Mormons make the news again in the PNW. Delilah is a local evening radio host that is syndicated in other parts of the country so her influence is fairly significant. I'm not sure what I think about this. She definitely seems to only have a real problem with Covey's Mormonism rather than his book's tenants. I read a few of the comments...very interesting.
Yep, Jolly Old Saint Nick. In our family we don't push him on our kids. At the same time, we don't push our kids away from him either. We don't feel comfortable feeding our kids a bold faced lie when they directly ask, "Is Santa real?" right after citing some reasons why they don't think he can be. Trey basically figured it out at age 5. Bex has no idea and will probably keep believing until he is 18. Trey is very analytical and not super trusting. Bex is uber-trusting and not overly analytical. A couple of years ago Trey literally backed Marisa into a corner after seeing smoke come out of the neighbor's small chimney. He told her that he doesn't believe Santa can fit through that little burning hole, has tons of small people that work for him, and he absolutely can not make it around to the millions of houses in one night. Would you LIE to your child and tell him that his astute thinking is incorrect and there is magic that allows him to bend the space-time continuum? We couldn't.
I know some people think we rob our children (well, so far just one) of the joy of Christmas by doing this and thus the motivation for this post. It absolutely doesn't take anything away from Christmas. Does the joy for children come from the presents on Christmas morning, or from who gave them? In our experience, Christmas morning has not lost a single lumen of its luster for our oldest child. He is just as excited as he was before, and is just as excited as his younger brothers. In fact, one could argue that Trey has more appreciation knowing that the toys are from us an not some fat old man with red cheeks that gives them away for free. And who knows, maybe he'll be a little less likely to be a socialist and expect some greater force out there to give him things for free...
I like to post things that I have been thinking about and things that will make others think. The other night one of our son's forgot to "bless the food" when he said prayer over the food at dinner time. I told him not to worry about it because he said "We thank thee for the food." My explanation to him was that I feel it is more important to give thanks for the food than it is to bless it. My reasoning is as follows...
For thousands of years, the primary preoccupation for an individual was "how am I going to eat my next meal?" or "how am I going to survive the winter?" Whenever people ate, they were very grateful to have that food in front of them. When a humble, God-fearing person was getting ready to eat, they felt and expressed gratitude for being able to do so.
Now days, most of us don't really worry about IF we are going to eat. If we worry at all, it is about the caloric intake, what would be the quickest to cook or what would taste the best. This luxury has made us take for granted the number two acute requirement for prolonging life (next to oxygen of course)...FOOD!
Is it really that important to "bless the food?" I submit that it is not. Yet, it is vitally important to give thanks for the food. I'm not saying that we shouldn't bless it, although I do wonder if it is just a modern (last one to two hundred years) twist on "saying grace over the food." Hopefully someone with more knowledge in this area can point me in the right direction. I do think it is silly to go back and say another prayer, just to bless the food though. if you did say things for it. At the same time, I don't think it is silly to go back and say thanks for the food if that essential statement is forgotten.
Anecdotally, I think it is also good to have a habit of meal time prayer to help us turn our thoughts to God and have him ever more present in our lives than He would be if we just said prayer in the evening before going to bed.
The LDS Church is adding "to care for the poor and needy" to its longstanding "threefold mission," which is to preach the LDS gospel, purify members' lives and provide saving ordinances such as baptism to those who have died.
Very nice. That fits in well and explains why there seemed to be an increased amount of talks on that subject the last conference or two.
If you read much of this blog in the beginning you know that although I fully sustain and believe in the prophet, I do not believe in the infallibility of our prophets. That is why I feel comfortable in thinking that BY started the priesthood ban incorrectly, JMHO. Here is a very interesting article at BCC that sounds like a plausible reason for my own only concern with the issue...if it was an error on BY's part, why didn't it get corrected earlier when David O McKay and others wanted to correct it.
