more feminism, coming up!

I’ve been having a facebook conversation about my recent blog post with one of my friends. I’ve learned so much about what I believe that I’ve decided to post what I wrote.  Beware, it’s 3 pages single-spaced on MW! If my friend wishes to identify herself she can do so in a comment

She said:

I have been thinking about your feminism post and I think it has good stuff: it’s so true that we, mostly as Americans, have lost our appreciation for well crafted goods. We are a disposable nation/generation. Now, while trying not to criticize per se (because i know you hate it and i have also done my fair share of poking your opinion out of you) but rather prompt a discussion: how is this a woman-specific argument?I see what you are saying in terms of offering this as a women’s possession, but I suppose I just see things a little differently then these more traditional models you present. What can be said of the single father raising children, or the single mother? The father who likes to cook or the mother who earns the living? I see how your view is well meaning, indeed, but I am trying to explore feminism. I don’t like all feminists- the man haters or women who victimize themselves, so I would really love to hear more about your view, but also apply it to a realistic sociologists-type model in which there is more poverty and other unwanted problems than you or I have surly been exposed to.

On the one hand, it’s such a touchy subject- like race or religion, but it feels like now, at our age (as opposed to those crazies in high school) we can finally begin to have true mature conversations.

sorry for babbling, I am trying to avoid an essay

Aleatha said:

Why is my argument a woman-specific one? I believe that the two genders are equal in importance, but have different purposes or natural abilities. Some feminists take “women are equal to men” so far as to say that the biological aspects of gender mean nothing, and gender is completely a social construct. I do not believe that. I do believe that some aspects of gender are social constructs, but also some we are born with. Most women are born with the ability to bear and nurture children. In addition to this I believe that most women are better suited than most men to be the primary caregivers of children. I also believe that most men are born better suited to provide the necessities of life for their children, i.e., work for food or money. Of course, women can do that too, and men can raise children, but I believe that it is, in general, better for a wife to be the one who primarily cares for the children, and the husband the one who provides for them. The feminist aspect of this is that much of the time, this female role is ridiculed or not even considered as important. In reality it is extremely important. This is what my church believes.

Also, just because females have one role and males have another doesn’t mean that they are restricted to that role at all times. In many circumstances, things are switched around, sometimes even for the better. Or, single parents might have to do both roles, which is very, very difficult, but quite possible. But in general, things run most smoothly and turn out the best when the mother raises the children and the father provides for them, as long as both parents work together and help each other perform their roles and be happy. I don’t have any statistics for this, but it is what I believe. Anyway I never had much faith in statistics. I’m not going to go around telling people how to run their families, but I do want to encourage women to be mothers to their children, and stay home and care for them as much as they can. Not only is it fulfilling to the mother (as long as it is not forced) and beneficial to the children, it also would help reduce consumerism. These days many people believe that both parents need to work to have enough money. In my own experience this is not true. Most of the time, what really needs to happen is for these people to be more frugal, have more modest houses, buy fewer toys and gadgets, and not waste as much.

All of what I’m saying is what my church believes also. In my church this kind of father-mother, husband-wife relationship is called “equal partners”. The wife/mother has the role of caring for the children, the husband/father of working to provide for them.  But since they are equal partners, those roles are flexible, and they help each other out with the other person’s role as needed. Specifically how they help each other is determined solely by the couple. For example, my parents believe all of this. My dad worked, and my mom stayed home with us. She hasn’t had a job since before David was born, except for running a small daycare in her home for a few years. She is a homemaker and keeps track of cleaning, cooking, etc. However, my dad (and us kids) have always done much of the cleaning and cooking, simply because we are part of the family and my mom appreciates the help. If my dad were disabled or something, and we needed money I’m sure my mom would do whatever it took to find a job of some kind. In another family, the mom might work more, or the dad might cook more. It is all decided between the couple according to their circumstances, likes, and dislikes. But in general, especially when the children are young, it is best for the mother to stay at home with them, if possible.

