the prog'mo

FAIR's Rising Generation.

2009-06-20T17:36:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd announce that I'm the vice president of Fair's Rising Generation, and a regular FRG blog contributor. Check it out! We're pretty new, so we need more members and attention, so... tell your friends!

Replicating the Benefits of Polygamy

2009-05-31T09:54:00.000-07:00

Oftentimes, I hear people talk about how great polygamy was for women and all the benefits it had for them. Plural wives had fewer children and live-in child care in the form of sister-wives, and so were able to pursue more interests outside the home. They were more active in politics and religion. Some of the things you read from Brigham Young were actually pretty liberal. He encouraged women to be doctors, wear pants, and so on. The whole suffrage thing was a big hit in Utah, too.

Those things sound awesome, so let's replicate those benefits. Women should have fewer children and take advantage of child-care options available in their community. They should be involved in politics and other community endeavours outside the home. Come on, guys, we don't need polygamy!

As a side note, I think the whole health care profession should be run by women. They're just better at it. I say the entire field belongs to women. So bring on the communal child-care. That is, after all, what was so great about polygamy, right?

The Fall: My Theory

2009-05-12T10:54:00.000-07:00

Here's a theory I came up with that I haven't heard anyone talk about, but it seems to fit quite nicely, as far as I can tell. Anyway, the theory is that the Fall was the beginning of agriculture, and the subsequent turn-over from matriarchy to patriarchy.

After placing Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, God commands them to go forth and multiply and to subdue the Earth. According to the Biblical description of the location of the Garden of Eden, it was located in a valley which was extremely fertile, providing ample food in terms of plant and animal life. God tells them that the Earth will bring forth fruit spontaneously, that they may eat freely. Of course, if small numbers of humans existed in a rich and fertile valley as nomads, the Earth would have spontaneously brought forth all the food they needed without them tilling the earth.

First, Eve partook of the fruit, then convinced Adam to partake as well. Women were the first to dabble in agriculture, being the more stationary of the two sexes. Men only took over later. Of course, in the Biblical account, God cursed both Adam and Eve. Eve's curse was that her conception and sorrow would be multiplied and that her husband would rule over her. Before agriculture, women would breastfeed their babies for roughly four years, or until they were able to walk and keep up with the rest of the people since they traveled a lot. Breastfeeding kept the women from ovulating, and therefore, from becoming pregnant. Now, any doctor will tell you that breastfeeding isn't a surefire birth control method, but this is because people now eat grains. The carbohydrates disrupt female hormones making it so that a breastfeeding woman can ovulate. Before agriculture, grains and carbohydrates were not a major part of human diet. This explains the phenomenon of the “Irish twin”, as the Irish were famous for their potato-eating tendencies. Also, women started weaning their babies earlier because they had grain cereals to feed the babies, and waiting between children became less essential since they weren't nomadic.

God then cursed Adam that he would till the earth and eat bread for the rest of his days. This fits right in, since no one tilled the earth or ate bread before agriculture. Also, this is the first mention of any grain-based food. Before, it only says they ate fruit and meat. Also, as the population increased and people stopped traveling, the amount of food needed to support a large, sedentary population would need to be cultivated through hard work and labour, rather than simply going out and finding it.

As for the promises of death and suffering, it is believed that the infant mortality rate was much higher among agriculturists. They were also subject to far more diseases, as a sedentary lifestyle and close proximity to livestock and their own waste would promote. Small pox, black plague, measles, and several other diseases were all due to agriculture. A comparison of the skeletons of hunter gatherers and agriculturists living at the same time and in similar areas reveals that the hunter gatherers were much healthier and lived much longer. The farmers, in addition to all the unique diseases, had evidence of severe arthritis, stunted growth, and tooth decay. The repetitive, labour-intensive tasks of farm life led to the arthritis and growth problems, and carbohydrates, which begin to break down in the mouth, led to tooth decay.

But, of course, they also were able to "go forth and multiply" as the women were giving birth to far more children. It also increased the knowledge of both good and evil, since populations could then support an elite - scholars, spiritual leaders, and artists. The potential for evil was also increased. Since grain can be stored, agriculture was the beginning of commodities, and therefore, of money and property. Money, the infamous root of all evil. Now that there was ownership, there could be stealing, conquest, and inequality. There began to be an a small percentage of people who were vastly richer than the general population. Now there were kings, slaves, and wars. An increasing population would also mean that people encroached on each other's space more, leading to more conflict. There was also literacy and an increasing number of new technologies, which could be used for good or evil.

This general idea fits in with myths from various cultures that involve a trickster, or fallen god that gives fire, agriculture, or other technologies to mankind as a way to make them worship him, or simply to cause trouble. This certainly fits in with the idea of Satan beguiling Eve, giving her the knowledge of good and evil, and launching mankind into an era of great growth and development, as well as evil and suffering. Agriculture is quite the boon, but obviously had unforeseen consequences, which no primitive person could possibly have understood.

There are other aspects of the Fall, as well. For instance, they realised they were naked and began wearing clothes to hide their shame. I haven't quite figured out the significance of this, other than to note that nudity does not seem to be nearly as taboo in ancient and matriarchal societies. The onset of Semitic patriarchy seems to bring with it a new standard of modesty. Before then, figurines of the gods/goddesses had, not only visible, but prominent and exaggerated sex characteristics.

