On Abortion

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


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

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

An excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

On these matters, the First Presidency has recently said:

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

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

Hello? Is this thing on?

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

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

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

Standards for Celestial Dating, 1-6

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

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

But come on.

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

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

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

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

But that's just me.

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


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

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

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

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

Be on your haunches, young men!

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

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

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

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

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

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

(it gets better)

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

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

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

What?

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

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

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

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

Deseret Drops Twilight

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

Article found at the Salt Lake Tribune

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

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

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

I don't know.

The reasons for the drop are vague at best.

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

Mixed review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

This series was refreshing for me. Like a revelation.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

A psychologist's playground, this is.

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

I mean, let's be honest.

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

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.

My Take on Twilight

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

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

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

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

Last August I wanted to just breathe. And browse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, scoff if you will. I would too.

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

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

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

Impressive.

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

But I digress.

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

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

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

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

Sigh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's the message, stupid.

Too many LDS think they cannot or should not read novels outside of the approved LDS book club list. I was one of them. Though I'd written since the age of six, I stopped soon after joining the church, well aware of the stories I used to write and convinced they weren't worthy now that I belonged to the True Church.

I also stopped reading. I thought and felt that if I was to read anything, it should be strictly church related - either the Scriptures, Church authorized material, or even things like "The Work and the Glory" (snore!)

Then came the day six years ago this May when I suffered a miscarriage. As I've only miscarried once, I don't know if the physical toll I took is common or not (I was only 6 weeks along), but it was significant. Bed rest. I was bored to death.

Wanting to help, Eric suggested I watch Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone since I was so hell bent on not reading the books. I'd rejected them as too trendy in high school and had little interest in them as I lay on the couch then. Being Eric, he eventually talked me into watching the movie - and right after I started reading again.

But I still didn't write. Why? I was scared to death it would change me, that I couldn't write anything worthy of the faith because if you want to write well you have to get in the minds of your characters. Realistic characters will not resemble The Cleaver's or the Brady Bunch, and I'm not a fantasy writer. I thought I'd have to stick to the clean cut stuff, and since I knew I couldn't, not without serious sacrifice to the integrity of the story, I didn't even try.

Then a year and a half ago the final Harry Potter book came out. A friend of mine and I were chatting in the hallway at church, giddy over the release when a member of our ward happened by and stopped to join our chat. He quickly made it quite clear he hated the Harry Potter series.

"If people would read the scriptures like they read Harry Potter, the world would be a much better place."

Oh how I wish I had Eric's wit. When I related that gem to him, he said "Well, if they would write the scriptures like they wrote Harry Potter, then maybe people would read them more!"

Ahahahaha!

But I digress. Besides pissed off, the conversation left me feeling condescended to, guilty, and stupid. I went home in a huff. I was tired of having so much to say and denying myself the catharsis of writing it down. I wrote my very first "article" (op-ed?) on the Harry Potter series entitled In Defense of Harry Potter that night.

At this point, though, I didn't think I'd ever write fiction again. I still didn't trust myself, didn't think I could do it.

Then I discovered Stephenie Meyer and her Twilight series. I don't want to get too much into this, but the book and the story and author behind it inspired me. Though I could critique the writing technically, the fact that I read that first book, 500 some odd pages, in under two days speaks volumes.

I started writing. While I love my children and Eric, I finally found my love for writing again. The prospect gave me extra umph in the morning. It was spectacular and freeing - I was a person with actual, real interests. Revelation!

I started reading more books. I gave Wuthering Heights another chance since I was neck deep in high school senioritis the last I'd read it. Heights is now easily my favorite book.

I reread the likes of Dickens, Hemingway, Fitzgerald. I was even a good Mormon girl and read Jane Austen. I read Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson (every young girl and boy should read this book. So powerful) and A Great and Terrible Beauty by Libba Bray among a few others. I read books that disappointed and others that inspired. Some did both. It was wonderful to read again.

Then a friend of mine, a non-member friend, suggested I read The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger. This friend of mine has never steered me wrong, so I read.

