We've Moved!

You can now find us at http://the-exponent.com.

If you are looking for the most recent Relief Society Lessons, click on this link:

RELIEF SOCIETY LESSONS

Read more!

3...2...1...Launch!

The ExponentBlog has a new home! We've moved to WWW.THE-EXPONENT.COM
(note the dash between THE-EXPONENT)

Please visit us at our new digs and update your links, bookmarks, and sidebars appropriately.

Read more!

Virtual Oases, April 1

• This site probably won't be quite as inspiring on April 2 -- though we love it every day of the year!
• More April Fool's fun
  
• Why I like Julie's blog: She thinks to take pictures of the less glorious aspects of family life!
• And Amelia is willing to share embarrassing moments (yeah, well I fell flat on my face -- quite literally -- on my first day of teaching)
• Janet shares her story of being sealed to her son -- and makes an exciting announcement
• So that's why my Latkes are mushy. I'm trying this recipe on Saturday . . .
• Ana gives you a recipe and a marvelous story.
• Church launches new site focused on Jesus Christ -- largely testimonies from church leaders (it'd be great to get some of our female leaders testimonies, too . . . )
• Report from the General Young Women's Meeting
• Salt Lake Tribune: "Redefining the Mormon Empire"
• Andrew Sullivan on staying involved in a church, even when it hurts
• As an addendum to Zenaida's post on talking about race: a mother reflects on raising biracial children.
• Bottom line: Cancer sucks.
• A map of the distribution of singles in America -- by gender gap. Does this translate to the LDS worlds? Are LA wards male-heavy? (I know the Boston wards often had a 2-1 ration, women to men).
• Who knew? Jacoby Ellsbury has Mormon roots.

Just because:
A personal case for universal health care: The View from Massachusetts
"Feminism Keeps My Marriage Together"
Love this video. Have a fantastic first day of April!

Read more!

God is a Big God

This is a guest post by my friend, D'Arcy. She is also the artist of this painting, Girl at Window. Welcome to ExII, D'Arcy.

I am a 30 year old single woman who has fit the faithful LDS girl mold in every respect in my life. I grew up attending church weekly, praying, not watching rated R movies, not daring to have an impure thought. I went to BYU. I thought I was ready for marriage and babies at 19. I served a faithful mission at 21. I kept my temple covenants, and I continued for quite a few years to keep some type of hope for the ideal LDS husband and family. However, over the years, I have wondered a lot about if I really want children. Over the years as I date LDS men, I wonder if that's what I really want. Over the years as I attend singles wards and find myself continually judged on my marital status, I find that my heart is no longer in the gospel as it once was.

I am glad I was given the moral compass I had in my youth, but a lot of the things I used to believe in were presented to me in very black and white terms. Now, I see the world as a lot of gray.

Growing up and hearing a group of people begin their rote testimonies the same way once a month "I'd like to bear my testimony; I know the church is true." I always wondered if they really, really, really knew this. And if their church was true, somehow that made me think that other churches must be false. Realizing slowly over the past few years that it doesn't mean this at all has been very liberating to me, yet I find a lot of my closest friends can;t cross this bridge. We are the chosen people, we are the chosen church, we are the ONLY TRUE CHURCH! I love thinking about God in a big way. I love thinking about him choosing each of his children for something great, not just a certain group. God is a Big God. But, because most members believe in the one true church, they automatically assume that they have the monopoly on happiness. Because we believe that "wickedness never was happiness" then we honestly believe that people who don't believe the truths as we believe them just can't be as happy as we are because we are "enlightened" and endowed with the truth.

I think I am beginning to believe more in the fact that there are Universal laws and principles, and when we abide by them then I think we are aligned with God....no matter what church, what faith, what conception of God we have, when we live in accordance to spiritual truths, we receive the benefits. It is very possible to be a happy Muslim, a happy Jew, a happy Agnostic. I think that this is a hard concept for devout Christians to recognize a lot of the time. We (or they, I don't know where I fall right now, I guess) tend to see happy people without the gospel as what I call the "Eat, Drink, and Be Merry" type of happy, filling their lives with things that only bring momentary happiness. Isn't it great how I have been able to put people in labeled boxes for so long?

