Out of the Best Books

I went through some discount books at the store, the other day. All books were $1!!! I subscribe to the philosophy that "She who dies with the most books wins." So $1 books is the kind of salvation I can't pass up.

Well, of course I found some. One of them was a copy of Bhagavad Gita! Now, I know that Bhagavad Gita is considered scripture by Hindus worldwide, but I've never actually read any of it! I have read the Koran, enjoyed Khalil Gibran's The Prophet, and felt that I would be remiss - a criminal - if I didn't buy this book too! So I did, I brought it home, and I began to thumb through it. 

I found a beautiful thing in it! (Many, but one in particular that made me ponder.) What struck me about this passage was the familiarity it held, for me, as a Mormon. 

As a Mormon, I have learned and similarly taught others about there being three degrees of glory, in Heaven. I find comfort in this doctrine! These "degrees" are all kingdoms of glory - a sign of a loving God. It makes eternity not so black and white, Heaven or Hell. There is room made for varying degrees of goodness. 

In Chapter 14 of the Bhagavad Gita, we see a familiar vein. The Bhagavad Gita teaches that there are three "modes" of material nature, modes which "condition" living entities in their presence. Basically, this concept means that all living people are conditioned to one of three modes. They become and live in one of these three states. These three modes, or states of being, will dictate their futures upon their deaths. Three degrees of glory? I thought so.

I enjoyed reading of these three modes. In degree from lowest to highest:

Ignorance, Passion, & Goodness.

I've pondered on these three modes. I've pondered on which level I find myself living. Bhagavad Gita lists how these modes or ways of being are born, or how people come to be in the stage they are, and also lists the results of these modes - madness, fruits of action, happiness. While I have my disagreements with many aspects of the book, and all the parallels drawn, there are aspects and points made that I have found great value in.

Doctrine and Covenants 88:118 states: "Seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith."

What are these best books? Answers have differed and varied on the matter. What is "best?" What is "wisdom?" Do they really want us to teach out of "every" good book we find wisdom in, or is there a standard of what is "best enough" to teach out of? 

My son, Dexter, is a huge fan of the Dr. Seuss book "I Wish that I Had Duck Feet." After about the 500th read, I noticed something beautiful from this children's book. Big Bill Brown is the book's antagonist. As our main character takes upon himself many animal traits, such as duck feet, a whale spout, deer horns, a long long tail, we see him frequently describe how his having these animal traits will affect Big Bill Brown.

Big Bill Brown can't wear as many hats as our protagonist could, with deer horns. With a whale spout, our protagonist could play Big Bill Brown "off his feet" in a game of tennis. With a long, long tail, Big Bill Brown might tie our protagonist in a tree, which would be unfortunate indeed. But, with an elephant trunk, he could, in retribution, sneeze, and blow Big Bill Brown down. 

In the end, our hero deduces that none of these animal traits are just right for him, due to unfortunate consequences of each, so, naturally, he should just have ALL the traits together, and be a Which-What-Who. By having all these animal properties, though, he concludes that he would be a freak of nature, (my words), and would be thrown in a cage like an animal. The beautiful touching part I noticed?  

Big Bill Brown is there. And he is sad to see our protagonist caged too.

Oftentimes our enemies are not actually our enemies, AND, you should still feel love and sympathy for people in a bad spot, even if they were a little brat to you earlier. 

Similarly, I once heard a man pull wisdom, in a podcast, out of the Stephen King book "It." 

"It" is about an evil spirit demon "thing" that preys on small children, killing them in terrible ways, specific to their own individual fears, if I'm remembering correctly. (I tried to watch the movie. I did not like it. I have a hard time with Stephen King and what he does with child characters, as well as general horror/gore.) 

In the book "It," a group of children do their best to hunt down the monster It, and try to kill it. They almost succeed, and swear to each other that if It comes back again, they will reunite and take down the monster again! They apparently succeeded in getting rid of it for 27 years, when one of the characters, Mike, now 27 years older than his childhood self, notices the same strange happenings and murders of children starting to occur again. 

