Hard-working VS Career-centric

Why do we work?

What is the point of work?

What does it mean to be hard working?

And why do I think being career-centric is a counterfeit to being hard-working?

I'll tell you.

Ages ago, I took courses in anthropology. I found the study of human society fascinating, mostly because 1) scientists/anthropologists keep changing their conclusions to new theories all the time 2) anthropology is linked to archaeology, which is just plain awesome (I like old ruins and artifacts. Proof that people were not ignorant louts in the past, as some assume). And while studying, we focused on the different societies and what made them thrive. One of the things I noticed while studying hunter-gatherer societies (besides that gathering was in fact more important than hunting -- something I had never thought of before) is that the core, or origin of all societies is the family. Now, I'm not saying the nuclear family. That is a modern invention, created when travel became a great deal easier, and so moving was easier to do. I'm talking about multi-generational families. Communities where grandparents (that were still alive) stayed with their children, often helped take care of them. Communities where cousins played together. This was the village that raised the child -- which is markedly different from a government taking over the raising of children.


work, work, work

Governments started, originally, as families that had gained power over other families within a community, either through warfare or simply great abundance/wealth. This is what kings and lords are. If you read the Bible, you can see this kind of thing happening within the history of the Israelites. For example, Abraham came from the city of Ur of the Chaldeans (somewhere in Mesopotamia). But he set off independently with his family and ended up a powerful man with flocks and herds. His descendants branched off, creating enormous nations...each who claim (even today) to be the rightful heirs of Abraham (The Israelites are one of these descendants of Abraham, of the family of Jacob, who was the son of Isaac, who was the son of Sarah and Abraham. Whereas there are descendants of Ishmael, the son of Hagar and Abraham out in the Middle-East, who don't like the Israelites' claim to their birthright. Or the others who have similar claims, such as sons of Esau, the elder brother of Jacob). It all started out as a family.

And work, it started with the sole purpose to provide for the family's survival. Everyone worked. Not just fathers and mothers. Children also. Work was done for survival. People worked because if you didn't work, you had nothing. Money only became a factor when barter and trade became difficult, and a representative method of exchange was necessary.

Now, the formation of career came with the movement of populations into cities, mostly. The need to specialize for survival created the formation of guilds. Specialization is what created our work situation today. It created industry and the demand for more items faster.

So, why do we work? Honestly, I do it for the same reason our progenitors did--for survival. A lot of people with 'jobs' are like this. Work is work, in this case. Any old job will do as long as it puts food on the table.

But not everyone works for the same reason I do. Some people work for status. Some people work for a sense of purpose. Some people work for a sense of identity. Some people work for a sense of fulfillment... none of which have to do with physical survival.

Now, the word Career is not one I like. Not because having a career or being dedicated to a career is bad. But rather sometime people become so absorbed in career they forget what life is all about.

And what is life all about? Scroll back up to the top and re-read why people originally worked.

Human survival, real survival, is not done singularly. It isn't about the one versus the world. But in our modern age, society has become more singular. People are more focused on ME rather than US. So when the concept of work comes into play, so to speak, it isn't just about choosing a skill we are good at or enjoy for the sake of making work more pleasant, but it is more about finding fulfillment within the status and importance we feel while in a career. Basically, we've lost the reason for why work exists in the first place.

This is not to say you should not enjoy your job. Nor is this to say that you should not put forth time and effort into your chosen field of work. But when your job becomes you identity, you have lost focus on what is most important.

Have you ever known someone who has lost their sense of identity when they have lost their job? Or who, when their job has become obsolete, cannot cope? How about people who see themselves as their job entirely?



This phenomena is so common, that they have to make books like Who Moved My Cheese? to help people with career changes.

Working hard is what we as people ought to be, for the benefit of our families, ourselves, and society. However, becoming so focused on career that you lose sight of family and society... that is dangerous. When more people focus on their career, and not on the reason why such products exist in the first place, we have basically fallen into idol worship.

The movie, The Family Man shows this mentality really well. Nicholas Cage's character-- a career centric mogul-- was given a chance to see what his life would have been like if he had married his girlfriend. At first, he hated the life he would have had...because of what he valued the most. Prestige.




But later he comes to realize the most important things in the world aren't things.



The point is, why you work matters. Not just how hard.

This is why being career centric is a counterfeit to being hard working.
I'd say more, but basically, it is the difference between being selfish and selfless.

Integral Book Trailer

The Race book trailer 2

What is Freedom? Anarchy? Permissiveness? Or Something Else?

"...No practical definition of freedom would be completely without the freedom to take the consequences. Instead, it is the freedom upon which all others are based."
-Terry Pratchett from Going Postal-

What is Freedom?

When I was a kid, I used to think freedom meant being able to do anything I wanted when I wanted it. This kid view is, of course, incredibly ignorant. Kids, you see, never feel the weight of their choices... mostly because their parents tend to handle the consequences - as most consequences are too weighty for their children to handle.

So, what is Freedom?

I like reading Terry Pratchett books. He writes witty satire in a fantasy setting. One of my favorites is this novel called Going Postal, which is about a con man by the name of Moist von Lipwig (said with a German v) who was inadvertently caught and hung within an inch of his life before being given a job as the next Postmaster General of Ankh-Morpork (He's one of my favorite characters in the series aside from the chief of police Commander Grimes). The city-state of Ankh-Morpork is in a quasi-Medieval/Victorian state, with magic and lots and lots of chaos. It isn't quite in a state of anarchy, because the supreme leader of Ankh-Morpork, the Patrician,  Lord Vetenari rules as a tyrant. That said, he is probably the most fair tyrant in writing history.

Why do I mention this? Because Freedom is often addressed in his novels as something people really don't comprehend. Or as he puts it:

"No sane mortal is truly free, because true freedom is so terrible that only the mad or the divine can face it with open eyes. It overwhelms the soul very much like the state he elsewhere describes as Vonallesvolkmmenunvertstandichasaskat." p. 81 Going Postal

Why, you might ask, does he say that?

Well, for starters, he is a satirist. He has to say things in funny, yet ironic ways. But, secondly, it is because true freedom always comes with responsibility.

Yeah. Kids don't like responsibility.

Neither do people who don't want to grow up.

But in the media today, freedom is being presented either as anarchy (acting and living outside the bounds of rules and regulations, letting chaos ensue) or permissiveness (doing whatever pleases you, forget the consequences). You can see this in in extreme forms in films such as Mad Max (anarchy) or in practically any love story (permissiveness). Problem with these presentations of freedom is that none of these are actually conducive to a healthy and stable society. Real freedom is always attached to accountability.

