Mother in Heaven

Mother's day week, so the inevitable happens: progressive Mormons start posting about Mother in Heaven.

I tried to imagine Mother in Heaven. I'm pretty sure she knows as much about our lives as Father in Heaven does.

I'm also pretty sure that she's not some lesser figure up there hanging around being God's housekeeper. I'm pretty sure she's an amazing, powerful woman.

So that leads me to the conclusion that she is not more involved in our theology and worship because she doesn't want to be. Maybe she's busy taking care of the all the people who have yet to be born, or doing some other work. I mean, if she wanted us to pray to her, wouldn't she have said so?

Anyway, all the talk of Mother in Heaven, and the only image I can conjure in my mind is her putting her head in her hand and saying, "Oh, you silly children spending all this time talking about me, fawning over me, painting pictures of me, writing poetry to me. All I really want for mother's day is for you to stop fighting with each other. What I want is for you to do what your Father asked--go out and help each other, be kind, and stop doing stupid things."

Three thoughts on Rape Culture on College Campuses

There is much talk of rape culture on college campuses lately, but I'm finding the discussions to be stilted because of feminist ideology that has slipped in.

Three things that are bugging me:

1. We are ignoring Due Process.

In our eagerness to avoid "victim blaming" and our eagerness to push investigators to believe the victim and actually investigate, it's really, really easy to assume that "believing the victim" means an accusation is made and it's a done deal. Boys get expelled from school because we're so anxious to believe the victim. But we must remember that we are legally NOT ALLOWED to believe the victim except to the extent that we always investigate what a victim is saying. In our country, even in cases of rape, it is categorically innocent until proven guilty, which means even the vilest rapists get due process.

Believe the victim means we investigate. It means we don't write her off or blame her for the rape. It means we do post-rape examinations not at the cost of the victim, and we actually process every single rape kit as quickly as possible (is it possible within a week? That seems ideal).

It does not mean men are all guilty until proven innocent. Because we have to accept the reality that not all women are angels, and if men are guilty instantly on a woman's word when it comes to rape, then any woman can destroy any man's life on her word without any proof required.

2. We are ignoring the reality that self-defense ought to include the idea of not getting in dangerous situations whenever possible.

Recently, a big cat keeper at a zoo was killed by her cats. It came out in the ensuing investigation that she had not followed protocol.  Was it the cat's fault that she was killed? Yes. Would she likely be alive if she had followed protocol? Yes.

We are so anxious to not blame victims that it has become unacceptable to say to girls, "Don't go places where rapists go." It HAS to be okay for self defense to include preventative actions. And that means, while it is impolite to say to a rape victim, "You shouldn't have gotten drunk" and while it is absolutely true that even drunk, a girl should not be raped, it also has to be okay to teach our daughters, "Hey, don't go to frat parties, and if you are getting smashed, you're putting yourself at risk of getting raped."

Yes, we teach boys not to rape.

And we ought to also be free to teach girls to be wise. Don't walk in dark alleys. Don't use an ATM at night alone and flash the money. Don't get drunk with a bunch of boys at a Frat party.

In a perfect world, boys don't rape. But in a imperfect world, girls ought to at least be told not to go places where stats say you are more likely to be raped. That needs to be okay to say, to protect other girls, even while we are kind to girls who did get raped while drunk and don't write them off or ignore their plight because they were foolish. We still prosecute thugs who steal stuff even if you left your door unlocked. Victims of crimes are still victims, even if they made a dumb mistake. But we still use that to warn other people to not make dumb mistakes. Like getting drunk at a frat house.

3. Porn.

I brought this up and had it thrown back in my face that porn use is going up over all while rape is going down overall. So there can't be a connection.

But the stats they threw at me were overall, not on college campuses. So that's useless for my purposes.

So I'm not claiming using porn turns a boy into a rapist.

But I am saying that porn objectifies women. Even non-violent porn objectifies women. And there is ample evidence that using porn desensitizes men to real women, making it so that normal human sexuality is not interesting, so that men need a greater "rush" to get satisfaction, and also it makes what used to be "fringy" sexual behavior is seen as normal to the porn watchers. Teen boys who watch porn report to researchers that they think things like "choking" and "rough sex" are normal and that girls like that. Girls report that they don't but they think that's what sex is.  Porn also deadens men's emotional reactions to women's emotional and physical needs. I've seen this first-hand in men that I have met--their needs and emotions were the only ones that mattered. They had no empathy at all and very little sympathy, especially for women.

All of the effects of porn are the very things that have to happen in boys to create a rape culture.

Does that mean all boys who look at porn will be rapists? NO. But it empowers (if you will) some boys who might not rape to become rapists, and it dulls their sensitivity to women so they might not even realize it is rape.

Porn use has gone up at the same time that rape on college campuses has become an issue. If rape overall has gone down, I don't see that as relevant to this issue.

I would very much like internet pornography to be outlawed in the same way that TV advertising of cigarettes was banned. People who really want it will still get it, but we can spare entire generations of teenagers, and I suspect the rape culture will be addressed at the same time.

Did I just read that?

From 9news.com: "Nate Currey with RTD estimates that between 80 and 90,000 passengers used the new line  since noon on Friday. That's well below, the about 18,600 they predict will use it on the average weekday." http://www.9news.com/news/travel/free-day-means-long-waits-for-dia-train/151330836

I guess the 80 is below, but last I checked, 90,000 was WAY above 18,600.

Also, 80 to 90,000 is such a huge range that it's practically meaningless. Perhaps they meant "80- to 90,000" or "80,000-90,000"?

Missing Tim

Tim is gone today for the first time in a long, long time. He had pretty much sworn off traveling--even to Denver--and then out of the blue ended up with three trips this month: Chicago, New Mexico, and Tennessee.

And of course this first trip has been a doozy so far, with expenses above the expected ones reaching into the hundreds of dollars (not exaggerating), primarily due to other people's errors (like whoever schedules work schedules for TSA).

Over the years, I've seen many (if not most) of our performer and sound tech friends at one point or another publicly thank their spouse for letting them "chase the dream" and for "making this all possible" (meaning making it possible for the traveling spouse to tour and be a musician, sound tech, or other entertainment industry professional).

Over the years I've felt guilty because I never really encouraged Tim to throw caution to the wind and do whatever it takes to get famous or rich as a musician.

And I am so grateful that Tim decided clear back at the start of this insane adventure that family came first, and that he did not have the freedom to abandon us to pursue his career. He's tried to never be away for more than 4 days at a stretch. Sometimes that extends to 7 days, and once 10 (because he was on a ship and couldn't get off in the middle of the ocean).

Tim has actually turned down opportunities--more than once--that would have paid him well and set him on a path to a steady income because it would have required him to largely abandon us for long, long stretches at a time (270 days a year or more). He has been mocked and blacklisted for choosing to be home and available to us in person (not just on the phone). He's put his career and reputation at risk over and over to uphold his standards, openly refusing work when we were desperate for work because it would have required him to not put his most sacred duties (as father and husband) last instead of first. (And that's not counting all the times he has put his work at risk by refusing to do events that were inappropriate for a priesthood holder to attend, for refusing even the appearance of drinking alcohol, for refusing to wear immodest clothing, etc. He is constantly having to make choices to uphold his standards.)

And every time I see an entertainment person thank their spouse for making it possible for them to chase the dream, I feel guilty. I never did that for Tim.

But I also feel grateful that he never asked me to make that sacrifice. Not only that, he regularly expresses a desire to help me pursue my dreams.

I hope that some day God will bless us with a steady, livable income anyway, despite it being nearly impossible to have a music career and a family. I hope that Tim will be blessed with a lot of work that is family friendly because he has consistently chosen to put God's commandments and our family first.

But if not, Tim regularly reminds me that other musicians tell him--often--how amazing it is that he gets to have a family at all because in order for them to pursue their careers, they had to give that up. Almost all musicians have to give that up. And so, clearly, we have been abundantly blessed by Tim's choices, even if it is not with money. Despite this career that he has been driven to, we get to have an amazing family, and that is a rare thing indeed.

I'm glad for that night many years ago, when we were just 16, that Tim and I sat outside talking all night and I asked him, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" and instead of answering, "A musician" or "Famous" or "Rich," Tim said, "I want to be a dad."  And I'm glad that he has consistently made choices to make that most precious dream the reality of his life.

We got the good part.

And thank you, Tim, for never thanking me for all the things I've sacrificed to make your career happen because thank you for never making me sacrifice those things.

Women and Success

It occurred to me again recently that all the talk of "success" is stupid if we don't define what success actually means.

If you define success as acquiring money or power over other people, then you are going to seek different things in your life than people who define success as happiness or raising good kids or whatever they think success is.

