News

Equal Rights

2016-05-03T17:14:00.001-07:00

So I don't think anything specific led to wanting to write this post. But the bottom line is this: I don't care who you are- what your religion is, what color your skin is, what gender you are or what your sexual preference is. You are human and I believe regardless of anything else everyone should have equal rights. I think everyone should have equal opportunities to make their dreams come true, but I also think everyone should work hard and be willing to settle if their dreams are not profitable to make a life for themselves and their family.

I was originally thinking about women's rights. I like being a woman. I believe women are equal to men. But I don't want to be a man I want to prove I am a woman but still equal. I believe women should be able to work if they want or need to. I also think a woman who chooses to stay at home is equal to men or other women. I believe women should get paid the same amount and be treated with the same amount of respect. I believe women are powerful and capable of many things. Yet when I go to church on Sunday I wear a skirt and a dress to show that I am feminine and a woman. (With the exception of only a few cultures skirts and dresses are still for women.) I also am starting to realize that sometimes the feminist movements demean men. Men need to feel needed. I think they (historically) became the breadwinners because it gave them a purpose. Something that they were good at. Men can do many things and some are awesome stay-at-home dads. Men can also do anything and are equal to women. I think I need to pull back sometimes and realize, as much as I think women are awesome, men are too. I need to make sure I don't demean the opposite sex in my praise of women.

That got me thinking about race. I don't consider myself to be racist. I believe anyone, regardless of race should have equal rights and equal opportunities. If someone grows up and circumstances prevent them from getting the right opportunities I believe in finding a way to help them. But there comes a time when race quotas just hurt those who are qualified. I believe in helping any person, regardless of race, be qualified for the jobs they want. But there comes a time when the job should go to whoever is best qualified, regardless of race and regardless of quotas. I know that blacks were underprivileged and enslaved. The slaves were freed over a hundred years ago and legally they received the same rights almost a hundred years ago. I believe in making sure they have those equal rights, but there comes a time when the minority punishes the majority for stuff that happened before they even lived. I don't believe that is right. We should help everyone have the same opportunities, give them every tool they need to succeed but then it's up to the individual to work hard. And if there aren't enough jobs for everyone to be a doctor someone will have to humble themselves and flip burgers until the right opportunity comes. I don't care if that person is white or black.

And your sexual preference. I don't care what it is. I didn't like the Chick-fil-a stuff a few years back with gays making out in front and boycotting the business. But I also didn't like when straight couples wanted to retaliate and make out at Chick-fil-a. Why? Because I believe intimacy is between two people and supposed to be (mostly) in private. I'm ok with a kiss in public, or holding hands, or snuggling, but I don't want to see anyone making out in public or more.

And while I'm at it. Public nursing. They say it's not about a woman's right and indecency, it's about a baby's right to eat- a basic need. I agree with this. But at the same time I don't like the photos where women blatantly are breastfeeding. Sure it's natural. So is sex, but I don't believe that because something is natural that means it should be public. Sure breastfeeding may show a boob or a nipple and that should be fine, but that doesn't mean you have to show as much as you can when you're feeding your baby. Try to cover up- and if your baby doesn't like the cover, then people may see things but at least you tried. I also think it's absurd when people get mad at women for feeding a baby in public but a girl with cleavage that is SO MUCH more provocative is somehow fine. COVER UP! (This is not to nursing mothers but anyone who's showing so much cleavage that they're wearing stuff that should be reserved for the bedroom.

Anyways, I think my rant is done. Just because your ancestors were underprivileged does not mean you are or have to be. I will help people get equal rights and opportunities when I can. But with those rights, you can take away someone else's rights.

'Let it Go' and Homosexuality- So what?

2014-04-25T23:27:00.001-07:00

"Let it Go" was on the radio the other day and it got me thinking about things. First off, I like the song and the movie, but I read a post about how 'Frozen' is pushing the 'gay agenda'. The post made some good points, but I felt like the post was poorly written. It spent the first half of the extremely long blog ostracizing its readers and targeted audience- an audience the author was trying to get on her side, but spent the first half basically calling her readers idiots. When she finally got to her actual point and purpose behind writing the blog she pointed out how Disney portrayed different things and how it relates to homosexuality. But I started thinking and came to the conclusion, "So What?" So what if Disney's purpose in writing things the way they did was to promote homosexuality? Does that mean that they were successful? Can't it mean other things? When I watched it I thought back to my childhood- I was given a gift- I could sing. But my Dad teased me (because that's who he is) and I grew ashamed. I would only sing behind a closed door and with the music turned up. It took a long time for me to get to the point where I could 'let it go', and sometimes it's still hard for me to not be shy/ashamed about it. And even if it is promoting homosexuality- there were a few aspects to Elsa's gifts. It was cool. It could be wonderful but it could also be dangerous. There was an aspect of others not accepting her, but she did almost kill her sister because she couldn't control her 'gift'. So, Disney may have been trying to promote homosexuality, but you have the choice to decide what it means to you. Does it represent letting go of fear? I believe all of us are born with certain things that will tempt us and possibly make us sin- can we not look at it as we're all given gifts, but if we don't learn to control our temptations they lead us to sin and a spiritual death (separation from God- because no imperfect person can dwell with God)?

I'm also reminded of The Golden Compass Series or His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman. Many people decided not to see the movie or read the books because the author said his purpose was to persuade people to not believe in God. So what? Many people said that he destroys God and so the books and movie must be awful. I have read them and loved them and I'll tell you what he did. He created a world very much like our own. In it there was no God. There was a corrupt Pope who made up the idea of God for the purpose of gain. Now to me there was no God to destroy. There was a corrupt leader. Haven't we all met corrupt people? Some of them in leadership positions? Don't we try to remove them from our lives? Now for an Atheist, isn't it logical for him to think that all religious leaders are either corrupt or delusional? So to me he maybe made a bad decision as to who to frame as being corrupt, but everything in his books, including the Dust, and the daemons and the soul point to a God that simply is never found in his books. I love the quote from the end of his third book, and actually used when teaching people about God and Jesus Christ. So what if his purpose was to destroy God? In my opinion, he failed.

And Disney- well it depends on how you decide to interpret it. Does it have a good message? Or only one, possibly negative one (depending on your opinion on homosexuality)? So to any critics out there- 'so what if Disney's purpose was to preach homosexuality?' Does that mean they were successful? Have we, as watchers, lost our ability to take what we want from movies? I choose to see the good in it and to take what I want from it.

Dear Mr. President

2013-09-16T13:38:00.003-07:00

Dear Mr. President,

I didn’t vote for you. I don’t like you. I hate everything you’ve done with the country. But instead of getting involved, I feel this country is a lost cause. So I don’t send a letter to my Senator, or Representative, I just sit at my computer writing hate mail and forwarding it to all of my friends, who in turn either delete the email or forward it to more people because they are just like me.

I am frustrated that my efforts at forwarding hate mail never seem to change anything. They feed my desire to be angry and vocal about lost causes. They make me into a critic picking out every small detail.

I know that leading a country is an exact science. The outcomes can always be predicted with 100% accuracy. You just aren’t doing it that way, so our country is dwindling fast. You can’t seem to predict the future and so our country still struggles.

Sincerely,

Citizen who hates current President

Dear Citizens,

If this sounds like you, examine yourself. Is our country really doomed or is there hope? In the very worst case we can elect a “better” candidate in 4 years. We do have a say in how our country works, but we have to get involved and get others involved- not in forwarding our mail but in voting. Making our voice heard by our representatives so they can carry that message to those who lead this country and bring up the issues we may be facing.

No president is perfect. I did not vote for our current President. I do not agree with most of the decisions he has made (at least the bigger ones I’m aware of), but most of the country wanted to see his view of making the country better. Without our support and “friendly” criticism telling our representatives when things don’t work right no president can make any difference. We elect those who lead us. Are they qualified? Do we talk with our friends telling them why someone is qualified before they’re voted into office so the “wrong” one doesn’t get elected? Leading the country is not an exact science. History may repeat, but small circumstances can change the result. What worked before or what inspired a leader to make a certain decision may not even lead to what he wanted to happen. There are so many little tiny variables affecting the big picture and struggling to figure out what will work can be hard. There is no “one way” to do things. And a whole country, a mix of different cultures and people, and different values is not easy to lead or figure out what the best decision is for everyone all the time.

Have you ever been in charge of multiple people for a project or anything? Did it go right the first time? Were you perfect? Were there no mistakes on anyone’s behalf? Everyone put in equal effort and did everything perfect? That’s not how things work- so if you got lucky remember it was just that- lucky. Everyone makes mistakes- even the best President when it comes to making national decisions. Let us support the President and be vocal and actively involved- but not hateful. Let us write to our Representatives- who have a voice in Congress- tell them the issues. Give them petitions when needed, signed by friends to show it is not just one person’s concern. Be active in voting. Let your opinion be heard- but let it have solutions, or explain the problem so a solution can at least be looked into. Our current President’s speech of “Change” was very inspiring but it wasn’t very specific. Most of the public is not involved and doesn’t care about the specifics. So “Change”- yes we want change- but who can get us there? HOW will they get us there? If you can’t answer those questions when complaining then quit complaining and realize that at least the President (even if he screws up) is TRYING to make changes. He is working towards something, and that’s better than nothing at all.

