Bible Problems

     At the beginning of the year I had set out to find out for myself what the Bible—Old Testament (a.k.a. the Jewish Bible) and New Testament—had to say.  I stopped after about two months because I got too frustrated.

     The God of the Old Testament is a god of war.  He's a jealous god in the very literal sense of the word (and there are many instances of other gods being mentioned); he's demanding of the Israelites' loyalty, having claimed them as his own so they can worship him, and in exchange for their unwavering faith and devotion he promises to protect them and fight for them.  But the things he had to say, the laws he gave to the Israelites through Moses, were harsh and often times didn't make much sense.

     So I had gotten to Deuteronomy and stopped there; I really didn't like their god and I didn't want to read any more about him and what he commanded the Israelites to do.  But one thing was certain: the god of the Israelites is only their god.  People can take stories of inspiration from the Old Testament and apply them to their own life if they want to, but the Israelite god's commandments to them were not intended for everyone in our day—they were specific to those people at that time.

     Earlier this year one of my uncles recommended a book to me called Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart D. Ehrman.  It sounded very interesting and I bought it right away, but it had been sitting on my bookshelf for a while because there were other books I wanted to get to first.  But then my parents came to visit for a few days, and my father saw the book and borrowed it.  He read it from cover to cover, which surprised me, and so I wanted to read it right afterward so I could talk to him about it.  I finished it a couple of weeks ago, and it's an excellent book; I highly recommend it to anyone interested in Bible study and the history of the manuscripts (and who changed them and why).

     The main, overarching messages of this book are 1) the Bible is not the fully inspired, inerrant word of God that the author used to believe it was—it is a very human book; and 2) the Bible we have now is NOT translated from the original manuscripts.  No original manuscripts exist; the earliest ones we've found come from, I believe Ehrman said the second century CE (Common Era).

     A couple of things in the book made me think of the Mormon church in particular.  The first thing is that the LDS church uses the King James version of the Bible from the early 1600s, and in August of 1992 the First Presidency had this to say about that version, "While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church."  https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/08/news-of-the-church/first-presidency-statement-on-the-king-james-version-of-the-bible.p1?lang=eng
 
     The problem with this version, as I found out in Misquoting Jesus, is that "The King James Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts that we now have available to us!" (p. 209).  There are better manuscripts out there, but the Church maintains its stance that the King James Bible is the one that is the most correct.

     The second thing that reminded me of the LDS church in particular was that Ehrman went into great detail about the scribes who made changes to the manuscripts on purpose to settle some political, social, and theological debates going on around them.  The LDS church's edition of the KJV of the Bible has footnotes where Joseph Smith made changes (if you want to read about the history of that edition, here you go: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/10/church-publishes-first-lds-edition-of-the-bible?lang=eng ).  When I was a young adult I got sick with the flu for a few days, and to pass the time while I got well again, I took out my Bible and circled all the places where there was a Joseph Smith Translation of a passage of scripture, for future reference in my studies.  And of course, looking through them again, I see now more than ever that all the JST footnotes make the scripture fall in line more with LDS doctrine.  Joseph Smith claims that these changes are the "plain and precious parts" that were either taken away from the Bible or changed within it, and that he's getting revelation from the Lord on what the passages should really say ( https://history.lds.org/article/revelations-in-context-doctrine-and-covenants-joseph-smith-translation-bible?lang=eng ).  But that's what scribes did in the first few centuries CE: they changed the wording of the manuscripts they were copying to settle theological, political, and social issues surrounding them.  Joseph Smith is no better than any of those ancient people who changed the wording to fit their agenda.

     For regular Christians, Misquoting Jesus will be hard to handle because it leaves the reader with no doubt that what we know of the New Testament and what we know of Jesus isn't 100% reliable.  Mormons who read Misquoting Jesus, like my father, still have the Book of Mormon to fall back on and hold onto as something to uphold their faith; Bible-only Christians don't have that safety net.  But really, the Book of Mormon was written by a guy who knew the King James version of the Bible (which is why the Book of Mormon was written in 1600's English instead of 1820's English, to make it sound more authentic), and we know now that the KJV isn't a very good version, so how much can the Church members really rely on the Book of Mormon as an authentic book of God-inspired scripture, either?

     So after reading Misquoting Jesus, I've decided to officially end my previous Bible projects.  The Old Testament is the Israelites' scripture, and its words and commandments have no bearing on anyone not of that lineage.  And as far as the New Testament is concerned, I simply do not have enough knowledge about what the oldest and best manuscripts say when translated into English, and so in my mind nothing in the New Testament as far as Jesus is concerned can be counted on as fact.  And as far as the LDS doctrine that says the Old Testament god is Jesus Christ himself: I say no.  Ehrman discusses the nature of Jesus since that was one of the hot topics in the early days of Christianity, and there are interesting points of view that different people back in the day preached.  I suggest you read Misquoting Jesus and decide for yourself what you want to believe regarding Jesus.  But as far as reading the New Testament, I see it as a waste of time for me since there's a very good chance that the words attributed to Jesus hadn't actually been said by him.

     I admire Erhman's knowledge and his hunger and passion for truth, and I'll likely read some of his other books as well to see what else he's found in his studies.  That, for me, would be a much better use of my time.

Good Stuff For All Women

     A few months ago when I was visiting my parents for a couple of days, my mother gave me a book to read.  It's called Sisters, arise!  Becoming the Woman God Intends You to Be by Lynne Perry Christofferson.  Right away from the title I knew it was an LDS book, and I really don't know why she suggested that I read it.  She suggested I read the last chapter first which is all about being "perfect" and she knows I've had struggles in the past with the Church's stance on "perfection", so perhaps she was trying to help me with that somehow?  She knows that I left the Church three years ago, and I don't know why she doesn't realize that an LDS book isn't going to help me.  Ah well.  I decided I would do her the courtesy of reading it, since she seemed to really like it and for some reason she thought I would, too.

     I didn't read the last chapter first, I started from the beginning.  I knew it was an LDS book, but I wasn't prepared for just how much of an LDS book it was.  Almost every paragraph had something to do with the Church's teachings and doctrine.  Not only that, but this book is from a Utah woman's perspective, so not only is it pretty much just for American women, but her examples apply largely to Utah Mormons (for instance, the guilt she felt for not attending the temple regularly when there were many of them readily available to her).  But I did find a few things here and there that I felt like I could identify with as a non-religious woman, and so about 30 pages in I decided to start from the beginning again and this time make note of the things that could apply to all women in our culture, regardless of religious beliefs or the lack thereof.  Unfortunately there are only a handful of things in the 111-page book; I'll type out the quotes here.

1) "The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender.  There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind.  There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined. ... We have enough greed; we need more goodness.  We have enough vanity; we need more virtue.  We have enough popularity; we need more purity." (p. 2-3)

2) The next quote covers an entire page, so I won't quote it.  But basically it talks about the prevalence of makeovers in our culture, whether it's personal makeovers or house makeovers, and that we would be much better served making over our inner selves rather than just focusing on outer appearances. (p. 21-22)

3) "TRUTH #1 [about beauty]: THERE IS NO SINGLE STANDARD FOR PHYSICAL BEAUTY.  The definition of physical beauty is so subjective that every culture, even every individual, has their own ideas about the physical ideal.  So when we spend enormous amounts of time and money on beauty products and procedures, exactly who are we trying to please?  American pop culture is fixated on skinny females, yet many other cultures prefer women with a bit more meat on their bones.  The fact that different cultures disagree about the ideal skin color and body type is proof that there isn't one true standard for physical beauty."  (p. 30)

4) The next passage is long, but it's too good not to quote the whole thing.  This is actually the author quoting a woman named Anne Morrow Lindbergh.

"We Americans, with our terrific emphasis on youth . . . tend to belittle the afternoon of life and even to pretend it never comes.  We push the clock back and try to prolong the morning, overreaching and overstraining ourselves in the unnatural effort. . . . In our breathless attempts, we often miss the flowering that waits for afternoon.

