Why I will never watch the Superbowl again

First, I am REALLY bored by football. Second, the half time shows are terrible. At least give us a reprieve for watching the boring football. Its pretty sad when the half time show leaves us [non football fans] begging for the game to resume. But most of all, its the commercials. I remember when they had really cool, funny commercials.. On a normal sports event day the commercials are beer and sex. (One reason we stopped watching with the kids). But the Super Bowl had this higher expectation of commercial quality. In recent years I have seen it decline. Maybe it hasn't. Maybe as a maturing adult and mother I just see things differently. But I know I am not alone. 


One of the commericals that got axed was this one



Fox said the commercial was rejected for Fox said the commercial was rejected for “advancing particular beliefs or practices.” And that, apparently, is against company policy. They however did feel it was appropriate and acceptable to air the sleazy Go Daddy ads. the Skechers,  and the TeleFlora commercial. Let me add the "favorite" among American views was an adorable Volkswagon commercial. The top 10, were all pretty decent all together.


In regards to the axed commercials. Advancing particular beliefs or practices? I am not statistician, but I am willing to bet that more Superbowl viewers are less offended by a scripture reference, then they are by the terrible "entertainment" they call a pre-game and half time show. 


Next year I think I may plan a Non-Super Bowl Party. Complete with fully dressed women, intelligible music and food that doesn't permanently stain your fingers.

38 Years Ago

38 years ago, just over 3 years before my own birth, because of a woman Norma L. McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, and her legal team, The US Supreme Court decided that a womans right to have an abortion falls under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.     

And the 9th Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

They decided that there would be no restriction in the earlier months, with restriction in the latter months. This was based on their definition if viability of the fetus. Before Roe V. Wade, abortion was outlawed in most states and allowed, but restricted in others. This is allowed by the 10th Amendment. The States have a right to write such laws.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But the Supreme Court did not see it that way.
What it boiled down to is the US Supreme court felt it was a violation of a womans privacy and that the laws regarding an abortion were not "equal rights". The state of Texas at the time of Roe v. Wade, allowed for abortion in cases of rape and incest, but not for any other cause. Ms. McCorvey was pregnant with an unwanted child and desperately sough out an abortion, only to be denied. Her daughter was in fact born and given up for adoption.

In 1995 Norma L. McCorvey became a member of the pro life movement.

Abortion is argued in two ways. As a rights issue and as a moral issue. For me they are the same. As a woman who has had 12 fetus', 3 who did not remain viable and died in the early weeks, grow in my womb, I can testify to you that this is life. This is a life that is not only part of me, but part of another human who also has rights. When we talk about individual rights, abortion involves 3 people- the mother, the father and the child. How can we declare Roe v. Wade is about the 9th amendment when it clearly effects the rights of several people. In every case it violates the rights of the unborn.

I know abortions are performed for many reasons. The most compelling is rape and birth defects. While I have not personally experienced either, I know in my heart those lives are no less important than any others. I don't see how a child who is conceived of rape, or one that may not even live, is better off dying at the hands of its own mother. Nothing, nothing, could ever convince me to take my child's life. NOTHING.

Eight weeks after conception — the baby is able to feel pain and may be starting to suck her thumb. Most abortions occur at this time.

I also know that 38 years ago, viability wasn't what it is today. Babies are surviving younger and younger outside the womb. How does that effect the decisions. Roe v. Wade did address late term abortions. The slider on "late term" has been creeping closer to time of conception since the passing of this decision.

If abortion is about a womans right, and her choice to her body, how can we pass laws saying that abortion at  8 weeks is acceptable but at 38 weeks it is not. At what point does she lose her choice over her body? Who decided this? Who do we trust with the power to decide which lives are worthy of protection and which ones are not. Where does this language take us? How does this effect other issues such as assisted suicide where an adult decides on their own accord they no longer want to live. They want a doctor to end their life. Abortion doctors are protected by the Supreme Court and the Dr. Kevorkains go to jail.

And since we are discussing rights, without going too much off topic, I think its important to note other laws in effect. We currently have laws that tell us what drugs we can and cannot take, what foods we can and cannot eat. We are told what to read, what to watch. Our lives are micromanaged in every way possible, but when it comes to the unborn, and the decision to end their life, thats when choice kicks in?

20 weeks. 4.3% of abortions are performed at this age.  

When a child is conceived, they are given a life. Whether it was perfect or not thats what God gave them. He didn't do that so it could be extinguished before it was their time. I know without a doubt I would not make the decision to end it. I have made that decision before I even made the choice to have children, I made the choice that I would accept them unconditionally. If thats not a choice you can make, please reconsider your child rearing options before embarking in childrearing activities. 

