The Liberal Mormon That Could

New Blog

2010-08-10T15:39:00.000-07:00

So I have a new blog. I've been considering it for quite a while, and I'd like to invite y'all over.

However.

"Y'all" doesn't include people who:

1) Are easily offended. This means: don't mind a bit of cursing and blasphemy and the like.
2) Are going to tell me I'm bad or going to hell or am going against the church. Guess what, I don't care.
3) Are looking to worry about me. I'll be just fine. Really.
4) Are afraid of other ideas and viewpoints. (seriously. I've had a number of people come to this blog who believe they're open to new ideas but end up hemming and hawing about mine and then storm out because I'm just that awful)
5) Hate on or feel called upon to condescend to people who either believe or don't believe or just don't know what they believe.

"Y'all" does include people who

1) DO want to talk with someone who feels the same way or similarly,
2) ARE open to someone who is genuinely working things out, even if the end result doesn't match your their ideals,
3) LIKE to talk religion and sometimes politics and sometimes other stuff, even if the viewpoints are different,
4) ARE genuinely open to other ideas, even if they aren't their own, and
5) WANT to learn and explore some potentially scary alternatives.

If the latter shoe fits, you're more than welcome to come visit me at

OH!

Remember this? "Also, this message may self-destruct at an unknown point in the future."

Yeah. So I get like five hits from this blog to my new blog per day. Awesome? Whatever. Dudes, look. My people, they find me. They're sneaky folks and right now I need a little space to be a bit, uhm, offensive. Sometimes. It's probably too late anyway, but it's been bothering me and I obsess enough as it is.

Might change it back later, but I'm not all that difficult to find. Just look around. Seriously.

And thanks for stopping by. Really.

ok. i really think i'm done now

2009-07-25T13:34:00.000-07:00

i'm done. i haven't posted here in a long time, and it's felt good.

i've started another project over at livejournal. i know some of you aren't fans of livejournal, but for what i'm doing, it just felt like the right place. if you've a journal there, let me know. we can be friends.

[redacted]

some of the entries will be "friend only" but most should be open to people. Anyone can comment, though i don't know how easy it will be for me to know who you are, so let me know in the comment.

As most of you know, i've done this "last entry!" thing before. there's always a chance i'll come back here, but eh. i'm working on some projects for DemandStudios (freelancing) and school starts next month. Wednesday I'm headed to Texas to meet a longtime online friend of mine for the first time (!!!) and we're ripping up our house, getting new windows, slowly sucking the life out of our savings account.

I'm busy, and I don't want to be angry anymore. Too busy with my BIL coming home from his mission and telling people we're not quite into it anymore. Harder than it seems. But I'll talk about the church still. It's too much a part of me to not. Hell today's entry at livejournal is about Pioneer Month and how I've never been a fan (even in my TBM days), but i'll talk about other things.

Let me know. Shoot me an email. It's in my profile.

BTW, I'm not looking for debate at livejournal. None of this sort of thing where I bitch and you tell me I'm going to hell for blasting the prophet or the lord's apostles for saying something stupid. The livejournal is a totally different idea. Just a place to chat. So if I make you mad, I think it's time to say goodbye until or unless I come back here looking for blood.

On Abortion

2009-06-28T09:05:00.000-07:00

Fair Request: Be kind in your comments. This is meant for discussion.

I came across this article not too long after the abortion doctor, George Tiller, was found shot to death by pro-life extremists. It's eye opening. It should help others to see that the abortion issue is not as black and white as many would like to think. The truth is that very little in this world is as black and white. I would almost dare say nothing is black and white. But I digress.

You can find the article here: Between a Woman and Her Doctor

An excerpt:

My doctor turned around and faced me. She told me that because dilation and evacuation is rarely offered in my community, I could opt instead to chemically induce labor over several days and then deliver the little body at my local maternity ward. “It’s up to you,” she said.

I’d been through labor and delivery three times before, with great joy as well as pain, and the notion of going through that profound experience only to deliver a dead fetus (whose skin was already starting to slough off, whose skull might be collapsing) was horrifying.

I also did some research, spoke with friends who were obstetricians and gynecologists, and quickly learned this: Study after study shows D&Es are safer than labor and delivery. Women who had D&Es were far less likely to have bleeding requiring transfusion, infection requiring intravenous antibiotics, organ injuries requiring additional surgery or cervical laceration requiring repair and hospital readmission.

Not everyone who opts for an abortion or a procedure does so because he or she finds the baby an unwelcome and inconvenient interference in their lives. History suggests women opted for abortion because they had given birth/become pregnant so often they couldn't handle it anymore. Many don't understand what a pregnancy can do to a woman's body and mind. And if anyone would like to tell a married woman to abstain from sex, be my guest. I'm sure she and her husband will appreciate that.

Back in the day before birth control, women had babies galore. I can say from my own genealogical research that many of my forebears had up to twelve children, many whom died soon afterward. Does anyone have any idea what psychological and physical ramifications this had on these women? These families? I've suffered from one miscarriage and post-partum depression. I know only mildly what some women go through.

On a semi-related note, I wonder how many LDS women opt for larger families out of "obedience" or an actual longing for a larger family. I know I felt the pressure and know of at least one other woman who wondered if she was selfish for not wanting more children.

This isn't so much about a woman's choice as it is about other people (men especially) having so much say over what a woman does when they haven't spent even ten minutes in her shoes. This is about a woman's body. It's about her mind, too. Her life matters just as much as that baby's life. Not everyone who finds themselves in this situation finds themselves there because they "chose" to have sex. Many are married and as such, according to our Church, given the right to have sex. What of a situation like the one mentioned above when a woman is forced to undergo a more dangerous procedure because the safer has been deemed unconscionable?

I am not a proponent of abortion. I am a proponent of giving women the benefit of the doubt. Of allowing some people to make their own damning choices so other women, like the one mentioned above, can have the choice of what to do. A safer choice.

Allowing a choice for abortion does not mean you condone abortion. Just like teaching a child about safe sex is not a blessing to run out and screw everyone they see. It is saying "you have free agency: here is some information, use it wisely."

Out of Many: A History of the American People says this:

"The maintenance or achievement of a middle-class lifestyle required the joint efforts of husband and wife. More cooperation between them was called for than in the preindustrial, patriarchal family. The nature of the new, companionate marriage that evolved in response to the market revolution was reflected most clearly in decisions concerning children...

"When mutual efforts at birth control failed, married women often sought a surgical abortion, a new technique that was much more reliable than the folk remedies women had always shared among themselves...Some historians estimate that one out of every four pregnancies was aborted in the years from 1840 to 1860 (compared to one in six in 2000)"

Consider this:

"Accompanying the interest in family limitation was a redefinition of sexuality. Doctors generally recommended that sexual urges be controlled, but they believed that men would have much more difficulty exercising such control than women were uninterested in sex. Although it is always difficult to measure the extent to which the suggestions in advice books were applied in actual practice, it seems that many middle-class women accepted this new and limited definition of their sexuality because of the desire to limit the number of their pregnancies" (315)

Middle-class couples had fewer children because they didn't need the extra labor out in the fields. These were suburban families, so to speak.

Imagine being a woman and at God's mercy regarding your pregnancies. Indeed for a long time our church said limiting family was a sin, recalling with nostalgia the times before the pill. But birth control isn't so much about killing or curtailing babies as it is about sex, and men (hell, anyone) deciding what is best for a woman to go through.

Though the churchwide attitude has evolved now to shy away from condemning the use of birth control, this wasn't always the case. Elder Marion G. Romney in this Ensign article, Scriptures as They Relate to Family Stability, states,

With respect to birth control, President Joseph F. Smith said, in 1917:

"I regret, I think it is a crying evil, that there should exist a sentiment or a feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. I think that is a crime wherever it occurs, where husband and wife are in possession of health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity. I believe that where people undertake to curtail or prevent the birth of their children that they are going to reap disappointment by and by. I have no hesitancy in saying that I believe this is one of the greatest crimes of the world today, this evil practice.” (Gospel Doctrine, pp. 278–79.)

On these matters, the First Presidency has recently said:

“We have given careful consideration to the question of proposed laws on abortion and sterilization. We are opposed to any modification, expansion, or liberalization of laws on these vital subjects.' (Letter to stake presidents in the state of Washington, October 27, 1970.)"

Yet another example of when the Church has backpeddled. Changed. How can I trust what they say today is what they will stand by tomorrow? I thought we had a direct line to God.

Hello? Is this thing on?

Back then this wasn't considered a leader's opinion. It was considered doctrine. We follow the Prophet. Period.

While I’m grateful the rhetoric has changed within the church, as a woman who has three children and is done, I find it abhorrent that anyone who doesn't know me dares find any pedestal on which to stand on and tell me when and if it is time for me to stop having children. And I've had plenty of people suggest it is not. I've some choice words for them that I will refrain from using at the moment.

We don't know what these women are going through. Will some abuse the system? Yes. But we live in a society that assumes innocence until proven guilty. We believe in a God that judges our hearts, not as man judges (1 Samuel 16:7). We cannot sacrifice those who have valid reasons, acutely personal reasons, because others may decide to abuse the law.

Standards for Celestial Dating, 1-6

2009-06-24T11:25:00.000-07:00

What I'm about to type is an abridgement, perhaps the beginning of a series, regarding a pamphlet my husband was given back in his teens, probably sometime after turning sixteen. I don't know. But it was produced and handed out by our then Stake Presidency. So this is circa 1995-1999.

It says we cannot control ourselves sexually. And I understand that once things get going, wants become needs. I understand that control becomes an issue. I've a stepsister with three kids from three different daddies. I've known some teen pregnancies. I remember how unbelievably attracted I was to my husband while we were dating (still am, don't get snarky :). I get it.

But come on.

President Kimball and those who worship his words and works are very much focused on sex, sex by itself and sex as a sin.

They say these things understanding that our sexuality is a fundamental part of who we are. Like porn, it becomes so saturated in our church media that we wonder if its not attracting us. I wonder if aggressive campaigns of this nature are in part self-fulfilling prophecies.

I mean, if french kissing is suggestive of "the sex act" doesn't that make your inner antennae perk up a bit? Sounds good, right? I hadn't even thought of that until I read this, after all.

Personally, I'd rather be spoken to as an adult--not just the spiritual reasons for abstaining from such things, but the secular reasons as well. Appeal to me as an intelligent person and then leave me to govern myself. I like to think most people are pretty intelligent and will act accordingly if treated as such.

But that's just me.

What you're about to read (and there's more) makes me think: my God, with all that can go wrong--why bother at all? My own thoughts are in blue.

1. NO DATING UNTIL AGE 16; NO SINGLE DATING UNTIL 18. "...President Kimball went on to counsel us that beginning the dating process too soon almost always brings on young immature marriages or immorality and sin."

Funny. I think all the sexual repression does this. This also assumes there are no immature marriages if a person follows the Church's prescribed formula. I can say from personal experience this is patently untrue: a young couple will marry ASAP because they've been told to and they want to have sex. Many marriages still surivive, but this doesn't mean marrying quickly is always the answer. They also become parents before they are truly ready regarding finances and maturity levels. Do they survive despite? Sure. But this isn't always the right answer.

"Remember, NO STEADY dating until after missions. It is an excellent idea to always double or group date until at least the age of 18."

Anyone else finding some inconsistency there? What of that year between 18-19? I mean, if a young boy is readying to go on his mission, wouldn't Satan be extra vigilant in getting that young man to give into sexual desires? Or wouldn't Satan, as he did in the Garden, tempt young Eve to get Adam to do something that would keep him from his mission?

Be on your haunches, young men!

2. MISSIONS BEFORE SERIOUS DATING. I know plenty of couples who have ignored this bit of counsel. They're the ones who get married two weeks after he returns home.

3. DO NOT DATE NON-MEMBERS OR UNWORTHY MEMBERS. "I do not believe that the Lord would expect the choice young people of His church to find their eternal mates among non-members! He would not ask us to go against both His counsel throughout the ages or against the counsel of His prophets. President Kimball told us "Clearly, right marriage begins with right dating...therefore, this warning comes with great emphasis. DO NOT take the chance of dating non-members, or members who are untrained and faithless." Now, do not rationalize by saying that you are doing missionary work. The Lord does not instruct us to do missionary work one-on-one with members of the opposite sex"

well, hell, I had an fresh RM teaching me about the gospel before i dared speak with the missionaries. i had a huge crush on him too.

4. DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN "KISSING-HUGGING" SESSIONS. (making out, or necking, as it is sometimes called). I am not talking about the serious sin of "petting" but the lengthy make-out sessions that many feel are "okay" as long as you do not let it get too far. President Kimball taught us, "Among the most common sexual sins our young people commit are necking and petting. Not only do these improper relations often lead to fornication, pregnancy, and abortions -, all ugly sins - but in and of themselves they are pernicious evils..." Necking or making out, the kissing-hugging sessions, is wrong IN AND OF ITSELF, not just because it may lead to something worse. I'm not saying there isn't a proper time in a dating relationship to kiss. There IS a proper time and place. President Kimball advised us, '"Kissing would be saved at last until these later hallowed courtship days when they could be free from sex and have holy meaning--'

i can only assume "these later hallowed courtship days" means after one returns from a mission and is "steady dating"

"--In an address delivered to returned missionaries (not high school age people), President Kimball say '"A kiss is an evidence of affection. A kiss is an evidence of love, not an evidence of lust--but it can be. Don't ever let a kiss in your courship [sic] spell lust. Necking and petting are lustful; they are NOT love...I don't mind your kissing each other after you have had several dates; but not the "Hollywood kiss," not the kiss of passion, but the kiss of affection and there won't be any trouble.'

(it gets better)

5. "NO FRENCH KISSING. This type of conduct is far too intimate and is suggestive of the sex act itself. A French kiss does not meet the standards President Kimball described above. President Kimball stated that '...The "soul kiss" is an abomination and stirs passions to the eventual loss of virtue. Even if timely courtship justifies the kiss, it should be a clean, sexless one, like the kiss between mother and son, or father and daughter.--"

(the bolded part is one of my favorite LDS quotes of all time)

"--In Isaiah we read: 'But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore. Against whom do ye sport yourselves? against whom make ye a wide mouth, and draw out the tongue? are ye not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood?" (QUOTES from Spencer W. Kimball, Chastity: Isaiah 57:3-4)

What?

6. DO NOT PARK. Especially in the high school years, parking in an automobile has been the downfall of many choice young people. President Kimball told us that, "In interviewing repenting young folks, as well as some older ones, I am frequently told that the couple met their defeat in the dark, late hours, in secluded areas...the car was most often the confessed seat of the difficulty. It became their brothel." BEWARE! Often I have found that a couple originally parked to discuss a problem or work out an argument--not to make out. However, after the problem was resolved, they kissed to make up and things developed from there. It does not matter the reason: DO NOT PARK. After a date, GO HOME! Once you are there, go into the house, ALONE!

And just in case I'm accused of blanket hyperbole again, here is number 17:

17. DO NOT THINK THAT YOU ARE THE EXCEPTION TO THESE RULES. Don't say to yourself, "Boy, do I know so-and-so who needs these rules." The rules are for you! To think that it could never happen to you is an error. It CAN happen to you. You are not so in control that you can afford to say to yourself, "oh, I would NEVER do that, therefore, I can go into an apartment alone with my date, or park, or whatever." This is an open invitation to Satan to prove you wrong! And, he will! The biggest error of all is to think that you are an exception to one of these rules.

And yet, somehow, my husband and I made it.

Come Out to Your Ward: Follow Up

2009-06-19T15:47:00.000-07:00

For those of you who were wondering...

Hill of the Foreskins

2009-06-18T13:25:00.000-07:00

My husband and I sat, dutifully, in Gospel Doctrine. In the front row, even.

Things were well--until he broke into hysterics.

I playfully elbowed him in the side. "Shut up!" I hissed.

He didn't stop.

"What is it?"

He points to his scriptures and reads in a whisper:

And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins. (Joshua 5:3)

Now I'm breaking into hysterics. We're giggling like we're ten years old--and indeed right now I cannot fathom why it would be so funny--but at the time it was absolutely hilarious. I don't think our teacher or fellow class members thought so, but damn it, sometimes you have to laugh.

I mean, the visual alone is, if not funny, gross. Couldn't Joshua and his crew come up with a sleek Hebrew or even "Reformed" Egyptian name? Like Irreantum in the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 17:5?

Hill of the Foreskins.

Ewwwwww.

Homeowners!

2009-06-11T12:53:00.000-07:00

I don't remember how much--if anything--I've written here about my activities outside the blog, but my husband and I just bought and moved into our first house.

I have been without the internet for a week and I've much to catch up on, so this post is basically a plea for patience.

Go watch the video below if you haven't already :)

Come Out To Your Ward

2009-06-03T17:13:00.000-07:00

Here's George again. I would love to be there when he does this. Very powerful:

The Governator: A Political Girly Man

2009-05-31T07:51:00.001-07:00

A little late? Yeah. And while I'm close to losing my head without news like this, I'm still hearing about it and I still want to scream in Schwarzenegger's face.

(by the by, is it okay for me to criticize government leaders?)

This past Tuesday California had yet another "special election" because Arnold can't lead to save his life. Because Arnold does not understand that this is a republic, not a democracy. We, the people, vote in others to represent our interests and ideals and they, in turn, go to work full time to ensure we, the people, get what we say we want. This is for a few reasons:

1. The People do not have the time to follow up and research--and vote for--all of the laws to be passed.

2. The People largely do not have the smarts to deal with all the laws to be passed.

But Arnold doesn't get this. It felt neat at first when he threatened the legislature with "taking it to the people" but after a while, the people got tired. We've our own crap to deal with.

He can be entertaining to be sure, but he's too scared to lead. Coward. To use his own words, Arnold is a political girly man.

You see, everytime there's a big decision to be made and the legislature throws their arms in the air and Arnold can't rally them up--which is almost every time--he takes it "to the people."

And it costs m-o-n-e-y. So much effing money.

As some may well know, California also cannot (a) balance a budget and (b) pass a budget. So what does he do? Special Elections.

And with the nationwide economic crisis with California suffering moreso than some other states, gasp, Arnold knows he has to cut some programs.

And what does Arnold like to cut? Education. Fire.

Now my involvement in politics admittedly ends too soon and I have no other answers. However, a friend of mine on a privatized blog of mine asked a key question:

What is he not willing to cut if he's willing to cut Education and Fire?

Before the election this past Tuesday, Arnold and his ilk were running around saying things like "I don't like to threaten with fear, but I have to. If you do not pass these propositions, I will have to cut education."

Just wait. There's more.

All the propositions failed. By a landslide. Arnold's reaction? "You guys sent a strong message this past Tuesday, that we need to live within our means. We need to cut education."

Arnold.

That is NOT what we said.

We said: do your job. Figure it out. We don't have time for this.

Don't come back and say "well, the people hath spoken" because that's political speak for "if this doesn't work, it's not my fault your child can't afford to attend a college here, to take his music and physical education class. The people voted."

Let's not forget the state is in more debt, I hear, even with the economy aside, than we were when Gray Davis was Governor.

You're taxing the hell out of us, too. You're just spreading it around so it doesn't seem like it. Our vehicle registration fees are doubled. It costs money now to get a smog extension. Our sales tax has been hiked. Thousands upon thousands of teachers are now out of a job and more are scared they're next. Schools have closed. Fire stations. I actually heard a leader say "don't worry, we still have enough firemen to get to everyone. It just might take a bit longer to get to your house."

Come on now. Seriously?

You know you can't run for President. Your tenure as Governator is, thankfully, coming to a close. There's very little to lose here. So stand up and do something. If you run for the Senate or the House, well. We know what kind of congressman you'll be. A lazy one.

I didn't vote for you the first time nor the second time, and you can bet your ass I won't vote for you again.

Go back to Hollywood.

I'm LOVING this.

2009-05-28T10:04:00.000-07:00

"We are extremely pleased that the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right of voters to define marriage in the California Constitution," said Andrew P. Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com, the leading group behind the initiative. "The voters have decided this issue and their views should be respected."

-State Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

Mm-hmm.

I wonder if Mr. Pugno and his ilk will feel the same way in a few years when voters reject the next version of Prop 8.

For real, people, read the articles. The 9th Circuit Court conservatives consistently decry as "activist" except for when the court rules in their favor did not rule against same-sex marriage.

I repeat: It did not rule against same-sex marriage. It didn't rule for it, either, but it didn't rule against it.

It ruled that Proposition 8 was an amendment to the state constitution and as an amendment and not a revision, it does not require a 2/3 vote of the legislature.

That's it.

So I hope lawyers like Andrew P. Pugno are ready to celebrate the wonderment that is our system when a sufficient number of voters (not many, by the way) eventually see through the fear mongering and repeal Prop 8.

And when that happens, will they appeal to the 9th Circuit Court? When the Court stays the course and says "Nope, it stands" will those who oppose gay marriage then cry "liberal activist judges!"

...or will they accept the will of the people?

I think I know the answer.

Prop 8 Upheld

2009-05-26T10:13:00.000-07:00

(warning: if you've sensitive eyes to naughty words, move on)

As of about eighteen minutes ago Prop 8 was upheld.

BUT, the 18,000 marriages performed while it was still legal are also upheld. So at least there's that. Better than nothing (I can't imagine).

I still don't understand the logic of "sex is only okay within the bonds of marriage [not "civil unions"], so because we cannot make 'sodomy' illegal anymore, we'll just make sure the gays can't get married."

Am I wrong there? At all?

The debate right now is when to time the next battle: 2010 or 2012 when they'll have the presidential election on their side (= greater turnout)

So.

Nobody is truly surprised, but many are disappointed, especially given the events of the past few months with Iowa and Connecticut and other states which have legalized gay marriage. As my husband points out, however, this decision was not about legalizing gay marriage so much as it was deeming Prop 8 constitutional as a ballot measure, if this was a matter of amending the constitution or a constitutional revision.

And the judges by a 6-1 vote said it was constitutional.

But time is only on the side of the Prop 8 opposition.

Here's a bit of a news interview I just saw:

Reporter: "We're going to turn to someone who is in support of Prop 8. George Riley. Good morning. You know we've seen you out here since six a.m., how do you feel now knowing that the judges have supported Prop 8?"

Riley: "Well I feel like justice was finally served. This is the third time that we've had the people vote and the people for the third time have said yes. We believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and whether or not people like that or not, that's what the people want. So if there was anything else besides that, I'd have to say that the judges were trying to play lawmakers from the bench."

He went on to say that he feels Prop 8 opponents have a vendetta against Christianity.

Everything is about the Christians. If Christianity isn't being persecuted, someone will ensure Christians at least feel persecuted. Newsflash: this is only about the Christian religion inasmuch as they make it about the Christian religion.

As for "activist judges": People need to read their history books more often. I'm no historian, but I learned enough in the past semester of U.S. History to know that Supreme Court judges tend to do one of two things on occasion:

(a) Judge very poorly (see the Dred Scott decision)
(b) Judge against the majority (see Interracial Marriage. Loving v. Virginia)

One of the purposes of the Constitution of the United States is to protect the minority from the majority's whims. For so long (even into the '60s I believe) the majority felt interracial marriage was wrong. The majority isn't always right.

The Supreme Court justices are not there to represent the majority. They are there to act neutral, unbiased, to interpret the Constitution and the laws of the land, and sometimes it doesn't turn out as we'd like.

And that's why we have a system. There's always next time.

Again: this is not about legalizing or de-legalizing gay marriage. This is about the constitutionality of Prop 8--revision v. amendment. The Court found it was a perfectly legal amendment in need of no more than a simple 50% + 1 majority.

I respectfully disagree.

As other states have found, the right to marry is a civil right. It's in the books. Go look it up.

People don't have to agree with it. It's none of their business. But people do things all the time we don't "agree" with, but we pop our shoulders and we get over it. We understand nobody is forcing us to run out and have gay sex.

The opponents don't seem to have the same zeal regarding serial divorces. There’s no rallying against "no-fault marriages." They say (and by "they" I mean LDS leadership and membership) it's because straight marriages have the potential for celestial glory. By the way, this is also the LDS response to the point that the government once used similar rationale against polygamy--at least polygamy was between a man and, uhm, women.

That's fucked up.

The world will never be 100% LDS. And the LDS are not in charge, nor should they be. No religion should be.

Honestly I wish people would open a few books and consider different perspectives for a change. It doesn't hurt. I promise.

Marriage is a civil right. Not a basic human right like water and food and *cough* health care, but a civil right. A civil right is a right bestowed upon its people by its government (see 13th and 14th amendments)

I'll allow a minute for that to sink in.

And this is a government decision, not a religious decision. Nobody is going to force any church to marry a couple guys or a couple of girls. They don't force churches, especially the LDS church, to marry anyone--civilly or in the temple.

But apparently we can be coerced—a kind way to put it—into votes we weren’t sure we wanted to make in the first place (I know of a few people who would’ve voted differently)

Why more people don't understand this is completely beyond my comprehension.

Ironic Scripture

2009-05-20T10:30:00.000-07:00

Luke 17:34-35

I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

You've gotta love cultural context.

A little something I wrote

2009-05-16T10:30:00.001-07:00

I haven't written a poem in months, perhaps a year, but this came last night to me after reading a poem by Gloria Anzaldúa entitled "El sonavabitche." Fantastic poem and intriguing poet, by the way. Google her.

Anyway, that said I'm laying this out for you guys. Please be respectful. None of this "Oh that doesn't really happen." I don't mind constructive criticism, just don't be an dismissive ass. That's all I really care about. Also know I remain faithful to no form of poetry, so comments regarding to meter or rhyme will be ignored. Rhythm, progression and structure (to a degree), however, are important to me. I also have issues with changing tenses. Blogger also won't allow me to create the layout of the poem I want with indentations and the like (help?)

Also know I'm one of those perpetual editors. I don't consider this done but I feel it's good enough to publish.

Hope you like it.

PS: I don't plan on writing too much more about the church (I have to give myself some leeway). It's been fantastic these last few weeks giving it so little thought. This is not to say I've been divinely censured or I'm suddenly a fawning fan. I'm just not interested in getting myself riled up these days. It's given me peace and I've waited a long time for even a taste of it. I'm also seriously considering starting up a writing blog. Now that the semester is almost done and we're moving into a new house (and won't be able to renovate for at least a year), I'll have time to truly focus on my writing.

Oh--That reminds me. I've been published in print. You don't have to buy the book (I get no royalties anyway), but if you're interested please check it out on Writer's Bump. It's entitled "Trapped" and it's for anyone who has ever felt the need to be someone they aren't. Writer's Bump found me on Writing.Com (one of the Writer's Digest Top 100 writing sites) where I'm a preferred author.

/plug

For those who have emailed me or otherwise commented that my words on this blog echo their thoughts, I invite them to New Order Mormon.

Then again there's always StayLDS. I know The Faithful Dissident enjoys it very much. That site is for those who struggle with some doubts and dissensions but who want to remain faithful. The previous site mentioned deals with people who don't want to StayLDS necessarily. Those have a beef or three with the Church, but they stay for whatever reason (family, friends, spouse, tradition, confused, etc)

So the content of this blog may change. May be random. The politics will stay (the GOP gives me far too much fodder) but I hope you'll stick around. I've really enjoyed your company.

* * *

The Golden Convert
[Edited 5/20/09]

I may as well have come from my mama,
They said,
In an ankle length skirt and modest top,
Scriptures tucked under arm,
Chin high to heaven
To be led in the direction the Lord wants me to be:

Here,
The One and Only True Church of God on Earth.

The confirmation had come:
“This is where you need to be.”
“You're ready,”
They said

And I was

Eighteen and
enamored with her;

Eighteen and
Foaming for Independence;

So I went along
Willingly;
New friends and pats on the back,
Encouraged me along the way.

They told me
I am Golden,
I am Choice,
I once lived among the Noble and the Great.
I am Sarah.
I am Rachel.

But my lips never fully formed around
I Know This Church is True.

Yet I sacrificed
To cut the cord.
Sacrificed,
Because it feels good
To belong,
To be Right;
Feels good
For God to be indebted
To my obedience.

And so my god-in-the-making and I
Gritted our teeth.
Wrapped ourselves with spiritual dynamite
Ready to blow if we blew it,
We waited for marriage,
Too afraid
To disappoint.

We tried, we tried, we tried,
Sacrificing ten percent
of Everything,
And then some:
Our Time, Talents, and Everything with which the Lord has blessed us
--or will bless us
Each other
Ourselves
Our kids
We tried.

With one piercing in each ear,
We hung the Temple on the Mantle,
Repented for keeping one too many pennies,
Donned knee length garments
To cover sex
An expression of
The sting of peculiarity
For a God with no respect
Of Persons.

But more Alice Kramden than Donna Reed,
My Mustard Seed Faith suffered
Beneath a black thumb.

Now the kind faces of family and friends I love
Are watchful.
They are careful to avoid
Every Appearance of Evil
(Just like Jesus did)
As they whisper and lament
Of a soul
They know not.

So I sit in the closet reading of the
unnatural,
unholy, and
impure practices of oral sex,
Of a man and his fourteen year old brides,
Of the calls for death on the spot for
The White Man
who thrusts himself into a willing Black Woman.
Of choosing death over fornication,
Of the fear of Africans and Women and Homosexuals
Plunging the world straight to hell.
(I’m still waiting)
I learn of the imploring against
“petting,” and men working the little factory
in its off hours
To keep the Vessel of God
Pure and clean.

But, President:
I don't have wet dreams
Like you do.

As two men, worthiness of me decide
Recommend me
To be Eve, who
Veils herself when asked,
Gives him her New Name,
Covers herself, ashamed--
And Promises
To keep these pearls before unworthy swine,
Because The Church Will Not Be Mocked;
Promises
To Hearken unto Adam
as He Hearkens unto God.

But President,
I am not Eve,
And I did not marry Adam.
Don't you remember?

Master, the Tempest is Raging,
And my prayers have lead me here.
Is it well,
Or does God ignore pleas
And toy with a shattered heart?

"Sister,”
The solemn reply campaigns,
“Question not. Follow the Prophet’s refrain
For he will never lead you astray,
Listen to his words and obey.
Hearken not to thine own understanding,
Listen to his words and obey.
Submit and forget thyself,
Do not delay.
Listen to his words and obey."

Of Updates and Plugs

2009-05-04T08:29:00.000-07:00

In response to President Obama's complaint that FOX News doesn't show enough Black and Hispanic people on their network, FOX has announced that they will now air "America's Most Wanted" TWICE a week.

