The Day I Understood Conservative Fiscal Policy

In speaking with many of my conservative friends, I often become remarkably frustrated with their views surrounding welfare funding. These are the programs and safety nets that help those who are truly disadvantaged, that help those who need some assistance while they get back on their feet. As a Mormon and a Christian, I couldn't understand how not helping the less-fortunate was even a possibility. I mean, how many times did Jesus teach to give to the poor? To take care of the wounded and afflicted? Probably more times than we can count.

As a family, we have been in a situation where we were at the end of our financial rope and had nowhere else to turn. After having our baby via emergency c-section, we were unsure of how we would pay for his birth. We had enough money set aside to pay for an uncomplicated vaginal delivery. In no way were we prepared as broke students to pay the whopping $3000+ balance that was left before us. This was complicated further by the fact that since I needed more time to recover from a c-section, I couldn't return to work at the university. I had the baby the second week of school and since the semester already started, I certainly couldn't make the students wait for six extra weeks to even see their teaching assistant or voice teacher, let alone get a graded paper or assignment in hand. So here we were, broke, I was out of work, and truly stuck. While many of our BYU friends had used Medicaid funds to have a baby (most of them very fiscally conservative, I'll add), we fought tooth and nail to be sure that we paid for our baby out of our own pocket because we felt those funds were for those who were in extraordinary circumstances. And then we got served a humbling experience and a financial situation we couldn't address. Talk about putting one's foot in their mouth.

To add insult to injury, we were also only a couple months away from our international move. With a large student debt load to be paid off (combined with the awful exchange rate that robs us every month we're making payments), we knew we couldn't go farther into debt. If we did, we didn't know how we'd ever get out.

And so, we accepted the help. Medicaid paid the remaining balance from our son's birth, a few well-child checkups, and my postpartum appointments. I will forever be grateful those funds were there and available to us. I will also always be grateful that I was able to swallow my pride and ask for the help where it was needed.

Some will claim I took advantage of the system simply by using it, but after much deliberation, we truly knew we had no other option. And as a family who chose to go without a car after moving rather than go into debt to purchase one, I have a hard time accepting the thought that we were being financially irresponsible or taking advantage of the system.

And so, clearly I think these programs have a place and are very needed. I have personal experience being in a situation where I had no alternative that wouldn't sink us into a never-ending hole of debt and the resulting heartbreak and headache that inevitably befalls those situations. We had done our best and after all we could do, we accepted help.

But here comes the part where I maybe get all of the disapproval.

Today we got scammed. A fellow came to our front door saying that he lived a few houses down, had gotten back from a trip to Victoria with his wife and their bank's security feature had turned off their credit cards because they stayed out of town for an extra week. They had taken a cab back from the airport and didn't have a way to pay for the fare. He had a huge jar of change and asked if we could contribute anything. I grabbed our jar of change and proceeded to put it into his jar, wanting to help out. He asked us if we had any other cash and we hesitatingly said that we could give him a little bit.

You see, we use the envelope system. So we usually have a little bit of cash on hand (whatever is left for the week), but it's only enough to cover that week's expenses for food, transportation, and other variable expenses. We are a family living on an extremely tight budget and that cash is the only thing we have to live on. But being assured he would pay us back within the hour after running down to MoneyMart to cash a check, we handed over $20. That's 20% of our food budget (note, one hundred dollars a week in Calgary for food and personal care is quite low). That's pretty significant for our family right now.

Well, of course you can see where this story is going. The guy never came back. After talking to our neighbour, apparently this sort of situation has happened on our street a few times--people asking for money for a tow truck, a taxi--you know, urgent situations and small amounts of money with promises to repay, nothing to set off the warning bells. And then they leave and never repay you. Ouch. Talk about taking advantage of people. What killed me the most was that he saw that we had a young child and we had explained that this $20 was coming out of our weekly budget. He clearly knew we were living tight, we had a young mouth to feed, and we obviously weren't wealthy. However, we were more than willing to help out someone in need even though we didn't know him. That makes us decent human beings, right?

