ldesque

We often think of young single adulthood as a time of transition, and I think that’s a pretty fair claim. You’re no longer a child in your parents’ home, but now you’re an adult (maybe still in your parents’ home, but hopefully at least preparing for your own household).

So, if you’re a YSA, I’d urge you to ask yourself this. In the average day or average week, how do you spend your time? How much of your time goes toward preparing for who you may be years from now, and the job you might have, the spouse you might have, or the family you might have? And how much of your time goes toward working on who you need to be right now? As important as it is to think about the future, are we putting enough into developing who we are right now?

As we get older and our responsibilities grow, we’re given more and more stewardship over God’s creations, but we also need to keep in mind that we now have more stewardship over ourselves than at any earlier age. This stewardship is just as important as any other stewardship we’re given, and the Lord has entrusted us with the care of ourselves.

In the February 2010 Ensign, an article by Wendy Ulrich and Christine Packard detailed some markers of adulthood for young single adults to aspire to, including gaining a sense of mission, establishing goals and routines, taking care of yourself, becoming financially independent, creating a home, learning emotional and relational skills, and growing in responsibility, spirituality, and balance.

I’ve expanded on this list to come up with a few traits, listed below, that us YSAs need to work on developing, not only because they will be important in the future, but because they are important for us to have for who we are right now.

First, we need to be able to accept delayed gratification. We can no longer rely on someone else to get us what we want when we want it. We need to take care of our own needs, and the kicker is that we need to do so wisely. Here are just a few examples of situations where this trait is lacking:

• Falling into debt because you want things you have not yet earned the money for
• Breaking the law of chastity because desire and the excitement of a new relationship overpowered your intentions to wait
• Dropping out of school because there are just too many other things you’d rather do with your time

I’m sure I don’t need to point out that each of these situations are things the brethren warn us about over the pulpit all the time. And this one trait, being able to deal with delayed gratification, could be our answer to how to avoid all of them.

In practice, delayed gratification comes down to maturely and honestly examining what we want and why we want it, and then choosing to practice patience instead of getting it now. And in Luke 21:19, the Savior makes it clear, “In your patience possess ye your souls”.

There are many things we are told to do or not do for which we will not see the reward in this life. The ultimate practice of delayed gratification is enduring to the end in faith. If we can’t wait a few years for the rewards of financial security, or a relationship God would approve of, or increased knowledge or income or an advanced degree, how can we ever hope to endure to the end when the rewards are so much further away? Remember D&C 67:13 – “Ye are not able to abide the presence of God now, neither the ministering of angels; wherefore, continue in patience until ye are perfected”

The second trait we need to work on is resilience, which comes from having sure knowledge and confidence in yourself. You can gain resilience in what you know by seeking testimony. Don’t wait for someone else to pour knowledge upon you. Read, search, pray, and gain certainty that will help your knowledge withstand challenge. Seek opportunities to learn. Give yourself time to ponder, make connections, and gain understanding.

You can gain resilience in who you are by knowing yourself well. You should know yourself well enough that when someone has something to say about you (which I can guarantee someone always will), you do not for one second question whether or not that person knows you better than you know you. When you are resilient about who you are, you can look at criticism for bits of truth, and then brush the rest aside, without taking offense or allowing it to damage how you see yourself.

Remember that truth is truth no matter what anyone has to say about it, and that if someone says something about you, it does not make that thing any more or less true than it was before it was said.

On the other side of this is another trait we need, which is the ability to self-scrutinize. As much as we need to be resilient to the criticism of others, we also need to be able to fairly and gently observe our own weaknesses. A huge tell for this is to observe what offends you. A weakness is not far behind. We just don’t feel offended about things we know to be solid and true. It’s only the things we’re a bit iffy on that can shake us up when challenged. Also, it counts as offense whether or not you actually outwardly defend yourself. The inner feeling of offense counts too, whether or not you’ve been able to stop from becoming defensive.

The more positive side of this is that those parts of you that easily withstand scrutiny are often your biggest strengths, and you need to be good at recognizing those too.

If you know what you’d be asked in a temple worthiness interview, go ahead and ask yourself. You don’t have to wait for a meeting with the bishop to gauge how well you’re doing. Be objective and even, but be kind as well. Don’t look for weaknesses to bring yourself down, but to improve yourself, as “Growth begins when we begin to accept our own weakness” (Jean Vanier).

Observe your thoughts and beliefs and see if they can withstand your own scrutiny as things which are right and worth holding on to.

Which brings us to the last trait we need to be working on right now, which is resolve. Once you have determined what is right, stick to it. If you do what is right because it is right, no other reason will matter and no argument can shake what you know you should be doing. As an adult, you are not watched or told what to do the same as you were as a child, so it’s up to you to be the watcher and be accountable to yourself.

Having great resolve helps you avoid that horrible, disconnected feeling of doing something you know you shouldn’t. It also is a big part of having integrity, with which what you say and do will reflect what you believe and want.

I suspect that the Lord takes great interest in what we do on our own as a great indicator of our inner resolve. If we’re willing to do things with no one else around that we wouldn’t do around others, we should ask ourselves if the Lord has not yet given us enough reason not to do those things, and why would the scrutiny of others matter enough to change our behavior if the Lord’s scrutiny does not.