If someone is a single parent, doing all of these roles would be very difficult, and they would have to find help in the form of daycare, welfare, friends, family, whatever. Because they don’t have their partner to help them out, they’ve got to find others to help them make sure everything gets done. This is one reason why my church stresses education for women so much. Though the church teaches us to stay at home and be moms, where a degree isn’t exactly necessary (though helpful) in this day and age moms have got to have degrees in case they suddenly become single parents and have to go work. With a degree those moms will hopefully be able to find decent jobs, be able to afford good daycare, and so on. Of course, men in the church are encouraged to get lots of education too, since they will most likely be the main providers of their families.

Anyway, now I’m babbling! I know lots of people don’t agree with me about gender-specific roles and such, but I -and Samuel- believe all this stuff and it is really important to us. Both our families were run this way and have been really successful.

I would say the only feminism I truly disagree with is the kind that promotes:
1. laughing at men who want to perform traditional fatherly roles
2. laughing at women who want to perform traditional motherly roles
3. parents neglecting their own children

She said:

that sounds like a fair assessment. so, just for kicks, i’ll propose: the woman I work for is a loving wife and mother as well as working full time teaching and doing cutting edge, important research on effects of greenhouse effects on plants. Would you have this situation any other way? ( side info: Her husband also works full time as a professor/researcher and from what I know her kids are doing well.) In my view, the world is benefiting substantially from her untraditional way of life.

Aleatha said:

I’d say this woman is totally awesome, as long as she, her husband, and kids believe that her family is more important than her work.

I personally would not want to have that life, but that’s because I hate the working world -I just don’t feel comfortable in it. I love staying at home, and I love homemaking types of tasks. Having to work someplace all day would make me really unhappy and stressed. I have the coolest job in the world right now (making costumes for plays) and most of the time I still wish I could just spend those hours at home cleaning, cooking, relaxing, whatever. The accomplishment of having a beautiful home is more fulfilling to me than the accomplishment of seeing my costume work on stage.

Conversely, if your boss were forced to stay at home, she might feel like I do when I have to work- a lack of fulfillment. That is certainly not good for her or her husband or kids. Each family needs to decide what’s going to work out best for everyone involved. Sacrifice -of a career, time, whatever- is always part of marriage and parenting, but excessive sacrifice can result in depression or worse. Parents need to decide what they’re willing to let go of for the benefit of their family, and what they aren’t willing to sacrifice, to maintain their own happiness.

Another point which I’m sure you’ll agree with is that no matter how much she adds to the world’s knowledge of greenhouse effects on plants, if she is neglecting her children and not teaching them how to take care of themselves and be kind and good citizens, the world will not have gained anything really. If she is able to teach her children at the same time, that’s awesome! But not all women can, want to, or should be expected to do the same.

My Views on Feminism

I call myself a feminist, but sometimes not out loud because the word has so many different definitions, some of which I prefer not to be associated with.  I want to share a portion of a life-changing “manifesto” I read when I was a teenager.  It perfectly states my secular views of feminism.  My “spiritual feminist” side is harder to articulate, so for now you only get the secular side.  Some other time, maybe.

To me, being feminist means I am proud to be a woman: a feminine woman.  I do not necessarily have to be “feminine” by every single cultural standard, but I enjoy many aspects of femininity and take pride in them.  Being a feminist means that I take pride in my sex’s history of childbearing, child nurturing, and homemaking, and strive to use and develop those traits and skills, whether or not they are “inherent” to women, or merely roles placed upon us by culture -a debate which will never end, I think.  Well, besides childbearing, which is obviously a trait inherent in women only.  I believe many skills related to child nurturing and homemaking are inherent in most women, but I am not sure exactly which skills or even how inherent they are.  It is something I think about often, but I’m afraid none of us will ever completely understand in this life.  In my brand of feminism, calling these kinds of skills “drudgery” or “simple-minded” is out of bounds, because it supports the idea that being like a man -performing men’s traditional roles and skills- is more important than being like a woman, a clearly anti-feminist idea, in my book.

In short, I guess you could say that as a woman with the same rights as men, rights which were won for me by past feminists, I celebrate my right to be feminine and domestic.

