Quote of the Day

God didn't say that a woman was to be taken from a bone in the man's head that she should rule over him, nor from a bone in his foot that she should be trampled under his feet, but from the bone in his side, to be his companion, his equal, and his helpmeet in all their lives together.

George Albert Smith

Quote of the Day

“Sometimes we say that no other success can compensate for our failures in the home. And while it is true that no other success of ours can fully compensate, there is a success that compensates for all our failures, after all we can do in good faith. That success is the Atonement of Jesus Christ. By its power, we may arise from the ashes of life filled with incomprehensible beauty and joy”

Bruce C. Hafen

Quote of the Day

“There seems to be a superstition among many thousands of our young [men and women] who hold hands and smooch in the drive-ins that marriage is a cottage surrounded by perpetual hollyhocks to which a perpetually young and handsome husband comes home to a perpetually young and [beautiful] wife. When the hollyhocks wither and boredom and bills appear the divorce courts are jammed. …
“Anyone who imagines that bliss [in marriage] is normal is going to waste a lot of time running around shouting that he has been robbed.
“[The fact is] most putts don’t drop. Most beef is tough. Most children grow up to be just people. Most successful marriages require a high degree of mutual toleration. Most jobs are more often dull than otherwise. …
“Life is like an old-time rail journey—delays, sidetracks, smoke, dust, cinders and jolts, interspersed only occasionally by beautiful vistas and thrilling bursts of speed.
“The trick is to thank the Lord for letting you have the ride.”
- Jenkins Lloyd Jones  (“Big Rock Candy Mountains,” Deseret News, 12 June 1973, A4).

A House of God

Organize yourselves; prepare every needful thing; and establish a
house, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a
house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God;

Doctrine & Covenants 88:119

Should* I ever express, with a sigh, my love for the Temple while in the presence of my father, he would surely reply (without a pause, and without variation), "you know, kt, Jesus Christ is the pattern for our lives, and the temple is the pattern for our homes."

One of my father's most effective parenting methods has been consistent, strategic communication** and his practice in this case does not vary. And so I have thought about the principles behind how the temple is managed and decorated - with the aim of executing those strategies effectively, albeit differently, in my own home.

Order and Cleanliness
One of my resolutions this year is to have "a place for everything and everything in its place" - and working toward this has been incredibly satisfying. Moving twice in the last 9 months has given me ample opportunity to purge my possessions. Even my car is tidy in this moment.# Truly, I've exceeded my expectations for myself.## The final frontier is my small bookshelf and coming up with a system to manage my bills / personal papers.

Holiness
Let me hang the proverbial WIP sign on this one. After hearing secondhand about a wonderful address on worthy music, I have been trying to purge my iTunes and DVD collections. This is really challenging for me. Not because I have anything 'black,' but of course I have lots of 'gray' (I will reserve my preferred 'grey' spelling for good greys. like shoes.). Do certain songs by the Beatles and Michael Jackson get grandfathered in? What about movies with fast cars and fast women (or ballerina dancers for that matter..) ? It's a difficulty, and I'm working through it.

Appearance
I have strong convictions about the relationship between the spirit and body. If the temple is a metaphor for our bodies and a pattern for our homes, then the appearance of our homes must also be significant. I don't mean tidiness/cleanliness, but the actual decoration.

But surely my apartment does not need to be decorated exactly like a temple, right? (right??) Firstly, I've seen quite the variation in temple decor. Secondly, I like lots of bright colors and whilst some temples have quite a bit of color, I find it is more subdued than I would like in my own home. Thirdly, as the function of a home varies from a temple, so (I presume) the execution of these principles may.

And so, let's keep this high level. Here are the patterns I've noted thus far:

• Motifs are simple, primarily organic, but often geometric.
• Artwork is not exclusively "religious," but may depict nature, or family life (emphasizing local history /culture).
• White and gold are used extensively. Other commonly used colors include green, purple, and pink (again, colors often found in nature).
• Lots of wood, stone, glass, mirrors, chandeliers.
• An impression of light, simplicity, and open space.

