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.)

Tithing Blasphemy

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

How can she SAY that!?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I attributed my success to tithing.

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

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

Er...tithing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out of the Closet

When we moved back (to our hometown) this past August, our bishopric wasted little time in extending callings to my husband and I. No big deal; we knew the drill. First they stopped by our home as a "get to know you" type meeting - the type I like the most. There's something about when you have a leader take the time to stop by your home that feels more genuine. A past Relief Society president did that, and I loved her for it. She was amazing.

Anyway, within a few weeks we both received that phone call. Brother J asked Eric if he'd like to be a Sunday School teacher for the 16-17 year olds, and of course Eric said yes. He liked the idea - not time consuming, no meetings, kids, cool. Then, because I was otherwise occupied, Bro. J told Eric he wanted to call me to be the fourth Sunday Relief Society teacher.

I'd never taught before, not really - and never in church. I don't count the two times I substituted for the Sunbeams class. I did have some experience as an English tutor and I do enjoy giving talks during Sacrament meeting, so I accepted, knowing the potential of the challenge due to my faith issues. But I understand the deal: stay within what's accepted, keep my opinions to myself, etc.

November's lesson went much better than expected. Even two weeks later I had sisters complimenting me. I wish I remembered what I did. I know I gave them opportunity to discuss and I did little reading...but I also know my preparation lacked severely. Apparently I did well though, which propelled me to December's lesson.

Oh boy. This lesson was based off Elder Uchtdorf's talk The Infinite Power of Hope and Sister Dalton's A Return to Virtue.

This lesson didn't go well...at all. I found I struggled greatly in keeping within the approved lines. I couldn't handle the dialogue, the difficulty I found in asking questions which didn't lead to the standard Primary answers. I could hear Sister Dalton's voice in my head, and it screeched like nails on a chalkboard. A return to virtue? Yes I know the world has a different idea of virtue at times, but I tire quickly of the intonations, the vocabulary, the insinuations, the complete lack of feeling someone is relating to me.

Say I'm making much out of something small, and you'd probably be right. I do have some anger right now. I'm annoyed. But I tried.

I extended the lesson on virtue to that of charity. One woman in the room recognized that charity is much, much more than just bringing a new mom a casserole: it's what's in the heart. Yay!

Someone else related a story which reminded me of one of my own. In short, two friends of mine and I went to a Giants game in San Fransisco some years ago. A man rifled through the dumpsters in the parking lot. While I did all I could to avoid this person, my friend ran back to the car to get some food for him. As she handed him her twinkies, another man approached and handed the transient a beer.

My first reaction, I said, was "Oh, geez, a beer?" but then I remembered and understood this man's charity matched my friend's and far exceeded my own. I learned a few lessons that day I'll never forget.

When I mentioned the beer in class, however, one woman sighed with disapproval. A beer.

I'll admit nervousness and little preparation for this lesson, but I felt it all lost in this one story. I could be wrong, perhaps the women believed I wanted to make a point regarding twinkies versus beer in charity. I don't know. My driving point as a teacher, though, has been to help people know that we're not alone in our righteousness, that good, even amazing people really do exist outside this church. Even virtuous people.

Suffice it to say the lesson bombed. I knew on one level I could recover from it; after all, everyone suffers bad lessons, especially as novices. My issue came with the fact that I harbor a special irritation with the talks. Come to Zion, Our Hearts are Knit as One, O Ye That Embark.

For real. I don't get why we're still stuck in the pioneer age.

Last week put the last nail in the coffin for me, though. I substituted for Eric's Sunday School class. I had four boys and one girl, and all of them didn't want to be there. All of them complained. All of them liked to harp on other churches, on their hypocracy. "Do you see them smoking pot?" "Yeah, they get drunk all the time, too."

It didn't occur to me until after class that these kids harbored a jealousy over their non-member friends. These kids are angry. I asked for their honesty, and honestly, they just don't care. They don't get it. They don't believe in it, and they don't really want to. They don't have a reason to.

I couldn't teach the lesson because...well, I couldn't. Not in good faith, so we just talked. Their attitudes, lack of respect, and anger truly astounded me - and it's nothing I haven't run into before with our youth. But I was good. I didn't let any of my feelings through. Just let them talk.

I understand my heart may be "hardened" right now. I also know I shouldn't be teaching like this, so I called my bishop. Of course he wanted to know why, so I told him.