Right. That does make us decent human beings. We're not suckers, we're people who are willing to help others. And someone took advantage of us. That hurt something fierce. As much as I was upset about the $20 (again, 20% of our grocery budget! Ouch!), I was mostly upset that someone would do that to me, would do that to my family, would take advantage of us, of other's kindness. They would rob from a young family to feed their own selfishness without even blinking.

In the midst of getting rather upset about the situation and feeling like I had lost faith in humanity, I stepped back and tried to put things in perspective. It was $20. That's not the end of the world. So, we'll be eating rice and beans for a couple of extra nights to make up the difference, not a big deal. We have have food on the table, we're all happy and healthy, and really, at the end of the day, I would rather get duped than turn away someone in need. I am going to fight the impulse to retreat, to believe that all or even most people are like that. I am going to continue believing that people are good, that most are doing the best they can on what they have, that people are responsible and cognizant of how others are sacrificing to help them in their hour of need. Accepting charity is not robbery, it's learning to be humble and accept help when it's needed. Giving is not being duped, it's being decent.

And I'll continue to tell myself that until I'm convinced again. But in the meantime, I understand the resistance. I understand not wanting to be the one who gives and gives, but never receives. I understand not wanting to give to those who take no thought for where the resources are coming from or who do little to nothing to better their situation. In this moment, I understand conservative fiscal policy.

But I still will tell myself it's better to give and be taken advantage of than to refuse to help a brother or a sister in need. It's the only way we can heal hearts and souls--expect the best in people and most will live up to that expectation. Expect the worst, and you'll find it. I choose to expect the best, at least 70 times 70 minus one more times. Looks like I've got 4,899 more duped experiences to go before I can give up on humanity. Here's hoping humanity doesn't let me get to the bottom of that number.

Regrets

These past couple of months I've spent a lot of time learning about gardening, canning/preserving food, budgeting, debt repayment, parenting, natural living, community agriculture building, and probably a lot of other things that I can't even think of right now. The result? I sit up at night, unable to sleep, thinking of ways to bring in more income so we can pay off our student loans quicker while being able to afford healthy food for our family while also contemplating how I can make purchases that support local growers, how I can find time to preserve those foods for the lean times while considering how this affects my decisions as a mother and all while contemplating....

Ah! I don't even know!

Truth be told, here's the real consequence of all this study: Since I'm up all night, I'm sleep deprived, grumpy, and overall unpleasant to be around. When I'm sleep deprived, grumpy and unpleasant, I usually eat fattening, processed foods so out the window goes locally raised, healthy food. I also normally don't feel like exercising and/or playing with my son so now I feel like a terrible mom. I also find myself wanting to spend money on things I don't need so poof goes the debt repayment. I also find myself not caring a hoot about preserving the food that, in the moment, I don't even want to eat because gosh darnit, I'm exhausted.

Does anyone else ever feel this way?

I haven't really found the solution to this madness but I can tell you one thing that isn't a very good solution--becoming an expert in everything, all at once. Even worse--kicking yourself for not being an expert sooner.

I had an absolutely fascinating conversation with with a friend and her sister today about purposeful, instinctive, natural living. I am constantly in awe of people who live in such harmony with nature, with their bodies, and with their souls. I'm even envious of all of their knowledge, of their research, and of their understanding. While talking with them, I felt really inspired to make some changes in my life.

I absolutely love that feeling of inspiration. I often felt it as a music student after attending a fabulous recital. The success and hard work of a fellow singer made me want to succeed and work hard as well. So in the late hours following the recital, despite my tiredness, I would trudge down to the practice rooms and practice until they kicked me out of the building. I'm not sure how productive those sessions were overall, but I know they were the sessions that kept me going, that kept me wanting to succeed and to improve.

What's hard are the moments of regret--why didn't I always practice this way? Why didn't I make those parenting/birthing/bodily decisions that these wonderful women made? Why did I not learn to grow a garden before now? Why didn't I go over to Sister Smith's house and learn how to can and preserve food as a young girl? Why didn't I understand and know more about budgeting when I was single so I wouldn't have found need to take out student loans? Why didn't I __________.

Regret.

