lantairvlea: (armaina)
So two weeks ago Sunday I gave a talk in church. In the LDS chruch we don't have a preacher. The Bishop presides and sometimes conducts (sometimes one of the counselors conducts as well), but he doesn't usually share doctrine from the pulpit. Instead we get to hear talks from various people in the congregation, usually a youth speaker and then a couple, though sometimes the formula varies slightly (missionaries who have recently returned or preparing to leave, multiple youth speakers after some youth conference, etc.). This was the first time I had spoken in church since before Chris and I were married and the first time Chris spoke since he returned from his mission so I imagine we were both a bit overdue.

The talk was pretty well-received, I think and I managed to deliver it without much in the way of nerves, though I think I had a couple verbal slips on some of the words. I even had another person come up to me yesterday saying he really enjoyed the talk. That said we have plenty of new people moving into the ward so Chris and I probably won't be asked to speak again for years.

For the curious the following is the text of my talk. I quoted a lot of scripture ... a LOT of scripture.
Talking of the Atonement )

Something completely unrelated is Chris has two interviews this week. One was this morning and the other is tomorrow. Fingers crossed and prayers something comes of it!


Aug. 30th, 2013 09:28 am
lantairvlea: (lantair look)
Christ introduced shades of grey to the Mosaic law. The Jews were very black and white. If you took more than a perscribed number of steps on the sabbath you were a sinner. Christ turned the attention not to outward actions, but to the contents of the person's heart, whichn really, is where the seed of all action resides. If you have good intent the majority of your actions will be good. If you have ill intent, if you're doing things without the good of others (and yourself) in mind your actions reflect that as well. By their fruits ye shall know them.
lantairvlea: (Default)
With Mitt Romney running for president the LDS church is in the news again as it was with the issues with the Fundamentalist (FLDS) a few years ago I feel it's a good time to open this up.

Other than Islam (in the US at least) there probably isn't a more misunderstood religion. To do my part in helping to dispel some of the myth and mystery surrounding the church I am open for questions. I don't care how serious or silly I will answer to the best of my ability. I've heard some really interesting misconceptions so don't feel like you're going to offend me or anything so long as it is in the spirit of learning.

I always thought that if you're trying to understand something you need to go to the source. Part of the reason I'm reading the Qur'an. You wouldn't ask a plumber how to change your car's oil, why would you ask your pastor (bishop, rabbi, priest) about another church?

So ask away!
lantairvlea: (Default)
There was an article in the newpaper today, I think it was the front page, or perhaps it was the front of the local section, don't remember which, but it was about a mother whose son had joined the LDS Church and was getting married in the temple. The short of it is that she was upset because she was not able to see her son be married to his wife in the temple because those who are not endowed members of the Chruch are not allowed within the temple for the sealing ceremony among other things (youth can go and perform baptisms for the dead, but there is a separate entrance and they do not go through the section of the temple where sealings or endowment ceremonies are performed.

This article got me thinking about a rather large misconception that people, even LDS (Mormon) people often have. That centers around how we define the term "worthy" in relation to entering the temple.

From the outside it can appear exclusionary. That we don't want anyone to be in the temple except for those who are "deemed worthy" to enter by adhering to all of the "rules and regulations" that the Church austerely sets forth and must be obeyed. It is, in reality, the reverse. We want people to attend the temple. We want people to be able to partake of all of the wonderful blessings that can be attained through temple attendance and temple work. The temple is all about bringing people together, about bringing families together and uniting them both for time and for eternity. The first time one does any ordinance, be it baptism or marriage, it is for yourself to accept and enter into covenants with God. Any time thereafter it is done for another, be it for your own ancestor whom you've found through genealogical research or the ancestors of other members who have submitted the names but for some reason or another are not able to perform the work themselves (a woman can't do the work for a man and vise versa, there's simply too many to perform, etc.). We believe that the person who has the work done for them after death has the opportunity to accept or decline this work, but in order to receive complete exultation we must perform certain ordinances and enter into specific covenants.

That said we come back to the word "worthy." In the context of all ordinances, "worthy" does not take on the context of "being good enough for." If one is not worthy to enter the temple it doesn't mean that the person is a bad person, it doesn't mean that they are not good enough to enter or are in some way inferior to those who can; it simply means that they are not prepared.

