Irony

In the February Relief Society newsletter for our ward, the presidency message cited Daughters in My Kingdom. Yay!

But, the quotation was by Brigham Young. Boo...
Read more . . .

Mary Whitmer--Another Witness

I really like teaching primary. I am having a great time with my class and I have been happy to leave the mainstream adult classes in exchange for hanging out with 10 and 11 year olds. One of my students--L-- is a budding feminist. Or at the least, she has become increasingly conscious of differences between men and women in the church. And she often asks questions about it. In a recent lesson about the restoration of the priesthood, she asked "so, if men get the priesthood, what do women get?" (very difficult conversation ensues, I'm trying to think of something to say while at the same time squelching the comments from the kid in the back of the room saying "they get to cook dinner!)

In another lesson on the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, I was puzzling over why none of the witnesses were women. It didn't seem like there was any divine reason why women couldn't have witnessed the plates--why not let Emma have a reward for her hard earned faith? I suppose in this time period--the late 1820's-- testimonies coming from women would not have carried the same legitimacy and weight as those coming from men. And as it turned out, the first three witnesses were heavily involved in the translation from the start and actually requested to be witnesses. But, still...

During the lesson, L asked if there were any women who were witnesses. I was happy to have thought about it a bit before the question came up, and even happier that the lesson manual contained the story of Mary Whitmer. Joseph, Emma, and Oliver Cowdery were staying in the Whitmer home during some of the translation, and the bulk of the extra housework fell on Mary. (To which L replied a bit caustically, "Why couldn't the men help?) According to the manual, Mary did all the extra work without complaining, and felt like it was her contribution to the work. She was glad to do it, despite her exhaustion. One day, when she was out milking the cow, a man carrying a knapsack came and showed her the gold plates.

Here is an account of this experience written by one of her grandchildren:

I have heard my grandmother (Mary Musselman Whitmer) say on several occasions that she was shown the plates of the Book of Mormon by a holy angel, whom she always called Brother Nephi. (She undoubtedly refers to Moroni, the angel who had the plates in charge.) It was at the time, she said, when the translation was going on at the house of the elder Peter Whitmer, her husband. Joseph Smith with his wife and Oliver Cowdery, whom David Whitmer a short time previous had brought up from Harmony, Pennsylvania, were all boarding with the Whitmers, and my grandmother in having so many extra persons to care for, besides her own large household, was often overloaded with work to such an extent that she felt it to be quite a burden. One evening, when (after having done her usual day's work in the house) she went to the barn to milk the cows, she met a stranger carrying something on his back that looked like a knapsack. At first she was a little afraid of him, but when he spoke to her in a kind, friendly tone and began to explain to her the nature of the work which was going on in her house, she was filled with inexpressible joy and satisfaction. He then untied his knapsack and showed her a bundle of plates, which in size and appearance corresponded with the description subsequently given by the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. This strange person turned the leaves of the book of plates over, leaf after leaf, and also showed her the engravings upon them; after which he told her to be patient and faithful in bearing her burden a little longer, promising that if she would do so, she should be blessed; and her reward would be sure, if she proved faithful to the end. The personage then suddenly vanished with the plates, and where he went, she could not tell. From that moment my grandmother was enabled to perform her household duties with comparative ease, and she felt no more inclination to murmur because her lot was hard. I knew my grandmother to be a good, noble and truthful woman, and I have not the least doubt of her statement in regard to seeing the plates being strictly true. She was a strong believer in the Book of Mormon until the day of her death.

Interesting that the manual version makes the point that she never complained with the extra work before the visitation by Moroni, while this account above seems to suggest that seeing Moroni helped her take up her work without complaining.

Why haven't I heard this story before?? I found a picture of their farm, but no picture of her. However, in 1997, the church made a film about this experience, but they don't sell it. I found a copy on Amazon. Hmm. Maybe I'll have to get it and show it to my class. It also includes a portrait of Eliza R. Snow.

Read more . . .

More music troubles

I am bugged. Why?

1. Why would a stake conference (not just our stake, but the whole region) be scheduled for Easter Sunday? We would never do anything like that for Christmas Sunday, and isn't Easter just as important a religious holiday as Christmas?

2. The music for stake conference will not be our Easter hymns. The only chance we get to sing them, but we won't be able to. However, on Mother's Day, we will get to sing Love at Home, and the first week in July, we will sing patriotic hymns. I don't understand why we can't sing Christ the Lord is Risen Today--one of the best songs in the entire hymnbook--for stake conference. Instead, we have to sing I Know That My Redeemer Lives, which in my opinion is oversung, at least in our ward.

Read more . . .

Christmas Music

Warning. I am going to complain.

I play the organ twice a month at church. I love it--twice a month is the perfect schedule for me. My favorite times of the year to play are Christmas and Easter. They are some of the few occasions when I can, literally, pull out all the stops. I can throw down some trumpet and really let the organ sound exuberant, joyful, and and jubilant. After all, we're talking about the birth and the resurrection of Jesus Christ here.

Christmas comes once a year. While we could sing Joy to the World in July, no one wants to do that. And with 15 songs in the hymn book devoted to Christmas topics, there isn't a lot of time to get to them all.

