I taught a lesson last Sunday in the Gospel Principles class on Priesthood Organization and it was great to study and think about how to teach about the organization of the Priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, especially at a time when there seems to be a lot of discussion about the Priesthood in various LDS circles, mostly focused on the question of whether or not women in the Church should receive the Priesthood.  After I taught that lesson, I found a very fascinating blog post written by a young LDS woman titled, 9 Wrong Ideas about Women and the Priesthood, which talks about her take on this question. I highly recommend reading that post because she takes an honest approach to both sides of the debate, not dismissing one side for being nigh-apostate, or the other side for being backward and sexist.

I was also discussing this with my wife and I would just like to take a moment to write a few of my thoughts on what the Priesthood is and why I draw strength from my knowledge and understanding of Priesthood organization.

First: Priesthood is given to men from God, it is not given to men by man.  If you believe that principle that the Priesthood is from God and that those who use and exercise their Priesthood righteously are acting for God, then you know that God is at the heart of this Church, that he is watching over it, and that he is in charge.  If and when he decides that women should be ordained to the Priesthood, then it will happen, but it will not happen before God decides it is time.  That is not to say that you should not talk about women getting the Priesthood, that you should not hope for it, but I do not believe that you should petition Church leaders to change the Priesthood policy according to your time frame.

If God is at the head of this Church, then he is aware of your desires and he will reveal his will when it is right.  A lot of people do not understand why it took until 1978 for worthy male members who were not white to receive the Priesthood, and I cannot claim to have any answer to that question, but I do know that the decision was not made because President Kimball was feeling pressure from external sources or because of protests or petitions that he had received.  The revelation came from God.  But, the revelation came to the President of the Church because he and his counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had long pondered and prayed about the matter.  So, perhaps there is some good to come out of writing letters, respectfully, to the General Authorities asking them to consider matters such as this, asking them to pray about it and seek the Lord’s will.  Reading the Doctrine and Covenants one sees that most of the revelations that Joseph Smith received regarding the organization of the church came in response to some member asking him a question and asking him to inquire of the Lord.

Second: The Priesthood is not organized as the world would organize it, nor is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a business or corporation.  Advancement in the Priesthood and ordination to different offices does not come when one has simply put in enough time, has paid their dues, or because they are liked by their ‘superiors’ in the Priesthood.  Again, this Priesthood is given to men by God.  When he decides that a man is worthy to receive the Priesthood or ordination to a new office or a specific calling within the Church, then he will inspire the appropriate Priesthood leaders to make that happen.  All who serve in the Priesthood serve knowing that their time of service in any particular position is limited and that they are not ‘working their way up the corporate ladder’ of the Church.  A man who serves as a Bishop is not necessarily then called to a Stake President, though that can and does happen, it is also likely that he is then called to teach in the Sunday School or to work with the Boy Scouts or in any other position where he is needed.

Third:  The Priesthood exists to serve and be a blessing for others, it cannot be used for self-aggrandizement or for prideful purposes.  As Joseph Smith taught,

Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

If I am not using my Priesthood to bless the live of my family and others, then I do not have the right to the Priesthood.  We discussed this in my lesson when we talked about Priesthood Keys.  Basically, the difference between Priesthood and Priesthood Keys is the difference between having the ability to do something and having the responsibility or the right to do that thing.  All men who are ordained to the Priesthood have the ability to serve in any calling they may be called to, but only those who are called to those position and receive the Keys to officiate in those positions have the right to revelation and guidance in that realm of responsibility.

I love this principle because it means that we have a perfect organization in the Church of Jesus Christ.  We do not have different people standing up with different ideas and confusion as to who has the right to make certain decisions.  Now, we are all human, we are all imperfect so you may run into people who either do not understand this or are choosing to use their Priesthood unrighteously.  If anyone claims to have a revelation regarding what you should do, all you have to do is ask yourself if that person has a position where they are entitled to receive revelation for you.  Are they your parents, Priesthood Quorum leader, Bishop, Stake President? If not, then you can politely thank them for their thoughts and proceed to ignore them, if you wish.  I had an experience like this when I was about to leave for my mission.  I had submitted my papers but not yet received the call, and a lady at church came up to me one Sunday and told me that she sometimes sees things and knows things about other people and she knew that I was going to serve in a place where the Church was young and growing and I would have the opportunity to be a great leader in the Church.  I was called to Hamburg, Germany, one of the oldest missions of the Church, missionaries have been in Germany since 1840.  I was a little weirded out by what she said, but I realized that she had no responsibility to be receiving revelation for me, and so I smiled politely, thanked her, and walked away.

God is a God of order and his Church is a Church of order.  It will always be clear who should be receiving the revelation to make certain decisions.  One of the members of my class described it as being similar to umbrellas.  When a person is given a calling or a Priesthood responsibility, they are given an umbrella and everything that is under their umbrella they have responsibility over, but anything outside of their umbrellas belongs to someone else, falls under someone else’s umbrella.

I am also impressed that this Church is so well organized that every square foot of this earth is delegated to some Priesthood authority.  I used to work technical support for the Church, and we worked somewhat with the Local Unit Support and saw their maps of each ward’s boundaries.  Every square foot of this earth belongs to some Local unit, has some Bishop or Branch President responsible for it.  Some ward boundaries are a little odd as they include miles and miles of desert or wilderness forest, but it is comforting to know that no matter where you are in the world, there is a Priesthood leader who has responsibility.

