Sunstone West Review

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

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

The sessions my husband and I attended:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imagine that.

Sodom and Gomorrah: Not about homosexuals.

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


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

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

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

= A largely held belief.

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

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

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

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

It begins in verse 20-21:

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

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

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

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

Chapter 19, verse 4-5:

“But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us that we may know1 them.”

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

“And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my room.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t get it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

1 Sam. 18: 1, 3-4

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

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

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

Judas, Satan, Eve, and "Transgressions"

First, a caveat: This entry is bound to offend somebody. I suppose most things are bound to offend somebody, but this one particularly harbors some potential and probable offense. If you find it, know I'm not out to blaspheme. These are genuine thoughts from a genuine person. This has crossed my mind more than once, and I thought I'd dare post them to see if I'm completely off my rocker or not. My husband assures me the Church has already addressed these issues but he isn't sure how. I'm very interested and ask that you please be respectful in your feedback. Thanks.


From an Ensign article regarding the Fall of Adam:

Truths restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith bring Adam and Eve out of obscurity and into marvelous light, revealing they were noble and great forebears who “fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25)....

Our Father in Heaven knew Adam and Eve would fall. In fact, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that Adam “was made to open the way of the world” (Teachings, 12). Lehi tells us, “Adam fell that man might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Ne. 2:25). Modern scripture makes it clear that it was the will of the Father, as part of his plan, that Adam and Eve transgress and thus be moved out of Eden. Satan thus unwittingly furthered the plan, “for he knew not the mind of God” (Moses 4:6).

- Arthur A. Bailey, What Modern Revelation Teaches about Adam, January 1998 Ensign.

Again, perhaps my logic is flawed. If you see it, let me know. These are merely thoughts, not statements of fact.

But here we go: God knew Eve would succumb to the serpent's words and temptation. He knew Adam, obedient, wonderful Adam, would follow his wife as commanded (think temple).

Adam and Eve had to partake of the fruit. They had to disobey God's explicit command to leave the stupid fruit alone, 'else we would have no reason to exist today.

Hell, according to doctrine we would not exist today without Eve.

We love Eve. We love women.

/sarcasm.

But this is doctrine. Agreed? Everyone happy? Okay.

Judas.

We equate Judas with betrayal. He sold our Savior to Caiaphas and Pilate, to those who hated him and demanded His crucifixion, the very crucifixion which led to his death?

Would it be fair to suggest that without Judas we wouldn't have the Atonement?

I understand we believe the actual atoning of sins to have taken place in the Garden of Gethsemane, prior to the betrayal of Judas. Without Christ's death, however, the Atonement would be in vain. It is in the Atonement, we teach, that Christ took on all our sins, all of them. He had to die with those sins on his shoulders and overcome death so that we may, too.

Correct?

Some may contend God could have had a plan for Christ to die without Judas' help. This may be true - God's omnipotence would demand it; however, the same could be said for Adam and Eve.

Correct?

We make the distinction that Eve committed not a sin, but a mere transgression in doing what she had to do, what God wanted her to do.

Could the same be said of Judas?

Satan

If you've been to the temple, think back. While I'm told most things are ok-ay to relate outside the temple, I want to be careful here for various reasons.

But perhaps I can circumvent that through simple explanation.

We're taught, as has been explained before, that God knew of the inevitable "Fall of Adam" (apparently his fall is the only one that matters? ugh, who cares). In order for Adam to fall, a few things had to be available:

1) The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
2) The Tree of (Eternal) Life
3) The very innocent and pure Adam and Eve
4) A Tempter: Satan/Serpent

Each are equally important in what we learn to be God's purpose for us: "To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of Man." (Moses 1:39)

Without the tree, there could be no possibility, according to the Gospel, that God's children would ever know good versus evil. This is vital to free agency.

The Tree of Eternal Life is a bit different in that Adam and Eve were not forbidden to partake of that fruit. Nothing stopped them from going there and remaining in their perfect, innocent state. It would be of interest to discuss this, but for today's purposes let's just remember that God placed Cherubim to guard it after Adam and Eve ate the fruit so they would not partake of this particular tree and remain forever in their sins.

I think the importance of Adam and Eve are fairly well understood for this purpose today.

The tempter.

Now there's something interesting. My husband tells me there are some who believe that, in the end, Satan will basically receive forgiveness and attain his own bit of glory. Remember the temple here and how Satan responds to God's inquiries of what he's doing around Adam and Eve.

Oh hell I'll just write it. My stepFIL is a temple worker and says it's fine to talk about pretty much everything - pretty much. I'm just in no hurry to get called in.

Remember how Satan/Lucifer responds that he's doing only what has been done in other worlds? Interestingly enough everything but this part is mentioned almost word for word in the Book of Moses. Hm.

I never understood why this time was different. It always seemed to me that God needed Satan's part in order to "bring to pass" his purposes for us, so that we could one day become like him. What good is it to know only the good? Where is the choice when you don't know the good for the evil?

Where is the choice indeed.

Was Satan rebuked in like manner during the other times? It's like telling your kid something needs to be done, and when he does it, sending him to his room. "I know it was important and a righteous means to an end, but dammit! You shouldn't have done it!"

Is that it? Did God have a different plan, or was he just waiting for Lucifer to inadvertently help him out?

So if Eve is to be revered for her actions in disobeying God - being the first to do so - why don't we then also revere Judas and even recognize Satan's part in all of this?

Would Eve have partaken of the fruit without Satan telling her all the cool stuff that would happen if she did?

Was there a different way for Christ to be crucified or was Judas an essential part of that plan, too?

Before anyone says "we're not to know all the mysteries of God" let me say I know. But I think this deserves some attention. It's been on my mind for some years, and I hardly think I'm so original as to be the first to think of such things.

