Gianina wanted to see these big...so here they are. This isn't her Halloween costume, just a fun photo shoot outfit :)
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Hey Guys!
Turn your head to watch this very cute Chiara
P.S. Those are her glow in the dark skeleton jamies!
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Pumpkin Patch
Kiki seemed to have fun at the pumpkin patch, and I couldn't be happier with how our jack 'o lantern turned out (the secret to a really bright pumpkin is to use a string of lights rather than a candle). We all choose cheesy Halloween t-shirts to wear to West Farm. And Chiara's favorite part was the corn kernel sandbox. We painted the smaller pumpkins while we were there, and enjoyed the hayride and other games. I'm getting pretty excited about our Halloween costumes, I am almost done sewing Chiara's costume and it is pretty sweet. Get excited it's right around the corner.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Response to Anonymous 1...still no pictures
This post is in response to a comment on my previous post...I don't have the patience to post it in 4,000 words or less in separate comments, and because I believe this person to have posted, in sincere intent this comment:
So what's your take on the huge, vast difference between RELIGIOUS marriage (the wonderful relationship you have with your husband) and CIVIL marriage (a merely legal distinction)?
Before you say they shouldn't be different ~
Religious marriage is a privilege created by God.
But civil marriage?
In America, civil marriage was created for the express purpose of persecuting Native Americans, black people and Hispanics.
The US government started requiring civil marriage certificates because they wanted to prevent whites from marrying blacks, or Native Americans, etc.
It was pure hateful racial bigotry.
So exalt and preserve religious marriage all you want, but be real about the legal/civil thing. They're different.
My point: If you don't want gays having religious marriages under God, then I get that. But to prevent them from having civil marriages... well that just extends the bigotry and hatred that gave birth US legal marriage, and that's flat out wrong. Jesus wouldn't support persecution.
Racism and hatred of minority groups like gay people... those are worse than immorality -- because they're immoralities people actually think they can justify. Jesus was never cruel. He certainly didn't condone sin but he didn't spread hate either.
Is there room for a distinction in this country?
Can we cooperate to end our embarrassing history of hatred?
Can we grant civil marriages as a right and protect religious marriage as a Godly privilege?
What do you think?
Before you say they shouldn't be different ~
Religious marriage is a privilege created by God.
But civil marriage?
In America, civil marriage was created for the express purpose of persecuting Native Americans, black people and Hispanics.
The US government started requiring civil marriage certificates because they wanted to prevent whites from marrying blacks, or Native Americans, etc.
It was pure hateful racial bigotry.
So exalt and preserve religious marriage all you want, but be real about the legal/civil thing. They're different.
My point: If you don't want gays having religious marriages under God, then I get that. But to prevent them from having civil marriages... well that just extends the bigotry and hatred that gave birth US legal marriage, and that's flat out wrong. Jesus wouldn't support persecution.
Racism and hatred of minority groups like gay people... those are worse than immorality -- because they're immoralities people actually think they can justify. Jesus was never cruel. He certainly didn't condone sin but he didn't spread hate either.
Is there room for a distinction in this country?
Can we cooperate to end our embarrassing history of hatred?
Can we grant civil marriages as a right and protect religious marriage as a Godly privilege?
What do you think?
This is my response, please note that this is my own opinion and I recognize that not all mormons feel the same as I...additionally this is what I believe from a more political standpoint and is therefore not reflective of my religion, although it is heavily influenced by my religion. Additionally those who are are interested in the official position on any topic, please ask me and I would be happy to refer you to official statements on any subject.
Dear Anonymous 1:
I’m choosing to take your words at face value and ignore what could very easily be construed as a veiled attempt to point out that many people who have an opposing view on the issue of same-sex marriage consider me to be racist, bigoted, hateful, cruel, oh and I believe you mentioned embarrassing. I don't know who you are or what your personal standpoint is, so much of what I respond will have to be based on inference from your comment and questions.
