A wonderful essay by author and naturalist Donald Culross Peattie. Found in "A New Treasury of Words to Live By - selected and interpreted by nineity eminent men and women", edited by William Nichols. Published in 1956 by Simon and Schuster.
"Where Happiness Begins"
"There is no duty we underrate so much as the duty of being happy."
Robert Louis Stevenson
Now there's a bit of morality as manly as it is smiling! I never did become convinced of what I was so smugly told in childhood: "Be good and you will be happy." Whereas I am quite sure that if you are happy you will be good.
People who generate this inner sunshine make life pleasanter for those around them. Their impulses lead to right action; their thoughts are usually true. They have their roots in some deep, shining faith.
Now, anyone can be in good spirits when the luck is running his way. But happiness is not always the result of fortune. It is frequently a virtue, and a brave one. Happiness comes of the grace to accept life gratefully and make the most of the best of it.
That isn't always easy, or R.L.S. would not elsewhere have spoken of his "great TASK of happiness." Very naturally we all resent those tiresome Pollyannas who foist their cheerfulness upon us regardless of our fate and feelings. Only the whiners and the grumblers are harder to bear with. And those spoiled children of privilege who waste the joys they have by not knowing they have them.
But look around you at some of the others! Every day I meet them, men and women whom I know to have such trials or disappointments or poverty of opportunity that I marvel at their faces. They are not only brave; they are getting some joy out of life. Such people, I think, improve the climate of our world. They put heart in others to shoulder gallantly the great duty of happiness.
So, lifting one another's spirit, we can get through even our times of trouble. We will not miss the chances of pleasure in a sunset or the face of a friend at the door. And to those faithful in this daily duty of happiness may a rewarding Providence vouchsafe many an unexpected moment of real delight!
Monday, November 3, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
With all of the press and noise in the news over the past while regarding same-sex marriage and knowing several same-gender couples of whom I have high regard as individuals, I have had to do much deep digging and soul searching to identify and understand my own personal feelings regarding the issue. The folks that I know are wonderful, giving, kind people. I hold no grudge nor malice in anyway, nor do I show them any lack of personal respect or differentiate how I treat them...because I do appreciate them and their efforts to live a good life. I sympathize with their struggles in their lives and have great regard for their courage. I am, however, finding that for my own personal truth of conviction, I must take a stand in regards to the legal and eternal bonds of marriage. This stand does in no way reflect my feelings towards those that I care for, and while I am firm and adamant in my support of the following words, I must confess that I feel sorrow for my friends and acquaintances. I do understand the desire to bind oneself in a deeper sense to those that one loves. I pray for us all in this matter of understanding, forgiving and upholding. Now for the article.
Source: http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/
The Divine Institution of Marriage
SALT LAKE CITY 13 August 2008
Introduction
The California Supreme Court recently ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California.
Recognizing the importance of marriage to society, the Church accepted an invitation to participate in ProtectMarriage, a coalition of churches, organizations, and individuals sponsoring a November ballot measure, Proposition 8, that would amend the California state constitution to ensure that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be legally recognized. (Information about the coalition can be found at http://www.protectmarriage.com/).
On June 20, 2008, the First Presidency of the Church distributed a letter about “Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families,” announcing the Church’s participation with the coalition. The letter, which was read in Latter-day Saints’ church services in California, asked that Church members “do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment.”
Members of the Church in Arizona and Florida will also be voting on constitutional amendments regarding marriage in their states, where coalitions similar to California’s are now being formed.
The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences.
The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.
The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.
The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.
As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility.
Intending to reduce misunderstanding and ill will, the Church has produced the following document, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” and provided the accompanying links to other materials, to explain its reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative.
The Divine Institution of Marriage
Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.”
In 1995, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” declared the following unchanging truths regarding marriage:
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . . The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
The Proclamation also teaches, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” The account in Genesis of Adam and Eve being created and placed on earth emphasizes the creation of two distinct genders: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric. Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”
Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.
It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.
High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task. As the prominent sociologist David
Popenoe has said:
The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.
Popenoe explained that:
. . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development. It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with a child’s long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support.
Social historian David Blankenhorn makes a similar argument in his book Fatherless America. In an ideal society, every child would be raised by both a father and a mother.
Challenges to Marriage and Family
Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage – come increasingly under assault. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006). Divorce has become much more common and accepted, with the United States having one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Since 1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 45 million innocents. At the same time, entertainment standards continue to plummet, and pornography has become a scourge afflicting and addicting many victims. Gender differences increasingly are dismissed as trivial, irrelevant, or transient, thus undermining God’s purpose in creating both men and women.
In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.
Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.
In November 2008, California voters will decide whether to amend their state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined in a broad coalition of other denominations, organizations, and individuals to encourage voter approval of this amendment.
The people of the United States – acting either directly or through their elected representatives – have recognized the crucial role that traditional marriage has played and must continue to play in American society if children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated.
Forty-four states have passed legislation making clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. More than half of those states, twenty-seven in all, have done so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in California, Arizona, and Florida.
In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia. Yet, even in this context, a broad majority of courts – six out of eight state supreme courts – have upheld traditional marriage laws. Only two, Massachusetts and now California, have gone in the other direction, and then, only by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3 in both cases.
In sum, there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. As the people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its children. Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved.
Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom
Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.
In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.
As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,
Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.
The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.”
The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.
Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.
Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished.
How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?
Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.
Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.
When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children.
Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.
It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?
As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.
Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.
The Sanctity of Marriage
Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.
The final line in the Proclamation on the Family is an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” This is the course charted by Church leaders, and it is the only course of safety for the Church and for the nation.