Please, discuss.

Why I May Not Be in Church This Sunday

I believe it's this Sunday, at least.

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, Chapter 27: The Bitter Fruits of Apostasy.

Apostasy.

To the dictionary, the word is benign: the renunciation of a religious or political belief or allegiance

To the Church, it's betrayal of God.

The second paragraph in the lesson begins thusly:

As that year wore on, a spirit of apostasy grew among some of the Saints in Kirtland. Some members became proud, greedy, and disobedient to the commandments... Sister Eliza R. Snow recalled: 'Many who had been humble and faithful to the performance of every duty - ready to go and come at every call of the Priesthood - were getting haughty in their spirits, and lifted up in the pride of their hearts.' (p. 317)

Too often, far too often, we shun those who no longer agree with all or some of the tenants of the church as prideful, haughty, greedy and worldly apostates. Indeed when one disagrees, some jump at the chance to suggest the apostate is looking for the approval of the world as opposed to that of God. As Latter-day Saints we are in the world, but not of the world. Apostates, on the other hand, fit both bills.

This lesson doesn't help that.

...Brigham Young...remembered a meeting at which some Church members were discussing how to depose the Prophet Joseph: 'I rose up, and in a plain and forcible manner told them that Joseph was a Prophet and I knew it, and that they might rail and slander him as much as they pleased, [but] they could not destroy the appointment of the Prophet of God; they could only destroy their own authority, cut the thread that bound them to the Prophet and to God, and sink themselves to hell. (p. 317, emphasis added)

Elder Dallin H. Oaks has mentioned it's inappropriate for anyone to criticise Church leaders, even when it is justified. And why? The lesson explains:

"Losing confidence in Church leaders, criticizing them, and neglecting any duty required by God lead to apostasy" (p. 318)

Siiiiigh.

It's never about anything else, either.

[Brigham Young] then remarked that any man, any elder in this Church and kingdom who pursued a course whereby he would ignore or, in other words, refuse to obey any known law or commandment or duty - whenever a man did this, neglected any duty God required at his hand in attending meetings, filling missions, or obeying counsel, he laid a foundation to lead him to apostasy and this was the reason those men had fallen. (p. 319, emphasis added)

I understand that it's wrong to complain just to complain. We all do it, we probably shouldn't. Sustaining our leaders, teachers, etc. includes buoying them up. Supporting them. Raising our hand in class, preparing for class, etc.

"As long as my brethren stand by me and encourage me, I can combat the prejudices of the world, and can bear the contumely [harsh treatment] and abuse with joy..." (Joseph Smith, p. 320)

Of course. We all need support in our work, our leaders especially. This isn't easy stuff, and there is a world of people against them. They've much to combat.

But to suggest justified criticism is wrong because it's a stepping stone to apostasy...? Is this shit for real?

It gets worse.

"From apostates the faithful have received the severest persecutions. Judas was rebuked and immediately betrayed his Lord into the hands of His enemies, because Satan entered into him" (p. 321)

Ahh, yes. Apostates of the Church today = Judas.

Judas. Who betrayed Christ to his death.

"Who, among all the Saints in these last days, can consider himself as good as our Lord? Who is as perfect? Who is as pure? Who is as holy as He was?" (p. 321)

I get it! The Church isn't perfect, neither are the servants of the Lord. I get it! But I propose those who leave don't consider themselves perfect. We don't ask for a perfect church. We don't ask for perfect leaders...necessarily. I'll admit I do hope for better in my leaders. It's important to realize they're human too and will fail at times. We need to realize such about anybody. Respect is tantamount, but respect must be given and earned and isn't always even by our leaders. The benefit of the doubt is also vital, for both leader and follower alike. Sometimes we just don't know. I get all of this. I don't think "apostates" necessarily began with criticising present leaders as much as they may criticise past leaders' opinions as well as current church stances. There is a difference.

The lesson basically accuses "apostates" of biting the hand that fed them, and indeed perhaps some do. One such example MAY be Ed Decker (thank you, Equality, for the correction. Oy!). His work is unbelievably ridiculous. My mom had me watch his movie The Godmakers as an investigator and I laughed. Horrible. Fear mongering and exaggerations at its worst.

But are we much better sometimes?

This lesson encompasses the reason so many find difficulty in leaving. Many stay because they believe in certain tenets of the faith. Many stay because they feel a connection to God here. Many do stay because they cannot go anywhere else because their discriminatory beliefs in God are rejected in many other churches (though I hear many choose to attend the Unitarian churches).

But many don't leave because they're scared to death of abandonment and venom. If they haven't already, they know the accusations will fly. Gossip will hush behind their backs. They are going to hell. They are covenant breakers, and if you've been to the temple, you may recall the consequences of breaking those covenants, though they sound more like general threats of the wrath of God...

And it doesn't matter what dissenters say about their good feelings toward the Church despite their disaffection. This lesson also covers that.

When the Prophet had ended telling how he had been treated, Brother Behunin remarked: 'If I should leave this Church I would not do as those men have done: I would go to some remote place where Mormonism had never been heard of, settle down, and no one would ever learn that I knew anything about it.'

The great Seer immediately replied: 'Brother Behunin, you don't know what you would do. No doubt these men once thought as you do. Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant (p.324)

That's right.

The lesson ends on a higher note, I think, stating that the majority of the prophets and apostles will never lead us astray. Quite a change from "The Prophet will never lead you astray" but I suppose most things don't get through the Quorum until a majority rules, correct? Ahh, I don't know.

I don't believe the apostles and the Prophet to be imposters. I don't hate the Church; I'm grateful for it and will always be.

