This post is actually more of a book critique than things in my life. (****SPOILER ALERT****) I read a book called "hush, hush" this weekend by Becca Fitzpatrick. I was told that if I loved Twilight then I would love this book. I mean, it was good. I liked it. BUT I don't know that I loved it. When I read Twilight I felt it was pretty original- considering. I mean Meyers recreated vampires- vegetarian vampires? WHAT?! But the whole, innocent girl falling in love with the bad boy type or the forbidden love- that isn't anything new. Juliet falling in love with Romeo, the forbidden love theme has been around for forever. But this book I felt mirrored Twilight too much. There's a transfer student- this time it's not the girl. The boy is dangerous. Acts like he is annoyed with the girl as does Edward in Twilight. Bella and this girl are both annoyed with the guy, and have a love/hate thing going on inside of them. Against their better judgement they fall for the guy (don't get me wrong- I love Edward in Twilight and I actually like the guy in this book as well- but really?) The boys in both books are creepy stalkers, stalking around the girl's bedroom windows. Freak accidents. Even one where there's a car involved in both books. There's even a fateful trip out of town to the "big city" nearby. Anyways, for me there was a lot of similarities that I don't think I could ever call this book original.
What I DID like about it? In this book the bad guy is a fallen angel. He never directly tells the girl but tries to give her hints. He is definitely a bad boy type. But in the end, he overcomes the bad. He overcomes his evil side. He ends up changing his nature. Not just a vegetarian vampire- who is still somewhat dangerous by definition, but he is ACTUALLY changed at the end. The girl has to come to terms with him not being who his past defined him. Key word there was defined being PAST TENSE. In life we go through lots of things- things that help shape us into who we are. But our past doesn't have to define WHO WE ARE. What we learn from it, how we use it, how we change and the choices we make NOW and what defines who we are. That is what I gained from this book. Cheesy at times, and sometimes far from original, I liked the message that based on what we choose to do now, we can change. We can be forgiven. We can start anew. How far we may have come shows our strength and perseverance. What we've learned from it shows our wisdom we have gained. How we live now shows our wisdom and who we are- what we have become.
On one more critical note. I found an error on p. 320,
The girl is trying to call her mom and try to explain where she's been all evening in a way that her mom won't get too mad. I don't know where it should switch over, but it starts with the girl saying, "Here's the deal--" and then going on to say she had to turn back and get a room in Milliken Mills. But if you follow the conversation down, the MOM is the one who is in Milliken Mills, not the girl who the quote is attributed to. The girl is at home and becomes relieved to find that her mom didn't notice she was missing and left in search of her. Anyways, now that I've spoiled some of the story for you- read it if you wish. Just know that you will probably see similarities between this book and Twilight and I might've spoiled the ending for you- though I tried to be as vague as possible. I could only be so vague and still get my points across. So sorry if I have spoiled this experience for you!
Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Dictatorship or Democracy?
This may sound a little drastic but I'll explain. We live in a democracy- or I guess if you get down to it, we live in a republic democracy. In my communications class we have been discussing the importance and purpose of journalism. The purpose of journalism is to increase the public's interest in what is going on and portraying the facts so that they can make an educated decision.
I will admit, I have a love/hate relationship with politics. I've never been one to get into the news or even newspapers (funny that I am now going into journalism which feeds into the news and newspapers, but I DO like having a voice). Anyways, I have sometimes avoided politics because I felt the system was corrupt. I'm not sure I disagree with this statement now, but I also have grown to love politics. I LIKE being involved and I feel everyone should be.
So onto my title- it may be a little extreme but I think it helps us see the issue at stake. People complain about how Obama is making our country communist, or trying to form a dictatorship. Fears also that have been made extreme to generate a larger audience. The thing is, a lot of people DON'T agree with what Obama is doing, so they create fear in what COULD happen. And I guess it's true, to an extent. But we still live in a democracy, and if we USE that power, then nothing that drastic can happen.
BUT are WE allowing it to go TOWARDS dictatorship by not participating in our democracy? We have a voice if we choose to use it. We can vote. We can write letters to our representatives and senators that we elected (the republican aspect of our government). If we choose not to speak, collectively as a population, then who IS speaking? Only the Senate, the House of Representatives and the President. So maybe not a dictatorship of one person, but if we do not participate WE are limiting the amount of voices in our government.
So going back to my Obama post- instead of taking the time to write and send around hate mail- why not write a letter about WHY you don't agree and send that around, and if people agree MAYBE they'll start sending it into their representatives as well. There are always at least two sides to a situation, but if we never speak up, how can we blame someone else for our government becoming more of a dictatorship for our OWN laziness at being involved? Sending hate mail does NOTHING, and so it is NOT being involved. So be heard, write your thoughts and seek to inform people of your opinion in a way that can actually generate a result, and send it to people who can DO something about it. Hate is not the answer- creating fear in people isn't the answer- or at least I don't think it is. That's how Hitler gained his support- he played on the emotions without INFORMING enough so people could make LOGICAL decisions that could've brought them out of their depression without starting a world war. Participate and don't HATE!
I will admit, I have a love/hate relationship with politics. I've never been one to get into the news or even newspapers (funny that I am now going into journalism which feeds into the news and newspapers, but I DO like having a voice). Anyways, I have sometimes avoided politics because I felt the system was corrupt. I'm not sure I disagree with this statement now, but I also have grown to love politics. I LIKE being involved and I feel everyone should be.
So onto my title- it may be a little extreme but I think it helps us see the issue at stake. People complain about how Obama is making our country communist, or trying to form a dictatorship. Fears also that have been made extreme to generate a larger audience. The thing is, a lot of people DON'T agree with what Obama is doing, so they create fear in what COULD happen. And I guess it's true, to an extent. But we still live in a democracy, and if we USE that power, then nothing that drastic can happen.
BUT are WE allowing it to go TOWARDS dictatorship by not participating in our democracy? We have a voice if we choose to use it. We can vote. We can write letters to our representatives and senators that we elected (the republican aspect of our government). If we choose not to speak, collectively as a population, then who IS speaking? Only the Senate, the House of Representatives and the President. So maybe not a dictatorship of one person, but if we do not participate WE are limiting the amount of voices in our government.
So going back to my Obama post- instead of taking the time to write and send around hate mail- why not write a letter about WHY you don't agree and send that around, and if people agree MAYBE they'll start sending it into their representatives as well. There are always at least two sides to a situation, but if we never speak up, how can we blame someone else for our government becoming more of a dictatorship for our OWN laziness at being involved? Sending hate mail does NOTHING, and so it is NOT being involved. So be heard, write your thoughts and seek to inform people of your opinion in a way that can actually generate a result, and send it to people who can DO something about it. Hate is not the answer- creating fear in people isn't the answer- or at least I don't think it is. That's how Hitler gained his support- he played on the emotions without INFORMING enough so people could make LOGICAL decisions that could've brought them out of their depression without starting a world war. Participate and don't HATE!
Monday, January 25, 2010
"Dear John"
So I read the book "Dear John" by Nicholas Sparks. WARNING: this post may contain spoilers- if the movie follows the book....
My thoughts- I loved it, and I hated it. I loved it because it's a great story- I could relate to it. But I hated it because it reminded me of one of my relationships. I met this boy, once upon a time and there was a connection. I, like John, don't believe in love at first sight- but it was as if I had already met him before. Anyways, the story is different, but in the book they date for 2 weeks before he leaves to go back to the army. In my story, I knew him for a while, but when we dated, it was only for two weeks before I left. I can relate to both characters in some ways. We did the whole email and phone call thing and IMing for 3 months before I left on my mission. Then it was only letters- snail mail. No phone calls, no emails or IMs. Anyways, with only two weeks we were as serious as they were in the book. We had said I love you's and talked about marriage- and somehow I knew I would marry him. (For any of those who know my dating status and the book, you know what I mean... )
Well, in the story the girl was naive in some ways, and relatively innocent and religious- that was me. The boy, had a "dangerous" past but was a gentleman (or at least he was to me). Anyways, in the book the girl "Dear Johns" him. The same thing happened with me, but for different reasons. The stories differ here but not the feelings. She had fallen in love with someone else but still did love John. When I broke it off with the guy I still loved him. I thought I was doing the right thing though. Anyways, I broke it off, but in the book and in my story it was the guy who cut off contact- which really was best for me and for Savannah (the girl in the book). In her case he loved her enough to let her live her life with her husband and not break up their marriage. For me, we really had gone on different paths and it wasn't right anymore. He cut off communication for who knows why, but it was best for him and for me. I like the girl still think of him. He was my first in a lot of ways and I will always remember him and those times with fondness, but it didn't work out. And I AM glad for it. I know I'm better off, and I know he's doing well. I don't know what would have happened had I not sent the Dear John letter, but I no longer know if it would've worked like I once believed it would. Anyways, if I went through little by little I could probably draw endless conclusions but I think this suffices. I liked the end of the book but it was sad to me. She had moved on, and I wish he had moved on, at least a little more, if they could never be together. In the end, I feel like I'm in his position. I no longer wish to be with that guy, but I want to know that he's happy. I haven't seen him, but I know he is and that's what matters. And I know I'm happy too.