Sincerely,

A Citizen Determined to Become More Involved

Greenpeace

2013-03-08T10:50:00.000-08:00

So, the other day I was going to Trader Joe's to buy a few specialty items- like special bread for my husband and one other thing I can't remember. On my way out my husband and I were approached by a lady standing outside, advertising/selling something. Well, my husband stopped. I usually don't. I usually walk a different route to avoid them. But anyways, I don't know how to get out of a conversation and I guess my husband doesn't either, so we listened to her talk about greenpeace. I mean, I care about the Earth. I like being able to breathe clean air, and I want it to last. But here's the thing: I don't believe doing my part for the environment requires monthly payments from me.

I kind of got annoyed. When I say I don't have money to spare, I don't have money to spare. We just recently got out of credit card debt, but still have a lot of student loans and 2 car payments. If it weren't for charity from my grandma and both sets of parents, we probably would be dead about now. What I make is mainly what we get each month. It covers bills and $100 for food every month and little else. Rent- we wouldn't be able to afford it in this area we live in now. And some girl wants us to give MORE each month, as a commitment? If we make more in a month, I'm ok with giving when I have more, but we DON'T have extra every month. Now, I guess some people would say get rid of a car, but that's not very economical either. My husband and I go in opposite directions, I go farther than he does. Anyways, even if I had money I tend to resent people who stop me in the street. When they come to my house, I feel a little bit better, even though I rarely invest in anything that comes door-to-door, but at least I don't resent the people doing it. The stupid girl made me late to work, because I didn't know how to be rude enough to leave earlier.

Now, onto my REAL feelings for Greenpeace. I believe very strongly in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon (a Second Witness of Jesus Christ) and in modern revelation, from God directly to Prophets, on what we need to know and do to survive in this world today, both spiritually and temporally. First there are accounts in the scriptures that say that God made this Earth and He made it with enough resources to support us. Now I'm not stupid enough to think that if we foolishly waste them instead of use them, that we'll still be blessed regardless. But the Prophets say to live within our means. The things I read teach me to be responsible and caring. I can recycle to help the environment and it doesn't require extra money out of my pocket. I can sign petitions or boycott companies that mis-use the environment or beg them to change their policies. Last time I checked, those things CAN get stuff done and don't require more money out of my pocket. She said that the money they get funds stopping companies like KFC from using some material for the foods, that's harmful for the environment or wasteful... I can't remember, maybe it just boycotts tree farms- or whatever she called them, but can't we just petition or boycott them and let them know that's why we're boycotting them? Can't an organization work together without wasting money in people's pockets? Does it cost much to send an email to everyone in a grassroots organization a newsletter telling them what we're focusing on that month to help the environment?

So basically I do not like Greenpeace. I like that they care about the environment, but I don't believe in their methods. I believe we can do our best to take care of the environment and be involved in the world around us to help out. But what IF we are foolishly wasting our resources? Well, in that case, I am still going to do my part, but I also believe in the Second Coming of Christ. The Last Days. Things will get awful, and THEN Christ will come. The world will be at complete peace and be better than I think I can imagine. It will be restored to its former glory. So, again, what if we are wasting our resources? I will still do my part, but I look forward to the day when Christ will come again. YES, it will be awful before hand, maybe the quicker it happens, the less the righteous will have to suffer.

So, do what you wish. As for me, I do not support Greenpeace, but I do love the Earth. I will continue to recycle and pick up after myself. I will participate in service projects when I know about them to help keep the Earth clean, but if the resources are still being wasted I will be happy knowing that the awful days are coming quickly and then after them I can look forward to Christ coming. After the night and terrors of the Last Days, the morning will come and Christ will be here and everything will be alright once more.

Mormon Feminist Movement

2013-01-02T20:27:00.001-08:00

So, one day, my husband tells me that there's word on facebook going around about an event- "Wear pants to Church on Sunday". It was part of a Mormon feminist movement. First off I felt disgusted and then a little angry. Let me explain.

I love being a woman. I do not believe in being submissive, weak and being easily pushed aside. I believe my testimony and thoughts and opinions are equal to any man. I believe men are no better (and sometimes I think us women really are the best- to be humble). In my study of the Old Testament I gained a strong testimony of the influence and importance of women. It seemed that whether a man or nation was righteous or wicked was completely dependent upon the woman. A woman's influence is powerful and important.

Now, onto the actual event before I explain a little more of my opinion. What a stupid idea?! Wearing pants to Church on Sunday? We go to Church for us and the Lord and we go in our Sunday best to show the Lord our respect. You want to disrespect the Lord and tell Him He doesn't love you as much as men because you are generally expected to wear a dress or skirt? I understand if you don't own a dress or a skirt and your Sunday best IS a pants suit, or something like that. But this event was the stupidest thing I had ever heard of.

Now, let's take a look at other Equal Rights Movements. Let's start with Civil Rights and the Blacks wanting equal rights. Think about it in your mind.... were the Blacks wanting to bleach their skins and BECOME whites? Or did they just want to be treated equally? Now onto homosexuals. Are they fighting to be treated equally? Or do they want to be the same as heterosexual couples and be forced to be straight? I think the answers to those questions should be obvious. Now onto the Mormon feminist movement- is it about being treated equally or becoming a man? The reason women do not generally wear pants is not to show they are unequal but to celebrate womanhood and the fact that there is a difference, not in treatment (hopefully) but just in who they are. The way we are asked to dress has nothing to do with inequality but celebrating who we are and our differences without necessarily being unequal.

Back to a few things about feminism. I had someone close to me who was a strong feminist, so I learned a few things from her. The fact is "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)
One part goes into differences between men and women: "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." But it also says, "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation." So there are differences between men and women but they are still supposed to be equal and there is room for adaptation. The fact is, we have innate differences that are part of our gender- almost genetic in a sense. I'll give an example from my life: I have decided I want to major in teaching (not sure what level yet or subject). I did not choose it because I generally think of teaching as a woman's major- easy to do with a family because you have the same schedule as your kids... I actually fought that major for this reason for awhile. I looked into Civil Engineering for a little while- a field that makes me think- men. Although I still have an interest in that it wasn't meant for me. And likewise the medical field- there are many women nurses and some women doctors, but the thing is: I have a weak stomach. I would not make a good nurse or doctor. I chose my major based on my strengths, and our difference in roles as far as gender goes is based on strengths and weaknesses of the genders. There are cases where there will be adapting because sometimes, perhaps, we don't fit the stereotype, but women are naturally more sensitive and nurturing than men. Even my feminist friend was a nurturer.

Now onto serving missions. The age difference is now smaller. It used to be women at age 21 CAN serve and men at 19. Now it's just a year different and women can go at 19. I've heard a few complaints as to the length of time... women can only serve for 18 months and men go for 2 years. First off, it's 6 months... Not a big deal. Granted, I loved my mission and would've loved staying for an extra 6 months. I think it's easy for a woman/sister to enjoy serving a mission. You are nurturing people, spiritually and emotionally and serving and teaching- it comes easy to us. But when I came home I realized that I wanted to stay because staying seemed easier. I think it's easier for sisters to get lost in the work (which is good) and then want to avoid the rest of their life. I think if extensions were still allowed, you would see many sisters who would miss out on their own life thinking they were doing good by serving. But there comes a point where you are using a mission and service as a way to avoid living your own life and finding your own life's mission. Men: it is considered a Priesthood responsibility (Priesthood brings up another issue for later). Therefore they are required to go. Personally, I think this helps a guy mature. The ones who serve faithfully learn things that influence the rest of their lives for good. It helps them learn to be more in tune with people, more sensitive to needs and concerns and more caring.

Now onto the Priesthood: I've heard women complain about not having the Priesthood. I kinda disagree with this. Above I mentioned that our genders give us innate differences. Men are given the Priesthood as a means to serve others. That's what it's about- serving others. They cannot give the Sacrament to themselves, they have to hand the tray to another before partaking. They cannot give themselves a blessing. I think the Priesthood helps men keep a sense of service and Christlike qualities in their life. It is also a blessing. The Priesthood is God's power given to men on earth to act in His name. Now let's examine this a little more closely. When a sister serves a mission it is as if she is there FOR Christ himself, and she is supposed to act as He would in His name- written on her tag. She is given permission to serve as a missionary to proselyte and serve just as the men are. Granted she is not given permission to baptize or perform ordinances- but still is given power with permission from God to act in His name. Now onto creation. We are told that the ability to create is a power of God. Women can create in many ways. They can create a home, or a spiritual place of refuge. They can create life within our bodies (with the initial help of a man). This is a special power that we are given permission to use ONLY WITHIN the bonds of marriage. And finally, I served in the temple. In the temple you make covenants and ordinances are performed. In order to perform an ordinance you must have the Priesthood. Yet, when I went through for myself all my ordinances were performed by women. When I worked in the temple I was set aside as a temple worker (like someone is set aside for any calling) but I was not given the Priesthood. The following is not doctrine, but I believe that women DO hold the Priesthood. Because our gender is different, we are given different responsibilities, but I believe we are born with it in us. I guess permission isn't granted automatically in the cases I listed, except that members are supposed to be missionaries... But generally our permission to act in God's name is given when we are set aside as missionaries, or married, or when we work in the Temple. But even when a man receives the Priesthood he still has to report and do it with the permission of local leaders. So, just food for thought I guess, but I think we do have access to God's power, both through the men and their Priesthood and through our own talents and strengths and gifts and power.