And ohmygosh what a fabulous book. Seriously, it's right there with Wuthering Heights.

But if it were a movie, it would be rated R. The f-bomb is dropped repeatedly and there is one sex scene in particular that is, I'll concede, perhaps too graphic. But it didn't bother me. It might bother others though. Another entry.

The f-bomb though. We wince, we say it's offensive. It's not the prettiest word in the world, no, but when writing stories we need to stay true to the character. That may sound like a cop-out, but if you'd step outside the door you'll find many people drop it often, especially if they're like the characters in this novel. Good books are much like real people and real life, and believe it or not, real life outside the church isn't always clean and pretty.

And really, it's a lesson we could all stand to learn: It's the message, stupid. It's the person.

Yes, there are probably a few things you could do without, but you learn to love those characters despite their "awful" flaws - and shouldn't we when it comes to real life characters? Shouldn't we realize that people are more than their language and their actions? That they're human beings (well, 99.99% of them at least)?

While The Time Traveler's Wife may not have some huge life altering message for some, it causes you to think, to cry, to relate and love people despite their unattractive traits - isn't that worth something?

Isn't it?

We talk an awful lot about being missionaries to others, about loving everyone, but how many of us have non-member friends? I'll tell you I don't have many, but I have non-member family. I've learned something from watching many of my LDS friends. Some insist those who aren't members have no morals (seriously). I can't imagine these people truly befriending others. We talk about loving the sinner and hating the sin, but I don't think we accomplish this. We often cannot make the distinction. We're afraid to emphatize or "tolerate" for fear of condoning, but guess what?

You cannot "help" those you do not understand, empathize with, or care to even get to really know.

So read a book John Bytheway didn't author. Get past the offense and get to know the people. Get past the offense and hear the larger message. Getting past the offense may be uncomfortable and really difficult, but it's important. You have to, have to get over yourself. There are amazing people out there who don't hold to the same value system you do, but that doesn't make them any less. Beware lest you start to believe you're better.

You cannot befriend anyone with whose flaws you cannot get past. Guess what, you have them too. We're a very weird, stifled bunch to the outside world. You want to be understood and accepted? You must accept and love people as they are.

Even the "wicked" (sarcasm alert) have lessons to teach us. I know we like to think we're the most righteous, but we're not so righteous that we have nothing to learn from our fellow man.

Don't be out to change people. Be out to love them and befriend them.

You'll love what'll happen when and if you do.

Mormon Weddings and Me

Thanks to The Faithful Dissident for the inspiration - this is a topic I've been considering writing about, but never really knew how to approach it until now. Thanks!

There's definitely a ridiculous marriage culture within the LDS community - agreed?

We all know of someone who has met someone, married, and had kids all within one year. Perhaps you've heard the stories of overly hormonal and stifled BYU students who marry, have sex, and then get an annulment. We know of the girls at BYU-Provo and -Idaho who joke about majoring in "M.R.S." (I'll admit I didn't get this joke right away. It's a groaner).

I've also heard stories of girls checking the guys out - not their butts or physique, necessarily, but for garment lines.

We don't send our daughters to college for them to get an education so much as we send them out to get married - preferably to a freshly returned missionary. The thicker the residual accent the better.

My husband's aunt stopped by our house the other day with a bridal shower invitation, relieved her daughter was finally getting married. She bemoaned the fact that it took her daughters so, so very long to marry. In fact, she still has one unmarried daughter who is probably 25 or so. She wants to know what she's done wrong?

I know another girl who is 24 who isn't married. Her mom won't leave her the hell alone.

We all know Brigham Young's famous (or infamous) quote that states any unmarried man over the age of 26 is a "menace to society."

Do we really think this helps our girls' out? Our boys? The pressure is absolutely immense. And yet...who am I to talk?

I was baptized on May 7, 2000. I was eighteen years old and already fluent in Molly Mormondom - We were supposed to lust (oops, I mean get googly-eyed) over fresh, Peter Priesthood return missionaries and get married. The sooner the better.