My thoughts- I loved it, and I hated it. I loved it because it's a great story- I could relate to it. But I hated it because it reminded me of one of my relationships. I met this boy, once upon a time and there was a connection. I, like John, don't believe in love at first sight- but it was as if I had already met him before. Anyways, the story is different, but in the book they date for 2 weeks before he leaves to go back to the army. In my story, I knew him for a while, but when we dated, it was only for two weeks before I left. I can relate to both characters in some ways. We did the whole email and phone call thing and IMing for 3 months before I left on my mission. Then it was only letters- snail mail. No phone calls, no emails or IMs. Anyways, with only two weeks we were as serious as they were in the book. We had said I love you's and talked about marriage- and somehow I knew I would marry him. (For any of those who know my dating status and the book, you know what I mean... )
Well, in the story the girl was naive in some ways, and relatively innocent and religious- that was me. The boy, had a "dangerous" past but was a gentleman (or at least he was to me). Anyways, in the book the girl "Dear Johns" him. The same thing happened with me, but for different reasons. The stories differ here but not the feelings. She had fallen in love with someone else but still did love John. When I broke it off with the guy I still loved him. I thought I was doing the right thing though. Anyways, I broke it off, but in the book and in my story it was the guy who cut off contact- which really was best for me and for Savannah (the girl in the book). In her case he loved her enough to let her live her life with her husband and not break up their marriage. For me, we really had gone on different paths and it wasn't right anymore. He cut off communication for who knows why, but it was best for him and for me. I like the girl still think of him. He was my first in a lot of ways and I will always remember him and those times with fondness, but it didn't work out. And I AM glad for it. I know I'm better off, and I know he's doing well. I don't know what would have happened had I not sent the Dear John letter, but I no longer know if it would've worked like I once believed it would. Anyways, if I went through little by little I could probably draw endless conclusions but I think this suffices. I liked the end of the book but it was sad to me. She had moved on, and I wish he had moved on, at least a little more, if they could never be together. In the end, I feel like I'm in his position. I no longer wish to be with that guy, but I want to know that he's happy. I haven't seen him, but I know he is and that's what matters. And I know I'm happy too.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Obama
I have titled this blog as "Obama" for a reason. I'm not really going to talk about who he is, or what he is, or even my opinion on him. Suffice it to say, he's not my favorite person (but I don't hate him) and I didn't vote for him, but I ALSO feel some of the ridicule is ridiculous.
Here's the thing, I have learned from being in leadership positions that everyone has a different way of doing things. SOMETIMES there's a right way and a wrong way, but it's determined by the OUTCOME. Whenever something goes wrong, those in leadership get blamed- but really? Can YOU do better? If not, then how can you so rudely criticize? I can understand knowing idealogies and trying to share them to better the country's atmosphere, but friendly criticism and just hating because you don't agree are two different things.
So I don't agree with Obama, BUT he has 4 years to try out his ideas. Like it or not, he was elected- it's now his chance to do HIS best (not what you think is best- should've voted for yourself if that's the case) to try and fix the problems our nation faces. If he screws up ROYALLY, we have to have faith in our government to impeach him before we are beyond repair. But I find it hard to believe that ONE man can destroy our democracy. Even Obama followers don't want a dictatorship. So therefore, I don't think we can lose everything. And we do have checks and balances in our system set up.
So in my opinion, be involved in politics, speak out when you disagree, so that the checks and balances can make sure nothing goes alright. So give him a break, even if you don't agree with him. If you don't like what he does VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE NEXT ELECTION!
Here's the thing, I have learned from being in leadership positions that everyone has a different way of doing things. SOMETIMES there's a right way and a wrong way, but it's determined by the OUTCOME. Whenever something goes wrong, those in leadership get blamed- but really? Can YOU do better? If not, then how can you so rudely criticize? I can understand knowing idealogies and trying to share them to better the country's atmosphere, but friendly criticism and just hating because you don't agree are two different things.
So I don't agree with Obama, BUT he has 4 years to try out his ideas. Like it or not, he was elected- it's now his chance to do HIS best (not what you think is best- should've voted for yourself if that's the case) to try and fix the problems our nation faces. If he screws up ROYALLY, we have to have faith in our government to impeach him before we are beyond repair. But I find it hard to believe that ONE man can destroy our democracy. Even Obama followers don't want a dictatorship. So therefore, I don't think we can lose everything. And we do have checks and balances in our system set up.
So in my opinion, be involved in politics, speak out when you disagree, so that the checks and balances can make sure nothing goes alright. So give him a break, even if you don't agree with him. If you don't like what he does VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE NEXT ELECTION!
Monday, December 14, 2009
Twilight- First Love, Heartache and Happiness
I have delayed writing this experience til now because it is not as entertaining as I usually like my stories to be. However my posts have not all been stories as of late and I have finally consented (to myself) to document it. There seems to be a new novel writing technique- that of making characters that we can relate to and having them find similarities in their lives to the classics. This is what I'm about to do, but my story doesn't relate to a single story but to many. And it doesn't exactly relate to any classic either but to a book that uses this technique. So I'm in essence relating my life to a story that in turn relates to yet another story.
I'm not starting at the very beginning because it is not all important. I will start a few years ago when I fell in love with a boy. When I read Twilight for the first time I related him to Edward. The thing is I was very attracted to him and he to me. He from the get go warned that he was not good for me but I chose to see differently. I saw the bad boy edge but I also saw his potential. I could see that certain things in his life made him a "monster" as Edward viewed himself but his actions to me showed how he was overcoming that and did everything he could not to fit the stereotype. I was not afraid of him although I probably should've like Bella also should've feared the vampire within. But both Bella and I saw the efforts of restraint and chose to admire that trait. I'm still not sure if I was wrong to do this though I know there were plenty of other mistakes made (I still don't regret them, for I learned from them).
I remember having a discussion with him once about who loved the other person more. His answer was much like Edward's. He told me he had seen more of love and had experienced it more and lived longer... the likes while I was inexperienced and naive. I'll admit that both Bella and I were inexperienced but that doesn't always mean we don't understand something or are even wrong. As is the case for Bella it worked out- they were akin to soulmates. Anyways, skipping ahead- the point of this is not really the love story and the similarities that way.
In the second book Edward leaves and Bella becomes a zombie. This isn't exactly my story, but I broke it off- it wasn't right, but when I broke it off I really didn't think I was doing anything permanent, I kinda thought of it as wrong timing. I closed off afterwards. I got really depressed, he had moved on, and I started realizing it really was over and not just a matter of timing. My Mom one day came into my room asking me if I was alright. I replied, "Yes, why?" (In my mind, the sun was out, I had slept in and just woken up- today was a good day, nothing new had really happened.) And then she responded, "You just have been kinda distant recently." I can't remember if I had already read the second book or if it was later that week, but when I read through Edward's missing months and how she virtually became a walking zombie, I realized it was a pretty accurate description of what I had let myself become. On the outside I did everything I was supposed to, I talked to people, when they talked to me. I even would get excited on occasion when talking with close friends- but someone else always had to initiate it. I became the shy girl that I had, until recently, overcome. In Bella's case she had Jacob, who becomes a love interest, but for me, well I was too attached to my ex at the time. People react differently after a break up, but for me I closed off completely. I was pretty confident of myself- even still. I knew that if I opened up and showed someone my true self I could get any guy I wanted- the problem was, I felt like I would only be on the rebound. I felt like I'd just be using some poor guy and then have to break their heart once I had sufficiently used them- so I just avoided all guys. There were guys I met that I thought were cute- I just wouldn't talk to them, I wouldn't let them see the real me. The only guys I talked to were the ones related to me, my previous guy friends and on a need-only basis and I limited my contact even then. I didn't want to use some poor Jacob character and then have to break his heart.
