Discuss.

As bishop you have had a hard month, lots of problems, meetings, etc.  that took you away from your wife and young family.  Last Friday you had a date night planned with your wife, even had a babysitter lined up, and at the last second you had to cancel due to bishop duties.  Your wife was understandably upset, but did not complain.  When you got home late Friday night you promised her that next Friday would be all hers.

You’ve arranged for your mother to watch the kids, and everything is going to be great.  Your wife is just getting in the car, and as you are walking around the car, you hear the phone ring. You both look at each other, and you stop walking.  Your wife gives you that look.

This very scenario was presented by a GA during a Bishop training meeting I attended. He said it really happened to a bishop he knew. Make sure you tune back for the very surprising outcome given by the GA!

One Sunday you notice the missionaries have brought a woman they have been teaching.  You notice right away that she looks very masculine.  The missionaries ask to meet with you during the week and tell you that the woman they brought to church is a transsexual, born a man but now living as a woman.  She has not had any operations but is taking hormones. They say that they cannot baptize her without first presidency approval, and that their mission president is handling the situation. You breathe a sigh a relief that you don’t have to get involved with that.

After a few weeks, you get a few comments from the Sisters in the ward that they feel uncomfortable with this woman attending relief society and using the ladies restroom.

How would your answer change if it was a man (who use to be a woman) and all the questions above were changed for that situation (e.g. he attends priesthood meeting and uses the men’s restroom)?  Discuss.

Since my baptism “erased” the experience, it wasn’t brought up again until recently, when I told my husband about it. He kindly suggested that since I didn’t want to be physically intimate, it sounded as though I had been a victim of date rape. I told him that while I hadn’t wanted the intimacy, I didn’t fight it strongly and it wasn’t an isolated occasion. His response to me was that he preferred that I hadn’t enjoyed it, equating physical enjoyment of the sex act with whether something constitutes rape. He explained (and this is vital) that it wasn’t a matter of jealousy or not wanting me to be with another man; it was a matter of virtue and obedience to commandments. What I had heard him say was that he rather I had been raped than engaged voluntarily in pre-marital sex.

My reply was something like, “You would rather I had been violated in one of the worst ways a woman can be violated, than that I had made a mistake before I was baptized that would have been covered by the Atonement?” Obviously, he hadn’t thought of it like that before. But, it got me thinking. Although we pay lip service to the idea of the Atonement being all encompassing, clearly in our LDS mindset we have embedded ideas of things that really aren’t covered by it, or things that we don’t really think God forgives us or others for. Similar to Jonah thinking the people of Ninevah should be destroyed, even after they had repented. Clearly, my husband didn’t really think it would have been better that I had been hurt physically and psychologically than that I had made a mistake. But his subconscious response gives much more insight into the thought-process of one raised LDS than what the Church teaches on the topic.

What role has the book The Miracle of Forgiveness played in our understanding of what “forgiveness” for sexual sin really means?

Do you think there is emotional harm in placing premarital sexual relations nearly on-par with murder?

Do you think that it is better to be raped than to willingly engage in premarital sex?

Are there other limits that we subconsciously place on the Atonement?

A middle-aged single brother moves into your ward.  He has been divorced for nearly 10 years.  He was married in the temple.  He has been inactive for many years and is just starting to come back to church.  He would like to go back to the temple.  During your Temple Recommend interview, he confesses to having had sex with a woman about a year after he was divorced.  This relationship went on for several months, and then he broke it off.  He has not had any other Law of Chastity issues since then, for over eight years.

Would your answer change if he had not been endowed?  Would your answer differ if the infraction had gone on longer or been more recent (e.g. 4 years ago or 2 years ago)?  Would your answer differ if this was a woman’s confession rather than a man’s?  Discuss.

BiV’s recent post “Sod, Seed, Salvation: Abrahamic Covenant and the Claim to Palestine” brought me out of my normal lurking.  Modern Palestine and what I firmly believe to be the erroneous interpretation most members of the church have regarding events there always riles me up.  Usually I do the smart thing and bite my lip, but every once in a while I choose to enter the fray in full combat mode.  As I’ve found on most issues of debate, it doesn’t really matter how right I think I am the noise of the argument rarely does more than highlight who already believes what.  So my wish here is not to re-argue the questions of Palestine which I’ve already done enough of on this blog.  Instead, I’d like to talk about shoes.  No, not the famous Arab shoes, rather walking a mile in another’s shoes.

Most American (and many non-American) Mormons grow up with an instinctive ability to walk in a modern Zionists’ shoes [for those less familiar with the terminology, I prefer to use the term Zionist as opposed to Israeli as it better captures the political movement that supports the Israeli state on an international and local basis, and it captures pre- and post-1948 dynamics].  There is a pseudo-scriptural modern narrative that seems to easily link Jewish, Christian and LDS-specific views of the Abrahamic Covenant to modern Zionism.  Orson Hyde’s 1840s visit to Palestine and several subsequent visits by church leaders over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries seem to further fit neatly into that narrative, with a number of statements from church leaders that come across as clearly pro-Zionist.  Then there is the fact that the leaders of modern Zionism have been overwhelmingly Europeans with a very western mode of communicating (and in western languages much of the time) that is easier for American Mormons to relate to.  And sealing it all up there is the manner in which the Zionist version of events is almost the only one heard in American media, literature and entertainment, and it comes across sounding very neat, clean, and heroic.  It sounds to most like a clear cut case of good and evil, and it all makes it so very easy to sympathize with Zionism growing up as a Mormon and especially as an American Mormon.

I grew up with that narrative.  I was an unusually political teenager.  John Birch-style anti-Communist crusading and religious-political support for Zionism were two of my big shticks.  The morality of it all seemed clear as daylight, the religious tie-ins to my LDS faith felt unassailable.  I lapped up Leon Uris’ “Exodus” like it was the Bible itself.  But then something changed.  I got to BYU.  I decided to make these and related issues a major focus of my studies.  I won’t bore you with all the details, but in a nutshell what happened over the years to follow was that in seeking to prove what I already believed was right, I ended up seeing things from the other side’s point of view as well.  I walked a mile in a Palestinian’s shoes, and my view of things was never the same again.

Now, perhaps I’m not being generous enough to humanity as a whole in separating Mormons out on this count, but I have always believed that one of the most wonderful ‘weaknesses’ of Mormons is that we’re so darn nice.  I mean, obviously that’s a gross over-generalization.  But as long as I’m already in that realm, I do feel like our basic doctrines that say that we’re all children of God with eternal worth and potential, means we have a really hard time dismissing other people when placed face to face with them.  We may dislike people, we may get as caught up as other people in political and philosophical movements that make us theoretically despise other people, but somehow when we’re placed face to face, those of us who have a real belief in those core doctrines of the worth of souls feel an obligation to not utterly dismiss as worthless the person on the other side even if we find much about them obnoxious. And it is that part of your Mormon-ness I wish to appeal to today in regards to Palestine.  I don’t ask you to accept all my views (which can be somewhat seen in the voluminous comments I left on BiV’s previous post), but I would like to ask: will you as a Mormon walk a mile in a Palestinian’s shoes?

Obviously very few people can actually go live in the forced exile of a Lebanese Palestinian refugee camp or experience life under Zionist siege in Gaza, but if you have any interest in what’s going on, even a superficial interest, you can choose to read things from the other bank of the river at least occasionally.  I’d like to give you some suggestions on what you can read.  If you say you simply don’t agree with it up front, all I ask is that you suspend your judgment and listen to your Palestinian brothers and sisters.  See their tears, hear their stories with a clear mental slate, ask how it feels to be them.  God could just as easily have chosen you to have been born in their place after all.  Walk in their shoes from time to time, and when these issues hit the news and you get curious, make a point of saying “how can I make sure I see how this looks from the other side too?”

So, below I’m going to give three different types of links.  As I imagine many readers of this blog are more inclined to literature and the personal angle, I will first give some glimpses of the world of Palestinian literature and a few other related cultural tidbits.  As I imagine others are more into seeing the nitty-gritty facts, I’ll then give some links to the counter-facts which show that history looks quite different when viewed without the Zionist prism.  And lastly, I’ll give some links for sources one can regularly follow in English to see how the story in the present looks very different from the Palestinian side versus the Zionist or standard American side.

*****

LINKS 1: LITERATURE FROM THE PERSONAL SIDE

*The works of Ghassan Kanafani, especially his short stories and short novels “Land of the Sad Oranges”, “Men in the Sun”, “Letter from Gaza”, and “Return to Haifa” (the latter story was one of the first stories in Arab literature to deal with Zionists as three-dimensional human characters).  The two collections I link two below contain a nice and well-translated selection of his works.  When Kanafani was murdered by a Zionist car bomb in Beirut along with his niece in 1972 (incidentally, the man had never been involved in any military action in his life, he was a writer pure and simple), the world lost one of the finest rising authors in the Arabic language of the time.  Kanafani upset many people on all sides of the ideological divide because he insisted on portraying the Palestinian situation as it was really lived, with all the emotion experienced at a personal level, regardless of the political implications that human portrayal might have.  Reading his stories one feels the utter despondency of a father unable to care for his family having been shoved across the border with only the things they could carry, the desperation of trying to sneak across the borders in the Gulf in search of work but unacknowledged as a human because of having been born Palestinian, the inner turmoil of deciding between emigration to the west in search of a better material life versus staying in the squalor of Gaza to stay true to the people who need you there.

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Sun-Other-Palestinian-Stories/dp/0894108573/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265974999&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Palestines-Children-Returning-Haifa-Stories/dp/0894108905/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265974999&sr=8-2

(Incidentally, “Return to Haifa” was one of the first full – admittedly short – novels I ever read in Arabic)

*Emile Habiby’s “Pessoptimist” or “The Secret Life of Said”.  Ghassan Kanafani wrote from the exile’s perspective, Emile Habiby wrote from the perspective of those few Palestinians who survived the ethnic cleansing to live on in what became Israel.  He writes in a satirical format about his now famous character Said who simply never can quite understand what’s going on around him, sometimes cooperating with the Israeli authorities, sometimes becoming an accidental Palestinian hero, but always stuck in a confused limbo, and always in his naïveté noticing the way things really are.  This has been made into a popular Arabic play as well, and was translated and widely read in Hebrew over the years.  Habiby embodies the plight and struggles of the “48 Arabs” as they call themselves as few others have managed to do, and does so with a wry, bitter humor that is hard not to enjoy.  Habiby has somehow managed to gain the respect of Hebrew and Arabic reading audiences and definitely mine.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Emile%20Habiby

*The comic genius of Naji al-Ali and Handhala.  Palestine’s national cartoonist, discovered by Ghassan Kanafani who saw his work while visiting Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp and first published in the magazine “Freedom” in Lebanon in 1961.  He subsequently moved to Kuwait in 1963 and his character Handhala appeared in 1969.  In 1973 Handhala turned his back on his viewers, permanently frozen at 10 years of age (the age Naji was when his family was ethnically cleansed) and refusing to turn his face back to the world until he returned home.  Naji al-Ali was assassinated by an unknown hand in London in 1987, some have pointed to Yasser Arafat as a potential culprit, but Handhala has gained immortal status in Palestinian and Arab eyes as the embodiment of Palestinians’ hopes and pains.  Go through the cartoons on the website (feel free to email me if you want translations).

http://www.najialali.com/

*Joe Sacco’s “Palestine”.  I’m going to be lazy here and simply quote the Amazon product description because I think it encapsulates the book better than I can (other than to say, this is an excellent book for understanding life on the ground in the Occupied Territories if you can’t actually be there — although things have gotten much worse since this was written based on experiences almost 20 years ago now): “Based on several months of research and an extended visit to the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the early 1990s (where he conducted over 100 interviews with Palestinians and Jews), Palestine was the first major comics work of political and historical nonfiction by Sacco, who has often been called the first comic book journalist.  Sacco’s insightful reportage takes place at the front lines, where busy marketplaces are spoiled by shootings and tear gas, soldiers beat civilians with reckless abandon, and roadblocks go up before reporters can leave. Sacco interviewed and encountered prisoners, refugees, protesters, wounded children, farmers who had lost their land, and families who had been torn apart by the Palestinian conflict.  In 1996, the Before Columbus Foundation awarded Palestine the seventeenth annual American Book Award, stating that the author should be recognized for his “outstanding contribution to American literature,” while his publisher, Fantagraphics, is “to be honored for their commitment to quality and their willingness to take risks that accompany publishing outstanding books and authors that may not prove ‘cost-effective’ in the short run.”"  This brief review is also a good summation of the book: http://mobookblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/palestine-by-joe-sacco.html

http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Joe-Sacco/dp/156097432X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265976394&sr=1-1

