I can run again!

 Yesterday I got to start running again after six weeks of physical therapy.  Actually, it has been longer than that. I tore my meniscus apparently, and both my brother (who is a sports medicine doctor) and my doctor agreed on a treatment plan of a steroid injection into my knee and then physical therapy for ten weeks.  I have been doing the exercises faithfully--only missing two times, despite days spent traveling--and have noticed so much improvement. It has been long and slow, but the promise of not only moving without pain but also playing sports is a good motivation!

My brother gave me a specific plan and as I started doing them, I noticed that most of them had to do with my hips.  This was an additional blessing, because I had recently become aware that some of my physical problems were potentially linked to some kind of hip displacement that happens during and after childbearing.  And chances are, my hips are pretty displaced!  So my hips, my "sitting," my knee, and I realized even my back problems were all a part of this same problem...a problem that I finally have a solution for through these exercises. I love how connected my problems--and hence, my solution!-are.

Now, being consistent about these kind of exercises is NOT fun. I am pretty great at doing things off and on, things that are fun, and doing things that have immediate validation or reward. 

But as I ran my less than 2-mile, twenty minute route yesterday, it was worth it. 1,680 minutes for twenty minutes. And then twenty more and twenty more.  Because it has been way more minutes than that in which I didn't have the choice or ability to run. Or even go up and down stairs or even sit without pain.

Like the Gospel and so many other things, I like that life can be changed by little things. Little stretches. Little exercises. Small and simple.

And I also love that we sometime reap benefits that we don't even realize by doing the small and simple things that are so right for us.

How to become more free?

We are talking about "freedom" this month in our homeschool and learning how to be more free in our personal lives.  As I prayed about how I can personally become more free, I realized I have three very specific areas I need to work on:

-Forgiving others

-Seeking help to start overcoming my addiction to food as a source of comfort

-Freeing my children to be confident in their gender roles by being a better example of a joyful wife and mother to my children:

In two-parent families, the child needs acceptance by both parents to begin to establish gender security. In homes where the mother feels good about her role as a family builder, she will make the child feel well accepted. The mother and child are constant companions. Mother is a coach and tutor, involved in the numberless trials, errors, and successes of this developmental period. The father, on the other hand, comes home from his employment and tends to interrupt the routine. Often he interrupts with play, sometimes with duties, and on occasion with discipline. If he is a mature parent, he brings home with him encouragement and approval for what the mother and children have done that day; if immature, he brings tension.

Elder Harold B. Lee emphasized the importance of the mother and the need to help her be with her children:
“Keep the mother of your home at the ‘cross roads’ of the home. There is a great danger today of homes breaking down because of allurements to entice mothers to neglect their being at home as the family are coming or going from the home. Now I recognize the necessity of some mothers being required to earn sustenance for their family. I am recognizing that, but [we all] should take care lest [we] fail to lend all aid possible to permit the mother of small children to be with them, if possible, in planning the nature of work or the schedule of time” (“Woman’s Glorious Purpose,”Relief Society Magazine, Jan. 1968, pp. 12–13).

It is in this early stage of life [newborn-three], as the roles of male and female are acquired, that the foundation of sexual health is laid or sexual distress begins. By age three most children should have firmly accepted their identity as male or female. When family unhappiness has led them to feel unaccepted, they may become confused about their self-esteem and their gender role. Loving, consistent parenting helps children accept themselves and their gender identity during these three years. Unkind parenting can plant seeds of self-doubt and even confusion about the gender role. These seeds can germinate into personal problems in the following years unless parents change and show increased affection and acceptance. 

I saw an example of positive family relationships yesterday in church sitting behind a family where the wife is meek and submissive to her husband.  They love each other.  He is a good father, provider and protector.  He is confident in that role.  She is sweet and loving.  The children submit to the quick verbal rebuke of their father and feel safe. I am sure they have seen their mother supportive of him and submissive to his counsel.  While this may run counter at the surface to feminine strength movements, there is beauty in the peace and harmony of this family.  The wife is radiant and confident, yet knows she can rely upon her husband.  The husband is secure in his wife's love and support.  It reflects a state of heart that I desire to have.