As for what happened to the hunter gatherers, I've read conflicting things. Some say they simply adopted agriculture slowly and some say they were taken over and killed by the agriculturists, who were able to out-breed them and build permanent settlements. They also would have caught diseases created by agriculture, which people in agricultural communities began to have immunity to. I would say that, according to the Bible, it wasn't a peaceful takeover. Cain, the badboy earth-tiller met Abel, the herder (hunter gatherers did sometimes keep flocks of domesticated animals as they could be moved) in a field and killed him. They also would have killed the nomads inadvertently with their unique diseases, which they incubated, grew immunity to, then transferred to their nomadic brothers. This has happened throughout history – including when Europeans met with aboriginals on their various conquests. They decimate the population through disease before they even meet face-to-face, in many instances.

In conclusion, agriculture allowed both the curses and blessings laid out in Genesis from partaking of the fruit. People were more knowledgeable, more fruitful, and had greater potential for both good and evil. They had "subdued" (domesticated) many species of plants and animals. There was also more disease, death, hardship, and violence. Thus, I submit that perhaps the forbidden fruit was wheat, the first plant to be domesticated. Also, it seems likely that the Adam and Eve story as told in Genesis is more likely to describe the beginning of Semitic religion, rather than the beginning of mankind. Most subscribe to the idea that Adam and Eve were the first humans, although many LDS believe that there were “pre-Adamites”, including some general authorities.

Anyway... that's my theory... I came up with it after reading Against the Grain by Richard Manning and Adam's Curse by Bryan Sykes. I later found out that this is the theme of the book Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit by David Quinn, in which a telepathic gorilla tells a Jewish man about the Fall. I haven't read it yet, though.

Beets of Consecration

2009-02-27T06:20:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I had chicken breast and beets for lunch and it made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Not just because it was tasty and warm, but because I always feel that way I have some of my beets. The reason is, my beets came from a fellow ward member's garden and I canned them at another ward member's house. The first ward member had a surplus of beets, the second had canning supplies and a lot of experience, and I had the universal need for nourishment and a desire to learn how to can. I just love the pooling of knowledge and resources that my church community allows me. To me, that's the Law of Consecration.

Animal Law

2009-02-19T20:23:00.000-08:00

After a discussion on the FAIR mailing list about evolution and creationism, I find myself wondering about animals and the gospel. I'm also reminded of a debate I had with my husband several months ago about whether or not animals had laws to obey, whether they could be good or evil, whether they were created or always existed as we have, and so on.

The first thing that came to my mind was that animals must definitely be resurrected because they are present in the afterlife. There are numerous accounts of God sitting on a throne surrounded by animals. D&C 77 also has Joseph Smith mentioning resurrected animals during a Q&A about Revelations.

In Revelation 5:13, it says "[a]nd every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever," which leads me to believe that every creature will be resurrected.

What I wonder is where animal spirits come from, what their purpose is here on Earth, and what is the purpose of their interaction with us. Mostly, I wonder if animals have laws that they are able to obey and disobey as we do.

I found an Ensign article that had a Q&A about animals. It says that according to Joseph Fielding Smith, animals do not have a law, and that they are innocent and are not able to disobey.

However, everything I read pertaining to the Gospel and animals suggests that animals are meant to be resurrected and experience joy, just like we are. Also, 2 Nephi 2:10,11,15 says that there must be opposition in all things, and that there can be no happiness unless there is righteousness and there can be no righteousness unless a law is given. Perhaps animals are given laws, but they simply never disobey. This was certainly the case in Numbers 22:21-33 when Balaam's ass refused to disobey the angel, despite being beaten by her rider. Brigham Young says “that the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms—the earth and its fulness—will all, except the children of man, abide their creation—the law by which they were made, and will receive their exaltation.” Also, Helaman 12:7 says that man are even less than the dust of the earth, because it always obeys (unlike us).

Well, either way, I know that we absolutely must be respectful and kind to animals. Thoughtless treatment of the Earth and its creatures that we have been given stewardship over is in contrast to all of the teachings we have been given. Rather than get any more long-winded about it, I'll post one last quote and links to some really good articles on Mankind and Nature.

“In pitching my tent we found three massasaugas or prairie rattlesnakes, which the brethren were about to kill, but I said, ‘Let them alone—don’t hurt them! How will the serpent ever lose his venom, while the servants of God possess the same disposition, and continue to make war upon it? Men must become harmless, before the brute creation; and when men lose their vicious dispositions and cease to destroy the animal race, the lion and the lamb can dwell together, and the sucking child can play with the serpent in safety.’ The brethren took the serpents carefully on sticks and carried them across the creek. I exhorted the brethren not to kill a serpent, bird, or an animal of any kind during our journey unless it became necessary in order to preserve ourselves from hunger.” Joseph Smith, (Documentary History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 71–72.)

Man's Dominion
The Gospel and Animals
Stewardship of Creation

Capitalism, you ain't so hot.

2009-02-16T19:34:00.000-08:00

There was yet another discussion on Socialism an LDS doctrine at the Mo-Board (of which I am a member). I made some lengthy posts, which I'd like to modify into a blog post. My main gripe actually doesn't have much to do with being pro-Socialism, but rather anti-Capitalism. Here goes.

In the Book of Mormon, the Nephites go through what is commonly referred to as the "Pride Cycle." When the people were righteous, they had "all things common among them" every man worked "according to his strength" and they "impart[ed] of their substance... to the poor," and "they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all." (Alma 1:26-31) When the people aren't righteous, they are described as being prideful, greedy, classist, and no longer equal with each other. (4 Nephi 1:24-26)

In the Pearl of Great Price, Zion is described as a people where they were of one mind and there were no poor among them. (Moses 7:18)

In the verses from Alma that referenced (but didn't quote), it says that the people suffered persecutions, but because they were a righteous people, they were able to maintain peace and equality. The reason being that the wealthy didn't hoard their wealth, but shared it with the others in need. Righteous people don't despise the poor, they aren't predatory in their business practices, and they don't hoard their resources even when those around them are in need. Many LDS people assume that righteous people weather rough times better because they are wealthier or don't experience trials to begin with. This, of course, is ridiculous. When rough times come, it's up to the individual and the community to get through it together. If your poor neighbour is suffering, point the finger at yourself for not helping him/her before you assume they're unrighteous.

