How I Stay

It's not exactly a secret that, while I defend the Church online, I often struggle with it personally. I am a divorced, still and probably endlessly single mom. I am an opinionated and outspoken female. I am great at acquaintance-friendship, but struggle mightily trying to find the real thing. My schedule means that I say "no" far more than I should, if I were a "good Mormon woman."

The "Frozen" Bandwagon; Whereon Sitting, Our Bums Get Cold

A flurry of criticisms, cross-criticisms, and reasoned posts about the movie Frozen have been spinning around like a swirling storm in the wake of the movie's acclaim. This movie deeply disappointed me, not because of any hidden agenda or scary subtext, but because it wasn't enough. The plot was 100% predictable, I knew exactly what was going to happen before it did, and with such a stunning playground of deep relationships to utilize, it lived far below its potential. (Note: my prediction for the next step is a sequel about Anna's marriage and a love interest for Elsa, which will only ruin it more.)

And yet, despite my disappointment in the outcome, there are a few places that the glorious potential of the storyline peeks out, just to show us what we're missing. I don't want to harp on the disappointing parts, I want to explore that great part, and maybe contradict some of the concerns.

Unrighteous Questions

As I am certain my parents would attest, I am big on asking questions. Even now, I have little shame in probing into the how and why of everything from human motivation to scientific knowledge, though I would hope I've developed a little more tact than I once had.

It is my parents' fault, of course. One of my earliest memories is, as a 3-year-old in Sunbeam class at church, sharing what I heard in Church that day only to have my dad ask me why I believed it. Because of that gift of a questioning spirit, at eight years old I was fully prepared with a testimony of the truthfulness of Jesus Christ, the Book of Mormon, and the story of Joseph Smith's vision. I had actually read that book myself and prayed as he did.

That is a gift that every parent should try to give their children. I only hope that I do half as well as my parents did with me.

That burning need to understand, to experience and know things for myself, is a huge part of what draws me to internet discussions. There are fewer social courtesies online, things can be discussed that many people would hesitate to share in person. My beliefs are questioned and challenged, and I thrive on that.

Questions help me delve more deeply into myself, help me reach out to my God more fully. They keep me from ever being satisfied with what I know and who I am.

There is a darker side to questioning, however, which I am beginning to see more clearly.

Flirting, Dating, Modesty, and Sexual Assault

A flurry of interesting conversations on modesty have made the rounds recently. There seems to be an attitude that if you dress provocatively, you invite sexual advances. There is a counterargument that the way we teach women to dress modestly FOR THE PURPOSE of dissuading men to approach them inappropriately teaches women that they are on some level objects for the taking.

I'm think there is merit to both sides. Because on the one hand, it is true. If you dress in a way that, compared with the culture around you, is immodest, you will be the focus of more sexual advances. It is just as true that those men who take a woman's appearance as an open invitation are complete and utter cads.

I am a woman who has lived with a kernel of fear most of her life. NOT that I'd be raped (though that is part of it) but that I'd lead a man on, inadvertently "invite" him to take advantage of me in ANY way by the way I dress, talk, or act. No woman is completely safe from men. I believe that. I also believe that not all men are the source of danger, though I don't really know how to tell the difference.

This makes it very hard to flirt, to show I'm interested in a guy.

Which, ironically, makes me a prime target for the sort of man who has always been attracted to me: the sort that is looking for prey, not an equal partner. Because from his perspective, HE is intrigued by the hoops he has to jump through to get me. HE is willing to do whatever it takes to get his mark, even slog through my reticence. (For those of you who have seen Bachelorette, Bentley is a common type of this sort of man.)

I think that the best way to deal with both the realities and the ideal is to stop telling women to dress to help control men's thoughts, and teach them to dress modestly because in the minds of (at best) immature men, they are seen on at least one level as objects and they should want to do everything they can to command respect.

I understand that, our mortal state being what it is, otherwise righteous men might have an errant thought at times because they are attracted to a woman. But this happens regardless of dress, to my understanding. It could be anything, a flash of throat, a toss of hair, even the scent of shampoo.

So rather than telling women to stop doing what triggers those thoughts (because that would be impossible anyways,) start telling men AND women that HAVING those thoughts is natural, not evil. However, natural doesn't mean good. As mature adults, they have the ability to develop complete control over whether or not they'll turn the passing thought into action. They most certainly have the ability to control how they see the woman who excites their hormonal interest.

Just because you men have the thoughts, doesn't mean we women did anything to encourage it. And just because you men are attracted to us, doesn't mean we are attracted to you. And even if we are attracted to you, that doesn't mean you have a right to us and our bodies, EVEN IF WE ARE MARRIED TO YOU.

The Doctrinal Side of Abuse

The core of abuse is control. Any time we try to control another person, we are opening ourselves up to possibly abusing them. The main difference between "merely" attempting to control a person and actually abusing them is only by degree; how far are you willing to go to attempt that control?

This is why it is so difficult to label abuse, and why it is so difficult for victims of abuse to be believed. When a woman goes to someone and says "he got mad at me and broke some of my things," a typical first thought is something like, "well, that's not all that bad, I've wanted to break things before." Just like Satan's methods of leading us down to hell, the difference is gradual. Our desire to control our environment coupled with our belief in our own invulnerability, makes it all too easy to align ourselves with abusers rather than victims.