The rest of this post is my favorite portion of “The Crafty Manifesto” (I’ve italicized my absolute favorite parts, for those who don’t want to read everything):

When Betty Friedan searched for the cause of “the problem that has no name” affecting middle class white suburban housewives in 1963, she found it in housecleaning and caring for the family. According to Friedan, all things domestic were actually the root of women’s malaise and depression. As I read through The Feminine Mystique now, forty years later, I have a lot of sympathy and admiration for Friedan as someone who was trying to make sense of her world. But I think her analysis is too narrow. It isn’t the activity of housework that is so stifling, but rather women had so few other options and, more importantly, women’s work has always been devalued.

From cooking to cleaning to caring for children, our culture views “women’s work” as stupid, simple, suffocating—things that can easily be replaced by mechanization, crappy fast food, hiring poor women and neglect—precisely because women have always done them. Even feminists aren’t free from this type of thinking; we have internalized patriarchal thinking to such an extent that we also dismiss our own history of domesticity. And although we may not be aware of it, we have bought into the lie that women are inferior so we set out to be more like men: important, big, self-centered and good at getting ours.

Debbie Stoller, the founder and editor of the third wave feminist magazine Bust, believes that if the feminist movement wants to achieve real equality, we have to embrace domesticity. “We already know what’s respectable and fulfilling about the workplace–basically going out and making money—and there is a certain amount of pride and independence in doing that,” Debbie continues, “But I think we, as a culture, need to relearn what’s valuable and fulfilling in the private sector. The home, children, crafts and making things.”

What if, instead of dismissing it, we thought of domesticity as an important part of women’s culture? Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting that every woman should enjoy knitting and cooking and embroidery. But I am suggesting that we give women’s work its props as something valuable, interesting and important, like knowing how to build a house, keep accounting records or play basketball. Skill, love and creativity go into creating a nice home, making things by hand and raising children. It’s not stupid and it’s not easy; it’s damn hard work that we need to respect. Moreover, it is our history, and dismissing it only doubles the injustice already done to women who didn’t have any choice but to be domestic in the first place. And it is as relevant as ever. Taking care of our homes and children is important for our happiness and the health of our entire society.

Religion and Environmental Stewardship

So I went to the Provo Living Green Expo on Saturday because my teacher George Handley was speaking about the above topic.  It was absolutely incredible.  The reason for the speech was that our culture tends to construct this false dichotomy that you are either an environmentalist or a religious person and you can’t be both.  The religious people, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition, including LDS, are often anti-environmentalist, saying that God created the world for us to use, and environmentalists are denying them that right, while the environmentalists say that all religious people hate nature and want to use it violently and destroy it for their own advantage.  In his speech, Dr. Handly said that this is a false dichotomy, and, speaking to a mostly LDS audience, asked religious people to understand what our spiritual responsibility to the earth is.  He did this by quoting scriptures (including specifically Mormon ones).

Here are my favorite ones (I have used italics for phrases I want to emphasize):

Moses 3:4-9

4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;
6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.
8 And I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there I put the man whom I had formed.
9 And out of the ground made I, the Lord God, to grow every tree, naturally, that is pleasant to the sight of man; and man could behold it. And it became also a living soul. For it was spiritual in the day that I created it; for it remaineth in the sphere in which I, God, created it, yea, even all things which I prepared for the use of man; and man saw that it was good for food.

From this we see that not only humans have a spirit and a body, together making a “living soul”, but all the world was created spiritually too, and when the physical world was created, each thing is a “living soul”.  The earth’s resources not only do not belong to us -belonging to God, and given for us to use responsibly- but they also are not dead objects.  The earth and everything God created have some sort of spirituality, life, even awareness to them that we need to keep in mind.  God spent so much time and care creating these things for us, I am sure he is very dissappointed when we abuse this gift and waste it.

D&C 49:19-21

19 For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.
20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.
21 And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.

Along with the first scripture, this one shows that the earth’s resources are a gift from God, but a gift that should be used reverently and not extorted.  We are always going to have to kill something to survive in this world.  But in these verses it says, for your own spiritual well-being, only to kill what you need, and do not waste it.

