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! :)
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Thursday, May 03, 2007
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.
This news story also contains a reaction from Elder Jensen, speaking about how the Church leaders feel about the program.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
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.
Monday, April 30, 2007
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.)
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, April 06, 2007
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:
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:
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.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
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. :)
- (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. :)
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
There's Hope for Clutterbugs Like Me!
This news piece made me smile. I especially liked this:
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. :)
"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. :)
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
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.)
(Hat tip to Times and Seasons' sidebar for the link.)
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
What are Your Antioxidant Levels?
Mine are at 31,000. Does that sound impressive? Well, I found out they should be at 50,000 to 100,000. Of course, the company who sponsored the screening will let me pay big bucks to up those numbers by buying their product. (I'm considering it, although I don't get into taking lots of pills to "make me healthier.")
I found all of this out at my children's school's science fair. It was obvious that the child with this particular project didn't do most of the thinking for the event; nevertheless, I found the information interesting, so I stuck around.
I was interested in the foods that provide the most antioxidants, and thought you might be, too.
* Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC units per 100 grams) in parentheses (I sound smart, huh? I found these numbers here.)
Fruits
Prunes (5770)
Raisins (2830)
Blueberries (2400)
Blackberries (2036)
Strawberries (1540)
Raspberries (1220)
Plums (949)
Oranges (750)
Red Grapes (739)
Cherries (670)
Veggies
Kale -- anyone know a good way to use this? (1770)
Spinach (1260)
Brussel Sprouts (980)
Alfalfa Sprouts (980)
Broccoli Florets (930)
Beets (890)
Red Bell Peppers (840)
Onions (710)
Corn (that one surprised me) (450)
Eggplant (390)
The display provided a list of other foods, but the link didn't work. That list included kidney and pinto beans as well. (Whooda thunk?) I've heard that chocolate is a good source of antioxidants (Hershey must love that research), so I'm including chocolate on my list of things to eat more of! (Waha.) I'm thinking of trying to infuse our diet with a few more of these things and getting my "levels" tested in a month or two. Or I suppose I could save the hassle and just buy the pills.... :) (Hmmm...do I sense an experiment of my own in the making....?)
(UPDATE: Chocolate (oh, baby) tops the list of ORAC units at 13120 for dark and 6,740 for milk. Wahoo!)
Source for these data: U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Journal of the American Chemical Society.
p.s. 'Nother update: This site has more foods listed, and, interestingly, some beat the ones above. So here's Web MD's view on this topic. (I was told last nite that not all antioxidants are created equal; some are more fundamental than others.?? I'm no expert, and always a bit skeptical when there is a product hiding behind someone's motives, so I'll go with the list for some good info for now.)
Small Red Bean (dried), Half cup (13727)
Wild blueberry, 1 cup (13427)
Red kidney bean (dried), Half cup (13259) (Well, chocolate still comes in pretty high!)
Pinto bean, Half cup (11864)
Blueberry (cultivated), 1 cup (9019)
Cranberry, 1 cup (whole), 8983
Artichoke (cooked), 1 cup (hearts) (7904)
Blackberry, 1 cup, 7701
Dried Prune, Half cup (7291)
Raspberry, 1 cup (6058)
Strawberry, 1 cup (5938)
Red Delicious apple, One (5900)
Granny Smith apple, One (5381)
Pecan, 1 ounce (5095)
Sweet cherry, 1 cup (4873)
Black plum, One (4844)
Russet potato (cooked), One (4649)
Black bean (dried), Half cup (4181)
Plum, One (4118)
Gala apple, One (3903)
So, there you go. I think it's interesting to see the comparative numbers, and to think of ways to use a variety of foods to increase antioxidant levels. Of course, foods not on this list have their own value as well (like whole grains, or bananas). Gotta love reinforcement for a balanced, Word-of-Wisdom consistent diet. :)
I found all of this out at my children's school's science fair. It was obvious that the child with this particular project didn't do most of the thinking for the event; nevertheless, I found the information interesting, so I stuck around.
I was interested in the foods that provide the most antioxidants, and thought you might be, too.
* Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC units per 100 grams) in parentheses (I sound smart, huh? I found these numbers here.)
Fruits
Prunes (5770)
Raisins (2830)
Blueberries (2400)
Blackberries (2036)
Strawberries (1540)
Raspberries (1220)
Plums (949)
Oranges (750)
Red Grapes (739)
Cherries (670)
Veggies
Kale -- anyone know a good way to use this? (1770)
Spinach (1260)
Brussel Sprouts (980)
Alfalfa Sprouts (980)
Broccoli Florets (930)
Beets (890)
Red Bell Peppers (840)
Onions (710)
Corn (that one surprised me) (450)
Eggplant (390)
The display provided a list of other foods, but the link didn't work. That list included kidney and pinto beans as well. (Whooda thunk?) I've heard that chocolate is a good source of antioxidants (Hershey must love that research), so I'm including chocolate on my list of things to eat more of! (Waha.) I'm thinking of trying to infuse our diet with a few more of these things and getting my "levels" tested in a month or two. Or I suppose I could save the hassle and just buy the pills.... :) (Hmmm...do I sense an experiment of my own in the making....?)
(UPDATE: Chocolate (oh, baby) tops the list of ORAC units at 13120 for dark and 6,740 for milk. Wahoo!)
Source for these data: U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Journal of the American Chemical Society.
p.s. 'Nother update: This site has more foods listed, and, interestingly, some beat the ones above. So here's Web MD's view on this topic. (I was told last nite that not all antioxidants are created equal; some are more fundamental than others.?? I'm no expert, and always a bit skeptical when there is a product hiding behind someone's motives, so I'll go with the list for some good info for now.)
Small Red Bean (dried), Half cup (13727)
Wild blueberry, 1 cup (13427)
Red kidney bean (dried), Half cup (13259) (Well, chocolate still comes in pretty high!)
Pinto bean, Half cup (11864)
Blueberry (cultivated), 1 cup (9019)
Cranberry, 1 cup (whole), 8983
Artichoke (cooked), 1 cup (hearts) (7904)
Blackberry, 1 cup, 7701
Dried Prune, Half cup (7291)
Raspberry, 1 cup (6058)
Strawberry, 1 cup (5938)
Red Delicious apple, One (5900)
Granny Smith apple, One (5381)
Pecan, 1 ounce (5095)
Sweet cherry, 1 cup (4873)
Black plum, One (4844)
Russet potato (cooked), One (4649)
Black bean (dried), Half cup (4181)
Plum, One (4118)
Gala apple, One (3903)
So, there you go. I think it's interesting to see the comparative numbers, and to think of ways to use a variety of foods to increase antioxidant levels. Of course, foods not on this list have their own value as well (like whole grains, or bananas). Gotta love reinforcement for a balanced, Word-of-Wisdom consistent diet. :)
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The Right Road?
There are some people who knew exactly what they wanted to be when they grew up, even as children. I was not one of those people. I knew I wanted to go to college, and thought I had a good direction when I began, but it didn't take long to realize that my plans weren't for me -- but I didn't know what should replace them. I felt a bit directionless, even purposeless at times.
I started as a Computer Science major. From there, I fluctuated between Family Science and Statistics, considering basically everything in between. (I ruled out business because I KNEW I wasn't interested in that. I'll have to share that story for another day: I got my Master's degree in business!)
Long story short, my first semester of my junior year, I finally took a leap and declared Psychology as my major. I was petrified that I would hit yet another brick wall in my gut as I had with so many other directions I had tested. I was worried about doing what was "right" for me (what "God wanted me to do"). All I wanted to know is if this was "right."
I sought a blessing from my dad. It started off rather generic. I remember him telling me that I could seek direction in prayer as needed. (OK, I knew that. I really, really wanted an answer NOW, though!) Then it happened. I could tell that the Spirit took over and my dad told me that the decision I had made was good and right. (Woo hoo!) BUT--and this was a BIG but that has stuck with me through nearly two decades--he told me that (I can hear my dad's voice saying words like these): "The Lord would have you know that there are many paths you could take and still accomplish your work on the earth." Wow. What a lesson that was. This WAS a good decision, but it wasn't the ONLY right decision for me.
