Messy House Doctrine

The idea that cleanliness of your house is next to godliness has resurfaced in our lives again--this time one of the kids heard it in a church class.

The "doctrine" has morphed. No longer is it, "You cannot feel the Spirit in a messy home."  Now it is, "You can feel the Spirit in a messy home, but it's not as easy."

Nice change. Still not true.

The idea that you can do things that make it harder to understand the Spirit rings true to me. I know if I don't go to church, even if I have a good reason, it's harder for me to get answers to my prayers--they come slower and quieter. I also find it harder to understand (I hesitate to use "feel the Spirit" because it is so often warped into this idea that emotions are driven by the Spirit, which is not true) the Spirit when I don't sleep enough, or when I eat only junk food. Or when I'm depressed or having anxiety. Or when I am feeling stubbornly resolved to my will or when I want something so badly that I'm not sure I could accept a "no" answer from God.

While I do believe there are things that hamper each person's ability to understand the Spirit, and I do believe there are universal things that hamper everyone's understanding (like sin), I think it's a mistake to take my own list and impose it on everyone else. Perhaps lack of sleep doesn't affect you the same way it does me, for example.

Saying that I can't understand the Spirit because my floor is messy is imposing your list on me.  It would be okay to say, "While you can feel the Spirit in a messy house, it's not as easy for me to feel the Spirit in a messy place as it is in a clean place."

Besides, who is to say what constitutes "clean" or "messy" when we're talking houses?  Everyone has a different level of chaos tolerance. Personally, I think a low level of chaos tolerance is a handicap, not a sign of greater spirituality and righteousness. If you can't think when there are things on the floor, it seems to me like something is wrong with you. It seems like it might hamper your ability to feel the Spirit if you compulsively MUST pick up before you can get answers to your prayers or concentrate on the scriptures, or if you can't feel the Spirit in a slum.

This "cleanliness doctrine" really falls apart upon closer examination anyway. What you're saying is:
   --mothers of young children
   --people with disabilities (including the invisible ones like ADHD or fibro)
  --people who have just lived through a disaster (floods and fires are messy)
  --people who have chronic illness
  --single parents
  --people who are stuck in abject poverty
  --people who are struggling through mental illness like depression
  --people who are random
  --missionaries who are teaching in a messy environment, like a slum
  --everyone who lives in countries that are "third world" in your eyes
  --people who have at-home children all the time (toddlers and babies, homeschoolers, people with sick children) because there is no break from mess-making
  --people with a lot of small children
  --caretakers of the disabled, elderly, mentally ill
have less ability to understand the Spirit than you who have the luxury of easily having clean floors do.

Not only that, but somewhat perversely, you are saying that men who abuse their wives and force them to clean the floors to white-glove-test cleanliness have the best ability to feel the Spirit, thanks to their wife's efforts and none of their own. And child abusers who have spotless houses thanks to the slave labor of their children have an easier time feeling the Spirit.

Besides, who defines how clean is clean enough for the Spirit?

It is a mistake to conflate clean houses with righteousness. And its a mistake to judge other people's spirituality, especially based entirely on the condition of their house or car.

What helps us have a better chance of understanding the Spirit? A clean HEART. A clean soul. Clean thoughts. And practice listening to and obeying the Spirit--the more you do it, the easier it becomes. Even in slums.

I can't find any scriptures that actually say, "Clean your house." Individuals might get that as an answer to prayer. I even have--it's easier to live in a cleaner house, quite frankly. But let that be enough reason--you don't have to make it a commandment or a sign of your spirituality. (And how would a messy person get the inspiration to clean up if they can't feel the Spirit in a messy environment?)

And, in fact, even in conference women have said, "The answer was to clean less and do scripture study/family home evening more."

I also find it grossly unfair to women to say that everyone can feel the Spirit more easily in a clean house. Why? Because by and large, women are still the ones responsible for the home environment, even in homes where two parents work. So when we teach that the house has to be clean for anyone inside to be able to feel the Spirit, what we're telling people is that the woman in the house is responsible for everyone's ability to understand the Spirit, and that's not fair. That's worse that the flap all the feminists get into when we teach modesty and they say it's unfair that we are putting responsibility on girls for boys' bad thoughts. It is certainly not my fault if you can't understand answers to your prayers.

By making housekeeping a righteousness issue instead of something more mundane, we're also degrading the work of mothering, making it lesser than (or equating it) with housekeeping, as if a woman's sole value was in her ability to clean up messes. Mothering is not cleaning. Period. They're not even related. You can hire someone else to do all the cleaning and not lose any speck of your mothering ability. In fact, housekeeping interferes with most women's ability to mother the way they want, and if we make housekeeping the greater importance, women lose. And so do children.  If you have to choose between a clean floor and reading the scriptures with your children, and most moms of young babies do, it's unfair to try to equate them spiritually.

How many moms end up overwhelmed and depressed because the pressure to keep the house clean and still do everything else is overwhelming? How much better is it for a family to have a happy, functional mom and a messy floor? A lot. Immeasurably better. It's completely unfair to a mom to say that her whole family's spirituality requires her to be overworked and miserable. That sounds an awful lot like God hates women, and I know He doesn't. Nor does He require anything of a woman in order for her husband to be able to more or less easily feel the Spirit. Your ability to understand the Spirit is on you and you alone. That's not anyone else's responsibility, and it's unfair to everyone to make it seem otherwise.

This is not to degrade the work women do in their homes. Every single thing women do to make their homes a comfortable, safe, happy sanctuary for their families is vital and valued. It's all part of the important mission of women, and women need to be told that because it always seems like the drudgery of housework is not important. But it is.

But can't it be enough that it's important because it's healthier, more convenient, and comfortable? Do we have to make it a matter of our spiritual health? Can't we make righteousness the focus of our spiritual health instead?

I know of so, so many women who were beating themselves up because they couldn't keep up with the work who prayed or got blessings that said, "Don't focus so much on the floor. It doesn't matter if the house is clean as much as it matters that you are doing scripture study and drawing your children close instead of pushing them away so you can clean."  If you have to neglect or yell at the kids so you can clean, there's a problem.

And many of us have to choose between teaching our children, making good memories, developing their talents, and staying sane and keeping the house spotless, and those are not fair choices to inject "by the way, keeping the house clean is righteousness" into--especially since the others are actually more important, and most of us (admit it) can't do both at any given moment.

Most women get the balance better than I do and manage to keep their houses at least passably tidy. And everyone has to deal with their "this must be cleaned up because I can't live like this" point--wherever it falls on the cleanness spectrum.

But let's let it be what it is and not make it something else.

Please read this....

Please read this. Having been in and out (but more in) crisis mode for 10 years (pretty much straight, either for me, or my husband, or other people we love, without a break of any longer than a couple of days in a row that I can remember since 2008), I can attest to every word in here.

Seriously.

This should be required reading for every person who wants to love or serve people in crisis. Or who ever might meet someone in crisis.

http://communicatingacrossboundariesblog.com/2015/09/28/stupid-phrases-for-people-in-crisis/

Now go hold someone's hand.

And for every single person who I was trying to help and I did it wrong: I'm sorry. I am so so sorry.

Weaknesses

Ether 12:27: And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

This is a well-known scripture. We often interpret it to mean that we all have weaknesses and they are there to make us humble, and if we trust God, He will turn our weaknesses into strengths.

And from this verse, we tend to extrapolate the idea that we each have weaknesses and strengths, and we should spend our lives rooting out our weaknesses. It's almost as if we believe that we are a giant computer code, and if we can find all the bugs and eliminate them, then we will be perfect. So we're supposed to search and destroy--identify our bits of bad code and rewrite them or cut them out entirely--until we are perfect humans.

After all, how could it be wrong to work on self-improvement?

The trouble is it doesn't work. And it can't. Why?

Several reasons, many of which add up to "What makes you think you're smart enough to do that?": 

1. We are not actually capable of seeing all our weaknesses. Some of them, like pride, actually change the way we see altogether, making it impossible for us to spot them.

2. What we define as weaknesses might not actually be weaknesses. For years I was ashamed that I was so strong-willed. But then I stumbled upon my mom's journal and found one of the few entries she made was my baby blessing, where she recorded that I was blessed with a strong will. Had I rooted that out of my soul, I would have been getting rid of a blessing. And an essential part of who I am.

3. What we see as weaknesses are so intertwined with so many, many things that we can't see the results of our efforts. So many things are, as my mom used to say, "Double-edged swords." If you excise one thing, you might accidentally destroy something you like.

4. Looking for and eliminating our weaknesses is entirely the wrong focus. It leaves us looking inward instead of outward. The purpose of life is NOT to watch ourselves and focus on ourselves. The purpose is to take care of ourselves specifically so we can serve the people around us and love others. It's not supposed to be all about you, and focusing on getting rid of your weaknesses makes it all about you.

5. How do you know what is a weakness without comparing yourself to others?  Comparison is not healthy and, by its nature is embedded in pride, which is a sin.

and, most importantly, 6. We can't actually do that. Many of our "weaknesses" are embedded in our biological makeup. Without Jesus, we can't actually get rid of them.

