Mormon Discussion

Stem-cell Research (Or Why George W. Should Get Off His High Horse and Stop Vetoing Perfectly Good Bills!)

2006-07-23T10:41:00.000-07:00

So, I'm not going to say we Mormons are weirdos. I'm just going to say that we appear to be weirdos to mostly everyone else. Don't believe that? Try explaining to someone NOT Mormon why something as mundane as a coffee shop is the Mormon equivalent of a brothel of sin, or why we won't watch some movies that are touted as some of the best movies of all time, simply because they have an R-rating due to twenty minutes of bloody war scenes or a few too many swear words. Of course, WE can see the logic in this, but other people can't always see it. So, I'm not going to say we're weirdos. But we sure do look like it to others.

So, when Orrin Hatch gets on-board as one of the authors of the stem-cell research bill, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's a good bill. If the crazy Mormons who don't do anything are authoring stem-cell research bills, it's probably a safe bet that it's morally and ethically and religiously ok. WE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO FEAR TEA!!! TEA! WE THINK THAT TEA IS SINFUL!! So, seriously, since we give the impression to so many people that we don't "allow anything" (I've actually been asked what we can do, because "Mormons don't allow anything"), wouldn't it be a safe bet that if a super-conservative, pro-life, 115% Republican Mormon Congressman is pro-stem-cell research, then probably George Bush can be like, "Well, if Orrin's going to say yes, then it's probably good." I mean, come on.

And, I guess I fail to see Bush's religious protection of these "snowflake babies" as he likes to call them. I think that Orrin's actually got the right idea here (and that's about the only political thing I agree with him on). These embyros are going to be a) thrown in the garbage/destroyed or b) used for medical research that may someday possibly save lives and improve the health and lives of others. Seriously, Bush, WWJD? Really, if Jesus were here and He were like, "Ok, so they either get to go to the garbage can or they can be used to possibly help thousands upon thousands of people?" do you HONESTLY think that Jesus would vote for the garbage can? I really don't think so. For Bush to really stand by his religious perspective here, he'd just have to shut down all infertility clinics and make the actual process of creating these embyros a crime. No more mixing sperm and egg together in the petri dishes and then implanting them in the mom--because if she gets pregnant, then the other "snowflake babies" are tossed (or frozen indefinitely). Or, the other option Bush has is to force all families who go through this process to implant every single embyro--congrats, you now have a family of 10!!! But even if Bush went this route, there would still be embyros lost because this process requires so many extra embyros to be made because it's quite common that a lot of the embyros won't implant. So, wouldn't this STILL be problematic for George Bush, because you are creating "life" that you know has a high chance of dying because it doesn't implant? Or is that ok, because the medical definition of "pregnancy" is implantation, so then these lost embyros that don't implant are just like any other chance miscarriage, where the egg and sperm combine through normal sexual activity and for whatever reason, fail to implant and so the woman just expels it without even being aware that it was there?

See, Bush's veto doesn't make sense and actually just runs into a lot more problems that it seeks to solve. Meanwhile the Mormon Congressman who would pass out if you gave him a glass of red wine with his Italian meal is co-authoring the bill. Come on, Bush. Get with the Mormons. We'll make sure that if you ever come down with Parkinson's, you'll have some hope on the horizon. But, for the billionth time, no, you can't watch the un-edited version of Titanic!!

Sacrifice or not?

2006-01-05T00:20:00.000-08:00

There was a comment recently that gave me much to consider. The gist of the comment was that a religion should make you happy, not miserable.

And then I started to wonder...what makes me happy? What WOULD make me happy? Does church make me happy? Do other things make me happier?

Church makes me happy. That much is true. But church also makes me uncomfortable. Church also makes me stick out. Church also makes me feel guilty for everything from not paying a full tithe to prefering a "Real World" marathon over a church dance. Church makes me angry, church makes me feel constricted in terrible ways, church makes me second guess myself, and church makes me feel like I can never be the Mormon I'm supposed to be.

Other things makes me feel happy without all those other feelings. My wonderful, beautiful, sensational non-member boyfriend makes me incredibly happy. He makes me believe that good things do happen. He makes me cheer up. He gives me hope for the future. He makes me feel content and satisfied.

Dancing with my friends at clubs makes me feel happy. It makes me move my butt so I'm getting some exercise. It makes me smile.

Then there are things that I think would make me happy. Or at least, more comfortable. I've never drank before, but there is a certain elegance associated with wine with dinner. I think I would like that.

I'd like (and have enjoyed on many more occassions than I'd like to admit) a two-day weekend. Sunday is spent sleeping in and then going out to have brunch with friends and family.

What would make me happy? I'd be very happy without church in my life. Not that I don't want church in my life, just that I'm not one of those people who believes that anyone without church is someone to be pitied and they must have a horribly unfulfilling life. I could be very happy without church.

And church makes me feel things other than happy. Is this a bad thing? Does this mean that church isn't the right one for me? Or is guilt, shame, anger, uncomfortableness, awkwardness, and generally feeling like you don't belong all part and parcel of the whole "sacrifice" idea? Am I supposed to be miserable at times due to a direct correlation between my church attendance and my miserable feelings?

How do you know that a religion isn't just demanding the appropriate level of sacrifice from you when you feel unhappy with it or the decision you have to make because of it? Or is sacrifice something different? Is a religion supposed to make you unhappy as well as happy? Are other things supposed to make you happier than the religion? Does that mean the religion is flawed or that you just aren't embracing it correctly?

Is it sacrifice or simply not the right fit?

The Church of Joseph Smith??

2005-12-10T14:00:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine had an interesting experience the other day in church. While singing "Praise to the Man" in sacrament meeting, she noted that her friend next to her was not singing. She asked him why not and he replied that the name of the church was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and he worshipped Jesus, not a prophet.

His point wasn't that he disrespected the prophet, but that in his opinion, singing songs that praised the prophet Joseph Smith were a form of worshipping him.

This lead me to thinking about my experiences with this song and with the ideas surrounding Joseph Smith.

I looked at the words of "Praise to the Man" in depth, which I usually don't ever do. I just sing the words in the book and we're done. However, there is a particularly interesting verse in this song that seems to give validity to my friend's friend.

"Praise to his memory, he died as a martyr;
Honored and blest be his ever great name!
Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins,
Plead unto heav’n while the earth lauds his fame."

This sounds to me like a verse that could be sung about Jesus Christ as well. Interesting.

Another verse seems weird as well, when looked at in this light...

"Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven;
Earth must atone for the blood of that man.
Wake up the world for the conflict of justice.
Millions shall know "Brother Joseph" again."

Here's what I found interesting in particular. Jesus died to atone for the Earth. Now the Earth must atone for Joseph Smith's death? It sounds as if we as a human race are in more trouble, so to speak, for murdering Joseph than for murdering Jesus. At least in this verse.

The chorus also seems to echo this similar-to-Jesus vein.

"Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven!
Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.
Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;
Death cannot conquer the hero again."

Jesus was a prophet, as well as the Savior. So this verse could very easily be applied to Him. And it would seem to make more sense to my little brain that Jesus would be very able to plan for His brethren after His death. However, is Joseph Smith just chilling with everyone else until the day of the resurrection? I mean sure, he's probably got a straight ticket into the CK. But, does that mean he gets to circumvent the whole plan and get exalted and become a god before everyone else? The song seems a bit confusing on that point.

This then lead to me remember when we've sung this song in church or at church functions. Almost every single time we've sang it, we've been urged to stand by the bishopric or leaders, no matter which ward I'm in. But, I don't recall a song in specfic about Jesus Christ or Heavenly Father that is consistently sung while standing. In fact, I'm hard pressed to recall a time ever when we stand in sacrament meeting to sing a song, with the sole exception being "Praise to the Man."

I'm not necessarily siding with my friend's friend. However, his comments did get me thinking. Do we focus too much on the prophets of old and current times and forget about Jesus? If Christ leads our church and deserves our most high worship, should we sing songs about mere men (and yes, the prophets are mere men--remember, they too are falliable and can make mistakes) that mirror so closely to the Savior? No doubt Joseph, as well as other prophets, was a wonderful, sacrificing man. But does that mean he is almost up to par with Jesus? I don't know the answers to these questions, nor do I know if what we do is considered to be "worshipping" Joseph Smith. But I thought I was something interesting to mull over.

Why I'll Never Get Married (in the temple, that is).

2005-12-01T16:10:00.000-08:00

I epitomize weird Mormon, as I'm sure anyone who reads this realizes.

But it's slowly but surely come to my attention that this weirdness will very likely prevent me from getting married in the temple to a fellow Mormon.

I want to get married in the temple, don't get me wrong. I always have. I've always had that dream of the special wedding and blah, blah, blah.

But I'm weird. I like it. I think I'm cool and I'm funny. A lot of people like me in church. However, I'm not marriage material. I don't want kids, ever. And before anyone harps on me about that, I talked to my bishop long and hard about that issue, in tears, because I couldn't make myself want to be a mom no matter how hard I tried. I lack maternal instincts. I wouldn't even know how to take care of a fish, let alone a child. And everyone always tried to convince me that I could WILL myself into wanting kids. So, I prayed, I studied, and I finally made a tearful trip into my bishop's office and lamented the fact that no matter what I did, I couldn't make myself want to fill my uterus with someone's kids when my heart said to go be a lawyer and poltician and help the downtrodden of society and build community youth centers and be a philanthropist... And my bishop told me that choosing not to be a mother was a perfectly acceptable and fine decision because motherhood is the best choice for some women and for other women, such as myself, there are other better choices.

So, strike one against me: I don't want kids in a religion that stresses the importance of family. I'm not violating any religious rules, according to my bishop, but it's still a cultural thing. We're taught to want kids. I doubt I'll find a man who doesn't want kids. Most people in the world want kids, not even narrowed down to Mormons only.

Strike two: I can't marry a Republican. No offense to any Republicans, because I realize that most Mormons are Republican. I'm just so incredibly Democratic I bleed blue. I live and breathe Democratic values. Raise my taxes to ensure healthcare for all! Give kids better education! Welfare is a good thing (spoken from a former welfare child)! I can't get on board with the Republican side of things. I'm not hostile towards them (okay, okay, I'm not USUALLY hostile towards them), I just severely disagree with them. And I'm so passionate about politics that it would be very difficult for me to be married to someone who doesn't support the same political beliefs that I do. Of course, there is the option that I could marry someone and we just wouldn't talk about politics. Except if you know me, you know every other word out of my mouth is somehow related to politics. CNN.com is my favorite website. I'm a politics junky. To have to never talk about it, especially with my husband, would be torture!!! So, I don't want to have a code of silence, nor do I want a heated battle. Hence, I've got to marry a Democratic Mormon.

Strike three: I support gay rights. I've previously posted about this issue as one of my very first posts. In brief, for those who don't want to read the whole big thing, I think it's a political issue, not a religious one. Religious institutions are free to do whatever they like. However, the political realm is a different place and we have to be fair to everyone. We let the KKK make horrible speeches about how awful black and jewish people are. Clearly, I don't believe what the KKK stands for, believes, preaches, or practices. However, I do believe that they should be afforded the right to say it, because it's a constitutional right. So, even if I HATE what they have to say, I have to support their right to say it. So, whether or not someone agrees with a homosexual's lifestyle, I think it's still our obligation to support their rights. Being fired for being gay is ridiculous. Being unable to claim the same tax benefits as other Americans is ridiculous. Ok, so now, try to find another Mormon that sides with me on this...yeah...

