How my opposition to gay marriage is fueled by Love

Our nation is being gravely divided right now in a civil dispute over the rights of homosexual adults to marry and enjoy the legal benefits that heterosexually married couples enjoy. As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I have been advised by my religious leaders to oppose the legalization of gay marriage.

 The church has come out with various official statements about and related to this subject. These statements will serve as the framework from which I compose the rest of this post. I refer you to the following links to read more about what my church believes concerning marriage, the family, and homosexuality:

 https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation

http://www.mormonsandgays.org/

 On the flipside, various statements have also come out from other groups and individuals in support of gay marriage, including evidence that children raised by gay couples fare no worse in life than children raised by heterosexual couples. Whether these cases turn out to be the norm or the exception may be too soon to tell. But I am mostly satisfied, at least, that from a temporal perspective, I can continue to be loving toward all my fellow human beings, and accepting of the diverse lifestyles of all peaceable individuals regardless of their life choices. I don’t believe in contention; I don’t believe in hate.

 Nevertheless, from a religious standpoint and eternal perspective, I must oppose gay marriage. Not out of hate, but out of love. How can that be? I will endeavor to explain my position.

 I believe gender is more than just a manifestation of physical traits. Gender is also spiritual. That is, each one of us is a spiritual being, a divine son or daughter of our Heavenly Father (otherwise known as God).

 Heavenly Father has a gender—male. And though He does not specifically mention our Heavenly Mother (no doubt out of love and respect for her and a desire to protect Her name from being abused as His has been), I believe we have one. Together, these two Heavenly beings gave “birth” (via what process I do not know) to every spirit in Heaven prior to these spirits—our spirits—being born in the flesh to an earthly father and mother in similitude of our Heavenly origins.

 While I will not be discussing the specifics of the process here, I also believe that it has been made possible for each one of us to one day become as our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother now are—to be gods ourselves, to propogate our own spiritual offspring and help them to achieve “goodhood”—or Exaltation—as well, in the same manner as we have done.

 This is the loftiest goal to which our souls can aspire—the goal of Eternal Life. But it can only be achieved through faithful diligence, acceptance of our Father’s Plan and our Savior’s Atonement, receiving sacred ordinances along the way, and no man or woman can do it alone. We need each other.

 I believe in Eternal Marriage—that is, a marriage performed as a sacred and binding ordinance, administered by proper authority (we call in the Priesthood), between a man and a woman who are to remain faithful to other and to God to the best of their ability in this life and in the life to come. Only in this way can one hope to attain full Godhood—as a team, a man and a woman.

 Now, many if not most of us will in some way fall short of this ultimate goal. But if we do, it will come as no surprise in the end.

 What do I mean by that? I mean that God and Christ (through the Atonement and Resurrection) have ensured for each one of us that we will be granted the opportunity for eternal progression. If one does not receive that opportunity in this life, it will be offered in the next. None will be disadvantaged in the eternal scheme.

 But, it has to be our choice whether or not to accept the invitation to begin and to endure upon the path to Eternal Life. And many people—unfathomable as is seems—will choose not to follow it, and will instead accept their place in a “lesser glory” or kingdom. And while it is a sad choice for God to see one of His children make, He allows that child right via the law of Free Agency to make that choice to halt his Eternal progression.

 A quick note here, but without going into great detail: I believe (as per the teachings of my church) that having a physical body is an essential part of God’s plan for each of His children. And furthermore, those sacred ordinances which I mentioned earlier which must be performed along an individual’s path to Eternal Life, must be performed physically before they can be valid spiritually. If a person is not privileged, then, to have these ordinances performed while living on this earth, a worthy member (having had his own ordinances performed already) may stand in as a proxy for that deceased spirit to receive the necessary ordinances and fullness of his promised blessings, should he be found worthy and willing to receive them.

