Sunrise Tantalize

Five minutes ago, I told my mom that I was joining a new church.

“Ok,” she says, “what church?”
“The Mormon Church,” I say.
“Really?” She laughs. “Okay.”
So far, so good, I think.
“Is the Boy a Mormon?”
“No.”
“Why do you have to be a member? Why can’t you just go?”
“Because I want to join.”
“But you’ll have to join again after you move.”
“No, you only have to join once in one location,” I say.
I go to the fridge to get something to eat. I congratulate myself…

“You can’t join the Mormon Church now. That’s irrational!” she says and follows me into the kitchen.
Darn it! I knew it was too good to be true.
“Why is it irrational?” I say.
“Because you have too much going on in your life! And the fact that you can’t see it’s irrational makes it an irrational decision.”
“I have absolutely nothing going on in my life.”
“Then go downstairs and repack your apartment stuff,” Mom says.
“Mom, that’s just stuff.”
“You have a boyfriend.”
“And?”
“You’re moving across the country! To a new city. To a new college. You’re entering a stressful program.”

And at that point I just stopped talking. I was hoping that she’d be okay with it but I guess she’s not. At least all of my close friends are coming to my baptism as are my siblings. (And then we’re getting sushi! yum!) It’s already hard enough having (relative) strangers baptizing me and speaking at the service. It would be nice if my boyfriend or my dad belonged to the church so they could baptize me. It would be nice if my parents showed up for the baptism.

Yes, I am at a stressful point in my life. The reason why I began looking into all of this religion stuff was because I was sick. It made me want to do all of the things I had been putting off. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Let’s say I’m making a mistake by being baptized. Eventually I’ll figure it out and leave the church… if I’m making a mistake. But right now, I don’t feel like it’s a mistake. Sigh.

Dave wrote an excellent post on What Can’t Mormons Do? Part 2: The Law of Chastity. It helps me understand where LDS people are coming from with the Law of Chastity. But I just don’t get the overall picture. And I’m really trying to understand. I think it stems from fundamental differences in LDS and non-LDS thought.

(Dave, I’m not criticizing your post. I’m just trying to understand. And I don’t want to confuse anyone who is looking for basic LDS info at WhatDoMormonsBelieve by posting this in the comments section.)

I have grown up believing soul = spirit. But, according to Joseph Smith, soul = body + spirit (D&C 88). If Christ has saved our souls and they belong to him, and I would be the caretaker of my soul. If I take good care of my soul than it will return to Christ. Or maybe I should think of it more like a rental contract. I may use my body to house my spirit and the Holy Ghost but the contract says that the body cannot engage in sex before marriage. And if I obey the terms of the rental contract, then eventually the body will become my own at the resurrection. But that’s not even true because everyone (except a very small few) will be resurrected and united with their physical body. The difference in the kingdoms of heaven doesn’t have to do with what type of body we get back because we all get back our own bodies. The difference is what level we end up in and thus that makes a difference to our spirits.

This is a common argument as well and the one presented to me by the missionaries: Sexual intimacy can create life, and thus it is a sacred act similar to partaking the sacrament. But what about when it doesn’t create life - for example when barrier methods or birth control methods are used? Is it wrong to have sex when using birth control? More problems arise if the answer is no. Since sex is sacred because cause the creation of life, then it follows that sex is not sacred when it does not/ cannot cause the creation of life. If having sex is a sacred act, then why must it occur within the bonds of marriage? Marriage is sacred so then a sacred act like sex can only happen within marriage?

Maybe I have difficulty claiming that my body is sacred because it is so messed up. It doesn’t function properly. I have had random benign tumors inside of me. Without medication I am depressed for 8 out of 12 months of a year. I suffered with horrible acne for years as a teen. It is hard to view my body as sacred when it causes me so much pain. Or maybe I don’t view sex as sacred. Creating a child is sacred, but sex isn’t always.

I have a hard time understanding why God would command us not to have sex before marriage. I honestly think He doesn’t really care. How can it rank slightly below murder and denying the Holy Ghost? I feel like stealing, being abusive/harming someone, and selling drugs (among many other sins) ranks above sex before marriage. I think God cares if we did stupid things like get drunk and have a one night stand. Or have sex outside of marriage without protection. But how is it harmful to have sex within a loving, committed relationship where you accept all of the potential consequences of your actions including possible physical or emotional harm?