Because of the sacred nature of the ordinances one has to be prepared before performing them or entering into the covenants. This is part of the reason why the LDS Church does not baptize infants or children under the age of eight because they do not have the ability to recognize the covenants they are making nor adhere to their portion of it. This also applies to the temple. The reason that random people are not allowed into the temple is not necessarily an issue of worthiness in the context of being "good enough" for it, but one of preparedness. You do not want to make someone responsible for something that they do not fully understand.

Just some food for thought and perhaps some understanding increased.
lantairvlea: (Default)
I had a few Mormon friends growing up that were able to bring me above the cliche stereotypes and misconstrued practices, so here's a weird one, but you should have fun with it:

As I understand it, LDS is very open to the notion of extraterrestrial life, and that individuals in this life time can aspire to the heights of being a creator themselves in the afterlife. After all, doesn't a father wish the best for his children? Achieving equal/greater, hmm, universal standing, is the sign of successful parenting. That is as I understand it; enlighten me if I'm wrong.

So my question: is our God, the God of Christ, the big mackdaddy? Are other civilizations out there the result of LDS followers making the ascension into creator-status? Or vice versa, which would allow other civilizations to be older than ours. That is, if time is linear as we perceive it to be.

Let me know if I'm way off.

This falls under the Plan of Salvation, which is basically the grand plan that God has for us as His children, which included the creation of the world, the Atonement and Christ's death and resurrection, as well as the end of the world, the final judgment, and all that is to occur thereafter.

We believe that as God's children (begotten spiritually), we have the potential to inherit all that God has, just as the young of any other species grows up with the same attributes as its parent. This is hinted at in the Bible and explained more fully in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. I can't recall who said it, but a General Authority said that we are, in effect "gods in embryo," developing and gaining the experiences that will help us in the life hereafter.

I wouldn't say greater standing, to be sure, but the ability to inherit the same abilities and powers for sure.

'The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Eloheim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.

There is only one Christ, one Redeemer. We accept the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. We accept the promise that we may become joint heirs with Him. Paul wrote to the Romans:

“The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

“And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:16–17.)'
Boyd K. Packer, “The Pattern of Our Parentage,” Ensign, Nov 1984, 66

I'm not sure about the use of the term "big mackdaddy," though it is quite colorful! As far we on Earth are concerned God, the Father, is the only supreme being. He works in tandem with Christ and the Holy Ghost, whom we believe are three separate personages that form the Godhead and are one in purpose, but not in body.

Are there other civilizations out there? I believe so as God has created "worlds without end." Are these the result of LDS people (on this Earth) reaching exaltation? No. We do not receive our full inheritance until after the final judgment. While some have been resurrected or translated (body being made perfect without dying) such as Moses, Elijah, and others, they have not yet received the full inheritance. Part of this, I suspect, is because one can not be exalted and have eternal life without having entered into the sacred covenant of marriage, while anyone ever born will be resurrected. Yes, Moses was married, but who is to say whether she has been resurrected yet and even if she has been, the order of things as I understand it is that exaltation and receiving of one's full inheritance doesn't occur until after the Final Judgment.

Also it's not just those who are of the LDS Church as established in 1830 and beyond, it would include those who made the covenants during any dispensation when all the keys were present, such as when Christ established the ancient church during his time.

Are there civilizations out there which were not created by God? Probably. In 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 it notes "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) [6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." I don't know if this means they're in our universe or not, but they're out there ... somewhere.

This whole subject gets all the more interesting, when you consider the quote from Lorenzo Snow, the fifth President of the Church "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be." This is all rather deep doctrine and while interesting to think upon, it is not pertinent to our immediate salvation. We can speculate all sorts of things, such as whether there are multiple gods operating within this universe, or if they all exist on separate planes of existence. Will we operate within this universe or will we be sent off to alternate dimensions to start a new universe afresh?

I have no idea whatsoever, but I do know that we are really only to be concerned with the workings of God the Father, His son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost and the thoughts of others is just a mental exercise that we can use to both stimulate and confound the human mind with no pertinence or affect on our own existence. It's like worrying what a butterfly might be doing on the other side of the planet. While Chaos Theory would say that it could affect us, for all practical purposes it's nothing to worry about.

Hopefully that's fairly clear and answers the questions. Again, if there's anything I've missed or someone has further questions on, feel free to ask!