Not productive.

A few months back I was talking to a different friend about parenting decisions. Rebecca is one of those truly beautiful, wonderful, graceful, and purposeful people in this world that I long to be. I mentioned that I wish I had never done this or that as a mother and that I hope I'll never do that or the other, again. She introduced me to the concept of living in the moment mothering. Whatever we have done, whatever we can and will do, live in the moment. Don't beat yourself over things you can't control any more. Live the best way you can. Have a purpose. Learn from your mistakes and move forward.

I'm about to get a bit personal here.

We chose to circumcise our son. That is a decision I have long regretted. My heart has ached over what I feel to be an incredible mistake--a choice I have ripped from my child, an emotional wound I have caused, and in my mind, even an abuse I caused to be rendered. I cannot describe the anguish and guilt I have felt over that decision. The worst part is thinking of if/when we have future sons who we will NOT circumcise, what problems may or will arise? Will I clearly send the signal to my eldest, my beloved child, that I made a crucial mistake on him? That I hadn't done my research or really thought through my actions before making them? Will I forever have to pay penance for that choice? Will I always feel such guilt and hurt?

And then I remember the most basic and complex aspects of my life and my faith--forgiveness, atonement, redemption. I believe in a God who forgives. If I believe that he can forgive even the most vile of sinners, why is it that I have such a hard time finding forgiveness for this particular choice? What about all of those other regrets? How is it that I can find peace in where I'm at, move forward, and not feel bogged down by the hurt and regret for past decisions? I pray God releases me. I pray he teaches me how to release myself.

Here's to living a life of no regrets and learning how to not regret the things I do.

"War on Women" Videos--a blatant pandering to gender politics. Are they effective?

As many of you know, my graduate work focused largely on gender roles--quite literally. I studied how the female body was interpreted on stage in operatic "pants roles" using information about how medical professions saw and understood female anatomy. It's something I find absolutely fascinating. Imagine how excited I was to view these two videos and witness an absolutely blatant use of gender politics from both Democrats and Republicans. Can I just shriek with excitement? Oh, the papers one could write...

In any case, I wanted to share the videos with you, let you make your own assessment, and then talk about the ways that I, personally, find each to be effective and ineffective. Here they are for your viewing pleasure.

MoveOn.org's "War on Women" Extended Cut

The Republican National Committee's "Obama's War on Women"

Assessment of MoveOn.org's video. 

What works for me:

• The interview style of this video is, in my opinion, brilliant, as well as the dichotomy of having women speak the words of men (with the exception of the Ann Coulter quote in the Extended Cut) and thus suggest that women lack a voice in 21st century politics.
• The use of women from different ethnicities, ages, shapes, and sizes helps to draw on notions of similarity through difference. I'm not usually a fan of fabricating a racial diversity (university brochures, anyone?) but I think it was overall effective in this case.
• The driving boom-boom-chuck (is there a technical term for that, please?) rhythm in the background implies consistency as well as gravity.
• I find the Ann Coulter quote in the Extended Cut to be the most effective in the entire video. I think it was a mistake on their part to leave it out of the media cut.

What doesn't:

• I, personally, am not a fan of the blanket assessment a political party even when it does cite prominent members. I find that to be the biggest downfall of this ad. There are many members of the GOP that cringed with the Santorum comment about accepting a pregnancy resulting from rape as a gift from God as well the ludicrous one from Bob Morris about sexualizing young girls through the Girl Scouts. To suggest all of these comments are mainstream Republican thoughts is simply incorrect.
• I find to focus almost solely on women's reproductive rights to be a bit shallow. Women across America have very different views of abortion rights, access to contraception, and other issues of sexuality. I would suggest that female voters have a lot of different interests when it comes to the upcoming round of elections and I believe that finding a way to incorporate issues of equal work for equal pay, especially during an election in which economic recovery will be a key issue, would have really helped to strengthen their overall argument.
• Simply using the title "Republican Lawmaker" really detracted from the quote about the transvaginal ultrasound for abortions. The name was not included because it was quoted through Del. David Englin. I understand Englin's desire to keep the lawmaker anonymous, but I therefore think they should have left this quote off of their video entirely. A quote from an anonymous lawmaker, even if it has been verified, simply detracts from their argument.

