Saturday, September 26, 2020

God vs the Democrats

(note: this is the thinking that guides MY way of voting and supporting government. I recognize there are other ways of thinking about those topics that are valid.)

Having many thoughts about D&C 98. Jesus says, "it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them." And he says, "when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God." And this: "Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies" and this: "if ye observe to do whatsoever I command you, I, the Lord, will turn away all wrath and indignation from you, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against you."

Jesus tells us to keep all his commandments. Then he gives a commandment regarding who we should support in the government of our countries. And what are the rules? Uphold people who are good, honest, and wise because when the wicked rule, the people mourn. So no wicked people. Do not uphold the wicked or we'll be sorry. Anything less than good, honest, and wise is evil and we should forsake the evil and cleave to the good. And live by the word of God. Every word. Even ones about government, I suppose--he says every word.

And then he says don't be afraid of your enemies--keep the commandments and God will turn away wrath and indignation from you.

So choosing to only uphold the good and wise and honest is a matter of faith. We have to have faith that if we do our part, God will keep his promise.

What that does NOT look like, then, is upholding leaders who are not good and wise and honest because we fear the "other" political party. That is a lack of faith. God is stronger than the "other" party, but we have to keep the commandment in order to get the blessing. And that means if the "other" party is running a candidate who is good, honest, and wise, and our party is running a candidate who is NOT good, NOT honest, NOT wise, we can't vote for our party's guy. Instead, we find a different way (vote for the good one, even if against our party? vote for someone else who is good, honest, and wise?). If we trust God, we do not trust a wicked man to save us from the wrath and indignation of people who want to destroy what we believe in. We trust God and turn away from the wicked man and do not uphold him.

Personally, I'm still doing research on the candidates in the upcoming election.

But so far I have found that Trump is not good (good men do not cheat on their wives, they do not tear families apart, they do not mistreat children, they do not brag about sexually assaulting women, they do not cheat people they hire for jobs, they do not mock the disabled, they do not teach people to cheer at someone else's misfortune or pain, they do not incite violence and demean others or increase "us vs them"-ness). He is not honest (he has told 20,000 provable lies and untruths in the last 4 years alone, his helpers in crime revealed that he has cheated on his taxes and business loan applications, among other things). He is not wise (wise men do not cancel preparation for emergencies, they don't downplay danger, they don't avoid solutions that could save lives, they don't refuse to read the briefings put before them, they don't ally themselves with other wicked, untrustworthy men and hurt proven allies).

I think his presidency has proven that when the wicked rule, the people mourn. What can we say about the unrest because of racial tensions, the deaths of over 200,000 people from covid, the millions unemployed, half a million newly homeless, families ripped apart, asylum seekers tortured and sent home to die? This is all pain and mourning. Hundreds of millions more people mourning now than 4 years ago.

And why? Because we did not trust God enough to follow his commandment to not uphold any but good, wise, and honest leaders. Because we feared what the Democrats might do more than we trusted God to follow His commandments and only uphold good, honest, and wise leaders.

This cannot stand. We must trust God more than we fear the Democrats or the Republicans. He can take care of what they are doing that is wrong. He can lead us to handle it. But we have to keep the commandment to get the blessing.

Friday, May 08, 2020

Signs of Societal Decay

One of the things Anda and I have noticed and started discussing is that in the overall scheme of the Book of Mormon, we have clear pictures of at least three societies that had "ripened in iniquity" and were destroyed as a result: the Jaredites, the Nephites (twice--one just before Jesus and one in about 420 AD), and the Ammonihahites. And in all three cases, there are certain "markers" or "red flags" that appear just before the society is destroyed. They are things we can watch for in our own society.

The markers that we've noticed in our studies:

1. People seek for power over doing what's right, and at any cost. The scriptures talk about people seeking for "gain," which is defined in text as money and power, not just money.

2. The poor suffer and are not cared for, and there is great inequality economically and educationally.

3. Secret combinations exist and are not resisted, but joined.

4. The people cast the righteous out from among them.

5. The people reject the prophets and either cast them out or outright kill them.

6. The people stop protecting and cherishing their women and children, but most noticeably their children, becoming willing to let them suffer in the adults' pursuit of their own ideological goals.

7. Anger is rampant, to the point that people cannot think clearly any more.

8. Pride is embraced as good, humility is mocked and persecuted.

9. Governmental norms and structures break down and become impotent, quite dramatically and somewhat suddenly.

Can you think of any more? These things are very consistently mentioned when a society is ripening for destruction. The first I noticed was number six, that they stopped caring about children. This struck me because in the narratives, it's quite brazen. The Jaredites suit their children up and send them into battle with their women without any regard for the fact that they would quickly be slaughtered. And, given the reality that no children survived the battles to the second and third and fourth rounds, they had no problem killing the children either. In Ammonihah, they throw living children into a pit fire and burn them alive. At the end of the Book of Mormon, there are graphic descriptions of children being fed on the flesh of their fathers, women raped and tortured to death, and, like the Jaredites, nobody is left after the last battle except they are hunted down and slaughtered--children included.

Once we realized there was this consistent marker of a society about to be destroyed, I started noticing the others. Normally these things start slowly, and then go from functional to destroyed in one person's lifetime. These kinds of Apocalypses happen quickly once it's time. And there are usually a decade of prophets warning the people to repent first. Or more. There is ample, clear warning.

So of course I had to start comparing to our own society, and I am disturbed by the results. We have evidence of every one of these things happening around us right now. People are seeking for power even at the expense of what is right, not just in our American government but in governments all over the world. There is increasing inequality, and the poor are suffering all over the world. I thought that people were not casting out the righteous and killing the prophets--I guess we're not there yet and I hope we never get there--but I realized that socially we are. Socially we are beginning to demean and belittle the righteous and rejecting the words of the prophets (or even their persons) and encouraging others to do so as well. Even members of the Church are doing this. Anger is rampant. Pride is encouraged and honored. Governmental norms and powers are breaking down at breakneck speed. At least we're still caring for children, right? That's what I thought at first, but then I remembered that I am still very upset about how immigrant children are being treated at our own border, being locked up and fed badly and denied access to health care, lawyers, clean clothes, sufficient food, asylum. We are sacrificing children for ideological goals. Just like every society that is destroyed. I'm not sure I would know about secret combinations, but President Benson is often quoted by my friends saying that they exist all around us. Satan has put out so many conspiracy theories that the real secret combinations are likely impossible to detect from among all the fake ones.

Nonetheless, it appears we are ripening for destruction. The markers are here, all around us. And it's happening rapidly, within my lifetime.

There are cases of people turning and not being destroyed. Limhi's people, for example. They were threatened with destruction and only a record would remain, and they suffered a lot and repented. Does that mean we are in for a lot of suffering? I hope not. I fear perhaps.

But, I told myself, we have not been warned clearly and explicitly by the prophet and apostles, right? And people are always warned first before they are destroyed. But then I remembered this paragraph from the Proclamation on the Family, "we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." This is a document that has been widely ridiculed and rejected by a handful of vocal, energetic members of the Church who are also actively rejecting the prophet and encouraging others to do likewise.