1) 1) I believe I addressed that I believe civil marriage between a man and woman should also be a protected, privileged institution. I believe I expressed that I believe the purpose of this institution should be to give special privileges (notice I said privileges which include rights but actually are more than rights, like little social presents from the community, ie. Health care benefits, special laws: for example spousal privilege, tax breaks, social institutions, media interest, education: acting married with a baby in a high school class for example, support from the community: such as social pressures and expectation to marry a member of the opposite sex and raise children, ect.) Now yes I will go a step beyond and say that I also believe that religious marriage is a privilege…but let’s leave that out for this discussion. Now where in wanting special privileges for the institution that is the basic unit where children can be made and raised extend to hate…we don’t accuse schools of hatred for wanting tax benefits or for lobbying to protect their status as institutions of learning by laws requiring all children to attend…and don’t start taking the metaphor too far, I’m sure , you can get the point of what I’m saying. It is not hateful for me to ask for special privileges and rights when I in good conscious marry a man (because I am a woman) with the expectation to set up a household in which to biologically create children (which requires me to sacrifice my body, money for medical bills, my time that could go towards a job, emotional energy, ect)(additionally, it requires my husband to emotionally have to support me more, to earn more money due to the loss of my wages; Or in a scenario where I work , or in a scenario where we both work child care, will result in loss of his or my wages, it requires time off for our children’s activities, sick days for kids, more gas, more groceries…I think you should be getting the picture). I’m not really seeing how asking that society cut us some slack is hateful here. You could argue that there are those who marry who do not or cannot have children…maybe we should accuse women and men who are infertile of hatred and bigamy because they entered a marriage under false pretense, I don’t think so. Those who marry without respecting the civil, sociological, anthropological, and religious traditions of the institution of marriage could be termed irresponsible, ignorant, callous, or as I think of them, morons…but perhaps this is evidence that marriage should be an institution more difficult to enter and exit…not one that allows more people to participate. And finally, there are people who take advantage of the privileges of marriage abusing the dependants that marriage and family should protect and misusing the benefits…why don’t we pass a law that would punish these people…can you possibly see where I’m coming from yet? So far I have yet to see how wanting special privileges because I have entered into such an institution is persecuting gays in a way Jesus would disapprove of.
2)
2) 2) You seem to have a very callous opinion of civil marriage in this country. Maybe it would interest you to know that the first community of white people in America, the pilgrims in Plymoth Colony considered marriage to be a civil institution, rather than a religious one. Marriage traditions were carried over from the Netherlands where marriage was once again a civil institution. The first couple to be married in the colony was Edward Winslow and Susanna White who were presided over by Governor Bradford. It was not necessary for a minister to perform the ceremony because once again marriage was considered a civil institution. Civil marriage was considered normal and most people who lost their spouses to death married again within six months to a year and this was a community who considered women and men equal before God. That is a nice theory that civil marriage was created “for the express purpose of persecuting Native Americans, black people, and Hispanics” However, a little short-sighted considering we know civil marriage existed in America beginning with the first white colony. In most societies throughout the world across generations of time have adhered to civil marriage between a man and woman. In the case of many societies and civilizations it was to ensure survival. Furthermore, if you belive that US legal marriage was given birth by bigotry and hatred, then why would you want to enter into such an institution?
3) 3) I am going out on a limb here and will attempt to suppose what your argument can possible be saying. I am going to theorize that you believe that gays deserve civil marriages because heterosexuals are able to enter into civil marriages. Is that your point? I believe that if you will once again read my original post you will see that I don’t believe civil (or religious) marriage is a civil right. I believe it is a protected and privileged institution, and if it weren’t why would members of the LGBT community be interested in participating in such institution? Would it be because they want those in such an institution to be persecuted and left defenseless when participating in the process of procreation? Would it be because they demean the actual sociological, physiological, economic, and physical considerations a man and woman make when bringing a child into a family under the protection of a civil marriage institution? Or are they behaving selfishly because they feel hurt that they are not given privileges in an institution that they have chosen (or been born such that) they cannot enter into? Doing away with marriage the way it stands would not free gays from persecution by those who believe that it’s wrong…it would take away an institution that stands to protect the biological family.
4) 4) I am going to chose to believe that the LGBT community does not mean any of those things in their zeal to promote same-sex marriage. I am going to believe that they are considering that the biological family deserves some consideration and protection. Civily-speaking I am asking that if they truly believe that removing the protection of the biological connection between man, woman, and child is socially responsible? There may be leeches in the institution but how do you propose to protect the dependents who benefit from the institution of marriage? Tell me your proposal to provide for the needs of a nuclear, biological family? If you take away the distinction in this country how will my children and grandchildren be protected when they are vulnerable, when they are young, pregnant, breast-feeding, elderly, disabled? So far I do not see a religious, social, or civil group capable of providing for the needs of such outside a biological family. Because contractual arrangements between consenting individuals are entered and exited everyday, that is not marriage the civil institution is set up to protect and give priviledges to anymore than the religious one.