Combining that thought with evolution...

There is a long list of "female" behaviors that feminists are working hard to stamp out because they keep women from being "successful" (meaning making more money and having more powerful positions in a business world).

It struck me the other day that those very behaviors might be the result of generations of evolution--the women who were most likely to raise children who were most likely to have children of their own may have had a shared set of characteristics that made them more successful at keeping a family together, more successful at keeping a man in the house to provide and protect them while they were trying to survive pregnancy after pregnancy, more successful at raising children who were likely to go on and have successful families themselves.

It's too bad that collectively we are now looking at the very things that make motherhood easier and families more successful, and make women more successful in their homes, and saying that those are flaws we need to get rid of in favor of characteristics that make women more successful at pocketing cash or becoming the boss of other people at work.

Those characteristics, like touching skin more often, apologizing more readily, couching everything they say in gentle terms, tuning in to nonverbal social cues and responding to them, being less aggressive at listening and getting what they want....those things are good when the people you are dealing with are four years old. Or twelve.  Or three months. Children don't need to be treated with a straightforward hardline approach to life. They need to be listened to even when they can't express themselves in words (so mom being tuned in to body language and the underlying, unspoken text is a big big deal). They need to have corrections presented clearly but gently and as suggestions so they don't feel crushed by it. They need gentle molding and redirection and hints and touching. They even need mom to touch her own face often to draw their too-low-eyes up to where they are supposed to be paying attention. Children need suggestions and guidance, not bossiness and control and aggression.

And women who are interacting on a regular basis with other moms, all of them working their tails off and fragile in their own rights, and all of them working with similar challenges that have to be solved differently (because every child is different, and so is every mom-child relationship), need to be treated differently than coworkers do. "Hinting and suggesting" instead of saying exactly what needs to be done is a positive, peaceful way of communicating when done right in this kind of circumstance. Sure it doesn't work in a business, but evolution didn't train women to think and interact that way to succeed in business, but to succeed in a different kind of world in which they were stuck, through their biology and lack of birth control.

See, these things are not flaws in women if women are to navigate worlds primarily full of tender children and other women who also have children. These are qualities, behaviors, characteristics that the feminists are so ashamed of might be the result of eons of evolution. These things might be good and helpful behaviors for women to succeed in their traditional roles.

So maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge the feminine as evil and the masculine as desirable, even if the masculine behaviors are more likely to make you rich.

Questions....

I have got to stop reading Peggy Fletcher Stack's stuff in the paper. She's not exploring religion. She's consistently trying to tear it down.

Anyway, reading her latest has made me want to ask a few questions.

Is it God's church or not?

Does He have a hands-on role or not?

And, most importantly, can He/does He have the right and ability to make rules, laws, and commandments for us or not?

And, as a follow-up to that: Are we exempt from obeying if we don't understand or think the laws, rules, etc are stupid?

Whenever she questions--again--women and the priesthood in church, I just want to ask her, "Does God get to make the rules for His church and His people, or not? And if He does, what are you going to do about it?"  I used to want to explain the details of why she's wrong, but I'm not interested in that anymore. I just want to say that. What I just said. "Does He get to make rules for His own church and people, or not?"

And if He does....what are you going to do about that?

All of the arguments boil down to this: Does He get to make rules? How is He supposed to let us know what they are? What's supposed to happen if we think He made a mistake? How can we know someone isn't doing what Korihor accused the church leadership of doing--hijacking God's church for their own enrichment and power trip?

ALL of the other arguments really do boil down to very few. Who is in charge and what are they allowed to do?

Solutions to the Pinewood Derby Problems

Several friends have now mentioned to me that whole-ward pinewood derbies are better. Nobody plans to win because there are too many cars. It's all about creativity in presentation, and watching the fun, and usually someone loses on purpose so no small child has to.

I really like that idea.

Another solution we thought of is to test different things. Yes, run races for quickness. But also run a distance race. Or a which runs the longest, not necessarily the fastest. And a "who goes up a hill best" race. And a race for going very straight and not veering off to one side or another. Or a race for which car floats best. Anything else besides speed just to change things up and point out that while some cars are great for speed, if you need them to float they might not work.

And also just patience with a stupid system. That's always good advice, especially when people are all volunteers who were assigned to do this, and they're doing the best they can.

Why I hate the Pinewood Derby

Pinewood Derby day! Our great celebration of '50s boyhood returns. Even though the '50s are long gone and good riddance.

Benji was so traumatized by last year's Pinewood Derby that he refused to participate this year. He let Anda take his car and build and race for him (which I thought was fair, since she didn't get to do it purely because of her biology.)

I hate the pinewood derby. Really truly despise it, even though my kids have had good experiences along with the bad.

Here are the things I hate (and proposed solutions):

1. I really, honestly do not believe that Jesus would set up little, sensitive boys to work hard only to be crushed. I can't imagine Him attending the Pinewood Derby and watching 12 of 17 boys go home in tears and thinking, "Gosh, isn't this a great event?!"

Now, some leaders run it better than others. The person running ours this year worked very hard to reward the boys for honest effort without minimizing the accomplishments of those who actually won. So this can be a worse or better situation, but I still question what Jesus would do in this case.

2. It's long past time to get rid of events that only boys can do and girls don't get to. This bothers me a LOT. Right up there with 8 year old boys getting a fun activity every week and girls having to only have one every other week. WHO IS PLANNING THIS? Because it's wrong. I can accept that the priesthood only goes to the men in the church, but there is absolutely no reason for little girls to be punished for being little girls. I do not think God approves of treating our little girls this way.  If He does, He and I need to have a serious talk because in my view this is very, very wrong. (Which is why I let Anda make and race Benji's car instead of letting the other boys do it).

I was in a ward once where they let siblings and parents make and race cars, too, also on the ward's budget. This is a viable solution.

Another solution would be to run a second pinewood derby at a different time of year for the activity day girls. Modern girls need to know how to use tools and need to practice the engineering process, too, so why are we not including them? Plus they want it. And I know a whole lot of girls who feel hurt and sad that a church thing refuses to include them because they are female.

I cannot emphasize how wrong this feels to me. It makes me angry and hurt and it needs to change, and if I knew who to petition, I would write them a letter right now even though that never works for me (they always say no anyway). I would circulate petitions to all the wards I can reach and send them to Salt Lake City. This is just a really stupid thing to do to little girls and very very easy to fix. (I don't care that it's run by the cub scouts and they don't do girls. Why can't we just buy the same kits and give them to the girls and have an unofficial, don't-pass-it-on-to-regionals race? Most of the boys cars don't go on to regionals anyway. Or let's just choose to never pass any Mormon cars on to regionals and that makes it fair).

Can I add day camp on to this list, too? For real, people! Run the same number of equivalent events for boys and girls. Let's stop with the boys get to shoot arrows twice a year and girls have to do a "day of service" and paint another picture of the temple onto a stained 2x4 once a year. The girls want to shoot arrows, too, and the boys need to do service.

Proposed solution: Abandon scouts and have all the kids do a program like the girls do. Or make the girls program functionally identical to scouts (although I think the girls' program is superior).

3. The pinewood derby system, as it runs now, is deeply unfair to poor kids.

To make a car that is competitive even a little and not embarrassing to the little boys, you have to have the right power tools to cut with, you have to have graphite for the wheels, you have to have weights, and you have to have nice glossy model paint. All of these are expensive.

Solution: See number 4. Also, require everyone to use the kits the ward provides instead of allowing them to go out and buy a specialty kit (pre-shaped car).

4. The system is also unfair to anyone without special "inside knowledge."  This disadvantages kids whose parents are doing this for the first time, kids who follow the original intention of the program and make the cars all by themselves, disabled kids, kids who have parents who never were in cub scouts, and families headed by single moms. So pretty much everyone who is already vulnerable--just put them at a greater disadvantage to everyone else. That's a nice plan. I'm sure Jesus is super happy about that, making the kids who cry anyway cry more, and making the lives of the disadvantaged even harder. That's awfully nice of us! .

I have had people say to me, "Well, those people should ask for help. I'd help them! They can do cars at my house next year."  Yeah? Well how were they supposed to know that before their child was melted in tears because the car lost every single race because it was too light and they didn't even know that weights existed?

Some wards try to mitigate this (including mine) by having a weigh-in with tools, weights, and scales available, and the people who know how to place weights provide the weights (and the graphite for the wheels) and teach the others how to do it.

This helps a little, but doesn't solve the problem that people are not getting good instructions. The kits don't even include the rules for the size of the cars. I've been doing this for years now and still don't know what I'm doing, and just learned this year that the blocks of wood come too long and you have to cut an eighth of an inch off the length.