Edit: Something that came to mind that might be of interest: D&C 130:4-5"In answer to the question--Is not the reckoning of God's time, angel's time, prophet's time, and man's time, according to the planet on which they reside? [5] I answer, Yes. But there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it."

Another hint that there is life on other planets, but I think the likelihood of us ever seeing "aliens' is rather slim. So if you have a friend who believes he was visited by alien angels from anther planet I wouldn't believe it!
lantairvlea: (armaina)
Does the role of women within the church bother you at all, or do you just accept it as a big part of the faith/teachings? How is that something you come to terms with? When I was a Mormon, the extreme inequality of women and their role prescribed by the church made me a little sad. It was always just the lectures of, get married and be a good homemaker while the men do the real work for the church. That's your job and your worth as a person, period. I found it really appalling, so it's hard for me to put myself in the shoes of someone who accepts that, and I'd be interested to know how members of the church see it.

Women have a particular role in the Church, and it's not just that of staying home and having babies, which can be the impression that some get, especially since the majority of women do stay home and a lot of LDS families have an above average number of children. Growing up there were two families in my ward (congregation) with eight or so kids and several with six. My mother comes from a family of six, but none of her siblings had that many and I am the second of only three.

As far as having children goes, the stance of the Church is that it is between "the husband, wife, and God." There's nothing said regarding birth control, how long one should/shouldn't wait etc. and soforth (although the Church is against abortion). Chris and I will be marking five years in May and we've chosen not to have kids up to this point, mostly because I was still in school. I don't want to say that having a kid would have been a distraction, but I also don't think it would have been fair to the child either as I would have had to constantly get someone to watch it and school would have taken even longer to accomplish.

In the grand, eternal, scheme of things having children is important. The Church is very focused on the family and we believe it is the basic unit of society. A good home environment is the foundation of any society. Where there are disparities there you can be certain to find issues in greater society as a whole as well; such an unbalance relationship between husband and wife and, in the greater society, lack of rights for women.

Yes, the man is viewed as the head of the household and he does hold the priesthood, however husband and wife are still equally yoked. This might sound a bit odd, but the stipulation of the man being the head of the household is that he is righteous and honors his priesthood. Such a man takes on (or at least strives for) the same attributes as Christ. Kind, honest, humble, patient, long-suffering, and all other such things that would contribute to a good, healthy, and equal relationship with one's spouse.

If I remember right Utah was one of the first states to allow for women to vote, is that the action of a society that doesn't appreciate the thoughts of their women?

This is from Wikipedia concerning voting rights: "Early victories were won in the territories of Wyoming (1869)[26] and Utah (1870), although Utah women were disenfranchised by provisions of the federal Edmunds–Tucker Act enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1887. The push to grant Utah women's suffrage was at least partially fueled by the belief that, given the right to vote, Utah women would dispose of polygamy. It was only after Utah women exercised their suffrage rights in favor of polygamy that the U.S. Congress disenfranchised Utah women.[27] By the end of the nineteenth century, Idaho, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming had enfranchised women after effort by the suffrage associations at the state level."

The LDS Church has a branch which holds the largest woman's organization in the world: The Relief Society. Every woman age 18 or older belongs to this organization. Its entire membership is female and it is lead by women. The only people above the Relief Society General Presidency is the Presidency of the Church as a whole. Yes, the Relief Society does focus on home and family, but it also, as the name suggests, covers the vast majority of the Church's humanitarian services. The men are organized under the Priesthood and the women under the Relief Society. There is also the Young Women organization and Primary, which are both lead by women.

It is true that these organizations are presided over by the Priesthood, in the case of the ward unit (single congregation) the Relief Society is presided over by the Bishop. For the General Relief Society, it is presided over by the First Presidency, however all work is conducted by the members of the Relief Society. The Presidency doesn't stand over them and dictate everything they do, for the most part they conduct themselves. Some remark that in the home while the man presides, the woman conducts (essentially the man has the authority, but the woman has all the real power of managing the household).

"Like the quorums of priesthood holders in the Church, the Relief Society was to be self-governing, but it was not to be an independent organization. It was an integral part of the Church, not a separate church for women." Dallin H. Oaks, “The Relief Society and the Church,” Ensign, May 1992, 34

“One of the purposes of the organization of the Relief Society was that a system might be inaugurated by which study of religious subjects, or Church doctrine and government, might be pursued by women. The administration of charity under the direction of the Bishopric … was to be part of their active work. But this was not intended to absorb their activities to the exclusion of the development of faith, and the advancement of women in literary, social and domestic activities of life.” (James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–75, 5:217.)

