A common enough phrase, whether raised in the LDS world or not, wouldn't you say? I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Especially in regards to the Mormon response of Time and all Eternity. I went to the Rexburg Temple Open House today and got to hear some prophets and apostles talking about how heaven wouldn't be heaven without their wives and children, and how they were so grateful for the idea of time and all eternity (and of course they got that dreamy, happy look in their eyes that we always see on missionary videos). Now, I don't know how I feel about an after life (a post unto itself), but supposing we do live on after death, what would our relationships be like afterwards? According to non-LDS Christianity, we would go to heaven and not have our familial relationships. We might recognize people that we'd spent time with on earth, but we wouldn't necessarily look at them as spouses, mothers, etc. but rather as fellow praisers of God Almighty. According to LDS theology, not only will we recognize others in the same relationships as we have now, but we will also stay in those relationships if we've been through the temple to have them sealed up.
This got me to thinking about the way we practice time and eternity. Historically (from a Christian view point) a man married a woman and they (at least in theory) stayed faithful to each other until one of them died, then the other one was free to find a different spouse if the need or desire arose. In early LDS practice, a man could marry more than one wife regardless of whether or not wives could marry other husbands. However, if the husband died, then the various wives, if so inclined, could try and find another husband. Now, a woman marries a man and they stay faithful to each other until the other one dies and then the left over spouse is free to marry again. Is it me, or has "til death do us part" been in force throughout?
I know that some will say, yes, but because of the temple, they can be married after they die. What I'm saying is that "til death do us part" has been severely misinterpreted. "Til death do us part" simply refers to the life long commitment that couples have made to remain faithful to each other. It means that they are not to go forming other marriage-like relationships while their current spouse is living. However, once that current spouse is dead, all bets are off and they can find someone else. It works this way with or without a temple sealing. You don't see a widower/widow who was sealed to his/her deceased spouse staying single for the rest of her/his life (well, not regularly at least) do you? No, because death has parted the two of them and so the living one is free to find another partner.
So what I'm saying is that if there's an afterlife, then we will indeed either have our relationships as they are now or not, but I don't think the sealing power will really be relevant. Those who marry again waited for death to part them from their first spouse (at least ideally) before moving on. I don't think we need to worry about not having our spouses there with us. They'll be there waiting for us either way.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Friday, January 4, 2008
Parenthood
I don't think this will be my "issues with motherhood" post, but I was reading Vada's post over on Mormon Mommy Wars and it got me thinking about my own son with disabilities. My youngest son is a year old. He's blind. It was such an odd experience, when even at a month and half old, I could tell that something was wrong with his eyes. I knew it was true, but didn't want it to be true. I kept telling myself that blindness wasn't so bad, that there are worse disabilities to have, that if he was really blind, he's still be able to live a functional life. But when we finally saw an ophthalmologist at six months, we were heart broken to have it confirmed.
I don't know how to express how overwhelming it is to be the parent of a blind child. How painful it is to hear people tell you how special you must be to have received such a child when you know so deeply your own inadequacies. To feel the pressure that such statements put on you to do a stellar job of raising your child. People keep telling me that I'm the perfect mother to have such a child, but only I know how dark my parenting days get sometimes. Only I know how resentful I sometimes get at being a mother when I could have been doing other things right now. Only I know how much I struggle doing little kid things. They couldn't be more wrong when they say things like that. I live in constant fear of having my son grow up and think that he might have been better off had he had a more adequate mommy.
And to make it worse, I know how important it is to do things right. To balance his needs with the needs of my older son who is normal. To make sure I explain enough to this little guy so that he makes those connections that are second nature to my sighted child. And yet I feel like most days are abject failures. Days when I get so scared and overwhelmed that I sit and stare at the computer so that I don't have to deal with all this. I love my boys more than I ever thought possible. I feed them, clean them, clothe them, but sometimes I worry that I'm failing them miserably because I'm not emotionally able to handle their needs. Do they know I love them? I think that's what scares me to death--is that they might doubt that. That they might grow up, look back, and doubt that I was doing my best and that I loved them.