My effort to find the happy medium tends to isolate me. Life seems to usually generate two main schools of thought in any given subject. I see correct principles in both sides of the story and therefore, end up in the middle. That makes side A and side B both dislike me because I am not in whole agreement with them. Case in point, the Church and homosexuality issue. There are those that think the Church should condone the act, and those that think the Church shouldn't (and they think it doesn't) condone anything relating to the practice.
Recently, WA state had a measure on their ballot, called the "Everything but Marriage Act." Although I didn't get my mail in card in and therefore didn't vote, I probably would have supported this measure. There are people I know that think I am completely wrong in doing so. I can be arrogant sometimes in thinking that I figure the Church out pretty well and am in sync with it more than most others. Whether it be good or bad, my confidence got another boost recently...
For those that think the Church doesn't approve gay rights... "In a rare public appearance before Salt Lake City lawmakers Tuesday night, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supported two proposed ordinances protecting gay and lesbian residents from housing and employment discrimination."
For clarification on where the Church stands... "The church supports this ordinance because it is fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of marriage,"
Because I believe that the greatest attribute anyone can have is kindness, the following was the best quote of the night... "I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree — in fact, especially when we disagree."
My wife proably hears this so much from me that it makes her throw up a little bit in the back of her throat every time I say it. Yet, I still say it probably once a week...."Where's the happy medium?" The pendulum on any spectrum seems to sway back and forth between too much and too little. My life experience has shown me that I am usually in agreement with things when they are near that happy medium spot. Listening to something recently where religion belongs in the public sphere I had the following thoughts...
Some argue that because of the separation of church and state, that there should not be any religious tie-ins to anything in the government.
It doesn't take a genius to understand the history and conditions of the constitutional writing era to know that the founding fathers at least intended for there not to be an official state religion. Furthermore, it is obvious that the foundation was built on Judeo-chrisitian principles. The majority of Americans are still Judeo-christian in their personal belief system. With all of the above being true, I submit that by removing all references to religion from the governmental sphere, we would indeed be declaring a state religion...the religion of no religion, also known as atheism. If that were the case, the pendulum would have swung too far in that direction.
The same sex marriage (SSM) debate is now coming to Washington state. It is both a difficult and touchy subject. In an effort to make sure I am well informed on the issue and the Church's position, I collected some information and links on the subject. Here are some selections that stood out to me from a few of the church publications on SSM and same sex attraction (SSA):
The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.
We ask that you do all you can to … assure that marriage … is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.
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.
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.
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.[1]
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.[2]
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. [3]
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
In sum, there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is.
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.[4]
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.”[5]
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.
Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society.
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.
[1]David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books, 1995); Barbara Schneider, Allison Atteberry, and Ann Owens, Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes (Birmingham AL: Alabama Policy Institute: June 2005); David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: Martin Kessler Books, 1996); David Popenoe and Barbara Defoe Whitehead, The State of Our Unions 2007: The Social Health of Marriage in America (Piscataway, NJ (Rutgers University): The National Marriage Project, July 2007 ) pp. 21-25; and Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker, “Do Moms and Dads Matter? Evidence from the Social Sciences on Family Structure and the Best Interests of the Child,” Margins Law Journal 4:161 (2004).
[2] David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: The Free Press, 1996) p. 146.
[3]Ibid., p. 145. See also Spencer W. Kimball, “The Role of Righteous Women,” Ensign, November 1979, pp. 102-104.
[4] Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” BYU Devotional speech, 9 February 1999.
[5] Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston: The Coming Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty,” The Weekly Standard, 15 May 2006.
My Thoughts as I read through these:
If we see homosexuality as a sin you can't forget the mantra, "Hate the sin, love the sinner."
Can’t regulate our religion, but we can defend a moral society. This subject is difficult b/c it doesn’t directly infringe upon our rights, but can through potential societal harm of 1) promoting raising children w/o male and female parents rather than making the best of situations when it arises, 2) lower moral compass for society.
It isn’t healthy or democratic for one camp or another to try and ridicule the other into silence.