"For is it not possible that middle age can be looked upon as a period of second flowering, second growth, even a kind of second adolescence?  It is true that society in general does not help one accept this interpretation of the second half of life.  And therefore this period of expanding is often tragically misunderstood.

"Many people never climb above the plateau of forty-to-fifty.  The signs that presage growth, so similar, it seems to me, to those in early adolescence: discontent, restlessness, doubt, despair, longing, are interpreted falsely as signs of decay.  In youth one does not as often misinterpret the signs; one accepts them quite rightly, as growing pains.  One takes them seriously, listens to them, follows where they lead.

"But in middle age, because of the false assumption that it is a period of decline, one interprets these life-signs paradoxically, as signs of approaching death. . . .  Anything, rather than stand still and learn from them.  One tries to cure the signs of growth, to exorcise them, as if they were devils, when really they might be angels of annunciation . . . of a new stage of living."  (p. 33)

5) "I've yet to meet the woman, no matter how attractive, who appreciates another female parading sexy dress or attitudes around her husband, fiancé, boyfriend, brothers, nephews, or sons.  While we're being completely honest here, let's not forget that no self-respecting husband, fiancé, or boyfriend wants their significant other intentionally turning another man's head.  Any woman purposely seeking another man's attention in order to make her husband jealous is playing a very dangerous game." (p. 40)

6) "The way we dress and act sends definite signals to those around us.  'What you put on your body "talks", and everyone who sees you "hears" what you are saying.'" (p. 41)

7) "Who am I trying to impress by the way I dress?  What kind of signals am I trying to send to the people around me?"  (p. 46)

8) The next part is too long to quote again, but she's recalling the episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation called "The Game" (she doesn't name the show specifically but that's what it is, and I know because I saw the same episode and had the same unnerving feeling when I watched it).  In the episode, the crew gets hooked on a game and they neglect all else in order to play it, and it turns out it was planted by a race of people who wanted to take over the ship while everyone was too addicted to the game to notice or stop them.  She brought up that episode because many years later she was in line with her family at a crowded movie theater, and she recalled that Star Trek episode when she saw "fully 75 percent of the people were talking on cell phones, texting, playing games, listening to music, e-mailing, or viewing images on their phones.  Most surprising to me was the number of young children with gaming devices.  For such a large crowd, there was relatively little social interaction."  (p. 61-62)

9) Another long quote, but this one is a story she's quoting about digital distractions.  A man and woman go into a diner and he spends the whole time talking on his cell phone, leaving the woman to just sit there and eat.  And near the end, she writes, "But consider what was lost. . . .  There was likely a time when the couple at the diner counted down the hours between meals together.  But that enthusiasm for the other's undivided and deserved attention had cooled—a victim of life's minutia and, on this day, a single cell phone call.  One thing is certain: a busy man passed on an opportunity to enjoy a few quiet moments with his mate."  (p. 63)

10) This next quote covers two pages, so I'll summarize.  Blogging can be a great way to keep in touch with family and friends and to share parts of our lives with them, but too much time reading others' blogs (or writing our own) can take time away from our children, our spouse, and our household duties.  Make sure your children do not have unrestricted access to social media, cell phones, and the Internet in general until they are old enough to use them responsibly.  (p. 64-65)

11) "If we feel the need to hide our actions from family and respected friends, there is a problem.  Period."  (p. 66)

12) "Much of what we do with our time will be dictated by the seasons of our lives.  For instance, a mother raising young children will, of necessity, spend countless hours feeding, bathing, changing diapers for, doing laundry for, cleaning up after, entertaining, and teaching her children.  There will be countless trips to the doctor and dentist, the grocery store and school.  Without a doubt there will be long hours in the night, rocking babies and caring for sick children, comforting little ones who had a nightmare, and changing the sheets of a bed wetter.  Many of these tasks seem menial, unfulfilling, and even downright unpleasant—but if it is our 'season' to raise children, these activities can qualify for the best uses of our time.  We need to be certain that all of our activities—whether related to work or leisure—are at least classified in the 'good' category [referring to good things being categorized into "good", "better", or "best" groups]." (p. 83)

13) "The word mother is not only a noun but also a verb, meaning 'to watch over, nourish, and protect.'  Many women come to motherhood in less traditional ways than bearing and raising children.  Those who teach children in schools and at church, those to take a lonely teenager under their wing, those who model modesty and excellence and who watch over their neighbors---they are mothers indeed."  Then she goes on to talk about some of the challenges of motherhood because "a significant portion of the trials we experience in this life center around our families and motherhood." (p. 89-90).  It's nice to read that motherhood is not easy no matter how it has turned out for us, and that I needn't feel alone in my personal trials as a mother.

14) "The world would tell me that pregnancy will change my figure.  No kidding.  But must I be ashamed of the stretch marks that formed as my body made room to carry my beautiful babies?  Would I really trade my children for a firmer tummy?"  (p. 91)

15) "Motherhood can seem unrewarding if we're used to measuring progress on a daily basis or expecting kudos for a job well done.  Our little ones don't generally compliment us on the way we fixed the macaroni and cheese or notice our impressive skills when we're juggling car seats, diaper bags, groceries, and uncooperative offspring simultaneously.  Perhaps the most frustrating realization of motherhood is that you can't close up shop each night, putting thoughts of work out of mind until it's time to clock in the next morning.  Truly, a mother's work is never done.  It's also difficult to feel we have skills and talents that seem to be set aside for a season. . . .  I remember how frustrating it is to feel like you have no outlet for your talents—at least not in the way you've used them before. . . .  What I know now that I didn't understand in the middle of the diaper years was that every time I put my children first I was learning patience and unselfishness."  (p. 96)

16) "'I know that your quest to improve may seem overwhelming at times.  Please do not become discouraged with your progress.  I think back on my experience hiking with my children.  We agreed that every time we stopped to catch our breath, rather than focusing exclusively on how much farther we needed to go, we would immediately turn around and look down the mountain.  We would take in the scenery and say to each other, "Look how far we've come."  Then we would take a deep breath, quickly turn, face uphill, and start climbing again one step at a time.'  Allowing ourselves the small victory phrase 'look how far we've come' is a healthy way of acknowledging our progress, no matter how small, and strengthening our belief that we can ... scale the next slope of our current mountain."  (p. 110)

     That's it.  Those are the things I found out of the whole book that can apply to all women in our culture.  There is a lot about the LDS church that is bad, but there are still a few things that are good.  This book is mostly LDS-centered, and I will admit that it was hard getting through the heavily LDS parts (so, most of it), but there were a few good things in it that I could identify with and use in my own life.

     Nothing in it was life-changing, and so if I was given the chance to read it again or recommend it to someone, I wouldn't do it.  But it was nice of my mom to think of me, and I'm glad she cares.

My Bible Projects

Last year I wanted to read the Bible to see what Jesus actually said and did, and now I've started to do so.  This was around the time I stopped believing in Christianity, in Jesus as the Savior of the World.  I'd been hearing people say they pattern their lives after Jesus and that his life was a model to follow.  I remember thinking, "Wait a minute, we know hardly anything about his life."

I will admit that I've never read the whole Bible before, and not even the entire New Testament.  The majority of Mormons haven't.  This, I believe, is for a couple of reasons.  First, there's the Church's Article of Faith #8 which says: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."  In Mormons' minds, the Book of Mormon is most certainly correct because Joseph Smith translated it himself from reformed Egyptian into [16th century] English, with no in-between translations.  The Bible has been through so many translations that it's impossible to know which one is correct (the Church has said the King James version is the closest to being accurate, and their copies of the KJ version have Joseph Smith's translation of some of its verses in the footnotes), so it's always open to interpretation and incorrect text and can't be counted on to be 100% the true word of God.  And second, the introduction page of the Book of Mormon says, "Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”"  So Mormons spend their time reading and "gaining a testimony" of the Book of Mormon while treating the Bible as supplemental scripture.