Now, I'm not sharing this to say that there aren't some times in life when there isn't a direction that is capital-R Right. In addition, I believe that there may be paths in our lives that might be Better than others. I believe with all of my heart that the Lord can and will guide us in our decisions along the way if we seek His help in faith. But I have never forgotten that blessing. For all my desire to "do what is right" and to follow the Lord's will, sometimes He doesn't have One Right Path that I Must Take Or Else.
When I get the chance to talk to young college students, as I sometimes do, I always share the following quote with them (one from my kinda-oldies-but-goodies collection:)
I started as a Computer Science major. From there, I fluctuated between Family Science and Statistics, considering basically everything in between. (I ruled out business because I KNEW I wasn't interested in that. I'll have to share that story for another day: I got my Master's degree in business!)
Long story short, my first semester of my junior year, I finally took a leap and declared Psychology as my major. I was petrified that I would hit yet another brick wall in my gut as I had with so many other directions I had tested. I was worried about doing what was "right" for me (what "God wanted me to do"). All I wanted to know is if this was "right."
I sought a blessing from my dad. It started off rather generic. I remember him telling me that I could seek direction in prayer as needed. (OK, I knew that. I really, really wanted an answer NOW, though!) Then it happened. I could tell that the Spirit took over and my dad told me that the decision I had made was good and right. (Woo hoo!) BUT--and this was a BIG but that has stuck with me through nearly two decades--he told me that (I can hear my dad's voice saying words like these): "The Lord would have you know that there are many paths you could take and still accomplish your work on the earth." Wow. What a lesson that was. This WAS a good decision, but it wasn't the ONLY right decision for me.
Now, I'm not sharing this to say that there aren't some times in life when there isn't a direction that is capital-R Right. In addition, I believe that there may be paths in our lives that might be Better than others. I believe with all of my heart that the Lord can and will guide us in our decisions along the way if we seek His help in faith. But I have never forgotten that blessing. For all my desire to "do what is right" and to follow the Lord's will, sometimes He doesn't have One Right Path that I Must Take Or Else.
When I get the chance to talk to young college students, as I sometimes do, I always share the following quote with them (one from my kinda-oldies-but-goodies collection:)
In the past, I have tried to figure out whether I should go into business or into teaching, or into the arts, or whatever. As I have begun to proceed along one path, having more or less gathered what facts I could, I have found that if that decision was wrong or was taking me down the wrong path – not necessarily an evil one, but one that was not right for me – without fail, the Lord has always let me know just this emphatically: ‘That is wrong; do not go that way. That is not for you.’
On the other hand, there may have been two or three ways that I could have gone, any one of which would have been right and would have been in the general area providing the experience and means whereby I could fulfill the mission that the Lord had in mind for me. Because He knows we need the growth, He generally does not point and say, ‘Open that door and go twelve yards in that direction, then turn right and go two miles….’ But, if it is wrong, He will let us know – we will feel it for sure. I am positive of that. So, rather than saying, ‘I will not move until I have this burning in my heart,’ let us turn it around and say, ‘I will move unless I feel it is wrong; and if it is wrong, then I will not do it.’ By eliminating all of these wrong courses, very quickly, you will find yourself going in the direction that you ought to be going, and then you can receive the assurance: ‘Yes, I am going in the right direction. I am doing what my Father in Heaven wants me to do because I am not doing the things He does not want me to do.’ And you can know that for sure. That is part of the growth process and part of accomplishing what our Father in Heaven has in mind for us. (John H. Groberg, BYU Speeches of the Year, 1979)
Monday, January 15, 2007
I have a dream...
(by JJ, my dear son)....
That all the wars will stop. I hope that there will be more peace. I also hope that everyone will be frends [sic]. I hope that all who are sick will get better. And all those who have trobles [sic] that they will be solved. And that everyone will be happy. :) [Smileyface in original.]
Perhaps yet another example of why we are told to be as a child....