There was a brief time when I let someone in- I thought I was over my ex, and I can say I gave him an honest chance. When I briefly dated this guy, I didn't compare him to my ex, I gave him a fair chance, but when I felt it wasn't right anymore I broke that one off. The things we do to protect our hearts once they've been seriously broken. For a long time I felt like damaged goods- that I'd never have my whole heart to give again.
Don't get me wrong- in the books I wanted Edward and Bella together- and there was a time when I thought it would work out much the same for me. But those feelings didn't last long- I knew my story would be different- but that still didn't take away the pain.
I don't know if the next part fully relates to the book, but I will continue to relate where applicable. In my story, I didn't have a Jacob character- well not really. I was my own Jacob. I pulled myself out of my zombie-ness. In my "Edward" relationship I had tried to heal him, so to speak- I had tried to change him and it didn't work. So I didn't want to be in a relationship where someone else had to heal me- I wanted to heal myself- which is mainly how it works- you and the Savior. Anyways, yet another reason why I pulled away from guys. I learned to be happy on my own. I am now JUST as happy as Bella was when Edward came back- not as in love as she was, obviously, but I am cured. It took me way longer than I would like to admit, but I am whole once again. Now, however I feel out of practice with being myself around guys, especially. I love my church calling, I focus on the girls around me, but it has drawn me out of my shell almost to the point where I was before entering zombie-land. My story ends differently. My Edward will change. The first one, was the one I had, and the final one is one of my choosing, sometime in the future. I will still end up just as happy and in love as Bella when I finally find my future Edward (I use that term loosely- I don't expect to find some perfect person- I just mean to find someone that I love as much as Bella loves Edward). Throughout this whole experience I have learned more than I could ever contain in one post but mostly I have learned that everyone has faults, but sometimes one is not accustomed to having patience with certain faults. My previous relationship was far from perfect- his flaw was not like Edward's was, as far as I was not patient enough to really be there for him, and I don't really regret that, there are simply certain things that I have learned that I cannot, personally, put up with. People have different personalities. Maybe one person is too messy- maybe they shouldn't be with a neat freak- but there is still someone out there for that person. I know what I can and can't handle. I still believe as I once believed (part of the reason I ended up with him) that he could change, but I'm not longer looking for someone I have to change. I don't care where they've been- I feel that people need different things in life- sometimes the farther they've come and the more they've overcome makes them stronger. Some are just lucky enough not to fall- whatever the case may be, I don't care how he got it but he needs a testimony of the Atonement and what it can do for people. I don't care if he is IN the process of changing when I meet him, but I want to know for sure that he is changing for HIMSELF and not because he feels that I expect it and he needs to in order to be with me- that's not a lasting change. In my case, I had forgiven him for everything he had done- it was just a matter that he stopped changing, and I should've realized it then- that it was NOT a lasting change. He had been changing for me, not for himself, and that is the difference. I don't think it matters that you're dating someone while you are changing. You will never be perfect, you will always be changing in some way or another, what matters is that you change for yourself and not someone else and that you know that the person you are with truly wants the same things and goals that you do. One can inspire another and sometimes it helps to be with someone who has faith in you to help you through, but the desire to change has to be all your own. I know that break-ups can be hard, and I know that they can sometime seem to last forever, but I know that they end- all of them. It's just a matter of time (as cliche as that is...)
I'm not starting at the very beginning because it is not all important. I will start a few years ago when I fell in love with a boy. When I read Twilight for the first time I related him to Edward. The thing is I was very attracted to him and he to me. He from the get go warned that he was not good for me but I chose to see differently. I saw the bad boy edge but I also saw his potential. I could see that certain things in his life made him a "monster" as Edward viewed himself but his actions to me showed how he was overcoming that and did everything he could not to fit the stereotype. I was not afraid of him although I probably should've like Bella also should've feared the vampire within. But both Bella and I saw the efforts of restraint and chose to admire that trait. I'm still not sure if I was wrong to do this though I know there were plenty of other mistakes made (I still don't regret them, for I learned from them).
I remember having a discussion with him once about who loved the other person more. His answer was much like Edward's. He told me he had seen more of love and had experienced it more and lived longer... the likes while I was inexperienced and naive. I'll admit that both Bella and I were inexperienced but that doesn't always mean we don't understand something or are even wrong. As is the case for Bella it worked out- they were akin to soulmates. Anyways, skipping ahead- the point of this is not really the love story and the similarities that way.
In the second book Edward leaves and Bella becomes a zombie. This isn't exactly my story, but I broke it off- it wasn't right, but when I broke it off I really didn't think I was doing anything permanent, I kinda thought of it as wrong timing. I closed off afterwards. I got really depressed, he had moved on, and I started realizing it really was over and not just a matter of timing. My Mom one day came into my room asking me if I was alright. I replied, "Yes, why?" (In my mind, the sun was out, I had slept in and just woken up- today was a good day, nothing new had really happened.) And then she responded, "You just have been kinda distant recently." I can't remember if I had already read the second book or if it was later that week, but when I read through Edward's missing months and how she virtually became a walking zombie, I realized it was a pretty accurate description of what I had let myself become. On the outside I did everything I was supposed to, I talked to people, when they talked to me. I even would get excited on occasion when talking with close friends- but someone else always had to initiate it. I became the shy girl that I had, until recently, overcome. In Bella's case she had Jacob, who becomes a love interest, but for me, well I was too attached to my ex at the time. People react differently after a break up, but for me I closed off completely. I was pretty confident of myself- even still. I knew that if I opened up and showed someone my true self I could get any guy I wanted- the problem was, I felt like I would only be on the rebound. I felt like I'd just be using some poor guy and then have to break their heart once I had sufficiently used them- so I just avoided all guys. There were guys I met that I thought were cute- I just wouldn't talk to them, I wouldn't let them see the real me. The only guys I talked to were the ones related to me, my previous guy friends and on a need-only basis and I limited my contact even then. I didn't want to use some poor Jacob character and then have to break his heart.
There was a brief time when I let someone in- I thought I was over my ex, and I can say I gave him an honest chance. When I briefly dated this guy, I didn't compare him to my ex, I gave him a fair chance, but when I felt it wasn't right anymore I broke that one off. The things we do to protect our hearts once they've been seriously broken. For a long time I felt like damaged goods- that I'd never have my whole heart to give again.
Don't get me wrong- in the books I wanted Edward and Bella together- and there was a time when I thought it would work out much the same for me. But those feelings didn't last long- I knew my story would be different- but that still didn't take away the pain.
I don't know if the next part fully relates to the book, but I will continue to relate where applicable. In my story, I didn't have a Jacob character- well not really. I was my own Jacob. I pulled myself out of my zombie-ness. In my "Edward" relationship I had tried to heal him, so to speak- I had tried to change him and it didn't work. So I didn't want to be in a relationship where someone else had to heal me- I wanted to heal myself- which is mainly how it works- you and the Savior. Anyways, yet another reason why I pulled away from guys. I learned to be happy on my own. I am now JUST as happy as Bella was when Edward came back- not as in love as she was, obviously, but I am cured. It took me way longer than I would like to admit, but I am whole once again. Now, however I feel out of practice with being myself around guys, especially. I love my church calling, I focus on the girls around me, but it has drawn me out of my shell almost to the point where I was before entering zombie-land. My story ends differently. My Edward will change. The first one, was the one I had, and the final one is one of my choosing, sometime in the future. I will still end up just as happy and in love as Bella when I finally find my future Edward (I use that term loosely- I don't expect to find some perfect person- I just mean to find someone that I love as much as Bella loves Edward). Throughout this whole experience I have learned more than I could ever contain in one post but mostly I have learned that everyone has faults, but sometimes one is not accustomed to having patience with certain faults. My previous relationship was far from perfect- his flaw was not like Edward's was, as far as I was not patient enough to really be there for him, and I don't really regret that, there are simply certain things that I have learned that I cannot, personally, put up with. People have different personalities. Maybe one person is too messy- maybe they shouldn't be with a neat freak- but there is still someone out there for that person. I know what I can and can't handle. I still believe as I once believed (part of the reason I ended up with him) that he could change, but I'm not longer looking for someone I have to change. I don't care where they've been- I feel that people need different things in life- sometimes the farther they've come and the more they've overcome makes them stronger. Some are just lucky enough not to fall- whatever the case may be, I don't care how he got it but he needs a testimony of the Atonement and what it can do for people. I don't care if he is IN the process of changing when I meet him, but I want to know for sure that he is changing for HIMSELF and not because he feels that I expect it and he needs to in order to be with me- that's not a lasting change. In my case, I had forgiven him for everything he had done- it was just a matter that he stopped changing, and I should've realized it then- that it was NOT a lasting change. He had been changing for me, not for himself, and that is the difference. I don't think it matters that you're dating someone while you are changing. You will never be perfect, you will always be changing in some way or another, what matters is that you change for yourself and not someone else and that you know that the person you are with truly wants the same things and goals that you do. One can inspire another and sometimes it helps to be with someone who has faith in you to help you through, but the desire to change has to be all your own. I know that break-ups can be hard, and I know that they can sometime seem to last forever, but I know that they end- all of them. It's just a matter of time (as cliche as that is...)
