December 10th First full day in Waikiki

Orientation day

Harry got up and off to work without disturbing me, which was not my plan, I planned to be on his schedule, but I guess it will take some time to get my inner clock dialed to 5 am! I woke at 7:30 and planned my day. I thought it would be best to get oriented to the room and the beach first. How nice to have enough days here that I don't have to worry about 'wasting' a day.

I got familiar with the room first, then dressed and had a bowl of cereal for breakfast. I did some tidying of the kitchen and washed up the barbeque grill that Harry had used recently to cook chicken in a sugary sauce. Then I went to the front desk and met Chardonay face to face finally-I've talked to her on the phone several times and read some great reviews about her on TripAdvisor.com.  She gave me the dates we will have to change rooms. I needed to know whether or not to completely unpack. If we were changing rooms in a few days I wouldn't want to get out anything but the essentials. Turns out we will be here until the 27th, so I felt like I could settle in and unpack most everything.

From there I headed to the beach. My plan was to walk down and get familiar again with the different beaches and see if there are any spots that might have fish for snorkeling fun. I wasn't sure how far I would walk, my heel is still not better and walking on it a lot could really set back the healing.

The beach nearest our hotel a the end of Waikiki Beach and beginning of Kuhio Beach

It was still morning, so there was shade enough that I could stop every little bit and sit on a shady bench and just look at the view. I was also looking to see if anyone was snorkeling. I expected that it might be kind of dorky to snorkel this area and wondered if there were maybe only a few other touristy newbies like me trying it.

View towards Honolulu

Surf breaking over the breakwater wall

My heel did fine and I walked on much farther than I originally planned. There were a lot of big white canopies at Kapiolani park and I read on the notices about parking space closures that the big marathon is this weekend. 30,000 people run it, so it is a BIG deal. We almost had to move to another hotel that night, since it was the one night they were all booked. Cancellations saved us from that though.

As long as I was that far I went on down to the place I wanted to stay, the Diamond Head Beach Resort condo building. It is nice and quiet down there but would have been a longish walk for me to get to stores and places to eat lunch and the sandy beaches.

View of beach from first jetty

I had walked down on the park side and walked back along the beach walk. When I got by the Aquarium I could see several kinds of fish on the plentiful rocks, especially on a sandy area between rocky areas. There were what I was calling Pipe fish, but turned out to be Needle fish, and the Hawaiian state fish, which looks like a modern painting. There were big silver ones and little yellow striped ones-I really need to get a fish guide!

View from first jetty I snorkeled here the 2nd day

I took some photos and a video of a spreading Banyan tree. I think that may be where I got a couple of mosquito bites on my arms. The tree was full of birds and I took the video partly to record their twittering.

I had walked out on one jetty that has a roofed viewing area at the end of it and saw some fish along the jetty wall, then as I walked back there was another narrow jetty with no viewing area at the end. There were some people on it, so I went out to see if it was any better. At first I was mostly taken with the little crabs that skittered around my feet and clung to the side of the jetty. They were so much the same color as the wet rocks that I might have missed them if I hadn't seen the little ones.

I saw quite a variety of fish also, and a man there with his teen children pointed out a large mass of some sort off a ways from where we were standing. He said it was moving around and we wondered if it could be a Lion fish. I didn't realize they would be around so close to the beach, I thought they were more coral reef fish, but it did really look like it could be, even as indistinct as it was through the water. Later I asked a young woman who had been out there if she'd seen any, and she said she'd seen several. On the fish finder card I looked at there was a similar looking fish that was called a Hawaiian Turkey fish, but I've also seen a photo of a Hawaiian Lion fish also, so I'm not sure what the whole story is about that.

Feeding fish and birds on the jetty

Walking back along the jetty, I encountered a man who was feeding the fish the remnants of a sandwich. They were massed below him, and boiling around the bits he threw in. There were also quantities of larger birds standing around that area and some teeny brown ones that would come and land on his hand, and let him feed them. Sometimes they piled on 6 at a time, jumping up on each other's backs trying to get at the food in his hand.

Homeless in Paradise
While orienting myself to the beach I couldn't help but be aware of the ever present homeless population mixed in among the tourists and locals. I noted that picnic shelter number three along the beach seemed to be a homeless gathering spot, with many on the benches and sleeping, and some seated nearby. One Banyan tree with a sheltered center area had had a sleeping quilt spread over its roots that was there the next day too. It looked like a good place to sleep.  When I got down to the end of Kapiolani Park I started to use a bathroom there, but noticed half a dozen men in the area, including one having a sponge bath at a sink on the outside of the building. I decided this wasn't a good place for me to use... Then when I was leaving the condo area I noticed at the base of a fence there was a pile of small bags and cases. I think that was where someone dumped the bags he/she had stolen from the beach and emptied of valuable contents. That let me know I need to be especially careful of what I take to the beach. There are a few of these people begging, but most are not, they are just wandering, sitting, or curled up sleeping somewhere.

Heading back and unpacking
I stopped at a big ABC store on my way back and got an oriental chicken salad, some cut up pineapple, and two 1.5 quarts of bottled water. The water from the tap is warm, flat and tastes not too great. Back at the room I showered, ate lunch, including a chocolate filled puff pastry from the box of pastries Harry left and rested a little before tackling my unpacking. There was plenty of places to put everything. I had brought a hanging sweater organizer and an over the door shoe organizer. With the big closet there was plenty of room to hang the sweater organizer and stash specialized items in it like beach wear. The shoe organizer went over the bathroom door which opens up against the sink. there is little real storage for small items there, no shelves, drawers or medicine cabinet, so all the small items go into the pockets and are right at hand as needed.