 There are several ordinances which must be received in order, and receiving any one or more of them allows an individual to progress along the path. The highest ordinance, and the one necessary for Eternal Life or Godhood, is the sealing ordinance of Eternal Marriage. And Eternal Marriage as ordained by God, can only be between a man and a woman.

 As things currently stand, if a man and a woman are legally married in this life, but did not receive the sealing ordinance, proxies can be authorized to perform that ordinance for them, allowing that man and woman to progress toward Godhood together should they so choose.

 Also, after a couple is sealed together under the proper authority, any biological or legally-adopted children can also be sealed to those parents.

 But a legally married gay or lesbian couple cannot be sealed together in this way, nor can any children they have borne or adopted be sealed to their gay or lesbian parents.

 Here is the sad dilemma:

 If, while still in this life, a gay individual in a gay marriage were to gain a testimony of the Church and desire to join and partake of the ordinances necessary for spiritual and eternal progression, he could not be permitted to do so while his gay union stands. This puts the individual in the unfortunate situation of either divorcing his partner (whom he loves and with whom he chose to spend his life), or staying in the relationship and halting his spiritual progression. This choice becomes much more difficult if there are children involved.

 If this same individual were to come to a knowledge and acceptance of the Gospel after death, earthly records would not be such as to permit a proxy sealing of any kind. Though this same situation would occur with any unmarried individual—gay or straight. We are told in the church, that a lot of proxy work will be done after the Second Coming of Christ, and that all will be worked out in the end for anyone faithful who desires for their work to be done. If a posthumous union can be arranged for worthy straight individuals, I can only assume that the same will be true for those gays and lesbians who have repented of their earthly sins and are willing to accept eternal mates of the opposite gender. I personally do not know how it all will be worked out, but I believe that it will, because God is just and merciful.

 So why do I oppose gay marriage? Ultimately, because it causes a lot of unneccessary spiritual heartache; because it halts the progression—either temporarily or permanently—of otherwise worthy individuals; and because any family formed by a gay union cannot last into Eternity, no matter how much those family members love each other, and that is the saddest thought of all.

 I don’t expect those who do not believe as I do to accept as truth all that I have just shared. I have no real empirical evidence, aside from the witness of the Holy Spirit which has affirmed the truth of it to my soul. I do hope that it can at least serve to help others understand my position and how—believing as I believe—I must oppose gay marriage.

 For if I believe—as I do—that God’s greatest desire for each of His children is to one day become as He Himself now is, how can I desire or encourage any less for my Brothers and Sisters? For me to endorse gay marriage would be for me to imply to these people that I do not care if they achieve the same eternal rewards as I myself strive for.

 In closing, I offer up a final thought, that right does not always equal good.

 From a legal standpoint, is allowing gay marriage the right thing to do? Yes.

 From a temporal/earthly perspective, is it good? I believe the evidence for this one way or the other has yet to be seen.

 But from an eternal perspective, is gay marriage good for God’s children? To that, I can say that the answer is a definite and resounding NO.

"Lego Quest" challenge #1

A while ago, a friend on Pinterest posted a link to a blog titled Lego Quest, with a weekly Lego challenge, one per week for a year. The official Quest is already over, but people can still use the ideas for inspiration. I gave my boys the first "challenge" a couple weeks ago and G has been on my case to post the pictures as promised, so I'm finally doing it (and he is reading over my shoulder as I type this-- Hi G).

The challenge was "build a car." Here are the pictures of the boys' creations:

 G calls his creation "the Astro-onic." He wants to point out that he used both Legos and Mega Blocks (a Lego off-brand, because we are cheap like that).

Z calls his creation "Super Gabe Kart."

Link to the original Lego Quest: http://legoquestkids.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html

Invisible Good Guy Ghost

I had the opportunity on Sunday to substitute teach Z's Sunbeam class at church. Our discussion for the day centered on the Holy Ghost, and how the Holy Ghost can help us when we are sad, afraid, or in need of guidance; and how when we have happy, warm feelings that is the influence of the Holy Ghost letting us know that everything is okay. After church, during lunch, Z said something about the Holy Ghost (can't remember his exact comment), and it sparked a second discussion to reinforce the lesson at church.

