Deseret Drops Twilight

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.

I didn't want to be the rule.

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.

Superbowl Sunday!

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.

Homey G's

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.

Piercings, Beards, and other Pharisaical “Encouragements”

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.

Confessions of a "Small" Family

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

Wickedness Never Was Happiness

Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.

-Alma 41:10

Most every time I've felt unhappy I've heard someone quote this scripture. If that didn’t happen, you can bet I’ve remembered past lessons I've had in church – the crux of each were: unhappy people are unhappy because they’re doing something they shouldn’t.It’s lovely, really.

Why don't I buy that? How many of us do? And how much does it suck when we're being "good" and are still unhappy? I’ve had so many of those moments, moments where I was about as Molly as you could get and still had down days. I had family that disapproved of my new religion, school, that sort of thing. My heart was totally in the church, and yet someone always brought up that damn scripture as if shaking a finger if I was having a bad day. The insinuation, if not downright accusation always was, "Well then you must have something to repent of, hmm?"

I wasn't perfect by all means then and I'm certainly not now, but if I'm doing all I can shouldn't there be room enough for a different reason for my having a hard time? Is it really that easy?There's so much guilt. I don't think people pass it on with any malice (maybe there are a few self-righteous morons who do). President Hinckley always said we're doing good but we could be doing better. I liked that, but some took it to an extreme and others felt they could never be good enough, either by their own merits or due to uninvited commentary.

Read the whole verse in its context. It's saying we cannot live a carnal, unlawful life and expect later to live in eternal glory with Heavenly Father. That's the teaching. I think that's all Alma was saying.Happiness requires a certain amount of heart and authenticity with self and others. Unhappiness has all sorts of roots. For some, unhappiness stems from a chemical imbalance in the brain. For some it's a matter of outside, uncontrollable influences that directly affect their lives. For some it's a matter of God refining us. For some it could be due to unwise and downright horrible choices, perhaps in trying to avoid life instead of confront it and deal with it. Sometimes it's because they're living a lie and haven't been able to deal with it. They don't know if they should or can talk with anyone.

True happiness comes from following God, sure. I would add that true happiness comes when we're brutally honest with ourselves and our surroundings and come to terms with it all with God's blessing. We can pretend and ignore all the unpleasantness and call ourselves happy. We'll look happy to others. We can do all the "right" things and still not be happy. It is possible, but it’s not fun. We’re not to be Stepford children of God, but just children of God.

The Gospel is full of good guidelines to help us attain the kind of lasting happiness we all need. It is true doing bad things won't bring us happiness, but in our very small and well-defined box of what is "good" we tend to miss that perhaps other people are happy even if they aren't reading their scriptures every day. Are they missing out on something? Sure, though I imagine it depends on one’s motives in reading the scriptures: out of dutiful, dreary obligation or out of a real desire to learn?

I've endured too many Sundays that were anything but restful even to my spirit. I've had good and spiritual Sundays as well, but definitely enough soul-biting days as to bring me complete frustration. Some may say I was perhaps not being too lenient but too strict. That would be a fair argument; there was a time I feared riding the line in case I inadvertently fell over on the wrong side one day. But I wasn’t happy.

There has to be a wicked-free medium. I’m always searching as I’ve found an ultra-strict lifestyle often leads to unhappiness – at least for me. I’ve found as long as I do everything with prayer I’ll be fine. The guilt still gets to me on bad days, though, that perhaps I'm not being righteous enough and if I'd just get back in line and suck it up all will be well. After all, there were those in more difficult circumstances than I and they did it, right? Sing with me now:

Pioneer children sang as they walked and walked and walked…

But were they happy? I don't know. I can't say. I do think it’s dangerous to assume they were – that anyone is – and then tell those who are struggling that they should not only do what they’re asked, but do it with a smile because, after all, the pioneers suffered even more or because the Relief Society president has much more of a burden on her shoulders.

The problem is the impression that we're either righteous or wicked. It really adds to much anxiety, insecurity, and overzealousness. We all know that bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. Our happiness is not always a measure of our righteousness, and it’s dangerous to teach that it is.

Posted also at Feminist Mormon Housewives.

The Problem With Silence

First, I want to state my love and admiration for President Hinckley. Please take this in the spirit it is mentioned and intended. This is not a personal attack on him but the ideals he speaks of. It is through an interview he had with Larry King from which I base today’s post.

“Larry King: Are people ever thrown out of your church?

“Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.

“Larry King: For?

“Gordon B. Hinckley: Doing what they shouldn’t do, preaching false doctrine, speaking out publicly. They can carry all the opinion they wish within their heads, so to speak, but if they begin to try to persuade others, then they may be called in to a disciplinary council. We don’t excommunicate many, but we do some. ” (emphasis added)

I’ve struggled with my faith for about four or five years now. It wasn’t until Prop 8 and this idea of keeping silent came to my attention when I felt compelled to express myself publicly. For the first time I found I did not agree with the church’s stance.

I remained quiet at first, keeping my opinions between my husband and myself, but to help me make the right decision I needed to talk about it. Under the weight of my dissenting opinion, I finally conversed with some online friends and later the few who read my new blog. Then I dared let some family know through either my writing or during conversation. While my husband warned me of the reactions likely to come, I was never prepared.

People online told me to rip up my recommend. One friend, someone who introduced me to the church and whom I’ve known for nearly a decade told me she no longer wished to read about what I thought, that she hoped I’d come to terms with my issues – but I wasn’t to talk about them. She’d have no part of that.

To say her response shocked me would be inadequate. It broke my heart: You feel I’m having issues and the best you can do is ignore it and tell me we can keep our conversation to husbands and children? (yes she said that)

Seriously?

My ex-roommate told me when the prophet speaks we don’t need to pray. Not if we sustain him as Prophet.

Another close friend of mine looked at me like I’d suddenly grown another head or perhaps a few horns atop the one I already have. My husband said his father regarded him in the same manner. They couldn’t or didn’t want to believe that we could have received a different answer than the prophets.

