Religious Democracy: Coming Soon

WARNING: This blog post contains extreme sarcasm, criticism and some open mocking of other people. It's not very nice, and if you think I am a nice person in general, and don't want to be disillusioned, you might not want to keep reading. However, if you already think that I am mean, nasty and judgmental, then read on. It will only confirm what you already believe, and isn't that what we all really want anyway?

In more and more of my classes at BYU, the professors are asking students to contribute to discussions on facebook regarding topics we are discussing in class. Often the discussions go in a completely different direction. Sometimes they are interesting, sometimes they are enlightening, and sometimes they are just shocking in their stupidity. I usually try to hold back when confronted with the latter, but it is often a challenge to do so. One particular comment thread had me both gasping in shock and gulping with rage, not because the content was shocking or enraging per se, but because of the complete lack of philosophical honesty or intelligent thought being spouted by supposedly bright-ish college students who, as members of the LDS church, should also have at least a basic understanding of the theology. I didn't respond to any of these stupid comments because I was frantically studying for the final and didn't want to get distracted in a time-wasting argument. But I would have liked very much to respond because I have seen this perspective more and more among members of the church, particularly here in Utah, and it is, quite frankly, a little bit disturbing.

The following are comments that started because of one of my posts regarding ballads, more particularly murder ballads, and even more particularly Mormon murder ballads. Someone brought up the Mountain Meadows massacre, and the ballad written about it, and it went from there:

" It's interesting, I don't know the church to apologize very often. The idea of modern revelation allows them to sidestep that quite comfortably, but in this case they really stepped up. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695209359/LDS-Church-issues-apology-over-Mountain-Meadows.html"

"Next up: Apologies to blacks, gays, and women. Hey ladies, I'm ALL for you holding the priesthood. I'll start you a petition ;)"

" I don't think anyone official from the church will be apologizing to the gays anytime soon. That would be nice, but where society is still using the word "gay" as a way to say "dumb" or whatever, it's just not going to happen. I feel like the church is usually a generation or so behind society. Then, we still have people saying that women are just better at mopping and men are just better at working in offices and making money. Maybe we'll apologize to blacks at some point in the near-ish future, but probably not women or the gays. That would be nice, though." 

"...the apology thing is SO huge, it's a wonder to me that our church doesn't make more frequent use of it. You know that one conference talk a while back that asked the question, "Would you rather be right, or would you rather be married"? Well it seems the church would do well to take its own advice. Being "right" seems really important to church leadership, but unfortunately that alienates a great deal of people from what could be a life-changing interaction with love. Over time I've realized that its not only vital to admit that you're wrong when you know you're wrong, but it's actually quite powerful to admit you were wrong when you still think you were right. Again, would you rather be right or would you rather be married? Something to ponder, I suppose. "

Whaaat? Are you all serious? So let me get this straight. The Prophet receives revelation from God on behalf of the church as a body. This translates into church policy and sometimes into public stances on particular issues. So if those policies or stances offend people or seem harsh, the leadership of the church should publicly apologize? Really? So what you are saying is that President Monson should stand up at the pulpit and say the following:

"The Lord has revealed such and such to me, however, I know that many of you are offended/hurt/angered/embarrassed by this, so I would like to apologize on behalf of the Lord Omnipotent, the Alpha and Omega, the Master and Creator of the Universe. He was obviously wrong."

Yeah, I would pay to see that at General Conference. What I wonder is this: would the Lord just strike President Monson down right there at the pulpit, or would he take him quietly that night in his sleep?

The Mountain Meadows Massacre wasn't a Church policy, it was a bunch of stupid members gone crazy with greed. It was very gracious of the church to apologize for the horrific behavior of some of their members, but how is that analogous to the church apologizing to blacks, gays and women? Again, if the Prophet receives revelation from God regarding the Church, then those policies come from God, not from the opinions of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency.