I'm sure if people do not repent, there will be more and clearer and more explicit warnings. It seems that God does not destroy people without many, repeated, very clear warnings first. The scriptures talk about prophets (not just "a prophet") coming for years to warn people before things fall completely apart. And how the government handles those prophets foretells the outcome--if the government protects them and allows them to speak, usually the people come around, but if the government silences them and punishes or executes them, the people do not. I guess this is why it's so very, very important to choose good leaders, but that is not the focus of this particular bit of writing. Although King Mosiah II does warn, pertinently, "Now, it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right, but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right. Therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law: to do your business by the voice of the people. And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you, yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land."

I am busily compiling a document exploring the actual teachings that are presented by Korihor, Nehor, and others in the scriptures that lead to these destructions as a way to help myself identify them in modern life.  I hope to be able to share what I find at some point. But I did want to get these general markers written down and shared first so I don't forget them.

The thing that is most hopeful to me, personally, is that I know many good people who are not seeking to get gain, who do care for the poor and needy, who love and protect children, who embrace the righteous and the prophets and reject anything even hinting of secret combinations. They are people who reject anger, contempt, and disdain, who are humble and good people who love others and work to keep the world wonderful, the governments stable, families safe, and rightness and goodness growing. As long as we have wonderful, righteous people among us, all is not lost. And we do. Many, many, many of them from all faiths, all backgrounds, all walks of life. The world might be ripening, but not all the people are. There is much good to be found everywhere you look, and this gives me hope.

Monday, March 23, 2020

Tips for dealing with long-term uncertainty

For those of you feeling the mental strain of uncertain times, some tips I have collected that have worked for me as I've lived through well over a decade of incredible uncertainty, social isolation (due to the sleep disorder) and going without:

Stand in the sunshine alone. Sunshine helps. Breathe.

Take every beautiful sky as a sign that God has NOT forgotten you.

Go out in nature and take time to notice the beauty there. Breathe.

Remember those little things that you always enjoy? The little things, not the big things. Do those. (reading, eating ice cream, drawing, etc.)

It is absolutely okay to distract yourself. Watch movies. Be creative. Plant your garden. Most things pass with time. You are not being disloyal or irresponsible if you just go forget about it and lose yourself in something pleasurable for a bit. Go work on your novel, sew a thing, build something, or whatever engages your mind that you enjoy. .

Tune in to your body. Now ask yourself, "Am I, at this moment, physically okay?" If not, fix what is hurting, eat, sleep, or fill your needs. Probably, though, you are fine. At this moment, you're fine. Promise yourself to deal with each moment as it comes, not in advance. And then eat, sleep, move around, repeat. Every day.

Be as educated and prepared as you can, follow the instructions as well as you are able, and then let go.

You need three people to tell you you're okay when things are feeling really bad. Find those people. Call them and vent. I have three people that I know will tell me I'm okay. I can be one of yours if you need. Don't feel you need "an excuse" to call people. Just do. They need you, too.

Mentally bundle all those things up that are bugging you and scaring you. Tie them in a big hobo rag. Put that whole bundle at Jesus' feet and ask Him to take care of all of that for you. Cuz he has greater capabilities than any of us.

Realize that all that talk of empowerment and being strong and you can do it was all LIES. You are not strong. You can't do it. You have no power. This is absolutely bigger than you are. BUT: Jesus is strong. Jesus can do it. Jesus has power. Jesus is bigger than this is. And, even better, He wants to share his strength, power, and love with YOU. So it doesn't matter that you can't because He can.

When things get really bad, kick the crap on the floors into the corners (no, don't clean it up yet), turn on your favorite music, and DANCE. Just dance. Even if you don't feel like it. Just dance.



Friday, March 06, 2020

But What Do We Lose?

A friend and I had an exchange on social media the other day that left me thinking for a long time. His argument was that the temple does not need to be gendered because men and women are equally good at things and should both have the priesthood. He used anatomical terms to make his point--the existence of male or female body parts does not determine competency, and therefore the temple should not be gendered.

I would feel a distinct loss if the temple were not gendered. It's one of the few places left where I feel that women are cherished for being women.

See, the problem is that the standard in our culture is still men--especially, ironically, among feminists. We still say things like "Women are just as capable as men." People still flinch and think it's odd when someone says something like "Men are just as capable as women." When there is a problem in business between the innate way men do things vs women do things, we ask the women to change to conform to the male way ("lean in" and "speak up" and "say it again" and "mention your female companion who said it first" and all that garbage.)  Nobody EVER chides the men and insists they need to learn to hear how women speak, rather than women learning to speak how men hear. This is because the standard is men.

And the definition of women is actually degrading the more we insist that women are equal (equal to men...you see the problem with the very concept of discussing equality? It assumes there is a standard that everyone is equal to, and that standard is men.) I don't mean degrading as in demeaning. I mean degrading as in coming apart. You can see it in Caitlyn Jenner insisting she knew she was a woman at heart because she loved fingernail polish. As if that has something to do with female-ness. You see it when, as my friend did, women are reduced to vaginas. As if the existence of that body part is the most important part and only distinguishing thing about being female. You see it when we think someone must be transgender because she likes trucks. What's wrong with women liking trucks? We have been reduced to superficial measurements, most of which are objectifying.

If we de-gender the temple because we insist we know best, as we often do (insist, I mean, not actually know), what will happen? We will erase women. We will insist that all of us are equally men. We can all be men together.  We're all the same and as good as that male standard, even if some of us lack the body parts for it. You see what that is? That is awful. That is saying we are just as good as men....almost. We are not women--we are men who are missing a little something, but don't worry! It's okay! We'll pretend you have it and treat you like all the other guys.  Because you can bet your bottom dollar they're not going to go genderless by making the men wear dresses and veils. But nobody would think twice if they made the women wear trousers. Quite the contrary--they would tout it as an advance instead of a loss. Making us more like men is success. (Alas.)

Women are not men. Women are not as good as men. Women are not body parts (or the lack thereof.)

And we lose something significant when we insist that we become genderless in places like the temple or society because genderless doesn't mean genderless. It means male.

I don't think genderless is possible, actually. I think gender is so inherent that you can't erase it and we can't even conceive of erased--we just conceive of male and call it genderless.

I, personally, love the idea that God understands and values his daughters not in some sort of equitable pity that we're actually as good as his sons, but that he actually values women for what they actually are. Women. Not broken men. Women.

Please don't take that away from us.

Saturday, February 29, 2020

Did I just read that?

In an article about COVID-19.

"At least four cases of people with an unknown origin have been reported in Oregon, Washington and California." 

So people are randomly appearing out of nothing. Now THAT is an epidemic to worry about.

(Source: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/state/washington/article240761641.html)

Wednesday, February 05, 2020

Free printable .pdf Download of The Book of Mormon, simplified format

In this folder is my finished project, the simplified visual format of The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

I did not simplify the text or words, only the visual formatting, making it significantly easier to read. Please read the editor's note at the beginning to see exactly what I did for this. The text is still the same familiar text.

There are four different versions in the folder, and three levels of quality for each. The text is the same for all the versions.