* * *
HA!

I don't know who wanted to know (I'm merely volunteering information), but my husband and I just bought a house and should be closing in...geez, three or four weeks.

*enter shock here*

So we're in the midst of packing, finishing a school year/semester and all the other fun stuff. I won't be posting much, if at all, for a while. Especially if he gets a summer school position because we've a kitchen to remodel (and wallpaper to tear down and carpet to replace...oy vey. Great house, but it's like a step into the 60s. It's a trip)

I'll also be spending just under a week or so in Texas at the end of July to meet a longtime online friend of mine. Go see her blog. I've known her since I was 14 or 15. I think it's about time we met, no?

There's just a lot of crap--good crap, don't get me wrong--going on over the next little while.

In the meantime, I'm trying to cut down on my stress. It's been getting the better part of me lately. I'll post when I can, if something neat strikes me or I get feisty (I've a few posts in my queue and in my head, but I'm just not in the mood).

If you find yourself bored, any of the blogs on my sidebars are worth a look or twenty. There's also Going Dutch: How I learned to love the European Welfare State for some social democratic fun--

--Or go to town on some of my articles. Most are crap, but I've got a few good ones in there. It's an appropriate place for me to learn. Examples of the good:

The Other F Word
In Defense of Harry Potter
Thirteen Haunted Places to Stay in Northern California
*My second most popular article. I'll admit it's quite long. I was determined to stick with 13 for apparent reasons. This was my first article I interviewed others for. Quite frightening, to be honest. But it's a good one. I'm proud of it.

For those who are wondering, my most popular article is 10 Ways to Remove Stains From an Asphalt Driveway. Go look if you want. It's more practical than entertaining, obviously. I'm glad I took the assignment though. I had no idea there was such a demand.

And for the blog theme, I've California's Prop 8. It's still doing fairly well.

Then there's my first published short short story, Trapped. I hope you like.

Anyway, I hope everyone is well. Thanks again for reading :D

A cowboy walks into a bar...

2009-04-30T11:04:00.000-07:00

A cowboy, visiting Idaho from Texas, walks into a bar and orders three mugs of Bud. He sits in the back of the room, drinking a sip out of each one in turn. When he finishes them, he comes back to the bar and orders three more.

The bartender approaches and tells the cowboy, "You know, a mug goes flat after I draw it. It would taste better if you bought one at a time."

The cowboy replies, "Well, you see, I have two brothers. One is in Arizona the other is in Colorado. When we all left our home in Texas we promised that we'd drink this way to remember the days when we drank together. So I'm drinking one beer for each of my brothers and one for myself." The bartender admits that this is a nice custom, and leaves it there.

The cowboy becomes a regular in the bar, and always drinks the same way. He orders three mugs and drinks them in turn.

One day, he comes in and only orders two mugs. All the regulars take notice and fall silent. When he comes back to the bar for the second round, the bartender says, "I don't want to intrude on your grief, but I wanted to offer my condolences on your loss." The cowboy looks quite puzzled for a moment, then a light dawns in his eyes and he laughs.

"Oh, no, everybody's just fine," he explains. "It's just that my wife and I joined the Mormon Church and I had to quit drinking. Hasn't affected my brothers though."

Deseret Drops Twilight

2009-04-25T13:29:00.001-07:00

Hat tip to Times and Seasons for being far more proactive than I.

Article found at the Salt Lake Tribune

I know. It's Twlight and many of us are tired of hearing about it. I suspect many who read still have a soft spot for those books, perhaps it is a guilty pleasure. That's what they are for me. But this isn't a critique of the book or even praise.

Deseret Book has decided to take the series off their shelves.

Those interested are able to special order the books, sure, but no longer can one (read: youth) walk into one of these stores and pick it up. I do wonder how many members actually purchased the books there. I bought mine at Barnes and Noble. Many of my friends visited Walmart or Target. Granted, the nearest DB is an hour away but even when I lived nearby one I didn't hear of many who visited to buy it.

I don't know.

The reasons for the drop are vague at best.

"Like any retailer, our purpose is to offer products that are embraced and expected by our customers. When we find products that are met with mixed review, we typically move them to special order status," Leigh Dethman, Deseret Book spokeswoman said.

Mixed review?

I know a friend of mine initially denounced the relationship between the two main characters as "inappropriate." Yet she continued to eat up the rest of the series. She's not the only one, but some have stood by their review and refused to read the rest of the series or have blacked out the more sensual passages to keep their virgin daughter's thoughts more virginal. If they ever were in the first place.

We black stuff out. We don't talk about it, acknowledge it, discuss it. We black it out. Take it off the shelves.

I'll agree: this probably isn't the book for your thirteen year old. While there is no explicit sex, sex is dripping from the prose.

I mean, let's face it. Twilight is soft-core erotica for LDS women. I'll admit I loved it. And why not? We need a little more sexuality in our lives.

Those faithful, strong, zealous members of the Church who love this book tickle me. These people who have standards so thick as to follow the one time counsel to dating youth to only engage in "sexless" kisses, these BYU students and alumni love this book.

Because the author is Mormon. Because it promotes abstinence. Because it is "clean." At least that's what they say.

I heartily disagree. I think it avoided premarital sex. Found a loophole. Much like in Stephenie Meyer's other book, The Host, the issue of fornication was completely circumvented. Not decried. The main character, Bella, wanted Edward. He wanted her, too. But he was afraid with his superhuman strength and extreme lust for her blood, he'd end up killing her.

Some examples of the text. Some of my favorites ;D

His hand curved around my elbow, moving slowly down my arm, across my ribs and over my waist, tracing along my hip and down my leg, around my knee. He paused there, his hand curling around my calf. He pulled my leg up suddenly, hitching it around his hip.

I stopped breathing. This wasn't the kind of thing he usually allowed. Despite his cold hands, I felt suddenly warm. His lips moved in the hollow at the base of my throat.

"No to bring on the ire prematurely," he whispered, "but do you mind telling me what it is about this bed that you object to?"

Before I could answer, before I could even concentrate enough to make sense of his words, he rolled to the side, pulling me on top of him. He held my face in his hands, angling it up so that his mouth could reach my throat. My breathing was too loud -- it was almost embarrassing, but I couldn't care quite enough to be ashamed...

Slowly this time, he rolled till he hovered over me. He held himself carefully so that I felt none of his weight, but I could feel the cool marble of his body press against mine...

Cold as ice, his tongue lightly traced the shape of my lips. (Eclipse, pgs 186-187)

And this:

His hands were in my hair, his lips moving softly -- but very seriously -- against mine, before I realized what he was saying. What he was doing.

There wasn't much time to act. If I waited too long, I wouldn't be able to remember why I needed to stop him. Already, I couldn't breathe right. My hands were gripping his arm, pulling myself tighter to him, my mouth glued to his and answering every unspoken question his asked.

I tried to clear my head, to find a way to speak.

He rolled gently, pressing me into the cool grass. (Eclipse, pg 618)

There is sex in this book. And while Edward objects because he claims he's old-fashioned (he is 100+ years old), this is not activity with which the Standards of Youth would approve.

Nevermind he is constantly in her room. Alone with her in other places.

We drink this up. I read this when I was still marginally faithful, afraid to turn the page - would they have sex? should I read this? oh but I wanted to. Finally, a member of the church found her courage to write like this. It was refreshing. I'd stopped writing long ago because I didn't think I could write anything worthy of the faith, and I refused to write something akin to The Work and the Glory.

This series was refreshing for me. Like a revelation.

No, Meyer's novels don't decry premarital sex because the abstinence is far too erotic. The want for it is far too strong. And perhaps that's the problem for Deseret Books.

But really, a little heavy breathing is good for us. We need to acknowledge sex and celebrate it. Stop shunning it so much. I'd like to know the prevalence of women who, like in one story I heard, couldn't bring herself to consummate her marriage with her husband because to her, sex was bad. Dirty. We need more stories like Twilight to help say it's not. More women in the Church need to know it's not. Married and single alike. Old and young.

But it seems DB, owned by the Church, can't afford to keep it on the shelves. It's too PG-13. After all, I'm positive President Kimball would've disapproved. Our standards for dating are entirely too strict and I believe lend to more sexual "sins" than not. Or lead to unhappy sex lives within marriage. Is it sad or telling to anyone else that married LDS women are eating this up?

In the end, I don't think Deseret's problem lies with the adult readership but perhaps in the Church's (and it's ultra-strict members) decrying the sexual content because so many of our young women read this over and over again.

And instead of asking ourselves why, we take it off the official LDS bookstore shelf.

EDIT: After some thought, I had a few other questions, and I think the answers to them will surprise many if there's any bit of honesty involved:

1) Would so many LDS women consume this series if it were written by a Pentecostal/Catholic/Muslim/Agnostic Stephenie Meyer?

2) If she wasn't LDS, wouldn't most of us decry these books as inappropriate? Yeah. Probably not many of you.

But many of our faithful-and-true friends would for the very reasons I posted above. We allow it because, well, she's Mormon. We make excuses for her. Because she's one of us. She's a successful one of us. An LDS mommy. A working LDS mommy.

A psychologist's playground, this is.

And I think that leads us again to my original question: what does this say about our views on sexuality? Our egocentrism? Our culture? Our religion? Our propensity to hypocrisy (gasp! i know)?

I mean, let's be honest.

For a listing of the comments, both rational and unbelievable (for both sides), see the Comment Page for the article listed at the top.

Don't let the homo storm get YOU!

2009-04-22T13:08:00.000-07:00

From the National Organization for Marriage (These people are dead serious. "I am afraid" Oh man.)

Gay people are so scary.

And Stephen Colbert's fantastic response:

You gotta love Colbert.

Idiots!

2009-04-20T09:57:00.001-07:00

I wanted to share a few quotes from Meet the Press and some Jon Stewart episodes from the past week.

You know, for a guy who isn't a real journalist, he sure as hell is doing a better job than most.

I do have some rather...inciteful posts in my queue right now I'm debating on posting. We'll see. But in the meantime, I want to go back to politics. From April 19th's Meet the Press:

"FMR. REP. DICK ARMEY (R-TX): Well, first of all, I, I want to correct the record. While FreedomWorks did participate and help with the organizing, we had over 800 TEA parties. Now, this is very important. Over 800 TEA parties around the country, with attendance in the hundreds. [yay?] And Atlanta was 15,000. These were almost exclusively organized by volunteer people. I say they were. [well then we will have to take your word for it, huh?] And where FreedomWorks helped with technical assistance, in every TEA party that I was aware of a real person in their real community put it together. Now, what they're concerned about is where it's going to go. Quite frankly, the--most of the people that I talked to at the TEA parties and, and who had that sentiment frankly just simply do not believe that the president is either going to hold the line on spending. Look, he's, he's taken the, the deficit up to $2 trillion and promising to halve it. That still makes it, what, a--twice as big as it was when he started. So the fact of the matter is there's real doubts about him, and taxes must inevitably go up if he's going to grow big government. [Where the hell were these people when Bush was making big government?]

"FMR. REP. HAROLD FORD JR. (D-TN): There was not--but, but, but, Leader, there was not one TEA party in the eight years that President Bush was in office. [I love how they're using the TEA acronym now. Lame!] And this is not meant to litigate the last eight years. But let's be honest, there was a $5 trillion increase in the amount of the, the nation's debt under President Bush. Normally when you use a credit card and you go out and charge things, you're able to show something you got in return. For the last eight years there are no more kids with health care, there are fewer kids who are able to afford college, we have not found new energy sources, and we can make a pretty credible argument that the Middle East is less stable and more dangerous than it was before. I give the president great credit for another attack not occurring on our soil. When we look at the long-term investments and the foundational platform that this president, President Obama is trying to create, one could make a legitimate and I think a compelling argument that in the long run this will produce the new--new investments in energy will produce not only alternatives but less reliance overseas, cheaper energy here at home, a smarter electricity grid, more kids going to college, more people with access to health care, which will lower business costs and allow the economy, for that matter..." (emphasis added)

Let's not forget, John McCain's plan was going to increase the deficit as well.

And besides that, anyone watch Jon Stewart? To quote an overused phrase, I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry. Correspondent John Oliver attended a tea bagging party where everyone shouted about tyranny and how "taxation is slavery." I just wanted to beat the utter crap out of these people.

Slavery? Tyranny?

These are the SAME PEOPLE who are running around screaming how we don't know how good we have it. How we don't appreciate our freedom.

Idiots!

I just want to know how many of these teabaggers went out and bought the then half-million dollar houses which are now in foreclosure.

Then Oliver speaks with a teabagger who doesn't understand what "Taxation without Representation" truly is. Basically the conversation went like this:

Reporter: "But you are represented."
Teabagger: "Yeah, well, um. I'm not represented in that my views aren't being represented."

Idiot!

Keep encouraging these people, Faux News. It's making 2012 look much more brighter than it already does.

Don't Panic: We've Been Here Before

2009-04-18T11:32:00.000-07:00

The fundamentals of the economy are strong.

Remember that quote? It still makes me giggle, especially since most knew at the time that John McCain was very, very wrong.

The more aware among us realize the Recession has been around for a while now, and now everyone's losing their jobs and losing their homes.

In my county and the neighboring county, unemployment is at a staggering 20%. The foreclosure to resident ratio in my neighboring county is the highest in the state.Most of us know where all this began: investment in housing. For the longest time when housing prices were so inflated as to induce laughter at the mere sight of the price tag (half a million for a dilapidated house in my father’s neighborhood was snatched up in no time), and nobody thought this would have to, you know, stop.

The experts were saying it would have to, but people refused to listen because they wanted to believe the realtors who swore that wasn’t the case. Because the realtors had no interest in lying to the public about any sort of bubble, right? We had our bank and others approach us to offer us home loans. Out of nowhere. Our annual income at the time was around $25k a year. Our credit scores were fantastic, but credit scores can change when a family making around $25k a year are talked into buying a $300k home. Because everyone wants that. Everyone wants to be able to buy a home. And I’ll admit, we considered it (for like, half a second. It took one look at the prices for us to realize that wasn’t possible no matter what we wanted. We’ve good credit for a reason).

People were going into interest-only loans where their $800 mortgage payment would balloon after five years into $3000. Some of these people were true victims, but I still believe many of them were just damn stupid.

You want to talk about entitlement? There's your entitlement.

And before we knew it, people owed more on their homes than the homes were worth.
And they couldn’t afford the payments.
The bank comes in and forecloses or the family asks the bank for a short sale (in which the bank basically forgives the remaining debt and takes the house to sell – hardly a “short” process)

But we’re hardly the first to think we can have everything we want, own things we cannot afford, and dive into an ocean of credit that will eventually return to stab us in the back.

Then the banks don’t want to give out loans to anyone. People lose their jobs because businesses need some loans to thrive and thus can no longer afford those employees.
A huge company defaults.
Throw a war in the mix,
And the economy grinds to a screeching halt.

And no, the Great Depression of the 1930s wasn’t the first time this sort of thing happened - just the worst yet. During my readings for my US History course, I came upon two panics which occurred during the 19th Century and found there to be many parallels. Upon more research I’ve discovered far more financial disasters our country has endured. This is hardly a comprehensive list, but I hope it says enough.

The Panic of 1819

War: The War of 1812, Napoleonic Wars
Speculative Activity: Real estate
Other reasons: American shipping boom ending, demand for American “foodstuffs” declining
Lasted: Five years

“The western land boom that began in 1815 turned into a speculative frenzy. Land sales, which had totaled 1 million acres in 1815, mushroomed to 3.5 million in 1818. Many settlers bought on credit, aided by small “wildcat” state banks that made loans far beyond their resources. This was not the first—or the last—speculative boom in western lands. But it ended like all the rest—with a sharp contraction of credit, begun on this occasion by the Second Bank of the United States, which in 1819 forced state banks to foreclose on many bad loans.” (Out of Many [1], 232, emphasis added)

The Panic of 1837

The War: None
Speculative Activity: The Second Bank of the United States
Other Reasons: Specie Circular of Andrew Jackson
Lasted: Six years

“The Recession of 1833-34 was followed by a wild speculative boom, caused as much by foreign investors as by the expiration of the [Second] Bank [of the United States]. Many new state banks were chartered that were eager to give loans, the price of cotton rose rapidly, and speculation in western lands was feverish. A government surplus of $37 million distributed to the states in 1836 made the inflationary pressures worse. [President Andrew] Jackson became alarmed at the widespread use of paper money (which he blamed for the inflation), and in July 1836, he issued the Specie Circular, announcing that the government would accept payment for public lands only in hard currency. At the same time, foreign investors, especially British banks, affected by a world recession, called in their American loans. The sharp contraction of credit led to the Panic of 1837 and a six-year recession, the worst the American economy had yet known.” (Out of Many, 284)

The Depression of 1873

The War: Civil War
Speculative Investing: Railroads
Other Reasons: Commercial Overexpansion
Lasted: 65 months (the longest in history at the time)
Unemployment: 15 percent+

“Mass meetings of worker in New York and other cities issued calls to government officials to create jobs through public works. But these appeals were rejected. Indeed, many business leaders and political figures denounced even meager efforts at charity. They saw the depression as a natural, if painful, part of the business cycle, one that would allow only the strongest enterprises (and workers) to survive.

"The depression of the 1870s prompted workers and farmers to question the old free-labor ideology that celebrated a harmony of interests in northern society. More people voiced anger at and distrust of large corporations that exercised great economic power from outside their communities.” (Out of Many, 457)

The Great Depression of 1930s[2]

The War: WWII
Speculative Investing: Stock Market investing. Investment in factories and new machinery led to overproduction, which lead to more stock investing. Loans given to invest in the stock market and for buying cars.
Lasted: Nine years
Unemployment: Nearly 30% in 1932.

I could go on. The Energy Crisis of 1970s (Vietnam War). The multiple recessions of the 1980s (I remember the late 80s one well). The dot-com bust of the late 90’s. And now the housing crisis of the late 2000s. The list is huge and goes back to the late 1700s for America.

It happens

In the words of John Rockefeller: "These are days when many are discouraged. In the 93 years of my life, depressions have come and gone. Prosperity has always returned and will again.”[3]

I could go on. The Energy Crisis of 1970s (Vietnam War). The multiple recessions of the 1980s (I remember the late 80s one well). The dot-com bust of the late 90’s. And now the housing crisis of the late 2000s. The list is huge and goes back to the late 1700s for America.

People are “scared” about Obama’s stimulus plans. They were fuming over Bush’s bailout plans. People were pissed off about some of Roosevelt’s solutions. And they still argue over whether or not it did anything.

But let's consider the alternative and if anyone has any other ideas?

“In neither 1837 nor 1819 did the federal government take any action to aid victims of economic recession. No banks were bailed out, no bank depositors were saved by federal insurance, no laid-off workers got unemployment payments. Nor did the government undertake any public works projects or pump money into the economy. All of these steps, today seen as essential to prevent economic collapse and to alleviate human suffering, were unheard of then. Soup kitchens and charities were mobilized in major cities, but only by private, volunteer groups, not by local or state governments. As a result, workers, farmers, and members of the new business middle class suddenly realized that participation in America’s booming economy was very dangerous.” (Out of Many, 284)

Before too long, few will remain who were alive during the Great Depression enough to really remember it. In time there will be none left who experienced it, and we will forget. In some ways we are ignoring it. We’re willing to allow people to lose their homes and with the potential live in squalor just so we can see which of us is the strongest (please go read John Steinbeck’s "The Harvest Gypsies". Unbelievable). We seem to think we should suck it up and let the market roll.

But couldn't we say that's kinda what got us in this mess in the first place?

While I’m hesitant of the bailouts (hated them) and of the stimulus plan, I have hope in Obama’s idea to invest in programs which will encourage economic growth. This doesn’t mean I agree with all of it, but I like the idea. And I realize it isn’t his idea, but modeled under FDR. Truly, what other choice does Obama have?

And truly, Bush followed the model, too.

Though the debt is and will be far beyond comprehension, I have hope that investing in infrastructure, education, and in green jobs will promote such growth that we’ll be able to pay this off.

We can learn from history, though. We have to take care when investing in speculative issues. We have to be informed. We have to think critically. We have to have an educated population. We have to be willing to dissent.

To this I add that we have to learn that if we’re too big to fail, than we’re probably too big. If it’s too good to be true, it probably is.

And it’s easy for me to say this. My husband still has his job. We’re able to afford a home now because of the bubble bursting. But that doesn’t mean what I’m saying is untrue. The market will recover. We need to take care of each other. We need to work with the government instead of against it. We need to be informed and educated and work with reason rather than emotion. It does seem to be the natural course of things for the universe to strike us back when we get too excited about money and material things – the problem is we’re not learning. And we won’t. But it is hardly the end of the world.

Footnotes:

1. Out of Many: A History of the American People. 5th ed, Volume 1
2. http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture18.html
3. http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture18.html

Teabag the President? Ewww.

2009-04-15T12:40:00.000-07:00

How lame is this tea bag thing? Seriously?

Has anyone taken U.S. History 101? Anyone gone to high school? Do they just remember that this had something to do with taxes? Because that’s what the extent of their knowledge seems to be.

Has anyone done their research, or does this just sound like a clever way to get attention?

I have to admit straight out of the gate that I would’ve easily fell into this category of people who knew next to nothing about the Boston Tea Party but remnants of what my high school history course made it into my brain. Back in my conservative days, chances are we would’ve bought our own tea bag to send to the President.

And we would’ve been stupid, stupid, stupid.

What was the Boston Tea Party about? Taxes? Yes. But the similarities truly do stop there.

Back in the mid-Eighteenth century, American colonists were beginning to form a sense of American identity separate from the British. The British didn’t like the potential for a revolt – they wanted the colonists to remain dependent on them so they imposed various tariffs and laws. Following the Seven Years War between America (who the British fought with) and the Indian people, Britain, in an effort to keep any uprisings at bay, kept 10,000 troops in North America. This was an expensive move and Britain needed money.

So they imposed the Sugar Act – a tariff (or tax) on imported sugar to the colonies and moved to make it difficult if not impossible for the colonists to smuggle sugar. The colonists had no say. The courts of vice-admirality used to force these taxes didn’t assume innocence before proven guilty. There was no trial. There was no representation. Therefore “Taxation without representation is tyranny” – James Otis, Massachusetts lawyer.

Britain felt it was only fair for the American colonists to help pay for the costs incurred by the French-Indian/Seven Years War, and so felt no regret for their actions.

To make matters worse, since the colonial taxes remained lower than those in Britain, Britain decided to impose yet another tax in a measure called the Stamp Act. This placed a tax on anything on printed paper (newspapers, letters, licenses, ship papers, playing cards, etc). This stamped paper had to be bought with hard money during a time when the economy wasn’t doing so well.

Britain’s response? “Eh, you’re represented about as well as we are here in Britain. Kinda like how citizens here represent those who cannot vote, such as women, slaves, and children.”

(sounds like us, huh? ugh. we're soooo unrepresented here.)

The colonists hated this response and it only heightened their resolve to fight against “Taxation without representation.” (Yeah, sucks to not have a voice and have yours depend on someone you don’t know/can’t see/have no or little contact with, huh? I wonder if this made anyone think of women’s suffrage if not the black man’s vote. Doubt it.)

And the center of all protests came from…Boston.

The taxes created for a worsening economy adding to the skyrocketing unemployment and inflation rates. Samuel Adams, of the beer brand, became a leader for this movement in Boston, including a group who called themselves the Sons of Liberty, who called for protesting by way of pamphlets and petitions. In time, Britain was unable to enforce the Stamp Act since all stamp distributors had left the area. And the colonists were calling for a halt to importation of goods to pressure Britain who, by 1766, repealed the Stamp Act and reduced the Sugar Act.

But they also made a Declaratory Act which basically said they could do whatever they wanted anytime they wanted. They were just being nice by repealing and reducing those acts, basically. Not backing down.

Britain’s national debt wasn’t going away. Riots and tax protests ensued at the mainland, and Britain cared more for the protests occurring at home than in the colonies which showed in their Revenue Act which called for a tax on imports such as glass, paint, paper and tea.

In October 1767, a meeting in Boston reignited the call for nonimportation as they drew a list of British products to boycott. They called for people to live more frugally and stimulate the local economy, which the small towns are rural areas loved. In time, all colonies but one enacted legislation to ban importing British goods, bringing the value of these imports down by nearly half.

By 1773, Parliament imposed a tax on tea which infuriated the colonists (who loved tea – after all) and incited rebellion and later passed the Tea Act which placed a monopoly on tea to the East India Company, a company ready to collapse in bankruptcy. Parliament didn’t want it to fail and knew the colonists loved their tea as much as they did. In time, the consumption and purchase of tea was seen as an act of treachery.

The Boston Tea Party took place late that November when Bostonians disguised themselves as Indians, boarded the ships, and dumped all the tea into the harbor, pissing off the British and making them question what authority, if any, they still had in the colonies and leading them to other Acts to punish Massachusetts. In time, we'd have the American Revolution.

Sounds just like today, eh?

Anyway, on a fun note: this is why Americans drink coffee and not tea.

See also the New York Times Online: Tax Day Is Met With Tea Parties. (registration required)

and

Brian Schuster on YouTube (Thank you, Project Mayhem!). I am doing my best to keep all my coarse jokes to myself, but Schuster does a good enough job I guess. I much prefer Rachel Maddow or Olbermann.

*Source: Out of Many: A History of the American People, Vol. 1. 5th Ed. 136-142

Masochist Mormon

2009-04-14T09:54:00.001-07:00

I'm just repeating myself anymore.

At times I wish for nothing more than to...not necessarily deconvert anyone (this is hardly a fun thing. I wish it on nobody), but to help someone understand. A commenter here stated not too long ago that she just wanted to understand. But I've realized something: she won't be able to. The ability to understand where I am doesn't exist for faithful, unwavering members like her, because when I'm not preaching to the choir, I'm preaching to a people who are so indoctrinated with absolute authority in fallible men and faith in circular logic that there is no way out unless something clicks despite me.

And I am here for those who are in-between because, dammit, misery loves company :D

The original intent of this blog was to show "TBMs" their way of thinking wasn't the only way. I wanted to show many liberal views are grounded in scripture and are every bit of good as the conservative views. I wanted to help the many conservative Mormons know it's possible to be something other than a neo-conservative bot and still be a faithful member in good standing (which I wanted so much to be). So much for that.

I also wanted to help people see that the world isn't in black and white and that indeed the Church didn't teach that (even though I've only one GA quote to that extent). I wanted to reconcile my own issues, and I wanted to do it in a journalistic, non-biased sort of way.

That journalistic thing (as far as keeping my own views to myself) didn't last long. That's because it was all a lie: I was just scared to voice my opinion.

After completing a post, I'd have my husband read it. He'd suck in air through his teeth and say something like "That's a strong statement."

More often than not, I'd either return to sugar coat, over-explain, or retract the statement all together. At first I thought his reactions reflected personal problems with my words, though later I'd learn he agreed with me but wasn't sure I was ready or completely aware of the possible ramifications of my words. To an extent this was true.

With time comes courage, however, and we're both gaining it. Though he, I think, wants to remain as NOMish as possible, he knows our time in the closet is limited. Our daughter is turning six next month - two more years until that magical LDS age of accountability. My husband also has three brothers and one sister who are "of age" to marry in the temple sometime in the near future (though there are no immediate prospects to our knowledge). We're looking at a home which would place us in a ward which has produced more than a few stake presidents and other stake leaders. His grandmother is in that ward, too, and it wouldn't be a surprise if someone asked us to help her get to church every week (which we'd totally do, but still).

We want the impossible and we know it. It really is saddening. I am still trying to figure out how to make it work because I do want it to work. So much.

Anyway. Back to the blog. I'm tired of all the head spinning. I'm tired of writing entries before realizing "Damn. I know exactly how this will be answered."

For example, one cannot quote from the Journal of Discourses without having someone stop by to say "But that's unauthorized."

Me: "Not unauthorized enough for the General Authorities to refrain from referencing."

Them: "Well not all of it is wrong" (or something equally annoying)

If I quote from an official letter on official letterhead from the official First Presidency something we now know or at least believe to be wrong, we hear this:

"That was just his opinion."

or

"That was then, this is now. We listen to our current prophet" (who haven't, by the way, recanted all of which we now consider "opinion.")

I'm so *#&^%# tired of hearing that. It's far too convenient. All of the answers are. It doesn't matter what quotes I post because my backup is never enough. No matter what I say there's an answer. Even when I explain that "I've prayed about it" or "I know in my heart this is true" I get some BS about how my prayers are somehow flawed or my personal hopes get in the way or that my testimony in the Prophet isn't complete enough. Or my portrait of the Church is but a caricature (I still disagree here) when I live in the second most populated LDS state in the nation. I'm also fed some quote (more than once) about how the Prophet won't always tell us what we want to hear or what we will agree with and so I should suck it up and be faithful.

The latter really pisses me off because Eric and I felt as if we'd had just short of a face-to-face encounter with God himself when we felt beyond impressed to have our youngest about four years ago, at exactly the same time we first had our "oh man, this church may not be true" thoughts. At the exact...well, it's more personal than I wish it was. Suffice it to say: You want to talk to me about faith and sacrifice despite personal feelings? Let's start there.

But I digress.

I'm tired of it. There's really nothing more I can say on the subject of gay marriage because the Prophet hath spoken. Doctrine or not, the general membership understands through various talks that when the Prophet speaks through official channels it is as if God Himself were speaking and we are to follow the prophet because the Lord would never permit His prophet to lead his church astray.

I could show quotes to the contrary, even in the official Sunday School manual which makes it clear, but dammit: nobody teaches this. Nobody wants to believe it. We want to believe that what the Prophet says in official settings is what God says without exception. It's so much easier to just do what we're told. To believe it's all any of our business. That, if nothing else, gay marriage is immoral to the tune of murder, pedophilia, and drug addictions. And when I throw our polygamous history back in their faces, that the government came in and legislated morality on us - on "God's Eternal Law" - and why that's different if not completely okay now, I hear "That's different. Polygamy was between men and women."

Bullshit!

I started this blog because I tired of hearing my very smart friends and family believe and preach stupid things. At least it makes for a fun tag.

But seriously, this otherwise quiet girl wanted to speak up. In time I learned that those of us who choose to look at official words of past and present are viewed with skeptical, dismissive, and even disapproving eyes. That there's a chance for excommunication. There's no room for context. There's no room for critiquing the words of men - however well-intentioned they or we are. Everyone has an answer and very few stop to analyze their own answers because it's safer that way. I get that. I do that still.