But it turns out that's not what the scripture says, anyway. You notice, it doesn't say that we have weaknesses to keep us humble or that we are supposed to find and eliminate our weaknesses, as if there was a checklist for perfection. 

Let's read it again: 

Ether 12:27: And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

First of all, the scripture does not say we have weaknesses. It says we are weak. There is a big difference there. We are weak and incapable, not for any one thing we can find and get rid of but because we are human. We are weak, especially compared to God. And really, that's a comforting idea. Like a baby can't do all things (or even many things) because of lack of strength, we can't either and that is not a condemnation of us. It is a simple statement of reality.

We are weak, therefore we can't do a lot of things and we fail a lot and that makes us humble (if we let it). So if we go unto God, He will show us that we are weak. But His grace is sufficient for us if we humble ourselves.  And then it is never our job to make ourselves strong--you notice that in the verse? It is our job to become humble before him (not before men, which is actually another form of pride) and to have faith in him, and then He takes care of it, making weak things become strong. 

Moroni was comforted by these words, and I am, too. It is not a call to self-improvement. It is a statement from a loving God that yes, you are weak, and that's just fine. It's no condemnation to you if you are weak, only if you are proud. 

When I'm working on a car, and I can't get a bolt off, I can get mad at myself and feel furious and frustrated and miserable because I'm not strong enough. Or I can acknowledge that I'm not strong enough and ask for help. I have learned that I'm too weak physically to get the bolts out of car parts, and if I ask Tim he can usually do it with little trouble. He is stronger than I am.  It's easier for all of us if I don't bother to be stubborn and keep trying myself when I actually am too weak for that and just ask for help. 

I'm the kind of person who usually feels really bad when I fail at things. I like to succeed, and I like to think that if I just try harder, I will always find a way to succeed.  So then it's kind of devastating when I try my hardest and still fail.

But that's where this scripture becomes comforting to me. It's good to be reminded that I'm not just dumb, and I'm not a failure, and I'm not all full of weaknesses that I have yet to find and correct. No--I'm just weak. I just actually can't do it myself. I am like a baby to God, and babies not only can't do a lot of things, the things they can do are done awkwardly and poorly, imperfectly and weakly. And we rejoice at their efforts. God has no misconceptions of how weak I am--only I do. And no doubt he rejoices at my efforts and cheers for my awkward, poorly executed, imperfect results. And if I am willing to see myself as weak, we're both happier for it because then I let God help me, and am more willing to let go and let Him help, and trust what He's doing. 

And if I'm failing because I'm weak, and I turn to Him for help, and He doesn't fix it for me, then I need to trust whatever He is doing even if I don't understand it. And chances are I don't because I'm weak and He's strong; I have limited vision and He can see everything.

This is not to say we don't have to try to do right and keep the commandments and follow God's rules because we're too weak. He expects us to do our very, very best in our weakness. We still have to work, and He makes us do all the parts we can ourselves. It's not an excuse to do nothing.

But it is much nicer to look at life as me being a weak thing that God loves and will help than as a strong thing that is full of faults and failed. We can't try harder to be strong and perfect ourselves. We can just try harder to be humble and have faith that God knows what He's doing, and He is strong.

Doctrinal Porn

The church recently released a really good video for kids about what to do if you see porn.  (You can see it here: https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2015-08-001-what-should-i-do-when-i-see-pornography?lang=eng).  I showed it to all my kids.

One of my greatest fears is that my kids will become addicted to porn and not be able to get free, and that it will ruin their marriages.

Why is porn so scary to me?

Many reasons, including:
 --It takes something sacred and twists it so that the sacred seems dull and the twisted version seems normal, warping a person's ability to enjoy and benefit from the sacred, natural version.

--It dulls natural sensations and emotions

--It redefines love into something selfish and unhealthy

--It objectifies an entire class of people

--It's progressive, leading you further and further from reality while simultaneously making reality more and more boring and distasteful

--It convinces you that what you do alone doesn't affect anyone else

--It's a secret, done in secret, kept in secret, and secrets aren't really healthy

--It destroys a person's ability to have normal, healthy relationships (both intimate and casual)

--It hampers a person's ability to handle stress, unhappiness, problems, and interpersonal interactions (especially the unpleasant ones) in healthy ways

--It blurs the lines between reality and fantasy, making it hard for people to live and function in reality

--It is addicting. Like the video says, we happen upon it and it feels wrong but it also makes us curious and makes us want to see more.

In short, pornography interferes with a person's ability to interact with other people, to be in tune with their own emotions, and to live a healthy, connected life.

So you know I have also been concerned for a long time about the doctrines that are becoming ever more prevalent and open in the world among my peers--especially feminism and intellectual/ progressive mormonism.  I've talked before about feminism being like a virus that infects your soul and changes your ability to see clearly.

While I think that is still an apt comparison, I'm starting to see a great comparison between these feminist and intellectual approaches to mormonism and porn.  I know this seems like a completely exaggerated and unfair comparison, but hear me out.

These progressive and intellectual mormon doctrines--the ones I wanted to just call apostasy outright in my last blog post--often feel wrong at first glance, but they make us curious and make us want to read more and hear more.  (You can see my brother's take on this here: http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/apostasy-as-conspiracy-theory-reason-logic-insanity-and-mormon-intellectualism/).

They are something we usually indulge in privately and don't like to tell those we love that we just spent time on them.

They are addicting. People go back for more again and again, even without being able to say why.

The doctrines (and blog posts espousing them) blur the lines between the gospel and flat-out apostasy, making it hard to tell where the truth ends and the lies begin.

They hamper a person's ability to deal with stress, interpersonal troubles, and unhappiness in the ways the Lord has recommended that He says will help. Somehow these doctrines make it harder for people to access the atonement and find the peace the Spirit is supposed to bring. And they make it harder to deal with the frailties, faults, and downright stupidities of local leaders in the church.

Somehow, these doctrines hamper a person's ability to have normal, healthy relationships with God. This is especially sad when a person is already struggling and their faith is already stretched to its limit.

The doctrines are progressive. Nobody jumps from the gospel into apostasy in one big leap. It's through little, progressive doctrines instead. One step at a time.

Where porn redefines love into something selfish, these intellectual and feminist versions of Mormonism redefine our relationship with God into something selfish, where we define for Him how things are going to go and how they work and what we believe is right instead of letting Him define it all.

These doctrines dull natural spiritual sensations and emotions, making them harder to feel and understand.

And, ultimately, like porn, these doctrines take something sacred and twists it into something else, making it harder for people to access the natural, healthy, sacred version of spirituality, the gospel, and our relationships with God and Jesus.

In short, doctrinal pornography interferes with a person's ability to interact with God and righteous people, to be in tune with their own emotions and the way the Holy Ghost speaks to them, and to live a healthy, connected-with-God kind of life.

I have not taken the time to figure out HOW the "doctrinal porn" does all these things. I'm just seeing a parallel between how pornography affects human emotion, relationships, and sexuality and how doctrinal porn affects human emotion, relationships, and spirituality. Porn messes up men's ability to interact with women and feel love. Doctrinal porn messes with people's ability to interact with God and feel the Spirit, as far as I can tell.

This doctrinal porn is really hard to identify. It's often mixed in with other things. I know on my mission they told us to just not watch "The Godmakers" (an anti-mormon film that was produced in my  mission), just like they tell people to just not look at porn in the first place. But certainly The Godmakers isn't the only stuff out there we should not be indulging in.

So what exactly counts as doctrinal porn, as opposed to legitimate scholarly work or honest curiosity or harmless but deeply-held belief?

I honestly don't know. It's harder to define, even, than what constitutes porn (vs art, scholarly work, etc). I'm sure it's all mixed in. But, like porn, it's becoming more prevalent in our society and more widely-seen. It's less secret, less likely to be only found if you go looking.

And I can't even tell someone what to avoid, except to say it seems it would be wise to pray for the gift of discernment so that, like porn, you know it when you see it.

And what you do with it is up to you.

Complaining about the apostles

Still seeing articles, purporting to be compassionate acknowlegments of the "pain" of other people and the "aggressions" of the leadership of the church (those are both catchphrases that have more meanings than you might think).

At what point do we get to start calling a spade a spade? At what point do we get to start labeling these carefully-worded "compassionate" complaints against the Church as what they are: apostacy? Not to punish the speakers, but to protect the vulnerable and easily deluded--especially the feminists and intellectuals themselves, who might choose to continue in their "Jesus is stupid" path, but they might choose to re-examine their beliefs and change?

It bothers me a lot how aggressively they are pushing their doctrine and trying to lead others astray. And succeeding at it. Perhaps there aren't enough voices standing up and saying, "The apostles are called of Christ, not by a committee who are interested only in maintaining their power and keeping the people crushed under their feet." Perhaps we don't need to label it apostacy, but perhaps it's time that we all stand up and fearlessly speak the truth.

Perhaps they aren't leading anyone astray. Maybe they're all talking to their echo chambers, and the lovers of truth can see through the nonsense or just don't even listen, like the righteous did to Korihor.

But calling it what it is seems like an important first step, even if we don't say it out loud.

