Friday, July 12, 2013

Picking Apart YW Lesson, "Attitudes About Our Divine Roles"

Sooo, I was looking on Sugardoodle to find some cute little handouts to maybe print and put with the cute little rocks that I made, and I stumbled across this cute little lesson that was in one of the old YW lesson manuals they had before updating them this year.

(I think they got rid of these lesson manuals because girls like me were tired of being told our lives had to revolve around cooking, cleaning, and makin' babies by a bunch of older people of the male gender, but still! They only got rid of them last year... And I remember these lessons, all right.)

Lesson 8: Attitudes about Our Divine Roles

  Ooh hoo. Let's see how my attitude's gonna look when I'm finished with this. 

 http://www.lds.org/manual/young-women-manual-1/lesson-8-attitudes-about-our-divine-roles?lang=eng

 

"Point out that we can have positive or negative attitudes about our divine roles of wife and mother. Some look at these roles as being demeaning and full of drudgery, but our roles are actually a part of a solemn promise that we made before we came to earth. They are part of the blessings that come to us as daughters of God."

 Oh please. Go on.

“We committed ourselves to our Heavenly Father, that if He would send us to the earth and give us bodies and give to us the priceless opportunities that earth life afforded, we would keep our lives clean and would marry in the holy temple and would rear a family and teach them righteousness. This was a solemn oath, a solemn promise” (“Be Ye Therefore Perfect,” address given at the Salt Lake Institute of Religion, 10 Jan. 1975, p. 2).

What roles did we promise to Heavenly Father that we would accept before we came to earth? (We would marry and have a family.)"

So, in other words, I "promised" I would get married? I made an "oath"? I'm not liking how this is panning out.

 "Point out that the worldly view of women’s roles is false partly because it is selfcentered. It focuses so much on a woman’s rights to receive that it almost ignores her opportunities to give. The Lord’s view is a broader one. It focuses on the opportunities of both men and women to love and serve. This view can help us avoid being caught up in selfishness and unhappiness."

So if I wanted to go to school and have a career and stick my kids in daycare while I work, that would be considered "SELFISH"? I would be "SELF-CENTERED"? And who says I can't find opportunities to "give" if I decided to have a career? I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean in this context, or how it has anything to do with working. We can't all be sitting at home all day making cookies to give to our neighbors all the time.

 Explain that if we believe that life as a wife and mother is routine and boring, it will be. But if we can understand our divine purposes and realize the great potential we have, our role will take on greater meaning than any other task in this world. By cheerfully and enthusiastically supporting our husbands and by bearing, nurturing, and teaching righteous spirits, we can experience the greatest fulfillment."

 So by changing my attitude, I can psych myself out of thinking that cooking all the time and changing diapers can be fun? Okay, I'm really sorry. I'm using WAY too much sarcasm for this. And I know that being a mom can be really awesome and fun, but still. It's kind of hard to change pre-concieved notions by "trying to change your attitude". Does the church offer cognitive behavioral therapy, too?

Okay, the way the last sentence is worded... You can't experience the greatest fulfillment by doing other things, too? Only by having kids, taking care of kids, and teaching them? I'm not saying that's a bad thing, and I'm not saying that you can't get any fulfillment from doing that but still... And I definitely agree with the part of supporting your husband, but that's funny. It doesn't say anything about him supporting you. Now, I KNOW that I'm just being picky with the wording, but that would be nice if the put a little bit of the "equal perspective" in it.

"How can the teachings of the Lord and his servants about our roles help protect us from the dangers of adoption worldly attitudes?" 

 Again. Please see one of the paragraphs above stating why I definitely do not believe that the so-called "world's role" is self-centered and selfish. And OH MY GOSH. I don't think I'm being protected from the "dangers" of believing that it's okay to work and not be a mom. Apparently the teachings of a bunch of older, male individuals telling me how to live my life as a female haven't been sticking in my mindset quite that well.

"A woman should never minimize the tremendous power of being a comfort and help to her husband. He may have need to be comforted and encouraged to perform his roles as husband, provider, leader, or teacher."

That's great, but WHAT ABOUT US? And they're automatically assuming he's the provider. And if I'm reading that in the right context, the leader. Of the family........