On the other hand, I feel for those who have SSA, I believe that for some SSA is from a genetic predisposition, not a self induced mental condition.One of the saddest things in my life was seeing the pain that a SSA person went through trying to deal with their SSA and religious society’s general naïve view of it.
Would it have been better for the church to sit quietly on the side and avoid being the "poster child" for anti prop 8 issues?At the same time, when were we a church that didn’t stand up for morality?
The church leadership obviously feels that w/o marriage being defined as between a man and a woman, society will continue to erode at a faster pace and potentially the church will lose some of its religious freedoms in the name of equality.The Church canon, including the BOM state that we should not impose our beliefs on others.At the same time we should help strengthen the moral backbone of society as a responsibility to our God and future generations.
This post isn't meant to be an end all for information on the church's stance or how you should feel about the subject. It is mainly to explore some of the statements given and some of my thoughts on the subject. To me the question is not whether or not the Church should change its position on SSA.The question should be, where is the line between imposing our religion on others and helping keep the moral fabric of society strong. Allowing SSMs to have many equal rights, but not all seems to be what the church is stating. Where that line is though can be difficult to draw...
I like fringe music that nobody else listens to. Sometimes though, that creates a problem in that you can't get the music because nobody has it! Case in point, one of my new favorite songs...Crush Me by Go Periscope. I can't get it legally (Itunes, artist's website) or illegally. Believe me, I've tried both. I did a Google search and only got two hits for the lyrics. TWO single hits in the entire WWW. Anyway, here you can listen to it if you are interested. But, you can't buy it. It has a little of my two current favorite musical ingredients, 8 bit and extra synthesis.
I enjoyed conference a lot this year. Someone recently brought this article to my attention knowing of my previous posts on the difficult times ahead. I thought it was very interesting. I'll cut and paste the parts that really seemed significant to me...
Remember General Conferences when we were told to grow gardens, put in a supply of food, prepare 72-hour kits, get out of debt, and put our houses in order by preparing every needful thing?
The Church’s instructions on provident living still stand, of course, and there are wonderful resources available to help us. But when was the last time such counsel received significant attention in General Conference?
As best I can recall, there was a turning point when President Hinckley, after an extensive sermon in a priesthood session on financial preparations, said, “Now that’s all I’m going to say about that.” It may have been the last time he mentioned physical preparations in a General Conference address.
During the five sessions of conference just completed, I attempted to write down every admonition, instruction, exhortation, suggestion or recommendation given by the speakers. I collected 430 items of counsel in all, but…
No one talked about food storage No one advised putting together emergency kits No one exhorted us to get out of debt No one said to grow a garden
There were only three references to financial matters (Elder Watson, Bishop Burton and Elder Christofferson) and all of them were warnings against excesses and greed, not about preparations.
...
Having a house full of wheat, beans and rice will be insufficient if we are not strong in spirit and mind as we face prophesied events.
* * *
With that in mind though, many of the talks focused on how to be positive despite the difficult times we now face, and may have to face in the future. The Church even has a new section of their web page devoted to this topic of hope. It is prominently featured on their home page or you can go there directly from here http://www.lds.org/topic/hope/.
Peter identified members of the Church as “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people.” (1 Pet. 2:9). President Hinckley referred to this frequently as president. I've become friends with a few Evangelical Christians over the past few years since I left Utah. They seem to fit this description a little better than we do as a people. Is that bad or good? They sometimes can be annoying and awkward with their...I'm not sure how to describe it other than guileless religious social norms.
This has been on my mind a lot lately. I listen to audio books on my way too and from work. I usually have a list of ones I would like to listen to, but I finished that list and randomly picked one at the library on my last visit. I don't remember the title right now, but it is definitely written for an openly Christian audience. It isn't as in your face as some of the evangelicals that I have met, but it is more so than I am in my life.