But.

The majority of TBMs of the Church, those with their noses brown of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck tout their patriotism without even seeing that we exist in a microcosm which stifles (if not completely forbids) free speech and discourages dissension even to the smallest degree.

Does anyone else see the disconnect? Or has my rant completely gone off base?

Before someone tells me I'm wrong about my dissension statement, let me refer them (again) to Lesson 27 of our current Relief Society/Priesthood manual. The gateway drug to apostasy is in purportedly in the most minute of actions and thoughts.

I can't figure myself out. Why I wanted to go to church Sunday (couldn't, saw family), why I'm not totally against donating some money and time to good causes supported by the Church but only to however much we can. If I miss the temple it is only (and I cannot emphasize this enough) only because it's a beautiful peaceful place devoid of screaming children.

The problem is it's either all or nothing. If we were to attend, I'd have to deal with my children having culture preached as doctrine (or doctrine I find harmful) pounded into their heads and having otherwise well-intentioned leaders screw with their heads and hearts. But there are good things to be had for them as well. The frustration level is reaching its peak.

Though I understand it probably can't work, I can't help but try to fit this square peg in that round hole. It's what I do.

As for attempting to convince anyone of anything, I feel done today. Knowing me, I'll probably rant about it again in persuasive essay form the next time something pisses me off enough - but I need to get off the feeling of needing to convince good members they're wrong. In the end I'm just trying to convince myself I'm right which means I'm not ready to make any decision yet. Unless it's made for me, which would admittedly suck.

And one question I continually come to is this: am I too angry? To I have anything to be sorry for by way of tone? Should I just keep quiet until I figure this out to play it safe?

All I know is this will never leave me. The culture, the people, the teachings. It's been in me for nearly a decade now and we've too much family that I love and respect. This isn't going away no matter what I do, so I have to try to make it work somehow. I have to find my peace within the variables both known and unknown.

I'm just tired of hearing everyone pay far too much lip service to the idea that leaders are fallible when we are taught to act as if they are infallible.

At least when speaking officially.

Which really doesn't mean anything when one can't determine what is official anymore.

Update/Quiz...Happy Easter!

2009-04-11T11:57:00.001-07:00

I've been thinking a lot lately (I think a lot all the time, but especially so this week). My bishop called me in, tried to make it a last minute meeting but I postponed it a week (for a few reasons). I don't think it has anything to do with my blog but rather the reasons I asked to be released from my calling as a Relief Society teacher. For some reason I told him I was having a crisis of faith, which isn't really the case anymore. I think I was afraid of telling him the truth.

At the time I didn't know how to put it all into words and he said we could talk later. It's been weeks, so I thought perhaps he forgot, but since my serial absence at church and reiteration to the RS President that not only did I not want to teach, I wasn't about to agree to be part of the Enrichment Committee I think he's decided to give me a buzz.

So we'll see how that goes. I'm more ready for it now. I don't know what to expect exactly. I'm not always the most aggressive person in a face-to-face situation or even the most assertive. I've been working on changing this. Though I like my bishop as a man, I need to be honest with him and not spare his feelings because he's a big boy and I'm not attacking him personally. Just answering questions and talking about things.

The again I wonder how necessary this meeting really is. There's really nothing to say to me right now. While I'm not preaching on the rooftops my disappointment, disagreements and anger toward all or part of the Church, I still talk about it here at least. It's not that I hate everything; in fact lately I've thought much about the good the Church has brought me. But I'm still angry and disappointed and other things I've no words for yet. Though I've need to work through this, I'm okay except for our close friends and family still being in the dark. At least as far as I know. Perhaps some do read and remain quiet.

So it'll be...interesting.

Anyway, I found this quiz over at Mild-Mannered Musings and thought I'd waste a couple minutes. The results are hardly surprising, but it was fun enough:

Your result for The what kind of Mormon are you? Test...

Sunstone Mormon

-4 Orthodoxy, 4 LDS knowledge, -5 Cultural homogeneity

Orthodoxy ranges from (-) anti-, non- and liberal Mormon, to mainstream, conservative, and fundamentalist Mormon (+).

You're on the cutting edge of LDS progressivism. You believe scholarship and change would benefit the LDS Church, but you realize that your place in Mormonism is marginal.

Take The what kind of Mormon are you? Test at HelloQuizzy

Anyway, Happy Easter everyone! I hope you have a fabulous weekend. As for me and mine, we'll be at my grandma's house. With a ranch and all, it's good for the kids. They get lost, have fun, and leave me alone, haha.

I'm actually rather relieved it's almost over. Those Cadbury Creme Eggs will be the end of me /droooool.

Marriage is a Civil Right.

2009-04-05T09:49:00.000-07:00

With Iowa's recent ruling the unconstitutionality of banning same-sex marriage and the upcoming elections in California and I assume elsewhere, I want to begin my arguments in support of gay marriage...again.

In this post, I will attempt to allow various definitions and whatnot to make the case for me (with some commentary of course). This is part one of a few posts I expect to write in order to make the case that same-sex marriage is indeed constitutional and the banning thereof a violation of one's civil rights, as well as another instance of the Church's misguided efforts. Readers will notice I offer backup links so they can look at the context and verify my sources themselves and that I also offer many different sources' definitions as to erase all question.

All arguments for and against my own are more than welcome. I understand some have made up their minds without intention of changing it as have I. The purpose of debates between two strongly opposing parties is to help those who haven't made up their mind or who are open to changing theirs to consider each side. While hardly a lawyer, I hope to make my case.

* * *

“civil right (right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality) (WordNet Search, Princeton University)

“A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been raised enacted to prevent discrimination based on a person’s race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual preference.” – Cornell University, Legal Information Institute, Civil Rights.

Wikipedia offers a few definitions of Civil Rights:
1) "Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation."

(Remember: gender and race weren’t always part of this list. They had to be fought for, which means some believed both women and black people had no claim on certain rights, such as to own property, to be free, to vote, etc. Do we disagree with this today?)

2) "Legal rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their jurisdiction; they are sometimes also called civil rights in common law jurisdictions. Contrast with natural rights or human rights, which many scholars claim that individuals have by nature of being born.

3) "Civil rights, in civil law jurisdictions, are rights or powers which can be exercised under civil law, which includes things such as the ability to contract. In civil law jurisdictions, lawsuits between private parties for things such as breach of contract or a tort are usually expressed in terms of infringement of a civil right." (emphasis added).

(Remember, marriage is a contract)

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of The U.S. Constitution:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Fourteenth Amendment has been used to argue for many rights, including marriage rights such as in interracial marriage. We must remember, for a time the definition of "marriage" either directly or indirectly included "between two members of the same race." Interracial marriage went against the generally accepted notion of what was not only moral but natural and God ordained. If this wasn't so, there would be no need for various court cases including California's 1948 case Perez v. Sharp and the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 case Loving v. Virginia. Both of which concluded that marriage is a right.

And finally:

Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

(Isn’t marriage part of pursuit of happiness for those who pursue it?)

Not all rights we recognize and enjoy today have always existed. We've had to fight against racism and sexism to assert the equality our Constitution rightly demands. It is not in our interest to judge others who wish to pursue their own happiness, a happiness most recognize as selfless and beneficial to both those involved and those not involved. It's God's job to judge. According to many, there are heterosexual marriages of which God will not recognize, but we allow it because we believe straight sex to be "moral" - but only in the bonds of marriage.

And this, everyone, is what kills me.

First we tell everyone sex outside marriage is unacceptable to God and provokes his wrath. We essentially give everyone this choice: be celibate outside of marriage or go to hell. We tell everyone if they’re gay they can’t marry one of their same sex - but they can marry someone of the opposite sex (so very respectful to the poor straight partner, whether or not he/she is aware).

If anyone has ever been compelled to pretend to be something they're not for fear of invoking the wrath of those with authority over them (parents, teachers, a church), they will understand the horrendousness of such a suggestion to be straight when one is gay.

So now that we've ensured gay people cannot marry one another, if they have sex, they’ve not just the sin of homosexual sex on their hands but fornication as well. We’ve dug that grave deeper for them, taking their freedom of agency from them, first by telling them they cannot marry and then by saying because they're not married they can't have sex.

(By the way, nobody has ever said any Church would be forced by law to sanction such unions. If need be, I can dig up the specific wording of both the May 15, 2008 California ruling and the most recent Iowa ruling.)

Before we demand lifelong celibacy out of anyone, I suggest we consider what it would be like for us - and this doesn't just include marriage but dating, too and anything which we believe God would consider sinful or lustful outside marriage. And we've quite a list of "no-no's" which even the most faithful have difficulty following. Because we don't want to be alone, and even God has said it is not good for man to be alone.

So why marriage?

Marriage provides stability (for children). Marriage provides security (for children). Marriage forces us to act like adults and commit. It does not point a gun to anyone's head to force anyone to accept it, God especially. Not everyone who marries is religious anyway.

The fact is we all have our own beliefs and we all teach our children those beliefs despite the world who may or may not fight against them. But this is no theocracy. I cannot say that enough, and that is why so many like me reject with zeal and with even patriotism that no religion's beliefs should even try to impede on non-member's lives. And that is what this is all about.

Many straight couples/individuals today engage in behavior which I would consider detrimental to the family unit, yet we don't fight against them because it is their right to do so and my right to avoid them and their behavior. That makes the "it's moral" argument incomplete. If we're so concerned, we ought to legislate against all couples who, in our eyes, morally threaten the sanctity of marriage/the family regardless of sexual orientation.

Fear of marriage is unfounded. Fear of having any religion led by men dictate our laws and what constitutes a right is totally founded (I don't care if he's the Prophet, he's still a man).

The Church was wrong about blacks and interracial marriage and expressed racist statements in official settings which lend to the impression of divine authority and blessing. Later they argued their beliefs were merely due to the times and culture of which they grew up and belonged in, and further that they were working with limited knowledge. Fair enough - but they can be and I believe are wrong regarding gay marriage today in much the same fashion.

How Racism was Created in America*

2009-04-03T10:00:00.000-07:00

The following is something I recently learned in my US History class (that's right - all new) and I found it worth sharing. At first I posted this as a pretext to upcoming posts on racism in the Church, but after spending all day on such posts I found myself exhausted and decidedly unfulfilled. There's no point to it.

But this - how racism was created in America - this is interesting.

I had no idea slavery had zero to do with skin color in the beginning. No idea. In fact, it seems slavery in America created racism.

Servants and slaves alike haven't always been black. In fact, the word "slave" is derived from "Slavic." Wikipedia states, "So many Slavs were enslaved for so many centuries that the very name 'slave' derived from their name, not only in English, but in other European languages and in Arabic." To avoid confusion and perhaps to state the obvious, Slavs are not black.

It is also important to note that with Europeans, the terms "white" and "black" didn't exist. "White" people were generally referred to as "Englishmen" or "Christian" and blacks simply as "Negroes."

From the beginning the folks in Jamestown, Virginia used white indentured servants from England. Not slaves - servants. Though twenty Africans came in 1619 to serve as slaves, they were cost prohibitive and as King James needed land for the flourishing wool industry, he kicked many peasants from their homes. With nowhere else to go, these men contracted with landowners in Virginia. The landowners would pay their way to America, and in exchange the men would work as indentured servants for a specific amount of time. These men were generally 18-22 year old males (some females), uneducated and unskilled. You could say they didn't have much of a choice.

Here's the problem: Most who came to work in Virginia died within two years. The high turnover rate really put a dent in things after some time - not to mention the contracts. There was no permanence. These servants, if survived, were free men after 5-7 years. Many question why American Indians weren't "utilized," but the decimation of their population due to warfare and the Spanish and European introduction of smallpox and other diseases rendered that option impractical. There simply weren't enough Native Americans to fill the Europeans needs, and after a while the number European indentured servants coming to the New World also failed to fulfill the need.

So what would the English do? They had tobacco crops and later sugar crops which required much labor. Answer: African slaves.

But why Africans? Here are a few reasons why:

1) Location - the proximity of Africa to both England and the Americas;
2) A pre-existing slavery system in Africa.

African nations were constantly at war with one another. They settled debts by agreeing to become slaves for a pre-determined time. Here's the kicker: Arab slave traders crossed the Sahara, attacked villagers, enslaved them, and took them back to Arabia. The Arab presence near the ports where the English would come and "purchase" slaves did the African people no favors here. Remember: Christians v. Arabs (The Crusades) - which leads us to the main reason:

3) Religion. Christians would not enslave fellow Christians. By now the Pope had declared it immoral to do so - and Africans weren't Christian. And again, the Arab presence didn't help.

Initially the African people worked alongside the white servants, and this is what they were considered: Servants. Many English and African servants slept, worked, ate, even had sex together.

Outnumbered, the plantation owners soon worried about rebellion and enacted a device we know as "Divide and Conquer” – by skin color.

Owners separated their servants thusly for a few reasons: First, it was the only difference between the two. Second, white servants outnumbered the blacks at this time - so if the whites combined together with the owners, they could overwhelm the black servants, thereby decreasing any chance for victorious rebellion.

Between the 1660s and 1680s things really began to change regarding the treatment of the African people. The government permitted owners to beat their slaves, to threaten them with their lives. In the 1640s a law passed stating Africans could be sold as servants (not slaves) for life, taking care of the permanence and cost-effectiveness problem. By the 1660s, it was legal to purchase slaves outright. By 1667, the law declared it irrelevant if the slave/servant had converted to Christianity despite the Pope. A 1669 law absolved any slave owner from a felony should they kill their slave. In 1680 it became illegal for any African, bond or free, to strike a “Christian.”

Skin color becomes associated with slavery.

But the issue of interracial unions and their children still existed. Out of Many states "A 1691 act for 'prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may encrease in this domination' established severe penalties for interracial sexual relationships. Such penalties were rarely applied to masters who had sexual relations with their slave women. Because by law the children of slave mothers were born into bondage."

Basically the status of the child hinged on the status of the mother - down to 1/32 black - a drop.**

But there's a problem: there were black men having children with white women. How did the law answer this? By miscegenation laws which made it illegal for a white woman to be with a black man. This is the reason such unions are still frowned upon today. It follows us even three hundred years later.

And by the 1700s, racism is the norm.

*Source: Out of Many: A History of the American People, Vol. 1. 5th ed. Faragher, Buhle, Czitrom, Armitage.

** This is, by the way, also why biracial people like President Barack Obama are considered black.

Riddle Me This

2009-04-01T21:00:00.000-07:00

* Hat tip to Myriad Mormon Musings for bringing this question to mind some time ago. I don't think she meant to, but the comments section led to it.

If polygamy is abominable to God except for when he deems it absolutely necessary ("For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people" Jacob 2:30) or when he wants to prove us ("For I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice" D&C 132:51)

Why does the church practice/believe in celestial polygamy?

What would be the purpose?

Surely the standard answers we give here would not apply in heaven - or am I missing something? I've gone over this and I can't see it.

Sunstone West Review

2009-03-29T17:28:00.000-07:00

I'm so, so glad I went. For a few reasons.

The only problem is that I wasn't used to these people, this segment of LDS society. I didn't know I'd ever find them in one room. I'm really unsure where to begin.

The sessions my husband and I attended:

Teen Marriage Age in Mormon Polygamy and in American Culture: What was the norm?
(pssst! it wasn't 14. or 15. or even 17.)

"I would confine them to their own species," LDS Historical Rhetoric and Praxis Regarding Marriage Between Whites and Blacks
(interesting indeed)

The Plenary Lunch Session:
Where Big Love Began: The Inception of Mormon Celestial Marriage at Nauvoo, Illinois.

Having a very full plate in my lap, a coke in my hand, and sitting next to a great friend...well, I didn't hear nearly as much of this lecture as I would've liked. What I did grasp wasn't far different from what I've already learned, but suffice it to say I really, really want to get the speaker, George Smith's book entitled "Nauvoo Polygamy...but they called it celestial marriage."

A Marginal Moses: A Case Study in Canonicity, Historicity, and Revelation by Ben Clarke.

This session discussed how Joseph Smith's "restoration" of the Bible includes some errors - logistic, syntactical and otherwise - which the Bible itself still contains as translators continue to learn how to best read the original Hebrew.

As these same mistakes or mistranslations exist in both the JST and in the quoted verses within the Book of Moses, Joseph's "restoration" raises some questions. If this is truly a restoration, a correction inspired by God, one would think these wouldn't remain.

Mr. Clarke argues these issues marginalize the Book of Moses and further suggests we shouldn't take scripture as a whole so literally. He also predicted these changes would be included in the next edition of the LDS canon.

The Myth of the Missing Book of Abraham Papryus by Christopher Smith.

Chris' paper was more difficult for me to comprehend, but I believe I have the jist of it. His thesis was that, after extensive and logisical research, the only realistic explanation LDS have regarding the Book of Abraham (remember how we thought it was lost in the Chicago fire, but it wasn't?) is the so-called "Catalyst theory" - the new explanation which states that the papryus, which had nothing to do with Abraham, instead inspired Joseph Smith to write the Book of Abraham. The evidence suggesting Joseph Smith translated anything from any papyrus is slim to none.

Developing Personal Spirituality
(This session was far too short - we were just getting into it as time ran out. Among the three panelists was Maxine Hanks of the infamous heretical September Six. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so excited to learn this, but I was. I wish she would've spoken more.)

Interesting! Imagine a place where a Mormon felt free and comfortable to say they considered themselves a "Catholic Mormon" a "Buddhist Mormon" or a "Unitarian Mormon" - or even a gnostic, as Maxine identified. People who feel free to take truth where they find it. The idea is still so foreign to me and I know it would be shot down here in two seconds flat. I'd see the bishop faster than I could blink.

Find truth somewhere else, as if it needs supplementing? Nononono, we have all the truth here. They're the ones who could use of our truth. All truth is ours, after all. /sarcasm

That was the last full session I was able to attend. I came down with a buddng migraine and I could hardly keep my eyes open. Thankfully we were able to return for the last 45 minutes or so of the closing plenary session entitled Proposition in all Things: Post Election Perspectives on 8.

I sat by George during this session and listened to the speakers. Among them was Laura Compton, spokeswoman for Mormons for Marriage and Clark Pingree, an openly gay LDS man - the only two I had the pleasure of hearing.

Laura's speech basically reiterated the spread of where most "no" and "yes" votes came from, comparing and contrasting 2000's Prop 22 and last year's Prop 8. She called for greater organization this time around - in 2010 there may be two initiatives on the ballot regarding marriage: one calling for the term "marriage" to be absolved and for all partnerships to be called "domestic partnerships" (so romantic) and the other is simply to overturn Prop 8.

The idea that my marriage could be referred to so coldly as a domestic partnership didn't sit right with me. This surprised me. If it doesn't sit right with anyone else, they should then consider what a gay couple feels when they're told they cannot have the term "marriage" either.

But anyway.

Clark Pingree's speech, though nothing I hadn't heard before, moved me. He spoke of the struggle so many gay LDS go through, the ridiculous notion that he might hurt anyone. He wondered quite reluctantly how many young LDS committed suicide last summer when the Church pulled it's "we love you but hate who you are" rhetoric and closed with the horrific rollercoaster of emotions on November 4 and 5: the elation of President Obama's election and then the sickening feeling when one realized Prop 8 won.

I leaned over and whispered to George that we all felt it, but suddenly realized as sick as I felt, he must have felt a hundred times worse. After all, this doesn't affect my marriage or potential for one. His domestic partnership from Oregon didn't even transfer to California when he and his boyfriend moved back. Ridiculous!

After this, I have a greater resolve next year to stand up and be not afraid. To write letters. Discuss with family. The new young women's value is "virtue" and I consider standing up for what one believes in to be a virtue, even if the Church doesn't think what I stand for is virtuous. The Church has no monopoly on the definition of virtue. What constitutes virtue, like anything else in this world, is subjective. There can be a common foundation, but in the end "what is right/what one believes in" is subjective. And "subjective" is hardly a bad word.

It was so good to see George. I also met Alan of Scrum Central, which was a lot of fun. I'm only sorry I didn't get to speak with him more.

It was so exciting to meet and see all of these people I've read about and discussed, to know there's a place where my ideas aren't shut down as antagonistic. I do get angry, but in the end there's a source, a reason. My anger is my own to deal with - but the substance behind that anger, which drives it is viable. It's real. And really, in the end, I'm more angry with myself and how others I love are conditioned to treat me when I don't parrot what is socially acceptable.

And it gave me so much to talk about over the next few weeks.

One last thing struck me: The prayers. The hymns. Exactly the same and yet so different. No rameumptoms (yes, I do think we've a tendency in our invocations/benedictions) and the openness of all the people there: it didn't matter who was a "nevermo" (never mormon), "exmo" or just plain "mo" - the material was what mattered. Truth was what mattered. Discussion without censorship is what mattered.

Imagine that.

Going to Sunstone!

2009-03-27T12:53:00.000-07:00

My husband and I are celebrating our seventh anniversary this Sunday, and we're doing so at Sunstone West.

Perhaps a bit of an odd choice (we were going to go to Tahoe), but the timing is great and there are a few friends I'm looking forward to seeing.

It should be a good time; I'm really looking forward to the discussions. If you'll be there, shoot me an email!

California Missions

2009-03-25T12:06:00.000-07:00

For my U.S. History class, we read a short book entitled Monterey in 1786: Life in a California Mission, The Journals of Jean François de la Pérouse.

Since I realize not everyone lives in California, here's a short history. The California Missions of the 1700s were placed along the coastal areas of California: San Jose, Monterey, San Rafael (one I've visited), San Francisco, Santa Cruz, etc. Each of these missions were headed by Spanish colonists and were there for the express purpose of converting the Native American people to Catholicism.

With questions regarding the new land, trade possibilities, and other issues, King Louis XVI of France asked Pérouse to head an expedition to the colonies to make notes of everything: land, weather, plants, people, etc. so they could learn more of it to see if they could perhaps capitalize on it. This book is part summary and part Pérouse's personal journal of the trip and says much of the Spanish treatment toward the Native American people.

A few things struck me as I read:

First, that the Spaniards sought not to understand the Native American way of life, but simply to judge it, deem it anarchist and godless, and then seek to save them. No matter the motivation they would use to convert the people, those in charge "agreed that converting the Indians to European ways was not merely desirable, but indeed a moral necessity" (40). It earlier states "There was, in their eyes, only one true religion, the one the Spanish monks were bringing with them to the Monterey Bay area" (28).

The Indian people for various reasons all came to the missions voluntarily and, once baptized, were stuck. Without experience with organized warfare, a tradition of strong leaders and of long, drawn out decision-making processes, they also had language barriers between them. No real weapons to speak of.

Mostly, though, they had the fear of God instilled in them. It states,

"The Spaniards also had an enormous psychological edge...while the Indians seemed to have been burdened by the incapacitating belief that the Spaniards were powerful magicians, deriving their powers not just form the bullets in their guns, but directly from the gods. Proof of the alliance between the Spaniards and the gods was everywhere: the monks were seen constantly talking directly to their gods, and it seemed obvious that their gods were answering them. To rebel against the monks and soldiers meant to rebel against their gods as well" (31)

Does anyone think these people had a choice?

In civilizing the Indian people, the Spaniards managed also to take away everything that defined them. Their link to the land. Their homes (they weren't allowed outside the mission). Their calendars and rituals. All gone. Mission president Fermín Lasuén said of the conversion process:

"This can be accomplished only by denaturalizing them. It is easy to see what an arduous task this is, for it requires them to act against nature. But it is being done successfully by means of patience and by unrelenting effort" (33)

The result of such actions? Deep depression. "Unable to rebel, their old way of life destroyed, they sank into the deepest gloom" (33)

But this one really stuck out to me:

"To enjoy membership in this new community, the Indians were invited to partake in the ritual of baptism, thus allowing them to communicate with the spirits and gods who had given the newcomers such great power and wealth. What the Indians could not have understood, however, was that the waters of baptism were, in the eyes of those administering it, taking away not only something called 'sin' but freedom as well...

The Indians had to be kept at the mission, by force if necessary, lest they revert to their old ways and stray into sin. To preserve the soul, the monks understood to regulate the Indians' every activity, monitor their behavior, and teach them (by whatever means necessary) the correct mental and spiritual attitudes...they were now wards of the church - their lives, their bodies, even their thoughts no longer their own." (30)

I think this could all be read in a few different ways aside from the literal historical aspect of it.

Any thoughts?

Sodom and Gomorrah: Not about homosexuals.

2009-03-22T18:52:00.000-07:00

(I'm on a roll lately, I know. Like I said, will probably post in phases :)

If anyone is like me, they tend to take what they hear and trust in its authenticity, it's truth.

Claim: A can of Pepsi is 150 calories.
OK.

Claim: Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of what God will do when a society falls into the pit of rampant homosexuality.

= A largely held belief.

So sometimes the necessity to analyze and discover the truth for oneself doesn't exist. I'm willing to trust the Pepsi can. I remember when this information wasn't required, so I'm just grateful for scientists, activists, and whatnot who make this sort of information available.

It's just not a priority for me to know for myself that my soda has 150 calories exactly. It's an approximation, I'm sure. Don't care. Happy to have something with which to make decisions on.

It wasn't until recently someone presented the idea that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah likely had nothing to do with the "sin" of homosexuality. Intrigued (I love this sort of thing), I looked it up. How many of us have read the Sodom and Gomorrah story for ourselves? I hadn't until just recently. Not really.

If you've a Bible anywhere, it's in Genesis 18-19 (KJV)

It begins in verse 20-21:

"And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know."

Abraham stands in the way and a negotiation of sorts breaks out. Abraham wants to know if God would destroy these cities should 50, 45, 30, 20, and then 10 righteous people reside there. God says he wouldn't destroy the wicked if in the process he would destroy the righteous.

So God, or rather two angels, descend and come upon Lot, their host, who offers them a servant's house, washing of feet - basically a nice stay so they can be on their way in the morning. The angels instead opt to walk the streets that night, but Lot insists and they relent.

Word gets around of two very good looking men staying the night.

Chapter 19, verse 4-5:

“But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 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 know1 them.”

Lot instead offers his two virgin daughters (what a guy).

“And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And 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; for therefore came they under the shadow of my room.”

Now I don’t know about anyone else, but I’d be beside myself if I was one of his daughters. Just unwitting whores, really. Perhaps this is where we get the whole daddy pimp thing? Disgusting! This is JUST as horrific as a gay gang rape.

Why don’t we decry this? Because it was cultural?

The angels then kick ass, declare the city just as wicked as God had suspected and implore Lot to take his wife and daughters out before God destroys it.

And this is the same story where Lot’s wife, upon fleeing, looks back and turns into a pillar of salt.

The end of the chapter is rather disturbing but has nothing to do with Sodom…wait. It could:

Lot’s daughters fear their father has grown too old, and since he has no sons and now no wife, thy figure they should take matters into their own hands. They imbibe him, have sex with him (not one night but two), and both give birth later to their son-brothers.

This isn’t sinful? Is it not sinful because the youngest had a son who would be one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel (Benjamin)?

I don’t get it!

I don’t think the sin here was so much homosexuality. People enjoy reminding others that the word “sodomy” must be derived from Sodom (or rather Sodom named after sodomy). Don’t you get it? It makes so much sense.

For me, this story has little to do with homosexuality and more to do with rampant, violent sex as well as irreverent attitudes regarding sex. If it has anything to do with sex at all. The thing is, I can’t read this and think Lot is okay here because he offered his daughters in order to protect the strangers who came in.

(yes, I know the JST "corrects" this but for the life of me I don't know why. Would seasoned translators truly have misread this? What would be the motive of such an oversight? The idea of offering daughters seems cultural to me, but I admit merits some research as I've little knowledge in this area)

And anyway, would this have been considered sinful if the two angels were women and the mob of men stopped by and demanded to "know" them?

Lot: “Yeah, they’re right back there. Have at.”

Would we then be using Sodom and Gomorrah to decry homosexuality? Come on!

For further light and knowledge, please visit this site. Just now found it and it's fabulous.

(and now for a fun, out-of-context scripture from the OT:

1 Sam. 18: 1, 3-4

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul...Then Jonathan and David made a covenant because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle."

Commentaries like to say this was mere friendship, but it sounds like lots more to me ;)

Check out this website for further information. Just discovered it.

Meet my friend, George

2009-03-21T15:20:00.000-07:00

George and I, I believe, have attended the same schools (not hard in my small hometown) since middle school, but we've known each other since high school. My clearest memories of him take place our senior year when we shared a creative writing class. For the longest time I felt like I was such a horrible example to him.

Reasons:

I cursed like a sailor and knew my very sweet, unassuming teacher probably didn't appreciate it. Though a godless girl, I wanted to be nice knowing we were about to share our stories with the entire class.

"I don't know if I should keep this one line like this," I said.

"Which one?"

"It scared the shit out of me. I think I should change it to It scared me to death."

George floored me with his response. "No, keep 'shit.' It sounds better."

Another time my boyfriend, my brother, and I took him off campus during a rally. He didn't have a pass. We pretended his pass was in his backpack in the back of the car, and with the line forming behind us, the security guard let us go.

Honestly that was about as bad as I was. But for George, each of these things were uncharacteristic.

See, George was a member of the church. Born and raised. One of the nicest guys I knew. Voted "most likely to stay in town." He rarely brought up the church with my boyfriend and I. He kept to his standards but didn't preach.

George and I kept in touch after graduation. In time, I was more willing to hear about the church. He told me about the Article of Faith stating that we are not punished for Adam's transgression. I ate that up. Loooooved it. It went along with everything I'd always believed but wasn't taught.

I wasn't ready for more, though.

A few months later, I met the girl who would later introduce me to Institute and the Church. It took me about eight or nine months to decide to get baptized. I contacted George and invited him down the hill to witness it and be a part of my confirmation circle.

And of course he came. Told me afterward, "The Spirit was so strong it was almost tangible."

I still agree.

Regarding my confirmation, George had to get special permission from his bishop to be part of the circle. At the time I thought it was mere formality since he was part of a different stake. I don't know now if that's true. Maybe it was my bishop's preference. But perhaps it was something more. I'll have to ask.

While I remember most of the men who participated in my confirmation circle, George and the guy who gave me the gift of the Holy Ghost stand out the most. He (George) even gave me my very first LDS version of the Bible (for any non-member readers, it's simply a KJV Bible with LDS footnotes). I still have that Bible. It's worn and still the one I refer to in my readings and writings.

