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!

Conference observations

Interior of the 21,000-seat Conference Center in Salt Lake City.
I found this picture online a long time ago, so if you know its source,
please let me know!

These are just some general thoughts I had while watching General Conference this past weekend.  They're as random as they can be and it won't surprise me if I add more later.  For those of you not familiar with General Conference, it's a series of meetings held every 6 months in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where the various church leaders address the church membership as a whole.  It is structured into 5 sessions of 2 hours each (3 on Saturday and 2 on Sunday) with the 3rd session on Saturday for the Priesthood (men ages 12 and up).  Conference always happens the first weekends of April and October.  Since 2000, it has originated from the 21,000-seat Conference Center in Salt Lake City and before that (from 1867-1999) it was held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle.  For those of us out here, the best part of Conference is that on Sunday, we don't start until noon (10 AM Mountain Time) instead of our normal 9 AM start (well, for our congregation at least).  Instead of normal church services, we watch the broadcast.  In Utah and areas where there are lots of members, Conference is available over regular TV and radio (except the Priesthood session, which is shown only at church buildings).  Out here, anyone who gets the BYU channel (channel 867 on AT&T Uverse!) can watch all but the Priesthood session at home, which is what I do.  Many also will watch Conference at the church building in Rootstown even though they can easily watch at home either on TV or on the Internet.  For many it's a matter of necessity, but for others who can watch at home (like my sister and grandparents), it's a matter of tradition and getting together with everyone.  I'd imagine too some feel there are too many distractions at home.  Me, I love being able to watch without having to get into Sunday clothes and being able to have some good food while I watch! :)    Anyway, on to my random observations.

• As I remarked on Facebook, President Eyring gave the wrong year of the Teton Dam Flood.  He said 1966 and it was 1976.  I want to give him a pass here, but he was President of Ricks College at the time (Ricks College is now BYU-Idaho) so was living in or near Rexburg, one of the hardest hit towns in the flood.  Oh well...maybe he just misread it or remembered wrong?

• Not to pick on President Eyring, but I've noticed A) he cries at least once (usually more) in every talk he gives and B) when he starts to get emotional, he always raises his hand about halfway and then moves it to emphasize whatever he is saying, usually an up-and-down motion maybe 2 or 3 times.  Not saying it's good or bad, it's just something I noticed consistently (he usually speaks twice over the duration of the conference).

• I reeeeeealy enjoy President Uchtdorf's talks.  He's become my favorite speaker.  Not only are they interesting, but because he grew up in Germany, he has tons of stories that I can better relate to in relation to being in an area where church members are few and far-in between.  

• Going along with that point, while I definitely enjoy many of the stories from our various speakers, many times it's hard to relate to stories that involve neighborhood-sized wards (the norm in Utah) where everyone around you is also LDS and the temple is a few blocks away. 

• I've found I'm warming up to Elder Bednar as an Apostle and speaker.  I was not excited at all when he got called as I never really cared for him while he was president of BYU-Idaho.  He seemed far more concerned with rules and tradition over logic and fairness.  When he was called as an apostle, I knew that everything he ever said at BYU-Idaho would somehow get canonized (which it did) simply because he was, as someone said once "an apostle in training" (excuse me while I HURL).  Anyway, I have enjoyed his last few talks and yes, he still has PERFECT hair!  It's amazing, not a strand out of place!

• I was disappointed that no mention was made of the 175th anniversary of the Kirtland Temple dedication (March 27, 1836).  Several mentions were made of the 75th anniversary of the Church Welfare program (which is an awesome program, by the way since it not only helps people, but teaches people to help themselves!), but the only mentions of the Kirtland Temple were not in reference to that event.  My pessimistic side thinks it's because Church Welfare is headquartered in Utah (so it's right in front of most of the speakers) and the Kirtland Temple is 2,000 miles away in Ohio (and of course not owned by the Church) so no one really thinks about it.  That's sad to me seeing that it was a highly significant milestone of development in LDS theology.  As a side note to support my pessimism, there was quite a bit of commemoration all over the Church in 1993 for the 100th anniversary of the Salt Lake Temple's dedication.  

• Easter was mentioned once (well, I only heard it mentioned once).  I wonder how much mention Christmas would get if Conference were around Christmas?  In terms of Christian doctrine, Easter is THE most significant holiday, yet too often it seems to garner very little mention (certainly not what Christmas gets) in the Church and in Christianity in general.  As much as I love Christmas, Easter is a far more important occasion to remember and celebrate in my opinion!  For goodness sakes, we're celebrating the triumph over death!

• I noticed a LOT of people say "beloved" before mentioning President Monson ("our beloved prophet, President Monson").  That was true with President Hinckley too.  While I certainly don't disagree, I'm a firm believer that saying or doing something too much causes it to lose its meaning (like giving everything a standing ovation makes it a lot less special!).  I love President Monson too, but I certainly don't know him well enough to say "beloved" like I would for a family member or close friend (though in all honesty, I really don't say beloved much at all...seems kind of archaic).  Ya know?  Oh well, I just think it's a tad overused, like one person says it and it becomes the "thing to say".  

• I'm SO glad I can watch Conference at home.  Not having to get dressed up and drive 20 minutes to the church is nice.  I'm also not too big anymore on actually going to Conference in Salt Lake City.  I have been to 3 live sessions in my life.  I'm very glad I was able to go, but in the end it was a huge hassle to get downtown and I had some less-than-wonderful experiences when I have gone, at least the last 2 I was at.  It's kind of a "been there, done that" thing now, but I do recommend doing it at least once if you ever can.  Just seeing the Conference Center is worth it! 

• I really enjoyed Sister Silvia Allred's talk about service.  Too often it seems the sisters give talks that are directed at only the women or children, but hers was all-encompassing and had a great message.  AND, because she has a heavy Spanish accent, I really had to pay close attention so I didn't miss anything.  It was also nice to hear more faith-promoting stories from outside Utah!

• I definitely felt like Elder Holland's talk was directed at me.  Every Conference seems to have talks that seem to speak directly at you.  I totally got what he was saying, but I still stand by my feelings after President Monson's Priesthood talk.  I'll explain a little more on that later in this.  

• Oh, I saw one of my old directors from BYU-Idaho on TV during the 2nd Saturday session.  He was directing the combined choir from BYU-Idaho.  Let's just say seeing him didn't exactly bring back a flood of good memories; memories related directly to him and memories of my time at BYU-Idaho period.  I think if I had seen my other 2 directors that I had there, more pleasant memories would've been more forthcoming.  The choir did sound really good though and was very colorful!

• I won't really go into my feelings about President Monson's remarks about single, marriage-aged men here.  That is an entire blog in and of itself.  He wasn't the only person to bring it up, but his comments bothered me the most.  I'll leave it at the fact that I'm not concerned about the doctrine behind his remarks, I'm more concerned about the prejudice in many parts of the Church (particularly in Utah and southern Idaho) about single guys who are in my age group.    