LINKS 2: THE HISTORY SEEN FROM THE OTHER SIDE

*Ilan Pappe’s “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”. One simply cannot properly understand what drives the conflict today without understanding what happened in 1948.  Israeli historian Ilan Pappe digs into the Israeli archives, press accounts of the era, international organizations accounts, British colonial records, and a few primary and secondary Arabic sources including survivor’s stories (not nearly enough, but in any case the Israeli and international accounts prove more than sufficient to make the key points anyhow) from the fateful years of 1948 and 1949.  What emerges is an entirely different picture than the Zionist narrative and almost perfectly in line with what Palestinians have said for over 60 years now actually happened.  The title of the book is clear enough in stating what happened, and it comes straight from the records kept by men like Ben Gurion himself in addition to countless eyewitnesses.

http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265976754&sr=8-1

*Walid Khalidi’s “All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948″. This is primarily a reference work, but it’s an easy one to spend time skimming through as it has lots of pictures.  Khalidi is one of the foremost scholars of Palestine up to it’s destruction by the Zionists in 1948 and meticulously goes through the over 400 villages they ethnically cleansed in 48/49.  Pictures of the remaining ruins, descriptions of who lived there and population statistics, when the villages were founded, land ownership, houses of worship, current status of the land and properties, how the actual acts of ethnic cleansing were carried out, etc.  You may have visited Israel and noticed old ruined houses or fallow farmland or agricultural terraces in lots of places.  Israelis act like they’re not there or “ancient” remnants to have biblical ponderings over.  The truth is much darker, these are ghost towns that were inhabited just a few decades ago and whose residents still live often just a few miles away and want nothing more than to just go home, fix and rebuild, and live in peace again in the places they are from.

http://www.amazon.com/All-That-Remains-Palestinian-Depopulated/dp/0887283063/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265976717&sr=1-1

*Palestine Remembered: http://www.palestineremembered.com/

Think of it almost as an online version of what Walid Khalidi has tried to do, archiving records of what Palestine was and is today.  Each district, city, and village is catalogued, and (one of the best parts) personal stories from life in those areas and where its refugees are today are often found.  Unfortunately one of the best parts of the site – oral history videos of the survivors of the 1948 ethnic cleansing – only has Arabic audio, though hopefully they’ll be able to find the resources to translate and subtitle eventually.  The site is a great resource and along with Khalidi’s seminal work reminds the world what the Palestinians always knew was a Zionist myth: the land was never empty, Palestinian society was thriving and vibrant until it was violently burned down to its foundations in 1948/9.

*Kathleen Christison’s “Perceptions of Palestine”. I’m going to crib another book review that does the job better than me from http://mobookblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/perceptions-of-palestine-their.html “Former CIA analyst Kathleen Christison looks at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from an often ignored but vital angle: how the conflict is viewed by US policymakers. Starting in the late 19th century and going US administration by US administration, she examines how Washington’s policies have been a critical factor in the development of the conflict. In effect, she lays out how this is not a binary Israeli-Palestinian problem, but in fact a triangle involving the Palestinians, Israelis, and Americans. A century of deep sympathy for the Israeli perspective, but near constant ignoring and denigration of the Palestinian viewpoint in Washington has helped to fuel rather than calm the conflict in the Holy Land. For American readers who wonder why the United States often gets so much blame in the Arab world for what happens to the Palestinians, this book is a clear-eyed explanation of the issue.”

http://www.amazon.com/Perceptions-Palestine-Influence-Updated-Afterword/dp/0520217187/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265980633&sr=1-1

LINKS 3: SOURCES FOR FOLLOWING CURRENT EVENTS FROM THE PALESTINIAN & NON-ZIONIST VIEW

*The Electronic Intifada http://electronicintifada.net/.

Founded by Ali Abunimah, a Chicagoan of Palestinian refugee descent, the site has become probably the foremost representative of the Palestinian viewpoint in English.  Gathering not just excellent writers and op-eds, but on-the-ground human stories from throughout the Palestinian world, Palestinian culture, top-notch analysis of current events, advocacy of a single-state solution with equality for Jews and Arabs and the right of return for every Palestinian, equal-opportunity criticism of Arab rulers alongside Zionists, extensive coverage of the growing international BDS (Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions) and Right of Return movements, and in general a great pulse for the views many Palestinians have of events as they unfold.

*Ma’an News Agency http://www.maannews.net/eng/Default.aspx.

The leading independent Palestinian news agency (i.e., not in the pockets of Fatah, Hamas, or Israel — or at least one hopes so, their reporting as I have seen it would back up their independence).  They publish in English, Arabic, and Hebrew (though their Hebrew site seems to be undergoing a redesign at present).  You’ll see all sorts of news here you’d never see reported in the American press.  Follow it even casually and you’ll quickly start to understand how completely misleading the American and Israeli media are about actual events on the ground.

*Zochrot: http://www.zochrot.org/index.php?lang=english

One of the very few Israeli groups actively working to get Zionists to realize what they did to the Palestinians in 1948/9 and in very practical ways.  If you ever visit Israel, you should definitely look these people up and see if you can join one of their walking tours of destroyed Palestinian villages where they often bring survivors back to talk about life in the villages, put up signs marking where destroyed churches/mosques/schools/municipal buildings/homes/etc. once were, and often bump into the present Israeli squatters who frequently turn very irate for having these facts pointed out to them.  Zochrot’s goal is the same as mine: a single state where all are treated equally, where the wrongs of the past are acknowledged, the right of return implemented, and a new system of legal equality established.  The difference is, they’re on the ground, being told they are traitors by many in their own society, but pressing bravely forward anyways with a wide variety of educational activities.  Worth checking their site from time to time to see what they’re up to.

*The Angry Arab News Service / وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

You probably need to have a similar acidic sense of humor as I do (which I blame on serving a mission in London and at least one BYU professor’s influence on me who shall go un-named), and you definitely need to go with UC Stanislaus Professor As’ad Abukhalil’s many many quirks, but the man has become a blogging cult phenomenon for good reason.  He focuses his blogging heavily on Palestinian issues and usually just does short links (many every day) with sharp comments, but he occasionally goes into longer (non-paragraphed) critiques and analyses of different topics related to Palestine and broader issues of the Arab world.  He can be hard to follow at first, and his views (he’s a hardcore leftist atheist) may often be ones you disagree with, but follow him on an even semi-regular basis and you will learn incredible amounts about Palestine and the Arab world.  What makes him so valuable among other things is the way he is one of the few public academic figures who fully straddles the Arab and English speaking worlds (and I believe his French isn’t bad either, though I don’t think he really writes much in French).  His weekly column in Lebanon’s leading paper al-Akhbar is eagerly read (and far less flippant than his blog but no less biting and to the point) by many throughout the Arab world, and he manages to regularly follow and comment on sources on both sides of the linguistic divide.  With his growing following he has also gained a wide network of contacts who frequently send him unique information.  And if your sense of humor is even as vaguely ironic as his, the man’s a riot.  He’s not Palestinian, but is frequently mistaken for one by friends and enemies and takes it as a badge of honor.

*****

I could go on for a lot longer and undoubtedly have already put many of you to sleep.  But if you have a genuine interest in the topic of Palestine/Israel – as most Mormons inherently even if only tangentially do – I’d ask you to bookmark the references I’ve given, and go them when your questions come up.  If you’re really into digging deeper, feel free to drop me an email, I’m always happy to point people to more resources.  The issues surrounding Palestine are such that one must wade through the extraordinarily complex to discover at the end there’s an amazingly simple set of guiding principles behind it all.  In a Gospel sense, my belief is that the Zionist violation of the basic commandments of “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not covet” are the root cause of the conflict, that the conflict is inherently modern and not ancient, and that the solution is really quite straightforward: civic equality for all in a manner similar to that which I believe the Lord inspired as a principle in the US Constitution and many other civic-based democracies around the world.

You may not agree with me on those points, but you’re a Mormon, you know if you knew any Palestinians personally you’d feel an overwhelming urge to bring them a plate of cookies and listen to their stories if they broke down in tears in front of you.  So even though you may not be able to meet them in person, when the topic comes up, tap that Mormon urge to empathize and at least listen to what the other side is saying, I hope I’ve given you a few useful pointers for doing so.

There is a young man in your ward who seems to push the limits on the clothes he wears.  Both his parents are active, but they seem to be struggling with him.  He is worthy to pass the sacrament, and he even wears a white shirt to church on Sundays.  But sometimes he wears loud rock band tee shirts beneath his white shirt (like “Led Zeppelin”) that are plainly visible.  His belts have spikes all the way around them.  There is a chain that hangs from his pocket that connects to his wallet.  One Sunday while passing the sacrament, he wears a very large skull buckle.  It is very large and obvious to everybody what it is.  Another Sunday he wears a Confederate flag belt buckle.

Would your answer change if he lived with no father in the home?  Would your answer change if there was a black family in the ward who noticed his Confederate belt buckle? Discuss.

Differences in religious belief can be the death knell to a marriage. For that reason, many organized religions strongly advocate against being “yoked with unbelievers”. This is not only a Mormon phenomenon; you see this in any faith tradition that teaches that they alone have exclusive access to God. Even before marriage, it is rare for the unmarried, devout Mormon to even consider dating (let alone marrying) a non-Mormon; most LDS women raised in the Church are taught from an early age to make a temple marriage to a returned missionary their primary goal.

Likewise, in the Catholic Church, marriage to any non-Catholic (including Protestants!) is not permitted within a Catholic church building, and is not considered to be a Sacrament. In particularly conservative Catholic cultures, it really is considered a heresy to marry someone not of the (same rite of the) Catholic Church. Consider, for example, the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding: Toula refuses to marry Protestant Ian until he joins the Greek Orthodox Church (thus leading to a humorous scene of Ian being baptized).

Similar to Mormon ‘Marriage Prep’ and ‘Temple Prep’ Sunday School courses, dating Catholic couples are required to pursue a several-month course of marriage preparations classes, known as Pre-Cana. Similar to Mormons, Catholics who have pre-marital sexual relations (usually known from the resulting offspring) cannot be married on Catholic church grounds. However, they can have their marriage “convalidated” at a later date, similar to to a family being ’sealed’ a year after a civil marriage.

I compare these things not so much to indicate how Catholics do things so much as to show just how non-unique Mormons are in many ways with regards to their approach to interfaith marriage.

Disbelief that comes after marriage, however, is harder to deal with. Despite the admonition of Paul in the 1 Corinthians that:

[I]f any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. (1 Cor. 7:12-14)

it is really not all that uncommon to see marriages Mormon temple marriages dissolve once one member of the union loses faith. The same can also be true in Catholic culture, where one of the vows made at the altar is to raise your children Catholic.

A few examples, then, to illustrate some of what I am talking about:

A Mormon female friend of mine (who also happens to be a reader of this blog) attended a non-LDS university for college. Her Patriarchal Blessing was explicit that she was to marry an RM in the temple. When a Baptist schoolmate asked her on a date, she turned him down several times before giving him an ultimatum: She would only go on a date with him if he would read the Book of Mormon and consent to taking the missionary discussions. Confident that the Mormon church was misguided, and that he could show her the error of her ways, he consented. He joined the LDS Church and they two were married in the temple a year later. Obviously, she and the Church would consider this example to be a huge success story; his Baptist family, in contrast, at that time considered their daughter-in-law to be the devil incarnate. (I suspect that they mellowed with time).

Another friend at the same university for four years dated a non-Mormon off and on, and was fairly involved with him physically (although never so far that she needed to go to the Bishop). She loved him and he proposed to her, but since he was not interested in the Church, she said no. Several years later, she met and married a convert of 1 year, in the temple. Another Church success story.