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Protector or Creeper?
So, with New Moon that came out a few weeks ago, I got talking to my sisters and my Mom about the movies. I love them because they are a representation of the books I love, but honestly I thought Twilight was REALLY cheesy. I mean there's a lot of scenes where the camera seems to be swirling around them as they're laying in the meadow, or laying in her bed and NO interaction. AND Edward, to me comes off as a creepy stalker in the movie and that wasn't the impression I got in the book. So, I'm an Edward fan- at heart, but when I watch the movies I become a Jacob fan.
Anyways, I have a few things that I want to say relating to Twilight, first off has to do with what my mom said when we were critiquing the movies. She was like, Edward IS a creepy stalker that Bella falls in love with. The whole book is about a girl who falls in love with the bad boy instead of what's good for her. I kinda see my mom's point, but at the same time I became defensive- that's NOT the Edward I know and love from my book reading experience. (I don't use love seriously. I'm not so much "involved" with him as some people. I do not expect people to live up to the expectations that Edward creates, nor do I fantasize about a real life Edward, but if a book is written well enough I become part of the stories as I read them. That to me, is a good book. So now, back to the current subject.) So, I started thinking that maybe Edward IS just as creepy as he comes across in the movie. Maybe I loved the books so much as a passing obsession, after all, I've only read them once. So I started reading them again. And I am STILL an Edward fan. Here's the thing, there are subtle hints all along the way of ways that Bella was MADE to be in his world. Yes, he's a vampire, there's a dangerous bad boy edge to his character. But in the books he has risen above it. He has become a "vegetarian" as they call it because he doesn't want to be a monster. He did not start off as a creepy stalker, from reading the books again and a SMALL amount of Edward's book from the brief version online you find out that Edward was attracted to her scent, and he hated her for it because he felt it brought out the monster in him. So what does he do? He leaves for Alaska for a little while and then realizes he can't stay away. Love or lust? I'm not going to go into it in this posting, but he's drawn back but still tries to keep his distance because he knows it's best for her. There's the whole scene where he saves her from being smashed by a car. And he can read thoughts, supposedly EVERY guy went after her, and clearly in the book you see at least 4 examples other than Edward, so how would he not think about her with her being the new commodity running through everyone's head. Once again back to the car incident and various other accounts that he witnessed through thoughts of her clumsiness she proved herself a danger magnet. So he leaves for a weekend and the first creepy stalker account happens after that weekend when he ends up watching her when she's in her backyard. Once again, not going into whether the attraction is more than surface deep or not, but he wanted to know she was safe. More of a protector than creepy stalker, after knowing her ability to find disaster. The incident in Port Angeles, he followed her, but gave her space keeping tabs on her from time to time. He didn't follow her when she went off on her own which is why she had to be rescued from her almost attackers. Then AFTER she basically admits to being obsessed with him, that's when he starts coming to her window and watching her sleep. So basically I'm still under the impression that he's more of a protector than creepy stalker.
On to another point I want to make. I was heading out from my dance class this semester and this guy is writing a paper on attraction- I don't remember full details or how it fulfills the writing requirements for his class, I just remember the basics. We were talking how, shallow as it may be, looks are what usually attracts people to each other, at least initially. He brought up Edward and Twilight and basically said that HE thinks Edward is a creepy stalker, but Bella is so entranced by his looks that she doesn't care. I don't fully agree with that, but maybe it's because I see similarities between Bella and I that maybe I'm in denial about. Either way, he asked a girl if she thought George Clooney was hott. She said yes, so he then asked if she would find it creepy if he was stalking her. She said no. He claimed that it's all based on looks, and I claimed, "well, you see if George Clooney were to stalk you, it would probably just come off as really good acting. Kinda like Jonny Depp, he can play the weirdest creepiest characters and still, I just think he's an amazing, talented actor. Same with Heath Ledger and playing the Joker. You watch that and you're not creeped out when you see Heath Ledger, you just think he was amazing to pull off the Joker. (I guess in his offense, those are ALSO good-looking examples, but still, to me Edward is not a creeper.)
Back to when my sisters and I were critiquing the movie Twilight, my sister and I talked about how we thought they should've replaced some of the boring camera swirls and techniques of just them lying next to each other with better scenes from the book. It's true, you see nothing of the day Bella fainted at the smell of blood (which is kinda important to understanding how she fits in his world- Edward says humans don't smell blood.) You don't see much of their interaction in Biology, you don't see the scene where Edward sits with her at lunch, just the two of them and they have their first real conversation. You don't see SO many things that would be better and go more into their actual relationship than just the surface, superficial staring at one another while laying down scenes.
So my conclusions: liking the books was not a passing obsession. They may not be the best books, but I still love them. And Edward in my mind is still not a creepy stalker. Edward and Bella were made for each other.
Anyways, I have a few things that I want to say relating to Twilight, first off has to do with what my mom said when we were critiquing the movies. She was like, Edward IS a creepy stalker that Bella falls in love with. The whole book is about a girl who falls in love with the bad boy instead of what's good for her. I kinda see my mom's point, but at the same time I became defensive- that's NOT the Edward I know and love from my book reading experience. (I don't use love seriously. I'm not so much "involved" with him as some people. I do not expect people to live up to the expectations that Edward creates, nor do I fantasize about a real life Edward, but if a book is written well enough I become part of the stories as I read them. That to me, is a good book. So now, back to the current subject.) So, I started thinking that maybe Edward IS just as creepy as he comes across in the movie. Maybe I loved the books so much as a passing obsession, after all, I've only read them once. So I started reading them again. And I am STILL an Edward fan. Here's the thing, there are subtle hints all along the way of ways that Bella was MADE to be in his world. Yes, he's a vampire, there's a dangerous bad boy edge to his character. But in the books he has risen above it. He has become a "vegetarian" as they call it because he doesn't want to be a monster. He did not start off as a creepy stalker, from reading the books again and a SMALL amount of Edward's book from the brief version online you find out that Edward was attracted to her scent, and he hated her for it because he felt it brought out the monster in him. So what does he do? He leaves for Alaska for a little while and then realizes he can't stay away. Love or lust? I'm not going to go into it in this posting, but he's drawn back but still tries to keep his distance because he knows it's best for her. There's the whole scene where he saves her from being smashed by a car. And he can read thoughts, supposedly EVERY guy went after her, and clearly in the book you see at least 4 examples other than Edward, so how would he not think about her with her being the new commodity running through everyone's head. Once again back to the car incident and various other accounts that he witnessed through thoughts of her clumsiness she proved herself a danger magnet. So he leaves for a weekend and the first creepy stalker account happens after that weekend when he ends up watching her when she's in her backyard. Once again, not going into whether the attraction is more than surface deep or not, but he wanted to know she was safe. More of a protector than creepy stalker, after knowing her ability to find disaster. The incident in Port Angeles, he followed her, but gave her space keeping tabs on her from time to time. He didn't follow her when she went off on her own which is why she had to be rescued from her almost attackers. Then AFTER she basically admits to being obsessed with him, that's when he starts coming to her window and watching her sleep. So basically I'm still under the impression that he's more of a protector than creepy stalker.
