Presidential Hopefuls

[John]

[Steve]

[Steve]

I just wanted to take a minute to summarize some of the things that happened last night. Two states, Maryland and Maine, approved same-sex marriage—something that hasn't been done through a popular vote before. Two states, Colorado and Washington, approved the recreational use of marijuana. I'll admit that my first reaction to these things, together with the national election outcome, left me feeling not unlike the images above.

However, we know that the essence of our country was never mandated by a branch of government, nor will it ever be. If we are concerned about drugs, we need to follow the prophet, obey the commandments, protect our families, and serve others. If we are concerned about marriage laws, we need to follow the prophet, obey the commandments, protect our families, and serve others. If we are concerned about the economy, we need to follow the prophet, obey the commandments, protect our families, and serve others. Doing these things will ensure that we are inspired to vote according to the dictates of a wholesome conscience, to participate responsibly in worthy causes and initiatives, and to teach and motivate others toward the greater good.

Despite my concern over a great many things in this country, I continue to familiarize myself with the promises made to me and all of my loved ones by Almighty God. I have faith that if we are true to our covenants, and if we'll look to our prophet for further light and knowledge, our families will be protected and all will work for our good.

[Tuly]

I appreciate your reassurance Steve. I don't think it is a coincidence that our missionary force has more than doubled these past few weeks.

[Tuly]

News Release — 6 November 2012
First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Congratulate President on Election Win
Salt Lake City —

The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement Tuesday:

We congratulate President Obama on winning a second term as President of the United States.

After a long campaign, this is now a time for Americans to come together. It is a long tradition among Latter-day Saints to pray for our national leaders in our personal prayers and in our congregations. We invite Americans everywhere, whatever their political persuasion, to pray for the President, for his administration and the new Congress as they lead us through difficult and turbulent times. May our national leaders reflect the best in wisdom and judgment as they fulfill the great trust afforded to them by the American people.

We also commend Governor Romney for engaging at the highest level of our democratic process, which, by its nature, demands so much of those who offer themselves for public service. We wish him and his family every success in their future endeavors.

[Steve]

Now add Washington to the same-sex marriage list as well...

EDIT: I realize I utilize erroneous vocabulary. Marriage, by inherent and eternal definition, requires a man and a woman—there is no such thing as same-sex marriage. A woman can never be a father. A man can never be a mother. A flock of geese can never be a family. Two men, or two women, can never "marry." I regret my error and will be more careful with my language.

[Ian]

washington voters also legalized recreational marijuana use. what's going on up there?

[Betsy]

IT WASN'T ME

[Ian]

yeah and it's not my fault that in california we voted to raise taxes, even though the state and local tax burden is already one of the highest in the nation, and our economy is terrible.

[Edward]

Actually Steve, a flock of geese is generally composed of multiple related couples that mate for life along with their offspring, so yes, a flock of geese can be and usually is a family.

[Steve]

I see what you're saying, Edward, but they're still a flock. They are not the same as an eternal family unit. Other units may resemble a family, but just because it looks like one doesn't make it a family. Two geese cannot be sealed in a temple, just as two men cannot be sealed as a couple in the temple. Geese can be organized in the same manner as a family, but they are not a family.

[Edward]

I'm afraid I have to disagree. You are extending the strictness of the definition of marriage to the word family, which I don't think is as rigid nor limited in scope. Now, I can see your point in some regards. Certainly, to have an eternal family, there must be a father, mother, and children who have lived the commandments and met all the requirements of Celetial Glory, etc. However, just as a civil marriage is still, nonetheless, a marriage, so also is any father, mother, and their offspring a family - albeit a (likely) temporal and un-lasting one.

And yes, even animals have families. Are they perfect, ideal, and eternal? No (although knowing that there are creatures beyond count in the Celestial Kingdom, one must probably assume that they can attain such a unit according to their own order). Anyway, they are, by definition, families. There is a father, a mother, and offspring. In your laudible zeal to protect the sanctity of marriage, don't go so far as to put a cold blanket over other units that, while not Temple-sealed, are still valid, at least in this life. From the scientific community to the most ignorant layperson, the term for a collection of related beings is a family. Two men cannot be married because there is a missing element in the equation: man + man does not equal marriage. But in a pair of geese, the elements (father + mother + offspring) are there. Unlike with same-gender marriage, the definition holds true in this case. Just because they are not human does not exclude them utterly from the these terms.

