After Pants

I wasn't surprised to be the only woman in my ward in pants on Sunday.  I did see a bit of purple, and that was nice.  No one said anything unkind to me, and I think I felt like I got stared at more than I actually did.

The biggest thing I learned from this is that no matter what anyone else actually thinks of you, it's your perception of what others think that affects you the most.  I gained a greater understanding of what it feels like to not "fit in".  I hope that I can take that knowledge and use it to be more compassionate to others who, for whatever reason, feel like they don't fit in.

I was also thinking about the parable of the good samaritan.

Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"
He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, with all your mind, [Deuteronomy 6:5]; and your neighbour as yourself [Leviticus 19:18]."
He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live."

 But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbour?"

 Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he travelled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbour to him who fell among the robbers?"

He said, "He who showed mercy on him."

Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do." 

This past week, we've seen women (and men) who are in pain, hurting.  Some over things they don't understand.  Some because they've been treated badly by those who should love and support them.  Some over deeply rooted cultural issues.

The overwhelming response I saw, to this expression of pain was statements of, "well, I've never been treated as less than", or "my husband treats me like a queen".  I'm saddened that instead of trying to understand, and to offer help regardless of differing perspectives, I saw a lot of turning away, of passing on the other side.

What a missed opportunity to listen and comfort, and show mercy on a soul who was in pain.

On the other side, I saw many women find their courage.  Women who stood up for something they believed in, even though it was scary.  I also saw conversations happening that will lead to greater understanding down the road.  I saw sisters find others who understand their pain, friendships formed. My heart is happy.

Pants.

Last week some women on facebook got together and decided they were going to start a "wear pants to church day", this sunday.  I'm late to the party, posting about it, seeing as it's been all around the news and there are more blog posts talking about it than I can count.

I know that I have friends and family who are perplexed by the whole thing.  They've never felt treated less than at church, and don't get why some women want to be like men.

First, I want to say that I love each of you, and I don't care if you disagree with me over this one.  I'm used to loving people who disagree with me on various issues.  I do hope that you can consider a few points here.

1. These women are not trying to make women be like men.  I personally wear pants 6-days a week and have not yet actually turned into a man.  Pants don't make the man.  Pants are an item of clothing that come in many different styles.  Some casual, some dressy, some more masculine in design, and some very feminine.  
2. Some women do actually feel very real pain, and do actually feel like they are not treated equally at church.  (Some have had real-life horrible experiences with unrighteous dominion.)  Just because that is not your personal experience doesn't invalidate other people's experience.  (Likewise, their experience doesn't invalidate your own, so there is no need to feel defensive.  Nothing is under attack.)
3. When people are hurting, it is unkind for us to respond by calling them names (silly, stupid, ridiculous, dumb feminist b****- just a small sampling of things I've seen this week), or telling them that they shouldn't feel the way they do.  That doesn't fix anything.  What they need is for someone to say, "I don't understand why you feel the way you do, but I'm sorry you are hurting. How can I help?"
4. No one is showing up at church to disturb the meeting, or protest anything.  Most people who are wearing pants or purple to church are doing so to say, "here I am, in support of my sisters or brothers who are hurting, and maybe I hurt to, so I'm going to mourn with those who mourn, and comfort those who stand in need of comfort, and hopefully someone will see that I could use someone to mourn with me, and to comfort me too."

Damage, Round One

Notice the pine tree.  I'm not sure what happened there, but it looks like something took a bite out of the side.

A couple of the posts for the grape vines have fallen over.

The corkscrew willow in the front yard has been dying/falling over for a couple of years now, so it was decided to cut it down to prevent it from falling on any houses/cars.

Snapped branches on pine trees in the field.

Strawberry bed is missing a side.

Screen door at grandma's house.

The rest of the screen door- looks like it was more glass than screen...

Porch support.  

Oops, one more piece of door.

Siding on a shed.

The new backyard, minus some trees/bushes.  Maybe grass will grow back there again?

Firewood!

Good thing we didn't have a dog living in here anymore.

Fruit tree in the garden.  I think this was a peach.  Not too sad, because it would have had to come out anyway, it's where our house will be.

Broken fence, where the tree broke off and crushed it.  The clean up crew had the fallen part chopped up and hauled away amazingly fast this morning.