I mean, the hour after I was baptized some dude had his arm around me at a fireside. WTF?

Then I started dating a guy who was six years older than me. I'll call him "Mark." His family was on him hard about getting married, and once he introduced me to them the inevitable came out. "So, when are we going to Oakland?" they asked. He squeezed my hand and smiled.

I cringed.

We broke up soon thereafter.

Honestly, I didn't feel the pressure until my friends started getting married. The day it hit me really hard was the day I visited a newly married friend's house for dinner. I wanted to get married.

Fast forward to December 2000 when I met my now SIL. I think Mark and I recently broke up by the time we met. Anyway, she got it into her head soon after we met that her brother, who was on a mission at the time, and I should get married one day. I played along with it. The pickings were slim in our area. Sure, we had a few pieces of eye-candy coming home, but it seemed like a fabulous idea to be my best friend's SIL.

I wasn't very serious about it. It was fun.

Then I saw his picture.

It was like lightning hit me. He looked absolutely and undeniably familiar to me. It didn't hurt that, hello, he was gorgeous, but that was secondary. To use a tired cliche, it was like being hit with a ton of bricks. I knew. I can't explain it anymore than that.

It was over. It transcending knowing. I was committed. He was already mine.

Though other boys returned home from their missions before Eric came home, I waited. My best friend worried about my waiting. Suddenly her fun little idea was becoming far too serious for me. She said she still wanted it to happen, but she wanted to be realistic, too. It didn't help when one boy in particular came home and shocked the hell out of me by initiating conversations with me. It didn't take long for me to recognize when a boy wasn't merely talking to me, but interviewing me. This one boy, quite popular with the girls, was everything I'd ever been physically attracted to.

But I didn't want him. That worried my friend.

"You're not waiting for Eric, are you?"

I could only shrug. I was waiting, but I'd learned quickly to keep that to myself. Though LDS culture tends to encourage lightning fast courtships and engagements, they didn't react well to my never having met someone and yet knowing.

But I did. I still do.

Eric came home two months early from his mission on July 26, 2001. Considering what happened that September, it was probably a good thing. We already had one friend whose flight home from Korea was postponed because of the WTC attacks. As a quick sidenote, something that always seems significant to me for some reason, I was at his mom's house on 9/11. Sick. I'd never felt more at home than that day at his mom's house.

Anyway, our first meeting happened to be the day he came home. My best friend invited me over, and though it seemed rather stalkerish to me, I went. I'd had dreams. He was the literal first thing on my mind in the morning. I couldn't get enough of his pictures, of wondering why I wasn't there. I think I probably wasn't because, well, he probably wouldn't have gone on his mission.

So I was there. Nobody in his family looked at me weird for being there. I was there all the time anyway. I was already family. Other people thought I was stalking him, but whatever.

It took Eric a while to be able to even look at me, let alone speak to me, but in time it came. He says now he knew I would be at his Mom's house a lot, so he made a point to be there.

Oh, hell, everyone. You can go read it for yourself. I wrote a prose piece about it at writing.com. It's called Like Breathing. Go read :)

So I knew. I knew. We married in March 2002. Eric and I have been through our trials - hard times, not counting the three kids in 2 1/2 years or having him work the graveyard shift full time and go to school full time. It doesn't count the numerous apartments we've lived in or any of the regular crap all married couples go through. We've had our trials, and I've never wavered. I don't intend to, and I'm still as happy as I was when we first met and first married. Probably more so.

When we first married, though, he was my Peter and I was his Molly. I'm not afraid to admit it, though I am highly embarrassed. Through the years we've changed quite a bit. He says his mission changed him, changed his views about the church. For me it was witnessing a few people in my life fall from their pedestals.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here, but we have a connection that honestly and truly transcends time.

But it's so stereotypically Mormon to make us both cringe. I honestly believe we would've done this with or without the church - maybe we wouldn't have had three kids as quickly as we did, but we would've married. Without the issues of my non-member family and the Church, we probably would have married even sooner.