Organizing the closet

I set up a charging spot in the closet where there is a plug half way up the wall. I put my big suitcase under it as a shelf to put things on and plugged in a power strip,  Then I went down and got the Wi-fi password and checked mail, etc while watching TV. I was also writing a list of things I needed to get from Walmart or Target. I talked with Harry on the phone about getting to the store and looked up directions to the nearest store, which was a Walmart.

It turned out we went to Safeway instead because he was too tired to find a store he'd never been to. I tried to keep the purchases there to a minimum. They were so expensive, even the little I got was over $35. Even a 70 page spiral notebook was over $4. I later got a similar one at Walmart for $1.00.

We went to Zippys for dinner. I had deep fried Mahi-mahi with rice and macaroni salad and got a little spam snack for later. I'd read about it in the guide book. It is a piece of fried spam on a cake of sticky rice wrapped in sushi seaweed wrap. We also had a slice of Chantilly cake from the bakery there where Harry gets his pastries.

The late dinner and heavy food did a number on me and I had acid reflux later and ended up staying up late sitting up, then sleeping sitting upright until midnight. Note to self: no more heavy dinners!

We slept again without the AC and windows open, but with the white noise machine on.

Aloha from Waikiki

I always like to keep a trip journal, and decided for this extended stay in Oahu that I would keep it here.
Getting There
The only hitch for the flight was the headwinds that delayed us so that we got in 45 minutes late. The Delta jet had two aisles. I was on a window and only had one other person to disturb if I needed to get up. He was a 19 year old from Bremerton, heading over to live with a friend for awhile. He was very pleasant. We both enjoyed watching movies on our personal seat back screens. That is my favorite configuration for flying. Everyone gets to pick their own content from a large list of current movies and TV shows. I can usually find something to watch. This time I watched two movies, Magic in the Moonlight, which was very good, and a movie with Pierce Brosnan and Emma Thompson, a zany European adventure/romance.

I was prepared this time for the gust of warm, moist night air while walking through the outdoor part of the walk to through the terminal to baggage claim. Last time it was such a surprise to find myself on a covered walkway while still in the secure part of the airport. Harry was waiting at the baggage carousel with a lovely lei for me, very fragrant with little white ginger flowers. He had been waiting all that extra time and was very tired and anticipating how tired he would be for work in the morning. We got to the room around 10:30 and to sleep at 11:00. He gets up at five so it was a short night for him.

Just behind the Hyatt Regency, 2 blocks from the beach. 24 rooms

Our Room at the Waikiki Prince Hotel
With no unrealistic expectations for our budget hotel, I was pleasantly surprised at how nice the room is. It has a double and a twin, so it is more spacious than a room with only one bed. The closet is large and as wide as the bathroom, which is helpful for storing the luggage and other extras that will accumulate. All is clean and well kept up, no cracks, mold or peeling paint. The beds are comfortable, the fridge a little bigger than I expected, though it is still pretty small. The bathroom is spacious, and we have a good sized dining table that is a catch spot for all kinds of things. I'm well satisfied at the price point.

Mele Kalikimaka-our tree presents, nativity

If I lean out the lanai I can see the tops of the palms at the end of the street where the beach is, but otherwise the view is all apartment and hotel buildings. The city noise when the windows are open and the AC off  is intrusive for someone like me who lives in a rural spot where a truck idling on the street outside is cause to go to the window to see what is going on. Here there are trucks idling and backing up all day long. At night there are sirens and regular clanks and bangs as if someone is loading metal pieces into the back of a dump truck.. However, with the windows and lanai door closed and the air conditioner going, I can hear very little of the outside world.  We don't hear much through the walls either.

We have a kitchenette also. We will be in this room until December 27th. We will move then for a few days and again on the 30th to a room two floors above this room, which has only one bed, so it is a little smaller. But we can stay in that one the rest of the time.

Our bedroom, looking toward the lanai....

Our 'kitchen' lol...

Dining table in the wide hallway across from the bathroom door

The Everchanging World of Medical/Dietary 'Facts'

Are there things we know for sure about what foods are healthy, and which foods are not, as in the proverbial 'heart attack on a bun' foods? We think so. For years, everyone from the nightly newscaster to Dr. OZ, to your family Dr. or medical specialist can recite the no no's, foods to avoid, foods to eliminate. The information is all backed up by scientific facts, right?

And then out come the latest scientific 'facts' to refute the truths we've been living by for ever-so-long, and it all gets turned on its head. Take eggs for example. Those little evil cholesterol bombs. Better dump those yolks down the drain, and order the egg white McMuffin if you don't want to find yourself keeling over of a heart attack one of these days....How many years has that been the accepted truth?  Except now they're telling us that there is actually something in egg yolks that is protective against heart attack that will raise that healthy HDL, so now, it's one or two a day if you want to protect your heart.Which I think is pretty funny that this was confirmed alongside McDonald's and Burger King just releasing their egg white breakfast sandwiches at the same time.

The problem is, whatever the scientific study, be it ever so well designed, peer reviewed, significant in size and longevity, however well duplicated, and solid, we always go beyond the findings to speculation and hypothesis and then hand out advice based on speculation (and lingering debunked old wisdom) as much as proven conclusions. Such as the egg. We learn that arteries are clogging with cholesterol. So naturally eggs yolks, which are rich in cholesterol, must be contributing to the clogging of arteries. Reduce dietary cholesterol, and improve artery health...yes? Well, no, as noted.