In conclusion, yes, there are differences between men and women in the Church. It is because of our different strengths, not because of any inequality. Or our difference in responsibility. Women do not need to be called to the Priesthood to serve their fellow men care for others- we do that on our own, naturally because we are natural nurturers. I am proud to be a woman, and my husband can tell you that I am equal to him, even if I have to remind him of it. :) Be equal to men, but be proud to still be who you are. Demand respect if needed and remind men that you are equal when needed.

Chick fil a

2012-08-06T09:47:00.001-07:00

I don't think it's possible to write something completely unbiased. So I will share my opinions so you know where I'm coming from. But since it is a sensitive topic I hope my opinions will be taken as just that and not be offended by them.

I believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. I believe in tolerance and love towards gays and lesbians is still possible even while holding to this belief. I believe there are certain privileges granted to married couples that should be granted to others. (For one example, only spouses and immediate family being allowed in hospital rooms. I believe every patient deserves to not be alone. That whether it be spouse, parent, best friend or lover, others should be allowed in the room. Just limit the number at each time to keep the room uncrowded, or if the patient is lucid, let them decide.) Now on to Chick-fil-a.

I went to support Chick-fil-a. To me, yes I agreed with their opinion, but I also went because I believe restricting peoples opinions would make this country NOT free. I believe that freedom is our nation's best policy. Freedom of speech, religion, press, and there's one other. I do not feel it is right to restrict a company's business because they choose to have an opinion, even an opinion on a touchy subject. It is their right to have that opinion and speak it. They never said they would not serve gays, or even serve gays that are married, just that they do not support the marriage of two homosexuals.

I have been told that if a friend doesn't support you and doesn't love you for who you are, then they are not really a friend and not worth keeping. If a friend does not uplift you but only brings you down, don't keep them as a friend. I've done this in my own life. I've been used at times, and I don't have to put up with it, I can remove myself from the situation without becoming hateful or spiteful towards that person. So if you are gay, or believe marriage is not only between a man and a woman, no one is forcing you to go to Chick-fil-a and give them your money and your business.

When I first heard about the gay protest- where they were going to go sit in and make out in Chick-fil-a I was disgusted. At first I wondered if it was because of my opinion on gay marriage. I can say honestly that it was not because I have now been invited to a hetero-protest in protest of the gay protest- where a man and a woman will sit in and make out- and I was equally disgusted.

To me, marriage is sacred. It is a private affair between two people that is only recognized publicly. To me, there are certain kinds of pda that are acceptable means of showing this. Pda stands for public display of AFFECTION not PASSION. Hand holding, hugs, a light kiss, are appropriate signs of pda. Passion for another, to me, is private. And making out is more passionate by nature. Too few people in the world hold marriage sacred. Divorce runs rampant. I feel that whether you are hetero- or homo- sexual, if you hold marriage as sacred then you would not show your passion so casually. You would not mock that sacred union by finding anyone to make out with just to prove a point. I thought that the gays fighting for marriage held it more sacred and that was why they yearned for it so bad. If it was solely a matter of marital privileges then I believe fighting for the government to only recognize civil unions is your fight. And if they hold it sacred, then they should only make out and show passion towards someone they HAVE that passion for, not just any other gay to prove a point at Chick-fil-a. And the same goes for the other side: if you hold marriage between a man and a woman as sacred, then you are mocking your own belief by casually making out with a member of the opposite sex merely to prove a point and be spiteful.

These other protests are very childish. The first one I went to because I believe that the amendments to our Constitution mean something. The gay protest: if they do not support you and that bothers you, do not support them with your business. Do not resort to childishness. Leave foolish teenage rebellions in your teenage years and find an adult way to stand up for what you believe in.

The hetero- protest in response to the gay protest: this is even more childish. It is being done just to spite the gay community. I care about marriage because I hold it sacred and this protest is not tolerant, it is not loving, it is not standing up for the Amendments, it is not even standing up for marriage between a man and a woman. It is simply a protest because people aren't tolerant of gays and their right to an opinion. (I still feel they show disrespect to the sacred union of marriage by sharing passion so publicly in a family environment, and that there are more productive ways for them to stand up for what they believe in.) This protest shows a lack of care about marriage. And if marriage is not sacred to you, then you have no reason to keep gays from entering into it as well.

What are you fighting for?

Pro-gay marriage: are you fighting for gay marriage because marriage when recognized allows certain privileges? Or because it's a special sacred union that you would like to have? There are those like me who are against gay marriage but not against you having certain rights and privileges granted currently through marriage. And if you are fighting for marriage because it's special and sacred and having some piece of paper showing you're married means something, well then find ways to stand for what you believe that show that you keep it sacred.

Against gay marriage: what are you fighting for? Are you fighting against gay marriage because you hate gays and have no tolerance for them? Or are you fighting to keep marriage sacred? If the second, then show that you hold it sacred in your protests. That there is something special in marriage.

Teaching Homosexuality in Elementary Schools

2012-05-15T10:32:00.000-07:00

It has been a few years since I last lived in California and I wasn't fully aware of how things were until recently moving back. I knew my cousin was homeschooling her kids- something I didn't think she would ever do. And I have been meeting a surprisingly increasing number of other young kids being home-schooled, instead of getting the social interaction with other kids by going to public schools. I recently heard of a bill or a proposition that was concerning teaching homosexuality in elementary schools. I guess they started teaching it in Elementary School, but they had to say which day they were teaching it, and several mothers took their children out of school that day. First off, don't we still have the right to walk out of a situation if it makes us uncomfortable? Now, I guess they want to have it be a surprise so the only option they have to avoid it is to home-school their kids. In some ways I understand why they want to start in Elementary School, but there was still something about it that bothered me.

Elementary School is all about the basics. The building blocks that help us through the rest of our schooling. We don't jump straight into chemistry, or calculus, or reading the classics like Moby Dick, we are taught little by little as our understanding increases. In my opinion, Kindergarten (sometimes Preschool now) is where kids first start learning to interact with each other, and to share and play WITH each other. It's the time to teach them that there are differences. Sally's favorite color may be pink, and Billy's might be blue- but that doesn't make them bad because they have different favorite colors. Bianca's parents may speak a different language; Shaniqua may have darker skin; Ralph may only have one parent; Sean may have two dads; everyone has differences, and everyone should be nice to everyone else. This is the extent of what they need to know in Elementary School- tolerance for others despite their differences.

Why not more? When I was in Elementary School, in 4th grade, there was a cartoon video as an introduction to sex education. We had to get parent permission on whether they thought their child was ready to watch a video. Why? Because it's ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, and some parents don't think sex ed is elementary and prefer to address matters in their own time. Homosexuality fits into this category. It is, after all, HomoSEXUALITY. Middle School was where puberty was addressed. Kids are going through it, and if their parents haven't addressed it by now, they're going to start having questions and possibly experimenting in harmful ways. So it's better to teach them what is going on. HERE is the time to introduce the details of homosexuality. Sure, in Elementary School kids may have crushes, but the actual hormones associated with sexual orientation don't start flowing until when? Puberty. Middle School. Now, if they want to make sure everyone hears about it at this point, I have no problem with them approaching it on a surprise basis. Whether the parents like it or not, some children do end up gay and deserve to know what's happening.

The thing is, whether you believe homosexuality is wrong, or a sin, or whatever, it still exists. It is REAL. Ignorance is not bliss and it is the schools' responsibility to teach, to give kids an education. If a situation in Elementary School pops up, then it should be approached as a mere difference that can be accepted. My gay friends, like me (being straight) am more than just my sexual orientation- there is more to me than who I am attracted to. Teach tolerance and love and acceptance of differences in Elementary School. Full details aren't needed. When hormones start acting up is the time to make sure they understand the aspects of sexuality, including homosexuality.

Service, Charities and Causes

2012-03-20T15:20:00.000-07:00

So, I was driving the other day and I happened to see a homeless guy. For some reason, I read his sign and my brain processed, "Hottie-less". And I'm thinking, 'Is this guy imitating a homeless guy to try and get a date?' I know that is not what his sign said, but the thought of someone doing that to find a date actually did make me laugh. However, before I got home I saw at least 3 more homeless people holding up signs. I am one person, and can only do so much. Right now, I'm only NOT homeless because of the charity of family. I do not have money for all my groceries, insurance, car payments, cell phone, let alone rent too. I feel for these people. And while I am better off, it's not from any personal wealth I can give. I didn't do anything- truth is, I don't usually. I have never had a full time job, though some of my part-time jobs have been more demanding than others, and I'm in the process of making myself more marketable so hopefully I can get a good-paying full-time job. But I do go home thinking about the homeless, the less-fortunate, the sick, the poor, and several others. How do you decide how much you can give and which ones to give to?

