Sunrise Tantalize

I’ve been thinking some more about the modesty issue I wrote about in my last post. ”I cover my body in obedience and devotion to God” - that sounds fine to me. Almost honorable. “I cover my body to follow Church teachings” - that just rubs me the wrong way. “I cover myself to be  chaste” doesn’t sound good. Modesty shouldn’t be about sexuality; it should be about devotion to God. I understand that Church teachings are supposed to be the word of God, but sometimes I think things get garbled. Plus I think I have a bit of an authority problem. Maybe it’s my strong Protestant background. Now I have to decide what is truly from God and what is not. The easy answer is to follow the chain of authority backwards. You know, “if the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph Smith is a true prophet and his church is true and…” But I can’t do that.

I believe that the LDS Church has great truths and practices that I cannot find anywhere else. I also believe that truth can be found in other places. And I believe the ultimate truth is from my Heavenly Father. And the way to discover that is through prayer. I can take things like the Articles of Faith and the Commandments at face value. I guess I would call them ultimate truths. However, I no longer feel obligated to use the same interpretations that church authority uses. For example, I get to decide through prayer what “chastity” means to me (i.e. how much I should cover myself). Or what “keeping the Sabbath Day holy” means to me.

Maybe this is how I always should have been thinking about things. Maybe not. It just seems to me that there is so much “You should do x, y, and z because the Church says so.” And so much intolerance of differing opinions or interpretations. I think it’s because if you come up with a different interpretation, then people assume that someone else’s interpretation is wrong. This seems particularly threatening when people think you’re saying the Prophet is wrong. Maybe, to my fellow church member, keeping the Sabbath Day holy means not going out to eat on Sundays. But to me, I think it’s okay to go out to eat with my family if someone invites me to go. I don’t initiate it by myself. But Sundays mean being with family and most social functions and bonding in Italian families revolve around eating. I don’t think I’m more or less right than another church member. If someone thinks that wearing skirts and dresses are modest, but I’m fine with wearing jeans - that’s cool. 

So anyhow, for some reason all of this just clicked for me. I’ll probably develop a new way of thinking about it in the future. My understanding of faith evolves through out the weeks, months, and years. Sometimes I wonder why I even try to make up my mind on these things.

I’ve never been particularly concerned with being modest. Mostly because I wear what I wear (or don’t wear) because it makes me feel good. Plus I’m very comfortable with my body - increasingly so in the last few years. I love my body. How many women can say that? Now, since joining the LDS Church I’m having to discern what is and what is not appropriate. I’ve never been the type of girl who wears scandalously low-cut shirts, too-tight clothing, or super-short skirts. But I did wear some shirts that showed a little cleavage, sleeveless dresses, tank tops and shorts that were mid-thigh length or longer. I can understand having higher necklines and longer shorts and skirts but I don’t understand the sleeveless aspect. Personally I think there is nothing wrong with baring a little shoulder. Since when were shoulders sexy? Clavicles and necks, maybe; shoulders, no. And yes, I know that my clothing is supposed to cover up the garments. But I don’t wear garments.

Do you dress less modestly at home? I do. I wear tank tops and shorts all the time at home, especially in the summer. Actually I don’t wear pants or skirts when I’m at home in the summer. They’re the first thing to come off when I come in the door. It’s just too hot to wear pants, and skirts get wrinkled easily. I do the same at J’s apartment. He’s certainly not complaining but he behaves himself.

It frustrates me to be nit-picky about what to wear. I have a knee-length skirt but I forgot that it has a small slit in the back so I can walk. How low is too low for a shirt? I avoid shirts that are obviously too low, but what about the shirts that are on the borderline? Is it really so awful to wear a sleeveless shirt? Can I get away with taking off my jacket and exposing my shoulders in my all-female class? I just want to wear what I feel comfortable in. Is God really going to say, “well, that one skirt wasn’t quite long enough. So, sorry you’re out of the Celestial Kingdom.” I seriously doubt it. And of course I respect my body. I love it and I think it’s beautiful. And I know I’m a child of God and I’m grateful for what he’s given me. I’m trying to follow the spirit of the law. Can everyone just stop being so judgmental?!

Do I think that women (or men) who wear revealing outfits are asking to experience sexual assault or harassment? No, of course not. The offender is always responsible for his/her own actions. Do I find super revealing outfits to be distracting? Yes. Sometimes it’s like watching a car wreck and you just can’t look away. But I try not to judge people who dress less modestly than me. Especially if they are reasonably covered. Reasonably covered = pants that aren’t too low cut; not too tiny short and skirts; not falling out of your shirt; shirts that aren’t too tight (guys and girls). Actually, as long as someone is reasonably covered it doesn’t bother me at all. And it’s definitely not any of my business. I’m not the fashion police.

