Saturday, November 1, 2008

2 years later...


If you've been to my house, you've probably seen this picture... Well, now Kyle is home from Argentina and I had to do a follow up....

I'm voting yes on 102 and this is why....

The Divine Institution of Marriage
Print


Email Article
');
document.writeln('Back');
document.writeln('');
}
//-->

SALT LAKE CITY 13 August 2008
Introduction
The California Supreme Court recently ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California. Recognizing the importance of marriage to society, the Church accepted an invitation to participate in ProtectMarriage, a coalition of churches, organizations, and individuals sponsoring a November ballot measure, Proposition 8, that would amend the California state constitution to ensure that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be legally recognized. (Information about the coalition can be found at http://www.protectmarriage.com/).
On June 20, 2008, the First Presidency of the Church distributed a letter about “Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families,” announcing the Church’s participation with the coalition. The letter, which was read in Latter-day Saints’ church services in California, asked that Church members “do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment.”
Members of the Church in Arizona and Florida will also be voting on constitutional amendments regarding marriage in their states, where coalitions similar to California’s are now being formed.
The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.
The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.
The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.
As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility.
Intending to reduce misunderstanding and ill will, the Church has produced the following document, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” and provided the accompanying links to other materials, to explain its reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative.
The Divine Institution of Marriage
Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” [1] Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” [2]
In 1995, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” declared the following unchanging truths regarding marriage:
We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . . 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.
The Proclamation also teaches, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” The account in Genesis of Adam and Eve being created and placed on earth emphasizes the creation of two distinct genders: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” [3]
Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric. [4] Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.” [5]
Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.
It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.
High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. [6] This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task. As the prominent sociologist David Popenoe has said:
The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable. [7]
Popenoe explained that:
. . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development. It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with a child’s long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support. [8]
Social historian David Blankenhorn makes a similar argument in his book Fatherless America. [9] In an ideal society, every child would be raised by both a father and a mother.
Challenges to Marriage and Family
Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage – come increasingly under assault. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006). [10] Divorce has become much more common and accepted, with the United States having one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Since 1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 45 million innocents. [11] At the same time, entertainment standards continue to plummet, and pornography has become a scourge afflicting and addicting many victims. Gender differences increasingly are dismissed as trivial, irrelevant, or transient, thus undermining God’s purpose in creating both men and women.
In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.
Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.
In November 2008, California voters will decide whether to amend their state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined in a broad coalition of other denominations, organizations, and individuals to encourage voter approval of this amendment.
The people of the United States – acting either directly or through their elected representatives – have recognized the crucial role that traditional marriage has played and must continue to play in American society if children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated.
Forty-four states have passed legislation making clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. More than half of those states, twenty-seven in all, have done so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in California, Arizona, and Florida. [12]
In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia. Yet, even in this context, a broad majority of courts – six out of eight state supreme courts – have upheld traditional marriage laws. Only two, Massachusetts and now California, have gone in the other direction, and then, only by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3 in both cases.
In sum, there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. As the people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its children. Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved.
Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom
Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. [13] Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” [14] Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.
In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.
As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,
Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination. [15]
The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.” [16]
The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.
Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. [17] Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership. [18]
Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. [19] Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished.
How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?
Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.
Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.
When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.
It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?
As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.
Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.
The Sanctity of Marriage
Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.
The final line in the Proclamation on the Family is an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” This is the course charted by Church leaders, and it is the only course of safety for the Church and for the nation.
________________________________________________
[1] Genesis 2:24.
[2] Matthew 19:4-6.
[3] Genesis 1:27.
[4] M. Russell Ballard, “What Matters Most is What Lasts Longest,” Ensign, November 2005, p. 41.
[5] United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), 10 December 1948.
[6] David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books, 1995); Barbara Schneider, Allison Atteberry, and Ann Owens, Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes (Birmingham AL: Alabama Policy Institute: June 2005); David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: Martin Kessler Books, 1996); David Popenoe and Barbara Defoe Whitehead, The State of Our Unions 2007: The Social Health of Marriage in America (Piscataway, NJ (Rutgers University): The National Marriage Project, July 2007 ) pp. 21-25; and Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker, “Do Moms and Dads Matter? Evidence from the Social Sciences on Family Structure and the Best Interests of the Child,” Margins Law Journal 4:161 (2004).
[7] David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: The Free Press, 1996) p. 146.
[8] Ibid., p. 145. See also Spencer W. Kimball, “The Role of Righteous Women,” Ensign, November 1979, pp. 102-104.
[9] David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, pp. 219-220.
[10] Stephanie J. Ventura and Christine A. Bachrach, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-99,” National Vital Statistics Reports 48:16 (18 October 2000); and Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, and Stephanie J. Ventura, “Births: Preliminary Data for 2006,” National Vital Statistics Reports 56:7 (5 December 2007).
[11] Alan Guttmacher Institute, “Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States,” In Brief, July 2008.
[12] Christine Vestal, “California Gay Marriage Ruling Sparks New Debate,” stateline.org, 16 May 2008, updated 12 June 2008. Stateline.org is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.
[13] Matt. 19:19.
[14] John 8:11.
[15] Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” BYU Devotional speech, 9 February 1999.
[16] Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston: The Coming Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty,” The Weekly Standard, 15 May 2006.
[17] Jonathan Turley, “An Unholy Union: Same-Sex Marriage and the Use of Governmental Programs to Penalize Religious Groups with Unpopular Practices,” in Douglas Laycock, Jr., et al., eds., Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008, forthcoming).
[18] Marc D. Stern, “Gay Marriage and the Churches, paper delivered at the Scholar’s Conference on Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, sponsored by the The Beckett Fund, 4 May 2006.
[19] “European Parliament Resolution on homophobia in Europe,” adopted 18 January 2006.