I don't know how to express how overwhelming it is to be the parent of a blind child. How painful it is to hear people tell you how special you must be to have received such a child when you know so deeply your own inadequacies. To feel the pressure that such statements put on you to do a stellar job of raising your child. People keep telling me that I'm the perfect mother to have such a child, but only I know how dark my parenting days get sometimes. Only I know how resentful I sometimes get at being a mother when I could have been doing other things right now. Only I know how much I struggle doing little kid things. They couldn't be more wrong when they say things like that. I live in constant fear of having my son grow up and think that he might have been better off had he had a more adequate mommy.
And to make it worse, I know how important it is to do things right. To balance his needs with the needs of my older son who is normal. To make sure I explain enough to this little guy so that he makes those connections that are second nature to my sighted child. And yet I feel like most days are abject failures. Days when I get so scared and overwhelmed that I sit and stare at the computer so that I don't have to deal with all this. I love my boys more than I ever thought possible. I feed them, clean them, clothe them, but sometimes I worry that I'm failing them miserably because I'm not emotionally able to handle their needs. Do they know I love them? I think that's what scares me to death--is that they might doubt that. That they might grow up, look back, and doubt that I was doing my best and that I loved them.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Benazir Bhutto Assassinated
Well shit. Shit, shit, shit. That's about all I have to say about it right now. I didn't know tons about her, I don't know how much about her corruption charges are true, I don't know much about Pakistani politics, but I don't see why anyone thought this was a good idea. What is going on in peoples' heads? Jeeze, people wonder why I'm so down on the idea of God. If he's telling people to do crap like this, then, "Thank you, I respectfully decline to participate." And I know that most folks don't believe God would really condone such things, but how many of the Big Three have wide scale war and terror in their histories? Let's be real. Whatever nut case did this, whether it was a political assassination or a terrorist, they probably were pretty sure that God wanted it to happen. So here's my question, is it really that they believe God wants it to happen or that their higher ups have serious control/power issues and so tell them that God wants this to happen? Then they go and do it because their religions have deprived them of the very critical thinking skills one would need to see the manipulation in such a request?
Friday, December 14, 2007
Tell me all your thoughts on God
Since I'm still not sure about this whole God thing, I think I'm going to do a series of posts about the different things that I like and dislike about the idea of God as I know him. Some of these things, obviously, are what keep me from believing full fledged anymore, and some of them are what keep me hanging on to the shreds of desire to believe.
Probably the first thing that bothers me about God, is that he is a he. Oh I know, several religions/mythologies have made room for a female goddess or counterpart to God, but really, we've heard very little from her. She hasn't started any religious movements, she hasn't spoken to any prophets/prophetesses, she hasn't validated her existence in any way nearly as clearly as God has. And, no matter how far back you go looking for the Goddess, she always reports to the God. She doesn't share power ever, she is delegated power and must connive and/or cajole the God for anything that may run contrary to him. And in traditions where there is an acknowledgment of her but no worship of her, she doesn't do a whole lot to protest said arrangement.
So that sometimes gets me to wondering if religion is a boys' game. Something that crept into human existence a long time ago in order for men to rule with a little bit more validation. Or perhaps, drawing from an article I read in TIME once, some guy was scared about his impending death and had this hallucination that simply confirmed his status in relation to the women and made death not quite so scary. But really, all the major religious movements that we now recognize were founded on the visions of men who simply confirmed the already patriarchal society in which they moved. But do we have any records of women receiving such visions complete with admonitions to gather followers? Nope.