The Prophet Joseph Smith stated: “While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, … that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. Authority and Priesthood are two different things. A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord.” (Relief Society Magazine, Jan. 1959, p. 4.)

I do admit that some people do believe that the role of women is to be a homemaker and have children and that alone, but this is not in line with the teachings of the Church. Yes, the role of wife and mother is important. It is one of the most important things a woman can do, just as being a husband and father is one of the most important things a man can do. It is a basic fact of biology that the woman is better designed to care for and rear children in the earliest years of life, thus the man is generally the one that goes out and "brings home the bacon." This shouldn't be taken as "thus the only place a woman should be is home!" Again, this is not to put down the great work that it is to take care of and raise children, but it is a joint effort and, certainly, one's worth should not be judged by one's ability to produce children. I would much rather see a woman have one child that is raised into a good, upstanding citizen than have ten who turn out to be hooligans. Same thing goes for a man, I'd rather see him have and raise one good kid than sire fifty offspring, which he has no connection to other than being a sperm donor.

The Church believes that all of its members should be educated. They should know for themselves the truth of the Gospel. They should think and act for themselves with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. When we are in line with the basic principles of the Gospel and strive to be more Christ-like we make better choices and are better people because we are privy to the whisperings of the Spirit. Christ himself showed how much women are to be valued in the great respect he showed to them. The first to see him after leaving the tomb was a woman. The Church does in no way promote the subversion or degradation of women. It doesn't pigeon-hole them into a neat little box that consists of making dinner and bearing children.

Especially in recent years the leadership of the Church has noted that the world is not perfect, we don't all find our spouse right away and not everyone is capable of having children either. Women shouldn't just wait around for Mr. Right, they should educate and prepare themselves. Even if Mr. Right does show up, who knows what could happen in this life. For myself should, heaven forbid, Chris die, I have the education behind me that would allow me to support myself and children.

In short: No, the role of women in the Church does not bother me. I don't think there is a disparity between the men and women of the Church and while the family is emphasized, the view of women is not strictly one of homemaker and child bearer. I think my "coming to terms" with the Church's view and being an LDS woman has been through education, study, and coming to a greater understanding of how things work and are.

Discussion about the Priesthood would require an equally long post, but hopefully this addresses the initial question at hand. If there are any points that I seem to have glossed over or missed entirely feel free to point them out and I will do my best to remedy it.
lantairvlea: (Default)
I've been meaning to do this for a while and will probably repeat the exercise from time to time.

While I do prefer the term "LDS" to "Mormon" I know that the latter is the better known term.

Anyway, back to the purpose: ask me a question (or more) that you have about the LDS Church be it about the structure, beliefs, or whatever else. If I don't know the answer right off I'll research it. If the responses are particularly lengthy(which I have a feeling some might get) they'll show up in a separate post.

I know religion can be a particularly hot topic and am especially aware of the strong reactions people have to my faith, most of which stems from a lack of understanding or encounters with less than spectacular examples of the Church. So in an attempt to abolish some misconceptions and generally in the spirit of education I give you the chance to ask me whatever you want about my beliefs, an open invitation.

Of course I think it'd be interesting if others did the same, it's always interesting to see how other belief systems work.
lantairvlea: (Default)
I can't help it, when I hear or see Mormons mentioned in media outlets I can't help but cringe a little. I'm sure people who are Muslim feel the same way. It is a "oh great, what are they going to screw up and misrepresent this time?"

(For the new folks out there, yes I'm LDS/Mormon.)

With this whole "Twilight" phenomenon and the fact that the woman who wrote it all is LDS, there was bound to be some blip of media attention brought to that point. While driving around yesterday one of NPR's programs announced an "article" on "Mormons and Vampires." I wasn't sure whether I should be mortified or intrigued.

