THE iPAD RELEASED this weekend and more than 300,000 lemmings were up until all hours Easter morning, loading more than 1 milliom apps onto their new toys. That following a Good Friday evening when thousands who did not pre-order the latest techno-marvel in the "i" series, stood in line outside Apple stores nationwide, hoping to be among the first to own pied piper Steve Jobs' the latest creation . The real marvel though is, at a $499 retial price with a 51 per cent gross margin mark-up, that slides approx 75mil in black ink into the hands of Apple shareholders, in one day. Trying to remember the last thing Microsoft did that was exciting or innovative, am thinking it may be time to call my buddy, stock wiz extrordinaire and former AVHS compadre Jeff Oster, and slide the MSFT into AAPL...
iBULLDOGS...Tonight's finale between #1 seed Duke (Boooo!) and underdog Butler (Yeah!) will either be a disappointing blowout or one of the great sport stories of the new millenium. This was an amazing Tournament with top seeds falling like Republicans who fought the Health Insurance Reform bill. The only thing I'd change about this year's Tourney (other than CAL's early exit) would be that the NCAA move the start-date back so the Tournament can end in March. Not a big deal, but it's like the Super Bowl being played in February or The World Series in November, it's just not right...
iDO...Yours truly got played BIG TIME on April Fool's Day, soon to be re-named MY DAY. First my neice (or is it second cousin - once removed, I can never remember that stuff) Ashley Davison suckered me in, posting ever so subtley on her FB page, that, and I quote, "Can't believe we're getting MARRIED!!! I didn't think I could forgive him until he asked me to marry him!!!!!!! =)", then about an hour later, changed her status from "In a relationship" to "engaged'. I bow in deference to your youthful wit and hereby surrender...
iDON'T...Not to be outdone, former Princess turned SLS, Renee LeVeira Flores, daughter of AVHS '78 grads and highschool sweethearts Rob and Michelle, merely changed her status from "Engaged" to "Single" and left it there, for noodniks like moi to flip a nutty over. Nee tells me that several of her other FB friends called or wrote with concern, two actually offering to pay for counseling services to help bring the two back together. The kicker here was the big wedding shower was held the day before, so it was fresh on the minds of those who know. Touche', Miss Thang! My only response to both of you is to beware. For as the old axiom goes...sometime, someplace, when you least expect it.....BANG! I always repay a debt, including interest...
iWISH...I had never been such an idiot. These are the words that will most likely be rambling around inside the head of PGA pro and philanderer-par-excellance (if there can be such a thing, and pardon the pun) Tiger Woods, who jumps back into real life this week at Augusta, where on Thursday he will play his first competitive round in 144 days. Wise call on Eldrick's part, getting back inside the ropes here. This Tournament is run with such a tight fist and tix are so hard to come by (perhaps the toughest ducat in all of sports) it's unlikely much of a fuss about the former World's #1 player's sex scandal will seen or heard. Here's hoping for a great Tournament...
iLL BELIEVE IT when I don't see it. In a hastily called press conference yesterday, the Rolling Stones announced they will be touring in 2010, perhaps the and their largest concert tour ever. Hard to believe following their last go around which took more than two years and shattered attendance and gross rev records that would have had Bill salivating (and still figuring out ways to do it better). Because the band annouced plans to play virtually nothing from 64-72 (through "Exile...") on this go around, and that the show will include tributes to each of their former band mates, including a one-off song per show with former bassist Bill Wyman joining them onstage, word is that this will be the last hurrah for the Glimmer Twins. If Vegas lays odds, I'll lay 100 smackers that says no way. I can not imagine Keith agreeing to hang it up ever and if this were the Grand Finale, you can bet your bottom dollar Mick would have built up a much more grand presentation, including at least a 6-9 month build up to increase interest (and revenue). Plus, can yo imagine them walking off a stage for the last time withOUT having played Satisfaction? Just wouldn't be cricket, wha?...
iAM GRATEFUL...Yesterday was Easter. And while many get lost in the buffett brunches and egg hunts and chocolate indulgances (guilty on that last bugger!) that surround the day, I AM grateful for what the true meaning of the day signifies. That Our Heavenly Father sent down His only begotten Son, so that our unwise choices and unlearned lessons might be forgiven; that we may repent from our sometimes foolish and hurtful actions, that we too might rise again and be returned to His presence. A greater gift we could not receive and though perhaps undeserved, one we shall continue to strive to be worthy of.
