I've got a bunch of excited kids around tonight, wearing their homemade stenciled "HP" shirts and getting ready to go to the midnight showing of Harry Potter. And it's got me thinking about the role of fantasy and the magic world view in the lives of Mormons.
You know how those anti's are constantly publishing comparisons of different editions of the Book of Mormon and the temple ceremony and lamenting over the wording changes? Well, I'd like to highlight some changes in those old familiar hymns and ponder on their meanings. My consternation over these alterations commenced as a brand-new, three-month-old convert. At a Sacrament meeting around Christmas-time I was very embarrassed while singing a familiar carol to be looking up from my hymnal right when the words changed to
And Saints and angels sing
And heaven and nature sing!
I sometimes wish that every member of the Church could have the privilege of going to Liberty, and Richmond, Far West, Adam-ondi-Ahman, and Haun's Mill, on their way east or west, as they come through the Central States Mission, for the impression that it gives them, for the increase in their faith and their reverence for the work that has been performed in this Church by its founders and leaders. One cannot stand upon the hill overlooking the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman without being very deeply impressed with the sacredness of the place. (Conference Report, October 1938, p. 73.)
The panel on "Mormon Motherhood, Choice or Destiny" was a response by five women to Julie Beck's Conference talk, "Mothers Who Know," which was so controversial in the bloggernacle last October. I was interested to hear their thoughts on Julie Beck's official pronouncement on women's roles in the LDS Church. I thought Margaret Toscano's talk was particularly cogent--expressing dismay for the presentation by our General RS President of only one approved way to be a mother, but also for the dismissal by many LDS women of Julie Beck's words as a leader but not of Russell Ballard, or Russell Nelson's subsequent talks which basically presented the same view. Interestingly, the Bloggernacle's own fmhJanet presented the most defensive view of motherhood, though she did note the dangers of letting our children become our whole world. "It's too much for one person to stand," she said, "being someone's whole world."
If you want to hear more about what the speakers said, order the Sunstone tape, 'cause I lost my notes! But the most interesting part of the session were the comments following the speakers. As soon as moderator Janice Allred opened the floor for discussion, a woman leaped to her feet and marched to the microphone. She grabbed it off its stand and, agitated, stated, "I am so offended that I was not asked to be on this panel!" Not all LDS women's views had been represented, she explained. The panel had not expressed the views of the many Mormon women who feel their greatest work is in the home. She particularly targeted Margaret, questioning if she would be welcome in the Toscano home because she did not have a Masters degree or a PhD.
Another woman stood and expressed how alienated she felt in her LDS ward because of her decision not to have children. She related the many inappropriate questions that were asked of her and the condemnation that was placed upon her by her gospel sisters.
Sitting in the back row with the Zelophehad's Daughters, I marveled at the outpouring of emotion, not only at this session, but at the original talk given by Sister Beck. As was mentioned by the panel, this came from a wide range of women, from stay-at-home moms to the most radical. Its seems that SAHMs were overwhelmed by the image of perfection presented, which they felt they could never live up to. Working women saw the talk as presenting only one pattern of faithful womanhood. Nevertheless, the opposition to the talk has been perceived as being largely from feminists. Feminism has as its goal the championship of choice for all women to decide how they will structure their lives. It seems to me that among the mothers who stay at home, they cannot feel their choice is validated unless all women are urged to make that same choice.
How did you react to Julie Beck's conference talk? Why do you think this polarizing talk still has the power to stir up a hornet's nest of LDS women?
When I joined the Church in 1979, the Doctrine and Covenants contained, in places, some code words for some of the early leaders of the Church. Members were taught that these code names were used to hide the identities of Joseph Smith and some of his associates so they would not be used in lawsuits against the Church. A short time before I left on my mission in 1981, the new triple combination became available. In this new printing, the code names had been changed to the real name. Now, a student of the Doctrine and Covenants will no longer encounter "Barauk Ale," "Mehemson," or "Horah," but Joseph Smith, Martin Harris, or John Whitmer.
I think these names are fascinating--not in a Hugh Nibley sort of way, but because it interests me to speculate on who chose the names and why they were assigned to certain people. Oliver Cowdery's code name was "Olihah," which seems to be a sort of Book-of-Mormonization of his real name. Imagine using this type of secret code in the Bloggernacle--if you wanted to criticize someone, you could just call him "Stevihah." That way, everyone would know who you were talking about, but he wouldn't be able to sue you!
