Over the years I have thought a lot about home decorating. Not so much coordinating the rugs to the drapes to the throw pillows, but holiday decorations.
Well, I was recently thinking about an Easter wreath I saw featuring bunnies (it was cuter than it sounds) when I realized that there really aren't many religiously-themed Easter decorations. Which actually makes sense. You can have a lot of nativity scenes around at Christmastime and everything's great - they are generally cute or beautiful. But to have tons of images or figures of Christ hanging on the cross or sweating blood in Gethsemane would be a bit morbid. And if you tried to make it cute, it would be even more disturbing. And sacrilegious. And to fill your house with empty tombs would be a bit weird. Like displaying random rocks - not pretty ones or rare ones, just rubble that you might have picked up while prepping the garden.
Still, given that I consider Easter to be the most religiously significant holiday, I don't feel right about completely ignoring the religious side in my decorating. So I have now made it my goal to find at least a couple tasteful decorations that I can get out and display in my home specifically for the Easter season.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
The Many and The One
I recently read an MSN relationships article about how to be a man magnet. The advice in it was not particularly revelatory, except that I apparently need to perfect the art of sexting. Somehow I don't see that happening anytime soon. I guess I'll have to live without the hordes of men flocking to me.
But what I did find interesting was that one of the man-magnets they interviewed was one who had only been single for a total of three months during her fifteen years of dating. And since this was an article on how to attract a lot of men and not how to build a strong relationship, I would expect that the boyfriends she had during this time numbered more than two. So this woman we are meant to learn from spent, at most, an average of six weeks between 'official' relationships, which in this case would have average out to have lasted not quite five years each. That seems like a pretty short time to properly move on from such a long relationship. Of course, even three five-year relationships doesn't qualify someone as a man-magnet to me, but however many relationships there are, there does not seem to be an appropriately long break between.
Maybe she wasn't really all that invested in her relationships. In that case, it seems like a huge waste of years she could have spent finding someone she really liked or else learning valuable things with her independence.
Or maybe she just bounced around from rebound to rebound. Once again, a waste of time and energy.
And assuming that she did over these fifteen years have relationships that really meant something to her but she was able to properly recover before moving on to the next man... what are the chances that she would be able to find a good man to date so quickly after each recovery period? Yes, there are a lot of good men out there. But a good man who she finds attractive and fun to be around and easy to talk to and interesting, and who sees the same qualities in her, along with that extra spark, enough to form a serious relationship with, is not quite as common. And it is my opinion that if two people do not see in each other everything I mentioned in that last sentence there is really no point in having a committed relationship.
I really don't feel the need to jump around from boyfriend to boyfriend. Sure, hearing that it only takes one isn't particularly comforting to the girl who just wants to be going out and having fun. It also isn't particularly comforting when the lack of dates makes her wonder if she just isn't attractive. But there is a difference between going out with a lot of different boys and being in steady relationships with lots of different boys. The first one involves getting to know them, having fun, and learning what you like. The second involves cutting down on your opportunities to meet someone who you really would like and learn from.
And even if I don't have a multitude of boys coming after me, that's okay. I'm going to just be myself, live my life, and trust that in doing so I will attract one man who will bring me more satisfaction than a long stream of suitors. And I'm going to do that without sexting.
But what I did find interesting was that one of the man-magnets they interviewed was one who had only been single for a total of three months during her fifteen years of dating. And since this was an article on how to attract a lot of men and not how to build a strong relationship, I would expect that the boyfriends she had during this time numbered more than two. So this woman we are meant to learn from spent, at most, an average of six weeks between 'official' relationships, which in this case would have average out to have lasted not quite five years each. That seems like a pretty short time to properly move on from such a long relationship. Of course, even three five-year relationships doesn't qualify someone as a man-magnet to me, but however many relationships there are, there does not seem to be an appropriately long break between.
Maybe she wasn't really all that invested in her relationships. In that case, it seems like a huge waste of years she could have spent finding someone she really liked or else learning valuable things with her independence.
Or maybe she just bounced around from rebound to rebound. Once again, a waste of time and energy.
And assuming that she did over these fifteen years have relationships that really meant something to her but she was able to properly recover before moving on to the next man... what are the chances that she would be able to find a good man to date so quickly after each recovery period? Yes, there are a lot of good men out there. But a good man who she finds attractive and fun to be around and easy to talk to and interesting, and who sees the same qualities in her, along with that extra spark, enough to form a serious relationship with, is not quite as common. And it is my opinion that if two people do not see in each other everything I mentioned in that last sentence there is really no point in having a committed relationship.
I really don't feel the need to jump around from boyfriend to boyfriend. Sure, hearing that it only takes one isn't particularly comforting to the girl who just wants to be going out and having fun. It also isn't particularly comforting when the lack of dates makes her wonder if she just isn't attractive. But there is a difference between going out with a lot of different boys and being in steady relationships with lots of different boys. The first one involves getting to know them, having fun, and learning what you like. The second involves cutting down on your opportunities to meet someone who you really would like and learn from.
And even if I don't have a multitude of boys coming after me, that's okay. I'm going to just be myself, live my life, and trust that in doing so I will attract one man who will bring me more satisfaction than a long stream of suitors. And I'm going to do that without sexting.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Distraction vs. Discrimination
I just read that Santorum opposes legislation that is about to pass allowing women to serve on the military front lines. He claims that because men tend to be protective of women, they would worry about the women and be distracted from doing their own jobs. This made sense to me.
Then I read the handful of comments that were showing at the bottom of the page. One of them mentioned that soldiers are already concerned about the men they serve with and manage to get their jobs done, so why should adding women change that? This also made sense.
So, in a very dangerous situation, would a man be significantly more concerned about the welfare of a woman than he would that of a man in the same situation, assuming both to be strong, healthy, fit, and competent? Having never been (a) male or (b) working with others to accomplish an important goal in life-threatening conditions, I find this impossible to answer.
Then I read the handful of comments that were showing at the bottom of the page. One of them mentioned that soldiers are already concerned about the men they serve with and manage to get their jobs done, so why should adding women change that? This also made sense.
So, in a very dangerous situation, would a man be significantly more concerned about the welfare of a woman than he would that of a man in the same situation, assuming both to be strong, healthy, fit, and competent? Having never been (a) male or (b) working with others to accomplish an important goal in life-threatening conditions, I find this impossible to answer.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Me as a Fangirl
I like Shawn Spencer as a TV character. But if I had to actually interact with him in real life he would drive me crazy. I've known this for a long time. But yesterday I realized something else. While I do like Shawn, he is not one of my favorite characters.
If I were the type to go all fan-girl over a fictional character, it would probably be for one of these:
If I were the type to go all fan-girl over a fictional character, it would probably be for one of these:
- Rory from Doctor Who
- Graham from Once Upon a Time
- Doyle from Angel
- Possibly Hodgins from Bones. I haven't properly watched many episodes, but I really like him from what I've seen with it playing in the background.
- Possibly Vic from What I Like About You. It's been a while since I watched so I'm not sure how my feelings about him compare with the others, but what got me to watch the show was the Val/Vic storyline toward the end of the series.
Monday, January 23, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
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?
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?
Friday, January 6, 2012
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."
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)