You needn't apply the same barriers to the term family, as you can with marriage. I will concur that yes, the perfect ideal, and only certain, celestial family is the one organized in the Temple. But two mated foxes and their cubs are also a family, of an infinitely lesser order, but a family nonetheless. Can they receive and accomplish and create all that an eternal human family can? Of course not. But that doesn't diminish the validity of their humble unit. God considers all his creatures, and even the beasts of the field He will organize into families.

I wonder if your concern is that these definitions could be abused to mean that any organization of people, no matter their structure or intent, could thus be called a family. And of course, they will be. They always have been. But as people will make case with any doctrine, that argument is moot. Of course people will abuse the definitions. But that cannot drive us to become overly prudish with how we use the terms. That animals can and do have families is a simple fact. Family applies to so much more than only those few who are sealed in the Temple. Else what do we call those who had not the gospel, but married and had offspring anyway?

[Steve]

I think two mated foxes and their cubs are called a skulk, aren't they? God's children are eternally distinct from the beasts of the wilderness. I am not trying to be overly-prudish with my terminology, but to be honest, it is precisely because I see the misuse of these critical words that I go a step further to protect them. Are we not even more careful once we are alerted to a danger? In a pair of geese, the elements are most certainly not there. They are not children of Heavenly Father. They are not created in His image. They constitute a "gaggle" of geese, not a family.

But anyway, I have no quarrel with you, good sir knight. I am being particularly particular, but only to illustrate the importance of safeguarding our language lest it be corrupted as in times old. The words I most fear losing are those that are most important.

[Edward]

You sound more motivated by fear than you do by zeal. Building hedges around the law is one thing, but this need to "go a step further" is unwise, and overly-zealous. Family is a good and right word to use for geese, foxes, and many more creatures than just human beings. It is no corruption of the language to call a little body of animals a family, nor does it in any way diminish the sacredness of an eternal family unit. We call the sire of any beast the father, and she who bears the young the mother. These titles are not used in their capitalized Father and Mother senses, but they are used. By everybody - scientists, laymen, clergymen, etc. Again, marriage is not to be used such, as it is a specific legal and sacred contract. But the term family is different in nature and scope.

I disagree with how little you seem to think of the "beasts of the wilderness." They are a part of God's plan too. It saddens me to think that you hold them in such low esteem, when we know that the Celestial worlds are filled with strange and wonderful creatures beyond count. And you show very little knowledge of proper taxonomy and its uses. The word "gaggle" is applied to a specific collection of geese, but specifically, a mother, father, and their young are called a family (by science), belonging, officially, to the family Anatidae. And what about the taxonomic use of the term "family" to refer to a group of similar species? Are you ignorant of them as well? Within every Order there are a number of bodies called FAMILIES; for example, within the Order Carnivora, you have taxonomic groupings as extant as the families Felidae (cats), Canidae (dogs), Ursidae (bears), and Pinnipedia (seals). This is a scientific and absolutely appropriate use of the term FAMILY. To call it anything else would be incorrect. Look at the language itself, not just how you want it to be applied. Look up the history of the word in the OED, and you will find that, unlike marriage, its uses are vastly more inclusive and variable, and the word has been used broadly since ancient times. I feel you are being far too dogmatic with this term. It is appropriate to be so with the term marriage, but it doesn't work the same with family. So, I am sorry, but Mr. and Mrs. Goose and their cute little goslilngs are a family. And yet the sacred family unit remains unharmed!

And if you really want to be protective of the language (since we are delving into my deepest passions now), geese are only called a gaggle when on the ground. Once they take off, they become a skein, and depending on how close they are flying, they could be called a plump as well (though that only really matters to ethological ornithologists). So if you are going to be picky with your terms, then be picky with all of them. I couldn't bear to have you call a flying wedge of geese a gaggle!

[Ian]

taxonomy is your deepest passion?