Where Are Our Priorities?

Subtitle: Yet Another Sex Post

This is heavily inspired by this video, which I am assigning as required viewing:

I have been on a "police procedural" TV kick.  Despite the violence (both actual and suggested), these shows somehow increase my faith in humanity: There are people out there who devote their lives to catching killers and saving lives.  It is a nice reminder to not take the police, the FBI, etc. for granted.

That being said,  the amount of violence does disturb me on some level—and sometimes how little it disturbs me actually disturbs me more.  People killing and torturing each other is normal fare for TV, but language and sex are censored, at least far more than violence is.  (I admit that the violence that is on day-time and prime time TV could be worse—after all there are subscription-only channels that have more violent content).  But out of those three—swearing, sex, and violence—which one seems to be the worst for society? 

Certain swear words (like racial slurs) can represent hate, true; but those aren't the kind of words that I'm talking about getting censored.  When does sex hurt anyone?  The case I can think of is rape—but that crosses over into violence. 

The out-of-whack priorities particularly struck me yesterday when watching some episodes of Criminal Minds that had been recorded in the afternoon.  All of the swears had been edited out (we're talking words like 'ass').  But they could still go into detail about murder. 

I see this even inside of the church.  Sources like For the Strength of Youth do caution against viewing anything that is vulgar, pornographic, or violent.  But in other cases, I see the threat of violence taken less seriously.  Regarding standards that members of the church have, I hear things like not drinking coffee, not spending money on Sundays, not swearing, and not having pre-marital sex.  But I don't think I've ever heard "not getting into fights" or even "not being hateful."  How many times was I lectured to in youth about not having sex?  More times than I can remember.  But I don't remember hearing about not physically hurting someone—I'm guessing it was mentioned, but it wasn't memorable enough for me to recall; on the other hand, the principle of not having sex was severely stressed and mentioned often.  Pornography is a frequently-mentioned issue too.  It would be one thing if it was stressed that pornography that was violent or that subjugated women was (especially) dangerous, but that isn't the case.  It's pornography in general that is bad because of the sexual component alone.

This just doesn't make sense, especially relating to the belief that, even if it is next to, extra-marital sex isn't as bad on the sin scale as murder.  Judging by the movies that are popular with LDS YSA, I can see that movies with a certain amount of violence are tolerated, but a movie that showed a bare bottom or had a sex scene would be totally off limits.  Why is sex more taboo than murder, especially when murder is considered worse?

You could say that youth and young adults are more likely to engage in sexual activity than murder, which is probably true.  But let's extend violence to hate, which causes it.  Personally, I'd much rather have a teenager fornicating than calling a gay classmate a f--.  A large component of the chastity talks were preventing sin by controlling the factors (like thoughts) that lead up to them.  But factors that lead to violence—like intolerance, hate, judgment, and self-righteousness—are not stressed very much in my experience.  BYU wards usually have a chastity talk at the beginning of the semester, but where is the anti-intolerance talk?  

I think it's a huge reflection of our society—violence is just far more acceptable than sex for some reason.  I can offer guesses for why that is, like the fact that the U.S. has a huge Puritan influence and the Puritans were tight-lipped about sex but saw no problem putting people in the stocks to be ridiculed.  I don't know the exact reason why our society has its priorities so out of whack.  What I do know is that this needs to change.

Love Vs. Lust

Subtitle: Kimball's Pet Peeves

After reading a quote that apparently came from a 1965 speech delivered at BYU by Spencer W. Kimball, I decided to listen to the address on the BYU Speeches site to find out if that quote was really in it (it wasn't...but I admit that it could have been edited out [it was about homosexuality]).  I did hear some other interesting teachings though.

The main point of the talk was on the difference between love and lust.  As you may know from previous posts, one of the most problematic things about the Law of Chastity to me is how it sets up a dichotomy between sex and anything good, holy, wholesome, etc., which just can't be beneficial in the long run.  Kimball says, "The beautiful holy word of love they have defiled until it is degenerated and has become a bedfellow with lust, its antithesis."  So, lust is the antithesis of love? (By the way, this talk is also the source of a lust vs. love quote I heard all the time in Young Women's: "At the hour of indulgence, pure love is pushed out one door while lust sneaks in the other.")

But...what about lust within marriage?  Can't someone lust after his or her spouse?  Is that OK?  I can see where lust without any love could be condemnable, but what about lust with love?  He sets this up as being impossible.  If he means that lust is purely sexual self-interest (only the desire for gratification, unmotivated by affection for the other person), then I guess that makes sense.  But without more clearly defining it, it seems as though lust just means sexual desire.  The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines lust as "usually intense or unbridled sexual desire" or "an intense longing," neither of which seem condemnable as long as they're used within marriage.  He treats any sex outside of marriage as being impossible to represent love, but I just can't agree.  Especially when you apply the principle that people ignorant of commandments they break are not condemned.  It's such an unfair blanket statement to say that if you're not married, your sex can't possibly be an expression of love.

Another of Kimball's pet peeves—so to speak ;)— is petting.  He calls the practice a "terrible vicious habit of youth" and a "deep sin."  For the millionth time I ask, What about if it's within marriage?  Isn't it OK then?  You can't just brand petting itself evil and vicious and not expect people to get complexes that will affect them even after they get married.

Another problematic principle in this talk is the idea that chastity is the most valuable thing one can possess, yet it can be taken by force.  Kimball quotes the scripture from the Book of Mormon (Moroni 9:9-10):

"For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue—and after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner...."

 How is that just?  How can a part of a person that is "most dear and precious above all things" be taken without approval?  I think the mistake is that chastity is being equated to virginity.  And again, what about within marriage?  Doesn't each spouse take the other one's chastity?  But within marriage, it (i.e. not being chaste) is beautiful and holy.  These definitions just don't match up.  Yes, the LoC includes being faithful to a spouse after marriage, which is how someone can break the law while still being married; however, it does not take into account that even within marriage, you're still apparently losing that "most dear and precious" part of you. 