I'm out. At least to my bishop. He wanted to know what exactly was bothering me, but I couldn't figure out how to put it into words. I know I write here like crazy about it, and I know I talk with my husband about it to death and I've other people online I've vented to, but I still don't know how to tell my bishop. I don't know how to say it. My writing and incessant talking is all in an effort to figure out what exactly I'm feeling, believing and thinking and how to say it.

I need an Aaron.

I respect my bishop. He's a good man. He understood my need for time. That'll help; it already has. Perhaps I've mentioned it before, but my previous bishop counseled me to watch more BYU-TV. Gee, thanks.

Yesterday was a hard day. I was a mess. Today I feel I could talk with him. I hated asking for a release so soon after my call, but I didn't feel I could teach in good faith anymore. I don't know. I need to talk with him again, if only to get this all off my chest. I don't expect much to change, I don't expect my bishop to understand, but he gave me my space yesterday. He's been a good man that way.

I think that's why I hesitate to tell him exactly what's on my mind. I don't want to disappoint, and I fear my emotions are getting the better of my otherwise level head. I don't want to give the impression, as some have commented, that I'm throwing the baby (doctrine) out with the bathwater (the culture). I do take issue with some core doctrine, but it's easier to harp on the culture. Less frightening. More people tend to agree the culture needs help whereas doctrinal issues may prompt a spiritual intervention. The look on a close, once best friend's face when the topic of gay marriage comes up breaks my heart. She's scared. She wants to save me despite everything I've said.

It's very difficult to say what is going on in my head out loud. It's like stepping into the dark, and before anyone says that the dark is no place we want to be, let me assure you joining the church was like stepping into the dark. When Joseph Smith prayed, there was a period of darkness before the light. There is often darkness before the light. This I know. I've experienced it.

I'm still a little afraid of it, though.

Wickedness Never Was Happiness

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

-Alma 41:10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pioneer children sang as they walked and walked and walked…

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

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

Posted also at Feminist Mormon Housewives.

Feminist Mormons

I know. We're not supposed to be. Our leaders speak out against feminism all the time. And while, for awhile, I thought "Ugh, the more those feminists talk the more they sound like they're projecting. There's no gender inequality. They don't see the value in being women so they have to fight for men's positions - they're just supporting the opposite view!"

Make sense?

I thought these women were only making womanhood seem that much less because they coveted traditionally male positions to prove a point. It's a fair assessment.

It wasn't until just a few years ago, though, that I started to see why some women feel shortchanged.

I've already talked about it a little bit. We're expected to pop out a dozen or so kids, and if we don't, we're considered selfish.

The words may not say "selfish" but the looks and tones say it.

We are to be good at keeping our home clean, teaching our children, cooking good and nutritious food. If we're extra good Mormon girls, we can even sew homemade clothing.

I am not a good Mormon girl. I admit it.

I wanted to be for so long. I loved the idea of taking care of my man, making him dinners and keeping the house just right and ensuring all was well in Zion, but after a while...a few things had gnawed at me just enough to start hurting:

"And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law...

"And again, verily, verily I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her..." (Doctrine and Covenants 132:54, 64)

Destroy her because she didn't necessarily like her husband taking on new girls. I don't know about you, but the tone in this just eats me up. For what is being asked of Emma, I'd expect something more compassionate. I'd hope for it, at least.

We say it's because the Lord wanted to raise up seed, but verse 51 says:

"Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice."

I know I'm really pushing the lines here, and I know some of you have expressed a comfort level with such a situation. I even get the "well, if you can't give up absolutely everything for God..." argument. But I can't read these verses and feel comfort. I'm not feeling the love. I don't see God threatening to destroy Joseph. The language concerning Joseph's part in all of this is comparatively soft.

It just adds to me feeling like nothing more than a baby machine.

Oh I know. We're always told about the divinity of motherhood, how women are vastly more spiritual than most men, that without us, men couldn't achieve the Celestial Kingdom anyway...

But really?

I understand that the Scriptures were written by men for men. But it bothers me, even still, even after hearing many attempts at explaining this:

"Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

(the Joseph Smith Translation does save itself a smidge in the final verse):

"Notwithstanding, they shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity, and holiness with sobriety."