And there is also incredible redundancy in this Church when it comes to responsibility and caring for each person.  Every individual in this Church has several members of the ward who are to look out for them, each family has several organizations that have responsibility for different members, from Primary, to Young Women and Young Men organizations, to Priesthood Quorums and Relief Society.  And even a single sister who only belongs to the Relief Society has a Relief Society president and Visiting Teachers who care for her, as well as either and Elder’s Quorum President or High Priest Group Leader and Home Teachers who come and care and bring the Priesthood into her home to bless and serve her.

I am glad that I belong to a Church that has a Priesthood called of God, where the organization is clearly defined to avoid confusion and conflict, and where each member and family is looked after individually.  That is the purpose of the Priesthood of God, as we read in the Doctrine and Covenants,

And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God;

The Priesthood exists to ‘sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God’, and it can only be used for that purpose.  As we come together and discuss these principles honestly and without preconceived notions or the intent to argue or put another down, then we will come to a ‘knowledge of God’, we will know his will and he will reveal himself to us, collectively as a Church, and individually in our personal lives and in our families.  This I believe, that the Priesthood is a gift given to me for the benefit of others and to teach me how to become more like my Father in Heaven and his Son, Jesus Christ.

Related articles

• 9 Wrong Ideas About Women and The Priesthood (thepreppypanda.wordpress.com)

As I have been following the tragic events that have played out in the last few days, reading on Twitter and online News sources what is going on, I have been thinking a lot about the purpose of News and how News should be reported.  I have complained before about the downside of the 24-hours News service, being that there is rarely 24 hours worth of news in a day, so these 24-hour News services find themselves repeating and speculating and talking about nothing important or worthwhile, just to fill the time that they have.

That is what I have seen lately.  As soon as one News source believes they have even the least bit of something new, the most remotest connection to anything relevant, they begin to shout about it, causing the other News sources to cite that and report on what others are reporting.  It soon becomes ridiculous.

And I had a thought as I was reading a German News source’s report — The German word for News is Nachrichten, which literally means, when you take a look at that word, After- Judging.  Nachrichten, or News, is the act of judging after the fact.  The first instance we have of the word’s usage comes from the 16th century as “Mitteilung zum danachrichten” or a message to judge after the fact.  That is what I wish our modern News would be again, a judgment made after the facts are all in and have been investigated and understood.

We used to have time for journalists and reporters to gather their sources, check them thoroughly, cross-check and verify and then write the story before it printed in the next day’s paper or aired on the evening news.  But, with the internet and Twitter and CNN everyone wants to be the source that got their first with the latest, breaking-est News.  They seem to report anything that they believe is even slightly interesting as soon as they have it, just so they can have something new to say.  They seem to take the New part of News literally. I have even seen today, some news sources linking to the alleged Twitter profile of one of the suspects, as if that really matters to anyone, as if there is something in his Tweets that is relevant.  And to begin with, we are not even sure if this is the guy who did it, he is still just a suspect, no guilt or culpability has been established yet.

Which is the other problem I have with this rush to report everything now, we have lost the meaning of some of the most basic words in our legal system.  Words such as suspect, which only means the person is suspected of being involved.  But, as soon as one News source starts talking about a suspect, everyone goes crazy as if that suspect had already been condemned.  Do we not still believe in the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty‘?  I think back on the school shooting at Newtown, when News reporters were talking about the suspect by name, only to actually have had the wrong name.  In their attempt to report News as soon as they could, they did not check their facts and got the most crucial detail wrong.  And because the News had reported his name as being the suspect, he was receiving threats and being harassed as if he were guilty.

 

So, please, as we enjoy our ever more connected world, let’s please be smart and seek for News of events that have actually happened, that have details and have importance.  Please, let’s report the facts that are pertinent to the event and leave the speculation totally aside.  You are called the News, not the Guesses.

When I really think about it, I have mixed emotions when it comes to talking about Joseph Smith.  I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ to this earth, I honor and respect Joseph as a  great man who taught much, both with his words and his examples, yet, I sometimes feel that members of the Church put a little too much emphasis on Joseph, turning it almost into hero-worship.

I think part of this hesitation comes from an experience in high school.  I never hid the fact that I’m a Mormon, all of my friends knew and were okay with it, and aside from the occasional teasing about multiple wives or not drinking coffee, not much was mentioned about it.  But, one conversation I really remember centered on Joseph Smith and how he is treated and talked about by members of the Church.  This friend was a good Christian and could not understand how Mormons could, in his mind, violate the first commandment, Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.  The way he described his conversations with other Mormons, he got the impression that Mormons believe that Joseph Smith is talked about more in Mormon meetings than Jesus Christ.  And as I started paying attention to Sacrament meeting talks and Sunday School lessons, I found he had a valid point.  There were some times when I sat through an entire Sunday School lesson or Sacrament meeting talk without any mention of Jesus Christ, which should never happen in a Church bearing his name.

So, I have made it a point when I discuss my beliefs to always center them on Jesus Christ, and the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  But, at the same time, I have always been fascinated by Joseph Smith and his life. I believe in the verse in Doctrine and Covenants section 135, which reads,

Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. In the short space of twenty years, he has brought forth the Book of Mormon, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and has been the means of publishing it on two continents; has sent the fulness of the everlasting gospel, which it contained, to the four quarters of the earth; has brought forth the revelations and commandments which compose this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and many other wise documents and instructions for the benefit of the children of men; gathered many thousands of the Latter-day Saints, founded a great city, and left a fame and name that cannot be slain. He lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people; and like most of the Lord’s anointed in ancient times, has sealed his mission and his works with his own blood.

