Please, please, please let me get what I want.

OK, so I haven't written in a long time. So many times I've thought about writing, but there's just always too much to write about and it feels impossible. A lot has changed and a lot has stayed the same.

I just want to clarify something. This clarification pertains to you if you have read these posts and think I'm just griping and attacking the church. I am not doing this. I am challenging beliefs that I question the validity of--things that get said over and over again and people don't stop and think about how they're actually wrong. Or having the wrong perspective on things. For example, the last Sunday school class I was in was about "Eternal Marriage." Instead of talking about honoring covenants after the marriage ceremony or even about loving your (future) spouse we focused on why temple marriage was better than temporal marriage and what it means to be worthy to go to the temple. And why we want an eternal marriage {to receive exaltation and have spirit children, apparently. No one said that we would want to be married forever because we love our partner so much or anything. Guess that's not important} I swear, it was the most unromantic treatment of marriage and focus on being "worthy" for the ceremony ignored being "worthy" after it, which is more important. It's called a "temple marriage," not a "temple wedding."

Continuing...

I saw a sign in NYC that said "dissent is patriotic." I feel that I'm dissenting, not politically, but out of loyalty just the same. I want this church to be the best it can be, meaning it betters the lives of its members spiritually, emotionally, physically. If we keep perpetuating truths that make us prejudiced or intolerant of others or unkind to ourselves, it's just plain sad.

I remind you that I take a devil's advocate approach. I am against extremes and I'm trying to find a middle ground, as I think we all should.

Feeling Marxist

I am a closet communist.

I have, all my life, had a considerable amount of class consciousness, as my buddy Marx would say. I notice keenly what others have and I don't and what I have that others don't. I did in no way grow up destitute (and that is indeed a very big understatement); but no matter how wide the class divide, when there is a division, you notice it. You don't have to be a dirt-poor farmer living next to McMansions to see that there is a division between you and the next class up.

I think about this often. But what inspired this post is two things: a visit to my aunt's house and hearing the news that my family is getting new furniture for the first time in my life.

I have always envied my cousins' lifestyle. My uncle has a very good job (which he deserves and works hard for) and they live in a very large house with nice furniture and so many rooms! When I was there, I was surprised to see that the house kept going. . .and going. . .and going. . . . Tonight, as I was talking to a family member and describing their backyard at a previous house in New England (I have a very soft spot for New England), tears actually came to my eyes when I said that there was a pond and that the house backed up to the woods, through which they walked to get to school. It's not only the lifestyle and surroundings I've envied–I envy the ease in which they live in that huge, immaculate house. I would feel strange living in such a big house, and I would feel undeserving of it.

Yes, in addition to envying how the other half lives, I have felt undeserving or even guilty for what luxury I do have. I frequently say, "That would be nice, but I really don't need that to the smallest things. Like the furniture–I'm perfectly comfortable with getting it from garage sales or having it passed down from deceased family members. I think it will feel extravagant to me having new furniture (paid for by my loving grandma) in the living room.

I really don't want to sound like I'm complaining about what I have, because I definitely know how very, very lucky I am. I have everything I need and more. I feel stupid and whiny to feel bad about not having as much as other people. I've been thinking increasingly (and that's a lot, since I already dwell too much on this) about inequality and why it exists when it doesn't have to. It makes my head hurt to think about the stark contrasts between different parts of the world: we have, for example, the U.S. where people can have tons of credit cards, go shopping for fun, and are overweight because they eat more than enough; then we have other countries (and areas of the U.S.!) where people starve, have no shelter, and have no clue how long they'll survive. Between countries, the divide is deep. Between neighborhoods in the same city, the divide can be just as deep. How?? Why??

I've come up with a brilliant idea! When you have extra money that you're going to spend on a luxury, choose to donate it to charity instead. Give someone else a head start in improving his/her life. I'm not an advocate of handouts, I'm really not–I do believe in working for your money. But the truth is, people deserve mercy too. There is trap regarding skills and work that prevents people from working for money: you can't get work until you have skills for the work. But you don't have skills (e.g. computer hacking skills, nun-chuck skills [why do I spell "nun-chuck" correctly on the first try but not "extravagant"?]) until you get an education. But you can't get an education if you don't have the money or the time! And if you don't even have the money to survive, where are you going to get the money to go to school?

The main challenge I see with donating is knowing where your money will do the most good. As much as I feel bad seeing homeless people on the street holding signs, I am always wary to give money because of the warning that many would just spend it on alcohol or other drugs. Yes, it's a stereotype, but it has truth in it. I mean, it's understandable to want money to those things if you're addicted to them. But if you donate to that cause, you're just hurting them more. I had a friend once get a two-for-one sandwich deal at Arby's and then give a homeless man the other sandwich; I think that's a good idea. I really feel like I'm talking in a demeaning manner about homeless people. I really don't mean to; this is a sensitive subject. Especially with the downturn in the economy, it's increasingly easy for people to become homeless.

Donating to a charity can be problematic, because many take out chunks for overhead costs of running the organization, such as advertising and paying employees. The fact that we are lead by a lay clergy and that the Church helps people get jobs and job training (e.g. at DI) is something I (figuratively) stand up and applaud. When I donate to fast offering and humanitarian aid, I trust that my money is going directly to benefit someone, since there are no salaries being paid with my donation. Fast offering and humanitarian aid are wonderful. And so is the PEF! The Church has such wonderful programs!

Now, back to this brilliant plan. I've been thinking, "Why don't more people do that? Give up the money they would spend on a necklace to help some refugees or starving children?" And then. . .and then the guilt just increases exponentially. Every snack, every extra fun thing I decide to spend money on makes me feel a pang of guilt for not choosing to donate that money instead.

I learned in Sociology that there are two theories for economic distribution: conservative and liberal theory. Conservative theory seems to be embraced by people who own property and own money and want to protect that. It states that inequality is a way of life and that no matter what class you are in, you have place and a job to perform. Different classes are like different parts of the body: they work together to make society function. Liberal theory seems to be embraced by radicals and calls for sharing or giving up wealth. We should work to solve inequality. The people in history who have discovered true wisdom are those who gave up their wealth and became wandering teachers. Another thing liberal theory has going for it is that Jesus is included in its school. Oh man, what kind of a decision is it to make when you are asking, "Hmm. Who probably has the right answer? Rich white guys or Jesus?" Oh man. But these are two extremes. We are not required to give up everything we own, nor should we just shrug and do absolutely nothing to combat inequality.

In my heart, I'm a liberal theorist, and in my head a conservative theorist. It is the same politically (brain=republican, heart=democrat, even though I don't like sticking to one party line). My mom has warned me that I will only become frustrated that I can't save the world. I'm always worrying that I'm not doing enough as I can. Really, I could sell most of my stuff on ebay and then donate the money I get from it. But maybe the question isn't if I have the selflessness to do that; maybe it's should I? Will that really help someone? What am I sacrificing personally (other than possessions)? Since I think in extremes, I often think, "With the money I'm buying this lotion with, I could save a starving child's life." And I hate to say this, but what if that's just meant to be? What if it's right that people are dying? It's awful to think about, though.

I came across this website, and under the question, "Why do some people have more trials than others?" is this quote by President Packer:

“Some are tested by poor health, some by a body that is deformed or homely. Others are tested by handsome and healthy bodies; some by the passion of youth; others by the erosions of age.

Some suffer disappointment in marriage, family problems; others live in poverty and obscurity. Some (perhaps this is the hardest test) find ease and luxury.

All are part of the test, and there is more equality in this testing than sometimes we suspect.”

The answer also says that

What may seem like a walk in the park to you is a climb up a hill for another, and vice versa. What may seem like a blessing to you—take being good looking for example—is a source of trial for another who struggles with temptations of chastity and vanity as a result of their beauty; temptations that those of us who don’t look like we belong on the cover a magazine don’t have to contend with as much.

which I can't help but sneer at. I'm sorry, but saying, "Oh, those poor attractive people! They're really the ones that have it worse than us!" just doesn't sit with me well. I don't know. I don't think it's a solution to the question to just turn good attributes that people have around and call them trials in disguise. Also, being attractive or not is not the scale of trials I'm talking about. I'm talking about being born with AIDS.

Why do our lots in life seem so unequal so often? Is the temptation of taking wealth for granted and growing prideful equal to the temptation to curse God and die when everything good in life seems to be missing? Why is one person's trial accepting a blue Mercedes instead of a silver one when another's is being forced by a government to be a second-class citizen only because she is a woman?