- 1 Timothy 2:11-15

It just stings. Am I missing something? It's not as if teachers haven't tried to dull the pain - I have the notes in my scriptures right here, but I still don't understand it. And aren't we supposed to not pay for Adam's transgression, or is that a clever Article of Faith loophole because it didn't mention Eve?

Maybe my inability to understand is part my fault, maybe it's partly because...well, I won't say it.

I get that we're good for making sure our guys remember to do stuff. I get that we're good for making things look pretty (at least some of us). I even get that we're good at the service stuff. Hell, how often do we hear how the women VT stats are leaps and bounds better than the HT?

But mostly I've been feeling as if we're mere baby machines, husband/priesthood supporters who are expected to give up everything the minute we marry.

I didn't stop going to school just because I got married. There were other reasons for that. My problem lies in the fact that I'm getting the quizzical raised eyebrows when I say I'm planning on taking a few classes next semester.

I know the logic behind waiting until the kids are older. It's a lot like the logic that comes in waiting to graduate from school before marrying - but we're not exactly encouraged to do that.

I want my kids to know I'm more than just their mom. I want them to know I'm a person with hobbies and interests. I want them to know that I love me, too. I want them to grow up knowing they're more than just a husband or wife or mom. I want my daughter to know she's not just a mother-in-training, but a person, and that to be a good person she doesn't have to scrapbook, make cards, or know how to make damn good chocolate chip cookies (it's what I call them, haha). It's okay for her to want to be something when she grows up, and not just as a backup to "in case I don't get married," but because it's just good to know things, to be educated. It's important.

Yes, I think it's best to stay at home with the kids, but you won't see me judging a girl who doesn't. I honestly believe some women do better for their children when they can work a little (or a lot).

No, I don't think it's best to give up everything for them. Some sacrifice should be made; a girl ought to be able to have something to offer her children beyond the crafty Martha Stewart stuff.

Women Martyrs

So I'm really not sure how my lesson went on Sunday. I did offer a caveat that the only classes I'd ever taught in my almost-nine years in the church was the Sunbeams...still. I'm not sure.

The fact that I didn't remember it until Thursday and realized Saturday I'd lost the paper I'd written the assigned General Conference talks didn't help either.

I need more time to organize myself. I really don't have a problem giving talks in church - I revel in the opportunity to give a talk like I enjoy hearing. It's different. I've never ever tried to be weird or anything, but I base my talks off my own life. I never recycle old, tired stories and rarely use stories from the Scriptures unless it's to support or set up a real life story I have.

I've only given a handful of talks, and all but one have been well-received. I still wince when I think of the talk I gave on tithing that one time...My soapbox was rather high that Sunday. I try to never get on soapboxes for talks.

I might've gotten on a bit of a soapbox for my lesson on Sunday. Most of it was just my being unprepared for the day. I tried to think of it like a talk, but even then I was screwed. I wasn't prepared enough.

It worked, though. I had some sincere girls come tell me they enjoyed the lesson.

You should've heard the crickets when I told them they needed to consider themselves every now and again, though. That they need to think about themselves, because if they saturate their schedules with service, service, service, they risk wearing themselves thin. My basic point was that if we don't simplify and prioritize, we'll end up sacrificing the most important things with the added stress. We can't think we don't matter, because we do.

Crickets.

Why don't we think we matter? It's ridiculous. I understand that we're supposed to serve God, others, and then ourselves, but come on!

We scrapbook, make cards, cookies, etc. I'd be interested to know how many of us actually enjoy these activities. There's a woman who I used to consider my "church mom" who told me the Church goes through little cultural phases of what is considered a "must" activity. It used to be crocheting, and other things that're evading me now.

Today it's scrapbooking. We feel we must do this. WHY? I thought for years I should scrapbook. It made sense, after all. All those pictures sitting in a box; may as well do something pretty with them, right?

It took me about five years to realize three things:

1) I didn't want to scrapbook.
2) I wouldn't like scrapbooking.
3) I didn't have to scrapbook.

It was a true revelation. I'd been freed (and so had my wallet. that stuff ain't cheap!)

Same goes for the card making. I'll go buy one. I often look for the funniest cards, anyway. I don't really care about aesthetics.

Anyway, back to the point. We *kill* ourselves in competitions to see who's the most churchy, and a lot of the time this means we have an immaculate house, immaculate kids, trendy hobbies, and happy husbands.