Here's the google drive folder. Let me know if the files don't work or you can't access them. Please read on before you download or print for instructions and clarification about the different files in the folder.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1lmhMW-lHkJVf8u2ubFxuEq5NrFU7y88W?usp=sharing

The levels of quality are:

"Average quality," which is designed for printing at home or viewing online.
"pdf A quality," which is an archival format that is designed for opening on any system or any device without quality loss or data scrambling.
"Commercial printing quality," which is what it says, a higher quality file that is suitable for commercial quality printing.

All four files come in each of the three quality levels, as well as in a .wpd file, which is a WordPerfect document (because it supports the parallel columns format).

The files named "The Book of Mormon Another Testament of Jesus" are the core file. This file has more space in the text. It's good for reading on devices or if you want to make a lot of notes. If you printed this double-sided, it would take 282 sheets of paper.

The files named "The Book of Mormon Another Testament of Jesus for printing large...." are optimized for printing on 8.5x11" sized papers. Printed double sided, it would take 224 sheets of paper.

The files named "The Book of Mormon Another Testament of Jesus for printing small compact...." are designed for printing on half-sized sheets, to make a smaller, more portable book. If you can ignore the weird margins, this can also be printed as a large print edition. Printed double-sided, it would require 145 sheets of paper.

The files named "The Book of Mormon Another Testament of Jesus for printing small relaxed...." are designed for printing on half-sized sheets to make a more portable book, but the font is larger than the "compact" version, and the lines aren't quite as close together. It can also double as a large print edition if you can ignore the weird margins.  Printed double-sided, it would require 241 sheets of paper.

To print the small versions on Acrobat Reader DC, open the file you want to print and then click on the printer icon. Choose "Booklet" (under Page Size and Handling) and "both sides" (under Booklet Subset). Let the range autofill, and choose Left under binding. It's counter-intuitive, but choose portrait orientation instead of landscape (it will print correctly oriented). Follow your printer's instructions to print double-sided. You should get four pages per sheet this way. Be very careful not to mix the pages up as they come out of the printer or when you cut them!. Once the entire document is printed, cut each sheet down the middle between the two pages, being careful not to reorder the sheets at all, and keeping the two halves in separate piles--left side and right side. Once all the sheets are cut, "close" the two piles like a book. This should give you an entire book in one stack, all the pages in order, ready to bind.

If you need permission from a copy shop to bind, I give you my permission.

You can also three-hole punch and put into a full-sized or half-sized ring binder.



And now for some interesting tidbits!

The word "yea" in the Book of Mormon has two meanings: "yes," and "following is a clarification, explanation, expansion, or explication of the thing I just said." Interestingly, the Nephites only use "yea," but the Lamanites distinguish between a positive and a negative clarification/expansion/etc. They use both "yea" and "nay," as you can see in AntiNephiLehi's speech.

I opted to remove both spaces and hyphens from the word AntiNephiLehi because that is how it appeared in the handwritten manuscript of the Book of Mormon.

The word "behold" is not just a filler! It is actually a narrative command, where the narrator is instructing you to notice. We like to think that "behold" means the same thing as "see," so it must function in their language the same way "see" does colloquially in ours, but it's much closer functionally to a speaker saying, "Notice that" than a couple of friends chatting and saying, "See, I didn't think so...."

In the original handwritten translated text, the word "chapter" was not followed by any numbers. Those were added later. Interestingly, ancient texts from around 600 BC did, in fact, have a word that meant "end/start of section" and was not followed by any numbers. We translate this as "chapter," but we like to add numbers. It is possible (we can't know for sure) that this is the concept that was used in the chapter breaks in the Book of Mormon. Also, the original chapter breaks were put in by the original authors and editors, so my version uses their chaptering instead of the modern chaptering out of respect for the men who wrote the book.

You will notice the original authors had an "end quote" phrase. Nephi uses "And after this manner of language did....." the speaker speak. We see similar, "And many more such things...", or "And these were the words," or other similar phrases that amount to "and thus so and so said."




Mostly, the fun little things are not super important. What is important is this book is awesome and it's true. You really can learn so much about Jesus by reading this book. I hope you enjoy the easier to read format.

Please do share!

Thursday, December 05, 2019

Would we identify Christ as Christlike?

This week, people doing the Light the World service game with the Church were challenged to share on social media about someone they consider Christlike. I read a lot of wonderful tributes to a lot of wonderful people. It got me thinking.

If Christ were actually walking among us in blue jeans and a T-shirt doing His work, would we put a tribute up to Him on social media about how Christlike He is? Would we identify Jesus as Christlike?

We tend to identify people as Christlike who serve others, who fill their time doing good, and who were really nice and supportive and loving to the person who is making the tribute. We also tend to identify people as Christlike who are very good people who conform to our social expectations. I didn't see any tributes to ex-cons, homeless people, or recovering addicts, for example, even though they most certainly can be Christlike.

So would Jesus conform to our expectations? He did not conform to the expectations of of the Pharisees of what a righteous Jew looked like. He, in fact, is very nonconformist because His whole message is to overcome the world, and conformity is actually usually a worldly mandate (what is conformity but matching what the world around you expects of you?) (Hopefully the world around you is righteous. Not just looks righteous and tries to enforce the appearance, like the Biblical Jews and much of the modern world, but really -is- righteous.)

Another thing people identify as Christlike is being a loving support and a comfort. And Jesus did promise that He would not leave us comfortless. And He does love and support us. But He also discomforts us.  He pushes us to grow and stretch and become, often in ways that are uncomfortable. He pushes us to leave behind the most natural ways of doing things--the natural man is natural and easy, and we are supposed to not embrace that. He asks us to be humble and accept God leading instead of us leading in our lives. He tells us we're wrong and to repent, even if our beliefs are closely held and we are 100% sure we are right, and even if our actions feel fully justified and harmless to us. That's not fun. That's not comfortable. That's not easy. The only thing that makes it work at all is that we can be confident of his absolute, unfailing love for us (proven by giving up His life for ours), His authority, and His infinite knowledge. Without those three things, we could not submit to His tutelage, and we wouldn't want to, because it's not comfortable. Growth is not comfortable. Becoming is not comfortable. Metamorphosis is not comfortable.

The secondary question I came to in all this pondering was where I should have started in the first place. What does Christlike mean? Which is to say, "What is Christ like?" My parents told me that they are pretty sure Jesus can dance and knows all the funniest jokes. They didn't want me to think of Him as a weak, emasculated, wimpy, sweet quiet thing that spends all day holding butterflies on his fingertips and smiling sweetly. He's presented that way a lot. It dawned on me once that Jesus is smart and sensitive. Do we think of Jesus as smart? Do we consider that hundreds of people could hear Him speaking in outdoor meetings before mics were invented, so He was probably kinda loud? Do we recognize that He was a rebellious teenager in running away to teach in the temple when he was 12 and not telling His parents first? Doing His own thing all the time, His own way, against the grain and against what His society would prefer. He didn't seem to get less rebellious. Good thing He was right.

In learning about His mission and His ministry, do we fail to learn about Him as a person worthy of emulation? Obviously we cannot and need not and should not do His mission--we have our own missions in life. But we can obey Him, and we can emulate His person, if we can figure out what that is. We can list things from the scriptures and learn a lot, but the thing I came back to over and over was His invitation to "Learn of me." Do you know that "of" means "about," but it also means "from"?  And Jesus is clear that He wants us to know him (not about Him only) so that when we see each other, we know each other--we will see Him as He is and be like Him. He warns that people will think they knew Him and He will have to tell them, "I never knew you." Which is to imply that you never knew me, either, isn't it?