A Jewish friend attended a Jew-friendly university, but did not find a spouse. She later moved to an area in the Midwest that was predominantly Protestant, and met and fell in love with a Protestant. They moved in together, but when her family would call or visit, she threw him out of the house for the weekend. When her parents found out that she was dating this man, they first gave her a series of lectures on being ‘married under the canopy’ and of all that her grandmother had suffered at Auschwitz. They then cut off all verbal communication with her. When the grandmother found out about the boyfriend, she literally suffered a stroke. She broke up with the boyfriend, and later married an Orthodox Jew and was welcomed back into her family.

A Muslim co-worker of my husband’s met and married a Hindi woman. The parents of the Muslim refuse to acknowledge their daughter-in-law, and the parents of the Hindu refuse to call the Muslim by his real name, instead calling him by the Hindi equivalent.

When I married my husband, we were both Mormon, however I had converted to the Church as a young adult. My mother’s side of the family (who are culturally Catholic) refused to speak with my husband at family functions and boycotted our wedding. Indeed, my own marriage might now be considered as an interfaith marriage, with each of us losing our faith in the LDS Church and taking divergent faith paths. I’ve left the LDS Church and now consider myself a post-Mormon liberal Catholic, returning to the faith of my mothers (since Catholicism in America is largely passed down matriarchally). My husband is an agnostic atheist who remains actively Mormon: regularly attending his meetings and ‘magnifying’ his calling, held in the church by the faith of his fathers. My family is urging me to do what my responsibility as a Catholic mother would be: to baptize my son Catholic and raise him in the Catholic Church.

And so it goes, and so it goes. Its remarkable how adherents of all faiths claim that God will only recognize marriage in their church.

Through it all, my husband and I have retained enormous respect for each other and our religious decisions, as well as the effect that those decisions have on our son. I think respect for each other is really the only way such marriages can survive. My husband’s loss of belief was founded in his respect for me: Trusting that my reasoning was sound, he wanted to determine for himself what validity there was in my conclusions. Obviously, we came to different end-points, but part of respect is learning to accept (and even welcome) differences of opinion and conclusion.

My questions for the readership are these:

• What are your stories?
• How can a couple who finds themselves in a Mormon interfaith marriage make the relationship work?
• Is it possible to maintain a believing Mormon/non-believer relationship?
• If so, what components are required?

I’ve changed some minor details in each situation to preserve the confidentiality of the person involved.  Other than the small changes, everything you read here really happened to me as Bishop.  I was Bishop for 6 years in a medium-sized ward in the southwestern U.S.

So let’s start out with this week’s installment of “You’re the Bishop.”

There is a YW in your ward that is 16.  She lives with a non-member mother who does not place any restrictions on her.  Her father is remarried and very active and lives out of town.  The girl chose to live with her mother, so she can pretty much do what she wants.  But she has several good friends in the ward, and she craves he friendship and attention she gets in church.

She is VERY well endowed and wears very low cut tops to all church meetings.  One gets quite a view when talking with her.  As bishop, you are on very good terms with her, and she has come to you several times with problems.

A close friend of mine who wishes to remain anonymous recently saw in the shadow of the temple his story follows

In October, I was fortunate to attend the Portland, Oregon, screening of the movie, In the Shadow of the Temple. http://www.intheshadowofthetemple.com The screening was hosted by the producers, Karen Di Millia and Dennis Lavery. Prior to the screening Dennis and Karen spoke for 10 minutes and explained how they started this project. After the screening they took questions and answers for roughly 30 minutes.

Lavery and DeMillia, who are not–and never have been–LDS, originally planned to make a movie about people who had left the religion of their youth. They attended a meeting of the Portland Humanist Society, explained their project, and asked if anyone had such stories they would be willing to share. In the course of discussing the project with members of the society, they were told that who they really needed to talk to was Sue Emmett, who had left the LDS church. After talking with Sue and others with whom she put them in touch, they decided to re-focus their project on the experience of those who have left the LDS church.

They did hundreds of hours of interviews over two years and edited it down to a 55 minute film. The film is very moving–a tribute to those who shared their stories as well as DeMillia and Lavery’s videography and editing skills.

About two dozen people appear in interviews in the film. Each story is unique, but a common thread runs throughout them all. All faced a similar rejection by family, friends and community. Some of those interviewed have left the church. Others no longer believe, but remain active because of family or community pressure. The latter are filmed in shadows, to obscure their identity. The film refers to these people as “Shadow Mormons.” They define “Shadow Mormons” as those who privately do not accept the exacting doctrine of the Church, but publicly profess to be true believers. They are in shadow to protect their relationships with family, friends and employers.

Someone commented to me after the film, “That’s you. You’re a Shadow Mormon.”

Yes, I’m a Shadow Mormon. Maybe that’s why this film hit me so hard. I haven’t believed in over 20 years – most of my adult life. Yet, during that time I’ve paid my tithing, gone to the temple, served in bishoprics and high councils and done all the things that were expected of me. Why? Because I am tied to the church by family and community.

The story of “Grace” (not her real name) resonated with me because it was so similar to mine. Her pain, and anger, were born of all the energy she has given to a religion that she doesn’t believe in. Finding out that the Church was not true was like a death experience for her. Like me, she tried following the Church’s teachings to fast, pray, read the scriptures and yet never felt she received the “burning in her bosom” that is promised in the scriptures.

What of the families and communities of these people? What are their stories, their experiences with loved ones who go through a process of losing belief and leaving the church. Only one person who was a family or friend agreed to be interviewed for the film. The believing husband that was interviewed told how he still loved his wife, even though she has left the church. What about the others? Are they embarrassed to say that the Church was more important than their relationship with the person who left?

The saddest stories, to me, were of divorce caused by one spouse believing and the other not believing. Michelle (another woman interviewed in the film) said her heart was broken that her husband would choose the Church over her. He told their marriage therapist that if she had not been Mormon he never would have married her. “There was more to me than being a Mormon,” she said. “And I thought that there was more to him.”

The dictionary defines empathy as “the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” We could all use a little more empathy for those around us. I have had several people tell me, “I can’t imagine how a person could leave the church.” Either they need a better imagination or they need more empathy. Maybe they just need to see this film.

One of the questions at the screening–one that Lavery could not answer–was, “How do we get the right people to see this film?” Sadly, many members of the church would not even consider it. (It screened in Salt Lake City in October and got almost no media coverage.) The film does not try to de-convert anyone or disparage the doctrine of the church. It doesn’t assert that someone is right because he or she believes, or that someone else is right because he or she leaves the church. This film is about accepting people regardless of what they believe, and about how we treat those who believe differently than we do. I wish every member of the church could see this film.

Film Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICbylWK-i2Q&NR=1

1. probably Elder Oaks or Elder Holland will be, or will have been,president by then.
2. I hope, by that time, the Lord will have seen fit to call one or two non-caucasians to the 12.
3. Some sermons in conference will be given in a non-English language, with simultaneous translation available for English speakers.
4. The Church will have, in some way, formally disavowed teachings on the curse of Cain/Ham and any teaching that the practice of withholding priesthood/temple on the basis of lineage/race had its origins before the Restoration.
5. There will be a continued outreach to the GLBT community. While the Church will not recognize or perform same sex marriages, it may well permit GLBT individuals in a committed monogamous union to retain their formal membership, but not attend the temple or exercise the priesthood (sort of like the Church’s current position on those who have undergone”elective” transsexual surgery and who join the Church or who are rebaptized).
6. Some sort of initiative will address the problem of excluding nonmember parents from weddings of their children when those weddings take place in the temple. My guess is that the automatic one year wait rule will be softened to accommodate those faithful members who wish their parents to witness the “for time” portion of the ceremony.
7. Women will be invited to offer open and/or closing prayers in general conference. A woman will be appointed as president of at least one of the Church universities.
8. The teaching and practice of women being permitted to join with their husbands in blessing their sick children will again officially become permitted and/or encouraged.
9. The weekly priesthood executive committee will be expanded to include the RS president and YW president. Presidents of auxiliaries will be referred to as “President”.
10. Another attempt at simplifying Church programs will occur. The three hour block may be reduced to two and one-half hours. It is possible that priesthood/relief society and Sunday School will be held on alternate Sundays.
11. Small Church post-secondary colleges may be established in Mexico, Brazil, the Philipines, and Chile. The tithing subsidy for tuition at the BYU campuses in the U.S. might be reduced to provide a similar subsidy to students at the non-U.S. campuses. Alternatively, the BYU campuses might be spun off entirely, in the same way the Church hospitals were. They would remain LDS in focus, but without the tithing subsidy. Or, if that does not occur, then greater equality of US and nonUs members might be attained by a greater subsidy to PEF out of tithing, in the same manner the Church universities are subsidized.
12. Small temples will continue to be built throughout the world, perhaps reaching 200 or 250 temples.
13. Missionaries will be permitted to teach in China and in many parts of the Middle East. The Church will strengthen its ties to Islamic countries and representatives. For the first time since the Church was established in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation in the world, there will be a serious and significant increase in conversions in that country.
14. The birthrate of LDS in the US will increase slightly, but not return to baby boom levels. Divorce rates will stabilize or drop somewhat.
15. As the baby boom retires, the number of senior missionaries will increase significantly, however, the relative proportion of members serving missions will remain steady. If Church membership of record increases to 20 million (about 50%), then the number of full the full time missionaries serving at that time will also increase about 50% (to 80,000 or 90,000).
16. The Church will once again begin making occasional disclosures of its finances.
17. Retention levels will continue a slow increase. Addiction recovery programs meetings (including pornography addiction support groups) will be part of this growth in retention, helping new converts (or lapsed members) address pernicious addictions in a safe, supportive environment, to return to complete spiritual health.
18. There will continue to be a strengthened emphasis on the Book of Mormon, and its teachings of gospel fundamentals such as God’s grace, free moral agency, redemption, and forgiveness. Further discouragement of the use of guilt as a motivator, and greater use of support and positive encouragement.
19. The Proclamation on the Family may become section 132, and the current section 132 will either be removed entirely (like the Lectures on Faith) or will be added as an historical footnote (like the footnote at the end of Joseph Smith-History).

So, these are my predictions for the church in the next 20 years.  What are your predictions?  Which of my predictions do you think unlikely?  Which do you think will happen?  Discuss.

For anyone vaguely familiar with the Latter-day Saints, the many parallels between the Twilight Saga and the Church’s theology will be apparent.

As a mother of two and full-time secondary school teacher, I was adamant not to read the novels in spite of having been asked, begged and ordered a countless number of times this year, to do so, claiming I was far too busy. Nevertheless, as I have now seen both Twilight and The Twilight Saga: New Moon, I can not help but feel a slight sting of portentousness as I recognise I may have been somewhat rash to dismiss what is now a literary and cinematic phenomenon. Is it juvenile, hormonal, and pubescent diversion?  Absolutely!  However, its moral subtext is impossible to miss – more so in the sequel – and is a text worthy for analysis of how Christian ideology is portrayed in contemporary English literature. Having been subjected to serious doses of pathetic fallacy, Socratic irony and the author surrogate, through such literature as Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights, it is refreshing to find a text which engages today’s youth to those same concepts while retaining an unquestionably cool, sexy image.

Though many critics remain fixated on the story’s preoccupation with sexual abstinence, there is a myriad of other parallels which LDS youth can relate to. The narrative centres on the turbulent temptations of the archetypical Byronic hero – a hero who appears doomed to destruction, with a bleak, dystopian vision of a future he has created for himself in the realms of his own mind. However, he is slowly brought to believe that redemption is possible, even for an unworthy soul such as himself.

Latter-Day Saint theology, indeed the Plan of Salvation, outlines in no uncertain terms the concepts of redemption and free agency – the notion that all are “free to choose”, be it good or bad, right or wrong, life or death (see, for example, 2 Nephi).  New Moon could not possibly be criticised for its lack of emphasis on choice and accountability, not only in the case of Edward (who is persistently fighting his inner demons in order to be a noble and virtuous man), but in the case of Jacob who surrenders to his werewolf nature. Bella’s remark to Jacob, “It’s not what you are, stupid, it’s what you do”, reinforces the idea that we are indeed capable of choosing our destinies and of ultimately becoming the person we want to be become, despite our innate natures.

The idea of sacrifice is expressed from the very beginning when Edward leaves to ensure Bella’s safety and thus is willing to give up the one person who gives meaning to his life. Moreover, the same notion is woven into the whole fabric of the plot through its blatant reference to Romeo and Juliet in the opening and closing passages of the film. Consequently, when towards the end of the story Edward believes Bella to be dead, he wishes to die himself. Unsurprisingly, when Bella discovers Edward to still be alive but in danger, she begs for his life in exchange for her own.  Beneath the literary comparison lies the Christian concept of charity as exemplified through Jesus Christ. Thus, the idea of sacrifice and unconditional love are central themes in the narrative.