Now, a couple of years after the toppling of the evil egg conspiracy, more icons of the unhealthy diet are being exonerated. Not surprisingly though, each instance of debunking is accompanied by a whole new set of speculations that are attached to new health advice. For example, from the July issue of O magazine, page 64 "The Skinny on Fat"

'nutritionists have..universally recommended avoiding food high in saturated fat....while some studies have supported this..the findings were far from conclusive, and may not have taken into account other dietary factors or the fact that saturated fat can actually raise good (HDL) cholesterol.'

'But now emerging research is shedding new light....' No kidding. The article goes on to describe 'a scientific review of studies involving more than 6000,000 people that found 'no significant link between dietary saturated fat and heart disease-suggesting that we don't, in fact, need to shun foods like red meat, butter, and whole milk for our heart's sake.' 

The article goes on to discuss these several items, but each one can't resist adding the hypothesis at the end, the speculation that seems to be validated as truth by the study results. Then there is the resulting advice that may even ignore the research just described. Just to illustrate, I'll go over each one...

Meat
Fact: The study results-Analysis of 20 studies shows that unprocessed red meat, beef, lamb, pork, in a daily serving of 3.5 oz (or more!) was Not associated with a higher risk of heart disease, but eating 1.8 oz of processed meat (sausage, bacon, lunch meat) were associated with a 42 percent increased risk.

Speculation: Following that we read, 'the main culprit might not be the saturated fat, but rather the high amounts of sodium (which can raise blood pressure)... and preservatives (which may promote arterial hardening)' ...boldface added for illustration purposes.....

Conclusion: 'Sticking to one to two servings of red meat per week shouldn't have a major impact on your heath if you eat well the rest of the time....' Hmmmm.. The conclusion is SO interesting. So the analysis showed that eating unprocessed red meat EVERY Day didn't impact heart disease incidence, but the conclusion wording implies eating red meat is still unhealthy, and the cautious, 'one to two servings a week' also implies daily eating of red meat is dangerous and needs to be limited.

Of course the recommended fish and nuts are great too, but this is a great example of the difficulty experts have letting go of long established 'wisdom' even when faced with new research results.

Whole Milk
Fact: Whole full fat milk is higher in calories, 66 per cup, than nonfat, skim milk, but a study of 19,000 middle aged women found that one serving a day protected against weight gain and low fat milk did not.

Speculation: 'The extra fat in whole milk is satiating and it's possible that we may get fuller on less'
With no information, how do we know the women got fuller on less?
Conclusion: 'Portions still matter, so drink no more than three cups of whole milk per day.'  If the speculation is true, won't amounts be self limiting because the milk is more satiating? I guess this is to advise those of us crazy enough to think if less is good, more is better, to keep us from chugging huge amounts of whole milk a day as a magic pill for weight loss.

Butter-Yay! Butter! and Lard...
Fact: 'Butter and lard are back in favor as natural, minimally processed sources of fat. Lard is actually lower in saturated fat than butter and contains double the amount of hearth healthy monounsaturated fatty acids. 

No speculation, there is no study quoted.

Conclusion: Small serving sizes as part of a balanced diet.

Cheese
Fact: a 2012 study of dairy consumption in 8 European countries showed that those who ate 2 ounces or More! cheese a day had a 12 percent lower risk of developing Diabetes compared with those who were sparing in their cheese consumption.

Speculation: When cheese is fermented it produces good bacteria that may help reduce cholesterol.

Huh? How does reduced cholesterol explain lowered risk of Diabetes?

Conclusion: Cheese keeps unhealthy company with burgers (wait, see meat above...?) so pair it with healthier foods..also, try to eat lower sodium cheese and high flavor cheese so you will eat less..in other words, try to limit that healthy cheese...they seem so afraid their information will send us all on big binges of these foods...

True or False? Men get the Priesthood, because Women get to be Mothers.

Discussions about why women in the LDS church are not ordained to the priesthood have been going on for a long time, certainly longer than I've been alive. The interesting thing is that these discussions in church classes and meetings don't seem to be generated by any feeling among the sisters of actually wanting to be ordained, but rather have the feeling of trying to reassure women that they are valued just as much as men and hold the same esteem in God's eyes and heart.

Men seem uneasy about the topic of men's and women's responsibilities as well, and often seem to go overboard with flowery praise of the sisters, which results in them putting themselves or men in general down and elevating the women as to as what their basic natures and capabilities are in an effort to verbally close that gap. It's not just the brothers either. The sisters, off in our own meetings, will indulge in some half humorous, half serious talk about the frailties of men and the capabilities of women.

In church settings when the topic of men/priesthood, women/? comes up, among other thoughts and explanations, a main rational involves women being mothers. The basic idea put forward is that the ability to bear and be the primary nurturers of children is so important to God that He wants our time and energy to be available for that. It is usually pointed out that partnering with God in creation by bearing a child is something no man can ever do, and that the rearing of healthy faithful children is His most important work, reserved for women with some help from men. 

This can go to the point of making it sound like Priesthood is the consolation prize for men because they can never experience pregnancy and don't have the main task of raising children. To me, as sacred and important as motherhood is, and I totally believe that and have lived my life by that belief, it still feels like this line of reasoning is both incomplete and has the effect of minimizing or marginalizing both men and women in the process.

I also worry that we use this as a quick, shallow explanation because it is hard to delve into important and true principles that go deeper than most of these discussions can go, mostly because the majority of us only partially understand them, and because they are hard to articulate in a sentence or two or even a 40 minute lesson time. 

