Maybe a Rant

Once when I was in high school, I got to talking to a girl I sort of knew but had never really spent a lot of time with, and she mentioned that a lot of the Mormon parents hadn't let their kids play with her or her brother (I'll call them by the pseudonyms Alison and Jake here so as to protect their identities) because they were not members of the Church. I would like to say that I couldn't believe it, but the thing is, I did. It shocked me, but I believed her.

A few years later, my bishop got up to speak in church. He told about how he had his kids going to a neighbor church's vacation bible school or some such thing (something I have long thought would be worthwhile to look into sending my own future children to). And the pastor or whatever mentioned having the same problem with Mormon parents not letting their children play with non-Mormons. And he (my bishop) told the congregation how utterly wrong-headed that was.

When Alison told me about the discrimination she and Jake faced, my immediate response was to say, "That's wrong." But I'm not writing today to convince people that it is wrong; it's my hope that my readers already get that. I'm just expressing why it's so hard for me to understand what makes anybody think that's a good idea.

We are supposed to be followers of Jesus Christ. So look at Christ's life. He was criticized for eating with sinners. He healed a Roman's servant - at the Roman's request. He went up to a Samaritan woman to converse. Refusing to associate with people who are a little bit different from us is in no way following his example.

And what does Christ have to say that's relevant to the situation? Oh, how about "The worth of souls is great in the sight of God" or "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." I remember no reference saying that the worth of a Mormon soul is more valuable, and I really don't think we want to ostracize Christ because of the family he was born into. Of course I am not advocating ostracizing people based on their chosen religion either - note my last sentence in the paragraph above. But to take it out on children, who are generally just following the religion taught by their parents, seems even more egregiously wrong.

And there is also the story of the good Samaritan - a Samaritan, a person who the Jews despised, is the good guy.

Really the only rationalization that makes any sense at all to me is that the parents are somehow protecting their child. But from what? Jake and Alison both struck me as good, nice people. Yes, I wasn't close to either of them - Jake was several years younger than me, and Alison and I were also in different grades and had different interests. But I did see them around enough to form that much of an opinion.

So these parents must be protecting their kids from other beliefs and opinions. But if that is the case, when do they think their children will be old enough to handle being confronted with opposing viewpoints? They are sure to come across them at some point in their lives. Wouldn't they rather be there to explain things  rather than have their kids have to make sense of it all on their own the very first time they come across an opposing viewpoint? And if they expect their children to serve as missionaries - well, how can you explain the difference in what you have when you have no idea what else is out there?

In my conversation with Alison, she said that either she or her brother wanted to be baptized as soon as they were old enough to do so without their parents' permission. Well, maybe some would think that is the ideal outcome. But I didn't really like it then and still don't like it now. Not because I am against people joining the church. But because it's not the right reason to join the church. It is making a serious covenant with Heavenly Father for reasons not really related to Him or His promises, possibly without understanding what is involved in the covenant.

But I did not express my dislike of the decision. Because how do you tell somebody not to do something that will allow them to find the acceptance that they really deserve? I didn't know then, and it would still be hard now.

Tough Choices

I have wanted to sponsor a child since my age was measured in single digits.

A few years ago, I started looking at various agencies through which I could sponsor a child. There are differences in the amounts you pay and exactly what it pays for; the main difference I remember now is that some agencies include religious instruction and others don't. There are probably also differences in what proportion of what you give gets eaten up by administrative costs, but I somehow had found an index of charitable organizations that rated them on factors like that and only really looked at ones with high scores. Anyway, I decided to look at them all again when I was ready to make the commitment.

Now I feel like my ability to do so is within seeing distance, so I find myself thinking about it again. The choice of which agency to go through is one I will take seriously and seems somewhat difficult not unmanageable. What seems more difficult is the choice of the child. Most of the sites allow you to search by location, sex, and age. But how in the world I am supposed to decide whether I would rather help a boy or a girl, or someone from Uganda or El Salvador?

My Prayer

3 Nephi 18:20 says, "And whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you."

Many times I have while praying struggled over what to ask for. Sometimes I wanted something very badly but thought it was too much to ask for - more than I really deserved. Sometimes I wasn't sure that what I wanted was really right - or at least right for me. Sometimes I worried that I couldn't get what I wanted without somehow denying somebody else's agency. And sometimes I was so emotionally exhausted that I didn't even know what I wanted at the time.

