I'm a Mormon

I've been seeing several of the new "I'm a Mormon" profile pictures showing up on Facebook. Last year I wrote a brief post about how I never change my profile picture to anything beyond a photo of me. Heck, I won't even use group shots as my profile picture, and I have never used a logo or other graphic. It's not to 'hate' on those who decided to (both my sisters have decided to) or look down; no, it's just a preference. I figure, at this point, if you don't already know I'm a Mormon (i.e. a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also referred to as Latter-day Saints or LDS), you probably don't know me very well at all or haven't been paying attention. Seeing as my Facebook profile is restricted mostly to people I know outside the cyber world (and the few on there I haven't met in person I have interacted with to some degree beyond Facebook), using it on Facebook for me isn't necessary.  That said, I thought it would be a good idea to to a "Yes and No" blog post about being Mormon using some common questions I get, not only for those of who who may not know me as well, but even those of you I know a little better! (See my Mormon.org profile too!)

Were you raised Mormon?

As early Latter-day Saint
Parley Pratt in 2012

Yes. My parents both joined the Church about a year apart before getting married. I was baptized the day after my 8th birthday.

Do you have a problem being called "Mormon"?
No. It's a very common nickname and I find nothing derogatory about it. I usually use the terms (Mormon and LDS/Latter-day Saint) interchangeably. What's surprising is that a lot of people still don't know that Mormon and Latter-day Saint are synonymous or even that the term "Mormon Church" is a nickname for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Is your family originally from Utah?
No. I actually get that as much from members of the church as I do from those not in the church. I've always said I'm never quite sure who is more surprised that I was raised LDS in Ohio: Latter-day Saints from out west or non-LDS from Ohio. I do have extended family in Utah, but my family history is in Ohio and the eastern US. My aunt moved to Utah around 1980 and subsequently started her family there. My sister lived in Utah from 2008-12 with her husband and first two kids, but she grew up and went to college here in Ohio and has since relocated to Indiana.

Did you serve a mission?

As a full-time missionary in
Safford, Arizona, June 2002

Yes. I served in the Arizona Tucson Mission from December 2001-November 2003. While there I served in the cities of Oro Valley, Safford, and Sierra Vista in Arizona and the cities of Animas, Las Cruces, Alamogordo, and Ruidoso in New Mexico.

Isn't that a mission trip?
No, though there are some obvious similarities. A mission trip tends to be shorter and as much for sightseeing as it is for missionary work and service. A mission is pretty much putting your life on hold for two years while you focus on teaching people about the Gospel and doing service. We have limited contact with home life (call home on Christmas and Mother's Day) and while we do sight-see sometimes, it's not very often. I'd say it's much more intense than a typical mission trip.

Did you feel pressured to serve a mission?
No, but I did feel like I would've disappointed many people if I hadn't gone.

Was it the best two years of your life?
No. I actually dislike that phrase. If the best two years are around age 19, what do I have to look forward to? My mission, up to this point, was one of the hardest things I have ever done, but also one of the best decisions I made. I consider it a huge accomplishment, something I am proud of, and am glad I did. While I can't say I'd do it all over again, I have never regretted going on a mission and it still affects me in many ways both directly and indirectly!

Do you drink alcohol and/or smoke?
No for both. Never really wanted to either. Guess I'm in the right church!

Do you drink caffeine?

Oh blessed Vanilla Coke!!

Yes, but not on a regular basis. I really don't drink pop/soda very much out of habit. If I have a caffeinated beverage, it's in the form of Dr. Pepper, Coke, Vanilla Coke, Cherry Coke, Pepsi, or Cherry Pepsi. The Word of Wisdom (the health code most Mormons follow) actually doesn't prohibit caffeine, though many LDS either believe it does or interpret it to mean that.

Did you go to BYU?
No, but I did attend sister school (not a branch or satellite campus) BYU-Idaho for three academic years. I had no desire to attend BYU. Not the environment I was looking for. My bachelor's and master's degrees are both from Kent State University.

