One Nation Under God

"Christ is holding up the U.S. Constitution while behind him are the Founding Fathers and other patriotic heroes from the past two centuries speaking to us from the dust. They are asking us to remember the foundation of our country's greatness and the liberties defined under the Constitution.

"The fact that Christ holds the Constitution is very significant. I believe it was a God-inspired document. I believe God holds this country in the hollow of His hand. The Constitution gave Americans the kind of liberty unknown elsewhere in the world.

"I believe our country has been gradually weakened over the years, and we are reaching a tipping point. In the front of the painting, on the left side, are your strong Americans. On the other side are those who I believe have weakened the country."

"The painting One Nation Under God is very symbolic, and I wanted it to be that way to cause people to study it and ponder its message. I hope people will understand my feelings as they learn more about the meaning of the painting."
-- Jon McNaughton

Random Comments

These are random comments I left in response to a post on a blog I found yesterday:

K – So I have a tribute to Randy “Macho Man” Savage on my blog. I like professional wrestling. Lots of people do.

I – I liked your comment “So just love what you wear, and own it.”

B – I wasn’t necessarily “chewing out” nor was I trying to be sarcastic. It saddens me when younger women poke fun at “old ladies.” One of those “old ladies” could be your mother or grandmother. Most older, mature women dress for comfort.

M – No, I am not an idiot. Why would you say that?

A – Thank you for checking my blog. Exactly what “kind of person” am I?

And to M – Next time you see an “old lady” wearing polyester pants and a t-shirt with embroidery, be thankful she is not wearing a pair of jeggings and a short top. Yikes!

I do tend to get myself in trouble, don't I?

"Bloggernacle Illuminati" Revisited

I made a post in August, 2009 about the "Bloggernacle Illuminati." Since that time, I have noticed that not much has changed.

Here is part of what I wrote:

What follows is something I have been wanting to write for some time now.

First, let’s answer this question: What is the “Bloggernacle?” The Bloggernacle is “a name that has been adopted by some in the LDS blogging community to describe the Mormon portion of the blogosphere.”

Second, let’s look at the definition of “Illuminati”:

1. People claiming to be unusually enlightened with regard to a subject.
2. Any of various groups claiming special religious enlightenment.

I have visited blogs and noticed there is a tendency for the individuals or “permabloggers” to display an air of being exceptionally “enlightened” on all things Mormon. I have noticed that several of the individual bloggers also write “guest” posts on certain group blogs. You’ll often see the same names over and over. Hence I have come up with the term “Bloggernacle Illuminati.”

There is a definite cliquishness. I have also observed how some individuals are ignored or criticized when their opinions differ from the mindset of the “Bloggernacle Illuminati.” I have seen the permabloggers band together to defend each other and rip into the person who dares have a dissenting opinion.

It appears as if one has to receive a special invitation to join the "Bloggernacle Illuminati."

There is one particular blog I perceive as something of an on-line sorority. I'm still trying to accept "the things I cannot change," but it's rough at times.

I am developing a deeper appreciation for real life friends. I don't feel ignored or dismissed when I communicate with them on-line or face-to-face.

My thoughts for a Sunday evening.

Remembering the Past

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

Today I've been reflecting on the scripture “wickedness never was happiness” (Alma 41:10). I look at the world today and cannot help but feel profoundly sad. Elder M. Russell Ballard Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke these words at General Conference in April 2009:

You don’t have to be a Latter-day Saint—you don’t even have to be religious—to see the repeating pattern of history in the lives of God’s children as recorded in the Old Testament. Time and again we see the cycle of righteousness followed by wickedness. Similarly, the Book of Mormon records that ancient civilizations of this continent followed exactly the same pattern: righteousness followed by prosperity, followed by material comforts, followed by greed, followed by pride, followed by wickedness and a collapse of morality until the people brought calamities upon themselves sufficient to stir them up to humility, repentance, and change.

If you are reading this post, do you agree with what Elder Ballard said? I do.