“Young women should plan and prepare for marriage and the bearing and rearing of children. It is your divine right and the avenue to the greatest and most supreme happiness” (“Privileges and Responsibilities of Sisters,” Ensign, Nov. 1978, p. 103).

Okay. Prepare for marriage? How, pray tell? Dating? Please be specific. Preparing for "rearing" (who even uses that word anymore?), probably babysitting or changing diapers or something. And prepare for bearing children??? Not exactly sure how you would do that, either. Okay, I was going to say something else, but my [mostly seemingly broken] filter in my brain was setting off its alarm. Aaaanyways, moving on. Having and raising kids is the only way to the greatest and most supreme happiness? Oookay, I'm the kind of person who would definitely want to get married and have kids someday, but what about those who just don't see that as an option? They won't be able to experience their own kind of the greatest joy and happiness? *sigh*.

Bobby McFerrin is singing in my head right now, "Don't worry, be happy!" I think we should all follow his advice, no matter what kind of life we lead, no matter if we have kids or not, no matter if we're married or not.

Girl's Camp Stuff!! :D

*Incoming Brag Post* So Tiffany and I are trying to become the best dang YCLs these girls are ever going to have, and of course if you want people to like you, you give them stuff... right? (jk) But anyways, here's what I've been spending my time doing:


Yeah. I MADE THAT.



AND THAT!

I know, amazing. You'd be surprised at what stamps, tissue paper, and mod podge and do. And maybe some glitter thrown in the mix. And fellow YCL Tiffany's comin' up with some pretty cool stuff too.

If these girls don't love us, I don't know who is.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Girl's Camp Oughta be Fun This Year...

 

Tiffany and I were at the Stake Center tonight with all of the other YCLs getting Girl's Camp stuff ready. We volunteered to put a bunch of boxes of cookies and bags of marshmallows in red bags for the YCLs to give to each of their groups, and we were supposed to tie this little gem to it. I'm not even sure if I want to even get into this right now...

If this little card is used in the context as in, follow the commandments, teachings from the scriptures, etc. then that's great! Carry on! But with other things, I'm not so great at supporting the whole "unconditional obedience" thing. It's getting late, and I have summer seminary early tomorrow, so I'd better not get real in-depth right now. I guess I'll have to save a little steam for tomorrow, right? :)

*Note: Do the guys get any of these kinds of handouts at Scout Camp or anything like that?? Come on.*

Cognitive Dissonance, Part I (and Les Misérables!)

So last week I heard an interesting phrase, "Cognitive Dissonance". I wasn't exactly sure what it meant, but I is a very smart girl, and used that thinking organ in my head to use the word stems to come up with "split thinking". Actually, I was just about spot on.

Simplepsychology.com says:

"Festinger's (1957) cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we have an inner drive to hold all our attitudes and beliefs in harmony and avoid disharmony (or dissonance).

Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors. This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance etc."

 And my face was like this:

btw, I think this guy looks kind of like Robert Downey Jr making a weird face. RDJ is preeetty hot, though...


Whoooaaa.


 Want more interesting stuff about it?

"Leon Festinger (1957) proposed cognitive dissonance theory, which states that a powerful motive to maintain cognitive consistency can give rise to irrational and sometimes maladaptive behavior.  According to Festinger, we hold many cognitions about the world and ourselves; when they clash, a discrepancy is evoked, resulting in a state of tension known as cognitive dissonance. As the experience of dissonance is unpleasant, we are motivated to reduce or eliminate it, and achieve consonance (i.e. agreement)." -simplepsychology.com

If right now you're thinking, "Whaaaa? No hablo español!" then let me explain it in simple terms.

You know that guy from Les Miserables, right? Javert? He was that law enforcement guy who kept on chasing the main character Jean Valjean and was singing all the time and who had an uncanny resemblence to Russel Crowe in the 2012 movie? (Oh, haha. Of course. That's because that WAS Russel Crowe.) Anyways, he ends up killing himself because Jean Valjean spared his life even after years of being chased by him. I have reason to believe that good ole' Javert had a cognitive dissonance thing going on. He could not reconcile his beliefs, everything he had ever believed all of his life to this new revelation. He couldn't bear to part from the cornerstone of his entire life, that had just been broken down by the actions of Jean Valjean.