So what is Christ like? I think perhaps it would be wise to get to know Him, learn from Him, and find out.

Monday, October 07, 2019

Why "God designed all the bad stuff we go through" can't be true

Recently, someone who should have known better taught in our stake conference that God designs all the bad stuff we have to go through.

He used those words, and he said it more than once.

Now, I don't want to condemn this person. He had recently gone through a lot of tragedy in his family, and I think he was searching for meaning and comfort and to cling to faith, and somehow he felt like if God planned this for his family, that meant it was for our good and he could take that bitter medicine and would be okay.

The trouble is, this is a false doctrine, and it can easily be explained why.

If God designs or plans something, then it is His will. Therefore, the people who are making it happen are doing God's will.

So if someone breaks into your house and kidnaps, rapes, and murders your five year old (as was in the news recently), that person is doing God's will and is, therefore, His servant. That means it would be unjust for God to punish them because they were doing God's work.

This flies in the face of reason, of the nature of God, and of God's words, which condemn soundly this kind of behavior in all kinds of ways. If we make this behavior God's work, then we make God a liar because he cannot both forbid us to do these things and condemn them and simultaneously have been the planner of these these things.

Furthermore, if we attempt to stop these kinds of tragedies and intervene in abuse, poverty, illness, we are working against God's will because he planned those things for those people. We would be sinning by trying to interfere with God's plans and trying to stop God's work.

This also is impossible in light of God's own instructions to us that we should obey the commandments, not hurt people, and try to help people out of poverty and illness, including by using God's own power to do so. If God designed and planned those horrible things to happen to people, he would be contradicting himself by asking us to work against his will to stop them!

So in two ways, God comes out a liar if we allow for the idea that God designed all the things we go through.

There is another danger to this doctrine as well. If we embrace the idea that God planned all the bad things that people go through, then we are less inclined to jump in and help when they are suffering. We instead are inclined to think that we should let them suffer because God wants them to, and who are we to interfere in God's plan for those people. It's a wicked belief that leads us to abandon actual commandments and let people suffer alone.

Fortunately for the man who taught this false doctrine, there is true doctrine that will give him peace and comfort and purpose, and these true doctrines come right from the scriptures.

It is important to remember that God is ultimately in charge of the world, and He is aware of our suffering. Knowledge of suffering is not the same as intention for suffering, though. But He does know and He can help. Allowing us to learn and grow and suffer does not mean he planned it, nor that he lacks power to intervene. He can and does intervene--but sometimes not how we want Him to.

Romans 8:28: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God" and D&C 90: "Search diligently, pray always, and be believing, and all things shall work together for your good."  The promises is not that God designed these things, but that He has the power to turn all things to your good if you love Him.

God allows the hellish experiences (because earth life really is hell in a lot of ways), but we can be assured that He will turn those to our good (remembering that His eternal view of our good, which is rooted in our ultimate glory, is different from our limited earthly view, which is rooted in immediate comfort more often than not). When the scriptures say we have to submit to the will of our Father, it is talking about this--submitting to God's way of turning things to our good, not necessarily that we have to submit to awful experiences purely because they are God's plan for us.

The other comfort is Jesus. We can get comfort and peace and experience because Jesus suffered all things to help mitigate the realities of living in a fallen world. He saves us, not from God's will, but from the reality of mortality. If we embrace the false idea that God designed all our hells, then we risk not putting Christ at the center of things. Sometimes we have to swallow a bitter pill, for sure, but we don't have to do it alone, and God wants us to reach out for help and relief through Jesus. If we think God planned it, we might not take advantage of our privileges under the atonement and the priesthood, and God gave us those things so we would use them and benefit from them, not ignore them so that we can suffer. Suffering in and of itself is not noble or wonderful or glorifying, and we risk elevating it to this magical status, over Jesus, if we embrace the idea that God designed our pain. Martyr complexes benefit no-one.

In reality, embracing the true doctrine invites us to lean on Jesus. It is a gentle but powerful invitation to actively exercise faith and trust our Father. It invites humility and becoming as a child and understanding our true, proper relationship with our Father. The false doctrine, in contrast, leads us to be angry at God and push back. It makes God our enemy. It rewrites baptism to God pushing us under the water and holding us there for our own damn good, and that destroys faith.

But God is not our enemy, and we do not need to embrace doctrines that destroy faith. Gentle invitations to exercise faith are much better, and we should pursue and embrace those. "I know you are suffering, and I'll help you through it and ease your pain and make sure it benefits you" is much, much nicer (and more accurate) than "I planned this hell for you. Thank me."

We don't need to embrace the false doctrine, even though it is widely taught. Instead, we should cling to the actual doctrine: that God can turn things to our good if we love Him, and that we have Jesus to help us. This doctrine leads to a true exercising of faith. The other does not.



Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Did I just read that?



To illustrate the importance of punctuation.

This is the headline: "Tree falls on tent killing woman"

This means a tree fell on a tent that was killing a woman.

But with a comma, it could mean a tree fell on a tent, killing a woman.

And with a hyphen, you get that a tree fell on a woman who kills tents (a "tent-killing woman").


Punctuation makes a big difference!

Tuesday, June 04, 2019

Did I just read that?


I don't even know what to make of this one. This is the caption that appears under a picture of a window in an abandoned building.

"This is the Giuseppe Antonini, which was a facility on the outskirts of Milan. The facility once housed Napolean Bonaparte and Benito Mussolini’s illegitimate son."

https://mentertained.com/abandoned-buildings/46/?v=2


I can't even...how did Napoleon and Mussolini have a son? There are so so many problems with that. I mean, they're both men...and Napoleon died 62 years before Mussolini was born....and would you really want those gene pools mixed?....and they spelled Napoleon wrong.

Monday, February 04, 2019

Did I just read that?

"Investigators later determined that two toddler-aged children were inside the suspect during the shooting but were not injured. Police said neither Martinez nor Pacheco were the parent or guardian of the children. "

Uh....not sure how that works.

https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/dpd-2-kids-were-inside-car-when-federal-agent-shot-man-woman/73-7bdd7b28-7cc4-42dd-8579-4d279f6830a5

Thursday, January 03, 2019

Yet another post on feminism

I know I write about feminism kind of a lot. Off an on. 

The reason I write about it so often is I feel immense pressure to be a feminist (ALL acceptable women are feminists, apparently), but at the same time, I feel an immensely strong gut reaction telling me feminism is not healthy for women. But the logic and spoken aims of feminism are very compelling, and some of the problems they are addressing are very real and need to be addressed.

So I feel conflicted, and I write to try to address that conflict, to resolve it and help myself understand why I can't be a feminist of any stripe despite the social pressure and the work that needs to be done.

Before I say anything else, I do know that I'm oversimplifying by using the word "feminism" and that there are many kinds of feminism (and I actually am not opposed to all of them.) I also know that there are many problems that women face that need to be fixed. And I also am saying right up front that I know many excellent feminists that this absolutely does not apply to.

