Chick fil a

I don't think it's possible to write something completely unbiased. So I will share my opinions so you know where I'm coming from. But since it is a sensitive topic I hope my opinions will be taken as just that and not be offended by them.

I believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. I believe in tolerance and love towards gays and lesbians is still possible even while holding to this belief. I believe there are certain privileges granted to married couples that should be granted to others. (For one example, only spouses and immediate family being allowed in hospital rooms. I believe every patient deserves to not be alone. That whether it be spouse, parent, best friend or lover, others should be allowed in the room. Just limit the number at each time to keep the room uncrowded, or if the patient is lucid, let them decide.) Now on to Chick-fil-a.

I went to support Chick-fil-a. To me, yes I agreed with their opinion, but I also went because I believe restricting peoples opinions would make this country NOT free. I believe that freedom is our nation's best policy. Freedom of speech, religion, press, and there's one other. I do not feel it is right to restrict a company's business because they choose to have an opinion, even an opinion on a touchy subject. It is their right to have that opinion and speak it. They never said they would not serve gays, or even serve gays that are married, just that they do not support the marriage of two homosexuals.

I have been told that if a friend doesn't support you and doesn't love you for who you are, then they are not really a friend and not worth keeping. If a friend does not uplift you but only brings you down, don't keep them as a friend. I've done this in my own life. I've been used at times, and I don't have to put up with it, I can remove myself from the situation without becoming hateful or spiteful towards that person. So if you are gay, or believe marriage is not only between a man and a woman, no one is forcing you to go to Chick-fil-a and give them your money and your business.

When I first heard about the gay protest- where they were going to go sit in and make out in Chick-fil-a I was disgusted. At first I wondered if it was because of my opinion on gay marriage. I can say honestly that it was not because I have now been invited to a hetero-protest in protest of the gay protest- where a man and a woman will sit in and make out- and I was equally disgusted.

To me, marriage is sacred. It is a private affair between two people that is only recognized publicly. To me, there are certain kinds of pda that are acceptable means of showing this. Pda stands for public display of AFFECTION not PASSION. Hand holding, hugs, a light kiss, are appropriate signs of pda. Passion for another, to me, is private. And making out is more passionate by nature. Too few people in the world hold marriage sacred. Divorce runs rampant. I feel that whether you are hetero- or homo- sexual, if you hold marriage as sacred then you would not show your passion so casually. You would not mock that sacred union by finding anyone to make out with just to prove a point. I thought that the gays fighting for marriage held it more sacred and that was why they yearned for it so bad. If it was solely a matter of marital privileges then I believe fighting for the government to only recognize civil unions is your fight. And if they hold it sacred, then they should only make out and show passion towards someone they HAVE that passion for, not just any other gay to prove a point at Chick-fil-a. And the same goes for the other side: if you hold marriage between a man and a woman as sacred, then you are mocking your own belief by casually making out with a member of the opposite sex merely to prove a point and be spiteful.

These other protests are very childish. The first one I went to because I believe that the amendments to our Constitution mean something. The gay protest: if they do not support you and that bothers you, do not support them with your business. Do not resort to childishness. Leave foolish teenage rebellions in your teenage years and find an adult way to stand up for what you believe in.

The hetero- protest in response to the gay protest: this is even more childish. It is being done just to spite the gay community. I care about marriage because I hold it sacred and this protest is not tolerant, it is not loving, it is not standing up for the Amendments, it is not even standing up for marriage between a man and a woman. It is simply a protest because people aren't tolerant of gays and their right to an opinion. (I still feel they show disrespect to the sacred union of marriage by sharing passion so publicly in a family environment, and that there are more productive ways for them to stand up for what they believe in.) This protest shows a lack of care about marriage. And if marriage is not sacred to you, then you have no reason to keep gays from entering into it as well.

What are you fighting for?

Pro-gay marriage: are you fighting for gay marriage because marriage when recognized allows certain privileges? Or because it's a special sacred union that you would like to have? There are those like me who are against gay marriage but not against you having certain rights and privileges granted currently through marriage. And if you are fighting for marriage because it's special and sacred and having some piece of paper showing you're married means something, well then find ways to stand for what you believe that show that you keep it sacred.