So you can imagine my dismay when I got the list of hymns for December and there were only four Christmas songs on the list. Four! Only four! A travesty. They included:

Silent Night
Oh Little Town of Bethlehem
Joy to the World
It Came Upon a Midnight Clear.

I suppose these were chosen because there are supposedly the truly necessary Christmas songs??

So, which are missing? The First Noel. Hark the Herald Angels Sing. Oh Come All Ye Faithful. Far Far Away on Judea's Plains. Away in a Manger. Angels We Have Heard on High. How can we go through a December without singing these songs? A true travesty.

Why only four? Well,the person who picks the music has certain ideas about what music you can sing when. On Fast Sunday you have to sing fast songs, even in December. And on the final Sunday of December you have to sing a New Year's song and a hymn to commemorate the birth of Joseph Smith.

I protested. This is just not right. So, a few changes were made. We got to sing one Christmas song the first week in December--Oh Come All Ye Faithful. We don't have to sing It Came Upon a Midnight Clear (is there anyone who prefers this song to Angels We Have Heard on High? Or Hark the Herald? This is one of my least favorite Christmas songs) because someone is doing it as a special musical number.

I fought long and hard for Far Far Away. We haven't done it either of the last two years that we have been here. The person who chooses the music told me last year when I complained about not getting to sing it that it's too hard for the congregation to sing. What?? Who cares if they don't sound perfect. Let's give those basses a fun and interesting part for once.

The choir sang The First Noel last Sunday, and I got to play for them. Ok, one other song we don't have to try to squeeze in.

And then today, to top things off, church was cancelled because of the weather. I have heard that all of today's music (congregation and special musical numbers)will be rescheduled for next Sunday. But, it's a disappointment.

I have a bigger problem than the logistics of December music. And it is this: why are somber and reverent songs more important (and more often chosen) to sing than joyful, triumphant, and exuberant songs? I have a problem that the congregation does not get to join together more often to sing the hymns of Christmas. I think this is as important (if not more so--for how often does everyone get to participate together? Only through the hymns.) as having every possible vocalist and instrumentalist perform.

Read more . . .

To Nurture

Susan W. Tanner from this morning's session of General Conference.

"To nuture is to teach, to foster development, to promote growth, to feed, and to nourish...The scriptures use the word nurture only twice and in both cases speak of the responsibility of parents to raise their children "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." President Hinckley also admonished both men and women to be nurturers.

This seems to be quite different from "Another word for nurturing is homemaking."

And I love how she clearly states that men and women should both be nurturers.

One small issue I had with her talk. I didn't like how she implies that the innate gift to nurture comes solely by virture of having XX chromosomes.

Read more . . .

My Nit-Picking Response to Mothers who Know

Back in October, we were in Italy. I didn't have a chance to listen to President Beck's talk directly, because of the time difference, and AJ was able to warn me that it could be potentially upsetting to me. I liked that I had some time to emotionally prepare for it. It didn't hit me over the head and I didn't have the extremely emotional negative reaction that I have had at other times. I've felt for a while that I should write out my thoughts about this talk, but didn't have the catalyst until today.


In RS, we had a lesson based mostly on her talk from October 2007, Mothers Who Know. We were also supposed to discuss Elder Oakes' talk, Good, Better, Best. Unfortunately, the teacher fell ill at the last minute, and our RS president stepped in to teach the lesson. I thought she did a great job filling is, but what got left behind was a cohesive melding of the two talks. While they complement each other very nicely, we didn't have time for Elder Oakes' talk, but spent the whole time on President Beck's.

I reread both talks this morning. I think that they are full of inspirational counsel. But, I should have known better than to sit through this lesson. Whenever discussions of "women's roles" come up at church, I tend to get antsy, upset, and frustrated. It wasn't that there were any comments that I hated or totally disagreed with. Maybe it's just my lingering issues that make me ultra-sensitive to any discussion in a church setting like this. I thought there were a lot of insightful comments. But, sometimes I just feel like a fish out of water.

And part of it is President Beck's talk itself. I feel like to get what is helpful to me out of it, I have to look beyond her words to what I think she means. Is that twisting her words? I feel like some sections of her talk were poorly worded, or that the emphasis was on the wrong things. I don't know, though. Maybe she really did want to emphasize what she did.

I'm going resist the urge to break apart everything that bugged me about this talk, but I want to vent about a couple of sections.

Mothers Who Know Honor Sacred Ordinances and Covenants:

Ok, sounds great. I totally agree with this sentiment. I feel like the section title is somewhat misleading, though, because she is talking more about helping kids to learn how to honor covenants. I suppose that when we help our kids make and keep covenants then we are honoring our own covenants?