New, flat roof, on the chicken coop.  Hopefully it will work until spring.  We can now call it the chicken cube.

Siding damage from the coop roof hitting the shed.

We'll need to get a new boat cover.  The boat looks okay, maybe a little scratched up.  We haven't looked under the cover to be sure.

There's the roof!  It put some nice gouges in the back corner of our camper too.

Siding damage, so that's where the wasps were coming from.

Up high there's siding damage where the cable wire was pulled out of the wall.  The cable is now laying on the ground.  

Wind speeds reached 102 mph.  That's class 2 hurricane.  School was cancelled Thursday and Friday.  Church was cancelled today to allow everyone to go around and clean up the debris before the next round starts tonight.  It's not supposed to be as bad, but who knows.  I moved the cans into the garage, and picked up as much as I could so there are fewer things to blow over to the neighbor's house (or beyond).  We still need to put the small sailboat somewhere safe so it doesn't blow away again (last time I grabbed it before it went too far- that was fun), some big pieces of plastic, and maybe do something with the wood from the former chicken coop roof and the dog run.  Probably ought to clean up as much as we can with the door next door too.  The boys are hoping school is cancelled tomorrow, we'll see.

It's been a really great feeling to see all the neighbors out working together to get things cleaned up.  They're piling stuff up at a church building down the street, and from there it's being hauled to the dump.  I'm not sure how the dump is going to keep it there, but at least it would have to blow a long way before it hit anything from that point.  Kyle brought home a load of pine for our wood pile when he came home for breakfast/lunch.  I'm not sure when they'll be done.

The majority of trucks going by are full of pine branches.  It's surreal.

UPDATE: Round 2 of the wind storm petered out, so YEA.  No more damage.

Happy (early) Father's day Dad.

I'm off somewhere.  Yesterday, we all woke up, and I felt bad that I didn't make my Mister a special Father's Day breakfast (because I was sick).  It was only today that I realized I was a week off.  In case I forget, or get off again, I thought I'd post this while I was thinking about it.

Some of my memories of my dad:

Sometimes I think my dad buys too many gifts, I used to try to stifle it more with my kids (and I do still encourage non-purchased gifts with my kids- like reading or playing with them) but I've learned that buying presents is one of the ways he shows love.

Once when I was sick (and this happened pretty much every time I was sick, but this one really stands out), he brought me a My Little Pony play set, that included a cloud that really rained.  It really made me feel better.

In Montessori school, someone had made fun of me, and I came home crying.  My dad told me I didn't have to go back if I didn't want to.  I did go back, but it was nice to know that my dad wasn't going to make me.

Once when I was too old for my dad to be carrying around (I thought anyway), I tripped while out on a walk with him, and skinned my knees pretty bad, my dad picked me up and carried me home.

I had invited my friend Jessica to sleep over, my dad drove me up to her house to pick her up, but instead of going on the road, he cut through the dirt field behind our house.  To get up to the street  (and back down again) he had to maneuver a sharp 3-foot-high incline.  It was awesome.

As a teen, I was jealous of all the cool activities the young men/scouts got to do, but not to worry, my dad took all the young women and leaders backpacking in southern utah (twice I think).  We called them, the "It is fair, hike".

In college, my dad drove an hour and a half just to take me shopping and out to dinner at the nicest restaurant in town.  Daddy/Daughter dates were the best.

On one Daddy/Daughter date, (well maybe more than one), he took me shopping for some new clothes, I tried on a huge stack of things and when it came time to pick what I wanted to buy, he suggested we buy them all.

I always thought my dad had amazing taste in clothing.  Turns out he used to just buy whatever outfit the mannequin was wearing.

The only time I questioned my dad's taste in clothing was when he wore his maroon shirt with red suspenders (he's colorblind, and thought they were the same color).

My dad is always helping those around him.  His heart hurts to see anyone in pain, or going without.

One of the nicest examples I can think of of what kind of man my dad is:  At book club last week, I was talking with some of my friends, and one (who has known my parents for a long time) told me about a funny article written by LDS satire columnist Robert Kirby.  Five Kinds of Mormons and I'll give a short overview (but for the full thing, read the link):

Liberal Mormons-not necessarily politically liberal, just not considered mainstream by the other mormons.