Since being on facebook I have been bombarded with causes: Breast Cancer Awareness (the whole status message thing I usually do- it doesn't cost any money and only takes a brief amount of my time), but then I also get causes like stop abuse of children, stop internet porn, stop this or stop that... many of which I believe in. I don't think child abuse is right, I don't like porn's influence, and many other things. And then there's all the diseases, leukemia, diabetes, those who are disabled.... I doubt I've been invited to all the causes and charities out there, and I've probably gotten over 100 invites to different ones. I think I've mentioned not being well off, but there are those who are worse than me, but there is no way that I can donate to every cause, no matter how noble they are. So how do I choose?

Well, first off, my Church has a great Humanitarian Aid Program- 100% of the proceeds go to helping those less fortunate and helping out with natural disasters. They were the first on the scene after Katrina, they are there with every major natural disaster and I would say all of the minor ones where people need help. People volunteer their time out of the goodness of their hearts. Donating time where maybe they don't have money, to donate to a noble cause of helping those in need. Items and materials are donated. I donate to that when I can. Sometimes it is only a few cents at a time (sporadic babysitting doesn't always bring in much money) but I know that every cent goes to the cause I believe in and reaches out to people that I can't travel to, to help.

Then there's the Red Cross. Sometimes they are helping where my Church's Humanitarian Aid is also helping. They have some overhead costs, but 95% of your money goes to the cause you are supporting, the other 5% enables the fund to continue, so still worth it.

Then there are countless others. My Mom donates to a Research Fund on Diabetes- my brother was diagnosed with it when he was 4 1/2 and it is a personal cause for us. But I don't invite others to support it too, because they aren't affected by it the way my family has been. It doesn't mean the same thing. There are times when all the secondary causes are worth investing in, but if our funds are low we always have a portion of our time. Sometimes it seems like we don't have any time, but we can always make a little time, or donate old clothes to Goodwill or a similar charity, there is always some small service we can do for those around us, no matter how bad off we may feel we are.

Other Articles and Links:
Children help Children Through Humanitarian Aid Donations
What You Can Do
Our Values (a video on the Latter-day Saints' Humanitarian Aid Program)
Humanitarian Aid Patterns- patterns for projects and crafts you can do to help those in need
Latter-Day Saints Charities- specific causes where 100% of your money goes to the specific cause, the general fund is the Humanitarian Aid Fund, where proceeds go where needed- to natural disasters or any other humanitarian effort, but it ALL goes to helping those less fortunate

I have seen the benefit of the Church's programs. I have an Uncle who is a dentist and goes to South America providing dental work to those who need it. It's a small group- called Ayuda, and I was privileged to get to go with them when they went to a small town called La Abundancia in the Chaco region of Paraguay. The Church had notified my Uncle of these people, how they have had to move from their original lands because of a river changing and tribes fighting over the new geography of the land. The Church had already bought them the land where they were when I went, and built them a Church (they all happened to be members of the same Church) and a school. Their houses were very small and they were so poor. Over half of their children die when they switch from drinking their mother's milk to drinking the water in the town- because the water isn't that great. The next thing the Church was planning on doing was building a water tower, to keep the water clean from the elements and a purifying system. They had little food, yet there were times when they offered us food. Sometimes taking a roll they had saved would be taking their meal, possibly their only meal of the day.

Anyways, being among them, they served us- with smiles, with stories and testimonies of surviving trials and hardships and being willing to share the little they had with us. No matter what our situation, we always have something to give, whether it is our time or our money, or just a smile, or a story/testimony of merely surviving trials and hardships, sometimes we do more than survive, but there is always something to share, something we can give to uplift or brighten someone else's day. I try to remember to look for opportunities to serve, even when it is not as big as donating money to various causes and charities, small things matter too.

Kony: some Criticisms examined; give Russell a break for the arrest, and Decide for yourself

2012-03-19T16:25:00.000-07:00

So, 'Kony 2012'. I've watched the video on facebook. I found it moving. I didn't donate or do anything really. I have mixed feelings about things like this. First off, America has a reputation for not caring about the rest of the world- and in that case I'm proud to say that America IS paying attention- at least to certain things- and sure, why not start with the worst guy on the list of international 'bad guys', to put it simply. At the same time, how many of the people involved in helping ignore signs of depression and poverty and crimes against humanity in our own communities, or in our state, or just our country. I have seen many in my life who are destitute, or are victims of violent crimes- what do I do to help them? Well honestly, I can't say- I try to be friendly, whether I'm aware of a situation or not. I try to reach out to those in need. I try to listen when someone needs to talk. If I'm aware of other actions that are needed I try and look for them, but honestly I don't know how well I do.

Some criticisms of Kony 2012 include the mention of the video saying one of its purposes is to raise awareness and to contact congressmen so that we can keep the United States in Uganda, when people in Uganda say he isn't IN Uganda anymore. So why are we sending an army to Uganda to catch someone NOT THERE? Should he be stopped? Yes. Do people who have suffered because of him want justice? Yes. But send people to get him where he is, not where he is not. (There's a video from a girl who was affected by Kony and her reaction to Kony 2012 HERE).

Then there is the question of the groups finances. How much that is donated is actually going TO the cause? I heard one statistic that I haven't yet verified saying 30 cents for ever dollar... So if you donate $100- only $30 goes to help arrest Kony. An article on CNN says: "Actress Mia Farrow, a good will ambassador for UNICEF who has visited areas attacked by the LRA, commended Invisible Children for bringing "unprecedented focus" to a horrific situation but urged people to donate money to agencies like the Red Cross and UNICEF that work to help victims." ( Article is titled: "Group behind anti-Kony video rebuts criticism, urges public pressure" (title is a link to actual article)) Whatever the actual percentage of money going to the cause- it is NOT 100%. It is spending all of its efforts to try and capture Kony, yet in the video itself it mentions that Kony seems to have gone into hiding and is said to be changing his tactics. Shouldn't that makes us more wary of what we do publicly? Sure, it's fine for us, he's still in Africa- what can he do to us? But what can he do to the people in some village perhaps 30 minutes away from him? What if we have some psycho who will massacre thousands just to create a diversion to escape? I am more for helping the victims through funds like the Red Cross. I want him arrested, but how do we know if the methods of Kony 2012 are the best?

Create awareness- yes. Post it to your facebook wall? Sure. People need to be aware of what is happening in the world. But think about the cause before donating. Do YOU agree in the cause AND its methods? If so, great, I support you in your donations. In the financial world you can invest money in many different ways- there are safer, conservative ways that almost guarantee a return of your money and maybe some interest and those that are more risky and may produce the desired result and may fail due to unforeseen circumstances. Some people like those risks- it fits their personalities. For me though, I think I'll stick to the Red Cross and a few other ones I trust to get the job done that I invest in.

As for the director being arrested. His family say he has never had a drinking problem or a drug problem. The fact remains- he was creating a public disturbance, acting kinda crazy, and was said to be drunk and possibly under another influence. Here's the thing: THIS guy BELIEVES in his cause. It is PERSONAL to him. He wants to see Kony receive justice. I agree with him. He believes his methods will work. Yet people publicly criticize his work- what he has dedicated so much of himself to. If you cared about something that much, wouldn't you be stressed if people publicly criticized it? I know I've done a little of that here. But what I'm saying is- he's human. If he was dehydrated and sleep-deprived, and hadn't eaten, he could've gone for a drink and ended up with alcohol poisoning. That doesn't mean he has a problem with drinking- it means one mistake. Publicly humiliating? Yeah. But I don't think many people alive could bear as much criticism as he is about something they care about as much and not react to it. People all react differently- some eat more, some won't eat. Some will have a drink, others with problems might go further. Either way, give the guy a break.

His video saying we want to keep the US in Uganda. Maybe they say that to keep the army close enough to act without publicizing their plans too much. If so, I would agree with that tactic to protect more of the people he is likely to be able to hurt. The money doesn't all go to the arrest of Kony- true, but some of it goes to the cost of furthering awareness. To get more money, isn't awareness a must? Maybe they took it too far, but I believe he is doing his best for a cause he believes in, the way he thinks is best. If you agree- then by all means, support Kony 2012. If not, I still think you should help spread some awareness of Kony 2012. If we can start showing mutual support in going after the "bad guys" we can one day, make a huge difference.

Other articles worth reading:
Kony 2012 Video (actual Youtube Video)
'Kony 2012' director Russell not on drugs or drinking, family says
Opinion: Why Kony 2012 created the wrong buzz
Man behind 'Kony 2012' arrested- for masturbating in public
Kony 2012: Viral video for the misinformed?

Make a Difference- Whitney Houston/Michael Jackson

2012-02-13T10:33:00.000-08:00

So, with Whitney Houston's death it has made me think a bit. My husband told me about it first, then my Dad today said "your icon died yesterday" (don't know why he called her my icon exactly). The thing is, I love Whitney Houston and her music. AMAZING voice. Legend. But my icon? Maybe one of them as far as singing goes I suppose.