It’s easy  to get caught up in thinking that young single adulthood is just a transitional phase. After all, being “single” describes you in terms of what you don’t have, whereas what may be your goal, ending up in a family ward, describes you in terms of what you do have. But you don’t have to wait to be a part of your future family to start living and to start growing. You’re as capable of maturity now as you will ever be.

When you feel like you’ve been stuck in this part of life forever, remember this quote: “When we feel stuck, going nowhere — even starting to slip backward — we may actually be backing up to get a running start.”

We need to keep in mind our goals, plans, and preparations, but also remember that where we are right now is important, and our current abilities to serve and our worth in the eyes of God is as great now as it will ever be.

“The worth of souls is great” does not come with a qualifier. It’s not that the worth of those with a spouse or with children or with an advanced degree or with a high calling is great. It does not say that the worth of your soul will be great, it says that it is great already.

Young single adults are not just works in progress. The infinite atonement of Christ allows that anyone, at any time in their life, may become complete, and we don’t have to wait for anything or anyone to come along to make us whole. Christ has made us whole already.

Some people are all about these borders that were set up by man during wars and business deals as though the border placement actually means something about the people who reside on one side or the other…

…all these effing arbitrary divisions making humans believe they’re different from one another..

If i could go back to the beginning of mankind i would work as hard as i could from keeping this idea (as well as a few others) from ever entering our consciousness…

…this stupid notion of defining ourselves into these neat little boxes and deciding who deserves what and who’s better than whom by which box they fit into…

“Congrats! You won the birthright lottery! Welcome to being white/male/American/etc.! Enjoy all those benefits those lesser folk didn’t get for being born the wrong race/the wrong sex/on the wrong side of this border we made up a couple hundred years ago. You earned it, slugger!

P.S. make sure you remind everyone how entitled you are to those benefits as often as you can, too!”

!! B. S. !!

we’re ALL in the SAME EFFING box. Humanity.

That misguided sort of thinking makes me very angry. And I know anger is neither noble, mature, productive, nor helpful, and many people might say the more reasonable thing would be to be peaceful and complacent about the way things are. But, the way I see it, there are things going on for which the only reasonable response is to scream your head off. I think this may be my very suppressed version of doing just that.

I’m currently reading “The Dance of the Dissident Daughter” by Sue Monk Kidd. I was drawn to reading it when looking over a post over at Feminist Mormon Housewives about good books for young, feminist intellectuals. I’ll admit I’m only about halfway through thusfar, and I’m wary of stamping my total approval on a book I haven’t finished yet, but suffice it to say, I’m loving it so far. There’s a little bit of floofy language that doesn’t really appeal to me, but some of the ideas really resonate with feelings I have. Don’t ask me about the definition of floofy. I’ve tried to come up with one and I’ve failed.

Last night, this passage took my mind down this stream of consciousness unlike any I’ve had before.

“[A picture of Eve being tempted by the serpent] brought to mind the classic interpretation that Adam, the symbolic man, was the superior one, the agent of God, while Eve, the symbolic woman, succumbed to evil because of her association with the snake. Woman was blamed for bringing evil into the world. Her punishment, we’re told, was women’s pain in childbirth and submission to man.

During my reading I’d come across a number of references concerning the symbolic history of the serpent. To my surprise, I’d learned that in ancient times the snake was not maligned or seen as evil but rather symbolized female wisdom, power, and regeneration. It was associated with the ancient Goddess and was portrayed as her companion. The snake was perhaps the central symbol of sacred feminine energy.” (p. 71-72)

Now, the first paragraph doesn’t particularly reflect LDS beliefs concerning Eve and the nature of the decision she made that day. LDS doctrine holds Eve not as the cause of all sin or dooming woman to the pain of childbirth, but instead a key player in bringing to pass the Fall, just as Heavenly Father had always intended for it to happen. Thus, we don’t demonize her but more revere that decision. Also, this paints the Adversarial Serpent as being another key player, simply enabling the divine purpose of this world to unfold.

I’ve begun to wonder if Eve was somehow more aware of her purpose in this matter than simply a tool in the Lord’s hands. I wonder if she recognized the dilemma presented. Namely, that she and Adam could continue to live in the Garden of Eden and enjoy the presence of the Lord, but would never be able to fulfill all of his commandments or become like him, or, they could eat the fruit, be expelled from the garden and from his presence for the duration of mortality, but had the possibility of progressing to not only live with Him again but to also be like Him.

Did she know those were the options? Did she realize that living in His presence wouldn’t be enough if we couldn’t progress to become like him?

While reading this passage in “The Dance of the Dissident Daughter”, I began to wonder if we have misunderstood the serpent all this time. Certainly the adversary is a natural actor to take part in the  fall, but I don’t think that the serpent necessarily must have only the one meaning. Out of all the creatures that could have tempted Eve, the serpent was chosen, and I suspect that there’s more depth to the serpent as a symbol than first reading might suggest.

