The Divine Institution of Marriage

The following is copied in it's whole from the following website
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriageThe-Divine-Institution-of-Marriage


The Divine Institution of Marriage
Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” 
In 1995, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” declared the following unchanging truths regarding marriage:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . . The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

The Proclamation also teaches, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” The account in Genesis of Adam and Eve being created and placed on earth emphasizes the creation of two distinct genders: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” 
Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric. Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”
Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.
It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.
High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task. As the prominent sociologist David Popenoe has said:

The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.

Popenoe explained that:

. . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development. It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with a child’s long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support.

Social historian David Blankenhorn makes a similar argument in his book Fatherless America. In an ideal society, every child would be raised by both a father and a mother.
Challenges to Marriage and Family
Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage – come increasingly under assault. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006).  Divorce has become much more common and accepted, with the United States having one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Since 1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 45 million innocents. At the same time, entertainment standards continue to plummet, and pornography has become a scourge afflicting and addicting many victims. Gender differences increasingly are dismissed as trivial, irrelevant, or transient, thus undermining God’s purpose in creating both men and women.
In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.
Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.      
In November 2008, California voters will decide whether to amend their state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined in a broad coalition of other denominations, organizations, and individuals to encourage voter approval of this amendment.     
The people of the United States – acting either directly or through their elected representatives – have recognized the crucial role that traditional marriage has played and must continue to play in American society if children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated.
Forty-four states have passed legislation making clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. More than half of those states, twenty-seven in all, have done so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in California, Arizona, and Florida.    
In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia. Yet, even in this context, a broad majority of courts – six out of eight state supreme courts – have upheld traditional marriage laws. Only two, Massachusetts and now California, have gone in the other direction, and then, only by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3 in both cases.      
In sum, there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. As the people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its children. Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved.
Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom
Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.    
In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.      
As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,

Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.

The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.  
Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.”
The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.     
Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership. 
Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU.  Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished.
How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?
Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.   
Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.   
When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.
It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?
As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations.  These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.
Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.
The Sanctity of Marriage
Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.
The final line in the Proclamation on the Family is an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” This is the course charted by Church leaders, and it is the only course of safety for the Church and for the nation.

What better way to put thing then to have it clearly stated by Apostles and Prophets of the Lord.   The Supreme Court of the United States clearly needs to read this information that was provided some time back.  They also need to read Proclamation-on-the-Family a ground breaking document from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles that clearly states God will in regards to the family.  Hopefully they take heed of the things clear articulated here.

Are you feeling compelled to  get your own copy of the Proclamation on the Family or find out more on the family.
Get ONE Here

Or Acquire one here along with a bunch of other helps for the family at a low cost or free - Proclamation on the Family Brochure

Buaidh - NO - Bas

"Best two years of your life" - a perspective on missionary service

I'd like to talk about missionary service for a little while.

Many people will hear that their mission was "The Best two years of my life".  But, should it really be the best two years of your life.

Why would one refer to it that way .... is not your current year of your life wonderful?   In reality it my not be all you hope for and thus looking back at the time you spent serving a mission ( 2 year for male and 18 months for female of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) you'll have fond memories.

Life on a mission is not easy.  Depending on where you are assigned to labor you may be lucky to teach a lesson a week.  In other places you may find people friendly enough but, they never keep commitments and flake out when you try and follow up with visits.  You may also find people that will try run you over on your bike or throw things at you in disgust, and how about people run you off their property because they are really REALLY not interested.  That is outside all the time you will be robbed or have stuff stole at your apartment just because they think your flush with money.  Don't forget about the disease or other problems with health you may encounter.  The list could go on easily for pages.



So with that laundry list of issues why might one feel or say that those 2 years were some of the best?  It might be something very simple.  The more you do something the easier it gets. 
We got to discussing this issue in our lesson Sunday in the Elders Quorum based on Elder Hollands Oct 2012 Conference Talk.  Right now for those in the group holding the discussion we have what seems like a million things going on in our lives.  There is work and the duties to support our families.  Many have children and in some cases another on the way.  There are all the family things that life brings.   Even some finishing school or going back so they can get ahead.  So the world ways down on you.
As a missionary your all day every day out talking to people about the good news - Gospel of Jesus Christ.  You are regularly studying the scriptures, praying for and in behalf of people and generally being uplifted.  Life is simple.  You are not worried where the next meal will come from (well in most cases), how your going to make rent and other things like this.  Life is so much simpler.