But, my major issue has to do with her concrete example. According to her, mothers who know get their children ready for church with white missionary shirts and hair cuts, with clean and ironed dresses, and with perfectly brushed hair. By making our children neat and tidy for sacrament meeting, we show them how important it is to take the sacrament. Huh??? In Elder Oakes' parlance, I think that this is good. But what would be best, in my opinion, is coming to church spiritually ready to take the sacrament--I don't care if my teenage sons want to grow their hair longer and if they don't always have a white shirt on. We have some baseline of decency in how the kids look in getting ready for church, but I don't really think my three year old needs a tie on and his shirt tucked in at this point, and it just isn't worth the fight if my 6 year old daughter wants to wear an outfit that I don't like. Today, neither one of them got their hair combed, but I thought they looked fine. What is much more detrimental, in my mind, is when we show up to the pews angry and frustrated. When I have dragged them out of the house to get into the car. When we are not in a state of mind to be at church. We look fine and perhaps we smile at people as we enter. But, internally, we are not in a good place. I don't think Sister Beck would disagree that this is more important, but I really dislike her emphasis on the exterior and on appearances. Why focus on that to the exclusion of what's more important?

I almost raised my hand to comment on this today, but then didn't.

Mothers Who Know Are Nurturers

This was the section of the talk that I had the most problem with. Again, the section title is just fine with me. I nurture my children. (So does AJ for that matter.) Nurturing children is important, one of the most important things that both men and women do during their time on the earth.

The most troublesome statement of her entire talk to me is this: "Another word for nurturing is homemaking." Um, I guess with some clarification and more in depth discussion, I could accept that. Maybe. A big maybe. IF we are talking about making a home, about knitting together a family in love (as one woman suggested today in the lesson, but which Pres Beck doesn't say). If we set aside the common meaning of homemaking as the housework.

But, this is not what she does. She emphasizes the housework to the exclusion of a discussion of our relationships with our children. She talks about making home a place of order where we can have a climate for spiritual growth. I don't disagree that this is important. Instead, I am frustrated by what she leaves out. And I really dislike equating nurturing and homemaking. Why can't we separate them? I think that this is exactly what Elder Oakes does in his talk when he starts with the Mary and Martha story. One thing is expedient and Mary has chosen the better part.

This was the most uncomfortable part of the lesson for me. The RS president asked me to read this section of the talk since not a lot of women had the talk in from of them. Luckily, there was a small distraction comment from the time she asked me to read until the time the section needed to be read. Just enough time for me to pass the talk to the row in front of me to my understanding neighbor L. Yes, I refused to read the quotation. What really made me feel uncomfortable was that sitting next to L was the stake RS president. She could easily see, and she did see, the big black comments I had made next to that section: "totally disagree" and "ugh". Nice, huh? And then I felt like I had to respond somehow to my refusal to read that section and tried to state in a nice way why I didn't like the conflation of nurturing and homemaking. During that, I got emotional and started crying. Oh, why did I do that? I'm not even sure why I had that reaction. But, I felt pretty ridiculous for breaking down.

Anyway, the lesson went on and I was working internally to disengage myself from it. I didn't want to think much more about it the implications of the talk, what Pres Beck was trying to say to women. During the lesson, I had some more thoughts about my relationship with AJ and where we are on all these things. I think I'll do a separate post about that.

My other broad brush problems with Pres Beck's talk:

1. Very much targeted at middle class women in the United States.

2. It seemed to provide too narrow of a description for "mothers who know." I wish she would have talked broadly, to mothers, about becoming disciples of Jesus Christ, about seeking personal revelation, about finding our own personal paths, and building upon our talents. Again, I don't think she would say that any of these things is unimportant, but I struggle to understand why she chose to emphasize what she did.

3. So much of what she said is completely applicable to fathers. Just because I am a woman and mother, I don't have a corner on nurturing and household organization. Father who know are also teachers and leader. Families who know choose to do less. Why not talk about fathers too? If we're talking in ideals, then include the dads!

4. Some of the things that she said at the end of her talk, I really liked. Mothers who know do less--this section is about simplifying our lives, spending time together working and playing, not trying to do everything. This is just what Elder Oakes talk is about. This seems to directly contradict her earlier admonition about homemaking.

Anyway, I left RS feeling a little emotionally drained. I didn't really want to engage with anyone about the lesson or Pres Beck's talk or my (freakish) reaction to it. It was easier (!!!) to listen to people tell me that I looked like I was going to have a baby in a few minutes or that I looked like I was going to "pop" any moment. (Don't ever say anything like that to a very pregnant lady.)


Read more . . .

The North Star

I went to bed on Sunday night before I heard about President Hinckley's death. At about 11, AJ came in, and said my name in a loud whisper a couple of times. When I woke up a little bit, he told me the news. I pretty much went right back to sleep, but every time I woke up that night to turn over or go to the bathroom, I thought, "President Hinckley is dead." And I couldn't help but feel a little glad for him.
I was grateful that he did not have to endure a long period of illness and disability where he could not lead the church actively like he has been. Just recently, he spoke to churchwide audiences at both General Conference in October and at the Christmas devotional in December. And, according to people who attended, he spoke at a regional stake conference just a few weeks ago. This contrasts with the long health declines leading up to death of our previous three prophets with whom he was working closely.