My cousin Jaimee's article about Nie Nie -- SO EXCELLENT!!!

After fiery plane crash, a sister is held even closer
by Jaimee Rose - Oct. 26, 2008 12:00 AMThe Arizona Republic
She knew just how to hold her sister.
Eleven years older, Page would slip across the hall and scoop that crying baby from the crib before their mother could stir.
Into the rocking chair they'd go, back and forth, Page and Stephanie together. Don't cry, Page whispered, I'm here.
OAS_AD('ArticleFlex_1')


"I had this feeling that I knew her and she knew me," Page says, "and we would help each other."
Now, Stephanie whimpers, and before the nurses come, Page is there. She climbs onto Stephanie's hospital bed, wraps her sister, now 27, in her arms.
"Don't cry," Page says, "I'm here." She knows just how to hold her sister.
Stephanie Nielson and her husband, Christian, 29, were injured when their private plane went down Aug. 16 in St. Johns, Ariz., while on their way home to Mesa. Christian, the pilot, was burned on 35 percent of his body, and Stephanie on 83 percent of hers. They were taken to the Arizona Burn Center in Phoenix.
In the hospital, Page winds the long bandages around Stephanie's burned arms and legs. She wraps Stephanie's face carefully so she can still see the freckle on her lower lip. Page Checketts, the oldest sister, is the strong one.
All three of Stephanie's sisters are here, at the hospital. One cries in the corner so Stephanie can't hear. Another stands by the bed, whispering in Stephanie's ear, her hand on Stephanie's strong heart. She likes to feel it beating.
As soon as Stephanie's three sisters heard about the crash, they came. There was a pull, a panic to be near her. There was worry for the four children Stephanie and Christian left at home.
The sisters decided to do all the things Stephanie couldn't. Her children came to their homes. Her care became their responsibility. They even inherited her blog.
For three years, Stephanie wrote the NieNie Dialogues, read by hundreds across the nation. It was a daily picture, both lovely and honest, of the life of a mom. There were self-portraits too, all red lipstick and green eyes, pale skin, a child often on her lap.
She shared sadness, also. One of nine children raised in Provo, Utah, Stephanie was the only one who moved away from home. Sometimes, she missed her sisters so much that she called Provo, found them giggling in someone's kitchen and cried into the phone.
Before Stephanie's sisters left for Arizona, they posted news of the crash on her blog and asked for prayers.
The first visit
The first August day the sisters came to the hospital, only Stephanie's toes and ponytail peeked out from beneath the bandages. Her eyes were swollen shut, her face wrapped, too. Heavily sedated, Stephanie was silent and still.
Her mother could only stand to be in the room for 15 minutes. One sister saw Stephanie's once-bouncy, happy ponytail and talked loudly in a weird high voice, trying to diffuse the angst.
"Stephanie! I'm just so excited to see you."
The nurses looked at her like she was insane.
The doctors said Christian would fully recover in months. After skin grafts to his arms, legs and one ear, he'd learn to walk again, to curl his fingers, to bend his arms. His face would heal on its own.
But Stephanie's prognosis was grave. She had a 60 to 70 percent chance of survival, her doctors said. Third-degree burns took almost all the skin from her back, chest, face, neck, arms and lower legs. Her organs were strong, her slender body working hard, but there would be months of recovery and years of pain.
Her hands were burned to the tendons. The doctors were able to preserve the cartilage of her nose, but that sweet face full of the freckles she shared with her sisters, gone. The sisters felt like Stephanie was gone, too.
The funny sister
Courtney Kendrick, the second-oldest sister, is the funny one.
In the hospital room that first day, she bent and whispered into Stephanie's ear.
"I'll take your kids," she said, "but you gotta promise me I'll be skinny in return."
Standing by Stephanie's bed, two thoughts crept into Courtney's mind.
Take care of Stephanie's children. And tell her story.