So, I've got three strikes (at least) against me. I'm not the Mormon girl that guys have dreamed of asking to marry.

I've accepted this. I'm not completely ruling out the possibility, but I am not a hopeless optimist either. I know that a Democratic Mormon man who supports gay rights and doesn't want kids is pretty friggin rare. I'm sure there is one...somewhere...but does he live in Minnesota? Uh, probably not so much.

So, what's a girl to do? I really want to be married someday. I would really like to have a husband and a family (family means all sorts of things; in my case, it means a unit of my spouse and me). I want to have someone to grow old with, to share my moments with...and I've got really, really slim chances on finding that.

So, I'm currently dating a wonderful, wonderful guy. Not a member. He's super great, a wonderful man. He's got his head on straight, treats me wonderfully, is really funny, has the same political beliefs as me, supports my future dreams and aspirations. I could be completely happy with him for the rest of my life. I would be incredibly in love.

But, I have to be married in the temple to go to the Celestial Kingdom. So, what's a girl like me to do? Do I stay single and hope, hope, hope for the unlikely to occur and wait for a Mormon man who is compatible with me? Or do I go for the non-member who makes me really happy and is incredibly compatible with me?

Don't give me the crap that God will provide someone for me. That's BS. Yes, most Mormons get married. However, there are some who never do. They have a spouse waiting in the next life. They get to be single and lonely and alone for all their life on Earth. And I think I have a high probability of being that single girl for the rest of my life if I stick to only Mormons.

What's a woman to do? Do I take happiness now (and by now I mean this life, not NOW as in tomorrow...oh heavens no!!), or do I live a miserable, lonely life in hopes of a big pay off in the next life?

And I know that it says in D&C that people who choose not to be married in the temple give up their place in the CK, but does this apply to girls as well? I've heard stuff about it not applying. I don't think that this would be fair to guys, but it appears that there is more of an onus for men to be married in the temple rather than women. What's the actual doctrine on this??

This post contains the word "SEX." Viewer discretion is advised!

2005-11-20T19:44:00.000-08:00

I'm confused by Mormon dating. I'm not going to lie.

Before boys go on missions, they are encouraged to date many girls. This apparently lets them find out what they like in the opposite sex. Girls are encouraged to do the same thing.

Fast forward--boy goes on mission, comes home man.

Man is then encouraged to get married ASAP!!! Girls are encouraged to do the same thing. Snap up the RM like he's plated in gold and poop diamonds, ladies! POKE OUT YOUR FELLOW RELIEF SOCIETY COLLEGUE IF YOU MUST but marry that RM.

Except for...um...where was the "sustain a relationship with someone so you know how a relationship functions" stage?? It seems pathetically lacking...

I think that this is all about sex.

Don't steady date anyone before a mission, because you might make-out (which inevitably leads to sex. All the time. So never make out. And no kissing with tongues, or as one bishop described it, "No porno kissing."). If you have sex before marriage you jeopardize your chances of going on a mission.

Ok, noble goal. I like it. 16 year olds don't need to be having sex anyway. So, I'm cool with this.

Next, after mission...it's like "MARRY MARRY MARRY!" flashing like a crappy neon sign in singles wards. RIGHT NOW. Do it! Just met her?? Doesn't matter! Buy her a ring! Marry her!!

What? You didn't know that she has a gimp leg?? Too bad! Marry her!

What? You don't know how to communicate your feelings effectively in a relationship?? Um, oh well. Marry him!!

Why this pressure? Because you are 20. You want to have sex. Really bad. And ALL your nonmember friends around you are like, "Dude, you're 20. Why are you not having sex?" So the church is all, "Go for it! Have sex! WITH YOUR WIFE!!!" Which, again, is a noble goal. Don't have sex before marriage. I think that's cool too.

So, you find someone and you marry them right away because you both really just want to do it.

And you don't take the time to have a working relationship because you're too busy imagining them naked.

That's what I think.

Because why else would there be this HUGE noticeable gap in the relationship stages? It's first--date everyone and have no serious relationships and then next--date someone for like 4 weeks and then propose. Get married the next day.

The church says that you shouldn't wait once you "know" that this is the person you want to be with.

Um, fine, that's noble too.

BUT HELLO?! Hasn't anyone heard of the "honeymoon stage" in the relationship? Where, if someone asks you what irritates you about the other person, you sigh lovingly and bat your eyes and imagine their beautiful face and say, "Nothing..."

Give it like 6-8 months. Then you notice things. Like he picks his teeth at the dinner table and then SUCKS the food out.

Or she has a habit of leaving her dirty underwear all over the house.

Or he has a secret stash of Bobblehead dolls.

Or she really, REALLY freaks out when someone dies on "Days of Our Lives."

Then when someone asks, "What drives you nuts about your boy/girl friend?" you'll have a whole laundry list of crap.

AND THAT'S WHEN YOU KNOW YOU CAN MARRY SOMEONE.

Because when you have no idea that he belches every morning and she has a neurotic need to have all the soup cans with their labels out, you don't know the person. So how can you commit to spending eternity with them? Ok, to be fair, they probably won't have all that irritating crap in eternity, so I'll say spending the rest of your mortal life with that person?

When you are really in love with someone, you can say, "Ok, my love of my life blows his nose into the cloth napkins at fine restarurants, has the dirtiest and grossest bathroom I've ever had the unfortunate chance of peeing in, eats everything with his hand, refers to my mother as 'The Skunk,' and sort of smells really terrible after he plays sports. But, I love him, in spite of all these things that drive me nuts, so I can honestly say I could commit to being with him forever."

So shouldn't we have a sustain a relationship stage? So young people can get to know better what they like and don't like in a relationship?

Not to mention, in a relationship, you have to learn commitment, sacrifice, and communication skills. You have to learn how to work out problems and have discussions, to give and take, to have friends and a life outside of your dating partner. You essentially learn what it entails to be an effective partner.

I wouldn't marry anyone who hadn't had a serious, long-term relationship before me because I'd have to spend all my time teaching him to do the things you learn in long-term relationships.

So why does the church skip over what seems to be a rather important developmental stage??

Because they are so focused on keeping us away from pre-marital sex. Which, again, is a lofty goal, but marriage is so much more than sex. In all honesty, I would much prefer to marry a non-virgin who had cleaned up his act and had a past history of serious, long-term relationship than a virgin whose longest relationship was 2 weeks.

Unless the virgin was an RM plated in gold who pooped diamons. Then someone in RS would lose an eye, if needed. I love me some diamonds!

If a floral print dress were the ticket into the Celestial Kingdom, I'd really have to decide if it was worth it...

2005-10-31T20:44:00.000-08:00

Why are we our harshest critics?

I've been mulling a lot over my lack of church attendance recently. And why it is that I am not going anymore. And I've been reading other blogs of lapsed churchgoers (isn't lapsed such a cool word to say. Just say it out loud once...lapzzzzzd...ahhh!) and non-lapsed churchgoers.

We are tough on other Mormons. Tough, tough, tough.

I didn't stop going because I was insulted. I think what really happened was I was sick one weekend and then didn't go. And then I was like, "Hey! There are TWO days to the weekend?! Well, WHERE HAVE I BEEN?!" and then just haven't been back in awhile because it's hard to go back to the one-day weekend.

However, I am thicker-skinned than a lot of people. I'm fairly comfortable in my own skin, even though I stick out like a sore thumb at every Church meeting. I mean, really, who else is wearing black leg warmers with hot pink stilettos? No one.

I'd argue that we are a rather judgmental lot, despite all our lip-service otherwise. We like to talk a lot about being welcoming, but are we really? Do we really like those Mormons who aren't quite the same as everyone else? I'd argue that we've got a rather black and white view on what Mormons are and what they are not.

As does the world, really. I hear a million times a day, "YOU'RE a mormon? Wow...you're so...normal..." and I shock people all the time. Because I'm not the stereotype. So, true, we are constantly pigeon-holed by outsiders. In turn, you woud expect us to then shun this practice within our own church, but we don't.

We are quick to judge. We are quick to stamp out a cookie-cutter ideal of Mormons. Think about what a Mormon woman wants/does/is--quick, off the top of your head. Is she weaing a floral print dress? A stay-at-home mom? Married? Striving to be married? Pregnant? Waiting with bated breath until she is? A frequent Talbot's shopper? Driver of a mini-van?

Of course she is. It's the stereotypical Mormon woman. And even those of us who shun the floral print dress don't accept everyone who fails to meet all the requirements of the stereotype. I'll speak from my experiences, because that's what I know.

I'm practically a man. Really. I am. I am loud, blunt, and aggressive. I don't have that lovely nuturing side to me. I'm the girl in the ward with the nice outfit on (because I do not DRESS like a man...just act like one) and the coordinating pink handbag who's picking her wedgie and complaining about how much I hate relief society.

I do not view marriage as a goal in my life. Clarification on this point. A "goal" is something that you set up steps to get closer to it, you work towards it. As in, I want to pay off my credit card debt, so thus, I will pay $50 extra dollars on my card each month and then at the end of X amount of months, it will be paid off. Marriage, however, is completely not like this at all, although wouldn't it be nice? I can't say, "I shall go to this YSA dance and meet a tall, handsome, dark-eyed man who is interested in law and politics and then he shall ask me out. This will be within the month. Then, in the following months, he will court me in this manner and I will marry him by this date." Since you cannot set up steps to advance your goal, marriage is not a goal. Marriage is something that happens, based on what HF has for you. It's not a goal.

Try telling that to anyone in church. Shocked looks abound. Is this girl really saying this? How can any Mormon girl not view marriage as the END ALL BE ALL of her life?!?! Of course it's a goal! IT'S A NECESSITY! I shrug. Still not a goal. And I never hear the end of this.

Nor do I sit idly by when someone tells me that an excruitiatingly painful time in my life is because I'm a "strong spirit." Bite your tongue if you ever are about to say that to someone. How condescending! It marginalizes the pain that someone is going through. Believe me, there have been times in my life when I would have preferred to be the weaker spirit and not have my whole world crumble apart. But if you don't swallow whole the canned answers that are provided by well-intentioned but ill-advised fellow members, you are somehow wrong and raising eyebrows. Do not ask what that means. Do not inquire as to what other answers there are for your pain. You'll raise eyebrows.

We expect Mormons to be "Mormons" even if we ourselves are not. We do not comprehend the range of people that we are stifling because of our binding expectations. I found out that my YWs leader cleaned the house while listening to Black Sabbath because she was an enormous Ozzy fan. Would not have had a clue. Because I expected her to be "Mormon" rather than a real person. I think we are harser critics than the outside world, because we give the idea of love and acceptance and welcome in one hand and in the other, slap the face of the person with the bitter realization that there is a role that "Mormons" are.

People cease to go for issues like this. Is it their problem? In a sense, yes. They shouldn't let a person keep them away from the Lord. But is it our problem as well? Certainly. As an old VT told me when she found out I've not been going, "You are depriving the congregation of who you are. They are missing out on what you have to offer, specifically because you don't fit in and you'll be the one to make people think." Who are we missing out on when we create an ideal and hold people to it? Who doesn't come? Who comes, but refuses to reveal who they are inside?