There is insider knowledge about how to place the wheels, where to put the weights, how to shape the cars (what kinds of tools to use), etc. Some people know this, and some don't, and you can't get the information anywhere.

This is an unfair system and puts fragile boys at a disadvantage and crushes them.

Solving problems 3 and 4 would be fairly easy:  Have a make-cars night together, starting with a workshop from a person who knows how to do it, and followed by a chance for parents and kids to make their cars together. Bring all the tools (including a band saw and sand paper) and all the supplies (fancy paints, brushes, graphite, etc) for any and all who want to join. Let the insiders teach the outsiders so everyone has the same resources and same information and all the help they need, without having to beg or guess who has the time and tools. Make it optional so parents who really want to just make their cars with their kids at home can, but assign some people who know what they're doing to help. Kids still get to make the cars with their parents, but without the disadvantage. Or invite the parents to come to the weekly scouts meetings the two weeks before the pinewood derby and do it there, for scouts.

An easier solution that wouldn't address problem 3 but would help with problem 4 would be to print articles from Boys' Life magazine about how to make a winning car. They have them. A lot of the insider knowledge is right there, but nobody gets Boys' Life (and truthfully most of it is useless propaganda for "buying in to the way we do things" anyway). Stuff like this would be immensely helpful: http://boyslife.org/hobbies-projects/projects/2952/speed-secrets/.  But the boys and parents don't even know to look for it.

5. This teaches a faulty engineering process. If you go by the pinewood derby, you get an assignment and supplies, and you make something and then that's it. No testing. But real engineers build-test-rebuild-retest-tweak-retest-redesign-retest.  It's a long process of trying and failing and learning from the mistakes and improving.

Solution: Let the boys do test runs the week before, send their cars home, and then run the real races the next week, after everyone has had a chance to rebuild and tweak their cars.

6. I am pretty sure the kits come unequal even though they look the same. I really want to get four kits and do nothing to them but insert the wheels--all with equal care--and then race them. If all kits are equal, they would tie. But the weight distribution within the wood itself, and the wheels and axles not being truly identical (some have burrs, some are unbalanced or slightly bent, etc), and other factors mean some boys are doomed from the get-go and some will win even if they do nothing to their car but stick the wheels on.

One year Dan made a car that functionally should have acted like a sail and slowed him down, but it won everything. The next year he made a beautifully aerodynamic car and it lost everything. Weights were the same (but placed differently). Obviously there is something more going on than is in the control of the boys, which means we are rewarding some people for their "work" when in fact it was the luck of the draw.

Actually, that's probably a life lesson right there: it doesn't matter how hard you work or how talented you are, some people just make a lot of money and some don't, and it's actually not due to cause and effect like we think. You work hard and do your very best and it doesn't matter at all because if you weren't handed a good kit in the first place, you're gonnna lose. That feels like real life.

There is no way to solve this problem, but we could minimize it by making all other things (like access to resources) equal.

7. We are subjecting our boys to this trauma to what end? Yes, people need to learn how to lose gracefully because we all lose sometimes. But when else in life are we asked to work very, very hard on something that is quite difficult for one shot at public glory/humiliation (only 1 in 20 gets glory--the odds are very bad unless you have a leader like we had this year who works hard to recognize all the work the boys did) and no chance to go back and fix things up and try again? This is not a "life lesson" or "practice at useful skills".  The kids would have a better chance at winning a coin toss, and that takes no effort.

What the boys learn from this is their best is not good enough, and that no matter how wonderful their creation is, they're going to lose. And that the only thing that matters is winning by someone else's standards, not how cool the car is, how innovative it is, how unique it is, how hard you worked on it, or if your kit came with warped wheels in the first place.  While sometimes in life the result is all that matters, sometimes the innovation matters more. And always when there is a single required quantifiable result (like speed), we have chances to collaborate with experts and run trials before we have to be tested.


Benji won't even try any more. And that's a shame because I'd like for him to have a chance to make something he loves and learn to use tools, but we have the system set up so the cards are stacked against him, the failure is public and obvious, and the risk is too great. I can't ask him to do that.

This is a fixable system, but people are so entrenched in tradition that they aren't willing, and that's a shame. That's what happens when the people who run the system are the people who succeeded in it in the first place. (This isn't true in Mormon wards, where people are called to run the system, but it is true of the higher-ups who are controlling the national rules; they wouldn't be in scouts if they hadn't had a good experience with it in the first place. They succeeded the way it was written, so they have no reason to change it for those who are not succeeding.) Now that I've written this, I can see so many applications outside of cub scouts (English teachers go into English teaching because they were the few who liked how it is done, for example, which perpetuates the system, and not necessarily to the benefit of most regular people).

And since I have no voice--there is nobody to complain to or agitate for change--there is nothing I can do except grit my teeth each year and cry with my boys. Especially when they lose because I couldn't get the wheels on straight because of some hiccup or another.

While I love the idea of boys building cars, I hate the pinewood derby. Even though my kids both won this year.

Did I just read that?

"He hopes people will coin the phrase "meet at The Mix.""

Well, they can't. Because he just coined that phrase. 

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/provo-s-plumtree-plaza-to-be-bulldozed-redeveloped-into-the/article_8b898c3d-73bc-574b-902b-a602d55045af.html

Also, I've never heard a more "dated" name for a shopping center.

And, another also, nobody ever says, "Hey, let's meet at that 27-acre mixed-use housing/business/retail center." They'd never find each other. It's like saying, "Let's meet at Thanksgiving Point." You have to say something more specific. So I'm guessing that published mention is the only time anyone is ever going to say, "Let's meet at The Mix" except in the upcoming advertising blitz.

Talking about poverty

This last week many people (many family members, even) put cute little cards and videos on Facebook sharing the idea that poor people are poor because they refuse to work and are greedy, lazy, sons-of-whatever who just want to steal the money of the hardworking tax payers who should not have to pay for welfare for anyone no matter what. It's all tied up in the Republican party line on poverty.

They did it seemingly oblivious to the fact that saying someone is poor because they are lazy and therefore should just get a job, not get welfare, is just a fancy way of saying they brought it upon themselves, which the scriptures tell us not to do.

Nobody seemed to make the connection that if they knew someone who was really poor, this would be a horribly cruel thing to say to them, that they are lazy, worthless, unworthy of help, and obviously not interested in anything but leaching off other people and watching TV or they wouldn't be asking for help--because real people don't ask for help ever; they suck it up, suffer, work hard, and then don't need help anymore because they saved themselves. As everyone should.

It reminded me of Job, who is sitting and suffering and his friends are telling him that it's his own damn fault that he's suffering (which wasn't true) and he finally turns to them and says, "How long will ye vex my soul and break me in pieces with words?" (Job 19--it's worth a read if you want to know how it feels to be poor and constantly have people harp on you that it's your own fault and you should fix it yourself.)

I truly do not see how condemning and insulting the poor with little to no understanding of what they are living with is helpful. Truly, it is what Job said, vexing their souls and breaking them in pieces with words. And when a person is struggling with all their might to just get through, to hang on to faith and hope that things can get better, praying their shoes don't get visible holes and their kids don't have a field trip that costs $4 to attend, and working their tail off in the mean time, stealing any bit of hope or energy from them is beyond cruel.

If your entire understanding of poverty comes from crap like "20 Things Rich People Do Every Day" (or anything else Dave Ramsey ever wrote; Dave Ramsey is great is you have a steady sizeable income but are using it poorly. He is the worst enemy of the truly poor because people use his words to condemn the truly poor and justify not helping them because they "refuse to help themselves." Also because his advice is totally and completely worthless if you're destitute.)...anyway, if your understanding of poverty comes from that or from that one month right after you graduated from college before you got your first real job, then you might want to pause and think before you post anything about poverty anywhere. Do you really know what you're talking about? Where are you getting your information? Is it founded in reality--or even research--or politics? Does your idea of being poor consist of waiting a couple of days for the next paycheck to come? You might not know what poverty actually really is, and you should before you start trying to solve the problems.

So let's talk about real poverty for a minute, and why "just go get a job, you lazy bum" is a really bad, uninformed solution.

First of all, go read this: "Poverty Saps Mental Capacity".  A lot of the things that people like Dave Ramsey attribute to causing poverty are actually the result of poverty (things like not reading enough books, or showing up late for meetings).  This is why it is beyond cruel to "steal" a poor person's energy by making them deal with mean accusations. They already don't have enough energy to get them through, and if you really want them to be out of poverty and off welfare, kindness and support (emotional support, not necessarily financial support) will go a lot longer way than accusations of laziness or other cruelties you can heap on them, as Job was trying to explain to his friends.