Smith’s later theology described Jesus and God the Father as two distinct physical beings. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

I was thinking about this the other day and I came across a post written by a friend of mine, who set up a script to find all of the scriptural references made during this latest General Conference.  One of the most quoted scriptures was Joseph Smith History 1:17, where Joseph Smith describes his first vision.  I love this experience, I love how it is described in the scriptures, and I love what it teaches us.

This experience is at the heart of what Mormonism is.  Without this prayer and first vision, there is no restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ.  And this experience by a 14-year-old boy provides the example for all of us as we seek to know Jesus Christ and learn his Gospel better, coming with the same question he had — “Which church should I join?”

Joseph Smith was a young boy concerned about the many churches he saw that all claimed to be based on the Bible, but ”the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.” (Joseph Smith History 1:12)

Joseph further writes of this time in his life,

In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?

While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know. (JSH 1:10-12)

And so, he decided to do as the scriptures instructed and ask of God.  He went into the nearby woods to find a place where he could be alone to make his petition, and he knelt down and prayed aloud. And he says,

I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! (JSH 1:16-17)

And that same experience is offered to each of us, and even required of each of us, when we find ourselves in the same situation as young Joseph Smith, wanting more wisdom, wanting to know which church to join.  We can and must, as Joseph Smith, find a quiet, private place and offer up the desires of our hearts to God.  And God will respond to us, just as He did to Joseph Smith.  He probably will not appear to us physically as He did to Joseph Smith, but he will give us an answer to our honest and heartfelt prayer. That promise is repeated again and again throughout our scriptures, the most quoted by Mormons appearing in Moroni 10:4-5,

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

For me, that is the greatest thing we learn from Joseph Smith.  True, he revealed many truths about celestial marriage and eternal families, about Priesthood organization and keys, about the nature of the Godhead and our relationship with our Father in Heaven, and those are important principles to know and understand and gain testimonies of at different times in our lives, but the very first step we must take, is the very first step that Joseph took — the desire to know and acting upon that desire by praying and asking God.

Joseph Smith teaches us both by what he taught and by his example that God loves His children and will answer prayers and give wisdom and guidance to those who ask him.  No one is expected to just believe what is taught in this Church, or any of the principles or doctrines.  All are asked and invited to study, ponder and pray and receive a personal witness from God, through the spirit that these things are true.  I know this is true, for I, too, have done as Joseph Smith and asked of God.  I have received a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through Joseph Smith.  I know he was a prophet called by God to restore these essential truths and priesthood ordinances.  And I know because I have asked to know.

View of Conference Center spire taken from south of the Center on North Temple St., Salt Lake City (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It was another wonderful weekend spent enjoying the uplifting words of General Conference.  I was able to get Saturday off work, and spent the whole weekend at home with my laptop plugged into our television streaming gc.lds.org with the family.  It was nice, a great spirit was felt during the messages and we have a lot to review and study over the next six months. As soon as the texts of the talks become available I plan on reviewing each one and writing  a post with my thoughts and reaction and my take-away from it, what I believe needs to happen next as a result of understanding the principles and doctrines taught in the address.

 Today, I just wanted to share a few overall thoughts from Conference and discuss a few of the recurring themes I noticed.  It always happens that several different speakers will mention the same ideas, often in very different ways, but still as a way of sustaining each other, reaffirming the principles and providing further understanding and insight.  As I listen to Conference I try to make note of these major themes and try to find what I believe the Lord is saying to me personally in my life and for my family.

 First:  There was a lot of talk about the standards of the Church, the standards of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that we need to stand as witnesses and not give in to the changing morals of the world.  Elder Perry was very forceful in announcing that the world at large seems to have completely forgotten, or chosen to ignore 6 of the basic 10 commandments.  And he’s right (of course), most of the world does recognize the importance of Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not bear false witness, and Honor your parents, but they disregard the rest.  It becomes our duty as followers of Christ to not only live the commandments that we know to be true and divinely appointed, but to speak out and encourage our friends and family and neighbors to do so as well.

 Going hand in hand with this, there was much talk about obedience and the blessings that come from obedience to the commandments of God.  Obedience brings blessings and safety and peace in a troubled world.  Obedience brings light in the darkness of a life that is confused and searching for guidance.  Obedience is the natural next step after one utters that simple testimony, “Lord, I believe”.  Once we believe, we need to act upon that belief.  I am reminded again of the phrase I learned in Germany, “Wennse weiß watte wills, musse machen datte hinkomms” — When you know what you want, you need to do (or act) so that you get there.  If I believe in Christ and believe in his promises of a celestial kingdom and a place in the mansions of His Father, then I need to do and act and obey so that I can get there.

 And again, building directly upon that principle is the truth that was repeated several times that we are literally the children of God, his sons and his daughters.  That He loves us and cares for us and wants us to achieve our full potential.  Which is why He has given us the instruction and the commandments that He has, to help guide us to become perfect even as He is perfect.  It was very interesting that the word literal was used at least twice that I noticed, in connection with being children of God.  That is a powerful truth that deserves to be reinforced in each one of us, and gives us the strength and the knowledge to continue faithfully and be obedient.

 But, of course perfect obedience is not possible in this life.  We will make mistakes, we will falter, we will commit sin and cut ourselves off from the presence of the Lord.  But, there is hope, there is good news and glad tidings, there is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that teaches that Christ came into the world to redeem the world.  The Lord wants to forgive.  Repentance is both possible and necessary.  Start where you are and begin today to be obedient and with repentance forgiveness will be granted and the guilt of sin will be washed away and healed, by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

And, then, once we believe and understand these principles and truths, it becomes our duty and our responsibility to share this message with the whole world.  Missionary work is not work, it is not hard, it is fun and as simple as sharing the basic truths that make you happy with those you come in contact with.  Every member a missionary does not mean that every member needs to pin on the nametag and go door-to-door talking to strangers in our search for converts.  If we merely open our mouths and our hearts and speak openly and honestly about our love of God and the principles and truths restored to the earth through modern prophets, and then simply invite our friends and family and neighbors to “Come and See”, that is the essence of missionary work.  It is not hard, it need not be scary.  Perfect love casteth out fear.