True freedom includes the freedom to fail.
I think this is best exemplified in the movie The Hudsucker Proxy.

 
As I said in a previous blog, the counterfeits to Freedom are Permissiveness and Anarchy. They are counterfeits because they feel like Freedom, but in the end they are destructive.

Let's start with Anarchy.  



This is the popular symbol

Anarchy (in its original definition) is a society that basically does not recognize authority... of any kind. It is akin to lawlessness.

That means no police. No presidents. No mayors. No teachers. No parents. No rules.

To a kid, this sounds great. But what would the world be like without any leadership or authority or rules?

Ever hear of Lord of the Flies?

Anarchy generally leads to chaos.

Don't believe it? Let me explain it another way. Great structures, such as the Sistine Chapel, require foremen who make sure things are constructed right. Someone with authority who can see the big picture needs to be in charge to direct the work. People may get together with a really great idea, but someone has to be the mastermind and direct the others so that the work is coordinated - so that the structure is built right and in the correct order. Otherwise you get chaos and a really lousy end result. This means people taking orders, and yes, getting corrected (if not fired) by the foreman in charge.

Fact is, human cooperation often requires setting aside ones own wants and desires for a greater good. Not everyone enjoys it, but this is a fact of life.

Here is another way to explain why anarchy is not good or helpful. If you want to built a house, you need to do things in order. If you want to bake a cake, you need to do it with the right ingredients. I recently learned that the ingredients in shaving cream and in toothpaste are almost exactly the same things. They are just put together in a different order.

So why is Permissiveness NOT freedom?

Truthfully, permissiveness actually leads to private enslavement. The moral rules that govern civilized society are actually set up to protect us from personal harm...either for now or later. For example:

Permissive sex may lead to: the spread of venereal disease, pregnancy, distrust with your current partners, and an inability to have long-lasting relationships.

Permissiveness within a family (no family rules) may lead to laziness, which leads to lack of initiative to study, which may lead to dropping out of school, which may lead to failing to launch as an adult. The need for boundaries for children is actually very important for their growth. People need to know when to stop.

Permissiveness is what leads to addiction. You try everything, you experiment, and you get hooked...especially if you let these new thrills replace healthier activities. And addiction is the worst slavery of all.

But Permissiveness is really popular in society today. The philosophy is: "If it feels good, do it." Problem with that is there are lots of things that initially feel great but can hurt you later.

There was this story told to me a while ago that illustrates the concept of the different between freedom of choice and permissiveness:


Yep. These signs do exist.

Imagine you are walking along a beach. You are all geared up to go swimming in the ocean (something I really love) but when you get to this one spot you see a sign that says: Danger Whirlpool, No Swimming. Now, you have several choices before you. You can A, ignore the sign and go swimming anyway. Or B, do something else.  Lots of people tend to focus on A... saying "They can't tell me what to do!" and all that. But there are so many options with B. You can pick up sea shells. Make a sand castle. Take a walk along the beach. Or you could go find a different spot. But people who don't like being told what to do, fixating on the NO and defying it might find themselves metaphorically swimming in dangerous waters which could suck them down to the bottom of the sea to be food for fishes. Just saying, there are 'NO's for a reason.

The thing is, true Freedom requires using your brain. It requires looking down the road at the consequences of choices, and choosing the best end...even if it puts an unpleasant choice in front of you that you have to do. True Freedom also includes respecting the freedoms of others.

Freedom isn't about getting everything you want.

Freedom is the ability to act for yourself according to your own conscience without force or restraint, knowing full well that you will carry the consequences of your own choices. It is grown up responsibility, and not a free-for-all.

Love vs. Lust

I've been busy recently, so I haven't had time to update this blog....

But here we go.


Love or Lust?

What is Love? And what is Lust?

When people think of Love, then tend to think of this stereotype:





Love actually has been dissected and renamed a billion times over. I mean, the Beatles declared: "All you need is Love!" Then their generation screamed; "Make Love not War!" The question is, are they talking about the same Love? Or something else entirely?

The Greeks actually had 4 types of Love:

Agape: which is unconditional love. This love is not about attraction or even if you like the way the person behaves. This love is the kind that gives, expecting nothing in return. It isn't even romantic, but more about service and acceptance of a person for who they are. This is Love as a verb. It is a choice and active. It also commits with loyalty.

Philia: This is platonic love. Platonic love is akin to friendship. It is warm, kind and committed. It is nurtured by commonality. It is also chosen.

Storge: This is familial love, or the kind of love parents have for children (and well-adjusted brothers and sisters have for one another). It is committed and like agape, and sacrifices self for others.

Eros: This is romantic love. This is the 'in love' feeling people tend to think they must have for a relationship. It is also more selfish of a love, as it asks, "What's in it for me?" This one is hormonal and, yes, sexually based.

But there are other definitions of Love out there.

One site lists 2 more:

Ludus: which is game-playing, or uncommitted love. It is the kind of love Greek Gods messed with, I'm afraid. This is the kind of person who seeks conquest...the focus being all lust.

Mania: And obsessive, possessive love. This is the kind of so-called love that leads to stalking. This is Sting's "Every Breath You Take" down to the freaky idea.

And two more from another site:

Pragma: Described as long-standing love. This is the love in long-term married couples. It has the weight of time set to it, with a longer bond.

Philautia: Love of the self. Not to be mistaken with Narcissism. More like self-compassion, according to the site.

So, anyway, what does this have to do with Love vs. Lust?

One simple question....

Why the blazes are we following the Greeks?



I know. I know. Silly protest.

But really, isn't the world full of smart people from lots of different nations? The world is a big place.

And for that matter, were the Greeks even right? I mean, people today follow this because the Greeks did identify patterns which made some sense. But believing something simply because we always have believed it isn't the most intelligent thing to do.

So, this is what I think.

Love, real love, is about giving. It is about helping. It is about nurturing and caring. It is about all that is good and right with the world. It is about growth and happiness. Love is patient. Love takes its time to see and learn. Love is kind. Love seeks to improve. Love gives freedom. Love can be personified in the song: "Where Love is, There God is Also". It is described best in the Bible scripture 1 Corinthians in chapter 13.

Lust is about taking. It is selfish. It is about gratification at whatever cost. Lust is almost manic. Like an addiction. It is impatient, and demanding. It says "show me",  "prove to me", "What about me?" Me. Me. Me. It is combative. It is controlling. Lust ignores the feelings of others. Lust is violent, demanding, and in the end, destructive. It is personified in most songs today. But the concept isn't new. I mean, how many 80's songs are focused on lust? "I Think We're Alone Now" is a good example. There are others more blatant: "If You Want My Body", "Rump Shaker", and "Any Way You Want It."