There are apostates, but not necessarily betrayers of God. Though I certainly understand why the Church would think so, many simply find another way to God (and many turn agnostic at best and athiest at "worst"). Some in the Church accept this and treat sincere dissenters with respect, but most hear lessons like this and choose to shun, choose to believe anyone who would leave (and generally these are the once very active and zealous) to be a fallen people, a prideful people, a worldly people.

This simply isn't true, not all of the time. I understand the Church wants to protect its people, wants to ensure its people stay faithful, but to suggest it's God or Satan, I think, is counterproductive. Some readers might find it to be a truthful statement. Such black and white teaching and thinking only serves to push more people away. I won't have anything to do with it.

I still haven't decided if I want to go or not. Upon my first reading of this lesson my anxieties kicked in. Guilt set in. I developed a migraine.

Many would say this is because "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard."

And I just might hit the next person who suggests such a thing. Guilt isn't always a reaction to uninvited truth, but to indoctrination.

I just don't know. I don't know how I'd react at Church. I already know what people will say, I just want to know what I would say. I couldn't go and remain quiet. That wouldn't be right, but it sure will pique some curiosities regarding where I stand. Eh.

Out of the Closet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need an Aaron.

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

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

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

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

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

Confessions Part 2: What's Been Bothering Me

Okay, okay, okay. I suppose I can't just come out with "thinking of leaving the church" and then get back to business as usual.

I value and revere honesty so much in other people when they're able to say scary things. What I said in my post may well be read by members of my family (I really don't know) and perhaps a member or two of my stake.

It's taken me some years to get here, where I can find the courage for even a little frankness and honesty. I'll admit much indifference anymore rather than courage. It’s taken some time, some acceptance, and confidence of self to get to this point. Though I do fear verbalizing my beliefs and rationale thereof, when I’m alone and unafraid, I know exactly where I stand. There’s a reason I write. My emotions get the better of me and at least here I can edit and think before I speak.

That said, there’s a fear of confessing here as well: I know there are some who visit my blog who believe in the Church but for some reason find some worth in my words. I fear that my “coming out” will take away any clout I had. I hope that’s not true, but if it is: so be it.

My missionaries called me their "golden convert." I had a set of senior missionaries, and they were sweet, but boy am I glad I had even then a level head. Dad, if you're reading this, I know you didn't think so, but I did. I knew at the second discussion they'd ask me to commit in some degree to baptism, so I was ready to tell them to wait. When they tried to convince me of the divinity of the Book of Mormon by pointing out that a prophecy foretold in 1 Nephi was fulfilled in 3rd Nephi, I recognized right away the fallacy in such an argument. When they suggested I have my family watch the video Families Can Be Together Forever I knew I couldn't. I'd seen the video. Baaaad video, and besides, my family already believed that. My mom found great offense in the idea that we thought she couldn’t be with us in the afterlife.

Sometime after baptism - and I wish I knew the place exactly - I noticed a few times a footnote in the Book of Mormon which offers a Joseph Smith Translation. Anyone have a good explanation for that? I still find that weird.

I don't recall each time something struck me odd, but they came and went. I gave them no voice because I believed and that stuff didn't matter, or so I told myself. I appreciated having friends who accepted me for who I was. I appreciated being in a new place where I could be a new person. Back at home there were people who had known me since preschool and others since my awkward tomboy stage. Kids can be unforgiving, so the renewed chance with genuine friendship was nice. I was eighteen years old and in college in a new city. My new friends were fun, and I liked church. I believe I even wrote "Sunday is my favorite day" in my journal.

The Church has been good to me. I've grown as a person, met the most amazing man. I’ve been blessed because of this church. I don’t deny that. I couldn’t.

But the more I learn the more I feel unsettled. We're told to not quote "unauthorized" sources in our lessons, yet Church leaders often quote Bruce R. McConkie's patently unauthorized Mormon Doctrine. Are we to? No. Apparently we can't tell when McConkie spoke truth and when he was speaking out of his ass, but our leaders can.

Then there’s fun stuff like this quote from Elder Mark E. Peterson of the Quorum of the Twelve circa 1954:

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

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

If anyone knows BYU, and I'll admit my knowledge is wanting, we can agree BYU to be very strict in what it allows and what it doesn't. See the Honor Code if you don't believe me. When a General Authority visits gives a talk at BYU, we can assume BYU's blessing of the words. We can assume the teachers at said convention took his words as truth and passed it along through the years until the Church became more "enlightened."

There are many more quotes, such as that the blacks will never receive the priesthood. When such things are brought up in conversation, the inevitable answers include "new revelation trumps old," "this isn't doctrine, just some member of the Quorum giving a talk," or "those leaders spoke from limited understanding." I can accept the last excuse, it's on the right track, but the teaching was still wrong. Why can't we just admit to being wrong?

I want someone to say that we could be working on limited revelation now. I want us to stop talking in absolutes, because we don't know everything. Perhaps we're working on limited revelation regarding homosexuality. I think it's entirely possible, but you won't find many who will agree.

I don't believe this church is the only "true" church. I refuse to give testimony in which I lie in proclaiming my knowledge of that which I have no knowledge of so I can gain faith in it, and yet we are asked to do so. I have no issue with saying "I believe...." But "I know" both sounds rote and impassionate. We say it so often the power within it is gone. I feel the same about our rote prayers.

We are not a perfect church, can't we just say it? Or are we too concerned with image and numbers? Are we too concerned that we've touted ourselves as such for so long that we'll lose members? How will we look to the outside world if we concede something? Perhaps for some it will never matter. I'd just like some dialogue.

Not that I'm anyone to speak, but we seem awfully prideful sometimes.