I know these are God inspired goals. I know that I will not have conquered them by month's end (they may take a life-time or into eternity), but I am seeking to have the courage to identify these areas in my life and that I can improve today.  With God's grace, I have asked the question: please help me with these specific things" and I know He will answer now that I am ready to listen and truly identify what those answers are.  

Sometimes, you have to ask the right question to get the answers.

"Let them walk all over me?! NEVER!"

"Oh," I answered the teacher. "I just had an ah-hah!  I think that God wants us to come up and love at His level and drop judgment and just love...unconditionally."

Our Sunday School teacher had just shared with us the definition of "agape," the highest of the four forms of love identified by the Greeks:

the highest form of love, especially brotherly love, charity; the love of God for man and of man for God, what some people call "unconditional love."

I was thrilled!  This matched with everything I had just been thinking about and learning about in my own journey towards letting God fight my battles and truly praying to just love others after watching War Room.

"Most of your answer was good," came his cautious answer, "but we must make judgment and we must not let ourselves be walked all over by another."  Good point.

Now, I have heard this answer all my life, and I believe there is some truth to it.  However, I am beginning to believe that this mentality can also be a huge hurdle to truly having charity, this perceived need of "self-defense."

My thoughts that follow are still a work in progress. I am seeking for the truth of it, and, as with many truths, I am sure there are times and seasons for different applications of this truth.  Yet what I am seeking right now is an idea that is very elusive and feels...different.  Different from my programmed in response and different take than what I took from my Sunday School teacher's answer (he could have meant something different altogether).  We shall see.

"Judge but not Condemn"
Back to my story, the teacher's response left me wondering.  I have pondered this answer of his, this "don't let your guard down" mentality.  This morning as I prayed in my mini war-room over the garbage cans in the corner of my kitchen, I was praying to love a particular person with fervor and this Sunday School teacher's response came into my mind.  "We must not let people walk all over us or hurt us.  We must still make judgments."  I believe some of the spirit of what he said lies in my husband's beautiful and succinct answer to this age-old dilemma of "when to judge":

We always make judgments.  We just must not condemn.

I feel that this is part of the answer...this difference between condemnation and judgment.  However, I think there is more.

The Right Enemy
There is a line in "War Room," where the main character throws out this problem to her mentor: "Do I just back off and choose to forgive and let him walk all over me??"

 This whole scene is something I need to watch over and over again, but I love her mentor's response: "God is a good defense attorney.  Then you can turn your focus to the real enemy.  The one that remains hidden.  The one that wants to distract you...to deceive you.  To divide you from the Lord and your husband.  Satan comes to steal, kill and destroy....You need to get your heart right with God and you need to do your fighting through prayer."

God doesn't ask us to stop fighting.  He wants us to fight the right enemy.  I fear that too often I allow my "judgment," my "protect myself" attitude to become an armor that is keeping God's love out and keeping Satan in.

Lay Down My Weapons?
This concept of "not letting down my defenses" led to me to an experience shared in the Book of Mormon:

Their submission at first seems ludicrous...but they are victorious in the end.  I guess it depends upon what we consider a "victory"?

Maybe some effective questions to ask ourselves in a given situation are:
--when I put up my defenses, who am I defending myself against?
--do I trust God enough to fight my battles for me, to be my defense attorney?
--have I truly "battled in prayer" and do I fervently pray for God's love for the individual I am contending against or "protecting myself from"?
--is this a case when I need to "lie down my weapons of war for peace" as the Anti-Nephi-Lehis did or a case when, like Captain Moroni or General Washington, when I need to take up my weapons and defend my people and fight with them "for their houses, their wives, their children and their freedom"?

We are commanded to love our enemies.  We are commanded to forgive 70 times 7...or eternally. We are counseled to let God fight our battles for us There is a reason for these commandments and this counsel and why they come out a lot more in the scriptures than instructions to fight.