Yes. Plain and simple. It was because all of his core beliefs were shattered, and because of the way he lived and his pattern of thinking, he could not come to terms with it. He killed himself because his moral statues and the things he had always lived by suddenly didn't seem to apply anymore, and that world seemed incomprehensible to Inspector Javert.

If you read the last couple of paragraphs and just thought, "blah, blah, blah", then here I go again:

Javert: Bad guys are evil no matter what. They can't change. I seriously gotta catch this guy to keep up my self-worth and purpose in life.

Jean Valjean: Seriously now, I've changed! I own a factory and help my workers, and then I take care of a dying prostitute, then adopt her abused little girl. I was only in prison for stealing some bread!

Javert: Too bad. You stole. Thief=bad. Sorry. I gotta chase you around some more, then arrest you.

 Jean Valjean: *has him captured, handed a gun, and given the chance to kill Javert and finally get rid of him* 

Javert: Go ahead, kill me. You can finally get your revenge on me for trying so hard to capture you. You're a criminal, a thief, so obviously you want to kill me. 

Jean Valjean: *cuts the ropes binding Javert's wrists and lets him go free* Listen dude, I really am a good guy. I'm letting you go. Heck, I'll even tell you where I live so you can try to arrest me later. But I'm not going to kill you.

Javert: ...

Later: Jean Valjean saves Marius' life but escapes with him from the barricade just to run into Javert again.

Jean Valjean: Look! I just saved this young man's life, even though he's been sneaking around with my adopted daughter. Then I dragged him all the way through a sewer to bring him to safety. Can you AT LEAST help me take him home before you arrest me?!?

Javert: ...

After they do so, Jean Valjean: Okay. You can arrest me now, but can I go home really quick first?

Javert: ...

After they do so: Jean Valjean goes in his house, but finds out that Javert is gone!

Jean Valjean's face:

 
Barney Fife: "That badge means something! Don't disgrace it!" 


Javert, later walking by the Seine and contemplating the meaning of life: Wait- wait now. Wait a second. Lemme get this straight-

Little Red Devil on left shoulder: Jean Valjean is a bad guy. You are supposed to arrest him. He is a thief, a criminal. CRIMINALS NEVER CHANGE. He's been running from the law all these years! Fugitive, thief, criminal=bad.

Javert: But wait-

Little White Angel on right shoulder: Jean Valjean is a good man. He made a mistake all those years ago, but he has changed. He was good to his factory employees, sheltered a prostitute, and adopted her daughter. He also selflessly saved Marius' life and spared yours. If that isn't the kind of good we need in the world, what is?

*He takes a moment to decide*

Javert: I have believed all my life that criminals never change. They are bad and evil. But now, the evidence that he is good and changed is right before my eyes. This is not what I have been taught. This is not what I have believed. What can I do with my life now? I AM BEGINNING TO RESPECT A CONVICT, AND I CANNOT STAND IT. Death is my only release from this confusion, this paradox!

*pause*


Javert: Dammit. He really must be a good guy.

*throws himself into the black, swirling River Seine*


"And must I now begin to doubt,
Who never doubted all these years?
My heart is stone and still it trembles
The world I have known is lost in shadow."


"Is he from heaven or from hell?
And does he know
That granting me my life today
This man has killed me even so?"
 

Javert's black and white thinking lead to his demise. He could not reconcile these two different beliefs. He had his personal beliefs embedded in him so strongly, but when he started believing in a different way, he couldn't bear it. And that my friends, is a pretty easy, straightforward example of cognitive dissonance. Right?


"In modern psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel "disequilibrium": frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc." -Wikipedia

Javert is now the poster-child for this psychological idea.


(Now Russel Crowe, I think he is definitely très attractif  indeed... but I just seem to have a thing for older guys, I guess. Ignore me.)


So here are broth the movie version and the Original Broadway Recording version of his last song. Which one is better is still up for interpretation..... Which one do you guys like better??




Technical Difficulties

I'm not exactly sure what's up with the formatting, but I'm hoping I'm not the only one seeing this:



The men's modesty post that I posted last night is doing something kind of weird... like bleeding all over the page or something. Maybe it's karma. Anyways, when I reverted that post back to a draft, it disappeared... I'm tempted to just re-post it, but then that would get rid of the comments. So if you see it re-posted, hopefully it got rid of all the weirdness going on.