Onto other things:
I don't believe a tank top (a clothing garment I can't pull off, btw) is immodest. I don't believe having a cup of tea or coffee (both of which I'm not a fan of, though I used to be a huge fan of iced mochas) will make me unworthy to be in God's presence. Yes, I know: sometimes we're asked to do simple things in the name of faith. The scripture regarding Christ telling a follower to wash in the Jordan River comes to mind. All of it is in my brain, I just happen to think there are other things we could focus on rather than a friggin' coffee bean and tea leaf.

I’m tired of listing the health benefits thereof and having people say “eh, the WoW isn’t necessarily about health” when ten seconds before we were talking about the health code that is the WoW. Or that it's about addiction when we're all addicted to something. While I may not be addicted to coffee, I'll admit a huge addiction to sugar. Am I unworthy? If I drank coffee but gave up sugar, would I be worthy?

I'm tired of condescending leaders (especially for the youth, holy crap. anyone seen A Brand New Year? Watch the videos. WOW - frightening). I'm tired of people telling me to study the scriptures but ignore the inconsistencies and hard things. I want to stay because of family and my kids, but much as I like putting them in primary (they love it), I worry about the mixed messages they'll receive at home. I don't want them becoming so much a part of it and then having their mom and dad say they don't believe everything. Talk about counter-productive. I want them to have a spiritual background but not just this one. I like the social aspect of Church as well. My husband and I are rather anti-social, so church provides our children with friends to interact with. As they start school this part gets better, though. I’m getting better.

I don't want to be called a fence sitter, but I guess that’s what I am, what I've been. Call me lukewarm, something God will spit out as spoken in Revelation, fine. I guarantee you I’m guilting myself far better than anyone else ever could.

I'll go through the pains I went through joining ten times before I'll want to go through the pains of leaving. In joining I acquired a unique set of beliefs without rejecting fundamental beliefs such as the existence of God. In leaving, however, I’ll have those who tell me I am stepping into the fiery pits of hell and am bound to be an enemy of the Church (don’t believe me? Read Chapter 27 of “Teachings of the Prophets: Joseph Smith.” It’s called The Bitter Fruits of Apostasy. Or just come to church next week, I think. I’m not sure I’ll be there.)

It will be strange to be in the same place my mom was when the remainder of my husband's siblings marry - in the foyer, waiting, because I can't say I have a testimony anymore, that I find great difficulty in sustaining my leaders, or because while I may keep the word of wisdom, I don't believe in some of it. I’ll sit in the foyer because I take issue with the idea of the priesthood, that God would deny my non-member sister some blessings simply because our father doesn't hold the priesthood. Is a blessing surely that much more powerful than a non-member's prayer for healing? I’ll sit because I don’t sustain our leaders when it comes to their recent actions. Because I do sympathize with some so-called “apostates;” I get where they’re coming from but do reject their venom. I will sit outside because there’s something about the endowment ceremony which doesn’t sit right with me. Because I can’t say I believe just so I can attend a wedding or keep up appearances with friends or family who may invite us along soon.

There are some whose reaction I fear worse than others. Those who I’ve held close to my heart for so many years who are on the other end of the spectrum, a person I don’t want to scare but will. I hold no desire to talk people down from their testimony, only a desire to have others understand my disaffection and respect it. I get the fear; I’ve felt it too and not just with myself. I know the inevitability of this fear. I know time will heal that wound too, but never entirely.

I’ve no desire to take my name off the rolls, but I don’t want to be an active, all-believing part of something which preaches only black and white, bad or good, worthy or unworthy. It's just not as cut and dry as many of us want to believe. I still want to attend church, but I don’t want to be held to some ridiculous standard or have doctrines and ideas taught to my children which I don’t believe. Right now they’re taught to “choose the right.” Good. But my daughter will be eight years old in two years. I do think that’s a little young for the huge decision that is baptism.

The culture and doctrine of all or nothing serves me little purpose and stunts my spiritual and personal growth. It isn’t that way anywhere else – at least not in mainstream Christianity, but again that’s not a place I want to be necessarily either. I suppose in that way I’m being forced out. I know in my heart and in my head the choice has been made already, but the idea of never or at least rarely attending church saddens me. I don’t care for that. I’ve made some new friends over the last few months; granted they’re little more than acquaintances but people I’d like to get to know better nevertheless. Will they reject me? Where will I find new friends? Though I’m fairly introverted, I do need good friends. They can come in any form though: LDS or not.

I think I know where I’m headed, the peace is coming slowly but surely.

Apostasy? Call it whatever you will. God knows me. Perhaps I’ll want to come back sometime in the future, but if I did I would want to do it without pulling the wool over my own eyes. I leave nothing out of the realm of possibility. I do so love the smell of the chapel and the sound of the hymns. Sigh.

I just happen to think my personal relationship with God and Christ matters more than my relationship with the Church, and right now I feel it’s too much about the Church and not enough about God. Too much about coffee and tea and less about garnering a pure love of Christ in my heart. Too much about fear and less about unconditional love.

That’s all.

Confessions: Why I Stay, Why I May Not Be Able To

A friend of mine, The Faithful Dissident, wrote an entry entitled "Why Are You Still Here?" a few months ago (thanks, sweetie, for the correction :) . Those who read shared their reasons for staying, but even then I wasn’t sure how to respond besides “I don’t know.”

That’s a lie, really, but to tell the truth really opens up some wounds and I fear the salt. I know why I stay. Are they good reasons? Eh.

More and more I wonder if it’s worth it.

First I’ll start with the good, the things I do believe in, what I like. I believe in eternity. I can’t not believe in that. I believe in families being together forever, but to be honest (and despite Mormon myth), there are a lot of Christian and non-Christian denominations which believe this. It may differ, but there’s little that separates us. When we speak of families being together, most believers will nod their neads.

Moving on.