Times and Seasons
There is a time and a season for everything...but have we tried fighting God's way before we shore up our heart and throw up our defenses?

 1 To every thing there is a ^aseason, and a ^btime to every purpose under the heaven:
 2 A ^atime to be born, and a time to ^bdie; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
 3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
 6 A time to ^aget, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
 7 A time to ^arend, and a time to sew; a time to keep^bsilence, and a time to speak;
 8 A time to love, and a time to ^ahate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Through my own insecurities, I feel sometimes like my answers aren't "right" or "don't fit" what what my teachers have in mind.  I feel shut down. I feel insecure. I feel even attacked sometimes. Sometimes I just feel like I shouldn't keep going to classes (yes, this has been a battle over the years with many teachers...must be my problem, eh :)?).  Will my "protection of myself" in these situations be a victory for me and for God or for Satan who does not desire my good or the good of anyone in that classroom?

I believe the answers to these questions are personal and to be sought on a situation by situation basis. However, the principle that "forgiveness, love, trust, mercy, grace and God's power are sufficient to make us happy" is universal.

Sometimes, God;s defense will be His call for us to pick up "our weapons of war for peace." Sometimes He uses us to help fight His battles...and sometimes He asks us to lay down our weapons at the feet of those who are fighting us to win the greater battle.  Whew.  That will take a lot of prayerful discernment and trust.  And a lot of "fighting in prayer" as I seek to fight the right enemy.

As my wise husband so often counsels, we need to be careful of universal applications and rather take each situation case by case to determine which action for that specific situation will be best.   Perhaps these series of questions will help me decide which unique answer will be mine in any given situation that God will do His will in my life that Satan, the true enemy, will not win.

So I return to my original question: "Let them walk all over me?! ...well, maybe if God is doing my fighting and the victory on the other side of submission is sweeter.  Let me pray about it."

Socialism and Plumbing :)

I have studied a great deal about history and there has never been a time when a socialist program, however ideal-looking, has worked the way it says it's going to.  If men were angels, sure.  We could live a higher law when we all just grow, take, or eat what we need (not want) and then share the rest.  To force men, to redistribute it for them--that is to take the power to do so and place it into the hands of falliable men, men who once endowed with that power and those resources, do not always deliver in a very angelic way.

Socialism has always ended the same way.  Why do we think we will be any different?

I really enjoyed this analysis of our country's recent "venture" into socialism: Obamacare.

Only weeks after leaving office on Jan. 20, 2017, former President Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Troy the Plumber to come out and fix it.
Troy drives to Obama’s new house, which is located in a very exclusive, gated community near Chicago where all the residents have a net income of way more than $250,000 per year.
Troy arrives and takes his tools into the house. He is led to the guest bathroom that contains the leaky pipe under the sink. Troy assesses the problem and tells Obama that it’s an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes. Obama asks Troy how much it will cost. Troy checks his rate chart and says, “$9,500.”
“What?! $9,500?!” Obama asks, stunned, “But you said it’s an easy repair. Michelle will whip me if I pay a plumber that much!”