I don't believe that monetary capital should be the most important thing (as it is in Capitalism), but rather social capital. People are important. Communities are important. Families are important. The only way to make society better is to invest in social capital.

Also, yes, I've heard Pres. Benson's talks, and I understand that he hates socialism and was a libertarian and involved in the US government quite heavily. I also know that there are numerous scriptures, words from prophets, and a whole economic system set up by early church leaders (United Order) based around community, sharing, and redistribution of wealth. Those who hate Socialism will constantly go back to Pres. Benson, but I think numerous scriptures and words from prophets over the course of a few thousand years heavily outweighs the opinions of one prophet/politician living in the Cold War era, trying to convince everyone that the LDS Church is NOT Communist. The LDS wasn't Communist, but why does the pendulum have to swing the other way? Why do we need to wholeheartedly embrace Capitalism? What did Joseph Smith do when none of the options of religion were right for him?

That being said, I don't exactly identify as a "socialist", either. Pres. Benson says that big government dis-empowers its citizens because the bigger the government the less power each individual has to make a difference. I agree to an extent, although I don't feel nearly as strongly as he does. I'm more of a "Localist", you might say. I think the emphasis of our lives and production should be based around people, families, communities, and making life better for people, not driven by the desire to produce more money, even if it means making crap that no one needs and won't even work at the detriment of de facto slave labourers, the environment, and the health and agency of the community. It boggles my mind when a person doesn't believe in big government, but they have no problem with big business. Big businesses are happy to take over the government's job and do an even crappier job at it, that's why many people refer to the IMF as a "world government in embryo." I would go further and take off the "in embryo" part.

I don't wonder why church members don't embrace socialism - I wonder why church members embrace and defend capitalism with such fervour. Why gain is considered godly and profit trumps all, even morality. For some reason, we respect the predatory business practices of the guy with the 5000 square-foot house, and not the guy who dedicates his life to building social capital in the community, because the rich guy must be "righteous" is he's supposedly being blessed with prosperity. For some reason, wealth seems to be a mark of righteousness even though prophets and the scriptures teach us that we should not seek after wealth except to build the kingdom of God. How a pool and a home theatre build the kingdom of God more than paying taxes that help feed the hungry and clothe the naked, I don't know.

For me, personally, I'm not trying to convince anyone that Socialism and the BoM go hand in hand, but rather that Capitalism and the BoM do NOT go hand in hand.

Also, none of this "Capitalism is good because free will is good" crap. That's nonsense. If you think that, you're probably one of those people who thinks that Capitalism and Democracy are inseparably tied together. Most people don't realise that a lot of countries democratically elect socialist leaders only to have them overthrown by Capitalist dictatorships (Indonesia and Chile both experienced this) and that many dictatorships that many people think are communist are actually capitalist (China). Generally speaking, the wealthy favour Capitalism and the poor to middle-class take a more liberal political stance. There are more poor to middle-class people than there are wealthy people, which is why socialist and left-leaning leaders often get elected.

In conclusions: Capitalism ain't so hot.

Oh, the Hilarity.

2009-01-31T06:25:00.000-08:00

Mormon Fluff

2009-01-25T20:17:00.000-08:00

"When crises come in our lives--and they will--the philosophies of men interlaced with a few scriptures and poems just won't do. Are we really nurturing our youth and our new members in a way that will sustain them when the stresses of life appear? Or are we giving them a kind of theological Twinkie--spiritually empty calories? President John Taylor once called such teaching "fried froth," the kind of thing you could eat all day and yet finish feeling totally unsatisfied" ("A Teacher Come from God," Ensign, May 1998, 25).

So true. The human experience is so deep, complex, individual, yet universal, and somehow we find ourselves up to our teeth in "uplifting" stories that are little more than Mormon Fluff.

Now, I'm not raggin' on uplifting stories, because there are some substantial ones. I guess what I'm criticising are the cute little things I get forwarded (by people who hate me, I'm sure) that don't have any depth and probably aren't true.

I don't have much more to add, I just really liked this quote.

The F-Word

2009-01-21T18:31:00.000-08:00

Am I a feminist?

Huh? What? Me? Who told you?

I'll make this short and sweet: of course I'm a feminist. What kind of person isn't a feminist? You don't believe in women's rights?

If you don't want to call yourself a feminist because of the stigma, consider that fact to be evidence of the difficulty in re-defining the status quo. A lot of women, especially LDS women, are afraid to insist on non-traditional treatment because they don't want to sound like "feminists." Non-traditional treatment may or may not be good, but whether or not something is "feminist" has nothing to do with it's worth.

Scared of "Green" Household Products? Don't be!

2009-01-21T14:58:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, around 8pm, I found myself in Taber, AB looking for somewhere to buy shampoo. Taber's not that big, so not a lot of places are open past 8pm, but Wal-Mart was. Now, normally I buy bio-degradable everything, shampoo and conditioner included, and I was seriously doubting the likelihood of finding any body care products that met this one, simple criterion. Usually, I go to London Drugs and get Live Clean, which is a little more expensive than your run-of-the-mill shampoo, but it works and it's biodegradable.

