20 Signs We Were Never Gonna Make It

1) We were always on time. Repeat: always on time.

2) Eric was never interested in hunting, fishing, et. al.

3) Eric was never interested in, as TAMN so aptly describes, law/business/dental/medical school. Teaching, psssh. That's for the weird girls we put up with who, y'know, wanna work instead of fulfill their divine roll.

4) Neither one of us enjoyed "every member a missionary" and always, always cringed at those goddamn push--er, pass-along cards.

5) I knew better than to show my parents "Together Forever" like my missionaries wanted me to. Also knew they were full of shit when they told me that the BoM was true because a prophecy made in 1 Nephi was fulfilled in 3 Nephi. In short, I did this thing called thinking. Just not enough of it, apparently.

6) One word: Questions

7) We were both pretty aware when we sounded ridiculous and moreso aware that, uhm, shouldn't that tell us something?

8) I always enjoyed more the company of members with a sketchy past than those who were always CTRing.

9) Two words: Loud laughter. In both sacred and sacred-ish places. I'll have to post on that later.

10) I had to reach deep down to ever say "I know the church is 'true'"--if I ever did at all. Same goes for Eric.

11) Eric regretfully realized on his mission that the church is more about numbers than it is about saving souls.

12) When we first began dating, a mere two months after he returned home, he was totally against us reading the scriptures together due to the cheese factor.

13) I hated Sundays.

14) Never really believed the Book of Mormon peoples to be real, historical people. Not like I believed the Biblical characters to be real, historical people. I wonder if many converts do.

15) We're not into campy shit. The Church lurves its campy shit. (this doesn't mean we don't still like some of the church's productions--"Mahana you ugly" is sometimes thrown around. That movie was so terrible.) Other examples: road shows, family Christmas programs, etc. Eric says this should also include stuff done at camp.

16) While one could attribute this to mere ignorance of propriety, I said no (gasp!) the first time I was ever asked, as Primary Secretary, to substitute for a Sunday School class. In my defense, it made no sense to ask me to teach kids anything as green as I was and it was about as last-minute as one could get. I had to say no a few times and couldn't figure out why the woman asking was so weird and insistent about it.

17) When Eric and I almost fucked up (literally! ha!) the Christmas before we were married, we weren't so worried about the "sin" but having to tell people we did it and having the news spread to family and friends and looking bad. It wasn't about offending God. It was about the lunacy of having to confess shit to people who shouldn't be any part of it.

18) Didn't appreciate being treated and spoken to like a child during the first year of my membership and while seriously investigating. Why I put up with it at all is beyond me.

19) I always felt stupid relating to others the story of Joseph Smith and always faltered at it. The story itself seemed stupid.

20) Eric and I both had zero interest in finding and fellowshipping inactives. Eric often came home after home teaching to tell me he informed his families exactly what they needed to do to get the Church off their backs as requested. I preferred to not bug those who obviously wanted to be left alone. It was a matter of respect for the both of us.

There are more I'm sure. What're yours?

Who's a Christian?

Comments regarding my last post unwittingly makes me think about what makes a "real" Christian and if it's really up to us to decide who is one and who is not one.

I've been watching/catching up with "The Tudors" lately (highly recommended) and taking issue with characters in the show who claim to know God's will. How can they decide, and how can we say they are wrong if we, too, claim to have our own version (as believers or agnostics)?

Regarding an alleged (by the show) Papal-authorized plot to kill Anne Boleyn, from a representative of the Pope to the assassin: "Angels will praise you as you enter heaven if you kill this whore."

Christian? They would certainly think so. And who would we be to question that in a religiously motivated sense--they were protecting the Church and its people. This powerful woman to-be threatened the church. Others rebelled, sure, but Henry's royal move would be too influential, too revolutionary, take too many from the flock. To kill Anne would be no different than God telling Nephi to kill Laban because "it's best that one dies to spare many." Every denomination has its own rationalizations that it would make.