For the record: Apostles are called by God and Jesus. And if they choose white men, so be it.

Protesters. Sigh.

Conference is only half over and people are already coming out to protest.

There are the usual parties: feminists and intellectuals.

The feminists (not all of them--the Ordain Women crew again) are out putting on little skits of how women ought to be involved, showing little girls preparing the sacrament, without any clue that what they are doing is highly offensive to most members, mocking things many of us find sacred. And still without any clue to the irony of their position: completely denigrating the priesthood while begging for it.

Despite their protests to the contrary, it appears that these feminists are looking for more power for themselves in the church.

The intellectuals are out in force on social media, complaining about the new apostles being white. They are sure the church would be better served by someone who is not of European descent, and it appears they want someone from Africa.

Despite their protests to the contrary, it appears that these intellectuals are looking for the church to become socially acceptable.

Neither group is asking the pertinent question: Is this Jesus Christ's church or not? Is Jesus in charge of the church, or not?

That is the main question.

Also, I'm seeing that if you set out to watch conference to find mistakes and errors, you will find them. And that's a shame--not because errors exist, but because if you're looking for problems, you're not looking for answers or enrichment or to be taught and edified at the feet of Apostles of God.

It seems especially sad to me because this Saturday Conference, the Brethren actually did address the issues and the attitudes of many of these protesting parties. And they were too busy looking for grammatical errors and misquotations to actually hear the answers they say they are searching for.

It is truly their loss. But what a loss.

Things that bothered me this week

--Sexism disguised as "feminism" that is, therefore, socially acceptable.

--Feminists who tell women how to be happy (and it doesn't include children)

--The idea that my very most important work (raising my family) could be left out of my obituary because some stupid feminist made a rule about that

--The idea that women should be more like men instead of maybe considering the idea that maybe men are the ones doing it wrong, or that everyone brings something different to the table and we should use and appreciate all the offerings instead of rejecting some

--Seeing homeschooling parents condemning their children and making them do assignments again even though they got all the answers right because the lines were not straight enough (and the kid is just 5 years old)

--Seeing all around us that people arbitrarily condemn others (including their own spouses and children) for doing things "wrong" when, in fact, it's just another way of doing it. Why is the method more important than the

What bedtime looked like at our house tonight

Some big kid decided it was a great idea to play "killing zombies" in the big kids' room tonight when I sent them all (six share a room) down to read.

So when it was time to sleep, I had big kids happily contemplating the heroism of slaying the undead, the little kids were unhappily contemplating zombies.

Three kids needed sippy cups of milk at the same time. One needed to watch a movie to keep him out of trouble. Another needed to watch a different movie in a different room to escape thinking about zombies. Another just couldn't settle down and kept coming out of the bedroom for this thing or that.

Elijah, meanwhile, busied himself making a machine that would open the cupboard for him out of a toy shopping cart and a bungee cord.

Caleb spent time pacing through the house, lost in thought.

I set the baby down to go chase kids off to their various spots, and when I came back, I found Emmeline had found a bag of large marshmallows on the floor in the kitchen. And she had managed to open it. And she had managed to empty it. By the time I got there, she was sitting happily in a pile of large marshmallows, one in each hand, taking bites out of as many as she could get into her sticky little fists. It was so cute, I couldn't step in to stop her for a minute. Besides, her attempts at crawling with marshmallows stuck to both hands were quite comical.

But now it's bedtime. And at least 4 kids are on their feet in the living room.

Back to herding cats.

When you die....

I got news this month that two people in my life have cancer and aren't going to live long.

One person has been kind to people I love for many years, and when I heard he was not going to live much longer, I cried. For him to suffer, for his family to lose him, for my loved ones to lose him. He will be sorely missed, and many, many people will be working hard and living good so they can be with him again.

One person has been horribly, obstinately, aggressively abusive to people I love for many decades, and when I heard she was going to die, I thought, "Good riddance; thank goodness she won't be able to hurt anyone anymore," and immediately felt ashamed for it because we're not supposed to feel relieved when someone dies. I also felt sad for her. I'm not sitting here rejoicing in her cancer. I felt sad for her because her cancer will make her suffer, and I hate to see even a spider or a dog suffer. And I felt sad for her because she's going to have to meet God after all the horrible things she's proudly done to others that damaged them and sometimes destroyed their lives that she feels no remorse for at all.

I know this is a socially inappropriate post but I just want to say this:

Live so that when you die, the first sentiment in most people's minds is not, "Good riddance."

Not everyone has an AND, and not everyone needs one

There's a new social media campaign out there designed to empower Mormon women, and some things about it I like. It's explained here:

http://janariess.religionnews.com/2015/09/18/mormon-woman-launches-embraceyourand-social-media-campaign/

Here's a quote, of things that I totally agree with:

This campaign is not about telling women they can “have it all.” There’s a significant difference between “#EmbracetheAND” vs “#EmbraceYourAND.” Changing out “the” for “your” places emphasis on the fact that the specifics of a woman’s multifaceted and integrated life–the pursuits she seeks, the roles she fills—will all depend on that individual woman.

It’s about believing that God does not place limits on our possibilities and our influence. Living an AND life is about embracing a life of abundance rather than living with a scarcity mindset. It’s about asking God, “And now, what would you have me do?”

It’s about embracing the answers that come as a result of asking this question. Living this type of life requires a great deal of confidence in God, His capabilities, and His knowledge of us as individuals. Sometimes the answers require us to expand the ANDs in our lives, sometimes they necessitate a change in direction, and other times, they compel us to focus more on the quality of our ANDs than the quantity.

It’s about recognizing our capacities, but believing that we can be more with God’s help.

It’s about letting go of specific timelines and realizing that we have a long time to be and do many things.

All that I agree with. I wish everyone would do this with their lives. What better use of our lives can we have than by embracing the design of it that God intends, since He wants our happiness most of all--even more than we do--and He has a vision of who and what we are and can do.

 Unfortunately, that beautiful statement (above) is followed directly by this statement:

It’s about expanding the notions of womanhood beyond only wifehood and motherhood—and knowing that this expansion does not mean we are deserting our families.

Somehow, that makes the first quote, and the whole article, seem to be saying that when you ask God, "And now, what would you have me do?" the answer is not going to be "Quit your job, drop out of school, and have another baby." 

But often that is the answer. 

And for most women raised in today's society, that answer takes a much greater faith and confidence in God and His answers than having an AND does. It's hard when God says, "What I want for your life is for you to just be a mom."  "Just a mom" is embarrassing.  Nobody takes you seriously if you're "just a mom." I've found myself avoiding admitting I'm a full-time mother because it's so embarrassing to say, "I'm a mother." I'll tell people "I'm a writer" or "I am an instructional designer" or "I'm developing a free online school for gifted children" in a heartbeat (even though I rarely have time to work on any of those things) before I'll confess to being a full-time mother.  Nobody takes you seriously as a human being with things to contribute to the world, the church, or society if you're "just a mom."  "Just a mom" is lower on the social totem pole--even among other mothers--than working in a daycare, as a janitor, at a call center, or as the cashier at a thrift store. ANYTHING a woman does outside the home has more prestige than being "just a mom."  Being "just a mom" is not socially acceptable, even among church members. Even among other family women. (I still remember the man who said to me, "My wife likes to contribute to our home, so she kept her job."  As if raising children is not contributing to a home? Who said money is everything?)

I know this movement is important to some women. Some women are concerned when they can't have babies or never get a chance to marry, or when they have fewer babies than they hoped for, or when their babies are grown, that doing something else is cheating their families, and they need to be given permission to seek God's will and follow it, even if it means having a career or traveling to Africa or whatever they are inspired to do. Those women need to feel free to embrace that there is an AND in their lives: I get to be mother AND ____, and that's okay with God. 

I just find it equally important to acknowledge and accept that some women are inspired to forego careers and "just be a mom."   Being a mother full-time and exclusively is not embracing a scarcity mindset, and it's a shame to define it as such. (And, actually, never marrying and having a job full time your whole life, or being unable to have children, or being disabled and never marrying and just living at home your whole life is not embracing a scarcity mindset, either, and we should never make people think it is.)

Here's the problem with #embraceyourAND: it implies that all women should have an AND that takes them outside of being primarily (or even exclusively) a wife and/or mother. While I greatly admire my sister-in-law who raised six kids while maintaining her career, I also greatly admire another sister-in-law who quit her successful career so she could be a successful wife (and now mother, too). Both were following God's will for them and neither should be condemned for that. Not the one with the AND and not the one without.

I am concerned that this campaign will make women who have been inspired to drop everything to focus on family and home feel like they are not enough, that they are not valuable, and they are not complete women without some AND. Like we can't just be a mother and wife; we have to be a mom AND a ________ or we're failing.  And we have to do it all right now, not sequentially (this now, that later).

And for all the young mothers who are already struggling, this is not the right message. The right message is that when you are rocking your baby you ARE doing something, and what you are doing is enough. It is good and important and eternal and can be much harder than other choices. It is doing something, and you don't need an AND. It is enough.