5) 5) And Ultimately, if I might be so bold, if the “embarrassing hatred” you are referring to is my hatred of immorality, of anything that violates the eternal law of Chastity, of sin. I will not and cannot end my hatred. If you know me, you will know that I am a person, who like most people, tries my best to act with Love and consideration to the feelings and circumstances of all people. I am confident in members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that they are people who love our Heavenly Father and his children to the best of their ability. There is no room in this country or any country for allowing the prevalent spread of immorality, of sexual sin. You missed the point of my entire post if you want me to soften my hate of this sin. Asking me to put aside my feelings on that is just as unfair as asking a homosexual person to change their orientation, if not more so. For not only are you asking me to sacrifice myself, you are asking me to sacrifice my family, my children, and ultimately each person. History has repeatedly shown us that immoral civilizations fail. I can never in good conscious allow immorality not only because I care for myself, but because I care for the person who commits the sin. And homosexuality is a sin. If I didn’t love my homosexual brothers and sisters than you would never hear me talk with an ounce of passion about this subject. I love them and ache for their pain, that is the religion in me. If you are asking me how we can alleviate that pain than my sad answer is that only they can do that. Religiously I believe the atonement can and will heal them. Civilly, I believe that the best way to prevent crimes of hate is to continue to protect the institution that protects families: marriage. Making marriage a more exclusive institution rather than a more inclusive one is the only way to try to fight against hatred. Mothers teaching their children to love, fathers protecting, presiding, and providing for the mother and children’s needs holds the greatest power for change we as a civilization have ever discovered. Wars will not bring peace, families will bring peace
6) 6) So can we grant civil marriage as a right? Never, if we are to protect what civil marriage is set up to protect. I repeat: Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege, a protection, and a responsibility.
Anyone who made it through that post is probably truly my friend and thanks for caring what I think.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
My two cents...and there are not even any pictures
Far be it for me to be one more voice of hurt in an already swirling cauldron of viciousness, hate, misunderstanding and ignorance. Even though my blog is mostly just what’s up in our lives kind of journal/scrapbook sometimes I have strong opinions that I just need to get out there and since I’m not particularly close to anyone in the physical world at the moment, here is my cosmic rant to the webular space out there. I know hardly anyone reads my blog, I know my words don’t really make a difference but the suffering I feel about the immorality in the world is real and tangible. The constant attack against my family and the way I feel unsafe from the taint is real. I know that people are suffering who struggle with any issue arising from breaking or being tempted to break the law of Chastity.
I believe that when any human suffers we all suffer. And I believe that any form of sin is suffering. And beyond that, I feel intense sorrow about being exposed or exposing my children to such pervasive and widespread immorality. I am angry that people are dispassionate about sin. This doesn’t mean that any person should be persecuted, but when people sin the most loving thing that could be done for them is to call them to repentence and worry more for their eternal happiness then encouraging them to dwell on mortal unhappiness and discontent. My children have a right to be protected from knowing about sexual sins before they can comprehend long division. I am angry to not be protected from sexual sins by my society and community.
Immorality is second only to murder in sins. “By assigning such seriousness to a physical appetite so universally bestowed, what is God trying to tell us about its place in His plan for all men and women? I submit to you He is doing precisely that—commenting about the very plan of life itself. Clearly among His greatest concerns regarding mortality are how one gets into this world and how one gets out of it. He has set very strict limits in these matters.” If no one at conference had said anything pertaining to homosexuality, sexual sin, or pornography wouldn't that have been a lot more hateful then outlining the expectations of God on the subject and offering hope in the Love of God and change through the atonement? As someone who has struggled with sin in my life I feel like it would have been a lot more hurtful to be ignored. At least those with these feelings can find answers of their standing with God if they turn to what the doctrine actually is (not just what people are saying). Remember in our doctrine ignorance is also a sin.
Marriage originated as a protected institution not a right. Our concept of family extends beyond a contractual agreement between two people for a legal arrangement of those two people's physical and emotional needs. In our religion marriage by sealing is a privilege extended only to the most obedient and righteous. We do not view marriage as a right but rather a privilege and responsibility set up to protect the institution of family which we define not only as a man and woman but also the children of that couple. . It considers family to be a social institution set up to provide benefits and protection to a unit made up of husband and wife who are actively engaged in procreation; for the society to support that unit while in mortality. And it extends to spiritual blessings in the world to come, including our eligibility for exaltation. Our doctrinal definition of family has to do directly with genetics and priesthood authority in addition to the qualities that can only be cultivated by self sacrifice best facilitated in day to day living in cooperative units. Therefore, our definition has little to do with celebration or a proclamation of love. Families, have, primitively in every culture been institutions given additional benefits and special consideration in order to provide for the weaker elements of society, with a heavy emphasis on the needs of children. The only reason that two adult people of the same gender would have need of such institution is if they were weaker elements of society according to such definition.