I’ve always believed in God. Even when I stopped attending my dad’s Assembly of God church and rejected all organized religion, I still believed in God. I still prayed. Today my prayers are rare, but I don’t doubt God is there.

I believe works are more important than most realize in salvation. Key to salvation? Heck no, but "faith without works is dead." That said, I’m tired of trying so damn hard. The list is long, and I can deal with that, but too many things on said list seem trite to this tired girl.

The temple. I’ve mixed emotions about the temple. Beyond the standard “hearkening” to the husband stuff, I’ve other issues. What’s with the women covering their faces with the veil?

(On a slightly related note, what’s with so much focus on the Church and less on God? I know this is a touchy thing for me to say, but I’ve always, always hated “Praise to the Man”

Thankfully, at least in my area, we don’t sing that hymn often, but the discovery that my beloved ex-Stake President’s favorite hymn was Praise to the Man unsettled me.)

The people. My SIL became one of my best friends. We’ve changed so much in the past seven years, but when we were close (before we were SILs), she was an anchor. I loved her for many reasons. Before her and through her I've met some amazing people.

My husband. Need I say more?

Institute, much as I squirm to think of it now, saved my life. When I started college, I know for a fact two paths laid before me. Without the girl who introduced me to Institute and befriended me, I would have undoubtedly embarked on the wrong path. The church has been a godsend for me and my life. Much as I want to regret it sometimes, I can’t. We hear a lot of converts say they don’t know where they’d be without the church, but I have a pretty good idea. It is much of what frightens me about life without the church today. I have to keep reminding myself that it doesn't have to be as scary as I (a) think it would've been, (b) am told it is, and that (c) many people lead good lives without it. It's not easy.

The knowledge God can speak to me. Priceless, and yet one of the most compelling reasons I struggle so much today.

And, much as I writhe within it, the culture. The social network. It’s wonderful. It’s just what a new convert from an angry family needs. It’s just what a teenager in the throes of high school needs. I understand its importance and yet understand all too well its restrictiveness. I think the consequences thereof outweigh the benefits. But maybe that’s just me. I don’t imagine anyone free from the Mormon spiritual struggle understands this (and I mean those who have ever, if only briefly, truly considered the idea of leaving), but there are many who do.

Isolation. Rejection. Pointed fingers and whispers.

Tough love…maybe. Perspective changes everything.

The story of the Book of Mormon appealed to me. I’d always rejected the idea of the Trinity. I appreciated the constancy of the Church. I appreciated staunch adherence to values.

And why not Joseph Smith? Would I as a person back in the day of Christ believed in Christ, or back in the day of Moses believed in Moses? Why not Joseph Smith?

That said, I know the possibility in believing in only part of the gospel. GA's love to talk about how if we accept Joseph Smith as a prophet all else falls into place - as in everything the Church has ever done, is doing, and will do. I don't buy that.

Onto some issues:

Four years ago or so, my family moved so my husband could attend the nearby university. The prospect of being on our own appealed to me very much; I’d tired of others referring to me as “Mary’s* roommate” or even “Eric’s wife.” I had a name, thankyouverymuch.

Some may speculate distance from family contributed to our struggles, but after a year we assimilated into our new ward. For all intents and purposes, I really liked our ward. I loved being on our own. I loved others calling me "Sister J" than "Eric's wife."

Something else of which I am uncomfortable discussing here started it all.

Then we read Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. Not anti-material. Refreshing. Largely unbiased, and by that I mean as unbiased as a book written by a member can be. Honest.

Honest.

Polygamy. It hit home for me that year. The idea sickened me. I cried often, knowing I could not accept such doctrine. For some years I reconciled it, but to personalize it, to feel how it might feel, the reconciling process stops. The teaching that I must accept it or be damned didn’t help either. My husband fought with that idea as well for the first time. Until then he defended polygamy as “sacred.” No longer.

Enter first “What if I left?” thought.

Somehow, though, we managed and even went through a period of rebirth. We purchased some pictures, books, videos, etc. When our doubts resurfaced, peeking over the horizon like the beginnings of sunrise, we ignored them.

Long story short, then Prop 8 happened. Yes, my bishop said “oh you’re okay,” but his blessing failed to heal the gaping, festering wound that was first my friend’s reaction to my stance, and then the realization that the answers to my prayers were in vain if the Prophet had spoken; the idea our prayers are meant only to confirm and never to contest.

Many argue this point, but it’s there and I don’t intend to debate it further.

Open the floodgates to other issues I’d always silenced. Open the floodgates to the desolate land that is life inside this closet, inside the idea that if I left I’d lose friends and in many ways lose family. I’d be alone because, as an introvert, this is my social network. It would be gone. I’d take on the label of apostate, and nobody wants to hang out with an apostate. It's contagious.

Enter guilt and fear like I never knew possible.

Enter the emptiness that comes with really not belonging anywhere. I’ve so many issues with the church, yet I cannot accept many fundamental doctrines of mainstream Christianity either. In many ways this feels as if it would be a spiritual exile. Just call me Cain.

I don’t know what to do or how to do it, and putting everything into words proves far more difficult than it ought to be.

I do know this: The more I hear about how awesome we are, how much apostates suck, that I need to just suck it up and have hope and faith; the more I hear about how many people are missing out on the “one and only truth of the Gospel,” how righteous we are (and by definition, how wicked others are) and have to endure cultural traditions that blur with doctrine so that the line no longer exists…The more I have to be told to stay within my very small box or risk falling into sin (heaven forbid we mess up): the more I don’t want to be here.

We talk about accountability and freedom of choice, but I don’t see it anymore. There is no freedom here. Don’t drink (still have thoughts on this. Many will disagree), avoid the appearance of evil, don’t curse, give everything we can to the Church, serve serve serve with little focus on heart and intention, just serve; one earring only per ear now girls, Sundays are a day of church, meetings, and never seeing your family, etc. The list goes on and is largely meant to keep us from even the chance of sin. Where is the choice in that?