Elder Ballard also said:

We live in an era when the boundaries of good taste and public decency are being pushed to the point where there are no boundaries at all. The commandments of God have taken a beating in the vacillating marketplace of ideas that absolutely rejects the notion of right and wrong. Certain factions of society seem generally mistrustful of anyone who chooses to live according to religious belief. And when people of faith attempt to warn others of the possible consequences of their sinful choices, they are scoffed at and ridiculed, and their most sacred rites and cherished values are publicly mocked.

There was a time I would have scoffed at what Elder Ballard said. I would have thought "What does he know? He's just a stuffy old man and too old-fashioned in his thinking." But MY thinking has changed.

I pray that the calamities we have brought upon ourselves will "stir us up to humility, repentance, and change."

M. Russell Ballard, “Learning the Lessons of the Past,” Ensign, May 2009, 31–34

Gratuitous Kiss

On a recent episode of the new TV series FlashForward, there was a scene where two women kissed. It was known that they were lesbians. I read today that some people found the kissing scene "gratuitous." Why would anyone think such a scene was unwarranted? Why is it okay to show a male and female kissing, but not two females kissing? Why is one acceptable and the other is not?

I also read today where some active members of the LDS Church have decided they will no longer watch FlashForward because of the female-female kissing scene.

This is bugging the heck out of me today, so I thought I'd vent about it here on my blog.

Tell me … Would you honestly stop watching a TV series because of one scene?

And what is so horrendous about showing two women kissing?

Please leave a comment. Your thoughts would be most appreciated.

Cyber Bullies

Today I read this article from LDS Living Magazine Stopping Cyber Bullies by Jamie Cline.

After reading the article, I went to the website stopcyberbullying.org.

I am deeply saddened that children can be so cruel to each other. Where do they learn this behavior? In their homes? From their peers?

Have you or your child or a friend been the victim of cyberbullying? If the answer is "Yes," would you care to share your story? You can most definitely remain anonymous.

There were a few occasions where I felt I was being "cyberbullied," but it was nothing compared to what I read today.

I close this post with these words from the song "What The World Needs Now" ...

What the world needs now
Is love, sweet love
It's the only thing
That there's just too little of

What the world needs now
Is love, sweet love
No not just for some
But for everyone

Peace.

"Bloggernacle Illuminati"

What follows is something I have been wanting to write for some time now.

First, let’s answer this question: What is the “Bloggernacle?” The Bloggernacle is “a name that has been adopted by some in the LDS blogging community to describe the Mormon portion of the blogosphere.”

Second, let’s look at the definition of “Illuminati”:

1. People claiming to be unusually enlightened with regard to a subject.
2. Any of various groups claiming special religious enlightenment.

Here is a list of some blogs I consider to be part of the “Bloggernacle Illuminati”:

* By Common Consent
* The Exponent
* Feminist Mormon Housewives
* Times & Seasons
* Mormon Matters
* Jeff Lindsay
* John Dehlin
* Hieing To Kolob
* Mormon Mentality
* Segullah
* The Faithful Dissident
* He Said, She Said

I have visited these blogs and have noticed there is a tendency for the individuals or “permabloggers” to display an air of being exceptionally “enlightened” on all things Mormon. I have noticed that several of the individual bloggers also write “guest” posts on certain group blogs. You’ll often see the same names over and over. Hence I have come up with the term “Bloggernacle Illuminati.”

There is a definite cliquishness. I have also observed how some individuals are ignored or criticized when their opinions differ from the mindset of the “Bloggernacle Illuminati.” I have seen the permabloggers band together to defend each other and rip into the person who dares have a dissenting opinion.

It appears as if one has to receive a special invitation to join the "Bloggernacle Illuminati." I am attempting to understand this phenomena.

If anyone is reading this post and can explain the phenomena, I welcome your comments.

You Can't Make Them Be Your Friends

For years now I've tried to develop friendships in cyberspace. I've participated at message boards. I created a blog. I joined facebook. At first it appeared I was making friends. Then I noticed cliques developing and I was not invited to join. There are message board cliques, blogger cliques and facebook … well … it's pointless and, quite frankly, childish.