Perhaps this serpent, serving as Eve’s companion in the decision, was a symbol that the action she took spoke to her inherent Divinity. Just as the serpent serves as the companion to the Goddess, perhaps this is to tell us of Eve’s “female wisdom, power, and regeneration.” That by initiating part of the Plan of Salvation, she was elevated in her own Divinity just by acting in the will of the Lord and carrying out such a high purpose.

Eve had the wisdom to make that choice, and to see that living in the presence of the Lord wasn’t enough reason to stay stagnant. She had the power to bring forth the will of the Lord and serve as mother to all humanity. And, regeneration seems to be closely tied to the ideas of creation, multiplying, proliferating, and fulfilling that commandment to multiply that could not happen without the Fall.

I won’t claim to be a Gospel scholar or suggest that anyone take what i’ve said here as definite truth. But as I wrestled with these concepts last night, a familiar feeling came to me that reminded me that pondering is how I best receive guidance and inspiration. I have to give my mind material for the Spirit to work with. For some, it’s scriptures. For others, it’s prayer. For me, it’s grappling, rethinking, expanding, connecting and disconnecting concepts and studying things out. And suddenly I’ll hit on something and feel strongly that I’ve managed to grasp something true.

And then, a strange feeling came to me. I suddenly felt intensely, closely connected to Eve herself. I felt that I was starting to understand her and to see her Divine role, not as an accessory or afterthought to Adam, but as necessary to accomplish the work the Lord had planned for her. I felt something resembling love for her, and that feeling, of actually being connected to another individual across generations, is one I hadn’t felt before. I was so happy to feel that sort of kinship with a woman of the Gospel who seems so far from me. It made me yearn to connect with more women who were not instruments of fulfilling and perpetuating man’s salvation, but who were, as individuals, instruments doing the Lord’s work; even bringing to pass the most necessary steps for all humanity to attain salvation.

I love her and appreciate that she was necessary to enable God’s plan to unfold, and I hope that I continue to look to her as an example of embracing the feminine wisdom and power that the serpent symbolizes so that I can similarly bring great things to pass through the that “sacred feminine energy” inherent to women.

In the Blogosphere, we discuss some pretty tough topics from time to time. We share some unpopular opinions and openly (but hopefully respectfully) dissect and wrestle with other people’s opinions. We admit our faults, tell personal and touching stories, bear our testimonies, and share our challenges.

I’ve personally found the blogosphere to be a great source of strength as I work at figuring out where I stand on many things I deal with now or will deal with in the future. I’ve been enlightened by the knowledge of those in the community, challenged by the opinions of some, and comforted by the stories of others. Through church and the scriptures, I’ve learned a lot about the Gospel in the past 4 years since my baptism, but in figuring out where the Gospel fits in my life or how I relate to it, nothing has helped me more than the online community of LDS blog writers and commenters.

I’ve mostly remained somewhat anonymous in my participation in the online community, using a made up handle that isn’t particularly revealing about name or location. I guess the reason for that being that I could imagine friends, family, or other acquaintances stumbling upon things I’ve said and becoming angry, disappointed, condemnatory, or offended. Separating identity from the community helps me be more honest, which seems very important when discussing matters of the heart and wrestling with tough topics.

As much as I completely hate admitting that I care what other people think, I can’t seem to shake the fact that laying it all on the table may not come without social consequence. In that sense, I’m not too worried about whether or not someone likes me or disagrees with me. I’m more annoyed by the possibility of someone confronting me or judging me. Clearly the judgment of others isn’t particularly relevant, since they have no authority in those matters; it’s more the sheer inconvenience of having to defend my honest thoughts to those I know “in real life” that bothers me.

But now I’m starting to feel like I’d like to put more out there. I’m already revealing a lot about myself by discussing these complicated topics in these public forums; much more than I reveal to most people I know. I have friends with whom I’d like to share ideas, and I’d like to connect my own face to the name. So I’m wondering, is this just me that grapples with that dilemma? Are others who participate in tough discussions worried about revealing who they are exactly? Is it reasonable to be concerned with the consequences of your honest opinions and thoughts falling into less-than-accepting hands?

The following is a discussion amongst some California LDS young single adults in response to someone posting a link to this Deseret News article about Sen. Buttars and his anti-gay sentiments he expressed. The one who posted the link suggested that Utah stop electing this man as a representative. The article itself is worth reading for those wanting to know more backstory, but I find the discussion that follows revealing of the sort of views held by these young adults in California.

For the sake of protecting anonymity of those in the discussion, I’ve changed all the names to the names of characters from Lost. Which name goes to which person indicates nothing about relationship, righteousness, or age, though I’ve matched names to the gender of the participants.

James Sawyer:
The saddest thing is that there are lots of elected officials in local and national governments that feel exactly the same as this guy does. They just don’t say it out loud. They simply vote against gay rights time after time. At least this guy is open about his bigotry.

Hugo Reyes:
The way I feel about it is people say stupid crap all the time thats their right. Its not cool but I dont think we should penalize someone for their opinion. If it was directed at an individual he should apologise but since he just stated what he stated who cares. If he or anyone else wants to publicly state their opinion, good or bad in our eyes, they have every right to. And then we have a right to not vote for them anymore. Thats how the system works.