Source: http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/
The Divine Institution of Marriage
SALT LAKE CITY 13 August 2008
Introduction
The California Supreme Court recently ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California.
Recognizing the importance of marriage to society, the Church accepted an invitation to participate in ProtectMarriage, a coalition of churches, organizations, and individuals sponsoring a November ballot measure, Proposition 8, that would amend the California state constitution to ensure that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be legally recognized. (Information about the coalition can be found at http://www.protectmarriage.com/).
On June 20, 2008, the First Presidency of the Church distributed a letter about “Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families,” announcing the Church’s participation with the coalition. The letter, which was read in Latter-day Saints’ church services in California, asked that Church members “do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment.”
Members of the Church in Arizona and Florida will also be voting on constitutional amendments regarding marriage in their states, where coalitions similar to California’s are now being formed.
The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences.
The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.
The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.
The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.
As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility.
Intending to reduce misunderstanding and ill will, the Church has produced the following document, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” and provided the accompanying links to other materials, to explain its reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative.
The Divine Institution of Marriage
Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.”
In 1995, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” declared the following unchanging truths regarding marriage:
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . . The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
The Proclamation also teaches, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” The account in Genesis of Adam and Eve being created and placed on earth emphasizes the creation of two distinct genders: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric. Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”
Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.
It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.
High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task. As the prominent sociologist David
Popenoe has said:
The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.
Popenoe explained that:
. . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development. It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with a child’s long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support.
Social historian David Blankenhorn makes a similar argument in his book Fatherless America. In an ideal society, every child would be raised by both a father and a mother.
Challenges to Marriage and Family
Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage – come increasingly under assault. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006). Divorce has become much more common and accepted, with the United States having one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Since 1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 45 million innocents. At the same time, entertainment standards continue to plummet, and pornography has become a scourge afflicting and addicting many victims. Gender differences increasingly are dismissed as trivial, irrelevant, or transient, thus undermining God’s purpose in creating both men and women.
In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.
Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.
In November 2008, California voters will decide whether to amend their state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined in a broad coalition of other denominations, organizations, and individuals to encourage voter approval of this amendment.
The people of the United States – acting either directly or through their elected representatives – have recognized the crucial role that traditional marriage has played and must continue to play in American society if children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated.
Forty-four states have passed legislation making clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. More than half of those states, twenty-seven in all, have done so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in California, Arizona, and Florida.
In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia. Yet, even in this context, a broad majority of courts – six out of eight state supreme courts – have upheld traditional marriage laws. Only two, Massachusetts and now California, have gone in the other direction, and then, only by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3 in both cases.
In sum, there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. As the people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its children. Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved.
Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom
Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.
In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.
As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,
Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.
The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.”
The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.
Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.
Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished.
How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?
Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.
Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.
When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children.
Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.
It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?
As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.
Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.
The Sanctity of Marriage
Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.
The final line in the Proclamation on the Family is an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” This is the course charted by Church leaders, and it is the only course of safety for the Church and for the nation.
Monday, August 18, 2008
is romance dead?
There've been a few things happening lately that are bringing many thoughts to my mind...i know that nobody likes to just read about somebody's ramblings, but this is weighing on my mind and the whole reason I got this blog was so I would have a place to dump this stuff...so here goes:
When we first meet someone and begin to date, we feel that rush and adrenalin that is associated with infatuation. If that feeling stays and grows, it translates into the realm of romantic love, also called "being in love". Somewhere beyond that, in the mundane repetition of laundry, work, chores, child raising, paying bills, spaghetti instead of steak and Wal-mart instead of Nordstrom(if you live in the NW...otherwise, think Macy's on steriods), is where love grows. It is a deep and binding attachment that holds people together when nothing else will. Sometimes, to be honest, the legal bond is what holds people to each other while the love that they have can be dug out of the hole it's in and is revived a bit. There seems to be, in the minds of many people, the idea that if they aren't feeling that intense physical attraction that comes with infatuation and such, then they aren't "in love" anymore with the person and the relationship is over. Then they divorce and move on into another round of the same game, etc etc etc. What a shame. What they cheat themselves out of! Love, the real thing, requires tears and sweat and sacrifice, hard work to love someone when they are being incredibly unlovable(which we all are at times, be honest), making due with less than you really feel that you need so that someone else can have what they want, putting out 150% because your spouse's best at that time and place is only about 50%...do people know this anymore? It isn't easy! Think about the traditional wedding vows...it covers ill health(think about all that entails...), poverty, wealth(yes, humility is terrible hard work to keep), sadness(think it's easy to continue on in a well way when your heart is ripped to shreds over a wayward child, or full of grieving?), sunshine and rain. They cover fidelity and the need for it(trust, faith, hope). Do people make these vows without thinking? I have to wonder...
I know that in my experience there have been many many times when I would have just chucked it all and booked off if it weren't for those vows and the fact that I don't want to fail at marriage. I try to not take my spouse for granted, although it does happen...how could it not? Also part of a marriage is the work of forgiveness for all of those slights when there is so much work to do that there doesn't seem to be time or energy to acknowledge efforts. But lest anyone use that as an excuse, we do need to make every effort to appreciate each other.
So those are my thoughts at the moment. I wish that more people understood that. Marriage has only recently been about "love". Love is something that grows with time and is bonded through all of those things above. THAT is what love is. That is what marriage creates and gives to us, if we follow the counsel given and work honestly at it.