Obviously I’m very confused. Can anyone help me out? Why am I so confused? It seems so simple to those who have grown up in the LDS faith. Currently “because God said so” is my only reason for obeying the Law of Chastity, but I’d like to add some other reasons too.

This morning I looked at myself in the mirror and thought, “I am a child of God.” And I believe that the LDS Church is my path back to my Heavenly Father. The LDS Church isn’t a perfect church but it’s the closest there currently is. Thus I must get baptized.

Despite knowing that I should get baptized, I am still uneasy. I wasn’t really sure why. I started four posts about it but I couldn’t quite articulate what’s bothering me. I think I’ve figured it out. How am I going to fit my spiritual life with my secular life? Why am I drawn to a church with some social beliefs that I don’t agree with.

In my secular life I am very left leaning politically and socially. I’m a pretty much a live and let live person. I do advocate responsibility, moderation, and being informed in all things. I’m prochoice. I think premarital sex is fine. I think it’s okay for people to live together before marriage, though it is not the choice for me. I think it’s fine to drink. I love my gay friends and family members. I want them to have the same rights as I do. I support civil unions/marriage for all people, though I do support the right of religious organizations to restrict marriages within their church. I’m proud to say that I’m a feminist. I usually end up voting for Democrats due to certain policies.

Now I have this religious aspect of my life. I will belong to a church that prohibits alcohol, tea, tobacco, sex before marriage. This church has gender roles that I’m not happy with, though I’m hopeful that it will get better. A majority of LDS Church members vote for the Republican party. The Church doesn’t support equal rights for gay Americans. It is not prochoice.

I believe there’s a place in the Church for everyone. Including me. Fitting a liberal viewpoint and lifestyle into the LDS Church is a common concern for some converts. I’ve found several posts from Feminist Mormon Housewives from guest posters asking for advice (here and here). I’m not too worried about fitting in at church, though I was in the past. We’re all there for the same purpose. I can use the scriptures and personal revelation to obtain answers to things that trouble me.

I’m more worried about being LDS in my personal life. Can I maintain my positions on social issues while being a member of the LDS Church? Will people view me in the same way? What will my friends and family think? This weekend I went to my gay relative’s wedding with my best friend Kay. Kay kept asking me (in a nice way), how could I be joining a church with such “conservative” values? I don’t know. Can I maintain my belief that all people should be able to marry, and believe that the church is “true”? I hope so. What I witnessed this weekend was so beautiful that I can’t imagine God condemning it.

sophia*rising (commentor #8 at this fMh post) posted her solution to being a liberal, a Mormon, and a convert:

I finally just came to the conclusion that if “someone like me” could be so drawn to it, and still have these strong feelings, then I needed to stop looking at it as either/or. Why do I have to choose when I am already entertaining both? The only problem I have is the one I give myself when I second guess myself, [or] wonder what my “liberal” friends will think of me (that is a factor that I hate to admit). [...] Obviously the person you are now (and the person I am now!) still has enough in common with the Church for its teachings to ring true. And I’m willing to say that maybe after studying, my views will change (although I doubt they will, as I felt this way even during my hardcore evangelical, no secular anything high school days, when I realized I couldn’t force myself to believe some of it). So, take the plunge. At this point, it’s only your own reservations about it that are keeping you.

It shouldn’t matter what other people think about me. I need the strength to say, this is a part of who I am because I am a child of God and nothing else matters. I need the courage to tell my parents that I’m getting baptized in less than a week. And I need to not seem ashamed that I am joining the LDS Church. I don’t need to be defensive. How can I feel something is so right, but be defensive about it? Maybe this is all pre-baptism jitters.

I started responding to comments to Breaking the Law in the comment section but then decided to make it a new post since my response was getting so long. Also, I want to thank all of you for your well thought-out comments and I apologize for the confusion. I guess wordpress’s attempt to filter out trolls and spam is far from perfect.