Having and raising babies is the single most important thing I will ever do in my life. I anticipate doing a lot of other wonderful things--writing books, staging plays, running homeschool enrichment programs, getting my school up and running online for free education for anyone in the world. But none of that is more important than having and raising my babies. I don't need an AND to be valuable. Raising babies and being a wife is doing something, and it is enough. 

I am concerned that women are being told to hire out their most important, vital, and eternal duties to childcare so they can have an AND--so they can "accomplish something" or "get something done." As if raising children isn't doing something or accomplishing anything or getting anything done?

What's wrong with embracing motherhood if that is what you're inspired to do? Being a mom is enough. While some women might feel inspired to have an AND, and we should encourage them to always follow their inspiration wholeheartedly, some of us are inspired to an #ANDthen, doing motherhood and wifehood pretty much exclusively for this part of life, and then other things as life changes, and some people are inspired to do motherhood and wifehood exclusively for their whole lives. And that is enough. Those are the most important things, anyway, and it is a horrible curse on our society that those are considered shameful, stupid choices for women. Those are the most ennobling, glorious choices and we should not be ashamed of them. It's not stepping down, it's not belittling, it's not demeaning. Being a wife and mother is wonderful. It's important work that can easily take all your time and energy. And there is no shame in it. 

You are not failing if you don't have an AND. You are not broken if you don't even want one. There is nothing wrong with embracing womanhood including wife and mother. To take a page from the feminists: We don't shame men for embracing being husbands and fathers--we celebrate when they do that. Why do we shame women for embracing being mothers? This makes no sense.

Some women can have an AND.  But you don't need an AND to be happy, successful, or follow God's path for your life. Be willing to embrace your AND if that's what God asks to you to do. 

But also be willing to give it up, if that's what God asks you to do.

Did I just read that?

"An Atlanta mom who came down with a fever after a day at the pool with her two children died Sunday of a mysterious illness. Stephanie Ballard woke up in mid-July the next morning with nausea, chills and a headache, MyFoxAtlanta.com reported."

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/08/03/atlanta-mom-2-dies-mysterious-illness-after-day-at-pool/?intcmp=hplnws

I guess waking up after being dead causes a headache...

Anonymous Comments

Anonymous comments are not welcome here and will not be approved.

Just so you know.

Don't even bother.

Why? I agree with this:
 http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/comment-policy/

It's to your advantage, actually, as I always respond more reasonably and kindly--and sometimes even learn from--people with faces. Faceless people don't get the same respect.

No mention of Christ?

I noticed that Kate Kelly doesn't really talk about Christ. Or Jesus. Or the atonement.

Yes, she's back. The lady who pushed Ordain Women, much to the chagrin of women all over the world who want to be taken seriously by other humans.

Ms. Kelly recently published an editorial encouraging people to abandon the church. "Hey--it's nice out here," is her basic message. "Come out and test the waters. It's so warm and safe and pretty."

But some of the things Kate Kelly says in her editorial are particularly "tricky" or troubling, undermining her invitation to leave for greener pastures, but also revealing and underlying lack of testimony that is not new to her writing, but is more apparent than ever before.

For example, Ms. Kelly says, "The decision for a person to stay active in the Mormon church should be based on an honest evaluation of its benefits."  This would be reasonable if you were joining a gym or a quilting club. But for a church, the standard is much higher. It would be better to ask, "Is this true?"

Ms. Kelly also says, "I encourage Mormon women to ask themselves a similar question: does my participation in Mormonism spark joy?"  That's a popular standard for decluttering a house (although flawed for that, too--whoever thought food storage or extra batteries 'spark joy'?).  But childbirth does not spark joy, and it's worth every minute of the pain. Getting up to nurse all night does not spark joy. Cleaning toilets does not spark joy. Catching a child's vomit does not spark joy. Stepping on legos in the night doesn't spark joy. Having a child scream mean things at you for hours does not spark joy. Watching your child cry in pain or sorrow that you can't fix does not spark joy. There is not greater pain than parts of parenthood. But parenting is the most valuable, rewarding, important thing I've ever done.  "Spark joy" is a stupid standard for deciding whether you want to participate in religion. Whether or not something sparks joy has nothing to do with how valuable it is in your life.

Ms. Kelly says, "It has been indescribably freeing for me to stop believing that men have control over whether or not I go to heaven."  What?! I have no idea where she got that idea. Men never did have control over whether she goes to heaven. Unless she means God and Jesus, and they're doing everything they can to get her in, not keep her out. But getting to heaven is up to her, not men. And it always has been.

Ms. Kelly says, "I don't wish for Mormon women to follow me — or to follow anyone. I want them to follow their own hearts, aspirations and dreams." First of all, that's a lie. She does want women to follow her. Her actions make that abundantly clear. But, aside from that, really, shouldn't we want people to follow Jesus? Our thoughts, aspirations, and dreams often lead us to places we end up not wanting to be. Jesus is a better guide than we are ourselves. We're too blind. He can see more and farther--and He loves us.

Ms. Kelly says, "Put your faith in yourself and in women."  Not in God? Not in Jesus? And what makes women any more worthy of our faith than men? They're all human, and humans don't have a great track record when it comes to being worthy of our faith.

Ms. Kelly says, "You can remove your name from the records of the church as a way to communicate to male church leaders why they can't keep you or others like you." See how she's all caught up in who has the power? The church leaders aren't trying to "keep you" (male or female leaders).  They are trying to offer you something they find immensely valuable. If you don't want it, that's fine. They won't hate your for that.

Ms. Kelly says, "let church leaders know what the cost of their rigidity is."  Clearly she does not believe what they have been saying all this time:  they aren't being rigid; it's Jesus who is not bending to Ms. Kelly's will. The leaders are bound to follow Jesus. (Now, it's another question entirely whether you believe the apostles have access to Jesus and are following Him. But she's skipping that part.)

Ms. Kelly says, "Male leaders colonized our minds to make us think we had to play by their rules to be taken seriously." Nobody has colonized my mind. Who is she letting in to her head? (It sounds to me like feminism has colonized her mind, urging her to see oppression where it does not exist, and trying to convince all people everywhere that "patriarchy" is evil no matter what, even if God is the patriarch and Jesus is the one in charge....)

You can read her latest public "speech" (letter to the editor) here. It reminds me of a speech given many, many years ago in ancient America.

If you don't already know which ancient speech I'm referring to, I'll quote an excerpt for you. Here is Korihor:

"I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers, and because I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads, but be brought down according to thy words. Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage. Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true.... And thus ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands, that they durst not look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges.Yea, they durst not make use of that which is their own lest they should offend their priests, who do yoke them according to their desires, and have brought them to believe, by their traditions and their dreams and their whims and their visions and their pretended mysteries, that they should, if they did not do according to their words, offend some unknown being, who they say is God—a being who never has been seen or known, who never was nor ever will be." (Alma 30:23-24, 27-28)

Except for two things:
1. Kate Kelly doesn't deny God exists. She just insists we all don't understand Him.

2. Korihor spent a long time trying to convince the people that Jesus didn't exist. Kate Kelly just conveniently ignores Jesus altogether. She is not interested, apparently, in humility and repentance, but in who has the power (as she perceives it) and how she, personally, can get it away from them as fast as possible. And she's led a lot of "women, and also men" astray with her "great swelling words," just like Korihor.

I remember being quite distressed by my English teachers at BYU--until I found Korihor's teachings in Alma 30 and realized modern feminism, the way it's taught by a lot of people, is just the same doctrines with fancy new catchphrases.

And Kate Kelly's stuff is right in there, too. It makes me sad for her. But if she wants to walk away, that's her choice. Really, she left a long time ago. She's just formalized it now.

Kate Kelly's back in the news

Kate Kelly flew back from Kenya (Nigeria?) to help people leave the church. This despite her insistence for so long that she's not fighting against the church or trying to lead people away.

So that got me thinking about feminism in general again, and why I don't like it.

I concluded that part of the big issue for me is not the details or the deciding for all women what will make them happy (without asking the women involved).

I think the issue is closer to what a sister-in-law told me years ago: Feminism is a world view that teaches you to see everything in terms of power and oppression. If you focus on oppression, you will see it everywhere. And, as my sister-in-law observed, that doesn't make you happy. It ruins relationships; it destroys marriages; it crushes your children.

The world is not actually all about oppression and victimization, but so many feminists only see that. In everything. Every single interaction is about who has the power and who doesn't.

In the end, that's what feminism is about.

It's not about opportunity or equality or fairness or justice or living happy, fulfilled lives.

No, at its core, feminism is this: someone has the power, and someone else wants it, and who should we give it to?  Me.

That's the bottom line for Kate Kelly:  she perceives that someone else has power and she wants it, plain and simple. She felt justified. She used lovely rhetoric to convince a lot of unhappy people that more power would be the answer, and that power is held by people and we should go out and get it.

She completely missed that it's God's church and God's power in question.

But that's possibly because feminism doesn't think that way. If you listen to them, the entire world view is a discussion of oppression and power, and turning the victims into the victimizers (it's so very Puritan--leave England to escape oppression so we can oppress people ourselves, according to our own standards).

And, like my wise sister-in-law said, feminism can train you to see oppression. But then you see it everywhere, and it doesn't make you happy.