When those who are pushing for more 'equality' by sharing priesthood ordination with women point out that this is not a valid comparison (IE. men get the priesthood, women get to be mothers) they are making a valid point. It is what I have always thought in these discussions. As much as I value my role as mother, and dedicated the years when my children were still at home to mothering, this line of reasoning doesn't add up. The next logical thought is, 'What about when we are not in our mothering stage? What if we never get to raise children? There are a lot of women in the church who are not currently mothering children, so if that were the Reason, that leaves a lot of women with nothing, while men are active priesthood holders from 12 on, whatever their other circumstances, married, single, father, or childless. 

However, rather than say the solution is to give the priesthood to women, I think we need to look deeper, and to re-evaluate the explanation. It is human nature to want to know why, so if we have something that hasn't been fully explained to our satisfaction, we will use our experience and ability to reason to come up with explanations. If our reasoning seems sound to ourselves, or others reasoning seems sound to us, we may go on to take that as truth. In the church we have some good examples of that. The most striking lately being; 'Why was priesthood ordination withheld from men of African negro descent?' I won't go into this topic, but it turns out reasons were given that attempted to explain the policy that in hindsight were speculation and not true. Recently the LDS.org site published a good history of the issue of ordaining black men to the priesthood that refutes for good the faulty explanations that had been given in the past. This is a good example of how when our understanding increases, myths and untruths are laid to rest. 

The issues of understanding or only partially understanding Priesthood/Women may be resolved the same way. When we discuss this issue we are making some points that are part of the truth and maybe some that are a type of myth reasoned out from things we do understand. As time goes on we may come to understand it more completely than we do now. One thing I have noticed is that this reason is not being used in the recent talks and articles about Priesthood and women that are coming from our general leadership. I'm referring to Elder Oak's talk in the Priesthood session,  the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood and Sister Burton's article in the June Ensign priesthood-power-available-to-all

I think the mind of God is deep, complex, and beyond our understanding. He doesn't reveal all to us, but gives us enough to make decisions on, based on faith and trust. The decisions we make are part of our mortal test. When we don't have complete or satisfying explanations, then our response comes under the heading of faith and obedience. 

This can be what we might call an 'Abrahamic Trial' to some of us. God asked something inexplicable of Abraham, something that would break his heart and went against what he knew about the way God looked at the sacrifice of humans. But he knew he had received a command from the only true God, and he understood enough to know that obedience was the only right choice he could make, whether he understood why or not. So he did it, and though an angel stopped him from the final act, he left us his example to use in our own Abrahamic trials. When God tries us this way, he makes sure we have principles to guide us to do the right thing, even when we don't understand why.  

My main point is that if we are looking for an explanation for this issue, can we agree that saying 'Men get the priesthood, and women get motherhood' may be a faulty comparison, or it may be an incomplete explanation, part of a larger truth that we only partially understand? That doesn't say that the next logical step is to give women the priesthood. To me it says, let's look deeper, let's look at what is currently being said at the general leadership (Priesthood and women leaders) level, and let's take all we can understand in an intellectual way, and a spiritual way, and add faith to that in realizing we probably don't know all of God's reasons. Then if we still feel the explanations we get are not adequate, and our reasoning doesn't cover all our concerns, and we aren't getting full explanations from answers to prayer, then we continue to question, think, study and pray, and we continue to live the gospel, serve, and trust that we will someday understand. In my mind, I leave issues like this 'open' and continue to add and discard ideas as my understanding increases.

What About the 'Uchtdorf Principle'?

Yesterday I followed and contributed to an interesting, thoughtful and thankfully civil thread of discussion on Facebook that prompts my thoughts in this post. 

The post from one of my nephew's wife (is there such a thing as a niece-in-law?) concerned the excommunication of Kate Kelly, how sad it is that it came to this for her, and whether or not excommunication is something Christ would do. (I weighed in that he would, indeed, revelations from Christ in the Doctrine and Covenants are the guidelines for the excommunication and re-baptism policies that exist in the church today.)

Within the discussion another nephew referenced a talk by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, a member of the governing body of the church at it's highest level in the first presidency. In this talk, which was a call for all to join with us in this church, he was frank that there are some blemishes in church history and some statements and actions by members and leaders that can be sources of doubt. 

The quote in the post went, 'And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members of leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrines.'

He goes on to point out that the church is made up of imperfect people and imperfect people make mistakes, and that 'It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not tarnished, diminished or destroyed.' He then bears witness as an apostle that 'no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father.....God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course...'

Additional points in the discussion were made about what one writer referred to as 'The Uchtdorf Principle', an idea that maybe some would use President Uchtdorf's statement to let us cherry pick the things the leaders say in conference or elsewhere, discarding those we don't like as being the errors of men. If errors can be made, then how do we trust anything we are told? 

There is a principle that governs this dilemma, and it is encompassed by the principles of faith and obedience. Not blind obedience, but faithful obedience, which doesn't rule out continuing to question. Essentially this means that when we don't understand something, when we question what has been asked of us, we seek further understanding, and while seeking understanding we continue to be obedient, even to the things we question. In course of time, either the issue will be clarified, or it will be changed as new understanding comes. The onus is on the leaders. They are accountable to God for what they do and say. If they are in error on something and we are obedient to it, we are not at fault for following their direction. Similarly, when we or they try to explain something we don't understand using limited knowledge, our explanations can be faulty. In due time this will be corrected, but meanwhile we don't choose disobedience just because explanations are not adequate. 

We have a very pertinent case in point that I can refer to.  I lived in Atlanta, Georgia throughout most of the 1960's and had a front row seat to the civil rights movement. Sympathies in our family were firmly on the side of integration and elimination of prejudice and unequal treatment. Being faithful in a church that practiced its own form of exclusion towards black men was very uncomfortable and hard to understand. At the time as far as anyone knew black men had never held the priesthood. Explanations included speculation about spirits who were less valiant before birth being the ones born with black African heritage. Even so, it was general knowledge that the priesthood would be extended to worthy black men at some point in the future.