 And as I expected that there would be, there was a lot of talk about marriage, but not necessarily about gay marriage.  They talked about the purpose of marriage and how to strengthen marriage and the family. Going back to the basics, teaching that the family is ordained of God as the basic unit of society.  It was reaffirmed that God’s truths do not change in reaction to public opinion, but also that God is love and mercy and friendliness toward our fellow man.  Rather than focusing on why it is not God’s will that we allow same-sex marriage, the talks instead focused on the purposes of marriage and how marriages can be strengthened when founded and based upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 It was a great weekend and I am looking forward to having the texts available to review and read through.  Video of the talks are already on the Church’s website, and I took the liberty of watching a few of my favorite talks again today while at work.  It helps bring the spirit and keep a positive outlook.  I love this Gospel, I love this church.  I believe in God and in His Son, Jesus Christ.  I believe that He has once again called Prophets and Apostles and inspires them to teach the world.  And I believe that I can repent and be better than I am as I draw closer to Jesus Christ through study of the scriptures and daily personal prayer and obedience to the commandments of God.  It will be a fun six months as we pore over and internalize the messages we have heard this weekend.

I have written before about my thoughts on the same-sex marriage issue and where I stand (or at least stood at that time)  Once again, though, this issue is forefront in the media, and I have done a lot of thinking about what marriage means.  I would like to try and put some of my thoughts into writing, hoping that maybe by so doing I can organize them well enough to understand them and discover where I currently stand on this extremely complex issue.  I would also recommend reading this post written by a friend of mine , who writes so much better than I could ever hope to.  He explains a lot of what I never knew I was trying to say when discussing this issue with people.  It is definitely worth a read.

 

I will also reference a blog post written by another friend, in which he talks about the difference between marriage and civil unions and makes the point that it is only a semantic difference, but that this semantic difference holds volumes of difference when it comes to meaning.  This is because words have meanings and words influence thoughts and actions.  And words are so effective at changing the way people think and feel about certain concepts.

 

Part of what really bothers me about the present debate is how it is referred to:  Marriage Equality.  Those who want to allow homosexual couples to marry keep talking about marriage equality.  And inherent in that is the idea that if one does not believe that homosexual couples should marry they do not believe in equality.  It is similar to the abortion debate, with one side calling themselves “Pro-Choice” and the other side calling themselves “Pro-Life”, as if to say that anyone who disagrees with them must be either “Anti-Choice” or “Anti-Life” — which of course no one actually is.  So, because I believe that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman, there are those out there who will claim that I believe in Marriage Inequality, that I am anti-equality, or homophobic.

 

What also makes this whole debate difficult, is that I honestly do believe in many of the arguments made by the other side.  When those who believe in marriage being defined as I do, between one man and one woman say that allowing same-sex marriage would destroy the sanctity of marriage, those who want to allow same-sex marriage throw the counter-argument that high divorce rates, ridiculous marriage-based reality television shows, infamously short-lived celebrity marriages and instances of infidelity do more to destroy the sanctity of marriage than would allowing two individuals of the same gender to marry.  That is absolutely true, yes, but that does not mean that it would then be okay to allow same-sex marriage.  Instead, we should do more to protect the value and worth of marriage and the family in society by standing up against those other practices as well.  Those who wish to protect the sanctity of marriage should be just as vocally in favor of protecting the sanctity of marriage from high divorce rates and infidelity as they are in their opposition to same-sex marriage.  When they are not, then their use of that argument for not allowing same-sex marriage seems shallow, hollow, and contrived.  It is much like Newt Gingrich (the man who is currently on his third wife, a woman he was having an affair with while still married to his second wife, whom he he also had an affair with while still married to his first wife) talking about the importance of fidelity in marriage and the importance of strong, healthy marriages in society.  It all sounds just a little hypocritical.

I have also spoken to people who oppose same-sex marriage and are offended with the terminology “Marriage Equality” because they feel that there is not any inequality in marriage laws as they now exist.  Homosexuals are allowed to marry just as anyone else is, they are just not allowed to marry someone of their own gender.  The government has placed some legal restrictions on who is allowed to marry whom, but as long as individuals abide by those laws, they are still able to marry whomever they choose.  I, too, as a heterosexual male, have limitations placed upon me as to whom I can and cannot marry.  I am not allowed to marry a woman who is already married, I am not allowed to marry more than one woman at a time, I am not allowed to marry any close blood-relative, etc.  Should I, too, rise up and join the Marriage Equality movement to demand equality for all types of marriage situations?

 

To be honest, what this all comes down to for me is the belief in marriage as something more than just two individuals who decide to live together for a time, to be ended in divorce whenever one of the parties decides they’ve had enough.  Marriage is more than just sex and sexual attraction. Marriage is more than just a convenient social agreement.  Marriage is a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God.  Marriage is the foundation of family, which is the foundation of society.  Marriage is an eternal principle, by which I mean that marriage has always and will always exist, and that individual marriages may be sealed by the holy priesthood of God so that they will exist for eternity, when husband and wife are faithful to the covenant.  Marriage and family are the gifts of God in allowing us to form relationships with others that will continue beyond this mortal life, and marriage and family have the purpose of preparing us for that great eternal realm that we do not yet comprehend.  We cannot decide, in our limited understanding, that we can redefine what marriage should be and should allow when we do not yet possess the knowledge and experience of what marriage is intended to prepare us for.

