Vacation Time!

So, my sister had a baby. An adorable one, to boot. The kids and I got to run away for a few days to smother her in kisses. It was quite the adventure. 

Dragon and Cousin C played at getting married. Or, they tried to. "I tried to get married, but my wedding was crashed FIVE TIMES!" Her little brother clearly thought they were playing Chase, rather than House, with hilarious results. 

We took all the cousins to the zoo. They were pretty sure that a picture of the whole bunch of them was torture. Buncha cuties. The part where they're lined up in age order is a happy accident. 

The statues were clearly the best part of the zoo. So much so that Uncle D and I discussed how a date to the zoo - no kids allowed - would be nice. Then, we could read plaques and look at animals (rather than statues: we checked out ALL the statues we found) and linger a bit if we wanted to. Silly grown-ups. That's not how you do zoos! 

Cute baby! Cute sister! 

We messed with this big watery globe thingy they had just inside the front gate for a while at the end, putting off the end of the event: Nana and Grandpa were leaving to visit Uncle J and aunt N: they're moving at the end of the month, and could use a hand getting ready. 

The next morning I got together with a blogging buddy. We'd planned to do some geocaching, but it was a canyon, and there wasn't enough signal to play. We had a great time anyway. 

It was lovely. Nobody wanted to leave. At some point, I'd love to do something like this again. 

On the way back, we drove past the temple where my Grandma used to be an organist. 

More excitement the next day: we took the kids for a picnic on Temple Square. Dragon was particularly impressed with the Conference Center. 

The last day, I slipped in a quick get-together with a college friend. It was such a lovely trip. 

Weekly Wrap-up: The Well-Planned One

All that planning I've been doing is starting to pay off: I felt like we actually are going to have space in the week for adding things when we add a little more in two weeks. That's pretty exciting!



Art was fun. Monkey worked on building a caterpillar, and Raven had another try at finger painting. Both of them had a blast. We also entered Amp the Magic Sword-Pig in Sketch Tuesday; it was our first time participating.

Math went well. Pretty unremarkable. Nothing photogenic this time. But he's doing so well at it, it makes me happy. Hopefully math remains as much fun as it is here at the start!



For science this week the activity I'd picked in Mudpies to Magnets was to compare seeds. We looked at pumpkin, cantaloupe, pansy, lavender, chamomile, and some other ones that I forget. Then we did one better than the book suggested, and we planted them. It's about that time, and we're all so cabin-fevered that we can hardly stand it! Raven sat in his exer-saucer and checked out a pot while Monkey was doing my planting for me.



Phonics went well. Monkey's starting to blend more smoothly, which is exciting. It's his least favorite part of school, but he does it well most of the time. For our read-aloud we're reading Star Wars: Force Rising, which is about how Obi-Wan almost didn't become a Padawan. Good story. I pre-read it, and now I'm reading it to Monkey. I'm also very much looking forward to reading the next one!

We also had out first postcrossing postcard arrive, from Toronto, and we sent one to Italy, so those were the countries we looked up on the map this week. I'm still so impressed by this pint-sized geography buff.

Marry me, Mama!

Monkey: Mom, when I get big, I will go to the big temple and get married.

Mom: Good. That would make me happy!

Monkey: You should come.

Mom: OK. I would like that very much.

Monkey: When I am a Big Daddy you will marry me!

Mom: I think you're going to have to find someone else to marry; I am already married to Daddy, and you can only be married to one person.

Monkey: Mom, you have to share your marrys!

Some Favorites

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
-Genesis 2:18

---

A man who holds the priesthood accepts his wife as a partner in the leadership of the home and family with full knowledge of and full participation in all decisions relating thereto. Of necessity there must be in the Church and in the home a presiding officer (see D&C 107:21). By divine appointment, the responsibility to preside in the home rests upon the priesthood holder (see Moses 4:22). The Lord intended that the wife be a helpmeet for man (meet means equal)—that is, a companion equal and necessary in full partnership. Presiding in righteousness necessitates a shared responsibility between husband and wife; together you act with knowledge and participation in all family matters. For a man to operate independent of or without regard to the feelings and counsel of his wife in governing the family is to exercise unrighteous dominion.

Keep yourselves above any domineering or unworthy behavior in the tender, intimate relationship between husband and wife. Because marriage is ordained of God, the intimate relationship between husbands and wives is good and honorable in the eyes of God. He has commanded that they be one flesh and that they multiply and replenish the earth (see Moses 2:28; Moses 3:24). You are to love your wife as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it (see Eph. 5:25–31).