In spite of a lot of pressure from outside the church, things were quiet within the church, even among black members. As far as I recall, there were no demonstrations, no organized protests or pressure from within. Black members were anxious for a change, but those with testimonies had the faith to continue being active, humble and patient.

Since the historic day when the restriction was lifted there has been a kind of forensic look at why the restriction existed. I saw a documentary a couple of years ago on PBS that explained essentially what the church recently published about how the policy was established. I won't go into all of that, but we understand now that the explanations were faulty and the restriction based on cultural and political situations at the time previous to the civil war and Utah's bid for statehood.

All the things I'm talking about are illustrated here, including the role of modern day revelation in making the change at the right time and leadership being willing to discern and abandon faulty explanations. While understanding is incomplete, faithful obedience is appropriate and can take place alongside continuing questions and doubts. As a teenager I made a conscious choice to put this issue 'on the shelf' with the belief that the time would come when I would understand. And now I do. I believe my faith was justified.Obedience in this case didn't have anything to do with my obeying the restriction, that wasn't in my power....it meant that I would continue to have faith and sustain the leadership of the church and remain an active, contributing member. It also meant that while I kept the feeling that this policy didn't seem right, I didn't become an activist to pressure the church into changing it. I trusted that the leadership were authorized and inspired, and that they would know when the time was right to change it.

As far as the concept of an 'Uchtdorf Principle', knowing that there is sometimes error in idea and action doesn't say to me that I can pick and choose what I'm going to be obedient to or what I have faith in. That is certainly far removed from the point he was trying to make in the talk, that we shouldn't put our members and leaders on such a pedestal that if any of us makes a mistake it casts everything into doubt. I think it boils down to whether or not I believe the church is true and has the guidance and approbation of God through worthy and inspired leaders. If I believe, I will trust enough to be obedient even with the chance that there might be error in there somewhere, and trust that in a true church with inspired leaders, corrections will eventually be made to any errors as soon as they are discovered to be error.

The LDS Disciplinary Council-Loving or Punitive?

I first started trying to learn about and understand church disciplinary councils when I was in my mid 20s. I was living in Southern Germany at the time and attending the local military branch. We shared a meeting house with the Augsburg German Ward. 

I was waiting in the hallway outside the presidency offices and council room for a meeting with my branch president, who was finishing up with a disciplinary meeting scheduled prior to my appointment. I could hear the murmur of voices, and eventually a sister from the branch who was serving there in the military came out and walked by me. I have no idea what the problem was, or what the decision was, but I went away troubled by the reality that church membership can be suspended or revoked. I saw it as harsh and punitive, and worried about the effect punishment like that would have on someone struggling with weaknesses. 

Since then I have come to a much different viewpoint. Although the loving nature of a council is probably greater or lesser according to what is in the hearts of the leaders who conduct it, there is no question in my mind that it is intended to be administered in love and concern for the individual who is being considered for judgement, and I would speculate that it almost always is done in a spirit of love, concern, and regret for negative actions that are decided upon. 

There are two main factors that form my opinion.

First
The goal is to bring a focus on the things in the life of the person brought before the council that are causing concern so that they realize exactly what they are doing wrong, why it is wrong and serious enough to jeopardize full membership, and offer a chance to turn these actions around so that full membership can be retained or regained. The objective is to bring that person back into harmony with the gospel and allow them to repent and move forward in their progression again.

 In some cases the restriction or revocation of membership is part of a penalty required as part of the repentance process and allows that person to 'pay the price' and prove themselves faithful before being restored to full membership again. Often the council action is not initiated until the person comes to their bishop wanting to resolve the sin and complete a repentance process. That might be the case for members who decide to live together before marriage. No action will be taken until they express a desire to clear this sin from their lives. I knew one sister who had carried the burden of having had an abortion for many years. When she finally went in and confessed it, she was excommunicated because of the nature of the offense, but encouraged to continue to faithfully attend and live a righteous life for a period of time, after which she could be re-baptized, which she did. 

Second
This is my understanding. When someone is committing or has committed a serious sin, or is in rebellion or defiance against church doctrine and leadership, affiliated with apostate groups, or otherwise standing in opposition to the church and even trying to gain support and agreement from others, and is not repentant or willing to change what they are doing or promoting, then it is actually a kindness to release them from covenants they have made. When we make covenants like baptism and temple covenants we become held to a higher standard by the Lord and there are eternal consequences for breaking those covenants. When someone is excommunicated they are no longer liable for breaking those covenants and no longer have to have that weight of sin to pay for after this life.  They are also not eligible for certain blessings, but serious sin, rebellion and apostacy would eliminate those blessings anyway. 

The opportunity to repent and return is always there too, so someone who has been subject to church discipline always has an open door waiting to welcome them back in and they can re-make covenants and be eligible for the blessings again. (Not sure if this applies to first degree murder though, I'm not current on that)

Certainly, to the unrepentant, being disciplined in any way can feel punitive no matter how much love is expressed by those who are making the decisions. Someone can be so certain that they are right and the church is wrong that they feel the judgement and action of the council is wrong and that hardens their feelings against the leadership of the church as they see themselves as wrongly judged. 