Other names seemed to be combined from two different Biblical characters: WW Phelps was referred to as "Shalemanasseh." Just look how well that technique fits when we apply it to fmhLisa. Since she hasn't told her mother about her blogging yet, she really needs a code name. How about "Debezebel?"
Then there's the name (title?) Baneemy. This code was such a secret that no one was quite sure who it referred to! Several men claimed to be Baneemy, including Charles B. Thompson (who published a periodical titled "Baneemy's Organ") and Lyman Wight. To solve the problem, Orson Pratt interpreted the word to mean "mine elders." We might get the same problem by publishing a statement such as this:
"Mulapul is far and away the most intelligent and talented writer in the Bloggernacle."I remember in the pre-1981 era, Sunday School D&C classes used to love to speculate about the use of these names. Did they show off Joseph Smith's knowledge of Hebrew? Were they proof that he knew the name of Enoch's father before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls? I'm afraid that some of you younger bloggers may have missed the fun. In fact, I wonder if some of you are even aware of these nicknames. Know ye, or know ye not? Feel free to date yourselves in the comments.
I can barely tolerate watching Reality shows on TV. The only time I watch them is when I need some new ideas for Seminary games (for example, an adaptation of "Survivor" is a GREAT Scripture Chase game!) My favorite activity, on the other hand, is picking at Mormon themes. So if producers were ever (in an alternate universe) to attempt to interest my demographic, they might choose to air some of the following Mormon Reality Shows:
Council of the Twelve TV
The viewer is given a glimpse inside meetings of the Twelve. They discuss such themes as whether the time is right for giving women the priesthood, who to call as the next Apostle, and who will draw the assignment to visit inner-city Chicago.
Who Wants to be a Stake President?
Real-life bishops are filmed as they implement strategies to improve home teaching, increase temple attendance, and safeguard the morality of the youth.
America's Next Top Mormon
Contestants compete in categories such as Sacrament Meeting solo numbers, Hymn composing, leading Primary Singing Time, and Forming a Ward Choir with the capability of singing four-part harmony. Disaffected Mormons critique their efforts.
The Church Office Building
We learn about the daily drama that goes on in the lives of those who work in the Church Office Building.
This year marks my 12th consecutive year of having daughters in the YW program, and I've become accustomed to having little lists lying around the house enumerating the qualities the girls would like to see in their future spouses. This ritual is a strange one which I think must be peculiar to the Latter-day Saints. I tend to view it as rather pernicious and dangerous. Perhaps its roots lie in good intentions. Indeed girls should be looking for young men to date who are following certain standards. I believe that communication should take place before young people get seriously involved so that a girl who wants 10 children doesn't end up married to a boy who doesn't want any. However, the lists I've taken out of pockets in the laundry tend to include items like "he should have blue eyes," "must be rich and have good taste in ties," or "will already have graduated from med school." Are my daughters simply being facetious in what they are writing on these lists? Or are they really culling from my future family possible brown-eyed son-in-laws?
What is the purpose of such a particular list? Should a girl who considers education important really refrain from dating a good LDS boy because he plans on becoming a mechanic rather than aspiring to a degree in medicine? What happens when she falls in love with a boy who doesn't meet every requirement on her list? Will she always feel in her heart that she lowered her standards to marry this individual? How will this girl react when (as happened in one of our Ward Standards Nights) a bright-eyed newlywed pulls a list out of her journal and gushes that the man she married fulfilled every requirement on her list?
Well, it must be that time of year again, for this week I found two lists written by each of my two teen-aged daughters. This list was a pre-printed one from some apocryphal YW materials entitled "A Future Husband" and which included several categories of inspection. The YW leader, in a burst of creativity, had the girls cross out the word "husband" and write in "wife." Apparently they were to decide what qualities they were to develop which would make them a worthy wife to the man they would someday marry. This seemed an improvement upon the standard, but upon perusal, I still became disturbed.
Following are the results of each list:
| (14-year-old daughter) A FUTURE Career Objective Spiritual Preparation Education Special Skills Talents/Hobbies/Interests Physical Traits | (16-year-old daughter) A FUTURE Career Objective Spiritual Preparation Education Special Skills Talents/Hobbies/Interests Physical Traits |
This comment at FMH brought on a slew of unwelcome emotions:
"As to the question of modesty, I would just ask women for some basics: I don’t want to see your boobs, and I don’t want to be overly reminded of them. I know you have them, and I know you can’t make them disappear, but you also know how to make them more or less noticeable. Please, choose things on the “less noticeable” side of the scale. Similarly, skirt-lengths that don’t give me reason to think I might catch something if I pay close enough attention are nicer than not."
