lusciouschaos

The fact that Christ thought it was important to be baptized is good enough for me. No need to wrap my mind around whether or not baptism was important in the Old Testament. Are you concerned about the lack of references to animal sacrifice in the Ensign?

I love this article in Meridian Magazine. My favorite quote is this "When we hold something sacred, our approach to life will be different than when we do not. And, when we hold something sacred, we will rarely be offended by what others hold sacred, at least in the traditional definition of the word. " Enjoy!: M E R I D I A N M A G A Z I N E Is Something Sacred? Meridian's Response to Big Love By Terrance D. Olson Editors' Note: As most of you know, HBO's “Big Love” is running a show next Sunday, March 15th, which they claim to feature a portion of the temple ceremony. This is an article that addresses the issue about the importance of granting to people what is sacred to them as a prerequisite for a civilized society. I had the lead in the high school junior play. I played a psychopath who was "caring" for an elderly lady. My character carried a hip flask full of water that he swigged from as if it were an alcoholic beverage that helped him get from moment to moment. We had completed about five performances through a two-week run. Just before going on stage for performance number six, I was greeted by a solemn prop crew. They had my flask. Their message to me was approximately this: "Terry, we want you to know everything is all right now. But someone wanted to pull a prank on you and they had filled the flask with gin. They were laughing about it and told us to watch what happened when you took a swig on stage. We were horrified and immediately said, 'But Terry doesn't believe in drinking. He's a Mormon.' (The pranksters stopped laughing.) They didn't know what your beliefs were until we told them. They apologized. We have rinsed this out about ten times. It is okay." I have reflected often on the respect and concern both my friends and the strangers involved showed for my beliefs. They did not hold those beliefs but were not offended that I held them. Moreover, they were not willing, in pulling a prank, to cross a line which would put me in a situation where I violated what I considered sacred. In honoring my beliefs, they were not just being tolerant, they were being compassionate. Both attitudes are fundamental to moral and ethical relationships. My experience has been that those who respect another's beliefs, especially beliefs about what is sacred, usually hold some things sacred themselves. To have reverence for something suggests an empathy for others who hold things sacred. Whatever we hold sacred, when we live true to those beliefs, we seem willing to grant others the opportunity to reverence their beliefs. When something is considered sacred, relationships among diverse peoples are possible. When nothing is held sacred, relationships, neighborhoods, cultures, and countries may be in conflict and possibly fall apart. Most of the time, it is probably our unwillingness to grant others their sacred feelings, and not the differences in what we hold sacred, that create contention. For example, I made plans to attend the opening of the Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles . I arrived that February morning in a rainstorm. I had not met the woman from the communications department who was to assure my admission. I sensed that she was the one holding an umbrella and looking anxious. I introduced myself. She was the one. On this day that she and the others of the Jewish community had waited so long for, her first words were, "Terry, there has been some problem with one of your leaders and a speech in Utah ." I didn't know what she meant. She continued, "He was speaking and a man came out of the crowd claiming he had a bomb." I had not yet heard a thing about this, but she had been listening to a Los Angeles news station at midnight and had heard a brief report. Then she spoke about what she assumed I held sacred but which she had never heard of or understood. "The radio report said that the congregation started singing a hymn, and it distracted the man so that he could be apprehended. I'm impressed, Terry, that an audience would turn to something of peace in a time of crisis. I would like to know the name of that hymn." I was putting two and two together. Had I not been in Los Angeles , I would have been on the stand in the Marriott Center that night, listening to Howard W. Hunter give the CES fireside. I told her, "I can almost guarantee that the hymn was one you would be interested in because the Old Testament came to us through prophets. The hymn was probably, "We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet." She knew virtually nothing of LDS culture, music, history, or doctrine. But she knew how to sense the sacred in someone else's beliefs. Actually, it is possible to have sacred beliefs and yet demean other's convictions. To do so, however, means betraying our own beliefs of how to behave, perverting the attitudes we hold, or in other ways dishonoring our own spiritual commitments. Whether our betrayal takes the form of moral superiority, spiritual arrogance, interpersonal ridicule, or being offended at others' devoutness, all are signs of more than not granting others their sacred feelings. They reveal we have turned against our own. The woman at the Wiesenthal Museum , without even thinking about it, was concerned about me, a person she had never met, and my culture and commitments. An assault on my leaders, however minor, was all too familiar to Jewish history. But I am convinced her compassionate response to the threats to President Hunter were more than simple empathy. They revealed the heart of a woman who held her own heritage sacred. Had she been cynical about life, her response both to "We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet" and to the museum's opening would have been devoid of reverence. When nothing is sacred, everything is fair game in conflicts of ideas, attitudes, or behaviors. If something is sacred, then some ground rules of harmonious interaction are possible. But again, if tolerance and compassion were intertwined in acknowledging what others find sacred, new solutions would be possible. A simple example is the Seventh Day Adventist community where the mail is on Sunday (but not on Saturday). It costs nothing in such a circumstance to honor what the community finds sacred. But my major focus here is about how we individually by the way we honor the sacred, treat others, change or improve ourselves, and solve relationship problems. I am convinced that a major reason any individual is empathic toward those from other cultures is because they themselves hold some things sacred and could therefore grant the sacred reverenced by others. One Native American couple in a parenting class told of how, growing up, winter nights consisted of hearing their religious heritage rehearsed in folk stories told by a grandfather around a warm fire. Some members of the class from other cultures expressed the wish that they had had such a background. One Anglo woman noted that her religious roots would have been cemented earlier and more deeply had she had a hogan storyteller instead of a TV set. The religious beliefs of the two cultures were different; the ways winter evenings were spent were different, but these individuals resonated to the idea of the sacred. They granted each other the legitimacy of deep spiritual feelings. I have cousins whose upbringing on a farm sensitized them to the sacred. When you depend not just on hard work but on weather patterns for your livelihood, and see how unpredictable wind and rain and temperature can be, and when one crisis follows another (too much water, not enough water, badgers in the hay, sick cattle, too hot, too cold), you have plenty of invitations from the environment to be either bitter or humble. Granting the sacred makes keeping on with the hard work a faithful, rather than a despairing, enterprise. Successes are not accepted without thanks to God and failures are not endured without pleas to the heavens. In that respect, farmers share something worldwide about what it means to work the soil. Farmers either build determination and confidence from their labors or use their afflictions to destroy their spiritual peace. Significantly, the source of the outcome lies in the human, not in the soil. When we hold something sacred, our approach to life will be different than when we do not. And, when we hold something sacred, we will rarely be offended by what others hold sacred, at least in the traditional definition of the word. "Sacred, consecrated to; esteemed especially dear or acceptable to a deity. Made holy by association with a god..."( The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Volume ii, p. 2,616). Of course, it is assumed that God's interest is in the best interest of his creations, his children, his offspring. Finally, as one of my cousins from Mink Creek farm reminded me, "You can not expect to receive what you are not willing to give." In relationships, that suggests willingly granting another's feelings of the sacred. Your expectations of being similarly treated will not necessarily be met, but your way of being with them means you've done your part to create a starting point for mutual understanding and harmony in religious matters.