Tenderness and respect—never selfishness—must be the guiding principles in the intimate relationship between husband and wife. Each partner must be considerate and sensitive to the other’s needs and desires. Any domineering, indecent, or uncontrolled behavior in the intimate relationship between husband and wife is condemned by the Lord.
-Howard W. Hunter, Oct 1994 General Conference

---

Pieces of the Puzzle

As I was sitting down to study this afternoon I realized why it is that I'm never on top of the Divinity articles: I'm reading other articles! I'm trying to get pregnant again, and as part of that process in a blessing I was told to study Charity. So whenever I'm reading articles about the gospel they have to do with either Charity or my Sunday School lesson. (I feel much better about myself, having figured out that I'm studying something else, not "slacking," LOL.)

So to choose my Charity articles, I go to scriptures.byu.edu, and look up Conference Talks (and things) that have quoted the verse that I'm currently mulling over. Right now that verse is 1 Cor. 13:4. And one of the talks they link to is a talk Brother Eyring gave in 1998 called, "That We May Be One." I was pretty surprised to find a talk about unity, in my study of Chrity. And further surprised that he started out by talking about marriage. The more I think about this the more sense it makes to me though. Charity. You need it to have unity. President Hinckley said, "Let your first interest be in your home." Of course Charity and unity have to start in the marriage that creates my home!

The more that I study Charity the more that I think that the gospel is like one of those big puzzels. The ones with a lot of pieces that it takes you a while to put together. We used to do that a lot when I worked at a home for troubled kids. We often kept a table in the hallway, strategicly located for supervising several locations at once, where the girls could come and sit and work and chat with us. We'd start with the edges, of course, the easy stuff. But then each person that would come and work on it would have something that would interest them the most. Sky pieces, or bright flowers, or what have you. Whenever someone worked the puzzle they'd always gravitate toward some particular type of piece. You couldn't get anywhere at all if you tried to do it all, all at once. There was just too much to take in. The pieces themselves, in a good puzzle, would be beautiful and fun to look at. And you'd study your piece, take in the exact shade of blue, the particular cut of the edges, and then study the rest of the pile you were working with, along with the related areas of the puzzle, to see if you could find a match. But once you placed a piece in the puzzle, even though it was, individually, beautiful, it ceased to be an individual. The individual pieces, as they became a unified whole, almost stopped being individually important. You didn't notice the exact shade anymore, much less the shape. Though they didn't entirely loose their individual importance: if one was missing it left a jarring hole.

The gospel is like that. We study tithing, the Word of Wisdom, the Resurrection, the Plan of Happiness, temple work. And individually, they are wonderful and good. Individually any one of those principles enriches our life. But once you start to put them together into the whole picture, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, those individual pieces become much more, and the lines that separate one piece from another become a lot less distinct. I study Charity, and realize that unity requires Charity; that Charity creates unity. That those things start, emanate from, the home and bless the ward, the city, the nation, the family of Adam.

I'm excited. When you put together a puzzle, there comes a point where the picture starts to take shape. Although not all the pieces are in place yet, you start to be able to connect this blob of pieces with that bunch, and to the frame around the edge. All the sudden pieces that didn't make sense before start to fall into place. The pace at which you find places for the pieces starts to pick up. I think that I'm starting to get to that place in my understanding of the Gospel. The picture that I see emerging is excitig and wonderful. Truly, I do "Stand All Amazed!"

Here are some of my favorite quotes from Elder Eyring's talk:

"The requirement that we be one is not for this life alone. It is to be without end. The first marriage was performed by God in the garden when Adam and Eve were immortal. He placed in men and women from the beginning a desire to be joined together as man and wife forever to dwell in families in a perfect, righteous union. He placed in His children a desire to live at peace with all those around them."

"Where people have [the Holy Ghost] with them, we may expect harmony. The Spirit puts the testimony of truth in our hearts, which unifies those who share that testimony. The Spirit of God never generates contention (see 3 Ne. 11:29). It never generates the feelings of distinctions between people which lead to strife (see Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 13th ed. [1963], 131). It leads to personal peace and a feeling of union with others. It unifies souls. A unified family, a unified Church, and a world at peace depend on unified souls."

"There are some commandments which, when broken, destroy unity. Some have to do with what we say and some with how we react to what others say. We must speak no ill of anyone. We must see the good in each other and speak well of each other whenever we can (see David O. McKay, in Conference Report, Oct. 1967, 4–11)."

Sunday Scripture

...He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh[.]