Courtney promised to continue her sister's blog. She knew Stephanie felt her message was important, that somewhere in the photos of Stephanie's laundry basket and dinners under the mulberry tree, other moms might find a laugh or even strength. Stephanie once posted a photo of Courtney nursing on her blog. Courtney forgave her.
The four children could come home to Provo, Courtney thought. They could attend Stephanie's grade school with their cousins, hike Stephanie's favorite mountain and feel their mother in the autumn air. The children needed to escape the worried visitors that kept talk of the crash in their minds.
Already the mother of a newborn, Courtney took Claire, 6, Jane, 5, and Oliver, 3. Another sister took Nicholas, 2.
Courtney and her husband packed the car so quickly that clothes and baby blankets flew off the roof rack somewhere near the Arizona border. She lost her voice in that car filled with little ones, but Courtney found her sister.
"I felt Stephanie around me all the time, talking to me, whispering in my ear," she remembers.
The first week was long while Courtney learned how to mother Stephanie's children. She solved who wanted what on their toast, chanted "shoes, girls, shoes" over and over. And Courtney listened for her sister.
Have Jane help you vacuum if she gets too hyper.
Whisper something in their ears before they go to sleep.
One night, Courtney surveyed the day's mess with exhaustion. As she bent once more over a pile of errant toys, she heard her sister.
Thank you. Thank you. I know it's hard. Thank you.
But I love this, Courtney wanted to say back.
"Ollie wakes me up, and I think what an honor," says Courtney, 31. "What an honor to make this guy Cheerios with one eye open and one eye closed."
At night, Courtney always thinks of Stephanie. She tucks the children into bed, whispering "your mom and dad love you" to each one. Claire and Jane take the longest, demanding story after story in the big bed they share.
Sometimes, when they listen to Stephanie's favorite lullaby, Jane clutches a photograph of her parents and cries into her pillow.
Sometimes Claire has bad dreams, she says, "so I snuggle with my sister Jane, and that makes me feel better."
Every morning, Courtney finds them huddled together, holding each other like only sisters know how.
"Sisters are the closest thing to you, the closest thing to yourself," Courtney says. "We knew we were as close as these kids could get to their mom."
The careful sister
Lucy Beesley, the youngest, is the careful one. She looks just like Stephanie. The two share the same brown hair, peaked chin and pink puffed cheeks covered in freckles. They both worry over clothes and feelings and if the homemade pizza crust turned out right.
Lucy is caring for the 2-year-old, Nicholas. He calls Lucy "Mom."
"Mom! Mom-mom-mom-mom," Nicholas insists, toddling toward her with eyes bright, a new toy in his chubby fist.
She answers.
"A copter?" says Lucy, 24. "Oh, you lucky boy!"
Growing up, just three years between them, Stephanie and Lucy shared a bedroom. They shared dresses.
They slept in the same bed until Stephanie was 16. They would giggle under the covers until their mother came in, ordering everyone to sleep. Night after night, the sisters slept snuggled, born knowing just how to hold each other.
"I do miss her, I miss her so," Lucy says. "I miss asking her questions."
Sometimes, she hears Stephanie's voice.
I need you to teach Nicholas.
Sometimes Lucy talks back.
I took all your clothes, she tells Stephanie.
The clothes "remind me of her," Lucy says. "I want to feel her close to me."
When Lucy kisses Nicholas, she does it just like her sister: feasting on those soft, fat cheeks. She combs his hair and brings him to Courtney's house every afternoon for family dinner and story hour with his siblings.
"I put him down to bed and . . . we say a little prayer together," Lucy says. "I lie there until he falls asleep, and I know she's there with me. I can just feel her, and she's comforting him."
Nicholas turned 2 on Oct. 6, and oh, how Lucy worried over his party. Stephanie always made birthdays so magical.