Then we put on a fake smile, go to church, and pretend it's all good.

I like to play sports. I write. I do a lot of things on the computer. While I can bake damn good chocolate chip cookies, I don't necessarily enjoy cooking. I read books - books that aren't Church based or written by Church members. Scriptures don't often solve my problems. I love my husband more than life itself. I love my kids, but they drive me absolutely insane most days. They've also done so much for me.

You'd be surpr--well, maybe some of you would be surprised to see the looks on my fellow mom's faces when I tell them just how often I need time alone. I may be a special case - it wouldn't surprise me, but I do need a break. For the entire duration of our marriage, Eric has worked and gone to school full time, leaving me a sometimes-single mom. I'm not wired to do this with grace, and I hate that so many other women think they have to be June Cleaver. We're not all June Cleaver.

Seriously.

I will not have any more kids. Three is, most days, more than enough. I love my kids, but I'm glad I came to my senses enough to realize our original plan of five would have been the equivalent to suicide.

You should see the looks on people's faces when I tell them we're done with kids.

"Oh you never know. You're young. You could change your mind."

My health absolutely plummeted after my youngest. We will be having no more. My bishop couldn't understand that (it escapes me why I even told him), other mom's can't understand it.

People outside the church understand it.

The problem is that it took me about a year or two to finally get past the guilt I felt when I thought "I'm done." Three kids. How is that "replenishing the Earth"? I know a family with twelve kids. Eric comes from a family of six. Am I selfish?

Selfish!

Why do we feel we must do so much, even at the expense of our health and sanity?

I'd love to know how many women scrapbook, bake, have children, etc., due to mormon cultural pressures. Because they think it's what they're "supposed" to do.

There's too much of an "understanding" that we are to serve others and serve others only.

What about me? What about you?

Why the silence and deadpanned faces when I say we need to consider ourselves, too? I don't necessarily just speak of women, here, but let's face it: guys find it easier to take time for themselves. They don't worry nearly as much.

Why do I worry that I said the wrong thing or stepped out of bounds?

We're not martyrs, after all. God wants his daughters to be happy as well.

No more girls allowed!

It's not often I find the courage to bring up controversial subjects.

No, really.

I'm not entirely sure I have brought up "controversial" subjects yet. Yes, the gay marriage thing. Whatever. I'm over it. It's something people are angry over, targeting the church over (after all, we were vocal. what? we can exercise our freedom of speech in the democratic process but dissenters can't? as long as the protests at the temple are peaceful, i say they deserve at least our respect to their feelings to allow them to have their say)

Anyway. This one does make me nervous, but I think it deserves some discussion. We'll see what other people think, yeah?

A comment string a few entries back brought up the P word. I don't really know how, but I know I'm the one who brought it up.

C'mon. You know what I'm talking about. It's like Peanut Butter and Jelly. Mormons and...

Polygamy, right.

This is kinda a "hush hush" topic. Some consider it "sacred." Some, I think most, don't know how to talk about it.

I mean, how do you talk about this?

"God commanded it."

Yeah, you know...truth or not, that just doesn't cut it for outsiders. It doesn't really cut it for some insiders to be honest. It might work for the zealous, passionate new member, but if something were to happen - say, hubby cheated or something - she might feel differently about sharing her husband, even if God commanded it.

I've been around some women who joke it off. "I'd love to have more wives. I could delegate some of the stuff I have to do."

Some rationalize it. "I'd have to give permission, right?"

"Abraham was asked to do something unthinkable as a test of his faith. This is no different."

Uhm, if we're going by history...I don't know about permission. It's nice to think so, but Emma didn't give permission; she wasn't even aware of many of Joseph's wives.

And yeah it kinda is different from Abraham.

First, I would never ever question Abraham's faith. That said, I can't believe he was like "Kill my kid for you? Can I do it now?"

Unless God caught him on one of "those" days. Any parent knows what I mean. It's like after the morning I had. My four year old son gets up before we do anymore. Generally he just watches cartoons and might make breakfast for the other two (he's surprisingly clean about it), but this morning he decided to clean out the fireplace, still hot with embers.

Or the time I found him dipping a paper cup into a toilet bowl full of crap.

If God caught Abraham on one of these days, perhaps Abraham would've jumped at the idea. "I was hoping you'd say I could! Do I have to get him on an altar, or would the tent do?"