When we first meet someone and begin to date, we feel that rush and adrenalin that is associated with infatuation. If that feeling stays and grows, it translates into the realm of romantic love, also called "being in love". Somewhere beyond that, in the mundane repetition of laundry, work, chores, child raising, paying bills, spaghetti instead of steak and Wal-mart instead of Nordstrom(if you live in the NW...otherwise, think Macy's on steriods), is where love grows. It is a deep and binding attachment that holds people together when nothing else will. Sometimes, to be honest, the legal bond is what holds people to each other while the love that they have can be dug out of the hole it's in and is revived a bit. There seems to be, in the minds of many people, the idea that if they aren't feeling that intense physical attraction that comes with infatuation and such, then they aren't "in love" anymore with the person and the relationship is over. Then they divorce and move on into another round of the same game, etc etc etc. What a shame. What they cheat themselves out of! Love, the real thing, requires tears and sweat and sacrifice, hard work to love someone when they are being incredibly unlovable(which we all are at times, be honest), making due with less than you really feel that you need so that someone else can have what they want, putting out 150% because your spouse's best at that time and place is only about 50%...do people know this anymore? It isn't easy! Think about the traditional wedding vows...it covers ill health(think about all that entails...), poverty, wealth(yes, humility is terrible hard work to keep), sadness(think it's easy to continue on in a well way when your heart is ripped to shreds over a wayward child, or full of grieving?), sunshine and rain. They cover fidelity and the need for it(trust, faith, hope). Do people make these vows without thinking? I have to wonder...
I know that in my experience there have been many many times when I would have just chucked it all and booked off if it weren't for those vows and the fact that I don't want to fail at marriage. I try to not take my spouse for granted, although it does happen...how could it not? Also part of a marriage is the work of forgiveness for all of those slights when there is so much work to do that there doesn't seem to be time or energy to acknowledge efforts. But lest anyone use that as an excuse, we do need to make every effort to appreciate each other.
So those are my thoughts at the moment. I wish that more people understood that. Marriage has only recently been about "love". Love is something that grows with time and is bonded through all of those things above. THAT is what love is. That is what marriage creates and gives to us, if we follow the counsel given and work honestly at it.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Check out this cool blog!
Alright, so he's my nephew-in-law(almost said son-in-law 'cause his wife is so dear to me, but let's get the relationship right here!), and I think he's brilliant, but let's be honest...James IS brilliant. Here's a link to his blog, which is NOT about himself, but is a collection of news/commentaries regarding movies and such in the industry. What you will also find, however, is a glimpse into who James is, which is important because I think he's going to be heard of in many areas in his lifetime.
So check it out!
http://oneguysmovieblog.blogspot.com/
Enjoy! And let me know what you think!
So check it out!
http://oneguysmovieblog.blogspot.com/
Enjoy! And let me know what you think!
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
TEXAS RANCH HOUSE
I love this series on PBS. Not just Texas Ranch House, but all of the "house" projects. Here's some info from Texas, however. Check it out!
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ranchhouse/
an excerpt:
Robin Gilliam Crawford is the curator of the National Ranching Heritage Center in Lubbock, Texas
Read diary excerpts of frontier wife Susan Newcomb
Up to the time of America's Civil War (1861-1865), ranching done by Anglo Texans was more commonly called stock raising. The ranch, a term borrowed from the Spanish "rancho," was then known as a stock farm. In the postwar years, both family businesses and international cattle companies expanded across the West, involving greater numbers of people, including the women. In most cases, the family ranch was worked by the men: father, brothers, uncles, and cousins. Young men from around the area were hired to help out -- if the family could afford to pay wages. Otherwise, the men from neighboring ranches gathered cattle as a group, herding several families' animals to a central location for branding and sorting. But what were the wives and daughters doing? Lots of food preparation, including tending the gardens, picking fruit or vegetables, canning or drying various foods, gathering eggs and plucking the occasional chicken, cooking hearty meals, and baking lots of bread. Then they had to bring in more water from the well; wash all the plates, cups, mixing bowls, baking pans, and utensils; and begin preparing the next meal. If the wife had a better head for numbers than her husband, she might keep the records of stock increases, cattle or horse sales, supplies bought, and so on. She usually made up the orders for bulk goods such as flour, sugar, beans, and coffee to be bought when a couple of cowboys could be spared for a week or so to take a wagon into town. It was a potentially dangerous undertaking, since Indian attacks were still a real possibility into the 1870s. Sometimes this job would fall to the ladies when the ranch hands could not make the trip. Life on a remote ranch was a matter of self-sufficiency, so the ladies usually made their own and the children's clothes and some of the men's things. Thankfully, sewing machines became more common after the Civil War. Only a few women continued to spin and weave cotton or wool as they had during the war. They did the family laundry (though hired cowboys usually had to wash and mend their own things), and all of the required ironing. While few outsiders would ever see them, the ladies tried to maintain a semblance of propriety in the way they dressed, and to keep the house clean and attractive. Women who actually assisted with the cow works were a minority, and one or two frontier Amazons might even ride astride like a man, wearing trousers! This was the extreme, and such women would be "talked about" as socially suspect. More often, ranch wives and daughters rode sidesaddle, and if they had to ride a man's saddle they did it in very full skirts. Divided riding skirts did not appear until the end of the 19th century. Page 1 Page 2
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ranchhouse/
an excerpt:
Robin Gilliam Crawford is the curator of the National Ranching Heritage Center in Lubbock, Texas
Read diary excerpts of frontier wife Susan Newcomb
Up to the time of America's Civil War (1861-1865), ranching done by Anglo Texans was more commonly called stock raising. The ranch, a term borrowed from the Spanish "rancho," was then known as a stock farm. In the postwar years, both family businesses and international cattle companies expanded across the West, involving greater numbers of people, including the women. In most cases, the family ranch was worked by the men: father, brothers, uncles, and cousins. Young men from around the area were hired to help out -- if the family could afford to pay wages. Otherwise, the men from neighboring ranches gathered cattle as a group, herding several families' animals to a central location for branding and sorting. But what were the wives and daughters doing? Lots of food preparation, including tending the gardens, picking fruit or vegetables, canning or drying various foods, gathering eggs and plucking the occasional chicken, cooking hearty meals, and baking lots of bread. Then they had to bring in more water from the well; wash all the plates, cups, mixing bowls, baking pans, and utensils; and begin preparing the next meal. If the wife had a better head for numbers than her husband, she might keep the records of stock increases, cattle or horse sales, supplies bought, and so on. She usually made up the orders for bulk goods such as flour, sugar, beans, and coffee to be bought when a couple of cowboys could be spared for a week or so to take a wagon into town. It was a potentially dangerous undertaking, since Indian attacks were still a real possibility into the 1870s. Sometimes this job would fall to the ladies when the ranch hands could not make the trip. Life on a remote ranch was a matter of self-sufficiency, so the ladies usually made their own and the children's clothes and some of the men's things. Thankfully, sewing machines became more common after the Civil War. Only a few women continued to spin and weave cotton or wool as they had during the war. They did the family laundry (though hired cowboys usually had to wash and mend their own things), and all of the required ironing. While few outsiders would ever see them, the ladies tried to maintain a semblance of propriety in the way they dressed, and to keep the house clean and attractive. Women who actually assisted with the cow works were a minority, and one or two frontier Amazons might even ride astride like a man, wearing trousers! This was the extreme, and such women would be "talked about" as socially suspect. More often, ranch wives and daughters rode sidesaddle, and if they had to ride a man's saddle they did it in very full skirts. Divided riding skirts did not appear until the end of the 19th century. Page 1 Page 2
hmmm...