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
-Matthew 19:4-6

A Response

I browsed across this video on a blog I visit. The woman who posted it seemed to be looking for a response. This is what I said. Perhaps some others would like to comment for her as well? She's very far to the Left, but she's polite & informative. And she's also got some great birth stories and information!

-----------------------



As I am assuming that your posting of Olbermann’s video means that you share his questions, so I'm going to try to answer them.

I think that Mr. Olbermann’s assertion that it's about love is childishly simplistic. His display of emotion about an issue that he so carefully distances himself from strikes me as contrived and manipulative.

Love has very little to do with what's happening here. This is about freedom and about society's ability to continue as a functional civilization. There is a much more at stake here than who can be married.

I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Let me briefly sketch for you the doctrinal foundation that I work with. Although I know that you will likely reject these ideas, I think that a reasonable dialog needs to be based on understanding of where the other person is coming from. In my case there is a dual interest in the issue. My private feelings on the matter are faith-based. My public concerns with homosexual marriage are concerns for the preservation of freedom. However, humans are messy creatures and it is often hard to completely pull the two sides of the coin apart.

In 1995 the Church issued a statement of our beliefs about the family, gender roles, and other related issues. This statement expresses very well what I believe. In our view, marriage and the family are holy institutions which continue in the next life. Gender and gender roles are Divinely determined prior to our birth. God makes no mistakes in creating His children as male or female.

The Church has also posted information about our faith's stand on homosexuality on our website. I quote from that article:

This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.” In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach. (emphasis added)

I don't know if you've seen the mobs of GLBTs and their supporters that have formed and marched on the Church's most holy places, but the ones who most loudly demand that all tolerate their whims and excesses are the least tolerant when they don't get their way. Look at the signs they carry. They openly announce that they want to strip the freedoms of those who oppose them. "Ban Mormons" (Freedom of religion?) "End tax exempt status for bigoted Mormon church. They preach hate and buy votes" (The Church does no such thing, but they'd like to punish us for it anyway. So far as I am aware, the Church's official efforts involved a letter, and possibly some flights for leaders to get together with other pro-Prop 8 leaders. The money and man hours came from individual decisions to donate time and money.) "Go back to Utah" (Restrictions on where Americans can live?)

Orson Scott Card (novelist and member of the Church) wrote a great piece about why homosexual marriage is a bad idea. He's writing following the Massachusetts court decision, so some of his comments are a bit dated, but the vast majority are still applicable. One of the things that Mr. Card does very well is talk about the effects of the changing of the definition of family on children, and thus on the society they create. The word "family" has, for time immemorial, meant "Mom, Dad, and kids." It usually includes extended family as well: Grandparents, Aunts & Uncles, ect. This creates stability for the children and also teaches them a myriad of things ranging from self-esteem to gender roles. Mr. Card talks at length about the societal benefits of monogamous traditional marriage. I'll give you a sampling:

But society has a vital stake in child-rearing; and children have a vital stake in society.

Monogamous marriage is by far the most effective foundation for a civilization. It provides most males an opportunity to mate (polygamous systems always result in surplus males that have no reproductive stake in society); it provides most females an opportunity to have a mate who is exclusively devoted to her. Those who are successful in mating are the ones who will have the strongest loyalty to the social order; so the system that provides reproductive success to the largest number is the system that will be most likely to keep a civilization alive.

Monogamy depends on the vast majority of society both openly and privately obeying the rules. Since the natural reproductive strategy for males is to mate with every likely female at every opportunity, males who are not restrained by social pressure and expectations will soon devolve into a sort of Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get. ...

Civilization requires the suppression of natural impulses that would break down the social order. Civilization thrives only when most members can be persuaded to behave unnaturally, and when those who don't follow the rules are censured in a meaningful way. ...

Civilizations that enforce rules of marriage that give most males and most females a chance to have children that live to reproduce in their turn are the civilizations that last the longest. It's such an obvious principle that few civilizations have even attempted to flout it. ...

Let me put it another way. The sex life of the people around me is none of my business; the homosexuality of some of my friends and associates has made no barrier between us, and as far as I know, my heterosexuality hasn't bothered them. That's what tolerance looks like.

But homosexual "marriage" is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society -- to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction.

So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.