Sayid Jarah:
I’ve never researched this guy, and it doesn’t sound like (who knows if the quotations are in context) like he’s got much tact! I do believe that the family is the strength of society, based on good moral values.

Kate Austin:
Hugo, I would never suggest that this man have his right to say his opinion revoked. I would suggest that people stop electing people like this. This is not the gospel in action.

Sayid, the context is as follows. He was talking to two guys in Utah wearing BYU t-shirts. He said all of that in conversation, assuming that they were LDS, and assuming that because they were members, he could say this without penalty. Which is even worse press for the church, since this elected official is essentially communicating that HAD he been talking to fellow members, the awful things he said would have been acceptable. If that’s the message we’re spreading, that hatred and intolerance are the status quo, we’ve fallen far from Christ’s message.
For more background and discussion (and links to related info), check out this link.

Hugo Reyes:
Kate,look up d&c 1:30 whether one man says something bad or good he does not represent the church he is merly a representative. Oh and I agree with the comment you made to me above. I was just saying that too many people get all bent out of shape over something that is an opinion of one man thats all. Oh and Sayid you hit it on the head. I like and agree with your opinion. Oh and one more thing if that is what that man is spreading then he has fallen far from Christs message, not the church. . . . I meant representative as an individual ooops

Kate Austin:
It’s only one man’s opinion, but when we vote we’re electing individuals and not just the party they represent. This individual has repeatedly bashed gay people as well as black people, and in my opinion has no business representing the state of Utah or any other state in the U.S. for that matter. Not only does he lack understanding and love for a good portion of his fellow Americans, but he also lacks to good sense to keep his mouth shut.

I’m not getting bent out of shape or personally offended as this doesn’t affect my day to day existence, but reading up on the story I decided to share it so others could see the sort of statements made unabashedly by this politician. Clearly it would be unconstitutional to penalize someone for his or her opinion, but I don’t think not voting for someone would be a penalty, as I would see serving American citizens as a privilege and not a right.

Hugo Reyes:
All of what you just said I agree with. If you do not want to vote for someone because fo something he said and you feel he represents himself and what he stands for through that statement, then i say dont vote for him. That is the way the system should work. I just cant stand it when one person says something and all of a sudden he represents thirteen million peolple. It was his opinion that was verbally stated and his only.

Jack Shepherd:
I’m with Kate, next time I vote for a public official of a state I don’t live in, I’ll avoid anyone who’s said something offensive. (For tips on how to do this, please Google “Things to do instead of voting”)

John Locke:
wait wait…. lol..Hugo, the whole purpose of an elected politician is to represent, he isn’t “all of a sudden” representing people, its kind of the entire purpose of holding such a position, that’s democracy haha.so yes, when someone holding a representative political position is elected, while in office anything he or she says or does is indeed meant to be representative of those who elected them.

Kate Austin:
lol Jack yes no doubt everyone’s guilty of saying less than flattering things. Regardless, if I had heard that someone I was planning on voting for was openly discriminatory about huge groups of individuals like the entire gay or black community, I’d find another place to invest my vote. I can’t get behind the hate.

Hugo Reyes:
well John i understand what you are saying. But i dont think u understand what i am saying i am not talking about the state of utah. I was speaking about Kates early comments on the lds church. As far as utah or the united states he might be able to represent them because of his political position but in no way is he the voice of the church. Is what i was saying.

James Sawyer:
It’s not that this guy represents the official church stance on homosexuality but he does represent the anti-gay sentiment that without a doubt is pervasive throughout the church. I attended an lds Halloween party in 2008 right before the election. One guy dressed up as a devil with a name badge that said Korihor and a sign that said No on Prop 8. The whole night I was thinking “get me out of here” because all the conversations were centered on stopping the gays from destroying marriage. I couldn’t stand it.

I could care less about the fact that he is an elected official. What’s much more sad is that he is a member of what is supposedly Christ’s one true church and yet he talks like this about his- whether he likes it or not- fellow brothers and sisters. To me he is just another great example of the ignorance, delusion, and religious-based hate that is literally destroying this nation from the inside.

Hugo Reyes:
ok so he is doing all the things you just said. When kobe bryant cheated on his wife no one got mad at his teamates for being on his team. This guy might be a creep as well as all those peole at your party but that just means that they as individuals are wrong not the church.

Kate Austin:
Hugo, clearly the church itself has never and will never make any sort of official stance as offensive as what this guy or the sort of people James mentioned have said/done. The sad thing is that many LDS individuals will express similar anti-gay hateful sentiments and believe it’s okay, hiding behind the official statements the church HAS made about homosexuality. Like Sen. Buttars, the hate won’t stop despite being caught because in his mind he’s doing God’s good work.

People feel more comfortable and okay with saying these sort of things in the church than out of it, where general social decorum dictates less hateful behavior (except of course in subcultures that promote hate, but in general). The fact that people can grow up in the church, learning the Gospel, and still think such hatred and intolerance are sanctioned suggests to me that many are somehow missing a huge part of Christ’s message.

I’m reposting this same link because this discussion in particular is about this matter, how it seems that some members feel right about spewing hateful messages, hiding behind the church’s more tactful official stances.