• One thing I did notice in my discussion on Facebook after Conference was that because I wasn't happy with certain things that were said, some of my friends interpreted that to mean I felt like false doctrine had been spread or that I misunderstood the message.  Nope.  I simply disagreed with how it was presented and I felt a stereotype was being perpetuated.  I also find it interesting that if you ask pretty much any church member if they think the Prophet is infallible, they'll say no.  At the same time, if you question something the Prophet or Apostles (heck ANYONE at Conference) said in Conference  you get arguments from a lot of members, like you're somehow less faithful.  If everything said by the Prophet is straight from God himself, wouldn't that make him infallible?  (yes, actually it would) In the end, yes, I believe he's called of God, but being called of God does not remove someone's humanity or ability to think for themselves.      

• I enjoyed hearing the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing "The Spirit of God", the very same arrangement we sang in our choir last week for the 175th anniversary of the Kirtland Temple dedication.  While the MoTab certainly can make any choral piece sound amazing, I definitely thought our choir wasn't too far off of them in terms of quality AND singing it in the Kirtland Temple was WAAAAAY cooler than at Conference.  WAY cooler.  Just saying.  :)

Putting President Packer's Remarks in Context

Much has been said in reference to remarks made by President Boyd K. Packer's at the recent General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  For those unfamiliar with General Conference, it is a semi-annual meeting that takes place in Salt Lake City every October and April.  It is broadcast to the entire church membership and takes the place of traditional Sunday worship services the weekend it is held.  It is divided into 4 general sessions, 2 on Saturday and 2 on Sunday, each of which lasts for 2 hours.  There is an additional session Saturday night for the Priesthood (which is made up of all men ages 12 and up).  A women's meeting is held the week prior and is also broadcast to the entire church membership.  During conference, leaders of the church (which includes general church leadership and those in the auxiliaries like Primary, Young Men, and Young Women) give prepared talks on a wide variety of gospel-related topics.  President Packer's talk was entitled "Cleansing the Inner Vessel" and focused mainly on the concept of God's love and the importance of repentance.  I hope that anyone who found his remarks upsetting reads the entire talk instead of the few soundbytes or quotes that have been used in the media.  That's the first step in establishing proper perspective.  Too often quotes by themselves appear far worse than they were intended.  Context within the talk itself should not be underestimated.  

Before starting, my point in writing this isn't to convince anyone that President Packer is right or wrong or that Latter-day Saint doctrine is right or wrong.  My purpose is to provide proper context of Mormon beliefs (as best as I personally understand them) so that even in disagreement, at least people can have a fuller understanding of why he would say such a thing.  That said, the quote that has caused the most controversy is this:

"We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that “wickedness never was happiness.  Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father."

In reading this purely from the vantage point of the average, non-LDS reader, I can totally understand why some people would be upset by it.  I was, admittedly, not paying as close of attention to this talk when it was given enough for this statement to really stick out.  But seeing the controversy a few days later and then reading it, knowing what I do about our doctrine and culture, nothing he said surprised me.  There are a few key concepts of LDS doctrine and understanding that need to be made clear for this to make any sense.

The first point to understand is that "Mormonism" is more than just a religion.  In reality it is much more of a culture that is practiced by its members 24/7.  I think since so many Latter-day Saints are American and the church was founded in the US, people just equate it with American culture.  There are, of course, many similarities, but many differences as well.  Would we be as upset about comments or beliefs if they came from a different culture like, say, the Far East?  I wonder.  I think it's easy to be more accepting of other cultures when we don't have to deal with another culture on a regular basis.  The more we deal with it, the more we see the positives and negatives (at least from our perspective) that every culture has.  Most times when we are exposed to other cultures, it is in fleeting moments or with a few people and even then it's usually something positive (a dance, a custom, artwork, etc.).  It's a different story when people we know very well are part of that culture and we have an idea how they view and react to things.  I've noticed with my own extended family (most of whom are not Latter-day Saints), are all about being inclusive and celebrating diversity--except when it comes to Mormon stuff.  They don't regard it as a culture because they simply see us as part of the same culture as them (which in most ways we are) and we just have "weird" beliefs rather than a different cultural perspective.  See how easy it is to blur the line?

In addition to recognizing Mormonism as a culture (and a culture that has sub-cultures within it such as "Utah Mormonism" that I have blogged about), we must also understand some key LDS doctrinal points for Packer's remarks to be in proper perspective.  First, Latter-day Saints believe that everyone that is alive, that has lived, and that will live are literal children of God.  As such, we believe we have the potential to be like him.  But along with that potential comes many elements that make us quite different from God that must be overcome.  The best scripture verse that explains this is in the Book of Mormon in the book of Mosiah, chapter 3 verse 19:

"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."

Basically, the "natural man" is a human being with all our flaws.  Everyone is born with certain tendencies, shortcomings, and challenges.  While some are easier to overcome than others, we all have some sort of challenges that we inevitably have to overcome sometime in or even throughout life.  This is known as self-mastery.  Mormons aren't the only ones who teach and believe in the concept of self-mastery; it's a powerful concept that many people follow and is useful in setting goals, bettering ourselves, and overcoming challenges, regardless of what they are.  Many Eastern cultures practice self-mastery as well as many other people; basically, you are in charge of what you are.

In thinking about this post, for whatever reasons I thought about the movie X-Men:3 where they find a "cure" to the mutations and the reaction it gets from the "mutant" community both for and against (by the way, not saying gays are mutants, just using a parallel!!!).  I wonder what would happen if there were some shot that could make someone "straight" with a shot or pill.  Who would take it?  Who would consider it a complete insult?  I have heard of similar debates amongst the deaf and dwarf communities where operations are available that can "correct" those disabilities.  Just a random thought...

I think it's important to note that President Packer did not explicitly mention homosexuality in his talk, though his comments about marriage preceding that do imply that's what he means, though again, the Church has promoted protecting the "traditional" definition of marriage (one man, one woman), not simply anti-gay marriage.  To Latter-day Saints, homosexuality is definitely included in what he meant by "any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel" but it is not the only such relationship he is talking about.  Indeed, "straight" sexual relationships outside the bounds of marriage (whether before, during, or after marriage) are under that umbrella as well as those relationships that society as a whole consider wrong (sexual relations with children or close relatives, for instance).  Basically it boils down to standards.  Mormons believe that God has established very specific behavioral standards that he asks us to follow.  These are known as commandments and they include sexual and social behavior.  We are free, of course, to choose whether or not to follow these commandments, but like pretty much everything in life, there are always consequences for disobeying commandments (and also for following them).  Some of these consequences may not be apparent immediately or even that soon down the road.  Also, as has been pointed out by many other commentators, it's not "being gay" that gets people in trouble in the LDS Church; it's acting on those actions that gets people in trouble, the same trouble as "straight" people doing much the same with anyone they're not married to.  In other words, it's not just gay people that are told they shouldn't have sexual relations; it's anyone not married (which includes me!).  Again, it goes back to standards and who they came from.