It is also unjust that such an integral part of you, even if taken by force, can never be regained:

"The eighth of the Ten Commandments says thou shall not steal yet the immoral act is robbery in its worst expressions.  It’s taking with or without permission the most priceless, the most unrecoverable, the most unreturnable possession of an individual —chastity and virtue.  In one dark unglorious hour lives can be taken or shattered.  But in a long lifetime total restoration is impossible.  Health lost may possibly be regained.  Wealth lost may be accumulated again, freedom lost might be fought for and regained, but virtue stolen is gone.  Is not this one of the prime reasons why this forbidden thing is so heinous like murder for neither can everbe wholly compensated nor wholly returned or undone.  Thou shall not kill came from Mount Sinai and in the same breath, Thou shall not commit adultery—or fornication, we could add for they are the same.  Same act.  One can take a life easily but return it—never."

Live can be taken or shattered?  OK, let's totally ignore and neglect the Atonement.  That sounds good.  It's just like the object lesson that girls used to get: A hammer struck a nail into a piece of wood, but even when the nail was pulled out, the hole still remained.  (Disgusting.)  Also, I suggest that fornication and adultery are not the same thing.  Again, I turn to the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Fornication is "consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other" while adultery is "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband."  There is a difference!  He seems to try to make them the same thing as a way of increasing the apparent rascality of premarital sex—premarital sex is apparently forbidden by the Ten Commandments, the 10 Big No-Nos.  But it's not.  By calling fornication and adultery the same act, you're basically decreasing the severity of adultery.  Adultery involves violating sacred marriage vows, which seems worse than having premarital sex.

One distinction Kimball makes between love and lust is this: "Proper sex functions bring posterity.  Illicit relations are always intended to avoid posterity."  So...what about "proper sex function" that also is intended to avoid posterity?  What about birth control?  A married couple won't even necessarily conceive every time they have sex.  Again, a false dichotomy is presented: Sex that produces children is good, sex that is not supposed to produce children is bad.  

There is so much more about this talk that I find wrong and damaging, but I will cease my criticism for now.

A bigger fool

Innumerable times I have heard a quote mentioned in church that is attributed to one Brigham Young: 

He who takes offense when none is intended is a fool; he who takes offense when offense is intended is a bigger fool.

An Ensign article from 1974 mentions that Mr. Young apparently said this, but when I Google the quote, the top result says that Confucius said it.  Eh...Confucius, Brigham Young—basically the same person, right?  I always get them confused, personally.

Anyway, at least twice in the last couple of years I've been accused of being "offended."  I say "accused" because it seems that, because of this quote that's tossed around, being offended is seen as foolish—not valid or warranted.  In both of these situations that I can easily recall, the person who believed I was offended was a church authority figure who had said some arguably offensive things (example: Drew Barrymore did things like end up in rehab and flash David Letterman because she was raised by gay fathers).  One did say, I think, something like, "I'm sorry if I've offended you" (in what I perceived to be a not-very-sincere voice), but the other only said, "I've clearly offended you," to which I said, "I'm not offended," because I was offended by his assumption that I was offended!  (Insert emoticon here.)

The reason I get offended by the word "offended" is because it seems dismissive of pain and hurt to me.  It seems to put the blame on the person that's offended (because, after all, s/he is being a fool) and let the offender off the hook.  Seriously, within this paradigm, someone who gets offended seems stupider than the person who was possibly intentionally offensive.  

Often, being offended is a reason given for why people leave the church.  Lessons about apostasy usually include two stories about people who got offended: Symonds Ryder and two women who shared a cow.  Ryder got mad because his name got misspelled on a document, which to him meant that the church wasn't true, because God wouldn't let his name be spelled wrong or something.  The two women who shared a cow somehow disagreed over who got what amount of cream or something.  Perhaps you can tell by my flippant attitude that I don't respect these stories as sources of offense very much.  These are petty examples that discredit people's valid, painful reasons to be offended.  Someone who was sexually abused by his/her bishop could be called "offended."  That is not like being upset over a misspelled name. 

True, people get offended over silly things, petty things, things they should forgive.  But the term "offended" seems to lump all sorts of cases of varying degrees of severity together.

Of course, this whole post could be dismissed as the angry ramblings of another "offended" person.  Don't care.  I demand my offense to be recognized as valid.

Letter: Enforcing the Code

A letter from April 11th, with my comments added:

Summer is here, and apparently (apparently) that means immodesty is here as well. I am a graduate of BYU from a few years ago and my husband is currently a student at BYU. Every so often I get a complaint from him that women on campus are immodestly clad and this discourages me. 

What about the Honor Code? Didn’t everyone on campus sign this document setting themselves apart from some of the worlds fashion standards? Tuesday was one of the nicest days we’ve had so far this year, and apparently nice weather gives women license to show leg and shoulders to the world. Legs and shoulders?!?!?  The horror!  The absolute horror!  Let's further sexualize legs and shoulders by demanding that they be covered up!  This behavior is not acceptable. Uh oh, someone just popped a can of "Oh Snap!"  It is not virtuous. By no means is it being an example to the world by being “distinct and different—in happy ways—from the women of the world.” (See Sister Beck, April 2012 Conference Talk).  Seriously?  It's insulting to be compared to "women of the world" when girls at BYU dress nowhere near as provocatively.  It's a gross exaggeration.  And ugh.  Quoting Conference talks.  

 

And I love that she uses the format of "(See ___)" like the church magazines do.