But seriously now. If Abraham was human and loved his child, his only son - and I think that's a safe assumption - and if this is supposed to allude to the difficulty and the emotional turmoil and yes, utter importance, with regarding Heavenly Father and Christ, than...yeah. I imagine he fought and cried and anguished over this.

But he went to the altar. We can assume the resignation was sincere. Despite everything he'd been told, he was going to kill his kid for God. That's not faith. That's knowledge.

But here's where the parallel ends, I think: God stopped him.

God never stopped Joseph Smith from taking on other wives. And as far as Emma goes, when she was able to reconcile herself to the idea, it was only temporary. She couldn't handle it and kicked those women out. Joseph had to practice this in hiding for the most part. Emma never taught her and Joseph's sons about it. To this day, the RLDS Church (which her sons founded) denies Joseph ever practiced polygamy.

Any woman...scratch that. There are people who willingly practice this. I don't imagine there are many, if any, LDS women who could and feel good about it. I couldn't. That would very well be the straw that breaks this girl's back. It's weak as it is.

I know, I know, I know. I've read D&C 132. Often. I know this is a Celestial doctrine. I know if I can't accept it I'm unworthy to be in His presence. At least that's what I've heard, and it really rubs my fur the wrong way. Really? Everything could hinge on that? Eh.

I know God knows my heart. He can't possibly...I just couldn't. I empathize so much with some of our more feminist sisters. For God to come and command my husband to take on another wife, sleep with her, have babies with her...

No wonder some women feel like nothing in this Church, like second-class. I totally get it. You might say "well, we don't practice it now," but we do. Spiritually. When my mom came with our family to the Sacramento, California temple open house, the tour guide brought up the subject. I'll never forget my mom turning to me and saying, "So, if you died, Eric could get married here and still be married to you?"

My heart plummeted. I didn't want to lie, so I didn't, but I did at least give voice to my disapproval. I wouldn't want it.

(just as a quick side note: yes, I know. I've found the most chivalrous men in this church. My husband treats me like a queen and I'm unbelievably blessed for it.)

I have great difficulty understanding and accepting doctrine that I can only see serving to beat down women, and don't you dare try to tell me this wouldn't beat down women. You'd better have some serious backup if you're going to do that. Even if I had faith enough to follow, I would be among the most unhappy people ever. It's breaking my heart now to even think of ever having to live such a doctrine, let alone accept it. I'd want to know why. I think I'd deserve and have some right to know why. If that's prideful, so be it. I'd want to know. I'd even be as bold as to demand it. I think a lot of you would, too, and if our God is as loving as we teach, He'd understand.

I dare any one of you women to honestly and sincerely imagine the situation and then tell me you would have the faith. Maybe some of you would. I doubt it, though. I love my husband. We have some crazy outofthisworld connection. Some might find the story of how we met and how we "knew" unbelievable. The fact is I love him, and I'm okay with being selfish about him. Even after I die, I wouldn't want him taking anyone else on.

He's mine, and I'm his. It's the most exclusive of relationships. If my relationship, if my marriage is as sacred as we've been screaming and waving signs around for, then, I'm sorry: no more girls allowed. You can say that nullifies my testimony. I say it's ridiculous to assume Joseph had to be right on absolutely everything in order for the entire gospel to be true. That's a lot to put on one man. There have been, from what I understand, a few things we've changed through the years. As a reader of mine cited in his entry today,

1 Corinthians 13:8-10

8 ...but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Hm.

Yes, I know this is "different," but one cannot shoot me down because I struggle with such a touchy doctrine. It's trickier than people want to make it. We want to not think about it. It's easier to not think about it. It's easier to say it happened because the ratio of men to women was less than desirable. It's easier to say it happened because older women needed care for, or that God wanted to "raise seed unto him."

The fact is we don't really know. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't know. We can guess to make ourselves feel better about it (because, really, is there anyone in the Church who would welcome this with open, unflinching arms? I hope not), but we don't know.

And I hatehatehate that it is so central to our doctrine. Central enough that the heighth of my salvation depends upon my "acceptance" of it. Well, accepting the doctrine means that you would do it if asked. Even if you really believe you could do it, how would you feel? About your husband, about your wife, about God...about yourself?

There's really no other way to put it. I know exactly how I'd feel.

I'd feel like shit.

You?