Am I really luckier than my cousins who seem to have everything I want? What I really want is to be able to live my life without guilt over the blessings I have. I want to be able to live like they do and not feel bad about it. My uncle works for the money, but other people don't have the opportunity to work.

I'm in such a good mood after writing this, not even the Grapes of Wrath or Tortilla Curtain could cheer me up any more!!!!! :) :) :) :) :) <3

Obamarama

Letter: Just enjoy the message
Wed, 07/01/2009 - 23:13

I am writing in response to the June 30 letters “Stop ignoring the new president” and “Newsflash: Obama is president.” First off, I would like to say the slideshows that were shown at the BYU Patriotic Fireside were wonderful. I don’t know why people were getting so worked up about George W. Bush being shown in a few more pictures than President Barack Obama.

Second, in most of the pictures that showed Bush, he had his hand over his heart. If you haven’t noticed, Obama doesn’t always put his hand over his heart during the national anthem. Maybe Obama would be in more BYU devotional slideshows if he did an action that every American should do — especially the president of the United States.

Nachelle Stewart
Provo

Yeah!  Take that, you communist!  The reason that Obama wasn't shown in more pictures isn't that there's a Republican bias at BYU–it's because Obama doesn't put his hand over his heart!  It's not BYU's fault, idiot–it's Obama's!  

Really?  We're still discussing the hand-over-the-heart issue?  And I'm not an authority on Barack Obama's motives (yeah, I know you thought I was.  Sorry to disappoint you.), but you shouldn't take everything at face value.  I think we often assume the outward appearance of something is a negative reflection on someone's character, when it's often not.  Maybe Obama really is an unpatriotic America hater.  Or maybe he wanted to show his respect a different way–internally (he could be thinking about respect for the country.  And Bush, with his hand over his heart, could be thinking about French fries).  Who knows.  Just don't jump to the conclusion that he is showing disrespect on purpose.  And since when is this specific action the ultimate mark of patriotism and respect to one's country?

The point has been made before that the BYU Honor Code does focus on outward actions, such as dressing modestly, but that what someone does outwardly is not always a mark of what he or she really thinks or believes, and thus following the Honor Code isn't the end-all indication that you are righteous.  There are wolves in sheep's clothing–someone may dress modestly and use clean language and have a missionary haircut, but he could be rotten inside.  Of course, there really isn't a way to monitor someone's thoughts and motives (and I'm glad!  The Thought Police are scary!  And so are rats!  Do it to Julia!), so outward appearance is often a good indication.  But it's still as true as ever that you can't judge a book by its cover.  An action is only as potent as the meaning behind it and the committment to it.  Putting your hand over your heart in front of the American flag does not guarantee that you are patriotic; Osama bin Laden could also put his hand over his heart in front of the American flag and it wouldn't mean a thing.  I would like to think that Obama doesn't want to just go through the motions of putting a hand over the heart and is choosing a more meaningful way for him to honor the flag.  Or maybe he's making a point that putting a hand over the heart doesn't make someone a patriot.  Or maybe he's a communist and we should stone him, because communists are always evil.   

I would rather have someone not go through the motions of something just to look good in public if the action has lost meaning for him personally.  Which I'm not saying is the case for Obama.  But it could be.  And if it is, I'm fine with it.  

Oh, those Anti-Mormons

One of my BOM professors regularly referred to Anti-Mormons merely as "Antis."  Apparently, since he talked about them so much, it was natural to shorten the name.  I find it funny.  Many times when he would teach something, he would add that if anyone had trouble understanding or believing that that he would love to talk to them about it; it seemed like many students had brought up contradictory beliefs or something they had read thatcontested the fact.  That's cool.

When I have stumbled upon the blog of a former Mormon, the thing that strikes me the most is that (and forgive me if I'm over simplifying this, Antis) they got stuck thinking, "All Mormons are the ultra-conservative, judgmental type and that is exactly what the church is all about."  I'm struggling to overcome this feeling as well, but I just won't accept that it's true.  I did use to think this, but instead of being frustrated with those people and choosing to rebel, I tried to align myself with them even more, convinced that they were right.  No, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is right, not those lunatics who say that they preach it but are really just modern-day Pharisees.

Deep down, I was confused: I acted as conservatively as I should have, but I wasn't happy; wasn't I supposed to be happy?  You really can't be happy when you're so afraid of doing the wrong thing and getting negative consequences slapped in your face.  To me, there were no shades of gray; anything that wasn't clearly good must be bad–right?  Wrong.  Here's an example, since I'm speaking in pretty general terms:

Read your scriptures everyday, right?  Check, I did that.  But for how long?  Our motto in seminary was "10 min, you win", i.e. 10 minutes of reading scriptures a day.  That's not that much!  I heard other people say that they averaged about 30 minutes.  And you should also write your impressions and thoughts in a journal while reading the scriptures.  Since I write a lot and because whenever I read anything, my thoughts shoot off in a thousand different directions, it took me awhile to journal.  In fact, I had so much to say (because I had so many questions while reading, e.g. "Well, if that's true, does that mean. . . ."), I would have to just summarize all of the different topics I was thinking about so that writing wouldn't take more than 15 minutes.  I wanted to preserve my sanity, since I could have written for hours about all that I read and thought about.  So, for you math people out there, 30 minutes of reading + 15 minutes of journaling + 45 minutes/day.  The problem is, I am a procrastinator and a perfectionist.  I would put off this 45 minute chunk of my day because I wanted to be in the best mood possible to get as much spiritual insight as possible (because, of course, if I wasn't particularly inspired by reading the scriptures one day, it was my fault).  Also, a classmate of mine once said, "I've heard that if you read your scriptures before doing your homework, you'll do better on it." and the seminary teacher agreed that that's probably true.  Yikes!  So it's impossible to do the best on my homework unless I read the scriptures first??  OK, then it's an even bigger deal to get this scripture reading done before my homework which equaled even more pressure, which equaled even more procrastination.  Which also meant that my homework would get procrastinated, too.  And if I had to go anywhere on the weekends, I would need to get the scripture reading done before that, too, since my seminary teacher also believed that we would have a better day if we read the scriptures.  So, in my mind, that meant that if I didn't read the scriptures, I would not have as good of a day; if there was a sure-fire way to improve your day, you should do it, right??  So if I needed to go somewhere, I knew I couldn't leave for at least 45 minutes.  Sheesh.

Much later, after these shenanigans, I did realize that it wasn't the actual reading the scriptures that made the day better–it was having that spiritually-aware attitude.  If a person read the scriptures but wasn't really paying attention and was just going through the motions, it wouldn't benefit him.  I now don't believe in setting time increments during which you should read or journal.  So imagine my frustration when my first BOM professor (not the one who always mentioned Antis) made reading the scriptures for a minimum of 30 minutes and journaling for a minimum of 10 minutes a daily homework assignment.  AAaaaragagghh!  And this professor was strict about these increments: you had you read first, then journal.  A fellow student said that he journaled best when he wrote as he went along reading, not after he finished and asked if that was allowed, and this professor said no, he couldn't do that.  Really?  Really?  You're going to make this point that really makes no difference (Read then journal?  Journal when reading?) so letter-of-the-law that it will actually decrease the benefits of reading scriptures?  The guy said that it works best for him to do it his way!  Let him do it his way!  The professor's reasoning for doing this was that you could lose track of how much time you spent reading if you kept interrupting it to journal.  The professor did add that, of course, she had no way of knowing if we did it this way and then shrugged.  The professor would know if we journaled, though, because we had to turn the journals in, and s/he read them.  We could write a note at the top of the page that the entry was personal, and in that case s/he wouln't read them.  Luckily.  But even with the warning, your eyes could slip.  And the professor could have lost them.  There is a risk that what you write will be read and judged, which fosters an attitude of just journaling blandly and predictably just to be safe.

Back to the Antis.  Another thing they seem to get hung up on is BYU.  To them, it is a judgmental and sterile environment that fosters conformity.  Yeah, in some ways, it could.  There are self-righteous and judgmental students and professors that are so conservative that they're backwards.  But they should not be held up as the example of all Mormons!  What??  Professor Bott, ratemyprofessor's #1 ranked professor, said that evolution wasn't true?  So what!  That doesn't mean he's right.  BYU professors and administrators are not prophets.  I will agree that BYU has the possibility of being suffocating and awful, but it doesn't have to be.  I've met very strict people at BYU who couldn't possibly be as happy (and grateful) as they say they are, but I've met some of the most amazingly cool people there as well.  Maybe it takes a little more work to find those more progessive/liberal (whatever you want to call them) Mormon types, but they're there.  

