In My Defense...

Recently I have had to defend my position on marriage equality and my disgust at the Church's involvement with Prop 8. One person even mentioned my confusion and conflict with the Church teachings and statements by Church leaders. 

This got me to thinking. I don't really feel all that conflicted. I know what I think and what I believe. 

There are two parts to this really, the political and the religious.

1. The Political

I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state (and a card carrying member of Americans United. I feel that not supporting marriage equality and not fighting any other law that treats LGBT citizens differently from other Americans is - at its heart - un-American (and not worthy of a Latter Day Saint). 

We are all equal under the law. 

Regardless of our religious and moral beliefs, we should all support that.

2. The Religious

It's sad that I have to state this - but maybe we should all state it more often - Thomas S. Monson is a Prophet of God. I sustain him. I am blessed by his presence in my life.

I love reading (and listening) to talks by the First Presidency and the other General Authorities (past and present). Many people that read my comments on-line may think that I don't accept these people as inspired by God, that I don't follow their advice and guidance. That is wrong.   

But there is a however. There are times I have heard things that I have considered wrong, troubling, or even infuriating.

When I first joined the Church, for instance, it was my single state that bothered me the most. In Sacrament, in Relief Society, and even in General Conference, the ordinance of celestial marriage was always emphasized as necessary for exaltation.

Now why would a woman's eternal existence have to be dependent on a man?

I found this to be very hurtful. I can't count the amount of times I ran out of Relief Society crying. I even went inactive for some years due to this. (Of course, this was before I discovered Paxil.)

But the Church changed, that is something I have discovered. They do change. They learn from their errors and mistakes. We should not make the mistake of thinking that everything that comes out of Salt Lake City is infallible. They moved on from polygamy and denying the priesthood on racial reasons. They have become more sensitive to single women and, now, they are reaching out to the gays.

Who's to say that there won't be further changes and outreach? Many like to say that Church is the "same yesterday, today, and forever." But the Scriptures actually say that it is God who is the "same yesterday, today, and forever."

Of course, many also tell me I must bide by and obey the Prophet's and our Church leaders' statements and proclamations. But do they say I have to do so blindly? My mother blames my obstinate attitude on my ancestors. I am descended from Lawrence and Cassandra Southwick. They were Quakers and they were persecuted for their religious beliefs by the Puritans (who themselves came here to escape religious persecution).

I don't claim any special revelations or connection with God. No more than anyone else. And I am positive that Presidents Monson, Eyring, and Uchtdorf are very holy men. But what I do claim is the right to ponder what they say and pray about it before blindly obeying it and accepting it as gospel.

Joseph Smith's View of Government

Reading Section 134 of the Doctrine & Covenants - which is dedicated to showing the early Church's dedication to certain liberal democratic standard - I was struck by how so many of the statements they make apply more to liberals than conservatives. At what point, did Mormons become such staunch conservatives (at least in considering government)? Why did so many stop believing and supporting the values set out in Section 134?

From verse 2, "unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others". Incredible, right? Yet, they spend a lot of money to stop others from having the same rights as they do based on their religious opinions (i.e, marriage equality). 

From verse 5, "We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly;" 

I really think that many of my friends need to reminded of this one. Way too many of them have no respect for our current government. Many of them spout reasons why shouldn't even be President. Some may even be supporting nearly seditious beliefs. 

Hugh Nibley, that great Latter Day Saint scholar, himself was a Democrat. He did not support Richard Nixon as he was running for office. But when he became President, he put all that behind him and supported him. (See Hugh Nibley, World's Worst Politician)

From verse 9, "We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied." This shows how Joseph Smith realized that the separation of church and state was incredibly important. That if it weren't for that he would not have had the opportunities he had. Also, it was the influences of religion in government, that led to his martyrdom. Many members forget that. 

We need to remember this when people try to institute creationism into our schools, basing foreign policy on Biblical prophecy as in our support for Israel, social policy as in the fight against contraception and abortion, etc. Even the Prophet Joseph saw the danger in this in 1844. 

There are many other statements in the Section that I support. Many of the verses could be considered libertarian. Others could be considered liberal. I am very impressed that the Prophet Joseph considered it important enough to put down in writing for the benefit of posterity.

That's not salvation, that's prison!

Sometimes I just have to wonder at some of the members of my church. Do they not get the same message from the teachings of Jesus Christ that I do? That salvation is for all. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

I participate in a Latter-Day Saints community on Google+. I left it before because of political reasons. But I'm just perverse enough to have them kick me out this time. The problem is just how right wing and fundamentalist it seems to me. (I should know better, really, the moderators are virulently anti-Obama and pro-Republican.) 

Now, you may say: "But, Kirsten, they're Mormons, aren't they?"

Yes, they are. But we should be a more diverse church. And I cannot look at Christ's teachings and say "Well, he's obviously a Republican."