It's the end of the world as Dr. James Dobson knows it

We apparently are not alone in having a prophet.

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family also seems to have a bit of clairvoyant talent - or at least a time travel machine. This sixteen page letter, itemizing every Obama repercussion from talk radio to child pornography was written (or will be written?) in 2012 by "A Christian."

Now, it's a little late now, and for that I apologize. If only more voters would have been made privy to this letter prior to voting for Barack Obama, we would be spared so many awful things. So far, the predictions have come true. Senator Obama is now President-elect Obama, after all.

First, understand that a vote for Barack Obama means a new far-left democratic majority in the U.S. Supreme Court. The three conservative justices left are going to be called "originalists" because, unlike liberals, they adhere to the original meaning of the Constitution. These "originalists" argued, in vain far too many times it seems, that their job as Justices is to interpret the Constitution, not come up with heretical new laws. That's the job of the heretical liberal Congress.

So, if you ever wondered how the world would come to a crashing end, Dr. James Dobson and Co. would like to enlighten you:

1. The most far reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme Court’s stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual ‘marriage’ was a “constitutional right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex ‘marriage’ violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution…This was a blatant example of creating law by the court, for homosexual ‘marriage’ was mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, nor would any of the authors have imagined that same-sex ‘marriage’ could be derived from their words.

Huh. I didn't know marriage was mentioned at all in the Constitution.

2. The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys.

Forced to seek out homosexual scoutmasters. I can just imagine any interview that may go on:

"So. Are you gay?"

"Duh, of course."

"Hired."

"So, what are you doing Friday night?"

Come on! This would ask that a person NOT discriminate based on sexual orientation - which, sorry, should be the case.

And besides all of that, why is it okay to imply a homosexual man would try to get it on with "young boys"? Are we really intent to perpetuate this myth that all gay men are pedophiles?

Wow.

I mean, I get it. You wouldn't allow a grown man to sleep in a tent with young girls. You'd have the adults (all of them) sleep in...that's right, different tents. Not necessarily for the protection of the kids so much as for the protection of the adults as well. Easy enough. Moving on.

3. Elementary schools now include compulsory training in varieties of gender identity in Grade 1, including the goodness of homosexuality as one personal choice.

I still don’t get this. Should we instead continue to pretend homosexuality doesn’t exist? The schools, and I know this because my husband is going through the end process of becoming a teacher in California, understand how important it is to be a safe place.

Not talking about it in the schools won’t help. The schools need to help children understand and respect people, and you should too. Now, I don’t know that we’re going to have a conversation like this going on, but I mean, “A Christian” from the future seems to think it's likely, so I guess we can’t totally rule it out:

“Here’s Jack and Jill. They have ‘traditional’ sex.

“Here’s Dan and Dean. They have really cool ‘gay’ sex. It’s pretty awesome, actually. You should try it sometime. Here are some pictures!”

No.

This is more about respecting different people. And uh, if you live in California, you do have the right to opt your child out of comprehensive sex education. If your state doesn't allow it, you can work to have that changed. America is pretty cool that way.

4. The Freedom of Choice Act also reversed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, so infants can be killed outright just seconds before they would be born.

I think this is a nod to the "present" vote Obama gave as a Senator - uhm, yeah. Like he said, it was already law that you couldn't do it, and he didn't want to compromise Roe v. Wade. Me thinks Focus on the Family shot itself in the foot here.

And really, does anyone really believe this will happen? Anyone?

...
You might be surprised to read what will happen regarding Iraq, Russia, Iran, and Israel (Tel Aviv gets bombed, apparently. Huh)
...

5. Euthanasia is becoming more and more common.

Because Obama decided to introduce Universal Healthcare, after all, and it really sucks. Old people are thought more and more to have a duty to go home and die. I'll bet this news would thrill Dr. Kevorkian who could just set up practice specifically for speeding up the process.

6. Gas costs more than $7 per gallon, and many Democrats openly applaud this, since high prices reduce oil consumption and thus reduce carbon dioxide output.

I realize I'm not a registered Democrat, but as a liberal leaning heretic, I'm all for $7 a gallon gas. I was getting a little too excited - if you know what I mean - the day we paid $4.70 for a gallon of gas here in California - so close to $5 a gallon! SO CLOSE!