Case in point is the quote I read today in the Salt Lake News Tribune from Kate kelly, whose council has been held but the decision not made yet. She says, "I strangely enough feel a lot of hope...because it's not too late for them to do the right thing." My question is, what is the right thing? My opinion is that the right thing is for them to carefully weigh out everything that has been presented before them in their own minds, decide what they think about her possibly being in apostasy enough to be excommunicated or otherwise restricted in her membership, and then pray about what they have decided. That is the pattern we have been given for receiving revelation from God. Then, they should come together and see if their thoughts and impressions from the spirit give them a consensus of what course of action the Lord is in harmony with. This is our checks and balances. More than one person deciding, and taking it to the Lord for confirmation, repeating the process until they feel the approval of the spirit confirming their decision. 

What seems 'hopeful' to me is that this council is taking extra time to get confirmation by personal revelation and mutual agreement before they make a decision. A faithful member of the church has the faith, Knowledge and trust (see my previous post) to be humble enough to take correction, and to trust and be obedient to the will of the Lord. She has the option to let go of deciding what is right or wrong for the council to do and seek in humility with an open mind herself to see what the Lord approves of. It is difficult to let go of a cause when there is so much gratifying warmth and support coming from followers, and I'm not surprised that she is not considering that. The only thing is, that having decided that the church leaders are wrong not to ordain women to the priesthood, and being unwilling to budge from that goal, she is proving the point that she no longer sustains church leadership. By not being willing to stop promoting her views to recruit followers and take down her web site, she proves it even more. She states clearly in her letter to the council deciding this matter that she will not comply with any of their conditions for retaining her full membership, and in that, she has proved their case against her. 

Personally, I feel confident that the decision made about her membership, whatever it is, will be made not just by personal opinions, but by guidance and confirmation of the spirit and that it will be correct for her at this time. Correction by a loving father in heaven is not a punitive thing. It is an invitation to learn and align with his superior knowledge of what is best for us and lovingly sacrifice our own will to his so that we can hopefully go back and be with him forever. Not trusting Priesthood leaders to help with that is a significant clue to what is wrong in this situation.

 

Faith, Knowledge, Trust=Obedience

Temple Square with Salt Lake Temple, Tabernacle, and Conference Center

There are a bunch of posts I want to make on some controversial topics being discussed by members of my church, the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints whose members are commonly called Mormons. Just to be clear I'm a member of the mainstream church, not one of the smaller groups that differ in some crucial ways from the church I give my faith and allegiance to.

I'm a little hesitant to blog on these hot button topics, having seen some pretty emotional and negative responses being experienced by others who are sticking their heads up in the public arena to express their views or share articles and quotes. I'm non-confrontational by nature and not eager to draw vitriolic fire from readers. However, I'm not so worried as I might be, because I don't actually get very many readers or views on this blog, so the chances are pretty low that this will be read by anyone besides a few of my friends and family. Mostly I am writing to get some of my thoughts down in print. and organized.

This post is my foundation post. Touchstones of truth let me look at things I want to understand and evaluate what I'm learning and thinking without drifting away into conclusions that don't line up with what I know is true.

The three touchstones that come to mind immediately are Faith, Knowledge and Trust.

Faith
I believe I was given the gift of faith by my Heavenly Father to help me navigate the perilous waters of differing opinions and beliefs. So far this has been a major thing that has carried me through any thing that I've found hard to understand in the doctrine and practices of my church. Not that I have needed so much, because for me, the doctrines, principles and practices of my church fit together in a harmonious whole that makes sense, feels good, and is bolstered by so many evidences of its truth that I can't deny it.

Knowledge
Over the years I've learned a lot about the church, and I feel like I have a pretty good grounding in the history, beliefs, doctrines and so on. In addition I have personal spiritual experiences and experiences putting the gospel into action in my life that have taught me how God actually interfaces with me personally. I've also witnessed the same things in the lives of others.  Since it is so congruent, it leads to the next element.

Trust
Because of my faith and knowledge I have trust in God. I believe God loves me. I believe he is my father and I am his child. I believe he has a plan for me and for everyone who has ever lived on earth. I believe he is actively interested and involved in the lives of all his children, that he listens to and answers our prayers perfectly. I believe he can do anything he needs to do and knows everything so that he can plan ahead to accomplish his aims and provide blessings and help perfectly.  I believe everyone on earth has access to his help and that he works with all of us according to the circumstances of our lives. I know that he has the time and the means in eternity to fix everything we mess up in this life, that he will correct injustices and that he is the perfect administrator of justice and mercy.

Presidency of the church, President Monson and his counselors at General Conference

Also, since I feel completely confident that my church was organized and authorized by God himself and that the authority and power to act for god is centered in the priesthood of the church, I also trust that the church is led by an actual genuine prophet of God. (And his counselors and the 12 apostles as well). Do I think they're perfect? No. Do I feel like I can trust the official decisions and counsel they give? Yes. Do I think they are good men with character, values and the right motives? Yes.

The Prophet, his counselors and the twelve apostles at the end of a General Conference session.

Soooo...Obedience...
Everything I know and believe leads me to want to be obedient to God and to his authorized representatives on earth. That means commandments and official guidelines. That doesn't mean I am always able to do the right thing. Like everyone, I make lots of mistakes and bad choices and struggle with personal weaknesses. Does that mean I do it blindly, as in "You say jump and I'll ask 'How High?' " Nope, sorry. I am not a mindless robot. I am not brainwashed in any fashion. I have always applied thought, analysis and evaluation to what I've been taught and asked to do or not do. Because of my beliefs, I'll try to obey even when I don't totally understand, but that doesn't mean I don't continue to question and try to get understanding. My attitude is that if I don't understand, God does, and since I can't always fathom his mind or his plan, I can trust that when I do know I will agree with it.