*Updated: I tried re-typing it, and it still didn't help. Oh well. C'est la vie.*

*Updated #2: I deleted the men's modesty post because it was still messing up the mobile version of this site. Oh well... I'll try and re-post it later.*

"It's our responsibility to ask"!





Andria
I’m a Mormon feminist because… God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, and it’s our responsibility to ask. (Article of Faith #9)



Background info about this pic:

Great Websites

So, when I'm bored, I head over to some certain websites that have some great thought-provoking posts. Because when I'm bored, I definitely need to get my brain working. Some of them can seem a little over my teenage head and difficult to to understand, but most of them are great and keep me up at night thinking about them and theorizing over different things. So if you're in the mood for some great reading material, head over to one of the following websites:

Mormon Feminist Housewives
http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org

Doves and Serpents
http://www.dovesandserpents.org/

Ask Mormon Girl
http://askmormongirl.com/

I am a Mormon feminist
http://mormonfeminist.org/
Beauty Redefined:
 http://www.beautyredefined.net/about-us/ 

Beginnings New
http://beginningsnew.blogspot.com/

Young Mormon Feminists:
http://youngmormonfeminists.org/

 Through Feminist Eyes
http://throughfeministeyes.blogspot.com/

Wheat and Tares
http://www.wheatandtares.org/

Mormon Stories Podcast
http://mormonstories.org/

"There is more than one happy ending"!

mormonfeminist:

Katy | Edinburgh
"I’m a Mormon feminist because not every little girl grows up to be a wife and mother … and that’s okay. There is more than one happy ending!"


Couldn’t agree more!!!



Katy | Edinburgh
"I’m a Mormon feminist because not every little girl grows up to be a wife and mother … and that’s okay. There is more than one happy ending!"


Couldn’t agree more!!!
 

Monday, July 8, 2013

Modesty: A Double-Standard

I know what you're thinking: "Oh NO! Another modesty post! Not again!"

What I'm thinking: "Oh yay! Another modesty post! Yesssshh!"

Seriously, I have so much material on this stuff that it's not even funny. Someone needs to take the printer away and lock me up to prevent me from killing another couple hundred trees, or preventing another serious paper jam like the one that almost broke the printer last week (true story, here).

I think that this "modesty double-standard" is pretty obvious, even to people who don't seek stuff like this out such as I. But come on! Have you ever heard of the Deacons or Teachers or Priests having a lesson about modesty? I don't think so. That would be a pretty short lesson: "Don't wear baggy pants, show your checkered boxers and please, we beg of you, keep your shirt on unless you're swimming." I actually think that it's kind of funny how no one really cares if the guys wear sleeveless shirts. Even the Bishop's sons wear them while exercising. Apparently their shoulders aren't sexy enough to be considered a threat :)

But all joking aside, it's seriously starting to get on my nerves. Women and girls are treated like they have the weight of the world on their shoulders to prevent men and boys from having sexual thoughts about them. I mean, for heaven's sake! Our shoulders must look pretty dang good to cause guys to have sexual thoughts about them.

I found an interesting podcast from mormonmatters.org. I haven't actually listened to it yet, but I read the anecdote to it. Again, I really hope they don't mind me copying-and-pasting it... I seriously still have no idea about how the copyright thing works. I'll probably want to read up on that...

3: Healthy Approaches to Teaching Modesty

July 20, 2011
By
"In today’s LDS youth programs, especially those for young women, modesty has become even more of an emphasis than in years and decades past. Of course modesty is important, but are some of the ways modesty is being taught today more harmful than helpful for youth who are undergoing important transitions in their lives? Is modesty being taught too often as an end in itself rather than as a fruit that flows from a life and self-image rooted in healthy spiritual, emotional, and physical confidence?

Furthermore, is modesty being taught too early, becoming an emphasis far ahead of when it is healthy and appropriate to discuss, causing an unconscious sexualizing of even pre-pubescent girls and boys? Finally, are subtle and not-so-subtle messages being conveyed to our youth that modesty is just about sexuality, skin, and arousal, that their bodies are something to be ashamed of and covered? And especially for young women, are they being taught that it is primarily their responsibility to control whether or not boys or men have sexual thoughts?"