So what about if Prop 8 had passed? What if homosexual marriage was allowed? Would that have been the end of it and the GLBT movement will now leave the rest of us alone to get on with our lives? To think so is as childish as Mr. Olbermann’s original question. Having accomplished their goal of redefining what a marraige is, they'd continue to squash "discrimination" by insisting that everyone, regardless of their own beliefs, act in accordance with this vocal minority's beliefs. We would all need to teach our children not only that homosexuality is an option, but that it's as good or better than any other option. Mr. Card addressed this eventuality as well:

Once this is regarded as settled law, anyone who tries to teach children to aspire to create a child-centered family with a father and a mother will be labeled as a bigot and accused of hate speech.

Can you doubt that the textbooks will be far behind? Any depictions of "families" in schoolbooks will have to include a certain proportion of homosexual "marriages" as positive role models.

Television programs will start to show homosexual "marriages" as wonderful and happy (even as they continue to show heterosexual marriages as oppressive and conflict-ridden).

Can there be any doubt what a short trip it will be from this situation to outlawing the preaching in churches that denounces homosexuality?

Had I been in California (or the other states that had similar measures on the ballot) I would have been actively supporting Prop 8. My sister does live in CA, and did do some work to help it pass. I'm sure that eventually I will get my turn.

It's a very long answer to Mr. Olbermann’s short question. Love has very little to do with it. It's got to do with what is right and wrong, and what is best for the society as a whole. I believe that the movement for homosexual marriage will not be satisfied with "simply" redefining the word marriage, but that they will continue to seek to silence any that say anything whatsoever against their choices. I believe that my freedoms are threatened by their radical agenda. (I think their own freedoms are threatened by their actions and that they are too short-sighted to see what they are doing to harm themselves in their zeal to have what they want right now.) I have nothing against people who choose a homosexual lifestyle. I prefer that ALL people around me leave me in the dark about their sexual practices, regardless of what they are.

I believe that homosexual behavior is a choice and a wrong choice. I don't know that this alone would motivate me to oppose Prop 8. However.

I believe homosexual marriage is very bad for society. Therefore I oppose it.

Doing Some Listening

I've got a lot of crafty stuff going on right now, what with assembling 100 of my sister's wedding invitations and doing 9 quilt squares for an exchange, I've got a half-made shirt in the kitchen waiting patiently for its turn and I keep casting longing glances at my stack of pictures that I'd like to get scrapbooked. And right now I'm not actually doing any of them even though the Monkey is asleep because he's very sad in his sleep tonight and although I can't seem to figure out the reason why he keeps crying when I put him down in his bed. He's asleep. But he cries like his little heart will break. So I'm cuddling him. And it helps.

In any case, either cuddling or crafting, I've been listening to some good stuff:

John Bytheway (is that name for real??) talks about the "war chapters" in the Book of Mormon here. Great stuff.

And there's this one about Why America is So Great.

Henry B. Eyring talks about the importance of the family & how to have a happy marriage & family.

These first bunch were recommended by You've Gotta Hear This. Now I'm just prowling around, looking to see what I can find in the unexplored territory that is podcasts. I found a couple of things on Palin:

The Clueless Class
The Palin Pile-on
Palin Shoot Down a Tired Agenda


Out Loud Opinion has some other stuff too:

The Political Virtues of Mitt Romney's Shamelessness
There Goes the Sun


This one is great. It's Henry B. Eyring talking about using music in gospel teaching, particularly in the home and family.

Here we have some further discussion of the "war chapters", and as much as I enjoyed Brother Bytheway's talk, I think this one is even better.

Article: Children and the Social Interest in Marriage

Meridian Magazine: Children and the Social Interest in Marriage
She [Barbara Whitehead] thought the media’s reaction [to Dan Quayle] illustrated broader efforts to depict “the married two-parent family as a source of pathology.” All of this, she explained, is part of an attempt to “normalize what was once considered deviant behavior,” such as divorce and out-of-wedlock birth. She then shared extensive research describing the harmful effects of single-parent households on children, at both the individual and the social levels. In general, despite some admirable exceptions by single parents who succeed valiantly despite the risks, children in single-parent or step-parent families are more likely than children in intact families to be poor, to drop out of school, to have trouble with the law — to do worse, in short, by most definitions of well-being than children in two-parent families.

Same Sex Marriage: No Big Deal?

Meridian Magazine: Is Same Sex Marriage No Big Deal?

You hear it like a drumbeat. It is the most pervasive argument for same-sex marriage. People will say, “This is no big deal,” or “How will my neighbor’s same-sex marriage have any effect on me?” At Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the issue of same-sex marriage, senators say, why are we wasting our time on this matter? Why don’t we spend our time on issues of poverty or health or the war in Iraq? ...