Well, if I recall correctly from Church and Seminary lessons, what we know of Jesus from the Bible are second-hand accounts of his birth, of when he was twelve years old talking with the elders near the temple, and then when he was in his 30s and began actively preaching.  From the Bible we know almost nothing about his entire life.  We don't know how he lived, how he treated people, or what he did.

In the LDS Church there's a song the Primary children sing called "Jesus Once Was a Little Child"; here are the lyrics:

Jesus once was a little child,
A little child like me;
And he was pure and meek and mild,
As a little child should be.

[Chorus]
So, little children,
Let's you and I
Try to be like him
Try, try, try.

He played as little children play
The pleasant games of youth;
But he never got vexed if the game went wrong,
And he always spoke the truth.

[Chorus]

This song is clearly teaching little kids how to behave.  And yeah, being truthful is always very important.  But for this song to be true, we have to start with the assumption that Jesus was in fact a half-god and that he was perfect in every way.  Countless General Conference talks mention that Jesus led a perfect life.  But there is absolutely no proof that he did.  It's an assumption based on the idea that he was perfect, that he had to be perfect in order to atone for our sins, which he had to have done.

Last year as I was considering if Christianity in general was for me and just not the branch of Mormonism, I realized that in the scriptures there's always a bad guy.  In the Book of Mormon, the first bad guys were Laman and Lemuel, two of Nephi's older brothers.  If you start with the assumption that Lehi was really being led by the Lord, then Laman and Lemuel are in the wrong.  But if you look at it from Laman and Lemuel's point of view—and if you start with the assumption that Lehi was not being led by God but that he just had a really vivid dream that freaked him out—then Laman and Lemuel are justified in their feelings, words, and actions (all except attempted murder).  The outlook of the story changes a lot when you look at it from a different point of view.

In the New Testament, it's the Pharisees.  I realized that this group of people was considered the bad guys, but why?  Their actions have made the Jews scapegoats around the world for centuries, but were their actions justified?  Were their suspicions of Jesus valid?  So that got me thinking about it.  I searched the internet for "What do the Jews think of Jesus?" There were many results but I found a brief summary on this page: http://www.beingjewish.com/toshuv/whynotbrief.html  Here is also a Wikipedia article that I liked, which goes into more detail:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism's_view_of_Jesus

Based on what the Jews understood about a coming Messiah, and based on what Jesus did and didn't do to fulfill those prophesies, I came to the conclusion that Jesus was a false Messiah, that he was not who he claimed to be.  The articles I linked explain why the Jews think that way, and I'll explain my reasoning for believing the same.

We can't start with the assumption that Jesus led a perfect life because there simply is no proof of it.  He must have been charismatic because so many people followed him and listened to him.  But what did he do with the rest of his life?  He performed what looked like miracles, but street performers and magicians can perform similar illusions.  Who's to say Jesus didn't spend a few years learning to be a street magician, to fool gullible people?  When you think about it, the idea isn't that far-fetched.  And what if he really did have a special ability to heal people?  It's possible, I suppose (then again, there's also the placebo effect to consider).  But does that in itself mean he's a half-god, that he's the savior of the world?  No, it doesn't.

I thought of all this last year, and this is what led me away from Christianity.  Fast-forward to a few months ago with the LDS policies on homosexuality and its gay members.  On the one hand you have Christians saying, "Love one another!  Treat others the way you would want to be treated!  That's what Jesus would do!"  And yet all of a sudden you have Christians saying, "Jesus was against homosexuality!  He doesn't accept it, he didn't tolerate it!  It's the sin that got Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed!  It's a sin that must not be tolerated now!"  But did Jesus really say those things?  Did those words, did the intent to prevent loving monogamous homosexual relationships from being allowed, actually come from the mouth of Jesus or God?  Now I don't think they did.  Christians on both sides are using the Bible to defend their position on the issue, but which side is right?

So this brings me to my two Bible projects.  I am going to read the Bible—the Old and New Testaments—in their entirety.  And while I read, here is what I'm going to do:

Project 1:  Find out the nature of God/Jesus
I will go with the LDS theology that the God/Lord of the Old Testament was Jesus Christ.  I am going to underline every passage of scripture where God (Jesus) says or does something, as well as what is being attributed to him by other people (i.e. in Genesis 5:29 when Lemech said the Lord cursed the ground, and in Genesis 16:2 when Sarai said "The Lord hath restrained me from bearing [children]").  Then on a separate piece of paper I will write in my own words what these things say about Jesus' character, of who he is.

Project 2: "Is the Bible a viable model of morality and a way to govern society in today's modern era?"
Twice recently I've watched the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham.  It's a really good one, I'll link it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI  Their topic was, "Is Creation a viable model for origins in today's modern, scientific era?" (my opinion is that no, it isn't), and I've decided to model the title of my project after that debate's topic.  For modern moral issues, Christians will turn to the Bible for guidance.  But then others will point out laws in books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy and say, "Would these laws ever be acceptable in today's society?  No way!  You can't take some parts of the Bible as doctrine from Jesus and ignore the parts you don't like."  I am not a scholar in early Christian history; I don't know which laws and points of view were acceptable back then and which ones were actually the guy being a jerk, like Paul in 1 Timothy 2:11 when he said, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection".  Although context is important and very interesting to me, for this project of mine I am not taking into consideration the context of the times they were written.  I am looking at the Bible as a book that modern Christians use to live by and tout as the Word of God, and I'm going to determine if that book, which is around 2,000 years old, should be used as a model of morality or a way to govern society in today's modern era.  My prediction is that the Old Testament should absolutely not be used as a model for today, and that the New Testament will be about half viable and half better-left-in-the-past.

This will take me a few months to do since I plan to work on it every day (if I read a chapter a day it would take me over 3 years to finish).  I'm excited for these projects on an intellectual level!  I've never read the whole Bible before, and I'm sure I'll be in for many surprises.

Dealing With Death

Everyone dies.  What happens to us after we die is one of the questions humans have sought to know probably for as long as we've been on the Earth, and different groups of people have come up with their own theories.

All religions believe in a soul.  Christians and Muslims believe that when we die, our spirit or our soul will either go to Heaven to be with God or we'll go to Hell to be ruled by the Devil.  Catholics further believe in Purgatory, which is "an intermediate state after physical death in which those destined for heaven undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." (quoted from Wikipedia).  Mormons believe in something similar: they believe that after we die, our spirit goes either to Spirit Paradise or to Spirit Prison (also known as Hell, where people have a chance to repent of their sins and go to Paradise), based on how you lived your life.  Once Christ comes back and the Millennium starts and everyone can be resurrected, then our spirits will be taken out of Paradise or Prison and reunited with our bodies and then assigned to one of the Three Kingdoms of Glory or to Outer Darkness for the really really bad people.

Buddhists believe that the spirit goes into another body, and which body that is depends on how good they were in their previous life: if you were good, then you came back as a healthy human again, but if you were bad, then you came back as a crippled or diseased person, or even an animal.

There are many other religions that I don't know enough about, or don't know about at all.  These I've listed are the main ones around the world right now.  But what all religions have in common is the belief in the soul, that we are more than our physical bodies.

I've been thinking about death for the past couple of days.  Yesterday David Bowie died.  Also yesterday I found out that the grandmother of one of my good friends died this past Sunday.

When you're not religious, or when you were but you don't believe in a God anymore, you look at death differently than a religious person does.  I'll take Christianity as an example since that's what I grew up with and that's the most widespread religion right now.

Christians will look at David Bowie and say, "He's probably in Heaven because he was a good person."  My friend's family will look at their grandmother and they'll be sad but they'll think, "She was a good person, and I know we'll see her again and be together forever, because we've been sealed in the temple to each other."  They have hope because they believe in an afterlife and in a just and fair God who will reward good deeds and good people with Heaven.