 

This is a very complex issue, made more so because this deals with the most important aspects of humanity, our relationship with others and who we love, and our relationship with God.  Those are most intimate relationships and feelings that we have, so when others start talking about defining and allowing or placing restrictions on these relationships, we are naturally defensive.  I hope that we can all learn to love everyone, that we can all learn to listen to everyone and talk these issues out without resorting to, what is essentially name-calling by implementing linguistic leverage, or what my friend calls ‘semantic slavery’ with the terms we use to describe these concepts.  I am not in favor of Marriage Inequality simply because I am not in favor of what you have called Marriage Equality.  You are not sacrilegious simply because you are not in favor of what I have called the Sacred Covenant of Marriage.  We all must learn to live together and function together in society and that can never happen if we are yelling at each other and trying to oppose each other at every step.  Compromise can be met, agreements can be made, honest and open discussions can be had.

 

On this Easter weekend, I remember my Savior, Jesus Christ, who suffered and died for all mankind and did not make any distinctions between his Apostles or any sinners with whom he conversed.  He was the epitome of love and understanding and forgiveness, yet at the same time He abided by the laws of Heaven and the principles of the Gospel.  I hope that I can emulate his great love as I continue to have conversations with friends and others.

Related articles

• Marriage Equality (welcometomylifeonline.wordpress.com)
• The Bigoted Supporters of Marriage Equality (southernreformation.wordpress.com)
• Questioning the “equality” of “marriage” (spiritharvestblog.com)
• It’s Not About Equality (str.typepad.com)
• Marriage and Politics (insightful123.wordpress.com)

I have not written a post for this blog in a while. I may use the excuse that I have been busy with other things, but really, I have not had much that I felt like writing about.  I pay some attention to politics and it all makes me feel like we’re re-hashing the same old arguments, but neither side ever really listening to the other, so no progress is ever made.  I hesitate to add my comments to that cacophony of contrariness.

But, I read an article today (here) about the new CIA director John Brennan who took the oath of office with his hand on a copy of the Constitution.  The tragic part of this (according to some) is that the copy of the Constitution on which his hand rested while he was taking the oath of office did not contain the Bill of Rights!  Is that because he is an opponent to the Bill of Rights?  Is it because he personally removed the Bill of Rights from his copy of the Constitution as a refusal to being sworn in on them?  No.  Of course not.  It is because the copy of the Constitution on which he was sworn in was from 1787, four years before the Bill of Rights was ratified.  And the reason this was ever even an article in the first place, albeit an article posted to Yahoo.com, is because it was first noticed and written about by what the ‘reporter’ calls a “troublesome blogger”.

Since the beginning of the whole 24-hour news station, and now with the internet and blogs and Twitter and everything making it so easy for everyone to be aware of everything we are running into the problem of running out of meaningful things to say.  Everyone wants to say something about everything, and of course, these 24-hour news channels need to fill 24 hours a day, every day, so a lot of nonsense is reported as ‘news’.  Like this article,  it was just some random angry blogger writing a post and spouting an opinion, but then it was picked up and treated as a ‘news source’ by a ‘reporter’ and published on a ‘news site’.  So, now it’s news, and will probably be picked up by more legitimate news sources soon, as it spreads across the internet.    At the bottom of it all is just people who want to be disagreeable, who hate ‘the other side’ so much that they do anything and everything to make them look bad, pointing out all little mistakes or errors or misconceptions.  Which brings me to another rant that I started writing the other day, relating to a review of a Shakespeare play I read.

 

There is a local magazine that was sitting in the  break room where I was eating lunch and I flipped through it and found an article about an RSC production of Julius Caesar that is coming to Columbus.  First off, I have a problem with the headline, which reads, “Caesar Then & Now:  Columbus one of only two stops in North America for All-African-American production.”  This is a production of the Royal Shakespeare Company,  these actors are all British.  There is not a single African-American in the cast, as they are all British.  It is just another example of Americans too obsessed with being ‘politically correct’ and afraid of using the work ‘black’, or any other word to describe people of this ethnic descent.  But, that is a post for another time.
What I found interesting was a paragraph describing the plot of the play.  Julius Caesar is one of Shakespeare’s great political thrillers and shows different characters’ reactions to a corrupt leader and how they go about doing what they feel is best for Rome.  This article states,

Julius Caesar – it has been argued – is also a tragedy with no villains. Essentially, all the characters are acting in what they believe to be the best interest of their beloved Republic. And after a rather shrill election cycle, perhaps that something we Americans can also take to heart: the fact that despite all of our differences, we all want what’s best for the country.

