This is a guest post by Kathryn Skaggs.

The Mormon Newsroom just posted a video discussion of the three top women leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who just happen to be talking about the very same controversial issues —  that in times past would have almost seemed taboo for women of such stature to be doing —  which have been floating around the likes of blogs (guilty), Facebook walls and media outlets over the last few months — nearly nonstop. I loved listening to these great women of faith, speaking with such candor and understanding, on topics that needed to be addressed — and by our female leaders. I support these sisters and the positions they take on these matters.

The general presidents of the Relief Society, Young Women and Primary organizations of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently participated in a conversation covering a number of topics relating to women in the Church. In the video, Sister Linda K. Burton, Sister Elaine S. Dalton and Sister Rosemary M. Wixom provide insights into their roles in Church leadership, describe the power of the priesthood in people’s lives and provide answers to questions of interest.

And if that wasn’t enough, as I was writing this post, the  Mormon Newsroom posted this exciting news release, giving more responsibility to women!


Church Adjusts Mission Organization to Implement “Mission Leadership Council”

SALT LAKE CITY —

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is making adjustments to the way its 405 missions are organized, to better utilize the skills and abilities of all missionaries in training and leadership. The change is due in part to the influx of thousands of young missionaries who are responding to the lowering of age requirements for mission service, announced by President Thomas S. Monson last October. 

Each mission in the Church will organize a Mission Leadership Council that will include both elder (males) and sister (females) missionary leaders. The new mission leadership council will consist of the mission president and his wife, assistants to the president, zone leaders, and sister training leaders. 

“We are very excited about the new Mission Leadership Council and this role for sister missionaries,” said Elder David F. Evans executive director of the Missionary Department. “It will be a blessing to both missions and missionaries throughout the world, and better employ the remarkable faith, talents and abilities of all missionaries.” 

The role of sister training leader has been created as more female missionaries serve in missions around the world. Continue reading →

Introduction

I’ve decided to digest what I learned from General Conference that I believe is applicable to the ongoing conversations about same-sex marriage, same-sex activity, and the Church’s role in valuing and defending traditional marriage and family. It is hard (if not impossible) to argue that the leaders of the Church were silent on the matter this past weekend, or that their words are irrelevant to how we should feel and act concerning the matter.

I’m far from perfect at this, but I generally agree that we abuse the teachings of prophets when we use them as weapons to alienate those with whom we disagree. When teaching and sharing Gospel truth, it should never be done with a warring heart, and using the teachings of prophets and apostles as weapons is certainly the outgrowth of a heart at war. So that’s not what I intend to do in this post. If it comes across otherwise, at least know what my intent is. Remember that I don’t mean it that way.

So instead of sharing what others should have learned, I’ll share the important truths that I learned, and I sincerely hope that others will consider these truths as well. I’m going to try my very best to confine my entire analysis to specific quotes from this conference (with three deviations/exceptions only)—because I hope that by doing so, I can sidestep any criticisms that the messages I’m sharing are out-of-date (as if prophetic teachings have a built-in shelf life). Continue reading →

Title: The Book of Jer3miah: Premonition

Authors: Luisa Perkins and Jared Adair
Publisher: Desert Book

Genre:  Fiction/Thriller
Year: 2013 Continue reading →

This is a guest post by David Ferguson.

For those of you who haven’t heard, FCC may modify its swearing and nudity policy. In short, the new policy will allow (a) isolated s-words and f-words in TV shows, and (b) short presentations of female frontal nudity. We’re not talking total debauchery here, but it isn’t something to blink at either.

You can find more about the proposed changes at this link. Fortunately, the FCC has opened the floor up to comments. The link shares instructions on how to file a comment. I encourage it.

I ended up having a Facebook conversation with a friend over this issue. He, a proud social liberal, thinks that the current censorship laws violate the first amendment right to free speech (although the Supreme Court upheld those laws). Like any other citizen, I put a high value on the first amendment, but we do our society a severe disservice by taking the first amendment to its extreme limits.

What many people seem to miss (generally liberals, but sometimes conservatives too) is that the first amendment has limitations. Society generally recognizes that nudity, swearing, and violence (which isn’t part of the FCC debate) aren’t things childrens should be exposed to, and the first amendment doesn’t give companies the right to expose children to this sort of content prematurely. That’s why the mpaa ratings exist. Whatever we think about them, there’s a reason for them, and it’s to protect our children. The point is, we expect the government to participate with parents when it comes to shielding children from adult material.

Critics, like my friend, point out that if parents don’t like what’s on the TV, they can turn it off. Generally speaking, it’s a valid argument, but it isn’t a good argument to validate lifting censorship laws. Parents should supervise their children’s TV usage, but changes in the censorship policy would force most parents to radically alter their TV usage, if, of course, they want to protect their children from exposure to swearing and nudity (which seems like a given). Radically might be a little strong, but maybe not. Most parents can’t supervise their children’s TV viewing habits all of the time. So the policy change would force them to make unusually demanding changes to their lifestyles. I’m not sure we want government policies that complicate childrearing, especially when it limits the normative habits of children and their parents.

In saying that, a pragmatic compromise may be the best option for this debate. A more reasonable, middle approach to the debate would be to relax censorship laws after midnight until, say, 4 AM.