From there, another key point is that Latter-day Saints believe that God does not give us challenges and obstacles that we cannot overcome.  In addition to the famous verse in Matthew 19:26: "...but with God all things are possible,"  in 1 Nephi 3:7 we read: the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them."  In other words, since Mormons believe God has commanded certain behaviors as acceptable and not, then there must be a way to overcome the feelings and tendencies that lead to those that are "wrong" (which leads back to self mastery).  Now, while Mormons believe that anything can be overcome to put yourself in harmony with the commandments of God, that doesn't mean we have or even claim to have easy answers as to how many challenges and obstacles can be overcome.  Indeed, most obstacles (not just those involving sexual behavior) are not easily overcome.  Many times, the answer lies in desire, prayer, fasting, humility, and patience.  

Unfortunately, what's happened is that too many Latter-day Saints have used those standards and beliefs as a weapon to judge and even condemn other people.  Going back to the main idea of Packer's remarks, it was the loving and forgiving nature of God, not the condemnation.  And no, Mormons do not believe that gays will burn in hell.  We have a far different view of "hell" than the traditional Christian view.  To Latter-day Saints, life is not a pass/fail course; it's fully graded with all the proper curves, extra credit, and exceptions!  Everyone will be rewarded for the good and bad they do, not an automatic "go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200" card or "get out of jail free" card.  :)  

Putting it all together, again, I'm not here to say "we're right" or that Packer was correct, but more to show why he said what he said and why most Latter-day Saints didn't really think twice about it (nothing new!).  I obviously believe what he said is true, not only in relation to Mormon beliefs, but in what I believe personally as well.  In the end, we are the masters of our minds and bodies and we will be accountable for our actions based on the knowledge we have.  So, summarizing:

1. Mormonism is very much a culture that has its own understandings and perspectives.  Respecting us doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with us though!  
2. Mormons believe that all people are children of God and can be like him, but that takes a lot of effort, desire, and work.  
3. Mormons believe all people have challenges and obstacles to overcome, but they can be overcome. 
4. Mormons believe that all obstacles can eventually be overcome with the help of God and that he does not give us something that we cannot deal with.  This is known as self-mastery and is a concept not unique to Mormonism.  
5. Homosexuality is not specifically "targeted" by Later-day Saints, nor was it specifically targeted by President Packer.  It is one of many behaviors that Latter-day Saints consider in opposition to the standards set by God.        

Separating Doctrine From Culture

The whole issue I blogged about back in November about being a "Utard" seems to come up every once and awhile.  Basically, the problem boils down to people being unable to separate being a "Utahan" from being a "Utard" and assume that those of us who don't live in Utah have some sort of general dislike for "Utah Mormons".  Is there a prejudice outside of Utah towards church members from Utah?  Absolutely, though it varies greatly by location and the individual and is not always negative.  Some people automatically assume the worst when they find out someone is from Utah; others assume the best.  I like to get to know someone before I come to any conclusions about what kind of person they are, though I do admit, I have the whole "Utard" worry in my head when I first find out and hope I'm wrong.  Why?  I've had far more negative experiences than positive with the whole cultural divide that separates Utah (and in reality many western U.S.) Mormons from the rest of us.  That's not to say I've had all negative experiences.  I still count many friends who are Utah natives and/or still live in Utah, plus my best (and worst) mission companions were all from Utah, plus I have family there.  But to simply stand by and assume that all the negative and testimony-damaging experiences I endured, and the many negative experiences I've heard from others, are simply coincidences or isolated cases would be to ignore the problem and allow it to continue.  What I've come to believe is that it's a widespread enough problem that a negative prejudice has developed outside of Utah, though it is by no means universal to all Utah Latter-day Saints.

As I stated originally and have restated many times, this is nothing personal against the state of Utah.  As a state, Utah really isn't much different to me than any other state.  There are things I love about the state (the mountains, for one!) and there are things I don't like about the state (like the desert climate and the horrible drivers on I-15).  I can say the same about every state in the U.S. I've been to (42 and counting), including Ohio.  No, this is speaking out against certain prevalent cultural elements that exist primarily in Utah, simply because Utah has the unique situation of having the single-largest group and highest concentration of members of the church; cultural elements that I find contradict church doctrine yet are constantly (and improperly) mingled with it as if they are one in the same.  Basically, if the church were most prevalent in, say, Illinois or Wyoming or Florida I'd be saying the same thing about those states.  And yes, parts of Idaho (like Rexburg) also have these same cultural elements.  Because the elements are so much associated with doctrines of the church, they not only give Latter-day Saints a bad name overall in many cases, but even amongst each other it creates problems where the line between cultural traditions and doctrines is blurred.  The elements that have created this culture are mostly those from the 1840s that were common in the United States when the Saints arrived in the Salt Lake Valley.  Once they got to the valley and began spreading out, they were largely isolated, so while the rest of the country moved on with certain cultural "norms" the previous ones were able to take deep root and eventually creep in the same level as doctrine amongst the Saints.  For instance, the charge that the church is very "clannish" actually comes from the early development of the church in the 1820s-1840s.  Just take one read of Joseph Smith History and his descriptions of the various Protestant sects.  The various sects were very divided against each other and did not intermingle, something that for the most part is not true today.  Of course too, the early church did often have to go it alone because of persecution, which also contributed to that "stick with your own" mentality to the point where visitors tend to be ignored.  This is not something that generally happens in other areas of the church, but has happened to me and I've heard many others talk about experiencing this in Utah.

As for the term Utard, again, people need to understand this isn't a term for anyone from Utah, at least the way I use it.  That is Utahan.  Utard is not a term I came up with, but I thought it was a clever play on words and it seemed to fit what I felt it was describing when I first heard it on my mission.  In doing a Google search for the term, I've discovered it has several meanings; some related to the church, some not.  I guess for die-hard Utah lovers, it's unfortunate that their state name is so easily turned into a derogatory term, but to think that Utah is the only state people make fun of is ridiculous and ignores reality.  It's just that other state names aren't as easily combined with another word!  The only one I could think of off the top of my head was "Floridiot" and honestly, I've never heard it used!

So, we definitely shouldn't just come to a rushed judgment about someone just because they're from Utah, and Utahans shouldn't make quick judgments about people from the "mission field" (a term which I feel is TOTALLY misused out west).  Whether good or bad, that's a form of prejudice and it prevents us from really getting to know someone, not just here but in any instance of prejudice.  We're all on the same team here working for a common good, but we also must not stick our heads in the sand and pretend there's not a major cultural problem where large amounts of members exist because there certainly is a problem.

Fair criticism?