Then there are those of us who either never were religious or we've left our religions and/or our belief in a God.  When we look at death, we don't know what happens.  Some of these people are terrified of death because they don't know what happens to us.  Do we cease to exist?  Do we have a soul that goes up to Heaven or down to Hell?  Does our soul remain on Earth, walking around invisible where only a few people with the gift to see spirits can see us? (think the movies "Ghost" and "Heart and Souls").  Are we indeed reborn, our spirits put into a new body?

And finally, there are people who look at the physiology of the body and the brain, and they firmly believe that there is no soul, there is no spirit, that our brain is who we are.  We have a body, we have a brain, and that's it.  So when our brain stops working, when our brain dies, we're dead.  We're gone.  We cease to exist.

I am now an atheist, and until just recently I was in the second category.  I'm not scared of death because in my mind, when I die then I'll finally be able to know which of all the world's religious beliefs got it right.  I held on to the hope that I do have a spirit, that I will continue to exist after I die, and that I will get to see the spirits of my loved ones again.  But now after looking a little more into the sciences, I'm coming to grips with the ideas of the third category: that we are our brain.  Our memories, our thoughts, our senses, our feelings, and even our spiritual experiences—they are all the work of our brain.  And once our brain dies, we're gone.

I look at David Bowie.  According to my new line of thinking, he's gone forever.  But his influence will remain here because of his music and his movies.  People of my generation will always remember him as the Goblin King in "Labyrinth" with those suave mannerisms and those tight pants.  ;)  Others will remember him more for his music.  While he's not on my list of favorite musicians, I recognize that many people liked him and they will remember him and what he did.

Now I'm looking at my own life, wondering what I will leave behind.  When I die, my existence will only be missed by a few handfuls of people; what we've shared together will mean something to them, and I'm not dismissing that as unimportant.  But as far as society as a whole, I haven't done anything noteworthy.  I haven't written any great books like Tolkien or Carl Sagan or Darwin or Shakespeare did that are read and enjoyed by millions of people.  I am not a great singer like Whitney Houston or Mariah Carey, or a great musician like Mozart or Vivaldi.  I am not a great actress like Elizabeth Taylor or Katherine Hepburn whose names and legacies will live on in cinema history.  I am not a great philosopher like Aristotle or Confucius whose ideas will span the centuries.  I haven't written any papers in scholarly journals that others will read and cite for their research.  I am not a selfless person who is spending my life or a career serving the poor and needy and the sick.  I'm not someone who has inspired my society to greatness in any way.  I am an average person, a wife and a stay-at-home mother of two kids who's doing her best to raise them and not go crazy in the meantime.  ;)  I have my own interests and hobbies outside of being a mom, and I make a conscious effort to remember those things about myself so I don't lose who I am.  But those hobbies are pleasures of mine, they're not for the betterment of society.  My sphere of influence is so small that it is insignificant to all but a few people, those closest to me.

I've thought about it, and what I do have is this blog.  This is something I've written that anyone who comes across it can read and hopefully get something out of it for their own lives.  Perhaps some readers are LDS members who are struggling with issues in the Church, and here they can find someone who had the same issues they did.  Perhaps there are those who feel they aren't strong enough to leave the Church, or even to examine it with critical thinking.

I'm here to tell those people that you are strong enough.

Looking at the Church with critical thinking wasn't easy.  Developing critical thinking skills in the first place wasn't easy, since what is stressed in the Church is faith, obedience, to "first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith" (Pres. Uchtdorf, Oct. 2013) and to "lean not unto thine own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5).  Coming to my conclusions about the Church was hard for me because I was raised in it and I really believed it was true.  It influenced how I saw the world, how I saw the purpose of life, how I saw people's behavior and its consequences, and my definition of morality.  And to look at the Church honestly and factually with critical thinking wasn't something I'd ever done before.  Not only that, but all of my immediate family members are LDS, as are all the immediate family members of my husband's family.  Most of the friends I made in school were LDS because of the strong community the Church offers, so leaving the Church was to leave my circle of friends and the possibility of easily meeting new friends whenever we moved.

Leaving was mostly liberating, because I finally felt validated in the thoughts and doubts about the Church that had troubled me for years; everything suddenly fits together when you realize "the Church isn't true".

I will be honest: the hardest thing of all was looking at scientific evidence and realizing that in all likelihood there is no God.  It's hard because it feels like starting from scratch, and you have to look at the world differently and to look at morality differently.

But it gets easier.  Human brains are incredible organs, and through mine I've been able to adjust pretty well.  And you know what?  Life isn't so bad without a belief in God.  At first it was rough, but I don't feel a sense of hopelessness anymore.  I'm looking at death as final, and that life on this Earth is my one shot at existence, and it's helped me want to put forth more effort to make the most of it.  Not for the sake of a reward in Heaven, but for my own sake.

Sometimes there are things in life that really suck, and sometimes we're not sure how we can make it through the day or the week or the year.  But our brains are capable of incredible things, and we don't give ourselves enough credit.  I have a saying up on my wall that says, "She Believed She Could, So She Did."  We have as much inner strength as we allow ourselves to have.  Our bodies might fail us, or it might seem like our circumstances are too much for us to handle.  Sometimes we're right.  But our life and our existence have as much value as we decide they have, and it's up to us to decide what we do with them.

I'm hoping I don't die any time soon, because I have young children.  That's one of the reasons why I haven't bought a motorcycle yet, even though I got my license about six months ago.  Although going places on a motorcycle is something I would love to do and that would be very fulfilling for me, the chances of getting into a crash and being seriously injured or killed are high, and my kids are still very young and they need a mother around who loves and can care for them and who has taken on the job of raising them.  My job is to keep them healthy and to prepare them to survive in this world, and I still have a lot of work to do.  In the meantime I'm going to continue with my (safe) hobbies that give me pleasure and that make me feel fulfilled, and I'm going to continue to learn as much as I can about things that interest me.  Critical thinking is a skill we need to learn (and that we are NOT taught or encouraged to develop in the LDS church), and I'm hoping to continue to cultivate mine and to teach my kids critical thinking when they're old enough.

I'm still not afraid of death, even though I'm now thinking that death is the end of my existence.  I really hope my last days or minutes aren't filled with pain, but death is inevitable and probably final, and I'm still adjusting to that new line of thinking.  And I'm doing alright.  I'm not blissfully happy, but I'm not miserable either.  I'm accepting.  It feels good to face reality head-on.

First Presidency Changes the Handbook Updates

Two days ago the First Presidency sent a letter to the general and local leaders of the Church, changing some of the recent policy changes that were made last week to Church Handbook of Instruction, Handbook 1 regarding same-sex couples and their children.  The explanation video with Elder Christofferson that was rushed to the public was for the members, to calm them down and ease their minds on the matter; this letter is guidance for the leaders, probably in response to the continued social media outcry over these new policies.

First, here is the part of section 16.13 that this new letter references:

•      A new section in Handbook 1, 16.13 will be added as follows: 

Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

     A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.

     "A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:

     A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

1.  The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

2.  The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."

And here is the copy of the letter that was just sent out to the leaders of the Church:

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY

47 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE STREET, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84150-1200

November 13, 2015

To: General Authorities; Area Seventies; General Auxiliary Presidencies; Stake, District, Mission, and Temple Presidents; Bishops and Branch Presidents

Dear Brethren and Sisters:

The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles provides the following guidance in applying provisions on same-gender marriage recently added to Handbook 1:

Revealed doctrine is clear that families are eternal in nature and purpose. We are obligated to act with that perspective for the welfare of both adults and children. The newly added Handbook provisions affirm that adults who choose to enter into a same-gender marriage or similar relationship commit sin that warrants a Church disciplinary council.

Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment. The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship. As always, local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions.

When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church, provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld. Decisions about any future ordinances for such children should be made by local leaders with their prime consideration being the preparation and best interests of the child.

All children are to be treated with utmost respect and love. They are welcome to attend Church meetings and participate in Church activities. All children may receive priesthood blessings of healing and spiritual guidance.

May the Lord continue to bless you in your ministry.