Assessment of "Obama's War on Women" video

What worked for me:

• Bringing to light Bill Maher's derogatory comments about Sarah Palin and other female citizens was effective in a time when there is a lot of media coverage about the Rush Limbaugh comments regarding Sandra Fluke. It draws attention to the fact that there are derogatory comments made on both sides of the field. While it goes viral when Limbaugh says it, it's funny when Maher does. (Just to address that issue on it's own terms, I want to first of all say that I think anyone making derogatory comments towards or about women, or men, for that fact, is simply inexcusable. I would suggest, however, the difference in treatment has more to do with the fact that Maher used his comments in a stand-up comedy act and can pull back and say, "hey, it was a joke" while Limbaugh doesn't really have that luxury. I'm not saying it's right by any means, just that I think the lack of media coverage has more to do with the forum in which it was said rather than the media excusing Maher as opposed to Limbaugh. I'm sure many out there who disagree, but that's my assessment of the situation).
• The quote about the White House being a tough place for Democratic women was kind of effective. I would have appreciated a bit more meat to those comments, maybe including specific circumstances or at least who said them? I felt that was a point that could have been very effective but the truncated nature of the coverage, in the long run, detracted more from the argument than helped it.

What didn't work:

• I've seen a number of news clip ads this election year and have largely found them effective because they drew almost exclusively from things that the candidate said. But this particular use of media clips was, in my opinion, ineffective because it was composed almost entirely of Fox news clips (as opposed to a diverse media base). Furthermore, there was not one comment included from Obama himself. I would find a quote from Obama , even if taken out of context, to be far more effective than comments from Fox news anchors.
• The horror music in the background was too much. I actually thought the video was a spoof in the beginning simply because of the choice in music.
• Most of the focus of this ad is on Bill Maher. In fact, he is the only named person directly quoted. To suggest that Bill Maher is the only influential Democrat out there is preposterous to say the least and suggests the creators of the ad are grasping at straws. Quotes from a diversified group of Democrats  would have made this ad much more appealing. 
• As a follow up to the last point, if they are going to focus on Bill Maher, I wish they would have included more comments from him rather than simply including the accusation that "everything you say about women" is misogynistic and then offering only one clip of him making fun of a news anchor. If that's true that everything he says about women is misogynistic, there's got to be at least 6-8 comments they could have pulled straight from his mouth and featured them back to back. I don't deny there are plenty they could draw upon. Why not take the time to find them and exploit them?

All in all, I find the MoveOn.org video more effective, though for me, unconvincing. I don't like being pandered to as a woman or it being suggested that contraception and reproductive rights are going to make it or break it for me this election. But I'll concede it's clearer, cleaner (in appearance, no comment on motive), and the motive is significantly more focused.

What I don't understand is why the Republican National Committee even attempted to go to the same level. Republican pundit Sabrina Schaffer writes in The Hill, that "playing gender politics this election cycle is risky business...while this may play to their feminist base, it's destined to fail with female voters at large...women today are not interested in playing identity politics; rather, they are focused on the same things as men, namely job creation and economic growth, the growing national debt, healthcare reform and rising gas prices and energy policy." I would tend to agree with her. I don't think most women like being appealed to solely as a gender base and I think the MoveOn.org video would have overall caused a larger problem for the Democrats than it would have helped. However, the GOP got on their level, made it a game of gender politics, and, at least to my assessment, they lost the match on this one.

What are your thoughts on each of the videos, their efficacy as videos as well as in general?

A Conversation with Seth: A Mormon with same-gender attraction shares his thoughts on the legalization of same-sex marriage

The other day, as I sat puzzled and mulling over the issue of reconciling my faith and my church's involvement in Proposition 8 in California, I felt impressed to talk to my friend Seth (name has been changed to ensure anonymity). Seth is a close friend of our family. He lives in California, is a full fellowship member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and also identifies as someone who lives with same-gender attraction. When the admonition from Salt Lake came for wards to participate in campaigning for Proposition 8, Seth's bishop, knowing his struggles, asked Seth to take the lead. The bishop knew of Seth's faithfulness and desire to heed the admonition but also knew that his exceptional circumstance would assure that campaigning would be conducted in an environment of love, understanding, and empathy. Seth accepted the call and was able, to my knowledge, to fulfill that calling in the desired environment.