Why do we impose the strictest judgments on those that we are supposed to welcome into the fold?

I'm a mind-controller!

2005-10-29T18:54:00.000-07:00

A recent post on feminist mormon housewives about breastfeeding got me thinking about the whole women's dress and actions and men's thoughts connection.

I remember, as a girl in YW, being told that I how I dressed and acted would make the boys think certain things (although these "things" were not specifically outlined--just spoken of in ominous tones) and that I would be responsible for these "things." At first, I was very confused and didn't quite understand what the heck the leaders were talking about.

And then I hit puberty. Or rather, puberty hit me like a ton of bricks. I went from having no breasts to being a size D in a month and a half. Puberty was a cruel, wicked, horrible joke on me. Nothing fit, ever. I looked ridiculous--if I hadn't been 16, I'm sure everyone would have thought I was one of those girls who'd gotten enormous brast implants, because the rest of my body hadn't grown in yet--no hips, no butt, just skinny girl with a big chest.

I hated every minute of it. I felt like everyone was staring at me, no matter what I wore or what I did. And then I would come to church and inevitably get the speech about dressing modestly. Although, what I was wearing was modest. My chest was just so big I couldn't do much about the cleaveage that inevitably showed or the shirt that was stretched too tightly across it. Since I was still small everywhere else, I was struggling to find shirts that fit over my rebellious chest and still fit around the rest of me. I ended up looking like I was wearing a table cloth, since it hug down just like one over the rest of me. I was so unhappy for a long time. And I kept getting reprimanded all the time.

It was the same reprimand. My "lack of modesty" was going to make the boys think inappropriate things and I needed to make sure that I wasn't making them think that. This is a huge pressure for a girl. How am I supposed to know what a boy is thinking? All the time? Not to mention, the entire YMs? All of them? I have to keep track of all their thoughts??

The worst part about it was that I would be yelled at for things my mother and I would pick out together. Given my awkward frame, swimsuit shopping was the worst thing I've ever encountered. I could deal with a tablecloth shirt--how on EARTH do you find an XXL chest swinsuit with a M body? You don't. You have the XXL swimsuit which sags in the butt terribly and is too loose.

But we had a YW pool party to go to and I wanted to go. So, my mom and I searched and searched for a suit. We found one. It was significantly cleaveage-y, for sure. But, realistically, I was significantly cleavage-y all the time. The suit was a rather modest one-piece, all black, with a simple gather on the side. The chest was the bra-type, since any woman who is larger chested knows that a bra type is the ONLY type there is for us. Since it was bra type, it had the appearance of a bra--lower cut in the front, like any normal bra, and underwires. It was a fuller cup than most bras, but it was bra-like. It was a little tight, because it had to fit over the rest of me and Lycra is one constricting material. But, my mom and I looked through many a suit and decided that this one was a good one. It was pretty, it was the most modest one we could find, and it fit fairly decently given the extreme weirdness that was my body.

And then I showed up to the pool party. And I took off my clothes to join the other girls. And my YW leader pulled me aside and told me that my swimsuit wasn't very appropriate or modest. It showed too much cleavage. Didn't I remember the lessons about being appropriate and what the boys would think?

There weren't any boys at this pool party, anyway.

I was upset. I was angry. I looked her straight in the eye and being the mouthy 16 year old I was, I retorted, "Well, God gave me really big boobs and God gave me a lot of cleavage. He has to take some responsibility for not making the rest of me work out so I can be as modest as I'm supposed to be. And my mom helped me pick out this suit, so she thinks it's appropriate."

And then I went swimming.

This attitude that girls and women are responsible for the thoughts of men and boys is troubling at best. It's scary at worst. It's similar to the mentality that a woman deserves to be sexually assaulted if she's in a certain area, engaging in certain behavior, or wearing certain clothes. We go down a slippery path when we place blame on people for other people's thoughts and actions.

Shouldn't the thoughts of the boys be the responsibility of the boys? Now, don't get me wrong. I don't advocate for complete immodesty. Sure, there are boundaries. A mini-skirt, midrift top, etc are all clearly worn for the express purpose of being seen as a sexual object. But, there are also things, which in my opinion, aren't immodest. That if the men think "things" when they are worn, that it's the men's problem.

For example, I'm still a very chesty young woman. It's not going to change. And women's fashions aren't made for chesty women. So, regardless of what I'm wearing, with the exception of a T-shirt, I'm always showing cleavage. Every Sunday, I put on a nice skirt, a tank top, and a button-up shirt. The problem is, the button-up won't button-up. I've still got the same problem--if if fits on top, it doesn't fit anywhere else. If it fits everywhere else, it doesn't fit on top. So, I put on the tank top underneath. It is a modest tank top on ANY OTHER WOMAN IN THE WORLD except me. Because try as I might, I can't hide the cleavage. I try. I really do. But, the clothing industry hates me and thus has decided to make my life horrible. So, in this instance, I think that my cleavage (and we're not taking MASSIVE amounts here...we're talking just a tiny bit) is fine. And if the young man across the chapel is staring at it, thinking "things," then I think it's his responsibility to keep those thoughts in check.

Should a girl with CRAZY nice legs be forced to wear a floor length skirt, while the rest of us with mediocre legs can wear the church-approved knee-length ones? No, of course not. But her legs might make men think "things." And then what? She's responsible for their thoughts about her? Hardly. I don't think that's a fair analysis at all.

But the church leaders seem to push this on women so frequently. We are responsible not only for our own thoughts and actions, but the thoughts of the boys as well. Well, here's a shocking idea that the church leaders may not have ever contemplated--I love a guy in a suit. Most women do. Men in suits are HOT. SUPER HOT! Really, who doesn't like a well-dressed man in a suit? Yum! However, if I'm sitting there in Sacrament meeting, lusting away at all the men in suits, is that their problem? Not hardly. Would anyone say it is? Not at all.

Men are hot in a lot of different contexts. And women like to look at them in these contexts. But, the same lessons do not seem to be drilled so much into young boys's heads. I was never told as a young woman that boys might dress in such a way as to make me think "things." But you know what? The way men dress DOES make women think things. Whether it's discussed or not, women like to look at men just as much as men like to look at women. So why is there such a responsibility placed on women to control men's thoughts? If I'm lusting away after some guy in a fanstastic pair of jeans and a slim fitting T-shirt (drool), that's MY problem. I've got to check my own thoughts, don't I? Isn't it my responsibility to control my mind? Why is this not the case with men and men's thoughts?

We make young girls feel even more self-conscious and awful about their bodies at a time when they are already at war with them. I hated my body. I hated, hated, hated my chest. In fact, I still do, precisely because of all the problems I had with it as a youth. So why such a wicked backlash against the girls?

As I pointed out before, it's a slippery slope in my mind, leading to the eventual, "Well, she was asking for it" about rape victims. Because she was wearing a mini-skirt and a tank top, she deserves to be raped? Because she somehow was controlling the thoughts of the rapist? It seems like a ridiculous argument. And I think that this is where we are heading if we continue to force young girls to somehow take on the responsibility of controlling the boys' thoughts.

The Ebb and The Flow

2005-10-22T17:20:00.000-07:00

Maybe it's just me.

But maybe it's not.

I'm an ebber and a flow-er (I didn't want that to read as "flower." You get it).

I'm in church and then I'm out.

I love it (mostly) and then, not so much.

I commit, fail, recommit, fail, re-recommit...you get the idea.

And before anyone waxes Mormon on me and says, "Well no one's perfect! We all do that, EVERY DAY!" I'm not talking about like, I forgot to pray. Or I had bad thoughts about my neighbor. I mean, I stop going to church for a loooooong time. I don't "stand in holy places." Etc. Etc. I'm not talking about little things here. I'm a serious tidal wave on the shore or a complete and utter drought on the coast. I'm ALL in or I'm ALL out.

I can't seem to make it work for me all the time. I haven't figured out why. A part of it, it's my nature. I always get really into things and then bore with them quickly. Maybe that's how it is with the church.

Maybe it's because I grew up in a lackluster Mormon home. My mom still teaches Sunday school and then kicks back with a Mike's Hard Lemonade at the end of the day. She was pregnant with me before marriage. She's never expressed to me that chastity is a huge deal in her home. Nor is drinking. (Drugs however, is another story. Illegality isn't cool).

Maybe it's because most of my friends aren't Mormon, so it's hard to reconcile what the church teaches with what I see all around me.

There are a million maybes. Maybe I don't fit in. Maybe I don't like waking up that early. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

I ebb away and stop going. I engage in all the things I said I wouldn't do anymore, but I do them again anyway. I don't read my scriptures, I don't take sacrament, I don't maximize my callings...I completely pull away and go 100% inactive.

And then I flow. I come back. I'm repentant and hopeful and happy to be there. I give 100% of myself. I long for callings and talks, love to go to class, love to discuss the church, love FHE and all the activities.

But, inevitably, I stop going again. I don't know why. It just happens. And then inevitably, I start going again.

It's a dichotomy within me--all or nothing.

I never "give it up" in the sense that I don't believe or I don't want to practice or I don't still say I'm Mormon or that I would deny God and what I know. I just don't do the things I know I'm supposed to do.

Why is it that people like me can't keep it together? I wouldn't say I'm any less faithful than others. Believe me, I've seen the church work in my life in spellbinding ways. I can't deny what I know because I've SEEN it. I wouldn't say it's a lack of faith. It's really not. I do believe that if I needed a mountain to move and believed in the Lord enough, it would move. My belief or faith isn't the question.

Is it my committment? I want all the same things I always have...temple marriage, exaltation...
Is it because I'm lazy? I tend to be that way in a lot of things. I really don't think I was ever in the front lines of the Lord's army. I was probably in the tent, drinking a pop and watching VH1 marathons of "The Surreal Life."

What are the secrets of those people who keep it together? How do people keep going? How do people, like myself who haven't lost faith or disbelieve or even have a problem with the church at all, keep it together? This isn't a thing of "You just need to know that HF loves you" because I do know that. I can't explain it.

So how do you all out in the world do it?
How do you keep going?
How do you stay on the ball all the time?
And I mean it--I don't mean "on the ball" as perfect. No stories about how sometimes you really feel you aren't humble enough or grateful enough. I don't mean to downplay those as trials, but they are soooo not the same thing as I don't want to go to church anymore. I mean, how do you actually stay as committed as possible. I'm sure not that.

How do we prevent the ebb and just keep on flowing?

Uhhhlllllleeeet's get ready to RUUUUM-BULL!!!

2005-10-15T14:38:00.000-07:00

It's been awhile since I've been able to post, and for that, I apologize. A lack of internet access has bogged down my ability to blog, as has the tremendous effort it takes to be in law school. However, I have some time now and so, here I am.

This week, I have been seriously ruminating over the Patriot Act II. Many people don't know a lot about this, and I'll admit that, until relatively recently, I didn't know too much about it. I am still no where near an expert on the whole issue. However, from what I have read and learned from speakers at school, I have begun to be really apalled at the PAII. It seems to be to be a gross and terrible jumble of our rights as American.

What does this have to do with a Mormon blog? Well, here's my train of thought. As usual, I'm sure that not everyone (or most people) will agree with me, but it's been rumbling around in my head, so I might as well get it out there.