Showing posts with label Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Show all posts
Monday, April 5, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Sunday Brunch
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Mormons.
As this is the first Sunday offering of The Lounge, let me begin by announcing that while every Sunday column will be spiritual in nature, it will never be a sermon; while I will as a matter of perspective, discuss from time to time my own and other faiths, I will never proselyte, and while I will offer my personal opinions, I will never feign to speak for the leaders or masses of my own, nor disreguard, disrespect, or denegrate another faith, or those without.
That said, on this initial Sunday, The Lounge is serving up not its usual panoply of multi-topic morsels, but rather a huge Sabbath Brunch that has been simmering in my heart for many months.
I believe that, to the best of my knowledge and however well intentioned, the humanity of the leaders of my Church overshadowed Church doctrine, their personal opinions and beliefs overuled the true meaning of their revelations; and I believe they ignored the existing, sacred foundations of the Church that have stood for 173 years, when they involved themselves and the Church in the fight for the passage of California Proposition 8, to make illegal the legal right for same sex couples to be married.
And I'd like to tell you why.
On August 17, 1835, adopted as and in Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, were the following passages:
"We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."
"We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul."
"We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."
"We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy."
The above four paragraphs are direct quotations and in so many words state that as a collection of people, we should not, can not, and will not use our organization, resources, faith, or influence to inflict that faith or our beliefs on others nor take or support any action that will deprive others, regardless of their beliefs, of the same legal and spiritual rights we enjoy.
Interestingly enough, the following paragraph explains this point in even more refined and exact detail, to the extent that had this quotation from the D&C been written specifically about Proposition 8, it could not possibly have been more accurate:
"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."
These are points of contention that, unless and until my education is increased and I can be shown my interpretation misguided, no reasonable person can state that at the very least, there is a strong case for misstep by the Church heirarchy. Now these are good, decent, honest men, whom I look to for guidance, direction and direct revelation. I furthermore wholeheartedly believe they did look to prayer for revelation on how to address this particular issue. They are also however, human, and therefore capable of error, and while I am wholly unqualified to make that determination, I, in my heart, after an equal amount of prayer and consel, belief the facts support such a possibility.
These, however, are not even my most heartfelt points of disagreement nor my weightiest argument towards the proposition that the Church's actions on this matter were a gross miscarriage, of not only justice to the citizens of the state of California, but of our Heavenly Father's will.
From the day Church members attend their first Primary class in Sunday School, they are taught that the reason we are on the earth is so that we may learn, through experience in our earthly bodies and so that we may, with this knowledge, excercise the right of agency, of free will; to follow those commandments and laws put forth in the restored Gospel and to become worthy to rejoin our Father in Heaven, or, to reject them outright, and spend eternity in a lesser existence.
The choice is ours, as was always intended, since before the Creation.
Now, aside from the aforementioned examples of Church doctrine that have been ignored, can someone, anyone, please explain to me where or how any group of persons, much less those in His restored Church, have or were ever granted the ability and the right to take away from every person this all important right and ability to choose; a right that, was not only given to us by our Heavenly Father and His son, Jesus Christ, as the lone gift that could, can and will restore us to His presence, but is in fact the only reason we were put here on Earth in the first place?
Now, does this mean I accept or agree with the idea of same sex couples being wed? It does not. In my heart, I believe He put each of us here with a plan that includes the creation of a family headed by one man and one woman. What it does mean is, the only person I have a place or right to make the choice to follow that plan, is myself.
Does it mean that I will tell people who are in or support same sex marriages that they are wrong and that my faith is the only way. It does not. I will be open and honest and explain that I believe my Heavenly Father did not include same sex marriage and homosexuality as a part of His plan for eternal life. I will explain that I believe every person has the ability to choose their path and I believe the greatest happiness will come from following His teachings. And I will tell anyone who asks that, because my Heavenly Father has instructed me to be respectful of all beliefs and those who hold them, including those that carry no belief at all, that I will always love them and be there for them should they ever need my counsel, support, or prayers.