Love is all you need.

God, Love of

1 Ne. 11: 17 God loveth his children.

1 Ne. 11: 22, 25 tree of life represents love of God.

1 Ne. 11: 25 waters are representation of love of God.
1 Ne. 17: 40 the Lord loveth those who will have him to be their God.
2 Ne. 1: 15 Lehi1 is encircled eternally in arms of God’s love.
2 Ne. 4: 21 God hath filled me with his love.
2 Ne. 26: 24 the Lord loveth the world, layeth down life.
Jacob 3: 2 feast upon God’s love.
Mosiah 4: 11-12 if ye retain in remembrance the greatness of God ye shall be filled with his love.
Alma 14: 14 God has made gospel known to Lamanites because he loves them.
Hel. 15: 3 the Lord has chastened Nephites because he loves them.
Ether 12: 34 the Lord’s love is charity.
Moro. 7: 47 charity is pure love of Christ.
D&C 6: 20 be diligent and I will encircle thee in arms of my love.
D&C 18: 10 worth of souls is great in sight of God.
D&C 20: 19 God commanded men to love and serve him.
D&C 34: 3 Christ so loved world that he gave life.
D&C 41: 1 God delights to bless his people.
D&C 76: 25 Father loves Only Begotten Son.
D&C 76: 116 God bestows Holy Spirit on those who love him.
D&C 95: 1 whom the Lord loves he chastens.
D&C 133: 53 in his love the Lord redeemed men.
D&C 138: 3 love made manifest by Father and Son in coming of Redeemer.
Deut. 5: 10 shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me. 
Deut. 6: 5 (Matt. 22: 37; D&C 59: 5) shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart. 
Deut. 7: 8 (Deut. 23: 5) because the Lord loved you. 
Deut. 7: 13 he will love thee. 
Deut. 10: 15 Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them. 
Deut. 10: 18 He doth . . . loveth the stranger, in giving him food. 
Ps. 31: 23 love the Lord, all ye his saints. 
Isa. 63: 7 mention the lovingkindnesses of the Lord. 
Jer. 31: 3 I have loved thee with an everlasting love. 
Hosea 11: 1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him. 
Mal. 1: 2 I have loved you, saith the Lord. 
John 3: 16 God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten. 
John 5: 42 ye have not the love of God in you. 
John 10: 17 doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life. 
John 13: 1 he loved them unto the end. 
John 13: 35 ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. 
John 14: 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. 
John 14: 21 he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father. 
John 14: 23 my Father will love him, and we will come unto him. 
John 15: 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you. 
John 16: 27 Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved. 
John 17: 23 world may know that thou . . . hast loved them. 
John 17: 26 love wherewith thou hast loved me. 
Rom. 5: 8 God commendeth his love toward us. 
2 Cor. 13: 11 live in peace, and the God of love and peace shall be with you. 
Eph. 3: 19 love of Christ, which passeth knowledge. 

It Don't Matter if You're Black or White!

One of the main purposes of this blog is to help me overcome my black-and-white attitude.  

For too much of my life, I thought I was avoiding the "appearance of evil," which really meant becoming too bland and uptight and missing out on innocent fun.  There  was a period where I didn't even listen to music (gaaaaaah) because I started getting suspicious of "hidden meanings" behind vague lyrics.   I can't believe now that I went that far and cut out something that is so dear and important to me.  

I cut out music after a comment made by my YW president: She said that she felt much better and more spiritual after listening to almost no secular music and instead listening to hymns.  Instead of thinking, "Well, that may work for her, but I don't think I need that," I thought, "Well, if my YW president is suggesting it, I should do it."  I soon became terribly frustrated after cutting out music and growing so hyper sensitive about the meaning of lyrics (when I started looking for risqué meanings, I found them–even if they weren't there.  If you look for something hard enough, you'll find it, even if it doesn't exist).  I finally broke down and cried when I read an article in the New Era urging youth to trade pop music for church music because it would be uplifting and helpful.  I felt resentful that this magazine was telling me what I was doing was right when it was making me miserable.

I really was trying to do the right thing, but since I am black-and-white and perfectionistic, I usually went completely overboard.  It truly was startling when I finally realized that I didn't have to apply every talk, every lesson, every New Era article to myself; that maybe, I was doing a fine enough job already and didn't need to work on that.  For the longest time, my reaction to every talk really was, "Oh!  I definitely need to work on that!"  I would feel bad for being critical of a talk and chide myself, thinking, "I have to get something out of this!  I'm prideful if I don't think their message is good, and I'm rationalizing my behavior if I think this doesn't apply to me!"  That is so wrong.  So so so wrong.  I think a big reason why I was like that for so long was that I got nothing but praise and positive reactions to that attitude; leaders and other adults in the ward would gush about how sweet and humble I was, and one man even said that I was "floating above and ahead everyone else."  Well, I wasn't happy inside, but it took me awhile to realize that.

Being black-and-white makes you gray, that is, bland and boring.  I do, however, want to be gray in the way that I accept the middle ground instead of an extreme view.  

This subject reminds me of the Michael Jackson song, "Black or White."  And that reminds me of a lovely cover version of the song I heard in a German class.  It began with a bit of the original song, then a German woman (in a thick accent) yelled to her husband to turn that music down.  He replied (in a thick accent), "But I like this funky music!  I like this funky music!"  And then the polka music came in!  The man proceeded to sing the song with an oom pah pah backing in heavily accented English.  I can still hear him saying, "If youah sinking 'bout my baby it don't mattah if youah black or white!"  

the Mormon Poster Child

For years, I aspired to be a Model Mormon: which to me meant a member who dresses conservatively (skirts to the knee, buttoned shirt buttoned all the way up*

, sleeves, no extreme or even different hair styles), is attentative in class and always volunteers to read and gives knowledgable, spiritual answers, is polite and kind, always smiling, and always helpful.  

I don't want to be that anymore!  And I don't like the dramatic (line break and dramatic one-liner), so I'm adding another sentence.

I don't like that teachers preach messages of conformity and  treat any degree of deviance as the threat of sin creeping into your life.  If your form of deviance is building an altar to Satan and worshiping it, OK, that's not good.  But if deviance to you is dying your hair pink, I think you're fine.  But there are some people who would judge you for it and think you're not a good Mormon.

A couple weeks ago, my institute teacher mentioned that we should use technology for good and to spread the message of the Gospel.  He spoke derisively of people who go online and use the the internet to criticize the Church and told us we must not do that.  He would probably disapprove of my blog, but I don't think I'm criticizing the Church; I'm criticizing its members who preach falsehoods.  I find this blog is good for me, even though the circulation (that I know of) is about three.  I'm just happy knowing that somewhere out there in cyberspace is my opinion that anyone can stumble upon and read.

*I was watching the BYU channel once at a hotel in Utah and listened to part of a talk by some lady.  I don't remember who it was; it could have been Susan W. Tanner, but I don't think it was.  This mystery woman was talking about modesty and about young women who had really internalized the message and were completely modest.  She said that we (young women) should all button our button-front shirts all the way up to the top–it was like securing the final chink in your armor.  As she said this,  there was even a visual of a young woman standing in front of the mirror, buttoning up her shirt to thte top and smiling.  I  did think her exhortation was a bit odd at the time, but I thought that she must be right; after all, she was giving a fireside or devotional and was on BYUTV!  I started wearing my button-up shirts all the way to the top for awhile until I realized it looked dumb and was a little extreme.  Subtley extreme, but extreme nontheless.

Top responses to "I Have Depression."

Happy one-year anniversary to me of having depression!  Yaaaaay.  It started last summer, got  worse Fall semester, then spiraled out of control Winter semester.  And that's my story so far.  Here are my favorite responses I've heard when I tell people (at church) about my situation:

1. Everyone has their ups and downs.

2. What made you so sad?

3. Pray and read your scriptures/conference talks and you will get through this!

4. This is very common.

My responses:

1. Yes, everyone has sad and happy times in their life.  Did you honestly think I didn't know that?  The thing is, not everyone has the same challenges.  Not everyone has clinical depression.  Just because it has emotional symptoms does not mean it's not a medical disease.

2. A chemical imbalance in my brain that not even science has figured out yet.

3. Praying/reading scriptures/any other gospel activity will help the same way they will help you during any struggle or problem: they provide perspective and comfort, for example.  But they do not cure depression.  They could also help someone with diabetes feel better, but it's not going to take away the diabetes!  I think this is the misconception that makes me angriest: Depression is purely emotional, so it can be cured the way other negative emotions are cured.  If you're sad or mad, reading the scriptures can make you feel better, so naturally reading them can get rid of your depression.  