In pondering on how his calling his old childhood friends will be received, he writes, 

"How much will they believe? Enough to end this horror once and for all, or only enough to get them killed? They are being called. I know that much. Each murder in this news cycle has been a call. We almost killed It twice, and in the end, we drove It deep in Its warren tunnels of stinking rooms under the city. But I think It knows another secret. Although It may be immortal, or almost so, we are not. It had only to wait until the act of faith which made us potential monster killers, as well as sources of power, had become impossible. 27 years. Perhaps a period of sleep for It - as short and refreshing as an afternoon nap would be for us. And when It awakes, It is the same. But a third of our lives has gone by. Our perspectives have narrowed. Our faith in the magic, which makes magic possible, has worn off, like the shine on a new pair of shoes after a hard days walking."

The dedication of this book, written by Stephen King to his own children reads: "Kids, fiction is the truth inside the lie, and the truth of this fiction is simple enough: the magic exists."

The podcaster concluded: "When I read the dedication, it resonated with me. And one of the reasons it resonated with me was because it so perfectly described why it is that I have come to the point in my life, where I can consider the Book of Mormon to be scripture, without considering it to be historical. I can consider the Book of Mormon to be true without considering it to have actually happened in real time and space, with real characters playing out real events in real history. And that's one of the things that's so wonderful about this quote, is that it recognizes that truth can be told inside of a lie."

That hit me HARD. It was beautiful, and was something I absolutely needed to hear! Stephen King's "It" helped inspire me to continue to see the Book of Mormon as scripture. 

Take THAT. Best books? Words of wisdom?

It was for me. Yup. Creepy clown with a red balloon? The Book of Mormon is scripture. Joseph Smith Jr was inspired by God.

The best books might teach you about mindfulness, they might teach about the Zoroastrian fundamentals of "good thoughts, good words, good deeds." The best books might show you a hero who, despite no one believing in a danger he knew he saw, was able to defeat that danger, He Who Must Not Be Named, by trusting in faithful friends and the right old man's advice. He leaned on and relied on the works of others who had gone on and died trying to combat this same evil before him. (Harry Potter. I'm talking about Harry Potter.) There are things we can learn from the best books. 

What books are you learning from today?

Modesty

I saw a handsome man's butt the other day. I wasn't even related to him.

But I'll get back to that.

Today I listened to the latest podcast by At Last She Said It, a podcast run by some faithful LDS women with "ideas." (AKA - they're feminists.) I love these ladies, and have enjoyed listening to their podcasts, which seek to address "women's issues" in the Church. 

The latest episode was all about clothing, specifically, about how we address modesty with our youth, and especially with our young women. Now, with my history of Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder, the For the Strength of the Youth pamphlet put out by our church used to be like a little mini bible to me, and that pamphlet had more than enough to say about Dress and Attire. With my OCPD driving my moral compass, and the drive I had to inflict my morals on those around me, I was quite a little "modesty Nazi" growing up. I've done all the arguing there is to be had, on modesty. LANP was once a battle cry. (Leggings Are Not Pants.)

But as I've gotten older, as my disorder has become quieter, and as I've come to learn that leggings are just danged more comfy to lounge around in, I've had to reevaluate what "truth" is, and confront the uncomfortable fact that in many ways, I was wrong. 

I once wrote a lengthy essay, many years ago, on modesty as a Zion principle - that our actions all affect each other, and if something unnecessary we are doing is creating difficulty for another person, maybe we shouldn't do that anymore. I hold that this is true in many ways. Look at masks. (My current moral hobby horse, I know.) It is unnecessary to fight the good anti-mask fight, and not wearing masks is making people get sick, so maybe you shouldn't fight that fight. Just wear the mask and help your community, because that is a principle of Zion - what is best for "us," rather than selfish living.

I wrote my Zion Modesty article while begrudging legging wearing. I had it on good authority from many men that I was good friends with that leggings, which hide nothing, were "tempting." I was worried about my boy friends! I inherited a pair of leggings from a DI bag a year or so later, which, to my chagrin, I found to be soft, comfortable and forgiving at the waistline, while simultaneously being the least restrictive option for kneeling and general unladylike behavior like driving with one foot on the seat, or lounging over an armrest, which I was fond of. So I wore them in the confines of my own home as a guilty pleasure. 

With motherhood and stay-at-home motherhood in particular, I found that comfort and lounging became high priorities for me. In addition to leggings at home, soon followed no longer wearing makeup, and generally becoming more comfortable in my own skin - accepting who I was, wrinkles, rolls, and all! I even wore leggings out of the house! I embraced Mom Life! And in that embrace I recognized my motivations. I didn't wear leggings because I wanted to tempt all the men in my vicinity. (If they're into Mom Bods, good on them!) I wore leggings because it was more important for me to be comfortable than to care what anybody else thought about me. I wore leggings because I was humble enough not to be concerned. And in recognizing that slovenly fact about myself, I realized that all those years ago, I had not given that benefit of the doubt to the other women in my life.