This morning before lunch, Z had a meltdown and was having a hard time calming down and being rational again, even after many hugs and snuggles and calming words on my part. I managed to get him to the table for lunch, but he was still screaming on-and-off. I offered up a prayer before we ate, and in the prayer I said, "Please help Z to be able to calm down and be happy." Almost immediately after the prayer, Z finally stopped crying and said, "I'm happy now!" Oh, good. And then he added, "The invisble good guy ghost came and made me happy!"

"You mean the Holy Ghost?"

"Yeah!"

:)

Eleven Months!

Wow, only one more month and we will have a one-year-old!

C is growing bigger; I haven't weighed or measured him lately, sorry. I will be sure to do that around his first birthday...

He sidles along the furniture now. He can also stand for short periods unsupported. A couple times he's tried to take a step, but then fell.

He has at least two recognizable words that he speaks: "da" for "daddy," and "ba" for "bye." He likes to babble-talk a lot, but we can't tell if he has any other "real" words in his vocabulary yet.

He still likes to bite things. And people. He laughs about it too, little imp. He reminds me of Sunny in A Series of Unfortunate Events.

For a while we were working on transitioning him from our bed to the pack-n-play (we bought a foam mattress to make it more comfortable), but noticed that he was waking more frequently and harder to put down on the nights when we started him out in the pack-n-play. So we're back to just having him start the night in our bed and he sleeps longer stretches that way and is easier to put back down after night-waking. Right now, it's just more important for us to all get a good night's sleep since we're in the middle of tax season. We'll try the transition again in April. We might even have a double bed for him in the boys' room by that time and he might like that better than the pack-n-play.

He loves to splash in the bath. He loves to eat solid foods, though he is also still very much into nursing. He loves music and dancing. He wants to follow his big brothers around everywhere and do everything they do.

He plays this "game" with us where he tries to get into the bathroom. Usually we keep the door closed or have the baby gate up. But once in a while we forget, and C delights in taking these opportunities to try to speed-crawl to the door and sneak in there before we can get to him. He laughs about it whenever we catch him. But a couple times now he's managed to sneak in there and get into stuff before we realize it. Once he got his hands into the toilet; and just a couple nights ago he got a hold of the toilet bowl scrubber and had dragged it across the floor and was sitting banging it on the stool in front of the sink when we finally caught him. Yuck!

In short, life is never dull with this kid. But he is such a happy-go-lucky baby that it's easy to forgive him for the messes he makes. He cheers us all up, and we're so happy to have him in our family.

I am crazy! Or maybe I'm a genius. You decide.

It all started a while back when Nick and I began discussing what we're going to do when C is ready to be moved into the bedroom with his two older brothers (he currently resides in ours).

A little bit of factual information: We live in a two-bedroom one-bath condo. The images below will give you some rough visuals (which might or might not be useful):

The back half of our living room. To the right is where we keep coats, boots, a desk, and C's diaper-changing "station"--

The front half of our living room. Between the piano and the wall with the window is a medium-sized chest freezer. As you can sort of see, the chest freezer and piano are more often than not covered in junk-- there's just nowhere else to put it!

The boys' room. Along the wall you can't see is a set of bookshelves and some toy storage. There is also a walk-in closet to the left, along the same wall as the bunkbeds. The dresser holds the clothes of the two older boys, and the "armoire" holds C's clothes, and has some room in the top half for hanging clothes for all three boys.

The "master bedroom." There's about a foot and a half of space between the foot of the bed and the loveseat (bottom right corner). Along the right wall is my dresser and C's pack-n-play. We pretty much use the p-n-p for naps only, though he also starts the nights out in there (but doesn't last very long before joining us in our bed). Along the left wall is a closet spanning most of the length of the wall. To the right of the picture is a second walk-in closet used for storage of various things.