Anyways, it got me thinking about how much press it has gotten. Tributes. News. My grandpa is bedridden and likes watching the news all day- instead of mainly politics (especially right now) there is more on Whitney Houston than almost any other genre (politics, other breaking news, foreign news...). The thing is, did she make an impact on the world? Sure. Through her music she reached millions of people. Same with Michael Jackson. Yet both of them had, no offense, kinda messed up personal lives.

Whitney Houston, for some reason, turned to heavy drugs and alcohol abuse and even damaged her own voice- her main influence on the world.

Michael Jackson- great music that also reached millions- probably more than Whitney, but I don’t know the statistics. But his personal life was always mixed up with controversy on the news.

Both, good looking people (originally, anyways). Both AMAZING artists. Both legends. Yet their personal life was somehow unfulfilled.

Then, on top of all this, I was watching Smallville where a girl, Cat Grant, is talking to Clark Kent (Superman), and she talks about how she changed her name to protect her son so they couldn’t be tracked down (sounded like possibly an abuse situation but they didn’t go into details). Then she says something insightful- ‘I may not be a hero, but I hope one day my son will know what I did and think it was heroic and I can be a hero to him.’ (PARAPHRASE- I didn’t think I would be using the quote when I heard it so I have no notes on how it officially goes). THIS is what I want all of us to think on. Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson reached so many people in their public lives, and influenced people through music. Maybe not heroes to everyone, but I doubt anyone can say that they didn’t leave an impact on the world, but their private lives were a struggle. For me, my public life is a struggle: I have no far-reaching fame. I’m not a famous novelist, blogger, singer, actor, or any type of public figure. Even those things I do go mostly unrecognized or are considered insignificant to the masses. But if I live my private life to the best of my ability, maybe one day I will be an icon to a son or daughter, a friend or friend’s child, or someone I meet only once. Maybe I can make a difference and be a legend in one person’s eyes, or make a difference for just one person. And even if we only affect ONE person, our life is meaningful and worth living for that ONE person whom we helped. May we all strive to have meaning in our lives and affect the world for the better- one person at a time. (Unless you’re famous- then you can try for higher numbers at a time, of course).

By Their Fruits...

2012-01-28T13:37:00.000-08:00

An important rule to live by: "By their fruits ye shall know them" St. Matthew 7:16-20, "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth devil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (KJV of the Bible, emphasis added)

I do not follow the political campaign as much as I probably should but I am kind of at ends with the fact that religion is playing so much a part in it. When Obama was elected there were rumors of him being Muslim. So what if he was/is? Or descended from one even? Ignorant people may blame ALL Muslims for terrorism, but those who look into the matter find that it was just an extremist faction. People have free will, the ability to act for themselves. Just because one person decides to speak for a religion does not make him an expert on the matter. Research their credibility to speak on the matter before believing everything they say. Ignorance does not help tolerance. Some people say, why bring attention to Mitt Romney's religion- we don't draw attention to others if they happen to be Catholic, Jewish, Protestant or another mainstream religion. But the thing is, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (some may recognize it more by the Mormon Church) IS mainstream. More and more people join its members all the time. So why do people bring it up as a flaw in his character? Because of ignorance.

Mormonism is a cult. Definition of cult (from Dictionary.com) "1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies." True. We do have routines that we go through with our worship. We have the sacrament which is both a religious rite and ceremony and ordinance that is very similar to the Catholic Communion. (We partake of bread and water- not wine, the same prayer is said every time, and it is passed to us by members of our Church's Priesthood) "2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult." Somewhat true. Our members have free will and can choose how devoted they want to be. No one forces us to go to Church, though there are times when we reach out to those we haven't seen in awhile. I don't see how that is different than running into a gym pal who stopped working out and saying, "I haven't seen you in awhile at Gold's" To which he can say anything he wants: I've been busy, out of town, I switched gyms, I couldn't afford it anymore... etc. So I don't see how even those who do dedicate themselves to their beliefs are scary (Unless of course what they believe in would lead them to do scary things- I'll address this later). "3. the object of such devotion." For those who dedicate themselves to the beliefs held in the Mormon Church- true I suppose. "4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc." True. Most definitely. We classify ourselves by our MUTUAL belief in the SAME doctrines, the SAME leadership, the SAME foundation, and the SAME Savior. "5. Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols." True. Everything has symbolism. Our baptism by immersion represents to us that we are leaving the natural man or fallen man behind- that the fallen man is dead and being buried and we are reborn and come up out of the water cleansed by our Savior Jesus Christ, and become reborn anew in His name. The bread and water of our Sacrament is all a symbol of Christ's sacrifice for us. So by the dictionary definition MOST, if not all, churches fall under the definition of a cult. Now as for the connotation of the word cult. Most of the time when Mormons are thought of as a cult it is in reference to the connotation of the word- meaning that we are brainwashed to follow a misguided leader. This can be scary. It is similar to people following a dictator who seeks to rule the rest of the world and bring it under submission by force. Is the Mormon Church a cult in this way. NO. Most people ignorantly think we are using such examples as the "Mormons" who followed Warren Jeffs. The current Mormon Polygamists. They often live in compounds. Women are sometimes forced into marriages. The whole view of that "sect" is derogatory. And if you ask a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they agree with you. Just like terrorists who use a Church as a shield or excuse for why they do the things they do, they are broken off from the majority of Muslims. Most Muslims (I say most because if I said all, I'd eventually run into the ONE who disagreed) in America do not agree with what they do. The Mormon Polygamists are an extreme group that BROKE off from our Church DECADES ago. They have nothing to do with us currently. That is part of the reason why we try not to use the term Mormon anymore. It's derogatory and also brings in reference to people with whom we do not agree with and are not associated with. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as a short name now prefers LDS. But we prefer the full name which points to who we believe is our Savior- Jesus Christ, whose name is not mentioned in the nickname. For writing purposes I will write LDS from here on out. The Polygamists sometimes use the term FLDS- but they are not associated with our Church. The LDS Church is strange to people in a lot of ways. We are very devoted to what we believe in, and many people do not understand what we believe in, so they fear we MAY be a cult in the derogatory connotation of the word. I can personally assure you we are not- but if you have doubts, research it for yourself. See what it teaches its people on lds.org or visit mormon.org to see stories of individuals and how their faith in God and Jesus Christ has helped them in their lives and "by their fruits shall ye know them".

Other things people have a hard time with. Is the LDS Church a Christian Church? Yes. Why are there arguments? Several reasons. They don't baptize in the name of or believe in the Holy Trinity. Research your own faith. The Holy Trinity as defined by other Christian Churches was decided by a group of men, involved with writing the Nicene Creed, a few centuries AFTER Jesus Christ's Crucifixion. The Holy Trinity is basically The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. It's interpretation today is hazy and changes depending on who I talk to. The best I can describe it as, is that they are one, but they are not one. They are the same person but they are not the same person. The LDS believe: "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost" (Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Article #1). So the LDS also believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. In the Nicene Creed it says they are consubstantial (definition: of one and the same substance, essence, or nature.). From what I understand of the Holy Trinity, it interprets it to mean of the same substance and essence and nature. In the LDS case it's just the same nature. They are three separate individuals to the LDS, who have the same purpose- to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39, LDS Scriptures in the Pearl of Great Price). Being three separate individuals they are able to stand on the right hand of another. So in my opinion everyone believes in the same thing- they just interpret it slightly differently. (Food for thought: have you ever talked with a person of another faith and found you interpreted the SAME scripture a different way? Yet even if they are both Christian faiths, you don't accuse them of being not Christians.) LDS baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, our Redeemer- our example, who points the way to God and to Heaven.

On the issue of the cross. I have met some Christians who say the LDS are not Christian because they do not worship or use the cross as a symbol of their beliefs. LDS people believe in the Crucifixion of the Lord as much as any other Christian. Jesus Christ's whole life was devoted to saving mankind. Teaching them, showing them the way and atoning for the sins of the world. He overcame death. The LDS Church believes He overcame spiritual death (death being a separation, and spiritual death being specifically a separation between us and God) in the Garden of Gethsemane right before His crucifixion. That because of that sacrifice we can make it to Heaven, where God lives. And then He was crucified. That tragic, yet selfless and saving sacrifice where He gave up His life. Three days after His crucifixion He was resurrected- He overcame physical death that we might live again. This was the climax of his life- having conquered both spiritual and physical death that we might be saved and live after death. Might I remind Christians that our two biggest holidays are Christmas, where we celebrate His birth, and Easter where we celebrate His resurrection. He was resurrected as a result of dying on the cross- true- but that is not the end of the story. He lives! He CONQUERED death! The sting of death is swallowed up by His victory. Simply because the LDS choose not to focus on His death by using the cross as their symbol does not mean they don't believe that it was important. But it LED to his resurrection. His whole life pointed to Heaven. He lives in Heaven. He conquered and is not dead anymore. The spires on LDS Churches instead of crosses remind us that He lives, that death was not the end.