4.  You're nothing special.  Quit complaining.  Lots of people get really sad (see #1).

In short, people who respond this way mean well (I think), but what they really are is dismissive.  They're not trying to understand how I feel; they're just trying to patch it up and make it better.  But you can't fix something if you don't know how it broke in the first place and in what way it's broken now.

Do you know why, as someone with clinical depression, I identify with those who are Mormon and gay?  Because a similar misunderstanding exists and similar excuses are made.  Depressed people don't deal with nearly as much stuff as gay people do, but I do see similarities, such as:

Both groups are living contrary to God's law.

Depressed people are obviously still living with some sin they haven't repented of, or they wouldn't be so sad!  They are probably not reading their scriptures, praying, going to church, paying tithing, fulfilling their callings, etc. enough!  Being happy all the time means you're being righteous all the time!

Gay people are just plain wrong.  They should stop liking the same gender and switch to liking the other one.  Duh.

They could be cured if they just have enough faith.

If you still have depression, you must have not had enough faith so far to be healed.  It's all up to you.  This is not an actual "medical" disease that needs to run its course at all!  You're just sad!  Really sad, that is, but still–it's just an emotional problem.  See above for why you are so sad.

Homosexuality is a temptation nigh unto a disease.  Have faith and you will be cured.  If you haven't been cured already, you must not want to be badly enough.  Even though it is a temptation, just ignore Paul's bit about having a thorn in his side that was never taken away even though he prayed for it.  Paul obviously wasn't faithful enough!  Yes he was an apostle, but. . . .let's change the subject.

Blacks = Gays?

It's very hard to try and rectify seemingly conflicting principles and values, but I'm trying.

On the one hand, there's the idea that the same arguments against gay marriage were made against inter-racial marriage.  Fair enough.  But on the other hand, aren't race and gender separate issues?  Isn't it said that race is a social construction?  But then on the other hand, couldn't you say then that gender might just be a social construction too?  But the Proclamation to the World says that gender is a part of everyone's divine identity, so it wouldn't seem that gender is just a social construction.  But then what does that mean for gay people?  

And then my head hurts.

P.S. As a straight white person, I am ignorant of the monikers people who are homosexual or of African descent prefer: Homosexuals?  Gays?  Gay people?  / Blacks?  Black people?  African-Americans?  

Proposition Eight

I do not support Proposition 8. Let me clarify: I do not support bashing gay people or looking down on them or calling them the f-- word or making fun of them or lumping them all into one category and calling them all intolerant hateful and morally loose. Some people apparently think that this is what supporting Prop 8 means, which gives the rest of us a very bad name. 8 doesn't have to be h8.

What it comes down to is this:

The anti-Prop 8ers say that Prop 8 is intolerant.  The pro-Prop 8ers say that tolerance can't only go one way and that you need to respect dissenting opinions and not just label them as "intolerant."  But the thing is, the anti-P8 [I'm tired of typing it out already!] are saying that the pro-P8 are intolerant of gay people, not necessarily of themselves.  They're not saying, "You don't agree with me (that gay marriage should be legal), and therefore you are intolerant."  They're saying, "You are denying others rights because you don't agree with their identity and their lifestyle, and that makes you intolerant."

Now I'm embarassed and sad to say this now, but I did originally support Prop 8, and I am very sorry about it.  I know that sounds kind of lame, but please believe me.  During a special Prop 8 fireside, that principle about tolerance not going just one way was mentioned.  Yes, that's true many times–e.g. Jimmy says, "I like blue," but Jane says, "I don't like blue." If Jimmy then calls Jane intolerant, then yes, Jimmy does not understand that he is being intolerant of her opinion by calling her intolerant.  But if Jane beats Jimmy up and threatens to do soevery time he wears blue, then she is truly being intolerant.  This is what I see Prop 8 doing: it's not just disagreeing with someone, it's working to prevent them making a decision you don't agree with.

Really, this whole "You're intolerant!"  "Well, then that means you're intolerant!"  "No, you're intolerant for calling me intolerant!" mess is ridiculous.  Please look up Freud's theory of projecting, because this is a classic example of it.  Really, it just becomes a war of semantics and what it means to be "intolerant" (does it automatically make you intolerant yourself if you call someone else intolerant?), and as much as I like linguistics, it's just dumb.  Intolerance gives me a headache.

It also comes down to this:

Gays and those who support them are either in the right or are sinners living in denial that what they're doing is wrong.  I mean, I have thought about it from that perspective: what if being "tolerant" of others is really just excusing sin?  But then I try to think of another example, and everything else seems so extreme: Would you be tolerant of bank robbers and not make robbery illegal because they have the right to steal?  Should homicide be legal because we're being intolerant of murderers' choices?  Of course not!  But I'm not about to compare being gay to being a murderer–that's just ridiculous.  It doesn't work.  

And most importantly:  Wanting to get married to the person you love is motivated by. . .love, of course!  I don't understand it; do people think homosexuals want to get married to spite straight people?  Or spread evil?  Or just make a statement and be unorthodox?  I don't think so.  [Sure, whatever, some could; but so could straight couples.]  Those who want the right to marry love each other.  

A compromise?

Domestic partnerships/civil unions should at least have the same legal rights as a marriage.  For starters, at least.  

Misconceptions 

I think people's misconceptions about the gay community stem from not actally knowing any gay people.  If you are one of these people, at least read some blogs to try to understand others.  I would recommend "MoHo" blogs (written by gay Mormons).    I think being gay and Mormon carries the stigma that you "just don't have enough faith" or something, and that's why you haven't been "cured."  Views like this are harmful, hurtful, and truly intolerant.  

MoHos

I really feel inadequate trying to describe the situation gay Mormons are in (since I'm not in it), but I really want to express it well and continually learn and understand more about this predicament.  Gay Mormons are in a weird situation: to keep the Law of Chastity, they can't have any physical relations with members of the same sex.  But that's who they're attracted to!  If you are straight, just imagine not being allowed to get married or have a physical relationship with the person you love dearly.  I can't even image it.  It sounds confusing and like an agonizing decision to make.  It sounds like you would feel as if you're living in a whole different paradigm, a whole different world with a different set of rules, but others are trying to force their own rules on you.  

Conclusion

Think.  It makes sense.

"Speak your mind, even if your voice shakes." -Maggie Kuhn

As a self-proclaimed iconoclast, I have been focusing on debunking the myths perpetuated in Mormon culture. But I can rebel against society in general's falsehoods, too!

I sincerely and earnestly believe in defending freedom of speech for everyone. I believe in the principle "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." My opinions on this subject mainly developed when I learned about Skokie vs. Illinois in my high-school government class. After careful consideration and discussion with my teacher, I realized that I would defend the neo-Nazis' right to peacefully march. You need to look at it objectively--they were a minority whose message was controversial to the majority. I am not defending their message, but just because an idea is controversial and not widely accepted doesn't mean it's wrong. In another instance, the minority could be blacks whose message is racial equality who want to march in an area populated with Klansmen. The minority could be Mormons in Missouri in the 1800s. And, in a twist on the actual Skokie situation, the minority could be Jews in Nazi Germany (yes, they weren't not subject to American law, of course--it's just an example). You can't pick and choose the minority you're going let have free speech.

I may disagree with you (I'm looking at you, Reader's Forum contributors!) and may think your ideas are stupid and that you should not think the way you do, but I will never say that you shouldn't have the right to express those ideas. However, this becomes very hard for me to continue to believe when I consider the opinions of others evil and damaging to spiritual well-being.

An acquaintance ("friend") on facebook posted a note called "Defending Pornography." Hoo boy. There was even a lovely accompanying picture of a woman's barely-and-suggestively-covered behind. This friend did have some research to back up her opinion, but some arguments I considered logical fallacies and some research I thought was misinterpreted on her part. I read this note yesterday afternoon and have been thinking about it. When I read it, one person had said they liked it, and two people had commented on how they liked the picture (shudder/vomit). I debated whether I should post a reply--I barely knew this person in high school and wasn't a fan of the choices she made; she requested to be my friend--wondering if it would be inappropriate to argue with someone I barely knew and had never actually spoken to directly before!!! I knew I wasn't trying to convince her that she was wrong; I just wanted to represent the opposing side. I also have been trying to overcome my aversion to expressing my opinion on controversial subjects for fear of insensitive rejection; I thought that this could be good for me, since I did want to write a reply. I finally realized that if she did post the note on facebook, which meant she expected comments. I posted my thoughts on Prop 8 (which, by the way, I'm not so sure about anymore) and wasn't mad that people posted dissenting opinions. So I did it!