I made the mistake of thinking I could fit in with the LDS communities (active, inactive and former members). I found that because I was not brought up in the LDS Church, I was on the outside looking in. I was the only member of the Church in my immediate family. I joined the Church when I was 19 years old because I wanted to have something in common with my future husband.

I was a member of record from March 1972 until November 1980. My husband and I were fairly active in the Church while living in Queens, New York. We held multiple callings (concurrently). We were, I'd like to believe, respected in our ward. We were not married in the temple, but felt we were heading toward having our marriage sealed.

Then we made the fatal mistake of moving to Salt Lake City, Utah in 1978. My husband had second thoughts about moving there. I felt since we had started making arrangements to move, we should just do it. Also, I thought it would be so uplifting to live among the Saints in Utah. Such was not the case. It was there that we saw the hypocrisy of the members. It was there we felt unwelcome. We were "strangers" in the wards we attended. Yes, we had some "assigned friends," but we knew their friendship was not genuine.

We chose to be excommunicated from the Church in November 1980. At that time, you could not send in a letter of resignation. From that time forward, I kept my distance from the LDS Church. Then along came the Internet, and I found myself being pulled back into mingling with the Saints in cyberspace.

My first experience was with the on-line group Recovery from Mormonism ("RfM"). It was there that my husband and I found kindred spirits. My husband wrote his story and submitted it to RfM. His story can now be found among the hundreds of exit stories.

For several years I harbored deep resentment toward the Church and its members. My feelings started to change when I found the message board LDS Women. I thought I was accepted by these women, that was until I wrote something that irritated two women on the board. They could not understand why I would want to associate with them if I was not a faithful, active Latter-day Saint woman. Their written attacks on me were vicious. In the end, the administrator of the message board discontinued sponsoring it. LDS Women bit the dust.

As for blogging … I have two blogs, one public and one private. At first I enjoyed blogging, especially when someone posted a comment. But then I started looking at other blogs and realized I am not "popular." Sure, I have numerous lurkers, but few, if any, care to leave a comment. I thought I might shut down my public blog. I told my husband it's like I've been banging my head against the wall and a voice told me "You do know you can stop doing that." Today I decided to add this post.

Recently, a light went on when I read these words: "You can't make them be your friends." That is so true. I was trying to "make" people in cyberspace be my friend. I have learned that it's impossible to do that, at least for me.

"... marginally productive"

In The Arms of His Love by Del Parson

I read the article Down syndrome a modern-day death sentence By Joseph A. Cannon (Deseret News Monday, Feb. 16, 2009) and found myself becoming quite agitated, especially after reading these statements:

"'Like many,' notes Libertarian commentator Nicholas Provenzo, 'I am troubled by the implications of . . . Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome.'

"This is necessary, Provenzo informs us, 'because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive.'"

What does “marginally productive” mean? What does being “productive” mean?

Was I being “productive” this morning because I made the bed? Was I being “productive” when I carved the rotisserie chicken I purchased? Was I being “productive” when I made a batch of homemade chocolate chip cookies this morning?

My son Jim is developmentally disabled. He is unable to live independently. He is unable to hold a job. He attends this program: SVS. Is my son, and his developmentally disabled peers, “only capable of being marginally productive?”

Here are a couple of definitions of “productive:”

Bringing into being; causing to exist; producing; originative; as, an age productive of great men; a spirit productive of heroic achievements.

Yielding favorable or useful results; constructive.

Joseph Cannon wrote:

"We are now quickly sliding down the slippery slope. What about people who are only 'marginally productive' after they are born or when they get old? Are their lives worth preserving? And what does 'marginally productive' mean anyway? In the literature 'marginally productive' very often edges into 'merely inconvenient.'

Will the day come when we as a civilization will euthanize anyone considered “marginally productive?” Will we become a people where it is “survival of the fittest?” Are researchers trying to develop a “master race?” Is eugenics alive and flourishing today?

What are your thoughts?