Jack Shepherd:
Now that I’ve read the article (I was that bored) I don’t mind saying that 1) I agree with what he said, and 2) what he said is ESSENTIALLY the same thing that church leaders have eluded to regarding the effect of homosexuality on the family and the importance of said organization (the family) in the success of government, economy, education, etc., all things that will fail (and, to some degree, are already failing) if the family unit fails. The ONLY difference between what he says in the article and what the church teaches is that he ONLY cites homosexuality as a cause for downfall while the church cites homosexuality as one of MANY things that will cause downfall in the family, which will in turn cause total downfall.

I understand letting people live their own lives, loving everyone, allowing people their agency, human rights, etc. I allow all people the right to make their own decisions. But this is where I don’t waiver; homosexual behavior is not acceptable in the eyes of God. It is a grievous sin and I empathize with those who struggle with it. It is a difficult temptation to deal with, but the correct way to do so is not indulgence. I do not, and never will, support, advocate, accept, or in any way hide my feelings about it. I feel that saying I am a member of God’s church and then refusing to stand up for His doctrine, or even accepting and promoting principles that His appointed leaders have strived to teach us are incorrect, is blasphemy. Christ’s gospel is simple. It is the devil that is confusing.

Kate Austin:
*facepalm*

It’s not about whether or not the church’s stance is this or that on homosexuality. This isn’t just an LDS guy chatting with friends and sharing his opinion. This is a public official, partially responsible for legislative decisions to affect American citizens. Also worth noting, this guy wasn’t respectfully explaining his opinion about homosexual *behavior*, but he was verbally abusing homosexuals themselves, as in, the people. As in, a significant portion of those citizens he represents.

There is a HUGE difference between what I think is right or wrong and what I think the government should be enforcing upon everyone as right or wrong. Taking away people’s choices and enforcing the One Right Way was not Christ’s plan, and I think you know whose plan it was, so I don’t need to get into that.

And I’d be careful about accusing others of blasphemy. You’re right that Christ’s gospel is simple, and that’s why there’s no blasphemy involved when standing up against hate and bigotry against our brothers and sisters in humanity.

James Sawyer:
When I spoke out against Prop 8 I got a lot of comments from member friends that told me that by voting against prop 8 I was disobeying the prophet, and therefore, making a choice that would jeporadize my eternal salvation.

They obviously did not read the official church statement that said members have a right to vote how they see fit and should not be persecuted for it. And that’s what’s wrong with these people. They think they know how to return to God, but really they have no clue. I understand it because I once was exactly like them. Luckily, I saw through my own bullshit and I hope they aren’t too deep in it to see through their’s one day.

P.S. If there is a god, and I have to stand before him at a judgement, I will know it’s just a dream when he says “you didn’t make it son. You were a good person, you served your fellow man well, but you remember that vote you cast in the 2008 election? That sealed your fate. Sorry!”

I suppose I sound like I am ranting and I don’t want that. So I will conclude by saying that I appreciate Kate posting this because it is an issue that the Church needs to deal with. Every member does not feel the same as this Buttar guy, but I promise you that the feelings he expressed are much more pervasive than you think. Love and acceptance will get us much further, in life and beyond, than merely blaming and casting stones.

Jack Shepherd:
Nice try, Kate.

First off, the church encourages us to elect public officials that will stand for the same values the church teaches. I would expect such officials to not be bashful in voicing those values. I encourage them to voice them on the political stage. That is why I elected them there. If a prophet of God can stand in front of the world on public television and say that sexual sin and perversion will destroy the earth, why can’t a US senator? *Pretty Please respond to that*

Second, I don’t honestly care whether or not he says “homosexuals” or “gays” or “behavior” or whatever else. He wasn’t “abusing” anybody. I said “behavior,” he said the people who do the behavior, I don’t care, and it truly isn’t worth noting at all. It would be worth noting if he said “Let’s kill all the gays.” But he didn’t. He said homosexuals are “the greatest threat to America.” I believe that they have made the most potent threat to the family, and God’s appointed leaders have said that if the family fails, so will economy, and government, and business, everything. So I believe he is right. And I don’t believe it is abusing somebody to call them out on what they have done. You show me a “gay” or “lesbian” that voted Yes on Prop. 8 and I’ll show you a person who was “abused” by this Senators comments.

Also, your second paragraph is horrible. First, WHY would you want the government to enforce something OTHER than what you feel is right??????? If you don’t feel that what you think is right should be enforced, maybe you should re-evaluate what you feel is right and wrong. I can’t agree with you less on that one. Second sentence: Taking away people’s agency wasn’t Christ’s plan, but enforcing the “One Right Way” was. He epitomizes letting people choose even though there is only one right way, even at the expense of losing them forever. This man isn’t taking away anyone’s agency. He is, however, standing for what is right, albeit in the opinion of many “without tact.”

And lastly, I didn’t accuse anyone of blasphemy. You can read what I said again if you’d like. I stand by it. It is true. I don’t stand for hate. I don’t stand for bigotry. I also, however, don’t stand for homosexuality.