To sum up her ideas: Pornography is good because it promotes sexual freedom and all the enjoyment that comes with it. Women in countries that fight against pornography feel less safe and respected, while women in countries that approve of and allow pornography feel the opposite [I wonder if it has more to do with the society's view on sex in general--whether it's inherently good or inherently evil]. Countries like Japan, which approves of pornography and whose youth commonly look at "porno comics", have lower rates of sex-related crimes, which disproves the notion that pornography encourages violence against women [yeah. right. OK.] If Pornography were illegal in the U.S., the millions-of -dollars industry would go down and hurt the country economically, which we don't need more of. Almost half of internet surfers look at pornography. Adults should be allowed to view pornography on their own because it doesn't hurt anyone else.

OK, and here is my response:

I'm not trying to argue or change your mind, but I want to share my opinion since you posted this publicly. Pornography does hurt people. Sex is inherently good, and it does involve pleasure, but I think its main purpose is to express love to someone else. When it becomes selfish and about giving yourself pleasure by viewing pornography and being aroused, I think that perverts sex. When someone views pornography, they develop certain responses to it and develop expectations. It hurts their significant other/partner when that partner can no longer meet those expectations through sex. Pornography and the feelings it brings becomes stronger than actual sex with another person--which is a sad thing indeed. Something virtual and unreal is replacing actual human contact. That significant other gets hurt because they aren't needed anymore and can't give their partner what they need. I won't make any comment about whether it should be legal or not (because I'm not sure about that myself), but if the issue is if pornography is right or wrong, defending it by saying it would hurt the country economically is not relevant. Whether something is economically profitable or not is not an indication of whether it's right or wrong. If someone were arguing for more gun control to reduce violent crime, fighting them by saying that people who sell handguns would lose their jobs and businesses would lose their revenue wouldn't do a whole lot to convince them. It is also irrelevant how many people view pornography--that may make it socially acceptable, but it doesn't make it right.

Pornography does make people into objects because it emphasizes only the physical aspect of a relationship and not the emotional one. It puts too much emphasis on the body. I don't see how the accompanying picture of the woman's behind does anything back up your point that pornography doesn't make women (or men) "abused and degraded." The first two comments were on how sexy that picture is, not on your research or arguments, which I think says something.

In my personal opinion, pornography doesn't lead to sexual freedom; it leads to slavery because it addictive. It warps your reality and hurts your feeling of self-worth by overemphasizing the body and ignoring all the other parts of your identity. It distorts and perverts something that is supposed to be good, enlightening, and enriching. It is insulting to both women and men to be viewed as mere instruments to satisfy sexual desires.

I believe in your right to express your opinions, my friend on facebook, but you make it so hard when they're so devilish. Sometimes I really wonder what the drafters of the Constitution would think of the things today that are protected by free speech. James Madison, what do you think???

I have to admit that I hope mentioning the word "pornography" so much in this post and using it as one of my tags will direct some people looking for the real stuff to this humble blog. Evil laughter. Except it's good laughter, I guess.

Also, posting a reply on facebook is a lot easier than saying something in person (plus, I can get all my thoughts out and not be interrupted), but it's still nerve-racking for me because I wonder how critical people are of me. I know what people who comment think, but not the people who merely read my thoughts and don't reply. But really, it doesn't matter what they think. Still, I hate for people to be mad at me or label me as a bigot/right-wing nut/judgmental fool. I have always hated for people to be mad at me. No one has openly accused me of being a zealot or anything, but people did come pretty close to the bigot label when Prop 8 was the hot issue. I consider posting this reply a victory for self-improvement. I also need to remember this feeling--how good it is to express your views and not be ashamed--and not let any scorching replies bother me.

"What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular."

That "they" they're always talking about

So who am I afraid of when I'm afraid of being judged?

Fire side speakers and general authorities whose messages seemed restrictive at the time I probably just took too literally, so not them.  And even though I think that everyone in the ward is just waiting to call you out for doing something wrong, I don't think that's how they really are.  I think I should instead direct my anger towards Satan, because he's the real culprit.  He's the one making me feel judged, because he's judging me!  He wants me to feel awful and bad about myself.

Even though I do have an exaggerated view of who is just ready to judge me, there are a few people who bother me mainly because they are this nightmare come true: they really do judge me.  I do mainly blow it out of proportion, but these people I'm right about.  They include the former youth leaders who tell me that praying and reading scriptures will end my depression because I won't be separated from God.  And it's those dang Daily Universe readers' forum writers.  Those are the judgmental, narrow-minded idiots I loathe and am afraid of.  

In the end, it doesn't matter what people think of me.  All that matters is what I think and what God thinks --not because I'm afraid of Him, but because He has the clearest view of how I am and the best intentions.  

Peace, love, and happy Easter!

And now back to my critical side.

Honestly, I'm seeing more and more how this blog is just an outlet for my critical side, which I don't reveal often.  I wish I could be more comfortable showing that side of me to people without fear of being judged or dismissed.  I write this blog to an audience, but only two other people know about this blog.  So, I'll keep writing, and hopefully I'll get the courage and opportunity to mention it or list it on facebook as my blog.

I found an April 7th Daily Universe article (the headline, in fact) unintentionally amusing (the phrase I use is that I find things like this "perversely humorous"). 

Anyway, the article's called "Parents bring focus back to the Savior" and describes how parents teach their children about the real meaning of Easter and don't let the commercialized aspect overwhelm them.  One parent says they do the Easter egg hunt on Saturday.  Another makes cookies where all the ingredients represent the Atonement (sorry, but I think that's weird.  I'd feel weird/guilty eating those cookies). All the parents were quoted as saying were uplifting things they did to make Easter religious-from making weird cookies to having a Sunday Easter FHE.  But every single kid quoted said that their favorite part of Easter was finding the Easter baskets or making eggs.  Every single one.  I like this quote:

"I love the Easter Bunny," Connor said.  "I like to make eggs and the egg hunt."

"I like when we color  paint on the eggs" Alexis said.  "I like to do glitter ones.  It's really fun."

Alexis said she also likes to learn about Jesus.

Does she now?  Then why didn't you quote her saying that?  Including only quotes of kids where they do not mention any religious aspect of Easter as being their favorite make the author look like an idiot for the poor use of quotes or make the parents' actions seem futile and their attitudes overly confident in their parenting skills.

I say, lighten up about being religious.  Kids get it --they have pure hearts.  We should try being more like them instead of trying to make them act more like us.  Kids are not as jaded as adults and don't see the Easter bunny and egg hunts as being just commercial fluff.  It's happy and fun, and if they connect happiness to Easter, that's great.  Also, I think so much "serious stuff" goes over kids' heads, but they get it deep down.  Once I was helping out with a primary activity, and I asked a little boy if he wanted to go hear a story about Jesus.  "No!" he answered.  "I don't like Jesus!"  Puzzled, I answered, "Well, Jesus loves you.  Why don't you like him?"  "Because He's a dinosaur!!!"  Now try teaching him how a dinosaur was resurrected.  

Some Good News, actually

Here's a positive post!

On mormon.org, people who have questions about the church can chat online with a missionary.  I recently volunteered at the MTC as one of those missionaries and had a surprisingly good and uplifting experience talking with a guy I'll call Bob.

For awhile, there wasn't anyone online, so I was just reading Preach My Gospel and waiting.  Finally, Bob came on.  He knew the Bible really well and had some thoughtful questions.  The bulk of his questions were about baptism for the dead and how I knew it worked and why it wasn't mentioned in the Bible.  It was great–he was skeptical, but he seemed like he wanted to learn and was open to hearing about my beliefs.  He would give me certain verses and ask what they meant, I would give my interpretation and ask what his was.  It was a nice discussion, and it really got me thinking.  At first, I experienced a little anxiety because I wanted to say the right thing.  But that soon disappeared, and I realized how much I loved discussing the Gospel.  He asked how old I was after I said I had been a Mormon all my life (because he wanted to know how long I had been a Mormon, he said).  I just said I was a college student, and he said he was too.  I'm naturally skeptical, and I don't know if he was telling the truth, and I still don't.  But anyway.