Against gay marriage: what are you fighting for? Are you fighting against gay marriage because you hate gays and have no tolerance for them? Or are you fighting to keep marriage sacred? If the second, then show that you hold it sacred in your protests. That there is something special in marriage.

Teaching Homosexuality in Elementary Schools

It has been a few years since I last lived in California and I wasn't fully aware of how things were until recently moving back.  I knew my cousin was homeschooling her kids- something I didn't think she would ever do.  And I have been meeting a surprisingly increasing number of other young kids being home-schooled, instead of getting the social interaction with other kids by going to public schools.  I recently heard of a bill or a proposition that was concerning teaching homosexuality in elementary schools.  I guess they started teaching it in Elementary School, but they had to say which day they were teaching it, and several mothers took their children out of school that day.  First off, don't we still have the right to walk out of a situation if it makes us uncomfortable?  Now, I guess they want to have it be a surprise so the only option they have to avoid it is to home-school their kids.  In some ways I understand why they want to start in Elementary School, but there was still something about it that bothered me.

Elementary School is all about the basics.  The building blocks that help us through the rest of our schooling.  We don't jump straight into chemistry, or calculus, or reading the classics like Moby Dick, we are taught little by little as our understanding increases.  In my opinion, Kindergarten (sometimes Preschool now) is where kids first start learning to interact with each other, and to share and play WITH each other.  It's the time to teach them that there are differences.  Sally's favorite color may be pink, and Billy's might be blue- but that doesn't make them bad because they have different favorite colors.  Bianca's parents may speak a different language; Shaniqua may have darker skin; Ralph may only have one parent; Sean may have two dads; everyone has differences, and everyone should be nice to everyone else.  This is the extent of what they need to know in Elementary School- tolerance for others despite their differences.

Why not more?  When I was in Elementary School, in 4th grade, there was a cartoon video as an introduction to sex education.  We had to get parent permission on whether they thought their child was ready to watch a video.  Why?  Because it's ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, and some parents don't think sex ed is elementary and prefer to address matters in their own time.  Homosexuality fits into this category.  It is, after all, HomoSEXUALITY.  Middle School was where puberty was addressed.  Kids are going through it, and if their parents haven't addressed it by now, they're going to start having questions and possibly experimenting in harmful ways.  So it's better to teach them what is going on.  HERE is the time to introduce the details of homosexuality.  Sure, in Elementary School kids may have crushes, but the actual hormones associated with sexual orientation don't start flowing until when?  Puberty.  Middle School.  Now, if they want to make sure everyone hears about it at this point, I have no problem with them approaching it on a surprise basis.  Whether the parents like it or not, some children do end up gay and deserve to know what's happening.

The thing is, whether you believe homosexuality is wrong, or a sin, or whatever, it still exists.  It is REAL.  Ignorance is not bliss and it is the schools' responsibility to teach, to give kids an education.  If a situation in Elementary School pops up, then it should be approached as a mere difference that can be accepted.  My gay friends, like me (being straight) am more than just my sexual orientation- there is more to me than who I am attracted to.  Teach tolerance and love and acceptance of differences in Elementary School.  Full details aren't needed.  When hormones start acting up is the time to make sure they understand the aspects of sexuality, including homosexuality.

Service, Charities and Causes

So, I was driving the other day and I happened to see a homeless guy.  For some reason, I read his sign and my brain processed, "Hottie-less".  And I'm thinking, 'Is this guy imitating a homeless guy to try and get a date?'  I know that is not what his sign said, but the thought of someone doing that to find a date actually did make me laugh.  However, before I got home I saw at least 3 more homeless people holding up signs.  I am one person, and can only do so much.  Right now, I'm only NOT homeless because of the charity of family.  I do not have money for all my groceries, insurance, car payments, cell phone, let alone rent too.  I feel for these people.  And while I am better off, it's not from any personal wealth I can give.  I didn't do anything- truth is, I don't usually.  I have never had a full time job, though some of my part-time jobs have been more demanding than others, and I'm in the process of making myself more marketable so hopefully I can get a good-paying full-time job.  But I do go home thinking about the homeless, the less-fortunate, the sick, the poor, and several others.  How do you decide how much you can give and which ones to give to?