Currently, I am making a choice not to go to church. It's a very, very hard place to be to see things in a different way and to be so uncertain that the path I have chosen for my life is the right path or not. But it's even harder when perhaps I used to be an example to someone, and with my current choices, they will only look at me as some fallen-from-grace person, lost soul, uncharitable, unfaithful, not enduring-to-the-end type of a person. And I completely get having these thoughts! I have had them myself about everyone who has ended up leaving the church or going inactive. Most regretfully I have had them towards my siblings, especially my closest sister. She is so happy in her life and in her career. I never fully believed that she could be happy without the gospel, but once she let go of all the guilt at not doing what she was "supposed" to be doing and she lived her life in a way that was true to her, she has found true peace. But I never got this, never. I just continually tried to preach at her and I truly regret doing that. If anything my current experience in this realm is teaching me that things are never that black and white in the course of our lives. When I say my sister is happy, it truly isn't the "eat, drink, and be merry" type of happy. She prays more than most, she is so giving and kind and loving. She has true charity and less judgment than a lot of regular "church going" people. I need to clarify this again, because many people in the LDS faith believe it is impossible to be happy if you are not strictly keeping all the commandments the way they believe they need to be kept.

I have been trying to be really open with my friends and family about the struggles that I am going through, and yet, ironically, I completely understand their need to share testimonies and their innate tendency to feel sadness and disappointment with my choices. I get this, because the old me would have been disappointed in the me right now too.

Read more!

Friday Photo Feature: Ellen

I took my first 'real' photo on All Saints Day, 2006. I knew this was my first photo, because it was more than just a tourist picture from a foreign city. It was a cold day, but the sunlight made it pleasant outside. While I was walking through familiar streets, I felt like my point of view of the world had changed. The streets were not just stone and houses anymore, but small, detailed compartments of beauty. I couldn't stop looking at things. Everywhere something new appeared that caught my eye: a dead leaf, a window that reflected sunlight, a draping shadow,...


I'm not sure what sparked this new viewpoint. Maybe it was the sunlight dancing in the measured and calculated architecture of the houses. Perhaps it was the combination of the cold, sunlight and solitude that made the world seem more dynamic than it ever was. I took my camera out of the pocket of my coat and started photographing. I often take many pictures of the same thing, changing the angle or setting with every click.



Details are what I notice the most. To me, they are the most important aspect of what we call 'beauty'.

Read more!

How do I talk about race?

Senator Barack Obama's recent speech addressing the issue of race has once more excited a flurry of discussion around the topic. People's reactions vary, but I'm not asking for responses to his speech specifically. NPR's Talk of the Nation invited guests to discuss "How Do Americans Talk about Race?" which I found informative and even hopeful. I think their discussion was realistic by acknowledging lingering issues, but also optimistic in looking for opportunities to learn and progress.

So, what I want to know, is how we can continue to improve relations, to encourage understanding, and to promote unity. In my own experience, I grew up in an overwhelmingly white area. Racism seemed to be a problem of far away lands like, the south. However, I was aware of a strange divide with the issue of blacks and the priesthood, but, once again, it seemed to be far removed from my own personal experience. I have also met resistance in talking about these issues within any kind of religious context, including institute classes. "This is not the right venue to have this discussion." So, in the spirit of seeking a venue...

Robert Jensen, one of NPR's guests, mentioned the hesitancy of white people to even discuss race because of the fear of being called on ingrained racial attitudes. I closely relate to this sentiment. My own personal approach has been to avoid any conversation that calls out inequalities between myself and someone of a different race. I didn't want to be seen as ignorant or racist, but I also don't want to avoid the conversation and dismiss legitimate concerns.

My first personal experience with race issues was with my first college boyfriend, who was black. I had my mother tell me that my grandparents would not accept him. The end of the relationship was also awkward because he wanted to blame its end on outside influences on me. It was really the moment I began to see my own ingrained racial attitudes, and those of the people closest to me.

More recent experiences are small and sometimes I wonder if they are worth marking. I made fajitas for my friends one Sunday, and someone complimented me on my cooking. Without thinking, I told him he should thank his ancestors. He has Mexican heritage, and I did not expect him to react as he did. He seemed to take offense, and I was a little taken aback. I was trying to give credit where it was due, and be grateful to Mexicans for corn tortillas, the same way I thank the Japanese for sushi, the Danes for Havarti cheese, and the French for their use of butter. (I could go on about world cuisine, but that's another post.) My friend did not stay offended for more than two seconds, and in the grand scheme of things, that moment was not a defining one, but it just reminded me that people I am close to still feel racial tension.