My friends and family who know avoid the topic now. It’s as if they hope my doubts will somehow magically disappear. Pretend they don’t exist. Ignore them and they will go away. She’s sneezing, you might catch cold.

These reactions only made my questions harder to ignore, all the more determined to be answered. I never looked to “go against the church.” I didn’t want to disagree with the prophet, I never had, but how do I deny that peace in my heart, even when it does go against the church? I know from experience you can ignore it, but it always comes back. Always.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it’s never okay to criticize our leaders - even when the criticism is justified. I get the reasoning behind this. It’s not good to spend all your time criticizing anyone. You need to focus on the good, count your blessings, that sort of thing. But where do people go when they have doubts and questions, when they can’t reconcile certain things? Bishops and stake presidents, General Conference talks and Ensign articles would have us pour ourselves into the scriptures, in prayer, to get a blessing. To “have faith.” A former bishop responded to my tearful admission of a crumbling testimony by telling me to watch BYU-TV.

It seems to me that we as a church do not enjoy speaking of such things. In my experience we don’t talk about it and I have to ask: does this kind of willful ignorance help? Hardly.

Doubts and questions do not silence themselves. Scriptures and prayer don’t always give me peace I need, no matter how long or hard I try with the best of intentions. This is deeper than that. People seem to think it’s easy to question. I assure you it is petrifying.

We like to find rational explanations for our commandments. “We are told to tithe because it is a matter of sacrifice to the Lord, to help us pay for our temples and buildings. Look how it kept our church out of debt!” While a matter of faith, we are also driven by reason. Fair enough?

So what of times when I can find no rationale? You might say this is a time for blind faith – and I might agree, except I received answer contrary the First Presidency’s letter. Would you say I must heed the answers to my prayers, or would you insinuate the prophet had said my prayers for me too? Some may suggest pride, a hard heart, etc. no matter what I say. I think these reactions are made from fear as we’ve been told it cannot happen, that our answers will always reflect that of the Church and if they don’t, then we’re wrong.

I understand this sort of reaction if a person went out and told people the church was fundamentally and wholly false – but this isn’t about that. I don’t think a genuine search for truth, even unseemly truth, is a good basis from which to ex someone or even six someones such as with the September Six.

The idea that one could inadvertently learn things that don’t add up, discuss them, and then be told to stop, just stop or I’ll call you to the disciplinary council raises about a million red flags in my heart. It’s potentially faith shattering, worse than any embarrassing fact I could ever discover. And I wish it wasn’t.

We talk about the power in strong, unyielding testimonies, but I ask what is a testimony if it isn’t challenged? Will silencing otherwise faithful dissenters really do the church good? I know we fear modern day Korihors, but I don’t think that’s what we’re dealing with. We’re dealing with good, well-intentioned people who disagree in some instances, and discussion should not only be allowed but encouraged. If our souls find strength in opposition, then so should our testimonies. If the Church is true it will withstand the storms. Truth always prevails.

I would like to be able to discuss my doubts without fear of excommunication. Yes we get enough negative advertising, but for us to pretend the problems don’t exist or are all unfounded is foolish at best. It will come back to bite us, either on an individual or general level. I’m confident about that.



Also posted at Feminist Mormon Housewives.

WHO CARES if we're Christian!

Are Mormons Christians? Holy CRAP I'm tired of this one.

Does it really matter what the world calls us? Does the title matter? I don't mean to make this a blog entry consisting entirely of questions - none of which are hypothetical - but seriously now. General Conference talks have been based on this. We're all very concerned about the rest of the world accepting us into the realm of Christendom.

Let me ask you something: Is the title of Christian requisite for admission into God's Kingdom? I get that, without this understanding, conversion for those who belong to other Christian denominations might prove rather difficult. But it's hardly central to salvation to have the title.

The fundamental belief of all Christian people is that Christ is our savior. To us, it's rather obvious.

To others, not so much.

But does it matter what others think? If the Gospel is true and we know what we teach and believe in, what does it matter?

I worry this is too much a PR move. We've a long, glorious history of ostracism, persecution, and other such lovely things. People like to spit that we believe in a "different" Christ - and we laugh. A different Christ? How many could there possibly be?

Other churches see us as cultish. Our doctrines are not only strange to many but border on blasphemous (if not entirely blasphemous). This hurts our image. We want common ground to help our image so we can be of better good in the world. I understand that.

What I don't understand is how much energy we've spent on the subject. Please like us. We believe in Christ, too. Look! It's in the name of our church (and while we're on the subject, just where is Christ's name in your church?). We're taking the defensive role where there's really no reason for it. Our penecostal or evangelical (or even Catholic) friends will not be the ones to let us through the gates of heaven. Why we act like they will be is beyond me.

Why expend so much energy in trying to convince others otherwise? Yes there's plenty misinformation out there - people will believe anything negative about us, but this whole idea of jumping up and down with the proclamation that we are Christian too (RU Christian 2?) seems a little needless and silly.

Face it. We are not part of the mainstream Christian group. We don't believe in the Trinity, we believe God has a body, we believe Christ came to America, that baptism is essential and we put more emphasis on works than do other Christian churches (this is especially offensive to them, though it is largely misunderstood). Hell, there is unofficial speculation that Christ likely married. These ideas are seen as heretical and are thus rejected by mainstream Christians, and that is why they don't believe us to be Christian.

I just can't get rid of the image of a bunch of kids out in the playground, some calling one child "stupid" or a "baby." Does the name calling make it so? No. If we are secure in our own standing with God and his Son, than all we have to do is smile and say "Well, go ahead and think that. I know who I am and who I worship" and walk away.

So let's get over it. Let's preach about more important things. Let's worry less about acceptance and more about our personal relationship with Christ, shall we?


(bytheby, I may not post much if at all this weekend as I won't be home very much. I hope everyone has a good one!)