In that same vein, 1 Timothy 6:6-8

6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.
7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.

We have to kill things to have food and raiment, whether it be plant or animal.  But let us be content with as little as possible.

In my opinion, it is very religious and spiritual to consume less and have respect for the earth.  That doesn’t mean I’m not going to use its resources, and wish that the evil human race would destroy itself already and let the animals and trees live in peace.  That’s nonsense.  What I am going to do is try as hard as I can to only consume what I need.  Now, this is hard to do while living in our society.  But even though I’m not going to be perfect at it, that is what life is all about: striving for perfection, which we know we cannot achieve on our own.

Dr. Handley made an interesting point:  In the LDS faith we believe that at Christ’s Second Coming the earth will be burned and die.  Then soon after it will be resurrected and be perfect.  In like manner, our bodies all die, but eventually they will be resurrected and we will have perfect, immortal bodies.  Sometimes LDS folk say “Well the world is going to end anyway, and the earth will die, so why do anything to try and preserve  it?  It will be resurrected anyway.”  That is like saying, “Well, my body is going to die anyway, and I have a guaranteed resurrection, so why take care of my body now?  I can totally trash it because I’m going to have a new, perfect one eventually.”  No, we don’t do that.  We try as hard as we can to take good care of our bodies, priceless gifts from God.  But as hard as we try to eat the right foods, and exercise, we will still fall far short of perfection because we are mortal, and our bodies will still die.  The Atonement of Jesus Christ saves us from our imperfections and death, and gives us the gift of resurrection.  Likewise we will never be able to perfect the earth, though that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.  Through the Atonement, however, it will eventually be perfected.

Though I am doing many things wrong with regard to my stewardship of the earth, here are some things I’m doing right.  It’s kind of like bragging, but my excuse is that I’m trying to promote optimism here.  Please leave comments about what you are doing to use the earth responsibly, and we can all feel happy inside, and maybe pick up a few ideas.

-I buy aprox. 90% of my clothes used.  Now, this is partly because I’m poor.  But it’s also because it is a good way to recycle all of the resources used to make clothes: not only fibers, but all the things used to grow, harvest, transport, weave, sew, transport again, advertise, and sell the fibers.  Think of how much fuel and energy that takes!

-I eat less meat then most people I know.  I tend to eat 3-4 servings per week.  I get protein from other sources -I love beans and eggs.  A serving of meat is about the size of a deck of cards.  This week I had about three and a half servings total: half a serving for each time I had pizza (twice) and half a serving for the Lunchable I ate yesterday (I was desperate) and one serving for the chicken curry I had a few days ago, and one serving when I ate a can of tuna.  That’s three.  Meat takes up lots of resources; even more than transportation.  This is because our meat not only has to be grown, it has to be transported.  My teacher said that if you consume 20% less meat than the average U.S. person per year (I think it was a year), it’s the equivalent of using a hybrid car.

-I try not to buy things.  I enjoy having a minimum of posessions, like I said a few posts ago.  In our country, over-consumption is the main problem.  Transportation is a big problem too, but, like meat, if we purchased fewer things we would use less gas because the things we don’t buy would not need to be transported to our stores.  This is not to mention the factories and fuels needed to make the things we buy.  Not owning a T.V. and not subscribing to magazines with lots of ads helps me to not want stuff.  Commercials have a lot of power over us.  They’re meant to make us want stuff we don’t need.  Don’t watch them.

-I’m growing my hair long.  Yeah, this one’s kind of silly, but if you think about it, long hair requires fewer styling products (I use next to none), and completely denies the existence of salons, which use tons of nasty chemicals as well as energy for blowdryers and heat styling tools.  It also helps me not get caught up in fashion trends, which are a huge contributor to our waste production.  My long hair might use up more water and shampoo, but again it might not.  I only wash it twice a week.  Short hair usually has to be washed more often, because the oiliness is more obvious.

-I plan to build an energy-efficient home someday, and teach my children to respect the earth and use its resources responsibly.