We believe that the founders were divinely inspired, if my knowledge is correct, and that the Constitution and the rights therein are set up by people that were inspired by God to make sure that people in America would be free, especially in a religious sense so that the Church could develop freely in this country. So, since we believe that the principles that this country was founded on were divinely inspired, what effort are we required to put forth the protect those rights?

The time will come when the ever-terrifying end of the world will come. It seems lately like the signs of that impending day are blossoming up with a frighteningly rapid pace--with a year we've seen a killer tsunami, a landslide in CA, flooding in the upper East Coast, two hurricanes ravage the Southern states, and most recently, an enormous earthquake. So, it seems like there are rapid and unfortunate signs of what is prophecied about. So, if we believe that the end is coming, do we have the right to sit back and wait for it? Should we fight against Satan in more than just our personal lives, but on a largeer scale?

The Patriot Act II, in my opinion, is a turn for the worst in America. Some pieces of it include language that would allow persons suspected of a crime (not actually charged with, simply suspected) to be taken into custody without notifying anyone and without allowing that person to contact anyone. Your "one phone call" is no longer. Nor does the gov't, according to the PAII, have to allow you access to legal counsel or even charge you with a crime within any reasonable amount of time. Right now, the police must charge someone within 48 hours of arrest (it might be 72, but either way, it's a very short number of days) or release them. The new PAII doesn't have to follow that rule, at least with respect for persons suspected of being terrorists. The PAII also has stipulations that would allow any American citizen practicing civil disobedience to be stripped of his/her citizenship.

What is the point of this discussion on the PAII? Here's how I see it...legislation such as this makes it easier for people to be denied their due process rights. We have been forewarned that there will be a time when the Anti-Christ will come into power. We don't know for sure that it will be over America, but assuming that it is... So, before the AC comes into power, imagine that we, the American people and we, members of the church, have allowed legislation to pass that will make it easier to persecute us in the end times. Arguably, the definition of "terrorist" is quite loose, according to governmental standards. When normal people think of "terrorist" we think of someone trying to blow up people. But, the gov't doesn't have that narrow view of what constitutes a terrorist. Perhaps the definition will someday be those who are radically outside of the norm of society or those who won't conform. We, as members of the church, knowingly and proudly don't conform to the norm. We may some day be at peril for that.

As for civil disobedience, in a previous post I mentioned a website that I had found that said the church did not approve of civil disobedience. But, arguably, we may need to practice it ourselves some day. When the days come that all the ideas about the end times come, when we are apparently going to have to have the mark of the beast to get food, water, etc., we are church members will not do this. We will resist. We will practice civil disobedience, and if the PAII gets passed, risk having our citizenship revoked. And if we aren't citizens, we are no longer allowed due process.

Do we fight against things on a larger scale? Do we keep Satan at bay for as long as we can? Do we have an obligation to keep our ears and eyes sharp for things such as not only the bottle of beer in the fridge and the heavy petting in the backseat of a car, but also the legislation and the leaders that put us in future, but very real, peril? Do we have a requirement to protect not only ourselves but the lives of those outside of our little realm and those that will come after us? What is our obligation to a larger scale fight?

I have heard that we were saved for the end times--that valiant souls were needed to fight in the end. What does that mean, exactly? Are we valiant enough to withstand the offer for pot at a party? The temptation to cheat on our taxes or to not pay tithing? Or are we valiant in that we need to fight on a larger scale, to be the 10,000 stripling warriors in a different realm. Rather than arms, we take up political power and protest, the pen and the bullhorn, the ballot and the keyboard, to fight against the tide of Satan. Are we the ones responsible for fighting? Or do we sit back and let it happen, because it's an inevitabilty? What is our focus in this life?

The point isn't the rally against the PAII (although I really hate it myself). The point is to question what our responsibility is when we see things such as the PAII in my case, things that ruffle our feathers and create unrest. Things that put us in future precariou situations. Sure, we may not now feel the effects of some of that political power and maneuvering, but do we want to risk doing nothing and wait until we are in a troublesome spot?

The Church, to my knowledge, doesn't have anything to say about our responsibility to defend on a large scale. The Church doesn't tell us to vote one way or another, but to be informed citizens and active participants. So, what exactly does that mean?

In my opinion, it means I will be writing to my Congresspersons and letting them know that I think the PAII is deplorable. And I will keep writing in when things are good and when things are bad. I will protest when necessary. I will fight and be forward thinking. I think we are the 10,000 stripling warriors of our time, held back to keep things from deteriorating as rapidly as they could. We are here, in my opinion, to fight on a scale that the world hasn't seen yet. We are a powerful bunch, a large bloc. We are the ones sent here to fight.

So let's fight.

How Would I Want To Be Loved?

2005-08-26T22:06:00.000-07:00

Ok, ok...I'll admit it. I'm a registered Democrat.

I know! The gasping! The horror! A Mormon Democrat (who's registered, no less) is as rare as a solar eclipse (and just as burning to your retinas, so beware!).

While most of the time, Mormons are Republican because of the more conservative stance that party takes and shuns the more liberal views about abortion, gay rights, etc. that the Democratic party takes, I still am Democratic.

For me, it all boils down to social policy and equality. Clearly, social programs are the hallmark of the Democratic party. And that's where I plant my political and religious feet. In the idea of social equality. In the idea of loving my neighbor. In the idea of service to others and sacrifice on my part.

Throughout the scriptures, we are reminded of the importance of loving one another. We are reminded over and over again that to love thy neighbor as thyself is the second greatest commanment. This is stressed throughout much of the scriptures that deal with the period in which Jesus was on the earth. Jesus talked constantly about loving others.

How is love defined? What constitutes this love that is so frequently mentioned?

"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us." 1 John 4:7-12

So love is of God and when we apply this love outwards, God dwells within us, which is a pretyt amazing thought. We all know and believe that God's love is infinite, forgiving, and patient. It can change hearts of wo/men. It can move mountains and heal people. It's a powerful force. And we are told that we are to cultivate this love within ourselves and then pass that same love to others.

What does it mean to love someone as myself? What do I value? What do I want? How are the ways that I love myself? How would I want someone to love me? These aren't necessarily questions we consider regularly. We act in ways that bring us pleasure, that make us better, than carve us slowly...we don't always think consciously about the things that we do that show ourselves our personal love for the inner person. Nor do we always pay attention to how we love others--when we love someone, the act of loving them becomes almost natural and subconscious. We do things because we love them and it seems to be the obvious thing to do. We would find a way to do most anything to alleviate pain or suffering of a loved one, to bring joy to a loved one, to serve, to encourage, to teach...we have no qualms about helping and serving those we love.

And as members, we are fairly good about serving those within our communites. More often that not, a group of people I don't know well show up from church to help me move from house to house. Many people brought over dinner for my mom when she was sick. We treat our members very well. We know them and even if we don't like them, we still show them love to a certain extent.

However, the love that we show is more often than not limited to those we see. We are cordial to those we don't know, we are good representatives of Christ. But do we love them as ourselves? Do we love them as we love our close friends and family? Would I do whatever I could to ease the pain and suffering of a stranger? How about millions of strangers? Would I give of myself in a variety of different ways to ensure others joy, health, well-being, and pleasure? Or will I only be nice to them as we pass on the street?

The world is an ugly place today. I'm not talking about the spiritual decline in the world, because that much is obvious. I'm talking about the very basic things that we would all be horrified to have taken from us. Yet, it happens every day to all our neighbors.

Within America, we suffer from below-living-standard wages, racial prejudices, poor educational systems, discrimination, poverty, sickness...we are mired in social problems. It seems so overwhelming at times, and so removed from where we are. Yet, behind all these social problems that are faceless a majority of the time, there are people. There are our neighbors. The same ones we are beseeched to love as ourselves.

How would I want someone to love me if I were a battered woman seeking shelter? How would I want someone to love me if I were poor? How would I want someone to love me if I were an immigrant to a country and didn't speak the language? How would I want someone to love me if I were sick and without health insurance? How would I want someone to love me? How do I show that love to others?

We don't do enough. And yet, the things we can do are so small, so insignificant to our own lives, but yet can make such an impact on others! For example, when I was 19, I worked at Wal-Mart. I was frequently encouraged not to take my breaks, since the pharmacy was too busy to allow that. I was frequently asked to work off the clock. Since I worked in the pharmacy, I was privy to the information regarding the health insurance policy of Wal-Mart workers: in sum, no transplants were covered other than liver, no pre-existing health conditions were treated or medications provided (this means if you started at Wal-Mart and had been diagnosed with diabetes prior to beginning employment at Wal-Mart, you may not be covered for your tests/visits/medications/etc.), women were afforded one yearly pelvic examination and if anything was found wrong or troubling in that visit, the subsequent visits to fix the problem were not covered, most medications weren't covered, including birth control (however, Viagra was...??) and some basic heart medications. This was a very poor health insurance policy. Co-pays on prescriptions cost $20 for generic and $30 for name brand. I'm on 5 medications right now--that would be $100-150 a month out of my pocket if I had Wal-Mart insurance. Raises were 1-2% of $7--the average wage. Workers were encouraged to underreport accidents with bribes of food and parties for "accident free" days. It was not a good place for people to work. But, they had to, since it is often the biggest employer whereever it is located.

My choice, after I left, was to never shop at Wal-Mart again. Ever. I will go somewhere else and pay more for the very same products that I can get cheaper at Wal-Mart because, in my opinion, every dollar I spend at Wal-Mart is a quiet and tacit acceptance of terrible working conditions for people. How would I want someone to love me if I worked at Wal-Mart? I would want them to fight for me for better working conditions and better wages. So, I show my love to my neighbors, even if it's indirectly, by spending my money elsewhere. It may not seem like much. It really isn't, in fact. But if everyone loved their Wal-Mart neighbors like they loved themselves and stopped shopping there, it would make a difference.

My point isn't to convince everyone to stop shopping at Wal-Mart (although that would be great!). My point is that to love thy neighbor as thyself doesn't always have to be a huge thing. It can be small. It can be powerful.

Loving thy neighbor as thyself comes in many forms. Boycotts are one form. They work (see the Montgomery bus boycott if you need proof). Another is service. Service is the hallmark of our church member interactions. We serve by welcoming members, going on missions, etc. But do we service those outside our wards? Outside our church realm? Do we limit who are neighbors are to those we know? Those we share something in common with? Or do we truly serve everyone, regardless of who they are, what they do, and if we agree with their choices?

"And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God." Mosiah 2:17

We must make an effort to serve others more diligently. And not those that that we deem to be deserving of service. In the parable of the good samaritan, the samaritan did not look at the wounded man and think, "Well, he really did this to himself since he made poor choices in life. He was a criminal for awhile, he grew up in a bad part of town, he'll probably end up here again or living off the system...I'll jsut keep walking." Too often, we make judgment calls about who is deserving of our love and our service and our help. Often, we make these judgments and we do not understand the perspective of those we are ruling on.

For example, prisoners are considered a waste to most of society. They are criminals, right? Dredges on society. Crust of bread, drop of water, let them rot. Rather than make a judgment call on them, perhaps we should ask ourselves: If I were a prisoner, how would I want someone to treat me?