On to another point I want to make. I was heading out from my dance class this semester and this guy is writing a paper on attraction- I don't remember full details or how it fulfills the writing requirements for his class, I just remember the basics. We were talking how, shallow as it may be, looks are what usually attracts people to each other, at least initially. He brought up Edward and Twilight and basically said that HE thinks Edward is a creepy stalker, but Bella is so entranced by his looks that she doesn't care. I don't fully agree with that, but maybe it's because I see similarities between Bella and I that maybe I'm in denial about. Either way, he asked a girl if she thought George Clooney was hott. She said yes, so he then asked if she would find it creepy if he was stalking her. She said no. He claimed that it's all based on looks, and I claimed, "well, you see if George Clooney were to stalk you, it would probably just come off as really good acting. Kinda like Jonny Depp, he can play the weirdest creepiest characters and still, I just think he's an amazing, talented actor. Same with Heath Ledger and playing the Joker. You watch that and you're not creeped out when you see Heath Ledger, you just think he was amazing to pull off the Joker. (I guess in his offense, those are ALSO good-looking examples, but still, to me Edward is not a creeper.)
Back to when my sisters and I were critiquing the movie Twilight, my sister and I talked about how we thought they should've replaced some of the boring camera swirls and techniques of just them lying next to each other with better scenes from the book. It's true, you see nothing of the day Bella fainted at the smell of blood (which is kinda important to understanding how she fits in his world- Edward says humans don't smell blood.) You don't see much of their interaction in Biology, you don't see the scene where Edward sits with her at lunch, just the two of them and they have their first real conversation. You don't see SO many things that would be better and go more into their actual relationship than just the surface, superficial staring at one another while laying down scenes.
So my conclusions: liking the books was not a passing obsession. They may not be the best books, but I still love them. And Edward in my mind is still not a creepy stalker. Edward and Bella were made for each other.
Friday, December 11, 2009
The One
So, I've been thinking a lot about "The One" recently, or a soul-mate. However you choose to look at it. I have lots of friends who have gotten married and many others who are still in that stage where they are looking for "The One" as I am. I put it into quotes for a reason that I hope will become clear by the end of this. I will be bringing in a lot of what I believe in, which some people may not agree with, but it is what makes sense to me based on what I believe to be true. This post may be a little on the long side, but I want to make sure I include as much as possible so I'm almost positive it makes sense.
I will start by saying that I believe that we lived before this Earth life. I believe in God being our Heavenly Father. And I believe family relationships are the most important relationships we can strive to develop while here on Earth. At this particular time I'm not really going to go into why I believe everything I do, although it is simple in principle I have a way of making it more complex and it would take much too long to explain. But I don't believe that babies are magically brought into this world with certain personalities and to certain families. I believe we are placed in certain families for a reason. If it is not the greatest childhood I believe there is something to be learned from it and although I feel sorry for the children I still believe they were placed in such hard situations for a reason, sometimes for the benefit of another. I'm straying already. I believe families are meant to last forever- not til death do us part. I believe in life after this life, just as I believe we existed before this life as we know it. And I believe that families last beyond what we can see and understand as mere mortals. If families are supposed to last forever, why would we be expected to make a choice of who we should marry and be with FOREVER in a matter of a few years in the spectrum of what I believe to be more than millions of years. It seems we should spend more time than that on decisions that affect forever. But I also said I believe we existed before. I believe we existed as individuals before- not with a body as we are now but our spirits that I believe are an integral part of us, I believe that that part of us existed for a long time before we came here and were born on this Earth. I believe we had relationships with people here. I don't know about everyone but there are times when I feel drawn to someone I hardly know. As if I know them. Some people say they fell in love with words such as "love at first sight". I believe there are times when our spirits can recognize people we once knew. And I believe that we had a say in who are families would be here. So in a sense I believe in soul-mates- someone we chose before. I believe we existed for a long time before we came here and knew people better than we know them now. So it would seem as if I believe in "The One", but I don't, not as most people see it, anyways.
Here in this life, life is nowhere near perfect. There is a veil that has been placed over our minds so we do not remember life before this. We are to "walk by faith" as the Apostle Paul wrote. We make mistakes as humans, we are learning, growing. Some people have forgotten who they were and that they chose to come to Earth (another side note that requires way too long of an explanation to into fully- I believe that all people on this Earth were good and proved it when they chose to come to Earth, but some have chosen to go a different way here on Earth which creates a lot of good and bad people). There is abuse, their is death, drugs, disease- some things that are within the control of humans and some that are not. And bad things often happen to good people.
I believe in Heaven and Hell, but not as a lot of Christians view it. I do not believe that Hell is endless burning and that if one is not baptized into a certain church one will burn forever. But I do believe that there are different degrees within heaven "In my Father's house are many mansions." (KJV John 14:2) I believe we have to prove ourselves worthy of living with our families forever and being sealed to them. (That is the way I interpret another scripture but it also goes off on a tangent.) So what if "The One" dies because of life here on Earth? Are we doomed to be alone for all of this life- which at times seems very long? What if "The One" for us decides they don't really care to do what's right? Are we doomed to be with someone who doesn't want to be the best they can be and might end up in a life of abuse? No. But in the same sense, I believe that God knows everything, including who we will end up with, so if that is how you define "The One" then I guess I believe in it. But He knows who we will end up with based on our choices.
There have been many quotes given by apostles and prophets in my church. Some saying there is no such thing as The One. They also say that ANY two righteous people can get married if they are willing to pay the price. I think they say that because some people would say they found The One and even if that person was not living worthy of them, they would attach themselves to a life of misery and abuse by choice, all in the name of 'The One'. But at the same time there are other quotes that tell people in my church to pray about it, to find the right one, that when we can see how God brought us and our spouse together we will have more harmony in our relationship. Which almost implies there being One soul-mate for us.
What makes sense to me is that there are "Ones". Maybe we chose to be with someone before this life began. But maybe he decides that he wants to be a murderer here. God will not doom us to be tied down to him. He will provide another if we are doing everything we can to be the right one. If our spouse dies, or our "soul-mate" dies, we are not doomed to live alone forever. The Lord can prepare someone else.
We always have a say in who we marry and there isn't a One and Only until you seal yourself to that person- then they become, by your choice, your One and Only, your soulmate (and unless there are extreme circumstances, I believe both parties need to work on their marriage no matter what, with the attitude that now that they are married there is only ONE.) I understand that divorce happens and it isn't always both sided and there can still be happiness for those who go through this, I also know that there are cases with abuse where it isn't safe for someone to remain in the marriage, for the kids, or whatever the circumstance may be. (So basically I believe in exceptions... sorry for the tangent) I think that's it on this subject for now... :) Until later! :)
I will start by saying that I believe that we lived before this Earth life. I believe in God being our Heavenly Father. And I believe family relationships are the most important relationships we can strive to develop while here on Earth. At this particular time I'm not really going to go into why I believe everything I do, although it is simple in principle I have a way of making it more complex and it would take much too long to explain. But I don't believe that babies are magically brought into this world with certain personalities and to certain families. I believe we are placed in certain families for a reason. If it is not the greatest childhood I believe there is something to be learned from it and although I feel sorry for the children I still believe they were placed in such hard situations for a reason, sometimes for the benefit of another. I'm straying already. I believe families are meant to last forever- not til death do us part. I believe in life after this life, just as I believe we existed before this life as we know it. And I believe that families last beyond what we can see and understand as mere mortals. If families are supposed to last forever, why would we be expected to make a choice of who we should marry and be with FOREVER in a matter of a few years in the spectrum of what I believe to be more than millions of years. It seems we should spend more time than that on decisions that affect forever. But I also said I believe we existed before. I believe we existed as individuals before- not with a body as we are now but our spirits that I believe are an integral part of us, I believe that that part of us existed for a long time before we came here and were born on this Earth. I believe we had relationships with people here. I don't know about everyone but there are times when I feel drawn to someone I hardly know. As if I know them. Some people say they fell in love with words such as "love at first sight". I believe there are times when our spirits can recognize people we once knew. And I believe that we had a say in who are families would be here. So in a sense I believe in soul-mates- someone we chose before. I believe we existed for a long time before we came here and knew people better than we know them now. So it would seem as if I believe in "The One", but I don't, not as most people see it, anyways.
