Holiday Trees?

A Facebook friend posted a chain-letter-type status that was partly written by Ben Stein and partly written by some anonymous contributor who added his/her two cents to a forwarded email (though the post claims that Stein wrote it all).  I wanted so badly to hash out my problems with the post (there is faulty logic, generalizations and assumptions, troubling religious ideas, etc.) but I didn't want to start an argument with a friend on Facebook.  So, I'm posting my response here.

 Note: the original post is italicized, what I actually posted as a comment is bold, and the regular text is what I would have posted had I not cared about starting a fight.

Apparently the White House referred to Christmas Trees as “Holiday Trees” for the first time this year (not true) which prompted CBS presenter, Ben Stein, to present this piece which I would like to share with you. I think it applies just as much to m

any countries as it does to America . . .



The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.


My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, “Merry Christmas” to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a crib, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. Sometimes Christians are legitimately pushed around, put I think most of the time when people complain about being "pushed around," it really means that their religious philosophy isn't being treated as the exclusive truth (that everyone must accept) and the official religion of America.   I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. It's not an atheist country.  But it's not a Christian country either.  It is a religiously neutral country, or at least the Constitution says it should be ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...").I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God? No one (whom I agree with) says you can't worship God.  Anyone is allowed to worship the god of his or her choice.  The problem is that you don't get to force everyone to worship the same god that you do.  I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her: “How could God let something like this happen?” (regarding Hurricane Katrina). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said: “I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. This is absolutely horrendous and ridiculous.  That is not a gentlemanly move.  God in His infinite wisdom would know that it would not benefit anyone to do that.  How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?”  Who is this "we" she's referring to?  Did everyone who suffered from Katrina personally ask God to back off?  No.  It doesn't make sense.  Innocent people would be punished for others' mistakes.  Everyone I've seen post this is Mormon, and one of the Articles of Faith states that "men shall be punished for their own sins".

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.     Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. As far as I can tell from what I've read, the problem isn't that people pray in schools—anyone can privately pray to whomever they want.  What people fight against is having school-sponsored, official Bible study and prayer.  It would be exclusionary to those who practiced a different or no religion.  Religious clubs and groups are allowed on campuses and they can pray and read the Bible.  The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK.  1. That's not all the Bible says.  There's a lot about war, misogyny, and God-sanctioned murder too.  2. The Bible isn't the only text that says not to kill and to love your neighbor as yourself.  You don't need to believe in the Bible to believe in those two ideas.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem Wait...is the author actually criticizing abstaining from using physical violence against children???  How does that even fit in with the rest of this?  And how is spanking explicitly related to religion???  (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide FALSE). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.   All children have no conscience?  And all children who have gone on shooting sprees were raised by people who said there should be no prayer in schools?  Because no Christian has ever been a murderer.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell.   Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. This part makes it so obvious that this is supposed to be a chain letter passed by email: Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.  Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit.

If not, then just discard it.... no one will know you did. But if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

Ben Stein only wrote part of this, just so's you know.  And some of the "facts" presented (like the White House calling them "holiday trees" and Dr. Spock's son committing suicide) are false (plus I think there is some reasoning that is faulty).

It seems to me that a lot of it (mainly the parts that Stein didn't write) contain unfair assumptions and generalizations (e.g. not reading the Bible in schools means not teaching about the immorality of murder and the importance of loving others and is the cause of increased violence).  Insisting that kids not participate in a certain religion in schools is not the same thing as turning your back on God—it simply means that you don't want one set of beliefs held as superior to others or to coerce children into believing in a certain religion. 

I find the part about God allowing Katrina to happen because he listened when people "told him to back off" troubling; it suggests that God would have prevented the hurricane if only more people praised him in public, which means that, by allowing the hurricane to happen (for the reason she suggests), he is punishing innocent people for the mistakes of others.  It also makes God sound arrogant and prideful because he will punish people for not praising and respecting him.  I don't think that backing away would be the "gentlemanly" move—it sounds more childish to me (it sounds like he's saying, "You don't want me?  Huh??  Huh??  Well, see how you like it when I just leave!  That'll show you!"

How to argue* with Mormons

*Discuss, debate, converse from opposing sides, not necessarily in an aggressive manner.

Note: These guidelines are not necessary for all Mormons—just the Mormons who give the rest a bad name by being narrow minded and illogical.

