Obama Gives Us a Lesson on How to Please the People

I've posted a link below. I don't know how to make it active because as I have said before, I have issues with this hunk of machinery in front of me. But you can copy and paste it into your browser to view it. Sorry.

Let me make it clear. I do not hate Obama. I seriously considered voting for him. But this is an interesting move on his part but not surprising. I should be pleased, but instead, I am very frustrated with politics. There are things that I liked and disliked about both candidates. Certain very important topics, however, led me to vote Republican as they most often do. I would love to think that this move on Obama's part shows some inner conviction on a much heated topic, I don't know. But even if it does, I can't condone the method in which he reveals such. He told the LGTB community what they wanted to hear in order to get a vote. It's dishonest and our country stands by and allows it with every candidate that runs for president, all in the name of politics. Politicians are given a special "I can lie to please the people" ticket while running and in office, and we just nod our heads and say "It's all part of the game". We don't realize that there is no game. This is it. Life is it. You are who you are and no cover will hide you when it is time for judgment. Not politics, or church positions, civic duties or any other title we assume or costume we don. We can pretend all we want but it will not matter in the end who we pretended to be, but who we are. I wish that someone would stand up and tell us what they believe in for a better America and then actually stand by it. If Obama opposes gay marriage then we should have heard about it during his run. I truly hope that he is a good man. I for one wait for One who is better.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081217/pl_politico/16693

Christmas Time

It's just been one of those good years that somehow worked out and has not been stressful. We have enjoyed lots of baking; everything from homemade cocoa & mallows to pumpkin rolls, have attended a few parties, made snowmen and sledded (4-wheeler style anyway) and have truly enjoyed it all. Here are a few pics minus the ones from our other camera. I'll have to post those when I have enough patience to convert them to my computer (something that is really hard for me for some reason). Enjoy!

Because of our involvement in Mali Rising Foundation, each Thanksgiving and Christmas/New Years break we host a Malian student from Wasatch Academy. It has been so rewarding to get to know these amazing kids. They come from a very different world than ours and I think they are very brave to come spend their high school years here without being able to visit their families much if at all. They are very good students and are getting 4.0's consistently even though they are still learning English. This year we have Fatou Sene and she is such a beautiful and sweet girl. Christmas is always fun with these students as they get to experience all of the joy and beauty that surrounds this time of year and be introduced to Christianity. It has been an honor to be a part of that and teach them how Christ is so central to our lives. Because Mali is a primarily Muslim country they learn of Christ as a great prophet but do not believe him to be the Son of God. So it has been rewarding to see Fatou and some of the other students latch on to those idea's and not oppose them. Fatou loves the song "I am a child of God". She copied it down from our hymn book while we were at church. Doctrinally Muslims do not believe God is our father, but our creator only. Truth is truth however, and I believe that those seeking it will not turn it away no matter their religious orientation. Line upon line...

All tuckered out.

`Tis the Season

Our Tree

So, our friend Cat and her sister Ingrid have a Christmas party every year. There's no telling just what to expect. Last year it was a luau complete with the limbo. This year, Ingrid wanted to do a more formal dress party. Not dresses but nice. We laughed about this because the party is held in the Fossom family basement. So, Cat, being the funny gal that she is, thought it would be fun to dress up in a dressy but also a bit eccentric way. Oddly enough, we weren't the only ones who showed up in this way. It's a bit hard to tell, but my ensemble was complete with giant nutcracker earrings and curling ribbon in my ringletted hair. James had a fohawk with red shirt and green and white tie. We completed the night with lovely photo's by the tree and the piano in the conveniently red sitting room. Sigh.

Mills performed with her class at the Festival of trees. Naturally I am a parent who swells with pride when I see my beautiful and talented daughter up there cutting a rug or singing her heart out. Good job Mills!

I had a few requests for these recipes so here y'all go. The above mallows were really fun and easy. And I am just tickled pink that they worked. They may not be butter Meg, but I do feel pretty proud of them. ;-)

Shelby's Homemade Hot Cocoa Mix

2 Cups nonfat dry milk
2 1/2 Cups non-dairy creamer (you can use french vanilla creamer if you want french vanilla cocoa)
3 1/2 Cups powdered sugar
1 Cup Hershey's unsweetened cocoa powder
2/3 Cup Ghirardelli sweet ground chocolate (found by the cocoa powder)
1 lrg. pkg. chocolate pudding mix (experiment with different flavors if you want)

Combine all ingredients and mix well. Store in an airtight container. When making a cup of cocoa, you're the boss. I put about 1/3 cup mix to 1 cup hot water. Top with homemade mallows!