There were also some interesting parallels which many outside the Church may not have picked up on.  I found the scene where the family unite to decide whether or not Bella should be converted rather amusing. What is not so humorous, however, are the unambiguous references to persecution and discrimination.  Anyone acquainted with the history of the church will be aware of the prejudice faced by the early Saints. The continual need to move from place to place, unable to settle permanently for fear of harassment or death, was a major feature of the early Church.  Intolerance towards LDS beliefs continues to some extent today.  This is epitomised in the Cullens’ hasty departure from their home and explicitly stated on several occasions by Edward.

The most striking connection between the Twilight films and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, however, is its focus on sexual abstinence and on marriage – a philosophy which has received some negative press since the release of New Moon. In our society which is fundamentally defined by superficial values such as instant gratification and a glaringly outward definition of identity, I must question whether we can afford to flippantly ignore the messages of restraint and ‘peer resistance’ which Myer presents.

The students who watched the film with me did not appear to mind the lack of sex.  On the contrary, they were rather touched by the old-fashioned romance which, by the way, is missing in most teen flicks of today. According to a friend who watched the film on the evening of its release, the last line delivered by Edward to Bella drew the biggest sigh, “I’ll change you on one condition…marry me, Bella.” I could not help but notice the manner in which the question was pre-fixed by the word “forever”. This line, to me, epitomises Latter-day Saint ideology on the family and purpose of life in a nutshell.

The Twilight Saga: New Moon is not a unique story in any way, shape or form.  As a film, it does not boast any awe-inspiring cinematic genius. So what does make these films as popular as they are?  I can’t attribute it to the irresistible good looks of the lead man or his sexy leading lady; the books were bestsellers long before the films were made. Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that Myer’s resurrection of old-fashioned values has struck a chord with many people.

Am I “converted” to the Twilight phenomenon?  No! Will I be reading the novels, even out of mere curiosity?  Probably not.  I am, nonetheless, excited about the trendy new slant the books and motion pictures represent of traditional and, seemingly, ‘uncool’ values in today’s ‘cool’ society.

The 2001 version of the For The Strength of Youth pamplet distributed to all LDS teens says the following regarding modesty:

…Never lower your dress standards for any occasion. Doing so sends the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval and that modesty is important only when it is convenient.

Immodest clothing includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and other revealing attire. Young women should wear clothing that covers the shoulder and avoid clothing that is low-cut in the front or the back or revealing in any other manner. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance….

I’ve always bristled at this proscriptive, specific list of directions on how to dress modestly. Partially because I happen to LIKE women in short shorts & skirts, but also because it seems to ignore the fact that modesty is a moving target that varies based on context. What’s modest now wasn’t modest 100 years ago, and what’s modest on the beach isn’t modest in the chapel or at work. These guidelines always seemed rather arbitrary to me while I was a teenager – and I’m sure todays teenagers are similarly perplexed. Why are the young women specifically instructed to cover their shoulders but the young men aren’t? Why is it culturally acceptable for the young men to wear swim suits that reveal their stomachs, but that would be considered immodest for the young women? With the definition of modesty changing over time and depending on where you are or what you’re doing, the obvious questions become: why is modesty important, or is it important? Why are such specific guidelines given?

God doesn’t seem to have given any specific commandments like “Thou shalt always cover your thighs at all times and all places.” The closest we’ve got is 1 Timothy 2:9-10 which says “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;” But this passage seems to be more about avoiding expensive or pretentious clothing than making sure we cover specific body parts. The lack of specific guidance from God leads me to believe that He expects us to determine our own definition of what is modest and what isn’t – perhaps even that God isn’t particularly concerned about what parts of our body we cover and what parts we don’t.

So if God doesn’t command it, why are we modest? Part of me believes that modesty is something we do out of respect for ourselves. I believe we should treat our bodies with respect and take good care of them, but it’s not clear to me that covering our bodies is necessarily a sign of respect – or that not covering our bodies is a sign of disrespect. Rather than discussing modesty in terms of coverage, it seems more appropriate to discuss our intentions when deciding to cover or not cover certain parts of our body, and the extent to which our desires effectively objectify or dehumanize ourselves. In this respect, the act of wearing revealing clothing may be insignificant, but our intentions may be questionable.

Ultimately, I believe that the principle of modesty is primarily about having respect for each other – that society has constructed a set of cultural norms and expectations for what people should wear at various times and places, and that we should dress modestly according to what those around us are wearing, or what they expect us to wear. So I believe we should dress modestly, but not necessarily for God, because I’m not sure He cares. Rather, we should dress modestly out of mutual respect for each other. Jesus taught that we should love our neighbors, and part of loving our neighbors is agreeing to live reasonably within societal expectations. We aren’t loving our neighbors if we choose to wear clothing that we know will offend someone else.

Based on my understanding, modesty has much more to do with context than anything else. It’s inappropriate to wear revealing clothing within a context where it will be unexpected or unappreciated. Of course, by adopting this understanding, I’m also acknowleging that it may be appropriate to wear revealing clothing within certain contexts – provided that our intentions aren’t to objectify ourselves. But I believe that individuals are best suited to decide for themselves what is appropriate and what isn’t for every occasion – while allowing societal expectations to inform their decisions.

So how should we interpret the proscriptive instructions given in the FTSOY pamphlet? One option is to believe that I am wrong, and that these are universal guidelines that should apply to all persons at all times in all places. If that’s the case, then The Church has some explaining to do regarding those little shorts the BYU Women’s volleyball players wear (I’m just sayin’…). The better option, in my opinion, is to believe that The Church is simply establishing the arbitrary dress code that will be required of the youth attending church-sponsored activities – a dress code that doesn’t apply to non-church-sponsored activities – and a dress code that all members of the Church should feel comfortable deviating from any time they are not participating in a church-sponsored activity.
I am aware that the pamphlet says, “Show respect for the Lord and for yourself by dressing appropriately for Church meetings and activities, whether on Sunday or during the week,” which seems to imply the opposite – that these are guidelines to be followed regardless of where you are or what you’re doing. I choose to interpret this statement very literally, however, and I believe that we should dress appropriately regardless of what we’re doing. I just believe that it’s our responsibility to determine what’s appropriate and what isn’t.

DISCLAIMER: The exception to the rule is that parents have the right to determine for their dependent children what is appropriate and what isn’t – and within this context, parents have the right to be as arbitrary as they please in setting rules for their children.

“Our Nation has had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination. Traditionally, such discrimination was rationalized by an attitude of ‘romantic paternalism’ which, in practical effect, put women not on a pedestal, but in a cage.” Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).

BYU is closing its Women’s Research Institute, and I, along with many others http://supportwri.blogspot.com/, am distressed by this decision. My distress comes, not only because of the consequences of this shortsighted move, but because it is emblematic of the overall problem in the church of romantic paternalism.

Forgive me a personal anecdote. There are many things that are sacred about LDS temples and not discussed outside their walls, however, the fact that they are staffed almost exclusively by surprisingly spritely octogenarians is not one of those details. As a newly married couple my husband and I went to the Salt Lake temple to do sealings.  When I got married I kept my surname and, for some reason it is only in Mormon contexts that this seems to particularly baffle people. This confusion almost always surfaces in American temples (since in many parts of the world, like all of Central and South America, it is social custom for the wife to keep her name). On this particular occasion one of the aforementioned elderly crew was having a hard time understanding why, though we were legally and lawfully wed, we had different surnames. He demanded that I give my reasons for such a decision, and not satisfied with the fact that it was my prerogative, he insisted that I was not respecting my husband. His final snide remark to me was, “well it will be nice when the light finally comes on for you.”

This angry brother was not alone in his contempt for independent women. I have seen many comments from people in the past few days that it is a shame that BYU is closing its Women’s Research Institute. I think that it is not only a shame, but also a sham. The official claims from the school are that the dissolution of the Institute will actually increase support of, funding for, and emphasis on women’s studies. This is emblematic of the doublespeak the BYU administration has perfected in response to concern over many issues. Less is more. Closing is just a way of beginning anew. We are shutting this program down because we find it so, so very important.

It is this same doublespeak that is used to simultaneously compliment and limit women in the church. As a Mormon woman I find it very uncomfortable to hear men talk about their wives in public settings from sacrament meeting to general conference. Traditional “feminine virtues” abound. Wives are described as “sweet,” “angelic,” “virtuous,” “charitable,” “compassionate,” “kind,” and, most importantly, “beautiful.” One Sunday we were asked to talk and I dared my husband to describe me as his “courageous,” “strong,” “intelligent” wife. I don’t want to be “cherished,” I want to be taken seriously.

There is a cohesive and powerful message to women running throughout the church. You have a (wonderful, glorious) place, stay put! This message runs throughout the history (ahem, polygamy & the ERA) and modern role models provided for women. You want to know why “Utah Women Lag Behind the Nation in Higher Education”  just watch General Conference any given session. All of the women who speak fit a very neat stereotype in their appearance, the subject matter of their talks and their delivery (which was described by my own father this way: “Hm, I don’t really know what it is about them, but NO MATTER what they are speaking about, their tone of voice seems to convey that they are talking about knitting.”).

This stereotype is also, of course, very pervasive in LDS culture. Last fall, as a first year law student studying in San Diego, I was invited to an event for all of the LDS law students in the area. There were approximately 30 students and their respective families in attendance. I was the only female law student. We took turns introducing ourselves in a circle after the meal while “the wives” played with children in an adjoining room. All of the men introduced themselves and said, “(insert female name) is over there with ‘the wives’.” When it came to us, everyone turned to my husband to introduce me. The experience was both surreal, and disconcerting. We both felt that the temporal context of that event might better have fit the 1970s, when my mother was attending law school, or 1870s for that matter.

This institutionalized approach of romantic paternalism in LDS culture needs to end. BYU, and the church in general need to take a leap into the 20^th Century (not to mention the 21^st). Women and men are equal in the sight of God. We are not more virtuous. We are not lovelier. We do not want to be held to a different standard, or be seen through a colored lens. We want our concerns, choices and academic pursuits to be taken seriously.

Back at the Salt Lake Temple in the sealing room that evening, in a moment of perhaps poor judgment, I replied to the obviously irritated temple worker, “that’s funny brother, I was about to say the very same thing.”

Still, Brandie Balken, director of Equality Utah, and Valerie Larabee, director of the Utah Pride Center, are heralding this as “a historic event.” They have stressed the importance of dialog and of finding common ground. They hope it is a harbinger of a future, more positive, more cooperative relationship between the gay community and the LDS Church.

On the question of “how significant” this step is, a brief poll of my husband and our foster son has yielded its own historic first. For the first time ever, my husband is in full agreement with the LDS Church. Not significant at all.

Pundits are already stressing the public relations damage the Church has sustained in the wake of its high profile support for Proposition 8 (and other similar referenda). As American society as a whole moves toward greater acceptance of its gay citizens – not merely as individuals, but as couples and families – the Church risks finding itself once again, as it did in the 1960s and 70s, associated in the public mind with bigotry and discrimination. In the wake of Proposition 8, the Utah gay community mounted a widely publicized campaign in which it emphasized discrepancies between Church statements in support of certain civil rights, and its failure ever to act on that rhetoric. Many now will view Church support for the Salt Lake ordinance as too little, too late. Salt Lake is finally passing an ordinance that was already passed in almost every other major municipality in America two decades ago. We fought and won that battle here in Minneapolis back in the 1980s.

As a gay Latter-day Saint who loves the Church and has a testimony of the Restored Gospel, my own reaction is considerably more complex than my husband’s, or that of the larger gay community. I feel heartache. I actually try to avoid dwelling on this kind of news. It’s too painful to me. Yes, it hurts to have to listen to Church spokesperson Michael Otterson’s careful public parsing of compassion, explaining exactly in what ways the Church considers me deserving of equality, and in what ways it most definitely does not. Those kinds of statements send me to my knees, pleading with God.

My life is composed of all the ordinary things every other life is composed of. My joy comes from the same simple things that others’ joy comes from. I need that kiss from my husband at the end of the day that tells me he’s glad we’re finally home together after the bumps and bruises of a typical workday. The mortgage we pay, the meals we share, the bed we share are my daily bread. They’re what give me strength for the battle. Sometimes the battle includes trips to the doctor and nursing our foster son through H1N1 flu. Figuring out how we can afford health care when our fuel bills are rising twice as fast as our raises at work. Trying not to get too worked up about the indignity of having to pay taxes that other Americans don’t, because my husband’s dental coverage through my law firm is not a benefit the Federal government considers tax exempt. Working hard to be a good and valuable paralegal by day, teacher and father and husband by night. Trying to be a responsible member of my community, volunteering at the local homeless shelter and giving money to the Red Cross, even when it feels like we have less money to go around. All of those things are part of the good life! And how would any part of that equation be any less important to me than to my straight co-workers, friends, brothers and sisters? How would it be any less of an assault to my dignity than it would be for anybody else, to be told that certain rights are acceptable for me to have, but others are out of the question, because – the Church tells me – it would be better for me to live my life alone than to have the love and support of a life companion?

When I pour my heart out to my Heavenly Father, when I refuse to get up off my knees until I’ve had an answer, I receive back from him “liberally!” “Without upbraiding!” There’s no parsing of compassion in that sweet communion! No stinginess there! No sense that I deserve any less than any other of his children. That love is overwhelming, boundless, eternal! Forgive, and you will be forgiven! Love as I have loved you! Do not fear! Do not sorrow! Do not be angry! Enter into my joy and be whole!

It’s in that love I have to dwell. It is to the mercy of Christ and his judgment seat I must cling. The sin that takes me out of that love, that plunges me into despair is always at the door. The temptation to judge. The temptation to become angry and self-righteous. To be ungrateful for what I have. If I want my debts forgiven, I have to let go.

And yet, despite the pain I feel, despite the way these debates send me seeking comfort from God, I also understand where the Church’s (sometimes seemingly excessive) caution comes from. Even though at some level these kinds of political wrestling matches are unbearable to me (and I try not to think about them too much), I understand that the doctrine, the teachings, the ordinances of the Church are not ours to do with as we please. Church leaders do not – contrary to popular perception – have the freedom to do whatever they want. They can only act according to the authority that has been given them by God. That is an authority weighty beyond what most of us can imagine. And President Monson is as bound by it as anyone else in the Church.

Moreover, I understand that the dividing line between Church and State is and never can be as tidy as many activists on this issue would have it. Biblical, Christian faith does not distinguish between morality in the civic realm and in the personal realm. Not just individuals but nations are judged by God. I may disagree with Church leaders’ current view on what constitutes moral action in the civic sphere. But I cannot disagree with the Church that faith places demands on us as citizens and voters. To disagree on that score would make me a hypocrite, given that I see my own (more liberal) political involvements profoundly flowing from my relationship with God, from the promises and commitments I have made to him.

Thus the complexity of emotions that overwhelm me in moment like this. I am left facing paradoxes and dilemmas that challenge every part of who I am. Why, in my relationship with God do I feel whole and good, not just in who I am, in how I am wondrously created, but in my relationship with my husband? Why did I feel so sustained by the loving, comforting presence of the Spirit in our journey to California in July 2008 to get legally married? Why do I experience the California Supreme Court’s post-Prop 8 upholding of that marriage as a tender mercy of the Lord? How can I feel so close to God, and the leaders of the Church I have a testimony of have such a different view? Why doesn’t God reveal to them what he revealed to me a long, long time ago? That I am OK just the way I am? That I, the workmanship of God’s hands, am not to question his wisdom as my Creator? Why does the Spirit continue to affirm both that I and my relationship are good, and that the Church is true and its leaders are called of God?

I take comfort that so many of my fellow Saints are finally wrestling with similar complexities and paradoxes. That is one reason I love the Church, why I continue to pour my heart out in prayer to some day be a member of it again in good standing. I love the Church, partly because it creates in us the right impulses, and tests us in the right way.

To stand in the paradox I must presently stand in teaches me faith, compassion, love, and most of all patience. If we can all learn these values in our mutual wrestling over these issues, God will have given us a much, much greater gift than equality in housing or employment.

Update: Mormon Matters would like to thank our guest poster, John Gustav-Wrathall, and introduce him to our readers. John was born in Provo, Utah a fifth generation Mormon, and was raised in the Rochester, New York area, a stone’s throw from where the Church was founded. He served in the Switzerland Geneva mission, and was a Spencer W. Kimball scholar at BYU, until wrestling with being gay nearly led to suicide and he left BYU. John later earned a Ph.D. in American History at the University of Minnesota. He authored the book Take the Young Stranger by the Hand: Same-Sex Relations and the YMCA (University of Chicago Press, 1998). He lives with his partner of 18 years in Minneapolis, MN. John works as a patent paralegal in Minnesota and teaches as adjunct faculty at United Theological Seminary. He regularly attends his local ward. Concerning his membership, he explains: “Since October 2005, I have been regularly attending the LDS Church, and living as faithfully according to LDS principles as I can, while remaining faithful to my spouse and excommunicated from the Church.” John’s personal blog is Young Stranger.

So what?
So, what if
I’m one of those
cafeteria Mormons?
No offense.
More like it
makes some sense,
since my Mormor
(Swedish for
maternal grandmother)
ran a cafeteria,
and had to forgo
coffee (drinking it,
serving it)
just to join
the Mormon church.

Just because
she gave up caffeine
didn’t miss her chance
(between husbands)
to answer life’s
tough questions.
To pick and choose
to make a living.

“Smart,” my mother
said of Mormor –
“smart businesswoman.”
That was before
the patriarchy
gave their wives
the business
about a woman’s role.
Coffee rolls (kaffebullar)
were what my Mormor
baked and sold.

Sorry, whole different
time now, but an old
story. Comes
to spiritual food,
can not order
manna
off the menu.
“No substitutes,”
my waiter scoffs.
I complain –
Maitre d’ informs
me it is the chef’s
night off. Wrong
venue — “this is
no cafeteria.”

Not as if
I object to eating
vegetables.
But if every bite
is planned for me,
might lose
the nerve
for that unique
hors d’oeuvre –
free agency. Takes
the edge off
appetite.

Say I appreciate
the main course, yet
cannot swallow
everything –
therefore leave some
garnish on my plate.
Would the omission
seal my fate — damnation
for my soul? No
satisfaction? Nada?
Forgive me if I take
the risk. Refuse to eat
the enchilada, whole.

In the earliest years of Joseph’s prophethood, from Abner Cole to Eber D. Howe, critics of the Mormon prophet have pointed to his being a treasure-seer as direct evidence that Joseph was a fraud.  For modern readers, it can be difficult to imagine how anyone could honestly look into a stone and claim to see buried gold and silver.  In the twentieth century, ex-Mormon Fawn Brodie repeated that credulousness in her landmark biography No Man Knows My History—which considerably shaped the understanding of Joseph Smith for several decades—where she stated conclusively that Joseph Smith was a clear impostor as a treasure-seer and that his prophetic identity evolved as the natural next step.

For most the nineteenth and twentieth century, Latter-day Saint historians have been reluctant to admit that the Smith family was ever deeply involved in treasure-seeking.  That seemed to change in the decades surrounding the production and publication of the Hoffman forgeries in the early 1980s which caused many LDS historians to seriously rethink the story of Joseph’s teenage years.  Originally considered legitimate, two of the forgeries were letters—one from Joseph Smith and another from Martin Harris—which implicated the young prophet as a treasure-seer in Palmyra.

Although the letters were later exposed as forgeries, the damage had been done.  Latter-day Saint historians, it seemed, were more willing to admit that Joseph Smith utilized his seer-stone in the search for buried treasure.  The consensus shifted, but scholars still argued over the implications.  Were Abner Cole, Eber Howe, and Fawn Brodie right that Joseph deceived people using the stone?  Or is it possible that Joseph and other early nineteenth-century treasure-seers were sincere in their belief that they could find treasure through occult means?

Brodie in her biography accused Joseph of being a fraud based at least partly on the statements of neighbors in the Hurlbutt affidavits, most of which portrayed his treasure-seeking in a negative light.  However several of the men who signed these affidavits were treasure-seekers themselves—one, Willard Chase, was a respected Methodist class leader.  Richard L. Anderson has demonstrated that the affidavits show much influence from their collector, Mormon apostate Philastus Hurlbut.  Brodie (and other scholars and critics of Joseph Smith over the last two centuries) has given these clearly prejudiced—and possibly doctored—affidavits too much credence when using them to show that Joseph Smith was a fraud as a seer.

Although of course there were exceptions, many treasure-seekers—including the seers—were honest people who sincerely believed they could find buried Indian or Spanish treasure in the earth.  Treasure-seeking was enormously popular in the Northeast during the Second Great Awakening, and many treasure-seekers were deeply religious.  As mentioned, Palmyra’s Willard Chase led Methodist class meetings.  The New Israelite community led by Nathaniel Wood in Vermont made treasure-seeking through divining rods a key part of their worship and believed the ability was a spiritual gift.  In 1826, Joseph Smith was brought to court as “a disorderly person” and “impostor” by one of the relatives of Josiah Stowell, who had hired him to aid in a search for a Spanish silver mine.  At the trial, Joseph Smith, Sr. testified and was reported to have said that he and his son “were mortified that this wonderful power which God had so miraculously given him should be used only in search of filthy lucre.”  Many people in the region saw this ability as a gift from God.  Treasure-seeking did not—in their minds—conflict with orthodox religion.  An honest, hard-working, pious Christian could go on a treasure-hunt—led by either a seer using a stone or a divining rod—without ever considering that the the activity might somehow be antithetical to his religion.

As a spiritual gift, treasure-seeking was actually intricately connected with religion.  Non-Mormon historian Alan Taylor writes of early America as “a context where treasure-seekers were neither fools nor deceivers, where treasure-seeking was part of an attempt to recapture the simplicity and magical power associated with apostolic Christianity.”  Despite the materialistic nature of treasure-seeking, it was also a spiritual search.  The Second Great Awakening that spurred the same revivals that enticed young Joseph Smith to search for the correct church also enticed him to embrace the supernatural in his ability as a treasure-seer.

Is it possible for Latter-day Saints to retain their view of the Prophet of the Restoration as God’s anointed servant and simultaneously understand his treasure-seeking activities as a young man?  Can we see him the same when we realize that during the years after he had his First Vision and in the middle of his yearly interviews with Moroni, he was peering into a seer-stone at night to direct a band of men in the search for buried gold?  Of course we can.  Perhaps part of the struggle comes from our thinking that he immediately understood his prophetic future in 1820, when in reality he was still trying to grasp it as late as the 1829.  Joseph later understood that his future was not in searching for earthly treasures; according to Martin Harris, the angel Moroni later commanded Joseph to “quit the company of the money-diggers.”  But what Latter-day Saints should realize and be thankful for is that, in many ways, treasure-seeking helped prepare the minds of the Smiths for the visions of young Joseph and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  LDS Historian Richard L. Bushman has actually called this aspect of their lives “a preparatory gospel.”

Latter-day Saints should remember that Joseph of Palmyra was not Jesus of Nazareth.  He was not immune to social, cultural, or religious pressures which inevitably shaped his person, nor should we arrogantly expect him to be.  Because we are so far separated from the culture in which he grew up, we should refrain from passing presentist judgments.  Joseph Smith was a prophet—and both he and God worked with what they had in western New York in bringing about the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Today’s guest post is by LaJauna

I’m going to be writing a column here from time to time called “LaJauna on Life,” in the which I will talk about lessons that I have learned from life in the hopes that you may all benefit from those lessons as well. My freshman year here at BYU last year was such an amazing growing experience where I learned and developed so much as a person and in the gospel. The whole experience of living away from my home in Sandy for the first time ever was truly a refiner’s fire for me. But it was all for my good and benefit in the end, and that brings me to the topic of this inaugural issue of LaJauna on Life – Lesson #1: Deserving Charity.

