Naming the Rose

One of my favorite authors, Madeleine L'Engle, explored the concept of Naming in her book, A Wind in the Door. To summarize, Naming is a process by which a Namer understands a thing and Names it what it truly is. Like so many of the spiritual ideas in L'Engle's work, this one resonated with me. Scripturally, it would explain why God and His messengers so often name the people they speak with before they deliver their message.

There is also an immense social power in the power of naming. That is why stereotypes will always exist to some extent. Names are symbols. When you name something, you bring with it all the connotation and symbolism inherent in that name. Perhaps this is why we so often try to define the people in our lives by certain names. This is the jock. He is the geek. She is the cheerleader. They are the Mormons.

Sometimes names mean slightly different things to different people, which is why miscommunication happens. Names act as a mental shorthand, allowing us to mean far more than we actually say. The Church's struggle with the name "Mormon" makes perfect sense in this context. Some people think "Mormon" and think plural wives, devil horns and child molestation. Others think of charitable works, the MoTab and temples.

If we accept a name that might not fit us with all its connotations, we find ourselves explaining a lot. Yes, I'm Mormon. No, I don't have any sister wives. Yes, I go to the temple. Yes, I believe the Bible.

Yet, perhaps there is power in explaining a name as well. So long as we don't let ourselves be defined by the name, but choose to define the name itself, we can accept it. As we do this, we have to be careful that when we are Named, we are truly understood. That means taking a Name upon us which we keep sacred by the way we live, the way we treat others.

Sure, "Mormon" is a name which can apply to us, but "disciple of Christ" should be the ultimate Name by which we are known. That should be the name that He Names us.

And remember, according to L'Engle, in order to be Named, the Namer has to understand the core of who we are. To be Named Christ's disciple, we have to truly be His.

Evidence Against Evolution

Everything that is "bad for you" tastes good, and almost everything good for you tastes bad. You would think that we would have developed a better taste for things that are healthy. On top of all that, why is it that in order to extend our life, we have to do something that leaves us flat-on-our-back, every-inch-hurting the next day? Wouldn't survival of the species mean less cosmic retribution for trying to be healthy? Wouldn't propagating the species lead to better physique and survival traits?*

I'm just sayin'.**





*Can you tell I'm starting to try to lose baby weight?

**No, this is not a serious post. If you truly feel the need to argue the pros and cons of faith in evolution, however, you may use the comments below. Just don't expect me to respond. I'll be over on the floor, whimpering in pain, begging for Cold Stone.

Recreating a Testimony, Recreating Oneself

Once upon a time, I was completely sure of my testimony in God. My eyes were on the celestial goal, I knew where I was going. I knew how to get there. My life wasn't easy. I battled with various temptations and sins, but I believed that if I just worked hard enough, tried hard enough, it would be enough.

"Now and then I confess you cross my mind.
Now and then I guess I have a little too much time.
I've changed my way of thinking.
I've tried hard to separate
what came too soon
from what came too late."

But I ended up throwing all my effort behind a series of ventures that not only failed to move me closer to my goal, but threw me backwards. They crumbled my beliefs in myself, made me realize that I was nothing. Literally nothing. All my years of effort to become what I wanted to be, all my sense of accomplishment was nothing. I had failed. Giving it my all was not enough. Was once again not enough.

"I don't think about me in terms of you.
I don't think about you in terms of us.
I don't think about us in terms of love."

Did I ever fail to believe that God was there? Did I ever doubt His existence? No. But I doubted my place in His eyes, doubted that I had what it took to join Him again. I looked at my life, my mistakes, and thought myself irredeemable. Surely I was not worth rebuilding from the dust of my dreams and hopes. Surely the Atonement could not heal this.

"I don't think about then in terms of now,
I found a way to start again somehow.
I don't think about what we thought it was
in terms of love."

Frantically, I tried to hold everything together, to allow my failure to make as little impact in the lives of my friends and family as possible. But I knew somewhere deep inside that I was as hollow as a dead cocoon, full of expired potential. I had spent everything foolishly, and now it was gone.