I was still driving when they finally got to the piece and it was actually quite refreshing and slightly humorous. Apparently around the 1910-1920 there was this British woman who felt that Mormons were evil and actually wrote a book about a supposed Mormon Missionary who was modeled after Dracula. Hypnotizing and whisking the good British girls off to Utah to be a part of his harem (keep in mind that polygamy has not been a part of the church since the 1880's or somesuch). Apparently it was turned into a silent movie as well around the 1920's. The host had a BYU professor on and it turned out to be quite amusing. I actually had no idea that Mormons had been compared to or thought of as vampires. It is both amusing and disturbing at the same time and an example of how demonized and completely misunderstood we were and in many places, still are.

And now I must be off to get some things accomplished for I have lolly-gagged enough for one morning.
lantairvlea: (Default)
Let me give you some back-story.

I am LDS, standing for Latter-Day Saint, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Commonly called "Mormon" or referred to as "Mormonism." (Re-)established by the power of God through Joseph Smith Jr. whom we believe saw God and Christ, was told that none of the churches at the time had the full gospel and was told of another record hidden up by an ancient people of the Americas. It was called the Book of Mormon as it was compiled by the ancient prophet Mormon during the last years of the Nephite civilization. This is not "Mormon's Church," he just compiled the history of his people before their demise and thus the book is named after him. We believe that this book supplements the Bible and both clarifies and fills in things that are missing from the bible, both due to inaccurate translations/transcriptions and men who had ill intent.

Got it? Excellent.

Re-wind four years. there was a proposition on the ballot of Arizona to state that Marriage would only be recognized between one man and one woman. It also went further and denied the possibility of civil unions, eliminating the possibility of shared insurance, visitation rights, and so forth.

I voted NO. It didn't pass.

This year the proposition simply called for an amendment that would define "Marriage" as being between one man and one woman.

I voted YES. It passed.

Now people would like to string me up for the second vote and call me intolerant, but do they praise the first? I have friends who are gay, lesbian, bi- and trans-sexual. I respect the beliefs of others even when they conflict with my own, I respect them. I don't care what you believe or practice so long as it doesn't hurt anyone. I only ask that you don't hit on me (applies to heterosexual males too, I'm married, bugger off! [humor folks]).

People should have a right to see their loved ones in the hospital, they should have the right to make end-of-life decisions for a partner. They should be able to buy a home together and share insurance. I am perfectly fine with civil unions.

One can't really control who or what (personality traits, physical characteristics) one finds attractive, I know that. However I am of a firm belief that marriage was and is for the union of a man and a woman.* To lift each other up, support each other, and bring children into this world to nurture and raise.

I also believe that marriage is a religious covenant that government happens to recognize and offer additional benefits for. Let the churches decide what marriage is, but offer the same governmental benefits to others. Your church recognizes same-sex unions as marriage? Good for them, that's their belief.

Now does that sound like I hate homo/bi/trans-sexual people and want them to be second-class citizens? I doubt it. I don't care what your sexual orientation is. It doesn't affect me (sans flirting, see previous comment), it doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter.

Don't harass people because they voted. You don't like the way it turned out? Talk rationally, make your argument. Don't go around painting everyone with the same brush and beat people up, destroy property, attack religious and holy places, or drag peoples names, beliefs, and everything else they hold sacred through the mud.

You can't blame the LDS Church for the fact that it didn't pass. People voted on what they personally believed, not necessarily because they felt another group should be punished.

Hopefully that makes plain my views on the matter, questions welcome.

Now, I haven't called names, I haven't gnashed teeth, I have kept a civil tongue and would appreciate it if others did the same.

*Let me know if you want a separate essay on my views on polygamy.
lantairvlea: (Default)
I've actually been doing pretty good with reading my scriptures daily. While I haven't been reading in German daily, I've at least gotten some scripture study in, whether it be in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or Pearl of Great Price.

I can't help but think that, even if you're not religious, there are some good insights to be found in religious books. How to be a good person, treat others, live a better life. Not that there won't be hard times or trials, but the little things that people do to themselves that make life harder become less and less of a problem.

This is one I've been muling over a bit:

Alma 12:10-11
"And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that wil not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
"And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries..."

Perhaps it's just me, but I've always thought that religion should be open-minded and tolerant. That it should be respectful to all beliefs and solid on its own. I don't get people who feel the need to attack other religions. I don't get people who seem to think they have to tear down the beliefs of others. It is mean-spirited, callous, and against what virtually every religion teaches: tolerance and love of one's neighbor.

You know, if you want someone to be impressed by your religion, to think "man, I want to know what makes that guy the way that he is," live your religion. Be what it asks you to be and don't actively seek to destroy what brings light and happiness into the lives of others.