I love the idea of strategically decorating my home using similar principles. I may use this as my "best" in the good better best spectrum. While I could end up collecting quite a bit of pop art (I love movies, pop culture, etc.), what would that emphasize and romanticize to my {future} children? What would I find myself thinking about when I am home in my leisure time? If the artwork reflects the beautiful world God has created, the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, and the joy of family, I can see that supporting the strategy for keeping an eye single to the glory of God and raising children to do so as well. I think that the more I model my home's decor after the temple, the more the temple will seem "like home" to me and my {future} family. The temple may be more soft, more sober, more subtle; but I would love for it to seem familiar - perhaps even an extension - of home.

* hypothetically speaking, I mean.
** remind me to give further evidence of this later...
# I consider my car to be an extension of my home. Indeed, I consider my personal email inbox and my work cubicle to be extensions as well.
## did I mention they were low?

Hooray for May!

I have to say that even MY love for poems has been satiated by National Poetry Month and I greet the month of May with relief. It will take something truly splendid to bring another poem anytime soon (You have my permission to take that as a challenge. However, if I were you, I'd save it for August's Haiku Challenge). Who knew that 30 poems would exhaust my supply and test my resourcefulness? Surely, I did not.

Anyway, it's now May. And May is all about...

Mums!

So check these out:

Scary
Sad
Sweet
and
Real





ps. I sometimes wonder what kind of mum I will be. Here's my guess:

• bossy
• charming
• preachy
• entertaining
• exacting
• affectionate
• always right

Quote of the Day

God who has loved us into existence loves us into the power of loving our brethren. What is not perhaps so generally noticed is that he also loves us into the power of receiving agape (charity) both from himself and from others, for here we meet a quite unexpected obstacle. On the natural level we are full of hunger for our beloved, the hunger to receive family affection, erotic love, and friendship, and it might be expected that we similarly have a hunger to receive agape. But this is untrue. There is that in the heart of every man that resists and resents agape from his fellow creatures or even from his creator. We naturally want to be desired – to be found delightful, to satisfy worthily some hunger in others. To receive a love which is purely a gift, which bears witness solely to the lovingness of the giver and not at all to our loveliness, is a severe mortification. We desperately need to receive such love from God and even from our fellow creatures, but we don’t naturally want to. Our necessity and our wishes are in conflict.

No sooner do we believe God loves us than there is an impulse to believe that he does so not because of what he is, but because of what we are, because we are intrinsically loveable. It is so easy to admit, but so hard to really believe, but we are mirrors that so wholly are derived from the sun that shines on them surely, we think, we must have some inherent luminosity of our own.

As we are to God, so more obviously are we to our fellows. It is hard to bear agape from our fellows and yet each of us needs it. There is that in each of us that simply can’t be loved with natural love. Nobody can be expected to. Only the loveable can be naturally loved. Men can’t be asked to love rancid meat. It can be forgiven and pitied and loved with agape, but not otherwise. Every listener who has a good parent or wife or husband or child, may be sure that at times he is the recipient of agape, loved not because he is loveable, but because love itself is in the other party. This we must learn first to believe, then to endure, and then to delight in. And without guessing about it either. Such I conceive is the world of agape: a world of unbounded giving and unchained receiving where all blessed creatures need and know that they need nothing but God. And are therefore set free to love one another disinterestedly and so their love shall be like his, born neither of your need nor my deserving, but of plain bounty. I think those are drawing nearer to heaven who in this life find that they need men less and love men more. And delight more in being loved without being needed. For where agape is, there in some degree is heaven.

C S Lewis

Quote of the Day

Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence.
Oscar Wilde

Quote of the Day

The sum which two married people owe to one another defies calculation. It is an infinite debt, which can only be discharged through eternity.
Goethe

A few talking points

If, like me, you have friends who are incredibly hurt by what's happened in California, I have developed a few talking points to help foster understanding. I hope these are helpful:

Civil Rights
Everyone, regardless of race, gender, creed is allowed to marry – no one is withheld that right. It is the definition of what a marriage is that is in question, not who has the right to access it.

Church / State
I simply vote for what I believe is true, whether that is founded on religious beliefs or not, that is my moral obligation. I am not forcing my religious code on anyone by voting my conscience.