Tell me what you’re doing!

Modern Art, scripture reading

Well, here I am about to embark on another research paper.  Oh what fun!  Last time it was my paper about technology.

This time, it’s for a modern European art history class.  Modern as in Modernism, ca 1900-1945.  I’m going to write about Mucha and how he used the female body as a decorative motif, put it on a pedestal, and used it to represent objects like gems and seasons.  Woohoo!  Funny that even though I’m going to say his art is misogynistic, he’s one of my absolute favorite artists just because his art is so pretty!  It is SO pretty!  In fact, my little circular picture to the right, where my name is, that is a Mucha painting.

I am so happy that within the past year I have finally learned what Modernism and Postmodernism are.  I like Postmodernism more, in theory, but I like the art in Modernism better just because it’s pretty (not all of it, but more than in Postmodern).  Modernism freaks me out.  So does Postmodernism, but at least it’s trying to correct/criticize Modernism, which had helped bring about thinks like Nazism and Fascism.

I do like some Modernist ideas.  My favorite thing that the Modernists said that I’ve learned so far is that artists should not try to copy art from the past or say that it is the “best way” or “only way” to make good art.  To do so is to make art soulless and sappy.

“Every work of art is the child of its time, often it is the mother of our emotions.

“Thus, every period of culture produces its own art, which can never be repeated.  Any attempt to give new life to artistic principles of the past can at b est only result in a work of art that resembles a stillborn child.  For example, it is impossible for our inner lives, our feelings, to be like those of the ancient Greeks.  Efforts, therefore, to apply Greek principles, e.g., to sculpture, can only produce forms similar to those employed by the Greeks, a work that remains soulless for all time.” -Wassily Kandinsky, co-founder of German Expressionist group Der Blaue Reiter, taken from Concerning the Spiritual in Art

The only problem with this idea is that it starts to say that art is constantly evolving and getting better and better.  Soon they believe that all of history and mankind is on this same upward slope.  Then ideas of Utopia come up and people start killing off “imperfect” people in their quest for a perfect world.

In other news, I have decided to read the Bible in a year, maybe once a year for the rest of my life.  I’ve never read the entire Bible.  I remember in seminary we weren’t asked to -only selections, and anyway I rebelled and read the parts we weren’t asked to read -a.k.a Song of Solomon.  HA! See my brother-in-law’s post about why it is ok to read Song of Solomon, though it is not inspired scripture, as our church believes.  However, the only thing I remember is “The voice of the turtle is heard in our land” (Song 2:12).  It means turtle-dove, but boy that image is funny.

So I found a neat plan online and I’ve been doing it for four days so far.  Today I read about Noah, after the floods were gone and God made a covenant with him and his family.  And then when he got Very Drunk.  I also read a part from the New Testament, and a Psalm.  In this plan, you read three different parts each day.  It takes 20-30 minutes.  I’m totally stoked to read the whole Bible!  There’s so many fantastically interesting things that happen in it. And can I just say that I am in love with King David?  Well, I am. Maybe he’s my favorite character in the Bible.

Of course, not to neglect, I’m also reading the Book of Mormon with Samuel.

memorization

Since my orality-literacy class last term, the previously nonexistent desire to memorize things has suddenly sprung up inside me. We learned about the people in cultures from long ago and/or far away who memorize huge amounts of words on a regular basis, usually because they don’t have access to books.

Before taking this class I said pooh-pooh! to anyone who thought memorizing scriptures or poems or songs was important. I disliked memorizing scriptures in seminary because it seemed like just another thing to check off the list, rather than a life-changing and important activity. I’d forget the verse as soon as I’d passed it off, and it seemed silly to memorize something when it was so easy to access in a book.