There, you have a basic visual now.

So, challenges we currently face:

A. With the baby (almost a toddler!) in our room, Nick pretty much has to dress in the dark every morning (sometimes I do, too). Once in a while, Z is even in there sleeping, having joined us partway through the night (he's a light sleeper like his mom).
B. With a younger brother sleeping in his room (eventually two younger brothers), when G gets up in the morning to get ready for school, we have to quietly get his clothes and bring them out to the living room for him to get dressed.
C. With the pack-n-play in the back corner of our bedroom, it's just not a very handy daytime playpen anymore. And there are definitely times on a daily basis when I really miss it during the day to keep C out of trouble; but he's not keen (and I can't blame him) on being left alone in our room to play while we're all out in the living room or kitchen.
D. Once C moves in with his brothers, he's going to need his own bed. How are we going to fit another bed in that room and still be able to fit the clothing storage?
E. Ummm, we have really noisy neighbors next door. Just last night, they kept us awake past midnight.
F. Our neighbors also have to hear our baby crying in the middle of the night when he's having trouble sleeping due to teething or illness or general discomfort.

So, what would moving our king-sized bed accomplish?

1. With no-one sleeping in the master bedroom anymore, it will be much easier for all of us to get dressed in the morning without waking each other (we'd move the boys' clothing into the master bedroom, too).
2. The pack-n-play would be easier to move around. We could have it in the living room near our bed at night; and during the day, we could either have it in the living room, or move it to the master bedroom for naptime, or for when I'm working in there (because I intend to have a sewing/craft station where our bed used to be).
3. With ALL clothing storage moved into the master bedroom, making space in the boys' room for a double bed for C to eventually sleep in (and either Nick or I could join him briefly in the middle of the night if he got fussy), and also for a guest bed.
4. We wouldn't have to listen to our noisy neighbors in the middle of the night, making noises we have no business hearing (but currently can't help it). And they would no longer have to listen to our baby scream in the middle of the night.

Challenges of having the king bed in the living room:

a. It would take up a lot of space (obviously). We'd have to figure out what to do with our big couch. Also, there would be just barely enough space for someone to sit at the computer desk.
b. Entertaining company would be a bit of a challenge (though we'd still have a little space in the front half of the living room for some folding furniture, and we could maybe turn part of the bed into daytime seating).
c. Privacy and presentability (you mean I'd actually have to make my bed every single day? haha). This could be addressed, though, by hanging curtains from the ceiling to conceal the bed (and also shut out light).

So, weighing the pros and cons, I think it's at least worth a try! What do you think?

Anyway, I might be able to talk Nick into trying it, at least for a little while, since we'll have to move the bed out anyway in order to paint the walls in the master bedroom. So, stay tuned! You may be hearing more about this little adventure in the future...

It's fortunate for Nick I can't move the bed all by myself...

Movie Review: Les Miserables

I looked forward to this movie with much anticipation. I was introduced to the "Les Miserables the Musical 10th Anniversary Concert" as a young teen and have loved it ever since. I've watched the concert video numerous times, as well as listened to the CD recording and also the Original Broadway Cast recording. But for years, I desired to see the actual play/musical and never had the opportunity.

When I heard it was going to be made into a movie at last, I was thrilled. And on Christmas Day, I finally got to see it with my mother-in-law and sister-in-law.

It wasn't all I'd expected. Some parts were disappointing, though overall I was pleasantly surprised. I enjoyed it, though there were a few minor issues that I had a hard time getting over. Yesterday, I took Nick to see it. I wanted to see it a second time, to see if it improved upon second impression (I was so used to the Broadway and Concert recordings, maybe I was just being biased). I have to say though that my enjoyment was about the same the second time around. Nick enjoyed it thoroughly, and it managed to bring tears to his eyes (as it had to me the first time I saw it).

