Our Thoughts

I came across something interesting during personal scripture study tonight. (I'm sure many of you are getting tired of that phrase).

We read the following in Isa. 10:1-2.

Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; to turn aside the needy from judgement, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!

While this passage does seem directed at those in political power, I can't help but think there is some warning in there for us as well should we decide to prey about the widows and fatherless.

Now compare this with James 1:27.

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

These two passages together make it clear God's position on the poor, widowed, and fatherless. Even more so, it makes it clear how anyone who professes to be Christian should be treating such.

Popularity: 1% [?]

If you are in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for any significant amount of time, you will likely come across the phrase "broken heart and contrite spirit". The scripture most commonly used regarding this phrase is 3 Ne 9:20:

Ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit

But what does "a broken heart' mean?

The popular usage of the phrase is summed up on Wikipedia: a common metaphor used to describe the intense emotional pain or suffering one feels after losing a loved one. I am leery of the idea that this is what Jesus meant, that we wouldn't be baptised by fires unless we lose a loved one.

So what does it mean then? Consider these two facets of farming.

"Breaking a horse" is common phrase. Wild horses do not let persons ride themselves. They need to be trained to accept riders. Thus a broken horse accepts its master.

"Breaking the ground" is another phrase referring to the entire practise of tilling, ploughing, and harrowing. Basically, it's what a farmer does to prepare the soil for planting. Thus broken ground accepts planted seeds.

I wonder then if using these two examples, we can define a broken heart as a heart that accepts its master (as in Jesus) and the gospel seed (see Alma 32).

Popularity: 1% [?]

Page 10 of the new Preach My Gospel:

Your success as a missionary is measured primarily by your commitment to find, teach, baptize, and confirm people and to help them become faithful members of the Church who enjoy the presence of the Holy Ghost. Avoid comparing yourself to other missionaries and measuring the outward results of your efforts against theirs. Remember that people have agency to choose whether to accept your message.

There it is in black and white.

I am still surprised at how many missionaries, ward mission leaders, bishops, stake presidents, and mission presidents measure their success by baptisms alone.

But how else would you go about measuring commitment?  Why the need to measure in the first place?

Popularity: 1% [?]

When I was putting in a load of laundry this weekend, I couldn't find the laundry detergent. I was right up against the washer, and couldn't see the detergent anywhere.

Instinctively, I backed up a few steps, looked around again, and finally noticed it hiding behind the laundry basket.

I pondered that for a while, realizing how in life we can benefit from viewing the larger picture. Consider these two scriptures.

"Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend." (Mosiah 4:9)

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:9)

Here we see two scriptures indicating God sees things in a larger picture than we do. Does that mean only God sees the bigger picture? Not necessarily. I believe we can all see the bigger picture.

Even if we can't see the bigger picture, however, I think there is value in acting as if there is a bigger picture. When we lose a job, for example, it may be easy for us to mope around, asking why this happened to us when we were living right. On the other hand, we could use it as an opportunity for a better job or start a business, things we may not have done had we stayed in the job.

Popularity: 1% [?]

This week, I received the most current issue of the London Road Neighbourhood Association newsletter. On the front page was a short article reporting on a recent meeting where members discussed the hypothetical widening of 6 Avenue South.

The City is studying the feasibility of building a third bridge between the Westside and Southside. A part of the study, they are considering to different locations, as well as what would happen if no bridge is built. One of the scenarios that has popped up in the case that no bridge is built is the widening of 6 Av S.

This roadway is an extension of Whoop-Up Drive, the city's heaviest used freeway. It consists of two lanes in both directions, light-controlled intersections every block until Stafford Drive, left-hand turning lanes at each of those intersections, and a parking lane on the south side of the street.

Naturally, nearby residents are concerned that a widening of the roadway would have several negative effects, especially endangerment of pedestrians and closer proximity to front yards.

A solution exists that can provide a six-lane roadway without actually making the roadway any wider.

1. Eliminate left-hand turning.
2. Eliminate on-street parking.

While this does address safety issue, it means drivers will have to change their driving habits. Those travelling east who need to turn north will have to do so at Scenic Drive or Stafford. Those travelling west who want to turn south will have to do so at Stafford Drive. They could do it at Scenic, but it would be pretty convoluted. Likewise, parking will have to be done off the back lanes.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Or, more specifically, can they be wrong without being considered false prophets.