Don't swear.

Swearing sets you apart as the "other," the "them" in "us vs. them."  A totally faithful, active member would not "degrade" his- or herself by swearing, so you lose your credibility.  Your swears are also a distraction that the person can pounce on and chide you for (i.e. they can comment on your bad choice of swearing and then ignore any argument that contained the swears).

Don't make fun/light of subjects considered sacred.

This will get you labeled as anti-Mormon and you will be ignored.  Nothing you say will be listened to.

Be polite, not sarcastic.

If you are not respectful toward their beliefs, you will also be labeled as anti-Mormon and lacking understanding.  You will be considered ignorant and perhaps a tool of Satan.

Stay on topic.

Don't give them opportunity to get off topic themselves by mentioning something that is irrelevant that they can latch onto.  They, and all people who do not use logic to discuss, love an opportunity to ignore your actual valid points by paying attention to a distraction.

Do I dare disturb the universe?

My anguished state of mind and my opinions on religion I only reveal to a few close friends and to strangers on the internet.  I want to share my thoughts and ask my myriad questions in church, but I'm terrified of the reaction I could get.  I'm afraid that people will think I am disrespectful, prideful, and hard hearted.  I am afraid that they will easily dismiss my concerns and write me off.

From their point of view, I ought to have more faith and I ought to study out these questions I have and come to the same conclusions that they have—but, if that is what I'm supposed to do, how can I do that without opening up dialogue and asking others for help?  Since in their mind they are correct, what better way to discover the truth than by asking for their input?

I would not be asking questions to push people's buttons or start a controversy—I would be honestly asking.  If I can find some new answers that I hadn't considered, that would be great.  I'm just afraid that people will think I'm just being obnoxious and trying to stir up trouble.  I suppose that as long as I keep my tone of voice sounding like I'm earnestly questioning instead of betraying a chip on my shoulder it will be OK.

Reductio ad absurdum

If the Priesthood and motherhood are equal,

• Girls should start having babies at age 12.
• Anyone who is fertile should be allowed the Priesthood.
• Having the Priesthood conferred upon you should be physically impossible without a female present.
• Randomly losing Priesthood power/authority through no fault of one's own should be an expected risk.
• The Priesthood should be able to be violently and painfully forced on males.
• A man should be married to receive the Priesthood.  If he is not but still performs Priesthood duties, however well, he should be frowned upon.
• The most divine and powerful being to ever live should have been a mother, blessed with the ability to allow others to be mothers too.
• The human race should have ended fairly soon after the apostles died because no babies should have been able to be born.
• A woman should be able to make another woman pregnant.

A gross self-deception

Quentin L. Cook:

"When it comes to morality, some adults believe that adherence to a single, overriding humanitarian project or principle nullifies the need to comply with the Savior’s teachings. They say to themselves that sexual misconduct is 'a small thing … [if I am] a kind and charitable person.^'  Such thinking is a gross self-deception."

Who cares if you're kind!  You cares if you have charity!  The Book of Mormon says, "[I]f ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth."  Apparently, that really doesn't matter if you're having extra-marital sex.  It's fine if you're a nasty, misanthropic jerk as long as you're celibate.

I have hated hearing people categorize the "sexually immoral" only by their sexual conduct--as if that's all that matters about them.  Often it seems people lump all "sinners" together—people having sex in a loving, committed relationship that isn't a marriage are in the same category as pedophiles and murderers.  I have spoken up to say that someone could be having sex outside of marriage, but think about how they could also be a really kind, honest person with a love of others.  That must count for something.

I'm sure Elder Cook would argue that it does count for something, but not as much as I think it does.  I hate that this statement makes it seem like any positive qualities a person may have are overshadowed by the fact that s/he is having sex with someone Elder Cook thinks s/he shouldn't be having it with.

Will there be more women in heaven?

"God placed within women divine qualities of strength, virtue, love, and the willingness to sacrifice to raise future generations of His spirit children." --Quentin L. Cook, April 2011 General Conference

This is what I'm wondering: Is he implying that God did not place within men strength, virtue, love, and the willingness to sacrifice?  I don't think that he would say that this is what he means.  So why point out that women have those qualities if they're not unique?

Does he think that women possess these qualities more than men?  

