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.

On facebook?

If so, I'd appreciate you joining my blog network :)

I think blog networks on facebook is a new thing, so look into it for your own and invite me to be a reader of yours, too. I'd be glad to help.

(as for the layout, I'm going to stick with this one for a spell, feel it out. A few people told me the last color scheme was hard on their eyes - I hope this clears up that problem.)

Wine and the Church

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

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

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

Now here's what it does mention regarding drinks:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Right?

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

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

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

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

Section 89 was received in February 1833.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mormon Curse Words

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

What about "damn" or "hell"?

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

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

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

Oh my heck?

Ah, my first foray into Utah Mormon Culture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Take on Twilight

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

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

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

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

Last August I wanted to just breathe. And browse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, scoff if you will. I would too.

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

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

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

Impressive.

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

But I digress.

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

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

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

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

Sigh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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