Genuine Mormons- practically invisible because of their low-key approach to the gospel. That and because they are rarely found at home, almost always being off helping others through some trial or other. GMs operate out of love instead of guilt. (there's only 12 of these in the world, and four of them are the three Nephites and John the beloved)


Conservative Mormons- the largest group of the 5 categories.  Most mormons, especially in Utah are this type.

Orthodox Mormons- if "no dating until you're 16" is good.  "No dating until you're 18" is better.

Nazi Mormons- Those of the "God is a BYU alumnus" sort.

ANYWAY, my friend said, George is a Genuine Mormon.  It's true, whenever he hears about a problem, he asks what he can do to help.  He cares about people.

Thanks for teaching me to care about other people.  Thanks for showing me that I can love the Gospel, even when I don't have answers for all of my questions.

I love you Dad!

Shameless Self Promotion

I've been feeling wordy lately.  Check out my guest posts at Feminist Mormon Housewives and Wheat and Tares.

Gotta love conference bingo

The most fun part about conference bingo (aside from the candy) is hearing the kids yell, "PRAYER!  THEY SAID PRAYER" as they're grabbing candy to mark their cards.

Are we in Peru yet?

We took my parents to the Missionary Training Center this past Monday.  They're going to be there for about two weeks, and then they're off to serve in the Lima, Peru Temple.  We're excited for them- this will be quite the adventure.

CP with Grandpa and Grandma outside their "dorm".

The older boys were at school, so we had my parents, my Mister, CP, and baby E.  As we neared Provo, CP said, "are we in Peru yet?"  He knew that's where grandma and grandpa were going, and thought we were taking them all the way there.

Other Circumstances May Necessitate Individual Adaptation

This line from the Proclamation on the Family is an often overlooked part of the meaning behind the document.

My friend Derek recently posted on Feminist Mormon Housewives about expectations in our culture as far as gender roles and providing for the family.

As I was reading the comments on the post and thinking about other perspectives I've read about regarding gender roles in the church, I was thinking about how the church focuses on the father as the breadwinner, and mother as primary caregiver for children NOT necessarily because that is the best for everyone, but because generally, it works for people. I've read about people who feel hurt because in their experiences it has been implied that this traditional division of duties is the "Ideal" (and of course if you HAVE to do something else, that's okay, because of the short disclaimer in the Proclamation on the Family, but it's not the "ideal").

So a thought popped into my head, that what if it isn't about ideal vs. non-ideal? What if we teach roles the way we do because it's what GENERALLY works, but that the IDEAL for anyone is what they, as a couple have prayerfully decided works best for their family. We're all entitled to personal revelation for our own families, and I think if we can get away from the idea that there is one ideal, and the rest are less-worthy fall back positions, it will make life much less stressful for many people who find that the traditional roles are not ideal in meeting the needs of their family.

Black and White

Recently I heard someone talk about their family in California and how they were affected by proposition 8, and how it showed them that some people are ready to jump up and follow the prophet, while others let things like that damage their testimonies. I have to state clearly, that I really like the person who was speaking, and I recognize that we all have different life experiences which shape us, but it made me wonder why we (subconsciously even) view the world in such black and white terms.

I've written about my feelings toward prop 8 and same sex marriage before, so I won't go into that again, but I wonder why the only "good" response to things like prop 8 is to immediately obey. I'm certainly not advocating that we immediately disobey any time the prophet speaks, I believe we should follow the prophet, but I think that we should allow that those who aren't given the spiritual gift of immediate confirmation also have a valid experience. I remember a few months ago in sunday school, a class member said that she always wondered why she struggled so much to gain a testimony of something, but she felt like once she did, she didn't lose it.

Too often we view those who struggle to gain a testimony of something (or even those who honestly and prayerfully have come to a different answer than our own) as lacking in some way. Instead of wondering why people allow difficult issues to damage their testimonies, perhaps we should ask ourselves how we can help others through trying times in their lives, and then acknowledge that everyone is given a different experience here on earth and one is not better or worse than another, they're just different, which gives us different views and teaches us different things. Life isn't black and white, it's shades of grey.

