On Abortion

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


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

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

An excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

On these matters, the First Presidency has recently said:

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

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

Hello? Is this thing on?

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

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

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

Come Out to Your Ward: Follow Up

For those of you who were wondering...

Hill of the Foreskins

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

Things were well--until he broke into hysterics.

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

He didn't stop.

"What is it?"

He points to his scriptures and reads in a whisper:

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

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

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

Hill of the Foreskins.

Ewwwwww.

Come Out To Your Ward

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

A little something I wrote

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

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

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

Hope you like it.

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

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

/plug

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

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

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

* * *

The Golden Convert
[Edited 5/20/09]


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

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

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

And I was

Eighteen and
enamored with her;

Eighteen and
Foaming for Independence;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masochist Mormon

I'm just repeating myself anymore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That was just his opinion."

or

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

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

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

But I digress.

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

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

Bullshit!

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

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

But.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least when speaking officially.

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

Update/Quiz...Happy Easter!

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

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

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

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

So it'll be...interesting.

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

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

Sunstone Mormon

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Temple Recommends for the Disaffected

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

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

Why?

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

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

The attendees themselves are never placed under covenant, either.

Correct?

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

Would a compromise of this degree be so bad?

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

A Surprising Lesson on Apostasy

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

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

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

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

Question: What is apostasy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7) "Satan twists everything in your head."

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

Question: Why do apostates fight against the Church?

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

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

Question: What happens to apostates?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't want to be the rule.

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

I didn't want to admit that, though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Better Safe Than Sorry

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

Apparently we cannot be trusted. Better safe than sorry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Joseph Smith

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

I can't buy that. Not anymore.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1920 Edition 2 Nephi 30:6

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

1981 Edition, 2 Nephi 30:6

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

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

2 Nephi 5:21 (1981 Ed.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yet…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Much more PC, eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simple enough. Understandable enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any thoughts?

Homey G's

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

GARMENTS.

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ewwwwww is right, folks.

Got a lot of fathers who wear the mesh garments.

Ewwwwww is right, folks.

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

So what's up with mesh garments?

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

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

Seriously.

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

Visiting Teaching: Overshooting the Mark?

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

First, a little background:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um...no I'm good thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not from my visiting teacher. From a friendly, attentive person. If a person is new in the ward, be a friend don't "visit teach" them.

I know the home teaching program is slightly different, but the ideas are still the same. I am not going to confess any issues I might have in my personal or spiritual life to a person just because she is my visiting teacher or he is my home teacher. There's a fabulous chance I wouldn't even share these things with a friend. There are few people I entrust with my secrets, hopes, and fears. I won't share them to a couple girls or a couple guys from church because they've been assigned to me, I don't care how "inspired" it's claimed to be (if ever).

I think the idea of the VT/HT program is a good one and full of potential as many have experienced, but we need to focus less on numbers and more on the relationships - and really, it bugged the hell out of me that just as I'd be really getting to know a girl, I'd get reassigned. Frustrating. We can't establish a repetoire with people if we aren't with them consistently and for a long time. I really do think that's the key.

By the way, Bro. S was also my home teacher (and member of my ward). As a man who knew me well, he served as my home teacher better than anyone else ever could have...even if he did overstep his bounds sometimes. I'm grateful for him, too.





*Name changed. I tire of using only initials :)

Piercings, Beards, and other Pharisaical “Encouragements”

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.