James Sawyer:
I never said that he can’t say what he said. He can say anything he wants to. Kate’s original point is that we should consider not re-electing him now that we know how he really feels. The man claims to be a member of the one true Church on earth and yet severely lacks the love of Christ for a large number of people. His choice to be a public servant brings with it responsibility to be who he says he is. When he fails to do that, we should look elsewhere next election.

The man claiming to be a prophet can say anything he wants to. He isn’t elected by the people and therefore can get away with saying whatever he wants. Then those who truly believe that this man is speaking for God grow up to be elected officials who spout anti-gay sentiments when they think they are off the record.

Kate Austin
First off, I hold the doctrine of treating our fellow man with love and respect higher than the doctrine against homosexuality. One of the two great laws is to love thy neighbor. There’s no third great law that says “but most importantly, don’t be gay”, so when I elect a public official, I place more importance on how he treats his fellow man than whether or not he thinks homosexuality is evil or the cause of “downfall” (whatever that means). U.S. Senators are not God’s mouthpiece nor are they necessarily inspired by God and thus I don’t trust that they’re qualified to be making moral value judgments against a good portion of the citizens they represent, nor do I think to do so fits within their responsibilities. The fact is, in society, it is big fat not okay to spew hate and intolerance, and just because this Senator happens to be a member of the church he shouldn’t be able to hide behind that as a justification for why what he said was “okay”.

Second, you seem to be missing that age-old mantra, “hate the sin, love the sinner”. Homosexuality is not some far off abstract concept. This is the way people live who are our brothers, sisters, friends, neighbors, teachers, etc. and loving them and treating them as God’s children is of greater importance than using the law to impose our beliefs onto them.

We get onto our little heterosexual high-horse thinking that homosexuality is somehow such a worse sin than every other sin you and i commit regularly and we get all up in arms about it, but I’m sure you can imagine that if politicians were suddenly hatefully speaking out against something you struggle with (or more appropriately, don’t even know is wrong) it could be potentially hurtful, especially if it’s something you weigh heavily in the formation of your identity. Notice that despite the clear doctrines on the matters, we don’t look for political candidates looking to outlaw alcohol, tobacco, or enforce temple attendance and scripture study. We seem to believe that we don’t have a place to legally impose those beliefs on non-believers, but homosexuality is somehow different? I’d bet in those matters YOU have voted for someone who doesn’t enforce what you think is right. If you truly feel that what you think is right should not be enforced, maybe you should re-evaluate what you feel is right and wrong.

In regards to my second paragraph before, I believe it’s not up to the government to enforce moral standards upon people. AND your statement, “Taking away people’s agency wasn’t Christ’s plan, but enforcing the “One Right Way” was.” is absolute bologna. Christ didn’t ENFORCE anything. If we enforce the right choices then it no longer matters that the man made the right choice because, in fact, it was not a choice at all. The existence of one right way is not enforcement but is the invitation for people by their own actions and agency to learn about the one right way and being held accountable to live the one right way after they have gained witness by the Spirit that it is, in fact, the truth.

If we were hoping to truly teach and enlighten people to the point where they could see for themselves and gain the witness that would then hold them accountable for these things, we would do a lot better by not dealing with legislation. It seems pretty clear that this sort of denunciation of homosexuality, especially the kind that talks badly about the people themselves, has hurt the chances of many ever even listening to the message that has the potential to change people’s hearts and mind.

P.S. Thanks James

P.S.S. I’d like to point out that leading a church where the membership is comprised of people who have agreed to live by a certain set of standards is much different from leading a country where people are free to live how they choose. The traits and beliefs that would make a person ideal for leading one would not necessarily make them an ideal candidate for the other.

James Sawyer:
You’re welcome! I love the chance to call people out on their hypocrisy. Thanks again for posting this.

Hugo Reyes:
actually Kate that is exactly what we do hate the sin love sinner and from Jacks comments if you would have been paying attention is exactly what he was doing.

Kate Austin:
I was both paying attention and reading word for word. Love was not what I saw.

So now I ask, what do you think? Do you agree or disagree with any one participant in particular? What would you add to the discussion? Is this dialogue between California young adults different from what you’d expect from LDS young single adults in CA or anywhere else?

Today, I got to thinking about medical research. Specifically, I thought about all the time, money, and energy that goes into research looking to prevent, treat, and cure disease. The medical community at large puts so much into these efforts, which all seem to have the common goal of either improving the quality of human life or prolonging human life.

Clearly, some diseases truly affect the quality of life for the afflicted, so it makes sense that we’d want to find ways to treat and cure those illnesses which make life less pleasant. In that case, the desire to prevent, treat, and cure makes sense. But, as much as we’ve been able to cure some illnesses, treat and manage other illnesses, and prevent the spread of other illnesses, and as much as this has actually prolonged human life, it remains that we have never, and will never be able to escape eventual death.

Throughout history, we’ve seen that as humans live longer, new diseases arise that we just didn’t see in generations past. People who died before they could develop Alzheimer’s weren’t concerned with treating the disease because it wasn’t something they encountered. It naturally follows that if we could suddenly cure cancer, diabetes, heart disease, aids, etc. to the point of generations with longer lives than past generations, we’d simply encounter a whole new set of diseases that we wouldn’t know how to cure.