Homemade Marshmallows (found this on the Happiness is Homemade blog)

4 envelopes unflavored gelatin (I use Knox brand)
3 cups sugar
1 1/4 cups light corn syrup (Karro)
1/2 teaspoon salt
2 1/2 teaspoons vanilla extract
powdered sugar
water
electric mixer (a Bosch or a Kitchenaid is very handy)

Put sugar, corn syrup, salt, and 3/4 cup water into a medium saucepan and bring to a rolling boil over high heat. Stir constantly to dissolve sugar. Once dissolved, boil at a rolling boil without stirring for one full minute. Meanwhile, put 3/4 cup cold water into the bowl of your electric mixer, sprinkle the gelatin packets into the water and let sit to soften for 5 minutes. Then slowly pour the hot sugar syrup (make sure it's not "melt your mixer" hot) into the gelatin mixture with the mixer on low speed. (If using a hand held mixer have someone assist you, it would be a bit tricky to do on your own.) Gradually raise the speed to high. Beat for about 6 minutes. Slowly add vanilla extract. Beat on high for another 6 minutes until it starts forming stiff peaks. (mine never really formed stiff peaks, it did thicken up though). Pour mixture and spread out into a 9x13 well greased pan. Or for thinner ones spread into two different pans. Allow to sit uncovered for about 3 hours until they firm up. Once firm, sprinkle your work surface with powdered sugar and dust you hands with it. Un-mold your marshmallow slab onto the sugar and dust the bottom of it with more powdered sugar. Now you can cut your mallows how you wish. Keep your powdered sugar handy because you will need to dust the edges of each piece that you cut. You can cut into large or small squares, or use cookie cutters well dusted with powdered sugar to make fun shapes. Once well dusted, so there are no sticky edges, store marshmallows in airtight container for up to one week.

Use you imagination with these too! They can be used in your cocoa or as a fun candy. You can add a bit of peppermint oil in the mixing phase or cocoa powder for different flavored mallows. You could also cover them with cinnamon, sprinkles, coconut, etc. etc. I sprinkled mine with cinnamon for the adults and sprinkles for the kids. The cinnamon ones were super yummy with the hot cocoa. Enjoy, enjoy, enjoy!

This is my life...to the tee.

Going to the Polls

Today's the day. I am just about to leave to go cast my vote. This election has been frustrating for me. In the past I have so disliked the Democratic candidates that it was quite easy for me to vote for the Republican one. But this round has been interesting. Initially, when Obama was a bit of a no-name I had read about him and was telling people about him because he was interesting. At that time I had a hard time finding any solid information on what he stood for. Then he got bigger and bigger and before we knew it he was in the running in a real way. Anyway, the more I learned about each candidate, however, and the more I read about their plans for various issues, their past lives, and their shady connections, the more I was unhappy with either of them. I am tired of the two parties. I am tired of having to pick and choose which issues are most important to me and go with that party. There are none that represent all that is good and I think it is because they are playing the party game. They have to hold certain views. I don't consider myself any party and I wish that our government and our people would quit "partying". I agree and disagree with the Republican party on certain issues. I agree and disagree with the Democratic party on certain issues. Do I have to pick a favorite? I am tired of politicians and their honey coated words and hollow promises. When is someone with some real moral backbone going to stand up? I am sad to say that I feel as if I have come to a time when I have no hope in our political leaders. You hear the candidates say, "America is the greatest nation on the earth!" Well, that's all nice and sounds warm and fuzzy but we are only as great as our actions prove us to be. How arrogant we can be. There are plenty of nations of the world that are "great". And we are only great so long as we adhere to greatness. And I do not mean military might or being the most popular "world power". We need to evaluate what makes a nation great. I'd like to make a little analogy. The United States of America is likened unto Oprah Winfrey. She's good when she wants to be and can be a great force for good when it serves her. But she can turn right around and be a monumental force for ill. A force to be reckoned with. The fact is, right is right and wrong is wrong. And there is no party in existence that is wholly either. It's kind of as if we are...lukewarm.

Anyway, blah blah blah.
James Arrington for President! ;-)

My View on Gay Marriage and the Mormon's Who Support It

O.k. I have been wanting to say A LOT of things about A LOT of subjects revolving around our election, but have been avoiding it as well. I know that if I get going I will never stop. Anyway. I just want to take a stand on this issue because it has such a massive potential to redefine all we know. I have had gay friends. I have friends who have gay family members. I think that to treat gays with hostility, hate, name calling, or any other un-christlike attitude is terribly wrong and not something condoned by a loving Heavenly Father. He loves them just as he loves the rest of us. That is not to say we should not take a moral stand against the issue. Do we give the alcoholic a bottle, or the porn addict a playboy? No, we love them. We help them. We fight the wrongs but we do it with integrity, fairness, and respectability. O.k. having said that I'd like to borrow a quote from a gentleman named Paul on the Deseret News website. I think it rightly sums up how I personally feel about it all and about the members of our church who are giving up all they have for the ways of the world. And why now? Where were you all before this prop 8 thing? Likely you were just going about your day to day lives not giving a flicker of thought to the plight of the gay community. It seems plain that the only reason you have even thought on it is because some one prodded you to do so. We truly must study these things out in our minds and in our hearts so that when the time comes, we know who we are and what we stand for, rather than be caught of guard and allow ourselves to be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. O.k. anyway, here's the quote.