And how many love songs say that Love is like war? For example: "Love is a Battlefield".

And what about this oldie? "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?"
Is this really about love, or the word Love used to get sex from someone?

Love is not about what turns you on. That's Lust.



So, if you want to know if your relationship is based off of Love or Lust, ask yourself the following:

"Do I have to prove my love to my significant other?"

"Am I pressured to go against my conscience by my significant other?"

"Are we just in it for fun?"

 If Yes, then it is NOT love. It is Lust.





Love requires accepting people for who they are. If you have to prove yourself, then...well... you are being used.




Ok, Next Question:

"Do I strive to be a better person when I am with my significant other?"

"Do I wish to give my 100% to my significant other, even though I know I may never get anything in return?"

"Do I allow my significant other the freedom to control their own lives and choices?"

If Yes, then it is real love. Real love lifts up and is not controlling.



Love is risk. It is vulnerable. It also makes no demands, but goes to work with the best intentions. It also requires personal sacrifice and commitment, which you choose to do. Love is a bit like a dance, awkward and goofy sometimes. Graceful and beautiful at other times.

This clip shows different views on love and relationships. I like the awkwardness of it. Especially the respect in it. But the phrase: "Love is a leap" sticks out to me.


Unfortunately, in a world that sexualizes everything, it has become hard for many of us to tell the difference between real love and lust. This is why there is so much divorce in the world. People seek pleasure and satisfaction for themselves and are not seeking the benefit of the one they have become infatuated with.

Fact is, true love takes selfless effort. And in our self-centered world, it seems like a fairytale, just like Meg Ryan's character says.



But I think anything real takes selfless effort.

The Greeks may have had some things right. I think there is nothing wrong with Eros as long as Agape is present. And, if you notice that 5 out of the 7 listed kinds of loves focus on kindness and gentleness.

But Eros with Ludus or Mania is downright scary. That is Lust. Not Love. That is the counterfeit.

I think the best test of love is this: "Will it last?"

Real love takes effort, and lasts because it is a contentious choice. It is NOT something you fall into. It is made by willing participants who, when upon seeing more and learning more about their significant others, are willing to see less. They are also willing to care less about the petty differences, petty wants, and petty arguments. And they are more willing to forgive and improve self before making demands on others.

Ok, one last thing....

As for sex... I once heard this analogy in a college course on healthy loving relationships I once attended:

Sex is like the whipped topping on top of the ice cream sundae of a happy marriage. That said, an ice cream sundae made only of whipped topping is fluff...and kinda gross. Likewise with relationships. All the really good stuff is missing. So, in a way, Love is the ice cream, spiced up with chocolate of personal intimacy (such as really knowing someone rather than just their body), the nuts of daily practical life, with the caramel of sweet weirdness (or what have you... I like weirdness), and the strawberry topping of stick-to-it-iveness. You can add a banana for your health, if you want.

The point is, we, as a people, need to stop thinking about "Satisfy ME, ME, ME!!!", and start asking ourselves, "Am I willing to change myself for the better to make my relationships healthy?" And "Am I willing to wait for a person who will respect me as a human being?"

Great Counterfeits

The first time I was introduced to the concept of counterfeits was while watching Goonies.



That some crooked people made fake money was such a mind-boggling concept at the time, I wondered occasionally if I ever held a counterfeit dollar. When I was in high school, for a fundraiser, they made this novelty million dollar bill that could be framed (but obviously not used) with all the special threads and paper that real money had. But I never really touched anything truly counterfeit until I worked in mainland China, where the store workers are constantly on the watch for fakes.



Fake currency is bad for several reasons. It causes devaluation of regular currency, for one. Secondly...and this is an important point--money not earned is money stolen.



Stolen?

Yep. Stolen.

The paper itself represents the value of something, whether it be the value of hard work, gold, or time. The circulation of fakes devalues the labor of others.

But this is not what this blog really is about. The counterfeit of money is merely an example.

But let's step up to the counterfeit of goods next, before I get to my real topic. Are fake/pirated goods a bad thing?

I lived in China for a while, and piracy of products (as well as counterfeit money) is rampant. Pirated products are cheaper, but look the same. Things such as shoes, purses, and DVDs were half to a quarter of the price as one would regularly pay for the real thing (or the Real McCoy, as they used to call it). Back then I was an English teacher who taught Business English students. So I assigned them an oral report on the topic of Quality: i.e. Good, Better, Best (The concept of Good, Better, Best is a Western way of thinking, which is valuable when talking business). I had them compare like objects, such as a pirated DVD for 4 yuan, a pirated DVD for 8 yuan, and a DVD at full price from the true vendor (about 40 yuan). One student decided to talk about the quality of a pirated adidas shoe (the spelling changed a little so they would not have legal issues) and a real shoe made by adidas. He compared durability--said the pirated shoes did not last very long, and broke at the seams rather easily. The real shoes lasted longer.

SO. What am I getting at?

The world we live in is full of great traditional, physical, and philosophical counterfeits. And since there are so many, and I only have a little time right now, I am going to introduce the ones that annoy me the most, and in later blogs expound on them, one by one.

So, what are these great counterfeits? I'll put out the real McCoy first, then name its counterfeit. Some things have more than one counterfeit.

Here's the list. They are titles, which I will explain later:

Love vs. Lust
Freedom vs. Anarchy
Freedom vs. Permissiveness
Hard-working vs. Career-centric
Equality vs. Neutrality
Equality vs. Sameness
Masculinity vs. Caveman (yes, this does exist)
Femininity vs. Seductress
Politeness vs. Political Correctness
Beautiful vs. Sexy
Equal Opportunity vs. Affirmative Action
Law and Order vs. Policing
Healthy Commerce vs. Economic Dominance
Civilized vs. Social Superiority
Caring for the Earth vs. Worshipping the Earth
Consecration vs. Communism
Progress vs. Change

And this last one I'll start now....

The Son of God vs. Mythic half-deities.

Some atheists really love pointing out that the claim that Jesus Christ was the Son of God is nothing more than the same pattern seen in many polytheistic pantheons of ancient worship...and therefore a sign that his story is totally false. After all, demigods such as Hercules, Thor, Cu Chulainn, Gilgamesh, and Sahadeva are just a few of this legacy of sons-of-gods. And historic people such as the Pharaohs of Egypt and Julius Caesar claiming to be children of the gods has been set as a precedent long before Jesus Christ was born. But this train of logic ignores the concept of counterfeits. You see, it is possible for there to be one true God and the rest to be fakes. It is the same as having a true dollar bill amidst a box full of fakes.

