Becoming Something

A Michael Chabon reading: The Memory Hole

Daily Gratitudes

1. When Lulu spilled strawberry soy milk all over my supper and my freshly washed and dried favourite clothes, and I sulked upstairs in baggy jeans and Jude's shirt because all my long sleeved shirts are too tight or have strawberry soy milk on them, Jude brought me a plate with a new fajita on it and listened to me blubber about a Michael Chabon essay.
2. Hot water.
3. Still no snow.
4. My little camera.
5. Freedom and people who gave and continue to give their lives for Freedom's cause.

The Judgmental Mormons

Remember when I used to blog? Okay, wasn't that long ago but sure feels like it.

I have had nothing much to say here lately except for some pensive possible-grumpiness posts that I know are favourites for some of you but I haven't been able to piece my thoughts together, mostly because I just don't wannna give the effort, mostly because I've been sick with swine flu and have been around all my family 24/7 for two weeks and that's not the way I fly.

Even though I haven't figured out yet what I'm going to say here, I'm going to say it anyway.  Because that IS the way I fly.  It's a genetic disorder, I can't help it.

Lately Segullah has given me reason to be grumpy. Not because of the website and blog itself but because of the Mormon commenters.  Most are sensible.  Most get the whole Spirit of the Law thing.  But inevitably there are some who rankle my sensibilities.  And it takes effort and strength of character (which, let's be real, I don't always HAVE handy) to not silently say things like, "Ah, it's Mormons like these who make me want to leave the church and become a gay Communist magical vegan genealogy-eating drug dealer and be all up in their suburban faces JUST TO BUG THEM."  Being naturally rebellious is a hard way to be, you know.  Have sympathy for me.

So, I think these thoughts and I have to squelch them because they're stupid thoughts that turn me into a hypocrite.  No one can make me feel annoyed about anything I'm not already sensitive about.  So, thoughtless comments shouldn't bother me.  It's my fault I let them bother me. 

But let's pretend for a moment that this is not true.  Let's pretend it's the commenters' faults for creating a hostile environment for me to live in.  Let's just pretend because this creates a larger space in which I can vent and I feel like venting right now and it's my blog so there.

The very lovely Carina (Azúcar) wrote a blog post for Segullah, about how she finds it difficult to not watch R-rated movies.  (See, a late prophet once told Mormons that they shouldn't watch R-rated movies.  This doctrine is now outdated and has been trumped by the more wide-sweeping doctrine to not watch anything that promotes or encourages, explicitly or implicitly, violence and immoral sex (as opposed to the good stuff) and other bad things.  So, basically almost every movie ever made, even some Disney fluff.  Also, it was a US-centric doctrine because hello! only the US of A uses the US of A ratings system!  Your R-rated stuff is my "yeehaw! let's party!" stuff.  Guess that means I get to be more wicked than you, right?  No.  See, that's why it's a defunct commandment.)

Anyway.

Some commenter left this gem.  Her name is Carrie.  Anonymous-then-not-Carrie.  I've highlighted the parts that interested me.

"These conversations appall me. Why don’t we talk about how many of us have sipped some alcohol or who has a tattoo or how many times we went ‘too far’ with our high school boyfriend? Conversations like this have absolutely no merit. I said it, and now the next 50 comments are going to disagree with that. Whatever.

I really dislike how Mormons (women especially) sometimes use their past or current indisgressions as a badge of on honor once they’ve justified and rationalized it loudly and adamantly. I completely and one hundred percent agree that the rating system is “capricious” and that the MPAA is harder on low budget, independent movies. But I personally think there are very few PG 13 movies that Pres Benson would think appropriate for his viewing. And I’m guessing that means we probably don’t need to be watching it either, since we are ‘trying to be like Jesus’ and a prophet would be much closer to that ideal than little old me.

As you can probably tell, I’ve never seen a rated R movie. There have been MANY PG 13 movies that offended me and I turned off. I can’t imagine how I would feel watching something that was R rated. There are VERY few things in the gospel that I can do perfectly. I can pay tithing perfectly. I can not smoke perfectly. I can avoid alcohol and hot coffee perfectly. And I can follow Pres. Benson’s counsel perfectly and not see an R rated film. I can’t always be selfless. I can’t always be patient. I can’t always be charitable. I can’t always say the prayer that I should, or even remember to pray when I should. (I guess, potentially, I could do those things perfectly, but I personally find that VERY difficult) The counsel that I can follow 100%, I do, because those types of commandments are few and far between in the church. The latest Coen Brothers movie is most certainly not worth my salvation, and that is what we are putting on the line. Call me dramatic, but that’s just the way I see it.

Have you ever served in the Young Women organization? They counsel leaders there not to discuss in lessons wrong choices they’ve made and how they repented and it all worked out okay in the end with a temple marriage. I love this counsel and feel like it applies to every gospel conversation that occurs in a large group setting. Inevitably there will be someone reading this that will use this post to justify a future indisgression, thinking that others do it or that they can repent later. You think our thoughts and thought processes are more elevated than that, but I’m not so sure. I don’t think an organization like Segullah should assume that, having the large audience and public forum that they do.

In the mission statement, Segullah states that “[they] publish insightful writings which explore life’s richness and complexity while reflecting faithfulness to the gospel of Jesus Christ.” This doesn’t explore life’s richness. It’s a Hollywood movie! I don’t care what the topic is and how many awards it’s won. Any individual could have an extremely rich life and NEVER watch any movie, ever. And it certainly doesn’t reflect faithfulness to the gospel to out our sins in a somewhat public forum."

Okay.  So, Carrie makes some good points, absolutely.  Still, here are my point form thoughts on this comment:

-I was taken aback when Carrie said, "As you can probably tell, I've never seen an R rated movie."  Wow.  Doesn't that say a ton about Carrie?  She is assuming that we're judging her.  And why is she assuming that?  Because she's a judgmental person herself.  I mean, that's safe to say, right?  The whole comment oozes judgment in its tone, as well as in some things that are said. She probably can't imagine my answer that, no, I could not tell.  How could I tell what she's done in her past?  Didn't even occur to me to wonder if she's ever seen an R rated movie.  All I know is that now, today, she is quite adamant that they're avoidable. Tells me nothing about her past.

-Carrie is appalled by Mormons having conversations about struggling to live certain commandments.  I guess if we don't find it easy, if we don't struggle with the logic behind certain commandments, if we're tempted, then we should just shut up about it and put on a good face.  Because conversations like this have "no merit".  Whatsoever.  None.  Except that's not really what she said, is it?  No, she lumped Carina's post into a category of conversations glamorising and confessing past sins for the purpose of... glamorising and confessing past sins.  Except that's not what Carina did.  Way to stomp all over Carina's conscience and feelings which she laid out so generously. 

-There are many PG 13 movies that are way worse than R rated movies.  So many teen movies are raunchy-gross. There are plenty of R rated movies that are rated that way only to entice a mature audience, not because the rating is deserving.  So, Carrie not being able to imagine what an R movie is like?  Imagine a PG 13 movie only not as bad.

-Carrie, how do you know for certain that God is not going to ask for a Fargo impersonation as currency for the Celestial Kingdom?  How do you know?  If anyone is under the impression that there's a strict checklist or that watching a movie or saying a bad word is going to keep them out of the Celestial Kingdom, then they're not paying close enough attention.  What you do is less important than WHY YOU'RE DOING IT.  We're judged on our hearts too, dummy.  (If you got the irony there for humour's sake, good for you!)

-Anyone who thinks they can do Y because Carina does Y and admits to it with some mixed feelings, or because I do Y without regret and put on a good Mormon face otherwise, is either ignorant, in which case they won't be held accountable, or IS AN IDIOT.  And if they're truly idiots, then God will probably be lenient on them. Because it's hard to be smart when you're an idiot.  In which case, there's nothing for me to feel responsible for because it's all good. Thank God for mercy.  Anyone who isn't an idiot and uses someone else's sins for permission for their own knows exactly what they're doing deep inside and the real sin is lying to God about it. 

But what bugged me, the main thing that bugged me, was the way Carrie flaunted her indignation.  I could just imagine her saying, "I can't understand why you act like this is so hard! It's easy!" 

Then, we have this blog post.  Check out this portion:

"Angie and I both stood in the church hallway, bouncing our fussy babies on our hips. Our conversation turned to temple attendance. I sighed, “I’ve been going once a month to do sealings. I should probably go more often, but I’m doing the best that I can.” Angie stopped bouncing and looked at me, ”You’re not doing the best that you can. You could go more often. The temple is only five minutes away. I have two more kids than you and I go every week.” I was flabbergasted. I barely knew Angie. How dare she say that I wasn’t doing my best? But I thought about what she said for months. Was I doing my best?"

GROOOOOOAAAAAN.