And many times I have ended up saying some version of, "Thou knowst what I need better than I do.Whatever that is, please let me have it."

External Consistency

I recently followed a link to a tarot card site and got some free readings. The general, love, and career ones, meant to answer specific questions I thought of while selecting the cards, were not particularly illuminating. Then I went to another love one which was supposed to predict romantic compatibility based on birthdates. So I entered my birthdate and chose a date for the guy, then it used those dates to assign us cards. I was Chariot; he was Strength. And this is how the analysis ended: "Both are independent spirits but Strength likes to occasionally imagine there is such a thing as soul mate and love of a lifetime. Chariot is far too sensible for that nonsense and inevitably Strength can feel Chariot is simply too cool a cucumber to meet the requirements for passion."

The first thought that struck me upon reading this was, "Since when am I too sensible to imagine a love of a lifetime?" I actually posted some of my not-entirely-against thoughts on the matter here.

Then I remembered that I am a Scorpio. The attributes associated with Scorpios that I always remember are passion and mystery. So, if the date of my birth makes me a passionate Scorpio, how can it also make me "too cool a cucumber to meet the requirements for passion"? I thought that maybe my mysteriousness hides my passionate depths, but then that is basically saying that Mr. Strength writes me off before bothering to really look for the capacity for passion. And that does not seem right at all.

Is it really too much to ask that two completely unrelated divination systems fit together logically?

Unspeakable Things

On Friday I was reading the part in the Book of Mormon where Christ is giving his apostles in the Americas their desires. Then, after Christ leaves, "...the heavens opened, and they were caught up into heaven, and saw and heard unspeakable things. And it was forbidden them that they should utter; neither was it given unto them power that they could utter the things which they saw and heard..."

I have often thought about why it was that they can't speak of the things they saw. The first part, where it says they saw unspeakable things, sounds like human language is inadequate to describe what they saw. But in the next sentence, it says they were not given power that they could utter the things they saw and heard. And that sounds more like they would just be too emotionally overwhelmed to do so.

Maybe human language isn't quite inadequate, and if they try to get across what they can in their language, they can't get the words out because of the power of the experience?

What Are They Thinking?

Not too long ago there was a popular video going around called "Should Christian women wear bikinis?" that talked about how the male brain reacts to seeing a scantily-clad woman. In it, the presenter read an excerpt from an article from Princeton and said, in part, "When the young men viewed the scantily-clad women, the part of the brain associated with tool use lit up...The researchers also discovered that when some of the men viewed these scantily-clad females, the men's medial prefrontal cortex (part of your brain) was deactivated... This is the region of the brain associated with analyzing a person's thoughts, intentions, and feelings.... The doctor remarked, 'It's as if they were reacting to these women as if they were not fully human.'"

I didn't read the research myself, but I'm assuming for now that it made it through peer review and was published in a reputable academic journal. And judging from the men of my acquaintance who shared it, it does fit with their personal experience, at least to some extent.

I would like to point out, by the way, that not every man's medial prefrontal cortex deactivated when looking at the pictures.

On Tuesday, a college friend of mine shared a link about a new law in Pakistan against throwing acid on women. As part of her response to a question I asked about it, she said, "Before this law, it was customary for a man to throw acid on a woman for an indiscretion like failing to bear a son, or out of rejection (if I can't have her, no one will want her because she'll be disfigured!), or through an inability to provide a handsome dowry to the husband from her parents, or for any reason that stems from revenge, or the need to dominate and control."

I can't help but wonder what the brain scans would show when those men looked at a woman. Because even a tool is generally better treated than that. And it's hard to imagine that somebody would throw acid at a person while really considering their thoughts, intentions, and feelings.

Different Perspectives

Here are a couple excerpts from Flip by David Lubar from different points of view that are interesting to consider together. I think this reflects the sort of thing that happens all the time.

Taylor:
"They're checking us out," Ariel whispered. She ran a hand through her hair.

Taylor shook her head. "Not us. Just you." There was no denying Ariel was gorgeous. Boys had been looking at her since the fifth grade.

"Don't talk like that," Ariel said.

Taylor sped up, eager to get away from the group by the door. But wherever she and Ariel went, she was aware of the stares. And aware that they weren't aimed at her.

Ellis:
Taylor was pretty, too. Maybe even prettier than Ariel, he thought as he studied the two of them together. But she was so much like a sister, he had no trouble talking when she was around. I wonder if she knows how pretty she is? He figured she must. How could she not know?