Sometime after my baptism, George began attending my Institute classes. He enjoyed telling everyone he was a Mormon boy working at a cafe. Then the day came when he showed up to class sporting blue hair and a shirt stating "You know you want me." Everyone laughed, but more out of shock. You don't see that very often, and for me this was certainly not the George I knew.

He also had a habit of trying to tell people that he couldn't go on a mission. I'm proud to say I had good friends who didn't judge him (at least to my knowledge) and didn't care to know whatever indiscretion kept him from his mission. We always stopped him before he could confess.

For reasons which could be due to anything, we lost track of one another. I emailed him to let him know of my upcoming wedding and invited him to my reception (I wasn't inviting many to my wedding b/c my family couldn't be there and it seemed callous to invite too many).

I don't know when the email finally came, but I was at Eric's mom's house checking my email when I received one from George. I'm gay, he said, and I can't believe that God doesn't want me to love and be loved. He was leaving, moving to Oregon for a new life.

In my stupidity I emailed him back and said that I regretted his decision, sympathized perhaps a little more than he realized, and that I would never ever let anything get in the way of my membership in the church and hoped he'd change his mind.

I know.

Fast forward about six or seven years and I find him on Facebook, cautious but willing to befriend me once more. He lives with his boyfriend Miles in San Francisco and is a gay rights activist. In time he learned I was more friend than foe, compassionate if nothing else. I get to see him again for the first time since our wedding reception in 2002 at the Sunstone West Symposium at the end of this month, and I very much look forward to it.

George is today a leader in Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons and has been a very active part of the push to have Prop 8 fail and now overturned. He's one of the good guys protesting at the temple. I invite you all to visit his Affirmation page. If you saw the clip above, he is the good looking guy in a suit getting yelled at by the lady. His calmness astounds many. I know I probably would've lost it, but we all know how impressive those people look like. There's power and authority in those who can keep their cool, and they all have my respect.

I'm very proud to know him, hope he knows how much I respect him and that I now don't fear and will fight harder next time for him and those like him. I also wanted to share this with you all in an effort to lighten things up a bit around here. Hope you like.

Other links: Facebook Affirmation page

USA Today: Meeting of gay Mormons delayed indefinitely

SeaQua.com LDS Church blasts Affirmation for taking its message public

Debunking LDS misconceptions about Protestants

2009-03-20T09:39:00.000-07:00

*Yes, the post title has changed. See comments if you wish to know why.

Historically speaking, there have been numerous churches and faiths which claim to be the one and only truth, and their claims are hardly baseless. All claim authorities believed exclusive to them. All of it is supported by scripture. EVERYONE thinks they're right and everyone else is wrong (and when I say this, I place Evangelicals and Protestants/Catholics/Mormons/Jehovah's Witnesses in their own categories). Of course they do. Even those who permit others to believe as they like believe they're more right than everyone else.

As I can see it, too many LDS complain about misconceptions but fail to truly try to understand each other. Mormons rely on half-truths just as much as non-members rely on half-truths in their understanding of us. It's easier to believe inaccurate things about each other because "they don't have the truth."

But LDS are just as guilty of such hypocrisies and believing whatever they hear. So let's unpuff our chests. Nobody is really all that excited and impressed, only those who are unfamiliar or disaffected with another religion might be. It's more about pride than we want to think. We have to be better. We have to be more right or else why bother, right?

As one who has attended other churches, I want to help dispel a few things. Keep in mind I have many, many issues with the Protestant faith. Many. But all this bullshit about us having the only living true church is just our opinion. Everyone else thinks they have it, too. The only difference is who believes what for what reason.

Regarding Authority

Protestants do believe they have been given authority - from Christ. To His followers. As found in the Scriptures. This is one of the major misconceptions in the LDS church.

We are called by our leaders to positions and believe these callings to be inspired of God. Most of them, at least. But Brother and Sister holy-roller feel an inner calling. They feel a drive to do things. They feel inspired.

Shall we deny them this? No. Not if we want others to believe that we can receive personal revelation. By their fruits...

As to prophets. They believe in prophecy just not in a specific prophet. Much like we believe in personal revelation. Much like we believe God speaks to us through prayer (yes, contrary to yet another popular belief, other faiths do believe God still speaks). Problems? of course. But still.

And truly, the fact is Christ isn't here at the moment. The fact is that any man is sub par. President Monson may be a great and spiritually attuned man, but he is still a man. Like prophets before him, his prior prejudices and ideas can and will (if they haven't already) get in the way of doctrine.

Regarding Priesthood authority. Protestants/Evangelicals believe they have that authority by virtue of being a follower of Christ and have scriptures to back it up. With faith unfettered, they too can lay their hands upon another's head (many don't see this as necessary but ritualistic) and ask God to heal another. By invoking the name of Christ they, too, can rebuke evil spirits. With prayer and scripture study they, too, can discern.

Really, it's a matter of formality and what one believes is necessary.

Grace vs. Works

Protestants famously believe all one has to do is profess belief in Jesus Christ as their Savior, and they will go to heaven. Works won't do this, but will automatically manifest because the profession of Christ changes hearts enough that works will mirror His.

There is always someone quipping that Protestants believe a saved person can do anything they want and still be saved. A faithful Protestant will tell respond by saying they are human, screw up, and that is why they have the grace of God. They don't kill themselves striving for perfection, but they do try to rise above "the natural man." They will also say those who have been "saved" but who haven't changed may not have professed Christ with, as we say, a sincere heart and real intent (Moroni 10:4).

Protestants take issue with the LDS fixation on works. We insist our works don't get us into heaven. It's by the Grace of God. Duh.

But consider this (and again, I am hardly saying anyone is right): Ordinances are considered works. We teach without these ordinances one cannot attain certain kingdoms of heaven. Baptism being one of them.

That is where this comes from.

The Question of a Paid Clergy

I loved this when investigating the Church. I'd been turned off by the church I grew up in. The idea that a man would be paid to serve God seemed antithetical. It seemed too businesslike, that he wouldn't care so much about his parishioners as much as he cared about having enough to keep his job.

But consider this: Bishops and Stake Presidents (indeed YW/YM/EQ/RS leaders) generally have full-time jobs. School. Pile on a full time calling and you've a person who cannot see their family. Sunday is out. Too many meetings. Monday evening, perhaps. That's it. Yay.

These leaders are very tired. The burden is immense as they bow under the pressure of ward family secrets, indiscretions, spiritual and temporal struggles. They cannot devote nearly enough time to the ward members as would be ideal, not without sacrificing their own family (and what is most important, again?). I'm sure some men deal with this balance easily, but I wonder of their families. A good friend of ours was very close to his father until his father was called to be Stake President. Though still an active member, he has sworn off ever accepting such a call. It massacred his relationship with his dad.

Is that worth it? Didn't the pioneers sacrifice family time for the Church? Could even a paid pastor lose himself in his work to the detriment of his family? Yes. But the chances are a hundredfold when you've a person who has enough to deal with on top of that. And there's always room for volunteer work in and for the church without having to be bishop.

They also have the advantage of having a pastor who knows our individual families and can counsel them, rather than refer us to another counselor. There've been numerous times I wished I could've had this option. But again, the bishop has enough to do.

Protestants can choose their pastor. While the reasons we are assigned wards is reasonable enough, far too many feel they cannot or will not approach or trust their Bishopric or Stake Presidency because of totally viable differences. But there's nothing they can do about it. While I understand the value of humbling oneself and trusting in God's calling one to an office, there are times when one should be able to avoid certain leaders. Enough with the faith and humility answers - there are real people with real reasons that nobody should ever dismiss.

And this is why some stop attending church at all.

Understanding and learning of other faiths and even the history of our own can be scary, but we do ourselves no favors by believing whatever we're told. And many of us do, myself included, without even knowing it. I think that ought to change.

The End of the World

2009-03-18T10:49:00.001-07:00

First I want to assure a good friend I've been planning this post for some time now. It has little to do with a recent discussion and I want to profess my respect for her as well. This is not an attack, a declaration, or me stating fact. These are just thoughts I've had in the past months.

It seems everyone is worried about the economy. And with businesses like AIG, why not, right?

(don't even get me started)

Something I've noticed, though, are the reborn cries to get our food storage ready. Others in Christendom remind us all the second coming is near.

And this is what I have to say:

I'm certain the same cries occurred back in 1929, and again with the Cuban Missile Crisis...and Vietnam. World War I, World War II. The Cold War. The Crusades. The almost incessant fighting between Christians and Muslims which led to the Crusades. The American Revolution. The Civil War. Hell, people: Joseph Smith once suspected he would live to see Christ.

Surely the Pilgrims thought their world was spiraling to the end days while they tried so many immoral dissenters. Surely they believed anyone who engaged themselves in the gospel of the Enlightenment/Renaissance were turning away from God, and isn't that a sign?

We seem to think the end of the world comes with WWIII. And we're always looking for it, too. We're waiting with baited breath for the war to end all wars so we, the righteous, can be taken while the wicked receive their just reward.

I seem to remember hearing of those who believed any war after WWI would be the end all.

Every generation has a crisis which leads its people to point out the end is near. Everyone points to the signs discussed in the Bible, 2 Timothy 3 and Matthew 24, specifically. Some OT prophets. And Revelation, of course.

And let's face it: many believe President Monson and those before him to be false prophets in sheeps' clothing. And why not? To them it's perfectly reasonable. Look at the millions they believe the prophets of the Church have led away from the one and true Christ. Look at the scriptures. I'm hardly saying they're right, but we have to acknowledge the rationale in their thinking.

To the signs so many point to there is historical precedence. Instead of pointing at famines (the Europeans/Spaniards introduced epidemics so horrific to the Native Americans their populations were literally decimated, not to mention the Bubonic Plague, etc), rampant homosexuality (again, don't get me started), unbelievers and those who call evil good and good evil, I suggest we take a look at ourselves.

The Catholics think their truth is the only truth.
The Muslims believe their truth is the only truth.
The Buddhists...don't care.
The Pilgrims thought they were the only truth.
The list can go on.

And of course we will stand here and say "Yes, but we really, really, really do have the truth!"

So did they.

It's really easy to stand on one side of a line, point and tell other people they're wrong because we're right. It's easy to accuse others of havng immoral morals and values and virtues because to suggest otherwise would be to admit, even in part, that we are or could be wrong.

We just don't know. We have some guidelines, but nothing so specific that we can say "Look, that's never happened before" because it has.

These signs, however, are harder to ignore: The rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem (let's face it though, could this be self-fulfilling? Perhaps. Perhaps not), Jerusalem will come under the control of Israel, a new leader named David (a descendant of the ancient King David) will become a great leader in Israel, etc. But these have yet to come to pass.

Don't tell me the end is near because there is much wickedness and wars. These sorts of events are hardly new.

And really, is today's society that much worse than that of the Middle Ages, the times of slavery (horrendous what I have learned - and that racism stemmed from Christian people. Perhaps another post), etc? Some will suggest evil has found it necessary to be subtle these days, and surely I can see that argument as well.

But again.

I'm not saying evil doesn't exist or that it is somehow lessened now from before. It has only changed. It hasn't gotten worse, hasn't gotten better. Where once we called something evil good (slavery, for example) we no longer do so. Our forebears burned women at the stake for suspicion of being witches and called that "good" - better safe than sorry, right? Best to send a message to keep in line. Much like those who beheaded their enemies and placed said head on a stake as a message.

But even now we ignore the subtle evils that occur in otherwise good institutions. The stifling of freedom of speech. The turning away those who don't conform. The spiritual murders some of us and our churches perform in the name of Christ is just as bad as those physical atrocities performed in the name of Christ. So many have killed themselves. So many have found justification in killing others. We're told that a good true can't bear evil fruit and vice-versa, but I could never help but think: we're human. We're going to have a bit of both in our systems, right? Else what is the purpose?

It's a matter of relativity, really. I can't be convinced that the end of the world is around the corner when I think of all the times long past where others felt the same. We just don't know. We continue looking for specific dates when none will be given. We're not supposed to know. In the meantime, I believe we ought to follow Christ's core teachings despite whichever religion we profess: Love our neighbor as ourselves and love God. The rest will figure itself out.

It's all about what one believes. And that makes all truth relative until we ourselves come face to face with it.

But that's just what I think.

Guthrie's "Jesus Christ"

2009-03-15T11:11:00.000-07:00

Jesus Christ
Woody Guthrie, 1940

Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land
A hard-working man and brave
He said to the rich, "Give your money to the poor,"
But they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

Jesus was a man, a carpenter by hand
His followers true and brave
One dirty little coward called Judas Iscariot
Has laid Jesus Christ in His Grave

He went to the preacher, He went to the sheriff
He told them all the same
"Sell all of your jewelry and give it to the poor,"
And they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

When Jesus come to town, all the working folks around
Believed what he did say
But the bankers and the preachers, they nailed Him on the cross,
And they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

And the people held their breath when they heard about his death
Everybody wondered why
It was the big landlord and the soldiers that they hired
To nail Jesus Christ in the sky

This song was written in New York City
Of rich man, preacher, and slave
If Jesus was to preach what He preached in Galilee,
They would lay poor Jesus in His grave.

This is a reading for my American Lit class. It struck me, not because I thought I was the only one to come to such conclusions, but because so many have - indeed for so long. Though unoriginal, the sentiments are shared by many.

It Ain't Mental Masturbation

2009-03-11T10:20:00.000-07:00

Yes, I know. Last post schmast post. I have some things to say, so I figure I'll probably go through a few phases. I don't want to post often - I've too many other things I need to focus my energies on. But sometimes I have to get it out.

It's no secret I've different beliefs and feelings than I did even five years ago. Some want to believe I'm merely questioning, but that ship has sailed. That said, the inner dialogue continues to torment me. For every thought/assertion there is an equal and opposite one. It's led me to believe there are really no answers, though I know the standard response for that as well.

I reject the notion that I must either believe it's all true or all not. If Joseph was truly a man, he messed up. Often. But we refuse to acknowledge this beyond simple lip service to please the masses - indeed we'll say that and then throw him a gigantic and rather embarrassing 200th birthday party while singing Praise to the Man and teaching serial church lessons about how wonderful he was.

I'm tired of doublespeak. I'm tired of hearing the prophet and the GA's are always right except for when they're not. That stories and history and even scripture don't change except they have but that's okay because it's revelation. That I can consider voting for gay marriage and still be a worthy member in good standing but that my actions will reveal if I have a "true" testimony or not. Screw that.

We like to think internal struggles of this nature indicate Satan is at work. I know it's easier to say that, but those who struggle in the Catholic or Jehovah's Witnesses' church experience the same struggles. They are taught their church is just as true as the LDS believes in its only truth. Their beliefs are just as valid as our own. Their leaders say the same things to them. Not too long ago I read a conversion story of a brand new Catholic and it was word-for-word a standard LDS conversion story. It was mine. Just Catholic. In this way truth as we know it is subjective.

So I feel guilt and doubt either because I'm doing the wrong thing or because Satan wants to keep me from doing the right thing. It's getting easier, but even then the voices quip it's because I'm drifting further and further away from God.

We have an answer for everything. Makes my brain hurt, especially when I consider my dad and stepmom have probably been praying for years that I'd "see the light." So the answers to their prayers are being answered while the prayers of some faithful LDS friends go unheeded? What's up with that? Raises more questions than answers.

So I don't know that I'm right but I don't know that I'm not either. I'm tired of focusing on the insignificant things (such as what I eat or drink or even wear) and ignoring what really matters.

It's not all cut and dry, and yet we insist it is. I can believe whatever I want as long as I keep it to myself. I can do whatever I want - free agency, after all - but if I choose to drink coffee I won't get into the highest degree of heaven.

"Well of course. If you can't follow the smallest commandment how can you be expected to follow the big ones?"

"That's ridiculous. It's coffee. It's not as if you're telling the world Christ doesn't exist. Christ doesn't care about what goes in the mouth after all - it's what is in the heart."

Do you SEE the bullshit I'm going through?

The inner dialogue never ends. I'd call it mental masturbation but that sounds like more fun.

I wish it wasn't so hard, but it is. I need the respect of good friends and good family and I'm scared to death I'll lose it. I know my member family will be afraid I won't be sealed to them anymore, perhaps disappointed in my "example." They've heard of the consequences. They don't want me damned to hell and I do appreciate that.

But I've always killed myself over doing the right thing and over other people. I don't want to be a martyr anymore. It's miserable and I can be good without that burden. So I picked a side, but not because I wanted to: because I can't not now. Not if I'm to be true to myself.

Last Post

2009-02-16T22:13:00.000-08:00

I've considered this for a while now, unsure if I can do it - if I want to, and tonight I've found the courage and determination. I have to retire this. This blog has granted me an outlet essential to my own mental salvation and has let me know I am hardly alone. The strength I've found here has amazed me.

Here's the problem: the Church and my disaffection with it has become too central to my life. It dominates conversation and has shoved every other interesting part about me out. Tonight during a conversation with a longtime friend, I found I had little else interesting to talk about and it's grown old. This is not who I am - friend or foe, the Church should not be this much a part of me. People can only handle so much of my bitching and complaining and honestly, I can't either. I need to figure this out and just decide. I won't as long as I blog about it.

Later I hope to start up a new blog, but I'm unsure when that will happen. Perhaps with time, self-reconciliation, and new found energy I'll renew my efforts there with a different focus. I've also other endeavors I want to explore. This blog and the thoughts therein crowd everything else. I can't do this anymore. I may want to, but as we know wants and needs are two different things. I shouldn't do this anymore. Not now.

I appreciate so much the support I've found here. I'm happy to say I can stop while I'm ahead. I know many who "follow" my blog do so because they've found a kinship or some worth in my words. Flattered doesn't begin to describe. I'm honored, really. It is my prayer that inasmuch as we allow others to worship how, where, or what they may, I wish that we can allow the same of ourselves. God knows our hearts. In that I can trust - or at least hope.

Thank you all so much. I wish everyone the best.
Lisa

Temple Recommends for the Disaffected

2009-02-16T11:06:00.000-08:00

I'm still interested in everyone's reactions to yesterday's lesson on apostasy, but a post at Feminist Mormon Housewives entitled "Dear fMh: I Don’t Want to go to the Temple Anymore" caught my eye.

It's a heartbreaking story, and until I began frequenting the blog I had no idea so many women felt this way and thus refuse to enter the temple. Some say they only go in for baptisms or initiatory ordinances. More than a few women said they keep their recommend updated for the sole purpose of attending a child's wedding, and I thought...

Why?

If a person has already been through the temple once, surely the dress and the signs/tokens won't take them off guard; it's not as if they do not understand. We should also stop assuming those who refuse to enter the temple are somehow stained from sin and are "unworthy" to attend. We need to give these people the benefit of the doubt unless we know for certain they are out desecrating what many do feel to be sacred. This is a wedding. To deny mothers and fathers (or even sisters and brothers) attendance to a wedding because they don't pay their tithing or cannot/do not observe the Word of Wisdom (or more!) suddenly seems outlandish to me.

After all, when attending a temple wedding, one does not need to dress in the temple garb (Sunday dress is appropriate unless the couple feels otherwise) and no requirement exists for attendees to go through an endowment session prior to the sealing ordinance.

The attendees themselves are never placed under covenant, either.

Correct?

So why can't we just allow disaffected family members a chance to attend their son or daughter's wedding? Issue a temporary, one time use recommend, much like the temporary recommends issued to youth who wish to perform baptisms for the dead.

Would a compromise of this degree be so bad?

(Really, would a one time use recommend be so terrible for even non-member family? What would be the harm? I'm hardly being facetious here, and "because it's sacred" won't satisfy this girl. What would happen? I guarantee everyone a family member rejected from their son/daughter's wedding harbors harder feelings toward the church than would happen if allowed to see something they don't possibly understand (and come on, it would be one thing). Let them have their own "interview" with the Bishop/Stake Pres where they can talk and then let them come if they promise to be good. But that's just me.)

A Surprising Lesson on Apostasy

2009-02-15T18:52:00.000-08:00

So the ill-anticipated lesson arrived today. Most here know I wasn't even sure if I'd attend. Knowing lessons like these tend to give me migraines, I drugged up, made sure I had a pen and paper, and just listened. I had no idea what I'd say, so I chose to say nothing at all and instead wrote some notes, quotes, and impressions to post here. I look forward to everyone's reactions. Some of what the ladies said really surprised me.

Our teacher today, Sister B, readily offered the fact that she was inactive for some years and even went so far as to call herself an apostate. Other women in the room also fessed up, one making sure to tell everyone that though she went inactive, she never renounced the Church, always believed in the "power of the priesthood" and in the "truthfulness" of the Church. When pressed, she said she didn't necessarily consider herself an apostate at that time, even now, though conceded that according to some definitions one could say she was.

Many women were quick to add that the "state of apostasy" rests upon a spectrum, that until or unless one knows the heart of the apostate, we cannot say for sure just how antagonistic one is or why. I appreciated this very much. One woman said, "It's a broad word and we have to be careful how we use it." The consensus lay that not everyone who leaves is antagonistic, and gratefully Sister B refrained from referring to such points to the contrary in the lesson except for one time, but nobody focused on that for very long. Yay!

Onto the quotes. If the responses aren't in quotes, they're paraphrased from what I heard the women say. I thought it would be of interest.

Question: What is apostasy?

1) Turning from the faith of Christ.
2) Relinquishment of faith - President Kimball
3) Fighting against the teachings of Christ.
4) There was some debate whether inactivity = apostasy, which led to the conclusion that apostasy is a matter of attitude/degree and the aforementioned spectrum.

Question: "What are the reasons one would apostatize?"

1) Failure to recognize leaders are fallible and laying fault when they act like human.

2) Failure to recognize the difference between The Church and the Gospel.

This surprised me, though it is closely related to #1. I hadn't heard many members...ever...suggest The Church and The Gospel could possibly be separate things. The people, perhaps, but never "The Church."

3) "A prophet has said the basis of all apostasy starts with sin...Not partaking of the Sacrament is a sin, let's face it."

You know, upon thought there is some truth to this statement. I don't believe this sister was correct, though many agreed. With everything the Church teaches to be sin, it wouldn't be difficult to sin in the eyes of fellow members and leaders, no matter what the offender thinks or how they came to that conclusion. This brought me to the conclusion that, as we all sin, well...we're always in danger of apostatizing. That doesn't mean that it is necessarily the reason every time, but I can see now how some might come to that conclusion.

4) The desire and chase of worldly things versus spiritual things.

5) "I tend to believe people leave when their expectations aren't met" and they start to believe "maybe this isn't true." (someone who's struggling, perhaps? I've never heard anyone utter those four words in church in any context)

6) One told a story of a man who coveted the position of bishop very much; when another man was called, however, and later was accused of having an affair with a temple worker, this man became rather offended and is today excommunicated. (They also said this was an extreme example, but one nevertheless). Everyone agreed with the woman when she concluded that anytime anyone feels they deserve or ought to have a specific calling, they're on their way to apostasy. Many spoke of no calling being "better" or higher than another. I know this is what we teach, but isn't exactly something most really remember. It's hard to.

Eventually one woman spoke of how we must respect the mantle of the calling, remember our leaders are human, and try putting ourselves into their shoes for a moment.

I almost hugged the woman who said, out loud, that we are expected to take everything our leaders say and pray about it. So glad. Not everyone thinks so.

7) "Satan twists everything in your head."

8) Apostasy is not always an immediate thing, but happens inch by inch.

Question: Why do apostates fight against the Church?

This was a question which led to a surprisingly short discussion. Among the answers:

1) "I believe they feel guilty for not going."
2) There was a great consensus that pride was the main reason.

Question: What happens to apostates?

A little attention was given to a likening of apostates to Judas, betrayers of the truth, betrayers of Christ. Sister B read this quote from Joseph Smith: "From apostates the faithful have received the severest persecutions. Judas was rebuked and immediately betrayed his Lord into the hands of His enemies, because Satan entered into him. There is a superior intelligence bestowed upon such as obey the Gospel with full purpose of heart, which, if sinned against, the apostate is left naked and destitute of the Spirit of God, and he is, in truth, nigh unto cursing, and his end is to be burned."

The last part of this quote really haunted a few of the women in the room and led to another quote about how those naked and destitute are among the most helpless and hopeless individuals.

One woman said in relation to this, "We can't judge because we don't know what's in their hearts, but they do lose the Spirit. When we're around apostates, we feel their nakedness."

Another woman, one who confessed previous inactivity, said (and I paraphrase) "Many who leave the Church think they're just fine, but they will reach a point where they will look back and see the times when they could have used the Spirit, needed His help and it wasn't there. They'll realize their times of stupidity."

Another simply stated apostates will "Lose understanding and ability to judge" and they stay away from Church because they fear judgment from others. I believe a story was told about one who feared coming because he couldn't give up smoking. He was a great Boy Scout leader - very talented in his calling: loved camping, loved the boys, etc. He had all the boys set up to receive their Eagle. As members couldn't handle his smoking habit, he eventually left. The new scout leader couldn't measure up, and none of the boys received their Eagle. The woman concluded this was God's little consequence, that it happened all because some couldn't handle the fact that the one man couldn't break his smoking habit, and who the hell are we to judge. What matters more, anyway?

What surprised me most about this anecdote was the fact that no one belied the man for "allowing himself to be offended." One woman even said something to the fact that we needn't focus so much on other's but more on ourselves.

I cannot tell you all how grateful I was to hear some of what was said today, especially that last bit. All in all, it was a happy lesson and gave me some food for thought.

I didn't want to be the rule.

2009-02-11T08:04:00.000-08:00

When I first started this blog, I had all of these same doubts, questions, and the knowledge that I might not be able to hack it.

I didn't want to admit that, though.

When I first began discussing lefty topics with fellow LDS on Facebook, I did so to feel a sense of community. The good people there gave me strength. I thought maybe I could do this, that who I am doesn't have to contradict the Church, that maybe I was wrong concerning everything and could be a middle-roader without sacrifice.

Numerous faithful, liberal members of the Church fight valiantly against sweeping generalizations that one cannot be a liberal Mormon and yet a good Mormon. Some succeed better than others. It's a hard fight to be made in a Church which seems to pride itself on being rooted in "family values," in being "pro-life" etc. and can't see past their ideological noses. Funny, really, because the Church is technically pro-choice and is based on as many liberal ideals as conservative. But whatever. Nobody wants to see that.

When I first began this blog, a girl from my stake came by to discover I support Obama, I am Pro-Choice, and I thought Prop 8 was a load of crap. She said something to the effect of "Except Obama, everything you just said goes against the Church!" These are basic stances many liberal members have and must contend with, along with a very real questioning of our faith and worthiness. This is the reason many choose to remain in the closet. I daresay this is why so many of us became so aggressive when it came to Prop 8. In our own way, we know what it's like to be shoved into a closet.

Over time, though, I weakened. My doubts raised to a piercing scream I couldn't ignore anymore. Knowing that my bishop could find this blog and call me in for expressing my opinion and discipline really rubbed my fur the wrong way. It's happened to too many others. Good members everywhere have walked into their bishop's offices where they were asked to shut down their blog. One commenter at The Faithful Dissident's recent post says his bishop told him he wouldn't sign his temple recommend based on his blog. He shut it down. Call me prideful, but there's something seriously wrong with that. I don't think I could shut mine down. Not in good conscience.

Freedom of expression, shut down. There's a reason so many abhor censorship - it brings to mind far too many things I'd learned in school, so much history we'd rather never happened. We live in America where we are supposed to be free to express our own beliefs. Without America, we would have no Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I should be able to say I respectfully disagree and why without fear of rebuke. I should be able to discuss why I think marrying gay couples won't be the end of society as we know it and encourage people to reconsider their vote.

But, one might say, if you don't believe, why are you here?

This is my eternal soul, that's why. For so long I fought against the cultural crap - I could sweat the culture. I could rally against and scream about it all I wanted. There are some things about LDS culture I really love but most of it just sucks. But this is my church, I've been grafted to it. This deals with my eternal soul. I believed in enough for it to matter.

I didn't want to be this stereotypical liberal Mormon girl on the precipice of apostasy. I wanted to be an activist of sorts, change minds. I've never wanted to be an activist for anything until this past year. I wanted to be an example, so the first time I expressed serious doubt with the Church. I thought great, so much for being an example. But I couldn't keep pretending. That wasn't fair.

The Faithful Dissident says that without the courageous gay community who fought for so long to have others know their orientation is not a choice, that without courageous Mother's Who Don't Know fighting against the June Cleaver or Die mold, that without activist members this church never would have changed. And despite what many orthodox members will insist to the contrary, this Church does change.

I wanted to be part of that so much. I'm a martyr. I would be more than willing to fight except I don't really believe this anymore, not enough of it at least. I could still attend (and do) without being "worthy" of the temple, but...I would be willing to pay tithing if I could and if I believed in what I was investing my money in. It's not really a matter of faith. I would be willing to avoid coffee, tea, and alcohol if...well, as stupid as it is to make a point to drink this stuff, it's just as stupid to make a point not to drink it. I could give it up, though. Much as the garment top bugs the absolute shit out of me, I would wear it. These things matter about as much as they don't in the eternal scheme of things, and instead of worrying about the piddly crap, I'd rather spend my time focusing on other things that will make me a better person because I've so far to go. So that's what I'm doing.

This is the church that most closely mirrors my lifelong beliefs. BUT! sometimes the best form of protest is the one we make with our feet. I have a difficult time believing God would place me on the same shelf as the man who couldn't give up everything he had and follow Christ because I have an occasional cup of coffee - and no, I was never addicted to the stuff (though I freely admit addiction to soda).

My bishop knows I'm having a crisis of faith. At least that's what I told him. The truth is I've been having a crisis of faith for four years now; my husband for the last eight - I didn't even know about his doubts until I expressed my own. The truth is I'm at my end. I requested release from my calling as a Relief Society teacher because I couldn't stand up there and do what I could to show these girls that the norm isn't always the best way, that there are good people outside the church, that the culture doesn't always jive with the doctrine. I couldn't stand the material, of people trying to sound biblical instead of like regular members of the human race who are trying just as hard as I am.

They are no better than me and I am no better than them.

I never wanted to be the rule. I wanted to be the exception, but sometimes it's not worth the fight, not worth the mental abuse one has to go through. I've a family. I worry about enough things. I guilt trip myself, I don't need any help.