So, I got to the shampoo isle and quickly scanned for anything advertising itself as being bio-degradable. Then, I started checking the backs of the bottles that said "all-natural", but still no luck. Then I started checking the backs of anything with any reference to having naturally-derived anything, but I still couldn't find any that were bio-degradable.

Then, with a bit of a smirk, I decided to check the ones that were "Australian" or "European", since those places tend to be more enviro-friendly. I did it more to amuse myself, because I assumed that "Australian" and "European" were just marketing labels and had nothing to do with the values of the people living there, but I was pleasantly surprised to realise that most of the "Australian" and "European" shampoos were bio-degradable! Including some of the cheapest options available. I grabbed the cheapest bio-degradable stuff there, which was $3 for a huge bottle, and tried it this morning. It works just as well as any other shampoo.

My conclusion: there is officially no excuse. Cut the crap and make everything bio-degradable already. When I made the decision to switch to all bio-degradable household products, I braced myself for a price increase and possibly decreased function, but I have found over and over again that there is either very little difference, or that the greener option is actually cheaper. If this hasn't been your experience, perhaps you're a victim of green-washing (marketing to the enviro-conscience, with a steep mark-up of course).

In fact, there are cases where I'm amazed at the high cost, inconvenience, and inefficiency of certain products. Let's take laundry detergent powder. If you buy 240 louds' worth of Tide from Amazon.com, it'll cost you $53.70. If you buy 640 louds' worth of Country Save from Amazon.com, it'll cost you $50.75. Add to this the fact that one box of Tide is about four times the size of a box of Country Save, and that Country Save works better (less residue, better stain-fighting), and you realise that Tide is making you pay for them to fill a box up with a whole lot of inert, useless powder, then charging more because it's a bigger box and looks like it should be a better value. Here's a page on the Country Save website that says that it's even worse - the amount of loads that Tide claims to give you is total BS. Now, I know it's the Country Save website, but it seems right to me, based on my experience when I used Tide before I switched to Country Save. I actually have half a box of Tide sitting in my hallway because I can't stand the residue that all that inert powder leaves on my clothes.

Surface cleaners are another thing. I've started making my own cleaners and find that Borax, lemon juice (or vinegar), and water will clean just about anything at a fraction of the monetary cost, and a much, much reduced cost to the planet. Borax by itself works just as well as Ajax, isn't toxic, and doesn't make you want to gag and die if you accidentally inhale it. If you get one things from this post, get this: Borax is freaking awesome. Get it in the laundry isle. Here's a link for uses for Borax. I make almost all of my household cleaners. If you do a Google.com search, you'll find innumerable recipes for cleaners that are all very simple, very inexpensive, and don't smell like an old lady's perfume.

There are many more examples, and perhaps I will make a post dedicated to inexpensive, functional, green alternatives to common household items someday, but my point is this: A great deal of the environmentally-damaging products out there are completely unnecessary. Consumers need to take a few extra seconds on their shopping trip to check the back of the packaging. Pick products that come in a box rather than wrapped in plastic. Move your hands a few inches to the right and grab the hand soap that's dio-degradable (and costs the same). It's so simple that I'm finding it increasingly obnoxious that people still go for the toxic stuff. Toxins aren't even good for you!

Who and Where is Heavenly Mother?

2009-01-10T20:45:00.000-08:00

One thing I truly appreciate about Mormonism is Heavenly Mother. Ah, how wonderful it is to have a divine mother. How progressive and honest is it that we can acknowledge Her and know that She exists.

But what's the you say? We don't know enough about Heavenly Mother? I beg to differ! I've heard the question asked in Sunday school many times before: "Why don't we know more about Heavenly Mother?" to which the teacher usually responds, "We don't know that right now." Sometimes I hear things like, "Heavenly Mother is too delicate and sweet to be exposed to the world, so Heavenly Father hid Her away so that She wouldn't have to see the evil that happens in the world," or, "Heavenly Mother is too sacred, blaspheming against her is worse than blaspheming against Heavenly Father, so we're not allowed to know for our own sake," and many more. I disagree with them all! For one thing, I seriously doubt that the great, exalted, divine Mother is so weak and fragile that she can't handle knowing things. She's a Goddess. Secondly, I really don't see how or why it would be possible to hide things from her. If we are to believe that Celestial sealed couples have an unsurpassed unity, how is it possible that one could hide the other away? As for blaspheming against Heavenly Mother, I think that blaspheming against Her may have caused us to lose many "plain and precious things" concerning her. I do feel, however, that people did once have a broader knowledge of Her.

So what's my take? Plain and simple, I believe that God is not a man who has a wife hidden away somewhere, but rather that God is a married couple and the reason we don't acknowledge it more is because of the time we live in. Worshipping of female diety has long had associations with paganism, polytheism, witches, dancing around the May pole, and various other godless things. The Church is also somewhat patriarchal, and I feel people are more comfortable with the idea of a traditional male God. We are told to pray to Heavenly Father and not to Heavenly Mother - what that means, I don't know, although considering the unity of a married couple, I don't see how it's possible to pray to one and not the other.

Oh yeah, this article is really, really good. Everyone should read it: How to Worship Heavenly Mother (without getting ex-communicated)

Too Many People, or Too Many Westerners?

2008-12-20T12:36:00.000-08:00

The Family Proclamation states the following: We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.

So, we are a people of reproducing. We marry, we have children, we increase the world's population. What affect does this have on the world? What about concerns of over-population? Ask most LDS people what they think of over-population, and they will tell you it's a myth, that the Earth's problems aren't caused by an excess of people, but by improperly distributed resources. I whole-heartedly agree, but do we practice what we preach?

How many people can the Earth support anyway? To save time and for convenience, I'm going to rely on this article for my information. I encourage you to read the article.