We also talked about faith and works, and it helped me realize new things about those principles: What separates faith from mere belief is that you act on it.  So, if you don't have works, you don't have faith.  e.g. You could say you believe in prayer, but if you don't pray, it seems like you really don't believe in it.  [Side note: e.g. means "exempli gratia" ("for the sake of example") and is used when you're given an example.  It's like "for example, . . ."  i.e. means "id est" ("that is") and is used when you're clarifying something.  Yes, I was a linguistics major.  Yes, I am taking Latin next semester. :) ]  In the end, it's really not your works that save you --it's Christ's grace -His atonement.  We are saved by grace.  But we must also have faith, belief in Christ, to be saved, and you can't have faith without works.  

When 10 o'clock rolled around when we volunteers have to leave, I told Bob that I really didn't want to but had to go; I said to keep searching for the truth and said again how much I enjoyed talking with him, a true Christian who loved the scriptures.  He kept saying, "Wait, one more thing. . . ." and then asked if he could email me?  He gave me his email address and some scriptures to read, and I promised I'd email him.

So, I left the MTC happy and excited to continue our conversation through email.  I emailed Bob after I had read his "assigned scriptures" and asked what he wanted to talk about.  Well, apparently, he wanted to talk about how those scriptures were at odds with Mormon doctrine because they continually assert that there is only one God.  He said that Mormons "preach three gods," which I took to mean that we say the Godhead are three separate beings, not one.  He had some other things to say about how Mormonism was wrong, too.  Bob also prayed that the holy spirit would teach  me the truth.

I responded kindly and explain that when I had read those scriptures, the assertions that there is only one God was comforting to me.  I agreed with it.  It made me realize that even if you have a different idea of God, when you pray to God, you are praying to Heavenly Father.  I explained that our view of the Godhead still means we believe that God is the only God and that the three members of the Godhead all work to bring about God's purpose: to help us gain salvation/be saved.  I discussed the other things he had brought up, too, and I also asked him not to tell me what Mormons preach, because as a Mormon I have the authority to know what we do and do not preach.

His next email was even more emphatic that Mormonism was false and that I was wrong.  It was a full-on effort to convert me (or un-convert me I guess).  He gave me websites, one anti-Mormon and one from a former LDS bishop who was now a born-again Christian.  The anti-Mormon one asserted that we are not Christians, etc.  because we believe in "another Jesus" which bugs the crap out of me.  Just as there is one God, there is one Jesus, and we believe in Him!  Yes, this touched a nerve --people telling me what I do and do not believe.  I think I know what I believe, people.  Back off.  

These emails made me sad, because our relationship had turned from a friendly discussion to a one-sided one where his only purpose was to prove I was wrong.  Yes, I believe that my religion is true and so that naturally contradicts other religions, but I knew I could learn from him too and wanted to.  He didn't want to learn at all from me--every point I could ever bring up he could contest.  I decided to email him and be straightforward: If his only purpose was to tell me I was wrong instead of to discuss religion, and didn't want any further contact from him.  It's always hard for me to be straightforward and I "verbally hedge" by throwing in maybes and if-you-coulds and such, but I'm really trying to work on it, and I've gotten a lot better.  

I ended the email with my testimony of Jesus Christ in response to the website's assertion that I was not Christian.  I said that I knew He is the Son of God, that He came to earth, atoned for our sins and died on the cross.  I knew He was resurrected three days later and lives now, and that He and God love us.  I wished Bob a happy Easter.

I still haven't checked my inbox to see if he responded, and I wanted to write this before he did.  I don't know how much this whole experience affected him, but it has helped me tremendously.  Let me tell you what I learned/further realized.

I am a recovering pharisee, I really am.  I was oh so letter-of-the-law in high school.  Sheesh.  So much.  I was continually passionate about rejecting the pharisees' beliefs when reading the Bible, partly because I knew I had the tendency to do the same thing.  There was a quote that hung on the wall in my seminary classroom that got to me.  I can't find it right now, but I'm still looking.  It was about how testimony could be lost if we did not seek to preserve it every single day, every single morning.  It had something to do with it being your goal every morning, so it lent itself to encourage us to come to early-morning seminary.  I was really bad at being on time since I am neither punctual nor a morning person, and I felt bad for missing so much seminary and worried about my testimony.

Well, let me tell you something.  I don't remember the last time I read my scriptures or went to the temple.  I can't.  I would feel sorry about that earlier in my life, but I don't now.  I still pray.  I still go to church.  I still pay tithing.  I went to general conference.  I'm not just going through the motions.  But what earlier in my life I thought I had to do to stay righteous/good/keep a testimony, etc. . . .I don't know.  I know God understands my situation.  Right now, it's hard to read the scriptures because of the emphasis sometimes on our nothingness and our status as sinners.  I know that's not the main point, but those things just stand out to me and get me right now.  He knows I'm still searching for truth by pondering.  I've been reading a lot more books, and I get gospel insights from them.  

Anyway, my point is, it would seem to a lot of people that a girl struggling with her view of the church who hasn't read the scriptures or gone to the temple for awhile should also be struggling with her testimony.

Wrong.  Bob's attacks did nothing to make me falter.  I know that this is Christ's church and that everyone who has a calling in it is called of God (including me!)  I know Joseph Smith was a prophet.  I know all these things.  That hasn't gone away.  It is so ingrained in me that I could never deny it--it is written in my heart.  This seems obvious when I say it, but it's not about the outward manifestations of faith.  It's about your heart.  It really is.  Naturally, as I said before about faith and works, reading the scriptures and going to the temple would be consequences of testimony.  But people can also do these things to just go through the motions.  Good ol' Bob helped remind me of my rock-solid testimony built on "the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God."  (Helaman 5:12).

Happy Easter, everyone.  We have so much to be thankful for.

I am embarrassed for the sheer imbecility of this failed rhetoric.

Here are two letters to the editor from today that made me sit in silence and mentally weep for the people who think like this about me. My comments are in bold. I hope you enjoy.

Refresher course

In the March 30 letter, "Proper appreciation," the author openly suggests that BYU is forcing women to be subjects of society pressure. Your tone, sir, suggests that this is a bad view because it is wrong. Nope. Perhaps a refresher course on the church's viewpoints would help. Thank you sir, for taking the time out to educate a flighty, ignorant female. Your tone is patronizing, and I don't like it. First of all, perhaps BYU and the Church encourage women to prepare themselves to get married and raise a family in order to fulfill the gospel. I am not saying those things are all a woman can do, but the church does state that the woman is responsible for those things. You don't mention anything else a woman could do in a positive light in this entire letter. Just because you say, "I'm not saying that. . ." doesn't mean you're not implying it. As the Proclamation to the World on families I didn't know this was about families; thanks for enlightening me. By the way, I just love it when people quote scripture, etc. in these letters. implies, men and women have different roles. They are equally important, but they do have different roles. This sounds just like lip service ("they are equally important") because he doesn't seem to believe it. Also, the roles are not mutually exclusive; they overlap. Men have family responsibility too.

I apologize to the author for being behind the times, what a generous apology. but I personally encourage the Church's (and BYU's) efforts in helping women prepare for a more traditional role. This sounds really nice coming from a man. Last time I checked, women still could take classes to learn skills such as managing your finances and other classes to help women break through "the glass ceiling." Come to think of it, I think you can even major in whatever to want these days. OK, those two sentences are just stupid. I have never heard the argument that BYU restricts what classes women can take and majors they can pursue. He makes it sound like this is a great point that's supposed to stop the opposition dead in their tracks, but it's just dumb. I am embarrassed for the sheer imbecility of this failed rhetoric. The point is what these classes and majors are preparing women for.

Lastly, I am sorry the author's experience at BYU has been so outdated. You don't sound sorry, sonny. Perhaps you could transfer to a school that is more ready to openly support a woman's right to have an abortion, sexual promiscuity, and all the other things that our women's rights activists fight for today. Yeah! Those dang feminists, fighting for abortion, promiscuity, equal pay in the work place, equal respect for women if they choose to have a career, prevention and punishment of sexual harassment, the list of these sinful things just goes on and on. And yeah, like there's no sexual promiscuity (hang on, what other kind of promiscuity is there??) here or anything. I wonder if a lady rejects Blake's NCMO invitation, he would say that she is not yielding to his natural authority as the man and is one of those sinful feminists. And I hate the implication that all other schools are just filled with promiscuous women who abort their babies. That's pretty dang judgmental. There are good people everywhere. Hey, you might even get the priesthood there HA! Woman having the Priesthood! Preposterous! It's not called the Priestesshood, hardy har har! and find buildings that have women's names on them! HA! Women's names on them! Take that! Yeah, like that'd be a good idea! Ha ha ha ha ha! I don't know how anyone could even consider such a ridiculous idea! That was a good joke, there, Blake.