But now I’ve changed my mind! Why not memorize scriptures? There are so many moments when my scriptures are not with me. If I memorize them, I can “read” my scriptures to myself while I walk somewhere, or cook, or whatever. That’s why people memorize songs, isn’t it? So they can sing them for fun when they don’t have access to the recorded version. I can carry the words in my heart. Also, I saw on a blog that I read that the writer had memorized the entire book of Ephesians and could recite it in a storyteller-type fashion. COOL! I remember helping my dad memorize the Proclamation on the Family, and, even though I wasn’t actively memorizing it, some phrases stayed in my mind, and they have been invaluable help to me. Also, we learned in my class that one of the editions that the King James Bible is largely based on (William Tindale’s translation- I read somewhere that 9/10 of the words are the same in many passages) was specifically translated by Tindale into English in such a way that it would sound beautiful being read -or in my case, recited- aloud.

So I am going to do it! I have a huge list of what I want to memorize, starting with the Bible first. The first thing on the list is the verses in Proverbs 31 about the virtuous woman, because it’s one of my favorites and it’s not too long.

Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.  The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.  She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.  She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.  She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar.  She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.  She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.  She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.  She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.  She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.  She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.  She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.  She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.  Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.  She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.  Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.  She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.  She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.  Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.  Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.  Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.  Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

These are the other favorite scriptures I have in mind:

Genesis chapters 1-3 (Creation and Fall)
Genesis chapter 24 (Rebekah)
Isaiah chapter 53 (many of the verses in Handel’s Messiah)
Book of Jonah
Luke chapter 2 (Nativity)
John chapter 1
Matthew chapters 5-7 (Sermon on the Mount)
various Psalms

A New Missionary!

We took my little brother Joseph, er, I mean, Elder Moberly, to the MTC today. He’s going to the Ogden, Utah Spanish-speaking mission. He is really excited! Yeah, Ogden doesn’t seem too exciting, but still. At least he didn’t go to school at BYU. He actually hasn’t been to Utah in seven years or so. When he opened his mission call and read the location, there was an awkward pause. Then my other brother, David, yelled out, “Somebody get the map!” teehee

Here’s a picture of Elder Moberly, and a map of where he will be serving for two years, teaching the Gospel in Spanish:

As you can see, the mission includes parts of Wyoming and Idaho, and most of the area around the Great Salt Lake, excluding Salt Lake City itself.

I finally figured it out!

I have been wondering for a long time why most fundamentalist Christian modest clothing stores only have clothing styles circa 1985: dresses with gigantic bib collars, elbow-length puffed sleeves, shoulder pads, elongated bodices sometimes coming to a point at the bottom, denim jumpers, etc.  I don’t like the style myself, but, you know, who cares?  This is a good example of what I’m talking about.  Anyway, today it just dawned on me that the 70’s and 80’s were a major time of Fundamentalist and Pentecostal membership growth and popularity in America! At least that’s what I remember from my American Christianity class.  Many old Methodist, Congregationalist, and other churches have been purchased by these growing denominations, because the Mainline congregations are shrinking and don’t need the space they originally built the churches for.  Interesting!

I don’t know why, but I find the differences in the definition of modest clothing (and woman/wife roles) between us LDS and Fundamentalist Christians to be quite fascinating.
Needless to say I like my church’s doctrine on the subjects much better.    That’s why I’m a member.

.

I just dropped Samuel off at work; he is going on a camping trip for four days. It’ll be so weird here without him. I have lots of stuff to do, though. Tests, papers, projects. I want to clean the house, too. He shouldn’t have to go on campouts for work, but they are always understaffed. If he hadn’t volunteered to go, they would have called him this morning, begging him to come because they don’t have enough people. That’s what happened last time, I think it was in January. We had lots of plans for his three days off, then they call and beg him to come, he packs in about ten minutes and suddenly he’s gone for three days. Sigh. I miss my Samuel. At least this time it was planned in advance, though.

On another note, I really wish I were done with school. I want to have a baby! I want to stay home all day and cook things and keep house and do crafts. But alas, I still have a year of school left. I really want to graduate. I think it totally appropriate for me to get a degree and put off having children for now, much as I would like to quit school. I know that if I quit I would be very disappointed in myself. I mean no disrespect to mothers who did quit school: I’m just talking about myself and my own life. However, I think it is really interesting how the church has changed slightly on this topic over the past couple decades.