My husband does not want to see these women and I guarantee other virtuous young men don’t want to see them either. I like how she slips in that her husband is a virtuous young man.  Obviously any good, upstanding young man is going to be as judgmental as her husband.  (I say "judgmental" because, the way she describes it, he actively complains about the girls breaking the Honor Code  by showing a few inches of skin above their knees.  Which brings me now to my next point. Honor Code Office: Please enforce the Honor Code. I know you enforce the Honor Code, even in times of extreme pressure. Take Brandon Davies, for example. So now wearing a skirt that's a few inches above the knee is being compared to having extramarital sex?  And the Brandon Davies case was very public; should the HCO likewise make a public spectacle out of these horribly immodest women?  I also know that you enforce the Honor Code when there are violations to the dress and grooming standards. For example, if my husband doesn’t shave and has a test, he is turned away from the testing center and told to shave before taking his test. Have you thought about doing this same thing to women who are violating the Honor Code? I don't like the comparison between dressing immodestly and shaving.  The need to shave is not stressed in church (as far as I know) to the degree that it is at BYU.  When thinking of principles taught in Young Women and Relief Society, I would list modesty as one.  But I doubt a young man my age would describe shaving as one he learns about.  Modesty carries with it the idea that young women can tempt young men, i.e. put their righteousness in peril, by dressing immodestly.  Shaving in no way carries that weight with men.  If a man has stubble, he isn't warned that he could be provoking "dirty" thoughts in young women's minds.  I am a woman and plead with you do be more strict with the women students.  I admit that this is a powerful point.  A woman telling women to dress more modestly is better (and carries more authority) in my eyes than a man telling them to.  Likewise, when a man says that other men should be less judgmental of the young ladies, it carries with it more weight.  However, obviously, her view doesn't represent the views of all of the females at BYU (e.g., me).

Please understand, I know it is a sensitive subject thank you for recognizing that and puts people in an awkward inappropriate? place, but it needs to be fixed in her opinion.  This is an example of stating an opinion as a fact.  In my opinion, the judgmental attitude some people have needs to be fixed. People will complain. People will post on Facebook how dumb BYU is for enforcing the Honor Code, no, people will post on Facebook about how dumb your views are. but that is your job. Please do it.  Sorry, but this comes across as telling the HCO to chide people basically because their rule breaking bothers the author.  It sounds a little selfish.  "I'm uncomfortable with seeing a girl's shoulders.  Tell her to stop!"  Her desire for the HC to be enforced does not seem to come from a place of benevolence and charity.  She's not even pretending (for which I am somewhat grateful) to be looking out for these girls' interests by encouraging modesty.  Their actions bother her and she wants them to stop. 
 

I've thought a long time about why exactly the subject of breaking the dress and grooming standards raises people's ire so much.  I used to be a pharisee, and I probably would have likewise looked down on and complained about "immodestly" dressed girls if I had remained one after coming to BYU.  Why would I get so upset when people weren't following the rules when it really didn't affect me?  It wasn't hurting me at all.  The conclusion I've come to so far is that people get mad when they are obeying the rules and getting no obvious reward or accolade while people who aren't obeying the rules aren't receiving any obvious punishment.  It's "unfair."  It strikes me now as a bit like children tattling on each other, trying to get someone else in trouble for breaking rules.  It's self serving and uncharitable.  Live and let live.

REBECCA TAYLOR
Bountiful

Second Only to Murder

I have puzzled over the question of sin: Is an action inherently sinful, or is it ascribed that meaning by God?  It seems to be the latter, because the same action can be either laudable or a sin depending on the circumstance (e.g. Nephi was justified in killing Laban because God told him to, yet God told Moses that killing is a sin; sex outside of marriage is wicked and filthy but in marriage is beautiful; polygamy was once a commandment but now you can be excommunicated for it).  If that is the case, why does God ascribe that meaning to it?  It seems that the consequences (either feeling happy or sad) of either abstaining from or committing the sin only come because of the value God ascribes to the action (e.g., Nephi didn't feel enormous guilt and spiritual darkness after killing Laban).  So why ascribe negative values to these actions in the first place?  Are they just arbitrary and used as a test?  Is sex not inherently bad outside of marriage but God created the confines of marriage to create separate circumstances to test us?  This larger issue is a topic for another day; right now I want to focus on the Law of Chastity in all of its glory.

A small irking

I am in a ballet class this semester.  Our required attire is pink tights and a black leotard with pink ballet shoes; for the gents it's a fitted t-shirt or leotard with black tights, leggings, or biking shorts.  There is an addendum to the dress code requirements in the syllabus: "Proper modest cover up is required for hallways if the distance traveled from the locker room is half the length of the RB or more."  Our classroom is quite close to the locker room, so this doesn't apply to us; however, it still irks me.  

This is why: Why is it OK to be dressed in a leotard and tights in front of men in your ballet class but not in front of men in the rest of the RB?  Are they not properly prepared?  Have they not mentally steeled themselves to fight against your tempting ways?  (This is all based on the assumption that the covering up is for the students of the male persuasion, of course.)  Why is it so wrong to walk through the athletic building, which also features an observation window of the pool where team members are wearing bathing suits, in ballet attire?  I could see the point of not walking around campus or through other buildings in ballet attire, but this is the athletic building, where it's expected that people will be in workout/athletic clothing. 

I know it's a small rule tucked away into the syllabus, but the principle of it still bothers me.  It's one thing if you are personally uncomfortable with showing your body and want to cover up; it's another thing for that action to be mandated as a rule.  Although the context is different, you're actually being more modest than you are wearing a bathing suit.  Why is the context of the hallway versus the classroom so different? 

I'm not blaming the syllabus, but this rule actually makes me feel some shame for walking around outside of the classroom in my outfit.  I feel like I should feel bad because the rule implies that there is something wrong with it.

A Response to a Viewpoint Which I Didn't Send In Which I Now Wish I Had

After I read this lovely Viewpoint (which, in my memory, originally had the subtitle of something like "Confessions of a Former Man Hater") in my favorite publication, the Daily Universe, I wrote this down in a notebook during class:

I'm sick of having my role defined for me. If I fit the role of nurturer (which, to be honest, I do), then let me own it; but if I don't, don't tell me how I should be—respect my personality for what it is.  I've seen the nurturer/provider dichotomy become a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially among men.  I've seen them think that they somehow don't have the capacity to love and nurture as much as they actually do, so they don't try to cultivate it.  I am nurturing and I happen to be a woman; many, but not all, of us are. There are certain men who are more nurturing than certain women. 