Conference Report April 1969

Elder Ezra Taft Benson

Of the Council of the Twelve

Thank God for that timely and inspiring message from our beloved leader, President David O. McKay.

My remarks today are directed to the humble followers of Christ. I pray that what I have to say will be of help to them.

One of the grand promises which the Lord made when he restored his Church in these latter days was that the Church should never again be taken from the earth nor given to another people. This is reassuring, for no matter how much individual apostasy we may see occur among Church members, the Church itself shall endure and remain intact. Our task, then, is to see that we personally endure to the end in faithful fellowship with the Church.

The Lord distinguishes between the Church and its members. He said he was well pleased with the restored Church, speaking collectively, but not individually. (D&C 1:30.) During his ministry on earth, the Lord spoke of the gospel net drawing in fish. The good fish, he said, were gathered into vessels, while the bad were cast away.

It is important to realize that while the Church is made up of mortals, no mortal is the Church. Judas, for a period of time, was a member of the Church—in fact, one of its apostles—but the Church was not Judas.

Disharmony of some members

Sometimes we hear someone refer to a division in the Church. In reality, the Church is not divided. It simply means that there are some who, for the time being at least, are members of the Church but not in harmony with it. These people have a temporary membership and influence in the Church; but unless they repent, they will be missing when the final membership records are recorded.

It is well that our people understand this principle, so they will not be misled by those apostates within the Church who have not yet repented or been cut off. But there is a cleansing coming. The Lord says that his vengeance shall be poured out "upon the inhabitants of the earth. . . . And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord; First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me. . . ." (D&C 112:24-26.) I look forward to that cleansing; its need within the Church is becoming increasingly apparent.

The Lord strengthened the faith of the early apostles by pointing out Judas as a traitor, even before this apostle had completed his iniquitous work. So also in our day the Lord has told us of the tares within the wheat that will eventually be hewn down when they are fully ripe. But until they are hewn down, they will be with us, amongst us. The hymn entitled "Though in the Outward Church Below" contains this thought:

"Though in the outward Church below

Both wheat and tares together grow,

Ere long will Jesus weed the crop

And pluck the tares in anger up. . . .

We seem alike when here we meet;

Strangers may think we are all wheat;

But to the Lord's all-searching eyes,

Each heart appears without disguise.

The tares are spared for various ends,

Some for the sake of praying friends,

Others the Lord against their will,

Employs, his counsels to fulfill.

But though they grow so tall and strong,

His plan will not require them long;

In harvest, when he saves his own,

The tares shall into hell be thrown."

(Hymns, No. 102.)

Tares among the wheat

Yes, within the Church today there are tares among the wheat and wolves within the flock. As President Clark stated, "The ravening wolves are amongst us, from our own membership, and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep's clothing because they wear the habiliments of the priesthood. . . . We should be careful of them. . . ." (Era, May 1949, p. 268. See also, Conference Report, April 1949, p. 163.)

The wolves amongst our flock are more numerous and devious today than when President Clark made this statement.

President McKay has said that "the Church is little, if at all, injured by persecution and calumnies from ignorant, misinformed or malicious enemies. A greater hindrance to its progress comes from faultfinders, shirkers, commandment-breakers, and apostate cliques within its own ecclesiastical and quorum groups." (Era, December 1967, p. 35. See also, Conference Report, October 1967, p. 9.)

Not only are there apostates within our midst, but there are also apostate doctrines that are sometimes taught in our classes and from our pulpits and that appear in our publications. And these apostate precepts of men cause our people to stumble. As the Book of Mormon, speaking of our day, states: ". . . they have all gone astray save it a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men." (2 Ne. 28:14.)

The precepts of men

Let us consider some of the precepts of men that may and do cause some of the humble followers of Christ to err.

Christ taught that we should be in the world but not of it. Yet there are some in our midst who are not so much concerned about taking the gospel into the world as the are about bringing worldliness into the gospel. They want us to be in the world and of it. They want us to be popular with the worldly even though a prophet has said that this is impossible, for all hell would then want to join us.

Through their own reasoning and a few misapplied scriptures, they try to sell us the precepts and philosophies of men. They do not feel the Church is progressive enough—they say that it should embrace the social and socialist gospel of apostate Christendom.

They are bothered that President McKay believes that "the social side of the Restored Gospel is only an incident of it; it is not the end thereof." (Letter of the First Presidency to Dr. Lowry Nelson, July 17, 1947.)