The point of the article is that the Earth can sustain the amount of people currently on it, but only if we stop consuming at our current rate. Unsustainable practises and over-consumerism are destroying the world and the brunt of the blame lies on members of the Western World. Mormons are no exception, despite the preachings of several church leaders, past and present.

The fact is, the culture of Mormonism and the doctrine don't always match up, and I think this is definitely a case where that applies. Mormon culture adores the rich and ambitious. Sometimes this manifests itself subtley, and sometimes with such blatantly ignorant statements such as "poor people obviously aren't righteous or they wouldn't be poor" and "people who live in poor countries were less righteous in the pre-existence." It makes me think that the Book of Mormon really was directed at us, considering the ad naseum warnings of the "pride cycle". The Nephites repeatedly succumbed to pride, classism, and the "wearing of costly apparel."

Back to the point, I don't think wealth and consumption are nearly as venerable as people seem to think they are. If we really are all about the family (and having children), if we really do believe that the Earth is our inheritance, if we really do believe that everyone on Earth is one of God's children, then why do we take more than our piece of the pie? Why do we uphold an unsustainable and exploitative culture of commercialism? Aren't we supposed to me in the world, but not of the world? I think we should all be striving to be a "one Earth" type of person. That is, I would like to live in such a way that if everyone lived the way I do, we would only need one Earth.

Brigham Young Was Onto Something, Doc!

2008-12-10T00:11:00.000-08:00

I recall reading a while back about how Brigham Young encouraged women to become doctors, as they were natural healers. I was reminded of this as I lay on my stomach getting stitches in my leg in the ER last week. The doctor tending to me was a woman.

Thinking back over the past few years, I've had quite a few experiences with female doctors. I've given birth to two children in recent years, so I've been to clinics and hospitals more than most people in a relatively short time frame, what with pre-natal check-ups, labour and delivery, then having to take my son to the ER on two occassions. It seemed to me that most of the younger doctors were women. My regular physician often has student doctors, which were mostly women. I wondered if it was my imagination or if there really were more women becoming doctors. I looked into it, and apparently, women are dominating medical schools across the board.

Based on my experiences, women do make better doctors than men. The short answer as to why I think so, is that they're nicer. I sense that the male doctors are more interested in looking at test results than listening to their patients and that they see things in very black-and-white terms. They act like authority figures rather than public servants, which is what I think they should consider themselves. I also think that it would be more comfortable for women patients to have women doctors. I know I feel this way. Plus, I insist that my healthcare professionals not only tolerate my stand-up routine, but like it. I like my current doctor but I still wish he was a woman. He'd make a funny-looking woman, but then again, he makes a funny-looking man so I guess it doesn't matter.

Regardless of my personal belief that women are superior physicians, there seems to be some worry over the increasing number of women graduating med school. One concern is that the pendulum has swung too far and that now men are being discriminated against. I doubt it. My hunch is that women honestly find themselves more drawn to the profession. I think women become doctors because they think they'll enjoy it and be good at it, whereas men become doctors because the income, title, and status in the community appeal to them, hence why they act like authority figures.

The other worry is that women are more likely to work part-time, so staffing problems will become an issue when all the older, male doctors retire. My answer to this is that there should be efforts made to make full-time work more achievable and appealing.

Now, perhaps you've read this and think I'm being a little hard on male doctors. Maybe so, but experience has les me to prefer female doctors. What can I say? I think they're just plain ole better at it.

Burnt Out on Works

2008-12-08T20:27:00.000-08:00

There has been talk in my Sunday school about grace vs works lately, and it seems that no two Mormons can agree on the matter. If you ask the question, "Are we saved by grace or by works?" you might hear either one, but the most popular answer seems to be "both".

How wrong that is. How very, very wrong. How someone could spend X number of years in the Church and think that works has anything to do with being saved is beyond me. According to our scriptures, both the Bible and other uniquely LDS scripture, we are saved totally and 100% by grace. Not only are we not saved by works, but we aren't even partially saved by works. It isn't a question of doing the best you can and God making up the difference. This mode of thinking is reinforced by such stories as The Parable of the Bicycle. I hate that stupid parable.

I don't really want to get into why we are saved by grace and not by works, because it isn't really even an up-for-debate topic. Church doctrine is clear on this, even if many a Sunday school teacher is not. I do want to address the fact that a great deal of Mormons seem to think that we are saved, at least in part, by works. I had a thought after reading an exit letter from an ex-mormon stating her reasons for leaving the Church. I won't get into names and details, but I don't need to because it's a common theme among exit letters. The author often begins by explaining how they were the model Mormon for years and years, how they tried to be perfect in every way, maybe even held positions of authority, served missions, made a million casseroles for their sick neighbours, or whatever. Then they describe how they weren't happy, even though they were trying so hard to be perfect. In the particular letter I'm thinking of, the person left the LDS church for another Christian church, where the emphasis was not on responsibility or actions in the least bit, but simply a matter of declaring belief in Jesus Christ and leaving it at that.

All I can say is that it's no wonder people get burnt out if they think they're saved by works. What a chore, trying to do Christ's job! Trying to be perfect? I may as well try to reach my tongue out and lick the moon. I'm not saying works don't have their place, nor am I saying that we need to all start slacking off so that we can be happy, but perhaps our desire for perfection in the here-and-now is shooting us in the foot. In my opinion, it leads a lot of people giving up on trying to actually be perfect and settling for the appearance of perfection, or just giving up all together. Our works should be inspired by our love of humanity, not our fear of hellfire. We should be so filled with gratitude for the grace of being saved that we want to pour out our hearts and our lives to others.