I don’t bring this up to say that such research is useless, a waste of resources, or pointless in the grand scheme of things. I see a great benefit to helping those who are suffering and trying to keep people from unnecessary pain. I bring this up to as a backdrop to think about why it is that we so readily put so much effort into delaying inevitable death.

First, I think it has to do with a particular view of mortality that death is a horrible thing that we should avoid at all costs. This probably has to do with the way that the way most of us encounter death during our mortality is through the death of a loved one, which is, generally, a pretty negative experience. The feelings of loss and grief can easily become associated with death itself instead of being recognized as a sign that you cared about this person and will miss their continued presence in your life.

We don’t have the luxury of experiencing death first-hand and coming back from it in this life to have that change our perspective. Perhaps death doesn’t feel like such a horrific thing to the person experiencing it. If it doesn’t, we won’t know until after we’ve gone our whole lives trying to avoid it. It makes me wonder if those who have a belief in the afterlife, resurrection, or reincarnation are less wary of the notion of death overall.

There are few things that universally apply to every individual on earth, and one of these things is that we’re mortal. If I recover from a terrible illness or narrowly escape a potentially deadly collision, I haven’t saved myself from death, I’ve only delayed it for a while. Not to be too pessimistic, but the truth is that there’s no such thing as saving a life; there’s only prolonging life.

So what’s the deal with all the efforts to delay the inevitable? Is it simply fear of death, or of the unknown? Do those who feel certain that they know what comes after this life feel less of a need to work towards longer human life? Are all of these efforts to prolong life a sign that humans actually have their eyes on pursuing immortality?

A friend of mine was recently expressing to me how much he didn’t look forward to attending church. He essentially said that the only reason he attends all three hours of church every week is to keep his temple recommend. Also, he expressed that he wanted to be able to go to the temple because God is there.

I understand the draw to attend the temple to be able to perform ordinances, for yourself and for others. I understand the importance of attending the temple to step out of your day-to-day life in the world and to dedicate that time to God. I believe that dedicating the time and actually going to the temple to dedicate that time to God can open you up for a clearer mind and better prepares you to receive revelation.

However, I couldn’t say that the reason to keep your recommend and to go to the temple is because God is there. Even if He is there, I believe He can be anywhere, and doesn’t limit his presence to dedicated houses of the Lord, where only the worthy can attend. That idea strikes me as a little bit elitist and proud to think that only those temple worthy individuals in attendance can enjoy the presence of the Lord.

I pointed out that throughout the Gospel, from Christ to Old Testament Prophets and even to Joseph Smith, accounts of the Lord’s appearance rarely take place in the temple. Very often, those whom the Lord appeared to weren’t baptized, confirmed, endowed, married, or even all that righteous by some standards. However, something about them deemed them ready to receive revelation and be in the presence of the Lord.

What sort of things prepare us to be with the Lord? And does the temple hold some sort of special access pass to be in his presence?

Took a short break from blogging as the redesign was finalized! As you may be able to tell, it’s here now!

I love it!

I’ll come out and say that there are some issues in the church that really rub me the wrong way. There are plenty of issues that I don’t understand or questions that I feel I’ve been given cheap, appeasing answers to. Today, after reading this post over at Feminist Mormon Housewives, the issue on my mind is the treatment of women in this patriarchal system.

The writer of the linked post brings up a quote from Nicholas Kristof:

“Today, when religious institutions exclude women from their hierarchies and rituals, the inevitable implication is that females are inferior.”

The comments are interesting to read as we all grapple with this topic of what to make of women being left out of ordinances, positions of leadership, and even callings which don’t require the Priesthood, like Ward Clerk . Some of the topics of discussion include women desiring to participate in parts of ordinances that don’t even seem to require the Priesthood to perform, like holding the baby during a baby’s blessing. I’ve heard of one woman wanting to participate who was denied the right to hold the microphone for the blessing. The microphone. Seriously!

Other limitations that some have heard are doctrine or the “right way” include only having men give opening/closing prayers for Sacrament Meeting and having the last Sacrament Meeting speaker be a Priesthood Holder. To these limitations I can only say I’ve heard of them other places. I’ve given the last Sacrament Meeting talk and young women often say prayers in our singles’ ward.

I believe this church has plenty of good in it and is truly rooted in the true Gospel of Christ. As much as I focus on the doctrine of Christ’s Atonement, the Nature of God, and on living a good life as a true saint and follower, I do well. I feel that it’s when I get my head caught up in these matters of “Social Doctrine” that I feel myself falter.

I’m sure I’m not alone in having these cracks in my foundation, but I wonder, what’s a saint to do? How can we reconcile our faith in that which is good with our uncertainty about that which brings us strife? What does one do with the cognitive dissonance? Do we sit with it? Acknowledge it? Embrace it? Deny it? Shun it?

At this point, I feel comfortable knowing that as much as this is God’s church led by His will, it is conducted and carried out by man, who is as imperfect as it is man’s right to be. When I hear doctrine or social constructs that don’t sit with me as coinciding with my understanding of God, I can acknowledge that when man gets his imperfect hands on sacred things, the doctrine can become somewhat tainted or misunderstood.