Here in this life, life is nowhere near perfect. There is a veil that has been placed over our minds so we do not remember life before this. We are to "walk by faith" as the Apostle Paul wrote. We make mistakes as humans, we are learning, growing. Some people have forgotten who they were and that they chose to come to Earth (another side note that requires way too long of an explanation to into fully- I believe that all people on this Earth were good and proved it when they chose to come to Earth, but some have chosen to go a different way here on Earth which creates a lot of good and bad people). There is abuse, their is death, drugs, disease- some things that are within the control of humans and some that are not. And bad things often happen to good people.
I believe in Heaven and Hell, but not as a lot of Christians view it. I do not believe that Hell is endless burning and that if one is not baptized into a certain church one will burn forever. But I do believe that there are different degrees within heaven "In my Father's house are many mansions." (KJV John 14:2) I believe we have to prove ourselves worthy of living with our families forever and being sealed to them. (That is the way I interpret another scripture but it also goes off on a tangent.) So what if "The One" dies because of life here on Earth? Are we doomed to be alone for all of this life- which at times seems very long? What if "The One" for us decides they don't really care to do what's right? Are we doomed to be with someone who doesn't want to be the best they can be and might end up in a life of abuse? No. But in the same sense, I believe that God knows everything, including who we will end up with, so if that is how you define "The One" then I guess I believe in it. But He knows who we will end up with based on our choices.
There have been many quotes given by apostles and prophets in my church. Some saying there is no such thing as The One. They also say that ANY two righteous people can get married if they are willing to pay the price. I think they say that because some people would say they found The One and even if that person was not living worthy of them, they would attach themselves to a life of misery and abuse by choice, all in the name of 'The One'. But at the same time there are other quotes that tell people in my church to pray about it, to find the right one, that when we can see how God brought us and our spouse together we will have more harmony in our relationship. Which almost implies there being One soul-mate for us.
What makes sense to me is that there are "Ones". Maybe we chose to be with someone before this life began. But maybe he decides that he wants to be a murderer here. God will not doom us to be tied down to him. He will provide another if we are doing everything we can to be the right one. If our spouse dies, or our "soul-mate" dies, we are not doomed to live alone forever. The Lord can prepare someone else.
We always have a say in who we marry and there isn't a One and Only until you seal yourself to that person- then they become, by your choice, your One and Only, your soulmate (and unless there are extreme circumstances, I believe both parties need to work on their marriage no matter what, with the attitude that now that they are married there is only ONE.) I understand that divorce happens and it isn't always both sided and there can still be happiness for those who go through this, I also know that there are cases with abuse where it isn't safe for someone to remain in the marriage, for the kids, or whatever the circumstance may be. (So basically I believe in exceptions... sorry for the tangent) I think that's it on this subject for now... :) Until later! :)
Friday, January 23, 2009
On Brands
So, I don't know why but it seems I've been thinking a lot about brand names. The world we live in can be full of brand names: Gucci, Louis Vuitton, BCBG, Roxy, and MANY others. At times it is very materialistic. I understand this to a point, and I do care about brand names to an extent. I buy Kraft Parmesan Cheese, I get into certain brand names of pants- Arizona Jeans were a favorite of mine for awhile (though those were a lot cheaper than some brand names). What's in a brand name? Or even what's in a name?
It seems that reputations are attached to brand names and names in general. Let's think of an analogy. Let's say you are in high school and Brandy is the popular girl in school. She's at the very top. So because she's at the top, you decide that she must be something special and so you decide to tell her your most embarrassing secrets. Well unfortunately Brandy doesn't know you- you are not in her circle of friends. What does she do? She thinks the secrets are hilarious and starts telling them, maybe not with the intention of hurting you even, but simply because she thinks they're funny. And now your name is known for the embarrassing secrets instead of the intelligence or talents you were known for before. And all because you trusted in a name.
Let's take a slightly different analogy. Let's say your best friend Angelique, has proven herself time and time again as loyal- she understands you, she compliments you and when you're around her you're a better person. If you tell her your secrets she respects them. But Angelique isn't known for being loyal, or understanding, but you have gotten to know her and you know her to be just that. Let's take it a step further and say that Angelique is just as pretty and stylish as Brandy, she just isn't known because she's not outgoing and showy about it.
That is the way I see brand names. Big labels are known for their adherence to fashion. But other lesser known brands also mimick the fashions of the designer brands. Some do a good job and others don't. I understand if you buy designer jeans, cause #1 you have the money, and #2 you have found that they flatter your body and #3 you have found they are a good investment or some such reasons of logic. But if you are buying some brand simply for the brand name, I feel it is a waste of time. I think finding pants that fit are one of the hardest things to do. When I find a pair that works and fits well I stick with that brand. Cause they have proven to me that they understand my body shape and are designed to last long enough to make it worth however much they cost.
It is the same with food. I stick with Kraft Parmesan cheese, because they have proven to me that the taste they create is what I want. That is the purpose of brand names to me. To carry with it a reputation. But sometimes just because a brand is well known isn't because of their loyalty to their customers or their value as far as how long they last. Sometimes it is only because of the fashion and to create an air of "I'm better than you because I have such and such a brand." That's not a brand worth buying to me. I would much rather have a knock-off brand- get the same style and save my money for something more useful than trying to prove through meaningless ways that I am someone because I lucked out in the money department. That proves nothing about my character, and I am way more than a brand name.
Once again, I don't care if you like certain brand names, and I don't care how much they cost- all I'm saying is I hope you are using it because the brand has proved its value to you and not simply because of it's popularity due to a passing fad.
It seems that reputations are attached to brand names and names in general. Let's think of an analogy. Let's say you are in high school and Brandy is the popular girl in school. She's at the very top. So because she's at the top, you decide that she must be something special and so you decide to tell her your most embarrassing secrets. Well unfortunately Brandy doesn't know you- you are not in her circle of friends. What does she do? She thinks the secrets are hilarious and starts telling them, maybe not with the intention of hurting you even, but simply because she thinks they're funny. And now your name is known for the embarrassing secrets instead of the intelligence or talents you were known for before. And all because you trusted in a name.
Let's take a slightly different analogy. Let's say your best friend Angelique, has proven herself time and time again as loyal- she understands you, she compliments you and when you're around her you're a better person. If you tell her your secrets she respects them. But Angelique isn't known for being loyal, or understanding, but you have gotten to know her and you know her to be just that. Let's take it a step further and say that Angelique is just as pretty and stylish as Brandy, she just isn't known because she's not outgoing and showy about it.
That is the way I see brand names. Big labels are known for their adherence to fashion. But other lesser known brands also mimick the fashions of the designer brands. Some do a good job and others don't. I understand if you buy designer jeans, cause #1 you have the money, and #2 you have found that they flatter your body and #3 you have found they are a good investment or some such reasons of logic. But if you are buying some brand simply for the brand name, I feel it is a waste of time. I think finding pants that fit are one of the hardest things to do. When I find a pair that works and fits well I stick with that brand. Cause they have proven to me that they understand my body shape and are designed to last long enough to make it worth however much they cost.
It is the same with food. I stick with Kraft Parmesan cheese, because they have proven to me that the taste they create is what I want. That is the purpose of brand names to me. To carry with it a reputation. But sometimes just because a brand is well known isn't because of their loyalty to their customers or their value as far as how long they last. Sometimes it is only because of the fashion and to create an air of "I'm better than you because I have such and such a brand." That's not a brand worth buying to me. I would much rather have a knock-off brand- get the same style and save my money for something more useful than trying to prove through meaningless ways that I am someone because I lucked out in the money department. That proves nothing about my character, and I am way more than a brand name.
Once again, I don't care if you like certain brand names, and I don't care how much they cost- all I'm saying is I hope you are using it because the brand has proved its value to you and not simply because of it's popularity due to a passing fad.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Why I believe in “Yes” for Prop 8
I’m also going to say that I have some quotes from the Bible. I use the King James Version- it was the first one to be translated into English and although some may find it hard to understand, hence the other simplified versions I believe it to be the most correct since it was an original translation, not a translation of a translation (some of you may be aware of what happens in the game of telephone), so I will do my best to explain what the scriptures mean to me. This once again relates to what I believe. If you believe differently that’s fine, but I am stating it as fact because it IS what I believe to be true.
