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

Hearst Castle

We had a great time visiting Hearst Castle on our quick spring break weekend trip to California. We went just to tour Hearst castle, which we've set out to do twice before on longer trips and then balked at the price or the lack of available tours that we wanted to take. Last summer we were there on Labor Day weekend and discovered that making reservations is the way to go to actually get to tour.

What made this time even better was that since we were going just for the castle, it didn't make sense to miss anything, so we took all three daytime tours. That ran up the cost higher than touring the Biltmore mansion, but we felt like we got our money's worth.

We started Friday morning, and after a few stops, (like to see Sara and the kids and drop some things off) we got down to some serious driving and made it to Red Bluff by 8:30pm. Besides reading and napping, I made some use of my time by downloading as many batches of indexing as they would let me and working offline on my little net book on indexing pages of the 1940 census. That doesn't use a lot of power, so the net book was good for as many hours as I could stand to do it. At night before sleeping I used the hotel Internet connection to submit my finished batches and download more in their places. By the time we got home I'd done over 700 names!

We got up early Saturday morning and south to the coast and San Simeon where the castle is. It is north of LA and south of Monterey on the rugged coastline that includes Big Sur. We got there around lunch time and ate and got into our motel, then headed over to the visitor's center. Along the way, shortly before reaching San Simeon I was amazed to see several zebras clustered together, grazing on a hillside. Harry thought I'd mistaken something else for zebras, but there isn't anything you can mistake for a zebra!  Later we heard on tour that there were still zebras grazing the ranch with the cattle, left over from when Hearst used to have all kinds of zoo animals there. So there!

We had reservations for the Grand Rooms Tour at four pm and got to the visitor's center in plenty of time to have a pastry before heading up on our designated bus. Rather than describing, I'll share a few photos:

Front door, embellished with European stonework.

Main Room where guests gathered to visit for Happy Hour



The dining room, the only place meals were served

Hearst called his estate "The ranch at San Simeon" He decided he was too old to keep camping in tents here as he had done since childhood and decided to 'build a little something' so he could visit more comfortably.







He still considered it a camp, even with the lavish surroundings and insisted on general informality. The dishes were his mother's pattern of willow ware stoneware and the ketchup and mustard were served in their jars on the table as they were when he used to camp there.

The billiards room, like every other room, was decorated with beautiful tapestries, art objects, and contained a hundreds of years old ceiling taken from a grand house in Europe. The walls and doorways featured middle eastern tiles.

After seeing the rooms where guests relaxed after dinner with their smokes, we finished up in the full sized theatre where Hearst showed first run movies to his guests, who were comfortable seated in overstuffed armchairs.  We watched a short film of home movies taken of guests enjoying the estate, 'back in the day'.   Next post, The Grounds and gardens.

So Yummy I just had to share

The other night I pulled out whatever veggies I had on hand to put together as a stir fry with some sliced barbecued beef leftover from one of Harry's efforts on his new pellet fed grill. The result was so colorful and fresh, and tasted so good, I just had to grab the camera and make a record of it. This is the start with the veggies, a package of Birdseye stir fry I got free with a coupon, mushrooms and fresh red bell pepper. I'm sauteeing in a little high oleic safflower oil.

Here I'm adding the meat.

Finishing off with a cup of brown rice and some teriyaki sauce, since the rice and meat were pre-cooked and the veggies were either frozen or quick cooking, this went together really fast. There were no leftovers.

Food can be soooo fun!

I saw this, and thought it looked like a lot of fun. I don't do this kind of thing ever, and I really admire those creative women out there that come up with stuff like this.

Hunger Games

We saw the hunger games tonight, and loved every minute. They did the best job on it, set it in Western North Carolina, which matched perfectly to what I visualized reading the book. I loved the choice of actress for Katniss. I recognized her from the picture in my mind from reading the book. The movie stayed really true to the book, and they did a good job of including what was needed and being careful with what they had to leave out, like condensing the relationships with her team down to one member of the team to really portray. I liked the music too, and might want the soundtrack.. Harry loved it too. It was one of those we talked about all through dinner afterward.
Here's a few more photos I found that I liked.