(I also found it amusing that Kate Kelly's standard for deciding to stay in the church or not had nothing to do with truth or Christ and everything to do with decluttering, as if the Church is an unmatched sock or a broken crock pot you finally decided to get rid of.)

How I got rid of warts with duct tape

I never have warts. Until this last pregnancy. And then I had three, one after another.  People have asked me how I got rid of them with duct tape, so here's the scoop:

I read online that you can get rid of warts with duct tape, and that people have done legit studies that showed that duct tape was more effective than "freezing" warts in a doctor's office, and less painful.

I figured I'd try it. I had duct tape, and I didn't like my warts--they were each painful to walk on.

Here's how I did it:

I put a piece of duct tape over the wart. I left it on all the time except for 2-6 hours once a week.  If the tape fell of, I put a new piece on as soon as I could. (Some people say you should file the wart with an emery board when you remove the duct tape, but I didn't do that and it worked anyway.)

That's it. It took the pain away so I could walk, and then the warts went away.

It took about 8 weeks, though, which I hear is about how long any method takes. For a long, long time, there was no change in the warts. And then suddenly one week I'd peel off the tape and find a "seed" had been exposed. A week of taping later, it was gone, and a week later the wart went away. So if you try this, don't give up if it takes a long time and doesn't look like anything is happening.

I did discover, though, that not just any old duct tape works. The new "light" varieties actually cause your healthy skin to peel off in big sheets but make the warts worse. So don't use the "light" variety. If you tear off a piece of duct tape and examine the sticky side, it has to have visibly white adhesive for it to work for wart removal. If you peel the duct tape off your skin after a couple of days and examine the adhesive, you should be able to see a very clear "Fingerprint" (or foot print or whatever) that shows all the tiny lines in your skin imprinted in the adhesive. If you can't, you have the wrong kind of duct tape and it won't work.

So that's it. Easy as pie. Effective. Painless. Inexpensive. That's my kind of cure.

Emmeline's Firsts this week

Emmeline's been busy with new things this week.

She got her first ear infection (both ears)
She had her first antibiotics
She figured out sitting up and got to play with toys that way for the first time
She did her first goofball cheesy smile with her eyes squinted up
And she got her first tooth.

She might also be saying her first word, but we're not entirely sure if she's saying, "Hi!" on purpose or by accident (but she says it every time she sees Tim).

Something smells fishy

So I've been curious about the over-300% markup on the price of that big house (the one at 12525 Quicksilver Road), considering it was worth $200,000 just a few months ago, and tangibly the only thing that changed was they painted it and put on a new roof. That wouldn't justify going from $200,000 to $650,000, right?

I was also curious that the listing agent put in the notes on the property that it could have a Commercial/Industrial use but didn't list the property on any of the commercial real estate sites. Those are the code words for "marijuana can be grown here" in the Boulder County zoning codes right now. (Especially curious because the property actually CAN'T have those uses--it's not zoned for that). (I did try asking the real estate agent about this via email and got no response.)

And I was curious that someone would go to all the expense and trouble to get the change of use approved for the big building and then not bother to move in. Almost the instant the change of use was approved, the property was put up for sale with the exorbitant markup. But that change of use wouldn't justify the markup--unless you were trying to pass off the change of use as making pot-growing allowed on the property. (It's not, even with the change of use, because pot growing is controlled by zoning law, not by the site plan review board; also the change of use was approved for a specific business and with certain assurances in place about what that business was going to do with the property.)

So I emailed the potential tenant (the information on change of use is public record, so easy to find out who got the change of use and for what purpose) of the property to see why they decided NOT to move their business there after going through all the change of use process. I told them I would like to buy the property (I would, very much) and wondered if there was something wrong with it.

They emailed me back today that they didn't know the property was for sale and have been waiting all this time for the owners to get back to them about the change in zoning, and they're still planning to move their business there, but aren't interested in actually buying the property. (Curious because the change of use was approved--so why didn't the owners tell the tenants that? And why rush to put it up for sale with a huge markup on price immediately, before telling your tenants?)

Does this sound like I just uncovered fraud to anyone else?

What am I supposed to do about that?

Update: I emailed the realtor, and he said the deal on that property is you buy the LLC that owns it, not the property itself, specifically so that none of the permits and changes-of-use that were granted (to the company who didn't know they were granted) will be up for question like they would with a change of ownership. That way, he explained, the county can't cancel them and will have no reason to question them.

Probably the same reasoning was in play when they gutted the smaller building on the property without a permit--then you can re-do the inside without getting a building permit (supposedly) because nobody knew the drywall came down in the first place. (Although removing all the drywall in a building and stripping it to its studs seems a little excessive to get rid of cat smells. Makes me wonder if the small house had a meth problem.  One more thing for the list of things to check...)

So, theoretically, the people whose application got the change of use and site plan approved don't know that, and the people who do know are trying to sell it with the unspoken understanding that they won't tell the county you aren't the same people, and you can then use it for an "intensive agricultural operation" you don't want the county to know about...

I have no idea if the whole setup is legal, but I certainly wouldn't buy without talking to a lawyer first. Quite possibly their entire intention is simply for you to take over as property manager and let the tenants (who they haven't told about the change of use yet) move in and use it like they believe they are contracted to (even though the realtor had no idea there were tenants contracted in the place until I told him).

Making licorice

I've been trying to make red licorice (red vines style; twizzlers are inedible) for years now, off and on. This week I bought a bag of red vines and noticed the ingredients consist of corn syrup, wheat flour, flavoring, coloring, and citric acid.

There's not much you can do with those ingredients, so I started experimenting.

First I tried cooking the corn syrup (1/2 cup) to soft crack stage, stirring in flour (2 tbsp) and kool aid powder (flavor, color, and citric acid in one fell swoop; half a packet), and then pulling it like taffy (on the assumption that licorice is like a modified taffy). It came out this really cool candy that shattered when I dropped it or smacked it into anything, but became quite taffy-chewy when you sucked it for a minute. Tasted good, too. Tastes good, fun to eat--but not licorice.

Then I tried cooking it to soft ball stage (1/2 c corn syrup) and adding flour (3-4 tbsp this time) and kool aid powder (the other half packet), rolling it into ropes, and letting it cool. It tasted great and was quite sticky to eat, but didn't hold its shape like licorice.

So I got back online and instead of reading "how do I make licorice" posts, I watched a "how licorice is made" video and got some ideas. First of all, they mixed the ingredients up front and kept them cooking and stirring for a long time at 190 degrees (not to hard ball stage by any means). Then they cooled and shaped the dough, and cooked it again for a long, long time.

So the process was more like making fruit leather.

So new attempts: I mixed up 1/2 c corn syrup, half a packet of kool aid powder, and 1/4 c flour. It was way too liquidy to shape, so I cooked it to hard ball stage. But it was still too liquidy to shape. The cooking did cook out the starchy flavor of the flour, though, which was a very good thing. I was in a hurry and didn't bother to cool it (they cool it 24 hours in the factory), so I poured the mixture into a drying tray and put it into my fruit dryer.

Then, since the dryer was going anyway, I threw together a recipe that flipped the proportions (I read on one website that it was more flour than corn syrup, even though the package would indicate it's more corn syrup than flour). I put in half a cup of flour and 1/4 c corn syrup, and then kool aid powder and a little more flour, until it was doughy. It was very sticky. I formed it into ropes and put that in the fruit dryer, too, and then tried mixing flour, a teaspoon of corn syrup, and 1/8 c of jam and made ropes from that, just to see what would happen.

At the moment, all of them are still drying, but the one that I poured into a drying tray all liquidy is making something very close to licorice. I am pretty excited about the possibilities here.

Next time, I'll let it cool first and see if I can form ropes....

Sometimes it's good to turn around

Even though mostly my blog is unread and unknown except to my children and family, I find this blog post really scary to write. Why? Because I don't agree with the homosexual movement, feminist movement, and intellectual movement (not talking about individuals here--I mean the movement, which attempts to make all people including all homosexuals toe their line), and they are notorious for being close-minded, selfish, aggressive, and CRUEL--very cruel--about any ideas that go counter to their own. They hold grudges, they are intellectually rigid and refuse to consider other views (especially "faithful" views), and they find no shame in publicly smearing and attempting to outright destroy anyone who speaks anything against their current agenda. And I hate conflict and hate fighting. It's very upsetting to me to be vilified because I disagree with powerful, aggressive people who feel compelled to SQUASH any dissent, instantly and as viciously as possible.

And no, I'm not trying to do that myself. I'm trying here to let my children know what I think about those movements. They can believe what they want--and I don't have to to agree. Even if they think that kind of dissent from their doctrines is dangerous and must be suppressed.

Personally, I think forcing any one view on the majority is extremely dangerous, and I'm disheartened that the people who espouse "tolerance" and "free thinking" are the most aggressive as putting down and destroying anyone who disagrees with them.

So I post this in fear and trembling. But I want to say it anyway.

I have been thinking a lot (still) about how offended people have been that Elder Packer said that three dangers to the Lord's work (or the church?) are intellectuals, feminists, and the gay-lesbian movement.

