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.

Don't mess with me.

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

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

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

Everything happens for a reason

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lo! Read this!

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

Two highlights for me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications

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

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

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

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

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

quit playing games with my heart

I am surprised and troubled by how often people endorse the fact that God, in a way, plays games with us by giving us cryptic, confusing messages from the spirit. 

Before, I would get a "prompting" to do something which either was 1) stupidly useless 2) an alternative to a task I'd made my mind up to do.  When I questioned this prompting because it didn't seem to make sense, then I'd think (or get a "prompting") of Isaiah 55:  " For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."   Since we're taught that often our will is contrary to God's, I'd assume that was the case and that I needed to be humble and listen to this prompting.

FALSE!

This prompting was not from the spirit.  I believed in it because I expected to receive promptings, promptings to do something contrary to what I wanted to do.  I received a prompting because I expected one, if that makes sense.  What I mean is, if someone tells me that if I chew bubblegum then I will get a headache (which is untrue), I may very well get one because I expect to; the body is tricky that way.

The anecdote that brought this subject up:
A fellow ward member brought up a story in Sunday School where, on his mission, he was prompted to hitchhike at a certain area.  It was a spot off of a highway, where cars where both going 70+ miles per hour and could not stop to pick him and his companion up.  He didn't think this made sense, since it seemed illogical and futile, but he did it anyway because it was a prompting.  After a half an hour standing there, a security card on the other side of the highway called them over and asked if they needed money for a bus.  They declined, but gave him a pass-along card!  Just then, I family walked by, and the missionaries started talking to them.  Two weeks later, that family was baptized; and if they hadn't stood out there and hitchhiked, that never would have happened!

That just doesn't make sense to me any more.  It seems like a roundabout way to make something happen.  If they hadn't hitchhiked there and picked a better spot, the person who picked them up could have eventually gotten baptized, or the person could have dropped them off in an area where they hadn't been where they would have found some golden investigators.  I just don't think that God would give such an illogical prompting and make them jump through hoops to accomplish what he wanted rather than just telling them to cross the street and wait for the family?  Stories like this just confirm the idea that we should obey wacky promptings that don't make sense, because somehow, they'll be for our good.

"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.

Overhaul on sex ed, please

The way morality and chastity is taught in the church is damaging and out of whack.  I think this mainly comes from leaders not putting themselves in the shoes of their audience members and trying to treat a symptom, not a disease (that's only a metaphor, and I don't mean that sex is in any way like a disease).  Instead of lecturing kids how going too far brings guilt and remorse and that you won't be pure, leaders need to think about the reasons kids choose to have sex.  They need to recognize that that desire isn't bad, and not all kids are just bundles of hormones who decide to have sex just because everyone else is doing it.  They try to claim that "those feelings" are "normal" and "natural," but in the same breath say that they need to be squashed.

Regardless of whether some church leaders' stances on homosexuality is even correct, it needs to be taught and discussed a different way.  If you are gay, it is not helpful to hear that your desires are perverted and that you need to change again and again.  In a church where marriage and family is so often stressed, kids who are gay who do want these same things but just aren't attracted to the opposite sex will feel like there is no path for them.  Sure, they want to get married, but it's impossible because they won't marry someone of the opposite gender; so they're trapped.

Elder Boyd K. Packer made some disastrous assertions during a General Conference talk, which are no doubt results of his age and sexual orientation.

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the unnatural.  Not so.  Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?  Remember, He is our father.  Paul promised, 'God will not suffer you to be tempted above what ye are able.  But will with the temptation also make a way to escape that ye may be able to bear it.'  You can if you will break the habits and conquer the addiction and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the church.

I am trying to prove that this statement is wrong even under the paradigm that homosexuality is immoral.  Bear that in mind.

By saying that someone is not "preset" and that God would not do that, what exactly is he saying is the alternative?  That it's your fault?  You're giving into the temptation to think that way?  He tries to be comforting by saying that God wouldn't do that, but the implication that you weren't born that way and that you can totally stop it is even worse.  I believe everyone has a predisposition toward things which are considered "immoral" that have to do with his/her personality and struggles.  To some, doing drugs is a huge temptation; to others, it's not but being dishonest is.  It's ridiculous to tell those people that God didn't make them predisposed to want to do drugs and that it's their fault for being tempted.