I think my sensitivity to this is partially because the LDS church is not always held in high light, especially among other Christian groups. Of course, I get equally annoyed at "Bible Bashing" Mormons who take the "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" stance. It's just stupid and it grates against the principles of the Church.

And Some Art )


Nov. 15th, 2007 06:15 am
lantairvlea: (Default)
I do have to admit, I give a silent groan every time I hear my religion mentioned in public (on TV, over the radio, etc). Or maybe it's more of an invouluntary twinge.

This is not because I'm ashamed of my beliefs. It's far from that. It's because people often get it horribly, horribly wrong and it becomes, more often than not, a damage-control situation.

Most everyone has at least heard of the LDS church, or "Mormoms" as we are often called, but not everyone has an accurate picture of the religion. Even those who follow the faith don't always have all the answers or a good working knowledge of what their religion actually is. This is quite sad, and one should know their religion and really understand what it is they believe. I know I don't have a perfect knowledge, but I'm trying.

I think one of the things that gets me the most is that other religions don't recognise us as Christian. This was actually a fairly large focus of the last General Conference in October. I always thought that to be Christian meant that you believe in Jesus Christ. I always thought that being Christian was accepting him as your, and the world's, Savior. It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ...

This is a lot less cohesive than I initially hoped, but the initial twings has passed it appears and now I just shrug my shoulders, knowing that people will believe what they will, but hopefully, HOPEFULLY, if people have questions they'll ask the source rather than stumbling around and questioning people who are 1) not a part of the religion at all or 2) completely opposed to the religion.

It never made sense for me why people of other religions would have sermons and preach about how horribly wrong the LDS church is. What is the point?

And I figure I've been sitting on this for far too long. The following is a brief personal essay that states many of my most basic beliefs.

Basic Beliefs )

You know, if anyone has any questions about the LDS church or what exactly I believe, I have no problems answering questions. Don't take this as a "Omigourd, my religion's great, CHANGE NOW!" I just want people to be informed. It's misunderstood and people don't ask questions, they just fill themselves up with whatever happens to float by and reinforces what they've already decided about it.


Feb. 8th, 2007 10:26 am
lantairvlea: (Default)
So I managed to find the one book in the whole of the ASU library that was about Maurice-Quentin de la Tour. I checked it out and now have it in my possession, mwah ha ha! Now I need to get my butt in gear and finish up the portion of the paper that is due on Monday. And, of course, my luck, I left my palm at home...


Dakota's doing fine, her leg is healing up and there wasn't much swelling at all in her hock, which I was quite grateful for. Poor Kash isn't getting very much attention and I feel quite bad about it. Must start working him mornings, arr! I'm sure even just a ten minute workout for him, even on the ground, would make a world of difference. I just need to get myself in gear and do it.

I have a lesson this evening and I was going to mail something but, again, left my palm at home and it has all of my addresses in it, gag.

I suppose the good news is that I have computer access on campus and can do a few random things before classes.

And just a side note, Gov. Mit Romney (I apologize if I spelled that wrong) seems to be getting the grand old eyeball at the moment. Listening to NRP this morning I hear the all too familiar questions about Mormons, and some of the accusations about the faith as well. One being that if he does manage to become president that he'd be taking all orders from the leader of the LDS church.

To me, that is simply preposterous. If one is genuinely familiar with the LDS or "Mormon" people, they would know that the Church does not endorse any canidate or political party. To my knowledge there is always an announcement during the political season of the US reminding the members of these things and encourages the members to vote according to their conscience. It does not mess with the affairs of governments, nor does it desire to. It is a religion, not a political movement, nor some aggressive cult that is going to steal the souls of the greater Christian populace.

The Book of Mormon most definately does not replace the Bible. It is neither the Old Testament, nor is it the New Testament. It is a seperate book that compliments the Bible, reaffirms the teachings and beliefs and restoring some of the simple truths that were lost. At least that is what I believe. Many would be surprised to learn that, yes, we do study the bible. This year, actually, Sunday School lessons are focusing on the New Testament. Last year it focused on the Old Testament.

And I would rabble further, but I have class in a few short minutes.


lantairvlea: (Default)

May 2017

  12 3456
789 101112 13
1415161718 1920
2122232425 2627


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 08:58 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios