http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/16/slippery-serpents-slither-through-florida-python-challenge/#ixzz2L6tLBLXZ
I guess snakes need food storage, too. Wonder where they store the jars? Isn't that the perpetual problem with food storage?
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Did I just read that?
"Female pythons can as many as 100 eggs at a time."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/16/slippery-serpents-slither-through-florida-python-challenge/#ixzz2L6tLBLXZ
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/16/slippery-serpents-slither-through-florida-python-challenge/#ixzz2L6tLBLXZ
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Drug tests for welfare recipients
I keep seeing this popping up on facebook, as a whole bunch of my friends jump on the bandwagon: Welfare recipients should be required to pass a drug test or lose their benefits.
The argument is always that wage earners have to pass a drug test to get money, so welfare recipients should, too.
Here is why I'm opposed to that:
1) It's humiliating enough to apply for help; adding more humiliation by making everyone take a drug test will keep people who need benefits from even applying. You say "not so," but I know people who refuse to apply for WIC benefits because the questions they ask are too "nosy"--drug tests are infinitely more so. And the evidence indicates that most people who are getting welfare are not on drugs, so you'd be punishing the masses (masses who are in crisis and need help already) for the problems of the few. Also, even poor people have a right to privacy and to the fourth amendment--the right to not be searched unless there is probable cause. Needing help does not mean people should have to sign away their rights.
2) While the parents are the ones who apply for benefits, the kids get the help, too. And for children of drug-addicted parents, knowing there is food coming in because of the food card is a big deal. I can't stomach punishing kids because of their parents' problems. While it's possible to commit fraud with food cards and other benefits, it's much harder than with money. If you take away the food cards, etc, from drug addicts, chances are good that their money will still be going to drugs; where are their kids going to get food at all? I know a girl whose drug-addicted mom let her starve most of her growing up years. A food card would have helped her. Kicking her mom off welfare wouldn't.
3) Even drug addicts need to eat. Do we deny food to people because they are making poor choices? I don't think so. It's not humane. Drug addicts are making bad choices, but they are people.
4) People on welfare are supervised. What better way for drug addicts to get help than to be in a system where they are supervised by people authorized to help them? Otherwise, who is watching them? Until they commit a crime, nobody.
5) If you pull out all support from drug addicts, they have no recourse but to turn to crime to get money for food and housing--and that money is more likely to go to drugs than to food and housing, after they get it. So all of society suffers if you have drug addicts turned loose with no help. It's not like taking away their welfare benefits is going to make them change for the better. What do people think they're going to accomplish by taking food away from a drug user? Is that somehow magically going to erase their addictions? Make them productive members of society? Make our cities safer for everyone? Get rid of illegal drugs? NO.
It's not that I want people who are on drugs to just live on drugs and off of society's largess (although I hardly call welfare "largess"). Just handing them food and housing doesn't motivate people to change for the better, either. Colorado proposed a law (I don't know that it passed, though) that made it so welfare applicants could be required to take a drug test, but only if the welfare office had reasonable cause--there had to be a reasonably justifiable suspicion that the person was on drugs before they could request a test. I would be more in favor of that.
And then don't kick people with positive drug tests off of welfare; require them to do rehab instead, or put them into a program that is proven to help people get off drugs. Just sending them back out into the street is not a reasonable, humane solution.
The argument is always that wage earners have to pass a drug test to get money, so welfare recipients should, too.
Here is why I'm opposed to that:
1) It's humiliating enough to apply for help; adding more humiliation by making everyone take a drug test will keep people who need benefits from even applying. You say "not so," but I know people who refuse to apply for WIC benefits because the questions they ask are too "nosy"--drug tests are infinitely more so. And the evidence indicates that most people who are getting welfare are not on drugs, so you'd be punishing the masses (masses who are in crisis and need help already) for the problems of the few. Also, even poor people have a right to privacy and to the fourth amendment--the right to not be searched unless there is probable cause. Needing help does not mean people should have to sign away their rights.
2) While the parents are the ones who apply for benefits, the kids get the help, too. And for children of drug-addicted parents, knowing there is food coming in because of the food card is a big deal. I can't stomach punishing kids because of their parents' problems. While it's possible to commit fraud with food cards and other benefits, it's much harder than with money. If you take away the food cards, etc, from drug addicts, chances are good that their money will still be going to drugs; where are their kids going to get food at all? I know a girl whose drug-addicted mom let her starve most of her growing up years. A food card would have helped her. Kicking her mom off welfare wouldn't.
3) Even drug addicts need to eat. Do we deny food to people because they are making poor choices? I don't think so. It's not humane. Drug addicts are making bad choices, but they are people.
4) People on welfare are supervised. What better way for drug addicts to get help than to be in a system where they are supervised by people authorized to help them? Otherwise, who is watching them? Until they commit a crime, nobody.
5) If you pull out all support from drug addicts, they have no recourse but to turn to crime to get money for food and housing--and that money is more likely to go to drugs than to food and housing, after they get it. So all of society suffers if you have drug addicts turned loose with no help. It's not like taking away their welfare benefits is going to make them change for the better. What do people think they're going to accomplish by taking food away from a drug user? Is that somehow magically going to erase their addictions? Make them productive members of society? Make our cities safer for everyone? Get rid of illegal drugs? NO.
It's not that I want people who are on drugs to just live on drugs and off of society's largess (although I hardly call welfare "largess"). Just handing them food and housing doesn't motivate people to change for the better, either. Colorado proposed a law (I don't know that it passed, though) that made it so welfare applicants could be required to take a drug test, but only if the welfare office had reasonable cause--there had to be a reasonably justifiable suspicion that the person was on drugs before they could request a test. I would be more in favor of that.
And then don't kick people with positive drug tests off of welfare; require them to do rehab instead, or put them into a program that is proven to help people get off drugs. Just sending them back out into the street is not a reasonable, humane solution.
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Ice Cream Experiments
I rediscovered my ice cream maker. And, since I had a bunch of ice cream buckets hanging around that we had saved (it's no use buying boxes of ice cream when you have 6 kids who eat it), I had plenty of space for experiments.
We've tried a lot of things. Peanut butter chocolate chip didn't work so well. Neither did malted milk chocolate chip. Mango was good but I should have used three times the amount of mango puree. Blackberry was too flimsy a flavor, and I tried to fix it by adding cream cheese but I added too much. So now it's sort of cheesecake flavored, but too strong. Mixed berry was super yummy. Raspberry was to die for.
But our favorite so far is strawberry. I make Philadelphia Style ice cream--no eggs--because it's faster and easier. To flavor it with fruit, I buy bags of frozen fruit (I guess the're for smoothies? They all have smoothie recipes on the back). One or even two bags of frozen fruit, pureed, is about right for 4 qts of ice cream.
The Strawberry Recipe that's the very best we happened on by accident--I forgot to add a few ingredients when I was mixing it up.
Here's what we use (my ice cream maker holds 4 quarts):
Strawberry Ice Cream
2 c heavy cream
2 c milk
4 c half and half (or to fill the ice cream bucket to the line)
2 c sugar
1 large container sweetened sliced strawberries, pureed. You could even use 2 if you wanted.
Mix all the ingredients and freeze according to your ice cream freezer instructions. The ingredients I left out were 1/2 tsp salt and 1 Tbsp vanilla. What it gave us was a very strawberries-and-cream flavor instead of a strawberry "ice cream" flavor. It was super super yummy. You could skip the milk and add cream instead, I suppose. I haven't tried that.
To make raspberry ice cream (a Utah thing, and so SO good), replace the strawberries with one or two bags of frozen raspberries, pureed. Likewise for mixed berry--1-2 bags of frozen mixed berries, pureed.
Last night's experiments were highly successful, too. We made cherry at Anda's request and chocolate chocolate chip. I didn't have recipes for either of these, so I just made them up:
Cherry Ice Cream
2 c heavy cream
3 c half and half
milk to fill bucket
1 bag frozen dark sweet cherries
1 bag frozen cherries and berries (but use only the cherries and blueberries--pick out the strawberries and blackberries)
1 can apple-cherry juice concentrate
1 3/4 c sugar
1/2 tsp salt
1 Tbsp vanilla
Puree the cherries, blueberries, and juice concentrate with enough milk or half-and-half that the blender doesn't protest. Stir together with the rest of the ingredients. Freeze according to the instructions.
That was yummy. Then, without first cleaning the ice cream bucket or dasher of the cherry ice cream (which I had just dumped into a storebought ice cream bucket and put into the freezer), I made chocolate chocolate chip ice cream. I figured the hint of cherry in the chocolate chip ice cream would be yummy, if you noticed it at all. I was right--mostly unnoticeable.
Chocolate Chocolate Chip Ice Cream
2 c heavy cream
5 c half and half (or to fill bucket)
1 c chocolate syrup (the kind you squirt on ice cream)
1/2 c Hershey's Special Dark chocolate syrup
1 1/2 c sugar
1 tsp vanilla
1 bag semi-sweet chocolate chips
In the blender, mix 2 1/2 c half and half with half of the chocolate syrup, the vanilla, and the sugar. Melt the chocolate chips in the microwave (30 seconds at a time until they stir smooth). I did a cup at a time. Then, while the blender is going (on low) pour the melted chocolate into the half-and-half mixture. Pour this mixture into the ice cream can. Then mix the rest of the half-and-half and the cream with the rest of the chocolate syrups (don't mix it too long, or it gets too frothy). Add this to the ice cream can and stir well. Then freeze according to the instructions. I let this go for a long time and then pulled the plug on the ice cream maker when chocolate ice cream started gushing out the top of the can. It never did set up enough to turn the ice cream maker off by itself like it was supposed to. It came out the consistency of a milkshake. I poured it into a bucket and froze it.
Then today we decided to have some chocolate ice cream--and discovered that it never did get as hard and stiff as homemade ice cream usually does. After a whole night in the freezer, it was still just barely stiffer than soft-serve ice cream consistency. That's kind of fun. It came out super super yummy--slightly dark chocolate flavored, which I much prefer, and with tiny flecks of chocolate (you can make them bigger--like flakes of chocolate instead of flecks of chocolate--by pouring the melted chocolate chips into the cream or half and half while it's being mixed with the whip attachment on the mixer instead of in the blender). It has kind of a truffle consistency, if you can describe ice cream that way.
Next time we might mix chopped candy bars or Andes Mints Chips into the chocolate ice cream. Mmmmmm. Or maybe some raspberry puree....
We've tried a lot of things. Peanut butter chocolate chip didn't work so well. Neither did malted milk chocolate chip. Mango was good but I should have used three times the amount of mango puree. Blackberry was too flimsy a flavor, and I tried to fix it by adding cream cheese but I added too much. So now it's sort of cheesecake flavored, but too strong. Mixed berry was super yummy. Raspberry was to die for.
But our favorite so far is strawberry. I make Philadelphia Style ice cream--no eggs--because it's faster and easier. To flavor it with fruit, I buy bags of frozen fruit (I guess the're for smoothies? They all have smoothie recipes on the back). One or even two bags of frozen fruit, pureed, is about right for 4 qts of ice cream.
The Strawberry Recipe that's the very best we happened on by accident--I forgot to add a few ingredients when I was mixing it up.
Here's what we use (my ice cream maker holds 4 quarts):
Strawberry Ice Cream
2 c heavy cream
2 c milk
4 c half and half (or to fill the ice cream bucket to the line)
2 c sugar
1 large container sweetened sliced strawberries, pureed. You could even use 2 if you wanted.
Mix all the ingredients and freeze according to your ice cream freezer instructions. The ingredients I left out were 1/2 tsp salt and 1 Tbsp vanilla. What it gave us was a very strawberries-and-cream flavor instead of a strawberry "ice cream" flavor. It was super super yummy. You could skip the milk and add cream instead, I suppose. I haven't tried that.
To make raspberry ice cream (a Utah thing, and so SO good), replace the strawberries with one or two bags of frozen raspberries, pureed. Likewise for mixed berry--1-2 bags of frozen mixed berries, pureed.
Last night's experiments were highly successful, too. We made cherry at Anda's request and chocolate chocolate chip. I didn't have recipes for either of these, so I just made them up:
Cherry Ice Cream
2 c heavy cream
3 c half and half
milk to fill bucket
1 bag frozen dark sweet cherries
1 bag frozen cherries and berries (but use only the cherries and blueberries--pick out the strawberries and blackberries)
1 can apple-cherry juice concentrate
1 3/4 c sugar
1/2 tsp salt
1 Tbsp vanilla
Puree the cherries, blueberries, and juice concentrate with enough milk or half-and-half that the blender doesn't protest. Stir together with the rest of the ingredients. Freeze according to the instructions.
That was yummy. Then, without first cleaning the ice cream bucket or dasher of the cherry ice cream (which I had just dumped into a storebought ice cream bucket and put into the freezer), I made chocolate chocolate chip ice cream. I figured the hint of cherry in the chocolate chip ice cream would be yummy, if you noticed it at all. I was right--mostly unnoticeable.
Chocolate Chocolate Chip Ice Cream
2 c heavy cream
5 c half and half (or to fill bucket)
1 c chocolate syrup (the kind you squirt on ice cream)
1/2 c Hershey's Special Dark chocolate syrup
1 1/2 c sugar
1 tsp vanilla
1 bag semi-sweet chocolate chips
In the blender, mix 2 1/2 c half and half with half of the chocolate syrup, the vanilla, and the sugar. Melt the chocolate chips in the microwave (30 seconds at a time until they stir smooth). I did a cup at a time. Then, while the blender is going (on low) pour the melted chocolate into the half-and-half mixture. Pour this mixture into the ice cream can. Then mix the rest of the half-and-half and the cream with the rest of the chocolate syrups (don't mix it too long, or it gets too frothy). Add this to the ice cream can and stir well. Then freeze according to the instructions. I let this go for a long time and then pulled the plug on the ice cream maker when chocolate ice cream started gushing out the top of the can. It never did set up enough to turn the ice cream maker off by itself like it was supposed to. It came out the consistency of a milkshake. I poured it into a bucket and froze it.
Then today we decided to have some chocolate ice cream--and discovered that it never did get as hard and stiff as homemade ice cream usually does. After a whole night in the freezer, it was still just barely stiffer than soft-serve ice cream consistency. That's kind of fun. It came out super super yummy--slightly dark chocolate flavored, which I much prefer, and with tiny flecks of chocolate (you can make them bigger--like flakes of chocolate instead of flecks of chocolate--by pouring the melted chocolate chips into the cream or half and half while it's being mixed with the whip attachment on the mixer instead of in the blender). It has kind of a truffle consistency, if you can describe ice cream that way.
Next time we might mix chopped candy bars or Andes Mints Chips into the chocolate ice cream. Mmmmmm. Or maybe some raspberry puree....
Friday, February 01, 2013
Reasons we homeschool: research indicates better outcomes
The research that's been done on homeschooling points to better outcomes in every area (including socialization) than public schooling.
General research review:
http://www.nheri.org/research/research-facts-on-homeschooling.html
On socialization in particular: http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000068.asp
General research review:
http://www.nheri.org/research/research-facts-on-homeschooling.html
On socialization in particular: http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000068.asp
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Pondering Motherhood
The day Caleb was born, they put him into my arms and I looked at him and thought, "Oh! This is what I've been looking for my whole life!" What I was lacking wasn't any of the things society said I should be pursuing--college degrees, jobs, money, prestige--it was children! I didn't know that I longed to be a mother. I had never, ever thought of it that way before Caleb showed up.
With a new baby in the house, it seems reasonable that my mind would be on motherhood again.
It feels like motherhood is really looked down upon in our culture. People delay starting families so they can have a career, people have fewer children and farm them off to daycares so they can pursue their adult interests. Children are increasingly unwelcome in places like restaurants and hotels.
And nobody really thinks you're amazingly awesome for having more than 3 kids. They just think you're nuts. And 7 kids? Well, that's not a crown of jewels and honor, by any stretch. I mostly feel like a circus sideshow act when we go out in public. The thing I hear from most people is, "I could NEVER do that," with the subtext being "nor would I want to"--because being a checker at the grocery store is so much more fulfilling? (It always strikes me as sad that women have been trained to think they are too weak to do something as integral to woman-ness as raise children, but that's another post for another day).
Having children should be an honor and privilege and a joy. It should be something society values and supports.
At least it is that to God.
God says that His work and glory is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of Man. And we all know He did that through Jesus.
But do we ever sit and think about the fact that He couldn't do that without women being willing to be pregnant and have babies? Immortality is a free gift, thanks to Jesus, given to every person who is born on this earth.
But you have to be born. And that requires a woman willing to carry a baby and birth it, just to give it a body--no small sacrifice, mind you. Being pregnant is NOT fun or easy for most of us, and 9-12 months of downright torture for many. But that is the only way for a person to get a body, and therefore to get access to Jesus' gift of immortality.
In other words, God's work and glory aren't even possible without mothers.
And God didn't make us like many animals, who are born and then hop up and get going on their lives, independent of parents. He made us born weak and fragile and incredibly dependent for many, many years. Why? Because of the second part of his work: eternal life. Being raised in a family is the way God has chosen to give His children the very best shot at eternal life, or returning to live in God's own presence for eternity (which is what He wants for us). Jesus made it possible; parents doing their job right make it easier (parents doing their job wrong make it much harder, though, but the benefits of good parenting must have been worth the risk of some people getting bad parents). And it gives obvious benefit to parents. This is the most right thing we ever do--for our children and for us (because we are, in fact, God's children, too).
No wonder they call motherhood the highest and holiest calling women will have! No wonder this feels like hands-down the most important work I will ever do. This is my greatest chance--even greater than going on a mission--to partner with God to help bring to pass His work and His glory.
Too bad our culture seems hell-bent on stopping women from doing this work at all! And, just in case women do decide to have children (and most still do), our culture works very hard to confuse them into thinking that motherhood is a house decorating assignment, or a janitorial job, or a fashion design and model-training program, or an assignment to keep people who do extracurricular activities (sports, art lessons, etc) in work, or something that it's perfectly okay to outsource to whomever has a daycare or babysitter license, or a chance to re-live your life through someone else, or an art exercise in sculpting humans to our liking and for our own benefit and glory only. Even women in the church often confuse motherhood with the peripheral assignments that go along with it. Or they think there is only one way to mother and spend a lot of time teaching that and condemning people who don't do it "right". Sad that there is so little understanding of one of the most important things women ever do. (But of course, Satan would prefer it that way, wouldn't he? Parents are God's "secret weapon," so of course Satan will do anything he can to stop them from understanding and doing their work.)
Thank goodness we have prophets to let us know the truth!
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Did I just read that?
"The airport told CBS4 that agents from the United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services patrol the parking lots and remove any rabbits they find, but few have complained about car problems."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/27/rabbits-gnawing-away-at-cars-in-colorado-airport/?test=latestnews#ixzz2JD2vZacr
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/27/rabbits-gnawing-away-at-cars-in-colorado-airport/?test=latestnews#ixzz2JD2vZacr
No kidding, huh? Rabbits don't complain about car problems? Maybe that's because they don't have cars...
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Did I just read that?
This was the top headline on Foxnews.com today, and it made me blush: "Birth Control Mandate Loosens Suits" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/26/obama-birth-control-mandates-loosen-lawsuits/
On the actual page, the headline is fixed, so if you click the links you won't see it.
But still--put the women on birth control, and what happens to the men's suits? Jeesh.
On the actual page, the headline is fixed, so if you click the links you won't see it.
But still--put the women on birth control, and what happens to the men's suits? Jeesh.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Alternate Nursing Techniques...
Jack is my first baby in a long time who hasn't been a good, instinctive nurser. It's been two weeks, and he's finally figured out how to nurse for more than 5-10 minutes at a time. Most of my babies figured that out in about 3 minutes on the first day.
But he's still working on his technique.
Most babies latch on and then give five or six quick sucks to get the milk flowing, and then they nurse normally. Jack doesn't get this.
Instead, he opens his mouth and yells at the breast for a few minutes, moving as though he wants to latch on but refusing to actually close his mouth. Then he waits for the milk to start spraying. Once there is milk, he latches on and nurses normally. But not before.
Hopefully he gets his technique refined a little before we have to nurse in public...
But he's still working on his technique.
Most babies latch on and then give five or six quick sucks to get the milk flowing, and then they nurse normally. Jack doesn't get this.
Instead, he opens his mouth and yells at the breast for a few minutes, moving as though he wants to latch on but refusing to actually close his mouth. Then he waits for the milk to start spraying. Once there is milk, he latches on and nurses normally. But not before.
Hopefully he gets his technique refined a little before we have to nurse in public...
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Zig Ziglar
Ever since Zig Ziglar died, people have been posting quotes from him on Facebook. I had not paid much attention to Mr. Ziglar before, and I'll be glad when I don't have to anymore.
He's the feel-good pseudo-prophet of the month. His doctrines are meant to inspire and empower. He takes truth and leaves out a few key elements--like God--and then spreads it around, making promises that if you do certain things and believe in yourself, success will appear. Success, of course, meaning money.
But Mr. Ziglar's philosophies are flawed--deeply. I don't know how he came up with his promises and formulas, but it seems like he looked at a bunch of successful people, guessed what they did, and then went around promising everyone it will work for them, too. Sweet little formulas like a dream + faith (in the dream and in yourself, not in God) + action + perseverance + time + patience = Dream Come True.
What he didn't take into account is that millions of people follow that formula and their dreams never do come true. But someone somewhere followed it and it worked, so we get promised it will always work for everyone. And there are some lovely built-in "outs" for Mr. Ziglar if it doesn't work--he can always claim you didn't have enough faith, you didn't work hard enough, you gave up too soon. In other words, you failed because You are a Failure. And if you believed in me long enough, you'd succeed.
I've heard this kind of stuff before, coming out of the mouth of my crazy grandma. Same formula, but her "dream" that starts out is crazy in the extreme--like being able to fly. Maybe that's why I can't stomach it from Mr. Ziglar.
Or maybe it's because it's overly simplistic. "You will either look back and say 'I wish I had' or 'I'm glad I did'." Is just overly simplistic. There's so much complexity in life that he just skips. He doesn't address the reality that some dreams are not possible (being able to fly, or for me to play in the NBA, or for Tim to have our next baby, for example)--in fact, he teaches the opposite, openly and often. He doesn't address that some dreams would actually be nightmares if we could see the big picture, and therefore are not desirable. He doesn't address the temporary nature of some dreams (I wanted to be a track star for about two weeks when I was in 3rd grade, now I have no interest in that.). He doesn't address the reality that we grow and learn and often give up on something we wanted for something we want even more. He also doesn't address the fact that life is not a one-track proposition. We have many interacting goals, dreams, aspirations, talents, limitations, experiences, etc. Isolating just one and making that our entire focus leaves us at risk of neglecting other important aspects of life. He doesn't address the very real situation that we are human and have physical limitations that can stop us from doing things we want to do--and that sometimes (often?) accepting those limitations makes us happier than fighting them. And he completely leaves out the reality that God is ultimately in charge, and His deepest interests for us deal with our development, learning, growth, and refinement--not with always helping us get what we want. If we put our faith in God, instead of our dreams or ourselves, we will find that we are often denied things we want--even good things we want, and even when we work really really hard for them--in order for God to help us get what He knows will make us happiest in the long run (as in the eternities).
Maybe it's because Ziglar's definition of success (and therefore his ideas of what we should be pursuing) are subtly tied up in social and financial success--he's promising money and power to people who work for it. The trouble is, those "rewards" are the wrong ones to be searching for. Life is much better when we stop seeking money and power (which President McKay said were temptations of the devil, not valid goals) and instead start seeking happiness (which God has taught us how to get--and he didn't include gaining money or worldly power in the equation). In fact, nowhere in the scriptures or the words of the prophets are we counselled to pursue our dreams. Not once. Never are we told that the ultimate happiness comes from our dreams coming true, or following our passions, or shooting for the stars. (And, in fact, many many musicians we have met--people who the world considers the ones who are "living the dream" and "free from the nine-to-five shackles"--spend their whole lives mourning what they can't have: a stable home and family. They are not any happier than everyone else, and are often just as discontent. "Living the life" is lonely and unfulfilling, it turns out.)
Ziglar's doctrines are also deeply cruel. It's not right to tell a woman struggling with infertility that she just didn't try hard enough or believe it enough or work hard enough--and that's why she doesn't have a baby. It's not right to tell a father of an autistic kid that if he just tries harder and applies the right formulas, the kid will turn out to be normal. It's not right to tell a hardworking, content family that if they work harder and neglect their family relationships, they will have money and be "truly" happy. I, personally, don't find it helpful for Mr. Ziglar to tell me that I could keep my house spotless if I just tried harder (completely ignoring that I have physical limitations, like fibromyalgia, that make that impossible). It leaves me always feeling like a complete failure instead of like a valuable person who has a lot to contribute--just not to my walls.
Personally, I prefer to rely on the advice of real prophets. Snippets like, "Forget yourself and get to work" are much more powerful than formulas for "success."
He's the feel-good pseudo-prophet of the month. His doctrines are meant to inspire and empower. He takes truth and leaves out a few key elements--like God--and then spreads it around, making promises that if you do certain things and believe in yourself, success will appear. Success, of course, meaning money.
But Mr. Ziglar's philosophies are flawed--deeply. I don't know how he came up with his promises and formulas, but it seems like he looked at a bunch of successful people, guessed what they did, and then went around promising everyone it will work for them, too. Sweet little formulas like a dream + faith (in the dream and in yourself, not in God) + action + perseverance + time + patience = Dream Come True.
What he didn't take into account is that millions of people follow that formula and their dreams never do come true. But someone somewhere followed it and it worked, so we get promised it will always work for everyone. And there are some lovely built-in "outs" for Mr. Ziglar if it doesn't work--he can always claim you didn't have enough faith, you didn't work hard enough, you gave up too soon. In other words, you failed because You are a Failure. And if you believed in me long enough, you'd succeed.
I've heard this kind of stuff before, coming out of the mouth of my crazy grandma. Same formula, but her "dream" that starts out is crazy in the extreme--like being able to fly. Maybe that's why I can't stomach it from Mr. Ziglar.
Or maybe it's because it's overly simplistic. "You will either look back and say 'I wish I had' or 'I'm glad I did'." Is just overly simplistic. There's so much complexity in life that he just skips. He doesn't address the reality that some dreams are not possible (being able to fly, or for me to play in the NBA, or for Tim to have our next baby, for example)--in fact, he teaches the opposite, openly and often. He doesn't address that some dreams would actually be nightmares if we could see the big picture, and therefore are not desirable. He doesn't address the temporary nature of some dreams (I wanted to be a track star for about two weeks when I was in 3rd grade, now I have no interest in that.). He doesn't address the reality that we grow and learn and often give up on something we wanted for something we want even more. He also doesn't address the fact that life is not a one-track proposition. We have many interacting goals, dreams, aspirations, talents, limitations, experiences, etc. Isolating just one and making that our entire focus leaves us at risk of neglecting other important aspects of life. He doesn't address the very real situation that we are human and have physical limitations that can stop us from doing things we want to do--and that sometimes (often?) accepting those limitations makes us happier than fighting them. And he completely leaves out the reality that God is ultimately in charge, and His deepest interests for us deal with our development, learning, growth, and refinement--not with always helping us get what we want. If we put our faith in God, instead of our dreams or ourselves, we will find that we are often denied things we want--even good things we want, and even when we work really really hard for them--in order for God to help us get what He knows will make us happiest in the long run (as in the eternities).
Maybe it's because Ziglar's definition of success (and therefore his ideas of what we should be pursuing) are subtly tied up in social and financial success--he's promising money and power to people who work for it. The trouble is, those "rewards" are the wrong ones to be searching for. Life is much better when we stop seeking money and power (which President McKay said were temptations of the devil, not valid goals) and instead start seeking happiness (which God has taught us how to get--and he didn't include gaining money or worldly power in the equation). In fact, nowhere in the scriptures or the words of the prophets are we counselled to pursue our dreams. Not once. Never are we told that the ultimate happiness comes from our dreams coming true, or following our passions, or shooting for the stars. (And, in fact, many many musicians we have met--people who the world considers the ones who are "living the dream" and "free from the nine-to-five shackles"--spend their whole lives mourning what they can't have: a stable home and family. They are not any happier than everyone else, and are often just as discontent. "Living the life" is lonely and unfulfilling, it turns out.)
Ziglar's doctrines are also deeply cruel. It's not right to tell a woman struggling with infertility that she just didn't try hard enough or believe it enough or work hard enough--and that's why she doesn't have a baby. It's not right to tell a father of an autistic kid that if he just tries harder and applies the right formulas, the kid will turn out to be normal. It's not right to tell a hardworking, content family that if they work harder and neglect their family relationships, they will have money and be "truly" happy. I, personally, don't find it helpful for Mr. Ziglar to tell me that I could keep my house spotless if I just tried harder (completely ignoring that I have physical limitations, like fibromyalgia, that make that impossible). It leaves me always feeling like a complete failure instead of like a valuable person who has a lot to contribute--just not to my walls.
Personally, I prefer to rely on the advice of real prophets. Snippets like, "Forget yourself and get to work" are much more powerful than formulas for "success."
Friday, January 18, 2013
Did I just read that?
"Simple blood test can help predict mortality, Utah researchers find" http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865570970/Simple-blood-test-can-help-predict-mortality-Utah-researchers-find.html
I'd say it's probably a pretty simple test: if you have blood, you're mortal!
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Grow Cube and Sphere Answer Keys
Kids have been assigned this for school: http://schooltimegames.com/Logic/GrowCube.html
Fun, but how to solve the puzzle?
Now that I figured it out, I'm posting it here so we can find it again.
Highlight the area below to see the answer:
Put the items on the cube in this order:
Guy
Water
Seeds
Bucket
Glass tube
Fire
White dish
Bone
Springs
Ball
The kids also play this one for school: http://www.eyezmaze.com/grow/RPG/index.html#more
And how to solve it?
Highlight the area below for the answer:
Place the items on the sphere in this order:
House
Tree
Castle
Water
Tower
Rocks
Treasure
Stairs
We also found a new one we hadn't tried before: http://www.eyezmaze.com/eyezblog_en/blog/2009/06/grow_ver3_remake.html
I haven't solved this one, but there is a solution on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCV_KrcJ1Ds
Grow Tower: http://www.eyezmaze.com/eyezblog_en/blog/2009/01/grow_tower.html
and the solution:
box w button
golden pot
bricks
grass
pot
Fun, but how to solve the puzzle?
Now that I figured it out, I'm posting it here so we can find it again.
Highlight the area below to see the answer:
Put the items on the cube in this order:
Guy
Water
Seeds
Bucket
Glass tube
Fire
White dish
Bone
Springs
Ball
The kids also play this one for school: http://www.eyezmaze.com/grow/RPG/index.html#more
And how to solve it?
Highlight the area below for the answer:
Place the items on the sphere in this order:
House
Tree
Castle
Water
Tower
Rocks
Treasure
Stairs
We also found a new one we hadn't tried before: http://www.eyezmaze.com/eyezblog_en/blog/2009/06/grow_ver3_remake.html
I haven't solved this one, but there is a solution on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCV_KrcJ1Ds
Grow Tower: http://www.eyezmaze.com/eyezblog_en/blog/2009/01/grow_tower.html
and the solution:
box w button
golden pot
bricks
grass
pot
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
Did I just read that?
From ksl mobile: "Over weight people less likely to die, study says"
Less likely to die....ever? Cool.
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
Distressing Things I Heard about Congress Today
On facebook, people started passing around a picture saying that it's time for Boehner to stand down from being Speaker of the House because he compromised.
I'm really confused about this. Isn't compromise the point? If we all just stupidly stand and insist it's my way or the highway, we all would have suffered. Haven't these people read that old Dr. Seuss story about The Zax? Even if we don't agree with the compromise, at least they are trying to compromise for once. All the gridlock and selfishness is not getting us anywhere.
The other thing I heard was a radio interview with Nancy Pelosi, who was explaining that some of the Republicans were having trouble accepting the compromise because "They listen to their constituents, and that makes them afraid they might pay later for accepting this." She was talking about it as though a congressman or senator listening to their constituents is a BAD thing. But I thought that's what we sent to the Washington to do--not represent their own or their party's interests, but to represent their constituents. And that means they have to listen to us. And it scares me that Pelosi thinks that this is a bad thing that weakens the congressmen. Does she really believe they are there to dictate to us what we want? That's more than a little scary.
Personally, I don't have a lot of hope this will fix anything, but I sure wish it were the first step down a road that leads to people listening to one another and compromising more. I'm so sick of watching our government stand toe-to-toe and call names like kindergartners.
I'm really confused about this. Isn't compromise the point? If we all just stupidly stand and insist it's my way or the highway, we all would have suffered. Haven't these people read that old Dr. Seuss story about The Zax? Even if we don't agree with the compromise, at least they are trying to compromise for once. All the gridlock and selfishness is not getting us anywhere.
The other thing I heard was a radio interview with Nancy Pelosi, who was explaining that some of the Republicans were having trouble accepting the compromise because "They listen to their constituents, and that makes them afraid they might pay later for accepting this." She was talking about it as though a congressman or senator listening to their constituents is a BAD thing. But I thought that's what we sent to the Washington to do--not represent their own or their party's interests, but to represent their constituents. And that means they have to listen to us. And it scares me that Pelosi thinks that this is a bad thing that weakens the congressmen. Does she really believe they are there to dictate to us what we want? That's more than a little scary.
Personally, I don't have a lot of hope this will fix anything, but I sure wish it were the first step down a road that leads to people listening to one another and compromising more. I'm so sick of watching our government stand toe-to-toe and call names like kindergartners.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Creativity and Can't
I'm sitting around a lot lately. I've never had fibro like this before, where the palms of my hands and the soles of my feet feel bruised, so I can't really do anything (holding a knife, walking, opening cans, etc hurt). My hips and legs and arms all ache, which adds to the difficulty in accomplishing anything.
So I'm sitting around a lot, looking at Facebook and the news and my email and thinking when the brain fog isn't too intense (which it usually is).
Today, I started seeing those stupid cards on Facebook again.
For example, one card advised that one of your New Year's Resolutions should be to cut out the word "impossible." It's a nice warm fuzzy thought, that we can do anything as long as we believe we can. But it's really one of the stupider things I've heard. Impossible is a reality in life. It's meant to be that way. We each have different gifts and different handicaps and different circumstances, and while it's nice to say I could earn a million dollars this month if I tried hard enough, it's not really possible. I'm never going to be able to play in the NBA, even when I'm not pregnant. I'm not able to fly without help, as much as I'd like. I am never going to be able to live loop a song.
It's really unfair to tell people with handicaps, like fibro, that the reason they can't do things is because they are thinking about it all wrong--that if they just tried harder and believed harder, they could do what they want to do. Fibro stops me from being able to play the piano without pain. I tried to take pictures of Tim yesterday and discovered that I can't hold a camera up in front of my face--my arms hurt and then they just won't cooperate.
Sometimes "I can't" and "It's impossible" are the most important things we can say because they allow us to accept our limitations--and either move on in a different direction (finding other pastimes and talents, for example, instead of playing piano) or ask for help (so that Tim makes dinner on the days that I hurt too much to hold a knife). Really, accepting "can't" and "impossible" are far more empowering than abolishing those things from our vocabulary. God gave us all things we can do, and we're much more happy and productive if we work on those things--the things that are easy and enjoyable, or the things we feel driven and motivated to work hard on--instead of wasting our whole lives pursuing unrealistic goals that we really can't do. (Not to say we should never do hard things--of course we should. But chasing impossible things is stupid.)
Another one I saw today said that an essential aspect of creativity is not being afraid to fail. I think a businessman must have written that. All (except maybe 1) of the creative people I know (and I know a LOT) are deeply terrified of failure. They are even more afraid of failure than the non-creative people I know. Most have so much anxiety about failure that they need counselling and medication (even if they don't get it).
And that fear is actually what motivates them to keep going and keep refining and keep polishing and keep perfecting their art. It's the thing that makes them rewrite the novel fifteen times until they're sure it's good, and then revise it again ten more times based on the feedback they got from one or two trusted people. It's the thing that makes them write a hundred songs and only release the best ten. Or one. It's the thing that makes them throw away dozens of canvasses and only try to sell the best one.
People who are not afraid to fail are not driven to succeed.
Sure you can be creative if you aren't afraid to fail--you're not afraid to look at things in new ways. But the really, truly creative people I know are the ones who can't help but think outside the box (not the ones who do because they aren't afraid to). It's not a change in thinking that makes them able to be intensely creative. They just ARE that way--and often are ashamed of it, frustrated by it, terrified of it. They are people who say, "Why can't I be normal?", not people who say, "Maybe if I work at failing on purpose, I can lose my fear of it and then I can be more creative." They are people who know it's irrational, know it's a "waste of time", know it's not financially viable, but they can't help lying awake at night thinking of new ways of doing things, new things they could create, new conversations for characters to have, new poems or lyrics to songs.
It has nothing to do with lacking a fear of failure, and everything to do with an internal compulsion that won't let them go. Creativity is not something they do on purpose. It's an essential part of their being, like breathing.
And the ones that develop it into something amazing are more often than not terrified of failing.
So I'm sitting around a lot, looking at Facebook and the news and my email and thinking when the brain fog isn't too intense (which it usually is).
Today, I started seeing those stupid cards on Facebook again.
For example, one card advised that one of your New Year's Resolutions should be to cut out the word "impossible." It's a nice warm fuzzy thought, that we can do anything as long as we believe we can. But it's really one of the stupider things I've heard. Impossible is a reality in life. It's meant to be that way. We each have different gifts and different handicaps and different circumstances, and while it's nice to say I could earn a million dollars this month if I tried hard enough, it's not really possible. I'm never going to be able to play in the NBA, even when I'm not pregnant. I'm not able to fly without help, as much as I'd like. I am never going to be able to live loop a song.
It's really unfair to tell people with handicaps, like fibro, that the reason they can't do things is because they are thinking about it all wrong--that if they just tried harder and believed harder, they could do what they want to do. Fibro stops me from being able to play the piano without pain. I tried to take pictures of Tim yesterday and discovered that I can't hold a camera up in front of my face--my arms hurt and then they just won't cooperate.
Sometimes "I can't" and "It's impossible" are the most important things we can say because they allow us to accept our limitations--and either move on in a different direction (finding other pastimes and talents, for example, instead of playing piano) or ask for help (so that Tim makes dinner on the days that I hurt too much to hold a knife). Really, accepting "can't" and "impossible" are far more empowering than abolishing those things from our vocabulary. God gave us all things we can do, and we're much more happy and productive if we work on those things--the things that are easy and enjoyable, or the things we feel driven and motivated to work hard on--instead of wasting our whole lives pursuing unrealistic goals that we really can't do. (Not to say we should never do hard things--of course we should. But chasing impossible things is stupid.)
Another one I saw today said that an essential aspect of creativity is not being afraid to fail. I think a businessman must have written that. All (except maybe 1) of the creative people I know (and I know a LOT) are deeply terrified of failure. They are even more afraid of failure than the non-creative people I know. Most have so much anxiety about failure that they need counselling and medication (even if they don't get it).
And that fear is actually what motivates them to keep going and keep refining and keep polishing and keep perfecting their art. It's the thing that makes them rewrite the novel fifteen times until they're sure it's good, and then revise it again ten more times based on the feedback they got from one or two trusted people. It's the thing that makes them write a hundred songs and only release the best ten. Or one. It's the thing that makes them throw away dozens of canvasses and only try to sell the best one.
People who are not afraid to fail are not driven to succeed.
Sure you can be creative if you aren't afraid to fail--you're not afraid to look at things in new ways. But the really, truly creative people I know are the ones who can't help but think outside the box (not the ones who do because they aren't afraid to). It's not a change in thinking that makes them able to be intensely creative. They just ARE that way--and often are ashamed of it, frustrated by it, terrified of it. They are people who say, "Why can't I be normal?", not people who say, "Maybe if I work at failing on purpose, I can lose my fear of it and then I can be more creative." They are people who know it's irrational, know it's a "waste of time", know it's not financially viable, but they can't help lying awake at night thinking of new ways of doing things, new things they could create, new conversations for characters to have, new poems or lyrics to songs.
It has nothing to do with lacking a fear of failure, and everything to do with an internal compulsion that won't let them go. Creativity is not something they do on purpose. It's an essential part of their being, like breathing.
And the ones that develop it into something amazing are more often than not terrified of failing.
The American Dream
I keep seeing things like this article, claiming that the American Dream is in its death throes for those in my generation.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-21/american-dream-fades-for-generation-y-professionals.html
But when you read the article, it becomes clear that what they are defining as The American Dream is getting a good job and becoming a millionaire.
They got it wrong!
Traditionally, the American Dream was to have a family and own a house for them to live in--not a giant house, just a moderate house big enough for the family with a little yard.
And that dream is still within reach of people. What's not realistic is for a whole generation to become single millionaires with no obligations at all, or for them to work in their dream jobs for their whole lives without any break.
But that's the wrong dream anyway. It was never realistic for an entire generation to become millionaires. And living without family and without obligation is not actually going to make anyone happy. It will just make them old and lonely, selfish and egotistical, disconnected and drifting. The thing they define as The American Dream was just a set-up anyway: a setup for disappointment, for loneliness, for a long unresolvable midlife crisis as everyone discovers too late that what they should have done was spend less time working and more time building a family (which is one of the few things we really do have a biological deadline on).
Notice that God never said "Chase your dreams". God never said, "Get a good career and work your way up the ladder." God never said, "Earn a million dollars and live 'the life.'" And if God wants us to be happy, and He's given us a roadmap for happiness, and He left those things off, then apparently none of those things will get us there, despite how appealing they seem when we're young, and despite how much our culture has pushed the selfish way (because really all those things are about ME--my dreams, my career at all costs, my success, my money, my plans--and I guess focusing on ME is, ironically, not the way to make me happy).
The American Dream, the way it used to be, is not dead. There are still opportunities for people to find love, build a family, have a steady career (even if it's not your dream work), buy a modest house to live out your life in. And that kind of dream is worth pursuing, and it is more in keeping with the guidelines God has given us--family, work (but reasonably, to stay alive and stable--not compulsively, to do nothing else but get money), stability and participation in a community all are included in that old American Dream. It's not a flashy dream. It's not something that will make you more special than someone else. It doesn't follow the new definition of "Success," but it encompasses the things we need to be successful at in order to be happy. (Hint: none of those includes having a lot of money).
That other American Dream? RIP and good riddance. It wasn't a good dream anyway, even if it looked like it should be.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-21/american-dream-fades-for-generation-y-professionals.html
But when you read the article, it becomes clear that what they are defining as The American Dream is getting a good job and becoming a millionaire.
They got it wrong!
Traditionally, the American Dream was to have a family and own a house for them to live in--not a giant house, just a moderate house big enough for the family with a little yard.
And that dream is still within reach of people. What's not realistic is for a whole generation to become single millionaires with no obligations at all, or for them to work in their dream jobs for their whole lives without any break.
But that's the wrong dream anyway. It was never realistic for an entire generation to become millionaires. And living without family and without obligation is not actually going to make anyone happy. It will just make them old and lonely, selfish and egotistical, disconnected and drifting. The thing they define as The American Dream was just a set-up anyway: a setup for disappointment, for loneliness, for a long unresolvable midlife crisis as everyone discovers too late that what they should have done was spend less time working and more time building a family (which is one of the few things we really do have a biological deadline on).
Notice that God never said "Chase your dreams". God never said, "Get a good career and work your way up the ladder." God never said, "Earn a million dollars and live 'the life.'" And if God wants us to be happy, and He's given us a roadmap for happiness, and He left those things off, then apparently none of those things will get us there, despite how appealing they seem when we're young, and despite how much our culture has pushed the selfish way (because really all those things are about ME--my dreams, my career at all costs, my success, my money, my plans--and I guess focusing on ME is, ironically, not the way to make me happy).
The American Dream, the way it used to be, is not dead. There are still opportunities for people to find love, build a family, have a steady career (even if it's not your dream work), buy a modest house to live out your life in. And that kind of dream is worth pursuing, and it is more in keeping with the guidelines God has given us--family, work (but reasonably, to stay alive and stable--not compulsively, to do nothing else but get money), stability and participation in a community all are included in that old American Dream. It's not a flashy dream. It's not something that will make you more special than someone else. It doesn't follow the new definition of "Success," but it encompasses the things we need to be successful at in order to be happy. (Hint: none of those includes having a lot of money).
That other American Dream? RIP and good riddance. It wasn't a good dream anyway, even if it looked like it should be.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Did I just read that?
"Mourners line the street as a hurst carrying Emilie Parker drives by following funeral services for the 6-year old Connecticut elementary shooting victim, Saturday, Dec. 22, 2012, in Ogden, Utah." http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Conn-victim-laid-to-rest-next-to-grandpa-in-Utah-4141059.php#ixzz2FpSo1IvA
Tim's related to the Hurst family. I didn't know they were in the body-moving business, though.
Oddly, this is the second place I've seen this particular mistake online just today. (The word, by the way, should be "hearse").
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Wearing Pants to Church
Have you seen this? "Wear Pants to Church Day". http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23355976&nid=1016&title=group-pushes-for-lds-women-to-wear-pants-to-church&s_cid=queue-3
I have seen this in several places lately, as feminists I know encourage each other to join.
And I find it completely ludicrous.
First of all, there is no prohibition against wearing pants to church for women. So how is this a protest against the church? Might be a protest against some areas' cultural traditions, for sure, but it does not say what the women involved think they are saying.
Secondly, it announces that women feel like they can't have power and influence unless they "wear the pants," which says to me they don't value what women are and think women should be more like men. Stupid stupid stupid. Women can be incredibly powerful sources of good in the world without trying to be men. And we all--men and women--are happier if we embrace our divine nature as well as our individual talents and gifts, instead of always seeking to be someone else. Men and women are different, and there should be no shame in that. As far as I know, only the feminists are ashamed of that. Ironic, no?
Finally, it's a rather blunt statement that the women involved don't believe that Jesus is running this church and, further, don't believe that the prophet or apostles talk to God. It really lowers the church from being the true church of God, run by revelation, to being just another of those religious organizations that atheists believe exist purely to extort and control people, run by people for their own purposes and their own glory, even if with good intentions. Might as well wear a T-shirt that says, "Forget God. Put me in charge because I'm smarter than He is."
There are certainly problems that crop up in the church. I don't believe it's infallible. It's is administered by people, after all, and sometimes those leaders (especially on the local level) can get mired in all manner of sins and mistakes, even when they have good intentions. I don't deny that happens. (I do think it's silly to say only male leaders make mistakes and offend people, though. I've had as much trouble and sorrow from the actions of women in the church as men--we're all just people, male and female! It's really ridiculous to claim the church would have fewer mistakes made and fewer offended people if women were in charge).
But there are better ways to effect change than wearing pants to church--like going right to God and telling Him your issues, and then working within the system, following the Spirit, to make things better.
Even if you really DO believe that God has said women should have the priesthood and the prophets and apostles are digging in their heels and refusing to change for their own benefit, I don't think having a social protest is going to get any positive results at all. And it certainly isn't going to get you, personally, into the kind of influential position you would need to have in order to change that. Sometimes working within a broken system is more effective than working against it. (And I don't think this system is broken, but if you did, this would be a poor course of action to choose--especially since the church as a whole is going to ignore it, and it will just prejudice the local leaders against using you in any callings).
Personally, I have worn pants to church before. I was in a church building in pants the week before last, in fact, just as the meetings got out. And last week several women came to church in pants in my ward. It wasn't a political statement, and nobody cared what they were wearing.
But I would be embarrassed to wear them this Sunday! It feels too much like a statement to the ward, not that I think women should have the priesthood, but that I have no faith in God or the prophets and I don't understand what the scriptures teach about the priesthood. I'd be embarrassed to say that to everyone, even if it were true!
I have seen this in several places lately, as feminists I know encourage each other to join.
And I find it completely ludicrous.
First of all, there is no prohibition against wearing pants to church for women. So how is this a protest against the church? Might be a protest against some areas' cultural traditions, for sure, but it does not say what the women involved think they are saying.
Secondly, it announces that women feel like they can't have power and influence unless they "wear the pants," which says to me they don't value what women are and think women should be more like men. Stupid stupid stupid. Women can be incredibly powerful sources of good in the world without trying to be men. And we all--men and women--are happier if we embrace our divine nature as well as our individual talents and gifts, instead of always seeking to be someone else. Men and women are different, and there should be no shame in that. As far as I know, only the feminists are ashamed of that. Ironic, no?
Finally, it's a rather blunt statement that the women involved don't believe that Jesus is running this church and, further, don't believe that the prophet or apostles talk to God. It really lowers the church from being the true church of God, run by revelation, to being just another of those religious organizations that atheists believe exist purely to extort and control people, run by people for their own purposes and their own glory, even if with good intentions. Might as well wear a T-shirt that says, "Forget God. Put me in charge because I'm smarter than He is."
There are certainly problems that crop up in the church. I don't believe it's infallible. It's is administered by people, after all, and sometimes those leaders (especially on the local level) can get mired in all manner of sins and mistakes, even when they have good intentions. I don't deny that happens. (I do think it's silly to say only male leaders make mistakes and offend people, though. I've had as much trouble and sorrow from the actions of women in the church as men--we're all just people, male and female! It's really ridiculous to claim the church would have fewer mistakes made and fewer offended people if women were in charge).
But there are better ways to effect change than wearing pants to church--like going right to God and telling Him your issues, and then working within the system, following the Spirit, to make things better.
Even if you really DO believe that God has said women should have the priesthood and the prophets and apostles are digging in their heels and refusing to change for their own benefit, I don't think having a social protest is going to get any positive results at all. And it certainly isn't going to get you, personally, into the kind of influential position you would need to have in order to change that. Sometimes working within a broken system is more effective than working against it. (And I don't think this system is broken, but if you did, this would be a poor course of action to choose--especially since the church as a whole is going to ignore it, and it will just prejudice the local leaders against using you in any callings).
Personally, I have worn pants to church before. I was in a church building in pants the week before last, in fact, just as the meetings got out. And last week several women came to church in pants in my ward. It wasn't a political statement, and nobody cared what they were wearing.
But I would be embarrassed to wear them this Sunday! It feels too much like a statement to the ward, not that I think women should have the priesthood, but that I have no faith in God or the prophets and I don't understand what the scriptures teach about the priesthood. I'd be embarrassed to say that to everyone, even if it were true!
Saturday, December 08, 2012
Did I just read that?
From Longmont's paper, the Times Call today: "The man, identified as Pedro L. Villa, who's believed to be either 19 or 21 and is suspected of “entering many of these homes at night, through unliked doors, while the residents are asleep,” Longmont police Cmdr. Jeff Satur said."
http://www.timescall.com/news/ci_22149541/longmont-police-seek-suspect-residential-burglaries-car-break
I guess he doesn't want to come through doors that people like.
Also, that is a perfect example of a very long sentence fragment. If you take out all the clauses, you're left with "The man," which isn't a sentence.
http://www.timescall.com/news/ci_22149541/longmont-police-seek-suspect-residential-burglaries-car-break
I guess he doesn't want to come through doors that people like.
Also, that is a perfect example of a very long sentence fragment. If you take out all the clauses, you're left with "The man," which isn't a sentence.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Sleep is what I want for Christmas
I've been on a 24 hour 20 minute day since we first tried chronotherapy. (That was a big mistake, obviously--would have been better to stick with going to bed consistently at 2:00 am!). That means I can't fall asleep until 20 minutes later each night. It's not too bad until bedtime passes 5:00 am, and then I have to just jump through the day as fast as possible to get bedtime back to night again.
Unfortunately, this pregnancy has done a number on my sleep. Most nights I sleep 3 hours, lay there awake 3 hours, and then sleep 4-6 hours.
And, worse, I seem to now be on a 26-27 hour day!
This baby can't come soon enough.
Unfortunately, this pregnancy has done a number on my sleep. Most nights I sleep 3 hours, lay there awake 3 hours, and then sleep 4-6 hours.
And, worse, I seem to now be on a 26-27 hour day!
This baby can't come soon enough.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Did I just read that?
From the Deseret News: "State of disunion: 500,000 residents across the country petition White House to withdraw from U.S." http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865566651/State-of-disunion-400000-residents-across-the-country-petition-White-House-to-withdraw-from-US.html
Ha! I think most of the people on those petitions were asking for the states to withdraw from the union. But I suspect most of them would be happy if the White House withdrew.
Ha! I think most of the people on those petitions were asking for the states to withdraw from the union. But I suspect most of them would be happy if the White House withdrew.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)