Due to this fact - not having to directly support yourself the time you spend as a missionary is a little limited.   Granted in the 1800's it was a bit different for our ancestors that went on missions.  Many left a wife at home to run the family farm and/or young children to raise.  In many cases they could not even say when they would be back.  With communication as it was, it had to be harder then heck dealing with a mission.  Things have changed but, not a ton.  It is still hard but, worth every effort.

So if a mission was the "best 2 years of your life", how can you make now the best two years of your life?

It might not seem so simple but, increasing that spirituality can sure help.
As you concentrate on living the Gospel things will just click for lack of a better way of putting it.  You can still be inspired, you can still have the power of prayer in your life.  You can still be that shining example you were back in the day.  Granted you may have gained a few pounds, lost some hair and acquired a few worry wrinkles.  However, all the blessing you had on the mission are still available today.  All the great things that come from regular scripture study, prayer and the like are still available.  You might have to work at it a bit harder then before.  With the possibility of a long commute, and all of life's pressures you will have to organize your time better.


So I'll make a list of things you can do to help get that spirit back in your life.  I myself need to do better with many of these things.  I sure do feel better when I have more of them in my life.

1.  Attend your regular Sunday meetings.
2. Actively do your home and visiting teaching.
3. Regularly read the scripture or church literature
4. Pray regularly as a family and/or individually
5. Participate in family home evening
6. Go out with the missionaries
7. Do the best you can in your calling not matter how uneventful it may seem.
8. Use uplifting media.



Go and claim the world.  Nothing is holding you back.  And when the clouds get dark and life seems to be a pit of darkness, remember those moments of joy, when you know the spirit was testifying of truth and lifting you up.  It's those moments that may seem far and few between that will carry you through.


Are you in need of finding some old companions or track down some information about the mission you served in or will serve in?

Find out what you need by going to MISSION.NET
Interested in a free copy of the Book of Mormon? CLICK HERE



Buaidh - NO - Bas

In honor of the Frequent Russian visitors

В честь некоторых из моих Прославленных Предков - Yaroslav "Мудрый" Великий Герцог Кива, Владимир Ярославик Дьюк Новгорода, и т.д и из-за популярности русских, посещающих этот blog я объявляю эту маленькую секцию на русском языке.

Не забывайте видеть связь о священных писаниях, являющихся доступным на русском языке

Hopefully the translation site Freetranslation.com did an OK job in translating from English to Russian.  The translations they do from English to Portuguese (Of which I'm fluent) and visa versa are OK but, do have some sentence structure issues here and there.  They do provide enough you can figure out what is going on.

I'd like to have you link to the following and pass this on if you know someone that speaks Russian. 

New Triple Combination Published in Russian

Новый тройной сборник издан на русском языке

 Oh how small the world seems at times!

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Religious Freedom

I like to take  few moments and comment on religious freedom and the advantages that a religious society have.

Religion in society provides us with a basis or background from which we can judge our own action.  I know you will say that in as much as we have the 10 commandments many in the government doe not follow them.  Rightfully so,  you can claim that.  But, it does provide a standard by which we can judge ourselves.

There are quite a few times that we see from the Book of Mormon how the society (Nephites) here in the Americas deteriorated as the people in general dwindled in unbelief.   Their turning away from the Gospel and falling into wickedness eventually lead to their down fall.  The other part of society (i.e the enemy or Lamanites) came in and via war, bloodshed and contention wiped them out.


As the people relied on their own strength and did not recognize the hand of God in their lives they began to fail and fall.   They entered into a phase in the circular cycle.  This cycle goes from 1. humbling ones self and recognizing God in our lives, 2. being blessed and prospering, 3. becoming prideful, etc, and finally 4. being humbled by the Lord.

So can we see that as we turn away from our religious roots we begin to rely more on "the arm of the flesh" and begin to become a loathsome and abominable people.

But, what then does this have to do with religious freedom?
When we begin to persecute those of other faiths be they Christian or not we begin to suppress religion in general.  When religion in general is no longer tolerated we begin to lose our way and enter in the pride portion of the cycle.  Thus some that would say that we must be tolerant of all and thus we can not have anything that appears religious in any shape or form associated with government are actually promoting the opposite.

At that point they are basically denying the existence of a supreme being.  This is thus very dangerous.  But, at the same time we have to be careful that we are not promoting one religion over another.

I love the fact that at many town and city council meetings they have a prayer at the begin of the meeting.  Usually, a pastor or other leader of a local church is called in to over this prayer.  Every time it is rotated around to someone new.  Thus no on religion, denomination or faith is promoted over another.  But, in some instances this is being pushed aside.

We are setting aside our standards, changing our moral compass.  All in the claim that we must be more inclusive and/or tolerant of those around us.  But, in the end we are denying our maker and moving away from our foundation of faith.