I remember hearing stories of abused women and thinking, "I would never let someone hit me." I've heard others say similar things, "Well, if it was me, I'd have kicked him right out of the house the moment he laid a finger on me."

But it's not that easy. Just like Bugs Bunny's lines to cross, there is never a clear-cut moment of no return until it's too late.

There are many cases where the priesthood has been used to attempt control. Often, this leaves members bitter about their experiences and cautious when dealing with priesthood leaders. But the Lord taught that those who attempt to control are not actually working by the powers of heaven. He also pointed out that most of us who are given power immediately try to use that power to control. In other words, the tendency to abuse is part of our natural man status, and is normal.

But normal does not mean acceptable.

I believe that one of the best weapons in the fight against abuse is self-realization. If we realize that all of us have this tendency to control, and that we are separated from abusers only by our unwillingness to go to certain lengths, we are empowered to recognize controlling behavior before it blossoms into abuse, both in ourselves and in others.

And, while I'll not go into detail here, there is much to be learned about the powers of heaven and the structure of eternity once we master this concept.

Angry at Myself

I guess this shows that progress can often be two steps forward and one step back. After having spent several weeks doing much better on blogs, not getting involved in any pointless disagreements, I find myself once again embroiled in a discussion I wish I had never entered.

How is it that something that begins as an attempt to have a gentle discussion so quickly becomes highly emotional? How is it that I move from discussion to feeling defensive so quickly? Perhaps it is once again time to adopt a more strict commenting policy for myself. I get indescribably frustrated with myself when I try to communicate with caring and fail so spectacularly.

Am I also the only one who gets into a discussion and tries to empathize with the other's viewpoint to the point where I get confused and unable to articulate?

The Glory of Self-Censorship

Another thought sparking across my mind lately is the topic of censorship. Censorship is a bad word, right? I have seen a friend of mine (if I'm allowed to use the word, BiV?) talk about beginning to censor herself only to get jumped on by a few people. "What?! You can't censor yourself! What a travesty! What a disaster!!!" I'd like to disagree. Self-censorship is a sign of maturity and well-developed self-awareness.

Now, I'm not advocating censoring something merely because it is controversial. The ability to censor oneself and to think before one speaks (or writes), however, is vital. Mind-vomit, whether oral or written, can cause irreparable damage. Internet mind vomit, for the best example, can easily become immortalized. Your bad day might translate into quotations spread across the internet and used in ways you couldn't possibly have imagined, sometimes to attack the things you hold most dear. Before we invent mental gunpowder, I believe we ought to at least examine the possibility that it might be used for more than just pretty fireworks.

With the advent of the internet, suddenly people with no qualifications necessary are streaming information out into public space. Some of this information is better than other information. Often opinions are spread as facts - the more controversial they are, the faster they spread. The drive to titillate, to be recognized in the wider world, often supersedes our better sense. It is vital that we literary laymen think before we write.

Venting has its place, but that place is not the internet. Not unless you want your periodic venting to illustrate others' perceptions of you until the end of time. As members of the Church we have a particular responsibility to represent the Lord "at all times and in all things, and in all places" of our lives. We have promised God that we would do so by our baptism. Those times, things and places include the internet. If we use the internet - the most public forum conceivable - to spew forth every petty criticism our minds can think up, we not only endanger our own testimonies, we are also responsible for all who read those words. Once it's out there, you can never erase it.

No, you shouldn't hide the questions and the problems you have. But, rather than criticizing and complaining, demonstrate how to work through these problems with faith, patience and humility. Show them how a disciple of the Lord behaves. We all have our own Lights of Faith to shine out into the darkness. Don't replace the pure light of faith with the neon sign of controversy. Don't cover your light with the basket of discontent. You'll find if you cover it long enough, it will go out.

Separation and Self

I have a concept that's been nagging me for awhile. It dates back to a past thread and a post by another blogger that used my comments as an example of exclusion. To put a bit of background to it, someone was expressing a feeling of being left out by the Church policy of temple marriage, with a caveat that those policies should be changed somehow to include those not worthy to enter the temple. The corollary was that family (especially at weddings) was more important than the sacredness of the temple ceremony, and that by excluding people from the temple, the Church was belying its own family-oriented tenets. My comments essentially were meant to say that the Church excluded no one from the temple ceremony, but an individual's own choices excluded them. Though I see this point of view of one barred from a temple ceremony, I don't agree with it.

If I had friends or family who believed in a religion and had a very sacred ceremony that I could not attend, I'm not saying I'd skip with joy, but I'd respect their faith and not expect them to change it to suit me. I would probably not convert (since my beliefs are elsewhere,) but I would accept that it was my choice of faith that excluded me, not the faith itself. I really don't understand why blame must be fixed to the institution.

In addition, I feel that it is not of God to include everyone in everything, no matter their personal choices. In order for the orders of glory to be valuable, there must be rules set to govern those orders. Those rules must be met in order to receive the glory. It makes no more sense to admit everyone to the temple than it would to award everyone an "A" no matter the effort or answers given. If everything is rewarded equally, than there can be no measure of progression - or indeed, no progression at all. There would be no goal to reach, no standard to attain, and no real choices to make. All would be saved, yes, but that salvation would be without meaning. All would pursue their own right and wrong with no substance or direction.

In essence, all would be as Satan would have it. I wish someone who feels otherwise could explain to me why it would not be that way, rather than just rejoicing in their believed superiority of inclusion.