For example, I do not frequently say to my wife that I feel so blessed for all that I have and grab her hands to offer a prayer of gratitude. I do the first half, but not usually the second. I feel a little guilty about that on one hand when I think of that. On the other, it seems a little weird....is that because I'm not as much "in the world, but not of the world" as I should be? In my/our effort to be main stream have I been tainted just enough to see that as weird and awkward?
Maybe its just a different style of worshiping. Mormons are definitely more on the reverent side of the spectrum when compared to other Christian religions. In the end, it is interesting that it made me pause and think enough to motivate a post after 2 months of nothing else quite being strong enough!
Slate has recently released an article on how Mormonism could save the USA if it were to collapse from political/social/environmental causes. Very interesting article, though he did get some simple things wrong. For example, "upon his resurrection, Jesus Christ will rule on American soil." He doesn't know that all Christians believe Jesus was already resurrected. Big miss there.
It was interesting that he used the word clannish. I think that was his kind attempt to avoid the distasteful (to us) word cultish. I like his description of us, "They are just like us, only they're always on their best behavior." I'm glad he was candid and honest without any of the incorrect, negative preconceived notions that tend to be written about us by those on the outside.
I have had a few experiences recently that made me wonder how God manages our faith and blessings. It is easy for me to imagine that he runs us like we would run little people in a game of "SimPersonal Life."
An easy case would be if we need a blessing and fast for it. By fasting or doing good deeds we accumulate potential blessing points. If you are asking for an answer to whom you should marry, it would cost you 50 potential blessing points. If you want to cure a physical ill, it would cost significantly more, say 150 potential blessing points.
Sounds easy right? When you involve faith, others and others' faith it becomes complicated. For example, if you have a lot of faith it will lower the physical ill potential blessing points requirement to 125. If others have faith it can lower that amount some more. Joseph Smith said that your faith to be healed when receiving a blessing is more powerful than your faith to heal when giving one. So if person A needs a blessing and they have X amount of faith it will lower their needed total 30 points. If person B needs the same blessing and person A gives them the blessing with the same X amount of faith, it only lowers the needed point total by 20.
To make things even more difficult, what happens when you need that healing blessing, everybody comes together and you only totaled 149 points when you needed 150? Do you get a partial blessing or is it all or nothing?
I imagine that things do work similar to this, but on a much more complex level such as throwing in things like do you need the faith promoting experience, will it help you carry out something else in your life that God needs you to do, etc.? Although I have never conceived it in this way before, my lifelong wish has been to understand God's scoring system and what point tallies I need for the various blessing I wish I could get. I think if I knew that one blessing required 500 points, I wouldn't even try. On the other hand, if I knew that I was short just a few points on another blessing I would have tried a littler harder instead of giving up with a hopeless frustration that I never got an answer. Life would be a lot more manageable that way.
I really don't want to discuss this topic because of its debased and crass nature. In fact, those words don't adequately describe the expression that is being flippantly tossed around like a joke on the back of a Laffy Taffy. I will discuss it because I can't believe that we have digressed as a society to the point that prime time news casters can repeatedly use the term teabagger/teabagging without fear of viewer backlash or even shame from lack of proper public respectability. Furthermore, they not only glibly use those terms, but use them with many explicit puns to further paint the degenerate mental images in your mind. Don't believe me or have any idea what I am talking about? Watch the following video...
Just in case there is any misunderstanding on this subject, if you aren't crystal clear on the incredibly foul and disgusting definition of this term, click here and see definition #2. WARNING - the definition is x-rated. Am I a prude or overly sensitive? I don't think so. I tend to be somewhere in the middle on most subjects. My liberal friends think I'm too conservative ,and my conservative friends think I'm too liberal. I'm just surprised there wasn't a louder outcry at this.