Will societies ills be fixed over night as we promote religion in any of it's forms?  No, it will not but, take communities where there is lack of a family unit, morals are lacks or no existent, and honest is a thing rarely seen.  Imagine how much better this community would be if there were people striving to live a moral life, uphold the family unit, and be honest and neighborly to one another.  This surely would improve life in the neighborhood.

Sometimes they state that you can take the people out of the ghetto but, not the ghetto out of the people.   Imagine if you took the ghetto out of the people.... Religion can provide the basis for which to do this.  So we have to adamantly promote religion in all its forms.

Since it is easy to see that spiritual, no less the physical benefits of religion in our society.  So thank the next person you see for being religiously involved and for standing up for their faith and religious rights.  Let us stand bold such that our little ones will not think we are those that "Do not believe in Jesus" - or basically lack any religious orientation.

We definitely do not want to end up like Nazi Germany or the fall of the Nephite Civilization as recounted by Mormon to his son Moroni-


7 And now I write somewhat concerning the sufferings of this people. For according to the knowledge which I have received from Amoron, behold, the Lamanites have many prisoners, which they took from the tower of Sherrizah; and there were men, women, and children.

 8 And the husbands and fathers of those women and children they have slain; and they feed the women upon the ^aflesh of their husbands, and the children upon the flesh of their fathers; and no water, save a little, do they give unto them.

 9 And notwithstanding this great ^aabomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after ^bdepriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is ^cchastity and ^dvirtue—

 10 And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most ^acruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery.

 11 O my beloved son, how can a people like this, that are without civilization—

 12 (And only a few years have passed away, and they were a civil and a delightsome people)

 13 But O my son, how can a people like this, whose ^adelight is in so much abomination—

 14 How can we expect that God will ^astay his hand in judgment against us?

Moroni 9: 7-14 

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Here comes the Mormon?

Well it looks like Mitt Romney has won the Iowa Caucuses.   And that bring back up the question of - will the evangelical Christians, so heavily touted in the Republican party, accept as their candidate a Mormon?


As was discussed earlier in another post - Are Mormons Christian? the issues of acceptability will most likely play into a final decision by a large but indeterminate block of voters.  Not to mention if he goes up against Obama will the larger population have as big a problem with the religion of the candidate as they supposedly have in the primaries?


Ultimately, I don't think that the religion of a candidate should have much bearing on their ability to lead.  I do get that it's nice to know a candidate would turn to GOD for help if he feels overwhelmed.  I can also see the flip side where they are worried one would turn to GOD for every little thing, or their local ecclesiastical leader.

So unless they claim to be some kind of devil worshiping, human sacrificing type of person it really should not matter.  Though would it be a problem if the candidate claims to be atheist or that he believes in Tree worship? If one goes at least by the 10 Commandments found in the old testament and other scriptures of other religions, or some similar tenants then they should be OK.  But, I guess to some a few of the difference among religious sects is enough to turn them off.
Is it enough that a candidate not be Christian to be turned off?  That makes for an interesting situation when we get our First Hindu, Muslim or how about an Asian Buddhist candidate with serious potential.

Go here to get a good comparison chart on Mormons and Evangelical Christians. 
Evangelical Christian - LDS comparision chart


As you'll  notice most if not all of these so called "differences" would have any bearing on the ability of one to lead.  I'd take in account the honesty, integrity, and voting record of a person.  Now some of the weaselly candidates will do what is called a flip-flop in regards to an issue, since they might claim it was good at the time or that it is appropriate for just the state they represented.

Remember that there are times that the information available in hind sight lead someone to head in a certain direction they might not have later if the whole "truth" was known.

But, again does it matter that there is a difference of opinion on whether God the Father has a body and the ability of the person to lead?

This also brings up some sordid questions regarding the primary system used by the parties.  Do they bring to the top the extreme left and/or right wing types as candidates try and cater to the "Party Base"?  Republicans are always trying to look more "conservative" then the next in primary season.  Then they go the other direction and try to making themselves look more "moderate" when it comes to the general election.   How in the heck can they really do this?   I think many talk of the topics the "base" wants to hear and then in the general election they hope to heck to not have to deal with it or bring it back up.  Does not always work that way.


So the bottom line is this.  Does the fact that Mitt Romney is a "Mormon" (Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints)  make him unelectable?

I guess only time will tell.  Though, there may be religious differences it should not be what we measure our candidates by!


Buaidh - NO - Bas

Read the Book of Mormon

Looking for a good new year's resolution?