Yes, prison is a place for punishment. But, it is also a place for rehabilitation. So, we take Johnny, a poor black kid from the streets who got busted for drugs at 19. He's in jail for 2 1/2 years for his crime. In this 2 1/2 years, what should be done with Johnny? Should he be allowed to attend college classes within the prison system? Should he be allowed to get his GED? Should he be allowed to learn a trade? Should we give Johnny something that at 21 years old, when he gets out of jail, he will be able to do something? Or should we lock him up 23 out of 24 hours?

How would you want to be treated if you were Johnny? How would you want to be loved?

Our social policies in this country are built with the intention of servicing and loving our neighbors. Welfare is to service and love mothers, fathers, and children who cannot survive on their own. We each have our own welfare system, which we both run and live on, in our own lives. It's called friends and family. When my car was totalled in an accident, I received personal welfare from a friend's family who loaned me a car while I was dealing with things. When my friend needed $1000 to pay her bills, I signed my student loan refund check over to her and she was a recipient of my welfare.

Meals on Wheels is service and love to eldery folks. Free health clinics are love and service to the indigent and ill in this country. Affordable housing and livable wages are service and love to everyone.

Too often, we think about how our sacrifices will hurt us. Specifically, the main complaint I hear against social policy is that so many taxes are taken out of the weekly paychecks and spent on social programs. We don't think about the life-saving medicine that the hospital pharmacy is now able to give out for free to low-income/insurance-less patients. We don't think about the food stamps that feed a child. We don't think about the people that get to stay in their homes because they make a decent wage at their work. We choose to ignore the good our sacrifices bring into the world. We choose to blind ourselves and see only our lack, the absence of our goods and time. We lack money from taxes. We complain. We don't consider that if we were living off of the gov't's assistance, how would we want to be loved? To be cared for? Would we want everyone to remind us how we are a drain on society, a waste, lazy, unmotivated, and abusing the system even if our claims are legitimate? Or would we want people who smiled at us and felt happy that their sacrifice would make our lives easier? That one more person was protected, sheltered and loved? How would we want to be loved?

We think about how our sacrifices hurt us. We think about the loss of time to go volunteer or lobby for legislature. We think about how we have a million other things to do. We think about how our vote and our voice doesn't make a difference so why bother with it at all. We think about those who deserve our help. We think about all the things we do do in this life and rationalize to ourselves that it is enough. We give service in church and possibly in our community, so we do enough. We think about how we will look, if we will look silly, or weird, or insane for fighting for a cause we feel strongly about. We think about how much money we lose when we donate to charities or buy food to give away to the food shelves. We think about our own families and our own friends and our obligations to them. We think that we don't know anyone who is affected by unfair or harmful legislations, so it is not of our concern.

We do not ask ourselves how we would want to be loved. We do not think about how our one hour of time donated, our one voice lobbying for change, our one banner, our one button, our one website, our one bumper sticker can change the lives of many...and sometimes, the life of only one. We don't think about how we would want someone to fight for us if we couldn't fight for ourselves. We don't consider how we would feel if judgment was passed on us and therefore service and love withheld. We don't remember that there is never enough service until we are serving with all of our heart, might, mind, and strength. We don't recall that Jesus wasn't content to say that He had done enough service for that day and He wanted to go do something else. We don't think about the pure love of Christ emanating from us when we sacrifice and show love and charity.

Of course, not everyone needs to be a Democrat to fulfil this, nor do they need to believe that prisoners deserve caviar and crumpets. Rather, everyone needs to look at things from a different angle. To make an effort to cast aside judgments formed in their minds before their heart has had time to see the person/people. To realize that there is a constant need to love everyone, even those we don't see, don't like, and don't deem worthy of our love and service.

Everyone needs to ask themselves how they would want to be loved. How would I want to be loved?

There are a million ways to serve others. We don't do it enough. We need to lobby for better programs or reforming current ones to make sure that love and service really are given to our fellow wo/men. We need to avoid purchasing products from and affiliating with companies and people and things that use their lack of love and service to profit. We need to look constantly, search and seek in perpetuity, ways in which our service and love can be rendered. Not just to church members, not just to those we know...to those we don't know. To those we will never know. To those we will never see or even be aware of the help we've provided.

Let us not look back at our lives in the next world and see all our missed opportunities. Let us not look back and see our prejudices and biases preventing us from service and love. Let us not remember in the next life all the times we didn't serve because of the sacrifice it entailed. Let us look at our life with happiness and a sense of fulfillment. Let us greet the people who were benefitted by our actions in the next life. Let us look around and see that we woke up and did something more than dreamed of our mansion above. Let us truly be our brother's keeper in all things and show our love to those who don't even know it.

"Savior, may I learn to love thee
Walk the path that thou hast shown,
Pause to help and lift another
Finding strength beyond my own
Savior, may I learn to love thee
Lord, I would follow thee.

Who am I to judge another
When I walk imperfectly?
In the quiet heart is hidden
Sorrow that the eye can't see
Who am I to jusge another?
Lord, I would follow thee.

I would be my brother's keeper
I would learn the healer's art
To the wounded and the weary
I would show a gentle heart
I would be my bother's keeper
Lord, I would follow thee.

Savior, may I love my brother
As I know thou lovest me
Find in thee my strength, my beacon,
For they servant I would be
Savior, may I love my brother
Lord, I would follow thee."
#220

Ok, I'm going to be honest: I'm weirded out by garments.

2005-08-25T22:48:00.000-07:00

Not that I have my own set, but garments weird me out.

Not the spiritual aspect of them, as I understand their meaning and significance. And I think it's cool that we have that constant reminder.

AND I will concede that I am mostly going off of things that I've heard from Annie's grandma's brother's friend who once knew someone who did it one time when she was like 14. So my firsthand knowledge is HIGHLY limited.

But, speaking as an average 22 year old girl, the physical aspect of garments creeps me out. For girls, there seems to be a bit of confusion on whether it's over or under the bra. If it's over, I'm really grossed out. As every girl does, at some point in my life, I've put a bra on over my shirt. The shirt wadded. Every place it possibly could, it was bunched and awkward and weird. And lumpy.

And I'm also a little reluctant to give up normal underwear because, again, being honest, I LOVE UNDERWEAR. I have a Victoria's Secret credit card and I go NUTS when the semi-annual sale hits because who doesn't want 40 pairs of underwear for $8?! I have so many pairs that my top drawer doesn't shut. I could probably go for about 3 months without washing underwear and still be wearing a clean pair every day. So, I've got quite the investment, both with adoration and monetary value, invested in underwear. And I'm more than a little reluctant to give it up.

Not to mention I hate almost everything that is white. Of course, there is the figurative conotation of being white in the religious sense. But, speaking as a caucasian girl with skin so pale that the blue veins under my eyes become visible in the winter months, pale girls shouldn't wear white. Ever. It's just sick looking. Imagine a tuberculosis infected girl in 1903. That's what I look like in white (or yellow for that matter). So once I'm married, every morning I get to look in the mirror and go, "AIIIIIYYYYYEEEEEE!!!!!! WHO'S THAT GIRL INFECTED WITH CONSUMPTION...Oh, just me. Grrrreat."

And I'm thinking that they would be hot. Constantly wearing more than one layer. I'm sweating just thinking about these stuffy Minnesota summers with 100% humidity and it's so gross outside you don't even want to be wearing skin. And I'll be wearing two layers. Whew. Pass me the extra strength deodorant, please.

Of course, I realize that there are all small things compared to the importance of wearing garments, but...BUT...I'd be willing to wager that other garment-less people have had the same thoughts. And those of you with garments probably wondered about the physical mechanics about them as well.

So, was it weird switching from garment-less to garmented? How did you deak with the basic physical aspect/concerns? And for the garment-less, do you wonder about these too? Or am I just a weirdo (which could be.)?

"If Darwin were right, wouldn't we all still be turning into monkeys?" says a former bishop of mine

2005-08-24T16:05:00.000-07:00

So, we are all up in arms as a nation about the Evolution Theory vs. Creationism/Intelligent Design (which, in my opinion, isn't intelligent whatsoever, but who I am? Just a random, mouthy blog-girl).

Although there is no official church doctrine (that I'm aware of and please, if anyone knows of come, direct me to it, because I would love to peruse it), there seems to be definite opinions on this subject. Most of which I've encountered lean towards the creationism view.

However, I have never been able to subscribe to this view. It, in my opinion, doesn't make sense. Either creationism isn't all that it's cracked up to be or Heavenly Father threw some fossils around as a cruel and evil joke.

For example, as I was walking around the science museum today, I was looking at dinosaur bones and fossilized poop (yes, poop!) that was dated millions of years old. And I don't have any problem believing that these items WERE that old.

I don't think the idea of evolution is mutually exclusive with the idea of a divine creator. And there apparently is no school of thought on this (perhaps I should make one up. Called Intelligent Evolution. I like that!).

"And again, verily I say unto you, he hath given a law unto all things, by which they move in their times and their seasons; And their courses are fixed, even the courses of the heavens and the earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets. And they give light to each other in their times and in their seasons, in their minutes, in their hours, in their days, in their weeks, in their months, in their years—all these are one year with God, but not with man." --D&C 88:42-44

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." --2 Peter 3:8

Here is some (only a tiny bit of much that I found on www.lds.org) scriptural reference that states, simply put, that God does not exist in the same timeframe we as humans do. Therefore, i feel it would be very naive of us to believe differently or to take time frames in scripture as given in our time. Sure, it says the Lord took 6 days to create the earth and on the 7th He rested. But, who's to say that 7 days=168 earth hours? We as humans have no idea what God's time is compared to ours. There is scriptural reference to a day equaling 1,000 years or something like that, but again, do we take this timeframe at face value and equate it to be an exact conversion? Or more like an estimate?

So, we can say that at best, we have a rough estimate of God's time to our time. More than likely, we have no clue. So, can we really say that it was a literal 7 days and deny the scriptures that say otherwise? I don't think we can, honestly.

Let's look at the theory of evolution in a rough, simple, what-can-I-remember-from-bio format.

Evolution is something like this:
Pangea--a massive land form. This eventually breaks apart into continents
Single cells--these are the first life forms. They eventually evolve into...
Animals--which then weed out the stragglers through the whole survival of the fittest. Eventually one of these animals evolves into...
Humans--which is where we are now.

Now, let's do a brief look at the creation story:
God created heaven and earth.
Then night and day, light and dark.
Then the firmament (which, I looked up, means the vault or expanse of the heavens; the sky).
Then water and earth.
Then grass, seeds, fruit, etc.
Then seasons and more light and stars.
Then sea creatures and air creatures.
Then He tells these things to be fruitful and multiply.
Then every other living creature that is on the earth.
Then humans.

So, if we look, the story of creation seems to follow a similar pattern to that of evolution. Earth. Water/land next. Then grass. Then sea/air creatures. Then we move onto the animals on the earth. Last, people. Pretty similar pattern, if you ask me.

Not to mention the fact that the water was to gather in "one place" which would imply that if all the water is gathered together, one could draw the conclusion that the earth was then drawn together by default in another area. Sounds like it may have been pangea.

Are these to ideas mutually exclusive? I don't think so. It says that God created the heaven and the earth. It doesn't say He snapped his fingers and the earth popped into existance. Perhaps God, who talks constantly about patience and long-suffering, was interested in seeing a slow fruition of His work, so he set in motion the process of slow compression of the parts of space to create Earth, as I learned about in science class in 8th grade. Perhaps he created sea creatures as one celled ameobas and then set in motion a process we now call evolution. Perhaps in there, the creatures that walked on the land were the creation of dinosaurs. They died off before humans did, so who's to say that that wasn't their entrance and exit?