News Reporting-Fact or Fiction?

When you tune in to the evening news, do you usually pretty much assume that what you hear is the truth of the story? How would you know if you are hearing the truth? If you're like me, you tune in to your favorite station and feel comfortable quoting the 'facts' you hear there in the break room the next day. I mean, don't the reporters go to the source and get the facts? Don't they have to check the facts? Would they broadcast as facts things without checking, or even worse, the speculations of the reporter?

Granted, when news is breaking I'm not surprised to hear things reported by witnesses that later turn out to not be true, like the man who was interviewed on the scene of school shooting. His wife was the teacher in the classroom where it happened and he said that his wife had told him that the boy got out the gun, aimed deliberately at the girl and shot her in the stomach on. Later news reports clarified that the gun was in a backpack, cocked and went off when the boy bumped the backpack on a desk.

So, when my daughter found herself privy to some of the inside information of a tragedy that happened to close friends, I started switching from station to station to get as many of the stories as I could. I was surprised when I noticed how the details varied in the stories being reported by the different stations. The tragedy involved the drowning deaths of a father and his small son. One station reported the canoe had capsized and neither of the victims were wearing life jackets. Another station said that neither of them were wearing life jackets, but that two jackets were found in the canoe.  How could they be in the canoe if the canoe was capsized?

The child's body was found right away, but his father's wasn't found until a week later. Meanwhile, the news quickly turned to other, more violent happenings, but when the body was found, the story at the one station about the canoe capsizing still contained that detail when they reported the discovery of the body.

I was thinking about writing this post about the varied inaccuracies when my daughter called and said that there were so many inaccuracies in all the different news sources, that she found it really upsetting and wanted to let me know what they knew there on the scene as the friends of the victims. It was interesting that she was noticing the same thing I was.

What it seemed like was that it was considered a minor story and so whatever they got as 'facts' at the beginning was good enough. When the follow-up story was written, the earlier report was rehashed. I guess it doesn't matter to most viewers if the canoe capsized or not, any more than any of the other inaccuracies seemed to detract from the center of the story that a father and son had drowned and that it was an accident.  It is only disturbing to those who are closest to the story and would like to see the facts reported accurately, and maybe also to those of us once removed, as I am who would really like to know what actually happened.

So, the moral of the post is to remember when watching/listening to the news that while the major facts of the story may be mostly accurate, you are probably only hearing an approximation otherwise, particularly for something that is a breaking story, and even if it's an old story, there's a likelihood that old inaccuracies are being rehashed along with the new information that brings the story to the front of the news again.  My husband suggests checking to see which station reported it most accurately. That may be the station to watch for the closest approximation to the truth...

Missing that Bahama Sunshine

Gold Beach, Freeport, Bahamas

Well, it wasn't sunny the whole time, but even the cloudy parts were as warm as our normal summer days, so it was all good. Even the brief time we got caught in the pouring down rain the rain was so warm that sloshing through ankle deep puddles in my flip flops felt wonderful as the warm clear water flowed over my feet.  In Freeport we spent several hours at beautiful Gold Beach in our bathing suits and in and out of the water, with never a chill in spite of the storm clouds piling up across the water. (Same day we got rained on later)

 Gold Beach, Freeport, Bahamas

Yesterday I was looking at a photo of the beach at Fort Zachary Taylor State Park, Key West,

 Fort Zachary Taylor State Park Beach

and the memory was so vivid at that moment, I felt like I could step back into it. I was listening to the rain outside and then it seemed like that world was so far away, and i wished I could go back there. It seems so funny that when you're somewhere like that it is so intense and almost feels timeless while you're there, but then you move on and it's done, and you can't just step back into it, maybe ever with some places. I guess that's one reason I want to take so many photos and post and write about these experiences, so I can hang on to them in some way.

Anyway, dreaming of the beaches from a few weeks ago are such a contrast to the nasty weather we're currently enduring, it's a good mental escape while we move closer to summer again.

 Fort Taylor State Park beach

 Nassau- Junkanoo Beach

Junkanoo beach