Seth is one of my heroes. He is someone who has diligently searched for truth, found it, remained faithful to it, and all while in what some would find to be an exceptional and heartbreaking circumstance--living life as a "gay" Mormon.

Before I embark further in this post, I want to make it clear that most of the arguments used are faith-based. For some, this will be refreshing. For others, it will be frustrating. I know that some who are reading this do not share the same faith as me. Some find themselves questioning or denying the existence of any God. I want to be sure that no matter your view, know that I respect your right and desire to believe it. However, I also want to impress upon all who read, that while my faith may be manifest in a different way than your own, it cannot be removed from me. I would hope that just as I do not suggest that those who struggle with same-sex attraction can simply "turn it off," nor can I simply "turn off" my faith. It is a part of who I am and drives my thoughts, actions, and decisions.

I've copied, with Seth's permission, some of our conversation which took place over chat, below.

Amy: For so long I've pushed some of my views out of my mind in attempt to be faithful. But I'm finding they continue to effect me. I'm hoping there can be a way to reconcile my concerns and beliefs. 

Seth: .I think the problem is we live in a society that is fueled by the concept that happiness is being immediately gratified and satisfied. That everything needs to be "fair," that no one should ever lose or come in second etc. I think we need to realize that life is about choices and some make us happy and some won't, some will satisfy us now but will end up with us having nothing. I look at what you and Brennan have and that is what I want. I look at Hyrum and I see what is real. The power that God gave you guys to create him is power that was used in the right way. Does that make sense? When I look at things in the I want it now and I want it my way, that works if there isn't an eternal game plan but if there is, a lot of the things I want right now would complicate these things in the future. 

I know I come off as harsh and unyielding, people forget that I also struggle with these feelings. They don't see that I do understand the way they feel. But its kind of like knowing the results of something and not wanting someone you love to fall for it. Yes they have the right to, but you love them so much you don't want it to happen...I can't stand the hatred or bigotry or homophobia...but at the same time the people behind things like "it gets better" [campaign] also have a definite agenda which is not just to make those who struggle feel safe, love and accepted, but also to turn people who do honestly believe its wrong for doctrinal reasons into the bad guys, and silence them and anyone who would advocate for the gospel.  

...

Amy: Here's my question at the end of the day: why this particular thing? There are so many things that are ripping apart families and hurting society. Here in Alberta, where gay marriage is legal, the thing that is always brought up is common law marriage. Most of the members here believe that is the main reason for the deterioration of the family. I would also cite no-fault divorce. 

Seth: Amy think about this, what is the one topic that if Satan could use to tear down and drag down some of God's most faithful, sensitive and loving souls? 

Amy: [But] I wonder why this? why now? It's so hard to explain to someone who doesn't believe the gospel to be true that it's a matter of right and wrong. 

Seth: I look at it this way. Satan knows how this is going to end [the fight of good against evil]. He knows he is going to eventually lose. He knows his destiny.The only thing he can do is steer as many people away from the truth and the gospel as possibe before that happens. For some it will be blinding them with their own intelligence, for others it will be encourgeing them to think with their emotions, anything to cloud the real truth...if he can turn good people against each other he will...if he can make us feel that the prophet is a bigot then we will start to doubt all the other truths of the gospel and he does this by appealing to good things in us. Our sense of justice and fairness. These are for the most part good people and you and I both know that some of these guys and girls really do have real love for each other. So on the surface [it is] wrong but from an eternal perspective look at what it frustrates.That's the danger. 

Amy: I do still feel that [gay and lesbian couples]deserve rights though. Rights like being able to make decisions for their partner when dying in a hospital. Really, I just don't think that rights like that should [need laws].