Troy says, “Yes, but what I do is charge those who make more than $250,000 per year a much higher amount so I can fix the plumbing of poorer people for free. This has always been my philosophy. As a matter of fact, I lobbied the Democrat Congress, who passed this philosophy into law. Now all plumbers must do business this way. It’s known as the ‘Affordable Plumbing Act of 2014′. I’m surprised you haven’t heard of it.” In spite of that, Obama tells Troy there’s no way he’s paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Troy leaves. Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book calling for another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses in the area have gone out of business. Not wanting to pay Troy’s price, Obama does nothing and the leak goes un-repaired for several more days. A week later the leak is so bad Obama has had to put a bucket under the sink.
Michelle is not happy as she has Oprah and guests arriving the next morning. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour, and there’s a risk the room will flood, so Obama calls Troy and pleads with him to return.
Troy goes back to Obama’s house, looks at the leaky pipe, checks his new rate chart and says, “Let’s see, this will now cost you $21,000.”
Obama quickly fires back, “What? A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!”
Troy explains, “Well, because of the ‘Affordable Plumbing Act,’ a lot of wealthier people are learning how to maintain and take care of their own plumbing, so there are fewer payers in the plumbing exchanges.
As a result, the price I have to charge wealthy people like you keeps rising. Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work by those who get it for free has skyrocketed!
There’s a long waiting list of those who need repairs, but the amount we get doesn’t cover our costs, especially paperwork and record-keeping. This unfortunately has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, they’re not being replaced, and nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they can’t make any money at it.
I’m hurting too, all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won’t pay their ‘fair share’. On the other hand, why didn’t you buy plumbing insurance last December? If you had bought plumbing insurance available under the ‘Affordable Plumbing Act,’ all this would have been covered by your policy.”
“You mean I wouldn’t have to pay anything to have you fix my plumbing problem?” asks Obama.
“Well, not exactly,” replies Troy. “You would have had to buy the insurance before the deadline, which has passed now. And, because you’re rich, you would have had to pay $34,000 in premiums, which would have given you a ‘silver’ plan, and then, since this would have been your first repair, you would have to pay up to the $21,000 deductible, and anything over that would have a $7,500 co-pay, and then there’s the mandatory maintenance program, which is covered up to 17.5%, so there are some costs involved. Nothing is for free.”
“WHAT?!” exclaims Obama. “Why so much for a puny sink leak?!”
With a bland look, Troy replies, “Well, paperwork, mostly, like I said. And the internal cost of the program itself. You don’t think a program of this complexity and scope can run itself, do you?
Besides, there are millions of folks with lower incomes than you, even many in the ‘middle class’, who qualify for subsidies that people like you must support.

That’s why they call it the ‘Affordable Plumbing Act’! Only people who don’t make much money can afford it. If you want affordable plumbing, you’ll have to give away most of what you have accumulated and cut your and Michelle’s income by about 90%. Then you can qualify to get your ‘Fair Share’ instead of giving it.” “But who would pass a crazy act like the ‘Affordable Plumbing Act’?!” exclaims the exasperated Obama.
After a sigh, Troy replies, “Congress… because they didn’t read it.” (link to source)

While I don't agree with all the comments and context found in the link above, the analogy was appropriate.  Makes one think, anyway, and I love to think!

Character and the American Commitment to the Greater Good

 The following is just to beautiful to not share. I believe that our America today still has many of these virtues, these ideals, this character.  We just need to rise up and use it.

(The following is a excerpt from "A Patriot's History of the United States" which is actually available online at http://uscrow.org/downloads/A%20Patriots%20History%20of%20the%20US%20-%20Ytsewolf.pdf which is where I obtained a copy of this longish quote so I didn't have to type it :)...)

Throughout much of the twentieth century, there was a subtle and, at times, obvious campaign to
separate virtue from talent, to divide character from success. The latest in this line of attack is the
emphasis on diversity—that somehow merely having different skin shades or national origins
makes America special. But it was not the color of the skin of people who came here that made
them special, it was the content of their character. America remains a beacon of liberty, not merely
because its institutions have generally remained strong, its citizens free, and its attitudes tolerant,
but because it, among most of the developed world, still cries out as a nation, “Character counts.”
Personal liberties in America are genuine because of the character of honest judges and attorneys
who, for the most part, still make up the judiciary, and because of the personal integrity of large
numbers of local, state, and national lawmakers.