This is what I have been saying and thinking about American politics for years now, I had just never made the connection to Julius Caesar or Shakespeare before.  It seems like it is becoming more and more common in American politics to paint anyone who disagrees with you, even in the slightest, as the ‘enemy’ and  hell-bent on destroying this country.  That is obviously not the case.  What we really have in Congress and in the White House are different people who all want to do what is best for our nation, they just have fundamental differences of opinions as to what exactly is best for this nation.
I will admit, it has been a while since I have read Julius Caesar, I would welcome anyone who has read it more recently to comment, but what do we learn from this play as we look at it through the lens of American politics?   While the play is actually about a group of conspirators coming together to assassinate a man they see as a corrupt leader, it is also about the differences between these conspirators and the differences between the conspirators and Antony. In the end, it seems that Brutus is the only honorable man who truly acted only for the good of Rome and not for any personal reasons.
Does it then become our duty, as citizens, to find such Brutus characters, politicians who will act ‘for the good of Rome’ only?  What happens if we start listening to a smooth-talking Cassius who orchestrates a conspiracy and convinces honorable men, like Brutus, to go along with it?  Should we have fewer politicians in politics, and more ‘honorable’ men?  I have said this before, but I do not believe that Congress should be a career.  I believe our Representatives and Senators should be regular citizens, who take a leave from their normal careers for a time to serve their country, and then they serve a few terms and then return to their old careers.  And, as we are all talking about deficit and ways to balance a budget and making cuts to vital programs, I would suggest we take a long, hard look at Congressional pay.  Does a Senator really need to make six figures?  Does a Representative deserve such a salary for the work that they do?  And have they really earned such a retirement pension, even after serving just one 2-year term?  If you are looking at a lot of excess spending, I think I could make a few suggestions.

Open Source Education is an idea that I came up with a few years ago as part of an English class at BYU.  It was a Shakespeare class and the professor was very into digital media and social media and new technologies in the classroom.  Instead of writing a research paper that would only ever get read by a peer-reviewer and the professor, we wrote research blogs instead. (Mine is still getting page views, years after the last post)

This was a fun project, it was great to progressively work towards a thesis, post by post, rather than developing a thesis up front and finding supporting material for that thesis.  With this research blog, I chose a theme that I was interested in, German and Shakespeare, and then started researching different aspects of that theme in different posts.  With posts building upon older posts, I eventually found that I had developed quite a focus and was able to write a thesis post, using previous posts as my supporting evidence of my thesis.

I titled that blog Open Source Education: Shakespeare, with the vision that I would eventually create several blogs, all with this Open Source Education moniker, each blog dealing with some aspect of Education, being a place where I could post not just my thoughts and ideas on Education, but lesson plans as well.  I see the internet as being a place where Education can also be open source, with everyone collaborating with everyone, sharing what knowledge they have so that others looking to learn only have to search and read and learn whatever they want.

With this vision, and as I am currently searching for a job where I can have opportunity to use my German language skills, I have started a new blog : Open Source Education: German.  I will post my thoughts and ideas about teaching German and I will post lessons teaching German language principles.  I want to use this as a showcase or portfolio of my knowledge of German and my teaching ability and method.  I have been posting for about a week already and have a few other posts scheduled through the next week and I am excited to use this to help me develop my teaching skills and explain German to others.

If you’ve got a minute and fancy learning a bit of German, please stop by and take a look.

In the future I am thinking about adding a blog about Open Source Education: English where I would plan a high school English class, with literature discussions and writing prompts and grammar lessons.    I would also like to add Open Source Education: Theatre where I talk about different aspects of theatre, including some literary analysis of plays, but also practical how-tos for operating an amateur theatre company, with descriptions and tips for the different jobs involved in theatre.  I just hope I don’t overwhelm myself with 17 blogs that I am trying to post to every day. Realistically, I would probably only post to each 2-3 times a week.  But, for now, I just have the this blog with my personal thoughts on everything, and the Open Source Education: German.  I may also revive my Open Source Education: Shakespeare blog, though with less of a focus on Shakespeare in Germany, and more of a general approach to Shakespeare.  That would probably correspond with my Open Source Education: English blog nicely.

 

Related articles

• Welcome to Open Source Education: German (osegerman.wordpress.com)
• Open Source Options for Education (web2learning.net)

Any time a life is taken it is a tragedy.  No person lives in isolation.  Every life touches others, from family to friends to neighbors and acquaintances.  It is so much worse when those lives taken are children, who will now not ever have the opportunity to grow older and have families of their own.

There was a shooting today at an elementary school in Connecticut.  I have not read or seen many news reports, I have mostly been following via my Twitter feed, so I do not have all of the details, and I cannot claim to have all of the answers to the difficult questions that have to be asked on such a day.  I know that there is a God in heaven who loves His children.  I am reminded of the 7th chapter of the book of Moses which details the vision of Enoch.  “And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept.  And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?” ( Moses 7: 28-29).  And God responds, “The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency; And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood” (Moses 7:32-33).
To this wonderful scriptural passage I add my testimony that our Father in Heaven weeps for us and stands ready and waiting with open arms to receive us and comfort us and pour out his love and his spirit upon us, when we approach him in humble and sincere prayer.  To all those affected by today’s news I say that there is hope, there is still a place to turn for love and comfort, there is still goodness to be found in the world — but it requires us to stand up for goodness.

As I read my Twitter feed, there are two main issues that people are talking about in relation to this tragedy — Gun Control and Mental Health issues.  I would like to take a moment to write a few thoughts that I have on both of those subjects, more as a way of helping me find out what I believe, than in any attempt to persuade others to agree with me.

Gun Control is a very complex and complicated issue and I find myself agreeing with people on both sides of the issue.  On the one hand, it is a right guaranteed by the US Constitution for citizens to be able to bear arms.  It is easy to see why that was added to the Constitution, when you realize that “a well armed militia”, as the amendment describes, is the reason we were able to stand up to tyranny and gain independence.  Along with that, there are a lot of citizens who enjoy hunting and other recreational sports that require the use of guns.  While, personally, I have never been hunting, and would never own a gun, I respect those who do enjoy hunting and their right to do so.  But, I do not see why a person needs semi-automatic weapons and other military-grade equipment to hunt deer or rabbits or whatever.