Last Spring we had a really spiritual lesson in Gospel Doctrine class about the topic of grace. I felt like I could really use more grace in my life, so I decided to start doing more acts of charity in an effort to prove my worthiness to receive it. One evening, our Relief Society President called and asked if I could take dinner over to a sister in our ward who was recuperating from surgery. I thought this was a perfect opportunity to get in some service hours, so I gladly agreed to do it even though it would come at a great personal sacrifice. Cooking dinner for this recuperating sister meant I wouldn’t be able to study as much for my Marriage Prep final the next morning. But, remembering the Lord’s contractual offer that “I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say,” I cooked up a batch of my famous chicken broccoli casserole, and walked it over to this recuperating sister’s condo. And boy did I get the shock of my life when she opened the door!

What was painfully obvious to me the moment this sister opened the front door was that the kind of surgery she was recuperating from was a boob job! You read that right — she’d gotten a total BJ! This sister who’d previously been no more than a B-cup on a good day was now flaunting a grossly overdone set of double-D’s! I was just speechless, so I just kinda slipped my oven mitts with the casserole dish into her hands without saying a word, turned around, and ran back to my apartment.

I was so flustered that whole night that I couldn’t even concentrate on studying for my Marriage Prep final. I was caught in a whirlpool of anxiety and anger, knowing full well that the Brethren have clearly countseled us not to get that sort of self-gratifying elective surgery. For example, here’s a quote from a General Conference talk by Elder Holland:

As one Hollywood actress is reported to have said recently: “We’ve become obsessed with beauty and the fountain of youth. … I’m really saddened by the way women mutilate [themselves] in search of that. I see women [including young women] … pulling this up and tucking that back. It’s like a slippery slope. [You can’t get off of it.] … It’s really insane … what society is doing to women.”

In terms of preoccupation with self and a fixation on the physical, this is more than social insanity; it is spiritually destructive, and it accounts for much of the unhappiness women, including young women, face in the modern world. And if adults are preoccupied with appearance—tucking and nipping and implanting and remodeling everything that can be remodeled—those pressures and anxieties will certainly seep through to children.

All that night as Elder Hollands words were ringing in my head, I couldn’t stop wondering: Did the Relief Society President know what kind of surgery this sister was recuperating from? And was Sister Boob Job now under the misimpression that the Relief Society President and I looked favorably upon her decision to self-mutilate her own body? And most importantly, by giving service to a sinner, had I just made myself an accomplice to sin?

But as I sat there all flustered that night, a peaceful feeling gradually descended upon me as I realized that God must have made this terrible thing happen in my life to teach me a lesson.  It donned on me that now was certainly was not the time and place for me to be worrying about whether Sister Boob Job deserved my act of charity. Rather, determining whether this recuperating sister deserved my charity was something the Relief Society President and I should have done before we decided to help her. Now that I had already helped her, the damage had been done, and it was too late to take back the charity I had shown.

And so that’s what brings me to LaJauna on Life’s Lesson #1: We need to make sure that people truly deserve our help before performing acts of charity for them. If we don’t make sure people are worthy of our acts of charity, we might be misunderstood as approving of behaviors of which we don’t approve.  Or worse, by serving a sinner we might make ourselves accomplices to their sin.

So, just to give a few examples of how to apply this lesson in our daily lives, before helping a homeless person we need to first ask: “How come you’re homeless, and how can I really be sure you’re not going to just use this money to buy cigarettes or beer?”  Or if we’re ever asked to help out with a baby shower we should first ask: “Who is the father, and was this baby conceived out of wedlock?”  Or if we’re ever asked to help someone with AIDS, we should first ask that person: “How did you get it?” And so on and so forth.

But anyway, I should finish my story. Despite my most fervent pleadings for forgiveness that night, and in spite of my prayers for help on my Marriage Prep final the next morning, I ended up getting a D on the test. So I definitely learned my lesson this time, and I’m just going to have to forgive myself and move on.

But I’ll tell you one thing, I hope my broccoli casserole gave Little Miss Lusty Busty some super bad gas!

As a guest author, a brief introduction is appropriate.  I am a direct descendant from members of the Martin Handcart company of mormons, however, despite the efforts of my ancestors to make such sacrifices to walk across the plains to get out west, my parents decided to take a plane ride back to the East Coast where I was born and raised in the church my whole life.  I attended BYU, served a state-side mission, and now am married with 4 kids that are the center of my life.

Entering a new stage in life (the old, out of shape, and bald stage), I marvel at how far I have to go yet in my understanding of things, and have started realizing that my prior confidence in seeing light and truth is but a pinhole view of the true vision and beauty this mortal experience has to offer all of us.

This enlightenment has made me think a lot about enlightenment, and even more so on Light, which is such an interesting spiritual and physical topic.

The word “Light” appears in the scriptures 535 times. The dictionary defines light as something that makes vision possible or something that enlightens or informs.

Interestingly, Greeks first theorized light originated from the eye, and went outward so we could see things.  Now it is known that the Sun is our source of light and it is by the law of reflection that forms, shapes, and colors give us vision to see things.

One of the first things God did in the creation was to divide the light from the dark, for darkness cannot abide where there is light.  And light was good.  There was light before there was life.

As a few of us on another forum were discussing light, it became a topic that has so many levels of meaning, that it would be good to discuss on MormonMatters what these things mean to this group, and hopefully bring to light a greater meaning of “light”.

There are others in our group like JMB275 can probably give even more detail on the science and physics of light, and how ElectroMagnetic Radiation is understood now.  All I know is that all colors of light are made of the same substance, but manifest themselves differently to my eye based on variation in wave lengths of types of electromagnetic radation waves.  Even the same light source (sun’s rays) appear different to my eye at different times of the day (sunrise, mid-day, sunset) and at different seasons (winter vs summer).

Likewise, I can see the light of the gospel differently, or understand things differently, at different times in my life.  Indeed, temple ceremonies or scriptures can remain fairly constant, yet each time I refer back to them, they seem to bring some new color or principle to life, and I see the world differently by being exposed to them.

I have often wondered why some people, including me, go through trials or experiences, and something in them changes so that what they used to see clearly, as clear as day about the church and their testimony of it, suddenly changes and appears different, sometimes drastically different.  In those situations, has the outside object (the church or God) changed? No, but the individuals “eyes” or “lenses” or whatever they use to see these things, somehow changes and they see it differently.

Brigham Young said: “Let a man or woman who has received much of the power of God, visions and revelations, turn away from the holy commandments of the Lord, and it seems that their senses are taken from them, their understanding and judgment in righteousness are taken away, they go into darkness, and become like a blind person who gropes by the wall” (DBY, 82-83).

Throughout the scriptures, people would fall away from truth and were said to have their minds darkened at times, because of unbelief; which is really to say that the light was still there but something was blocking it and they were left in darkness.  In 1832, as some early missionaries returned from their fields of labor, the Lord reproved them for treating the Book of Mormon lightly. As a result of that attitude, He said, their minds had been darkened. Not only had treating this sacred book lightly brought a loss of light to themselves, but a condemnation to the whole church which decades later Ezra T. Benson continued to teach was still in affect.

Christ taught in Matthew 6:23 that if your eye is evil, the whole body is dark.  Or sometimes there may be something on or in your eye that can block that light.  Cataracts make things dark or wearing rose-colored glasses changes how you see the outside world. Of Beams and Motes In the Sermon on the Mount, the Savior revealed one of the greatest insights to the human tendency to fault-finding, and gave what is sometimes called the Change-First Principle. For him, a beam was a large piece of wood and a mote was a small speck of sawdust.  Clearly it is more important to remove the beam so we can see the light unobstructed.

The other relevant aspect of light to note is how uniquely personal vision or the interpretation of that light can be.  While a light source containing one truth (or one make-up of patterns of electromagnetic radiation wavelengths), it can be seen or perceived so differently depending on our processing or interpretation of that one light source.  Our eye sensors measure it and my sensors aren’t the same as everyone else’s.  I have a difficult time seeing the difference between a light shade of pink and white, and the difference between darker pink and red, and also blue and purple.  Others are color blind altogether, only seeing some colors they can interpret or if only may see shades of black and white and never experience what red is (or experience it differently than I do).  Even still, others are blind all together and don’t see colors or shapes or forms or light, just darkness.

Interestingly, the light from the source is still the same for everyone, yet we could debate for hours on end what “red” really is.  Why is it so important to define the color and what it is and classify everything by how we see things? Wouldn’t it be nice if the world could just say “yes that is a beautiful color – whatever you call it”?

Finally, the other aspect of light I see relevant to discuss is that light is not only what we see with our eyes, but also is what we feel.  On a cloudy day, a sunburn can remind you that not all the sun’s light is visible, and for those who are blind and can’t see the light, can still feel the warmth to know the light is there.  Having lived across the country, my experience in Ohio reminds me that during late winter months until summer time, the overcast clouds hide the sunlight for most of the time, and the psychological effects are that there is increased depression by not being exposed to enough visible light.  With more light we seem to be more happy and healthy.

I reflect (no pun intended) upon the message of the Master: “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” (John 8:12). The firmer our faith in Jesus Christ, the clearer our vision of ourselves and what we can ultimately achieve and become. “Where there is no vision, the people perish,” Solomon proclaimed (Prov. 29:18). But how do we get a clear vision of who we are?

How much do we think we see the full spectrum of light and we think our vision is clear and complete, yet we are only really seeing a few colors of the rainbow, and there is more to see if we let ourselves?

In D&C 88, we read about the Light of Christ.

6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;

7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to bfill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

These ideas shed an interesting light on the subject.  Light is not only knowledge and understanding, but life itself comes from light. What can live without any light?  I think in this, there is something common throughout the whole human race, the Light of Christ and the feeling from our conscience or sub-conscience that there is a purpose in life, and that whatever it is, it is bigger than us. There is a draw or pull to want us to find more light and knowledge, and see the full rainbow of colors to experience the beauty of it all.

Reptile experts know you can differentiate a poisonous cotton mouth snake from a non-venomous snake by its colors.  The Lord didn’t make everything white. What makes the world such a beautiful place is seeing all the colors of the rainbow, like different instruments and parts of an orchestra that together sound vibrant.  By not only tolerating others and other religions, but loving and accepting them for who they are and become awed by their colors and their truths they possess, we can begin to really see things as God sees all His children.  To believe the Mormon church has all that is of value to me is like making my whole house blue, inside and out…not very appealing, and it would probably drive me crazy without going out into the world to see other colors.

Perhaps instead of trying to our establish our vision as “the right way” and tell others they need to see it that way too, we will find that as we get close to God and see things in His light, that your colors and my colors and all colors of the rainbow merge into one beautiful color of white, brighter far than the noon-day sun. Of course, as we come closer to the true light, we become more aware of blemishes and things about ourselves we need to fix as we see more of ourselves as we really are.  In the dark shadows, distinctions and differences are hidden from our view.  Perhaps that is why some people prefer the darkness, and feel more comfortable holding dances with less illumination…I mean, who wants to really see all that is going on in some situations?  This could be why some will feel more comfortable in a Telestial Kingdom where the glory is compared to the flickering light of a far off star.

So what does the group think about the principles of light and how you see colors differently from others, and what that means about your perceptions of truth and light?  What are other colors that the world has to offer that we may not be able to see if we filter everything through a set of Mormon tinted eyeglasses?  Do you believe there is one source of light out there?

I was sooooooooooooooooo naive.  I actually thought I would find my personal Peter Priesthood on one of those sites.  What a joke!  I feel compelled to give the following disclaimer.  I am not, nor do I claim to be anything close to perfect.  I am no Molly.  I can’t carry a tune or play the piano.  Prairie skirts and fluffy bangs look horrible on me (I know–I am dating myself). 

But seriously, I am a cool chick and I made a commitment before I even started dating at 16 to keep the law of chastity.  After my divorce, I committed myself again to following the law of chastity.  It wasnt easy.  Those feelings and desires just dont go away when you sign the divorce papers.  I was married to a non-member, and when I started thinking about dating again, I figured I would date both members and non-members.  My first “relationship” was with a non-member.  I was crazy for this guy and he was crazy for me, but he just could not wrap his mind around two adults being in love and not having sex.  It was difficult to explain.  I had been sexually active, and now I was just going to stop?  Was I insane?  Frigid?  A little of both?

When I broke up with that guy, I decided that I would date only members.  Even if they didnt follow the law of chastity themselves, they would get why I did.  Right?  WRONG!  After I signed up and logged on, it was like I was the “belle of the ball.”  It was a huge ego boost, but what I soon realized is that it had very little to do with me.  I was simply fresh meat and the sharks were circling.