Pam, I so appreciate your post. When I see a thread asking lots of specific doctrinal questions that are clearly wired for contention it is frustrating, especially when the author states that they haven't gotten around to praying or reading the Book of Mormon. One upside for me personally is the increased desire I feel to seek the Spirit in understanding how to present gospel truth. We have the opportunity to bring the clarity of the gospel to light in our communication. And once we have spoken the truth and testified to what we know, we have done our part. These days I find an increase in the opportunities "to stand" and as I respond, which often requires moving outside my comfort zone, I have felt my own testimony strengthen and my "confidence wax strong." Bless you in your efforts as I have no doubt of the influence you have on others, often because in reading your posts I feel the Spirit confirm gospel truth.

I posted the original thread last night and read many of the thoughtful responses. This morning I received an e-mail from a local Public Affairs representative here in California. Here is a portion of that e-mail: Many of you will see or hear about the impending broadcast of LDS Temple ceremonies and exploitation of our sacred temple clothes by HBO "Big Love" this week. TV Guide will deliver an ad showing one of the "Big Love" polygamist wives dressed in full temple clothes. It is already circulating on the internet. As has been their practice, the creatives of "Big Love" hijack our customs and sacred symbols and misrepresent them in settings of their own making. Please be aware that the executives of HBO made a commitment to the LDS Church at the outset of "Big Love" that they would never desecrate our sacred rites or clothing in promotion or in their drama. Our Church leaders are fully informed and are considering whether to dignify the show with a response. The head writer of "Big Love" this season, is Dustin Black, the recent Oscar-winner for "Milk." Raised a Mormon, he is clearly versed in our culture. Brothers and Sisters, "Big Love" is not a ratings winner and we don't wish to build their ratings for them. TV Guide does not experience the readership it once had. Some of your friends and neighbors will see the images in print and see our temple ceremonies acted out in the drama. Perhaps the greatest position of strength for us, is to stand by our beliefs and teach the gospel. No, HBO does not represent accurately the sacred dress or beliefs or ceremonies of the LDS Church. Yes, like the Catholics, the Jews, the Muslims, the Buddhists and many other faiths, we do have some sacred ceremonial clothing for our Temples. Our Temples are places where we unite our families forever. They are places where we go to learn the highest principles of character, honor, and devotion to God. THAT's what we can share with our neighbors and friends, and that kind of answer will no doubt....satisfy their questions. Unless otherwise directed, at this sensitive time, I suggest theat Public Affairs leaders NOT urge response to the TV Guide ad, or to the HBO program.....and avoid increasing the show's ratings or attention. According to industry sources, "Big Love" will end this season. I do believe we are entering an era where members of the church will be required "to stand" for their beliefs. Most important is that we find the way to speak of our beliefs with dignity and an intent to clarify rather than blame or incent.