There are good, liberal Mormons out there who do believe and have testimonies. I just don't know what I have to add anymore but more of the same, more validation to the idiots' belief that "Liberal Mormons aren't Good Mormons." They do exist, and they're amazing people with very valid views and concerns. I hope more members accept them and give their ideas a moment of their time. I wasn't always like this. I used to be a Limbaugh girl - it was because I listened to other views that I began to change my mind. Not everyone will, but acceptance is all we ask for. We need each other, after all - apostate or not.

Better Safe Than Sorry

2009-02-08T14:50:00.001-08:00

I’ve noticed lately many in the bloggernacle referencing the Word of Wisdom when it states “adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints” (D&C 89:3) This has been attributed to many issues which are brought up when there is no other answer. Why take off my earrings? Well, maybe because the weakest of the saints need to learn how to be obedient. If they follow the little things they will be more apt to follow the bigger things. In essence many are saying we must follow every Pharisaical guideline because it's the safest way to ensure we don't do something wrong.

Apparently we cannot be trusted. Better safe than sorry.

Here's the thing: I may be a child of God, but I'm not a child. I'm not someone to be coddled or mistrusted as a human with uncontrollable urges, one who needs to be placed in a padded room to be kept safe from all evil at all costs. We would never do this to our own children. We allow them to learn for themselves. I'll teach them my ways and they'll give or take and I am to accept that because they are individual people. I am to trust in my ability to teach them and in their ability to discern and govern themselves when they become of age.

When it comes to Church, though, we are far too often saved from ourselves, spared the horrors of sin. The problem is that a person loses all ability to trust in themselves and in essence, their agency. Let the Church tell me what to do because I don't know if I should.

No? That’s not how it goes? I might have an Apostle publicly shame me for refusing to remove an earring, but the Church won't tell me what to do? I am not able to choose for myself when it's drink a cup of coffee or be "worthy" for the temple - for most, that's an easy decision. It shouldn't have to be a decision, though. I don't see how the crime fits the punishment anymore.

Just as we allow others, I want to be allowed to worship when, where, and how I may. I want to be able, even encouraged, to doubt and question and debate. If we are not to criticize our leaders, I would hope they would refrain from criticizing me for the very same reasons. If our leaders are fallible, then I shouldn't be encouraged to revere them as if they were because they're not, even when they're behind the pulpit.

Are we not to criticize Elder Mark E. Petersen for his abhorrently racist comments? We reject them now, but what of then? President Kimball for his ridiculous claim that masturbation leads to homosexuality? How about a good bishop who tells a tearful sister that leaving her abusive husband will only result in her being responsible for every bad thing that should befall her children?

Or are we supposed to remain quiet and faithfully bow our heads and say yes? Many do. Better safe than sorry.

Elder Ballard argues that "Discussions focused on questioning, debating, and doubting gospel principles do little to build the kingdom of God" and continues to say that to do so is to show shame in the gospel. Again, and I know there's an overarching theme here through many of my entries, but we should not be so damned concerned with the Church as we should be with the individual! Not every question is rooted in a dark desire to disrupt the Kingdom. I'd say most if not all aren't.

It takes an unbelievable amount of courage to question. Un-be-lievable, and yet we are so quick to shut a person down before they even start because to do so is seen as aggressive. So what does one do when they find the courage to question and discover the insufficient answers? I feel this shouldn't be about "The" church or any church, but about our individual selves and our personal relationship with God. Guidance is fine. Teach me the principles and allow me to govern myself, but for heaven's sake let me govern myself!

We're famous for saying we have agency, but where is the choice? Heaven or hell. The Church or hell-bound Apostasy. A social network or spiritual and emotional exile. You pick. Stay in the ship or jump overboard and drown as Brigham Young alluded. It is tantamount to an ultimatum. I'll theorize most who jump decide their own brand of agnosticism is the only realistic and comfortable alternative and go on to lead successful and happy lives.

While a person may not fit in a congregation or feel at home in a religion, they do fit in with God somewhere, somehow. I trust in that more than I trust in those who may mean well but can't see beyond their fear enough to actually have faith in God and allow me the same. The problem with our church as I see it is that we're not given this. It's all or nothing. Some try to find or forge a middle road but I don't see how it can be done. The road is too narrow for a middle road. It's all or nothing. Black or white. Others have tried to argue otherwise, but I just cannot see it. We preach His way or the highway.

Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant.
- Joseph Smith

The Church wrongly places dissent on the same stage as contention and betrayal when contention is bred when dissent is silenced or casually dismissed with quick and easy answers to complicated questions and concerns. Every question one asks of their leader too often comes with an answer rooted in just a sliver of truth. This is enough to make a person second-guess themselves. That's the hook, and if we don't know any better, we're loathe to stay in the ship because we're told we can't swim, that nobody can in the worldly waters infested with ideals ready to eat us alive. Stay in where it's safe, where we'll be saved. Better safe than sorry.

I can't buy that. Not anymore.

Tithing Blasphemy

2009-02-03T13:39:00.000-08:00

It happens sometimes as I’m sure it does with everyone when somebody says something we just know we’ll always remember. I only have two in the forefront of my mind at the moment, but one was my very faithful friend muttering to herself “I could pay my bills if it weren’t for tithing.”

How can she SAY that!?

I tried to tell myself it certainly wasn’t because there was any bit of truth to it. Nonono. It was because everyone knows that if you pay your tithing you’ll be able to pay your bills. That’s just how it works.

But I knew deep down her offhand, innocent (albeit frustrated) comment stung with truth. Sure she always seemed to make it somehow, but she had to go on government assistance to do so. What is the logic in that? Eric and I always had to go on government assistance and take money from our savings. Savings is supposed to be…well, savings. More times than not we couldn’t follow both admonitions of the church to save a little and pay tithing (not to mention the kid situation). Inevitably the money we’d place in savings each week would have to come back out so we could buy food.

And now? Forget it. We’re in a house now – for my sanity, mind you – so rent is more expensive, but as a first year teacher Eric is making just as much as he was before. I know we *could* move back into an apartment, but I’ve just spent the last seven years of my life in an apartment, six of them pregnant and/or with kids. Apartments are not for the faint of heart and I needed space. The kids needed space. We could never afford more than a two bedroom apartment with a washer and dryer, and with prices the way they were it just made more sense to get a house.

I assure you we lucked out finding the place we’re in now, but it’s still too much to have everything else in its proper tithing envelope.

Could we live in poverty and pay our tithing? Erm, maybe. But I don’t want to.

And before anyone gets up in arms about this, tithing was never, ever, ever an issue for me until this past six to twelve months. I moved out of my parents’ home working for an unstable retailer. Somehow I still made rent and had more money at the end of the month than my roomie who also paid tithing but loved to spend.

I attributed my success to tithing.

Then four years ago, Eric and I received what I still refuse to deny as a divine impression to have a third baby. We had no idea how we were to do this. The store he worked at announced promotions would be next to impossible to get and he probably wouldn’t receive any more pay raises. And we only had a little sedan, so we’d need a van for sure. And we’d have to move – I wouldn’t make it without our own washer and dryer. Ideally I wanted a third bedroom, but the laundry situation was horrific and it came down to one or the other and laundry won. This would mean a rent increase of at least one to two hundred dollars. Despite all of this, we decided to heed the revelation and toss birth control to the wind. I became pregnant.

Not too much later, we found if we applied for our very first school loan we could use that as a down payment for a car, so that’s what we did. We bought a van no problem. Then one of the head clerks at the store decided he didn’t want to be head clerk anymore, and since the boss really liked Eric she let him have the job. Two days a week and more if opportunity allowed, Eric was head clerk and made $6 more an hour - $9 more an hour on Sundays and holidays. Helloooo miracle!

Er...tithing.

Then came this past summer. Our struggles with the church had reached a point where we just didn’t go to church if we didn’t feel like it. We still paid tithing, but grudgingly. We stopped being so orthodox about it, paying it on absolutely every little thing – birthday money gifts, financial aid (we weren’t comfortable anymore with the fact that it’s illegal to do so). I couldn't stand having Abbie pay it. I don't know why - she didn't want to and I just felt horrible about it all. I really goofed up when I thought she should pay on her birthday money. That didn't seem right. Anyway, we still paid it on income though and considered knocking it down to net income rather than gross, but couldn’t bring ourselves to do that.

And yet, Eric still landed this amazing job here. We still found this great house with great rent.

(and yes, I am so knocking on wood. We’re told we’re okay job wise – he’s the only math teacher at his school with a single subject credential and math degree. That said, shit happens. God has a sense of humor and I can’t help but feel I am testing him here, though I’m unsure if this is learned superstition or not. I have much faith in life working out the way its supposed to)

When it came to moving to another city, we knew we’d be changing banks too. For a while we had our cash in two different places and all our tithing money…well, it was a mess. We decided to wait to pay until we got our cash situation figured out, but deep down in that place we call honesty, we really weren’t sure we wanted to pay.

I kept thinking of the scriptures which stated God cared about the heart, about the intention. Are you good to get your reward or good because you want to be good, because you are good? Do you pay your tithing with pure intention or because of obligation and/or blessings?

We were paying because we were scared not to. We felt obligated. Where it had never been an issue before, it was suddenly an issue. I told Eric I didn’t want to refuse to pay tithing because of money, and he agreed (we’d always been okay before), but that’s what we finally concluded. I thought about the many times we had to dip into savings. Had we always had savings? For the most part – there were scary times. But more and more it didn’t make sense to go on government assistance when we paid tithing. Really, tithing can make it impossible for some to be truly self-reliant. I *hated* WIC with a passion. It made little sense to me when there were people who needed it more than we did, people who didn’t have tithing to pay. It just felt wrong and embarrassing.

So, we stopped. I still worry about it, you know, losing blessings, but so far we’ve done well for ourselves. I don’t think God is going to abandon us, because we're trying. We're searching. The church is just fine without us (I mean c’mon, that mall they bought in 2005? The 2007 $1 billion downtown renovation project?). Tithing is not for God or his Church anymore. Neither need it. It's about faith, they say, and our faith was waning before our tithing was. I thought perhaps we should pay it if we were to continue attending church, but at the moment we’re not sure we want to for much longer. Our money in the meantime is going toward other causes as we can afford it.

That’s the other thing: Fast Offering. Why is it not okay for us to take what would be our fast offering and give it to a charity of our choice? Naw. No more of that. I appreciate what the church does but hate that it requires it to be the middleman. That doesn’t seem right. Once I wanted to help a friend – a single parent going to school – to buy her books. She fell on rough times, but I was told I couldn’t take my fast offering to do that. It killed because I couldn't help her otherwise. She was taken care of, sure, but the idea never truly sat right.

Anyway, life goes on. I worry and know perhaps later we’ll change our minds. Right now it’s not feasible to pay it, and trust me I know the arguments and I know how ridiculous it sounds to many members for me to say that. “How can you afford not to pay tithing?” is the common refrain. Hell, people, I’ve said it before.

But we can’t. Not without dipping into savings or going on assistance, and so we don’t. I don't advocate everyone neglecting to pay – please know this blog is not meant to be a pulpit – but for us this is what it is, and I’m okay with that.

It is interesting how life still goes on much as it did before, with things working out much as they’re working out for anybody else. It’s just not as scary. Living in fear just isn’t worth it to me anymore.

On Being Perfect...but Not Really

2009-01-31T15:05:00.000-08:00

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. – Matthew 5:48

So how many Latter-day Saints hate this scripture? (*gasp* did she say hate?) Anyone?

Is anybody willing to admit that despite numerous pats on the back, the admonition here still stings? Be perfect – like Heavenly Father.

These words spoken by the Savior come after the first bit of the Sermon on the Mount, and our leaders like to tell us “nonono. It’s totally unrealistic to attain perfection in this life. Christ must mean to strive for perfection.”

To which we all breathe a heavy sigh of relief and go about our day. Until we screw up. Or think we're not good enough because Brother X always does his home teaching.

So how do we “strive for perfection?” My leaders have taught me that it’s important to focus on what is realistic. We can be perfect in not swearing (oops), in our Sabbath keeping (or at least our church attendance), we can be perfect in our observation of the Word of Wisdom, our visiting and home teaching, etc.

But what if we struggle here, too? I suppose that’s where the “strive” comes from – but we’re talking about a realistic expectation to be perfect in these things. And this idea that we can be perfect in some things makes us feel good that we can be perfect in these things.

But can we?

What if we’re perfect in our visiting teaching as far as numbers go. I distinctly remember an Ensign article some years ago which praised a sister for never missing a month of her visiting teaching in a substantial period of time. This is obviously meant to motivate the rest of the membership to reach such a goal, but beyond numbers…would that make us perfect, or just the illusion of perfect?

What if we didn’t care about those we visited? We just wanted our numbers. What if that woman didn’t necessarily visit each of her sisters, but just made sure to call them or send them a letter. Let’s face it: us girls get by really easily when it comes to this. We can say “we tried to contact” and it’ll go down in our favor.

But even for the home teachers: what if a guy visits his homes every month but he doesn’t necessarily care?

Does that make him perfect in his home teaching?

As for swearing, while I understand why we shouldn't make a practice of it, I thought it mattered what was in the heart. And besides, I went for a long time under a fairly strict swearing moratorium (with the exception of the Mormon friendly “crap”) but I happen to think the cheesy substitutes are just as bad as the words themselves. The intention was just as bad. Is my friend who says "fetch" more perfect than anyone else who uses the real word?

Well…

As for the Word of Wisdom, I know I’ve gone here a few times over the past month or so, but seriously. This is such a sketchy issue: letter or spirit, and if spirit where is the line? Depends on who you are and who you talk with.

The Sabbath. This one is also sketchy. Some consider strictness the only safe route to go. I already touched on this a little yesterday regarding the Superbowl, but what if you’re “perfect” in keeping the Sabbath but ignore your family? What if you keep the Sabbath so holy in deed but in your heart you can’t help but pity those poor, heathen folks who are taking their boats to the lake?

And what if you screw up? There’s always repentance, yes, but this goal of perfection really seems to make us miss that mark, to miss the grace that is in repentance.

I submit that perfection is more about what’s in the heart than what the eyes, mouth, legs, and arms do.

A quick review of Matthew 5:

1. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God. (v. 3)
2. Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted. (4)
3. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (5)
4. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. (6)
5. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. (7)
6. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. (8)
7. Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God. (9)

8. Verse 16 does speak about works. I shall ignore this one, too. There is virtue in being an example, but only for the others until they get to know you to know if your heart is pure. Being an example is not directly beneficial for the exemplar.

9. This one is interesting. Verse 20: For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Look up Pharisee in your Topical Guide. Look at my quote to the right. Pharisees don’t care about the heart, they care about the image.

10. Verse 21-22 deals with the unrighteousness that is anger, but more the source of the anger.

11. Verse 28 deals with adultery not just being in the act, but in the premeditation, in just the looking upon another in lust.

12. Verse 38-44 deals with loving those who revile us, to love our enemy, to pray for others, that this is how we will be children of God. I love verse 46: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not the publicans even the same?

How many of us do that? Only show love and charity to fellow Saints? How many are there who fear hanging out with apostates and raucous non-members (or *any* non-member for that matter) or liberal members of the church for fear that their heretical example and light will be contagious?

How many of us only love those who love us? I’m just as guilty.

As I understand it, we are to strive to change our hearts to this perfection. I think, though, we put too much emphasis on the “perfection” part and not in the refinement process that will perhaps one day get us there.

Let me say this though, perfection seems boring to me. I like learning, I like knowing that when I mess up I can get up and be better. I can always be better. There’s something lively and hopeful about that, and I don’t necessarily want to ever lose the chance at progression. Charity is something I’ll never perfect, but it’s something I think I’m willing to chase.

I don’t care about perfection in the minutia of life anymore. I don’t want to place that burden on my children that they should always do what will make them perfect or temple worthy. Ouch, I know, but Christ cares more about the heart so that’s what I want to care more about. I don’t, not nearly enough as I’m reminded all the time.

There is little connection between works and the heart. I can be of service to people all day long and never ever become truly charitable. It is true that service can help us become more compassionate and I do intend to help my kids learn the real benefits of service (besides outside blessings). The thing I want to focus on more than swearing and strict obedience according to wavering rules (they do change over time) is the one thing that never changes: motivation and the heart of people. I’m finding more and more that learning and getting to know about where we live, who we are and who others are only helps us develop a more Christ-like attitude.

This doesn’t mean I’m going to stop trying, but I want to brush the guilt from my shoulders and try to be a better person rather than just look and sound like one. That feels much better, and much more approachable and real too.

And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man...And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man...

- Matthew 15:10-11; 16-20

Yeah. It’s the stuff that makes up what is in our heart that Christ is concerned with. We like to attribute this to why we shouldn't curse, but that would say that cursing makes us unworthy. That's certainly an argument, but Christ doesn't seem to be talking about cursing. He's talking about something deeper than the words that spill from our mouth. He doesn't care how pious we are or what our VT/HT numbers are. Quality, not quantity. While he does care about our obedience, he talks an awful lot more about charity – and that of the heart.

Superbowl Sunday!

2009-01-30T14:34:00.000-08:00

Oy, everytime I post something about MoCul I worry I'm the only one again who has dealt with stupid crap. It is an understood thing here that good Saints do not watch football on Sunday. They don't watch anything on Sunday except for church movies, Disney movies (cartoons), Mary Poppins, or perhaps Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.

Anything else will shoo dat Spirit away *snap* Like that.

But let me tell you something: being the wife of a man who barely made it through Church because he hadn't slept much the Saturday before and only managed an hour before Church (worked nights), with three young kids...Sundays sucked. Capital S. SUCKED.

I tried. I played Legacy and the kids really enjoyed The Restoration and we'd play some children's hymns and I'd try to read the scriptures (haha good joke, Lis) and do all the things we're allowed to do on a Sunday. For a while I did genealogy indexing and research. I actually really enjoy that, even still. I love doing research and know that when I learn about my family and the place I live, I have a greater love and appreciation for it. Then I lost my password and I'm lazy.

I tried to make Saturday cleaning day so I wouldn't go out of my mind on Sunday. It didn't always work. I often forgot to unload the dishwasher and in my fury to ensure I didn't go insane on Sunday I'd unload that puppy at 10 o'clock at night.

Slowly, though, I tired of trying so hard. Then I noticed that Mondays sucked because I had a really messed up kitchen and probably a few hundred loads of laundry to do. Saturdays sucked because of all the cleaning. Life kinda sucked anyway because I was alone so often, but this stuff didn't help.

I tried buying paper plates/cups/etc for Sundays. That helped a little, but some weeks we were strapped too much to worry about that.

I resented so much the worry over what I could or couldn't do, and trust me I'd calmed down over the years. Before I married, my stepdad offered to change the oil in my car for me, but the only day he could manage was Sunday. I saw this as a temptation of Satan (er, the Adversary) and a test of my faithfulness. When I was pregnant and not eating, Eric wanted me to try McDonalds or something - anything - but it was Sunday and certainly lightning would strike.

I learned quickly lightning didn't strike, but that doesn't mean I don't worry I'll be asked to account for my many Sunday-sins in the afterlife. Hellllllo guilt. Even now. Guilt. Always something to worry about.

If anyone says "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard," I will go insane. I hate that line. It's certainly not true. Not all the time.

Anyway. Back to can/can't do lists. I was never able to VT on a Sunday - I'm not bringing three children to some poor woman's house. There's no reason for it, really. I won't be able to talk with the woman because I'll be too concerned about what my kids are doing. They're sneaky. It's just not fair. I know many of you probably take your kids with you, but I never wanted to. Honestly it bugged me when a girl I actually wanted to get to know *had* to bring her kids with her. Her kids often ran rampant - this was back when I felt uncomfortable around kids - and I never felt like I could talk to her. I was too busy making sure her older kids weren't running Abbie over. She didn't seem to realize, and perhaps I was too touchy, but still. No kids. I try to avoid bringing the kids. If that means I don't visit someone that month, than so be it.

I know, but what about the numbers? We must visit teach so we can have the best numbers!

Tangent? Back to Sunday.

How many of us watch general TV on Sunday? BYU TV only? Disney? Anything we want? Kinda goes along with what kind of music we'll listen to on Sunday (or to the temple). My SIL's husband figures if it's not appropriate for Sunday it's probably not appropriate for any day of the week -

but wait. he means this in a more level headed kind of way. Yes we'll have leaders who preach nothing other than classical and/or Church music ever but he figures 80s hair rock is just as good on Sunday as it is any other day.

And the end of January brings us to the Superbowl. Every churchgoer has this issue - you've perhaps seen those sitcoms where the guy sneaks in a radio and discrete earbuds so he can listen to the game during the sermon? Yeah. Since my baptism, I've been taught it's not appropriate to watch the Superbowl on Sunday. TiVo it. Record it. Deal with it.

The Superbowl hasn't interested me in yeeears. I grew up a 49ers fan, a Joe Montana fan. Back when they weren't good, but *amazing.* Since they went down the path of suck, I stopped watching football.

But my four-year-old son loves football. It started during one night of mindless channel flipping when we heard

"STOP!"

Dude wanted to watch some football. My squirmy dude sat through an hour of football.

So yes, we are having a football thing this Sunday for my boy. I refuse to kill myself on Sunday in the name of doing only "righteous" things.

I hate hating Sunday. I used to love it, but that was before kids. Anymore it just sucks. We'll take our kids out for a bike ride. If we happen to need something for dinner lest we eat bread and water, we will go to the store. I worry enough. Some Sundays we'll ditch church and go on a picnic. If it is the only day out of the entire week we can see one another, we will make it fun. Family first right?

Right.

Typographical errors...oh, and this, too.

2009-01-29T14:59:00.000-08:00

Want to know one of the things I loved about this Church as an investigator?

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. (Articles of Faith, no 8)

We use the King James Version, not because it is a perfect translation but the closest to perfect. Joseph Smith spent some time reworking the Bible as evidenced in the Joseph Smith Translation and his revised, if you’ll pardon the term, version of The Gospel of Matthew.

I’ve never taken issue with this. It’s only truth that over time a work can change – we all know the grapevine rule. The first whispers that his mother got a new job and by the time the twentieth person has heard it, the news has changed to some lady was murdered. An exaggerated example, but the idea is there.

The Book of Mormon, however, is supposed to be pure, the most correct book on the Earth. I’ve always understood the book has no need for further translation.

It appears I am wrong, and on some fronts I can accept this. After all, Joseph Smith and his scribes couldn’t exactly spell and when they could, capitalization and other spelling rules differ. The grammar of the time also varies widely from the grammar of today. There are typographical errors and clarifications to be made, as well as a translation of the original handwriting (handwriting can be difficult to understand).

A few years back, my mom gave me a 1920 edition of the Book of Mormon she discovered at an estate sale. I thought “Oh, cool. I wonder what the differences are,” but I didn’t consider anything huge to have happened. I didn’t study it either, but I figured it was all grammatical and placed it on my bookshelf. It is cool after all. I’d kill for an 1830 edition, too, just for the historical value. I never really thought I’d ever have reason to reference this older edition.

So when I ran across an article last night which discussed a major word change from the 1920 edition to the 1981 edition, I double checked and sure enough…

1920 Edition 2 Nephi 30:6

And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people.

1981 Edition, 2 Nephi 30:6

And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.

It’s not that difficult to catch, though I do find it interesting that other passages within the Book of Mormon were not changed:

2 Nephi 5:21 (1981 Ed.)

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Listen, as an investigator I knew about the accusations of racism directed at the Church. Everyone – at least most – knows of the ban of Blacks and the Priesthood. I still remember sitting in my college library, reading the scriptures in an effort to figure this out. I knew of the passages in the Book of Mormon which used the word “white” and concluded it must be metaphorical. After all, white generally signifies purity because white is devoid of all color. Easy enough, and upon some research I’m hardly the first to come to such a conclusion.

But I didn’t know about these quotes. I already mentioned this one in a previous entry, but I’ll repost it anyway:

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood…. This negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa—if that negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.

- Race Problems—As They Affect The Church, Address by Mark E. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954. Emphasis added.

That one is bad enough. As a church we like to dismiss such horrible words as the words of an Apostle speaking as a man. Surely this isn’t doctrine, surely these words spawn from a horribly racist culture of the 1950s.

And yet…

I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only fifteen years ago. Truly the scales of darkness are falling from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. . . .

The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. (Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, October 1960; See also Improvement Era, Dec.1960, pp. 922-923)

Have we taught that the Lamanite people, even the African-American, the Asian, etc. people have darker skins than us due to their less-than-valiant work in the pre-existence? Before finding this discrepancy between Book of Mormon editions, I might've squeezed a “probably not” from my lips. I couldn't say that now.

And it continues in the 2006 Doubleday Edition of the Book of Mormon. For anyone who is unaware, the Doubleday edition is a "commerical" edition of the Book of Mormon meant so anyone who wanted to get a copy could get one without contacting the Church.

1981 Official LDS Version, 2 Nephi 5 (chapter summary)
Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cursed, receive a skin of blackness, and become a scourge unto the Nephites.

2006 Doubleday Edition, 2 Nephi 5 (chapter summary)
Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed, and become a scourge unto the Nephites. (original emphasis)

1981, Official LDS Version, Mormon 5 (chapter summary)
The Lamanites shall be a dark, filthy, and loathsome people. (original emphasis)

2006 Doubleday Edition, Mormon 5 (chapter summary)
Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them. (original emphasis) (all from Lamanite Curse, FAIRwiki)

Much more PC, eh?

Look, I appreciate the changes, but I don’t appreciate our silence and inability to just apologize for crap said and basically condoned by Church leadership. We explain it away as if it doesn’t matter, but it does matter. The Church explained the change thusly,

The Prophet himself attempted to correct some of these kinds of errors, but his many duties prevented him from completing the project; and even so, some of his corrections seem to have disappeared again in later editions. For example, the 1830 and 1837 printings of the Book of Mormon contained a prophecy that the Lamanites would one day become ‘a white and delightsome people’ (2 Ne. 30:6)

In the 1840 printing, which the Prophet edited, this passage was changed to read ‘pure and delightsome people,’ but for some reason later printings reverted to the original wording.

-Bruce T. Harper, The Church Publishes a New Triple Combination, The Ensign, October 1981.

What are the other changes made? Here are two examples from that article, representative of the whole:

(1) 1920 Ed, Alma 16:5 - To know whether the Lord would that they should go into the wilderness…

1981 Ed., Alma 16:5 - To know wither the Lord would they should go into the wilderness

(2) 1920 Edition, 2 Nephi 29:4 - Do they remember the travels and the labors, and the pains of the Jews…

1981 Ed., 2 Nephi 29:4 - Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews…

Simple enough. Understandable enough.

But from “white” to “pure”? Someone’s idea got in the way here, and we’d have to question at a motive. Why would anyone change it either way?

The Utah Lighthouse Ministry – admittedly not a fan of the church – has responded to the Church’s explanation. I don’t post this lightly. I know some, if not many, will stop listening right here but please keep with me. I’m not trying to disprove anyone but offer other arguments for discussion:

It should be noted that Church leaders are unable to produce any documentary evidence to support their claim that this was merely a correction by Joseph Smith of a typographical error. There were originally two handwritten manuscripts for the Book of Mormon—a copy which was written by Joseph Smith's scribes as he dictated it and a second "emended" copy that was prepared for the printer. Unfortunately, most of the first manuscript was destroyed through water damage. The Mormon scholar Stanley R. Larson informs us that this manuscript "does not exist for this section of the text. . . ." ("A Study of Some Textual Variations in the Book of Mormon Comparing the Original and the Printer's Manuscripts and the 1830, the 1837, and the 1840 Editions," Unpublished M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, April 1974, page 283)

Fortunately, the second handwritten manuscript—the copy given to the printer to use to set the type for the first printing of the Book of Mormon—was preserved by Book of Mormon witness Oliver Cowdery and is still in excellent shape. This handwritten manuscript does contain the portion printed as 2 Nephi 30:6. It uses the word "white," and therefore does not support the claim that Joseph Smith was only correcting a typographical error (see Restoration Scriptures, by Richard P. Howard, Independence, Missouri, 1969, p. 49). It should be remembered also that both the first two editions of the Book of Mormon (1830 and 1837) used the word "white." It is especially significant that the 1837 edition retained this reading because the preface to this edition stated that "the whole has been carefully reexamined and compared with the original manuscripts, by elder Joseph Smith, Jr., the translator of the book of Mormon, assisted by the present printer, brother O. Cowdery, . . ." (Book of Mormon, 1837 Edition, Preface, as cited in The Ensign, September 1976, page 79)

- Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Salt Lake City Messenger, A White Pure and Delightsome People, Issue # 46, October 1981.

Many will trust the Church on the basis they don’t believe the Church, its leaders, or its doctrine to be racist – at least not today. As other passages in the Book of Mormon continue to use the word “white” in much the same way it is used in 2 Nephi 30:6 in the current edition, it’s difficult to really know. You’d think each ambiguous use of the word (not easily dismissed as metaphorical) would have changed as well in the 1981 edition.

What also baffles me is that, through my own research, I remain unconvinced that Joseph Smith was racist. His political platform dealt with the freedom of the slaves and I understand he baptized at least two black men.

It is curious. I’m unsure who to believe and it is due mainly to the many racist comments made by church authorities over the years – comments which have been dismissed and explained away rather than apologized for and recognized as patently disgusting (after all, we don’t criticize our leaders, even if that criticism is justified). It’s become more obvious to me the doctrine regarding people of dark skin being less valiant in the pre-existence was taught and can be linked to such scriptures as the ones I’ve mentioned here.

In a semi-related issue, there is also the rumor that Joseph Smith taught that polygamy would be necessary to mix the blood of the white people with that of the darker-skinned people as to help expedite the “whitening” process. This is an easy enough teaching to dismiss; however, when compared with then Elder Kimball’s General Conference remark, “One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated” it’s a more difficult an idea to reject.

I also understand that if one wants to, one can find evidence sufficient to support any claim. After viewing what I am able, I happen to lean to the side which states the original handwritten copy edited by Joseph Smith used the word “white” instead of “pure.” The LDS sources I’m able to view are short and rather vague while the other sources are much more thorough and cite other sources as well. When I compare and contrast, this is the conclusion I find myself coming to. I know many will undoubtedly gasp in horror and shock at such words (sarcasm), but the links are there for individual viewing and conclusion. I’m interested, if anyone finds the time, for other points of view.

Any thoughts?

Homey G's

2009-01-27T08:16:00.000-08:00

Hahahahahaa. Okay, bad title? Anyone get it?
Anyone?

