Temples and Immortality

                Debbie Reynolds passed away just a day after the death of her only daughter, Carrie Fisher. Reynolds’ last words have caused numerous people to think about life after death and immortality. As Reynolds and her only son, Todd Fisher, were planning a funeral for Carrie Fisher, Reynolds said to her son, “I miss her so much, I want to be with Carrie.” Todd Fisher said that those were his mother’s last words before she became ill and died a few hours later.

                Several days after posting the above information, the Huffington Post published an article written by Mary Bell, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sharing some of the Church’s beliefs about life after death. Bell’s article drew attention from several directions. What is it about a mother’s desire to be with her dead daughter that has caused so much interest in the next world? 

                The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that there is life after death and that we will see our loved ones again in the next world. The Church also teaches that marriage and family relationships can continue beyond the grave under certain conditions. This is the reason why the Church builds temples and encourages members to go to the temple.

                Latter-day Saint leaders teach that everything members do in this life leads to the temple and that the temple is the pinnacle of the faith. President Gordon B. Hinckley states, “Every temple that this Church has built has in effect stood as a monument to our belief in the immortality of the human soul, that this phase of mortal life through which we pass is part of a continuous upward climb, so to speak, and that as certain as there is life here, there will be life there. That is our firm belief. It comes about through the Atonement of the Savior, and the temple becomes, as I have indicated, the bridge from this life to the net. The temple is concerned with things of immortality. We wouldn’t have to build a temple for marriages if we didn’t believe in the eternity of the family. We build it so the family may be eternal. All of the ordinances which take place in the house of the Lord become expressions of our belief in that fundamental and basic doctrine. The temple therefore becomes the ultimate in our system of worship and therefore is of great and significant importance to us” (interview with Vern Anderson of the Associated Press, 20 April 1999). 

                I believe that it is very possible that Debbie Reynolds and her daughter Carrie Fisher are together in the next world. I believe that they are happy to be together and hope to be together forever. I also believe they will have the opportunity to have the gospel of Jesus Christ taught to them in its simplicity. If they accept the gospel, they will have to wait for some mortals to go to a temple to complete their ordinances for them. How long will they have to wait? That is a big question that I cannot answer. I simply know that they will have opportunities presented to them to continue to progress. I hope they accept those opportunities!

Family Is Ordained of God

                We can strengthen our families, communities, and nations by studying the document titled “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” and by following its precepts. One way to study the proclamation is one paragraph at a time. This is the eighth article in this series.

                The seventh paragraph of the proclamation is too long with too many topics to cover in one post. This post will cover the first three sentences of the paragraph:  “The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity….”

                Jesus Christ, under the direction of Heavenly Father, created this earth in order for us. We are children of God, and He planned for us to come to earth to gain physical bodies, knowledge, and experience in order to be happy for eternity. An essential part of His plan is marriage between man and woman because He needed male and female in order to create babies. He planned for marriage in order to have a safe and secure place where children could be reared to adulthood and each one prepared to take their place in the world.

                The Lord and His priesthood leaders place an immense amount of responsibility on husbands and fathers for success in marriage and family life. President Ezra Taft Benson spoke “To the Fathers in Israel” during the October 1987 General Conference and outlined what he considered their responsibilities to be.

                President Benson speaks of how husbands are to treat their wives as the Lord treats the church. He quotes the Apostle Paul who said, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church” (Ephesians 5:25). He quotes latter-day revelation, “Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else” (Doctrine and Covenants 42:22). He then says:

                “To my knowledge there is only one other thing in all scripture that we are commanded to love with all our hearts, and that is God Himself. Think what that means!

                “This kind of love can be shown for your wives in so many ways. First and foremost, nothing except God Himself takes priority over your wife in your life – not work, not recreation, not hobbies. Your wife is your precious, eternal helpmate – your companion.

                “What does it mean to love someone with all your heart? It means to love with all your emotional feelings and with all your devotion. Surely when you love your wife with all your heart, you cannot demean her, criticize her, find fault with her, or abuse her by words, sullen behavior, or actions.

                “What does it mean to `cleave unto her’? It means to stay close to her, to be loyal and faithful to her, to communicate with her, and to express your love for her.

                “Love means being sensitive to her feelings and needs. She wants to be noticed and treasured. She wants to be told that you view her as lovely and attractive and important to you. Love means putting her welfare and self-esteem as a high priority in our life….”

                Surely, there would be far more successful marriages if all husbands loved their wives as the Lord loves the church. What woman in her right mind would seek for love and acceptance outside such a marriage? There may be a few, but they would be very sparse. Children are not blind. They can see the love between father and mother and feel secure in their home. This is why God ordains marriage between man and woman.