I also felt grateful that he could be reunited with his beloved Marjorie. It has been almost 4 years since she died, and whenever he talked about her, you could tell how acutely he missed her. He said this about her in General Conference, October 2004:

My children and I were at her bedside as she slipped peacefully into eternity. As I held her hand and saw mortal life drain from her fingers, I confess I was overcome. Before I married her, she had been the girl of my dreams, to use the words of a song then popular. She was my dear companion for more than two-thirds of a century, my equal before the Lord, really my superior. And now in my old age, she has again become the girl of my dreams.

I don't remember many specifics from President Hinckley's talks. To me, he was more of a on-the-ground prophet, travelling to meet with members throughout the world, and advancing the cause of Zion through specific projects. I remember the electrifying moment when he announced the small temples initiative, which would make the blessings of the temple so much more accessible to the members of the church. Our area here was a recipient of one of these temples. We also lived in New York City when, shortly after 9/11, he announced that he was determined to see a temple built there before he died. In 2004, the New York City temple near Lincoln Center was dedicated. When he became church president in 1995, there were 47 temples. Today there are 124. Those temples stand as a memorial to the life of Gordon B. Hinckley.

A few years back in our New Jersey ward, the primary children performed a song about President Hinckley which was based on various experiences throughout his life. The first verse describes how when camping as a young boy, he noticed that Polaris didn't move through the sky during the course of the night. The chorus continues this theme:

Be constant as the North Star, that shines for you and me
Anchored in the Gospel with pure integrity
Steadfast in your service to God and fellowman
President Hinckley has shown us that we can.

I think that this analogy is a great one for President Hinckley's life of devotion to Lord and to Zion.

Read more . . .

New Church Time!

One of the best things of turning the calendar over to 2008 is that we now have church at 9:00 rather than 1. I left church to come home around 12:20 today, and reflected on how just last week at this same time, we were hurrying to finish lunch and get the kids into the car. Right now it's 2:10, the same time when last week I was sitting in a just ending sacrament meeting. Now, I am sitting in my comfy clothes, having just eaten nachos for lunch, with a lot of the day still spread out before me. The kids do so much better at this time. It makes for much more pleasant Sunday. I feel a little giddy about it. This contrasts with how bitter and cranky I felt about getting to and attending church for about the first 6 months of last year.
Read more . . .

Enrichment Dinner Over!

Last night was the annual Christmas enrichment dinner. Thankfully, it is over. I am relieved. These events are always so stressful for me. I was grateful to have two other women whom I delegated quite a bit, so while I oversaw both the dinner and the decorations, they took care of the details. Unfortunately, one is probably moving and the other will have a new baby (with me days away from my delivery) when the next enrichment is scheduled to happen. We need to figure out a way to handle that.

I ended up making three trifles for dessert and my kitchen was a total disaster when I left. I came home a little after 10 to find AJ mostly through the dishes. What a good man. I didn't take photos of my trifle. I dyed the whipped cream for chocolate one pink and sprinkled crushed peppermints on top and throughout. AJ took care of its aesthetic aspect by decorating the top with mint leaves.

The dinner was delicious and I think people enjoyed it. I was in charge of the program. I think it went pretty well. Next year, if I am in still in charge of enrichment, I will find someone else to accompany the musical numbers. I felt like I was doing everything in the program. I had a major problem finding women to say a few words for this part of it. Lots of people had conflicts so they couldn't attend. I ended up speaking a lot. (It made me want to teach.) I enjoyed doing research into Las Posadas and into the origin of the carol Bring a Torch Jeanette, Isabella. My main thought was about how the Christmas story is not just historical, but the ways that we can be part of the nativity, just like the peregrinos, just like the milkmaids.

But, I'm tired. I had a hard time winding down to sleep last night and then never felt completely settled into slumber all night long. I don't know if it was just the build up, or if it was the chocolate mint trifle I indulged in mere minutes before getting into bed. This morning, I enjoyed some time by myself finishing up Christmas shopping and then sitting at Barnes and Noble sipping Godiva hot chocolate while starting a new book. This afternoon, I tried to work up energy to get my house back together and managed to make some progress.
Read more . . .

Thoughts from stake conference and 1 Nephi 1

This weekend is stake conference and we attended today and last night. I have a great admiration for our stake president and find his words inspiring and riveting. Today, his talk centered on spiritual safety and how gathering to the stakes of Zion facilitates that.

It was very much a "discipleship" kind of talk. I've been thinking about this a little while. I like general direction on how we can have the Spirit, on becoming followers of Christ. Pres P is putting the onus of most of the specifics on us, it seems. This is very different, to me, than the talks I've heard directed to women, for example, where there are a litany of specific directives without an overriding theme of personal revelation and finding a good fit for our personal circumstances. While I see the need for specific talks about being a member missionary (what our mission president and his wife discussed), I much prefer the idea that when I am living my life in a way that I have the Spirit guiding me, I will be inspired with regards to missionary work (or parenting or whatever happens to be the most important thing for me at the moment). Pres P's counsel seems always applicable, while very specific talks might not be at a given time. And while I need to hear counsel about home storage and financial preparation, I appreciate it so much more when it is contextualized within the larger gospel. There are a lot of things from his talk that I need to process.

