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.

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.

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…

Since investigating Mormonism I have worried over the fact that my boyfriend (and probable future husband) is not interested in the LDS Church. I worry about if our marriage will be stressed because we are of different faiths. I worry that I’m doing something wrong by not joining a church together. And I worry that we won’t be married for eternity.

Prior to investigating Mormonism, I always assumed that marriages and other family ties outlived death. This wasn’t based on any scriptural evidence, it was simply intuitive. Many non-LDS people think that way, despite the “until death do you part” clause of the typical marriage vows. BUT if I subscribe to LDS beliefs then family bonds do not extend beyond death unless they are sealed in a temple. My boyfriend would say, “Why is that? Would a caring, loving God really separate families?”

Well, you have to think about it in the LDS way and remember that Mormons believe in pre-existence. We are all children of God; we are all spiritual brothers and sisters. That is our initial bond to each other. You can think of the sealings on earth as a reassignment of those bonds into individual family units. This makes it slightly less weird to be sleeping with your spiritual brother (i.e. your husband). Without this reassignment of bonds, you are released from your earthly family bonds after death and you return to being merely a spiritual sister to your former husband, parents and children. According to LDS beliefs, only bonds sanctified by God in the temples are strong enough to withstand death and thus those spirits within those bonds do not experience dispersal of earthly familial bonds and they can retain their husband-wife, parent-child, etc relationships. (This is all sunlize thinking and not really official doctrine. This is my theory guided by the Spirit.)

This leads me to my question: How important is it to get married for now and eternity during our time on earth?

I think it is important to be married for eternity and sealed to our children, but I’m not sure if those events must be completed during our time on earth. This is mainly due to the work for the dead that takes place in the temples. Let’s assume that I marry my non-LDS boyfriend for this lifetime and he never converts. I will simply make sure that we are sealed after our deaths. (Well, I suppose he’d have to be baptized first and all that jazz.) Temple marriage by proxy wouldn’t be that hard to arrange. I could always have my children submit our names, or a close friend, or I could even write it in my will. I’m assuming that the Boy will accept the ordinances done in his name after death if he finds himself in ’spirit prison’. And if there is no spirit prison, then the ordinances won’t cause any harm.

Sure, there are blessings that come from being married or sealed in the temple, but these are related more to the blessings that come from both spouses/ parents being of LDS faith. For the marriage, conflict over issues of faith or of raising the children. Spouses are probably more likely to see eye-to-eye on financial and social issues. For the family, a family with the same faith is probably more cohesive in that part of their life. Everyone abides by the same rules of conduct. If the father is LDS, then he can administer ordinances like blessings and baptisms. Does this mean that mixed-faith marriages are worse than LDS marriages? No. There are plenty of good mixed faith marriages, just as there are some bad temple marriages.

I am also unsure that it is important to be sealed to your spouse during this lifetime because marriages change. Having a temple marriage does not ensure that both spouses will remain TBMs for the rest of their lives. I have read too many stories where one spouse becomes inactive or leaves the LDS faith. I’ve read stories of both spouses leaving the faith. And some of these people had incredibly strong testimonies throughout their lives. They never thought that they would leave the Church. Their spouses never thought their eternal marriage would become disrupted.

So I say, love the one you’re with. Marriages don’t succeed or fail based on the participants’ religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Ability to compromise, to accept your partner as he is, and to respect your partner’s beliefs are essential to having a successful marriage.

I believe in a very personal relationship with God. God and I have the agreement that I am responsible for my own salvation and exaltation, and no one else’s. There are key two points to that agreement. First, I am responsible for my salvation and exaltation. I am responsible for finding the right path back to Heavenly Father. It’s up to me to make covenants with God and follow his commandments to the best of my ability. Also, I can’t blame my problems or mistakes on anyone else.

The second part of my agreement with God is that I am not responsible for anyone else’s salvation. This has relieved a lot of stress for me. Sure, I can expose others to my faith so that they may see how it has changed my life. I cannot, however, convert them. I should not try to convert them. If they want to learn more about then that’s cool. I’ll teach them or invite them to church or send to the missionaries to be taught. But if someone doesn’t want to hear about the Church, that’s okay too.

The only person I wish would become LDS is my boyfriend. Still I cannot convert him. I really want an eternal marriage and I want to be sealed to my future children and I want to share my faith with my boyfriend. It makes me sad that I can’t have that. I observed a naming and blessing of a new baby the other day and I thought that it was really special that the dad could do that for his son. I wish we believed the same things. I wish he could see what I can see.

I believe that people must be exposed to a concept a certain number of times before they will actually consider it. It’s like the theory about introducing food to picky eaters. Some kids will have to be offered a food 10 times before they will actually try it. I figure that I count as a contact point with mormonism for those who aren’t LDS. If someone can have a positive experience with me while knowing that I’m LDS, then maybe they are more likely to try the LDS Church. Or at least they are more likely to ignore or correct stereotypes about Mormons in the future.

Do you consider yourself a member missionary? In what way?

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.

***

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.

The baptism is still on. Yay. I am actually excited. I decided several weeks ago that I wanted to be baptized. This was after the Boy told me that he knew that I would be baptized from the way I talked about the church. I’ve decided that I want to be baptized here and not after I move because I know people here and I want them to attend my baptism. I still need to tell the parents. But I feel more confident about that as my confidence in my decision and the LDS church grows.

The Boy and I had a long, emotional talk about the conversion issue. Of course this was while I wasn’t feeling well so I cried through most of it. Basically I said the same things that I said in Ch-ch-changes. I’ve asked him to be open with me about his thoughts and feelings. I think I was exaggerating how the Boy felt about the issue because he wasn’t talking to me about how he felt. This is the first major issue that we’ve had in our year and a half relationship, and it’s very hard to resolve on the phone when you’re a 12-hour drive away. Oh well, relationships are work. Luckily we respect each other and can work things out. Things are better now and he really is a great boyfriend. (You guys only get to hear me stress out about him and the religion issue here.)

I met with the missionaries today. The meeting was less tense than the last meeting. However, it is very awkward to have a conversation about the Law of Chastity with three men when no one else is around. Not to mention slightly inappropriate. I realize that someone has to teach me about it… but it was strange. I wish they had just told me to read the pamphlet and then I could ask them questions if I didn’t understand something. Seriously, how hard is the Law of Chastity to understand? I even summed it up for them: no sexual relations or activities outside of marriage. But then they had to clarify what those activities were. I spent most of the time staring at my shoes and zoning out. The ward member who was there did the same. Much to my surprise, I answered “yes” when I was asked if I would obey the Law of Chastity. I was planning on refusing to answer because I think it’s between me and God and it’s no one else’s business. I think I just wanted the awkwardness to be over so I blurted out “yes.” Awkward.

Anyhow, I feel like joining the LDS Church is like coming back home and I know that being baptized is the right decision.