Silly girls. Revelation is for boys!

I don’t mind that men hold the priesthood. I just went through a whole tirade on a private level and I get it. I don’t want the priesthood. I get it. I get why men have it. I’ve been going to church long enough to understand the reasoning behind it all.

Here’s my problem:

What I mind is that it is the end-all-be-all. Worthy members receive revelation. Worthy members receive revelation over our own stewardship. While counsel and discussion should be made, that person who has stewardship should have the final say. If those above that person feel the one with their “final say” is off their rocker, than there should be a process by which to deal with it. Period.

My problem lies in the idea that men have clearer revelation than their women do, in the idea that God speaks more truth to his sons than He does the girls. The girls are either misguided or just getting partial truth. Silly, silly girls.

We can talk about it all we want, but in the end it’s his decision. And we do emphasize that guy being worthy in his position – there’s no room for unrighteous dominion – but Father Knows Best. He’s got that really awesome Y chromosome and all. Should I have picked one up? Naaaaaah. I like being a girl despite all the crap.

I don’t want to be a guy. I don’t want the priesthood. I don’t want to be bishop, I don’t want any of that. But if as Relief Society President (which I’m not) I truly feel that my Relief Society needs to go in a certain direction and my bishop comes and puts on the breaks despite my very strong revelation, than what? I am to defer to him and just let whatever happens to happen.

Why? Because he’s the man. We can say “because he’s the priesthood holder” but the real, fundamental thing is because he’s the guy. We can be equal in spiritual strength and knowledge, but according to church structure, I am inferior to my priesthood (male) leaders.

We are left back to an earlier question: If I pray with real intent and get an answer contrary to that of my leaders, what then? The Church would say my answer is wrong. If we are one in purpose, after all, than we should be getting the same answer from the Lord.

But it does not work that way all the time. You cannot dismiss me so easily. Call it pride, call it a gateway to the road to apostasy, whatever. I was told when I joined that I should know everything for myself and go according to that. I’m taught that through the years…until I think differently from my leaders. Until I think differently from my husband. I’m certain my leaders would absolutely counsel us to talk about it, pray about it, etc. The fact is that doctrinally and what is taught in the temple is that I am to defer to him if he decides differently than what I think. Period.

This is not a strictly LDS issue, either. Like I mentioned before, it happens in other churches. It’s not even a matter of Pauline politics. It is in the scriptures; it is canonized. It is doctrine. We teach and practice a doctrinal patriarchy. I’m beyond talking about in-house ward matters here like who is bishop and who is not. This is more fundamental than that.

I don’t want the priesthood. I understand that there are priesthood holders who have to go through other priesthood holders to get permission, too. I’m not necessarily pissed about the priesthood. (annoyed at my repetition yet? it's only because I've learned some have selective "hearing" and I want to make myself clear despite the stereotypes about women who speak like this)

Here's the crux of it all: I just want to have the right as much access to God as my bishop or even my husband. I want the right to unique revelation that may go against what the Church teaches because I am unique and only God knows me and my situation nearly well enough. I want to still be in good standing if this happens.

But we don’t teach that. It’s too hairy, it’s too itchy, and it leaves far too much wiggle room. It goes against the whole “one in purpose” thing. We are to teach the doctrine and leave the exceptions up to the individual…except for in larger matters where the Church has authority and have taken an official stand. They know better despite it all – even though history proves they did not always know better despite it all.

We are not to criticize our leaders, even if it is justified.

And as a person who, doctrinally, biblically (as taught), has less authority than all but my own children, I have to sit back and let it all happen because I wouldn’t want to create confusion or contention. And I don’t.

It goes back to Adam. Eve, justified or not, took the fruit and was punished for it. Adam just did what he had to do, damn that woman. He initially told the serpent no, but since his wife went, he had to follow since he was commanded to always be with her. If she goes to hell, he should follow.
That is the inference. Hell, the men today joke about this. The girls complain, and the guys just placate them. Give them the 9 o’clock church instead of the 8:30, what does it matter. It’ll keep the girls happy, and as everyone knows: if mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.

Ha. ha.

This original act of disobedience slash obedience also suggests that Adam recognized Eve’s greater insight. She saw what he could not, despite the fact that God forbade it. She was able to look past that. But by initially being more obedient to God, he is now given greater access to God. No matter what she thinks now, though we teach she was right, 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.

Though Eve did what had to be done, she was punished anyway – and not just by exile from Eden, either. Now she has to follow Adam because he was apparently more righteous in refusing the serpent’s temptation. The idea that he knew better is inferred and is passed down to every man since. Since Adam knew better, all men know better. Eve just did what had to be done.

Is anyone else following?

That’s all. I don’t care about having the priesthood. I love my man, I love him being the man – he is absolutely everything I am not. I love taking care of him and our children – but he takes care of me and our kids, too. We complement each other rather nicely. Nothing we decide is ever because “I said so” – we talk about it until a conclusion is made between the two of us. Our lives are not separate, they are one and, to him, I’ve just as much right and access to God as he does.

And that’s how it should be anywhere.

Shhh!

We talk often and refer to the scriptures and places within our doctrine to attest to the fact that we admire, revere, and respect women. What of doctrine and scripture that says otherwise? I want to explore this today - there's just too much that makes me feel like crap.

First, the good stuff.

1. The following is paraphrased: "Woman was made from Adam's rib - not from his head to infer she should be at his head; not from his feet to infer she should be at his feet, but from his side to imply they are equal."

I liked this a lot when I first heard it. Still do.

2. We are often told about the Relief Society being the largest women's organization in the world, how it is headed by women.

The deal with the Relief Society is that it is ultimately headed by the Priesthood. The guys. Even the General Relief Society Presidency has to get approval from the Prophet. This goes for any of the organizations within the church, sure, but to say we head something is...somewhat misleading. The General RS Presidency is given loads of authority, but in the end they aren't the end-all-be-all.