To start off, as of yesterday (May 14), it's been one year since we left the house for the last time as we headed down to Maryland for Heather's graduation. I can't believe it's been that long already and had hoped I'd have a more permanent situation in place by now, but life is what it is. I certainly can't complain too much about my current situation, though. While I'm hardly living a life of luxury, I do have a nice place to live and my needs are met with people I love and care about. That said, I'm hoping a full-time job is on the horizon, even if it isn't a teaching job so I can move on to the next stage of my life. Of course I still think about the house and the whole situation with moving, but I find they are becoming fewer and further in between. Part of the problem is living with so many reminders. Much of our stuff is still in boxes in the basement, so every time I or Mom needs something that we haven't unpacked, we have to go searching down there or in other boxes. Every time I have to go searching through the boxes, it's just a reminder why so much of our stuff is in boxes.

Anyway, that was on my mind the last few days but that's all I have to say about that. Another thing I've been thinking about concerns a lot of criticism I've been seeing from friends and strangers about Ohio in general. It was troubling to see so much of it, so I started thinking about the criticisms I've laid out about Idaho and Utah on this blog and in my discussions with people. Was this a case of "what goes around comes around" and just getting a taste of my own medicine? I really thought about this and analyzed what people were criticizing about Ohio, how I felt about it and why, and what my criticisms of Utah were and why. What I came up with is that, no, this isn't a case of karma at all. Why? Well let me explain!

The biggest reason the majority of criticisms I see of Ohio bother me is because they are almost always about things that cannot be helped, most often the weather. No amount of moaning and groaning is going to change the climate, make it sunnier, warmer, less rainy, or less humid. The weather is what it is. Yeah, we all complain here and there, but some people it seems can't find anything else but bemoan a cloudy day (but are largely silent on sunny days...hmmmm). If you're going to put a lot of energy into criticizing something, at least make sure it's something that can actually be changed! When was on my mission in Arizona and New Mexico, I didn't enjoy the desert at first. Too dry for my taste, hardly any green, and to be honest, having the same weather virtually every day got boring! I definitely learned to appreciate cloudy days and RAIN! When it's cloudless for 2 months straight and it's 100 degrees, for someone like me it lacked variety and interest. I got used to the whole climate and desertscape of course, but in the end it made me appreciate the green here in Ohio and in the east in general. Even now, when we have rainy days here I say I enjoy them because that's how things grow. Sure is nice not having to worry about irrigation! That's not to day I didn't enjoy short-sleeve weather in January! :)

While Utah's desert climate is something I don't particularly care for, it is the least of my criticisms and is far more secondary than anything. In fact, I always enjoy the mountains, especially when they still have snow on them. As for the weather, it's really not a whole lot different than Ohio since, while it is still desert, it is around the same latitude so temperatures are similar. As I started thinking, no, my main criticisms at Utah are all culturally related. In other words, they are things that could potentially (and in my opinion should) be changed. Remember, having lived in even harsher desert climates than Utah, I hardly have the same criticisms for Arizona and New Mexico as I do for Utah. Why? Because Arizona and New Mexico largely had cultures that were close enough to what I was used to (though still different...there is definitely a difference between west and east in this country!). As I have explained many times, it's not all of Utah culture that bothers me, it's the parts that are so intertwined with LDS doctrine that too many inside and out cannot recognize the difference between cultural traditions and actual doctrine. Arizona had a smaller version of that with many of the Mexican immigrants and the Catholic faith. It was very hard for them to separate what was actual Catholic doctrine from culture as they have become so melded.

There are definitely things about the culture here in Ohio that people don't like. For some it's too conservative; for others it's too liberal. Some complain it's too slow, too boring, too political, etc. Most of these criticisms are valid (based on one's experience), though at the same time they are hardly unique to Ohio. With Utah, and Idaho to an extent, much of the cultural problems I have are because I am the same religion as so many out there, so I guess I expect certain--and higher--standards from members of the Church, particularly in how we treat each other. Indeed, it's much more of a Utah LDS cultural problem than just a Utah cultural problem (remember, I have many friends who are Utah residents and natives!). It's not so much a problem because of Utah, but more because of the high concentration of members and the history of isolation in the late 19th century which allowed many of these cultural meshes with doctrine to really develop and take strong root. In other words, it could've happened anywhere. I would imagine it would've happened in Illinois had the Saints not been forced out, though it would've obviously been different since the Nauvoo area in the late 19th century wasn't nearly as isolated as Utah was.

To close, let me reiterate: yes, too much criticism can be a bad thing, but if you're going to complain, at least make sure it's something that could actually be changed if the right person or people heard you or that you could change yourself. Nowhere is perfect; everywhere we go we're going to find things we don't like about certain places and certain groups of people. The key is understanding not only what we feel by more importantly why we feel that way. If we can't rationally understand and explain why, then perhaps we're just being overly critical. On the other end, in hearing criticism we need to understand the why and lend a listening and sympathetic ear. Maybe the person would benefit from some "local advice" on how we deal with this or that (which is why it doesn't bother us as much) or maybe it's something we've never even considered and now have an additional viewpoint! Critical thinking is key!!

Are YOU a Utard?

Every once and awhile I'm reminded of a certain mindset, which I and many others refer to as being a "Utard" ("YOO-tard"). This blog post will attempt to explain what a Utard actually is and what it isn't to hopefully help any readers deal with this crippling and debilitating disease and way of thinking.

Of course the root of "Utard" is "Utah", meaning the state of Utah. That's not to say Utards only come from Utah, but most do and this ideology is most prevalent in and near Utah. It is certainly not to imply that anyone from Utah is a Utard. If they haven't come from Utah, their way of viewing reality is so close, and they lead others to believe they are from Utah or a similar environment. Similar environments can be found in many parts of the inter-mountain western United States, particularly in southern Idaho and parts of Wyoming, Arizona, and Nevada. These are typically areas with a high concentration of Latter-day Saints (aka Mormons) but need not be limited strictly to rural or suburban areas.

In the most general terms, a "Utard" is an individual who is also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka the Mormon Church) who has developed a belief that living in or near Utah somehow entitles them to greater knowledge, understanding, and blessings than those poor, less-fortunate fellow Latter-day Saints who live further away from Church Headquarters. Generally, Utards will refer to areas outside of Utah (and adjacent areas that also have a high concentration of church members) as the "mission field" and will refer to Utah as "Zion." They regard the Church as having reached some level of maturity or perfection in Utah, as demonstrated by the large number of LDS wards, stakes, temples, and meetinghouses that dot the state. They also regard this maturity as a sign not of numbers and demographics, but as a show of spirituality and righteousness. When they do actually venture into the "mission field" it is their job to guide these sweet-spirited, but inexperienced members in the "correct" way of following Church procedures and guidelines. Other Utards will counsel Utards in the "mission field" that they know far more about how the Church runs than anyone in their respective ward or stake regardless of how long any of the involved parties have actually been members of the Church. Remember, being from Utah means that person has additional knowledge and understanding that other members out in the "mission field" do not have, again, regardless of how long anyone has actually been in the Church or what positions they have served in.