First I want to start with a broad overview of something that may seem impertinent, but I promise to connect it all before I’m through. What makes a nation great? Throughout all of history there have been many great nations. How many have lasted? What has been the cause of their falls? Historians will tell you that it was due to weakness in leadership, geographical weaknesses that made it easy for invasion, economic difficulties, or any number of other things. I believe that there is a different thread that ties, at least most falls of civilizations together. (This is my theory, but it is also my belief- that there is a different reason for at least most falls of civilizations.) I believe that the two greatest sins are murdering and those revolving around chastity, fornication, adultery and yes, even homosexuality. These two things have to do with the giving and taking away of a life. I think most Christians will tell you it is wrong to kill. A lot of Christians also believe it isn’t ethical to clone because you are taking God’s power to create into your own hands. I believe that the way that children are brought into the world is very important and though I will readily admit that no family is perfect, I do believe that every child should have the right to be raised by a mother and a father. There are certain divine qualities, or natural gifts, instincts, roles that are given to both men and women and I believe it takes one of each in a family. Yes I know sometimes there are single parents, due to divorce, death, any number of reasons. I also know many gays and lesbians who are very caring individuals, who would probably do well with children, but there are certain things, no matter how qualified a person is that the child would miss out on. You don’t have to agree with me on this point. I do know that if God had created two males or two females alone we would not be here. He created Adam and Eve, a man and a woman, and that is what I believe to be the divine institution of marriage. No matter who raised you, whether it was a mother and father, a single mom or dad, or even two caring individuals of the same sex, no one would be here if, somewhere along the line there was not a man and a woman. Since this union is how I believe children ought to be brought into the world, (sometimes they are and sometimes they aren’t- this world isn’t perfect) this issue of marriage and how it is defined is also important to me.
Now, to continue on, I believe that you cannot sin in ignorance- “Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15. Other similar scriptures include: Romans 5:13, James 4:17, and 1 John 3:4 which talk about how you need to know to sin, or you sin when you know and don’t follow through). This does not however pertain to the laws of the land, but the laws of God. His laws are not voted on, they are what He says, so don’t mix this up with laws in our land where if they were abolished they wouldn’t be wrong anymore. (If murder was allowed in this country it would still be morally wrong.) But I also believe that you cannot be saved in ignorance. Well, I believe that God doesn’t change- even if society does. So, to me, marriage was originally between a man and a woman and in God’s eyes it will always be defined. Also, God always sent prophets. I believe these prophets were supposed to warn the world- as much as they could, so that they could be saved. But once a people were no longer ignorant they can now sin. This is what happened in the Biblical account of Sodom and Gommorrah.
“And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; … And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night… and they turned in unto him, and entered his house.” (Genesis 19:1-3) So far, some holy men or angels have come to Sodom and Lot invited them to stay at his house, and they did. “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round… And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” (Gen. 19:4-5) So, the men in the city came and surrounded Lot’s house and asked for the angels to come out, and it says, so that they may know them. This may sound harmless to you in our English, but since it is the King’s James version, it was written in the English of the time. In this case, both the Hebrew word it was translated from and the original English use the word ‘know’ in place of a sexual word. To know someone “Biblically” is to have sex with them. And these are men asking to have sex with other men. And Lot said, “I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; …” (Gen. 19:7-8) So Lot tried offering up his daughters, although it would still be a sin, a lesser one to try and persuade them to not commit such an act. I believe Lot thought he had raised his daughters well and that they might be able to persuade them not to commit a sin and also had been taught well enough that they would not allow any sexual sin to be committed with themselves either. Then in the next few verses the people tried to break into Lot’s house. They basically think that Lot has made himself a judge over them and plan to deal with Lot, his daughters and the two men who are staying with Lot. The two angels are able to stop the men but tell Lot and his family to leave. (In the previous chapter the Lord had said that he wouldn’t destroy a city if there were righteous people within it, and so Lot and his righteous family members are now leaving.) Then the city is destroyed, because of the sins of the city which has been manifested in this story. (The complete story continues through verse 29.)
Now you may say, well that is a Biblical account- it’s only pertaining to one belief- one people, one time. Well, here is where other times come into account. We don’t know much about the Xia dynasty in China but we have the writings of the next dynasty. In “The Mandate of Heaven” recorded in the Book of Documents, Yi Yin, an advisor to the first king of the Shang dynasty is giving advice to the new king. He relates things about the previous dynasty and keys of success that had been lacking in the Xia dynasty. “… the former kings of Xia cultivated earnestly their virtue, and then there were no calamities from Heaven…. But their descendant did not follow their example, and great Heaven sent down calamities, employing the agency of our ruler…. The attack on Xia may be traced to the orgies in Ming Tiao.” The original kings of the Xia were virtuous according to this and therefore there was no struggle with power, but then their descendant, the last king of the Xia dynasty had orgies. It is not fact that that was the cause of the fall, but that’s what Yi Yin thought. Then he continues with counsel for the next king starting with discussing three “fashions” which will shortly be explained.
“If you dare to have constant dancing in your palaces, and drunken singing in your chambers,- that is called the fashion of sorcerers; if you dare to set your hearts on wealth and women, and abandon yourselves to wandering about or to the chase,- that is called the fashion of extravagance; if you dare to despise sage words, to resist the loyal and upright, to put far from you the aged and virtuous, and to seek the company of…youths,- that is called the fashion of disorder. Now if a high noble or officer be addicted to one of these three fashions with their ten evil ways, his family will surely come to ruin; if the prince of a country be so addicted, his state will surely come to ruin…. The ways of Heaven are not invariable.”(Andrea p. 25-26)
Yes it might have been biased, but there are facts written in there such as how it said the previous king was known to have orgies and then lists the opinion that the author of this document isn’t sure if that was the cause of the fall. This document also proves that my theory is at least not brand new. That the laws of God or Heaven do not change and that when sexual sins enter into the reigning authority and is there accepted that is when a nation falls.
Then there is Troy. The fall of Troy. Why did Troy fall? Well, you could blame it on the fact that they didn’t have Achilles. You could say that their army wasn’t superior, or even that they fell for the clever ploy of the Trojan horse. But the truth is, why were the armies there in the first place? Paris stole away the wife of Menelaus, Helen. We know it was considered wrong in the eyes of the people there because of Paris’ brother’s reaction when he finds out. We also know that it was soon justified away. Well, this sin is alright because she’s happy, or whatever. Not the best thing to do. Don’t rationalize away your sins. So, in my opinion, why did Troy fall? Because they were not ignorant about adultery being wrong and yet they did it and accepted it legally as ok.
Now, this one I find interesting, although it is not a hundred percent tied to the actual Fall of the Roman Empire, but it does contribute to my theory. Towards the end of the Roman Empire there was the development of the Roman mime within Roman theater. “The Romans enjoyed sexually provocative dramatic material, and the emperor Heliogabalus, in the first part of the third century C.E., is said to have forced mimes to perform actual sexual acts.”(Wilson, p. 81) This was at the beginning of the third century and in 330 it was already clear that the Roman Empire was beginning to fall. You may think- big deal- that happens in Hollywood all the time. But if you remember, actors used to be all male. If sexual acts were being performed on stage, that means that it was homosexuality being publicly accepted and enforced. This was in a nation that had accepted Christianity as their religion, and had scriptures which condemned the practice.
This leads me to Romans 1. This chapter was written as an epistle from the apostle Paul to the Romans and pertains to homosexuality. According to the Bible, the laws have not changed. It is still a sin, just as it was when Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed. I have learned in my history classes that things are not addressed, laws are not made, letters are not written unless there is an issue with it. For example we wouldn’t make a law that said that we can kill aliens from outer space without being punished, unless there were aliens that proved to be or were thought to be dangerous. Well, in Romans chapter one, Paul is writing an epistle, or letter to the people residing in Rome. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [or showed] it unto them.” (Romans 1:18-19) So the wrath of God comes to those who are unrighteous who have the truth or knowledge of what they’re doing is wrong. Then it goes on,
“Wherefore God also gave them [the people who are sinning and have the truth] up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness….” (Romans 1:24-29)
So to go back and rephrase this, God let these people choose to dishonor their bodies, for He will not take away our agency, even when His laws do not change. It says that they twisted and changed the truth of God into a lie to justify their ways. When it says they worshipped the creature more than the Creator this refers to humans being the creature, as we are a creation of God, and they followed after corrupt ways that man came up with instead of honoring God’s laws and wishes and therefore no longer worshipping God but the creature. It refers to the sins as vile affections, saying that even the women were involved in doing things that are against nature. And when you think about it in nature, males mate with females, not males with other males, or females with other females. It says that men left the natural use of woman- that of reproducing, and instead of mating with females, as nature would suggest they turned to each other. Thus we have men working with men that which is “unseemly” or unnatural or in plain terms- homosexuality is unnatural.