LDS preach the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. True. They believe the Book of Mormon to be another Testament of Jesus Christ (emphasis added). Any who have read it can attest that it is a record of how people who followed Christ were blessed. It is a second witness to the miracles Jesus Christ performed. The LDS Church believes the Book of Mormon WITH the Bible help us grow closer to Jesus Christ- just like reading uplifting stories of how people like Mother Theresa were Christ-like help us become inspired to become more like Christ. Catholics have Saints that are revered for how they followed the Savior- how does believing that more people, as recorded in the Book of Mormon, were blessed by Jesus Christ make someone not Christian? As for Joseph Smith- he is the reason the LDS Church is different from other Christian Churches. Look at the history of all the other Christian Churches. We have Christ and His Apostles. The next thing we know is we have the Catholic Church. Then other people broke off with Martin Luther, John Calvin and others, saying that things weren't right and one doctrine or another was supposed to be different. Joseph Smith is the leader of the LDS Church, just like Martin Luther and John Calvin were for their respective break-offs. The difference is, the LDS believe that it isn't a break off but a restoration for how it was meant to be. Believe whatever Church you may, but the LDS Church simply believes that certain doctrines weren't right, just like every other break off from the Catholic Church, yet all of them are still considered Christians. Joseph Smith is a prophet to the LDS, just like Moses was to the children of Israel in the Old Testament. Moses was not their God or Savior and Joseph Smith is not the God or Savior of the LDS Church either. He was simply the man who laid out, or restored (as LDS people believe) what Christianity should be like. Any focus on Joseph Smith the LDS Church places on Him does not replace Jesus Christ in its doctrines or in the members of the LDS Church's lives.

So now that I've addressed some of the issues around the LDS Church, let's get back to politics. What does it really matter what a candidate's religion is? I agree that I don't want someone in office who is part of a cult that may prove dangerous or disastrous to our country, but Mitt Romney's religion is mainly misunderstood due to ignorance. So let me say it again- does religion matter? Does it matter if the candidate is Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Atheist or Agnostic? I personally would rather they believe in God- to me it represents the fact that they believe in hope for a better world (anyone who believes in God or a God believes in some Heaven or blissful state). But if an Atheist has a hope for a better country and an idea as to how to get us there- isn't that belief in something better enough for us? We need a person who can lead us. What are the nation's biggest problems right now? Who can solve them? "By their fruits shall ye know them". Who has proven in their lives up to this point that they can compromise in office? Who has proven that they have skills in helping our country where we need it the most? Who has experience in convincing others to see like him or compromise and then get it into action so that things can actually pass in Congress? I don't care if you vote for Mitt Romney or anyone else, but don't withhold your vote because you don't understand his religion. Pick who has shown by their fruits (the things they've done in their lives) that they are best suited to our nation's biggest problems according to YOU. Research what they are capable of, and what they can do for good and vote accordingly. Do not pick someone who can manipulate your feelings based on a good speech full of empty promises- see if their fruits/experiences show that they can deliver at least a portion of what they promise. So metaphorically speaking, decide what fruit you think this nation needs the most and figure out who can get it. "By their fruits shall ye know them"

Koran Burning and Mormons on Broadway

2011-04-28T11:32:00.000-07:00

This is actually based off of an article one of my friends posted on facebook. The original story is HERE. I was aware of the new Broadway play about the Book of Mormon and Mormons in general. I had some friends who wanted to protest it at first. I was also aware of contentions with the Koran in Florida and how a preacher decided to burn Korans. There have been threats of this for several months now, but I guess they finally did it.

Anyways, Richard Grenell tells us: "Some Muslim followers in Afghanistan reacted to the burning by storming the UN compound and killing innocent international public servants. The Mormon Church reacted to the musical by pointing the public to the superficial nature of it and the supernatural power of their faith." He talks about how the burning of the books was insensitive and intolerant of our Muslim friends. It is. He also says that the burning of the book which was an expression of freedom of speech didn't endanger lives like the killing of innocent people. He compares the reaction of the Mormon Church. The Church did come out and make an official statement. It told the members not to worry about it. And it IS a different reaction. And while I'm not trying to justify the killings in Afghanistan, I don't feel it's the same thing.

The Mormon musical makes fun of Mormons, or so I've been told. But it's entertainment. Most people going to shows know that it's making fun of something (and making fun of things usually happens through exaggeration). It's not always based 100% on facts. So while it may be irreverent and mocking of the Mormons it is not a direct attack. Some who may already not like the Mormons may like them less after seeing it, but those who are neutral will likely stay neutral after seeing it. Whereas the burning of the Koran, to me seems like a direct attack. It was not done in an effort to entertain, but make a direct statement in opposition to their beliefs and completely intolerant of their beliefs.

Now onto the reaction. The killings in Afghanistan. In the story it says SOME Muslim followers were responsible for the killing. These, in my opinion, were a bunch of hot-headed, easily angered Muslims. It is a reflection of extremists responding to an extremist. To compare these select members with the Church's official statement seems unfair. The Church's official statement doesn't show any local, or personal levels of rebellion or protesting. Granted I know that if there had been any killing there would have been news coverage. So basically, although, being a Mormon I'm proud of the example my Church set as a whole, I don't think it should be used as a standard to compare with the Koran burning and how it affected some followers.

Yay for the Mormon Church's response to the mocking Broadway musical. How intolerant and insensitive the burning of the Koran was in Florida and shame on the people who killed innocent people in reaction to the burning. But most Muslims did not react the same way. I don't know how a Muslim could not be saddened or offended by the burning of their sacred book, but most of them did not lash out against innocent people who possibly shared nothing in common with the 'burner' than the name of the country the were from.

Dictatorship or Democracy?

2010-01-26T15:55:00.000-08:00

This may sound a little drastic but I'll explain. We live in a democracy- or I guess if you get down to it, we live in a republic democracy. In my communications class we have been discussing the importance and purpose of journalism. The purpose of journalism is to increase the public's interest in what is going on and portraying the facts so that they can make an educated decision.

I will admit, I have a love/hate relationship with politics. I've never been one to get into the news or even newspapers (funny that I am now going into journalism which feeds into the news and newspapers, but I DO like having a voice). Anyways, I have sometimes avoided politics because I felt the system was corrupt. I'm not sure I disagree with this statement now, but I also have grown to love politics. I LIKE being involved and I feel everyone should be.

So onto my title- it may be a little extreme but I think it helps us see the issue at stake. People complain about how Obama is making our country communist, or trying to form a dictatorship. Fears also that have been made extreme to generate a larger audience. The thing is, a lot of people DON'T agree with what Obama is doing, so they create fear in what COULD happen. And I guess it's true, to an extent. But we still live in a democracy, and if we USE that power, then nothing that drastic can happen.

BUT are WE allowing it to go TOWARDS dictatorship by not participating in our democracy? We have a voice if we choose to use it. We can vote. We can write letters to our representatives and senators that we elected (the republican aspect of our government). If we choose not to speak, collectively as a population, then who IS speaking? Only the Senate, the House of Representatives and the President. So maybe not a dictatorship of one person, but if we do not participate WE are limiting the amount of voices in our government.

So going back to my Obama post- instead of taking the time to write and send around hate mail- why not write a letter about WHY you don't agree and send that around, and if people agree MAYBE they'll start sending it into their representatives as well. There are always at least two sides to a situation, but if we never speak up, how can we blame someone else for our government becoming more of a dictatorship for our OWN laziness at being involved? Sending hate mail does NOTHING, and so it is NOT being involved. So be heard, write your thoughts and seek to inform people of your opinion in a way that can actually generate a result, and send it to people who can DO something about it. Hate is not the answer- creating fear in people isn't the answer- or at least I don't think it is. That's how Hitler gained his support- he played on the emotions without INFORMING enough so people could make LOGICAL decisions that could've brought them out of their depression without starting a world war. Participate and don't HATE!

Obama

2010-01-19T17:48:00.000-08:00

I have titled this blog as "Obama" for a reason. I'm not really going to talk about who he is, or what he is, or even my opinion on him. Suffice it to say, he's not my favorite person (but I don't hate him) and I didn't vote for him, but I ALSO feel some of the ridicule is ridiculous.

Here's the thing, I have learned from being in leadership positions that everyone has a different way of doing things. SOMETIMES there's a right way and a wrong way, but it's determined by the OUTCOME. Whenever something goes wrong, those in leadership get blamed- but really? Can YOU do better? If not, then how can you so rudely criticize? I can understand knowing idealogies and trying to share them to better the country's atmosphere, but friendly criticism and just hating because you don't agree are two different things.

So I don't agree with Obama, BUT he has 4 years to try out his ideas. Like it or not, he was elected- it's now his chance to do HIS best (not what you think is best- should've voted for yourself if that's the case) to try and fix the problems our nation faces. If he screws up ROYALLY, we have to have faith in our government to impeach him before we are beyond repair. But I find it hard to believe that ONE man can destroy our democracy. Even Obama followers don't want a dictatorship. So therefore, I don't think we can lose everything. And we do have checks and balances in our system set up.

So in my opinion, be involved in politics, speak out when you disagree, so that the checks and balances can make sure nothing goes alright. So give him a break, even if you don't agree with him. If you don't like what he does VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE NEXT ELECTION!