Blake Johnson I want to smack you. Oh, that could be misinterpreted-I mean physical violence, not public affection.

Orem I could say that you're so narrow-minded because you're from Utah, but I won't stoop that low.

What is most important

In the March 30 letter, "Proper Appreciation," I read her complaints about the church's emphasis on motherhood, and how she wishes BYU would concern itself with the glass ceiling and names of buildings. I agree with her concerns. I then turned on page 8 of the same day's paper and read Sister Mary N. Cook's enlarged quote,Oh ho ho, what clever juxtaposition! Gold star. Not. "[Satan] I don't trust that his bracketing is accurate. Who knows if this quote really was referring to Satan??? has made motherhood seem less important. He has been successful in confusing women about their roles in the Lord's divine plan. Then I went online and watched President Monson's talk What, like, immediately? You got up from first reading the letter, then the quote (just the quote, apparently, not the whole article), and then immediately went online? How righteous of you. from the Saturday Young Women meeting I wouldn't admit that, dude. JK. where he counseled them to have the courage to stand up for their beliefs and their divine role. He cited scriptures including Nephi's vision (also known as Lehi's vision)where those who ate the fruit were ashamed and fell away, Ooh, that nasty juxtaposition again! He's not saying it outright, but he means that people like the author of that letter are like the ashamed people who fall away and the warning to beware of those who call evil good and good evil. Equality in the workplace=Evil. Deleting all sense of your identity apart from being a mother=Good. Whoops. I just failed to listen to your advice. I fail to understand why the honor and challenge of raising the generation that will prepare the Earth for the Lord's return Wow! He even knows the date of the Second Coming; now that's impressive. appeals less to some women than the drudgery of the corporate world. Because that's the only type of career to have--working for some corporation. And let's salute the men for slaving away every day in the drudgery of the corporate world. Good job. And if it's so great (and yes, it is), why don't you mention that men should also participate in this privilege? It is not an insult to promote motherhood. That's correct, actually. It is a compliment to women's strength, intelligence and potential. It depends on the way it's done, bucko. For both men and women, our best effort and ambitions should be focused on what is most important in life: our families and our homes. OK, I do agree with that; I like that he says it's both the man's and woman's job to care for the family. But he doesn't give any hint of this view in anything he says previously.

Cameron Nielsen

Aloha, Ore. Why is there a city called Aloha in Oregon? Now that's just whack.

Don't judge me

You know what I wish?  I wish people weren't so quick to label someone as doing something or thinking something that's "wrong."  It's not necessarily wrong; it just may be different.  People seem to just automatically denounce someone without learning his/her (werf's) whole story.

People who do this peeve me so much, and a large part of the reason is I used to totally be like that and have since seen how wrong I was.  

Don't denounce people who are emo/suicidal/depressed.  They're not just some selfish, overly dramatic person.

Don't denounce gay people.  They're looking for love too, and you have no idea how they feel.  I think it would be cool to make a version of West Side Story/ Romeo and Juliet where instead of the two leads being from different families, they were both the same gender and from bigoted families.  That would get people thinking.

Don't denounce feminists.  It's not that we don't want to be mothers, it's that we don't want that to be a choice made for us by society.  And whoever says she doesn't need an education because she's just going to be a stay-at-home mom is an idiot (and will stay that way.  Ha ha.)  If you know me well, you know that I want to be a mom so much.  I really do dream about being a mom and having kids.  But that doesn't mean I don't have other dreams, too (like being a teacher and doing humanitarian work and getting an education).  To me, being a mom is more important than these other goals I have, but I still have other goals and don't want to be told by some pinhead that I'm listening to Satan when I say that (OK, this was inspired by today's Daily Universe letters "What Is Most Important" and "Refresher Course."  I really need to write a separate post on this.)

Don't denounce people of other religions.  They aren't necessarily hard-hearted (though I will admit that some are; but there are hard-hearted Mormons too, folks), and they're not backwards, sinful, or ignorant.  Instead of saying that other religions have "slivers of truth" that are just little pieces of what we believe, we need to see what doctrines other religions talk about that we have forgotten about or ignore.  There are good people searching for truth in every religion.  And there are stupid, narrow-minded, hypocrites and every religion too, probably.  Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare.

That's about it for now.  Basically every point I need to expand into a separate post (and I will, I promise).  I have already addressed the emo/suicidal/depressed issue in the post "Happy Happy Joy Joy."

Peace and love.

I read the news today, oh boy.

I thank the Daily Unifarce and its pinheaded minions for giving me fodder for this blog. Thank you for allowing dimwitted students, through the "Readers' Forum" voice their narrow-minded, offensive viewpoints. I swore off reading the Readers' Forum for awhile on behalf of my blood pressure, but the feeling still lurked that even though I wasn't reading about these opinions, there were still plenty of students around me who held them--ignoring these idiots doesn't make them go away.

I read today's Readers Forum during an hour lunch break but was still steaming mad when I got to German. I had stopped going to class because of my medical condition, but I came back today because we were talking about the Holocaust; to stop a horror and atrocity against humanity like that from happening again, we need to know about it, so I went to learn (and because I wondered how it would be different learning about it in a German class). I listened, and then before too long I realized I needed to write the response to these nincompoops I had been brewing in my head. So, while listening to my professor talk about those evil "democratic socialists," I fired this lovely letter off to some modern-day Nazis:

(by the way, here is the opinion page from today; my letter is directed to "Respect Yourself" and "Considerate Clothing." Man, those titles just say it all.)

To the self-righteous, arrogant pigs who had the gall to write letters to the editor:

What authority do you have to lecture your fellow students? How do you even have the nerve to chastise and talk down to them? I am not even one of these horrid sinners who burn copies of the Honor Code for fun and show affection on the grass, but I am still insulted. I am embarrassed that people like you go to this university. How is it your business what couples do in public? If it bothers you, don't look, you idiot. If couples lying (not laying, you uneducated slob) on each other sends you into such an uproarious tizzy, maybe it's you that needs help.

As to your suggestion to not do anything you wouldn't be comfortable doing in front of a parent or general authority–This is an oft-used method to keep people in line. For example, John Bytheway asks youth (well, female youth) how they would feel if the prophet was staying at the same hotel where your prom was and he saw you in your immodest dress?! Well, I don't want to dress modestly out of fear of being caught, judged, and embarrassed. I also think that if I, clad immodestly, did run into the prophet, he would be kind and loving, as you ought to be. He would not make me feel bad or ashamed. There are many things I would want to do in front of a parent or GA, such as enthusiastically play air guitar complete with slashing windmills or pretend to be a duck, but that doesn't make those things wrong. We shouldn't have to live in fear of being caught doing bad things by others like parents, GAs, or back biting morons like you. Thank you, Honor Code police for keeping us all in line.

And to the sexist premie (who with his appropriate Priesthood authority, of course) blamed the young women of Helaman Halls for his unclean thoughts: how dare you. You are just perpetuating unrighteous dominion and the beating down and blaming of women for what is not their fault. If their being "half naked" (what a hyperbole) offends you, don't look at them. If they're wearing a tank top and shorts (the absolute horror!!!!), that's more modest than a bathing suit. Do you flagellate yourself after accidentally glimpsing a girl at a pool or beach? I hope you douse your eyes with acid as you should after seeing such a horrendous sight. Would you prefer us women to wear veils and long sleeves and skirts so as not to tempt you? I mean, women are sinful creatures who are temptresses to otherwise righteous men. It is always our fault that we are your pornography.

No, I'm sorry, I'm being ungrateful. I'm glad you've pointed out whom we can blame if the freshmen men of BYU aren't worthy for missions–those devilish young harlots in their slutty clothes.

Authors, maybe these iniquitous, hard-hearted people in question would actually be willing to respect what you say if you weren't so condescending, holier-than-thou, and didn't speak as if you were calling these people steeped in iniquity to repentance.

Get over yourselves and stop judging others. You are absolute jackasses, and I'm ashamed on behalf of all Latter-day Saints that there are such myopic, misguided, pompous, unspeakably arrogant moron Mormons like you.