Lucy and her husband held the party at their farm: chili, scones and a hayride to a pumpkin patch.
Stephanie always told her sisters that someday, she wanted to move back to Utah and live on a farm. She wanted grapevines and apple trees in the backyard, pumpkins growing and Christian by her side.
Standing in the farm, surrounded by family, about to release balloons into the air, Lucy felt that deep pang for her sister. How sad that she missed this. As a toddler, Nicholas changes by the week. He's a new version of himself every Sunday.
Stephanie's been sleeping for 10 Sundays. Nicholas is losing his chubby cheeks. His wispy tufts of baby hair have been trimmed, tamed, combed to the side. He's talking now. He's growing from a baby to a boy. Stephanie's missing all of it.
Lucy worries about time passing, about this boy who sleeps near his mother's photograph but calls Lucy "mom."
"What's going to happen," she wonders, "when he leaves me and sees Stephanie for the first time?"
His mother looks different, too.
Love and flying
Stephanie loved to dress up for Christian: a pink hat on Easter, his favorite skirt on a Friday night. Stephanie, the second-youngest, is the romantic one.
She liked to write her husband love letters, even posting them online. Her brothers teased her. She didn't care.
"You always knew Stephanie and Christian were going to be late for everything," Courtney says, "that they were going to . . . dress up, to look good for each other."
Stephanie and Christian fell in love when she was 19 and he was 21. Months later, they married in the Provo Mormon temple and started their family. While Christian finished his degree in facilities management at Brigham Young University, Stephanie stayed at home with the children. They moved from Provo to a job in New Jersey and later Mesa, where Christian was raised as one of 11 kids.
In Arizona, Stephanie and Christian lived with his parents while they saved for a house, but Stephanie felt that tug pulling her home to Utah, to her parents, five brothers, and three sisters. She tried to ignore it, her sisters said. She wanted to make him happy.
"She was just a softie," Page says. "She wanted fun and happiness all the time."
Stephanie and Christian mined the magic of life. They wanted each moment to matter. Stephanie wore her trademark red lipstick even to the grocery store and sent thank-you notes to the dentist. Christian liked to dance in the living room and pick Stephanie up and carry her to bed.
Stephanie knew Christian always had yearned to fly. He ate birdseed at age 6, hoping he might grow wings.
For Christian's 28th birthday, in 2006, she bought him his first flying lesson. Stephanie called him Mr. Pilot Nielson and loved to be his passenger. She played the Out of Africa soundtrack on her iPod, lost in romance, pretending she was Meryl Streep.
He told her that whenever she needed her sisters, he could fly her to Provo.
He earned his pilot's license in July, and a few weeks later, Stephanie came to him with a request. On a recent vacation to his family's ranch in Bluewater, N.M., she had spied a pair of suede moccasins at an Indian reservation nearby. She mentioned how she wished she'd brought them home, and Christian said he'd fly her over on Saturday to get them. It would be good practice, he said. Their flight instructor, Doug Kinneard of Mesa, could join them, and they could leave the kids with Christian's mother.
It could be a date.
The flight home
On the way home from New Mexico, Stephanie wore those moccasins. They stopped in St. Johns around 3:30 p.m. to refuel. During the landing, the borrowed Cessna's engine quit and wouldn't restart.
Christian and Doug pushed the plane to the fueling area and filled the tanks. The engine started easily, according to the National Transportation Safety Board's preliminary report.
Christian stopped to call his mother and told her they'd be home soon.
He taxied the Cessna back to the runway, and the plane climbed slowly. Witnesses say it never got the altitude it needed. At the end of the runway, the plane veered to the left and crashed onto a residential street about a block away.