Now the question then is: how do you know the real one from the fakes? Like with the dollar bill, there are characteristics that differentiate the truth from the fakes. So there ought to be a test for the true God, right?

Biblically, there was a story like this. In the story of Elijah and the priests of Baal (cartoon version) (Bible Gateway telling), this question came up. Who was the true God?

This was a really dramatic era where animal sacrifice was standard for almost all religions of the day. Elijah challenged the priests of Baal to a competition, so to speak, where each would make a sacrifice to their god--with one stipulation, that their gods would be the one to burn the sacrifice and not them. 

The terms were agreed upon, and Elijah let the priests of Baal go first. If you are familiar with the story then you know that Elijah made fun of them as the priests of Baal tried everything short of setting themselves on fire to get the attention of their god...and no fire came from heaven for the sacrifice to Baal. Then Elijah took his turn, had people douse his sacrifice with tons of water so it and the firewood were soaked. Then he prayed to his God, asking for the God of Israel to show the people that He commanded him to do all those things. Then, according to the story, fire came down from heaven and consumed the sacrifice, the altar, and even the stones it was on. Pretty dramatic. 

Does this happen often? No. It was a rather unique occurrence.

Now you might say this was just a story. Not real.

I will submit to you that no one has proof it didn't happen. Only doubt. Miracles in general don't happen for those who doubt.

The thing is, the word myth actually describes things that were once regarded sacred, but are no longer seen as such. So, of course people who do not believe in God will call Him a myth...because to them He is not a sacred being, but just a story.

Now, for those who do believe in God, the question is how can I tell the real McCoy from the fakes? For example, I know this guy who wears a Thor's hammer around his neck and worships the Norse Gods. His faith claims the idea of the Trinity came from Norse Mythology, and the true god is Odin. I didn't think it wise to argue with him, and merely listened instead to what he believed. The comparisons he made between Jesus Christ and Odin were fascinating.

But let me point something out. There are so many similar stories in myth and legend. In literature and psychology they call this an archetype (compare the stories of King Arthur to Star Wars to Harry Potter. Tons of archetypes in those). Some people claim it is psychological, or just ingrained in our DNA. I would like to propose a different reason for so many of these stories:

1. There are eternal truths.

2. There is a great counterfeiter who does not want us to recognize these eternal truths. And why? Because he wants us to be miserable like he is.

The great counterfeiter is also known as the Father of All Lies. I don't like talking about him much, as he is a nasty piece of work. He is the great usurper, who before the foundation of the world tried to dethrone God and take His glory. And he failed.

Now, he is not the kind of person to give up. So, since the foundation of the world, he has encouraged as many counterfeits to truth to propagate in our theology, philosophy, economy, and society. His first and most insistent plan is to make it so when the true Son of God comes among the people, no one would be able to recognize him as he continues to try to usurp God's power and authority. It is that simple.

So, how do you find the true God among the fakes?

Admittedly, I don't think God is going to do fire from Heaven again any time soon. BUT...I do believe you can put a god to the test.

How?

Investigate what that god represents. What does that god produce among the followers? Stability? Peace? Happiness? Violence? Despair? Selfishness? If you prayed to that god sincerely, earnestly seeking truth with a willingness to follow whatever answer you get with an honest heart--and you get an answer...well, someone answering a sincere inquiry is a pretty good sign that god is real.


So, how do I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of the True and Living God? I've never seen Him. But as C.S. Lewis says:  "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
But also, I have received answers to prayers. They may not have been the answers I have wanted, but they were answers I needed. Fact is, when I listen with my heart, I hear what God wants me to know. And yes, I have heard the "still small voice" spoken of in the Bible.

Fact is, whenever I follow the teachings and life of Jesus Christ, my life is made better. Not perfect, but on the path of happiness. It is not an easy path. It is not a pain-free path. It is in many ways a lonely path. Sticking to truth usually is. But the great thing about this path is that God is with you on that path too.

Jesus Christ is the Real McCoy. The real deal.

The rest are fakes.

And the Adversary has put out some doozies. Next blog will be about Love vs. Lust... one of the other big counterfeits.

Motherhood and Womanhood is a Lot More Complicated than You Realize.

Ok, in the previous post I addressed the priesthood within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. But it has been my experience that most people get out of a discourse what they bring to it. That is to say, a person who chooses to be anti something will be anti something regardless of whether it is true, or good, or wonderful, or not. So, since I cannot (and for that matter should not) control the wills and thoughts of others, I can only present what I believe and know.

So, first off, I left the statement in the last blog that the priesthood is not a scepter, and not a club, but is an apron. And that women do not NEED the priesthood because we have our own apron. And that apron is Motherhood. I also mentioned that in our day and age, Motherhood had been degenerated, vilified, and treated as a form of slavery. For the record... this is a BIG FAT LIE.

I'll say it again, Motherhood is not slavery. It is not a burdensome task. It is not a lesser calling for simple-minded women. It is the most important job any woman can undertake.



The thing is, Motherhood is not glamorous.
It is not a career.
You don't get fancy clothes, or accolades, or big prestigious awards for being an ordinary mom.
But it is an important job which is highly underappreciated.

From an excerpt from Women's Conference April 2015, a story was told about a mother who ended up reminding children on career day that the job of Mother is very important.

It says:

"Our youngest daughter, Abby, saw a unique opportunity to stand as a defender of the role of mother. One day she got a notice from her children’s school that they were having Career Day presentations at the school. Parents were invited to send in an application if they wanted to come to school to teach the children about their jobs, and Abby felt impressed to apply to come and speak about motherhood. She didn’t hear back from the school, and when Career Day was getting close, she finally called the school, thinking they may have lost her application. The organizers scrambled around and found two teachers who agreed to have Abby come talk to their classes at the end of Career Day.

 

In her very fun presentation to the children, Abby taught them, among other things, that as a mother she needed to be somewhat of an expert in medicine, psychology, religion, teaching, music, literature, art, finance, decorating, hair styling, chauffeuring, sports, culinary arts, and so much more. The children were impressed. She finished by having the children remember their mothers by writing thank-you notes expressing gratitude for the many loving acts of service they received daily. Abby felt that the children saw their mothers in a whole new light and that being a mother or father was something of great worth. She applied to share again this year at Career Day and was invited to present to six classes."

 
And she added:
"Abby has said of her experience: “I feel like it could be easy in this world for a child to get the sense that being a parent is a secondary job or even sometimes a necessary inconvenience. I want every child to feel like they are the most important priority to their parent, and maybe telling them how important being a parent is to me will help them realize all that their parents do for them and why.” "

Motherhood is culturally undervalued today for a number of reasons, I think. I am going to list the reasons and rant a little bit.