It so fascinates me that the people who were most offended publicly said (and continue to say), "I am not a danger to the church." And then they go about actively trying to destroy other people's faith, publicly fighting against the church, and otherwise trying to show that the church is actually a danger to them. (And I still can't figure out why they don't just bow out if they don't believe, instead of trying to force the entire organization to validate their own beliefs and follow them instead).

Mostly, though, I've been thinking about how they treat the idea as a new idea that is offensive to them. But none of these three are new dangers to the work of God. The scriptures are full full full of examples of these dangers.  Korihor, for example, teaches things that I identified at BYU as the core beliefs of most of my feminist professors. The scriptures talk about "silly women" and warn of the dangers of the homosexual movement teachings being at odds with the gospel.

Not only that, despite the pronouncement being baffling to those heavily involved in the three "warning" groups, it is pretty clear to a lot of the rest of us that those really are dangers.

Like the internet, these philosophies are pleasing to our minds, easy to get lost in, and distracting. They allow us to limit our views in ways that make us feel and seem powerful, without any understanding that it's all smoke and mirrors, or that being powerful in an echo chamber just means you're shouting louder than the next guy. It reminds me of the story of Narcissus, so enamored with looking at his own reflection that he died. It's just tempting to see our reflection in other people and limit our lives to interacting with addicting philosophies and the people who reflect our own ideas back to us. It's comfortable. It's the very thing the feminists and intellectuals claim they're trying to save us all from--and they are doing it, too. Maybe more.

Every time the mormon feminists and their intellectual buddies start throwing yet another public tantrum (polished and beautiful, but still a tantrum) to try to convince the brethren (sometimes) or the other member (usually) that they (the feminists and intellectuals) are right and the church must change to acknowledge this, I just want to cry. The church is working so hard to do so many difficult and important things. It's really shameful to see a bunch of intelligent, gifted, tireless, hard-working women wasting their superpowers attacking the church, and insisting on wasting the brethren's time with things that have already been addressed and that really are not as important or pressing as the feminists and intellectuals insist they must be.

It seems like it would be so much more valuable for the feminists and intellectuals to turn their prodigious energies and talents to helping God with his work instead of fighting. I know they think they are doing God's work, fighting for His will--but against the church? How can they not see that it makes no sense? (If you believe in the church, then you acknowledge the authority and therefore shouldn't be fighting it this way; if you don't believe in the church, then why are you fighting it? For example, I still cannot comprehend how the Ordain Women people can be so aggressive about fighting to be ordained to a priesthood that they don't respect or believe is actually valid!)

I just wish they would back off, turn around from their tight circles of friends who all smile and agree with each other, and start serving the people around them, including the "stupid" people and not just the people who have been offended or have disenfranchised themselves. The world is full of people to love and work to do, and I don't get the impression that feminists or intellectuals are very interested in loving and understanding--they fight to be right and to be heard, not to love more.

Somewhat ironically, the very changes the feminists and intellectuals are thrilled about did NOT come from aggressive people throwing fits. They came from righteous women who turned outward, served selflessly, and pointed out problems as they saw them in appropriate ways and times. You don't get power in God's kingdom by agitating. You get it by serving.

Every time the mormon feminists and the intellectuals speak, I want to show them D&C 121, and hope they understand that dominion is not something we grab or fight for--it's something that willingly comes to us when we righteously serve, truly love, and forget ourselves and our needs, putting ourselves, our desires, our needs second to God's.

Every time they open their mouths to complain from their place of privilege about one more philosophical hangup, I want to turn them around and say, 'Forget yourself and get to work.'

Prophets

Suppose, for a minute, that you understand a prophet to be a man who has divine authority to both speak to God and officially bring his messages to you.

Suppose that you acknowledge and accept that a certain man is, in fact, a real true prophet.

Suppose, then, that he comes to you and says that your deeply held beliefs are at odds with what God wants.

What do you do?

As I see it, you have very few choices.

You can reexamine your beliefs and pray to God to bring your ideas in line with His, being patient and studying from His word (not commentaries on it), and sometimes choosing to not understand. This takes a great deal of humility because it requires that you trust God even if you don't understand what He is doing. It's the ultimate, "Perhaps I am wrong?"

Or you can say, "That man is actually not a prophet. I reject his words. He doesn't talk to God."

Or you can say, in outright rebellion, "God doesn't know what he is doing. I know more than God. I won't change."

Any other response is either disingenuous, or an outright lie, or one of these three in disguise.

With President Packer's death, I've read a few articles about him (very few). He has been an enemy to the liberals for some time, and some of them are writing articles eulogizing him (and, I'm guessing, some are writing celebrating his death, which is kind of appalling).

At least one of the articles captured exactly the liberal mormon attitude I've seen about Elder Packer over the years. It's a startling and scary attitude, where the writers say they acknowledge that he was a prophet, but then say his words deeply offended them, and how hard that must be for HIM, and how holily out-of-touch he was (not hard for them--no hint of accepting that maybe their own personal beliefs are wrong; only that his words were wrong). (You can read it here: http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/10/04/boyd-k-packer-and-prophetic-despair/#more-29663:  It's easy to get caught up in the emotional ideas that prophets are lonely and out of sync with the world, and easy to miss the "he was an idiot, too" attitude underlying some of this.)  Like I said, I didn't read a lot of articles because I've seen this so many times from liberal friends about Elder Packer that I couldn't stomach any more of it.  Either he's a prophet and you're wrong, or he's not a prophet and you might still be wrong, but you might not.

But it's not possible for him to be a prophet and for these liberal friends to also be 100% right like they think they are.

So here's the thing I'm thinking: It's one of three responses if a prophet tells you you're wrong. And then you have three choices of response: you can repent, rebel, or ignore. Two of those don't seem like very smart choices to me, given the "all is well in zion" warnings and the "wicked taketh the truth to be hard" warnings in the scriptures.

But if a prophet says you're wrong, you might be wise to make sure he's really a prophet, and then listen. Because God really does know more than we do, even if He makes no sense to us at all (and especially when He makes little sense, but we make a lot of sense to ourselves. It's so tempting to set our own ideas up as our idols that we worship.)

Community Music

Since Tim applied for a job helping design a music program for a community college, and given that my favorite game is "how would you teach this?", I have been thinking a lot about classes I would require for a music program.  The "conservatory model" used by most college music programs, both classical and commercial, doesn't actually prepare students for much but performing.

But performing is NOT the only part of the job for a musician. Especially since most musicians spend their entire lives working on a local or regional level, not a national level. Ironically, for those musicians, the performing is really secondary. You don't get to perform unless you master a whole bunch of other skills.

So, here are classes I would require for music majors, if the music program was going to release real musicians into the real world to make a living.

Oh, before I forget, first I would require a minor or a practical certification in a non-music field or teaching (but only if they are actually suited to teaching in a public school setting), since most musicians will spend many years (or even their entire career) making money in another area to support their music habit. Might as well qualify them to make a living as they build their music career. And to do it without label support, because even musicians that get signed to a label usually have to go it on their own.

Also, all music students (and all college students, actually) should be required to do a semester's worth of individual career counselling (at least 3 or 4 sessions), including taking a VALID interest test (like the Strong Interest Inventory, not like the Meyer-Briggs test). (The SII, as a side note, said that I would enjoy the work of a musician, and I was surprised because I thought that was only performing, and I only sorta enjoy that--but it turns out that it was right. I really really enjoy the career of a musician. It's so much more than performing.)

Other things musicians should ideally learn in a music program:

Performance Skills
*  Performing in their individual main instrument and genre live and in ways appropriate for the venues they likely will play (ie not recital halls)
* Performing in a studio/the process of recording from in front of the mic
* Performing in a dozen other genres, including both classical and jazz but also as many contemporary genres as possible. Outside of the "national acts," no musician who makes a living has the luxury to perform only in one genre with only one band.
* Performing on as many additional instruments as you can possibly do (not to a master level, but so you've done it)
* Modeling and Acting, and maybe the photography thereof (so from behind and in front of the camera)
* Public speaking/ emceeing/ toastmasters kind of stuff
* Performance analysis, where you film your own performance AND the audience's reaction and analyze both

Business, Marketing, and Entrepreneurship
* Music careers (most musicians don't know performing isn't the only option), aka how to most musicians actually make money?
* Basic accounting, tax laws, how to do Sole Proprietor taxes, etc.
* Music law, copyright law, licensing a business, etc. A music legal business class that is NOT marketing
* Marketing (NOT get ads on the radio marketing, but real useful music marketing, including the materials you need)
*Graphic design, including using the computer programs, and including the types of materials musicians design, from press stuff to photos to T-shirts
* Web Presence, including how to design and build a cheap website, viral video/YouTube realities, and social media (most musicians do social media wrong, and have incorrect expectations about what it actually does) (this is also a technology class)
* Getting gigs and building an audience (two different things completely but that are wedded by being reliant on good social skills and good networking skills)
* Fundraising, including crowdsourcing, loans, money management with future projects in mind.
* Money management for musicians--with a full acknowledgement of the realities of money for musicians, including that it comes in fits and starts, is irregular in amount, and is scarce all the time