It may seem easier to just say all men are one way and all women are another, but there are always exceptions. I imagine people of both sexes who don't fit the stereotypes must feel alienated.  You only make people feel like misfits when you assign such strict gender roles. Let people be as they are instead of telling them how they should be (in other words, be descriptive instead of prescriptive).

I would also add now that believing that women in the church are oppressed doesn't make you a "man hater.  The author makes it sound like if you don't accept traditional gender roles, you must be an angry, bitter woman.

The Fiftieth Post

I started this post more than a month ago.  It's been difficult to write because the experience contained herein hurt me so much, but also because I've been afraid of representing the other people unfairly.  At the time, I would even use hyperbole and tell them, "I don't want to sound like an angry man-hater, but...".  It's sad that being branded as that is a fear whenever you're talking about women's rights.  Anyway, here's the post that was started on February 4th:

I had a particularly frustrating conversation with two young men last week about a woman's place in the church.  It's very difficult to have these conversations because you can just be dismissed as an angry feminist man-hater (a gross exaggeration).  

I realize that people reading this may have different opinions than I do, and that's fine, of course.  It wasn't the differing opinions of these two guys that upset me—it was their unwillingness to even try to see my side of things and the methods they used to back up their opinions.

First of all, let me say how much I noticed the irony of two men telling me that they believed that everything regarding women in the church was as it should be; I even pointed out to them how messed up that was, but they didn't seem to understand.

I've probably taken more than an hour to write what I've already written because I keep putting it off; there's so much to tell, plus I worry about somehow representing these two guys unfairly.  So I will merely sum up. Some highlights: I basically brought up the points in  these two posts.  One guy said how it isn't even an issue because women have the priesthood in the temple—to which I said that that was only in the temple, so it still means that I can't baptize my friend who joins the church or bless my own baby (or even lay my hands on his/her head during the blessing).  The fact that women use the priesthood in the temple is even more reason for why they should be allowed to use it everywhere.  I was also told that in the "eternal perspective," this will be such a small issue and it doesn't really make a difference (to which I said, "Because you're a man!").  Plus, that's extremely dismissive of valid feelings to say that it doesn't matter anyway. 

It was mainly them talking with me sitting there and listening, simultaneously fuming and sobbing on the inside.  Like I said, I even brought up the point that they were two men speaking about women's issues to a woman and saying that I should be content with my place—since when is that OK?  In a context other than a religious one, that would be clearly sexist.  But since they veil it with spirituality, it supposedly makes it OK because that's the way that "God wants it."  

I'll give this disclaimer because I mean no disrespect to anyone: If I were given the choice between being able to have the priesthood or being able to carry children, I would probably choose to carry children—but that's because I love kids.  Not everyone does.  I'm not trying to debase motherhood at all.  I just wish it wasn't presented as the end-all/be-all of a woman since not all women find satisfaction and fulfillment in motherhood.  The role just seems more limited than a man's.

Apparently, my personal revelation isn't as valid as theirs is, according to them.  I must have been asking the wrong way or just expecting an answer and that's why I have feelings that contradict theirs.  If my feelings disagree with current church policy, then I am automatically wrong.  One guy said that sometimes when you go into prayer expecting to get a certain answer, that's the answer you think you get, which is true.  However, I pointed out that I could say the exact same thing about the "answer" that he got, to which he had nothing to say.

This same guy testified to me that he knew that the church leaders knew the will of God and that he had even met some of them.  Well, zounds!  You've even met them!  I totally trust you then.  After all, general authorities met Mark Hoffman, and by meeting him they knew he was a counterfeiter!  (But that's an issue for another day.)

I'm reading a book called Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine, which explores how many characteristics of gender are actually innate as opposed to shaped by society (answer: fewer than public opinion currently thinks).  One of the sad sides of believing in strict gender roles is that both men and women discredit abilities that they have that are not stereotypically either feminine or masculine.  An example from this discussion: this young man asserted that women have more of a capacity to nurture and, as a man, he just couldn't match that.  That actually makes me sad for him because he underestimates his potential and probably doesn't  nurture that characteristic in himself.  He thinks that he could never be as nurturing as a woman, so he doesn't even try to be.  I think that women should also preside and protect and that men should also nurture and that both sexes have potential for both of these traits.

To fully back up his claim that the ability to nurture was equal to the ability to hold the priesthood, he had to diminish men's capacity for nurturing, making it something that was physically impossible to have.  Since women can't hold the priesthood, men would have to not be able to nurture as much. as women can.  I think it's damaging to both sexes.  Although the main issue with women's rights is sexism toward women, there's also a great amount of sexism toward men that goes on in those same discussions.  No one wins.

The whole conversation was filled with antiquated ideas of gender roles, faulty logic, dismissing of my opinions, no attempt to understand further what I thought, and (in my opinion) self-righteousness.  In the end, in an attempt to be civil, I thanked the two guys for discussing this with me, then went out to my car and cried.

His children

At the most recent Worldwide Leadership Training meeting, President Boyd K. Packer said this:

I have been very careful, and am very careful, to treat my wife with that respect and reverence that is due her in performing that thing that is of most worth for a woman in this life to live the gospel, to be the wife and the mother of the children of a worthy holder of the priesthood.

I've heard people interpret this as just saying that family is most important and that "multiply and replenish the earth" is still a commandment.  If that is what he meant, I wish he would have chosen different words, especially gender-neutral terms (e.g., "that thing that is of most worth for a person in this life to live the gospel, to be a spouse and a parent in a home with a worthy priesthood holder").  However, at face value, it seems that what he's saying is that the most important thing that a woman can do is be married to a worthy priesthood holder and have his children; in other words, a woman's importance comes from her relationship with a man.   Maybe President Packer believes that conversely, the most important thing for a man to do is to be married to a worthy woman and be the father of her children.  If he believes that, I wish he would have said that, too.  The way he said it...well, I just don't like it.  The fact that he says that he pays his wife respect seems to soften it until you realize why he's respecting her—because she's married to a worthy priesthood holder (him) and is the mother of his children. 