Sincerely yours,

I'm going to get into lawyer mode for a few paragraphs because I want to address this letter as not being only a "clarification" of the original wording of the Handbook 1 changes (as the Church page's title suggests here: https://www.lds.org/pages/church-handbook-changes?lang=eng ) but rather this letter is also acting as an addendum to what the original changes said, because this letter adds to and changes the original wording, it does not simply clarify what's already been said.  I'll explain what I'm talking about.

The main issue that stemmed from the wording of the original policy changes was this: there are no provisions for minors of gay parents; in fact, minors were specifically excluded from everything if their parent was sexually cohabiting with or married to someone of the same sex.

Take a look at these two quotes together from the original policy changes:

"A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:"

"2.  The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."

Notice the second "or" in that first sentence.  If you write that out in a long non-combined sentence and then combine that with the second requirement, here's what it says:

"A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, or to ordain [if already baptized and confirmed], or to recommend mission service [if already baptized and confirmed], for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when . . . the child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."

This new policy did three things:

1. It stated that it didn't matter whether the parent used to live or currently lives in a same-gender relationship; it's enough that the parent had at all for these restrictions to be in effect.
2. It stated that an unbaptized child living with a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship couldn't get baptized into the Church until they reached adulthood and didn't live with that parent.
3. It also stated that a baptized child living with a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship couldn't progress in his or her membership activities (being ordained or recommended for a mission) until they reached adulthood and didn't live with that parent.  It halted their progress.

Elder Christofferson expounded on the reasoning behind this new policy (I hate to quote all this text, but I need this for context):

"[This policy] originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years."

This upset a lot of people for many reasons, one of which was because neither the original policy changes nor Elder Christofferson's explanation addressed the family situation where a straight parent lives apart from his or her gay spouse and together they share custody of their child, and so the child technically lives in both residences.  What about getting that child a name and a blessing or being baptized?  What about that child's Church progression?  And why halt a child's Church progression if he or she is already baptized and active in the Church while still living with gay parents who have clearly given the child permission to participate in Church life?

So the leaders sought to address those situations.  And to do so, they discarded the original wording of the 16.13 addition to the Handbook and instead said this:

 "The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13, that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors, apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship."

and this:

 "When a child living with such a same-gender couple has already been baptized and is actively participating in the Church, provisions of Section 16.13 do not require that his or her membership activities or priesthood privileges be curtailed or that further ordinances be withheld."

That first statement is actually incorrect, because the second statement shows that the restrictions for minors apply only to children who haven't been baptized yet and whose primary residence is with a gay couple.  The first statement should actually say something like this:

"The provisions of Handbook 1, Section 16.13 that restrict priesthood ordinances for minors apply only to those unbaptized children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a same-gender marriage or similar relationship."

That way the second change regarding baptized children living with a gay couple makes sense.

Now let's look at the specifics of what these newest policies do:

1. They say that an unbaptized minor child of a gay couple can freely be baptized and confirmed as long as the child's primary residence isn't with that gay couple.  So as long as the child's primary residence is with their straight parent, if they have one, then they can get baptized into the Church as early as 8 years old and all that other stuff can follow.
2. They also say that a baptized minor child of a gay couple whose primary residence is with that gay couple and who is active in the Church can continue freely with being ordained or recommended for a mission.
3. They still exclude unbaptized minors of gay couples whose home is the primary residence of their child.  Those children still have to follow the restrictions set forth in the Handbook 1 changes: before they can get baptized into the Church, they still have to wait until they are legally adults, not reside in their gay parents' house, specifically disavow their parents' sexual life choices, and then get approval from the First Presidency.

The first of these newest policies isn't worded quite right, and both of these newest policies contradict the original policy changes and the explanation given by Elder Christofferson.  But that's for the Church's legal department to handle if the need arises.  ;)

Those who have faith in and support the leaders of the Church have to claim that this letter was continued revelation for how the Church should be run, but let's be honest: this was the leaders having an "oh crap!" moment and changing the guidelines to better meet the desires and concerns of the Church members.  This wasn't God changing his mind on His policies, it's the leaders trying to cover their butts.

Still didn't stop thousands of members from handing in their letters of resignation yesterday.  The Salt Lake City news station covered the story:  http://kutv.com/news/local/group-holds-mass-resignation-from-lds-church-in-slc-saturday

None of my conclusions from my last post have changed with this addendum.  Gay parents are still viewed as worse than parents who are involved in any of those other LDS-labeled serious transgressions (attempted murder, adultery, physical abuse, etc.), since they're the only ones whose unbaptized children are affected by their "serious-transgression" decisions.  And to back up Elder Christofferson's claim, this addendum also contains the underlying lie of this whole issue: "Our concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment."  Gay parents are the only ones whose children have that "consideration" given to them.  By singling out the unbaptized children of gay parents, the Church leaders are still insinuating that only children who live with gay parents would experience difficulties, conflict, and disharmony at home if the children were to join the Church while still living at their home (regardless of cultural, religious or sinful differences in other households that don't mesh with Church expectations).  Remember, converts to the Church who join despite their family's objections are praised as being faithful, spiritually strong people who are dedicated to the Lord and His church.

I am glad that those children of gay parents who have already been baptized into the Church don't have to worry about what will happen to them as far as their membership is concerned.  I'm also glad that children who don't primarily live with their gay parent also won't have to worry about Church actions against them.  But I feel for the people who think that the LDS church is the one and only true church on the face of the Earth and who are now excluded from joining it or who will be excommunicated from it for choosing to marry someone of their same sex.  I truly hope they will find peace and happiness outside of a Church that discriminates against them and rejects them.

Homosexual Couples and their Children

Given how infrequently I write in this blog, I didn't think I would be writing here again so soon.  But two days ago the Church made policy changes to how they deal with homosexual couples and their children, and it created quite a firestorm within the LDS and ex-LDS communities on Facebook, and I feel strongly enough about the issue that I want to write down my thoughts and opinions on it.  Rather than saying anything about it on Facebook where everyone could see right away, I'm choosing to write about it here.  This is a public blog but hardly anyone knows about it or reads it, so in that sense it's fairly private and I'm not announcing my views to everyone on my Facebook friends list.

My goal here is to look at the issues factually, point by point, and to be fair to both sides.  I will not be dissecting all of the opinions, some of which are valid, that have been shared on Facebook by people for or against these new policy decisions; rather I will explain my own points of view regarding the official language of the written policy and the official explanation for those policy changes given by the Church.  This will probably make this post sound boring and devoid of emotion, but there are plenty of emotions running high on Facebook about this, and that's not what I want this post to be about.

(Just as a heads-up: this will be a long post because there are many points to talk about and I want to be thorough.)

First off, the policy changes.

Two days ago the leaders of the Church made additions to the Church Handbook of Instruction, Handbook 1 regarding how to deal with homosexual couples and their children.  There are two halves to the Church Handbook of Instruction, and Handbook 1 is for bishops and stake presidents only and isn't available to the general public.  For that reason, I don't think the leaders of the Church intended for these changes to be made public, but the additions got leaked to the media which is how everyone now knows about them.

These are the additions:  (I can't copy and paste them for some reason, so I'll type them out here as they appeared in the media article)

Policies on Ordinances for Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

     The following additions to Handbook 1 have been approved by the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for immediate implementation.

•      A new section in Handbook 1, 16.13 will be added as follows: 

Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

     A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.

     A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:

     A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

1.  The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

2.  The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

• Handbook 1, number 6.7.2 is to be updated immediately as follows (addition is highlighted):

When a Disciplinary Council May Be Necessary

Serious Transgression

     . . . It includes (but is not limited to) attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation), deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities,. . .

• Handbook 1, number 6.7.3 is to be updated immediately as follows (addition is highlighted):

When a Disciplinary Council is Mandatory

Apostasy

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1.  Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2.  Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3.  Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4.  Are in a same-gender marriage.

5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members.  The Savior taught the Nephites that they should continue to administer to a transgressor, "but if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people" (3 Nephi 18:31; see also Mosiah 26:36).

