I posted on rachel morrison's blog entry

Feminism: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. (dictionary.com)

feminism is easy to define, but so much harder to quantify. I hear all the time, especially since getting to college, about feminine rights. However, there is a point, in my opinion, where it becomes too much. I have a friend who is a self-proclaimed feminist, who gets upset if a boy opens a door for her. "I am strong enough to open those doors - if they open them for me, they are calling me weak". This isn't feminism - it's politeness. I open doors for boys - does that mean that i'm implying they can't? No, i don't think so.
Another form of feminism that i've heard protested is the fact that we have to wear skirts to church.. this impliest that we are "unequal", because we are held to a different dress code.
One of my favorite things about our religion is that men and women are not "equal". We are complimentary. To be a feminist, to fight for women's rights, is NOT to be promoting equality. There is absolutely no way that we could be equal - we are essentially different from men. We are, however, given the same "rights" in the church - the ability to have the priesthood in our lives, the ability to grow and raise families, etc.

you know, doing these posts is a lot more difficult than i would have thought.. it's a lot harder to come up with topics for me to talk about .. surprising, isn't it? typically, i have no problems finding things to say :)

So, i wrote my government paper - a lot quicker than i should have, granted, considering i finally got the book the day the paper was due. but, i really like my paper. i ended up writing it on how the government, in order to be a righteous government, has a duty to provide it's people with agency, and how the people have a duty to use that agency, especially when it comes to choosing righteous leaders.

okay, so now it's confession time. I didn't vote in the last election. the presidential one. I felt uninformed, and alot like my vote didn't help anyway. After reading these talks, though, by our general authorities, my view has changed a bit. Mostly i was lazy, and that part hasn't changed, but the "i hate politics, i hate government, i hate voting" sentiments aren't nearly as strong. We have been counseled to stay involved in politics, because it is our country. I always knew that from a "civic duty" point of view i should vote, but i had never looked at it from a religious point of view.

the constitution was instituted by the Lord. the constitution is set up to give us the right to vote, so that, too, was set up by the Lord. Righteousness cannot come under the rule of a King (see previous posts). So, therefore, in my mind at least, it is a commandment that we vote. It's part of the way of fulfilling the Lord's plan, to prepare the promised land for the coming of Christ.

looking at it in that light, what excuses do i have now? none. i need to vote, and i wish there was a way to go back and change my decision. Granted, i do need to become more informed from now on, but that's not difficult. It's part of both my religious and civic duty to help insure that we have a righteous leader, one that will prepare the world for the second coming of Christ.

two-house = equality

Random Sidenote: I've realized that most of my posts have to do with the Gospel vs. the Government, and this is yet another. I think this is because while i don't care much for government, and i don't know it as well, i understand and love the Gospel, and so relating the two helps me learn alot more. Funny how that works.

Anyway, i was reading the federalist papers for class, and i came up on a line that said "I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law that will not have it's full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as the great mass of society." I've always realized the importance of this - it's why we have checks and balances, so that no one man or group can become tyrannic - but i'd never really applied it. This, once again, got me thinking about gospel examples. The first to come to mind was King Benjamin. King Benjamin claimed that one of the reasons that he was such a good king was that he worked for his country. He wouldn't put taxes on the people that he himself didn't pay, and he wouldn't force his citizens to do work that he himself wouldn't do. He was humble and righteous, because he worked alongside his people. The nation was one of peace and happiness. Then, i started thinking about the unrighteous kings. Each of them established laws that they didn't apply to themselves. They started having slaves, and putting high taxes on the people, while they sat on their thrones and did nothing. These men were fat, lazy, idolatrous, and unrighteous, and in almost every case led the nation into despair and wickedness.
Lastly, i thought about when Christ comes. The scriptures say, in doctrine and covenants 88, that when Christ comes, the saints will have all of his power and glory. We know that this will be the best time in the work, when Christ reigns as King, and what makes it that way? We will have a faithful, just ruler, who works along with us. Because we can recieve all the Christ has, and all that the Father has (D&C 84), we will be equals with our King, as in the day of Benjamin.

Now, relating this back to government, i can say that i'm really grateful for the way our government is run. I never realized just how good of a system we had set up, but, judging by the book of mormon, the only system that works is one in which the people are equal to their rulers, and there aren't laws that exclude the rulers themselves. Freedom wouldn't be able to survive. We really do have a remarkable system in the United States.

immigration.

One of the topics lately that has been coming up in my random discussions is about illegal immigrants. this is probably too touchy of a subject to deal with, but this is my blog, so oh well.
it always surprises me to see different people's opinions on illegal immigrants. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not hold an opinion about illegal immigration. However, the scriptures give a bit of insight, at least to me. There is a scripture in the Book of Mormon, in 2 Nephi 1:6, which states "...there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord." This scripture states it pretty clearly. The promised land is considered to be the Americas, typically the United States. To me, this scripture shows that all who make it here were blessed by the Lord.
One example of this was when the converted Lamanites were kicked out of their lands by the rich Zoramites, in the war chapters of Alma. These Lamanites came into the land of the people of Ammon, looking for nothing more than a place to reside peacefully. What did the people of Ammon do? They took it one step further - instead of just giving them a place to stay, they gave them land, protection, and supplies.
Now, apply this to modern day. All political things aside, if someone is struggling to come into America, looking for a better life, what is the "Christian" thing to do? Turn them away, and say "no, you can't come. sorry. this prosperity is just for us"? No. Christ wouldn't do that.
Now, i'm not saying that it's right for people to enter the country illegally. but from our standpoint, is it right to keep them out? America is a prosperous nation, and giving of our resources, helping people get jobs, helping people support their families - isn't that what Zion will eventually be about? I don't think Zion would turn anyone away - why should America?

i commented on stella's blog: stellastruck.blogspot.com

Just a warning: this blog may not make any sense at all this time.