See also: Abraham and Isaac.

I'm loathe to judge who is and who is not Christian because it really does depend on one's definition of "Christian" and I think it's a bit more complex than "A follower of Jesus" let alone "duh his name is included in the name of our church" or even "duh we include the Bible in our canon."

I know few people I'd consider "Christian" but again it's subjective to what I consider Christian. I like quiet people who live their faith and don't shove it in my face and who follow the more difficult examples of Christ as written in the Bible. Then again, some very close people to me to not do this, and I would never take their self-description of "Christian" away from them.

That said, their actions bug the shit out of me and I'm not entirely comfortable with their method of worship and active fear-mongering, all in the name of saving the otherwise damned. All in the name of being Christian.

But that's how they interpret the Bible. This is how they define "Christian."

The Mormons: genuinely nice people but incredibly, as Cognitive Dissenter put it, ethnocentric. Some of you will O_o at our use of the word, but it really is descriptive enough.

Unlike mainstream Christianity which effectively separates spirituality and reality of how one conducts their behavior and lives, Mormons are more active, assuring themselves and others that they are followers of Christ--faith, yes, but works are required to prove that faith.

It doesn't necessarily work, but this is how they interpret scripture. This is how they define (true) "Christian."

Back in the days when King Henry VIII broke off with the Catholic church the Catholics decided who was Christian and who was not. Even Henry did--and both by the sword. And what authority did they have? The authority they and tradition gave them, an authority they abused to absurd lengths and continue to abuse. But they believed it with all their hearts. It was genuine. They had the truth, it was irrefutable (though one could also argue it was a matter of power making for quite the insatiable hunger)

This is how they interpreted the faith. This is how they defined "Christian."

Some churches accept gay parishioners and even openly gay clergy, saying God would accept, that it's totally okay while others demand it's an abomination--against God, nature, and scripture.

Others disagree on women in the church by way of participation and leadership. Women will be in submission, they will be silent. Until 30 or so years ago women were not allowed to give a public prayer in an LDS service. You think other churches even today don't disagree with that? Speak with a Jehovah's Witness. Find an especially conservative or orthodox church.

This is how they interpret scripture. This is how they define "Christian."

There are various versions of the Bible floating around--even the Book of Mormon (see Reformed LDS). They act accordingly. This is what they believe. They is how they honestly define "Christian."

Are they any different than those cults with leaders who literally get their followers to live on communes and drink the kool-aid (that's not just a saying, in case you didn't know)? Any different than Westboro Baptist Church? Of course they're evil bastards, but they read scripture differently and interpret "Christian" another way.

I could go on, but in the end here is my point:

Anyone and everyone has and will say they have whatever authority to determine who is a "real" Christian and who is not and what actions prove such an affiliation. The interpretation is based on individual and collective experience and knowledge--even personality and culture. History.

Too many factors make deciding who is right and who is Christian far too beyond our reach, yet we insist upon it. We insist upon it, also, given only what we know: a book of scripture canonized by a circle of men with their own perceptions and motivations, including political ones. We insist upon it even though what we have is minimal. We insist upon it even though much of what is in the Bible is hearsay. We act as mind-readers. We accept and reject--all of us. We know nothing except what we have, and I don't think this is wrong because we cannot help what we do not know (to a certain degree) by way of Biblical history--we can only act on what we know, but we cannot act as if it is all we need to know. We should at least qualify it, which some do! but not nearly enough.

I just read a quote on my reader that resonated with me with regard to this post. The speaker is Jack Pryor (random dude on FB quoted by my feed):

Taking a set of facts and forming an opinion is alright; taking a set of opinions and forming a fact is dishonest...

Who is and who is not Christian strikes me as more opinion than fact. Is it analogous to who is a "Real" American and who is not? It gets dicey because it becomes and is a matter of condemning or condoning ones morality, and being a good person shouldn't be and isn't an exclusive trait of Christianity.