7. As a result, all radio stations have to provide equal time to contrasting views for every political or policy-related program they broadcast by talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity…and broadcasters like Dr. James Dobson. Every conservative talk show is followed by an instant rebuttal to the program by a liberal ‘watchdog’ group. Many listeners gave up in frustration, advertising (and donation) revenues dropped dramatically…Conservative talk radio, for all intents and purposes, was shut down by the end of 2010.

We're going to force conservative talk radio out of business for...offering the other side? I hate it when that happens.

Now, I know some of you might be waiting to hear about how electing Obama will lead to legalization of child pornography. It is not on the .pdf version of the document, but it is on this document. Why it's gone on the other version, I don't know. But it's worth reading. I really hope this isn't what people think.

8. In addition, law enforcement officials can no longer stop the distribution of child pornography, after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the such distribution violated freedom of speech and interstate commerce laws.

Yeah. I don't get this one either. Maybe it was deleted in the .pdf document because it's just so ridiculous. At least I hope so.


Of course, the letter concedes,

Christians share a lot of the blame. In 2008, many evangelicals thought Senator Obama was an opportunity for ‘change,’ and they voted for him. They did not realize Obama’s far-Left agenda would take away many of our freedoms, perhaps permanently (it is unlikely the Supreme Court can be changed for perhaps 30 years. Christians did not realize that by electing Barack Obama – rated the most liberal U.S. senator in 2007 – they would allow the law, in the hands of a liberal Congress and Supreme Court, to become a great instrument of oppression.

But, I mean, Dr. James Dobson wouldn't really want the Supreme Court majority to belong to ultra-conservative right wing Republicans, would he?

Would he?

As a last note, I'd like to offer this quote from Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian, regarding the 1800 election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams:

"The other side - the Adam's people - said [Jefferson] was a 'howling atheist'...they said if he won, that rape and incest and murder would be taught in schools. Finally this Connecticut newspaper apologized in 1993."

Everyone's a prophet.

Economic Crisis: Why it's Our Fault, Too.

Everyone is blaming the predatory lenders and whatnot for our economic crisis today.

What a load of crap.

This is symptomatic of a larger cultural problem, one where we all have this sense of entitlement, where we believe that we should have what our parents worked for years and years to attain. We attach our self worth and our identity to our material possessions, and if we think we could do better (and can't we all "do better"?), we'll do whatever it takes.

For twenty-somethings just out of college, it might be a desire to garner respect. How much respect can one get living in an apartment, after all? Can you be a respected professional driving around a twenty-year-old car held together with duct tape?

Of course not.

And so we bought the car, we bought the house. Once we had the house, we looked at our empty rooms and thought, "Wow, my ripped up couch won't do. This isn't respectable. I need furniture."

So we got a couch and other furniture. On credit, of course. Who has that kind of cash laying around, after all?

This goes on and on, and to maintain the Joneses facade, we all took out home equity loans. Some even bought houses to "flip" so they could swim in the sea of green, even when talk of a busting market escalated.

When it didn't work, we kept at it. We're not a nation of quitters, after all (just ask John McCain). No. We secured debt consolidation loans, second or third mortgages, etc. to cover ourselves. We called everything an "investment" to make it sound legit - and not just to others, no. To ourselves, too.

Because we "deserve" it.

So we allowed something or someone to cloud our better judgment. That someone often came in the form of Joe Schmoe, who would pop on our television screen or stop by our place and say "I can get you a $300,000 house no problem... No, no, I don't care about your credit or income. And guess what? You can still take that vacation - because you 'deserve' it, you hard-working-American-you."

And we jumped at it without thought to the consequences of getting into a debt that is beyond most people's capacity to handle. Because Joe said we could. Because Joe said there were options if we fell into hard times (never mind that these "options" are fraudulent in their own right. Look up "loan flipping"--refinancing doesn't always work.) Because Joe promised us things weren't as bad as that damn media wanted us to believe. Because we really do want a house. Apartments suck and renting sucks. We want to be rich. The American Dream, anyone?

We decide that we want to keep up with the proverbial Joneses sooooo bad that we'll just take the chance. Joe says we can do it, and he's the lender (why would he steer us wrong?), so why not?

I'll tell you why: because we cannot afford it.

Yes, I know that these lenders often go after people with limited incomes, limited-to-no education, the elderly, etc, etc, etc., but that's rarely an acceptable excuse - and besides, Mr. Schmoe took whatever schmuck came into his office.