The episode is schedule to air next week on March 15th. I have a PDF of the article from TV Guide but couldn't upload based on the file size.

I am heartsick and saddened by this tonight. It demonstrates such poor judgement and show that there is no boundary. To say that recreating parts of the temple ceremony is germaine to the storyline on Big Love is outrageous. I tried to attach the PDF but the file is too large. If someone can help me post it somewhere I would be happy to provide the TV Guide article > > Dear Family and Friends, > > Take a look at the attached pdf and consider writing to HBO. I just did. This is very disappointing: > > On Sunday March 15th, the HBO show Big Love is showing an > episode containing an excommunication as well as temple ceremonies. > They hired an ex-member to help re-create the ceremony, rooms, and > clothing. > > HBO is owned by Time Warner. Send your emails, snail mails, > phone calls, to both companies to show HBO that we won't stand for > the use of things we consider sacred on their show Big Love, which is using a > replica of an endowment room and celestial room to show what happens > in the ceremonies there! Just keep it within Church standards please! > > HBO is owned by Time Warner: > Time Warner Inc. > One Time Warner Center > New York, NY10019-8016 > 212.484.8000 > > HBO Online: Corporate Info > Here are some wise suggestions that were forwarded to me: > If you write a letter, here are two things your want to RESPECTFULLY say in your own words to HBO: > > -I believe it is wrong for HBO to publicly air portions of sacred ceremonies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without permission > from the church and based on information given you by someone who has left the church and may harbor bad feelings toward the church and wish to do > it harm. > > AND THE BIG ONE THAT WILL ALWAYS GET THEIR ATTENTION: > > - If you air such an episode, I will cancel my subscription to all HBO channels (if you have them), and will not purchase HBO DVDs or any other HBO > entertainment products or packages ever again. Furthermore, I will encourage my friends and associates to do likewise. > > > ANOTHER IMPORTANT THING YOU CAN DO: > > The FCC is the government agency that regulates all broadcast and cable television. File a complaint expressing your shock and dismay at HBO > treating the sacred ceremonies of any religion with such mockery and disregard, and that it is shoddy work hiring excommunicated members/enemies of > church and giving them a public pulpit to hurt the church. > > To File a complaint with the FCC go to: > > FCC Consumer Complaints > > -Choose "Broadcast (TV and Radio), Cable, and Satellite Issues" and then click "NEXT." > > -Choose "Broadcast programs showing obscene, profane, and/or indecent material" then click "NEXT." > > - Click on "ONLINE FORM" Fill out the form with your complaint and submit.

Welcome Katie, This is a good place to discuss the gospel.

Here is my prediction based on listening to the 3 hour session this am: I do not believe the California Supreme Court will rule to strike down the Prop 8. Not because the majority of the justices believe that same sex marriage is wrong but because they do not believe they have the power to vote against the will of the people. Justice Joyce Kenard was the most vocal judge at the proceeding. In April 2008, she voted to allow same sex couples to marry. Today, she all but gave her opinion, that the court does not have the power to discount the vote from Nov. That would make the vote 4 to 3 in favor of upholding Prop 8 minimally. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, but that is my read. The bench didn't seem to agree that the vote was a revision not an amendment. Don't know where it goes from here. Eventually the Supreme Court but how long till that happens is anybody's guess. Much like the time/place of the Savior's return. No man knows.....

Maxel, You are not sad just saddened. A temporary state at best.