Members raise their hands to indicate support of the leaders and officers of the church

Bottom line, it is so cool to have that foundation that lets me go forward even when I don't understand everything and know that there are some things I can absolutely count on. So when I explore some of the things that others in and out of the church are questioning and the things they think are true, as well as things I myself wonder about, I have a way I can evaluate what is being said against my own understanding of what is true. Do I think I know all truth and can figure every question out? Of course not. But whatever I can't resolve will go on my mental 'for future consideration' shelf. I suspend needing to know right now and trust I will understand someday, maybe before I die, but certainly after I die.

Next post I'll start exploring and discussing some of the issues I've been looking at. 

Why Breastfed Babies are Smarter-it's not the Milk, it's the Mama!

An article in the Deseret News Mormon Times, Family section from March 23rd 2014 discusses a recent study on why Breastfed Babies are statistically more likely to be reading ready by age 4. The study concluded that it had nothing to do with anything in the breast milk itself, but it does have something to do with who it is that chooses to breastfeed. 
 

Daughter in law Sara, a dedicated breastfeeding mom with baby number four

The conclusions were drawn from national data collected between 2001-2007 of 7,000 kids followed from birth to 5 years of age. Interactions between mothers and children were observed and videotaped. What they found was that the mothers choosing breastfeeding were more likely to interact with their children in ways that enhanced their intellectual development. 
 

Daughter Elizabeth, another dedicated breastfeeding mom with her nursing toddler

It turns out that mothers who breastfed 3 months and beyond tended to be better educated and more likely to read to their children daily. It seems that these moms were more likely to research best practices for raising children which convinced them to breastfeed for extended periods and helped them learn good parenting skills. Significantly, less educated breastfeeding moms did not have children with academic advancements.
The better educated breastfeeding mothers observed were more tuned in to their children's emotional cues. The researchers found that "being attentive to a child's emotional cues and reading consistently with the child could make a difference of 2-3 months in brain development in children by age 4 when they are entering preschool."  They also point out that better educated mothers were more informed parents and had fewer obstacles to the type of parenting that produced the positive results. The article didn't discuss at all why better educated non-breastfeeding moms didn't also have children with advanced readiness. I wonder if the breastfeeding moms were with their children for greater amounts of time and had more opportunities to interact effectively with them. It is easier for bottle fed babies to be cared for by others.
 

Sara with her fifth breastfed baby, reads with her oldest-a book he made at school

One expert reviewer of the study said that the children in the study who were breastfed for at least 6 months did better than others because they also "experienced the most optimal parenting practices" That's why they were reading-ready at 4 years she said. 

The connection between reading to children and optimal reading readiness  is not a new discovery. Years ago I read conclusions of research that listed several factors in the home that give children the best start to becoming good readers. I used to promote these factors in my parent newsletters when I taught preschool.

The critical behaviors are:
1. Read daily to children. (Nothing wrong with reading several times daily!)
2. Have lots of books available for children in the home. I love public libraries.

3. Read a lot yourself so children see you reading.

My son and his wife reading at a big family gathering while the children play in the spray and play and others of us visit with each other

In the study the observations of mothers reading to children who turned out to be be developmentally advanced showed that they were following their babies' cues as they read, lingering where the baby/child showed interest and interacting with the child about the book rather than plowing through it just reading out loud. "The responsive, supportive moms reacted to (the child's) gestures and expressions and that turned out to be very important to cognitive development."

The really good news about this is that anyone can read to children and interact responsively in the process. So bottle feeding moms, dads, grandparents, caregivers, even older siblings can do the same thing if they are aware of how to do it and why. Higher education isn't a prerequisite either. Any motivated parent, relative or care-giver can educate themselves from multiple sources and be the same kind of engaged and savvy nurturer as the well educated breastfeeding mothers identified in this study. 

Interestingly, the study indicates this interactive daily reading should start by nine months of age, so don't wait until they are walking and talking to start reading to them every day!

Turkey Stuffing Recipe

Here it is, the recipe everyone wants me to bring to our holidaydinners...
 
Turkey Stuffing

1-1   1/8 cups butter

1-2    

¾ cup chopped onions

4 ½ quarts bead squares (18 cups)  you can use regular white bread, or deli bread, but they will cook down and make a softer stuffing. French bread works better, but my preference is a substantial Italian bread,  round loaf (best) or long oval loaf, something with a solid springy feeling,  I don’t like to use sourdough bread.

½ cup finely diced celery

1 ½ teaspoons Poultry seasoning

½ cup chopped parsley or 2 Tbs dried parsley

¼ teaspoon ground pepper

1 Teaspoon salt

Heat butter in large deep kettle and sauté onions and celery until onions are tender

Stir in seasonings and add bread cubes a quart at a time and stir to coat with butter mixture.

Stir thoroughly until cubes are evenly coated and mixed with the butter mixture.  This also serves to heat the bread.

Turn off the burner and transfer the stuffing into a 13X9 pan or use to stuff the turkey. 

If cooking in a pan, drizzle with about a cup of  pan juices from the cooked turkey or commercial chicken broth.

Cover pan with foil and put in 350 degree oven for 20 minutes, then remove foil and continue baking 20-30 minutes or until tops of bread cubes are toasty crisp and browned. 

Chicken Stuffing-This turns out almost the same as the turkey stuffing but makes a smaller amount

1 ½ quarts bread cubes

½ tsp poultry seasoning or dried thyme, marjoram or sage

1 tsp celery seeds           1/8 tsp pepper                ½ tsp salt

½ cup butter       ¼ cup minced onion       3 tbsp chopped parsley or 1 tbsp dried parsley

Wow, not sure where this is, but this is what it's like living in the Pacific Northwest, plant life is unstoppable and fills in every space not actively kept clear in some way.