Here's my latest bullet list of reasons feminism is making me uncomfortable, based on my own observations. (I add that because feminists are incredibly aggressive--to the point of cruelty--at defending their positions, and whenever I post stuff like this, they come out to tell me that my observations are wrong and mean and destroying women because feminism is the only path to success for women. So I'm saying up front: These are my own personal observations from my own personal life. They in no way are blanket claims of always truths, but they also are the things I've seen over and over and am making judgments based on--and that's probably unfair but it's my reality. And the fact that I have to put this in here should tell you something about why I can't embrace being a feminist.) So, my list:

• Despite protests to the contrary, feminism publicly is still often anti-man, anxious to belittle and condemn men and deny the masculine nature in order to elevate women. I don't think this helps anyone.
• Feminists still use men as their "measuring stick" of what is success and where we are aiming to be. I don't see any way to succeed if we make men the measuring stick because we are not men and never will be, so we will never quite measure up. It puts women in an inherently inferior position, and it forces women to deny their nature in order to succeed. This harms women rather than helping them.
• Feminism often belittles women for intelligently making the best choice they can for their own lives, claiming that if they don't decide to conform to some money-based evaluation of "success," they were manipulated by society and couldn't possibly be making these choices of their own free will. That actually makes it harder for women to be what they want to be, not easier. (You can see this in the pressure women have put on them to not choose a caring profession, to choose a science or math major even if they really love history, etc.)
• Feminism makes faith and having a relationship with our Father in Heaven noticeably more difficult for women. For some reason, Feminists often seem to have an automatic distrust of the motives of every man, and not of women. Consequently, they find it hard to trust and act on instruction from God. I have a hard time embracing anything that makes faith harder and more complicated, and that interferes with women's ability to form trusting relationships with God and Jesus.
• Feminists are often obsessed with power and who has it, to the detriment of understanding and interacting with their world. This is a very narrow way of looking at the world--very reductionist--that does not tend to show a whole and fair picture. It is, absolutely, one piece of a big puzzle. But it's a mistake to say you understand the whole puzzle completely based on observing one piece, or even a cluster of pieces.
• Feminism distorts thinking, and in a way that leads to greater unhappiness in life and a limited ability to interact with society in a way that will actually make changes to things that hurt women. Feminism is not a paradigm through which to view the world if you want high life satisfaction. It pushes finding offense and power imbalance in every single thing you see--but only if you are on the lower side of the imbalance (never if you have more power, and especially never if you are misusing it). There are other distortions to the thinking as well.
• Feminism elevates women to a more perfect status that they actually have right to claim (with claims like, "If women were the bishops, nobody would ever be offended in church" that are patently untrue and also ridiculous), elevating themselves to ridiculous and foolish heights, while simultaneously laying claim on and denying the existence of feminine traits.  (This is really part of the distorted thinking, isn't it?) On the one hand, they say there are no inherently feminine traits but it's all social constructs, and on the other, they restructure school to take advantage of the way women think and work to the detriment of boys. All while saying we need to act more like men to succeed. (The danger of saying there are no inherently gendered traits is that in doing so, they are accepting male-ness as the default and denying female-ness exists at all.)
• Feminism not only ignores but denies that sometimes women have a role in their "problems." (For example, sometimes women bear the burden of the "thinking work" in a household because they are so sure only women can do it right that they actually refuse to let men carry that burden at all out of certainty that the men will do it wrong. And then they complain that the men aren't carrying the burden. Or, in a less negative light, sometimes women make less money than men in the same jobs because they women put higher priority on family time and refused to make the family sacrifices that put them in the top positions at work, eligible for the top raises. So they make less money, but it's a direct result of the good choices they made.)
• The sociocultural demands that feminists have put on women in the name of "freedom" have made it harder for women to embrace and enjoy motherhood (especially of raising many children) and do it well. The only valid contribution to society is measured in dollars and cents and positions at work. That's just a shame, and its wrong, too. Anyone can make money. Only women can mother. (Men can contribute, but they father--which is also vital. Just different.)
• Feminists don't understand what women actually are and what will make them eternally happy in the greatest senses. (Really, only God can know that for anyone, so it's not their fault.) But, despite this lack of knowledge, they work very hard to not only define but enforce a single right "path" to life satisfaction that they not only offer but demand that all women walk. They deny they do this, but actions and social pressure speaks louder than words.
• Feminism is essentially inward-looking. But God has asked us to spend our lives looking outward, not inward: serving others, loving others, using our talents to build His kingdom, having charity, etc. Humility is impossible if our entire paradigm is inward. The nature of feminism is in opposition to the nature of "Forget yourself and get to work." Feminism is often selfish and rooted in pride, and that is not a path to anything good.
• So much of feminism is whining and complaining, indulging in anger and celebrating being bitchy and obnoxious. I'm not interested in those things. That's not who I want to be, and that's not what I want to spend my time or energy on.
• Feminist approach to problem solving is counterproductive. It practically forces people to dig in their heels and defend their position rather than productively leading everyone to greater understanding and change. This is weird because the much-maligned "Feminine Nature" is actually supposed to be good at gently leading people along to change and understanding, but feminists are particularly bad at this, coming across as rude, selfish, obnoxious, and aggressive instead of as a safe way to learn and change and fix problems. (For example, complaining, having mean letter-writing campaigns, and protesting against the Brethren is far, far less likely to cause change than simply asking the questions. "Why don't women do _____?" is way way more effective than "Women Must be allowed to do _____!")
• Feminism leads to a particularly narrow view of the world. It thrives in and loves the echo chamber. For example, any time there is a change they hoped for, they think, "We did this! It's because of our voices!" without even a thought for, say, the global nature of the Church, the fact that there are other voices that were speaking out in more effective ways, that God had something in mind, etc. 
• In acknowledging that there is pain and unfairness in the world, feminism seems to reinforce and rejoice in it. It comes across as the ultimate "girls crying in the bathroom" clique that ever existed, and seems to love the victimhood more than the possibility of healing. And in trying to hear and love the victim, they often are cruel to those who were not hurt.

And now that this is written, I'm always afraid to post these because of the inevitable backlash. No-one is more capable of being cruel and needling to the heart of a woman than an angry feminist. No-one has more "need" somehow to lash out and address every slight and every insult than an angry feminist.  And feminism teaches women to see hurt and be angry all the time. Feminism, in practice, is often the glorification of the bitch. And I have been treated cruelly so many times by feminists that I'm afraid to even post this, anticipating backlash (and for some reason they feel compelled to attack, not just brush it off and think, "She's wrong. I'll just go on with my life and ignore it."). But I want myself and my kids to understand why I can't join in, so here it is. Again. (I write about this stuff SOOO much!)


Ultimately this is my bottom line: Throughout my life, I've had times where I looked at a group of women (returned sister missionaries and mothers of many children come to mind right off the bat) and saw characteristics I wanted to have. I found myself saying, "I want to be like them," and I knew I had to embrace the same experiences and ideals they had in order to gain the benefits they had that I wanted. There is no other way to get the deep, calm, wise patience of being a mother of many children than by mothering many children (whether they are your own birthed children or others you mother). There is no other way to get that particular kind of confidence and class that returned sister missionaries have than by going on a mission. When I look at feminism and the women it produces, I don't think, "Gosh, I want to be just like that!" In fact, I often think, "Oh my! I hope I'm not like that!" That gives me very little incentive to embrace feminism.