"Now suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theater by simply bringing a covered plate onto the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let everyone see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or bit of bacon, would not you think that in that country something had gone wrong in the appetite of food? ...There is nothing to be ashamed of in enjoying your food: there would be everything to be ashamed of if half the world made food the main interest of their lives and spent their time looking at pictures of food and dribbling and smacking their lips."
"Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here...All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither."
You may not be aware of this if you grew up Mormon, but the LDS definition of morality is rather different than that which is generally accepted. Morality is very easily defined to Mormons--it means not having sex. That's all. End of discussion. Immorality means having sex. That's what we teach our teenagers, and that is the definition we carry with us from our church meetings into our daily lives.
Today I'd like to talk about some of the nuances to the word "morality." The meanings that we don't get in Mutual or Seminary or Sunday School. For purposes of this discussion, I would prefer to define "morality" as a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
We Mormons like to think of ourselves as a moral people. We accept the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament, Jesus' behavioral standards as described in the New Testament, additional ideals and clarification from the Book of Mormon, and random precepts such as the Word of Wisdom health code from the D&C. We even have our own rules of behavior that come from continuing revelation and church tradition. But out of all of these standards of morality, there are some in which we are truly invested, and some to which we merely give lip service.
As one indicator of standards of morality, let's look at what we teach our children and youth. The standard of conduct that we hit the hardest is of course sexual purity before marriage. We do this to the extent that even the word morality has become synonymous with sexual behavior, as noted above. We reinforce this teaching with related cautions about masturbation for YM and dress standards for YW. I have been dismayed by the amount of emphasis dress standards receives in the Young Women's program. This counsel eclipses all other religious instruction, including teaching of the Savior and the Restoration. Modesty in dress for girls is taught during YW classes, midweek activities, Standards Nights, Seminary, Sunday School, over the pulpit, at Stake dances, Girls Camp, EFY. Indeed, there is scarcely a church activity a YW can attend where she is not warned that she must appear dressed modestly. If her clothing is not appropriate, she is subject to being sent home to try again. The message is firm and unmistakable. Dress standards must not be violated. Here again the very word "modesty" has been coopted to mean only a particular pattern of dress for girls and women.
Additionally, sermonizing abounds in our youth programs on the importance of obedience to the Word of Wisdom. Due to this emphasis the youth of the Church would sooner steal a car, cheat on an exam, or spread vicious rumors about a peer than take a sip of coffee.
The emphasis on the remainder of the wide spectrum of right and wrong behavior is virtually ignored among Latter-Day Saints. To illustrate this point, fill in the blank of the following sentence:
Our Mormon youth are known for never ________________.
One might say that our youth would never drink alcohol, or smoke a cigarette. One might fill in the blank with "never sleep with a boy/girlfriend." But would you even think of filling in the blank as follows:?
Our Mormon youth would never skip classes at school.
Our Mormon youth would never haze their fellow students.
Our Mormon youth would never tell a lie.
Our Mormon youth would never steal.
As a convert who attended evangelical Christian services, I can tell you that in other churches, these standards of moral conduct are given great emphasis. If you have grown up in the LDS church, it is likely that you consider loss of sexual purity and Word of Wisdom adherance as grievous sins. It is possible that you would add murder to this list, with the exception of those you kill while in the military. Other transgressions would be appraised as less important on the moral continuum.
Is there not a morality that is based on the other commands of God found in the scriptures? Is there not a morality that is concerned with practices that minimize the harms that people suffer? Promoting people living together in peace and harmony? Morality that requires charitable action for good? Overcoming selfish vices? What about a morality based on respect for the planet on which we live and the myriad creatures who live upon it?
I hope we can begin to consider the vast implications of religious morality. Morality within the Church should be more than simply refraining from sex. This wider morality should be discussed at least as often as the length of skirts. It should help us formulate ethical theories for personal conduct.
1. Begin having children and don't stop until you receive revelation to do so.
2. Wait to have children until you are directed that it is the right time.
3. Have as many children as you desire unless the Spirit intervenes with different instructions.
4. Use your own wisdom to figure out how many children you can support financially, physically, and emotionally.
5. Strive to discover the exact number of children that Heavenly Father wishes to send to your home, and act upon this information.