Now, our world is no longer that simple and we have put nuances on marriage that didn't exist previous to things such as no-fault divorce and other legal rulings, but the answer to your question is that our definition of family is different. I am trying to defend what we believe the IDEAL family is, and to strive for that ideal. I believe that marriage is between a husband and wife, and that children are ENTITLED to a family as such. Biologically, this is the only way procreation can occur. Spiritually, we believe this is the best situation for them to learn the gospel of Jesus Christ. Each FAMILY should have that responsibility and priviledge. This isn't a perfect world, many things are not as they should be, a move away from our ideal have caused a breakdown in even our own families. This is wrong. We want to strive more for the ideal. And if things such as violence or adbuse towards two adults of the same gender occur, Families should be held responsible for that as well. But we firmly believe that if we remove that definition of family we will no longer have families by our definition. What would we call the organization to protect biological procreation? We have the right to fight for our definition and ideal.
“One who uses the God-given body of another without divine sanction abuses the very soul of that individual, abuses the central purpose and processes of life.” Equality is not the doctrine of Christianity, How fair is an atonement of one perfect man for all the sins of mankind, neither is hate. However, I believe that Christ took on the sins of all mankind. He taught service, kindness, and sacrifice of the self. Love one another is not a call to assert one's own rights. We have a right and responsibility to fight for our definition of marriage as a protected and institution with special benefits because it was set up to protect the rights of pregnant women, breast- feeding women, children, the elderly, and the disabled. Or are you going to tell me that the government institutions are doing such a great job that we have eliminated the need for the loving care of a biological family? Only the ties of biology have thus far been strong enough to tie the strong members of society to the weaker dependent ones. Only with a strong marriage are people set up to fully care for aberrations to this pattern (infertility, adoption, orphans, and abuse) If people were to act morally, many heartaches and disillusionments of the “ideal family would be resolved.
What about the “rights” of one to express their same sex attraction? Sexual acts are governed by spiritual laws for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike:
“Physical intimacy is not only a symbolic union between a husband and a wife—the very uniting of their souls—but it is also symbolic of a shared relationship between them and their Father in Heaven. He is immortal and perfect. We are mortal and imperfect. Nevertheless we seek ways even in mortality whereby we can unite with Him spiritually. In so doing we gain some access to both the grace and the majesty of His power. Those special moments include kneeling at a marriage altar in the house of the Lord, blessing a newborn baby, baptizing and confirming a new member of the Church, partaking of the emblems of the Lord’s Supper, and so forth.
These are moments when we quite literally unite our will with God’s will, our spirit with His spirit, where communion through the veil becomes very real. At such moments we not only acknowledge His divinity but we quite literally take something of that divinity to ourselves. One aspect of that divinity given to virtually all men and women is the use of His power to create a human body, that wonder of all wonders, a genetically and spiritually unique being never before seen in the history of the world and never to be duplicated again in all the ages of eternity. A child, your child—with eyes and ears and fingers and toes and a future of unspeakable grandeur.
Probably only a parent who has held that newborn infant in his or her arms understands the wonder of which I speak. Suffice it to say that of all the titles God has chosen for Himself,Father is the one He favors most, and creation is His watchword—especially human creation, creation in His image. You and I have been given something of that godliness, but under the most serious and sacred of restrictions. The only control placed on us is self-control—self-control born of respect for the divine sacramental power this gift represents.”
“To be entrusted with the power to create life carries with it the greatest of joys and dangerous temptations. The gift of mortal life and the capacity to kindle other lives is a supernal blessing. Through the righteous exercise of this power, as in nothing else, we may come close to our Father in Heaven and experience a fulness of joy. This power is not an incidental part of the plan of happiness. It is the key—the very key.”