He said in essence, that many members are selling their birthright for a mess of political pottage.

The world will scream at us. I have a feeling that the ridicule we will receive over this issue will be unparalleled as to date. We will lose many. But it is a war after all. And such things will only become more frequent. And the persecution will only become stronger. Men will call good, evil, and evil, good. Just gotta decide which side you're on.

Abducted by Aliens or Marked by God?

So, a week or two ago we noticed this hexagonal mark on our daughter's finger. I asked her, "How did you get that mark? Did you burn your finger on something, or touch something hot?" She said she hadn't. I kept asking and was very persistent because I wanted to make sure that what ever she burned her finger on was not still a threat. I thought of the fire pit at our family reunion but it had no hexagonal shapes anywhere to be found. I looked high and low through our house at curling irons, stove tops, and toasters but to no avail. And she insists that she did not burn her finger on anything. I know that the hexagon is a shape found in nature and in the body so I decided to see what I could learn online, to see if this mark could be something that could occur naturally on a person's skin. No luck. I did find one Muslim scholar who had created a power point that illustrated the parts of the body (microscopically) in which the hexagon appears and other area's of nature where this pattern appears, like honeycomb for example. The opinion of this Muslim Scholar was that the hexagon was the mark of God. Or... it could always be those dad gum aliens.

Baby Clients

-A statement overheard by a couple of parents who got a good laugh.

Salem- No, Silas, babies don't have clients. Well, maybe they have baby clients, but these are my clients.

Matt Harding How I Love Thee

I came across these video's some time ago and laughed my head off. Thanks Erin for reminding me about them. You will laugh. You will smile. You will enjoy!

http://vimeo.com/1211060?pg=embed&sec=1211060

Just click the link.

Table

Here are the pics of my table with the designs painted on. O.k. so here's the deal. I am a stubborn ox and I like to do things my way when I want to and I'll be flexible when I want to. So, though I am about to ask you all your opinion. Likely I will do what I want to do in the end. Please don't be offended at this. It took my husband a good many years to figure out that when I ask someone's opinion regarding my projects, I just want to hear ideas and let them bounce around in my head. It helps me solidify my thinking. Not necessarily change it. Though I am open to changing it if you happen to have a better idea than I do. ;-) But likely I will go ahead and do what I planned on doing in the first place. So here's the dilemma. As it is I have three designs on the table when it has both leaves in. We will most likely be using the table without any leaves. So that there would be one design in the middle of the table. I like this idea. It looks nice, but then I got to thinking how I like to put a centerpiece on my table quite often and the design would be covered a great majority of the time. So, do I add two more designs, so that in all there would be five with all leaves in and three when there are no leaves in? Wow, that sounded confusing. But you're all smart. You'll figure it out. I'd love to hear your idea's, even though according to James he is unsure why I ask them.

Tales of my Tables

O.k. Here's what I have been up to lately. Our current table was given to us by my brother and his wife which was given to them by an elderly couple that they took care of. It's a fun vintage table and chairs but it's lived it's life and I am afraid that I will be like Goldy Locks one day when I sit down to eat my porridge and end up on my rear end. So...I found this table at D.I. and thought it was pretty unique and very sturdy with it's iron bars underneath. I don't have a true "before" picture because I didn't think to take one until I had already tackled the thing with a belt sander. Boy was that fun. Anyway, after trying unsuccessfully with stripper I sanded it down, then used a antique furniture refinisher on the legs. I then painted the black band around the edge and drew three identical designs on the dividing line of the table and leaves, so that no matter how many leaves are in, the designs come together. One, with no leaves, two with one leaf, and three with two leaves. I got the idea for the design from an Arabic tile carving which I changed a bit and simplified a lot. James created a template for me in Illustrator which I then used to transfer the design by carbon paper on to the table. I will then paint the design in an earthy reddish-brown. Then I will stain the table top with a dark walnut which, if all goes well, will mute the designs while still allowing them to be visible. Then I will try to darken the legs a bit with the walnut stain. Hope that goes well. Who knows. Wish me luck!