6. Other?
This was another session I attended at Sunstone Symposium. It was given by Michael Farnsworth, EdD, an educational psychologist who recently retired from the marriage and family relations dept. at BYU Idaho.
The words "fantasy bonds" were, in my opinion, a little misleading in this presentation. Michael was using the terminology given by Robert Firestone to roleplays that husbands and wives develop in their marriages. Fantasy bonds are culturally defined duties that people begin to act out in their marriages. They can eventually become bonds which hold the couple back from intimacy.
Michael said that intimacy is an acquired taste--many cannot stand the passion that true intimacy brings. When we fear our own and others' energies, we can form fantasy bonds as a psychological defense to marital distress. Mormon women have a great tendency to slip into this role-playing behavior. Once a young wife enters into the pattern, all her decisions are made for her. She will have many children, she will not work outside the home, she will hold Church callings, etc. Michael warns of three dangers to this reaction, and I have observed these myself.
1. The relationship can become superficial
2. The marriage partners are embroiled in continual conflict
3. One of the partners surrenders their voice
Thus, Michael suggested that personal identity has to be established before relationship identity can be formed.
The respondent to this talk was Ronda Callister, PhD and professor of organizational behavior at Utah State. She presented the point of view that developing a resilient identity is the work of a lifetime. She said that had she waited until personal identity was established before she was married, it would have been a very long time! Then she shared some steps she had taken in developing a resilient identity and encouraging intimacy in her marriage.
I enjoyed this presentation but I found it very difficult to listen to, since I neither see myself as having a very well-developed sense of identity nor much intimacy within my marriage.
This may surprise some of you, but I am completely and totally enthralled by the Mormon Pioneer story. Any song, story, film, or talk dealing with the pioneers can reduce me to tears. Many of my children refuse to sit next to me in Sacrament meeting on Pioneer Day. When the story of Mary Goble Pay is retold, I begin to cry at the Platte River, and by the time her mother dies between the Little and Big Mountains at the entrance of the Salt Lake Valley, my eyes and nose are red and blotchy and my sobs and sniffles are so loud and wet they can be heard throughout the chapel.
I'm a convert, and have no Mormon Pioneer ancestors, so I don't know what it is about their story that has grasped my heart so strongly. I suppose it's the epic, archetypal, "Hero's Journey" that I relate to. I won't go back to Joseph Campbell and try to compare his elements of a hero's journey with our pioneers, but I do want to name some of the facets of the Mormons' trek that resonate with me.
First, the journey starts with the death of their Prophet and all of their hopes and dreams for a new Zion of peace and safety. The pioneers are willing to enter an unknown wilderness because of their faith and belief in something outside of themselves.
Next, they are cast out of their homes and must divest themselves of treasured possessions. This is just wrenching for me. It symbolizes the worldly things we must cast aside as we take our spiritual journey. I suppose I must find this difficult in my own life, as the tale of pianos and china left by the side of the trail holds such pathos for me.
The tales of selfless sacrifice along the way are an important element of the story. Some of these have been embellished to the point of legend, but are important to us as a people. These include Mary Fielding Smith's determination to beat the captain of her wagon train to the valley (and the anointing of her ailing ox); Robert Parker who went back to find his young son carrying his wife's red shawl; and the young men who carried some of the Martin Handcart Company over their last crossing of the Sweetwater and suffered the effects the rest of their lives. These stories highlight our better nature and remind us of the courage and cooperation we must maintain as we help each other toward our goal of eternal life.
I love these stories of bravery and faith. They strengthen me and encourage me to continue my journey. I've got a journey coming up ahead of me in the next few months that may be as difficult as that faced by the pioneers. I hope I'll be found as courageous as they were.