Not to mention, it's a little ungrateful trying to take (albeit partial) credit for what Christ has done for us. Let's focus on our works as a means of saying thank-you, instead.

Existentialism and Mormon Women

2008-12-04T13:20:00.000-08:00

I follow the Exponent II blog and one of the posts caught my eye. It was this one: The Existential Crisis: A Common Phenomenon for Mormon Women? The main issue discussed is that LDS women who don't have a career (in other words, are stay-at-home moms) are prone to existential crises. If you don't know much about existentialism, check out this Wikipedia article. I would say that the hallmarks of existential crises are feelings of disconnect and futility. How does this apply to Mormon women? Well, this is what I wrote in the comments to the blog:

Society has ingrained in us from a very young age that everything that has value has a price, therefore, a person’s value depends on their jobs. In other words, a person’s value is tied to their ability to produce profits.

So, yes, it’s common for those who opt out of the workforce to feel unfulfilled. They can’t shake the feeling that they aren’t accomplishing what they should.

We need to remind ourselves that society and commerce exist FOR people not, vice versa! The contribution of healthy, well-adjusted human beings is more valuable than any job.

Of course, on that same note, a mother is just as human as her children and should pursue any worthwhile interest that she pleases. Personally, I prefer volunteer work and artistic hobbies to having a job, so I relish in the opportunity to let my husband "bring home the bacon."

In my opinion, the existential crisis is one of many by-products of a processed and industrialised society. It's easy to feel like a queen bee forced to live the life of a worker bee when our society pushes both individualism and loss of self in the economy. The answer? I say we start focusing more on people. I mean, not in an individualist way and not in a Thomas Hobbes' Leviathon way, either.

Individualism, and it's twin sister, hedonism, are vices pushed by big business to make you want their products. How many times have you seen something you don't need advertised with the words, "Go ahead! You deserve it!" What you really deserve is to have a healthy, fulfilling lifestyle, not to give in over and over again to entirely unfulfilling products that will make you less happy in the long run. Materialism is just another way for your brain to get it's dopamine fix; it's a cheap substitute for sustainable happiness. Avoid it like the plague.

On the other hand, you don't want to "selflessly" throw yourself away, either. Proponents of utalitarian governments and communism are quick to state that the happiness of the individual is less important than that of the "community." I agree to the extent that a healthy community makes for healthy individuals, however, a community is also made up of individuals. So, while I don't condone exploiting others for your own happiness (that's happiness at someone else's expense), I also don't condone exploiting yourself for someone else's happiness. This ties into motherhood because a great deal of women feel guilty when they pursue interests outside the home and feel that if they do anything besides care for their children, they're being selfish. Really, if one of their children wanted to pursue a hobby, they wouldn't tell them not to because they need to be more concerned with helping others pursue their hobbies. Mothers need to take their own happiness into consideration as well. On the other hand, you don't want to fall for the trap of feeling useless because you're not in the workplace, either. You don't exist as a food pellet to shove down the gullet of the Market. You and your children are more important than creating profit for whatever company you end up working for.

Here's a comment posted on the Exponent II blog entry I linked to that I really liked. It's by a man, but I still agree with the sentiment:

I just can’t accept my stayathomelessness. I can’t face the next twenty-five or thirty years of career ladder garbage without knowing that I am also working towards my ultimate Eternal goal. I can’t face the mind numbing irrelevance and unnecessary competition of my career without a plan for how I will someday contribute to my community by raising a righteousness posterity. And I can’t figure out how to shake the feeling that the days I spend in my career are days of meaningless time wasting.

-A career Dad

I know, I’m a man, I don’t understand, but I really found myself unsympathetic to the comparison between staying at home and contributing to a community through a career.

What is so great about careers and working anyway? It is an means to an end, and we shouldn't mistake it for our life's work. That being said, some women truly do find fulfillment in the workplace, much as I find fulfillment in having and working with my dogs (an uncommon interest, and one which I don't think most people understand).

My advise for stay-at-home moms who feel unfulfilled is not to smother their feelings in guilt or to jump up and run to the workplace. Do some soul-searching, find what makes you truly happy, and pursue it. You may find that volunteering for a charitable organisation part-time and getting involved with your community is more fulfilling than earning a weekly paycheque. You may also find creative and artistic endeavours deeply satisfying. Be open to new concepts. Find a way of living and thinking that makes you happy.

I also really liked the D. Todd Christofferson talk at the next General Conference. Here's a link to it. It speaks of materialism in a way I really appreciate.

We are not guilty of Adam's transgression... but what about Eve's?

2008-11-30T22:03:00.000-08:00

I just remembered something that used to really bother me a few years ago. It doesn't bother me anymore and I'll explain why at the end.

I was obsessed with the idea that women were being punished for Eve's transgression, despite the fact that we are told that we are not guilty of Adam's transgression. The statement about Adam's transgression, of course, is a rebuttal to the Catholic belief that we are all born sinful because we are stained by Adam's sin. In essence, that simply being human is a sin.

So what did I even mean by being guilty of Eve's transgression? Well, first we'll look at the Catholic belief about original sin. They baptise little newborns to cleanse them of the sin they have supposedly been born with. So, we have a situation where a person is naturally fallen by virtue of their identity and not their actions, and requires specific action to reverse this affect. Now let's look at women: God cursed Eve that she must be subject to her husband because of her disobedience. In essence, Eve sinned and was being punished. So why is it that the rest of womanhood has to be subjected to their husbands because of something Eve did? We aren't guilty of Adam's transgression, but it seems as though women were guilty of Eve's.