                As you study the first three paragraphs of the seventh paragraph of the proclamation, you may want to share what you learn in a family home evening. This site has a wonderful family home evening program all outlined with lesson, music, activity, and refreshments. You may want to cover the entire paragraph in one evening, or you may want to split the paragraph as I am doing. I hope you will strengthen your family, community, and nation by teaching that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and is essential to God’s plan for the eternal happiness of His children and that children have the right to be reared by parents who honor their marriage vows.

Freedom to Choose Healthcare

                The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the freedom to buy health insurance for ourselves and our families. This freedom has long been curtailed by laws banning the purchase of health insurance across state lines and other such laws and regulations. It was nearly killed by Obamacare.

                Many Republicans and conservative politicians campaigned with the promise to end Obamacare, and voters rewarded Republicans with control of the White House, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House of Representatives. A vote on Obamacare will soon be taken because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that the Senate’s first vote will be a repeal of Obamacare. 

                Republicans seem willing to repeal Obamacare, but they do not have a consensus on whether to repeal it bit by bit or as a whole. They also have not agreed on what its replacement should be. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), the junior Senator from Kentucky, published his opinion on the matter. He writes:

                “Congress will, as its first course of action, vote to repeal Obamacare. It cannot happen soon enough.

                “All around us, Obamacare crumbles in chaos. Premiums are exploding. The state run health co-ops are mostly bankrupt. Many individuals who gained subsidized insurance are still, for all practical purposes, without insurance because the deductibles are beyond the reach of low income workers.

                “As we repeal Obamacare, we would be wise to vote on its replacement at the same time. What should we replace Obamacare with? Perhaps we should try freedom: 1. The freedom to choose inexpensive insurance free of government dictates. 2. The freedom to save unlimited amounts in a health savings account. 3. The freedom to buy insurance across state lines. 4. The freedom for all individuals to join together in voluntary associations to gain the leverage of being part of a large insurance pool.

                “If Congress fails to vote on a replacement at the same time as repeal, the repealers risk assuming the blame for the continued unraveling of Obamacare. For mark my words, Obamacare will continue to unravel and wreak havoc for years to come.”

                Senator Rand’s opinion piece continues, and you can find it at this site. 

                I do not personally have any experience with Obamacare because my husband and I are covered by Medicare. We have never had to pay an Obamacare premium or penalty, but we have problems finding doctors because many of them do not accept Medicare patients. Medicare and Obamacare are both government programs, but some government programs are worse than others!

                I vote for Freedom in choosing our healthcare premiums, programs and providers.

What Would Jesus Do?

                What would Jesus do? Have you ever asked this question when faced with a difficult decision? I have asked it numerous times, and I know that many other people ask it also. Sometimes I find it hard to imagine what Jesus would do, particularly if I am asking a question from a woman’s point of view.

                I found an interesting article by John Zmirak. He suggests that we read “a book that takes a sane and wholesome, even spiritual view of a deeply uncomfortable subject. So you will look with the eyes of reason and faith, but at something you’d rather not think about.” His article is titled “What would Jesus do to Nazi war criminals?” and can be found here. 

                Zmirak writes, “Recently I hunkered down to tackle a deeply disquieting subject: The nexus point of cheap grace, repentance and genocide. They all come together in Tom Townsend’s fascinating, carefully researched book Mission at Nuremburg. It tells the story of Henry Gerecke, a good-hearted Lutheran pastor who became an army chaplain during the Second World War, and got assigned to pastor some of the worst human beings on earth: the Nazi defendants at the Nuremburg war crimes trials. … [He] was an ordinary, middlingly-educated Lutheran minister from St. Louis. Most of his previous experience was with small-town Midwestern German-American farmers, and urban missions to the homeless – with some time spent in U.S. prisons ministering to run-of-the-mill criminals.

                “Alongside equally ordinary Catholic chaplain Rev. Sixtus O’Connor – a humble Franciscan philosophy teacher from upstate New York – Gerecke was the man whom Providence placed in the cells that held Albert Speer, Heinrich Himmler, Julius Streicher, and the top Nazi generals who survived the collapse of the Reich….”

                These two gentle souls were given the task to administer “counseling and services” to the prisoners, but “Gerecke knew that much more was asked of him than that. It was his job to confront men who had risen to the top of the world – gained wealth and fame and the power of life and death over millions – by discarding the Christian vision of human dignity, in favor of a pagan fetish of a single race and nation.”