After the frenzy died down, there were 2 or 3 men that I continued to IM and email, but where it got interesting is about every week or so I would get a new “hit”–someone would just pop in with an IM and start flirting with me.  Hard.  When i would look at their profiles I would find that the majority of these guys were KIDS.  I mean KIDS:  age range from 21(hello horny RM) to 26.  This really surprised me.  I was so out of their age bracket.  I even asked them, “Did you notice my age?” and got responses along the lines of ”Older chicks are cool!”

What I quickly learned is the reason older chicks are “cool” is because many of us are divorced which means we were previously sexually active, and quite possibly more open to being sexually active now and teaching a few things to the youngsters.  One of the kids actually told me “everything, but . . .” was OK, and you would be worthy to keep your temple recommend.  What?!  One young man was looking for a more geographically convenient hookup.  There was one girl he had been “seeing” on the other side of town, and he was talking to me because I lived in his area.  Are you feeling all warm and fuzzy?  A few tears coming to your eyes?  I met a lot of men on those sites.  Some were nice.  Of all the men I met, I am still on friendly terms with two.

My conclusion is, for the most part, that the LDS dating sites are cyber singles bars where men (women, too, I am sure) can easily hide the big ole skeletons in their closet behind pretending to be a faithful (notice I didnt say perfect) member of the church.

So, what can single (or divorced) adults of a certain age do if they want to keep the law of chastity while dating?  Is it a lost cause?  What are your experiences with Mormon dating sites?  Is chastity after divorce unrealistic?  Have any of you experienced the “Reverse Cougar” described above (young Mormon male seeks experienced hot older female)?  Is there a better way?

Discuss.

“My name is Kate. I was raised Catholic, but converted to the Mormon church in 1999 in a hippy branch at Cornell University. Since leaving that branch, I have struggled to find my voice within the LDS world. Where does a politically liberal, PhD-holding, working mom fit in? I created the Myriad Mormon Musings blog in an attempt to find my niche as I struggle with LDS culture versus doctrine.”

Recently, my husband and I attended a marriage and family retreat. One of the speakers described three phases of the marriage relationship as the honeymoon, disillusionment, and joy phases. The honeymoon phase is where your spouse can do no wrong, and is perfect.  The disillusionment phase occurs when you start to realize that your spouse is not perfect, and ask yourself “what have I done?”  However, it is only with a full understanding of the other person, warts and all, that you can reach the “joy” phase, where you love one another despite (or even because of) their failings, and this makes the commitment that much greater.

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about how this concept applies to my walk with God. It will be 10 years ago in September that I officially joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons).  Before joining the church, I thought I had done a lot of research into my decision. I had spent 4 years looking at other churches, learning their doctrine and attending their church services. Surprisingly, not all of my academic efforts led me to the decision to become Mormon. It all came down to the Holy Spirit and what it was telling me God wanted me to do.

When I was meeting with the missionaries, they talked a lot about the Restoration, and how we are the only church with authority on the earth. The talked about how other churches have light and knowledge, but how ours is the only one with the fullness of the Gospel. In Conference talks, there is a lot of focus on our church Fathers, the Pioneers who lead the way across the Plains to Utah to settle Zion. In our Sunday School lessons, Church history focuses exclusively on Joseph Smith’s first wife (Emma), and ignores the “less-savory” aspects, such as polygamy, blacks in the Priesthood, the expulsion of the intellectuals, the Church’s role in the ERA, etc.

I knew that there was a lot of history that has tripped up the testimonies of others in the church. For that reason, I have really pushed off learning about it, in an effort to build my own faith before trying it. This past year, I made the decision to open that historical can of worms and found… worms. Yes, it wasn’t as bad as I was afraid of (it wasn’t snakes). However, it still has been enough to change my perspective and shake things up a bit for me.

I know that all churches have things about them that they would prefer to ignore. The Catholic church has the Inquisition and its relationship with Hitler. Muslims have the fundamentalist view of Jihad. Mormons have polygamy. The problem I am having now is that for years I have thought that our church was perfect. That the Prophets would never teach anything that was incorrect or untrue. Then I find statements from Brigham Young saying that interracial marriages are, in God’s eyes, punishable by death. I find contradictions, where early church leaders taught that the “new and everlasting covenant” meant polygamous/plural marriage, whereas now we teach that only monogamous marriage is acceptable. While my faith in fundamental Gospel principles and doctrines remains firm (I still believe in the Restoration, for instance), my ability to blindly accept everything the Prophet says as true has been shaken.

It may not sound like that big of a deal, but in a lot of ways it is. It’s like being married to someone and then finding out that they aren’t what they appeared to be when you married them. You still love them, but some of the being “in love” has worn off. You find out that they have imperfections where you once found them perfect. They have fallen from a pedestal you had placed them on. My hope is that this disillusionment phase can only lead to a final joy, where I can rest in my stronger testimony of God and His Apostles.

Another thing that I realized recently is that there are several non-doctrinal “ways to faith” that the Mormon church doesn’t really emphasize. For instance, meditation and devotion are largely undiscussed in our faith culture. Yet, these are some of the ways that I have felt closest to God in the past. I have been rediscovering them, and realizing how much my own spiritual growth has suffered without them. How does one learn about these things, when they are not taught or an active part of the faith culture you are in? Does the fact that they are not taught make them wrong?

Another example is the idea of a personal ministry. In the Mormon church, you are called by a priesthood leader, through no power or act of your own, to different responsibilities/ministries in the church. There is really no place for someone who feels God calling them. Typically, it is said that if you aspire to a calling, then you are unrighteous. It’s as if God must work the hierarchy; if you haven’t been called by a priesthood leader, it doesn’t count.

Recently, I have been feeling more and more like God has been trying to call me to a specific ministry. But I can’t determine what it is. Moreover, it is somewhat impotent when I feel like there is not a church program or mechanism for me to reach that ministry, no matter what it may be. I felt strongly that I was supposed to go to the Marianist retreat. Now I feel that I should be exploring other faith cultures again, to “find” this ministry. But to what end? If I know the Book of Mormon is God’s word, then what else and where else can I go?

• Home teaching.  If God’s capable of reading the minds, and hearing/sorting through prayers from seven billion people speaking 1,000+ languages and dialects simultaneously here on Earth, surely he has a grip on the status of everyone in the afterlife.  And after all, isn’t it only blue skies and crying babies anyway?  So, I’m guessing that the monthly calls that everyone tries to avoid will be a thing of the past.
• Moving.  There was a time when we were moving 2-3 families a month into and out of our Ward.  I’m nearly moved-to-tears at the idea of not moving anyone in the eternal abode.  They’ll catch their own ride to their assigned home planet and start the procreating without any boxes, U-Haul, etc.  Wahoo!
• Church Welfare.  I’m not sure how many of you would enjoy sitting across a desk from a neighbor and telling them to dump cell phones, cars, RV’s, etc., to reduce monthly expenses, but I dread it.  With the celestial streets paved in gold, welfare shouldn’t be an issue.  Although it brings up further questions: is the gold only in the Celestial Kingdom, or do all three come equally-equipped in this area, and more importantly, if a resource isn’t rare anymore, is it really worth anything?  But I digress…
• Church Meetings.  Now here’s an interesting one to me.  After we’ve ‘made it’ will we have to go to any Church meetings anymore?  Since we’ll already know everyone else’s thoughts, I assume that we’ll know what that person would give a talk about, before the talk is even given.  I think I’m safe to say that Sunday may turn out to truly be days of rest in the hereafter.  Don’t get me wrong – I suppose that sitting in a chair for twelve hours every Sunday could be considered resting to a guy that works in construction, but…
• Travel.  There were few things that I hated more while raising my kids here on Earth than long car trips with children under five.  With all the child-rearing that will be going on eternally in the netherworlds, I’m really hoping that there aren’t celestial maxi-vans and that travel will be more-or-less instantaneous, like what we see on Star Trek, but with much larger teleportation pads that can facilitate a few thousand kids at a time.
• In-laws and extended-family reunions.  Since we’re all, ‘brothers and sisters,’ will we still be expected to visit in-laws in the hereafter?   I can’t imagine having extended-family reunions either, since a gathering of tens of billions would take some massive coordination, and that doesn’t even include the Neanderthals.  On that note, are the Kingdoms going to be species-segregated, or will we all get lumped together?  I enjoy the thought of seeing Fido again, but not so much being chased by the saber-toothed tigers and velociraptors.

So, what are the to-die-for changes that you’re most looking forward to in the afterlife?

Bishop Mike Young

spanishfork401stward.blogspot.com

The narrative in the New Testament, and in the scriptures both before and after typically assume that Christ was to be crucified.  Taken as a lamb to the slaughter, so to speak.  The undeniable nature of this act, and the seeming inevitability of it seems to have been prophesied from nearly the beginning of God’s relationship with man.  However, modern day prophets have declared that the majority of Christ’s atonement was worked out not on the Cross, but rather in the Garden [insert references here--Talmage will help!].  If this is truly the case, that Christ suffered for our sins in Gethsemane, not on Calvary, then the true significance of Calvary refers to the ressurrection.  So, based on the lessons that Jonah learned in Ninevah, let us presume that Pontius Pilate found Christ to be more compelling, that he repented of his sins upon meeting the Savior in person and risked the rebellion of the Sanhedrin, and thus the Jews.

In this scenario, he refuses to crucify Christ, and instead nails Barrabas to a cross, and on that Passover weekend it is three thieves that are killed in the cruel Roman method.  Christ is whipped to appease the Sanhedrin a bit, but Pontius then brings him into his house, and questions him more.  After some further learning, he decides that the Kingdom that this odd Jew is teaching of is one that he wishes to understand, and he asks to become a disciple, no matter the cost.  He is not asked to forsake his position, for unlike the young man who had much worldly wealth, Pilate has already (by not crucifying Christ) shown that his faith is sincere and that he is willing to sacrifice much (see Talmage’s treatment of Pilate’s position with the Sanhedrin and with the higher Roman government–I won’t rehash that here).

With Christ having worked out the atonement in Gethsemane, and now UnCrucified, prophesies about his death and the resurrection are now going to be postponed.  He begins a new phase in his ministry, and the Twelve, both shamed by their actions that night, and jubilant at his survival, renew their efforts at teaching.  The Sanhedrin begins plotting anew at taking his life, but now with the protection of the Roman Government, they are somewhat less powerful.  Christ, sensing their willingness to do him harm, takes the advice of Pilate and travels to Rome, thus beginning his first Roman Ministry.  There other sheep are found, and he is able to establish a branch of the church.

Upon His return to Jerusalem, some of the Sanhedrin have died, but the biggest change is that Gamaliel (remember him–he’s the one who taught Paul) is now at a point where he can accept the message of Christ as Savior.  Although Christ remains in Jerusalem for some time, he then feels compelled to travel again.  While his original ministry had been to the Jews only, after working out the Atonement,  it is now time to share the gospel with the world at large.  Instead of Peter’s vision of eating unclean animals, we have records of Christ going before Jerusalem and slaughtering a pig and serving this to his disciples.  Such an act enrages those who do not follow him (and even some who do), but drives home the message that the gospel is to go to all.

After this act, He again travels to Rome, for his second Roman Ministry, leaving Peter, James & John to lead the church in his absence, but taking the other Twelve.  The church is now growing rapidly in Jerusalem and Rome.  While in Rome, Christ also begins talking more seriously about more advanced doctrines, and instructs the Twelve to keep extensive records.  Leaving three of the Twelve there to head the Church for a while and continue teaching for a while, he takes the remaining six on an extensive wandering ministry to gather in even more lost sheep, eventually ending his journey in Jerusalem.

While in Jerusalem Christ teaches that because so many have begun to repent many once-prophesied disasters have been averted and that the work will be advanced greatly.  He sends Peter, James, & John on an extended mission with several seventies to organize more remote branches of the church, having further instructed them in the organization of the church.  In Jerusalem he openly teaches that he is the Living Son of God while more and more Jews are converted each day.   Word reaches Pilate that Caesar wishes to speak with Christ as he has become concerned about this new movement among the Jews and in Rome.  The Twelve, remembering how close Christ came to death before urge him not to go, but Christ tells them that having averted that death, this is not the time.  He goes, and meets with Caesar, who wishes to know if he has political ambitions.  Christ answers as he did to Pilate–that his kingdom is not of this world.  Caesar, though impressed with the man, is unconvinced.  He doesn’t want to create a martyr, however, and so he imprisons Christ, hoping that seeing their leader humiliated will give his followers pause.  Christ accepts his imprisonment, and simply teaches those in prison around him.