The Prevot Family

Just in case any of you have ever wondered, here is a couple of pictures of Salem and Drew's birth family. Montulia is their Mama and Emmanuel is their Papi. The littlest one (little sister) was born after Salem.

Has anyone wondered...

Has anyone wondered why I stink at blogging lately. It's because I discovered facebook. It is so much easier. But I will try to continue my blogging traditions. I just have a fear of trying to upload pictures. It is like major scary to me. I always feel as if I am going to have a panic attack when I can't figure it out time and time again. I have computer issues.

There Is No In Between

I snagged this little comment from a friend of a friends blog. My friend Linnea has a good friend named Jeanel who just found out a while ago that she has Inflammatory Breast Cancer. For those of you who don't know about this disease, hop on the internet and make yourselves aware. It is said to be very rare, but I've sure been hearing of it a lot lately. The signs and symptoms are different, no lumps are found, and usually by the time it's detected it is too late. But as Linnea said, we do believe in miracles. Anyway, I don't know what the outcome will be, but one thing is for sure, miracles happen, even if they are of a different sort than we expect. What an amazing thing to say from a woman who is learning what it's all really about. We should listen.

"My learning moment this week was when I realized there are only 2 ways of living life- God's way and not God's way. There is no in between. That realization has helped me more fully put everything in the Lord's hands as I fight this fight." -Jeanel

After church today James told me a quote he'd heard from our friend Laird. I thought it went right along with what I'd said in my earlier post.

"Hell is when the person we are gets to shake hands with the person we could have been."

The War We Wage

Over the past several years I have become more keenly aware of the polarizing that is taking place in this world in which we live. So easy it is to get lost. So easy it is to become blind, discouraged, or embittered. I personally have felt the struggle. The pull to one side or the other is becoming frighteningly intense. I have felt my heart torn as my desire to live as God would have me competes with the weakness of my flesh. I have witnessed in sorrow, as friends and loved ones turn their lives away from God. It happens so subtly. I have wept at my own realization that my soul is mirrored in theirs as I too turn from Him at times in weakness. Then I have joyed in the presence of those whom I know yearn for God. Those who seek to make manifest the attributes of Godliness in their very lives. I love you. I thank you. I know the pain that accompanies your journey. There is a feeling of loneliness, and of estrangement that can take hold of one who stands for the right. But fear not. For God is on your side. I have been thinking a great deal of this fight in which we are all enlisted. It seems to me that the more I desire to right my life with God, the harder I am assailed with the enemy's fire. But no surprise! Is this, or is this not, a war for the souls of men? I imagine it in literal terms. If we, as an opposing army are not actively fighting the enemy(maybe we're even negotiating with the enemy) then is that enemy going to assail us with their attacks or spend their warriors on our indifferent armies? No, it is only as we attack that the enemy becomes especially hostile. When we destroy our own fortifications there is no need for the enemy to waste their ammunition. But when we are the attacker, when we are the ones laying siege to Satan's fortress, when we are fortified, and armored and actively making plans to undermine that opposing army we can expect some serious artillery fire being pointed right in our faces. So the question is, are we up for it... and is it worth it? It is easy to wonder this when times get tough and the world drags us down. But frankly I think that we all know that if God is worth believing in then He is worth trusting in. He would not create a plan that was not worth the reward. So to me, whether or not it is worth it is not really the question. The question is, are we willing? Do we want it? It will be worth it, no doubt. But is it worth it to you? I am determined that nothing is more worth the effort that what God has to give. But there is danger, I think, in feeling like maybe that reward is not for us. Or maybe we are just not "heaven material". The danger, I think, is summed up very well in one of my favorite quotes by Henry B. Erying, "When we reject the counsel that comes from God, we do not choose to be independent of outside influence. We choose another influence. We reject the protection of a perfectly loving, all-powerful, all-knowing Father in Heaven, whose whole purpose, as that of His Beloved Son, is to give us eternal life, to give us all that He has, and to bring us home again in families to the arms of His love. In rejecting His counsel, we choose the influence of another power, whose purpose is to make us miserable and whose motive is hatred. We have moral agency as a gift of God. Rather than the right to choose to be free of influence, it is the inalienable right to submit ourselves to whichever of those powers we choose." In "striving for mediocrity" so to speak I do not believe we will end up in the middle. I believe that we will be in danger of falling completely. For in knowingly rejecting that counsel which comes from a loving God and is designed for our eternal happiness, we choose that other leader, who then has power to lead us where he will. The fight is what matters. As the prophet Joseph Smith said, "Shall we not go on in so great a cause?"

Funniest Husband in the World Award

Have I ever mentioned that my husband is a crack-up?...Well, he is.