For me, the Zion principle never changed - but wearing leggings wasn't as "unnecessary" as I had once thought, and "tempting" men was something impossible to avoid, so, rather, coping mechanisms and healthy relationships and sexuality with others were more important to prioritize in teaching those youth. The slovenly lifestyle was necessary for me - it helped me embrace my "expanding" (YUP) Mom body, and realize that my worth was so much more than any perception by myself or others of my body, beauty, etc. 

Listening to At Last She Said It's podcast today, one story struck me as beautiful. The mom asked her swimmer daughter if she had a hard time being around all those other girls and swimmers, wearing a swimsuit all the time, including boys. Her daughter quickly replied "Not at all. I never feel better about myself than when I'm wearing my swimsuit! When I'm wearing my swimsuit, that's the one time it's about what I can do, not about how I look!"

Too often we inadvertently view bodies as just that - bodies. We view them as objects, not instruments. We lose sight of the person, the spirit, because of the shell. And I realized that shells matter a lot less than I used to give them credit for. 

At the beginning of this post I mentioned that I saw a handsome man's butt the other day. That's 100% fact. No lie. No trickery. I saw his butt. Well, just one cheek. 

I was at a tattoo parlor. (Hey, you don't know me!) (Or you don't know tattoo parlors...) ;) A joke came over the radio overhead, and a handsome gentleman stepped from the back of the store towards the front, into view. He was laughing, and started chatting with another guy, who was in the part of the parlor I was in about the joke. I remember looking over my shoulder and seeing him. His smile was contagious, as was his grin and easygoing persona. While joking with his friend, he made me love humanity.

He had on only underwear. Boxers. Purple, with one leg pulled up and tucked into his crack to expose one white cheek. Obviously he was getting some cheeky art done! But that was far from the first thing I noticed about him, and was far from the last thing I remembered about him either. His JOY was his defining feature.

It took me until my drive home to realize just what had happened. This gentleman had been OUTRAGEOUSLY immodest in front of me! And I hadn't been tempted to sin in the slightest! 

Over the last several weeks I have thought back on this man and his butt cheek several times. That sounds creepy, but it's actually not. I realized something very important about modesty! It's not about the clothes. It was never about the clothes. Clothing style is cultural and ever changing. (Even garments, my LDS friends. Even garments.) It's not about the clothes. It never was. And we need to stop pretending that it is, because it does women and men a great disservice, and gives us unhealthy views about each other. 

If we gender reversed things, seeing that man's butt might have really given me a hard time. If Mormon boys were raised on the same lessons Mormon girls are, and everybody knew what was being expected of them, I would have assumed that man was a sinner, for flaunting his body shamelessly in front of people. (He was getting a tattoo, so obviously he WAS a sinner, right, but I mean, apart from that...) ;) I would have seen skin in a private place that had been drilled into me that I was NOT supposed to see, and I would have felt shame for everybody, and embarrassment. I would have dwelt on that shame, and thought about that butt, and the shame, and the nakedness, and the perversity of it all would have the potential to drive me to some real problems. I might even be angry at him for not covering himself up better! 

But he did nothing wrong. He was a beautiful, happy man who made me feel hope for the world!

Yet in our culture, we can't seem to see women the same way. 

Instead we shame them for their bodies, then wonder why Utah has more plastic surgeons per capita than LA. Because we have raised children in a culture with an unhealthy obsession about women's bodies. Women's bodies which victimize us, betray us, and steal away our men's hearts!!!

The podcast also told the story of a woman who was tired of rushing to the mail before everyone else in the family, so that she could cut the underwear advertisements out of the paper before her family looked at it. 

Women's bodies are unavoidable. We should not insist on protecting men from women's bodies, inadvertently oversexualizing all of them against their will by default. Women are sexualized in all their forms and, heaven forbid, situations. I'm sorry, but women have to grocery shop. Women deserve to buy underwear. Women deserve to be comfortable in their own skin. Who are we protecting from who, and why? Is there not a better way to address the real concern? At what point can we expect men to be responsible for their own physical attractions? Physical attractions which, get this, even girls feel when looking at men, too. 