Music Technology and Science
* Music Technology--every musician should be able to set up and run a sound system appropriate for their primary instrument and the venues it usually is used in (including, for this, mic technique and sound checking, EQ, etc). There is no excuse for a musician to graduate without knowing how to sound check and a show--from both sides of the board. Vocalists MUST do a section on mic technique for singers. Everyone needs to know what sound guys do so they can work together well, from load-in to load-out
* Music computer programs (like ProTools, Finale, Sibelius, StaffPad, etc)
* How to make a music video, including camera and software info, and focusing on "hacks" to do it cheaply
* Studio Engineering (so even if they don't record themselves, they understand what the engineer is doing and so can perform better)
* Music production and distribution (including digital distribution and CD production "deals" and how not to get tricked)
* Understanding sound and the science of music, heavy on the acoustics parts

Interpersonal, Social, and Health 
* Health and psychology for performers--so many ruin their bodies because performing and moving equipment is incredibly taxing and stressful, and so many struggle with the introverted/extroverted aspects of the job (because you really would have to be both to have it easy in music)
* Possibly a mental health class or yoga class to help give musicians good mental health habits and resources as well as some skills for dealing with other musicians when they are falling apart
* Music psychology (how your art affects your audience), including music therapy

Non-performance Music Skills
* Songwriting and arranging
* Piano skills
* Caring for, transporting, and repairing instruments and equipment
* How to teach private lessons in your primary instrument AND how to run a private voice lessons business (this is also a business class)
* Music publishing, in all its varieties: how to get sheet music made to self-publish, how to get it made my someone else, how to get music in movies, etc.

Academic Music
* a literature class, but that only deals with songs. So not a how-to-write-a-song class, but a how-to-listen-to-and-analyze-songs (music and lyrics, all genres) class the way you get a how to read and analyze literature class for English majors
* History of popular music (with the understanding the popular music in some eras was opera or madrigals, and including both "high art" and "low art")
* Music Folklore (real folklore, like academic folklore)/Music in Society--this would be a chance to study how music is produced, shared, and transmitted in regular culture (word of mouth transmission of both skills and musics). NOT just folk songs, although that is an important starting point, but how pop music and skills are spread (so a how to understand your music's reach and where to learn the skills you need class). This could cover the value of music in society and how people use music in their daily lives.
* Writing, with a focus on music writing--reviews, blurbs, press releases, bios, album notes, explanations of what you're doing

Music Management/Production
* Music administration (most of the jobs open in music are in administration)
* Event production (a lot of jobs are open in this, too)
* How to build and run a band (auditions, group management/ dynamics/ social skills, running rehearsals/ rehearsing, communication)
* Travel and touring--the practicalities of it, the costs, the planning, the getting of gigs outside your home area, where to go, why, and how to deal with the interpersonal issues
* Basic auto repair and maintenance (if you plan on touring at all)--actually, this should be required for all college students everywhere. That and how to pay taxes and how to use power tools. It's more of a life skills class (should be required for college!) than just a touring musicians might need this class

Of course, Tim doesn't do film music, soundtracks, musical theater, or classical performance, so I'm sure there are classes that would benefit those kinds of performers, too, that aren't on this list.

I'm sure I'll keep adding to the list. There are so so many things Tim has had to learn the hard way that could actually be taught to musicians. And it would be groundbreaking if a school did just  a few things: 1. Acknowledged exactly how most music careers actually go (ie stayed local and worked on a build it up basis rather than a get discovered basis, mostly not commercial or classical) and 2. Taught for reality instead of for fame. Oh, and 3. Embraced that there are many kinds of music separate from classical (and even more than just jazz and commercial) and all are equally valuable.

Tim had some really good ideas about all this (of course), one being that most of these courses could actually be taught by professors in non-music majors who are already teaching on campus.

Ha--that big house is back....

My house is for sale again. Can you believe it?
http://www.cohomefinder.com/p/80501/1717865-12525-Quicksilver-Rd-Longmont-CO-80501.htm

Reasons this won't sell. Again.
0.  Publicly available, easily searchable online estimates of the value of this house are (on homesnap) $189,000-230,000 or so (the same as my house I'm in now) or Zillow, comparable properties are worth $39,000-$80,000 (less than the equity in my current house).  Not only that, every real estate site shows it sold last December for $210,000. So nobody is going to fall for the $650,000 estimate.
1. People who are ready to spend $650,000 on a house want a house that is ready to live in and worth $650,000, or else they'll build a brand new custom place
2. Even if it was fixed up, this wouldn't be worth $650,000.
3. No water rights, so not useful as a farm property
4. No barns, so not useful as a horse property
5. County has insisted this property will never be used in a pot-related industry
6. Stubbornly zoned Ag, so very limited business allowed here, but the building looks like a business, not a house. Not to mention the dirt road won't support traffic of a business use
7. The place was for sale for 5+ years, off and on, for prices ranging from $450,000 and down to $200,000; it's changed hands twice in 12 months and nobody has successfully developed it into anything yet.
8. REALLY difficult to get a loan of any sort on this property thanks to it being gutted
9. Last people who got a change-of-use approved on the big building found it came with a bunch of arbitrary and capricious requirements, including not letting their pigs offend the bald eagles nearby and removing a perfectly good shed for no discernible reason.
10. It looks like a big office building.

11. This is what you can get for about the same price right now in the same area: "Custom built 6 bed, 4 bath, ranch tucked into the foothills with outstanding views and 30 plus acres. Wonderful horse property with eight fenced in acres, and a 1000 sq ft 3 stall barn with water and electricity. This home features heated, 3 car, over-sized garage, walk-out basement, vaulted ceilings, 5 piece master, covered back patio great for entertaining, and a geothermal system that reduces the cost of utilities and keeps the home at a comfortable temperature all year round." On 30 acres. THIRTY.(http://www.cohomefinder.com/p/80513/1718253-5524-W-County-Road-8e-Berthoud-CO-80513.htm)

Or this, for less and an hour north: "In-town acreage w/ room to roam! Come stretch out in this sprawling, updated & nicely appointed ranch home w/ open floor plan design. Boasting 2 master suites on main level, this 5+ bdrm, 4 bth home has something for the whole family. Enjoy the covered back patio while watching family play in the park-like backyard. Retreat to the finished basement for fun & entertainment. Don't miss the insulated detached 30'x40' workshop w/ 2220V service. Country feel, w/ access to everything in SE FTC." http://www.cohomefinder.com/p/80525/1718465-1000-Province-Rd-Fort-Collins-CO-80525.htm

Funny thing was, even though I want to raise my kids in that kind of area (it just FEELS right), just yesterday (literally yesterday), I decided it was good we hadn't been able to buy that place last year because I'm not sure the county would have been easy enough to work with. Boulder County has a downright terrible reputation for being bullies to homeowners who live outside city limits. Nobody wants to work with them, it seems. Of course, nobody complains about when things go smoothly and run well, so maybe the few unhappy voices are all that get heard, over hundreds of happies. I have no way of knowing. 

My concerns:

1. I'm not sure we would be able to get permission to do what we'd want to do with the place even though it's zoned for it.  We would need a change of use permit approved to turn the former migrant worker dorms into a single family house. The property is already zoned for that, but they have rules about how big a house can be in the county, and this building is outside their limits. Never mind that THEY BUILT THE BUILDING. They might still not approve it because it's too big, even though there's no way to make it smaller.

2. They might approve it but make arbitrary demands we couldn't afford. The last potential buyer wanted to turn it into an ag research facility with a pig farm out back, and the land use commission approved that use, but with a list of bizarre conditions that included putting up a six-foot privacy fence (around a 3.5 acre property--that's a lot of fence) so the pigs wouldn't offend the bald eagles half a mile away by the river, and taking down a perfectly good shed (and they didn't give a reason), and making whatever modifications FEMA required to get it out of the flood plain (not just buying flood insurance....), and put in nice landscaping in the back lot--presumably so the pigs would like how it looked in their yard?  So that doesn't give me a lot of hope they would approve 8 kids living there, if pigs were too potentially offensive. 

3. I have tried and failed to figure out what the taxes on the property would be. It might break us if they decided it was a million dollar property and figured taxes based on that.  (Edit: I found it finally--just about $2400 a year, so about double what we pay here--not as bad as I feared).

4. Given their requirements for the yard, I'm not sure we could happily (and affordably) meet their requirements for the house to become a house and get a certificate of occupancy for it.

5. Even though they say homeowners can act as their own contractors and do the work themselves, I'm not sure they actually would let us, even though we'd want to. I'm pretty sure I can build a wall up to code if someone teaches me how (and we were planning to hire a contractor to do that), but I'm not sure the inspectors/building permits people will approve.

6. Kids might scare the bald eagles, and that might be trouble. Apparently those bald eagles are THE important residents of the area.

7. They might not allow us to do what I had wanted: Finish the kitchen and bathrooms, and then finish the main body of the house as 4 giant rooms and use temporary walls until we know for sure where we want to put the permanent walls. 