                Zmirak then proceeds to write a book review, and you can read his evaluation for yourself. I am most concerned with the question, “What would Jesus do to Nazi war criminals?” We could ask numerous but similar questions applicable to our day, such as, “What would Jesus do to terrorists who fly airplanes into buildings, killing thousands of people?” and “What would Jesus do to people who kidnap and rape young women and little children?”

                I believe that Jesus Christ would meet with any and all of them because He loves each person. He would never condone their acts, but I believe He would solicit confessions from them. I believe He would express sorrow for their circumstances and give them whatever comfort and counsel that they would receive from Him. Then He would leave them to face the consequences of their actions as true justice demands. He would still love them, but He could never allow His mercy to rob the law of justice.

                I believe that God expects each one of us to do as He would do. We are to love one another as He loves us. We should never take vengeance on other people, but we should allow the law to administer justice. In a coming day we will all stand before Jesus Christ to be judged of our thoughts, words, and actions. I believe that He will be just as merciful as He can be, but I know that He will never rob the law of justice. We will either have to accept Him as our Savior and Redeemer, or we will have to suffer for the things we do and say. That is how the laws of justice and mercy work.

Ten Most Significant Historic Events

                What are the ten most significant historic events in your lifetime? The answer it seems will most likely be defined by your generation and your race. When Pew Research Center asked Americans the above question, researchers discovered that answers from members of the same generation were quite similar while there were numerous differences among the various generations.

                Results of the research can be found in an article titled “Americans Name the 10 Most Significant Historic Events of Their Lifetimes”and written by Claudia Deane, Maeve Duggan and Rich Morin.

                For research purposes Pew Research Center defined the generations as follows: (1) Members of the Millennial generation were born from 1981 to 1998 and were 18-35 in 2016; (2) Members of the Generation X were born from 1965 to 1980 and were 36 to 51 in 2016; (3) Members of the Baby Boom generation were born from 1946 to 1964 and were 52 to 70 in 2016; (4) Members of the Silent Generation were born from 1928 to 1945 and were 71 to 88 in 2016; (5) Members of the Greatest Generation were born from 1901 to 1927 and were 89 to 115 in 2016.

                September 11, 2001, was named by 76% of respondents in all generations. This was followed by the election of Barack Obama by 40% of respondents. Other events that made the Top Eleven listing are: (3) the tech revolution at 22%, (4) JFK assassination at 21%, (5) Vietnam War at 20%, (6) Afghanistan/Iraq wars at 17%, (7) Moon landing at 17%, 

(8) fall of the Berlin Wall/end of the Cold War at 13%, (9) gay marriage at 11%, (10) Orlando shooting at 10%, and 

(11) Gulf War at 10%.

                “The perceived historic importance of the attacks on New York and the Pentagon, span virtually every traditional demographic divide. Majorities of men and women, Millennials and Baby Boomers, Americans with college degrees and those without a high school diploma rate 9/11 as one of the 10 most historically significant events to occur during their lifetime. And while they seem to agree on little else this election year, the survey finds that more than seven-in-ten Republicans and Democrats name the attacks as one of their top 10 historic events.

                “The one exception to this pattern is the views of blacks and whites. While the Sept. 11 attacks easily top the list for whites, it shares the top spot with the election of President Barack Obama among blacks. Similarly, the civil rights movement ranks behind only the election of Obama and 9/11 on the list of most significant events for blacks but is absent from the top 10 lifetime events for whites.

                “Just as striking as the public’s consensus on the impact of 9/11 is the steep drop-off in the proportion of Americans who name other notable events. The election of Obama is the second-most frequently named event, listed by 40% of the public. Every other event is named by fewer than one-quarter of all adults. This includes the changes ushered in by the internet, personal computers, smartphones and other innovations of the tech revolution, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the Vietnam War."

                So, I am asking you to list “the 10 historic events that occurred during [your lifetime] that [you think] `have had the greatest impact on the country.’” After you make your list, check this site to see if you agree with your generation. You can find lots of other interesting facts on the site also.

Debbie Reynolds

                I watched my first Debbie Reynolds movie when I was about eleven or twelve years old. The movie was Bundle of Joy starring Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher. They were married in 1955, and Debbie was pregnant with her first child when the movie was filmed. Carrie Fisher was born on October 21, 1956. Todd Fisher was born about a year later. Carrie became a writer and actress. She is best known for her role as Princess Leia in Star Wars. Todd became a filmmaker. 

                I remember that we drove about thirty miles to the next town to see the movie, but I do not remember who drove the car or paid for the movie. I just remember that I was star-struck from the beginning. Debbie and Eddie made a handsome couple and seemed to have the perfect marriage. Watching them together caused the younger me to dream of love and marriage.