Since being on facebook I have been bombarded with causes: Breast Cancer Awareness (the whole status message thing I usually do- it doesn't cost any money and only takes a brief amount of my time), but then I also get causes like stop abuse of children, stop internet porn, stop this or stop that... many of which I believe in.  I don't think child abuse is right, I don't like porn's influence, and many other things.  And then there's all the diseases, leukemia, diabetes, those who are disabled.... I doubt I've been invited to all the causes and charities out there, and I've probably gotten over 100 invites to different ones.  I think I've mentioned not being well off, but there are those who are worse than me, but there is no way that I can donate to every cause, no matter how noble they are.  So how do I choose?

Well, first off, my Church has a great Humanitarian Aid Program- 100% of the proceeds go to helping those less fortunate and helping out with natural disasters.  They were the first on the scene after Katrina, they are there with every major natural disaster and I would say all of the minor ones where people need help.  People volunteer their time out of the goodness of their hearts.  Donating time where maybe they don't have money, to donate to a noble cause of helping those in need.  Items and materials are donated.  I donate to that when I can.  Sometimes it is only a few cents at a time (sporadic babysitting doesn't always bring in much money) but I know that every cent goes to the cause I believe in and reaches out to people that I can't travel to, to help.

Then there's the Red Cross.  Sometimes they are helping where my Church's Humanitarian Aid is also helping.  They have some overhead costs, but 95% of your money goes to the cause you are supporting, the other 5% enables the fund to continue, so still worth it.

Then there are countless others.  My Mom donates to a Research Fund on Diabetes- my brother was diagnosed with it when he was 4 1/2 and it is a personal cause for us.  But I don't invite others to support it too, because they aren't affected by it the way my family has been.  It doesn't mean the same thing.  There are times when all the secondary causes are worth investing in, but if our funds are low we always have a portion of our time.  Sometimes it seems like we don't have any time, but we can always make a little time, or donate old clothes to Goodwill or a similar charity, there is always some small service we can do for those around us, no matter how bad off we may feel we are.

Other Articles and Links:
Children help Children Through Humanitarian Aid Donations
What You Can Do
Our Values (a video on the Latter-day Saints' Humanitarian Aid Program)
Humanitarian Aid Patterns- patterns for projects and crafts you can do to help those in need
Latter-Day Saints Charities- specific causes where 100% of your money goes to the specific cause, the general fund is the Humanitarian Aid Fund, where proceeds go where needed- to natural disasters or any other humanitarian effort, but it ALL goes to helping those less fortunate

I have seen the benefit of the Church's programs.  I have an Uncle who is a dentist and goes to South America providing dental work to those who need it.  It's a small group- called Ayuda, and I was privileged to get to go with them when they went to a small town called La Abundancia in the Chaco region of Paraguay.  The Church had notified my Uncle of these people, how they have had to move from their original lands because of a river changing and tribes fighting over the new geography of the land.  The Church had already bought them the land where they were when I went, and built them a Church (they all happened to be members of the same Church) and a school.  Their houses were very small and they were so poor.  Over half of their children die when they switch from drinking their mother's milk to drinking the water in the town- because the water isn't that great.  The next thing the Church was planning on doing was building a water tower, to keep the water clean from the elements and a purifying system.  They had little food, yet there were times when they offered us food.  Sometimes taking a roll they had saved would be taking their meal, possibly their only meal of the day.

Anyways, being among them, they served us- with smiles, with stories and testimonies of surviving trials and hardships and being willing to share the little they had with us.  No matter what our situation, we always have something to give, whether it is our time or our money, or just a smile, or a story/testimony of merely surviving trials and hardships, sometimes we do more than survive, but there is always something to share, something we can give to uplift or brighten someone else's day.  I try to remember to look for opportunities to serve, even when it is not as big as donating money to various causes and charities, small things matter too.

Kony: some Criticisms examined; give Russell a break for the arrest, and Decide for yourself

So, 'Kony 2012'.  I've watched the video on facebook.  I found it moving.  I didn't donate or do anything really.  I have mixed feelings about things like this.  First off, America has a reputation for not caring about the rest of the world- and in that case I'm proud to say that America IS paying attention- at least to certain things- and sure, why not start with the worst guy on the list of international 'bad guys', to put it simply.  At the same time, how many of the people involved in helping ignore signs of depression and poverty and crimes against humanity in our own communities, or in our state, or just our country.  I have seen many in my life who are destitute, or are victims of violent crimes- what do I do to help them?  Well honestly, I can't say- I try to be friendly, whether I'm aware of a situation or not.  I try to reach out to those in need.  I try to listen when someone needs to talk.  If I'm aware of other actions that are needed I try and look for them, but honestly I don't know how well I do.