I think I’ll just go with the attitude of “I’ll wear what I feel comfortable in, and if someone (LDS or not) has a issue with it - that’s their problem. Not mine.”

I realize that I sound a little whiney but I’ve been feeling a little frustrated. Or maybe I’m just cranky from the heat and wearing too many clothes. Excuse me while I go remove a layer.

Many Christian blogs discuss the particulars of a certain branch of Christianity. For example, Presbyterianism was founded on the belief of predestination - even though that is not emphasized by PCUSA. For the LDS church, we discuss things like “who is the Holy Ghost?” or “what will the afterlife be like specifically?” I admit to asking and thinking about these kind of questions. They’re interesting and intellectually and spiritually stimulating. Unfortunately we also fight over these things - like the concept of the Trinity versus the Godhead.

But are we just talk, talk, talking about unimportant details, instead of getting out there and doing something about it? Is this discourse really necessary? Instead of typing and reading for an hour or two per day, I could be out in the community doing Christ-like things and taking care of my spiritual brothers and sisters. I think if Jesus was here on earth today, he wouldn’t touch the internet - unless maybe he was broadcasting his sermons or something.

For that reason, I’ve been trying to refrain from using the internet on Sundays, with the exception of the LDS.org website. I’m not really devoting myself to God when I’m surfing the bloggernacle or checking my email. Those things can wait until Monday. However, I do think that the intellectual stimulation I get from blogs is important. They help me question my beliefs and this in turn makes them stronger. I come to understand certain beliefs in a deeper or different way. Reading and thinking about the particulars of my and others’ religions keeps me learning and helps me not be complacent. On the other hand, I could definitely spend more time and effort being kind to my spiritual brothers and sisters. It doesn’t even have to be big things all the time. Maybe I could smile at someone and say hi. Maybe I could refrain from wasting our planets resources by turning off the water when I brush my teeth. Maybe I could help deliver meals to those who need them.

Similarly, I was talking to J the other day about raising interfaith kids in an interfaith family. (J refuses to recognize that we will most likely be an interfaith family, but anyway.) J was worried that exposing our (hypothetical) children to mormonism would implant crazy ideas in their heads. I’m not thrilled about some of the things the LDS Church teaches kids, but other LDS concepts are wonderful and full of truth. I said that we would need to stress the Big Picture to our kids. “Yes, mommy’s church says that daddy’s church isn’t true but in our family we accept everyone’s beliefs. We believe in the love and kindness that can be found in religion. That’s what’s really important, and both mommy and daddy’s churches teach us about those things.” And if my kid goes back to primary and tells the teacher that the next time the “true” church is brought up, I’ll say “that’s my girl (or boy)!” and give her (or him) a big hug.

Doctrine & Covenants 131:1-4:

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; 2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; 3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. 4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

What does that passage mean to you? To me, the first 15 times I read it, it meant, there are three kingdoms of heaven - celestial, terrestrial, and telestial. To make it to the Celestial Kingdom, you must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (eternal/temple marriage).

“Oh well,” I thought. “I’m screwed. I’ll most likely not have an eternal marriage. I’ll be in the Terrestrial Kingdom. I won’t be married to J*.” When I told J this, he said, “Oh good! You can be with me and all the other sinners.” This was followed up by a comment about he only wants to be in a heaven where there is good beer. I told him he better hope that he doesn’t end up in the Mormon afterlife. (His love of beer is one of his top reasons for not converting. He’s the kind of guy that likes to come home and drink a bottle of some sort of expensive beer. )

Anyhow, I’ve been feeling a little guilty, a little sad about this. And I’ve been asking myself some questions: Should I even be in a religion where I know I won’t make it to the top heaven? Why am I following all of these other commandments? Maybe I should break them! j/k. So I start wandering the web, trying to find out how other people have dealt with interfaith marriage. And I come across this wonderful post at BCC that seems to indicate that my interpretation of D&C 131:1-4 is really the less frequent, alternative interpretation. Kevin Barney said (emphasis added):

The traditional understanding of this passage is that the Celestial Kingdom is divided into three subdegrees of glory.