Don't mess with me.

This post is especially angsty, so consider this a warning.

At our ward's last fast and testimony meeting, several people mentioned the "fact" that God sends us our trials.  This can somehow be construed as comforting (see the last post on how everything being "controlled" by God is both deceptively comforting and false [in my opinion]).  When you get down to it though, what kind of a god would be so cruel?  If he is real, he helps us see the benefit that trials can bring, but he doesn't send them to us.

When people in sacrament said that God sends trials and will take them away when we learn enough, I felt anger and the thought that came to my mind was, **language alert**

Everything happens for a reason

I do not believe that “everything happens for a reason” in the sense that some things are caused to happen for a specific outcome; I believe that you can find meaning in anything that happens, but that meaning is a result of the occurrence, not the other way around.  (This topic reminds me of Justin Bieber's controversial faux pas when talking about abortion:

"I really don't believe in abortion," Bieber says. "It's like killing a baby." How about in cases of rape? "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don't know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that.")

I think it can, on the surface, seem rather comforting to think that everything is controlled and meant to happen—but that seems rather too much like determinism to me.  True, you could say that not everything is controlled and that just some things are.  However, I don’t think things are controlled to the degree that some people think they are.

The main point: I think that instead of changing the circumstances, God does something better and helps us change our perspective of the circumstances.  He may have the power to change the circumstances, but he doesn’t do this as often as people think he does.

I bring this up because of the number of times I have heard people bear testimony of how God changed a situation for them, but when you think about it the amount of things he would have to change, and the degree to which he would have to mess with people’s agency is astounding.

For example, a brother told a story about how, late at night, his car was breaking down.  He could make it to a gas station up the street, but only if all of the lights remained green; if he had to stop, the car would break down.  He said a prayer, and all of the lights remained green.  My reaction is that, since it was late at night, it was luck that the lights turned green.  God touched his heart so that he could be grateful for this luck.  If he had encountered a red light and his car didn’t break down, he would have praised God for this miracle and would have testified that God doesn’t always answer our prayers but does what is best for us in the end.  If his car had broken down, he would have praised God for something that would have come out of it: maybe a car would have stopped and the driver would have helped him, and somehow the church came up and he was able to share the gospel with him or her.  He would have testified that it was meant to be that his car broke down.  What I’m saying is that no matter what happened, he would have credited God with making it turn out the best way possible.

Another example: A sister told of how a day devoted to traveling to Hawaii was full of delayed flights and inconveniences which caused her family to arrive in the evening when the were supposed to arrive in the afternoon.  As she was walking down to the beach, the thought came in her head that maybe all of those inconveniences happened so that she could meet someone.  Sure enough, a guy came walking along the beach, they started talking (including about religion), and he became a great friend of her family’s.  Now he’s going to an LDS church in Hawaii!  It was meant to be!

The problem: How did God cause the flight delays?  Did he cause people to make mistakes so that they would slow down? Wouldn’t that interfere with their agency?  Why would he convenience all of those other passengers just for the benefit of one man?  Of course, you could say that someone’s eternal salvation is much more important than a flight being on time.  But think of how much the delay could have affected the other passengers: they could have been involved in a car accident that they wouldn’t have if they had arrived earlier, a father on his death bed they were traveling to see could have passed away before they were able to get there, etc. I ask why that one man was more important than all of those other passengers?

This sister was blessed to be able to find a positive outcome from her inconveniences, but that doesn’t mean that those inconveniences happened for that positive outcome.

I usually don’t like the “you are less than dust” rhetoric, but why am I so important that God would rearrange a snowstorm for me?  Why would I be blessed with safe travel just because people are praying for me when other people could run into dangerous road conditions because of that delayed snowstorm?

I guess you could answer that God works in mysterious ways and that we don't understand everything with our limited mortal scope.  But in this case, I think it's a little bit of a cop-out answer.

It's not irony

I do see the...irony...of me being a very feminine woman who enjoys crafts, wearing skirts and dresses, is studying to be a teacher, and who wants to be a stay-at-home mom and also being a hard-core feminist who wants women to have the priesthood.  But really, it isn't irony.  Feminists don't have to be masculine, man-hating bitter women, although that seems to be what some people picture.  Maybe I don't want a career to be my main focus in life, but I will fight for other women who do want that.  Feminism is about having the choice to do what you want and not be looked down on for doing it.

I was in a play at BYU about the female experience at the school, and I and the director got along great because we both had the same unorthodox ideas about women in the church (I did get along great with the whole cast too).  The night of one of the shows, some of us were talking backstage about what we wanted for the future.  Some of my castmates were surprised when I said that I wanted to get married, have kids, and be a stay-at-home mom.  I fight for people who have different desires than I have; I'd want them to do the same for me if my desires were not in vogue and in the minority.  I recognize that not everyone wants what I want.  But just because I seem to be the stereotypical feminine lady (who even sometimes dresses like a '50s housewife!!!) doesn't mean I can't sympathize with others.  I believe that I don't need a man to be complete, but that doesn't mean that I don't want to get married.

I say this as a reminder that I don't demand that everyone do what I want to do.  I want people to be able to decide for themselves what they want and what's right for them.

One of my least favorite Viewpoints

It has been a week since the viewpoint "A Rising Epidemic" has been published, which means it's been a week since I wanted to write in and respond.  I haven't yet because there are so many angles of this column that need to be addressed that I don't think I could cover them all.  I want to write in, but maybe I won't cover all of the angles.  

I find two main things wrong with the article: 1. The two halves are contradictory.  2. The second half is judgmental and misguided.  Here it is, with my responses to it.