Secondly, a large majority of poor people are either working or looking for jobs actively. (Notice that the 37% of "not working" include millions of people who are looking for work.) In fact, the most recent statistic I've seen said that less than 1% of welfare recipients are using the system wrong or committing fraud. So the idea that is spread around of the "welfare queen" is largely a myth. Over 99% of the people who are getting help actually need it.

Also, 77% of people will use the "safety net" by getting government help (food stamps, "welfare," housing assistance, medicaid, etc) at some point in their adult lives. That's almost everyone.  That means almost everyone is poor at some point. This is not a rare or unique experience. It's incredibly common. Far more common, in fact, than never needing help.

Obviously, nobody wants a whole country full of people living happily off handouts. It's not sustainable and it's not realistic. But here's the thing: poor people don't want that either! The vast majority don't want to be on welfare and would give anything to get off--and they're giving everything they can. But we can't just get rid of the safety net because 77% of adults need it at some point, and it's unfathomable that we would even consider letting people starve to death or die of preventable, easily treatable illnesses like pneumonia.

So let's take as our basic goal that all people who are able to work are supporting their own families, without being on welfare.

Accomplishing this goal requires some agreements.

First of all, we have to agree that solutions to poverty that are harmful to families are not actually solutions because strong, stable families are the key to stopping multi-generational poverty. If we destroy the families, we do not succeed in ending poverty but merely push it off to the next generation. And the next.  So all solutions have to increase family stability, not decrease it.

We also have to agree that solutions to poverty cannot wreck a person's health or body because that drops them right back into poverty again, but as disabled people who can never get out of poverty because it destroys their ability to work. This is why we can't get rid of food stamps (or lower them to the point that people can't buy healthy food) or medicaid (even for adults). If people are not healthy enough to work, they are stuck in poverty forever. Food and medical care are steps out of poverty because they give people enough health to work. Take those away and it's actually counter-productive.

And we also have to agree that long-term solutions to poverty have to include taking into account individual circumstances that individuals cannot overcome without help. This would include mental illnesses (like Depression), treatable but untreated disabilities (like ADD), and having all your training and experience in an area that no longer can support you (like having done construction all your life but the construction industry collapsed, as in 2008).

And, finally, we have to acknowledge the reality that getting a job is not usually an overnight thing. It takes time to find postings of jobs, apply for them, wait for interviews, etc. You can destroy your chances, of course, but you can also do everything right and not get hired. You cannot force someone to hire you.

So: 1. Family has to stay intact; 2. Health has to stay intact; 3. Sometimes people need help; 4. You can't make someone hire you. Can we all agree on those four things?

Finally, for the LDS people, any solution to poverty cannot interfere with a person's ability to keep their covenants, including that to multiply and replenish the earth (so you can't really condemn them for having more children or condition their receipt of help on them not having any more children) and to keep the Sabbath day holy (which means you can't just go out and get any old job, doesn't it?), among others (can you ask a faithful LDS member who is poor to just work as a bar tender? To be a stripper? To dance at a casino? Or deal at a casino? You see the problem?).

So here's the solution I see all the time: Cut welfare. It will make people hungry and they will stop being so lazy and go out and get a job--anyone can get hired at WalMart or Driving Trucks.

So, how does this fit in to our 4 agreements? Well, driving trucks is out because of number 1. If you take a parent away from an already fragile family, you have problems with number 1, and long-haul trucking is that. Not only that, long-haul trucking is bad for your health (according to my friends who have been truckers).  So that's out by number 2 as well.

This brings up another point that I hadn't mentioned: Poverty Traps. Sure long-haul trucking is, on the surface, a great solution because the training is "Free" and the pay is good. But it turns out that free training is more akin to indentured servitude than a real job. You have to work off the "free" training at a lower pay rate. And some of the companies treat you poorly, pressuring people in such a way that they are either afoul of the company or afoul of the law. If you choose to strictly obey the law, you end up having to pay the company back for your training, and poor people can't afford to do that.

It's not a good solution because it's a trap.

There's a local short-haul trucking company here in town that is a similar trap. You take a job delivering for them on a regular route, and they offer to pay a tolerable (not very good, but above minimum) wage. Then they give you a route that cannot be accomplished in the required amount of time unless you speed. The company offers to pay your speeding tickets. But then you get enough points on your license that you lose your license and they fire you. Now you are without a license and without a job. Worse off than you were before. It wasn't a solution. It was a trap.

Many, many of those "why don't they just go do _____?" kinds of jobs are actually traps.

There's also another kind of trap. Almost all of those "anyone can work at WalMart" kinds of jobs pay too little. So sure you get a 40-hours-a-week job, but it only pays $10 an hour. This is above minimum wage, but it comes out to a total of $1600 a month BEFORE taxes. This is not a large enough amount of money to get you off welfare, but it takes all your time, so there isn't time or energy enough left to get off welfare. And there isn't really any chance in a giant company like WalMart to "work your way up." And if you did work your way up to a better job (like night cashier), the better paying jobs often break rule number 2 (ruin your health either by injury from lifting or other strenuous work or by making you work night shifts, which are bad for your health as well as for your family life).  And "better paying" is still not over $17 an hour, which leaves a family with only one wage earner still in poverty--off of "welfare" but still on food stamps and medicaid. And that's if the employer keeps you on 40 hours a week. People who work these jobs tell me invariably higher pay comes with lower hours, so you can end up worse off with higher pay. And, since everyone is easy to replace with a kid who will work for less, you can't really try fight it.

What good is a job if it doesn't do anything but leave you stuck on welfare for the rest of your life?

And getting two full-time jobs is not really an option without breaking rules number 1 and 2, especially if you have kids.

All of this combined with the reality that you can't make someone hire you at all, and you can see that saying "Just go get a dumb job" is not as easy or useful a solution as you think you're providing. And, by the way, no, WalMart will not hire anyone who walks through the door.

So this brings us to number 3 above: Sometimes people need help. Almost all of the people I know (and I know a lot) who are stuck in poverty are in the position that either they need help with a mental illness (most of them with depression, but some are bipolar or have other issues) or with a disability (mostly things like ADD or ASD that has not been diagnosed or treated ever in their lives and they don't realize they have it). Getting those disorders and disabilities diagnosed and treated is next to impossible without money. Even if you are on Medicaid, it's next to impossible because nobody actually takes Medicaid unless they are new in the field or can't keep other patients/clients because they're awful at what they do. Despite what the media tells you, it actually is reasonable to assume that most people who aren't successfully supporting themselves wish they were, and are willing to work for it, but need help. And a great majority, I would guess, fall into one of these two categories and need help with the underlying cause of their inability to get or keep a job. People with ADD, for example, need medication, often need counseling, and most need some form of vocational rehab because something about ADD plants people into exactly the wrong careers for their set of talents and challenges. That, combined with the poor people skills that often attend ASD, ADD, and other disabilities and disorders (like depression), lead these people to have a terrible time choosing the right job, keeping the job, and getting another when the job fails (which it invariably does).

Saying "just go get a job" to these people is impossible. They actually can't do it. And denying them the help they need condemns them to never get out of poverty. It's cheaper to get them help than not. Even when they have a job, the job often takes so much time and energy for so little pay that they don't have the time (or can't get off work) enough to get help. This is especially true for the poor self-employed. Every day off is a day with no pay, so getting help for depression or ADD means going without pay, which they can't afford to go without. It's a trap, too.

There is no solution for these people without help. Expanding and improving the vocational rehab system so that you don't need a doctor's note to join and so that the result is having a suitable job, including coaching getting through the hiccups and social rules that attend having a job would go a long way to solving this. Anyone getting government aid should automatically be allowed to get vocational rehab, without a referral from a doctor. It would be cheaper in the long run than keeping people on welfare.

The other thing people need help with is job re-training. If they have all their experience and training in a field that collapses, it isn't their fault that they can't work in that field anymore, and they really can't get a job in another field without help. And here's the kicker: if you have no money, you can't get training in a new field. Training costs money. And poor people haven't got money. And, if they're working a "junk" job to try their best to make ends meet or to qualify for aid (yes, you do have to have a job to get help), they don't have time to get training, either, and can't afford the physical, mental, and emotional energy it takes to learn an entirely new trade. What's more, if they do have to learn a new trade, they have to start at the bottom and work their way up the pay scale--and if they can't do that quickly, they're once again stuck in poverty no matter what. If a job change doesn't lead them fairly quickly off food stamps, what good does it do?