They attack the Church for not being in the forefront of the so-called "civil rights movement." They are embarrassed over some Church doctrine, and as Lehi foretold, the scoffing of the world over this and other matters will cause some of them to be ashamed and they shall fall away. (See 1 Ne. 8:28.)

Publishing differences with Church

Unauthorized to receive revelation for the Church, but I fear still anxious to redirect the Church in the way they think it should go, some of them have taken to publishing their differences with the Church, in order to give their heretical views a broader and, they hope, a more respectable platform.

Along this line it would be well for all of us to remember these words of President George Q. Cannon:

"A friend . . . wished to know whether we . . . considered an honest difference of opinion between a member of the Church and the Authorities of the Church was apostasy. . . . We replied that we had not stated that an honest difference of opinion between a member of the Church and the Authorities constituted apostasy, for we could conceive of a man honestly differing in opinion from the Authorities of the Church and yet not be an apostate; but we could not conceive of a man publishing those differences of opinion and seeking by arguments, sophistry and special pleading to enforce them upon the people to produce division and strife and to place the acts and counsels of the Authorities of the Church, if possible, in a wrong light and not be an apostate, for such conduct was apostasy as we understood the term." (Deseret News, November 3, 1869.)

Birth control

The world teaches birth control. Tragically, many of our sisters subscribe to its pills and practices when they could easily provide earthly tabernacles for more of our Father's children. We know that every spirit assigned to this earth will come, whether through us or someone else There are couples in the Church who think they are getting along just fine with their limited families but who will someday suffer the pains of remorse when they meet the spirits that might have been part of their posterity. The first commandment given to man was to multiply and replenish the earth with children. That commandment has never been altered, modified, or canceled. The Lord did not say to multiply and replenish the earth if it is convenient, or if you are wealthy, or after you have gotten your schooling, or when there is peace on earth, or until you have four children. The Bible says, "Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: ". . . Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them. . ." (Ps. 127:3, 5.) We believe God s glorified by having numerous children and a program of perfection for them. So also will God glorify that husband and wife who have a large posterity and who have tried to raise them up in righteousness.

False reasoning in population limitation

The precepts of men would have you believe that by limiting the population of the world, we can have peace and plenty. That is the doctrine of the devil. Small numbers do not insure peace; only righteousness does. After all, there were only a handful of men on the earth when Cain interrupted the peace of Adam's household by slaying Abel. On the other hand, the whole city of Enoch was peaceful; and it was taken into heaven because it was made up of righteous people.

And so far as limiting the population in order to provide plenty is concerned, the Lord answered that falsehood in the Doctrine and Covenants when he said:

"For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves." (D&C 104:17.)

A major reason why there is famine in some parts of the world is because evil men have used the vehicle of government to abridge the freedom that men need to produce abundantly.

True to form, many of the people who desire to frustrate God's purposes of giving mortal tabernacles to his spirit children through worldwide birth control are the very same people who support the kinds of government that perpetuate famine. They advocate an evil to cure the results of the wickedness they support.

Subversion of educational system

The world worships the learning of man. They trust in the arm of flesh. To them, men's reasoning is greater than God's revelations. The precepts of man have gone so far in subverting our educational system that in many cases a higher degree today, in the so-called social sciences, can be tantamount to a major investment in error. Very few men build firmly enough on the rock of revelation to go through this kind of an indoctrination and come out untainted. Unfortunately, of those who succumb, some use their higher degree to get teaching positions even in our Church educational system, where they spread the falsehoods they have been taught. President Joseph F. Smith was right when he said that false educational ideas would be one of the three threats to the Church within. (Gospel Doctrine, pp. 312-13.)

Sex education in the schools

Another threat, and he said it is the most serious of the three, would be sexual impurity. Today we have both of these threats combined in the growing and increasingly amoral program of sex education in the schools. At the last general Relief Society conference of the Church, Elder Harold B. Lee quoted President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., in regard to this matter. Let us listen and learn from the following wise words of this seer, President Clark:

"Many influences (more than ever before in my lifetime) are seeking to break down chastity with its divinely declared sanctity. . . .

"In schoolrooms the children are taught what is popularly called `the facts of life.' Instead of bringing about the alleged purpose of the teaching, that is, strengthening of the morals of youth, this teaching seems to have had directly the opposite effect. The teaching seems merely to have whetted curiosity and augmented appetite. (Relief Society Magazine, December 1952, p. 793.)

". . . A mind engrossed in sex is not good for much else. . . .

"Already the schools have taught sex facts ad nauseam. All their teachings have but torn away the modesty that once clothed sex; their discussions tend to make, and sometimes seem to make, sex animals of our boys and girls. The teachings do little but arouse curiosity for experience. . . .

"A work on chastity can be given in one sentence, two words: Be chaste! That tells everything. You do not need to know all the details of the reproductive process in order to keep clean. . . ." (Era, December 1949, p. 803. See also, Conference Report, October 1949, p. 194.)

Responsibility of parents

Our Church News editorials have warned us about sex education in the schools. As the April 1, 1967, editorial stated:

"Sex education belongs in the home. . . . Movements to place sex education in nearly all grades of public schools can end only in the same result which came to Sweden."

In answer to inquiries that have been received by the First Presidency about sex education in the schools, they have made the following statement: "We believe that serious hazards are involved in entrusting to the schools the teaching of this vital and important subject to our children. This responsibility cannot wisely be left to society, nor the schools: nor can the responsibility be shifted to the Church. It is the responsibility of parents to see that they fully perform their duty in this respect.

When you make a close study of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (known as SIECUS¹), which is the major organization pushing sex education in the schools, and read their literature and learn of their amoral leadership, you can better appreciate why the Church is opposed to sex education in the schools, whether it is called family living program or by any other name. I commend the parents who have worked to keep it out of their schools and those who have pushed it out or are attempting to do so. They must love their children.

Sensitivity training

Let us consider another precept of men: One of the tragedies of the Korean War was the fact that the enemy was able to brainwash some of our men. Those methods, highly refined and deviously developed, have been introduced on a broad scale into our own country by some behavioral scientists through a program commonly called sensitivity training. While claiming otherwise, the overall effect of this training has been to break down personal standards, encourage immorality, reduce respect for parents, and make well minds sick.

As in Korea, the heart of the training involves trying to get each member of a group to self- criticize and confess as much as possible to the group. Now any informed holder of the priesthood knows that this is directly contrary to the word of the Lord as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 42, verses 88-92. Only when a person has sinned against many people is he to make a public confession.

"If any shall offend in secret, he or she shall be rebuked in secret, that he or she may have opportunity to confess in secret to him or her whom he or she has offended, and to God, that the church may not speak reproachfully of him or her." (D&C 42:92.)

As President Brigham Young put it, . . . if you have sinned against your God, or against your selves, confess to God, and keep the matter to yourselves, for I do not want to know anything about it." (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 158.)

But some sensitivity training doesn't stop there. They usually want each person to tell the group about all of their innermost feelings, their personal secrets, their fears, their repressed desires. They have even conducted nudity sessions as a means of supposedly breaking down their inhibitions. They want the group to know each other's vulgar thoughts and lustful ideas, their hates, envies, jealousies. But this flies in the face of the counsel of the Prophet, who has said, "All such evils you must overcome by suppression. That is where your control comes in. Suppress that anger! Suppress that jealousy, that envy! They are all injurious to the spirit. . . ." (President David O. McKay, Gospel Ideals, p. 356.)

Standards attacked

In these sensitivity sessions one's standards, religion, family, and friends may be subjected to brutal and prolonged attack by the group. And when it's all over, if you've confessed all and had your values and ideals smashed, you may doubt if there is much worth believing or defending, and your loyalties may now have been realigned away from your family and church toward the group—for on them you may now feel very dependent, and you may be more anxious to get their consensus on a position and their approval than to find out what's right and do it.

When General William F. Dean was released from a Korean Communist prison camp, the young Chinese psychologists who had been trying to break him said: "General, don't feel bad about leaving us. You know, we will soon be with you. We are going to capture your country." Asked how, they replied: "We are going to destroy the moral character of a generation of our young Americans, and when we cave finished you will have nothing with which to really defend yourselves against us."

Demoralizing influences

And so the precepts of men are at work on our youth in so many ways. Said President Clark, ". . . a tremendous amount of the modern art, of the modern literature and music, and the drama that we have today is utterly demoralizing—utterly." (Relief Society Magazine, December 1952, p. 792.)

Have you been listening to the music that many young folks are hearing today? Some of it is nerve-jamming in nature and much of it has been deliberately designed to promote revolution, dope, immorality, and a gap between parent and child. And some of this music has invaded our church cultural halls.

Have you noticed some of our Church dances lately? Have they been praiseworthy, lovely, and of good report? "I doubt," said President McKay, "whether it is possible to dance most of the prevalent fad dances in a manner to meet LDS standards." And what about modesty in dress? When was the last time you saw a high school girl wearing a dress that covered her knees? The courageous address of Elder Spencer W. Kimball a few years ago entitled "A Style of Our Own" is certainly applicable today.