Seth: I agree 100 percent...I think if everyone has the same rights to work, housing, healthcare and all that then we don't need special laws or special rights. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700224421/Gay-Liberty.html This is an interesting question about rights. 

... 

Amy:  I want so badly to believe that people are good, that they'll do their best to respect one another and I know it's idealist of me, but I want so badly for it to be a reality. 

Seth: The problem with learning to respect ones beliefs is that the next step is allowing your neighbor to object to them and respecting their right to do so and learning how to live together otherwise. That is real tolerance. 

Amy: yes, and I want it. So badly. 

Seth: Well its why I do what I do. It's why I have the [professional] job I do but I think you are doing a better job. Do it by teaching Hyrum, by loving Brennan. Do it by example...look at the little guy, that is really the answer. 

Amy: I hope for a better world for him. 

Seth: Well make it a better world and instill in him the desire to do that.

As I conversed with Seth, I understood more clearly the reasons he felt the way he did about Prop 8 and about same-sex marriage legislation. I didn't include all of our conversation here, but he also listed various lawsuits and laws that have been enacted in California which, under the banner of "anti-discrimination," have simply discriminated against faith and freedom of conscience (i.e. a woman renting out a room of her home cannot specify the sex of the renter, an events company that was sued because they did not want to provide services for a same-sex couple ceremony, or even not being able to hire your friend's daughter as a babysitter unless she is unionized.) While to some these may be trite examples, Seth worries that they may just be the tip of the iceburg. He wants to ensure that rights and freedom of conscience are secured for everyone. For him, that means defending the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. The article he shared with me describes a number of situations where those who wished not to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies are currently, or have been, caught up in lawsuits. While I, and others, have suggested that these are peculiar cases, is it possible that the passing of same-sex marriage legislation could impede the rights of others? I had always poo-pooed the thought but I do believe it is a potential danger.

At the end of the day I realized that the main problem with the whole problem is that we live in an imperfect world. A world where the suggestions and ways of going about making laws cannot and do not allow for freedoms for all. Some people may find the one party's freedoms bigoted while the other may find the opposite's freedoms immoral. And so raises the question of what to do? Some have suggested that we simply pass laws to protect both parties.

But can it work? My husband is an accountant. On one of his first days of class, he brought home two gigantic books. These were two books (only two of them!) of the corporate tax code. I am not exaggerating to say they weighed a ton of bricks and were printed onto parchment paper. Here were thousands and thousands of pages of tax code. Why? Because a law had been passed to protect either an individual, a corporation, or the US government and then someone found a way around that law, which necessitated another law, which necessitated another law, so on and so forth. People could not, and did not, simply live the spirit of the law that had been originally passed and sought for ways to circumnavigate it. And thus the world needs accountants and lawyers who spend eons trying to navigate the laws and some times, trying to find yet another exception that will likely result in yet another law. In short, it's a mess. It takes forever to get things done and the result is a bogged down legal and corporate world.

And so I think of how wonderful it would be to live in a world where people could understand one another, appreciate one another's experiences, and want to protect one another. I wish we lived in a world where the rights of same-sex couples didn't even have to be a question, where the rights of religious groups of people were not challenged or ignored--a world where everyone received the love, protection, respect, and understanding that should simply be inherit with one's entrance into humanity.

But we don't and I realize it's ideal to expect as such. But I can hope. I do hope for a better world. I hope for a world where human decency and understanding don't have to be legislated into action. I hope for a world where all are loved and respected. I want it for me. I want it for my children. I want it for everyone.

A quest to understand directions

Living in Utah Valley afforded me the only opportunity in my lifetime when I had a sense of direction. It's pretty easy: The mountains are to the east. Since they're basically right in your face, it's not very difficult to figure out directions. Other than my experience living in Utah Valley, I have an absolutely terrible sense of direction. If someone tells me they live to the east of me, I literally have to stop anything else I'm doing, figure out where the river is in location to our home, make an imaginary compass rose in my head, and then maybe, just maybe I'll be able to figure out the approximate desired location. Because of this, reading maps is an absolute nightmare for me. It's a good thing that Brennan prefers navigating to driving or else we'd be in a world of hurt.