Well, today, it's a little beyond the pale. This incredibly caveman of a poster actually told me that I could not be "fully faithful" since I am against the former Church practices - he called them doctrines - of polygamy and the priesthood ban for Blacks. Since then, we have been going back and forth. And, on top of that, the two moderators have decided to tell me they agree with everything he's said. No criticism for him at all. And I even got a private message from one saying my posts have been "too liberal". 

I read some of his comments and it made me think that if his version of the celestial kingdom is true, I may just ask to stay with the souls in prison. I just cannot believe that some of his statement are in line with what Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have in mind. 

The Lord revealed plural marriage to Joseph Smith as "the moral salvation of the world". It is clear that polygamy will be practiced in the New Jerusalem. It is clear that polygamy will stretch into the eternities. We were forced into a moratorium on the practice, but that doesn't mean we don't believe in it anymore, it just means that the practice has been suspended. 

What can I say? I testify that Joseph Smith was a Prophet. I testify that the Book of Mormon is true. But I just cannot accept polygamy as "the moral salvation of the world" if he really said that. Additionally, the idea that polygamy is still not just acceptable, but highly anticipated in the future is horrible. How anyone can think that it is not just morally acceptable but a "salvation" is beyond me. There is more than enough evidence out there of the poisonous effect it has not just on women, but on children. Also, in the Book of Jacob, there is a section where the Prophet Jacob is chastising the men for having plural wives and is given this advice: 

 "And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts." (Jacob 2: 32)

Perhaps the so-called "doctrine" was changed due to the "cries of the fair daughters of this people". More from the same poster: 

The world hates us, because we are not of the world, but of God. Their doctrines of race and sex blindness are not acceptable to the God of Heaven, and He has graciously taught His people to avoid these pitfalls, though many choose not to accept those saving teachings.

Oh, dear, what can I say? "Not acceptable to the God of Heaven"? Really? 

I am so glad this man does not run the Church. But he did offer me this advice: 

I have no doubt that unless your perspective matures, you will leave the good ship Zion yourself when the president of the Church gets up and helps us move on to the next stage of the kingdom, which will include polygamy, or when other eternally true, controversial, non-world-approved practices or teachings are revived or magnified (next up: same-sex marriage/homosexual issues). No need for me to kick you off.

 

It is really appalling what kind of people are in my church. I will have to find another community - maybe - of less fundamentalist Mormons to commune with. In some ways, I have so much more in common with secularists and atheists than with the church members I meet on-line. The secularists and atheists are actually more in line with Christ's teachings than so-called devout servants of Christ are. 

 

February Reading

A short month and not as many books read. I am still on the reading challenge:

One more month -- hope I get more books off my TBR shelf. So, here's what I read this month:

Feel free to check me out at GoodReads  

I'm not leaving the Ship of Zion

I have mentioned it before, but it bears repeating, I am conflicted many times in Church. But something mentioned in an earlier Relief Society lesson really spoke to me. It was something former President Lorenzo Snow said:

Stick to the ship of Zion. If boats come to the side, showing beautiful colors and making wonderful promises, do not get off the ship to go to the shore on any other boat; but keep on the ship. If you are badly used by any of those that are on the ship, who have not got the proper spirit, remember the ship is allright. We should not allow our minds to become soured because of anything that the people on the ship may do to us, the ship is allright, and the officers are allright, and we will be right if we stick to the ship. I can assure you it will take you right into the land of glory.

This really spoke to me. There are so many times that I hear things that bother me. That seem to fly in the face of Christ's teachings. I so often go back to what Christ taught in the 22nd chapter of Matthew:

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment. 

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

So many things I hear in church and in the news from Christians seem to fly in the face of this. My reading of this is that God wants us love to all His children. Not just those that look like yourself. I feel that one of the reasons there are so many different peoples on this Earth is because God is testing us. If everyone were the same, it would be easy to love your neighbor. But when your neighbor is different, whether a different sex, race, gender, or sexual orientation, it shouldn't matter. 

The other problem I have is when they condemn all those outside the church. There are so many good people that are not just not Christian, Jew, or Muslim, but they are violently anti-religion. Yet they have some (if not most) of the same ethical mores as the rest of us do. Why is this? Perhaps it's because some of the things churches teach are in conflict not just with their ethical viewpoint but also conflicting with the things that the prophets and the Savior teach in their holy books. 

Was Christ intolerant? Is God a respecter of persons? No. He is not. The Bible does not teach that. Not at all. 

Many Christians state that the world today is immoral and the family is being harmed by these godless atheists and liberals. Well, this god-fearing liberal says no. The problem is very simple. It's when men and women put material concerns and money ahead of God. It's when men and women put their carnal comforts and pleasures before God. Why do people commit crimes if not for their own personal comforts and pleasures, after all?