"I'm countin' on heaven to understand.
I didn't mean to go and mess up all the plans.
Sometimes you know where you should go
Before you know the way."

Gradually, without feeling it or seeing it at first, I came to realize what the Atonement really means. It means continuing forward even though I can't see how to go where the Lord wants me to go. It means realizing that I'm nothing, yet believing that God, the master potter, is powerful enough to create beauty from the dust of my soul.

"I'll bother with tomorrow
Once I've made it through today."

It means not looking forward any more than I have to, but enjoying where I am right now. It means fully and literally handing over the responsibility for creation back to Him. It means forgiveness, forgiveness of debt. It means letting Him hold the debt that others owe me, and allowing Him to pay me what I might be owed. It means no longer worrying about what should have been or could have been, or even what will be, but simply trusting Him.

"But thus saith the Lord, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children."
Isaiah 49:25

Letting go.

"I don't think about black in terms of gray
Or revelations in the light of day."

Letting go, but no longer making excuses for others. Not automatically assuming that others' opinions and viewpoints have more merit than my own. Trusting myself, as well, to be a good person. Allowing myself to do my best without expecting perfection. No longer craving constant revelation and guidance because I don't trust my own ability to discern and choose.

"I don't think about cold in terms of ice
Or second chances happenin' twice."

It is total reliance on God for the outcome, constantly seeking His guidance, yes, but not waiting on it. It is moving forward with faith. Forgiving myself for not letting other people stomp me to the ground one more time. No longer making others' problems my problems. Saying good-bye, even if they can't. Allowing them to take their own salvation in their hands so that I can work out mine. Maybe it isn't "happily ever after," but someday it will be.

"And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done?

"Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

"Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

"And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen."
2 Nephi 31:19-21

*lyrics from SheDaisy, "In Terms of Love"

Culture vs. Doctrine: Conformity is not a Swear Word

I have been thinking quite a lot over the past several years about a few issues that seem to fall into the same basket—women wearing pants to church, women longing for the priesthood, two-hour block meetings, lesson correlation, who says prayers in what order—and proposed behavior in regards to these issues. These issues trouble me because although I can agree with the dilemmas inherent in these issues, I most strongly do not agree with most of the grassroots actions proposed by complainants.

To clarify, let me use one recent example of what I mean. A woman posts a link about wearing pants to Church and the conflict that has been caused by it, listing her reasons for wearing pants despite knowing the conflict and discomfort it is likely to cause. Many other people vent their spleens about how backwards and anti-woman no-pants-wearing-at-church-rules are, some sharing stories about injustices suffered, others sharing stories about how it made no difference. Some imagine up saucy rejoinders to say to any unfortunate leader trying to correct such behavior, others belabor the notion that dress-wearing is cultural bias, not salvational doctrine. (With the automatic assumption that anything cultural is worthless.) Wearing pants to church becomes a symbol of intelligence and strength. And, usually, anyone who might proffer an opinion that it is less than appropriate to wear pants is perceived as backwards, suppressed, or other such adjectives. (Please note that this example is about a principle, not about pants. Frankly, Scarlett, I don't care if a woman wears pants to Church. To me, if it really is a symbol of true strength and intelligence, no one would feel the need to flaunt it and make it into a status symbol.)

I came across a rather interesting scripture that I think applies to situations like this where people feel a need to flaunt their actions which are against ambient culture.

"If any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

"As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

"But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

"But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

Basically, this is teaching that although you might know that a particular practice is ridiculous from an eternal standpoint, and has no bearing on eternity, that it is a sin against Christ to actively work to flaunt that knowledge in the face of those who do not have the same understanding.

To use another example, I design the ward bulletin. Every week, I take the various bits of information and put them together. Two weeks in a row, I was told that the "Smith" and the "Brown" couples would be speaking. The first week, I put Sister Smith before Brother Smith on the agenda, the second week, I put Brother Brown before Sister Brown. They switched themselves (I suppose because of the cultural practice that dictates women speak before men.) It bothered me because it seemed to be a slap in the face. (It is a pet peeve of mine when people assume unspoken instructions.) However, after thinking a great deal about it, I realized that it was nothing more than my own pride that was bruised. It doesn't really matter who speaks first, and if they want to arrange it that way, it harms nothing in an eternal sense.