On Brands

2009-01-23T14:41:00.000-08:00

So, I don't know why but it seems I've been thinking a lot about brand names. The world we live in can be full of brand names: Gucci, Louis Vuitton, BCBG, Roxy, and MANY others. At times it is very materialistic. I understand this to a point, and I do care about brand names to an extent. I buy Kraft Parmesan Cheese, I get into certain brand names of pants- Arizona Jeans were a favorite of mine for awhile (though those were a lot cheaper than some brand names). What's in a brand name? Or even what's in a name?

It seems that reputations are attached to brand names and names in general. Let's think of an analogy. Let's say you are in high school and Brandy is the popular girl in school. She's at the very top. So because she's at the top, you decide that she must be something special and so you decide to tell her your most embarrassing secrets. Well unfortunately Brandy doesn't know you- you are not in her circle of friends. What does she do? She thinks the secrets are hilarious and starts telling them, maybe not with the intention of hurting you even, but simply because she thinks they're funny. And now your name is known for the embarrassing secrets instead of the intelligence or talents you were known for before. And all because you trusted in a name.

Let's take a slightly different analogy. Let's say your best friend Angelique, has proven herself time and time again as loyal- she understands you, she compliments you and when you're around her you're a better person. If you tell her your secrets she respects them. But Angelique isn't known for being loyal, or understanding, but you have gotten to know her and you know her to be just that. Let's take it a step further and say that Angelique is just as pretty and stylish as Brandy, she just isn't known because she's not outgoing and showy about it.

That is the way I see brand names. Big labels are known for their adherence to fashion. But other lesser known brands also mimick the fashions of the designer brands. Some do a good job and others don't. I understand if you buy designer jeans, cause #1 you have the money, and #2 you have found that they flatter your body and #3 you have found they are a good investment or some such reasons of logic. But if you are buying some brand simply for the brand name, I feel it is a waste of time. I think finding pants that fit are one of the hardest things to do. When I find a pair that works and fits well I stick with that brand. Cause they have proven to me that they understand my body shape and are designed to last long enough to make it worth however much they cost.

It is the same with food. I stick with Kraft Parmesan cheese, because they have proven to me that the taste they create is what I want. That is the purpose of brand names to me. To carry with it a reputation. But sometimes just because a brand is well known isn't because of their loyalty to their customers or their value as far as how long they last. Sometimes it is only because of the fashion and to create an air of "I'm better than you because I have such and such a brand." That's not a brand worth buying to me. I would much rather have a knock-off brand- get the same style and save my money for something more useful than trying to prove through meaningless ways that I am someone because I lucked out in the money department. That proves nothing about my character, and I am way more than a brand name.

Once again, I don't care if you like certain brand names, and I don't care how much they cost- all I'm saying is I hope you are using it because the brand has proved its value to you and not simply because of it's popularity due to a passing fad.

Why I believe in “Yes” for Prop 8

2008-10-22T14:03:00.000-07:00

First I want to preface this by saying that I don’t mean to offend anyone. No political vote has been won unanimously and so if I am voting contrary to what you feel I hope you do not find personal offense to it. My beliefs are my beliefs. They pertain to my religion, which means that not all my sources will be considered credible to everyone reading this. But my stands on this has not been dictated to me by my church- it is simply what I have decided to believe on and I know that although I was taught by others in my church, I have done my own studying and know for myself that I am not being manipulated by anyone in my beliefs. That doesn’t mean that you have to believe as I do, but I am going to write them as I believe in it, and hopefully people will be able to understand my view, even if they do not agree with it, and hopefully know why it is so important to me. If people want to comment you may. Write things like, I agree, or ask questions if you don’t understand something… Do NOT leave questions if you are trying to start a debate- that is not my purpose in writing it. If you disagree you may state so and if you wish to write something contradictory I suggest leaving a link, do not write it in your comment. My actual beliefs are not up for debate, they are, in a sense, fact, since you cannot tell me that it is not how I feel, but if you wish to show a different view leave a link to something that shows your opinion and your standpoint. I’m not looking for loopholes in my logic- my beliefs won’t change, but if you wish for me to clarify something ask. If you leave a link I will read it, but if it suggests a debate I probably won’t comment on it. If you fail to comply with my wishes on MY note, your comments may be deleted. So be warned to write your opinion elsewhere.

I’m also going to say that I have some quotes from the Bible. I use the King James Version- it was the first one to be translated into English and although some may find it hard to understand, hence the other simplified versions I believe it to be the most correct since it was an original translation, not a translation of a translation (some of you may be aware of what happens in the game of telephone), so I will do my best to explain what the scriptures mean to me. This once again relates to what I believe. If you believe differently that’s fine, but I am stating it as fact because it IS what I believe to be true.

First I want to start with a broad overview of something that may seem impertinent, but I promise to connect it all before I’m through. What makes a nation great? Throughout all of history there have been many great nations. How many have lasted? What has been the cause of their falls? Historians will tell you that it was due to weakness in leadership, geographical weaknesses that made it easy for invasion, economic difficulties, or any number of other things. I believe that there is a different thread that ties, at least most falls of civilizations together. (This is my theory, but it is also my belief- that there is a different reason for at least most falls of civilizations.) I believe that the two greatest sins are murdering and those revolving around chastity, fornication, adultery and yes, even homosexuality. These two things have to do with the giving and taking away of a life. I think most Christians will tell you it is wrong to kill. A lot of Christians also believe it isn’t ethical to clone because you are taking God’s power to create into your own hands. I believe that the way that children are brought into the world is very important and though I will readily admit that no family is perfect, I do believe that every child should have the right to be raised by a mother and a father. There are certain divine qualities, or natural gifts, instincts, roles that are given to both men and women and I believe it takes one of each in a family. Yes I know sometimes there are single parents, due to divorce, death, any number of reasons. I also know many gays and lesbians who are very caring individuals, who would probably do well with children, but there are certain things, no matter how qualified a person is that the child would miss out on. You don’t have to agree with me on this point. I do know that if God had created two males or two females alone we would not be here. He created Adam and Eve, a man and a woman, and that is what I believe to be the divine institution of marriage. No matter who raised you, whether it was a mother and father, a single mom or dad, or even two caring individuals of the same sex, no one would be here if, somewhere along the line there was not a man and a woman. Since this union is how I believe children ought to be brought into the world, (sometimes they are and sometimes they aren’t- this world isn’t perfect) this issue of marriage and how it is defined is also important to me.

Now, to continue on, I believe that you cannot sin in ignorance- “Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15. Other similar scriptures include: Romans 5:13, James 4:17, and 1 John 3:4 which talk about how you need to know to sin, or you sin when you know and don’t follow through). This does not however pertain to the laws of the land, but the laws of God. His laws are not voted on, they are what He says, so don’t mix this up with laws in our land where if they were abolished they wouldn’t be wrong anymore. (If murder was allowed in this country it would still be morally wrong.) But I also believe that you cannot be saved in ignorance. Well, I believe that God doesn’t change- even if society does. So, to me, marriage was originally between a man and a woman and in God’s eyes it will always be defined. Also, God always sent prophets. I believe these prophets were supposed to warn the world- as much as they could, so that they could be saved. But once a people were no longer ignorant they can now sin. This is what happened in the Biblical account of Sodom and Gommorrah.

“And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; … And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night… and they turned in unto him, and entered his house.” (Genesis 19:1-3) So far, some holy men or angels have come to Sodom and Lot invited them to stay at his house, and they did. “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round… And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” (Gen. 19:4-5) So, the men in the city came and surrounded Lot’s house and asked for the angels to come out, and it says, so that they may know them. This may sound harmless to you in our English, but since it is the King’s James version, it was written in the English of the time. In this case, both the Hebrew word it was translated from and the original English use the word ‘know’ in place of a sexual word. To know someone “Biblically” is to have sex with them. And these are men asking to have sex with other men. And Lot said, “I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; …” (Gen. 19:7-8) So Lot tried offering up his daughters, although it would still be a sin, a lesser one to try and persuade them to not commit such an act. I believe Lot thought he had raised his daughters well and that they might be able to persuade them not to commit a sin and also had been taught well enough that they would not allow any sexual sin to be committed with themselves either. Then in the next few verses the people tried to break into Lot’s house. They basically think that Lot has made himself a judge over them and plan to deal with Lot, his daughters and the two men who are staying with Lot. The two angels are able to stop the men but tell Lot and his family to leave. (In the previous chapter the Lord had said that he wouldn’t destroy a city if there were righteous people within it, and so Lot and his righteous family members are now leaving.) Then the city is destroyed, because of the sins of the city which has been manifested in this story. (The complete story continues through verse 29.)

Now you may say, well that is a Biblical account- it’s only pertaining to one belief- one people, one time. Well, here is where other times come into account. We don’t know much about the Xia dynasty in China but we have the writings of the next dynasty. In “The Mandate of Heaven” recorded in the Book of Documents, Yi Yin, an advisor to the first king of the Shang dynasty is giving advice to the new king. He relates things about the previous dynasty and keys of success that had been lacking in the Xia dynasty. “… the former kings of Xia cultivated earnestly their virtue, and then there were no calamities from Heaven…. But their descendant did not follow their example, and great Heaven sent down calamities, employing the agency of our ruler…. The attack on Xia may be traced to the orgies in Ming Tiao.” The original kings of the Xia were virtuous according to this and therefore there was no struggle with power, but then their descendant, the last king of the Xia dynasty had orgies. It is not fact that that was the cause of the fall, but that’s what Yi Yin thought. Then he continues with counsel for the next king starting with discussing three “fashions” which will shortly be explained.