                Debbie and Eddie were married for four years before they divorced in 1959 when Eddie became involved with Elizabeth Taylor. (They married, but Elizabeth dumped Eddie for Richard Burton.) By that time I was about fourteen years old, old enough to know that Eddie was in the wrong. Debbie might have easily forgiven her husband and best friend for destroying her marriage, but I had a difficult time forgiving his betrayal!

                Debbie married two more times. Her second marriage was to Harry Karl, the shoe mogul of Karl’s Shoes. He was a gambler who spent Debbie’s fortunes for his bad habit. Her third marriage was to Richard Hamlett, a real estate developer who also spent her money. Debbie never married again. Eddie passed away a few years ago after a series of marriages.

                A mother’s worst nightmare is to lose a child, and Debbie lost her only daughter, Carrie, on December 27, 2016. Carrie suffered a massive heart attack on a flight from London to Los Angeles. The next day Debbie was with her son Todd at his home in Beverly Hills. They were discussing funeral arrangements for Carrie when Debbie became ill and was rushed to Cedar Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles. She passed away about three hours later from a possible stroke. Debbie was 84 years old and still a beautiful woman.

Reforming the Electoral College

                The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the Electoral College – again. Various people continue to clamor for change in the Electoral College, but most of them want to do away with it completely in order to elect leaders by popular vote. As my regular readers know, I am completely against this concept.

                Today I happened upon a suggestion on how to reform the Electoral College that has real merit. Bruce Walker wrote an interesting article with the title of “How to Get People to Vote.” I passed over the article several times simply because I did not like the title. It sounds a whole like coercion to me!

                I finally clicked on the article and read it. It seems that Walker has a couple of proposal about reforming the Electoral College. The first one suggests that state legislatures choose the electors for their state. This is the way presidential electors were selected at the beginning of our republic.

                Walker’s second proposal concerns how states choose their electors, following the example of Maine and Nebraska. As you may recall, there were questions about how the electors for these two states would go. This site has a good explanation on how Maine and Nebraska choose their electors. 

                In his own words, Walker’s proposal says: “have those presidential electors attributable to the state’s apportioned House seats elected by congressional district and have those two presidential electors attributable to the state’s two senators elected statewide.

                “Why would this be good? Presidential candidates today need spend little time or attention in those states that either will be carried by that candidate no matter what or will not be carried by the candidate no matter what. The Constitution does not envision a president being elected because most Americans want him, but rather because the different parts of America, each with different interests and values, find him acceptable.

                “States are the proper level of government to make that choice, but the most populous states today can safely ignore whole sections of the state because large metropolitan areas swamp the votes of less populous parts of the state. What that means in a reliably leftist state like California is that the third of the state in the rural eastern ridge, who will be outvoted in statewide elections, really have meaningless votes not only in the presidential race, but in senatorial races as well.”

                Liberals are upset because Hillary Clinton won popular vote by several million votes, but Trump won the electors.  If the liberal voters in LA County and New York City were not counted, Trump would have also won the popular vote. This means that the liberal votes in those two areas outweighed the conservative votes in other areas of each state. If Walker’s proposal was adopted by all the states – but particularly by California and New York – votes would be more equal.

                “If the electoral votes of California were chosen by congressional districts, then the voters in Republican-leaning congressional districts would have an incentive to vote, as would voters in swing districts. What would be true of rural Californians would be true of upstate New Yorkers, downstate Illinoisans, and so on. These effectively disenfranchised Republican voters would have a reason to go to the polls in presidential elections.”

                Walker then explains “how this would have affected recent presidential races.” He says that Trump would have won by 307 electoral votes rather than 304 in 2016. He also says that Mitt Romney would have won in 2012 by 282 electoral votes, but John McCain would have still lost in 2008 “with 220 electoral votes instead of 173. The changes in electoral votes reflect the fact that each state, still, would cast two votes statewide (as the Senate portion of the state’s electoral vote) but that the few big states upon which Democrats rely would give some votes to Republican presidential candidates.

                “That would be some advantage to Republican presidential candidates, but the primary effect would be to make much more of America relevant in presidential elections….”

                I have given the main idea presented by Walker, but I encourage you to read the article to get the entire proposal. This is an issue concerning the states and should be decided by individual states, but I believe it has merit and should be considered.  With the electors chosen by congressional districts, Democrat districts would have Democrat electors and Republican districts would have Republican electors. Then the entire state would determine the two at-large electors just as Senators are elected at large. I think that I could support this proposal. What do you think?