No society is free from corruption. The difference is that in America, corruption is viewed as the
exception, not the rule. And when light is shown on it, corruption is viciously attacked. Freedom
still attracts people to the fountain of hope that is America, but freedom alone is not enough.
Without responsibility and virtue, freedom becomes a soggy anarchy, an incomplete licentiousness.
This is what has made Americans different: their fusion of freedom and integrity endows
Americans with their sense of right, often when no other nation in the world shares their perception.
Yet that is as telling about other nations as it is our own; perhaps it is that as Americans, we alone
remain committed to both the individual and the greater good, to personal freedoms and to public
virtue, to human achievement and respect for the Almighty. Slavery was abolished because of the
dual commitment to liberty and virtue—neither capable of standing without the other. Some
crusades in the name of integrity have proven disastrous, including Prohibition. The most recent
serious threats to both liberty and public virtue (abuse of the latter damages both) have come in the
form of the modern environmental and consumer safety movements. Attempts to sue gun makers,
paint manufacturers, tobacco companies, and even Microsoft “for the public good” have made
distressingly steady advances, encroaching on Americans’ freedoms to eat fast foods, smoke, or
modify their automobiles, not to mention start businesses or invest in existing firms without fear of
retribution.

The Founders—each and every one of them—would have been horrified at such intrusions on
liberty, regardless of the virtue of the cause, not because they were elite white men, but because
such actions in the name of the public good were simply wrong. It all goes back to character: the
best way to ensure virtuous institutions (whether government, business, schools, or churches) was
to populate them with people of virtue. Europe forgot this in the nineteenth century, or by World
War I at the latest. Despite rigorous and punitive face-saving traditions in the Middle East or Asia,
these twin principles of liberty and virtue have never been adopted. Only in America, where one
was permitted to do almost anything, but expected to do the best thing, did these principles
germinate.

To a great extent, that is why, on March 4, 1801, John Adams would have thought of nothing other
than to turn the White House over to his hated foe, without fanfare, self-pity, or complaint, and
return to his everyday life away from politics. That is why, on the few occasions where very thin
electoral margins produced no clear winner in the presidential race (such as 1824, 1876, 1888,
1960, and 2000), the losers (after some legal maneuvering, recounting of votes, and occasional
whining) nevertheless stepped aside and congratulated the winner of a different party. Adams may
have set a precedent, but in truth he would do nothing else. After all, he was a man of character.

Education vs. Conditioning

Common Core is an interesting topic.  My husband asks me why I care since I homeschool, not out of any apathy on his part, but out of genuine interest in my motive.

Quite simply: it is because the way the youth are educated determines the future of a nation.

 

I have been a little wary of the extreme sensationalism and fanaticism I have seen opposing Common Core.  While I respect fiery determination to right the wrongs of this world, as found in Samual Adams and Patrick Henry, I am also mindful of the mindless passion that led many of the people of France to bring friends and family to the guillotine. I am also mindful of how easily "facts" can be misrepresented and fabricated.

And yet, I have also been a little puzzled at the relatively silent and steady (even secretive?) movement forward of the implementation of Common Core and the fear that I sense that seems to be enabling it.  For instance, the other day at Pack Meeting, a dear friend shared with me some of her concerns.  She has all of her children in mainstream public school for she felt that is the right path for her children.  (I heartily believe in and support the right of the parent to know what is best for their child!)  However, as she shared just two examples of her concern and her feelings that went along with it, I became alarmed.

Example 1: One of the test questions given to one of her children went to the effect of "In which of the following situations would you steal?"  Six options were given and not one was "I would not steal" or "none of the above."  Think of what is happening with this one simple question: you have a trusting, impressionable young student who has been taught culturally and in his home that tests are meant to be passed.  They are presented with only options that violate his core beliefs.  His "only option" to "succeed" in this question is to rationalize each of these situations in his mind, justifying the response of stealing to feel if any of them would be acceptable.

In six different ways he tries to feel out if he could justify stealing, all with the idea in his head that one of the answers must be right.  What if none of them are?  What is this doing to the moral foundation in this child?  Depending upon the home, it could be starting beliefs that run completely counter to the parents' core belief.  Regardless of the parent's belief or lack thereof, it could be running against God's eternal truths, indoctrinating them in the "religion" of moral relativism and secular humanism.

Another follow-up question in this example was raised in one of her children's classrooms: "Who knows what is best for you, the government or your family?"  What child understands that question?  What child  understands even what government means?  True government in the democratic republic our Founding Fathers created is a representation of the people, in which case the question is irrelevant.  Who is even asking this question? And more importantly, why?