A number of years ago, I learned of another possible reading of this passage from a friend who had heard it from a temple president in California. The basic insight of this alternate reading is this: What if the expression “celestial glory” were not intended as a technical term for the Celestial Kingdom, but in a generic sense, something like “yonder heavens”? In that event, the “three heavens or degrees” would not be subdegrees within the CK, but rather simply the same three degrees of glory spoken of in the Vision of D&C 76.

After reading that, I thought, “Oh thank goodness!” I’ve been interpreting it wrong the whole time! Eternal marriage is required to make it into the top, top heaven, the upper echelon of the Celestial Kingdom (CK). Now, in Kevin Barney’s post he is suggesting that the alternative reading may be the correct one. I’m going to hope that the more well-known interpretation is correct. Of course none of this really matters because once I am dead, there’s nothing I can do about the choices I made on earth. Well, I suppose I can repent, but to what degree.

*Note: I’m referring to The Boy as J now because it’s easier to type.

I read over the First Vision again, though I haven’t gotten around to comparing the different versions yet. There have been several posts over at Mormon Matters on it (part I, II, and III). Besides the questions that John Nilsson asks, I’ve been pondering this question:

If you saw God, what would he/she/it look like? Would God conform to your expectations? For example, if you thought God was a woman, would God appear as a woman? What if you expected God to be black, white, a man, a woman, old, or young? Would God speak as you expected it to? If you expected Him to speak English, would He speak in Old English, Middle English, early Modern English (eME), imperfect eME, modern English? Even if you put some restrictions on what God could look like - body of flesh and bones, looks like a human, male - some of those questions still remain. Are we correct to shape our image of God after the God that Joseph Smith described?

I don’t know what I would see if God were to appear to me. My image of God has already changed several times. I used to picture the Trinity as a glowing ball of some sort of airy substance, though that was alway a difficult thing to pray to. I guess that’s what the Holy Ghost looks like when it’s out and about, but I also converse with the Holy Ghost within me. Jesus would probably look like the stereotypical Jesus - long brown hair, beard, etc. But I don’t have a concrete image of Heavenly Father in my head. I think it’s more important to understand how he would talk to me if I was speaking to him in person.

Our topic of the day in Relief Society was on personal revelation and prayer and it drew from the book, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith.

All religions have a specific way of praying. Mormons have a very specific way of praying. Arms folded. Eyes closed or at least cast down. Address Heavenly Father (use Thee and Thou, not you and your). Thank Him. Ask Him for his help. (Sometimes bear your testimony.) “We pray in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.” Pray all the time. It still surprises me how someone just hop up and say a prayer on cue. I have a sneaking suspicion that it’s almost like a fill-in-the-blank prayer. Or similar prayers with some variations. Then I found this quote from a Church member who heard Joseph Smith pray:

“Never until then had I heard a man address his Maker as though He was present listening as a kind father would listen to the sorrows of a dutiful child… There was no ostentation, no raising of the voice as by enthusiasm, but a plain conversational tone, as a man would address a present friend, It appeared to me as though, in case the veil were taken away, I could see the Lord standing facing His humblest of all servants I had ever seen.” (p. 127)

This is my preferred way of praying. Just like I’m having a conversation with God. Not the strict, structured, formal way that I’ve heard in church. Maybe people feel like they need to be more formal in church. But if Joseph Smith could pray in a more casual, but respectful way, then we should be able to do that too. Because JS was an example to us. Of course, I look at the example of the prayer that Joseph Smith offered and it seems very formal to me. But maybe that’s because Smith speaks in the language of his time.

So to sum it up (I’ve had too many years of note-taking):

• Address Heavenly Father as if he is “a present friend”.
• “Be plain and simple and ask for what you want”
• “Remember that without asking we can receive nothing”
• Don’t pray for things you don’t need
• “Pray earnestly for the best gifts” (emphasis mine)
• Pray always, keep a prayer in your heart
• Pray about everything
• Pray over everything
• Ask for God’s blessing in everything you do

from p. 127-131

First, a quick note about my confirmation, I didn’t really feel any different at first though it was a cool experience. I did feel that taking part in the sacrament was more special than when I’ve taken communion before (in my previous faith). Then later in the day I was wandering around the house and I found myself singing softly to myself. The only time I sing is when I’m really happy - so, I guess I was happy.

***

I think I might take a slight turn in my posts and try to write about things that I’m exploring about my faith. They’ll be a little bit more abstract, a little bit more uncertain. I was meandering around the lds.org website and I read some things from the handbook that the Young Women use and I realized how differently I look at things compared to those who grew up in the LDS church. I’ve also been catching up on my reading about Joseph Smith and there’s so much I don’t know yet about the church. So be patient with me, I’m still learning.