I want to congratulate the Tabernacle Choir for their attire. It was noted that in their broadcast at Constitution Hall during the inaugural festivities, all the ladies seated on the front row had dresses that covered their knees.

Now what kind of magazines come into your home? With perhaps one or two exceptions, I would not have any of the major national slick magazines in my home. As President Clark so well put it, ". . . take up any national magazine, look at the ads and, if you can stand the filth, read some of the stories—they are, in their expressed and suggestive standards of life, destructive of the very foundations of our society." (Conference Report, April 1951, p. 79.)

President Cannon's test

Now hear this test proposed by President George Q. Cannon: "If the breach is daily widening between ourselves and the world . . . we may be assured that our progress is certain, however slow. On the opposite hand, if our feelings and affections, our appetites and desires, are in unison with the world around us and freely fraternize with them . . . we should do well to examine ourselves. Individuals in such a condition might possess a nominal position in the Church but would be lacking the life of the work, and, like the foolish virgins who slumbered while the bridegroom tarried, they would be unprepared for his coming. . . ." (Millennial Star, Oct. 5, 1861 [Vol. 23], pp. 645-46.)

To repeat again from the Book of Mormon, ". . . they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men." (2 Ne. 28:14.)

May we cherish God's revelations more than man's reasoning and choose to follow the prophets of the Lord rather than the precepts of men is my humble prayer, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

66th anniversary of the Allied Invasion of Normandy

 Today is the 66th anniversary of the Allied Invasion of Normandy, also known as D-Day
Please take time to remember our fallen hero's and the cause in which they fought for.


So I made a point yesterday to stop at the Veterans Memorial on our way  back through Ft Knox.

Ezra was fussy so I didnt get to spend as much time as I had wanted. Good news is its only 15 min down the road.. and we can go back.

 

Joe noticed the epitaph on this one 

The Constitution— A Glorious Standard

Recently I came under attack for my political beliefs. It is something I have experienced in the past and I am prepared for more as I continue on in my path.. But a few things were mentioned in reeference to my political views in regards to the scriptures.. This is what my blog will cover.

First I urge you to read The Constitution—A Glorious Standard By President Ezra Taft Benson

I guess for me you could say that my spiritual journey began with my political.. I had very weak faith in God.. The more absorbed I got in the founding fathers and the documents they wrote the stronger my faith became. I think it is nearly impossible to read about them and not share in their testimony of Heavenly Father.

I agree we must be subject to our government. I do not believe we must sit idly by as unjust laws are passed.. There is a system in place to challenge those.. As I posted in a previous blog, in regards to marriage, I do not feel the government has any position other than recognizing a church ordinance.. not administering them. Many of my fellow Christians appealed their states in show of support of laws on this matter.. The same happens in matters of abortion.. We have been battling the federal legality of the murder of unborn babies for nearly 4 decades. Because its legal and you are subject to those laws does that mean you just allow them to be? The same goes for other laws such as taxes, health care, regulation personal agency and so forth. Just because man has made it "legal" does that mean we do not stand up and change what has been wronged?

I have not read all the scriptures written.. But I have yet to find where Jesus taught us to take from those who have to give to those who need.. His message was for our own sacrifice.. for us to take what is ours and give to those who need. That is what defines charity.

In the talk I posted, he referenced a point I make often. If we are endowed our rights by our creator, then how can man take them away? We cannot give and take what we do not have power over. Our government can only grant privileges, via, We The People, those privileges can be granted and taken away. We do not have a federal right to vote, we do not have the right to drive, we do not have the right to education. These are privileges we are granted. They can be taken away.

So how do we recognize what is a right? Fundamental rights are rights everyone can claim without forcing servitude of others. Education, Health care, etc can only be funded and staffed by the service of another.. If there is not "another" then the right ceases to exist, or in the least, exists in a limited form, not available to all. That by default makes it a false right.

I feel it is our duty to protect our constitution. It is irresponsible to sit by and let the adversary take over our country. We must take action. Dieter F. Uchtdorf said in one of his talks, "Discipleship is not a spectator sport."

"We cannot expect to experience the blessings of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, 'spectator discipleship' is a preferred if not a primary way of worshiping."

The same can be said for political activity. We cannot expect to experience the blessings of liberty if we are not willing to play an active role in defending it.

Its OK, everybody else is doing it..