We were visiting in another unit in the north San Diego area and they had decided to read the Book of Mormon in 100 days. They even printed up booklets that include the chapters to read every day, a verse or two to mark and a quote(s) from a general authority on the part you read.   There is even a thought question so you don't just feel like your are reading blindly to fill the requirement. There are make up days mixed throughout the booklet.  A very doable plan even young children can tackle.

While looking for a chart to use to mark off the chapters we found what they used for the booklet on the Internet.
100 days Book of Mormon reading program
Alternately here - 100 days reading program
100 days Book of Mormon reading program - doc format
 Here is a link to the chart with chapters/books etc
Book of Mormon reading chart in PDF format


This program looks very doable. And at 100 days we can get it done in time for general conference in April.

So we have decided to tackle the challenge.  It should make things more spiritual at home and will get our daughter more inspired as her birthday and baptismal date come closer.  And it will give us something to do instead of watching mindless TV so many nights of the week.

So if you need a new year's resolution that will really change your world - Take the 100 days Book of Mormon challenge.  You'll be glad you did.

Buaidh - NO - BAS

Politics and Religion

As the presidential field heats up we are more and more hearing about the religious affiliation of the Republican candidates.  We happen to already know it for our current president even though there are some that take it as a grain of salt and believe it to be something else.

Should the religious affiliation of the candidate really matter that much?  Does it matter that the person is a Jew, Mormon, or a Catholic?

The religious background of a person will drive certain areas of a opinion such as abortion, assisted-suicide, death penalty and the like.  But, when one considers the overall responsibilities of a candidate will these play into the day to day things they are responsible for?

Take a President of the United States.  Does he really deal with the issue of abortion on a daily basis.  More likely he's looking at some spending bill, or helping decide whether to draw down troops in a specific region of the world.  So why do we make such a stink about what religion a person affiliates with?


I've got a few ideas in this regard.  There are several major religions or faiths in the world.  Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Muslim etc.   Sadly, within each of these there are various churches.  There is no central head in most cases even though for the Christian we are all following the teaching of Christ.
Thus it is OK to be a christian and hold to the basic teachings - 10 commandments, love thy neighbor etc.  But, when it comes to central church based leadership people spook.   Holds true for the Catholics and the Mormons.  People are afraid that the supreme leader of the church will dictate policy.  Yes, if you hold to the faith properly you believe the Pope or the President of the LDS church is the mouth piece for God.

So are the people afraid that if Mitt Romney were President that he would always be on the phone with prophet Thomas S. Monson before he makes any decisions?  Or that a catholic candidate would be constantly in contact with the Vatican and if the they tell him to do something he would without question?  Maybe.  Some just like the idea you can have a spiritual advisor you contact but, that this person is not the final word, the definitive voice of God.  Maybe they like the ideas that you switch religions/churches like you switch your underwear.  That when one is convenient you go that way and when another is more readily at hand you go that route.  Always looking to one person or location causes a riff especial when we hold so true to the belief in separation of church and state.

Take England for example.  The queen is the head of the church there.  How would that go over here?  We have had ministers run for the presidency before, and likely at all levels of government for various positions.  But, is having a Baptist minister as a mayor of a city any different then having say an Asian?  You could claim favoritism in both cases.  Would the Mayor favor the Baptists more then another religion or the Asian his tribe more then another?  That is were things get to the ridiculous!

But, we also have to watch out for that kind of stuff.  The people in Germany in the 1930's started to let those types of things enter into the political realm.  One tribe favored over another, one element more then another.  And we know that this lead to things like the rise of the Nazi Party, persecution of not just the Jews, but other ethnic groups considered inferior like the Poles, Russians, Slavs, and the list goes on.  They so bent on this "religion" they even began exterminating people. It started slowing with the mentally and physically handicapped, and then progressed to mass deportations to the concentration camps generally ending in a trip to the gas chamber.


So could that be the fear of the people when it comes to religion?  An indirect dictatorship or theocracy?  I hope not.  Since what I want in a presidential candidate is someone that is honest, forthright, and has the capacity to make decisions that will be for the good of the country.  Basically, a morally upright person that will follow their convictions and do the right thing at the right time and not just in the hopes of being reelected.

Buaidh -  NO  - Bas

Youth Protection

As a scout leader one of the many trainings we must complete is Youth Protection.  This training is as much for the protection of the adult as it is for the youth. 

Now you wonder why we even have to bother with such training, right?  Sadly, a few rotten apples make life a mess for all the other adults with good intentions.   And sadly a few of those rotten apples have been from my church.  It's not to say that all the adult volunteers are to be suspected of anything just because they want to help in an organization like the Boys Scouts.


With the recent revelations at Penn State I'll bet a million people will reconsider sending their kid off to some summer or spring break sports camp just because they are afraid something might happen.

Clearly the system failed in the case of Penn State.  Multiple people including a janitor told higher ups of some misdeeds.  However, I'd tell not just the president of the school or the director of athletics if I saw a man doing the inappropriate sexual acts with a boy in the locker room.  That already raises to the level of - TELL the POLICE and TELL them NOW!

I'm not sure things have changed all that much in the last 30 years.  I mean are there more child molesters in the world today then back then?  For that matter are there more today then in the 1800's.  It appears that in 1800's England there was an epidemic of child prostitution.  So is it really worse?  Are we more keenly aware of what is going on around us?

Back in my day we had Den Meeting at the home of one of my best friends.  His mother usually ran the meeting.  There were rarely extra adults present.  Contrast that to our meeting two nights ago.  We had three adults present for 4 boys and at least one parent was within a stones throw distance in the building due to travel issues.

It makes it fairly hard for someone to start accusing misdeeds when you have an adult to youth ratio at that level.    Sadly, things have gotten to that level.  Nary a person dare be alone with a child out of fear of rumors, accusations and the like.  Even some of the leadership in our local units have a second adult outside their office when interviewing people.  Just in case something gets out of hand or it a man interviewing a female.
We have to actively be a part of the life of our youth; of our children.
It appears the guy out of Penn state chose justly the people lacking a full set of parental support as his victims.  He knew that it would be harder to be caught since fewer people were on the look out.
But, one boy's mother was watching, participating and she did not take it sitting down.  Sadly, the system failed her.

How can we live in the world but, not of the world?  How is it that we can really protect our youth from all the issues they face today?
How can we protect them from inappropriate media, friends, activities, drugs and all the other bad influences that exist?

I like what I read in the October 2011 General Conference talk by Elaine S Dalton General Young Women's President of the LDS Church.
"You are your daughter’s guardian in more than the legal sense. Be present in your daughter’s life. Let her know your standards, your expectations, your hopes and dreams for her success and happiness. Interview her, get to know her friends and, when the time comes, her boyfriends. Help her understand the importance of education. Help her understand that the principle of modesty is a protection. Help her choose music and media that invite the Spirit and are consistent with her divine identity. Be an active part of her life. And if in her teenage years she should not come home from a date on time, go get her. She will resist and tell you that you have ruined her social life, but she will inwardly know that you love her and that you care enough to be her guardian."
Read - Elaine S Dalton Oct 2011 Conference Talk

Imagine that - a father actually going down and finding his child that is late from a date and dragging her home.  Most if not many would think you a prude.   But, in reality you are showing the kind of attitude or respect you are expecting from the child and their date.
My wife got a bit of that when we were traveling around in Brazil before we were even engaged.  Most if not all the people she worked with thought it prudish to have a separate hotel room while both of us were in another city visiting.  No one would really have known.
But, it is the principle.  Honest/Integrity - Doing the right thing even when no one is watching.

So we take the training, hold to the standards, not because they are fun, enjoyable or plain neat.  They in reality can be a bit of a pain.  We hold to the standards because we know they the right thing to do and will in the long run protect our youth.

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Happy Saint Paddy's Day

Top of the morn'in to you.

Well today is the day they celebrate Saint Patrick's Day.
I guess you can say it has mutated to a bit more commercial then it used to be.

Since I'm not catholic and the whole saints thing is beyond me I really don't understand much of the reasoning.  I think in today's world it is more about celebrating Ireland and it culture then anything else.  There is the whole wear'in of the green (which I do not support), eating what is assumed to be traditional Irish fare (corn beef and cabbage which appears to be not be so traditional).

Why not be proud of your heritage every day of the week.  You can leave the getting drunk down at the local pub part out though beer and drinking tunes are some of the best song around.
They are plain classic in my opinion.  That and some of the rebel songs from folks like Wolfetones and the Clancy Brothers.

 

Why History?

"We study our history because it helps us change. Ultimately, the value of history is not so much in its dates, times, and places. It is valuable because it teaches us the principles, purposes, and patterns we are to follow, it helps us know who we are and what we are to do,....."
Jule B. Beck
Relief Society General President 
“Daughters in My Kingdom”: The History and Work of Relief Society
General Relief Society Meeting October 2010



Some very sage advise and inspired messages were present this past weekend at the 180th Semi-Annual General conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Listen and view all or portions of conference
Conference in English 
180ª Conferência Geral Semestral, outubro de 2010 


Buaidh - NO - Bas