In general, most Utards have rarely lived outside a heavy-LDS environment and struggle immensely when required to do so for an extended period of time whether it be for a business trip or an actual relocation for school or work. Most times, Utards will avoid such decisions or spend as little time in a "mission field" as possible. Many Utards' only experience outside an LDS-dominated atmosphere is spent on their own missions (which in themselves are hardly isolated, but hardly totally "in the world" either). Once they finish with their required time in a given mission field, Utards welcome the chance to return to "Zion" to share their valiant stories of struggle amongst the Gentiles (non-Mormons) and having to sacrifice "so much" just to drive to church each week as opposed to walking or how hard it was to "stay spiritual" with all the "worldly influences" surrounding them in these secular, unholy cities. Once back in Utah (if they ever left in the first place), they will reminisce about their days growing up when the nearest temples were nearly an hour away or there were only 2 stakes in town instead of 6. They will regard these as "hardships" where they had to make "great sacrifices" so they can relate to those in the "mission field". I blogged about this specific phenomenon in Utardism a few months ago with the opening of the Oquirrh Mountain Temple.

In dealing with marriage, Utards believe that an individual does not truly enter his or her adulthood until he or she has been married. It does not matter how young someone is when they marry (18-19 is most common for females, 21 for males), but once that threshold has been crossed, they have entered adulthood, which earns to respect of other "adults" (who are also married of course) regardless of any other outward indications that the newly married individual actually possesses an ounce of maturity or life experience. No, until an individual is married, regardless of age, he or she cannot be treated as an adult. People who do not marry obviously have some sort of obedience issues or disregard the Prophet's counsel and should be confined to Singles Wards. While it is true that Mormons in general regard marriage as one of the faith's highest sacraments, they do not regard it as any type of actual barrier in treating an individual differently.

Probably the easiest trait to pick out in diagnosing a Utard is how he or she responds to open criticisms or even simple jests about Utah and Utah culture. Utards are horribly offended by anyone criticizing their state, even if the criticism is valid or comes from real-life experience. Rather than seek to understand the criticism or even lend a sympathetic ear, a Utard will instead try to counteract with some criticism about the other person's home state or culture (also known as a "Straw Man" argument). Utards take any criticism or joke that is aimed at Utah very personally and generally lack any type of humor in regards to Utah and LDS-related things. It's more than just a simple matter of Utah pride; it's a belief in Utah perfection and superiority without any concrete facts to support such a belief.

In closing, it is my hope that instead of Utards, we can have just Utahan members of the Church who love Utah and celebrate its many blessings and accomplishments as a State without forgetting to understand that how we feel about a certain area all depends on who we are. In other words, there are lots of wonderful places in the world that have great people and assets; LDS and not. Be happy where we are and be proud of it enough to make it better, but never assume that any place has reached any level of perfection of plateau or that an area's blessings are purely the result of that population's righteousness. Of course I also hope to have more members of the Church who recognize that it's not so much a matter of when we join the Church, but that we actually do and stay in the Church. Living closer to Church headquarters makes someone no better, more knowledgeable, or stronger a member than living near Washington, DC makes someone a better American. There are strong and weak members EVERYWHERE in the Church, not just in Utah and not just in the "mission field".

Must be from Utah...

I was reading a Church News here the other day and caught on to something that made my eyes roll. Now, for those of you who don't know, the Church News is a weekly publication The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints puts out through Deseret News in Salt Lake City. It contains a variety of inspirational material and news related to the Church from around the world. For the most part I find it very informative and interesting, though this recent article, like I said, had me shaking my head. It appeared in the May 16th issue, page 3, in an article about the upcoming Oquirrh (pronounced OAK er) Mountain Temple open house, scheduled to begin June 1 in South Jordan, Utah, a suburb of Salt Lake City. Once opened, the Oquirrh Mountain Temple (pictured left) will be the 4th temple in the Salt Lake Valley (which only goes as far north as the city of North Salt Lake) and the second in the city of South Jordan, making it the only city in the world to have two LDS temples. The quote is as follows: "Following the 1893 dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, members waited almost a century for a second temple - the Jordan River Temple - to be opened in the Salt Lake Valley. Almost three decades passed before the Draper Utah Temple became number three."

First, those who aren't LDS should understand that temples are very important to Latter-day Saints. They are different from a standard church meetinghouse where we have our regular Sunday services and weekly activities. Temples are used during the week and involve very sacred and important ordinances that members of the Church feel are an important and vital part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For most of the world, going to the temple is something that is done a few times a year or even less. In Utah and many western states, where there are more temples, members of the Church can go to the temple quite often. While most don't go daily, it is not uncommon to see people go weekly or even more than once in a week. Going to the temple is a very spiritual and uplifting experience, so it's something members of the Church like having close by so they can experience more often. Here in Ohio, our nearest temple is in Columbus, which is a two hour drive, so it's not something that can be done quite so often. While it sure beats the 6 hour drives to the Toronto and Washington, DC temples we took before Columbus was built, it still isn't quite close enough to be considered "convenient."On a side note, when the Washington, DC Temple opened in 1974, it was the only temple in the US east of Salt Lake City. It served members in the entire eastern part of North America.

Now that said, reading the beginning of the article, entitled "Unique blessing in rich temple history," I just had to exclaim, "Oh cry me a river!" It makes it sound like members in the Salt Lake Valley had to endure some kind of hardship waiting "almost a century" for a second temple and then "almost three decades" for a third, like it's some kind of right for them to get temples and that they were ever really that far from the Salt Lake Temple or another temple. Not only will the Salt Lake Valley soon have 4 temples, but within an hour both north and south are 4 additional temples; Bountiful (which is practically in the Salt Lake Valley) and Ogden to the north and Mount Timpanogos and Provo to the south. Never mind the fact that it took 100 years for the Valley to grow so that people actually lived in the areas getting temples. I'm not opposed to the Salt Lake Valley getting more temples; if the existing ones are being used at or near full capacity and there is a need, why not? But don't make it sound like it was some huge burden for the poor members there to have to go "all the way" to Salt Lake, Bountiful, or Jordan River before the Draper and Oquirrh Mountain temples were built. For those of us who have to take a day or more to attend the temple, we have no sympathy for your "hardship." It reminded me when the Rexburg Idaho Temple was announced in 2003 and I read quotes like "now we won't have to go all the way to Idaho Falls." Idaho Falls is not even 30 minutes from Rexburg (I made the trip many times). Here in northeast Ohio, the first LDS temple was built way back in 1836 in Kirtland (pictured above right), but this temple is no longer owned by the Church and had a different purpose anyway. We're still waiting for our first temple here. As my mom said, "they (many members out west) just don't get it." Amen! There are many places still in the world where members of the Church can only go to the temple once in their lifetime if ever since the nearest one is so far away. Thankfully, that is becoming less and less common (the opening of the Oquirrh Mountain temple will make 130 temples in operation around the world), but it still not completely gone.

See also www.mormon.org for more info on LDS temples or just ask!