That last paragraph wasn't in the news release but it was included on a scanned copy of the new handbook page that I saw, so I'm guessing it's been at the end of that Apostasy section for a while.  I included it here because it helps to explain why the disciplinary process is mandatory for apostasy.  I'm really big on knowing the "why" behind decisions, and this explains that one.

The leaders responded to the social media explosion yesterday through a video interview with Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, explaining the policy changes.  I'll link that video here; it's just over 10 minutes long:  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson

So there we have the changes to Handbook 1, as well as a Church leader's official explanation for the changes.  I am going to talk about those changes as well as address what Elder Christofferson said.  But before I get into that, I want to explain my stance on the issue of homosexuality so it's clear where I'm coming from.

I am currently an agnostic: there is not enough evidence to support the idea of a supreme being.  I no longer believe that the Book of Mormon or the Bible—or any religious text for that matterùare the word of a god, and thus I do not believe homosexuality is a sin.  I also personally have no problem with homosexuality; I'm perfectly fine with that sexual orientation and with the people who identify as such.  However, I also understand that many religions do believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin—the LDS church being one of them—and because of that, I understand why the Church feels it must take a strong stance on homosexual relations.

Alright, on to talking about these policy changes.

I'll start off with the decision to add same-gender cohabitation and marriage to the lists of serious transgressions and of things that may require a disciplinary council, because in this instance the Church is justified.

The scriptures repeatedly speak out against homosexuality.  The Church believes that both the Book of Mormon and the Bible are the word of God.  In the New Testament, Jesus and his apostles repeatedly denounced homosexuality.  Mormons believe that the Lord of the Old Testament was Jesus Christ, and Jesus in the Old Testament denounced homosexuality and even burned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of it (by the way, that's where the word sodomy comes from).

I read an article from the Mormon Newsroom website a few years ago (I want to say it was back in 2006) that discusses the Church's current view on homosexuality.  It's an interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman; it's long but it's also very thorough, and if you want the LDS church's official current views on homosexuality, that's the article to read.  Here's the link:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

So in recent years the Church has come to be more accepting toward homosexuals.  That wasn't always the case.  In 1969 in his book The Miracle of Forgiveness, Spencer W. Kimball claimed,

"Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter [of homosexuality], not responsible for the tendency, and that 'God made them that way.'  This is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted.  It is blasphemy.  Man is made in the image of God.  Does the pervert think God to be 'that way'?" (p.85).

Presidents of the Church have become wiser since then, and they now recognize that some people for whatever reason really are born being attracted to the same sex, it's something they really didn't choose for themselves.  Leaders now teach members that homosexuals are to be treated with kindness and respect just like anyone else.  The Church also supports equal treatment for homosexuals when it comes to employment and housing.  Homosexuals are allowed to be baptized into the Church, receive callings, and even go through the temple for their endowments, without the need to be "cured" and "rehabilitated" as President Kimball advocated (those words applied to homosexuality make me cringe).  Officially it is not a sin to have homosexual feelings and desires; until a few months ago, the requirements for a homosexual member of the Church to be in good standing with the Church and the Lord were the same as for any heterosexual member who is unmarried: you are to be sexually celibate until marriage.

Historically, gay people couldn't legally get married to each other, which meant that gay members were expected to be celibate for their entire lives if they wanted to be in good standing with the Church and the Lord, and having sex with someone of your own sex meant you were fornicating.  But because of the US Supreme Court's decision in June of this year regarding gay marriage, all 50 states are now required to allow and recognize gay marriage within their state (it wasn't a unanimous decision, by the way; the ruling was 5-4.  If you're interested in reading really long legal documents, I applaud you  :)  and the Court's decision and the opinions of the judges are in the middle of this NPR article:  http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages ).

This ruling changed things.  Now gay members of the Church who had been celibate up to this point could legally get married and have their union recognized as a marriage.  This means that having sex with their spouse of the same sex wasn't considered fornication.  So the Church had to clarify its policies and differentiate gay members' requirements from those of unmarried heterosexuals.

In the Bible, the Lord never approved of homosexual relations.  And in the Church's announcement "The Family: a Proclamation to the World" from 1995, the leaders wrote down their firm stance on what constitutes an acceptable marriage in the Church (here's the link: https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng ).  While gay members of the Church can now legally be married to someone of the same sex, the Church sought to clarify that religiously, according to their doctrine, homosexual relations are still a serious sin, and that in their religion the only marriages that are acceptable to God are between one man and one woman.  If gay members are to be in good standing with the Church and with the Lord, they are still expected to either be celibate for their entire lives or to marry and have sex only with someone of the opposite sex.  Anything outside of this is considered living in sin.  While I strongly disagree with these requirements on a personal level, it is nevertheless what the Church expects of its gay members.

Gay members of the Church know this requirement.  Or if they didn't know it before, the leaders in the disciplinary council will explain it to them thoroughly.  Then, if the member still chooses to move forward with a homosexual marriage or with living with someone of the same sex, then they are choosing to go against the teachings of the Church and thus they will be excommunicated if they persist in their intended course of action.  By extension, these additions also clarify that nonmember gay couples will not be allowed to join the Church as long as they are married to or sexually cohabiting with each other.  Whether or not they'd want to join is irrelevant—the policy says they cannot even if they wanted to.

Something I feel is incorrect and needs to be mentioned here is when Elder Christofferson said "We're not going to yield on our efforts to help people find what brings happiness, but we know that sin does not."  This is a commonly held belief in the Church that comes from the scripture Alma 41:10 which says "wickedness never was happiness", but it is actually incorrect.  Elder Christofferson failed to acknowledge that a gay member marrying and having sex with someone of the same sex who they love and are sexually attracted to could bring them genuine happiness.  It would be more accurate to say: "sinning does not bring the Lord happiness," because that better describes the reality of this situation.  The Church will disregard the happiness of the individual making "sinful" decisions, and instead it says that what makes the Lord happy is all that matters and is all that should bring happiness.  "We're not going to yield in our efforts to help people find happiness in doing only what the scriptures and modern-day prophets say the Lord wants them to do."  THAT is what Elder Christofferson's statement actually means.

Well, in the end, regardless of the General Authorities' and local leaders' feelings on the matter, they are abiding by and enforcing their religious views and rules regarding homosexuality, which are based on what Jesus and his apostles said in the Bible.

Elder Christofferson was correct when he said that in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, the Church needed to add those parts to the transgression and apostasy sections to provide clarity to doctrines and policies that already existed within the Church.  In that sense, the Church is justified in that course of action.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Now I'll move on to the part regarding the children of parents living in same-gender relationships.  Part of that section I feel is justified, and part of it I don't believe is justified at all.

The policy that says "A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing," is justified.  Babies in the LDS church are given a name and blessing only if their parents are believing members of the Church.  The people in a homosexual relationship either never were members of the Church, they unofficially left the Church, they officially left, or they were excommunicated.  Either way, they're not believing members of the Church in good standing and thus their child won't be given a name and a blessing in the Mormon church.  That's reasonable.

What I don't think is reasonable and what I don't agree with are the requirements that need to be met for a child of a gay couple to be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for a mission:

"1.  The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

2.  The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."

What this says is that no minor child of a gay couple can join the church at all, regardless of their parents' consent.  Once that child is an adult, they must specifically disavow the practice of same-sex cohabitation and marriage and they have to have moved out of their parents' house first before they can get baptized into the Church, be ordained, or be recommended for a mission.

Many opponents to these changes are saying that children of gay couples are now being punished for their parents' choices.  I think "punished" isn't the right word to use here.  Rather, I feel that "discriminated against" is a much more fitting phrase to use.  And I believe that regardless of what the leaders intended these policy changes to do, what has actually happened is that gay couples and their children are now being discriminated against, and this is my evidence for that claim: of all the cultural, religious, or transgression-filled households that a child can come from, only children from homosexual parents (and those of polygamous families) are expected to meet these requirements.  I'll cover those few types of households to explain my point.