Modesty

I recently shopped for and purchased a new swim suit, which of course has me thinking about modesty. Nearly any swim suit you buy is going to have some areas that you wish were a little more covering, which has also made me think about why. Why do we view the body the way we do? What makes something modest or not? Why do we care? And finally, why do most "rules" associated with modesty apply only to females?

I was reading And They Were Not Ashamed by Laura Brotherson, and she talked about how we teach young women to be modest, and too often it comes across as "be modest so you don't tempt the boys". This has a couple of problems, first it tells the girls that boys are animals and are not capable of controlling themselves. Second, it teaches boys that they are animals and are not capable of controlling themselves.

Young men need to be taught that they are responsible for controlling their hormones no matter how girls around them are dressed, they also need to be taught what true beauty is, instead of society's idea of beauty. Young women need to be taught that dressing modestly means we show respect for ourselves by dressing in a way that shows we understand that our bodies are beautiful gifts given to us from loving heavenly parents.

Back to my original questions...

Why do we view the body the way we do? I think far too often, we've been conditioned to be ashamed or embarrassed by our bodies. Especially if they don't measure up to whatever made up level of perfection we see on TV or in magazines.

What makes something modest? When I was little, I remember my mom had the rule that shorts or skirts couldn't be more than three fingers above the knee. In high school, shorts had to be longer than our fingers when our arms were at our sides. I always viewed strappy tank tops as immodest, but not sleeveless shirts. I think the definitions of modesty change somewhat, obviously over the last 100 years there have been major changes in what is viewed as modest, even today, different cultures have very different standards of modesty. I think modesty is a personal thing. There may be, in each cultural group, things that are universally considered modest or immodest, which brings me to the next question, why do we care? We care because I think culturally, we've turned the most obvious things like modesty, or word of wisdom things into a litmus test for righteousness. I don't believe that most people are purposely going around judging each other, but on some level we all do it. Whether we're like my 5-year-old who likes to point out when he sees people not wearing motorcycle helmets ("they're not very safe mom!") because that's how we reinforce "rules" in our minds, or comparing how low cut your neighbor's swim suit is to make you feel better about your own, we all judge others. Should we? No. Are we going to stop anytime soon? Probably not.

Finally, why are nearly all modesty rules for females only? I've never heard anyone talk about a man's shirt being too tight, or low cut, or his shorts too short (although I've seen men's shorts that were too short). Are we conditioning boys to be more visually stimulated than girls, or is it prewired?

my 5-year-old

Yesterday during sunday school, the primary president called me out into the hall to talk about my 5-year-old. Apparently he's been a bit wild lately, getting up and running around, and not listening to his teachers.

A has always been a bit on the energetic side, but for the most part, he's a pretty obedient kid for me, so I'm not sure what to do about his wild side in primary. My first idea is bribery. It can't be too complicated for his teacher, but I'm thinking a sticker on his hand and if the teacher has to take the sticker away during class, no treat when he gets home?

I'd rather not resort to bribery, but short of sitting in class with him every sunday, I'm not sure what to do.

I'm now thinking about how his swimming teacher struggled with him last year- because he'd get so excited that he was always getting into trouble (like the time he nearly drowned). So maybe the problem is not that he's trying to be naughty, but that he gets so excited with so many other children around and kind of loses control.

If I go with the sticker thing, it would put some power behind the teacher asking him to calm down and listen.

Any ideas?

FMH Guest Post

I submitted a guest post on Feminist Mormon Housewives last month and got a little (good) shock when it was posted this morning (I didn't think it was going to get posted).

Here it is if you'd like to read it.

Talking about difficult things

Growing up, I was always taught at church to avoid any type of "anti" materials. It wasn't an issue for me, why would I be interested in anything like that?

What interests me is what people view as "anti" material. Protest literature produced by groups who feel strongly that the LDS church is evil would certainly be considered "anti". What about blogs or papers written by former LDS members? How about things written by current LDS members that question why things are the way they are? What about books like Rough Stone Rolling, which included unflattering information about Joseph Smith and his family (along with very much inspiring information- in fact I think the unflattering stuff makes all the rest even more inspiring)?

Church history is full of things that perhaps are easier to avoid talking about, but I've always thought (and still think) that it is healthier to talk about mistakes honestly than to try to hide them or pretend they didn't happen, or to make up stories that "might be true" to make those mistakes more palatable.