  

A Rising Epidemic

by Allie McCoy

Students at BYU are incredible.  This reminds me of a toothpaste commercial where they begin with, "Your mouth is amazing," lulling you into the belief that they're going to compliment your mouth, but no—then they start in on how much bacteria and nasty stuff is in it.
Where else is “Stone Cold Sober” a badge of honor or NiCMO considered a terribly scandalous activity?  You spelled 'NCMO' wrong.  There's no 'i.'
Where else can you get thousands of students to attend not only church meetings on Sunday, but FHE Mondays, Devotional Tuesdays and Institute Thursdays.
Even for members of the Church, where else can you find a busier temple where hard-working students wait hours to perform three baptisms?
BYU, and the students who attend, are one of a kind, and that’s something to be proud of.
There are two epidemics rampant on campus that I believe deserve an extra word.
The first is perfectionism — something President Cecil O. Samuelson spoke of during Devotional Tuesday.
“Some mistakenly consider worthiness to be the same as perfection; this is not true,” Samuelson said. Good point.  Very, very true.  “All of the standard works are replete with references to the expectation of perfection and yet all seem to acknowledge that the perfecting of the saints is a process that is likely never to be absolutely complete in immortality.”
If you’re trying to do your best, then you are succeeding. Don’t get yourself down.
You must follow the commandments, you must listen to your church leaders, you must study the word of God — however, those of you who forgot to say your prayers this morning are not ruined.  What's with this list of "you must"s?  And where's the "you must be nice to people" and the "you must not judge others"?
Strive harder, do better, but do not beat yourself up for small failures.
That being said, a second epidemic plagues this school. This is the epidemic of justification.  I'm hoping that she meant to address this second half to a different audience than the first half, because what she's about to say are some of the worst things you can say to a perfectionist.
Many of you may remember a talk President Julie B. Beck gave on campus last year. The stand-out quote went something like this:
“You’re doing better than you think you are, [but] we’re not doing as well as we could.”  AAAAGHHH!  Sentiments like this make me want to pull my hair out!  Let's not focus on how we're not thinking enough of ourselves—let's lightly touch on it and then slam the focus into how we're not doing enough!
It’s true. BYU stands far above other universities when it comes to personal standards; however, at times I think we get too comfortable.  I don't think you're including yourself in this "we."
Some believe since we’re doing better than other people (I know I always have the attitude that I'm better than everyone else), it’s OK if we slip up sometimes.  Um, isn't it?  We are not expected to be flawless!  Get that through your head!!!
Since we don’t drink alcohol, it’s OK we’re consuming energy drinks by the case.  I'd rather have you consuming energy drinks and being nice to people than not and being judgmental.
Since we don’t wear sleeveless shirts, it’s OK if our skirts don’t make it quite to our knees.  Enough with the to-the-knees arguments!  Skirt length does not equal spirituality or personal worth no matter how hard you try to make it so!  What do the inches above another girl's knees have to do with you?  NOTHING!  Why does it bother you so much?  I don't get the feeling that you're doing it out of genuine concern for the spiritual climate of BYU.  And even if it were for that reason, you don't need to worry about it because it isn't your concern.
Since we don’t have full-blown beards, it’s OK if we don’t shave every morning.  What is so awful about stubble that you have to make a special point of mentioning it?  Do short hairs on a man's face really bother you that much?  If so, why??  (And see that she is conveniently not included in this.)
Since we don’t watch every rated R movie in theaters, it’s OK if we can justify it for academic reasons.  R-rated movies are not a black and white issue!  If they were, there wouldn't be so much debate about them!  Do we drink alcohol?  Definitely not.  Do we watch R-rated movies?  Well, that is a personal choice.  Might I also bring up that the R rating is only an American thing, so you're excluding every other country from this classification?  Let people use their own judgment about what they're comfortable watching.  (I do watch R-rated movies, but even if I didn't, I would defend others people's choice to do so.)
“I have been quoted as saying, ‘Do the best you can.’ But I want to emphasize that it be the very best,” President Gordon B. Hinckley said in a leadership conference.  NO NO NO NO NO!  As a perfectionist, you are killing me here.  Best is not good enough!  Do the very best! “We are too prone to be satisfied with mediocre performance. We are capable of doing so much better.”   Some people are, but not everyone is!  Some people are all of the time, but some people are only some of the time.  There is no distinction made about the audience.  There are a lot of people who actually have the problem of never being content with their performance, no matter how great.  This is not what those people (including me) need to hear.
Cougars, we are capable of being better. We are capable of leaving the justifications behind and grasping to the gospel we love.
Honor the Honor Code. Whether or not you believe in it, you signed it. Don’t forget that. 
This epidemic is not limited to students. Teachers, you’re expected to live these standards as well.  We're in college.  They're called professors.  And I know that they're not infallible, but I think it's especially self-righteous to call faculty (as well as students) to repentance.
I’ve been in classes where my teacher defends everything from swearing to viewing rated R movies.  THE HORROR!  Sweetie, it is only your opinion that we should strictly avoid rated R movies.  I hate to break it to you, but not everyone agrees that this is a black-and-white issue.
Yes, they are always justified, but they are not always right.
Please remember you stand for so much more than you think you do. Your actions are an example to someone and you can’t lead them astray.
If you find yourself justifying small mistakes, don’t worry. Repent, work harder. Whatever you do, don’t get caught in complacency.  Who are you to call us to repentance?  What authority do you have?
Just remember President Beck: You are doing better than you think, but you are capable of so much more.

One angle I would attack is how one minute she's comforting perfectionists, and the next minute she's telling them they need to do better.  True, she could be addressing different audiences, but she doesn't make that clear.  Even if she were addressing different audiences, it's not her place to call the complacent to repentance.  