Did you like BYU-Idaho?

After taking my last final ever at BYU-Idaho in 2007!

Yes and No. I liked the teachers I had there and I am still in touch with many of the friends I made while there. I learned so much about myself, the church, the culture, and music (my field of study). I strongly disliked the overall culture there, however, particularly in relation to marriage. I could go on forever, but suffice it to say, I was glad when my time there was done. I don't miss the school at all and I really don't associate with it all that much, but I do miss the many people I got to know there (which is true pretty much everywhere I go). I don't consider going there a mistake, though.

Are you a BYU fan?
NO. Absolutely not! The only time I pull for BYU is when they play Notre Dame or Michigan. BYU-Idaho doesn't have intercollegiate sports, but I mainly follow my hometown and alma mater Kent State as well as the Ohio State Buckeyes. I almost attended the University of Utah twice, so I have a soft spot for the Utes too.

Have you ever felt like you didn't want to be Mormon anymore?

Temple Square in 2010

Yes. That's a normal part of figuring it all out and dealing not only with the doctrinal issues, but the cultural issues too. In the end, I am LDS because I want to be, not simply because I was raised that way.

Have you ever been offended at church?
Yes. As the old saying goes, "if you haven't been offended in church, be patient." The members of the church are imperfect human beings just like anyone else. You'll inevitably run into insensitive, rude, and sometimes downright mean people, but at the same time, you'll also run into some incredibly awesome, wonderful, and Christ-like people. I think a lot of people assume because I'm active in the church and really always have been that I've never really had a bad experience or even doubt or questions. That, of course, is nonsense as I've had plenty, many of which I would've been perfectly justified to most in just not going to church anymore. The difference is how I have chosen to deal with bad experiences and separating the Gospel from the people.

Do you ever question authority and/or doctrine?
YES. Sustaining a church authority doesn't mean blindly following them. In turn, questioning doesn't mean openly rebelling or being overly critical either. Good leaders always have logical rationales behind every decision and will be happy to explain them. If a leader doesn't, I'm going to be looking for one if something they said doesn't sound right to me. In matters of doctrine, I'm always striving to learn it better. Being open minded doesn't mean never coming to a conclusion, but recognizing that there may be additional information that could alter or enhance my opinion and being ready to do so if needed. I've also been learning what doctrine actually is. I've come to find that many things both members and outsiders think are doctrines of the church actually aren't (the use of caffeine is a very obvious one). Instead, many are simply cultural traditions.

Is being Mormon hard?

Cleaning the chapel can be hard, but being
LDS? Naaaaaah! 

No, at least not for me. For me it's something that I've always been, so I have never viewed it as hard, even living in an area where we are a very small minority (I think that makes it more fun!). That said, for people who convert to the church, I have total respect for them because I think many of our customs and norms might be hard for people who aren't used to them to adjust to (particularly the prohibition of alcohol and coffee).

Have you seen the Book of Mormon musical?
No. To be honest, it's not that I don't want to see it for any religious reasons, but more economic. If I see a Broadway-level musical (usually at Playhouse Square in Cleveland), it's because someone invites me. I'd go if invited, but I'not going to drop a bunch of money on a ticket (I want to see Wicked before I see anything else anyway!). I went on an actual mission and have read the real book...both are far more entertaining and meaningful than any musical could ever hope to be! I do think, overall, the publicity it's generating is good and the church has done well taking advantage of that publicity.

I'm sure I could go on for some time about all sorts of things I am asked on a fairly regular basis. I'm not claiming that my views and opinions represent "mainstream" LDS by any stretch; these are my opinions and mine only. And hey, if you have some questions of your own, feel free to ask in the comments or on Facebook if we're connected there, provided they're genuine and not seeking some kind of doctrinal debate or other kind of argument. Been there, done that!