I personally believe that I should follow the entire Word of Wisdom as it is commonly interpreted (no tea, coffee, alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs). I agree with Thaddeus when he says, “Personal revelation is a delicate process and requires us to be in a humble, contrite frame of mind. When Susie makes her case to the Lord, she must be willing to take ‘no’ for an answer.” And I was only able to come to my decision about the Word of Wisdom when I was willing to take no for an answer.

However, I could not condemn someone who decided through personal revelation that drinking alcohol in moderation was okay. Thus the imaginary Suzie was born. This post also grew out of concern about conflict between the church’s concept of personal revelation and following the prophet. For as MormonZero said, “”but if their and your answer, decision, or choice concurs w/ that of the GA then FANTASTIC!” But what happens if your answer doesn’t match what the GA says? I suppose that is the real question of my last post.

I think that anyone who feels that they <i>need</i> to get baptized because the Holy Ghost is pushing them to, should be baptized - even if they disagree with certain things that the LDS Church teaches. (I will post more on this later.) Of course, you should agree with certain tenants like belief in Jesus Christ and the atonement. But, for example, I don’t think that God has commanded us not to masturbate. I think that the Church’s approach to masturbation is psychologically damaging. I believe that the interpretation of the Law of Chastity to include masturbation as forbidden is outdated and was formed without input from modern science and psychology. From the confusion and dissent I have seen from members about including masturbation in the Law of Chastity, I believe that this tenant will be changed relatively soon. And I believe all of this has been shown to me by the Holy Ghost.

I also agree with everyone who said that Suzie’s motivation behind her interpretation of the Word of Wisdom is very important. If wanted to keep drinking to have fun, or because it feels good, or to fit in, then yes, she would be wrong in deciding to drink beer. However, what if she said, “Well, I could easily give up all alcohol. I don’t see it as having any benefits or any detriments as long as someone drinks rarely and in moderation. I don’t think the Holy Ghost says that I must drink beer; I think that the Holy Ghost has said that it’s okay if I have a beer every once in a while.” She could even add conditions to that - i.e. she could only drink when she’s at home, by herself, isn’t depressed or stressed, and she can only have 2 beers per month - so that she makes sure that she isn’t drinking with the wrong motivation. Or she could follow some of ditchu’s suggestions about types of beer/alcohol to drink. I don’t think I can argue with Suzie there. I think she would be making a responsible decision through personal revelation. I can’t say, “No, God didn’t say that” because I have no idea what God has or hasn’t said to Suzie.

I have issues with the ‘would you feel comfortable doing something if Heavenly Father/ Jesus Christ was in the room with you’ test. And it is a commonly quoted test (not just by you, ditchu). It’s all over Ensign articles and Church publications. Would I feel comfortable wearing a short skirt in front of Jesus? Well, yeah because I think he wouldn’t care. He has bigger fish to fry. Would I feel comfortable drinking alcohol in front of Jesus? Well, I’d probably ask him if he was okay with it. Or I’d be too surprised at seeing him that I wouldn’t even consider drinking. Would I feel okay masturbating in front of Jesus? (That’s a little too personal of a question.) It would freak me out if Jesus wanted to watch. I’d have to ask Him for some privacy. Not because I would be ashamed but because it’s awkward. Plus, I doubt I would want to, because I’d want to talk to him about other things. I wouldn’t say, “Oh, hi, Jesus. Thanks for stopping in. Could you step out in the hall for a bit? I have something I need to finish up here. Then you can come back and talk to me about whatever important information you have for me.”

Most importantly, I would say to the Suzie of two paragraphs above, “Based on what you’ve told me, I think you should still get baptized. You’ll have to figure out how to answer the questions in the baptismal interview. Baptism is the first step and Heavenly Father knows that you are learning and you aren’t perfect. Also, your revelations will change throughout your lifetime. I think it is impossible to agree 100% of the time with the GAs because of the nature of personal revelation. As long as you are making a good effort to live God’s commandments, then you’ll be okay.”