The other angle: Stop picking on the way girls dress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  When I say this, some people will be quick to remind me that we all as BYU students signed an Honor Code.  That is true.  It is a matter of personal integrity that they obey the Honor Code.  But it is none of your business if they do or not.  I am really trying to understand why it (the fact that girls' dress breaks the Honor Code) bothers people so much that they write in letters to the editor.  My main theory is that they get mad that they are obeying the rules and not getting any sort of recognition or reward for it while other people are flaunting the rules and not getting any negative consequences.  I welcome ideas about why this bothers people so much.

I waited with glee for the Tuesday after this letter for the rebuttals, but there was only one.  The first sentence of it especially was golden:  "Calls to repentance without any indication of self-inclusion or humility always fall flat."

Letter: Salt in the wound

The author of this letter to the editor, responding to a letter saying that it was inappropriate to fly the flag at half-mast for a deceased BYU student (which I don't necessarily disagree with), has a good point.  However, there's a line in it that I love!

After reading the Readers’ Forum from the author of “In mourning 9/8,” I looked up what was said and found it very interesting.
However, I also found the content disturbingly insensitive toward Vanessa’s family and friends (probably because I knew her).
It sprayed salt on their wounds as well as mine.
I’m not going to argue about whether you were right or not, because to my limited knowledge, you were right. But, you were definitely wrong in practice.
People are more important than truth (not to be confused with the name of the Savior as Truth).
If you study the scriptures enough, you will see this. Clearly, those in charge of BYU do.

Jonathan Kerby

Ooh!  Pulling out the Scriptures Card!  "Clearly, I am in the right because the scriptures agree with me. You are wrong, which means you don't read your scriptures enough."  I just find the use of this argument laughable.

Another odd thing about the letter is the clarification that he did not mean the Savior by using the word "truth."  I trust that somewhere, the Savior has been referred to as "the Truth," but I have never personally heard it.  This clarification raises an interesting question, though: If he had meant the Truth, would it really be false?  Are people not more important than the Truth?  I'm guessing he means that they are less than or equal to the Truth.  But which is it—less than or equal to?  Is there a bar under the crocodile or not?  Is the whole (the Savior) greater than the sum of its parts (the people He saved)?  I guess if I read my scriptures enough, I'd know the answer!

Lo! Read this!

I just found out about a press release from the church from four years ago.  I feel quite enthusiastic about this press release because of its implications.  You can read it here.

Two highlights for me:

• "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine."
• "...the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices."

In regards to the first one, I think of the religion classes I've been in where the professors use Power Point presentations that have quotes from a general authority along with a picture of him (I'm not saying "them" because it's not a question of it being either "him" or "her").  How many of those quotes are taken out of context and/or aren't really doctrine?

The second one can definitely be applied to women and the priesthood.  The press release goes onto quote the ninth article of faith:

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

  This, I think, is one of the main scriptural passages that backs up the idea that women could be ordained to the priesthood, along with many other changes that could take place.

Why don't we talk about this press release more often?  Probably because it opens up a can of worms: "Well yeah, so-and-so said that, but is that really doctrine??"  It leads you to question everything (which, I think, isn't bad.  In fact, I think it's good).

Women and the Priesthood, part 2

An addendum to the last post:

Why do I think women should have the Priesthood?  It's not just about equality, although that is an issue.  A woman can't be the president of the church, and words uttered by her in General Conference aren't quoted like those of the apostles and other authorities. 

More important to me is the issue of opportunity: I think a woman should have the opportunity to give her friend, child, husband, or mission companion a blessing.  I think that if she brought a friend to the church, that she should be able to baptize him or her.  I've had someone ask me why I would want the Priesthood anyway (!); the answer is that I also want the ability to serve in this capacity.  I want to help people!  I want to be able to comfort them with blessings or bless and pass the sacrament to them or baptize them!  I'd like to seal people to their families.  But as of now, I can't.  It's a righteous desire I have, not an obnoxious give-me-power thing.

Women and the Priesthood

Ooh!  Controversial topic!  This post is only coincidentally being written on Father's Day.  What bothers me about the subject of women and the Priesthood most of all is not the fact that women at this time don't have it; I do believe that they should have it and that they some day will have it.  What bothers me most is actually the attitude of people I've encountered toward the very idea that women could some day have the Priesthood.

All I've encountered are knee-jerk reactions to the supposition that women could one day receive the Priesthood, and those reactions are that it will never happen, how could we think that, that would be preposterous, that wouldn't make any sense.  People (sorry, but I've mainly seen men) don't even take the time to even consider the possibility.  Use your imagination, please!  It's good to imagine alternate options and realities, I think; think of "what if?" even if it sounds ridiculous.  What if pigs instead of cats were common house pets?  What if lizards could fly?  What if popcorn were poisonous?  How would these situations change how we live?  It seems that to some people, questioning what if lizards could fly sounds just as ridiculous and pointless as asking what if women had the Priesthood.

I think questioning this is so scary to people is because it would shatter the explanations/rationalizations/illusions that people have created to explain the situation and would force you to admit that instead of the truth, they are merely explanations/rationalizations/illusions.  I will readily admit that I could be wrong and that only men will forever have the Priesthood in the church; but none of the reasons people use for why that could be are official doctrine—they are merely explanations created without any authority.  Some of these explanations include that motherhood is equal to the Priesthood (when, logically [and yes, you could attack my use of logic and quote Isaiah 55:8 and say that logic is myopic compared with God's view], wouldn't it be equal to fatherhood?  Also, any fertile woman can have children, but being ordained to the Priesthood requires worthiness.)  I will say now that I do think motherhood is divine and that honestly, given the choice, I'd rather be a mother than have the Priesthood. 