So when the game of telephone gives me a piece of knowledge that seems from somewhere other than the divine, as I feel it most likely is with the subordination of women in the church, I can go straight to God and trust that my knowledge of His nature is true, and that truth will shine over all of our misunderstandings in the end.

I’m grateful for that opportunity to take things to the Lord to settle my mind and heart. I’m grateful for the gut instinct that lets me know when I need to go straight to the source and let man be imperfect as man always will be. The Lord is not subject to our mortal, social, and cultural constructs. The Lord will not be changed by our imperfections.

I take great comfort in God’s untouchable, nontarnishable perfection, and in knowing that He loves me and all of his Spirit daughters just as much as He loves all of his Spirit sons. For now, that works for me.

What works for you?

There’s a group of us. You, me, and a few other folks. Let’s say we’re all looking at this.

And I ask you, “What is this that we’re looking at?”

You say, “Well, it’s an apple, of course!” and others agree with you.

And I ask you, “How did you know that? How can you tell that this is an apple?”

You say, “Well, I stood back and looked, and it’s shaped like an apple”

Another says, “I got in a little closer and looked. It’s green and yellow, like an apple I’ve seen before”

Yet another says, “I picked it up and felt it. It has a smooth, shiny surface with little speckles and a waxy peel, like apples I’ve felt before”

Another says “I took it and cut it in half. I looked at the seeds in the core and determined it was an apple”

Another says “I picked it up and took a bite. The taste and texture was like apples I had before”

Who was right? Who had the best explanation? Who sensed the identity of the object the best? Who should feel proud that they “won” the challenge?

I hope you agree with me that nobody’s explanation is better than the other. Nobody’s identification was superior and no single individual “won”. Everyone agrees it is an apple. Each person looked at different aspects of the apple and came to the same conclusion by different means.

I believe that this challenge serves as an example for the human experience and relationship to the big picture questions out there. Perhaps this metaphor will help me explain this where words have previously failed me.

Human beings have this innate ability and drive to examine their own existence. We’re uniquely aware of our own mortality, and we try to figure out the answers to questions like “Why are we here?”, “What happens after I die?” and “Is there a God?”. We search for meaning in our mortality and wrestle with these questions.

And each human being lives within his/her own paradigm. Culture, education, nature, nurture, and countless individual forces help shape the glasses through which we see the world and these questions we wrestle with. These forces shape whether I will look at the apple from afar, pick it up and feel it, or take a bite out of it to find out more about it.

The apple in this scenario is the big picture. Call it existence, the universe, divinity, life, creation, God, or whatever you want to call it. It’s big. It’s too big for us. Too big for our minds to grasp. Sometimes I feel like my mind is stretching and reaching and trying to wrap its arms around this big idea and inevitably reaches a threshold where it must stop, relax, and soak in whatever was within its reach.

This inability to grasp the entirety of the big picture does not stop us lowly humans from trying. We take small sections of this big idea and focus in on them. And often, even these small sections are so big that we need aids like metaphor and hyperbole to fit them into bite-sized pieces we can wrap our minds around. All this after beating this piece of the big idea into a very small container labeled “Language”.

Now, if I look at one aspect of the big picture, and you look at another, does it make sense for us to argue about who is right? If one metaphor helps me grasp something even slightly bigger than myself and it does not do the same for you, does that make me more righteous or closer to understanding the big picture than you?

We are all just looking at the same thing, but we are too close to the little sections we’ve focused in on to see that we’re all focusing on the same big picture. It’s sort of like how because I can only see from one horizon to the other it’s hard for me to remember that people beyond that horizon on other continents are standing on the same exact surface of the same sphere.

One day, our horizons will expand and we will be able to step back from the small point we’ve focused on, and we will still be able to understand. Our minds will be enlightened to the point where we can zoom out and see the big picture in its entirety and only then realize just how small of a piece we were focused in on. This is when we will look to our left and to our right and see that our brothers and sisters with whom we used to argue about the nature of this huge idea are looking at the same thing we are, and that we’ve been looking at different points on the same sphere all the long.

The beauty of this is that nobody is wrong. No one is superior. We are all just doing the best we can with the small piece we can see for now. Someday, we will see what others have seen and know how it fits with what we already understand. We will honor the universal attempt we’ve all made to understand something so much bigger than ourselves and we will respect the different ways we used our limited minds to grasp what we could in this life.

For me, I’ve found a piece that helps me understand the big picture a little more. The metaphors work in my mind and teach me something about the Nature of God. But I know these metaphors will not work for everyone and others will need a different approach or to look at a different piece of the big picture to come to similar understanding. I find beauty and truth in my faith and see immeasurable good and truth in other faiths as well. I respect that some things that bring me closer to God will not do that for some and may even do the opposite for others.

Let’s focus less on separating into the “Us” and “Them” of who is primarily concerned with what aspect of the big picture but instead on the fact that all of humanity is united in the same trial and faces the same questions. In the end we will all see that we were after the same answer all the long.

This is just my personal belief, but it helps open my heart to others and fits with what I know about our loving God. I’d love to hear what you all think and to know what pieces of your faith help you understand the most about the big picture.