Yes, I could be reading far into this, but the suggestion that the willingness to sacrifice is a feminine virtue just seems to suggest that women are the ones who are supposed to sacrifice more—which of course is not equal.  From the same talk:

A recent United States study asserts that women of all faiths “believe more fervently in God” and attend more religious services than men do. “By virtually every measure they are more religious."

So this is a pat on the back for women because they are more faithful?  That's still benevolent sexism to say that women are somehow better than men (and so don't need the leadership positions that men get).  Honestly, the habit of saying, "Of course you're not equal to men, ladies—you're better than them!" sickens me.  I of course would not prefer that they said, "Ladies, you're worth less than men"—just to make that clear.

If women really did have an equitable position in the church, there would be no need of this talk.  When we exchange the feminine words for the masculine, we get this: 

"I believe the men of the Church today meet that challenge and are every bit as strong and faithful. The Relief Society leadership of this Church at all levels gratefully acknowledges the service, sacrifice, commitment, and contribution of the brethren.

Much of what we accomplish in the Church is due to the selfless service of men. Whether in the Church or in the home, it is a beautiful thing to see the priesthood and the Relief Society work in perfect harmony. Such a relationship is like a well-tuned orchestra, and the resulting symphony inspires all of us."

To me, that either sounds ridiculous or sexist.  When I say sexist, I say that in this context it sounds like we're raising men up above women.  It's clearly sexism when it's done with men—but it's still sexism to imply that women are better.  Neither is better—we are equal.  We have equal potential for qualities such as sacrifice, virtue, love, and—yes—nurturing and child rearing!  It's a disservice to men to say that they somehow lack the capabilities to care for children as well.  

Really, I think most of any ineptitude on the part of men to know how to care for children comes from the cultural expectations—little boys aren't taught to dream of being fathers the way girls dream of being mommies.  If we didn't separate the genders so much when dealing with children, I don't think they would grow up thinking that they are as different from one another as we currently think we are.

A friend recently had a conversation with her roommates about the possibility of polygamy in heaven.  They seemed to think that it would be necessary because there would naturally be more women in heaven—since women are somehow more righteous.  I know that this isn't official church doctrine, but I've heard this idea elsewhere as well.  I've even heard someone claim that none of the souls who followed Satan were women.  Once again, women are the ones called on to sacrifice because of their better nature!  Honey, I know you have to share a husband with other women, thereby implying that one man is equal to several women—but it's because you're so much better than he is!

It seems we are so desperate to prove women are as good as men, even resorting to hyperbole about how there will be more righteous women than men (of course, theoretically, there would probably not be an exactly equal number of men versus women, but the suggestion seems to be that the disparity will be so great that most women will need to practice polygamy).  I honestly think that if men and women truly had equal positions and opportunities we wouldn't have to work so hard to convince ourselves that women are treated as equals.

Why I signed up to teach senior missionary couples

"Do you speak a foreign language?"

"Sir, do you speak a foreign language?"

"Sir, do you speak a foreign language?"

The MTC people were at a booth in the Wilk, asking people who passed if they could speak a foreign language.  Wait, no, that's wrong.  They were asking the men if they spoke a foreign language.

Look, I understand: statistically at BYU, it's probably going to be the young men who speak a foreign language— after all, the majority of them go on missions, many of them foreign.  But sisters go on missions too!  And some sisters (ahem) learn languages without going on missions as well. 

I felt ignored, especially since languages are one of my main interests.  They were looking for volunteers to teach senior couples, and they were neglecting a percentage of people who could help them!  

"I speak a foreign language!" I exclaimed, annoyed, as I ran up to the booth.  I wrote down my name and contact info with purpose and vigor, proving to them that I as a woman could be proficient in a foreign language!  Without even going on a mission!  Take that!

Yes, it's mostly men who go on missions.  But they are not the only ones who can speak foreign languages.  So there.  I chose my major because of an interest in the language, not because I had a foreign location in which to spend two years chosen for me by strangers and then eventually learned to appreciate the language spoken there.  Whenever someone finds out I'm majoring in a language, they always ask if I served in a country that speaks it.  It's a unique BYU phenomenon. 

Fin

Passing the test

Lately I've been learning tons about what life was like for previous generations hundreds of years back.  For example, today I learned about Christopher Wren, the architect who designed St. Paul's Cathedral in London.  He lived to the age of 91 in a time (18th century) where most people lived to be 30 or 40.  He was fortunate enough to come from a family that wasn't working class.