Criticisms:

Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean. This was the biggest obstacle I had to get over and it was not easy. He did fine with his acting, and the emotionality he put into his part was incredible. To fully appreciate all that, though, I first had to get over his singing voice. He was too nasal throughout, and I got the impression in many instances that the pitch was too high for his natural register-- like he was being forced to sing in "head voice." It's not really his fault; I'm sure he did the best he could. But the folks casting the role should have made certain before they casted him that he would be able to sing the part well. He never would have been given the role on Broadway. Also, I couldn't help noticing his tendency to cut off the ending consonants at the ends of phrases; makes me wonder if those not already familiar with the lyrics might have been left in the dark a few times as to what he had just said/sung.

If Valjean had been a more minor character, all of the above wouldn't have been such a big deal. But I think the whole opening sequence of the movie rather suffered due to Jackman's weak vocal performance, and that is unfortunate as it has such a powerful musical score.

Russell Crowe as Javert. I have similar complaints here as I did with Hugh Jackman, only to a lesser degree. Overall, I liked Russell Crowe's performance ("Stars" was one of the highlight scenes for me); only it was pretty apparent to me that he hadn't done much (if any) professional singing before this movie, and his vocal immaturity shone through in several spots. But he has a good voice in general, and all-in-all I'd say he did quite a good job portraying the straight man who just doesn't realize until the end that he happens to be on the wrong side.

Enjolras' voice was also on the weak side; they should have found someone with a more powerful voice to lead the band of "school boys" to the barricade.

Praises:

Gavroche was incredibly endearing; I think his was probably my favorite character through the whole movie. Daniel Huttlestone's acting was superb, and I just couldn't help but fall in love :) He was just so cute!

I was really happy with Eponine. She's my favorite character from the novel and I was glad they found someone good to fill the part. I understand Samantha Barks has played Eponine on stage, and it was obvious her vocal training had been extensive. In addition, her acting/facial expressions were right on; I teared up several times over what her character was going through.

The ensemble cast was amazing! I absolutely loved every single chorus number. The chorus really carried the whole show, in my opinion. In fact, it makes me recall what one of my high school theatre teachers said once (to paraphrase), that the chorus in a musical can make or break the performance; that it doesn't matter how good the leads are if the chorus is bad. In the case of Les Miserables, the chous most definitely made the show.

My Favorite Moments (and there were several):

Fantine's reaction as Valjean is carrying her to the hospital and promises to send for her daughter.

Valjean and Javert sparring in the hospital; I always love a good "sword fight." :D

Seeing Young Cosette with her rag doll, her only and her most prized possession. Poingnant.

Valjean requesting to help Cosette with her bucket of water :)

One song that I think Hugh Jackman performed beautifully was "Suddenly," during his flight with Cosette from the Thenardiers' inn.

"Stars."

Seeing the "White Elephant" statue for the first time brought a thrill, as that is something that is taken straight from the novel: Gavroche and his urchins live in that statue.

One of my favorite, most tear-jerking scenes from the novel is when Marius has enlisted Eponine's help to find Cosette and promises her anything she wants in return (assuming she'll want money since her family is dirt poor, not realizing what Eponine really wants is his love), then once Eponine has followed through Marius places a coin into her hand and Eponine lets it fall to the ground and simply says "I don't want your money." So it was also thrilling to witness her saying this in the movie, realizing all the unspoken feelings behind that simple statement.

"On My Own." This song will always hold a special place in my heart; I well-appreciated Samantha Barks' performance of it (and relieved they didn't cut it short like they did "A Little Fall of Rain" later on).

I loved the moment when Valjean reads Marius' letter to Cosette and realizes-- as all fathers of daughters must someday-- that she no longer belongs to him. Both times watching this movie in the theatre, when this happened I could hear chuckling from many of the audience members. A very relatable moment in general.