On Friday, the issues & ideas editor Samantha Strong (whose piece on R-rated movies I actually liked) described the letters that come in reaction to other letters to the editor:

"Usually, the knee-jerks pop in first–the letters that vehemently applaud or condemn the original message. The authors of these letters have either already thought through the issue and are eager to communicate the conclusions they have carefully arrived at previously, or they are simply reacting. They say the first thing that comes to their minds, often impassioned and often unintelligible. It's usually the latter."

Yes, this characterizes my letter. Yes, it could be viewed as hypocritical since I'm berating these idiots for berating others. But whatever. I'm not sending it in. And even though it is an impassioned reaction, that doesn't mean that it has no value or is not correct.

I really wonder how those students would function at a more liberal university (and I know, there's not many that are more liberal than BYU, let me tell you!). I imagine them curled up in the corner of a dark room, holding up a crucifix to the unwashed heathen who try to communicate with them. I wonder how they survived high school; maybe they're from Utah or were home schooled.

My main issue with these letters' authors is that they feel the need to correct others, feel justified to do so, and their tone suggests that they are a moral compass to these wayward souls, who definitely need to listen to them.

Also, I had just read my sociology textbook's chapter on gender inequality, which made me notice the sexism in "Considerate Clothing" more. We discussed last semester in New Testament class that in New Testament times (plus before and after, as we see it still exists today), if a man and woman committed adultery it was always the woman's fault. Women were temptresses who needed to be contained to protect the virtue of men. My terrific professor, Dr. Holzapfel, pointed out that even nowadays, if a guy messes around and then repents or whatever people let him move on. But if a girl does that, she has soiled her name forever. There are different standards for men and women. This dumb"Considerate Clothing" letter is just another example of those horrible letters to the editor about how the women on campus are disobeying the Honor Code and need to cover up more, because they are disturbing the men. PIGS! Those people make me sick.

Stay posted for more. . . posts mocking Daily Unifarce letters to the editor! It'll be fun!

A Parrot-Ox

I have trouble making sense of this paradox found when pairing scriptures such as these:

"And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth; but behold, it belongeth to him who created you" (Mosiah 2:25. Oh, yeah, emphasis added. But whenever are the scriptures italicized??).

and

"Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God" (D&C 18:10).

If the worth of souls is great, but we are less than dust, then dust must be pretty dang valuable. I'm sure this makes sense somehow, but I don't understand it now. I just got through with talking with someone who said that God gives us things that we do not deserve and that we would never be worthy of. I always balk at statements like that: it sounds more like the perspective of a slave to his master than of a child to his father. I imagine a penitent figure bowing before God, who looks like the statue of Zeus from Hercules, saying, "I am not worthy!" Yes, that's how I imagine it. It also reminds me of an exchange from the fabulous movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

God:What are you doing now?

King Arthur: Averting our eyes, O Lord.

God: Well don't. It's just like those miserable psalms–they're so depressing.

God also says, "Every time I try to talk to someone, it's 'I'm sorry this' or 'Forgive me that' or 'I'm not worthy. . . .'"

I think there is indeed some truth from this irreverent 70s comedy: God doesn't want us beating ourselves up and prostrating ourselves before Him. Does He give us things we don't deserve? Well, what does deserve mean? If it means, "What we earn, based on justice," then no, we probably don't deserve forgiveness. But that's neglecting mercy and the fact that we are divine children of God. Yes, according to justice, we don't deserve forgiveness; but justice isn't the only thing at play. Perhaps when this point is made, it's just emphasizing that we can't just rely on justice to make sense of punishment and forgiveness.

Part of the reason I have such a negative knee-jerk reaction to statements such as "We don't deserve what God gives us" is that I have been so hard on myself, setting higher standards than God had for me. I've been way too harsh and thought I was making so many mistakes–which is not only normal, but fine, because we can't be perfect. I've been trying so hard to get out of that mind set, thinking I'm not "clean" or "worthy" that I hate it when someone comes along and says something to perpetuate the myth that we are such horrible, base creatures who don't even deserve mercy from our Heavenly Father.

Happy Happy Joy Joy

One of my biggest complaints with LDS culture (remember-not the Gospel itself, but the culture that twists the truths of the Gospel) is the notion that if we just have enough faith and do everything right (e.g. read scriptures, pray, go to church, pay tithing, fulfill callings, etc.) we should always be happy.  Really, if you're sad, you're doing something wrong.  Obviously.  "Men are that they might have joy" and all that, you know?  Well, "joy" does not mean being perkily, heel-clicking happy all the time.  Joy can be just a calm peace amidst the storms of life; it is the core solidarity in times of change and confusion.  This solidarity comes from knowing the truth of the Gospel.  Unfortunately, many people think having "joy" means always having a great day and smiling.  

I was recently diagnosed with depression and anxiety, and it has been increasingly obvious to me that people are mistaken about why people are sad.  So often, it's said that having the Gospel brings happiness and that only those who know the truth are truly happy.  Yes, that's true.  But happy as in the happiness that comes from knowing the truth (as in the elimination of existential angst); it isn't always the same kind of "happy" you feel when it's your birthday or you eat your favorite food or that cool guy asks you out.

Since I was tired of hiding how I really felt (clinically depressed) and tired of cringing every time people asked, "How are you?" and clearly just expected me to say, "Good, how are you?" and move on with the conversation, I posted a note on facebook explaining what was going on in my life: I was like the sad little Zoloft blob who felt no interest in things anymore, I had insomnia from the racing thoughts I had from anxiety, my medication hadn't kicked in yet and was only making me exhausted, I had physically injured myself to deal with the pain.  Loads of people responded, and most were helpful and good.  I had spelled out in my note that no, I didn't want advice and that the most meaningful thing someone could do is just be there for me and able to listen.

Some of the responses were not so pleasing, and they were from adults in my home ward.  One of their messages included the phrase, "We all have our ups and downs."  The other was from a previous youth leader who is one of those people who is always perky and grateful for EVERYTHING.  The gist of her message was to read my scriptures and pray more and I would feel better, God is so close to me and wants me to succeed, and read two talks from the past General Conference: "The Infinite Power of Hope" and "Come What May and Love It."  "Come What May and Love It"?  Really?  Yes, I just love cutting myself with a knife!  Yippee!  This message also said that hope was on the way!  OK, so the basic message is that I am sad because I am separated from God; to close the gap, I need to read scriptures and pray more.  I am not separated from God at all!  At.  All.  This is a mental illness, not a manifestation of my iniquity and how I've turned my back on God!

Most of the time, I feel unmotivated and blah.  Sometimes I have bursts of enthusiasm for something.  I noticed on facebook that my friends mostly update their statuses when they have something good to share, and I felt myself doing that.  I felt myself trying to find the good and put on that happy face for the world when I felt miserable.  So I just updated my status to say that I was unhappy, but that that was OK.  Well, one of the perky little pixies in my ward commented by saying, "Oh no!  I hope you feel better!  And then that will be even more OK!"  OK, sweetie, I think you're missing the point.  There is no "more OK."  How I feel is OK.  There is nothing wrong with how I feel, OK?  I don't need to be fixed.

People have skipped over "mourning with those that mourn" and "comforting those that stand in need of comfort."  They're just on automatic fix-it mode.  Lessons about trials always emphasize that we can get over them!  Yay!  But what beauty there is in having someone say, "I know your life sucks right now.  I'm sorry.  I'm here for you."  Gosh, that is so much better than having someone tell you exactly how to fix your problem (which really is being "separated from God.")  Let's please acknowledge that having trials doesn't mean you're doing something wrong.

Rivaling the usefulness of telling a depressed person to read scriptures and pray more is the idea that the trials are going to help you be SO MUCH STRONGER and that God KNOWS THAT YOU CAN HANDLE IT and TRUSTS YOU or else He wouldn't have "sent" this trial.  I was just browsing pieces of flair on facebook under the subject "depression" and found a pin that says, "God gives us tests because He knows we are strong enough to pass them."  1. That doesn't make me feel better.  2. Some sucky things are just life; God doesn't spend time picking and choosing what to afflict us with.  He is our father.  Yes, parents help you through trials and give you counsel.  But do they purposely afflict you with trials?  No.  Does the mom of a middle schooler call up a classmate and ask her to be especially catty to her daughter so that her daughter can learn valuable lessons from having a bully at school?  NO!  It doesn't help me to hear how much stronger I'm going to be at the end of this, because who knows when that's going to be?  And what about now?  What do I do about this now?  I found another flair pin that said, "If pain is weakness leaving the body, I must have superhuman strength."  Amen to that, brotha!  

I am sad, and that's OK.  Get off my case.

Peace out.