There is astounding evidence for evolution. Do we deny it? Do I look over the artifacts at the science museum and close my eyes to what I see? Do I tell my future children that their science classes are not true? How can we deny so much evidence?

People are so quick to point out the flaws that they find in evolution, as if that somehow makes it false. But, look at any theory...look at any idea...it evolves, it grows. Things change. But the essential part of it stays the same. We used to think that you could cure insanity by putting people's heads in boxes. We were wrong. Were we wrong that insanity existed? That it needed to be treated? No. We were wrong on one area of it. Finding flaws doesn't mean it is false. It means one area has yet to be explained or has been explained incorrectly.

So, is it an absolute must that we choose one side or the other?

Or can we all just jump on board to my new creation, Intelligent Evolution?

Sex! And the Church

2005-08-22T12:05:00.000-07:00

How do we, as Mormons, deal with sex and sexuality in the chuch?

I remember that my mother was always very forthcoming with sex and sexuality. She answered all my questions very honestly and always corrected any incorrect ideas I had about sex. She sat me down every year and discussed sex and babies and menstruation with me.

However, she's the exception, it seems, since so many people that I know were not taught much, if anything, about sex. What little knowledge they had came from the Church, which the major message of that is NO! unless you are married. No elaboration, just NO!

Here are some of my questions on this issue.

How do we teach kids that sexuality and having sexual feelings is normal? And ok? And that it's ok to want to have sex, even if you aren't married? And that once you are married, then it's ok to have fun with your spouse?

The main gist of the church's stance seems to be to drill it into children and teenagers (and young adults, I may add, as this is my current situation) that we are supposed to be completely asexual before marriage. We aren't supposed to masturbate. We aren't supposed to french kiss. Or make out. We aren't supposed to even THINK sexual thoughts or want to have sex, because "But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart." (3 Ne 12:28). I think that that scripture also applies to women as well. So prior to marriage, we are supposed to be completely asexual. We can't even think about sex.

However, what I fail to understand is that, when the discussion of homosexuality is brought up, members are constantly told that there is no sin in have homosexual FEELINGS, but upon acting on those homosexual feelings. So why doesn't this hold true for heterosexuals, as well? We are told that we can't masturbate because it causes us to think about sex. We can't think about sex in general, because that will make us want to have sex and then we MIGHT have sex, so therefore it's wrong wrong WRONG to think about sex!

Why is it wrong to think about sex? To acknowledge that God created us as sexual beings? If the sole purpose of sex was procreation, then why isn't it something that we do to alleviate pain, just like eating or peeing, rather than something that brings us pleasure?

If sexual thoughts lead us to sexual actions, then what about people who have sexual thoughts but who do NOT have sexual actions outside of marriage? Are sexual thoughts only bad if they lead us to have sex? Or are they bad all the time?

What about those people who are 40 and unmarried, still a virgin, who have sexual thoughts? Isn't it their right to at least have sexual thoughts, if nothing else?

And once we are married, does this mean all the sexual restrictions are off? Can I think about my husband sexually when he's not there? If he's on a business trip for three months, can I masturbate? Can I call him and tell him I'm thinking about him? Or are those things still wrong? Are they only wrong for unmarried people or for everyone?

What is so inherently bad about masturbation, outside of the sexual thoughts realm? Sex experts will often tell women who claim to be unable to orgasm that they need to masturbate to find out what makes them orgasm, so they can effectively communicate this to a partner. Why are we told to not be familiar with our own bodies? It's not sinful for me to massage my own arm or even to rub out a cramp in my leg, both of which feel really good, but it's sinful for me to touch my own genitals? I've known women who didn't even know where their own clitoris was located, let alone what its purpose was! They didn't know where their own body parts were!! I fail to see what's so bad about masturbation, outside of the "It makes you think sexual thoughts" thing, which, according to the Church's own admission, it's not the THOUGHTS OR THE FEELINGS that are sinful, but the act (at least if you are dealing with homosexual thoughts/feelings). So if the thoughts aren't bad, then what's wrong with masturbating?

The church sends out one consistent message to members and that's a view that sex is a big no-no before marriage. But, beyond that, there are so many conflicting or confusing messages.

HF made us sexual beings. He gives us sexual feelings and he gives us sexual desire. He gives us the ability to feel wonderful and to cherish the beauty of sex. So, why does the church not talk about these things, but rather, consistently reminds us how terrible it is and that we should be completely in the dark on our wedding night?

We don't necessarily need experience on the wedding night, but information might be helpful!

Guest Blog!

2005-08-16T15:41:00.000-07:00

I'm guest-blogging on Various Stages of Mormondom tomorrow. Check me out at this site.

Mormon Culture v. Doctrine, Part 1: The Pressure for Marriage

2005-07-30T09:40:00.000-07:00

Culture or doctrine?

How do we discern between the two?

There are things that I love about church doctrine. It makes sense to me in a way that other religious philosophies don't. There is a logic behind it, an order, that appeals greatly to my sense of...well, logic and order. There are places to turn to to find answers, be it scriptures, books, the Ensign, leaders, blogs, prayer, etc. I find that many of the "mysteries" of God aren't really that mysterious, since He is pretty good about making sure we understand things, especially important things. Church doctrine, in my opinion, makes a lot of sense as a religious philosophy.

The problem I see is that soooo many members confuse church culture and church tradition with church doctrine. There are things that Mormons are "supposed" to do and when members deviate from this ideal, they become something of a black sheep. Are they necessarily breaking any covenant? Violating any rule? No, not in most cases. But, they are treated as sinners of the worst sort when they are open about their deviations.

I speak from a personal experience point of view. Lately, there has been a lot of pressure on me to be married. It's usually unspoken, or if it is spoken, it's covert. Things like, "Oh, no ring? Don't worry, it'll happen someday." As if not being married or engaged at 22 is something to be concerned with. Constant probing into my dating life (or lack thereof) or statements like, "Well, once you have your kids..." set the cultural expectations of what Mormons are supposed to do. And, as a girl, I'm supposed to be focused on family and marriage.

Even women who are older than me, who are single and attend my single's ward, express a disappointment at not being married yet at the "old" age of 29. One woman, who I think has accomplished a lot, has her Master's degree, has traveled quite extensively, and owns her own business. But, when she speaks of her life, it's still not good enough because she isn't married yet and she speaks wistfully of how much better her life would be if she were, because she's getting so old. For me, however, 29 is NOT old whatsoever. Nor would I feel disappointment if I wasn't married by that age. There are things that I want to do that I wouldn't be able to do if I were married. Well, perhaps I would, but not in the same capacity.

After I graduate law school, I'd like to treat myself to a vacation in Europe for a month or so...just me and my best friend. While this may still be a possibility when married, it would be a bit more maneuvering. I'd like to enjoy just being single and living alone for awhile. I think that living alone is an important thing for people do to before they live with a spouse for forever. If only for the reason that you get to come to find out who you really are. I clean up a lot more than I normally would because I live with roommates. Living alone would give me a better sense of who I am in certain areas. I want to have no one to answer to for awhile. I want to establish who I really am before I commit to someone. Too many marriages end because the people that got married grew up and grew apart. I don't want that.

This attitude, however, of not making marriage my top priority, is somehow very dangerous and evil, according to my fellow counterparts. Now, don't get me wrong...I'm not opposed to marriage whatsoever. If it came along, fine. But, if not, I'm not worried about it. I'm not stressing myself out or wasting time feeling unfulfilled. I'm not obsessing over the fact that I haven't had a date in a year or so and I'm not concerned if I don't get married by a certain age. I have made plans for myself that don't include a husband because there is alwys the possibility that I won't have one...some people don't get married because the right person doesn't come along. Currently, I'm single with no prospects in sight, so why plan around something that is sooooo uncertain?

Mormon culture kicks in here. I should be sad and depressed, wasting my time catering to what I think will "get a man." I should plan for a marriage first and then, as a backup, live my life as I currently am. I should spend energy concerned with my lack of dating. This is the message I am given by my fellow church members. The women are the worst--they are constantly reminding me of how great it would be to be married. They talk in RS about the joys of marriage and they have extensive plans for themselves and their as-yet-unkown husband. Since I say things like, "If I get married," rather than "when," which is a valid thing to say since no one can predict the future, I get looks and eyeballs. When I discuss things I want to do with my life and don't mention marriage, I get reminded of that fact. If I say, "I want to graduate law school, work for a firm for awhile, buy a house, and then start a youth center," I am always asked, "Well, when will you have time to get married and be a mom?"

This is partly tied up with doctrine, I understand, because there is that commandment that says we are supposed to multiply and replenish the earth. The Proclomation asserts that family is the most important. Yes, I understand that. I even will take it at face value. But, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with not making marriage a top priority because it's something that you can't conrol at all! How am I supposed to plan on meeting my future husband? I can't say, "Well, I will do X and Y and then Z will result, hence marriage." I can do that with things like law school...if I go in the fall, I will graduate in 3 years, and then I will be able to work as a lawyer. Those are things I can control. Since I am not opposed to marriage, and if I have the chance, I would get married, then why is it so weird that I don't care to stress myself out about it right now? Is it a sin to not be married by 25? I don't think so. That's a silly notion. Is it a sin to plan to do things by yourself? I don't think so, either. Is it wrong not to be upset at 22, 25, or even (gasp!) 29 that I'm not married yet? I highly doubt it.

So why do so many people get caught up in the culture? Why do they focus so strongly on how things are "normally" done and refuse to see that there are alternative (and not wrong!) routes? Why is it such a disappointment to be comfortable not being married? How do we, as individuals, seperate the culture of being Mormon from the religious doctrine and be sure we are using that as our guide in life? The last thing I want to do is rush into something because of social cues and pressures, only to find out that I did the wrong thing or that there was something better for me just around the corner if I'd just waited a bit. And why is it that people are sooo uncomfortable with the idea that there are other routes to life that it can't even be discussed? I can't tell you how many feathers I've ruffled without even meaning to, simply by saying, "Well, I'm not too concerned if I don't get married. I could live a happy life without it."

Is it so unbelievable that a person, a woman, could be happy with her life if the right marriage partner never came along? Must we always look at these people with a sort of sadness because they are somehow less blessed? Perhaps there are blessings that come from being single that married people don't get. Perhaps the freedom and autonomy of being single is a blessing all on their own. Perhaps their partner in the afterworld is SMOKINGLY good looking and can cook a mean fat-free fettucini alfredo. Who knows what blessings come from being single that aren't there for married people and the same for married to single. But is it so unfathomable that someone can be content with his/her life without a husband or wife? Is it so shocking that a person could be okay with being single and trust that the Lord has a plan for them that may or may not include marriage?

Rather than express sympathy or pity for unmarried members, perhaps we should applaud their ability to be happy and be content, expecially when faced with enormous social pressure. Perhaps we should find ways to encourage single members who aren't happy to find what makes them happy in their lives and celebrate that, rather than wasting time and emotions on being sad about something they lack. Perhaps we should all just realize that because that's "how it's done" doesn't mean that's how is has to be done.