Now, you might say that Adam was cursed, too, and that we're all subject to those curses as well. Adam's curse being that he had to labour by the sweat of his brow for all the days of his life. However, I would argue that the consequences of Adam's actions are natural whereas the consequence of Eve's actions are arbitrary. Because Adam partook of the fruit, he could no longer dwell in the Garden of Eden, and things outside the Garden of Eden are a certain way. They just are. Trees don't bare fruit spontaneously so you have to work hard to feed yourself. Fact of life. Eve's curse, on the other hand, seems totally artificial. Women certainly don't have to be subjected to their husbands, but the Bible seems to advocate the subjugation of women based on the account of Eve's life. We are taught to punish women. Besides that, women had their share of the natural consequences in the childbirth department. I have two kids, I can attest to this.

So why am I guilty of Eve's sin? Why do I need to be punished for something she did? Well, I promised that at the end I'd explain why I don't feel this way anymore, and I will. Basically, I don't believe that women are subject to their husbands and I don't believe that the Church (at least not the one I belong to) advocates the subjugation of women.

So, basically, I don't believe that I do have Eve's curse. This leads me to something else - why not? Why does the Bible teach it if it's not true? Well, I do believe many, many women have been subjected to their husbands throughout history. Abuse and inequality caused by the subjugation of women are a curse in their own right, but I do believe that curses are meant to be fought against, not embraced. For instance, if the land I live on grows food relatively easily, I'm not going to go out of my way to make it otherwise. If my labour and delivery isn't painful enough, I don't feel the need to stab myself in the eye to make it worse. In fact, mankind has several innovations to reverse these affects. We have tractors, fertilizer, combines, and the epidural. No one (in their right mind) thinks that it's a sin to use these things as a means of reversing our curses. Women have been prone to marginalisation due to their weaker statures. In a world where might is right, women are, unfortunately, often abused. Besides all this, my religion clearly teaches, sometimes ad naseum, that men and women are equal, that men are not to subjugate their wives, and that women are not obligated to put up with subjugation.

Personally, I feel quite empowered. Aside from the fact that I'm an equal partner with my husband, I don't feel marginalised or abused by my religion either. Sometimes, people's perceptions of women are an obstacle to me, but this is not mandated by God, nor is it necessary, or even acceptable. Women are not inferior to men, nor must they relinquish control of their lives to men. Unfortunately, there exist some men who feel that they have to treat women unfairly. I mean obvious things like abuse and withholding rights, but also little things, like the attitudes people have.

For instance, there's this dumb guy that works at Home Depot who tries to talk me out of buying things because he doesn't think I know what I'm doing. I've run into him a few times and now I refuse to talk to him. Once he told me that I couldn't use a rope clamp to make a loop in some nylon braided rope. Like heck I can't! He told me to weave it (I think he meant splice *eyeroll*). Little does he know that a splice causes the rope to lose roughly 20% of its strength, whereas a clamp loses only 5-10%. Anyway, what does he think rope clamps are for if not for clamping rope?

Anyway... my conclusion is that we are NOT guilty of Eve's transgression, and are not obligated to put up with subjugation. We live in a fallen world, so abuse happens. Our purpose in life is not to accept bad things as they are, but to try to reverse them. That is how we find our humanity and our godliness: we right wrongs and try to make the world better.

The Mind/Body Problem

2008-11-30T20:28:00.000-08:00

Descartes said that the mind and the body were two distinctly different substances. We LDS folk, of course, believe that our purpose for coming to Earth was to gain a physical body. We believe that our intelligence have always existed, but that the Plan of Salvation is required for us to obtain physical bodies. I'll equate the mind with the spirit, as that means most logical from an LDS perspective.

So, this leads me to the mind/body problem. How does the mind/spirit control the body? If we need bodies (which are physical) to influence physical matter, then how is it that we are able to control our bodies in the first place? How is it that a spirit can influence a body directly, but no other physical substance?

My only explanation is really no explanation at all. I think that spiritual matter and physical matter co-exist but do not effect each other. Unless, of course, you have a portal from one realm into the next. That is to say, the body is the portal by which our spirits are capable of interacting with the physical world. Or, perhaps, our spirits do not possess any energy whatsoever, just will and purpose. Perhaps the physical world consists of energy and substance and the spiritual world consists only of awareness. Then, if you apply the spiritual to the physical, you have purposeful direction of energies and substances, rather than random chaos or latency. Think of a person lying completely still, then moving. What changed? Well, the energy and power needed to move was always there, but it had no will to move, and therefore didn't. Perhaps it is all part of our eternal mission: to bring order to chaos.

I'm not sure if any of this made sense. I'll have to read this again tomorrow and see if I'm out of my gourde or what.

Prop 8: Living and Letting Live

2008-11-13T16:02:00.000-08:00

The obvious issue for my first (serious) post seems to be prop 8 which recently passed in California. What a time to be mormon! Things are getting increasingly heated between those who support prop 8 and those who oppose it. I'll weigh in, and try to be fair to both sides.

The likelihood of proposition 8 passing were looking pretty slim to begin with; all but the most conservative seemed against the idea. So, what changed? Well, I'd say most of the voters were of the "live-and-let-live" variety and, at first, saw no harm in allowing homosexuals the right to marry. However, things seemed to change when reports came out of children being taken to gay weddings, books condoning gay marriage being read in schools, and religious charities closing because of pressure from gay rights groups. At this point, I think the live-and-let-live crowd started to think that the LGBT community wasn't going to live and let live, which made them feel threatened.