Uh, yeah. We are seeming to be taught that. I know that guys don't really have as much of an issue with the whole modesty thing, mostly because they don't wear tank tops, prom dresses, etc. But still, it seems that this kind of mindset is being pressed upon the population of LDS female teenagers more than it should. There is no reason that we should be blamed for the thoughts of others.

Sure, I guess an argument could be made that wearing a bikini in contrast to a hijab could cause more sexual attraction when you compare and contrast the two. But it is not entirely the fault of the girl, especially when we come to something such as a sleeveless shirt or shorts. I know, I went over the whole "sleeveless shirt" thing in my first modesty post, but I'm going to state this again: If a young man is having sexual thoughts about a young woman because she is wearing a shirt with no sleeves, there's probably nothing you could do about it even if she was wearing sleeves. If you're having thoughts like that over something so small, there's probably something else going on, and the lack of sleeves probably didn't create it.

Please stop completely blaming sexual thoughts on us girls and our clothing choices, unless they're very revealing. "Let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly" (I'm too lazy to look up that scriptural reference). And please don't say that sexual actions can stem from lack of modesty, because it takes two to tango, even though revealing clothing can help it along.

I could get into the belief that revealing clothing can definitely be different from immodest clothing. Sort of like that square and rectangle thing, you know. "A rectangle is a square but a square isn't a rectangle." Revealing clothing is immodest clothing, but immodest* clothing is not necessarily revealing** clothing.

Please, enough of this double-standard. Guys can cause plenty of thoughts to girls also, not just the other way around.

Well, I suppose I'd better get to bed now... I've got a long day of writing ahead of me tomorrow.

-Kelsey

*I use the term "immodest" in correlation to the clothing not okay by Church's standards
**I use the term "revealing" in the meaning of low cut/cleavage showing tops, mini-shorts & mini-skirts

I'm coming out... as a Mormon Feminist


I am very tempted to come out as a Mormon Feminist.

Oh, wait, you're reading this, so I guess by writing this I'm doing so. Man, this is only my first day of this blog, and I'm already dropping the bomb.

I'm warning you that this is going to be VERY long, but at least try to read the last seven paragraphs if you get bored of that long list.

What is a Mormon Feminist? Here's a couple of paragraphs from mormonfeminist.org:


What is feminism?
Simply put, feminists want equality for everyone, women and men. Feminists advocate for everyone to have the same opportunities in life - politically, economically, and socially.
Secularly, feminism is an ongoing conversation. While equality is the overall goal of feminism, feminists can disagree over what “equality” means and how to achieve this goal. This is because feminists are all different: they are made up of people from different cultures, countries, races, sexual orientations, religions, economic backgrounds, political parties, religions, genders, ages, etc. Feminism is not one organized movement, but a shared ideal.

What is Mormon feminism?
Mormon feminism shares the goal of equality that feminism has, but within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and within LDS culture. Like general feminism, Mormon feminism is made up of a very diverse group of people. Mormon feminists also do not always agree on what “equality” means or how to get there, but they are all invested in the ongoing conversation. We love to share experiences, discuss ideas, and support one another.

So, why am I identifying myself as a Mormon feminist?

Because I want equality. Because I want change. Here's an interesting campaign I found from one of my new favorite websites, feministmormonhousewives.org (the actual web address is http://whatwomenknow.org/all_are_alike/). (I hope they don't mind me copying and pasting.)


All Are Alike Unto God

As Mormon women, we call upon the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and Relief Society General Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to thoughtfully consider and earnestly pray about the full integration of women into the decision-making structure of the Church and the question of women’s ordination.


In the interim, we join many others in suggesting some simple changes in institutional policy that will foster a more equitable religious community:

  • Encourage partnership in marriage and eliminate the idea that husbands preside over their wives.

  • Create parity in the Young Women and Young Men organizations through equivalent budgets, educational programs (leadership, career, and spiritual training,) and activities (sports, service, and outdoor events).

  • Balance the stories and images of boys and men in church publications, talks, and other media with stories and images of girls and women.

  • Invite women in Church leadership positions to speak and pray during General Conference in numbers equal to the participation of men.

  • Encourage leaders to use gender-inclusive language whenever possible.

  • Recognize that girls and boys, women and men are equally responsible for appropriate sexual behavior, and avoid reducing morality to sexuality, and modesty to a preoccupation with women’s and girls’ clothing.

  • Instruct bishops to refrain from asking Church members probing questions about sexual practices and experiences.