I can only speak of my own experience, and I would say that it is overwhelmingly positive. I truly don't want to paint my personal experience in a negative light. I suppose I highlight those types of experiences because I don't know what to do with them. I have many friends with diverse backgrounds, and I love to gain insight from people with different world views from mine.

Another NPR guest noted that the younger generation no longer sees the racial gap in the same way, and I honestly hope that is true. Obama's attitude also seems to reflect this view. In my own world view, I sincerely try to see people one individual at a time, and hope that I will be more solution than problem.

Read more!

My Husband's Free Adultery Pass

A couple of years ago, I announced to Mike, “If you ever cheat on me (and then confess and feel really bad about it), I’d forgive you. I wouldn’t divorce you.”

This marked an important turning point in my conception of marriage. Before I was married, and even into the first couple of years of our marriage, I was convinced that if my husband was ever unfaithful, I would immediately kick him to the curb. The marriage would be over. Period. And how could anyone think differently?

But with eight years of marriage and one baby behind me, my views on this topic have become more nuanced. I can still see how a marriage with an unfaithful spouse could descend into a pit of broken dreams, crushed expectations, and destroyed trust. I can see how love could die from such a huge mistake, and I wouldn’t judge any person who decided to end their marriage after such a betrayal.

But as for me and my marriage, I now think that I’d be unlikely to leave a loving and contrite Mike, a Mike who was willing to change and try to work things out. Perhaps this is due in part to my extreme pragmatism. I like being married. What would my chances be of finding a man as nice as Mike, particularly with baby in tow? And what about money? I have a couple of graduate degrees, but as a teacher, my earning potential is less than half of Mike’s. I could survive, but it would be difficult on my own with the baby. These are my sobering realities, and I suspect these are the sobering realities that a lot of women face when they consider whether or not to divorce a cheating husband.

Beyond all the pragmatic considerations, however, there have also been my dawning appreciation of Christian forgiveness and my realizations of my own fallibility. Let’s face it. I’m a screw up. We’re all screw ups to some extent. We all do stupid things. I want to think that my heart could be big enough to forgive the (nearly) unforgivable.

Don’t get me wrong. I would not stay in a perpetually bad marriage. I could accept and forgive an episode of regretted cheating more easily than I could accept continual unkindness, disrespect, or emotional distance.

My husband and I refer to my bald announcement as his get-out-of-jail-free pass. I suspect we are able to joke about it because Mike is about as likely to commit adultery as I am to fly to the moon. But I think it’s an intriguing topic. Is adultery a deal breaker for you? How bad does a marriage have to be before you would leave it? And how much should one take into account the pragmatic considerations when deciding whether or not to leave a marriage?

Read more!

Praying to the Mother . . . (not that one)

I tuned in to Catholic Talk Radio during my commute yesterday -- ah, the joys of Sirius. Two topics caught my Mormon ears.

1) The host reviewed the Mormon missionary brouhaha in Colorado and urged forgiveness for the "kids" who made this "terrible mistake": "Let's show them that we practice the forgiveness and mercy that should exemplify our faith."

2) Does the language from this commercial sound familiar (paraphrased from memory)?

Children do best with a strong mother and father in their life . . . Is anyone born without a mother? Of course not.
Does it make sense, then, that we would have a loving Heavenly Father, but no mother to call upon?
Thankfully, God did not leave us motherless.
Tune in to [my show] to explore the wonder and beauty of calling upon Holy Mary, mother of God -- Mary, who the angel bowed down before saying: "Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with Thee."

In heaven, are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare . . .

As I've noted here before, the concept of a Heavenly Mother is a formative aspect of my faith. When I picture of God, I tend to think of a combination of Father, Mother, Brother — of a connection to deep, familial love. But I am not unsympathetic to Lynnette's discomfort with this slim doctrine -- to the extent that our lack of knowledge (and many members' inherent discomfort with the idea) almost encourages "projecting": She is a blank slate for our hopes, fears, and stereotypes.

But what of Mary? I know that we don't "Hail Mary" -- though if you want to hear the rosary recited with incredible dignity, tune into Mother Angelica's daily recitation on cable -- but do we honor her as Gabriel did? Should we?