The Hero's Journey is a basic pattern found in important myths throughout the world, as described by Joseph Campbell. The fundamental structure of this journey has been described as follows:
1. A call to adventure, which the hero has to accept or decline
2. A road of trials, regarding which the hero succeeds or fails
3. Achieving the goal or "boon," which often results in important self-knowledge
4. A return to the ordinary world, again as to which the hero can succeed or fail
5. Application of the boon, in which what the hero has gained can be used to improve the world
I've been captivated by the application of the Hero's Journey to women. Since the writing of Campbell's book, women have asked if we find a different journey with different archetypes when the hero figure is a woman. Do we need to adjust the stages of the hero's journey to fit the female life or do we just need to search for heroes (male or female) that we can relate to? Are women able to place themselves easily into the role of hero? I am appalled and concerned about the recent trend on the Bloggernacle to avoid controversy and to be nice at all costs. This went so far today as Times & Seasons taking down their post about the impropriety of the Marriott hotel chain being involved in questionable activities. On this chain, there were heated comments presenting both sides of an argument of concern to all of us as members and friends of the LDS Church. I realize that Times & Seasons strives to present a faithful aspect of Mormonism. In the past, I think they have done an admirable job of being balanced and fair while faithfully discussing issues of concern to LDS of a more intellectual bent. On occasion, they have found it necessary to delete comments, moderate the discussion, or close the comment forum down when they felt things were out of control. I think these actions are sometimes necessary in maintaining the tenor they would like to present at T&S. But in my opinion, deleting the entire thread is censorship akin to the type I have found unacceptable in the Mormon Church.
LDS members are trained to be nice at all costs. One will rarely find a satisfying intellectual discussion in any of our meetings, because we do not wish to tread on toes or cause waves. We will keep things inside of ourselves to the point of explosion, because we've been trained to be nice. Perhaps this is valuable in a ward setting. After all, we must closely associate with the members of a ward over an extended period of time. We must socialize with them, teach their children, work with them and attend meetings together.
But the Bloggernacle is an excellent forum for the expression of our true feelings. We can tell it like it is. We don't have to worry about official Church disapproval or repercussions. (at least so far...) We can discuss things that may not be welcome in our ward or even in our own homes. We are also able to participate at our comfort level. If the discussion gets too heated for our taste, we can be gone at the click of a mouse. The only thing we need to remember is that our position is only one view of the world. Others will have different ideas. These differing positions are not an indication of the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of any participant.
The blogger MCQ has opined: "At their most basic level, blog posts are expressions of ideas. The ideas are those of the poster originally, then those ideas are added to or modified by the subsequent comments. They become unique expressions, a preserved moment in time, and can never be perfectly duplicated once they are gone. These ideas deserve a spot in the marketplace, to stand or fall in the court of opinion. By their very nature they do not imply the endorsement of all who are permabloggers on a particular site, and anyone is free to voice their agreement or disagreement with them explicitly in the comments. Based on the above, there is no affirmative reason, in my mind, to ever delete them. Moreover, there is a grave danger in doing so. It is a disservice to all of us when deletions take place, because it robs us all of the opportunity to learn from the ideas that were expressed there."
I have always regretted actions of the Church which tend to censor or force members not to publish on their personal conjectures. I am more of the opinion of Gamaliel, when he says in the Book of Acts: "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." There were many things I did not agree with on the T&S thread. However, reading the discussion of the topic helped me form my own opinion. A more restrained restatement of the problem can be found at BCC (Sustaining Our Leaders, Sustaining One Another, by Mark Brown). But I found nothing wrong with the original post. That the discussion became heated and out of control is only an indication that the respondents possessed strong feelings on the subject. Such strong feelings should have a place to be expressed while feeling free to remain affiliated with the Church.
That is the value of the Bloggernacle to me. I can always attend my local ward when I am looking for niceness.
In this post I respond to Caroline's questions at Exponent2 blog regarding how I have come to terms with polygamy.
I have several different thoughts. First, I believe that the Church continues to practice polygamy today. Because sealings to multiple wives continue to be practiced in the Temple, and because we believe in an afterlife, polygyny is something we must come to terms with as Latter-day Saints.
In the early days of the Church many leaders declared that polygyny was necessary in order to be exalted. However, Melvin J. Ballard refuted this idea in (I think) 1912 when he said that a man sealed to one wife could be exalted. Thus, my thinking is that polygamy is not necessary. (You just have to convince your husband not to be sealed to another wife after you die!) There are many women who are repulsed by the doctrine (how much of this is cultural conditioning we do not know), and imo they will not be forced to live it. Other families have been sealed into the principle. There is no evidence to suggest that these sealings will be dissolved. My opinion is that they will continue in the next life. Whether or not we personally contract into a polygamous union, it remains so much a part of our doctrine that I doubt any of us will not be personally affected in some way.