The following is a little thought experiment. It doesn’t apply to me. As I’ve said in a previous post, I’ve decided to obey everything in the Word of Wisdom as it is interpreted. And I haven’t had a drink in about a month. Self high five! ala The Todd from “Scrubs”. Anyhow, I was thinking about a “what if” situation - as in what if I made a decision like Suzie does in the situation below.

Let’s say that Suzie is an investigator. Suzie decides one of the LDS Church’s commandments doesn’t apply to her. Let’s say she doesn’t like the no alcohol clause of the Word of Wisdom. She’s thought about the commandment. She’s prayed about the commandment. She understands why the commandment is so broad and prohibits all alcohol. She believes that she has received the testimony that for her, following the Word of Wisdom means that she is not to drink any hard liquor but she is permitted to drink beer.

Is it permissible for her to be baptized? When asked if she will follow the Word of Wisdom, can she say ‘yes’ since she has already clarified the WoW with God? After all, she’s not making a covenant with people; she’s making it with God and truly believes that is the correct promise to make. Even though she believes she has the go-ahead from God to drink beer, should she still abstain from drinking beer? Should she be required to disclose her unique interpretation of the Word of Wisdom? What do you think about this situation?

So I decide that the phone conversations have been pretty boring and that I should stir the pot. I ask the harmless question, “Would you take my last name if we got married like how you would take yours?” And I’m expecting the reasonable answer of “yes” and he said, “no”! Whaaa? Why not? We agree on the point that it just makes everyone’s lives easier if an immediate family has the same last name. But why does it have to be his last name? It could just as well be mine. My last name is more cool and unique than his. I wasn’t even asking him to take my last name, I was just asking him if he would. Why should he ask me to do something that he wouldn’t do himself? That’s not fair. (Yeah yeah, I know life’s not fair.) He thinks that our family should have his last name because it’s tradition and because it’s important to him. I push for other reasons - maybe the guys would make fun of him, maybe people would say stuff about us - but the only reason he’ll give me is that it’s tradition. If he has said yes, he would take my last name, then I wouldn’t have a problem with taking his. I don’t understand how he could be upset with me for not taking his last name when he won’t take mine.

Anyhow, it’s not a major issue in the relationship and we have plenty of time to talk about it. And I have a lot of time to make up my mind. I’ll probably end up taking his last name to keep the peace more than anything else. I just wish that he would at least be willing to take my name, if I’m going to be taking his.

Did anyone else have this issue before getting married? How did you deal with it? Is it ok for you to ask your significant other to do something that you wouldn’t do yourself? Would you take your significant other’s last name is she or he asked you to?

Help! I’m trying to figure out the concept of the Godhead versus the Trinity. I grew up with a belief in the Trinity but the LDS Church teaches the concept of the Godhead. I understand the Trinity but I’m stuck on the Godhead. Is there anyone out there who is familiar with LDS beliefs that can help me out?

Here’s what I have so far:

• I think there is support in the Bible for the Trinity and for the Godhead. I can see it both ways.
• The LDS scriptures and doctrine clearly support the concept of the Godhead and not the Trinity.
• God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three separate personages. 
• The Father and the Son have bodies of flesh and bone and the Holy Ghost is a spirit.
• God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are all divine beings.
• All three are connected somehow.
• Jesus Christ was the firstborn spirit child of Heavenly Father.
• Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost all have the same purpose and goal.

I’ve been trying to come up with a good analogy or more tangible example of the Trinity versus the Godhead. I’m using clay in my example because it’s solid and it’s malleable and it can be pulled apart and smashed back together easily. 

The Trinity: Picture a ball of clay. This is the trinity. It is God. It contains the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Pull a chunk of clay out of the ball and hold it in your hand. The clay in your hand is the Father. The clay ball is not the Father because you are holding the Father in your hand. The Father cannot be the clay ball and the lump of clay in your hand. Now smush the clay in your hand back onto the ball and roll the ball so that it is nice and smooth. Now you are back to God/ the Trinity.

The Godhead: Picture a ball of clay. Now divide it into three separate balls of clay. One ball of clay is Heavenly Father, the second is Jesus Christ, and the third is the Holy Ghost. Each ball of clay is made from the same material. They have the same purpose. They are all clay.

Does my analogy make sense? 