So, can you believe it? The one I called COURAGE quit. Crazy stuff. Just shows that you can't ever tell.
I still like critters best.
This is a fabulous show, I wish I could post it and share it with everyone. I enjoy this theatre stuff so much, it's great. We will be moving to Kirkland Performance Center in a few weeks, and that is even better. Backstage is awful, but the rest of the theatre reminds me so much of the old place where I played as a kid while my mom did costuming and stuff.
Anyway, onward.
Inlaws leave soon, next week. My sis is going through big, sad changes right now, Shauna is happy and doing well...it was funny, last weekend Em and I went down to Shauna's place and took her to IKEA to shop and then put together new furniture. I went from being the daughter with the mom visiting, to the mom visiting the daughter. I wonder if it was wierd for Shauna to have her mom sleeping on the couch? Too funny. Life just rolls along and we all get to take our turns at being in different places. Then I took Em school shopping and spent a bit more than I had planned on, but it's done and that's good!
Friends are hurting now also...why does change so often cause pain? Change can be so good for us, some not so great, but why does it have to hurt? Sometimes I get tired of being stretched and molded and just want to be left alone for a bit.
On the other side, Summer is fabulous. I am enjoying the sun and the time off and the opportunity to get caught up on stuff and finish other things up. The plants I put into the new house here are taking root and moving along, the garden in pots is growing and if all goes well we should have tomatoes, peppers, spinach, cukes, squash, cabbage, peas, green beans, and herbs. YUMMY!
Found a great quote at Red Robin over the weekend...
"Gather up as many good experiences as possible, they will help make you an interesting old person."
I still like critters best.
This is a fabulous show, I wish I could post it and share it with everyone. I enjoy this theatre stuff so much, it's great. We will be moving to Kirkland Performance Center in a few weeks, and that is even better. Backstage is awful, but the rest of the theatre reminds me so much of the old place where I played as a kid while my mom did costuming and stuff.
Anyway, onward.
Inlaws leave soon, next week. My sis is going through big, sad changes right now, Shauna is happy and doing well...it was funny, last weekend Em and I went down to Shauna's place and took her to IKEA to shop and then put together new furniture. I went from being the daughter with the mom visiting, to the mom visiting the daughter. I wonder if it was wierd for Shauna to have her mom sleeping on the couch? Too funny. Life just rolls along and we all get to take our turns at being in different places. Then I took Em school shopping and spent a bit more than I had planned on, but it's done and that's good!
Friends are hurting now also...why does change so often cause pain? Change can be so good for us, some not so great, but why does it have to hurt? Sometimes I get tired of being stretched and molded and just want to be left alone for a bit.
On the other side, Summer is fabulous. I am enjoying the sun and the time off and the opportunity to get caught up on stuff and finish other things up. The plants I put into the new house here are taking root and moving along, the garden in pots is growing and if all goes well we should have tomatoes, peppers, spinach, cukes, squash, cabbage, peas, green beans, and herbs. YUMMY!
Found a great quote at Red Robin over the weekend...
"Gather up as many good experiences as possible, they will help make you an interesting old person."
Monday, July 14, 2008
Hey there
It's been so long since I updated my page. I feel like I really let something slip 'cause this is a good barometer for me to check in and see how I'm doing and really feeling about stuff. Yeah, it really is just all about me, so that's your cue to cut and run if you want! :D
Pres. Hinckley's passing tossed me for a loop. Things were so tough for me with this doggone move and trying to stay in the groove with Em's school stuff, planning Shauna and Shawn's wedding, struggling to get the costuming for Beauty and Beast off the floor and into the air, and then finding out that my inlaws were coming back...oh golly. It's no wonder that the shingles were quickly followed by a fairly lengthy fight with whooping cough. Omigosh. What a hideous illness. It's not just coughing, it just feels like you're dying. Can't breathe, can't talk, can't sing, can't eat, can't sleep...but that's out of the way now, BATB opened this weekend and everyone is basically clothed, inlaws are only here for another month, it's summer break and this place is starting to feel like home. Oh yeah, and my gorgeous daughter and her fabulous husband are happy and healthy and I find so much joy in them, both as individuals and as a couple.