First let's tackle the issue of blacks and the priesthood. Is it terrible that for so many years black male members couldn't hold the priesthood? Absolutely. Do any of us know why that policy existed? Anyone?  Bueller? No, we don't. We can only assume that the Lord had his reasons, and that we don't know or understand what they are. If the Church apologizes for a policy that the Lord put in place, then the Church is apologizing for the Lord, and not even the Prophet has the authority to do that.

Same thing with "the gays" (as one commenter so ignorantly and offensively put it). By the way, if you are trying to pull off the whole "I'm a super sophisticated and culturally progressive intellectual" thing, it doesn't help when you use backward phrases like "the gays," but I digress. What exactly is the Church supposed to be apologizing for here? Oh, you mean the recent comment in General Conference, "God didn't make you that way"? Is that what everyone is so offended about? Okay, let's get something straight (no pun intended). That comment in no way translates into "You chose to be this way." The gay community handily turned it into that for their own political purposes, and nobody likes to be told to repent, so of course it was twisted into something totally different from what it actually meant. What that statement meant was that God didn't point his finger at certain people while cackling with glee and say, "YOU WILL BE GAY" and then sadistically sit back and watch them struggle with their sexual identity.

That's not the way it works, people. Things happen. People develop in different ways, within different environments, with different biological, psychological and emotional factors all contributing to who they eventually become. There will always be people who differ from "the norm" because that is the nature of life. It is often difficult for us human beings to be able to accept people and love them regardless of those differences, because we are just imperfect that way. There is a distinction, however, between individual people being cruel and insensitive because they don't fully understand or practice the gospel and the Church being cruel and insensitive because it upholds the laws of God. One is a legitimate complaint, the other is not.

Now let's move on to the issue of women. I believe one of the commenters above claims that the Church should apologize because some people have said that women are better at mopping floors and men are better and working and earning money. Now, I can only assume that she is referring to individual members of the church that have said these things, because if she can find me any quote, from any General Authority, in any talk or article in the last 30 years in which they have said anything close to that, I will eat my own face. And if she has, in fact, heard individual members of the church say something as stupid as that, then I can only pity her for the type of ward and/or town that she grew up in.

And finally, the last comment that was so incredible and so fantastically ignorant: "Being 'right' seems really important to church leadership, but unfortunately that alienates a great deal of people."

Yes, yes it does. I believe that's what is commonly referred to as 'separating the wheat from the chaff.' You know the scripture that says, "God is no respecter of persons?" That means that God doesn't favor one person over another because of race, background, financial position, good looks, etc. However, there is one very specific characteristic for which He favors one person over another: Obedience.

Here's my sum up of the comments above: a whole bunch of egos that are seriously out of control. More and more we are becoming a culture of "what I think/feel/have to say is the most important thing in the world." This very blog is a good example of both the result and the cause of that phenomenon. And because we think that our opinion is the most important, we also think that we are right because we think we are right. A strange kind of circular logic, no? Now pair that with the increasing belief that the Church is just a social institution, and not a theological institution with direct authority from God, and you have a group of people who think that the Laws of the Universe should be decided by whatever is currently socially acceptable. Social Mormonism, what a great concept. Here's to a future in which we can all vote on whether or not we have to keep our temple covenants, attend our church meetings, pay tithing or serve in callings in order to receive the benefits and blessings of exaltation. It's a win-win for everyone, don't you think?

My Advice to Young Wives

After a long talk with my friend Monique last night, I decided it was time to get writing again.  You see, she thinks I'm brillant, a genious really.  Ha!  After more than an hour on the phone giving her advice about marriage (my husband gets really nervous when I do that), she said, "You should be writing this stuff down." What she doesn't realize is that I'm not really all that smart, I have just been married longer than she has.  But it did get me thinking.  What do I wish someone had explained to me as a young married woman?  Had I known it then, what information or insight could have saved me a lot of trouble, heartache, inconvenience, etc.?  Whew, that could fill a book!  However,  I think for now maybe I'll just start with one little idea at a time.