The Things Kids Say

O.k. Got another funny one. Yesterday as we were heading down to the annual Onion Days James and I overheard a conversation taking place in the back of the van that caused a few good natured chuckles to escape our lips. A few of you may know that we had a sweet little dog named Lily that was hit and killed by a car at the beginning of the summer. Consequently, we got a new dog (because we are dog people o.k.) named Miracle. Miracle died along with her entire litter. After having a lovely jaunt in the afterlife, Miracle was torn from her sweet bliss as her loving breeder, and well meaning vet revived her from her lifeless state. Miri was on I.V.'s, fed from a syringe and the whole nine yards. She made a fabulous comeback and is a healthy and happy pup (now sevenish months old) Thus the name Miracle. Here is the dialogue regarding our family pet.

I just wish that you could all hear my kids say the things they say, because half of the humor is in the animation and the drama all packed into such little people.

Mills-From the moment I laid eyes on Miri I just knew that someday she would do something great!
Eliza-(amazed) What did she do!?
Mills-I don't know, she hasn't done it yet.

Salem Maillie

O.k. for those of you who have heard change in the wind concerning the name of above child, I will explain. When we were waiting for Drew and Maillie to come home we of course toyed with the idea of what we would name them. Would we keep their Haitian names? Would we name them anew? Well, we decided for sure to change Drew's name because he was named Gaillard (Guy-art) and we didn't think that that would fly too well here. But then we heard that they were calling him Andrew in the orphanage. Long story. Short version is that a man from Alpine Utah and a board member for the foundation went to see how things were going there at the orphanage. He played with Drew and tried painstakingly to get him to smile (he was not in very good shape emotionally or physically). He decided to give him a blessing. It ended up being somewhat of a patriarcal blessing really and in it he named him Andrew. So it was pretty much a no brainer for us that maybe we should keep the name Andrew. For Maillie we had picked out the name Salem, and were going to keep Maillie as her middle name. Then we kind of caved to peer pressure when everyone was saying, "Just keep Maillie, it is so cute. Why change it?" Well, we did because frankly, it was easier on the paperwork side of things and after all the paperwork we had done we were all paperworked out! Anyway. Maillie is cute and we do like it but I have always had some regret about not using Salem because that is what I would have chosen. So lately it has come out that Maillie, wants to be called by her first name, Salem. And we want to call her that too. So, sorry to all of you who have to get used to the switch but Salem is going to finally be Salem.

p.s. a couple of quick notes; We won't be offended if you slip and call her Maillie. She will of course answer to both names. And just for the inquisitives out there, Salem means peace, or city of peace. And is the root for Jerusalem. Also, for those of you scriptorians out there, Melchezedic was the king of what city? Yep, you got it, Salem! (which some scholars think was Jerusalem).

So, sorry for our name confusion, but we gotta do what we gotta do.

So I like to talk about the Gospel and stuff! (Please say with a Spanish accent)

O.k. for some of you who know me, you know that I like to talk about the Gospel and stuff. Maybe I don't come across as quite as fanatical as my husband, but I do enjoy studying all things related to God and man. Not to scare any of you away (Cat), but I might occasionally post my views (or views that I adhere to) on given subjects on my blog. I usually don't talk much about it on my blog, because, frankly, once I get going it is hard for me to shut up and I find myself neglecting my children and typing on into the wee morning hours. But... anyway. Here's something that I just had to post. Though the article is very interesting, I post it more for what it illustrates than anything. It is amazing the lengths some people will go to in order to put down others or the institutions they are involved in. I am all about good discussion over topics that deserve a second look. But when people deliberately misrepresent, distort, and outright slander my beliefs, (or others beliefs for that matter), I feel that they need to be exposed for what they are. I am tired of certain individuals masquerading as scholars a.k.a The Tanners, Fawn Brodie etc.) and getting away with in to the uninformed. Despite it's length, it really is worth reading. The Orson Pratt quote is my favorite! Holy cow Tanner's! Where did the rest of the quote go? Where'd it go? Where'd it go? Enjoy!


Ask the Apologist

Q. Some critics of the LDS faith have taken the position that Joseph Smith never claimed to see God, the Father and Jesus Christ in his First Vision, until the end of his life. They claim that Joseph's original story was that he saw an angel and he latter added the Father and Son part. They use various statements from early LDS leaders (Young, Taylor, Pratt) that demonstrate their lack of knowledge about the vision of the Father and Son, as a basis for their claim.

My question is this: Did early LDS leaders really misunderstand the First Vision? Did they really believe that it was only an angel that appeared to Joseph in that vision?