That all the wars will stop. I hope that there will be more peace. I also hope that everyone will be frends [sic]. I hope that all who are sick will get better. And all those who have trobles [sic] that they will be solved. And that everyone will be happy. :) [Smileyface in original.]
Perhaps yet another example of why we are told to be as a child....
Sunday, December 31, 2006
The Best Laid Plans...
OK. So Christmas plans went well. But the rest of the week was insane. All of our plans completely unraveled. We were supposed to have company, and they got sick. We had to be careful about the sick thing because we were going on vacation to be with hubby's family (and didn't want to risk getting all of them sick) -- and then that ended up not happening. At the first of the week, I was nearly pulling my hair out with frustration, like "Why are things not working?" But it didn't take long for it to became clear that, as crazy as it sounds, the Lord's hand was in the sickness and the many, many changed plans. We have witnessed tender mercies GALORE in our friends' lives (the ones who never got to stay at our house), we experienced some tender mercies of our own, and I have been taught again about trusting in the Lord.
(P.S. There might be more to come on this amazing week!)Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own
understanding. [Make plans, yes, but don't worry if things don't work the way you planned! "All things work together for good to them that love God." Romans 8:28)] In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct they
paths. (Proverbs 3:5-6)
Saturday, December 23, 2006
The Power of One Dollar
This story will warm your heart. It reminds me of one of the talks given in the Priesthood session of Conference that I recently read. Elder Stanley Ellis says:
I was studying the parable of the talents. You remember the story. A man needed to go away, so he entrusted his servants with his goods. One received five talents, another two, and the last received one. Upon his return, he asked for an accounting. The servant who received five and returned ten, as well as the one who took two and returned four, were declared good and faithful servants. But what caught my attention was the servant who received one, took care of it, and returned it safely back to his lord. I was surprised by the response of the master: “Thou wicked and slothful servant, … take therefore the talent from him, … and cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness”! (See Matt. 25:14–30.)
This seemed to be a harsh reaction to one who seemed to be trying to take care of what he was given. But the Spirit taught me this truth—the Lord expects a difference!
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
I've Been Tagged!
OK, so Naiah tagged me and now I need to share five things about me that you may not know. Since you don't know much about me, that really shouldn't be hard....
I can recite the names of all of the children in my kindergarten class. In alphabetical order. On demand (if I'm in the mood). I've performed this amazing feat for at least one ward talent show. I think it's one of the things that impressed my husband most about me....
I graduated from BYU with two degrees (over a course of six years), without finding a husband. (That was not for lack of trying, mind you!) I joke that I should have received a tuition refund....
I can touch my tongue to my nose. My youngest child is pretty proud that she also shares in this amazing talent. (Wow. Two hidden talents revealed in one post. Are you impressed?)
I served in a mission in South America in the same country where my father served, where his father served, and where my parents are now serving.
I recently discovered that the boys over at ABEV are not-too-distant cousins of mine. We have the same great-great grandparents. (If they don't want people to know that they are related to me, then pretend you don't know.) :)
I want to tag Téa, Tigersue and my pear-tickling friend, if they are up to playing. :)
I can recite the names of all of the children in my kindergarten class. In alphabetical order. On demand (if I'm in the mood). I've performed this amazing feat for at least one ward talent show. I think it's one of the things that impressed my husband most about me....
I graduated from BYU with two degrees (over a course of six years), without finding a husband. (That was not for lack of trying, mind you!) I joke that I should have received a tuition refund....
I can touch my tongue to my nose. My youngest child is pretty proud that she also shares in this amazing talent. (Wow. Two hidden talents revealed in one post. Are you impressed?)
I served in a mission in South America in the same country where my father served, where his father served, and where my parents are now serving.
I recently discovered that the boys over at ABEV are not-too-distant cousins of mine. We have the same great-great grandparents. (If they don't want people to know that they are related to me, then pretend you don't know.) :)
I want to tag Téa, Tigersue and my pear-tickling friend, if they are up to playing. :)
Mortal Life Teaches of Christ's Life
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
