage years. They really paid a lot of attention both days. They really are like little spiritual sponges. I also just love being home and sharing this time together.

That's enough for now, I think. :)

There's Hope for Clutterbugs Like Me!

This news piece made me smile. I especially liked this:

"We all function at different levels," says Organize By Design owner Jamie Tabish. "Some people do fine with piles. Some people do fine with things all over. Perhaps it's because internally they're very well organized, and their environment doesn't affect them as much."

So, that's it. I must be very internally well-organized. :)

Seriously, though, I have been bothered through the years with this standard "out there" that you have to have a clean house to be a good woman (a good member of the Church?) It may sound like a cop-out, but I don't have much of a knack for cleaning. I never have. That's not to say that I don't want to try to do what I can and that I shouldn't try to find ways to make improvements. But considering my lack of natural knack and chronic illness issues, it was nice to hear a "professional organizer" say that it's possible for me to still have some semblance of order in my chaos. I've never really had any expert give me permission to not be perfect in this way. So that article was a bit liberating for me. I've got enough I feel inadequate about that I don't need to feel like a hopeless failure because I'm not the best housekeeper in the world. After all, there's more to making a home than just cleaning, right?

And, you know what? I really can find things in my mess. It's when I clean that I lose stuff. :)

Innocence is Short-lived These Days

This was a poignant account from a mom about dealing with her children's questions and concerns (and her own concerns) when lesbians moved in next door. It's impossible to read this and not acknowledge that homosexuality can and does have an effect on children. At the very least, the story demonstrates the fact that innocence certainly doesn't have the life span that it used to, and that the ideological wars of adults often put children unwittingly in the crosshairs.

(Hat tip to Times and Seasons' sidebar for the link.)

Gay Rights vs. Parental Rights

I have been known to express concerns about the movement to push forward gay rights. This issue is always so tricky to discuss. It's not just "an issue" -- on either side, it involves real people with real concerns. Let me make it clear that I realize this. This issue is not far from my own life, as I have loved ones who live the often diffucult life of a homosexual. I know a little of the struggle that this can be, especially when compounded by a religious faith that doesn't support such a lifestyle. I am not cold-hearted about this, and yet I have strong feelings about the topic.

Some want to claim that anyone who takes a position against gay marriage is hateful, lacks compassion, and wants to force religion on other people. I think this is unfair. We need to be able to talk about the issue respectfully, and I rarely see that done. I also think that the issue is not as clear-cut and innocuous as gay rights supporters want to make it out to be, and this is something I want to address.

I thought I would share some of the reasons why I am concerned about the momentum gay rights are gaining in our country. To sum up some of my concerns: I think they might in fact be threatening the rights of others. In this post, my focus is on parental rights, particularly as they relate to school curriculum. If I can pull other thoughts together, I might address other concerns such as free speech and religious rights in future posts. (This is as much for me to clarify and consolidate my thoughts as it is to share them, so if all this does is boil your blood, perhaps you should just stop reading now. :) )

In Massachusetts (one of the states leading out in support of gay rights), U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf ruled that: "The constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not include the right to restrict what a public school may teach their children." Children as young as five (!!) have been exposed to information or concepts related to homosexuality, and parents have been told they cannot even opt their children out of such classroom teaching. They are basically told, "take it or leave it." Shouldn't taxpayers at one level, and parents especially, have some input or influence over school curriculum? Apparently not when it comes to homosexuality. (You can read the judge's written opinion here.)

(I wonder: Would the judge or the school demand that a parent "take it or leave it" if they were concerned about elements of the math curriculum or some other subject that doesn't involve such a hot-button topic? I have to doubt that they would....)

I find it interesting, though, that the same restrictions on parental rights don't seem to hold if generic religion is ever brought into the curriculum, even indirectly. Parents can protest such supposed
"offensive exposure" (think Pledge of Allegiance, for example), but when it comes to religious parents wanting to opt out of indoctrination that violates their religious beliefs, then the rights are restricted. I fear that the religion of the secular often gets favored status when it comes to "rights" -- and often at the expense of the rights of others.

I'm not thrilled that we have removed God from our schools and our public language. But I can understand wanting to give people the right to believe as they do and not make others' points of view feel "forced" on them. But then this needs to be consistent. I expect that I and my children should be offered the same right, including opting out of offensive teaching without being told to "hit the road." If we are going to protect those who don't believe and don't want their children exposed to religious belief, we ought to protect those who do believe and don't want to be exposed to things that violate their religious beliefs.

Another concerning situation has been discovered in Illinois. Freshman students at Deerfield High School were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement committing to keep secret the content in a "Freshman Advisory" class. They were told they couldn't even tell their parents! Students who didn't want to sign were basically pressured to do so (although apprently at least one student signed the document only after altering it). Apparently the content of this class around this time was focused on the gay agenda. (More information can be found here and here.)