As the prisoners are converted and there are fewer problems in the prisons, and the prisoners never return to prison, slowly the prison keeper begins to wonder what is happening.  He investigates and discovers Christ’s teachings–and is converted.  He allows other Christians access to Christ, as he knows that he cannot let Christ free without an order from Caesar.  Eventually an opportunity arises, and he presents the case to Caesar.  Caesar listens and is angry, but thinks about it later.  Eventually he interviews Christ again, and demands to know more of his teachings.  He is converted but does nothing official in regard to the religion.

Christ, now much older, returns to Jerusalem.  He gathers the Twelve and confers on them the keys of the kingdom and establishes the order of the Church.  He tells them that the time has come for him to visit other sheep and establish the church among them.  He takes 3 of the Twelve and journeys to the east (presumably) to find some of the lost tribes where he establishes the church for the first time.  On this trip he also restores Samaria to the House of Israel, along with several other tribes.  In time he returns, now in his early sixties but still very healthy.  He establishes an order of temple-building among the Saints much like we have now, and the endowment ritual is codified for these Saints.  He then tells them that he must go on a journey, but that he will return shortly.

He walks to the center of the temple in Jerusalem and publicly surrenders his life by looking up to heaven and simply saying, “Father into thy hands I commend my Spirit.”  The temple veil is rent, the skies are darkened and all know that he has died.  Mourners come, and he is buried.  This is, of course, just before passover.  Then three days later, the rock is rolled away, just as our current narrative tells it, and he is found missing.  Mary, his long-time friend, is there and just as before she is the first to greet the risen Lord.

He speaks to her, and then to the disciples as the current narrative states.  Thomas the Doubter is not dubious, for he has had many long years to become familiar with the power of the Savior and is joyful.  Christ again tells them that he must journey a bit, but that because the church is so well established, he will return shortly.  He then visits the Nephites (and presumably other tribes…who knows?).

Among the Nephites the narrative is not so happy.  When the time appointed by the unbelievers that all those who believed would be put to death, in the current narrative this deadline is twice averted [check references]–once by Christ’s birth, and again by his death.  In this new narrative, his death was delayed, and the unbelievers hunted down most of those who were faithful and put them to the sword.  (What?  You think I would save them in this narrative?  Why?  I don’t think that’s how it would work!  The unbelievers CLEARLY had the power at the time.  I’m pretty certain that the only thing that saved those that were faithful was divine intervention–massive quakes and the sort!).  Perhaps those quakes happened all the same, devastating all equally, but without the healing power and appearance of Christ afterward, the land is in turmoil.  When Christ dies, the land is plunged into darkness, and then he appears at the temple.  Very few show up to witness this event, but the dutifully inform their neighbors, and the word gets out.  Christ, along with those who are converted work hard and the church is restored to its glory, and the Nephites & Lamanites accept the risen Lord as their Savior–but the Book of Mormon narrative of a couple generations of peace is not to happen–the twelve disciples (including those Three Nephites) had almost all been killed.  Those who stepped into that role simply didn’t have the ability to make the narrative stand.

Christ, now a resurrected being, returns to Jerusalem.  Having never been crucified but having died publicly, his return is also public, and miraculous.  By this time there are few nay-sayers.  The church is established, and Christ begins to reign as their leader.  Caesar, now aging, is among the faithful, and as he dies, cites Christ as Emperor of the Roman Empire.  In this narrative, the Holy Roman Empire is in fact, Holy.  A true theocracy.  This is the beginning of the Millennium, and there are no dark ages.  Technological inventions come much faster in this narrative, and in just a few short years the gospel is spread to the Americas, Africa, Australia, China and the rest of the world.

In this narrative, there is no book of Revelations, no John on the island of Patmos, no vision of the Apocalypse.  There is no Apostasy, nor even a prophecy thereof.  Because of this, there is no Restoration, and there is no Joseph Smith, no Book of Mormon.  There are very few writings of the prophets, as Christ’s words are readily available to all.  General conferences of the church are broadcast from Jerusalem or Rome.

Now obviously the above is all speculation, but the point is this: Christ Uncrucified would have changed much, but it would not have unhinged the gospel.  I can see a world in which Pilate repents, refuses to have him killed and things turn out differently.  Is the narrative I present perfect?  Not likely…but I can see it as a possibility.  I’m simply presenting what I see as a narrative.  Others are possible.  What I’m interested in is what others see as the likely results if Christ’s death had not immediately followed the agony of Gethsemane.  What if somehow that had been averted?  He worked out the Atonement, but having done that, the rest of his mission is somehow delayed?  Does this ruin in your mind the plan of salvation?  Or is what I propose a possibility–that he could live his life then lay it down voluntarily to effect the ressurection?

Preface: Listed below are some secrets for “trunky” LDS missionaries (Elders and Sisters) with the help of a little Wizard of Oz imagery:

Background: Dorothy of the “Wizard of Oz” obtained the ruby slippers because her house landed on the Wicked Witch of the East. As the story goes, she spent the rest of her time in the Land of Oz trying to get back to Kansas, but Kansas was always within her grasp.  Why? Because all she had to do was click the heels of the magic slippers together and make a wish. Dorothy had made a quest of getting home when she could have accomplished it instantly.

*****Get Hold of Your Heels*****

Lesson #1: Getting home fast means clicking your heels.  In your case, clicking heels means to keep pounding the pavement andwearing out your shoes. Working hard fills your obligation to the Lord but also passes the time quickly. Before you know it … you will be home.

Lesson #2: We struggle and struggle not fully realizing that the powers of God are with us all the time. From the moment you were set apart as a missionary, you were given the figurative ruby slippers. You have been given the power to move mountains when it comes to missionary work. Use that power. Also, don’t abuse that power.

Lesson #3: We crush evil by doing good, and never giving up. Follow the yellow brick road (translation: hang onto the iron rod) and you will go where you need to go. No road maps are needed other than the scriptures.

Lesson #4: Your companions will always be a little goofy.  You know the type: the tin man (tin sister), the cowardly lion (cowardly lioness), and the straw man (straw sister). Make your companions more than they are, more than they know they can be.

Lesson #5: Confront evil by throwing water on it. (I don’t know what that means, but it sounded smart. Maybe it means that you have all the tools at your disposal – like baptism. You need never feel too small for the job).

Lesson #6: Ignore the man behind the curtain. Watch out for the pretenders. Be a little skeptical. Don’t be taken in. But, find the good in everybody. Smile and then take the high road. Let others take the low road.

– Love from the Wizard

Mormon Insights,  S.Faux

Today’s guest post is by Michael. In the spirit of Mormon Stories, he was invited to share his experience.

I thought the people that believed in the church and loved me most in the would have at least tried to “save my soul.” I would have done it for them, had the roles been reversed. Although, it would have led me to the place where I am now, which may be the underlying (perhaps subconscious) reason why they don’t wish to go there.

—————

If someone told me three years ago that I would be where I am now, I would have never believed them. And yet, here I am. A few years ago, I decided that I should probably learn more about church history. Not out of pure interest, but more out of duty. I heard that the book “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling” was written by a member of the church, but didn’t give the usual sanitized version of history that is given in Sunday School. I was intrigued.

I read the book. It was slow going, but I finished it. More than any of the strange practices or weird events, the thing that bugged me the most was Joseph Smith himself. I couldn’t place it at first, but I soon realized that I didn’t really like Joseph as a person. I felt kind of guilty about that because we have been raised, and it has been ingrained in us, to love Joseph and the other men of the restoration. My feelings of guilt were lessened a bit when I found out that I was definitely not the only one that felt that way. There were many others in the church that felt the same way. In fact, my dad bought a video that features a question and answer session with the author and even he admits that, by the time he was done with his research and writing, he did not like Joseph Smith either.

When I finished with the book, it made me wonder: Maybe there was a reason why things were not sitting right with me and others. The Joseph we had been taught about growing up was not the real Joseph, so who was. Also, I wondered: If this book was written by a member, then how much of a positive slant is he putting on things? That’s when my journey really began. There are so many differing and conflicting accounts out there that I sometimes felt like a detective, trying to piece together what most made sense to me.

As I said above, I went searching into church history as a kind of church duty. I felt that I ought to take a look into it. I thought that I would search things out and find that history would vindicate the church and the prophet. I believed (and believe) that the truth does not fear investigation and the facts would be overwhelmingly in favor of the church. I found the opposite to be the case. This mostly surprised me because of my father.

He is well versed in church history, and I think I trusted heavily in his ability to interpret events. Sometimes, when I would find out something new, I would ask him, “Doesn’t this bother you?!?” He wouldn’t answer. At times I wondered why I was the only one who was bothered by some of the things I was finding. I wondered if I was the only crazy one or the only one who wasn’t. I couldn’t understand why, when I showed them a claim of the church or Joseph Smith and then showed them how that claim was in fact false, they didn’t seem to care. Well, I found out some interesting things related to that. Although most of the close people around me did not seem to want to face any of this stuff, I found out that I was not alone. Besides a number of people that I know that don’t believe, but are hanging on for various other reasons (family, friends, structure, etc.), there are many, many people leaving the church every year. It always helps a person fell less crazy when you know there are others making hard decisions like you.

The other thing that made me understand the situation better, was something told to me by a friend. I mentioned to him that I could not understand why these things bugged me and no one else seemed to care. He said, “Ok, tell me something that bugs you.” So for the 20th time or so, I mentioned that Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Abraham from Egyptian papyri. A decade after Joseph died, the Egyptian language was deciphered from the Rosetta Stone. Reading the papyri, it does not say what Joseph claims it said. When I gave him that one example, he went on to say that most people don’t think as much as I do, so they don’t let it bother them. Adding to that, he said, “Plus, it’s the Book of Abraham. Who cares about the Book of Abraham?” And then he ended, mentioning that some people will stay in for the sake of loyalty–they are Mormon and will always be Mormon.

Those are ideas that had never really entered my mind. It had never really occurred to me that even if the facts were against the church, people would still remain in it. I was not sure which answer he gave me that bugged me the most. If he only knew how much the Book of Abraham feeds into his own belief system. How could he say, “Who cares about the Book of Abraham?” I mean, the teachings exclusive to Mormonism don’t come from the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon was written in such a way that it virtually does not stray from biblical teachings. There is little or nothing new in the doctrine from the Book of Mormon. It is the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price that set Mormon theology apart from “regular” Christian theology.

These words of indifference, of not caring if it is true in the literal sense are so foreign to me. I first heard them from my best friend a few years ago, before I had ever expressed any doubts. As we passed by the house of a neighbor that had left the church after studying church history, he said, “I don’t understand Bro. So-and-So. I mean, even if I didn’t think the church was true, I wouldn’t leave it.” At that point, I blurted out a very loud, “WHAT?!? Are you serious?” He was. My other best friend who was also there that night is the one I mentioned in the above paragraph, who also doesn’t care about the church being true in any literal sense. Another close friend, for whom I was the best man at his temple wedding, wrote me an email when he found out that I had left the church. It was not what I expected. He congratulated me on doing what he said he never had the courage to do.

Perhaps the most painful response was from my girlfriend. She told me she was proud of me and for what I was doing. She started calling me Winston (the main character from 1984, who rebels against Big Brother). It shocked me that she would say such a thing that seemed so telling to me, and it saddened me when she said she wouldn’t be joining me. In HER OWN ANALOGY she chose to love Big Brother.

These people that have been such a large part of my life (three of the four I have known since we were children) now feel like strangers to me. Their way of thinking on this matter has never been an option for me. I have always considered such choices to be wrong, even in the best-case scenario, and in a worst-case scenario, downright evil. Although I don’t consider this a worst-case scenario, I am still left baffled that such good people would choose such a path. It would bother me less if they hadn’t all served missions and didn’t plan on teaching the rising generation that these beliefs are true. If they stand where they do, why are they passing the information on as truth? I am still working on the answer to that one. In the mean time, for the sake of preserving respect for my loved ones, I am forced to concede that making the choice to believe in something that you don’t truly think is reality, may not be as evil as I thought…