A. (by D. Charles Pyle and Cooper Johnson) Sandra Tanner has made this one famous. Tanner demonstrates, through several quotes of other leaders of the Church (Apostles and later Prophets) that other people thought that Joseph only saw an angel and did not see God, the Father, and Jesus Christ. (Thus making the point that the part about seeing the Father and the Son were added later to the story.) The argument goes, if the Tanners can demonstrate that these early leaders of the Church didn't understand that Joseph claimed to have seen the Father and the Son and that they understood Joseph's vision as only seeing an angel, then the Tanners have succeeded in casting serious doubt that this "First Vision," ever happened.

Let's take a look…

In their book, Mormonism--Shadow or Reality, we find the following statement:

Mormon scholars have been unable to locate any sermon by Brigham Young in which he identifies the personages as God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. As we have shown before, in one sermon Brigham Young said that "The Lord did not come... But he did send his angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun.,..." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 171)

In their book The Changing World of Mormonism, page 164 (which is a condensed version of Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?, page 154), the Tanners quote from a sermon of John Taylor. They write:

John Taylor, the third president of the church, made the following statement on March 2, 1879: "...just as it was when the prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right. What, none of them? No. we will not stop to argue that question; the angel merely told him to join none of them that none of them were right." (Journal of Discourses vol. 20, p. 167)

Lastly, the following is another quote from Tanner in a talk given in November 8, 1998 in Salt Lake City:

Speaking on Dec. 19, 1869, Orson Pratt taught: "By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him;... This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

At first glance, it appears that Tanner has a valid point. With these statements by early LDS leaders, their knowledge of Joseph's First Vision is certainly called into question, thus the event of the First Vision itself is called into question. However, let's dig a little deeper to get a better understanding.

Brigham Young

Here's Tanner's use of Young's statement one more time:

Mormon scholars have been unable to locate any sermon by Brigham Young in which he identifies the personages as God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. As we have shown before, in one sermon Brigham Young said that "The Lord did not come... But he did send his angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun.,..." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 171)

Here we have it from the lips of Brigham Young that "The Lord did not come," to Joseph Smith. "But He did send His angel," to Joseph Smith. Leading us to believe that Brigham thought that the angel "informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects."

Of course, according to Joseph Smith's account of the first vision, it was Jesus Christ who was informing him. So, we are to believe that Brigham Young didn't understand what Joseph claimed and he thought there was only an angel, not the Father and the Son?

Well, first of all, we know that Joseph did in fact have several visions of the angel, Moroni, among others. He only had one vision of the Father and the Son.

Now, let's look at the entire quote from Brigham Young…

The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him." (Journal of Discourses 2:170-171)

So, now we get the full picture. Brigham doesn't say that the Lord didn't come ever; he says that He didn't come with the "armies of heaven, in power and great glory." In other words, He didn't come with a bunch of pomp and circumstance. And, as a matter of fact, when you look closer with the entire quote, Brigham specifically says that the Lord did come. It was the Lord who "informed him," not the angel. Read the sentence, "But He did send His angel…AND [He, the Lord] informed him [Joseph]…" So the quote from Brigham takes on a whole new meaning when you look at the whole thing.

John Taylor

Here is the Tanner's use of the John Taylor quote, once more:

John Taylor, the third president of the church, made the following statement on March 2, 1879: "...just as it was when the prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right. What, none of them? No. we will not stop to argue that question; the angel merely told him to join none of them that none of them were right." (Journal of Discourses vol. 20, p. 167)

It is true that the Tanners have accurately quoted this portion of the Journal of Discourses. It is also true that the word angel was used here. It would appear that the Tanners are correct in their assumption that John Taylor was confused about the details of the first vision! However, what exactly does this mean for the reader? Was President Taylor really confused on this issue? Was this just a slip of the tongue or transcriber's stylus?

What did Taylor really understand about the first vision? The Tanners do not tell us. They simply include the reference as one of their evidences that the Mormon leaders were confused as to the First Vision. What does the historical context--which the Tanners have not provided us with--tell us about this sermon? Let us examine the relevant evidence...

First, it is a fact that John Taylor was the editor of the Times and Seasons periodical of the Church in 1842-1843. It is also a fact that this editor published the account of the First Vision in 1842 as the History of Joseph Smith. Could he have published this account and not been aware of its teaching as to the appearance of the Father and Son?

In 1851, the Pearl of Great Price was first published. John Taylor was aware of its existence and authorized a reprint of an American edition in 1878. Clearly, this document contained the account of the First Vision that we have today. That was just one year before John Taylor's angel comment in 1879.

On October 7th, 1878, nearly a year and a half earlier, he wrote a letter in behalf of the Quorum o the Twelve commenting upon a book by Edward W. Tullidge entitled Life of Joseph Smith. In that letter, he wrote:

God the Father and Jesus, with the ancient apostles, prophets, patriarchs and men of God have revealed to Joseph Smith principles on which hang the destinies of the world...