Frankly, I think we need to have more lessons on modesty for the men. How dare they shove those pectorals in our faces, with those suit coats squaring out and extenuating those broad, powerful shoulders... 

What a slut.

But wait...

...Maybe the Church is giving men the modesty lesson, and I've just been missing it. Here I was, thinking they were telling men to be clean shaven because they were anti-hippie, but maybe, just maybe, they know... They know how beards make us ladies feel...

A Letter to the General Relief Society Presidency

My name is Grace, and I am reaching out to you as a distressed member of the church. Heads up! Everybody deserves fair warning, right? ;) I am writing this letter with no address or permission to send it to you, so here it goes. I'm writing this to you after the conclusion of General Conference, as I feel troubled. 

I watched Women’s Session yesterday evening from the solitude of my bedroom, where I was quarantining pending a COVID test result. (Negative. We’re good!) I struggled with Women’s Session. I loved every talk up until the Brethren started talking. Their words felt out-of-touch, and not just because they’re men. They felt out of touch because the way that they were speaking carried heavy tones of sexism. President Eyring outright stated that there would be more women in heaven than men! 

Equality in our church led me through a faith crisis when I got married, and had to face the bitter reality that my husband did NOT fit the image of an elusive knight in shining armour who was going to save me, like I had been led to believe, but was, in fact, just my equal. The wording in the temple, at the time, drove home the fact that our church held, in doctrine and practice, the standard of inequality. My husband WAS supposed to be seen as that savior to me, coming between me and my god. Getting married was the biggest demotion I’d ever received. Things are better, now, but my husband is still assigned the role to “preside” in the temple, something that by very definition is not equality.

President Eyring’s passing comment hurt me immensely, and brought back a flood of anger and upset. See, when I was in college, at BYU-Idaho, some well-intentioned teacher had taught in a class the old doctrine that there would be no female “Sons of Perdition.” I remember stewing on it for months, and upon returning home, one night devolved into a weeping mess with my mother in her bed. “It’s not fair!” I cried. “It’s like women just aren’t worth as much! It’s like we’re less accountable! I can’t even go to Hell if I want to!” My mother righteously corrected me, for which I will always be grateful. “Oh trust me.” she calmed. “You can go to Hell.”

President’s Eyring’s statement that there would be more women in Heaven than men was reminiscent of this old doctrine that caused me so much pain. Only two logical conclusions can be drawn, if we are to believe this statement.

First - Women are less accountable than men. (Those sweet, sweet spirits…)

Second - Men are naturally just more terrible. 

I reject both of these notions. Men and women are different, yes. But as the adage goes, “Don’t judge me because I sin differently than you.” Women may not murder as many people, but we definitely aren’t “just better.” I have sons. I have a husband. I reject that as pure, though perhaps well-intentioned, sexism. My concern is that this tradition is carried forward and being taught because it has, historically, been used as a justification for polygamy - if there are more women in heaven than men, polygamy is justified. It is being taught, however, without appreciating the more significant implications about worth and equality.

In this church there is no equality between the genders. I can appreciate there are differences between genders, but this is a church that serves men more than women. The Relief Society Presidency doesn’t speak in Priesthood Session of conference. Why do the Brethren feel the need to step all over this rare opportunity we have, as women, to have a session just for us? To actually hear women speak in a way that we relate to, and feel heard! Do the men not trust us women, or see us as capable, to handle one of ten sessions each year on our own? 

I am reminded of President Chieko Okazaki who, tactfully, expressed her disappointment that the Relief Society Presidency was not consulted with, in the writing of the Family Proclamation. In a church where women’s needs, concerns, and insights are seen as an afterthought or a token voice, there will be no equality. (Don’t even get me started on our blatant anti-ERA past, subservient to the Brethren Relief Society callings, etc.)

I mentioned that inequality in the church led me through a faith crisis. I have given my entire life to God. I have been an active, temple recommend holder my entire life. I receive regular personal revelation. I feel confident in saying that I know God, and that God approves of me. I love and trust God more than anything, and have taken countless risks in my life because God told me too, and I learned to trust. It was declining a job offer. Going on a mission. Marrying my husband. (I had some real commitment issues, and God had to hit me multiple times over the head, including with direct words, that I needed to marry that man.) 