I'm not against polygamy myself. But I've had different experiences than many of you. My parents were involved in polygyny from the time I was age 12. It had nothing to do with Mormonism or religion, it was a lifestyle choice. I did not agree with my parents' choice to bring another wife into the family. The choice had many negative repercussions regarding the four children's relationships with our mom and dad. Nonetheless, I saw that it was a viable lifestyle. There was little, if any jealousy. The three adults usually acted as a cohesive unit (much to our dismay as children!) Living closely as a family made it impossible to hide any problems or tensions. I must admit that they were very few and usually solved with patience, tolerance, and love. Both women lived in our home and had separate bedrooms. (I have No Idea what the sexual arrangements were--and I don't want to think about it! Please! They're my parents!) Both women were employed full-time (the youngest child was already school age). Both women had feminist inclinations. Both women as well as my dad shared household responsibilities. All three were very happy with the arrangements, and seemed close and emotionally connected. Thus my personal experience has convinced me that polygyny is a lifestyle that can be lived in love and satisfaction for all parties.
In addition, I have always had very close female relationships. Always. Until I came to Vernal I always had female friends I could rely on emotionally. A woman will listen to you hash the same experience out umpteen million times. A man will (usually) listen to it once. Then he will want you to solve it or get over it. (Yes, I know I'm generalizing a bit!) But there are many reasons that I find a woman to be better "best friend" material than a man.
I can imagine retaining my feminist sensibilities in a polygynist relationship. In fact, I can picture myself in a coterie of chattering females, discussing a book we've read until 3 in the morning, while polygamist hubby waits alone and cold in the upstairs bedroom!
The last point I wish to make is the "obedience" issue. I read two posts at FMH dealing with this issue (See #1 and #2). It interests me that Mormon women who are traditional in every way state that they would rather give up their exaltation than live polygamy. I wonder at statements that if polygamy was reinstated they would "flatly refuse" to obey prophetic counsel. I am often taken to task on this blog for some of the stances I take. Conventional believers would have me adhere more closely to prophetic counsel. Yet it seems acceptable, on the blogs and in wards in which I've lived, to rebel against this one principle.
As I wrote this post, I asked my husband if he would ever want to live polygamy, and he was emphatically negative. He doesn't feel up to dealing with multiple females. I guess most of that is my fault! I think he finds me emotionally taxing. So perhaps I will never have to face this issue head on. I'm not like my parents; I don't believe polygamy is something to be entered into without the specific instructions of the living Prophet of God. But I like to think that if "The Principle" was required of us once again, I would see it as a fascinating and fulfilling adventure.
This is a leaf taken from my Missionary Journal from Thursday, 27 August 19xx in Beloeil, Quebec, Canada. It was one of my very first District Meetings.
Today we had a District Meeting to set goals for September. It was really hard because I couldn't understand why we were setting goals for baptisms, etc, if it didn't depend on us, it depended on the free agency of the person. We finally figured out that the only way it made any sense is if this was the number of baptisms the Lord would give us if we did all we were supposed to, taking into account the people that would fall through, etc.
Sister R. and I came up with the number of 4 Baptisms for our area. This is really scary because it means at the end of the month if we don't get 4 Baptisms it is because of something we did wrong, or OUR lack of faith. We are really stepping out in faith, something I haven't really tried before. If we don't make our goal, the District will say, "Why didn't it work, Sister L.?" I was so sure of it before, but fear has crept in a little bit.
I want to call down the powers of heaven by doing all the things I'm supposed to do, so that by obedience to the law, the Lord will be bound to give me the blessings. What I just don't know are all the things I must do to gain the blessing of baptizing. What is the law upon which it is predicated? I have tried to make an exhaustive list, and I am determined to follow them. If this works out, it will add a great deal to my faith. And I want so badly to be able to develop my faith!
One of our late-night conversations at the Retreat has been on my mind ever since returning home. We were discussing the response of Latter-day Saints to the Prophet's admonition that women wear only one pair of earrings. I have seen a huge response to this all over the United States. Many women have not only removed their extra earrings, but have borne their testimonies about it! An address given by Elder Bednar has reinforced the teaching with the story of a young man who was considering marriage with a girl who had multiple piercings. When President Hinckley asked women to wear only one set of earrings, he patiently waited for her to remove them. She did not, so he stopped dating her. She had failed to respond to prophetic counsel. 
Can you imagine what a difference the Prophet's endorsement of this would make in our world? I've noticed that in Vernal and in other places in Utah, it is very difficult to recycle. There are not accessible places to bring your recyclables. In Boston, where my sister lives, everyone recycles, because on trash day, there is a day for the pickup of your glass, a day for your plastics, and a day for your paper. Table scraps and yard detritus are placed in a compost bin or pile. I'm thinking that if the Prophet told us to recycle, a similar program might suddenly find support in Utah.