Friday, November 23, 2018

Did I just read that?

Following this stunning non-sequitur: "However, 400 years later, scientists now believe that they could bring the dodo back to life through cloning of some of its closest living relatives. Scientists recently published a paper which identified the overall genomic structure of dinosaurs."
...we get this quote (I hope mis-quote) from scientists identifying passenger pigeons as dinosaurs, and being excited that birds and non-avian dinosaurs have a lot of chromosomes (because someone thought they didn't?!):
'University of Kent scientists Darren Griffin and Rebecca O’Connor wrote in an article for The Conversation: “We discovered that birds and most non-avian dinosaurs had a lot of chromosomes (packages of DNA). Having so many allows animals to generate variation, the driver of natural selection. Nevertheless, and it is a long shot, it may be possible in future to use Jurassic Park technology to help undo some of the harm that humans have caused. Mankind has seen the extinction of well-known avian dinosaurs such as the dodo and the passenger pigeon."'
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/971538/cloning-news-dodo-dinosaur-extinct-clone-latest-university-of-kent

Friday, November 16, 2018

Did I just read that?

There is so much wrong with this article that we laughed all the way through.

https://www.foxnews.com/science/a-gurgling-mud-pool-is-creeping-across-southern-california-like-a-geologic-poltergeist

Start with the simile in the headline (uh--what kind of comparison is that?! Did this person know what a poltergeist is?), and go downhill from there.

Thursday, October 25, 2018

Commas Matter.

A couple of things I found while pondering punctuation in the scriptures.
1. "...people, who are of the House of Israel," means something different from "...people who are of the House of Israel." I believe based on the context that the first is used but the latter was intended. (This is just one example where the phrase appears: "...the work of the Father shall commence in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel." The comma would indicate He has no other people but the house of Israel, which flies in the face of the doctrine that all of mankind are God's children. Leaving the comma out indicates we are talking about a specific group of God's children with whom he made specific covenants, but leaves open the possibility that He has other children with whom He has also made specific covenants that are not addressed in this verse. We have wars (literally) over this idea--that God only has one people and which is it--and it's all cleared up by properly punctuating.)
and 2. "touch upon them as much as it were possible for Christ’s sake" means something different than "touch upon them as much as it were possible, for Christ’s sake." When I realized it was the latter that was actually used in the scripture, I laughed. The comma turned a perfectly acceptable phrase into a swear, and we've been reading it that way for a hundred years. Oops!

Sunday, October 14, 2018

My Latest Project

One of my most boring and ultimately most valuable classes in college was the senior seminar I took with Royal Skousen doing an analysis of the Book of Mormon text, comparing what's in the printed edition with the handwritten versions.

Some things I learned:

* There were two handwritten editions of the Book of Mormon: the original and a copy of the original they made to take to the printer, not wanting to lose the only copy. The original copy went into the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House, which leaked water and damaged parts and destroyed parts. The Church now owns most of the parts, but a few are in private hands. The printer's copy we have, but it does have a few copying errors.

* The Book of Mormon, as organized by Mormon, had chapter breaks and a few chapter/section headings built in, but they do NOT match the most recent edition's chapter breaks. At some point, someone (I want to say Orson Pratt, but I'm not sure) who had authority broke the Book of Mormon into chapters and verses to match the Bible more closely and make it easier to refer to specific parts, make notes, and study. He also added chapter headings. Later, footnotes were added. The most recent (2013) edition of the Book of Mormon made an attempt to clarify which chapter headings were original and which were added.

*The original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon has the original chapter breaks and no verse numbers. It is MUCH easier to read without all the "noise" added to make the Book easier to study. But the 1830 edition has errors in it, many of which Joseph Smith himself went through and fixed for the second edition. The errors in the 1830 edition were of two sorts: copying errors and formatting errors. Most of the copying errors came from the difficulty in reading a handwritten text with nonstandard spelling (so we get things like "wickedness" being replaced with "woundedness" in one verse and "Lamb" replaced with "Lord" in another; and thanks to the spelling issues, on the last line of the Book of Mormon we still have no idea if it originally--when Moroni wrote it--said, "wholly without spot" or "holy, without spot."  Fortunately, they mean the same in context so it doesn't matter.)

* The formatting errors in the Book of Mormon came from a peculiarity of the production process. The handwritten manuscript transcribed while Joseph translated did not include punctuation or paragraphing. The chapters breaks were marked with the word "Chapter" but no chapter numbers. New and difficult words (especially names) Joseph spelled out letter by letter (we know this because a phonetic spelling was crossed out and followed by a corrected spelling in the manuscript), but other words were not spelled out by Joseph and are spelled phonetically and nonstandardly on a regular basis, reflecting their dialect (so you get things like "genealogy" spelled in a way that reveals Joseph pronounced it like most people in southern Utah still do).  Sometimes, the person taking the dictation forgot the correct spelling and went back to the phonetic spelling. Usually that was caught and corrected, but the name Pahoran is still spelled incorrectly, even in the 2013 edition (the original manuscript on the first appearance of that name spelled it out as Parhoran.) Anyway, paragraphing and punctuation were not revealed but instead were inserted later, primarily by the printer, EB Grandin. And he did a terrible job, breaking single sentences into different paragraphs and making the whole document a commastorm.



So it's that last part that has bothered me for years.

I find the official study edition very, very difficult to read because of the formatting. Single sentences are broken into different verses. Paragraphing is nonexistent. People read it like they do poetry, with little pauses at the ends of lines instead of where the meaning breaks. For years now, when I wanted to just read the Book and not cross-reference and footnote and mark it, I've turned to my trusty 1830 replica edition. I can't just read the study edition that is the official edition. It's just about impossible for me to get through because of the formatting, chapter breaks, etc. I mean, the original chapter breaks were put in by the original authors, and if you read them you find that they are thematically organized. The new chapter breaks actually obscure this layer of meaning that was put in by the original ancient authors (which breaks this author's heart!).

For years I've longed for an 1830-style format with the 2013 corrections of the errors introduced by Grandin (and by the printer's manuscript), and with updated formatting and punctuation because Grandin did just a dismally awful job with those.

When President Nelson made his request in conference that the sisters read the Book of Mormon by the end of the year, I knew I couldn't succeed unless I had my 1830 replica edition so I could read fast and easily. And it was packed. So I prayed for help finding it, and then I stood up and surveyed the room. One box stood out to me, and I opened it up and there on top was my 1830 replica! So out it came, and I started reading with a pencil in hand to start marking, as President Nelson requested, the parts that mentioned the Savior.

But reading with pencil in hand totally put me in editor mode, and I found myself horrified and distracted by the awful punctuation of the 1830 edition. Commas everywhere, without rhyme or reason. It was unreadable with a pencil in hand because my copyeditor instincts took over and I found myself marking the thing up--copyediting.  I checked the 1981 edition I use for studying and found that the Church has corrected a lot of Grandin's punctuation storm, but it looks like they still relied mostly on what he did to punctuate. A lot of it is still not correct according to the rules of punctuation.