  • Call women to perform pastoral counseling, particularly for women and girls who have been sexually abused.

  • Choose a General Relief Society Presidency and General Board that reflect the diversity of viewpoint and circumstance in the Church, and establish frequent meetings between the First Presidency and the General Relief Society Presidency.

  • Include the Stake Relief Society President in Stake Presidency meetings, and appoint women to meet with the High Council.

  • Delegate more expansive supervisory authority to the Stake and Ward Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary presidencies, including approval of personnel, programs, and activities.

  • Include women among stake and ward leaders who hear evidence and offer judgment in Church disciplinary councils.

  • Include the local Relief Society president in all bishopric meetings, and rotate the planning of Sacrament services among the Relief Society president and members of the bishopric.

  • Examine all Church positions to determine whether they can be filled without regard to gender.

  • Appoint women as presidents of Church universities and heads of administrative departments. 
  • Expand hiring practices in the Seminaries and Institutes of Religion and within the religion departments at Church universities to provide women the same placement, advancement, and tenure opportunities as men.
  • Call young women as well as young men to serve missions at the same age and for the same length of time, and afford women the same opportunity as men to function as district leaders, zone leaders, and assistants to the president.

  • Lift the prohibition on women's participation in the blessing of their children.

  • Change temple marriage policies so that men and women have equal opportunity to be sealed to their second spouses after they are widowed or divorced.

  • Consider further wording changes to temple ceremonies and ordinances such that both men and women make the same covenants and enjoy the same promises.

  • Recognize women as witnesses for baptisms and marriage sealings.

  • Restore the former institutionally-accepted practice of women giving blessings of healing and comfort.
Written September, 2012


I found the italicized ones the most important to me when it comes to equality. I know I'll probably get a lot of crap out there for putting this post, but I've been struggling for months now. I have to admit that I was this close to actually leaving the church. I was torn in half. I have grown up all my life in this church, and I believe so much of it. Should I just continue being the good-girl-attending-church-and-seminary-and-doing-Personal-Progress-and-staying-in-comfortable-silence-of-agreement or break apart and totally go off the deep end? I couldn't decide. I was literally split in half. But for a past few years, I've been realizing the kicker: There is not equality. And now that I have made that full realization, I know that I now do not have to choose either of those two decisions listed above. I am instead choosing a third option: Activism and voice for change. I hope this might solve or at least alleviate this heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance.

The church is governed in a mostly patriarchal way of leadership. I mean in no way, shape, or form to be disrespectful to any church leaders or any members of church administration whatsoever, but this is wrong. A good leader(ship) needs to represent all kinds of people it presides over. Sure, there are all kinds of men of different ethnicities, ages, and languages in the church leadership. Heck, we even have a German in the First Presidency (our well-beloved Pres. Uchtdorf). But the members of the church are not fairly represented. There are no women in any major decision-making positions in the church leadership. Sure, there's the General Relief Society Presidency, General Relief Society Board, General Young Women Presidency, and General Primary Presidency, but it seems to me all they do is visit places all over the world, give interview for PR, give a couple of talks in General Conference, and maybe get to go to a few meetings with the Prophet and Apostles. That is not equality. And I want equality in every single activity I participate in.

I remember reading somewhere that men and women are equal, but different. That's a good thing, in theory. But in practice, I believe that the "different" part is made to outweigh the "equal" part. This is one thing that desperately needs to be changed.

I fully and completely agree with every single point in the "All Are Alike Unto God" campaign. And that makes me very different from my family, and probably many members of my ward and community. I'm on the Seminary Council, for heaven's sake! Am I being a good example? Is my position of being a Mormon Feminist putting me in danger of losing this calling, or of being chastised by my Bishop? I don't know. But what I do know is that this is what I believe in. And I will not hide or keep this inside anymore. I will not continue to follow blindly. I love this church, and believe in it. But some things need to be changed.

"Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient until man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself." -2 Nephi 2:27 
 
"And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he [Moroni] took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole. And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land..." -Alma 46:12-13

 I believe that our all-knowing God is one of freedom, and liberty. If He is a God of freedom and liberty, is he not a God of equality?