Okay, it's possible that Angie could be right and that the blogger is NOT doing her best.  But there's no way in Hades that Angie can properly know that!!  Imagine how embarrassed she would have been if the blogger would have responded, "Well, actually, I've been dealing with recurring yeast infections and the temple sessions are so long."  or  "I have an anxiety disorder.  People in white remind me of that time I died and while the spirit world was peaceful and all, it reminds me that I could go at any time and that scares me because I have kids to raise."  WHO KNOWS?!  Who freakin' knows what the blogger's issues could be?  There are like, 534 possibilities for why she's not going to the temple as much as Angie. 

People who think the gospel, Life, and human beings are cut and dry make me want to reassemble their brains.  Here's a list of things that are cut and dry:

-mathematics
-the hotness of Jude Law

That's pretty much it.

Things that are not cut and dry:

-commandments
-salvation
-psychology
-forgiveness
-pretty much everything else

There are always exceptions and there are always things that you nor I can't know.  Yes, it's rare for there to be exceptions to commandments (like, Nephi killing Laban despite the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill) but just because a commandment exists for the whole population doesn't mean that God expects you to keep it the same way he expects me to keep it. That is why we're given the gift of the Holy Ghost and the ability to receive personal revelation. 

And because nothing is black and white, generally, there's no point in debating the rightness or wrongness of someone else's decisions, really.  I mean, it's pretty difficult to not fall into that trap, but we must continue to avoid this trap with all our might.  Because to properly judge, you would need to know so many details.  The facts are never enough; you need to know hearts and that's impossible to know perfectly.

And that is why, whenever I rub (accidentally, of course) up against someone who sees things in black and white, like Carrie or Angie, I think to myself, "And praise God Almighty that you will not be our Saviour and judge!  Funny how that worked out, huh?"

Now, Mormons probably aren't more prone to being judgmental than any other demographic.  But it's the demographic that bugs me the most because I figure they should know better.  But then, I'm judging.

I just have to come to accept that, generally, there are Letter of the Law Mormons and Spirit of the Law Mormons.  The Letter of the Law Mormons like rules and wish for more rules because then it would be easier to judge other people and would be easier to govern themselves.  They wouldn't have to rely on maturity and conscience and faith in God's mercy and atonement.  The Spirit of the Law Mormons understand that the principles are more important than the practise.  

I also need to remember that I used to be a Letter of the Law obsessive, that I used to judge others all the time-- like, practically as a hobby, and that I used to think the gospel was so easy to live because I hadn't really run up against temptation yet and I didn't even know who I was. 

I need to remember that for every time someone opens her ignorant mouth to say, "I am appalled that we're having this discussion! We should follow the prophet, period and that's all there is to say about it!" I can always open my mouth and say, "Speak for yourself.  It's not so easy for some of us and we're okay with that.  Because it makes our living of the gospel, and our attendance here today, all the more impressive.  In the meantime why don't you make yourself useful and bend over so I can warm my cold hands on the warmth of your fiery righteousness."

I need to remember that even if I feel like I'm in a minority amongst Mormons, it doesn't necessarily mean that I'm the one in the wrong.

If you find it easy to be Mormon, good for you.  I don't.  And that's why I'm so extremely awesome:  Because I choose to be Mormon anyway.  If you're nice, I might ask the Relief Society to make you a quilt to keep you warm as you sit there in my shadow.

Daily Gratitudes

1. I can't believe I'm writing this and not lying:  Everyone but Lulu ate and loved the bacon shrimp butternut squash risotto I made for dinner.  Cue Handel's Messiah.
2. It still hasn't snowed.
3. I'm almost back to normal after this swine flu.
4. I still get to sleep in all week. At least that's one good part about the kids being off another week.
5. I had a lovely conversation with my dear friend Pam today.  She's a significant blessing to me.

Deep (fun) theological questions

Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

Will we eat in heaven and if so, a) will we eat meat, and b) will we poop?

Will there be refuse in Heaven?  Will there be a super high-tech recycling program?

WHAT DO YOU THINK??

Daily Gratitudes

1. Having people to cherish and dote upon.
2. Lulu cuddling with me and lightly dancing her tiny hands upon my face and kissing me.
3. Jude did a bunch of laundry and cleaned off the kitchen island.
4. It was sunny today and I slept better today than I have in days.
5. I'm really groggy and drained but feel better overall, than I have in 7 days.

9 ways to survive H1N1 + Swine Flu Soundtrack

1.  Load up on painkillers and immune boosting stuff like oregano oil capsules.  And I know it was just Halloween and you probably have an over-abundance of candy laying about, but don't surrender;  sugar makes your immune system shut down for a while (research it) and dude-- you're totally going to be sick for a while in the best of circumstances so why draw it out?

2.  If you've been considering installing an on-demand water heater, DO IT NOW.  In Canada you can get a tax credit for this (something about saving the planet, blah blah blah).  I've discovered to my surprise that it's possible to curl up in a fetal position in a stand-up shower.  Just curl up and pee to your heart's content.  This is why God made hot water.

3.  Melon.  It's about the only thing that won't hurt your throat or make you want to hurl. 

4.  Because you'll be eating so much melon:  flushable wet wipes.  For that hey-if-I'm-going-to-be-near-death-and-visiting-the-bathroom-this-often-at-least-I-can-be-fresh feeling. 

5.  Get some baking soda or something for brushing your teeth.  Just the fumes from the mint in your toothpaste will burn your throat ravaged from dry coughing.  Actually, you might reach a point where even drinking water hurts and when you cough you taste blood.  Vampire chic.

6.  If you don't have anyone to take care of you, you should hire someone.  Even if all you can find is a nice girl from an escort agency and you're worried that people might find out you hired her and get the wrong idea, do it anyway, because otherwise you might be tempted to off yourself.  No one should have to go through H1N1 alone.  Do what you have to do.  I'll defend your honour.

7.  Have a bell handy so that you can alert your significant other/friend/escort to your need for more Motrin, a blanket, lip balm, Twitter, your iPod.  Or make sure they have their cell phone on them and that you have a phone next to you.  Because if your person can't hear your hoarse, weak "yelling", it will really make you mad.  You need that energy to feel sorry for yourself.

8.  If you think you can spare enough attention span for a movie, I recommend Shaun of the Dead if you don't mind language or you have one of those naughty-word-filter dvd players.  Not only is it hilarious but it will help you to look on the bright side:  at least you're not a flesh-eating zombie;  you have the gift of consciousness.  (Or you will again once you get over this swine flu.)

9.  If you do have to go out in public, I hear the N95 masks are best for filtering germs and such but you should be aware that it's very difficult to draw or paint mustaches on them.  Something to consider.

If you don't yet have swine flu, Harry in When Harry Met Sally gives a good lesson on practising your moaning for when you do get sick. FYI.

That's really all I've got.  It's just something to live through and you'll probably be out of commission for at least a week.  One long, excruciatingly boring week. 

Now, if you have swine flu, here is my playlist for you of relatively perky songs that are easy listening because this is not the time for Pink Floyd or Black Eyed Peas.

Click here for my Swine Flu Soundtrack.  You can drag just the songs you like to the bottom into the little squares, or you can remove one that you don't like from the squares after you click "play".

Have your own suggestions for recuperating from H1N1 or for easy listenin'?  Leave them in the comments.

Daily Gratitudes

1. Shelly offering to take Izzy.  However, if Izzy hunts and eats muskrats I'm not sure letting her around a bunch of cats is the best idea.  ??
2. The kids are healing up.  Just some coughing.  Judging by their regular requests for candy, things seem to be returning to normal.
3. My cushy bed.
4. My laptop, old and dying though it may be.
5. Jude bought me some French Onion Soup.  He's a genius.

Funnyish Q & A with my husband

I am sick with swine flu, or H1N1 for those picky proper-terminology people.

It's strange to be congested in my chest and to be coughing without any drippy nose.  All my skin hurts.  I'm pretty tired and yet can't sleep.  I just bought some new books (why I never finish Les Miserables):  Super Freakonomics, Manhood for Amateurs by Michael Chabon, and The Voice of Knowledge by don Miguel Ruiz.  And yet, I'm too tired to read any.

Everyone in our family is sick to different degrees.  It all started with Daisy and Montana on Sunday.  I didn't get sick until Friday.  I'd been having some stomach pains for a week so I thought that was the extent of my swine flu but really I hadn't got it yet.  Why did it take so long for me to get it?  Weird.

We've all been quarantined for a week.  We're going a bit stir crazy. 

So, I called Jude up to bed with me and decided now was as good a time as any to Q&A him about some funny stories he has, to give me something to do.  (Literally "called". I had to call him on his cell phone because he couldn't hear my croaks.)

* * *

Me:  What about that story from when you worked at a restaurant and some rock star guy came in?

Jude:  It wasn't a rock star guy.  It was the band Trooper who came in for breakfast.

Me:  Well, you know how terrible I am at remembering story details.

Jude:  So, Trooper comes in and they order pancakes.

Me:  How old were you?

