One of my least favorite Viewpoints

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

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

  

A Rising Epidemic

by Allie McCoy

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

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

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

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

Letter: Salt in the wound

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

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

Jonathan Kerby

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

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

Lo! Read this!

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

Two highlights for me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women and the Priesthood, part 2

An addendum to the last post:

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

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

Women and the Priesthood

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

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

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

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

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

Sarcasm will make me friends!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications

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

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

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

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

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

follow the...follow God.

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

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

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

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.

fame

If you'd like to, please check out this news article about a peaceful protest in Salt Lake City.  I'm the subject of one of the pictures!  Hip hooray.  If I had to be in the newspaper, I'm glad I'm in it for something like this.

I wore my BYU sweatshirt to show that you can be a BYU student and still feel this way.

It was the first protest I've participated in, and it was a pro-gay one in Utah.  And afterward, my friends and I, all BYU students, went to a pub to eat dinner and none of us drank a drop of alcohol (Roy Rogerses are delicious).  It was a night full of contradictions.

We were all wearing black and sitting on the ground during the protest; a woman who was wearing a black sweat suit walked past, asked what we were protesting, then said grumpily, "I chose the wrong day to wear black."

A gay man who was protesting had a huge bolt of fabric that was tucked into the back of his pants and cascaded down like a train.  A woman with a stroller came very near to running over it, and he said quite dramatically, "Don't you dare put your baby on my chiffon!"  (He was joking).

intelligent, but not intellectual

I like to make collages out of pictures I find in books.  I wanted some photos of real people, so I checked out some issues of Newsweek from 1965.  At the same time, I'm both grateful for how the world has improved and appaled at how it used to be.

Two cases in point:

An article discussed a new higher demand for stewardesses because of the increase in international travel by plane and because so many of the current stewardesses were quitting because they were getting married.  Ads gave a height and weight range that potential employees had to conform to, and they had to pass rigorous tests, among them an IQ one (an IQ of 105 was required).  Stewardesses were important, because they brought that extra magic and hospitality that could make a man leave smiling even if his steak was cold and his margerita was in a paper cup.

Sure, these women are complimented for their manner and service, but they're important because they're serving the businessmen who fly on the plane.  Women may do a great job at what they do, but what they do is always subservient to men.  Also, the idea that bothers me to no end is that women work/go to school while they wait to find someone to marry, and then their life goes out the window.  Having a job is just a placeholder until you marry someone to support you.

The caption below a photo of a stewardess quoted in the article read "the best school for brides."  I am glad at least that the article acknowledged that this phrase, appearing on ads encouraging young ladies to apply for a job as a stewardess, was just too much.

An article that did profiles of college students interviewed one Matilda Gholson from the University of North Carolina.  Here is an excerpt:

Matilda, the 22-year-old daughter of a Henderson, N.C., attorney, is a "straight-B" student, a senior majoring in education who chose teaching because "I like children and it seemed important."  But Matilda sees her true career with "a husband and a family."  She has no steady now, dates mostly on weekends, more and more for quiet dinners instead of swinging fraternity "combo parties."  She knows what kind of wife she wants to be.  "A woman's role is secondary to her husband's."  While at college Matrilda looks to her parents for direction.  "I like to think I'm not a conformist," she says, "but I am."

Intelligent, but not intellectual, Matilda sounds like the belle ideal of Southern womanhood.

So many things.  The idea that teaching was an ideal job for women because they work with kids.  And I say this as a female studying to be a teacher!   Look, if you want to stay at home and make being a wife and mother a career, that's perfectly acceptable;women don't get enough recognition for their household roles that really can be considered careers (except you don't get paid and don't get vacations!)  However, it is disturbing to me that this young lady said with her own mouth that her role will be secondary to her husband's.  Not secondary, Tilly—equal.  She believes this because that's all she hears.  I just wonder how often she thinks about these tenets and if at any time something in her brain tells her that there's something wrong with these thoughts.

It's a similar feeling I have when I hear people talk in sacrament meeting or in a class about how gracious God is and how they're less than dirt, etc. and how they're so grateful for forgiveness.  It's so often in a way that really insults them themselves.  We should be grateful for forgiveness, but not in a I-should-be-damned-to-hell-for-eternity-for-this-mistake-but-instead-God-is-SO-merciful-and-does-this-when-I-don't-deserve-it-at-all way.  It bothers me so, so much when people think that to elevate God or some other important figure that they have to debase themselves.

That last sentence quoted—I love that not being an intellectual fits in with being a Southern belle.  And I'm not sure whether the author's comment about her intellect should be taken as a sexist remark.  I watched a video on youtube that's a news story from around 1964 about the new popularity of the Beatles.  The reporter, a man, mentioned that so many girls loved the band, and "some of them can write," referencing to the amount of fanmail the Beatles received.  Not "some of them write fanletters," or "some of them do also write to the band," but "some of them can write."  It didn't stand out tome when I watched it, but someone in the comments brought to my attention how awful that can sound (yes, there were intelligent comments on a youtube video!!!!1!).

Trapped

I feel trapped.  The people who are less than close friends and who I know like me, and who enthusiastically and regularly tell me so, probably don't know what I would call the "real me."  They see the outside varied cheerfulness and don't expect the darkness within.

I'm sure this is a common problem.  "You don't know me!"  "If you only knew how I really was!"

I have a psychological need to confirm to them that I am like they think I am.  I plan ways to do emotional acrobatics to keep on a brave smiling face and not weasel out of social functions. 

What am I afraid of?  That they won't like me?  I'm trying to accept the thought that I'd rather be hated for who I am than loved for who I am not. 

I have to remind myself that their reaction will not necessarily be "she's got issues/she's an apostate/she needs some fellowshipping/she needs more attention than we're already giving her/she's wrong."  Maybe it's possible to be an example to them of a non-traditional Latter-day Saint whose opinions are just as valid.

Isaiah 25:4, 8

It's hard for me to read scriptures because the negative, chiding parts always jump out at me.  It's nice to find scriptures that are reassuring of God's love for you instead of ones that say you must change or face dire consequences.

For thou hast been a strength to the poor, a strength to the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shadow from the heat, when the blast of the terrible ones is as a storm against the wall.

He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the Lord hath spoken it.

"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.

Happy Old Maids

Oh how I love this quote from Little Women:

"Better be happy old maids than unhappy wives, or unmaidenly girls, running about to find husbands."

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

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

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

Continuing...

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

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

Feeling Marxist

I am a closet communist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer also says that

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

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

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

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

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

Obamarama

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

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

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

Nachelle Stewart
Provo

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

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

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

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