1. The story of Eve in the Bible is misunderstood, as has been for quite a long time.

Eve is not Evil. Never was. Nowhere in the Bible does it actually say: "Eve, in her sinister nature as woman, plotted the misery and demise of human kind with the devil." Nowhere. But for a long time people have interpreted Eve being the first to partake of the fruit and then share it with Adam as a sign she was evil.

First off (and understand this) both Adam and Eve were as innocent as a couple of two-year-olds. Eventually they would have partaken of the fruit, tempted by the devil or not. And why, because it was there. And being innocent, not knowing the difference between good and evil, and being given such a basic charge as: 16The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." And not something like: "You will be damned forever and make the world miserable if you eat the fruit, so never touch it!"  they are going to eventually eat from it anyway.

Why? Have you ever tried to talk to a 2-year-old? They aren't adults, you know. If you tell a 2-year-old something is hot and will hurt them (but they had yet to experience pain of getting burned), they are going to touch it anyway BECAUSE THEY WANT TO.

The thing with the story of Adam and Eve is there is so much reading between the lines about the couple rather than just looking at the facts.

Here are the facts:

• Fact 1: If God really did not want the tree ever touched then he would not have put it in close proximity of two innocent people who did not know the difference between good and evil.
• Fact 2: There are no kids mentioned ever with Adam and Eve before they partook of the fruit. So it was just those two in the garden.
• Fact 3: There is no visible timeline in the story of Adam and Eve telling how long they were in the garden of Eden. And since there was no death until after the partaking of the fruit, who knows how long it took for them to even look at the tree after eating fruit from all the other trees.
• Fact 4: Eve, who was as innocent as a 2-year-old, was deceived by the most talented con man in existence when she was told she would not surely die. It was a half-truth. She did not die in the moment, which was the truth, but she did surely die later. Eve is, after all, not alive today.
• Fact 5: There is not mention in the Bible that Eve forced the fruit down Adam's throat. Nor any mention that she lied to him. Nor any mention that she threatened him. Nor any mention that she bullied him. All it says is: "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." So unless Adam was a complete and total moron, he made a choice to eat the fruit. Because, have you ever tried to force a 2-year-old to eat something he didn't want to eat. They can be willful.
• Fact 6: There is no mention in the Bible that Adam slapped, beat, shouted at, or berated Eve for giving him the fruit, once he finally had knowledge of good and evil. But there is proof that they did everything TOGETHER afterwards, expelled from the garden together, and working together.
• Fact 7: People often read in a tone in Adam's answer to God when asked if he ate of the fruit, making it sound accusatory. But tones are in the reader's heads, not in the print. You could read it in a matter-of-fact tone, like a report, also. He was just giving the facts when he said: "And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."
• Fact 8: Eve's answer was also just telling the truth. But people still read into it accusatory tone from God when he asks her: "And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." Tones are not in the writing, but in the minds of the reader. You'll also notice, if you continue reading, God is basically seeking out the source of the problem.
• Fact 9: There is a lot more going on in the story of Adam and Eve than people get. For example, this statement:"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." means what? Why not the seed of the man? Who is this he, whom God is talking about?
• Fact 10: Human beings see pain as punishment. But what they don't understand is that in order to know Joy, you must have Pain. Just as in order to understand Good, you need to know what Evil is. Adam and Eve were innocent in the garden of Eden because they did not have the dichotomy of good and evil in their comprehension. Therefore there was no progression for humanity. If they had not eaten of the fruit, the world would have remained the same -- forever. With just one man. And with just one woman. Forever.

• Fact 11: We should thank Adam and Eve for making the choice to partake of the fruit. Yes, we are born into a life of pain. But as it has been said: NO PAIN, NO GAIN.

• That's right, you have to have pain in order to grow. It is, in essence, part of the package. So, it is quite possible that God was not in fact inflicting punishment on Adam and Eve when he mentioned the painful things they would have to go through as part of life, but giving them a heads up on what to expect from life thereon, now that they knew the difference between good and evil.
• So yes, the woman will have pain in childbirth -- a thing which she had never experience before. Both pain, and childbirth. Yes, her situation put her where she now 'ruled by' her husband. (I'd also like to note, however, that the passage in the LDS scriptures, The Pearl of Great Price, in the Book of Moses, the story is not so harsh.) Though to be honest, the way I see it is that since Eve took the first step towards eternal progression by bringing birth of the rest of the human race to the world, it was Adam's turn to lead.
• And Adam will have to work hard and eat by the sweat of his brow. And yeah, it does sound like a punishment. Except for one thing... The phrase: "For thy sake" always gets to me (look at the King James version, not the other translations). I realize other interpretations say "because of you", but I often wonder if this is not a mistranslation. The phrase "for thy sake" in the old English can also mean "for your benefit." And why is working hard and struggling for your upkeep a benefit? Think about it. Think long and hard. People who work hard are just plain awesome. Heroes, really. And the opposite? people who expect to be spoon-fed without lifting a finger are vile, repulsive things. Besides, You don't get strong without some exertion.

      Just sayin'.

So, basically, people have vilified one of the most important female figures of the world. In doing so, created a negativity towards womanhood and motherhood.   

 2. The world worships Materialism, and does not value the intangible things or the unglamorous things.
 
This is why teachers are paid so badly. This is why necessary jobs like cleaning and garbage removal are not valued. This is why small farms will never really thrive against Big Food. There is no glory in it. That, and there is no power behind it.

Glory and accolades have overshadowed true service and enduring love (this is not romantic love, by the way). In a materialistic world, doing 'thankless jobs' that deal with the disgusting parts of life are disdained. Of course, dealing with poop, drool, and vomit is not glamorous. And cleaning house is sneered at. 'Watching' children is huffed at. But all these are more necessary for human survival than coming up with economic plans and saving some obscure rare animal or plant. Or, as I like to put it: "When the bomb blows, what will matter most?"

3. The world confuses being neutral with being neutered...

There has been a trend that is anti-procreation for a while. Children have been set into the mold of accessories, commodities, play things, and irritating burdens on society. Some people are even trying to promote abortion as a crime-deterrent.

Thing is, children are not the property of government. They are not the property of parents either. They are individuals entrusted into the hands of parents by God to be raised as well as they can be.

Also, sex in our day is being regarded no longer for procreation, but for satisfying desire, urges, and leanings. It is no longer about the binding of two halves of human society into a healthy whole, but about gratification and lust. And more and more people don't care who or what the sex is between... which is kinda gross.