I mention this because of how unfair it is to expect people who live wretched, short lives to "pass" this "test" of life.  It's easy for people in church in a first-world country in the twenty-first century to talk about life being a test where we must stand up to temptation and endure to the end.  What if you're a child in a developing nation who can fall ill ridiculously easy?  What if you're a child who worked in the mines, standing in the pitch darkness all day to every so often open a door for the miners (where you also couldn't have food because it would attract rats).  I suppose  some people throughout history would at least be able to attend church on Sundays (especially as a reprieve to their hard labor).  But the church they would attend isn't even the 'true' church, apparently, and the 'true' church wasn't apparently on the earth.  How is that fair?

This is the time where someone could say that we all have our lots in life and that our life was designed to help us where we need it.  That's a little dismissive of people's hardships, in my opinion.  It's easy for you to sit in your air-conditioned home and say that living in a slum is just what that person needed.

The Plan of Salvation seems applicable to church members in developed nations from the Restoration onward, but I don't know how much sense it makes for the rest of humankind.  There was a time when the Bible was only in Latin and you could be burned at the stake for trying to publish it in English.  How in the world are the people who lived in that time supposed to know the truth and "pass" this "test"?

Will aspartame kill us? We want to know!

Two talks I heard last week in a branch I was visiting are today’s topic.  One was given by the branch president, and the other was given by his wife.

Sister Branch President (SBP) opened with a quote that at first sounded hopeful but which eventually filled my heart with despair.  By the way, SBP—poor dear—is headed for a nervous breakdown: I recognize so many qualities that I had that lead to my unraveling. 

I've searched in vain for the exact quote, but it started out by asking why we should be ashamed to be ignorant of the gospel of Christ?  Then it told us why we should be ashamed and asked why we would devote more time to reading the fantasies of men than the word of God.

At first I thought the quote was going to be about how it’s OK to ask questions, which would be reassuring to me, since I seem to ask them possibly annoyingly frequently.  But no: it was about how there is no excuse to not know the answer to a question because you should devote a massive amount of time to studying the scriptures.  This could be extrapolated to be saying that you shouldn’t read anything for pleasure other than the scriptures because it would just be a waste of time (I know that’s an extreme, but it’s also an implication).  The part about the fantasies of men particularly seems to imply this.

I have an answer: because the "fantasies of men" are entertaining to read.  Also, I believe you can get as much out of a novel as you can from out of the scriptures—really.  You can observe human nature and true principles.  You can learn about yourself by reading about others, even if those others aren’t prophets.  Books can take you on an emotional journey and touch your heart.  (Also, novels can include many more women as characters!) 

Anyway, the talk that followed was earnest and well meaning, but ultimately more of the you-should-be-doing-better stuff I hate.  It was about how we’re lacking and how we’re wrong.  She mentioned a missionary experience where she shared with a friend that the church has a living prophet through whom god speaks.  Luckily, she said, the friend didn’t ask her for any specific examples of what the prophet had said recently because she wouldn’t have known!  (This is the second time I’ve heard of this situation in a sacrament-meeting talk: not knowing the contents of the Ensign in the context of a missionary experience.)  She said that after this ‘chastisement’ from the lord (ugh) that she was sure to go home and read the church magazine.

Well, maybe if the prophet had something that was really interesting or groundbreaking to say then she would have remembered it.  If there had been a conference talk about how we have to evacuate Mississippi or how aspartame definitely causes cancer for example, then she could have shared that with her friend because it would have actually been memorable.  I’m pretty sure the basic gospel principles are the subject of most talks, so she could have shared  those with her friend had the question come up.  I say this not to chide her, but to point out that she was being too hard on herself for not remembering the sparkling wisdom that had recently been shared.

A bright spot in the talk was when she mentioned the counsel to slow down and not over-schedule.  She mentioned that when she hears the moms of her son’s class mates talk about what extracurricular activities their children are involved in, she feels that she needs to provide all of those opportunities to her one child.  At least she realized that this was unrealistic...I think.  (That kind of thinking though is an indication that a nervous breakdown might come sooner or later.)