This post is a follow-up to the post on Alternative Spiritual Practices and LDS Women. I found a great article at the FAIR website. You can find it here. The most useful part of the article for this post is the section under the subtitle of “Priesthood and Patriarchy”.

This quote sums up my objection very well:

However, for some, the Priesthood/motherhood dichotomy is problematic as a false one in regard to men’s and women’s separate roles. Harrison and Richards have called this notion “that for mortal women motherhood is the parallel to priesthood…equally spurious, since all women are not mothers; fatherhood, not priesthood, is the male counterpart to motherhood. Furthermore, motherhood and fatherhood are bestowed on the righteous and the wicked alike.”

I think this is why I have a problem with men having the priesthood when women don’t. Priesthood is not analogous to motherhood! I respect that men and women are not the same and that each gender has special things to offer. However, priesthood - made possible through the atonement - is only granted to worthy male members of the LDS Church. And the priesthood is exercised righteously. Motherhood is available to everyone - worthy and unworthy, and it’s not always exercised righteously.

I would like the Church to create a special spiritual role only available to worthy LDS women. I have no idea what to call it, but for convenience I’ll use “priestesshood” for now. As I was writing my definition for the priestesshood, I found that I also needed to change the definition of the priesthood. I’ll post the original definitions or description from LDS.org below and then I’ll do my definitions.

***

CURRENT DESCRIPTIONS OF MALE AND FEMALE ROLES WITHIN THE LDS CHURCH

Women in the church: “In weekly worship services and classes, women preach sermons, offer prayers in behalf of the congregation, and teach adults and children. They may also serve as missionaries and as presidents of the Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary organizations. Women participate in councils that oversee congregational activities throughout the world. They also perform a vital work in nurturing and teaching in the home.” (LDS.org)

Priesthood: “The priesthood is the eternal power and authority of God. Through the priesthood God created and governs the heavens and the earth. Through this power He redeems and exalts His children, bringing to pass “the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). God gives priesthood authority to worthy male members of the Church so they can act in His name for the salvation of His children. Priesthood holders can be authorized to preach the gospel, administer the ordinances of salvation, and govern the kingdom of God on the earth. (LDS.org)

***

SUNLIZE’S PROPOSAL OF MALE AND FEMALE ROLES WITHIN THE LDS CHURCH

Priestesshood: The priestesshood is the eternal power and love of God. Through the priestesshood God created and nutures humankind. Through this power He loves and teaches His children, bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man and woman. God gives priestesshood authority to worthy female members of the Church so they can act in His name for the care of His children. Priesthood holders can be authorized to preach the gospel, teach men, women and children, and care for the physical, emotional and spiritual health of church members. Priestesshood holders govern the kingdom of God on the earth along with priesthood holders. A mother who holds the priestesshood is the primary parent responsible for nurturing, teaching and healing within the home. A wife who holds the priestesshood is a partner and the chief supporter of her husband and his role as priesthood holder.

Priesthood: The priesthood is the eternal power and authority of God. Through the priesthood God created and governs the heavens and the earth. Through this power He redeems and exalts His children, bringing to pass “the immortality and eternal life of man [and woman]” (Moses 1:39). God gives priesthood authority to worthy male members of the Church so they can act in His name for the salvation of His children. Priesthood holders can be authorized to preach the gospel, administer the ordinances of salvation, and govern the kingdom of God on the earth. Priesthood holders govern the kingdom of God on the earth along with priestesshood holders. A father who holds the priesthood is the primary parent responsible for administering ordinances, teaching the gospel, and financially supporting his family. A husband who holds the priesthood is a partner and the chief supporter of his wife and her role as priestesshood holder.

***

So what do you think? Am I making more sense? What would you change in either my proposal or the current Church descriptions of male and female roles?

My last post got me thinking about personal revelation and/or personal experiences with the divine. I love personal revelation. It’s one of the things that drew me to the LDS Church. Its something I’ve immediately hooked into despite the fact that I’m not yet confirmed. For me, personal revelation is different than prayer. Prayer is when I take the time to address God and thank him for what I have been given, ask for blessings and help for those who need it, and to request help for myself. If I have questions that need answering through personal revelation, then I ask during prayer. Then I wait and continue going about my life. Sometimes I have to pray about things multiple times.