The judges chose to overturn the will of the people with the first vote on Prop 22. What is different this time is that Prop 8 amended the state constitution. I think it will be much harder this time for the judges because in overturning the vote, they are in essence saying that the state constitution is not constitutional. Most legal scholars regardless of their position on same sex marriage would challenge the justices desire to dilute the state constitution. They could rule that Prop 8 is not an amendment but a substantive change to the constitution which would require a 2/3 vote of the state legislature to approve. That one is risky. There is talk that the issue of same sex marriage will one day end up at the Supreme Court. Currently 44 states have some type of amendment or statute on their state rule books. At this point the issue will be as complicated as Roe v. Wade. Tomorrow the cases begin. Here is info to follow the cases live: Prop. 8 Arguments / CA Sup. Ct. Live on Calif Channel at 9 am, Thurs. 3/5/09 Streaming Source for CA Politics , See The California Channel then Click link under "Upcoming Events"

Eve saw the bigger picture. And in fact there are times when the rule is broken for the greater good. Think Abraham and Isaac. He didn't slay Isaac but he was fully willing to do as the Lord commanded. Eve was obedient to a higher law. Being the "mother of all living," she knew that no progression could take place as long as they stayed in the garden. A little like wanting your child to stay in kindergarten forever because they are so innocent. I cannot wait for the day when her role is fully revealed and we can thank her for her sacrifice in bringing us to the earth.

I don't care if they are famous or profound or spiritual giants--their job is to meet me, tell me how much they enjoyed watching my foibles and occasional bouts of brilliance and to confirm how much the Lord loves me and that he can't wait to see me and that I am free to enter into the joy....

I received this today from the area Public Affairs Council. Seems rumors are on the rise. I have to admit I feel something coming.... Stop perpetuating LDS myths and hoaxes By Emily W. Jensen Published: Tuesday, Mar. 3, 2009 Have you heard the story about the youths who were generals in the war in heaven? Or about the photograph reported to be Joseph Smith? What about the one claiming that new scriptures have both The Proclamation on the Family and The Living Christ officially inserted after the Articles of Faith? What tantalizes us to e-mail forward and/or blog about these LDS-theme rumors, myths, hoaxes, hearsay and urban legends? I actually have two minds about this. First I think sometimes people really want to find out if it's true, and therefore just use their blogs to broadcast "Is this accurate?" inquiries. I think that's cool and can be helpful in busting the myth. In reading some of the comments from "Hearsay of the Church," it's easy to see how quickly the new-scripture myth from above is nipped in the bud. On the other hand, those who just quickly post or forward in order to pass on new "claims" can problematically perpetuate these rumors. This is not a new phenomenon: "It never ceases to amaze me how gullible some of our church members are in broadcasting these sensational stories or dreams or visions, some alleged to have been given to church leaders, past or present, supposedly from some person's private diary, without first verifying the report with proper church authorities. If our people want to be safely guided during these troublous times of deceit and false rumors, they must follow their leaders and seek for the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord." President Harold B. Lee said this, way back in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' General Conference priesthood meeting in October 1972. A good example of passing on Mormon hearsay was the e-mail forward probably many of you saw in October concerning a sacrament meeting talk by President Packer: "The Boyd K. Packer Email -- "Mormon Myth of Not?" Someone asked if anyone could "Confirm or Deny?" the e-mail forward. Reading the comments, one quickly finds the answer: "President Packer has not approved the report of his talk or authorized its distribution. It is recommended that individuals follow the instruction, counsel and spirit of his recent October 2008 General Conference talk." At the least, e-mail forwards or uninformed blogs posts can be annoying, but unfortunately the problem can grow into a kind of "Alarmist News" where "the aim of these mails is to foster anger against those that seem to threaten our ideals. It is part of a rhetoric based on lies, or at least on severe alterations of the truth ... before contributing to deceitful propaganda and inciting to hate, it is helpful to study the issues, check the facts and at least discern the nuances and the quotes out of context." To help you "check the facts" and "study the issues," here are a few Web sites dedicated to dispel rampant Mormon myths: • The FAIRMormon Wiki page on Rumors, Hoaxes, and Urban Legends (check out their treatment of the "youth as generals" myth) • Shields Research on LDS Hoaxes and Myths • The more general myth-busting Snopes.com Be sure to check the reliability of the sources provided in the claim (if there are none, that's a bad sign), but if you have to pass it on, add caveat phrases or words such as "likely," "maybe" or "possible" (see for example this "Possible Photograph of Prophet Joseph"). Or perhaps the best thing you could do is to make it a habit to stay far, far away from that "forward" button to stop the perpetuation of Mormon myths. Now join me as I try to accurately depict other posts from the Bloggernacle: Power pick: So what's "The Newest LDS Urban Legend?" It's a pandemic of epic proportions!!! Note my redundant use of both words and punctuation; sounds like a perfect subject line for an e-mail myth. Anyway, bfwebster handled this urban legend skillfully. He checked the sources, looked at all sides of the story, updated his blog as new information came in, provided links to supplement his findings and warned about furthering misinformation. Check it out! Forgotten gem: Whoa! We're headed clear back four and a half years to September 2004 when Jeff Lindsay warned to "Beware Faith Promoting Hoaxes." He discusses how "Latter-day Saints need to be cautious about believing faith-promoting rumors, even when they are dressed up with impressive details. Just because you got some story from somebody via e-mail or saw it on a Web page does not make it true. It's wise to wait for external confirmation or publication from a reputable source." Check out his links to various hoaxes and see his update just from last month! Techie tip: And finally, you know how sometimes people misrepresent the LDS religion? Well the LDS.org Newsroom produced an informative 10-minute video for the journalists who were coming to cover the 2002 Olympics in Utah to help dispel some of the myths about Mormons. You can view it and learn more about it here: "Video Challenges Public Misperceptions, Explains Myths vs. Reality." You can click on the video tab to get the embeddable code for your own blog or just watch it to understand that while the misconceptions can be amusing, it is important to provide accurate information. MormonTimes.com is produced by the Deseret News in Salt Lake City, Utah. It is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Copyright © 2009 Deseret News Publishing Company