What it means mostly is, I will never, as per my Heavenly Father's commandment to not do so, ever support any action that so resolutely and emphatically seeks to strip away from His children the one and only gift given us that will insure that we may return to His presence.
The right to choose.
As this is the first Sunday offering of The Lounge, let me begin by announcing that while every Sunday column will be spiritual in nature, it will never be a sermon; while I will as a matter of perspective, discuss from time to time my own and other faiths, I will never proselyte, and while I will offer my personal opinions, I will never feign to speak for the leaders or masses of my own, nor disreguard, disrespect, or denegrate another faith, or those without.
That said, on this initial Sunday, The Lounge is serving up not its usual panoply of multi-topic morsels, but rather a huge Sabbath Brunch that has been simmering in my heart for many months.
I believe that, to the best of my knowledge and however well intentioned, the humanity of the leaders of my Church overshadowed Church doctrine, their personal opinions and beliefs overuled the true meaning of their revelations; and I believe they ignored the existing, sacred foundations of the Church that have stood for 173 years, when they involved themselves and the Church in the fight for the passage of California Proposition 8, to make illegal the legal right for same sex couples to be married.
And I'd like to tell you why.
On August 17, 1835, adopted as and in Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, were the following passages:
"We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."
"We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul."
"We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."
"We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy."
The above four paragraphs are direct quotations and in so many words state that as a collection of people, we should not, can not, and will not use our organization, resources, faith, or influence to inflict that faith or our beliefs on others nor take or support any action that will deprive others, regardless of their beliefs, of the same legal and spiritual rights we enjoy.
Interestingly enough, the following paragraph explains this point in even more refined and exact detail, to the extent that had this quotation from the D&C been written specifically about Proposition 8, it could not possibly have been more accurate:
"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."
These are points of contention that, unless and until my education is increased and I can be shown my interpretation misguided, no reasonable person can state that at the very least, there is a strong case for misstep by the Church heirarchy. Now these are good, decent, honest men, whom I look to for guidance, direction and direct revelation. I furthermore wholeheartedly believe they did look to prayer for revelation on how to address this particular issue. They are also however, human, and therefore capable of error, and while I am wholly unqualified to make that determination, I, in my heart, after an equal amount of prayer and consel, belief the facts support such a possibility.
These, however, are not even my most heartfelt points of disagreement nor my weightiest argument towards the proposition that the Church's actions on this matter were a gross miscarriage, of not only justice to the citizens of the state of California, but of our Heavenly Father's will.
From the day Church members attend their first Primary class in Sunday School, they are taught that the reason we are on the earth is so that we may learn, through experience in our earthly bodies and so that we may, with this knowledge, excercise the right of agency, of free will; to follow those commandments and laws put forth in the restored Gospel and to become worthy to rejoin our Father in Heaven, or, to reject them outright, and spend eternity in a lesser existence.
The choice is ours, as was always intended, since before the Creation.
Now, aside from the aforementioned examples of Church doctrine that have been ignored, can someone, anyone, please explain to me where or how any group of persons, much less those in His restored Church, have or were ever granted the ability and the right to take away from every person this all important right and ability to choose; a right that, was not only given to us by our Heavenly Father and His son, Jesus Christ, as the lone gift that could, can and will restore us to His presence, but is in fact the only reason we were put here on Earth in the first place?
Now, does this mean I accept or agree with the idea of same sex couples being wed? It does not. In my heart, I believe He put each of us here with a plan that includes the creation of a family headed by one man and one woman. What it does mean is, the only person I have a place or right to make the choice to follow that plan, is myself.
Does it mean that I will tell people who are in or support same sex marriages that they are wrong and that my faith is the only way. It does not. I will be open and honest and explain that I believe my Heavenly Father did not include same sex marriage and homosexuality as a part of His plan for eternal life. I will explain that I believe every person has the ability to choose their path and I believe the greatest happiness will come from following His teachings. And I will tell anyone who asks that, because my Heavenly Father has instructed me to be respectful of all beliefs and those who hold them, including those that carry no belief at all, that I will always love them and be there for them should they ever need my counsel, support, or prayers.
What it means mostly is, I will never, as per my Heavenly Father's commandment to not do so, ever support any action that so resolutely and emphatically seeks to strip away from His children the one and only gift given us that will insure that we may return to His presence.
The right to choose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