Then I get a very clear answer from the Spirit, usually while I’m doing something random like brushing my teeth or just walking around the house. It’s hard to describe what an answer feels like. It is a very clear thought that rises to my consciousness. It’s a thought that wasn’t there before. It’s usually something I haven’t thought of. Sometimes I question it, “Are you sure this is an answer? Is this what I need to know?” And the answer is “yes”. The answers are usually simple - conveyed in only one or two sentences. I doubt that these are responses that give me complete knowledge of the issue I’m asking about. It’s simply not God’s way to disclose everything. Where is the mystery and faith in that?

Learning to engage the spirit and to obtain personal revelation and seek confirmation from the Spirit was difficult at first. Sometimes I felt like I was jumping up and down and waving my spiritual arms above my head and shouting, “Hey! Hey! I’m over here! I have a question!” One of the first things I learned is to pray with intent. It is important to not just give God a specific set of answers to a question. I have to keep a peaceful mind. I typically don’t get an answer right after my prayer so I’ve learned to expect an answer at anytime or anywhere.

Feeling the Spirit/ revelation seems like my spiritual gift. It feels so right. I don’t believe that the Spirit can only be felt through the LDS faith or that Mormons have a monopoly on receiving answers from the Spirit. I do believe that for me the LDS faith is my conduit for the Spirit and experiencing personal revelation. I think that my gift could be helpful to others, but right now that is not my role. Besides I think my questions and answers would be different if I was seeking revelation for people other than myself.

Do you believe people can have spiritual gifts like revelation? Do you feel that you have a spiritual gift? I think being able to interpret scriptures is a spiritual gift. Is it blasphemous to claim to have spiritual gifts? Does someone need to say that you have such a gift?

My answers are yes, yes, no?, and no?.

This post came out of a response to a post on Mormon Women and Alternative Spiritual Paths by Bored in Vernal that got me thinking. In the post, Bored in Vernal wonders how and if LDS women who find value in alternative spiritual paths are able to reconcile their beliefs with the LDS Church. She compares the experiences of LDS women in the early days of the Church versus the experiences of women today.

I recently took a class on Medieval women writers who often wrote on religious material. Some of these women included Julian of Norwich, Margery Kempe, and Marie de France. Several of these women had alternative spiritual experiences. Some women spoke to God or Jesus Christ. Some saw the forbidden sacrament chalice quiver and rise into the air. Many women had visions. Many engaged in self-starvation and only consumed the sacrament. The theory is that since women were devalued by both the Medieval (Catholic) Church and society, that they had to take alternative paths to access or experience a higher power. There’s also theories about why so many of these experiences involve women’s bodies.

The LDS Church is also patriarchal, though women are valued much more than they were in the Middle Ages. I wonder if women in the LDS Church are also forced to find other ways of experiencing God since they are denied the power that comes with holding the priesthood. (And yes, it is power - even if it is only used for good. Men make up the leadership of our church.) In her post, Bored in Vernal says that many women who are drawn to alternative spiritual paths within the LDS Church often either go underground or leave the church due to differences with church members and leaders. I see this as the patriarchy repressing alternative ways of seeking God that do not honor the patriarchal structure.

It is taught that men and women have different roles in the church. Men should be fathers, providers, and priesthood holders. Women should be mothers and nurturers. Notice that women lack a spiritual role; a way to access God like that of men. If men and women are truly equal in their roles, then women should have their own spiritual role. Perhaps women are creating this role for themselves by exploring alternative spiritual paths - and I think Church leaders should respect, and maybe even encourage that role. (I should note that I have read that women working in temples do have that type of spiritual role, though I haven’t done any research on this myself.)

Personally I believe that women will receive a sanctioned spiritual role within the Church equal to but not the same as the priesthood. It’s only a question of time. This is a personal revelation of mine. Perhaps the women of the church need to embrace their alternative spiritual practices and this will cause the change to occur more quickly. If many women are blessing their sick or stressed children, then maybe this will be an accepted practice. Or maybe women need to find their own spiritual paths - paths that were used during the early days of the Mormon Church.

Alternative spiritual paths can be practicing divination, healing, prophesy, speaking in tongues, experiencing visions, et cetera. I find myself most drawn to healing and this makes sense since my career goal is to be a nurse. I could see myself as using aspects of the LDS faith to promote healing and proactive health practices among members. I can see LDS midwives using their faith to guide women and their families through healthy pregnancies and births. And I believe that many families are looking for this kind of care. Perhaps I’ll have to write a post on integrating healthcare and spiritual beliefs…