Why People Avoid Talking

2005-07-25T20:41:00.000-07:00

So, my visiting teachers were over the other day and I was a bit irritated by one of the women's comments. VT1 and I were talking about the Supreme Court and Sandra Day O'Connor and the liberal/conservative split on the Court. Nothing too controversial, just kind of chatting and discussing and asking questions. VT1 asked VT2 what she thought and VT2 said she didn't know. She said she wasn't really sure. VT1 and I were discussing the ramifications of a liberal/conservative shift on things like abortion rights and homosexual rights and women's and minority rights. We weren't arguing, we weren't even disagreeing. We were just discussing. I was saying something about how Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are strict interpreters of the Constitution and that certain ideas (such as the right to privacy) don't exist for them if not spelled out in the Constitution blatantly. VT2 cut in and said, "Hey guys, let's start our lesson and pray. Let's not talk about this stuff because it brings in a spirit of contention."

I was floored...

My question relates to this comment of hers. Since we weren't even disagreeing, how is that we were bringing in a spirit of contention? I feel like this is why so many things aren't ever discussed in the Church that are controversial or even a bit different. VT2 felt so uncomfortable with ideas that weren't exactly cookie-cutters that she felt we were somehow dragging in a contentious spirit. I didn't even understand this.

Do people avoid discussion about issues because they are afraid they might have to think about something from a different angle? I feel like VT2's attitude towards discussing anything even remotely thought-provoking is enough to make people in the Church--and I hate to even say it but it seems to be true--and especially women in the Church, shy away from serious discussion.

Civil Disobedience and the Equal Rights Amendment

2005-07-18T11:36:00.000-07:00

I found a website recently that I can't guarantee the authenticity of, but it claims to be a comprehensive look at Mormon doctrine and appears to be written by a Mormon. If it is authentic and also accurate, then I have found some very troubling things, in my opinion.

"Generally speaking, the Church does not support its members in exercising civil disobedience. This position is based on at least three key factors. First, the Church believes that even bad government is preferable to no government (i.e., anarchy). Second, a common tactic by enemies of the Church has been to falsely portray its members as enemies of the state who seek to overthrow the constituted government of the land. These fabrications have led to many incidents of persecution (e.g., murder, rape, false imprisonment, seizure of property, etc.) against the Church and its members. Therefore, the Church is very careful to avoid even the appearance that we are poor citizens. Third, we believe that God has a plan and the human family is working according to a divine timetable. Since we believe the time will come when God will right all wrongs, we do not feel the compulsion to correct all evils in this life." - found here

Why on earth would the Church not support civil disobedience? This is just shocking and irritating to me. So, we should still be under Jim Crow laws? Women as property? This page I got this from says that the Church advocates dealing with issues in courts of law, but the issue there is that, if the law is unjust, then what are the chances that a person fighting against that law will win? Or will even have legal grounds to stand on? Honestly, do we believe that if a balck man in the South had gone to court to argue that he can't sit at a lunch counter, that 1)anyone would have taken his case, 2) that any judge wouldn't have dismissed the case, 3) that he would have legal ground to stand on, and 4) that he would have won? I seriously have my doubts, especially considering the first landmark case that actually did give blacks equality, Brown v. Board of Education, was so adamently opposed by the society that GUARDS had to be present at the school to let the black students in, while governor George Wallace stood screaming, "Segregation now, segregation forever!"

I don't understand why the Church would oppose this. Honestly, is sitting in so bad? Is marching to the voting booth and demanding to be allowed to vote, regardless of sex, that bad? Personally, I think that most reasonable people can realize that the use of non-violent, civil disobedience helped further the civil rights movement along in a way that going through the standard legal and political routes would never have done. It's only been 41 years since the Civil Rights Act of '64 passed. And that was with the help of civil disobedience. Where would we be without the use of civil disobedience? 6 years since? 10? None at all?

Also, since when do we as a Church think it's ok to sit back and do nothing to fight the evils of the world? The last part sounds like a free ticket to sit back and do nothing, since it's all going to be taken care of eventually. I thought we were supposed to work to help people. I thought we were supposed to fight for the right. Aren't we "all enlisted till the conflict is o'er?" Since when do we get to just slack off and say, "Well, that evil of the world we aren't going to worry about because God will fix it in the end." To me, that sounds like an excuse to be apathetic. It sounds like a cop out.

"In the political arena, where competing claims to civil rights are frequently debated, the Church participates indirectly by encouraging members to vote and to foster a society congenial to Christian teaching and righteous living. Occasionally, when public issues implicate important matters of doctrine and morals, the Church publishes recommended positions on disputed issues and encourages members and others to follow their counsel. Thus, the Church has urged restrictions on the sale of alcoholic beverages, opposed the legalization of gambling and lotteries, favored right-to-work legislation (no closed or union shop), advocated the defeat of the equal rights amendment (ERA), and spoken out against pornography, abortion, and child abuse." - found here

The first part ruffles my political/law side. We don't live in a Christian nation. We live in a religiously tolerant nation. While it does say "congenial," rather than "militantly opposed to anything but," I personally think this is a dangerous statement because some people are insane and can perceive it to mean that.

My issue with the second part of this is the more important one. Advocated from the defeat of the ERA? Just so everyone is up to speed, here is what the ERA states, verbatim:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any state on account of
sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
-From http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

So, basically it gives women full equality under the law. And the Church works against that? Why? I don't eve understand this. Why would anyone, for one, oppose this legislation? This legislation has been reintroduced every session of Congress since 1923. Firstly, I'm a little disappointed in our nation for STILL not having passed this amendment, and secondly, I'm shocked that the Church would advocate for its defeat. This is so incredibly strange and actually baffling to me that I can't even begin to comprehend it. I have no words to describe it. There is so much lip service given to women in the church:

"Nowhere does the doctrine of this Church declare that men are superior to women. Paul said to the Corinthians, “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11). Each brings his or her own separate and unique strengths to the family and the Church. Women are not just cooks, stewards of our homes, or servants. They are much more. They are the enrichment of humanity." --James E Faust, Ensign, May 1988

"My beloved sisters, I greet you in love and respect, knowing that you are daughters of our Heavenly Father and knowing what each of you has the potential to become.
In behalf of the general officers of the Church, I thank you for the service you render to the Church, to your families, and to the neighborhoods and communities in which you live. I recognize that many of your unselfish and compassionate deeds are unknown, unheralded, and at times unthanked." --Howard Hunter, Ensign, Nov. 1992

"Having looked over all of this, He declared it to be good. He then created man in His own likeness and image. Then as His final creation, the crowning of His glorious work, He created woman. I like to regard Eve as His masterpiece after all that had gone before, the final work before He rested from His labors. I do not regard her as being in second place to Adam. She was placed at his side as an helpmeet. They were together in the Garden, they were expelled together, and they labored together in the world into which they were driven." -- Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1991

My concern here is, is the Church backing up this lip service? In my opinion, no, it isn't. Why would there be opposition from a church that speaks so highly of women to a very important piece of legislation for women? This isn't even a controversial piece of legislation--all it does is afford women equal protection under the law. I find this disturbing and disheartening.

As I said, I can't guarantee the authenticity of the claims on this website, so I plan to do a bit more research and post again on what I find. But, if anyone has any ideas as to whether these are accurate or not, I'd like to know. Also, if anyone has any insights as to why these would be the stances that the Church takes on these issues, I'd love to hear it...

The Spirit World and Choice vs. Sure Knowledge

2005-07-13T09:32:00.000-07:00

Lately I've been mulling over work for the dead.

It was my understanding, unless I'm incorrect on this (which very well may be, because I'm often incorrect or misunderstood something), that each person that comes to earth will at some point be afforded a chance to hear the gospel. Whether that means while the person is on the earth, or after that person has died, there will be an opportunity for that particular person to accept or reject the gospel.

So here's where my confusion comes in. We do work for people who have had the opportunity to accept the gospel and rejected it in life. For example, I have a friend who's family members were not members, and in fact, did not even like the church. When they did, my friend's parets died all their work for them, so they could accept it posthumously if they so chose. This, to me, seems a bit silly. If they've already chosen to reject the gospel on earth, then haven't they exhausted their chance?

There is an argument to be said that people usually have numerous chances to accept or reject the gospel and, in fact, many members go through stages of rejection and coming back to church. It's basically not over until the fat lady sings (aka the Second Coming). So, even after you die, you still have time to decide yes or no.

But, my question comes in here--when people who have previously rejected the gospel die and are in the spirit "prison" (which I hate as a term). After you die, isn't it pretty obvious what happens "after you die?" The elusive question that puzzles humans so much on earth is no longer a question at all--you're there! You know! And, if you were explained the Plan of Salvation and heard about the prison and the paradise, isn't it pretty self-evident that it wasn't a crock of bs and in fact, the church is true, because it's happening to you? So, how is it then a "choice" on whether or not to accept the gospel?

"Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." -Alma 32:21

So, in this scripture, we know that faith is hoping for things which aren't seen. Faith is not to have a sure knowledge of something. Knowledge and faith are seperate. Faith can be very strong, no doubt, but it is still not a perfect knowledge. For example, do I have a perfect knowledge of gravity? No. I have never seen gravity. I have never even seen the formula or law that supports gravity. But, do I have faith in gravity? Yes. I have a very strong faith in gravity. I have seen it work in my life. I have seen it work in the lives of others. I have experienced its power (sounds like a testimony, eh?). So, I have faith in gravity. The same idea for atoms. Have I ever seen atoms? No. In fact, unless it's been done within the last 5 years, I remember learning in physics class that no human has ever actually seen an atom. So, if that is still accurate, then no human has a sure knowledge of an atom. But, we can have faith in the atom, due to seeing its work and interactions with things in the world. Again, this is a very strong faith. But, still, faith nonetheless.

So faith is seperate from a sure knowledge of something. Joseph Smith did not need faith in the Lord because he had a sure knowledge of the Lord. The Lord physically appeared to him and Joseph's faith became a sure knowledge. Sure knowledge is a step above faith. Faith requires belief. Faith requires someone to have not ever seen the thing they hope for. Faith requires hope.

With that definition in mind, the distinction of faith and a sure knowledge, we go back to the issue of those in the spirit prison. Since they are dead, they are arguably in a situation where they no longer need faith. You are already dead and there. You know what happens after we die. Everything in the church is really just an answer to "what happens after we die?" We base everything that we do in life on what happens after we die. We want to live with HF and JC in the celestial kingdom, so we pattern our lives after Christ in order to be with him in the next life. We set our sights on what comes next. We do not know for sure that there is a celestial kingdom, or even a JC, since almost no one has seen either one of these things (barring the prophets, etc.). We believe in these things. We hope for these things. But we cannot know these things yet. It is for the next life to come that we know these things.

The choice to believe in these things comes from having faith. It comes from exercising this faith. It comes from choosing whether to follow the church's teachings or not. We choose in this life to prepare for the next life. We have to choose, because we are not sure. We do not know 100%. We choose to believe 100% or to not believe. Because of this lack of knowledge, we have a choice. The same way we make other choices in our life. I am going to law school in the fall. Do I know for a fact I will do well? Do I know I will enjoy it? Do I even know for sure that I really want to be a lawyer? Do I know that in 5-10 years I will still be as passionate about law as I am currently? No. I have a choice because of all these unknowns. I can choose to move forward and continue with law school, believing that I will do well, that I will want to keep doing this, that I will enjoy this career, and that I will always love the law. Or I can choose to not believe those things, to believe something else. To believe that I will hate it and do terribly. To believe I'm wasting a lot of money. I can choose not to go.