Jude:  I think I would have been like, 13.  And it was a very busy Saturday morning.  I had to clear the table for them as their waiter while they were sitting there.  They had to sit at a dirty table.  And I accidentally wiped some toast crumbs on one of these guy's laps.  I don't think he said anything about it.  So, then they order and I bring them their pancakes and I asked them how the food was and they said it was fine but they weren't happy with the flies as big as turkey buzzards.

Me:  Is that it?  That's n--

Jude:  That's not a funny story.  The funny story from that restaurant was the cheeseburger deluxe story.

Me:  Right. I just remembered that.

Jude:  So, same restaurant, flash forward a year, me and my 14-year-old twin brother are THE cooking team on the 8-4 shift on Saturday and Sunday mornings.  Looking back on it, how irresponsible were these owners? Two 14-year-olds as the cooks.  So, we'd do the breakfast and lunch rushes.  And it was a pretty busy restaurant because it was right on a main highway.  If a Greyhound bus or a bus full of tourists--

Me:  Wait. A bus full of tourists?  This is central Alberta, where are they going?

Jude:  I don't know. Who cares?  It doesn't matter.  So, one Saturday we had two buses stop so the restaurant was full and people were lining up outside, waiting to come in and the waitresses were freaking out.  My twin brother had picked a bad time to go get high just before the buses came in.  And so in an effort to cook as much as possible as quickly as possible, so what we'd do is we would cook all the same type of order at one time, instead of cooking per table.  We'd cook all the steak sandwiches and move on to another type of order.  By the time I got to the cheeseburger deluxes, we were working very fast and getting a little disorganised.  We had about 18 cheeseburger deluxes to cook at one time. 

Now, in this restaurant, when the cooks had put a meal together they would place the plate of food on top of a counter on top of the grill and the waitresses would reach from the other side and grab the plate of food.  We were about halfway through the cheeseburger deluxe batch and as my twin brother is raising the cheeseburger deluxe plate up to the ledge, the cheeseburger fell off and went down the back of the grill, into the garbage chute.

Me:  *giggles*  I didn't remember that.

Jude:  And in his besotted state, Cheech decides to grab the cheeseburger out of the garbage, from underneath the grill, and slap a new bun on it.  I was horrified, but I was 14, we were in a rush, and it was hilarious.  I was laughing so hard that when I was raising my cheeseburger deluxe plate up to the counter, the cheeseburger slipped off the plate into the deep fryer. 

Me:  THAT'S what I remember.

Jude:  Doubled over with laughter I said, "What the heck? Give me a new bun."

Me:  Did anyone complain about their order?

Jude:  No.  But there was every possibility that up the highway, two people on a bus, had very unsettled stomachs.

* * *

Me:  Okay, tell me the fire rescue story.

Jude:  Alright. So, I'm in law school in Toronto and one evening I'm going over to a fellow student's place to study with him and I'm about to knock on his door when I see that the house next to his that shares the same driveway has got a lot of smoke coming out the window.  So, I ring the doorbell and tell him to call the fire department while I quickly go and check to see if everyone is out of the house.  I go over and I realise that the building on fire has an upstairs and a downstairs apartment.  So, I start on the downstairs apartment and I'm yelling and pounding on the door.  And I wasn't sure what to do but it was night time and I thought maybe they were asleep and I could see a lot of flames coming from upstairs so I thought, What the heck the place is burning down anyway, so I kicked in the door and ran into every room to make sure there was no one there.  There wasn't but on the table was a large, freshly cooked Hawaiian pizza.  As a student, you notice these things.  I almost grabbed a slice on the way upstairs but I thought rescuing someone while eating pizza is not the classic way of doing things.

So, I'm back outside, and I'm pounding on the door and there's no answer, and I see more flames coming up so again, I kick in the door.  Once that door was open, I had to go up a set of stairs to get to the living quarters and I couldn't get up to the top of the stairs because of the burning flames and smoke and I realised that if there was anyone there I couldn't do anything for them anyway.  

So, I ran back outside which is when the fire department came.  I ran over to the guy who looked like he was in charge and explained to him that I'd gone into the basement and didn't see anybody and that I tried to go into the other apartment.  Then I explained to him there was a pizza in the basement.  His only question was, "What kind of pizza?"  So, I see some guys go knock some windows out with the ladders, as casually as you or I would eat an apple, and two guys went into the basement and got the pizza.

* * *

Jude:  There's the beaver hunting story.

Me:  You'd tell that on my blog?

Jude:  It's actually not that funny.  It's just a little... anecdote.

Me:  It was funny to me.  But I'm your wife.  Okay, tell it.

Jude:  It was about 11 o'clock in the morning, court was wrapped up because an accused didn't show up, so I went to the court clerk's counter to ask about some documents and to kill a few minutes.  When I got there the clerk knew what had happened and asked me what I was going to do for the rest of the day.  There was a woman also at the court clerk's counter who was obviously listening, which I didn't really know at first.  So, I told the clerk I was probably just going to go back to my motel room and do a little work on some files.  The unknown woman piped up to say coyly that I could pass some time at her place... beaver hunting.  My initial reaction was that I wasn't interested in shooting giant rodents, until I clued in to what she was saying.  Then I just said something lame and got the heck out of there.

Me:  You said something about how you had a policy to not go... I don't know.  Into the woods with strangers and guns or something?

Jude:  That's right.

Me:  How come stuff like that never happens to me?  I need to be less sheltered if I want to get hit on.

* * *

Jude:  I guess I could tell the story about the guy who puked in the courtroom.

Me:  Which guy?

Jude:  This was in Nothern Ontario and I was conducting a day-long trial and my second witness is a guy who was a no-goodnick and reluctant to testify.  I told him to just tell the truth, tell us what he honestly remembered, and just get over the fact that he had to testify.  When he took the stand after he was sworn in, he tells the judge he's not feeling good.  The judge asked me if I knew that and if I wanted an adjournment for this witness.  I thought the witness was just trying to weasel out of testifying.  So, about six questions in, the guy throws up.  The judge is upset and turns to me, about to yell, and I say, "Look, I went to law school, not med school.  How was I to know he was telling the truth about that?"

Me:  That's your story?  You have better court stories than that.  Okay, what about that guy who got run over three times.  Can we tell that story?

Jude:  No.  Can't tell that one. 

Me:  Why not? 

Jude:  Because it's still fairly fresh.

* * *

And so, that's the best we could do while too sick to want to do anything or to care about much.  And all his best stories will have to remain offline for now, until maybe one day in his retirement when he writes a book. 

Daily Gratitudes

1. Daisy reading The Cat in the Hat to me tonight in bed, using at least 13 of her 100 expressions. 
2. Jude being someone I can talk to about nearly anything.
3. The actual sleep purring of Lulu beside me in bed right now.
4. The view of the field and highway and sunset from my bed.
5. Painkillers.  Imagine life without them?  I think I would have killed myself by now.  I'm sturdy like that.

What was lovely about last night's Grey's Anatomy (and what I don't like about Glee)

I know I've been complaining about Grey's Anatomy lately, about how the cast members, and even the patients sound the same because they repeat themselves for emphasis, so you can tell that it's the same writers writing for everyone or maybe the writers are all just picking up each other's way of talking, like how everyone started saying "Seriously" all the time because of Grey's Anatomy.  And I've complained about how Callie and Arizona have no chemistry and it's totally not believable that they're a couple, probably because they're not gay in real life, and it would seem that I complain about tv shows (don't even get me started on Glee) because I want to feel superior for a moment and of course that's true but really it's because I need to believe that it's possible that there really is a hospital in Seattle with Dr. McDreamy and Dr. McSteamy in it.  The lack of chemistry between the girls stops me from believing that the show is real.  The characters all talking the same stops me from believing the show is real.  I like to believe that my tv shows are totally possible otherwise I might as well be watching Smurfs. 

That's what I don't like about Glee:  None of the writing is realistic.  Everyone sounds stupid.  No one talks like people do in real life and I don't just mean the obnoxious cheerleading coach who plays the same character in every show or movie she's in.  (Okay, so I'm getting started on Glee.  I just couldn't stop myself.)  If it were more campy, it would have the potential to be Ally McBeal but the writers don't know how to find the balance.  They try to have some characters from an Ally McBeal-type world live in a normal world except the normal world written by old adults trying to write a teenager world.  Gilmore Girls had unrealistic writing too but at least it was unrealistic that people would be that AWESOME and FUNNY and SMART, not inane, boring, and predictable.   There's no way that drives-me-to-near-homicide cheerleading coach character would work at a high school where normal people work and the normal people would not always be like, "What is wrong with that woman? Let's kill her now."  You know what I mean?  Like, we're supposed to believe that the Glee teacher guy does not want to murder her silly every single day?  On Ally McBeal, Portia de Rossi's character thought everyone was a nut job because they were and she was normal and that's called REALISM.  She came to accept and embrace the nutty but she didn't start off that way because it wouldn't have been believable. Glee has started off with an imbalance of normalish people and other-worldly people.  And the show starts off with the plot all laid out and obvious.  You know how it's going to end from the first ten minutes.