So....I looked up the copyright permissions on the website, and it says you can use the church materials for personal use. So I downloaded a copy of the Book of Mormon--just the text of the 2013 edition, so it's the most updated and corrected text, and I prayed and asked Heavenly Father if I could make myself a copy of the Book of Mormon in the format I want to read, with the non-revealed parts fixed, and the text left untouched. I got a resounding YES! answer to my prayer, so I set to work.

I've basically said to myself, "If I were in Grandin's spot, how would I have done this?" My rule is that I can't change anything that was revealed to Joseph Smith (no word changes, no shuffling paragraphs, etc.), but anything anyone else added to the text is fair game (line breaks, paragraph breaks, punctuation, chapter headings, false chapter breaks, etc).

First thing to go was the new chapters and verses. I went back to the original chapter breaks, and I'm putting in normal paragraphing. And finally, I'm doing a complete re-punctuation of the entire text. Everything else I'm faithfully, religiously sticking with what the original authors wrote. Just redoing the formatting to make it easier to read. So far I've finished all of First Nephi. I wish I'd found a way to keep the footnotes, but my computer would not process the formatting of footnotes. (I'm using Google Chrome Docs instead of Libre Office, so my formatting options are sorely limited.)

And, lo and behold, it's SO Much easier to read without all the bad punctuation. The Book of Mormon text says it's plain and simple to read, and I've never found it completely simple. But it turns out a lot of that is the punctuation being in all the wrong places, so your brain pauses where it shouldn't, obscuring the meaning.

In doing this, I've engaged in the meaning of the Book of Mormon in ways I never have before.  I've learned things and internalized and understood things that I missed before. And I've discovered some linguistic "forms" that are used throughout the text that are kind of fun. And I've really finally felt the clarity and simpleness and plainness that Nephi said he gloried in, and that we buried in a flood of commas and semicolons that mostly marked the end of lines instead of segments of meaning. It's quite delightful.  I can't wait to get to the rest of the Book!

I think when I'm all done, I'll find a way to print a copy for myself so that finally I will have an edition of the Book of Mormon that is easy to read to myself and easy to read aloud to my children. That would make me very, very happy indeed.

Monday, October 08, 2018

Sometimes we run to aid, sometimes we stand as a beacon

I had an experience recently that has ended up being very important to me, and I wanted to share it. The easiest way is to just cut-and-paste from my journal. So here you have it, from my entry on September 26, 2018:

On Tuesday, we drove an hour to Great Sand Dunes National Park. I had prepared myself for something like the sand dunes we went to when I was a kid. I was not prepared for what it really was: a two-mile-high, 30-square-mile mountain of sand, accessible only by hiking across nearly three-quarter mile of relatively level but overly soft sand that in the spring is covered with shallow water but was dry this time of year.

We checked out the visitor’s center and then sunscreened up to go play in the sand, in the pounding sun. The edges of the flat section had small, scruffy trees, but the dunes themselves were Sahara-bare. So Tim and the kids set off toward the dunes, and Emmy and I trailed along behind, the sand hot and sneeping into our sandals. It was really hard walking, like on a beach, and we got about a third of the way to the dunes before we were both done. Emmy said she didn’t want to jump on the sand anyway, and I didn’t, so we turned around. Immediately, I spotted a shady spot beside a fire pit, away from where most of the people were coming into the area, but on a hillside in the shade. So we turned back and went there.

I had deliberately worn a bright neon pink shirt so the kids could spot me in a crowd, and it ended up being a good thing. Tim realized we didn’t make it, and he jogged back across the dunes and found us just fine because of my shirt. We told him we were going to stay right there in the shade and play. He went back to the other kids, and they played a while and then Nathanael trotted back to us, spotting my bright pink shirt and making a very straight line right to me. Then Tim brought Elijah and Jack back. We dug down to the wet sand not far under the surface and made sand castles. Soon all the kids and Tim were back again.

So we went off to find a place to fill all our 10 gallons of empty water jugs and have a picnic, and finally settled on an empty group camp site. I filled the jugs first, while Tim set up a picnic, and it was a good thing I did because not long after I had them all stowed away, a volunteer camp ranger came and kicked us out of that site because it was for camping, not picnicking (never mind that nobody was there and nobody was going to be there). We had done what we needed that part of the park for, so we picked up and asked where we were allowed to picnic, and then we left.

By then, the wind had picked up and dark clouds had blown in. There was a tiny trinkling of rain, but not much, and the kids wanted to play in the sand again. Caleb and Anda and Tim were done. But Nathanael, Elijah, Benji, Dan, and Jack wanted to hike back to the dunes and try a sled we’d found abandoned by the garbage cans.

It didn’t work.

But it wasn’t hot anymore, so I followed the boys across the flat to the dunes because I figured Jack would get tired and want to come back right away, and I could walk him back. Emmeline had on a bright pink jacket and she and Tim were playing in our same spot from earlier in the day. I could just see her, a bright pink speck in the distance, but I knew I could find them from that bright pink speck. It was surprising, standing up on the dunes with the boys, that the spot we were playing in was far to the right of where most people were going, and it didn’t look “right”. But I knew it was right because I could see Emmy’s bright pink jacket bobbing along. She was doing was I had done earlier with my bright pink shirt--acting as a beacon to show me the right way to go. She was so very tiny that she was easy to miss--it was easy to look the wrong direction, and I had to really choose to search for the little pinprick of pink. But once I found her, I could focus on her little bobbing dot and move toward it. She was a “beacon”--but she was just a point of pink. Hard to see. But not impossible. So that’s where my family was, and the van, and rest and shelter.

Pretty soon, a vicious wind picked up. It was so strong that a crow trying to fly into the wind was blown the other way and finally had to turn around and fly where the wind willed. The boys had abandoned the sled, so I was holding its rope and I’d filled it with cast-off shoes. Once the sun was obscured by the storm clouds, the sand was no longer burning hot, and so the shoes came off. Even filled with the shoes, the wind picked the sled up and tried to whip it from my hands. The sand blasted Nathanael’s bare legs (he was in shorts, and I in jeans). It was so hard he would turn his back on the wind and curl up inside his coat until the gust passed. Jack would crouch in his coat, too, and Daniel (such a saint), would immediately drop down behind Jack and lay on his side, making an effective wall against the wind to protect Jack. Nathanael quickly got weary of sandblasting, and he and I decided to head back. Jack wanted to stay, so I let him. Dan promised not to lose him, so Nat and I headed back toward the big kids and Tim, following Emmy’s bobbing pink dot to know where to go.

We had to wait for the wind to soften a bit, or Nathanael couldn’t walk for all the sandblasting his shins were getting. But we made it, sled and shoes in tow. I looked back at our track when we arrived at Tim and the big kids and Emmy (ready to fall face first onto the sand and rest). It was very wobbly. We did not make a very straight line because the pull toward where everyone else was going was so strong. We kept drifting that way and then spotting Emmy’s pink jacket and correcting our path. She was a lighthouse for us.

