I don't want to believe in a god

I don't want to believe in a god who would give us brains and then ask us to disregard logical conclusions because he wants to test our faith with illogical commandments.

I don't want to believe in a god who would allow us the capability to think but then tell us that his thoughts are higher than ours and that there are some things that we just can't understand--because he made us that way.

I don't want to believe in a god who infantilizes me and wants me to behave with child-like unquestioning of authority.

I don't want to believe in a god who ignores his wife and tells us nothing about her in favor of patriarchal "protection."

I don't want to believe in a god who is a self-proclaimed "jealous god."

I don't want to believe in a god who would only give men governing authority.

I don't want to believe in a god who is male, chose a savior who is male, appoints only males to the priesthood, and then expects me to feel represented and content as a woman.

I don't want to believe in a god who sends cryptic messages through his spirit that defy logic and precedent (e.g. telling Nephi to kill Laban even though murder is obviously a sin).

I don't want to believe in a god who wants me to depend completely on him instead of depending on myself.

I don't want to believe in a god who lets his servants say horrible, damaging things under the guise of authority without apologizing or allowing themselves to be corrected.

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.

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.

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.

"If I won't be gay in the next life, maybe I'll just kill myself."

Let me summarize what the problems with President Packer's remarks were.

1. The logic that God wouldn't pre-set someone a certain way and not allow them to change it is faulty.  Every day children are born with mental and physical handicaps which they can't overcome.  You can't pray away Down Syndrome or AIDS.  I don't at all mean to cast being gay in a negative light by comparing it with disorders.  Also, and maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't think God sends down temptations and challenges like Jove sends down lightening bolts.  He doesn't hurl one at a baby in the womb and say, "You shall be born with a missing toe!  Muahahaha!"  There are so many steps that are included in forming a child.
2. "Remember, He is our father."  So if God doesn't "pre-set" people that way, then that means it must be purely a temptation from Satan.  That really isn't a cheery thought, and that's not reassuring.  "It's not God's doing!  It's just Satan!  So you can overcome the temptation!"  Except when you can't and you can't change the way you feel.
3. Gay people already have a hard life cut out for them by being different from the accepted norm.  Add to that the pressure of being a teenager, and perhaps being misunderstood and not accepted by parents and friends ("You don't have to live with this problem!  You can change!  All the problems associated with it will go away."), and you can see why so many gay teens are depressed and suicidal.  Saying that homosexuality does not exist in the next life gives gay teens quite the reason to commit suicide.  If they try and try and can't change and "fail," then maybe death seems like a better option, especially if it is supposed to bring relief from same-sex attraction.  "If I won't be gay in the next life, maybe I'll just kill myself."
4. What you call "impure" and "unnatural," they call love.  Please show some tact and compassion.

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?  

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!

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.