As i've been reading more government and book of mormon, i keep drawing both connections and differences. One thing lately that has struck me is the difference in Kingship. We were assigned an article to read about the Revolution vs. the government structure in the Book of Mormon, and it keeps leading me back to the same ideas - the Revolution was to get rid of a King, while the Nephite citizens fully embraced one. I couldn't understand why the Nephites kept wanting a king. The prophets had warned against it, and kings had been proven many times to cause destruction - jsut check out the war chapters of Alma.

After puzzling for awhile, i began to wonder if the reason Nephites wanted a King is because we've been taught in the gospel to trust our leaders. A king provides a sense of comfort, knowing that there is someone out there watching out for you, much like God does. And then, that led me to start thinking about the future. It was prophesied that there shall never again be a King in the Americas, until Christ comes. When Christ comes, we will have a King. He will be our King - kings must not be so bad. Christ will be the ultimate king, and one that we can trust and follow. And that's a truly comforting thought - to have a leader to teach and lead the world, without fear of corruption. And then came my final thought - isn't that what our prophet is now? isn't he kind of like the 'king' of the church? A divinely appointed one, but a "supreme" ruler nonetheless. Except for one thing. he has to answer to the true king.

yep, this blog post makes no sense. maybe i'll revise it in a few days when i've had time to truly sort out what i was trying to say. Maybe i'll turn to my good friend John Bytheway - there was something in one of his books that i can't quite remember that i wanted to add. oh well...

Captain Moroni and the Founders of the Nation

"In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children"
This quote, though it comes from Captain Moroni, in Alma 46, applies easily to the founders of our nation, and their reasoning. One of the things Dr. H brought up in class was that the founders were ordinary men, trying to go along in their lives, and that they knew the courage it would take to be able to stand up for the revolution. By signing their names to the Declaration of Independence, they were essentially signing their names as traitors to the throne. These men had lives, families, kids, and jobs that, had the Revolution failed, they had given a death sentence. But they knew what was necessary. In order to save their families, and their country, and their religion from tyrannical rule, they had to put their lives on the line, and trust in God for help.

The same situation applies to Captain Moroni. The men in his armies had families, too. They didn't want to fight. Even Captain Moroni hated the shedding of blood (Alma 48:11). However, they had a duty to protect their families and lands, and these are the righteous causes that spurred them forward for battle after battle.

Just as Captain Moroni is considered one of the great heroes of the Book of Mormon, so should the founders be our heroes. They were men of courage, who took a risk, despite looming failure. They could have easily just backed down, but they knew that they had to do the right thing for the country.

Prophet vs. President

It struck me today in class the differences between when the Prophet gives a talk, and when the President gives a speech. First off, it is well known that the President has a team of speechwriters. As far as I know, the Prophet writes his own talks. This may not seem like a big deal at first, but to me, it is. The Prophet writes what the Lord wants us to hear. He doesn't run his speeches by a group of people to make sure that things are worded well, and that his speech consists of the most pleasing way to say things. The Prophet receives divine guidance in what to say. The President, on the other hand, has people that write a lot of the content of the speech. Even if they have a heavy influence in what they are speaking, how do we know what has come from the President himself, and what parts of the speech are what his advisors think he should say? How do we know that, through their manipulations of words by some of the best writers, we aren't being deceived? I'm not a victim of paranoia, thinking that everyone is out to do wrong that is involved with politics, but even so, how is it possible to know?

Another large difference that i could see was the purpose in writing. The President's speech was carefully worded, a pep talk to the United States citizens. In a way, he understands that his speech is being judged by the people. With President Obama, his speech was to convince the people of the good that he will bring to the country, that he will be a capable leader, and that our country is going to go through changes to make it better. He is looking to bring the people to his side, and gain their support. The Prophet, however, makes an opposite attempt. As the leader of our church, he is not looking to gain the favor of the people. Instead, he is there to correct and instruct us. It is his calling to teach us how to live more righteously, and live more fully in the gospel. He doesn't worry about what he says, even if it is hard to hear. He will call out our faults as a congregation, because he knows we will follow him and the Lord, and that is his job.

As being under the authority of both the Prophet and the President, it is sometimes hard for me to cope with these difference. I have to remind myself that just because the President follows his own wisdom does not make him a bad person, and that the Prophet, although he follows the Word of God and teaches it to us, is not necessarily perfect. For now, I'm going to support each of them the best way that I know how.