The boys played on the dunes a while longer, and Tim made pictures with rocks in the sand while Anda used rocks to play a game of sand bocce and Caleb took pictures and audio recordings (he collects visual textures and random foley-like sounds). I sat beside Emmy and her sand castle and Nathanael sat on her other side and she and he kept building. And I talked to the big kids and Tim and kept my eyes on the dunes where I could not see the kids, but knew they were playing. I could just see little speck figures moving around, but not our kids. Eventually, the wind picked up again (it was cold!), and I saw the boys appear, one at a time. Elijah I recognized because he had his coat off and he was swinging it. Then he put it on and started trudging toward us. Behind him I saw Benji, who I could recognize by the flash of bright orange--his shirt--inside his coat. So I knew the figure beside him was Daniel. But no Jack?

I knew right away that Dan had to be carrying Jack. I had no doubt about it--I knew he wouldn’t have left Jack. But that trek was difficult with just walking myself across the three-quarters of a mile of sand. And Dan was carrying a heavy 5 year old, and battling the wind. I turned to Tim and said, “I’m going to take the sled back out there and drag Jack back. Dan’s carrying him.” I pointed out the kids and Tim said he should go--he could piggy back Jack back and it would be faster and easier. So he set off on a jog toward the kids.

Meanwhile, Elijah was battling the wind, head down, and he had veered off course. He wasn’t looking for me, and so he was heading too far to the left, to where most of the rest of the people were going. And then I could see he was to the left of that, even. He didn’t even realize he was heading astray. “Turn, Elijah, turn back….” I kept saying to him, but I didn’t even bother to shout. It was over half a mile away, and the wind carried my voice the wrong direction.

Anda, Caleb, Nathanael, and Emmeline headed for the van to get out of the wind. And I knew Tim was going to have to rescue three kids at once: Dan from the weight of Jack, Jack from being too little to go any further, and Elijah from getting lost. I started to fret--I was standing here doing nothing, while Tim was running across the sand and my boys were struggling. I saw Benji double back to try to help Dan, but it was too much. I started to pace, needing to help, but I was too far.

Then the thought popped into my head: Just stand still so they know where to go. That is helping. They need to see you. 

I threw my jacket wide so my bright pink shirt was visible from so far away, and I stood as still and tall as I could, being a beacon to them--the same lighthouse that Emmy had been for me.

Tim then caught sight of Elijah going the wrong way, and he diverted his course to catch the one who was going astray. He got Elijah back on track, and then he doubled back to Dan and Benji and relieved them of their burden of caring for the weakest of us. And I stood there, watching them all and knowing that I was helping by showing them where they were supposed to come to.

So I stood there, my pink shirt pointing the right away and helping them find the most direct route back through the blowing, shifting sands, and the Spirit whispered to me, “This is why we stand in holy places.” Tears flowed down my cheeks while I still stood, being the anchor and the beacon so that my little brood could get out of the painful sandblasting storms in the quickest, easiest way possible. My tears flowed and I pondered. I wanted to help, but this was a job for the priesthood. So I sent my priesthood holder out to fetch the one who was too weak to make it back, to strengthen the ones who were struggling to help, and to catch the one who was going astray before he was too lost to turn back. But then all of them--priesthood included--needed me to stand and show them where to go, and that someone was waiting to receive and comfort them and acknowledge their struggles and thank them for their sacrifices and love them and give them a refuge and a rest and food when they got back. We stand in holy places, I understood, to show others where they need to aim for, and because being the beacon helps them get there. We stand in holy places so the ones going astray can find the way back, and so the ones on their way but struggling have somewhere to look for comfort and hope and encouragement, and so they don’t get lost, too. I understood that sometimes we run out to rescue, and sometimes we stand still so everyone can find their way back. Especially when the pull of the wrong way is so strong.

When Elijah got within earshot, he said, “I was going the wrong way, but Dad told me and once I saw you, I knew where to come.” His track was very straight. I remembered earlier in the day when Nathanael had been the very first to trudge back through the heat to the sandy, shady shelter we’d found. I had marveled at what a straight line he made in coming to me. I asked him how he had found me, and he said, “Dad told me which direction to head, so I did and once I saw you there, it was easy.” I realize now that it was important for them to see me, but before they could see me they had to trust Tim and follow his instructions. This is so much what faith is, and what we are supposed to do. Nathanael couldn’t seem me at first, even though I could see him. The lay of the dunes obscured me. But he followed his father’s instructions perfectly and made a straight line until he could see, and then he could come right to me. Elijah spotted me from afar and came toward me, but the storms were too strong and the pull of the way most people were going was distracting, and once he couldn’t see me, he ended up going astray by accident. But his father saw that and redirected him, and he followed those instructions until he, too, could see, and he came to me.

It was all so amazingly laid out before me--the understanding that I was working even by holding still, and that sometimes you can barely see the indicators of the right way to go and you really have to cling to them because it’s just a prick of light instead of a bright beacon--to stay focused and tune out the distractions or you lose sight of the way, and of why we stand in holy places, and that sometimes we seek and sometimes we stand, and the idea that we follow the instructions first even when we can’t see and that eventually leads us to see so we can move forward more quickly and surely. And all of this is faith and the gospel.

We loaded up in the van and headed back, watching a gorgeous sunset as we drove.

*******

This has been important to me as I listened to General Conference. The prophet asked the women to step away from social media, which I was attempting to use to help people see issues that we need to act on. At first, I thought, "I can't leave people who need help! What about the immigrant children, and people who need more information on a topic, and people who need encouragement, and....and...and...." and the thought came to mind, "Sometimes we seek; sometimes we stand."

Sunday, July 01, 2018

Mister Doomsy

3 yo just informed us that Black Widow (Marvel character) has a brother named Mister Doomsy, who is 9 years old and wears a pink shirt, blue pants, and green shoes because that's the only clothes he has.



His attacks, apparently, are "punching gloves," which he has for his hands and his feet.

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Sneaking out at night.

Me, to my teenagers: "You guys don't sneak out at night, do you?"
14 yo: "Uh...does the back porch count?"
16 yo: "If I'm sneaking out, I'm so sneaky that even I don't know I sneaked out!"
12 yo: "My friends all go to bed early, so there's nothing to sneak out for."
14 yo: "If you provide the Victorian clothes, I'll sneak out with you, Mom." (Man, I would do that!)
9 yo: "I sometimes sneak out to the freezer to get a pizza."
14 yo: "Sometimes I sit on the front porch and whittle at 3 am...."

I guess every time they've snuck out at night, I've proposed it. I'm good with that.

And now they're teasing me because I'm awake all night anyway....I mean, I asked them all this at 3:45 am, when nobody was willing to get in bed.

Monday, May 14, 2018

Kids are so funny!



Me, explaining to 3 yo that her grandparents are on vacation, so we can't call them easily: "Grandma is in a cottage in England right now."

3yo, in a very serious, solemn voice: "She probably got captured!"

Apparently 3 yo thinks her grandparents are either super spies or superheroes.

Me: "Emmy, who captured Grandma and Grandpa?"

3yo: "Grandpa didn't get captured. Only Grandma! By Hydra!!"

Then she called the police on her TV remote to report it so they will go rescue her. She says Grandpa didn't get captured because he stayed at home.