3. Women don't hold the priesthood - they give life.

This seems more an effort to placate than anything else. It seems to infer that motherhood is equal to the priesthood. Not "fatherhood" - Priesthood. Beyond that, though, what of those faithful women who are infertile or never give birth due to lack of opportunity to marry? Every faithful man can hold the priesthood.

4. We have a Heavenly Mother, but we assume she is rarely spoken of only because Heavenly Father wants us to keep hush-hush about her for she is woman, she is sacred.

Eh. Sounds a little condescending, but whatever. Personally, as logic would insist that I am a woman who would then be "Heavenly Mother's" daughter, I'd like to know more about her. Yet, I am taught to be more like Heavenly Father and Christ. Not that I have issue necessarily with that, but does anyone else see the slight discrepancy here? Gender roles, people!

We often allude to family life on Earth being parallel to that of our relationship with God, our Heavenly Father. If we are so adamant about children on Earth having a parent of their same gender as well as that of the opposite, why don't we talk more about Heavenly Mother so their sons and daughters have something with which to learn from?

I don't mean to blaspheme - this is sincere.

5. The men of our church are among the most chivalrous because of the teachings of the Church stating that women are to be revered - I can attest to this one. It's fabulous. I've always appreciated this teaching of manners and...well, most girls I know like a man deferring to her in this way.

I love this. Women take care of their men, men take care of their women. Yay!

And on and on and on. But what about this:

- Women perform priesthood ordinances in the temple. I imagine this is a matter of modesty for the other women, especially given past intiatory methods, but this doesn't hold now.

- 1 Timothy 2:11: "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 decieved, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

My head spins and my stomach lurches every time I read that. Our second article of faith states that we are responsible for our own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. Is it mere convenience, then, that we don't mention we're not responsible for Eve's transgression? This scripture here states that Adam didn't transgress - the temple teaches us the same. Eve listened to the serpent, took the fruit, and ate it. We teach she heard the truth in the serpent's lie, that without knowing the evil we cannot know the good.

That much, needing opposition in all things, is true.

But it all just makes my head hurt. And no, there really is no Joseph Smith Translation to this bit of scripture other than "Notwithstanding they shall be saved in childbearing" which lends question again to infertile couples. And all this stuff about women having to be silent and in subjection because of Eve goes against what our church says.

Trust me, I like what we say lots more - but our actions speak against this at times, that men teach us and not necessarily the other way around. We answer to them ultimately.

Then there's Titus 2:2-6:

"That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things."

(so far so good)

"That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed."

I'm fine until we get to that last bit: Obedient to their own husbands that the word of God be not blasphemed.

*screeeech*

This whole idea of obedience to the man of the house drives me up the wall. Those of protestant and evangelical churches also teach this: be in subjection to your husband. We teach it in the temple.

I can't stop scratching my head.

So we're not paying for what Adam did - just what Eve did? And because Adam was made first and insisted on listening to God's commandment to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that makes us immediately inferior? *twirls hair*

The Bible was written by men for men at the time. To my knowledge, this is back when women weren't educated. They didn't know how to read. If they knew anything, it was because their husbands taught them. That offers a little context, but we don't teach this, we don't talk about this. I haven't heard it, at least.

In my scripture notes, I have 1 Timothy 2:11 marked, the word "authority" underlined with the words "priesthood authority" and "silence" attributed to "tranquility and quietness." I also have the words "Father --> Husband --> Wife" written.

What is up with this?

We've been talking a lot about separate but equal with the whole gay marriage thing, but the same applies here. Women and men are separate in their roles but equal. Eh, I can see it I guess. Men hunt, women nest. There is a lot of biology there - but neither is inferior. Why do we insist on perpetuating this? We say we don't, but we do.

Why don't we teach about the prophetesses of the Old Testament (Huldah)? Of the New? (Anna).

In researching prophetesses, I came upon Miriam (referred to as a prophetess in Exodus 15:20) and an interesting and somewhat unnerving piece of OT Scripture in Numbers chapter 12. To avoid typing out sixteen verses, I'll just give you the summary.

Aaron and Miriam are a little miffed at their brother Moses and speak out against him: "And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it." (v.2) God calls the three of them out and declares Moses the main, relevant prophet.

"With him I will speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" (v. 8)

God then strikes Miriam with leprosy. Aaron was left untouched, though he, too, took part in the "murmuring."

What the hell is going on here?

Then there's the prophetess Huldah. I'd never heard of her before today. In the interest of space, I'll just refer you to 2 Kings 22:14-17.

Yes, we can say we allow for women to have revelation for themselves and the things/organizations they care for, such as the Young Women, Primary, or Relief Society. However, the structure of the Church states that if a governing Priesthood body (either of the ward, stake or general church) received revelation otherwise, than it trumps what the women say. It's a system of checks and balances. We're all taught this. But Huldah was a prophetess, speaking for God. It's right there.

Perhaps prophetesses are not mentioned very often, though I'm glad they're mentioned at all. I'd just like to know more about it out of curiosity.

Yet we go off on feminists, how they're destroying very cozy and tidy gender roles. Damn them! But how can we ignore these scriptures? How can we ignore doctrine and that which goes on? Why do men and women sit separate in the temple? Why the veils? WHY.

And don't you dare tell me it's because we're somehow more holy or something. 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, if that makes sense.

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. Want to know why?

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

This is still taught, it's just quiet and subtle. We still learn of our husbands. No longer at home, and women are now able to speak in the church (is it true that up until recently women didn't give talks in church? Anyone?), but our authority is rather limited - and for what reason?

I am to be taken care of just like I care for others. My husband works his butt off for his family and receives more adulation for it. Because he's worked so hard, I've had to as well. Three young, young children. I've made sure he got the classes he needed. Helped him type his papers because he's a poke of a typist. I've sacrificed for this traditional family stuff, and I don't mind doing it because I love our family and I do believe it's best for my kids to have someone at home with them.