Another problem with job re-training is that people often are on their own to choose a new career. But without guidance and counselling, which cost money, they often choose the wrong career. And, unfortunately, they don't know they are in the wrong career until after the training is done (and the grants and loans used up and coming due). I know many people who got all the way to the end of a degree only to discover either they actually didn't like the work you get from it, or there was no work available in that field, or they couldn't pass the certification test for one reason or another. Re-training without guidance is not a solution to poverty. It's just more debt and more time wasted on welfare as you have to start over. Again. It's incredibly discouraging, expensive, and difficult to have to face retraining and failing over and over. Especially if the reason you are failing is actually untreated ADD or depression or ASD.

Besides re-training, other things that require money often stop people from getting jobs and also need to be honestly addressed somehow. You can't get a job if you don't have the money to print a decent resume. You can't get a job if you don't have clothes that you can interview in. You can't get a job if you can't afford transportation to and parking fees for an interview. You can't get a job if you can't afford to get a government-issued ID--Driver's Licenses aren't free, and neither are birth certificates or passports! You can't get a job if you can't access the internet to do job searches--and even some public libraries charge a fee unless you have a card, and you can't get a card without an ID, which costs money.  You can't start a business without money. You can't get a college or trade school degree without money. You can't even do a pizza delivery job or newspaper route unless you can afford a car, gas, maintenance, and insurance. You can't get a job if your teeth look horrible because you couldn't access dental care. You can't get a job if you can't see well enough but can't afford new glasses, or if your old glasses are taped together. You can't get a job if your only pair of shoes is ugly, you can't afford makeup, or your hair cut is horrible. You see the problem? And when you have money, you don't think that the 25 cents it costs to print a resume at the library is prohibitive, but there have been times when I didn't even have 3 cents to spare. I am not joking or exaggerating. Any single cent you have to spend in order to get a job can prevent a person from getting out of poverty. And solutions to poverty have to take this into account.

So I guess what I'm saying is the discussion is oversimplifying the problems and taking them without any understanding of what poverty actually is, or even what the proposed solutions even mean. It's all caught up in "how dare you take my money" without any understanding that it costs more to leave people in poverty than to take honest, effective steps to get them out! (And "just get a job" doesn't work for that. It is not effective, and often not particularly honest, either.)

And until we include the realities of the problems and the solutions in the discussion, we're just being mean to the poor in order to pat ourselves on the back and absolve ourselves of any responsibility in the matter.

Coming back to Job, chapter 26, where Job is again answering his friends, "How hast thou helped him that is without power? How savest thou the arm that hath no strength? How hast thou counselled him that hath no wisdom? and how hast thou plentifully declared the thing as it is? To whom hast thou uttered words? and whose spirit came from thee?"

The poor have no power. They hardly have power to do basic things you take for granted. Having the power to not be poor anymore is a ridiculous thing to insist they have. They are the arm that hath no strength. And yet they're trying anyway. But consider: How has thou counselled him that hath no wisdom? Did you just throw out a pat answer and move on? Or did you carefully, thoughtfully ask questions, find out the realities and truths, pray about solutions, and charitably (true charity, I mean) offer to help in ways that were respectful and not demeaning, empowering and not belittling?

It is a valid question Job asks.  Because Jesus says when we have done it unto the least of these, we have done it unto Him.

When we are talking about poverty--especially to the desperately poor--whose spirit came from our words?

The Trump-Hitler comparison

It is socially unacceptable, generally speaking, to compare people to Hitler.

Despite this, Trump is starting to be compared off and on to Hitler. This seems excessive if you think of Hitler as the leader of Germany in WWII.

But if you think of him as Hitler, circa 1931, the comparison is rather apt. Both are polarizing characters that are gifted speakers who are collecting hurting, angry, hungry people and promising to solve all their problems if they would give in to their basest desires, accept hate, and follow him. Then, as now, there were hundreds of people whose lives were crushed under economic disaster that the governments wouldn't or couldn't fix, and those people were angry and desperate for change. A person who could sweep in and propose a solution was magical to them. Trump is not the result of decades of polarization, like people claim. Trump is the result of a single decade of economic ruin that the government has failed to fix despite their assurances that the economy is better and things are looking up. Trump is promising to stop lying to the people and fix things for them, so they aren't stuck in economic stagnation. Why wouldn't they follow him no matter how vile he is? It was the same for Hitler.

Watching Trump's rise to power this year has reminded me distinctly of an article I read in one of the old magazines in my antique book collection. A young man in 1931 met Hitler, listened to him speak, and reported on it for the LDS Church. In 1931, Hitler was not in power yet. He was in exactly the same position as Trump is, traveling the country and collecting followers.

The article is not easy to access anymore, but you can read it here: https://ia600309.us.archive.org/13/items/improvementera3501unse/improvementera3501unse.pdf


Go to "Adolf Hitler: The Man and His Ideas," on page 15 (pdf page, not magazine page, and finishing up on page 56-7, also pdf page, not magazine page).

In case you can't read it, here is the text: "Adolf Hitler The Man and His Ideas By Wendell C. Irvine

" PICTURE a crowd of some four thousand people assembled in a huge auditorium in Oldenburg, Germany, on a Saturday afternoon of October, 1930. Women, and many of them wearing costly apparel, are in the majority, but well-built young men in their early twenties are also strongly represented. Most of the latter are dressed in the inevitable brown shirts, sand-brown belts and corduroy breeches of the German Fascisti. Four thousand people sitting eager and tense with expectation, four thousand pairs of eyes trained on the speakers' platform, and four thousand figures rising to their feet with one accord as the next speaker is introduced and making the large hall reverberate with the thunderous salutation, "Hoch! — Hoch! — Hocht" A man not much over forty years, of slender build and pleasing countenance stands before the vast assemblage, raises his right hand in the Fascist salute, and with a penetrating voice speaks: "Germans! I give you greeting!" It is the voice of the "magician," of the German "hypnotist," and its every tone and shade of quality seem to say—"Introducing Adolf Hitler, spell-binder, par excellence, orator unexcelled, and Napoleon of oral conflict!"

"It was on this occasion that I saw Hitler for the first time, and during the half hour that he spoke I formed my first impressions of him and the organization over which he presides. I believe I was the only American in the audience, and I had come there prompted more by idle curiosity than personal interest, but inhaling the highly intensified atmosphere of hero worship radjiated by those around me, and,—my knowledge of German permitting—listening to the man himself, I, too, succumbed to his magic, fell under the spell of his wand, and felt almost forced to agree with my neighbor in saying that a new and brighter star had appeared in the political constellation of the world. A few hours later in my hotel room, where I was able to think reasonably once more, I gave myself up to analytical thought, and concluded that Adolf Hitler wasn't as great as Bismarck after all, that the content of his speech that afternoon was inclined to border on radicalism, and that his speech was greatly enhanced by the ideal conditions under which he spoke. However, even in the face of my sudden return to saneness, I was forced to admit that he was the greatest orator I had ever heard, and that while his personality was not akin to greatness, it was a dominating, compelling force that would play a salient role in the unfolding of the new German history. Whether for good or evil, it was a power that would be felt.

"GOING down to dinner that evening I was somewhat surprised to see an unusually large crowd in the lobby, and on making inquiry as to the cause of the congestion I was informed that Hitler and his contingent were staying at this hotel. I jokingly remarked to the hotel attendant with whom I was talking that I would like to meet this Herr Hitler. Without a moment's hesitation he told me that he thought it might be arranged, and not leaving me time to protest, made his way over to a group of Fascist leaders, brought one of them over to where I was standing, and told him I was an American student who was desirous of meeting Hitler if it could be arranged conveniently. The Fascist lieutenant greeted me with the precise military bow so often seen in Germany, and seemed to think it his duty to entertain me for the moment. He gave me a short outline of the political situation, and although his ideas were decidedly a la Hitler, I gleaned information that was of great interest to me inasmuch as I had now resolved to at least gain an understanding of Fascism and what it meant to the German nation. We had not been talking more than a very few minutes when Hitler himself, accompanied by his various aides and body guards, left the elevator and strode across the lobby. My newly made friend interrupted him in his march, saluted, and with marked deference and respect asked if he could be permitted to introduce "a young American scholar." (I take my bow.) And before I was aware of just what was happening, I was shaking the hand of Adolf Hitler, the would-be Dictator of Germany, and answering the casual questions which he politely asked. This whole incident did not take more than three minutes, but in that short time I availed myself of the limited opportunity of studying the man at close range and tried, funny as it may sound, to get an insight into his character.