I understand that this principle can be taken too far the other way. Conformity for conformity's sake has a place, but in moderation. One could drive oneself batty trying to match everyone's expectations. However, like everything else, there is a balance. Culture may be wrong, but if squabbling over a petty cultural false conception means that another person will be filled with anger and/or mimic your behavior out of rebellion, it is not worth it.

Sometimes (but not always) Christ's purposes are better filled by simply conforming. After all, He may have rubbed the lawmakers of His day the wrong way by disobeying their made-up spiritual laws, but He very rarely made a point of it unless they first came after Him. Look at Ammon. By judiciously conforming, he changed the course of spiritual history for his entire people.

Cheating and Abuse

I was pondering about what—and if—I should post any more about abuse. At the same time, I was still mulling over Dr. Oz's recent show (yes, it was still bothering me.) I finally think I've put my finger on why his show impacted me so strongly.

According to the show, 90% of men who cheat claim they do so not because of lack of sex or attraction to a prettier woman, but because they do not feel appreciated at home. Something about that ached like a sore tooth, and I just couldn't stop pushing it around with my figurative tongue. It bothered me partially because "not feel[ing] appreciated" seemingly puts the responsibility on the men: after all, realistically no one can make another person feel anything, and yet it carries the implied assumption that if only the woman had done more in the relationship, the man would not have cheated. In other words, it places blame for cheating squarely on the spouse's shoulders.

Now, why would this be, and why does it bother me so much?

The answer came as I was re-reading a document profiling abusers in custody disputes. It reads, "most batterers do not have an inordinate need for control, but rather feel an inordinate right to control under family and partnership circumstances."

In other words, it is generally not an emotional lack on the part of a batter which drives him to abuse, it is a feeling of entitlement: that for whatever reason, the batterer deserves control.

That is when it came to me: cheating is only another form of abuse.

If a cheater truly felt an emotional lack at home, there are many honest means open to him to deal with that lack. Instead, the cheater uses that supposed emotional lack from his spouse to justify his behavior, to make himself feel entitled to sex with another woman.

Add to that the fact that many cheating men still have sex with their wives, opening them up to sexual disease without disclosing their philandering to them, (a fact which Dr. Oz used to emphasize the importance that every woman be tested for sexually transmitted disease yearly,) and a very ugly and strange picture of emotional and sexual abuse is painted. How disgusting is the concept that a woman who is legally married must fear for her health and safety, let alone that she must carry the responsibility of detecting sexual infidelity?

As a woman who was in an emotionally abusive relationship, I can testify that the last thing I would have done was confront my spouse or tried to determine the truth of his behavior. I didn't want to know. I felt that I was nice, a good wife, by looking the other way and allowing him to repent in his own time.

So I call baloney. 90% of men might claim they cheat because they don't feel appreciated at home, but in reality they are just like abusers. They cheat out of a complicated tangle of low self esteem, a childish inability to accept responsibility, and a sense of entitlement.

Dr. Oz and the Science of Cheating: Are Men Worth It?

If this is how men really are, I don't want one.

I don't usually watch Dr. Oz, but a lazy day off contributed to more TV time than normal. I only caught about half the show before I couldn't handle it any more and I switched channels. The topic does seem to be rather out of what I thought were his usual healthy lifestyle tips, however. Basically, the essence of the show was that men cheat for two main reasons: 1) they have a gene that predisposes them to it and 2) they don't feel appreciated at home.

The other crux of conversation was how a woman can tell if her man is lying to her, involving detection of various body language cues, and summed up by claiming that a woman's gut intuition is the best indication, putting responsibility for detection on her. My stomach wrenches literally even now when I think about it. I am surprised by my emotional reaction to this. Normally I can just shake these sorts of shows off my back.

I admit that I am particularly sensitive because of a relationship where I suspected cheating at various times over six years, and looked the other way because I believed that if I only gave him time and space, he would realize his errors on his own. I also believed strongly in making my man feel appreciated, and ripped myself to shreds trying to do just that, with the end result that nothing I gave was enough. He was convinced he was both underappreciated and worthless (a strange dichotomy!) and nothing I had to say on the subject mattered or was even heard by him. I faced many accusations of not being there enough, and so I'd try to "be there" more . . . until there was little "me" left in the "being there."