More on education

It's that time of year where people really start to think about their education. Specifically, high school students get ready to graduate and head off to college and those like me get ready to (FINALLY) graduate from college and head to grad school. One thing that I've often thought about and commented here and there on is the choice of college. Growing up LDS in Ohio, the typical course for my fellow Latter-day Saints involved graduation from high school and then attending a church-owned school, usually BYU, and then somehow ending up out West either because of a job or a spouse. Of course not everyone ends up out there and not every LDS high school graduate chooses to attend BYU, BYU-Idaho, or any of the other church schools (BYU-Hawaii and LDS Business College). What concerns me is how most students seem to choose church schools based on very little information. Many never set foot on the campus before their first day of classes. Most seem to assume that because it is a church school, everything will be fine and there's nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, my own experience has found those notions are not correct, nor is the notion that the church schools are automatically the best places for a particular student to attend.

Prior to Ricks College becoming a 4-year institution under the name BYU-Idaho, the "hierarchy" of Mormon education choices were 1. BYU, 2. Ricks College, 3. Snow College (not owned by the church) or a local school like Kent State. It is still largely like that, particularly for students in the east where Latter-day Saints are few and far in-between and living and learning amongst fellow Latter-day Saints seems like a dream. The difference now is the BYU-Idaho is much more of a "first choice" than it used to be (it was for me), though many in the church still seem to regard BYU-Idaho as a "minor league affiliate" or "little sister" to BYU or use BYU-Idaho as a way to get into BYU. More and more, however, choose to attend BYU-Idaho without giving BYU any thought. BYU-Hawaii, it seems, has always been much more apart from the whole process...meaning people choose BYU-Hawaii because of the opportunity to go to an LDS school in Hawaii, plus it offers many programs unique to the islands. In other words, I've never gotten the impression that members of the church go to BYU-Hawaii because they couldn't get into BYU (unless they happen to already live in Hawaii).

Sure, everyone has their specific reasons for going to a particular college or university. Most choose a school they are familiar with or were impressed by in some way. Probably the biggest reason I originally went to Kent State is because it's VERY close, even closer than my high school, though I don't think I would've come back if I didn't think this school had something quality to offer. But even then, I was familiar with the programs Kent offered and with the campus itself; I didn't come here having never set foot on the campus. Quite the opposite; I knew as much as or more about the campus and the community than most students do. I don't see a lot of LDS students from out here heading to BYU with very much knowledge of what BYU (or any other church school) is like or how good the programs are for their specific area. Most know that BYU is a "good school." As my last post talked about, simply being an overall "good school" doesn't always translate into "best school for you." Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not saying a church school is for sure wrong for everyone; I'm saying it's not right for everyone, even Latter-day Saints. My own experience confirms that. I was never a fan of church schools before I attended BYU-Idaho as a student and visited BYU several times for various things. My experiences with them confirmed what I already thought about the extreme cultures that exist at both schools and the high levels of pride (i.e. not good "school pride" either). There ARE a lot of good things at the church schools too. I know many people that have gone and have gotten a quality education and had very enjoyable experiences. I had many wonderful experiences and great teachers at BYU-Idaho in the three years I was there, but I also had many not-so-wonderful experiences at many different levels: from fellow students all the way to the top of the administration that will forever shape my view of the school. Further, they were experiences bad enough to seriously challenge my testimony in ways no anti-Mormon garbage has even gotten CLOSE to.

I guess my point here is not to talk down the church schools, but more to talk up the simple act of truly investigating a school before going there and not just going there based on what some people have said. Find some third party, objective reviews of the school and if possible, your particular program. It may very well be that the program you want to study in is really great at one of the church schools; it may also be true that you would be better served in your field somewhere else. Like I said, many people have had wonderful experiences attending church schools, but many have also had terrible experiences. And of course this doesn't apply to just church schools; it applies to any school. Church schools are my main focus here because they are the ones I see students go to the most often with very little actual info about the school other than that it's a church school. I don't regret going to BYU-Idaho despite how my time there ended (it's well documented if you don't know!). My reasons for going there were FAR deeper than simply "it's a church school." (In all actuality, I am the kind of person that would use "it's a church school" as a reason not to attend a particular school!). In closing, make a truly educated decision about your education!!

If you get the Ensign...

Current mood: annoyed

Just a little note of explanation, the Ensign is an official publication of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that comes out monthly. It is an excellent source for inspirational material related to the Church. It has an international counterpart known as the Liahona and there are also two other monthly magazines that accompany the Ensign or Liahona: The New Era for youth ages 12-18 and the Friend for children. They are all excellent publications with great articles and good material, but the January 2008 Ensign had an article that made me just roll my eyes. So here is my first blog of 2008!

The article, like most in Church magazines, was written by an average member of the Church (as opposed to a church leader or magazine writer) and was entitled "Unplugged" (page 57, January 2008 Ensign). It basically tells the story of a family who moved into a new house and had it wired for satellite TV. Before it was hooked up, the cables were covered up in the attic by the insulation. They couldn't find them, so they did without TV for two weeks. IN the meantime, they discovered how much they'd been "missing" by watching TV like playing games, spending time together, and getting other projects done. When they finally did find the cables in the attic, they "arrived at an instant agreement: "Bury those wires!"" I just had to exclaim "OH NO" when I finished reading this article.

Of course I'm not opposed to spending time with family and participating in activities besides watching TV. There are many great things families can do together and activities and projects that the author mentioned are most certainly worthwhile! I am, however, opposed to people, especially in the Church, who advocate not having TV at all as some sort of higher way of life. Are you kidding me? One of the things the author mentioned was a talk by M. Russell Ballard in General Conference (which they listened to on the radio) that spoke about "the sleazy and evil entrapments of the media," which she drew the conclusion "maybe we shouldn't hook up our TV." First of all, nowhere in his talk did Elder Ballard (whom Latter-day Saints regard as an Apostle of the Lord) advocate or mention getting rid of your TV. He is simply cautioning us about the evils that can come into our homes through the MEDIA. Second, the radio is also part of the media. Just because we can't see images from the radio doesn't mean it is free of sleaze or questionable material. The same is true with books. Reading is a very powerful tool and can lead to tons of information and learning. Books, though, are also not free of the very things people dog TV and even the Internet for. It all depends on what you read, just as it depends on what you listen to or what you watch. In the end, it's all how we use the mediums of media we have access to. There is no way to totally avoid the "sleaze" in the world and isolating ourselves from the world is not an answer. Isolation just makes people out of touch and downright WEIRD. While we certainly shouldn't put ourselves in front of objectionable material or actively seek it, we should know how to deal with it and teach our children how to deal with it. Growing up, whenever we watched a program or movie that had bad language or something of the like, my mom would tell us to substitute that phrase for a better one or she would explain why we don't believe in such acts or why they were against what we believed. It helped me to be able to look past the bad parts and not dwell on them. We all have to learn how to deal with stuff like that eventually, so why not in the home with the guidance of our parents?