As many of our friends know, Marisa and I both are strong proponents of evolution. We don't say that it is exactly the way that God created man and thus put a spirit in the offspring of some pre-Adamite's son and called him Adam. In fact, we don't believe that is the way things went down. Despite that, we are in agreement with many LDS biology professors that evolution is an incontrovertible fact! Those who don't agree, that I have met in person are uninformed. I have never met a person that understood the science and still felt that evolution is false. When I say that, I do mean the evolution of species in the forms that we see today. For a nice, short, honest synopsys of the subject see the following video:
So, if you disagree...tell me why. I'd love to see if I can make a believer of you ;-)
Starting a business in troubled economic times has made me hyper focused on the financial heartbeat of our country. Long term fears arise when I see so many "firsts" going on to try and strengthen or even bring back that heartbeat (depending on whose analysis of the patient [America] you listen to). Here is something that acknowledges potentially even worse times ahead, yet leaves you feeling positive at the end. So take four minutes to watch...
It seems like women like to forward emails and post on facebook lists where they ask questions about each other or post random facts about themselves. Most guys see these as lame. Although I like how they can help bring people closer together by learning new things about each other, most of them are pretty weak. An example of a weak question, "What did you eat for breakfast this morning?" Another weak list...filling out the checklist of someone else's 50 things they want to do before they die. Why not post what YOU want to do before you die? So in an attempt to put a manly spin on this and raise it up a notch (or three) I have decided to do something that has been floating around in my head for a while, but I haven't had the motivation or gumption to do it...until now.
So, post a comment to this ANONYMOUSLY and tell me what you think of me. Seriously, anything you have ever wanted to say...about me! Do it anonymously or I WILL delete it. If it isn't anonymous I won't believe it is honest and from your heart. I'll see it as trying to be nice because you like me or trying to be overly harsh because you don't like me. I'm VERY interested in knowing what others think of me, both positively and negatively. One, if everyone tells me I have bad breath, although embarrassing, it would be nice to know something like that assuming I didn't know it. In other words, good information. that I otherwise could not have known. Similarly, if everybody says that I need to stop caressing their hand when I shake it (and assuming I actually did this and was aware of it) then it would be good to know that it really did bother everybody. So, here's your chance. Let me have it!
Oh, and if you don't forward this same question to 10 of your own friends, that brown spot on your back will be cancer instead of a mole...or if you like positive luck, and if you do forward it, Microsoft will send you a $10 check for every friend that gets the email as part of their new tracking software beta testing program.
Edit: BTW, if anyone is worried about me tracking comments I don't/can't figure out how to do that with the feed you see on the lower right. It just shows me areas that people are from if they have been to the website ever. It doesn't show where with time, just where over the history of the blog and percentages of the visitors from the countries represented. I tried a few times to change it, but never could figure it out. Click on the link and you will see.
A viral video making the rounds lately is the following about a 13 year old boy who wrote a book on conservatism. If you know me well, you know that I do not tow the GOP party line. There are many so called liberal views that I adhere to. For example and in my own words: I'm conservative on how I destroy the environment, I'm conservative on the level of weapons leathalness that we should allow to be sold to citizens, I'm conservative on the amount of abortions we should allow (ie-similar to church policy rather than similar to pro-life movement). For those reason's I really like the description that this guy gives to conservativism.
Although not in the same caliber, this reminds me of how Mozart wrote Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star at the age of two! Some people just have a greater capacity that doesn't quite seem fair.
Because of my obsessive-compulsive disorder, I enjoy making lists. If you know me well, you know I have lists for everything. I think my OCD comes from an inability to remember well. So its coping mechanism or compensation driven disorder rather than an original innate problem.
Therefore, rather than just read the BOM I sometimes create lists of what's in it. Below I have included one of them. I CHALLENGE you to correct me or show its incompleteness. If you do, I would be happy, not mad because it would help complete the list some more.
Women in the Book of Mormon
Totals:
-6 by name: Sariah, Abish, Sarah, Mary, Eve and Isabel
-63 women mentioned specifically
-130 groups of people that include women by stating it or likely inferring it (this one is pretty weak by including all the mentioning of children, but I wanted it to be complete).
The data....