I don't know if God "tempts" us like some people say anyway.  That scripture from Corinthians that Elder Packer quoted  makes it sound like God sends us temptations, which doesn't seem right.  Plus, it's an overgeneralization that you will always be overcome temptation.  Mainly because people label too many things as "temptation," like being depressed.  I don't think we can always overcome our circumstances—what about all those pioneers that died en route to Utah??  They would have made it if they had had more faith?

Elder Packer makes being predisposed to liking the same gender sound like a stupid excuse.  God wouldn't do that?  So what's the alternative?  Now telling someone that being gay is an "addiction" and that their feelings are completely "impure and unnatural"—that's something Heavenly Father would never do.  Remember, He is our father.

Problem: What defines "righteousness"? The pharisees were wrong.

One problem I've found that we have is judging how good a person is based on some details that are misleading and/or superficial.  Many of the tenets of the Honor Code can be observed based on your outside appearance: do you have piercings?  Do your sideburns not extend below your ear?  Is your skirt knee-length?  Are you smoking?  But really, none of these details is saving.  Details about a person that you can quickly see without even taking to that person are not as telling as people think they are.

Often, someone who is an RM, attends the temple regularly, has a calling and is active in church, doesn't drink, etc. is held up as the standard of righteousness.  BALONEY!  Yes, someone with all of these qualities can be an upstanding citizen, but it doesn't automatically make him or her one!  You could be living the Word of Wisdom and going to the temple every single day, but if you're heart's not in it and you're going through the motions only, it's not much benefit.  And even more importantly, if you're a judgmental jerk who talks condescendingly to lesser mortals, that's much more telling than if you're a full tithe payer.  It's harder to be kind and compassionate than to dress modestly.

I'm tired of people with certain qualities being automatically defined as righteous.  This is not because I do not like these actual people; it's because other people who don't do such obvious "good" things but are still great people aren't considered so.  I'd rather live with a stoner who was nice to me than with someone who doesn't even drink caffeine but is gossipy.  This reminds me of a Board question written by a girl who clashed with her roommates: she seemed to be a stereotypical super Mormon girl, while they skipped church and class and had non-member friends over.  I do not know this girl at all, and my assessment of her might be inaccurate.  I feel that she is one whose heart is in the right place who is trying to do the right thing, but is getting caught up in all of the extra things and ignoring the center of the Gospel.  This sentence sums it up for me: "I am really trying to be more religious and do better with scripture reading and journal writing, etc."  Writing in your journal doesn't save you.  Although it is a great idea, it is really eclipsed by more important actions.  A nice little Mormon girl can sit in her room with her cap sleeves and long skirt, reading scriptures about repentance and writing in her journal, but that's really not what it means to be righteous.  At all.

The asker of the question also mentioned how it was hard to feel the Spirit with the roommates' friends over.  This is a big one for me, because having the companionship of the Holy Ghost is a huge deal in youth.  If you so much as step foot in a less-than-great area, the Spirit will apparently flee.  To that I say, "NONSENSE!"  The Holy Ghost isn't uptight and he wants to stay with us as much as possible.  It's one thing to seek out the dark places, but if you somehow wind up in a situation, the Holy Ghost is going to stay there to help you; it would be ridiculous for him to run away when you need him most.  In addition she said how her roommates left church after sacrament meeting.  Also, at least the roommates are going to sacrament meeting, which is arguably the most important part of church!  

Anyway, perhaps I'm misjudging this girl, but she seems to embody so many of the beliefs that I am against.   Too many people act like Pharisees and judge someone's spirituality based on public actions Another perfect example of this belief, and the thing that inspired this post, is this nice little flyer that you find around the library:

I agree that music piracy is a major issue for this generation--that's not my complaint.  My complaint is the first part, which is trying to show that Brad is a righteous guy!  Why is he righteous?  Because he's an eagle scout and an RM!  Seriously?  

And yes, I suppose that the "Be Consistent" does kind of fit with my view, because it's saying that being married and an RM doesn't guarantee you're living all areas of your life well.  But still, it still is rather judgmental, and it's proof that the belief that certain things seem to guarantee you're a righteous person does exist.

Oh, those Anti-Mormons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.