Masoud and I are at times alright and at times in seperate dimensions. He drifts in and out and here and there, so it's hard to stay together. Oh well.
Emma is great, enjoying her summer and loving the whole performing thing. She is already planning on her audition for next year's show, which is The Music Man. Fun little intense bug that she is. What a crack up.
Meeting some really great people through the show this year, and love reconnecting with the others. Most of them I was able to stay pretty connected to throughout the few months we were away, which is always good for me. When I invest time and energy into people I have a sad time of letting them go. The winter was tough enough, so I was spared this year, for the most part. The leads this year are amazing and super talented, but also super personable and enjoyable just as they are, or as they are to me. We have the genius boy-wonder playing The Beast(Brian Earp), gracious, intelligent and genuine. The beautiful and melodius Belle, Elise Campello( a real firecracker, don't let her dimunitive size fool you!), Logan Benedict as the ego-maniacal Gaston, focused, talented and funny as all get out, Carol Swarbrick, who is our Mrs Potts...in my self I call her "courage". I will miss her intensely when this show is put to bed. Charlene Niemeyer as Babette...can't typecast this beautiful lady at all. She plays the hot tot duster, but in her life she is a pastor's wife and a mother and so kind and gracious. Bob Nydegger as our Maurice, a little more rambunctious this year, but still Bob. Kevin Cobley as Cogsworth...I just love him. He's super fantabulous, and yes, that IS a word. Cheryl Phillips is Wardrobe and while I was worried at first, she is a sweet thing. I have to admit to being scared of people for the most part, especially when I first meet them. Always a puppy, I want to wag and be happy, but that sometimes backfires. Then there is Mo Brady. We've always got a little torch and this year that's Mo. He plays Lumiere. He's funny and sometimes a little sad it seems, but jolly good fun. Lots of young people in this show, bright and lovely people. I am constantly in awe of the talent that they have and their willingness to share it with others. There is little jealousy or envy that is exhibited...I think that the youngest ones have the hardest time, especially this year as there isn't a lot of stretch room for them in this show. Ah well.
This coming school year, jumping subjects now, I am going to be spending time on the PAC for Homelink. That's the Parent Advisory Committee. I really didn't want to do any committee stuff for awhile, it's so much less interesting as actually DOING something, but we love Homelink and all that it has given to our family, and it seems like the appropriate and right thing to do, for me to serve and give back in this way. Em will be in middle school, if I can ever believe that. WOW.
So it's good to be back on, and I'll be posting more often again. I have some great things about the history of this new area where we live and stuff about things I've pursued in the past few months(such as The WASPs in WWII, creative writing again, putting together lesson plans for a middle school aimed class dealing with life at the turn of the 1900's...just 'cause it seemed like fun to do...)
love to all
teri
It's been so long since I updated my page. I feel like I really let something slip 'cause this is a good barometer for me to check in and see how I'm doing and really feeling about stuff. Yeah, it really is just all about me, so that's your cue to cut and run if you want! :D
Pres. Hinckley's passing tossed me for a loop. Things were so tough for me with this doggone move and trying to stay in the groove with Em's school stuff, planning Shauna and Shawn's wedding, struggling to get the costuming for Beauty and Beast off the floor and into the air, and then finding out that my inlaws were coming back...oh golly. It's no wonder that the shingles were quickly followed by a fairly lengthy fight with whooping cough. Omigosh. What a hideous illness. It's not just coughing, it just feels like you're dying. Can't breathe, can't talk, can't sing, can't eat, can't sleep...but that's out of the way now, BATB opened this weekend and everyone is basically clothed, inlaws are only here for another month, it's summer break and this place is starting to feel like home. Oh yeah, and my gorgeous daughter and her fabulous husband are happy and healthy and I find so much joy in them, both as individuals and as a couple.
Masoud and I are at times alright and at times in seperate dimensions. He drifts in and out and here and there, so it's hard to stay together. Oh well.
Emma is great, enjoying her summer and loving the whole performing thing. She is already planning on her audition for next year's show, which is The Music Man. Fun little intense bug that she is. What a crack up.
Meeting some really great people through the show this year, and love reconnecting with the others. Most of them I was able to stay pretty connected to throughout the few months we were away, which is always good for me. When I invest time and energy into people I have a sad time of letting them go. The winter was tough enough, so I was spared this year, for the most part. The leads this year are amazing and super talented, but also super personable and enjoyable just as they are, or as they are to me. We have the genius boy-wonder playing The Beast(Brian Earp), gracious, intelligent and genuine. The beautiful and melodius Belle, Elise Campello( a real firecracker, don't let her dimunitive size fool you!), Logan Benedict as the ego-maniacal Gaston, focused, talented and funny as all get out, Carol Swarbrick, who is our Mrs Potts...in my self I call her "courage". I will miss her intensely when this show is put to bed. Charlene Niemeyer as Babette...can't typecast this beautiful lady at all. She plays the hot tot duster, but in her life she is a pastor's wife and a mother and so kind and gracious. Bob Nydegger as our Maurice, a little more rambunctious this year, but still Bob. Kevin Cobley as Cogsworth...I just love him. He's super fantabulous, and yes, that IS a word. Cheryl Phillips is Wardrobe and while I was worried at first, she is a sweet thing. I have to admit to being scared of people for the most part, especially when I first meet them. Always a puppy, I want to wag and be happy, but that sometimes backfires. Then there is Mo Brady. We've always got a little torch and this year that's Mo. He plays Lumiere. He's funny and sometimes a little sad it seems, but jolly good fun. Lots of young people in this show, bright and lovely people. I am constantly in awe of the talent that they have and their willingness to share it with others. There is little jealousy or envy that is exhibited...I think that the youngest ones have the hardest time, especially this year as there isn't a lot of stretch room for them in this show. Ah well.