Some criticisms of Kony 2012 include the mention of the video saying one of its purposes is to raise awareness and to contact congressmen so that we can keep the United States in Uganda, when people in Uganda say he isn't IN Uganda anymore.  So why are we sending an army to Uganda to catch someone NOT THERE?  Should he be stopped?  Yes.  Do people who have suffered because of him want justice?  Yes.  But send people to get him where he is, not where he is not. (There's a video from a girl who was affected by Kony and her reaction to Kony 2012 HERE).

Then there is the question of the groups finances.  How much that is donated is actually going TO the cause?  I heard one statistic that I haven't yet verified saying 30 cents for ever dollar...  So if you donate $100- only $30 goes to help arrest Kony.  An article on CNN says: "Actress Mia Farrow, a good will ambassador for UNICEF who has visited areas attacked by the LRA, commended Invisible Children for bringing "unprecedented focus" to a horrific situation but urged people to donate money to agencies like the Red Cross and UNICEF that work to help victims." ( Article is titled: "Group behind anti-Kony video rebuts criticism, urges public pressure" (title is a link to actual article))  Whatever the actual percentage of money going to the cause- it is NOT 100%.  It is spending all of its efforts to try and capture Kony, yet in the video itself it mentions that Kony seems to have gone into hiding and is said to be changing his tactics.  Shouldn't that makes us more wary of what we do publicly?  Sure, it's fine for us, he's still in Africa- what can he do to us?  But what can he do to the people in some village perhaps 30 minutes away from him?  What if we have some psycho who will massacre thousands just to create a diversion to escape?  I am more for helping the victims through funds like the Red Cross.  I want him arrested, but how do we know if the methods of Kony 2012 are the best?

Create awareness- yes.  Post it to your facebook wall?  Sure.  People need to be aware of what is happening in the world.  But think about the cause before donating.  Do YOU agree in the cause AND its methods?  If so, great, I support you in your donations.  In the financial world you can invest money in many different ways- there are safer, conservative ways that almost guarantee a return of your money and maybe some interest and those that are more risky and may produce the desired result and may fail due to unforeseen circumstances.  Some people like those risks- it fits their personalities.  For me though, I think I'll stick to the Red Cross and a few other ones I trust to get the job done that I invest in.

As for the director being arrested.  His family say he has never had a drinking problem or a drug problem.  The fact remains- he was creating a public disturbance, acting kinda crazy, and was said to be drunk and possibly under another influence.  Here's the thing: THIS guy BELIEVES in his cause.  It is PERSONAL to him.  He wants to see Kony receive justice.  I agree with him.  He believes his methods will work.  Yet people publicly criticize his work- what he has dedicated so much of himself to.  If you cared about something that much, wouldn't you be stressed if people publicly criticized it?  I know I've done a little of that here.  But what I'm saying is- he's human.  If he was dehydrated and sleep-deprived, and hadn't eaten, he could've gone for a drink and ended up with alcohol poisoning.  That doesn't mean he has a problem with drinking- it means one mistake.  Publicly humiliating?  Yeah.  But I don't think many people alive could bear as much criticism as he is about something they care about as much and not react to it.  People all react differently- some eat more, some won't eat.  Some will have a drink, others with problems might go further.  Either way, give the guy a break.

His video saying we want to keep the US in Uganda.  Maybe they say that to keep the army close enough to act without publicizing their plans too much.  If so, I would agree with that tactic to protect more of the people he is likely to be able to hurt.  The money doesn't all go to the arrest of Kony- true, but some of it goes to the cost of furthering awareness.  To get more money, isn't awareness a must?  Maybe they took it too far, but I believe he is doing his best for a cause he believes in, the way he thinks is best.  If you agree- then by all means, support Kony 2012.  If not, I still think you should help spread some awareness of Kony 2012.  If we can start showing mutual support in going after the "bad guys" we can one day, make a huge difference.