Sariah - wife of Lehi. 1 Nephi 2:5
Daughters of Ishmael (five). 1 Nephi 7:6
Wife of Ishmael. 1 Nephi 7:19
Wife of Nephi. 1 Nephi 18:19
Eve. 2 Nephi 2:18
Sisters of Nephi (at least two). 2 Nephi 5:6
Sarah - wife of Abraham. 2 Nephi 8:2
Lamanite daughters (24) - abducted by the priests of Noah. Mosiah 20:5
Mary - mother of Jesus. 1 Alma 7:10
Wife of King Lamoni. Alma 18:40
Abish - woman who helped when Lamoni and Ammon were passed out. Alma 19:16
Wife of the Lamanite king (Lamoni's parents). Alma 22:19
Isabel - a harlot in Siron who Corianton was with. Alma 39:3
Wife of the Lamanite king (that Amalickiah killed to marry). Alma 47:32
Morianton's Maid Servant - He beat her so she ran to Moroni and told him Morianton was planning on going with his people to the Northern lands. Alma 50:30
Nephite queen - wife of King Ammaron. Alma 52:12
Daughters of Jared (eight). Ether 6:20
Daughters of Orihah (eight). Ether 7:1
Daughter of Jared 2 - started the secret combination against her grandfather the king by getting Akish to want her for a wife. Ether 8:8
First wife of Coriantum. Ether 9:24
Second wife of Coriantum - married him when he was past 102. Ether 9:24
Not Specific
Children of Nephi. 1 Nephi 1:18
Daughters of Laman. 2 Nephi 4:3
Daughters of Lemuel. 2 Nephi 4:8
Nephite women - at time of Jacob's speech. Jacob 2:7
Nephite children - at time of Jacob's speech. Jacob 2:7
Wives of King David. Jacob 1:15
Concubines of King David. Jacob 1:15
Nephite women - at the time of King Benjamin's talk. Jacob 2:7
Nephite children - at the time of King Benjamin's talk. Jacob 2:7
Wives of King Solomon. Jacob 2:24
Concubinee of King Solomon. Jacob 2:24
Lamanite women. Jacob 3:7
Lamanite children. Jacob 3:7
Grandmothers - that came to hear King Mosiah's speach. Mosiah 2:5
Daughters - that came to hear King Mosiah's speach. Mosiah 2:5
Grandaughters - that came to hear King Mosiah's speach. Mosiah 2:5
Nephite wives - of Zeniff's group that returned to Zarahemla after the fight. Mosiah 9:2
Nephite children - of Zeniff's group that returned to Zarahemla after the fight. Mosiah 9:2
Lamanite children. Mosiah 10:17
Wives of King Noah. Mosiah 11:2
Concubines of King Noah. Mosiah 11:2
Wives of King Noah's priests. Mosiah 11:4
Concubines of King Noah's priests. Mosiah 11:4
Nephite women - fleeing with King Noah. Mosiah 19:9
Nephite children - fleeing with King Noah. Mosiah 19:9
Nephite fair daughters at the time of King Noah. Mosiah 19:13
Women - wives of the priests of Noah. Mosiah 20:3
Children - wives of the priests of Noah. Mosiah 20:3
Widows - left after the Lamanites attacked the people of Limhi. Mosiah 21:9
Fatherless children - left after the Lamanites attacked the people of Limhi. Mosiah 21:9
Lamanite wives - of the guards left over the Nephites in Helam. Mosiah 23:38
Lamanite children - of the guards left over the Nephites in Helam. Mosiah 23:38
Children of Amulon. Mosiah 24:8
Children of Alma. Mosiah 24:8
Wives of Alma and his people. Mosiah 24:22
Children of Alma and his people. Mosiah 24:22
Nephite daughters - married by the sons of Amulon. Mosiah 25:12
Nephite children - at the time of King Benjamin's talk. Mosiah 26:1
Nephite women - fleeing from the Lamanites and Amlicites away from their home in Minon. Alma 2:25
Nephite children - fleeing from the Lamanites and Amlicites away from their home in Minon. Alma 2:25
Nephite women - left alive after fighting with the Lamanites and Amlicites. Alma 3:1
Nephite women - left alive after fighting with the Lamanites and Amlicites. Alma 3:1
Nephite women - killed during the fighting with the Lamanites and Amlicites. Alma 3:2
Nephite children - killed during the fighting with the Lamanites and Amlicites. Alma 3:2
Amulek's women - family members. Alma 10:11