The last six months or so, I've come to understand why the church doesn't like to talk about some of the Difficult things.

They're difficult.

Thinking about why God would allow a prophet like Brigham Young to be so racist is difficult. Thinking about why supposedly good church members were responsible for the deaths of so many innocents at Mountain Meadows is difficult. I could go on and on.

Thinking about those things, makes you question everything. That makes you feel lost and alone, because if you are questioning things these, you don't feel like you can seek the advice of church leaders, because heaven forbid they think you are questioning your faith. So you struggle through so many feelings of doubt all alone.

I understand why the church feels it more important to focus on strengthening it's members, I'm sure there are enough problems to deal with without stirring up more themselves by bringing up the past. I get that, but it would sure feel nice to have grown up being taught what I've struggled to learn recently. It always surprises me when I learn something only to realize that it's something I've always know, but Heavenly Father patiently reminds me over and over again.

People are not perfect.

Joseph Smith wasn't. Brigham Young wasn't. Thomas S. Monson isn't, and neither am I. We're all human, with human weaknesses, viewing the world through dark glasses, filtered by our own experiences (although I'm pretty sure that prophets have a slightly less murky filter than I do).

The most inspiring thing to me in all of this, is that despite the personal limitations of so many great people who have gone before me, God allows them to also do so much good, and that gives me hope. Hope that someday we don't have to hide from difficult things, that we can be strong enough to deal with them, and learn from them, and still know that God loves us, and that he lets us make even horrible mistakes so that we can learn and grow and become a little better than we were before. A little more understanding of those around us when we see their flaws, because if God allows an imperfect man to be his prophet, there's hope for the rest of us.

So This Is Christmas?

Several years ago my Mister bought Sarah Mclachlan's christmas album for me from itunes, I start listening to it the day after thanksgiving, and keep it in until spring. She sings John Lennon's Happy Xmas, and it's one of my favorite songs on the album, and I think despite the "secular" nature of the song, it really makes you think about what christmas is supposed to be about.
Today I read a good post atPoliticaLDS about how we have become so materialistic, and greedy. We've taken something that is supposed to be a time where we think about the birth of our savior and what that has meant in our lives and turned it into a shopping frenzy. I've cut back a little this year, but I still fall into the trap of, "oh, I just need to buy this one more thing". Christmas becomes a time where I buy the things I've been wanting all year long (for myself or other people) instead of a time to be grateful and content with the blessings that I have. Even in the do-gooding, we end up buying more stuff. It's a dilemma. It seems sad that a child would go without a new toy christmas morning, but there are children all over the world who go without food every morning.

Another interesting post I read on One Utah where in the comments they were discussing the ridiculousness of "Winter Oreos" when they should stop trying to be politically correct, and just call them Christmas Oreos (since I'm sure Jesus really appreciates specially colored oreos in his honor).

From Shenpa Warrior

My little brother has really grown up to be someone I admire, I'm reminded of how wise he is by a recent post on his blog.

Shenpa Warrior

He quotes Spencer W. Kimball:
Jesus saw sin as wrong but also was able to see sin as springing from deep and unmet needs on the part of the sinner. This permitted him to condemn the sin without condemning the individual. We can show forth our love for others even when we are called upon to correct them. We need to be able to look deeply enough into the lives of others to see the basic causes for their failures and shortcomings.

I had an experience a few years ago that forever changed my views on repentance, which goes along nicely with what Adam said- repentance isn't about being punished for our sins. It's about being able to move past the things we do that halt our personal growth.

It's not a crime and punishment sort of thing. I don't think God's laws work that way. It's about healing and growth so that we can become happy, fulfilled people.

I really like the Kimball quote because THAT is exactly why we don't judge other people. If someone is struggling in some way, instead of looking at them and saying, "well, I need to stay away from them, they're doing bad things", we say, "how can I help this person get through this challenge".

Jesus taught us to love, not judge.

Change comes slowly, but it does come

Elder Wickman: If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”

I can't find a date on that interview, but I know it has been around for at least a year, probably more than that.

On November 5th:Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

From the November 11th Tribune: Just last week, Elder L. Whitney Clayton stated the LDS Church does not oppose 'civil union or domestic partnerships

I haven't been able to find a transcript where Elder Clayton stated that, so I wonder if that is an exact quote, or if it is an interpretation of the previous paragraph I quoted which talks about rights for same sex couples that the church doesn't oppose. Either way, the church seems to be softening it's stance.