Brother Branch President gave a talk summarizing Joseph Smith’s King Follet discourse, definitely a meaty subject.  I was actually pleased that the sermon was being talked about and that BBP quoted extensively from it.  It made me think about how I wish that certain beliefs were talked about more and not ignored. 

The King Follet discourse talks about how god was once a man and how man’s destiny is to become like god.  It asserts that god was a savior for another world before becoming our father.  As you can see, it’s pretty significant stuff (and the source of the ‘Mormons gets their own planets’ hearsay).  I thought it was great that BBP was sharing it—the church has for whatever reason dropped the discussion about these topics.  In fact, in an interview in 1997 with Time, Gordon B. Hinckley, when asked, "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?" he responded, “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.”  (By the way, I got the quote from FAIR, which I mentioned in this post.)


BBP taught Sunday School too, and it was apparently customary to open the hour with a call for questions of any kind on any topic.  Inspired by his talk, I asked , “If god had a father god, and that god had a father, and so on, then where did it all begin?”  There wasn’t a satisfactory answer for that question (I didn’t really expect one).  I also asked for clarification about whether the discourse indeed said that god was a savior for another world, and when BBP said that it indeed suggested that, I asked if that meant that Jesus would next become a Father?  The answer was that probably yes.

What stuff!  What deep, significant ideas!  Why don’t we talk about this more?  Because it’s all hearsay, philosophizing, speculation.  But I feel that it’s important.  I feel that you could find an answer to these questions and that discussion would help.  A better question than ‘Why don’t we talk about this more?’ is: Why don’t general authorities clear up doctrines like this in General Conference?  Surely these are important things to know.  Maybe the beginning of time is a difficult concept to grasp, but surely the principle that Jesus will next become God for another world is worth knowing and talking about!   It regards the nature of God!   (And Jesus!)

The lesson was on chapters in Alma, but we did get into a discussion about the pre-existence because of a verse about being foreordained to a calling.  We talked about the meaning of foreordination and it was a great discussion.  We talked about what kind of decisions you could have made in the pre-existence and if you could have had the ability to sin.  I was worried that it might veer into the “some people were less righteous in the pre-existence and they are punished for it by their situation on earth,” but the fear was unwarranted.  I’m just wary of that explanation because it was used to justify blacks not having the priesthood and, more innocuously (?), why some people are killed en masse by god (think the flood). We could have gotten into determinism, fate, etc.  I think it was a good example of what Sunday School should be like.

A car miracle

Sometime my devil’s advocate thinking is going to get me in trouble with someone.  Someone will be offended that I contradicted them or that I diminished the importance of their story.  I hope this doesn’t happen, but it might.  I would never intentionally hurt someone's feelings, and I've been contradicted before and it was fine—it didn't hurt me at all: I mentioned how I in the past had thought that I had received a prompting, which was apparently nonsensical, but I ‘trusted’ that it was indeed a prompting because, after all, god’s thoughts are not my thoughts and his ways not my ways (i.e. his logic is incomprehensible to me).  But, after later reflection, I realized that it wasn’t a prompting but rather my brain being crazy; it used to be common that when I had to make a decision, I actually assumed that I would get a prompting that would either confirm the decision or, more often, tell me to do something else.  This extended to stupid little decisions, about which I nevertheless expected promptings , thinking that somehow a small and simple occurrence would have far-reaching (eternal) consequences.  

 

Anyway, my point with this comment was that if a prompting doesn’t make sense, it may not actually be a prompting—in other words, use your head and don’t just assume that you don’t understand the prompting yet.  Right after I said that, a guy raised his hand and shared a mission story that I’ve already described in this post.  Even today, I still think that the prompting that he received on his mission was not a prompting at all, but I of course can’t really know that, and I know it’s presumptive to think that I can.

When I criticize people, or at least contradict them, I do believe that I’m more criticizing the idea and not the person as a whole.  It really is the idea I’m attacking—not the person.  So when I share stories that include comments I don’t like, please keep in mind that I’m not just dismissing anything this person could say.  With that said, this Sunday during fast and testimony meeting, a lady shared a story about a recent miracle.  Her car had been shaking, and she was worried that it was going to break down.  She couldn’t afford at this time to buy a new one and being without a car would be a hardship for her.  She did admit that really, she could make do without it—but it would of course really complicate things.  Well, she got an email from the bishop telling her about a couple several hundred miles away who was going to move out of the country and needed to give their car to someone; this couple was going to visit family in this particular lady’s town as a last stop and so would have to drop it off in that town.  She got in touch and agreed to take their car.  She was extremely grateful and couldn’t believe how well it was going to turn out. 