Thoughts?

Meaningless LDS Memes: Are you Christian?

Okay. I'm on a rampage, apparently. Just discovered that my old Institute "support specialist" (ie: secretary) has a profile on Mormon.org. The link to it is unnecessary to this post, just know that one answer provided inspiration.

Question: "Are Mormons Christian?"

Member: "Of course we are! Duh, it says Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints on all our church buildings."

While not perfect, this answer strikes me as analogous to "I'm not racist, I have a black friend."

That answer doesn't mean anything.

But, you know, whatever.

dum dum dum dum dum

HONEST. TO. GOD.

I just read this on a friend's facebook wall and it reminded me of so many other encounters I've had with friends of my own. Names are withheld. I imagine many of you will have your own stories to share and so this will hardly be unfamiliar.

I don't know you. My son-in-laws are wonderful parents and I love them very much! They were not given the blessing of being raised in the church, so they don't have the wonderful plan of salvation in their lives yet (i always loved this little addition of "yet"). Some learned and have accepted it , and some are still learning. I do want a forever family with ALL of my children and grandchildren, This only comes with the gospel, nothing else will get us there. I hope only you and [redacted] all the best. I love her and only want the things she desires the most for her. I am sorry [redacted] you felt I was attacking you, I sincerly [sic] am sorry if you felt this way. I know how hard it is to live in this crazy world and not have doubts. But I know I could not face it with out the joy of the gospel to make it to the end. Enduring to the end is so hard, we all struggle with trials. May you find peace, and I do love you even if you don't believe it. I know [redacted] loves you and she is a wise woman. So looked to the coming season of peace and joy and may God bless you!

It's an art form, I swear.

(H) provided me with much fodder, and until just recently I just had no idea her knee-jerk reactions and passive-aggression was so common in the church (duh, says Eric). She demonstrated as such in many emails, blog comments, and fb wall posts. An example can be found in her response to an early post I wrote back in 2008 on Liberal Mormon that Could entitled "This is what it's about"

So Lisa, I've been thinking of your blog, and a funny thing happened. I was talking to some friends and every single one of them plus some family members have had their signs stolen. Signs that are yes on prop 8. I'm wondering what your take is on these few thoughts and then I have to get my kids into bed. The people who are taking these signs are obviously not in support of prop 8. This is a coordinated effort on some level, all over town signs are being stolen from peoples yards. Here is my question. If people are willing to come onto my property and take something because they feel strongly about it, even though it seems harmless enough what about if prop 8 fails. What if a certain church still refuses to recognize or perform those unions. Do you honestly think that the church or congregation that attends would be left unscathed from grafitti [sic] or I don't know harrassment [sic]? This is only one of the ways this will affect church members and it's not pretty. If they are willing to steal, what else might they be willing to do with "the law on their side?" What is your opinion? I'm really curious! Even though I disagree, I really enjoy reading your thoughts when I can. Maybe you could use your obvious talent for writing in defence [sic] of the church or maybe sharing your testimony, I bet you would make grown men cry by using your talents in such a noble way!! You truly have a gift not just for writing but for organizing your thoughts. Bravo!!! Ohhh... are you going to stake conference? I'll look for you if you are!

Went from some weird, accusatory diversion with absolutely ZERO logic from the original post to a "hey, you are so awesome and so talented--could you maybe use that for the church? See you there!"

Hey, fuck you.

And uhm, how did she do that? Because I'm still kicking myself for placating her in a following post. WTF did I feel I had to prove? She's tricksy, she is. All of them are if you don't realize what's going on.

Later, and I'm not sure when and I don't want to peruse all my old posts for it (there are many) but at some point another girl in my stake popped in out of nowhere and said "Now we're not all that bad, are we?"

I mean, really? REALLY?

The nicety thing is a diversion. Someone calls them on something and suddenly it's "can't we all just get along?"