First of all, this is what Elder Christofferson said in his interview regarding these policy requirements for the children of gay parents when they are minors, and I will refer back to this in my arguments below:

"This policy originates out of that compassion [that husbands, fathers, and grandfathers have for their children and grandchildren].  It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. . . We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.  And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there's time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that's what they want, and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that.  Nothing is lost to them in the end if that's the direction they want to go, and in the meantime they're not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years."

This statement is true for any family where the parents, for whatever reason, will not give their consent for their minor child to be baptized into the Church, and the Church has to respect that.  However, Elder Christofferson's statement is NOT true for households where the parents do give their consent and yet there are cultural, religious, or transgression differences.  I'll explain the differences.

Transgressions

Of all the serious transgressions specifically listed in Handbook 1 that a parent could be involved in—attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation), deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities—homosexual relations is the only one where the child of those parents or that household has to meet those listed requirements for joining the Church.  That says to a child, "If your parents were sexual abusers, if they were physically abusive to their spouse, if they were cohabiting but not married, if they neglected you and your siblings, if they tried to kill someone, you could still join the church as a minor with their permission, and you could still join the church as a legal adult with no need to disavow your parents' life choices or move out of their house.  But because your parents are gay, you must meet these very specific requirements to join our church, to be ordained, or to be recommended for a mission."

Members participating in any of those serious transgressions will be treated the same by the Church: their bishop will have a talk with them in his office; if they don't change their ways, then they will be brought into a disciplinary council and talked to there; and if the person still will not repent and change their ways, then they will be excommunicated.  In that sense, homosexual relations aren't treated any differently by leaders of the Church than are the other serious transgressions.  However, they are now viewed differently.  This new policy regarding the children sets apart homosexual relations/cohabiting as the most serious of those transgressions, as the worst of those transgressions, because it's the only serious transgression on that list that affects their child's ability to be baptized into the Church, ordained, or recommended for a mission.

Religion

Islamic cultures are the most-often cited example by Church members of where the Church is very careful about how they proselyte, because in the Islamic religion a Muslim can be imprisoned or even killed for converting to another religion.  However, that is the extreme example.  Anywhere else in the world as far as I know, if the parent or parents believe in a non-LDS religion or aren't religious at all, their child can join the LDS church as a minor with their permission or freely as an adult on their own.  The children of non-LDS religious parents don't need to meet the same requirements as do those children of gay couples.  The Church does not require a child of, say, a Catholic mother and a Protestant father to specifically disavow Catholicism or Protestantism, nor does it require the child to move out of their parents' mixed-faith house as an adult in order to be baptized.  There might still be religious conflicts and difficulties that arise at home when a child joins the Mormon church—even with their parents' permission—but the Church does not take that into consideration.

Culture/Nationality

There are some countries where the teachings of the Church are incompatible with their culture.  In Japan and China, for example, women are not equal with men.  Women do not have the same social status as men, they are not respected the way men are, and they are not equals in their marriages.  That's a cultural reality.  And yet the Church will not ask a Japanese or a Chinese child about their home life or require them to disavow their culture of gender inequality and move out of their parents' house before getting baptized into the Church.  It just doesn't happen.

Another example: New Zealand.  For a few years my husband and I were seriously considering moving to New Zealand.  However, about a year ago I was looking online for an idea of what life would be like for us there, and I came across a website where probably a hundred people commented on an article about the discrimination by native New Zealanders (Kiwis) toward Americans specifically.  New Zealand television shows poke fun at America and its citizens all the time; Americans who move there are instantly viewed with suspicion and they are constantly and severely antagonized and discriminated against; it's really bad.  Any American tourists who travel there are merely tolerated.  The label "xenophobic" absolutely applies to Kiwis on a national level (not all Kiwis feel this way, but the majority do).
If you want to read that article and the hundreds of comments, here's the link; it's pretty enlightening:  http://e2nz.org/migrant-stories/chapter-4/its-true-kiwis-dont-really-like-americans/
So after reading that, we changed our minds about moving there.  ;)  But the LDS church—which is an American religion—will not refuse to allow Kiwi minors to join the Church who have their parents' permission, nor are the children required to disavow the practice of discriminating against Americans or to move out of their parents' house if their parents are xenophobic toward Americans.  They're free to join the Church as minors if their parents give their permission and as adults on their own.  Their current or previous xenophobic home-life isn't asked about or taken into consideration.

So if any other set of parents, regardless of their religion or culture or LDS-defined transgressions, were to give their minor child consent to join the Church, the Church would allow it without considering if this would create difficulties or challenges or conflicts at home.  The exception is gay parents, whose minor children will not be allowed to join the Church even with their consent.  In addition to that, once the child of any other couple is a legal adult, the Church won't care if the person is still living at home where cultural or religious conflicts might occur, nor will it require the person to move out of their parents' house before joining the Church, being ordained, or recommended for a mission.  Those requirements must only be met by children with gay parents (and polygamous parents, but that's a separate issue).

When Elder Christofferson says that the leaders of the Church "don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different," that sounds nice but it's actually not true.  The Church must respect a parent's wishes if that parent will not give consent for their minor child to join the Church.  The members can pressure and try to persuade, but they cannot perform the baptism without the parent's consent.  However, members of the Church and their leaders actually praise converts who join the Church despite strong opposition from their families.  Those converts are seen as faithful, courageous, and dedicated to the Lord and His church.  Familial approval and harmony are in no way taken into consideration when seeking to convert someone over the age of 18.  Elder Christofferson's statement suggests that once the child is 18 and a legal adult, they're now able to handle any negativity or difficulties or conflicts their families can throw at them.  This, of course, is also not true.

I wish I could give the leaders of the Church the benefit of the doubt and say okay, maybe you did intend for this policy to be done out of love and compassion, to help preserve unity and harmony within the family.  But I can't give that to them.  My feeling is that they're trying to convince themselves as much as everyone else of this, but I feel that theirs is an empty claim, because these supposed concerns for the well-being of a minor child only apply to the children of gay parents.  If these new policies were to apply to all children whose parents are participating in any of those serious transgressions listed in the handbook, and to all children of parents whose culture or religion are at odds with the teachings of the Church, then their claim of love and compassion could be valid and there probably wouldn't be as many people getting upset about this.  However, the Church only singled out children of gay parents, which is what makes it discrimination against them and why so many people are upset and confused by these changes (that, and because the Church meant for this to be done quietly in the Handbook, not announced to the general public).  The Church is claiming that only the children of gay parents—and inevitably all children of gay parents—would experience conflict and difficulties at home if they were to join the Church as minors and if they were to continue living with their gay parents after they have turned 18 years old.  That is a ridiculously broad generalization and simply untrue, but that is the Church leaders' story and they're sticking to it.

So in conclusion, my opinion is that because of the Church's doctrine—because they adhere to the teachings of Christ and his apostles in the Bible regarding homosexuality—the leaders of the Church were justified in clarifying their stance on what is acceptable within the Church regarding marriage and what may or will require a disciplinary council.  I also feel they were justified in saying that only children whose parents are members of the Church in good standing (which homosexual couples are not considered) may get a name and a blessing.  But I feel the Church is discriminating against gay couples and their children, since the new baptism/ordination/mission recommendation policy change does not apply to children of any other parents, regardless of their parents' religion, culture, or LDS-defined serious transgressions; it applies only to children of homosexual couples.  That is blatant discrimination, not love and compassion, and that is what makes this specific policy decision wrong.

Church's Modesty Standards Still Affect Me

This past August marked my second year of being out of the Church.  For the most part I'm doing well.  The only current goings-on I know about the Church are what my LDS family members and friends post on Facebook.  Most of the time they're inspirational quotes from Church leaders, and I usually scroll past those posts.  Occasionally something will catch my attention that I just roll my eyes at, like this past General Conference when some guy made up the word "ponderize" to try to make a point, and six or seven of my Facebook friends started using that word.  Stuff like that is really gimicky, and I just move on.  But every once in a while something catches my attention and it affects me strongly; that happened this past Thursday, and that's what I want to talk about here today.