"HITLER is a very handsome man. Of medium height and slender physique he does not make an imposing figure, but his confident carriage, and the manner in which he holds his head up in the air discount whatever physical faults he might have. He has straight black hair, a clear, browned skin, and dark eyes that seem to betray his every emotion. His thin-lipped mouth is bordered by a bristling Charlie Chaplin moustache, and his jaw, which seems out of proportion to the rest of his features, is alone evidence of the power, determination and resolution of the man. Had I not known to whom I was being introduced, I would have thought the man before me to be a mild-mannered, intelligent member of the upper middle classes, or perhaps a fairly successful business man. But instead of that, I had met "Handsome Adolf,'5" the super-romantic hero of Germany's innumerable romantic women, the recipient of countless "mash" notes and gifts from ladies of noble birth, all of whom, meaning women in general, he is said to detest. And while he is a delightful figure of romance to the opposite sex, the men find in him the consummate genius of leadership, hail him as their champion, boast of his great courage, and hold his methods of discipline in great respect. It is certainly an interesting paradox that the man who awakens the romantic hero love in women, as exemplified in the movie-star worship of the members of the fair sex, should at the same time arouse men from the bitterness of despair and hopelessness and cause them to recognize him as a dominant leader for whom they would gladly go to war. Hitler, being a subtle artist, fully understands the strings which he must pull to bring about the desired movements of his marionettes. His greatest instrument and almost never failing friend is his remarkable gift of oratory, and in discussions of a political nature he is almost invincible. A well-known German military official has said of him:' "If you are hostile to him you Continued from page 1 3 feel physically exhausted after resisting his talk. He takes control of the conversation from the instant it begins and never lets up.'' We have considered the man more or less from a human angle, now let us regard the facts of his life which led up to his prominence.

"ADOLF HITLER was born in 1889, in the small border town of Braunau in upper Austria of humble parents, and spent the early part of his life there following the trades of sign painting and carpentry, until, as a young man, he moved to Munich, a distance of one hundred miles from his home, where he began the study of architecture. At the advent of the world war, in 1914, he enlisted as a private, and served with distinction during the following four years, being once gassed and once wounded. At the conclusion of the struggle he made his headquarters in Munich once more, and in 1922 his political career began. Capitalizing upon his oratorical powers, he made impromptu speeches in the beer-halls of Munich, denouncing the post-war political regime and painting a picture of a futuristic Utopia. He also told his beer garden clientelle that American banks are controlled 99% by Jews (Attention Messrs. Morgan!), flayed the Monarchists, derided the Catholics, and treated the Socialists and Republicans with equally eloquent contempt. It was not long before the name of Hitler was well known throughout Bavaria, and it was a year later, that Hitler, with the backing of the beloved General LudendorfF, walked into a huge beer hall where a mass meeting was being held by several town officials, fired a couple of shots into the ceiling to gain silence, and proclaimed the National Revolution. He guaranteed safety for von Kahr, the presiding official, if he would accompany them from the hall, and within a few minutes talked him into joining the movement of the revolutionists. Hitler's forces filled the streets, but the next day von Kahr was visited by two decidedly anti-Hitler men in the persons of the Archbishop of Munich and Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria, who succeeded in bringing him back to his senses. As a result, the city police were called out to clear the streets.  and a sharp machine gun skirmish ensued between them and a detachment of Hitler's forces commanded by LudendorfF himself. The Hitlerites were routed, and Hitler and Ludendorff forced to flee from Munich. They were both apprehended however, and brought back for trial. Hitler made a speech to the jury, and for the first time his oratory was futile. He was sentenced to five years in prison by a weeping judge, and Ludendorff, because of his great war record was acquitted. Upon hearing the verdict, Ludendorff, arrayed in a colorful uniform, and bearing all his decorations, arose to his feet and said: "I consider that verdict an insult to the uniform I wear and a disgrace to the decorations of valor which the Fatherland has given me." The verdict remained as given, and Hitler went to prison while Ludendorff was freed. It is said that the prison officials wanted to give Hitler deaf prison guards for fear he would make a speech to them and gain his freedom.

"THE second and greatest stage of Hitler's political career began immediately after his release from prison, his sentence having been commuted after one year's servitude. Beginning in Thuringia,—the only province in which he was still allowed to make a public address,—and aided by the conditions of the times, he began to sow his political seed once more. After his conviction in Munich the world had laughed and proceeded to forget the pretentious "fanatic," who had caused such a stir, but in 1930, when, aided by one of the most serious depressions of all time, Hitler again came before the public eye, worldly opinion stopped to ponder and consider his case.

"In 1928 Hitler's party won 12 seats in the Reichstag, or less than 3 % of the seats in that body. In the September elections of 1930 the same party won 107 seats, or 20% of the total number, and became the second strongest party in the land. Hitler, who because of his service in the German army had lost his Austrian citizenship, and who had been refused German citizenship, was unable to have a seat in the Reichstag, but he controlled the movements of his party nevertheless. The speaking ban having been lifted, he, being unable to take part in the sessions of the Reichstag, now spends his time going from one city to the other framing his political ideas in gilt-edged words, and arousing the admiring shout of the poor, unemployed and desperate German citizen. He still preaches his pet sermon, but his powers of speech aid him in altering the form but not the structure of his theories.

"AND so today, this "man without a country" goes eternally "stumping," expounding his doctrines of anti-everything except the Dictatorshp of Adolf Hitler. He has 5,000,000 followers in Germany, who, when they are not occupied in having street brawls with Communists, are aiding in the furtherance of the Hitler program. Hitler says: "Disenfranchise the Jews; execute the profiteers; expel the dirty alien; repudiate Versailles and reparations; abolish department stores and force trade back to the small merchants; wipe away parasitical unearned incomes; BE GERMANS!"—and these thoughts are echoed throughout all of Germany by the five million adherents of the Hitler faith. Hunger and depression stimulate them, and the silver tongue of a political fanatic acts as a drug upon their confused minds and bodies.

"IN testifying at the trial of three Reichswehr officers in Leipzig, Hitler took the opportunity boldly to outline his plans for the future. He stated that there would be a revolution, the Republic over-thrown, treaties repudiated, Dictatorship set up, and that when a tribunal of the people was formed to judge those who were responsible for the formation of the Republic in 1918, "Germany would see heads rolling in the sand!"

"Thus is the house of Hitler constructed. But it is a house founded on depression and hard times, a house that the first wind of prosperity will topple over, for even now it's foundation trembles under the load above it. And its master? He too will fall where he has dominated, but he will leave his impression on the entire world as a leader, as an organizer, as a fighter. The greatest thing that could be said about him, however, might well be inscribed on his tombstone —

"Adolf Hitler—Orator." "

Why I can't belong to a political party and feel right about myself

Most people I know belong to a political party.

Most people I know think I do, too.  The liberal democrats I know think I'm a conservative republican. The conservative republicans I know think I'm a liberal democrat.  Funny, right? This has gone on since I was in high school. Except back in high school everyone thought I was in the same party as they were, and now they all think I'm in the opposite.

Officially, I guess I do. I register as a Republican so I can vote in the primaries and participate in the caucuses. Tim registers as a Democrat for the same reason. But I switch parties to vote in the primaries that I think need voters the most (this year, someone needs to vote against Trump, so I'm a registered Republican).

But the reality is I'm neither. When I take political quizzes and tests, they place me dead center. On ISideWith.com, I agree between 60% and 75% percent with everyone but libertarians and green party candidates.

Why not? Why not pick a party? you might ask.

Well, most of the people I know pick a party and then buy into all that party's rhetoric, supporting all their stands carte blanche, and I can't do that.

I can't be a Republican because of this: Book of Mormon's admonition not to say, "They brought it upon themselves."

And this: Elder Holland's talk "Are We Not All Beggars?".

And this: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement

And this: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-apostle-joins-other-faith-leaders-in-meeting-with-president-obama-on-immigration

And this: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-members-encouraged-assist-refugees

I can't be a Republican or a Democrat because of this:
https://www.lds.org/topics/abortion?lang=eng

I can't be a Democrat because of this:
https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng

And this: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/top-church-leaders-counsel-members-after-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision

And this: My experience with both second- and third-wave feminism cannot jive with this: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/a-plea-to-my-sisters?lang=eng

And this: https://www.lds.org/manual/building-an-eternal-marriage-teacher-manual/mothers-employment-outside-the-home?lang=eng

Limits

Suppose for a moment that you are standing in a very large circle, and you are free to move around within that circle but at some point you reach the edge and can go no further. You are free, but by nature of your situation, you have limits.

I like to think that everyone (not just me) has limits. We can fill our lives with all kinds of things, and many things, but at some point we reach our limits and cannot go further unless we go back a little first.

To put it another way, imagine that you are asked to hold a token of some sort for every single thing you have in your life. The tokens are mostly small, and you have ones for work, one for each kid in your family, one for your calling, one for each hobby, one for each friend. As you add things to your life (friends, jobs, kids, stuff that has to be cared for), you eventually get to a point where you physically cannot hold anything more. Your arms get full. If you want to add another thing, you would have to first drop something.