Example 2:  In some testing situations, children have headphones put on their heads.  If they respond "incorrectly" to an answer, they hear a buzzing in their ear to let them know they were wrong.  This is conditioning-- creating instinctive, automatic responses to certain questions.  Pavlov did it with rats.  It has also been performed on people.

Do we know what is on these tests that are being used to create generated responses?  Answers I have received from teachers and parents alike is that none of them are permitted to know what is on these tests.  The potential for wide-spread conditioning to specific ideas is huge.  And what if those questions they are being "conditioned to" are the ones I mentioned above?  And what if, morally and religiously, I am completely opposed to the "correct response?

I bring up all this from a first-hand account of my dear friend in the public school system.  She is trying to make it work, because she feels that is where they need to be. However, as she considers "opting out" of the testing, she hears from another friend who experienced first hand the negative effects on her top-scholar son's academic record: he was labeled as a "non-performing" student. My friend fears the negative repercussions that could come from refusing to have this testing done.

Another lady I met yesterday who recently went through this process of "opting out" experienced the same things for her sons,...in fact, the principal at first refused to even take her "opt-out" papers, assuring her of the negative impact it would have on her sons' academic records. Her friends in her community, who actually inspired her to do it in response to their own outrage over Common Core, all feared to do the same and opt their children out, and she ended up being the only one to opt out.

My purpose in bringing this up is not to incite fear, but rather to provoke questions.
*Do we know what our children are learning, both ours and their peers?
*Are we, as parents, truly mindful that we are primarily responsible for the education--spirtual, moral and secular--of our children?

*If we have a system that is steeped in secrecy and generates fear, what is our role in identifying what is happening?
*How can we find the facts amidst the sensational?
*Are we allowing our fears to govern our actions, rather than our sense of right and wrong?
*How can we rise above our fears of "what will this do to the social standing of my child" and do what we feel is morally right?

Those last couple questions are what bother me the most right now, I think.  I see so many people feeling and knowing that they need to do something different, but are being immobilized by fear: fear of academic labels of their children, fear of peer exclusion, fear of "what might happen"?  That is what scares me the most.  Does it truly matter more how the mysterious entity of "the government" labels our children than how they and we stand in doing the right thing before God?  Are we so frightened of peer pressure that we are allowing tyranny to spread in our midst?

Historically, I saw these same fears paralyze Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Mao Ze Dong's China.  It is horrible,...it is horrific.  We must start today to stand for what we believe is not only "the best" for our families and our country. More importantly, we must simply stand for what is right.

If people geniunely feel Common Core is right for their child, I respect their right to choose that for their education.  However, I feel that if a parent feels it is wrong, that, too, needs to be respected and honored, and neither the parent nor the students should be made to fear or shunned, as if it was morally wrong to opt out of a government-generated educational program.

Conditioning scares me.  It creates responses based upon systems of belief that may be false and may have the same results we saw in Germany, Russia, and China. May we learn from history so we will not be doomed to repeat it.  It all starts with one person doing the right thing and others being inspired to do the same.  May we each be the one to make a stand and our influence will be great!

New Year Creed

I have found my 2014 theme...

And do not be afraid to apply that influence without fear or apology. “Be ready always to give an answer to every [man, woman, and child] that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” “Bring up your children in light and truth.” “Teach [them] to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord.”
http://lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/the-moral-force-of-women.p23?lang=eng

Now to start the battle of the census.  Re-painting the basement will have to wait.  There are freedoms to be won.  (Or "re-won" as the case may be.) Wish me luck! 

Economics and our responsibility

"We the people are the rightful masters of both  Congress and the Courts,
not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow  the men who would pervert the Constitution." 

 

~ Abraham  Lincoln

 

 

We recently had a class for our youth in Economics.  It was amazing.  I highly recommend the reading:

 

Read One For the Money, sections 4 and 5

Read the book Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?