Obviously, this weakness means that I get lost a lot, especially in new places. Even in Utah Valley where, as I've already mentioned, it's quite easy to figure out directions, I have recolections of driving around 7th East in Provo about 100 times before I realized my new apartment was a few blocks up the street. One time I got lost on State Street in Orem in the wee hours of the morning on the way to a temp job. I wasn't sure if I was going north or south. I wondered how long it would take me to get to either Vegas or Salt Lake and if I'd know which one was which when I got there. At first, even the grid system didn't give me much help.

All of these thoughts about direction, and the sense of which I certainly lack, came to me today while I was out for a drive. I never understood why my mother took us on so many drives as a kid. Most of the time I wasn't a huge fan, but occasionally they offered opportunities for quiet, for calm, for thought and reflection. I embarked on one of these drives today for the same reason. 

I've acquired enough directional sense in my Calgary life to be able to get me across the river and into the north part of the city using two different routes. That makes me feel pretty versatile, all things considering. As I started driving north, I thought that it might be nice to drive up to the temple construction site and see how things were progressing. Brennan and I have driven there once before and I vaguely remembered the required roads. I figured if nothing else, I could always turn around. To my surprise, I actually made it there with relatively few incidents and chalked it up to a great success. 

As I was getting ready to drive home I had two thoughts: 1) go the same way you came and 2) there are a few landmarks you can see near your home and you know the roads to get you to them. In my daring, adventurous spirit, I decided now was as good a time as ever to find an alternate route and to flex some of my new-found spacial/directional strength. Again, I was able to find my way back without much incident, though I did have a few moments of panic when I couldn't remember if I should take the north or south exit or the east or west thorough-way. 

In my self-congratulating thoughts, I considered how much mental effort and exertion that trip had taken out of me. It's silly for a woman who considers herself well-educated and plenty intelligent to take at least as much concentration and focus to get home as to study Kant. But I was still very pleased. I took the things that I knew: a handful of buildings to act as landmark and the direction of the river. The rest was relying on logic with some hopes thrown in on the side.

I've thought about this in my continuing quest for truth especially in relation to my efforts to better understand my church's position on Proposition 8. For some, it may be silly that I've focused on this so much. Why not just let it go or just go on blind faith? Well, here's why. Blind faith can only get me so far in life. Going on faith that I live in the southwest quadrant of Calgary (which was declared to me before I really had any spacial intelligence as to what that meant) can help me to find where I am on a map, but until I really, truly understand what it means spatially, logically, and geographically, I can't really get anywhere I want to go. I can know where I am now, but I can't get anywhere else.

I think it's fine to go on blind faith for a while. We all do occasionally and frankly, as most people of faith would concur, you have to at times. But I think it's a dangerous place to stay. The reason being that, again, knowing where you are and taking someone's word, no matter how reliable or infallible, has the potential to impede our progress. We cannot get north across the river if we don't know where the river is or if we only believe that it is there but don't know how to go about finding it. For some people, finding the river is simple. Their spatial intelligence neurons line up quickly and easily and make the whole ordeal quite simple. For others, like me, it's a major test in concentration, understanding, and experience. At the end of the day, we all can get where we want to go but the mental processes behind it may be different, or at very least more or less belabored. Does it truly matter whether we go north simply by being told or have to find it through our own experiences and searching, as long as we find north? 

Obviously I've felt a little burned by comments, whether they be on Facebook, blogs, or in public settings, suggesting that one must know and understand this particular point of revelation, and they must know and understand now if they are to be counted worthy. Before attempting to embark on a crusade to remind these individuals that they should judge not lest they be met with the same judgement (a counsel I need to remind myself of frequently as well), I'm reminded of one of my favourite quotes from Elder Holland,

My brothers and sisters, I testify that no one of us is less treasured or cherished of God than another...[Christ] cheers on every runner, calling out that the race is against sin, not against each other. I know that if we will be faithful, there is a perfectly tailored robe of righteousness ready and waiting for everyone, "robes...made...white in the blood of the Lamb." May we encourage each other in our effort to win that prize..." The Other Prodigal, Liahona, July 2002.