Edit: Here's a link to the Des. News article: He said in general, the church "does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships," that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights. That stand was outlined in a statement the church posted on its Web site earlier in the campaign.

I'm glad to see that Equality Utah wants to find common ground rather than point fingers. Even though they as a group have to be feeling discriminated against, they are taking the high road, which I appreciate. Stephanie Pappas stated: While we disagree with the LDS Church's position on Proposition 8, we respect that their position is based on the guiding principles of their faith.

Emotions from the SL Tribune

Amusement (with a pardon to my Mister)

From the comments on this editorial:
Utah is no longer the reddest state in the Union; that honor now goes to, I believe, Idaho (whose new state slogan is "Utah's Slow Cousin To The North").

Disgust

Letter to the Editor

Overheard on the FrontRunner commuter train the day before Halloween: "There are so many non-LDS in our neighborhood - in fact, we're the minority - that our ward decided to sponsor a trunk-or-treat."
Would someone please give me the scripture reference where Jesus teaches fear and intolerance?

and finally....

HA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA

link

"As he tries to bring us closer to socialism," Chaffetz warned, "I will be a strong voice in opposition."

God needs more democrats

Thanks to Bob for this article. (I've shortened it quite a bit, for the full article see bob's blog.)

If this was applicable in 1998, it's even more applicable today.

Here's also a link to an article from the UofU's Daily Chronicle, originally published in 2004. I've linked to it before, it's a good one.

Dan Harrie, Salt Lake Tribune, May 3, 1998
10/27/2008 05:51 PM MDT

On May 3, 1998, the Salt Lake Tribune reported the following interview with Elder Marlin K. Jensen of the First Quorum of the Seventy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Elder Jensen, at the time a member of the Church's Public Affairs Committee, was "designated by church officials to respond to The Salt Lake Tribune's request for an interview on the topic of partisan imbalance in Utah and among LDS members."

The LDS Church, through a high-ranking leader, is making its strongest public statement to date about the need for political diversity among members, while expressing concerns the Republican Party is becoming the "church party."

"There is sort of a division along Mormon/non-Mormon, Republican/Democratic lines," says Elder Marlin Jensen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. "We regret that more than anything -- that there would become a church party and a non-church party. That would be the last thing that we would want to have happen."

Jensen said major national political parties may take stands that do not coincide with teachings of the 10 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but that should not put them out of bounds for members....

-- The LDS Church's reputation as a one-party monolith is damaging in the long run because of the seesaw fortunes of the national political parties.

-- The overwhelming Republican bent of LDS members in Utah and the Intermountain West undermines the checks-and-balances principle of democratic government.

-- Any notion that it is impossible to be a Democrat and a good Mormon is wrongheaded and should be "obliterated."

-- Faithful LDS members have a moral obligation to actively participate in politics and civic affairs, a duty many have neglected.

...Jensen, who was called as a general authority in 1989, said high church officials lament the near-extinction of the Democratic Party in Utah and the perception -- incorrect though it is -- that the GOP enjoys official sanction of the church....

"One of the things that prompted this discussion in the first place was the regret that's felt about the decline of the Democratic Party [in Utah] and the notion that may prevail in some areas that you can't be a good Mormon and a good Democrat at the same time," Jensen said.

"There have been some awfully good men and women who have been both and are both today. So I think it would be a very healthy thing for the church -- particularly the Utah church -- if that notion could be obliterated."

The idea that Mormonism and Democratic Party affiliation are incompatible traces back to the early 1970s, when LDS general authority Ezra Taft Benson, who later became church president, was quoted in an Associated Press interview as saying it would be difficult for a faithful member to be a liberal Democrat.

Church officials later claimed the comment was taken out of context, although the AP stood by its account.

Jensen said concerns exist on two levels about the unofficial linkage of the Republican Party and Mormon Church.

One is the fear that by being closely identified with one political party, the church's national reputation and influence is subject to the roller-coaster turns and dips of that partisan organization. Also bothersome is that the uncontested dominance of the Republican Party in Utah deprives residents of the debate and competition of ideas that underlie good government.