Here is an example from a website I am fond of, the 100 Hour Board.  Someone asked if the writers thought that there could ever be a female apostle, which, to me, is also implying the question of do they think that women could one day have the priesthood?  Three writers and one commenter answered, and only one of them was female.  One male writer did admit that if revelation came, that women could theoretically receive the Priesthood; but then it seems he was quick to dismiss that that would ever happen.  The commenter, I have found out, is one of the managing directors of Newsnet, which is apparently over the 100 Hour Board.  I find it worrisome that there was only one female voice in this matter (and that she was the only one who believed in the same thing I do), and that an older man felt the need to add a comment to refute her belief.  I don't think you can prove through logic or reasoning indefinitely whether or not it will happen, because we have an open canon.  But why all the explanations against it then if it can't be proven?

This post is probably to be continued because there is so much to write about; I feel like everything I write has so many counter arguments that it's like trying to kill off a hydra.

Sarcasm will make me friends!

The letters in the opinion section of the Daily Universe can make me so mad.  Why do I keep reading them?  Not reading them doesn't make the people who write them go away.

I just browsed the opinion section on the Universe website, and some of the letters included there are saying that:

• People around campus should smile more
• People shouldn't leave before the closing hymn and prayer during the Priesthood conference session
• Let's not pick on the way girls dress; instead, let's pick on the guys!!
• People should abstain from facebook and texting as a fast
•  People should walk in the crosswalks
• The people in the author's ward should stop hassling him to come to FHE

I understand that these could be considered valid concerns or ideas; a main problem I find with them though is that they carry the attitude that "if I think this is a good idea, then everyone should think it's a good idea."  Do you think it would help you to take a break from facebook?  Great, do that, and I hope it does help, but you don't need to tell other people that they should do it too.  You want people to smile more?  Stop picking on them and pointing out what they're doing wrong.  Maybe someone isn't smiling because s/he isn't happy; why don't you work on thinking of the why part of why people don't smile?  I hate the letters to the editor about the way girls dress, but I hate the ones from girls about guys almost as much; it's not right to criticize someone for something and then turn around and do a similar thing to them.  The ones from the guys are demeaning to girls, but the ones from girls make us girls look bad too.

The one about Priesthood session had a good reason for not leaving the session early: the noise bothers people still in attendance.  But you can still leave early and not make noise.  This letter has a self-righteous attitude and includes things like this:

Maybe it’s the traffic (waiting 2-3 minutes to get out of a church parking lot is brutal, I know), maybe by some amazing coincidence all of those brethren had to be at work right after the session. Whatever the reason, it’s disrespectful to the brethren sitting around you, the leaders you just heard from, and the choir that prepared a closing hymn to seal the spirit of the meeting.

Shame on you for disrespecting leaders!  Sarcasm will make me friends!

As for the FHE letter, the DU opinion section is not the proper forum.  The author should just talk to his FHE group leaders about it instead of letting them read it in the paper.

Yes, here I am saying what people should do.  But at least I'm not writing into the paper about it.

Implications

Often it's not the exact utterance that someone speaks in church that is problematic—it's what it implies.  Thinking and pondering are good, encouraged qualities.  If you ponder something, you will naturally extrapolate and think of the different sides; then you will see the implications.  If we want people thinking (which we should want), we have the be prepared for them to poke holes in arguments when they see the implications of said arguments.

I understand that people usually don't mean what they're implying.  But the problem is that they don't say otherwise. 

Let's talk examples, because I like concrete evidence.  The teacher of a temple prep class, a member of the bishopric, was talking about the Law of Chastity (my favorite subject!!!!).  He admitted that he thought that his wife was beautiful, but "beauty is from the shoulders up."  He also said some things that were obviously outlandish and false (i.e. they completely contradicted well-known scriptures) which I won't mention here (right now), because they, not just their implications, were just plain wrong.

I talked to him after class about it, and I mentioned how what's taught about the LoC seems to teach people to hate their bodies.  He angrily objected, "I never told you to hate your bodies!"  I know that.  He didn't say those exact words or anything like them.  But everything he did say backs up that conclusion.  

What I'm advocating is acknowledging the other side.  You may say, "There's nothing wrong with wearing blue."  But unless you mention that there's nothing wrong with wearing any other color, someone might think that you're implying that.  If you say that it's dangerous to be prideful, mention that it's also not good to be down on yourself.  Be more complete with explanations, please.

follow the...follow God.

In the movie Harold and Maude, there are three short scenes together where three male authority figures in turn advise Harold.  They each are sitting at a desk; they each say two to three sentences, then the scene changes to the next one.  One humorous touch is that there is a framed picture on the wall behind each of them: behind the psychiatrist is a picture of Freud, behind the army officer is a picture of Nixon (the movie is from 1971), and behind the priest is a picture of the pope.  When I first noticed these little touches, I was guessing what would be behind the priest: God?  Jesus?  But no!  The pope!  And then I thought, Shouldn't the priest be saying what God would say?  And then I realized that to Catholics, what the pope says and what God says are the same.  And so it is with our church and the prophet.

We are physically separated from God, and the Church teaches that certain things that God says must go through His representatives here.  But it bothers me a bit that frequently people have pictures of the First Presidency on their walls; and yes, many times they'll have Jesus too.  But the reason it bothers me is that it's a degree of separation from God.  We don't worship Thomas S. Monson; we worship Christ and our Father in Heaven.  Having pictures of the apostles are of course are of course more feasible because they're photographs, whereas any depiction of God would have an unknowable accuracy.

I suppose since people picture God in different ways, and each one's own way helps him or her, I wouldn't want there to be one standard version of God.  I think people should seek out (non-LDS!) art that portrays God and Christ in a way meaningful to them.  I, for example, don't like picturing God as the bearded identical twin of Jesus that's in the popular First Vision painting.  I'd prefer to think of repentance in a way other than Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane (I have a problem with guilt, and although the message is that He suffered for me, in my head it always turns out to be He suffered for me).  There was a gallery at the conference center of artwork submitted for a contest from the Ensign, I think.  One was titled "Repentance" and was a non-realistic lady smiling and looking heavenward, from where red rose petals were falling.  I like that a lot better, especially because it is more open to interpretation and can be symbolic in different ways to different people.