Amulek's children. Alma 10:11
Women believers of Ammonihah - burned in a fire. Alma 14:8
Children believers of Ammonihah - burned in a fire. Alma 14:8
Daughters of King Lamoni - he wanted Ammon to take one as a wife. Alma 17:24
Nephite women - who lost their family men in war. Alma 28:5
Nephite children - who lost their family men in war. Alma 28:5
Women fooled by Korihor. Alma 30:18
Zoramite women - converted by Ammon and driven out to Jershon. Alma 35:14
Zoramite children - converted by Ammon and driven out to Jershon. Alma 35:14
Other harlots with Isabel. Alma 39:11
Nephite women - Nephite men fought to save. Alma 43:9
Nephite children - Nephite men fought to save. Alma 43:9
Nephite children - men took arms to defend. Alma 48:24
Nephite women - men took arms to defend. Alma 48:24
Captured children Nephites - at the time of Moroni 1 who were taken back. Alma 54:3
Captured women Nephites - at the time of Moroni 1 who were taken back. Alma 54:3
Women Nephites - with the group of 10,000 Nephite warriors. Alma 56:28
Children Nephites - with the group of 10,000 Nephite warriors. Alma 56:28
Mothers of the strippling warriors. Alma 57:21
Captured women Nephites - at the time of Moroni 1 who were not taken back. Alma 58:30
Captured children Nephites - at the time of Moroni 1 who were not taken back. Alma 58:30
Nephite women - who left North with the 5,400 Nephite men. Alma 63:4
Nephite children - who left North with the 5,400 Nephite men. Alma 63:4
Nephite women who left with Hagoth. Alma 63:6
Nephite children who left with Hagoth. Alma 63:6
Nephite women in Zarahemla - slain by the Lamanites marching through. Helaman 1:27
Nephite children in Zarahemla - slain by the Lamanites marching through. Helaman 1:27
Nephite women - time of Nephite and Lamanite prosperity. Helaman 6:13
Nephite children - captured by the Gadianton robbers. Helaman 11:13
Nephite women - captured by the Gadianton robbers. Helaman 11:13
Lamanite children - lead away by Zoramites to join Gadianton robbers. 3 Nephi 1:29
Nephite women - left to fight the Gadianton robbers. 3 Nephi 2:12
Nephite children - left to fight the Gadianton robbers. 3 Nephi 2:12
Lamanite daughters that became converted. 3 Nephi 2:16
Nephite children - gathered by Lachoneus. 3 Nephi 3:13
Nephite women - gathered by Lachoneus. 3 Nephi 3:13
Mothers - buried at Moronihah- 3 Nephi 8:25
Fair daughters - buried at Moronihah- 3 Nephi 8:25
Children - buried at Moronihah- 3 Nephi 8:25
Nephite children - saw the Savior. 3 Nephi 17:25
Nephite women - saw the Savior. 3 Nephi 17:25
Nephite women - defended by the Nephite men from the Lamanites. Mormon 2:23
Nephite children - defended by the Nephite men from the Lamanites. Mormon 2:23
Nephite women - captured and sacrificed by the Lamanites. Mormon 4:14
Nephite children- captured and sacrificed by the Lamanites. Mormon 4:14
Nephite children- captured and sacrificed again by the Lamanites. Mormon 4:21
Nephite children- captured and sacrificed again by the Lamanites. Mormon 4:21
Nephite women - Mormon's time. Mormon 6:7
Nephite children - Mormon's time. Mormon 6:7
Nephite mothers - turned evil and killed by the Lamanites. Mormon 6:19
Nephite daughters - turned evil and killed by the Lamanites. Mormon 6:19
Daughters of the brother of Jared. Ether 6:16
Daughters of Korihor. Ether 7:4
Daughters of Jared 2. Ether 8:1
Daughters of Omer. Ether 8:4
Daughters of Emer. Ether 9:21
Daughters of Corianton. Ether 9:24
Daughters of Heth. Ether 9:25
Daughters of Shez. Ether 10:2
Wives - of Riplakish. Ether 10:5
Concubines - of Riplakish. Ether 10:5
Daughters of Kim - in captivity. Ether 10:14
Daughters of Levi. Ether 10:16
Daughters of Corom. Ether 10:17
Daughters of Lib. Ether 10:29
Daughters of Cohor. Ether 13:17