Which brings us to the other side of the issue — After conceding that gun ownership is a right protected by the Constitution, where do we draw the line?  How do we protect our citizens from exactly this situation, where someone can use that same gun to hurt and kill others?  I know and recognize the counter-arguments — there are many other ways to kill a person that we do not make illegal, such as knives, hands, etc.  The owning of a gun is not the criminal act, it is the using of it to kill that is illegal — and it is already illegal, do we need more legislation than that?  Part of me wants to say that the laws already exist that make using a firearm to harm or kill illegal and punishable, but part of me wants to say that firearm technology is advancing so much that it is not just one person who is usually hurt or killed by these incidents, the injured almost always number in the double digits.  At what point does the safety of the greater population take precedence over one person’s right to own a gun?

So, on the one hand, I want to say to all those who wave the Second Amendment around as their sole justification for owning a gun that they can have all the guns they want, as long as they are no more deadly or technologically advanced than those which existed when the Second Amendment was ratified.  How hard would it be for police to subdue gunman who was only armed with a musket that could only fire 3-4 shots a minute instead of hundreds of rounds a minute, and how many would be injured in a shooting spree with such a weapon?  I recognize the importance of the Constitution, but I also recognize that the world is constantly changing and a document of that importance needs to be updated and reevaluated to fit modern circumstances.

Yet, on the other hand, maybe Gun Control isn’t the issue, which brings me to the other main issue brought up today – Mental Health.   If it were easier to recognize and treat mental health issues, if health care were more affordable and treatment more readily available then maybe we could prevent these atrocities.  I look at the rest of the world, countries like the UK or Germany where there are much stricter gun control laws and they do not have nearly as many gun related incidents as the US does.  Even countries like Switzerland where most citizens do own guns, do not have as many incidents.  One of the big differences I see is their attitude toward health care.  I would highly recommend the documentary Sick Around the World, which can be viewed online via PBS.  This reporter went to five different countries around the world and analyzed their health care systems, comparing them to the US.  He found some things these other countries did better, and he detailed some ways in which their health care systems could be improved.  It is a very interesting documentary, but my favorite line comes towards the end as he is speaking with the president of Switzerland.  The president says, essentially, that the reason why they are willing to pay the kinds of taxes required to have the kind of socialized health care system that they do is that they feel that every citizen has a right to affordable health care.  In the United States we do not have that same feeling.  We believe that things like freedom of speech and the bearing of arms are rights, but we do not talk about health care as a right.

So, in the end, I find that I am in favor of what people are calling Gun Control.  I think the government does have the responsibility, in the name of public safety, to limit the sale and distribution of harmful materials, such as weapons.  But, at the same time, we need to step up personal responsibility in this country, as well.  Individuals need to be held responsible for their own actions and decisions.  And people who do have mental health problems and cannot easily determine right from wrong, or good decision from bad decision, need to be treated or cared for in a much better way, to protect themselves and those they might harm.  As with anything in life, there is not a single cure or panacea that will solve this problem.  We need to sit down, with clear heads, in a day or two, or a week or two, when our emotions have calmed and we can discuss and debate rationally.  We need to posit ideas and elicit ideas from the other side, work together to find the common good and work toward making the country a better place to be for all citizens, not just those who agree with me.  Together, we can make a difference for everyone through love and respect and compromise and open, honest communication and discussion.

So, I open it up to you:  What are your thoughts?  Am I right, wrong, misunderstood?  Let’s talk about it.

I work tech support for a cable company, which means that there are test televisions throughout our offices so that we can “monitor” the cable signals and make sure all of the channels are working, or at least have the ability to test when we get reports of issues.  Ostensibly, that’s what they are there for. And, yes, occasionally different agents will walk up to the television and change the channel to check on something, or go into the settings of the cable box to see what a customer is explaining.  But, mostly, these televisions are just an excuse for the guys to watch sports.  The tvs are almost always tuned to some sports channel or another, and I swear I have seen more sports in the last seven months than I ever have in my life, not being someone who is all that into watching sports.

But what I don’t get much is the idea of the pundit or commentator.  Sure, I realize why we need a commentator during a sporting event, someone to narrate and explain what is going on, but what is their job during the off times, during those hours and day when there is no game being played?  From what I can tell, they just like to hear themselves talk.  And they talk about the most obscure, random things that could even possibly be related to the sport in question.  Two to three days before the game they spend all of their time talking about the upcoming matchup – comparing the two teams, analyzing players’ past performances, guessing and making predictions about what the outcome of the ‘big game’ will be.  And then we have the big game.  And for two to three days after the game they spend all of their time rewatching and analyzing and explaining just how this team lost or that team won, or how this team might have, should have, could have done this or that or the other.  It seems like 90% of their job is speculation, making things up and speaking as if it were fact, or as if it mattered.

And then, recently, we have been seeing the exact same thing on the ‘legitimate’ news channels as well, with regard to the presidential election.  For weeks before each debate or poll or speech or event or whatever, they talk about the possibilities, about what could happen, about what should happen, about what might happen if this, that, or the other thing may possibly happen.  And then we have the big debate, or the rally, or the latest poll and they begin the whole process of analyzing, explaining, defining and redefining, explaining why this does or does not make a difference in the long run.  Honestly, though, it really is a lot of hot air.  They speak a lot while not really saying anything important or relevant.

What is the point?  Why do we have so many pundits on our television?  What is it about sports and politics that demands that we analyze and over-analyze every detail, until it no longer matters?  And more importantly, how do I get a job where all I have to do is ramble on about meaningless details and my opinion about how important they really are?  And at what point do we realize that polls and surveys have no actual meaning or relevance on anything?