Now, if they made a DVD collection JUST of all their dance and song numbers, I'd be all over that.  And if the cute redheaded woman with the sexy-modest button-up 50's outfits, and the sweet little voice and meek demeanor was at my house, I'd just want to bake her muffins and stare at her with a smile on my face.  Not in a gay way.  Just in a "I love puppies, kittens, bunnies and the cute little meek redhead on Glee" way.  And I don't even really bake, nor do I like muffins.

Now, some of you who know me might have been thinking, "Right, Natasha, like Alias is realistic?"

LET ME STOP YOU THERE.

Alias is TOTALLY realistic.  If I didn't believe that it was possible for a sexy, slight-yet-muscular woman to  take out five men with guns, using only her heels, martial arts skillz, mathematical calculations, gravity defying abilities, and lipstick, while wearing latex and a wig, and that therefore, the same is possible for me because I, too, am a kickass woman, then I might as well just find a cave in Afghanistan to wither away and die in because who wants to live in a world like that?  If believing in Alias is wrong then I don't want to be right. The only thing not realistic is her name:  Sydney.  Sorry to all the Sydneys out there but wouldn't she be so much better off if her name was Natasha?  Natasha is a badass name.  It's all Russian and slightly evil or at least mysterious.  Characters in movies whose names are Natasha are always cool and slightly scary.  Like if you were to take them to bed, you'd better like nipple clamps.  (Did I just say that?!)  But I guess that's the point, actually, because Sydney is really just a wholesome college girl who got herself into a bad situation and is doing what she can to make it right.  

GOSH I LOVE ALIAS.  (Although, really just seasons one and two.  Three was okay.  Four and five sucked.  It started to get a little bit unrealistic at season five.)

Which obviously brings me back to Grey's Anatomy.  Last night's episode was nice because it focused mostly on one story and that's nice for a change.  It was somewhat profound, did you notice?

I loved how the guy with the spinal tumour said to McDreamy (Derek):  "Instead of being scared, be inspired."  WHAT A GREAT MANTRA! 

I loved how when Derek, after staring into the guy's body for 10 hours only to seal him back up, told him that his tumor was completely inoperable, he confidently said, "Go home.  Sleep on it.  We'll talk more tomorrow."

And then Derek goes home to his squinty-eyed sexy wife and spins the bed around and draws a diagram of the spinal tumour on the wall in permanent marker.  It was so whimsical!  Bring back whimsical!

Then when the chief told McDreamy he was fired, instead of getting upset, Derek had confidence and peace and he just said, "Go home.  Sleep on it.  We'll talk more tomorrow."

Sometimes, that's the best strategy, I'm learning.  Especially with difficult relationships.  Step back, find that peace and confidence inside yourself, and love the person back, instead of lashing out.  The chief was SO blunt.  He didn't cushion his words, he didn't give explanations.  Just, "You're fired.  Immediately.  Get the hell out of my hospital."  He obviously wanted to hurt Derek.  Didn't you think that showed love, when instead of arguing or saying something to hurt him, Derek gave the chief a second chance to rethink things?  He basically communicated, "I'm not going to be upset by that and I respect you enough to not argue with you.  If that's what you want, I can handle it with maturity.  But think on it.  I'm willing to work on this.  I'm willing to start over.  I'm giving you that choice with me because I love and respect you."

LOVED IT!

Then, as he's walking away and going home, he says in that cliché voiceover: "Everyday we all experience these moments of peace.  The trick is to know when they're happening.  Embrace them.  Live in them."

Speak it, brotha.

(Loved it.)

(Darn. I just noticed that I used the word "sexy" three times and each time I was talking about women. OOOPS. Coincidence.)

Daily Gratitudes

1. We have no snow yet.  I love it these Halloween tender mercies of no snow every year.  See?  God likes Halloween.
2. Jude is better today than last night.  He didn't just had the shakes-- he had the seizures.  The Swine Flu Seizures.  I had to put his socks on for him and he couldn't brush his teeth, he was shaking so much.  Didn't even have a fever.  But he's okay today in the sense he can be still and nap for three and a half hours and cough a lot.
3. I'm not very tired even though I had a horrible night's sleep.
4. My hips didn't really hurt after walking Izzy today.
5. I am leaving this house (yay!!!) to be ALONE and listen to a CD course on Consciousness and Its Implications by an Oxford professor, then buy some white oil paint because I have none, which was really, really disheartening when I finally broke out my paints the other night.  All I can make without white is like...  emo rubbish.

Monopoly hell and swine flu

Our family is playing Monopoly.   Yes, right now.  Why am I blogging, then?  So I don't kill myself.  The only thing worse than playing Monopoly is playing Monopoly with five people. And some of them are frequently loud for no reason *cough* Josie *cough*.  In fact we've instituted a $10 fine for shrieking for no reason.

We've been playing for 45 minutes and I only just made it past Go.  If my strategy was to creep along the ghetto, buying Baltic and St. Charles Place because I may never even see Boardwalk from a distance never mind visit it or buy it, then you could say I'm the savviest player ever.  While everyone else was whipping around the board, buying up all the sexy real estate, I was starting to think the best I could hope for was owning all of the fuchsia property because I'd roll a two and then a one.  I seem incapable of rolling anything past a three, so it seemed logical despite the fact that we're playing with two dice.

Alas, no such luck.

Hey, I did manage to snag New York Avenue and I've yet to lash out in any way that might land me in jail-- no theft of Park Place, no indecent exposure.  So, I may not be a tycoon but I am really holding it together.

. . .

Just when the injustice was so palpable that I was going to be scraping it from my tongue before bed, I landed on Boardwalk.  And OH did I buy it.  I bought it with pomp and circumstance.  I bought it all over the place.  Then, just as I was about to explain The Law of Mom Karma-- the woman who made the playing of Monopoly possible by spitting the swine flu-coughing players forth from her womb garden gets her cosmic just desserts-- I realised I had moved the wrong piece.

No Boardwalk for me.  But, I did manage to make it past Go!

I had the opportunity to buy Oriental Avenue but by that point I was too comfy in my crack house ghetto.  I didn't need no rich ghetto.  We are who we are.  We can hope for Boardwalk but when you're getting by in life, four Baltic rent fee dollars at a time, stuffed in your bra, let's be real:  you're never gonna be more than Baltic.  If you're really, really lucky, you'll stop narrowly missing Boardwalk and landing on Go three times in a row and you'll take just one more step over to Mediterranean and then maybe you can build houses and when people trespass on your property they'll have to pay you TWENTY DOLLARS.  Then maybe you can buy some milk for your 67 cats.

. . .

On the plus side, Montana, who was near broke just landed on Free Parking and scooped the pot, making Daisy, who practically IS the bank over there on the other side of the table, cry, "Games are not fair!"

Tell me about it.  I just passed Go only to have to give my $200 to Income Tax.

And Jude, the man I let sleep in my bed, just offered me Mediterranean for my Reading Railroad.  Reading Railroad that cost me $200 to buy, my only good fortune in this game, for a $60 Mediterranean. AND HE SAID IT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE.  "I'm just trying to help you out," he said. "So, you can upgrade from welfare to maybe a nice job at McDonald's."  Not that we'd make fun of people on welfare or working at McDonald's.  Ahem.

But nevermind.  I just landed in jail.  I think I'll just chill here for a bit.  There's a guy here in leopard print with a really nice cane and he winked at me.  I think my luck might be turning.

Daily Gratitudes

1. Daisy, the Girl of A Hundred Expressions, is really cute tonight, especially with all her pathetic swine flu coughing.
2. It's almost bedtime.
3. I have a brand new Dove cucumber antiperspirant to break in.  Always nice to have something to look forward to.
4. Jude and I are going to watch Shaun of the Dead tonight.  A British spoof on Dawn of the Dead.
5. I actually just lost the Monopoly game by $15.  To Daisy.  Which makes me happy because then life can be more fair for her.  I already had low expectations.

The World Spins Madly On

Kind of sad sounding but somehow this song by The Weepies makes me happy. It's a real Natasha song. My favourite music all has the same sound.

Daily Gratitudes

1. I have this little shamrock plant that I've had for like, 15 years, or something.  Before we married, Jude drove it all the way out to Alberta from Ontario, with my cat Pava.  It's really hard to kill.  It doesn't need much light, which is ideal. It's green on top and purple under the petal-like leaves. It opens in the day and closes up at night (looks a bit phallic, actually- ew). I recently moved it to the table under my iMac and it really cheers me.
2. Though we probably have swine flu, it's not been a big deal at all.  Maybe because of all the supplements we take to be healthy?  Jude has to stay home for a few days so that will be nice.
3. Hasn't snowed yet. Green grass again, leaves on trees.
4. The sun just came out and shone on me.  Feels hopeful.
5. My Burtons are online again. :-)

How to touch God (How to have bliss)

Imagine that you live on a planet where everyone has a skin disease.  For thousands of years people have suffered this disease so that their skin is covered with sore, infected wounds.  Because this has been the situation for everyone for so long, this disease is believed to be normal physiology of the skin, a natural maturity of the skin.  The people on your planet are actually born with healthy skin and this morphing into diseased skin doesn't take place until age 3 or 4.