But the conversation when we go out as it pertains to me is relegated to "How are the kids? How's the hubby?" and less about what I think and what I do beyond changing nasty diapers and reveling in that which is my kids and Eric. I love all four of them - but aren't I something deeper than this? Is this service of which I am taught to only do as 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 that the Priesthood trumps all, and as men hold the priesthood and not women (except for the temple), I am somehow inferior.

In this way there is no separate but equal. We can pay lip service to such bullshit, but our actions speak louder than that.

I have felt respected in our church, but enough times 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 the basic foundation of God's plan. That just adds salt to an already open wound.

Wading Through Cultural Waters

What is the difference between culture, tradition and doctrine? A simple enough question with a seemingly simple enough answer - seemingly.

For me, it's to a point where I can't even be certain where one ends and the other begins.

I've found comfort in the past in the thought that with our general authorities, the line is rather clear. I prefer to think and hope it's the members who make it a game of sorts to interpret as they will, to create boundaries where there were none before, to make requirements of things and complicate ideas to the point of no return.

Perhaps this is why we're so stuck on the basics so much. Prayer, scriptures: we all know the Primary answers. It's a way of keeping to the simplicity of the Gospel, right?

I'll tell you what, though: if allowed, I'd totally ban those answers from anything outside Primary. They've become empty and meaningless. Dare I say they hold the same power as the oft repeated "I know this Church is true." Where's the meat behind that? I can pray and have it mean nothing. Nothing. I can be a robot and say and do all the things I'm supposed to - but I won't. Not anymore.

*cough*

We need to get back to the real basics. Love the Lord thy God. Love thy neighbor as thyself. The Sermon on the Mount.

Seriously.

I love context and digging deep just as much as the next person, but c'mon.

Is it really all or nothing? There is an understandable perception that that's how the Church works. It says jump, you say how high. It says donate as much of your means and time as you are able in support of an issue you cannot stand, and you shove everything aside - everything, no matter what - and do what your leaders ask. No prayer needed when the Prophet speaks.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way!

Well, he hasn't necessarily had the clearest of eyes and deepest of perceptions in the past with some issues. The prophet is still a man with his own prejudices, traditions, and ideas that could influence revelation.

It influences ours sometimes, doesn't it? Isn't it sometimes difficult to know the difference between our enthusiasm and the Spirit? Or our own stubbornness for stupor of thought?

One person told me I shouldn't pray for my own answer because the Prophet gave it for me. Those weren't her words verbatim, but that was the message. The Prophet said, so we do. We can trust him.

"The Prophet will never lead us astray."

I'm sorry, but I can't help but think those are some of the most dangerous words uttered in recent times.

Even the Prophet would tell us, I would hope, that we can receive different answers than he'll get. The more cynical say the Church allowed in-house dissenting opinions regarding Prop 8 because they had to in order to diffuse any assertion that our votes were being effectively forced.

I hope that's not the case.

When the Saints followed Brigham Young West, Emma Smith chose to stay behind. Brigham and Emma didn't get along, to say the least - and many Saints criticize her for staying.

Do you?

I don't. I don't know her or her heart nearly well enough.

But is this idea of being one with the church so much that it trumps any personal revelation you may get doctrine or culture?

Million dollar question of the day.

Wine and the Church

Doctrine and Covenants 89, the famous Word of Wisdom. It's something that, to my understanding, began as encouragement and ended up as a temple interview question. As a new member, I honestly thought "caffeine" was mentioned here. When I finally looked for myself a few things surprised me besides the fact that caffeine is not mentioned (at least not specifically).

Before I get into any more, here's one verse I find especially interesting:

"Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints" (v3, emphasis added).

Now here's what it does mention regarding drinks:

1. If any man drinks wine or strong drink, "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." (v.5, emphasis added)

2. That wine used for our sacraments should be "pure wine of the grape of the vine, of [our] own make" (v.6)

2. Strong drinks are not for the belly, but for washing your bodies. (v.7)

3. Hot drinks are not for the body or belly (later clarified in context to mean tea or coffee. hm) (v.9)

5. Verse 17 is also interesting: "...and barley for all useful animals and for mild drinks, as also other grain."


So let's look at alcoholic consumption. First we have the verse that states that this revelation is adapted to the weak or weakest of saints. Perhaps we all could be considered that. It goes on later to mention that wine (though according to verse 6 it should be pure and of our own make) is okay for offering up our Sacraments. Verse 17 states that grains such as barley are good for "mild drinks." I'm not very well versed in drinks which use barley, but isn't that beer?

Back to the wine. Moroni 5:2 sets the sacramental prayer for the wine. We all know Jesus turned water into wine.

1 Timothy 5:23 states "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."

It struck me as I looked at that scripture how I had a little mark beside it. I wonder what I was thinking when I did that.

The truth is, all scripture - Bible to BoM to D&C - all contradicts itself when it comes to alcoholic drinks, wine specifically. From what I can tell, the biggest problem is when people allow themselves to become drunk with wine. It's all about context, and sometimes I don't think we have all the context necessary for full understanding of some scripture. That's why I find history and research so interesting - why I'm having such a fun time writing this today.


I think in the end we don't want to allow for even the chance, correct? The understanding is "Don't even give yourself a chance to like it because you'll definitely become a drunk."

Right?

How many of us don't use recipes that call for wine - either because we know that while the cooking process does eliminate most of the alcohol, it doesn't eliminate all; or is it because we don't want to be seen buying the stuff? Avoid the appearance of evil, after all. I almost went manic on my husband when he came home with a small, cheap, plastic bottle of vodka so he could make homemade coconut extract (before you freak out too, smell your pure vanilla extract if you have any). I didn't want the vodka in my house. I didn't want him making anything with it. I couldn't believe he'd bought the stuff. The horror!