The Definition of Marriage
I believe that marriage = man + woman; that just as a man and a woman physically procreate, they socially marry. This belief can be held without any religious beliefs (though, in my case, all of my morals and values are founded on mine). My morals and values are not any less valid because they are religiously founded.

Prop 8: Aftermath

Last night a friend of mine from High School updated her status to say:
"R is depressed that 52% of people in her state are evil."

Which prompted me to write the following:

Hey R,

I know we don't talk often, but I just wanted to respond to your status. I hope you don't really look upon all people who voted Yes on prop 8 as "evil." Clearly we all see this as a very difficult and emotional issue, but I do promise you that at least SOME of the people who voted yes on that issue care very much about their friends and their happiness, but simply feel a moral obligation to vote for things they see as true - not out of a desire to impose a "religious will" on anyone.

I hope this isn't offensive to you, I just wanted to give you insight from someone on the other side of the issue.

respectfully,
kt

R's Response:
Hi kt,
Thanks for the message, I appreciate it. I shouldn't have used the word "evil"... the emotions are just very strong still. While I feel like I understand that you feel that being gay is wrong/sinful/etc, I don't think I'll ever understand why a "moral obligation," as you put it, would drive people to fight to take civil rights away from others.

It parallels interracial marriage in every way. 50 years ago, it would be illegal for me to marry my now-husband. It would also mean I would not exist since my own parents wouldn't be allowed to marry either. So, this is a highly personal issue to me.

Even if someone thinks homosexuality is sinful, I don't understand the need to go out of your way to take rights away from them. This is the first time in our state's history that there will be an amendment to the constitution to REMOVE civil rights. Isn't that saying something? You can disagree w/someone's "lifestyle" yet recognize that it has no bearing on your own life/happiness/well-being. And also, aren't your morals tied to your religion? So if enforcing your morals on others isn't enforcing religious will, then what is it?

Had justices in the Loving v Virginia case not stood up for interracial marriage, who knows if I would have the same rights as you today. At the time, I'm guessing popular vote would have voted against allowing it, but with hindsight, I hope you'd agree that the right decision was made.

Happy to keep the conversation going... I respect you but just haven't heard a single convincing argument yet...

R

And my response:

R,

Thanks for your great response. I know there has been some ridiculous rhetoric thrown around, some of which L. corrected for me (in terms of how state laws differ, etc.). And, yes, you are correct that my morals are founded on my religion, but it is not a desire to force my religious "code" that drives this issue for me. I'll try to explain as best I can. Please feel free to pick this apart.

The best way to explain this is that I believe in a society with genders. I know that seems like an odd way to put it, but I believe that in the way the genders interact physically, emotionally, psychologically, etc. they are designed to be different (Even though, of course, like all populations, there are statistical variances to any generalized characteristics), and that these differences are desireable.

I do not see this as the same as interracial marriage, because this is an issue of gender to me. Whereas a white man and a black man are the same (with some genetic differences, obviously), a woman and a man are not (obviously, as mentioned before, there are some outlying variances statistically - but those are, statistically, exceptions). I read an article in the NYT this summer that seemed shocked that although women are just as capable as men in science, they are "just not interested" - further evidence to me that the brain, the body, and, I would contend, the spirit of the genders have fundamental differences. Again, I believe those differences have value. This is the foundation for why I believe marriage is only between a man and a woman.

I believe that the sexual relationship is a metaphor for the emotional relationship - that just as the two genders are designed to procreate physically in different, but complementary ways, they are designed to parent emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually in different, but complementary ways.

This does not mean that I don't think other individuals (single, in committed homosexual relationships, etc.) wouldn't make great parents. It also doesn't mean that the worst heterosexual relationship is better than the best homosexual relationship. Clearly that is not true. Even though I do not personally relate to homosexuality, I readily believe that the love these couples have is sincere and lasting. I absolutely trust that these couples sincerely love and desire each other.

I simply believe that God designed two genders to teach each other - in ways that are harder, sometimes, than it would be with someone of the same gender - and that there is truth, beauty, and importance in that design. That it is something physically, socially, psychologically, and spiritually worth promoting above all other relationships.

Because I believe this is true, I feel a moral obligation to support what I see as true in the laws that I support. It does not affect my respect for others' choices, nor does it affect my wishes for others' happiness.