But the choice is there because of the unknowns. I have the choice in this life to practice my faith in the Lord and His plan because I don't know yet what happens. But, for those folks that have rejected the gospel in this life and then die and then they look around them and say, "Hey, this is exactly what I was told it would be like by my Mormon friends!" do they have a choice anymore? Or has it become a sure knowledge? Has it moved from a faith in (or a lack of faith in) the Plan of Salvation to a sure knowledge of the Plan of Salvation? And if it has moved from faith to a sure knowledge, then, arguably, they know longer have a choice. When we are confronted with something and have a sure knowledge of it, we can no longer deny it. At least not with any credibility. If I tell someone I have a Corvette, and they don't believe me, once I show them the Corvette and the title in my name, do they have a choice on whether to believe me or not? Not really. It's hard to choose to believe something when it's been plainly shown to you. So, arguably, these people in the spirit prison no longer have a choice. They have to accept it (or else, they are massively in denial...similar to folks who STILL deny the earth is round despite being shown photos of a round earth) because it is no longer a faith issue.

This being said, it causes me to wonder if some people are let off more easily than others. For example, if I am not a member of the church and I reject it here on earth, I get to go do whatever I want. I am not restrained by anything. Then, I die and I end up in the spirit prison. I know have a sure knowledge of what happens after death and I also know that if I accept the gospel, I will be able to live with HF and JC again. So, I do so because I have a sure knowledge of life after death. Say we have another girl, a faithful member, who has to make many sacrifices during this life. She loses her friends in junior high because she won't drink/smoke/do drugs, she is made fun of for her religious affiliation, she is made a spectacle at her workplace because of her refusal to work on Sundays, she loses boyfriends who want to push her further than she is willing to go...in short, she makes many sacrifices in her life. Then, she dies and goes to the Sprit Paradise and knows that her sacrifices have not been in vain. She knows she can go live with her HF and JC again. Either way, both these people are going to the same place. But, the one had to make very few sacrifices whereas the other had to make many. Of course, the one may have not have had the blessings of a reltionship with her HF on earth, whereas the other did, but I know many people who are not members of the church who are very happy and content with their lives. So, a lack of the church in a person's life is not always a recipe for a miserable and awful life.

The apparent lack of choice is the cause of my question. Is it that people in the spirit world have a sure knowledge? If so, then where is their choice? If there is no choice, then is it really the Plan of Salvation, since HF wanted us to all have the choice to follow him, and Satan wanted us to have no choice at all? And if it is a sure knowledge, isn't that then a free pass to do whatever you want in this life, as long as you die before the Second Coming and have a chance to accept it then? (Of course, the drawback is that no one knows when that is, so you might get screwed if you follow that route to the celestial kingdom, but I think the point is still made...)

Of course, this is probably one of those issues that no one will really know the answer to until we die, but I still wonder about it. What happens to those that reject the gospel now and then die? Is there a sure knowledge? If so, then what becomes of choice?

Homosexuality and the Institution of Marriage

2005-07-10T22:44:00.000-07:00

As the group moderator, I should follow my own rules and tell a bit about myself first.

I've been a member my whole life, although I've gone through various stages of inactivity/activity. I am not a Molly by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm not terrible either. I am often questioning things I've heard in church and I rarely take things at face-value. I am ver involved in social and political issues and I find myself often contemplating the connection between politics and religion. I'm unmarried, a law student, and I attend a singles' ward.

I've been thinking a lot lately about marriage, with specific regards to homosexual marriage. I speak as someone who has probably more close gay friends than I do straight friends. That being said, I am not going to question to church's stance on homosexuality, because that is a while different topic. Rather, narrowly focusing on just the marriage part, I'm curious about the political ramifications of a homosexual marriage ban.

There are two lines of argument that interest me on this topic and cause me to pause and consider. The first line of argument is that of sustaining the law of the land. This may be a bit heady, but stay with me on this one. We are taught to follow the laws of the land. The 12th Article of Faith reads: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." The United States Constitution, in the 14th Amendment, reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So the church says we are to uphold the laws of the land and one of the governing laws of the US is that no state may make any law that abridges the rights of a citizen. "Rights" are a tricky concept, to say the least. Historically, using substantive due process law, basically, rights are that which is not clearly prohibited by law. If there is no law against something, then you have the right to do it. There is no law, for a blatant example, that says you may not talk badly about George Bush, therefore, citizens have the right to do so. Substantive due process law basically says anything not expressly prohibited is an inherent and implicit right, because not all rights need to be specifically spelled out in order to exist.

So, historically there has been no law against marriage. Without a law, using the substantive due process idea, then there is an implied right to be married. So, if the US Const says that there can be no law abridging the rights of citizens, and we are church members are told in the AoF to sustain the law of the land, there appears to be a illogical, glaring contradiction for church members to be in support of homosexual marriage bans. To do so would be to abridge the rights of citizens, which would be to not sustain the law of the land, which goes against the 12th AoF.

Of course, there is the church's teaching that homosexuality is wrong. Without discussing this and simply taking it as is at this time, that appears to me to be a moot point. Yes, the church says that homosexuality is wrong. Therefore, the argument I've heard goes, to support gay marriage is to support homosexuality. This, however, I feel is a flawed logic, because it runs parallel to saying that supporting the KKK's right to march and rally because a person supports free speech means that the person supports the message of the KKK. There is clearly a difference between supporting someone's right to do someting versus supporting the message they are proposing. Do I agree with the KKK? Absolutely not. But that in no way means I can't support their right to free speech. So it is with church members who are uncomfortable with homosexuality and condoning it. Do you have to support homosexuality to support a homosexual's right to marry? Not necessarily. By supporting homosexual marriage, there is support to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which we are told to do in the 12th AoF.

Along similar lines we come to the second line of argument, which also centers around freedom in the US. It is, in my opinion, a fair assertion that every time we as a government and a society limit the rights of other groups besides our own, we inherently limit ourselves. There is a famous poem on the wall of the Holocaust Museum in Washington that reads:

When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not a
gypsy.
When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I wasn’t a Jew.
When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I am not a Catholic.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak

.

For us all, as American citizens, by limiting others rights, we limit ourselves. When we do not fight for others, we lose people who will fight for us. Beyond that, every limitation we impose on another group is a limitation we impose on ourselves. If we put prior restraint in place in a paper that speaks slanderously about a particular group, then not only is that particular paper limited, but all papers are limited, because the use of prior restraint in the press is legal and therefore every paper everywhere is able to be priorly restrained.

So, when we limit other groups' rights, we limit our own, even if we do not see it right away. As the poem illustrates, some of us will not be affected until there is no one else to affect. And, since Mormons are a group that at one time has been the subject of persecution, and limitation I may add, at the hands of the government, with regards to marriage (polygamy), then we of all people should understand the extreme importance of not limiting our rights by limiting others. The government cracked down on polygamy and told Mormons that we couldn't do that anymore. They limited our right to polygamous marriage by establishing a rule of law that says we may not marry more than one person. Church doctrine teaches us that polygamy was not bad (nor is it bad in the correct context) but that it was time for the doctrine of it to leave the earth. Arguably, though, part of the reason it was time to leave the earth was that the pioneers practicing it were going to be run out of the country by a crazed mob if it wasn't stopped, especially if the government stepped in and limited our rights. At no time has the church ever ruled out the potential for polygamy to return to the earth (or at no time that I am aware of). Therefore, there is a potential for it to happen again. If, however, we as a society and a government, start interfering even more with the insitution of marriage and limiting people's right to do so, it is conceivable that eventually, even if Heavenly Father commands polygamy again, we will live in a society that has intruded on so many other groups right to marriage that there is no one left to intrude on but us. And since we did not fight for others, there will be no one left to fight for us.

In my opinion, regardless of one's views on homosexuality as a practice/lifestyle, there is no good argument for the support of homosexual marriage bans. I feel, in order to support the law of the land and to prevent future abridgement of our own rights, there is nothing that the reasonable Mormon can do but support homosexual marriage. By doing so, we follow our own teachings, as outlined in the AoF, and we also protect our own rights in the long run.

What This Is and The Rules

2005-07-10T22:35:00.000-07:00

I've decided to start this forum of sorts because there is not many good places to turn to, in my opinion, for questions regarding Mormon doctrine that is critical or controversial. I think that a lot of people are afraid to discuss things that rock the boat, so to speak, because they are worried about potential backlash for their ideas or questions. I wanted somewhere to air my own thoughts, as well as to hear what others had to say about the topics in question.

The rules to this are simple.
1. Be respectful. This is intended to be a forum for people to air their concerns. This includes unpopular ideas that don't always agree with everyone. While everyone is entitled to disagree, everyone is also entitled to be respected.
2. Feel free to submit a question for discussion to me, but please do not do it in the comments section, thereby creating a mass conglomeration of various topics under one heading. I'd like to have this be archivable, which means one topic, one at a time. If you have a topic you want to discuss, shoot it to me at mellancollyeyes@earthlink.net with the heading "Mormon Discussion Topic" and I will post it for discussion. I'd just like to keep things on topic and also orderly, so later, people can find what they want or newcomers to the forum can easily search topics they want to look at/discuss.
3. Please come to the table having thought about your response/discussion. This forum is intended to be an very in-depth, critical look at Mormon doctrine and how it relates to other areas of life. Please, no "canned answers" that we can all hear on Sunday: "Read the scriptures," "pray," etc. We all know this for the most part. Instead of saying, "read the scriptures," please do a bit of legwork and direct the group to which scriptures you think pertain to the topic. Research a bit and find talks from the Ensign, etc, that are relevant. This is a forum in which to learn and think in a way that we may not have thought before. Therefore, it requires a bit of time to analyze and consider.
4. While I will answer some basic questions about Mormons/LDS/BoM/etc, this is not meant to be an investigator's website. Its intention is to be a website for in-depth analysis of Mormon doctrine, which means, if you are 100% clueless about basic Mormon doctrine, you may be confused and you may not understand what is being talked about. This is not the forum in which to get basic answers. That forum is http://www.lds.org/ or http://www.mormon.org/, both of which are good resources for those investigating the church, researching, or generally just looking for answers on what Mormons are and/or do. This is a more advanced discussion area, in that you should have some groundwork about the doctrines already under your belt in order to understand the questions/topics being discussed. This, however, does not bar someone from asking to have a particular doctrine/topic explained a bit more in depth. If more information is needed, then feel free to ask.
5. This is not meant to be a forum to bash the church, its leaders, or LDS people. The remarks/comments/discussions are not intended to be offensive or harmful. This is a questioning forum. It is a safe place to disagree with things in the church and then find out what other people think about it. Please do not comment on the church in a fashion that bad mouths it or tries to insult it. While disagreeing or questioning is perfectly acceptable, and encouraged to act as a topic of discussion, it is not meant to be a forum to talk about how much Mormons suck, the church sucks, etc. This is related to rule #1, regarding respect. That goes for the church and its leaders, too.

Also, when you first comment, please make a short note about who you are and how long you've been a member. Please also let us know if you are active, mildly active, mildly inactive, inactive, etc. I find that this brief background information lets everyone understand other's perspectives better.

This is also meant to be a place to have fun, so please, have fun!