Have you spent much time thinking about Mary? What do we do with her? Is she just another woman in the scriptures? (And do you ever envy the Catholics' access to a tangible feminine divine?)

Read more!

Adultery and Church Discipline, is it Sexist?

Adultery is a sensitive subject. Unfaithful spouses can cause great pain in marriages and families. No one is immune from the devastation caused by breaking the seventh commandment. However, I'll be the first to acknowledge that marriage is a two-way street and the cheating spouse is never 100% of the problem.
That said, I'm interested in the difference in perception between unfaithful wives and unfaithful husbands, and how they are disciplined by the church.

As far as I know, my own marriage has been free of adultery. Not so for my parents. When I was 10, my dad was excommunicated from the church and shortly thereafter I found out why (both parents acknowledge it was a mistake to tell me at such a young age). A few years later, he was rebaptized and shortly thereafter ex'd, again. He was eventually re-rebaptized (after I was married, actually) and is in full fellowship, even serving as YM President at one point. My parents' continuing marital problems aside, from what I can tell, the story of marital infidelity is fairly common, even in the church.


I have another family member who had an affair when she was young and unhappy in her marriage. She described it as" just a physical thing," because she didn't feel needed in her marriage and was disfellowshiped for a short time after her divorce. She soon remarried and was recently sealed to her new husband and child.

In my experience, four of the five of the men I know have been excommunicated for adultery, but none of the four women have been. Considering marital vows of fidelity run both ways, I am continually mystified by why church leaders appear to treat women differently than men for the same sin.

Here are a few reasons why this may be:
1. Women are more vulnerable than men, so should be treated more carefully and not punished as harshly.
2. Excommunication is a blessing, not a punishment. It is a way of separating the sinner from God and the church so he or she can truly repent and come back. If this is true, then perhaps women are not worthy of this blessing, or can achieve true repentance without excommunication.
3. Women are not accountable for their actions in the way men are.
4. God holds husbands to a higher standard of fidelity than wives because they preside in marriage.

Regardless of the rationale behind the church discipline, it directly affects the way outsiders judge the situation. My general sense is that most people see unfaithful men as weak-willed, sex-crazed, or unwise stewards. Men are attributed to acting on their mating instincts and need for physical intimacy. On the other hand, when a woman is unfaithful, perhaps she was a victim or taken advantage of by a predatory man. Or maybe she was in an emotionally empty relationship and found support or understanding in a sexual relationship outside of marriage. This makes me wonder how much the reasoning behind the infidelity factors in to church discipline.

As an end note, I believe it would be incredibly hard to be a bishop or stake president trying to help people found in difficult situations created by adultery. I know that these men do the best that they can and each situation is different. I am just interested in the trend I have observed and wonder if others have observed the same thing. I also wonder if others have a sense of why the church discipline appears to be sexist.

Feel free to respond to the post or the following questions:

Do you think men and women are equally responsible for their part in infidelity?
Why do you think they are often disciplined differently within the church?
Do you judge unfaithful wives differently than unfaithful husbands?
Does the emotional or physical nature of the extramarital relationship affect your judgment? Why?
Do you think the difference in church discipline affects the rate at which men and women in the church commit adultery?

Read more!

Virtual Oases, Easter

• BiV: Personal Easter remembrances -- with baby photos. So cute!
• My favorite blogging nuns (not that I am aware of others)
• Emily: On learning not to say "happy Good Friday" + a virtual oases of Easter links
• Reasons to rejoice: Kristine is the new editor of Dialogue
• From a Good Friday sermon:

At some time, who can say when, there will be a crown of thorns pressed down upon your head. It may be some private anguish. It may be some profoundly disturbing condition in your own family. One cannot detail the direction whence the affliction will come, but when it does, you will have every right to rail against it and to cry out against that kind of providence, even to argue with God, to withstand him to the face ...

But do one other thing. Take it. Accept. For was it not our Lord's word that the cup he looked into, the awful agony which waited for him, did not come from unfriendly hands: "The cup which my Father hath given, shall I not drink of it?"

I promise you this, if you can take whatever deep hurt that occurs in your life and hold it up before God and say to him, even in bitterness, of this which you despise and this which you hate, "If there is anything you can do with it, take, and use it."