4. And society confuses being neutral with being fair.

There is this nutty trend toward removing differences...especially between genders. This, of course, is stupid. It is like destroying all the flowers so there is only one kind in existence - to make all flowers the same. Men are not women. Women are not men. We are compliments to each other, but not clones of each other. We do not need all the same things. Human  beings as a group may have general needs that are shared throughout, such as: respect, freedom, love, compassion, time, and basic life necessities. But a woman does not need to show that she is capable and strong by having a career. Smart, capable women are strong in many other ways. A career is only necessary if that is the only way to survive life. And a man does not have to like romances, be overtly emotional, or chat just for the sake of conversation. Men and women don't even communicate for the same purpose. Don't believe me? Check this clip out. It shows the differences between communication styles.
Men are problem solvers. Task oriented, mostly. You get a few chatty ones, occasionally, but most have a goal in mind when talking. Women share emotions, vent, and really aren't seeking advice... unless they directly ask for it.




Being fair is not about being the same. It is about getting what you truly need.

5. People who want to maintain power don't really want mothers and fathers raising healthy, independent-thinking children. They want total control -- and that means raising the children by the state for the sake of 'Social Order'.

And what kind of social order is that? To create cogs in the system. Or Bricks in the Wall. A Camazotz, like in a Wrinkle in Time. By shaming women who stay home with their children, making them feel worthless and trapped, they set up the circumstance where women willingly leave their own territory of important influence, and go out to become yet another cog within the system. And by doing so, are unable to pass along many values she personally cares about to her children. It is social manipulation, and cruel.

It is also short sighted. Such societies do not thrive. Don't believe me? Try remembering the Soviet Union. Or North Korea. State control and the manipulation of the young tends to lead to a loss of creativity and a crashing economy. It brings to mind a scene from "The Last Emperor."


I lived in Tianjin for a while, and I heard firsthand how awful the living conditions were. Not just health-wise, but the degree of fear they felt. I read local stories written about the damage caused by those who followed Mao's Red Book. The Cultural Revolution. They called it the decade of insanity.

6. What makes a woman a woman has been redefined over and over again by the media so that women feel really lost and insecure.

As social creatures, women tend to try to please. We try not to stand out too much so that other women like us. Because, women do need women. Female society is important for women. But when people pleasing, women are victims to fashion trends... and I don't just mean clothes. I mean what is fashionable in: attitude, belief, and what is considered likeable. Women tend to focus on clothing fashion mostly because they instinctively know men are visual creatures. Women who do not stand up for themselves are easily bullied into believing things that she really does not want to think.

This may especially go with the new pro-porn trend among some feminists. Due to peer pressure, some women sext, thinking it will improve their relationships...when all they have done is exposed themselves in a dangerous public manner. She has turned herself into a piece of meat and ignorantly calls it freedom. All due to fear at not looking 'open minded'. If open minded is synonymous with idiot then maybe she is right. Feminism used to be about being taken seriously for ideas, for capabilities, and for being human.

That said, there is this funky social trend that makes a woman the sum of her parts. And I mean body parts. This trend is about flat abs, big breasts, little thighs, perfect hair, skinny waists, clear skin, perfect hair, teeth, etc.... 

There is another funky social trend that says women must wear barely anything to be loved or regarded as beautiful. The 'Sexy' trend really annoys me. Clothes serve a function. One of them is to maintain respect. It is hard to respect a woman half-dressed. Men don't dress that way to get respect. They wear full suits, for pity's sake. Besides, seeing half-naked women makes me think of the Ferengi from Star Trek who are materialists and keep all their women 'unclothed'. If men wore the same degree of clothing most women today wear, we'd all be grossed out.


a father  proving a point.

Things you might not understand about Womanhood in the Church of Jesus Christ...

1. Joseph Smith, our first modern-day prophet, himself declared that the church was not fully organized until after the formation of the Relief Society--our organization for women.

Fact is, the Relief Society is the oldest, longstanding women's organization in the world. In fact, they were part of the National Organization for Women in its early conceptions. LDS women had the vote long before most other women in the US did. But it was taken away through the Edmunds Tucker Act when the church was disenfranchised by the U.S. government over polygamy. And they  were suffragettes afterward. Early LDS women ran businesses and headed newspapers. (a few examples here).

And, to be honest, if you really want to get something done, or if you really need help in the church, you go to the Relief Society president first. Then I go to the bishop. The Relief Society acts as a team, because women are more social than men.

2. True Christianity is not anti-women. Quite the reverse.

Tradition, more than truth, has colored religious practice for centuries. in regards to stories about women. Jesus Christ when on Earth had acted outside the degrading disregard towards women in his era and treated women well. But also, there are many references to strong, faithful women in the Bible. Those that actually read the Bible know this.

I think there is this amazing passage in Proverbs that shows the strength and power of righteous women. Proverbs 31... starting with verse 10 :
(I like the King James version).

"Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She rises also while it is still night And gives food to her household And portions to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night. She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates."

 And, in our faith, we often like to repeat that Jesus appeared to Mary first for a reason. Women are important.

To sum up...

Womanhood is not about her hormones. Or her sexual organs. Or her mood swings. Or her makeup, or sexy clothes. It is not a chosen fashion sense. It is not a love for shopping. It is not a waify figure. It is not a caricature.

Womanhood is about life. It is about kindness. It is about compassion. It is about connectivity. It is about 'we' more than 'I'. It is about beauty. Making beauty. Spreading beauty. It is about patience. It is about humility. It is about nurturing. It is about growth. It is about strength. It is about endurance. It is about teaching others. It is about sharing.

Motherhood is about the God-given responsibility to raise children into healthy, capable adults. It is about the ability to soften men when they are too task-oriented. It is about wholeness and completion.

Career-seeking is a modern insult to womanhood.

Why am I saying this? Because, long ago, before people put on fancy suits and got accolades for a job well done, work was invented to provide sustenance for the family unit...long before earthly governments had formed. Long before slavery was instituted. Motherhood was not slavery. It was a selfless gift of service and devotion to those whom she loved. Simple work was never meant to be an end in and of itself--not even for men. Fatherhood was supposed to be their calling. Work was just work. Not an identity. To drop something as sacred as Motherhood for something so common as a career is insulting.

Now I am sure there are those complaining that I am not being fair to all the single women out there. But that is entirely untrue. Fair does not mean everyone gets the same thing, remember. It means you get what you need. It also means a reasonable opportunity to obtain what is available... because, face it, there is not enough good men to go around. Period. Secondly, life is a test of character. It tests to see if you will stick to truth, even if you don't get what everyone else is getting. And for the record, I'm single, in a job, making my life on my own.