I felt deeply impressed by the scene where Enjolras is finally left alone facing all the rifles aimed to kill him, and Grantaire climbs up the stairs and walks through the soldiers to join his comrade in a final stand. I think it takes having read the novel to realize what an incredible gesture that really is on Grantaire's part.

Another scene which brought tears to my eyes was Javert's gesture of placing his badge of valor on the dead Gavroche's lapel. This is probably the first time Javert acknowledges to himself that there is something more to life than upholding the law of the land; I also imagine maybe Gavroche reminds Javert a little of himself as a boy.

I loved seeing the Bishop standing there at the end to welcome Valjean into Heaven.

So, yes. Overall, loved the movie. Definitely glad I went to see it-- twice! Probably will not be investing in the DVD, though, at least not for a long time (maybe someday I'll feel like watching it again). For now, I'll go back to my old favorite Tenth Anniversary Concert edition with the more superior vocal performances. But it was nice to finally see the whole musical, since I've never had the privilege of watching it on stage.

Ten Months

To quote my husband, "It's like having a puppy!"

C is standing up to all kinds of things now on a regular basis. He especially likes to stand up to a desk or table and reach as far as he can to grab whatever he can get his hands on-- boy! that kid can reach!

And still, everything goes straight to the mouth. I know I've said it pretty much every update, but it's so so different from our experience with our first two babies who rarely put anything besides food or a pacifier into their mouths. Our first two babies really spoiled us that way, and now we're still getting used to having to keep stuff like paper and books out of reach. All our top shelves are cluttered with stuff as we've had to move it up higher from where it originally sat.

We have two baby gates-- one to keep C out of the kitchen (because the floor is-- more often than not-- dirty), and another that can be moved among doorways to keep him out of the bathroom, our room, or the boys' room (when they are playing with their Legos). It's funny, though, because whenever C perceives that the gate is not there and the door is open, he makes an immediate beeline to get into the room (especially the bathroom) before we can block it. I think he thinks it's a game now :)

He especially loves the bathroom because he loves to take baths. He'll have Nick pick him up, point to the bathroom, then once he's in the bathroom point to the bathtub. Sometimes we will just put him in the bathtub fully clothed without any water and he has fun with that for a while.

I am so so so ready to get him out of our bed, and am working on finding a good mattress to put in the pack-n-play that will be comfortable enough for a baby used to sleeping on a pillow top. Hopefully we'll have it all figured out in the next couple months. The biggest question is where to put up the pack-n-play at night: putting him in the boys' room is out while school is in session because G would have too much trouble falling asleep with a still-awake and potentially fussy baby in there; he'd be all alone out in the living room; but in our room there's just so little space, though that's probably what we'll end up doing anyway.

He's eating solids now 2-3 times a day. He loves it. But he's at the point now where he's not content to just let us feed him purees, but will fight us to hold the spoon and feed himself even though he's not really coordinated enough yet. So I need to find some more good, healthy finger-foods for him to try. We've tried bananas, but he's more interested in squishing them between his fingers :) He likes bread. Last night I gave him a few bites of my bean burrito; at first he reacted by sticking out his tongue, but then he kept taking more bites so Iguess he liked it.

He has his two bottom front teeth now. And he likes to bite. Yesterday, he kept trying to bite me-- not while nursing so much, but on my leg as I was resting on the couch, on my back as I was helping the boys clean up their toys, on my belly while we were playing on the floor. I've never had a biter like this before, either...

He still gets so excited when Nick comes home from work, and wants to be held by him all the time whenever he's home, except when he wants to nurse. When he's ready to be handed to me, he will make the "milk" sign to Nick and Nick will hand him to me. We're not sure, though, if he uses the sign to say "milk" specifically, though, or if it's just his way of asking for me, because sometimes I will start to nurse him after he does this and he doesn't seem that interested. I really need to start doing more signs with him, I just keep forgetting.