Peaceability-Part 2

In my last post I started a topic from Richard and Linda Eyre's column in the Deseret News supplement, Mormon Times. They define Peaceability further as 'Essentially the opposite of anger, losing one's temper, impatience and irritation.'

There are a lot of ways to be un-peacable, such as the things described in this quote. I would add also, sulking and holding a grudge, put-downs, criticism, and what I've heard called 'stirring the pot' where someone is doing things to get other folks upset about a third person, or to get someone else upset...'Mommy he's LOOKING at me!'

This doesn't mean we have to eliminate negative emotions and go around intoning a mantra with an invisible halo floating over our heads. We will still have negative emotions, but being peacable will mean that we will control those negative emotions and keep them from hurting another person.

How can we accomplish this? First we need to decide that a peaceful, calm atmosphere in our homes is something we value enough to make a priority. That atmosphere won't happen without our committment and effort.  Children feel more secure in a calm atmosphere. A calm home is one that is not puctuated with angry and irritated outbursts. Valuing peace and the control of temper helps us create a home atmosphere of calmness. The foundation of this is love. We love our family (yes, I know, there are times when we could cheerfully pitch those loved ones out the door and lock it, at least for awhile..but underneath we do still love the aggravating little critters-or big ones, if we include our spouse!)

If love is the foundation, understanding is the key (go ahead, unlock the door and let them back in..) You are less likely to lose your temper when you are trying to understand. It makes a difference if we stop to try to find out why someone is causing a problem before we break out into temper mode.

 For example, I once suspected one of my children had stolen some money from a sibling. The money even had a mark on it that his brother recognized. He steadfastly denied doing it and insisted a kid on the bus (whose name he couldn't remember) had given him the five dollar bill. Knowing how much he loved shopping for new toys, I suspected the temptation had been too much for him, so I started talking about how hard it is not to have enough money to buy things with and how we don't like to admit doing something wrong and the like. As I talked and questioned him gently, saying things like, "I can see how you might wish you had more money", he said, "Well, I 90% remember getting it from my friend and I 10% remember taking it from my brother..." He tested my reaction with these statements, and as I continued to express understanding of being tempted to take things and then lie about it, his percentages changed 10 percent at a time until he got to 90% remembering taking it. We then talked about ways he could get money for things he wanted to buy without taking it and what he needed to do to make things right-returning the money with an apology. One nice thing, his math skills were really solid!

This was so much more peacable than the inquisitions and punishments I used at other times when the children wouldn't admit to wrongdoing. A side note to that is that children who feel secure and understood are less likely to lie about wrongdoing.

This applies to all kinds of situations. Be curious before dealing with or reacting to a problem.
Like:
Why did she come home so cranky from school today? (Could something have happened today?)
Why does he always take his shoes off?  (Are they too small or uncomfortable in some way?)
Why is she cranky and not eating anything at dinner? (Could be she's sick)

Usually we will ask the person why, but many times children don't know why and we have to do detective work to figure out the causes and possible solutions for behaviors. One of my daugthers discovered her son was having difficulties with many things because of a sensory integration issue. She was able to be more patient when she knew why he was contrary about so many things. He was suffering discomforts that weren't obvious and that he didn't have the language to express.

The Eyres tell us that 'Calmness and Peacability are values because they help others as well as ourselves to feel better and to function better."  They add that they are also contagious qualities. The more we are able to be calm and peaceful, even under stress, the  more they are 'caught' by others around us, especially our children!

Teaching Children Values-Peaceability Part One

I want to do a series of posts discussing the column Linda and Richard Eyre write for the Deseret News Mormon Times section. They are doing a series on teaching values to children featuring a different value every month. I thought it would be worthwhile to share highlights of these articles with some commentary from my own thoughts and experience. I would love for any readers to add discussion and thoughts of their own.

They say, "These 12 values will be universal values that all parents everywhere accept and wish to teach to their children. They are values that unite us as families, yet they are anything but easy to teach to our children.

Those of us, (me included) who had the chance to participate in a year of the Eyre's Joy School program for parent run home preschool programs, know that their program is based on monthly themes teaching values, Joy being one of them. They have a lot of experience with this, including with their own large family.

The material they share is drawn from their number one New York Times best-selling book, "Teaching Your Children Values.  For online content from the Eyers on this series go to www.valuesparenting.com and click on 'Value of the month'.

The Value they started with in September was Peaceability. They define Peaceability in one word: 'Calmness'. "It is peacefulness, serenity and the tendency to try to accommodate rather than argue. Peacability is the understanding that differences are seldom resolved through conflict and that meanness in others is an indication of their problem or insecurity and thus their need for your understanding. It is the ability to understand how others feel rather than simply reacting to them.'

I love this definition. If we can raise peaceable children into peaceable adults, that is a contribution to their happiness and a positive impact on those who associate with them in any way.

As just a personal disclaimer to this description I want to say that while it is worthwhile to be peaceable in our interactions at all times, when we are being mistreated being peaceable should not mean that we are obligated to allow ourselves to continue to be mistreated. There are peaceable ways to set and enforce boundaries with any kind of abuse. We might understand the abuser's feelings, but that does not mean we have to allow ourselves to be harmed in any way. In reality, those with a controlling, abusive nature act out of their thoughts and values, not their feelings. That is one reason that teaching Peaceability as a value is so important. Anyone who really values Peaceability will not be abusive towards others.

For the next post, Ways of being 'un-peaceable', and some benefits of teaching and modeling Peaceability