Ok, the commandments are easy…we’ll follow them, or try to. But then again, some us might try to bend them a bit too. This post isn’t for defining what constitutes keeping the Sabbath holy, or what’s an honest fast offer, or whether cooking with wine is ok etc. etc.

Where do we draw the line, or define when counsel from the brethren applies to us and or when counsel does not? Maybe some would have to define “brethren” first. What about the Bishop? or the Stake President? What if they counsel us (either in a general meeting or privately) or extend a calling to us? Do we accept, no questions asked? If we like it then do we accept, if we don’t then do we have to “pray about it”?

What about counsel from the apostles? Do we consider their counsel just general counsel so it doesn’t necessarily apply to us. Do we have to pray about it and see if it applies. Do we follow the counsel we like and “feels” good to us and reject the rest using our agency as our reason?

What about counsel from the prophet or first presidency? Is that general counsel? Do we need to pray about it? And for those who feel we should pray and get a confirmation about any counsel - why should we - and what happens if we don’t get an answer, or the answer is yes - or the answer is no?

What about letters read over the pulpit from the first presidency? What about proclaimations like the one on families, or the one given in the early 1900s about creation. Or what about the proclaimation on blacks not holding the priesthood (that was never a “commandment”).

Where do we draw the line? And if WE draw the line, then whose church is it?

When do you quit listening to / following the brethren.

With regards to how Mormons will react to the letter, Chino Blanco sounds as if he believes that at a significant proportion of active members will react negatively to the letter being read in Church on Sunday. Chino Blanco refers to this coming Sunday as “a day when many [Mormons] may not be feeling all that pleased with what they’ve just heard come down from the pulpit.” He goes on to say that Mormons’ “worship” of the family is a reason that “so many Mormons feel ill about what their leadership is doing (again) with this letter.”

I’m not sure what precisely Chino Blanco means by “many” and “so many,” but to me it sounds like he thinks there is a large contingent of active Mormons that will react negatively to the letter. Reading his post, it sounds like he’s drawing his conclusions by surveying what us ‘nacle nerds are saying. I don’t think that’s a good idea. This is debatable, but in my view we’re not real representative of rank-and-file Mormonism, even if some of us consider ourselves to be rank-and-file. Based on the way I use the words “many” and “so many,” and on my long experience in the Church, I would not agree with Chino Blanco’s contention that there will be many California Mormons feeling ill about the First Presidency letter on Sunday.

With regards to how acts of protest would be received by Mormons attending Church this Sunday in California, I think Chino Blanco is off base again. He approvingly cites Latter-day Guy’s suggestion here that non-member gay couples attend fast and testimony meeting on the first Sunday in July and step up to the pulpit and request that the congregants not vote to harm their family. Chino Blanco cites Latter-day Guy as an active member, as if that means that there would be a lot of active Mormons happy with that kind of demonstration. But, again, I think it would be a mistake to consider this one blog commenter’s attitude as representative of a significant proportion of Mormons. Most Mormons would be offended by such an intrusion into their worship service. It would be about as welcome as an anti-SSM activist taking the mic at a gay rights rally and asking the audience to stop attacking the traditional family. Probably less so. And I disagree with Chino Blanco and Latter-day Guy that such a gesture would change any minds. It would be more likely to engender antagonism.

Chino Blanco also reports that he asked some Mormon bloggers how they would feel about activists protesting outside Mormon chapels this coming Sunday. He says, “they were cool with it. In fact, some of them even came up with their own suggestions for protesting.” Again, I think it would be a mistake to take this to mean that a significant proportion of Mormons would be “cool with” protesters picketing chapels this Sunday.

None of this means that people shouldn’t demonstrate their opposition to the First Presidency’s position if they want to. It’s a free country, after all. But people shouldn’t believe that their activities would be welcomed, generally speaking, by the Mormons present. It would be experienced as an unkind act of aggression. They won’t be cool with picketing and they most certainly will be offended by any intrusion into their worship service. I know there are activists who feel like we would deserve that kind of treatment. That’s fine. If you want to cause affront, follow Chino Blanco’s suggestions. If you don’t want to cause affront, ignore him.

Anyone else have an irrational bias for a certain punctuation or writing device?

Basically, you’ve got a big ship that visits lifeless planets and “cracks” them – completely destroying the planet and rendering it down into useable minerals for humanity’s vast galactic population. While prepping a planet for “cracking” they unearth this large and mysterious object ala 2001 Space Odyssey, which a large faction of religious people on board the ship insist is one of the relics that will allow them to reach God according to their religion.

Then the story goes really Event Horizon on everyone, as the miners on board start freaking out and killing people, and eventually turning into zombies… yadda, yadda, yadda…

Insert obligatory conspiracy cover-up from a Vatican-style entity that controls the galactic government, ritual cult suicides of people dazedly claiming they’ll see God, and a hard-nosed atheist beat cop hero with lines like “News flash: we already conquered heaven. And guess what? God wasn’t home.” And you have a winner.

Crazy religious people… mutter, mutter… You just know they’d secretly like to kill us all and turn us into zombies… Where’s my copy of “Jesus Camp?”

Why is this formula so easy to do? Why does it always have to be some cynical, but likeable atheist who saves the world from the scary religious people? Calling Agent Mulder…

So fill me in. Is there any good sci-fi out there that actually messes with the formula a bit and actually gives a bit of love for religious people?