At this point, I must admit that I am sorely lacking in my knowledge of Goddess lore. I know that some women believe they have tuned in to her, can pray to her, etc. But they've had to do their searching outside any religious structure. And they have yet to form a movement around this idea. So I'm going to make some assumptions from this: 1) The Goddess doesn't exist and is simply a belated response from women who have finally realized that they are worth just as much as men, 2) The Goddess does exist, but women were so oppressed for so long they didn't know where to find her (although this calls into question her mercy/love for her daughters if you ask me), 3) The Goddess exists but realizes that religious movements can cause more harm than good and so has not felt the need to gather groups around her in great numbers--she's happy to speak to each of her daughters individually without getting into dogmatic bullshit about how to approach her, when, who's worthy, etc., and 4) God really does transcend gender/sexuality but hasn't felt the need to tell humanity that females are worth just as much as males (since the two genders/sexes really aren't separate after death) until the last hundred and fifty years give or take a decade.
Now I know that this sounds rather gender essentialist in a lot of ways, and I don't really consider myself an essentialist. I just know that for a long time, the sexes have been considered to have essential differences that reach beyond biological function and so women's and men's experiences have been different for a long time and thus a lot of women would take comfort in a deity who could understand their particular troubles. Obviously the non-existence of or gender transcendence of God would make these issues moot, but then, that's why I have so many issues to begin with. All the conceptions of deity that I've been able to think of are still vastly problematic when I view them from my own sense of justice, mercy, and love (and to all believers, that was probably the most arrogant sentence in this whole post, huh?). Okay, enough for now. Must go do something productive.
Probably the first thing that bothers me about God, is that he is a he. Oh I know, several religions/mythologies have made room for a female goddess or counterpart to God, but really, we've heard very little from her. She hasn't started any religious movements, she hasn't spoken to any prophets/prophetesses, she hasn't validated her existence in any way nearly as clearly as God has. And, no matter how far back you go looking for the Goddess, she always reports to the God. She doesn't share power ever, she is delegated power and must connive and/or cajole the God for anything that may run contrary to him. And in traditions where there is an acknowledgment of her but no worship of her, she doesn't do a whole lot to protest said arrangement.
So that sometimes gets me to wondering if religion is a boys' game. Something that crept into human existence a long time ago in order for men to rule with a little bit more validation. Or perhaps, drawing from an article I read in TIME once, some guy was scared about his impending death and had this hallucination that simply confirmed his status in relation to the women and made death not quite so scary. But really, all the major religious movements that we now recognize were founded on the visions of men who simply confirmed the already patriarchal society in which they moved. But do we have any records of women receiving such visions complete with admonitions to gather followers? Nope.
At this point, I must admit that I am sorely lacking in my knowledge of Goddess lore. I know that some women believe they have tuned in to her, can pray to her, etc. But they've had to do their searching outside any religious structure. And they have yet to form a movement around this idea. So I'm going to make some assumptions from this: 1) The Goddess doesn't exist and is simply a belated response from women who have finally realized that they are worth just as much as men, 2) The Goddess does exist, but women were so oppressed for so long they didn't know where to find her (although this calls into question her mercy/love for her daughters if you ask me), 3) The Goddess exists but realizes that religious movements can cause more harm than good and so has not felt the need to gather groups around her in great numbers--she's happy to speak to each of her daughters individually without getting into dogmatic bullshit about how to approach her, when, who's worthy, etc., and 4) God really does transcend gender/sexuality but hasn't felt the need to tell humanity that females are worth just as much as males (since the two genders/sexes really aren't separate after death) until the last hundred and fifty years give or take a decade.
Now I know that this sounds rather gender essentialist in a lot of ways, and I don't really consider myself an essentialist. I just know that for a long time, the sexes have been considered to have essential differences that reach beyond biological function and so women's and men's experiences have been different for a long time and thus a lot of women would take comfort in a deity who could understand their particular troubles. Obviously the non-existence of or gender transcendence of God would make these issues moot, but then, that's why I have so many issues to begin with. All the conceptions of deity that I've been able to think of are still vastly problematic when I view them from my own sense of justice, mercy, and love (and to all believers, that was probably the most arrogant sentence in this whole post, huh?). Okay, enough for now. Must go do something productive.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
My Undoing
I'm still incredibly confused. Just when I think I'm okay with my agnosticism, I hear some Christmas music and all the joy, peace, excitement, and comfort in the season come rushing back. I guess I'm still not one hundred percent ready to give up my belief in God, although I still have major issues with concepts of him thus far presented to me.