California and Gay Marriage

So news broke today that the California State Supreme Court has overturned the state's definition of marriage as between one man and one woman as being unconstitutional by a 4-3 vote. OF COURSE I have something to say about this, but who knows, maybe I'll surprise someone with what I say...

It goes without saying that I'm disappointed with, but not at all surprised by this decision. This has been the argument not only for states passing their own constitutional amendments, but for passing a federal constitutional amendment as well. California banned gay marriages- and the recognition of gay marriages performed elsewhere- by virtue of a 2000 vote in which some 61% of the voters approved a measure which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Ohio has a similar law, but ours is a constitutional amendment approved in 2004; so the only thing that can supercede that would be a federal constitutional amendment or a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

As for this specific ruling, of course gays began to celebrate and party all over the country, but especially in California, which has a significant gay population. I can't say I blame them for being excited, even though it's an outcome I don't particularly care for. Unfortunately, this is hardly the end, and I don't say that as a "defiant conservative," but rather as someone who always tries to keep a level head and a realistic view of things. First, even if there were no other opposition to the ruling, it takes 30 days for judges' rulings to take effect in California, so the earliest the first gay marriages can happen is in mid June. Of course we all know there is opposition, though it seems unlikely that there will be any more court battles. From what I read, there are opportunities for the opposition, conservatives in this case, to ask for a stay on the decision or for the court to reconsider. I really doubt the court would reconsider based on the wording of their verdict and a stay also seems unlikely, even with the pending constitutional amendment coming up. That leads into the next item, the expected California amendment. Sometime next month we will find out if supporters were able to obtain enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot which would define marriage as between one man and one woman. Because it would be a constitutional amendment, it would override the recent court decision. If it does get on the ballot, it will most certainly be hotly contested and close and will probably get a lot of people to the polls that normally wouldn't vote. From what I've read, both sides seem pretty confident they can win, so I guess we'll see. Of course there is also the possibility of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but I don't see that happening. I don't think the U.S. Supreme Court would take the case at all because they would cite the fact that marriage is not listed as a federal responsibility in the U.S. constitution (10th amendment), so it is delegated to the states and therefore they have no jurisdiction over how to define it. Indeed, that's been the argument over a federal constituional amendment; that the issue should be decided by the states. Well, we're getting that and what we're getting is marriages that are recognized by some, but not all, of the states, even though we're all in the same country.

My personal opinion is that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. The minute you start redefining it, you open the door to any other "definition." What's to stop supporters of polygamy (not only more than one wife, but more than one husband), or group marriage, or even close-relative marriage? If you say that barring two people of the same sex from "marrying" is discriminatory, how is barring a woman from marrying a man who is already married not discriminatory? What if that woman is really poor and the man can take care of her? What if the first wife is OK with it? I really don't see how one can be defended and one cannot, and no, I would rather not see a return to legal polygamy even as a Mormon! Some say I'm just "overreacting" but really, what is to stop any other group who is "denied" marriage from seeking the same rights, no matter how "disgusting" or outlandish we think the idea is (remember, a lot of people think two people of the same sex getting married is "disgusting."). Really, the bottom line in my belief is that I believe God himself has defined marriage, not only through the Bible, but also in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and most importantly living prophets. That's not to say God hates gays because he does not; they are also his children who he cares about and loves. But any parent will agree that just because you love a child, that doesn't translate into you being "OK" with whatever they do; you have expectations and hopes even for adult children. I don't hate gay people...I have several friends who are gay, so I have some sort of understanding that it's not simply a "choice" to be gay. But in the end, how we act or don't act on our urges and wants is our choice, whether gay or straight, and we are accountable for our actions.

The importance of getting ALL the facts...