For example, I don't agree with the practise of cutting intermediate hymns short during General Conference because speakers took up more than their alloted times. Not only do I not agree with it, I think it's wrong. Does that mean I think they fail as prophets, that they are false prophets?

I don't think so.

Arguably, my example is an administrative issue, and has nothing to do with a prophet's prophet-ness. But perhaps there are issues that have everything to do with it.

I am sure many could come up with a quote or two from earlier church leaders that seem anomalistic to current Church dogma. Do one or two (or even a handful of) quotes that seem wrong mean their owners are false prophets? Do such few quotes negate dozens or hundreds of accurate quotes?

Popularity: 3% [?]

Last week, Stephen Harper announced his new cabinet. Here are my thoughts.

1. When Stephen Harper took power in 2006, he reduced the cabinet from the Liberal's 37 ministers to 26, the smallest in recent years. All this in an effort "to promote accountable, efficient and effective government—more focus and purpose; less process and cost".

2. His new cabinet is back up to 37. Does this mean there is now less focus and purpose?

3. The new cabinet will cost nearly $4 million more than the previous cabinet—a 19% increase from prior to the election and a two-fifths increase since Harper's first cabinet.

4. The new cabinet has the first ever Inuk minister.

5. Harper added three women ministers. Up from 21% in 2006 to roughly 27% today.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Researchers at RAND Corporation have reported a correlation between teen pregnancy rates and exposure to sexual content on TV shows.

Researchers at the nonprofit organization found that adolescents with a high level of exposure to television shows with sexual content are twice as likely to get pregnant or impregnate someone as those who saw fewer programs of this kind over a period of three years. It is the first study to demonstrate this association.

Popularity: 3% [?]

For family scripture study tonight, we read and discussed Mosiah 5:5-8. Our discussion revolved around King Benjamin's giving his people a new name as spiritually begotten children of Christ.

That name, of course, is "Christian".

This led to a discussion I had with my ten-year-old daughter after my son was in bed.

Apparently, one of her friends told her Mormons and Christians are different. This friend asked an adult for confirmation on this, and the adult said Mormons believe Jesus is only a prophet and not our saviour. This has troubled her.

About a year or so before our children are baptized, I start using the old missionary discussions as my family home evening lessons. Tonight, I was able to use the same material to adress my daughter's concern.

I started by asking her who God is. Her answering, "our heavenly father", led to a discussion of how that makes us his children, how thus he wants us to be happy, how he gave us the plan of salvation to make us happy, and how Jesus plays the central role in the plan.

We discussed how physical and spiritual death are obstacles to our returning to God, how resurrection and repentance help us overcome death and sin, and how Jesus made resurrection and repentance possible, thus saving us from sin and death and making him our saviour.

At the end of our discussion, she indicated that makes sense to her and addressed her concern. I told her that anyone who says Mormons don't believe Jesus is our saviour is entirely wrong.

Popularity: 3% [?]

The City of Lethbridge phoned us yesterday to report that a neighbour, who wished to be anonymous, complained our dog , Apollo, barks constantly during the day.

Yes, the neighbour complained of noise in the middle of the afternoon.

Apparently, she has been keeping a tally of when Apollo barks. She gave dates and time periods, yet did not give a specific frequency of barking during those times, just that he barked constantly.

Apollo hardly barks. For example, yesterday his first bark wasn't until 13:45 in the afternoon. When he does bark, it's single barks every 30 seconds or so, over 2-4 minutes. Our children make more noise than he does.

Several things irritate me about this situation.

First, this neighbour is extrapolating her numbers, and she gets the benefit of the doubt.

Second, it's somewhat unnerving that someone is spying into our backyard.

Third, this neighbour hides behind anonymity to avoid confrontation. It's likely the same person who claimed in an anonymous letter in our mailbox recently that Apollo kept her up all night with his barking, another exaggeration.

Finally, none of our immediate neighbours have complained, and two of them claimed they rarely hear Apollo barking.

Sigh.

Popularity: 4% [?]