In Conclusion:

The secret to womanhood and why men just don't 'get' women can be summed up in a line from a play "Skin Of Our Teeth. "We are ourselves."


Womanhood is not a fashion. It is not a culture. It is not an attitude, or a way of tilting our heads, or a color -- such as pink. It is not a lower status. It is not a higher status. It is half the species.

Motherhood is not a hobby. It is not slavery. It is a sacred calling. It is not easy. But it sometimes can be fun. And giving birth is not a requirement for motherhood either, though it helps. Seeking only self-gratification did no society or individual any good. Motherhood means accepting that you have a responsibility to others.

Anyway, enough ranting.

I'll rant more later.

What People Don't Understand about the Priesthood in the LDS Church

Moses giving Aaron the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood.

I've been following the hubbub over the protests of Ordain Women for some time now. When I was 14, I probably would have agreed with them - as back then my brothers were snotty, strutting around, and thinking they were better than me because they held the Aaronic Priesthood. But I have since grown up and learned a thing or two about the nature of the priesthood that I had not known before. And now, understanding even more, I see now that women having the priesthood is entirely and completely unnecessary.

"Unnecessary?" You might protest. "What about equal rights?" You might say.

I'll answer that. Equal rights in the world is a great deal different from equal intrinsic value in the eternities. That is to say, the worldly sense of equal rights demands that everyone gets the same thing. This is basic elementary logic. But what basic elementary logic ignores is the higher, more educated understanding that giving everyone the same thing is not always healthy or beneficial.

Not following? Let me make it more plain.

If I gave everyone a raspberry cream cheese danish (exactly the same size) to everyone - would everyone be healthy and happy?

At first leap, you'd say yes. But I have a sister who is gluten intolerant, a brother allergic to raspberries, and another sister who can't have milk products. Starting with these three people alone, you've got three miserable folk who just can't eat what I gave to them. This does not count the toothless people, or people who have to be tube-fed, or infants who can take one bite, if not able to eat it at all. Or what about people who HATE cream cheese. Or are on the Paleo diet? Vegan? So, it can logically be added up that true fairness is for me to provide alternatives that allow my gluten-free sister, raspberry-free brother, and milk-free sister something just as good. That is to say, true fairness and equality is giving people what they actually need rather than giving the same all around. In fact, just giving people what they want is not the same as giving them what they need.

And believe me, my gluten-free sister would rather not be gluten-free if she didn't need to be.

Ok, so what does this have to do with the priesthood?

Lots.

I think one of the most misunderstood things about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the nature of the priesthood within the church. To make it clear, the priesthood within the LDS church is not like that of other Christian faiths in many respects. First off, we claim the priesthood was passed on to us through lines of proper authority, that it had to be restored - which upsets a lot of people who don't believe this is true at all.

But there are aspects of the priesthood that some members of our faith also don't quite comprehend.

As everyone is in a state of growth, I will list what I discovered. In doing so I hope to clear up a lot of misunderstanding that even members of my faith have.

1. The priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a paid profession.
 
It is not a career. In other churches you study to get the priesthood. In other churches, you go to college for the priesthood. It is a life path, and it stands out.

In the LDS church, you do not aspire to a position or calling. Not at all. Ever. You are called of God into positions. There is no seeking. There are no rungs of ladders which you climb. Bishops (another link) and Stake Presidents, and such are called to such positions through much fasting and prayer. And they don't stay in those positions forever. In fact, many of these leaders are often released from their callings and end up serving as Sunday School teachers, or even Nursery Leaders. The same goes for area authorities and Seventies. Apostles are in their position for the long haul - unless they transgress the laws of God and are excommunicated (yes, it can happen). Prophets likewise. Fact is, Christ is the head of the church. Not the prophet.

Fact is, all these leaders hold a different profession to pay for their livelihoods. I had one who was a dentist. Another who owned a plant nursery. And I have an older brother who is currently serving as a bishop, yet pays for his livelihood through teaching elementary school, and writing novels. We feel the gospel ought to be shared without money and without price. As in the New Testament when Simon the magician attempted to buy the priesthood from Peter, the priesthood is not a commodity to be bought or sold.

Some people might argue that general authorities are given a living stipend, and are therefore paid. Here's a site that explains that more clearly. Considering how they are always on the go... not vacationing in the Bahamas like some detractors imagine, or have any leisure time to speak of for that matter, their meek stipend is understandable. And it is a speck in comparison to what Congress gets for making laws that suit only themselves.... or even what the President of the US gets when long out of office and doing nothing.

2. The priesthood in the LDS church is organized the same as in the early/primitive church of Christ's era.

That's right. We have a prophet who heads the church and whom be believe receives revelation from God, the same as Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, and all those wonderful Biblical prophets of ancient times. Under our modern prophet are 12 apostles, who are called to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations, and to declare that Jesus Christ truly is the son of the Living God, the Father of Heaven and Earth. And under them are other church positions, such as seventies, evangelists (missionaries in modern lingo), teachers and so forth.

3. The power and authority of the priesthood is not that of a despot, but that of a steward.

In the worldly sense, power is a strength used to compel people to do a thing and to control a thing. But within the LDS church, the power of the priesthood is like that of the power of a steward to a lord, in a rather literal sense.

Today we don't really deal with many stewards in the old fealty sort of sense. But not too long ago (mostly back in Europe as most people in the US just didn't do this sort of thing, as lords and ladies were things of 'ancient history') when lords left their territory, they had servants who oversaw their land and made sure their will was still carried out even after they were gone. The responsibility of a steward was high, and he was probably the most trusted servant to a lord (watch Jane Austen films, and you'll run across mention of stewards). A steward's task is not to do that which he wants to do, but only the will of his lord. Jesus Christ himself told parables about unjust stewards that did not follow the will of their lords.

So, as in the LDS church, the role of the priesthood is not to set laws and such, but to seek the will of the Lord and to do it.

4. The priesthood can be lost if it is used improperly.

There are a lot of really sad stories circulating about priests in churches who have abused children and done other awful things. This, of course, is not what God wants to happen. But as God grants us free will, and that he is not a despot sending out secret police to regulate the actions of his claimed followers, people make bad choices.

That said, within our faith priesthood holders make an oath and a covenant when obtaining the priesthood. In our scripture, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 121, it describes this principle. The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and they can be only handled or used righteously. If any priesthood holder ever attempts to use his priesthood unrighteously, as the scripture says "Amen to that priesthood." He loses it.

And when we talk about losing the priesthood, we are not just talking about losing a title... we are talking about losing power from God. This is power to heal. Power to bless lives. Power to do much good. Power to be guided by God.