GARMENTS.

Calm down. I'm not going to desecrate anything or give away meanings of things. This is strictly...well, hell. I guess cultural AND doctrinal. We need to make up a term for this stuff, there's so much of it. It's difficult to combine two words that end the same way, though. Ideas?

To begin, I'm so glad the washing and anointing ceremony changed. I remember my mom asking me if we were bathed in the temple, and I totally knew where she was coming from on that but I had to tell her "not exactly."

See, I had little problem going back to the temple for the endowment ceremony (though I totally preferred the baptisms) or even sealings, but I could *not* go back to do washing and anointing for anyone. I hated that ordinance. Whatever happened to modesty? I get that we're all girls here and whatnot, but after so much talk about modesty, well...it shocked me. Shortly after it changed I went back no problem.

So there's issue #1, but it's been resolved. I do have to admit I'm happy to have been through at least one change in the temple. I imagine it will be the last change I ever experience, but there you go. You hear rumors and stories about past changes in the temple, but it's difficult to know who's exaggerating and who's not. This one I know from memory. I have read stories about what it was like back in the 1800s and 1900s, and I'd love to speak with anyone whose experienced it because...eek.

Anyway.

The garments themselves shocked me because I thought (remember: ex-Molly here) they were a bit more immodest than they should be. Hell, I could show a little cleavage. It might be a pain, but I could. The bottoms always seemed a little nuts to me, going down to my knees and all but perhaps that's due to my short stature ;) Not much leg left. I appear even shorter in long skirts. It's wonderful, really.

With the possible exception of the washing and anointing ceremony none of this...none of his got to me as much as the bra situation. Girls, you hear me right? Guys, if you're married (or do moms run around the house like this?) you probably know what I'm talking about.

It's like Robo-woman. I know the garment is intended to stay as close to our skin as possible but for us *cough*well-endowed*cough* girls, the bra works much better beneath the top. I used nursing as an excuse forever, but after that I just said screw it. I couldn't take myself seriously like that and besides, hello turnoff.

It's no wonder some take this whole thing to an extreme. I worried about periods, could I wear underwear beneath my bottoms? I could? Oh good. *wipes forehead*

Let's not even get into the subject of sex and garments. I've already been there and everyone had hilarious and unbelievable stories to tell - members who reject lingerie (or wear their garments beneath them - I'll admit I thought the same at first) even about those who are scared to bathe with their garments off as if something might happen while showering (you hear the stories of people who die in car accidents and the parts of them covered with the garments are untouched while the accident mangled the rest of the person). What if you die in the shower?! Will we be judged on how diligent we are in our garment wearing? Talk about labor intensive.

(again, of whom? Joseph Smith or President Monson/Hinckley/Hunter...who?!? I thought it was supposed to be Christ. I've been taught both - another entry? okay)

"President, I'm so righteous I even make love to my wife with my garments on. Sex is so holy." (ahahaha, pun!)

Speaking of holy, what the crap is up with the mesh garments? They're cooler in warm weather regions? Yes, I've heard that. But my husband, who served in the midwest of the US, related a story to me about a mission companion who would strut around their apartment in mesh garments.

Ewwwwww is right, folks.

Got a lot of fathers who wear the mesh garments.

Ewwwwww is right, folks.

I don't care how studly, hot, or ripped you are, mesh garments are not sexy. I understand the purpose of the garment is more than just promoting modesty, it's there to also help us remember covenants we've made in the temple, but promotion of modesty IS a large part of it. We're told that if we have to adjust our garments to accommodate our clothing than we need to choose more modest clothing.

So what's up with mesh garments?

As for the necessity for something cooler, hell I know this. Here in July we're graced with 110 degree weather and it is no time for an extra layer of cotton-polys. Winter it's fine, I welcome it, but I've known people who ditch them in the summer 'lest they melt into a puddle. My very obedient friend ditched them during her pregnancy in the summer for her tank tops. Her bishop wasn't impressed, but she got her recommend anyway.

My idea back then was that if we're righteous enough we suffer through it. After all, Christ suffered all things - so we should shut up about a little heat, right? Maybe, I can't say, but are we missing the idea here? Are we worried about things we oughtn't worry so much about?

Seriously.

I wonder if our garment fetishes have much to do with our messed up attitudes toward sex and sexuality and perhaps our bodies. I understand it's good to have a reminder of sacred things, but it's a lot like when I had a CTR ring my friend gave me. Sure it serves as a reminder for a while, but in time it's just another article of clothing even if you do attend the temple. Am I wrong? I can see how I could be wrong, but the thought has crossed my mind.

Visiting Teaching: Overshooting the Mark?

2009-01-26T17:54:00.000-08:00

I'm going to take a break from normality for a spell. It's fun and affirming, but it's also exhausting. This is chilled by far compared to the last post, but I hope you'll find it worthy of discussion.

First, a little background:

My initial exposure with the Church was through my Institute. It's a small building: one classroom, one game room, a small kitchen, an office, bathroom, and library. It didn't need to be much - it was for the local community college. I loved it there - I gained many friends and *gasp* somewhat of a social life. The Institute Director, Bro S., became somewhat a father figure to me. We didn't agree on much, but I loved him despite some zealous insanity.

Much of what I knew and much of my perceptions about the Church began with Bro. S. While most reject (some of) his dogma, many of his conservative views are largely held in my stake.

One of Bro. S' lessons led him to speak about visiting and home teaching. At this point, I worked with a good friend of mine, Sister J. She was awesome - she didn't worry about what anyone thought; she just did what she felt was right. Though I don't agree with her now, I really did love her confidence. She was genuine in all she did.

Anyway, Sister J. was very by-the-book. We would meet beforehand and have a prayer before we arrived at the house. She dressed up in her Sunday best and so did I. We talked about the lesson. We had a prayer with the girls afterward. The thing that saved her is that she wasn't crazy but rather had an innate unassuming nature.

In time, though, I wondered what the deal was with dressing up for visiting teaching. As I understand it, visiting teaching is a program designed for the women of the ward to look after one another. We're to befriend (or try our damndest) and help each other out. That said and in my experience, these meetings often couldn't be awkward enough. You show up at 9 in the morning dressed up like it's Sunday and the girl you're visiting is still in her jammies or casually dressed. She doesn't know you, you don't know her. Dressing up consistently struck me as presumptuous, haughty even. I didn't like it. An Institute class I attended clarified that we should dress up whenever we're representing the Lord, and indeed we are while visiting teaching.

Ugh, right? Well, I kept going with Sister J. the way she always had. It seemed to work quite well for her, and I did bask in her glow. She was awesome.

Once I moved from the ward, though, I found myself with a new...less serious companion. I wasn't sure if I should dress up when we did our "rounds." To avoid any embarrassment, I threw on a skirt for our first meeting. She was in slacks and a nice shirt - looked like she'd just gotten off work and was visiting a friend. Oy.

It took me a little while to get off the whole Sunday best thing while visiting teaching - mostly because of the guilt - but after a while I'd just go as is. It felt much more equal that way. After all, do I seriously have any authority over these women? I would hate it if a friend came over all dressed up and preaching...er, giving a lesson about how wonderful it is to be a mom or a woman or something and end it with a generic and stoic "Is there anything we can do for you?"

Um...no I'm good thanks.

Friendships are built. I like the lesson as a "crap we've nothing to talk about" ice breaker, but even then it's scripted. "Boy I sure liked this part where Sister so-and-so said that we should follow the Prophet. It's so true, can't you feel the spirit?"

I had one woman, Sarah*, I visited who was my age and a hoot. As I didn't have a partner at this time, I felt more at ease. This girl lived in an apartment much like one I used to live in and she struck me as very approachable. I remember looking around the apartment for clues about what she liked because I HATED awkwardness. A fun discussion of Harry Potter came from that, and we became not strangers or ward members, but acquaintances.

Like I said, I'm not good at this stuff. She was social; I am not. Often I will want to be a person's friend, but I feel rushed by time and stumble with most things. I'm a social idiot. I also dealt with a lot back then and felt better at home alone. Now I think I might be better at socializing but it would still take some effort. The comfort level has to be relatively high, no weirdness on the phone. I don't want to feel as if I have to entertain anyone. Just come here and be.

I hate this stuff: "Hey...so...want to get together? Oh, you're busy. Okay. Um. Hm. Okay, sorry to bug you. Yeah maybe next week. I'll have to see, my schedule is always up in the air." Yeah, I'm a gem on the phone with a new person I want to get to know. There are exceptions, but aren't there always?

Back to Sarah and visiting teaching. I knew to not ask her if there was anything I could do for her. It's like asking "How're you?" Of course the answer is going to be "Fine" or "Good." Rarely is someone honest, and why should we be? I'm sure most who read this understand: If there's something we can do, we ought to know or at least suspect because we (a) listen to her and (b) remember things she's said, what's going on in her life.

We just do it or snoop around a bit for help by talking with her husband or other friends. We make sure she's having a baby shower. We keep in touch enough (preferably more than once a month and the passing "heys" in the chapel foyer) to know if she or her husband is sick or her baby is in the hospital. We just do it. And if we don't know what's going on, the greatest compliment comes when and if she asks us for help.

The standard "Can I do anything for you" is met with "No, I'm good" for a reason. Many girls don't get this.

When my youngest went into the hospital this past Christmas for pneumonia and RSV, my SIL freaked out. I love her more than she knows, but she wanted to help so bad she didn't want to see we were fine. She wanted to bring us dinner - but Eric was off on break. Granted, this was our first year where he had no school AND no work for three weeks straight, but still. I had Eric. She offered to call my RS President and alert my visiting teacher. I told her I didn't know who my VT was (which is fine) and there was no need to call the RS president. Joseph was home. It was an overnight stay. Getting the RS involved would've made my insides writhe. I hate being doted over for no good reason by people I don't know who only know because someone else told them. Dig?

Really, in times like that, offer to babysit. I'm sure she would have, too, but I don't like asking in times like that when I don't *really* need it. I know her intentions were golden and full of love and probably full of memories of times past when we were in the hospital with a very sick kid for a long time (and our VT/HT/RS didn't know. our fault). There are times when I really do need intervention during quiet times of desperation and a maddening week of active children when I may well explode without a couple hours to myself. Slight exaggeration.

The best service I ever received was from a girl who was not my visiting teacher in my last ward/stake. She had a daughter Abbie's age and a son just a month younger than Joseph. Poor Jason, always stuck in the middle with no guys his age - we need to fix that. Anyway. K offered one day to take the kids - all three of them - for me once a week for about three hours.

This, people, is service. As a person who couldn't bring herself to ask for help, she suspected the same of me and knew to just offer it. I needed this so badly and she taught me so much. Though we never really became friends, this was the most helpful act of service I've ever recieved.

Not from my visiting teacher. From a friendly, attentive person. If a person is new in the ward, be a friend don't "visit teach" them.

I know the home teaching program is slightly different, but the ideas are still the same. I am not going to confess any issues I might have in my personal or spiritual life to a person just because she is my visiting teacher or he is my home teacher. There's a fabulous chance I wouldn't even share these things with a friend. There are few people I entrust with my secrets, hopes, and fears. I won't share them to a couple girls or a couple guys from church because they've been assigned to me, I don't care how "inspired" it's claimed to be (if ever).

I think the idea of the VT/HT program is a good one and full of potential as many have experienced, but we need to focus less on numbers and more on the relationships - and really, it bugged the hell out of me that just as I'd be really getting to know a girl, I'd get reassigned. Frustrating. We can't establish a repetoire with people if we aren't with them consistently and for a long time. I really do think that's the key.

By the way, Bro. S was also my home teacher (and member of my ward). As a man who knew me well, he served as my home teacher better than anyone else ever could have...even if he did overstep his bounds sometimes. I'm grateful for him, too.

*Name changed. I tire of using only initials :)

Piercings, Beards, and other Pharisaical “Encouragements”

2009-01-21T21:32:00.000-08:00

Yes, the damn piercings. Again. I know. I’ve been simmering for a good rant, and I’ll warn you right now: it’s a rant. Offense may happen. Unpleasant language. I could get rid of it, but at the moment I really don't want to. Some may also find it negative - I do. I also criticise a leader.

Consider yourselves forewarned and please keep the comments thereof private. Again: This is a rant. Thanks.

I have to get this out. I’ve had more than one person suggest this isn’t so much doctrine as it is encouragement if not expectation of our leaders. But this is, as I’ll show in a minute, not just some off the cuff remark because back in the day girls just didn’t wear more than one earring (and certainly no where but the ear) and boys – well, that’s just…weird.

To the uninformed,

Sister Bednar and I are acquainted with a returned missionary who had dated a special young woman for a period of time. He cared for her very much, and he was desirous of making his relationship with her more serious. He was considering and hoping for engagement and marriage. This relationship was developing during the time that President Hinckley counseled the Relief Society sisters and young women of the Church to wear only one earring in each ear.

The young man waited patiently over a period of time for the young woman to remove her extra earrings, but she did not take them out. This was a valuable piece of information for this young man, and he felt unsettled about her nonresponsiveness to a prophet’s pleading. For this and other reasons, he ultimately stopped dating the young woman, because he was looking for an eternal companion who had the courage to promptly and quietly obey the counsel of the prophet in all things and at all times. The young man was quick to observe that the young woman was not quick to observe.

- Elder David A. Bednar, Quick to Observe, December 2006 Ensign.

To anyone who does not consider themselves Molly or Peter (or to the non-member), this is ridiculous. To a newly zealous member or reinvigorated member, this is wise counsel. This is a faith-promoting story. Do the piercings matter? Noooo. But following the prophet at all times does.

*hits head on desk*

Sorry, but if these ears could hold piercings without infection and I had three or four, I’d keep them. It would be of no disrespect to President Hinckley, but I hardly believe God cares if I have two earrings in one ear. For that matter, I used to want to pierce my eyebrow. If that was still something I wanted, such a story would propel me to get the piercing. This kind of petty stuff serves only to encourage rebelliousness and guilt to those who feel the way I do. "Geez, would I take mine out? What would Elder Bednar think?"

Because it's not about the piercing, is it?

I presume that some of you might have difficulty with my last example. You may believe the young man was too judgmental or that basing an eternally important decision, even in part, upon such a supposedly minor issue is silly or fanatical. Perhaps you are bothered because the example focuses upon a young woman who failed to respond to prophetic counsel instead of upon a young man. I simply invite you to consider and ponder the power of being quick to observe and what was actually observed in the case I just described. The issue was not earrings! (continued from article cited above)

Yes, I believe the young man was too judgmental and I would indeed add fanatical. I might even call Elder Bednar slightly fanatical for bringing it up along with other stories he speaks of in the same talk. We are worrying about the stupidest things. It’s an earring!

If I were that young woman’s friend, I would quickly tell her how lucky she is that her guy showed his true colors before they married. Can you imagine? What if she took a few extra steps on a Sunday? Okay, okay. Hyperbole. But how's this: What if she…now sit down…had an energy drink? *gasp*

I at least hoped this guy talked to the girl beforehand. Oy vey. “Sorry honey, it’s me or the earring.”

Now before anyone throws a fit, I get it. I really, really do and I really, really resent the implied guilt trip pointed at anyone who is doing everything they can – reading the scriptures, attending meetings, honest, chaste, true, benevolent, etc, etc -- and yet has an extra earring. Nothing, nothing is mentioned about this girl's character. Just her unwillingness to take out an earring.

Are we really this nitpicky? What really matters here?

I think the thing that bothers me most about this is that Elder Bednar spoke about it, and not just in the Ensign. This was originally spoken of at a BYU Devotional. Many consider the Ensign to be Scripture when an authority is the author. These little anecdotes only feed the Molly and Peter fires that take the general membership away from the message of CHRIST. For heaven’s sake, can’t we puh-lease talk about Christ instead of these stupid earrings or even the Prophet?

It is because of talks like these that young men and women (and grown men and women) are judged not on their character or heart but on a fucking earring. As an apostle, I would hope Elder Bednar would rather speak of how we can become more charitable. I would rather he spoke about Christ.

Earrings.

And don’t even get me started on beards. Someone suggested this is a BYU thing – well, not exactly. It’s not necessarily church wide, but I can't seem to remember ever seeing a General Authority sporting a good beard, at least not in the last thirty to forty years. In my stake, any male being extended a leadership call (boy scouts, YM, EQ, etc) are asked “How attached are you to that beard?”

My SIL, a very active faithful member, bristles when she tells this story. Nobody asked her, she says. It’s part in jest, but she likes her husband’s beard. Her husband, a laid back guy, doesn’t care. Out comes the razor. Heaven forbid a boy see his leader with a goatee, especially if he's aware - what does it say? What will others think?

I have a good idea of what he'll think: he'll grow up thinking anyone who has a beard is somehow unworthy.

I get that the outside should reflect the inside and we often assume it does – and most times we’re *wrong*. Lest I’m misunderstood, though, I get that it’s important to be clean. I get the importance in dressing nicely when we’re representing the Church (because we understand that when we represent the Church, we are effectively representing Christ. At least that’s how it’s been explained to me). It all makes sense, but if the beard is clean and the earrings aren’t ridiculous than who cares.

Moving on. Deep breath.

Tattoos. Many of our members sport a good tattoo (I'd like to know more who do!). I am curious to know if we have any members - men and women - who have tat sleeves. Are they called to leadership positions? Oh sure as long as it’s covered, but again: women. Would we ever have a Relief Society president who sported a couple tats on her arm (inked before her conversion), tats impossible to cover up? Would we insist on long sleeves each Sunday regardless of weather?

I’m not being facetious; this is for real. We are not to be robots. We’re not to be stepford children of God, there to emit the impression of perfection. We have this weird preoccupation of striving for perfection in a futile journey to be just like Christ in this life. If we were supposed to look the same, it would probably have showed up in scripture somewhere.

And this, I think, is where some of the “avoid the appearance of evil” crap comes from.

Enough with perfection! Should we go nuts? No! But allow a person some self-expression. Allow a person a tattoo if it helps them remember something that is important to them (watch Miami or LAInk if you don’t know what I’m talking about. TLC). Allow a person an earring for heaven’s sake without having to question their loyalty to…who again? The prophet?

I’m sorry, but I think our focus is a little skewed. We talk about the churchchurchchurch. We are to give all we can to the effing church, not to Him whom this Church is supposed to represent.

If you look hard enough, Christ is in all of us. Piercings, beards, tats and all.

It's stuff like this that makes me wonder why I have any hair left at all.

Second Kingdom, Baby!

2009-01-20T12:15:00.000-08:00

If I'm worthy and do all the "right" things, I will attain the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

...but not only that! I'll get to be a goddess and with my godlike husband have lots of little spirit children and create worlds without end.

All sorts of good stuff!

If I pay my tithing, I get blessings!

If I do my visiting teaching, I get blessings!

And so on, and so forth.

My feelings don't discriminate either. I felt the same way at my father's church and others I attended. Everything was met with a "reward" of some sort. I even had a youth group activity where all the kids sat in the chapel waiting for two of their counterparts - "angels" - to come and select them at random. This was death. If you went to heaven, you got cookies. If you went to hell, well...

At least at the end of the activity the demon spawn from hell (one of whom was me) were escorted to heaven to partake of the cookies.

Oy, that's a whole other post.

I could give up the Celestial Kingdom entirely...if it weren't for that whole eternal marriage bit. I like my husband. A lot. No matter how much I question or flat out reject some teachings, this...I still feel this one wrapped around my ankle.

It is a romantic notion. Together forever - and I do want that. Will it really be taken away from me? I don't know. I have to admit, I'm leaning more agnostic these days but I still have a hope in Christ, if that makes sense.

While I recognize real doctrinal issues, I have left the door cracked. I can't not do that.

But I will not be bribed. Don't tell me to do my visiting teaching because I will be blessed; don't tell me to follow the commandments because I will be blessed; don't tell me to do everything I'm told because obedience begets my own kingdom and people to govern.

Tell me it's because God loves me and this is the way. Tell me it's because it will help others (understood is the fact that in helping others we help ourselves). Tell me its because it's the right thing to do.

I've heard more than once someone telling me that we're blessed because of what we do. Does that not imply a revocation of blessings for failing to do? Often we tell others we don't believe we fall on hard times because of failure to pay tithing or attend the temple, but we do attribute good times to the good things we do.

Anyone else see the disconnect?

I want to have as pure a motivation as is possible. I don't believe God asks these things of us so we can plead our case. "Hey, look at all I've done. Please, then, help me to do X, Y, and Z."

(Yes, people have said this is something they've done.)

Aren't we all supposed to be eternally indebted to God for Christ? Indebted to Christ? Why then do we think we have any claim on any blessings because of what we do or don't do?

I like to think instead blessings come because God loves us, not because we're doing what he asked. Perhaps some will say we do this with our own kids: we want them to do what we ask and we reward them when they're good.

Sometimes I do this. Then I realize my kids covet only the reward, and I prefer they do what is right because it is right and they see what it reaps in others. I want them to do good simply because it is good. Shouldn't that be reward enough?

This is supposed to be a gospel of grace and faith manifest in works. I'm starting to see why other churches refuse to place any emphasis at all on works.

Some may submit that some blessings are natural, much like some consequences come naturally. I stub my toe, it hurts like hell. Am I being punished for stubbing my toe? No, but I'll watch out next time, that's for sure.

But is there any implicit blessing for my kid cleaning up her toys in the living room for me? It'll bring me much happiness; I've enough to do. I'll love the room being clean, and it really isn't my job to play maid.

But for her - what will it do for her? Should I reward her each and every single time she "obeys"? I don't think so.

If she decides to "disobey," however, there will probably be repercussions in the form of a time out so that she'll learn to help. I should also help her see the good in what she is doing - how nice the room looks, how much easier it is to relax, how much she's helping Mommy and what a big girl that makes her. It's part of being a grown up, and I'm helping her to realize that. That said, she must rely at least somewhat on herself for motivation. I will not bribe my child - with the exception of desperate times :)

Does this mean that perhaps a person who refuses to pay their tithing will in some way miss out on blessings? I know of someone whose mother rags on her inactive son: "You'd have a job if you would pay your tithing!"

Would God truly bribe us this way? Where is our heart when we do what we're told we're supposed to do?

On the flip side, I know of an inactive member who has worked very hard to get where he is in life, unlike his active, RM, temple married brother who has had Mom and Dad bail him and his wife out time and again.

Granted, there are outside influences, such as the son who seemingly quits every job when the going gets annoying or the Mom and Dad who are the ones "punishing" their inactive son by tossing him out in the cold to fend for himself (and well has he done!). I wonder how this fits into the equation of things.

Perhaps we don't know, but it is food for thought. If you'd like more, Mormon Heretic quotes a Sunstone article that deals with this very subject entitled Using Fear, Pride, and Greed to pay Tithing

All interesting thoughts. Anyone else?

I'm very, very proud today. Welcome, President Obama!

2009-01-20T09:51:00.000-08:00

Thanks to the Dallas Morning News, here is the transcript of President Obama's Inauguration speech this morning.

Once you're done reading, please visit Renew America - USA Service. This is a fantastic site where we can all find something to do for our community and our country - for our fellow (wo)man

Today is a happy day!

* * *

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true.

They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

- President Barack Hussein Obama, January 20, 2009.

A Plate of Cookies

2009-01-19T13:07:00.000-08:00

Lately I've wondered much about the Church's humanitarian efforts.

It's true, we're there when the hurricanes hit, the tsunamis flood, and the earthquakes roar; it's true we have a fast offering fund for those in need (though it bothers me some that we're quicker to help fellow ward members than those outside the church). If there's any question as to the Church's humanitarian efforts, all one must do is visit the Church's newsroom. We like to talk about it.

But what about locally? In all the time I've been in the Church, local community efforts are wanting. I do want to recognize my old Institute for adopting a highway (but how does that work? do the people who adopt do the work or merely pay for someone to do the work?), and my last ward did make blankets for pre-term babies. It does happen and now that I'm forced to think about it, I'm grateful and slightly humbled.

But do we try to reach beyond our walls more than we stay within? And while it's a nice thought to make cookies for the local firemen, does that really help? It's nice, but does it help?

I suppose another question could be, does it matter?

Perhaps I'm projecting (oh I'll admit it, I am), but I wonder how much easier it is to make cookies than it is for us to get to know people we're uncomfortable around.

We'd rather make cookies than hang out with our coarse neighbor while he smokes and has a beer. I know some members who would rather hang out with this guy than their EQ president, and I have to say I admire them. I have found that showing our neighbor that he is more important than his vices will impact him more than cookies ever will, I don't care how good they are. And these are oft the most interesting people.

Sometimes I think we need to dismount our high horse, our rameumptum, even. I'm tired of telling others that we're fighting against them because we love them. That doesn't work. First we must show love - really show it, to the specific people - and then they will be more apt to love us. That doesn't mean there will ever be an agreement, but compassion can change even our Church (gasp at the suggestion, I know). I fear we're not nearly as compassionate as we like to think.

And yes, I'm talking about the gay community but this could really be for anyone. Would an actively gay couple feel comfortable in our wards? Do you ever see any? I haven't (that said, I live in a conservative community and rarely see gay couples). They don't feel welcome, and if this is about Christ than it should be about Christ first and sexuality last. Christ first, cigarette breath last.

We have a president now (er, tomorrow!) whose entire campaign was based on change and doing something. It's not just up to him or other people. This was a grassroots campaign and so it must remain. No matter who you voted for or how much you can't stand that President-Elect Obama won, we have to start serving each other.

President Hinckley once said that all converts need three things: A friend, a responsibility, and nurturing with the good word of God. I propose that everyone, regardless of who they are or where they are need these three things...and not to get them to become converts, either.

I hate how we perform service in the hopes that those will see our light and come running to the baptismal font. Service should not be a means to an end.

Forgive me if I've said this before, but I was told once that we should only pray for that which we're willing to do ourselves. "Heavenly Father, please feed those in need" = We should donate some food to a local shelter, give something to the guy on the corner. "Please bless that those who are sick will get better" = stopping by with some chicken soup and to do a load of dishes (or whatever they need). Going by the store to grab some meds, etc.

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves...Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:22, 26)

I'm going to refrain from interpreting that last bit.

Just because we're Latter-day Saints doesn't mean jack. Just because someone else may be Buddhist or holy-roller Protestant, Catholic or Atheist doesn't and shouldn't mean jack. In the end we're all children of God - and if you don't subscribe to that, in the end we're all human and we're all doing the very best we know how. That's all that matters. Blankets don't. Cookies don't. Real interest in each other matters because sincerity breeds hope, and hope is everything.

I want to start putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak, and help out my community. I've been complaining loads about it, which means I should probably do something. I'm going to start looking for opportunity. This is not an aspect of life I'm comfortable with or fluent in, so it will take some effort, but I feel I must try.

Let's do something for our local communities. If anyone knows a good way to discover how to do this, please leave a comment. There's always something we can do, but often we don't know how. We trust in our local Relief Society to come up with something, but other organizations and churches perform good works and I'm sure we'd be invited to help.

And if it would make us feel better, we can always bring cookies to the event.

Judas, Satan, Eve, and "Transgressions"

2009-01-16T12:55:00.000-08:00

First, a caveat: This entry is bound to offend somebody. I suppose most things are bound to offend somebody, but this one particularly harbors some potential and probable offense. If you find it, know I'm not out to blaspheme. These are genuine thoughts from a genuine person. This has crossed my mind more than once, and I thought I'd dare post them to see if I'm completely off my rocker or not. My husband assures me the Church has already addressed these issues but he isn't sure how. I'm very interested and ask that you please be respectful in your feedback. Thanks.

From an Ensign article regarding the Fall of Adam:

Truths restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith bring Adam and Eve out of obscurity and into marvelous light, revealing they were noble and great forebears who “fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25)....

Our Father in Heaven knew Adam and Eve would fall. In fact, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that Adam “was made to open the way of the world” (Teachings, 12). Lehi tells us, “Adam fell that man might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Ne. 2:25). Modern scripture makes it clear that it was the will of the Father, as part of his plan, that Adam and Eve transgress and thus be moved out of Eden. Satan thus unwittingly furthered the plan, “for he knew not the mind of God” (Moses 4:6).

- Arthur A. Bailey, What Modern Revelation Teaches about Adam, January 1998 Ensign.

Again, perhaps my logic is flawed. If you see it, let me know. These are merely thoughts, not statements of fact.

But here we go: God knew Eve would succumb to the serpent's words and temptation. He knew Adam, obedient, wonderful Adam, would follow his wife as commanded (think temple).

Adam and Eve had to partake of the fruit. They had to disobey God's explicit command to leave the stupid fruit alone, 'else we would have no reason to exist today.

Hell, according to doctrine we would not exist today without Eve.

We love Eve. We love women.

/sarcasm.

But this is doctrine. Agreed? Everyone happy? Okay.

Judas.

We equate Judas with betrayal. He sold our Savior to Caiaphas and Pilate, to those who hated him and demanded His crucifixion, the very crucifixion which led to his death?

Would it be fair to suggest that without Judas we wouldn't have the Atonement?

I understand we believe the actual atoning of sins to have taken place in the Garden of Gethsemane, prior to the betrayal of Judas. Without Christ's death, however, the Atonement would be in vain. It is in the Atonement, we teach, that Christ took on all our sins, all of them. He had to die with those sins on his shoulders and overcome death so that we may, too.

Correct?

Some may contend God could have had a plan for Christ to die without Judas' help. This may be true - God's omnipotence would demand it; however, the same could be said for Adam and Eve.

Correct?

We make the distinction that Eve committed not a sin, but a mere transgression in doing what she had to do, what God wanted her to do.

Could the same be said of Judas?

Satan

If you've been to the temple, think back. While I'm told most things are ok-ay to relate outside the temple, I want to be careful here for various reasons.

But perhaps I can circumvent that through simple explanation.

We're taught, as has been explained before, that God knew of the inevitable "Fall of Adam" (apparently his fall is the only one that matters? ugh, who cares). In order for Adam to fall, a few things had to be available:

1) The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
2) The Tree of (Eternal) Life
3) The very innocent and pure Adam and Eve
4) A Tempter: Satan/Serpent

Each are equally important in what we learn to be God's purpose for us: "To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of Man." (Moses 1:39)

Without the tree, there could be no possibility, according to the Gospel, that God's children would ever know good versus evil. This is vital to free agency.

