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

A weird spot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm in a very weird spot.

Black Friday

I don't know how many of you have heard this horrific story, but I'll keep it short. I'm sure this is everywhere.

A Walmart greeter was trampled to death yesterday morning as a literal stampede of people knocked him down in their fury to get the latest and greatest deal.

Ahhh, Capitalism.

But this entry isn't about that. I'm pretty sure we're all smart enough to get what this does speak to - materialism, Christmas over consumerism, etc. The fact that we're so intent on getting what we want that we don't even notice we're trampling a man to death. Literally.

I figured we'd all understand that, and then I read this article.

Here's an excerpt:

"This incident was avoidable," said Bruce Both, president of United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1500. "Where were the safety barriers? Where was security? ... This is not just tragic; it rises to a level of blatant irresponsibility by Wal-Mart."


Wal-Mart said it had added additional internal security, third party security, more store associates and had worked closely with local police. "We also erected barricades. Despite all of our precautions, this unfortunate event occurred," Hank Mullany, a Wal-Mart senior vice president, said in a statement.

So we're blaming Walmart for this? Not the mindset of the people? I don't know everything, but I'm just having a hard time wanting to blame the company. I know we all want Walmart and like companies to have a labor union (they don't as of right now right?) but this isn't where our focus should be. Let's not politicize this. A man died a brutal death at the onset of the Christmas season. Joy to the World, Peace and Goodwill to all Men.

Right?

We need to be screaming about the people who didn't give a shit enough. The mob mentality all for a good deal. Like others have said, there is nothing, absolutely nothing in that store that was worth a man's life.

Forget about Walmart. Let's stop blaming Walmart. I'm more concerned about the mentality of these people. Apparently some shoppers were pissed off when the store announced it would be closing because of the fresh tragedy. Others were trampled as some attempted to help the man.

Wow.

My heart and thoughts go out to this man's family. What a horrible, horrible way to begin the best season of the year

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.

Oh HELL no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"But I'm not your child."

"I know."

"We're supposed to be equals."

"I know."

"How do you feel about this? Really?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I think it sucks," she said.

She was told to basically get over it.

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

...who have to answer to the men.

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

Just don't condescend to me.

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

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

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


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

Feminist Mormons

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

Make sense?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But really?

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

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

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

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

- 1 Timothy 2:11-15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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