Of course, people hardly touch each other because it's too painful.  They protect their skin and if someone accidentally touches one person's skin, s/he instantly reacts in anger from the pain, and touches the other person back.  Though a lot of pain is involved, people still have relationships with each other, still reproduce their kind, because the instinct to love is so powerful.

If someone from say, Narnia, came to our planet, they would find this same dynamic except that instead of physical wounds, we harbour emotional wounds.  And the manifestation of this disease is anger, hate, sadness, envy, hypocrisy, jealousy, revenge, dishonesty, insecurity.

This is not my analogy.  It comes from The Mastery of Love by Don Miguel Ruiz. 

It serves as a very vivid, memorable reminder for me of what I'm dealing with, with the people around me (and, of course, myself).

This mental disease is so pervasive that we call it normal.  But it's NOT.

I adamantly believe to the point where I can say I KNOW that it's possible to overcome this disease and not let it stop us from loving each other.  I know this as much as I know anything in my life.

I know that what we think of others may not be true.

I know that people judge each other and analyse each other so they can decide upon their own ranking, because they don't see themselves as lovable enough just for being children of God.

I know that we have power over our thoughts; we can change them.

I know that what we think about ourselves, we become.

I know that we can become anything, with enough time and belief.

The Mastery of Love says,

"Humans live in continuous fear of being hurt, and this creates a big drama wherever we go.  The way humans relate to each other is so emotionally painful that for no apparent reason we get angry, jealous, envious, sad.  To even say "I love you" can be frightening.  But even if it's painful and fearful to have an emotional interaction, still we keep going, we enter into [relationships]...."

I used to live in a lot of fear and it made relationships excruciating.  Every single one of my relationships was contentious to a degree because I didn't love myself and I was insecure.

So, I know so much of what The Mastery of Love describes.

Check this out:

"If you take your happiness and put it in someone's hands, sooner or later, she is gong to break it.  If you give your happiness to someone else, she can always take it away. Then if happiness can only come from inside of you and the result of your life, you are responsible for your happiness.... It doesn't matter how much you love someone, you are never going to be what that person wants you to be.

Love has no obligations.  Fear is full of obligations.  In the track of fear, whatever we do is because we have to do it and we expect other people to do something because they have to do it.  We have the obligation and as soon as we have to, we resist it.  The more resistance we have, the more we suffer.  Sooner or later, we try to escape our obligations.  On the other hand, love has no resistance.  Whatever we do is because we want to do it.  It becomes a pleasure;  it's like a game and we have fun with it. 

Love has no expectations.  Fear is full of expectations.  With fear we do things because we expect that we have to, and we expect that others are going to do the same.  That is why fear hurts and love doesn't hurt.  We expect something and if it doesn't happen, we feel hurt-- it isn't fair.   We blame others for not fulfilling our expectations.  When we love, we don't have expectations;  we do it because we want to, and if other people do it or not, it's because they want to or not and it's nothing personal....

Love is unconditional.  Fear is full of conditions.  In the track of fear, I love you if you let me control you, if you are good to me, if you fit into the image I make for you.  I create an image of the way you should be, and because you are not and never will be the image, I judge you because of that, and find you guilty.  Many times I even feel ashamed of you because you are not what I want you to be. If you don't fit that image I create, you embarrass me, you annoy me, I have no patience at all with you.  I am just pretending kindness.  In the track of love, there is no if;  there are no conditions.  I love you for no reason, with no justification.  I love you the way you are and you are free to be the way you are.  We don't have the right to change anyone else, and no one has the right to change us.  If we are going to change, it is because we want to change, because we don't want to suffer any longer."

I could go on and on quoting this book but a few of you already complain that my posts are too long. ;-)

This book has changed my marriage and now I'm working on letting it change my other most important relationships.  When that moment of acceptance and surrender comes-- that moment of peace and pure love, that incredible light bulb moment when you realise that the amount of love you feel for your person is enough to make you happy, even if it's not returned the way you'd like, because to feel unadulterated love is a very happy feeling-- it's the most beautiful thing. 

It's like touching God. 

Daily Gratitudes

1. Though I'm really weak and tired from fighting off a virus, I am so happy. Just because.
2. My children are so cute still.
3. Music that makes me swoon.
4. Being able to help other people with depression.  Even if to just to let them feel less lonely.
5. My EMPower Plus seems to be working very well.  Every week I feel more evenly emotive. 

Where the Wild Things Are: A parenting what-not-to-do story

So, Max says, "I'll eat you up!"  We're not told how he said it.  Did he say it playfully?  Was he pretending to be a monster?  Does he have a history of back talk with his mother?  We are left with either having to extend the mother some benefit of the doubt or assuming that the woman is a bit spazzy.  Because, sending a little kid to bed without his supper just for saying, while wearing a monster costume, "I'll eat you up!"?  I'm imagining her parenting Sin/Consequence chart must resemble this:

Saying "I'll eat you up!" = To bed without supper

Leaving your toys out = Smack on the bum

Hitting your little brother = Clean out the rain gutters

Telling me you hate me = Beaten to death

So, first the mom doesn't overlook Max's natural childishness.  She makes a big deal out of seemingly nothing. She's allowed to teasingly call him "Wild thing" but he's not allowed to pretend to be the wild thing?  She doesn't explain what he did wrong. 

Then, she doesn't choose a logical consequence.  Her consequence includes arguable cruelty (inflicting hunger pains on her child). 

Then when she realises she punished him in haste and she didn't have the heart to carry through with the punishment, she brings him his supper anyway, teaching him that he can behave how he wants and his mom won't follow through on her word. 

I've always had trouble looking past this part of the story.  I can never tell how I'm supposed to read the "I'll eat you up!" part.  I always read it like Max is really angry because he must be to justify her reaction but if you were reading this for the first time ever you might read it playfully and then you're all, "So he was sent to bed without eating anything." And then you're all confused, wondering if you read things wrong.

Yes, it's got great illustrations.  Yes, it's poetic. 

But isn't it also about how Max feels powerless and unappreciated so he loses himself in a world of imagination where he can be king and where the monsters love him so much they want to eat him so he can be a part of them forever? 

Maybe the point of the story is to highlight Max's mom's bad 1960's parenting and Max's coping mechanisms.  Maybe it's a story about the realism of parenting, how we are all prone to hasty disciplining and that we have the power to propel our kids to fantastical imagining for coping but that in the end, everything works out:  our kids forgive us and the love they know we have for them draws them back to us, even when we were stupid.

I haven't seen the movie yet.  I'm interested in the interpretation.

Daily Gratitudes

1. The stomach virus my daughter has doesn't seem to have hit me as hard. Guts still hurt though.
2. Lulu's 4th birthday party went off without a hitch and I wasn't sick for it.
3. Feeling peppy and happy despite reasons to be glum.
4. Still have not given in to my desire to eat sugar. 
5. Lulu is full of funny quotes lately.

Funy times 2

Checked my email.  Got a message from my son.  From the computer in the basement.  He's working on a big chapter novel about a place called Arnolia. 

"hi momm

 

i pute toghether a presintation abuot mi arnolia thingiy.

 

goe 2 mi googgle doks akcount andd u will see a videeo icon thate says arnolia.

 

have fun

 

(P.S. I really can spell, just did that because I find horribly misspelled things funny.)

 

luv u 

 

:)"

The "rilly" funny thing?  I didn't even notice that he was misspelling anything until I got to "thingiy".

Daily Gratitudes

1. My friend Katie's husband didn't die.
2. Jude let me sleep in this morning.  Took me a long time to fall asleep last night because I was itchy everywhere for no reason. 
3. Video chatting with faraway friends.
4. My grade one daughter is reading in French!
5. Grey's Anatomy is on tonight.  Vegggggg.

To the point that anti-Mormon journalists are just in the same integrity camp as the LDS church when reporting on the LDS church

Oh for goodness sake.  Just now I reached my threshold of annoyance for Dooce and Monica Bielanko arguing that anti-Mormons reporting on the LDS church is the same thing, only on a different end of the spectrum, as Mormons reporting on the LDS church.

Allow me to explain why it's totally not the same thing.

Monica made the point to me that KSL and Deseret News are church-owned and therefore when they report on the church, and always favourably, that this is biased like I said she was biased.

Except...

...wait for it...

...everyone knows that Deseret News is church-owned.  And most people probably know that KSL is church-owned. Certainly neither facts are hid.