The lady ended by saying that she was especially thankful because, really, the car was a want and not a need.  She said that when we try hard and obey god will provide us with what we need, but this case was special because she also got what she wanted.

I couldn’t help but wonder if this car situation was as perfect as the lady thought it was: what if there was someone else in the area/ward who actually needed the car more?  Who had a real need of it?  Hopefully, the bishop would know who in the ward was in need, but I can imagine it’d be very easy to not know that someone was in want of a car if that person didn’t mention it, perhaps out of embarrassment.  I just couldn’t help but think that maybe there was a family in that congregation wishing that it was they who had gotten the car; but in what context would that be appropriate to speak up and say something to the lady afterwards?  I guess if the other person was really in need, they could talk to the lady about possibly buying the car from her?  It just seems like such an imposition to make. 

Maybe that lady was the one who was most in need for the car—but what if she really wasn’t?  How does the person who deserved it more feel—like god doesn’t love them, or perhaps they weren’t obedient enough?  The lady just made it sound like god knew exactly who needed the car and it worked out perfectly in her favor.

This is all speculation on my part.  If there is some accuracy in it though, there is someone out there who is confused that they didn't receive the blessing they needed.  But, from what I've observed, if that's the case they'll find something positive from the experience and eventually find a solution, for which they will be grateful and praise god.

Destroying testimonies since 1979

John Dehlin, founder of Mormon Stories, recently posted on his Facebook page, "I just want to go on record as saying that 20th and 21st century LDS apologetics (FAIR, FARMS, Maxwell institute) will go down as destroying more testimonies than any other single Mormon influence. That's what happens when you blame the victim, or give very poor and evasive answers to credible issues.

In other words, I think that Daniel Peterson is talking actually writing about himself and his followers in this article."

I read the article, and the part that most stands out to me regarding this is, 

"Alma 'did go about secretly with the sons of Mosiah seeking to destroy the church" (27:10). It's very doubtful, though, that they would have openly admitted that their goal was 'to destroy the church.' Perhaps they wouldn't even have admitted it to themselves."

From some other sources around the interwebs, I have found out that there is apparently a larger dialogue/brouhaha going on here; apparently (apparently) Peterson's article is actually in reference to people like Dehlin, and the Maxwell Institute, from which Peterson was recently fired, has a disparaging article about Dehlin that was going to be published, so this statement by Dehlin wasn't made completely out of the blue...it all seems quite complicated. 

So do apologetics do more harm than good?  For me personally, what I have checked out on FAIR has not affected me much, but I am not impressed with the website.  Their defense of some potent criticism strikes me as weak, and I am not satisfied with their answers.  At least they do recognize the criticisms, and I appreciate their efforts in trying to refute them.  Mormon Stories podcasts have been much more helpful and validating to me.  This could be an unfair assessment of FARMS, etc., but MS seems to be more objective, as their intent is "exploring, celebrating and challenging Mormon culture through stories" as opposed to apologetics which definitely have an agenda (i.e. proving that the church is true).

I attended a conference at UVU in March called Mormonism and the Internet with a friend, where John Dehlin (whom I really admire) was one of the speakers.  Author Joanna Brooks also spoke, and after her talk I asked a question during the Q&A session.  My question was about how to properly judge the veracity of texts on the internet, such as quotes that are reportedly by church leaders, and if the general consensus is that the person indeed said it, even if they didn't, is it treated as if they did say it?  In the latter part of the question, the emphasis is more on quotes becoming 'canon' than on being reflections of the leaders who said them—is it an accurate portrayal of what Mormons believe?  For example, even if Brigham Young didn't actually utter the quote about being offended, the way it's bandied about in the church makes it seem like it's a belief even if it wasn't literally spoken by Mr. Young.

Continuing, after I asked my question, a guy in the row in front of me turned around and recommended that I check out FAIR.  Later at the same conference, another man handed me a FAIR business card.  A few weeks later, my bishop also recommended the web site.  These three men seem to have been helped by the website, but I have not.