So, hold that thought. I'll come back to it.

Shifting gears.

I find it fascinating that God put us here with the very most important things we have to do (eating, sleeping, drinking, etc) built into our systems as required and unavoidable. These things are not optional in life. How we do them is up to us, and can lead to great health and joy or great misery, but doing them at all is not really a choice.

Up until recently, having children was one of those things. It was mostly out of our control, and it was inevitable.

With that thought in mind, that women were just going to have babies with a little but not very much control over when and how many, suddenly the traditional family structure and rules make a whole lot of sense, don't they. Without birth control in the picture, it is actually desirable for men to marry the women who are bearing their children, and for the men to be the ones who are tasked with protecting and providing for their families, since the women were a little busy actually building the families. It even makes sense to women to be allowed to stay home and bear and nurse babies without the added burden of going to work (although historically most women didn't really have this privilege because their families were too poor, and everyone had to work).

Now, though, we have a choice on that matter. It might be one of those most important things, that God made inevitable for most of history, but we found having children hard work, and most people prefer to have some control over that. (And, actually, I think that's a good thing.) But it is interesting to think about the reality that it wasn't intended to be fully optional. We're not really designed for reproduction to be a choice, and recent research indicates that making it a choice and using that choice to strictly limit the number of babies we have is actually not very good for women's health or babies upbringing (people with more than 3 children can't helicopter parent--it's not possible--and are more likely to have one parent as a full-time stay-at-home parent).

Consequently, when we're filling our arms with stuff, children can be one of the things but can not be one of the things.

Okay, so change gears again, but all of this is going to tie together in the end (I promise).

Suppose that God is serious when He gives us instructions about how to fill our arms and our lives. Suppose that, like the Word of Wisdom, all the instructions He gives us are actually hints, rules, directions, and guidance to avoid pain and suffering, to keep societies and families stable, and to guide us to being happy. The world protests, of course, that God is doing it all wrong because it doesn't make sense according to our understanding of things, but since when was our understanding superior to God's? We haven't the ability to have the kind of vision and wisdom and knowledge He has. Our brains are not developed enough to even hold all the information we encounter in our own lives, let alone everything God knows.

So when He says--and makes it a matter of sacred covenant (and, previously, an inevitability)--that we should multiply and replenish the Earth, it makes sense that, despite the difficulty of actually doing that, and the despite the lack of desire most humans seem to have, perhaps this is not just God being a bully, but is actually for our own good.

Considering that God has said his work and his glory is to bring to pass "immortality and eternal life" for people, it should not be a surprise that many of the commandments actually deal with things that make families more stable. How did I jump from immortality and eternal life to families?

There are three requirements for immortality: you have to get a body, you have to die, and Jesus had to do His work. The Jesus part is done. The death part is inevitable. The getting a body part requires a woman to be willing to carry a baby and give birth to it. God's work and glory requires us to have families. It's not optional.

Eternal life requires a lot more. It still requires Jesus, but it also requires us to make constant small choices that lead us the right direction, punctuated by occasional large choices that set the path we're walking on--often dramatically, and with profound results. Where do we learn the lessons and get practice and feedback as we try to figure out how to make choices? In our homes, from our families. This is also not optional: Where and how we grow up has profound and far-reaching effects on us and our ability to make good choices.

No wonder God spends so much time and effort encouraging us and teaching us how to have and grow families. No wonder so many (dare I say all? I want to say all) of the commandments directly impact our ability to parent children (whether they are our own, our grandchildren, nieces and nephews, children in our ward, etc)--the health codes, the "social" rules, the 10 commandments: all of them lead us to better health, greater clarity of mind, increased abilities, a more stable and secure social environment, cultural stability. All of these exist to help God with His work and glory, which is to help people have stable families that can bring children into the world and teach them to function and make good choices.

Families and parenthood are sacred obligations and sacred privileges. But do we actually hold them sacred? Are we as offended when people degrade motherhood or try to break down families as we are when people desecrate garments or try to defile the temple? Usually not, which is sad. There is even a movement among the perpetually dissatisfied members of the Church complaining against the church's focus on families--these members believe the focus should be on individual salvation, not families. They complain that the focus on families is damaging to our ability to be saved as individuals.

But with this understanding that God's work and glory requires families, and with the idea that God knows that we can only hold so many things in our arms, and that our puny mortal lives are bound by limits of all kinds, I have spent the last few weeks thinking about some of the more controversial commandments.

The discussion, for example, of women and the priesthood. What if God is not belittling women or elevating men. What if He knows our arms can only hold so much, and He really would rather them be full of babies? What if He understood that our arms will get full one way or the other, and if He gave women the priesthood there would be one fewer baby in each family because the women's arms would be full already?  And what if He would rather us do the work of the one more baby than the priesthood? That in addition to the reality that the priesthood ties men to the families in a way that is necessary and beneficial. What if, in His wisdom, God decided that only men having the priesthood is actually the very best way for His work to be accomplished? (Of course any reasons we have to explain this are just suppositions. We don't know why God has done this. We know men and women are equally capable of doing the kind of work the priesthood requires, but we also know that men actually can't physically have or nurse babies, even though they have their arms full parenting them, too.)

(I guess the real question, when all the discussion and "what ifs" boil away, is are we willing to go along and do the work God has assigned us, individually, even if it's not what we thought we'd be doing, are capable of, or want to do? That requires both faith and humility, and neither seems to be a natural state for most people.)

I heard some missionaries explain to a non-member once that men have the priesthood and women have motherhood, and I wanted to laugh because it was a wholly unsatisfying answer. Men have fatherhood, so doesn't that negate that reasoning? But I think the reason the answer is unsatisfying is we don't hold motherhood or family in the proper sacred light. We don't understand how vitally important it is, or what sacred means, or what motherhood actually is even though we all do it. It gets reduced to housecleaning and trying to survive on little sleep.

I'm not trying to demean fatherhood, of course. The role of the father, to protect and provide and love and care for his children and wife, is vital, too. Women so often agitate, though, to prove that they can also protect and provide. And they can! But that fills their arms. And what if God asked the men to protect and provide so that the women wouldn't have to, so that their arms would be less full so they could focus on having babies and raising them? Every job, every committee, every late night is one more thing in our arms, and perhaps God asked the men to take some of those things out of our arms whenever possible (and it's not always possible) so we'd have more space for His work in our arms, so that we wouldn't reach our limits too soon and at the expense of our children.

I have friends who, for economic reasons, have to have jobs. MANY friends, actually. And it is sad to hear them talk about the emotional exhaustion they have to deal with, and the stresses that accompany them even at home thanks to their jobs. Their families suffer for the moms arms being full. Another baby is not an option, even if the women want one. Being a calm, collected, focused mother is not an option because the limit has been reached, and there is no more emotional energy, no more "spoons" to go around.

How would God want His work done? That seems to be a key question that helps me wrap my head around the commandments and structures of the church.  How would He want children to get bodies and to learn how to make choices? What environment would He ideally wish for every child?

I'm pretty sure ideally it would involve both male and female influence, siblings, and a stay-at-home parent who is not at her limit, and whose arms are not so full that she can't give the calm, steady, reliable time and attention she wants to give. The glory of the family system is that it is adjustable--God can send some kids (who need them) to smaller families, and some (who need them) to larger families. He can send some women (who need it) fewer children and some (who need it) more. He can give some people the chance to do children and a career. He can give some people the responsibility to be that second set of hands and that second trusting stable influence for children who are not their own, but who they love.  There are roles and refinements for every soul within a family structure.

How would God want his work done? Apparently He wants individual salvation--immortality and eternal life--done in families. And if we keep that in mind, instead of focusing (as our culture does) on individuals' desires, needs, development, etc, a lot of the issues start to resolve themselves.

Our lives belong to God

We have spent many years now trying to build Tim's career. It's gone this way and that, each step leading us closer to something, but we don't know what.

I have tried many, many times to force it into being something I could see because I like the idea that I can see where we're going and therefore work toward it. Every time I have chosen a goal and worked hard to make it happen, it has been a drastically wrong direction for Tim. It has been humbling to see myself doing my very best and being wrong so many times, over and over, as I tried to think my way forward and walk that way--and run into brick walls. Over and over and over. Consistently for the last 17 years, in fact.

But recently I have begun to think that I'm going about this all wrong.

We keep trying to follow the advice of people who should know, trying to build a business using good business advice like having a vision, setting goals, working toward those goals; being tenacious and good networkers and stubborn and flexible all at once; doing it "right" and being creative at the same time, adapting to the markets, providing a product people need, finding the intersection of talent, interest, and sellability....