Of course we shouldn't just sit on our butts all day and just watch TV, but the argument that there's "nothing good on TV anymore" is not a very good one. Again, it's all a matter of what you're watching. I have seen many great programs that are entertaining, educational, or both on many many channels, not just the BYU channel (which I think is overall a pretty boring channel!). For those of you with cable or satellite, check out stuff on the History Channel, Discovery, the Learning Channel, and even places like ESPN or Fox Sports Net. Even the regular networks have overall good programming that is suitable for families, depending on the time of the day. You just have to be aware of what you are watching just like you need to be aware of what you are reading. Along with this, watching TV isn't always the mind-numbing experience some people make it out to be. We can learn a lot from TV programs, especially from the news. I'll be the first to point out the biases that exist in the news media, but it is still a way for us to know and see what is going on in the world. For members of the church, being a good citizen is part of being a good Latter-day Saint and one cannot really be the best citizen if they are ignorant of current events in my opinion. And let's not forget that not everyone learns best by reading; many people are visual learners and there are many times that a TV program can help someone understand a concept in a way no book could ever hope for (and vice versa!). We need to follow the counsel of moderation in all things. Too much of anything, including TV, video games, or Internet use, isn't a good thing, but complete avoidance of them isn't good either.

Obviously the Church itself does not consider TV and the media completely evil. The Church broadcasts General Conference on TV every 6 months and most local chapels are equipped with a satellite dish that can get other programs besides just church-related ones. Further, the church has produced many TV commercials and the media has been a big part in spreading the gospel and getting our message out to more and more people. It certainly does more than isolating ourselves in our homes and becoming an ignorant people.

Comments

LDS Drama Queen (Becky); January 1, 2008

You're right, of course. Hate to say it but most of the crazy people who think this way live in COUGHutahCOUGH. As soon as people start saying we need to get rid of TV, they better be saying we need to get rid of radio, books, magazines (including the ENSIGN she sent that article to!), computers, and hey, even telephones. Go back to the stone ages and MAYBE you will be able to be "closer to God".

I agree, moderation in all things is the key. Gene R. Cook of the seventy said that Satan is found in the extremes. How true!!

Nari; January 1, 2008

I'm obsessed with Animal Planet. I've learned so many random things from that channel.

I'm not obsessed with t.v. anymore (now it's the internet instead lol) but I'd be lying if I told you that I could live happily without it. What oh what would I do without American Idol, Desperate Housewives, and trashy reality television? We'd have nothing to talk about at work!
Anyway, good blog!

MAJOR change of plans

Current mood: relieved

I posted this on my Facebook profile first, so if you read it there, save youself some time!

I decided I better get this written to give an update on my always eventful life and offer an explanation for my recent bulletins like "looking for legal advice."

For starters, yes it's true; I am all but officially withdrawn from BYU-Idaho and I have transferred back to Kent State. This has all transpired in the last 2-3 weeks, so it's been somewhat emotional and VERY stressful. While this was really developing, I was house-sitting for a family in Cleveland Heights (which I really enjoyed). Basically, I have left BYU-Idaho over a major dispute involving where I was supposed to live while I student taught in Taylorsville, Utah this fall. This is much more than a case of "not getting my way" but more a case of not being treated fairly (married students do not have to get permission to live in housing of their choice) and respectfully.

BYU-Idaho's housing policy states that all single (unmarried) students must live in "approved" housing until the age of 30. In Rexburg this isn't a big deal since all the housing near campus is "approved" anyway, plus there are several complexes to choose from (like 40-50). In my student teahing case, though, we were given one choice (a complex in Draper, Utah) and were told because of numbers we'd be sharing rooms. First, I have my own room at home and have had my own room in each apartment I've lived in at BYU-Idaho. I'm someone who needs my space and a place I can collect my thoughts and relax in peace. It's just the way I am. Somehow I made it though my mission sharing a room and being "attached" to someone 24/7, but I couldn't wait for the day I could have some alone time again. In addition, the distance between Draper, Utah and my school in Taylorsville is 14 miles. While that may not seem like much, anyone who's lived in the Salt Lake area knows that the commute can cause 14 miles to take near an hour. With the price of gas on top of the fact that I wouldn't be able to work while student teaching added to my desire to find alternate housing.

I started looking for my own apartment in April after finding out my school assignment and the fact that I wouldn't be able to have my own room in the "approved" housing. I found a place just two blocks from my school that had everything I needed: my own room, furnished, washer & dryer, and Internet, plus it was rented by a member of the Church and was rented only to guys. I filled out the exception form and sent it in around July 17. The initial denial was somewhat of a surprise, though I kind of expected it. When I first started exploring the possibility of finding my own housing, I was told they didn't "approve many exceptions." Going into this I figured since this was in Salt Lake and not Rexburg, plus the fact that not all distant-site student teaching sites have "approved" housing available that getting an exception wouldn't be a problem. I was wrong.

From the first denial (August 8th) I was met with a series of cop-outs and fingerpointing. The office of Continuing Education, who oversees distant-site student teaching, claimed they were just following procedure (it was "out of their hands") and that the housing department is who I need to talk with. I spoke with the director two days later and she was one of the most condescending people I have ever spoken to. She basically said the same thing "that's the rules" and she was just following the rules and I'd have to talk to someone higher. At this point I was pretty frustrated. I had been treated like a child in talking to her and as soon as I became more assertive in my tone, she said "I'm not going to talk to you while you're hollering at me." After working at Geauga Lake for two years, I know what it's like to really be yelled at by someone who is irate, and trust me, I wasn't yelling or "hollering." I had a similar experience near the end of this fiasco when I spoke with the secretary to the University President after he denied my request too. Condescending, no logical explanation as to why following the policy would benefit me in ANY way, and as soon as I got assertive in my tone I needed to "calm down" (I told her that telling me to calm down "wasn't helping" and that "I could be ballistic right now").

Anyway, so after speaking with housing I filed a discrimination grievance against housing and the university. I was being discriminated against because of my marital status. This was responded to by the Vice President of Academic affairs. His response was probably the closest to being logical, but still wasn't quite there. Basically, they needed more "compelling" arguments to allow an exception. Me being an experienced 25 year old adult, saving gas and time by living closer, having my own room, etc. weren't "valid" reasons. I ended up saying that I had already laid my case out twice to Continuing Ed (initial request) and in my grievance, plus if I were married I wouldn't have to do ANY of this. His response was another denial, but he made it sound like he sent it back to Continuing Ed and they denied it again (which made me laugh because when they first told me it was denied and I called about it, they made it sound like they would've approved it but Housing said no). Continuing Ed made it sound like the Vice President denied it in e-mail I got the next day. I also started looking into legal avenues I may have had, but those proved to be for nothing since BYU-Idaho is a private school.