"There is a feeling that even nationally as a church, it's not in our best interest to be known as a one-party church," Jensen said. "The national fortunes of the parties ebb and flow. Whereas the Republicans may clearly have the upper hand today, in another 10 years they may not."

..."The Democratic Party has in the last 20 years waned to the point where it really is almost not a factor in our political life," Jensen said. "There is a feeling that that is not healthy at all -- that as a state we suffer in different ways. But certainly any time you don't have the dialogue and the give-and-take that the democratic process provides, you're going to be poorer for it in the long run."

There also are more immediate, tangible costs, he said.

Jensen blamed the Republican monopoly for contributing to Utah political leaders' inability or unwillingness to grapple with long-range planning issues. He pointed to the lack of state leadership on issues of open-space preservation and land-use planning.... "There are probably issues like that environmentally, educationally that we'd really benefit from if there were a more robust dialogue going on. But we've lacked that and I think we've suffered somewhat because of it."

..."This is the second dramatic time in the history of the state when forceful signals have been flashed from church headquarters calling on Mormons to choose up political sides more evenly," said J.D. Williams, retired University of Utah political scientist.

Williams compared Jensen's public pronouncements to the church's attempts in the 1890s to divide congregations up evenly among the two major political parties....

Jensen also referred to the 19th-century splitting of congregations along partisan lines, when the territorial People's and Liberal parties were abandoned in favor of national party affiliations.

He repeated an anecdote told by prominent LDS Democrat Oscar McConkie about his father's recollections of a church leader telling a congregation during a Sunday morning meeting to "sign up to be Republicans."

At that time, Mormons favored the Democratic Party because it was less stridently anti-polygamy than were Republicans.

When members of the flock returned for an afternoon session, the Republican sign-up sheet remained blank, Jensen said. "Brothers and sisters, you have misunderstood," said the church leader. "God needs Republicans."

"And Oscar said his father would wink and say, `And you know, Oscar, those damned Republicans think they've had God on their side ever since,' " Jensen said....

"We need to develop a tolerance -- so we don't demonize people that we have a disagreement with," Peck said. "It really was the church leaders' position on abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment [in the 1970s] that was the death of the Utah Democratic Party, because it became a litmus test," he said.

Pro-choice and, more recently, gay-rights stands of the national Democratic Party have helped Republicans paint the donkey-symbol party as taboo.

Jensen said it is time for LDS members to take a broader view of political affiliation.

"We would probably hope that they wouldn't abandon a party necessarily because it has a philosophy or two that may not square with Mormonism. Because, as I say, [parties] in their philosophies ebb and flow," Jensen said.

"You know, the Republicans came very close last time to bringing a pro-abortion plank into their platform. That was maybe the biggest battle of their [1996 national] convention," he said. "Which shows that if you're a pure ideologue, eventually you're going to have trouble in either party."

"Everyone who is a good Latter-day Saint is going to have to pick and choose a little bit regardless of the party that they're in and that may be required a lot more in the future than it has been in the past. But I think there's room for that and the gospel leaves us lots of latitude."

A Very Interesting Discussion on the Same Sex Marriage Issue

I like to see discussions like these where people stay so polite. I really recommend reading this post- and all the comments.

I personally have some major conflicting feelings about this issue, so I can't currently state how I feel one way or the other, but I did find the discussion in the link very interesting.

The Gay Marriage Issue at Northern Lights

Violent Opposition to the Plan of Salvation?

Anti-PC Infidel (warning, his blog is a bit much for a moderate like myself- also you can't comment and tell him you disagree with him, so read it at your own risk) said something interesting to me on Pursuit of Liberty


But hey, if you want to accept a political philosophy that is in violent opposition to the foundation of the Plan of Salvation, that’s your choice. Because I’m not a “liberal” (who are only liberal with their morals and other people’s money), I won’t try to rob you of your ability to choose between good and evil.

This was interesting to me, that someone would think being a liberal* is in opposition to the "foundation of the plan of salvation".

Any thoughts?

*(I actually consider myself more of a moderate, but compared to much of Utah, his assumption that I'm a liberal is probably not too far off- although I can't think of anyone in Utah that I know for sure fits his specific definition of liberal, except maybe our current republican legislature).