Then there are the people I'd known for years, people who were my closest friend at one point, people like Squeaky, who cover their ears and say they can't talk to me anymore. I'm not sure which one I prefer the most. I actually have some respect for (H) reading my stuff even after it was clear I wasn't going back. Then again, a few months ago she asked for my blog address she had since lost with an immediate follow up of "but I can't handle it." Kind of like how she defriended me and then later asked, after I informed her she could've just "hid" me (which is what i did to her b/c i did care about keeping up but my blood pressure couldn't handle constant exposure to her ignorant bullshit--she feels the same way about me), "hey i'd like to be fb friends again. could you remind me how to 'hide'?"

Uhm, no.

I haven't responded to her latest email following my son being in her nursery class. She lauded me for having such a great boy and how I "must be doing something right." I want so much to give her the benefit but after all our encounters it just screams bitch. Like she meant "for an apostate." Who knows. I think she's more concerned with me not liking her than anything else, and I'm tired of that game. I've told her a few times we're fine but she keeps it up and by doing so makes things not so fine. Lady, I got other people to baby. I'm not going to bother with a grown woman who insists that everyone on the fucking planet likes her so she can feel good and sew ritechous because everyone, even the sad apostates, like her. Her niceness isn't genuine though I'm sure she thinks it is. But it's not. It's another form of emotional and mental manipulation, and I'm done. I deal with enough of that from my own non-member family, thx, enough to merit therapy.

But I'm sure y'all have similar experiences of super nice "friends" but their words are laced with a tinge of...what is it.

Bitchiness. That's what.

It's a missionary response. See also Eliza Snitch's post, "quaint correspondence." Same shit.

I hate missionary responses. I've heard enough of them. I hated them as an investigator. I hated them as a member, especially when I was asked to perform for an investigator or "inactive" member. Jesus. I'm sure I did it a few times, but for the most part I just wanted to scream.

*cough*

From "It Can't Happen to Me," James E. Faust, Liahona July 2002

History is full of examples of men who were gifted and able but who, in a moment of weakness, threw away their promising lives. King David is a tragic example. As a youth he was handsome, brave, and full of faith. He slew the frightening giant, Goliath. He became king. He had everything a man could desire. Yet when he saw Bathsheba, he wanted her even though she was another man’s wife. He had her husband, Uriah the Hittite, sent to the front of the hottest battle so that he would be killed. Uriah died in battle, and David married Bathsheba. As a consequence of this evil deed, David lost his spiritual inheritance. 3 For all the good David accomplished, much of it was negated because he allowed himself to succumb to a serious personal flaw.

Does this sound familiar to ANYONE ELSE?

Speak, the movie

You know what? Fuck it.

Remember the post I wrote about the incredible book Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson? (yes I push this thing like it were my bible, but there's something amazing about this book. i think it was the part at the end where the author writes that the most surprising reactions she received regarding the book were all the boys who asked her "what's the big deal?")

I watched the movie this weekend. It starred Twilight's Kristen Stewart, and I'll admit part of why I wanted to see the movie is because of her. I wanted to see another aspect of her acting (next I plan to see The Runaways). My husband remarked during the movie that she had been typecast--another depressed, awkward girl who hates the snow.

But in this case, Melinda Sordino (the character she played) had every reason to be depressed and hate everything. She had been raped by a boy she went to school with and had to see every day. A boy who would pass her by and call her "fresh meat." A boy who literally loomed over her as he spoke with her table-mates. A boy who cornered her in a classroom. A boy who moved on to date her ex-best friend.

I gave the movie 3 out of 5 stars if only because the book is ten times better, if not more, and I had some concerns about logistics. My initial reaction was one of disillusionment, but now I want to watch it again. There were some amazing scenes--the rape scene itself was frightening. The boy ignored her pleas, did his thing, and just left her alone like she was nothing. The scariest thing is that, if you didn't know, you'd think he was a good guy. Hot, funny, charming, easy to like. An older boy expressing interest in a younger, more naive girl, a boy who had a propensity for saying all the right things. And he did ask if she wanted to. That's all you have to do, right? I mean, she went with him to his truck. She kissed him like she wanted to go further. That's consent enough, yeah?