The Tree of Eternal Life is a bit different in that Adam and Eve were not forbidden to partake of that fruit. Nothing stopped them from going there and remaining in their perfect, innocent state. It would be of interest to discuss this, but for today's purposes let's just remember that God placed Cherubim to guard it after Adam and Eve ate the fruit so they would not partake of this particular tree and remain forever in their sins.

I think the importance of Adam and Eve are fairly well understood for this purpose today.

The tempter.

Now there's something interesting. My husband tells me there are some who believe that, in the end, Satan will basically receive forgiveness and attain his own bit of glory. Remember the temple here and how Satan responds to God's inquiries of what he's doing around Adam and Eve.

Oh hell I'll just write it. My stepFIL is a temple worker and says it's fine to talk about pretty much everything - pretty much. I'm just in no hurry to get called in.

Remember how Satan/Lucifer responds that he's doing only what has been done in other worlds? Interestingly enough everything but this part is mentioned almost word for word in the Book of Moses. Hm.

I never understood why this time was different. It always seemed to me that God needed Satan's part in order to "bring to pass" his purposes for us, so that we could one day become like him. What good is it to know only the good? Where is the choice when you don't know the good for the evil?

Where is the choice indeed.

Was Satan rebuked in like manner during the other times? It's like telling your kid something needs to be done, and when he does it, sending him to his room. "I know it was important and a righteous means to an end, but dammit! You shouldn't have done it!"

Is that it? Did God have a different plan, or was he just waiting for Lucifer to inadvertently help him out?

So if Eve is to be revered for her actions in disobeying God - being the first to do so - why don't we then also revere Judas and even recognize Satan's part in all of this?

Would Eve have partaken of the fruit without Satan telling her all the cool stuff that would happen if she did?

Was there a different way for Christ to be crucified or was Judas an essential part of that plan, too?

Before anyone says "we're not to know all the mysteries of God" let me say I know. But I think this deserves some attention. It's been on my mind for some years, and I hardly think I'm so original as to be the first to think of such things.

Please, discuss.

Why I May Not Be in Church This Sunday

2009-01-16T11:03:00.000-08:00

I believe it's this Sunday, at least.

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, Chapter 27: The Bitter Fruits of Apostasy.

Apostasy.

To the dictionary, the word is benign: the renunciation of a religious or political belief or allegiance

To the Church, it's betrayal of God.

The second paragraph in the lesson begins thusly:

As that year wore on, a spirit of apostasy grew among some of the Saints in Kirtland. Some members became proud, greedy, and disobedient to the commandments... Sister Eliza R. Snow recalled: 'Many who had been humble and faithful to the performance of every duty - ready to go and come at every call of the Priesthood - were getting haughty in their spirits, and lifted up in the pride of their hearts.' (p. 317)

Too often, far too often, we shun those who no longer agree with all or some of the tenants of the church as prideful, haughty, greedy and worldly apostates. Indeed when one disagrees, some jump at the chance to suggest the apostate is looking for the approval of the world as opposed to that of God. As Latter-day Saints we are in the world, but not of the world. Apostates, on the other hand, fit both bills.

This lesson doesn't help that.

...Brigham Young...remembered a meeting at which some Church members were discussing how to depose the Prophet Joseph: 'I rose up, and in a plain and forcible manner told them that Joseph was a Prophet and I knew it, and that they might rail and slander him as much as they pleased, [but] they could not destroy the appointment of the Prophet of God; they could only destroy their own authority, cut the thread that bound them to the Prophet and to God, and sink themselves to hell. (p. 317, emphasis added)

Elder Dallin H. Oaks has mentioned it's inappropriate for anyone to criticise Church leaders, even when it is justified. And why? The lesson explains:

"Losing confidence in Church leaders, criticizing them, and neglecting any duty required by God lead to apostasy" (p. 318)

Siiiiigh.

It's never about anything else, either.

[Brigham Young] then remarked that any man, any elder in this Church and kingdom who pursued a course whereby he would ignore or, in other words, refuse to obey any known law or commandment or duty - whenever a man did this, neglected any duty God required at his hand in attending meetings, filling missions, or obeying counsel, he laid a foundation to lead him to apostasy and this was the reason those men had fallen. (p. 319, emphasis added)

I understand that it's wrong to complain just to complain. We all do it, we probably shouldn't. Sustaining our leaders, teachers, etc. includes buoying them up. Supporting them. Raising our hand in class, preparing for class, etc.

"As long as my brethren stand by me and encourage me, I can combat the prejudices of the world, and can bear the contumely [harsh treatment] and abuse with joy..." (Joseph Smith, p. 320)

Of course. We all need support in our work, our leaders especially. This isn't easy stuff, and there is a world of people against them. They've much to combat.

But to suggest justified criticism is wrong because it's a stepping stone to apostasy...? Is this shit for real?

It gets worse.

"From apostates the faithful have received the severest persecutions. Judas was rebuked and immediately betrayed his Lord into the hands of His enemies, because Satan entered into him" (p. 321)

Ahh, yes. Apostates of the Church today = Judas.

Judas. Who betrayed Christ to his death.

"Who, among all the Saints in these last days, can consider himself as good as our Lord? Who is as perfect? Who is as pure? Who is as holy as He was?" (p. 321)

I get it! The Church isn't perfect, neither are the servants of the Lord. I get it! But I propose those who leave don't consider themselves perfect. We don't ask for a perfect church. We don't ask for perfect leaders...necessarily. I'll admit I do hope for better in my leaders. It's important to realize they're human too and will fail at times. We need to realize such about anybody. Respect is tantamount, but respect must be given and earned and isn't always even by our leaders. The benefit of the doubt is also vital, for both leader and follower alike. Sometimes we just don't know. I get all of this. I don't think "apostates" necessarily began with criticising present leaders as much as they may criticise past leaders' opinions as well as current church stances. There is a difference.

The lesson basically accuses "apostates" of biting the hand that fed them, and indeed perhaps some do. One such example MAY be Ed Decker (thank you, Equality, for the correction. Oy!). His work is unbelievably ridiculous. My mom had me watch his movie The Godmakers as an investigator and I laughed. Horrible. Fear mongering and exaggerations at its worst.

But are we much better sometimes?

This lesson encompasses the reason so many find difficulty in leaving. Many stay because they believe in certain tenets of the faith. Many stay because they feel a connection to God here. Many do stay because they cannot go anywhere else because their discriminatory beliefs in God are rejected in many other churches (though I hear many choose to attend the Unitarian churches).

But many don't leave because they're scared to death of abandonment and venom. If they haven't already, they know the accusations will fly. Gossip will hush behind their backs. They are going to hell. They are covenant breakers, and if you've been to the temple, you may recall the consequences of breaking those covenants, though they sound more like general threats of the wrath of God...

And it doesn't matter what dissenters say about their good feelings toward the Church despite their disaffection. This lesson also covers that.

When the Prophet had ended telling how he had been treated, Brother Behunin remarked: 'If I should leave this Church I would not do as those men have done: I would go to some remote place where Mormonism had never been heard of, settle down, and no one would ever learn that I knew anything about it.'

The great Seer immediately replied: 'Brother Behunin, you don't know what you would do. No doubt these men once thought as you do. Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant (p.324)

That's right.

The lesson ends on a higher note, I think, stating that the majority of the prophets and apostles will never lead us astray. Quite a change from "The Prophet will never lead you astray" but I suppose most things don't get through the Quorum until a majority rules, correct? Ahh, I don't know.

I don't believe the apostles and the Prophet to be imposters. I don't hate the Church; I'm grateful for it and will always be.

There are apostates, but not necessarily betrayers of God. Though I certainly understand why the Church would think so, many simply find another way to God (and many turn agnostic at best and athiest at "worst"). Some in the Church accept this and treat sincere dissenters with respect, but most hear lessons like this and choose to shun, choose to believe anyone who would leave (and generally these are the once very active and zealous) to be a fallen people, a prideful people, a worldly people.

This simply isn't true, not all of the time. I understand the Church wants to protect its people, wants to ensure its people stay faithful, but to suggest it's God or Satan, I think, is counterproductive. Some readers might find it to be a truthful statement. Such black and white teaching and thinking only serves to push more people away. I won't have anything to do with it.

I still haven't decided if I want to go or not. Upon my first reading of this lesson my anxieties kicked in. Guilt set in. I developed a migraine.

Many would say this is because "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard."

And I just might hit the next person who suggests such a thing. Guilt isn't always a reaction to uninvited truth, but to indoctrination.

I just don't know. I don't know how I'd react at Church. I already know what people will say, I just want to know what I would say. I couldn't go and remain quiet. That wouldn't be right, but it sure will pique some curiosities regarding where I stand. Eh.

Out of the Closet

2009-01-15T09:15:00.001-08:00

When we moved back (to our hometown) this past August, our bishopric wasted little time in extending callings to my husband and I. No big deal; we knew the drill. First they stopped by our home as a "get to know you" type meeting - the type I like the most. There's something about when you have a leader take the time to stop by your home that feels more genuine. A past Relief Society president did that, and I loved her for it. She was amazing.

Anyway, within a few weeks we both received that phone call. Brother J asked Eric if he'd like to be a Sunday School teacher for the 16-17 year olds, and of course Eric said yes. He liked the idea - not time consuming, no meetings, kids, cool. Then, because I was otherwise occupied, Bro. J told Eric he wanted to call me to be the fourth Sunday Relief Society teacher.

I'd never taught before, not really - and never in church. I don't count the two times I substituted for the Sunbeams class. I did have some experience as an English tutor and I do enjoy giving talks during Sacrament meeting, so I accepted, knowing the potential of the challenge due to my faith issues. But I understand the deal: stay within what's accepted, keep my opinions to myself, etc.

November's lesson went much better than expected. Even two weeks later I had sisters complimenting me. I wish I remembered what I did. I know I gave them opportunity to discuss and I did little reading...but I also know my preparation lacked severely. Apparently I did well though, which propelled me to December's lesson.

Oh boy. This lesson was based off Elder Uchtdorf's talk The Infinite Power of Hope and Sister Dalton's A Return to Virtue.

This lesson didn't go well...at all. I found I struggled greatly in keeping within the approved lines. I couldn't handle the dialogue, the difficulty I found in asking questions which didn't lead to the standard Primary answers. I could hear Sister Dalton's voice in my head, and it screeched like nails on a chalkboard. A return to virtue? Yes I know the world has a different idea of virtue at times, but I tire quickly of the intonations, the vocabulary, the insinuations, the complete lack of feeling someone is relating to me.

Say I'm making much out of something small, and you'd probably be right. I do have some anger right now. I'm annoyed. But I tried.

I extended the lesson on virtue to that of charity. One woman in the room recognized that charity is much, much more than just bringing a new mom a casserole: it's what's in the heart. Yay!

Someone else related a story which reminded me of one of my own. In short, two friends of mine and I went to a Giants game in San Fransisco some years ago. A man rifled through the dumpsters in the parking lot. While I did all I could to avoid this person, my friend ran back to the car to get some food for him. As she handed him her twinkies, another man approached and handed the transient a beer.

My first reaction, I said, was "Oh, geez, a beer?" but then I remembered and understood this man's charity matched my friend's and far exceeded my own. I learned a few lessons that day I'll never forget.

When I mentioned the beer in class, however, one woman sighed with disapproval. A beer.

I'll admit nervousness and little preparation for this lesson, but I felt it all lost in this one story. I could be wrong, perhaps the women believed I wanted to make a point regarding twinkies versus beer in charity. I don't know. My driving point as a teacher, though, has been to help people know that we're not alone in our righteousness, that good, even amazing people really do exist outside this church. Even virtuous people.

Suffice it to say the lesson bombed. I knew on one level I could recover from it; after all, everyone suffers bad lessons, especially as novices. My issue came with the fact that I harbor a special irritation with the talks. Come to Zion, Our Hearts are Knit as One, O Ye That Embark.

For real. I don't get why we're still stuck in the pioneer age.

Last week put the last nail in the coffin for me, though. I substituted for Eric's Sunday School class. I had four boys and one girl, and all of them didn't want to be there. All of them complained. All of them liked to harp on other churches, on their hypocracy. "Do you see them smoking pot?" "Yeah, they get drunk all the time, too."

It didn't occur to me until after class that these kids harbored a jealousy over their non-member friends. These kids are angry. I asked for their honesty, and honestly, they just don't care. They don't get it. They don't believe in it, and they don't really want to. They don't have a reason to.

I couldn't teach the lesson because...well, I couldn't. Not in good faith, so we just talked. Their attitudes, lack of respect, and anger truly astounded me - and it's nothing I haven't run into before with our youth. But I was good. I didn't let any of my feelings through. Just let them talk.

I understand my heart may be "hardened" right now. I also know I shouldn't be teaching like this, so I called my bishop. Of course he wanted to know why, so I told him.

I'm out. At least to my bishop. He wanted to know what exactly was bothering me, but I couldn't figure out how to put it into words. I know I write here like crazy about it, and I know I talk with my husband about it to death and I've other people online I've vented to, but I still don't know how to tell my bishop. I don't know how to say it. My writing and incessant talking is all in an effort to figure out what exactly I'm feeling, believing and thinking and how to say it.

I need an Aaron.

I respect my bishop. He's a good man. He understood my need for time. That'll help; it already has. Perhaps I've mentioned it before, but my previous bishop counseled me to watch more BYU-TV. Gee, thanks.

Yesterday was a hard day. I was a mess. Today I feel I could talk with him. I hated asking for a release so soon after my call, but I didn't feel I could teach in good faith anymore. I don't know. I need to talk with him again, if only to get this all off my chest. I don't expect much to change, I don't expect my bishop to understand, but he gave me my space yesterday. He's been a good man that way.

I think that's why I hesitate to tell him exactly what's on my mind. I don't want to disappoint, and I fear my emotions are getting the better of my otherwise level head. I don't want to give the impression, as some have commented, that I'm throwing the baby (doctrine) out with the bathwater (the culture). I do take issue with some core doctrine, but it's easier to harp on the culture. Less frightening. More people tend to agree the culture needs help whereas doctrinal issues may prompt a spiritual intervention. The look on a close, once best friend's face when the topic of gay marriage comes up breaks my heart. She's scared. She wants to save me despite everything I've said.

It's very difficult to say what is going on in my head out loud. It's like stepping into the dark, and before anyone says that the dark is no place we want to be, let me assure you joining the church was like stepping into the dark. When Joseph Smith prayed, there was a period of darkness before the light. There is often darkness before the light. This I know. I've experienced it.

I'm still a little afraid of it, though.

Confessions Part 2: What's Been Bothering Me

2009-01-13T15:46:00.000-08:00

Okay, okay, okay. I suppose I can't just come out with "thinking of leaving the church" and then get back to business as usual.

I value and revere honesty so much in other people when they're able to say scary things. What I said in my post may well be read by members of my family (I really don't know) and perhaps a member or two of my stake.

It's taken me some years to get here, where I can find the courage for even a little frankness and honesty. I'll admit much indifference anymore rather than courage. It’s taken some time, some acceptance, and confidence of self to get to this point. Though I do fear verbalizing my beliefs and rationale thereof, when I’m alone and unafraid, I know exactly where I stand. There’s a reason I write. My emotions get the better of me and at least here I can edit and think before I speak.

That said, there’s a fear of confessing here as well: I know there are some who visit my blog who believe in the Church but for some reason find some worth in my words. I fear that my “coming out” will take away any clout I had. I hope that’s not true, but if it is: so be it.

My missionaries called me their "golden convert." I had a set of senior missionaries, and they were sweet, but boy am I glad I had even then a level head. Dad, if you're reading this, I know you didn't think so, but I did. I knew at the second discussion they'd ask me to commit in some degree to baptism, so I was ready to tell them to wait. When they tried to convince me of the divinity of the Book of Mormon by pointing out that a prophecy foretold in 1 Nephi was fulfilled in 3rd Nephi, I recognized right away the fallacy in such an argument. When they suggested I have my family watch the video Families Can Be Together Forever I knew I couldn't. I'd seen the video. Baaaad video, and besides, my family already believed that. My mom found great offense in the idea that we thought she couldn’t be with us in the afterlife.

Sometime after baptism - and I wish I knew the place exactly - I noticed a few times a footnote in the Book of Mormon which offers a Joseph Smith Translation. Anyone have a good explanation for that? I still find that weird.

I don't recall each time something struck me odd, but they came and went. I gave them no voice because I believed and that stuff didn't matter, or so I told myself. I appreciated having friends who accepted me for who I was. I appreciated being in a new place where I could be a new person. Back at home there were people who had known me since preschool and others since my awkward tomboy stage. Kids can be unforgiving, so the renewed chance with genuine friendship was nice. I was eighteen years old and in college in a new city. My new friends were fun, and I liked church. I believe I even wrote "Sunday is my favorite day" in my journal.

The Church has been good to me. I've grown as a person, met the most amazing man. I’ve been blessed because of this church. I don’t deny that. I couldn’t.

But the more I learn the more I feel unsettled. We're told to not quote "unauthorized" sources in our lessons, yet Church leaders often quote Bruce R. McConkie's patently unauthorized Mormon Doctrine. Are we to? No. Apparently we can't tell when McConkie spoke truth and when he was speaking out of his ass, but our leaders can.

Then there’s fun stuff like this quote from Elder Mark E. Peterson of the Quorum of the Twelve circa 1954:

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood…. This negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa—if that negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.

- Race Problems—As They Affect The Church, Address by Mark E. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.

If anyone knows BYU, and I'll admit my knowledge is wanting, we can agree BYU to be very strict in what it allows and what it doesn't. See the Honor Code if you don't believe me. When a General Authority visits gives a talk at BYU, we can assume BYU's blessing of the words. We can assume the teachers at said convention took his words as truth and passed it along through the years until the Church became more "enlightened."

There are many more quotes, such as that the blacks will never receive the priesthood. When such things are brought up in conversation, the inevitable answers include "new revelation trumps old," "this isn't doctrine, just some member of the Quorum giving a talk," or "those leaders spoke from limited understanding." I can accept the last excuse, it's on the right track, but the teaching was still wrong. Why can't we just admit to being wrong?

I want someone to say that we could be working on limited revelation now. I want us to stop talking in absolutes, because we don't know everything. Perhaps we're working on limited revelation regarding homosexuality. I think it's entirely possible, but you won't find many who will agree.

I don't believe this church is the only "true" church. I refuse to give testimony in which I lie in proclaiming my knowledge of that which I have no knowledge of so I can gain faith in it, and yet we are asked to do so. I have no issue with saying "I believe...." But "I know" both sounds rote and impassionate. We say it so often the power within it is gone. I feel the same about our rote prayers.

We are not a perfect church, can't we just say it? Or are we too concerned with image and numbers? Are we too concerned that we've touted ourselves as such for so long that we'll lose members? How will we look to the outside world if we concede something? Perhaps for some it will never matter. I'd just like some dialogue.

Not that I'm anyone to speak, but we seem awfully prideful sometimes.

Onto other things:
I don't believe a tank top (a clothing garment I can't pull off, btw) is immodest. I don't believe having a cup of tea or coffee (both of which I'm not a fan of, though I used to be a huge fan of iced mochas) will make me unworthy to be in God's presence. Yes, I know: sometimes we're asked to do simple things in the name of faith. The scripture regarding Christ telling a follower to wash in the Jordan River comes to mind. All of it is in my brain, I just happen to think there are other things we could focus on rather than a friggin' coffee bean and tea leaf.

I’m tired of listing the health benefits thereof and having people say “eh, the WoW isn’t necessarily about health” when ten seconds before we were talking about the health code that is the WoW. Or that it's about addiction when we're all addicted to something. While I may not be addicted to coffee, I'll admit a huge addiction to sugar. Am I unworthy? If I drank coffee but gave up sugar, would I be worthy?

I'm tired of condescending leaders (especially for the youth, holy crap. anyone seen A Brand New Year? Watch the videos. WOW - frightening). I'm tired of people telling me to study the scriptures but ignore the inconsistencies and hard things. I want to stay because of family and my kids, but much as I like putting them in primary (they love it), I worry about the mixed messages they'll receive at home. I don't want them becoming so much a part of it and then having their mom and dad say they don't believe everything. Talk about counter-productive. I want them to have a spiritual background but not just this one. I like the social aspect of Church as well. My husband and I are rather anti-social, so church provides our children with friends to interact with. As they start school this part gets better, though. I’m getting better.

I don't want to be called a fence sitter, but I guess that’s what I am, what I've been. Call me lukewarm, something God will spit out as spoken in Revelation, fine. I guarantee you I’m guilting myself far better than anyone else ever could.

I'll go through the pains I went through joining ten times before I'll want to go through the pains of leaving. In joining I acquired a unique set of beliefs without rejecting fundamental beliefs such as the existence of God. In leaving, however, I’ll have those who tell me I am stepping into the fiery pits of hell and am bound to be an enemy of the Church (don’t believe me? Read Chapter 27 of “Teachings of the Prophets: Joseph Smith.” It’s called The Bitter Fruits of Apostasy. Or just come to church next week, I think. I’m not sure I’ll be there.)

It will be strange to be in the same place my mom was when the remainder of my husband's siblings marry - in the foyer, waiting, because I can't say I have a testimony anymore, that I find great difficulty in sustaining my leaders, or because while I may keep the word of wisdom, I don't believe in some of it. I’ll sit in the foyer because I take issue with the idea of the priesthood, that God would deny my non-member sister some blessings simply because our father doesn't hold the priesthood. Is a blessing surely that much more powerful than a non-member's prayer for healing? I’ll sit because I don’t sustain our leaders when it comes to their recent actions. Because I do sympathize with some so-called “apostates;” I get where they’re coming from but do reject their venom. I will sit outside because there’s something about the endowment ceremony which doesn’t sit right with me. Because I can’t say I believe just so I can attend a wedding or keep up appearances with friends or family who may invite us along soon.

There are some whose reaction I fear worse than others. Those who I’ve held close to my heart for so many years who are on the other end of the spectrum, a person I don’t want to scare but will. I hold no desire to talk people down from their testimony, only a desire to have others understand my disaffection and respect it. I get the fear; I’ve felt it too and not just with myself. I know the inevitability of this fear. I know time will heal that wound too, but never entirely.

I’ve no desire to take my name off the rolls, but I don’t want to be an active, all-believing part of something which preaches only black and white, bad or good, worthy or unworthy. It's just not as cut and dry as many of us want to believe. I still want to attend church, but I don’t want to be held to some ridiculous standard or have doctrines and ideas taught to my children which I don’t believe. Right now they’re taught to “choose the right.” Good. But my daughter will be eight years old in two years. I do think that’s a little young for the huge decision that is baptism.

The culture and doctrine of all or nothing serves me little purpose and stunts my spiritual and personal growth. It isn’t that way anywhere else – at least not in mainstream Christianity, but again that’s not a place I want to be necessarily either. I suppose in that way I’m being forced out. I know in my heart and in my head the choice has been made already, but the idea of never or at least rarely attending church saddens me. I don’t care for that. I’ve made some new friends over the last few months; granted they’re little more than acquaintances but people I’d like to get to know better nevertheless. Will they reject me? Where will I find new friends? Though I’m fairly introverted, I do need good friends. They can come in any form though: LDS or not.

I think I know where I’m headed, the peace is coming slowly but surely.

Apostasy? Call it whatever you will. God knows me. Perhaps I’ll want to come back sometime in the future, but if I did I would want to do it without pulling the wool over my own eyes. I leave nothing out of the realm of possibility. I do so love the smell of the chapel and the sound of the hymns. Sigh.

I just happen to think my personal relationship with God and Christ matters more than my relationship with the Church, and right now I feel it’s too much about the Church and not enough about God. Too much about coffee and tea and less about garnering a pure love of Christ in my heart. Too much about fear and less about unconditional love.

That’s all.

Swearing Kids

2009-01-11T14:41:00.000-08:00

A few days ago my husband told me our son overheard "fuck" on the television and repeated it.

Happens, right? I asked him how he handled it, and with a smile he said "Just told him we don't say that." I know he smiled to my son as part of his reaction. I love this man, and am so glad we've both - well, I've - loosened up.

A new thought entered my mind as my ever-curious daughter responded to what was intended to be a quiet remark between her parents. "What did he say?"

"Not a nice word," I answered.

"What word was it?"

For the first time, I considered telling her and glanced at my husband. He shrugged. The public setting gave me pause, however. "Don't worry about it."

If I had this to do over again, I'd offer to talk about it at home. Chances are she'd probably forget about it, but I would want her to know I'm willing to talk.

My daughter's question was perfectly acceptable. The next time she asks me I'm going to tell her and then we'll talk about it. Do I need to give her the definition of "fuck"? No, she's not ready for that - and besides, there are so many. Other words would prove easier. Some, like damn, I wouldn't really be able to give her a good reason other than some find offense with it.

As we're counseled to with sex and the parts of our bodies, I think we should be frank with our children regarding the vocabulary they will hear in school, and if not in school, than when they visit with friends or, in the case of my son, while channel flipping. It will happen no matter our attempts to keep them from it. In time I imagine I'll give her the definition of the sketchier words, but I'd rather do it than have her friends tell her.

Gasping and freaking out will not help. Being blunt with them will. This may mean we will need to say the word.

I know my kids will go through a phase where they will curse like little sailors and think they're cool. Fine. I want to teach my kids, help them understand things. Children who know tend to lay off the immaturity of childhood a bit more than others. I also believe in the importance of explaining things to our kids. I've found they're more apt to do what is right when they understand better.

Some may say "I'm afraid that by being frank I'll come across as flippant, and if they think I don't care then they won't care either, and they should." That's not it, though. We can express our distaste for certain words, but we must be able to discuss matters with our children. Dismissing them, ignoring them, or tip-toeing around them won't work.

I refuse to condescend to my kids. I respect them; I respect them as growing human beings who long for knowledge, who are part of this world and who will be exposed to this world; I respect them because I want them to respect me and others around them. I've so far to go, but this has always been forefront in my mind. Explaining the more colorful, itchy, and perhaps inappropriate things of this world is a responsibility of mine and my husband.

Children rebel (it's healthy) but they really rebel when their parents and other authority figures make such a big deal out of everything. I also believe the same thing happens when we make every disasteful word illicit, such as "jerk" or "fart." In picking our battles the war will be easier to win.

And frankly, I think we should be more honest and up front with each other about these words. Petting them with the "f-bomb" serves little purpose. Just say them. I believe, and maybe this is just me, that the sin is in the intent of the word, not necessarily in the word itself.

Confessions: Why I Stay, Why I May Not Be Able To

2009-01-10T14:41:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine, The Faithful Dissident, wrote an entry entitled "Why Are You Still Here?" a few months ago (thanks, sweetie, for the correction :) . Those who read shared their reasons for staying, but even then I wasn’t sure how to respond besides “I don’t know.”

That’s a lie, really, but to tell the truth really opens up some wounds and I fear the salt. I know why I stay. Are they good reasons? Eh.

More and more I wonder if it’s worth it.

First I’ll start with the good, the things I do believe in, what I like. I believe in eternity. I can’t not believe in that. I believe in families being together forever, but to be honest (and despite Mormon myth), there are a lot of Christian and non-Christian denominations which believe this. It may differ, but there’s little that separates us. When we speak of families being together, most believers will nod their neads.

Moving on.

I’ve always believed in God. Even when I stopped attending my dad’s Assembly of God church and rejected all organized religion, I still believed in God. I still prayed. Today my prayers are rare, but I don’t doubt God is there.

I believe works are more important than most realize in salvation. Key to salvation? Heck no, but "faith without works is dead." That said, I’m tired of trying so damn hard. The list is long, and I can deal with that, but too many things on said list seem trite to this tired girl.

The temple. I’ve mixed emotions about the temple. Beyond the standard “hearkening” to the husband stuff, I’ve other issues. What’s with the women covering their faces with the veil?

(On a slightly related note, what’s with so much focus on the Church and less on God? I know this is a touchy thing for me to say, but I’ve always, always hated “Praise to the Man”

Thankfully, at least in my area, we don’t sing that hymn often, but the discovery that my beloved ex-Stake President’s favorite hymn was Praise to the Man unsettled me.)

The people. My SIL became one of my best friends. We’ve changed so much in the past seven years, but when we were close (before we were SILs), she was an anchor. I loved her for many reasons. Before her and through her I've met some amazing people.

My husband. Need I say more?

Institute, much as I squirm to think of it now, saved my life. When I started college, I know for a fact two paths laid before me. Without the girl who introduced me to Institute and befriended me, I would have undoubtedly embarked on the wrong path. The church has been a godsend for me and my life. Much as I want to regret it sometimes, I can’t. We hear a lot of converts say they don’t know where they’d be without the church, but I have a pretty good idea. It is much of what frightens me about life without the church today. I have to keep reminding myself that it doesn't have to be as scary as I (a) think it would've been, (b) am told it is, and that (c) many people lead good lives without it. It's not easy.

The knowledge God can speak to me. Priceless, and yet one of the most compelling reasons I struggle so much today.

And, much as I writhe within it, the culture. The social network. It’s wonderful. It’s just what a new convert from an angry family needs. It’s just what a teenager in the throes of high school needs. I understand its importance and yet understand all too well its restrictiveness. I think the consequences thereof outweigh the benefits. But maybe that’s just me. I don’t imagine anyone free from the Mormon spiritual struggle understands this (and I mean those who have ever, if only briefly, truly considered the idea of leaving), but there are many who do.

Isolation. Rejection. Pointed fingers and whispers.

Tough love…maybe. Perspective changes everything.

The story of the Book of Mormon appealed to me. I’d always rejected the idea of the Trinity. I appreciated the constancy of the Church. I appreciated staunch adherence to values.

And why not Joseph Smith? Would I as a person back in the day of Christ believed in Christ, or back in the day of Moses believed in Moses? Why not Joseph Smith?

That said, I know the possibility in believing in only part of the gospel. GA's love to talk about how if we accept Joseph Smith as a prophet all else falls into place - as in everything the Church has ever done, is doing, and will do. I don't buy that.

Onto some issues:

Four years ago or so, my family moved so my husband could attend the nearby university. The prospect of being on our own appealed to me very much; I’d tired of others referring to me as “Mary’s* roommate” or even “Eric’s wife.” I had a name, thankyouverymuch.

Some may speculate distance from family contributed to our struggles, but after a year we assimilated into our new ward. For all intents and purposes, I really liked our ward. I loved being on our own. I loved others calling me "Sister J" than "Eric's wife."

Something else of which I am uncomfortable discussing here started it all.