I really appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue with me. I hope this makes sense, even though you may disagree.

Best
kt

ps - the article I mentioned is here:
and obviously it's a generalization that women "just aren't as interested" - because I have many girlfriends who are very talented and interested in the sciences, although most of them are just as interested (and talented) in the liberal arts as well.

Quote of the Day

After all these years, I see that I was mistaken about Eve in the beginning; it is better to live outside the Garden with her than inside it without her.
Mark Twain Adam, in Adam's Diary

prop 8 Q&A

Question:
OK. i just got off the phone with my mom and she was going off about prop 8 and signs being stolen, etc. i had her give me a run down of the day-to-day effects that prop 8 not passing would have. in other words, i see the principles involved, but if we're in favor of domestic partnerships having ALL the same rights and privileges as traditional marriages, then what difference does it make whether 8 passes?

the first thing she said was that churches could be sued for not marrying same sex couples. i asked zp about that and he said it was a red herring -- freedom of religion would prevent that from happening. my mom said she's read cases. i'm coming to you for the real scoop.

Answer:
Great question... and I have a long response :) - please feel free to pick it part

According to California law (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5) Registered Domestic Partners are given the same rights as married spouses. But although that code extends the privileges of spouses to domestic partners, it does not necessarily expand laws involving families or marriages to include domestic partnerships. For example, a requirement to teach children in public schools about marriage does not necessarily require that domestic partnerships be taught as well. That is one of the primary points that one of the more recent Yes on 8 ads makes and it is founded upon an experience by a couple in Massachusetts (where same-sex marriage is legal) - that opening this up will require that where marriage is used, it will need to include both heterosexul and well as homosexual marriages. So, while those against prop 8 argue that there is no impact to families, children, etc. of course that is not true.

Anywhere the term marriage is used in a law, then that law will clearly expand and change with this redefinition. This redefinition of marriage will affect existing laws referencing marriage and it will be a law that other laws will be founded upon. A precedent will be set and the interpretations that will follow may be quite far-reaching (as it will evolve over time and over generations). We can only speculate what its effects may be.

Now all of this, of course, means that there is indeed a legal distinction between the privileges of a marriage and those of a domestic partnership (as the Opposition truthfully states). Which then begs asking the following questions: Are the rights of domestic partnerships sufficient? Are the privileges of marriage a civil right? This is where the Yes on 8 would say yes - the domestic partnership is sufficient and no - the privileges of marriage are not a civil right. The No on 8 of course argues the opposite. I personally believe that some privileges (such as driving licenses and, yes, marriage licenses) are not rights, but are granted by the government according to standards in the community's best interest.

That is regarding the differences between the two. I have thoughts on freedom of religion, but I'll save that for later :)

kt

ps
The French National Assembly commissioned a study / report on this very issue and you can read the English abstract here:
http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf

Particularly interesting that a socially liberal European nation is more willing to thoughtfully study and research the issue before redefining social norms than the state of California is :) Instead we use judges and propositions to emotionally address social policy....

Q&A: Prop 8

Question:
It bothered me last night when they said that civil unions already have the same civil rights as married couples because I don't believe that is true. I wanted to do some research on this and thought I would reach out to you to see if you know. It seems that, for example, you cannot jointly adopt if you are in a civil union (and you obviously can if you are married). I want to be sure on this point because while it won't change my stance, it does take away our credibility if we say things that aren't true. We are better off being honest about that. So, do you know about the difference in civil rights?

Answer:
So many laws include the word "marriage" - perhaps more than can possibly be collected in a summary list - which would of course not envelope civil unions. So, I would say that you are correct that civil unions are not technically the same as marriages in terms of legal benefits, etc. However, I believe that when it comes to civil rights (perhaps not civil benefits), it is not inaccurate to say that they are the same.

That being said, I agree with you in that I don't think that saying they are the same is an effective argument (since, technically it is not true). In terms of arguing this rationally, my recommendation is to challenge the opposition's current method of framing this as a civil rights issue, and instead perhaps discuss the concept of a license - and the concept of using legal and social policy to prohibit, permit, or promote behaviors. Since heterosexual married couples have consistently been identified as the ideal model for a family, it is sensible to retain it as the legal definition of marriage. It doesn't mean we prohibit or penalize other relationships, but we should promote the best (as outlined by social research, not necessarily religious beliefs, although in this case, they may be the same).