It's not something I believe can be compared with other Mormon weddings, those kids you hear about who meet, marry, and have kids all within nine months. Some of those are for real, but I hesitate and hardly believe all of them are. I wish they were.

I hesitate to speak too much because it would be ridiculous to try to convince people that my situation is different - but our culture of lightning fast marriages and procreation does worry me. The pressure put on those who don't marry as quickly, or on those who don't really want to marry as quickly, is unfair.

Because I don't have the time to look at the data right now, let's assume for argument's sake that LDS divorce rates are fairly low compared to the rest of the world. I would wonder at the happiness of those marriages. I know off-hand of far too many marriages that compose of two very unhappy people, a marriage mostly of co-habitation than of anything else. They know it's wrong to divorce, but the passionate love is gone. It doesn't seem like they even try anymore. If they kiss at all, they kiss each other like they would their mom or dad. Ew. Don't they know that's for before they get married? (hahaha)

That's probably for another entry entirely, though.

I just wish we weren't so driven to marry so quickly. It should be about the romance, and quick weddings are "romantic," but marriages themselves are far more serious than most of us realize. My family worried themselves to death over Eric and I, but little did they know that we'd already talked about all the stuff a couple ought to: will I work, how many kids will we have, what's your philosophy on discipline, you've got a good job/benefits, when will we start having kids, what do you think about sex (yes, you should have a sex talk beforehand that doesn't involve your parents), where are we going to live, school, debt, etc. He saw me at my absolute worst and my best, and I the same. It wasn't like with the other boys where it was more an interview than it was conversation. It was natural like everything else about us.

But this doesn't happen to every couple. We really ought to pull back the reigns on all this marriage talk, and I do believe it's more cultural than it is doctrinal. The official talk states that when you know, you know. When you've prayed and you know, then why wait? I agree.

But if it's just because you're "of age" and he's an RM and you guys are fighting to keep all contact "garment friendly" then...no. You shouldn't get married because suddenly you can and he's cute and you really like him - it feels like love. You shouldn't get married because Molly came along, you're turning 26 in two months, and you've gotta get moving because you're sick of all the questions people keep asking you. Though very few will admit it, I believe much of it is due to sexual freedom once you marry.

You also don't do it because your family is expecting something. Could I have married Mark? Yeah, sure, but to marry him would have been for the absolute wrong reasons. I wonder how many of our members have married for the wrong reasons and what it's meant five, ten, even twenty years later.

What is marriage without love? Commitment is vital, but a family needs love too.

Doin' it Mormon Style

Yesterday on Feminist Mormon Housewives, an author posted a plea of sorts regarding her rather unfulfilling sex life and if sex is really all that important, anyway.

Uhm...yeah?

This is another one of those taboo subjects for various, perhaps more "strict" members of the church. Eric told me that one of his mission presidents confided that he and his wife, when on their honeymoon, tried having sex with their garments on. Since then, I've ran into one or two other comments regarding LDS couples attempting this and all I can do is, first, laugh like a hyena and second, wonder what the hell is wrong with our culture that we feel we can't even take garments off for sex.

I mean, y'all go swimming right?

Then there's the idea of lingerie. At one point even I caught myself saying this (I've changed quite a bit in the past five years), and I've had other friends say it as well:

"I don't see the point of lingerie, clothes are just going to come off anyway."

*deadpan*

Sexuality in LDS culture is an interesting thing. One of my best friends back in the day told me a guy - not a friend, not related, not even a friend of a friend - in their ward, upon learning she and her fiance were moving their wedding date up, quipped Can't wait to get into each other's pants, huh?

Creepy, right? Totally uncalled for, right?