In fact, this may be what lead the Church to want to take action this time and not other times. Gay marriage has been an issue in other states and countries (Canada, for instance) and in those instances, the message coming from the First Presidency of the Church was to get involved if you wish, but not in the Church's name. This may suggest that they felt something else was at stake here, not just whether or not gay people could marry. Although, to be clear, the Church has not donated any money whatsoever, they simply sent a letter out encouraging people to get involved. Also, no one is obligated to get involved. Many LDS people have been opposed to proposition 8, and no action has been taken against them.

Since the proposition has passed, there has been a lot of talk of rights being taken away and people not accepting the love that two people have for one another. This kind of language seeks an emotional response, although it isn't accurate. I don't feel it's appropriate to talk in terms of "rights". Technically speaking, no rights were taken away, as a civil union carries with it exactly the same rights as a marriage. Also, prop 8 really had nothing to do with love. No one's ability to be in a loving, committed relationship has been compromised. I feel it is a strategy of prop 8 opponents to make it seem like more has been taken away than really has or that prop 8 supporters feel a certain way about homosexual couples when they really don't.

The argument has also been made that redefining marriage shouldn't be an issue since blacks used to not be allowed to marry whites and slaves used to not be allowed to marry at all. However, marriage has never been defined as between "a man and a woman, but not of different races and as long as they're not slaves". The definition of marriage has always been "a union between one man and one woman", that contract was simply being withheld from certain people. Also, it's important to note that marriage has been in practise for thousands of years and is not limited to American history. There have been various restrictions based on culture (caste system in India, to name one) but it has always been a contract between one man and one woman. Even when polygamy has been in practise throughout history, it has been a contract between one man and one woman, the men having multiple contracts with different people (this being the distinction between polygamy and polyamory). Even in Roman times when homosexuality was quite rampant and widely accepted, there were never marriages between two men. A man would have a wife in addition to male sexual partners; they were considered two seperate things. I'm not saying this to mean that the definition could never change, only that this argument shouldn't be used to support the legalisation of gay marriage.

And now, we come to the reality of the situation. (Most) prop 8 supporters aren't actually interested in taking people's rights away and (most) prop 8 opponents aren't actually upset about a lack of rights. Both sides are worried about something else and I think all this talk of "rights" is just beating around the bush. This is really a multi-million dollar argument over the word marriage. So why all the fuss over a word? Well, let's look at this from both sides.

First, we have the gay side. This is really a plea for acceptance. They have all the rights of straight people and can enter into de facto marriages, but they lack the connotation of being "married". I understand the desire, and don't find it to be all that unreasonable. When homosexuals first started "coming out", they adopted the term "gay" because it was a positive word. So, in this case, I feel the desire for marriage is a desire to use a word that gives the impression of a normal, healthy, loving relationship and apply it to themselves. It's really a way of saying, "hey, we're just like you guys, and we want to be treated the same."

On the religious right, I feel that there is a group of people who want to deny the word marriage to the LGBT community for this very reason. They don't want to grant official acceptance of homosexual relationships. The majority of those opposed to gay marriage, however, are probably just afraid of having their own rights taken away, at least this is most likely what swayed the vote in prop 8's favour. There's a pervading "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" mentality that says that if we allow gay marriage, religious leaders will start getting sued for not performing these gay marriages and children will be indoctrinated in the schools. I'm sure there are some gay people who want these things, but most of them probably don't care. As with most things, there are extremists and bigots on either side of the fence.

Really, we just have two sides who are both afraid of the same thing, and that is that their freedom to live as they choose will be taken away. The solution is probably an open dialogue between both sides. Both sides seem to feel that if they let live, they will no longer be able to live themselves. In Canada, when gay marriage was legalised, there were also measures taken to protect religious freedom, which I think is a good compromise. We just need to make sure that both sides are protected and no one has their rights taken away.

What we definitely don't need is more anger, hatred, and disrespect. Let's permanently throw out mudslinging language because it's not getting us anywhere. Besides, it just makes your opponent feel more resolve. When gay people start calling mormons bigots, vandalising churches, and threatening to have their tax-exempt status away, it just solidifies the fears of religious freedom being taken away. Some of the harassment that LDS people are receiving in the name of equal rights is completely ridiculous. If I were a member of the LGBT community, I would be distancing myself from these people as much as possible.

We're all in this together, living in the same world and breathing the same air. We need to co-exist peacefully with our fellow citizens. If we can't do that, we have a serious failure on our hands.

First Post Jitters and the Virgin Mary

2008-11-08T09:06:00.000-08:00

Okay, I admit, I have a bit of blog-fright about making my first non-introductory post. I feel like I have to get off on the right foot, make a good first impression, and so on. I'm pretty sure no one knows this blog exists as of yet, but try telling my nerves that. Whenever I'm nervous I go into stand-up comedian mode and if you're going to read my blog, you'd better get used to it. Anyway, here's a light-hearted post to break the ice.

An image of the Virgin Mary is on my pantry door. No joke. I've known it for a while, but last night I took a picture so everyone would know I was serious. Check it out:

So there you go.

First Post!

2008-10-17T11:17:00.000-07:00

Since this is a first post, I suppose I should explain. This is my blog that I'm setting up so I can ramble on and on regardless of whether anyone is actually listening. The focus will be on my viewpoints, wonderings, and so on from the point of view of an LDS person who happens to be left-of-centre. Hence the name "prog'mo", as in "progressive mormon".

I'm not liberal as a rule, although some of my strongest viewpoints fall in the liberal realm. I'm big time into the environment, social programmes, and local economies (as opposed to unfettered globalisation), to name a few. Mostly, I believe that we should always be striving to make life better not only for ourselves, but for others and for generations to come.

So there you have it. Enjoy.