This is my “Statement of Faith” from when I got confirmed in the Presbyterian Church eight years ago. It’s interesting how my beliefs have changed since then. I’ll have to work on an update. It will be posted later (eventually).

***

God is just one name for a collective spiritual being. There are many ways to believe in this spiritual being and Christianity is one way. God, Jesus, Son, Father, Lord, and Holy Spirit are all names for the same spiritual being. This being is not particularly male or female, but is more of an “it.” God is so complex that there is no real way to describe him. God is present everywhere and in everyone and everything.

Jesus was an example of God in human form. He was created so that we can relate to and more strongly believe in God. Jesus was involved in teaching us about God and about being a good person. Because Jesus is part of God, belief in God results in belief in Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Baptism and communion are two important sacraments. However they are not completely necessary. One’s true amount of commitment to one’s faith and one’s beliefs are only known to God and that person.

The Bible is a book of teaching and history. Due to the many revisions, it is not completely accurate. It was written mostly to allow the writers to express a message. While the Bible is an important tool, it is not the core of my faith.

The church is a place where people of similar beliefs can gather together to learn and grow in their faith. The people worship together and support each other. The church is also a place that aims to help others through mission work. Mission work is very important in the life of the church. The church should strive to be a good example for the rest of the community. The church should show love and tolerance for everyone. God loves everyone and the church should try to reflect this love into the lives of others.

In conclusion, I acknowledge that I may not have all of the answers. I also know that my faith changes everyday as I learn and grow.

***

Please pray for me and/or send good thoughts my way. I had surgery earlier today and I feel awful. I could use all the help I can get. Oh, and I believe that prayer from people of all faiths work. Thanks!

On the bright side, at least that crazy endocrine gland is out now.

eta: I probably won’t be posting anything for the next few days while I’m on “interesting” pain meds.

The news media and blogosphere is awash with posts and stories about the California Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage. First I’d like to point out that the decision says that marriage is a constitutional right. However, if an amendment banning gay marriage was added to the California Constitution, then gay marriage would be prohibited in California. My first thought upon reading the headline was “yay! that’s a win for us,” where “us” means those who oppose a ban on gay marriage. You can oppose a ban on gay marriage and still disagree with gay marriage. There are many people who don’t support an amendment that would take away rights from individuals.

Personally I support civil gay marriage. I think that churches/ religious institutions should be able to determine whether or not they will marry people. I think the best solution would be to institute “civil unions” or a secular recognition of a marriage/union for all couples - gay and straight. Then if you want to be married in a church, you have to find a church that agrees to marry you. Churches aren’t currently obligated to marry everyone who walks through their doors. I can’t force the LDS Church to marry my bf and I in the temple. In this plan, all previous/ existing marriages would be granted a civil union without having to go back to court. I don’t understand why there is opposition to this type of plan - can someone fill me in (in a polite way please)? I see the debate over the best environment to raise children in (gay, straight, single, married) as a completely different issue.

Maybe the problem is with our definition of marriage. Traditionally marriages were preformed by religious officials but they were also civilly binding. Now you can get married in a church or in a courthouse. You don’t get more civil benefits by getting married in a church. Let’s say my plan was enacted - civil unions are required for everyone, but church marriages are optional and the church can control who they marry. So everyone who has a civil marriage gets civil benefits - insurance benefits, tax benefits, et cetera. Churches can enact their own benefits as well. The LDS Church already does this in a way. Anyone not sealed or married in the temple cannot make it to the celestial kingdom. There’s also the benefits of fulfilling family expectations of getting married in a church. Unless the Boy converts to the LDS Church, we probably won’t be getting married by a religious leader and it won’t be in a church. This will be upsetting for some of relatives because the union won’t be blessed by God. But we feel that due to the variety of religions practiced by our families, as well as our own differing religions, a non-religious marriage would be the most peaceful and comfortable for everyone. Of course, I would prefer to eventually be sealed in the temple either in this life or the next and I doubt the bf would have an issue with that.

I think there are some great points brought up in the posts and comments at Feminine Mormon Housewives and By Common Consent. I’m sure there will be more posts in the next couple days.