We are not our own. Everything that God has given us, our bodies, our hearts, our very breath is on loan for this period of mortal probation. We are here to be tested to see if we will keep the commandments. The body is to be kept pure and holy. Each person’s very salvation is at sake, for to commit sins of immorality is to risk our very immortal futures. How could we risk that, and how could we do anything but warn our brothers and sisters of the danger? I can’t say everyone is entitled to their own opinion…not when so much is at sake. What we do in mortality determines who we become. Does it matter why we feel to justify breaking a law? No! What matters is immortality and eternal life. I want it for myself, I want it for my children, I want it for all my brothers and sisters who are children of God. I am my brother’s keeper. When one suffers we all suffer. But what suffering is worse, knowing that the ideal family might not be in your grasp in this life, or knowing that you gave it up in the world to come?
“There is something very liberating when an individual determines of his or her own free will to be obedient to our Father and our God and expresses that willingness to Him in prayer.
When we obey, we can enjoy these powers in the covenant of marriage. From our fountains of life will spring our children, our family. Love between husband and wife can be constant and bring fulfillment and contentment all the days of our lives.
If one is denied these blessings in mortality, the promise is that they will be provided for in the world to come.”
So yes this is a big deal. Yes, it matters. And yes all you Mormons who say stupid things based on prejudice and not on doctrine you really need to get with it and figure out what we ACTUALLY believe. And those of you who don't think sin is real, get a clue, it's as real as God. Fight it. My children deserve it.
all quotes can be found here and here
Just throwing that out there
I believe that when any human suffers we all suffer. And I believe that any form of sin is suffering. And beyond that, I feel intense sorrow about being exposed or exposing my children to such pervasive and widespread immorality. I am angry that people are dispassionate about sin. This doesn’t mean that any person should be persecuted, but when people sin the most loving thing that could be done for them is to call them to repentence and worry more for their eternal happiness then encouraging them to dwell on mortal unhappiness and discontent. My children have a right to be protected from knowing about sexual sins before they can comprehend long division. I am angry to not be protected from sexual sins by my society and community.
Immorality is second only to murder in sins. “By assigning such seriousness to a physical appetite so universally bestowed, what is God trying to tell us about its place in His plan for all men and women? I submit to you He is doing precisely that—commenting about the very plan of life itself. Clearly among His greatest concerns regarding mortality are how one gets into this world and how one gets out of it. He has set very strict limits in these matters.” If no one at conference had said anything pertaining to homosexuality, sexual sin, or pornography wouldn't that have been a lot more hateful then outlining the expectations of God on the subject and offering hope in the Love of God and change through the atonement? As someone who has struggled with sin in my life I feel like it would have been a lot more hurtful to be ignored. At least those with these feelings can find answers of their standing with God if they turn to what the doctrine actually is (not just what people are saying). Remember in our doctrine ignorance is also a sin.
Marriage originated as a protected institution not a right. Our concept of family extends beyond a contractual agreement between two people for a legal arrangement of those two people's physical and emotional needs. In our religion marriage by sealing is a privilege extended only to the most obedient and righteous. We do not view marriage as a right but rather a privilege and responsibility set up to protect the institution of family which we define not only as a man and woman but also the children of that couple. . It considers family to be a social institution set up to provide benefits and protection to a unit made up of husband and wife who are actively engaged in procreation; for the society to support that unit while in mortality. And it extends to spiritual blessings in the world to come, including our eligibility for exaltation. Our doctrinal definition of family has to do directly with genetics and priesthood authority in addition to the qualities that can only be cultivated by self sacrifice best facilitated in day to day living in cooperative units. Therefore, our definition has little to do with celebration or a proclamation of love. Families, have, primitively in every culture been institutions given additional benefits and special consideration in order to provide for the weaker elements of society, with a heavy emphasis on the needs of children. The only reason that two adult people of the same gender would have need of such institution is if they were weaker elements of society according to such definition.
Now, our world is no longer that simple and we have put nuances on marriage that didn't exist previous to things such as no-fault divorce and other legal rulings, but the answer to your question is that our definition of family is different. I am trying to defend what we believe the IDEAL family is, and to strive for that ideal. I believe that marriage is between a husband and wife, and that children are ENTITLED to a family as such. Biologically, this is the only way procreation can occur. Spiritually, we believe this is the best situation for them to learn the gospel of Jesus Christ. Each FAMILY should have that responsibility and priviledge. This isn't a perfect world, many things are not as they should be, a move away from our ideal have caused a breakdown in even our own families. This is wrong. We want to strive more for the ideal. And if things such as violence or adbuse towards two adults of the same gender occur, Families should be held responsible for that as well. But we firmly believe that if we remove that definition of family we will no longer have families by our definition. What would we call the organization to protect biological procreation? We have the right to fight for our definition and ideal.