I just have to wonder. If we can pick and choose to eat lots of meat and nutritionally defunct white rice and bread (which, by the way, I'm a huge fan of) as long as we don't smoke or drink, than we still follow the WoW...? We all know smoking is horrifying to your health. Coffee, tea, and wine have been found to have nutritional benefits though - in moderation, of course. On the other hand, drinking and smoking is relatively easy to avoid and it's wallet-friendly. Eating whole grains can be a matter of acquired taste as well as expensive and and decent fruits can likewise get expensive (unless you have a garden).

I understand we need to be as healthy as we can be. We shouldn't allow ourselves to become fill our bodies up with toxins that only hurt us, inviting diseases like diabetes and heart related problems due to obesity or our diet. This body, we know, is eternal and we know we need to prove ourselves worthy of it. We know addictions will come with us into the next life - we also know that in the resurrection our bodies will be "perfected."

I also want to look at Section 27, received in August 1830, with this verse we know well: "For behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory...Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies. Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father's kingdom is built up on the earth." (Verses 2, 3-4)

Section 89 was received in February 1833.

Dates are always interesting. But both verses say the same thing: don't drink wine of your enemies (who are our enemies today? surely not the waitress at Applebee's or your local Italian place, right?). If you're going to make it, know where it's coming from. It appears to me from reading the historical explanation of the section that Joseph could have been on his way to procure wine from people who wanted to hurt him. The commandment was made to ensure this wouldn't happen. Historical context versus modern context could mean everything. Back then "hot drinks" meant coffee and tea. Today we're allowed herbal teas and hot chocolate - both hot, but in context not WoW forbidden.

I imagine the use of water over wine also become a matter of economy: water is much cheaper than wine. The idea that it doesn't matter what we use also leaves room for us to use wine "of our own make" and allows for fun stories of times when a group of Saints used brownies instead of bread.

So will a glass of wine with dinner really harm us?

I understand I'm really flirting with the line with this question here, but it has been on my mind. Yes, consumption of alcohol is hardly necessary to live a happy, fulfilled life. That's been my conviction through the years, even though my pre-baptism experiences tell me I hate the taste of most coffee and also dislike the taste of alcohol and know my tolerance to be rather low. I also know alcoholism runs in my family, as do addictions of many sorts.

For example, I have to be careful when taking certain prescriptions I have. I suffer from generalized anxiety disorder and I have to take some potentially addictive pills. Do I still take them? Yes. Have I created a network of support to ensure close family knows I'm taking them so I have less of a chance of becoming addicted? Yes. I take them because I function better while on them. If I don't take them, I tend to suffer from extremely low temper, head-splitting migraines, and inability to sleep.

Though the American Heart Association strongly discourages drinking (if you do, do so in strict moderation, they warn), there are some studies that suggest red wine aids the heart and perhaps even in lowering cholesterol levels. Their primary concern seems to be that of the Church: that in starting, you're tempting a whole host of problems and temptations. After all, you can't become an alcoholic without ever partaking of even a sip of alcohol, right?

The Mayo Clinic recognizes that as well - but studies still suggest red wine in particular is rather heart healthy. There is always that caveat to be extra careful though, much like I must be with some of my prescriptions.

Of course, evidence could be found for either side - and this is where it gets sketchy. But can you discount scripture such as that found in 1 Timothy? I do. There is a scripture or two in 1 Timothy chapter 2 regarding women and the church that I cannot stand and will discount. We all do it at some point. We are all hypocrites.

For me the end comes again down to your intentions (your heart), and any prayer or communication you have with God. With anything. This isnt so much a matter between me and the Church as it is a matter between me and God. The Church can help me, can back me up and help me when I am feeling weak. It can help me find avenues closer to God, but it is not the end all be all. That is God. Even prophets can fail. I am an individual with a uniqueness God only knows - while the prophets can speak for us all on some issues, with others perhaps not. That is why we must not judge others but instead give them the benefit of the doubt. We don't know everything. While men may fail, God never will.

Forgive a weird ending to a topical post, but that is where my thoughts are at the moment. I'd love to hear yours.

Mormon Curse Words

How many LDS do you know say "crap!" all the time? How about "frick" "fudge" "fetch"? "Oh my heck" fits in here as well.

What about "damn" or "hell"?

Ahh, I didn't think so. Mutter a "damn" or "hell" and your company's eyes will shoot to you with chastising gleams.

Before I joined the church I cursed like a sailor; after I joined I refused to even say "crap" and wondered why even the staunchest of my friends found it okay to say it. It was interesting and probably my first insight into the fact that even LDS pick and choose. It is the extent of our willingness to rebel and be edgy - and that just tickles me to no end. Mormon rebellion. But back to the topic. There are still those times when you want to curse, but can't so we make up stuff that sounds like it.

And that is when the "fetch" comes out or the very...odd "ohmyheck." I didn't even know OMH existed until my trip to Salt Lake City in October 2002. I saw a billboard with a rather crisp mug of beer - perhaps something a bit more controversial, I don't remember - and beside it were the words "If you just said 'Oh my heck' this isn't for you."

Oh my heck?

Ah, my first foray into Utah Mormon Culture.

My husband's best friend's favorite Mormon curse word is Fetch - and I'm sorry, but it sounds almost as bad as "fuck." "Shoot" said with the right intonation can sound almost as guilty as "shit" too. My mom, a very proud non-member, once got on my sixth-grade self for saying "fudge" because it sounded awful, a little too close to what she knew I was trying to get away with.

Then there's the instance with my four year old son a few months ago. He was outside and, out of nowhere, exclaimed "Holy crap!"

I love telling this story for the reactions. Like you people don't say the same stuff. Anyway, I got up and went to see what the deal was. A fat, ugly, totally unnecessary spider was just hanging on a single web strand from the gutter.

Definitely a "holy crap!" moment. Everyone so far has agreed. At least to my face, haha.