Quimby, over on fMh, wrote a beautiful piece about the diversity that could have attended Christ's birth. Even though I don't quite know what to do with it, Christmas and the surrounding story still fill me with hope and joy. I think the reason is because I yearn so much for peace and tolerance among the nations, indeed, even among families. I hurt so much for all the pain and suffering that people have to go through. Christ still represents that hoped for unity to me, although I don't know what to do with his divinity, etc.
I read a scheme of ethical development one time that suggested that after a person has discovered relativism, they sometimes eventually return to their original beliefs understanding that they aren't perfect, or even wholly true, and I wonder if that's what I'm doing right now--recognizing the issues involved, but comforted by the goodness that is supposed to come from Christianity. I know Christ wasn't the first one to preach peace, nor the only one to claim Savior status, nor is belief in him necessary to see the imperative of peace, but his is the peace that was taught to me as a child, and it is peace in this context that I still hope for, even if I never make another effort to convert someone to Christianity (which I probably won't), I will probably always see peace through that lens. Now however, I know that Christ isn't jealous, only humanity is, and that whatever God there may be, wants peace more than s/he wants anything else for his/her children.
Quimby, over on fMh, wrote a beautiful piece about the diversity that could have attended Christ's birth. Even though I don't quite know what to do with it, Christmas and the surrounding story still fill me with hope and joy. I think the reason is because I yearn so much for peace and tolerance among the nations, indeed, even among families. I hurt so much for all the pain and suffering that people have to go through. Christ still represents that hoped for unity to me, although I don't know what to do with his divinity, etc.
I read a scheme of ethical development one time that suggested that after a person has discovered relativism, they sometimes eventually return to their original beliefs understanding that they aren't perfect, or even wholly true, and I wonder if that's what I'm doing right now--recognizing the issues involved, but comforted by the goodness that is supposed to come from Christianity. I know Christ wasn't the first one to preach peace, nor the only one to claim Savior status, nor is belief in him necessary to see the imperative of peace, but his is the peace that was taught to me as a child, and it is peace in this context that I still hope for, even if I never make another effort to convert someone to Christianity (which I probably won't), I will probably always see peace through that lens. Now however, I know that Christ isn't jealous, only humanity is, and that whatever God there may be, wants peace more than s/he wants anything else for his/her children.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Idealism Damaged
For all my idealism, I have days when I think I should just trash the whole show. I was reading an excerpt of a memoir in Ms. Magazine about a woman who hears a horrific abortion story from her grandma. A couple of weeks ago, I was reading in TIME about the Burmese Monk Protest being crushed. I just don't know how to handle humanity at times like these. I just cry. I don't know what else to do right now but cry. It breaks my heart to see so many lives wasted in the name of power, or decency, or secrecy, or whatever. And on days like this, I just want to stop. But stopping isn't an option, or at least not one that I could entertain in good conscience. It's just hard not to get mired in the hopelessness when I read things like this. Someday, I keep promising myself, I'll have the resources I need to help make things like this obsolete. It just seems like someday is an awful long way away.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Therapy
Supposedly I'm a fiction writer (graduated about a year ago in creative writing). However, I'm having a hard time really generating stories that aren't agenda laden. So I'm thinking maybe this space will help me get my issues off my chest so that I can just write stories without imposing anything on them--id est, any issues that arise in the stories will be more genuine and not generated solely from my need to prove a point. So there's that for a little introduction at least.
And yes, I suppose my blog title might be a little cliche, but that's how my life is right now. Everything's changing and that's about all I can count on.
And yes, I suppose my blog title might be a little cliche, but that's how my life is right now. Everything's changing and that's about all I can count on.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)