But there's a sliver of truth in there, isn't there? Our culture, our God, demands celibacy of its unmarried - in our particular religion, we feel that demand more acutely than perhaps in other Christian denominations. French kissing is discouraged because of its inherent sensuality. Being alone with your girl or guy is discouraged because temptations abound. Spencer W. Kimball even said,

“What is miscalled the 'soul kiss' is an abomination and stirs passions to the eventual loss of virtue. Even if timely courtship justifies the kiss it should be a clean, decent, sexless one like the kiss between mother and son, or father and daughter." (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.281)

For context, he's talking about casual kisses "given out like pretzels," but I imagine he'd extend this counsel to any young couple - like he said "even if timely courtship justifies the kiss." No disrespect to President Kimball, but are you kidding me?

You get two people together who have a tension between them so thick you can cut through it, and this isn't going to be easy. Yes, you can fight the temptations by going on group dates, never being alone, kissing each other on the cheek, but holy hell! This is not only not easy, it's almost unrealistic. I don't care what era of time we're talking about - this was probably just as difficult in the 1850's, 1950's or today, and we've more couples marrying today for love and not because Dad wants to marry his daughters off and get rid of a couple cows in the process.

And so you have couples getting married ASAP.

Some of these couples know (as in, not faith: know) they are meant for each other. Beyond that, like for Eric and I, there's a commitment unmatched and unquestioned. We knew it from the beginning - and we weren't supposed to ever be alone or...anything?

I'm going to refrain from some of my more radical rationalizations, but yes we did marry in the temple and no we didn't have to lie to our stake president or bishop to do it. We knew our boundaries, we knew where we wanted to go, so we went about things according to what would keep us on that path.

The For the Strength of Youth pamphlet is meant for single adults as much as it is meant for the youth. But, when you find "the one" you should be alone with him/her. You should kiss - and no, not like you kiss your mom or dad. That's a little creepy.

Can it get sketchy and tricky? Yeah. Should you flirt with the line? Well, fun as it is, probably not, at least not if you want to marry in the temple.

But what of after marriage? What of those couples who pretty much keep it monotonous and boring and - shudder - scheduled. The couples who keep their garments on. The couple who just doesn't ever try anything new.

That's dangerous. From what I've noticed, LDS tend to react to the staunch (sorry, righteous or not, those're pretty staunch) standards in one of two ways:

They remain staunch.
They go insane from all that pent up frustration.

Get two of these people together and you've got some serious issues. Get two of these people together, and you've probably one reason why pornography is a problem for not just everyone, but for those in our church.

You can only stifle people so much. Sex is not bad. Yes, it is sacred and a divine power (at least in the procreation department) and should be treated as such but that doesn't mean it's...mechanical, you know?

It's passion, it's love, it's security, it's safety, it's connection.

And yes, there are couples, mostly brides, I've learned about who are so indoctrinated into the idea that sex is bad they can't bring themselves to finally let go on the night of their wedding.

Does this sound wrong to anyone else? I hope so.

And yeah, I said bad. No, that's not necessarily the vocabulary our leaders use, but the translation is nevertheless easy enough to make.

Get out the damn lingerie, get some massage oil, etc. Realize these things aren't bad. Realize it's okay to do some things - really. If something weirds you out, then by all means don't do it, but at least give it consideration. Sometimes we think things are weird because we think they're wrong.

Well, not everything is wrong. "Normal" does not always mean wrong. Normal, in the context of a good marriage, can mean some pretty cool things that we might think is icky. It's not. I promise.

Victoria's Secret is your friend.

I mean, there's being uncomfortable with doing something and then there's just not doing it because we think it'll be weird. Get over that. Talk with your friends to realize people are doing stuff, talk with your husband/wife (even your boyfriend/girlfriend), and understand that while we may be LDS and have higher standards, we are still human and God gave us some pretty cool things. Get to know each other. Know yourself and what you like. Experiment a bit. TALK to each other.

As far as the single crowd goes, much as people might need reminders of how to avoid digging themselves into a hole of temptation they can't navigate themselves out of, they need to also know it's amazing and, most of all, okay. There needs to be a respect, but not an abhorrence. We don't need to be prudes to be righteous.

If we think otherwise, our marriages are doomed to become robotic and emotionless. Sure, you may never get a divorce and you may actually love your partner, but if there's no passion...then you may as well be married to your mom or dad.