At this point I mounted my last effort, but I had little faith that the President of the University would overrule his associates. To his credit, he did respond the next day via his secretary, but as I already mentioned, things went pretty much as expected from that point. I had hoped his 35 years of being at Harvard would influence him on my behalf in understanding that the policy itself was not helping me, but alas, it didn't. Before this final denial came I had started talking to KSU about transferring back.

Only since late last Monday (Aug 27) did I make a final decision to transfer after meeting with KSU reps. The sad truth is that Kent State has treated me WAY better and much more like an adult than BYU-Idaho did. How sad but true: the heathen liberal public school with 36,000 students treats me better than the smaller church school. Basically I will change my major to a BA in Music (instead of Music Ed) and then I'll go into the Master of Arts in Teaching program so I'll student teach as a grad student. This way I'll be in school a little while longer, but I'll finish with a Masters Degree (which I really need anyway) and still be licensed to teach in Ohio.

I seriously debated whether I should just "bite the bullet" and get my student teaching over with. Believe me, I had some pressure from certain family members to do just that on top of my own thoughts. As much as anyone, I just want to graduate and get on with my life. But in the end, I decided to transfer back because not doing so would undermine all that I did the last two weeks and everything I stood up for. This was more than just not getting what I wanted. I was treated like a child and was also not given any logical explanations about the housing policy purely because I am not married. How can that be justified in any way? Out in Rexburg and many parts of the west (like Utah), people don't regard you as an adult until you get married no matter how old you are. It has nothing to do with LDS (Mormon) doctrine, but is in fact a carryover of the 19th century American culture brought to the west by the early LDS pioneers. Living in relative isolation for generations, most of these traditions have become associated with the Church and with Mormon beliefs even though they have absolutely no basis in doctrine. The most common answer I got when I asked "why" was "it's policy" and "it's been like that for xx years." These aren't arguments, they're excuses for a policy that cannot be defended. No one could tell me WHY living in "approved" housing would be beneficial or WHY granting the exception would be detrimental to me or undermine the overall policy. It' just like the Pharisees in Jesus' time. They had so many rules, but never bothered to ask why they did them, yet they still vehemently defended them. TIME IS NOT A TEST OF TRUTHFULNESS!

In practice the policy says that single students are not capable or mature enough to find their own living arrnagements simply because they're single. The university also practices "loco parentis," the idea that they are the local parent of students, again regardless of the age of students. As soon as they're married, they don't need their "local parents" anymore. Can we say BACKWARDS?!? While talking with the secretary to the president, she said "we treat married students differently" (I said "I know you do. As soon as they have that marriage certificate they're deemed adults.") She said the university treats them as "separate familes." Funny. When I fill out my FAFSA form to get federal aid, they consider me an "independent" student, meaning I don't have to answer questions about my parents' incomes because they don't consider me part of that family anymore. Hmmmm.

Let me just close this out by saying there ARE some great things going on at BYU-Idaho and some awesome people. I really hate to see it end this way. My academic advisor (and new director of the Dept. of Music) called me the evening after my final rejection to voice his support for my position and to let me know "that someone in Rexburg was on [my] side." In the end though, changes in the way people think up there have to start somewhere. Since I first transferred to BYU-Idaho in 2004 I always wonder why Heavenly Father had me go there. Now I finally have my answer why I was sent there.

Any questions, feel free to ask. I'm glad it's over and I can move on with my life and I'm confident things will work out from here. I AM glad to be back in Ohio for good now too.


Comments

LDS Drama Queen (Becky); September 4, 2007
I give you credit, that couldn't have been an easy decision, but you ARE right. That is the dumbest rule I have ever heard and somebody sometime is going to get that through their western Mormon backwards brain and make some changes. Good for you for not taking their crap. You had everything all worked out and it sounds like you had a pretty good deal all set up if the university hadn't been so retarded. I hope you enjoy working at Kent and maybe you can student teach in a place that isn't so....Utah-Mormon brainwashed. At least in Ohio you can be a Mormon and part of the real world at the same time.

I'm proud of you!!

Emily; September 4, 2007
Stupid rule. You were right to fight it. If the only answer to why you can't do something is "because I said so" it should always be pushed. I feel awful about what happened to you but I am thankful that I'll get to see you more (tomorrow in fact). Take care!

Dorese; September 4, 2007
You might consider how your comments about the "backwards Mormon brainwashed culture" may sound to someone, say, who isn't a member of the Church but may be reading this blog. You have a right to be frustrated and angry, and it sounds like things are actually going to work out really well for you, but try not to put the Church in such a negative light. BYU-Idaho is a church school, but, like you said Jon, the policy is not doctrinally based and therefore I feel a distinction ought to be drawn between the policy of the school and the Church.

JRid (Jon); September 4, 2007
I see your point. I did my best to differentiate between the Church and BYU-Idaho as I have done throughout my time at BYU-Idaho and especially through this (that's why I'm still active in the Church!!) =). Becky's comments do add "western" and "Utah" to "Mormon" to show these are not universal LDS beliefs (nor are they taught), but rather something incorrectly associated with the Church by members and non-members alike in that part of the country. Not once do I criticize the Church itself for what has happened. All my criticism is directed at BYU-Idaho and the culture of the Rexburg area (and much of the intermountain West) that has influenced BYU-Idaho's policies. I'm also trying to show the danger of not being able to separate cultural traditions from doctrinal truth, which is a HUGE problem for much of the church membership in the mountain West.

Utah

Current mood: thoughtful

I just got back from a visit to Utah for a good friend's wedding at the Salt Lake LDS Temple. I had a great time. I seem to find myself in Utah about every month (except in the summer while I'm home in Ohio). Really, I enjoy visiting Utah but I don't think I could ever live there long term. If I had to live in Utah, I'd live in the Salt Lake area. I can't stand the Provo area and I try to avoid it as much as possible. The mountains are my favorite part of Utah. If Ohio had mountains, then it would be almost perfect. For now, though, I'd gladly trade the high number of trees here for the mountains. One thing I've discovered over the last five years living in three western states (Arizona, New Mexico, & Idaho) is that I'm an easterner and more specifically an Ohioan. I just love Ohio, but that's not to say there aren't things I've enjoyed about the other states I've lived in. Ohio is home and where I'm most comfortable. But anyway, since I'm LDS, there are lots of benefits in Utah too since so many more LDS things are readily available there than in Ohio where there are hardly any Mormons. I can't say I mind not having to go far to go to the temple or to church, plus you can get LDS items in just about any store. In most places you have to special order them unless you're in a heavy-LDS community. Yeah, there's definitely perks to being LDS and living in a place like Utah or Idaho, but in the end, I still like living in Ohio better- more diversity and more people rooted in REALITY!!


Comments

Dorese; June 25, 2006
I liked your last comment about people not seeming to be rooted in reality in the LDS "bubble." I totally agree!And even though I've decided to make Idaho pretty much my permanent home, Ohio still totally rocks! Anyway, have a good week, Jon!

JRid (Jon); June 25, 2006
DORESE!! So good to hear from you!! Thanks for the comments!