I hope that I will not offend anybody by these opinions. I consider myself a pretty darn good writer, but it seems that whenever I write something pretty intense, I end up getting in trouble. Hell, I even was involved in an unfortunate writing incident that got me pulled out of the middle of a Stake Young Women's Recognition Night in the chapel to be taken to the police station in 8th grade (another completely different story that makes me want to laugh my head off and cry simultaneously every single time I think about it). But I believe writing is one of my special talents or gifts I have been given from God, and I fully intend to use it.

-Kelsey

Modesty: I Just Couldn't Resist

I'm kind of apologizing in advance right now. Modesty is one doctrine from the church that I have a lot of opinions about, some good, some bad, some for, some against. Modesty is going to be a pretty hot topic on this little blog.

A little warning in advance: This is going to be long. But I encourage you to read it all.

So, I went to LDS.org and searched "modesty" to see what little treasures I might be able to dig up. And what else would pop up but none other than "The Orange Shirt". I've read a couple of blog posts criticizing this article from the May 2013 Friend magazine (a children's magazine published by the church) ("Children Can't Dress Immodestly", "The Friend and The Orange Tank Top: The difference between shaming and the spirit"), and I agree with both of them whole-heartedly.

So, long story short: Stacey gets to go shopping with her friend Amanda and Amanda's stylish older sister, Lexie. Lexie points out a cute orange shirt that Stacey might look good in, only there's only one problem in Stacey's mind: *gasp!* There's no sleeves. It's a tank top. Lexie tells her it's not such a big deal, that modesty only applies with you're older, and Stacey reasons with herself that it's not that immodest, and the only few modest shirts weren't very cute. But wait: Stacey began to feel uncomfortable. Of course! *smacks head with palm* It's the Holy Ghost telling her not to wear the shirt! "She knew what she was about to do wasn’t right and that the Holy Ghost was warning her not to do it." She wanted to be as cool as Lexie, but she knew she had to make a hard decision and take the higher road. After she tells her two companions that she doesn't want to wear that orange shirt, they go off on their happy way to find another modest shirt for Stacey to wear. The End.

There's also a quote on the bottom from the For the Strength of Youth booklet that says: “When you dress immodestly, you send a message that is contrary to your identity as a son or daughter of God. You also send the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval.”

'Kay. Problemo numero uno: The church's concept about clothes without sleeves is in actuality sending a message that sexualizes even more of a person's little girl's body. In non-LDS families, wearing sleeveless shirts is just another clothing choice. It's nice to wear in the summer when it's hot, and can be comfortable and cute. But when it comes to the LDS side of the equation, showing your shoulders is immodest. That's not necessarily the bad part. The bad part is WHY showing your shoulders would be considered immodest. Why would we need to cover our shoulders? What is the reason to cover our shoulders? It's all about sexuality, folks. Because we're supposed to cover our shoulders, there's obviously a reason behind it.

Because we cover our shoulders, it is assumed that there is something sexual about them.*pauses to lift sleeve and inspect right shoulder* Hm, it looks the same as the rest of my arm, except for the fact that it's considerably paler because of the beginnings of a great Farmer's Tan from being covered up. I'm not seeing anything considerably sexual about a skin-covered ball-and-socket joint, or the connecting points between my clavicle, scapula, and humerus.

Some may argue and say it's the idea that counts. Obviously the more skin you show, the more sexual you can seem (try comparing a nun and a 20 year-old blonde in a bikini). But for heaven's sake, it's your shoulders! Give me a break. Please tell me we are not sexualizing a young girl's shoulders. If you are attracted that way to a child's shoulders, that's sick. Is this the Church's reasoning? To protect girls everywhere from unwanted sexual attention by covering their shoulders? I hope I'm not the only one seeing something wrong with this. As for everyone else who isn't a child, I'm pretty sure that if you're going to be sexually assaulted, it doesn't matter if your shoulders are covered up or not. And I'm pretty sure that if you're planning on having sex, the sleeve on your shirt or lack thereof isn't going to change or make up your mind either way. Again, my personal opinion is that because the Church wants us to cover our shoulders, they're being sexualized. The same goes for showing a couple more inches of your thighs, etc.

Problem number two: Let's start with the quote from FTSOY that was at the bottom of the story. "When you dress immodestly, you send a message that is contrary to your identity as a son or daughter of God. You also send the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval.”

 No no no no NO NO NO!