 

Read The Richest Man in Babylon online

Read Economics in One Lesson online (this one is amazing!)

 

I think these are must reads for everyone!

 

Forgiveness

A few days ago, I read the following in St. Luke 11:4: "And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us."

It struck me...that we forgive those that are indebted to us,...not just those who say "sorry" or who have already made restitution.  Wow.  I wasn't sure if I was up to it, but, two days ago, when I felt the frustration boil after speaking with someone who was rude to me, I tried it.

"Fine," I told myself, "I forgive them.  No strings attached.  I am done and moving on, and I love them."  The feeling of freedom was incredible. I usually hold the offense close to my heart, but this time, I just let it go. 

This morning for devotional, we watched the following, and I was reminded of my experience.  This man is truly inspiring and the video beautiful...enjoy!

We spoke in our devotional about how when we are forgiving of others, letting go of the grievance instead of holding onto it, we allow the same to happen with our sins.  We see our sins and our Father in Heaven in a different light...we feel the freedom and joy that comes with asking forgiveness without worrying if the price we need to pay is enough, if that makes sense.  I believe that the degree of forgiveness we extend to others can either soften or harden our hearts as we look at our own sins and consider whether they are forgiveable.

Avot make a beautiful comparison with this concept and Jean Valjean and Javier.  Jean Valjean received forgiveness and freely gave it to others.  Javier withheld his forgiveness and mercy and could not receive it for himself when Jean Valjean extended it to him.  He destroyed himself instead.

Let us let the joy of forgiveness into our lives!

Power in covenants

I was reading this morning in the Doctrine and C 46ovenants, section 130 about how every blessing we get is predicated upon obedience to some law.

Well, I have been blessed my whole life, in times when I have seemed to be doing alright and times when I haven't been so nice.  Heavenly Father must be pretty broad-minded...or understand that sometimes my limited demonstrations of obedience are all I can give.

My son, Drew, then pointed out from his scripture reading the following verses in Alma 46:

20 Behold, whosoever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and ^aenter into a covenant that they will ^bmaintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them.

 21 And it came to pass that when Moroni had proclaimed these words, behold, the people came running ^atogether with their armor girded about their loins, ^brending their garments in token, or as a ^ccovenant, that they would not forsake the Lord their God; or, in other words, if they should transgress the commandments of God, or fall into transgression, and be ^dashamed to take upon them the name of Christ, the Lord should rend them even as they had rent their garments.

We talked about how they came forward "in the strength of the Lord," making covenants.  We thought: how powerful to have a group of people come together in a common cause, each bearing the strength of the Lord.  The Lord's power is limitless!

They came forward running, donning their physical and spiritual armor.  May we each do so and then reap the blessings that come from entering into covenants that give us "the strength of the Lord."

Freedom of Speech

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it..."

Just read the following post about what happened to a young man at a recent sports event:


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/texas-teen-points-heavens-gets-4-100-relay-181303156.html

What happens when we live in a society so paranoid about what people are going to do or say that we turn to laws to keep others from offending us?  Our very laws come back to bite us.

"He who is willing to exchange freedom for security will have neither..." was never so true as in this case.

This is nothing new.  Look at the presidency of John Adams.  They passed the "Sedition Act" which allowed the government to punish those who were voicing opposition to the government.  Jefferson considered this Act a direct violation of the First Amendment right to a free press.

Jefferson later had to experience the full measure of this "gift" of free press. Said one biographer: "He suffered open personal attacks which in severity and obscenity have rarely if ever been matched in presidential history in the United States."  However, as another biographer stated: "Nor did [Jefferson] use the channels of civil authority to silence his accusers.  True to the declarations he had made in his inaugural address and elsewhere, he defended his countrymen's right to a free press." ("The Real Thomas Jefferson," pg 153)

I thought it was interesting that: "the station told [a concerned resident] that it was policy to bar any hand gestures under the excessive celebration rules."  Sigh.  Freedom never was easy, was it? :)  To see what is seen and what is not seen in the rules we make, the causes we champion is so challenging!  Who would have thought a "policy" in place to "make people play nice" would have such an effect?