I suppose if it were even possible for us to buy that place (given the current overpriced-ness....), I guess I would want to talk to the neighbors (all 2 of them, in fancy houses) to make sure the county is reasonable to work with, and also insist the current owners get the change-of-use approved (it costs like $500 to apply) BEFORE we agreed to buy it (or as part of the conditions of the contract).  I wouldn't want to be in the position the current owners are--bought the property thinking they could flip it and make a good buck, and it turns out they can't use it or sell it.

I'm waiting, though. Even though I decided we're not even going there at all, having it hit the market again kind of threw me for a loop. Especially since a friend gave me an entire kitchen a couple of weeks ago--cupboards and all. Even the sink. 

But Tim just applied for a job in Aurora that I hope he gets, and we agreed he was done commuting, so I was thinking if we could find a place, we'd go down there.

But there is so much about that big house that appeals to me. Big sky. View of the mountains. Quiet. Dirt road. Space enough for everything we'd ever want to do, inside and out. The dreams are all there. The practicalities of it may be impossible.

Ah, life. Every time I move on, that house comes back to get me.

Update: What I think they think they're doing: There is a shortage of commercial/warehouse property in Boulder County right now thanks to the pot industries taking it all. Boulder has been adamant that the growth and production of marijuana is more of an industrial operation than an agricultural operation, despite growing plants being involved, because of the intensity of power usage, the armed security required, and the complexity of the process. I suspect the owners of this property are from outside Boulder County and are trying to sell it as an industrial property and potential pot grow operation. Unfortunately for them, multiple realtors have told me the county has made it very, very clear that they WILL NOT change the zoning on this particular property from agricultural to industrial or commercial. So at the moment it's priced as a commercial property would be (probably reasonably). But it won't sell as a commercial property because the county won't change the zoning.

And it's unsuitable as an ag property at that price (given you can get much better ag properties for less) and also because it has no water rights and no outbuildings. Some sites classify it as empty land because the buildings are not in finished condition, but as empty land it would be worth only $80,000 after the buildings were removed (which would be costly). Some sites classify it as farm/ranch property with buildings, which is also not going to happen because there is better farm/ranch land available for cheaper and with finished buildings and water rights. But even sites that list it as a property with a house find the value, in its current condition, is about $183,000-$230,000. And one site gave a "finished and ready to live in estimate" of the property value as $435,000.

So unless they can successfully do what 5 years of potential buyers wanted to and failed to do (get the county to change the zoning to make it commercial or allow pot grow operations in ag zones), the building is not going to sell for anywhere near $650,000. And, in fact, it's probably not going to sell at all. They'll probably either lose it to the bank or have to give it away because truly the value of any given thing is not what you think it is worth but what people actually are willing to pay for it. And 5 years of attempts tells me that this property is actually worth nothing, not even the value of the land thanks to the buildings that stand on them being so expensive to deal with.

Curious to see what they end up doing with it and how long it takes them to realize the trouble they're in, write off the loss (since it's owned by an LLC, I understand this is a possibility), and give the place away. Or trade me for the equity in my own house. I might do that, if the county would let us turn the big building into a house. But that's a big if.

Elijah-isms

Me: "Do you like boiled eggs, Elijah?"

Elijah: "Yes, but I don't like the pac dot in the middle."

End of an era

I have heard over and over from so many, many moms that not long after they had their last baby, they got depressed.  They had just spent a good long time doing a very important thing, and now what?

That might strike me at some point. I've actually been expecting it. Even moms who knew everyone goes through that were surprised that they, too felt it.

So far, though, I've been quite delighted to get rid of baby things (they take so much space!) and baby clothes (a whole closet I can use for something else soon!).

And I feel a lot like I do when we move. Sure things are different, but I love getting to redefine myself and present a new me to a new ward who has no idea who I was before. Moving is a fresh start where I get to define how I am perceived, and that's fun for me.

And my thoughts have not yet turned to a sad spot, or to wondering what next can possibly be as important as having babies. (Nothing, I think?)

Where my brain is going:

--All those things I've always wanted to do with the kids but couldn't because my arms were full? We can do them. Let's go camping!

--I have had a baby either in my arms or in my belly for over 14 years now straight through. And I've been either pregnant or nursing (or both) straight through with no break for over 7 years. Straight. My arms have always been full. I wonder what I can do? I have no idea my capabilities...but I'm pretty aware of my weakness. So I'm excited to discover if I have any superpowers (since everyone has SOME).

--Will I actually be able to keep my house cleaner? That's an interesting possibility.

--I can finish all my quilts and all my weaving projects! Woohoo!

--I can build my website and finish all the preK-eight curriculum I have outlined.

--I can learn to illustrate and finish my little leveled activity readers.

--I have so many novels that have sat untouched for years because I was doing more important things.

--Having babies is only part of the important work we do in parenting children. I'm looking forward to getting to just raise these guys. I want to teach them and play games with them and enjoy them.

--Knowing I don't have to do this again, I'm starting (finally, 5 months after baby came) to enjoy being with the kids just as they are, without planning anything. Having so many has forced me to mother intentionally (else a child actually can go several days without me making eye contact with them, which is scary!), and I'm enjoying that.

--Some day my kids will be big enough that I can travel with Tim. I'm allowed to think about that now.

--I only have 4 years with all 8 kids at home before they start going on missions, so I'm going to enjoy every minute of it that I possibly can.

--I think I can actually homeschool the way I can in my head. Finally. We might actually get that organized and keep it organized.

--The sleep disorder is exacerbated by baby-having. So with no more babies, we might actually get things under control. I don't even really care how late we sleep, as long as we get ourselves off the non-twenty-four-hour sleep rhythm.

--Always I've had to prioritize tiny people over everything else, the whole 14 years I've been at this. But very soon there will be only bigger people, and then maybe I can get some order going here. (Of course, what use will it be to sort the toys if there isn't anyone left to play with them?)

In other words, I'm not looking back with a sense of loss or finishing or sentimentalism.  I feel like I reached the peak of a great mountain, and I can see before me grand vistas of all the life I can have and all the adventures my family can enjoy now that I'm not going to be using all my spoons every day building little bodies. And that's pretty exciting.

I never really was a baby person. I'm the one that cries when someone else has a baby because I know how hard it is to not sleep for 3 months straight. I actually felt pretty done with babies after 7, and only had 8 because of that one dream I had where 7 asked if 8 could come along, too. And I am SO GLAD we had her. So glad I didn't quit at 7. But I'm done now. And the future is looking pretty exciting. There is much work to do and much fun to be had, and I am happy to be going there.

Jackisms

Jack: "Mom. I love church. I love to go to church. I love to ride in the strollit with Eemaline!"

Me: "We have to get ready in 1 hour."

Jack: "I need a jacket-shirt."

:)

I love that. A jacket-shirt. That's a good description of a button-up Sunday shirt!

Prayers answered

I didn't get the main thing I prayed for this month.

But I am in awe of two things:

God is obviously aware of my wants and needs because He provided a bunch of things I have wanted for a long time but wasn't asking for (things that would make me happy but are not absolutely necessary for survival).

I have a whole lot of friends who are close to God, because when He talked to them about what I needed and wanted, they heard him, listened, and acted on it.

That just blows me away.  Both that God cared, and that my friends are such amazing people that when He talks, they effortlessly hear and act.

And I am so grateful.

And also I did get some of the things I prayed for, in addition to the things I wanted but didn't ask for.

So thank you, friends, for phone calls when I was down and feeling very alone (and you had no way of knowing that), for clothes, for eggs, for cupboards, for a piano, for a working oven, for a dishwasher, for a bed. You couldn't know that I wished I had a few pretty tops (for me and for Anda), that my oven would break the day after you asked if I wanted one, that my bed is anything but flat and the mattress is splitting open, that I looked longingly at every piano for sale all month but didn't mention it to anyone.  You couldn't have known I was praying for ways the kids could have their own little places to put their things away, or that the dishwasher door has been jumped on so many times I was afraid it was going to start leaking.

Thank you.

Jack tries to sing "Popcorn Popping on the Apricot Tree"

Jack sings:

"Popcorn on my eyes.
Popcorn on my eyes.
Popcorn on the eyes.
Ice cream.
Ice cream.
Ice cream.
Popcorn on the ice cream.
Popcorn. Ice cream.
Ice. Sicles.
Popcorn. Popcorn."

Jackisms

Today, Jack thought I was holding a book backward. He took it away and said, "No!  That's the The-End.  Read here.  Oh. Wait. _That_ is the The-End. Read here."

Jack says, "Emmeline wants to take mine baba."  Always "mine," never "my."

Today, I asked Jack if he needed a diaper change. "Yes," he said. "Mine diaper is pop, like a water balloon."  I said, "Your diaper is going to pop?"  "Yes," he said. "Like a balloon. Pop."  So I laid him down and changed his diaper and was horrified to discover he was still in his nighttime diaper many hours after he woke up. He had gotten up when I was in the shower and I had forgotten to change him when I got out!  Ooops. And yes, it did feel an awful lot like a water balloon that was about to pop. I can't believe it didn't leak!

Jack frequently says to me, "Mom, I'd like to hold you."  And when he cries in the night, or had night terrors, he refuses to calm down unless I say to him, "Jack, I'd like to hold you." And then he's fine.