And he was so easy to like. I mean to the point where you even begin to think--after the fact--"maybe he's not so bad."

And that's the point.

Throughout the movie, unlike the book, Melinda has flashbacks to the night. I thought this particular mode of storytelling was incredibly effective in the movie. In the book you don't know what happened until about halfway to 3/4 of the way in. Until that point, she is just a very depressed, weird girl who doesn't talk much and has lost her best friends. I felt for her, because that's how I was. It frightened me to think how I would've reacted had something worse happened to me than what did.

The worst part, though, is how her family and teachers treated her. Her family had their own issues. Her father was jobless, her mother seemed...stressed and depressed herself. They were worried about, though annoyed by their daughter. Her best friends ditched her in anger because she called the cops the night she was raped and they came to break up the party. Nobody knew the real reason the cops were called. It wasn't to break up the party. Seeing it was worse than reading it.

At one point, once the cops arrived (without being told why--they thought it was a neighbor calling to complain), Melinda's best friend, angry, slapped her. Bitch, why did you call the cops? Why did you ruin my night?

SHE SLAPPED HER. After the poor thing had been raped. Shit. You. Not. Her friend didn't know, but Melinda knew. Every single viewer knew. It was powerful.

I think that attitude by so many people who should have noticed, should have cared but rather understandably didn't, struck me as hard as the rape scene did. It was a lesson to be learned. We grow up and we forget so easily. We are so caught up in our own shit that we can’t see past the ends of our noses. I will venture to say this happens to every parent, every friend, every authority figure. We are human. We have ill-timed moments of selfishness and self-centeredness.

Artistically speaking, the movie brought to light a few things I didn't see in the book. Her perceptions of her teachers, how she treated others, how she saw her parents. When she was at her worst, so were they. In the beginning, her English teacher was a mess. By the end, she was a put together woman, someone the kids would respect. Her history teacher was a fucking asshole, but by the end found empathy and treated her softly. The world was evil and unrelentingly hard on her.

Before I realized this, the movie pissed me off. I hate these stories featuring kids with ridiculously stupid adults. I get it--kids think adults are stupid, but this is supposed to be a realistic interpretation of life. I don't appreciate caricatures, but this wasn't like that. This was almost projection of what was going on inside.

The movie did seem to drag on a bit. Not a hell of a lot happened for a good long time, but the flashbacks broke the monotony to keep you interested. Melinda didn't talk much. Nobody expressed a real interest in what was wrong, just told her to get over it. That it was a phase.

The beginning was terribly annoying.

"What's your name?"

"Melinda Sordino."

"Name?"

"Melinda Sordino."

Ad nauseum. I yelled at the television: WE GET IT. For god's sake.

But the point was made early on in the movie. Parents, friends, teachers: if your child goes from happy, functional, and an all-around sociable person with a ton of friends to a quiet girl who does weird shit like drawing stitches on her mouth and doesn't talk much and has no friends within a short, almost immediate period of time, there is likely something very wrong. Don't dismiss it. Don't say stupid shit like "it'll get better" "just smile" or even worse "i understand." Because the fact is, you very well may not.

Or you might and just not know it. Even if you're going through your own tragedies, this child matters more.