Last week in a Sunday School class we talked about sin.. It was a good lesson as many begin the new year with resolutions to become better people. I have never been one for new years resolutions.. For me, I feel that if I mess up I set myself up to wait until next year to fix it.. If that were the case I would never succeed. :)

Sin is a sneaky little thing.. We usually know when we are doing the really bad things.. Stealing a car, harming someone, infidelity etc.. But the little ones, those are the ones Satan uses on us.. Cass Sunstein, Obama's "Regulatory Czar", wrote a book called Nudge. The premise of this book is that you cannot change ones ways overnight. You have to nudge them. You change a little here and a little there.. we see it applied today in our own government.. Our current administration is using these tatics to take us further from our constitution.. Satan is doing the same with us in our daily lives.. He tries more and more to nudge us from the gospel.

The more common, the more normal, sins become, the more susceptible we are to them. We even begin to disregard them as sin. We become part of the culture where we do as we wish and pass it off as, we have free will, it must be ok. We see it in all aspects of society. it doesnt happen overnight. We are nudged just a little.. The movies we watch, the music we listen to, our daily activities.. In everything we do we are nudged a little here and a little there to accept the sins as normal behavior. When that happens we become participants of those sins..

Satan has another trick.. Our free agency.. He knows the Lord gave us free will and he uses that against us. We think because we have that agency we can use it as we see fit, which is true.. But using our free agency to follow Satan is not in the plan. We cannot justify our sins by using our free agency for an excuse. If we are not using our free agency correctly then we need to reevaluate our behavior.

We need to remember that we are given guidelines, rules, commandments, that we must follow.. yes we have the choice to do as we wish, Heavenly Father gave us that. We also have repentance and forgiveness. David Bednar wrote in one of his talks, "Our spiritual purpose is to overcome both sin and the desire to sin, both the taint and the tyranny of sin." he goes on to say "The Lord’s pattern for spiritual development is “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little” (2 Nephi 28:30). Small, steady, incremental spiritual improvements are the steps the Lord would have us take. Preparing to walk guiltless before God is one of the primary purposes of mortality and the pursuit of a lifetime; it does not result from sporadic spurts of intense spiritual activity."

If we are to be nudged we need to be nudged in the right path. We need to use our strength to stand up when temptation knocks on our door.. We need to remember that we have more than one chance to get it right and we dont have to wait for any magic date to ask for forgiveness and start over.

Truth

Yesterday in class, we talked about our civic duty and what qualities we look for in our politicians. One answer that came up was truthfulness.. I think that is yet the most important attribute.. Followed by selflessness.. The founding documents, the words we based our entire country on, were divinley inspired. We need to look for those qualities in ourselves as well.. When we look to a candidate to represent us we need to look for an honest selfless person who;s only goal is to uphold the Constitution. We need to be selfless and look to the person who is going to do whats best for us, not necessarily what we want. We have gotten to where our last few generations will choose who ever offers the biggest prize. We can only be offered what was rightfully ours to begin with.. We have do not have a right to another persons property or services.. To allow our government the power to "distribute" such rights we open the door to be on the alternate side. We are a free people. Those rights are given to us first by our creator. They can be oppressed by those in power, IF WE ALLOW them..

One of the prime examples (was also brought up in class) is the Gay Marriage Laws.. Many cheered seeing the California defeat of such bill as a victory.. I see it as it is.. we are celebrating the governments control over our religious beliefs.. Marriage is an ordinance that can only be administered by a man with the proper authority. By recognizing the governments role in regulating such ordinances we subject our religious practices to be regulated by the government.. Therefore we are cheering government control over religion.. How is that a positive thing?

We have come to a system where we only have 2 answers.. and when neither sound good what do we do? We have come to accept, as in the previous example, we can say yes we allow gay marriage or no we dont. Thing is, most Americans want neither..Here's a better option.. Lets remove the governments role in the institution of marriage. Lets remove the governments role in the institution of education. Lets remove the governments role in the institution of health care..

These things maybe what we want, but its not what we need.. We need to sit back and do whats best for our country, whats best for ourselves..

We follow the laws of the gospel, even when its not what we necessarily want. We do it because we know thats whats best for us. We were also given a quote in class.. "I never said it was going to be easy, I only said it was going to be worth it"

This time of year, we celebrate the birth of our Savior.. We remember the blessing Mary had received.. We also remember her sacrifice.. our Savioirs sacrifice.. We need to recall this as we move forward in our lives.. We need to give of ourselves. We need to be prepared and able to handle life's downfalls.. Sometimes we need to fail..