This coming school year, jumping subjects now, I am going to be spending time on the PAC for Homelink. That's the Parent Advisory Committee. I really didn't want to do any committee stuff for awhile, it's so much less interesting as actually DOING something, but we love Homelink and all that it has given to our family, and it seems like the appropriate and right thing to do, for me to serve and give back in this way. Em will be in middle school, if I can ever believe that. WOW.
So it's good to be back on, and I'll be posting more often again. I have some great things about the history of this new area where we live and stuff about things I've pursued in the past few months(such as The WASPs in WWII, creative writing again, putting together lesson plans for a middle school aimed class dealing with life at the turn of the 1900's...just 'cause it seemed like fun to do...)
love to all
teri
Monday, January 28, 2008
The Passing of a Great Man
As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, this morning finds me with a huge sense of loss. Our much beloved Prophet, President Gordon B Hinckley, passed away last night at the age of 97. While his death cannot be said to come as a surprise to most of us, with his age and his health issues of the past couple of years(which he NEVER let slow him down, not one whit), the feeling of loss is quite acute. He was a great man, not just to members of the LDS church, but to the world. He extended his great compassion, wisdom and strength to all the people of this earth for much of his life, and has been an example of the correct and true way for us to all treat each other according to The Savior's commandments. Here follows an official obituary:
President Hinckley was the 15th president in the 177-year history of the Church and had served as its president since 12 March 1995.
The Church president died at his apartment in downtown Salt Lake City at 7:00 p.m. Sunday night from causes incident to age. Members of his family were at his bedside. A successor is not expected to be formally chosen by the Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles until after President Hinckley’s funeral within the next few days.
President Hinckley was known, even at the age of 97, as a tireless leader who always put in a full day at the office and traveled extensively around the world to mix with Church members, now numbering 13 million in 171 nations.
His quick wit and humor, combined with an eloquent style at the pulpit, made him one of the most loved of modern Church leaders. A profoundly spiritual man, he had a great fondness for history and often peppered his sermons with stories from the Church’s pioneer past.
He was a popular interview subject with journalists, appearing on 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace and on CNN’s Larry King Live, as well as being quoted and featured in hundreds of newspapers and magazines over the years. During the Salt Lake Olympics of 2002, his request that the Church refrain from proselytizing visitors was credited by media with generating much of the goodwill that flowed to the Church from the international event.
In recent years, a number of major developments in the Church reflected President Hinckley’s personal drive and direction. In calling for 100 temples to be in operation before the end of the year 2000, the Church president committed the Church to a massive temple-building program.
In 1999 — 169 years after the Church was organized by its founder, Joseph Smith — the Church had 56 operating temples. Three years later that number had doubled, largely because of a smaller, highly practical temple architectural plan that delivered these sacred buildings to Church members in far-flung parts of the world. Many more Church members can now experience the sacred ceremonies that occur only in temples, including marriages for eternity and the sealing of families in eternal units.
President Hinckley was the most traveled president in the Church’s history. His duties took him around the world many times to meet with Latter-day Saints in more than 60 countries. He was the first Church president to travel to Spain, where in 1996 he broke ground for a temple in Madrid; and to the African nations of Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Cape Verde, where he met with thousands of Latter-day Saints in 1998. In 2005, he traveled nearly 25,000 miles on a seven-nation, nine-day tour to Russia, South Korea, China, Taiwan, India, Kenya, and Nigeria.
At a general conference of Church members in April 2001, President Hinckley initiated the Perpetual Education Fund — an ambitious program to help young members of the Church (mainly returning missionaries from developing countries) receive higher education and work-related training that they would otherwise likely never receive.
Closer to his Salt Lake City home, President Hinckley announced the construction of a new Conference Center in 1996 and dedicated it four years later. Seating 21,000 people, it is believed to be the largest religious and theater auditorium in the world and has become the hub for the Church’s general conference messages to the world, broadcast in 91 languages.
Even before his term as president, President Hinckley’s extensive Church service included 14 years as a counselor in the First Presidency, the highest presiding body in the government of the Church, and 20 years before that as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
President Hinckley was born 23 June 1910 in Salt Lake City, a son of Bryant Stringham and Ada Bitner Hinckley. One of his forebears, Stephen Hopkins, came to America on the Mayflower. Another, Thomas Hinckley, served as governor of the Plymouth Colony from 1680 to 1692.
President Hinckley’s first job was as a newspaper carrier for the Deseret News, a Salt Lake City daily. After attending public schools in Salt Lake City, he earned a bachelor of arts degree at the University of Utah and then served two years as a full-time missionary for the Church in Great Britain. He served with distinction and ultimately was appointed as an assistant to the Church apostle who presided over all the European missions.
Upon successfully completing his missionary service in the mid-1930s, he was asked by Heber J. Grant, then president of the Church, to organize what has become the Church's Public Affairs Department.
President Hinckley began serving as a member of the Sunday School general board in 1937, two years after returning home from missionary service in Great Britain. For 20 years he directed all Church public communications. In 1951 he was named executive secretary of the General Missionary Committee, managing the entire missionary program of the Church, and served in this capacity for seven years.
On 6 April 1958, while serving as president of the East Millcreek Stake in Salt Lake City (a stake is similar to a diocese), President Hinckley was appointed as a general authority, or senior full-time leader of the Church. In this capacity he served as an assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles before being appointed to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on 5 October 1961.