Then we read Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. Not anti-material. Refreshing. Largely unbiased, and by that I mean as unbiased as a book written by a member can be. Honest.

Honest.

Polygamy. It hit home for me that year. The idea sickened me. I cried often, knowing I could not accept such doctrine. For some years I reconciled it, but to personalize it, to feel how it might feel, the reconciling process stops. The teaching that I must accept it or be damned didn’t help either. My husband fought with that idea as well for the first time. Until then he defended polygamy as “sacred.” No longer.

Enter first “What if I left?” thought.

Somehow, though, we managed and even went through a period of rebirth. We purchased some pictures, books, videos, etc. When our doubts resurfaced, peeking over the horizon like the beginnings of sunrise, we ignored them.

Long story short, then Prop 8 happened. Yes, my bishop said “oh you’re okay,” but his blessing failed to heal the gaping, festering wound that was first my friend’s reaction to my stance, and then the realization that the answers to my prayers were in vain if the Prophet had spoken; the idea our prayers are meant only to confirm and never to contest.

Many argue this point, but it’s there and I don’t intend to debate it further.

Open the floodgates to other issues I’d always silenced. Open the floodgates to the desolate land that is life inside this closet, inside the idea that if I left I’d lose friends and in many ways lose family. I’d be alone because, as an introvert, this is my social network. It would be gone. I’d take on the label of apostate, and nobody wants to hang out with an apostate. It's contagious.

Enter guilt and fear like I never knew possible.

Enter the emptiness that comes with really not belonging anywhere. I’ve so many issues with the church, yet I cannot accept many fundamental doctrines of mainstream Christianity either. In many ways this feels as if it would be a spiritual exile. Just call me Cain.

I don’t know what to do or how to do it, and putting everything into words proves far more difficult than it ought to be.

I do know this: The more I hear about how awesome we are, how much apostates suck, that I need to just suck it up and have hope and faith; the more I hear about how many people are missing out on the “one and only truth of the Gospel,” how righteous we are (and by definition, how wicked others are) and have to endure cultural traditions that blur with doctrine so that the line no longer exists…The more I have to be told to stay within my very small box or risk falling into sin (heaven forbid we mess up): the more I don’t want to be here.

We talk about accountability and freedom of choice, but I don’t see it anymore. There is no freedom here. Don’t drink (still have thoughts on this. Many will disagree), avoid the appearance of evil, don’t curse, give everything we can to the Church, serve serve serve with little focus on heart and intention, just serve; one earring only per ear now girls, Sundays are a day of church, meetings, and never seeing your family, etc. The list goes on and is largely meant to keep us from even the chance of sin. Where is the choice in that?

Where is the choice when it's either obey or suffer the consequences of eternal misery?

I’m tired of the word “worthy.” I’m tired of simple answers to complex questions. I’m tired of Pharisaical guidelines (again, the damn earrings, but there’s more). No beards? For real? The inability of the church to discuss difficult topics such as Mountain Meadows, Blacks and the Priesthood, and SEX. People! I need to do another post on sex.

I don’t want to strive for perfection. It’s an exercise in futility. I’m tired of having the weight of the world on my shoulders that is being a great example. I’ve had this weight on me before I joined the church, and in my experience it doesn’t matter as much as we want it to. Because of it I’ve never been true to myself nor have I ever allowed myself to make mistakes from which to learn from. I cannot tell my son to be good because his little brother is watching him. Surely there are better and more motivating reasons that pertain only to him, so that he'll feel he's "choosing the right" because he believes it's right and not because he feels the pressure to be a "good example" or has the weight of ensuring the souls of those around him are righteous because of him.

The world is not that bad of a place. We fear so much. Too much. It will come back to bite us in the ass and I’m tired of always looking back to see what’s coming. Let me enjoy life. Enough with the don’ts. I just want to live, be a good person, and live according to my conscience which seems to have served me very well thus far.

Oh, and by the way, the Spirit works in the hearts of non-members as well. Probably far more than we care to realize.

And let’s not forget the awesomeness of Joseph Smith – his 200th birthday celebration was ridiculous. So much pomp and circumstance over a man. Yes, he did much, suffered much, etc, but come on.

I wish everything was easier. There are days I long for freedom of the confines of this church, and I feel them more as shackles these days than anything else. But I know where I would be without having joined this church. I can’t deny its power in my life. Being told if I leave all sorts of hell will pour down upon me...well. This is safe. But do I want to stay where I merely feel "safe"?

The grasp is firm and unyielding. Guilt and fear are strong, strong motivators, and the fact it is guilt and fear keeping me here gives me only more reason to think I’m in the wrong place right now. Perhaps I’m done.

Avoiding the Appearance of Evil is Stupid

2009-01-06T13:42:00.000-08:00

"Abstain from all appearances of evil." (1 Thessalonians 5:22)
"Since there are no harmless flirtations and there is no place for jealousy after marriage, it is best to avoid the very appearance of evil by shunning any questionable contact with another to whom we are not married."

- President James E. Faust, April 2007 Ensign: First Presidency Message: Enriching Your Marriage (emphasis added)

"Believing involves faith and good works. We cannot be passive; we must actively avoid evil. This means that we do not trifle with sacred things. Families in this day and time should not only avoid evil but avoid the very appearance of evil. To combat these influences families must have family prayer, family home evening, and family scripture study."

- President James E. Faust. November 1997 Ensign: Pioneers of the Future: Be Not Afraid, Only Believe. Reprinted in the July 1998 New Era. (emphasis added)

"The best counsel I ever received about staying away from the edge came when, as a young married man, President Harold B. Lee called me to be a member of a bishopric. He said, 'From now on, you must not only avoid evil, but also the appearance of evil.' He did not interpret that counsel. That was left to my conscience."

- President James E. Faust, November 1995 Ensign: Acting for Ourselves and Not Being Acted Upon (emphasis added)

Appearances by Sheila Kindred in the November 2002 Friend uses a story to illustrate the dangers in encouraging the appearance of evil. Fresh from their Boy Scout meeting, a little boy and his friend waited in the parking lot for their parents. One boy jokingly put a piece of chalk to his mouth and quipped “Yeah. Look at me, I’m cool.” A car full of rowdy teenagers drove by at that moment and cheered. A member of the boys’ ward happened by also and, shocked, made sure to inform the boy’s mom. After the boy cleared himself of all misconceptions, his mother suggested he call the mistaken ward member to apologize for his actions.

I could go on with the amount of Ensign/New Era/and Friend articles that deal with this idea, but it would be a very long list. If you're interested, here it is.

I don't want to seem as criticising our leaders (heaven forbid!) - instead, I am criticising an idea our leaders and many members have adopted.

The first quote I listed was scripture. How do you argue with or even rationalize scripture? By using the footnotes, apparently.

Footnote "b" for "appearances" states, "GR kinds. TG. Apparel."

Let's rephrase that scripture then: Abstain from all kinds of evil.

I have to give credit where due, I first heard this idea at Soy Made Me Gay: Soundbyte Doctrine. The idea of avoiding the appearance of evil always struck me stupid, but I didn’t know there was scriptural support for it. Yay!

The second quote refers to our neuroticism as a church in hanging out with opposite sex friends. Of course we shouldn’t hang out with someone we are attracted to - that’s not a good idea, but I do think President Faust overstepped the mark here. Wouldn’t it have been enough to simply state “We should shun any questionable contact with another to whom we are not married”?

As in, don’t place your hand on another’s thigh.

Some years ago I had to attend church alone. I showed up at the same time as an old guy friend of mine, and we ended up walking in together, talking. Down the aisle in the chapel we went, a bit late, and my insides knotted. What if they think we’re together? What if they think I’m cheating on my husband?

Who the hell cares what “they” think?

I'm tired of worrying about what other people think and I'm tired of having others tell me I ought to concern myself with what other people think. I do that well enough on my own, thankyouverymuch.

But the appearance of evil doesn’t stop there. Consider this familiar scenario: Work is having an office party. The boss asks you to make a store run, and as you leave someone shouts, “Can you grab a case of beer while you’re out?”

Now you’re left with a dichotomy: Get the beer because, well, it’s not for you to use or judge those who do, and you won’t drink. But is buying the beer a matter of condoning bad, yea, even “immoral” behavior?

That’s an individual decision. Many will decide to not get the case of beer. I’ve had one reader state she wouldn’t due to her hatred for alcohol – she feels against facilitating its use. That’s fine.

My issue comes with this excuse: ”I don’t want to give the wrong impression. What if an investigator, new member, or ward member is in the store and sees me? What will they think?”

What the hell does it matter?

I’m unsure as to others, but in my stake I’ve heard leaders preach avoiding the appearance of evil over the pulpit because someone might see you and, knowing you’re a member, think bad things about the Church (ah! they do drink!) or decide that they don’t want to associate with a church that does not practice what they preach when of course we do!

This strikes me as a very PR stance. I’ve had people suggest before that the individual matters less than the image of the church. Screw that.

Christ hung out with the prostitutes, the publicans, the lepers. He spoke the parable of the Good Samaritan. Everyone but the Samaritan concerned themselves more with the law and appearances rather than actually following Christ and doing that which was right.

We worry too much about ourselves and not nearly enough about other people - and I mean more in the sense of how others will see us versus the needs of our fellow man. What matters more? Our image or our neighbor?

In hanging out with the sinners, even Christ was misunderstood. The people concerned themselves too much with the law, with appearances, with the letter rather than the spirit of what Christ spoke of, of what God would want.

"The Son of man is come eating and drinking, and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!" (Luke 7:34)

Should Christ have avoided the appearance of evil?

Should we?

If we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, we need to be willing to get in the dirt with them. We have to be willing to chance a little gossip at church, perhaps a bit of a bad rap. In the end, what God thinks matters most. Not the girls in Relief Scoiety, not my bishop, not even the prophet (gasp!). As long as I know what I’m doing and God knows what I’m doing, I’m fine. Misconceptions can be cleared up, but sometimes gossip persists and I can’t control that. I’ve better things to do with my time.

If a person wants to judge me or my kid based on appearance only, than so be it. That’s not my problem. I wouldn’t make my kid apologize to anyone in a situation like the one discussed in the Friend. The woman gave the other mom a head’s up, and I’ve no issue with that, but I certainly wouldn’t compel my kid to apologize when he or she did nothing wrong.

And I certainly wouldn’t guilt trip my kid about keeping up “good” appearances. That’s a load of crap.

*Also posted at Feminist Mormon Housewives

Confessions of a "Small" Family

2009-01-01T08:56:00.000-08:00

I have three kids.

This announcement evokes two responses, and each depends on my audience. Inside the ward building a person is likely to quip, “So when’re you having another one?” Outside the ward building, the response comes with a gasp and dropped jaw: “Three kids!”

Three kids. An LDS family of three children rivals the non-member family of an only child. Outside the Church, three children is…well, a lot.

I will not have any more kids. At ages 5, 4, and 3, my children are more than enough. I love my kids, but to realize our original plan of five would have been the equivalent to suicide for me.
Try explaining this to others, though. Friends and ward family regard us as children who will soon come to their senses and pop out a baker’s dozen like good Saints do.

“Oh you never know. You’re young. You could change your mind.”

“…Are you sure?”

It’s true I’m young(er), truth that people change their minds, but I resent insistences that I cannot know, that I would be silly to stop now, as if age determines how many children one should have. Even after confiding in a few friends – even my bishop – that after my last child my anxiety disorder flared, they stood by their original thought. “You never know. You’re young.”

I began to question myself.

Three kids. How is that “replenishing the Earth”? I know a family with twelve kids. Eric comes from a family of six. I can’t think of anyone who stopped at three. Am I selfish?

Selfish!

Just a few months ago a girl in my stake related the same thought. Pregnant with her fourth, she confided disinterest in any more children and feelings of selfishness because of this disinterest. Her thoughts echoed my own almost exactly, and I wondered if I share the company of more women than I originally believed.

Why do we feel we must do so much, even at the expense of our health and sanity?

We find merit in large families; indeed alongside a history of polygamy, others know us for our large families. I recognize with awe the women who flourish within their large families, these women who were made for many children. I know they exist. I don’t speak of them now.

But why do we have large families? I know I wanted a larger family upon joining the church. I think most large families are wonderful, the children produced of such often selfless, full of charity. I still think so, but I know myself entirely too well to keep going. I could not handle more. I struggle with the three I have, with my health, and I resent the implication of selfishness or silliness in refusing to have more. It would be selfish to have more children.

It seems to me sometimes that we place far too much emphasis on the frequency of our own procreation. It’s as if it speaks to our righteousness and faith as women. Quantity equals quality?

The admonition to multiply and replenish the earth is not a personal challenge. I don’t doubt some couples choose willingly to have extra large families and who excel and blossom within it. I am not one of them. I am not alone. Doctrinal or not, the idea that all women do and should have many children exists, and I believe it to be a dangerous one.

*Also published at Feminist Mormon Housewives

Thank you

2008-12-31T16:39:00.000-08:00

I wish I had more to say lately, but it's difficult keeping a blog and guest blogging on another.

Then my son became very, very sick. He had ran a fever from Christmas Eve until the day before yesterday. Five days of a fever. My boy who never shuts up, never sits still, always has a smile for everyone and a mouth open to any food that might come in disappeared. In his place sat a lethargic, beet red boy whose vocabulary decimated to "owie" and "mama, i wanna sit wit you."

:(

He spent the night in the hospital with RSV and (double) pneumonia, so I did too. He's better now, but I'm sick too. Thankfully God has spared the rest of my family with these two awful conditions, but my husband and I are fighting sinus infections. I'll take that any day - at least I can function and take care of my kid.

My point? I'm sick and tired and my youngest is recovering from something rather scary. School begins for me soon - my palms sweat at the thought. I still intend to post, but I don't know at what frequency. As a person whose more competitive than perhaps is wise, this is always a challenge. I've enjoyed getting to know everyone. I've enjoyed the challenge of posting something daily. I'm afraid meeting that challenge has gotten in the way of quality. I have to slow down.

I'm going through some big changes. I know this will turn some of you off should I decide to post anything. Consider this a warning - I don't mean to chase anyone away because I value all points of view, but just so we all know.

Happy New Year everyone. I hope we can remember with fondness the things that have gone well this past year, find perspectives that make us smile rather than frown. May the new year bring you all much happiness and growth, love and peace.

Thank you for being a part of my blog, for your time in commenting and support in reading. It means much to this girl. Thank you.

Prophecy and the Word of Wisdom

2008-12-27T11:14:00.001-08:00

One of the things I always loved about the Word of Wisdom was how prophetic and progressive I considered it to be.

In my experience, I’m not alone. I believed we only recently came to the conclusion about the detrimental effects of tobacco on the body. Not so. We also recognize now the wonders that are whole grains and less meat. It gave me hope that one day the world would come to its senses about coffee and tea. Anyone else?

Society goes through cycles of preoccupation with healthy living. The most recent was that of the 1980s, but I was unaware of a temperance and "clean living movement" of the 1830s, the same decade the Lord revealed the Word of Wisdom.

Just in case some readers don’t know, I’ll offer a quick “official” background on what led the Prophet to what is now Doctrine and Covenants 89.

“’The first [thing] they did was to light their pipes, and, while smoking, talk about the great things of the kingdom, and spit all over the room, and as soon as the pipe was out of their mouths a large chew of tobacco would then be taken’ (Journal of Discourses, 12:158). After finding himself in clouds of tobacco smoke and hearing the complaints of his wife at having to clean the filthy floor, the Prophet Joseph asked the Lord about the proper conduct for members of the Church. He was told that “tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man’ (D&C 89:8)” – Brigham Young as quoted in the September 1995 New Era article, “Hooked!”

Michael De Groote of MormonTimes writes of the many concerns of those in the 1830s related to health. Alcohol, tobacco, hot drinks (both discussed in the word of wisdom and not), meat, water, standard 19th century medical procedure, fruits and vegetables, hygiene, clothing, exercise, and yes, even thinking.

This is not to discredit the Word of Wisdom – in fact, De Groote dismisses the easily concluded notion of D&C 89 as mere reflection of 19th century society and credits the Lord’s propensity to prepare his people for a commandment – read: the temperance and “clean living” movement. It's much akin to those who attribute the Civil Rights Movement as the Lord preparing His church for blacks to receive the priesthood.

As Section 89 is now requisite to a temple recommend, we often find ourselves asking to what extent we must follow to be worthy of the temple. I’d like to go one step further: to what extent does context matter? For fun I’d like to focus on the drinks mentioned therein.

Alcohol

“Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation – ” (v. 5)

We could easily cross reference this verse with D&C 27:2-4. In these verses, the Lord tells Joseph it doesn’t matter what we use for the sacrament and issued this command: “…you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies.”

We cite D&C 27:2 when people ask why we use water instead of wine – after all, wine is mentioned in the sacramental prayer written in Moroni 5. But surely the waitress at the local Italian restaurant is not our enemy. Perhaps our “enemy” today is Satan playing with our temptations instead. Hm. There’s a lot of fear instilled here. Some would call it wisdom. I think it’s both.

Now take D&C 27:4, received August 1830: “Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.”

Cross reference this with Section 89 verse 5 and 6:

“That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

“And behold this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.”

I suppose we could make our own wine but with the stigma we’ve established I don’t imagine the Church would sanction one. Can you imagine an LDS vineyard today? Would it interest you to know we used to have them in Utah? Google it. Either way, this verse with others seems to say that we could use wine for our sacraments if we so desired. We’d just have to do it the right way.

1 Timothy 5:23 states "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."

Verse 17 recently caught my attention:

“Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.”

Now a few people like to hop up and down and insist “He meant this barley drink people back then used to drink to detox their bodies!”

Perhaps, but there are many who disagree. Barley, as many know, is used in the production of beer. Reports argue the early Saints liked their beer. It wouldn’t be a leap to justify their activity with this verse, though others cite the “guideline” that was the Word of Wisdom in the 1800s as opposed to the commandment it is today. Could we consider beer a “mild drink” as opposed to “strong drinks” such as rum, whiskey, or vodka? Absolutely.

Hot Drinks

Coffee and Tea. As a new member, I trusted the WoW explicitly prohibited “coffee and tea.” I hadn’t bothered checking for myself as I felt my institute classes and new member discussions and Sunday School classes covered it well enough. Was I surprised!

On a slightly related note, I also thought “caffeine” must be mentioned here as well the way some of my friends acted. It’s a widely misunderstood notion that the reason we avoid coffee and tea is because of the caffeine. Perhaps, but if we’re avoiding caffeine we should also avoid chocolate.

Not enough in it, you say? Decaf coffee has about the same amount, if not much less.

We have to assume coffee and tea is mentioned here for some other reason. Perhaps there’s something inherent in the coffee beans or the tea leaves (some cite tanic acid), though it's difficult to find much to that regard. Perhaps it has everything to do with its addictive qualities. Others contend it may not be a health issue at all, but a test of obedience. As the Word of Wisdom is understood as a matter of health, I wonder about that. We don’t really know. That's where faith comes in for some; for others, deference coupled with hope.

Hot Chocolate. When I first read this verse I thought “This can’t mean hot chocolate!” I love my hot chocolate. Given the plain scripture I found it odd hot chocolate wasn’t interpreted as included, but oh well, right?

I’m told some ensure their faithfulness and obedience by avoiding anything hot – even hot chocolate. Sound crazy? Elder Harold G. Hillam of the Seventy writes in the October 2001 Ensign article entitled “Not for the Body,”

“Tea and coffee were discussed, not only because of their adverse chemical effects on the body, but also because of the temperature of the drinks. The drinks were often taken so hot that, without realizing it, many individuals were drinking liquids close to the boiling temperature. Those detrimental effects were observed.”

I hardly think any of us enjoys pouring anything boiling down our throats, though we’ve all done it. I’ve ordered hot chocolate at a café before and about lost all my taste buds due to the temperature. Heck no, I let that stuff cool down now.

But with that in mind, why aren’t things such as herbal tea (often very hot) and hot chocolate forbidden – or at the very least, discouraged?

Conclusion

I could live according to the letter and still get my recommend – perhaps have a beer and attribute verse 17 to my bishop (don’t worry, beer has never tempted me), or perhaps make my own wine? Anyone think that would fly? Why is it, then, I can never have a bite of whole grains and probably get away with saying I follow the WoW – after all, it seems we’re only concerned with the drinking and smoking, correct?

It seems so straight forward at first, but after only a little serious study, the Word of Wisdom strikes as guidance still – pliable, given to historical context. I understand Brigham Young and his successors have stated otherwise, but scripture remains the same.

Just where do we draw the line and why?

Merry Christmas

2008-12-24T12:05:00.000-08:00

There's a hymn that I've come to love probably above all other songs. Though I struggle with my faith this year probably more than in years past, this hymn brings me goosebumps with its humble yet powerful image. The music and progression is unlike any other song I know. I love it when lyrics and music come together like this.

O Little Town of Bethlehem

O little town of Bethlehem
How still we see thee lie
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The silent stars go by

Yet in thy dark streets shineth
The everlasting Light
The hopes and fears of all the years
Are met in Thee tonight.

For Christ is born of Mary
And gathered all above
While mortals sleep
The angels keep
Their watch of wondering love.

O morning stars together
Proclaim the holy birth
And praises sing to God the King
And peace to men on earth.

How silently, how silently
The wondrous gift is giv'n
So God imparts to human hearts
The blessings of his heav'n

No ear my hear his coming;
But in this world of sin,
Where meek souls will receive him, still
The dear Christ enters in.

* * *

I wish I could find the Mormon Tabernacle Choir's version of this song - or at least, if they don't sing it already, the version found in our CD of church hymns. I'm trying to find a decent version on youtube for everyone, but nothing sounds as good. The Catholic organ dominates too much. I just found a musak version that's ok-ay, but not wonderful.

Just thought I'd share. Have a great Christmas Eve, no matter what you believe. Hug everyone a little tighter, be a little lighter. There are those this year without loved ones for the first time, those who've lost much. Think of them, give someone a call even if you're afraid or think you've nothing to say. Be good to one another. Feel free to share your favorite Christmas hymn here if you're so inclined.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Winter Solstice, End of the year, whatever.

Happy holidays.

The Dichotomy of Eve

2008-12-22T20:59:00.000-08:00

*This is a compilation of a few posts from earlier in this month, so if some of it sounds familiar, that's why. This is also posted at Feminist Mormon Housewives.

Also, I may or may not have time to respond to comments. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Winter Solstice, etc. etc. etc. Hope you have a good one.

One of the doctrines that appealed most to me as an investigator of the Church was the Second Article of Faith: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

This varied greatly from my Protestant and fleeting Catholic teachings I’d grown up with that we are all sinners because of Adam and Eve, and lest we never accept Christ into our hearts we are doomed to eternal damnation because of something some guy did millions of years ago (or however long you believe it to be).

I loved this. And my heart pitter-pattered even more when I heard this tidbit: Eve wasn’t taken from Adam’s head as to be at his head, nor from his feet as to insinuate she would be at his feet, but rather from his rib, his side. Equals. Yay! I loved telling family and friends this.

Then there’s Moses 5:10-11:

“And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.

“And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.”

Eve. Without Eve, we wouldn’t know good. We revere Eve for her foresight. For her transgression. For knowing that it would be better to know good from evil than remain in such an innocent state wherein they could never progress. President Faust states in What It Means to Be a Daughter of God in the 1999 November Ensign,

“We all owe a great debt of gratitude to Eve. In the Garden of Eden, she and Adam were instructed not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, they were also reminded, ‘Thou mayest choose for thyself.’ The choice was really between a continuation of their comfortable existence in Eden, where they would never progress, or a momentous exit into mortality with its opposites: pain, trials, and physical death in contrast to joy, growth, and the potential for eternal life. In contemplating this choice, we are told, ‘And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, … and a tree to be desired to make her wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and also gave unto her husband with her, and he did eat.’ And thus began their earthly probation and parenthood.

“After the choice was made, Adam voiced this grateful expression: ‘Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.’ “Eve made an even greater statement of visionary wisdom after leaving the Garden of Eden: ‘Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.’ If it hadn’t been for Eve, none of us would be here.”
Sounds great, right? There’s a problem though, and it starts with scriptures such as “Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy.”

Erm…where’d Eve go?

The problem is furthered in the Bible: “Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

Anyone who has been to the temple understands that the teaching of subjection still exists. Some of you will say that a righteous priesthood holder would never put his foot down and proclaim his God given authority, but the fact remains that he has it. The man is the head. The priesthood holder gets the revelation. His wife can pray and discuss issues with him, but ultimately he makes the decision. That isn’t a partnership. It’s not even compromise. It’s a parent-child relationship, and Adam and Eve set the pattern. It all seems to stem from Paul’s writing in 1 Timothy.

By initially being more obedient to God, Adam is given greater access to God. No matter what Eve thinks now, she has to listen to Adam who would have counseled her to reject the fruit. Apparently she’s only allowed to be right in that one thing. Lucky for her she wasn’t taught beforehand to listen to her husband. Lucky for her she didn’t even ask. She didn’t have to. No covenants had been made yet.

Ahhhh, innocence.

Does anyone else see a disconnect here?

I don’t covet the priesthood, just a place at the table; a chance and the right to have just as much access to God as my husband. Real equality. Not something that resembles it, but something that is equal despite what Eve did. I don’t want to pay for what she did.

Spin it as you will, in the end it is a patriarchal order which, by definition, puts the man at the head of the family – read: in charge. Last say. An understood clearer connection with God all by virtue of a Y chromosome.

And yet we go on and on about how holy women are despite these teachings. The more I hear about our inherent holiness the more condescended to I feel. The more we insist there is no distinction is to bring more attention to the actual distinction. I understand that men are generally stronger, taller, etc. than women. I get that women are generally physically weaker, more nurturing, shorter than men. I’m not speaking of physical inequalities: I’m speaking to mental and spiritual equalities, equalities that we should understand to fundamentally exist.
I have a hard time believing my God would make me inferior to men, and this makes the Bible and scripture sometimes incredibly difficult to read. I am His daughter. I am to feel loved and in peace. Like I matter. Sometimes I don’t feel like I really do.

Is the patriarchal pattern a consequence of Eve?

Scripture would tell us yes; the Church would say no - but as my scriptural notes attest we are still rationalizing, still insisting the priesthood trumps all, and as men hold the priesthood and not women (except for the temple), I am somehow inferior. And no, I’m not looking for inversion of roles. If the priesthood is not complete without the woman in marriage, if neither man without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord, than I say these things ought to be reflected in the family order.

I have felt respected in our church, but I’ve also felt very much like I don’t matter. I am not the only one, and so we need to address this rather than dismiss it as silly feminism that seeks to destroy not only gender roles but the basic foundation of God’s plan. That just adds salt to an already open wound.

FYI

2008-12-21T07:45:00.001-08:00

A permablogger at Feminist Mormon Housewives asked me to guest blog at their site for a spell, so that is where I'm going to be.

Right now I'm taking some of my more recent blog entries here, cleaning them up (something I ought to do in the first place) and posting them over there. What can I say: it's the holidays; I'm rather busy. If I write anything new, I'm going to post it here and there.

You're more than invited to be part of the conversation, even in earlier entries. You don't have to be feminist, Mormon, or a housewife to do so. Just respectful.

First post: Unhappiness Never Was Wickedness...or something like that
(a cleaned up version of "Wickedness Never Was Happiness)

Second post: Introductions
(nothing terribly interesting - just an "about me" if you want to see)

Hope to see you there!

Break. Again.

2008-12-16T21:25:00.001-08:00

I don't know if it matters or not that I post something to let y'all know what I'm thinking, but right now - and it might just be hormonal (ah those hormones) - but I'm feeling the need for a bit of a break. The last few days I've really had to reach, and I'm tiring of the same ol' same ol'. I'm finding that every now and again - frequently lately, it seems - I need a break. I know I just took one this weekend, but my head just hurts with all the crap going on in it. I don't feel as if I have a firm grasp on it all.

My recent rants are partly due to doubts and partly due to a freedom inside to say something that might offend (really, some of these things I had no idea would offend). I find courage and lose it almost as quickly, or fear I've overstepped my bounds. It's worn me down. I'm sure it's all worn you down as well.

So, unless something strikes me particularly, I think I'm going to be MIA for a bit. It's the last week before vacation, and I've just had it.

So much to do. So little incentive or motivation to do it. I'm tired.

Mormonisms

2008-12-16T09:13:00.000-08:00

Ponder

Moisture

Righteous

Worthy

Sweet/Tender

You've heard all these words. I'm sure there are more. Please, add to the list.

Look, my point today isn't to make fun. We've all used these words at one point or another, maybe more often than we realize. It's ingrained in our culture. It's in our scriptures, our magazines, hymns, etc. If we are as active as we're called to be, these words will become part of our vocabulary.

I just have to ask: do they have to?

What good does it do us to pray or be grateful for "moisture" instead of just plain ol' rain? Why do we "ponder" and not just "think" or "consider"?

What is the point of these words? I tend to think the use of them disconnects us from the outside world, and while we're not to be "of" the world we are in it, and if we want to bring others closer to Christ, we should speak like people today speak. Sure, every religion has its own little vocabulary (my protestant friends use "worship" and "witness" a lot), but I don't think they add much. It's just weird.

Just because the scriptures speak in thees and thous doesn't mean we have to. I know we're asked to in prayer, but that's not my point. How rote are our talks and lessons? I promise these things will go over better if you speak like you would normally. When "testifying" to non-member friends, drop the Mormon-speak. The Spirit is not derived from the use of "ponder" or any other like words. I promise.

I don't know about the lot of you, but I wince when someone tells me about the "tender" mercies of the Lord, or the "sweet" spirit. It bothers me because this is not how people speak. I hate it even in General Conference. The use of the words are distracting from the message and sometimes downright annoying.

I used to think about the Jehovah's Witnesses who would come to my door, their plastic tense smiles greeting me and laugh because, eeek, right? But we have our own little eerie quirks, our own uber-clean-cut-toothy-smile appearance and our own way of speaking that is foreign to the outside world and there is just no reason for it. Speaking like we're from the 19th Century or like we're of King James' people doesn't make us more worthy or spiritual. It doesn't necessarily bring us closer to God.

I have used these words from time to time, but the more I recognized how much they distance myself from others the more I wanted to run away from them. Experience has shown me that when we speak like regular people (ie: "rain" instead of "moisture"), others will relate with us much easier. Even in Sacrament meeting.

It's a rule of writing, really. Don't use big words to sound smart, and don't use old time words to sound spiritual.

It doesn't work.