Daughters of Corihor. Ether 13:17
Daughters of Coriantumr. Ether 13:17
Jaredite women - around the time of Shared. Ether 14:2
Jaredite children - around the time of Shared. Ether 14:2
Women killed by Shiz - when he was fighting with Coriantumr. Ether 14:17
Children killed by Shiz - when he was fighting with Coriantumr. Ether 14:17
Children in the Army of Shiz - when he was fighting with Coriantumr. Ether 14:31
Women in the Army of Shiz - when he was fighting with Coriantumr. Ether 14:31
Women in the Army of Coriantumr - when he was fighting with Shiz. Ether 14:31
Children in the Army of Coriantumr - when he was fighting with Shiz. Ether 14:31
Jaredite women - millions killed. Ether 15:2
Jaredite children - millions killed. Ether 15:2
Jaredite children - those left to fight after the others were killed. Ether 15:15
Jaredite women - those left to fight after the others were killed. Ether 15:15
Nephite women - captured by the Lamanites. Moroni 9:7
Nephite children - captured by the Lamanites. Moroni 9:7
Lamanite daughters - taken and harmed by the people of Moriantum. Moroni 9:9
Daughters at Sherriza. Moroni 9:16
Widows at Sherriza - fainted and died for loss of food. Moroni 9:16
Are these two questions the same, at their heart or even on the surface?
Evangelical Christian to the Mormon:
Why do you guys waste your time trying to convert Christians instead of focusing on those who don't already know Him?
Mormon to the Evangelical Christian:
Why do you guys waste so much time trying to break our faith when we believe in Christ and do so much good when you could put those effort towards fighting the evils of this world?
On the surface I think they are similar. Fundamentally, I think they are different.
Almost three months and no posts! Things have been pretty crazy with opening the new office and putting out all the fires that came up last minute. This craziness has continued to a certain extend even though the office has been open for about 2 weeks now. Mainly, because I have moved on from the big things to all the little things. I have moved from the crazy psycho person level to now just crazy...or psycho, take your pick.
While laying in bed the other night waiting for Marisa to finish her get-ready-for-bed routine I was thinking of how I need to be more relaxed, both for me and for my family. Thinking of how to do this I realized that I have felt inspired to make various decision in my recent history. I need to remember that. Similarly, if I live righteously I'll be blessed. By remembering those two facts I can be more at peace that everything will go well despite the difficulty of the task and the fear of things like the economy. Finally, by being more positive and peaceful I will be more likely to be loving, patient and basically just more mentally present with my wife and children.
I continued to ponder all of that plan and suddenly I realized something...remember....peace/positiveness...love. That sounds awfully similar to faith, hope and charity. In other words, if I remember that I have been guided in my decisions and therefore things will work out for the best (FAITH), then I can have the peace (HOPE - hope that things will be ok) that comes from that knowledge. By being more at peace I am able to avoid the overriding influence of stress that lowers my patience with and ability to focus on those around me (CHARITY - or lack there of in this description). So, just as Moroni explained...if you have faith, you can have hope which allows you to have more charity. It was kind of cool to draw my own cause and effect relationship between those three attributes that parallels what Moroni and Paul said.
Late Edit - I forgot to add on what is now written in green.