Incidentally, giving a legal contract to a minor is illegal, so this agreement was either against the law or not legally binding. But would students know this (either way)? The contract surely appeared legal to these students, if not at least threatening. Clearly this was an effort to control and intimidate students to submit them to homosexual activism -- and then to deliberately hide it from the parents!

Apparently, this freshman class has also been used to teach about deviant heterosexual behavior. (Nevermind the fact that this is offensive content to many parents for a moment -- I fail to see what the academic justification for this is!) As parents and other concerned citizens started to realize that this class might not be something they wanted their youth to have, they requested to see copies of the materials for the class. Legally, this information should be accessible (per Illinois state law), but is kept behind a private portal of some sort. These requests for access to the class information have been denied.

Sooo.... Some questions I have swimming in my mind are these:

-If the gay agenda were simply about love and respect for all, why is there such deception and illegal and inappropriate control mingled with it? (NOTE: I speak collectively and not individually. I'm sure there are some who really only care about their personal lives and getting the rights they want. I am not addressing these people, but rather those who are behind such actions and motives as the above.)
-Why does this agenda include such devious efforts to get children exposed to and swayed by the bias of people who really have no right to tread on ground that is considered sacred to many? (Their motives seem highly suspect here and I think I could pretty accurately guess what their thinking is. And I am deeply concerned that they are willing to pull unsuspecting children into their battle. I still can't get over the fact that school officials, teachers, counselors, whoever would have the gall to demand that students be dishonest with their parents, knowing that many would be opposed to what was happening. I should add, too, that students who oppose such things are ostracized by other students. Where is the protection for them when they are harassed? Such harassment is never allowed toward gays. Again, another example of double standards with all of this.)
- What logic do gay rights activists hold to if, in their clamoring for rights they are willing to push the rights of religious people whose views differ to the side?
- If gay rights' activists protest the government's involvement in marriage and family life, why are they not bothered by the government's interference in the teaching of children on topics that for many are deeply religious -- a key element of their family life? The state's growing religion of secularism appears to me to be increasingly forced (without choice!) on more and more children. The whole reason for separation of Church and state as I understand it is to prevent compulsory, across-the-board indoctrination on religious principles. Since this issue involves religious principles for so many, a forced preaching of homosexuality seems to violate that principle in my mind. (Although I'm certainly no lawyer.) :)

In conclusion, it is very difficult for me to believe those who say that the gay rights movement doesn't or won't harm anyone, when from where I sit, I think they have already caused trouble. I can't help but think this is only the beginning of such trouble if we continue to let gay rights dictate the decisions made about what is and is not legal and appropriate. I think there is more to this issue than meets the eye.

----

A note about comments: I realize this is an issue many people are tired of discussing. If that describes you, please feel free to ignore what I have said. It might be better if you do. :) I also realize how strongly people can feel about this topic. I respectfully ask that any comments be about the information and the situations I have brought up, and not include personal attacks or bullying. If you have evidence to counter my concerns, by all means, feel free to share. I don't pretend to have a full understanding of this issue.

I do moderate comments. Inflammatory, attacking comments will either be edited or left out entirely. I don't expect that everyone will agree, and I'm open to listening to any point of view as long as it keeps on the topic at hand and I feel it remains respectful. Thank you.

Lehi's tent

I'm having a lot of fun mulling over Lehi's tent with a group of people at a new blog called BoM Groupies. I thought I would include some of my thoughts here that I included in a couple of comments there. (This will help me keep better track of what I'm thinking about and studying, too.) ;) (I don't want to distract from comments over there, though, so you can join in over at the BoM blog if you want to comment....)

Short summary: I read something from a BYU Studies on a CD I have about what has been called the axis mundi. Think "center" and "symbolic (and maybe literal) connection with heaven and earth" -- a place in a city (or a city) that was the center of religious, social, political and economic life. I'm particularly interested in the spiritual center, which often included a temple/place for religious ritual. Part of this was to suggest that Lehi's tent was actually like a temple. What I have studied is convincing me that this may very well be the case.

So here are some of my thoughts:

It struck me that this concept of axis mundi and the tent and what we are discussing relates directly to core (”central”) doctrines (many of which are covered by Isaiah):

-a standard (In Bedouin life, “A white flag,” we are told, “is sometimes hoisted above his tent to guide strangers and visitors. All visitors are led directly to the tent of the [sheikh].” (Thanks, Hugh Nibley (anyone opposed to Hugh Nibley around here?)
- gathering … the tent was a gathering place, a hub, especially for family but also for those invited to be with (to “have place” with) the family (this will be fun to discuss when we get to Zoram)
- councils, talking, teaching — this is a place where a lot of discussion and decision takes place
- Family — closely related to the previous two elements
- revelation (this was discussed in that quote I included above, as well as in other comments already made)
- temple-related elements (altars, sacrifice, teaching, ….that whole bridging the gap between heaven and earth)
— and, of course, the purpose of temples is two-fold 1) to gather us to Christ and to teach of the Atonement and bring the saving and cleansing power of the Atonement into our lives and 2) to gather us as families, and as the family of God
- refuge — the tent provided protection and refuge. Lots of potential symbolism there.