When my mom was a newlywed, Pres. Benson was the prophet. He greatly emphasized having children as soon as possible. He gave that talk called “To the Mothers in Zion” or something. It basically says to stop everything and have children and raise them (I like the talk, though). But while I was a teenager and young adult, Pres. Hinckley was the prophet. I remember him emphasizing time and again how important it was for all of us to get as much education as we could. He said it over and over in the Young Women broadcasts while I was a teenager (he also emphasized the importance of motherhood). And so, here I am, doing not what my mother did. She and my dad had children right away, and when Pres. Benson gave that talk, she quit school (she is now doing BYU Independent Study and will graduate soon). I am intentionally putting off having a baby, so that I can finish school. Some women do both school and baby, but I just can’t see myself being a good mother if I have to go to school, too. Plus I think I would go crazy. When I’m a mother I want to have no other major responsibilities. Also, I think having a Humanities degree will help me homeschool my kids. Another reason is that I am only 21 and will graduate in a year -doesn’t seem worth it to quit and then try and spend more time and money to get a degree later. My mom was 24 when she had her first baby. So theoretically I’ll still have plenty of time to have lots of kids -my mom had seven. I think the degree is worth the year-long wait.

Women who read my blog -especially LDS women-, how did/do/would you juggle education and motherhood?

Word of Wisdom

For my own reference, and yours, possibly, I am compiling a list of the commandments in the Word of Wisdom. I am doing this because someone in one of my classes mentioned that it is possible to obey the Law of Tithing and the Word of Wisdom perfectly. I have noticed in the past, however, that people (me too) do not really know what all it says. I am going to put my own bare-minimum/literal interpretation of it next to each quote, whether or not that is what our church actually believes today.

p.s. If you read my blog and are not Mormon, I apologize, this will not make much sense. If you want to read the entire scripture that I am referring to, go here. The Word of Wisdom is one of several commandments from God that we have to obey in order to participate in temple worship (which means, you can’t go into a dedicated LDS temple unless you obey it, among other commandments). I’m not going to explain this more because I’m writing this post for other purposes. If you want to know more, you can ask me in a comment or something.

1. “inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make. And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies”. (it is not good to drink alcoholic drinks, and God doesn’t like it. wine is ok when used for the Sacrament, but do not use wine that other people make. alcohol is meant to be used as a cleanser.)

2. “tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill” (tobacco is bad in every way except as a topical medicinal herb and for sick cattle, and only then if you actually know what you’re doing)

3. “hot drinks are not for the body or belly” (hot drinks are not to be consumed or used)

4. “all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man— Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.” (God gave use the plants and fruits on earth for us to use in their season, wisely and with gratefulness).

5. “Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” (God has given us permission to gratefully use animals for food and other things, but we must use them sparingly. it is very good if we only use them in winter or famine)

6. “All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth; And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.” (God has given us and animals permission to use grain as the main part of our diets. the animals are only to be used as the main part of man’s diet when we have no grain because of famine)

7. “All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground—” (grains, fruits, and roots are good food for us)

The main gist, to me, is that we should not consume alcohol or tobacco, that we should not drink hot drinks (which later prophets have revealed to be tea and coffee, but not hot chocolate. Maybe this means no caffiene, but the Church has not said either way. It seems to be a personal choice at this point). We should eat fruits and vegetables and roots and herbs when they are in season, and we should eat grain as the main part of our diet. Meat is to be used sparingly, and it is pleasing to God if we eat it in larger amounts only in winter or other times when we don’t have enough grain. We should always be thankful to God for our food.

I am pretty sure that this is nearly impossible to follow perfectly, like the Law of Tithing. People usually think of this commandment as: “don’t drink alcohol…check. don’t drink tea or coffee…..check. don’t do tobacco….check. Ok, 100% A+!” I don’t want this post to turn into a rant about Mormons who eat way too much meat, so I will just say that I personally am going to try and follow this commandment a little more seriously.