Before I go on I feel I should address something else, kind of a side note to the main topic of this essay. I am declaring in this essay quite bluntly that I believe homosexuality to be a sin and the reason for falls of nations. But I am NOT saying we should be intolerant of these people. Many people would argue that God loves everyone and He does not discriminate. I’ve been told that God is no “respecter of persons”. I agree with them. I KNOW that He loves everyone, regardless of race, upbringing, genealogical ties, or sins. But He does not love the sin. Although some people may have a hard time (we are all humans) with drawing the line between the sin and the sinner, God is perfect. True Christians can stand up for what they believe in, what is sin and what is not, without hating the sinner. I know I am not perfect, but I do not seek to change God’s laws in ways where I fall short, I simply try to do my best, knowing that as I do He will make up the difference. In the Bible there is a story where Jesus is teaching in the temple,
“And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him, But Jesus stopped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” (John 8:3-11)
In this story you have a woman who was found to have sinner and was caught in the act. Yet we see that no one is perfect in this story. Jesus at the end says he does not condemn her. He says, “Go and sin no more.” In writing this article I don’t mean to throw any stones at any particular individual, for I am not without sin. But I am trying to stand up for the issue. God doesn’t say, I don’t condemn thee, let’s change the law and make it so that it’s not a sin anymore. He simply does not judge the sinner and still maintains that the sin is a sin. In voting yes for Prop 8 I am saying that I believe it is a sin to marry someone of the same sex. The civil rights have already been granted unto gays and lesbians so that the individual is not discriminated against. Some may feel that voting yes is a discrimination- that is where we would differ. I believe marriage to be ordained of God, and therefore I believe that, that definition should only be implied as God sees fit. If individuals choose to sin, as I see it, that is their choice, but I personally am not going to stand by and watch the sin become legalized.
Now as for the Book of Mormon, which I also believe in, there are scriptures in it prophesying about the promised land- this land- America. How we need to follow God and our country will be strong, until it no longer accepts the principles. In the Book of Mormon it shows us that the Lord gives commandments with promises and when we don’t keep our part the Lord has consequences. This is shown when He says, that inasmuch as they keep the commandments they shall prosper in the land. It talks about this land of America saying,
“Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.”(2 Nephi 1:7)
The Book of Mormon talks about people who lived in America anciently. And it shows people who went astray and were then destroyed. In the book of Ether, the prophet Moroni, the last prophet of the Book of Mormon writes,
“And he [God] had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fullness of his wrath should come upon them. And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fullness of his wrath shall some upon them. And the fullness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity. For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fullness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off. And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God- that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fullness come, that ye may not bring down the fullness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done. Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.” (Ether 2:8-12)
Now, in my personal opinion to throw God’s opinion of marriage out the window simply because society “demands” it is to throw God out of our lives as well. Just as in Romans 1:25 says, “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” In a way implying, we don’t need you anymore- we like society’s view better. I also believe that a nation becomes ripened in iniquity, or that the fullness of iniquity comes when certain things are legalized and legally considered acceptable in a country. And so I will stand for this union of marriage as I think it should be defined.
I am in no way a prophet. But in the Bible it says that you can know a true prophet from a false one by their fruits- meaning by their results. Prophets often give us prophecies, if these are true, then they can be considered a true prophet. I have my own interpretation of certain prophecies and if they are wrong it doesn’t mean that the prophets were false, only that I didn’t understand the prophecies accurately. But I believe that if Prop 8 does not pass it will be the beginning of the end of our country as we know it. I don’t know how long that fall would take and if it does pass, we may never know. But this is the way I see it, and if you thought, from your own personal studies that your nation that you love would fall apart wouldn’t you, no matter who you thought you were offending, stand up for what you believe? Even if you do not agree with me, or think my logic isn’t sane, I hope you can at least see, at the very least, that my concern stems from not only what I feel is right, but what is actually best for all of us. When nations fall there is chaos for everyone and there are usually deaths- I would not wish that on anyone. Yes, this may seem a little extreme, but I believe in God. I believe that this is important to Him, and I believe that if this country wants His help we need to stick to His values and not our own. "Every man lives his life for what he believes. Every woman lives her life for what she believes. Some people believe in little or nothing, but they give their life to that little or nothing. One life is all we have and we live it as we believe in living it and then it is gone. But to surrender who you are to live without belief, is worse than dying... yes, even worse than dying young."(see Bibliography 5)
Bibliography
(In order of use in the above essay)
1. The Holy Bible: King James Version. Translated under King James’ command. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt Lake City; 1979.
2. Andrea, Alfred J. and James Overfield. The Human Record: Sources of Global History. Sixth Edition/Volume 1: To 1700. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston; 2009.
3. Wilson, Edwin and Alvin Goldfarb. Living Theatre: A History. Fourth Edition. McGraw Hill, Boston; 2004.
4. The Book of Mormon. Translated by Joseph Smith. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt Lake City; 1981.
5. My mom quoted it from memory and said it was either from Joan de Arc the play or a quote from Joan de Arc when she was about to be burned at the stake. May not be an EXACT quote, but the meaning is still there.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Dream jobs and Dream homes
So, most people think I am insane, but I have "dream" jobs and homes. Not real dream jobs and homes, but jobs and places I want to one day say I once had. For example, I want to live in a trailer park. I want to live in an apartment in a big city in a skyscraper- or on some top level so that I have an awesome view. I want to live in a townhome one day. There's also another place I want to live, but I can't seem to remember it at the moment. There was a trailer on my mission that, crazy as it might sound, I wanted to live there- but then sisters left that area. There was an area that the missionaries lived in the back of a funeral home- that would have been fun to add to my list, but isn't common enough to make it onto my dream list of homes. :)
Then there's dream jobs. I love to drive and I love the smell of pizza- so I want to be a pizza delivery person. I also love sorting things, and I like mail- so I want to work in the post office- not out front where you see most of the workers, but in the back sorting the mail. I also want to work at Little Ceasar's and learn how to make their garlic cheese bread- I became addicted to it on my mission. Then I want to be a waitress. I don't know exactly why, but I just have always wanted to. As of yet I haven't had very many jobs. I grew up working in my dad's law office when I wanted to. From a young age he would give me random tasks- such as updating his books- which I used to love. Then later he taught me how to file. Then he had me do random secretarial tasks because for a few years he didn't have a secretary so there were lots of projects to be done. Then I really liked learning how to write the first drafts of trusts and wills and documents. Then one summer coming home from college he told me I couldn't work at his office- because he had rented out the space I used to use to another guy. But his old law firm was willing to hire me. Easy life, I know. I never had to apply for a job until last year- where I got a job but it was a long process and I finally got it in time for when I was going home for summer. But I loved my dad's old law firm. They had me as a back-up receptionist as my official title. But I was basically a secretary there too. Good times! :)
Then there's dream jobs. I love to drive and I love the smell of pizza- so I want to be a pizza delivery person. I also love sorting things, and I like mail- so I want to work in the post office- not out front where you see most of the workers, but in the back sorting the mail. I also want to work at Little Ceasar's and learn how to make their garlic cheese bread- I became addicted to it on my mission. Then I want to be a waitress. I don't know exactly why, but I just have always wanted to. As of yet I haven't had very many jobs. I grew up working in my dad's law office when I wanted to. From a young age he would give me random tasks- such as updating his books- which I used to love. Then later he taught me how to file. Then he had me do random secretarial tasks because for a few years he didn't have a secretary so there were lots of projects to be done. Then I really liked learning how to write the first drafts of trusts and wills and documents. Then one summer coming home from college he told me I couldn't work at his office- because he had rented out the space I used to use to another guy. But his old law firm was willing to hire me. Easy life, I know. I never had to apply for a job until last year- where I got a job but it was a long process and I finally got it in time for when I was going home for summer. But I loved my dad's old law firm. They had me as a back-up receptionist as my official title. But I was basically a secretary there too. Good times! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