When we look for someone to represent us politically, we need to remember the most important issue.. Who's going to look out for whats best for us.. not succumb to promises of things that will eventually lead to our destruction.

If I told you ......

If I would have told you last year at this time that the government would own General Motors, Chrysler, and many of the banks and financial institutions and AIG, that they would fire the CEOs, that they would threaten the banks, that they would shut them down unless they would take that money, that they would hire good people for places like AIG and pay them a dollar to fix the problem, a dollar a year, these people would volunteer; but they would also promise them, the government would, that they would promise them bonuses if they would just work for that dollar a year to fix the problem. When that year came up, they would not only give them that bonus, they would vilify them, send their minions out to protest in front of their homes for even wanting the bonus that they were asked, that they were promised by the government and then people in Washington would then set out to have a specific tax drawn up just for those people, would you have believed it?

If I told you a year ago, which I did, you won't recognize the country, you will not recognize America a year from now, I said that a year ago; if I told you instead that there would be a 9/11 Truther, a guy who said the United States government blew up those buildings, a self‑avowed communist, a guy who, a guy who is speaking in prison anticop, who defended a guy who point blank shot a cop in the head, if I said he would be a high level advisor to the president of the United States, would you believe it?

If I said the president would come out in a speech and say I have absolutely no information but the cops acted stupidly because they caught a friend of the president appearing to break into his own home, the cops didn't act stupidly, they just did their job and the president would never apologize, instead he would invite them all for a beer summit and use it as a learning experience about diversity, would you believe it?

If I would have told you instead that the most frequent visitor of the White House, over the Secretary of State and everybody else, is a labor union president who has repeatedly said workers of the world unite; and we know we've got a lot of illegal members, illegal aliens in our membership, and who chief guy said, yeah, but we also represent American workers, end quote, that he would be the most frequent visitor at the White House, would you have believed it?

That the president of the EU would say that 2009 was the year of establishing a global government through the EU and that the climate change treaty would be the next step in one world government, that there would be a call for the end of the dollar as the world's reserve currency by several massive countries and that the leader of Russia would hold up a coin in front of the cameras and say here's a prototype of the new global currency, that in government‑structured bailouts, bondholders would lose their legal status and their investments in favor of labor union payoffs and the courts would say, "Hmmm, yeah, okay." That you could lose your home and property through eminent domain and eminent domain would expand in staggering ways. That California would decide to levy a 10% tax on its people and insist it's not a tax; it's just a forced loan. That they would issue IOUs instead of tax refunds. That New York would say by the end of the year they would be broke. That New York would issue retroactive taxes, that a tax fund for the poorest of Americans would not really be a tax refund. Instead those poorest of Americans would find out many months later that they had to pay income tax on that tax refund. If I told you that the symbol of capitalism, the Empire State building, would be lit in colors of communist China, would you have believed me?

That the hockey stick chart would be discredited as would its founder along with another leader of the global climate change movement who manipulated data, that they deleted e‑mails and information to avoid Freedom of Information Act, that these same scientists would do everything they could to discredit the peer review process to make sure it remained pure for their ideological purposes, and yet the media wouldn't report on it and we'd still be headed to Copenhagen with a president the who was going to present a 17% reduction in carbon. For our country, that our science czar, John Holdren, our science czar would be someone who called for forced abortions and sterilization through the drinking water, who said that the redistribution of wealth would be necessary and it would happen through the environmental movement. That the diversity czar at the FCC, if I just told you a year ago there would be a diversity czar at the FCC, would you have believed me?

That the diversity czar at the FCC would say Americans have to decide soon which Americans would have to step down from their positions in order to give others a chance, that this same man said the revolution in Venezuela was incredible and that we should model our FCC and our programs after Venezuela and the revolution. That the U.S. would have a two‑day summit to discuss the role of government in journalism and be discussing a government takeover of journalism and that no journalist would actually report on that. That they would hold a job summit and not invite the Chamber of Commerce, that two uninvited people could get into the White House state dinner, chat with the president, be near the prime minister of the largest democracy on the planet and that the response from the White House would be, yeah, we need to do a better job with security. That a U.S. congressman would tell the American people that it's unreasonable to expect people in congress to read bills, and he would say that because our congress would pass two bills over 1,000 pages, that no one in congress had read. One of them was over 2,000 pages. That a job creating stimulus bill would be written, not read by congress but not even written by congress. It would be co‑written by the Apollo Alliance, a special interest group whose New York chief was a co‑founder of the Weather Underground and no one would care! That people in congress would openly be praising Castro, Chavez, that the president would receive an ‑‑ if I said to you a year ago, "You know what's going to happen next year: The president is going to receive an anti‑American book and a photo op from Hugo Chavez and then he would have a one‑hour private meeting with Vladimir Putin where Vladimir Putin, quoting, would teach the president the history of the Cold War. That our president would give an iPod of his speeches to the queen of England. That he would send the bust of Winston Churchill, which was a gift from the people of England; when the prime minister came over that our president would say to him, hey, by the way attention thanks, but you can take this back to him now and the prime minister would say to him, no, no, no, that was a gift from the people of England to you and you can keep it in one of your museums; we gave it to you on September 11th. No, no, that's okay, and box it up and ship it back!