Where is the choice when it's either obey or suffer the consequences of eternal misery?

I’m tired of the word “worthy.” I’m tired of simple answers to complex questions. I’m tired of Pharisaical guidelines (again, the damn earrings, but there’s more). No beards? For real? The inability of the church to discuss difficult topics such as Mountain Meadows, Blacks and the Priesthood, and SEX. People! I need to do another post on sex.

I don’t want to strive for perfection. It’s an exercise in futility. I’m tired of having the weight of the world on my shoulders that is being a great example. I’ve had this weight on me before I joined the church, and in my experience it doesn’t matter as much as we want it to. Because of it I’ve never been true to myself nor have I ever allowed myself to make mistakes from which to learn from. I cannot tell my son to be good because his little brother is watching him. Surely there are better and more motivating reasons that pertain only to him, so that he'll feel he's "choosing the right" because he believes it's right and not because he feels the pressure to be a "good example" or has the weight of ensuring the souls of those around him are righteous because of him.

The world is not that bad of a place. We fear so much. Too much. It will come back to bite us in the ass and I’m tired of always looking back to see what’s coming. Let me enjoy life. Enough with the don’ts. I just want to live, be a good person, and live according to my conscience which seems to have served me very well thus far.

Oh, and by the way, the Spirit works in the hearts of non-members as well. Probably far more than we care to realize.

And let’s not forget the awesomeness of Joseph Smith – his 200th birthday celebration was ridiculous. So much pomp and circumstance over a man. Yes, he did much, suffered much, etc, but come on.

I wish everything was easier. There are days I long for freedom of the confines of this church, and I feel them more as shackles these days than anything else. But I know where I would be without having joined this church. I can’t deny its power in my life. Being told if I leave all sorts of hell will pour down upon me...well. This is safe. But do I want to stay where I merely feel "safe"?

The grasp is firm and unyielding. Guilt and fear are strong, strong motivators, and the fact it is guilt and fear keeping me here gives me only more reason to think I’m in the wrong place right now. Perhaps I’m done.

The Problem With Silence

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

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

“Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.

“Larry King: For?

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Also posted at Feminist Mormon Housewives.

Wading Through Cultural Waters

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

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

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

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

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

*cough*

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

Seriously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Prophet will never lead us astray."

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

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

I hope that's not the case.

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

Do you?

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

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

Million dollar question of the day.

Wine and the Church

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

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

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

Now here's what it does mention regarding drinks:

1. If any man drinks wine or strong drink, "behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before Him." (v.5, emphasis added)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Right?

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

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

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

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

Section 89 was received in February 1833.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter versus Spirit

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. - Matthew 7:1-2

I'm afraid I've mislead a lot of you. I don't want to help perpetuate the stupid stereotype that liberal Mormons aren't good, strong Mormons because I'll tell you right now I'm not (not strong, that is). I used to be. You could've called me Molly and I would've not only answered but also beamed with pride. Not now. I don't think this makes my views any less important or relevant. I'm trying really hard to do what is right - too hard, I think. I've seriously and literally made myself sick over it the last few days.

There are plenty of good, strong LDS liberals though, and their political views are strongly supported by scripture. Not to say they are better supported than that of our conservative counterparts, but supported just the same.

Really, what it all tends to come down to is our ability to trust in each other. Like Joseph Smith said, "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves."

We are taught to pray about things, to "ponder" (hate that word) and meditate, study the scriptures and search things out in our minds and then in our hearts. When we've come to a decision, we go to God in prayer for his blessing.

Sometimes our decisions aren't what the Church at large would bless, but what if God's answer to our prayers confirmed our wayward decisions?

What if?

I believe with everything in me it's happened. It happened to me with Proposition 8. I felt a peace that took such a burden off my shoulders when I finally decided after much prayer in my heart. Others have told me similar stories, and too many others have rebuked them, saying that since their "answers" go against what GA's have said or otherwise, that they are automatically wrong. I think that's a load.

Is this church really the one for everyone on the planet? I don't think so.

There is much to love about this Church. It's brought me independence in a way I couldn't have found before. It's brought me a deeper meaning and relationship with God that I couldn't have found anywhere else. Teachings regarding our not having to pay for Adam's transgression and that of the Godhead resonated. Even as a child attending Pentecostal churches, I never believed in the Trinity.

I still believe in those things, and I hesitate to pick and choose - but what if?

The world isn't as cut and dry as we want to think. We are told the Gospel is simple and perfect, but that is only in its basics. When things start to not make sense, we complicate and lose our faith, either that of our own or of others, in the process.

We all have diferent histories and experiences; we're all wired differently. That's what's so cool about life.

So how often do we limit God's mercy to that of repentance and nothing else?

We look upon those who have left the Church or live, in varying degrees, a life contrary to what it teaches as lost souls. What if some of them are not so much lost but simply on a different path? What if?

Should we really be so strict? It's easy to live within well-defined boundaries. We won't mess up that way - but we're supposed to mess up. If we weren't supposed to, we wouldn't have repentance. Let's trust God and His plan for us and our brothers and sisters.

While we need to take care, we also need to understand that God has a plan for us all, and sometimes that plan takes us on different paths. As long as we're paying due attention to ourselves and praying along the way, I think we'll be okay.

Why must we complicate the basics? Love of our fellow man. Love of God. I feel we're more concerned with justice than we are mercy.

I really do believe we all pick and choose (see the Word of Wisdom - seriously, how many of us hunt and eat more meat and less grain? how easy it is to not drink and smoke, but that? naw. anyway). We're human. We do what is convenient for us...except for the bigger things. The more visible things. We want to appear righteous to even the detriment of our fellow man.