Other articles worth reading:
Kony 2012 Video (actual Youtube Video)
'Kony 2012' director Russell not on drugs or drinking, family says
Opinion: Why Kony 2012 created the wrong buzz
Man behind 'Kony 2012' arrested- for masturbating in public
Kony 2012: Viral video for the misinformed?

Make a Difference- Whitney Houston/Michael Jackson

So, with Whitney Houston's death it has made me think a bit.  My husband told me about it first, then my Dad today said "your icon died yesterday" (don't know why he called her my icon exactly).  The thing is, I love Whitney Houston and her music.  AMAZING voice.  Legend.  But my icon?  Maybe one of them as far as singing goes I suppose.

Anyways, it got me thinking about how much press it has gotten.  Tributes.  News.  My grandpa is bedridden and likes watching the news all day- instead of mainly politics (especially right now) there is more on Whitney Houston than almost any other genre (politics, other breaking news, foreign news...).  The thing is, did she make an impact on the world?  Sure.  Through her music she reached millions of people.  Same with Michael Jackson.  Yet both of them had, no offense, kinda messed up personal lives.

Whitney Houston, for some reason, turned to heavy drugs and alcohol abuse and even damaged her own voice- her main influence on the world.

Michael Jackson- great music that also reached millions- probably more than Whitney, but I don’t know the statistics.  But his personal life was always mixed up with controversy on the news. 

Both, good looking people (originally, anyways).  Both AMAZING artists.  Both legends.  Yet their personal life was somehow unfulfilled. 

Then, on top of all this, I was watching Smallville where a girl, Cat Grant, is talking to Clark Kent (Superman), and she talks about how she changed her name to protect her son so they couldn’t be tracked down (sounded like possibly an abuse situation but they didn’t go into details).  Then she says something insightful- ‘I may not be a hero, but I hope one day my son will know what I did and think it was heroic and I can be a hero to him.’  (PARAPHRASE- I didn’t think I would be using the quote when I heard it so I have no notes on how it officially goes).  THIS is what I want all of us to think on.  Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson reached so many people in their public lives, and influenced people through music.  Maybe not heroes to everyone, but I doubt anyone can say that they didn’t leave an impact on the world, but their private lives were a struggle.  For me, my public life is a struggle:  I have no far-reaching fame.  I’m not a famous novelist, blogger, singer, actor, or any type of public figure.  Even those things I do go mostly unrecognized or are considered insignificant to the masses.  But if I live my private life to the best of my ability, maybe one day I will be an icon to a son or daughter, a friend or friend’s child, or someone I meet only once.  Maybe I can make a difference and be a legend in one person’s eyes, or make a difference for just one person.  And even if we only affect ONE person, our life is meaningful and worth living for that ONE person whom we helped.  May we all strive to have meaning in our lives and affect the world for the better- one person at a time.  (Unless you’re famous- then you can try for higher numbers at a time, of course).

By Their Fruits...

An important rule to live by: "By their fruits ye shall know them" St. Matthew 7:16-20, "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth devil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (KJV of the Bible, emphasis added)

I do not follow the political campaign as much as I probably should but I am kind of at ends with the fact that religion is playing so much a part in it. When Obama was elected there were rumors of him being Muslim. So what if he was/is? Or descended from one even? Ignorant people may blame ALL Muslims for terrorism, but those who look into the matter find that it was just an extremist faction. People have free will, the ability to act for themselves. Just because one person decides to speak for a religion does not make him an expert on the matter. Research their credibility to speak on the matter before believing everything they say. Ignorance does not help tolerance. Some people say, why bring attention to Mitt Romney's religion- we don't draw attention to others if they happen to be Catholic, Jewish, Protestant or another mainstream religion. But the thing is, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (some may recognize it more by the Mormon Church) IS mainstream. More and more people join its members all the time. So why do people bring it up as a flaw in his character? Because of ignorance.