One of the specifics things that he talked about was the Book of Mormon and scripture study as a key way to invite the spirit into our lives and prevent ourselves from becoming spiritually complacent and cut off from the presence of the Lord. He asked us to read the Book of Mormon in its entirety before our next stake conference, and while I think that there are better ways of studying the scriptures than chronologically, right now I am hardly getting any scripture study in at all, and in sequence is better than nothing for me right now.

I came home and started with 1 Nephi 1. Just a few thoughts. In some ways, I wish I could read it more naively or unquestioningly, like I used to be able to in the past. I have a lot of questions and sometimes concerns about what I read, and it can sometimes be a distraction.

Today, the first sentence of the introduction to 1 Nephi bothered me: "An account of Lehi and his wife Sariah and his for sons". We know Nephi had sisters. What of their spiritual journey and their attitude to their father's requirement to leave Jerusalem? We know nothing about them. Did they chose to follow Nephi? Or L&L? Or were they more like Sariah lacking some faith, but following along anyway? They are just completely absent from any narrative here and that makes me a little sad.

When the text turns to Lehi's vision, I wondered if women ever get to have visions like this. Even if they do, they aren't recorded, and so it's hard to get our minds around the idea that experiences like this are possible for women. (or is this a special prophetic vision, which would of course be limited to a very narrow category of men?)

The other thought that I had was from v. 3 where Nephi tells us that the words he writes are TRUE. I wonder about truth. Yes, he is recording what he perceives is true. But, 1 Nephi is written at what, a 20 year distance? So, memory might be an issue. And I wondered if Nephi was able to use Lehi written account as a text from which to base his words. His perspective from a 20 year vantage point on L&L might be skewed, because he knows they never repent, so maybe he focuses on the negative in them and the bad choices they make. And then there's the women in his account. While what he writes may be true, he has certainly chosen to exclude certain things.

All that said, I was impressed with the power of the book that the Savior gave Lehi and the impact that it had on him. I read some other verses from the Bible about sacred books and how they are used. I love Jeremiah 15:16:

Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart; for I am called by they name, O Lord God of hosts.

I am going to do better with making scripture study a higher priority and more consistent habit.
Read more . . .

Kolob

I've never played an organ solo in church before. My freshman year of college, I played a short recital in the old JSB before it was torn down, but other than that, I have never played for an audience with their listening being my sole intention. Yeah, I play "solos" every time I play postlude or prelude, but who really listens to that?

A couple of months ago, the ward music chairman June, an 85 year old woman in our ward, asked me to play an organ solo. She left a message, and it took me a while to call her back. I didn't want to do it. It would mean at least a few visits and several hours practicing at the church. It's hard to get over there, I can't take the kids, and on and on. But, I agreed to do it, and I have been practicing an arrangement of If You Could Hie to Kolob. I think it's a weird hymn to sing. I don't love the words, and remember as a missionary never wanting it to be sung when we had investigators at church. But, I absolutely love the music.

I had a great time practicing it the last few weeks. It's been a while since I've learned a new piece and really practiced something. The haunting and mysterious melody has been in my head a lot these last couple of weeks.

As I was practicing and learning the different sections, each one connoted a different mood to me. The first section has lots of eighth notes in all three parts and is quite lyrical. The melody is introduced in a fairly standard, but lovely way. In the second section, the melody moves to the left hand and the right embellishes above it. It is more reserved after a strong opening. The third section is firm and steady. The eighth notes disappear and it is more like a march with the melody coming out as a strong and single note. The volume starts to build. In the transition between the third and fourth section, the volume and movement grows and in the fourth section there is more movement in the pedals. The tempo slows, both hands are on the great, and it crests to a majestic ending, with the final notes sounding a major key chord.

To me, the music suggests the mysteriousness of heaven and the unknown and cloaked God. But, at the same time, the music gives a glimpse into the eternal realm that to me is so elusive on a day to day basis.

The performance came off well. I was nervous and shaky, and my mind wasn't thinking of the mysteries of heaven. In fact, my mind seemed blank and my hands seemed to go to automatic pilot. I felt good about it, though, in spite of the nerves and the notes were solid. I got a lot of positive comments. I was thrilled with the "we should have more organ solos" type since I never hear them. Playing organ is such a background part of church and most everything hardly thinks twice about it. I was most touched by the choir director's comments. She was quite moved by the music--she also said that it one piece of music that gives her a glimpse into heaven and with tears in her eyes, she told me that if nothing else had been spoken during the meeting that it would been enough for her. I responded with an emotional thank you and thought to myself that all the hours of practice had been worth it.

My recent church experience has felt quite empty. Most days, I can hardly stand to go to classes, my mind wanders through talks, and I long for a calling that demands spiritual strength from me. But, I am grateful that I was able to have this experience today and be blessed by the spirit in an unexpected way.
Read more . . .

Dissent and Alternative Voices

A confluence of several things the last few days has gotten me thinking about dissent.