When Monica or any journalist reporting on the church or a news station or news blog reporting on the church wears a visible badge saying, "I'm anti-Mormon," or "Ex-Mormon here," or "Ya, we don't so much like the LDS church,"  THEN it will be the same thing. 

If people can't figure out that a church-owned news station is not going to report on the church unfavourably then that person probably can't read or piece together much coherence anyway.

So, news stations:  Start making your biases as obvious as the LDS church does and then I, and other Mormons, won't have so much of a problem with you only sharing part of a story, or the part of a quote that you're sure is going to rile people up, or your skew on a quote that biases the viewer's discernment.  'Kay?

That's enough of a clinching point alone.  I could leave it at that.  But there's one more thing to consider:

Mormons covenant to uphold the church because they believe it to be the church of Jesus Christ.  They covenant to consecrate their possessions, time, talent to the building of God's church.  GOD TRUMPS JOURNALISM.  Okay?  So, Mormon media doesn't HAVE to tell everyone all the possible evil interpretations of what the LDS church says and does.

Non-Mormon Journalists, on the other hand, if they have made covenants with Satan, I don't want to stand in the way of their sincerely held beliefs.  Freedom of religion and all that.  If they've made covenants with a God they believe is different than the God I believe in, and that covenant involves tearing down the LDS church, then I have no beef with that either.  Be true to your beliefs and I refer you back to point #1.

But if they have not made sacred covenants, then there's nothing that should be trumping their journalistic integrity.

Media,

DO

YOUR

JOB.

Gardisil pointless and dangerous? Merck researcher shares shocking info (CMB Post)

The Population Research Institute* is reporting on some shocking statements made by Dr. Diane Harper,  the leading international developer of the HPV vaccine, at the 4th Annual Public Conference on Vaccination on Gardisil the vaccine touted to prevent cervical cancer from HPV infections.

Here are some statistics that this Merck representative reportedly shared at this conference, taken directly from the Population Research Institute's article:

• 70% of HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment in one year.
• After two years, this rate climbs to 90%.
• Of the remaining 10% of HPV infections, only half coincide with the development of cervical cancer.
• 4 out of 5 women with cervical cancer are in developing countries (i.e. not the United States or Canada)
• 8 in 100,000 women will get cervical cancer.
• 1.3-3.7 will die from it.
• The cancer rate has been declining by 4% every year, since between 1955 to 1992 when the rate declined 74%, without any influence from a vaccine. [Link to American Cancer Society]
• There will be no decrease in cervical cancer until 70% of the population is vaccinated.
• The highest amount of decrease in cervical cancer will not be seen for 60 years.
• After 60 years, the highest predicted decrease will be 70%.
• No efficacy trials have been done on girls under 15.
• Merck did study a group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.
• If a child is vaccinated, she will not keep immunity until puberty and will need boosters.
• 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
• Adverse effects include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others.
• The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.
• Dr. Harper  told ABC News that "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

To read more on this (and I really, really, really urge you to and how often do I "really, really, really" urge anything? Never. That's the first time.), please click here.  This is an original post I've written for Canada Moms Blog and I'm not authorised to print the entire text.  You can comment here or there, your choice.

Dallin H. Oaks: Calling for fair reading, fair thinking, fair commentary

There was an incident this week in the media where Elder Dallin H. Oaks gave a speech at BYU Idaho and in it he said:

"It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation." (Emphasis added.)

A journalist named Monica Bielanko, who works for Fox 13 in Salt Lake City, tweeted 15 minutes prematurely about this speech, with which the LDS church newsroom took issue because they had placed an embargo on the story where it couldn't be discussed by news media who were privy to the news until 3:00 that day, which was the time Elder Oaks was expected to be finished giving his speech. 

I happen to think it's fair to let a person finish what they're saying before you go reporting on what they said.

Monica's tweet was:

"LDS apostle gives speech at BYU-Idaho. The contents of which has my head exploding and FOX seeking a response from the NAACP. More at Five."

Now, that doesn't really report on what Elder Oaks said, it merely suggests enough for speculation.  If it were me, I wouldn't have been bothered by what she said but the church newsroom was.  I also wouldn't have made a fuss about being 15 minutes premature but the newsroom did.  Perhaps they wanted to be strict so that a standard could be set or maintained.  Perhaps the issue wasn't so much the tweet.  Perhaps it was that they didn't want to set a precedent of being a pushover in any way so that anything they might say or do in the future would be taken seriously. 

Monica wrote a blog post just saturated with snottiness, bitterness, and chip-on-the-shoulderness about this incident.  Behold a portion (language warning if you're so sensitive to that):

"I will give you this. I still have issues. Always will. But my lingering rage anger doesn't negate that when the church is full of shit, the church is full of shit.

Today I arrived at work to find that during a speech to BYU students in Idaho, a leader of the Mormon church, an apostle, if I'm to use their terminology, compared the backlash against those who voted for Prop 8 to the African American struggle for civil rights in the south.

After I picked my eyeballs up off the floor and shoved 'em back in my head I read the entire story being reported by the Associated Press. Did he really say that? I thought those cagey, old, white dudes hid their true feelings better than that.

He did. He said it. And elaborated for ages about why he totally believes it.

Well, that's just plain wrong and fucked up eight ways to Saturday, the special day, the day we get ready for Sunday."

(If it were me, I would have had a full colon after "I will give you this", but that's just me... and proper writing.)

Monica is by no means unbiased towards the church.  She writes about how she had an abortion as a teen because,

"I debate the merits of adoption but don't feel like I can go through with it for a myriad of reasons. I tell myself it's because it will be too hard to give up the baby after carrying it for nine months. I couldn't bare the thought of a child of mine living in the world when I didn't know it's name or how it was doing. That's true to an extent. But deep down I know that thought process is mostly me trying to cast myself as a tragic figure too sensitive to deal with adoption. Mostly I just don't want to be pregnant. Don't want my teenage indiscretion to interfere with the business of being a teenager. Pregnancy means disclosure. Disclosure means shame, acknowledging to the world that Monica Butler had lived up to expectations of being a member of The Bad Family and got knocked up at seventeen. I told you so."

Abortion is a grave sin in the LDS church.  So I could see it possible, in response to her abortion and the things she's been taught over the years, that Monica's choices are either to hate or judge herself or hate or judge the church.  Now, she says she was already questioning the church before her abortion and I'm sure that's true.  Plenty of people DO question their religion, their family, their way of life in their coming-of-age years.  But not all people attack the church with such fury as Monica did in her post, and does in other blog posts.

The fact that she had an abortion-- I'm surprisingly nonjudgemental about that.  As a teen, I thought I was pregnant once and if I had turned out to be, my plan was to have an abortion.  I wasn't Mormon, mind you, but that's not really the point.  The point is that I can empathise with the emotions and thoughts she described.

I point out her reason for getting an abortion not so we can all judge her but to show that she would have good reason for hating herself, if she held on to her Mormon upbringing.  Again, I'm not saying she should hate herself-- I don't think God wants that for any of us.  I'm just saying that if she remained an active LDS person, that would be a really hard decision to come to terms with.  The easier thing is to leave the church, blame, and attack it because if it's really, really bad, then maybe... she's not.

Do I KNOW this to be her psychology?  No, of course not.  But it's certainly a reasonable inference.  I'm also not saying that this would be her only reason for hating the church.  I'm sure she has a boatload.  My point is only that she is FAR from unbiased.

Bias established?

Okay.

So, then Dooce, another person raised in the church who left and has become quite bitter toward it, links from Twitter to this blog post of Monica's.  Rah, rah, yay, Monica!  Way to intelligently attack the evil Mormon church!

Except...

...what exactly are we attacking?  Let's look at that quote again:

"These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation." (Emphasis added.)

Note that it doesn't say that what black voters faced was the same or even similar to what Mormon voters faced.  What he said was that the EFFECT was similar.  The effect was that people felt scared to vote.  So, he's saying that one group of people felt scared to vote and that's like another group of people feeling scared to vote.  Sounds like a pretty valid comparison. "Scared" is like "scared".  Maybe one group felt scared because they were being threatened with death and another group were feeling scared because they were threatened with losing their jobs.  That's not the same and he didn't say it was.  The EFFECT is the same.

Now, that's not semantics.  That's called READING WORDS AND SENTENCES AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY MEAN IN ENGLISH BY ALL STANDARD DEFINITIONS.  Now, maybe to YOU the word "effect" means "Alf" or "I love marshmallows" but I don't care how you want to screw up the English language because you have brain issues, it still means what it means by every other sane person's definition and you can't change that.

When I first read Monica's post and watched the video from Fox 13 Now, I stupidly believed their interpretation on what was said.  Because this is news media and media should be reporting news in an unbiased way, no?  Wording things in scandalous ways is a strategy only employed by shows like Jerry Springer, right?