Mormonism is a cult. Definition of cult (from Dictionary.com) "1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies." True. We do have routines that we go through with our worship. We have the sacrament which is both a religious rite and ceremony and ordinance that is very similar to the Catholic Communion. (We partake of bread and water- not wine, the same prayer is said every time, and it is passed to us by members of our Church's Priesthood) "2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult." Somewhat true. Our members have free will and can choose how devoted they want to be. No one forces us to go to Church, though there are times when we reach out to those we haven't seen in awhile. I don't see how that is different than running into a gym pal who stopped working out and saying, "I haven't seen you in awhile at Gold's" To which he can say anything he wants: I've been busy, out of town, I switched gyms, I couldn't afford it anymore... etc. So I don't see how even those who do dedicate themselves to their beliefs are scary (Unless of course what they believe in would lead them to do scary things- I'll address this later). "3. the object of such devotion." For those who dedicate themselves to the beliefs held in the Mormon Church- true I suppose. "4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc." True. Most definitely. We classify ourselves by our MUTUAL belief in the SAME doctrines, the SAME leadership, the SAME foundation, and the SAME Savior. "5. Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols." True. Everything has symbolism. Our baptism by immersion represents to us that we are leaving the natural man or fallen man behind- that the fallen man is dead and being buried and we are reborn and come up out of the water cleansed by our Savior Jesus Christ, and become reborn anew in His name. The bread and water of our Sacrament is all a symbol of Christ's sacrifice for us. So by the dictionary definition MOST, if not all, churches fall under the definition of a cult. Now as for the connotation of the word cult. Most of the time when Mormons are thought of as a cult it is in reference to the connotation of the word- meaning that we are brainwashed to follow a misguided leader. This can be scary. It is similar to people following a dictator who seeks to rule the rest of the world and bring it under submission by force. Is the Mormon Church a cult in this way. NO. Most people ignorantly think we are using such examples as the "Mormons" who followed Warren Jeffs. The current Mormon Polygamists. They often live in compounds. Women are sometimes forced into marriages. The whole view of that "sect" is derogatory. And if you ask a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they agree with you. Just like terrorists who use a Church as a shield or excuse for why they do the things they do, they are broken off from the majority of Muslims. Most Muslims (I say most because if I said all, I'd eventually run into the ONE who disagreed) in America do not agree with what they do. The Mormon Polygamists are an extreme group that BROKE off from our Church DECADES ago. They have nothing to do with us currently. That is part of the reason why we try not to use the term Mormon anymore. It's derogatory and also brings in reference to people with whom we do not agree with and are not associated with. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as a short name now prefers LDS. But we prefer the full name which points to who we believe is our Savior- Jesus Christ, whose name is not mentioned in the nickname. For writing purposes I will write LDS from here on out. The Polygamists sometimes use the term FLDS- but they are not associated with our Church. The LDS Church is strange to people in a lot of ways. We are very devoted to what we believe in, and many people do not understand what we believe in, so they fear we MAY be a cult in the derogatory connotation of the word. I can personally assure you we are not- but if you have doubts, research it for yourself. See what it teaches its people on lds.org or visit mormon.org to see stories of individuals and how their faith in God and Jesus Christ has helped them in their lives and "by their fruits shall ye know them".

Other things people have a hard time with. Is the LDS Church a Christian Church? Yes. Why are there arguments? Several reasons. They don't baptize in the name of or believe in the Holy Trinity. Research your own faith. The Holy Trinity as defined by other Christian Churches was decided by a group of men, involved with writing the Nicene Creed, a few centuries AFTER Jesus Christ's Crucifixion. The Holy Trinity is basically The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. It's interpretation today is hazy and changes depending on who I talk to. The best I can describe it as, is that they are one, but they are not one. They are the same person but they are not the same person. The LDS believe: "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost" (Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Article #1). So the LDS also believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. In the Nicene Creed it says they are consubstantial (definition: of one and the same substance, essence, or nature.). From what I understand of the Holy Trinity, it interprets it to mean of the same substance and essence and nature. In the LDS case it's just the same nature. They are three separate individuals to the LDS, who have the same purpose- to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39, LDS Scriptures in the Pearl of Great Price). Being three separate individuals they are able to stand on the right hand of another. So in my opinion everyone believes in the same thing- they just interpret it slightly differently. (Food for thought: have you ever talked with a person of another faith and found you interpreted the SAME scripture a different way? Yet even if they are both Christian faiths, you don't accuse them of being not Christians.) LDS baptize in the name of Jesus Christ, our Redeemer- our example, who points the way to God and to Heaven.