A friend of mine online told a story about a group of Priesthood who were asked "If you drove down the highway to find a sister in your ward stranded, would you give her a ride?"

As the story goes, far too many said they'd keep driving as to avoid the "appearance of evil" since they or she was married.

Spirit of the law or letter of the law?

I've known people who are so intent on going to the temple no matter what to even ignore the Spirit when it tells them to stay home. After having my second child, I suffered from mild to severe baby blues (not quite postpartum depression, but close). My SIL came over and told me she and her husband were planning a trip to the temple the next day, but they'd both felt that perhaps they were needed at home instead. After visiting me, she called and said she knew why she needed to stay home and that she'd be taking my oldest so I could rest the next day.

I had another friend not too long after that tell me that she believed that if anything was keeping her from the Temple, be it impressions, sickness, or a car breaking down, that it was Satan keeping her from her sacred work.

Sometimes that is the case, but I knew by then it wasn't always the case. My SIL taught me so much that day. The temple is important, service for the dead is important (and just the communion with God is important), but not nearly as important as service for those who are living.

Sometimes our experiences lead us to prayers which lead us to do things that would seem wrong to most others, most notably those within the Church, because we want to live according to the letter. It's just easier and less messy that way.

I'm right with the lot of you who like to delve deep into study over doctrine and quotes and history. I actually had my Institute director tell me as a new convert that I shouldn't attend Church condoned conferences that went deeper because I "wasn't ready yet."

??

Why? It helps clear up so much. The Spirit is there to help us - Why are we so afraid? I think it's partly because we tend to want to live according to the letter, and delving deeper tends to invite us to think (the horror!) and perhaps see things in a different light.

God works in mysterious ways, and his ways are not our ways. I think too often we take this and stand up a little taller in our (self)-righteousness. We do belong to the One True Church, after all. But the world isn't like that.

All that matters is what is between God and you. If you are sincere in your journey for help in your decisions and ask God and he answers, then that's all that matters. That's what I think.

I'd like to end with this fabulous quote from Orson Scott Card's really amazing article entitled Is There an R-rated Movie Commandment? (I intend to toss in my own two cents soon. So many topic ideas. So much for that dry well. Anyway)

"President Hinckley in particular has tried to get us to make wise decisions about such things on our own, refusing to get roped into giving us specific regulations that allow us to turn off our own consciences.

"Yet there are always Latter-day Saints who want to live in a pharisaical church.

"The Pharisees had a pious goal: Because they wanted to avoid disobeying the law even by accident, they decided to 'build a fence around the law,' surrounding the deep principles of Torah with a lot of small, specific regulations, so that by obeying those little rules, the Lord's people could be sure they wouldn't accidentally stray from the great law.

"The problem is that such a 'fence around the law' can give us a false sense of safety. It's so easy to obey such laws and yet join the category of 'fools' and 'hypocrites' that Jesus repeatedly rebuked. You condemn your brother for the mote in his eye, Jesus said, but don't see the beam in your own. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.

"Paul called them whited sepulchers, those hyper-obedient souls who went to extraordinary lengths to defend the law -- and broke it repeatedly with their pride and their persecution of others.

"Surely we can recognize that Jesus was not being lax or careless with the law when he resisted the Pharisees.

On the contrary. Jesus was teaching us that you can't build a fence around the law, and then feel safe. Instead you have to take the law into your heart and embrace it so that you understand and obey its purpose."

I totally agree.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. - Matthew 7:3-5

A weird spot.

Sometimes I'm afraid I jump the gun too much. I saved my last post, it's on my computer, but I'm not comfortable with posting it. Not right now. I don't think I was able to say what I meant to - or that I truly knew what I was trying to say. It's funny because, in writing that post, I started out with writing "I don't know what to say, and I've learned to never force a post." By the time I'd finished, I had said something but I hadn't written it very well.

I hope everyone had a good Sunday. It was actually a nice one here. I wish school didn't start again tomorrow, but it has to if we want Christmas break to come :)

I'm a little lacking for topics the last few days, so I fear I might be running a dry well here. I have a lot on my mind concerning the Church and my involvement in it, what it all means, and I've other things to attend to this week. It's always a goal of mine to post once a day, but sometimes that isn't very realistic. Like I said, I don't want to force any entries and the last few days I've felt empty. I don't want to find a topic to get angry about or upset over if I'm not already there. I also don't want to not write about something just because it's happy or praises something.

This blog isn't intended to bash the Church. It's meant as a venue for me to ask questions and explore their answers and pull my hair out at stupid things like scrapbooking and other crap like that. It's a venting venue, too. Sometimes I worry I spend too much time worrying about such things. I do have a lot to say, but to find topics when they're not there doesn't do anyone any justice at all.

It's been balm to my soul to have other, like-minded people come here and talk with me. It's been amazing to have those who may disagree with me, but still find me interesting enough to stick around with. It's humbling and has helped me greatly. Thank you.

I'm afraid I can't be as honest with you all just yet as I'd like to be. I'm just not there. Sometimes I'm afraid to admit to myself what I think. I've some crazy ideas. I've expressed a few of the milder ones here and thankfully have found I'm not alone. Part of me wants to run with that, see how far I can go and still not be alone, but what if I find that line and cross it? I know I can always find like-minded company, but that doesn't mean it's good or right. I just know isolation sucks and it's good to know you're not alone. I can go to church and pretend, but it only goes so far. You can be surrounded and still alone.

It has surprised me how difficult it is to "be real." Much as I want to be and the little I have been, it's difficult to just let go. I guess I'm not ready for it yet. Maybe I'm just being lame and rebellious - let's face it, the most rebellious I've ever really been was when I joined the Church.