“And my father dwelt in a tent.” I’m beginning to think there is MUCH to learn from that little phrase. (I also think this all ties into the comment about the three things Lehi brought with him…family, tents, provisions (gotta live in this mortal sphere even as we are on a spiritual journey, right?)) Lots to learn, methinks. So fun to mull over.


Fleshing out a bit more about what happened in scriptures around the concept of the tent.

1 Nephi 2:6-7 -- sacrifices mentioned right after the tent is mentioned.

[Note also that teaching is mentioned in vs. 9 and 10. Although we don't know if time passed between the offering and the teaching, I like to see the combination of ritual and teaching together. Teaching can go with revelation above, perhaps.]

1 Nephi 3:1-2
Nephi returns to the tent after receiving revelation (he returns to the tent prepared?), and a discussion ensues about the revelation Lehi just received. I would assert that because of Nephi's preparation, he can accept the word of his father/the prophet as revealed with a soft heart, whereas the pattern of Laman and Lemuel's rebellion continues.

I see family, gathering, council/counsel and even temple application here (we should come to the temple with soft hearts, prepared to receive instruction (hard though it may be sometimes...and it will be less hard if our hearts are softened).

1 Nephi 5:7

The first thing he mentions about returning with the scriptures is that he goes to the tent. Again, family, gathering, revelation. (Sariah finally gets her testimony of her husband's prophetic calling at this time.) Comfort is also mentioned. Love that.

And, again, they offer sacrifices:
1 Nephi 5:9


1 Nephi 7:5 (also v. 21)

Ishmael and his family join the family of Lehi, and where do are they headed? To the tent! (Note that this happens after Ismael's heart was softened! Pattern there of a softened heart and going to the tent?) The tent was the focus, the destination, as they journeyed. It was what was on Nephi's mind. Interesting. (Temple, center of our thoughts? Our destination? Our focus?)

And look at 1 Nephi 7:22

There it is again!!!...gospel rituals right after the tent is mentioned.

1 Nephi 9:1

Revelation -- this comes after Lehi's vision. So a key vision that we still cling to today was received "as he dwelt in a tent." (Wish we knew what else he saw!)

1 Nephi 10:15-16

More prophecy and revelation!

v. 17 also is interesting to me...Nephi again seeks revelation. Ch. 2 and 3 shows Nephi receiving his revelation and softened heart, and then he goes to the tent. This chapter takes Nephi from the tent of teaching, and seeking revelation. So, I see going prepared to the tent and being ready to receive more, and coming away from the tent ready to seek confirmation and revelation.

And here he is again...receiving revelation and returning to the tent of his father immediately after. I sense a tight connection between Nephi and the tent and his father/the prophet.
1 Nephi 15:1
1 AND it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had been carried away in the spirit, and seen all these things, I returned to the tent of my father.

I wonder if this is significant:
1 Nephi 16:6-7
Tent and marriage right next to each other? Hmmmmm.....

And then Lehi receives the Liahona in v. 10. Does the temple help us receive our guiding Liahona, that gives us guidance according to our heed, faith and diligence?

Well, I'm very intrigued by the patterns I'm seeing. I think my thought is that the tent is significant. :)

(And here is some of that info from the BYU Studies article.)

This is a fun discussion! (Thanks again for letting me know about this blog, Isaiahsfan! I do hope that I’m not intruding in discussions among longtime friends.)

This discussion about Lehi’s tent brought to mind some things I had read a couple of years ago about the “axis mundi.” This reference will be long, but I hope it’s interesting to you as it was to me. (If this is too cumbersome, please let me know how it might be better to share information in the future.)

I included more than just what relates to Lehi’s tent because I think it can possibly shed light on patterns in the OT as well (and also the ancient elements of the BoM). Might it also shed light on the importance of “centers” and temples in the latter days. ?? Food for thought, anyway.

Ancient world civilizations believed that the perceived order of territorial environment, in its “natural” and built-up features, revealed the structure of a sacred universe. The epitome of this symbolic order was a capital city or ceremonial center. “In those religions which held that human order was brought into being at the creation of the world there was a pervasive tendency to dramatize the cosmogony by constructing on earth a reduced version of the cosmos, usually in the form of a state capital.”