You also lose authority. Authority to officiate in ordinances, which are sacred formal acts performed by the priesthood.

You also lose the right to enter the Temple.

You see, women can enter the temple without holding the priesthood. But men cannot enter the temple without the priesthood. Not at all, in fact. Men need the priesthood in order to be considered worthy members of the faith.

5. The priesthood isn't about ruling. It is about serving and healing.

There is this phrase that has been going around about the priesthood that I think is incredibly incorrect: Do not confuse the scepter of responsibility with the club of authority. I understand the reason people quote this, but I really think it is a false teaching. The priesthood is not a scepter. It is most definitely not a club. It is an apron.


aprons are put on to go to work

"An apron?" you may wonder. "How?"

I'll tell you. And - by the way - this is the key to why it is not necessary for women to hold the priesthood.


British scepter.

Symbolically, a scepter is a tool used by a king. But there is only one king within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints... and that is Christ himself.

A club is a weapon of war. A symbol of abuse, power, and brutality. Definitely not traits of a righteous priesthood holder (as mentioned above).



war club

But an apron is a symbol of a servant. Most aprons are put on when getting ready for work, either with cooking, cleaning, serving, creating with wood and iron, as well as any other need for protection. It is also regarded (funnily enough) as feminine.

Jesus Christ, when among his 12 apostles in ancient days, talked a great deal about who was the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven. He compared the greatest as a child, but He also tried to show that the greatest was a servant.

Now I really don't think anything Jesus Christ said was throwaway, so He meant something very important by it. At the time He was sharing this message, it was near the time of His death. But throughout his life Jesus emphasized the importance of humility and service. Did He run around bossing and condemning people? Or did He go around teaching, healing, and serving people?

I think we all know the answer to this one.

Now, why in the world is it that women can't wear this apron too?
The answer is simple. We've already got an apron.

"What??? I'm Confused!!!" you might say.

Let me make it clearer... in the world we live in today, the apron women put on to go to work is a different apron to the one men need to wear. Women give service while wearing the apron of... (dun, dun, dun....) MOTHERHOOD.

"What?" they exclaim with insult and exasperation....

And here is the problem. The world we live in today disrespects and treats the apron of Motherhood with so much disdain and disregard that we no longer see Motherhood as an ennobling and important calling. Today, people have framed Motherhood into the mold of slavery, casting on it the colors of unimportance, and smearing it with the mud of disrespect. We live in a world where career has been put onto a pedestal and worshipped. And Motherhood is obviously not a career.

Fact is, being a mother is not only hard, but crucial to the survival of a free and healthy society. The job of fatherhood is also crucial, as its job is to aid Mother, and protect and provide so the mother can perform the most important job of the world - to raise a healthy generation of people so they are capable of leading on the world once the parents are gone.

The world today keeps talking about preserving nature, and saving things so that it can be green. But it keeps killing the one thing that makes civilizations thrive - a healthy family life. Never forget that old adage: "The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world." This is a true statement. And people who seek power know this. Oppressing and devaluing mothers, taking children from their true teachers is something that the Nazis and other oppressors have done systematically (Read Animal Farm, and pay attention to what they do with the pups). And it happening today.  

Mothers are not 'baby makers' as people like to popularly make out. They are nurturers. And mothers can and do nurture more than just the children they birth themselves.

But this is a topic for the next blog, I think. More detail is necessary.

The fact is, ladies, why is it you want the apron men have? They need it so they can become proper servants of God and to their fellow Man (and I do mean this in the general sense, since we call all cows and geese by the feminine word). It is theirs. Let them have it.  

The priesthood's purpose is two-fold... for man to serve God, and for God to help man grow to become more like him. Men in general do better when they have a duty. It is a natural fact. Women, naturally, are enculturated to be more social. Men, not so much. (Random fact, if you study Asperger's syndrome, women who have Asperger's tend to come across as more masculine, as it is a more female nature to be social and connect than it is a male's nature. Male Aspergians really struggle with connectivity).

Let me share one last story...

Years ago when I was at a church conference in Beijing, China, a woman regional authority leader opened our meeting with what I thought was an irrelevant question... "Why is it men have the priesthood and women don't?" I mean, I was there trying to figure out how to run a bilingual Primary (that's a Sunday school for little kids between ages 4 -11). I wasn't at all concerned with a perceived inequality. I mean, I figured if men wanted to drive the car, as long as it took me to where I wanted to go, I didn't care. Besides, it made me feel like a wealthy lady in the back seat, who could say to the chauffer, "Jeeves, turn here. Take me to the Waldorf Astoria, stat."

Anyway, with this question posed, "Why do men have the priesthood and women don't?" she then joked, "I mean, if women ran the church things would be done right the first time, right?"

At the time, all the ladies in the room chuckled. I did also, but I thought that joke was a bit old, and smug. It is kind of rude to assume half the world was inept, after all.

Then she said, "But seriously, the reason men hold the priesthood and women don't can be answered in this one question...."

And we waited for the question, wondering what it was.
 
She said, "What do women want the most?"

I thought about that, and so did everyone else. And blast it, she looked straight at me and said, "What do you think?"

Well, whenever anyone does that to me, my mind just blanks. I needed more time to think about what she was getting at. What was it that women wanted the most? Security? A purpose to life? A sense of fulfillment? These are the usual kinds of answers to such a question. But I just shrugged and offered: "Things run right?"

She shook her head and looked to the others. "No. The church itself does not exist to run right. The running of the church itself is an exercise for the growth of its members. Ladies, think. What is it that women want most?"

And we all thought in silence. I'm sure someone had thought of the right answer, but was too shy to speak up. So, finally, the speaker said - and this was profound - "What women want the most... is righteous men."

Now, I don't know if everyone in the world agrees with that. In fact, I doubt they do. Not everyone in the world agrees on every truth in the world. There are plenty of fools out there that think it is ok to binge drink and sleep around... But that belief doesn't make it right.

"A public opinion poll is no substitute for thought" and might I add, truth does not come from a popularity poll either.

Truth is, a righteous woman would want all men to be righteous. Because righteous women would be seeking the benefit of humankind. Period. And wicked men just don't produce that.

The hard part for women (and I think this is the life test of ALL women) is the ability to step back and let someone else take the lead. Humility - a trait Jesus Christ valued highly - is what's critical.

Also, I think the one lesson of life "You can't have everything." should be shifted to: "Maybe you shouldn't have everything." It is kind of greedy to want everything.

Out of the mouth of an apostle (who recently passed away), I think he explains the priesthood clearly.



What is the priesthood all about?

"To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of Man."

Personally, I think women have enough on our plates. A relieving help from the men, acting righteously, is welcome.