Seriously.  Political polls do no matter. They do not represent what people really think, they represent what people want pollsters to think they think.  And does it really matter weeks and months before election day to know how many people think they may be voting for this guy or that guy?  But they send these polls out every week just so that they have something to talk about on their 24 hour news channels when they run out of real news to report.  What really bothered me was the Fox News polls, and their subsequent reporting of their results.  So, Fox News asks its viewers to tell them what they think about certain issues and candidates, and then Fox News reports the results of these ‘surveys’ as if they somehow have bearing upon the election.  As if we did not all already know exactly how most viewers of Fox News were voting anyway.

Basically, I guess I’m saying that I’m jaded – not with politics, I enjoy politics and discussing politics, but I am jaded with pundits.  People who pretend to know and demand that I pay attention to their opinions disguised as news or facts or meaningful speech.  I enjoy talking about politics with my wife and with coworkers and with friends.  I even enjoy reading news online from a lot of different sources.  I will admit, that I will probably be watching CNN or something tonight as the polls close and we start to get results, hoping that maybe we can know who the next president will be without having to wait weeks and months for it to all be decided.  We’ll see what happens, then, I guess.  But, either way, those talking heads on television will have plenty to fill their mouths with for another four years.

politicians (Photo credit: the|G|™)

With election day coming up soon, this will probably be my last political post for a while (except that I may have to do another post with the results of election day).  I just want to say a few words about politicians themselves and what I think politicians should be and should do.  Hopefully, I’ll have a few candidates to choose from that meet my criteria.

I don’t believe in professional Politicians –  As I look at US politics and politicians, I am not a fan of the whole career politician idea.  Being in congress should not be a career.  I am not usually one to draw on the “Founding Fathers” and claim to know what they wanted, even if what they wanted were still viable in our modern world, but as I read the documents surrounding the founding of this government, it becomes clear to me that they never intended for people to aspire to sit in Congress for the rest of their lives.  They envisioned average citizens giving up their personal careers for a length of time, and then returning to their normal careers after their term in Congress was over.  I think we have too many politicians who are constantly running for reelection and ‘playing the political game’ rather than doing what they were sent to Congress to do.

And so, I was impressed when Jon Huntsman ran in the Republican Primary talking about putting term limits on Congress.  That sounds like a great idea! We have term limits on the President, why not on other elected officials?  But then, I was watching The West Wing and there is a scene that has a quick line from a speech being given by President Bartlet where he says, “It turns out we have term limits. They’re called elections.”  I agree with that idea, in theory, but I also know that incumbents have a lot of power and political influence that allow them to stay incumbent.  That President Barltet quote earlier actually has a sentence that precedes it, “When the playing field is leveled and the process is fair and open, it turns out we have term limits. They’re called elections.”  That is key – When the playing field is leveled and the process is fair and open, then elections serve as well, if not better than term limits.  But the argument can be made, if the American people are smart enough not to reelect bad politicians to the House of Representatives or the Senate, then why do we have a term limit on the Presidency?  Are we smart enough with Congress but too stupid when it comes to the Presidency?

What is the role of politicians? This is a question that I have asked myself and pondered for some time.  I haven’t come to a conclusion, yet, but I’ve had some great thoughts on the subject.  First, the United States of America is not actually a Democracy.  In a Democracy laws are made by the voice of the people.  The United States is actually a Republic, where laws are made by representatives.  Which means that those politicians that we elect should be acting in our behalf, enacting those laws that we want them to, they should be listening to the voice of the people and making their decisions based on what their constituents want.  If we find that our representatives are not acting the way we want them to, we elect different representatives.

But, what of the moral obligation our politicians should have?  Should they be followers only, listening to the people and doing only exactly what the people want?  Or should be leaders, individuals of vision who try to take the country in bold, new directions, regardless of what the people have asked for.  There is another scene from The West Wing that impresses me (My wife and I have been watching a lot of West Wing recently, if you couldn’t tell), where just after the President delivers his State of the Union Address one of his advisors is desperate to get the polling data on the reaction of voters in certain districts to see how a particular policy shift was received to see if they would have support of the Representatives from those districts.  When it turns out that the speech was not received so well in those districts he says that they’ll probably have to give up on the policy idea since they do not have the support for it.  One of the other characters, though, tells him that instead they need to work harder.  She says that they obviously haven’t convinced those voters yet, and therefore need to work harder on their message to get the point across.

Which of these situations best reflects how we see our elected political figures?  Do we see them as servants of the people, dependent on the people for their every action or do we want them to be visionary leaders who have the country’s best interests at heart, regardless of what the people have said they want?  We can take Switzerland as a case in point, they have a pure democracy, with every citizen voting on all decisions, but they did not grant women the right to vote until 1971, because each time it came to a vote, the men who had the right to vote, voted against it.  It was only in 1971, with political pressure from the rest of Europe that they finally allowed universal women’s suffrage, though some Cantons did allow women to vote earlier than that.  I believe there are certain instances where politicians should rise above what the people want, for the greater good, and do what needs to be done.  But, because of the way our elections are set up, we have the opportunity to change our elected officials if we don’t like what they are doing or have done.

In the end, I think I like that balance.  We do expect our politicians, especially our Presidents, to be great men with great plans for the future of this country, but we also only vote for the guy whose policies we most agree with.  They derive their political power from the people who vote for them and are beholden to the public when re-election comes around, but in the years between, we want them to lead us forward to a glorious, prosperous future.

What are your thoughts?  What do you want from your elected politicians?  Was I way off with my analysis here?  Please, I’d like this post to be the starting point for a civilized discussion about government and politics, what do you think about this?