Understood. My beef here is that they chose not to represent those who elected them.

The AFA can be extreme unfortunately there are not many moderate conservative voices willing to do the work to get the issues out there.

Ever watch the stock ticker when Obama is making a speech?

This was passed this am. California Legislature Violates Separation of Powers, Passes Anti-Prop 8 Resolutions Moments ago the Assembly and Senate passed resolutions stating their opposition to Proposition 8. Both houses of the state legislature are trying to go on record opposing Proposition 8 prior to the California Supreme Court's hearing of the lawsuits against Proposition 8 on Thursday. In lengthy floor debates, Democrats passed HR 5 (Ammiano) and SR 7 (Leno), which express the opinion of the legislature that Proposition 8 was an unconstitutional revision and must be ruled invalid. However, the legislature's passage of HR 5 and SR 7 violates the separation of powers doctrine which clearly instructs the legislature to refrain from influencing the judicial process, particularly pending legal cases. Many Democrats rose to speak out against Proposition 8, even those from districts that clearly voted in favor of Proposition 8. "How arrogant for these lawmakers to express their personal opposition to Proposition 8 and try to persuade the court when their constituents voted in favor of traditional marriage," stated Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. Assemblyman Van Tran eloquently pointed out that HR 5 is an attempt to "retroactively disenfranchise the votes of over 7 million voters" who passed Proposition 8. He explained that HR 5 is also an "illegal ex parte communication with the court." Tran went on to chastise the Democrats for seeking to unduly influence the judicial review of Proposition 8 after the people had voted, and the legislature is politicizing the judicial process just a few days before the hearing. Republican assemblymen Chuck DeVore, Ted Gaines, Joel Anderson, Steve Knight, Mike Villines and Dan Logue all rose to speak out against HR 5 and affirm the people's right to pass Proposition 8. Joel Anderson called on this fellow lawmakers to refrain from interpreting the law in the legislature, leaving that constitutional duty to the judicial branch. Regardless of how you feel about Prop 8, it is disturbing that the election process is being subverted so profoundly. The people put this to a vote and they chose to pass Prop 8. I can guarantee that had the Proposition failed, those involved would have respected the will of the people. I am not saying it would never be introduced again but it would have been done using the vehicles to make change already in place. How is it that 53% of the people voted and their representatives just decide to go ahead with their own lawmaking. Why do we bother to vote? Legal challenges go before the courts starting May 5th. Honestly, my belief is that if a new vote was held today, Proposition 8 would pass by a larger margin than in November. The people want their vote to be heard and respected.

I would love to read "The Promise of Discipleship" by Neal Maxwell. Just recently I have been struck by the prophetic nature of his talks. Reread one from 1978 that is unfolding today. all the best...

Articles of Faith by Talmage??

Lots of modern day revelation in General Conference on the subject.

I am just surprised that no one has come out with a claim that one of the characters is gay. I am still a little freaked out about the Dumbledore revelation.

Now there is a great idea for a Ward Activity. Have a Jello Making/Eating Contest.

I heard the 9 out of 10 figure at the recent Stake Conference. Interesting to think about the one who chose not to accept at that stage of the game.

Good one missing. You would like to fall into the arms of a very good lucking drug addict. Oh wait, I forgot no more infirmities. Okay works for me. I wonder if he is the 9 out of 10 that accepted his temple work

One day I will have to share with you my miracle needle threader. I read your testimony and really enjoyed it. I am pretty new as well. Enjoy!!