“If you dare to have constant dancing in your palaces, and drunken singing in your chambers,- that is called the fashion of sorcerers; if you dare to set your hearts on wealth and women, and abandon yourselves to wandering about or to the chase,- that is called the fashion of extravagance; if you dare to despise sage words, to resist the loyal and upright, to put far from you the aged and virtuous, and to seek the company of…youths,- that is called the fashion of disorder. Now if a high noble or officer be addicted to one of these three fashions with their ten evil ways, his family will surely come to ruin; if the prince of a country be so addicted, his state will surely come to ruin…. The ways of Heaven are not invariable.”(Andrea p. 25-26)

Yes it might have been biased, but there are facts written in there such as how it said the previous king was known to have orgies and then lists the opinion that the author of this document isn’t sure if that was the cause of the fall. This document also proves that my theory is at least not brand new. That the laws of God or Heaven do not change and that when sexual sins enter into the reigning authority and is there accepted that is when a nation falls.

Then there is Troy. The fall of Troy. Why did Troy fall? Well, you could blame it on the fact that they didn’t have Achilles. You could say that their army wasn’t superior, or even that they fell for the clever ploy of the Trojan horse. But the truth is, why were the armies there in the first place? Paris stole away the wife of Menelaus, Helen. We know it was considered wrong in the eyes of the people there because of Paris’ brother’s reaction when he finds out. We also know that it was soon justified away. Well, this sin is alright because she’s happy, or whatever. Not the best thing to do. Don’t rationalize away your sins. So, in my opinion, why did Troy fall? Because they were not ignorant about adultery being wrong and yet they did it and accepted it legally as ok.

Now, this one I find interesting, although it is not a hundred percent tied to the actual Fall of the Roman Empire, but it does contribute to my theory. Towards the end of the Roman Empire there was the development of the Roman mime within Roman theater. “The Romans enjoyed sexually provocative dramatic material, and the emperor Heliogabalus, in the first part of the third century C.E., is said to have forced mimes to perform actual sexual acts.”(Wilson, p. 81) This was at the beginning of the third century and in 330 it was already clear that the Roman Empire was beginning to fall. You may think- big deal- that happens in Hollywood all the time. But if you remember, actors used to be all male. If sexual acts were being performed on stage, that means that it was homosexuality being publicly accepted and enforced. This was in a nation that had accepted Christianity as their religion, and had scriptures which condemned the practice.

This leads me to Romans 1. This chapter was written as an epistle from the apostle Paul to the Romans and pertains to homosexuality. According to the Bible, the laws have not changed. It is still a sin, just as it was when Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed. I have learned in my history classes that things are not addressed, laws are not made, letters are not written unless there is an issue with it. For example we wouldn’t make a law that said that we can kill aliens from outer space without being punished, unless there were aliens that proved to be or were thought to be dangerous. Well, in Romans chapter one, Paul is writing an epistle, or letter to the people residing in Rome. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [or showed] it unto them.” (Romans 1:18-19) So the wrath of God comes to those who are unrighteous who have the truth or knowledge of what they’re doing is wrong. Then it goes on,

“Wherefore God also gave them [the people who are sinning and have the truth] up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness….” (Romans 1:24-29)

So to go back and rephrase this, God let these people choose to dishonor their bodies, for He will not take away our agency, even when His laws do not change. It says that they twisted and changed the truth of God into a lie to justify their ways. When it says they worshipped the creature more than the Creator this refers to humans being the creature, as we are a creation of God, and they followed after corrupt ways that man came up with instead of honoring God’s laws and wishes and therefore no longer worshipping God but the creature. It refers to the sins as vile affections, saying that even the women were involved in doing things that are against nature. And when you think about it in nature, males mate with females, not males with other males, or females with other females. It says that men left the natural use of woman- that of reproducing, and instead of mating with females, as nature would suggest they turned to each other. Thus we have men working with men that which is “unseemly” or unnatural or in plain terms- homosexuality is unnatural.

Before I go on I feel I should address something else, kind of a side note to the main topic of this essay. I am declaring in this essay quite bluntly that I believe homosexuality to be a sin and the reason for falls of nations. But I am NOT saying we should be intolerant of these people. Many people would argue that God loves everyone and He does not discriminate. I’ve been told that God is no “respecter of persons”. I agree with them. I KNOW that He loves everyone, regardless of race, upbringing, genealogical ties, or sins. But He does not love the sin. Although some people may have a hard time (we are all humans) with drawing the line between the sin and the sinner, God is perfect. True Christians can stand up for what they believe in, what is sin and what is not, without hating the sinner. I know I am not perfect, but I do not seek to change God’s laws in ways where I fall short, I simply try to do my best, knowing that as I do He will make up the difference. In the Bible there is a story where Jesus is teaching in the temple,

“And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him, But Jesus stopped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” (John 8:3-11)

In this story you have a woman who was found to have sinner and was caught in the act. Yet we see that no one is perfect in this story. Jesus at the end says he does not condemn her. He says, “Go and sin no more.” In writing this article I don’t mean to throw any stones at any particular individual, for I am not without sin. But I am trying to stand up for the issue. God doesn’t say, I don’t condemn thee, let’s change the law and make it so that it’s not a sin anymore. He simply does not judge the sinner and still maintains that the sin is a sin. In voting yes for Prop 8 I am saying that I believe it is a sin to marry someone of the same sex. The civil rights have already been granted unto gays and lesbians so that the individual is not discriminated against. Some may feel that voting yes is a discrimination- that is where we would differ. I believe marriage to be ordained of God, and therefore I believe that, that definition should only be implied as God sees fit. If individuals choose to sin, as I see it, that is their choice, but I personally am not going to stand by and watch the sin become legalized.

Now as for the Book of Mormon, which I also believe in, there are scriptures in it prophesying about the promised land- this land- America. How we need to follow God and our country will be strong, until it no longer accepts the principles. In the Book of Mormon it shows us that the Lord gives commandments with promises and when we don’t keep our part the Lord has consequences. This is shown when He says, that inasmuch as they keep the commandments they shall prosper in the land. It talks about this land of America saying,

“Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.”(2 Nephi 1:7)

The Book of Mormon talks about people who lived in America anciently. And it shows people who went astray and were then destroyed. In the book of Ether, the prophet Moroni, the last prophet of the Book of Mormon writes,

“And he [God] had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fullness of his wrath should come upon them. And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fullness of his wrath shall some upon them. And the fullness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity. For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fullness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off. And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God- that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fullness come, that ye may not bring down the fullness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done. Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.” (Ether 2:8-12)

Now, in my personal opinion to throw God’s opinion of marriage out the window simply because society “demands” it is to throw God out of our lives as well. Just as in Romans 1:25 says, “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” In a way implying, we don’t need you anymore- we like society’s view better. I also believe that a nation becomes ripened in iniquity, or that the fullness of iniquity comes when certain things are legalized and legally considered acceptable in a country. And so I will stand for this union of marriage as I think it should be defined.

I am in no way a prophet. But in the Bible it says that you can know a true prophet from a false one by their fruits- meaning by their results. Prophets often give us prophecies, if these are true, then they can be considered a true prophet. I have my own interpretation of certain prophecies and if they are wrong it doesn’t mean that the prophets were false, only that I didn’t understand the prophecies accurately. But I believe that if Prop 8 does not pass it will be the beginning of the end of our country as we know it. I don’t know how long that fall would take and if it does pass, we may never know. But this is the way I see it, and if you thought, from your own personal studies that your nation that you love would fall apart wouldn’t you, no matter who you thought you were offending, stand up for what you believe? Even if you do not agree with me, or think my logic isn’t sane, I hope you can at least see, at the very least, that my concern stems from not only what I feel is right, but what is actually best for all of us. When nations fall there is chaos for everyone and there are usually deaths- I would not wish that on anyone. Yes, this may seem a little extreme, but I believe in God. I believe that this is important to Him, and I believe that if this country wants His help we need to stick to His values and not our own. "Every man lives his life for what he believes. Every woman lives her life for what she believes. Some people believe in little or nothing, but they give their life to that little or nothing. One life is all we have and we live it as we believe in living it and then it is gone. But to surrender who you are to live without belief, is worse than dying... yes, even worse than dying young."(see Bibliography 5)

Bibliography

(In order of use in the above essay)

1. The Holy Bible: King James Version. Translated under King James’ command. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt Lake City; 1979.

2. Andrea, Alfred J. and James Overfield. The Human Record: Sources of Global History. Sixth Edition/Volume 1: To 1700. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston; 2009.

3. Wilson, Edwin and Alvin Goldfarb. Living Theatre: A History. Fourth Edition. McGraw Hill, Boston; 2004.

4. The Book of Mormon. Translated by Joseph Smith. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt Lake City; 1981.

5. My mom quoted it from memory and said it was either from Joan de Arc the play or a quote from Joan de Arc when she was about to be burned at the stake. May not be an EXACT quote, but the meaning is still there.