First, the protesters at BYU's commencement. I am thrilled that a protest to Cheney was organized and carried out at BYU. BYU is not a monolithic entity and appendage to the GOP. Not completely, anyway, and those students who organized the protest and arranged for an alternative commencement are to be commended. I am proud of them. I wish I could have attended my sister's graduation so that I could participate. I am also glad that BYU is not showing only a wholehearted open armed welcome to Cheney to the world at large.

On the other hand, I find the responses to the protesters distasteful. The SL Trib reported that passersby yelled out "traitors!," "losers!" and "we'll be praying for you!" (suggesting that protest is some kind of sin). Someone also said that the protesters were disrespecting BYU and its graduates. To that, I heartily disagree. BYU should not be in the business of churning out GOP faithful, and by showing disagreement, students were showing that there are differences in political ideology there. Another comment reflects Mormon predisposition to support authority, in all its forms : "I support the office of vice-president."

Second, this week, a friend and I had lunch with a former BYU faculty member who was fired from her position there in the 90's because of one public statement about abortion. She equated her position then to that of Mitt Romney now. She then moved here and began teaching at a local college. After leaving BYU under awful circumstances, she stayed active in the church. It was only a few years ago when she felt compelled to discontinue her church activity. The way she described it, she was concerned about her 12 year old daughter and the messages the church had for her. And she felt like she could no longer reconcile her political beliefs with her church experience. She was a wonderful woman, and we enjoyed visiting together. But, after leaving, I felt sorrow that an articulate, intelligent woman such as her had come to the point in her life where she felt so divided that she could not, in good conscience, maintain a life as both a Mormon and a scholar. I long for role models that have managed to combine the two into one cohesive (not bi-polar) identity.

I've also been thinking about dissent since watching the PBS documentary on the Mormons. I haven't finished watching it yet (hopefully tonight I can watch the last hour). But, with the belief that we are the "only true and living church upon the face of the earth", dissent (and questioning authority) is not encouraged and often not tolerated. In a book about the separation of church and state, I read this:

It would be wrong for the government to coerce someone whose conscience was right about her religious faith, argued New England Puritan John Cotton. But, an erroneous conscience needed to be corrected, by force if necessary, and it would be truly dangerous to allow people who suffered from an erroneous conscience to propagate their sinful views among the innocent and unsuspecting public.

This made me think of the attitudes of many members of the church.

Read more . . .

Chaim Potok and Place

For our book group this month, we read Chaim Potok's The Promise. I also read The Chosen. I read these books years ago as a teen-ager and it was great to revisit them. The themes in both are similar. I was especially taken with the inner conflict that the two main characters Danny and Reuven face in trying to reconcile the conflicts they feel between their Orthodox Jewish background and the secular world. Both are intelligent young men who have dedicated their lives to studying the Talmud. But, they also feel drawn to study other things as well: for Danny, Freud is forbidden; for Reuven, his method of understanding the Talmud through text emendation is seen as borderline apostate. By the end of The Promise, neither one has completely managed to incorporate these two somewhat conflicting parts of their intellectual quests into one complete whole, but the tone is optimistic: they are on the right paths for them, they will find a way to meld two disparate worlds within themselves.

After the discussion about the book was over and several of the women had gone, the husband of the host joined us. He talked about his reaction to watching the second half of the PBS documentary on the church, which led to polygamy, and questions of gender and priesthood and on and on. I should have left at 11. I shouldn't have stayed. It was a discussion I didn't want to get into. He described the commentators on the PBS program "pseudo-intellectuals" and "fringe intellectuals." He felt that they didn't accurately represent the rank and file of the church. I'm not sure why he used the qualifier "pseudo". I really loved the talking heads they had on Monday night. And the idea of fringe intellectuals: so negative. Crazy people who are talking about things that don't matter, talking about ideas that no one cares about that have no relevance to anyone. That frustrated me. I haven't seen the second half, but I'm sure, 100%, that my reaction will not be like his.

Then there were conversations about why women don't have the preisthood (with the explanation of the inherent deficiencies of men who need the priesthood to make up for their inherent lack of spirituality), the idea that women are naturally nurturers, etc etc. I made a few contradictory comments, but didn't have the heart to engage in a full on debate.

For one, I have a problem thinking and talking quickly on the spot to make a coherent argument. But, for another, I don't want to let it all out. To be "that woman". To be labeled in some sort of negative way. I know I shouldn't care what others think, but I find it difficult not to. In our ward, I haven't met any intellectually kindred spirits. I have met a lot of great women though. My children play with theirs, and we have good conversations too. I like every single one of the women that were there last night who believe things that I do not. I don't want to make certain beliefs about gender some kind of litmus test for whom I am friends with. But, I also question who I can be really close to in my ward. I came home sad and feeling a little lonely. In my past two wards, I've had all kinds of friends, but those circles have also included women who I feel free to discuss anything with and who have pushed me in intellectually new directions. I will probably grow in other ways with the women in my ward now.

This all ties back to Chaim Potok and finding a place of my own. It's not easy to navigate between disparate worlds. I know my schisms are not nearly as wide as many others', but I long to find a sense of unity and wholeness between Mormon, mother, academic, feminist. This morning, my wonderful neighbor called to see if my kids could come over to play with hers. I gladly dropped them off and headed to the library. When I couldn't find what I wanted, I went to the nearby Barnes and Noble to pick up a copy of Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own. I saw it on a compilation of feminist writing recently and added to my list to read. I love the title and long to find my own place, so I decided to treat myself to it.