If I told you that there would be hundreds of thousands of Americans gathered in a true grassroots event in a National Mall in D.C. and the media would not only dismiss them but the government, the president and the media would deem them a danger to the United States, that healthcare would be at 36% approval rating, which is lower than Hillary Care but that those in congress and the White House would still be jamming it down your throats. That the chief of the treasury who oversees the IRS cheated on his taxes as would almost everyone else in the cabinet. If I told you a year ago when gold was about $800 an ounce that it would be at $1200 an ounce, would you have believed it?

That Dubai which a year ago was bailing out our banks would be on the edge of bankruptcy. If I told you we're going to lose 4 million jobs and the media would report that the White House has created or saved a million jobs even though in their evidence you have to find their evidence on a $20 million redesigned website where it would show that a good portion of these jobs were in about 400 districts that don't even exist. If I told you that, would you have believed it?

Looking at that list, do you recognize the country that you live in? Is this the same country that you lived in a year ago today? I don't think so. I don't recognize it. If I would have told you that there would be a Muslim terrorist and that he would shoot and killed soldiers at Fort Hood, would you have believed it? If I told you then that, yes, the president will make a statement but he will spend two minutes prior to giving a shoutout and talking about the conference he had with the American Indian, would you have believed it?

If I then told you after that two minutes he would then say then, oh, and also there's been a shooting of our military but let's not jump to conclusions. And then his Homeland Security director would be over in the Middle East and she would say, don't worry, we're working on things to stop the violence against Muslims in America, would you have believed it?

I can be wrong on an awful lot of things and I have been wrong on an awful lot of things. But when will people in this country, when will the media at least say, gosh, it looks like the direction of our country and the one this guy keeps laying out, gee, some of those things seem to be happening. When will anyone in the media even notice how far we have come?
Glenn Beck on his radio show 12/3/09

233rd Celebration of Our Nations Independence

The 4th of July is our favorite holiday. I am truly thankful that the Lord sent me when and where he did.

Every year, I read the Declaration of Independence.. The founding documents, to me, are not much different than scripture.. In my heart they hold the same sacred power.. The knowledge that many have sacrificed for my freedom.. That I have the power over my own decisions.. And that I can either reap the rewards or pay the consequences.. How truly blessed we are to have that.. I believe that our country was not just founded by people with Christian values, but that this was all divinely inspired.. That America is the Land of Promise.

There are two lines in the Declaration of Independence that are extremely profound.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

and the second....

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

These men truly did pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.. Many a time we remember our soldiers who fought in battles and dedicate their lives to defending our freedom.. but we often forget the ones who gave everything to establish it.. many of them who's names you have never heard..

It is interesting to note that George Washington was not one of those signers.. He is an icon, and rightfully so, in our nations history. In 1776 he was Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. At the time of the signing John Hancock was the President of Congress. There were 16 men who held office of president from 1774 until the ratification of our Constitution in 1789. Many historians consider John Hanson our first president, as he was the president elected under the Articles of Confederation adapted in 1781.

I guess, for me what I find most interesting about the beginning of our nation, is that is didn't happen in a day, a month or even a year.. this process was long, grueling and required much sacrifice . Growing up I was taught excerpts from my history teachers.. I was deeply saddened when I realized how much was missed.. and how much I still have to learn.. This time period is fascinating.. I also believe that the lack of knowledge about it has put Americans in a position to stray from the goals and intentions of our founding fathers.. It is my goal to teach my children as much as I can... I hope you challenge yourself to do the same..

Happy Independence Day!

These are some pictures of our personal celebration
On July 4, 2006 Joe and I were Married.. ( after a 12 year engagement LOL)

Senator John Kerry on Tax Cuts

did anyone ask him where his wife's money is?

How about Nanci Polosi? where's her $

" ..government has the ability to be able to make a decision that the private sector wont necessarily make today"

WOW..

In Honor of Obama's Inauguration

Please stand for our new national anthem