Then when I read the entire speech by Elder Oaks even I didn't notice the crucially relevant qualifier "in their effect".  I didn't notice until my friend Mary pointed it out to me as *I*, too, was ranting about this comparison I thought Oaks had made.

When I re-read the speech a second time, it jumped out at me and I realised that this Mormon scandal?  Completely made up by the media. 

Call me naïve but I call it giving the benefit of the doubt.  I don't assume that people and news media lie and I don't assume that people and news media are self-serving.  I know it's possible but it's never my first assumption.

Now, you might say, Natasha, that was one person's blog that you linked to.  You can't say that the Fox 13 Now news station itself is biased and misleading.  Well, I have no proof.  But check this out from Salt Lake City Weekly.net's website:

"In light of Bielanko's struggles, I would like to make an offer to everyone in local media who face similar situations: send the embargoed materials to me, jloftin@cityweekly.net or call me at 801-413-0940. I'll put the damn thing up, because City Weekly is almost never important enough to get embargoed stuff in the first place. And if I haven't agreed to an embargo, I have no responsibility to honor an embargo. (Obviously, that means if I actually have agreed to the embargo, then I will not put the stuff up.)

And for anyone who does send me something, be assured that nobody will ever know where I got it. So you run no risk of pissing off the wrong people. And yes, the big downside is that little ol' City Weekly scoops you. But sometimes, there are bigger victories to consider."

Here we have a news service(?) openly saying that they are not above asking people to break their word and their work ethics to leak stories so they can report them in their own words and style, which is the sort to sarcastically call the LDS Church Newsroom the "Bureau of Righteous Thought".  Real journalistic-y! The twisted ethics is pitiful.  Journalists are supposed to feel comforted because they can trust the cloak of secrecy from someone who doesn't mind encouraging other people to compromise their integrity?  They're supposed to feel comforted because while their integrity may be compromised, they don't have to risk pissing off the sources that give them a reason for having a livelihood?

Josh Loftin, don't fool yourself.

Now, I know that people are getting their news from nonprofessional sources these days, like The Daily Show and Colbert Report (both of which Jude and I LOVELOVELOVE), but those shows are in the genre of comedy and entertainment.  (If you want to watch such programs with the delusion that they don't crop news clips to twist their messages, that they're unbiased, that they don't misquote people, then you're missing out on truth and actual news.)

But is City Weekly a comedy site?  Didn't look like it to me. 

So, maybe the news media doesn't have the integrity that it should.  Maybe you should be wary.

I'm urging you to GO DIRECTLY TO THE SOURCE which is being reported and to use your reading and critical thinking skills, and also to ask yourself, Does this source reporting on this have any reason to skew the information?  These days, with the LDS church as the news focus, the answer to that last question is often YES.

An At-home Example of Failure to Read, Think, and Comment Critically and Fairly

Yesterday someone with whom I used to have a relationship of sorts messaged me on Facebook with the purpose of rebuking me (his words, not mine).  Rebuking me over this statement of mine made in one of my Facebook statuses:

"Argh. I wish the church would stop mentioning gay people's pleas as "newly asserted" because what difference does that make? Why is the length of time relevant? For how long were women not allowed to vote? Anyone know? For how long we...re blacks enslaved? For how long were children off and married?"

I was surprised when he asked me:

"Are you comparing gays to black slaves and women's right to vote?

Do you believe that the gay rights movement is similar to these two initiatives?"

My reply:

"They are similar enough when the only argument for disenfranchisement is TRADITION. The church is [refuting] gay "civil rights" because they are "newly asserted". I'm saying that if the length of time they've gone without a right is a good reason to not grant it, then by that logic women should not have been given the right to vote neither should blacks."

But that was not clear enough for him because he took that to mean that I disagree with the church's stance on gay marriage and that I think gay rights are the same as black people's rights and women's rights.  I never said that.

I was galled x 6 and just a wee bit wounded when his reply to "my" point that he made up in his confused  head was, 

"That is what I see as the issues - "gay" is not the same as blonde... it's not part of your make-up. AND if it is, then it's closer to retarded than freckles."

"Closer to retarded than freckles"?  Okay, now I know he is NOT saying that it is like being mentally retarded.  He's just saying that it's closer to a flaw, a mistake of nature, than a neutral feature.  Except even the suggestion that mental retardation is a flaw or a mistake is offensive.  Surely, it's the Lord's will that people be born this way and surely parents of mentally retarded children don't feel like their children are horrible mistakes.  But besides all that, could he have chosen a more offensive way of expressing his opinion that people aren't born gay?!  He had to know that "retarded" would not go over well with me, yet he said it anyway.  And he has known for years that I consider myself bisexual (or Same Sex Attracted in jumbly Mormon lingo).  Still, he said that.

And Readers, I IGNORED IT.  I knew that anything I would say in response would involve the word "idiot" or "ass".  Readers, I used such self-control.  You might think I can be sharp-tongued but I SAID NOTHING. Where is my medal?! 

Instead I said:

"You're making a comparison between blacks and women and gays. I'M making a comparison between time and time and time.

Every reason you just gave for gays not being allowed to marry is an ACTUAL reason. The reason Dallin H. Oaks alluded to in his most recent address to BYU, which I'm assuming you didn't read, was not that...  And HE called [the civil rights] "newly asserted". And my point was exactly what I said: newness is irrelevant. It makes for a bad debate argument.

It's like you read what I said and instead of taking it at face value you made assumptions about what I was trying to say. Except that I'm a good communicator and if I had wanted to make the point that gays should be allowed to marry, I would have. I never did.

I'll say it again: I wish [church leaders] would stop making the point that these civil rights that gays are asking for are new and invented because it's a poor point to make, one that's easily batted out of the park. The church itself is new because it needed a country and an era where its freedoms would be protected. Same with gays. The way something has been for thousands of years is not a good reason to withhold."

End of discussion, right?  Like, could I have made my point more obvious?  I couldn't have really, but that didn't stop him from misunderstanding. 

His reply back to me included these tidbits:

"I find your treatment of this topic disturbing and my initial response was gentler because I didn't want to simply rebuke you...

I can't believe that you are tearing apart a statement made by a chosen Apostle of the Lord with such vigor AND so publically [sic]. Do you really think you are helping soften the issue in the eyes of the public or are making our leaders look foolish? Do you think that Elder Oaks was in any way confused about his message?

I can't believe that you would openly contradict him like this instead of asking yourself, "what am I not seeing here?"

Then a bunch of blather about why gays should not be married and something about transexuals and then pedophiles.  Blah, blah, blah.

Now, what he missed in the discussion that ensued on my Facebook wall was my testimony that the revelation from our church leaders comes from God.  I believe that wholeheartedly.  And all revelation, not just some.  But leaders themselves are men with their own styles of communication and I have every right to say that I don't like the way something was communicated.  I am allowed to have preferences.  For one thing, I didn't criticise the church but even if I did, I didn't do it on my blog, I did it on Facebook amongst my friends, many of whom are Mormon and are perfectly able and welcome to chime in with their own testimonies and opinions. 

But I didn't criticise the church.  I criticised the use of a few words because of what they suggested and that suggestion dilutes, I think, the other valid arguments the church has.

This discussion on my Facebook wall ended up helping another member of the church to see the difference between the man and the message.  For example, if you read what Spencer W. Kimball says about homosexuality in The Miracle of Forgiveness, it's pretty harsh.  Obviously, he thought it was just one of the most vile things ever.  If you read what Gordon B. Hinckley has said and what Dallin H. Oaks has said, you get a very different tone, one of more love and understanding.  The differences can be confusing until you realise that the message has never, ever changed.  The way that message has been communicated-- the medium-- has changed.  And why?  Because the delivery comes from different people who are mere men who are influenced by their own biases, experiences, histories, education, personalities, and societies in which they were raised. 

Once you realise that, it's easier to understand why some prophets seem to contradict other prophets.  You need to look carefully at the message, look past how it's communicated, and ask if there really IS a contradiction or if your own biases just helped you to interpret things that way.

As for the flavour of the messages, the medium, we're allowed to have opinions on that!!  I have every right to say that I, Natasha, wish the church leaders would stop making this argument, or would stop using this word.  I'm allowed to have a preference!  It doesn't mean I'm right but I'm allowed to have a preference AND EXPRESS IT.

There's a difference between the message and the medium;  the medium comes from man while the message comes from God.

Dooce, Monica, Salt Lake City Weekly, and other media sources, don't like the message OR the medium.  And that's fine.  I don't care if they like it or not, do you? 

I care about people being careful to distinguish between the two AND to not trust anyone else to make that distinction. 

THINK CRITICALLY.  Be careful.  Reread.  And if you're like the aforementioned who obviously doesn't care enough about me and my feelings to actually READ stuff that I've written about gay marriage and my views on it, then find someone smarter than you, who DOES know how to read, who does know how to set aside their own emotions for a moment, and who can think critically for you.