This all also relates to those who leave the church because they cannot reconcile their intellectual and religious beliefs. I met a woman last week like this--I need to finish writing about that experience--but I always feel sad when a intellectual feels that the church is no longer a good place for them, or when the church feels like that intellectual does not belong in the church. I don't want to have to choose between one side or the other.
Read more . . .

Letter to stake presidency

Dear stake presidency,

First, thank you for your recent participation and direction in both stake conference and our ward's conference. I have appreciated your direct counsel and your personal regard and love for our stake which I have felt several times. I was amazed when you, President P, greeted me by name in the hallway of our church building after ward conference. I am not only new in the ward, but I can think of no reason that you might know me. I know that as a stake presidency you work tirelessly and at great personal sacrifice--the many hours you devote to your calling could be dedicated to your families, jobs, or, quite simply, to rest and leisure! Thank you for all you do.

I write to bring one small matter to your attention. Recently, a letter from you came to our home. Enclosed was a letter detailing the stake goals that you are encouraging our stake to adopt and complete this year. I did not open the letter when I retrieved it from the mailbox because it was addressed solely to my husband. I assumed it had something to do with his calling, or a stake meeting that he was to attend. Of course, I found out differently when he opened it later and I saw that it was intended for all stake members.

I realize that this is most likely a technical issue. The address labels were printed out, using some computer program, and the first name listed in each household record was printed out. I know that there was no exclusionary or malicious intent. I feel that, however, no matter what the cause, this (seemingly small) oversight should be remedied in future mailings to stake members. As a full fledged member of the stake, I would like to be recognized and acknowledged as an individual, capable of inspiration with regards to my calling, my family, my life direction, and my interactions with others. My husband and I are jointly the head of our household, and together we seek the Lord's will for us as a family. We want to grow as a family in beoming disciples of Christ and in nurturing our children on that path, as I know you want for us. By including both of us on the address label, you imply all this. By not including me, I know that you are not implying otherwise, but I personally felt excluded from your message.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I know that there are many issues you are concerned about and working on for our stake, and I wondered whether to even bother you with something relatively small in comparison. Please know that I am interested and invested in the the growth and development of our stake, and I and my family will be working on the goals which you have set forth for us. I am grateful that I can be a fellow citizen with the saints here in the B stake.
Read more . . .

Helping the Poor and Needy

This month's visiting teaching message was different than it's been in a while. The end of last year, I felt like we were talking about the benefits of membership in the Relief Society ad nauseum. This year, we've focused on personal testimony, faith, and other personally meaningful aspects of spiritual development. April's message, though, was about helping the poor and needy. I glanced at the title and was excited about it. Finally, something about reaching outside my social and church circles, a focus on a major problem in the world.

So, my partner and I went visiting teaching this morning. We sat outside on a beautiful spring day (spring is finally here! The leaves are starting to grow back.) and talked with a new sister in our ward who just gave birth to her first child. My partner is a wonderful woman and I see her quite a bit. She lives near me and we often trade kids back and forth. She is always cheerful, despite the demands of a large family.

She started the lesson by recounting a story found in this month's New Era. The author writes of her patriarchal blessing, which stated "You may help the needy with your time, effort, and means.” She feels drawn to help the poor in her area, but her first two efforts are unsuccesful. She goes home, depressed. How can she fulfill her calling? How can she help the needy? She walks into her home, and her younger brother is crying, upset from being teased at school. The words from her patriarchal blessing come back to her, and she concludes that "the poor are just as likely to be in your home as on the streets." My partner then talked about how that message really resonated for her. With 5 children, she has little time to do other things. I understand this, and can empathize with her.

The deeper implications, though, of the New Era article bothers me. If I equate the poor and needy only with my family, then I am not forced to personally confront the poor and needy in the streets and in my community. I have given up my responsibility to help them. I am not required to look beyond my comfort zone to those who may be in need.

On another level, I was upset by this thought. Here is yet one more way that children prevent me/others from having an impact on the world at large. I don't want my influence to be felt only within the walls of my home, no matter how important that work may be. I want to reach beyond my family to help others.

I'm not sure exactly how I should help the poor and needy. Obviously, there is a great deal that can be within the community of the ward. However, I feel like I need to reach beyond that boundary as well. I am glad for the chance today to think about this issue and ponder ways that I can offer assistance. I am going to do some research and find a specific way that I can help.
Read more . . .

Easter Music

I love to play the organ on Easter. It's one of the few times where I can literally pull out all the stops, throw down some trumpet, and really let it rip. I love the exuberance and jubilation of Easter hymns, especially Christ the Lord is Risen Today. The choir sang a simple, yet beautiful arrangment of He is Risen in the middle of the meeting that gave me goosebumps. (On the other hand, I'm not very fond That Easter Morn, which we sang for the opening song today.) I practiced a lot for this week, including learning a new version of Beautiful Savior for prelude. I played one of my favorites for postlude: a Douglas Bush arrangement of All Creatures of Our God and King, in trio and fanfare form.