None of it worked. I don't know if it ever works for anyone, but it didn't work for us. I kind of suspect all that advice was actually someone sitting down and saying, "Gosh, I made it big and I did this, so that must be the key," without any comprehension that they "got lucky." Or were blessed.

What I have concluded is that financial stability is a gift from God, even if you had to work really hard to get it. Most people are actually one serious accident away from ruin, and we have no control over that. But I digress.

What I was trying to get to was this new idea that is bouncing around my head.

I think the problem with our approach to Tim's career is that we assumed the career is Tim's. I mean, it's his body, his voice, his hours of labor, and his talent. And God gives us agency to figure things out for ourselves and determine the directions we want to go, right?

But I'm beginning to think it's not actually Tim's career. It belongs to God. Tim does the work, of course, that he can. But we are not really in charge of this, we don't really own this, and the outcome is not ours to control or to glory from (whatever that may be in the end). I've concluded that the only way out of the difficulties we've been drowning in for so long is to let go, stop fighting the currents to try to swim to where we want to be, and see where this river takes us.  We can't really fight it anyway.

I am reminded of D&C 121:33: "What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints."  Or from pushing Tim along this career, apparently. 

Our arms are puny, indeed. 

So many times I've looked at Tim when we were both feeling sad about one thing or another and said, "This makes no sense. This should have happened, and the only way it didn't is if God was stopping it for some reason."

We have truly done all we can, and we certainly haven't been fighting against God. Our greatest desire is to serve Him. But we're going through life blind, same as everyone else. Except for one hiccup: most people have a career path laid out that is tried and true, proven and established. They feel inspired to become a doctor and there is a way you do that and a predictable outcome. You seek inspiration, it leads you to a road, and you follow that road the best way you know how. That's how most people's lives work. 

That has not been true of Tim's career or our lives. There is no path. There is no predictable outcome. There are only steps. And darkness. 

We have no idea where we are going. 

We have hints. We sometimes get an idea that this might actually be a path we're walking on, even though we can't see the path-ness of it most of the time. 

But seeing that this is actually God's career, and God's work, and that He apparently wants to use Tim's talents not for what we intend, but for what He intends, changes things for me. It leaves me with the terrifying and exhilarating idea that we don't have to be in charge--that we can just go along, one step at a time, doing the best we can to do what's right and follow the Spirit, and God can be in charge of where we end up. This requires a new level of faith for me, to actually let go that way while still working as hard as I know how. 

So I was pondering this idea--how does this change things? What does this mean? Does it actually change anything in day-to-day life, given we were already trying to do right and go with God's way of doing things? Is it actually important to give God ownership of Tim's career, instead of it being Tim's? What is my role in this, since I don't really own Tim or his career anyway and this giving and taking all have to ultimately be Tim's choice? (Often Tim already knows this stuff and has taken care of it long before it dawns on me, which very likely is the case in this situation. Quite possibly he never did consider it "his" career in the first place.)

While thinking about these things, I sat down to rest and read the new Ensign magazine that came today. I can't even link to it online yet because it's March's issue, which officially hasn't been released yet. But there's this great article in it by Elder Christofferson called "Finding your Life." In it, he discusses at length the scripture that instructs us to lose our lives in order to find them. 

It was a breath of fresh air for me. We love to tell the stories in the church of people who chose right and were blessed for it, almost to the point that we expect that things will go smoothly as long as we're choosing right. But Elder Christofferson points out, with great examples, that often choosing right leads to difficulty and sacrifice and suffering. Such has been the case for us, and it has been perplexing and frustrating to read the stories in the Ensign month after month after month that seemed to indicate we should immediately be blessed with what we desired or something better (or at least understanding and great peace) because we did what was right. But no. That's not often the case. 

Which brings me to the part of the article that was so powerful to me. I'll just quote it outright, since I can't link to the text (you can listen to it here: https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/ces-devotionals/2014-ces-devotionals?lang=eng. The part I'm quoting here starts at 35:27, but includes more in the full speech than in the Ensign version).

Elder Christofferson says, "The priorities and interests we most often see on display around us (and sometime in us) are intensely selfish: a hunger to be recognized; an insistent demand that one's rights be respected; a consuming desire for money, things, and power; a sense of entitlement to a life of comfort and pleasure; a goal to minimize responsibility and avoid altogether any personal sacrifice for the good of another--to name a few. 

"This is not to say that we should not seek to succeed, even excel, in worthy endeavors, including education and honorable work. Certainly, worthwhile achievements are laudable. But if we are to save our lives, we must always remember that such attainments are not ends in themselves but means to a higher end. With our faith in Christ, we must see political, business, academic, and similar forms of success not as defining us but as making possible our service to God and fellowman--beginning at home and extending as far as possible in the world.

"Personal development has value as it contributes to development of a Christlike character. In measuring success, we recognize the profound truth underlying all else--that our lives belong to God, our Heavenly Father, and to Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. Success means living in harmony with Their will."

(He goes on to talk about Joseph Smith, whose revelations brought them to Missouri, where the Saints suffered horribly. Obviously following God does not always put us into pleasant and easy circumstances.)

Since I have no real firm idea of where God wants us to end up, I suppose we get to work, and work hard, to do exactly what has been laid before us, and then simply let go, and trust that God will do with this career that doesn't belong to us whatever He wants. I hope that if we let Him, He will use us as tools to do His work, whatever that may be.

The Wage Gap

I keep saying I'm anti-feminist. Really I am pro-woman, and I feel like the feminists are fighting their hardest to stop women from embracing womanhood.

And the discussion (or lack thereof) regarding the so-called "Wage Gap" is one of the things that's eating at me right now.

I have a friend who, for a grad school project, is trying with a group to "raise awareness" of the wage gap in Utah. They are sure that all Utah women are getting paid less than all Utah men. And that that's a bad thing.

But if you really look into the whole women-being-paid-less-than-men thing, you'll discover really quickly that what is happening is women are making different choices than men, and men who make similar choices (to put family instead of business first) are ALSO making less money than other men who put business first.

There are actually two things that are messing with the "wage gap" statistic:

1. Women more often choose jobs that pay less (like nursing or teaching).
and
2. Women make choices within their careers that put them on a lower-pay track, like choosing to work part time to care for children or choosing to take time off from working to have babies, or choosing approaches to their careers that give them more time at home.

In other words, the feminists are NOT condemning male bosses for paying women less (which is what they think they are doing). What they are really doing is condemning women for making feminine choices (caring choices, family-centered choices) rather than acting like men.

This just boils my blood. It is so degrading and unfair for women to be condemned for choosing to make less money in order to put more important things first.

Our society only puts money first. Success is defined purely by money, and as a result all women who choose to be paid less to have more satisfaction in their lives are being told they are doing it wrong.

Let's stop belittling women for their choices and start respecting them for it. Sure there is a gap between what women are being paid and what men are being paid, on average across all fields. But this is not discrimination, and this is not cruelty. This is a reflection of the kinds of choices women are making, and it would be a better discussion if we respect that in the first place, and support them in the second.

Because these women who are causing the pay gap? They are actually making the right choice. Fixing the pay gap would destroy families because it would require women to put money first instead of family first. And that is NOT worth it.

Every time I see a cute little card or a sound bite about the "wage gap," my blood boils a little more and I end up stomping around the house, forcing myself to not respond to whoever posted the stupid (and debunked) statistic once again.

Respecting women means we respect that women are capable of making the best choices for their own lives. Even if that results in fewer girls in engineering or a pay gap.

And, once again, I am left wondering why we aren't encouraging the men to put family first, instead of encouraging the women to stop putting family first and start trying to make more money.

Freakonomics covers the topic thoroughly and with real experts here: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/.  It's well worth a read/listen.

Doing Too Much!

My current list of projects (which I have started and want to finish and which are currently sitting out waiting to be done--so not old projects that are on hold):

--Two scarves on the loom (with 3 more planned, and then a blanket)

--Repairing/rebuilding Dan's bed quilt

--A stack of clothing that needs simple repairs

--Entire Pre-K through 8 curriculum, every subject, and a website to post it on

--Entire learn-to-read set of activity books

--Stripping and refinishing my dining room table

--Rebuilding the laundry room so it holds clothes for 10 (instead of six); this requires first cleaning up at least part of the kids' room and reorganizing Tim's office, too

--Organize, sort, and fold every single washable item in the house (clothes, costumes, linens, etc)

--Teach Elijah how to make cookies by himself

--Repair the kitchen sink (which currently only can be turned on and off with a screwdriver)


Too Much! (Can you tell I've had my hands full of babies for a very long time and am anxious to get to the work that has been neglected?)