Neighbors heard the power lines snap as the plane came through. They heard the plane hit a truck parked on the street and then another. They heard the scrape of the plane's metal belly shredding as it skidded across the asphalt into a woodpile next to a home, where it caught fire. The power lines had sliced off the left landing gear. Then the neighbors heard footsteps, running.
Christian and Doug jumped from the plane, their clothes on fire. Christian ran across the street, still burning, calling for help.
"My wife," he cried, staring back at the airplane already lost to flames. "My wife."
Stephanie escaped, and neighbors found her beneath a tire swing.
Doug, burned on more than 90 percent of his body, called out instructions.
"Call my students," he said, "tell them I won't be there this afternoon." In the end, he talked of his family and how much he loved them. Doug, 48, died the next day.
Neighbors helped Christian across the street. He asked someone to call his aunt and uncle, who live in St. Johns. They arrived just behind the ambulance, and Christian sent his aunt to Stephanie.
Stephanie lay on the grass, her head in the lap of a man who happened by. Stephanie reached up and cradled his cheek in her singed hand.
"Thank you," she told him. "Thank you for being here."
Stephanie was worried about her injuries.
"My mother's going to be so mad at me," she told Christian's aunt. "I'm all burned. I'm going to die."
As they waited for the helicopters to arrive, Stephanie became quiet.
"I don't want to do this," Stephanie said. "I just want to go home and make dinner for my family."
'Come home'
Christian woke up in the burn center one month later asking about her, his injuries healing but his worry fresh.
"Where is she?" Christian asked, as he came out of sedation. "How is she?"
They waited a few days before they wheeled him into her room.
"He didn't really look at her," Page says. Christian kept his eyes in his lap. He wanted to touch her, but he didn't know if he could. A nurse picked up his hand, placed it on Stephanie's. And then, though his voice shook, he couldn't stop talking. He told her of his love, how all the good in him and the children was because of her.
"Come back," Christian begged that day in the hospital. "Come home."
For weeks, all he could talk about was her. He guided his walker to her side three and four times a day to touch her, pray with her, talk to her. He tried to explain the magic of his wife to everyone who visited, to his mother every night, to his own sister when she came to sing him to sleep.
"She's just so wonderful," Christian said. "Nobody can really know how wonderful she is."
No one except her sisters.
The three women came to see him together one weekend, a quick flight to Arizona from Utah. He smiled at their freckles, at their mannerisms so like his wife's.
"When he looks at us," Page says, "he sees Stephanie."
Stephanie's choice
Page, Courtney and Lucy stop before they go into Stephanie's hospital room. Their arms find each other for a long embrace, like they're summoning all the strength they have and passing it to each other. It's still so hard to see her.
The sisters don't hear Stephanie's voice anymore, whispering in their ears. They feel her here, in this hospital room. They feel her fighting.
"We feel like she had a choice," Page says. "She could choose to go, and it would have been a beautiful life. Or she could choose to stay and fight. We feel like she's made her choice."
Stephanie is something of a marvel, says Dr. Kevin Foster, one of the burn surgeons leading her care. After 19 surgeries, her wounds are almost grafted completely, he says. Her body fought off the afflictions common to burn patients: infection, organ failure.
She will be in the burn center until at least December, he says, followed by months in a rehabilitation center as she learns to walk again and use her hands. There will be more surgeries over the next few years, Foster says, likely more than 100.
Just coming out of heavy sedation, Stephanie is dimly conscious and can wave her arms and shake her head. She is moving now, responding to her family.
The moccasins saved her feet from the fire, and her sisters like to stand at the edge of her bed, touching her toes.