And now we're crying victim.

Come on now. You're adults, right? Not everyone who did fell into these traps were high school educated only. Some of you make $90k a year. College degrees. Otherwise smart people.

I'm not saying everyone is being a baby about this. I don't know each individual situation, and I don't pretend to. I do think that, for the most part, people were lazy and let the lenders pull the wool over their eyes despite our better sense.

This is so analogous to so many things, it's ridiculous.

Just because some man showed up at our apartment door four years ago saying he could get us a house doesn't mean we jumped at it. Just because our bank took...well, I don't know if they looked at all, but they said we could get into a house no problem doesn't mean we did.

It was interesting, and we did consider it for a time, but ultimately we didn't do anything because we realized three things:

1) Houses were easily selling at $400k. Really. My dad lived next door to a dilapidated house that sold for half a million.

2) Once we looked it up, we realized we didn't make enough to handle a $150k house (which was, at the time, equivalent to a shack).

3) After a while we realized "no down payment" also equaled more interest paid in the end (down payment goes toward your premium)

We didn't know about negative amortizations, loan flipping, etc. back then, but we knew enough to know that it just wasn't a good idea. It also helped that we weren't ready to settle down at all, either. That probably saved us.

Yes, we could have rationalized ourselves into a house. We certainly gave it some thought. I'm glad we didn't though, and we've all learned a little lesson or two:

1) Do your research.
2) If you can't afford it, or think there's a chance you won't be able to afford it, don't buy it.

It's not like you're going out to eat and think maybe you can't afford it. This is a house. This is 30 years of monthly payments in the thousands. This is "if-your-roof-caves-in-you-have-to-pay-for-it-yourself" scary. There's no landlord to foot the bill, here.

We need to stop thinking for just a second about bailing out "Wall Street" OR "Main Street" and think about enjoying what we have for now and saving up for what we want.

Owning a house does not security make. Knowing, not hoping, that your house won't go away when the market starts throwing a fit, is.

We're not entitled to as much as we like to think we are. You have a roof, you have food, you have love, deal. Save up. It's not fun, not easy. I know it. I really, really don't want to do it, either. You'll have to trust me on that. Real respect comes from knowing you did things the right way - the smart way.

This is just so much bigger than the public is making it out to be, so much more fundamental and basic. Don't put a band aid over this. We need to change our mentality...badly. If we don't, this will only continue, and it will cost us so much more than $700 billion. I promise.

Introductions

I wanted to forego the initial introductions and just delve into my first post, but...

...I can't.

Before I get into anything, I'd like to explain what you can expect here, what I hope you'll gain from this, and how much I hope you'll come back for more.

(hint: lots)

"The Liberal Mormon That Could" is not a title I came to lightly. Technically, I'm a "decline to state," a left-leaning-ex-Republican who belongs in a church known for being rather conservative. It can oftentimes feel like trying to fit that proverbial square peg in a round hole. This same church feels strongly about certain issues, and despite what may come across here, I am going to do my best to not reveal my personal stances on various sensitive subjects. You're going to have to guess what I think, because I won't be saying it here.

What I will do is question people's reasons for voting a certain way or believing a certain way. I don't believe it's a good idea to just follow the other sheep because they're sheep. God gave us brains and hearts for a reason--He intends for us to use them, and anymore, I'm afraid we're not.

I've run into too many otherwise smart people who fall into what I like to call "stupid traps." They believe in a certain doctrine--political, religious, or otherwise--and don't have anything to back themselves up with other than "because I'm [insert label here]." In their religious or political fervor, they'll allow anything to make sense when it just doesn't. The banner of faith in anything does not a good argument make. I don't mind if "faith" is the reason, but as a contention it's insufficient if you wish to rally those who don't belong in your choir.

I don't claim to be any sort of genius. I certainly have a lot to learn, but when I receive e-mails saturated with irritatingly false or illogical arguments for serious or "wrinkle" topics alike, I have to scream.

In the end, I don't care what you think or believe--I just care that you have something to back yourself up with, whatever it might be. I also hope that others will allow me the same privilege. I want and encourage discussion and self-reflection in not just any readers that happen to stop by (thank you), but for myself as well.

My posts won't all be serious, though. They won't all be regarding the religious or political topics du jour.

I mean, I have three kids. I've gotta take advantage of that.