This can further the modesty guilt complex of a child or teenager. You notice in so many of these stories and experiences that the character is described as "feeling bad" or "feeling uncomfortable" or "wrong" or "not making the right decision" when trying on or considering wearing an "immodest" piece of clothing, like a bikini or sleeveless shirt. THEY ARE MADE TO FEEL GUILTY OR SHAMEFUL. They have been taught all of their lives that wearing clothes like that is wrong, and when they want to wear something cute that doesn't have sleeves or if it's 110 degrees outside and they want to wear a tank top, they feel shame.

So because you're not wearing sleeves, you're sending "the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval"? You're being "contrary to your identity as a son or daughter of God"?

No no no no NO NO NO! 

You are a beloved son or daughter of God, no matter what you wear. God does not love you less because of your clothing choices, and if you're wearing a shirt with no sleeves, you can still "be an example of the believers" (1 Tim. 4:12) and serve others.

I was listening to a TED Talk by Brené Brown ("Brené Brown: Listening to shame"), and she described the difference between shame and guilt:


"The thing to understand about shame is that it’s not guilt. Shame is a focus on self, guilt is a focus on behavior. Shame is I am bad, guilt it I did something bad."

Bingo. I may be making an assumption here, but most girls (myself included) who have worn something contrary to the Church's modesty probably feel shame. "I am bad because I am doing something that's against everything I have been taught. My parents are disappointed. I am bad because I am the cause of this disappointment." That's, at least, how it was for me. I'm going to bring my feelings into this, and tell you that the first time I wore something considered "immodest", I was hmm, about 8 or 9. My grandparents came into town from Utah, and whenever they came up they always took my brother and I shopping. This time, we went to Toys R Us. After getting a couple Barbies and Bratz dolls and other stuff my 8-or-9 year-old self wanted, I noticed. a light lavender OshKosh shirt. It was sleeveless. But it was soft and comfortable, and I wanted to see what a sleeveless shirt would feel like. In my 8/9 year-old mentality that had been taught since toddler-age that wearing sleeveless shirts was bad, I knew it was wrong. But I got it anyways. 

I really must give my grandmother credit before I continue this story any more. She did not say ANYTHING to me about the shirt except that it was a pretty color and to make sure that I really wanted to get it, which she had done to every other item that I picked out. She already knew that I had been taught the modesty standards, and left me to make my own decision. I love my grandma so much. My Grandma Olson is one of the most wonderful, amazing women I have ever met. I look up to her very much. She did not try to convince me to get it, nor did she spout something from the Friend or FTSOY or Primary manual. She did not judge me for my decision. So, we went on our merry way.

Now when I got home, that was a different story. Everyone was hanging out and I was showing my mom everything that I had gotten. When I pulled out that purple shirt, she became quiet and I could feel the disapproval that I have come to recognize all my life. That silent, silent disapproval that hurts no matter how old I am. I wore that shirt later that day, when we were having my little brother's birthday party. Sometime that evening she pulled me aside and told me that it was immodest and that I shouldn't be wearing. I felt horrible knowing that my own mother seemed to be judging me for my clothing choices. But still, I tried to sweep away the shame, and braved it up to keep wearing the shirt the rest of the night.

I only wore that shirt once more after that. Not because of the guilt and shame that came up because of it, but because it mysteriously disappeared. Obviously no one would break into a house and steal a shirt of a child, and my brother or dad certainly wouldn't steal it. To this day I still believe I know who took it (can you guess?) and why. And it still hurts.

I am sure that I was not the only child that experienced this. In fact, I bet it happens almost every day. And that's the sad part. You don't need to inflict shame and guilt on a child because they are wearing an "immodest" article of clothing. Children are innocent; they only wear a shirt or dress because they like it, it has flowers/butterflies/their favorite color/puppy dogs/take your pick on it, not because they are trying to be sexual by "showing their shoulders".

Children and teenagers do not need this kind of guilt/shame over lack of a couple of sleeves on a shirt. They do not need to feel as if any part of their body is bad, and they don't need their self-worth or companionship of the Holy Ghost tied into whether their shirt has sleeves on it or not. They do not need to feel as if they are being judged by their family, community, or church members because of it. They need to feel comfortable and be happy with their clothing choices and wear sleeves because they want to, not because they feel they have to.

-Kelsey