And the movie gave girls who had gone through these things someone to relate with. It was incredibly realistic in this way. And again, the rape scene was terrifying. The fact that this boy went on to date others and charm everyone else and just seem like another decent guy was terrifying. Couple it with the fact that too few people see the problem in a rape, that it's almost normalized (how often do you hear the statistics? how often do you hear about how boys will be boys? were you ever a young girl who had older-boy/man fantasies? how often do you hear shit like "she asked for it" or that guys just can't help themselves, that it's up to the girls to control men by the way they dress? How much is the message of what is rape confusing, etc etc ETC)

In all, Kristen Stewart did a pretty slamming job of playing the part. The important basics of the story were kept fairly whole. Nobody ever would have pinned the guy as a rapist. And in every school there is at least one "weird" depressed girl who doesn't necessarily dress in black but is quiet and generally and uncharacteristically withdrawn, the girl (or boy) we dismiss because they're "that age" and everyone is depressed and angsty and they'll get over it. Or, even better, we become frustrated with them because of that. Goddamn teenagers. We have our own shit to deal with, what the fuck, you know? They need to grow up and get over it.

And yes, the rape scene was absolutely necessary, despite what others may think, because too many people don't get it. Again, we forget so easily. We need a good slap in the face. This is where I believe the church and those who gasp at such things are dangerously wrong. In our minds we begin to see the world as too good. It’s not a bad thing to think of people as generally good, but we need to be aware as well for the sake of ourselves, our friends, and our family.

We need to pay attention to our kids and to each other. Period. Treat others the way we’d like to be treated. We need to take care of each other.

In all, I'd recommend you read the book first and yes, see the movie. It's completely worth it.

New CHI, whatev

So the CHI (Church Handbook of Instructions) has been updated. And changed. To avoid making this post even longer while hijacking another's post, I will redirect any interested and uninformed peoples to Project Mayhem's post.

The following was initially purposed as a comment on Irresistible (Dis)Grace's blog post today, but I thought y'know, I wax on and on. I'll just post a response here:

I tend to agree with those opinions that state this is more a matter of saying things in a different, seemingly more open-minded way as to corral those on the brink into coming back, if even for a little bit. Those who have left the church and still feel the sting tend to be cynical and suspicious--I fall under this umbrella. But at the same time, who knows. I don't necessarily feel the need to explore this all that much because it won't change a damn thing for me. I've no plans to go back, even if they suddenly receive another convenient revelation about how gay people are totes okay with god and all this bullshit GBLTQ members have dealt with for decades upon decades is mere "policy." Y'know. Like with the "Lamanite" members until fucking 1978. Because, despite what they may tell themselves, that's not entirely why I left. While I believe in gay rights and find the church's actions reprehensible, I left because of what it represented.

The change is rather interesting following Packer's talk (heavily edited following actual talk, of which you can see here) considering that as Irresistible (Dis)Grace discusses, conservative opinion is given free-reign while any iota of liberal opinion is gasped at. Nobody knows if Packer received any sort of behind-the-scenes chastising, and if so we'll never hear about it. And the membership wouldn't care--too many agree with him. Too many don't see the problem. But the liberal members do. The questioning members do. Those on the brink of inactivity or even lesser activity do. That said, I think this new, nuanced version of the CHI may appeal to both in the active and to those who have their first real doubts.

But, y'know, if it's real progress it's progress. It won't do much for me as a person who doesn't necessarily believe in god anymore and sees far too much ill to come of any sort of mainstream religion--be it mainstream Christianity or Mormonism. Even if the church does liberalize by way of GBLTQ issues, it's going to take a LONG time for the more conservative membership who make up the vast majority of the church to accept it not only in their minds but in their hearts.

Maybe one day we'll get to the point where it's a lot like the relationship the church has with its women, separate but equal, and the active gay LDS community will chomp at the bit to convince both themselves and outsiders--I dunno. They do that now. At least at first. But the more they feel accepted and supported, the more they'll fight to stay in despite the basic and fundamental life experiences they will be denied as a result. Because the ultimate goal is to bring people to god and to live for death. Because God only loves those who keep his legion of commandments even if it makes them miserable enough to kill themselves.

So, separate but equal? Maybe that's how one could describe the situation today. But who knows. It isn't any better, but try telling a fully indoctrinated member that.