Elder Bednar says that the earring issue might seem minor, trivial, or silly, but that in following the prophet we learn to become "quick to observe." My question is why can't we learn the same lesson and meanwhile accomplish something positive and make a difference in the world?
One of the most interesting things discussed last weekend was that of singleness in the Church. Suzette and Julie, our speakers at the Retreat, are both returned missionaries in their late 30's. Several topics were brought up that I thought were pertinent. Foremost in my mind was the comment that a single person lacks legitimacy in a married Church. We do have a coming-of-age ritual in the form of a mission. But even after serving a mission, in the Mormon society one is not fully grown and a member of the "adult" class until they have been married. This results in strange behaviors, such as speakers who will come into singles wards and talk down to them as a group, though several of his audience may actually be older than he.
In our discussion, one woman mentioned that she has noticed that married couples without children also struggle with lack of legitimacy.
Singles in married wards are often treated like teenagers, and seldom receive leadership callings. They are sometimes asked to babysit instead of joining in the activities that married couples are attending without their children. Julie spoke of some notable exceptions she has seen, such as a Boston singles ward which was given much responsibility in the Temple. They also were called upon to organize and lead a Youth Conference. In addition, Julie had two single Relief Society Presidents in her family ward in Northern Utah. These things lift the entire Church as we utilize the now-dormant strengths of many additional adult members.
I know that Sister Barbara Thompson, newly called Second Counselor of the General RS Presidency is a single woman. I wonder if she will have an influence in being a role model for women or effect any change in the status quo for singles. I don't hold my breath, since our last General RS had quite a low visibility in the Church.
Suzette said that marrieds might have an image of singles as having a wild and crazy social life, playing Ultimate Frisbee every afternoon with a group of cute guys. This makes them reluctant to invite singles to socialize or join them in their comparatively boring activities. "I'm in my late 30's, and I like to do things that other people my age do," she pointed out. Unfortunately, there is usually a "Great Divide" among the single and married members of a ward. Suzette observed that since the predominant culture in the Church is a "family," it is incumbent upon the married members to open a way to integrate the singles.
Our two presenters gave married members several suggestions to help integrate singles into the culture. One of the most poignant was their plea not to try to "fix" singles as if something were broken. Many church members feel a vast discomfort with single members and sense the ambiguity with our doctrine which necessitates marriage for progression and Godhood. They try to probe the psyche and discover what is wrong. The single member must be gay, or too picky, or too intimidating.
In what ways have you seen the Church making efforts to integrate singles? Where do you stand on the "Singles Wards versus Married Wards" controversy? If you've experienced time as an adult single member of the Church, please share any insights you have gained.
I'm pretty steamed about a comment on Amri's post "Part-Time Jobs and Part-Time Daycare." Amri wonders if a part-time job might help her SAHM friend's mild depression, and asks if part-time daycare is really all that bad. Several commenters defend stay-at-home mothering, and offer suggestions on how to alleviate the depression. Then bbell chimes in with some advice he says comes from his wife, who "at one point had a 4-year-old, 20 month old, and a set of newborn twins at home." Here is the advice:
1. Shower, dress and put on makeup. Being slobby is not going to help your mental state
2. get other SAHM friends including non LDS SAHM friends. The non LDS SAHM friends will be guilt free friends who will not see you thru a pressure filled LDS SAHM prism. You will be able to relax a bit in their presence
3. have lots of sex with hubby
4. Make the bed in the morning
5. Clean the house. Do not have a messy house it will kill you mentally
6. Work out. Get a jogging stroller and go every day
7. Get unlimited long distance and call lifelong friends regularly
8. Do not use food to help you feel better. Getting fat will not help you feel better
9. Date night on the weekend
10. New hobbies
11. Buck up
12. Make your husband cook, clean, laundry, dishes etc. at night Never go to bed with a messy house. Its a horrible feeling to wake up to a mess
"Not only is your attitude of great importance, but your appearance also plays a vital role in a happy home. One of the most common complaints unhappy husbands have is that their wives have neglected their appearance and slop around the house with uncombed hair and in runover slippers which look like two dead rabbits. If for no other reason than to keep the romance alive in your marriage, it is worth it to put your best self forward. Each morning get up and get completely dressed...And remember, as far as make-up is concerned, Even a barn looks better if it's painted!"
Posts
All Comments