Although this may or may not be taken as a clear example of John Taylor's knowledge of the First Vision, allow me to quote from others of his sermons in the Journal of Discourses. On December 31, 1876 (nearly three years before the sermon that the Tanners quote), John Taylor clearly taught:

Again, there are other things associated with these matters, all bearing more or less upon the same points. When God selected Joseph Smith to open up the last dispensation, which is called the dispensation of the fullness of times, the Father and the Son appeared to him, arrayed in glory, and the Father, addressing himself to Joseph, at the same time pointing to the Son, said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. (Journal of Discourses 18:325-326).

This provides a clear picture of what John Taylor understood about the events of the First Vision both previous to and following the sermon that the Tanners enter into evidence. It is quite clear to me that Taylor clearly understood that the Father and Son appeared to Joseph in that first vision and that he had that understanding from 1842 to 1880 and beyond. Anyone who looks beyond the Tanners' myopia can see this astonishing fact. What is even more embarrassing to the Tanners is that they failed to cite the remainder of Taylor's sermons for the day of March 2, 1879. On that very same day, the day that he referred to an angel, he maintained that:

When Jesus sent forth his servants formerly he sent them to preach this Gospel. When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him which he conferred upon others for the purpose of manifesting the laws of life, the Gospel of the Son of God, by direct authority, that light and truth might be spread forth among all nations. (Journal of Discourses 20:257)

The above sermon was given the same day and is in the same volume of the Journal of Discourses! The above sermon, taken with the periodicals that he edited, the publication of the 1878 American edition of the Pearl of Great Price which he oversaw and quoted from, and the sermons both previous to and following the sermon that the Tanners cite all go to prove that Taylor was anything but confused on this issue.

But why the word angel, you ask? We are not told one way or another but the Bible may provide the key for us to understand this usage if it was not just a slip of either the stylus or the tongue. Jacob himself called the God of Israel "the Angel which redeemed me" (Genesis 48:16).

Could this have been what Taylor meant? It is certainly clear that Taylor certainly understood and knew of the events that transpired during the first vision, but you would not understand that from reading what the Tanners have given us.

Orson Pratt

Here's the Tanners' use of the quote from Pratt:

Speaking on Dec. 19, 1869, Orson Pratt taught: "By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him;... This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

Again, it appears that yet another former leader of the Church (one of the twelve Apostles at the time) from the 1800s was either confused or unaware that Joseph claimed to see the Father and the Son…not just an angel. Let's once again look at the quote in its entirety (the omitted portion is in bold):

By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him; that through his faith, prayers, and sincere repentance he had beheld a supernatural vision, that he had seen a pillar of fire descend from Heaven, and saw two glorious personages clothed upon with this pillar of fire, whose countenance shone like the sun at noonday; that he heard one of these personages say, pointing to the other, 'This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.' This occurred before this young man was fifteen years of age; and it was a startling announcement to make in the midst of a generation so completely given up to the traditions of their fathers; and when this was proclaimed by this young, unlettered boy to the priests and the religious societies in the State of New York, they laughed him to scorn. 'What!' said they, "visions and revelations in our day! God speaking to men in our day!" They looked upon him as deluded; they pointed the finger of scorn at him and warned their congregations against him. 'The canon of Scripture is closed up; no more communications are to be expected from Heaven. The ancients saw heavenly visions and personages; they heard the voice of the Lord; they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to receive revelations, but behold no such thing is to be given to man in our day, neither has there been for many generations past.' This was the style of the remarks made by religionists forty years ago. This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, pp.65-66)

We find, once again, that the Tanners are willing to go to great lengths to accomplish their goal…bring down the LDS faith at any cost. In an effort to demonstrate that Orson Pratt did not understand or know anything about the Father and the Son appearing to Joseph Smith, Tanner actually omits part of the sermon that actually demonstrates Pratt's clear knowledge and understanding, when he says, "…that he had seen a pillar of fire descend from Heaven, and saw two glorious personages clothed upon with this pillar of fire, whose countenance shone like the sun at noonday; that he heard one of these personages say, pointing to the other, 'This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.'"

In her zeal to provide negative evidence, Sandra Tanner left out an entire 239 words that show Orson Pratt was clearly aware of the official account of the First Vision involving two personages, one of whom introduced the other as his Beloved Son! You would not understand this from reading what Tanner has provided. Why would she do this? That will be left for you to decide.

I REALIZE I am a pathetic blogger.