On the issue of the cross. I have met some Christians who say the LDS are not Christian because they do not worship or use the cross as a symbol of their beliefs. LDS people believe in the Crucifixion of the Lord as much as any other Christian. Jesus Christ's whole life was devoted to saving mankind. Teaching them, showing them the way and atoning for the sins of the world. He overcame death. The LDS Church believes He overcame spiritual death (death being a separation, and spiritual death being specifically a separation between us and God) in the Garden of Gethsemane right before His crucifixion. That because of that sacrifice we can make it to Heaven, where God lives. And then He was crucified. That tragic, yet selfless and saving sacrifice where He gave up His life. Three days after His crucifixion He was resurrected- He overcame physical death that we might live again. This was the climax of his life- having conquered both spiritual and physical death that we might be saved and live after death. Might I remind Christians that our two biggest holidays are Christmas, where we celebrate His birth, and Easter where we celebrate His resurrection. He was resurrected as a result of dying on the cross- true- but that is not the end of the story. He lives! He CONQUERED death! The sting of death is swallowed up by His victory. Simply because the LDS choose not to focus on His death by using the cross as their symbol does not mean they don't believe that it was important. But it LED to his resurrection. His whole life pointed to Heaven. He lives in Heaven. He conquered and is not dead anymore. The spires on LDS Churches instead of crosses remind us that He lives, that death was not the end.

LDS preach the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. True. They believe the Book of Mormon to be another Testament of Jesus Christ (emphasis added). Any who have read it can attest that it is a record of how people who followed Christ were blessed. It is a second witness to the miracles Jesus Christ performed. The LDS Church believes the Book of Mormon WITH the Bible help us grow closer to Jesus Christ- just like reading uplifting stories of how people like Mother Theresa were Christ-like help us become inspired to become more like Christ. Catholics have Saints that are revered for how they followed the Savior- how does believing that more people, as recorded in the Book of Mormon, were blessed by Jesus Christ make someone not Christian? As for Joseph Smith- he is the reason the LDS Church is different from other Christian Churches. Look at the history of all the other Christian Churches. We have Christ and His Apostles. The next thing we know is we have the Catholic Church. Then other people broke off with Martin Luther, John Calvin and others, saying that things weren't right and one doctrine or another was supposed to be different. Joseph Smith is the leader of the LDS Church, just like Martin Luther and John Calvin were for their respective break-offs. The difference is, the LDS believe that it isn't a break off but a restoration for how it was meant to be. Believe whatever Church you may, but the LDS Church simply believes that certain doctrines weren't right, just like every other break off from the Catholic Church, yet all of them are still considered Christians. Joseph Smith is a prophet to the LDS, just like Moses was to the children of Israel in the Old Testament. Moses was not their God or Savior and Joseph Smith is not the God or Savior of the LDS Church either. He was simply the man who laid out, or restored (as LDS people believe) what Christianity should be like. Any focus on Joseph Smith the LDS Church places on Him does not replace Jesus Christ in its doctrines or in the members of the LDS Church's lives.

So now that I've addressed some of the issues around the LDS Church, let's get back to politics. What does it really matter what a candidate's religion is? I agree that I don't want someone in office who is part of a cult that may prove dangerous or disastrous to our country, but Mitt Romney's religion is mainly misunderstood due to ignorance. So let me say it again- does religion matter? Does it matter if the candidate is Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Atheist or Agnostic? I personally would rather they believe in God- to me it represents the fact that they believe in hope for a better world (anyone who believes in God or a God believes in some Heaven or blissful state). But if an Atheist has a hope for a better country and an idea as to how to get us there- isn't that belief in something better enough for us? We need a person who can lead us. What are the nation's biggest problems right now? Who can solve them? "By their fruits shall ye know them". Who has proven in their lives up to this point that they can compromise in office? Who has proven that they have skills in helping our country where we need it the most? Who has experience in convincing others to see like him or compromise and then get it into action so that things can actually pass in Congress? I don't care if you vote for Mitt Romney or anyone else, but don't withhold your vote because you don't understand his religion. Pick who has shown by their fruits (the things they've done in their lives) that they are best suited to our nation's biggest problems according to YOU. Research what they are capable of, and what they can do for good and vote accordingly. Do not pick someone who can manipulate your feelings based on a good speech full of empty promises- see if their fruits/experiences show that they can deliver at least a portion of what they promise. So metaphorically speaking, decide what fruit you think this nation needs the most and figure out who can get it. "By their fruits shall ye know them"