There is an excellent resource that the French National Assumbly published in line with this. France, a notably socially liberal country, has determined to maintain traditional marriage and civil unions (rather than promoting same-sex marriage) due to social research findings. It is worth re-emphasizing in discussions that this is a very emotional issue, but that as we look at other nation's examples, it is worth looking at research before hastily shaking up the social norms that have evolved through common law for perhaps good reason. I also often follow up a 1:1 discussion with my personal religious doctrinal beliefs about gender and marriage. I find most people respect them and do not disagree (even if they do not fully agree) with them.

News article on the French Report:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06021601.html
English Translation of the French Report:
http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf

I hope this is helpful,
kt

Quote of the Day

There is nothing nobler or more admirable than when two people who see eye to eye keep house as man and wife, confounding their enemies and delighting their friends.
Homer

Interfaith Fast: October 12th (Sunday)

Please join an interfaith fast on Sunday, October 12th for California Proposition 8.

Whatever your professed faith may be, your faith and fasting can bring forth the powers of heaven. Please abstain from food and drink on Sunday, October 12th and please pray for a positive outcome for California's Proposition 8, that hearts may be softened, and that understanding and wisdom will prevail.

Vote your Conscience

I love this Catholic Vote video!

Quote of the Day

This quote is from a conference where Brigham Young asked / commanded the saints to rescue the pioneers suffering as they travelled to Utah. I have been thinking about this quote in light of the current request / commandment from the First Presidency to the California saints to protect families by supporting Proposition 8.

“I will tell you all,” said he, “that your faith, religion, and profession of religion, will never save one soul of you in the celestial kingdom of our God, unless you carry out just such principles as I am now teaching you. Go and bring in those people now on the plains, and attend strictly to those things which we call temporal, or temporal duties, otherwise your faith will be in vain; the preaching you have heard will be in vain to you, and you will sink to hell, unless you attend to the things we tell you” (Deseret News, Oct. 15, 1856, 252).
Brigham Young

Pretty strong words, but I believe they are true. Our faith, religion, and profession of religion will not save us unless we carry out the principles they teach.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

I've been thinking a lot about the Proclamation on the Family. I am going to post a bit on some of my thoughts over the next few days.

You can read the proclamation here:
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html

Quote of the Day

The only rock I know that stays steady, the only institution I know that works is the family.
Lee Iacocca

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,2093869.story

Press Release: The Family, California Marriage, and Proposition 8

As many know, a recent petition placed a constitutional amendment on the November ballot in California. The proposed amendment reaffirms an intiative passed in 2000 defining marriage in California as being between a man and a woman. This year's proposed amendment comes in the wake of the previous initiative being deemed unconstitutional by California judges.

On June 29th of this year, the first presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints distributed a letter to California saints, requesting that all members support the constitutional amendment (proposition 8). In my congregation and others in the Bay Area, this was significant due to both the doctrine (many of us have colleagues / friends who are gay) and the political nature of the request (rarely, if ever in our lifetimes, has the Church requested political activism of the saints).

Yesterday I was given the assignment to mobilize my ward as directed by the stake as the Proposition 8 Coordinator.

I'm pretty overwhelmed by this assignment, but ever since the letter was read, I kept thinking about it - it kept coming up again and again for me. That was in my mind yesterday when I received the assignment and I felt it reaffirmed to me that this assignment is from God.

I personally do not like to be politically proactive because I don't like to get into inflammatory arguments. I don't like to contest others. I also have friends that I care deeply about who will not agree with me on this. But I do know that the sacrifices God may ask me and my generation to make may be different from past generations - but perhaps just as difficult. I also know that true doctrine can be taught in love, even when it is not accepted.

I know that the content / doctrine of this request is true because I know that the Proclamation on the Family given in 1995 is true. I know that the political nature of the request is divine because from what I have read in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon, God holds his people accountable for the laws of their country. We will be held accountable if we sit in complacency and do not act in faith.

I know that our country will be blessed as we uphold eternal truths and values. This includes freedom, justice, and family.