There are many lessons that I can take from the situation which continues to unfold in front of me concerning our house and the state of my family. Not only financial lessons (what NOT to do), but also life lessons. One that has really come to the front right now is the importance of withholding judgment until one has sufficient evidence for both sides of the story. Obviously, here, you have my dad's case of why he feels that he needs to do this, but you also have my case and my mom's case of how difficult of a spot this puts us in. Not only that, but the emotional aspects tied to the house and the relationship status between my dad and all of us. I won't go into great details here because my point is not to publicize our disagreements and problems. I only wish to make a point about judging.

It's a word Christians hear a lot, in particular that it's something we should not do. It comes from the Savior's teachings in Matthew 7:1-2: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. " It's a concept that Christians are familiar with, yet I've found few understand. It seems many believe that "not judging" means we cannot make decisions on people or things at all. But, as we all know, we have to make judgements every day on who we associate with or what we are going to do (among other things). Without judgments, we would never progress or learn. So, was Jesus trying to teach us that we shouldn't come to a decision? Hardly. What he is talking about is making improper judgments, or judgments without the full picture. This usually involves how we label people. The most common "judgments" I see around are more generalizations or oversimplifications we make about a person or group of people based on very little information or lack of experience. For instance, the idea that because someone is overweight it's because they're "lazy" or just "sit on their couch all day and eat junkfood." There are likely a variety of reasons why that person is overweight and unless we have a full look into how they actually live their life and all the things that affect them both phyiscally and mentally, labeling that person as "lazy" is an unrighteous judgment. While we can certainly make conjectures about why they may be overweight, we cross that line when we simply decide one is true and we condemn that person. There are other examples of unrighteous judgment too, of course. Sometimes in arguments it's easy to judge how someone is acting (or reacting) because we assume they are "just mean" or "hateful". In fact, it may be that we don't know something because of lack of experience, lack of understanding, or just ignorance of the history and background of that person. Sometimes too, we may simply just have one side of the story. So in reality, that person we think is "hateful" may actually have a wealth of experience that has caused them to not trust someone (or whatever the disagreement is over) and thus be perfectly justified in being upset.

OK, so how can we judge better? I'm OF COURSE not perfect, but I have found things that have helped me. It goes without saying that we need to get the whole story, especially when it involves two sides who disagree. That can involve asking people how and WHY they feel as such and truly being open to their responses. Being respectful of viewpoints and experiences is a big one too. It also involves being as fair as possible. This is a case where information from the Book of Mormon plays a key role in helping us to better understand what the Bible is trying to tell us. Moroni 7:15-18 gives us the counsel that not only are we to judge ourselves (we have to, like I said), but we are to do it with the "Spirit of Christ" (v. 16), also referred to as the "Light of Christ" (v. 18). The reason that God is able to judge us is because he is able to do it in perfect fairness. He knows all the sides of the argument, he knows the limitations or situational elements, and most of all he knows us; our tendancies, our strenghts, and our weaknesses. Through the Light of Christ, a power of discernment given to all of us, we can better judge not only right from wrong, but also who is right and who is in the wrong.

I am commenting on this in light of our current situation and judgments I feel are being made (some of which I have actually heard) about me or the situation in general. To the casual observer, it seems as though I and my mom should just "get on with life" and stop being so dependent. As I mentioned in my previous post, nothing would make me happier than being financially independent, but right now that is simply not possible. The same holds true for my mom; she is in this situation because she decided that raising her kids was her most important responsibility, followed by completing her college education, which she did in 2002. Now she is faced with an uncertain job market in art education and is relying on the unsteady pay (and lack of benefits) that comes with being a substitute teacher. Let's not forget SHE raised the four of us virtually solo with the financial help of my dad. Yes, my dad was hardly absent from my life, but it in no way compares with his role had he made different choices in his life and stayed a part of this family rather than pursue self-interests. I find it troubling and frustrating as well that the people who have security-- a place to live and a steady source of income-- are the ones telling me not to worry and that nothing is really wrong. Nothing will be wrong when I have an actual place to live (staying with someone is not living there) and some stability.