In one of my first posts of this blog I listed the social reasons why I left the Church, and the first thing on the list was that the dress code and modesty standards skew members' views of sex and their understanding of sexuality.  What led me to that conclusion was an article I read online entitled "Men, Sex, and Modesty."  Well, this past Thursday I saw an article written by a woman named Tracy entitled "Perverting Modesty" that one of my Facebook friends "liked", and it was from the same website where the "Men, Sex, and Modesty" article was found, only written two years earlier.  It talks about how the Church's standards of modest dress affected Tracy, who was a convert to the Church.

Here is the article:  http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/07/09/perverting-modesty/

When I read that article, bad memories and feelings came flooding back to me.  It broke my heart to read about Tracy's experience.  To read about the embarrassment she felt when some "well-meaning" woman told her that the dress she was wearing—which made her feel pretty and was nice enough to feel specialùwas inappropriate, hurt my heart.

Reading this article on Thursday reminded me of an unexpected experience I'd had the day before.

I wear this shirt around the house sometimes:  https://www.pyramidcollection.com/itemdy00.aspx?T1=PB5103+BL+2X3X  because it's one of the styles I like, and now that I'm not a member of the Church I can wear whatever I want.  Wednesday I wore this top with a recently-purchased floor-length red skirt.  I'm overweight and so I often don't feel very attractive; but I was surprised to find that as I wore that outfit around the house that day, I felt tall, I felt poised, and I felt pretty.  When my husband came home from work, he saw me and said I looked voluptuous, and that added to how good I felt.  But earlier that afternoon I'd had a strange experience.  I had walked out the front door and around the side of the house to bring a bag of trash to the trash bin, and I realized that I was hyper-aware of what I was wearing.  The only people outside were a woman my age with her young child, and I don't think the woman even saw me, but in my mind I felt like all the neighbors could see me from their houses and that I was being judged for what I was wearing, both because it's not something people usually wear, but also because of the amount of skin I was showing (midriff and shoulders).  It was then that I realized that the Church's standard of modest clothing still affects how I think others see and judge me.

I talked a little bit in my "Control" post last year about my problems with the Church's attempts to control its members' sexuality.  I'm going to elaborate on the topic specifically regarding clothing by using my own personal experiences, because since writing that post, I've come to better understand the issue of the Church's dress standards.

The Church has very strict dress standards for its members.  I was regularly taught that our body is a temple where the spirit of the Lord can reside if we're clean and virtuous, and we're supposed to keep our body covered to please the Lord.  Any time members start reading the Book of Mormon over again, they usually make it to at least Jacob, and in Jacob 2:28 we read, "For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women.  And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts."  There are other scriptures from the Bible that also talk about the virtue of women: Proverbs 12:4 says, "A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones," and Proverbs 31:10 says, "Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies."  The way a girl or a woman dresses is a superficial and utterly wrong way to judge her virtue, but that's the reality of LDS culture.

As a teenager I was taught that it's up to us girls to keep boys' thoughts pure by keeping ourselves modestly clothed, which included wearing shirts that had sleeves that at least covered the shoulders, and shorts and skirts that were no higher than the knees.  This caused me to believe that boys were so easily aroused that shoulders and knees were enough to put immoral thoughts in their heads.  I also was instantly resentful of any Mormon girls who showed up to church or school wearing shirts that showed their shoulders (or more) and skirts that came up to the mid-thighs.  In my mind, they were taught the same standards that I was, and now they were going to get the attention from boys and I wasn't, because of how they were dressed.  It seemed to me that they were trying to get the boys interested in them by dressing that way.  I got that idea from the "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet, which says in its Dress and Appearance section: "Never lower your dress standards for any occasion. Doing so sends the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval and that modesty is important only when it is convenient."  Whether or not that was the case with each girl, I don't know, but I believed it; I believed that's what those girls were doing, and I thought it was unfair.  I'm just glad I never said anything to them about what they were wearing; if I had, I would regret it now.

As a woman I see that the problem is just as bad for adult women.  Matthew 5:28 (and 3 Nephi 12:28) says, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."  As we women remember from our Young Women lessons, men are overly-sexual and the sight of shoulders and kneecaps are enough to get them sexually aroused and lustful.  Thus, any woman who knowingly dresses immodestly at church is causing other women's husbands to commit adultery in their hearts.  Not all women consciously realize that's what's going on, but subconsciously that fear is absolutely there.

The Church leaders don't have to constantly remind adult women of the need to dress modestly.  The temple garment ensures that hem lengths will be a certain length, because having garment sleeves and legs sticking out from underneath clothing looks stupid.  But not only that, the judgmentalness (is that a word?) of other women will be enough to keep women in check.  As Tracy showed in the "Perverting Modesty" article, there are plenty of women in the Church who are more than willing to point out clothing of ours that's "inappropriate" and "immodest".  Shaming can go a long way in regulating behavior.

Once I left the Church, almost like magic I was no longer judgmental of women wearing spaghetti straps or skirts that came above the knees.  I distinctly remember one day shortly after leaving the Church, I saw a woman walk past me in a store wearing a tank top and I thought, "Her shoulders are showing... and it's fine! ... She looks fine."

That was a turning point for me.  Over the next few weeks I discarded my old Church-dictated modesty standards and I examined my wardrobe and played around with hem lengths, determined to discover what was flattering on my body and what helped me look my best.  And guess what?  The styles that make me look my best and that make my body look the most proportional are considered "immodest" by Church standards.  And I found myself not caring, because I actually looked good now!  I had been looking disproportional all these years and I never noticed because up until then I had only been concerned with "modest" hem lengths and good colors on me.  And it turns out that my husband doesn't care, either.  I asked him on Thursday night how he would feel if I wore yesterday's outfit in public, and he said quite honestly that he'd be fine with it; it wouldn't bother him at all.  I asked him why not, and he said he didn't know.  I suspect it's because he knows I'm not out there trying to seduce people with showing some skin.  He knows this is my style (I wear it often at home) and that I'm comfortable in it, and I'm guessing he likes that I'm comfortable enough with my body to express myself in the way I dress, and that I would have no ulterior motives if I wore outfits like that in public.

I admire the people who aren't afraid to express themselves in public through the way they dress, even if they're what American society considers "unconventional" styles.  It takes courage to go against the norm, and I'm working up to it myself.  Unfortunately, members of the Church aren't as free to do so.  If you go against the Church's approved dress standards, you risk getting ostracized by the members (mostly the women; it's different for the guys), and because the social aspect of church is such a big part of the LDS experience, you will very quickly find yourself on the outside of all social circles.  You'll probably get called into the bishop's office for a little chat, too, which is embarrassing.  Your options are to conform, to not conform and get ostracized, or to leave.

I truly hope the leaders of the Church will reevaluate this fixation and obsession with dress standards, because these standards are very superficial and they are what causes such judgmentalness among the girls and women of the Church.  And yes, there is causation there.  But I know it will never change.  The Church likes to pride itself on standing out from the rest of society, of staying firm to "God's" dress standards while the rest of the world changes their fashions, and of "being in the world but not of the world."  Not only that, but the Church also has scriptures like this: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (D&C 1:38).  So as long as the Church leaders feel that these dress standards should stay the way they are, then they're supposedly speaking for the Lord, and so nothing will change.  And millions of girls and women will continue to be taught that they are directly responsible for keeping the minds of boys and men pure, and they will continue to judge one another's virtue and interpersonal intentions based on the length of their clothing.

The author of the article spoke the words of my heart when she said: "I wish I could erase this twisted idea of modesty from my experience."  I've shed a lot of the Church's view of modest dress from my mind, but part of me is still affected by it as I found out last week, and I still have a way to go before it truly doesn't affect my life anymore.  I want to feel free to express myself through my clothing without worrying about who's judging me for showing more shoulder or more leg than is Church-appropriate.