Add that his "gut intuition" was convinced I was cheating on him, despite his being horribly wrong—a gut intuition which eventually contributed wildly to the destruction of my marriage—and no wonder I have severe reactions to this idea of a suspicious and fact-checking relational climate.

At any rate, I don't normally post this sort of topic here, except that in struggling with this issue I came to something that I thought of some eternal worth.

I feel the Spirit brought to my mind Jacob's speech to his priesthood brethren. Perhaps there is something to the studies Dr. Oz quotes that roughly 54% of men cheat because they have a gene, because they are just naturally more prone to that behavior, (which also brought to mind the online outcry against the tendency of Conference talks to praise women's righteousness.) In verses 31-33, Jacob quotes the Lord as saying,

"For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people . . . because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people . . . shall come up unto me against the men of my people . . . For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction . . . ."

For nature is no excuse. This is just another iteration of argument that demonstrates the insidiousness of "my genes made me do it" approaches to human behavior. There are many people with a genetic predisposition to anger. This does not mean that murder is okay. And yet, so many people seem to believe that if they have a gene which predisposes them to promiscuity or a host of other traits, that somehow Nature's seal of approval justifies them. And yet, both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that nature is unable to receive God . . . in fact, that nature is an enemy to God. Because of the Fall, nature leads to sorrow and sin, rather than lasting pleasure, eternal pleasure.

And, as I struggled with a surprisingly strong cacophony of emotions, I realized that this is part of Satan's great wedge driven between the genders and through families. After all, if most men are unfaithful, and if that is justified in their eyes, what is the point of having men at all? Why should women even bother with men other than on a very limited, physical basis, when their real, emotional needs are ignored and trampled to the ground by them? Why?

Because I have to believe God when He gave the priesthood to men. I have to believe that there are still men out there who honor Him and their priesthood. I cannot believe that God would give His authority to a people so wholly undeserving. There must be men who love Him the way I am learning to love Him—perhaps not perfectly, but wholeheartedly—men who seek the Lord and "take delight in approaching to God". Even if He never leads me to such a man in marriage in this life, I have met a few such men, men who do not look at scientific studies to excuse behavior, but lift their eyes to that Savior who gave them life. I know they exist, and for that, I am grateful. Further, I have to believe that God's promises to me regarding such a marriage will be kept. I may have no evidence of such a relationship for me, but I have faith.

And faith trumps Dr. Oz and all the studies in the world.

Valentines Day for Singles

Last year, Valentine's Day was nearly one week after I had been attacked by my spouse. Although, by this time, I had begun to recover (speaking of emotionally, as I had no physical wounds), I was still having bouts of uncontrollable trembling. I suppose that on some level, I knew that the worst was still ahead of me. Needless to say, I had things on my mind besides valentines.

Now, almost a year later, the fear comes less often, and I find myself wanting to reach out and tell the people I care about how much they have meant to me in this past year, especially since many of them are also single. I think that, perhaps, it has taken a deep betrayal of love for me to treasure genuine love and caring, and know how to genuinely love and care.

I imagine this is what is meant when the Lord teaches that by tasting bitterness, we learn to prize what is sweet and good. After some time suffering outside of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve rejoice, saying, "Were it not for our transgression we never should have . . . known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient." I think I understand a little more how they felt.

Although I was never a fan of Valentine's Day (I still strongly dislike pink), this year it has caused me to reflect on love, and how real love almost always comes bittersweet, through sacrifice. I hope that I will be better able to "comfort those that stand in need of comfort . . . " as a better disciple of He who indelibly demonstrated love, and that I can "bind up the brokenhearted" and bring healing into the lives of those who need the Savior, the way I have been comforted and healed.

And someday, I hope that if I ever have a chance to love a spouse again, that I will be wise because of my experience, and choose to love someone who understands love.

Even if that means he has also learned by experience.