O.k., I am really sorry people. I have willfully neglected my blogging lately. I just haven't felt like it o.k.! It's my life, Gosh! Quick update. Our dog died (not a fun experience) our birds died not a fun experience). Got a new dog (fun experience). She is the same breed as Lily was, only she is the Celestial version. No offense to Lily. I'll add picks when I feel like it! Kids are doing great. They are as cute as ever and as big of a handful as ever. They will be starting school soon which they are all REALLY excited about. Mills will be in 3rd grade, Drew will be in 1rst. Eliza Bea will be in Kindergarten. And Salem Maillie will be in Preschool. Si will enjoy a bit more attention than he's used to here at home. I will also post first day of school pics when I get them. That is, when I get around to it. I do have a decent excuse for not posting pics, however. I switched computers and James has to link his up to mine because all of our pics are on his. Get on it Hubs!

Siesta from Blogging

So sorry folks for my siesta from blogging but frankly, so much has happened that is has become a little overwhelming to try to catch up. I will try to slowly add those pics and stories that we've enjoyed (and some that we haven't) a bit at a time.

Magpie's!

O.k. folks, here's some more pictures of our little Magpie's. Sparky Sir Poops-a-lot is on the left and Erin Betelgeuse (pronounced Beetle Juice) is on the right. Our kids helped pick the names, no more explanation needed. Sir Poops-a-lot is the Wray's little addition and Betelgeuse is our little addition. We trade off every other day caring for them. So, the fun story behind these little guys is that Magpie's have always been one of my favorite birds. I even painted a picture of them in collage (I will locate it and post it later). I love how pretty they are and yet they're basically considered nuisance birds. They are related to crows and ravens and are actually extremely smart. They can talk if their tongue is split but that probably won't be happening with ours. They have such funny personalities. They love to pester other animals and occasionally people. They kind of remind me of me I guess. Anyway, I have always said to James that I would love to have one as a pet. Then a few days ago, there were two fledglings and a mother bird that were hanging around our house. One of them got caught in the window well and I had to get it out. I could have kept it, I suppose, but that would have been kind of like kidnapping. Then just a day or two later, we found these little guys. Ah, tender mercies. I love how God knows us, even down to a love of Magpie's.

Unplanned New Addition!!!

We have an announcement to make! However, it may not be quite the typical one. Instead of baby buggies, bottles, and diaper changes, it's home made nests, chopped up worms and who knows what else. These little additions came about when we innocently decided to take a nice Sunday stroll. We joined a couple of the neighbors on our walk. And little did we know what we would be coming home with. On the way home, our neighbor Chad spotted something unusual. On the ground beneath a very tall tree were two helpless baby birds. For what ever reason, out of the nest they had tumbled. Spotting the nest was impossible, let alone finding it in order to return the babies. (Contrary to popular belief, the mother will accept babies back even if they have your scent on them. They just have to be warm). We stood there not really knowing what to do but not wanting to leave them there to die. On a whim I asked James what he thought of trying to save the one that looked to be in healthy condition. The smaller one was almost completely bald and flopping around. We were certain it was injured. Chad and James discussed how we could possibly put it out of it's misery and who would get the nasty job. As they discussed I picked up the healthier looking one and began to walk home with it, a gleam in my eye and feeling a bit crazy. I couldn't think about the other one. I just had to leave. Then to my surprise, Chad decided he would have a go with the "injured one". He scooped it up and we were off. Now several days later to our complete surprise they are both alive and doing well. We have lovingly cared for them; feeding them pureed dog food and veggies, chopped up worms, and yes, even spam. They are omnivores so they eat just about anything but we have to start with pureed stuff because they are still so young. Now several days later, the one we thought was injured is just fine, he was just so young he couldn't sit at all. Their feathers are coming in very fast and they are so much fun. They like to cuddle and seem to like us quite well. We will post updates on them. Hopefully they will live. Oh, forgot to mention, they are Magpie's. There is more to that but I will talk about it later.

A Post of their Own

O.k. I really felt these pictures deserved a post of their own. Flashback...While on choir tour in high school we all went to the beach and all of the boys decided to play football. Well, James and I had just started dating (halfway through our Senior year) and I thought he was so good looking out there playing football that I just had to take a few pictures of him. I snapped one that ended up making James look like a regular super model but alas, I searched in vain for it and it is no where to be found. Anyway, that pic was the inspiration for me asking James to run on the beach in Grand Cayman so I could take some pictures. Thanks to my husbands inability to take anything seriously, and the joys of getting old and white, these splendid jewels of perfect form are the result.

My personal favorite.

VACATION!

o.k. I really stink at blogging when it comes to adding pictures in any type of sensible arrangement. But here are random shots of our wonderful vacation in April. I will add more details and more pictures about the trip soon.