I don't know. After about a year after joining, I got over my "crap" moratorium. I'd mostly instituted it because I knew how I worked, I knew that cursing became as much of a part of my vocabulary as the words "the" and "oh" - you know, pretty common. I could control myself around my grandma, and I had enough respect to not drop the f-bomb around my mom and dad - but around friends? Pretty common. Knowing this, and knowing since the age of nine that I pick up on other people pretty easily, I decided to be extra strict, even to replacing "ass" with "donkey" when reading the scriptures. If I'm around someone or speak with someone with a thick accent for fifteen minutes, I'll pick up the accent. If I read an author with a strong style, I'll pick up on their style. If I'm around someone who curses like it's nothing, then I will too. It just comes out. I've learned it's how I work, and I have to take care. We all have our things; that happens to be one of mine.

My propensity ten years ago to litter my conversation with swear words isn't quite like you might hear among some youth today, but it was bad enough - so much so that an LDS friend of mine from high school mentioned the lack thereof at my baptism.

I understand it's absolutely not a way to speak - it doesn't make you sound intelligent, that's for sure. They're pretty coarse words, especially when you consider the history behind some of them...but I'll admit to saying a few every now and again. I do think they have their place. They can be cathartic. They've power - the kind depends on the situation, but words absolutely have power. And sometimes, honestly, it's the only way to get something across.

So I curse. I have to really watch myself to keep it under reigns, but I believe there can be a time and a place. I mostly gave up because, let's face it: may as well, right? Of course I could decide to not at all, but I've decided to fight other battles for the time being. Right now this helps keep me sane, if that makes sense.

And really, "fetch" sounds ridiculous. "Crap" just makes me laugh anymore because of how many LDS say it like it's not a big deal (but no damn or hell). Stop beating around the bush. Don't be a disrespectful idiot, but if it's what you really mean and the situation allows, then why? Why "fudge" and "darn it"? So you can appear clean? Why all these Mormon curse words - the very phrase infers that they're intended to substitute for curse words.

Now, you won't hear me cursing at church, in front of my kids (except for crap), or in front of friends whom I know it would offend: but it happens. Consciously, I'll admit.

Before anyone asks why I don't curse in front of my kids, let me assure you it's not so much because I don't want them cursing. It's more because they're very young and as such their maturity wouldn't allow them to understand the meaning and implications of their words. There are better ways for them to establish a vocabulary in such formative years. I could explain, yes, but I'm saving it for later. They'll run across it in school soon enough. I had friends in the fourth grade dropping the f-bomb. I imagine that begins much sooner now.

I have a fourteen year old sister who, on her myspace page, curses worse than I ever used to. It shocked me at first, but I soon realized: she's fourteen, she's "being cool" and doesn't realize just how lame and immature she sounds. I thought about bringing it up to my dad and her mom, but they look at her page. They know.

It's a part of growing up. I want to be frank with my kids and explain that there is a time and a place for everything. My sister will grow out of it (hopefully) and reign herself in as she matures. Everyone goes through this stuff. To harp on her for this beyond a talk or two will only make things worse. I know because I used to be that kid. I say let her get it out of her system and learn along the way as long as she has set boundaries enough to not speak like that everywhere.

I'm not trying to condone cursing; I'm attempting to get a discussion going. How many of you will admit to cursing and how many don't, and why? Do you ever wonder about the same things? Do you ever roll your eyes and groan inwardly at it all? I just figure the more realistic about things we are, be it about sex, swearing, or anything else - the better chance we'll have teaching others and being an example. I understand the lack of swearing in our culture makes the instances outside our social network quite jarring. We're sensitive to it, and that's okay, but I'm afraid the extra sensitivity makes us less approachable than we want to be.

Is "crap" really not a swear word? Am I really much worse than those who scream "FETCH!"? I get that "oh my heck" is much better than the alternative - but it makes no sense. That's what gets me - and the fact that everyone knows what it's the alternative for.

In the end, it's all in the attitude, isn't it?

My Take on Twilight

I'd never given much thought to how I would die - I'd had reason enough in the last few months - but even if I had, I would not have imagined it like this...

How many people do you know have read this? Have you?

(And come on, that's a pretty good opener. Caught my attention.)

I didn't even hear about this book until last August. Again, it was because I finally allowed myself to step into a Barnes and Noble, let the smell of books seep deep into my pores, and breathe. Before that day, if I had need to step into a bookstore, it was quick. The smell made my writing instincts and inclinations go wild, but I would ignore it, make a beeline for the section I needed, and get the hell out of there as quickly as possible.

Last August I wanted to just breathe. And browse.

I'd done a little homework online, looking at the best sellers list on sites such as Amazon and Barnes and Noble. I even checked out Deseret Books. There were a few that caught my eye, one of them was on every list - Twilight.

Of course the idea that this #1 New York Times Bestseller was written by a Mormon woman intrigued me. Number one! And the New York Times status meant it wasn't necessarily an LDS book. As I didn't want to write an LDS book, and this was a research trip to see what was out there, that was a huge plus.

While I knew nothing about vampires, I knew I'd always felt inclined to write Young Adult stories. When I went to the store, I picked up the book and began reading.

The first chapter hardly grabbed my attention, to be honest, but I carried that book with me as I browsed, debating. The "prologue" caught my attention, though and it just felt like something I should get. I had to know what made it so amazing. So I took a chance and brought it home.

...and finished it in less than two days. I've three kids; my oldest was four at the time. My husband was in school full time (including 6 hours of student teaching a day) and working at night. I assure you reading a 500 page novel in less than two days was not an easy feat. Going to bed at 1 or 2 a.m. to get up again at six wasn't easy, but oh was it worth it.

A classic? No, but a good book. Entertaining. Something I needed very much.

To tell you the truth, I wasn't a drooling fan of Edward. He wasn't what caught my attention. What caught my attention, and scoff if you will, was that I could relate so well to Bella and Edward. That tension was all-too familiar, that love and passion was mine and Eric's. The idea that I'd found my one. Yeah. It was like Meyer got it.