Recently I had an epiphany about men.  One of many, really.  This epiphany came when I was thinking about two different ideas and they came together and gave me this "aha!" moment that explained a lot. 

As I was talking to the above mentioned friend (sounding oh-so-wise), I was thinking about when I was young and first married (age 20 - yikes!) and remembered how unsure of myself I was in comparison to my (also young) husband.  As young as he was, though, my husband always seemed very sure of himself.  Now, even though he was/is four years older than me, I can say with absolute certainty that at that time I was the more mature of the two of us (sorry honey, but we both know it's the truth).  Even so, he never seemed to question himself on anything.  And because he seemed so confident about his opinions, I assumed that they must be grounded in knowledge and experience, so I often conceded to him when we disagreed.  Sometimes this resulted in me going along with things that went against my better judgement.  And more than a few times it led to situations that caused me a great deal of inconvenience, stress and more than a little irritation. 

What I couldn't figure out, though, was how he could be so sure of himself.  Obviously, based on the outcome, he didn't have any idea what he was talking about.  And when I questioned him about it later he was very open in admitting to that fact.  He would shrug as if it was no big deal, and a couple of times he even asked me why I had agreed with him if I wanted to do things differently.  Aaargh!  I tried to explain to him that I had agreed with him because he seemed so sure that he was right, and that normal people don't profess to be right about something unless they have at least some legitimate proof to back it up.  Most normal people don't throw out an opinion about something that they have no clue about.

What I didn't realize was that in order to make that statement true, I needed to change it just a bit.  What I should have said, if I were to be more accurate, if I had known better at the time, was that normal women don't throw out an opinion about something that they have no clue about. 

A long time ago I read about a study done regarding academic performance and gender.  The researchers found out something interesting about boys and girls.  It seemed that the boys were getting more attention from the teachers than the girls.  When they looked into why, they found that it was because boys raise their hands more quickly and more often than girls.  It wasn't because the boys knew the answers better or faster than the girls.  In fact, most of the boys didn't even know the answer when they shot their hands up in the air - they were just trying to be the first one with their hand up.  The girls, on the other hand, generally would only raise their hands if they were fairly sure of the answer. 

What does this have to do with anything?  Well, what I realized is that men, as highly competitive creatures, will throw their hand up in the air and say "I know the answer!" whether they really know the answer or not.  In fact, it doesn't matter if they actually have any correct information at all, it just matters that they display confidence.  While this behavior may seem to us women to stem from some sort of arrogance or ego, it doesn't.  It stems from the very real, deeply ingrained male drive to protect and provide for the people they love.  Men need to appear confident and strong, particularly to their wives.  In their minds, what woman wants a man who is weak, wishy-washy and unsure of himself?  And let's be honest ladies, they're right.

So here's the wrap up.  It may seem to you that your husband always thinks he's right, and that he never listens to your opinion.  But that's not the case.  In fact, when he asserts his opinion as if he is the expert(even when you suspect that he doesn't have a clue) what he's doing is showing you that you can depend on him.  When you look at it that way, it's actually kind of sweet.  Does that mean you have to agree with and go along with everything he says?  No way!  You just have to kindly but firmly assert yourself so that he knows you are serious (no hysterics, anger or tears).  He doesn't actually expect you to do everything he says, or do everything the way he thinks it should be done.  He just wants you to know up front that he will take care of things if you need him to.  It can actually be a great relief to him when you say, "no, I think this is the best way to do it, and that is what I'm going to do." 

 One of the things that surprised me when I finally started doing this, was that my husband didn't get mad, pout or feel threatened that I didn't agree with him.  Once he knew I was serious, and that he wasn't in charge of the decision any more, he reacted the same way he does about pretty much everything.  He shrugged his shoulders, said, "okay", looked for something to eat, and went back to watching the game.  I suspect your husband will do the same.