I have followed God through all of these challenges, trials, and risks, and I include the risk that I have felt directed to in my faith crisis. God has told me to disagree. God has told me to say unpopular things, and study our unpopular history. I have come to conclusions about many of these things, conclusions that are unpopular. I let my temple recommend lapse, and have felt nothing but God’s blessing and support for the decision I made to act with integrity in that decision to do so. It hurts. It hurts to feel like my church, my “tribe,” views me as “less than” for doing what God has told me to do, and believing what God has told me is true. But I trust God well enough to know that I should press on.

I am hurting in this church. I hurt because of this church every day. But I stay, because like Eugene England stated, “The church is as true as the gospel.” You just don’t become a better person in any other setting, and yes, that is often through trials.

I reach out to you because I don’t want inequality to be one of those trials for me anymore, or for anybody else. I know I stand with God on the issue - that I can go to Hell like any man, and I will gain exaltation through the same judgement which will be meted my brothers! I am not a fragile thing to be pedestaled and admired from a distance, but rather a comrade, a “helpmeet” in the purest form. 

I don’t know if there’s anything that can be done, realistically. It has been a long time since I have felt the blind belief that the church would only ever help me. But I hold out hope that many of our leaders are genuinely good people trying to do what is right. Surely, if they heard my cries, they would do something to fix it, wouldn’t they?

I am a woman with a lot of faith in God, and not very much in man. (God is okay with this.) I know I am not the only one suffering in this way. Heck, there are support groups with thousands of members trying to stay actively engaged in the church despite their nuanced beliefs and differences. 

Will the church make a place for feminists? I’m not asking you to Ordain Women. (Secretly, I feel like we regressed there a bit, but I’m not going to push it.) I just want to know that women are equal, and though we’ve made significant steps in the right direction, in the words of a friend of mine, “I’m just so tired of being expected to be grateful for crumbs.” 

Can the general Relief Society Presidency operate a little more independently? Call their own successors like the brethren do? Can we have Women’s Sessions where a man doesn’t demand the final word by virtue of his divine authority? Where, maybe, men don’t even feel entitled to give their opinion or speak at all? In the least, can we have a Women’s Session where we don’t have to be subjected to patronizing, pedestaling tones from the men, and veiled attacks on our equality, or constant reminders of our “place” in the priesthood, beneath the brethren? (Priesthood does NOT equal “the ability to pray to God and get God’s help,” so no, women don’t have it in the sense that the men do, no matter how we try to spin it.) 

I’m sorry. I know my tone gets grumpy. I’m really tired of the struggle. I’m tired of losing friends and family to the struggle. I have had so many friends and family members step away from the church because of these mortal problems, and the fact that leadership seems unwilling to recognize or admit to the mortality of these problems. Fallibility is written into our doctrine, and yet it is so hard to admit to, at times. It is admitting Brigham Young said crazy things. It’s admitting we were wrong when we said it was doctrine that blacks couldn’t have the priesthood until every white man had it. I’m obviously very open to the idea that polygamy could have been a mortal invention. But knowing that there have been mortal mistakes made and claimed as doctrine DOES leave the door open for changes in these matters of equality. Do we truly believe in equality between men and women, like the Book of Mormon states, or do we just pay it lip service while still placing exclusively men at the top of the chain of every command?

I was frustrated, during COVID, that our Area Authority vetoed our ability to hold online church services locally. I am someone that very much appreciates fellowshipping with the saints, despite all my opinionated ways making me rough around the edges. I joined with wards in other parts of the world, but eventually, my frustration with what I deemed to be an unrighteous ruling vetoing local online services led me to finding local online services outside of our faith. 

I attended online services with Community of Christ, and found beautiful fellowship there. I glimpsed equality in the church, and knowing that it was the church of the son of Joseph helped me see that equality was and is possible. Reading the history of Emma Smith, I know that equality is possible. Equality is certainly compatible with the vision Joseph Smith Jr had, though it is far from what exists presently. 

I want to belong in this church. I find value in our rituals, in our teachings, in the empowering relationships with deity that are fostered and grown from our earliest youth. We are a church of service, of goodness and kindness. At times we are mortal and we screw up, but I hope that we can continue to strive for a Zion society of equality, and not let fear of looking “mortal” hold us back from progressing forward when we recognize or learn new truths. 

A sincerely trying member,

Grace