Again, scoff if you will. I would too.

Not only that, but I enjoyed Meyer's easy writing style and recognized something of my own style within it. Later I would look at it with a more critical eye and see what could be improved, but the story and the characters were what got me.

I liked at first that Meyer didn't fall into the trap of sex and profanity, that she found a way to write a good, clean book. I laughed the first time I read "holy crow!" because I'd never heard it before, and it seemed to fit Bella. By the second mention of the phrase, I had to roll my eyes though. It started to seem...lame. But forgivable.

The sexual tension *fans self* Good stuff. And all without crossing any lines.

Impressive.

I'll admit, the serial repetition of the adjectives "dazzling" and "velvet" really started to rub me wrong, but all was forgivable. I chalked all that up to learning what I would absolutely not do in my own stories.

But I digress.

I went back to the store to pick up "New Moon."

Oof. What a labor intensive novel. It didn't get good until the last hundred or so pages.

After quite some time (talking a few months), I finished it and moved on to Eclipse which caught my attention quickly. Sex?! Would they have sex?! A few times I hesitated to turn the page. Sad, I know. The end of that book was killer - and I had to wait an entire year to figure out how it would all end.

While the plot of the final book, Breaking Dawn, often caught me off guard and kept my attention that way, and while I'm thrilled to death Meyer tied up all loose ends rather nicely (I've read books that left me bereft. What about ____?), ultimately the whole book was...convenient. And too happy. Unrealistically so.

Sigh.

When I found "they" were making this series into a movie, I was thrilled. Yay! Then they started announcing the cast members. For the most part I didn't like the cast. The trailers didn't impress - the acting was amateurish at best from what I could tell. And chemistry! I didn't sense any chemistry between the two main characters.

In the end, the movie was slightly better than I expected, but being that my expectations were rather low, that doesn't say too much. As huge as the Twilight series was, you'd think they would've had access to a larger budget. Truth is, they were probably more interested in just getting the thing out to make money. No matter how awful the movie, they were going to make money just because it was Twilight and its main audience, besides LDS women, were fourteen-year-old girls who generally don't know what a good movie is.

After the movie, the girls I went with and I went to a Twilight party. Eh, you know. It surprised me who was there, though. Unobservant as I can be, I didn't realize how many 30-something LDS women loved this series.

It struck me as rather funny - and yes, I'm saying this as one who is almost a thirty-something LDS woman.

I had no idea. I'd never liked trends - it's why I rejected Harry Potter so fiercely for so long. You might think I'd have gotten over that by then, but I guess not. The sight of all these older moms with their mom hair and mom clothes gushing over this teen vampire romance, coyly admitting to how much they loved the steamy scenes tickled me to death. Let's just say it: Meyer can write a damn good love scene. She flirted with what many might consider the line between appropriate and inappropriate. Finally! Women could breathe heavily through those pages and not feel as if they needed to speak with their bishop about it (although Bella and Edward alone in her bedroom? tsk tsk, Stephenie) haha

I also wondered how many of these women would have been so enamored had this book been written by an agnostic Stephenie Meyer? A Catholic Stephenie Meyer?

I understand the book would or might have been markedly different, but for the sake of argument let's assume it wouldn't be. Would there have been a party? Would all of these women read a teen vampire romance? I doubt it. But again, I think it was a matter of admiration and support - and the story was good. Could have been amazing, but it was good.

I mean, how many LDS women out there are doing little side jobs in an attempt to make some extra cash for their families? Jewelry making? That sort of thing, right? Meyer was able to take a hobby and be wildly successful with it.

I'll freely admit a large part of the reason I gave this book a shot at first was because Meyer was an LDS mom. I wanted to know what she did and how she did it. I was stoked beyond reason that there was another woman out there like me - it just felt amazing, liberating. It was more a research project and observance in that aspect for me.

The series probably won't ever be considered a classic, but - and I say this with all due respect - it's quite popular literary junk food.

I just hope teens in particular get Meyer's core message. If you've read the books, you know about the triangle between Bella, Edward, and Jacob. Bella fell in love with Jacob, too. I'll leave you with this quote from Meyer, found on her official website:

"First of all, let me say that I do believe in true love. But I also deeply believe in the complexity, variety, and downright insanity of love. A lucky person loves hundreds of people in their lives, all in different ways, family love, friendship love, romantic love, all in so many shades and depths. I don't think you lose your ability-or right-to have true love by loving more than one person. In part, this is true because you never love two people the same way. Another part is that, if you're lucky, you learn to love better with practice. The bottom line is that you have to choose who you are going to commit to--that's the foundation of true love, not a lack of other options.

"...Does this love [with Jacob] devaluate her love for Edward? Not for me. For me, it makes that perfect true love stronger. Bella has another option. She has a really good one. An option that's easier in many ways, that takes nothing-like her family, present or future-away from her. She would have love, and friendship, and family--an enviable human future. But she chooses Edward over all of this. This makes it real for me."

And that, I think, gives this book value. I don't think Meyer was trying to be overly philosophical. I don't believe she was trying to push any weird LDS or anti-feminist agenda. If it came out that way, I doubt she meant for it to. People interpret how they will. I believe she wrote the story according to and adhering to her values, imagination, and ideas. I like the quote above. I like that it was a good, entertaining read that inspired me to do what I hadn't done in years but was just wired to do. She obviously related to the teen crowd, and that's what angsty teens crave: someone to "get it" to at least some degree. People pick and make fun, but you can't say that her message on love and commitment is wrong or untimely.

I just hope it's not lost on the young girls who read it. And if it is, I hope it at least opens them up to reading other books of more substance. I heard one reviewer say that, much like that of Harry Potter, Twilight's ability to get non-readers to read is akin to praising an anorexic for eating cotton candy. But you know, if it gets them to move onto something meatier, then, well, isn't that worth something, too?