Not sure where I stand mentally on this yet...it just makes me think.  Would love other's comments on this...

Not "if" but "how" to make a stand...

I recently got on facebook (crazy, I know), and got a link that stunned me.  I checked it out on snopes. com, and, yes the FCC (that regulates public media) is seeking public input for "the next 30 days**"about whether or not it should contine to regulate use of offensive language and nudity on public television.

Snopes article: http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/fccban.asp

Actual statement by FCC: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0401/DA-13-581A1.pdf

Link to site that tells you how to send feedback very easily.
http://action.afa.net/item.aspx?id=2147534194

Here's an excerpt from the FCC (sorry, I didn't take the time to adjust the margins): 

We now seek comment on whether thefullCommission should make changes to its current broadcast indecency policiesor maintain them as theyare.For example, shouldtheCommission treat isolated expletives in a manner consistent with our decision in PacificaFoundation, Inc.,Memorandum Opinion and Order: “If a complaint focuses solely on the use of expletives, we believe that . . . deliberate and repetitive use in a patently offensive manner is a requisite to a finding of indecency.”?Should the Commission instead maintain the approach to isolated expletives set forth in its decision in Complaints Against Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the“Golden GlobeAwards” Program, Memorandum Opinionand Order,19 FCC Rcd 4975(2004)?As another example,should the Commission treat isolated (non-sexual) nudity the same as or differently than isolated expletives? Commenters are invited to address these issues as well as any otheraspect of the Commission’ssubstantive indecency policies

I got all fired up.  I wanted to write an email saying: 

You have a voice.  The creed of our government is "by the people, for the people."  The government represents us, and here is a very easy way to make a powerful stand.

THE "NEXT 30 DAYS" ENDS ON MAY 8TH!  Even if you don't watch public television, send a message to the government that the voice of the people is strong in support of a return to public virtue, one of the founding principles of liberty in our society according to the Founding Fathers.
With love and concern,Mary Biesinger

Then I started writing a p.s. that said:

p.s.  I respect your right to disagree...use your voice as well.  

...and sensed the hypocrisy of it.

Do I really want to send a message to the government that I expect it to regulate our virtue on TV?  Wouldn't that be like banning books? I mean if we give the government the right to ban literature and words and graphics in other's actions, is that a precursor to them banning religious literature and other items on the "moral battle ground"?  Is it really the government's job to take care of that? 

Now, I am not saying we shouldn't speak out and say we don't like it.  I am not saying we should just let people "do their thing" and look the other way. But what I am saying is: What about good, ol' fashioned boycotting?  Wouldn't that address the problem better?  I feel like we are little kids, running to the government and tattling, instead of taking care of it ourselves.  

What if, instead, we took the time to write the media stations, explaining to them that, because of the lack of decent programming, we no longer support public programming.  What if people actually turned off their TV sets instead?  Or, perhaps we could send in our opinion, but then politely include that we don't feel that it is the FCC's job to regulate those standards, but, rather, our job as an American people to support media and influences that uplifts and sustains.

I tend to be "inflammatory" at times, act first, think later.

I know our religious leaders tell us to "take a stand" in virtue...but does that mean asking the government to regulate it or for us to go to the source and make it non-profitable?

Now, this issue I mentioned above addresses things in the private sector.  I can turn off the TV.  However, advertisements and slogans that are morally offensive I believe should not be in public places.  What about my right to not see offensive things?  

It really hit home that we lose freedoms in the name of security when people lack virtue, for I do want to ensure a public environment that doesn't foster other types of addiction and bondage, such as profane language and pornography.  You know, kind of like keeping public smoking within limits so others don't have to suffer from second-hand smoking?  We just must be careful what powers we give to the "government" (in other words, "our neighbors" or "people who might not agree with us".

I would love to hear other people's opinions in this matter, especially if expressed in a voice "respectful of others human dignity." :)