President Hinckley received a number of educational honors, including the Distinguished Citizen Award from Southern Utah University; the Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of Utah; and honorary doctorates from Westminster College, Utah State University, University of Utah, Brigham Young University, Southern Utah University, Utah Valley State College and Salt Lake Community College. The Gordon B. Hinckley Endowment for British Studies, a program focused on the arts, literature and history of the United Kingdom, was established at the University of Utah.
President Hinckley was awarded the Silver Buffalo Award by the Boy Scouts of America; was honored by the National Conference for Community and Justice (formerly the National Conference of Christians and Jews) for his contributions to tolerance and understanding in the world; and received the Distinguished Service Award from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In 2004, President Hinckley was also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George W. Bush in the White House.
In March 2000 President Hinckley addressed the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. He also addressed the Religion Newswriters Association and the U.S. Conference of Mayors and twice addressed the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.
President Hinckley wrote and edited several books and numerous manuals, pamphlets and scripts, including a best-selling book, Standing for Something, aimed at a general audience. In it he championed the virtues of love, honesty, morality, civility, learning, forgiveness, mercy, thrift and industry, gratitude, optimism and faith. He also testified of what he called the “guardians of virtue,” namely traditional marriage and family.
President Hinckley married Marjorie Pay in the Salt Lake Temple in 1937. They have five children and 25 grandchildren. Sister Hinckley passed away 6 April 2004.
for more information, please see the official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints website: lds.org
Monday, January 14, 2008
Clan McCallum...
Part of a multi-post on the history of the Clan McCallum. Too bad I don't have any familial pride, eh? Just for family info, I have traced the line back into the 1700's, in Scotland(no definite locale yet), with John McCallum married to Janet Black. So, here's part 1:
Part 1
The principal family apparently lived in Cologin about three miles south of the town of Oban. An old tradition relates that the Chief had 12 strapping sons and staunchly resisted the efforts of a local laird's wife to entice one away. She therefore put an evil spell on them and there were only three left alive. The father, fearing for their safety, ordered each to fill two saddle bags of goods and he would twist ropes of heather together and they would then set out southwards from home, having loaded their belongings on a horse. They were not to stop until the rope binding the bags separated.
The rope binding the first son's bags together split at Kilmartin near Lochgilphead so he made his home there and to this day there are McCallum families in this area, most likely descendants of this son. Indeed the present Chief of the Clan, Mr. Robin N. L. Malcolm of Poltalloch has his residence at Duntrune Castle near Kilmartin at the edge of a rocky promontory on the shore, near to and overlooking Loch Crinan and having a wonderful view of the lands of Mid Argyll. The old Clan lands have the old Rock of Dunadd where the Scottish Kings were crowned prior to the Stone of Destiny being removed to Scone and later to Westminster Abbey.
The other two (sons) continued their journey southwards until the second son's rope binding broke at the village of Clachan some 12 miles south of Tarbert in Kintyre. He set up home there and to this day there are descendants of the McCallum families, as well as very old gravestones in the local churchyard.
He bade farewell to his brother, who travelled down Kintyre, passing the town of Campbeltown, and eventually saw the sea coming into view. As the sea grew nearer and the rope showed no sign of breaking, he began to fear for his life, but when he was within a hundred yards of it, the rope suddenly snapped, so he set up home at Southend, where the McCallum family have been long established as valued members of the community as millers, blacksmiths and farmers. The late Ronald McCallum was one of the foremost
pipers in the County of Argyll and was for may years personal piper to the Duke of Argyll. Dugald McCallum, Southend, was an excellent blacksmith, skilled in every branch of his trade. The School of Highland Dancing presently run by James McCorkindale and Mary McCallum, has won countless awards at Highland Games and given many thrilling performances to large audiences in many parts of the country.
There are several different spellings of the surname in the few old records which exist of the area. The name may be spelt McAlchallum or McOlchallum or McAlchallam. The prefix "al", meaning "son of" in the Gaelic language, has now been dropped. The earliest names to be found are in the List of the Rebels of 1685.
These were supporters of the Earl of Argyll in the rebellion of that year for which the Earl was subsequently executed in Edinburgh.
Gilbert McOlchallum, residing in Achadunan near the village of Clachan was listed as a rebel on the lands of the Captain of Skipness together with Neil McCallum residing at Achinbreck in the parish of Killean. After the Earl's death, most of the rebels were pardoned, having taken the oath of allegiance, and in 1692 the following were found in various places in North Kintyre, listed as Fencible men:
On the lands of Blythswood and Skipness, Duncan McIlchalame. In Killean parish at Stockadale, John McAlchallum. At Achinbreck, John McAlchallum, and at Ernikell (Arnicle), Duncan McCallum.
The search was continued by checking the Hearth Tax list of 1694 when the Government of the time levied a tax on every house having a hearth (fireplace). At that time all houses were thatched, had few windows, and an opening in the roof to allow the smoke to escape from the fire which was mainly in the centre of the dwelling. This list was found to have several places where there were McCallum families and the following are in North Kintyre, which was then considered to be in the Paris of Kilcalmonell and Lordship of Knapdale.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Happy New Year!!!
Whew. Made it to the new year. I used to hate to celebrate New Year. Really. It was just awful to me, depressing, sense of loss and fear of the future. That all changed after 2005. That was a horrible year...what was it Queen Elizabeth said about the year Charles and Diana divorced? "Horribus Annus"? Can't recall exactly and don't want to research it, but you get the drift. Well, 2005 was horrible in many, most, respects. A few wonderful things did happen, such as my youngest daughter and husband being baptized at the same time, seeing my sister after a few years away...the rest was hideous. I had a serious emotional breakdown as a result, so I looked upon New Year's Eve as the doorway to a new beginning, for the first time. I came down with a terrible cold that afternoon, raw throat, the works, but still had to see the old year out and holler to the neighborhood that 2006 was coming home! :D So, from that point on, I love New Year's. I look forward to it. It is one of my most favorite holidays.