Poor article

Current mood: contemplative

So I wrote a blog about this about a week ago, but as I went to post it, the system said I wasn't logged on so it deleted it. Oh well...it was a pretty long post, so I guess I just wasn't meant to be! In any case, I still want to write about it! Here's the article in question. I was in the January 11, 2008 Record-Courier in Kent, Ohio:

Now, of course I have MAJOR issues with the content and claims made by this so-called professor from Washington state. I'm sorry...it's hard to really take a professor seriously who's teaching at a community college. I could write (and did) a LONG blog about the issues here (and even why is this guy still a member of the church?). BUT, my main issue has to do with the reporter because this is a terribly biased and unbalanced article as well as incorrect.

For background, this is about the latest editions of the Book of Mormon, more specifically the introduction, and how the new editions have a slight rewording in them in regards to the Lamanites (a major group in the Book of Mormon) and how they are connected to today's American Indian tribes. In my opinion, the change (discussed later) is not that big of a deal and is a clarification rather than a change in doctrine. The introduction itself has only been around since 1981 and is really just that: an introduction to give readers an idea of what they're about to read and why it's important. But as I said, my main issues for this blog are with the reporter and how the article was written and presented.

For starters, look at how much space is devoted to the Church's position that the change is no big deal. Hard to find? It's a two-sentence paragraph in the second column: "What's the big deal? Church defenders say there is nothing important in the change." That's it. No official comments from Church representatives or even something like "the church declined comment" or even a pro-church statement. Now, check out how much of the article is devoted to the professor's antagonistic view of the church and the change. Yep...over two and a half complete columns, some two-thirds of the article. Are you kidding me? This is nowhere NEAR good journalism or even good reporting! Every story has two sides, right? While the opposition gets most pf the article, the defense is limited to one sentence that's not even a quote at that.

My second issue is that the change the article talks about isn't even quoted right. In the paragraph before the church's "defense" is stated it says this: "In previous editions, the phrase was "are the ancestors." Actually, for those of us who have and have actually READ the Book of Mormon, the phrase is: "are the principal ancestors..." (Book of Mormon introduction, emphasis added). The new 2006 editions now state "they are among the ancestors." (emphasis added). When you leave out one of the words, it makes a HUGE difference, now doesn't it? Like I said earlier in the blog, this is a clarification and a good one in my opinion. However, it doesn't affect what's in the book itself and whether it is true or not.

Of course I don't want to think that this AP reporter has some ax to grind against the church or is doing this on purpose, but after reading this, it definitely makes me wonder if there are not alterior motives here. What better way to make the church and its leaders and supporters look like old-fashioned, mindless religious people who ignore reality and science than to extensively quote a college professor, ESPECIALLY one who is LDS and has been antagonistic towards the church? I do seriously wonder why this guy is even LDS still since he obviously thinks that some of our core beliefs are myths and that the leadership of the church is ignoring that. Why be part of an organization that you think that way of? The article and this professor also ignore the scholarly reasearch that has been made in regards to the historocity of the Book of Mormon. There are many great sites that deal with this, one of which is http://farms.byu.edu. As much as I enjoy the archeological evidence and study of the Book of Mormon, it's not why I believe it's true, nor is archeological evidence why I believe in the Bible. Archeological evidence can only prove that certain places existed, but it cannot prove that certain miracles or extraordinary events took place there. That knowledge and understanding can only come from God himself.

Seriously, the best way to find out what the Book of Mormon is all about is to read it. Yes, it has it's slower parts, but really it's a fascinating story whether you want to take it as a literal history like I and other Latter-day Saints do or just as something Joseph Smith wrote with a third-grade frontier farmer's education. It's SO EASY to get a free Book of Mormon...you can get them from missionaries, from members of the Church, or online at www.mormon.org and click on basic beliefs. You can also read it online there or at www.lds.org in the Gospel Library. Sorry to turn this into an ad, but really the best defense for the Book of Mormon is itself.