Besides Dune. I’ve already read that.

Or maybe this is just our ward/stake thing and everyone else is immune.

Ok, here it is: the person who is going to give the opening or closing prayer gets up as the hymn is ending and makes their way up front before the hymn is over. Sometimes if they get up too early they have to find a place to sit for a moment, or they just stand next to the podium until the hymn is over.

I find it very distracting. I also consider it rude to be up and walking toward the front during the hymn. Are we in such a hurry to start the prayer?

I remember the good old days. The hymn ended, the person got up and went to the podium to pray. It gave you a moment mentally prepare for the prayer.

Am I missing something here…..do they do this in your ward…..what’s the deal?

But I never think about what it means that he did it for everyone else, specifically, too.

I mean, I’ll think about how everyone has the opportunity to embrace the Atonement and receive the same blessings I have from it. But it wasn’t until I read a book recently by Grace Livingston Hill that I thought about it from a different angle. Hill wrote a lot of Christian romance novels, basically, starting in the late 1800s. In the book I was reading, An Unwilling Guest, a young woman, Allison, was feeling resentful and uncharitable towards a guest in their home. She was being judgmental and condemning of the guest, who was a rather snobby rich girl. Allison’s mother said to her, “Have you forgotten that this girl is a fellow-mortal, that your Savior died for her?”

I’ve never thought about the Atonement in that light, but I should have. For the family in this book, the Atonement colors everything they see. Their charitable impulses aren’t based merely on “following the commandments.” They see everyone around them as someone that Christ suffered and died for.

I’ve always loved the scripture about the worth of souls being great in the sight of God. But again, it’s something I tend to think about in a general sense. Not really, that person right there. In the checkout line. On the freeway. At the library. That soul standing right next to me is one that Christ suffered and died for.

I know I tend to overlook the obvious and this post may make me seem really stupid. Maybe if I’d served a mission I would have thought about the Atonement in this light. I guess I’ve just tended to think of it as a general thing and not a specific thing.

But there’s something else, too. In order to be forgiven, we must forgive others. I’ve always thought (and still do) that judging others was wrong because no one can really know a person’s thoughts and experiences and what has shaped their decisions. But I’d never thought about it in the light that Christ died for that person who sinned against me and paid for that sin.

What right do I have to discount his Atonement by refusing to forgive?

My wife on the other hand admitted that she often grows tired of the stories presented to represent profound gospel teachings. “Just say it!” she exclaims. She does love a good story (preferably fiction) and even some poetry (her favorite is 19 Varieties of Gazelle by Naomi Shihab Nye) but usually its the straight forward/say it like it is kind.

So I think we’ll be fine for this Sunday but was wondering what the readers of 9M thought about the use of symbols and allegory in the gospel. Did Christ teach in parables just so we would have something to talk about for the next few thousand years - or is it simply because we forget too easily the constant mercies of God and his Son? Are you like my wife - tired of the poetic mumbo jumbo?

This scout ranch is about an hour north of where I live. I was part of numerous camps there and a few Youth Conferences as well.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

Four years ago I discovered the Bloggernacle and started this blog. I have been a regular participant in the community for years. I wrote a bunch of posts, invited some pretty great guest-bloggers, guest-blogged at T&S, initiated the Banner of Heaven exposé, designed some Bloggernacle/Mormon trading cards, started a few other blogs (some more successful than others), brought on some wonderful permabloggers and we’ve had loads of great conversations throughout.

Six weeks have passed since I’ve written anything and three months since I changed the header. Things have changed.

As we all know, when there’s a problem we must look inward to find the solution (or was it outward? I don’t remember). Ziff over at Zelophehad’s Daughters wrote a great series of posts (Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV) crunching numbers of some of the bigger Bloggernacle blogs. It’s interesting to compare them on a community scale, but it also made me curious about my own writing patterns. What could I discover in the numbers to be an excuse for my recent lack of writing?

So I counted the words and comments of each post and divided the statistics into four time periods, or “years”. (I wanted to call them “days” but that was already taken.) Also of note is that I didn’t count any of my two-dozen or so admin posts (introductions/farewells to guests or permas, announcements, admin issues, etc.). And remember, these are statistics for me, Rusty Clifton, not all of Nine Moons.

These numbers are the statistical proof that I’m now an official lazy-ass. This last year I’ve written fewer posts with fewer words per post (almost half of which were less than 100 words in length). In other words, I had a thought, wrote it down and put it out there with no exposition. It looks like I took a page from Firestorm Steve’s book in that it appears my words per post has little affect on my comments per post. Why am I so lazy? Well, I don’t want to blame it all on 9/11 but…

Now if only my permabloggers* had such a noble excuse.

*with the exception of Susan and Don

They just completed a remodel of our temple. They expanded the waiting area. With that expansion they also decided that the grounds were not pretty enough so they re-did the landscaping. and then while they were at it they brought in several new pictures for the hallways.

Our temple president made the comment in our priesthood meeting that he didn’t see anything wrong with the old ones…neither did I.

The point is, it seems that the church spends money on things that really aren’t needed. Their department either has a budget….or unlimited funds and so they spend it.

I know every year, in the ward, if you don’t spend your budget it’s supposed to go back to the stake/SLC, so everyone scurries around to spend, spend spend.

Do we really need new landscaping again (actually this is the second time for new landscaping), or new pictures in the temple. Who decides these things and why?