I felt the spirit of Easter today most in singing with the choir and playing the closing hymn and postlude on the organ. I need to make music a bigger part of my life.
Read more . . .

"Mother Come Home"

I haven't been reading the Ensign much. I looked through the February issue and found only one thing that had any resonance at all for me--the article was a stripped down version of a FARMS piece about the symbolism of the parable of the Good Samaritan. It had some depth that I could actually chew on. But, for the most part, there isn't much there that I enjoy reading. I don't find the personal stories to be inspirational without the context that comes from knowing someone. And I dislike a strung together compilation of GA quotations on a topic, without any connecting essay, and find it difficult to digest.

When my mom was in town, she mentioned an article from April's issue about a mother who made a decision to stay home with her children, despite having many opportunities for success in the business world. I can't remember if she actually said I should read it, or just implied it. So, yesterday, when I was cleaning out the magazine basket, I picked it up to look at it.

It was clear that the woman writing was a smart and ambitious woman. Her article chronicles her desire for a high powered business career changing over time to desiring to stay home with her children. I would love to meet this woman and talk with her. It is clear that she has worked though a lot of issues and sought the guidance of the Lord in all of them. But, I felt that her representation in the article didn't do justice to her struggles. She had these desires, it was hard to turn down the job of a lifetime, but she felt like she should and so she did. Motherhood was very hard. What does that tell me? I want to know how she managed the day to day routine of staying at home. I want to know if her change of heart took place over many years of struggle. I want to know if she felt happy staying home and how she dealt with life when she wasn't so contented. I want to know what she did to keep her mind nimble and active while staying at home, and how she uses her talents that made her successful in the business world as a mother. No, none of this is addressed. Instead, there is a standard "pray, follow the Lord, and you will be blessed" line, combined with a bunch of quotes about the importance of being a mother. That may be what it boils down to, but it doesn't help with the day to day details that, woven together, form who I am as a mother and a woman.

It's been a hard week. Spring break. Ha! MJ keeps saying, "This is spring break, not winter break!" The weather has been depressing. In a fit of exuberance during an 80 degree day last week, I put the heavy coats and boots away. This morning, I finally broke down and got them back out again, since with the wind, the temperature felt like 1. Yes, 1 degree. Almost below zero. Then, there's no school, no dance class, no routine. And I have had less than my usual low levels of patience with my kids. All of it has added up to an unpleasant week, complete with my monthly (or maybe it's more like every two months) major mothering breakdown.

I'm not sure what to do or even how to figure out what to do. And I find that frustrating and depressing. I did love Elder Holland's talk about receiving a new tongue at GC last weekend. That's certainly something I need as a mother.

One of the things that bothered me the most was the title of the Ensign article: "Mother Come Home". To me, it suggests pitiful, mewling cries from forsaken children who are floundering and are being denied nourishment of all forms due to their mother seeking identity outside of the home. And it implies that mothers' primary identity should be domestic in nature.

I have decided that we are going to start getting the Ensign in Spanish. That way, I can work on my dwindling Spanish skills, if nothing else.
Read more . . .

2nd Article of Faith, with Additions

MJ's primary teacher is encouraging the class to memorize articles of faith, with the promise of a reward for each one they can recite in class. Last Sunday, she recited the first one, and this past week, she wanted to learn the second. This is how I taught it to her:

We believe that men and women will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam and Eve's transgression.

She had it down cold. When the mom sitting in the class to help out tried to correct her, "We believe that MEN will be punished..." MJ was quick to retort, "Men AND WOMEN". I wonder how long it will take her to realize that this version is not in the official canon. To me, it only makes the principal taught more accurate. I felt quite happy with this small little act.
Read more . . .

Stories from my life

Last week, we had an enrichment meeting that I organized. The topic was personal narrative and storytelling. G, the woman who ran the class, had the idea to do it--she said, she felt inspired that the sisters in the ward needed it and talked to the RS president about it.

In preparation for this evening, I had several conversations with G and wanted to write about some of the thoughts she mentioned to me about the process of writing.

• Everyone wants to believe that her life has meaning. Writing helps you find the meaning. Writing conveys the meaning to others.
• You are the link to five generations. You are the only person who will be able to tell your grandchildren about your grandparents. If you don't, how will they know? G told some great stories about her grandmother.
• Although typically you write for an audience (to their benefit), the person who gains the most insight is the writer herself. You don't know what happened to you until you write it down. I really like that thought. The process of writing actually helps you process and figure out the larger patterns of events in your life.
• Writing will help the sisters find a voice.
  

As an offshoot of this meeting, which turned out so wonderfully, we are going to have a writers' workshop. Sisters will bring stories they've been working on and then we will share in a safe environment and give feedback. I am really excited about this. I feel that there are a lot of things that I need to process in my life. It has been a very long time since I kept a journal regularly, and I am anxious to add this piece back into my life. And it will be a lot cheaper than therapy.
Read more . . .