I will say, of course, that belief in God and the acceptance of Christ as your Savior will help in this. But beyond that we need to be teaching the correct things in our churches. And we need to stop teaching things that God would not thank us for spreading in His name.

There are many people on my "ship of Zion" that are spreading things that I believe are not in God's nature, but I'm sticking to the ship regardless. 

Click and get a free Book of Mormon

Complaints from the right

I don't seem to blog nearly as much as I ought. I do spend a lot of time on Google+ these days. But I've decided I'd like to spend a little time answering and publicizing comments that I get on there that just leave me flummoxed. 

I read some things on line and just wonder how can anyone think that? It's just insane! How can you look at the world around you and conclude that?

Anyway, the first one is to be found here: 

Google+ Thread 1

Anti gay?  Marriage "equality" is not anit gay but pro Biblical marriage.  You must be anti Christian, Jewish, and Muslim as they all promote the idea of man and woman.

Okay, this is my first problem. Biblical marriage? That implies that the government is putting the Christian church at the center of government. That is what is wrong. I am a Mormon. I accept Christ as my Lord and Savior. However, I also support keeping God and all religion out of government. You need to accept Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, Jehovah at the center of your religion of your own free will. Any time you use your religious doctrine to tell others what they can or cannot do, I have a problem with that. 

Anti women?  obama's administration has less women working and getting paid less than during Bush's terms.  Also, until Hilary's appointment they were nearly no women in high positions and there are still few.

Yes, there are far too many white men in Obama's Administration. But that's not the point. The Republican Party is anti-woman. Let me count the ways:

• Opposition to the Violence Against Women Act
• Opposition to contraception and a woman's right to choose
• Opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Act
• Denial that there is a pay inequity by gender

You need to re-read the Constitution because Separation of Church and State is not there, and do not bring up the Federalist Papers or some Treaty that has no real bearing.  The fact is the Framers only did not want a State Established church as is in England.

Sorry. The Separation of Church and State is there. (I suppose I could bring up the 2nd Amendment and bring up that personal ownership of guns for self defense or pleasure shooting isn't in there.) However, the issue is that the First Amendment doesn't just guarantee freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion.

That means we should not use any religion to make public decisions. That means marriage equality, abortion and contraception, women's rights, and our blind support of Israel.

A First Amendment Primer

Good job seeing through my disguised name and seeing that I am a man (sarcasm).  I saw plenty of racism during the last election, most from a population that believed that voting for a black man simply because he was black was alright or from many on the left that would call out any opposition against obama as racism because that would be the only reason right?  So you must be racist against latinos because you do not like Rubio. You need to go back and look at history, Jim Crowe Laws written by democrats, Civil Rights was passed with a higher percentage of the GOP voting yes as opposed to a lower percentage of democrats.

Insane. Just insane. What can I say? Jim Crow law written by Democrats. Yes, I suppose. You can talk about all the bad things Democrats did in the past, and all the good things Republicans did in the past but what does it mean? What really matters is what they are doing now. And the more I watch what Republicans are doing now all I see is hate, racism, and intolerance.

You seem confused and lost, I am glad that you go to Church, hopefully you will connect to Jesus, accept him, and realize how far the left has taken us away from his teachings and God's Word.

What can I say? All I can really respond with is this from the Book of Matthew:

 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

 38 This is the first and great commandment.

 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The Tragic Comedy of Dogs

“A dog reflects the family life. Whoever saw a frisky dog in a gloomy family, or a sad dog in a happy one? Snarling people have snarling dogs, dangerous people have dangerous ones.” 

― Arthur Conan Doyle, The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes

 

 

This is Misty. Poor, dear, darling Misty. She is full of character really. First thing, she is a lady. She is full of dignity and poise. She is afraid of "being bad". She is such an introvert and doesn't want to be caught doing something that might embarass her. (Reminds me of me, actually.) She loves playing ball. 

But, unfortunately, she is paranoid. Paranoid of pills and medication. It is incredibly frustrating and - at some level - hurtful. When she refuses to take certain foods, it hurts me. It depresses me. So, yes, on some level, I am as neurotic as my dog!

A week ago, she came up lame. I tried to give her a painkiller - and, since then, she will not eat from her dog food bowl! Never mind the fact that I tried to sneak in an english muffin with jelly (!!), but still she won't eat from the bowl. Aaaarrrrggghhh!!!!!!! I can still feed her, though. I just put a scoop of the dry food in front of her on her pillow. Simple!

Still, it is incredibly frustrating. I keep on thinking any day, she'll eat out of her bowl again. Or is this permanent? The vet wants to put her on supplements. But that's impossible! She is just so obstinate. 

Do we get the dogs we deserve? Or do the dogs change to resemble us? 

If anyone has any suggestions, I am welcome to them!