The specific features of this model of spatial organization vary from culture to culture but can be generally expressed in terms of three principles: centripetality, cardinality, and inductance. Centripetality is the notion that terrestrial space was created from and ordered by an “existentially centered point.” This center or “navel of the earth” was considered to be the point of contact between heaven and earth [this is a point that I find very interesting to this discussion], the most elevated place on earth and the point at which the creation of the earth began. The construction of a temple or other holy sanctuary celebrated the sacredness of the axis mundi. Rituals and other observances were performed in those holy places to preserve the parallelism of the macrocosmos (heaven) and the microcosmos (earth). Natural, political or social catastrophe often succeeded in dislocating the axis mundi. When this occurred, the holy of holies was likely relocated to another site declared auspicious by the ritual leader of the group.

[This gives some historical background; the author’s purpose was largely to show the ancient roots of the BoM. Following is the connection with Lehi’s tent.]

One of the recurring themes in the Book of Mormon is the establishment and maintenance of a centralized social and territorial order. The Book of Mormon narrative opens in Old Jerusalem during the reign of Zedekiah with the minor prophet Lehi preaching that the city of the Jews is about to be destroyed because of the wickedness of its inhabitants. The citizens respond by trying to kill Lehi; consequently, he flees with his family into the wilderness. They do not leave, however, without first receiving the promise of being guided by God to another land of promise, “a land choice above all other lands,” to establish another axis mundi.

Having abandoned their traditional, though profaned, sanctuary, Lehi’s company constructs a temporary axis in the wilderness: Lehi’s tent. That Lehi “dwelt in a tent” is mentioned fourteen times in the desert narrative and appears at critical events in the historical sequence: after Lehi reported his “dream of the tree of life” and after Nephi reported his vision of the promised land (1 Ne. 8:11-14); after Lehi’s sons acquired the Hebrew scriptures from a corrupt religious leader in Jerusalem and after additional refugees from Jerusalem joined Lehi’s company (1 Ne. 4; 7:1-5); and on the occasion of essential observances of the Mosaic law (1 Ne. 2:6-7; 6:7-9; 7:22). Lehi’s tent thus secured contact with the heavens, despite the nomadic existence of his following, and allowed him and his people to continue in confidence toward the promised land.
Steven L. Olsen; BYU Studies Vol. 23, No. 1, pg.82

Since we are in ch. 2, note what happened right after he pitched the tent:
6 And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water.
7 And it came to pass that he built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord our God.

A bit more on this as we look forward toward more readings in the BoM (from the same source, a couple of pages further on) :

The image of the center as a holy mountain was also established early in and maintained throughout the Book of Mormon. In relation to the wilderness Jerusalem was always “up,” while the wilderness in relation to Jerusalem was either “down” or “into” (1 Ne. 3-7, passim). Once in the promised land, the people always went “up” to the temple and to the “lands of our first inheritance” (Jacob 2:11; Mosiah 1:18; 2:1-11; 7:2-4; 20:7; 28:1; 29:3; Alma 17:8; 20:2; 24:20; 26:23). Finally, the elevated status of the kingdom of God was emphasized in millennial imagery and ecstatic experiences, such as Nephi’s vision of the promised land (1 Ne. 11:21; 17:7). In the nearly thousand-year period that this civilization occupied the promised land, four successive centers were established–Lehi, Nephi, Zarahemla, and Bountiful. Except for the land of Lehi, in which Lehi’s tent served as the axis mundi, a temple was established at each center. Ritual officials were appointed to perform the prescriptions of the Mosaic law, with major observances, such as renewal ceremonies, occurring at the temple. Important sermons were also delivered to the community from the temple (2 Ne. 5:10, 16; Mosiah 2:5; Jacob 2-5; 3 Nephi. 12-17).

He goes on to talk about how the development and growth of cities (surrounding the center) corresponded to righteousness, and how destruction of cities (and ultimately no more civilization) was tied to wickedness. I think keeping an eye on this concept of “centers” and the role they played in Nephite civilization might be interesting as we move forward.

Pray for Peace

(I was hoping to get this out earlier this week, but my to-do list has been seriously disrupted by a whopping case of bronchitis. Sorry for the lateness of this post.)

Today is a day of fasting for those of my faith (although, wouldn't you know it, in our particular area, we had our fast day last week because we have different meetings this week). Anyway...I was asked to post something about a day of prayer and fasting for world peace...that our leaders will be able to find peaceful solutions to the conflicts that rage.

There are a host of opinions about the war in Iraq and foreign policy in general. I like to think of this faithful effort as something beyond any political points of view. I think any of us, regardless of specific feelings about the war, ultimately want peace. I hope we can include that hope in our thoughts and prayers today.

As for me, I hope we can have peace domestically as well. I don't think the angst and divisiveness that surrounds this issue is helpful toward the overall goal of peace, either. I hope for more peace in the United States as well as in the world at large.

If you feel so inclined, you are invited to join in the effort to pray for peace today.