I've often been upset by my lack of a sense of direction. I feel I should be smarter than that, that it should come easier for me. But no matter how much I get upset, feel self-pity, or proclaim that "it's not that bad," I realize it simply isn't one of my strengths. I don't feel it lessens my intelligence, it just means that's not where it resides.

The race truly is not against one another. I hope that in my continued quest for understanding and enlightenment on this subject, I will both extend and feel that same encouragement. May we all move forward in a spirit of encouragement and understanding.

The conflicted thoughts continue

In my past couple posts I have described a few of my reservations surrounding my church's involvement with Proposition 8 in California. But, now I want to pull back and explain where I am not conflicted on such an issue.

• I believe in a God who has given commandments to His children. One of the most important commandments he has given to his children is to reserve sexual intimacies to be expressed between a man and a woman in a lawful and legal marriage.
• I believe in freedom of and for religion, not simply from religion.
• I believe that people have the right and obligation to express their opinions, to vote, and to pass into law via majority rule those things which they believe to be true.
• I believe government to be responsible to pass and uphold legislation that will allow for the continuation of religious freedom in America.
• I believe that all people have been given the right, responsibility, and ability to control their actions, no matter their inclination or circumstances.
• I believe that all mankind should be allowed the privilege to worship how, where, or what they may.
• I believe the Prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints receives revelation for the members of said church and for the entire world.
• I believe there are potential moral and societal implications surrounding the passing of same-sex marriage, both foreseen and unforeseen.

Maybe these things mean I shouldn't have any concerns or doubts, but I still do. I still do because these are my beliefs, but they are not everyone's. One of the defining tenants of my faith is that I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God and allow others the same privilege to worship how, where or what they may. Those aren't just nice words to me. They are a reality and something that I dearly believe. Marriage, as a sanctifying (i.e. religious, worship, spiritual) union, constitutes a form of worship in my understanding. As such, does denying others the right to marry who they desire deny them their right to worship? If so (or if not), where do marriage and worship intersect?

What are your thoughts on the relation between marriage and worship? In your understanding, are they connected or separate entities?

It's just a word

Now that I've publicly announced that I'm in a complicated relationship with Prop 8, I thought I'd bring one of the major arguments to the table and see what others have to say about it.

The majority of people I talk to who are pro-"traditional" marriage suggest that they do not support gay marriage legislation but do believe that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to join in civil unions.(Just a side note, I don't think most citizens of this country are anti-_______. One of my biggest complaints about discussing just about anything in politics are labels that engender a value, and in turn, suggest those who do not agree with them are anti- that same value. For example, pro-life does not equate with a label of anti-choice and pro-choice does not equal anti-life. As such, I will try to always use a label in the affirmative on this blog). It is the word "marriage" that causes them unease. I have often expressed similar sentiments. It's just a word, right? If the unions are separate but equal (sound familiar?), then legal rights for gay and lesbian couples are secured while still allowing for marriage to be defined as a union between a man and a woman. Both sides win, right?

But recently I've been wondering. If it's just a word, then why are people on both sides of the issue becoming so enraged? I've concluded that as much as we were taught the contrary in the childhood nursery rhyme that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me," words really can, and do, hurt.

Here's the issue as I understand it, and again, I'm seeking for enlightenment here so feel free to comment. Again, just remember that I'm looking for some feedback that will help myself and others to make sense of this whole matter so please, conduct yourself accordingly.

• All "marriages" in the United States are civil unions in that they represent a contractual agreement between two parties.
• Legal and spiritual leaders have been given rights to pronounce these civil unions.
• Currently, if these unions take place between a man and a woman, they are called a marriage. The word marriage engenders semantic implications of love, devotion, the promise of commitment to one another, and presumably a monogamous relationship.
• By not bestowing the word "marriage" upon civil unions between members of the same sex, the semantic implications are not attached to the contractual agreement.

And so I pose the question, "Is it really just a word?" and if so, "Do you believe the semantic implications should extend to all those who have entered into civil unions?"