In the hospital, Stephanie's sisters keep their voices happy and calm. They try not to mention the children too much because such talk makes Stephanie sit up in a white blur of urgency and worry.
"I think we tell her what we need to hear ourselves," Page says. She tells Stephanie to be patient and strong. Courtney keeps her voice light, tells her everything is going to be OK. Lucy tells Stephanie how many people love her.
The sisters have some news for Stephanie in the hospital this day: She's famous now.
Courtney kept her promise to tell Stephanie's story, posting news on her own blog and on Stephanie's. Sometimes, her words sound just like her sister's.
The news about Stephanie and Christian's crash spread quickly, and fellow bloggers offered their prayers. The Today show and the New York Times featured the family, and more than 50,000 readers now visit her blog daily.
Stephanie's hospital room is a scrapbook of love letters and photos from readers on each wall. Piles of packages from strangers arrive in Utah for the children every week. Fellow moms and bloggers have auctioned cookies and homemade dolls to benefit the family. Friends have held garage sales, carnivals, even concerts. They've raised more than $150,000 to help with medical costs, which will stretch into the millions. Insurance will pay some.
"Stephanie, do you want to be famous?" Courtney asks her.
Stephanie sits up and shakes her head no.
Apples and leaves
One day, when Page is tending to Stephanie in her room, Page whispers something else to her sister.
Page and her husband just bought Stephanie and Christian a house in Provo, in the tree-lined foothills where Stephanie grew up. There's a view of the mountains she loved, which fall is painting red and orange as Stephanie sleeps.
The house is in the center of her family: just a half-mile from Courtney, Page and their parents. Lucy is eight minutes away. There's a white picket fence on the side, an apple tree in front, peaches and plums in the back. The eastern fence is covered in grapevines.
In the hospital, Page hears her little sister crying once more.
Later, Page visits Christian in the Scottsdale rehab clinic where he is recovering, anxious to tell him about the house. In rehab, Christian is practicing walking, building his strength and professing his love for Stephanie to everyone. His mother stays with him nearly every night, even though he goes to bed at 8:30. He doesn't like to be alone. He says he doesn't want to publicly discuss the accident until Stephanie can talk about it, too.
Page is nervous to tell him about the house, afraid he won't want to leave his own family or that he won't understand how badly Stephanie will need her own.
A grateful Christian tells Page that what Stephanie wants, he will do.
"In my hardest, most difficult times, it's my sisters I want by my side," Page says.
Stephanie will need lifelong care, help with her children and all of life's routines and indelicacies.
Stephanie will need Page's strength, Courtney's laughs, Lucy's caution. She will need their freckles to remind her of her own.
One night, during a quick visit to Arizona, the sisters find each other at Stephanie and Christian's Mesa home.
Courtney is feeding her baby boy. Lucy is doing laundry. Page is comforting their mother. The day at the hospital was long.
One by one, they all stop and pile onto the bed in Stephanie's yellow guest room, drained. They lie on their sides like a row of spoons, their heads resting on each other's shoulders. They tease their mother, who is nestled in the middle, her hair suddenly much whiter than it ever was before. They laugh at Lucy's pajamas. They stay this way for a very long time, and then they are quiet.
Courtney says what they all are thinking.
"It feels like someone is missing."

Judd

Judd
My handsome hubby

Mariah and Jayden playing with play-doh

Mariah and Jayden playing with play-doh
Hi, so this is our new house that we just moved into, back in May, and we have no toys unpacked and no TV to watch so we are playing playdoh today...

Meridith

Meridith
At the Tree of Life WaltDisneyWorld, FL