I love wearing dresses

I like to be inspired to be modest, and so I often search online for articles regarding the topic. Most of the websites I have found are religious, and most Christian. Many of these Christian websites believe that women should always wear dresses that are plain (or perhaps a better word is “drab”) as well as modest. My problems with this idea are the following:

They almost always quote one or all of these scriptures:

“Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel”. -I Peter 3:3

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;” -I Timothy 2:9

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”-Deut. 22:5

And neglect to quote the following verses:

Rebekah was a total babe:

“And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.” Genesis 24:16

She wore expensive jewelry:

“And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden earring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold;” Genesis 24:22

“And I asked her, and said, Whose daughter art thou? And she said, The daughter of Bethuel, Nahor’s son, whom Milcah bare unto him: and I put the earring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands.” Genesis 24:47

She was so beautiful that her husband was afraid that men would kill him for her:

“And the men of the place asked him of his wife; and he said, She is my sister: for he feared to say, She is my wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah; because she was fair to look upon”. Genesis 26:7

The Virtuous Woman in Proverbs wears beautiful clothes:

“She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.” Proverbs 31:22

I don’t know any Christian woman who would think that Rebekah or the Virtuous Woman are immodest or vain. Other examples of beautiful women in the Bible are:

Abigail

Esther

Sarai

The daughters of Job

The Bride of Christ, a figurative woman symbolizing the Church

In fact, almost all of the women in the Bible are described as being beautiful, and many are described as wearing beautiful clothing and jewels. Obviously the problem does not lie in being beautiful or wearing beautiful things. The problem starts when we
begin to think that our apparel makes us better somehow. The truth is, I believe, that God does not really care how expensive or inexpensive our clothes are. I believe He wants us to find happiness in looking beautiful and modest, and at the same time be humble and charitable.

“…for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.” I Sam. 16:7

I like the way President Susan W. Tanner put it in her Conference talk which can be found here:

“You must do everything you can to make your appearance pleasing, but the minute you walk out the door, forget yourself and start concentrating on others.”

Or the way President Hinckley put it:

“Of all the creations of the Almighty, there is none more beautiful, none more inspiring than a lovely daughter of God who walks in virtue with an understanding of why she should do so, who honors and respects her body as a thing sacred and divine, who cultivates her mind and constantly enlarges the horizon of her understanding, who nurtures her spirit with everlasting truth”.

Regarding the verse in Deuteronomy, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”-Deut. 22:5 :

A few of the Christian websites use this verse to show that women should always wear dresses and men should always wear pants. To me, this is not logical. I do not know much about Old Testament history, but I am pretty sure that both genders wore long, loose robe-type things and that neither wore pants at the time this verse was given. Obviously, though, there was some kind of distinction between what a woman wore and what a man wore. There was a cultural distinction between what apparel looked feminine and what looked masculine.

To my mind, this idea of distinguishing the genders with apparel is still in practice, but not in the way that these Christian websites would have it. Truly, a dress is a very feminine look, in today’s western culture. But what about other cultures? In a great many areas of the world, men wear what might look like dresses or skirts to us westerners (or if they don’t look like dresses, they definately do not look like pants). However, these men are, without question, considered masculine. So what does this mean? To me, it means that “that which pertaineth to a man” and woman, regarding clothing, is cultural. In today’s culture in this part of the world, it is commonplace for a woman to wear pants and still look feminine. The cultural distinction is still there. Therefore, in my mind, women do not have to always wear a dress to please God.

Having said all of that, I really love wearing pretty dresses, own several (far more than I do pants), and wear them often. I find pants rather uncomfortable unless they are somewhat loose and soft. Dresses are comfortable and really not cumbersome unless you are going to be rock climbing, motorcycling, riding a horse, etc. In winter, I love to wear dresses with thick socks or stockings and boots. It is an outfit not in the least colder than wearing pants.

My own experience with dresses has led me to believe that, in our culture, by wearing pretty dresses more often a woman can very soon develop more gracefulness, more confidence, and better posture. However, perhaps that statement deserves its own post.

*Please note that all of these ideas are my opinion and that you do not have to believe what I believe or do what I do, etc. Think about this topic on your own and decide from there.