This year the 1st day of the new year was spent in our new home. We still aren't totally moved in, but for the most part we're done. I have some issues, but not with the house at all. We're still friends. I kind of feel like I've lived here a long time. So it's still all good.
New Year's Eve brought some very happy news to us in the form of our eldest daughter becoming engaged to a super dooper guy. I'm so happy for them, so excited for their future and their having found each other. There isn't a perfect fit ever, but they fit pretty darn well.
Today is almost the middle of January already, but I have felt spring in the air the past couple of days. Not warm, but that subtle almost imperceptible change that happens. Maybe it's the animal link in me that picks it up, or the gardener, but it's there. Now, I have no doubt that we'll see some wintery weather still, but it'll be different. I'm excited!
My husband has been painting his garage. Yep, HIS garage. I said it. He has this whole color, pattern thing going on. It looks fantastic, and it's been fun to watch him out there fussing and struggling over it. Now that he has his OWN room, to put his computer in and his games and all, does he spend any time in it at all? Nope. Doesn't it just figure? Like the commuter behind you on the freeway, just pushing pushing pushing...the second you move over and give them the free lane, they back off and won't drive ahead. That's Masoud and his room. Good thing I take a little blue pill to help me not care about that stuff!
I started this year, physically, in an interesting way. Had a terrible pain in my back and shoulder on Christmas day, lasted for a few days. I'm thinking, is my stomache exploding? Am I having a heart attack? Is it cancer? I mean, it was one of the worst pains ever. I felt, truly, like someone was jumping up and down on a bunch of nerves. Then it left. And a day or so later, a rash showed up. Harmless looking at first, then WHAMMO! And then on my back, side, chest...crazy insane itching!!! Yep. Shingles. Oh golly. Don't ever go there. Keep your life balanced so that it doesn't happen. I can't believe how awful this has been! Whine whine whine!!! And then, as if I wasn't already hurting enough, my daughter's cat BITES ME! This kitty doesn't like me in the first place, which I have to be honest and say is unusual. Kitties like me, generally. Anyway, she wanted me to pet her, so she said, but when I did she growled and whirled and bit me. Not a graze, like I'm used to, but a deep tooth sinking bite. I had to pull her tooth out of my hand. Man. Now, cat bites are almost always septic, immediately. I scrubbed the thing and held the skin apart and made it bleed and bleed and bleed, and kept that up for an hour or so. Then came days of scrubbing, pulling, soaking. Fortunately I avoided infection. Crazy stuff. I don't recommend that either.
So that's what's going on this year so far. Got a cold virus brewing so I'm downing the cold-eze and fluids to shorten it's life. Can't wait for springtime to happen!!!!!! :D It's coming, days gettin' longer and it's all good.
This year the 1st day of the new year was spent in our new home. We still aren't totally moved in, but for the most part we're done. I have some issues, but not with the house at all. We're still friends. I kind of feel like I've lived here a long time. So it's still all good.
New Year's Eve brought some very happy news to us in the form of our eldest daughter becoming engaged to a super dooper guy. I'm so happy for them, so excited for their future and their having found each other. There isn't a perfect fit ever, but they fit pretty darn well.
Today is almost the middle of January already, but I have felt spring in the air the past couple of days. Not warm, but that subtle almost imperceptible change that happens. Maybe it's the animal link in me that picks it up, or the gardener, but it's there. Now, I have no doubt that we'll see some wintery weather still, but it'll be different. I'm excited!
My husband has been painting his garage. Yep, HIS garage. I said it. He has this whole color, pattern thing going on. It looks fantastic, and it's been fun to watch him out there fussing and struggling over it. Now that he has his OWN room, to put his computer in and his games and all, does he spend any time in it at all? Nope. Doesn't it just figure? Like the commuter behind you on the freeway, just pushing pushing pushing...the second you move over and give them the free lane, they back off and won't drive ahead. That's Masoud and his room. Good thing I take a little blue pill to help me not care about that stuff!
I started this year, physically, in an interesting way. Had a terrible pain in my back and shoulder on Christmas day, lasted for a few days. I'm thinking, is my stomache exploding? Am I having a heart attack? Is it cancer? I mean, it was one of the worst pains ever. I felt, truly, like someone was jumping up and down on a bunch of nerves. Then it left. And a day or so later, a rash showed up. Harmless looking at first, then WHAMMO! And then on my back, side, chest...crazy insane itching!!! Yep. Shingles. Oh golly. Don't ever go there. Keep your life balanced so that it doesn't happen. I can't believe how awful this has been! Whine whine whine!!! And then, as if I wasn't already hurting enough, my daughter's cat BITES ME! This kitty doesn't like me in the first place, which I have to be honest and say is unusual. Kitties like me, generally. Anyway, she wanted me to pet her, so she said, but when I did she growled and whirled and bit me. Not a graze, like I'm used to, but a deep tooth sinking bite. I had to pull her tooth out of my hand. Man. Now, cat bites are almost always septic, immediately. I scrubbed the thing and held the skin apart and made it bleed and bleed and bleed, and kept that up for an hour or so. Then came days of scrubbing, pulling, soaking. Fortunately I avoided infection. Crazy stuff. I don't recommend that either.
So that's what's going on this year so far. Got a cold virus brewing so I'm downing the cold-eze and fluids to shorten it's life. Can't wait for springtime to happen!!!!!! :D It's coming, days gettin' longer and it's all good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)