“One who uses the God-given body of another without divine sanction abuses the very soul of that individual, abuses the central purpose and processes of life.” Equality is not the doctrine of Christianity, How fair is an atonement of one perfect man for all the sins of mankind, neither is hate. However, I believe that Christ took on the sins of all mankind. He taught service, kindness, and sacrifice of the self. Love one another is not a call to assert one's own rights. We have a right and responsibility to fight for our definition of marriage as a protected and institution with special benefits because it was set up to protect the rights of pregnant women, breast- feeding women, children, the elderly, and the disabled. Or are you going to tell me that the government institutions are doing such a great job that we have eliminated the need for the loving care of a biological family? Only the ties of biology have thus far been strong enough to tie the strong members of society to the weaker dependent ones. Only with a strong marriage are people set up to fully care for aberrations to this pattern (infertility, adoption, orphans, and abuse) If people were to act morally, many heartaches and disillusionments of the “ideal family would be resolved.
What about the “rights” of one to express their same sex attraction? Sexual acts are governed by spiritual laws for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike:
“Physical intimacy is not only a symbolic union between a husband and a wife—the very uniting of their souls—but it is also symbolic of a shared relationship between them and their Father in Heaven. He is immortal and perfect. We are mortal and imperfect. Nevertheless we seek ways even in mortality whereby we can unite with Him spiritually. In so doing we gain some access to both the grace and the majesty of His power. Those special moments include kneeling at a marriage altar in the house of the Lord, blessing a newborn baby, baptizing and confirming a new member of the Church, partaking of the emblems of the Lord’s Supper, and so forth.
These are moments when we quite literally unite our will with God’s will, our spirit with His spirit, where communion through the veil becomes very real. At such moments we not only acknowledge His divinity but we quite literally take something of that divinity to ourselves. One aspect of that divinity given to virtually all men and women is the use of His power to create a human body, that wonder of all wonders, a genetically and spiritually unique being never before seen in the history of the world and never to be duplicated again in all the ages of eternity. A child, your child—with eyes and ears and fingers and toes and a future of unspeakable grandeur.
Probably only a parent who has held that newborn infant in his or her arms understands the wonder of which I speak. Suffice it to say that of all the titles God has chosen for Himself,Father is the one He favors most, and creation is His watchword—especially human creation, creation in His image. You and I have been given something of that godliness, but under the most serious and sacred of restrictions. The only control placed on us is self-control—self-control born of respect for the divine sacramental power this gift represents.”
“To be entrusted with the power to create life carries with it the greatest of joys and dangerous temptations. The gift of mortal life and the capacity to kindle other lives is a supernal blessing. Through the righteous exercise of this power, as in nothing else, we may come close to our Father in Heaven and experience a fulness of joy. This power is not an incidental part of the plan of happiness. It is the key—the very key.”
We are not our own. Everything that God has given us, our bodies, our hearts, our very breath is on loan for this period of mortal probation. We are here to be tested to see if we will keep the commandments. The body is to be kept pure and holy. Each person’s very salvation is at sake, for to commit sins of immorality is to risk our very immortal futures. How could we risk that, and how could we do anything but warn our brothers and sisters of the danger? I can’t say everyone is entitled to their own opinion…not when so much is at sake. What we do in mortality determines who we become. Does it matter why we feel to justify breaking a law? No! What matters is immortality and eternal life. I want it for myself, I want it for my children, I want it for all my brothers and sisters who are children of God. I am my brother’s keeper. When one suffers we all suffer. But what suffering is worse, knowing that the ideal family might not be in your grasp in this life, or knowing that you gave it up in the world to come?
“There is something very liberating when an individual determines of his or her own free will to be obedient to our Father and our God and expresses that willingness to Him in prayer.
When we obey, we can enjoy these powers in the covenant of marriage. From our fountains of life will spring our children, our family. Love between husband and wife can be constant and bring fulfillment and contentment all the days of our lives.
If one is denied these blessings in mortality, the promise is that they will be provided for in the world to come.”
So yes this is a big deal. Yes, it matters. And yes all you Mormons who say stupid things based on prejudice and not on doctrine you really need to get with it and figure out what we ACTUALLY believe. And those of you who don't think sin is real, get a clue, it's as real as God. Fight it. My children deserve it.
all quotes can be found here and here
Just throwing that out there