My questions to Republican Mormons

What Prompted This Post

I unwittingly got into a huge discussion on Twitter about American politics. A very annoying conversation because you just can't have a multiple person discussion or debate on Twitter. It's the most frustrating thing after paper milk cartons;  those things are so hard to open. 

The whole conversation made my head spin.  Because I'm used to debating things point by point and this was not that.  It was like, well, random tweeting about whatever people wanted to say instead of them replying to my points and questions directly.  But I blame the Twitter format.

My Objective in Writing This

I want to know why so many Mormons vote Republican.  I want to know why they are so passionately against aspects of socialism.  I basically want to know how they sleep at night. (That was a playful jibe.)  I have been able to reach a place of love, acceptance, and non-judgement in some areas in my life but politics is not one of them.  It's my Achilles heel. (I know this is not news to many of you.)  When people tell me that the US health care system is better than the Canadian system, for example, because some Canadians go to the US for health care (while some Americans go abroad, even to India) and that because some Canadians die waiting for care (while Americans do too and for even worse reasons) I literally want to tear the skin off my face.   And I'd like to get to a place in my life where that doesn't happen.  I'm a logic-oriented person--  the easiest way for me to accept something is to understand the whys first.   If I can at least understand your point of view, then I can accept it and not get upset about it.  Don't take my exasperation personally;  my own impatience is my own issue that I need to work on. 

As well, there are many liberal Mormons like me who would appreciate being able to better understand.

As well, it IS possible that I can be swayed to more conservative ways of thinking.  If, for example, Mormon leaders having said that the Constitution is an inspired document means that people should vote for parties that are as closely aligned to that document as possible, and someone can make a good case for this, then I might be convinced that Mormons who vote Republican are more aligned with God's will than Mormons who vote Democrat. 

But for that to happen, it would have to be well established that 1.  Church leaders HAVE said that the Constitution should be our priority over all other considerations, more so than even the two greatest commandments, and 2. that Republican policies ARE more constitutional than Democratic policies.   

Things You Need to Know Before Trying to Explain Things to Me

First off, I have to remind you that I'm Canadian.  As such, I've never cared two whits about the Constitution. I had never even heard until this year, in a conversation on Twitter about gun control, that church leaders said the Constitution was an inspired document.  I suspect most of us don't learn about it in Canada in our schools and I've never heard much about it at church.  I only know bits from Law & Order. (Did you laugh at that?  Because that was funny.) And I'm not about to go read the whole constitution.  I'm relying on you to be the expert on your constitution.

As well, I'm a convert to the LDS church.  I've been a member for 13 years.  Mormonism is my religion but not my culture.  I've never gone to seminary or institute (aside from one semester) or even Young Women's.  I've not been raised with knowledge about some things that other Mormons have been because their family sat around talking about church history or something.  I've never taken it upon myself to read a lot of stuff that the early prophets have said because I'm still trying to learn and put into practise things that the modern prophets have said and that always takes precedence.   So, don't presume I know stuff that church members rarely talk about.  If there's something you think I should know, I'd really appreciate it if you could find the link to it.

What I Don't Understand

How exactly does socialism remove free will from people other than by having more regulations for the safety of people and by having higher taxes?  Are there any other ways in which it does so or is it mainly those two ways?  What would you propose instead?  A state where no taxes are taken from people?  What would that look like for you?  Exactly how much freedom do you want?  Keep in mind that we're not talking about establishing Zion here.  We're talking real world, right now;  what is feasible? 

So far the biggest complaint I've heard from a number of people is that socialism is evil is because it takes away your money that you've earned and decides what to do with it and by not allowing you to decide what to freely do with your money, it's evil like Satan pre-Earth.

Okay.

So, I don't understand the point of debating socialism as a philosophy vs. capitalism as a philosophy when I know of no nation (certainly not the ones in which we're living) which could be described as strictly one or the other.  We have a combo of socialism and capitalism in both of our countries and so do Norway, Sweden, France, Iceland, Australia, etc.

To say that you don't support policies that are socialistic seems silly to me when you live in a country that uses taxation as its fuel.  Whether you vote Democrat or Republican you're voting for a system where the government takes your money and decides what to do with it.  Whether you vote Democrat or Republican, you are voting for a system that takes away some of your free will.

So, if right-wing Mormons object so much to this kind of system, why is Utah largely Republican? 

You're voting for the lesser of two evils?  Except the lesser of two evils doesn't WORK so well.  The lesser of two evils is not taking care of the people of the United States.  People are being neglected.  Millions of people are going without health care and millions more are enslaved by their medical bills.  Even more are paying exorbitant insurance costs.  All for the privilege of living, ideally healthfully.  That sounds to me like an infringement upon free will.

I do not think it is the Lord's will for children in rich neighborhoods to get a better education and to have gyms in their schools while children in poor neighborhoods have to share textbooks and don't even have adequate lighting in their classrooms. 

I do not think it's the Lord's will for hardworking, productive people to not be able to afford to save their kids' lives from an illness or disease.

We know the Lord wants a better world than that because we have the United Order as a model and we also have this Proclamation from early church leaders. 

We also have countless scriptures about caring for the poor and needy.  In our last conference address Elder Cook said, "The Lord's admonition that we are stewards for those in need contains some of the strongest admonition in all the scriptures. 'If any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion unto the poor and needy, he shall with the wicked lift up his eyes in hell being in torment.'"

So, with all that-- with all that!-- are there Mormons who say that they will not support socialistic models for social programs because it TRADES some agency of taxpayers for agency of the poor? 

I'll get back to this point about it being a tradeoff but for sake of argument let's say it's not.  Let's say that it removes agency from people.  Do you think that is the most important point of all, that it trumps everything else the Lord has commanded us to do?  If so, can you point me to a quote from church leaders that doesn't just vaguely hint at this order of priorities but lays it out clearly?  If it's so crucially important, I would hope that the church leaders would make it clear so we could choose the right.

What if every single American looked at these socialistic models and said, "Yes.  This will work.  I want this."  If every single American wanted a socialistic model, guess what?  That would BE the United Order.  (I mean, it wouldn't really be because it would still be run by the government and not the church, but other than THAT minor detail, heh heh.)  If every single American wanted to share of his substance in a socialistic way, then they all would have chosen that.  They would have exercised their agency AND they'd be fulfilling the Lord's command to care for each other equitably.

Wouldn't that be great?

If your only objection to equality through socialism is that it takes away the agency of people who DON'T like the notion and you feel guilty about taking away someone else's agency because that's all Satan-like, then you're saying that were it not for that, you would choose this model.  You would be saying that your heart wants this more charitable model but also does not want to force anyone else to have to choose this more charitable model.

But you're not forcing anyone.  Everyone has the right to vote for this more charitable model or not.  Everyone has the right to vote for the good of their own family over the good of the masses.  And if people don't want to see the greater good and sign themselves up, isn't that their own spiritual problem for which they will be judged?

It's not the same thing as Satan forcing us all to choose the right in all things.  Our world is imperfect and we cannot have a utopia where everyone is free to choose in all things.   We cannot have countries where people can do whatever they want, including pay taxes or not.  Because it just won't work.  It's a logistical nightmare.  The majority vote will ALWAYS infringe upon the freedoms of the minority in some way or another.

So, is the main objection of Republican Mormons that the Democrat party supports policies that infringes even more upon your rights than the Republican party?

And even though there's less equality and more poverty in the US than in other more socialist nations, that right to choose trumps all?

The way it is now, there are people who are enslaved by poverty.  There are people with medical bills so high they are either forced to declare bankruptcy or live in poverty for the rest of their lives, paying off their bills.  They don't have the same freedom of choice as I do.  They are enslaved.  And if they get sick again, they may die because they can't afford treatment. 

There are children who just will not get a good education because they live in a poor neighborhood where their schools are shoddy.  Are you really able to freely exercise your agency when you don't have an education?

So, when Republican Mormons say (and some have said to me) that they are choosing the lesser of two evils, I can't help but want to see a flow chart of their logic.  I want to see how they weigh out one trade off for another because I do see this as a trade of freedom of the poor for freedom of the wealthy.

I can sort of understand but I'm missing a piece of the puzzle here.

Incidentally, I found this post on The Gospel of Redistribution  from The Mormon Worker to be a very interesting read.

So, again my questions, both overt and implied, are:

1. Specifically what do you have against socialism and are you against all aspects of socialism? 
2. Is it not possible to have a superior society that mixes principles of capitalism and socialism than to have a society that is staunchly one or the other?
3. What is your idea of an ideal society and what are you doing to work toward that?  How much moral responsibility do you think Latter-day Saints have to strive for perfection?  
4. With the second greatest commandment being to love our neighbor as ourselves, how do Republican Mormons conclude that a Republican country accomplishes that?

I guess that's it for now.  I have many more specific questions and points but I see no sense in raising them preemptively.  This has already been overwhelming enough.