By the way, on the subject on the veracity of texts on the internet, I always try to find original sources of quotes, hopefully from LDS sources (even if I have to dig).  If I bring up something by Packer that I read on the internet, no one is going to even discuss it because there is no proof that he said it.  On that note, I recently found several LDS sources for a talk Packer gave called "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," and I am going to read it now. It's not even that I trust the church's sources more than others'—having it from an LDS source gives it a seal of approval that it's not just made-up 'anti,' and objectively speaking, I'm not going to just trust a transcript of a talk that I find randomly on the internet.  I wouldn't trust it if someone else brought a similar source to me.  

Like I said, it's not even that I trust the church more—they could edit (out) material too.  I mentioned when I responded to Kimball's Love vs. Lust that a quote I had seen that referenced the talk as its source was never mentioned, and I acknowledged that it could have been edited out.  Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that I actually try to find church-approved materials not out of loyalty to the church but out of a desire to find The (objective) Truth and to also be able to use these sources in discussions. 

There is but one with whom she has heart to be gay

(Title is an excerpt from Tennyson's Come Into the Garden, Maud.)

Facebook debates usually drain me at least partially and exasperate me at least a little.  I used to not speak up, but I realized that I have an opinion and just as much right to express it as anyone else.  Mind you, I don't comment on everything that I could—I pick my battles.

This past week, I was involved with a rather one-sided debate that actually left me a little...gleeful.  Maybe it was because I was on the side that had the upper hand?  It was actually around five to ten people against one, which seems a little unfair.  But that one kept fighting (and he had every right to).  It was at once exasperating and actually humorous—the arguments the guy kept spitting out were, in my opinion, so absurd and textbook fundamentalist religious.

You might have guessed from the title that the debate was about gay marriage.  What started it off was one guy's incredulity that Mormons could actually be in support of gay marriage.  He seemed completely taken aback by the possibility because, he said, wasn't supporting gay marriage also supporting the actions that follow gay marriage (i.e. gay sex)?  To him, it seemed, what he thought was wrong and what should be illegal were the same: if you didn't approve of gay marriage, then it obviously should not be legal for anyone.

If you would like to read the conversation, I have saved it for posterity here (the commenter to be on the lookout for is in dark blue; I am in light pink).

After I took those screen shots, the conversation continued; but before I could record the following comments, the guy went through and deleted all of his comments.  I hope it was because he took back what he said, or at least because he realized what he said could be interpreted as offensive.  Before he deleted his words, he had apparently compared gay marriage to public nudity, which, predictably, caused a negative reaction.

The main reasons I found this debate so intriguing was that the guy couldn't have come up with better stereotypical, narrow-minded religious arguments.  Please take care to note that I am not saying that all religious people automatically have narrow-minded and stereotypical arguments—not in the least.  This particular guy was just like a stock character, and I kept thinking that you just couldn't make up better examples of silly points.  

When people provided him with evidence that contradicted his claims, he said that they were obviously misinterpreting their sources or taking things out of context (...).  He even bore his testimony of the blessings that couples could receive from a temple marriage (not really the most appropriate or effective thing to do on a thread about legalizing gay marriage).  He also had his facts about the church wrong: He insisted that a man could not be sealed to two women simultaneously unless he was doing so without church approval, and he held that the church's stance on homosexuality had never changed.  He posed the question, Who are we to change God's law?  Again, he seemed to think that the laws of the land and the laws of God were one in the same.  

I do feel a bit bad saying that I was gleeful about the affair.  I think a big reason is that he provided me with proof of someone who ignored logic and reason in favor of (false) long-standing beliefs.  See, I told the hypothetical doubters in my mind, these people actually exist!  These aren't just caricatures!

Please again take care to note that I am not putting all religious people/all gay marriage dissenters into one group, i.e. a group with this guy in it.  He is an example of an extreme that unfortunately exists.  He is not an accurate (or positive) example of the LDS church, though he definitely represents some views that a lot of members probably likewise hold.  If you oppose gay marriage, I don't hate you.  I just hope you don't use the same arguments that this guy does.

Extra credit: Read a friend's post about the same conversation (the thread was actually on her wall).

Edit: I forgot to mention that the guy left a nice, charitable parting comment: "For something nice to say: God bless all the Gays and Lesbians of the world. May the country's laws be changed in their favor."  Hooray for him!

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.