Read more!

Friday Photo Musing: Strong

[Note: Photo by Mrs. Maze on Flickr]

What does it mean to 'be strong'?

When I think of strength, bulging biceps and loud voices come to mind. It seems a very masculine characteristic. Yet I desire strength. To gain it, I lift weights and learn to speak confidently. I assume an assertive and confident air.

So today I'm considering my strengths, those that I have and those that I still desire.

I ask myself if I have the strength...
to speak truth?
to forgive?
to choose right?
to be wrong?
to share sorrow?
to learn from my mistakes?
to bare all?
to avoid pride?
to listen?
to laugh at myself?
to sing?
to share your burden?
to walk a narrow path?
to try harder?
to let go?
and
to do it all...again and again and again?

Here is my new favorite poem about strong women:

For Strong Women

A strong woman is a woman who is straining
A strong woman is a woman standing
on tiptoe and lifting a barbell
while trying to sing "Boris Godunov."
A strong woman is a woman at work
cleaning out the cesspool of the ages,
and while she shovels, she talks about
how she doesn't mind crying, it opens
the ducts of the eyes, and throwing up
develops the stomach muscles, and
she goes on shoveling with tears in her nose.
A strong woman is a woman in whose head
a voice is repeating, I told you so,
ugly, bad girl, bitch, nag, shrill, witch,
ballbuster, nobody will ever love you back,
why aren't you feminine, why aren't
you soft, why aren't you quiet, why aren't you dead?
A strong woman is a woman determined
to do somehing others are determined
not be done. She is pushing up on the bottom
of a lead coffin lid. She is trying to raise
a manhole cover with her head, she is trying
to butt her way through a steel wall.
Her head hurts. People waiting for the hole
to be made say, hurry, you're so strong.
A strong woman is a woman bleeding
inside. A strong woman is a woman making
herself strong every morning while her teeth
loosen and her back throbs. Every baby,
a tooth, midwives used to say, and now
every battle a scar. A strong woman
is a mass of scar tissue that aches
when it rains and wounds that bleed
when you bump them and memories that get up
in the night and pace in boots to and fro.
A strong woman is a woman who craves love
like oxygen or she turns blue choking.
A strong woman is a woman who loves
strongly and weeps strongly and is strongly
terrified and has strong needs. A strong woman is strong
in words, in action, in connection, in feeling;
she is not strong as a stone but as a wolf
suckling her young. Strength is not in her, but she
enacts it as the wind fills a sail.
What comforts her is others loving
her equally for the strength and for the weakness
from which it issues, lightning from a cloud.
Lightning stuns. In rain, the clouds disperse.
Only water of connection remains,
flowing through us. Strong is what we make
each other. Until we are all strong together,
a strong woman is a woman strongly afraid.
~Marge Piercy

I love the closing of this:
Strong is what we make each other. Until we are all strong together, a strong woman is a woman strongly afraid.

Read more!

Pragmatic Appreciation Day

So, I was at a dinner party the other month when I had an unexpected lesson on learning to appreciate people and things for what they are.

Me: So, have you seen that film? I'm sorry that I missed it at the Los Angeles Film Festival. I'm really looking forward to seeing it on dvd.

B: That film? Ugh. Horrible.

Me: Really? Do tell.

B: The director took all the predictable short-cuts. There was nothing it in that I remember loving as a child. It was cheap and practically pornographic.

Me: Uhm ... well, I still want to see it.

B: You're wasting your time. Why do you want to see such trash?

Me: Well, when I'm in the mood for quality cinema, I'll watch something like "Much Ado About Nothing" or "Man For All Seasons." But when I'm in the mood for cheap thrills, I give myself leave to watch movies like "Transformers."

And so on.

Just a little, inconsequential exchange with a film buff I was trying to persuade to show the movie on his wide screen projector. But it made me reflect later that night about appreciating things and people. For what they are. In the present. Without the burden of prior expectations or future developments. This may seem like a silly lesson, but I tend to live my life in the past and future ... doing things because I anticipate talking about them later, and not enjoying them enough in the now. Things that immediately come to mind when I think about enjoying in the moment are dating and raising children. Granted, these are topics that are rarely very far from my mind. However, they are oft trying times that could be improved by a little pragmatic appreciation.

Read more!