But to attribute my dissenting thoughts and opinions, both that I've already written about and those that are budding now to "rebellion" is dangerous. Perhaps my thoughts are valid and true. Perhaps they're not.

I won't lie and say I'm not a prideful being. I always have been. This blog doesn't help deflate that balloon much. I've been spoiled in more ways than one, and not necessarily in the traditional "have what you want" sense.

I'm not sure how to be wrong. That's not to say I haven't been wrong in the past - Lord knows I have been, but I don't like to write something unless I'm at least 75% confident in it. Sometimes I forget that. This blog has helped me develop a bit of a thicker skin, and for that I'm grateful.

I'm always open to being wrong. I guess I don't know how to explain this. I think it's more the chastisement I've never liked. I've received it, but I've always worked so hard to always be "good" that I'm not exactly used to it. I care entirely too much about what people think. I do like expressing dissenting opinions, I've always found it interesting to go against the norm and challenge traditional thought, but it's never bitten me back before. This could.

I don't know how to disappoint people and where I am right now I'm afraid I'm bound to disappoint someone. Probably a few someones. I've far too much respect for people on both sides to disappoint anyone. Right now I need to respect myself more. It's very scary, though.

To question the Church puts me in a very weird spot. I know the Church would chastise me for it in some ways (I know they would if I left). I know a lot of people I've spoken with online (both here and on other sites) might wag their finger at me for ignoring issues that perhaps shouldn't be ignored.

I'm in a very weird spot.

Oh HELL no.

I know I've been on a kick lately, and perhaps it's welcome because Prop 8 = *groan* right now, but...I'm on a kick. It might not be a very attractive kick, as I seem to be throwing a tantrum about a lot of things, but that's kinda what this blog is for. It's not meant to be purely political. It's a place to vent because there aren't many safe places to vent about these things.

First of all, I don't necessarily consider myself a "feminist." I have feminist ideals, but I wouldn't go so far as to call myself one yet.

But this really pisses me off. I had no idea until just now. I just finished reading a post on Feminist Mormon Housewives called Am I a bad priesthood holder, or am I a bad husband?

Apparently it's modus operandi for a member of the bishopric or stake presidency to ask for the husband's permission before he can call his wife to any position?

I had no idea. Even when I was just called to the Relief Society teaching board (or whatever it is), I knew the bishopric member spoke with my husband about it, but I figured that was mostly because I was taking a much needed nap when he called.

I had no idea this happened so often. I just spoke with Eric about it, and he said "Yep, it's an authority thing. It's like informing the bishop of something first before informing the rest of the ward."

"But I'm not your child."

"I know."

"We're supposed to be equals."

"I know."

"How do you feel about this? Really?"

He shrugged. "I grew up with it. I really never thought about it before. But you're right."

I mean, what the hell, girls? Does this bother anyone else?

I had no idea. When Eric was called to be the Elder's Quorum Secretary to a rather active Elder's Quorum a few years ago, I about had a coronary and worked for weeks to get him to say no-no-no! Eric felt strongly that he should accept whatever calling comes his way, but I wouldn't relent. Again, he worked nights full time and went to school taking a full load of upper-level mathematics courses. He would sleep maybe 6 hours on Saturday, leave for work, come home at 6:30, be in bed by 6:45, and then wake up at 8:00 to get ready for church.

And they wanted him to be what? It wasn't so much the secretary thing as much as it was the meetings that would occur before church and at other random times.

It wasn't that I didn't have faith in Eric, I just knew he and the rest of us were wrecks to begin with and this calling was ridiculous. He wanted to try, though, so he did. I think he lasted a few months. I don't remember exactly what brought him to his senses, but one night the EQ president called and said "Hey, we're having a meeting right now." Eric told him he couldn't do it anymore.

It was a revelation to him. Sometimes you just can't.

But you know what? I was never asked how I felt. Nobody ever said, "So, Lisa, I want to call your husband to a rather demanding calling." It's not that I even want that. Eric doesn't need me giving permission anymore than I need him giving me permission. If it's a demanding calling, I would expect either of us to say "I want to talk with Eric/Lisa first."

I only knew Eric would be getting the EQ calling because the old secretary had just been released, and the president was picking at me for information, asking about Eric's schedule, etc.

This whole thing also reminds me, and forgive me if I've mentioned this before, a Sunday School lesson where the teacher recounted a story of a stake president calling a husband and wife in. After extending the calling of bishop to the husband, the SP turned to the wife and said, "So, can you support him in his calling? What do you think?"

"I think it sucks," she said.

She was told to basically get over it.

And people wonder why some women hate their standing in the Church. They point at the Relief Society, what a wonderful institution it is, that it is run by women...

...who have to answer to the men.

You know, that part doesn't even bother me so much. Fine. I get that we have a pyramid type organization where we all have someone to answer to. Fine. I get that the priesthood hold the big authority positions such as bishop, stake president, prophet, etc. I've never wanted the priesthood. While it is a wedge issue for some, it's never been one for me.

Just don't condescend to me.

I'm so effing tired of being condescended to. Ask my husband for permission? Screw off! I'm a big girl. If I feel I need to "counsel" with Eric about it, I'll do just that. My husband is not my father.

Again, I don't mind some of this role playing stuff. I like that he's stronger than me, taller than me, and I've always liked that he had the Priesthood, but when you start relegating me to a position akin to our children, that's when I've gotta get pissed off.

Did anyone else know about this? I'm under the impression that some members don't.


(And, by the way, I won't be posting tomorrow, so Happy Thanksgiving. Hope y'all have a really awesome, laid back, stuffed kind of day. I hope to be back by Friday)